U.S. De pa rt m e n t o f t h e I n t e rio r • Natio n a l Pa r k S e rvic e

Blue Ri d ge Park way

Fi n a l Ge n era l Ma n a geme n t P l a n / E n viro nme n ta l Impact Stateme n t

United States Department of Interior 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

199 Hemphill Knob Road 

Asheville, NC 28803 

(DSC-P) 

BLRI 070759 

Dear Friends of the Blue Ridge Parkway, 

I am very pleased to announce the release of the Final General Management Plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Blue Ridge Parkway. It is the culmination of a great deal of time, energy, 

and input from members of the public, other agencies, and the National Park Service. Please take 

time to look it over. 

This final general management plan provides comprehensive guidance for perpetuating natural 

systems, preserving cultural resources, and providing opportunities for quality visitor experiences 

along the parkway for the next 20+ years. After more than 75 years since the parkway was 

established, this is the parkway’s first comprehensive management plan. Developing a vision for the 

parkway’s future—and the management strategies to create that future—is the primary goal of this 

planning effort. 

Alternative B has been identified as the National Park Service’s preferred management approach. 

The preferred alternative emphasizes the original parkway design and traditional driving experience, 

while enhancing outdoor recreational opportunities, increasing regional natural resource 

connectivity, strengthening connections with adjacent communities, and providing modest 

improvements to visitor services. Your comments on the draft plan have led to the refinement of 

certain management strategies and other supporting information contained in this final version. 

Please refer to the Consultation and Coordination chapter for more information about these 

revisions. 

The National Park Service values the public’s interest in the Blue Ridge Parkway, and we look 

forward to implementing this plan with your support and collaboration. 

Sincerely, 

Philip A. Francis, Jr. 

Superintendent

U.S. Department of the Interior  National Park Service 

Final General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

Virginia and North Carolina 

Blue Ridge Parkway was authorized by an act of Congress on June 30, 1936 (Public Law 74-848/ 

August 25, 1916, and Public Law 39 Stat. 535). The parkway has never had a general management 

plan. The National Park Service (NPS) developed visitor facilities and has operated the parkway 

since establishment using a master plan and Parkway Land Use Maps for guidance, as well as 

applicable laws and policies. This plan and the maps have served the parkway well for many years 

during the period of development and parkway road completion. However, the master plan is 

seriously outdated and the parkway is now facing an increasing array of issues that require 

guidance thorough an approved general management plan. 

This document examines three alternatives for managing the parkway for the next 20 or more 

years. It also analyzes the impacts of implementing each of the alternatives. The “no-action” 

alternative, alternative A, consists of the existing parkway management and trends and serves as 

a basis for comparison in evaluating the other alternatives. The two action alternatives 

(alternative B, the National Park Service’s preferred alternative, and alternative C) present a 

spectrum of enhancements to outdoor recreational opportunities, regional resource connectivity, 

and cultural heritage resources and experiences. 

A Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement was distributed to other 

agencies and interested organizations and individuals for their review and comment. Changes and 

clarifications were made to the plan in response to comments received. Following the distribution 

of the final plan and a 30-day no-action period, a “Record of Decision” may be signed by the 

parkway superintendent and the NPS regional director documenting the NPS selection of an 

alternative for implementation. 

For further information on this plan, contact Blue Ridge Parkway headquarters at 199 Hemphill 

Knob Road, Asheville, NC 28803. 

iii 

SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION 

Blue Ridge Parkway was authorized by an act 

of Congress on June 30, 1936 (Public Law 74-

848/ August 25, 1916, and Public Law 39 Stat. 

535). The parkway has never had a general 

management plan. The National Park Service 

developed visitor facilities and has operated 

the parkway since establishment using a 

master plan and Parkway Land Use Maps for 

guidance, as well as applicable laws and 

policies. This plan and the maps have served 

the parkway well for many years during the 

period of development and parkway road 

completion. However, the master plan is 

seriously outdated and the parkway is now 

facing an increasing array of issues that 

require guidance thorough an approved 

general management plan. A new plan is 

needed to: 

 Clearly define resource conditions and 

visitor experiences to be achieved at the 

Blue Ridge Parkway. 

 Provide a framework for National Park 

Service managers to use when making 

decisions about how to best protect 

parkway resources, how to provide a 

diverse range of visitor experience 

opportunities, how to manage visitor 

use, and what kinds of facilities, if any, to 

develop in the national park system unit. 

 Ensure that this foundation for decision 

making has been developed in 

consultation with interested 

stakeholders and adopted by NPS 

leadership after an adequate analysis of 

the benefits, impacts, and economic 

costs of alternative courses of action. 

This Final General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement presents 

three alternatives for the future management 

of Blue Ridge Parkway. The alternatives, 

which are based on the parkway’s purpose, 

significance, and special mandates, present 

different ways to manage resources and visitor 

use and improve facilities and infrastructure. 

The three alternatives are the no-action 

alternative (continue current management), 

alternative B, and alternative C. Alternative B 

has been identified as the National Park 

Service’s preferred alternative. 

Additional actions and alternatives were 

considered. However, these actions and 

alternatives were dismissed from further 

analysis. These dismissed actions and 

alternatives are presented, along with 

rationale, in “Chapter 2: Alternatives.” 

ALTERNATIVE A: THE NO-ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE (CONTINUE CURRENT 

MANAGEMENT) 

The no-action alternative consists of a 

continuation of existing management and 

trends at the parkway and provides a baseline 

for comparison in evaluating the changes and 

impacts of the other alternatives. The 

National Park Service would continue to 

manage the parkway as it is currently being 

managed, but there is not a comprehensive 

parkway-wide resource and visitor use 

management direction for setting priorities. 

Resource and visitor use issues and conflicts 

would continue to be resolved on a case-bycase basis without the guidance of an agreed 

upon parkway-wide management strategy. 

Under this alternative, the parkway would 

continue to be managed primarily as a scenic 

recreational driving experience and designed 

landscape, as conceived and realized over 

several decades, from the founding vision of 

the park in 1935 to at least 1955, and possibly 

later. (A national historic landmark 

nomination which is now underway will 

provide a comprehensive analysis of the 

exceptional qualities of the parkway and a 

definitive statement of its period of 

significance.) The original driving experience 

was designed for ideal picturesque scenery 

ranging from landscaped roadsides to quaint 

Appalachian settlements to rolling pastoral 

farm fields to imposing mountain vistas. 
SUMMARY

iv 

Although parkway managers would continue 

to strive to maintain the various aspects of the 

original designed landscape and scenic driving 

concept, the parkway would continue to 

adjust daily management practices to respond 

to current laws and policies, natural and 

cultural resource management mandates, 

visitor safety needs, infrastructure 

deficiencies, fiscal constraints, changes in 

regional conditions, and changes in visitor 

use. 

Partnerships would continue to be an integral 

part of park management, but would still be 

used for specific projects as opportunities 

arise, rather than pursuing a regional strategy 

to address issues through partnerships both 

inside parkway boundaries and beyond.

ALTERNATIVE B (NATIONAL PARK 

SERVICE PREFERRED) 

Under alternative B, the parkway would be 

actively managed as a traditional, selfcontained, scenic recreational driving 

experience and designed landscape. To 

support that experience, many of the 

parkway’s recreation areas would provide 

enhanced opportunities for dispersed outdoor 

recreation activities. 

Although similar to alternative A, this 

alternative would more proactively blend 

newer law and policy requirements and 

operational constraints with the traditional 

parkway concept developed during the 

parkway’s historic period of significance, 

which is 1935 to at least 1955. (A national 

historic landmark nomination which is 

underway will provide a comprehensive 

analysis of the exceptional qualities of the 

parkway and a definitive statement of its 

period of significance.) As a result, this 

alternative would provide a better balance 

between traditional parkway experiences and 

modern-day management realities. For 

example, some areas would be managed 

differently to address natural and cultural 

resource concerns and visitor experiences or 

to achieve critical operational efficiencies. 

This alternative would provide a 

comprehensive parkway-wide approach to 

resource and visitor use management. Specific 

management zones detailing acceptable 

resource conditions, visitor experience and 

use levels, and appropriate activities and 

development would be applied to parkway 

lands consistent with this concept. This 

alternative would also seek to enhance 

resource protection, regional natural resource 

connectivity, and build stronger connections 

with adjacent communities. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Under alternative C, parkway management 

would be more integrated with the larger 

region’s resources and economy. More 

emphasis would be placed on reaching out to 

communities and linking to regional natural, 

recreational, and cultural heritage resources 

and experiences. 

The parkway would continue to be managed 

to retain the fundamental character of the 

traditional designed landscape and scenic 

driving experience. However, a variety of 

more modern recreational and visitor service 

amenities would be provided, primarily 

concentrated in visitor services areas. As a 

result, portions of some recreation areas 

would be redesigned. 

Parkway lands away from the visitor services 

areas would be managed primarily to enhance 

regional natural resource connectivity and 

scenic qualities. This alternative would also 

enhance visitors’ ability to connect to, 

explore, and learn about the region's natural 

and cultural heritage. For example, parkway 

programs and facilities would be used to 

direct visitors to heritage trails, scenic byways, 

and other public lands. 

This alternative would provide a 

comprehensive parkway-wide approach to 

resource and visitor use management. Specific 

management zones detailing acceptable 

resource conditions, visitor experience and 

use levels, and appropriate activities and 
Summary 

v 

development would be applied to parkway 

lands consistent with this concept. 

THE NEXT STEPS 

This Final General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement includes 

letters from governmental agencies, any 

substantive comments on the draft document, 

and National Park Service responses to those 

comments. The final plan also includes 

changes and clarifications made to the 

document in response to comments received. 

Following distribution of the final plan and a 

30-day no-action period, a “Record of 

Decision” approving a final plan will be signed 

by the National Park Service regional director. 

The “Record of Decision” documents the 

National Park Service selection of an 

alternative for implementation. With the 

signed “Record of Decision”, the plan can 

then be implemented, depending on funding 

and staffing. However, a “Record of Decision” 

does not guarantee funds and staff for 

implementing the approved plan. 

vii 

CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

INTRODUCTION 3

Background on Plan Development 3

Brief Description of the Park 4

Purpose of the Plan 7

Need for the Plan 7

The Next Steps in the Planning Process 8

Implementation of the Plan 8

FOUNDATION FOR PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 9

Park Purpose 9

Park Significance 9

Fundamental Resources and Values 10

Primary Interpretive Themes 11

Special Mandates and Administrative Commitments 12

Servicewide Laws and Policies 13

Relationship of Other Planning Efforts to This General Management Plan 18

Planning Issues and Concerns 21

Decision Points Arising from Issues 25

Issues and Concerns Not Addressed in the General Management Plan 25

Impact Topics 27

Impact Topics Considered but Dismissed from Detailed Analysis 28

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION 35

Relationship of Management Zones and Alternatives 35

Formulation of the Alternatives 36

Identification of the NPS Preferred Alternative 37

Potential Boundary Adjustments 38

THE ALTERNATIVES 40

Organization of Alternatives 40

Alternative Concepts and Strategies 41

MANAGEMENT ZONES 53

Description of Management Zones 53

Management Zone Comparison Table 55

Acreage Comparison of Parkway-wide Management Zones 63

Comparison of Management Strategies for Parkway Segments 65
CONTENTS

viii 

Comparison of Management Strategies for Recreation Areas 75

MITIGATION MEASURES COMMON TO THE ACTION ALTERNATIVES 93

Natural Resources 93

Cultural Resources 95

Visitor Safety and Experience 97

Hazardous Materials 97

Noise Abatement 97

Scenic Resources 97

Socioeconomic Environment 98

Sustainable Design and Aesthetics 98

USER CAPACITY 100

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE 105

Strategy 105

FUTURE STUDIES AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS NEEDED 107

Introduction 107

Staffing and Cost Estimates 110

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 119

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS 121

COMPARISON OF PARKWAY-WIDE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES BY ALTERNATIVE 122

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES 129

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

INTRODUCTION 143

In General 143

Climate Change 143

NATURAL RESOURCES 146

Introduction 146

Vegetation and Wildlife 146

Invasive Species 148

Federal and State Listed Species, including Threatened, Endangered, and Federal Candidate Species 

148

Geologic Resources and Soils 154

Water-related Resources, Including Wetlands, Riparian Areas, Floodplains, Streams, and Water 

Quality 155

Air Quality 156

CULTURAL RESOURCES 160

Prehistoric and Historic Setting 160

Historical Development of the Parkway 161

The Completed Parkway 165

Historic Structures 169
Contents 

ix 

The Road 171

The Landscapes 172

The Recreation Areas 172

The Exhibits 172

National Historic Landmark Designation 173

Cultural Landscapes 173

Archeological Resources 175

Ethnographic Resources 176

VISUAL RESOURCES (SCENERY AND VIEWSHED) 180

A Designed Landscape 180

Authority for Conserving Scenery 181

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 184

Introduction 184

Visitor Use Levels and Trends 184

Visitor Characteristics 186

Recreational Activities 190

Opportunities for Orientation, Interpretation, and Education 199

Opportunities to Experience Natural Soundscapes 202

Visitor Circulation and Parking 206

Visitor Perceptions of Crowding 207

Visitor Safety 209

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION 210

Introduction 210

Vehicular Access 211

Traffic Volumes 216

Level of Service 220

Traffic Mix 223

Traffic Safety Conditions 224

Parking Conditions 225

Alternative Transportation Modes 226

PARK OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 227

Park Organization 227

Staffing 227

Park Operations 227

Park Facilities 231

Parkway Partnerships 234

REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMICS 236

Introduction 236

Overview 236

Population 237
CONTENTS

x 

Economic Trends 239

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

INTRODUCTION 249

Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 249

Climate Change 250

Cumulative Impacts 250

NATURAL RESOURCES 257

Introduction 257

Vegetation and Wildlife 257

Federal and State Listed Species 275

Geologic Resources and Soils 288

Water-related Resources 294

Air Quality 306

CULTURAL RESOURCES 311

Introduction 311

Historic Structures 312

Cultural Landscapes 331

Archeological Resources 353

Ethnographic Resources 372

VISUAL RESOURCES (SCENERY AND VIEWSHED) 381

Introduction 381

Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 381

Alternative A—No-action 381

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 384

Alternative C 386

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 390

Introduction 390

Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 390

Access, Circulation, and Safety 391

Recreational Opportunities 405

Opportunities for Orientation, Information, and Interpretation 414

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION 426

Introduction 426

Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 426

Alternative A—No-action 428

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 432

Alternative C 438
Contents 

xi 

PARKWAY OPERATIONS 445

Introduction 445

Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 445

Alternative A—No-action 446

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 453

Alternative C 461

REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMICS 473

Introduction 473

Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 473

Alternative A—No-action 475

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 479

Alternative C 484

CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 493

Public Meetings and Newsletters 493

RELEASE OF THE DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 494

CONSULTATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES / OFFICIALS AND ORGANIZATIONS 495

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Section 7 Consultation 495

Federal and State Agencies Based in North Carolina and in Virginia 495

Workshop of Resource Experts 496

Section 106 Consultation 499

Consultation with American Indian Tribes 499

AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT 501

Federal Agencies 501

U. S. Senators and Representatives 501

State Agencies 501

State Officials 502

American Indian Tribes Traditionally Associated with the Parkway 503

Local and Regional Government Agencies 503

Organizations and Businesses 504

Individuals 508

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 509

Methodology 509

Guide to this Document 510

Content Analysis Report 510

Concern Response Report 514
CONTENTS

xii 

APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS, AND INDEX

APPENDIX A—LEGISLATION 533

APPENDIX B—CONSULTATION LETTERS 541

REFERENCES 667

PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS 685

INDEX 689

MAPS 

Blue Ridge Parkway Vicinity Map 6

Parkway Segments Index Map Blue Ridge Parkway 67

Segment 1—Ridge, Mileposts 0–106 68

Segment 2—Roanoke, Mileposts 106–136 69

Segment 3—Plateau, Mileposts 136–217 70

Segment 4—Highlands, Mileposts 217–305 71

Segment 5—Black Mountain, Mileposts 305–377 72

Segment 6—Asheville, Mileposts 377–394 73

Segment 7—Pisgah, Mileposts 394–469 74

Humpback Rocks, Mileposts 6–10 77

James River/Otter Creek, Mileposts 60–65 78

Peaks of Otter, Mileposts 82–91 79

Roanoke Mountain, Mileposts 118–122 80

Smart View, Milepost 155 81

Rocky Knob, Mileposts 166–174 82

Mabry Mill, Milepost 176 83

Blue Ridge Music Center, Milepost 213 84

Cumberland Knob, Mileposts 217–219 85

Doughton Park, Mileposts 236–247 86

Julian Price Memorial Park, Mileposts 295–300 87

Linville Falls, Mileposts 315–319 88

Crabtree Falls, Mileposts 339–340 89

Craggy Gardens, Mileposts 364–369 90

Mt. Pisgah, Mileposts 407–409 91

FIGURES

1. Parkway Milepost Marker 40

2. Roadside View Near Graveyard Fields 53

3. Peaks of Otter 53

4. Parkway Milepost 204 53

5. Craggy Gardens 54

6. Visitors Center, Blue Ridge Music Center 54

7. Parkway Milepost 243 54

8. Brinegar Cabin 54

9. Maintenance Facility, the Bluffs 55

10. Proportion of Management Zones for all Parkway Lands under Alternative B 64
Contents 

xiii 

11. Proportion of Management Zones for all Parkway Lands under Alternative C 64

12. Proportion of Management Zones for all Parkway Segments under Alternatives B and C 66

13. Proportion of Management Zones for all Parkway Recreation Areas under Alternative B 76

14. Proportion of Management Zones for all Parkway Recreation Areas under Alternative C 76

15. Annual Recreational Visitors at Blue Ridge Parkway 185

16. Primary Purpose of Visit 185

17. Variation in Seasonal Visitation 186

18. Age Distribution of Visitors 187

19. Frequency (%) of Parkway Recreation Areas Visited 188

20. Frequency (%) of Visitor Participation In Activities 190

21. Average Seasonal Occupancy Rate (%) of Parkway Campgrounds (2004) Update for 2009 198

22. Average Occupancy Rate (%) of Parkway Lodges and Cabins (2006–2008) 199

23. Annual Recreation Visitors at Blue Ridge Parkway 219

24. Variation in Seasonal Visitation 219

25. Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service 221

26. Two-Lane Highway (Class II) Levels of Service 222

27. Population Projections for Counties and Cities directly affected by the Blue Ridge Parkway (U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2008; Virginia Employment Commission, 2007; State of North Carolina, 2008) 238

28. Regional Economics 241

29. Percentage of Federally Managed Land in Counties Adjacent to Blue Ridge Parkway 246

30. Economic Impact Estimates from the Blue Ridge Parkway to the Surrounding Region In 2007 246

TABLES

1. Servicewide Mandates and Policies Pertaining to the Blue Ridge Parkway 14

2. Impact Topics 27

3. Blue Ridge Parkway Management Zones 57

4. Parkway-wide Management Zones by Action Alternatives—Acreage Calculations 63

5. Management Zones for Parkway Segments by Action Alternatives—Acreage Calculations 65

6. Management Zones for Parkway Recreation Areas by Action Alternatives—Acreage Calculations 75

7. User Capacity Management Framework by Management Zones 103

8. Cost Estimates and Staffing for Full Implementation of the Alternatives 111

9. Estimated Staffing Levels to Implement the Alternatives 112

10. Additional Staffing for the Interpretation and Education Division 113

11. Additional Staffing for the Resource Management and Science Division 114

12. Estimated One-time Facility Costs to Implement the Alternatives 115

13. Estimated Deferred Maintenance Addressed by One-Time Facility Costs 116

14. Estimated One-Time Facility Costs to Upgrade Select Campgrounds and Picnic Areas 116

15. Estimated One-Time Facility Costs to Upgrade Select Visitor Service Facilities 117

16. Estimated One-Time Facility Costs to Improve Select Trail Systems and Access Points 118

17. Estimated One-Time Facility Costs to Rehabilitate Select Historic Structures and Associated Cultural 

Landscapes 118

18. Environmentally Preferable Alternative Analysis 119

19. Summary Comparison of the Alternatives 122

20. Summary of the Impacts of the Alternatives 129

21. List of Rare Plant Communities in the Blue Ridge Parkway 147

22. List of Threatened and Endangered Species in the Blue Ridge Parkway 149

23. Air Quality Conditions and Trends—Ozone 157

24. Air Quality Conditions and Trends—Visibility 158
CONTENTS

xiv 

25. Air Quality Conditions and Trends—Atmospheric Deposition 159

26. Identified Cultural Landscapes and Component Landscapes by Parkway District 174

27. Most Frequent First Entry and Last Exit Locations (number of survey responses) 189

28. Travel Patterns—Most Common Trips 190

29. Recreation Areas 195

30. Recreation Areas Not Addressed 196

31. Tent and RV Sites per Parkway Campground 197

32. Concession-operated Visitor Services 198

33. Parkway Visitor Centers and Contact Stations 201

34. Examples of Sound Levels 203

35. Potential Effects of Noise Exposure 203

36. Example Sound Levels and Exposure Times at Receiver Locations 205

37. Problems Identified by Visitors by Weekday/Weekend 206

38. Visitors’ Level of Acceptability for Number of Cars Seen on the Parkway 208

39. Visitors’ Level of Acceptability for Number of People Seen at Developed Recreation Areas 208

40. Existing Blue Ridge Parkway Traffic Volumes 216

41. Existing Blue Ridge Parkway Vehicle Occupancy Values 217

42. Top Five Reported Trip Purposes (August 2002) 218

43. Blue Ridge Parkway Existing Level of Service for Road Segments 220

44. Existing Blue Ridge Parkway Traffic Mix 223

45. Blue Ridge Parkway and Statewide Accident Rates 224

46. Accident Rates by Study Segment (March 2001–March 2004) 224

47. Blue Ridge Parkway Accident Summary (March 2001–March 2004) 225

48. Existing Blue Ridge Parkway Parking Lot Data 226

49. Blue Ridge Parkway Facility-related Assets 232

50. Projected Population Growth, 2007 to 2030, by Segment 239

51. Potential Impacts to Federal Listed Species of the Blue Ridge Parkway, Alternative A 279

52. Potential Impacts to Federal Listed Species of the Blue Ridge Parkway, Alternative B 283

53. Potential Impacts to Federal Listed Species of the Blue Ridge Parkway, Alternative C 287

54. Baseline Annual Growth Rates for Parkway Traffic Forecasts 427

55. Peak Season Average Daily 2020 Traffic Conditions - Alternative A 429

56. Peak Season Average Daily 2020 Traffic Forecasts - Alternative B 433

57. Peak Season Average Daily 2020 Traffic Forecasts - Alternative C 439

58. Content Analysis Report 511

59. Correspondence Distribution by Correspondence Type 513

60. Correspondence Signature Count by Organization Type 513

61. Correspondence Distribution by State 513

62. Correspondence Distribution by Country 514
xv 

A GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT 

This Final General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement is organized 

in accordance with the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s implementing 

regulations for the National Environmental 

Policy Act, the NPS Director’s Order 12, 

Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact 

Analysis, and Decision-making, and the NPS 

General Management Planning Dynamic 

Sourcebook. 

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need sets the 

framework for the entire document. It 

describes why the plan was prepared and what 

needs it addresses. It gives guidance for these 

considerations, which are based on the Blue 

Ridge Parkway’s legislated mission, its 

purpose, the significance of its resources, 

special mandates and administrative 

commitments, servicewide mandates and 

policies, and other planning efforts in the area. 

The chapter also details the planning 

opportunities and issues that were raised 

during public scoping meetings and initial 

planning team efforts. The alternatives 

developed and presented in the next chapter 

address these issues and concerns to varying 

degrees. This chapter concludes with a 

statement of the scope of the environmental 

impact analysis—specifically what impact 

topics were retained or dismissed from 

detailed analysis and why. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives begins with an 

explanation of how the alternatives were 

formulated and how the preferred alternative 

was identified. A comparison of costs for 

implementing the alternatives is also included. 

The three alternatives (including continuation 

of current management) are then presented. 

Mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate 

the impacts of some proposed actions are 

described just before the discussion of future 

studies and/or implementation plans that 

would be needed. The evaluation of the 

environmentally preferred alternative is 

followed by summary tables of the 

environmental consequences of implementing 

the alternative actions. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment describes 

those areas and resources that would be 

affected by implementing actions in the 

various alternatives—cultural resources, 

natural resources, visitor use and experience, 

park operations, and socioeconomic 

environment. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

analyzes the impacts of implementing the 

alternatives on topics described in “Chapter 3: 

Affected Environment.” Methods that were 

used for assessing the impacts in terms of the 

locality, intensity, type, and duration of 

impacts are outlined at the beginning of the 

chapter. 

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

describes the history of public and agency 

coordination during the planning effort and 

any future compliance requirements; it also 

lists agencies and organizations who will be 

receiving copies of the document and NPS 

responses to comments received on the draft 

plan. 

The Appendixes present supporting 

information for the document, along with 

references and a list of the planning team and 

other consultants. 
 
Introduction, Purpose, and Need 1

Puckett Cabin

Julian Price Lake 

3 

INTRODUCTION 

This Final General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement presents and 

analyzes three alternative future directions for 

the management and use of the Blue Ridge 

Parkway. The potential environmental 

impacts of the alternatives have been 

identified and assessed. 

General management plans are intended to be 

long-term documents that establish and 

articulate a management philosophy and 

framework for decision making and problem 

solving in units of the national park system. 

General management plans usually provide 

guidance during a 15- to 20-year period. 

Actions directed by general management 

plans or in subsequent implementation plans 

are accomplished over time. Budget 

restrictions, requirements for additional data 

or regulatory compliance, and competing 

national park system priorities prevent 

immediate implementation of many actions. 

Major or especially costly actions could be 

implemented 10 or more years into the future. 

BACKGROUND ON PLAN 

DEVELOPMENT 

Developing a vision for the park’s future (and 

identifying the management direction that 

would help create that future) is the primary 

role of the general management plan. 

However, before a particular vision is decided 

upon, several possible visions and 

management directions are developed and 

analyzed. These different possibilities are 

called alternatives. Each alternative includes a 

variety of potential strategies that fit together 

in a unified management direction. The 

development of alternatives included a wide 

range of input from the public, National Park 

Service (NPS) staff, and other agencies. 

Evaluating alternatives enables one to 

compare and contrast the advantages and 

disadvantages of one course of action over 

another. Such comparison is a requirement of 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and is at the core of the NPS general 

management plan process. In order to 

organize information and formulate 

alternatives appropriate to the 469-mile length 

of the parkway, planners approached the 

analysis of the parkway at three levels: (1) the 

parkway as a whole; (2) the parkway divided 

into seven segments based primarily on 

physiographic characteristics; and (3) the 

parkway’s “pearls on a string”—the recreation 

areas. 

Management Zones 

An important tool used by planners in the 

general management plan process is the 

development of management zones. These 

zones prescribe desired conditions for 

parkway cultural and natural resources and 

for visitor experiences. The conditions are 

different in each zone and are intended to 

represent the widest possible range of 

conditions that would be appropriate to a 

park’s purpose and significance. Eight 

management zones were developed for the 

parkway; ideas for the range of management 

zones came from public comments and from 

parkway staff. 

Exploration of Alternatives 

In NPS planning, alternative future directions 

for a park are developed by allocating 

management zones to various geographic 

locations in different combinations. 

Allocation of management zones is guided by 

the overall concept for each alternative. For 

example, a park could be managed under a 

concept emphasizing high recreational activity 

and visitor interaction, or a concept 

emphasizing primitive natural resource values, 

or a concept emphasizing remote recreation 

and visitor solitude. While these concepts 

would overlap in some ways, it is easy to 

imagine that these different emphases would 

require various areas of the park to be 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

4 

managed differently. These kinds of 

differences are presented on maps that 

allocate management zones according to the 

different alternative concepts. 

This general management plan presents the 

three alternatives for future management for 

the Blue Ridge Parkway. Management zones 

consistent with each alternative are presented 

on a map that shows the entire parkway and 

on other maps that show each of the parkway 

segments and the recreation areas in that 

segment. 

To facilitate comparison of the three 

alternatives, each one was developed as 

closely as possible in accordance with its 

guiding concept. Public comments on the 

alternatives in the draft plan helped the 

National Park Service refine the alternatives 

and management zones. Those alternatives are 

presented in this Final General Management 

Plan / Environmental Impact Statement. 

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PARK 

Congress allocated funds for the initial 

construction of the Blue Ridge Parkway to 

traverse a substantial portion of Virginia and 

North Carolina, on June 16, 1933, under 

authority of the National Industrial Recovery 

Act (48 Stat. 195, Public Law 73-67). Congress 

then authorized the National Park Service to 

administer and manage the parkway on June 

30, 1936 (49 Stat. 2041, Public Law 74-848) as 

amended on June 8, 1940 (54 Stat. 249, Public 

Law 76-566). 

The parkway is in Virginia and North 

Carolina in the central and southern 

Appalachian Mountains. It is 469 miles long 

and connects Shenandoah National Park to 

the north with Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park to the south. Created as a 

national rural roadway with limited access, the 

parkway was designed for pleasant motoring, 

a form of recreational driving free from 

commercial traffic. The Blue Ridge Parkway 

travels the crests, ridges, and valleys of five 

major mountain ranges, encompassing several 

geographic and vegetative zones ranging from 

600 to over 6,000 feet above sea level. It 

provides visitors with many varied vistas of 

scenic Appalachian landscapes ranging from 

forested ridge tops and mountain slopes to 

rural farm lands to urban areas. The parkway 

offers a “ride-a-while, stop-a-while” 

experience that includes scenic pullouts, 

recreation areas, historic sites, and visitor 

contact stations. It is known nationally and 

internationally for its designed landscape as a 

scenic motorway. 

The parkway is many things to many people. It 

is the longest road planned as a single park 

unit in the United States. It is an extremely 

elongated national park system unit that 

protects significant mountain landscapes far 

beyond the shoulders of the road itself. It is a 

series of parks providing visitors access to 

high mountain passes, splendid natural 

“gardens” of flowering mountain plants, 

waterfalls and water gaps, deep forests, and 

upland meadows. It is a continuous series of 

panoramic views, the boundaries of its limited 

right-of-way rarely apparent and miles of the 

adjacent countryside seemingly a part of the 

protected scene. It is a “museum of the 

managed American countryside,” preserving 

the roughhewn log cabin of the mountain 

pioneer, the summer home of a textile 

magnate, and traces of early industries such as 

logging railways and an old canal. It is the 

product of a series of major public works 

projects which provided a boost to the travel 

and tourism industry and helped the 

Appalachian region climb out of the depths of 

the Great Depression. It is an important 

neighbor that links 29 counties through two 

states and shares boundaries with other 

national park system units, national forests, 

tribal lands, and state parks. 

The Blue Ridge Parkway corridor is a complex 

area of overlapping jurisdictions, interests, 

and responsibilities. Strong and coordinated 

external relations are vital to the parkway's 

role and mission. Formal and informal partner 

organizations provide essential services, 

staffing, funding, and innovative solutions to 

management of this linear park and the 

corridor through which it passes. And, it is the 

most heavily visited national park. 
Introduction 

5 

To help the reader comprehend the sheer size 

and extent of the parkway, the following 

“parkway by the numbers” highlights a few 

remarkable statistics: 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Historic Buildings: 91 

Cultural Landscapes: 20 

Miles of Roads: 558 

Road Tunnels: 26 

Road Bridges: 176 

Road Overlooks: 281 

Parking Areas: 101 

Maintained Roadside Vistas: 910 

Total Number of Views: 1,228 

Archeological sites identified: >200 

Artifacts in collection: >690,000 

10,500 archeological 

32,000 biological 

2,400 geological 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Vascular Plant Diversity: 1,614 species 

Amphibian Diversity: 43 species 

Distinct Plant Communities: 75 (10 considered 

globally rare, 3 considered globally imperiled) 

Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered 

Species: 5 

Watersheds: 15 

Miles of Streams: 600 (115 Headwaters) 

Peaks above 5,000 feet: 16 

Parkway Intersects: 

3 mountain ranges 

6 Army Corps districts 

4 state land & water quality districts 

2 Fish & Wildlife service agencies 

29 Natural Resource Conservation Service 

offices 

INTERPRETATION AND EDUCATION (2010) 

Curriculum Based Programs: 1,348 (42,246 

students) 

Completed Jr. Ranger Program: 2,199 students 

Visitor Center Contacts: 944,712 

Demos/Performance Art Events: 1,466 (351,854 

visitors reached) 

Special Events: 31 (68,830 visitors attended) 

Website Hits: 1.5 million 

LANDS 

Fee Simple: 81,785 acres 

Scenic Easement: 2,776 acres 

Miles of Boundary: 1,200 

Adjacent Private Landowners: >4,000 

Private Road At-grade Accesses: 101 

State Secondary Road At-grade Accesses: 199 

National Forests Crossed: 4 

Counties Traversed: 29 

LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PROTECTION (2009) 

Special Use Permits Issued: 607 

Class A & B offenses: 627 

Basic Life Support incidents: 69 

Advanced Life Support incidents: 35 

Searches and Rescues by NPS: 21 

Agreements with external law enforcement 

agencies: 20 

Rural Fire Agreements: 53 

ANNUAL VISITATION 

Recreational Visitors: 16 Million 

Annual Off Pkwy Economic Impact: $2.3 Billion 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Visitor Centers: 14 

Miles of Trails: 369 

Campgrounds: 9 

Amphitheaters: 10 

Picnic Areas: 13 

Concession Lodges: 3 

Concession Food Service: 6 

Book or Craft Shops: 18

OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE 

Water Systems: 45 

Sewer Systems: 95 

Dams: 29 

Maintenance Offices: 14 

Law enforcement Offices: 13 

Park Radio Towers: 10 

Road Signs: 14,000+ 
6 

Blue Ridge Parkway Vicinity Map 

Southeastern U.S. 

KENTUCKY 

\ 

�· 

( ..

 -.---� Cumberland Gap _)' 

r·

" 

WEST VIRGINIA 

New River Gorge National River 

I' 

/ 

/ 

/ 

i 

; 

/ 

j 

.JJ 

,) 

VIRGINIA 

National Historical Park _ 

_____ _/ -------------- --

----

------------------------------------

TENNESSEE 

,-----------------

GEORGIA SOUTH CAROLINA 

\ 

\ 

i 

NORTH CAROLINA 

Greensboro 0 

Legend 

0 Major City 

--

* Capital 

Interstate 

State Border 

Raleigh 

� 

Rivers 

Blue Ridge 

c:

 

National P

Counties 

--c:

Miles 

12.5 25 50 

Vi

Blue Ridge 

'---------------------- U.S. Department of the Interior Nation

DSC Planning Division
Introduction 

7 

PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 

When approved, this general management 

plan will be the central document for 

managing the Blue Ridge Parkway for the next 

20+ years. The purposes of this general 

management plan are as follows: 

 Confirm the purpose, significance, and 

special mandates of the Blue Ridge 

Parkway 

 Clearly define resource conditions and 

visitor uses and experiences to be 

achieved in the parkway 

 Provide a framework for parkway 

managers to use when making decisions 

about how to best protect resources, 

provide quality visitor uses and 

experiences, manage visitor use, and 

develop facilities in/near the park 

 Ensure that this foundation for decision 

making has been developed in 

consultation with interested 

stakeholders and adopted by NPS 

leadership after an adequate analysis of 

the benefits, impacts, and economic 

costs of alternative courses of action 

Legislation establishing the National Park 

Service as an agency and governing its management provides the fundamental direction 

for the administration of the parkway (and 

other units and programs of the national park 

system). This general management plan will 

build on these laws and the legislation that 

established the parkway to provide a vision 

for the park’s future. The “Servicewide 

Mandates and Policies” section of this chapter 

calls the reader’s attention to topics that are 

important to understanding the management 

direction at the park. The alternatives in this 

general management plan address desired 

future conditions that are not mandated by 

law and policy and must, therefore, be 

determined through a planning process. 

The general management plan does not 

describe how particular programs or projects 

for the parkway should be prioritized or 

implemented. Those decisions would be 

addressed in the future through more detailed 

planning efforts. All future plans relating to 

programs or projects will tier from the 

approved general management plan. 

NEED FOR THE PLAN 

The Blue Ridge Parkway has never had an 

approved general management plan. For the 

first 52 years of the parkway’s existence, a 

major focus of management was to complete 

construction of the parkway, its designed 

landscape, and several major and minor 

recreation areas. This development was 

guided by master plans developed in the late 

1930s and early 1940s. Once sections of the 

parkway were constructed, their management 

and maintenance was guided by a series of 

Parkway Land Use Maps, designed to 

maintain various aspects of the parkway 

designed landscape. With the parkway’s 

completion in 1987, the focus of parkway 

management shifted to ensuring that the 

parkway’s scenic, natural, cultural, and 

recreational qualities would be protected into 

the future. 

The Parkway Land Use Maps provided the 

"as-built" documentation and long-term 

management intent for the roadway and 

associated roadside plantings and structures, 

recreation areas, trails, etc. Other information 

was illustrated on the maps, such as adjacent 

land ownership, location of deed reserved 

private and public roads, utilities and scenic 

easements. The Parkway Land Use Maps 

continue to serve as the parkway’s guidance 

for the location of reserved easements. 

However, today these maps are largely 

outdated due to changed conditions and lack 

of a comprehensive management approach to 

address an increasing array of issues 

confronting the park. 

With a 20+ year lifespan, this general 

management plan provides the far-reaching, 

comprehensive management approach that is 

essential to guide the future of the parkway. 

The plan also fulfills the requirements of the 

National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 

and NPS policy, which mandate development 

of a general management plan for each unit in 

the national park system. 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

8 

Today, the parkway encompasses 82,000 acres 

of federal land. It shares over 1,000 miles of 

boundary with some 4,000 adjacent 

landowners, eight associated federally 

recognized tribal governments, 29 counties, 

and several towns and cities. The parkway 

offers 500,000 acres of scenic viewsheds 

within a mile of its boundary. There are 199 

public secondary at-grade access points from 

regional road systems. Many of these roads 

have recently been or are in the process of 

being improved by the states of North 

Carolina and Virginia, resulting in more 

residential development, traffic, and loss of 

scenery adjacent to the parkway. 

The parkway is now situated in a much 

broader resource and visitor context that 

extends both physically and philosophically 

far beyond its boundaries. It is this everchanging dynamic that is driving the need to 

reexamine past and current approaches to the 

parkway’s management and use. 

THE NEXT STEPS IN THE PLANNING 

PROCESS 

This Final Blue Ridge Parkway General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement includes comment letters from 

governmental agencies, any substantive 

comments on the draft document, and NPS 

responses to those comments. Following 

distribution of the final general plan and a 30-

day no-action period, a “Record of Decision” 

approving this plan may be signed by the NPS 

regional director and published in the Federal 

Register. The “Record of Decision” 

documents the NPS selection of an alternative 

for implementation. With the signing of the 

“Record of Decision,” implementation of the 

plan can begin. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN 

Implementation of the approved plan would 

depend on future funding. The approval of a 

plan does not guarantee that the funding and 

staffing needed to implement the plan would 

be forthcoming. Full implementation of the 

approved plan could be many years in the 

future. 

The implementation of the approved plan may 

also be affected by other factors. Once the 

general management plan has been approved, 

additional feasibility studies and more 

detailed planning and environmental documentation would be completed, as 

appropriate, before any proposed actions can 

be carried out. For example: 

 Appropriate permits would be obtained 

before implementing actions that would 

impact wetlands. 

 Appropriate federal and state agencies 

would be consulted concerning actions 

that could affect threatened and 

endangered species. 

 Native American tribes, state historic 

preservation officers, local governments, 

and the public would be consulted. 

The general management plan does not 

describe how particular programs or projects 

should be prioritized or implemented. Those 

decisions would be addressed during more 

detailed planning efforts associated with the 

development of future strategic and 

implementation plans. All future plans will tier 

from the approved general management plan 

and will be based on the goals, future 

conditions, and appropriate types of activities 

established in it. 
9 

FOUNDATION FOR PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 

PARK PURPOSE 

Purpose statements provide the foundation 

for the management and use of each unit of 

the national park system; they also reaffirm 

the reasons why each area was established as a 

unit of the national park system. These 

statements help visitors, neighbors, 

cooperating agencies, and other users 

understand the framework in which park 

managers make decisions. 

The following purpose statements are based 

on the Blue Ridge Parkway’s enabling 

legislation as well as laws and policies 

governing management of all national park 

system units. The purposes of the Blue Ridge 

Parkway are to 

 connect Shenandoah and Great Smoky 

Mountains national parks by way of a 

“national rural parkway”—a destination 

and recreational road that passes 

through a variety of scenic ridge, 

mountainside, and pastoral farm 

landscapes; 

 conserve the scenery and preserve the 

natural and cultural resources of the 

parkway’s designed and natural areas; 

 provide for public enjoyment and 

understanding of the natural resources 

and cultural heritage of the central and 

southern Appalachian Mountains; and 

 provide opportunities for high-quality 

scenic and recreational experiences 

along the parkway and in the corridor 

through which it passes. 

PARK SIGNIFICANCE 

Significance statements capture the essence of 

the park’s importance to our country’s natural 

and cultural heritage. Significance statements 

do not inventory resources; rather, they 

describe the parkway’s distinctiveness and 

help to place the parkway in its regional, 

national, and international contexts. Defining 

the park’s significance helps managers make 

decisions that preserve the resources and 

values necessary to accomplish the national 

park’s purpose. 

The following statements define the 

significance of the Blue Ridge Parkway: 

 The Blue Ridge Parkway was the first 

national rural parkway to be conceived, 

designed, and constructed for a leisurely 

driving experience. Its varied 

topography and numerous vista points 

offer easy public access to spectacular 

views of central and southern 

Appalachian rural landscapes and 

forested mountains. 

 As an example of pre- and post-World 

War II era automotive rural parkway 

design, the parkway retains an 

exceptionally high degree of integrity. 

The parkway is further recognized 

throughout the world as an international 

example of landscape and engineering 

design achievements with a roadway that 

lies easily on the land and blends into the 

landscape. 

 The parkway is the highest and longest 

continuous route in the Appalachian 

area. Along its 469-mile length, the 

parkway provides scenic access to crests 

and ridges of five major ranges in the 

central and southern Appalachian 

Mountains, encompassing geographic 

and vegetative zones that range from 649 

feet at James River in Virginia to 6,047 

feet at Richland Balsam in North 

Carolina. 

 The parkway’s uninterrupted corridor 

facilitates the protection of a diverse 

range of flora and fauna, including rare 

and endangered plant and animal species 

and globally imperiled natural 

communities. 

 The parkway preserves and displays 

cultural landscapes and historic 

architecture characteristic of the central 

and southern Appalachian highlands. 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

10 

 The parkway is a primary catalyst for 

promoting regional travel and tourism, 

serving as a unifying element for 29 

counties through which it passes, 

engendering a shared regional identity, 

providing a common link of interest, and 

being a major contributor to regional 

economic vitality. 

FUNDAMENTAL RESOURCES AND 

VALUES 

Fundamental resources and values warrant 

primary consideration during planning 

because they are critical to achieving the 

park’s purpose and maintaining its 

significance. The following resources and 

values are central to managing the parkway 

and express the importance of the parkway to 

our natural and cultural heritage. 

Cultural Resources 

The Parkway Historic Designed 

Landscape. The Blue Ridge Parkway is the 

premier example of a national parkway 

designed for recreational motoring through 

rural scenery. The parkway is an exceptionally 

important work of design in the fields of 

landscape architecture and civil engineering. 

As a combination of scenic road and linear 

park, it represents a fusion of modern 

engineering with scenic landscape design. The 

original parkway road right-of-way and the 

sites and developments proposed as part of 

the 1936 master plan are elements of the 

designed landscape. 

Landscapes of Southern and Central 

Appalachian Context. Several sites along 

the parkway, including the Blue Ridge Music 

Center and the Folk Art Center, are focused 

on the perpetuation and interpretation of 

regional cultural expression. The origins of 

Blue Ridge traditional culture are dying out, 

and the National Park Service plays a role in 

documenting and celebrating examples of 

traditional culture. 

Sites Associated with Local Communities. 

Many sites along the parkway have an 

affiliation with the parkway purpose and 

significance, but have greater values as 

character defining features of local 

communities and traditions. Such sites include 

Yankee Horse Railroad, Kelley School, Harris 

Farm, Moses H. Cone Park, and the Over the 

Mountain Victory Trail, among others. 

Natural Resources 

Globally Imperiled Communities. The 

parkway protects several ecosystems that are 

of global significance. These include spruce/fir 

forests, rocky outcrops and granitic domes, 

grassy balds, and high-elevation wetlands. The 

parkway is also considered a keystone area in 

which to track environmental changes related 

to water and air quality that could affect the 

entire region. 

Rare and Endangered Plants, Animals, 

and Communities. The parkway contains 

12 federally listed and over 100 state listed 

species; and new species are being discovered. 

These species of concern include the Peaks of 

Otter salamander, bog turtles, timber 

rattlesnakes, and numerous others. 

Visitor Experience Values 

Visual and Leisure Driving Experiences. 

When asked about the special values that are 

most important to their parkway experience, 

visitors describe the beauty of the views from 

and along the roadway. The natural setting of 

mountains and valleys, the peacefulness of 

rural and pastoral landscapes, and the 

dramatic high-elevation vistas are frequently 

highlighted by visitors. This idyllic scenery 

was integral to the experience intended by 

parkway designers. 

The character of the parkway travel 

experience is also featured. Peace, solitude, 

leisure, freedom from traffic and speed, and 

the absence of commercial advertising are 

frequently mentioned as aspects of the 
Foundation for Planning and Management 

11 

parkway experience that are particularly 

valued. 

Recreational Experiences. Ready access to 

recreational opportunities also has high value 

to parkway visitors. Trails, both in the 

parkway and accessible from the park, are 

most frequently mentioned as important 

recreational facilities. 

Regional Connectivity 

Travel and Tourism. The Blue Ridge 

Parkway, by virtue of its 469-mile length, 

provides a travel and tourism facility that 

unites a 29-county region in Virginia and 

North Carolina. The opportunity for some 20 

million visitors each year to sample its scenic 

and recreational resources has established the 

parkway as a primary tourism magnet for the 

region. Parkway visitors spend some $2.2 

billion per year in communities outside the 

parkway boundary. 

PRIMARY INTERPRETIVE THEMES 

Primary interpretive themes are the most 

important ideas or concepts to be 

communicated to the public about a national 

park system unit. Their consistent use in park 

programs, events, exhibits, and publications 

helps increase visitor understanding and 

appreciation of park resources and values. 

The following interpretive themes have been 

developed for the Blue Ridge Parkway. 

Parkway Design / Landscape 

The Blue Ridge Parkway originated to 

generate employment and promote tourism in 

the mountains of southern Appalachia; it 

continues to influence and provide great 

economic benefits to the region. 

The Blue Ridge Parkway incorporates 

innovative and enduring design, engineering, 

and construction techniques that harmonize 

with the southern Appalachian landscape. 

The Blue Ridge Parkway is a linear park unit 

threaded by a road in which visitor driving 

and enjoyment of scenery is the primary 

objective. 

The Blue Ridge Parkway is a humanmanipulated environment that continues to 

shape parkway management practices. 

Biology 

The Blue Ridge Parkway has a wide diversity 

of habitat, and thus, supports as many plant 

species as any other national park system unit 

in the Unites States. 

The Blue Ridge Parkway provides a protected 

migration corridor for many forms of life. 

Visitors and residents have long interacted 

with the Appalachian environment, both 

adapting to and altering the natural history of 

the area. 

Geology 

The Blue Ridge Parkway stands at the summit 

of many local and regional watersheds that 

define the hydrological patterns of much of 

the southeastern United States. The five 

mountain ranges of the parkway include the 

oldest mountain-building processes in the 

world and contain economically significant 

minerals. 

Air Quality, Weather, Climate 

Activities of people living outside the Blue 

Ridge Parkway and extreme weather 

conditions in the southern Appalachian 

Mountains influence the natural resources, 

visitation patterns, and air quality of the 

parkway. 

Human Culture 

The Blue Ridge Parkway conserves diverse 

and important examples of architecture, 

industry and transportation associated with 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

12 

the people and communities of the mountains 

in southern Appalachia. 

The Blue Ridge Parkway preserves evidence 

of human occupation from prehistoric to 

contemporary times. 

Many Blue Ridge Parkway sites have been 

tourist and vacation destinations for more 

than two centuries. 

A unique Appalachian culture, defined by arts, 

crafts, music, and social institutions, has 

evolved and persisted in the region through 

which the Blue Ridge Parkway passes. 

SPECIAL MANDATES AND 

ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITMENTS 

Special mandates and administrative commitments refer to requirements for the parkway 

that are specified in laws or formal 

agreements. Consequently, these 

requirements are not open for reevaluation as 

a part of the general management plan; 

instead, they serve as guidelines with which 

planning proposals must be consistent. 

Mandates and administrative commitments 

that influence the Blue Ridge Parkway general 

management plan include the following: 

Memorandum of Understanding 

between the National Park Service 

and U.S. Forest Service 

On June 20, 1941, established procedures for 

determining the boundaries of the parkway 

where it passes through national forests and 

for protecting the scenic values of these lands 

and identified the management 

responsibilities of each agency to meet these 

goals. 

Memorandum of Understanding 

between the National Park Service 

and the North Carolina Department 

of Natural Resources and Wildlife 

Resources Commission 

This agreement signed on December 16, 2011, 

establishes standards, terms, and conditions 

under which the Wildlife Resources 

Commission will conduct surveys of Carolina 

northern flying squirrels on lands owned and 

accessed by Blue Ridge Parkway. 

Memorandum of Understanding 

between the National Park Service 

and the Virginia Department of 

Game and Inland Fisheries

The Virginia Department of Game and Inland 

Fisheries and the National Park Service agree 

to cooperate for the purpose of developing, 

maintaining, and managing fishery resources 

in Blue Ridge Parkway. 

Memorandum of Understanding 

between the National Park Service 

and the Virginia Department of 

Conservation and Recreation

This agreement supports cooperative efforts 

between the two agencies to maintain and 

protect lands necessary for the conservation 

of natural heritage resources that occur in 

Virginia in the Blue Ridge Parkway.

Eastern National 

A nonprofit cooperating association chartered 

in 1948 to provide interpretive book sales at 

visitor centers and, in turn, promote 

educational and interpretive activities by 

returning profits to the National Park Service. 

The Blue Ridge Parkway serves as an agent of 

Eastern National under Public Law 79-633, 

authorizing cooperating associations. 
Foundation for Planning and Management 

13 

Mountains-to-Sea Trail Memorandum 

of Agreement 

This is an agreement of cooperation among 

the parkway; the U.S. Forest Service; the 

North Carolina Department of Environment, 

Health, and Natural Resources; and the 

Friends of the Mountains-to-Sea Trail 

organization for planning and construction of 

the Mountains-to-Sea Trail system. Much of 

this trail is on parkway lands in North 

Carolina between the Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park and the Doughton 

Park recreation area. Trail maintenance is the 

responsibility of the Friends of the 

Mountains-to-Sea Trail volunteers. 

Agricultural Leases 

Agriculture has had an important influence on 

the land and the people of the Blue Ridge 

Mountains. Under the parkway’s Agricultural 

Land Use Program, lands are leased out to 

other landowners for agricultural use to 

ensure and perpetuate the cultural and 

traditional pastoral scenes typical of the 

Appalachian hill country. This blending of the 

parkway and the adjoining lands helps create 

the impression of a park that extends, in some 

instances, to the horizon. 

Roanoke River Parkway 

The Surface Transportation and Uniform 

Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (Public Law 

100-17) authorized the National Park Service 

to design and build an extension of the Blue 

Ridge Parkway to connect to Explore Park in 

the Commonwealth of Virginia. The 

completed Roanoke River Parkway now 

provides a direct link for visitors from the 

parkway to the 1,100-acre property now 

owned by Virginia Living Histories. In June 

2005, the Virginia Recreational Facilities 

Authority—the state authority tasked with the 

development and operation of Explore Park—

entered into a lease option agreement with 

Virginia Living Histories for the development 

of Explore Park. Explore Park was to become 

an outdoor living history museum and 

recreational park near milepost 115 on the 

Blue Ridge Parkway in Roanoke. The 

downturn in financial markets at the end of 

the decade created financing challenges and 

construction did not begin as planned. As a 

result, the Virginia Recreational Facilities 

Authority appointed an economic 

development consortium to create alternative 

plans for Explore Park if Virginia Living 

Histories was not able to proceed. 

Concurrent Legislative Jurisdiction 

 Memorandum of Agreement for 

Concurrent Jurisdiction at National Park 

Service Units in the State of North 

Carolina, dated July 27, 1984. 

 Memorandum of Agreement and Deed 

for Concurrent Jurisdiction at Areas of 

the Blue Ridge Parkway in the State of 

Virginia, dated July 12, 1982. 

SERVICEWIDE LAWS AND POLICIES 

This section identifies what must be done at 

the Blue Ridge Parkway to comply with 

federal laws and policies of the National Park 

Service. Many park management directives 

are specified in laws and policies guiding the 

National Park Service and are, therefore, not 

subject to alternative approaches. For 

example, there are laws and policies about 

managing environmental quality (such as the 

Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, 

and Executive Order 11990 “Protection of 

Wetlands”); laws governing the preservation 

of cultural resources (such as the 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act, 

National Historic Preservation Act, and the 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act); and laws about providing 

public services (such as the Americans with 

Disabilities Act). A general management plan 

is not needed to decide, for instance, that it is 

appropriate to protect endangered species, 

control exotic species, protect archeological 

sites, conserve artifacts, or provide for 

universal access. Although total compliance 

with these laws and policies may have been 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

14 

temporarily deferred in the park because of 

funding or staffing limitations, the National 

Park Service will continue to strive to 

implement these requirements with or 

without a new general management plan. 

Some of these laws and executive orders are 

applicable solely or primarily to units of the 

national park system. These include the 1916 

Organic Act that created the National Park 

Service; the General Authorities Act of 1970; 

the act of March 27, 1978, relating to the 

management of the national park system; and 

the National Parks Omnibus Management Act 

(1998). Other laws and executive orders have 

much broader application, such as the 

Endangered Species Act, the National Historic 

Preservation Act, and Executive Order 11990 

that addresses the protection of wetlands. 

The NPS Organic Act (16 USC section 1) 

provides the fundamental management 

direction for all units of the national park 

system: 

[P]romote and regulate the use of the Federal 

areas known as national parks, monuments, 

and reservations...by such means and 

measure as conform to the fundamental 

purpose of said parks, monuments and 

reservations, which purpose is to conserve the 

scenery and the natural and historic objects 

and the wildlife therein and to provide for the 

enjoyment of the same in such manner and by 

such means as will leave them unimpaired for 

the enjoyment of future generations. 

The National Park System General Authorities 

Act (16 USC section 1a-1 et seq.) affirms that 

while all national park system units remain 

“distinct in character,” they are “united 

through their interrelated purposes and 

resources into one national park system as 

cumulative expressions of a single national 

heritage.” The act makes it clear that the NPS 

Organic Act and other protective mandates 

apply equally to all units of the system. 

Further, amendments state that NPS 

management of park units should not 

“derogat[e]...the purposes and values for 

which these various areas have been 

established.” 

The National Park Service also has established 

policies for all units under its stewardship. 

These are identified and explained in NPS 

Management Policies 2006 and several 

guidance documents referred to as “directors 

orders” (DOs). The “action” alternatives 

(alternatives B and C) considered in this 

document incorporate and comply with the 

provisions of these mandates and policies. 

To truly understand the implications of an 

alternative, it is important to consider the 

relationship between the servicewide 

mandates and policies and the management 

actions described in an alternative. 

Table 1 lists some of the most pertinent 

servicewide mandates and policy topics 

related to planning and managing the Blue 

Ridge Parkway; a statement of the ideal 

conditions that the parkway staff is striving to 

achieve is presented for each. Although the 

table is written in the present tense, these are 

not necessarily the conditions that exist 

currently. The alternatives in this general 

management plan address the desired future 

conditions that are not mandated by law and 

policy and must be determined through a 

planning process. 

TABLE 1. SERVICEWIDE MANDATES AND POLICIES PERTAINING TO THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY

Topic Current laws and policies require the following conditions be achieved 

Relations with Other Communities 

Relations with 

Private and Public 

Organizations, 

Owners of Adjacent 

Land, and 

Governmental 

Agencies 

The Blue Ridge Parkway is managed as part of a greater ecological, social, economic, and 

cultural system. 

Good relations are maintained with adjacent landowners, surrounding communities, and 

private and public groups that affect, and are affected by, the park. The park is managed 

proactively to resolve external issues and concerns and ensure that park values are not 

compromised. 
Foundation for Planning and Management 

15 

TABLE 1. SERVICEWIDE MANDATES AND POLICIES PERTAINING TO THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY

Topic Current laws and policies require the following conditions be achieved 

Because the parkway is an integral part of the larger regional environment, the National Park 

Service works cooperatively with others to anticipate, avoid, and resolve potential conflicts, 

protect national park resources, and address mutual interests in the quality of life for 

community residents. Regional cooperation involves federal, state, and local agencies, Indian 

tribes, neighboring landowners, and all other concerned parties. 

Government-toGovernment 

Relations between 

American Indian 

Tribes and the Blue 

Ridge Parkway 

The National Park Service and tribes culturally affiliated with the park maintain positive, 

productive, government-to-government relationships. Park managers and staff respect the 

viewpoints and needs of the tribes, continue to promptly address conflicts that occur, and 

consider American Indian values in park management and operation. 

Natural Resources 

Air Quality Air quality in the park meets national ambient air quality standards for specified pollutants. 

The park’s air quality is maintained or enhanced with no significant deterioration. 

Nearly unimpaired views of the landscape both in and outside the park are present. Scenic 

views are substantially unimpaired. 

Ecosystem 

Management 

The park is managed holistically, as part of a greater ecological, social, economic, and cultural 

system. 

Exotic Species The management of populations of exotic plant and animal species, up to and including 

eradication, are undertaken wherever such species threaten park resources or public health 

and when control is prudent and feasible. 

Fire Management Park fire management programs are designed to meet resource management objectives 

prescribed for the various areas of the park and to ensure that the safety of firefighters and 

the public is not compromised. 

All wildland fires are effectively managed, considering resource values to be protected and 

firefighter and public safety, using the full range of strategic and tactical operations as 

described in an approved fire management plan. 

Floodplains Natural floodplain values are preserved or restored. 

Long-term and short-term environmental effects associated with the occupancy and 

modifications of floodplains are avoided. 

When it is not practicable to locate or relocate development or inappropriate human activities 

to a site outside the floodplain or where the floodplain will be affected, the National Park 

Service: 

 Prepares and approves a statement of findings in accordance with DO 77-2. 

 Uses nonstructural measures as much as practicable to reduce hazards to human life 

and property while minimizing impacts on the natural resources of floodplains. 

 Ensures that structures and facilities are designed to be consistent with the intent of 

the standards and criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program (44 CFR 60). 

General Natural 

Resources / 

Restoration 

Native species populations that have been severely reduced in or extirpated from the park are 

restored where feasible and sustainable. 

Populations of native plant and animal species function in as natural a condition as possible 

except where special considerations are warranted. 

Land Protection Land protection plans are prepared to determine and publicly document what lands or 

interests in land need to be in public ownership, and what means of protection are available to 

achieve the purposes for which the national park system unit was created. 

Native Vegetation 

and Animals 

The National Park Service maintains all native plants and animals in the park as parts of the 

natural ecosystem. 

Soils The National Park Service actively seeks to understand and preserve the soil resources of the 

park, and to prevent, to the extent possible, the unnatural erosion, physical removal, or 

contamination of the soil, or its contamination of other resources. 

Natural soil resources and processes function in as natural a condition as possible, except 

where special considerations are allowable under policy. 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

16 

TABLE 1. SERVICEWIDE MANDATES AND POLICIES PERTAINING TO THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY

Topic Current laws and policies require the following conditions be achieved 

Threatened and 

Endangered Species 

Federal and state-listed threatened and endangered species and their habitats are protected 

and sustained. 

Native threatened and endangered species populations that have been severely reduced in or 

extirpated from the park are restored where feasible and sustainable. 

Water Resources Surface water and groundwater are protected and water quality meets or exceeds all 

applicable water quality standards. 

NPS and NPS-permitted programs and facilities are maintained and operated to avoid pollution 

of surface water and groundwater. 

Wetlands The natural and beneficial values of wetlands are preserved and enhanced. 

The National Park Service implements a “no net loss of wetlands” policy and strives to achieve 

a longer-term goal of net gain of wetlands across the national park system through the 

restoration of previously degraded wetlands. 

The National Park Service avoids to the extent possible the long- and short-term adverse 

impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and avoids direct or 

indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative. 

The National Park Service compensates for remaining unavoidable adverse impacts on 

wetlands by restoring wetlands that have been previously degraded. 

Cultural Resources 

Archeological 

Resources 

Archeological sites are identified and inventoried and their significance is determined and 

documented. Archeological sites are protected in an undisturbed condition unless it is 

determined through formal processes that disturbance or natural deterioration is unavoidable. 

When disturbance or deterioration is unavoidable, the site is professionally documented and 

excavated and the resulting artifacts, materials, and records are curated and conserved in 

consultation with the North Carolina and Virginia state historic preservation offices (and 

American Indian tribes if applicable). Some archeological sites that can be adequately 

protected may be interpreted to visitors. 

Historic Structures Historic structures are inventoried and their significance and integrity are evaluated under 

National Register of Historic Places (national register) criteria. The qualities that contribute to 

the listing or eligibility for listing of historic structures on the national register are protected in 

accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and 

Historic Preservation (unless it is determined through a formal process that disturbance or 

natural deterioration is unavoidable). 

Ethnographic 

Resources 

Ethnographic resources are identified, significance is documented, and resources are protected 

in consultation with associated and affiliated groups. Appropriate cultural anthropological 

research is conducted in cooperation with groups associated with the park. The National Park 

Service accommodates access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious 

practitioners and avoids adversely affecting the physical integrity of these sacred sites. 

American Indians and other individuals and groups linked by ties of kinship or culture to 

ethnically identifiable human remains, sacred objects, objects of cultural patrimony, and 

associated funerary objects are consulted when such items may be disturbed or are 

encountered on park lands. 

NPS general regulations on access to and use of natural and cultural resources in the park are 

applied in an informed and balanced manner that is consistent with park purposes and does 

not unreasonably interfere with American Indian or other affiliated or associated groups’ use 

of traditional areas or sacred resources and does not result in the degradation of national park 

resources. 

Access to sacred sites and park resources by American Indians and other individuals and 

groups continues to be provided when the use is consistent with park purposes and the 

protection of resources. 

All ethnographic resources determined eligible for listing or listed on the national register are 

protected. If disturbance of such resources is unavoidable, formal consultation with the state 

historic preservation officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and American 

Indian tribes as appropriate, is conducted. 

The National Park Service will consult with American Indian tribes or other groups traditionally 

associated with park lands to develop and accomplish the programs of the park in a way that 
Foundation for Planning and Management 

17 

TABLE 1. SERVICEWIDE MANDATES AND POLICIES PERTAINING TO THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY

Topic Current laws and policies require the following conditions be achieved 

respects the beliefs, traditions, and other cultural values of the American Indians, individuals, 

or groups who have ancestral ties to the park lands. These consultations are to be open and 

candid so that all interested parties may evaluate for themselves the potential impact of 

relevant proposals. 

The identities of community consultants and information about sacred and other culturally 

sensitive places and practices are kept confidential when research agreements or other 

circumstances warrant. 

Cultural Landscapes Cultural landscapes inventories are conducted to identify landscapes potentially eligible for 

listing on the national register and to assist in future management decisions for landscapes 

and associated resources, both cultural and natural. 

The management of cultural landscapes focuses on preserving the landscape’s physical 

attributes, biotic systems, and use when that use contributes to its historical significance. 

The preservation or rehabilitation of cultural landscapes is undertaken in accordance with The 

Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines 

for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. 

Museum Collections All museum collections (objects, specimens, and manuscript collections) are identified and 

inventoried, catalogued, documented, preserved, and protected, and provision is made for 

their access to and use for exhibits, research, and interpretation. The qualities that contribute 

to the significance of collections are protected in accordance with established standards. 

Visitor Use and Experience 

Visitor Use and 

Experience 

Park resources are conserved “unimpaired” for the enjoyment of future generations. Visitors 

have opportunities for forms of enjoyment that are uniquely suited and appropriate to the 

superlative natural and cultural resources found in the park. No activities occur that would 

cause derogation of the values and purposes for which the park has been established. 

For all zones, districts, or other logical management divisions in a park, the types and levels of 

visitor use are consistent with the desired resource and visitor experience conditions prescribed 

for those areas. 

Park visitors have opportunities to understand and appreciate the significance of the park and 

its resources, and to develop a personal stewardship ethic. 

To the extent feasible, programs, services, and facilities in the park are accessible to and usable 

by all people, including those with disabilities. 

Commercial Services Same as Visitor Use and Experience and Park Use Requirements above. 

All commercial services are authorized, are necessary and/or appropriate, and are economically 

feasible. Appropriate planning is done to support commercial services authorization. 

Public Health and 

Safety 

While recognizing that there are limitations on its capability and constraints imposed by the 

Organic Act to not impair resources, the service and its concessioners, contractors, and 

cooperators are required to meet codes and regulations to provide safe and healthy 

environments for visitors and employees. 

The park staff strives to identify recognizable threats to safety and health and protect property 

by applying nationally accepted standards. Consistent with mandates, the park staff reduces or 

removes known hazards and/or applies appropriate mitigation, such as closures, guarding, 

gating, education, and other actions. 

Natural Soundscapes The National Park Service preserves the natural ambient soundscapes, restores degraded 

soundscapes to the natural ambient condition wherever possible, and protects natural 

soundscapes from degradation due to human-caused noise. Disruptions from recreational uses 

are managed to provide a high-quality visitor experience in accordance with mandates and 

management policies in an effort to preserve or restore the natural quiet and natural sounds. 

Other Topics 

Sustainable Design 

and Development 

National Park Service and concessioner visitor management facilities are harmonious with park 

resources, compatible with natural processes, aesthetically pleasing, functional, as accessible as 

possible to all segments of the population, energy efficient, and cost effective. 

All decisions regarding park operations, facilities management, and development in the park—

from the initial concept through design and construction—reflect principles of resource 

conservation. Thus, all park developments and park operations are sustainable to the 

maximum degree possible and practical. New developments and existing facilities are located, 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

18 

TABLE 1. SERVICEWIDE MANDATES AND POLICIES PERTAINING TO THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY

Topic Current laws and policies require the following conditions be achieved 

built, and modified according to the Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design (NPS 1993) or 

other similar guidelines. 

Management decision making and activities throughout the national park system use value 

analysis, which is mandatory for all Department of the Interior bureaus, to help achieve this 

goal. Value planning, which may be used interchangeably with value analysis/value 

engineering/value management, is most often used when value methods are applied on 

general management or similar planning activities. 

Transportation to 

and in the Park 

Visitors have reasonable access to the park and there are connections from the park to 

regional transportation systems as appropriate. Transportation facilities in the park provide 

access for the protection, use, and enjoyment of park resources. They preserve the integrity of 

the surroundings, respect ecological processes, protect park resources, and provide the highest 

visual quality and a rewarding visitor experience. 

The National Park Service participates in all transportation planning forums that may result in 

links to parks or impact park resources. Working with federal, tribal, state, and local agencies 

on transportation issues, the National Park Service seeks reasonable access to parks, and 

connections to external transportation systems. 

Utilities and 

Communication 

Facilities 

Park resources or public enjoyment of the park are not denigrated by nonconforming uses. 

Telecommunication structures are permitted in the park to the extent that they do not 

jeopardize the park’s mission and resources. No new nonconforming use or rights-of-way are 

permitted through the park without specific statutory authority and approval by the director of 

the National Park Service or his representative, and are permitted only if there is no practicable 

alternative to such use of NPS lands. 

RELATIONSHIP OF OTHER PLANNING 

EFFORTS TO THIS GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT PLAN 

The parkway is bordered by 29 counties and 

crosses 4 national forests—George 

Washington and Jefferson National Forests in 

Virginia and Pisgah and Nantahala national 

forests in North Carolina. Several North 

Carolina state parks are adjacent to the 

parkway—Mount Mitchell, Stone Mountain, 

and Grandfather Mountain state parks. 

Several more are in close proximity, including 

Lake James, Mount Jefferson, Elk Knob, and 

New River state parks. There are also several 

long-distance regionally and nationally 

designated trails—the Appalachian National 

Scenic Trail (Appalachian Trail), Mountainsto-Sea Trail, and the Overmountain Victory 

Trail all cross the parkway or are on parkway 

land for some distance. Each of these 

jurisdictions has multiple plans which may 

relate to the parkway. Parkway staff is 

currently working with those neighbors and 

partners to better understand the 

interrelationship of these planning efforts to 

the parkway. In addition, the parkway literally 

has hundreds of implementation level plans in 

all divisional areas that govern day to day park 

management. 

Given the volume of parkway implementation 

plans and planning undertaken by 

neighboring jurisdictions, this section is 

limited to parkway and neighboring plans that 

are directly adjacent to parkway land, are 

currently underway (or recently completed), 

and particularly relevant to general 

management plan topics. 

Trails, Recreation, and Recreation 

Areas

Roanoke Valley Trail Plan / 

Environmental Assessment (Virginia).

The Roanoke Valley Trail Plan /is a 

partnership effort between Roanoke County, 

the city of Roanoke, and the Blue Ridge 

Parkway. The plan focuses on the lands 

adjacent to the parkway in the city of Roanoke 

and Roanoke County between mileposts 110 

and 126. The plan identifies safe and 

appropriate access for trail connections, 

closure of unsafe/inappropriate trail 

connections, providing parking and staging 

for trail use on the parkway, and examines the 
Foundation for Planning and Management 

19 

potential for mountain biking on existing or 

newly constructed trails on land leased by the 

federal government in the Roanoke Valley 

corridor. This plan provides site-specific 

recommendations for the development of 

trails along/adjoining the parkway in the 

Roanoke Valley. 

Asheville Corridor Plan (North 

Carolina). Buncombe County, the U.S. 

Forest Service, the Blue Ridge Parkway, the 

city of Asheville and others are partnering to 

complete a greenway master plan for 

Buncombe County, North Carolina. The plan 

would inform management actions within the 

Asheville corridor of the parkway, from 

mileposts 375 to 395. This plan would look at 

safe and appropriate trail access to the 

parkway, identify parking for access to trails 

on and off the parkway, identify trails to be 

closed for safety and habitat concerns, and 

looks at recreational needs within the 

parkway corridor to determine if new 

uses/trails may be appropriate. This plan, 

which is currently in the beginning stages, 

would provide site-specific recommendations 

for the development of trails along/adjoining 

the parkway in the Asheville corridor. The 

final Asheville Trail Plan should be released to 

the public in the fall of 2012. 

Moses H. Cone Developed Area 

Management Plan. The National Park 

Service is currently working to complete a 

developed area management plan for the 

Moses H. Cone Estate, a 3,500-acre developed 

area on the parkway near Blowing Rock, 

North Carolina. Because this property was 

deeded to the parkway and has a unique set of 

characteristics, including the historic 

Manor House and 25 miles of constructed 

carriage trails, it requires study at the sitespecific level and is being considered 

separately from the general management plan. 

The plan would determine future 

management direction for the estate and 

should be released to the public in the spring 

of 2013. 

Blue Ridge Parkway Climbing 

Management Plan. The parkway plans to 

undertake a future climbing management 

plan. This plan would look comprehensively 

across the parkway at climbing use to 

determine where it is or is not appropriate, 

how access can be safely provided, how to 

minimize or mitigate resource damage, and 

what adaptive management strategies would 

be used to address and manage the 

recreational activity in the future. 

High Country Council of Governments 

Trail Planning. Along the Highlands and 

Black Mountain segments of the parkway, the 

High Country Council of Governments has 

completed a road cycling map for Wilkes 

County and plans to do similar maps for the 

other six counties within their jurisdiction 

(Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Mitchell, Watauga, 

and Yancey). While the Wilkes County cycling 

map does not include any routes that include 

parkway segments, the other county maps 

may. Watauga County also plans to emphasize 

the acquisition of land for development of 

greenways, bike trails, and other recreation 

opportunities, such as stream access. 

The High Country Council of Governments 

has also completed a regional trail plan for the 

seven counties it serves. The plan has 

identified corridors through those counties as 

part of a regional hiking trail system. 

Stone Mountain State Park Capital 

Improvements. Stone Mountain State Park 

(in North Carolina, adjacent to the Highlands 

segment of the parkway), has a number of 

capital improvement projects planned to 

improve public recreational and educational 

use of the park, as well as support facilities 

needed for park operations. These include 

development of group camp sites, expansion 

of the visitor center, trail improvements, and 

bridge replacements. 

Mount Mitchell State Park Recreation 

and Facility Improvements. Mount 

Mitchell State Park (in North Carolina 

adjacent to the Black Mountain segment of 

the parkway), is proposing to upgrade existing 

facilities and some new recreational 

opportunities. These projects include general 

repairs and rehabilitation of park 

infrastructure, a possible new backcountry 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

20 

campground, and consideration of new hiking 

and mountain biking trails. 

Mountains-to-Sea Trail Planning 

(Friends of the Mountains-to-Sea 

Trail/Carolina Mountain Club).

Collaborative efforts are underway to develop 

portions of the Mountains-to-Sea Trail within 

and adjacent to the parkway corridor in a 

number of North Carolina counties. 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park is 

developing plans to improve concession 

services, the Oconoluftee Visitor Center, as 

well as portions of the Mountains-to-Sea 

Trail. 

Concessions Planning 

Blue Ridge Parkway Concessions 

Management Plan. The parkway is 

currently working on condition assessments 

and financial analyses on all concessions along 

the parkway to begin implementing a 

concessions management plan. In addition, 

the parkway is in the midst of writing new 

concession contracts for bid at this time. This 

will be a several year process. 

Natural and Cultural Resources 

Planning 

Blue Ridge Parkway National Historic 

Landmark Designation. The parkway is 

being nominated for designation as a national 

historic landmark. The draft nomination is 

being completed by cultural resources staff in 

the Southeast Region office of the National 

Park Service. The nomination should be 

submitted for consideration within the next 

year. Designation as a national historic 

landmark has implications for future 

management of the parkway. 

Blue Ridge Parkway Vista Management 

Plan. The parkway is currently preparing a 

vista management plan for the length of the 

parkway (except those areas covered under 

the environmental assessment for vista 

management with Carolina northern flying 

squirrel). The plan will identify 

appropriate strategies for preserving, cutting, 

and managing vistas for the future. 

Blue Ridge Parkway Environmental 

Assessment for Vista Management 

with Carolina Northern Flying 

Squirrel Habitat and Northern Flying 

Squirrel Management Plan. The actions 

described in this environmental assessment 

would allow the parkway to continue to 

manage vistas within northern flying squirrel 

territory based upon specific 

recommendations that would protect historic 

vistas as well as enhance northern flying 

squirrel habitat, which is found above 3,500 

feet. Funding was recently obtained to 

develop a management plan to better manage 

the endangered northern flying squirrel. This 

plan will evaluate and analyze available data 

and provide recommendations on the next 

logical steps to conserve this rare species. 

Completion of this plan is anticipated to occur 

in 2013. 

Blue Ridge Parkway Wetlands 

Management Plan. The parkway is 

currently working on gathering information 

about the current condition and threats to 

over 100 globally ranked wetlands/bogs/fens. 

The development of a wetlands management 

plan would help guide future management 

efforts and shift the parkway from its current 

passive management to a more proactive 

mode. Completion of the plan is anticipated 

for spring of 2013. 

U.S. Forest Service Planning 

George Washington and Jefferson 

National Forests Forest Plans, Virginia.

Similar to general management plans, the U.S. 

Forest Service completes forest plans for all of 

its units under the National Forest 

Management Act of 1976. There are four 

national forests adjacent to the parkway – the 

George Washington and Jefferson National 

Forests in Virginia and the Pisgah and 

Nantahala national forests in North Carolina. 

The U.S. Forest Service is in the midst of 

preparing a draft forest plan for the George 
Foundation for Planning and Management 

21 

Washington National Forest; it was last 

updated in 1993. The Jefferson National 

Forest Forest Plan was updated in 2004. 

Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests 

Forest Plan, North Carolina. The Pisgah 

and Nantahala National Forests Forest Plan 

was updated in 1997 and is scheduled to be 

updated again within the next several years. 

The parkway works in close partnership with 

the U.S. Forest Service and will engage in that 

planning process. 

Transportation Planning 

Virginia and North Carolina 

Departments of Transportation Road 

Construction, Improvements, 

Transportation Improvement Plans, 

and Other Plans. Both the North Carolina 

and Virginia departments of transportation 

have numerous road improvement projects on 

their transportation improvement plans along 

the Blue Ridge Parkway and on adjacent 

roads. These projects range from new 

residential road construction to bridge and 

tunnel repairs to resurfacing and 

reconstructing guardrails and shoulders. 

These projects are outlined in the 

“Cumulative Impacts” section of the general 

management plan. 

PLANNING ISSUES AND CONCERNS 

During the scoping period (early information 

gathering) for this general management plan, 

issues and concerns were identified by the 

general public; NPS staff; county, state, and 

other federal agency representatives; parkway 

partners; resource experts; and 

representatives from various organizations. 

An issue is defined as an opportunity, conflict, 

or problem regarding the use or management 

of public lands. Comments were solicited at 

public meetings, workshops, and open houses; 

through planning newsletters; and on the 

parkway’s website (see “Chapter 5: 

Consultation and Coordination”). 

Comments received during the scoping 

process demonstrated that there is much that 

the public values about the parkway, 

especially its protection of scenery and highelevation habitats; interpretation of local 

history and heritage; access to trails; the 

opportunity it offers to escape from 

commercialism and traffic; and the beauty of 

the road and parkway architecture. Issues and 

concerns expressed during scoping generally 

focused on balancing appropriate visitor use, 

types and levels of facilities, services, and 

activities with desired resource conditions. 

The general management plan alternatives 

provide strategies for addressing the issues in 

the context of the parkway’s purpose, 

significance, and special mandates. 

The following issues and concerns were 

identified during scoping for the general 

management plan. 

Increasing Residential and 

Commercial Development Visible 

From the Parkway 

The parkway was designed as a park without 

visual boundaries, in response to the 

congressional intent to provide a scenic and 

recreational driving experience from which 

visitors could view the landscapes of the 

central and southern Appalachian Mountains. 

This primary purpose for the parkway is being 

threatened by the subdivision of hundreds of 

privately owned acres of scenic farms and 

mountainsides for residential development. 

This land use trend is dramatically increasing 

in 14 of the 29 counties through which the 

parkway passes. By far the most commonly 

expressed concerns in public comments relate 

to this issue. People are concerned with the 

loss of scenic quality and scenic variety. Some 

believe that solutions lie with additional 

vegetation buffers. Others advocate a stronger 

land protection program on the part of the 

park, ranging from cooperative agreements to 

purchase of scenic easements to full purchase 

of lands. 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

22 

Relationships between the Parkway 

and Surrounding Communities 

The parkway plays an important role in the 

broader region in which it is located. It 

connects communities and heritage tourism 

opportunities, contributes to economies, 

provides recreational escape, protects and 

links natural corridors, and provides a 469-

mile window to the beauty of the region. 

Many of those who provided comments 

encouraged increased communication and 

cooperation between the parkway and 

surrounding jurisdictions, emphasizing the 

potential for better land use planning, scenery 

protection, greenway connections, and visitor 

information that could result. 

The Design and Character of the 

Parkway 

The parkway was carefully designed to create 

a special experience for visitors, from how the 

parkway road was situated on the landscape, 

to the details of parkway architecture, to the 

carefully placed vistas and overlooks, to the 

strategic location of recreation areas and 

visitor services. Some people are concerned 

that budget limitations and changing public 

expectations and demands are compromising 

the original design standards of the parkway. 

Others believe that elements of parkway 

character, such as the absence of roadway 

striping and width, cause safety hazards. Some 

people would like to see development of 

additional pullouts and overlooks; others 

believe that too many overlooks have low 

quality views due to vegetation growth or 

adjacent development. Some others also feel 

that certain overlooks have safety issues that 

make them higher crime areas and that these 

facilities should be evaluated for possible 

closure or redesign. 

Regional Road System Improvements 

The Blue Ridge Parkway was authorized by 

Congress to be a national rural parkway with 

limited at-grade road crossings and with 

entrance and exit points to be spaced at 

intervals to reduce interruptions to the main 

flow of visitor traffic. There are 199 public 

secondary at-grade and 30 primary grade 

separated access points to the parkway from 

the regional primary and secondary road 

systems in Virginia and North Carolina. Many 

of these are scheduled to be upgraded over 

the next several years. The improvement of 

both primary and secondary roads in rural 

areas is making these areas more attractive for 

residential and commercial development; 

thus, road projects have considerable 

influence on the parkway’s scenery by 

facilitating land use changes that are visually 

incompatible with parkway values. Also, the 

level of local traffic is increasing in several 

areas along the parkway. With the large 

number of at-grade road crossings, the 

potential for traffic accidents is rising from 

increasing cross-parkway traffic. 

Motorized Use of the Parkway 

Motorized use of the parkway involves a mix 

of visitors and local commuters, and different 

types of vehicles, which can result in conflict 

and concerns. Commenters noted that 

motorcycle noise, and in some cases excessive 

speed by motorcycle riders, is disturbing to 

them. Some people are concerned about the 

increasing size and number of recreational 

vehicles (RVs) on the parkway and believe 

some limits to address these concerns may be 

needed. Many mentioned that the parkway 

has too much commuter traffic that interferes 

with the slower pace and low traffic levels that 

are valued as part of a recreational experience. 

Bicycling on the Parkway 

Bicycling is permitted along the entire length 

of the parkway. Although cyclists represent 

only 1% of the road’s traffic mix, the parkway 

is popular with cyclists due to its limited 

access and relatively lower traffic levels and 

vehicle speeds when compared to most 

community streets and highways. The 

parkway, however, was not designed as a 

bicycle facility. It has no specific paved 

shoulders or bike lanes or paths; cyclists 
Foundation for Planning and Management 

23 

currently ride in the road’s travel lanes. 

During the scoping process, bicycling along 

the parkway was an issue of much discussion 

and a variety of views. Some people advocate 

bike lanes along the full length of the parkway, 

while others believe this is not feasible and 

would inappropriately change the parkway 

road character. Other commenters advocate 

bike routes parallel to the road, either along 

the full distance or only in high-use areas. 

Other commenters proposed banning bicycle 

use on the parkway altogether. As a related 

issue, mountain biking on trails is supported 

by some people and opposed by others. 

Additional Recreational 

Opportunities 

As population has increased adjacent to the 

parkway and as visitor’s interests have shifted, 

there is more demand for additional or 

different day use recreational opportunities 

along the parkway. For example, there is 

increasing demand for more off-season use 

and access, including keeping more of the 

parkway open in the off-season. Unlike most 

National Park units, parkway visitor services 

are only provided during a six-month season. 

Visitors traveling the parkway during the offseason do not have access to even basic 

amenities, such as restrooms. A lack of 

orientation and interpretive services during 

this time also limits visitors from 

understanding parkway resources and the 

range of recreational opportunities available 

to them. The public also advocated for 

additional rock climbing and horse riding 

opportunities. Some people would like to see 

more trails in the parkway and some are 

particularly interested in more links to trails 

and greenway systems with neighboring 

communities. To address these issues, the plan 

will explore different options for expanding 

recreational opportunities along the parkway. 

Visitor Service Facilities 

The parkway’s visitor service facilities were 

originally placed along the parkway to provide 

a leisurely, self-contained, long-distance 

driving experience, where visitors could drive 

a while, stop a while to stretch their legs, 

obtain information, picnic, and stop overnight 

for camping or lodging. For a variety of 

reasons that include increased availability of 

services adjacent to the parkway and changing 

visitor use patterns and preferences, the 

parkway has concession services that struggle 

to remain economically viable and 

campgrounds that generally are underused. 

Some visitors have commented that the 

parkway should provide lodging with more 

modern amenities; others think concessions 

services are an outdated concept and compete 

with neighboring businesses. 

Many visitors have noted they would stay on 

the parkway if the campgrounds provided 

more updated services, such as showers, 

electrical hookups, and better 

accommodation of large RVs. Others feel that 

such changes are not necessary and would 

alter the rustic character of the campgrounds. 

The campgrounds have not had significant 

upgrades since their construction between the 

1930s and 1950s. None have water/electric 

hook-ups at RV sites or showers in the 

comfort stations. Furthermore, loop roads, 

parking areas, and campsites were designed to 

earlier standards that do not adequately 

accommodate modern RVs. The absence of 

these amenities is the primary reason most 

visitors do not stay at the parkway’s 

campgrounds. 

In addition, there is limited access to visitor 

service facilities in the off-season when the 

road is open but most of the visitor facilities 

are closed. Also, there are several key places 

where large numbers of visitors access the 

parkway in the peak season but don’t have 

access to information and services for 

orientation. As a result, there is a high 

frequency of visitors becoming disoriented 

and lost. Some people oppose the 

development of any new facilities along the 

parkway, while others advocate some 

additional overlooks, trails, and support 

facilities so long as they harmonize with the 

parkway design. The plan will explore options 

for improving visitor service facilities in 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

24 

context with the parkway’s purpose, 

significance, and special mandates. 

Protection of Natural Resources 

Under the provisions of the parkway’s 

establishing legislation, the parkway is 

responsible for conserving, interpreting, and 

exhibiting the unique natural and cultural 

resources of the central and southern 

Appalachian Mountains. Parkway lands 

contain 1,250 different vascular plant species, 

5 listed rare and endangered plant species, 7 

rare and endangered animal species, several 

areas that are classified as “globally imperiled” 

natural systems, 21 natural heritage areas, and 

110 miles of streams. There were many 

comments about air pollution effects on views 

and ecosystem health; the frequency and 

amount of plant and animal poaching; the 

invasion of nonnative plants, insects, and 

diseases; visitor trampling, social trailing, and 

illegal camping; and suppression of wildfires 

and other damage to natural systems due to 

park practices and development, such as 

habitat fragmentation from trails and roads. 

Protection of Cultural Resources 

The parkway contains, and is challenged to 

manage, a diverse range of cultural resources, 

including 90 buildings, 2 sites, and 133 other 

structures that contribute to the parkway’s 

eligibility for inclusion on the national 

register. The parkway also contains historic 

structures and places associated with events 

and activities prior to the parkway’s 

construction. The traditional pastoral 

landscapes and structures of Appalachian 

farms and settlements contribute to the 

richness of scenery and stories of lifeways. 

Many commented about concerns over the 

deterioration of historic structures and other 

features. Some commenters thought that 

resource threats are increasing and suggested 

that park managers place more emphasis on 

resource protection in making management 

decisions. 

Climate Change 

Climate change refers to any significant 

changes in average climatic conditions (such 

as average temperature, precipitation, or 

wind) or climatic variability (such as 

seasonality or storm frequencies) lasting for 

an extended period of time (decades or 

longer). Recent reports by the U.S. Climate 

Change Science Program, the National 

Academy of Sciences, and the United Nations 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC 2007a) provide clear evidence that 

climate change is occurring and is anticipated 

to accelerate in the coming decades. 

The National Park Service recognizes that the 

major drivers of climate change are outside 

the control of the agency. However, impacts 

from climate change are already occurring or 

are expected to occur throughout the national 

park system. Therefore, an important goal of 

this planning effort is to gain a better 

understanding of the influences of climate 

change on the Blue Ridge Parkway and 

develop effective strategies to manage for 

them. Because climate change is a long-term 

issue that may affect the parkway beyond the 

scope of this general management plan, this 

planning effort is intended to lay the initial 

groundwork to address climate change issues. 

In developing this planning document, three 

key questions were asked and are as follows: 

1. What would be the contribution of the 

alternatives to climate change, as 

indicated by the amount of 

greenhouse gases that would be 

emitted under each alternative (i.e., 

the parkway’s carbon footprint)? 

2. What management strategies could 

the park adopt to reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions and the impacts of 

climate change on climate-sensitive 

resources? 

3. What are the potential impacts of 

climate change on the park addition 

lands’ resources? 

Regarding the first question, it has been 

determined that the management alternatives 
Foundation for Planning and Management 

25 

described in this document would contribute 

slightly more greenhouse gases compared to 

the parkway’s baseline emissions, primarily as 

a result of small increases in vehicular traffic 

from visitors and commuters. Because of the 

minor amount of increase, this impact topic 

has been dismissed from detailed analysis. For 

more information, see the section titled, 

“Carbon Footprint” under the “Impact topics 

Considered but Eliminated from Detailed 

Analysis” section of chapter 3. 

Regarding the second question, this document 

provides scientific-based management 

strategies to help guide parkway managers in 

addressing future climate change impacts on 

parkway resources and to reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions. These strategies are described 

in chapter 2 and would be adopted by the 

parkway as part of the preferred alternative 

when that is identified. 

Regarding the third question, climate change 

has the potential to alter resource conditions 

in many different ways in the parkway, but the 

exact type and intensity of these changes is 

still uncertain. These potential effects are 

described in chapter 3. 

DECISION POINTS ARISING FROM 

ISSUES 

Many aspects of the desired future conditions 

of the parkway are defined in its establishing 

legislation, the parkway’s purpose and 

significance statements, and established laws 

and policies. The resolution of questions or 

issues that have not already been addressed by 

legislation or laws and policies are the basis 

for developing different alternatives or 

approaches to managing the parkway into the 

future, because usually there is more than one 

way an issue could be resolved. As with any 

decision-making process, there are key 

decisions that, once made, would dictate the 

direction of subsequent management 

strategies. Based on the scoping input and the 

major issues previously identified, the 

following six major decision points were 

identified for the Blue Ridge Parkway. Much 

of this general management plan focuses on 

alternative ways of addressing these decision 

points. 

1. To what extent should the original 

design of the parkway be preserved or 

under what circumstances might some 

design elements be modified for 

purposes of visitor convenience and 

safety, management of special 

resources, or fiscal or operational 

efficiency? 

2. Are current visitation patterns and 

activities appropriate and sustainable 

or are changes needed to protect 

special and/or fragile resources or the 

range of visitor opportunities? 

3. Is the present range and mix of 

car/RV/bicycle/motorcycle/pedestrian 

use of the parkway road appropriate 

and sustainable or are changes needed 

for visitor experience and safety or for 

resource protection? 

4. What are the desired conditions for 

park natural and cultural resources 

and what management strategies need 

to be implemented to ensure longterm sustainability of those 

conditions? 

5. Can the park protect scenic views, 

cultural resources, and natural 

habitats important to the park via 

partnerships and agreements with 

park neighbors or to what extent are 

other approaches needed? 

6. What criteria should the National 

Park Service use to determine whether 

or not and how secondary local or 

regional roads should be allowed to 

intersect or cross the parkway? 

ISSUES AND CONCERNS NOT 

ADDRESSED IN THE GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Not all of the issues or concerns raised by the 

public are included in this general 

management plan. Some issues raised by the 

public were not considered because they are 

already prescribed by law, regulation, or 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

26 

policy (see the previous “Servicewide 

Mandates and Policies” section). Issues were 

also excluded from consideration in this 

general management plan if they 

 would be in violation of laws, 

regulations, or policies 

 were outside the scope of a general 

management plan or 

 were at a level that was too detailed for a 

general management plan and would be 

more appropriately addressed in 

subsequent planning documents 

This section briefly summarizes some of these 

issues and the basis for excluding them from 

this general management plan. 

Issues to be Addressed by Law, 

Regulation, and Policy 

Universal Accessibility. Concerns were 

expressed about old, outdated facilities along 

the parkway and inadequate accessibility by 

visitors with disabilities. The National Park 

Service is required by law and policy to 

provide accessible facilities and the parkway is 

gradually updating these facilities as funds 

become available. 

Illegal Taking of Park Resources. The 

illegal taking, also referred to as poaching, of 

park resources, especially plants, is an ongoing 

problem that consumes considerable staff 

time and effort to enforce current laws and 

investigate incidents. In addition to impacting 

staff resources, poaching affects the viability 

of a variety of species, including some which 

are listed as rare or endangered. Some park 

resources may be traditional subsistence 

resources, such as ramps and sang, for 

associated and affiliated groups. 

Management of Exotic Species. A variety 

of species of plants and animals, including 

insect pests and diseases, are not native to the 

park and affect the health and viability of park 

ecosystems and adjacent lands and resources. 

Current laws and policies require the park to 

monitor and manage for these species. 

Issues for Implementation or Other 

Planning Projects 

Horse and Bike Use at Moses H. Cone 

Park. Moses H. Cone Memorial Park in 

North Carolina is a 3,500-acre site along the 

parkway near the Boone/Blowing Rock 

communities. This park area receives 

considerable recreational use and has some 

specific management issues relating to trail use 

for bicycling and horseback riding. A separate 

developed area management plan for the site 

is being prepared in a parallel process to this 

general management plan; therefore, 

alternatives for management at Moses H. 

Cone Park will not be addressed in the general 

management plan. 

Improved Types of Visitor Information. 

There were a variety of specific requests and 

concerns about visitor information services. 

This included a reliable central information 

phone line; better signs and exhibits to make 

up for the shortage of staff; lack of advertising 

of local activities and services outside the 

parkway; too many book sale outlets instead 

of interpretive exhibits in visitor facilities; and 

visitors not receiving enough information 

about natural resource issues. 

Particulars about the provision of specific 

information and interpretive messages are at a 

level of detail that lies outside the scope of a 

general management plan. The broad 

guidance of a plan would help inform 

subsequent levels of visitor information and 

interpretive planning. 

Issues Outside the Scope of a General 

Management Plan 

A number of concerns were raised that are not 

in the purview of a general management plan 

to address. 

Interstate 73 Crossing of the Parkway.

Many public comments were received 

expressing concerns about the new interstate 

crossing of the parkway and how that might 

affect park values. The Virginia Department of 

Transportation planned the routing for 
Foundation for Planning and Management 

27 

Interstate (I)-73 across the Blue Ridge 

Parkway. The National Park Service was 

consulted in that planning process and NPS 

comments were considered and incorporated 

in the plan. The crossing of I-73 is a decision 

that has been made and cannot be 

reconsidered as part of the parkway’s general 

management plan. 

The Park Has Inadequate Funding, 

Staffing, and Political Support. This type 

of concern was expressed frequently. A 

management plan can assist with identifying 

priorities and strategies for management, but 

the ultimate funding of the park is determined 

by the U.S. Congress. 

IMPACT TOPICS 

An important part of planning is seeking to 

understand the consequences of making one 

decision over another. To this end, NPS 

general management plans are accompanied 

by environmental impact statements, which 

identify the anticipated impacts of possible 

actions on resources and on park visitors and 

neighbors. Impacts are organized by topic, 

such as “impacts on the visitor experience” or 

“impacts on vegetation and wildlife.” Impact 

topics serve to focus the environmental 

analysis and to ensure the relevance of the 

impact evaluation. 

The impact topics identified for this general 

management plan are described in “Chapter 3: 

Affected Environment.” These topics were 

selected on the basis of federal law, 

regulations, executive orders, NPS expertise, 

and concerns expressed by other agencies or 

members of the public during project scoping. 

These descriptions of the parkway 

environment establish the basis for the impact 

analysis in “Chapter 4: Environmental 

Consequences.” Table 2 provides a summary 

of the impact topics analyzed in detail or 

dismissed from detailed analysis. 

 

TABLE 2. IMPACT TOPICS

Impact topics Analyzed in this Plan Impact topics Eliminated from Detailed Analysis in 

this Plan 

Alternatives in this plan have potential to affect these 

resources or topics. 

These resources or topics are important, but alternatives 

in this plan would have only positive impacts on them, 

and/or any adverse impacts would be negligible to minor. 

Natural Resources Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Vegetation and Wildlife Prime and Unique Farmlands 

Federal and State Listed Species Natural or Depletable Resource Requirements and 

Conservation Potential 

Geologic Resources and Soils Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 

Water-related Resources Carbon Footprint 

Air Quality Environmental Justice 

Cultural Resources Indian Trust Resources 

Historic Structures Museum collections 

Cultural Landscapes Road Conditions 

Archeological Resources 

Ethnographic Resources 

Visual Resources 

Visitor Use and Experience (including soundscapes) 

Traffic and Transportation 

Parkway Operations 

Regional Socioeconomics 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

28 

IMPACT TOPICS CONSIDERED BUT 

DISMISSED FROM DETAILED 

ANALYSIS 

Some impact topics that commonly are considered during the planning process were not 

relevant to the development of this general 

management plan because either the 

management alternatives would have no 

effect, a negligible effect, or a minor effect on 

the resource, or because the resource does not 

occur within the boundaries of the Blue Ridge 

Parkway. The following explains why these 

impact topics were dismissed from detailed 

analysis. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Wilson Creek is the only designated National 

Wild and Scenic River that traverses the Blue 

Ridge Parkway. This 0.6-mile river segment is 

near Grandfather Mountain between 

mileposts 303 and 304. This upper headwater 

segment is classified as “Scenic.” It passes 

through a relatively undisturbed portion of 

the parkway with many large boulders, steep 

drops, and other distinct scenic features that 

are set within a mixed conifer and hardwood 

forest. The outstandingly remarkable values 

identified for Wilson Creek are the following: 

scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, 

botanical, and historic and cultural values. 

The U.S. Forest Service administers the 

Wilson Creek Wild and Scenic River under 

the Wilson Creek Comprehensive River 

Management Plan (USDA 2005). For the 0.6 

mile area of national park system lands within 

the river corridor, this general management 

plan includes management direction 

complimentary to the river management plan. 

Under all alternatives, Wilson Creek would 

continue to receive full protection to ensure 

that no management actions are taken that 

would adversely affect the values that qualify 

it for inclusion in the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System. Under alternatives B 

and C, this portion of the parkway would be 

zoned Special Natural Resources, which 

affords the greatest level of protection of all 

proposed management zones. The 

management prescriptions that have been 

developed for the proposed special natural 

resources zone are compatible with the 

management goals stated in the Wilson Creek 

Comprehensive River Management Plan. 

Under this plan, management of the scenic 

segment of the river corridor is focused on 

maintaining and enhancing the near-natural 

environment. It states that the riverbanks 

should remain largely undeveloped and 

primitive, but may be accessible in places by 

roads. The plan further states that recreation 

management should be designed to provide a 

natural-appearing setting with limited 

improvements. To the greatest extent 

practicable, any new roads on parkway lands 

should not be routed through riparian areas of 

creek or river segments that are designated 

under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

The National Park Service is also responsible 

for maintaining a Nationwide Rivers 

Inventory, which is a register of river segments 

that potentially qualify as national wild, 

scenic, or recreational river areas. The Blue 

Ridge Parkway includes portions of two rivers 

on the National Rivers Inventory: Linville and 

James rivers. Management zoning prescribes 

desired future natural and cultural resource 

conditions, visitor experiences, and 

appropriate activities and developments 

within these river corridors. By applying 

management zoning, the action alternatives B 

and C would allow the qualities that make 

these river segments eligible for inclusion in 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System to 

be enhanced. 

For all alternatives, the effect on designated or 

potential outstandingly remarkable values for 

Wilson Creek, Linville River, and James River 

would be at the lowest levels of detection; 

barely measurable with no perceptible adverse 

consequences; or the effects would be 

beneficial. Because of this, all alternatives 

would have only beneficial impacts or any 

adverse impacts would be considered 

negligible. Therefore, this impact topic has 

been dismissed from further detailed analysis. 
Foundation for Planning and Management 

29 

Prime and Unique Farmlands 

In 1980, the Council on Environmental 

Quality directed federal agencies to assess the 

effects of their actions on farmland classified 

by the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service as prime or unique. Prime farmlands 

are defined as lands that have the best 

combination of physical and chemical 

characteristics for producing food, feed, 

forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and are also 

available for these uses. Prime farmlands have 

the soil quality, growing season, and moisture 

supply needed to produce economically 

sustained high yields of crops when treated 

and managed according to acceptable farming 

methods, including water management. In 

general, prime farmlands have an adequate 

and dependable water supply from 

precipitation or irrigation, a favorable 

temperature and growing season, acceptable 

acidity or alkalinity, acceptable salt and 

sodium content, and few or no rocks. Unique 

farmlands are lands other than prime 

farmland that are used for the production of 

specific high value food and fiber crops. 

The parkway includes prime farmlands, a 

majority of which are being used for 

agricultural purposes to maintain the 

landscape’s scenic pastoral character. These 

farmlands are being managed under 446 active 

agricultural lease permits that encompass 

approximately 3,500 acres parkway-wide. 

None of the management alternatives 

proposed in this general management plan 

would remove any of these farmlands from 

agricultural production or substantially 

modify existing agricultural uses of these 

lands. Because the alternatives would have no 

effect or a negligible effect on these farmlands, 

this impact topic has been dismissed from 

further consideration. 

Natural or Depletable Resource 

Requirements and Conservation 

Potential 

None of the alternatives being considered in 

this plan would result in the extraction of 

natural or depletable resources from the 

parkway. In all of the alternatives, ecological 

principles would be applied to ensure that the 

parkway’s resources were maintained and 

protected. Agricultural leases described 

previously under the “Prime and Unique 

Farmlands” section above would continue to 

include annual harvesting of hay, mowing, and 

grazing to maintain the cultural landscapes of 

the parkway. These areas would continue to 

be managed sustainably to ensure the longterm viability of these resources and would 

result in only negligible impacts on this topic. 

Therefore, this impact topic has been 

dismissed from further consideration. 

Energy Requirements and 

Conservation Potential 

None of the management alternatives would 

result in a major change in energy 

consumption, energy availability, or costs 

compared to current conditions. The National 

Park Service would pursue sustainable 

practices whenever possible in all decisions 

regarding operations, facilities management, 

and development of the parkway. Whenever 

possible, the parkway would use energy 

conservation technologies and renewable 

energy sources. Overall, the impact on energy 

requirements and conservation potential 

would be negligible; therefore, this topic has 

been dismissed from further consideration. 

Carbon Footprint 

For the purpose of this planning effort, 

“carbon footprint” is defined as the sum of all 

emissions of carbon dioxide and other 

greenhouse gases (e.g., methane and ozone) 

that would result from implementation of the 

management alternatives. Understanding the 

carbon footprint of each alternative is 

important to determine their contribution to 

climate change. However, a quantitative 

measurement of each alternative’s carbon 

footprint was determined by the planning 

team not to be practicable. Instead, a 

qualitative analysis was used to determine 

each action alternative’s carbon footprint 

relative to the no-action alternative. 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

30 

It has been determined that the two action 

alternatives would only emit slightly more 

greenhouse gases compared to the parkway’s 

baseline emissions. This is primarily the result 

of small increases (less than 3%) in vehicular 

traffic from visitors and commuters—likely 

the result of increased amenities and 

recreation opportunities proposed in the 

action alternatives. However, current 

visitation is about 20% below peak levels 

recorded in 2002 (see the “Visitor 

Experience” section of chapter 3). Neither of 

the action alternatives is expected to boost 

visitation to those peak levels. Because of this 

slight increase in greenhouse gases that may 

contribute to climate change, this impact topic 

has been dismissed from detailed analysis. 

Environmental Justice 

Presidential Executive Order 12898, “General 

Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations,” requires all federal agencies to 

incorporate environmental justice into their 

missions by identifying and addressing the 

disproportionately high or adverse human 

health or environmental effects of their 

programs and policies on minorities and lowincome populations and communities. 

According to the Environmental Protection 

Agency, environmental justice is the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement of all 

people, regardless of race, color, national 

origin, or income, with respect to the 

development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies. Fair treatment 

means that no group of people, including a 

racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group, should 

bear a disproportionate share of the negative 

environmental consequences resulting from 

industrial, municipal, and commercial 

operations or the execution of federal, state, 

local, and tribal programs and policies. 

All 29 counties in Virginia and North Carolina 

that the parkway passes through contain both 

minority and low-income populations; 

however, environmental justice has been 

dismissed as an impact topic for the following 

reasons: 

 The parkway staff and planning team 

actively solicited public participation as 

part of the planning process and gave 

equal consideration to all input from 

persons regardless of age, race, income 

status, or other socioeconomic or 

demographic factors. 

 The management alternatives would not 

result in any disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects on 

minorities or low-income populations 

and communities. 

 The management alternatives would not 

result in any effects that would be 

specific to any minority or low-income 

population or community. 

Indian Trust Resources 

Secretarial Order 3175 issued by Secretary of 

the Interior Bruce Babbitt, November 8, 1993, 

requires that impacts on Indian trust 

resources from a proposed project or action 

by United States Department of the Interior 

agencies be addressed in environmental 

documents. This order was reinforced by 

President William Clinton’s April 29, 1994, 

memorandum to the heads of executive 

departments and agencies directing that tribal 

trust resources be considered during the 

development of federal plans, projects, 

programs, and activities. 

The federal Indian trust responsibility is the 

fiduciary duty of the federal government 

emanating from treaties and statutes to 

protect Indian lands, resources, assets, and 

rights and to carry out the mandates of federal 

law concerning American Indian and Alaska 

Native tribes. 

Indian trust resources is not analyzed as an 

impact topic in this document because the 

resources of the Blue Ridge Parkway are 

preserved and managed for the benefit of all 

Americans, as are other units of the national 

park system. This management mandate stems 

from the Organic Act of August 25, 1916, 
Foundation for Planning and Management 

31 

establishing the National Park Service; and 

from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 

signing of a series of laws leading to the 

establishment of the Blue Ridge Parkway 

beginning in 1933 through 1940 (48 Stat. 195, 

Public Law 73-67, 49 Stat. 2041, Public Law 

74-848, and 54 Stat. 249, Public Law 76-566). 

The planning team has concluded that there 

are no Indian trust resources on the parkway. 

Therefore, the subject is not included as an 

impact topic for further analysis. 

Museum Collections 

The parkway’s archival collection of more 

than 700 linear feet contains materials relating 

to the following: Parkway Development, 

Design, and Engineering (1934 to present); the 

Moses H. Cone Papers; a 10,000+ historic 

photograph collection (1934 to present); and 

videotapes and movie film, memorabilia, and 

oral history tapes and transcripts from 

individuals who played a significant role in the 

development of the Blue Ridge Parkway. 

The parkway’s cultural collections include 

architectural material from the Peaks of Otter 

area, Saunders Farm, Mabry Mill, and the 

Moses H. Cone Estate; parkway signs; original 

surveying equipment used by NPS staff; and 

Works Progress Administration and Civilian 

Conservation Corps tools and equipment 

used for parkway landscaping and 

construction. Natural history collections 

include a herbarium collection that houses 

plant specimens from within the parkway 

boundaries in Virginia and North Carolina; a 

minerals collection; and mammals, fish, and 

reptile specimens. 

The parkway museum collection is stored in a 

rehabilitated warehouse. The storage facility 

has specific temperature and humidity 

controls, fire detection and fire sprinklers, and 

an alarm system. The storage area was 

designed by curation specialists at the NPS 

Southeast Region office in Atlanta and meets 

museum standards set by the Secretary of the 

Interior. The archeological artifacts are 

primarily stored at the NPS Southeast 

Archeological Center in Tallahassee, Florida. 

The parkway’s museum collections contain 

over 690,000 artifacts and specimens. Of 

these, more than 10,500 are archeological 

specimens, most of which are housed at the 

NPS Southeast Archeological Center in 

Tallahassee, Florida. The center’s conditions 

meet museum standards. The remaining 

parkway collections include 700,000 archival 

collections, 1,050 cultural collections, 60 

works of art, 32,000 biological and botanic 

specimens; no fossils or paleontological 

specimens, and 2,400 geological specimens. 

The implementation of any of the action 

alternatives would not result in changes to 

management of the museum collection or in 

substantial additions to the museum 

collections, which would continue to be 

stored and managed as they are currently. The 

management of collections is currently 

directed by existing law and NPS policy. 

Recent archeological work on the parkway 

has focused on managing and documenting 

archeological resources without creating more 

collections through the use of nondestructive 

methods of information gathering, for 

example those related to survey without 

excavation. In addition, museum collections 

would continue to be acquired, accessioned 

and cataloged, preserved, protected, and 

made available for access and use according to 

NPS standards and guidelines. Therefore, the 

topic of museum collections and archives is 

dismissed from further consideration because 

none of the alternative actions would affect 

museum collections. 

Road Conditions 

Road conditions refer to the infrastructure 

along the parkway, such as tunnels, bridges, 

and pavement conditions. When an extensive 

road conditions inventory was completed in 

2004, the pavement along the parkway was 

generally considered to be in good condition. 

Most of the pavement at overlooks was in fair 

condition, and only 1% was in poor condition. 

Most of the access ramp pavement was also in 

fair condition. Some detrimental naturalhazard related damage has occurred, but 

maintenance improvement projects have been 
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

32 

implemented on the parkway that have 

addressed and mitigated this damage. 

None of the management alternatives 

proposed in this general management plan 

would substantially modify ongoing 

maintenance of the parkway road conditions. 

Maintenance would continue under all of the 

alternatives. Repairs due to natural hazards, 

such as rockslides, would continue to be 

completed to ensure the road remains open as 

much as possible. Because the alternatives 

would have no effect or a negligible effect on 

the maintenance and repair of the road, the 

road conditions impact topic has been 

dismissed from further consideration. 

 
The Alternatives 2

Mountain Laurel

Split-rail Fence

35 

INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of developing alternatives is to 

provide a clear basis for choice among a 

diverse set of options for the future 

management of the parkway. 

Many aspects of the desired future condition 

of the parkway are defined in the establishing 

legislation, the parkway’s purpose and 

significance statements and the servicewide 

mandates and policies described earlier. 

Within these parameters, the National Park 

Service solicited input from the public, NPS 

staff, government agencies, tribal officials, and 

other organizations regarding issues and 

desired conditions for the parkway. The 

planning team also gathered information 

about existing visitor use and conditions of 

the parkway’s facilities and resources. The 

team then considered which areas of the 

parkway attract visitors and the locations of 

highly sensitive resources. Using this 

information, the planning team developed 

eight management zones and three sets of 

alternative future management strategies to 

reflect the range of ideas proposed by 

parkway staff and the public. 

This chapter describes the alternatives for 

managing the Blue Ridge Parkway for the next 

20+ years. The chapter includes tables 

summarizing the key differences in 

management strategies among the alternatives, 

management zones, and expected impacts 

from implementing the alternatives. Table 20 

at the end of this chapter presents the 

summary of impacts anticipated from each of 

the alternatives, based on the analysis in 

“Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences.” 

This chapter also describes mitigation 

measures that would lessen or avoid impacts; 

defines a strategy to address user capacity; 

outlines future studies and implementation 

plans needed; and identifies the 

environmentally preferable alternative. 

RELATIONSHIP OF MANAGEMENT 

ZONES AND ALTERNATIVES 

The primary building blocks for reaching an 

approved management plan for a national 

park system unit are the management zones 

and the alternatives. All are developed within 

the scope of the park’s purpose, significance, 

mandates, and legislation. 

Management zones prescribe a range of 

desired resource conditions and visitor 

experiences for the park and include 

statements about the appropriate kinds and 

levels of management, use, and development 

in each zone. The management zones provide 

primary guidance for subsequent decision 

making in the park and are the core of the 

general management plan. Eight management 

zones have been defined for the Blue Ridge 

Parkway (see table 3). These are graphically 

shown on the maps for alternatives B and C to 

reflect the management concept proposed for 

each alternative. 

Each of the alternatives in this general 

management plan presents an overall 

management concept and proposals about 

how different parkway programs and areas 

could be managed through the application of 

the management zones and other strategies. 

The concept for each alternative gives 

planners and park staff the idea for what the 

alternative would look like. For example, 

perhaps one management zone is called 

natural and another zone is called recreation. 

An alternative whose concept is to keep most 

of a park area in an undeveloped condition 

would have more of the natural zone applied 

than the recreation zone. Both zones might 

also be larger or smaller or in different 

locations, depending on the overall concept 

for each alternative. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

36 

This Final Blue Ridge Parkway General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement presents three alternatives for the 

future management of the parkway. 

Alternative A is the no-action alternative and 

proposes a continuation of current 

management direction; the development and 

discussion of a no-action alternative is 

required by law. The current management 

direction for the parkway is not based on 

management zones. Thus, it serves most 

importantly as a baseline for comparing the 

action alternatives, alternative B and 

alternative C. The action alternatives generally 

present alternative approaches to the park’s 

current management direction, including 

different ways to manage natural and cultural 

resources, visitor use, operations, and facilities 

and other infrastructure of the parkway. 

Many aspects of current management may 

have merit; in those cases, the action 

alternatives may embrace or build on that 

current direction. 

The three alternatives embody the range of 

what the public and the National Park Service 

desire to see accomplished with regard to 

natural and cultural resource conditions, 

scenery conservation, land protection, visitor 

opportunities and experience, traffic and 

transportation, concessions, and other 

services. 

As noted in the "Guidance for Planning" 

section of chapter 1, all of the alternatives 

considered in this general management plan 

would allow the National Park Service to 

continue to follow existing agreements and 

servicewide mandates, laws, and policies. 

These mandates and policies are not repeated 

in this chapter. 

FORMULATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES 

The alternatives focus on what resource 

conditions, visitor uses, experiences, and 

opportunities should be provided at the 

parkway rather than on details of how these 

conditions and uses/experiences should be 

achieved. Thus, the alternatives do not include 

many details on the implementation of 

resource and visitor use management 

objectives. More detailed implementation 

plans would be developed following approval 

of the general management plan. 

Alternative visions for managing the parkway 

were developed by identifying different ways 

to address the planning issues identified in 

chapter 1, in context with the parkway’s 

purpose and significance. In developing this 

range of alternatives, the National Park 

Service adhered to the requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act, while 

giving careful consideration to the parkway’s 

enabling legislation. Oftentimes, this required 

balancing natural and cultural resource 

protection with visitor services, facilities, and 

recreational opportunities. The following 

major decision points were used to help 

develop these alternative concepts: 

1. To what extent should the original 

design of the parkway be preserved, or 

under what circumstances might some 

design elements be modified for the 

purposes of visitor convenience and 

safety, management of special 

resources, or fiscal or operational 

efficiency? 

2. Are current visitation patterns and 

activities appropriate and sustainable, 

or are changes needed to protect 

special and/or fragile resources or 

enhance or modify the range of visitor 

opportunities? 

3. Is the current range and mix of 

car/RV/bicycle/motorcycle/pedestrian 

use of the parkway road appropriate 

and sustainable, or are changes 

needed for visitor experience and 

safety or for resource protection? 

4. What are the desired conditions for 

the parkway’s natural and cultural 

resources, and what management 

strategies need to be implemented to 

ensure long-term sustainability of 

those conditions? 

5. Can the parkway staff protect 

important scenic views, cultural 

resources, and natural habitats via 

partnerships and agreements with 
Introduction 

37 

parkway neighbors, or to what extent 

are other approaches necessary and 

practical? 

6. How should the National Park Service 

determine whether or not and how 

secondary local or regional roads 

should be allowed to intersect or cross 

the parkway? 

A preliminary version of the alternatives was 

presented to the public in Newsletter 5: 

Preliminary Alternatives (Spring 2008) and

revised in response to public comments. 

More detailed plans or studies would be 

required before most conditions proposed in 

the alternatives are achieved. The 

implementation of any alternative also 

depends on future funding and environmental 

compliance. This plan does not guarantee that 

sufficient money for implementation will be 

forthcoming. The plan establishes a vision of 

the future that would guide day-to-day and 

year-to-year management of the parkway, but 

full implementation could take many years. 

IDENTIFICATION OF THE NPS 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

Identification of the National Park Service’s 

preferred alternative involved evaluating the 

alternatives using an objective analysis process 

called “Choosing by Advantages.” This 

process included a three-day workshop in 

which 24 staff members representing all 

divisions of the Blue Ridge Parkway worked 

together to develop the preferred alternative. 

Through this process, the planning team 

identified and compared the relative 

advantages of each alternative according to a 

set of factors. These factors were selected 

based on the benefits or advantages of each 

alternative to fulfill the purpose of the plan, 

while addressing the planning issues identified 

in chapter 1. These factors include the 

following: 

Factor 1–Maintains or enhances natural 

conditions and processes 

Factor 2–Preserves cultural resources 

Factor 3–Provides for an appropriate range of 

visitor services and recreational opportunities 

Factor 4–Provides a traditional 

parkway/scenic driving experience 

Factor 5–Improves operational effectiveness 

and sustainability 

Factor 6–Provides other advantages to Blue 

Ridge Parkway, regional communities, 

partners, and/or stakeholders 

Decisions made during the Choosing by 

Advantages process were based on the 

importance of advantages between the 

alternatives. This involved the identification 

of the attributes or characteristics of each 

alternative relative to the factors, a 

determination of the advantages for each 

alternative for each factor, and then weighing 

the importance of each advantage. The 

relationship between the advantages and costs 

of each alternative was also established. This 

information was used to identify the 

alternative that provides the National Park 

Service and the public the greatest advantage 

for the most reasonable cost. 

The results of the Choosing by Advantages 

process identified alternative B as the agency’s 

preferred alternative. This alternative 

provides the best combination of strategies to 

protect the park’s unique natural and cultural 

resources and visitor experience, while 

improving the park’s operational effectiveness 

and sustainability. It also provides other 

advantages to the parkway, regional 

communities, partners, and stakeholders. 

Ultimately, alternative B’s significant 

advantage to cultural resources was one of the 

largest determining factors in identifying it as 

the agency’s preferred management 

alternative. 

After alternative B was determined to provide 

the greatest overall advantage, the planning 

team considered if management strategies and 

zoning allocations found in alternative C 

could be incorporated into alternative B to 

provide even greater advantage. As a result of 

this refinement process, alternative B now 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

38 

includes the following primary management 

strategies and zone allocations that were 

originally part of alternative C: 

 Use a regional ecosystemwide approach 

to resource management to promote 

regional natural resource connectivity. 

 Actively pursue new partnerships with 

public and private entities to plan and 

implement joint ventures that support 

parkway goals. 

 Improve RV access to portions of 

campgrounds at Peaks of Otter and 

Julian Price. These campgrounds were 

selected because they have potential to 

accommodate improved RV access 

without jeopardizing their historic 

character as national register-eligible 

cultural landscapes. 

 Convert the Roanoke Mountain 

campground to a day use recreation 

area, including picnic and trail staging 

facilities to better meet the needs of 

visitors. 

 Rezone a portion of the Smart View 

recreation area as natural to provide 

greater advantage for natural resources 

while still allowing for traditional 

recreation opportunities. 

 Rezone a portion of Rocky Knob in the 

bottom of Rock Castle Gorge as special 

cultural resources to provide greater 

protection of sensitive cultural resources 

in the area. 

 Rezone a portion of Cumberland Knob 

as visitor services to provide a greater 

range of services and opportunities for 

visitors, including a location for a Parkas-Classrooms program. 

 Rezone the majority of Julian Price as 

natural to provide a greater advantage to 

natural resources that would be achieved 

through floodplain restoration, 

increased wetland protection, and lower 

impact recreational opportunities. 

With these modifications, alternative B clearly 

has the greatest overall advantage in 

comparison to the other alternatives. Key 

components of the NPS preferred alternative 

include the following: 

 Focuses resources on the traditional 

parkway experience, including 

management based upon the original 

Parkway Land Use Maps as closely as 

possible. 

 Embraces a regional, ecosystemwide 

approach to natural resource 

management. 

 Enhances outdoor recreational 

opportunities on parkway lands, 

including regional trail connection 

through collaborative planning. 

 Emphasizes strategic planning and 

partnerships to address land and 

viewshed protection issues, education, 

and interpretation. 

 Recognizes that parkway concessions 

are a vital part of the parkway experience 

and seeks to invest in those structures 

and businesses to make them more 

viable. 

 Allows for moderate upgrades to 

campgrounds, rather than wholesale 

redesign. 

POTENTIAL BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 

Unlike many national park system units, the 

Blue Ridge Parkway’s establishing legislation 

did not limit or direct land protection by 

establishing a legislated boundary or an 

acquisition ceiling. However, more specific 

direction for any parkway boundary 

adjustments were promulgated under two 

congressional acts—the Act of June 30, 1936 

(49 Stat. 2041), that created the Blue Ridge 

Parkway, and the Act of June 30, 1961 (75 Stat. 

196) that further authorized the purchase and 

exchange of land and interests in land to 

adjust ownership lines and to eliminate 

hazardous crossings of and access points to 

the parkway. Also, a ruling in the United 

States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit (June 

29, 1970) found that acquisition of land for the 

parkway was not limited solely to lands 

required for construction of the roadway but 

land acquired for recreation uses was within 

the statutory purpose of “consolidation” of 

land contiguous to the parkway when 
Introduction 

39 

necessary for public uses. The Fourth Circuit 

Court ruling also concluded that "scenery," 

"natural," "historic objects," and "wildlife” 

were included within the broad definition of 

the term "recreational." 

Land protection for the parkway adheres to 

the congressional acts and court ruling and is 

further guided by a 1994 approved land 

protection plan that would be amended by a 

land protection process that moves away from 

the 1994 predetermined list of tracts of land to 

protect. Tracts of land that become available 

by willing sellers would be evaluated to 

determine which of eight resource and visitor 

use management criteria are met—boundary 

management and ownership, historic or 

cultural landscape sensitivity, transboundary 

natural resource threats, scenic easement 

issues, at-grade crossings or accesses, visual 

sensitivity or scenic quality, visitor experience 

opportunities, and off-parkway recreation 

needs and trends. Compatibility with parkway 

management zoning and current nonfederal 

ownership and uses and local land use 

planning also would be factors considered to 

establish priorities for protection. 

Only those land protection actions with 

willing sellers and that meet the evaluation 

criteria and compatibility analysis stated 

above would be deemed necessary by the 

National Park Service to carry out the land 

protection purposes of the parkway. Land 

protection plan priorities would include 

acquiring interests in lands to accomplish one 

or more of the eight resource and visitor use 

management criteria, to ensure compatibility 

of adjacent land use, eliminate or control 

hazardous at-grade motor road crossings or 

accesses, provide for recreation or natural and 

cultural resource protection, and conserve 

quality scenic views. 

When the parkway was established, the states 

of Virginia and North Carolina donated 

parkway right-of-way acreages of 100 and 115 

acres per mile, respectively. This did not meet 

the National Park Service standard of 150 

acres per mile. Thus, NPS acquisition of 

interests in land has been an ongoing land 

protection strategy for the parkway, with the 

goal of meeting or exceeding the 150 acres per 

mile standard. That strategy would continue 

under land protection proposals presented in 

the general management plan with a 

difference in emphasis for each action 

alternative. 

Other potential boundary adjustments would 

include focusing at-grade road access and 

crossing land protection projects throughout 

the Plateau and Highland segments and in the 

northern section of the Black Mountain 

segment where the majority of private and 

secondary road at-grade crossings and access 

points occur. Recreation projects would be 

more dispersed parkway-wide and might 

occur in any of the segments. Transboundary 

natural resource protection priorities would 

be greatest in segments 5 and 7 but could 

occur parkway-wide depending upon severity 

of threat to resources. Land protection 

projects to conserve quality scenic views 

would be based upon the parkway’s scenery 

conservation system. 

The scenery conservation system identifies 

some 1,200 landscape or view areas that lie 

beyond the parkway boundary and that are 

visible from overlooks, roadside vistas, 

agricultural leases, or scenic easements. Of the 

1,200 view areas, about half of the scenic views 

are in the Plateau, Highland, and Black 

Mountain segments. Conservation of scenic 

views would be focused in these segments. 

Potential acquisitions are identified on a 

project-by-project basis when a willing seller 

or a private land trust contacts park land 

resource staff. 

Because discrete boundary adjustments are 

authorized for park purposes on an as-needed 

basis, this general management plan does not 

call for any specific boundary adjustments. 
40 

THE ALTERNATIVES 

ORGANIZATION OF ALTERNATIVES 

Given the length and complexity of the Blue 

Ridge Parkway, information on the 

alternatives has been organized into three 

levels of detail: (1) parkway-wide, (2) parkway 

segments, and (3) major recreation areas. This 

organization is used to aid in the comparison 

of the no-action alternative, A, against both of 

the two action alternatives, B and C. 

Parkway-wide 

The parkway-wide discussion presents the 

overall concept for each alternative followed 

by management strategies that affect parkwaywide programs, activities, or resources. These 

strategies are organized by the following 10 

management topics: 

 scenery conservation 

 land protection 

 natural resources 

 cultural resources 

 interpretation and visitor services 

 concessions 

 access and circulation 

 campgrounds 

 trails 

 partnerships

For the no-action alternative, information is 

presented that helps identify current parkwaywide activities and programs, as well as some 

of the ongoing issues and concerns that the 

proposals for alternatives B and C may 

address. 

Parkway Segments 

The seven parkway segments are based 

primarily on physiographic and landscape 

characteristics. This organization also 

separates out the two major urban centers 

along the parkway—Roanoke, Virginia, and 

Asheville, North Carolina. The mapping and 

analysis of the parkway segments focuses 

specifically on the relatively narrow parkway 

road corridor; the large, complex recreation 

areas found in the segments are addressed 

separately. The segments are identified with 

reference to the roadway mileposts, beginning 

with “0” at the northern entrance of the 

parkway and ending at milepost 469 near the 

southern entrance. 

 Segment 1—Ridge, mileposts 0–106 

 Segment 2—Roanoke, mileposts 106–136 

 Segment 3—Plateau, mileposts 136–217 

 Segment 4—Highlands, mileposts 217–

305 

 Segment 5—Black Mountain, mileposts 

305–377 

 Segment 6—Asheville, mileposts 377–

394 

 Segment 7—Pisgah, mileposts 394–469 

FIGURE 1. PARKWAY MILEPOST MARKER

Parkway Recreation Areas 

When the parkway was designed and 

constructed, the idea of providing a leisurely, 

scenic driving route included providing 

recreation areas at intervals where visitors 

could stop, rest, and recreate. Often referred 

to as the “pearls along the necklace,” many of 
The Alternatives 

41 

these recreation “pearls” are quite large and 

diverse in their natural and cultural resources 

and visitor services. There are 15 major 

recreation areas for which separate planning 

actions and zoning maps have been 

developed. These areas are shown on the 

parkway segment maps inside a gray box, 

which indicates that they are discussed and 

mapped separately on subsequent pages. 

They are as follows: 

 Humpback Rocks, mileposts 6–10 

 James River/Otter Creek, mileposts 60–

65 

 Peaks of Otter, mileposts 82–91 

 Roanoke Mountain, mileposts 118–122 

 Smart View, milepost 155 

 Rocky Knob, mileposts 166–174 

 Mabry Mill, milepost 176 

 Blue Ridge Music Center, milepost 213 

 Cumberland Knob, mileposts 217–219 

 Doughton Park, mileposts 236–247 

 Julian Price Memorial Park, mileposts 

295–300 

 Linville Falls, mileposts 315–319 

 Crabtree Falls, mileposts 339–340 

 Craggy Gardens, mileposts 364–369 

 Mt. Pisgah, mileposts 407–409 

Please note that there are a few recreation 

areas that are not included in this list. Some, 

including Whetstone Ridge in Virginia and 

E.B. Jeffress Park in North Carolina, are 

relatively small, uncomplicated sites and are 

zoned in the parkway segment areas. A major 

exception is the Moses H. Cone Memorial 

Park near the cities of Boone / Blowing Rock, 

North Carolina. Due to some very specific 

management issues relating to trail use for 

bicycling and horseback riding, a separate 

developed area management plan and 

environmental assessment is being prepared 

for this area. (For more information, refer to 

the segment 4-Highlands page.) 

ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS AND 

STRATEGIES 

Alternative A: Continuation of 

Current Management Practices 

This alternative would continue how the Blue 

Ridge Parkway has been and is now being 

managed; issues are addressed through 

superintendent’s orders or other programspecific policy guidance, but there is not a 

comprehensive parkway-wide resource and 

visitor use management direction for setting 

priorities. Resource and visitor use issues and 

conflicts are resolved on a case-by-case basis 

without the guidance of an agreed upon 

parkway-wide management strategy. 

Under this alternative, the parkway would 

continue to be managed primarily as a scenic 

recreational driving experience and designed 

landscape, as conceived and realized over 

several decades, from the founding vision of 

the park in 1935 to at least 1955, and possibly 

later. (A national historic landmark 

nomination which is underway will provide a 

comprehensive analysis of the exceptional 

qualities of the parkway and a definitive 

statement of its period of significance.) The 

original driving experience was designed for 

ideal picturesque scenery ranging from 

landscaped roadsides to quaint Appalachian 

settlements to rolling pastoral farm fields to 

imposing mountain vistas. 

Although parkway managers would continue 

to strive to maintain the various aspects of the 

original designed landscape and scenic driving 

concept, the parkway would continue to 

adjust daily management practices to respond 

to current laws and policies, natural and 

cultural resource management mandates, 

visitor safety needs, infrastructure 

deficiencies, fiscal constraints, changes in 

regional conditions, and changes in visitor 

use. 

Partnerships would continue to be an integral 

part of park management, but would still be 

used for specific projects as opportunities 

arise, rather than pursuing a regional strategy 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

42 

to address issues through partnerships both 

inside parkway boundaries and beyond.

Scenery Conservation. 

 Complete the baseline evaluation of the 

quality and condition of off-parkway 

scenic views as seen from parkway 

overlooks and roadside vistas. 

 As opportunities arise, and especially as 

impending land use changes threaten to 

diminish views from the parkway, use 

the baseline evaluation to work with 

adjacent landowners, county officials, 

developers, land trusts, and other 

partners to conserve the idealized scenes 

of the central and southern 

Appalachians through land purchases, 

easements, or creative partnerships with 

landowners, land trusts, and 

municipalities. 

Land Protection. 

 Continue to acquire interests in lands 

adjoining the parkway boundary from 

willing sellers to eliminate private road 

accesses (consistent with parkway 

legislation), to consolidate irregular 

portions of the parkway boundary that 

are difficult to manage, and to conserve 

tracts of land of moderate to high scenic 

quality (see also “Scenery Conservation” 

above). 

 Continue to amend the current land 

protection plan on an as-needed basis 

without an overall land protection 

strategy. 

Natural Resources. 

 Inventory and management of natural 

resources continues to be primarily sitespecific and reactive to laws and policies, 

visitor safety concerns, and projects in 

the parkway. 

 Continue to plan the natural resource 

program on an annual basis, thus 

discouraging the implementation of 

multiyear projects and engaging partners 

on a project-specific basis. 

 Continue to manage the parkway as a 

class II air quality park; this classification 

does not qualify the parkway for funding 

to monitor and influence air quality 

standards in the region. 

 Continue to manage wildlife with a focus 

primarily on individual and nuisance 

species. 

 Manage invasive flora and fauna only 

where they affect threatened and 

endangered species. Continue to work 

with partners on site-specific projects. 

 Continue to manage designed landscape 

features, such as human-made lakes, for 

scenic and recreational purposes. 

 Continue to manage roadsides, vista 

clearings, and agricultural leases 

primarily for scenic qualities. Vista 

management strategies would continue 

to incorporate habitat mitigation 

measures to protect the Carolina 

northern flying squirrel. 

Cultural Resources. 

 Seek designation of the designed 

parkway corridor as a national historic 

landmark district while continuing to 

manage it as an eligible resource. The 

principal components of this designed 

landscape are the parkway road with its 

supporting structures and constructed 

landforms, a scenic corridor provided by 

a broad right-of-way, a chain of 17 

original and 3 more recent recreation 

areas, and a variety of exhibits 

interpreting the natural and cultural 

histories of the region. 

 Continue to give priority for 

preservation to historic structures that 

are directly associated with the 

parkway's original design intent and that 

are listed as structures contributing to 

the national significance of the parkway. 

Structures constructed or acquired after 

1955 are not considered to contribute to 

the significance of the parkway and as 

such, their merits for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places and 

preservation activities would be 

determined individually. 
The Alternatives 

43 

 Continue to manage currently 

maintained vistas above 4,000 feet 

elevation, but determine their size and 

configuration by best practices for 

managing the potential habitat of 

sensitive species. 

 Where operationally feasible, continue 

to use the historic Parkway Land Use 

Maps, which document the as-built 

conditions and desired future 

maintenance standards for the designed 

landscape, as a guide for maintenance of 

the parkway road prism within available 

funding resources. 

 When an endangered species is present 

or a similar natural resource issue 

occurs, modify the management of 

cultural resources on a case-by-case 

basis. 

Interpretation and Visitor Services. 

 Continue to implement curriculumbased school outreach programs using 

current staffing levels at schools and in 

the parkway, as available, during the 

school year. 

 Continue to operate a six-month visitor 

season, providing interpretive activities 

and visitor services at a basic level. 

 Continue visitor education using 

publications and waysides. 

 At the parkway’s 14 visitor contact 

stations, have park and partner staff 

continue to contact about 1 million of 

the 16 million annual visitors. 

 Continue to maintain 20 recreation areas 

along the length of the parkway with 

traditional visitor services that support a 

recreational and scenic driving 

experience, including camping, lodging, 

restaurants, camp stores, and picnic 

sites. 

Concessions. Continue to offer concession 

services, primarily lodging and food, at some 

locations where economically feasible. 

Concession services that are no longer 

economically viable would be eliminated. The 

structures housing those services would either 

be adaptively used or removed (except for 

those eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places). 

Access and Circulation. 

 Continue the moratorium on secondary 

road improvement projects in both 

Virginia and North Carolina until a 

comprehensive corridor access 

management plan and environmental 

impact statement are completed. Only 

address road improvements that are 

necessary to ensure public health and 

safety outside the comprehensive 

planning and compliance process. 

Continue to evaluate primary state and 

federal highway improvements or new 

construction projects on a project-byproject basis. 

 Continue to allow nonrecreational local 

and commuter traffic to increase as rural 

and urban lands adjacent to the parkway 

are developed for residential and 

commercial purposes. 

Campgrounds. 

 Continue to operate the parkway’s nine 

campgrounds, including future repairs 

and rehabilitations focused on meeting 

backlog maintenance needs. 

 Upgrade selected campground comfort 

stations to provide showers and 

universal accessibility. 

 Maintain existing tent sites, including 

many small sites that do not adequately 

accommodate large, family sized tents. 

 Maintain amphitheaters to provide 

ongoing interpretive programs for 

visitors. 

 Maintain existing RV camping without 

water and electrical hookups at all 

campgrounds. 

 Maintain existing access at all 

campgrounds, including that which does 

not adequately accommodate larger RVs 

(i.e., narrow roads, tight turns, and small 

parking spaces). 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

44 

Trails. 

 Work in partnership with the managers 

of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail 

to avoid sensitive resource areas by 

relocating some trail sections. Work with 

volunteer organizations and the state of 

North Carolina to complete the 

Mountains-to-Sea Trail within the 

parkway boundary where feasible. 

 Continue to allow bicycling on the main 

parkway road and other parkway roads, 

recognizing that bicyclists would be 

sharing the road with higher volumes of 

motorized traffic, especially in the more 

urbanized areas of the parkway. 

 Continue to allow equestrian use on 

designated trails. 

Partnerships. Allow the parkway’s active 

partnership program to continue to grow and 

develop. Continue current pace, growth, and 

evolution of partnerships. Respond on a caseby-case basis to requests for new partnerships 

with public and private entities in joint 

ventures.

Alternative B: NPS Preferred 

The parkway would be actively managed as a 

traditional, self-contained, scenic recreational 

driving experience and designed landscape. 

To support that experience, many of the 

parkway’s recreation areas would provide 

enhanced opportunities for dispersed outdoor 

recreation activities. 

Although similar to alternative A, this 

alternative would more proactively blend 

newer law and policy requirements and 

operational constraints with the traditional 

parkway concept developed from 1935 to 

1955. As a result, this alternative would 

provide a better balance between traditional 

parkway experiences and modern-day 

management realities. For example, some 

areas would be managed differently to address 

natural and cultural resource concerns and 

visitor experiences or to achieve critical 

operational efficiencies. 

This alternative would provide a 

comprehensive parkway-wide approach to 

resource and visitor use management. Specific 

management zones detailing acceptable 

resource conditions, visitor experience and 

use levels, and appropriate activities and 

development would be applied to parkway 

lands consistent with this concept. This 

alternative would also seek to enhance 

resource protection, regional natural resource 

connectivity, and build stronger connections 

with adjacent communities. 

Scenery Conservation. 

 Complete the baseline evaluation of the 

quality and condition of off-parkway 

scenic views as seen from parkway 

overlooks and roadside vistas. Using the 

baseline evaluation as a guide, identify 

views along the parkway to be protected. 

 Actively collaborate with adjacent 

landowners, county officials, and 

developers on a site-specific project 

basis to conserve priority scenery. In 

addition, the parkway would work with 

its partners to provide leadership for 

regional efforts among adjacent 

landowners; local, state, and federal 

officials; and developers to establish 

long-term strategies for conserving views 

from the parkway. 

Land Protection. 

 Continue to acquire interests in lands 

adjoining the parkway boundary from 

willing sellers to eliminate private road 

accesses (consistent with parkway 

legislation), to consolidate irregular 

portions of the parkway boundary that 

are difficult to manage, and to conserve 

tracts of land of moderate to high scenic 

quality (see also “Scenery Conservation” 

above). In addition, acquire interests in 

lands for protection of natural, cultural, 

and recreational resources, and seek 

regional partnerships to provide for 

additional options to protect resources. 

 Implement a land protection strategy 

that does not identify specific tracts of 

land, but establishes (1) resource and 
The Alternatives 

45 

visitor use management criteria, (2) park 

management zoning and land use 

compatibility factors, and/or (3) other 

protection goals that would be used to 

evaluate the merits of a property when it 

becomes available from willing sellers. 

Proactively seek out willing sellers for 

high-priority parcels. 

Natural Resources. 

 Make inventory and management of 

natural resources more proactive, 

incorporating a long-term approach that 

actively strives to advance regional 

ecosystem health through active 

partnerships with public and private 

entities. 

 Establish a multiyear planning process 

for the natural resource program to 

implement multiyear projects. 

 Pursue class I air quality classification 

and seek NPS and non-NPS project 

funding for monitoring and influencing 

air quality standards in the region. 

 Shift wildlife management focus to a 

more ecosystem-based approach in the 

region. 

 Consider strategies to maintain and 

improve habitat connectivity along and 

across the parkway corridor. 

 Shift management of invasive flora and 

fauna from reactive, site-specific 

management to more comprehensive, 

parkway-wide and regional strategies. 

 Continue to manage designed landscape 

features, such as human-made lakes, for 

scenic and recreational purposes. 

 Modify some landscape areas 

traditionally managed for scenery, such 

as roadsides, vista clearings, and 

agricultural leases, to actively protect 

natural resources. Improve habitat 

external to the parkway boundary 

through work with partners. 

Soundscapes. 

 The following list includes indirect 

management strategies which apply 

information education, and persuasion 

techniques to influence visitor behavior. 

Indirect management is often preferred 

because it allows visitors the freedom to 

choose their actions. 

-Encourage visitors to be respectful of 

others by not producing excessive 

noise. 

-Develop and implement educational 

and interpretive programs on 

soundscapes. 

-Consider identifying and designating 

“quiet zone areas”. These areas would 

be identified on maps, through signs, 

and through interpretation. Visitors 

will be encouraged to be quiet enough 

to hear natural sounds in these areas. 

-Plan in advance. Notify visitors during 

the planning process of the 

importance of acoustic resources. 

-Encourage Leave No Trace Principle 

#7 (be considerate of other visitors) as 

related to soundscapes. 

-Collaborate with adjacent property 

owners, appropriate federal, state, and 

local agencies and organizations to 

reduce noise. 

 The following list includes direct 

management strategies which rely upon 

enforcement of rules and regulations: 

-In sensitive acoustic zones, reroute 

loud vehicles to routes outside of the 

parkway, or to less sensitive acoustic 

zones within the parkway. 

-Park management should consider 

ways to reduce their own noise 

footprint, as well as those caused by 

visitors or outside sources. Operation 

of maintenance equipment, tools, and 

construction equipment should be 

limited to times and locations that 

minimize impacts on visitors and 

ecologically sensitive areas. Parkway 

staff should select models of 

equipment with the lowest sound 

levels and operational specifications 

that meet their needs. Increase the use 

of quiet technology where 

appropriate. 

 The following list includes indirect 

management strategies specifically 

designed for visitors riding motorcycles: 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

46 

-Encourage quiet and courteous riding 

through education. This message 

could be delivered to motorcyclist 

through a variety of “messengers” 

including NPS staff, gateway 

communities, friends groups, and local 

partners and stakeholders. Example 

messaging for roadside signs, 

brochures, website, and visitor center: 

Don’t rev it up! Ride motorcycles 

respectfully along the parkway. 

Example messaging for campgrounds: 

Be considerate of campground quiet 

hours. 

-Be aware that the noise you make 

could affect other visitors and 

encourage friends and family to do the 

same. 

- Discourage use of modified exhaust 

systems that increase noise levels. 

 The following list includes direct 

management strategies specifically 

designed for visitors riding motorcycles: 

-Consider having groups of organized 

riders acquire a special use permit. 

-Any applications for organized rides 

must go through NEPA analysis. 

-Enforce existing noise ordinances (36 

CFR section 2.12). Under this section 

the following is prohibited: Operating 

motorized equipment or machinery 

that exceeds a noise level of 60 

decibels measured on the A-weighted 

at 50 feet or, if below that level, 

nevertheless, makes noise that is 

unreasonable. 

Cultural Resources. 

 Seek designation of the designed 

parkway corridor as a national historic 

landmark district while continuing to 

manage it as an eligible resource. The 

principal components of this designed 

landscape are the parkway road with its 

supporting structures and constructed 

landforms, a scenic corridor provided by 

a broad right-of-way, a chain of 17 

original and 3 more recent recreation 

areas, and a variety of exhibits 

interpreting the natural and cultural 

histories of the region. 

 Continue to give priority for 

preservation to historic structures that 

are directly associated with the 

parkway's original design intent and that 

are listed as structures contributing to 

the national significance of the parkway. 

Structures constructed or acquired after 

1955 are not considered to contribute to 

the significance of the parkway and as 

such, their merits for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places and 

preservation activities would be 

determined individually. 

 Continue to manage currently 

maintained vistas above 4,000 feet 

elevation, but determine their size and 

configuration by best practices for 

managing the potential habitat of 

sensitive species. 

 Update the historic Parkway Land Use 

Maps to protect the parkway’s historic 

integrity while accommodating newer 

law and policy requirements and 

operational constraints. 

Interpretation and Visitor Services. 

 Continue to implement curriculumbased school outreach programs using 

current staffing levels at schools and in 

the parkway, as available, during the 

school year 

 Expand operations at selected locations 

to provide services for a nine-month 

visitor season. These locations include: 

Humpback Rocks, James River, Peaks of 

Otter, Mabry Mill, Blue Ridge Music 

Center, Linn Cove, Linville Falls, 

Museum of North Carolina Minerals, 

Craggy Gardens, Folk Art Center, and 

Waterrock Knob. 

 Increase visitor education using 

publications and waysides and emerging 

technology. 

 Substantially increase the number of 

visitors contacted over current levels by 

providing visitor orientation services at 

underserved parkway entrances, 

particularly the northern and 

southernmost entrances. 
The Alternatives 

47 

 Continue to maintain 20 recreation areas 

along the length of the parkway with 

traditional visitor services that support a 

recreational and scenic driving 

experience, including camping, lodging, 

restaurants, camp stores, and picnic 

sites. Ensure that in the future these 

traditional recreation services remain a 

high priority and are enhanced, as 

needed, to respond to increases in visitor 

demand. This could be accomplished 

through hardening trails, providing 

overflow parking, and developing 

additional picnic sites, among other 

actions. 

Concessions. Continue to find ways to 

provide viable concession services at all 

existing locations to ensure the long-term 

availability of in-parkway lodging, food, and 

other services. Strategies might include 

making upgrades to existing infrastructure 

and/or adding new facilities where 

appropriate. 

Access and Circulation. 

 Continue the moratorium on secondary 

road improvement projects in both 

Virginia and North Carolina until a 

comprehensive corridor access 

management plan and environmental 

impact statement are completed. Only 

address road improvements that are 

necessary to ensure public health and 

safety outside the comprehensive 

planning and compliance process. 

Continue to evaluate primary state and 

federal highway improvements or new 

construction projects on a project-byproject basis. 

 Accomplish management of some 

nonrecreational local and commuter 

traffic by replacing at-grade crossings 

with new grade separation structures 

(some without access between the 

parkway and state road). 

Campgrounds. 

 Continue to operate eight of the 

parkway’s existing campgrounds, 

including future repairs and 

rehabilitations focused on meeting 

backlog maintenance needs. Convert the 

Roanoke Mountain campground to a 

day use recreation area. Collaborate with 

local communities and other park 

partners to consider innovative ways to 

effectively manage Roanoke Mountain 

over the interim of this conversion from 

a campground to a day use area. 

 Upgrade selected campground comfort 

stations to provide showers. Upgrade all 

campground comfort stations to be 

universally accessible. 

 Enlarge selected tent sites to better 

accommodate family sized tents. 

 Upgrade certain amphitheaters to better 

accommodate visitors during 

interpretive programs. 

 Upgrade existing RV sites with water 

and electrical hookups at all 

campgrounds, except at Roanoke 

Mountain. 

 Improve RV access to portions of 

campgrounds at Peaks of Otter and 

Julian Price. Upgrades at these 

campgrounds would include such things 

as widening the campground entrance 

and one of the loop roads, increasing 

turning radii, and enlarging existing RV 

parking spaces. Only a portion of the RV 

spaces at the campgrounds would be 

redesigned to better accommodate RVs. 

Trails. 

 Work in partnership with the managers 

of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail 

to avoid sensitive resource areas by 

relocating some trail sections. Work with 

volunteer organizations and the state of 

North Carolina to complete the 

Mountains-to-Sea Trail within the 

parkway boundary where feasible. 

 Continue to allow bicycling on the main 

parkway road and other parkway roads, 

recognizing that bicyclists would be 

sharing the road with higher volumes of 

motorized traffic, especially in the more 

urbanized areas of the parkway. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

48 

 Ensure that undesignated social trails are 

not authorized within the parkway and 

any future designated connections to 

parkway trails would only be developed 

on public lands in collaboration with the 

associated local land management 

agencies. 

 Strive to close and restore undesignated 

social trails in the parkway as much as 

possible, particularly when the 

undesignated trails are known to be 

causing notable negative impacts to 

natural resources, visitor experiences, or 

adjacent neighborhoods. 

 Develop adequate, formal parking areas 

for designated parkway trails to ensure 

visitor safety, protect resources, and 

preserve community character in 

adjacent or nearby neighborhoods. 

 Develop improvements for equestrian 

use in designated areas. 

Partnerships. Actively pursue new 

partnerships with public and private entities 

to plan and implement joint ventures that 

support parkway goals. Explore broader base 

of partnerships.

Alternative C 

Parkway management would be more 

integrated with the larger region’s resources 

and economy. More emphasis would be 

placed on reaching out to communities and 

linking to regional natural, recreational, and 

cultural heritage resources and experiences. 

The parkway would continue to be managed 

to retain the fundamental character of the 

traditional designed landscape and scenic 

driving experience. However, a variety of 

more modern recreational and visitor service 

amenities would be provided, primarily 

concentrated in visitor services areas. As a 

result, portions of some recreation areas 

would be redesigned. 

Parkway lands away from the visitor services 

areas would be managed primarily to enhance 

regional natural resource connectivity and 

scenic qualities. This alternative would also 

enhance visitors’ ability to connect to, 

explore, and learn about the region's natural 

and cultural heritage. For example, parkway 

programs and facilities would be used to 

direct visitors to heritage trails, scenic byways, 

and other public lands. 

This alternative would provide a 

comprehensive parkway-wide approach to 

resource and visitor use management. Specific 

management zones detailing acceptable 

resource conditions, visitor experience and 

use levels, and appropriate activities and 

development would be applied to parkway 

lands consistent with this concept. 

Scenery Conservation. 

 Complete the baseline evaluation of the 

quality and condition of off-parkway 

scenic views as seen from parkway 

overlooks and roadside vistas. Using the 

baseline evaluation as a guide, identify 

views along the parkway to be protected. 

 Actively collaborate with adjacent 

landowners, county officials, and 

developers on a site-specific project 

basis to conserve priority scenery. In 

addition, the parkway would work with 

its partners to provide leadership for 

regional efforts among adjacent 

landowners; local, state, and federal 

officials; and developers to establish 

long-term strategies for conserving views 

from the parkway. 

Soundscapes. 

 The following list includes indirect 

management strategies which apply 

information, education, and persuasion 

techniques to influence visitor behavior. 

Indirect management is often preferred 

because it allows visitors freedom to 

choose their actions. 

-Encourage visitors to be respectful of 

others by not producing excessive 

noise.

- Develop and implement educational 

and interpretive programs on 

soundscapes. 
The Alternatives 

49 

-Consider identifying and designating 

“quiet zone areas.” These areas would 

be identified on maps, through signs, 

and through interpretation. Visitors 

will be encouraged to be quiet enough 

to hear natural sounds in these areas. 

-Plan in advance. Notify visitors during 

the planning process of the 

importance of acoustic resources. 

-Encourage Leave No Trace Principle 

#7 (be considerate of other visitors) as 

related to soundscapes. 

-Collaborate with adjacent property 

owners, appropriate federal, state, and 

local agencies, and organizations to 

reduce noise. 

 The following list includes direct 

management strategies which rely upon 

enforcement of rules and regulations. 

-In sensitive acoustic zones, reroute 

loud vehicles to routes outside of the 

parkway, or to less sensitive acoustic 

zones within the parkway. 

-Park management should consider 

ways to reduce their own noise 

footprint, as well as those caused by 

visitors or outside sources. Operation 

of maintenance equipment, tools, and 

construction equipment should be 

limited to times and locations that 

minimize impacts on visitors and 

ecologically sensitive areas. Parkway 

staff should select models of 

equipment with the lowest sound 

levels and operational specifications 

that meet their needs. 

-Increase the use of quiet technology 

where appropriate. 

 The following list includes indirect 

management strategies specifically 

designed for visitors riding motorcycles. 

-Encourage quiet and courteous riding 

through education. This message 

could be delivered to motorcyclist 

through a variety of “messengers” 

including NPS staff, gateway 

communities, friends groups, and local 

partners and stakeholders. Example 

messaging for roadside signs, 

brochures, website, and visitor center: 

Don’t rev it up! Ride motorcycles 

respectfully along the parkway. 

Example messaging for campgrounds: 

Be considerate of campground quiet 

hours. Be aware that the noise you 

make could affect other visitors, and 

encourage friends and family to do the 

same. 

-Discourage use of modified exhaust 

systems that increase noise levels. 

 The following list includes direct 

management strategies specifically 

designed for visitors riding motorcycles. 

-Consider having groups of organized 

riders acquire a special use permit. 

-Any applications for organized rides 

must go through NEPA analysis. 

-Enforce existing noise ordinances (36 

CFR section 2.12). Under this section 

the following is prohibited: Operating 

motorized equipment or machinery 

that exceeds a noise level of 60 

decibels measured on the A-weighted 

at 50 feet or, if below that level, 

nevertheless, makes noise that is 

unreasonable. 

Land Protection. 

 Continue to acquire interests in lands 

adjoining the parkway boundary from 

willing sellers to eliminate private road 

accesses (consistent with parkway 

legislation), to consolidate irregular 

portions of the parkway boundary that 

are difficult to manage, and to conserve 

tracts of land of moderate to high scenic 

quality (see also Scenery Conservation, 

above). In addition, acquire interests in 

lands for protection of natural, cultural, 

and recreational resources, and seek 

regional partnerships to provide for 

additional options to protect resources. 

 Implement a land protection strategy 

that does not identify specific tracts of 

land, but establishes criteria for 

acquisition and/or other protection that 

would be used to evaluate the merits of a 

property when it becomes available from 

willing sellers. Proactively seek out 

willing sellers for high-priority parcels. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

50 

Natural Resources. 

 Make inventory and management of 

natural resources more proactive, 

incorporating a long-term approach that 

actively strives to advance regional 

ecosystem health through active 

partnerships with public and private 

entities. 

 Establish a multiyear planning process 

for the natural resource program to 

implement multiyear projects. 

 Pursue class I air quality classification 

and seek NPS and non-NPS project 

funding for monitoring and influencing 

air quality standards in the region. 

 Shift wildlife management focus to a 

more ecosystem-based approach in the 

region. 

 Shift management of invasive flora and 

fauna from reactive, site-specific 

management to more comprehensive 

parkway-wide and regional strategies. 

 Possibly convert some human-made 

water features to natural habitat. 

 Modify some landscape areas 

traditionally managed for scenery, such 

as roadsides, vista clearings, and 

agricultural leases, to actively protect 

natural resources. Improve habitat 

external to the parkway boundary 

through work with partners. 

Cultural Resources. 

 Seek designation of the designed 

parkway corridor as a national historic 

landmark district while continuing to 

manage it as an eligible resource. The 

principal components of this designed 

landscape are the parkway road with its 

supporting structures and constructed 

landforms, a scenic corridor provided by 

a broad right-of-way, a chain of 17 

original and 3 more recent recreation 

areas, and a variety of exhibits 

interpreting the natural and cultural 

histories of the region. 

 Continue to give priority for 

preservation to historic structures that 

are directly associated with the 

parkway's original design intent and that 

are listed as structures contributing to 

the national significance of the parkway. 

Structures constructed or acquired after 

1955 are not considered to contribute to 

the significance of the parkway and as 

such, their merits for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places and 

preservation activities would be 

determined individually. 

 Continue to manage currently 

maintained vistas above 4,000 feet 

elevation, but determine their size and 

configuration by best practices for 

managing the potential habitat of 

sensitive species. 

 Create new parkway land use maps that 

would restore the parkway’s original 

design intent that expresses viewsheds 

and landscapes of Southern and Central 

Appalachia. This would allow for minor 

deviations from the parkway’s physical 

features when necessary. 

Interpretation and Visitor Services. 

 Continue to implement curriculumbased school outreach programs using 

current staffing levels at schools and in 

the parkway, as available, during the 

school year 

 Expand operations at selected locations 

to provide services for a nine-month 

visitor season. These locations include: 

James River, Blue Ridge Music Center, 

Linn Cove, Museum of North Carolina 

Minerals, Craggy Gardens, and 

Waterrock Knob. 

 Expand operations to provide services 

for a 12-month visitor season at select 

locations. These locations include: 

Humpback Rocks, Peaks of Otter, 

Mabry Mill, Linville Falls, and the Folk 

Art Center. 

 Increase visitor education using 

publications and waysides and emerging 

technology and expand the parkway’s 

active participation in regional heritage 

tourism projects. 

 Substantially increase the number of 

visitors contacted over current levels by 
The Alternatives 

51 

providing visitor orientation services at 

underserved parkway entrances, 

particularly the northern and 

southernmost entrances. Provide 

regional visitor information services at 

Roanoke and Boone/Blowing Rock 

areas. 

 Maintain flexibility of the design and 

function of all recreation areas and 

infrastructure, especially in the visitor 

services zones, to adapt to changing 

visitor use needs. Ensure that the 

management of visitor needs and 

resource values are well balanced and 

that visitors have opportunities for 

solitude and contemplation. 

Concessions. Continue to offer concession 

services, primarily lodging and food, at some 

locations where economically feasible. Where 

concession services are eliminated, the 

parkway would look to the private sector in 

communities outside the parkway to provide 

those services. The structures housing those 

services would either be adaptively used or 

removed (except for those eligible for listing 

on the National Register of Historic Places). 

Access and Circulation. 

 Continue the moratorium on secondary 

road improvement projects in both 

Virginia and North Carolina until a 

comprehensive corridor access 

management plan and environmental 

impact statement are completed. Only 

address road improvements that are 

necessary to ensure public health and 

safety outside the comprehensive 

planning and compliance process. 

Continue to evaluate primary state and 

federal highway improvements or new 

construction projects on a project-byproject basis. 

 Accomplish management of some 

nonrecreational local and commuter 

traffic by replacing at-grade crossings 

with new grade separation structures 

(some without access between the 

parkway and state road). In working 

with partners in parkway urban areas, 

consider extension of existing mass 

transit connections as well as public and 

private shuttle systems to provide 

alternative transportation to parkway 

visitor facilities, where feasible. 

Campgrounds. 

 Continue to operate the parkway’s nine 

campgrounds, including future repairs 

and rehabilitations focused on meeting 

backlog maintenance needs. 

 Upgrade selected campground comfort 

stations to provide showers. Upgrade all 

campground comfort stations to be 

universally accessible. 

 Enlarge selected tent sites to better 

accommodate family sized tents. 

 Upgrade certain amphitheaters to better 

accommodate visitors during 

interpretive programs. 

 Upgrade existing RV sites with water 

and electrical hookups at all 

campgrounds. 

 Improve RV access for existing 

campgrounds at James River/Otter 

Creek, Peaks of Otter, Rocky Knob, 

Linville Falls, and Crabtree Falls. 

Upgrades at these campgrounds would 

include such things as widening the 

campground entrance and one of the 

loop roads, increasing turning radii, and 

enlarging existing RV parking spaces. 

Only a portion of the RV spaces at the 

campgrounds would be redesigned to 

better accommodate RVs. 

Trails. 

 Work in partnership with the managers 

of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail 

to avoid sensitive resource areas by 

relocating some trail sections. Work with 

volunteer organizations and the state of 

North Carolina to complete the 

Mountains-to-Sea Trail within the 

parkway boundary where feasible. 

 Continue to allow bicycling on the main 

parkway road and other parkway roads, 

recognizing that bicyclists would be 

sharing the road with higher volumes of 

motorized traffic, especially in the more 

urbanized areas of the parkway. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

52 

 Ensure that undesignated social trails are 

not authorized within the parkway and 

any future designated connections to 

parkway trails would only be developed 

on public lands in collaboration with the 

associated local land management 

agencies. 

 Strive to close and restore undesignated 

social trails in the parkway as much as 

possible, particularly when the 

undesignated trails are known to be 

causing notable negative impacts to 

natural resources, visitor experiences, or 

adjacent neighborhoods. 

 Develop adequate, formal parking areas 

for designated parkway trails to ensure 

visitor safety, protect resources, and 

preserve community character in 

adjacent or nearby neighborhoods. 

 Pursue development of paved, multiuse 

trails parallel to but separate from the 

parkway in the Waynesboro, Roanoke, 

Boone/Blowing Rock, and Asheville 

urban areas to enhance opportunities for 

pedestrians and bicyclists to safely 

recreate in the parkway corridor where 

traffic levels are higher and 

opportunities to link to regional trail 

systems are available. 

 Consider connections to regional 

equestrian trails. 

Partnerships. Actively pursue new 

partnerships with public and private entities 

to plan and implement joint ventures that 

support parkway goals. Explore broader base 

of partnerships. 
53 

MANAGEMENT ZONES 

Management zones define specific resource 

conditions, visitor experiences, appropriate 

recreational activities, and levels and types of 

development to be achieved and maintained 

in different areas of the parkway for each 

action alternative. Because management zones 

were first developed as a part of this current 

planning effort, they do not apply to the noaction alternative. Proposed management 

zones for the parkway were presented to the 

public in Newsletter 5: Preliminary Alternatives 

(Spring 2008) and were modified in response 

to public comments. 

DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT 

ZONES 

There are eight designated management zones 

for the Blue Ridge Parkway. 

Special Natural Resources 

This zone represents areas that would 

emphasize the highest level of protection of 

sensitive habitats. Natural resources and 

processes would be preserved to maintain 

their pristine conditions and ecological 

integrity. Visitor opportunities would be 

limited to avoid human-caused impacts on 

these sensitive or rare ecosystems. 

Natural 

This zone represents areas that would support 

the broader ecological integrity of the 

parkway where natural processes 

predominate. Only low-impact recreational 

activities would be allowed. Visitors would be 

immersed in nature with opportunities to 

experience solitude and tranquility. 

Scenic Character 

This zone represents areas of the parkway that 

would emphasize protection and viewing 

opportunities of the scenic landscapes and 

natural and cultural settings of the central and 

southern Appalachian highlands. 

FIGURE 4. PARKWAY MILEPOST 204 

FIGURE 3. PEAKS OF OTTER

FIGURE 2. ROADSIDE VIEW NEAR 

GRAVEYARD FIELDS
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

54 

Recreation 

This zone represents areas that would support 

moderate levels of visitor use to accommodate 

recreational, educational, and interpretive 

opportunities. While some resource 

modifications could occur, natural and 

cultural resources would remain largely intact. 

Visitor Services 

This zone represents areas of the parkway that 

would support moderate to high levels of 

development and visitor services in order to 

accommodate concentrated visitor use and 

diverse recreational, educational, and 

interpretive opportunities. 

Historic Parkway 

This zone represents areas that would 

emphasize protection and interpretation of 

the historic parkway corridor, which includes 

the road prism and its original supporting 

structures and constructed landforms. 

Special Cultural Resources 

This zone represents areas that would 

emphasize protection of cultural landscapes 

and historic structures not associated with the 

design and development of the Blue Ridge 

Parkway. These include vernacular 

landscapes, such as the Harris Farm, or 

designed landscapes, such as the Moses H. 

Cone Estate. 

FIGURE 8. BRINEGAR CABIN

FIGURE 7. PARKWAY MILEPOST 243 

FIGURE 6. VISITORS CENTER, BLUE RIDGE 

MUSIC CENTER

FIGURE 5. CRAGGY GARDENS
Management Zones 

55 

Park Support 

This zone represents areas of the parkway that 

support administrative facilities for operations 

and maintenance. 

In formulating the action alternatives, 

management zones were placed in different 

locations on a map of the parkway according 

to each alternative’s overall concept. For 

example, the overall concept for alternative C 

proposes a more ecosystem-based approach 

to natural resource management, and as a 

result, a natural zone covers more parkway 

lands than under alternative B. This is because 

the natural zone includes management 

prescriptions that emphasize an integrated 

natural resource management approach; 

management prescriptions define the kinds of 

resource conditions and visitor experiences 

that should be achieved and maintained in a 

management zone. 

MANAGEMENT ZONE COMPARISON 

TABLE 

The table on the following pages gives an 

overview of each management zone and 

describes the desired conditions for resources 

within each zone. It also allows comparison of 

the differences between zones—some slight, 

some major—in the tolerance for resource 

impacts, appropriate management activities, 

visitor use levels, and appropriate recreational 

activities. 

FIGURE 9. MAINTENANCE FACILITY, 

 THE BLUFFS

57 

TABLE 3. BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY MANAGEMENT ZONES

Special Natural Resources Natural Scenic Character Recreation Visitor Services Historic Parkway Special Cultural Resources Park Support 

Overview Areas that would emphasize 

the highest level of protection 

of sensitive habitats. Natural 

resources and processes would 

be preserved to maintain their 

pristine conditions and high 

ecological integrity. Visitor 

opportunities would be limited 

to avoid human-caused 

impacts on these rare 

ecosystems. 

Areas that would support the 

broader ecological integrity of 

the parkway where natural 

processes predominate. Only 

low-impact recreational 

activities would be allowed. 

Visitors would be immersed in 

nature with opportunities to 

experience solitude and 

tranquility. 

Areas of the parkway that 

would emphasize protection 

and sightseeing opportunities 

of the scenic landscapes and 

natural and cultural settings of 

the central and southern 

Appalachian highlands. 

Desired conditions include 

maintaining the visual variety 

of the parkway road’s forested 

and pastoral/rural landscape 

settings consistent with early 

parkway design. 

Areas that would support 

moderate levels of visitor use 

to accommodate a wide range 

of recreational, educational, 

and interpretive opportunities. 

While some resource 

modifications could occur, 

natural and cultural resources 

would remain largely intact. 

Areas of the parkway that 

would support moderate to 

high levels of development and 

visitor services in order to 

accommodate concentrated 

visitor use and diverse 

recreational, educational, and 

interpretive opportunities. 

Areas that would emphasize 

protection and interpretation 

of the historic parkway 

corridor, which includes the 

parkway road prism and its 

original supporting structures 

and constructed landforms, 

including overlooks, water 

features, and recreation 

areas. 

Areas that would emphasize 

protection of cultural landscapes 

and historic structures not 

associated with the design and 

development of the Blue Ridge 

Parkway. These include 

vernacular landscapes, such as 

the Harris Farm, or designed 

landscapes, such as the Moses 

H. Cone Estate. 

Visitors would have 

opportunities to explore history 

first hand. 

Areas of the parkway that 

support administrative 

facilities for operations and 

maintenance. 

Natural 

Resource 

Condition 

Ecological communities would 

be protected in a pristine 

condition, functioning 

unhindered by human activities 

and development. 

Globally imperiled habitats, 

state natural heritage areas 

and conservation sites, federal 

and state listed species, and 

other rare and exceptional 

natural resources, processes, 

systems, and values would be 

preserved and enhanced.1

 

Ecological integrity would be 

maintained by preserving and 

restoring natural resources and 

processes through an 

integrated natural resource 

management approach. 

A mosaic of native vegetation 

communities would be 

maintained to showcase the 

parkway’s diverse natural 

settings. 

Natural processes would 

function unhindered by human 

activities and development is 

most areas, except where 

managed specifically for visitor 

use. 

The natural and pastoral 

settings of the parkway would 

be maintained or modified as 

necessary to provide 

appropriate recreational 

opportunities and visitor health 

and safety. 

Natural systems and processes 

would be maintained to the 

greatest extent possible while 

emphasizing visitor use 

management objectives. 

The effects of developments 

and visitor use on the natural 

surroundings would be 

minimized through planning 

and design efforts. 

The historic character of the 

parkway would be protected 

and maintained while 

allowing for modifications 

that achieve desired 

conditions for special natural 

resource. 

Natural resources would be 

managed to maintain the 

character of these cultural 

landscapes. 

Natural resources would be 

managed to accommodate 

facilities for park 

operations. 

The effects of developments 

on the natural surroundings 

would be minimized 

through planning and 

design efforts. 

Tolerance for 

Natural 

Resource 

Impacts 

Extremely low tolerance for 

natural resource impacts. 

Modification of natural 

resources would only occur 

when necessary to restore 

habitats or to mitigate for 

human-caused impacts. 

Evidence of visitor use would 

be largely unnoticeable. 

Low tolerance for natural 

resource impacts. 

Only minimal modifications 

would be allowed that 

harmonize with the natural 

environment. 

Low to moderate tolerance for 

natural resource impacts. 

Modifications that enhance the 

scenic qualities of the 

parkway’s landscapes would be 

allowed in a manner that 

minimizes natural resource 

impacts. 

Low to moderate tolerance for 

natural resource impacts on 

accommodate visitor use and 

to ensure visitor health and 

safety. 

Modifications would be 

aesthetically blended with the 

environment and designed to 

minimize resource impacts. 

Moderate tolerance for 

resource impacts to 

accommodate visitor use and 

facilities. 

Modification of some visitor 

use areas would be allowed to 

enhance protection of sensitive 

natural resources. 

Moderate tolerance for 

natural resource impacts in 

order to preserve the 

parkway’s original design and 

historic structures that 

contribute to its national 

significance. 

Modification of some 

designed landscape areas, 

such as roadsides, vista 

clearings, and agricultural 

leases, would be allowed to 

enhance protection of 

sensitive natural resources. 

Moderate tolerance for natural 

resource impacts to maintain 

these special cultural resources. 

Moderate tolerance for 

natural resource impacts. 

Modification of natural 

resources would be allowed 

to accommodate park 

operations and to maintain 

employee health and safety. 

 

1

 All globally imperiled habitats, state natural heritage areas and conservation sites, federal and state listed species would be protected within all of the management zones, as required by NPS policy. 
58 

TABLE 3. BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY MANAGEMENT ZONES

Special Natural Resources Natural Scenic Character Recreation Visitor Services Historic Parkway Special Cultural Resources Park Support 

Appropriate 

Natural 

Resource 

Management 

Activities 

Rare habitats would be actively 

restored and rare species 

would be recovered or 

reintroduced. 

Management activities would 

emphasize research, inventory, 

monitoring, prescribed burns, 

pest management, exotic 

species eradication, and other 

types of resource stewardship. 

There would be very little 

evidence of onsite 

management except when 

necessary to address threats to 

resources or prevent humancaused impacts. 

Onsite management actions 

would emphasize resource 

protection objectives while 

providing limited facilities and 

services to support basic visitor 

needs. 

Management activities would 

emphasize research, inventory, 

monitoring, prescribed burns, 

pest management, exotic 

species eradication, and other 

types of resource stewardship. 

Degraded sites would be 

restored in order to reestablish 

natural systems and processes 

with a priority on rare habitats 

for threatened and endangered 

species. 

Onsite management actions 

would emphasize maintaining 

the designed landscapes and 

open pastoral settings of the 

parkway with sensitivity to 

natural resource conditions, 

including wildlife corridors. 

Appropriate activities could 

include managing for certain 

types of vegetation types over 

others to help maintain certain 

desired landscapes, such as 

open, pastoral settings. 

Activities could also include 

prescribed burns, pest 

management and exotic 

species eradication, and other 

types of resource stewardship. 

Degraded sites would be 

evaluated to determine if they 

should be hardened in order to 

accommodate visitor use or 

restored to a desired natural 

condition. 

Invasive species would be 

suppressed to prevent further 

spread or eradicated where 

feasible. 

Management would be 

adapted as needed to protect 

threatened and endangered 

species and rare habitats. 

Natural resources would be 

actively managed to 

accommodate interpretive, 

educational, and other visitor 

services. 

Invasive species would be 

controlled to prevent further 

spread into other adjacent 

management zones. 

Management would be 

adapted as needed to protect 

threatened and endangered 

species and rare habitats. 

Natural resources in the 

designed landscapes of the 

parkway would be actively 

managed to maintain the 

landscape appearance. 

Management would be 

adapted as needed to protect 

threatened and endangered 

species and rare habitats. 

Natural resources would be 

actively managed as a 

component of the cultural 

landscape. 

Management would be adapted 

as needed to protect 

endangered species and rare 

habitats. 

Natural resources would be 

managed as necessary to 

accommodate facilities for 

park operations. 

Management would be 

adapted as needed to 

protect endangered species 

and rare habitats. 

Cultural 

Resource 

Condition 

Cultural resources contributing 

to national historic landmark 

designation and national 

register-eligible properties 

would be preserved using 

methods that do not impact 

sensitive natural resource 

conditions. 

All other cultural resources 

would be evaluated to 

determine if they should be 

preserved, stabilized, restored, 

or left unmaintained. 

Cultural resources contributing 

to national historic landmark 

designation and national 

register-eligible properties 

would be protected. 

Selected cultural resources 

would be preserved or 

stabilized in order to provide 

educational opportunities for 

visitors. 

The visual variety of the 

parkway’s forested, pastoral, 

and rural landscapes would be 

maintained consistent with the 

Parkway Land Use Maps. 

Cultural resources contributing 

to national historic landmark 

designation and national 

register-eligible properties 

would be protected. 

Selected cultural resources 

would be preserved to reflect a 

particular era, allowing people 

to experience these resources 

first-hand to learn about their 

associated stories and events. 

Cultural resources would be 

actively managed to 

accommodate interpretation, 

education, and other visitor 

services. 

Selected cultural resources 

would provide distinct visitor 

opportunities and experiences 

and would be the backdrop for 

interpretation, visitor use, and 

services where appropriate. 

The historic design character 

and components of the 

parkway road prism, certain 

recreation areas, and facilities 

would be preserved. 

Maintain the integrity of these 

primarily local and regionally 

significant structures and 

landscapes. A variety of resource 

treatments may be appropriate, 

depending on the condition and 

location of the resource. 

Cultural resources 

contributing to the 

parkway’s national historic 

landmark designation 

would be protected. 

Tolerance for 

Cultural 

Resource 

Impacts 

Low to moderate tolerance for 

cultural resource impacts. 

Low to moderate tolerance for 

cultural resource impacts. 

Minor modifications of cultural 

landscape elements would be 

allowed only for resource 

protection. 

Low to moderate tolerance for 

cultural resource impacts. 

Modifications that enhance the 

scenic qualities of the 

parkway’s cultural landscapes 

would be allowed. 

Low to moderate tolerance for 

cultural resource impacts when 

necessary to provide for visitor 

use. 

Low to moderate tolerance for 

cultural resource impacts on 

provide for visitor use. 

Low tolerance for cultural 

resource impacts. 

Extremely low tolerance for 

cultural resource impacts. 

Moderate tolerance for 

cultural resource impacts to 

accommodate facilities for 

park operations. 
59 

TABLE 3. BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY MANAGEMENT ZONES

Special Natural Resources Natural Scenic Character Recreation Visitor Services Historic Parkway Special Cultural Resources Park Support 

Appropriate 

Cultural 

Resource 

Management 

Activities 

Cultural landscapes would be 

allowed to gradually revert to a 

more natural state, except 

when cultural features can be 

preserved without 

compromising natural resource 

values. 

Cultural resources that do not 

contribute to parkway’s 

national historic landmark 

designation could be stabilized 

or left unmaintained. 

Selected historic structures 

would be stabilized or 

hardened2

 to provide 

enhanced educational and 

interpretive opportunities for 

visitors. 

Cultural resources that do not 

contribute to parkway’s 

national historic landmark 

designation could be stabilized 

or left unmaintained. 

The parkway’s designed 

landscapes and open pastoral 

settings would be maintained 

with sensitivity to cultural 

resource conditions. 

Selected historic structures 

could be stabilized or hardened 

to provide enhanced 

educational and interpretive 

opportunities for visitors. 

Cultural resources that do not 

contribute to parkway’s 

national historic landmark 

designation could possibly be 

stabilized or left unmaintained. 

Selected historic structures 

could be stabilized or hardened 

to provide enhanced 

educational and interpretive 

opportunities for visitors. 

Selected historic structures 

could be stabilized or hardened 

to provide enhanced 

educational and interpretive 

opportunities for visitors. 

The historic character of the 

parkway would be preserved 

while allowing for minor 

modifications to achieve 

desired conditions for visitor 

experiences, resource 

protection, and vista 

management. 

Cultural landscapes and historic 

structures would be preserved 

and maintained to reflect a 

particular era or appearance. 

Cultural resources would be 

left undisturbed, except 

when necessary for 

constructing new facilities 

for park operations. 

Overall Visitor 

Experience 

Most visitors would experience 

these areas visually, as part of 

the more distant and rugged 

scenic views of parkway 

landscape. Limited 

opportunities would be 

available to visitors with time 

and backcountry skills who are 

seeking opportunities for 

outdoor challenge and 

solitude. 

Visitors would require a 

moderate to high level of skill, 

self-reliance, and effort to 

access these areas. 

Visitors to these areas would 

likely encounter intact natural 

resources, features, and 

systems for personal 

inspiration, education, and 

recreation. 

Visitor would have, among a 

variety of outdoor recreation 

activities, opportunities to 

experience solitude, 

contemplation, self-reliance, 

challenge, and risk. 

Visitor would require a 

moderate level of skill and 

effort to access these areas. 

Visitors would have 

opportunities to see and 

experience a variety of scenic 

settings evocative of central 

and southern Appalachian 

landscapes. 

Access would require a low to 

moderate degree of difficulty. 

Visitors would have 

opportunities to participate in a 

range of both structured and 

self-guiding recreational, 

interpretive, and educational 

opportunities. 

Visitors would experience a 

mostly natural setting where 

some visitor services are 

available to accommodate 

moderate levels of use. 

Access would require a low to 

moderate degree of difficulty 

for visitors. 

Visitors would have 

opportunities to participate in a 

range of recreational, 

interpretive, and educational 

opportunities to experience 

and learn about the natural 

and cultural heritage of the 

central and southern 

Appalachians in built 

environments and social 

settings. 

Visitors would experience a 

designed setting that supports 

high levels of use, including a 

variety of visitor services and 

overnight accommodations. 

Access to these areas would be 

easy for visitors. 

Visitors would have a 

leisurely, uninterrupted 

driving experience in a 

designed roadway setting 

with a scenic backdrop of 

central and southern 

Appalachian landscapes and 

in the absence of commercial 

advertising, congestion, and 

driving conflicts. 

Access to these areas would 

be easy for visitors. 

Visitors would see and 

experience historic structures in 

their original landscape settings 

that are indicative of the cultural 

heritage and settlement patterns 

of the region. 

Visitor opportunities and 

experiences would not be 

emphasized in this zone to 

avoid interference with park 

operations and 

maintenance activities. 

Visitor Use 

Levels 

Visitor use levels would be very 

low to protect resource 

integrity. If conditions warrant, 

especially fragile areas could be 

closed to visitation. 

Visitor use levels would be low 

to avoid degrading natural 

resources and values. 

Visitor use levels would be low 

to high, depending on the level 

of amenities and services. 

Visitor use levels would be low 

to moderate, depending on the 

proximity to access points and 

developments. 

Visitor use levels would be 

moderate to high. 

Visitors may experience traffic 

congestion in parking areas. 

Visitors would encounter 

other vehicles at volumes and 

frequencies where free-flow 

speeds are maintained; where 

the ability to move in traffic is 

only slightly restricted; and 

where the effects of minor 

incidents and breakdowns are 

easily absorbed. 

Visitor use levels would be low 

to moderate, depending on the 

proximity to access points and 

developments. 

Visitor use levels would be 

very low. 

 

2

 In this context, hardening refers to properly securing structures to prevent unauthorized access, treating surfaces in historically appropriate methods to prevent vandalism (graffiti), placement of sacrificial surfaces to deter defacing of historic structures, increased patrol of these areas by 

law enforcement, or better illumination, etc. 
60 

TABLE 3. BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY MANAGEMENT ZONES

Special Natural Resources Natural Scenic Character Recreation Visitor Services Historic Parkway Special Cultural Resources Park Support 

Appropriate 

Recreational 

Activities 

Law enforcement-led walks 

would be provided when 

appropriate for resource 

protection. 

Hiking and backpacking would 

be limited to designated trails 

only. 

Backcountry camping at 

designated sites would be 

considered. 

No horseback riding, mountain 

biking, or motorized vehicles 

would be allowed. 

Low-impact recreational 

activities could include: hiking, 

backpacking, nature 

observation, photography, 

backcountry camping at 

designated sites, self-guiding 

interpretation, and small-group 

guided activities that do not 

degrade natural values. 

Horseback riding would be 

allowed on certain designated 

trails where appropriate. No 

mountain biking or motorized 

vehicles would be allowed, 

except when authorized for 

management activities. 

Recreational activities would 

include: scenic viewing, 

photography, walking, guided 

hikes, and other activities that 

would be appropriate for 

particular landscape settings. 

Biking and horseback riding 

would be allowed on certain 

designated trails. 

Recreational activities would 

include: organized group 

programs, self-guiding 

interpretation, nature 

observation, picnicking, hiking, 

backpacking, viewing natural 

and cultural resources, 

photography, exploring, and 

backcountry camping at 

designated sites. 

Biking and horseback riding 

would be allowed on certain 

designated trails. Mountain 

biking would be allowed on 

certain designated trails at 

Julian Price Park where 

appropriate (under alternative 

C). 

There would be a wide variety 

of recreational opportunities 

available to visitors, including: 

dining, lodging, camping, 

walking, bicycling, picnicking, 

shopping, and scenic viewing, 

park special events, structured 

interpretive programs, and 

guided walks. 

Recreational activities would 

include: low-speed and safe 

driving, scenic viewing, 

picnicking, bicycling, hiking, 

running, jogging, camping, 

interpretive activities, and 

other similar compatible uses. 

Recreational activities would 

include: interpretive programs, 

sightseeing, photography, 

walking, and other activities 

appropriate to the setting. 

Recreational activities would 

only be offered if they do 

not conflict with parkway 

operations and 

maintenance activities. 

Visitor Services Limited directional signs, onsite 

interpretive materials, and 

structured interpretive 

programs related to the 

management and protection of 

natural resources would be 

available to visitors at selected 

locations. 

Proactive education and law 

enforcement strategies would 

be emphasized to prevent 

exploitation of resources. 

Park staff and law enforcement 

presence would be low. 

Directional signs, interpretive 

waysides, and structured 

interpretive programs would be 

provided to promote safe and 

responsible recreation. 

Proactive education and law 

enforcement strategies would 

be emphasized at targeted 

locations to prevent 

exploitation of resources. 

Park staff and law enforcement 

presence would be low. 

Low levels of visitor services 

would be provided. The 

majority of services would be in 

adjacent zones, such as the 

historic parkway and visitor 

services zones. 

Park staff and law enforcement 

presence would be low. 

Moderate levels of visitor 

services could be provided, 

such as orientation, guided 

interpretive programs, signs 

and wayside exhibits, and 

commercial services such as 

guided hikes and guided 

bicycle rides. 

Park staff and law enforcement 

presence would be moderate. 

Moderate to high levels of 

visitor services would be 

provided and could include: 

orientation and interpretive 

programs, signs, wayside 

exhibits, commercial 

operations, convenience stores, 

dining, lodging, gift shops, and 

shuttle services. 

Park staff and law enforcement 

presence would be moderate 

to high. 

Orientation, interpretation, and 

educational opportunities 

would be concentrated in this 

zone. 

Moderate levels of visitor 

services would be provided, 

such as orientation, 

interpretive and educational 

programs, signs and wayside 

exhibits, and commercial 

services. 

Proactive education and law 

enforcement would be 

emphasized to promote 

visitor safety. 

Specific onsite interpretive 

themes would be presented to 

visitors. 

Minimal visitor services 

would be provided. 
61 

TABLE 3. BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY MANAGEMENT ZONES

Special Natural Resources Natural Scenic Character Recreation Visitor Services Historic Parkway Special Cultural Resources Park Support 

Levels of 

Developments 

Minimal developments, such as 

unpaved trails, would be 

provided in a manner that 

limits habitat fragmentation 

and generally protects natural 

resource conditions. 

Existing developments that are 

not consistent with the desired 

natural resource conditions 

could be removed. 

Minimal facilities would be 

provided for visitors that 

support resource protection 

and facilitate low-impact use, 

including backcountry 

campsites, pit toilets, unpaved 

trails, trailhead facilities, and 

onsite interpretive media when 

needed. 

Trail networks would be well 

planned; network density 

would be kept low to limit 

habitat fragmentation and 

generally avoid natural 

resource impacts. 

Existing developments that are 

not consistent with the desired 

resource conditions could be 

removed or modified. 

Trails, roads, and other 

recreation facilities would be 

provided that are unobtrusive 

and blend with the natural and 

cultural landscapes of the 

parkway. 

A moderate level of 

development would be 

provided to guide visitor use, 

enhance recreational 

opportunities, and protect 

resources, including: 

interpretive media, trails, 

trailhead restrooms, trail 

shelters, picnic tables, camp 

sites, access roads, and shuttle 

vehicles. 

There would be a low to 

medium density of road and 

trail networks to ensure safe 

access, circulation for visitors, 

and protection of resources. 

The surfaces of roads, trails, 

parking areas, and other heavy 

use areas may be hardened 

where appropriate. 

There would be a moderate to 

high level of development to 

meet visitor use and park 

operation needs. 

Orientation, amenities, and 

visitor services would be 

provided that support a safe 

and satisfying experience, 

including: visitor centers, 

contact stations, concession 

lodging and food services, 

developed campgrounds, 

picnic areas, trails, interpretive 

media, parking areas, and 

sidewalks. 

There would be a medium to 

high density of paved roads 

and parking lots to ensure safe 

access and circulation for 

visitors. 

Developments would include 

existing facilities in the 

parkway road prism, such as: 

roads, parking areas, trails, 

vista cuts, waysides, 

information and regulatory 

signs, bridges, tunnels, walls, 

fences, guard walls and rails, 

and drainage structures. 

Other types of development 

directly associated with the 

original parkway concept 

would include visitor contact 

stations, campgrounds, picnic 

areas, comfort stations, 

exhibits, and maintenance 

areas. 

Trails, roads, signs, waysides, 

and interpretive exhibits would 

be provided in a historic context. 

Administrative offices, 

maintenance structures, 

equipment and fuel 

storage, utility systems, staff 

offices, meeting spaces, and 

living quarters could be in 

this zone. 

Management Zones 

63 

ACREAGE COMPARISON OF 

PARKWAY-WIDE MANAGEMENT 

ZONES 

Alternative A is the continuation of current 

management practices. It is based primarily on 

guidance from the original Parkway Land Use 

Maps, which do not include management 

zones. Therefore, no management zones are 

shown for this alternative. Instead, descriptive 

information is included about the nature, 

condition, use, and current management 

approaches for the entire parkway, parkway 

segments, and recreation areas. 

For alternatives B and C, maps with overlaid 

management zones are provided on the 

following pages for each of the parkway 

segments and recreation areas. Accompanying 

these maps are descriptions of specific 

management approaches proposed for each 

segment or recreation area. 

Table 4 and figures 10 and 11 compare the 

proportion of management zones in acres and 

percentages for all parkway lands in 

alternatives B and C. 

In comparing the pie charts illustrated in 

figures 10 and 11, there is 5.8% more parkway 

land zoned for recreation in alternative B 

while in alternative C there is 6.2% more 

zoned as natural. The differences in acreage 

per these two management zones represents 

two different management emphases that are 

being proposed and evaluated in this 

document. In alternative B, parkway 

management would have more flexibility to 

expand infrastructure to accommodate 

recreational visitor use in those area originally 

included as developed recreation areas by 

parkway designers. Alternative C takes a more 

conservative approach holding recreation 

development at current levels and requires 

park management to direct demand for more 

recreation to opportunities outside the 

parkway.

TABLE 4. PARKWAY-WIDE MANAGEMENT ZONES BY ACTION ALTERNATIVES—ACREAGE CALCULATIONS 

Class Zone Description 

Acres in this Zone 

Alternative B Alternative C 

SC Scenic Character 34,322 33,997 

N Natural 19,491 24,584 

SNR Special Natural Resources 10,068 10,074 

HP Historic Parkway 9,623 9,349 

R Recreation 7,751 2,946 

VS Visitor Services 356 662 

PS Park Support 193 193 

SCR Special Cultural Resource 388 388 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

64 

FIGURE 10. PROPORTION OF MANAGEMENT ZONES

 FOR ALL PARKWAY LANDS UNDER ALTERNATIVE B 

FIGURE 11. PROPORTION OF MANAGEMENT ZONES 

FOR ALL PARKWAY LANDS UNDER ALTERNATIVE C 
Management Zones 

65 

COMPARISON OF MANAGEMENT 

STRATEGIES FOR PARKWAY 

SEGMENTS 

On the following pages, a brief description of 

each parkway segment is provided along with 

a comparison table of management strategies 

and zoning maps by alternative. The seven 

segments of the parkway are presented in 

order from north to south. They are as 

follows: 

 segment 1—Ridge, mileposts 0–106 

 segment 2—Roanoke, mileposts 106–136 

 segment 3—Plateau, mileposts 136–217 

 segment 4—Highlands, mileposts 217–

305 

 segment 5—Black Mountain, mileposts 

305–377 

 segment 6—Asheville, mileposts 377–394 

 segment 7—Pisgah, mileposts 394–469 

For alternatives B and C, maps with overlaid 

management zones are included for each of 

the parkway segments. Because the proposed 

management zones in alternatives B and C for 

the seven segments are generally the same, 

only one map per segment is displayed. Also, 

the widths of the management zone colors 

shown on the segment maps are exaggerated 

for readability. The typical width of the 

parkway right-of-way averages 800 feet, but 

can be as narrow as 200 feet. Table 5 and 

figure 12 show the proportion of management 

zones in acres and percentages in all parkway 

segments for both alternative B and C. Please 

note: acreage calculations for the segments do 

not include recreation areas. The recreation 

areas are addressed later in this chapter. 

TABLE 5. MANAGEMENT ZONES FOR PARKWAY 

SEGMENTS BY ACTION ALTERNATIVES—ACREAGE 

CALCULATIONS

Class Management Zones Acres in 

this Zone 

SC Scenic Character 30,045 

SNR Special Natural Resources 8,319 

HP Historic Parkway 6,989 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

66 

FIGURE 12. PROPORTION OF MANAGEMENT ZONES FOR ALL 

PARKWAY SEGMENTS UNDER ALTERNATIVES B AND C 
Management Zones Insert 

Newsletter #5 • Spring 2008 Blue Ridge Parkway Newsletter

Preliminary Alternatives

Jefferson NF

Daniel Boone NF

Jefferson NF

Jefferson NF

Cherokee NF

Pisgah NF

Great Smoky 

Mountains NP

Nantahala NF

Pisgah NF

South Carolina South Carolina

Kentucky Kentucky

Tennessee Tennessee

West Virginia West Virginia

§ ̈¦77

§ ̈¦77

§ ̈¦64

§ ̈¦81

§ ̈¦81

§ ̈¦40

§ ̈¦40

§ ̈¦26

§ ̈¦85 

§ ̈¦85

Pisgah NF

§ ̈¦64 Charleston

Boone

Cherokee

Charlotte

Knoxville

Winston-Salem

Gastonia

Asheville

Blowing Rock

Mt. Pisgah

Craggy Gardens

Crabtree Meadows

Linville Falls

Julian Price Memorial Park

Doughton Park

Blue Ridge Music Center Mabry Mill

Rocky Knob

Smart View

Roanoke Mountain

P

J

Segment 4 - Highlands

Segment 5 - Black Mountain

Segment 6 - Asheville

Segment 7 - Pisgah

PLANNING SEGMENTS INDEX MAP

Blue Ridge Parkway • North Carolina / Virginia 

Cumberland Knob

Planning Segments Index Map

Blue Ridge Parkway • North Carolina / Virginia

67
68

Segment 1

Ridge 

Mileposts 0-106

Blue Ridge Parkway

North Carolina/Virginia

ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B (NPS Preferred) ALTERNATIVE C

The entrance at the north end of the parkway does not convey a sense of arrival. The first 

opportunity to obtain information and orientation to the parkway is 6 miles south of the 

entrance at Humpback Rocks.

At the north entrance, improve the quality of the visitor entry experience and provide 

orientation services. The goal would be to substantially increase visitor contacts over 

current levels. Potential actions include providing additional information and orientation 

through redesigning the existing pull-off parking area and installing new waysides. Parkway 

right-of-way is so narrow at the north entrance that NPS staff would have to partner with 

private landowners, local governments, Shenandoah National Park, and U.S. Forest Service 

to provide parkway information and orientation for visitors. The National Park Service 

would not fund or own a visitor center facility.

Same as alternative B.

The proximity of U.S. Forest Service lands and regional trails provides opportunities for 

trail connections. Continue ongoing partnership efforts with local stakeholders to improve 

regional trail connections and potentially accommodate new or additional types of uses.

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A.

Also, work with the U.S. Forest Service to identify opportunities for wilderness/trail 

recreation. Provide parking lots and other support services within the scenic character zone 

for access to U.S. Forest Service recreational opportunities.

Where feasible, pursue the development of paved multiuse trails parallel to, but separate 

from, the parkway in the Waynesboro area to enhance opportunities for pedestrians and 

bicyclists to recreate and travel safely with minimal interaction with automobile traffic. 

Establish connections between multiuse path and community trails. 

Pullout design isolates some overlooks from passing traffic. Continue to manage using law 

enforcement patrols. No physical changes.

Make minor modifications to some overlook landscaping to improve pullout visibility by 

passing traffic.

Redesign some overlook pullouts to substantially enhance visibility of parking areas to 

passing traffic. 

Many visitors travel directly from Shenandoah National Park and its Skyline Drive and enter seamlessly into the 

Blue Ridge Parkway at Rockfish Gap. For some this begins a spectacular 469-mile journey south to Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park. Visitors traveling through the Ridge segment experience a scenic drive through deep 

mountain forests interspersed with pastoral vistas of agricultural lands. Almost the entire segment is bounded by 

national forest lands and four wilderness areas. Climbing and descending ridgetops and gaps offer magnificent views 

of the Great and Rockfish valleys. 

The segment also includes some of the parkway’s best examples of pre-1950 Appalachian structures, sites, and 

transportation routes. Many miles of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail (the AT) are located in this segment of 

the parkway. The trail is managed under separate rules and regulations and the only allowable trail uses are hiking, 

backpacking, and backcountry camping. 

Segment 1 — Ridge, Mileposts 0-106

Alternatives B & C
69

Segment 2

Roanoke

Mileposts 106-136

Blue Ridge Parkway

North Carolina/Virginia

ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B (NPS Preferred) ALTERNATIVE C

This Roanoke segment would continue to be a major highway link between the parkway 

and regional transportation corridors, carrying much local commuter traffic. The Blue 

Ridge Parkway Visitor Center is located at, and operated by, Virginia’s Explore Park.

Improve visitor orientation services in the Roanoke area of the parkway. The goal would be 

to substantially increase visitor contacts over current levels by staffing a National Park Service 

/ Blue Ridge Parkway information desk and giving programs at a site off the parkway such as 

in a downtown Roanoke location. 

Improve visitor orientation services in the Roanoke area of the parkway. The goal would 

be to substantially increase visitor contacts over current levels by staffing a National Park 

Service / Blue Ridge Parkway information desk and giving programs at a site off the 

parkway such as in a downtown Roanoke location. 

Expand information and orientation capabilities through partnership and parkway staff at 

Virginia’s Explore Park.

Pullout design isolates some overlooks from passing traffic. Continue to manage using law 

enforcement patrols. No physical changes.

Make minor modifications to some overlook landscaping to improve pullout visibility by 

passing traffic.

Redesign some overlook pullouts to substantially enhance visibility of parking area to 

passing traffic. 

Continue to coordinate with city and others on Roanoke trail plan. Develop trails and 

provide trail connections.

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. 

Where feasible, pursue the development of paved multiuse trails parallel to, but separate 

from, the parkway in the Roanoke area to enhance opportunities for pedestrians and 

bicyclists to recreate and travel safely through the area with minimal interaction with 

automobile traffic. Establish connections between multiuse path and community trails. 

The pulse of the parkway begins to change as visitors travel into the Roanoke Valley, the largest urban area along the 

parkway with a population of 225,000. The elevation is lower, the number of farms increases as the land levels out, 

and the city approaches. Visitors find this area in a state of dramatic change from pastoral landscape to suburban 

residential growth. This area is one of the best on the parkway for interpreting land use through time, as well as the 

current issues of scenic protection and land use management. 

Segment 2 — Roanoke, Mileposts 106-136

Alternatives B & C
70

Alternatives B & C

Segment 3

Plateau 

Mileposts 136-217

Blue Ridge Parkway

North Carolina/Virginia

ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B (NPS Preferred) ALTERNATIVE C

Continue to manage the Kelley School and a number of farms near milepost 149, including 

the Harris Farm, for their scenic pastoral qualities. 

Same as alternative A. In partnership with universities and nonprofits, manage Kelly School and farms as a visitor 

use and education attraction.

Visitors to this segment travel across the great plateau that overlooks Virginia’s piedmont region. They experience 

a mostly scenic drive through rolling hills that are a patchwork of farms, fields, and forests. Visitors have access to 

some major cultural sites along this segment, such as Mabry Mill, the most visited site on the parkway. 

This segment also includes Groundhog Mountain picnic area, observation tower, and fence exhibit. Unlike many 

segments of the parkway that are bordered by national forest lands, here the narrow parkway corridor is bounded 

by mostly privately owned rural and agricultural lands. The parkway maintains hundreds of agricultural leases; 

however, many of the adjacent lands have or are being subdivided. The quality of the views in this segment is 

diminished by development and the loss of the traditional pastoral landscape. With the growing development, the 

parkway has a high level of local traffic crossing and using it as part of the local road network. 

Segment 3 — Plateau, Mileposts 136-217
71

Segment 4

Highlands

Mileposts 217-305

Blue Ridge Parkway

North Carolina/Virginia

ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B (NPS Preferred) ALTERNATIVE C

Continue ongoing partnership efforts with local stakeholders to improve regional trail 

connections and potentially accommodate new or additional types of uses.

There are unmet opportunities for additional recreation trails, especially in the Boone/

Blowing Rock area.

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A.

Where feasible, pursue the development of paved multiuse trails parallel to, but separate 

from, the parkway in the Boone/Blowing Rock area to enhance opportunities for 

pedestrians and bicyclists to recreate and travel safely through the area with minimal 

interaction with automobile traffic. Establish connections between multiuse trail and 

community trails.

No major point of contact for visitors for park information and orientation would be 

provided in the Boone/Blowing Rock area.

Same as alternative A. Improve visitor orientation services in the Boone/Blowing Rock area of the parkway. The 

goal would be to substantially increase visitor contacts over current levels by staffing a 

National Park Service / Blue Ridge Parkway information desk and giving programs at a site 

off the parkway such as in a downtown Boone or Blowing Rock location.

Moses H. Cone Memorial Park in North Carolina is a 3,500-acre site along the Blue Ridge Parkway near the Boone/

Blowing Rock communities. This parkway area receives considerable recreational use and has some very specific 

management issues relating to trail use for bicycling and horseback riding. A separate developed area management 

plan and environmental assessment for the site is under way. You will not see alternative maps for Moses Cone in 

this publication. However, any planning proposals for Moses Cone will be consistent with proposals made in the 

general management plan. 

The Highlands segment begins at the state line between Virginia and North Carolina. This segment offers the 

greatest variety of views and gives visitors a strong sense of “being away from it all.” The designed landscape in this 

segment retains much integrity of original vistas, landscaped bays, agriculture leases, stone walls, and wood fences. 

Also, this segment includes the oldest original section of the parkway. Just south of the state line the parkway climbs 

onto the edge of the escarpment where Cumberland Knob, the parkway’s first recreation area, is located. 

From Cumberland Knob the roadway continues to wind around high mountain pastures before it drops in elevation 

to a forested landscape with views to the piedmont and high mountain valleys to the west. Much of the parkway 

is bordered by private lands in this area. The Northwest Trading Post is a concession-operated country store that 

provides local crafts and food products for visitors at milepost 258.6. EB Jeffress Park, at milepost 272, is a day use 

recreation area for hiking and picnicking, and no specific changes in facilities or visitor experiences are proposed. 

The greatest area of population growth adjacent to this segment is in the Boone/Blowing Rock area, which is evident 

on the parkway in more urban views and higher levels of commuter traffic. At the southern end of this segment 

between mileposts 300 and 305 is Grandfather Mountain, which protects some of the most significant natural 

habitat and rare species in the southern Appalachians. This section of the parkway is bordered by national forest 

land and the state-owned Grandfather Mountain nature preserve. Outside of the road prism, this Grandfather 

Mountain section is zoned Special Natural Resources. 

Segment 4 — Highlands, Mileposts 217-305
72

Segment 5

Black Mountain

Mileposts 305-377

Blue Ridge Parkway

North Carolina/Virginia

Visitors traveling through the Black Mountain segment experience a scenic drive through a mountain forest, 

climbing and descending ridgetops and gaps that offer magnificent views of the valleys below. The Museum of 

North Carolina Minerals, in cooperation with the Mitchell County Chamber of Commerce, is a visitor facility that 

was recently renovated. This parkway segment, especially between mileposts 348 and 375, contains the critically, 

globally imperiled high-elevation spruce/fir forest community. Also, the broad, central dome of the massive Black 

Mountains includes the highest mountain east of the Mississippi, found at Mount Mitchell State Park near milepost 

355. Through this segment, much of the adjacent land use is national forest, which helps protect the quality of views. 

The Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail, commemorating the Revolutionary War route to the Battle of 

Kings Mountain, will intersect and follow the parkway between mileposts 327 to 333. The Minerals Museum is open 

year round. 

No specific management strategies have been developed for the Black Mountain segment, other than management 

zone prescriptions.

Segment 5 — Black Mountain, Mileposts 305-377

Alternatives B & C
73

Segment 6

Asheville

Mileposts 377-394

Blue Ridge Parkway

North Carolina/Virginia

ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B (NPS Preferred) ALTERNATIVE C

Existing trails in the Asheville segment are heavily used, primarily by local residents. Continue 

ongoing partnership efforts with local stakeholders to improve regional trail connections and 

potentially accommodate new or additional types of uses.

Same as alternative A. Pursue the development of paved multiuse trails parallel to, but separate from, the parkway in 

the Asheville area to enhance opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists to recreate and travel 

safely through the area with minimal interaction with automobile traffic on shared roadways. 

Establish connections between multiuse path and community trails. When bridges are upgraded 

or changed, add pedestrian/bike lanes (no bike lanes would be added to the road prism). 

Maintain current paved parking areas to accommodate trail access. Attempt to limit informal 

parking in areas that cause safety concerns and road shoulder damage.

Develop additional parking for recreational use. Same as alternative B. 

Also, potentially provide staging for a shuttle system with the city of Asheville.

The Asheville segment is the second largest urban area that the parkway passes through. Unlike the Roanoke 

segment, visitors entering this area are enveloped by the urban forest and have few views of the city landscape 

other than where the parkway crosses over city streets and waterways. This segment is popular for recreational 

trail use and is a major access area between the parkway and regional transportation corridors. At milepost 382 

the Folk Art Center is operated by the Southern Highland Craft Guild, whose mission is to preserve and interpret 

the many expressions of folk art associated with the region, including music, dance, storytelling, and crafts. At 

milepost 384 is a new regional destination center that will help orient and introduce visitors to the many attractions 

of the western North Carolina region. The center includes offices for the Blue Ridge National Heritage Area, which 

promotes the traditional Appalachian heritage of western North Carolina. Near milepost 393 the parkway and 

the North Carolina Arboretum work cooperatively on educational programs about traditional native plant uses.

Segment 6 — Asheville, Mileposts 377-394

Blue Ridge Parkway Destination Center Folk Art Center

Alternatives B & C
74

Alternatives B & C

ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B (NPS Preferred) ALTERNATIVE C

The entrance at the south end of the parkway 

does not convey a sense of arrival. Orientation and 

interpretation waysides are located a distance from 

the entrance where it is difficult for visitors to stop 

safely. The first opportunity to obtain information 

and orientation about the parkway is 18 miles 

north of the entrance at Waterrock Knob. Continue 

to provide limited information and orientation 

for the parkway at the Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park’s Oconaluftee Visitor Center, located 

2 miles from the parkway entrance. 

At the south entrance, improve the quality of the 

visitor entry experience and provide orientation 

services. The goal would be to substantially 

increase visitor contacts over current levels. 

Potential actions include providing additional 

information and orientation through redesigning 

the existing pull‐off parking area and installing 

new waysides. Parkway right‐of‐way is so narrow 

at the south entrance that NPS staff would 

have to partner with private landowners, local 

governments, Great Smoky National Park, U.S. 

Forest Service, or Eastern Band of Cherokee to 

provide parkway information and orientation for 

visitors. The National Park Service would not fund 

or own a visitor center facility.

Same as alternative B.

About 7% of the vistas in this segment are spruce/

fir habitat for sensitive species. Keeping them open 

adversely affects sensitive species.

Modify designed landscapes, including vistas and 

overlooks as needed, to protect sensitive natural 

resources. Modifications could include altering 

mowing patterns and vegetation management 

practices, including the extent to which vistas are 

cut, and modifying drainage structures. 

Same as alternative B.

Continue current reactive management to invasive 

species on trail corridors. Trail corridors are helping 

to accelerate the introduction of invasive species 

of plants and this is a particular challenge between 

Asheville and Mount Pisgah.

Develop a comprehensive parkway-wide strategy 

to manage invasive plants. In this segment focus 

between Asheville and Mount Pisgah.

In cooperation with other land management 

agencies, develop regional strategies for 

managing invasive plants.

Same as alternative B.

In the Pisgah segment, the visitor experience is dominated by remote natural areas and dramatic views of high 

mountains. Most of the parkway here is bordered by national forests, including portions of the Shining Rock 

Wilderness. The area between mileposts 417 and 460 is dominated by the critically globally imperiled highelevation spruce/fir forest. It is host to numerous sensitive vegetation and wildlife species. Here visitors have many 

opportunities to learn about the area’s biological diversity and the parkway’s role in protecting many unusual plant 

and animal species. Visitors are encouraged to experience this area through scenic overlooks and hiking. The last 20 

miles of the parkway pass through ancestral lands owned by the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, finally ending at 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

Segment 7 — Pisgah, Mileposts 394-469

Segment 7

Pisgah

Mileposts 394-469

Blue Ridge Parkway

North Carolina/Virginia
Management Zones 

75 

COMPARISON OF MANAGEMENT 

STRATEGIES FOR RECREATION AREAS 

On the following pages, the more specific 

planning proposals for the 15 of the park’s 21 

recreation areas are presented. There is a brief 

description of the recreation area, followed by 

a comparison table of management strategies 

by alternative and the zoning maps. The 

recreation areas are presented in order from 

north to south and are as follows: 

 Humpback Rocks, mileposts 6–10 

 James River/Otter Creek, mileposts 60–

65 

 Peaks of Otter, mileposts 82–91 

 Roanoke Mountain, mileposts 118–122 

 Smart View, milepost 155 

 Rocky Knob, mileposts 166–174 

 Mabry Mill, milepost 176 

 Blue Ridge Music Center, milepost 213 

 Cumberland Knob, mileposts 217–219 

 Doughton Park, mileposts 236–247 

 Julian Price Memorial Park, mileposts 

295–300 

 Linville Falls, mileposts 315–319 

 Crabtree Falls, mileposts 339–340 

 Craggy Gardens, mileposts 364–369 

 Mt. Pisgah, mileposts 407–409 

For alternatives B and C, maps with overlaid 

management zones are included for each 

recreation area. Table 6 and figures 13 and 14 

compare the proportion of management zones 

in acres for all 15 parkway recreation areas by 

alternatives B and C. These acreage 

calculations do not include the parkway 

segments. 

TABLE 6. MANAGEMENT ZONES FOR PARKWAY RECREATION AREAS 

BY ACTION ALTERNATIVES—ACREAGE CALCULATIONS

Class Management Zones 

Acres in this Zone 

Alternative B Alternative C 

N Natural 19,491 24,584 

R Recreation 7,751 2,946 

SC Scenic Character 4,277 3,952 

HP Historic Parkway 2,635 2,360 

SNR Special Natural Resources 1,750 1,755 

SCR Special Cultural Resource 388 388 

VS Visitor Services 356 662 

PS Park Support 193 193 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

76 

FIGURE 13. PROPORTION OF MANAGEMENT ZONES FOR 

ALL PARKWAY RECREATION AREAS UNDER ALTERNATIVE B 

FIGURE 14. PROPORTION OF MANAGEMENT ZONES FOR 

ALL PARKWAY RECREATION AREAS UNDER ALTERNATIVE C 
77

Humpback Rocks

Mileposts 6-10

Blue Ridge Parkway

North Carolina/Virginia

Alternative B

View of Parkway from Humpback Rocks

ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B (NPS Preferred) ALTERNATIVE C

Retain the original management emphasis on traditional recreational pursuits.

Expect visitors to have moderate to high frequency of contact with others.

Retain the original management emphasis on traditional recreational pursuits; allow for 

and accommodate future increases in demand for these activities. Expect visitors to have 

moderate to high frequency of contact with others.

Outside of the visitor service areas, manage for low-level visitor use and expect visitors 

to have minimal interaction with others.

The historic Howardsville Turnpike is unmarked with little interpretation for visitors. Mark the Howardsville Turnpike route and improve interpretation for visitors. Same as alternative B.

This area is part of the original master plan as a recreation and destination area. The 

current size of the picnic area, visitor contact station, and trailhead parking does not allow 

accommodation of higher use levels and more interpretive programs.

Maintain the current facilities and design.

Keep visitor facilities consistent with the historic design; however, improve existing trails and 

potentially develop more trails to accommodate future increases in use levels and programs.

Increase the capacity of the visitor contact station to better accommodate current 

and future use levels. Link site trails with U.S. Forest Service trails and Sherando Lake 

facilities.

Develop a part of the multiuse trail discussed under the Ridge segment, if feasible, 

through the Humpback Rocks recreation area to enhance opportunities for pedestrians 

and bicyclists to recreate and travel safely through the area with minimal interaction 

with automobile traffic. 

Continue to work in partnership with the Appalachian Trail to establish a route that avoids 

sensitive resource areas. This may entail rerouting trail sections or repairing trail treads. Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A.

Continue to operate a six-month visitor season, providing interpretive activities and visitor 

services at a basic level. Expand operations to provide services for a nine-month visitor season. Expand operations to provide services for a 12-month visitor season.

Humpback Rocks is the first major recreation area that visitors encounter traveling south from Rockfish Gap. The 

3,000 acres of mostly hardwood forest include several trails, including one to the geological feature of Humpback 

Rocks. Visitors are introduced to the Blue Ridge Parkway experience through staff, publications, and wayside 

exhibits at the visitor contact station. Adjacent to the contact station is the Mountain Farm, which consists of a 

single-room log cabin and a series of outbuildings that represent elements of regional architecture of the 19th and 

early 20th centuries. These buildings were collected during the early 1950s from several locations and reassembled 

at the current location. Costumed interpreters provide demonstrations and emphasize lifestyles of subsistence 

farmers of the late 19th century. Scattered through this area are remnants of an early farm and traces of the 

historic Howardsville Turnpike, which provided a transportation link between the Rockfish and South rivers. The 

Appalachian Trail parallels the parkway through a portion of the area to Rockfish Gap. 

Humpback Rocks, Mileposts 6-10

Alternative C
78

James River/

Otter Creek

Mileposts 60-65

Blue Ridge Parkway

North Carolina/Virginia

View of James River

Alternative B Alternative C

The James River/Otter Creek recreation area offers hiking, camping, picnicking, seasonal concessions dining, and 

fishing. An accessible fishing pier on Otter Lake provides opportunities for visitors with disabilities to fish. A bridge 

and pedestrian walkway across James River connects the seasonally open visitor contact station with the restored 

Battery Creek canal lock. 

James River/Otter Creek, Mileposts 60-65

ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B (NPS Preferred) ALTERNATIVE C

Retain the original management emphasis on traditional recreational pursuits. Retain the original management emphasis on traditional recreational pursuits; allow for 

and accommodate future increases in demand for these activities. Expand operations to 

provide services for a nine-month visitor season.

Outside of the visitor service areas, manage for low-level visitor use and expect visitors to 

have minimal interaction with others.

Retain the existing, underused contact station (originally an open-air interpretive shelter 

and later enclosed) and its exhibits that relate the stories of canal building and mountain 

transportation. 

Convert function of visitor contact station to a wayside shelter for the Otter Creek Trail, 

but retain historic appearance.

Same as alternative B.

Continue to periodically dredge the lake, which is part of the historic design, to remove silt 

and maintain lake qualities.

Same as alternative A. Allow lake to return to its natural wetland condition (remove the dam and spillway, 

discontinue dredging).

Continue to offer seasonal concession food service at Otter Creek if economically feasible. 

If no longer economically viable, it would be closed and the structure would be adaptively 

used or removed.

Continue to find ways to offer seasonal concession food service at Otter Creek. Strategies might include making upgrades to existing infrastructure and/or adding new facilities where appropriate.As in alternative A, continue seasonal concession food service at Otter Creek if economically feasible. If no longer economically viable, develop information directing visitors to 

the private sector in communities outside the parkway for food services

Continue current management of this area; a part of the original master plan as a recreation and destination areaRealign trail between restaurant and lake and provide additional trail links to accommodate higher use levels, with the possibility of expanding trail for future multiuse.Same as alternative B.

Retain the original campground design. Allow for upgrades to the campground as described below. Allow for upgrades and redesigns to the campground as described below.

Continue to implement future repairs and rehabilitations focused on those needed to meet 

backlog maintenance needs. 

Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A.

Upgrade certain comfort stations to provide showers and universal accessibility. Upgrade certain comfort stations to provide showers. Upgrade all comfort stations to be 

universally accessible.

Same as alternative B.

Maintain existing tent sites, including many small sites that do not adequately accommodate large, family-sized tents.Enlarge selected tent sites to better accommodate family-sized tents. Same as alternative B.

Maintain existing recreational vehicle camping without water and electrical hookups at the 

campgrounds. 

Upgrade existing RV sites to provide water and electrical hookups. Same as alternative B.

Continue to provide limited access (i.e., narrow roads, tight turns, and small parking 

spaces) that does not adequately accommodate larger RVs.

Same as alternative A. Improve RV access to a portion of the campground. Upgrades would include widening the campground entrance and one of the loop roads, increasing turning radii, and 

enlarging existing RV parking spaces.

Continue to operate a six-month visitor season, providing interpretive activities and visitor 

services at a basic level.

Expand operations for a nine-month visitor season. Same as alternative B.
79

Peaks of Otter

Mileposts 82-91

Blue Ridge Parkway

North Carolina/Virginia

Alternative C

View of Abbott Lake and Peaks Lodge from Sharp Top

The Peaks of Otter recreation area includes about 4,100 acres of mostly hardwood forest. It is nestled within the 

triangle formed by Sharp Top Mountain, Flat Top Mountain, and Harkening Hill. Abbott Lake, created by parkway 

designers, provides the aesthetic focal point. The area is home to rare plants and animal species and it is a prehistoric 

site of human occupation. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the cooler climate and mountain scenery began to attract 

vacationers and a small community developed to serve the needs of these tourists. The Johnson family and Polly 

Woods Ordinary are both intricately connected with tourism development. The Peaks community also included 

African Americans, including the Saunders family, whose home remains as visible ruins near the picnic area. Visitor 

amenities include the Peaks restaurant and lodge (open year-round), a campground, picnic area, general store, 

shuttle bus to Sharp Top Mountain, visitor contact station, environmental education center, and extensive trail 

system. The Peaks lodge and campground are part of the original historic design. These facilities are outdated, do 

not meet the needs of many visitors, and there are few off-parkway lodge or camping options nearby.

Peaks of Otter, Mileposts 82-91

ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B (NPS Preferred) ALTERNATIVE C

Retain the original management emphasis on traditional recreational pursuits. Retain the original management emphasis on traditional recreational pursuits; for much of 

this site, allow for and accommodate future increases in demand for these activities. 

Outside of the visitor service areas, manage for low-level visitor use and expect visitors to 

have minimal interaction with others.

The historic Saunders farm is currently managed as a landscape feature. The farm is not 

structurally stable. The Johnson farm is also currently managed as a landscape feature. The 

structures are stable, but the cultural landscape has lost integrity.

Rehabilitate Saunders farm and the landscape at Johnson farm. Interpret both sites for 

visitors.

Stabilize Saunders farm and rehabilitate the landscape at Johnson farm. Interpret both 

sites for visitors.

Continue to offer concession food and lodging service at Peaks of Otter if economically 

feasible. If no longer economically viable, services would be eliminated and the structure 

would be adaptively used or removed. 

Continue to find ways to provide concession food and lodging services at Peaks of Otter. 

Strategies might include making upgrades to existing infrastructure and/or adding new 

facilities where appropriate. 

As in alternative A, the park would continue to offer concession food and lodging services 

at Peaks of Otter if economically feasible. If no longer economically viable, the park would 

look to the private sector in communities outside the park to provide food services. 

Retain the original campground design. Allow for upgrades to the campground as described below. Allow for upgrades and redesigns to the campground as described below.

Continue to implement future repairs and rehabilitations needed to meet backlog 

maintenance needs. Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A.

Upgrade certain comfort stations to provide showers and universal accessibility. Upgrade certain comfort stations to provide showers. Upgrade all comfort stations to be 

universally accessible. Same as alternative B.

Maintain existing tent sites, including many small sites that do not adequately 

accommodate large, family-sized tents. Enlarge selected tent sites to better accommodate family-sized tents. Same as alternative B.

Maintain existing recreational vehicle camping without water and electrical hookups at the 

campgrounds. Upgrade existing RV sites with water and electrical hookups. Same as alternative B.

Continue to provide limited access (i.e., narrow roads, tight turns, and small parking spaces) 

that does not adequately accommodate larger RVs.

Improve RV access to a portion of the campground. Upgrades would include widening the 

campground entrance and one of the loop roads, increasing turning radii, and enlarging 

existing RV parking spaces.

Same as alternative B.

Continue to only offer tent and RV camping within the Peaks of Otter campground. Same as alternative A. Convert a portion of campsites to rental cabins within the Peaks of Otter campground.

Continue to operate a six-month visitor season, providing interpretive activities and visitor 

services at a basic level. Expand operations to provide services for a nine-month visitor season. Expand operations to provide services for a 12-month visitor season.

Alternative B
80

Roanoke Mountain

Mileposts 118-122

Blue Ridge Parkway

North Carolina/Virginia

A loop road to the top of Roanoke Mountain is a popular attraction with dramatic overlooks of the city and the 

Roanoke Valley. Hang glider enthusiasts use the summit by permit. Mill Mountain Road provides access to a 

parkway campground, trails, a local zoo, and city overlooks. There are hiking and fishing opportunities along the 

Roanoke River and hiking near the campground. The area also offers horseback riding. Adjacent city and county of 

Roanoke visitor amenities, such as the zoo, generate demand for more day use amenities in parkway-managed areas. 

The campground is underused, in part because its valley location makes it the hottest of the parkway campgrounds 

during the summer.

Roanoke Mountain, Mileposts 118-122

ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B (NPS Preferred) ALTERNATIVE C

National Park Service manages the Roanoke Mountain loop road and Mill Mountain spur 

road areas; however, the city of Roanoke owns much of the land and leases it to the 

parkway.

Establish an agreement with the city of Roanoke for partnership management of the Mill 

Mountain spur road area.

Continue management of the Roanoke Mountain and Mill Mountain spur road areas 

under lease agreement with the city of Roanoke.

Retain the original campground design, even though it is underused — probably because its 

valley location makes it the hottest of the parkway campgrounds during the summer.

Convert the entire Roanoke Mountain campground to a day use recreation area, 

including picnic and trail staging facilities. Collaborate with local communities and other 

park partners to consider innovative ways to effectively manage Roanoke Mountain 

over the interim of this conversion from a campground to a day use area. Any new trail 

developments would be compatible with the Roanoke Trail Plan. 

Allow for upgrades to the campground as described below. 

Continue to implement future repairs and rehabilitations focused on those needed to meet 

backlog maintenance needs. Same as alternative A.

Continue to provide small tent sites that do not adequately accommodate large, familysized tents. Enlarge selected tent sites to better accommodate family-sized tents.

Upgrade certain campground comfort stations to provide showers and universal 

accessibility.

Upgrade certain comfort stations to provide showers. Upgrade all comfort stations to be 

universally accessible.

Continue to provide RV camping without water and electrical hookups. Upgrade existing RV sites with water and electrical hookups.

Continue to provide limited access to accommodate larger RVs (i.e., narrow roads, tight 

turns, and small parking spaces). Same as alternative A.

View from Roanoke Mountain

Alternative B Alternative C
81

Smart View 

Milepost 155

Blue Ridge Parkway

North Carolina/Virginia

Alternative C

This recreation area encompasses about 700 acres. The trails, group picnic shelters, and restroom facilities provide 

opportunities for visitors to participate in a variety of day use recreational activities. 

ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B (NPS Preferred) ALTERNATIVE C

Retain the original management emphasis on traditional recreational pursuits.

Retain existing facilities and infrastructure.

Retain the original management emphasis on traditional recreational pursuits, allowing for 

and accommodating future increases in demand for these activities, including additional trail 

infrastructure. 

Outside of the visitor service areas, manage for low-level visitor use and expect visitors 

to have minimal interaction with others. Accommodate existing and anticipated future 

demand for picnicking with possible improvements to existing picnic area.

Retain the existing qualities of the pastoral agricultural landscape. Further protect the pastoral landscape through possible acquisition of lands or conservation 

easements. Same as alternative B.

Smart View, Milepost 155

Smart View Picnic Area

Alternative B
82

Rocky Knob 

Mileposts 166-174

Blue Ridge Parkway

North Carolina/Virginia

The Rocky Knob recreation area, including Rockcastle Gorge, has more than 3,500 acres of mostly rugged, forested 

terrain. There are many overlooks and vistas along the parkway of the dramatic Rockcastle Gorge, making it an 

important scenic focal point. Near the parkway are a campground, picnic area, and a visitor contact station that 

is housed in a converted historic gas station. The gas station structure is an excellent example of original parkway 

design; however, as a contact station, this structure is small and inadequately serves the visitor. An extensive trail 

system in Rockcastle Gorge provides excellent hiking and access to backcountry and cabin camping opportunities. 

In the gorge are remnants of an abandoned mountain community. The National Park Service owns and administers 

the entire watershed of Rockcastle Gorge, which is home to a number of rare plants and provides opportunities for 

natural resource monitoring and comparative study. 

Rocky Knob, Mileposts 166-174

ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B (NPS Preferred) ALTERNATIVE C

Manage the historic gas station structure to retain the historic architectural character and 

visitor contact function.

Convert visitor contact station to trailhead shelter when a visitor contact facility is established 

at Mabry Mill. Same as alternative B. 

The picnic area is on the site of an original campground. The size of the picnic area has 

grown over time. It receives moderate use from primarily the local community. Reduce the size of the picnic area to the historic footprint of the old campground. Accommodate existing and anticipated future demand for picnicking with possible improvements to existing picnic area.

Continue to provide guided walks to the historic Rockcastle Gorge settlement sites. Same as alternative A. Manage historic settlement sites as a cultural landscape. Provide interpretive waysides, selfguiding trails, and guided walks. 

Combined, Rocky Knob and Rockcastle Gorge have over 11 miles of hiking trails and fire 

road.

Upgrade Gorge trail system and enhance backcountry camping area. Provide trailhead 

staging and improve parking near backcountry campsite. In proximity of the historic settlement sites, including the fire road, allow hiking only. 

Continue to operate the Rocky Knob cabins as a concession if economically feasible. If 

services are discontinued, the structures would be adaptively used or removed.

Continue to find ways to provide cabin concession services. Strategies might include making 

upgrades to existing infrastructure and/or adding new facilities where appropriate. Retain 

historic character if possible. 

Same as alternative A. If cabin lodging services are discontinued, the parkway would look 

to the private sector in communities outside the parkway to provide cabin lodging services.

Retain the original campground design. Allow for upgrades to the campground as described below. Allow for upgrades and redesigns to the campground as described below.

Continue to implement future repairs and rehabilitations needed to meet backlog 

maintenance needs. Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A.

Upgrade certain comfort stations to provide showers and universal accessibility. Upgrade certain comfort stations to provide showers. Upgrade all comfort stations to be 

universally accessible. Same as alternative B.

Continue to provide small tent sites that do not adequately accommodate large, familysized tents. Enlarge selected tent sites to better accommodate family-sized tents. Same as alternative B.

Continue to provide RV camping without water and electrical hookups. Upgrade existing RV sites with water and electrical hookups. Same as alternative B.

Continue to provide limited access that does not adequately accommodate larger RVs 

within the seven campgrounds that offer RV camping (i.e., narrow roads, tight turns, and 

small parking spaces).

Same as alternative A.

Improve RV access to a portion of the campground. Upgrades would include widening the 

campground entrance and one of the loop roads, increasing turning radii, and enlarging 

existing RV parking spaces.

Rocky Knob Visitor Contact Station

Alternative B Alternative C
83

Mabry Mill 

Milepost 176

Blue Ridge Parkway

North Carolina/Virginia

The Mabry Mill complex is one of the most picturesque and popular cultural sites on the parkway. It is an outdoor 

museum with an eclectic assemblage of buildings and exhibits that display Appalachian mountain industry and 

lifestyles. The mill was built around 1908 by Ed Mabry and operated until the mid-1930s. The reflecting pond was 

added later by the National Park Service. In addition to the mill and Mabry’s blacksmith shop, parkway designers 

added a number of other outdoor exhibits, including a sorghum cooker and shed, moonshine still, and farm 

implements. And Mabry’s house, a wood-frame house, was apparently too modern for the designers and was 

replaced with the Mathews log cabin. Site personnel occasionally provide cultural demonstrations in the house and 

on the grounds. The Mabry Mill site, including its restaurant, is a very popular and traditional destination for many 

visitors, especially on weekends when pancake breakfasts and live music are big draws. 

Mabry Mill, Milepost 176

ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B (NPS Preferred) ALTERNATIVE C

Continue to manage the Mabry Mill area—its buildings, raceways, and walkways—as an 

outdoor museum consistent with the experience intended by the parkway designers. Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A.

Continue to operate the Mabry Mill restaurant as a concession if economically feasible. 

If services are discontinued, the structure would be adaptively used as a visitor contact 

station.

Continue to provide concession food services. Strategies might include making upgrades to 

existing infrastructure or constructing a new restaurant elsewhere on site if appropriate.

Same as alternative A. Look to the private sector in communities outside the parkway to 

provide restaurant services.

Continue to offer existing visitor information and interpretive services about mountain 

industry.

Improve interpretive media and provide more diverse presentations of mountain industry. 

Pursue development of a visitor contact station.

Improve interpretive media and provide more diverse presentations of mountain industry. If 

restaurant services were discontinued, convert the structure to a visitor contact station.

Pedestrian access and circulation around the site are inefficient. 

Within the Historic Parkway zone improve quality of existing trails and upgrade site signs 

and wayside exhibits. For remainder of site, redesign pedestrian circulation, signs, and 

wayside exhibits.

Redesign pedestrian circulation, signs, and wayside exhibits throughout the site.

Site is bisected by a state road that visitors must cross to access parking. Relocate the state road crossing that bisects Mabry Mill. Same as alternative B.

Meadows of Dan is a small gateway community and important parkway access point near 

Mabry Mill. Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A. Also, explore opportunities for developing a multiuse trail between Mabry Mill and Meadows of Dan.

Continue to operate a six-month visitor season, providing interpretive activities and visitor 

services at a basic level. Expand operations to provide services for a nine-month visitor season. Expand operations to provide services for a 12-month visitor season.

Alternative C

Entrance to Mabry Mill Complex

Alternative B
84

Blue Ridge 

Music Center

Milepost 213

Blue Ridge Parkway

North Carolina/Virginia

The Blue Ridge Music Center recreation area, one of the newest along the parkway, covers more than 1,700 acres 

of meadow and forest landscape, including part of Fisher Peak Mountain. Located just north of the North Carolina 

state line in Virginia’s Grayson and Carroll counties, the music center is in the heart of the Blue Ridge old-time 

and string band music region. Much of this traditional Appalachian music was commercially recorded in the 1920s 

and 1930s but has roots going back to 19th century European and African influences. The music center complex, 

operated in partnership with the National Council for the Traditional Arts, provides opportunities to learn about 

this music in the interpretive center and hear it performed at an amphitheater at a series of summer concerts. The 

music center is one of the major stops along Virginia’s Heritage Music Trail, the Crooked Road. This recently added 

site will likely see considerable growth in visitation as the public becomes more aware of its amenities and the 

number and diversity of cultural demonstrations, music, and other events offered increase over time. 

Blue Ridge Music Center, Milepost 213

ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVES B & C (NPS Preferred)

Continue to maintain the grounds and infrastructure; provide logistical support for events; and provide 

seasonal onsite visitor information and interpretive services.

Expand information and orientation capabilities through partnership and park staff at the Blue Ridge Music 

Center. Expand the parkway’s active participation in regional heritage tourism projects.

Continue to operate a six-month visitor season, providing interpretive activities and visitor services at a 

basic level. Expand operations for a nine-month visitor season.

Blue Ridge Music Center Amphitheater

Alternatives B & C
85

Cumberland Knob

Mileposts 217-219

Blue Ridge Parkway

North Carolina/Virginia

The 2,000-acre Cumberland Knob recreational area is the site where construction of the Blue Ridge Parkway began 

on September 11, 1935. The recreational area opened in 1937. The visitor contact station, which opened in 1942, is 

an outstanding example of rustic architecture. This day use area includes mostly forested mountainsides, a popular 

picnic area, and hiking trails. The parkway closed the visitor contact station in 2005, when the Blue Ridge Music 

Center opened. 

Cumberland Knob, Mileposts 217-219

Cumberland Knob Business Contact Station (Currently Closed)

ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B (NPS Preferred) ALTERNATIVE C

Retain structures, facilities, trails, and infrastructure at current levels. Continue to keep 

the visitor contact station closed.

Restore the visitor contact station to its original historical appearance and install interior 

and exterior exhibits that present the story of parkway construction and early use.

Increase visitor services and enhance the visitor experience (e.g., staff visitor contact 

station and increase ranger-led programs).

Same as alternative B.

Continue to manage as a day use picnic area with minimal visitor services.

Within the visitor services area, accommodate future increases in demand for use of 

picnic area as a day use area and a location for onsite Parks-as-Classrooms programs for 

schools from the surrounding counties, including additional trail and picnic infrastructure 

and outdoor program shelters. 

Retain emphasis on traditional recreational activities, allowing for and 

accommodating future increases in demand for these activities, including additional 

trail and picnic infrastructure.

Alternative B Alternative C
86

Doughton Park

Mileposts 236-247

Blue Ridge Parkway

North Carolina/Virginia

This recreation area of more than 5,000 acres contains the entire watershed for Basin Cove. It is a fairly isolated site 

and has a very rugged backcountry. It is contiguous with the Thurman Chatham Game Lands and Stone Mountain 

State Park. Originally called the Bluffs, this area offers a range of concession services, including a 24-room lodge, 

restaurant with craft sales, and store. There is no visitor contact station. This area has one of the parkway’s larger 

campgrounds, a popular picnic area, and more than 30 miles of backcountry hiking trails that access Basin Cove. 

The cove is popular for fly-fishing, horseback riding (Grassy Gap fire road), and backcountry camping. In the early 

1900s, the Basin Cove area was home to a small community, but in 1916 a devastating flood forced many people to 

leave. Interpretive programs are offered at Brinegar Cabin, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 

Doughton Park, Mileposts 236-247

ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVES B & C (NPS Preferred)

The area is attractive for recreational trail use and there are unmet opportunities to better accommodate horse use.

Designate mixed-use trails for horses and hiking. Construct trailhead parking, accommodate horse trailers, and provide equestrian 

backcountry campsites at trail junction. 

Upgrade popular picnic area to better accommodate existing and future use.

Continue to offer concession lodging and food service at Bluffs Lodge and coffee shop if economically feasible. Should these services 

be eliminated, the structures would be adaptively used or removed. For example, there is a need for visitor information in this area 

and one of the structures could be adapted for that activity.

Continue to provide concession services at Doughton, including Bluffs Lodge and coffee shop. Strategies might include making 

upgrades to existing infrastructure and/or adding new facilities where appropriate.

The landscape at Brinegar Cabin has evolved from its historical appearance. Manage the fields at Brinegar Cabin to replicate the historic landscape.

Retain the original campground design. Allow for upgrades to the campground as described below.

Continue to implement future repairs and rehabilitations needed to meet backlog maintenance needs. Same as alternative A.

Upgrade certain campground comfort stations to provide showers and universal accessibility. Upgrade certain comfort stations to provide showers. Upgrade all comfort stations to be universally accessible.

Continue to provide small tent sites that do not adequately accommodate large, family-sized tents. Enlarge selected tent sites to better accommodate family-sized tents. Convert some tent sites to RV sites.

Continue to provide RV camping without water and electrical hookups. Upgrade existing RV sites with water and electrical hookups.

Continue to provide limited access (i.e., narrow roads, tight turns, and small parking spaces) that does not adequately accommodate 

larger RVs. Same as alternative A.

Alternatives B & C

Doughton Park Lodge
87

Julian Price

Memorial Park

Mileposts 295-300

Blue Ridge Parkway

North Carolina/Virginia

The wilderness-like appeal of more than 4,000 acres of forested highlands and cold mountain streams welcomes 

outdoor enthusiasts to Julian Price Memorial Park, a popular recreation area. Price Lake—47 acres of cool, 

mountain headwaters—further fulfills the wish of Julian Price to provide recreational opportunities for the public, 

including boaters and anglers. Currently the site includes a campground, picnic area, hiking trails, and a concessionoperated boat rental facility at Price Lake. The campground has sites that are available through the national 

campground reservation system. It is one of the most heavily used campgrounds on the parkway. Boat rental office 

and dock are located in an area that is difficult for visitors to see or find. It is also difficult for concessions to monitor 

boating activity on the lake from this location. 

Julian Price Memorial Park, Mileposts 295-300

ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B (NPS Preferred) ALTERNATIVE C

Important wetlands and listed species are at risk from visitor-related impacts. Manage wetlands to protect sensitive species by adjusting current landscape management 

practices. Same as alternative B. 

Continue to provide picnicking in the current picnic area, which is heavily used and is in the 

floodplain. Relocate the picnic area out of the floodplain and restore current site. Same as alternative A. Also, upgrade comfort stations in picnic area.

Maintain boat rental office and dock in its present location and configuration. Relocate boat rental office and dock to resolve current visibility problems. Improve site signs to direct visitors to the boat rental office and dock.

Continue to provide the extensive backcountry hiking trail system.

Maintain the existing trail system and allow hiking only. Develop a part of the paved 

multiuse trail discussed under the Highlands segment, if feasible, through Julian Price 

recreation area to enhance opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists to recreate and 

travel safely through the area with minimal interaction with automobile traffic.

Upgrade part of existing trail system and construct additional trails. Allow for mountain 

biking on designated portions of the trail system. 

Retain the original campground design. 

Improve RV access to a portion of the campground. Upgrades would include widening the 

campground entrance and one of the loop roads, increasing turning radii, and enlarging 

existing RV parking spaces.

Same as alternative B.

Continue to implement future repairs and rehabilitations needed to meet backlog 

maintenance needs. Allow for upgrades and redesigns to the campground as described above. Same as alternative A.

Upgrade certain campground comfort stations to provide showers and universal 

accessibility. Allow for upgrades and redesigns to the campground as described above. Upgrade certain comfort stations to provide showers. Upgrade all comfort stations to be universally accessible.

Continue to provide small tent sites that do not adequately accommodate large, familysized tents. Allow for upgrades and redesigns to the campground as described above. Enlarge selected tent sites to better accommodate family-sized tents.

Continue to provide RV camping without water and electrical hookups. Allow for upgrades and redesigns to the campground as described above. Upgrade existing RV sites wi th water and electrical hookups.

Continue to provide limited access (i.e., narrow roads, tight turns, and small parking 

spaces) that does not adequately accommodate larger RVs. Allow for upgrades and redesigns to the campground as described above. Same as alternative A.

Price Lake

Alternative B Alternative C
88

Linville Falls

Mileposts 315-319

Blue Ridge Parkway

North Carolina/Virginia

Linville Falls is a very popular, highly used recreation area of more than 1,100 acres. A 1.2-mile spur road travels 

along the Linville River to within walking distance of the falls. A heavily used trail system takes the visitor to the 

falls, which cascade through a forested gorge of old growth eastern hemlock stands. Looking eastward, away 

from the falls and into the adjacent Pisgah National Forest, is a view of the Linville Gorge Wilderness Area. 

Currently the site includes a picnic area, campground, hiking trails, fishing opportunities, and a visitor contact 

station. This campground has sites that are available through the national campground reservation system.

Linville Falls, Mileposts 315-319

ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B (NPS Preferred) ALTERNATIVE C

Retain the original management emphasis on traditional recreational pursuits.

Retain the original management emphasis on traditional recreational pursuits; allow for and 

accommodate future increases in demand for these activities. 

Better delineate and possibly pave trails. Formalize access to visitor opportunities; improve 

universal access for fishing.

Outside the visitor service areas, manage for low-level visitor use and expect visitors to have 

minimal interaction with others.

Redesign picnic area to help reduce visitor impacts on riparian area. Formalize access to 

recreational opportunities; improve universal access for fishing.

The visitor contact station is in the floodplain. It was recently remodeled and enlarged and 

provides site orientation and interpretation. Same as alternative A. Convert visitor contact station to trailhead shelter and relocate contact station function to nearby location out of the floodplain.

Retain the original campground design. Allow for upgrades to the campground as described below. Allow for upgrades and redesigns to the campground as described below.

Continue to implement future repairs and rehabilitations needed to meet backlog 

maintenance needs. Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A.

Upgrade certain campground comfort stations to provide showers and universal 

accessibility.

Upgrade certain comfort stations to provide showers. Upgrade all comfort stations to be 

universally accessible. Same as alternative B.

Continue to provide small tent sites that do not adequately accommodate large, familysized tents. Enlarge selected tent sites to better accommodate family-sized tents. Same as alternative B.

Continue to provide RV camping without water and electrical hookups. Upgrade existing RV sites with water and electrical hookups. Same as alternative B.

Continue to provide limited access (i.e., narrow roads, tight turns, and small parking 

spaces) that does not adequately accommodate larger RVs. Same as alternative A.

Improve RV access to a portion of the campground. Upgrades would include widening the 

campground entrance and one of the loop roads, increasing turning radii, and enlarging 

existing RV parking spaces. 

Maintenance facility is inadequate and is visually intrusive when viewed from the spur 

road. Improve maintenance facility and area landscaping. Same as alternative B.

Continue to operate a six-month visitor season, providing interpretive activities and visitor 

services at a basic level. Expand operations to provide services for a nine-month visitor season. Expand operations to provide services for a 12-month visitor season.

Alternative C

Upper Linville Falls

Alternative B
89

Alternative C

Crabtree Falls

Mileposts 339-340

Blue Ridge Parkway

North Carolina/Virginia

Alternative B

Crabtree Falls, Mileposts 339-340

ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C

Continue to manage NPS visitor services development at current size and scale. 

Retain the original management emphasis on traditional recreational pursuits; allow for and 

accommodate future increases in demand for these activities. Expect visitors to have moderate to high 

contact with others (Recreation zone).

Same as alternative A. Outside the visitor service areas manage for low-level visitor use and expect 

visitors to have minimal interaction with others (Natural zone).

Continue to offer concession food and gift store services if economically feasible. If services are 

eliminated, the structures would be adaptively used or removed.

Continue to provide concession food and gift store services. Strategies might include making upgrades 

to existing infrastructure and/or adding new facilities where appropriate.

As in alternative A, continue to offer concession food and gift store services if economically 

feasible. Where concession services are eliminated, the parkway would look to the private sector in 

communities outside the parkway to provide services.

Retain the original campground design. Allow for upgrades to the campground as described below. Allow for upgrades and redesigns to the campground as described below.

Continue to implement future repairs and rehabilitations needed to meet backlog maintenance needs. Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A.

Upgrade certain campground comfort stations to provide showers and universal accessibility. Upgrade certain comfort stations to provide showers. Upgrade all comfort stations to be universally 

accessible. Same as alternative B.

Continue to provide small tent sites that do not adequately accommodate large, family-sized tents. Enlarge selected tent sites to better accommodate family-sized tents. Same as alternative B.

Continue to provide RV camping without water and electrical hookups. Upgrade existing RV sites with water and electrical hookups. Same as alternative B.

Continue to provide limited access (i.e., narrow roads, tight turns, and small parking spaces) that does 

not adequately accommodate larger RVs. Same as alternative A.

Improve RV access to a portion of the campground. Upgrades would include widening the 

campground entrance and one of the loop roads, increasing turning radii, and enlarging existing RV 

parking spaces. 

Crabtree Falls

Visitors can participate in a variety of recreational activities at Crabtree Falls, including camping, hiking, picnicking, 

amphitheater programs, and dining. Visitors also have access to a camp store, gift shop, and snack bar. The many acres 

of meadows, adjoining forest, and spectacular Crabtree Falls provide a cool and delightful summer retreat within 

the shadow of the Black Mountain Range. Picnic area, campground, hiking trails, fishing opportunities, and a visitor 

contact station. 
90

Craggy Gardens

Mileposts 364-369

Blue Ridge Parkway

North Carolina/Virginia

Craggy Gardens, Mileposts 364-369

ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B (NPS Preferred) ALTERNATIVE C

The only grassy bald on the parkway is located here and is at risk from successional 

plant growth without active management. Restore the grassy bald to its historic size and actively maintain. Same as alternative B.

The site’s popular short- and long-distance trails are routed through sensitive resources,

and off-trail hiking causes resource damage.

Close Craggy Pinnacle trail and restore trail tread to natural conditions in order to protect 

rare plant species. Provide a new formal hiking trail to Craggy Dome.

Retain the trail to Craggy Pinnacle. Explore and improve methods to keep visitors 

on the trail such as through signs, physical obstructions such as walls, staffing, and 

education. Monitor sensitive resources and adjust management actions as needed to 

meet protection needs. 

Continue to operate a six-month visitor season, providing interpretive activities and 

visitor services at a basic level. Expand operations for a nine-month visitor season. Same as alternative B.

Craggy Dome from Craggy Pinnacle

Alternatives B & C

Craggy Gardens comprises almost 600 acres, including important heath and grassy bald habitat. Visitor 

amenities include trails, picnic area, restrooms, and a visitor contact station. Site interpretation includes wayside 

exhibits supplemented with roving personal service, publications, and media inside the contact station. 
91

Mt. Pisgah

Mileposts 407-469

Blue Ridge Parkway

North Carolina/Virginia

The Mount Pisgah recreation area is a scenic, high-elevation site. It provides a variety of recreational and 

educational opportunities, including a popular concession-operated lodge, restaurant, gift shop, and camp store. 

Across from the concession facilities is a campground and amphitheater, picnic area, and trails. Most interpretive 

activities are concentrated at the campground. This area includes spruce/fir habitat and an 8,000-year-old high 

altitude bog. The bog is at risk because it is surrounded by a popular campground. 

Mt. Pisgah, Mileposts 407-409

ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B (NPS Preferred) ALTERNATIVE C

Continue to offer concession food, lodging, and gift store services if economically feasible. 

If services are eliminated, the structures would be adaptively used or removed.

Continue to provide concession food, lodging, and gift store services. Strategies might 

include making upgrades to infrastructure.

As in alternative A, continue to offer concession food and gift store services if economically 

feasible. Where concession services are eliminated, parkway managers would look to the 

private sector in communities outside the parkway to provide services.

Buck Spring Lodge is a ruin of a historic hunting lodge. The site is interpreted by wayside 

exhibits. Some minimal management of vegetation is allowed to support interpretation of 

the site.

Restore the Buck Spring Lodge cultural landscape, including clearing vegetation. Same as alternative B.

Retain the original campground design, even though it risks impacting a rare high-elevation 

bog. 

Close and rehabilitate all tent camping sites that are directly adjacent to the bog. Convert 

a portion of existing RV sites to tent camping sites. In sensitive resource areas near the bog 

restrict visitor use to trails.

Same as alternative B.

Continue to implement future repairs and rehabilitations needed to meet backlog 

maintenance needs. Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A.

Upgrade certain campground comfort stations to provide showers and universal 

accessibility.

Upgrade certain comfort stations to provide showers. Upgrade all comfort stations to be 

universally accessible. Same as alternative B.

Continue to provide small tent sites that do not adequately accommodate large, familysized tents. Enlarge selected tent sites to better accommodate family-sized tents. Same as alternative B.

Continue to provide RV camping without water and electrical hookups. Upgrade existing RV sites with water and electrical hookups. Same as alternative B.

Continue to provide limited access (i.e., narrow roads, tight turns, and small parking 

spaces) that does not adequately accommodate larger RVs. Same as alternative A. Same as alternative A.

View of Pisgah Inn

Alternative B Alternative C

93 

MITIGATION MEASURES COMMON TO THE ACTION 

ALTERNATIVES 

Congress has charged the National Park 

Service with managing the lands under its 

stewardship “in such manner and by such 

means as will leave them unimpaired for the 

enjoyment of future generations” (NPS 

Organic Act, 16 USC 1). As a result, the 

National Park Service routinely evaluates and 

implements mitigation whenever conditions 

occur that could adversely affect the 

sustainability of national park system 

resources. 

To ensure that implementation of the final 

selected management alternative protects 

natural and cultural resources unimpaired for 

future generations and provides for a high 

quality visitor experience, a consistent set of 

mitigation measures would be applied to 

actions proposed in the final general 

management plan / environmental impact 

statement. The National Park Service would 

prepare appropriate environmental 

compliance reviews (i.e., those required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act, National 

Historic Preservation Act’s sections 106 and 

110, Archaeological Resources Protection Act, 

Endangered Species Act, and other relevant 

legislation) for such future actions. As part of 

the environmental review, the National Park 

Service would avoid, minimize, and mitigate 

adverse impacts. The park could consider 

implementing a compliance-monitoring 

program that would apply these mitigation 

measures and also include reporting 

protocols. 

The following mitigation measures and best 

management practices would be applied to 

avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts 

from implementation of the general 

management plan. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Vegetation 

 Monitor areas used by visitors (e.g., 

trails) for signs of native vegetation 

disturbance. Use public education, 

revegetation of disturbed areas using 

native plant species, erosion control, and 

barriers to control potential impacts on 

plants from trail erosion or social 

trailing. 

 Designate streamcrossing points for 

cattle in agricultural parcels and use 

barriers and closures to prevent 

trampling and loss of riparian vegetation. 

 Develop revegetation plans for disturbed 

areas and require the use of native 

species. Revegetation plans should 

specify seed/plant source, seed/plant 

mixes, soil preparation, etc. Salvage 

vegetation should be used to the extent 

possible. 

Wildlife 

 Employ various techniques to reduce 

impacts on wildlife, including visitor 

education programs, restrictions on 

visitor activities, and park law 

enforcement patrols. 

 Consider the use of large mammal 

wildlife passages at various key points 

along the parkway to maintain and 

enhance the wildlife habitat connectivity 

across the roadway. 

 Implement a natural resource protection 

program that includes such standard 

measures as 

-scheduling construction during 

seasons that are best for wildlife 

-monitoring for adverse impact 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

94 

-implementing best management 

practices to prevent and reduce 

erosion and sediment 

-installing and maintaining fences or 

other barriers to protect sensitive 

resources adjacent to construction 

sites 

-removing all food-related items to 

reduce or prevent bear intrusion 

-salvaging topsoil 

-replanting with native vegetation, and 

-periodic monitoring by resource 

management specialists or other park 

staff who would provide treatment 

and status reports 

 Designate streamcrossing points for 

cattle in agricultural parcels and use 

barriers and closures to prevent 

disturbances to wildlife habitat. 

Invasive Species 

 Apply an integrated pest management 

approach to comprehensively address 

invasive, nonnative plants on parkway 

lands. Implement integrated pest 

management at existing, developed park 

sites, at proposed future sites, and at 

other areas in need of pest management. 

Standard measures could include the 

following elements: 

-ensure construction and maintenancerelated equipment arrives onsite free 

of mud or seed-bearing material 

-use only seeds and straw material 

certified as weed-free 

-identify areas of noxious weeds 

preconstruction 

-use registered herbicides, where 

applicable (and low toxicity 

applications in areas with sensitive 

resources) 

-treat noxious weeds or noxious weed 

topsoil before construction (e.g., 

topsoil segregation, storage, herbicide 

treatment) 

-revegetate with appropriate native 

species 

-consider use of other management 

techniques such as mechanical 

removal, biological controls, 

prescribed fire, etc. 

 Implement an abatement program for 

nonnative, invasive wildlife (e.g., gypsy 

moth, hemlock woolly adelgid, etc.) 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

and Species of Concern 

Mitigation actions would occur during normal 

park operations as well as before, during, and 

after construction to minimize immediate and 

long-term impacts on rare, threatened, and 

endangered species. These actions would vary 

depending on the type of project and its 

location. Many of the measures listed 

previously for vegetation and wildlife would 

also benefit rare, threatened, and endangered 

species by helping to preserve habitat. 

Mitigation actions specific to rare, threatened, 

and endangered species would include the 

following: 

 Conduct surveys for rare, threatened, 

and endangered species as warranted. 

Also, consult with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service on the frequency 

required for surveys prior to the 

commencement of construction 

activities. Apply site and design 

facilities/actions to avoid adverse effects 

on rare, threatened, and endangered 

species. If avoidance is infeasible, 

minimize and compensate adverse 

effects on rare, threatened, and 

endangered species as appropriate and 

in consultation with the appropriate 

resource agencies. 

 Develop and implement restoration 

and/or monitoring plans as warranted. 

Plans should include methods for 

implementation, performance standards, 

monitoring criteria, and adaptive 

management techniques. 

 Implement measures to reduce adverse 

effects of nonnative plants and wildlife 

on rare, threatened, and endangered 

species. 
Mitigation Measures Common to the Action Alternatives 

95 

Water Resources 

 Establish effective water quality best 

management practices to prevent off-site 

soil erosion and sedimentation into 

creeks, rivers, and other water bodies. 

Apply on all construction projects on 

parkway lands. 

 Use erosion control measures (as per 

best management practices), minimize 

discharge to water bodies, and regularly 

inspect construction equipment for leaks 

of petroleum and other chemicals to 

prevent water pollution during 

construction. 

 Build a runoff filtration system to 

minimize water pollution from larger 

parking areas. 

 Designate streamcrossing points for 

cattle in agricultural parcels and use 

barriers and closures to minimize effects 

on water quality. 

Wetlands 

 Through consultation with the NPS 

regional wetland ecologist, determine if a 

wetlands statement of findings is needed 

for any future implementation project 

that could affect wetlands in the 

parkway and produce wetlands 

statement of findings documents where 

necessary. 

 Consult with U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers for guidance and assistance on 

section 404 jurisdictional wetland 

delineations. 

 Delineate wetlands and apply protection 

measures before any ground 

disturbance. For example, wetlands 

would be delineated by qualified NPS 

staff or certified wetland specialists (with 

possible assistance by U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers) and clearly marked before 

construction work. Perform 

construction activities in a cautious 

manner to prevent damage caused by 

equipment, erosion, siltation, etc. 

Soils 

 Build new facilities on soils suitable for 

development. 

 Minimize soil erosion by limiting the 

time that soil was left exposed and by 

applying other erosion control measures, 

such as erosion matting, silt fencing, and 

sedimentation basins in construction 

areas to reduce erosion, surface 

scouring, and discharge to water bodies. 

Once work is completed, revegetate 

construction areas with native plants in a 

timely period. 

 Identify potential acid-bearing rocks 

prior to construction activities (e.g., 

pyritic shale, high sulfur-bearing rocks) 

and take proper precautions to prevent 

acid drainage from rocks exposed during 

construction. 

Air Quality 

Implement a dust abatement program. 

Standard dust abatement measures could 

include the following elements: water or 

otherwise stabilize soils, cover haul trucks, 

employ speed limits on unpaved roads, 

minimize vegetation clearing, and revegetate 

after construction. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

In general, actions to mitigation adverse 

effects will be determined in consultation with 

the state historic preservation officer(s) 

and/or tribal historic preservation officer, 

local governments, the public, and others as 

appropriate, in accordance with 36 CFR 800 

and the 2008 Programmatic Agreement 

Among the national Park Service (U.S. 

Department of the Interior), the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, and the 

National Conference of State Historic 

Preservation Officers for Compliance with 

section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

96 

Archeology 

 Mitigation measures concerning 

archeological resources would follow 

Director’s Order 28A for archeological 

management and The Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for Archeology and 

Historic Preservation. Archeological 

collections will be curated per the 

curation regulations in 36 CFR 79. 

 Wherever possible, new facilities would 

be constructed in previously disturbed 

areas where archeological resources are 

not likely to occur. Archeological 

surveys would precede any ground 

disturbance of undisturbed or 

unsurveyed lands. National registerlisted or-eligible archeological resources 

would be avoided during construction 

activities. Mitigation activities associated 

with invasive species may also require 

cultural resource compliance to ensure 

that ground-disturbing activities avoid 

archeological resources or other cultural 

resources. 

 If during construction previously 

unknown archeological resources are 

discovered, all work in the immediate 

vicinity of the discovery would be halted 

until the resources could be identified 

and documented and, if the resources 

cannot be preserved in situ, an 

appropriate mitigation strategy 

developed in consultation with the state 

historic preservation officer and, as 

necessary, American Indian tribes. In the 

unlikely event that human remains, 

funerary objects, sacred objects, or 

objects of cultural patrimony are 

discovered during construction, 

provisions outlined in the Native 

American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act (25 USC 3001) of 1990 

would be followed. If non-Indian human 

remains were discovered, standard 

reporting procedures to the proper 

authorities will be followed, as will all 

applicable federal, state, and local laws. 

Cultural Landscapes 

 The preservation and rehabilitation of 

cultural landscapes would be undertaken 

in accordance with the Secretary of the 

Interior's Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties with Guidelines for the 

Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. 

 Rehabilitate and/or restore cultural 

landscape resources to the extent 

feasible. This could entail restoring 

important historic viewsheds through 

manual thinning, rehabilitating agricultural fields and orchards, removing 

noncontributing and incompatible 

structures, and incorporating new 

additions using compatible design. 

 Whenever possible, modify project 

design features to avoid effects to 

cultural landscapes. New developments 

would be relatively limited and would be 

on sites that blend with cultural 

landscapes. If necessary, use vegetative 

screening, as appropriate, to minimize 

impacts on cultural landscapes. 

Ethnography 

 Accommodate and facilitate access to 

and ceremonial use of sites and 

resources of significance to American 

Indians or other associated individuals 

and groups in a manner that is consistent 

with the park purposes and avoids 

adversely affecting the physical integrity 

of these sites and resources. 

 Document cultural and ethnographic 

landscapes and other resources in the 

park and identify treatments to ensure 

their preservation. 

Historic Structures 

 The preservation and rehabilitation of 

national register listed or eligible 

structures would be undertaken in 

accordance with The Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 
Mitigation Measures Common to the Action Alternatives 

97 

Historic Properties (1995) to ensure that 

the character defining features and 

integrity of the structures are minimally 

affected. 

 Any materials removed during 

rehabilitation efforts would be evaluated 

to determine their value to the park’s 

museum collections and/or for their 

comparative use in future preservation 

work at the sites. 

VISITOR SAFETY AND EXPERIENCE 

 Parkway has hired a safety officer to 

coordinate all aspects of employee and 

visitor safety. 

 Implement parkway-wide or site-specific 

traffic control plans, as warranted. 

Standard measures include strategies to 

maintain safe and efficient traffic flow 

during the construction period. 

 Implement measures to reduce adverse 

effects of construction on visitor safety 

and experience. 

 Implement an interpretation and 

education program. Continue 

directional signs and education 

programs to promote understanding 

among parkway visitors. 

 Conduct an accessibility study to 

understand barriers to parkway 

programs and facilities. Based on this 

study, implement a strategy to provide 

the maximum level of accessibility. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

Implement a spill prevention and pollution 

control program for hazardous materials. 

Standard measures could include hazardous 

materials storage and handling procedures; 

spill containment, cleanup, and reporting 

procedures; and limitation of refueling and 

other hazardous activities to 

upland/nonsensitive sites. 

NOISE ABATEMENT 

Implement standard noise abatement 

measures during construction. Standard noise 

abatement measures could include the 

following elements: a schedule that minimizes 

impacts on adjacent noise-sensitive uses, the 

use of the best available noise control 

techniques wherever feasible, the use of 

hydraulically or electrically powered impact 

tools when feasible, and the location of 

stationary noise sources as far from sensitive 

uses as possible. Mitigation measures would 

be applied to protect the natural sounds in the 

national park. Specific mitigation measures 

include: 

 Implement standard noise abatement 

measures during park operations. 

Standard noise abatement measures 

could include the following elements: a 

schedule that minimizes impacts on 

adjacent noise-sensitive uses, use of the 

best available noise control techniques 

wherever feasible, use of hydraulically or 

electrically powered impact tools when 

feasible, and location of stationary noise 

sources as far from sensitive uses as 

possible. 

 Explore options to reduce the noise 

levels from vehicular traffic, including 

motorcycles. 

 Site and design facilities to minimize 

objectionable noise. 

SCENIC RESOURCES 

The parkway actively engages in a scenery 

conservation program that routinely reviews 

and assesses proposed developments on lands 

adjacent to and in the parkway. Parkway staff 

participate when landowners and/or 

developers request that parkway planners and 

landscape architects work with them or when 

local jurisdictions have land management 

requirements that provide for public review of 

proposed land use changes. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

98 

The parkway’s scenery conservation system 

process involves 

 identifying visual preferences and 

landscape character types 

 determining viewshed sensitivity 

 mapping view areas 

 assessing view area scenic qualities 

 identifying desired future conservation 

objectives 

 monitoring and maintaining desired 

conditions 

The data gathered throughout this process 

provides information to planning staff and 

leads to rational decisions relative to scenery 

as a key part of the parkway’s mission. 

Specific mitigation measures include the 

following: 

 Where appropriate, use facilities such as 

boardwalks and fences to route people 

away from sensitive natural and cultural 

resources, while still permitting access to 

important viewpoints. 

 Design, site, and construct facilities to 

avoid or minimize adverse effects on 

natural and cultural resources and visual 

intrusion into the natural and/or cultural 

landscape. 

 Provide vegetative screening, where 

appropriate. 

 Subject viewshed related projects to sitespecific planning and compliance. Avoid 

adverse impacts through use of The 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and 

Guidelines for Archeology and Historic 

Preservation to preserve historic scenic 

views and landscapes where scenic 

resources are an integral component of 

the cultural landscape (see cultural 

resource mitigation measures above). If 

adverse impacts could not be avoided, 

mitigate these impacts through a 

consultation process with all interested 

parties. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

During the future planning and 

implementation of the approved management 

plan for the parkway, the National Park 

Service would work with local communities 

and county governments to further identify 

potential impacts and mitigation measures 

that would best serve the interests and 

concerns of both the National Park Service 

and the local communities. Partnerships 

would be pursued to improve the quality and 

diversity of community amenities and 

services. 

SUSTAINABLE DESIGN AND 

AESTHETICS 

Sustainable Development 

Projects would avoid or minimize adverse 

impacts on natural and cultural resources. 

Development projects (e.g., buildings, 

facilities, utilities, roads, bridges, etc.) or 

reconstruction projects (e.g., road 

reconstruction, building rehabilitation, utility 

upgrade, etc.) would be designed to work in 

harmony with the surroundings, particularly 

in historic districts. Projects would reduce, 

minimize, or eliminate air and water 

nonpoint-source pollution. Projects would be 

sustainable whenever practicable, by recycling 

and reusing materials, by minimizing 

materials, by minimizing energy consumption 

during the project, and by minimizing energy 

consumption throughout the lifespan of the 

project. 

Sustainable Trails 

Trails will be designed and constructed in a 

sustainable manner. This means that the 

design of the trails will: minimize natural and 

cultural resource damage including erosion, 

accommodate appropriate uses, plan for 

minimum maintenance while providing 

maximum ecological variety, and minimize 

conflict between trail users. 
Mitigation Measures Common to the Action Alternatives 

99 

Archeology will be conducted on a sitespecific basis to ensure that there is no impact 

to cultural or historic resources before trail 

alignments are considered. Trail alignments, 

where possible, will follow the natural 

contour, incorporate drainage to prevent 

erosion, have a durable tread, and maintain a 

grade of less than 10%. Trail alignments will 

avoid environmentally sensitive areas, 

wetlands, or areas where species of concern 

exist. Trail alignments will be chosen so as not 

to disturb wildlife migration routes. 

Trail construction materials, grades, and trail 

clearances will be chosen to reflect those 

sustainability goals and will be based on the 

type and volume of use anticipated, on the 

stability of native materials, and on the type of 

terrain along the route. In addition, surface 

treatments on some trails will be chosen to 

provide accessibility in compliance with the 

Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards

(UFAS) and the Americans with Disabilities Act 

Accessibility Guidelinesthis may include 

crushed gravel, asphalt, and appropriate 

grading. 
100 

USER CAPACITY 

General management plans for national park 

system units, including the Blue Ridge 

Parkway, must address the management of 

user capacity. The National Park Service 

defines user capacity as the type and extent of 

use that can be accommodated while 

sustaining the quality of a park unit’s 

resources and visitor experiences consistent 

with the park unit’s purpose. 

User capacity management involves 

establishing desired conditions, monitoring, 

and taking actions to ensure the park unit’s 

values are protected. The premise is that with 

any visitor use comes some level of impact 

that must be accepted; therefore, it is the 

responsibility of the National Park Service to 

decide what level of impact is acceptable and 

what management actions are needed to keep 

impacts within acceptable limits. 

National Park Service staff actively manage 

the levels, types, and patterns of visitor use to 

the extent necessary to achieve and maintain 

desired resource conditions and a quality 

visitor experience. The monitoring 

component of this process helps NPS staff 

evaluate the effectiveness of management 

actions and provides a basis for informed 

management of visitor use. The user capacity 

management process can be summarized by 

the following major steps: 

 Establish desired conditions for 

resources and visitor experiences 

(through management zoning), including 

the types of appropriate recreation 

opportunities and levels and types of 

development. 

 Identify indicators—measurable 

variables that are monitored to 

determine whether desired conditions 

are being met (e.g., vegetation damage, 

encounter rates on trails). 

 Identify standards (minimum acceptable 

conditions) for the indicators. 

 Monitor indicators to determine trends 

in conditions and if management actions 

are needed. 

 Take management actions to maintain or 

restore desired conditions. 

The sheer scope of the parkway presents 

many challenges to managing user capacity. 

Not only does the parkway extend for 469 

miles across two states and 29 counties, but it 

also includes many major recreation areas and 

a myriad of entry and exit points used by more 

than 16 million visitors annually. Given this 

incredible scope, user capacity management 

must be strategic through the efficient use of 

limited staff and funding, targeted focus on 

areas of most concern along the parkway, and 

creative approaches to monitoring and 

management strategies. 

This general management plan provides a 

general management framework tailored to 

the parkway that provides the fundamental 

structure for a long-term, comprehensive 

strategy to manage user capacity. This 

framework would help guide the strategic use 

of limited park staff and funding regarding 

future user capacity planning and 

management. This management framework 

includes the following components: 

 The eight management zones described 

earlier in this chapter provide the basis 

for managing user capacity. Each zone 

prescribes desired resource conditions, 

visitor experiences, and recreational 

opportunities for different areas of the 

parkway. The zones also prescribe the 

types and levels of developments 

necessary to support these conditions, 

experiences, and opportunities. This 

element of the framework is the most 

important to long-term user capacity 

management in that it directs the 

National Park Service on how to best 

protect resources and visitor 

experiences while offering a diversity of 

visitor opportunities. 

 Existing and potential visitor-related 

concerns for each management zone are 

described, along with identification of 

priority areas in each zone for managing 
User Capacity 

101 

user capacity. As parkway managers 

collect more detailed information on 

visitor-related concerns in those areas, 

specific indicators and standards would 

be identified. 

 Considerations for selecting potential 

indicators and standards are included to 

determine if unacceptable visitor-related 

impacts are occurring. 

 Potential management strategies are 

outlined that could be implemented to 

avoid or minimize adverse impacts from 

visitor use. 

This framework is intended to be a starting 

point to an effort needing further reflection, 

development, and adaptation. Final selection 

of indicators and standards for monitoring 

purposes and implementation of management 

actions that affect use would comply with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (1969), 

section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, other laws, and NPS 

management policies as appropriate. 

Table 7 describes the user capacity 

management framework for the Blue Ridge 

Parkway. Although the framework is 

organized by management zones, the 

approach developed for one zone can be 

adapted and applied to other zones as needed 

and appropriate. The ultimate goal of the 

framework is to provide strategic management 

guidance that is effective and efficient while 

maximizing flexibility for managers to 

maintain the desired resource conditions and 

visitor experiences of the parkway. 

103 

TABLE 7. USER CAPACITY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK BY MANAGEMENT ZONES

Special Natural Resources Natural Scenic Character Recreation Visitor Services Hist

Potential Visitor-Related Concerns 

Impacts on rare plant and animal species, sensitive habitats, and ecosystem processes as a result of humancaused vegetation trampling and sensory-based disturbances. 

Impacts on vegetation and soils resulting from off-trail use, camping in undesignated areas, or concentrated levels of use in fragile areas. 

Impacts on visitors’ ability to experience the high-quality scenic landscapes. Impacts on the visitor experience as a result of conflicts between user groups (i.e., mountain bikers, horseback riders, hikers, and groups using the paved, multiuse trail). 

Impacts on the visitor experience as a result of conflicts between user groups (i.e., mountain bikers, horseback riders, and hikers). 

Impacts on the visitor experience as a result of crowding and conflicts between user groups (i.e., RV and tent campers). 

ImpexpparconamoautbicyImpexpscenparcrowvist

Priority Areas for Managing User Capacity 

Globally ranked plant communities; critical habitats for threatened and endangered species; and state natural heritage areas and conservation sites that are accessible or near visitor-use areas. 

Trail systems or backcountry campsites that are experiencing impacts and/or are not adequately designed to support heavy use or certain types of use. 

Trail systems that receive high levels of visitation. 

Trail systems that receive high levels of visitation. 

Areas of the parkway that receive the greatest visitation or the highest frequency of complaints (including campgrounds, picnic areas, and lodges). 

Parkthe wheconRoaand Vistparhigh

Considerations for Potential Indicator Topics 

Extent of trampling of select plant species. Measures of disturbance to certain wildlife species. 

Extent and severity of trampling of vegetation cover, soil compaction, and/or erosion. Number of visitor-created trails and/or campsites. Trail and/or campsite condition assessments. 

Encounter rates between different types of user groups. Frequency of complaints that are related to visitor-use conflicts and/or crowding. Visitor evaluations of degree of use conflicts and/or crowding. 

Encounter rates between different types of user groups. Frequency of complaints that are related to visitor-use conflicts and/or crowding. Visitor evaluations of degree of use conflicts and/or crowding. Parking use rates and typical duration of parked vehicles at selected trailheads/parking areas. 

Frequency of complaints related to visitor-use conflicts and/or crowding. Visitor evaluations of degree of use conflicts and/or crowding. 

LevsegVehFreqrelaandSafeVisiconconPeoovePortavaPortovecrowVisicrowVisicrow
104 

TABLE 7. USER CAPACITY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK BY MANAGEMENT ZONES

Special Natural Resources Natural Scenic Character Recreation Visitor Services Hist

Considerations for Developing Potential Standards 

Determine minimum levels of trampling and disturbances to avoid interference with factors affecting species viability. 

Determine trampling thresholds to maintain plant vigor. Determine an acceptable level of vegetation loss, soil compaction, and/or erosion at camp sites or along select trails. 

Determine appropriate levels of user group interaction considering setting conditions, use patterns, and visitor perceptions of use conflicts and crowding. 

Determine appropriate levels of user group interaction considering setting conditions, use patterns, and visitor perceptions of use conflicts and crowding. 

Determine acceptable levels of conflict and crowding at selected sites considering use patterns and visitor preferences. 

Dettrafmomaiwheinciand travleisuDetamois at seleaccconand site

Potential Management Strategies 

Educate visitors on reducing their impact on the natural environment. Restrict the types or levels of use to certain sensitive areas if standards are exceeded. Consider seasonal closures if impacts are specific to certain times of the year. 

Educate visitors on reducing their impact on the natural environment. Consider establishing or relocating designated backcountry campsites, reroute trails away from fragile areas, or redesign them to accommodate different types or more use. Consider backcountry permits or other means to manage use levels, patterns, and behaviors. 

Provide education on trail etiquette. Consider modifications or improvements to the trail design to make it more compatible for visitor use patterns. Consider one-way trails, seasonal-use trails, or trails dedicated to fewer types of activities. 

Provide education on trail etiquette. Consider modifications or improvements to the trail design to make it more compatible for multiple uses. Consider one-way trails, seasonal-use trails, or trails dedicated to fewer types of activities. 

Provide pretrip planning information to visitors about peak periods of use along the parkway. Consider traffic-flow improvements and other redesigns that enhance the visitor experience in developed areas. 

ProvinfopeapartrafaccestarestaddbicyalloroaProvinfopeacerttimlot expconinto 
105 

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE 

Climate change has the potential to adversely 

affect the future resource conditions of the 

parkway. As global and regional climates 

continue to change, a management approach 

that enhances the protection and resilience of 

climate-sensitive resources is becoming 

increasingly important. The following outlines 

such a strategy that adapts to our growing 

understanding of climate change influences 

and the effectiveness of management to 

contend with them. 

Climate change science is a rapidly advancing 

field and new information is continually being 

collected and released, yet the full extent of 

climate change impacts on resource 

conditions is unknown. As such, park 

managers and policy makers have not 

determined the most effective response 

mechanisms for minimizing impacts and 

adapting to change. Because of this, this 

proposed management strategy does not 

provide definitive solutions or directions; 

rather it provides science-based and 

scholarship-based management principles to 

consider when implementing the broader 

management direction of the parkway. 

STRATEGY 

The NPS Climate Change Response Program 

aims to prepare the agency and its parks for 

the anticipated management needs that result 

from climate change. To help parks cope with 

the uncertainty in future climate conditions, 

this Climate Change Response Program serves 

to help park managers determine the extent to 

which they can and should act to protect the 

parks' current resources while allowing the 

parks' ecosystems to adapt to new conditions. 

Efforts of the NPS Climate Change Response 

Program focus on the following strategies: 

Science 

 Conduct scientific research and 

vulnerability assessments necessary to 

support NPS adaptation, mitigation, and 

communication efforts 

 Collaborate with scientific agencies and 

institutions to meet the specific needs of 

management as it confronts the 

challenges of climate change 

 Learn from and apply the best available 

climate change science

Mitigation 

 Reduce carbon footprint of National 

Park Service 

 Promote energy efficient practices, such 

as alternative transportation 

 Enhance carbon sequestration as one of 

many ecosystem services 

 Integrate mitigation into all business 

practices, planning, and the NPS culture

Adaptation 

 Develop the adaptive capacity for 

managing natural and cultural resources 

and infrastructure under a changing 

climate 

 Inventory resources at risk and conduct 

vulnerability assessments 

 Prioritize and implement actions and 

monitor the results 

 Explore scenarios, associated risks, and 

possible management options 

 Integrate climate change impacts into 

facilities management
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

106 

Communication 

 Provide effective communication about 

climate change and impacts to the public 

 Train park staff and managers in the 

science of climate change and decision 

tools for coping with change 

 Lead by example

With the guidance of the above strategies, the 

parkway will use the following management 

approach to address climate change 

throughout the implementation of this general 

management plan. Many of these specific 

management strategies are adopted from the 

publication, “Some guidelines for helping 

natural resources adapt to climate change” 

(IHDP 2008). Further elaboration and 

adaption of these are anticipated as 

implementation of the general management 

plan proceeds. 

 Identify key natural and cultural 

resources and processes that are at risk 

from climate change. Establish baseline 

conditions for these resources, identify 

their thresholds, and monitor for 

change. Increase reliance on adaptive 

management to minimize risks. 

 Restore key ecosystem features and 

processes and protect cultural resources 

to increase their resilience to climate 

change. 

 Use best management practices to 

reduce human-caused stresses (e.g., park 

infrastructure and visitor-related 

disturbances) that hinder the ability of 

species or ecosystems to withstand 

climatic events. 

 Form partnerships with other resource 

management entities to maintain 

regional habitat connectivity and refugia 

that allow species dependent on 

parkway resources to better adapt to 

changing conditions. 

 Reduce or mitigate greenhouse gas 

emissions associated with parkway 

operations and visitor use, such as 

alternative transportation options (e.g., 

shuttles and low-emission vehicles for 

the park’s fleet) and biofuels and other 

renewable energy sources for visitor 

centers, administrative buildings, and 

campgrounds. 

 Use the fragile environments of the Blue 

Ridge Parkway as an opportunity to 

educate visitors about the effects of 

climate change on the resources they are 

enjoying. Inspire visitors to take action 

through leadership and education. 

 Manage parkway facilities and 

infrastructure (structures, trails, roads, 

drainage systems, etc.) in a way that 

prepares for and adapts to the effects of 

climate change. 
107 

FUTURE STUDIES AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS NEEDED 

INTRODUCTION 

After completion and approval of this general 

management plan, other more detailed studies 

and plans would be needed before certain 

actions can be implemented. Some of these 

actions would require additional 

environmental compliance, public 

involvement, and consultation. The extent of 

further public input and environmental 

analysis would vary depending on the impacts 

anticipated from a proposed action. 

Appropriate permits may also be needed for 

certain actions. 

Implementation of these studies and plans 

would also depend on future funding and 

staffing levels. The approval of this general 

management plan does not guarantee that the 

funding needed for implementation would be 

forthcoming. 

The following paragraphs list future studies 

(including inventories, evaluations, and 

condition assessments) and plans (including 

strategies) that would likely be needed to 

implement the action alternatives. If a 

particular study or plan is only associated with 

one of the action alternatives, that is noted in 

the list. The list is organized by parkway-wide 

management strategies presented earlier in 

this chapter. 

Scenery Conservation 

 Complete the baseline evaluation of the 

quality and condition of off-parkway 

scenic views from parkway overlooks 

and roadside vistas in order to identify 

specific views along the parkway for 

protection. 

 Work with partners to establish longterm strategies to conserve views from 

the parkway. 

 Under alternative C, develop an 

implementation plan or plans to redesign 

or relocate certain overlooks. 

Land Protection 

Develop a land protection strategy that does 

not identify specific tracts of land, but 

establishes (1) resource and visitor use 

management criteria, (2) park management 

zoning and land use compatibility factors, 

and/or (3) other protection goals that would 

be used to evaluate the merits of a property 

when it becomes available from willing sellers. 

Natural Resources 

 Develop a resource stewardship strategy 

that provides comprehensive, long-range 

direction for natural and cultural 

resource management (NPS policy now 

requires that a resource stewardship 

strategy be completed to replace the 

resource management plan). This 

strategy would establish a multiyear, 

ecosystem-based planning process for 

the natural resource program to 

implement inventories, condition 

assessments, monitoring, and restoration 

projects for the following: 

-vegetation, including both native and 

invasive species; 

-wildlife, including mammals, birds, 

reptiles, fish, and amphibians; 

-wetlands, including bogs, springs, 

seeps, and riparian areas; 

-ecologically sensitive areas, including 

globally imperiled habitats, state 

natural heritage areas, conservation 

sites, and critical habitat for 

endangered species; 

-active management measures to 

maintain and restore natural 

ecosystems (e.g., addressing maturing 

oak forest that has not been exposed 

wildfire over the past century); and 

-special status species, including 

federal and state listed plants and 

animals. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

108 

 Conduct continuous water quality and 

air quality monitoring along the 

parkway. 

 Develop a restoration plan or plans to 

provide guidance for restoring rare 

habitats and special status species. 

 Through consultation with the NPS 

regional wetland ecologist, determine if a 

wetlands statement of findings is needed 

for any future implementation project 

that could affect wetlands in the 

parkway and produce wetlands 

statement of findings documents where 

necessary. 

Climate Change 

 Develop a climate change action plan 

that builds on the parkway’s approach to 

addressing climate change outlined in 

this general management plan, including 

strategies to reduce the parkway’s 

carbon footprint and an analysis to 

determine the effects of climate change 

on park resources, values, facilities, and 

visitor services. 

 Pursue data collection and research that 

addresses climate change effects on 

natural and cultural resources, as well as 

human dimensions. These efforts could 

include scenario planning via the 

assistance of the Climate Change 

Response Program and partnership 

research efforts with other 

agencies/institutions. 

Cultural Resources 

 Develop a resource stewardship strategy 

that provides comprehensive, long-range 

direction for cultural resource 

management, including the 

establishment of a multiyear planning 

process for resource inventory, 

assessment, research, interpretation, and 

protection. Cultural resources (such as 

archeological sites, historic structures, 

cultural landscapes, and ethnographic 

resources) would continue to be 

inventoried and assessed parkway-wide. 

 Update the collection and archive 

management plan, integrated pest 

management plan for collections, and 

scope of collections as needed. 

 Under alternative C, Parkway Land Use 

Maps would be updated and revised to 

allow for deviations when necessary to 

capture regional landscape character and 

to provide for recreational use. 

 Complete the nomination of the 

parkway as a national historic landmark. 

 Develop a parkway-wide strategy to 

identify, monitor, and mitigate the 

impacts of climate change on cultural 

resources. 

 Develop treatment plans for special 

cultural resource areas (e.g., Harris farm) 

and cultural landscapes. 

 Develop treatment plans for cultural 

resources in need of rehabilitation and 

stabilization (e.g., Saunders farm). 

Historic structures currently in use for 

concession operations may require 

specific plans for rehabilitation, 

restoration, or adaptation for new uses. 

Visitor Use and Interpretation 

 Develop an implementation plan or 

plans to substantially increase the 

number of visitors contacted over 

current levels by providing visitor 

orientation services at underserved 

parkway entrances, especially the 

northern and southernmost entrances. 

Under alternative C, this would include 

regional visitor information services at 

Roanoke and Boone/Blowing Rock 

areas. 

 Develop a user capacity strategy for the 

parkway consistent with the user 

capacity framework presented in this 

general management plan. 

 Update visitor use and analysis data to 

serve as a foundation to help guide a 
Future Studies and Implementation Plans Needed 

109 

variety of other implementation studies 

and plans. 

 Develop new methods to reach a wider 

variety of audiences using available new 

technologies. 

 Update the parkway’s comprehensive 

interpretive plan as needed. 

Concessions 

Under alternative B, develop a strategy (such 

as a new commercial services plan) to provide 

viable concession services at all locations to 

ensure the long-term availability of inparkway lodging, food, and other services. An 

implementation plan would be developed if 

either upgrades to infrastructure or the 

addition of new facilities is appropriate.

Access and Circulation 

Campgrounds. Develop an implementation 

plan or plans to upgrade all nine of the 

parkway campgrounds, including comfort 

stations, tent sites, RV sites, and 

amphitheaters. Under alternative B, the 

Roanoke Mountain campground would be 

converted to a day use recreation area. Under 

alternative C, the implementation plan or 

plans would include RV access improvements 

to all campgrounds (except at Roanoke 

Mountain and Mt. Pisgah). 

Multiuse Trails. Under alternative C, 

develop an implementation plan or plans to 

construct a paved, multiuse trail parallel to, 

but separate from, the parkway near 

Waynesboro, Roanoke, Boone/Blowing Rock, 

and Asheville to enhance opportunities for 

pedestrians and bicyclists to safely recreate in 

the parkway corridor.

Partnerships. Strategies to enhance existing 

partnerships or actively pursue new ones with 

public and private entities would be 

incorporated into the future studies and plans 

listed previously. Under alternative C, more 

emphasis would be placed on partnerships 

that link parkway management with regional 

natural, recreational, and cultural heritage 

resources and experiences. 

Access Plans. Develop a comprehensive 

access management plan that defines locations 

and traffic control strategies for all driveway 

and secondary road access on the parkway, 

including locations for the potential 

replacement of at-grade crossings with new 

grade separation structures. 

 Under alternative C, conduct a transit 

feasibility study to identify and evaluate 

strategies to connect adjacent urban 

areas to parkway recreation areas. 

Subsequently complete an 

implementation plan to outline funding 

and operations for recommended transit 

strategies. 

 Complete study and final design to 

evaluate, identify, and design 

improvements at pullouts. 

 Complete conceptual and final design of 

new grade separation structures at 

locations identified in the access 

management plan, including 

negotiations for acquisition of right-ofway, if needed. 

 Complete study and final design to 

evaluate, identify, and design parking 

and access improvements at recreational 

areas along the parkway. 

Trail Plans. Under alternative B, develop an 

implementation plan or plans to expand and 

improve parkway trail systems to 

accommodate potential increases or changes 

in recreation demand. 

Under alternative C, develop a 

pedestrian/bike master plan to identify the 

locations and treatments of a paved multiuse 

trail facility parallel to, but separate from, the 

parkway. Subsequently complete an 

implementation plan to negotiate agreements 

with adjacent agencies, if necessary, and 

outline funding. Complete final design of the 

paved trail. Under alternatives B and C, 

develop a trail master plan to identify the 

expanded locations and treatments of 

improvements for the trail systems to 

accommodate potential increases in 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

110 

recreation demand, including mountain bikes 

where appropriate. Subsequently complete an 

implementation plan to negotiate agreements 

with adjacent agencies, if necessary, and 

outline funding. Complete final design of new 

trails and trail improvements. 

STAFFING AND COST ESTIMATES 

National Park Service decision makers and the 

public must consider an overall picture of the 

costs and advantages of various alternatives, 

including the no-action alternative, to make 

wise planning and management decisions for 

the parkway. Such consideration can shed 

light on the cost of the no-action alternative 

and make possible a more relevant 

comparison to the action alternatives. 

The figures used are estimates for comparison 

purposes only and are not to be used for 

budgetary purposes or implementation 

funding requests. If and when the actions are 

implemented, actual costs would vary. 

Specific costs would be determined in 

subsequent, more detailed planning and 

design efforts. 

Presentation of costs in this plan does not 

guarantee future NPS funding. Project 

funding would not come all at once; it would 

likely take many years to secure and may be 

provided by partners, donations, or other 

nonfederal sources. Although the parkway 

hopes to secure this funding and will prepare 

itself accordingly, the parkway may not 

receive enough funding to achieve all desired 

conditions within the time frame of the 

general management plan (the next 20+ years). 

The estimates provided in this section include 

annual operating costs, staffing levels, onetime facility and nonfacility costs, and other 

costs. A definition of each of these types of 

costs follows: 

 Annual Operating Costs are the total 

costs per year for maintenance and 

operations associated with each 

alternative, including utilities, supplies, 

staff salaries and benefits, leasing, and 

other materials. Cost and staffing 

estimates assume that the alternative is 

fully implemented as described. 

 Staffing is the total number of personyears of staff required to maintain the 

assets of the park at an acceptable level, 

provide visitor services, protect 

resources, and generally support the 

park’s operations. The full-time 

equivalency (FTE) number indicates 

NPS staffing levels, not volunteer 

positions or positions funded by 

partners. Full-time equivalency salaries 

and benefits are included in the annual 

operating costs. 

 One-time Facility Costs include those 

for the design, construction, 

rehabilitation, upgrades or adaptive 

reuse of visitor centers, campgrounds, 

picnic areas, roads, parking areas, 

administrative facilities, comfort 

stations, educational facilities, 

maintenance facilities, trails, and other 

visitor facilities. 

 Deferred Maintenance Costs include 

costs related to maintenance that was 

not performed when it was scheduled 

and was put off or delayed. The primary 

reason for delays is lack of funds to 

address maintenance needs. 

 One-time Nonfacility Costs include 

actions for the preservation of cultural 

or natural resources not related to 

facilities, the development of visitor use 

or management tools, and other park 

management activities that would 

require substantial funding above annual 

operating costs. 

 Other Costs are identified separately for 

projects that are wholly or partially 

funded from other sources. 

Staffing and annual operating cost estimates 

for the action alternatives are calculated by 

taking the staffing and annual operating costs 

under the no-action alternative and adding 

additional staffing and annual operating costs 

associated with their implementation. Table 8 

provides cost estimates and staffing (FTE) 

levels for implementing the three alternatives. 

Please note that all costs in this section are 

rounded to the nearest thousand dollars. 
Future Studies and Implementation Plans Needed 

111 

TABLE 8. COST ESTIMATES AND STAFFING FOR FULL 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 

A 

(No-action) 

Alternative 

B 

(NPS 

Preferred) 

Alternative 

C 

Staffing 

(FTE) 175 232 252

Annual 

Operating 

Costs $16,743,000 $20,929,000 $22,768,000

One-Time 

Facility 

Costs $14,466,000 $73,994,000 $76,112,000

One-Time 

Nonfacility 

Costs $1,903,000 $5,207,000 $6,464,000

Other 

Costs $8,071,000 $54,336,000 $158,370,000

Staffing (FTE) 

Staffing levels under the no-action alternative 

presented in table 9 are the actual number of 

positions funded in fiscal year 2010 (FY10). 

Due to funding limitations, 51 full-time 

positions are currently vacant in various 

divisions. 

Table 9 also shows the total number of 

additional staff above the FY10 funded 

staffing levels necessary to implement the 

management strategies described under 

alternatives B and C. This allows for direct 

comparison of staffing levels that would be 

needed for the action alternatives and those 

needed to continue current management 

under the no-action alternative. The increase 

in annual operating cost above that under 

alternative A is solely a result of the increased 

number of staff proposed to fully implement 

alternatives B and C. 

Note: FY10 ONPS (Operation of the National 

Park System) funded positions do not include 

seasonal staff positions because the number of 

seasonal staff hired varies annually depending 

on available funds. 

Volunteers and partners would continue to be 

key contributors to NPS operations under all 

of the alternatives. The parkway relies heavily 

on volunteers and Student Conservation 

Association interns to complete park projects 

and provide day-to-day park operations 

support. In 2010, the parkway had 1,614 

volunteers working in the following 

categories: 

 Interpretation: 11,809 hours 

 Maintenance: 10,761 hours 

 Administration: 6,302 hours 

 General Park Management: 3,426 hours 

 Natural Resource Management: 1,212 

hours 

 Protection/Operations/ Law 

Enforcement: 342 hours 

 Cultural Resource Management: 238 

hours 

In addition, the parkway had 36 Student 

Conservation Association interns working a 

total of 6,431 hours and 25 campground hosts 

working 6,806 hours. The total of volunteer 

hours above is 47,327, which is equivalent to 

just under 24 full-time positions. 

Volunteers and partners would continue to be 

an important part of ongoing management 

and a vital component of the parkway’s efforts 

to implement alternatives B or C. 

Staffing under all alternatives is described 

below. The Interpretation and Education 

Division and the Resource Management and 

Science Division are discussed in more detail 

because of the number of additional staff that 

would be needed in these divisions to fully 

implement either alternative B or C. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

112 

TABLE 9. ESTIMATED STAFFING LEVELS TO IMPLEMENT THE ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A 

(No-action) 

Alternative B 

(NPS Preferred) 

Alternative C 

FY10 ONPS Funded 

Positions 

New 

FTEs 

Total 

FTEs 

New 

FTEs 

Total 

FTEs 

Total 175 57 232 77 252 

Superintendent’s Office 4 0 4 0 4 

Administration and Concessions 15 0 15 0 15 

Maintenance and Engineering 86 3 89 5 91 

Interpretation and Education 11 26 37 44 55 

Resource Management and Science 8 27 35 27 35 

Planning, Lands, and Compliance 7 1 8 1 8 

Law Enforcement, Safety, and Emergency 

Services 44 0 44 0 44 

Alternative A (No-action). The NPS 

staffing level under the no-action alternative 

would continue to be 175 funded full-time 

positions in order to carry out routine 

operations of the parkway. This includes 4 

employees in the superintendent’s office; 15 in 

administration and concessions; 86 in 

maintenance and engineering; 11 in 

interpretation and education; 8 in resource 

management and science; 7 in planning, lands, 

and compliance; and 44 in law enforcement, 

safety, and emergency services. 

The Interpretation and Education Division is 

the only park division that relies on ONPS 

base-funded seasonal positions to carry out its 

program from year to year. However, for 

consistent comparison purposes, only 

permanent FTE are reflected in these general 

management plan staffing estimates. 

Alternative B (NPS Preferred). The NPS 

staffing level necessary to implement 

alternative B would be the equivalent of 232 

full-time staff members—57 additional FTEs 

compared to the total number of staff funded 

under the no-action alternative. 

The Interpretation and Education Division 

would require 26 additional staff in order to 

expand visitor services at key locations along 

the parkway. This includes expanding visitor 

services from a six-month season to a ninemonth season at 11 locations along the 

parkway: Humpback Rocks, James River, 

Peaks of Otter, Mabry Mill, Blue Ridge Music 

Center, Linn Cove, Linville Falls, Museum of 

North Carolina Minerals, Craggy Gardens, 

Folk Art Center, and Waterrock Knob. Since 

seasonal staff cannot legally work more than 

1,030 hours in a year, this extension means 

that seasonal staff would have to be converted 

to permanent. 

Staff increases in the Interpretation and 

Education Division would also improve 

information and orientation services at the 

north and south entrances to the parkway, 

which are major access points for visitors. The 

goal would be to substantially increase visitor 

contacts over current levels. Staff increases 

would also improve interpretive media and 

educational programs at Humpback Rocks, 

Mabry Mill, and Cumberland Knob. 

Twenty-seven additional staff would be 

needed in the Resource Management and 

Science Division in order to implement the 

natural and cultural resource protection 

components of the preferred alternative. As a 

major element of this alternative’s concept, 

additional staff would allow the parkway to 

pursue a comprehensive, ecosystem-based 

approach to natural resource management. 
Future Studies and Implementation Plans Needed 

113 

This would include strategies such as making 

inventory and management of natural 

resources more proactive; advancing regional 

ecosystem health through active partnerships 

with public and private entities; pursuing class 

I air quality classification and seeking NPS and 

non-NPS project funding for monitoring and 

influencing air quality standards in the region; 

and modifying landscape areas traditionally 

managed for scenery, such as roadsides, vista 

clearings, and agricultural leases, to actively 

protect natural resources. 

Additional staff in the Resource Management 

and Science Division would also allow the 

parkway to improve management of historic 

settlement sites as cultural landscapes. 

Examples include managing the fields at 

Brinegar Cabin to replicate the historic 

landscape and rehabilitating Saunders farm 

and the landscape at Johnson farm. Increased 

staffing would also allow the parkway to 

reestablish some closed vistas in accordance 

with the parkway’s designed landscape. 

Three additional maintenance and 

engineering staff are needed to assist with the 

coordination of upgrades to campgrounds, 

picnic areas, trail systems, and visitor service 

facilities, as well as ongoing maintenance. The 

relatively small increase in this division’s staff 

is the result of making improvements to 

existing developments, rather than adding 

substantial new infrastructure to the parkway. 

One additional full-time staff would be 

needed in the Planning, Lands, and 

Compliance Division in order to actively 

pursue new partnerships with public and 

private entities to plan and implement joint 

ventures that support parkway goals. No 

additional staffing is needed to implement the 

preferred alternative in the superintendent’s 

office, administration and concessions, or law 

enforcement, safety, and emergency services. 

Alternative C. The NPS staffing level 

necessary to implement alternative C would 

be the equivalent of 252 full-time staff 

members—77 additional FTEs compared to 

the total number of staff funded under the noaction alternative. 

The Interpretation and Education Division 

would require 44 additional staff in order 

expand visitor services at key locations along 

the parkway, again partially due to the switch 

from seasonal to permanent staff. This 

includes expanding visitor services from a sixmonth season to a nine-month season at six 

locations: James River, Blue Ridge Music 

Center, Linn Cove, Museum of North 

Carolina Minerals, Craggy Gardens, and 

Waterrock Knob. Furthermore, visitor 

services would be expanded to a 12-month 

visitor season at five locations along the 

parkway: Humpback Rocks, Peaks of Otter, 

Mabry Mill, Linville Falls, and the Folk Art 

Center. 

Staff increases in the Interpretation and 

Education Division would also improve 

information and orientation services at the 

north and south entrances to the parkway, as 

well as in the Roanoke and Boone/Blowing 

Rock areas, which are major access points for 

visitors to the parkway. The goal would be to 

substantially increase visitor contacts over 

current levels. Staff increases would also 

improve interpretive media and educational 

programs at Humpback Rocks, Mabry Mill, 

the Blue Ridge Music Center, Cumberland 

Knob, and Craggy Gardens. 

TABLE 10. ADDITIONAL STAFFING FOR THE INTERPRETATION 

AND EDUCATION DIVISION

 

Alternative B 

(NPS 

Preferred) 

Alternative 

C 

Expand Visitor Services 20 32 

Humpback Rocks 2 5 

James River/Otter 

Creek 2 2 

Peaks of Otter 2 5 

Mabry Mill 2 5 

Blue Ridge Music 

Center 2 2 

Linn Cove 2 2 

Linville Falls 2 4 

Museum of North 

Carolina Minerals 1 1 

Craggy Gardens 2 2 

Folk Art Center 1 2 

Waterrock Knob 2 2 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

114 

TABLE 10. ADDITIONAL STAFFING FOR THE INTERPRETATION 

AND EDUCATION DIVISION

 

Alternative B 

(NPS 

Preferred) 

Alternative 

C 

Enhance Information 

and Orientation 

Services 4 8 

North Entrance 2 2 

South Entrance 2 2 

Roanoke 0 2 

Boone/Blowing Rock 0 2 

Improve Interpretive 

Media and Educational 

Programs 2 4 

Humpback Rocks, 

Mabry Mill, and 

Cumberland Knob 1 1 

Blue Ridge Music 

Center, and Craggy 

Gardens 0 1 

Parkway-wide 1 2 

Total FTE 26 44 

Twenty-seven additional staff would be 

needed in the Resource Management and 

Science Division in order to implement the 

natural and cultural resource protection 

components of alternative C. As with the 

preferred alternative, additional staff would 

allow the parkway to pursue a comprehensive, 

ecosystem-based approach to natural 

resource management. 

This would include strategies such as making 

inventory and management of natural 

resources more proactive; advancing regional 

ecosystem health through active partnerships 

with public and private entities; and pursuing 

class I air quality classification and seeking 

NPS and non-NPS project funding for 

monitoring and influencing air quality 

standards in the region; and modifying 

landscape areas traditionally managed for 

scenery, such as roadsides, vista clearings, and 

agricultural leases, to actively protect natural 

resources. 

Additional staff in the Resource Management 

and Science Division would also allow the 

parkway to improve management of historic 

settlement sites as cultural landscapes. 

Examples include managing the fields at 

Brinegar Cabin to replicate the historic 

landscape and rehabilitating Saunders farm 

and the landscape at Johnson farm. 

TABLE 11. ADDITIONAL STAFFING FOR THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND SCIENCE DIVISION

Alternative 

B 

(NPS 

Preferred) 

Alternative 

C 

Ecosystem Based Management Approach 22 21

Actively collaborate with adjacent landowners, county officials, developers, and other 

partners to conserve parkway views. 1 1

Pursue class I air quality classification and seek NPS and non-NPS funding for monitoring and 

influencing regional air quality standards. 1 1

Make inventory and management of natural resources more proactive. One-time nonfacility 

costs are needed to complete baseline inventories and condition assessments for vegetation 

and wildlife communities, special status species, wetlands, and other ecologically sensitive 

areas. 3 3

Shift wildlife management focus to a more ecosystem-based approach within the parkway; 

improve habitats external to the parkway boundary through partnerships. 7 7

Modify landscape areas traditionally managed for scenery, such as roadsides, vista clearings, 

and agricultural leases, to actively protect natural resources; close vistas where necessary; 

reestablish some closed vistas. 5 5

Develop and implement a comprehensive parkway-wide strategy to control invasive plants. 5 5

Improve Management of Cultural Resources 5 5

Total FTEs 27 27
Future Studies and Implementation Plans Needed 

115 

Five additional maintenance and engineering 

staff are needed to assist with the 

coordination of upgrades to campgrounds, 

picnic areas, trail systems, and visitor service 

facilities, as well as ongoing maintenance. The 

relatively small increase in this division’s staff 

is the result of making improvements to 

existing developments, rather than adding 

substantial new infrastructure to the parkway. 

New infrastructure proposed under this 

alternative (that would require additional 

maintenance compared to the preferred 

alternative) include three sections of the 

multiuse paved trail. 

One additional full-time staff would be 

needed in the Planning, Lands, and 

Compliance Division in order to actively 

pursue new partnerships with public and 

private entities to plan and implement joint 

ventures that support parkway goals. No 

additional staffing is needed to implement 

alternative C in the superintendent’s office, 

administration and concessions, or law 

enforcement, safety, and emergency services. 

One-time Facility Costs 

Overall one-time facility costs are included in 

table 12. Each category of cost is described in 

more detail, except for costs associated with 

the row labeled “upgrade select maintenance 

facilities” because they are the same for 

alternatives B and C. 

Deferred Maintenance. It is important that 

the cost estimates contain the same elements, 

and that they be developed with the same 

general assumptions, so that there can be 

consistency and comparability among 

alternatives. It is important to note that 

deferred maintenance costs are the same for 

all of the alternatives (alternatives A, B, and 

C). 

In FY02, a comprehensive condition 

assessment was started for all parkway assets. 

The report has identified that the accumulated 

operational deficiencies have led to a $395 

million deferred maintenance backlog. This 

backlog represents 7% of the parkway’s $5.4-

billion cost of replacement value, the second 

highest cost of replacement value of any 

national park unit. 

Alternatives B and C include costs that would 

partially address this deferred maintenance 

backlog. For example, the overall cost of fully 

implementing upgrades and enhancements to 

campground and picnic areas ($42.7 million) 

includes costs to address at least $13.9 million 

in deferred maintenance costs. 

TABLE 12. ESTIMATED ONE-TIME FACILITY COSTS TO IMPLEMENT THE ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A 

(No-action) 

Alternative B 

(NPS Preferred) Alternative C 

Deferred maintenance $14,466,000 $14,466,000 $14,466,000 

Upgrade select campgrounds and picnic areas 0 $28,892,000 $32,747,000 

Upgrade select visitor service facilities 0 $21,871,000 $15,091,000 

Improve select trail systems and access points 0 $5,698,000 $8,129,000 

Rehabilitate select historic structures and 

associated cultural landscapes 0 $995,000 $1,584,000 

Upgrade select maintenance facilities 0 $1,111,000 $1,111,000 

Other one-time facility costs 0 $960,000 $2,983,000 

Total One-Time Facility Costs $14,466,000 $73,994,000 $76,112,000 

All cost estimates are in 2011 dollars. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

116 

The total $14.5 million deferred maintenance 

amount shown in table 13 is only related to 

one-time facility costs. This amount 

represents the current projects included in the 

NPS facility management system associated 

with the one-time facility cost categories in 

this plan (campgrounds and picnic areas; 

visitor service facilities; trail systems and 

access points; and historic structures and 

associated cultural landscapes). These 

amounts do not include all of the deferred 

maintenance costs associated with parkway 

facilities, such as utility systems. 

Examples of deferred maintenance include 

the hundreds of miles of roadside ditches and 

drains that have not been maintained properly 

and are now clogged with natural debris. 

Additionally, hundreds of miles of trails go 

virtually untouched by parkway staff, leading 

to severe trail erosion and overgrowth. When 

taking into account that $250 million of the 

$395 million backlog is associated with roadrelated maintenance, the proposed strategies 

of this plan would be a significant step 

towards achieving the long-term sustainability 

of aging parkway campgrounds, picnic areas, 

trail systems, and concession facilities. 

TABLE 13. ESTIMATED DEFERRED MAINTENANCE 

ADDRESSED BY ONE-TIME FACILITY COSTS

Type of Deferred Maintenance 

Deferred 

Maintenance 

Cost 

Campgrounds and Picnic Areas $13,893,000 

Visitor Service Facilities* $356,000 

Historic Structures & Associated 

Cultural Landscapes $217,000 

Total Cost $14,466,000 

*Includes only structures, not associated infrastructure and 

utilities. 

Upgrade Select Campgrounds and 

Picnic Areas. Estimated one-time facility 

costs to upgrade select campgrounds and 

picnic areas are about $3.8 million higher 

under alternative C than under alternative B. 

Table 14 shows that costs associated with 

alternative C are higher than for alternative B 

in all recreation areas, except for Roanoke 

Mountain, Cumberland Knob, and Julian 

Price. The primary reason campground costs 

are higher under alternative C is because most 

campground costs under alternative C include 

costs to improve RV access and the ability of 

RVs to safely utilize campgrounds. 

TABLE 14. ESTIMATED ONE-TIME FACILITY COSTS TO 

UPGRADE SELECT CAMPGROUNDS AND PICNIC AREAS

Location 

Alternative B 

(NPS 

Preferred) 

Alternative C 

James River/ Otter 

Creek $2,376,000 $5,093,000

Peaks of Otter $8,286,000 $12,021,000

Roanoke Mountain $2,938,000 $1,767,000

Smart View $0 $1,114,000

Rocky Knob $2,952,000 $4,882,000

Cumberland Knob $1,516,000 $0

Doughton Park $3,843,000 $3,843,000

Julian Price $15,818,000 $4,997,000

Linville Falls $1,660,000 $5,070,000

Crabtree Falls $1,934,000 $6,392,000

Mt. Pisgah $1,463,000 $1,463,000

Subtotal $42,785,000 $46,640,000

Deferred 

Maintenance Offset $13,893,000 $13,893,000

Total Cost $28,892,000 $32,747,000

There are nine campgrounds on the parkway, 

totaling more than 1,050 campsites. Of this 

total, about 67% are tent sites and 33% are RV 

sites. Under alternative B, modest upgrades to 

campgrounds occur at eight of the nine 

campgrounds, whereas all nine would be 

upgraded under alternative C. These upgrades 

include upgrading certain comfort stations to 

provide showers and make them compliant 

with the Americans with Disabilities Act; 

enlarging select tent pads/sites to 

accommodate modern “family size” tents; and 

upgrading existing RV sites with water and 

electric hookups. In addition, major upgrades 

would occur at two of nine campgrounds 

under alternative B and five of nine under 

alternative C. Major upgrades include 

widening campground entrances and one of 

the loop roads; increasing turning radii and 

enlarging existing RV parking spaces to better 

accommodate larger RVs. 
Future Studies and Implementation Plans Needed 

117 

In addition, alternative C costs are higher than 

those of alternative B because the conversion 

of a portion of campsites to rental cabins at 

Peaks of Otter is more costly than the 

conversion of the entire Roanoke Mountain 

campground to a day use recreation area. 

There are no costs at Cumberland Knob 

associated with alternative C, whereas 

alternative B includes costs associated with 

additional trail and picnic infrastructure to 

accommodate future increases in day use 

recreation demand. Estimated costs at Julian 

Price are higher under alternative B primarily 

due to costs associated with improving RV 

access. 

There are also one-time facility costs 

associated with six picnic areas. A majority of 

the costs under alternative B are related to 

reductions in and/or relocations of picnic area 

footprints to restore historic or natural 

resources. Under alternative C, the majority of 

the costs are associated with upgrades and 

improvements to picnic areas to better 

accommodate existing and future use and 

minimize resource impacts. 

Upgrade Select Visitor Service 

Facilities. Estimated one-time facility costs 

associated with select visitor service facilities 

are primarily associated with upgrades to 

existing infrastructure, such as visitor contact 

stations and concession services, or adaptive 

reuse of such infrastructure. Costs under 

alternative B are approximately $6.8 million 

higher than those under alternative C. The 

higher cost for alternative B reflects a desire to 

preserve the historic intent of the parkway 

and the traditional visitor experience by 

implementing strategies to ensure 

continuation of concession services. Such 

strategies might include making upgrades to 

existing infrastructure and/or adding new 

facilities where appropriate. Much of the 

difference can be attributed to the difference 

in costs between alternatives B and C at 

Mabry Mill (see table 15). 

TABLE 15. ESTIMATED ONE-TIME FACILITY COSTS TO 

UPGRADE SELECT VISITOR SERVICE FACILITIES

Location 

Alternative B 

(NPS Preferred) Alternative C 

Humpback Rocks $0 $167,000 

James River/ Otter 

Creek $32,000 $32,000 

Peaks of Otter $3,556,000 $320,000 

Rocky Knob $695,000 $168,000 

Mabry Mill $9,490,000 $792,000 

Cumberland Knob $0 $1,127,000 

Doughton Park $8,149,000 $8,149,000 

Julian Price $305,000 $0 

Linville Falls $0 $2,287,000 

Crabtree Falls $0 $309,000 

Segments 3 & 4 

Costs* $0 $2,096,000 

Subtotal $22,227,000 $15,447,000 

Deferred 

Maintenance 

Offset $356,000 $356,000 

Total Cost $21,871,000 $15,091,000 

* Estimated costs associated with management of the Kelley 

School and adaptive reuse or removal of the Northwest Trading 

Post concession services structures.

Improve Select Trail Systems and 

Access Points. Table 16 shows one-time 

facility costs to improve select trail systems 

and access points. The total estimated costs 

are approximately $2.4 million higher under 

alternative C than under alternative B. 

The costs associated with segment 1 are a 

primary reason for this difference. The 

estimated costs to work with the U.S. Forest 

Service to identify opportunities for 

wilderness/trail recreation and provision of 

parking lots and other support services to 

access such recreational opportunities are 

approximately $3 million under alternative C. 

However, estimated costs at Humpback 

Rocks, Rocky Knob, and Linville Falls are 

greater under alternative B than under 

alternative C. For example, costs under 

alternative B at Humpback Rocks include 

costs to improve existing trails and potentially 

develop more trails to accommodate future 

increases in use levels and programs; 

alternative C does not include these costs. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

118 

TABLE 16. ESTIMATED ONE-TIME FACILITY COSTS TO 

IMPROVE SELECT TRAIL SYSTEMS AND ACCESS POINTS

Location 

Alternative B 

(NPS Preferred) Alternative C

Humpback Rocks $731,000 $226,000

James River/Otter 

Creek $441,000 $441,000

Rocky Knob $470,000 $0

Mabry Mill $215,000 $215,000

Doughton Park $3,312,000 $3,312,000

Linville Falls $307,000 $0

Craggy Gardens $158,000 $396,000

Mt. Pisgah $65,000 $65,000

Segments 1 & 6 

Costs* $0 $3,474,000

Total Cost $5,698,000 $8,129,000

* Estimated costs associated with providing access to 

recreational opportunities.

 

Rehabilitate Select Historic Structures 

and Associated Cultural Landscapes.

The difference in estimated costs to 

rehabilitate select historic structures and 

associated cultural landscapes is shown in 

table 17. The estimated costs under alternative 

C are approximately $600,000 more than 

under alternative B. The primary difference is 

that there are no costs associated with 

alternative B at Rocky Knob; costs under 

alternative C associated with managing the 

historic settlement site as a cultural landscape 

are approximately $750,000. 

TABLE 17. ESTIMATED ONE-TIME FACILITY COSTS TO 

REHABILITATE SELECT HISTORIC STRUCTURES AND 

ASSOCIATED CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

Location Alternative B 

(NPS Preferred) Alternative C 

Peaks of Otter $862,000 $705,000

Rocky Knob $0 $747,000

Mt. Pisgah $350,000 $350,000

Subtotal $1,212,000 $1,801,000

Deferred 

Maintenance 

Offset $217,000 $217,000

Total Cost $995,000 $1,584,000

Other One-Time Facility Costs 

The total estimate of other one-time facility 

costs for implementing alternative C is 

approximately $2 million greater than for 

alternative B. The primary difference is the 

$1.8 million associated with removing the dam 

and spillway at James River/Otter Creek.

One-time Nonfacility Costs 

 

One-time nonfacility costs under alternative A 

include the development of five cultural 

landscape reports and a wetlands 

management plan ($500,000). As compared to 

alternative A, costs under alternative B are 

approximately $3.3 million higher and those 

under alternative C are about $4.5 million 

higher. Of this difference, approximately $2.3 

million under alternative B and $2.8 million 

under alternative C are associated with costs 

related to a more comprehensive parkwaywide approach to resource management. 

Other Costs 

Other costs include the construction of grade 

separation structures, development of a paved 

multiuse path parallel to but separate from the 

parkway, and a shuttle system. The National 

Park Service would likely need to pursue 

other funding sources for such construction. 

Under alternatives B and C, the largest cost in 

this category is the construction of 19 gradeseparation structures, estimated to be about 

$54 million. Funding of the construction of 

grade separation structures could be funded 

partially through a combination of state 

highway improvement funds, the Federal 

Lands Highway Program, and/or NPS lineitem construction funding. Additional costs 

include the construction of paved, multiuse 

trail segments that are parallel to, but separate 

from, the parkway in the Waynesboro, 

Roanoke, Boone/Blowing Rock, and Asheville 

areas under alternative C ($102.3 million). 

Alternative C also includes approximately $1.8 

million to potentially provide staging for a 

shuttle system in cooperation with the city of 

Asheville. 
119 

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 

The environmentally preferable alternative is 

defined as “the alternative that will promote 

national environmental policy as expressed in 

section 101 of the National Environmental 

Policy Act.” Section 101 states that it is the 

continuing responsibility of the federal 

government to 

 fulfill the responsibilities of each 

generation as trustee of the environment 

for succeeding generations; 

 assure for all Americans safe, healthful, 

productive, and aesthetically and 

culturally pleasing surroundings; 

 attain the widest range of beneficial uses 

of the environment without degradation, 

risk to health or safety, or other 

undesirable and unintended 

consequences; 

 preserve important historic, cultural, and 

natural aspects of our national heritage; 

and maintain, wherever possible, an 

environment which supports diversity, 

and a variety of individual choices; 

 achieve a balance between population 

and resource use which would permit 

high standards of living and a wide 

sharing of life’s amenities; and 

 enhance the quality of renewable 

resources and approach the maximum 

attainable recycling of depletable 

resources. 

A description of how each alternative would 

or would not achieve the requirements of 

sections 101 and 102(1) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act criteria is provided 

below and illustrated through a rating system 

in table 18. 

Three of the above criteria did not make a 

difference in determining the environmentally 

preferable alternative. Criterion 1 is satisfied 

by all the alternatives: the Blue Ridge Parkway 

is already a national park system unit and as a 

trustee of this area the National Park Service 

would continue to fulfill its responsibilities to 

protect this area for future generations. 

TABLE 18. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS

Criteria 

Alternatives 

A B C 

1. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of 

the environment for succeeding generations. 5 5 5 

2. Ensure safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and 

culturally pleasing surroundings for all Americans. 5 5 5 

3. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the 

environment without degradation, risk of health or safety, 

or other undesirable and unintended consequences. 

3 5 4

4. Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects 

of our national heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an 

environment that supports diversity and a variety of individual choices. 

4 5 5 

5. Achieve a balance between population and resource use 

that would permit high standards of living and a wide 

sharing of life’s amenities. 

3 5 5 

6. Enhance the quality of renewable resources and 

approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable 

resources. 

5 5 5 

Total Points* 25 30 29 

*Five points were given to the alternative if it fully meets the criteria; four points if it meets nearly all of the elements of the 

criteria; three points if it meets more than one element of the criteria; two points if it meets only one element of the 

criteria; and one point if the alternative does not meet the criteria. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

120 

 The difference between the alternatives in 

this regard is not appreciable. Likewise, all the 

alternatives being considered are intended to 

meet criterion 2: provide for all Americans a 

safe experience in a visually pleasing 

environment. This is also the case for criterion 

6. All of the alternatives would result in 

enhancing the quality of renewable resources 

and recycling through NPS management. 

Alternative C includes more emphasis on 

resource preservation and enhancement (e.g., 

greater portion of parkway lands are zoned 

natural); however, it limits the beneficial uses 

that could be derived from recreational 

opportunities. Conversely, alternative B places 

greater emphasis on enhancing outdoor 

recreational opportunities without degrading 

the park’s environment. The no-action 

provides less beneficial uses because the 

primary emphasis of the parkway is on the 

existing self-contained driving experience. 

Alternative B best meets criterion 3, 

alternative C partially meets it, while the noaction fulfills it the least. 

Alternative B best preserves important historic 

and cultural aspects of our national heritage 

represented on the parkway. It best preserves 

the original design intent of the parkway and 

ensures the long-term viability of the historic 

lodges and other historic resources. 

Alternative C best preserves picturesque 

Appalachian scenery and important natural 

resources of the parkway. It also would 

enhance visitors’ ability to connect, explore, 

and learn about the region’s natural and 

cultural heritage. Although each of these 

alternatives preserves our national heritage in 

different ways, they both fully meet criterion 

4. The no-action alternative focuses on the 

historic and cultural aspects of the parkway 

with less emphasis on the natural 

environment, and therefore, only partially 

meets criterion 4. 

Alternatives B and C would place more 

emphasis on reaching out to communities and 

linking to regional natural, recreational, and 

cultural heritage resources and experiences. 

Examples include linking parkway 

recreational areas to adjacent off parkway 

locations to enhance recreational 

opportunities. Alternatives B and C would 

enhance the visitor experience and provide 

greater access to regional amenities; therefore, 

both action alternatives fully meet criterion 5. 

The no-action alternative continues to focus 

on the self-contained driving experience for 

which the parkway was originally designed. 

Although this enhances the standard of living 

and provides recreational amenities for 

people, it is more limited in scope compared 

to alternatives B and C. 

Both alternatives B and C surpass the noaction alternative in meeting the full range of 

goals stated in section 101 of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. Both alternatives 

fully meet criteria 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6. Alternative 

B better meets criterion 3 because it places 

greater emphasis on enhancing outdoor 

recreational opportunities without degrading 

the park’s environment. As a result, the 

analysis of the six criteria reveals alternative B 

is the environmentally preferable alternative. 
121 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM FURTHER 

ANALYSIS 

Early in the alternatives development process, 

four alternatives were drafted, including one 

that the planning team called “Alternative 2: 

The Parkway as a Corridor that Links 

Regional Natural and Cultural Heritage.” This 

alternative emphasized the idea that the 

parkway is a vibrant asset to regional cultural 

and natural networks. As such, the parkway 

visitor would be encouraged to connect 

physically and intellectually to the places and 

stories that relate the park’s resources to 

communities and those communities to the 

park. Some of the resource and visitor use 

ideas associated with this alternative included 

the following: 

 Look at the parkway as a gateway to a 

series of regional areas rich in natural 

and cultural heritage and scenery. 

Encourage visitors to venture into these 

regions. 

 Parkway visitor centers would become 

more like regional heritage information 

centers. 

 The parkway would become a seamless 

partner within these communities in 

heritage tourism, viewshed and resource 

protection, and education outside of 

park boundaries. 

 The parkway would link up with 

regional and national heritage corridors. 

 Certain visitor services along the 

parkway would be reduced, giving local 

communities more opportunities to 

benefit by providing services. 

The team did a comparison of that alternative 

to the other two action alternatives to 

determine how much overlap there was 

between the zoning decisions of this 

alternative and the others. The team found 

considerable overlap and dismissed this 

alternative due to its duplication with the 

other action alternatives. The team decided to 

incorporate aspects of what was called 

alternative 2 into the other alternatives for the 

following reasons: 

 Much of what was important about 

alternative 2 was programmatic and 

addressed by a) how the parkway would 

operate in cooperation with neighboring 

communities and b) how the parkway 

might better recognize community 

values through adjustments to 

interpretation and visitor orientation. 

These “how” level ideas did not result in 

enough differences in management 

prescriptions and zoning to support a 

distinct general management plan-level 

alternative. 

 The “hows” contained in alternative 2 

could be accommodated in the other 

two action alternatives. To isolate these 

ideas in a separate alternative seemed to 

communicate that the parkway would 

not focus on communities unless that 

alternative became the preferred. The 

team decided this was not the right 

message and thought the general 

management plan should discuss 

cooperation and recognition of 

community values as “standard 

operating procedure” for the park, 

regardless of the alternative selected as 

the plan. 

 As alternative 2 was being developed, it 

seemed to be the only alternative for 

proposals involving increased 

development on the parkway, thus 

unfairly “loading” the alternative. 

Increased recognition of parkway 

neighbors does not necessarily equate to 

more development, higher levels of 

recreation, or compromises to parkway 

values. Yet, alternative 2 was in danger of 

being equated with those things. The 

team decided the alternatives are better 

balanced by including some of the 

development ideas with each of 

alternatives 1 (now B) and 3 (now C). 
122 

COMPARISON OF PARKWAY-WIDE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

BY ALTERNATIVE 

Table 19 provides a comparison of parkwaywide management strategies by alternative. 

The table is organized to describe the effect of 

each alternative on the following management 

topics: 

 Scenery conservation 

 Soundscapes 

 Land protection 

 Natural resources 

 Cultural resources 

 Interpretation and visitor services 

 Concessions 

 Access and circulation 

 Campgrounds 

 Trails 

 Partnerships

TABLE 19. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES

ALTERNATIVE A: Continuation of 

current management practices 

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS Preferred): 

Emphasis on original parkway 

design and traditional driving 

experience, while enhancing 

outdoor recreational opportunities 

and regional natural resource 

connectivity 

ALTERNATIVE C: Increased flexibility 

to manage scenic qualities and 

regional natural resource 

connectivity, while enhancing 

parkway visitor services. 

Scenery Conservation 

Complete the baseline evaluation of the 

quality and condition of off-parkway 

scenic views as seen from parkway 

overlooks and roadside vistas. 

Same as alternative A. Using the 

baseline evaluation as a guide, identify 

views along the parkway to be 

protected. 

Same as alternative B. 

As opportunities arise, and especially as 

impending land use changes threaten to 

diminish views from the parkway, use 

the baseline evaluation to work with 

adjacent landowners, county officials, 

developers, land trusts, and other 

partners to conserve the idealized scenes 

of the central and southern 

Appalachians through land purchases, 

easements, or creative partnerships with 

landowners, land trusts, and 

municipalities. 

Actively collaborate with adjacent 

landowners, county officials, and 

developers on a site-specific project basis 

to conserve priority scenery. 

Actively collaborate with adjacent 

landowners, county officials, and 

developers on a site-specific project basis 

to conserve priority scenery. In addition, 

the parkway would work with its 

partners to provide leadership for 

regional efforts among adjacent 

landowners; local, state, and federal 

officials; and developers to establish 

long-term strategies for conserving 

views from the parkway. 

Same as alternative B. 
Comparison of Parkway-wide Management Strategies by Alternative 

123 

TABLE 19. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES

ALTERNATIVE A: Continuation of 

current management practices 

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS Preferred): 

Emphasis on original parkway 

design and traditional driving 

experience, while enhancing 

outdoor recreational opportunities 

and regional natural resource 

connectivity 

ALTERNATIVE C: Increased flexibility 

to manage scenic qualities and 

regional natural resource 

connectivity, while enhancing 

parkway visitor services. 

Soundscapes 

The parkway does not have formal 

management strategies for soundscapes. 

Develop and implement management 

strategies, including educational and 

interpretive programs, highlighting the 

importance of acoustic resources and 

soundscapes. Park management should 

consider ways to reduce their own noise 

footprint, as well as those caused by 

visitors or outside sources. Encourage 

visitors to be respectful of others by not 

producing excessive noise. Collaborate 

with adjacent property owners; 

appropriate federal, state, and local 

agencies; and organizations to reduce 

noise. Consider implementing special 

use permits for organized groups and/or 

events. Enforce existing noise ordinances 

(36 CFR section 2.12). 

Same as alternative B. 

Land Protection 

Continue to acquire interests in lands 

adjoining the parkway boundary from 

willing sellers to eliminate private road 

accesses (consistent with parkway 

legislation), to consolidate irregular 

portions of the parkway boundary that 

are difficult to manage, and to conserve 

tracts of land of moderate to high scenic 

quality (see also Scenery Conservation, 

above). 

Same as alternative A, with the 

additional option of acquiring interests 

in lands for protection of natural, 

cultural, and recreational resources and 

seeking regional partnerships to provide 

for additional options to protect 

resources. 

Same as alternative B. 

Continue to amend the current land 

protection plan on an as-needed basis 

without an overall land protection 

strategy. 

Implement a land protection strategy 

that does not identify specific tracts of 

land, but establishes (1) resource and 

visitor use management criteria, (2) park 

management zoning and land use 

compatibility factors, and/or (3) other 

protection goals that would be used to 

evaluate the merits of a property when it 

becomes available from willing sellers. 

Proactively seek out willing sellers for 

high-priority parcels. 

Same as alternative B. 

Natural Resources Management 

Inventory and management of natural 

resources continues to be primarily sitespecific and reactive to laws and policies, 

visitor safety concerns, and projects in 

the parkway. 

Make inventory and management of 

natural resources more proactive, 

incorporating a long-term approach that 

actively strives to advance regional 

ecosystem health through active 

partnerships with public and private 

entities. 

Same as alternative B. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

124 

TABLE 19. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES

ALTERNATIVE A: Continuation of 

current management practices 

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS Preferred): 

Emphasis on original parkway 

design and traditional driving 

experience, while enhancing 

outdoor recreational opportunities 

and regional natural resource 

connectivity 

ALTERNATIVE C: Increased flexibility 

to manage scenic qualities and 

regional natural resource 

connectivity, while enhancing 

parkway visitor services. 

Continue to plan the natural resource 

program on an annual basis, thus 

discouraging the implementation of 

multiyear projects and engaging 

partners on a project-specific basis. 

Establish a multiyear planning process 

for the natural resource program to 

implement multiyear projects. 

Same as alternative B. 

Continue to manage the parkway as a 

class II air quality park; this classification 

does not qualify the parkway for 

funding to monitor and influence air 

quality standards in the region. 

Pursue class I air quality classification 

and seek NPS and non-NPS project 

funding for monitoring and influencing 

air quality standards in the region. 

Same as alternative B. 

Continue to manage wildlife with a 

focus primarily on individual and 

nuisance species. 

Shift wildlife management focus to a 

more ecosystem-based approach in the 

region and consider strategies to 

maintain and improve habitat 

connectivity along and across the 

parkway corridor. 

Same as alternative B. 

Manage invasive flora and fauna only 

where they affect threatened and 

endangered species. Continue to work 

with partners on site-specific projects. 

Shift management of invasive flora and 

fauna from reactive, site-specific 

management to more comprehensive 

parkway-wide and regional strategies. 

Same as alternative B. 

Continue to manage designed landscape 

features, such as human-made lakes, for 

scenic and recreational purposes. 

Same as alternative A. Possibly convert some human-made 

water features to natural habitat. 

Continue to manage roadsides, vista 

clearings, and agricultural leases 

primarily for scenic qualities. Vista 

management strategies would continue 

to incorporate habitat mitigation 

measures to protect Carolina northern 

flying squirrel. 

Modify some landscape areas 

traditionally managed for scenery, such 

as roadsides, vista clearings, and 

agricultural leases, to actively protect 

natural resources. Improve habitat 

external to the parkway boundary 

through work with partners. 

Same as alternative B. 

Cultural Resources Management 

Common to all alternatives: 

Seek designation of the designed parkway corridor as a national historic landmark while continuing to manage it as an eligible 

resource. The principal components of this designed landscape are the parkway road with its supporting structures and 

constructed landforms, a scenic corridor provided by a broad right-of-way, a chain of 17 original and 3 more recent recreation 

areas, and a variety of exhibits interpreting the natural and cultural histories of the region. 

Continue to give priority for preservation to cultural resources that are determined to contribute to the national significance of 

the parkway, as established in the national historic landmark nomination underway. The national register eligibility of cultural 

resources that are not found to contribute to the national significance of the parkway as a whole would be determined 

individually. 

Continue to manage currently maintained vistas above 4,000 feet elevation, but determine their size and configuration by best 

practices for managing the potential habitat of sensitive species. 
Comparison of Parkway-wide Management Strategies by Alternative 

125 

TABLE 19. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES

ALTERNATIVE A: Continuation of 

current management practices 

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS Preferred): 

Emphasis on original parkway 

design and traditional driving 

experience, while enhancing 

outdoor recreational opportunities 

and regional natural resource 

connectivity 

ALTERNATIVE C: Increased flexibility 

to manage scenic qualities and 

regional natural resource 

connectivity, while enhancing 

parkway visitor services. 

Where operationally feasible, continue 

to use the historic Parkway Land Use 

Maps, which document the as-built 

conditions and desired future 

maintenance standards for the designed 

landscape, as a guide for maintenance 

of the parkway road prism within 

available funding resources. 

Update the historic Parkway Land Use 

Maps to protect the parkway’s historic 

integrity while accommodating newer 

law and policy requirements and 

operational constraints. 

Create new parkway land use maps that 

would restore the parkway’s original 

design intent that expresses viewsheds 

and landscapes of Southern and Central 

Appalachia. This would allow for minor 

deviations from the parkway’s physical 

features when necessary. 

When an endangered species is present 

or a similar natural resource issue occurs, 

modify the management of cultural 

resources on a case-by-case basis. 

 

Interpretation and Visitor Services 

Common to all alternatives: 

Continue to implement curriculum-based school outreach programs using current staffing levels at schools and in the parkway, 

as available, during the school year. 

Continue to operate a six-month visitor 

season, providing interpretive activities 

and visitor services at a basic level. 

Expand operations at selected locations 

to provide services for a nine-month 

visitor season. These locations include: 

Humpback Rocks, James River, Peaks of 

Otter, Mabry Mill, Blue Ridge Music 

Center, Linn Cove, Linville Falls, Museum 

of North Carolina Minerals, Craggy 

Gardens, Folk Art Center, and 

Waterrock Knob. 

Expand operations at selected locations 

to provide services for a nine-month 

visitor season. These locations include: 

James River, Blue Ridge Music Center, 

Linn Cove, Museum of North Carolina 

Minerals, Craggy Gardens, and 

Waterrock Knob. 

Expand operations to provide services 

for a 12-month visitor season at select 

locations. These locations include: 

Humpback Rocks, Peaks of Otter, Mabry 

Mill, Linville Falls, and the Folk Art 

Center. 

Continue visitor education using 

publications and waysides. 

Increase visitor education using 

publications and waysides and emerging 

technology. 

Same as alternative Band expand the 

parkway’s active participation in regional 

heritage tourism projects. 

At the parkway’s 14 visitor contact 

stations, have park and partner staff 

continue to contact about 1 million of 

the 21 million annual visitors. 

Substantially increase the number of 

visitors contacted over current levels by 

providing visitor orientation services at 

underserved parkway entrances, 

particularly the northern and 

southernmost entrances. 

Same as alternative B; also provide 

regional visitor information services at 

Roanoke and Boone/Blowing Rock areas. 

Continue to maintain 20 recreation 

areas along the length of the parkway 

with traditional visitor services that 

support a recreational and scenic driving 

experience, including camping, lodging, 

restaurants, camp stores, and picnic 

sites. 

Same as alternative A. Ensure that in the 

future these traditional recreation 

services remain a high priority and are 

enhanced, as needed, to respond to 

increases in visitor demand. This could 

be accomplished through hardening 

trails, providing overflow parking, and 

developing additional picnic sites, 

among other actions. 

Maintain flexibility of the design and 

function of all recreation areas and 

infrastructure, especially in the visitor 

services zones, to adapt to changing 

visitor use needs. Ensure that the 

management of visitor needs and 

resource values are well balanced and 

that visitors have opportunities for 

solitude and contemplation. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

126 

TABLE 19. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES

ALTERNATIVE A: Continuation of 

current management practices 

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS Preferred): 

Emphasis on original parkway 

design and traditional driving 

experience, while enhancing 

outdoor recreational opportunities 

and regional natural resource 

connectivity 

ALTERNATIVE C: Increased flexibility 

to manage scenic qualities and 

regional natural resource 

connectivity, while enhancing 

parkway visitor services. 

Concessions 

Continue to offer concession services, 

primarily lodging and food, at some 

locations where economically feasible. 

Concession services that are no longer 

economically viable would be 

eliminated. The structures housing those 

services would either be adaptively used 

or removed (except for those eligible for 

listing on the national register).

Continue to find ways to provide viable 

concession services at all existing 

locations to ensure the long-term 

availability of in-parkway lodging, food, 

and other services. Strategies might 

include making upgrades to existing 

infrastructure and/or adding new 

facilities where appropriate. 

As in alternative A, continue to offer 

concession services, primarily lodging 

and food, at some locations where 

economically feasible. Where concession 

services are eliminated, the parkway 

would look to the private sector in 

communities outside the parkway to 

provide those services. The structures 

housing those services would either be 

adaptively used or removed (except for 

those eligible for listing on the national 

register). 

Access and Circulation 

Common to all alternatives: 

Continue the moratorium on secondary road improvement projects in both Virginia and North Carolina until a comprehensive 

corridor access management plan and environmental impact statement are completed. Only address road improvements that 

are necessary to ensure public health and safety outside the comprehensive planning and compliance process. Continue to 

evaluate primary state and federal highway improvements or new construction projects on a project-by-project basis. 

Continue to allow nonrecreational local 

and commuter traffic to increase as rural 

and urban lands adjacent to the 

parkway are developed for residential 

and commercial purposes. 

Accomplish management of some 

nonrecreational local and commuter 

traffic by replacing at-grade crossings 

with new grade separation structures 

(some without access between the 

parkway and state road). 

Same as alternative B. Working with 

partners in parkway urban areas, 

consider extension of existing mass 

transit connections as well as public and 

private shuttle systems to provide 

alternative transportation to parkway 

visitor facilities, where feasible. 

Campgrounds 

Continue to operate the parkway’s nine 

campgrounds, including future repairs 

and rehabilitations focused on meeting 

backlog maintenance needs. 

Continue to operate eight of the 

parkway’s existing campgrounds, 

including future repairs and 

rehabilitations focused on meeting 

backlog maintenance needs. Convert 

the Roanoke Mountain campground to 

a day use recreation area. Collaborate 

with local communities and other park 

partners to consider innovative ways to 

effectively manage Roanoke Mountain 

over the interim of this conversion from 

a campground to a day use area. 

Continue to operate the parkway’s nine 

campgrounds, including future repairs 

and rehabilitations focused on meeting 

backlog maintenance needs. 

Upgrade selected campground comfort 

stations to provide showers and 

universal accessibility. 

Upgrade selected campground comfort 

stations to provide showers. Upgrade all 

campground comfort stations to be 

universally accessible. 

Same as alternative B. 

Maintain existing tent sites, including 

many small sites that do not adequately 

accommodate large, family sized tents. 

Enlarge selected tent sites to better 

accommodate family sized tents. 

Same as alternative B. 

Maintain amphitheaters to provide 

ongoing interpretive programs for 

visitors. 

Upgrade certain amphitheaters to better 

accommodate visitors during interpretive 

programs. 

Same as alternative B. 
Comparison of Parkway-wide Management Strategies by Alternative 

127 

TABLE 19. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES

ALTERNATIVE A: Continuation of 

current management practices 

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS Preferred): 

Emphasis on original parkway 

design and traditional driving 

experience, while enhancing 

outdoor recreational opportunities 

and regional natural resource 

connectivity 

ALTERNATIVE C: Increased flexibility 

to manage scenic qualities and 

regional natural resource 

connectivity, while enhancing 

parkway visitor services. 

Maintain existing RV camping without 

water and electrical hookups at all 

campgrounds. 

Upgrade existing RV sites with water 

and electrical hookups at all 

campgrounds, except at Roanoke 

Mountain. 

Upgrade existing RV sites with water 

and electrical hookups at all 

campgrounds. 

Maintain existing access at all 

campgrounds, including that which does 

not adequately accommodate larger RVs 

(i.e., narrow roads, tight turns, and small 

parking spaces). 

Improve RV access to portions of 

campgrounds at Peaks of Otter and 

Julian Price. Upgrades at these 

campgrounds would include such things 

as widening the campground entrance 

and one of the loop roads, increasing 

turning radii, and enlarging existing RV 

parking spaces. Only a portion of the RV 

spaces at the campgrounds would be 

redesigned to better accommodate RVs. 

Improve RV access for existing 

campgrounds at James River/Otter 

Creek, Peaks of Otter, Rocky Knob, 

Linville Falls, and Crabtree Falls. 

Upgrades at these campgrounds would 

include such things as widening the 

campground entrance and one of the 

loop roads, increasing turning radii and 

enlarging existing RV parking spaces. 

Only a portion of the RV spaces at the 

campgrounds would be redesigned to 

better accommodate RVs. 

Trails 

Common to all alternatives: 

Work in partnership with the managers of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail to avoid sensitive resource areas by relocating 

some trail sections. Work with volunteer organizations and the state of North Carolina to complete the Mountains-to-Sea Trail 

within the parkway boundary where feasible. 

Continue to allow bicycling on the main 

parkway road and other parkway roads, 

recognizing that bicyclists would be 

sharing the road with higher volumes of 

motorized traffic, especially in the more 

urbanized areas of the parkway. 

Same as alternative A. 

Strive to close and restore undesignated 

social trails in the parkway as much as 

possible, particularly when the 

undesignated trails are known to be 

causing notable negative impacts to 

natural resources, visitor experiences, or 

adjacent neighborhoods. Ensure that 

undesignated social trails are not 

authorized within the parkway and any 

future designated connections to 

parkway trails would only be developed 

on public lands in collaboration with the 

associated local land management 

agencies. 

Develop adequate, formal parking areas 

for designated parkway trails to ensure 

visitor safety, protect resources, and 

preserve community character in 

adjacent or nearby neighborhoods. 

Same as alternative A. 

Pursue development of paved, multiuse 

trails parallel to but separate from the 

parkway in the Waynesboro, Roanoke, 

Boone/Blowing Rock, and Asheville 

urban areas to enhance opportunities 

for pedestrians and bicyclists to safely 

recreate in the parkway corridor where 

traffic levels are higher and 

opportunities to link to regional trail 

systems are available. 

Strive to close and restore undesignated 

social trails in the parkway as much as 

possible, particularly when the 

undesignated trails are known to be 

causing notable negative impacts to 

natural resources, visitor experiences, or 

adjacent neighborhoods. And, ensure 

that undesignated social trails are not 

authorized within the parkway and any 

future designated connections to 

parkway trails would only be developed 

on public lands in collaboration with the 

associated local land management 

agencies. 

Develop adequate, formal parking areas 

for designated parkway trails to ensure 

visitor safety, protect resources, and 

preserve community character in 

adjacent or nearby neighborhoods. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

128 

TABLE 19. SUMMARY COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES

ALTERNATIVE A: Continuation of 

current management practices 

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS Preferred): 

Emphasis on original parkway 

design and traditional driving 

experience, while enhancing 

outdoor recreational opportunities 

and regional natural resource 

connectivity 

ALTERNATIVE C: Increased flexibility 

to manage scenic qualities and 

regional natural resource 

connectivity, while enhancing 

parkway visitor services. 

Continue to allow equestrian use on 

designated trails. 

Develop improvements for equestrian 

use in designated areas. 

Consider connections to regional 

equestrian trails. 

Partnerships 

Allow the parkway’s active partnership 

program to continue to grow and 

develop. Continue current pace, growth, 

and evolution of partnerships. Respond 

on a case-by-case basis to requests for 

new partnerships with public and private 

entities in joint ventures. 

Actively pursue new partnerships with 

public and private entities to plan and 

implement joint ventures that support 

parkway goals. Explore broader base of 

partnerships. 

Same as alternative B. 
129 

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES 

TABLE 20. SUMMARY OF THE IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Impact Topic Alternative A 

(No-action) 

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 

Alternative C 

Vegetation and Wildlife 

Alternative A would continue to have longterm minor to moderate adverse local to regional impacts on the vegetation and wildlife communities of the parkway. This alternative would also continue to have longterm negligible to moderate beneficial local to regional impacts on these resources. Impacts of this alternative, combined with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions described previously, would result in longterm minor to moderate adverse local to regional impacts and long-term minor to moderate beneficial local to regional cumulative effects. This alternative’s contribution to these effects would be relatively small. 

Alternative B would have short- and longterm minor to moderate local adverse impacts and long-term negligible to moderate local to regional beneficial impacts on the vegetation and wildlife communities of the parkway. Impacts of this alternative, combined with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would result in short- and long-term minor to moderate adverse local to regional cumulative impacts and long-term minor to moderate beneficial local to regional cumulative impacts. This alternative’s contribution to these adverse cumulative effects would be relatively small. However, due to the parkway’s importance in providing regional connectivity to other public and private lands that protect these resources and the focus on a regionwide ecosystem management approach, this alternative would contribute a considerable amount to the beneficial cumulative effects. 

Alternative C would havterm minor to moderate impacts and long-term nmoderate local to regionon the overall vegetation communities of the parkalternative, combined wother past, present, and foreseeable future actionshort- and long-term miadverse local to regional and long-term minor to local to regional cumulatalternative’s contribution cumulative effects would due to the parkway’s imregional connectivity to private lands that protecthe focus on a regionwidmanagement approach, would contribute a consthe beneficial cumulative 

Federal and State Listed Species 

Implementation of the no-action alternative would result in long-term negligible to minor local to regional beneficial effects on threatened and endangered species of the parkway from new vista management strategies and poaching and invasive plant controls. It would also have long-term minor adverse local to regional effects from sensory-based disturbances caused by park operations and visitor use and habitat alteration caused by recreational use (e.g., off-trail vegetation trampling). Impacts of the no-action alternative, combined with the impacts of other past, present, and 

Alternative B would have long-term minor to moderate beneficial local to regional impacts and short- and long-term negligible to minor local to regional adverse impacts on federal and state listed threatened and endangered species. Impacts of this alternative, combined with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would result in long-term minor to moderate adverse local to regional cumulative impacts and long-term minor to moderate beneficial local to regional cumulative impacts on threatened and endangered species.This alternative’s contribution to these adverse 

Alternative C would havmoderate local to regionand short- and long-term local to regional adverse and state listed threatenspecies. Impacts of this awith the impacts of othereasonably foreseeable fresult in long-term minoadverse local and regionand long-term minor to local to regional cumulatthreatened and endangealternative’s contribution 
130 

TABLE 20. SUMMARY OF THE IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Impact Topic Alternative A 

(No-action) 

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 

Alternative C 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would result in long-term minor to moderate adverse local to regional effects and longterm minor to moderate beneficial local to regional cumulative impacts on threatened and endangered species of the parkway. This alternative’s contribution to these cumulative effects would be small. For alternative A, the overall determination of effect on federal threatened and endangered species protected under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act would be may affect / not likely to adversely affect.

cumulative effects would be small. However, due to the parkway’s importance in providing regional connectivity to other public and private lands that protect these resources and the focus on a regionwide ecosystem management approach, this alternative would contribute a considerable amount to the beneficial cumulative effects. For alternative B, the overall determination of effect on federal threatened and endangered species protected under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act would be may affect / not likely to adversely affect.

cumulative effects would due to the parkway’s imregional connectivity to private lands that protecthe focus on a regionwidmanagement approach, would contribute a consthe beneficial cumulative For alternative C, the oveffect on federal threatespecies protected under Endangered Species Act / not likely to adversely a

Geologic Resources and Soils 

The no-action alternative would have a shortand long-term minor to moderate adverse local to regional impact on geologic resources and soils. Impacts of this alternative, combined with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would result in short- and long-term minor to moderate adverse local to regional cumulative impacts. This alternative’s contribution to these effects would be small. 

Alternative B would have long-term minor to moderate beneficial local to regional impacts and short- and long-term minor to moderate adverse local to regional impacts. Impacts of this alternative, combined with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would result in short- and long-term minor to moderate adverse local to regional cumulative impacts and long-term minor to moderate beneficial local cumulative impacts. However, this alternative’s contribution to these cumulative effects is expected to be relatively small. 

Alternative C would havbeneficial local to regionterm moderate adverse limpacts on soils. Impacts combined with the impapresent, and reasonably actions, would result in sminor to moderate advecumulative impacts and beneficial local to regionimpacts. However, this acontribution to these cuexpected to be relatively 

Water-Related Resources 

The no-action alternative would have shortand long-term minor to moderate adverse local to regional impacts and long-term minor beneficial local to regional impacts on wetlands, riparian areas, floodplains, streams, and water quality. Impacts of this alternative, combined with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would result in short- and long-term minor to moderate adverse local to regional cumulative impacts and long-term, minor beneficial local to regional cumulative 

Alternative B would have long-term minor to moderate beneficial local to regional impacts and short- and long-term minor to moderate adverse local to regional impacts on waterrelated resources. Impacts of this alternative, combined with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would result in short- and long-term minor to moderate adverse local to regional cumulative impacts and long-term minor to moderate beneficial local to regional cumulative impacts. This alternative’s 

Alternative C would havmoderate beneficial locaand short- and long-term adverse local to regional related resources. Impaccombined with the impapresent, and reasonably actions, would result in sminor to moderate adveimpacts and long-term mbeneficial local to regionThis alternative’s contrib
131 

TABLE 20. SUMMARY OF THE IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Impact Topic Alternative A 

(No-action) 

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 

Alternative C 

impacts. Alternative A would contribute a considerable amount to the beneficial cumulative effects, but only a small amount to the adverse cumulative effects. 

contribution to these cumulative impacts would be small for adverse effects and considerable for beneficial effects. 

cumulative impacts is exfor the adverse effects athe beneficial effects. 

Air Quality Implementing the no-action alternative 

would result in long-term minor adverse regional impacts on the air quality of the parkway. There would be long-term minor to moderate adverse regional cumulative impacts and long-term minor beneficial regional cumulative impacts on air quality. However, this alternative’s contribution to these effects would be small. 

Implementing alternative B would result in long-term minor adverse regional effects and long-term minor to moderate beneficial regional effects on the air quality of the parkway. There would be long-term minor to moderate adverse regional cumulative impacts and long-term minor to moderate beneficial regional cumulative impacts on air quality. This alternative’s contribution to these cumulative effects would be small. 

Implementing alternative long-term minor adverse long-term minor to modregional effects on the aparkway. There would bmoderate adverse regionimpacts and long-term mbeneficial regional cumuquality. This alternative’s these cumulative effects 

Historic Structures Alternative A would have long-term minor to 

moderate adverse impacts and long-term beneficial impacts on historic structures. Impacts of this alternative, combined with the moderate long-term adverse impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would result in local long-term minor to moderate adverse cumulative impacts and long-term beneficial cumulative impacts. However, because most of these adverse impacts occurred in the past or now take place beyond the boundary of the parkway, this alternative’s contribution to these effects would be small. The impact under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act would be an adverse effect for the moderate adverse impacts and would be no adverse effect in the case of the beneficial impacts, cumulative and otherwise. 

Alternative B would have long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts and long-term negligible to moderate beneficial impacts on the historic structures. Impacts of this alternative, combined with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would result in long-term minor to moderate adverse cumulative impacts and long-term beneficial cumulative impacts. However, because most of these impacts occurred in the past or now take place beyond the boundary of the parkway, alternative B’s contribution to these effects would be small. The impact under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act would be a minor to moderate adverse effect for historic structures and would be no adverse effect in the case of the beneficial impacts, cumulative and otherwise. 

Alternative C would havspecific minor to moderaand long-term beneficiastructures. Impacts of thcombined with the impapresent, and reasonably actions, would result in sminor to moderate adveimpacts and long-term bimpacts. However, becauimpacts occurred in the place beyond the boundthis alternative’s contribuwould be small. The imp106 of the National Histwould be an adverse effadverse impacts and woeffect in the case of the cumulative and otherwis

Cultural Landscapes 

Alternative A would have site-specific, shortand long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts and long-term negligible to moderate beneficial impacts on the cultural 

Alternative B would have short- and longterm minor to moderate adverse impacts and long-term beneficial impacts on the cultural landscapes along the parkway. Impacts of 

Alternative C would havterm minor to moderate long-term beneficial implandscapes. Impacts of t
132 

TABLE 20. SUMMARY OF THE IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Impact Topic Alternative A 

(No-action) 

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 

Alternative C 

landscapes. Impacts of this alternative, combined with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would result in short- and long-term minor to moderate adverse cumulative impacts and long-term beneficial cumulative impacts. However, because most of these impacts occurred in the past or now take place beyond the boundary of the parkway, this alternative’s contribution to these effects would be small. The impact under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act would be an adverse effect for the moderate adverse impacts and would be no adverse effect in the case of the beneficial impacts, cumulative and otherwise. 

this alternative, combined with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would result in site-specific, short- and long-term minor to moderate adverse cumulative impacts and long-term beneficial cumulative impacts. However, because most of these impacts occurred in the past or now take place beyond the boundary of the parkway, this alternative’s contribution to these effects would be small. The impact under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act would be an adverse effect for the moderate adverse impacts and would be no adverse effect in the case of the beneficial impacts, cumulative and otherwise. 

combined with the impapresent, and reasonably actions, would result in sminor to moderate site-scumulative impacts and cumulative impacts. Howof these impacts occurretake place beyond the bparkway, this alternativethese effects would be sunder section 106 of the Preservation Act would bfor the moderate adversbe no adverse effect in tbeneficial impacts, cumu

Archeological Resources 

Alternative A would have permanent sitespecific minor to moderate adverse impacts when considering the overall archeological resources of the parkway. Long-term beneficial impacts on these resources would continue to occur on a more local site-by-site level. Impacts of this alternative, combined with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions described above, would result in permanent moderate to major adverse and beneficial cumulative effects. However, because most of these impacts occurred in the past or now take place beyond the boundary of the parkway, alternative A’s contribution to these effects would be small. 

Alternative B would have permanent minor to moderate adverse impacts and permanent negligible to moderate beneficial impacts on the archeological resources. Impacts associated with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions are the same as described under alternative A. As described above, implementation of alternative B would result in both long-term beneficial and minor to moderate permanent adverse effects to archeological resources. The impacts of alternative B, in combination with the minor to major permanent adverse impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would result in a permanent moderate to major adverse cumulative effect. The adverse effects of alternative B, however, would be a small component of the adverse cumulative impact. 

Alternative C would havto moderate adverse impnegligible to moderate bthe archeological resourassociated with other pareasonably foreseeable aas described under alterndescribed above, implemalternative C would resubeneficial and minor to madverse effects to archeoThe impacts of alternativwith the minor to major impacts of other past, prreasonably foreseeable fresult in a permanent madverse cumulative effeceffects of alternative C, small component of the impact. 
133 

TABLE 20. SUMMARY OF THE IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Impact Topic Alternative A 

(No-action) 

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 

Alternative C 

Ethnographic Resources 

Alternative A would have long-term beneficial and negligible to minor short-term adverse impacts when considering the overall ethnographic resources of the parkway. Long-term beneficial impacts on these resources would continue to occur on a more local, site-by-site level. Impacts of this alternative, combined with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions described above, would result in long-term moderate to major adverse and some long-term beneficial cumulative effects. However, because most of these impacts occurred in the past or now take place beyond the boundary of the parkway, this alternative’s contribution to these effects would be small. 

Alternative B would have long-term beneficial negligible to minor short-term adverse impacts when considering the overall ethnographic resources of the parkway. Long-term beneficial impacts on these resources would continue to occur on a more local site-by-site level. Impacts of this alternative, combined with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions described above, would result in long-term moderate to major adverse and some long-term beneficial cumulative effects. However, because most of these impacts occurred in the past or now take place beyond the boundary of the parkway, this alternative’s contribution to these effects would be small. 

Alternative C would havbeneficial and negligible adverse impacts when coethnographic resources Long-term beneficial impresources would continulocal site-by-site level. Imalternative, combined wother past, present, and foreseeable future actionwould result in long-term adverse and some long-tcumulative effects. 

Visual Resources Parkway management currently makes 

efforts to increase protection of visual resources. These efforts include a spectrum of management activities aimed at managing landscape elements consistent with the original Parkway Land Use Maps and maintaining relationships to encourage scenery protection and learn about future plans for land use changes. As information becomes available, the parkway is able to react to opportunities to try to protect or mitigate changes to individual parcels through easements, acquisition from willing sellers, and other arrangements. These management activities have long-term minor to moderate beneficial impacts on helping protect the quality of the parkway’s visual resources, especially at a local scale for areas adjacent to the parkway. 

The preferred alternative takes a substantial step toward moving the parkway into a much more proactive role in visual resource management. This includes implementing zoning management inside the parkway boundary that includes historic parkway and scenic character zones, actively advancing a program of regional ecosystem health, prioritizing external views for protection, establishing criteria to evaluate the merits of lands available for acquisition, and actively pursuing resource protection with a broader base of public and private entities. Establishing the parkway as a class I air quality classification would improve the parkway’s ability to comment on local and regional projects that affect the quality of visual resources. All of these actions would combine to have a moderate impact on improving the parkway’s ability to protect its visual resources. 

Alternative C has the gremoving the parkway into proactive role in visual remanagement. This includzoning management insboundary that includes hscenic character zones, aprogram of regional ecoprioritizing external viewestablishing criteria to evlands available for acquiparkway becoming a reghelping establish long-teparkway view conservatiparkway as a class I air qwould improve the parkwcomment on local and reaffect the quality of visu
134 

TABLE 20. SUMMARY OF THE IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Impact Topic Alternative A 

(No-action) 

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 

Alternative C 

Given the extent of the viewshed along 469 miles of parkway, the inability of park management to track and react to all potential changes, the contributing effect of growth in many of the adjacent counties, and the ongoing county and city efforts to protect some visual resources, the cumulative impacts would be long-term, moderate, and adverse on visual resources on a local and regional scale and long-term, minor, and beneficial on a local scale. This alternative’s contribution to these effects would be small, although the parkway’s secondary road improvement moratorium would continue to contribute a considerable amount to visual resource protection on lands immediately adjacent to the park. 

Given the extent of the viewshed along 469 miles of parkway, the contributing effect of rapid growth in many of the adjacent counties, the improved ability of park management to be able to track and act on land protection opportunities, and ongoing land protection efforts by local entities, there would be long-term moderate adverse effects on visual resources at a regional scale. This alternative would contribute a considerable amount to reducing those adverse effects relative to alternative A. 

Given the extent of the vmiles of parkway, the corapid growth in many of counties, the substantialpark management to be on land protection oppoongoing land protection entities, the cumulative iresources would be longadverse effects on visual regional scale. This alterncontribute a considerablreducing those adverse ealternative A. 

Visitor Use and Experience 

Access, Circulation, and Safety: Continued popularity of the parkway in general, ongoing population growth and related development surrounding the parkway, would result in increasing use levels along the parkway. Local commuter traffic in urban areas of the parkway would continue to impact visitor traffic, as commuters tend to drive at higher speeds and are less patient of visitor drivers. As a result, the quality of the recreational driving experience would continue to be adversely affected. Overall, long-term adverse impacts on the visitor experience would primarily result from increased local nonrecreational traffic, peak season crowding, limited parking at popular sites, conflicts between motorists and motorcyclists and bicyclists, and personal safety concerns at isolated overlooks. These impacts would be mostly local and isolated. Visitors are already aware of these issues as they have expressed concern about them. 

Access, Circulation, and Safety: Access and circulation would continue to be affected by growth in the surrounding counties and increased popularity of the parkfrom additional recreational opportunities provided. These opportunities would increase visitation to the parkway and increase length of stay in many recreation areas. Providing additional overflow parking, building atgrade road separation structures, and improved land protection and partnership efforts would be beneficial and help to moderate some of this potential growth and resultant congestion. Overall, long-term adverse impacts on the visitor experience would primarily result from increased local nonrecreational traffic, peak season crowding at popular sites, and continuing conflicts between motorists and motorcyclists and bicyclists. These impacts would be mostly local. 

Access, Circulation, anC would manage for lowdue to the higher percenzoning. Managing for loin most of the 15 recreabeneficial impact on crowand circulation. Visitor seconcentrated in visitor sewould be designed for ccould lead to some crowlength of stay in the recrhowever, updated facilitincrease level of service athose areas. In the fronturban sections of the paof about 52 miles of muhelp reduce bicyclist-mothose areas. Compared tvisitors who most value driving and improved bicwould experience long-timpacts. Those visitors w
135 

TABLE 20. SUMMARY OF THE IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Impact Topic Alternative A 

(No-action) 

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 

Alternative C 

This awareness would continue or increase and impacts would be readily apparent. Visitor length of stay would not be measurably affected.

Short-term impacts would be related primarily to construction activities and ongoing maintenance activities. With mitigation measures, these impacts would be adverse, local, and minor. Parkway-wide, actions that would increase visitation under this alternative would adversely affect crowding and access and circulation. Management actions to alleviate these impacts would have beneficial effects. Thus, impacts on crowding and access and circulation, as well as the driving experience, would be long-term, minor to moderate, both adverse and beneficial. 

better access to backcouexperience adverse impaimpacts would be noticevisitors in a local area, reand beneficial moderate on visitor preference. 

Recreational Opportunities: Visitors would continue to have access to a variety of quality recreational trails and relatively rustic campground opportunities the length of the parkway. This would continue to be a longterm primarily beneficial impact on the visitor experience. Visitors may continue to have access to a variety of concession services, including lodging; however, current limitations of parkway concession amenities result in more and more visitors choosing to leave the parkway to access more modern food, lodging, and camping services. As a result, some parkway concessions are closing. This has the potential to substantially impact the quality of the traditional self-contained, leisurely driving experience of the parkway. This would be a long-term moderate adverse impact on the quality of the overall visitor experience for many visitors. Alternative A impacts, when combined with regional opportunities, would result in local and regional moderate long-term beneficial impacts on the availability of recreational opportunities in the 29-county parkway 

Recreational Opportunities: The improvement of campground amenities, the substantial efforts to ensure that parkway concessions remain viable, and a variety of trail and day use enhancements primarily in the recreation zones, would have long-term local and regional moderate to major beneficial impacts on the availability of recreational opportunities to visitors. Actions such as the elimination of the Roanoke campground, more use of parkway campgrounds by RVs, and designating mixed use horse and hiking trails at Doughton, would result in some local minor to moderate long-term adverse impacts on some visitors’ experiences. The regional availability of alternative camping and lodging services would continue to draw some visitors from the parkway, but this would be considerably less than in alternative A. The growing variety and miles of trail opportunities in local communities, state parks, and national forests would help meet some demand for types of trails that the parkway would not meet and enhance local visitor connections to 

Recreational Opportunsubstantial improvement amenities, the 52 miles othe Ridge, Roanoke, Higsegments, and the varietday use enhancements puse zones, would have loregional moderate benefavailability of recreationavisitors. More use of parby RVs and potential concyclists and pedestrians owould result in some loclong-term adverse impacexperiences. The regionaalternative lodging and fcontinue to draw many vparkway as the parkway extra lengths to upgrade concession services. The parkway concessions womoderate adverse impacparkway experience. The miles of trail opportuniticommunities, state parks
136 

TABLE 20. SUMMARY OF THE IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Impact Topic Alternative A 

(No-action) 

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 

Alternative C 

region. Alternative A would contribute a comparatively small level of beneficial effects to the overall cumulative impacts. 

the parkway through greenway projects. Alternative B impacts, when combined with these regional opportunities, would result in local and regional moderate long-term beneficial impacts on the availability of recreational opportunities in the 29-county parkway region. Alternative B would contribute a comparatively small to medium level of beneficial effects to the overall cumulative impacts.

forests would help meet types of trails that the pameet and enhance local the parkway through greAlternative C impacts, wthese regional opportunlocal and regional modebeneficial impacts on the recreational opportunitieparkway region. Alternacontribute a comparativelevel of beneficial effects cumulative impacts. 

Opportunities for Orientation, Information, Interpretation: The parkway currently provides information, interpretation, and educational opportunities. These services enhance visitor knowledge and understanding of parkway resources and themes at a local and regional level and are a long-term beneficial impact on visitors. There are 14 visitor centers or smaller contact facilities open along the 469-mile parkway and only three of these facilites are open year-round. Virginia and much of the North Carolina segments of the parkway have no visitor contact services between November and April. Some of the current facilities are too small to adequately serve the public or have inadequate interpretive information or programs. These important services are mostly absent at all important entry areas to the parkway. Consequently, while the parkway provides quality information and interpretation services for the peak visitor season, many visitors receive inadequate orientation to the parkway and do not have access to services for six months of the year and at certain sites year-round. These 

Opportunities for Orientation, Information, Interpretation:

Implementation of alternative B would lengthen the visitor season from six to nine months at five of the recreation areas, especially in the northern half of the park. That would increase from three to eight the visitor contact facilities at which people could obtain information and other services at least nine months a year. This alternative would improve the quality of visitor contact services at places such as Mabry Mill and Cumberland Knob and enhance interpretation of underrepresented themes, such as parkway ecosystems and history of the parkway. It would also introduce orientation services at three out of the four currently under serviced sites—the north and south entrances and at Roanoke. As a result, considerably more visitors would have improved access to information to plan their visit at the start of their visit. All of these actions would substantively enhance the visitors’ opportunities to learn about and appreciate parkway resources and themes, considerably more than what the surrounding region can 

Opportunities for OrieInformation, InterpretImplementation of alternlengthen the visitor seasmonths at five of the recespecially in the northern That would increase from visitor contact facilities aobtain year-round informservices. This alternative quality of visitor contact such as Humpback RockKnob. It would also enhaunderrepresented themeecosystems and history odoubled use of the visitoalternative substantially parkway’s flexibility to reservices to help maximizopportunities, such as thPark-as-Classrooms progintroduce orientation serthe currently under servithe north and south entBoone/Blowing Rock.
137 

TABLE 20. SUMMARY OF THE IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Impact Topic Alternative A 

(No-action) 

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 

Alternative C 

conditions result in long-term beneficial and adverse minor to moderate impacts on visitor access to orientation, information, and interpretive services along the parkway. Alternative A impacts, when combined with regional activities, would be local and regional minor to moderate long-term beneficial impacts. Alternative A actions would be a considerable beneficial contributor to these effects. 

contribute through local programs and services. All of these actions would be longterm local and regional moderate improvements to visitor’s access to information and interpretation services.

Opportunites to Experience Natural Soundscapes: There would continue to be long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts to visitor opportunities to experience natural sounds due to loud, excessive, or disturbing noise events, limited education about how visitors can reduce self-noise, and limited interpretive materials for visitors seeking to learn more about the natural soundscapes of the Blue Ridge Parkway. Additionally, some visitors in parkway campgrounds may continue to experience long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts due to unacceptable use of generators or unsatisfactory perceptions of generator noise. Overall, there would be long-term, negligible adverse impacts to visitor opportunities to experience natural soundscapes when the effects of alternative A are added to the enhanced recreation and resource protection activities. Additionally, there would be short-term and long-term negligible to moderate adverse impacts to visitor opportunities to experience natural soundscape when the impacts of alternative A are added to the effects of residential and commercial development and road construction and improvements.

Opportunites to Experience Natural Soundscapes: There would be long-term minor to moderate beneficial impacts to visitor opportunities to experience natural sounds due to possible reduction of loud, excessive, or disturbing noise events, increased education about how visitors can reduce self-noise, and improved interpretive materials. Some visitors in parkway campgrounds may experience long-term minor to moderate beneficial impacts due to reduced use of generators and increased opportunities to experience natural sounds. Roanoke Mountain campground would be converted to a day use area and noise complaints related to generator noise would no longer apply. Due to improved education to increase visitor awareness of the importance of natural soundscapes, there would be long-term minor beneficial impacts to visitor opportunities to experience natural soundscapes in the campgrounds. Overall, there would be long-term moderate beneficial impacts to visitor opportunities to 

experience natural soundscapes when the effects of alternative B are added to the cumulative impacts of enhanced recreation and resource protection activities. However, there would also be short-term and longOpportunites to Exper

Soundscapes: There wominor to moderate benevisitor opportunities to esounds due to possible rexcessive, or disturbing nincreased education aboreduce self-noise, and immaterials for visitors seekabout the natural soundRidge Parkway. Some viscampgrounds may expeminor to moderate benereduced use of generatoopportunities to experienDue to improved outrealong-term minor beneficopportunities to experienthe importance of naturcampgrounds. Overall, tterm moderate beneficiaopportunities to experiensoundscapes when the eC are added to the cumuenhanced recreation and activities. However, thershort-term and long-term adverse impacts to visitoexperience natural sound
138 

TABLE 20. SUMMARY OF THE IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Impact Topic Alternative A 

(No-action) 

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 

Alternative C 

term negligible to minor adverse impacts to visitor opportunities to experience natural soundscape when the impacts of alternative B are added to the cumulative effects of residential and commercial development and road construction and improvements.

impacts of alternative C cumulative effects of rescommercial developmenconstruction and improv

Traffic and Transportation 

Short-term impacts would occur from ongoing maintenance and traffic control activities. As the parkway road requires repair, vehicular access, level of service, traffic mix, and traffic-related safety would be adversely affected by construction-related closures or reroutes. At congested parking areas, parkway staff may need to implement temporary traffic control measures. Depending on the location and extent of these activities, short-term impacts would be local adverse and minor to moderate. Parkway-wide beneficial local long-term minor impacts on traffic volume, level of service, and traffic safety would result from acquisition of adjacent land, by eliminating some additional nonrecreational traffic associated with nearby development. Adverse local long-term minor impacts would result from the lack of a vista management strategy, which would hamper the parkway’s ability to relocate scenic vistas based on traffic safety reasons. As traffic volumes associated with nonrecreational local and commuter traffic increases, adverse local, long-term minor to moderate impacts on traffic volumes, level of service, and traffic safety would occur. Increased use of campgrounds would also result in adverse local long-term negligible impacts on traffic volumes, level of service, and traffic safety. Individual segments and recreation areas 

Short-term impacts would be similar to alternative A. The enhanced recreational opportunities may increase visitation, and thus, the number of road repairs needed. Alternative B’s zoning approach would potentially reduce congestion at parking areas as visitors become less concentrated at popular sites, with a comparable reduction in the need for traffic control measures. Shortterm impacts would be local, minor to moderate, adverse. Parkway-wide, increases in recreational traffic volumes would have the potential for local long-term minor adverse impacts on traffic volumes and level of service where the parkway is removed from local population centers. These impacts increase to minor to moderate where the parkway is closer to local and regional population centers as additional recreational and nonrecreational traffic volumes interact due to expected increased development. There would be beneficial local long-term minor to moderate impacts in the area of parking, based on the assumption that additional parking would be added to existing lots or new overflow lots to accommodate future demand. Individual segments and recreation areas would accommodate additional visitation, resulting in increased traffic volumes, with associated adverse impacts on level of service, parking, and traffic safety. These 

Short-term impacts woualternative A. Alternative more extensive infrastruresulting in higher levels visitor use. Therefore, thand traffic control measumore concentrated in lovisitation would be highwould be local, adverse, moderate depending on extent of the maintenancongestion. Mitigation mimplementing a traffic coreduce adverse impacts construction activities wUnder alternative C, vista would be more flexible tconditions. The parkway have more ability to addshortages at overlooks aresulting in local long-teimpacts on parking and under alternative C, the extend mass transit connshuttle systems, with locnegligible beneficial impvolumes, level of serviceCampground improvemcampground use, resultilong-term minor impacts level of service, traffic mIf an appreciable numbethe parkway trails from n
139 

TABLE 20. SUMMARY OF THE IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Impact Topic Alternative A 

(No-action) 

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 

Alternative C 

would experience adverse local long-term minor impacts, mostly related to high traffic volumes, which would affect traffic volumes, level of service, and traffic safety. Some segments and recreation areas would experience over-capacity issues would, particularly affecting parking areas, resulting in adverse local long-term negligible to minor impacts on traffic volumes, level of service, and traffic safety. 

impacts would be offset at many areas with the benefits of additional overflow parking. Impacts would be beneficial, local, long-term, and range from minor moderate. Where parking improvements are not prescribed, impacts would be adverse, local, long-term, and minor.

parkway, local long-term impacts on parking, traffof service would occur. 

Parkway Operations 

Alternative A would have minor to moderate long-term adverse effects to park operations due to system inefficiencies resulting from a lack of comprehensive guidance, the inability of current staff to appropriately deal with the maintenance backlog, the continued need to rely on seasonal employees. When combined with the potential impacts related to increasing development adjacent to the parkway, the need to manage recreation enhancements that impact parkway operations, and manage partnerships to protect resources and scenic viewsheds, the actions in alternative A would have a longterm moderate adverse cumulative impact on park operations. Alternative A would contribute a modest increment to this impact. 

Alternative B would have minor to moderate long-term beneficial effects to park operations primarily as a result of an increase in the operations budget and staffing levels, comprehensive guidance, enhanced partner outreach and collaboration, an ecosystem approach to managing natural resources, and the ability of staff to appropriately deal with the maintenance backlog. When combined with the potential impacts related to increasing development adjacent to the parkway, the need to manage recreation enhancements that impact parkway operations, and manage partnerships to protect resources and scenic viewsheds, alternative B would have a long-term minor to moderate beneficial cumulative impact on park operations. Alternative B would contribute a large increment to this cumulative impact. 

Alternative C would havlong-term beneficial effeoperations primarily as a in the operations budget comprehensive guidanceoutreach and collaboratiapproach to managing nthe ability of staff to appthe maintenance backlowith the potential impacincreasing development parkway, the need to menhancements that impaoperations and manage protect resources and scalternative C would have to moderate beneficial cpark operations. Alternacontribute a large incremcumulative impact. 
140 

TABLE 20. SUMMARY OF THE IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Impact Topic Alternative A 

(No-action) 

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 

Alternative C 

Regional Socioeconomics 

The economic and social effects of alternative A would include negligible to minor shortand long-term economic and social benefits. Long-term social consequences would include assisting in maintaining the region’s population base and the parkway’s role in supporting heritage tourism, in particular traditional music, arts, and culture. Overall, the cumulative social and economic effects associated with alternative A would be minor to moderate, short- and long-term, and indeterminate because they include effects that might be concurrently viewed as beneficial or adverse by various individuals, organizations, and stakeholder groups. Alternative A would contribute a relatively small amount to this impact. 

The economic and social effects of alternative B would include minor to moderate shortand long-term economic and social benefits. Long-term consequences would include assisting in maintaining the region’s population base and the parkway’s role in supporting heritage tourism, in particular 

traditional music, arts, and culture. Overall, the cumulative social and economic effects associated with alternative B would be minor to moderate, short- and long-term, and indeterminate because they include effects that might be concurrently viewed as beneficial or adverse by various individuals, organizations, and stakeholder groups. Alternative B would contribute a relatively modest, generally beneficial amount to this impact. 

The economic and sociaC would include minor tand long-term economic Long-term social conseqinclude assisting in mainpopulation base and the supporting heritage tourtraditional music, arts, athe cumulative social anassociated with alternatito moderate, short- and indeterminate because tthat might be concurrenbeneficial or adverse by organizations, and stakeAlternative C would congenerally beneficial amo
Parkway Road with Stone Wall and Vista

Affected Environment 3

Gathering at Humpback Rocks Mountain Farm

143 

INTRODUCTION 

IN GENERAL 

This chapter describes the environment of the 

Blue Ridge Parkway. It focuses on the natural 

and cultural resources, visual resources, 

visitor experience, traffic and transportation, 

park operations, and socioeconomics that 

may be affected by actions proposed in the 

alternatives. This chapter does not provide an 

exhaustive description of these resources; but 

rather enough detail to understand the 

impacts of implementing the alternatives. 

These impact topics were selected on the basis 

of federal law, regulations, executive orders, 

NPS expertise, and concerns expressed by 

other agencies or members of the public 

during project scoping. These descriptions of 

the parkway environment establish the basis 

for the impact analysis in “Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences.” 

During scoping, the planning team conducted 

a preliminary analysis of resources to 

determine the context, duration, and intensity 

of effects that the alternatives may have on the 

parkway environment. If the magnitude of 

effects was determined to be negligible or 

minor, then there is no potential for 

substantial impact and further impact analysis 

is unnecessary. Therefore, the resource was 

dismissed as an impact topic. However, if 

resource effects are greater than a minor level 

of intensity, then the impact topic was 

retained for detailed analysis. This chapter 

describes the impact topics that have been 

retained and analyzed in detail in chapter 4. 

Please refer to the impact topics section at the 

end of chapter 1 for a summary of impact 

topics retained or dismissed and an 

explanation for why certain impact topics 

were eliminated from detained analysis. 

The effects of climate change on the parkway 

environment is also included as part of the 

introduction of this chapter. 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

To understand future trends in the condition 

of the parkway environment, a summary of 

projected regional climate changes and their 

potential influences on the parkway 

environment and visitor experience is 

provided. Rather than incorporate these 

potential effects throughout the various 

impact topics discussed in this chapter, the 

following provides a synopsis. 

According to the Environmental Protection 

Agency (2001), the climate of the Mid-Atlantic 

Region of the United States is anticipated to 

become warmer and perhaps wetter, resulting 

in a wide range of impacts on plants, wildlife, 

and people over the next century. Climate 

models indicate that the southeastern states of 

the U.S. (including Virginia and North 

Carolina) may be one of the hardest hit areas 

in the U.S. from the effects of climate change. 

These models project continued temperature 

increases in all seasons throughout the 

southeast, with an increase in the rate of 

warming through the end of this century. 

Models indicate that average temperatures in 

the southeastern U.S. are expected to rise 4.5 

to 9 degrees Fahrenheit by the 2080s, with the 

projected increase depending on various 

scenarios of carbon dioxide emission levels 

between now and then (USCCRP 2009). The 

number of very hot days each year is also 

expected to rise. Precipitation is estimated to 

increase by 15% in winter and spring and by a 

greater amount over the summer. More 

variability is also likely, resulting in extreme 

weather events and more frequent droughts 

(IPCC 2007b). This includes an anticipated 

increase in the severity of Atlantic hurricanes 

in this region (i.e., increases in peak wind 

speeds, rainfall intensity, and storm surge 

strength and height) (USCCRP 2009). 

These types of projected changes are 

important, because climate is a dominant 

factor affecting the physical and ecological 

processes of the Blue Ridge Parkway and the 

Appalachian Highlands as a whole. For 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

144 

example, annual precipitation in the southern 

Appalachian Mountains is second in North 

America only to areas in the Pacific Northwest 

and is a major driver of terrestrial and aquatic 

systems of the region. The magnitude, 

duration, and timing of temperature changes 

also have a major influence on the distribution 

and composition of species. 

Like many mountainous regions, steep 

moisture and temperature gradients also 

result in noticeably different environments 

over short distances. For example, cool and 

moist spruce/fir forests that grow along the 

ridge tops of the parkway are within sight of 

significantly hotter, drier oak/pine forests 

along the mountain slopes. Each of these 

habitats has considerably different species 

composition, which can be affected by slight 

changes in climatic conditions (NPS 2007). 

Long-term patterns in temperature and 

precipitation are one of the primary 

constraints on ecosystem structure and 

function. These lead to secondary constraints, 

such as the duration and intensity of storm 

events and seasonal variability (such as first 

and last frosts), which influence soil-water 

relationships, plant processes, the 

reproductive success of wildlife, nutrient 

cycling, natural disturbance regimes (such as 

wildfires), exotic species infestations, and the 

spread of pathogens. As a result, small changes 

in climate can affect the overall health and 

resilience of entire ecosystems. These effects 

are likely amplified at higher elevations, where 

relict boreal communities contain highly 

sensitive plant and animal species that can 

easily be impacted by warming trends. For 

example, extended drought profoundly 

affects succession patterns in high-elevation 

bogs and other wetlands, as well as forest 

composition on thin-soiled sites (NPS 2007). 

Severe droughts would also decrease stream 

flows, as well as the amount of water available 

for visitors at campgrounds and for irrigation 

of the parkway’s designed landscape and 

agricultural leases. Low water flows in 

streams, compounded with higher 

temperatures, could also degrade water 

quality. Conversely, the increased frequency 

and intensity of flash flooding (brought on by 

extreme weather events) could result in more 

runoff washing pesticides, fertilizers, and 

other toxins into the parkway’s rivers and 

streams. 

Another climate change phenomenon that will 

likely affect the natural ecosystems of the 

parkway is predicted shifts in species 

distributions and ranges due to rising 

temperatures. As average temperatures 

increase, species move northward or seek 

higher elevations in search of cooler climates 

(VEQD 2008). High-elevation species, such as 

the northern flying squirrel, are particularly 

vulnerable to extinction, because their habitat 

may eventually be replaced by lower-elevation 

communities. As a whole, the parkway’s 

temperate deciduous forests may be 

transformed into warmer, mixed forests more 

typical further south. Also, pests that thrive in 

warmer climates might pose additional risks to 

parkway forests. However, under this 

scenario, the parkway would provide an 

essential corridor, connecting suitable habitats 

for the northward movement of flora and 

fauna over time (NPCA 2010). 

Climate change will likely make it possible for 

vector-borne diseases (such as West Nile virus 

and Lyme disease) to spread to areas of the 

parkway where they were previously limited 

or nonexistent, increasing the rate of 

infections to visitors. Climate change is also 

projected to increase air pollutants, 

exacerbating respiratory illnesses like asthma. 

Heat waves will also be more common, 

affecting visitor health (VEQD 2008). Changes 

in habitats and wildlife populations (e.g., 

migratory song birds) could also reduce the 

parkway’s attraction for tourists seeking 

wildlife viewing opportunities. Higher 

temperatures also contribute to the formation 

of ground level ozone and smog, which 

adversely effects visibility (UMD 2008)—and 

ultimately the scenic driving experience for 

visitors traveling the parkway. 

Cultural resources are nonrenewable 

resources. Once the original materials are 

compromised or damaged, they become 

increasingly difficult to maintain (Cameron 

1994). Increased precipitation and extreme 
Introduction 

145 

weather shifts with more pronounced 

droughts have the potential to impact cultural 

resources in several ways. Historic structures 

would be subjected to greater fluctuations in 

temperature and humidity that could cause 

increased deterioration and stress to original 

building materials, especially wood and metal. 

Mold growth and fungal infestation of 

wooden building components could 

accelerate because of increased moisture. 

Extreme episodes of drying also add to 

building stress. The drying of building 

materials make them especially susceptible to 

humidity shock and chemical imbalances 

(Sabbioni et al. 2006). Maintenance of historic 

buildings and facilities could become more 

difficult as shifting weather patterns influence 

the sustainability of historic preservation 

along the parkway. Increased drought may 

lead to increased incidences of wildfires 

which could impact both archeological and 

historic resources. 

Periodic increases in stream flow resulting 

from more intense storm events may cause 

deterioration to archeological sites because of 

greater erosion. Both historic and prehistoric 

archeological resources may be exposed and 

stability compromised causing them to be 

subject to the extremes of temperature and 

precipitation that may be anticipated with 

climate changes in the region. Exposure of 

archeological sites would also make them 

more vulnerable to looting and vandalism. 

Cultural landscapes of the parkway may be 

further altered at an increased rate because of 

climate change. Cultural landscapes have been 

identified in the Pisgah, Black Mountain, 

Highlands, Plateau, and Ridge Districts. These 

landscapes and their components may be 

altered from the impacts of climate changes in 

the future. Landslides, soil movement, and 

stream erosion that result from increased 

storm intensity may cause dramatic changes to 

geographic areas determined to be cultural 

landscapes. The potential removal or 

destruction of the characteristics for which 

the landscape is known may be forever 

changed in one extreme event (Melnick 2009). 
146 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

INTRODUCTION 

This section describes the natural resource 

components of the parkway’s environment 

that would be affected by implementing the 

alternatives. It presents only enough detail to 

understand the effects of the alternatives and 

is not an encyclopedic description. These 

descriptions are concise summaries organized 

by the resource topics, which match those 

analyzed in “Chapter 4: Environmental 

Consequences.” 

Information about each resource topic 

corresponds to the type of impacts being 

analyzed in chapter 4. Descriptions of these 

resources are at the parkway-wide level, 

rather than for each of the 7 parkway 

segments and 15 major recreation areas. If 

there is a potential for site-specific resource 

impacts in a parkway segment or recreation 

area from implementation of any of the 

alternatives, then additional background 

information about that particular resource is 

included as part of the analysis in chapter 4. 

The only exception to this is the locations of 

threatened and endangered species, which are 

not provided due to the extensive poaching 

problem facing the parkway. The topics are as 

follows: 

 Vegetation and Wildlife—including 

plant communities, wildlife and wildlife 

habitat, and ecologically sensitive areas 

 Federal and State Listed Species—

including threatened and endangered 

species 

 Geologic Resources and Soils 

 Water-related Resources—including 

wetlands, riparian areas, floodplains, 

water quality, and streams 

 Air Quality—including ozone, visibility, 

and atmospheric deposition 

VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE 

Vegetation 

Forests of varying types cover most parkway 

lands. Generally, spruce/fir forests are found 

at the highest elevations, mixed hardwoods 

are found throughout the middle to lower 

elevations, and oak/pine forests are found on 

the driest sites. The predominant vegetation 

type is a montane, cold deciduous, broadleaved forest. This hardwood forest is mostly 

black, white, and chestnut oaks that grow on 

many of the parkway’s drier mountain slopes. 

Tree species such as yellow poplar, red maple, 

northern red oak, and sweet birch occur 

throughout the parkway’s valleys and moist 

slopes. Smaller patches of broad-leaved forest 

mixed with evergreen trees are found in the 

intermontane basins, which include scarlet, 

white, blackjack, and post oaks and Virginia 

pine. Table Mountain pine, a fire dependent 

species, occurs on dry ridgetops where fire 

was historically more common. Eastern white 

pine is found along the Blue Ridge escarpment 

where it joins with the southern Appalachian 

Piedmont. Moist sites at higher elevations 

(greater than 4,500 feet in elevation) are 

occupied by northern hardwoods, including 

sugar maple, basswood, and buckeye. Drier 

sites are dominated by northern red oak. 

Evergreen forests with red spruce and Fraser 

fir are found above 5,000 feet in elevation. 

Although plant inventories are still ongoing, 

there are currently 1,800 species of vascular 

plants known to occur along the parkway. 

The broad vegetation types of the parkway are 

further divided into more specific plant 

communities. Table 21 lists the rare plant 

communities that occur throughout the 

parkway, including their rank based on the 

global rarity classification system: 

G1 Critically imperiled globally because of 

extreme rarity or because of some factor(s) 

making it especially vulnerable to extinction. 
Natural Resources 

147 

G2 Imperiled globally because of rarity or 

because of some factor(s) making it very 

vulnerable to extinction throughout its range. 

G3 Either very rare and local throughout its 

range; found locally in a restricted range (e.g., 

a single physiographic region); or because of 

other factors that make it vulnerable to 

extinction throughout its range. 

Each of these plant communities is described 

in the publications, Classification of the 

Natural Communities of North Carolina 

(NCNHP 1990) and The Natural Communities 

of Virginia: Classification of Ecological 

Community Groups (VDCR 2006a). 

All rare plant communities of the parkway are 

protected under NPS policy. Many of these 

sites are designated by Virginia and North 

Carolina as natural heritage areas or 

conservation sites. In North Carolina the 

parkway encompasses 47 natural heritage 

areas that have been set aside as examples of 

exemplary natural communities. In Virginia, 

there are 35 conservation sites on parkway 

lands that are designated to conserve and 

protect the state’s natural heritage resources. 

In total, these state-designated areas on 

parkway lands in both Virginia and North 

Carolina include more than 12,500 acres of 

high-elevation wetlands, spruce/fir forests, 

grass and heath balds, periglacial boulder 

fields, and several varieties of deciduous 

hardwoods. Many of these harbor rare plant 

and animal species, which are discussed in the 

“Federal and State Listed Species” section. 

Wildlife 

The parkway supports a variety of wildlife 

species. Most commonly observed are 

whitetail deer, squirrels, rabbits, groundhogs, 

and birds. Dozens of less visible species are 

also found throughout parkway lands, 

including approximately 74 species of 

mammals, 44 species of amphibians, 35 

species of reptiles, 57 species of fish, and more 

than 300 species of birds. Many of these bird 

species are migratory, and waves of birds can 

be seen and heard traveling along the parkway 

during the spring and fall. About 115 bird 

species nest in the various plant communities 

of the parkway during the summer. A rich 

diversity of insects, mollusks, and other 

invertebrate animals also inhabit parkway 

lands and waterways. 

TABLE 21. LIST OF RARE PLANT COMMUNITIES IN THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY

Plant Community Name Global Rarity 

Ranking 

Boulderfield Forest G3 

Carolina Hemlock Bluff G2, G3 

Fraser Fir Forest G1 

Grassy Bald G2 

High-Elevation Granitic Dome G2 

High-Elevation Rocky Summit G2 

High-Elevation Seep G3 

Montane Alluvial Forest G2 

Montane Mafic Cliff G2 

Northern Hardwood Forest (Beech Gap Subtype) G2 

Red Spruce/Fraser Fir Forest G2 

Southern Appalachian Bog (Northern Subtype) G1 

Southern Appalachian Bog (Southern Subtype) G1 

Spray Cliff G2 

Swamp Forest- Bog Complex (Typic Subtype) G2, G3 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

148 

Because of its high mountain ridges, the 

parkway hosts a variety of rare wildlife species 

that are only found in these high-elevation 

habitats and headwater streams of the 

southern Appalachian Mountains. Many of 

these are threatened and endangered species, 

which are discussed in the “Federal and State 

Listed Species” section. 

Executive Order 13186 directs each federal 

agency taking actions having or likely to have 

a negative impact on migratory bird 

populations to work with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service to develop an agreement to 

conserve those birds. This January 2001 

executive order prompted the development of 

a memorandum of understanding between the 

National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. The purpose of this 

memorandum of understanding is to 

strengthen migratory bird conservation by 

identifying and implementing strategies across 

agency jurisdictions that are intended to 

complement existing efforts and facilitate new 

migratory bird conservation partnerships and 

comprehensive planning strategies. The latest 

memorandum of understanding was signed by 

the directors of both agencies in April 2010 

and is set to be in place for up to 10 years. 

In addition to avoiding or minimizing impacts 

on migratory bird populations, agencies are 

expected to take reasonable steps, which may 

include restoring and enhancing habitat, 

preventing or abating pollution affecting 

birds, and incorporating migratory bird 

conservation, into agency planning processes 

whenever possible. These considerations are 

incorporated into the broad parkway-wide 

management strategies described under 

alternatives B and C in chapter 2. 

INVASIVE SPECIES 

The native plant and animal communities of 

the parkway have been impacted by invasive 

species, including a number of different plant 

diseases, pest infestations, and exotic weeds. 

The chestnut tree was once historically 

common along the parkway, but has been 

virtually extirpated from the region by 

chestnut blight. The spruce/fir forests are now 

disappearing because of a tiny, pin-head-sized 

insect known as the balsam woolly adelgid. 

This insect was accidentally introduced in 

North America and by the 1950s it reached 

the southern portion of the parkway. Since 

then, its effect on the parkway’s spruce/fir 

forests has been devastating. The same 

scenario is now occurring in the parkway’s 

hemlock forests due to a similar type of pest—

the hemlock woolly adelgid. Other invasive 

species that are impacting native plant and 

animal communities of the parkway include 

the gypsy moth, dogwood anthracnose, and 

multiflora rose. 

FEDERAL AND STATE LISTED SPECIES, 

INCLUDING THREATENED, 

ENDANGERED, AND FEDERAL 

CANDIDATE SPECIES 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended, requires that federal agencies 

consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

before taking any action that could jeopardize 

the continued existence of any federal listed 

threatened or endangered species. As a result, 

the National Park Service must consider 

potential effects that any proposed action may 

have on these species. National Park Service 

policy also requires the protection of all 

federal candidate species and state listed 

species. 

Although federal and state “species of 

concern” are not included as part of the 

environmental impact analysis, these species 

would be protected under management 

direction set forth by NPS policy and all 

action alternatives. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service defines “species of concern” as those 

species which are in need of more 

concentrated conservation actions. The 

criteria for this classification can relate to 

declining population trends, threats to the 

species habitat, limited distribution, or other 

factors. The necessary conservation actions 

could range from a periodic monitoring of 

populations and threats to a possible need to 

propose the species for listing as a federal 

threatened or endangered species. Examples 
Natural Resources 

149 

of species of concern that inhabit parkway 

lands include the timber rattlesnake, 

Allegheny woodrat, eastern small-footed 

myotis, Appalachian woodrat, long‐tailed 

shrew, southern water shrew, and the brown 

creeper. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

states of Virginia and North Carolina were 

consulted by the National Park Service 

regarding federal and state listed species that 

may occur in the parkway. All agencies 

provided lists of rare species that may exist in 

the Virginia and North Carolina counties 

along the parkway. Table 22 lists the 

threatened and endangered species that are 

likely to occur in the parkway based on a 

synthesis of existing inventories and a 

comparison of the general habitat types found 

in the parkway and the habitat requirements 

of those species. Because some federal and 

state listed species that occur in the counties 

along the parkway corridor might not occur 

within or near the parkway boundaries, 

professional judgment of park staff and other 

subject matter experts was used to determine 

which listed species occur within the parkway. 

Species that occur outside of the parkway 

would not be adversely affected by the 

management actions of this plan; thus, these 

species are not included in table 22. 

TABLE 22. LIST OF THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES IN THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY

Scientific Name Common Name Federal 

Status 

Virginia 

Status 

North 

Carolina 

Status 

Mammals 

Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus Virginia big-eared bat E E E 

Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Carolina northern flying squirrel E E E 

Myotis grisescens gray bat E E E 

Myotis sodalis Indiana bat E E E 

Birds 

Aegolius acadicus pop. 1 northern saw-whet owl T 

Ammodramus henslowii Henslow’s sparrow T 

Dendroica kirtlandii Kirtland's warbler E E 

Falco peregrinus peregrine falcon T E 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle D* T T 

Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike T 

Thryomanes bewickii altus Appalachian Bewick's wren E E 

Reptiles 

Clemmys (=Glyptemys) muhlenbergii bog turtle T** E T 

Amphibians 

Plethodon wehrlei Wehrle's salamander T 

Fish 

Etheostoma acuticeps sharphead darter E T 

Percina rex Roanoke logperch E E E 

Polyodon spathula paddlefish T E 

Invertebrate Animals 

Fumonelix orestes engraved covert (mollusk) T 

Fumonelix wheatleyi clingmanicus Clingman covert (mollusk) T 

Inflectarious ferrissi Smoky Mountain covert (mollusk) T 

Leptaxis dilatata seep mudalia (mollusk) T 

Vascular Plants 

Calamagrostis cainii Cain's reed grass E 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

150 

TABLE 22. LIST OF THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES IN THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY

Scientific Name Common Name Federal 

Status 

Virginia 

Status 

North 

Carolina 

Status 

Dalibarda repens robin runaway E 

Delphinium exaltatum tall larkspur E 

Geum geniculatum bent avens T 

Geum radiatum mountain avens (spreading avens) E E 

Glyceria nubigena Smoky Mountain mannagrass T 

Helonias bullata swamp pink T E T 

Isotria medeoloides small whorled pogonia T E E 

Juncus trifidus highland rush E 

Liatris helleri Heller's blazingstar T T 

Lilium grayi Gray's lily T 

Narthecium americanum bog asphodel C E 

Nonvascular Plants 

Gymnoderma lineare rock gnome lichen E T 

* Although the bald eagle has been delisted under the Endangered Species Act, the species is still protected under the Bald and

Golden Eagle Protection Act. 

** Southern population of bog turtle (as found in park) is listed as Threatened due to similarity of appearance with northern 

population of the same species. 

(E = endangered, T = threatened, D = delisted, C = candidate) 

A detailed description and regulatory profile 

of all federal listed species can be found at 

http://www.fws.gov/species/#endangered. 

The following briefly describes certain 

threatened and endangered species that are of 

particular management concern to the 

parkway and/or could be affected by 

management actions or strategies in the 

proposed alternatives. The listed species in 

table 22 that are not described below would 

not be affected by any proposed actions. 

Mountain avens occurs on high-elevation 

rock outcrops. Heller’s blazing star occurs on 

xeric rock outcrops at elevations greater than 

4,500 feet. Swamp pink is a wetland species, 

preferring hydric soil conditions and 

moderate shade. Small whorled pogonia 

typically emerges in April and flowers in late 

April to mid-May. 

Virginia Big-eared Bat 

The Virginia big-eared bat is a medium-sized 

bat found in several counties along the 

parkway. These nonmigratory, hibernating 

bats live year-round in caves or abandoned 

mines found primarily in mountainous, 

oak/hickory forests above 1,500 feet. They 

typically roost alone or in small groups on 

walls and ceilings in the vicinity of the cave or 

mine openings, where more airflow is 

available. Their roosting sites may vary 

between summer and winter. The bats are 

nocturnal feeders, targeting prey such as flies, 

beetles, and moths. 

In 2003, a Virginia big-eared bat was found for 

the first time on parkway lands. They are 

known to occur at one location in the 

parkway with one to three bats observed at 

any one time during both summer and winter 

surveys. These bats are also suspected to 

occur at another nearby site but this has not 

been confirmed. Also, a cave just outside the 

parkway boundaries and relatively close to the 

two known park sites, has had a robust 

population of Virginia big-eared bats as well 

as other bat species. Thus, a larger number of 

the Virginia big-eared bats could be within the 

parkway boundaries during nocturnal 

foraging. However, white-nose syndrome, a 

fatal fungal disease in bats, was found at this 

site during 2010 surveys. Surveys of the park 

sites are continuing with assistance from 

biologists with the North Caroline Wildlife 

Resources Commission and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 
Natural Resources 

151 

Indiana Bats 

Indiana bats are small, migratory bats that 

roost together in large groups in caves and 

mines, typically in the vicinity of water 

sources. Each fall, these bats migrate to the 

caves and mines in their home territory to 

hibernate in large clusters. Only seven 

hibernacula locations have been identified in 

the U.S. Through spring and summer, most 

males use caves to roost, while females and 

young often roost under loose bark and in tree 

hollows of hickory and oak in riparian areas. 

The Indiana bat is nocturnal, primarily 

feeding on flies, moths, and other insects 

flying above streams and riparian trees. 

Indiana bats are highly vulnerable to 

disturbance, habitat change, and 

environmental contamination and are at 

particular risk because of their very 

concentrated and very limited hibernation 

sites. 

Bat surveys conducted at more than 25 

stationary locations and while driving along 

462 miles of the parkway have not found 

Indiana Bats on parkway lands. However, it is 

assumed that they have been present in the 

park because they have been found less than 

one mile from the parkway boundary. Indiana 

Bats have been documented on the Cherokee 

Reservation near the parkway boundary and 

in three of the counties near the parkway’s 

southern end. Parkway and state biologists 

will be conducting additional surveys in 

coming years. While loss of habitat and 

suitable trees are threats to the Indiana bat, 

current park practices of protecting riparian 

areas, not cutting hazard trees during certain 

times of year, and inspecting trees that might 

be used by these bats will continue to protect 

Indiana bats should they occur in the park. 

Gray Bats 

The gray bat’s range is generally limited to the 

limestone karst areas of the southeastern 

United States, including sections of North 

Carolina. Gray bats typically live in caves yearround. In summer, they typically roost in 

caves that are in close proximity to streams or 

rivers. During this time, they forage for flying 

insects above streams, riparian vegetation, and 

lakes. In winter, they hibernate in deep, 

vertical caves. Like the Indiana bat, gray bats 

are endangered largely because of their habit 

of living in very large numbers in a very 

limited number of caves, thus being very 

prone to human disturbances. 

Gray bats were not found in recent bat surveys 

that were conducted at more than 25 

stationary locations in the park and while 

driving along 462 miles of the parkway. The 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services has two 

records of gray bats from Haywood County at 

the extreme south end of the parkway (one 

from 2010 and one from several years prior). 

While loss of habitat and suitable trees are 

threats to this species, current park practices 

of protecting riparian areas, not cutting 

hazard trees during certain times of year, and 

inspecting trees that might be used by these 

bats will continue to protect gray bats should 

they occur in the park. 

Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel 

The Carolina northern flying squirrel can be 

found in and adjacent to high-elevation, 

spruce/fir forests (typically above 4,500 feet 

elevation). These squirrels tend to prefer the 

moist transition zones between coniferous 

and hardwood forests, in areas with widely 

spaced mature trees, snags, and lush evergreen 

understories. In winter, squirrels inhabit tree 

cavities in hardwoods. Flying squirrels feed 

primarily on fungi that are found in areas with 

spruce trees. But, as omnivores, they also eat 

other plants including lichens, fruits, seeds, 

and conifer seedlings. While gaining nutrients 

from fungi, flying squirrels also contribute to 

the dispersal and diversity of fungi and 

microbial species in spruce/fir forests, playing 

an important role in the health of this 

ecosystem (NPS 2008a). 

The flying squirrel is adapted to cold boreal 

conditions and its range has probably been 

shrinking because of warming conditions 

since the last ice age. Populations are now 

restricted to isolated areas at high elevations, 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

152 

separated by vast areas of unsuitable habitats. 

Several areas along the parkway have been 

identified in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

recovery plan as geographic recovery areas. 

Nest box surveys of Carolina northern flying 

squirrel have confirmed their presence at 11 

locations on parkway lands and six other sites 

within about 0.9 miles of the park boundary. 

This encompasses four sections of the 

parkway covering about 55 miles. In all of 

these locations, the squirrel populations 

appear to be stable with much of the suitable 

habitat protected by government agencies or 

private land conservation organizations. 

However, in addition to climate change, the 

intrusion of southern flying squirrels poses a 

threat to northern flying squirrels along the 

parkway corridor and throughout the 

Southern Appalachians. The parkway will be 

receiving funding to create a species action 

plan to consolidate research findings over the 

last 20 years and to coordinate regional 

activities that might affect the squirrels. 

Northern Saw-whet Owl 

The northern saw-whet owl is the smallest owl 

in eastern North America; it is most prevalent 

in northern U.S. states or southern Canada. 

Some saw-whet owls are nonmigratory, 

whereas others migrate south to areas such as 

North Carolina. These owls prefer to roost 

during daytime hours in dense conifer stands 

typically comprised of pines, spruces or 

cedars. The particular trees chosen for 

roosting are often along the edge of large 

wooded areas, where the owls have direct 

access to forested and open lands for hunting 

at night. Areas of mature forests that are in 

proximity of water tend to be preferred for 

nesting. 

Northern saw-whet owls were not known to 

breed in the southern Appalachians until the 

1970s when increasing reports of young owls 

were documented. Since then, they have been 

confirmed to breed in the spruce/fir forests 

along the parkway at several locations. 

Parkway biologists and volunteers have been 

surveying for breeding owls over the last three 

decades and have identified more than 30 

locations where male saw-whet owls have 

repeatedly been calling. Overall, the 

population of these areas appears to be stable, 

with owls being found at these sites in 

successive years. 

Bog Turtle 

The bog turtle is considered to be the rarest 

freshwater turtle in North America; it is 

currently listed in nearly every state within its 

range, including Virginia and North Carolina. 

Bog turtles are closely associated with bogs, 

marshy meadows, and small, shallow streams 

that support various sedges and other aquatic 

and semiaquatic plants. Most of the known 

localities are disjunctive with small, isolated 

populations. Bog turtle populations are 

believed to be in decline throughout their 

range as a result of illegal collection for the pet 

trade and loss of habitat through ditching, 

draining, and filling in wetlands for 

development and agriculture. Other factors 

that may be contributing to the bog turtle's 

decline include a slow reproductive rate, 

isolation of individual populations, predation, 

flooding of habitat by beaver, mortality from 

vehicles, livestock grazing, and water 

pollution. 

Much of the bog turtle’s range in Virginia and 

North Carolina is scattered along a narrow 

belt in and along the parkway. The bog turtle 

is found in only four Virginia counties and 

only three North Carolina counties. More 

specifically, the bog turtles have been found at 

63 locations on the parkway lands, including 

turtles that were found walking across the 

parkway itself. Fifteen of these sites are 

wetlands with active resident populations. 

Only a very few of these sites appear to 

support enough individuals to be considered 

viable, long-lasting populations. Loss of 

nearby privately owned wetlands elevates the 

importance of adjacent parkway habitat for 

the protection of this rare reptile. The 

parkway serves as one of the last refuges 

where both the bog turtle and its habitat are 

protected. However, private development 

along the parkway boundary, encroachment 

by nonnative and woody vegetation, and 
Natural Resources 

153 

poaching of the species could threaten even 

some of the parkway’s bog turtle populations. 

Engraved Coverts 

Like most lands snails, the rare engraved 

covert prefers moist, shady areas such as 

dense forests, seeps and springs, caves, and 

north-facing slopes. With drying out being the 

covert’s primary threat, the moisture and 

shade are essential. Land snails play an 

essential role in forest ecology by serving as a 

primary decomposer of organic material. 

Engraved coverts have been found at five 

locations on parkway lands along the 

boundary between Haywood and Jackson 

counties. These snails were found at each of 

the sites searched along the parkway and 

while they are only found in a very restricted 

area, the overall population appears to be 

stable with no immediate threat to their 

stability. The past construction of the parkway 

resulted in some fragmentation of habitat and 

subsequent private development on adjacent 

lands has destroyed additional acreage of 

engraved covert habitat. 

Mountain Avens 

It is a perennial herb with basal rosettes of 

leaves arising from horizontal rhizomes. It 

blooms from June through September and 

produces fruit from August through October. 

The rhizomes of spreading avens are believed 

to be capable of surviving for decades, but 

continued failure in seed production and 

clonal spread poses a threat to long-term 

survival and recovery of the species. There are 

five known occurrences of mountain avens 

populations in the parkway. All populations 

are perceived to be stable. However, this 

fragile alpine plant is at risk due to threats 

from climate change, trampling, rock 

climbing, and rock/ice fall. Long-term 

demographic monitoring of the plant is being 

implemented by park staff. 

Heller’s Blazing Star 

It is a perennial herb that blooms in August 

and produces fruit in September to October. 

There are four known occurrences of Heller’s 

blazing star populations known in the 

parkway. All populations are perceived to be 

stable, but at risk due to threats from global 

climate change, fire suppression, trampling, 

and poaching. In 2009, one population was 

impacted by poachers who dug entire mature 

and flowering individuals. Long-term 

demographic monitoring is being 

implemented by park staff. 

Swamp Pink 

Although the species can reproduce sexually, 

asexual clonal root growth is more common. 

Plants tend to grow in clumps, close to the 

parent plants. The species appears to be 

somewhat shade tolerant and needs enough 

canopy closure to minimize competition with 

other more aggressive species. The species is 

highly vulnerable to siltation of its habitat by 

runoff associated with adjacent development. 

There are two known occurrences of swamp 

pink populations in the parkway. Both 

populations are declining due to a lack of 

recruitment. And one population is quite 

small and vulnerable. Poor flowering 

performance is thought to be due to reduced 

light from dense canopy cover. Threats to the 

plant include increased densities of canopy 

cover, invasive plants, deer browsing, and 

wetland draining. Flowering plants on 

parkway lands are enclosed in wire cages to 

protect them from deer browsing. And, an 

augmentation of the smaller swamp pink 

population in the parkway occurred in 2010 in 

an attempt to increase its population size. 

Long-term demographic monitoring is being 

implemented by park staff. 

Small Whorled Pogonia 

It occurs on upland sites, generally in secondor third-growth, mixed deciduous or 

deciduous-coniferous forests. Soils where it 

grows are moderately high in moisture, highly 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

154 

acidic, and generally nutrient poor. Small 

whorled pogonia occurs in both young and 

old forests with relatively open understory 

and moderate groundcover. There are two 

known occurrences of small whorled pogonia 

populations in the parkway. A previous, third 

population is likely extinct, as no individuals 

have been observed over since 2004. 

Increased canopy cover is believed to 

contribute to lower light levels and hence 

lower survival rates. Since deer browsing is 

also a serious threat to this species, fencing is 

used to protect the plants in the parkway. 

Long-term demographic monitoring is being 

implemented by park staff. 

Rock Gnome Lichen 

Rock gnome lichen is primarily found above 

5,000 feet on north-facing exposed vertical 

rock faces where water flows only at very wet 

times. It prefers southern and western 

exposed sites with partial canopy coverage. 

There are 17 known occurrences of rock 

gnome lichen populations in the parkway. All 

populations are perceived to be stable, but at 

risk due to threats from climate change and an 

unknown predatory algae. In 2008, park staff 

conducted an inventory and quantitatively 

measured the lichen’s population size using a 

protocol jointly developed with U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Trampling remains a threat 

to this fragile lichen whose habitat often 

coincides with prime viewing outlooks. 

GEOLOGIC RESOURCES AND SOILS 

The Blue Ridge Parkway follows the high crest 

of the central and southern Appalachian 

Mountains from Shenandoah National Park 

in Virginia to Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park in North Carolina. Along the 

parkway route, the elevation descends to as 

low as 650 feet above sea level at the James 

River crossing in Virginia and ascends to as 

high as 6,050 feet above sea level at Richland 

Balsam in North Carolina. From the north, the 

parkway follows the Blue Ridge Mountains 

for the first 355 miles. It then skirts the 

southern end of the massive Black Mountains; 

weaves through the Craggies, the Pisgahs, and 

the Balsams; and finally ends in the Great 

Smokies. 

The parent rock (largely spanning the 

Cambrian to Devonian time period) in the 

northern part of the Blue Ridge Mountains 

and on the eastern edge of the southern 

Appalachian Mountains towards the 

Piedmont is often mineral-poor sandstone 

and quartzite. In contrast, the parent rock 

types of the inner and western parts of the 

southern Appalachian Mountains, 

predominantly gneiss, are quite rich, 

containing many minerals. 

Over thousands of years, these diverse strata 

of parent materials have been exposed and 

weathered to produce a wide variety of soil 

types throughout the parkway. This large 

variety of soil material throughout the region 

has resulted in a very diverse distribution of 

plants and animals across the landscape. In 

other words, the parkway’s complex 

geomorphology and geology have led to a 

diversity of soils, which in turn has fostered 

exceptional biodiversity. 

The quality of soils along the parkway 

depends mostly on topography. On ridges, 

peaks, and overhangs, the soils are nutrient 

poor; on lower slopes, coves, and valleys, the 

soils can be very rich. The dominant soil type 

is inceptisols. These soils are typically 

associated with moderate horizon 

development due to steep topography and 

resistant parent material. Boulders and 

outcrops of bedrock are extensive on 

mountain slopes. Soils on side slopes and 

ridges are well drained and range from very 

deep to shallow over hard bedrock, saprolite, 

or soft bedrock. Soils above 4,800 feet are 

subject to extreme cold temperatures and high 

winds. Some of the soils that commonly occur 

on parkway lands include those of the 

Cheoah, Cowee, Evard, Plott, Soco, Stecoah, 

Tanasee, and Wayah series. All present 

moderate to severe erosion hazards, 

depending on steepness of slope. 
Natural Resources 

155 

WATER-RELATED RESOURCES, 

INCLUDING WETLANDS, RIPARIAN 

AREAS, FLOODPLAINS, STREAMS, AND 

WATER QUALITY 

The Blue Ridge Parkway road crosses eight 

major river basins and multiple subbasins that 

contain more than 400 streams, many of 

which originate on parkway lands. These 

headwater streams provide important habitat 

for many rare aquatic species. Of these, 148 

are documented trout streams, some of which 

support native brook trout which is the state 

fish of both Virginia and North Carolina. The 

parkway also passes through three municipal 

watersheds that provide drinking water to 

nearby communities. The high water quality 

of these streams results from protection of 

adjacent riparian areas and floodplains from 

development and over use. 

The parkway also contains several humanmade lakes and ponds, ranging from small 

livestock impoundments up to the 48-acre 

Price Lake near Blowing Rock. Increasing 

populations of beavers have also resulted in 

many beaver ponds that provide habitat for 

amphibians, waterfowl, and wetland plant 

species. 

Streams along the parkway are classified 

according to four state surface water 

classifications: nontidal waters, mountain 

zone waters, stockable trout waters, and 

natural trout waters. These classifications 

define the best uses to be protected in these 

waters and include water quality standards to 

monitor their condition. In both Virginia and 

North Carolina, all state surface waters are 

protected for wildlife, fish, and other aquatic 

life, as well as for recreation, fishing, 

agriculture, and other uses. 

There are more than 140 wetlands on parkway 

lands. Several different wetland types are 

represented in this mosaic of wetlands across 

the parkway (e.g., riparian, bogs). Many of the 

parkway’s wetlands have a G1, G2, or G3 

global rarity ranking, making them 

significantly rare resources. A list of these rare 

wetland types is included in the rare plant 

community list in table 21. Of these rare plant 

communities, the High-Elevation Seep, 

Montane Alluvial Forest, Southern 

Appalachian Bog, and Swamp Forest-Bog 

Complex are wetlands. In the southeastern 

United States, these wetlands support more 

threatened and endangered species than all 

other wetland types combined. Surveys of the 

parkway’s wetlands indicate that 

approximately 25% of these habitats have 

been impacted by invasive species, principally 

the multiflora rose. This tenacious plant was 

introduced from Japan more than 100 years 

ago and continues to displace native species 

associated with wetlands and other habitats 

found along the parkway. 

A few wetlands of the parkway are worth 

noting given their prominence, uniqueness, 

and/or proximity to active public recreation 

areas of the parkway. The wetlands at Mt. 

Pisgah and Julian Price Memorial Park are 

good examples. The Pisgah bog sits at an 

elevation of about 4,900 feet above sea level in 

the Mt. Pisgah recreation area and contains a 

high quality Southern Appalachian bog 

natural community that eventually drains into 

Pisgah Creek. This rare natural community 

provides natural conditions that are ideal for a 

high diversity of plants and animals (including 

rare plants such as the bog asphodel). The site 

consists of heath shrub vegetation 

interspersed with openings of sedges and 

forbs, streams, wet meadow, and rock 

outcrops. The Pisgah bog is surrounded on 

three sides by a campground, and thus, is 

somewhat affected by adjacent human activity 

and by surface and groundwater flow from 

this adjacent land (NCNHP 1986). 

The wetlands at Julian Price Memorial Park 

contain four good examples of the rare 

Southern Appalachian bog natural community 

type (Cold Prong wetland, Boone Fork bog, 

Sims Branch wetland, and Bur-reed bog). In 

addition to rare plants, these wetlands also 

support the federally threatened bog turtle 

(Clemmys muhlenbergii), which have been 

observed in Cold Prong Bog and Sims Branch 

Bog. Cold Prong Bog, the westernmost of the 

three bogs, occurs in an extensive open 

meadow along the edge of stream 

terrace/floodplain. This bog has been affected 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

156 

by adjacent agricultural practices and ditches 

in the area. Boone Fork bog lies in a flat valley 

bottom on the north side of the parkway road 

and is in generally good condition. This bog is 

another example of the Southern Appalachian 

bog natural community, and is dominated by 

rushes and sedges in open areas, with willow 

communities around the edges. Just to the 

north of Boone Fork bog is a small, highquality bog identified as Bur-reed bog as it 

contains a large population of greenfruit burreed (Sparganium chlorocarpum). Lastly, Sims 

Branch wetland occurs on the south side of 

the parkway roadway in a flat bottom of a 

small valley. This is another Southern 

Appalachian bog. All of these wetlands are 

generally in good condition. However, some 

nonnative, invasive vegetation exists in these 

areas. In addition, beaver activities have been 

known to impact certain portions of these 

bogs from time to time, though these 

alterations may be considered a part of the 

natural, dynamic wetland processes (NCNHP 

1994). 

AIR QUALITY 

The Clean Air Act of 1955, as amended, was 

established to promote public health and 

welfare by protecting and enhancing the 

nation’s air quality. The act established 

programs that provide special protection for 

air resources and air quality-related values 

associated with NPS units. Section 118 of the 

Clean Air Act requires parks to meet all state, 

federal, and local air pollution standards. 

The Clean Air Act and pursuant regulations 

classify areas of the country by existing and 

desired air quality conditions. Blue Ridge 

Parkway is listed as class II area by Congress. 

Air quality in class II areas is protected under 

the act, but less stringently than class I areas, 

which include international parks, national 

wilderness areas, and national parks larger 

than 6,000 acres (e.g., Shenandoah and Great 

Smoky Mountains national parks). However, 

the class II designation of the parkway does 

not diminish the importance of protecting and 

improving its air quality to ensure the parkway 

meets its purpose of providing high quality 

scenic and recreational experiences for 

visitors. 

The National Park Service strives to 

perpetuate the best possible air quality in units 

of the national park system because air 

pollution affects ecological and human health, 

scenic views, and visitor enjoyment, even at 

relatively low levels. Progress toward this goal 

is measured by examining current conditions 

and trends for key air quality indicators, 

including the following: 

 ozone, which affects human health and 

vegetation 

 visibility, which affects how well and 

how far visitors can see 

 atmospheric deposition, which affects 

ecological health through acidification 

and fertilization of soils and surface 

waters 

For each of these indicators, one of the 

following three condition categories is 

assigned based on ongoing monitoring by the 

National Park Service: (1) significant concern, 

(2) moderate (cautious), or (3) good. The 

procedures for assigning these categories are 

described for each indicator. Trends are then 

used to determine if a park’s air quality 

condition is improving, stable, or degrading. 

The National Park Service considers stable or 

improving air quality trends a sign of success. 

Although trends are indicative of progress, the 

ultimate goal is clean, clear air in parks. A 

stable trend in air quality may not be sufficient 

to protect an area that is already experiencing 

poor quality. 

Ozone 

High ozone concentrations in the atmosphere 

of national parks can have adverse effects on 

park visitors and park staff, as well as on plant 

life. For humans, elevated ozone levels can 

cause or worsen respiratory conditions such 

as asthma. The concern for the health and 

safety of park visitors and staff has led to an 

ozone advisory system in national parks 

where levels are likely to approach or exceed 

the ozone standard. Plant life is generally 
Natural Resources 

157 

more sensitive to ozone than humans. Effects 

on vegetation that is sensitive to ozone can 

include visible injury on leaves and needles, 

premature leaf loss, reduced photosynthesis, 

and reduced growth (NPS 2011a). 

The National Park Service calculates ozone 

trends using the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA’s) metric for the national 

ambient air quality standard (i.e., the 3-year 

average of the annual fourth highest daily 

maximum 8-hour ozone concentration). In 

the eastern United States, where ozone 

concentrations in national park system units 

such as Great Smoky Mountains and 

Shenandoah sometimes reach high enough 

levels to harm human health, the ozone trends 

have been mostly stable during over the past 

10 years. In the last few years, most eastern 

states implemented new pollution control 

programs designed to reduce nitrogen 

oxides—a precursor to ozone formation. 

The Environmental Protection Agency’s 

ozone standard is used as a benchmark for 

rating current ozone air quality, which 

includes the five-year average of the annual 

fourth highest 8-hour ozone concentration. If 

the resulting five-year average was greater 

than or equal to 76 parts per billion (ppb), the 

air quality condition is of “significant 

concern.” A moderate condition is assigned to 

parks with average ozone concentrations of 61 

to 75 ppb (greater than 80% of the standard). 

A good condition is assigned to parks with 

average ozone concentrations less than 61 ppb 

(less than 80% of the standard). 

Based on this methodology, table 23 shows 

monitoring results for ozone conditions and 

trends for the Blue Ridge Parkway and Great 

Smoky Mountains and Shenandoah national 

parks (NPS 2010b). Results for all three parks 

are included to better understand regional air 

quality conditions. In addition to these 

monitoring results, it is important to note that 

the parkway passes through “nonattainment” 

counties in both Virginia and North Carolina 

because of high ozone levels. 

TABLE 23. AIR QUALITY CONDITIONS AND TRENDS—

OZONE

Ozone Air Quality 

Condition 

Air Quality 

Trends 

Blue Ridge 

Parkway 

Moderate None (Stable) 

Great Smoky 

Mountains 

National Park 

Significant 

Concern 

None (Stable) 

Shenandoah 

National Park 

Moderate Improving 

Visibility 

 Clear visibility across a park’s landscape is an 

essential quality that allows park visitors to see 

and appreciate the beautiful scenery and night 

skies that are common to national parks. High 

visibility enhances color contrasts, shapes, and 

textures of natural and cultural features across 

the park landscape. The 1977 Clean Air Act 

amendments established a National Visibility 

Goal to remedy existing and preventing future 

human-caused visibility impairment in class I 

areas (NPS 2011a). 

To assess visibility in parks, the National Park 

Service looks at the 20% clearest days and the 

20% haziest days of the year to measure 

visibility conditions. The Environmental 

Protection Agency uses these measurements 

to assess progress toward the national goal of 

remedying any existing and preventing any 

future human-made visibility impairment in 

class I areas. Although Blue Ridge Parkway is 

listed as class II, monitoring data is available 

for the parkway to assess visibility conditions 

based on these standards. 

Individual park scores for visibility are based 

on the deviation of the current visibility 

conditions from estimated natural visibility 

conditions. Visibility in this calculation is 

expressed in terms of a haze index in 

deciviews. As the haze index increases, the 

visibility worsens. A “good” condition is 

assigned to parks with a visibility condition 

estimate of less than two deciviews. Parks with 

visibility condition estimates ranging from two 

to eight deciviews above background 

conditions were considered to be in a 

“moderate” condition. Parks with visibility 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

158 

condition estimates greater than eight 

deciviews above background conditions were 

considered to have a “significant concern.” 

The deciview ranges of these categories, while 

somewhat subjective, were chosen to reflect as 

nearly as possible the variation in visibility 

conditions across the National Park Service’s 

monitoring network. 

Based on this methodology, table 24 shows 

monitoring results for visibility conditions and 

trends for the Blue Ridge Parkway and Great 

Smoky Mountains and Shenandoah national 

parks (NPS 2010b). Results for all three parks 

are included to better understand regional 

visibility concerns. 

TABLE 24. AIR QUALITY CONDITIONS AND TRENDS—

VISIBILITY

Visibility Air Quality 

Condition 

Air Quality 

Trends 

Blue Ridge 

Parkway 

Significant 

Concern 

None (Stable) 

Great Smoky 

Mountains 

National Park 

Significant 

Concern 

None (Stable) 

Shenandoah 

National Park 

Significant 

Concern 

None (Stable) 

Atmospheric Deposition of Pollutants 

The deposition of sulfur and nitrogen into the 

natural landscape changes soil and water 

chemistry. These effects can have impacts on 

aquatic life, such as algae and aquatic 

invertebrates, and on microorganisms in the 

soil. Given the ecological connection of 

natural systems, these effects can eventually 

make their way up the food chain, having 

notable effects on many types and 

distributions of plants and animals. Acid 

deposition can increase acidity of water 

bodies and also erode buildings and 

monuments (NPS 2011a). 

Sulfate, nitrate, and ammonium ions in rain 

and snow are used as indicators of 

atmospheric deposition, because they can be 

directly linked to ecological effects (e.g., 

acidification of surface waters, nutrient 

enrichment that disrupts natural systems). 

Although this pollutant deposition 

information has not been gathered for the 

parkway, monitoring data does exist for Great 

Smoky Mountain and Shenandoah national 

parks. Because these parks are at either end of 

the parkway, their monitoring results are 

useful in understanding air quality conditions 

and trends for the parkway and the region as a 

whole. 

Park scores for atmospheric deposition are 

calculated by multiplying nitrate or sulfur 

concentrations in precipitation by a 

normalized precipitation amount. Several 

factors are considered in rating deposition 

condition, including natural background 

deposition estimates and deposition effects on 

ecosystems. Estimates of natural background 

deposition are approximately 0.25 kilograms 

per hectare per year in the eastern United 

States. 

Certain sensitive ecosystems respond to levels 

of atmospheric deposition at about 1.5 

kilograms per hectare per year. Evidence is 

not currently available that indicates that wet 

deposition amounts less than 1 kilograms per 

hectare per year cause ecosystem harm. 

Therefore, parks with wet deposition less than 

1 kilograms per hectare per year are 

considered to be in “good” condition; parks 

with from 1–3 kilograms per hectare per year 

are in “moderate” condition; parks with 

greater than 3 kilograms per hectare per year 

are have a “significant concern”. 

Based on this methodology, table 25 shows 

monitoring results for atmospheric deposition 

levels and trends for Great Smoky Mountains 

and Shenandoah national parks (NPS 2010b). 

Results for these parks are included to better 

understand regional air quality conditions and 

to infer likely atmospheric deposition levels 

for the parkway. 

Most sources of air pollution affecting the 

parkway come from outside the parkway 

boundary; they are expected to continue to 

contribute to poor air quality over the coming 

years because of projected increases in 

population and development. As more people 

move to the region, air pollution from 

automobiles, industry, construction, and 
Natural Resources 

159 

other human activities is also anticipated to 

increase. Air pollution sources from within 

the parkway is also expected to continue to 

contribute to poor air quality, with the major 

contributor being motor vehicle emissions 

from visitors and commuters traveling the 

parkway. For more information about the 

effects of these pollution sources on the air 

quality of the parkway, see the “Air Quality” 

section of chapter 4. 

TABLE 25. AIR QUALITY CONDITIONS AND TRENDS—ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION

Air Quality Indicator Air Quality Condition Air Quality Trends 

Atmospheric Deposition—Nitrogen 

Blue Ridge Parkway No data available No data available 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park Significant Concern None (Stable) 

Shenandoah National Park Significant Concern None (Stable) 

Atmospheric Deposition—Sulfur 

Blue Ridge Parkway No data available No data available 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park Significant Concern None (Stable) 

Shenandoah National Park Significant Concern Improving 
160 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC SETTING 

The Blue Ridge Parkway contains important 

cultural resources reminiscent of human use 

over time as well as ongoing use within the 

boundaries of what is now the parkway. 

Archeologically in the Blue Ridge region of 

the Appalachian Mountains, there is evidence 

of Paleoindian habitation that goes back some 

10,000 years ago (Ward and Davis 1999:1-5). 

There is a continuum from Paleoindian times 

to present Blue Ridge habitation and 

transportation. In this region, different 

peoples have lived in and traversed the 

mountains as hunters and gatherers, as 

travelers and visitors, as village dwellers, as 

homesteaders and farmers, and as selfsufficient makers of tools and crafts. 

Major and minor north-south and east-west 

trade and transportation routes existed 

through the mountains as prehistoric and 

historic Indian trails (Tanner 1996:640–643). 

Such trails became the paths that European 

American pioneers followed (Rives 1997:10), 

including early scientists such as William 

Bartram (1739–1823) who first published his 

observations about the Cherokees’ way of life 

and their Blue Ridge environment in 1791 

(Bartram 1791). Such trails seemingly have 

existed from the Paleoindian period (before 

8000 BC), through the Archaic (8000–1000 

BC) and Woodland (1000 BC to AD 1600) 

periods, into historic times (after AD 1540) 

when the Spanish explorer Hernando De Soto 

(1496–1542) “ventured across the southern 

end of the Blue Ridge in 1540 seeking gold” 

(Rives 1997:10). Archeological sites of these 

periods can be found within the parkway 

boundaries. 

European American settlement began in the 

early 18th century and, in a sense, it continues 

today because of the encroaching population 

growth occurring near certain sections of the 

parkway. Yet rich traditions remain of 

American Indian heritage, primarily 

represented by the Eastern Band of Cherokee 

Indians at the southern end of the parkway 

(Duncan and Riggs 2003) and by various Blue 

Ridge communities maintaining southern 

Appalachian traditions of storytelling, vocal 

and instrumental music, dancing, and crafts 

production (Olson 1998). An example is 

Floyd, Virginia, 8 miles from the parkway 

whose general store is the focus of Friday 

night traditional mountain dancing and 

mountain music typical of the local 

community and region, with banjo and guitar 

plus square dancing, clogging, and flatfooting. 

People congregate at the Floyd General Store 

to participate and enjoy the music and 

dancing and occasional storytelling (Edwards 

2002). The store’s folk traditions are 

supported by the community; the store is a 

place for community cultural expression. 

Much literature exists about the expressive 

folk culture of southern Appalachia—how it 

developed as European American settlers 

adapted to the mountains with subsistence 

farming coupled with hunting and gathering, 

how it was revived as industrialization 

influenced and changed even isolated local 

mountain economies, and how it continues. 

This document’s bibliography includes a 

variety of references to emphasize southern 

Appalachian cultural continuity, change, and 

revitalization. Four references are mentioned 

here as descriptive and analytical classics: The 

Handcraft Revival in Southern Appalachia, 

1930–1990 by Garry Barker (1991); Handcrafts 

of the Southern Highlands by Allen Eaton 

(1973, first published in 1937); Blue Ridge 

Folklife by Ted Olson (1998); and All That Is 

Native and Fine by David Whisnant (1983). 

For the American Indian heritage associated 

with the parkway, especially that of the 

Eastern Cherokee who remained east avoiding 

the 19th century removal to Oklahoma, the 

Cherokee Heritage Trails Guidebook by 

Barbara Duncan and Brett Riggs (2003) is an 

invaluable source. The idea of heritage trails 

for different subjects, such as Cherokee 

culture and Appalachian crafts and music, to 

preserve cultural traditions but at the same 

time promote economic benefits through 
Cultural Resources 

161 

coordinated educational and recreational 

tourism, is discussed by Becky Anderson 

(2003) in an article “The Blue Ridge Heritage 

Initiative: Partnerships to Preserve Traditions 

and Promote Positive Change” (Anderson 

2003). “The Blue Ridge Parkway is more than 

a road” (Medford 2003); it is a corridor with 

places of cultural expression that links other 

places of cultural expression on such heritage 

trails. 

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE 

PARKWAY 

The idea for a scenic road winding through 

the Blue Ridge Mountains was first proposed 

in 1909 by Colonel Joseph Hyde Pratt, the 

director of the North Carolina Geological and 

Economic Survey. Pratt understood the 

potential impact of the automobile on travel 

and sought to use it to promote tourism and 

economic growth in North Carolina. As a 

result, Pratt began to publicize his idea to 

construct a roadway along the summit of the 

Blue Ridge Mountains. Pratt’s proposal called 

for the highway to extend from Marion, 

Virginia, south to Tallulah Falls, Georgia, 

where it would link to highways leading to 

Washington, D.C., and Atlanta, Georgia. A 

chain of hotels would be situated along the 

350 mile roadway. The road, which Pratt 

thought would be one of the best scenic 

highways in the country, was to be known as 

the “Crest of the Blue Ridge Highway.” By 

1912, Pratt and his crew of men had surveyed 

the route and determined that due to the 

sparse population in the surrounding area, the 

highway should be a toll road. Pratt was able 

to raise money to construct a small portion of 

the road between the towns of Altapass and 

Pineola in northwestern North Carolina. 

However, involvement of the United States in 

World War I forced construction to halt and 

put an end to Pratt’s plan for the Crest of the 

Blue Ridge Highway (Historic American 

Engineering Record 1998). 

The 1920s saw a renewal of the movement 

calling for national parks in the eastern United 

States, which had been active prior to World 

War I. In the early 1920s, business groups in 

Tennessee and North Carolina sought to 

increase tourism in their states by promoting 

the idea of creating a national park at the 

Great Smoky Mountains. At the same time, 

similar groups in Virginia hoped to create a 

national park in the Shenandoah Valley. As a 

result, Secretary of the Interior Herbert Work 

formed the Southern Appalachian National 

Park Committee in 1924 to select a site for a 

national park. 

In late 1924, the Southern Appalachian 

National Park Committee recommended that 

parks be established at the Blue Ridge 

Mountains in Virginia and at the Great Smoky 

Mountains in Tennessee and North Carolina. 

By 1926, Congress authorized the 

establishment of Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park in North Carolina and 

Tennessee, Shenandoah National Park in 

Virginia, and Mammoth Cave National Park 

in Kentucky, but it would be another decade 

before these parks would officially open. 

In 1928, the Eastern National Park-to-Park 

Highway Association was established by 

Congressman Maurice Thatcher of Kentucky. 

This organization lobbied for the creation of a 

federally funded highway that would connect 

the newly created national parks with 

Washington, D.C., as well as historic sites 

under development at Williamsburg, 

Jamestown, and Yorktown, Virginia. The 

highway would become the Colonial Parkway. 

The National Park Service was overseeing the 

construction on the Colonial Parkway when, 

in 1933, Secretary of Interior Ickes turned the 

Blue Ridge Parkway project over to the 

National Park Service as well. The new road 

through the Blue Ridge Mountains remained 

officially a Public Works Administration 

endeavor, but the National Park Service 

would take the lead in its planning. 

With the establishment of Shenandoah 

National Park in 1936 and Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park in 1937, a 

movement grew to create new and better 

roads in and around the new parks. The 

purpose of the parkway was to link the two 

national parks with a road designed for 

pleasant motoring, as well as to conserve and 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

162 

interpret the unique natural and cultural 

resources of the central and southern 

Appalachian highlands while providing much 

needed employment. Rather than just a parkto-park connection, however, the parkway 

was conceived and planned as an elongated 

national park providing recreational and park 

activities. Traveling the parkway was intended 

to be a “ride-a-while, stop-a-while” 

experience, complete with scenic pullouts, 

recreation areas, and visitor contact facilities. 

When construction began, it was the longest 

federally planned roadway in the country. 

In 1933, the parkway had been authorized as a 

New Deal public works project; initial 

construction funds ($4 million) for the 

parkway were allocated through the Public 

Works Administration under authority of the 

National Industrial Recovery Act of June 16, 

1933. At that time, President Franklin D. 

Roosevelt had visited Virginia’s first Civilian 

Conservation Corps camp while the enrollees 

were working on Skyline Drive through 

Shenandoah National Park. Impressed with 

what he saw, Roosevelt endorsed the concept 

of constructing a scenic motor way linking the 

two recently established eastern national 

parks. After much wrangling in Congress over 

acquisition, funding, and location of the road, 

it was determined that the parkway should 

follow the crest of the southern Appalachian 

Mountains through western Virginia and 

North Carolina and that the necessary rightsof-way should be purchased by the states and 

then turned over to the federal government to 

be administered by the National Park Service. 

Although the plan had been in the works for 

two years, actual construction of the parkway 

did not begin until September 11, 1935, when 

the first contract was let for section 2-A 

extending 12.5 miles from the Virginia-North 

Carolina state line to Cumberland Knob, 

North Carolina. 

Construction proceeded slowly at first, as 

work crews conducted surveys deep into the 

mountains and realized the enormity of the 

task. Among the obstacles encountered were a 

lack of maps, reluctant landowners, extreme 

weather conditions, isolated and rocky 

terrain, and snakes. Many mountain roads 

were little more than ruts and could not 

accommodate the equipment needed for 

construction. Foremost in the minds of the 

surveying crews was the desire to create as 

little scar on the landscape as possible. 

Considerable care was taken to design and 

construct a road so that it blended with its 

natural surroundings. 

National Park Service involvement with the 

parkway came in 1936. Construction and 

administration of the parkway by the National 

Park Service was authorized by Congress on 

June 30, 1936. Thereafter, the National Park 

Service established an administrative 

organization for the parkway, in Roanoke, 

Virginia. Through a cooperative agreement 

with the Bureau of Public Roads, the National 

Park Service used the bureau’s road-building 

technical assistance and expertise to create 

what became the nation’s first rural national 

parkway. The Bureau of Public Roads and its 

successors—the Public Roads Administration 

and Federal Highway Administration—

oversaw the construction of the parkway until 

its completion in 1987. 

The Blue Ridge Parkway has been described 

as “the genius” of landscape architect Stanley 

W. Abbott, who was Resident Landscape 

Architect of the parkway, and later, Acting 

Superintendent. Though Abbott had a 

profound influence on the design of the road, 

other noteworthy contributors to its design 

were Edward H. Abbuehl and Hendrik E. van 

Gelder, the parkway’s landscape architects; 

Harold J. Spelman, the Bureau of Public 

Road’s district engineer; and William Austin 

and W.I. Lee, Bureau of Public Road 

engineers. R. Getty Browning, North Carolina 

Department of Transportation’s Chief 

Location Engineer, played an instrumental 

role in winning the decision for the parkway 

to be located in North Carolina and helped 

develop the route’s alignment there. In fact, 

the construction and development of the 

parkway was the collective effort of many 

individuals, from President Roosevelt to the 

employees of the construction companies 

who actually constructed the roadway. Those 

individuals included Secretary of the Interior 

Harold L. Ickes (who selected the southern 
Cultural Resources 

163 

route of the parkway and chose its name), 

members of Congress from Virginia and 

North Carolina, employees of the National 

Park Service and Bureau of Public Roads, 

officials of the state governments of North 

Carolina and Virginia, enrollees in the Civilian 

Conservation Corps, the Works Progress 

Administration, Emergency Relief 

Administration, the Civilian Public Service, 

and countless other individuals in the public 

and private sectors. 

Following existing practice, the road was 

designed and constructed in sections, 20 in 

Virginia and 24 in North Carolina. 

Construction proceeded as land was 

purchased, rights-of-way were approved, and 

contracts were secured through the Bureau of 

Public Roads. Construction in Virginia began 

in February 1936 on sections 1-P and 1-A. 

Section 1-A, extending from Rockfish Gap to 

Jarmans Gap, would be transferred to 

Shenandoah National Park in 1961. During 

the 1930s progress on the parkway remained 

steady and on December 19, 1936, section 1-P, 

extending 8.276 miles from Adney Gap to Pine 

Spur, 17 miles south of Roanoke, was open to 

visitors. By late December 1939, a 140-mile 

section of the parkway extending from Adney 

Gap to U.S. 421 at Deep Gap, North Carolina, 

was open to the public and more than 300 

more miles of the roadway were under 

construction. When work halted in 1942 

because of the onset of American involvement 

in World War II, some 330 miles of the 

parkway were under construction—170 miles 

had been paved and 123 miles had been 

surfaced with crushed stone. 

An NPS master plan covering the entire length 

of the Blue Ridge Parkway was approved in 

August 1936. This plan included 19 

recreational areas or wayside parks that 

Abbott referred to as “beads on a string, the 

rare gems in the necklace.” These areas 

included Humpback Rocks (section 1-C), 

Lick Log Spring (section 1-F), Peaks of Otter 

(section 1-J), Pine Spur (section 1-P), Smart 

View (section 1-Q), Rocky Knob (section 1-S), 

Fishers Peak (section 1-W), Cumberland 

Knob (section 2-A), The Bluffs (section 2-C), 

Tompkins Knob (section 2-E), Linville Gorge 

(section 2-J), Crabtree Creek (section 2-M), 

Mount Mitchell (section 2-N), Craggy 

Gardens (section 2-P), Bent Creek (section 2-

S), Mt. Pisgah (section 2-T), Pigeon River Falls 

(sections 2-U and V), Tennessee Bald (section 

2-V), and Richland Balsam (section 2-W). 

In October 1935, funds were made available 

by the Resettlement Administration for the 

purchase of lands at Pine Spur, Smart View, 

and Rocky Knob in Virginia and Cumberland 

Knob and The Bluffs in North Carolina. These 

five areas were then developed as Recreation 

Demonstration Areas and formed the first 

wayside parks along the parkway. 

During the 1930s and early 1940s, Public 

Works Administration, Civilian Conservation 

Corps, and Emergency Relief Administration 

employees, as well as day laborers, performed 

the important tasks of landscaping the parkway and developing recreational parks along 

its route. This work included grass seeding, 

sodding, tree and shrub planting, fence 

building, small lake construction, erosion 

control, soil conservation, removing dead and 

downed timber, selective timber cutting, and 

“vista clearing.” 

The Works Progress Administration, a 

Depression-era public works program, hired 

many men for construction projects on the 

parkway. The purpose of the Works Progress 

Administration was to put as many men to 

work as possible. Hand labor was used 

extensively on the parkway, when power 

equipment might have been more efficient. 

Works Progress Administration crews cleared 

brush, drilled rock for blasting, and provided 

other sorts of manual labor. In 1941, a Works 

Progress Administration project began on 

parkway sections in Patrick, Floyd, and 

Franklin counties, Virginia. The 46-man 

project crew was assigned to landscape work 

and the construction of a sewer system for 

Rocky Knob Park. Over the years, the Works 

Progress Administration workforce increased 

and crews carried out landscape 

improvements over parkway segments in 

Virginia. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

164 

Four Civilian Conservation Corps camps 

provided laborers for parkway development 

projects during 1938 to 1941—Camp NP-21, 

established at The Bluffs in Alleghany County, 

North Carolina, in October 1937; Camp NP14, established at Rocky Knob in Floyd and 

Patrick counties, Virginia, in November 1937; 

Camp NP-15, in Kelso, Virginia, was involved 

in state forestry work and was assigned to 

work at Peaks of Otter in Bedford County, 

Virginia, in April 1939. Camp NP-29, 

established at Pipers Gap near Fisher Peak in 

Carroll County, Virginia, was assigned to the 

parkway in November 1940. This camp used 

African American workers and performed 

landscape improvement work on the 

southernmost Virginia sections of the 

parkway (Harley 2007). 

After the United States entered World War II 

and the Civilian Conservation Corps program 

was terminated, conscientious objectors 

enrolled in Civilian Public Service camps that 

replaced the Civilian Conservation Corps 

laborers. The Civilian Public Service camps 

helped develop the recreational areas at 

Crabtree Falls in North Carolina and Peaks of 

Otter in Virginia. 

In early 1942, the National Park Service 

authorized National Park Concessions, Inc., 

to provide essential visitor services on 

completed sections of the parkway. In the 

spring, the concessioner opened a “sandwich 

and picnic supply shop” at Cumberland Knob, 

the first concessioner-operated facility on the 

parkway. To provide more accommodations, 

the National Park Service constructed a 24-

room lodge, coffee shop, and gasoline station 

at The Bluffs. (The Bluffs was renamed 

Doughton Park in the early 1950s in honor of 

retired congressman and long-time parkway 

supporter Robert L. Doughton, a native of the 

region whose family once owned much of the 

land taken for the parkway). This land 

consisted of some 5,400 acres that was 

acquired through condemnation proceedings 

by the Resettlement Administration. 

Completed in 1949, The Bluffs concession 

facilities were the first to provide meals and 

lodging on the parkway. The Bluffs, which 

included hiking and equestrian trails, was the 

largest area acquired under this public works 

program and Doughton Park remains the 

largest recreational area on the North 

Carolina section of the parkway. 

Although work on the road was halted during 

World War II, the states of Virginia and North 

Carolina continued to acquire land for the 

parkway. By 1945, the location of the parkway 

in Virginia had been established. In 1946, the 

Public Roads Administration began 

transferring the responsibility for maintaining 

completed sections of the parkway to the 

National Park Service, the first such transfer 

being the 140-mile section of the finished 

roadway between Adney Gap, Virginia, and 

Deep Gap, North Carolina. The National Park 

Service acquired the Moses H. Cone estate 

(now Moses H. Cone Memorial Park) in 1949 

and the estate of Julian Price (now Julian Price 

Memorial Park) in 1950. 

Construction and development of the 

parkway resumed in the 1950s. During the 

early part of that decade the Linville Falls tract 

was purchased with funds provided by John 

D. Rockefeller, Jr. The Museum of North 

Carolina Minerals, at Gillespie Gap in 

Mitchell County, North Carolina, opened to 

the public in 1955. The implementation of 

Mission 66, a federally sponsored program to 

improve infrastructure in national parks after 

World War II, began in 1956 and ended in 

1966. Mission 66 funding was used to 

construct visitor centers and an amphitheater 

at Peaks of Otter (1957), improve self-guiding 

trails, enhance parkway interpretive programs 

and exhibits, and reconstruct a pioneer 

mountain farm with a visitor center at 

Humpback Rocks, Virginia, in 1956. The 

museum was developed under a joint 

agreement with the state of North Carolina 

and was also funded as a Mission 66 project. 

At Craggy Gardens, a small visitor comfort 

station built in 1952 was converted to a visitor 

center in 1957. The Museum of North 

Carolina Minerals, at Gillespie Gap in 

Mitchell County, North Carolina, opened to 

the public in 1955. The museum was 

developed under a joint agreement with the 

State of North Carolina and was also funded 
Cultural Resources 

165 

as a Mission 66 project. By 1959, the National 

Park Service had acquired all lands needed for 

parkway construction in Virginia. At that time, 

348 miles of the parkway had been paved, 22 

miles had been graded, and 48 miles were 

under construction. 

The Roanoke section of the parkway opened 

to visitors in July 1965 and the North Carolina 

section, with the exception of the 7.7-mile 

stretch around Grandfather Mountain, was 

completed two years later. In 1967, the 

assistant Blue Ridge Parkway superintendent 

moved to an office in Asheville, North 

Carolina and, in 1968, parkway management 

staff members moved to Asheville where they 

would help the assistant superintendent with 

the operation and development of the North 

Carolina section of the road. In January 1972, 

the superintendent and his staff also left 

Roanoke for Asheville, thus completing the 

move of parkway headquarters from 

Roanoke. The parkway implemented a unit 

management concept, with an assistant 

superintendent serving as unit manager in 

each state. After many years of planning, the 

Folk Art Center, a cooperative effort of the 

National Park Service, Southern Highland 

Handicraft Guild, and the Appalachian 

Regional Commission, formally opened in 

Asheville in April 1980. 

The last section of the parkway—the 

Grandfather Mountain section—was 

completed during the 1980s. To preserve the 

ecologically fragile environment on the steep 

southeastern slopes of the mountain, the Linn 

Cove Viaduct, a 1,200-foot suspended section 

of the parkway, was designed and 

constructed. Considered to be an engineering 

marvel, the viaduct represents one of the most 

successful fusions of roadway and landscape 

on the parkway. The American Society of Civil 

Engineers and the Prestressed Concrete 

Institute each gave the viaduct awards of 

excellence and it also received a federal 

Design Achievement Award. Although the last 

segment of the viaduct was erected in late 

1982, the Grandfather Mountain section was 

not completed for several more years. The 

parkway was officially dedicated on 

September 11, 1987—52 years after the road’s 

construction began. 

In October 2001, the National Park Service 

and the National Council for the Traditional 

Arts officially dedicated and opened the first 

phase of the Blue Ridge Music Center at the 

base of Fishers Peak near the Virginia/North 

Carolina state line. Planning for the music 

center had begun more than a decade before 

when the city of Galax, Virginia, long known 

for its link to traditional and old-time music, 

donated land to the Blue Ridge Parkway for 

the construction of a facility devoted to the 

preservation and interpretation of regional 

music. The first phase of the project consisted 

of an outdoor amphitheater, an instrument 

builders’ shop, restrooms, and parking 

facilities. 

THE COMPLETED PARKWAY 

Under the direction of NPS landscape 

architects, the completed parkway followed a 

narrow corridor in a carefully manipulated 

landscape with a right-of-way of 

approximately 800 feet, or about 125 acres per 

mile, for most of its distance. That distance 

widened at many points to include a series of 

recreational “parks” or waysides including 

mountain groups, country estates, and wild 

areas. Today, wayside developments include 9 

campgrounds, 3 inns, and 15 picnic areas, as 

well as 13 visitor centers, 20 campfire circles 

and amphitheaters, approximately 300 miles 

of hiking trails, several museums, and 

numerous cultural exhibits and natural areas. 

Overall, 26 tunnels were blasted to construct 

the parkway through the steep mountain 

ridges and dozens of bridges were needed to 

make rivers and creeks passable. More than 

200 parking areas, overlooks, and developed 

areas were incorporated into the design so 

that motorists could enjoy a leisurely and 

pleasurable drive through the mountains. The 

road itself averages 3,000 feet above sea level, 

ascending to 6,053 feet above sea level at the 

Richland Balsam overlook in North Carolina, 

and descending to 649 feet above sea level at 

the James River in Virginia. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

166 

Unlike earlier parkways, the road was in the 

mountains away from cities. Hundreds of 

scenic easements and agricultural use leases 

were negotiated with parkway neighbors to 

ensure views of rustic rail fences, livestock, 

and shocks of corn and wheat with no 

intrusive billboards and minimal residential 

development. In contrast to earlier roads in 

national parks, the parkway ran through 

settled countryside as well as wild mountain 

landscapes. It follows the Blue Ridge for the 

first 355 of its 469 miles. In the remaining 115 

miles it crosses some of the highest and most 

rugged terrain in the southern Appalachians, 

including the Black Mountains, Great 

Craggies, Pisgah Ledge, Great Balsam, and 

Plott Balsam ranges. 

In contrast to Shenandoah’s Skyline Drive, the 

parkway was not planned as a ridge-line route, 

although extensive segments follow the ridge 

crests. Instead, variety was introduced by 

routing the road along mountain sides, 

plateaus, streams, and through broad river 

valleys, providing visitors with one of the most 

diversified motoring experiences in the world. 

As designed, the scenic road traverses a wide 

range of topographic zones and natural 

features associated with the central and 

southern Appalachians, including high 

mountains clothed in spruce/fir forests; 

rolling farmland characterized by cultivated 

fields and pasture; mountain ridges and 

valleys, supporting lush deciduous forests; and 

rivers and streams, featuring waterfalls and 

other scenic attractions. Likewise, the 

designers provided the road with a high 

standard of grade and curvature so that 

motorists could safely devote their attention 

to the scenery. 

Although construction of the parkway 

extended over more than five decades, all 

sections contain features that illustrate the 

distinctive design characteristics of a rural 

national parkway conceived in the 1930s. 

Efforts continue to acquire land contiguous to 

the parkway boundary to provide better 

protection for land and views that the 

National Park Service already owns. Some 17 

million visitors pass along the scenic parkway 

each year and more than 600 million visitors 

have used the parkway since its inception. 

Today, the parkway’s permanent 

headquarters facility is in a new building on 

Hemphill Knob in Asheville, North Carolina, 

which was completed in 1999 and dedicated 

in 2000. 

A Vision of Appalachia 

An important aspect of the Blue Ridge 

Parkway’s landscape architecture that is not 

well known by visitors is that the parkway 

strategically employs vernacular architecture 

and landscape design to evoke a romantic 

representation of the traditional mountain 

culture of the central and southern 

Appalachian highlands for the motoring 

public. In its display and use of the “pioneer” 

structures that existed before the parkway was 

developed, the parkway effectively became an 

outdoor exhibit space for Appalachian 

vernacular architecture. During the planning 

phase, parkway designers made decisions to 

keep dozens of cabins, barns, outbuildings, 

and other wood-frame structures along the 

parkway to establish an imaginative evocation 

of rural mountain life, while other structures 

that did not fit this objective were removed. 

This design ethos was mirrored in much of the 

new roadway construction. The stonework 

masonry of the roadway’s many bridges, 

tunnels, and guardwalls was meant to 

symbolize a romantic, rustic vision of a world 

made by hand (NPS 2011b). 

The forces driving this design approach were 

likely multilayered and deeply rooted in 

cultural ideas held during the 1930s and 

beyond. Historical scholarship on the 

development of the Blue Ridge Parkway 

describes the influence of contemporary 

cultural biases and anxieties that were 

common during the parkway’s early 

conception, the notion of the “parkway as 

panacea” for Depression-weary Americans, 

the nascent historic preservation movement at 

that time, and in the decades following World 

War II, a growing reaction against the 

homogenization of culture and modernity 

nationwide (Whisnant 1983; Whisnant 2006). 
Cultural Resources 

167 

Even while other branches of the federal 

government, like the Tennessee Valley 

Authority, were unabashed in their embrace 

of modern architecture that avoided 

references to the past, the parkway 

purposefully strove to provide to the 

American public an idealized vision of 

Appalachia “frozen in time,” where the 

existing environment from which the parkway 

was built was staged and enhanced to achieve 

the greatest effect. In fact, the National Park 

Service moved most of the parkway’s pioneer 

structures to their present location to make 

them more accessible to the motoring tourist 

and ultimately to facilitate interpretation of 

regional mountain life, albeit an idealized 

version of that story (NPS 2011b). 

During the 1930s, employees of the Civilian 

Conservation Corps program continued to 

construct trail shelters, comfort stations, and 

other park amenities using hewn logs and 

shake roofs, continuing an earlier “rustic” 

aesthetic. The holistic approach to designing 

and locating the parkway that National Park 

Service landscape architects Stanley Abbot 

and Tom Vint initiated was maintained 

throughout the parkway’s long and 

complicated construction history. As a result, 

the parkway is not simply a park road, but 

became a park unto itself, formed and created 

by designers that integrated innovative 

roadway engineering with highly 

sophisticated landscape design (NPS 2011b). 

European Settlement—19th Century 

Homestead Sites 

The theme of rural Appalachian cultural 

history in the parkway is emphasized and 

represented by a number of 19th century 

homestead and farmstead sites. The 

Humpback Rocks Mountain Farm, created by 

the National Park Service during the 1950s by 

moving five late-19th century pioneer 

structures from their original locations to the 

site, provides a primer on the vernacular 

buildings to be seen along the parkway. The 

Johnson Farm, owned by three generations of 

the Johnson family from 1852 to 1941, is the 

most complete mountain farmstead currently 

being preserved along the parkway. The 

farmstead includes a one-story saddlebag log 

house, a double-crib log structure, a spring 

house, and a meat house as well as a corn 

house that was moved to the site during the 

1970s. 

The Polly Wood’s Ordinary log cabin was 

moved to its current site in 1964 and may be 

the oldest surviving structure along the 

parkway. The building originally served 

travelers on the Buchanan to Liberty Turnpike 

and visitors to Peaks of Otter from the 1830s 

to the 1850s. 

The Trail, Puckett, Brinegar, Caudill, and 

Sheets cabins are all 19th-century log cabins 

that the National Park Service retained to 

illustrate the idea of the isolated existence of 

Appalachian mountain families. These 

structures also demonstrate the efforts of 

early NPS planners to save log structures over 

other types of larger farm houses. The Trail 

Cabin is a good example of the simpler type of 

log cabin—a single square pen with a single 

door and no windows. Its chief interest, 

however, is its spectacular location on the 

edge of a steep drop commanding distant 

views. The Caudill Cabin was regarded by 

landscape architect Stanley Abbott as “one of 

the finest, if not the finest, examples of 

pioneer cabins” along the parkway. The 

Puckett Cabin is associated with stories of 

Mrs. Orleana Hawks Puckett, a busy 

mountain mid-wife of the late 19th century. 

The Brinegar Homestead, a building complex 

consisting of a cabin, granary/root cellar, and 

spring house that date from the mid-1880s, 

was listed in the National Register of Historic 

Places in 1972. 

The Jesse Brown Farmstead, consisting of a 

cabin, spring house, and the relocated Cool 

Springs Baptist Church, is believed to date 

from the pre-Civil War period and contains 

examples of early pioneer log construction. 

The Saunders farm, a property that was 

owned by African Americans, features 

remnants of terraced fields, is considered to 

be representative of a mountain farmstead 

site. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

168 

European Settlement—19th to Early 

20th Century Industrial / 

Transportation Sites 

Surviving examples of 19th and early 20thcentury industrial and transportation sites are 

also along the parkway. The reconstructed 

railroad and restored railroad grade of the 

Irish Creek Railway, a narrow gauge logging 

railroad constructed and operated by the 

South River Lumber Company of Cornwall, 

Virginia, between 1916 and 1939, is a 

reminder of the extensive timber operations 

conducted in the Blue Ridge region during the 

early 20th century. 

Remnants of a 1-mile portion of the James 

River and Kanawha Canal are within the 

parkway boundaries. Constructed between 

1842 and 1849 as part of a waterway that 

extended from Richmond to Buchanan, these 

remnants include two locks and a culvert. The 

waterway, in turn, was part of an ambitious 

transportation scheme designed to capture 

Virginia’s share of the trade between the East 

Coast and the trans-Appalachian west. One of 

the locks, No.7, along with a short section of 

the canal, was reconstructed by the National 

Park Service during the Mission 66 program. 

Of all the points of interest along the parkway, 

the Mabry Mill complex is perhaps the best 

known. The complex features a reconstructed 

mill, blacksmith’s shop, cabin, and washhouse 

that were developed and operated by Ed and 

Lizzie Mabry between 1898 and 1938. Ed 

Mabry put together most of the machinery, 

constructed his own buildings, and served as 

miller, blacksmith, wheelwright, and 

carpenter for the surrounding area. In the 

National Park Service’s adaptation of the 

Mabry Mills for parkway visitation, many of 

the mill’s original materials were replaced and 

the setting was substantially altered. The 

National Park Service converted the mill 

complex into a museum exhibit and, in the 

process, compromised the integrity of the 

other structures beside the mill by their 

relocation and alteration. Nevertheless, these 

buildings serve as part of a countryside 

museum exhibit created to be a popular 

attraction along the parkway. 

Turn of the 20th Century Country 

Estates 

By the turn of the 20th century, the Blue Ridge 

region was viewed by persons of wealth as a 

desirable location for construction of country 

estates and summer retreats. The Moses H. 

Cone and Julian Price memorial parks, both of 

which were donated to the parkway in 1949 

and 1950, are prime examples of these 

developments along the parkway. 

Moses H. Cone, a self-educated man who had 

made a fortune in the southern textile 

industry and had become known as the 

“Denim King,” began to purchase land near 

Blowing Rock, North Carolina, in 1893. He 

eventually acquired more than 3,500 acres on 

the slopes of Flat Top and Rich Mountains 

and some 500 acres of rolling farmland and 

patches of virgin hardwoods and evergreens. 

On these lands he developed apple orchards, a 

stock farm, two “parks” in which he protected 

whitetail deer imported from Pennsylvania, 

and carriage roads. He also impounded 

several lakes and ponds that were stocked 

with fish. The park, which has been 

established as a memorial to Cone, includes a 

2- and 1/2-story, 20-room neo-Colonial style 

manor house (“Flat Top Manor”) that 

currently houses the Parkway Craft Center. 

The center features handicraft 

demonstrations operated by the Southern 

Highland Handicraft Guild. Other features of 

the memorial park include a carriage house, 

servants’ quarters, an apple barn, 25 miles of 

carriage roads, dams at Bass and Trout lakes 

and the Upper Pond, and the Cone cemetery. 

This area is currently being evaluated under a 

separate planning effort and is not addressed 

specifically in this document. 

Although Cone Memorial Park was intended 

to preserve the cultural resources of a historic 

estate, Julian Price Memorial Park, a 3,900-

acre enclave immediately south of Cone 

Memorial Park, has been developed with a 

focus on outdoor recreation. Price Memorial 

Park, which served as the retreat of the 

president and founder of the Jefferson 

Standard Life Insurance Company of 

Greensboro, North Carolina, beginning in the 
Cultural Resources 

169 

late 1930s, features a variety of short trails, a 

lake, and popular picnic and camping areas. 

HISTORIC STRUCTURES 

List of Classified Structures 

The List of Classified Structures is a 

computerized, evaluated inventory of all 

historic and prehistoric structures having 

historical, architectural, or engineering 

significance in which the National Park 

Service has, or plans to acquire, any legal 

interest. Included are structures that 

individually meet the criteria of the national 

register or are contributing resources of sites 

and districts that meet national register 

evaluation criteria. Also included are other 

structures—moved, reconstructed, and 

commemorative structures as well as 

structures achieving significance within the 

last 50 years—that are managed as cultural 

resources because of management decisions 

that have been made pursuant to planning 

processes. 

At present, the parkway’s List of Classified 

Structures includes 232 entries. Of those 

entries, 90 buildings, 2 sites, and 133 other 

structures contribute to the parkway’s 

eligibility for inclusion on the national register 

as a historic district. The cultural resources 

staff of the NPS Southeast Regional Office is 

currently updating and preparing a revised 

comprehensive list for the parkway that 

includes updated and revised significance 

statements and recommendations for 

treatment and management of resources that 

contribute to the proposed parkway national 

historic landmark designation. 

Properties Listed in the National 

Register of Historic Places 

The only historic property in the Blue Ridge 

Parkway that is individually listed in the 

national register is the Brinegar Cabin. At 

Doughton Park (milepost 238.5) in Alleghany 

County, North Carolina, the cabin (and 

associated springhouse and granary) was 

listed on January 20, 1972, under national 

register criterion C (architecture). 

Constructed between 1880 and 1886, the onestory, weather-boarded log cabin, along with a 

later frame shed addition, rests on an 

uncoursed fieldstone foundation.3

 It is a good 

example of an Appalachian mountain 

homestead from the late 19th century and it is 

representative of the type of construction 

used by settlers in the area before the 20th 

century. 

National Register Listings 

In June 1992, a draft historic resource study 

and national register nomination form were 

prepared for the parkway by Ian J. W. Firth of 

the School of Environmental Design, 

University of Georgia. Firth proposed 

nominating the parkway to the national 

register as a historic district having national 

significance and developed a list of 

contributing resources for the proposed 

district. The significance of the parkway may 

elevate it to the level of a national historic 

landmark. The draft nomination form 

indicated that the parkway related to the 

following national historic landmark themes 

 Transportation; subtheme—

Automobiles, Buses, Wagons, and 

Highways 

 Landscape Architecture 

 Conservation of Natural Resources; 

subtheme—The Conservation 

Movement Matures, the Great 

Depression and Conservation 

In the 1992 Historic Resource Study, Firth 

recommended that the Blue Ridge Parkway’s 

period of significance be established to cover 

the years 1935–42; the proposed historic 

district would include the exhibits of pioneer 

buildings, such as log cabins dating from the 

first half of the 19th century, developed by the 

National Park Service. The rationale behind 

 

3

 Uncoursed masonry is an architectural term that refers to 

an irregular patterned wall without continuous horizontal 

joints. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

170 

this period of significance was that the prewar 

sections of the parkway were deemed to be 

the most important sections of the parkway 

and that those areas met the national register 

criteria of significance. At that time the 

postwar resources were less than 50 years of 

age and Firth felt that additional time would 

be needed to more fully assess significance of 

the parkway’s postwar sections. 

Firth’s 1992 study did not result in a 

determination of national register eligibility or 

listing for the parkway and has been 

superseded by Firth’s draft Historic Resource 

Study (draft, 2005) and his recommendation 

of national historic landmark designation for 

the parkway. Firth prepared a draft national 

historic landmark nomination, extending the 

parkway’s period of significance to 1955. The 

final nomination is likely to extend this period 

to include post-1955 resources that contribute 

to the exceptional significance of the parkway. 

Statement of Historical Significance 

The following statement of historical 

significance is derived from the 1992 Historic 

Resource Study and may be revised by the 

updated historic resource study and the 

national historic landmark nomination for the 

Blue Ridge Parkway that are currently 

underway. This general management plan will 

include a summary of the analysis provided in 

the final nomination, when available. 

The nationally significant Blue Ridge Parkway 

is the prime example of a long distance road 

designed for recreational motoring to provide 

visitors with quiet, leisure travel, free from 

commercial traffic and the congestion of highspeed highways—a function that it continues 

to serve today. Unlike other national parks, 

the parkway is significant because it was 

purposely constructed for recreational 

motoring, a new form of leisure. The parkway 

itself—a serpentine road set in a carefully 

manipulated landscape—pioneered a new 

type of conservation, remarkable for its 

synthesis of diverse land management 

programs that created “a museum of managed 

American countryside.” 

As an example of pre– and post–World War II 

era automotive rural parkway design, the Blue 

Ridge Parkway retains a high degree of 

integrity. Designated as a National Historic 

Civil Engineering Landmark by the American 

Society of Civil Engineers, the parkway is 

recognized throughout the world as an 

example of landscape and engineering design 

achievements with a roadway that lies easily 

on the land and blends into the landscape. 

The parkway’s designers adapted parkway 

development strategies originating in 

suburban commuter routes and metropolitan 

park systems and expanded them to a regional 

scale, creating a scenic 469-mile roadway 

linking two of the most prominent eastern 

national parks—Shenandoah in Virginia and 

Great Smoky Mountains in North Carolina. 

Developed as a collaborative effort between 

the National Park Service and the Bureau of 

Public Roads, the parkway was conceived as a 

multipurpose corridor that would fulfill 

various social, recreational, environmental, 

and pragmatic functions. The parkway was 

designed to incorporate the best examples of 

central and southern Appalachian highlands 

scenic, historic, and natural features, 

providing visitors with an idealized vision of 

America’s rural heritage. To maximize scenic 

views and give visitors the impression that 

they are in a park with boundaries to the 

horizon, the parkway was situated in 

mountainous terrain that early motor roads 

would have avoided. At frequent intervals the 

parkway borders expand to encompass 

smaller parks, recreational areas, and historic 

sites, many of which include picnic areas 

and/or overnight accommodations. 

Designated as an All-American Road, the 

parkway’s natural and cultural features 

include spectacular mountain and valley 

vistas, quiet pastoral scenes, sparkling 

waterfalls, colorful flowers and foliage 

displays, and interpretation of mountain 

history and culture. These features, along with 

its diverse recreational attractions and its 

relatively accessible East Coast location, have 

long made it a high-quality recreational 

experience and one of the most heavily visited 

units in the national park system. 
Cultural Resources 

171 

Boundary 

The 1992 historic resource study (Firth) 

recommended that the boundaries of the 

parkway historic district encompass the 

existing boundaries of the parkway. Although 

some sections of the parkway were less than 

50 years old, he asserted that it was important 

to recognize the overall unity of the parkway. 

The entire route is associated with the New 

Deal of the 1930s and all sections contain 

features that illustrate the distinctive design 

characteristics of a rural national parkway 

conceived in the 1930s. According to Firth, 

the value of the parkway as a work of art could 

only be fully appreciated if it was considered 

as a whole. This historic district boundary 

may change, pending the completion of the 

historic resource study and national historic 

landmark nomination for the Blue Ridge 

Parkway, currently underway. 

National Register Eligible Resources 

Of the recreation areas that had been 

developed along the parkway, Firth 

recommended that the 11 that were included 

in the NPS pre-World War II master plans 

should be included in the proposed historic 

district. These areas are as follows: Smart 

View, Rocky Knob, Cumberland Knob, The 

Bluffs (now Doughton Park), Humpback 

Rocks, Crabtree Falls, Peaks of Otter, 

Tompkins Knob (now E.B. Jeffress Park), 

Linville Gorge (the gorge is owned by the U.S. 

Forest Service and Linville Falls is owned by 

the National Park Service), Craggy Gardens, 

and Mt. Pisgah. Although only seven of these 

areas were acquired before World War II, all 

were part of the planned route and their 

mountain and forest scenery was an important 

part of the parkway from its beginning. Four 

recreation areas that were acquired after the 

war in locations not anticipated in the original 

master plans—Otter Creek, Roanoke 

Mountain, and the Moses H. Cone and Julian 

Price memorial parks—were excluded from 

the proposed historic district, although, 

according to Firth, Moses H. Cone Memorial 

Park independently met national register 

criteria for historical significance and should 

be included in the historic district. In the 

other three areas, the boundaries of the 

historic district should include the road and 

roadside landscape improvements as shown 

on the appropriate Parkway Land Use Maps. 

Firth listed 226 resources (91 buildings, 2 sites, 

133 structures) as contributing to the 

historical significance of the proposed Blue 

Ridge Parkway national historic district. In 

addition, he listed 10 buildings and 1 structure 

as potentially contributing pending further 

research. This list of contributing resources 

may expand, pending the completion of the 

historic resource study and national historic 

landmark nomination for the Blue Ridge 

Parkway, currently underway. To date, the 

broad categories of resources that contribute 

to the historical significance of the parkway 

include the following. 

THE ROAD 

Roadway Prism. All sections from 1-B to 2-

Z. Section 1-A was not included because it was 

transferred to Shenandoah National Park in 

1961. Includes stabilized side slopes, with 

associated naturalistic plantings, shown on the 

Parkway Land Use Maps. 

Bridges. All stone-faced reinforced concrete 

arch bridges; concrete slab bridges and steel 

girder viaducts built between 1935 and 1942. 

Tunnels. All 26 tunnels, including their stone 

masonry portals. 

Walls. All stone retaining walls and rock 

embankments; all stone parapet walls 

including the guard walls on sections 2-A, 2-B, 

and 2-C. 

Drainage Structures. All stone-lined 

channels; all stone masonry headwalls to 

culverts including associated wing walls and 

stone-lined pools. 

Parking Overlooks. All 264 overlooks along 

the roadway; stone masonry details including 

curbs and drop inlets, steps, walls, and 

drinking fountains. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

172 

Signs. Entrance signs featuring the lone pine 

symbol; place name signs at overlooks; 

squirrel gun information boards. 

THE LANDSCAPES 

Forests and Woodlands. All native 

woodlands with their manipulated edges and 

cleared views shown on the Parkway Land 

Use Maps; all areas reforested as part of soil 

conservation programs. 

Farmlands. Agricultural patterns of pastures, 

hayfields, orchards, and tilled areas shown on 

the Parkway Land Use Maps; all restored land 

where measures were taken to prevent soil 

erosion, including areas set aside as wildflower meadows and game food areas; split 

rail fences in agricultural areas constructed 

according to traditional patterns. 

Streams and Ponds. All water features 

created alongside the roadway. 

THE RECREATION AREAS 

Landscapes. Forests, woodlands, and high 

mountain pastures that make up the rural 

scenery for which these areas were selected. 

Recreational Developments. All facilities 

for active recreation and provisions for food, 

lodging, and motor services at the areas 

developed as Recreation Demonstration 

Areas—Smart View, Rocky Knob, 

Cumberland Knob, and Doughton Park. This 

includes the trails, picnic areas, and 

campgrounds, with their associated rustic trail 

shelters, comfort stations, and pumping 

stations, built in the pre-World War II years. It 

includes the combined picnic shelter, 

sandwich shop, and comfort station at 

Cumberland Knob and the Trail Lodge 

Cabins at Rocky Knob. It also includes the 

post-World War II lodge, coffee shop, and gas 

station at Doughton Park and the sandwich 

shop and gas station—now a visitor center—at 

Rocky Knob, which were constructed in 

fulfillment of pre-World War II plans. 

Maintenance Areas. The utility buildings 

constructed before 1942 with Works Progress 

Administration and Civilian Conservation 

Corps labor in the four major (Rocky Knob, 

The Bluffs, James River, and Gillespie Gap) 

and three minor (Peaks of Otter, Smart View, 

and Cumberland Knob) maintenance 

compounds. 

THE EXHIBITS 

Exhibits of “Pioneer” Buildings and 

Structures 

 Humpback Rocks Mountain Farm 

milepost 5.8 

 Johnson Farm 

milepost 85.2 

 Polly Wood’s Ordinary 

milepost 86.0 

 Bell Springhouse 

milepost 146.6 

 Kelley Springhouse 

milepost 150.8 

 Trail Cabin 

milepost 154.5 

 Rakes Mill Pond Dam 

milepost 162.4 

 Mabry Mill 

milepost 176.2 

 Groundhog Mountain Tower and 

Fences 

milepost 188.8 

 Puckett Cabin 

milepost 189.9 

 Brinegar Cabin 

milepost 238.5 

 Caudill Cabin 

milepost 241.1 

 Sheets Cabin 

milepost 252.4 

 Jesse Brown Farmstead 

milepost 272.5 
Cultural Resources 

173 

Other Sites of Historical Interest with 

Standing Buildings or Structures 

Maintained Buildings or Structures. 

 Irish Creek Railway 

milepost 34.8 

 James River and Kanawha Canal 

milepost 63.8 

 Sharp Top Summit Shelter 

milepost 86.0 

 Moses H. Cone Memorial Park 

milepost 294.0 

 Craggy Gardens Shelters 

milepost 364.5 

 Buck Spring Springhouse 

milepost 407.7 

 Davey Farm and Sundown Cabin 

milepost 455.6 

Other Buildings or Structures. 

 Saunders Farm 

milepost 86.0 

 Oscar Johnson Farm 

milepost 86.0 

 Kelley School 

milepost 149.0 

 Whorley House 

milepost 174.1 

 Civil War Earthworks at Deep Gap 

milepost 276.3 

Firth also contended that 328 resources (256 

buildings, 72 structures) along the parkway 

did not contribute to its historical significance. 

These categories included additions to the 

parkway that did not have the same 

associations or illustrate the same design 

characteristics as the pre-World War II 

components. Although the parkway was 

intended to be a park without visible 

boundaries, it was not feasible to include 

landscapes visible from the road that were 

outside NPS ownership in a historic district. 

Thus, such landscapes, although integral parts 

of the parkway’s original design, should not be 

listed as contributing resources. 

NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK 

DESIGNATION 

Preparation of a national historic landmark 

nomination for the Blue Ridge Parkway is 

currently underway. The final determination 

of the parkway’s period of significance and 

the corresponding national register eligibility 

status of the parkway’s contributing and 

noncontributing resources will be presented 

at a future date when the nomination is 

complete. This general management plan will 

apply those final determinations of national 

register eligibility and period of significance 

when they become available. 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES 

According to the National Park Service’s 

Cultural Resource Management Guideline (DO 

28), a cultural landscape is 

 . . . a reflection of human adaptation and 

use of natural resources and is often 

expressed in the way land is organized and 

divided, patterns of settlement, land use, 

systems of circulation, and the types of 

structures that are built. The character of a 

cultural landscape is defined both by 

physical materials, such as roads, buildings, 

walls, and vegetation, and by use reflecting 

cultural values and traditions. 

Cultural landscapes are the result of the 

long interaction between man and the land, 

the influence of human beliefs and actions 

over time upon the natural landscape. 

Shaped through time by historical land-use 

and management practices, as well as 

politics and property laws, levels of 

technology, and economic conditions, 

cultural landscapes provide a living record 

of an area’s past, a visual chronicle of its 

history. The dynamic nature of modern 

human life, however, contributes to the 

continual reshaping of cultural landscapes; 

making them a good source of information 

about specific times and places, but at the 

same time rendering their long-term 

preservation a challenge. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

174 

The Cultural Landscapes Inventory is a 

comprehensive inventory of all historically 

significant landscapes in the national park 

system. This evaluated inventory identifies 

and documents each landscape’s location, 

physical development, significance, national 

register eligibility, condition, integrity, and 

current management. Inventoried landscapes 

are listed in or eligible for listing in the 

national register or are otherwise managed as 

cultural resources. To automate the inventory, 

the Cultural Landscapes Automated Inventory 

Management System was established in 1996 

and provides an analytical tool for evaluating 

information associated with the Cultural 

Landscapes Inventory. 

For the purposes of the Cultural Landscapes 

Inventory, the Blue Ridge Parkway as a whole 

is classified as a cultural landscape as a historic 

designed landscape that reflects national 

trends in landscape architecture, architecture, 

and engineering. Recreational areas, mile 

markers, historic canal locks, views of 

waterfalls, scenic easements, open fields, and 

high mountain landscapes all fall under the 

umbrella of the greater parkway landscape. 

A Blue Ridge Parkway Cultural Landscapes 

Inventory conducted in 2001 (Lawliss and 

Hasty) and 2002 (Hasty) identified 16 primary 

cultural landscapes and 25 corresponding 

component landscapes within the parkway, 

shown in table 26 below. To date, the cultural 

landscapes report for the Mt. Pisgah 

Developed Area has been completed and the 

other cultural landscapes reports are in 

various states of completion. This general 

management plan incorporates the findings 

and recommendations of those reports. 

Component landscapes and features are 

continuing to be added to the parkway with 

new purchases and donations of land to 

protect the views from the parkway. 

Currently, identified landscapes and 

component landscapes in the parkway 

landscape include the following. 

TABLE 26. IDENTIFIED CULTURAL LANDSCAPES AND COMPONENT LANDSCAPES BY PARKWAY DISTRICT

District Landscapes Component Landscapes Cultural Landscapes 

Report (CLR) Status 

Pisgah

Mt. Pisgah Developed Area 

Buck Springs Overlook 

Pisgah Inn 

Mt. Pisgah Campground 

Mt. Pisgah Picnic Area 

CLR complete 

Craggy Gardens 

Craggy Gardens Visitor Center 

Craggy Pinnacle 

Craggy Gardens Picnic Area 

Incomplete 

Black 

Mountain

Crabtree Falls 

Museum of North Carolina 

Minerals 

Linville Falls 

n/a Incomplete 

Highlands

Cumberland Knob 

E.B. Jeffress Park 

Moses H. Cone Estate Julian Price 

Memorial Park 

n/a Incomplete but CLR 

underway 

Doughton Park 

Brinegar Cabin 

Bluffs Lodge 

Bluffs Picnic Area 

Doughton Park Campground 

Caudill Family Homestead 

Bluffs Coffee Shop and Service 

Station 

Doughton Park Maintenance 

Area 

Incomplete but CLR 

underway 
Cultural Resources 

175 

TABLE 26. IDENTIFIED CULTURAL LANDSCAPES AND COMPONENT LANDSCAPES BY PARKWAY DISTRICT

District Landscapes Component Landscapes Cultural Landscapes 

Report (CLR) Status 

Plateau

Rocky Knob, Mabry Mill 

Smart View 

Harris Farm 

Kelley School 

Incomplete 

Ridge

Peaks of Otter 

Peaks of Otter Lodge 

Sharp Top Tour Road 

Peaks of Otter Visitor Center 

John T. Johnson Farm 

Peaks of Otter Picnic Area 

Peaks of Otter Campground 

Saunders Farm 

Incomplete but CLR 

underway 

James River n/a Incomplete 

Otter Creek n/a Incomplete 

Whetstone Ridge n/a Incomplete 

Humpback Rocks n/a Incomplete but CLR 

underway 

In March 2003, Scenic America, a national 

nonprofit organization dedicated to 

preserving and enhancing the scenic character 

of America’s communities and countryside, 

designated a 28-mile section of the parkway 

road in Roanoke County between mileposts 

108.3 and 136.4 as one of 10 “last chance 

landscapes” in the United States. As defined 

by that organization, a “last chance landscape” 

is a place of beauty or distinctive community 

character that “faces imminent and potentially 

irrevocable harm.” Through such designation 

Scenic America seeks to encourage local, state, 

and national efforts to preserve the scenic 

beauty of landscapes before their scenic values 

are destroyed by development. Since 2003, a 

partnership of the National Park Service, 

Roanoke County, FRIENDS of the Blue Ridge 

Parkway, and Western Virginia Land Trust 

developed a proactive strategy to protect 

critical viewsheds and private acreage. Since 

then, several conservation easements 

adjoining or near the parkway have been 

established (Goodman and Scheid 2010). 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

No archeological overview and assessment 

has been conducted for the parkway. Instead, 

the need for legal compliance related to 

development projects in the parkway has 

prompted the bulk of the parkway’s 

archeological surveys and excavations 

(Hammersten 1987:2). This has led to the 

recordation of 117 archeological sites within 

the parkway boundary to date. Of these, one 

prehistoric site is recommended eligible for 

listing in the national register, two sites are 

recommended not eligible, and the remaining 

144 recorded sites are unevaluated. 

Examples of Archeological 

Investigations 

Susan Hammersten (1987) provides an 

overview from Paleoindian times through 

Archaic and Woodland times into the historic 

period; David Bushnell excavated an “ancient 

Indian settlement” in the 1930s, and the 

findings were published in 1940. Fluted 

Folsom projectile points of Bushnell’s work 

provide the basis of Paleoindian association 

(Wild 1991) although some archeologists such 

as Hammersten (1987:15) hold that the Early 

Archaic is the earliest period for human 

occupation of the Blue Ridge area, including 

the dating of these fluted points. 

Burton Purrington (1973) conducted 

investigations of Archaic and Woodland 

period rock shelters showing successive 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

176 

occupation. Ellen Ehrenhard (1977) 

investigated an Archaic site known for its 

projectile points and other lithic tools. 

Occupation here continued into Woodland 

times, showing ceramic variety in household 

containers. This may be an important village 

site with time depth. 

Elizabeth Horvath and George Smith (1990) 

conducted archeological investigations related 

to the Roanoke River and late prehistoric and 

historic habitation, including a prehistoric 

quartz quarry. John Cornelison (1993) tested 

rock shelters in the Fisher Peak area and 

found projectile points, ceramics, and 

carbonized corncobs. The time range related 

to the Archaic and Woodland periods. 

Brief Overview of Time Periods and 

Site Types 

In addition to isolated finds of projectile 

points, campsites, habitation sites, and even 

village sites have been found. Prehistorically 

and historically, settlement tended to be in 

valleys and along water ways with hunting 

spots on the mountain sides. The parkway 

offers a potentially rich variety of future 

archeological studies. Possible topics of 

archeological investigation include 

Paleoindian, Archaic, and Woodland 

indigenous occupations, historic settlement 

patterns, and perhaps even the construction 

of the parkway itself. 

National Register of Historic Places 

Status 

Of the 117 archeological sites recorded in the 

parkway, several archeological sites have been 

identified as potentially eligible, pending 

evaluation. 

The Paleoindian or Early Archaic site 

excavated by David Bushnell (1940) could be 

eligible for the national register. Its eligibility 

potential needs to be evaluated. 

Burton Purrington’s 1973 rock shelter sites of 

the Archaic and Woodland periods showing 

different occupations over time are potentially 

eligible for the national register because the 

vertical layers offer time-depth information 

and implications about cultural development 

and change. The same may be said for the 

Ellen Ehrenhard (1977) Archaic–Woodland 

site, which is potentially eligible for the 

national register because of its possible 

significance as a village site over time. 

The 1990 Roanoke River sites of the 

investigations of Elizabeth Horvath and 

George Smith are potentially eligible for the 

national register. The late prehistoric and 

historic habitation sites need further 

evaluation. 

The sites of John Cornelison’s 1993 rock 

shelter work are examples considered 

ineligible for the national register because the 

lack of stratification reduces the potential for 

discovering future information. 

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES 

Introduction 

Ethnographic resources are any “site, 

structure, objects, landscape, or natural 

resource feature assigned traditional 

legendary, religious, subsistence, or other 

significance in the cultural system of a group 

traditionally associated with it” (DO 28: 

Cultural Resource Management Guideline.) 

Starting from the present and going back in 

time for the continuity of at least two 

generations, ethnographic resources are 

identified with peoples, tribes, or groups, 

including families and communities, 

traditionally associated with the Blue Ridge 

Parkway. 

The Blue Ridge Parkway currently has a draft 

ethnographic overview and assessment that 

lists over 95 sites along the parkway corridor 

as possible ethnographic resources. 

As defined by the National Park Service, an 

ethnographic overview and assessment 

"emphasizes the review and analysis of 

accessible archival and documentary data on 
Cultural Resources 

177 

park ethnographic resources and the groups 

who traditionally define such cultural and 

natural features as significant to their ethnic 

heritage and cultural viability. Limited 

interviews and discussions occur with the 

traditionally associated people in order to 

supplement and assess the documentary 

evidence and identify gaps in the available 

data" (DO 28: Cultural Resource Management 

Guideline). In this definition, the term 

"traditionally" has a precise meaning. It refers 

only to peoples who are "the contemporary 

park neighbors and ethnic or occupational 

communities that have been associated with a 

park for two or more generations (40 years), 

and whose interests in the park’s resources 

began prior to the park’s establishment" (NPS 

Management Policies, chapter 5). Such 

individuals may include people who actually 

reside next to parks, as well as people who 

trace their heritage to natural or cultural 

resources managed by parks. 

The primary purpose of the study is to 

document such places along the entire length 

of the 469-mile Blue Ridge Parkway and 

discuss the local people who identify with 

each of them. Special attention was given to 

communities previously located in whole or in 

part on lands that are currently part of the 

parkway. 

Specifically, this project particularly highlights 

the following tasks: 

 Reconstruct through oral history 

baseline ethnographic information on 

the life ways and community structures 

of people living along the Blue Ridge 

Parkway at the time the parkway was 

built. 

 Assess through oral history perceived 

social and cultural impacts of the 

establishment of the parkway. 

 Summarize and synthesize existing 

ethnographic resources pertaining to 

traditionally associated communities, 

drawing primarily from published 

sources clarified by limited ethnographic 

interviewing to fill in gaps in the 

documentary record. 

 Assess the utility of available 

ethnographic data for park management: 

identify significant gaps in the data for 

projected park needs and focus on park 

needs, but remain open to the discovery 

of new and significant resources. 

 Identify traditionally associated 

communities and define their 

membership according to a variety of 

possible factors including geography, 

occupation, age grade, seasonal use, 

income level, recreational use, racial 

identity, national origins, ethnicity, 

religious practice, or other variables 

(NPS 2004a). 

The ethnographic overview and assessment 

identifies the following specific ethnographic 

themes.

The Social Context of the Blue Ridge 

Parkway’s Managed Rural 

Landscapes 

The Blue Ridge Parkway is not a park in the 

normal sense of the term. Neither “park” nor 

“road,” the Blue Ridge Parkway was 

constructed to present an image of the region, 

a series of picture-postcard views and scenes 

depicting a distinctive part of the country. It 

crosses through pastures and farms, 

incorporating ancestral home-places, 

cemeteries, and other vernacular architecture 

into its design. The close connection between 

the design of the parkway and the actual lives 

of local people are its agricultural leases, 

which serve as both a visual and ethnographic 

connection between the parkway and the 

local people who maintain its agricultural 

scenes. The parkway also reframed cemeteries 

and churches in ways that local people value 

and would like maintained. Even sites 

assembled by the parkway—like Mabry Mill 

or Humpback Rocks Farm Museum—have 

become embedded in local culture in a way 

that makes them “ethnographic,” even if they 

did not exist in exactly the same form prior to 

the creation of Blue Ridge Parkway. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

178 

Agricultural Leases as Ethnographic 

Resources 

Agricultural leases are a unique kind of 

cultural resource. Through these leases, ties 

with particular local families have created a 

legacy of shared work towards a common goal 

that resonates not only with the original 

landscape design of the Blue Ridge Parkway, 

but also with the agrarian ideals of many local 

people. At the same time, agricultural leases 

are clearly important both to the Blue Ridge 

Parkway and to the leaseholders who, in many 

cases, have maintained them for generations. 

Moreover, many current leases were held as 

private agricultural land by ancestors of 

current leaseholders prior to the 

establishment of the Blue Ridge Parkway and 

continue to have meaning to those local 

families as part of their traditional way of life. 

Thus, many of these agricultural leases might 

be considered “ethnographic landscapes” that 

the Blue Ridge Parkway and local people have 

worked to create and perpetuate for the last 

75 years. 

Traditionally Associated Peoples of 

the Blue Ridge Parkway 

National Park Service policy defines 

“traditionally associated people” as “groups 

associated with particular parks [who] 

typically assign significance to places closely 

linked with their own sense of purpose, 

existence as a community, and development 

as ethnically distinctive peoples.” This 

definition is also based on an ongoing cultural 

connection with a park’s “ethnographic 

resources,” which can be problematic for the 

Blue Ridge Parkway, which has for the past 75 

years has presented its own vision of the 

people of the Blue Ridge Mountains. This 

project focuses on the local groups who 

would seem to have relatively obvious cultural 

connections to parkway resources, whether or 

not those connections fit the precise 

definitions of policy and law. This chapter 

provides a discussion of the published 

ethnographically oriented materials 

concerning specific local communitiesas 

well as fieldwork-generated interviews and 

observationsand “identifies new data 

needs.” Other groups could be added to this 

list as ethnographic research continues.

Nature and Culture in the Blue Ridge 

Mountains 

Human-caused ecological changes continue 

to dramatically alter the landscape of the Blue 

Ridge Mountains. Nowhere is this more 

apparent than in the recent land-use changes 

connected with the growth of Roanoke, 

Boone, and Asheville. Farm scenes have been 

replaced with manufactured housing. 

Agricultural leases have been abandoned or 

converted from pasture and cropland to 

hayfields. In response, trees have been planted 

to screen neighboring subdivisions or lightindustrial areas, creating a “green tunnel” of 

leafy foliage where expansive views of 

adjacent pastures and farms once 

predominated. Although these recent landuse changes are certainly dramatic, previous 

land uses and ways of life also left their marks, 

both on the land and in the memories and 

traditions of people living today. 

From the perspective of historical ecology, the 

Blue Ridge Parkway’s systematic landscape 

architectural landscape design is only one way 

that people have actively changed landscapes 

in the Blue Ridge Mountains. Understanding 

the connection of these changing landscapes 

to local people should help the Blue Ridge 

Parkway fulfill its goal of perpetuating a 

“managed countryside” because it helps to 

explain how local people have themselves 

managed changing landscapes through the 

years. 

Given the length of the parkway and the 

number of culturally meaningful places to the 

thousands of people who might somehow be 

considered traditionally associated with it, the 

ethnographic overview and assessment should 

be seen as only a first step. Still, it does 

provide a documentation and initial 

assessment of the ethnographic resources in 

this very large and popular National Park 

Service unit. It also discusses the unique 

relationships that exist between the Blue 
Cultural Resources 

179 

Ridge Parkway and the people of the Blue 

Ridge Mountains based on the parkway’s 

mission to “conserve, interpret, and exhibit 

the unique natural and cultural resources of 

the central and southern Appalachian 

Mountains” (Blue Ridge Parkway 2003). 

National Register of Historic Places 

Status 

No ethnographic resources have been 

formally nominated for listing in the national 

register as a traditional cultural property. A 

traditional cultural property is defined as a 

resource that is eligible for inclusion in the 

national register because of its association 

with cultural practices or beliefs of a living 

community that are rooted in that 

community's history and are important in 

maintaining the continuing cultural identity of 

the community. 
180 

VISUAL RESOURCES (SCENERY AND VIEWSHED) 

A DESIGNED LANDSCAPE 

Scenery was a major political determinant in 

the location and design of the Blue Ridge 

Parkway. As a matter of road design, scenic 

features and views were emphasized by 

alignment of the roadway and placement of 

overlook parking areas and maintained 

roadside vistas. A key component of the 

parkway road’s design is its breathtaking 

scenic views of lands beyond its boundary. As 

the parkway road winds through hundreds of 

miles of Appalachian mountain landscape, the 

views continually change. Many of the scenes 

are of agriculture and farming, the Blue Ridge 

escarpment to valleys below, or serene waves 

of mountain ridges stretching to the horizon. 

The parkway faces threats to its viewshed 

from the following: 

 Increasingly, people are locating their 

homes on steep slopes within view of the 

parkway. 

 Recent surveys have shown that there is 

potential over the next 10 years for an 

additional 20,000 homes to be 

constructed within view of the parkway. 

 Telecommunication companies may 

need 225 sites on or near the parkway 

within five years, creating a deleterious 

visual impact with cell phone towers. 

 Large scale commercial and residential 

wind energy systems are being proposed 

on ridge tops within view of parkway 

overlooks and roadside vistas. 

 Surrounding forests are mature and 

prime for pulpwood harvest. 

 Vegetation is filling in areas that once 

were open. 

Agricultural views are the fastest changing 

scenes in America and the most likely to be 

adversely affected by suburban and rural 

residential development. Since 1948, 75% of 

farmlands along the parkway have been 

converted to other uses. In North Carolina, 

10,000 farm acres remain along the parkway, 

down from 48,000 in 1948. Almost all of the 

agricultural views along the parkway are 

found in the Plateau, Highlands, and northern 

portion of the Black Mountain segments. 

Ever-increasing urban development also 

degrades the quality of natural and pastoral 

rural views in the Roanoke and Asheville 

segments. 

Air pollution also has dramatic impact on 

scenic quality. The effect of air pollution is 

most visible in the Ridge and Pisgah segments. 

Views from the Pisgah segment are less than 

11 miles on average in the summer. Historic 

summertime views in this region are estimated 

to have been between 60 and 90 miles. 

Unfortunately, air pollution is mostly beyond 

the parkway’s control. A regional and national 

focus on air pollution is needed to preserve 

these views from further degradation. The 

parkway can be proactive in educating the 

adjacent communities about ways that they 

can help alleviate this problem. 

Vistas along the road have changed over time; 

this is to be expected at some level. It is well 

known that when the parkway was first 

envisioned, many areas that were adjacent to 

the road had been logged or otherwise 

effected by economic activities that had been 

taking place in the Appalachian region. In 

some sense, the creation of the parkway was 

devoted to a restoration of the pastoral and 

forest scenes as they were envisioned by 

parkway landscape architects and staff 

agronomists. 

Addressing the changes in scenic quality 

requires that the parkway allocate scarce staff 

resources to view conservation, such as for 

monitoring view quality, reviewing and 

providing comments on proposed land use 

development, increased vegetation 

management, and purchasing conservation 

easements or land. Parkway managers 

currently manage an agricultural leasing 

program of over 500 leases, helping the 

parkway maintain its rural scenery. Continued 

efforts with community groups and 
Visual Resources 

181 

government officials in surrounding counties 

are critical to maintaining the scenic quality of 

the vistas as originally intended by the 

parkway’s landscape architects. The Blue 

Ridge Parkway has remained an icon of 

stability and continuity, even as its 

surrounding environs have changed 

dramatically. 

As demonstrated by the viewshed issue, many 

of the challenges facing the parkway are a 

result of external change, not only financial 

constraints. The future of the parkway would 

be determined by its ability to adapt to these 

changes. Armed with a motivated 

constituency, a dedicated staff, committed 

partners, and millions of repeat visitors, the 

parkway will continue to be a treasure in the 

national park system. 

AUTHORITY FOR CONSERVING 

SCENERY 

The conservation of scenery is established in 

the NPS Organic Act and is reaffirmed by the 

General Authorities Act, as amended, 

Management Policies 2006 (section 1.4.6 and 

4.0) and more specifically articulated for the 

Blue Ridge Parkway in the parkway’s enabling 

legislation (PL 848, June 30, 1936) and its 

legislative history. Scenery is considered to be 

a “core value” of the Blue Ridge Parkway 

based upon an analysis of the parkway’s 

legislative history and by the definition of 

what a parkway is as a national park system 

unit. 

On April 23, 1936, in a letter to the Chairman 

of the Committee on Public Lands in the 

House of Representatives, Secretary of the 

Interior Harold L. Ickes stated, “Standards for 

parkway right-of-way acquisition embodying 

necessary traffic, scenic and recreation 

features...and certain areas adjacent to the 

parkway present fine possibilities of scenic or 

recreational development for the benefit of 

the public . . .” On April 29, 1936, the House of 

Representatives Report No. 2544 stated, “The 

purpose of the Blue Ridge Parkway is to 

provide a connection scenic highway and 

adjacent roadside recreational area between 

the Shenandoah National Park in Virginia, 

and the Great Smoky Mountains National 

Park in North Carolina and Tennessee.” 

Detailed discussion of the role of scenery as a 

determinant in the location and design of a 

parkway is contained in the National 

Parkways Handbook (NPS Release No. 1, June 

1964). By NPS definition the Blue Ridge 

Parkway as a national rural parkway is a 

federally owned, elongated park featuring a 

road designed for pleasure travel and 

embracing scenic, recreational, and historic 

features of national significance. As a matter 

of design, scenic features and views were 

made available “... by aiming the main 

roadway at them for windshield views, by vista 

clearing for window views . . . Since much of 

the pleasure of riding along the parkway road 

is gained from the near and far [view]scapes, 

vistas must be planned and maintained...” 

(Handbook chapter 4, page 2). Design of the 

parkway followed this principle as 264 paved 

parking overlooks, some 860 maintained 

vistas, and over 400 agricultural lease views 

were developed and have been maintained 

since 1936. The opportunity for visitors to 

experience scenery is a primary objective for a 

national parkway. 

Three of the four parkway purpose statements 

reference scenery and they are as follows: 

 Connect Shenandoah and Great Smoky 

Mountains national parks by way of a 

“national rural parkway”—a destination 

and recreational motor road that passes 

through a variety of scenic ridge, 

mountainside, and pastoral farm 

landscapes. 

 Conserve the scenery and preserve the 

natural and cultural resources of the 

parkway’s designed and natural areas. 

 Provide opportunities for high quality 

and recreational experiences along the 

parkway and within the corridor 

through which it passes. 

The route of the Blue Ridge Parkway follows 

mountain and valley landscapes to link 

Shenandoah and Great Smoky Mountains 

national parks. Its location was selected to 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

182 

provide the best in a variety of scenic, historic, 

and natural features that evoke the regional 

image of the central and southern 

Appalachian Mountains. To maximize scenic 

views and give visitors the impression that 

they are in a park with boundaries to the 

horizon, the parkway is in mountainous 

terrain that normal roads would have avoided. 

One of the parkway’s significance statements 

summarizes the importance of scenery: 

The Blue Ridge Parkway was the first 

national rural parkway to be conceived, 

designed, and constructed for a leisurely 

driving experience. Its varied topography 

and numerous vista points offer easy 

public access to spectacular views of 

central and southern Appalachian rural 

landscapes and forested mountains. 

Scenery Conservation 

The parkway has developed a Scenery 

Conservation System to provide direction for 

inventory, analysis, and protection planning 

for desired conditions. This system is 

designed to maintain or improve the scenic 

landscape character and level of scenic quality 

of landscape areas viewed from parkway 

overlooks, vistas, and agricultural openings. 

The system is an ongoing monitoring and 

implementation process. Scenic views and 

corridor landscape character contribute to the 

national significance of the parkway. Scenic 

resource management for the parkway is 

accomplished in a corridor context with the 

goal of conserving the scenic quality of view 

areas within and beyond the parkway 

boundary. The Scenery Conservation System 

is also used in the parkway’s land protection 

program to identify and establish priorities for 

purchasing tract of land or conservation 

easements on land to protect scenic views 

with a scenic quality rating of moderate to 

high. 

The parkway’s Scenery Conservation System 

is used to assess potential proximity impacts, 

those changes to parkway view areas caused 

by land use change or development activities 

that are in close physical proximity to visitors 

experiencing the park. Over 500,000 acres of 

the scenery that is visible within a mile to each 

side of the parkway road is not administered 

by the National Park Service. About 70% of 

this land is primarily in private ownership. Of 

visitors who were surveyed for the Scenic 

Experience Project (2002–2003), 95% stated 

that viewing scenery is a primary reason they 

visit the parkway. Given the design intent of 

the parkway and the visitors’ stated primary 

purpose for driving the parkway road to view 

scenery, conservation of views is an important 

mission-based goal for NPS management. 

Created in 2008, The Blue Ridge Parkway 

Scenery Conservation System Guidebook is 

used by park staff to inventory, analyze, and 

conserve scenic values of more than 1,200 

scenic view areas seen from parkway parking 

overlooks and roadside vistas. Scenery 

conservation has evolved over the past 20 

years from various research and landscape 

management projects. 

Scenery conservation works with the idea of a 

“Borrowed Landscape.” Maintaining scenery 

viewed from overlooks and along the parkway 

road involves working with 29 county 

governments, private landowners, developers, 

and other agencies. Because the scenery is 

borrowed from adjacent lands that are not 

administered by the National Park Service, the 

parkway’s scenery system is not a direct 

control “management” system.

The parkway’s scenery conservation program 

involves performing inventory that seeks to 

identify visual preferences and landscape 

character types, along with determining 

viewshed sensitivity while mapping view 

areas. Analysis is provided through an 

assessment of view area scenic quality. 

Identification of the desired future 

conservation objectives is key to protection 

planning. A monitoring and implementation 

program seeks to maintain desired conditions. 

The data gathered throughout this process 

provides information to planning staff and 

leads to rational decisions relative to scenery 

as a key part of the parkway’s mission. 
Visual Resources 

183 

Parkway staff assess and maintain information 

on visitor visual preferences, landscape 

character, visual sensitivity, mapped views, 

visual impacts, digital landscape modeling, 

and scenic quality. Parkway staff also assess 

how visitors interact with the views along the 

parkway road. 

Desired Future Conservation 

Objectives 

After view areas have been mapped in terms of 

location and extent and their current scenic 

quality has been determined, desired future 

landscape character conditions are developed. 

Desired future conditions establish long-range 

scenery conservation objectives for each view 

area. The conservation objectives assist staff 

with setting land protection and acquisition 

priorities, evaluating proposed changes to 

view area landscapes, and defining mitigations 

to minimize development impacts. 

Monitoring and Implementation 

Parkway staff involved in monitoring and 

implementation of the scenery conservation 

program must pay attention to activities on 

lands adjacent to the parkway boundary in 

order to identify changes that would alter the 

character and scenic quality of a view area. 

They consult with landowners and developers 

when asked to participate in their projects to 

provide site planning recommendations and 

impact mitigations; identify willing sellers and 

work to purchase fee simple and/or less than 

fee simple interests in lands. Lastly, staff work 

with county and other municipality staffs to 

provide review and comment on land use 

planning activities and development projects 

proposed within a view area. 

When a change to a view area is proposed the 

potential impacts are assessed for impacts 

based on established indicators and criteria. 

The parkway's scenic resource conservation 

system is used to assess potential proximal 

impacts. This includes changes to parkway 

view areas caused by land use change or 

development that are in close physical 

proximity to visitors experiencing the park. 

Proximal impacts considered in the evaluation 

of impacts potentially affecting the landscape 

character and scenic quality and the parkway's 

cumulative corridor scenic integrity are visual 

sensitivity and the scale and mass of change. 
184 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

INTRODUCTION 

This section describes aspects of visitor use 

and experience that may be affected by the 

management alternatives and zone 

prescriptions. Due to the wide variety of 

visitor use at the parkway, there is not a 

detailed discussion of all visitor use activities. 

Most discussion of visitor use related to visitor 

traffic is addressed under the “Traffic and 

Transportation” section. There is some 

potential overlap on related topics. 

The following topics match the subtopics 

analyzed in “Chapter 4: Environmental 

Consequences.” Information about each topic 

corresponds to the type and level of impacts 

addressed in chapter 4. 

 Visitor use levels and trends 

 Visitor characteristics 

 Recreational opportunities (such as 

scenic driving, bicycling; recreation 

areas, trail-based activities; camping, 

lodging and other concession services) 

 Opportunities for orientation, 

interpretation, education 

 Opportunities to experience natural 

soundscapes 

 Visitor circulation and parking 

 Visitor perceptions of crowding 

 Visitor safety 

Most of the information used in the initial 

analysis of visitor use for this plan was 

collected from the NPS Visitor Statistics 

Office, the Visitor Survey Study Completion 

Report (University of Vermont (UVM) 2002), 

and the Transportation System Data Analysis 

(David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) 2004). 

Subsequent information was integrated from 

other sources, as appropriate, including the 

Blue Ridge Parkway Visitor Study (NPS Visitor 

Services Project, 2007/2008). 

VISITOR USE LEVELS AND TRENDS 

The Blue Ridge Parkway is the most visited 

unit in the national park system. The parkway 

experienced a steady increase in visits from 

16.1 million in 1989 to 21.5 million in 2002, an 

increase of 2.2% compounded annually. Since 

reaching an all-time high in 2002, visitation 

has dropped in the following years, with 2010 

visitation of 14.5 million close to levels last 

seen in the early 1990s. This corresponds with 

an overall decline in visitation to national 

parks around the country. There is not a clear 

consensus as to the cause for the decline, but 

many suggest broader political, social, and 

economic events played a role in reduced 

tourism to many of these national attractions. 

For the purpose of this document, a “visitor” 

is defined as anyone who visits the parkway 

for recreational use. It does not include those 

who use the parkway for nonrecreational 

purposes, such as commuting. Visitor use 

levels are estimated by the National Park 

Service using traffic volumes collected at 

permanent road counters along the parkway. 

The National Park Service then converts the 

number of vehicles to recreational visits using 

a standard vehicle occupancy value of 2.5 

people per vehicle. Therefore, visitation levels 

and traffic volumes follow the same trends. 

See figure 15 for annual recreational visitation 

totals from each of the last 30 years. An 

estimate of nonrecreational trips is removed 

from the overall visitation to determine these 

levels (figure 16). 
Visitor Use and Experience 

185 

FIGURE 15. ANNUAL RECREATIONAL VISITORS AT BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY

Source: National Park Service, Public Use Statistics Office, 2009. 

FIGURE 16. PRIMARY PURPOSE OF VISIT

Source: UVM 2002. 

The peak season for travel along the parkway 

is generally between May and October due to 

the summer vacation season and in October 

for viewing fall foliage. As shown in figure 17, 

there were some appreciable changes in the 

monthly visitation pattern between 2002 and 

2008. While visitation totals during the winter 

were approximately equal, summer visitation 

decreased by almost 25%, perhaps due to the 

same factors previously described that caused 

a decline in park service wide visitation. 

In the winter, recreational visitation declines 

substantially and the parkway is not 

maintained like a general highway system. 

With the occurrence of snow and ice, there 

are unscheduled road closures. These 

seasonal closures affect mostly the local 

nonrecreational user. Because the parkway is 

not meant to function as a regional 

transportation route, there are alternate 

routes available and the road closures are 

considered acceptable. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

186 

FIGURE 17. VARIATION IN SEASONAL VISITATION

Source: National Park Service, Public Use Statistics Office, 2009. 

Based on the past 30-year trends in visitation 

shown in figure 15, it is likely that the 

parkway’s visitation will hold relatively steady 

during the next 25 years. However, it is 

possible that visitation may slightly increase in 

the coming years due to the influence of the 

surrounding region’s projected population 

growth (see figure 27 in the socioeconomic 

section). 

VISITOR CHARACTERISTICS 

A survey conducted by the University of 

Vermont during the summer of 2002 (Visitor 

Survey Study Completion Report) sampled 11 

locations along the parkway, including visitor 

centers and overlooks. These sampling 

locations included the following: Peaks of 

Otter, Rocky Knob, Cumberland Knob, 

Moses H. Cone, Julian Price, Linn Cove, 

Linville Falls, Folk Art Center, Graveyard 

Fields, Looking Glass Rock, and Waterrock 

Knob. A total of 1,378 visitor groups were 

asked to participate and 991 questionnaires 

were completed. Although this survey only 

represents a snapshot in time, it does provide 

useful insights into the characteristics of those 

visiting the parkway. 

Group Size and Composition, Age 

Distribution, and the Origin of 

Visitors 

According to the 2002 survey, most visitors 

come to the parkway in small groups of two or 

three people, with an average group size of 2.5 

people. Of these groups, the majority are 

families (69%) and friends (16%). Other types 

include church groups, youth groups, clubs, 

and commercial tours. Visitors reported an 

average age of 47 years old. See figure 18 for 

the age distribution of visitors based on the 

study. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

187 

FIGURE 18. AGE DISTRIBUTION OF VISITORS

Source: UVM 2002. 

A large majority of visitors (97%) reported 

that they were from the United States. Of 

those, most were from North Carolina (35%), 

Florida (14%), and Virginia (10%). Most 

foreign visitors were from the United 

Kingdom (28%), Canada (14%), and Germany 

(10%). 

Length of Stay and Repeat Visitors 

According to the 2002 survey, visitors tend to 

stay on the parkway for one to three days with 

an average trip length of 2.1 days. Fewer than 

half of the respondents (48%) stayed only one 

day. Respondents were also asked to record 

the number of times they have previously 

visited the parkway. Visitors responded that 

they have visited an average of 21 times. The 

vast majority of repeat visitors said that they 

live in Virginia and North Carolina and that 

on average they have been to the parkway 38 

times. Whereas, out-of-state visitors said that 

they have been to the parkway an average of 

eight times. The high number of repeat visits is 

unique for the parkway compared to other 

national park units. This may be due in part to 

the expansiveness of the parkway (which can 

require multiple trips to see all of it) and its 

use by local residents who frequent it for day 

use recreation. 

Frequency of Recreation Areas 

Visited 

Based on the Visitor Survey Study (UV 2002), 

the five most frequently reported places 

visited along the parkway were Linville Falls 

(40% of respondents said they visited or 

planned to visit this area), Linn Cove Viaduct 

(36%), Moses H. Cone (34%), Folk Art Center 

(33%), and Mt. Pisgah (33%). Figure 19 shows 

the frequency of these and other parkway 

recreation areas visited, based on visitor 

responses. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

188 

FIGURE 19. FREQUENCY (%) OF PARKWAY RECREATION AREAS VISITED

Source: UVM 2002. 

Vehicle Types 

Although recreational trips comprise the 

majority of parkway use, nonrecreational trips 

comprise a substantial amount of traffic 

traveling the parkway, especially between 

Interstate 77 and Roanoke (49% of trips are 

nonrecreational in the Roanoke and Plateau 

segments). Nearby residents use the parkway 

for local access and this commuter traffic adds 

pressure to parkway use (DEA 2004). Park 

staff note that some commuters prefer to use 

the parkway as a “nice” drive to work and 

landowners in proximity to the parkway want 

to maintain local traffic access. High levels of 

nonrecreational use of the parkway can affect 

visitor experience. Recreational visitors feel 

some areas are too congested due to local 

traffic and resent congestion where local road 

connections are used. However, some visitors 

enjoy the ability to frequently exit the 

parkway for services. Many visitors 

acknowledge the need for more parkway 

infrastructure, but do not want to alter the 

parkway’s natural features or rural feeling 

(NPS 2008b). 

As described in the “Transportation” section, 

no commercial truck traffic is allowed on the 

parkway, and no transit services are provided. 

In keeping with its designation as a scenic 

parkway and emphasis on the driving 

experience, the vast majority of vehicles are 

passenger vehicles (79%), followed by 
Visitor Use and Experience 

189 

motorcycles (12%), which constitute a much 

higher percentage than the general motorcycle 

population. Park staff has noted a substantial 

increase in motorcycle use of the parkway. 

Other motorists tend to dislike the number of 

motorcycles and the noise they emit. 

Complaints about speeding (the parkway’s 

speed limit is 35 to 45 mph), illegally altered 

exhausts, and dangerous behavior related to 

motorcyclists have become very common and 

can affect the visitor experience. As noted in 

the “Transportation” section, many parkway 

accidents involve motorcycles, particularly in 

the southern section where the roadway 

geometry is more varied and includes 

descending radius curves. 

Travel Patterns 

Due to the length of the parkway, the number 

of access points, and the very large region that 

is within a day’s drive, the combination of 

possible travel patterns is immense. However, 

some of the typical foci of traffic is via the 

interstates and major urban areas. This is 

reflected in traffic data and visitor survey 

information. For more information about the 

road systems used by visitors to access the 

park, refer to the Traffic and Transportation 

discussion. 

The 2007/2008 NPS visitor survey asked 

visitors how often their group entered the 

parkway during their visit. In the summer, 

40% entered only once, and 45% entered two 

to four times. In the fall, visitors had similar 

responses, with 45% entering once, and 43% 

entering two to four times. 

Visitors were asked where they first entered 

the parkway and where they last exited (see 

table 27). The most frequently mentioned 

locations are listed below, with the parkway’s 

north and south entrances, Roanoke, Fancy 

Gap (I-77), Boone/Blowing Rock, and 

Asheville, being the most frequent locations. 

TABLE 27. MOST FREQUENT FIRST ENTRY AND LAST EXIT LOCATIONS

(NUMBER OF SURVEY RESPONSES) 

Location First Entry Last Exit 

Virginia Summer Fall Summer Fall 

Milepost 0 67 80 53 61 

Shenandoah National Park/Skyline 

Drive 36 62 36 22 

Bedford/Buchanan/Peaks of Otter 32 23 32 26 

James River/Otter 

Creek/Lynchburg/Big Island 18 15 14 10 

Roanoke/Vinton 27 57 no data 53 

Christiansburg/Floyd 11 28 16 30 

Meadows of Dan/Mabry Mill 24 22 20 19 

Fancy Gap/Hillsville 49 44 33 35 

State Route18/89 Virginia (VA) / 

North Carolina (NC) Line 7 15 7 7 

North Carolina Summer Fall Summer Fall 

NC 21/Roaring Gap/Sparta 6 15 44 13 

U.S. 221 no data no data no data 427 

Boone/Blowing Rock 84 133 73 145 

NC 181/Pineola/Linville Falls/Linville 23 34 20 40 

Little Switzerland 3 12 4 23 

NC 226/Gillespie Gap/Spruce Pine 11 19 15 14 

Asheville 146 285 137 245 

Milepost 469/Cherokee 57 41 50 49 

Balsam Gap/Waynesville/Sylva 26 40 25 32 

Great Smoky Mountain National Park 26 22 18 37 

NC19/Maggie Valley 19 12 13 11 

Source: NPS Visitor Survey, 2007/2008. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

190 

The following table lists the most common 

trips reported in the 2002 roadside survey. 

TABLE 28. TRAVEL PATTERNS—MOST COMMON TRIPS

Trip Description Miles 

Round Trip from U.S. 52 (Fancy Gap/I-77) 50 

Round Trip from U.S. 70 (North Asheville) 140 

Round Trip from NC 191 (South Asheville) 44 

Between Skyline Drive and Cherokee 469 

Between U.S. 52 and U.S. 58 

(Fancy Gap/I-77 and Meadows of Dan) 25 

Source: Transportation Data Collection for the Blue Ridge 

Parkway, DEA, 2002. 

RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES 

The original design intent of the parkway is to 

provide a full service destination park that 

accommodates all visitors’ needs, including 

scenic driving, recreational activities, food 

services, overnight facilities, and educational 

and interpretive opportunities. To that end, 20 

visitor-service areas have been constructed 

along the length of the parkway. The parkway 

has over 800 picnic sites, more than 1,000 

campsites, 275 overlooks, 900 managed scenic 

vistas, 200 miles of trails, three lodges, 12 

restaurants, 14 shops, and several visitor 

information facilities. The parkway offers a 

variety of other major attractions, including 

the Blue Ridge Music Center, the Folk Art 

Center, the Museum of North Carolina 

Minerals, and the Northwest Trading Post. As 

a result of these abundant services, as well as 

diverse natural and cultural resources, the 

parkway offers a wide range of visitor 

opportunities and experiences. Figure 20 

illustrates how frequently visitors participated 

in parkway recreational activities (UV 2002). 

The percentages in figure 20 total more than 

100%, because visitors who responded to the 

survey engaged in multiple activities during 

their visit to the parkway. The “other 

activities” shown in figure 20 includes many 

different activities. The most popular 

responses include: bicycling (16%), 

photography (14%), swimming (10%), visiting 

the Folk Art Center (7%), fishing (5%), and 

family time (3%) (UV 2002). 

The Scenic Driving Experience 

The provision of a scenic driving experience 

was the primary goal of the original parkway 

design. The character of the final driving route 

varies due to the different characteristics of 

the land through which the parkway was 

located. Depending upon where visitors 

access the parkway, their scenic driving 

experience is primarily influenced by five 

factors: (1) landscape position of the parkway 

road, (2) vegetation along the roadway, (3) 

land use seen from overlooks and vistas, (4) 

air quality, and (5) the weather. The following 

are descriptions of the major characteristics of 

the scenic driving experience in each of the 

parkway segments. 

FIGURE 20. FREQUENCY (%) OF VISITOR PARTICIPATION IN ACTIVITIES

Source: UVM 2002. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

191 

Segment 1—Ridge, Mileposts 0–106. 

Segment 1 begins where Shenandoah National 

Park’s Skyline Drive ends at Rockfish Gap. 

Driving the Ridge segment’s 106 miles is 

mostly a forested experience where for 90% 

of the drive the parkway traverses the 

Jefferson and Washington National Forests. 

There are memorable scenic breaks where 

adjacent privately owned undeveloped land is 

visible. The parkway road ascends and 

descends the mountainside slopes climbing 

toward the ridgetop. The road travels from 

one side of the mountains to the other 

through gaps and from the maintained vistas 

and overlooks, views to the east and west 

present dramatic panoramic valley scenery. 

This segment has the only tunnel in Virginia 

where the parkway road passes through Bluff 

Mountain (milepost 53). The next parkway 

tunnel doesn’t occur until the Black Mountain 

segment in North Carolina. Short distances of 

the road follow the crest of the Blue Ridge 

where the mountainside falls off just beyond 

the shoulder on both sides. The Ridge 

segment is the only part of the parkway where 

visitors have this notable experience. Midway, 

the Ridge segment drops down to follow Otter 

Creek, where views are constricted by a 

narrow enclosed valley. From there the 

parkway then reaches its lowest elevation 

(649.4 ft) as it crosses the expansive open 

James River Valley. The experience of scenery 

in this segment is one of great contrasts 

between the bird’s eye panoramas seen from 

ridge tops and mountain sides to the enclosed 

views in the forest surrounding Otter Creek. 

For much of the drive through this segment 

the visitor is not a part of the scenery they 

experience but rather a distant observer of 

valleys below. Traveling further south the 

parkway road climbs up to the Peaks of Otter 

and then back down to milepost 106 where 

visitors enter the Roanoke segment. 

Segment 2—Roanoke, Mileposts 106–

134. The Roanoke segment serves as a 

transition between the forested mountainside 

and ridgetop driving experience of the Ridge 

segment to the rolling plateau farmland 

landscape of the Plateau segment. Today’s 

experience of the Roanoke segment is one 

where the visitor sees a rural landscape being 

consumed by spreading commercial and 

residential development by the largest urban 

population next to the parkway. Picturesque 

masonry arch bridges that carry local roads 

over and under the parkway road are a 

remarkable feature along the parkway in the 

Roanoke Valley. Higher speed nonvisitor 

traffic surges in the morning and early evening 

and day long local traffic diminishes the 

visitor’s ability to move leisurely through the 

valley at the posted speed limit while taking in 

the remaining scenic views. 

Segment 3—Plateau, Mileposts 136–

217. The whole character of the landscape 

through which the parkway passes in the 

Plateau segment contrasts dramatically with 

the Ridge segment’s forested mountain 

experience and Roanoke segment’s transition 

to a growing suburban landscape. In the 

Plateau the parkway road glides in a series of 

straight lines and slight curves across the 

gently rolling landscape and in some places it 

skirts the rim of a gorge or the plateau where 

visitors look into the nearby or distant valley 

floors. Visitor’s become visually immersed in 

the Plateau segment’s agricultural landscape 

and patches of forest. It is this segment of the 

parkway that early designers called “a 

museum of the American countryside.” 

Visitors to this segment may feel they are 

more a part of the parkway’s living landscape 

here than in any of the other segments. The 

rural farm scenes of pastures with cattle and 

fields planted with crops are brought up to the 

edge of the road. Numerous state and private 

roads connect at-grade with the parkway road 

throughout this segment, so through travelers 

have to be ever aware of local travel leaving, 

entering and crossing the parkway road. 

Segment 4—Highlands, Mileposts 217–

305. The Highlands segment begins where 

the parkway crosses the state line. 

Characterizing the scenic driving experience 

in this segment is difficult because the 

parkway traverses a greater mix of valleys, 

mountain sides, ridge tops, and the highland 

plateau landscapes than other segments and 

views continuously alternate from panoramic 

distant views to nearby views of farms and 

structures. Initially, the segment is a 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

192 

continuation of the rural farm scene but then 

rises gradually to a mountain side, providing 

panoramic views to the east and then to the 

west as the parkway road moves through high 

gaps. A most notable feature of this segment is 

the first 34 miles of parkway which are lined 

by some 32,000 linear feet of picturesque dry 

stacked rock walls. The open highland 

landscape of Doughton Park with its 

numerous wooden fences ends with the 

parkway road traversing a landscape having 

distant and close views and with an alternating 

pattern of woodlands and fields. The 

landscape then becomes more rolling and 

open as visitors approach the Boone/Blowing 

Rock area. From this third largest urban area 

along the parkway, visitors drive around 

Grandfather Mountain where distant 

panoramic views to the east are open almost 

continuously for some 5 miles. The sinuous 

Linn Cove viaduct clinging to the side of the 

mountain is a feature that visitors marvel at, 

both in viewing it and driving on it. The 

Highlands segment ends at the Beacon 

Heights overlook. 

Segment 5—Black Mountain, Mileposts 

305–377. Leaving Beacon Heights, visitors 

glimpse the rural landscape through breaks in 

the roadside forest edges as well as some 

distant panoramic views. Leaving the rural 

landscape behind at Spruce Pine, visitors 

experience a scenic drive through a mountain 

forest, climbing towards the ridgetop, 

descending along the mountain side and 

passing through gaps with panoramic views of 

the valleys below. Much of the adjacent land 

use along this entire segment is in the Pisgah 

National Forest, which protects the quality of 

the numerous forested mountain views. The 

broad central dome of the Black Mountains 

includes the highest mountain east of the 

Mississippi River, Mount Mitchell. The highelevation spruce/fir forest community found 

in most of the last 40 miles of the segment 

defines the visitor’s scenic experience where 

the dark green evergreens are spread along the 

roadside and tree groupings that frame the 

distant views. Dramatic views of the Asheville 

city watershed reservoir dominate the view 

from several vantage points before the 

segment drops in elevation transitioning into 

the Asheville segment. 

Segment 6—Asheville, Mileposts 377–

394. While the Asheville segment is similar to 

the Roanoke segment in that it also serves as a 

more urban transition between segments, it 

presents a far different scenic experience 

compared to the Roanoke segment. This is not 

a segment of parkway known for its scenic 

value or visual variety of flowering plants. The 

only overlooks or roadside vistas occur in the 

first and last miles of the segment. Along the 

segment’s remaining length, adjacent urban 

development is screened by a continuous 

forest edge broken only where major 

highways cross under the parkway road. 

Maintained roadside grass bays that are 

intended to keep the forest edge away from 

the roadside now serve as areas for people to 

park their cars while they ride bicycles on the 

parkway road or while they hike parkway 

trails. Asheville is the second largest urban 

area through which the parkway passes. Like 

Roanoke, Asheville’s sizeable population 

results in considerable nonvisitor traffic 

during rush hour and day-long local traffic 

driving at higher than posted speeds which 

diminishes the visitor’s ability to comfortably 

move through the valley at a leisurely pace. 

Segment 7—Pisgah, Mileposts 394–469.

This last segment ends the parkway scenic 

driving experience much like it started. The 

parkway road rises and descends mountain 

side slopes, climbing toward a ridgetop. 

Traveling from one side of the mountains to 

the other through gaps, visitors experience 

unspoiled natural scenery from maintained 

vistas and overlooks. Views both to the east 

and west present dramatic panoramic views of 

multiple forested mountain ridges and distant 

valley scenery. Much of the parkway again is 

bordered by large tracts of forest land 

administered by the Pisgah National Forest. 

Seventeen of the parkway’s 26 tunnels occur 

in this segment. Their measured stone 

masonry portals become a dominant visual 

feature of this segment’s scenic driving 

experience. Like the Black Mountain segment, 

the high-elevation spruce/fir forest 

community is traversed by the parkway road 
Visitor Use and Experience 

193 

for some 40 miles. The dark green evergreens 

define the scenic experience with trees that 

are spread along the roadside and tree 

groupings that frame distant views. Looking 

Glass Rock, an imposing granite landmark, 

dominates the view from several overlooks 

and vistas. The last 20 miles of this segment 

pass through ancestral lands owned by the 

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. Finally, 

the route ends at Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park. 

Bicycling on the Parkway 

In addition to motor vehicles, bicycles are 

permitted along the entire length of the 

parkway. Although cyclists represent only 1% 

of the road’s traffic mix, the parkway is 

popular with cyclists due to its limited access 

and relatively lower traffic levels (outside of 

commuter zones) and vehicle speeds when 

compared to most community streets and 

highways (DEA 2002). The parkway was not 

designed as a bicycle facility and has no 

specific paved shoulders or specific bike lanes 

or paths; cyclists currently ride in the road’s 

travel lanes. The parkway is most often used 

by cyclists for day rides, although some ride 

the entire length of the parkway and camp 

along the way (DEA 2005). 

Although the parkway keeps no formal data 

on the number and type of cyclists using the 

parkway, the distance between services and 

changing weather conditions may draw more 

day use cyclists as opposed to through-riders. 

However, several organizations lead guided 

bicycle tours of the parkway and web sites, 

books, and maps are available to help cyclists 

plan through-trips. Designated camping 

locations are not spaced closely enough to 

accommodate long-distance cyclists traveling 

the highway, resulting in camping in 

undesignated locations (DEA 2005). 

Park staff are seeing more bicycle tour groups, 

as well as through-riders, along the parkway. 

Many local bicycle shops in the major 

communities along the parkway advertise its 

merits and host bicycle tour groups that use 

the parkway, often by special use permit. Such 

groups are typically limited in size to 25 

cyclists (DEA 2005). 

Four areas of the parkway experience steady 

levels of bicycle use. These areas are typically 

10 to 15 miles in length and are around major 

population centers (DEA 2005). They include 

(from north to south) the areas around 

Waynesboro, Roanoke, Boone/Blowing Rock, 

and Asheville. 

In Waynesboro, in the extreme northern end 

of the parkway, the section most commonly 

used by cyclists is from milepost 0 to the 

intersection with VA 664 at milepost 13.7. 

Cyclists regularly use the parkway and VA 664 

as a loop to and from the Waynesboro area 

(DEA 2005). 

Roanoke is the largest urban area near the 

parkway and a great deal of commuter traffic 

occurs between U.S. 460 and U.S. 220, which 

is also a popular bicycle route. Several bicycle 

groups use this area. One weekly ride, 

consisting of as many as 50 bicyclists, travels 

the parkway between the intersection with 

U.S. 460/221 (milepost 105.8) and U.S. 220 

(milepost 121.4). This is the most heavily used 

section of the parkway by cyclists in the 

Roanoke area. Park staff has observed that 

bicycle usage is increasing in the Roanoke 

Valley (DEA 2005). 

The section of the parkway near 

Boone/Blowing Rock is also heavily used by 

cyclists and there are several bicycle advocacy 

groups in the area. One group supports a 

weekly ride on the parkway from Aho Road 

(milepost 288.1) to Greenhill Road (milepost 

290.2). Individual cyclists commonly ride a 

loop from U.S. 321 (milepost 291.8) over the 

Linn Cove Viaduct (milepost 304.0), through 

the Grandfather Mountain area, and exit the 

parkway at U.S. 221 (milepost 305.1). This 

area also hosts an annual century ride from 

the parkway at U.S. 421 (milepost 276.4) to 

U.S. 321 (milepost 291.8) (DEA 2005). 

Asheville is a relatively large urban area 

adjacent to the parkway and several bicycle 

groups are in this region. Some bicycle groups 

use the section of the parkway between U.S. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

194 

25 (milepost 388.8) and NC 191 (milepost 

393.6) for a weekly ride. Bicyclists also 

typically ride between U.S. 70 (milepost 382.5) 

and NC 191 and serious cyclists may ride as 

far north as the Craggy Gardens Visitor 

Center (milepost 364.5) and as far south as Mt. 

Pisgah Inn (milepost 408.6) (DEA 2005). 

Safety is of paramount concern to many 

cyclists, particularly in the more congested 

areas of Roanoke and Asheville (NPS 2008b). 

The nature of the parkway can make it 

difficult for motorists to see cyclists, especially 

in foggy weather (DEA 2005). Many motorists 

are concerned about hitting cyclists and 

cyclists are concerned about being hit by 

motorists (NPS 2008b). Cyclists are especially 

concerned about the intermixing of cars and 

bicycles on the narrow travel lanes of the 

parkway and about cars exceeding the 35 to 45 

mph speed limit. Cyclists want more law 

enforcement of traffic speeds (DEA 2005). 

Many motorists feel that bicyclists cause 

congestion (NPS 2008b). Cyclists feel that 

many drivers who are unfamiliar with the 

parkway’s curves may be afraid of passing a 

cyclist, creating a traffic backup (DEA 2005). 

Cyclists also create dangerous conditions 

when they do not ride single file in the 

parkway’s travel lanes. 

Conflicts between cyclists and motorists have 

escalated. According to park staff, a cyclist 

was shot with a pellet gun by a passing 

motorist at Quarry Overlook (in the Ridge 

segment) and at Montebello (off the parkway 

along VA 56 near Whetstone Ridge also in the 

Ridge segment). A group of cyclists also 

attacked a motorist who was pulled over at an 

overlook whom the cyclists had encountered 

on the parkway earlier. 

Local planning departments, such as those of 

the city of Roanoke and Watauga County, 

encourage use of multiuse trails for cyclists 

while preserving the scenic aspects of the 

parkway and many motorists are in favor of 

multiuse paths to separate use. However, 

other users do not want to share a path with 

faster moving bicycles and cyclists may not 

wish to use paths that are being used by 

pedestrians or other users. There is broad 

public support in creating more 

nonmotorized pathways, but not for sharing 

the pathways with other types of users. 

Although many visitors would like to improve 

the quantity and variety of recreational 

experiences along the parkway, visitors are 

concerned about retaining the current rural, 

meandering design of the parkway and have 

expressed concern over adding more paved 

surfaces or widening the road (NPS 2008b). 

Recreation Areas—“The Pearls” 

An integral part of the designed parkway 

experience was the development of several 

major recreational areas, as well as smaller 

sites such as picnic areas, at periodic stops 

along the scenic drive. These areas, many of 

which are hundreds of acres in size, are often 

referred to as the “pearls on a string.” In 

general, the parkway recognizes 21 places 

along the parkway that are either part of the 

original set of planned recreation areas, or are 

attractions that have been developed in more 

recent years for visitor information, 

education, and enjoyment. As shown in 

chapter 2, there are 15 of these recreation 

areas that have a range of actions proposed 

that are specific to them and are discussed in 

more detail in this document. One of these six 

areas is the Moses H. Cone Memorial Park, 

which is under a separate planning effort. For 

the other five areas—Whetstone Ridge, E.B. 

Jeffress Park, Museum of North Carolina 

Minerals, Folk Art Center, and the Blue Ridge 

Parkway Visitor Center, this plan’s proposals 

and zoning do not vary by alternative and 

these areas can be analyzed at the segment or 

parkwide level. 

The 15 primary recreation areas addressed in 

this plan are briefly summarized in table 29. 

The six recreation areas not specifically 

addressed in this plan are briefly described in 

table 30. More details are provided in chapter 

2. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

195 

TABLE 29. RECREATION AREAS

Recreation Area Segment General Description 

Humpback Rocks Ridge (mileposts 6–10) First major recreation area when entering parkway at 

northernmost entrance. Mostly forested with several trails, the 

recreation area consists of the geologic feature of Humpback 

Rocks, the visitor contact station, hiking trails, and the 

mountain farm exhibit. 

James River / 

Otter Creek 

Ridge (mileposts 60–65) Offers hiking, camping, picnicking, seasonal concessions, 

fishing, and interpretation of the James River, Kanawha Canal, 

and the restored canal lock. Seasonally open visitor contact 

station provided close to the river and canal resources. 

Peaks of Otter Ridge (mileposts 82–91) Mostly hardwood forest. Abbott Lake is focal point. There is a 

nature center and the nearby Johnson Farm. Several 

concessions, recreation, and educational opportunities; visitor 

contact station provided. 

Roanoke 

Mountain 

Roanoke 

(mileposts 118–122) 

Popular one-way driving circuit with dramatic overlooks. 

Picnicking, camping, and trails for hiking and horseback riding 

provided. Spur road connects to nearby Roanoke attractions. 

Smart View Plateau (milepost 155) Variety of day use recreational activities provided (trails, group 

picnic shelters, restrooms). 

Rocky Knob Plateau (mileposts 166–174) Rugged, forested terrain with many overlooks and vistas. 

Rockcastle Gorge is an important scenic focal point. Includes 

extensive trail system and cabin camping opportunities. 

Mabry Mill Plateau (milepost 176) Most picturesque and popular cultural site. Includes several 

outdoor exhibits, cultural demonstrations, and concessionoperated restaurant. Popular and traditional destination for 

many visitors, especially on weekends. 

Blue Ridge Music 

Center 

Plateau (milepost 213) Meadow and forest landscape with popular music center that is 

major stop along Virginia’s Heritage Music Trail. Will likely 

experience considerable growth in visitation. 

Cumberland Knob Highlands 

(mileposts 217–219) 

Day use area with forested mountainsides, popular picnic area, 

and hiking trails. Visitor contact station closed in 2005. 

Doughton Park Highlands 

(mileposts 236–247) 

Fairly isolated with very rugged backcountry. No visitor contact 

station but several concession services provided. Large 

campground, popular picnic area, and over 30 miles of 

backcountry trails. 

Julian Price 

Memorial Park 

Highlands 

(mileposts 295–300) 

Popular recreation area with forested highlands and mountain 

streams. Several recreational opportunities provided, including 

boat rental. One of the most heavily used campgrounds. 

Linville Falls Black Mountain segment 

(mileposts 315–319) 

Very popular, highly used recreation area with heavily used trail 

to waterfalls. Visitor contact station and several recreational 

opportunities provided. 

Crabtree Falls Black Mountain segment 

(mileposts 339–340) 

A variety of recreational activities provided, such as camping, 

hiking, and picnicking. There are concession services including a 

camp store, gift shop, and snack bar. Many acres of meadows, 

adjoining forest, and spectacular waterfalls. 

Craggy Gardens Black Mountain segment 

(mileposts 364–369) 

Features heath and grassy bald habitat and high-altitude bog. 

Visitor contact station and trails, picnic area, and restrooms 

provided. 

Mt. Pisgah Pisgah 

(mileposts 407–409) 

Scenic, high-elevation site with variety of recreational and 

educational opportunities. Several concession-operated facilities 

provided. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

196 

TABLE 30. RECREATION AREAS NOT ADDRESSED

Recreation Area Segment General Description Reason 

Whetstone Ridge Ridge (milepost 29) Previously a visitor site with food 

service. Converted to a park 

operations facility. 

Functions as a park 

maintenance facility. 

Previous coffee shop 

concession was not 

economically viable. 

E.B. Jeffress Park Highlands (milepost 

271) 

Picnicking site. No changes proposed. 

Moses H. Cone Memorial 

Park 

Highlands (milepost 

294 ) 

Visitor and craft centers, picnic 

area, camping, the Grandfather 

Mountain corridor, and 

associated rare habitats. Stories 

include America’s country estate 

movement and donation of large 

parcels of land by wealthy 

individuals. 

Due to specific recreation 

management issues, 

Moses H. Cone is covered 

under a separate planning 

effort. The craft center is 

operated by a 

concessioner. 

Museum of North Carolina 

Minerals 

Black Mountain 

segment (milepost 

330) 

Visitor center and educational 

museum highlighting the geology 

of the region and the rich mining 

heritage of the area. 

Operated in partnership 

with the McDowell 

County Chamber of 

Commerce. No changes 

proposed. 

Folk Art Center Asheville (milepost 

380) 

Visitor information, Eastern 

National sales outlet, and 

presentation and sales of arts and 

crafts. 

Operated by a 

concessioner. 

Blue Ridge Parkway Visitor 

Center 

Asheville (milepost 

382) 

Visitor information, interpretation 

and education services, Eastern 

National sales outlet. 

Operated in partnership 

with the Blue Ridge 

National Heritage Area. 

Primary visitor opportunities at several of the 

recreation areas include picnicking, hiking, 

camping, concessioner food and lodging, 

visitor information, and law enforcement-led 

walks and talks. Most concessions services are 

provided from spring to fall, with a few open 

year-round. 

Many visitor opportunities are available 

outside the recreation areas. For example, 

trails originate from many overlooks and 

include short “leg-stretchers” requiring 10 

minutes round-trip, as well as others that take 

30 minutes to an hour. Several picnic grounds 

are also available along the parkway. More 

details about these activities are provided later 

in this section. 

Trail-based Recreation 

Trail-based recreation is an important 

component of the parkway’s purpose to 

provide high-quality recreational experience 

for visitors. Although the majority of visitors 

travel the parkway for the leisure driving 

experience, more and more people are seeking 

opportunities that take them beyond the 

roadway. These trail-based activities primarily 

include hiking, horseback riding, and 

backcountry camping, as well as wildlife 

viewing and nature study. According to the 

2002 Visitor Survey Study, 59% of visitors 

surveyed said they participate in hiking. When 

considering the millions of people who 

annually visit the parkway, this is a 

considerable number of people who use the 

area’s extensive network of trails. 

All 15 major recreation areas along the 

parkway provide trail-based recreational 

opportunities for visitors. These vary from 

short “leg-stretcher” paths in or near visitorservice areas to long-distance backcountry 

trails, some of which also offer primitive 

backcountry camping opportunities. In 

particular, Humpback Rocks, Peaks of Otter, 

Rocky Knob, Doughton Park, and Moses H. 

Cone and Julian Price memorial parks offer 

extensive trail networks. There are 115 
Visitor Use and Experience 

197 

separate trail systems along the parkway, 

totaling over 200 miles. 

 The parkway also overlaps with portions of 

national and regional trails systems. It runs 

parallel to the Appalachian Trail for 100 miles, 

with numerous access points, and it includes 

approximately 300 miles of the Mountains-toSea Trail. Trail connections are also provided 

to other trail systems on adjacent U.S. Forest 

Service lands and urban trail systems in 

Roanoke and Asheville. Certain designated 

trails and fire roads in the parkway also allow 

for horseback riding. Mountain biking is 

currently prohibited on all trails, although 

there is a high demand for this activity. The 

parkway is working in partnership with 

Roanoke County and the City of Roanoke on 

the Roanoke Valley Trail Plan. The plan 

identifies safe and appropriate access for trail 

connections, closure of unsafe or 

inappropriate trail connections, providing 

parking and staging for trail use on the 

parkway, and examines the potential for 

mountain biking on existing or newly 

constructed trails on land leased by the federal 

government in the Roanoke Valley corridor. 

The parkway is also partnering with 

Buncombe County, the U.S. Forest Service, 

and the City of Asheville to complete a 

greenway master plan for Buncombe County, 

North Carolina. The plan would inform 

management actions within the Asheville 

corridor of the parkway, from mileposts 375 

to 395. This plan would look at safe and 

appropriate trail access to the parkway, 

identify parking for access to trails on and off 

the parkway, identify trails to be closed for 

safety and habitat concerns, and look at 

recreational needs within the parkway 

corridor to determine if new uses/trails may 

be appropriate. 

Camping, Lodging, Concessions 

The parkway’s campgrounds and lodges are in 

recreation areas in Virginia and North 

Carolina. The campgrounds are operated by 

the parkway, and the lodges are operated 

through commercial services contracts. Many 

of these facilities are underused. One of the 

primary reasons visitors give for not using 

some of these facilities is the lack of modern 

amenities. As a result, many visitors turn to 

lodging options outside of the parkway in 

nearby communities. Based on the 2002 visitor 

study, 66% of visitors stayed overnight 

outside the boundaries of the parkway in 

hotels, motels, inns, bed and breakfasts, other 

campgrounds, or at the homes of friends and 

relatives. When the parkway was established, 

its campgrounds and lodges were often the 

only accommodations for many miles around. 

But with population growth and development 

have come more choices for the public. As a 

result, the parkway serves less as a selfcontained multiday scenic drive than was 

originally envisioned. 

Campgrounds. There are nine parkway 

campgrounds. These campgrounds provide a 

total of 712 tent and 345 RV sites. Table 31 

shows the number of tent and RV sites for 

each parkway campground. All campgrounds 

are open seasonally, May through October. 

TABLE 31. TENT AND RV SITES PER PARKWAY 

CAMPGROUND

Parkway 

Campgrounds 

Number 

of Tent 

Sites 

Number 

of RV 

Sites 

Linville Falls 50 20 

Julian Price 129 68 

Otter Creek 45 24 

Doughton Park 110 25 

Mt. Pisgah 70 70 

Crabtree Falls 71 21 

Rocky Knob 81 28 

Peaks of Otter 82 59 

Roanoke Mountain 74 30 

The campgrounds have not had significant 

upgrades since their construction between the 

1930s and 1950s. None have water, electric 

hook-ups at RV sites, or showers in the 

comfort stations. Furthermore, loop roads, 

parking areas, and campsites were designed to 

earlier standards that do not adequately 

accommodate modern RVs. The absence of 

modern amenities is the primary reason most 

visitors do not stay at the parkway’s 

campgrounds. During the 2009 visitor season, 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

198 

campground use totaled 95,612. A total of 

57,910 used tent sites, and 37,702 used RV 

sites. Although these numbers are impressive, 

seasonal occupancy rarely exceeds 50%. 

Figure 21 shows the average seasonal 

occupancy rate for each campground from 

May to October 2009. 

FIGURE 21. AVERAGE SEASONAL OCCUPANCY RATE (%) 

OF PARKWAY CAMPGROUNDS (2004) UPDATE FOR 2009 

TABLE 32. CONCESSION-OPERATED VISITOR SERVICES

Recreation Area Lodging Other Services 

Otter Creek N/A The 60-seat restaurant and gift shop closed in 2011. 

Peaks of Otter 63 guestrooms Within the lodge150-seat restaurant, a country store, a 

gift shop, lounge, meeting rooms, and public use space; 

Sharp Top Mountain bus tours. 

Rocky Knob 7 rustic cabin rentals N/A 

Mabry Mill N/A 58-seat restaurant and gift shop; interpretive 

demonstrations. 

Doughton Park Bluffs Lodge closed in 

2011 

The Bluffs, restaurant, and gift shop closed in 2011. 

Moses H. Cone N/A Handicrafts shop and demonstrations of the Southern 

Appalachian Mountains. 

Julian Price N/A Canoe and rowboat rentals, snacks, and firewood. 

Crabtree Falls N/A Eastern National outlet in 2011. 

Northwest Trading Post N/A Outlet for locally made crafts and food products. 

Folk Art Center N/A Craft shop, galleries, exhibitions, library, and auditorium 

that showcases traditional and contemporary crafts of the 

Southern Appalachians. 

Mt. Pisgah 50 guestrooms, 1 suite 130-seat restaurant, gift store, and camp store. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

199 

FIGURE 22. AVERAGE OCCUPANCY RATE (%) OF PARKWAY LODGES AND CABINS (2006–2008) 

Lodging and Other Concession 

Services. The parkway contracts with a 

number of concessioners to operate 

restaurants, shops, lodges, cabin rentals, and 

other types of visitor services. Since the 

parkway’s inception, concessioners have 

played an important role in providing these 

services, which allow visitors to obtain key 

services while staying immersed in the 

parkway experience. Table 32 provides an 

overview of the concession-operated visitor 

services (NPS 2004). The concessions are 

open seasonally, spring through fall. Refer to 

the park operations and socioeconomic 

sections for more detailed information about 

concessioners. Like the parkway’s 

campgrounds, the lodges and cabins are also 

often underused. This is likely because these 

facilities were constructed in the 1960s and 

most of them have received very little 

updating. As a result, they lack many of the 

modern amenities that most overnight guests 

prefer. Of the four lodging options along the 

parkway, the Pisgah Inn has the highest 

average occupancy rate, as well as the most 

contemporary accommodations. This facility 

was recently renovated by the concessioner. 

Over $2 million was spent on renovations, 

including upgrades to the guestrooms and 

bathrooms; new furnishings (e.g., flat-screen 

televisions, refrigerators, coffee makers); 

onsite laundromat and payphones; and a 

computer in the lobby with internet access. 

In 2007, the Rocky Knob cabins received 

some updating—such as new stove units, 

refrigerators, window fans, coffee makers, and 

roll-away beds. One cabin was also modified 

for ADA accessibility along with a private 

bath. These renovations likely contributed to 

a 10% increase in the cabins’ occupancy rate 

in 2008. 

Bluffs Lodge closed in 2011 and the Peaks of 

Otter Lodge still lacks certain modern 

conveniences, such as telephones and 

televisions in the guest rooms. Plans are being 

developed to make capital improvements at 

the Peaks Lodge such as roof replacement, 

sprinkler system upgrades, and electrical and 

sound proofing upgrades in the guest rooms. 

Although the goal of such improvements is 

not to modernize these facilities to the point 

where they lose their charm, they are 

considered necessary to ensure economic 

viability and continuation of traditional 

overnight opportunities, part of the original 

intent of the parkway experience. 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR ORIENTATION, 

INTERPRETATION, AND EDUCATION 

Entry and Orientation Experience 

At most NPS sites, when visitors first enter the 

park, they drive a relatively short distance 

before they either encounter a visitor 

orientation center or entrance station where 

they obtain information to help orient them to 

the park, plan their trip, and ask questions. 

This helps ensure a relatively high percentage 

of visitors are contacted during their visit. 

Currently, the parkway contacts only about 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

200 

one million out of the approximately 16 

million visitors each year. 

The sheer number of possible access points 

precludes providing staffed entrance stations. 

There are, however, five major areas along the 

parkway where visitors enter the parkway. 

The following is a discussion of the entry and 

orientation experience at each. 

North Entrance. The road that serves as the 

access to the parkway’s northern entrance at 

Afton Mountain skirts a parking area adjacent 

to derelict buildings before visitors arrive at 

the parkway. Limited information and 

orientation is provided to visitors at a wayside 

just inside the parkway boundary. There is no 

formal entrance and the entrance ramp is 

poorly marked. A sense of arrival is missing. 

There is no visitor contact station to provide 

visitors information about their visit. The first 

restroom and official contact station with NPS 

personnel is 6 miles south on the parkway at 

Humpback Rocks, making it difficult for 

visitors to receive more detailed orientation 

information or to report safety problems. 

South Entrance. Similarly at the parkway’s 

southern entrance, no information, 

orientation or interpretation is provided for 

visitors entering or leaving the parkway at 

milepost 469. However, there is a Great 

Smoky Mountains NP visitor center within 5 

minutes driving time from the parkway’s 

entrance. Once visitor’s head north on the 

parkway, the first opportunity to obtain 

information and orientation is 18 miles away 

at Waterrock Knob. 

Roanoke. Many visitors access the parkway in 

the Roanoke area, especially at VA 220 near 

the Roanoke Mountain recreation area. About 

10 miles north on the parkway, via a spur 

road, there is an NPS visitor center at Explore 

Park. However, this center is off the beaten 

path for the majority of parkway visitors and 

serves primarily only those visitors specifically 

seeking out Explore Park. 

Boone/Blowing Rock. This area receives a 

large number of visitors that enter and exit the 

parkway; however, there is no major point of 

contact. The closest site of contact is at the 

Moses H. Cone Memorial Park, where 

interpretive information about the historic site 

and sales of folk art are available. The Moses 

H. Cone site is undergoing a separate planning 

effort that has proposed a new visitor contact 

facility. 

Asheville. This area has two visitor centers 

near major access points. The new Blue Ridge 

Visitor Center is on the parkway near I-40 and 

provides substantial levels of information, 

orientation and interpretive services in 

coordination with the Blue Ridge Heritage 

Area. Further north is the Folk Art Center, 

near NC 70, where information, sales, and 

interpretation of Appalachian folk art are 

provided. 

Information, Interpretation, and 

Educational Opportunities 

Interpretation and educational programs are 

offered at many of the parkway’s recreation 

sites. These include law enforcement-guided 

walks, evening campfire programs, 

curriculum-based outreach programs for 

schools, Junior Ranger programs, and other 

formal and informal contacts with visitors. 

One example is the popular Parks-asClassrooms program, which reaches over 

25,000 students. Special events and programs 

are also offered to visitors to provide more indepth interpretation of specific parkway 

themes, such as mountain music programs 

and Revolutionary War reenactments. 

The interpretive program also produces 

written information in the form of site 

bulletins, bulletin boards, web postings, and 

displays for park visitors. These programs and 

facilities are designed to help visitors make 

intellectual and emotional connections with 

the parkway’s diverse natural, cultural, 

historic, and scenic resources. For example, 

the parkway offers 40 different site bulletins 

that provide visitors free information about 

recreational opportunities and unique natural 

and cultural features.
Visitor Use and Experience 

201 

A number of interpretive facilities are 

provided along the parkway, ranging from 

visitor centers and contact stations to kiosks 

and wayside exhibits. Many of the wayside 

exhibits, constructed of routed wood, 

describe features at more than 265 overlooks 

along the parkway. These exhibits are used the 

most by visitors; however, they are expensive 

to maintain and some contain inaccurate 

information.

The parkway currently has six visitor centers 

and eight visitor contact stations that offer 

varying levels of information and services to 

the public. All of these facilities provide 

orientation materials (e.g., parkway maps and 

brochures) as well as small 

bookstores/souvenir shops, many of which 

are operated by Eastern National, a nonprofit 

cooperating association of the parkway. A 

parkway visitor center accommodates higher 

levels of visitors compared to visitor contact 

stations and provides more in-depth 

interpretation about the parkway, such as 

multiple exhibits and/or educational films. A 

visitor contact station is a much smaller 

facility that provides very limited, if any, 

interpretation. Table 33 provides a summary 

of the visitor centers and contact stations 

along the parkway, including when they are 

open to the public. 

TABLE 33. PARKWAY VISITOR CENTERS AND CONTACT STATIONS

Location of Facility Visitor Center Contact 

Station 

Open 

Year-Round 

Open 

Seasonally 

(May – 

October) 

Humpback Rocks  

James River  

Peaks of Otter  

Visitor Center at Explore Park  

Rocky Knob  

Blue Ridge Music Center  

Moses H. Cone Manor  

Linn Cove Viaduct  

Linville Falls  

Museum of North Carolina Minerals 

Craggy Gardens  

Folk Art Center  

Blue Ridge Parkway Visitor Center  

Waterrock Knob  

Annual visitation to parkway visitor centers 

and contact stations averages about one 

million people per year—representing an 

outstanding opportunity to convey 

information and encourage appreciation for 

parkway resources and values. However, 

limited staff and funding over the years have 

constrained the parkway’s ability to reach a 

greater portion of the 14.5 million annual 

visitors. As a result, there are missed 

opportunities to provide meaningful 

interpretation of the unique resources of the 

area. Furthermore, many interpretive facilities 

are outdated, and information conveyed is 

oftentimes inaccurate and inconsistent with 

current scientific knowledge and the 

parkway’s primary interpretive themes. 

The most recent addition to the parkway is 

the new Blue Ridge Parkway Visitor Center 

(formerly named the Regional Destination 

Center) adjacent to the parkway headquarters 

near Asheville, North Carolina. This facility 

opened in 2008 and features a variety of stateof-the-art exhibits that highlight the natural 

and cultural diversity, economic traditions, 

and recreational opportunities found in 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

202 

western North Carolina and along the 

parkway. The center is managed and operated 

in partnership with the Blue Ridge National 

Heritage Area. 

Another major visitor center is at Explore 

Park near Roanoke, Virginia. This facility 

includes permanent exhibits that chronicle 

the early histories of the parkway. The visitor 

center is situated at the end of a spur road off 

the parkway, and as a result, visitors accessing 

the parkway from Roanoke may not be aware 

of the orientation and interpretive services 

available. 

The Blue Ridge Music Center, the Museum of 

North Carolina Minerals, and the Folk Art 

Center are other major attractions for visitors 

travelling the parkway. These facilities—at 

parkway mileposts 213, 330 and 380, 

respectively—offer different perspectives on 

the unique natural and cultural diversity of the 

southern Appalachian Mountains. Because of 

the recent opening of the music center, the 

nearby visitor contact station at Cumberland 

Knob was closed due to limited park staff 

available to operate both facilities. The 

Museum of North Carolina Minerals is 

operated in partnership with the McDowell 

County Chamber of Commerce. The Folk Art 

Center and the Manor at Moses H. Cone are 

operated by the Southern Highland Craft 

Guild. Due to specific recreation management 

issues, Moses H. Cone is covered under a 

separate planning effort. 

OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPERIENCE 

NATURAL SOUNDSCAPES 

Natural Soundscape 

The natural soundscape is an inherent 

component of “the scenery and the natural 

and historic objects and the wild life” 

protected by the Organic Act of 1916. 

National Park Service management policies 

(section 4.9) require the National Park Service 

to preserve the park’s natural soundscape and 

restore the degraded soundscape to the 

natural condition wherever possible. 

Additionally, the National Park Service is 

required to prevent or minimize degradation 

of the natural soundscape from noise (i.e. 

inappropriate / undesirable human-caused 

sound). 

Because the National Park Service works to 

protect and enhance park resources and 

visitor experiences, the park service 

differentiates between the physical sound 

sources and human perceptions of those 

sounds. Currently, the National Park Service 

refers to the physical sound resources (i.e. 

wildlife, waterfalls, wind, rain, and cultural or 

historic sounds), regardless of audibility, at a 

particular location as the acoustical 

environment, while the human perception of 

that acoustical environment is defined as the 

soundscape. 

The National Park Service recognizes the 

acoustical environment as a resource in itself, 

separate from its relationship to wildlife and 

visitors. This section of the document will 

focus specifically on visitor opportunities to 

experience the natural soundscape. Noise 

related impacts to wildlife are covered under 

in the natural resources section of chapter 4. 

Characteristics of Sound 

Humans perceive sound as an auditory 

sensation, created by pressure variations that 

move through a medium such as water or air, 

which is measured in terms of amplitude and 

frequency (Harris 1998; Templeton and Sacre 

1997). Noise, essentially the negative 

evaluation of sound, is defined as extraneous 

or undesired sound (Morfey 2001). Sound 

pressure level is proportional to the sound 

power and is measured in decibels (dB). The 

decibel is a logarithmic scale unit that is 

commonly used to relate sound pressures to 

some common reference level, thus producing 

a smaller, more manageable range of numbers. 

The loudness of a sound as heard by the 

human ear is estimated by an A-weighted 

decibel scale, where the A-weighting provides 

a formula for discounting sounds at low (<1 

kHz) and high (> 6 kHz) frequencies. This 

adjustment for human hearing is expressed as 

dB(A). For this discussion, the A-weighted 
Visitor Use and Experience 

203 

values are used to describe potential effects on 

the park’s acoustical environment and 

soundscape. Table 34 provides examples of Aweighted sound levels. 

TABLE 34. EXAMPLES OF SOUND LEVELS

Reference Sound dB(A) Level1 

Normal breathing 10 

Leaves rustling 20 

Crickets (16 feet) 40 

Normal conversation (5 feet) 60 

2 stroke snowmobile (30 mph at 

50 feet) 

70 

Helicopter landing at 200 feet 80 

Motorcycle or heavy truck (25 

feet) 

90 

Thunder 100 

Military jet (110 feet) 120 

Shotgun firing 130 1

 An increase of 10 dBA represents a perceived (to 

human hearing) doubling of sound pressure level; that 

means 20 dBA would be perceived as twice as loud as 10 

dBA, 30 dBA would be perceived as 4 times louder than 

10 dBA, etc. 

Visitor Experience and Soundscapes 

The opportunity to experience an unimpaired 

natural soundscape is an important part of 

overall visitor experience and enjoyment. In 

fact, 95% of Americans have indicated that 

one of the most important reasons for 

preserving national parks is to provide 

opportunities to experience natural sounds 

(Haas and Wakefield 1998), such as wind, 

water, and natural quiet (Driver, Tinsley, and 

Manfredo 1991; Mace et al. 2003; McDonald, 

Baumgartner, and Iachan 1995). However, 

unwanted, uncharacteristic, or inappropriate 

noise can degrade visitor experiences by 

distracting visitors from the resources and 

purposes of the park, and increasingly, natural 

sounds are being masked or obscured by a 

wide variety of noise intrusions. Research 

suggests these intrusions can affect visitors’ 

perceptions of solitude and tranquility and 

can generate high levels of annoyance. Visitor 

evaluations of annoyance are affected by 

many factors including the setting in which 

the sounds occur, the visitors’ recreational 

activities, and their expectations of quiet and 

solitude. The level of annoyance experienced 

is also related to rate of occurrence, duration, 

loudness, and sporadic nature of sounds 

(Newman, Pilcher, and Manning 2005). 

Furthermore, at certain decibel levels, these 

intrusions have been found to increase blood 

pressure and heart rate and cause sleep 

interruption and speech interference (table 

35). 

TABLE 35. POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF NOISE EXPOSURE

Sound 

Levels (dBA) 

Relevance 

35 Blood pressure and heart rate increase 

in sleeping humans (Haralabidis et al., 

2008) 

45 World Health Organization’s 

recommendation for maximum noise 

levels inside bedrooms (Berglund, 

Lindvall, and Schwela, 1999) 

52 Speech interference for interpretive 

programs (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1974) 

60 Speech interruption for normal 

conversation (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1974) 

Soundscape Experience on the Blue 

Ridge Parkway 

The parkway has natural and cultural sounds 

that are integral to the visitor experience but 

unwanted, human-caused sounds can impact 

visitor experiences. Natural sounds along the 

Blue Ridge Parkway vary from nighttime 

sounds such as frogs and owls to running 

water, wind, and birdsong. These sounds are 

audible throughout the parkway in 

campgrounds, on trails, and other locations 

popular among visitors. Natural sounds are 

important to visitor experiences of nature and 

are crucial to the survival and reproduction of 

many wildlife taxa. For example, songbird 

mating and territoriality could be disrupted if 

male song is masked. Masking also affects 

acoustical communication. Animals have been 

shown to alter their calling behavior and shift 

their vocalizations in response to noise 

(Brumm and Slabbekoorn 2005; Patricelli and 

Blickley 2006; Slabbekoorn and Ripmeester 

2008; Warren et al. 2006). The Appalachian 

Mountains shape the flyway for most eastern 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

204 

migratory birds and the parkway is an 

excellent place for both bird-watching and 

autumn migratory bird counts. 

Cultural sounds also support the visitor 

experience of park cultural resources. For 

example, several developed areas offer handson demonstrations of mountain life and 

culture, including musical events and other 

heritage performances. 

Highway noise is the human-caused sound 

with the largest influence on the Blue Ridge 

Parkway’s acoustic resources, visitors, and 

wildlife. As noted, appropriate levels of traffic 

noise are acceptable given the parkway’s 

significance as the first national rural parkway 

to be conceived, designed, and constructed 

for a leisurely driving experience. However, 

the parkway connects Shenandoah and Great 

Smoky Mountains national parks by way of 

this “national rural parkway.” Therefore, 

vehicle noise must be compatible with NPS 

management policies and 36 CFR section 2.12 

on audio disturbance (not to exceed a noise 

level of 60 decibels measured on the Aweighted scale at 50 feet). Motorized use of 

the parkway involves a mix of visitor and local 

commuters and different types of vehicles, 

which can result in conflict and concerns. 

Types of activities that generate the most 

complaints about noise in the parkway include 

loud motorcycles throughout the park and RV 

noise in the campgrounds. 

Maintenance is essential for maintaining the 

designed landscape found along most of the 

length of the parkway. Activities associated 

with maintenance include use of lawn 

mowers, weed wackers, chain saws, chippers, 

and other machines. 

Between May and October, which is the peak 

visitor season, increased traffic noise and 

higher levels of sounds from people using 

parkway facilities can be heard. Hunting is 

prohibited within the parkway, but is allowed 

on some adjacent public and private lands. 

Gunshots may be heard from outside the 

parkway during active hunting seasons. 

The Blue Ridge Parkway undergoes a variety 

of year-round road construction projects, 

critical to maintaining the quality of the 

parkway. Noise from heavy machinery, 

trucks, hammers, and other equipment 

associated with road construction are 

common along the parkway. 

Aircraft activity is not a major noise source at 

the parkway, but small aircraft occasionally fly 

over, as do commercial jets at much higher 

altitudes. 

Agricultural uses permitted along the parkway 

include hay production and livestock grazing. 

Associated sounds include cattle noises and 

those from farm vehicles and equipment. Park 

staff indicated that at certain places along the 

parkway, private residential and agricultural 

lands may be located just past the 80-foot 

parkway boundary. Noise from privately 

operated mowers or crop equipment may be 

audible near these areas and are not under 

control of park management. 

Relevant Soundscape Research at 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

The Blue Ridge Parkway provides an 

incredible driving experience for a variety of 

user groups, including motorcyclists. Many 

motorcyclists go to the parkway each year to 

experience the twisting roads and 

breathtaking views. The Blue Ridge Parkway is 

centered on a driving experience and it is 

expected that appropriate levels of traffic 

noise will occur. However, parkway staff have 

received numerous complaints that loud 

motorcycle noise can be intrusive to other 

visitors trying to enjoy the overlooks, 

campgrounds, and other key areas (USDOT 

2011). 

A 2011 collaborative report conducted by the 

National Park Service and the Department of 

Transportation provided understanding of 

motorcycle noise measurements within the 

parkway. Motorcycles and associated sounds 

were evaluated by segmenting the vehicles 

into five types, which included: cruiser, sport, 

dual purpose, touring, and moped/scooter. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

205 

Eleven sample locations were chosen to 

enable data collection of (1) noise emission 

levels of motorcycles by monitoring near the 

road, and (2) sensitive receiver measurements 

in areas which receive frequent human use 

such as overlooks, picnic areas, campgrounds, 

hiking trails and visitor centers. 

For each motorcycle category, the frequency, 

the maximum, minimum, and average vehicle 

pass-by A-weighted maximum sound levels, as 

well as the maximum, minimum, and average 

speeds were recorded. Acoustic monitoring 

results suggested that cruiser motorcycles 

were the most prevalent and exhibited the 

loudest sound outputs, averaging 72.8 LAmax 

(dBA) and peaking at 84.8 LAmax (dBA). 

Moped/scooter categories were the least 

prevalent and produced the lowest sound 

outputs, averaging 62.0 LAmax (dBA) and 

peaking at 62.3 LAmax (dBA). The cruiser 

class maintained frequency ranges between 

100-400 Hz, exceeding the other motorcycle 

categories. 

According to Code of Federal Regulations 40 

CFR 205 Part D, motorcycles manufactured in 

1986 or later must not exceed an LAmax level 

of 80 (dBA) with the exception of mopeds and 

older motorcycles at a distance of 50 feet as 

the motor passes by. According to the report, 

of the 73 cruiser motorcycle pass-by events, 15 

exceeded 77 dBA for their broadband LAmax, 

and given the soft ground which likely 

absorbed some of the sounds, approximately 

21% of the cruisers exceeded the federally 

regulated noise levels. 

Furthermore, this study suggested that sound 

level decreased less rapidly for cruisers than 

the other tested motorcycles, and cruiser 

motorcycle sounds propagate more readily, 

resulting in greater sound levels farther from 

the road (USDOT 2011). 

Table 36 shows examples of sound levels 

associated with groups of motorcycles at 

several of the sensitive locations. For these 

sites, a group of motorcycles was identified, 

and based on the 1-second LAmax time 

histories in the sound level meter files, the 

maximum sound level for the group was 

extracted, and the time in seconds that the 

group of motorcycles exceeded the ambient 

sound was determined. In some cases, noise 

from another source could be identified 

before the sound from the motorcycles 

completely faded (sound was not at the 

ambient level either before or after the event); 

these cases are marked with “+”; this indicates 

the time exceeding ambient would be longer 

than indicated had there been no other noise 

sources. Please note that the times being 

calculated do not represent a time audible 

metric, which would require a sound 

detectability analysis (USDOT 2011). 

TABLE 36. EXAMPLE SOUND LEVELS AND EXPOSURE 

TIMES AT RECEIVER LOCATIONS

Site Location ~Ambient 

Sound 

Level 

(dBA) 

LAmax for 

Group of 

Motorcycles 

(dBA) 

Approximate 

Time 

Exceeding 

Ambient 

(seconds) 

Thunder 

Struck Ridge 

Overlook 

Highs 30s 81.6 48+ 

Waterrock 

Knob (near 

visitor 

center) 

Mid 40s 56.9 22 

Grass Ridge 

Mine 

Low 50s 81.4 44 

Mountainsto-Sea 

hiking trail 

near Grass 

Ridge Mine 

Overlook 

Mid 30s 71.5 64+ 

Mt. Pisgah 

campground 

Mid 30s 55.0 27+ 

Graveyard 

Fields 

Overlook 

High 20s 78.0 45+ 

Graveyard 

Fields hiking 

trail 

Low 30s 59.7 59 

Devil’s 

Courthouse 

Overlook 

High 30s 80.0 37 

Table 36 shows that at parkway overlook sites, 

the sound levels from isolated groups of 

motorcycles exceeded 80 dBA. On a hiking 

trail about 200 feet (61 m) from the road, the 

sound level exceeded 70 dBA. Near a visitor 

center about 300 feet (91 m) from the road, at 

a campground about 550 feet (168 m) from the 

road, and on a hiking trail about 1005 feet (306 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

206 

m) from the road, the sound levels reached 

55-60 dBA. (Distances given as slant distance–

accounts for distance from the road and 

change in elevation.) The time exceeding 

ambient was from 22-64+ seconds (USDOT 

2011). 

The above information gives some indication 

as to what a park visitor may experience from 

a motorcycle or group of motorcycles passing 

by. The motorcycles may be loud or quiet and 

the time exceeding the ambient sound level 

varies (USDOT 2011). 

To get an idea of how many times park visitors 

were exposed to motorcycle noise during a 

visit to the Blue Ridge Parkway on a Saturday 

in mid-September, an approximate 5-hour 

time block was examined for Sites BR04R and 

BR05S (same section of roadway affected both 

sites), Grass Ridge Mine Overlook, and 

Mountains-to-Sea hiking trail, to see how 

many motorcycles passed by. The total 

number of motorcycles passing by (traveling 

both directions) was 385 (approximately 74% 

cruisers, 7% sport, 3% dual purpose, 12% 

touring, and 4% moped/scooter). If a visitor 

were at the location for 20 minutes (a 

reasonable duration for an overlook visit), 

they would have been exposed to an average 

of about 25 motorcycles. It should be noted 

that in addition to motorcycle noise, visitors 

were also exposed to other types of vehicle 

noise (USDOT 2011). 

VISITOR CIRCULATION AND PARKING 

The location and popularity of recreational 

sites and activities often affects visitors’ 

abilities to circulate in the parkway and access 

particular sites. The most frequently visited 

areas along the parkway, as identified in the 

2002 visitor survey, are Linville Falls in the 

Black Mountain segment (29.7%), Linn Cove 

Viaduct in the Black Mountain segment 

(29.0%), Moses H. Cone Memorial Park in the 

Highlands segment (28.8%), Folk Art Center 

in the Asheville segment (24.9%), and Mt. 

Pisgah in the Pisgah segment (23.7%) (UVM 

2002). Craggy Gardens, in the Black Mountain 

segment, is another major recreational 

destination. The section of the parkway near 

the Peaks of Otter Recreation area (in the 

Ridge segment) experiences high, local, 

nonrecreational use and is an important 

access point for recreational users as well. 

State Route 43 enters the Peaks of Otter area 

at milepost 85.9 and follows the parkway 

south to milepost 91.0. Because of year-round 

local use this section of parkway is plowed in 

the winter. Seasonal road closures primarily 

affect nonrecreational users as winter 

recreational visitation is low. Parking capacity 

is an issue at the Peaks of Otter Lodge 

restaurant, which is a favorite of local 

residents and visitors, on holidays and 

weekends (DEA 2004). 

The popularity of the parkway’s attractions 

can lead to traffic congestion and parking 

issues. The primary mode of travel is private 

vehicle, as originally intended, which not only 

affects parking but access and circulation as 

well. No transit service between adjacent 

communities and parkway facilities or 

attractions is provided along the parkway that 

could help alleviate congestion. Although the 

majority of visitors surveyed indicated they 

experienced little to no issues during their 

visit in 2002, some identified traffic congestion 

and difficulty finding a parking place as two 

major issues. Weekend visitors found the lack 

of available parking spaces at some overlooks 

and visitor centers to be a larger problem than 

weekday visitors (UVM 2002). In some 

parking areas, weekend volumes are more 

than double the weekday volumes (DEA 

2004). Table 37 identifies the percentage of 

visitors who noted these issues as a problem 

on weekdays versus weekends (UVM 2002). 

TABLE 37. PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED BY VISITORS BY 

WEEKDAY/WEEKEND

Issue Weekday % 

Visitors 

Weekend % 

Visitors 

Difficulty finding a 

parking space 35.7% 64.3% 

Crowding at park 

overlooks 28.0% 72.0% 

Crowding at park 

visitor centers 34.5% 65.5% 

Source: UVM 2002. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

207 

Based on the 2002 study, three parking 

locations in particular are exceeding capacity 

during peak visitation: (1) the Moses H. Cone 

Memorial Park parking area (being addressed 

under a separate planning study), (2) the 

Julian Price Memorial Park parking area, and 

(3) the Graveyard Fields Overlook. The first 

two are in the Highlands segment and the 

latter is in the Pisgah segment. As noted in the 

“Traffic and Transportation” section, the 

Graveyard Fields Overlook has the highest 

number of occupied parking spaces, as well as 

the highest number of illegally parked cars. 

Park law enforcement staff have also noted 

parking problems during the peak season at 

Mabry Mill (in the Plateau segment), the 

amphitheater at milepost 213 (in the Plateau 

segment), and during events at Brinegar Cabin 

at milepost 238.5 near Doughton Park (in the 

Highlands segment) (DEA 2004). Park staff 

have also noted that the parking lot at Linville 

Falls (in the Black Mountain segment) is 

typically full during the summer and that 

parking is the limiting factor regulating use 

levels at this recreation area. 

Park staff have noted much overflow parking 

at Humpback Rocks (Ridge segment) and 

visitors have complained to park staff about 

the limited parking situation. In the Asheville 

segment there is high recreational use mixed 

with commuter traffic, particularly between 

U.S. 70 and NC 191. Recreationists here park 

vehicles in undesignated areas due to the 

absence of paved parking at the Mountainsto-Sea Trail trailhead (DEA 2004). According 

to park staff, little to no designated parking is 

provided along the parkway to access the 

limited trails that are provided. Park staff note 

that trails near Asheville are heavily used by 

locals, resulting in crowding on trails, traffic 

congestion, and damage to road shoulders. 

The Asheville community wants better 

recreation access through various trails and 

periphery recreation areas (NPS 2008b). 

VISITOR PERCEPTIONS OF CROWDING 

Understanding visitor perceptions of 

crowding is essential for determining the 

appropriate types and extent of use that can 

be accommodated along the parkway while 

sustaining the quality of its natural and 

cultural resources and visitor experiences. 

The NPS approach to ensuring that use does 

not degrade resources or experience is 

referred to as “user capacity management.” 

The user capacity section of chapter 2 

provides additional information about this 

concept, as well as a management framework 

that would be implemented under the action 

alternatives to address future crowding 

problems along the parkway. 

When asked about the special values that are 

most important to their parkway experience, 

visitors describe the beauty of the views from 

and along the roadway. The natural setting of 

mountains and valleys, the peacefulness of 

rural and pastoral landscapes, and the 

dramatic high-elevation vistas are frequently 

mentioned by visitors as important. The 

character of the self-contained driving 

experience is also highly regarded by visitors. 

Peace, solitude, leisure, freedom from traffic 

and speed, and the absence of commercial 

advertising are other aspects of the parkway 

experience that are particularly valued. Ready 

access to diverse recreational opportunities is 

also significant to parkway visitors. 

To gain a better understanding about visitors’ 

perceptions about crowding, the University of 

Vermont’s Visitor Survey Study (2002) asked a 

series of questions on this topic. In one 

question, respondents were presented with a 

series of photographs depicting different 

amounts of traffic along a generic section of 

the parkway. Respondents were asked to 

evaluate the acceptability of each photograph 

using a scale that ranged from –4 (very 

unacceptable) to +4 (very acceptable). 

Respondents were then asked to indicate the 

photographs that showed the number of cars 

they preferred to see; the number that would 

be so unacceptable that they would no longer 

visit the area (referred to as tolerance); the 

number of cars for which the parkway should 

manage; the number of cars typically seen by 

respondents during their visit on the day of 

the survey; and the number of cars they had 

expected to see during their visit. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

208 

Table 38 provides a summary of the survey 

results, which shows that respondents are 

experiencing traffic levels slightly under what 

they expected to see and somewhat over their 

preference level, but well under their 

tolerance or what they believe the parkway 

should manage for. Please note that the table 

is based on cars only and does not include 

motorcycles, bicycles, or RVs. 

TABLE 38. VISITORS’ LEVEL OF ACCEPTABILITY 

FOR NUMBER OF CARS SEEN ON THE PARKWAY

Acceptability Level Number 

of Cars 

Highest acceptable number of cars 7 

Preferable number of cars 3–4 

Number of cars that would be tolerated 16 

Number of cars for which NPS should 

manage 

12 

Number of cars typically seen 5 

Expected number of cars 6–7 

The 2002 visitor survey study also analyzed 

visitor perceptions of crowding at 11 

developed recreation areas along the parkway. 

Respondents were asked how many visitors 

they typically see; how many visitors they 

preferred to see; how many visitors were at 

their tolerance level to see; and how many 

visitors would require management action to 

reduce the number. Table 39 provides a 

summary of the survey results, which show 

that most areas have existing use levels closely 

in line with visitor preferences. Exceptions 

include Graveyard Fields, Looking Glass 

Rock, and Moses H. Cone (not part of this 

planning process). These areas have use levels 

that are almost twice what visitors would 

prefer; however, all 11 areas were below 

respondents’ tolerance levels 

To measure visitor perceptions of issues 

pertinent to their experience at the parkway, 

the survey included a question containing a 

list of issues. Respondents were asked to rate 

each on a three point scale where 1 = no 

problem, 2 = small problem, and 3 = big 

problem. All issues included in the question 

were rated by a majority of respondents as “no 

problem.” Issues rated as the biggest problems 

were (1) poor condition of park trails, (2) 

traffic congestion on roads, (3) difficulty 

finding a parking place, (4) inadequate 

number of visitor facilities/resources, (5) 

crowding at park overlooks, and (6) crowding 

at park visitor centers. Visitors surveyed on 

weekends were more likely to rate crowdingrelated issues as somewhat bigger problems. 

While results indicate that crowding is 

currently not a big problem, five out of the six 

highest rated problems related to visitor use 

levels and crowding. 

TABLE 39. VISITORS’ LEVEL OF ACCEPTABILITY FOR NUMBER OF PEOPLE 

SEEN AT DEVELOPED RECREATION AREAS

Location Typically 

Seen Preferred Tolerance Management Action Needed 

Cumberland Knob 9 12 44 65 

Folk Art Center 12 10 42 63 

Graveyard Fields 20 11 44 71 

Linn Cove 15 11 45 69 

Linville Falls 12 16 48 66 

Looking Glass Rock 15 8 40 64 

Moses H. Cone Memorial 14 8 46 65 

Peaks of Otter 12 15 44 71 

Julian Price Memorial 16 15 47 62 

Rocky Knob 9 12 46 62 

Waterrock Knob 13 12 43 72 

Average 13 12 44 66 
Visitor Use and Experience 

209 

VISITOR SAFETY 

Outside of the traffic safety conditions 

discussed in the “Traffic and 

Transportation”section, the other visitor 

safety concern raised during project scoping 

was related to crime at visually isolated 

parking areas. The very nature of the 

parkway’s designed landscape in which land 

forms were shaped and vegetation planted has 

resulted in some overlook parking areas not 

being visible from the parkway road. At some 

overlooks in urban settings, and others in 

isolated areas where views from the road are 

obstructed, there are ongoing problems with 

illegal activities and concern for visitors’ 

personal safety. The unstaffed visitor station 

at Cumberland Knob in the Highlands 

segment is also a safety concern, as there is no 

one for visitors to contact for help in case of 

emergency. For discussion of traffic-related 

safety issues, refer to the “Traffic and 

Transportation”section. 
210 

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION 

INTRODUCTION 

This section describes the physical properties 

of the transportation network, both along the 

Blue Ridge Parkway and in the surrounding 

region, and quantifiable characteristics that 

help define the use of the parkway as a 

transportation facility. The descriptions in this 

section are concise summaries organized by 

the traffic and transportation subtopics, which 

match those analyzed in “Chapter 4: 

Environmental Consequences.” 

This section describes existing traffic and 

transportation characteristics, including 

 vehicular access 

 traffic volumes 

 traffic mix (proportions of different 

vehicle types using the parkway) 

 traffic safety conditions 

 parking conditions 

 alternative transportation modes 

 road conditions 

While there are some parkway-wide aspects to 

the vehicular access topic, the majority of the 

discussion lends itself to a segment-bysegment breakdown. The other topics are 

presented in a parkway-wide format, with 

references to specific conditions in segments 

or recreation areas as appropriate. 

The parkway was designed as a scenic drive, 

rather than as a means to get from one place to 

another as quickly as possible. The parkway 

typically has an 850-foot wide right-of-way or 

an average of 110 acres per mile including fee 

simple and scenic easement lands, which helps 

to maintain the scenic nature of the drive. 

Construction of the parkway started in 1935. 

It was about two-thirds complete by the start 

of World War II in 1941 (NCNatural n.d.) All 

but 7.5 of the 469 miles were completed by 

1967. Construction was not complete until the 

last remaining section, including the Linn 

Cove Viaduct, opened in 1987 (BRPA n.d.) 

The paved roadway is about 20 feet wide with 

wider pavement on curves and there are no 

paved shoulders. It has a maximum speed 

limit of 45 mph, with a speed limit of 35 mph 

in many of the recreation areas. 

Over the years, higher speed highways have 

been built in the area surrounding the 

parkway. Segments of I-81 opened in 1959 

and the interstate was fully completed in 1971 

(FHWA 2003). The fastest route to get from 

Waynesboro, Virginia, to Cherokee, North 

Carolina, is about 385 miles long, travels 

primarily on I-81, and takes about six and a 

half hours to drive. By comparison, it may take 

two full days to drive the entire length of the 

parkway. 

The parkway is less than a day’s drive from a 

large population of 75 million people, 

including all of Virginia, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, West Virginia, and Delaware; 

most of Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, 

Pennsylvania, and New Jersey; and the 

southern half of Ohio. There are many major 

metropolitan areas within a day’s drive of the 

parkway, including Atlanta, Nashville, 

Louisville, Cincinnati, Columbus, Pittsburgh, 

Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, 

D.C. 

The Blue Ridge Parkway is unique in that 

there are no entrance stations, no fees, and the 

roadway itself is the main park experience. 

Recreational trips make up the majority of 

trips along the parkway. With no entrance 

fees, the parkway also handles a relatively 

large amount of nonrecreational trips as local 

residents use the roadway for commuting or 

personal business, especially in the more 

urbanized areas in Roanoke, Virginia, and 

Boone/Blowing Rock and Asheville, North 

Carolina. As more residential development is 

occurring along the rural section of the 

parkway in the Plateau and Highlands 

segments, these sections of the parkway are 

also subject to more nonrecreational traffic 

use. 
Traffic and Transportation 

211 

While there are no entrance stations, there are 

gates to temporarily close sections of the 

parkway, primarily during the winter months 

when weather events such as ice and snow 

warrant closing the parkway for safety 

purposes. Recreational visitation is low during 

the winter months, so these seasonal road 

closures generally have more impact on the 

local, nonrecreational users. 

By definition as a national rural parkway, the 

Blue Ridge Parkway is to be managed as a 

limited access roadway. Thirty gradeseparated parkway and U.S. and state highway 

crossings were constructed with access ramps 

to facilitate connections to major routes along 

the length of the parkway. The gradeseparated crossings provide an uninterrupted 

driving experience and they also determine 

the primary locations for access to the 

parkway. However, as the states of Virginia 

and North Carolina purchased the parkway 

right-of-way, they allowed 104 at-grade 

secondary road intersections with the 

parkway in Virginia and 95 in North Carolina 

(NPS 1995). There also are over 100 private 

road crossings that intersect at-grade with the 

parkway. Most of the private road 

connections and about two-thirds of the 

secondary road at-grade intersections are in 

the Plateau and Highlands segments, which 

only contain about one-third of the total 

parkway mileage. These at-grade intersections 

conflict with the goal to operate the parkway 

as a limited access roadway. There is no direct 

access with the four interstate highways 

crossing the parkway. U.S. Forest Service 

administrative roads, other government 

agency roads, and parkway service roads also 

intersect the parkway road. These road 

connections account for another 50 at-grade 

intersections. 

As residential development occurs on farm 

lands that have direct private drive 

connections with the parkway, and as private 

lands adjacent to secondary roads are 

converted from agricultural to residential use, 

nonrecreational trips on the parkway will 

likely increase. Increased traffic volumes and 

turning movements may potentially pose a 

serious threat to the NPS goal of limiting 

access to provide a high quality and safe 

experience for recreational users. 

Improvement of secondary and primary roads 

on park land would also have a direct impact 

on park natural, cultural, and scenic 

resources. In response to these issues, there is 

a current moratorium, which started in the 

mid-1990s (Pleasantvue.com 2008), on 

allowing road improvements within the 

parkway boundary. 

VEHICULAR ACCESS 

Vehicular access refers to the ease and 

convenience of accessing the parkway with an 

automobile, driving to destinations along or 

adjacent to the parkway and finding parking 

close to desired destinations. The parkway is a 

limited access roadway. There is no direct 

access between any of the intersecting 

interstate highways and the parkway. Access 

for interstate highway travelers is typically 

obtained from a U.S. highway, with a distance 

of 3 to 4 miles to return to the point where the 

parkway crosses the interstate highway. There 

are typically grade-separated access points at 

locations where U.S. highways intersect the 

parkway. However, many state highways and 

local roads cross the parkway without direct 

access. This includes about 70 gradeseparated crossings with no access to the 

parkway and about 30 grade-separated 

crossings where parkway traffic does not 

conflict with through traffic from the crossing 

road, but there are nearby ramps that provide 

access to and from the parkway (NPS 1995). 

In many sections of the parkway, local roads 

function as frontage roads. No commercial 

traffic is allowed because as a national rural 

parkway the roadway is dedicated to 

recreational driving purposes and it is not for 

commercial or regional transportation 

purposes. 

The primary means of accessing the parkway 

for travelers from outside the region is via the 

U.S. Interstate System. Because there is no 

direct interstate highway access to the 

parkway road, travelers need to exit in the 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

212 

parkway vicinity and follow signs to the 

nearest highway with parkway access. The 

primary interstate highway routes are as 

follows: 

 Interstate 81 is roughly parallel to the 

parkway. It is about 10 miles to the west 

in the northern portion of the parkway 

in Virginia and about 40 to 50 miles to 

the west in the southern portion of the 

parkway in North Carolina. It is the 

primary access to the parkway for 

travelers from the East Coast, including 

the Washington, D.C. metro area. 

 Interstate 64 travels in a primarily eastwest direction. It crosses the north end 

of the parkway in Virginia at milepost 

0.0. To the east, it travels to the Virginia 

state capital, Richmond, where it 

connects with I-95. It terminates in the 

populous Norfolk / Virginia Beach area 

of southeast Virginia. To the west, it 

travels through West Virginia, Kentucky, 

southern Indiana, and southern Illinois 

and terminates at a junction with I-70 in 

the St. Louis, Missouri, area. 

 Interstate 73 is a proposed north-south 

interstate highway that would cross the 

parkway in the Roanoke segment on the 

south side of Roanoke, Virginia, at 

milepost 121.4, at the current U.S. 220 

crossing location. It is being planned by 

the Virginia Department of 

Transportation. 

 Interstate 77 is a north-south interstate 

highway that crosses the parkway in the 

Plateau segment at milepost 200.7, near 

the town of Hillsville, Virginia. To the 

south, it travels through Charlotte, 

North Carolina, and terminates at a 

junction with I-20 in Columbia, South 

Carolina. To the north, it travels through 

West Virginia (it is concurrent with I-64 

up to Charleston, West Virginia) and 

then north into eastern Ohio. It crosses 

I-70 and then terminates at a junction 

with I-80 in the Cleveland, Ohio, area. 

 Interstate 40 travels in an east-west 

direction and is roughly parallel to the 

southern portion of the parkway in 

North Carolina. It is about 40 miles to 

the south as the parkway enters North 

Carolina, with the distance diminishing 

to the west. It crosses the parkway in the 

Asheville segment at milepost 383.4, just 

east of Asheville, North Carolina. To the 

east, it travels through the North 

Carolina state capital, Raleigh, crosses I95 and then travels in a southeast 

direction to its terminus near the 

Atlantic Ocean at Wilmington, North 

Carolina. To the west, it travels through 

Nashville and Memphis, Little Rock, 

Oklahoma City, Albuquerque, and 

Flagstaff on the way to its terminus 

northeast of Los Angeles, California. 

 Interstate 26, which was completed in 

2003, starts at I-81 and travels in a 

primarily southeast direction. It crosses 

the parkway in the Asheville segment at 

milepost 392.0, south of Asheville. To 

the southeast, it travels through 

Columbia, South Carolina, crosses I-95, 

and then terminates at Charleston, South 

Carolina.

Segment 1—Ridge, Mileposts 0–106 

This segment has 64 overlooks and parking 

areas. The Bluff Mountain tunnel is the only 

tunnel in Virginia. This segment has very few 

bridges because the parkway road alignment is 

cut into the mountainside or follows the top 

of the ridge for most of the segment. Most of 

the bridges are in the Otter Creek and the 

James River crossing area (DEA 2004). Visitor 

traffic is concentrated in the three recreational 

areas (Humpback Rocks, Otter Creek/James 

River, and Peaks of Otter) while traffic tends 

to be more dispersed along the rest of the 

parkway in this segment. 

The primary grade separated parkway 

accesses in this segment are as follows: 

 U.S. 250 (the Rockfish Gap Turnpike) is 

the first access point and provides 

indirect access for I-64 travelers. It 

roughly parallels I-64 and provides local 

access between the towns of Staunton 

and Waynesboro on the west side of the 

parkway and Charlottesville on the east 

side. 
Traffic and Transportation 

213 

 U.S. 60 (milepost 45.6) is near the town 

of Buena Vista. The access point is about 

8 miles east of I-81. 

 U.S. 501 (milepost 63.8) is near the 

crossing of the James River, which is the 

lowest point along the length of the 

parkway. Another scenic attraction, 

Natural Bridge, is between I-81 and the 

parkway. It provides local access 

between the towns of Glasgow on the 

west side of the parkway and Lynchburg 

on the east side. 

 VA 43 (milepost 85.9 to 90.9) connects 

the towns of Buchanan and Bedford. It is 

concurrent with the parkway for about 5 

miles. 

 U.S. 460 (milepost 105.7) crosses the 

parkway near the eastern outskirts of 

Roanoke. 

There are 13 road closure gate locations in this 

segment. The section that is concurrent with 

VA 43 is one of the few sections that are 

plowed by the Virginia Department of 

Transportation in the winter (DEA 2004). 

Segment 2—Roanoke, Mileposts 106–

136 

This segment follows the outskirts of the town 

of Vinton and the city of Roanoke through 

Roanoke County in Virginia. This is the 

largest city in western Virginia with a metro 

area population of about 300,000 and it also is 

the largest urban area next to the parkway 

(Census 2008). When looking at a map, the 

parkway has the appearance of an urban 

beltway around the southeastern area of 

Roanoke, about 5 miles from the center of the 

city. Views of the suburbanization of the once 

rural landscape can be seen from 18 overlook 

parking areas in this segment. Because of the 

parkway’s limited access, several radial 

arterials cross over the parkway without 

access. These include VA 634 (Hardy Road), 

VA 116 (Jae Valley Road), and VA 668 (Yellow 

Mountain Road). Of the 27 crossings in this 

segment, 20 are grade-separated without 

parkway access (NPS 1995). 

The primary grade-separated accesses to the 

parkway are as follows: 

 VA 24 (East Washington Avenue / 

Stewartsville Road) (milepost 112.2) 

provides access on the east side of 

Roanoke. 

 At approximately milepost 120, the 

parkway provides the only access to the 

Roanoke Mountain Loop Road, a 4-mile 

long one-way scenic loop that goes up, 

around, and down Roanoke Mountain 

east of the parkway. To the west, the 

parkway provides access to the Mill 

Mountain Spur Road, which provides 

visitor access to the Roanoke Mountain 

Campground and downtown via the 

Fishburn Parkway. 

 U.S. 220 (Franklin Road) (milepost 

121.4) provides access south of 

Roanoke. This road is the continuation 

of I-581, which extends southeast from 

I-81 and ends 1.6 miles to the north. 

There are four road closure gate locations in 

this segment. Because winter recreational 

volumes are low, winter road closures 

disproportionately affect nonrecreational 

users (DEA 2004). 

Segment 3—Plateau, Mileposts 

136–217 

This segment begins at the southern limits of 

Roanoke County and extends 81 miles south 

to the Virginia and North Carolina state line. 

This segment has a straighter alignment 

through mostly pastoral farm and rural 

residential landscapes. There are relatively 

few overlooks (18) spread along the 81 miles 

of this segment. However, it provides the most 

scenic views of farmland to be seen along the 

parkway (DEA 2004). Many local secondary 

(53) and private (60) roads intersect the 

parkway at-grade and other public roads on 

park land function as frontage roads running 

parallel to the parkway. This segment has 

about two-thirds of the parkway’s total atgrade intersections and crossings (NPS 1995). 

Due to increased residential development in 

the region around this segment, there are 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

214 

appreciable road improvement pressures. 

Major recreation areas in this segment are 

Rocky Knob and Mabry Mill. Traffic 

congestion and parking capacity are issues at 

Mabry Mill almost every weekend during the 

visitor season. 

The primary parkway access points are as 

follows: 

 An approximately 1⁄4 mile-long ramp 

connects U.S. 221 (milepost 136.1) to the 

parkway. 

 VA 8 (milepost 165.3) connects to I-81 

near Blacksburg to the north and U.S. 58 

to the south. 

 U.S. 58 (milepost 177.7) crosses the 

parkway just south of the Mabry Mill 

recreation area, which is a major tourist 

attraction. This crossing is just north of 

Meadows of Dan. It provides local 

access between the towns of Hillsville on 

the west side of the parkway and Stuart 

on the east side. 

 U.S. 52 (Fancy Gap Highway) (milepost 

199.4) provides indirect access for I-77 

travelers and provides access to the town 

of Hillsville to the north and Mount 

Airy, North Carolina, to the south. 

 VA 89 (Skyline Highway) (milepost 

215.8) crosses the parkway just north of 

the state line and provides access to 

Galax to the north. 

There are six road closure gate locations in 

this segment (DEA 2004). Road closures can 

have appreciable impacts on local 

nonrecreational users, as they comprise 

almost 35% of the total traffic in this segment 

(DEA 2002). Several short sections of the 

parkway in this segment are not gated or 

closed during winter weather events due to 

the number of residents that need to travel the 

parkway and connecting secondary roads 

because they provide the only means of access 

to and from their homes. This presents a road 

safety issue as the parkway does not have the 

staff or equipment to plow the parkway. 

Segment 4—Highlands, Mileposts 

217–300 

This segment extends 83 miles and includes 

Doughton Park and the Moses H. Cone and 

Julian Price memorial parks. There are several 

bridges in the first 15 miles of this segment 

and several bridges in the Boone/Blowing 

Rock area. 

The primary parkway access points are as 

follows: 

 NC 18 (milepost 217.3) is the first access 

point in North Carolina. Less than one 

mile east of the parkway, NC 18 ends at 

NC 89, which connects to VA 89 at the 

state line and provides access to the 

town of Mount Airy on the east side. 

 U.S. 21 (milepost 229.6) provides access 

to Stone Mountain State Park, connects 

with I-77 to the south and the town of 

Sparta to the north. 

 U.S. 421 (milepost 276.3) provides access 

to Wilkesboro and Winston-Salem to the 

east and the town of Boone to the west. 

 U.S. 221 runs parallel to the parkway and 

has several access points in this area, 

including at milepost 292.0 near the 

town of Blowing Rock. 

There are six road closure gate locations in 

this segment. Sections are often closed during 

the winter for long periods of time (DEA 

2004). This segment has the second-most atgrade intersections (76 total) of the parkway 

segments, including about 40 secondary state 

highways and about 25 private access roads 

(NPS 1995). Secondary road improvement 

pressures are greater in this segment than 

other areas on the parkway due to increased 

residential development near the parkway. 

Segment 5—Black Mountain, 

Mileposts 300–377 

This segment extends 77 miles to the northern 

outskirts of Asheville, North Carolina. It 

provides the only access to Mount Mitchell, 

the highest point east of the Mississippi River. 

This segment includes several bridges and 
Traffic and Transportation 

215 

eight tunnels as the parkway travels along the 

high peaks of the Black Mountains (DEA 

2004). This segment includes the final 

parkway section, opened in 1987, around 

Grandfather Mountain. The Linn Cove 

Viaduct in the Grandfather Mountain section 

has become one of the iconic bridge images of 

the parkway. The viaduct and its associated 

visitor contact station are a focus for visitor 

activity. Recreation areas in the segment 

include Linville Falls, Museum of North 

Carolina Minerals, Crabtree Falls, and Craggy 

Gardens. 

The primary parkway access points are as 

follows: 

 U.S. 221 (known as the Blowing Rock 

Highway in this area) has two additional 

access points to the parkway at milepost 

305.1 and milepost 317.5. 

 NC 226 (milepost 330.9) provides access 

to the parkway near Little Switzerland, 

one of the only places where private 

commercial activity exists directly on the 

parkway. 

 Craggy Gardens Road (milepost 367.6) is 

the only road that connects to the 

parkway in the last 26 miles of this 

segment. 

There are 15 road closure gate locations in this 

segment. The Craggy Gardens area is typically 

closed for most of the winter (DEA 2004). 

Segment 6—Asheville, Mileposts 377–

393 

This segment skirts the city of Asheville, 

which is the largest city in North Carolina 

west of Charlotte. The parkway 

circumnavigates the southeastern metro area, 

about 5 miles from the center of Asheville. It is 

outside several freeways that skirt the center 

of the city, including I-40 on the south and I240 on the east. All but two of the state and 

U.S. highways are grade-separated and there 

are no at-grade private road accesses in this 

segment. 

The primary parkway access points are as 

follows: 

 Webb Cove Road ties into NC 694 

(Town Mountain Road) (milepost 377.4) 

and provides direct access to residential 

housing developments. 

 U.S. 70 (Tunnel Road / Black Mountain 

Highway) (milepost 382.5) provides 

access east of Asheville, including the 

town of Black Mountain to the east. 

 U.S. 74 (Charlotte Highway) (milepost 

384.7) provides access southeast of 

Asheville and provides indirect access 

for I-40 travelers. It is the most direct 

route between Charlotte, about 120 

miles southeast of the parkway, and 

Asheville. 

 U.S. 25 (Hendersonville Road) (milepost 

388.9) provides access south of 

Asheville. This is the closest access to the 

Biltmore Estate, which is America's 

largest home and a national historic 

landmark. 

 NC 191 (Brevard Road) (milepost 393.7) 

provides indirect access, through 

housing developments, for I-26 travelers. 

There are five road closure gate locations in 

this segment. There are frequent winter 

closures north of the Folk Art Center, which is 

at milepost 382 (DEA 2004). Park staff has 

indicated that there is visitor demand for yearround use of the parkway in this segment; 

however, there is only enough staff and 

funding to keep the parkway open for part of 

the year (NPS 2008d). 

Segment 7—Pisgah, Mileposts 

393–469 

There are 17 tunnels and only a few bridges 

through this mountainous stretch of the 

parkway. This segment has the most 

overlooks with 77 along the parkway and 

another six overlooks on the Heintooga Spur 

Road connecting with the parkway at milepost 

458.2 (DEA 2004). The southern 13 miles of 

this segment travel through the Qualla 

Boundary, which is the reservation for the 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

216 

Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians 

(Cherokee n.d.) 

The primary parkway access points are as 

follows: 

 U.S. 276 (milepost 411.8) is a fairly 

isolated winding, mountainous road. It 

connects the towns of Waynesville on 

the north side of the parkway and 

Brevard on the south side. 

 U.S. 74 (Great Smoky Mountain 

Expressway) (milepost 443.2) passes 

through Waynesville on the way to I-40 

to the northeast of the parkway and the 

town of Sylva to the southwest. 

 U.S. 441 (Newfound Gap Road) 

(milepost 469.0) is the southern terminus 

of the parkway, near the town of 

Cherokee, North Carolina. It is the 

primary route across Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park, traveling 

north 33 miles through the park to 

Gatlinburg, Tennessee. 

There are 13 road closure gate locations in this 

segment. Except for the northern 9 miles, this 

segment is typically closed for the majority of 

the winter (DEA 2004). 

TRAFFIC VOLUMES 

Because the parkway has no entrance stations 

or fees, parkway staff count traffic entering 

the parkway as the primary means to quantify 

visitation. Since 1970, there have been 56 

traffic count locations identified along the 

parkway, primarily on access ramps. All of 

these locations were originally counted using 

tubes that were placed across the count 

locations. By 1989, inductive loops were 

embedded in the road pavement at 15 

locations. These inductive loops provide 

continuous year-round data. Since 2003, the 

only data that has been collected is from the 

inductive loop locations. Volumes at the other 

locations are estimated using regression 

formulas, which are based on past 

relationships with the inductive loop data 

(NPS n.d.b.) To provide data for the 

parkway’s general management plan, more 

detailed information was collected. As a part 

of the process, a comprehensive data 

collection program was completed in August 

of 2002. Data collected included the 

following: 

 Peak Hour Turning Movements: These 

were collected at key intersections along 

the parkway to provide information on 

the number of cars going left, through or 

right from each of the approaches. 

 Automatic Traffic Counters: Daily traffic 

counts were collected at key locations 

along the parkway to determine hourly 

directional traffic volumes and traffic 

mix (classification). 

 Activity Centers: Data collected at key 

activity centers included peak hour 

access volumes, parking occupancy 

totals, illegally parked car counts, and 

parked vehicle classification. 

 Roadside Surveys: One weekday survey 

location was set up in each segment. 

Weekend survey locations were set up in 

the Plateau and Asheville segments. Data 

collected from drivers included trip 

purpose, vehicle occupancy, trip origin, 

access point used to enter the parkway, 

planned length of travel on the parkway, 

and general comments. 

The data collected represented the average 

peak season. The daily volumes collected by 

the automatic traffic counters are shown in 

table 40. 

TABLE 40. EXISTING BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY TRAFFIC 

VOLUMES

Study 

Segment Milepost 

Average Peak Season 

Traffic Volume 

(August 2002) 

Weekday Weekend 

Ridge 107 1,880 2,140 

Plateau 127 930 1,240 

Plateau 189.5 840 1,920 

Highlands 286 2,760 3,690 

Black 

Mountains 

and Asheville 

378 

1,650 2,350 

Pisgah 397 1,180 2,710 

Source: Data collection by TRA in August 2002. 
Traffic and Transportation 

217 

The highest traffic volumes were in the 

Highlands segment, which includes the 

Boone/Blowing Rock area where there are 

many summer activities and attractions. The 

lowest weekday volumes were in the Plateau 

segment and the lowest weekend volumes 

were in the Roanoke segment. 

Park staff are concerned that increases in 

nonrecreational local and commuter traffic, 

which has different characteristics than 

parkway recreational traffic, is having adverse 

impacts on recreational visitors who travel the 

parkway. The local drivers are more familiar 

with the portions of the parkway that they 

travel on a regular basis and generally they 

have a desire to travel faster and for short 

distances (NPS 2008d). As the frequency of 

parkway connections with the regional 

transportation system increases, the effect can 

be increased congestion. However, there is 

also a benefit to parkway visitors to have more 

access to off-parkway services and attractions. 

The average vehicle occupancy varies from 

segment to segment. The vehicle occupancy 

values collected in August 2002 are shown in 

table 41. The parkway-wide average vehicle 

occupancy is 2.1 persons per vehicle on 

weekdays and 2.3 on weekends. This varies 

somewhat from segment to segment, with a 

high of 2.4 in the Black Mountains and Pisgah 

segments and a low of 1.8 in the Roanoke 

segment (DEA 2002). 

TABLE 41. EXISTING BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY VEHICLE 

OCCUPANCY VALUES

Study 

Segment Milepost 

Average Peak Season 

Vehicle Occupancy 

(August 2002) 

Weekday Weekend 

Ridge 92 1.9 

Roanoke 160 1.8 

Plateau 189.5 1.9 2.2 

Highlands 236 2.0 

Black 

Mountains 

and Asheville 

360 

2.4 2.4 

Pisgah 404 2.4 

Source: Data collection by DEA in August 2002. 

It has been found that the average vehicle 

occupancy for outdoor recreation types of 

trips is about 2.5 and that the average vehicle 

occupancy for commuting trips is about 1.1, 

with values for other nonrecreational 

purposes, such as personal business, 

shopping/dining, and transporting others, 

being somewhat higher. 

In general, as the percentage of nonrecreation 

trips increases, the average vehicle occupancy 

decreases. This relationship is evident in the 

parkway data for trip purposes collected in 

August 2002, which is summarized in table 42. 

Collected by roadside survey interviews of 

drivers on the parkway, the “outdoor 

recreation” trip purpose represents 

recreational trips by parkway visitors. The 

“commuter” trip purpose is travel to or from 

work, representing a local trip that occurs 

routinely along the parkway. The “travel for 

work” trip purpose represents a local trip that 

someone may have taken as part of their job, 

but which may not occur routinely each day. 

The Roanoke segment has the lowest 

percentage of recreational trips (51%) and 

also has the lowest average vehicle occupancy 

(1.8). The Black Mountains segment has the 

highest percentage of recreational trips (95%) 

and is tied for the highest average vehicle 

occupancy (2.4). Although the data for the 

Asheville segment was collected in 

combination with the Black Mountains 

segment, the location of the roadside survey 

(at milepost 360) was far north of the Asheville 

urban area, between Craggy Gardens and 

Mount Mitchell. It is believed the parkway 

east of Asheville has a higher percentage of 

commuter and other nonrecreational traffic. 

Monthly recreational visitation is estimated by 

the National Park Service. Entered traffic 

volumes collected at permanent counter 

locations by the National Park Service are 

converted to recreational visitation using a 

standard vehicle occupancy value based on 

the month of the year. Visitation is measured 

in person trips, which is the product of the 

average vehicle occupancy and the traffic 

volume. An estimate of nonrecreational trips 

is removed from the overall visitation to 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

218 

obtain recreational visitation. The annual 

recreation visitation totals from each of the 

last 30 years is shown in figure 23 (NPS n.d.b.) 

Visitation reached an all-time high in 2002, 

but has dropped in the years since, with 2009 

visitation dropping back to values last seen in 

the mid-1980s and the first half of the 1990s. 

The high season for travel along the parkway 

is generally between May and October, with 

peaks for the summer travel season and in 

October for the viewing of the fall leaves. 

Figure 24 illustrates the variation in monthly 

visitation for 2002, when the data collection 

program was conducted, and 2009 (NPS 

n.d.b.) The overall seasonal pattern of 

visitation through the year has remained 

similar since 2002. 

Updated ramp counts of the traffic volumes 

entering the parkway were obtained through 

the end of 2009 for eight locations. Volumes 

from 2009 were lower than those collected in 

2002 at most of the locations, which is 

consistent with the trend in overall Park 

visitation (NPS n.d.b.) 

Given that parkway-wide visitation figures 

have decreased, it is reasonable to assume that 

current volumes are generally no higher than 

they were in 2002. For these reasons, the 2002 

traffic volumes were used for the existing 

conditions traffic analyses and assessment as a 

recent “worst-case” peak condition. 

TABLE 42. TOP FIVE REPORTED TRIP PURPOSES (AUGUST 2002)

Study 

Segment Milepost 

Outdoor 

Recreation Commuter 

Travel for 

Work 

Personal 

Business Dining 

Ridge 92 71% 8% 7% 8% 2% 

Roanoke 160 51% 10% 6% 19% 11% 

Plateau 189.5 64% 6% 5% 12% 10% 

Highlands 236 80% 8% 3% 7% 2% 

Black 

Mountains and 

Asheville 

360 95% 2% 0% 1% 2% 

Pisgah 404 84% 4% 2% 2% 7% 

Source: Data collection by DEA in August 2002. 
Traffic and Transportation 

219 

FIGURE 23. ANNUAL RECREATION VISITORS AT BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

198019821984198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008

Year

# of Annual Visitors

Source: National Park Service. 

FIGURE 24. VARIATION IN SEASONAL VISITATION

Source: National Park Service. 

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

NovDec

Month

Total Monthly Visitation 

2002

2009
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

220 

LEVEL OF SERVICE 

Level of service is defined by the Highway 

Capacity Manual 2000 (Transportation 

Research Board (TRB) 2000) as a measure of 

the ability of an intersection or roadway 

segment to accommodate traffic volumes. 

Level of service values range from A, which 

indicates free-flow conditions with minimal 

delay, to level of service F, which indicates 

congested conditions with extremely long 

delays. Figure 25 illustrates the characteristics 

of the level of service values (TRB 2000) and 

the numerical values for intersection level of 

service. Figure 26 provides similar 

information for road segment level of service 

for class II facilities, which are defined as 

roadways that serve as scenic or recreational 

route (TRB 2000). 

Table 43 summarizes the existing levels of 

service for road segments at six locations in 

the parkway during an average peak season 

weekday or weekend (DEA 2004). 

TABLE 43. BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY EXISTING LEVEL OF 

SERVICE FOR ROAD SEGMENTS

Study 

Segment Milepost 

Peak Hour Level of 

Service (August 2002) 

Weekday Weekend 

Ridge 107 B B 

Roanoke 127 A A 

Plateau 189.5 A B 

Highlands 286 B B 

Black 

Mountain 

and 

Asheville 378 

A B 

Pisgah 397 A B 

Source: Transportation System Data Analysis—Blue Ridge 

Parkway (DEA September 2004). 

A visitor use and carrying capacity study was 

conducted in August 2002 and documented in 

the Visitor Survey Study Completion Report for 

the Blue Ridge Parkway (December 2002) to 

determine the visitor acceptability of different 

level of service traffic conditions along the 

parkway during a typical summer weekend. 

Visitors were shown a series of photographs 

depicting different amounts of traffic along a 

typical section of the parkway. Each 

photograph was associated with a level of 

service rating as defined by the Highway 

Capacity Manual 2000 (TRB 2000). The 

results indicate that any operation at or below 

level of service C is unacceptable for parkway 

visitor experience (DEA 2004). Level of 

service A was “very acceptable” and levels E 

and F were “very unacceptable.” None of the 

road segments analyzed along the parkway 

operate at an unacceptable level during the 

average peak season. 

Intersection level of service was analyzed at 21 

intersections throughout the corridor (DEA 

2004). Only one intersection operated at an 

unacceptable level of service for visitors. This 

was at the southern intersection of the U.S. 74 

access to the parkway in the Asheville segment 

(milepost 384.7). The intersection operates at 

level of service C, with average delays of over 

15 seconds in the AM peak hour and 20 

seconds in the PM peak hour. 

The “Visitor Use and Experience” section 

includes a discussion of crowding in 

recreation areas and its impacts on travelers. 
Traffic and Transportation 

221 

FIGURE 25. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE

Level of 

Service Average Control Delay (sec/veh) Illustration 

A 0 – 10 

B > 10 – 15 

C > 15 – 25 

D >25 – 35 

E > 35 – 50 

F > 50 

Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (TRB 2000), with illustrations by DEA. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

222 

FIGURE 26. TWO-LANE HIGHWAY (CLASS II) LEVELS OF SERVICE 

Level of 

Service Description 

A 

The highest quality of traffic service, when motorists are 

able to travel at their desired speed. Passing demand is well 

below passing capacity and platoons of three or more 

vehicles are rare. Drivers are delayed no more than 40% of 

their travel time by slow moving vehicles. 

B 

The demand for passing to maintain desired speeds 

becomes significant and approximates the passing capacity 

at the lower boundary of level of service B. Motorists will 

not be delayed in platoons for more than 55% of their 

travel time. 

C 

Traffic flow increases with noticeable increases in platoon 

formation and platoon size. Although traffic flow is stable, it 

is susceptible to congestion due to turning traffic and slowmoving vehicles. Time-spent-following may reach 70%. 

D 

Unstable traffic flow with mean platoon sizes of 5 to 10 

vehicles. Turning vehicles and roadside distractions cause 

major shock waves in the traffic stream. Motorists are 

delayed in platoons for up to 85% of their travel time. 

E 

The highest volume attainable under level of service E 

defines the capacity of the highway. Platooning becomes 

intense as slower vehicles or other interruptions are 

encountered. Traffic flow conditions have a percent-timespent-following greater than 85%. 

F 

Heavily congested traffic flow with demand exceeding 

capacity. Operating conditions are unstable and difficult to 

predict. 

Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (TRB 2000), with illustrations by DEA. 
Traffic and Transportation 

223 

TRAFFIC MIX 

Traffic mix, also known as vehicle 

classification, refers to the amount of different 

types of vehicles traveling along the parkway, 

including bicycles, motorcycles, automobiles, 

and RVs. Table 44 summarizes the traffic mix 

collected for the different parkway segments 

in August 2002. The highest RV classification 

volumes are on weekends in the Highlands 

segment (DEA 2002). 

The next-largest percentage of vehicle types is 

bikes/motorcycles, with bicycles representing 

about 1% of the traffic volumes. The “Visitor 

Use and Experience” section includes 

discussion of bicyclist experience along the 

parkway. At 4% of the overall traffic volume, 

motorcycle use is much higher than the 

general motorcycle proportion (DEA 2002). 

According to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics, motorcycles account for 1.9% of the 

vehicle total in the country as a whole, with a 

lower proportion in Virginia (1.0%) (USDOT 

2000a) and North Carolina (1.3%) (USDOT 

2000b). The parkway appeals to motorcyclists 

because of the numerous curves, overlooks, 

attractive scenery, and relatively low overall 

traffic volumes (Motorcycle 2005). The 

percentage of traffic that is motorcycles is 

appreciably higher on weekends than on 

weekdays, indicating that many of these 

motorcyclists are local weekend visitors. The 

percentage varies from as low as 1% on a 

weekday in the Highlands segment to as high 

as 8% on a weekend in the Black Mountains 

segment (DEA 2002). 

Other types of vehicles, including buses, 

account for 1% or less of the daily traffic 

volume (DEA 2002). No commercial truck 

traffic is allowed on the parkway. 

TABLE 44. EXISTING BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY TRAFFIC MIX

Study Segment Milepost 

Weekday Weekend 

Cars RVs 1 Bike / 

Motorcycle Cars RVs 1 Bike / Motorcycle 

Ridge 92 80% 18% 2% 79% 16% 5% 

Plateau 160 80% 15% 5% 80% 11% 9% 

Plateau 189.5 77% 20% 3% 79% 17% 4% 

Highlands 236 82% 17% 1% 82% 16% 2% 

Black Mountain and 

Asheville 360 82% 12% 6% 79% 12% 9% 

Pisgah 404 83% 11% 6% 80% 13% 7% 

Average 81% 15% 4% 80% 14% 6% 

Source: Data collection by DEA in August 2002. 1 Classification includes RVs, vehicles with trailers and single-unit trucks. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

224 

TRAFFIC SAFETY CONDITIONS 

Traffic-related safety refers to the safe 

movement of travelers in the parkway, 

including drivers and bicyclists. Designing for 

roadway safety considers that vehicles have 

adequate sight distance at corners, 

intersections, and parking areas; minimizes 

the possibility for conflicts between 

motorized vehicles, pedestrians, and 

bicyclists; and allows for vehicles to easily stay 

in their travel lanes. The “Visitor Use and 

Experience” section includes discussion 

related to visitor security and personal 

property. 

Accident rates for the overall parkway and 

each study segment for the period from 

March 2001 to March 2004 were very low as 

compared to the Virginia and North Carolina 

statewide average accident rate for two-lane 

undivided roadways, as shown in table 45. The 

accident rates are reported in accidents per 

million vehicle miles (RMVM). 

TABLE 45. BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY AND STATEWIDE 

ACCIDENT RATES

Roadway Accident 

Rate 

(RMVM) 

Blue Ridge Parkway 1 0.24 

NC Rural State Routes – 2 lane 

undivided 2

1.91 

VA Primary Routes 3 1.62 

Source: Transportation System Data Analysis—Blue Ridge 

Parkway (DEA September 2004), North Carolina Department 

of Transportation and Virginia Department of Transportation. 1

 March 2001–March 2004. 

2

 January 2003–December 2005 Three-Year Crash Rates. 3 Year 2004 Crash Summary. 

The accident rates in each study segment are 

shown in table 46. The highest accident rate is 

in the Roanoke segment and the lowest is in 

the Highlands segment (DEA 2004). 

TABLE 46. ACCIDENT RATES BY 

STUDY SEGMENT (MARCH 2001–MARCH 2004) 

Segment Accident Rate 

(RMVM) 

Ridge 0.25 

Roanoke 0.91 

Plateau 0.38 

Highlands 0.08 

Black Mountains 0.18 

Asheville 0.35 

Pisgah 0.25 

Source: Transportation System Data Analysis—

Blue Ridge Parkway (DEA September 2004). 

Table 47 shows a summary of the severity, 

contributing factors, and vehicle types 

involved in the accidents along the parkway 

road. The accident analysis showed relatively 

few accidents that are considered correctable 

with geometric design modifications. Of the 

534 total accidents in the NPS database, over 

80% of them can be attributed to deer or 

involved motorcycles (DEA 2004). The Pisgah 

and Black Mountains segments had the 

greatest percentage of motorcycle-involved 

accidents, whereas a majority of the deerrelated accidents occurred in the northern 

three segments of the parkway. Over 50% of 

the accidents in the Black Mountains segment 

were injury accidents. The majority of the 

accidents in the other segments were less 

severe and involved property damage only. 

In general, most motorcycle accidents 

occurred in the southern portions of the 

parkway where the roadway geometry is more 

varied and most of the deer-related accidents 

occurred in the northern portions where the 

topography and land use creates more wildlife 

crossings. The most common area for deerrelated accidents is near Roanoke between 

milepost 104 and milepost 128. Over 70% of 

the accidents in this 24-mile section were 

deer-related (DEA 2004). 
Traffic and Transportation 

225 

TABLE 47. BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY ACCIDENT SUMMARY (MARCH 2001–MARCH 2004) 

Segment Total Severity Vehicle Type 2 Contributing Factor 

Fatal Injury PDO1 Motorcycle Car/RV Deer DUI1 Other 

Ridge 148 0 22 126 42 87 97 1 50 

Roanoke 77 0 6 71 7 65 60 2 15 

Plateau 102 0 16 86 21 69 71 0 31 

Highlands 62 2 12 48 14 46 16 3 46 

Black 

Mountains 47 1 25 21 30 16 4 0 43 

Asheville 30 0 4 26 5 25 7 0 23 

Pisgah 68 0 26 42 56 12 1 0 67 

Totals 534 3 111 420 175 320 256 6 272 

Source: Park accident database, compiled by DEA. 1

 PDO = Property Damage Only, DUI = Accidents which involved a citation for Driving Under the Influence. 

2

 Vehicle type summary does not include nonreported deer accidents because vehicle data is not known. 

Safety concerns noted by park staff include 

the enforcement of speed limits, the 

placement of warning signs, and issues related 

to hazardous weather conditions (DEA 2004). 

Two relatively recent safety initiatives along 

the parkway have been deemed successful. 

One is a major signing program where 

locations with a specific problem, such as a 

descending spiral curve into a tunnel, have 

been signed with several large warning signs 

with word and symbol legends. This has 

reduced the number of accidents at those 

specific problem areas. The other program 

was developed when park law enforcement 

staff noticed a majority of the accidents 

occurred during the weekends of the summer 

months, with the heaviest visitor usage of the 

parkway. That program requires that every 

law enforcement staff on duty during these 

times must be on traffic patrol. It is believed 

the increased visibility of the park law 

enforcement staff has helped to decrease 

accident rates due to overall speed reduction 

(DEA 2004). 

Emergency access is another important 

traffic-related safety issue. There are many 

inclement weather closure gates along the 

parkway. If a section of the parkway is closed, 

then an emergency vehicle may have to take a 

more time-consuming route than normal to 

get between private residences and hospitals. 

Congestion near recreation areas or at specific 

access points are other issues that may impact 

emergency response times. 

PARKING CONDITIONS 

Parking conditions refer to the balance 

between parking supply and demand. Parking 

lot data, including the number of occupied 

spaces, vehicle classification, and any illegally 

parked vehicles, was collected at 11 highactivity locations along the parkway in 2002. 

The “Visitor Use and Experience” section 

discusses the resulting impact on travelers 

from crowding conditions in parking lots at 

recreation areas. Table 48 provides a summary 

of parking conditions collected in August 2002 

(DEA 2004). 

At the majority of the recreation areas, 

weekday parking was not found to be a 

problem. The maximum percent of weekday 

occupied spaces ranged from 15% to 80%. 

The highest occupancy of 80% was at the 

Graveyard Fields Overlook (milepost 418.8) in 

the Pisgah segment, which also had the 

highest number of illegally parked cars (DEA 

2002). 

Traffic volumes were obtained on both 

weekdays and weekends for the access roads 

to the recreation areas. Using the ratio of the 

weekend and weekday volumes, the weekend 

occupancy percentages were estimated. When 

occupancy of greater than 100% is shown, it 

indicates a combination of illegal parking and 

vehicles that drive in and depart without 

finding a parking space. Both of these 

situations indicate demand for increased 

parking supply. The highest occupancy rates 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

226 

were at the Graveyard Fields Overlook, the 

Moses H. Cone Memorial Park in the 

Highlands segment, and the Linville Falls 

recreation area in the Black Mountains 

segment (DEA 2002). 

In addition to overloaded parking lots at 

popular parkway recreation areas, there are 

also problems with illegal roadside parking in 

areas where parking lots do not exist. This is a 

particular problem in the Asheville segment. 

ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION 

MODES 

No bus or shuttle systems currently operate 

along the parkway. While tour buses and 

shuttles are not banned, they do not 

commonly travel on the parkway. The 

physical attributes of the parkway, including 

relatively narrow 10-foot wide lanes, 

numerous tunnels, long uphill grades, and lack 

of adequate parking and restroom facilities at 

parkway recreation areas discourage transit 

service. The driving experience is the primary 

parkway attraction, rather than specific trip 

destinations, which limits demand for transit 

service. Research did not find any commercial 

tour operators that include travel on the 

parkway as part of their tours. Educational 

bus tours that travel along the parkway 

include one for students and faculty run by 

the Appalachian State University in Boone 

(Appalachian 2008) and one for new faculty 

members run by the University of North 

Carolina in Chapel Hill (BRN 2008). 

TABLE 48. EXISTING BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY PARKING LOT DATA

Segment Location 

Parking 

Spaces 

Weekday Weekend 1

Maximum 

Percent 

Occupied 

Maximum 

Illegally 

Parked 

Maximum 

Percent 

Occupied 

Ridge Peaks of Otter Recreation Area 29 55% 2 89% 

Plateau 

Rocky Knob Recreation Area 35 20% 2 67% 

Cumberland Knob Recreation 

Area 55 18% 1 67% 

Highlands 

Moses H. Cone Memorial Park 45 58% 1 121% 

Julian Price Recreation Area 221 17% 1 64% 

Black 

Mountains 

Linn Cove Viaduct Visitor 

Center 40 28% 0 58% 

Linville Falls Recreation Area 85 44% 1 101% 

Asheville Folk Art Center 150 24% 0 42% 

Pisgah 

Looking Glass Rock Overlook 30 20% 0 35% 

Graveyard Fields Overlook 30 80% 12 163% 

Waterrock Knob Visitor Center 110 15% 0 40% 

Source: Transportation System Data Analysis—Blue Ridge Parkway (DEA September 2004). 

1 Weekend percent occupied = (weekend/weekday daily volume)*(weekday max percent occupied) 
227 

PARK OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

PARK ORGANIZATION 

Beginning in Virginia at Rockfish Gap, at the 

southern end of Skyline Drive in Shenandoah 

National Park, the Blue Ridge Parkway runs 

for 469 miles through the southern 

Appalachian Mountains and ends at highway 

NC 441 beside the Oconaluftee River, at the 

entrance to the Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park in North Carolina. It winds 

along the Blue Ridge for 355 miles, across 

forested mountain slopes and settled 

agricultural valleys and plateaus and then rises 

into some of the most rugged mountains east 

of the Mississippi, including the Black 

Mountains, Great Craggies, Pisgah Ledge, 

Great Balsam, and Plott Balsam ranges. 

The parkway right-of-way averages 825 feet in 

width with the total acreage of the parkway at 

93,792. The principal components of the 

parkway are the roadway with its supporting 

structures and constructed landforms, a 

scenic corridor provided by a broad right-ofway, a chain of seventeen recreation areas, 

and a variety of exhibits and signs interpreting 

the natural and cultural histories of the region. 

Construction of the parkway began in 1935. 

The Blue Ridge Parkway is one of four 

parkways administered by the National Park 

Service. As a linear resource it represents 

management challenges not found in other 

NPS units. In order to manage this linear 

resource, the parkway has been broken down 

into four districts with maintenance and law 

enforcement offices assigned to each. The 

four law enforcement districts are the Ridge, 

Plateau, Highlands, and Pisgah. However, as 

outlined previously, for the purposes of this 

general management plan, the parkway has 

been divided into seven segments that have 

been designated for the planning effort. 

The parkway is administered by a 

superintendent with headquarters in 

Asheville, North Carolina. Management of the 

parkway is organized into the following 

functions: Office of the Superintendent, 

Resource Interpretation and Education, Law 

Enforcement Security and Emergency 

Services, Maintenance and Engineering, 

Resource Management and Science, and 

Business Administration. 

STAFFING 

The parkway had a budget of $15,777,785 in 

2011. Parkway staffing continues to decrease 

as the parkway operates within its current 

budget. In 2011, 75 of 237 positions were 

vacant. Staffing is pressed to meet current 

demands, such as deferred maintenance 

needs, increases in educational opportunities 

and outreach to school groups, better 

enforcement along the parkway, fire 

management and trail maintenance needs, 

coordination of volunteers, managing 

resource impacts and impacts of exotic 

species, the need for general inventorying and 

monitoring of park resources, and pressures 

on the parkway from surrounding 

development. In 2008, the Blue Ridge Parkway 

Foundation estimated that to fully replace lost 

staff the parkway would require an operating 

increase of approximately $4 million. 

PARK OPERATIONS 

Law Enforcement Security and 

Emergency Services 

This program includes visitor safety, 

emergency services, search and rescue, and 

wildland fire suppression. Current staffing of 

35 FTEs is used to provide for law 

enforcement and resource protection. A large 

portion of law enforcement staff time is spent 

in patrolling the parkway road. Traffic 

enforcement is a key component of operations 

because of the number of vehicles using the 

road. In 2009, there were 354 accidents, over 

1,600 traffic violations and 221 emergency 

medical services calls. To effectively address 

increasing law enforcement workloads, 

parkway law enforcement staff cooperates 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

228 

with federal and local agencies in the 

management of the parkway’s 1,600-mile-long 

boundary. The parkway is adjacent to three 

urban areas whose growing incidents effect 

enforcement along the road and in developed 

areas. Current staffing levels allow for road 

patrol of 60-mile long segments of road per 

law enforcement staff with response times to 

incidents at 30 to 45 minutes in many 

locations. There is limited night patrol. An 

increased focus on visitor protection detracts 

from resource protection responsibilities. 

Resource protection efforts include 

addressing issues such as illegal plant 

harvesting of species such as ginseng, black 

cohosh, and galax and wildlife-visitor 

interactions. Dispatch and radio technicians 

provide support dispatch services parkwide 

for law enforcement and emergency services. 

Fee Management. There are no entrance 

fees for traveling the parkway. The only fees 

collected along the parkway pertain to the 

designated camping areas. Fee management is 

responsible for the collection and accounting 

of all fees. 

Resource Interpretation and 

Education 

Resource Interpretation and Education is 

responsible for educating and instilling in 

visitors an understanding, appreciation, and 

enjoyment of the significance of the parkway 

and to ensure the protection and enjoyment of 

park resources. This includes educating 

visitors, stakeholders, and the general public 

about parkway resources, including the 

natural and culture resources of the 

Appalachian mountain region; scenic values; 

scientific opportunities; and the role of the 

parkway in local, regional, and national 

contexts. National Park Service staff fulfills 

these responsibilities through formal 

education and orientation programs, 

interpretive programs, curriculum-based 

educational programs, and interpretive media. 

Personal services include staffing of the 

various visitor contact stations, law 

enforcement- and volunteer-led walks, talks 

and evening programs, demonstrations and 

special events, and informal contacts with 

visitors. This division is also responsible for 

supervision of publications and other 

materials available at bookstores and sales 

outlets, exhibits and audiovisual media, and 

website and electronic media. 

Resource Management and Science 

Staff works in the areas of natural and cultural 

resource planning, management and 

compliance, community and land use 

planning, landscape architecture, computeraided drafting and geographic information 

systems, land protection and permit 

administration in several special use areas, 

rights-of-way, and leased agricultural land. 

Resource management encompasses all 

activities related to the management, 

preservation, and protection of the park’s 

cultural and natural resources. Activities 

include research, restoration efforts, speciesspecific management programs, wildland fire 

management, historic structures and site 

protection, and resource education and 

information sharing activities. Cultural 

resource staff manages program areas 

including prehistoric and historic 

archeological sites, cultural landscapes, 

historic structures and sites, ethnographic 

resources, park museum collection, and 

archives. Park biologists and wildlife 

specialists manage natural resource program 

areas, including rare species and plant 

communities, exotic plants, large game 

management, exotic animal species, water 

resources, soil and geologic resources, hazard 

and pest management, prescribed burns, 

encroachment, and geographic information 

systems (GIS). All park permitting activities 

are coordinated in this branch/division. 

Resource management specialists support 

park compliance activities by conducting field 

inventory and survey work and preparing 

sections of documents. 

Planning, Lands, and Compliance. 

Planning, landscape architect, and 

environmental protection staff work with 

other park program areas to prepare 
Park Operations and Facilities 

229 

management documents that shape both 

parkwide and site-specific plans for resource 

protection and visitor use, facility and site 

development and construction, resource 

preservation, and land protection. Because the 

parkway interconnects with surrounding 

communities and has some 4,000 park 

neighbors, planning operations include 

management of deed reserved rights for some 

4,000 park neighbors, management of scenic 

easements, and oversight of primary and 

secondary road improvement projects on park 

land. Planning and landscape architecture 

staff work with local communities, county 

planners, and developers through land use 

planning to conserve scenery resources. Land 

realty staff work with the NPS land office and 

private land trust partners to acquire interests 

in land to protect scenic, natural and cultural 

resources, eliminate private at-grade access 

roads, and to eliminate boundary management 

issues. Deed reservation matters are addressed 

by realty specialist and landscape architect 

staff. Compliance for all park activities is 

managed through the Planning Environmental 

and Public Comment (PEPC) program in this 

branch/division. 

Business Administration 

Business Administration at the parkway is 

responsible for ensuring that park operations 

are consistent with the NPS mission and goals. 

General administrative duties such as human 

resources, budget, information technology 

support, and procurement are handled by 

these programs. Staff in this functional area 

are responsible for formulating a long-term 

strategic vision and communicating this to 

stakeholders. Management of these functions 

is particularly complex for the parkway. 

Although personnel and resources span the 

parkway’s entire length, Business 

Administration supports all activities largely 

from headquarters in Asheville. These 

programs are the backbone of the parkway’s 

management infrastructure. This division is 

also responsible for employee housing 

management. 

External Affairs & Partnerships. The 

parkway relies on the strength of its External 

Affairs and Partnerships programs to develop 

and preserve strong relationships with the 

public. External Affairs accomplishes this 

function by keeping the public and key 

stakeholders informed about current park 

events and issues, maintaining contacts with 

media, replying to visitor concerns, and 

cooperating with the local travel and tourism 

industry. Adjacent communities work closely 

with the parkway to contribute support 

through partnership work. 

Concessions. The concessions program on 

the parkway is carried out by the office of 

Concessions which reports to Business 

Administration. The office is comprised of 

two concessions management specialists and 

is at the parkway headquarters in Asheville, 

North Carolina. All concessioner services on 

the parkway are authorized by concessions 

contracts. There are six concessions providing 

services for the parkway. 

 The Virginia Peaks of Otter Company 

provides commercial services at 

Milepost 86. Their gross revenues in 

2010 were $3,398,388, which included 

the visitor services at Otter Creek. 

 Forever/NPC Resorts provides 

commercial services at Mabry Mill, 

Doughton Park, Price Lake, and 

Crabtree Falls (Meadows) with total 

revenues of $2,088,648 in 2010. 

 The Northwest Trading Post, Inc. 

provides retail and limited food 

operations at Milepost 259 and had gross 

revenues of $307,338 in 2010. 

 Southern Highland Craft Guild: 

Through a 1976 cooperative agreement, 

the National Park Service, Appalachian 

Regional Commission, and Southern 

Highland Handicraft Guild agreed to 

construct, operate, and maintain the 

Folk Art Center on the parkway near 

Asheville, North Carolina. The 20-year 

agreement, dated April 5, 1976, 

stipulated that the arts and crafts 

program at the Folk Art Center would be 

carried out by the Guild. The title to the 

building and improvements are vested in 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

230 

the United States. Following the 

expiration of the original agreement, the 

National Park Service and the Guild 

entered into a second cooperative 

agreement to continue the operations of 

the Folk Art Center. This agreement 

expired June 8, 2008. In 1998, Congress 

passed Public Law 105-391, the 

"National Park Service Concessions 

Management Improvement Act of 1998," 

which specified that all commercial 

activities in national parks be regulated 

under a concessions contract. The 

National Park Service developed a threeyear, noncompetitive temporary 

contract with the Guild, which took 

effect February 1, 2011. During the 

course of this temporary contract, the 

National Park Service will solicit bids for 

operation of the Folk Art Center under a 

10-year contract that will be executed 

upon expiration of the temporary 

contract. Since 1930, the Guild has been 

recognized as the region’s premier 

nonprofit craft organization. Second in 

age only to the Boston Society of Arts 

and Crafts, the Guild now represents 

over 900 craftspeople in 293 counties of 

nine southeastern states. The Guild 

educates parkway visitors about 

Appalachian craft traditions through a 

variety of demonstrations, festivals, 

exhibits, and programs. Recent data 

show that the Guild had gross revenues 

of $609,627 in 2010 as a result of 

operating the Parkway Craft Center at 

the Moses H. Cone Manor House for 

eight months during the year. They also 

had revenues of $1,433,447 in 2010 as a 

result of providing craft demonstrations 

and sales at the Allanstand Craft Shop at 

the Folk Art Center in Asheville, North 

Carolina, which is open year-round. 

 Parkway Inn, Inc. doing business as 

Pisgah Inn and Restaurant, had gross 

revenues of $3,116,217 in 2010.

Maintenance and Engineering 

Maintenance and Engineering includes all 

activities required to manage and operate the 

daily maintenance of the parkway. These 

programs provide care and maintenance of 

campgrounds, buildings, grounds, roads, 

trails, transportation systems, and utilities. In 

addition, Maintenance and Engineering takes 

care of all its related management and 

administrative support. Almost half of the 

parkway’s annual budget is devoted to 

maintenance activities. 

Roads Maintenance. Road operations 

involve the regular management of roads, 

bridges, tunnels, and signage by activities such 

as line striping, minor structural repairs of 

tunnels, clearing rock fall from the road 

surface, and snow removal. This program 

excludes large repairs and improvements such 

as chip sealing and repaving. The majority of 

road maintenance work at the parkway is 

managed and contracted out by the Federal 

Highway Administration. The amount of road 

work provided by the Federal Highway 

Administration varies yearly. 

Transportation Systems and Fleet 

Operations. This program provides vehicles 

for personnel as they perform official park 

work. The parkway fleet consists of 

approximately 300 vehicles that are used to 

travel close to 1.5 million miles annually. This 

large and heavily used fleet is aging rapidly. An 

average vehicle used on the parkway currently 

has seven years of service. Many vehicles have 

over 100,000 miles. The parkway is 

considering a conversion of their vehicles 

from a park-owned fleet to a leased fleet via 

the Government Services Administration 

(GSA) leasing program. This would allow for a 

more current fleet, requiring less 

maintenance. 

Grounds Maintenance. Grounds 

maintenance is the most labor intensive 

program at the parkway, using approximately 

68,000 person hours, or 33.6 FTEs, annually. 

Mowing and maintaining the parkway 

requires a large investment in time and money 

by the division. There are 5,750 acres of 
Park Operations and Facilities 

231 

grasslands along the parkway that are 

regularly maintained. Because the parkway is a 

designed landscape and must be kept up to 

design specifications, the challenge of keeping 

grassy areas manicured is formidable. Highintensity areas including roadsides are mowed 

on a 7- to 10-day cycle from March to 

October. Open field areas are maintained once 

a year during either October or November. 

Most maintenance staff are involved in 

mowing operations during the summer 

months. Hazardous tree removal is another 

consideration for grounds maintenance 

operations. Tree maintenance is ongoing 

work necessary to keep the roadway and trails 

open; the majority of the work is 

accomplished in the winter and early spring 

months after seasonal storms. 

Utility Operations. Utility Operations is 

responsible for monitoring systems for water, 

sewer, electric, heating, and cooling. The 

parkway currently maintains 45 individual 

potable water treatment systems, 94 

wastewater treatment units, and 118 HVAC 

systems. There are also three solar power 

units, two of which support visitor services 

areas. Many of these systems have exceeded 

their maximum effective life of 15 years, 

therefore creating greater operational costs. 

Trails Maintenance. The Trails 

Maintenance program primarily involves the 

repair, rehabilitation, and cyclic maintenance 

of front and backcountry trails in the park. 

This includes work on retaining walls, signs, 

and trail surfaces to ensure visitor safety and 

to protect parkway resources. Because base 

funding for trail maintenance is severely 

limited, work for this program occurs only in 

fiscal years when the parkway is successful in 

competing for cyclic trail funding. 

PARK FACILITIES 

The Park Facility Management System for the 

National Park Service and Blue Ridge 

Parkway lists almost 3,000 assets. The 

following table was generated from the NPS 

asset management system in 2009. 

Table 49 shows that there are, among other 

assets, over 400 buildings, 93 wastewater 

systems, 29 dams, 132 trail bridges, and 176 

road bridges. Close to 40% of the parkway’s 

total available funds is currently spent on park 

facilities annually. 

Facility Management within Maintenance and 

Engineering is responsible for the operation 

and maintenance of all park facilities and 

equipment, including buildings and 

maintained grounds; utility systems such as 

power, water, sewer, and solid waste 

management; employee housing; roads; 

parking areas and trailheads; trails; picnic 

areas; and telephones. Maintenance and 

Engineering is responsible for routine 

maintenance on the parkway vehicle fleet. 

Public Facilities 

Trails and Trailheads, and Trail 

Shelters. There are over 120 trails along the 

parkway; most of these are in recreation areas 

but some are along wide stretches of the rightof-way. The trails vary in length. Some offer 

short easy walks to an attraction or exhibit 

close-by, while others provide the challenge of 

a strenuous hike across the mountains. Some 

connect to long distance trails through the 

national forests, including the Appalachian 

Trail in Virginia and the Mountains-to-Sea 

Trail in North Carolina. Some trails follow 

paths that existed before the parkway was 

built and at Moses H. Cone Memorial Park 

the trails follow carriage roads laid out around 

the turn of the twentieth century. But most 

trails were designed and constructed as part of 

the parkway designed landscape; the oldest of 

these are in the four recreation areas 

developed before World War II. Shelters are 

found beside trails in some recreation areas. 

These are intended to provide places to rest 

and picnic but, unlike the shelters on the 

Appalachian Trail, they are not intended to 

provide overnight refuges. Since the 

parkway’s inception, “leg stretcher” trails have 

provided motorists with a short scenic walk 

and a break from driving. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

232 

TABLE 49. BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY FACILITY-RELATED ASSETS

Asset Type RIDGE PLATEAU HIGHLANDS PISGAH Total 

Roads 54 51 53 75 233 

Parking 88 58 67 151 364 

Road Bridges 26 57 53 40 176 

Road Tunnels 1 0 0 25 26 

Trails 35 16 36 46 133 

Trail Bridges 34 23 56 19 132 

Picnic Areas 3 3 3 5 14 

Campgrounds 3 2 3 3 11 

Backcountry Campgrounds 0 1 1 0 2 

Visitor Center Grounds 3 2 3 6 14 

Vistas 226 66 140 479 911 

Other Grounds 3 11 9 14 37 

Buildings 79 118 99 126 422 

Houses 4 8 7 8 27 

Water Systems 9 12 11 12 44 

Wastewater Systems 12 21 36 24 93 

Radio Tower Sites 2 3 2 3 10 

Dams 2 12 12 3 29 

Special Historic Facilities 6 1 1 0 8 

Amphitheaters 2 2 2 3 9 

Concession Areas 2 2 3 2 9 

Total 594 469 597 1044 2704 

As the parkway expanded, backcountry trails 

were added, along with a trail system at Julian 

Price Memorial Park and a carriage trail 

system at the Cone Estate. However, upkeep 

on the 350 miles of trails has steadily declined 

over the years due to funding constraints and 

a priority shift by the parkway to support the 

most critical operational needs. In recent 

years, the parkway and its partners have been 

creative in addressing this problem. A number 

of groups have mobilized their volunteers for 

trail maintenance and construction. 

In 2000, the Adopt-a-Trail program was 

started by the FRIENDS of the Blue Ridge 

Parkway to recruit and train organizations and 

individual volunteers to repair and maintain 

parkway trails. Currently, 22 sections of trails 

are adopted, covering 65 miles. Additional 

work is provided by groups such as the 

Carolina Mountain Club whose members 

maintain over 130 miles of parkway trails. The 

parkway continues to refine its trails 

stewardship program in order to improve the 

quality of its trail systems. 

Park Roads. In addition to the main parkway 

of 469 miles, the parkway also maintains 17 

miles of paved roads and 67 miles of unpaved 

roads. The maintenance of these ancillary 

assets is essential to the operations of the 

parkway. They provide access to the parkway 

road and to other facilities along the parkway. 

There are a number of structures along the 

parkway, including 26 tunnels, retaining walls, 

bridges, viaducts, parking areas, “widenings,” 

and overlooks. In Virginia, 57 of the parking 

areas, widenings, and overlooks are 

maintained as hunter parking and access; 

while there are 51 of these hunter-associated 

locations in North Carolina. There are 265 

overlooks that allow for parking and taking 

advantage of the vistas off the parkway. 

Combined there are at least 300 locations 

along the main route that provide access 

points to the parkway via underpasses and 

overpasses as well as at-grade crossings. 
Park Operations and Facilities 

233 

Deferred maintenance for all overlooks and 

developed area parking is currently listed at 

$21 million. 

Visitor Centers. There are 14 visitor contact 

facilities along the parkway from north to 

south. They are at Humpback Rocks 

(milepost 5.8); James River and Otter Creek 

(milepost 60–63); Peaks of Otter (milepost 86); 

Roanoke (milepost 106–120); Rocky Knob 

and Mabry Mill (milepost 167–176); Blue 

Ridge Music Center (milepost 215); Doughton 

Park (milepost 240); Moses H. Cone and 

Julian Price Parks (milepost 295–298); Linville 

Falls (milepost 317); Museum of North 

Carolina Minerals (milepost 331); Crabtree 

Falls (milepost 349); Mount Mitchell State 

Park and Craggy Gardens (milepost 355–364); 

Asheville (milepost 382–393); Mt. Pisgah 

(milepost 408); and Waterrock Knob 

(milepost 451). 

Camping. There are nine campgrounds 

along the parkway. They are at Otter Creek 

(milepost 60.9); Peaks of Otter (milepost 86); 

Roanoke Mountain (milepost 120.4); Rocky 

Knob (milepost 169); Doughton Park 

(milepost 241.1); Price Park (milepost 297.1); 

Linville Falls (milepost 316.4); Crabtree Falls 

(milepost 339.5); and Mt. Pisgah (milepost 

408.6). All of the campgrounds offer facilities 

that include restrooms, drinking water, picnic 

tables, and grills. Interpretive programs are 

offered at the various campgrounds when they 

are open from May through October.

Wheelchair accessible sites are available in 

most campgrounds. 

Recreation Areas. There are 17 recreation 

areas along the parkway road; 8 in Virginia 

and 9 in North Carolina, where recreational 

facilities invite motorists to stop for a few 

hours or days before resuming their tour. Two 

state parks are also directly linked to the 

parkway. The development of recreation areas 

was an integral part of the project from its 

beginnings. Most of the recreation areas, 

however, are substantial tracts of land and in 

some cases incorporate several thousand 

acres. 

Administrative Facilities 

Offices, Storage, and Parkway 

Buildings. All park offices and storage and 

general use buildings are within park 

boundaries. The maintenance division is 

dedicated to prolonging the life and 

improving the interior and exterior condition 

of the more than 300 buildings along the 

parkway. Of particular importance to the 

public are the 90 historic structures and 85 

visitor use buildings. In total, the parkway has 

325,000 square feet of building space to 

maintain. Activities include the repair of roofs, 

siding, windows, and masonry structures; 

painting and staining the interior and exterior 

of buildings; maintenance of electrical and 

heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning 

(HVAC) systems; sewer/septic systems; 

potable water systems; and routine 

maintenance of designed landscape areas. 

Parkway Housing. There are 33 structures 

maintained as residences along the parkway. 

They exist at the Love Maintenance Area 

(milepost 16.0), Whetstone Ridge (milepost 

29.0), James River Maintenance Area 

(milepost 66.3), Peaks of Otter Maintenance 

Area (milepost 85.2), Roanoke Maintenance 

Area (milepost 112.0), Rocky Knob 

Maintenance Area (milepost 167.1), Virginia 

Route 778 Crossing (milepost 199.9), Bluffs 

Maintenance Area (milepost 245.5), Moses H. 

Cone Manor House (milepost 294.0), U.S. 221 

Access Road (milepost 294.6), Flannery Fork 

and Shulls Mill Roads (milepost 294.7), Price 

Campground (milepost 296.9), Asheville 

Maintenance Area (milepost 316.4), Balsam 

Gap Maintenance Area (milepost 442.8), and 

Soco Gap Maintenance Area (milepost 455.5).

Other Buildings. Maintenance areas are 

provided at Love (milepost 16.0), Montebello 

(milepost 29.0), James River (milepost 66.3), 

Peaks of Otter (milepost 85.2), Roanoke 

(milepost 112.0), Rocky Knob (milepost 

167.1), Fancy Gap (milepost 199.1), 

Cumberland Knob (milepost 217.3), Bluffs 

(milepost 245.5), Benge (milepost 267.6), 

Sandy Flats (milepost 294.6), Linville Falls 

(milepost 316.4), Gillespie Gap (milepost 

330.9), Wagon Road Gap (milepost 411.8), 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

234 

Balsam Gap (milepost 442.8), and Soco Gap 

(milepost 455.5).

District law enforcement offices are 

maintained at Montebello (milepost 29.0), 

James River (milepost 66.3), Peaks of Otter 

(milepost 85.9), Roanoke (milepost 112), 

Rocky Knob (milepost 167.1), Fancy Gap 

(milepost 199.1), Bluffs (milepost 245.5), 

Sandy Flats (milepost 294.6), Gillespie Gap 

(milepost 330.9), Oteen (milepost 382.2), 

Asheville (milepost 382.3), and Balsam Gap 

(milepost 442.8). Dispatch operations occur at 

the Park Central Communications Center 

located in Asheville, North Carolina. 

PARKWAY PARTNERSHIPS 

The Blue Ridge Parkway has entered into a 

number of innovative partnerships in its effort 

to surmount the enormous challenge of 

preserving and protecting the entire length of 

the parkway. Numerous organizations are 

under formal agreement, including three that 

have each shared more than 50 years with the 

parkway. Partners are relied on to provide 

services, staffing, and even funds for 

construction of facilities where parkway 

resources are insufficient. 

Additional partnerships are maintained with 

neighboring jurisdictions; county, state, and 

federal land managing agencies. Law 

enforcement staff work with 29 county 

emergency management services and police 

entities, as well as two national forests. 

parkway staff work with academic institutions 

to conduct parkway-wide research. The 

Parks-as-Classrooms program, a national 

initiative designed to instill values of 

protection and appreciation for park 

resources, reaches over 42,000 students a year, 

thanks in part to partner support. The 

continued success of these partnerships relies 

on the shared dedication of all interested 

groups to maintain the integrity of the 

parkway. From countless partner hours to a 

dedicated cadre of volunteers, the parkway 

partnerships are a blueprint for what can go 

right with long-term community involvement. 

Blue Ridge National Heritage Area 

Designated by Congress in 2003, the Heritage 

Area serves to protect, preserve, interpret, and 

develop the unique natural, historical, and 

cultural resources of 25 Western North 

Carolina counties and the Qualla Boundary 

(Cherokee) for the benefit of present and 

future generations and, in so doing, to 

stimulate improved economic opportunity in 

the region. Heritage Area staff and volunteers 

also have a significant role in providing visitor 

services at the new Blue Ridge Parkway 

Visitor Center (milepost 384). 

Blue Ridge Parkway Association 

For more than 50 years this association of 

travel businesses and chambers of commerce 

has provided information about 

accommodations and visitor services along 

the entire parkway corridor. Its annual Blue 

Ridge Parkway Directory, distributed free at 

parkway visitor centers, contains the most 

extensive single listing of hotels, attractions, 

and other travel services in the region. 

Blue Ridge Parkway Foundation 

The Blue Ridge Parkway Foundation is the 

primary and professional fundraising 

organization for the 469-mile Blue Ridge 

Parkway in western Virginia and North 

Carolina. The foundation’s authority to 

request and receive funds on behalf of the 

Blue Ridge Parkway is vested in a cooperative 

agreement with the National Park Service and 

Department of Interior. The foundation funds 

a variety of important parkway programs and 

projects. 

FRIENDS of the Blue Ridge Parkway 

FRIENDS of the Blue Ridge Parkway is a 

nonprofit, volunteer organization that is 

dedicated to preserving and protecting the 

Blue Ridge Parkway. For more than two 

decades, FRIENDS has been true to its 

mission: Preserve, Promote, and Enhance. 
Park Operations and Facilities 

235 

FRIENDS volunteer programs focus on 

preservation, protection, and education. 

FRIENDS are actively involved in viewshed 

protection programs, volunteers in parks, and 

adopt-a-trail programs. 

Western Virginia Land Trust 

Western Virginia Land Trust works to 

preserve the region’s unique scenic, historic, 

agricultural, recreational, and natural features 

focusing efforts on the 10 Virginia counties of 

Bedford, Botetourt, Carroll, Craig, Floyd, 

Franklin, Henry, Montgomery, Patrick, and 

Roanoke. By educating landowners, elected 

officials, businesses, and the general public, 

Western Virginia Land Trust encourages 

respect for the environment and arranges 

voluntary conservation easements that protect 

land forever. Western Virginia Land Trust’s 

educational activities help landowners make 

informed decisions about how various land 

conservation options can affect their estate 

planning, taxes, and the future of their land.

The Conservation Trust for North 

Carolina 

The Conservation Trust for North Carolina is 

a nonprofit conservation organization. Their 

mission is to protect North Carolina’s land 

and water through statewide conservation and 

cooperative work with land trusts to preserve 

the state’s natural resources. The 

Conservation Trust works directly with 

landowners, local land trusts, and government 

agencies to protect land and water resources 

most important to local communities 

throughout the state. One of the trust’s most 

important goals is to work closely with the 

parkway staff to identify and save key 

properties that contribute to the scenic views 

and natural resources of the parkway. 

Eastern National 

Chartered in 1948, Eastern National is an 

association operating in more than 130 

national parks and other public trusts. Eastern 

National currently operates educational retail 

outlets in 30 states, from Maine to the 

Caribbean. All of the products, programs, and 

publications offered to visitors have strong 

educational value and assist the educational 

programs of the National Park Service. In fact, 

the profits from Eastern National activities are 

donated to the National Park Service. Since 

1947, Eastern National has donated over $89 

million to the Park Service. 

The National Council for the 

Traditional Arts 

For nearly 70 years, the National Council for 

the Traditional Arts has produced and 

supported a variety of traditional arts 

programs in national parks across the United 

States. By formal agreement with the parkway, 

the National Council for the Traditional Arts 

is the Park’s partner in developing and 

operating the Blue Ridge Music Center 

located at Milepost 213 near Galax, Virginia. 

The center’s mission is to preserve and 

present the traditional music of the Blue Ridge 

Mountains. 
236 

REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMICS 

INTRODUCTION 

The relationships which today characterize 

the socioeconomic context of the Blue Ridge 

Parkway to its immediate neighbors and 

surrounding region is an evolutionary tale 

rather than one characterized by one or 

multiple events occurring in a relatively short 

period of time. The primary pace for this 

evolution was set by the construction 

timetable and eventual completion of the 

parkway over more than 50 years. 

As construction on a particular section of the 

parkway occurred, it promoted connections 

to nearby communities that served as staging 

areas and host communities. As sections were 

completed and opened to travel, they 

attracted visitors from the local communities, 

the surrounding region and further afar, 

promoting ongoing social and economic 

connections between the parkway and nearby 

motels, campgrounds, filling stations, cafes, 

stores, and other establishments catering to 

travelers. The direct economic contributions 

associated with parkway staff, payroll, and 

maintenance outlays increased as new 

sections of the parkway opened to travel, 

although such contributions were 

substantially smaller than those associated 

with construction. The parkway gained 

expanding national and international acclaim 

as the cumulative length open to travel 

increased and longer journeys became 

possible. The final section of the parkway was 

completed in 1987 and, in 1997, the parkway 

was recognized as an “All American Road,” 

one of 27 so designated highway routes in the 

nation. 

Parkway construction occurred against a 

backdrop of large shifts in the economic and 

cultural landscape of America. These changes 

include the emergence of automobiles into the 

mass market, completion of the core of the 

interstate highway system, and changes in the 

workplace and employment relationships that 

increased the amount of leisure time and 

attendant participation in outdoor pursuits 

among the general populace. Together, these 

changes fostered increased visitation across 

the entire national park system, including a 

doubling in annual recreation visitation to the 

Blue Ridge Parkway from fewer than 10 

million visitors in 1967 to more than 20 

million in 1987. The rising number of nonlocal 

visitors generated important economic 

infusions to the local economies and the Blue 

Ridge Parkway became a focal point of 

regional tourism promotion efforts. 

OVERVIEW 

The influence area analyzed for economic and 

social considerations associated with the 

parkway is the 29-county region through 

which the parkway passes. The parkway 

passes through 12 counties in Virginia; from 

north to south, Augusta, Nelson, Rockbridge, 

Amherst, Botetourt, Bedford, Roanoke, 

Franklin, Floyd, Patrick, Carroll, and Grayson 

counties. Within these counties are eight 

cities, the most populous being Roanoke and 

Waynesboro. The parkway passes through 17 

counties in North Carolina; from north to 

south, Surry, Alleghany, Wilkes, Ashe, 

Watauga, Caldwell, Avery, Burke, Mitchell, 

McDowell, Yancey, Buncombe, Henderson, 

Haywood, Transylvania, Jackson, and Swain 

counties. The larger urban populations are 

Asheville, Boone, and Blowing Rock. 

Within a broader regional context, the 

parkway is influenced by newer population 

centers along the I-85 corridor to the 

southeast, older population centers along the 

Atlantic Seaboard to the northeast, as well as 

population centers throughout the Ohio River 

Valley to the west. The parkway runs parallel 

to two highly traveled interstate highways, I85 and I-81, and perpendicular to I-40, I-77, 

and I-64. These highways allow access to the 

parkway from some of the most populous 

metropolitan areas in the United States 

including Washington, D.C.; Baltimore, 

Maryland; Atlanta, Georgia; Raleigh-Durham, 

North Carolina; and Nashville, Tennessee. 
Regional Socioeconomics 

237 

These and many other large metropolitan 

areas are less than a day’s drive from a 

parkway entrance. 

POPULATION 

The character of the land ranges from rural 

pastoral to mountainous and forested. The 

larger cities of Asheville, North Carolina and 

Roanoke and Waynesboro, Virginia provide a 

more urban and suburban landscape and 

numerous smaller towns and communities 

along the parkway provide a taste of the 

uniqueness of Appalachian culture. The 29 

counties traversed by the parkway have a 

combined regional population of 

approximately 1,600,000 people and 

experienced an increase of approximately 7% 

in population from 2000 to 2007. 

North Carolina 

In 2007, the estimated population in North 

Carolina counties adjacent to the parkway 

ranged from 226,771 in Buncombe County, 

North Carolina to 10,915 in Alleghany 

County, North Carolina. Population in North 

Carolina counties adjacent to the parkway is 

projected to increase by nearly 15% by 2030. 

Most of the population increase in North 

Carolina would be in the Asheville 

Metropolitan Area (U.S. Census Bureau, 

Population Division, 2008). 

Asheville, North Carolina, in Buncombe 

County is the largest metropolitan area along 

the parkway with a population of 404,320 in 

2007. Asheville is also home to parkway 

headquarters, a visitor center, the Biltmore 

Estate, and many other tourism attractions 

and serves as a prominent staging area for 

parkway visitors. The metropolitan area, 

which consists of Buncombe, Henderson, 

Transylvania, Haywood, and McDowell 

counties, has been experiencing substantial 

population growth and economic expansion 

in recent years, in part due to favorable 

recognition as a retirement community and 

other accolades. 

Other counties adjacent to the parkway in 

North Carolina with the highest 2007 

populations are Burke at 88,975 and Caldwell 

at 79,454. Current population projections for 

the year 2030 anticipate the populations of 

Buncombe and Henderson counties to 

increase by 29% and 42%, respectively. This 

could account for almost half of the net 

population growth in North Carolina counties 

along the parkway between 2007 and 2030 

(U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, 

2008). 

Virginia

The Roanoke Metropolitan Area, with a 

combined 2007 population of 208,253, 

includes the county of Roanoke, city of 

Roanoke, and the city of Salem. It is the 

second most populated community along the 

parkway. Other Virginia counties bordering 

the parkway with relatively large populations 

include Augusta County, containing the cities 

of Staunton and Waynesboro, with a 

combined population of 116,412, and Bedford 

and Franklin counties, which border Roanoke 

County on the south, with populations of 

66,750 and 51,133, respectively (U.S. Census 

Bureau, Population Division, 2008). 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

238 

FIGURE 27. POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR COUNTIES AND CITIES DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY 

(U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, 2008; VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION, 2007; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, 2008) 

County Population Projections from 2007 to 2030

- 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000

Augusta* 

Nelson 

Rockbridge* 

Amherst

Botetourt 

Bedford*

Roanoke* 

Franklin 

Floyd 

Patrick 

Carroll* 

Grayson 

Alleghany

Surry

Ashe

Wilkes

Watauga

Caldwell

Avery

Burke

Mitchell

McDowell

Yancey

Buncombe

Henderson

Haywood

Transylvania

Jackson

Swain

2007

2030

Virginia 

North 

Carolina 

Counties are ordered north to south by milepost 

*county data is combined with city data

Projected Long-term Change in 

Population along the Parkway 

Corridor 

Population growth in counties along the 

parkway is expected predominantly in areas 

with less urban infrastructure and more 

undeveloped land. More populous cities, such 

as Asheville and Roanoke, will likely continue 

to increase in population density, but not as 

rapidly as the less developed surrounding 

counties. 

Population trends are directly impacted by the 

increase in retirees moving to the Blue Ridge 

Mountains. Asheville and Buncombe, 

Henderson, Roanoke, and Augusta counties 

continue to gain population as people retire to 

those areas. As a result, these areas are 

expected to continue to attract many tourists 

and second home development that impact 

the parkway. 

The growing population along the parkway 

could have noticeable impacts on the parkway 

and its resources. Increases in residential or 

commuter traffic have impacted the parkway 

and as the area’s population continues to 

grow, impacts could correspondingly 

increase, especially around Roanoke and 

Asheville. Views along the parkway are 

currently impacted by housing and 

commercial development along the length of 

the road and views are expected to continue 

to be impacted. Subdivisions, associated trail 

and road connections, and access to 

nonfederal land are also likely to continue to 

impact parkway resources as well. Table 50 

shows the projected population growth by 

segment between 2007 and 2030. 

Virginia 

North Carolina 

Counties are ordered north to south by milepost 

*county data is combined with city data 
Regional Socioeconomics 

239 

TABLE 50. PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH, 2007 TO 2030, BY SEGMENT 

Segment/District 2007 Estimated 2030 Projected Net Change 

Percent 

Change 

1 Ridge 303,927 354,926 50,999 17 

2 Roanoke 259,386 280,970 21,584 8 

3 Plateau 85,527 88,157 2,630 3 

4 Highlands 222,119 241,286 19,167 9 

5 Black Mountain 264,671 275,663 10,992 4 

6 Asheville 327,751 436,283 108,532 33 

7 Pisgah 138,493 161,058 22,565 16 

 Combined 1,601,874 1,838,343 236,469 15 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009, North Carolina Office of Budget and Management 2008a, and Virginia 

Workforce Commission 2009. 

The growth over the next few decades is 

expected to translate into higher visitation and 

demands on parkway facilities and resources, 

particularly those in close proximity to 

population centers. Local use would be 

expected to continue to contribute heavily to 

late season use during the “fall color season.” 

Demographic Shifts 

The average percentage of the U.S. population 

that is 65 and older is about 12%, which is 

consistent with the states of Virginia and 

North Carolina. The average percentage of 

population 65 and older throughout all the 

counties adjacent to the parkway is 16% (U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2008). Beginning in the 1970s, 

counties adjacent to the parkway have 

undergone a demographic shift as a result of 

economic changes. Increasingly, older 

Americans are moving to counties within the 

parkway region of the Blue Ridge Mountains. 

More traditional retirement areas in Florida 

and California have become more populous 

and more expensive resulting in new 

retirement markets. Changes in traditional 

retirement areas combined with a new, larger, 

generation of retirees with different interests 

are leading older Americans to communities 

near the parkway. Many new migrants were 

originally tourists in the 1980s and 1990s that 

enjoyed the scenic beauty and relaxed 

atmosphere of the Blue Ridge Mountains and 

have come to enjoy the scenery and beauty the 

area offers in retirement. 

ECONOMIC TRENDS 

Textiles, furniture, and apparel were the 

dominant industries in many counties along 

the parkway for the last half of the 20th

century. Economic activity in the southern 

Appalachian region shifted from a 

predominant emphasis on manufacturing and 

agricultural economies to more service and 

construction based economies over the past 

three to four decades. Manufacturing in the 

region declined dramatically during the 1980s 

and 1990s, not unlike other areas in the 

United States. These industries remained in 

decline through 2001 when a national 

recession produced a spike of layoffs and 

unemployment that continued through 2002. 

The region recovered slowly, transitioning to 

a service based economy (Lambeth 2006). 

Service and construction based employment is 

growing in counties along the parkway due to 

the demographic shift mentioned earlier; an 

influx of seasonal residents and their demand 

for housing and services. Currently, the 

population centers of Roanoke, Asheville, and 

Staunton City are service anchors for the 

surrounding counties, but population trends 

show an influx of population in the rural and 

suburban counties that surround these cities. 

Service and construction based employment is 

expected to increase in rural counties due to 

an increasing population in these areas. Jobs 

in this sector are expected to increase more 

rapidly than in more densely populated cities. 

The parkway is one of many amenities in the 

region that draws interest in second home 

development, retirement communities, 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

240 

tourism, and services within varying distances 

of a service hub. The parkway functions as a 

link between rural areas, new development, 

and more dense service hubs. 

Employment 

An indication of the importance of recreation 

and tourism to the local economies, including 

that associated with the parkway, is the total 

number and relative concentration of jobs in 

arts, entertainment, recreation, 

accommodations, and food services in each of 

the 29 counties. The average percentage of 

employment in these sectors, listed in figure 

28, is 9% and the median is 8%. The highest 

percentage of employment in the 

aforementioned sectors occurs in Swain 

County, North Carolina with 19% 

employment and the lowest percentage is 

Bedford County, Virginia with 2% 

employment in those sectors (BEA 2008). 

Nine of the twenty-nine counties derive over 

10% of their employment from the arts, 

entertainment, recreation, accommodations, 

and food services sectors; the majority of 

these are in North Carolina. Tourism as an 

industry, defined by an aggregate of the 

previously listed employment sectors, is 

currently more important in these counties 

than in others bordering the parkway. Recent 

economic conditions and gas price increases 

have created a renewed interest in local travel 

and tourism and all counties are looking 

toward tourism as an economic driver. The 

percentage of tourism employment for all the 

counties bordering the parkway falls between 

5% and 10% (Blue Ridge Parkway 

Socioeconomic Atlas 2003). 

Projected Employment through 2020. 

Several counties that are a greater distance 

from the population centers of Asheville or 

Roanoke are projected to experience a 

decrease in total employment by industry 

from 1999 to 2020. This decrease in 

employment is only projected for the 

construction, manufacturing, agriculture, and 

natural resource sectors. Swain, Burke, and 

Mitchell counties in North Carolina are 

projected to experience a decrease in total 

employment in Construction and 

Manufacturing (-4% of total) by 2020. 

Grayson, Carroll, and Augusta counties in 

Virginia as well as Roanoke City are expected 

to experience a decrease of 11% in total 

employment in the construction and 

manufacturing sector by 2020. Surry and 

Wilkes counties in North Carolina are 

projected to decrease by 4% in total 

employment by industry in the agriculture and 

natural resources sector by 2020. The Virginia 

counties of Patrick, Grayson, Floyd, Franklin, 

Rockbridge, and Nelson are projected to 

decrease in total employment within the 

agriculture and natural resources sector by 6% 

from 1999 (Blue Ridge Parkway 

Socioeconomic Atlas 2003). 

Beyond these economic and employment 

trends at the county level, the region would 

continue to be influenced by broader national 

and even international economic fluctuations. 

For example, the recession that began in late 

2008 continues to impact the entire country, 

including the entire parkway region. The 

economic downturn has led to higher 

unemployment levels and housing vacancies 

as well as reductions in housing prices in the 

short term. The national economy would be 

expected to recover and stabilize and the 

long-term economic and employment trends 

discussed here would hold. 
Regional Socioeconomics 

241 

FIGURE 28. REGIONAL ECONOMICS

Percentage of Employment in Arts, Entertainment, 

Recreation, Accommodations, and Food Services by County

7.6%

16.0%

12.3%

5.8%

7.2%

1.6%

7.2%

6.2%

9.4%

5.6%

3.7%

7.6%

4.7%

8.4%

7.0%

3.7%

6.0%

15.7%

5.2%

12.0%

6.0%

8.1%

6.6%

8.1%

11.8%

8.9%

10.7%

12.0%

12.3%

18.7%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

Augusta**

Nelson

Rockbridge**

Amherst

Botetourt

Bedford***

Roanoke** 

Franklin

Montgomery

Floyd

Patrick

Carroll** 

Grayson*

Alleghany

Surry

Ashe*

Wilkes

Watauga

Caldwell

Avery

Burke

Mitchell

McDowell

Yancey

Buncombe

Henderson

Haywood

Transylvania

Jackson

Swain

Employment data courtesy United States Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2002 and 2006.

** County data is combined with city data 

* 2002 Data; all other Data 2006
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

242 

Earnings Current and Projected 

Sales and Services. Sales and services and 

manufacturing and construction were the two 

anchor sectors for all 29 counties surrounding 

the parkway in 1999. Swain County, North 

Carolina, which borders the parkway on the 

southern end, attributed 65% of its total 

earnings in 1999 to sales and services and 

Nelson County, Virginia, on the northern end 

of the parkway, reported that 59% of its total 

earnings came from sales and services. These 

two counties claimed the greatest total earning 

percentages from sales and services of any 

adjacent counties. The city of Roanoke 

reported 71% of total earnings were from 

sales and services. Similarly, other cities along 

the parkway claim a much higher percentage 

of sales and services earnings than the county 

governments. Burke and McDowell counties, 

North Carolina, claim the lowest total 

earnings attributable to sales and services at 

31% and 27%, respectively. The remaining 

counties total earnings from sales and services 

in 1999 range from 32% to 58% (Blue Ridge 

Parkway Socioeconomic Atlas 2003). 

Projected percentages of total earnings for 

2020 in the 29 counties bordering the parkway 

predict heavy increases in the sales and 

services sector, the largest being a projected 

increase of 112% in Bedford County. No 

county adjacent to the parkway is projected to 

increase its total percentage of earnings from 

sales and services less than 31% by the year 

2020. 

Construction and Manufacturing. 

Construction and manufacturing total income 

earnings by county range from 56% of total 

earned income in McDowell County, North 

Carolina to 10% of total earned income in 

Swain County, North Carolina. The North 

Carolina counties of McDowell, Caldwell, 

Burke, Transylvania, Yancy, Ashe, and 

Alleghany and the Virginia counties of 

Grayson, Patrick, and Franklin all derive the 

majority of their total income earnings from 

construction and manufacturing. Only 

McDowell and Caldwell counties in North 

Carolina claim a higher percentage of 

employment from construction and 

manufacturing, 48% and 45%, respectively, 

than sales and services out of all 29 counties 

surrounding the parkway in 1999 (Blue Ridge 

Parkway Socioeconomic Atlas 2003). 

The construction and manufacturing sector is 

projected to increase in total percentage of 

income for all 29 counties that border the 

parkway by 2020. The total income percentage 

increase is projected to range from 1% in 

Grayson County, Virginia, to 74% in 

Botetourt County, Virginia. The median 

projected total income earnings for all 29 

counties surrounding the parkway in 

construction and manufacturing is 28% versus 

62% for Sales and Services by 2020. 

Government Services and 

Expenditures. Total percentage of earnings 

by county for government services, meaning 

expenditures by the government in those 

counties, ranges from 11% in Alleghany, 

Caldwell, and Transylvania counties in North 

Carolina to 28% in Jackson County, North 

Carolina, and Amherst County, Virginia. 

Government services are projected to 

comprise 45% of total income for parkway 

adjacent counties in 2020 (Blue Ridge 

Parkway Socioeconomic Atlas 2003). The 

majority of the federal lands are national 

forests, managed by the U.S. Forest Service, 

and Great Smoky Mountains National Park, 

managed by the National Park Service but 

separately from the parkway. This ownership 

contributes to more federal expenditures in 

the study area. 

Agricultural and Natural Resources. 

Agriculture and natural resources sector total 

earnings range from 1% to 22% with most 

counties claiming less than 10% of total 

earnings from agriculture and natural 

resources in 1999 (Blue Ridge Parkway 

Socioeconomic Atlas 2003). 

The median projected 2020 total income for 

all 29 counties along the parkway attributed to 

agriculture and natural resources is 41.5% 

versus government services at 45% (Blue 

Ridge Parkway Socioeconomic Atlas 2003). 
Regional Socioeconomics 

243 

Poverty 

Bedford City had the highest poverty rate of 

any jurisdiction bordering the parkway at 

18.3% and Roanoke County had the lowest at 

4.4%. The median poverty rate is 11.8% for 

the study area. 

Proximity to interstate highways and regional 

population centers has an effect on poverty. 

The counties bordering the parkway in both 

North Carolina and Virginia furthest from an 

interstate highway have the highest 

percentage of residents in poverty. The 

counties in both North Carolina and Virginia 

adjacent to the parkway with the lowest 

percentage of residents in poverty contain or 

surround the regional population centers of 

Asheville and Roanoke; they also have 

interstate highway access. Both regional 

population centers receive higher than 

average amounts of federal expenditures per 

capita and contain a higher than average 

percent of residents in poverty. Higher federal 

expenditures per capita are more closely 

connected to highways and cities adjacent to 

the parkway than rural counties adjacent to 

the parkway as of 2003. Access and proximity 

to jobs has a large economic impact on the 29 

neighboring counties. 

Seasonal Housing 

The percentage of seasonal housing in the 

counties adjacent to the parkway is an 

indicator of tourism and service industry 

economies. Avery County, North Carolina, 

has the highest seasonal housing rate at 39.9%. 

Nelson County, Virginia, has the second 

highest at 24.7% and Swain County, North 

Carolina, has 18% seasonal housing. Counties 

with low seasonal housing, less than 2%, are 

Surry, Wilkes, and Burke in North Carolina 

and Amherst and Augusta in Virginia. These 

counties have higher than average populations 

compared with the other counties along the 

parkway and lower elevations. The counties 

with the highest seasonal housing rates and 

counties with the highest percent of 

recreational and tourism employees are also 

some of the most sparsely populated counties 

in the study area. They are also relatively far 

from population hubs (Blue Ridge Parkway 

Socioeconomic Atlas 2003). 

Scenic Views and Economic Activity 

Scenic views and the parkway motoring 

experience are the two primary reasons that 

visitors come to the parkway. The Blue Ridge 

Parkway Scenic Experience Project, a study 

completed in 2004, indicates that degraded 

scenic views could result in fewer visits and, 

therefore, less tourism and economic stimulus 

for surrounding counties. Visitors said that 

they are less likely to visit if the quality of the 

view is degraded. Reductions in visitors would 

have a direct impact on service jobs at hotels, 

restaurants, gas and convenience stores, and 

gift shops. Reduced tourist spending would 

also be felt in the reduction of sales tax and 

other taxes levied on hotel/motel and rental 

car patrons. Currently, North Carolina has the 

majority of scenic viewpoints and highest 

quality most intact views along the parkway 

road. Economic conditions, including tourism 

employment and seasonal housing, correlate 

to increased views in North Carolina 

compared to Virginia (UNC-Asheville 2004). 

Based on economic studies in western North 

Carolina, viewing mountain scenery is a large 

contributor to the success of regional tourism. 

As a scenic motorway, the parkway was 

designed to provide sweeping views of the 

Blue Ridge Mountains and pastoral 

landscapes from the convenience of pullouts 

along the roadway. The majority of the 

counties along the parkway have maintained 

their rural character, but four population 

centers along the parkway have an impact on 

viewsheds resulting from increased 

development of the rural land composing the 

views. The city of Asheville and Buncombe 

County; the cities of Boone and Blowing Rock 

and Henderson County; Roanoke and 

Roanoke County; and the city of Staunton and 

Augusta County have all grown considerably 

since the origin of the parkway. These areas 

could present the greatest threat to viewsheds 

along the parkway.
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

244 

Blue Ridge Parkway and Interstate 

Highways 

Metropolitan areas have a large impact on the 

parkway with regards to visitor use, 

population growth, and economic activity. 

Proximity to these highways has an effect on 

population, demographics, economic 

activities, and housing on the region (U.S. 

DOT 2007). 

Interstate 85. The parkway is less than 100 

miles from most of the population centers 

along the I-85 corridor, which connects 

Montgomery, Alabama, with Petersburg, 

Virginia, and less than a day’s drive from the 

megalopolis along the Eastern Seaboard. The 

I-85 corridor is one of the fastest growing 

areas in the United States and includes several 

large metropolitan areas that overlap in 

concentric rings including Atlanta, Georgia; 

Greenville, South Carolina; Charlotte, 

Winston-Salem, and Raleigh-Durham, North 

Carolina; and Richmond, Virginia. These 

central cities are surrounded by thousands of 

linked communities. Similarly, the smaller 

metropolitan areas of Asheville and HickoryMorganton-Lenoir, North Carolina; 

Knoxville, Tennessee; Johnson CityKingsport-Bristol, Tennessee-Virginia; and 

Lynchburg and Charlottesville, Virginia, 

overlap both counties surrounding the 

parkway and communities closely linked to 

the I-85 corridor (Socioeconomic Atlas for the 

Blue Ridge Parkway 2003). 

Interstate 81. Interstate 81 originates in 

Dandridge, Tennessee, east of Knoxville, 

travels northeast into Virginia, skirting the 

western boundary, and continues to the 

Canadian border in upstate New York. This 

transportation corridor acts as a back road 

linking the Appalachian area and the Ohio 

River Valley with the population centers of 

the northeastern United States (U.S. DOT 

2007). 

Interstate 81 is an integral access route and 

economic corridor for many Appalachian 

counties in North Carolina and Virginia 

through which the parkway passes. The 

interstate does not pass through any large 

metropolitan areas, but it links population 

centers in the mountainous terrain to other 

markets across the southern, midwestern, and 

northeastern United States. Specifically, 

Roanoke, Botetourt, Rockbridge, and Augusta 

counties in Virginia border I-81. Interstate-81 

runs perpendicular to four other interstate 

highways that bisect the northeast-southwest 

direction of the Appalachian Mountains and 

the parkway: (1) I-26 passes through 

Hendersonville, North Carolina; Asheville, 

North Carolina; and Johnson City, Tennessee 

before merging with I-81; (2) I-40 passes 

through Asheville, North Carolina, crosses I26, then passes through Newport, Tennessee, 

before merging with I-81; (3) I-77 passes 

through Charlotte, North Carolina and 

continues north through the Appalachian 

Mountains in Virginia before merging with I81 near Wytheville, Virginia; and (4) I-64 runs 

northwest from Richmond and passes 

through Charlottesville, Waynesboro, and 

Staunton, Virginia before merging with I-81. 

In summary, sections of the parkway that are 

crossed by an interstate highway have a 

greater sphere of influence on the 

surrounding area due to the interstate’s 

impact on the surrounding community. 

Land Use and Ownership 

Land uses in the study area include public and 

private forests; agriculture; natural areas 

supporting wildlife and ecological 

conservation; outdoor recreation and other 

open space; rural residential use; and 

developed residential, commercial, and 

industrial lands. Agricultural land uses, 

including crop production and livestock 

grazing, continue to be prominent in most of 

the Virginia and northern North Carolina 

counties along the parkway. However, growth 

in residential development adjacent to the 

parkway has increased tremendously and 

affected many of the scenic views. Second 

homes account for much of the development 

in the last 10 years. Most of the counties in 

Virginia and North Carolina are anticipating 

an influx of more retirees. Downtown 

redevelopment is occurring in Lenoir in 
Regional Socioeconomics 

245 

Caldwell County, North Carolina, and other 

projects designed to attract visitors are being 

considered in other counties. 

Land use regulations are sparse throughout 

the 29-county area and county zoning is 

almost nonexistent. Several counties are 

considering cell tower, ridge top, and 

viewshed ordinances to preserve the views. 

Due to topography and limited urban areas 

most residential growth is limited to one or 

more acre lots. Only Roanoke County, 

Virginia, and the larger cities in Virginia have 

zoning ordinances. The city of Asheville, 

North Carolina, and the city of Roanoke, 

Virginia, have accommodated the parkway 

into their city plans with connection and 

buffer strategies. Viewsheds are at the greatest 

risk of degradation without controlled 

residential growth outside city limits. 

Federally Managed Land. The percentage 

of federally managed land in the study area in 

2001 varied from 71% in Swain County, North 

Carolina (where Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park is located) to 0.3% in Surry 

County, North Carolina. The median 

percentage of land under federal management 

falls at 5.3% (Blue Ridge Parkway 

Socioeconomic Atlas 2003). The majority of 

the federal lands are national forests, managed 

by the U.S. Forest Service and Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park, managed by the 

National Park Service. The total dollars 

transferred to counties by the federal 

government as part of the Payments-In-Lieuof-Taxes program have a direct impact on the 

region as revenue for county governments. 

Within the study area in 2000, Payments-inLieu-of-Taxes payments ranged from $1,040 

(Surry County) to $270,767 (Swain County). 

Visitor Spending and Employment 

Impact 

An economic study completed by the parkway 

in 1996 estimated a $2.3 billion annual 

addition to local economies associated with 

the parkway (NCSU 1996). Other estimates of 

the economic contributions associated with 

the parkway, using direct expenditures as the 

measure of contribution, range from $351 

million to $1.8 billion annually (in terms of 

1996 currency values) (Brothers and Chen 

1997). The wide range in estimated economic 

impacts reflects differences in geographic 

scope and analytical approach to estimate 

such contributions, with the lower estimate 

derived by the National Park Service based on 

the parkway’s annual operating budget and 

estimated annual spending by visitors to the 

park. 

More recent estimates of the parkway’s 

economic contributions are based on the 17.4 

million recreation visits to the parkway in 

2007. Nonlocal visitor spending totaled 

$318,204,000. Those visits and the 

corresponding economic impacts accrued 

disproportionately between Virginia and 

North Carolina; Virginia receiving 38% of the 

total and North Carolina 62%. The total NPS 

payroll directly supported 328 jobs including 

contract and seasonal jobs. Other jobs 

supported by nonlocal visitation to the 

parkway are estimated at 6,400. Those jobs, 

geographically dispersed along the entire 

length of the parkway, contributed 

$18,859,000 to regional personal income 

directly from the National Park Service 

payroll and $196,683,000 indirectly from 

other supported jobs. Nonlocal visitor 

spending totaled $318,204,000. When the 

income and spending effects are combined, 

the parkway adds an estimated $533,746,000 

to local economies and 6,727 jobs along the 

total parkway length (Stynes 2008). 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

246 

FIGURE 29. PERCENTAGE OF FEDERALLY MANAGED LAND IN COUNTIES ADJACENT TO BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY

Percentage of Land Under Federal Management 

by County

33.3%

8.1%

17.7%

15.9%

24.3%

5.3%

4.9%

1.6%

1.6%

2.5%

3.5%

11.9%

3.8%

0.3%

0.7%

2.0%

4.6%

16.4%

1.6%

14.9%

13.5%

24.1%

19.5%

8.1%

7.3%

36.5%

36.8%

25.4%

71.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Augusta

Nelson

Rockbridge

Amherst

Botetourt

Bedford

Roanoke 

Franklin

Floyd

Patrick

Carroll 

Grayson

Alleghany

Surry

Ashe

Wilkes

Watauga

Caldwell

Avery

Burke

Mitchell

McDowell

Yancey

Buncombe

Henderson

Haywood

Transylvania

Jackson

Swain

Data courtesy Blue Ridge Parkway Socioeconomic Atlas, 2003. 

FIGURE 30. ECONOMIC IMPACT ESTIMATES FROM THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY 

TO THE SURROUNDING REGION IN 2007 

2007 Values 

Total Recreation Visits 17,352,286 

Nonlocal Visitor Spending $ 318,204,000.00 

Total Visitor Spending $ 350,898,000.00 

Jobs Supported 6,400 

Labor Income $ 127,077,000.00 

Value Added $ 196,683,000.00 

NPS Jobs Supported 328 

Labor Income $ 16,530,000.00 

Value Added $ 18,859,000.00 

Total Value Add to the Region $ 533,746,000.00 

Total Jobs Supported by Parkway 6,727 

Data is courtesy of National Park Visitor Spending and Payroll Impacts, 2007 by Daniel Stynes.

Virginia 

North 

Carolina 
Blue Ridge Music Center Amphitheater 

Environmental Consequences 4

Mabry Mill

249 

INTRODUCTION 

The National Environmental Policy Act 

requires that environmental documents 

discuss the environmental impacts of a 

proposed federal action, feasible alternatives 

to that action, and any adverse environmental 

effects that cannot be avoided if a proposed 

action is implemented. In this case, the 

proposed federal action is the adoption of a 

general management plan for the Blue Ridge 

Parkway. This chapter analyzes the 

environmental impacts of implementing each 

of the three alternatives on natural resources, 

cultural resources, the visitor experience, the 

socioeconomic environment, and parkway 

operations. The analysis is the basis for 

comparing the beneficial and adverse effects 

of implementing the alternatives. By 

examining the environmental consequences 

of all alternatives on an equivalent basis, 

decision makers can evaluate which approach 

would create the most desirable combination 

of benefits with the fewest adverse effects on 

the park. 

Because of the general, conceptual nature of 

the actions described in the alternatives, the 

impacts of these actions are analyzed in 

general qualitative terms. Thus, this 

environmental impact statement should be 

considered a programmatic analysis. If and 

when site-specific developments or other 

actions are proposed for implementation 

subsequent to this general management plan, 

appropriate detailed environmental and 

cultural compliance documentation would be 

prepared in accordance with National 

Environmental Policy Act and National 

Historic Preservation Act requirements. 

This chapter includes a description of 

cumulative impacts. The impacts of the 

alternatives are organized under each impact 

topic. Impact analysis discussions are 

organized by topic and then by alternative. At 

the beginning of each major topic is a 

discussion of the methods and assumptions 

used for that topic. Each alternative discussion 

also describes cumulative impacts and 

presents a conclusion. The impacts of each 

alternative are summarized in table 20, at the 

end of “Chapter 2: Alternatives.” A cost 

comparison of the alternatives is found in the 

“Development of Cost Estimates” section at 

the beginning of chapter 2. 

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR 

ANALYZING IMPACTS 

The planning team based the impact analyses 

in this chapter on professional judgment, 

research of existing studies and literature, 

opinions from experts within the National 

Park Service and other agencies, and the study 

of previous projects that had similar effects. 

When assessing the potential impacts on the 

resources and values within and adjacent to 

the Blue Ridge Parkway, several impact 

parameters were analyzed for each alternative. 

In this chapter, the potential impacts of 

alternatives A, B, and C are described in terms 

of four criteria: type, intensity, duration, and 

context. Explanations and definitions of these 

criteria are provided as follows: 

Type: The type of impact is determined to be 

either beneficial or adverse. The beneficial and 

adverse impacts on resources and values are 

assessed by comparing the anticipated 

changes that would result from implementing 

each action alternative to the results of 

continuing current management direction 

(alternative A). Once it is determined if an 

impact is beneficial or adverse, the other 

impact measurement criteria—intensity, 

duration, and context—can be assessed.

Intensity: The intensity refers to the degree, 

level, or strength of the impact on the 

respective resource or value. The impact 

intensities for beneficial and adverse effects 

are quantified as negligible, minor, moderate, 

and major. Because the definitions of intensity

vary by resource topic, separate intensity 

definitions are for each impact topic (in 

individual sections of this chapter). 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

250 

Duration: The duration refers to the length of 

time the impact affects the resource or value. 

In this analysis, impact durations are defined 

as follows (unless otherwise noted in the 

impact topic section): 

 Short-term: Impacts would last less than 

five years. 

 Long-term: Impacts would persist for 

five or more years, or may be permanent. 

Context: The context refers to the setting or 

geographic scope of the impact on the 

particular resource or value. In this analysis, 

impacts are measured relative to the following 

two context levels (unless otherwise noted in 

the impact topic section): 

 Local: Impacts would be limited to a 

specific site or relatively small area 

within the parkway boundaries. 

 Regional: Impacts would occur over a 

large, widespread area within and/or 

beyond the parkway boundaries, or in 

several areas along the parkway. 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

The impacts of climate change on the parkway 

are not expected to vary by alternative, and 

the lack of certainty about regional climate 

change adds to the difficulty of predicting 

how these impacts would be realized. 

Furthermore, management actions that are 

inherently part of each alternative would not 

fundamentally change with the anticipated 

added effects of climate change. Climate 

change is one factor among many that cause 

similar outcomes, so management actions 

would not likely be taken due to climate 

change alone. Given this complexity, the 

potential influences of these changes on 

parkway resources were included in “Chapter 

3: Affected Environment,” but will not be 

analyzed in detail with respect to each 

alternative. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

The Council on Environmental Quality, which 

ensures that federal agencies meet their 

obligations under the National Environmental 

Policy Act, requires an assessment of 

cumulative impacts in the decision making 

process for all federal projects. Cumulative 

impacts are described in Council on 

Environmental Quality regulation 1508.7 as 

follows: 

Cumulative impacts are the impacts that result 

from the incremental impacts of the action 

when added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

regardless of what agency (federal or 

nonfederal) or person undertakes such other 

actions. Cumulative impacts can result from 

individually minor, but collectively significant, 

actions taking place over time. 

Cumulative impacts are evaluated separately 

for the no-action and three action alternatives 

by adding the impacts of each alternative with 

the impacts of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions. To 

determine this, it was necessary to identify 

other actions in the area surrounding the 

parkway. The extent of this area was 

determined to be the 29 counties that border 

the parkway in North Carolina and Virginia 

(see map). This “action area” includes federal, 

state, county, tribal, and private lands within 

an average of 25 miles on either side of the 

entire 469-mile length of the parkway. 

The “action area” for assessing cumulative 

impacts is the same for all impact topics, 

because these 29 counties provides an ideal 

boundary for analyzing a wide range of 

regional influences, including land uses, 

economy and commerce, recreation and 

tourism, and other government actions. 

Furthermore, within these counties are 

portions of two national parks, three national 

forests, a national historic site, a national 

monument, numerous state parks, the 

Cherokee Indian Reservation, and four large 

urban areas. It also encompasses the major 

ecoregions of the greater Appalachian 

Mountains and the majority of all viewsheds 

seen by visitors traveling the parkway. 

To determine which actions within this area 

may have cumulative impacts on parkway 
Introduction 

251 

resources, the National Park Service 

requested federal, state, county, and tribal 

governments to provide a list of projects that 

are currently being implemented or would 

likely be implemented over the next 20 

years—the typical life of a general 

management plan. Projects identified include 

activities that are planned by governments, 

local businesses, or private landowners. For 

those who did not initially respond, the 

National Park Service sent out follow-up 

requests. 

In total, 32 responses were received. Of those 

who responded, only four local governments 

stated that they are unaware of any 

developments that would have an impact on 

the parkway. Because some governments did 

not respond, the cumulative scenario may not 

include all past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions. However, with so 

many responses received, the scenario does 

provide a representative sample of the types 

and extent of actions occurring along the 

entire length of the parkway. 

Based on the responses, actions were 

organized into four main categories—

recreation and tourism enhancements, 

residential and commercial developments, 

road construction and improvements, and 

resource protection activities. These 

categories are summarized below with 

examples of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions that could 

contribute to cumulative impacts. Examples 

under each category are generally organized 

by the seven parkway segments. Because most 

of these actions are in the early planning 

stages, the evaluation of cumulative impacts 

described under each impact topic is 

qualitative in nature. 

A number of counties in the action area also 

submitted a variety of long-range planning 

documents. These include comprehensive 

plans, greenway plans, transportation 

improvement plans, bikeway plans, trail plans, 

conservation plans, and corridor development 

plans. The plans that are conceptual in nature, 

focusing on long-term goals and objectives, 

rather than specific projects that have been 

funded and approved, have not been used to 

develop the cumulative scenario. For more 

information about general socioeconomic 

trends in the region, see the socioeconomic 

section of “Chapter 3: Affected Environment.” 

Recreation and Tourism 

Enhancements 

Counties and municipalities adjacent to the 

parkway have a variety of recreation and 

tourism initiatives to stimulate economic 

growth and improve quality of life in the area. 

The following projects are among those that 

could have cumulative impacts on parkway 

resources and visitor experiences. 

The city of Roanoke has a variety of ongoing 

or planned recreation and tourism projects. 

These include renovation of the Historic City 

Market and Center in the Square. Expansion 

of the Historic Hotel Roanoke and 

Conference Center in downtown Roanoke is 

also planned. The city and Roanoke County 

also propose to complete several greenway 

projects, including a 30-mile 

bicycle/pedestrian path from western 

Roanoke County to the parkway. 

The city of Galax, about 7 miles west of the 

Plateau segment of the parkway, has a 

foreseeable streetscape and visual 

enhancement project of their historic 

downtown. The project would be undertaken 

in part to improve the corridor of the entrance 

of the city for visitors coming off the parkway 

for entertainment and other special events. 

Stone Mountain State Park, along the 

Highlands segment of the parkway, has a 

number of capital improvement projects 

planned to improve public recreational and 

educational use of the park, as well as support 

facilities needed for park operations. These 

include development of group camp sites, 

expansion of the visitor center, trail 

improvements, and bridge replacements. 

Along the Highlands and Black Mountain 

segments of the parkway, the High Country 

Council of Governments has completed a 

road cycling map for Wilkes County and plans 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

252 

to do similar maps for the other six counties 

within their jurisdiction (Alleghany, Ashe, 

Avery, Mitchell, Watauga, and Yancey). While 

the Wilkes County cycling map does not 

include any routes that include parkway 

segments, the other county maps may. 

Watauga County also plans to emphasize the 

acquisition of land for development of 

greenways, bike trails, and other recreation 

opportunities, such as stream access. 

Mount Mitchell State Park, next to the Black 

Mountain segment of the parkway, is 

proposing to upgrade existing facilities and 

some new recreational opportunities. These 

projects include general repairs and 

renovation of parkway infrastructure, a 

possible new backcountry campground, and 

consideration of new hiking and mountain 

biking trails. 

In Burke County, along the Black Mountain 

segment of the parkway, recreation and 

tourism initiatives include promotion of the 

Overmountain Victory Trail and the Blue 

Ridge National Heritage Area. The county is 

also participating in the development of a 

regional recreation plan and collaborating to 

improve the Brown Mountain Overlook, a 

stopping point for tourists on their way to the 

parkway. 

Buncombe County, along the Asheville 

segment of the parkway, is conducting 

feasibility studies for two priority greenway 

projects. The first is an 11-mile greenway trail 

that would connect the towns of Black 

Mountain and Asheville, with a possible 

connection to the parkway. The second 

project is a 15-mile trail along the French 

Broad River Corridor. Both greenway projects 

would create a continuous trail system 

connecting three counties, five municipalities, 

the parkway, and the Appalachian Trail. 

The city of Brevard is currently working with 

the U.S. Forest Service to construct the final 

phase of a biking and hiking trail to connect 

downtown Brevard with an area inside the 

Pisgah National Forest. This would allow 

residents and tourists to use the trail to access 

the parkway. 

The Carl Sandburg Home National Historic 

Site, near the Pisgah segment of the parkway, 

has begun several new projects that enhance 

the park’s historic character and provide 

better visitor experiences. These include 

expanding the park’s authorized boundary, a 

future visitor center, and upgrades to other 

amenities offered at the park. 

Collaborative efforts are also underway to 

develop portions of the Mountains-to-Sea 

Trail within and adjacent to the parkway 

corridor in a number of North Carolina 

counties. Great Smoky Mountains National 

Park is developing plans to improve 

concession services, the Oconoluftee Visitor 

Center, as well as portions of the Mountainsto-Sea Trail. 

Residential and Commercial 

Developments 

Ongoing residential and commercial 

developments are occurring to the greatest 

extent adjacent to the Roanoke, Highlands, 

and Asheville segments of the parkway. Types 

of development include residential homes, 

subdivisions, commercial businesses, and 

industry. Many counties and municipalities 

along these segments expect this trend to 

continue with the ongoing influx of people to 

these areas; however, current development 

activity has dropped off given the recent 

downturn in the economy. The following 

projects are among those that could have 

cumulative impacts. 

In Roanoke County, the parkway spans 26 

miles of heavily developed lands that are 

adjacent to, near, or visible from the parkway. 

Within this area, there are 11 ongoing 

residential developments, totaling over 2,000 

new single-family homes. There are also six 

new commercial developments that include 

both shopping and business centers. Several 

planning studies have also been adopted by 

the county or are underway to manage for 

future growth and development. These land 

use plans include the Route 220 Corridor 

Study, the Mount Pleasant Community Plan, 

the Route 221 Area Study, and the Vinton 
Introduction 

253 

Area Corridors Plan. These planning efforts 

call for water and sewer line extensions and 

new road construction and widening and 

pinpoint areas that are most attractive for 

upcoming development. 

Residential development projects planned in 

the city of Roanoke include 1,300 new and 

2,000 replacement housing units. Economic 

developments in the city include a 25-acre 

technology park, a 430-acre industrial and 

technology park, a 110-acre redevelopment 

area, and a 100-acre commercial and mixeduse development area. Nine other abandoned 

or underused industrial and commercial 

brownfield corridors through the city are also 

proposed for redevelopment. The city of 

Roanoke is also working with the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers to reduce flooding along 

the Roanoke River. 

In Franklin County, current development 

activities near the Roanoke segment of the 

parkway include of a residential subdivision 

consisting of nine large lots, ranging from 7 to 

13 acres each. Another subdivision totaling 

100 lots may also occur in the area. 

In Watauga County, along the Highlands 

segment of the parkway, there are three 

residential developments planned, totaling 

about 1,800 lots on 6,300 acres. There are also 

plans to expand the Tweetsie Railroad Park to 

include more dining and shopping venues. A 

Wine and Culinary Center is also being 

planned adjacent to the parkway near Blowing 

Rock. In this county, the development of 

commercial wind power is also likely in the 

foreseeable future and could be visible from 

the parkway. In general, the southern half of 

Watauga County (which the parkway passes 

through) is being developed faster than the 

rest of the county. To keep pace with this 

growth, a water line is planned along U.S. 321, 

connecting the water systems of Boone and 

Blowing Rock. 

In Surry County, in the Highlands segment of 

the parkway, there are five residential 

developments planned, totaling 360 lots. 

Planned industrial projects include expansion 

of the county landfill by 90 acres south of 

Mount Airy, expansion of a manufacturing 

facility south of Dobson, a biofuel power 

plant, and a new state correctional facility is 

proposed. Several infrastructure improvement 

projects are planned by the county to keep 

pace with growth and development, the 

majority of which include water and sewer 

line extensions. 

In Buncombe County, along the Asheville 

segment of the parkway, there are four 

residential developments that have been 

approved within the last two years. These 

include two apartment complexes (totaling 

450 units), a 160-unit condominium, and a 

development with 150 multifamily units. The 

area along Hendersonville Road within the 

city of Asheville continues to be developed, 

causing increased congestion of roadways and 

use of the parkway for local commuter traffic. 

Other private properties adjacent to the 

parkway in Asheville have started to see an 

increased interest in development activity and 

the city of Asheville expects these properties 

to become more residential over time. 

The Ridge, Black Mountain, and Pisgah 

segments of the parkway are experiencing less 

development activity due to the extent of 

national forests in these areas. However, some 

development on private lands is still occurring 

within these segments. For example, in the 

portion of Burke County adjacent to the 

parkway, no major development activities are 

proposed due to the proximity of the Pisgah 

National Forest. However, a major residential 

development is occurring to the east, around 

Lake James, where 2,400 lots are projected to 

be completed by 2012. 

The same is true of Henderson County. 

Although no developments are planned near 

the parkway due to the Pisgah National 

Forest, there are a number of developments 

that have been approved in other parts of the 

county south of Asheville. These include 13 

separate residential developments, totaling 

approximately 5,000 lots on 5,400 acres. A 

development plan for a commercial park has 

also been approved by the county. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

254 

In Haywood County, in the Pisgah segment of 

the parkway, there is considerable commercial 

development along Great Smoky Mountain 

Expressway, between Waynesville and the 

parkway at Balsam Gap. Due to the lack of 

county zoning, there is little to control the 

continued growth in this area, which may 

change the character of the community and 

the views from the parkway. 

In Transylvania County, along in the Pisgah 

segment, demolition and environmental 

clean-up of the former Ecusta Paper Mill is 

underway. Once remediation is complete, the 

new owners plan to attract high end retail and 

residential and resort development to the 

property. 

In Mitchell, McDowell, and Yancey 

counties—all along the Black Mountain 

segment of the parkway—five residential 

developments are planned, totaling 300 lots. 

In Nelson County, ongoing development of 

Wintergreen Resort would continue adjacent 

to the Ridge segment of the parkway. 

In Bedford County, along the Ridge segment 

of the parkway, the majority of new and 

ongoing residential developments are planned 

in the Forest and Smith Mountain Lake areas. 

These include 120 townhouses, 195 singlefamily dwellings, and 93 upper level housing 

units in downtown Moneta; a 387-acre 

development with 327 single-family lots at 

Mariner’s Landing; and 830 single-family and 

multifamily dwelling units in Farmington. The 

county stated that they may recognize the 

significance of the viewshed of the parkway 

when updating their zoning and subdivision 

ordinances. 

Road Construction and 

Improvements 

The Virginia Department of Transportation 

has plans in Roanoke County to widen VA 634 

to four lanes with bike lanes. The city of 

Roanoke has plans to complete approximately 

$100 million in transportation system 

improvements including interchange 

improvements at three locations on I-581, the 

widening of U.S. 460, as well as other 

intersection and corridor improvements in the 

area. Roanoke County also has a number of 

road improvements underway in the towns of 

Vinton and Mount Pleasant. These include 

reconstruction and minor extensions of public 

streets and roads. The development of a new 

interstate highway corridor (I-73) across the 

parkway near Roanoke is also proposed. 

The North Carolina Department of 

Transportation has plans for road 

improvements in a number of counties 

bordering the parkway. These include the 

widening of U.S. 221 from two to four lanes 

between NC 226 and 194 in Watauga, Avery, 

and Burke counties. In Watauga County, U.S. 

321 through Blowing Rock, NC 105 

(Tynecastle to Boone), NC 184 (Tynecastle to 

Banner Elk), and NC 194 (1.1 miles North of 

Newland) are also planned for widening. NC 

191 through Buncombe and Henderson 

counties and U.S. 25A in Buncombe County 

also plan to be widened to multilanes. 

In Mitchell, McDowell, and Yancey counties, 

approximately 12 miles of new road 

construction is planned in association with 

five residential developments. Other counties 

along the parkway did not specify the amount 

of new road construction that would occur 

with planned developments, but it is likely 

that new roads would be built. 

The departments of transportation in Virginia 

and North Carolina have a variety of other 

road improvement projects planned along the 

Blue Ridge Parkway and on adjacent roads. 

These projects range from bridge and tunnel 

repairs to resurfacing and reconstructing 

guardrails and shoulders. These are routine or 

deferred maintenance projects of existing 

roadways, not new construction. 

Resource Protection Activities 

There are numerous land protection activities 

occurring within the 29 counties surrounding 

the parkway. These activities range from the 

protection and restoration of habitats and 
Introduction 

255 

mountain scenery on public lands to the 

establishment of conservation easements to 

prevent the conversion of farmlands to 

residential or commercial developments. The 

following projects are among those that could 

have cumulative impacts on parkway 

resources. 

The majority of national forest lands along the 

Ridge, Black Mountain, and Pisgah segments 

of the parkway are managed for scenery 

conservation, wildlife habitat improvements, 

and to enhance biodiversity. The National 

Park Service aims to work with the U.S. Forest 

Service to ensure that timber harvest on 

adjacent national forest lands will be 

implemented in a way that protects and 

maintains scenic views from the Blue Ridge 

Parkway. Impacts on the viewshed are 

mitigated using the U.S. Forest Service’s 

Visual Management System, which is based on 

different levels of acceptable scenery 

management. National forest lands that can be 

seen from the parkway are managed for 

preservation (very low visual impact), 

retention (activities are not visually evident), 

and partial retention (activities remain visually 

subordinate to the characteristic landscape). 

Prescribed burning and invasive species 

treatments are also important management 

strategies on these adjacent public lands. 

Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Watauga, Wilkes, and 

Yancey counties (along the Highlands and 

Black Mountain segments of the parkway) 

have, or are currently developing, voluntary 

agricultural programs that delineate working 

farms and place voluntary easements on 

farmland. Participating farms are scattered 

throughout these six counties. 

The North Carolina State Park System 

recently acquired Grandfather Mountain, 

within the Black Mountain segment of the 

parkway. This new state park will undergo a 

planning process to address land protection 

and other resource management concerns. 

There are currently a number of conservation 

easements held by The Nature Conservancy 

on this property adjoining the parkway. 

Buncombe County has selected high priority 

areas of the county for land protection using 

conservation easements, which include lands 

adjacent to the Asheville segment of the 

parkway. Since 2004, about 950 acres have 

been protected under newly established 

conservation easements. Buncombe County 

also has a voluntary farmland preservation 

program that offers farms some protection 

from encroaching development. 

Approximately 18,500 acres of farmland are 

currently protected under the program. In 

addition, the county has plans to replace a 

portion of its public transportation fleet with 

alternative fuel vehicles, in order to reduce the 

county’s carbon footprint and improve air 

quality. 

Within Buncombe County, the city of 

Asheville has applied an overlay zoning 

designation for properties that border the 

parkway. All properties within this zone are 

required to respect larger than normal 

setbacks. Additionally, vegetative screening is 

required for all nonresidential developments. 

The town of Waynesville placed its 8,000-acre 

watershed into a conservation easement. 

Approximately 9 miles of the Pisgah segment 

of the parkway is within or borders this 

watershed. About 700 acres of the watershed 

are in a “forever wild” easement, while the 

remaining portion is within a “working forest” 

easement. This portion requires a forestry 

management/stewardship plan, which may 

propose some timber treatments, such as 

thinning. 

The town of Waynesville stated that a primary 

consideration of future forestry activities 

would be the protection of the parkway’s 

viewshed. 

Franklin County, along the northern portion 

of the Plateau segment, indicated that three 

conservation easements have been established 

near or adjacent to the parkway, totaling 950 

acres. Roanoke County stated that one 

conservation easement, totaling 89 acres, has 

been established in the town of Vinton, near 

the parkway. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

256 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park, at the 

southern end of the parkway, is implementing 

a number of restoration projects and other 

land protection efforts. These include the 

control of exotic plants, feral hogs, and 

hemlock woolly adelgid, as well as the 

development of fire and elk management 

programs.
257 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

INTRODUCTION 

This analysis of the environmental 

consequences of alternatives A, B, and C on 

natural resource components of the Blue 

Ridge Parkway is based on the professional 

judgment of parkway staff, National Park 

Service planners, and other specialists in the 

field of natural resource management. This 

analysis describes impacts of the management 

alternatives at two different scales: a parkwaywide analysis, which describes the overall 

effect of broad parkway-wide strategies; and a 

parkway segment and recreation area analysis, 

which looks at more site-specific impacts on 

the parkway’s 7 segments and 15 recreation 

areas. 

To provide a thorough analysis of effects on 

the parkway’s natural resources, this section 

has been organized by the five impact topics 

listed below, which correspond to the natural 

resource topics described in “Chapter 3: 

Affected Environment.” Similar topics have 

been grouped together to limit redundancy 

and to present the analysis in a concise, 

understandable way. 

 Vegetation and Wildlife—including 

plant communities, wildlife and wildlife 

habitat, and ecologically sensitive areas 

 Federal and State Listed Species—

including threatened and endangered 

species 

 Geologic Resources and Soils 

 Water-related Resources—including 

wetlands, riparian areas, floodplains, 

water quality, and streams 

 Air Quality—including ozone, visibility, 

and atmospheric deposition 

VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE 

This impact topic includes plant communities, 

wildlife and wildlife habitat, and ecologically 

sensitive areas. 

Methods and Assumptions for 

Analyzing Impacts 

Vegetation and wildlife are addressed 

together in this section, because an analysis of 

potential impacts on wildlife typically involves 

a discussion of wildlife habitat, which consists 

of the various vegetation communities found 

within the park. Ecologically sensitive areas 

are also addressed under this section, because 

of their rare plant and animal associations. 

Threatened and endangered species 

associated with these areas are discussed 

under a separate impact topic. 

Impacts on vegetation and wildlife were 

evaluated by comparing projected changes 

resulting from the action alternatives (B and 

C) to those of the no-action alternative (A). 

The thresholds used to determine impacts on 

these resources are defined as follows. 

Negligible: Impacts on native species, their 

habitats, or the natural processes sustaining 

them would not be observable or detectable. 

Any effects would be well within natural 

fluctuations. 

Minor: Impacts would be detectable, but they 

would not be expected to be outside the 

natural range of variability for native species, 

their habitats, or the natural processes 

sustaining them. Population numbers, genetic 

variability, and other demographic factors for 

species might have small changes, but they 

would remain stable and viable. Occasional 

responses to disturbance by some individuals 

could be expected. Sufficient habitat would 

remain functional to maintain viability of 

native species. 

Moderate: Impacts on native species, their 

habitats, or the natural processes sustaining 

them would be detectable, and they could be 

temporarily outside the natural range of 

variability. Population numbers, genetic 

variability, and other demographic factors for 

species might change, but would be expected 

to rebound to preimpact numbers and to 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

258 

remain stable and viable over time. Frequent 

responses to disturbance by some individuals 

could be expected. Sufficient habitat would 

remain functional to maintain viability of 

native species. 

Major: Impacts on native species, their 

habitats, or the natural processes sustaining 

them would be detectable, and they would be 

expected to be outside the natural range of 

variability for extended periods of time or 

permanently. Population numbers, genetic 

variability, and other demographic factors for 

species might experience substantial changes. 

Frequent responses to disturbance by many 

individuals would be expected. 

Loss of habitat might affect the viability of at 

least some native species. 

Alternative A—No-action 

Parkway-wide. Until the late 1980s, 

management of the parkway was primarily 

focused on its completion, rather than on 

active management of its broader natural 

resources. As a result, the parkway’s 

vegetation and wildlife communities have 

been managed with limited parkway staff on a 

project-by-project basis with incomplete 

resource information. For example, 

inventories of rare plant communities and 

wildlife habitat have not yet been completed 

for much of the parkway. Under the no-action 

alternative, the lack of a comprehensive, 

science-based management approach would 

continue to constrain the parkway’s ability to 

develop a more long-term, ecosystem-based 

strategy. 

In addition, under the no-action alternative, 

wildlife management would continue to focus 

primarily on individual species (as opposed to 

ecosystem-based management under 

alternatives B and C). Also, the control of 

invasive species would only occur where they 

directly affect rare species. These 

management constraints would continue to 

only protect vegetation and wildlife 

communities on a site-specific and speciesspecific level, rather than a parkway-wide and 

ecosystemwide level. 

The designed landscapes of the parkway 

(including human-made lakes, highly 

manicured lawns, overlooks, and other 

recreational developments) have also 

deemphasized the importance of managing 

vegetation and wildlife in their naturally 

occurring habitats. These designed areas of 

the parkway would continue to limit native 

biodiversity, fragment habitats, and contribute 

to the spread of invasive species. Although any 

of these impacts are not expected to increase 

(because there would be no expansion of the 

parkway’s designed landscapes), the spread of 

invasive species would likely continue. Many 

invasive species were established during initial 

ground disturbance when the parkway was 

constructed, but because many of these 

species are shade tolerant, they are expected 

to continue to invade undisturbed areas of the 

parkway. Under the no-action alternative, 

vegetation management efforts would have 

some beneficial effects by helping control 

invasive plants on limited, local basis. 

However, over time, the forest species 

composition would likely continue to shift 

toward more mesic species, which is 

inconsistent with the U.S. Forest Service goal 

of maintaining and restoring native forest 

species on surrounding national forest lands. 

Under current management, the parkway’s 

strategy for acquiring adjacent lands would 

continue to lack emphasis on protecting 

important vegetation and wildlife resources, 

some of which straddle NPS and private 

property lines. Because the primary purpose 

of acquiring lands has been to protect scenic 

viewsheds, there have been missed 

opportunities to acquire lands with 

considerable natural resource values before 

these were sold and eventually developed. 

Despite these constraints, some properties 

have been acquired that contribute to the 

natural integrity of the parkway. 

Boundary encroachments would also 

continue to occur regularly along the 

parkway. These include illegal developments 

(e.g., fences, roads, and structures) and 
Natural Resources 

259 

activities (e.g., off-road vehicle use) that result 

in habitat degradation, vegetation trampling, 

and the mortality of plants and animals. Under 

the no-action alternative, park management 

and enforcement efforts would have some 

beneficial effects by helping curtail some of 

this activity on limited, local basis. However, 

these encroachments are difficult to enforce, 

because much of the parkway has never been 

surveyed to clearly mark its boundary. 

Similarly, illegal poaching of natural resources 

would continue along the parkway. Under the 

no-action alternative, the management 

approach to curtail poaching of sensitive plant 

species along the parkway would continue to 

have some local beneficial effect. However, 

the effectiveness of this management would 

continue to be quite limited due to the 

pervasiveness of poaching (and its economic 

incentive for poachers) in combination with 

limited law enforcement patrols. The illegal 

removal of highly sought-after rare plants is 

causing a decline in isolated populations of 

these species. 

Under the no-action alternative, all statedesignated natural heritage areas, globally 

ranked natural communities, and other 

known ecologically sensitive areas would 

continue to be protected from incompatible 

developments and visitor use, resulting in 

long-term minor beneficial effects to these 

areas. However, due to the high level of illegal 

uses in these areas of the park, the 

effectiveness of these management and 

enforcement efforts would continue to be 

relatively limited. 

Overall, the continued parkway-wide 

management actions of alternative A would 

continue to have long-term negligible to 

minor beneficial local impacts on vegetation 

and wildlife habitat. However, as noted, 

adverse impacts to these resources would 

continue to occur from various threats (e.g., 

invasive plants, boundary encroachments, 

poaching, and other illegal uses of the 

parkway resources). 

Parkway Segments. Only those parkway 

segments that would experience more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide section are described below. 

Segments 1 and 6: Ridge and Asheville—

Along the Ridge segment of the parkway, 

vegetation trampling would continue to occur 

where visitors are accessing regional trails on 

adjacent U.S. Forest Service lands. Currently, 

no parking or trail connectors are provided to 

manage this use, resulting in repeated 

trampling by vehicles, mountain bikes, and 

hikers. Consequently, long-term minor 

adverse local impacts on vegetation would 

persist under this alternative. 

Similar trampling impacts would continue to 

occur along the Asheville segment of the 

parkway due to the lack of adequate parking 

areas for visitors to access hiking trails. These 

unpaved parking areas have caused vegetation 

damage along the road shoulder, resulting in 

long-term minor adverse local impacts. 

Segments 4, 5, and 7: Highlands, Black 

Mountain, and Pisgah—Under the no-action 

alternative, the parkway along portions of 

segments 4, 5, and 7 above 4,000 feet in 

elevation would be managed under a new vista 

management strategy (NPS 2008a) designed to 

improve habitat for the Carolina northern 

flying squirrel. Vistas and overlooks in these 

areas would be managed by only removing 

select red spruce, Fraser fir, yellow birch trees, 

and other woody vegetation as necessary to 

open up or to maintain the view, while 

keeping enough trees so that squirrels can still 

glide from one tree to another and have 

additional nesting resources. In general, these 

actions would improve habitat connectivity 

for wildlife and plant communities, resulting 

in long-term minor beneficial local to regional 

effects on globally imperiled, high-elevation 

spruce/fir forests. 

Parkway Recreation Areas. Only those 

parkway recreation areas that would 

experience more specific impacts than those 

described under the parkway-wide section are 

described below. 

Humpback Rocks—Under the no-action 

alternative, the low and high elevation barren 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

260 

rock outcrops at Humpback Rocks would 

continue to be affected by trail-related 

impacts. The trail system at this recreation 

area is poorly designed with multiple 

intersecting trails that are overly complex and 

confusing to visitors. This is resulting in 

numerous social trails and off-trail use that 

cause vegetation trampling of fragile plant 

communities associated with these globally 

imperiled rock outcrops. Consequently, this 

alternative would continue to cause long-term 

moderate adverse local impacts on these 

ecologically sensitive areas. 

Blue Ridge Music Center—Under the noaction alternative, the location of the 

proposed interpretive music trail (as part of 

the original design for the Blue Ridge Music 

Center) would cause long-term minor to 

moderate adverse and local impacts (i.e., 

vegetation loss, habitat fragmentation, 

sensory-based disturbances, and soil 

compaction) to sensitive vegetation and 

wildlife communities in the bottomlands 

along Chestnut Creek. These impacts would 

likely result from ground disturbance 

associated with the future construction of the 

trail and vegetation trampling from possible 

off-trail visitor use. The vegetation at the Blue 

Ridge Music Center would also be affected by 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial and 

local impacts from implementation of the 

park’s grasslands and fields management plan. 

Doughton Park—The use of prescribed fire to 

maintain the fire-dependent vegetation 

communities at Doughton Park is allowed 

under current management; however, this 

approach has not been implemented to date. 

Consequently, Table Mountain pine, an 

endemic species to the Appalachian 

Mountains, would continue to decline 

throughout the area, resulting in long-term 

minor to moderate adverse local to regional 

impacts on this species. In contrast, natural 

communities of plants and animals associated 

with low-elevation rocky summits and other 

ecologically sensitive areas at Doughton Park 

continue to be protected from visitor-related 

impacts, because access to these areas is not 

provided. This would continue to have a longterm moderate beneficial local effect on these 

rare habitats. 

Julian Price Park—Under current 

management, unregulated backcountry 

camping and other activities at Hebron Falls 

could continue to occur. However, recent 

improvements to law enforcement presence in 

this area would help control these activities. 

This ongoing activity could continue to cause 

long-term, negligible to minor, adverse, and 

local impacts as a result of visitors trampling 

understory vegetation and compacting soil 

that are important to the health of the oldgrowth hemlock forest near the falls. 

Linville Falls—Under current management, 

the recreation trails leading to the falls would 

likely continue to widen as a result of heavy 

visitor use. Social trails and off-trail use would 

also continue to cause local impacts on oldgrowth Carolina and Canada hemlocks as a 

result of vegetation trampling, soil 

compaction, and erosion. The forest at 

Linville Falls is also highly susceptible to 

Hemlock Woolly Adelgid infestation and is 

being treated with some effectiveness under 

the current management approach. The 

combination of visitor-related impacts and 

hemlock mortality from the Adelgid would 

continue to cause long-term moderate adverse 

local impacts on vegetation. 

Craggy Gardens—Under the no-action 

alternative, most rare plant communities at 

Craggy Gardens would continue to be 

protected with a combination of active habitat 

management and access restrictions. The 

present-day extent of grassy balds is annually 

mowed to prevent the encroachment of 

woody vegetation, such as shrubs and trees. 

Also, high-elevation rocky outcrops are 

protected by simply limiting visitor access to 

these sensitive sites. These actions would 

continue to have a long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial local effect on the overall 

vegetation and wildlife communities of the 

area. However, under current management, 

some site-specific impacts would also 

continue to occur. The rare plant community 

adjacent to the Craggy Pinnacles overlooks 

would continue to be trampled by visitors 
Natural Resources 

261 

who are getting off the designated path and 

viewing area, resulting in long-term moderate 

adverse local impacts. 

Overall, across the entire parkway, its 

segments, and recreation areas, alternative A 

would continue to result in both adverse and 

beneficial effects on the vegetation and 

wildlife communities of the parkway. The 

adverse impacts would be long-term minor to 

moderate and local to regional, primarily 

resulting from vegetation trampling from 

dispersed off-trail use and sensory-based 

disturbances and habitat fragmentation from 

designated trail use. The beneficial impacts 

would be long-term negligible to moderate 

and local to regional, primarily resulting from 

the protection of sensitive resources in 

recreation areas, the new vista management 

strategy, and management efforts to address 

resource threats such as invasive plants, 

poaching, and boundary encroachment. 

Cumulative Effects. The ongoing 

development of private lands throughout the 

region is causing extensive fragmentation of 

vegetation and wildlife communities adjacent 

to the Roanoke, Plateau, and Highlands 

segments of the parkway. Types of 

development include residential homes, 

subdivisions, commercial businesses, and 

industry. Increasing trends in these 

developments are projected to continue with 

the ongoing influx of people to these areas. As 

a result, new developments are gradually 

separating the natural communities of the 

parkway from broader regional ecosystems, 

leaving portions of the parkway as narrow 

corridors of refugia for plants and animals. As 

habitat fragmentation continues, it has the 

potential to cause long-term moderate adverse 

regional impacts on the long-term viability 

and integrity of vegetation and wildlife across 

the parkway and regional ecosystems at large. 

Conversely, the extensive network of national 

forests, state parks, and privately owned 

protected areas adjacent to the Ridge, Black 

Mountain, and Pisgah segments of the 

parkway and two national parks on either end 

(i.e., Shenandoah and Great Smoky 

Mountains) enhance regional efforts to 

conserve the southern Appalachian’s broader 

vegetation and wildlife communities. Without 

these lands, the entire stretch of the parkway 

would be susceptible to adjacent 

development. This system of public and 

private lands would continue to result in longterm moderate beneficial regional effects on 

these vegetation and wildlife resources. 

On parkway lands, there has been some 

disruption of native vegetation and wildlife 

from past development of the designed 

landscapes, roads, and facilities that are 

associated with visitor services and parkway 

operations. However, most of these 

developments have been in place for decades 

and ongoing activities within these areas are 

not expected to further degrade vegetation 

and wildlife resources of the parkway; the 

designed landscapes would not be expanded 

into the surrounding natural habitats. 

These past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions result in long-term 

moderate adverse regional impacts and longterm moderate beneficial regional cumulative 

impacts on vegetation and wildlife. Impacts 

from the ongoing implementation of the noaction alternative, combined with these other 

impacts, would result in long-term minor to 

moderate adverse local to regional impacts 

and long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

local to regional cumulative effects. This 

alternative’s contribution to these cumulative 

effects would be relatively small. 

Conclusion. Alternative A would continue to 

have long-term minor to moderate adverse 

local to regional impacts on the vegetation and 

wildlife communities of the parkway. This 

alternative would also continue to have longterm negligible to moderate beneficial local to 

regional impacts on these resources. Impacts 

of this alternative, combined with the impacts 

of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions described 

previously, would result in long-term minor to 

moderate adverse local to regional impacts 

and long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

local to regional cumulative effects. This 

alternative’s contribution to these effects 

would be relatively small. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

262 

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 

Parkway-wide. Alternative B would provide 

a more ecosystem-based approach to 

managing the parkway’s natural resources 

than under the no-action alternative. This 

would include parkway-wide and regional 

strategies that emphasize multiyear projects to 

protect, restore, and enhance vegetation and 

wildlife communities. This long-term, 

comprehensive approach would be more 

proactive in nature, rather than one that reacts 

to site-specific impacts as they occur. As a 

result, some areas of the parkway would be 

managed differently to address natural 

resource concerns. For example, areas 

traditionally managed for scenery, such as 

roadsides, vista clearings, and agricultural 

leases, could be modified in certain areas to 

better protect native plants and animals. A 

possible way to achieve this would be to install 

riparian fencing along certain agricultural 

lease areas to protect streamside vegetation 

from livestock trampling. Mowing schedules 

along certain roadsides could also be modified 

in order to allow native plants to seed before 

they are cut. These alternative management 

approaches would be fairly inconspicuous to 

the average visitor, yet they would help to 

improve the overall natural resource integrity 

of the parkway. 

Under alternative B, the parkway’s land 

protection strategy would be expanded to 

include the additional option of acquiring 

interests in adjacent lands to protect natural 

resources (including vegetation and wildlife 

communities), rather than just for scenery and 

access management purposes. This would 

allow for a strategy that evaluates the natural 

resource merits of a property when it becomes 

available from a willing seller. This would help 

to ensure that opportunities to acquire 

properties that contribute to the greater 

natural resources of the parkway are not 

overlooked. In addition to this prioritization 

of natural resource values in land preservation 

efforts, alternative B would guide NPS staff to 

proactively seek out willing sellers of highpriority private parcels in the region. Overall, 

this new strategy for land protection would 

result in a long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial local to regional impact on 

vegetation and wildlife habitat. However, the 

realized benefits from this new strategy would 

be based on the resource values of properties 

acquired in the future, as well as their 

proximity to important resources within the 

parkway. 

This alternative would also look beyond the 

boundaries of the parkway to develop a more 

regional and collaborative approach to natural 

resource management. By expanding 

partnerships with private landowners, 

nonprofit organizations, local governments, 

and state and federal agencies, management 

would have greater opportunities to address 

the broader natural resource issues facing the 

parkway and the region. For example, the 

issue of invasive species is not isolated to the 

parkway. The entire southern Appalachian 

Mountain region has been widely affected by 

a number of different plant diseases, pest 

infestations, and exotic weeds (e.g., chestnut 

blight and the balsam and hemlock woolly 

adelgids). Because of this, a collaborative 

approach at the regional level would be more 

effective at controlling the spread of invasive 

species. Another regional issue that would be 

better addressed through partnerships is 

habitat fragmentation as a result of rapid 

growth and development. This is not only 

occurring directly adjacent to the parkway, 

but also to private family farms and other 

open space in the region that characterizes the 

southern Appalachian Mountains. This 

collaborative approach to natural resource 

management would result in long-term minor 

to moderate beneficial and local to regional 

impacts on vegetation and wildlife habitat. 

As described under alternative A, certain 

impacts on vegetation and wildlife (i.e., 

vegetation loss, habitat fragmentation, and 

sensory-based disturbances) would continue 

to occur under alternative B. Boundary 

encroachments (e.g., illegal fences, roads, 

structures) and illegal activities (e.g., off-road 

vehicles and poaching) would continue to 

result in local adverse impacts due to the 

difficulty of enforcing regulations across such 

an expansive parkway. However, the more 

proactive, comprehensive approach to natural 
Natural Resources 

263 

resource management under this alternative 

would likely address these issues more 

expeditiously or more comprehensively, and 

thus, result in a long-term negligible to minor 

beneficial local to regional impact. 

Equally, certain benefits to vegetation and 

wildlife that have occurred under the current 

management approach would continue under 

alternative B. For example, all statedesignated natural heritage areas, globally 

ranked natural communities, and other 

known ecologically sensitive areas within the 

parkway would continue to be protected to 

the fullest extent under NPS policy. 

One of the primary differences between 

current management and alternative B is the 

addition of management zones, which are 

used to prescribe desired resource conditions 

and visitor experiences on different areas of 

the parkway. For example, to further 

emphasize the protection of the rare natural 

communities described previously, the special 

natural resource zone designation would be 

applied to 10,068 acres (12.2%) of parkway 

lands under this alternative. This zone 

prescribes the highest level of protection, an 

extremely low tolerance for resource 

degradation, and very low visitor use levels. 

Other levels of resource protection would be 

provided by the natural zone designation, 

which would be applied to 19,491 acres 

(23.7%) of parkway lands under alternative B. 

The proposed protective zones under 

alternative B (natural and special natural 

resource zones) would result in long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial local to regional 

impacts on vegetation and wildlife habitat. 

Of the other management zones under 

alternative B, the recreation zone has the 

potential to affect the vegetation and wildlife 

resources across the largest portion of the 

parkway. Under alternative B, 10,139 acres 

(12.3%) of parkway lands would be 

designated as recreation zone in order to 

enhance outdoor recreational opportunities 

for visitors. This would be primarily 

accomplished by accommodating a wider 

range of trail-based recreational activities, 

which would likely attract more visitors to 

these parkway lands. Certain trails would be 

improved to allow for expanded recreational 

opportunities and/or increased use. 

Additional backcountry campsites, picnic 

tables, restrooms (i.e., vault toilets), and 

interpretive media would also be found within 

these areas. Expanding or improving these 

amenities and services would result in 

resource modifications that would be 

aesthetically blended with the natural 

environment. However, some adverse impacts 

would occur, such as vegetation loss, wildlife 

habitat alterations, and the increased potential 

for the spread of invasive species. Increased 

sensory-based disturbances to wildlife would 

also result from more visitors to these less 

accessible areas of the parkway. 

Although the recreation zone would bring 

about increases in visitor use, it would not 

occur across every acre of these lands. In fact, 

the majority of areas zoned recreation would 

still be managed in a pristine, natural state. 

Only trail corridors and other small 

recreational developments would be allowed, 

minimizing the actual footprint of these 

modifications and the distribution of visitors 

throughout these areas. The recreation 

expansions and enhancements allowed by the 

proposed recreation zone would result in 

long-term minor to moderate adverse local 

impacts. 

Another aspect of alternative B that would 

impact vegetation communities of the 

parkway includes campground amenity 

upgrades. Under this alternative, all of the 

parkway’s nine campgrounds would be 

upgraded to provide showers and RV water 

and electrical hookups, which would require 

expanded sewage treatment facilities and 

electrical lines. As a result, vegetation and 

wildlife communities in and around these 

campgrounds would be adversely affected 

during the construction phase. Permanent 

adverse impacts on local vegetation and 

wildlife communities would also result from 

the additional permanent structures 

associated with expanded sewage treatment. 

These effects would result in short- and longterm minor to moderate adverse local impacts 

on vegetation and wildlife habitat. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

264 

Overall, at the parkway-wide level, alternative 

B would emphasize an ecosystem-based 

management approach, an expanded and 

proactive land protection strategy, regional 

partnerships and collaboration with other 

land management agencies, and management 

zones that emphasize desired resource 

conditions. Collectively, these actions would 

result in long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial local to regional effects to the 

overall vegetation and wildlife communities 

along the parkway. However, applying the 

recreation zone across such a large percentage 

of the parkway, as well as upgrading certain 

campground facilities, would offset some of 

these broader benefits with short- to longterm minor to moderate adverse local impacts. 

Parkway Segments. Only those parkway 

segments that would experience more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide section are described below. 

Segment 1: Ridge—Although the extent of 

this segment would be zoned historic parkway 

and scenic character under alternative B, no 

parking or trail connectors would be provided 

to accommodate regional trail use on the 

adjacent U.S. Forest Service lands. Thus, 

vegetation trampling by vehicles, mountain 

bikes, and hikers would continue to occur, as 

described under the no-action alternative. 

Segments 1 and 2: Ridge and Roanoke—

Under alternative B, minor modifications of 

overlook pullouts along these segments of the 

parkway would result in short-term negligible 

adverse very local impacts on vegetation or 

wildlife. These actions would have negligible 

effects because overlook pullout areas along 

the parkway are already highly modified 

environments that would not be noticeably 

degraded by minor design changes. 

Segments 4, 5, and 7: Highlands, Black 

Mountain, and Pisgah—Under alternative B, 

the special natural resource zone buffering the 

parkway along portions of segments 4, 5, and 

7 above 4,000 feet in elevation would have 

long-term moderate beneficial local to 

regional effects on globally imperiled, highelevation spruce/fir forests. These benefits are 

due in part to a modified vista management 

strategy that emphasizes protection of 

ecological values in balance with maintaining 

scenic viewsheds. As a result, vistas and 

overlooks would be thinned rather than 

entirely cleared out to improve habitat 

connectivity. Other benefits to vegetation and 

wildlife communities that would result from 

this zoning approach include management 

activities that emphasize research, 

inventorying, monitoring, exotic species 

eradication, and other types of resource 

stewardship. 

Segment 6: Asheville—Under alternative B, 

the parkway would provide designated 

parking spaces for visitors accessing trail 

systems along the Asheville segment of the 

parkway. This would reduce the effects of 

vegetation damage along the road shoulder 

caused by the high frequency of vehicles 

currently parking in unpaved areas. If parking 

areas reduced the extent of vegetation damage 

by confining vehicles to smaller designated 

areas, there would be long-term minor 

beneficial local impacts on plant communities. 

Segment 7: Pisgah—Alternative B would also 

emphasize partnerships and collaboration 

with other land management agencies to 

develop regional strategies for managing 

invasive plants. These efforts would help 

further protect the sensitive and imperiled 

vegetation communities along segment 7 (in 

addition to managing these areas as a special 

natural resource zone). This would have longterm minor to moderate beneficial local 

effects on vegetation and wildlife habitat in 

segment 7. 

Parkway Recreation Areas. Only those 

parkway recreation areas that would 

experience more specific impacts than those 

described under the parkway-wide section are 

described below. 

Humpback Rocks—Under alternative B, lowand high-elevation barren rock outcrops 

would receive both long-term minor 

beneficial and adverse impacts resulting from 

trail-related impacts. By zoning the area 

surrounding the Humpback Rocks trail 
Natural Resources 

265 

system as recreation, management would 

improve trail designs to more effectively 

manage visitor access and circulation 

throughout the area. This would reduce the 

proliferation of social trails and off-trail use, 

resulting in fewer trampling impacts on rare 

plant communities. However, improving 

recreation infrastructure in the area would 

likely increase visitor use, resulting in a higher 

potential for such impacts, as well as 

disturbances to wildlife. This may be 

compounded by the fact that the recreation 

zone allows for a moderate tolerance for 

natural resource impacts in order to 

accommodate visitor use, resulting in longterm minor adverse local impacts. 

In addition, long-term moderate adverse local 

effects would also result from the extension of 

the visitor season from six months under 

alternative A to nine months under alternative 

B. Because the three-month extension of 

visitor services would likely draw increased 

visitor use to the parkway during the extended 

months (relative to alternative A), the 

duration, and possibly the overall extent, of 

adverse visitor use impacts on vegetation and 

wildlife habitat in this area would also 

increase. Conversely, the extension of visitor 

services would also have long-term minor 

beneficial local effects, because it would 

extend NPS staff presence in the park, which 

would likely limit disturbances from 

unmonitored visitation. 

James River/Otter Creek—Under alternative 

B, and similar to Humpback Rocks, some 

long-term moderate adverse local effects 

would result from the extension of the visitor 

season from six months under alternative A to 

nine months under alternative B. Because the 

three-month extension of visitor services 

would likely draw increased visitor use to the 

parkway during the extended months (relative 

to alternative A), the duration and possibly the 

overall extent of adverse visitor use impacts 

on vegetation and wildlife habitat in this area 

would also increase. Conversely, the 

extension of visitor services would also have 

long-term minor beneficial local effects, 

because it would extend NPS staff presence in 

the park, which would likely limit 

disturbances from unmonitored visitation. 

In addition, the proposed hiking trail 

realignment in the vicinity of the lake and 

restaurant and the possibility for expanded 

trail uses in this area (i.e., both hiking and 

equestrian use) could also have long-term 

minor to moderate adverse local effects on 

vegetation and wildlife. 

Peaks of Otter—Under alternative B, and 

similar to Humpback Rocks and James 

River/Otter Creek, some long-term moderate 

adverse local effects would result from the 

three-month extension of the visitor season 

from six months under alternative A to nine 

months under alternative B. Because the 

extension of visitor services would likely draw 

increased visitor use to the parkway during 

the extended months (relative to alternative 

A), the duration and possibly the overall 

extent of adverse visitor use impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife habitat in this area 

would also increase. Conversely, the 

extension of visitor services would also have 

long-term minor beneficial local effects, 

because it would extend NPS staff presence in 

the park, which would likely limit 

disturbances from unmonitored visitation. 

Blue Ridge Music Center—Under alternatives 

B and C, the special natural resource zone 

would have long-term moderate beneficial 

local effects on rare plant communities in the 

bottomlands of Chestnut Creek. However, the 

intensive level of use and development in such 

close proximity to this sensitive area may 

prove difficult to manage. For instance, 

visitors may wander from the adjacent visitor 

services zone into this area, causing vegetation 

trampling and wildlife disturbances. As a 

result, there may be some long-term minor 

adverse local impacts. 

Doughton Park—Under alternatives B and C, 

the fields at Brinegar Cabin would be managed 

to replicate the historic landscape of this 125-

acre farm. To achieve this, Table Mountain 

pine, an endemic species, would be removed, 

resulting in long-term minor to moderate 

adverse local impacts on this native species. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

266 

Because Table Mountain pine is restricted to 

dry ridges and slopes of the Appalachians, 

removing them from the fields at Brinegar 

Cabin would further reduce the extent of their 

habitat. 

Also under both action alternatives, the 

majority of Doughton Park would be zoned 

natural, resulting in the same parkway-wide 

benefits described previously. However, 

designating multiple use trails for horseback 

riding and hiking and providing equestrian 

backcountry campsites would cause some 

long-term minor adverse local impacts on 

vegetation communities of the Basin Cove 

watershed, including vegetation loss and 

greater potential to introduce nonnative 

species to the area, resulting from off-trail use 

and horse manure. Constructing additional 

trailhead parking to accommodate horse 

trailers would also cause local habitat 

degradation. 

Under alternatives B and C, the recreation 

zone along the upper portion of the watershed 

would likely attract a greater number of 

visitors, especially if additional “leg-stretcher” 

trails are developed. These shorter trails are in 

demand, because Doughton Park mostly 

provides opportunities for long-distance 

backcountry hiking. New trail-related 

developments in this area could inadvertently 

increase access to low-elevation rocky 

summits and other ecologically sensitive areas 

and increase the establishment and spread of 

invasive species. New developments could 

also make it more difficult to carry out 

prescribed fire to maintain fire-dependent 

plant communities. As a result, there is a 

potential for short- and long-term minor 

adverse local impacts. 

Julian Price Park—Under alternative B, the 

majority of Julian Price Park would be zoned 

either natural or special natural resource. 

These two zones afford vegetation and 

wildlife communities of the parkway the most 

protection by emphasizing an integrated 

natural resource management approach. 

These zones allow for low or extremely low 

tolerances for resource impacts, as well as 

prescribe low or very low visitor use levels. 

Because of this, the area’s old-growth 

hemlock forest, globally ranked wetlands, and 

other rare vegetation and wildlife 

communities would receive long-term 

moderate beneficial local effects. 

Adverse impacts, in addition to those 

described under the parkway-wide section, 

include relocation of the picnic area along 

Boone Fork. Although the picnic area at its 

current location is causing moderate adverse 

impacts on floodplain and riparian resources 

along the stream, relocating it to a nearby field 

on higher ground would transfer some 

impacts on this new (but already disturbed) 

area. Construction of a picnic area of 

comparable size and with similar amenities 

(e.g., comfort stations, parking areas, drinking 

water, and septic system) to the one along 

Boone Fork would cause short-term moderate 

adverse local impacts on the nonnative 

grassland near Old John’s River Road. Longterm minor adverse local impacts would also 

result from the operation and use of the new 

picnic area, which would be zoned visitor 

services under this alternative. Benefits to the 

floodplain and riparian resources of Boone 

Fork from relocating the picnic area can be 

found in the “Water-related Resources” 

section of this chapter. 

Linville Falls—Under alternative B, the area 

surrounding the Linville Falls trail system 

would be zoned recreation. This would result 

in trail improvements designed to better 

accommodate heavy visitor use to this area. 

With a better designed trail system, the 

ongoing proliferation of social trails and offtrail use would be reduced, lessening the 

amount of trampling to understory vegetation 

in this old-growth hemlock forest. These trail 

modifications would result in long-term 

negligible to minor beneficial local effects. 

However, these benefits would be offset by 

greater number of visitors attracted to the 

area’s improved amenities. More visitors on 

the trails would increase the potential for 

disturbance to wildlife, resulting in long-term 

minor adverse local impacts. 

In addition, similar to some other recreation 

areas, long-term moderate adverse local 
Natural Resources 

267 

effects would also result from the extension of 

the visitor season from six months under 

alternative A to nine months under alternative 

B. Because the three-month extension of 

visitor services would likely draw increased 

visitor use to the parkway during the extended 

months (relative to alternative A), the duration 

and possibly the overall extent of adverse 

visitor use impacts on vegetation and wildlife 

habitat in this area would also increase. 

Conversely, the extension of visitor services 

would also have long-term minor beneficial 

local effects, because it would extend NPS 

staff presence in the park, which would likely 

limit disturbances from unmonitored 

visitation. 

Craggy Gardens—Under alternative B, 

globally imperiled grassy bald habitat at 

Craggy Gardens would be restored to its 

historic size and actively maintained. 

Removing successional plant growth from this 

rare plant community would result in longterm moderate beneficial local effects. 

Under this alternative, closing the Craggy 

Pinnacle trail and overlooks would reduce 

trampling of adjacent rare plant communities 

from off-trail visitor use, including grassy 

balds, heath balds, and high-elevation rocky 

outcrops. Providing a new hiking trail to 

Craggy Dome may result in similar impacts on 

rare plant communities, although there are 

fewer rare plant communities there. The net 

impacts of the trail closure and the new trail 

could be adverse, at least until the trail has 

revegetated, if visitors are noncompliant with 

the trail closure to Craggy Pinnacles and 

continue to use it. Construction of the new 

trail to Craggy Dome may result in short-term 

moderate adverse local impacts on rare plant 

communities, although it may be possible to 

design it in a way that avoids sensitive habitats. 

The combination of these disturbances would 

result in short- and long-term moderate 

adverse local impacts on the vegetation 

communities of Craggy Gardens. There would 

be long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

local effects to the plant communities on 

Craggy Pinnacle after the trail has been closed 

and rehabilitated. 

Mt. Pisgah—Under alternative B, the cultural 

landscape at Buck Spring Lodge would be 

restored by clearing native vegetation that has 

encroached on the area since the hunting 

lodge was removed in the early 1960s. The 

vegetation type in this area is predominately 

high-elevation red oak forest. This plant 

community was originally cleared from the 

site in the early 1900s when the lodge was 

built, and then began to reestablish itself 40 to 

50 years ago when the lodge was torn down. 

Because this community occurs on most of the 

major mountain ranges of the southern 

Appalachians, it is not considered 

exceptionally rare. Because the vegetation 

clearing would occur in the immediate area 

surrounding the lodge ruins, there would be 

long-term minor adverse local impacts on this 

plant community. Additional clearing may 

also increase the occurrence of invasive plants 

at this site. 

Also, some long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial local effects on the plant 

community and wildlife habitat would occur 

as a result of the closure and rehabilitation of 

all tent campsites that are directly adjacent to 

the bog. Visitor use in sensitive resource areas 

near the bog would also be restricted to trails. 

These actions would help restore and/or 

protect some of the vegetation communities 

and wildlife habitat associated with the bog 

area. 

Overall, across the entire parkway, its 

segments, and recreation areas, alternative B 

would result in both adverse and beneficial 

effects on the vegetation and wildlife 

communities of the parkway. The adverse 

impacts would be short- and long-term minor 

to moderate and local, primarily resulting 

from increased recreational use zones, habitat 

fragmentation and sensory disturbances from 

trail development and use, and extended 

visitation seasons at some recreation areas. 

The beneficial impacts would be long-term 

negligible to moderate local to regional, 

primarily resulting from ecosystem-based 

management, expanded land protection 

strategies, regional land management 

partnerships (e.g., to address invasive plant 

control), new natural and special natural 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

268 

zoning, closed trails in sensitive areas, 

designated parking at recreation areas, 

increased NPS presence at some recreation 

areas during the extended visitation season, 

and improvements in enforcement of illegal 

activities such as poaching. 

Cumulative Effects. The past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions 

described under the “Cumulative Effects” 

section of alternative A would be the same 

under this alternative, resulting in long-term 

moderate adverse regional impacts and longterm moderate beneficial regional impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife. Impacts from 

implementation of alternative B, combined 

with the impacts of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 

result in short- and long-term minor to 

moderate adverse local to regional cumulative 

impacts and long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial and local to regional cumulative 

impacts. This alternative’s contribution to 

these adverse cumulative effects would be 

relatively small. However, due to the 

parkway’s importance in providing regional 

connectivity to other public and private lands 

that protect these resources and the focus on a 

regionwide ecosystem management approach, 

this alternative would contribute a 

considerable amount to the beneficial 

cumulative effects. 

Conclusion. Alternative B would have shortand long-term minor to moderate local 

adverse impacts and long-term negligible to 

moderate local to regional beneficial impacts 

on the vegetation and wildlife communities of 

the parkway. Impacts of this alternative, 

combined with the impacts of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would result in short- and long-term 

minor to moderate adverse local to regional 

cumulative impacts and long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial local to regional 

cumulative impacts. This alternative’s 

contribution to these adverse cumulative 

effects would be relatively small. However, 

due to the parkway’s importance in providing 

regional connectivity to other public and 

private lands that protect these resources and 

the focus on a regionwide ecosystem 

management approach, this alternative would 

contribute a considerable amount to the 

beneficial cumulative effects. 

Alternative C 

Parkway-wide. Under alternative C, the 

parkway’s vegetation and wildlife 

communities would see many of the same 

benefits described previously for alternative B. 

These advantages would result from an 

ecosystem-based approach that emphasizes 

parkway-wide and regional management 

strategies and multiyear projects to protect 

and restore native habitats. As with both of the 

other alternatives, this alternative would 

equally protect all state-designated natural 

heritage areas, globally ranked natural 

communities, and other known ecologically 

sensitive areas within the parkway. 

As under alternative B, the parkway’s land 

protection strategy would be expanded under 

alternative C to include the additional option 

of acquiring interests in adjacent lands to 

protect natural resources (including 

vegetation and wildlife communities), rather 

than just for scenery and access management 

purposes. This would allow for a strategy that 

evaluates the natural resource merits of a 

property when it becomes available from a 

willing seller. This would help to ensure that 

opportunities to acquire properties that 

contribute to the greater natural resources of 

the parkway are not overlooked. In addition 

to this prioritization of natural resource values 

in land preservation efforts, alternative C 

would guide NPS staff to proactively seek out 

willing sellers of high-priority private parcels 

in the region. Overall, this new strategy for 

land protection would result in a long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial local to regional 

impact on vegetation and wildlife habitat. 

However, the realized benefits from this new 

strategy would be based on the resource 

values of properties acquired in the future, as 

well as their proximity to important resources 

within the parkway. 

Alternative C goes beyond the other 

alternatives to protect the broader vegetation 
Natural Resources 

269 

and wildlife communities of the parkway 

through its management zoning approach. 

Under this alternative, 26,889 acres (32.7%) of 

the parkway would be zoned natural, which 

emphasizes greater protection of natural 

resources than any of the other zones except 

for the special natural resource zone. The 

amount of parkway land zoned natural under 

alternative C is greater than the amount zoned 

natural under alternative B (19,491 acres).The 

amount of parkway land that is zoned special 

natural resource is the same under alternatives 

B and C. With less emphasis on providing 

recreational opportunities for visitors and a 

lower tolerance for resource impacts, the 

natural zone would focus on managing for a 

more pristine environment across a greater 

portion of the parkway. The emphasis on 

natural resource preservation in the proposed 

zoning under alternative C (natural and 

special natural resource zones) would result in 

long-term moderate beneficial local to 

regional impacts on vegetation and wildlife 

habitat. 

As in alternative B, this alternative would look 

beyond the boundaries of the parkway to 

develop a more regional and collaborative 

approach to natural resource management. By 

expanding partnerships with private 

landowners, nonprofit organizations, local 

governments, and state and federal agencies, 

management would have greater 

opportunities to address the broader natural 

resource issues facing the parkway and the 

region. For example, the issue of invasive 

species is not isolated to the parkway. The 

entire southern Appalachian Mountain region 

has been widely affected by a number of 

different plant diseases, pest infestations, and 

exotic weeds (e.g., chestnut blight and the 

balsam and hemlock woolly adelgids). 

Because of this, a collaborative approach at 

the regional level would be more effective at 

controlling the spread of invasive species. 

Another regional issue that would be better 

addressed through partnerships is habitat 

fragmentation as a result of rapid growth and 

development. This is not only occurring 

directly adjacent to the parkway, but also to 

private family farms and other open space in 

the region that characterizes the southern 

Appalachian Mountains. This collaborative 

approach to natural resource management 

would result in long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial local to regional impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife habitat. 

As with alternative A, certain impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife (i.e., vegetation loss, 

habitat fragmentation, and sensory-based 

disturbances) would continue to occur under 

alternative C. Boundary encroachments (e.g., 

illegal fences, roads, structures) and illegal 

activities (e.g., off-road vehicles and poaching) 

would continue to result in local adverse 

impacts due to the difficulty of enforcing 

regulations across such an expansive parkway. 

However, the more proactive, comprehensive 

approach to natural resource management 

under this alternative would likely address 

these issues more expeditiously or more 

comprehensively, and thus, result in a longterm negligible to minor beneficial local to 

regional impact. 

This alternative would, however, bring about 

some adverse impacts, namely those 

associated with expanded amenities in the 

visitor services zone. Alternative C would 

result in the greatest level of upgrades and 

redesigns to portions of seven of the 

parkway’s nine campgrounds (excluding 

Roanoke and Mt. Pisgah). Expanded sewage 

treatment facilities, electrical lines, and wider 

roads would cause long-term minor to 

moderate adverse local impacts on vegetation 

and wildlife communities in and around these 

campgrounds. Short-term minor to moderate 

adverse local impacts would also occur during 

the construction phase for these 

improvements. In addition, because more 

visitors would likely be attracted by these new 

amenities, there would be an increased 

potential for visitor-related disturbances to 

wildlife, another long-term minor to moderate 

adverse local effect. 

Overall, at a parkway-wide level, alternative C 

would emphasize an ecosystem-based 

management approach, expanded land 

protection strategy, regional partnerships, and 

zoning of a large portion of the parkway as 

natural. Collectively, these actions would 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

270 

result in long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial local to regional effects to the 

overall vegetation and wildlife communities 

along the parkway. However, the considerable 

upgrade of seven of the nine parkway 

campground facilities would offset some of 

these broader benefits with short- to longterm minor to moderate adverse local impacts. 

Parkway Segments. Only those parkway 

segments that would experience more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide section are described below. 

Segment 1: Ridge—Under alternative C, the 

parkway would provide paved parking spaces 

for visitors accessing trails on adjacent U.S. 

Forest Service land. This would reduce the 

effects of vegetation trampling caused by the 

regular occurrence of vehicles that park in this 

undesignated area. As a result, there would be 

long-term minor beneficial local impacts on 

vegetation in this immediate area. 

Segments 1 and 2: Ridge and Roanoke—

Under alternative C, the substantial redesign 

of certain overlook pullouts along these 

segments of the parkway to enhance the 

visibility of parking areas would further alter 

these already modified environments. In the 

short term, construction would require the 

use of large earth-moving equipment, 

temporarily disrupting wildlife movement 

through these sites and leading to the loss of 

some vegetation, resulting in moderate 

adverse local impacts. Over the long term, 

“opening up” these overlooks to passing 

traffic would further fragment plant 

communities and increase sensory-based 

disturbances to wildlife, resulting in moderate 

adverse local impacts on vegetation and 

wildlife. 

Segments 1, 2, 4, and 6: Ridge, Roanoke, 

Highlands, and Asheville—Under alternative 

C, a paved multiuse trail would be developed 

parallel to the parkway along portions of the 

Ridge, Roanoke, Highlands, and Asheville 

segments. This path would be separate from 

the roadway to minimize interaction between 

pedestrians/bicyclists and automobiles and to 

maintain the historic integrity of the 

parkway’s designed landscapes. Along each of 

these segments, the trail would extend 11 to 

16 miles for a total distance of 53 miles. 

Because the exact location of the trail has not 

been identified along any of these segments, it 

is difficult to determine the type and intensity 

of impacts on vegetation and wildlife. For this 

reason, impacts are analyzed in general 

qualitative terms. If and when any portion of 

the trail is proposed for implementation, 

additional appropriate environmental 

compliance documentation would be 

prepared in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 

As with any new trail construction, the paved 

multiuse trail would cause some habitat 

fragmentation. This is especially true because 

of the separation needed between the 

roadway and the path for reasons described 

previously. Consequently, a narrow strip of 

forest, rock outcropping, mountain slope, or 

other natural feature would be used to screen 

the path from motorists traveling the parkway. 

As a result, the path could disrupt the links 

between habitats, potentially isolating plant 

populations or restricting the movement of 

small animals. Other potential impacts include 

the spread of invasive species, increased 

poaching, and greater disturbance to 

wildlife—all of which have been attributed to 

increased public access and use of an area. 

The severity of these impacts could be 

lessened by strategically aligning the trail 

through the varying landscapes along the 

parkway corridor. The National Park Service 

completed a feasibility study (February 2005) 

to determine the most appropriate segments 

of the parkway on which to construct a 

multiuse trail. The study found that the 

proposed trail sections described previously 

would be in areas where generally only minor 

impacts would be necessary to overcome 

physical constraints (e.g., steep ridge slopes, 

unreasonable profile grades, and viewshed 

issues). However, more substantial impacts 

would be necessary along very short distances 

to overcome large obstacles. In these cases, 

additional tunnels and bridges may be 

required. Furthermore, a large portion of the 

proposed trail would be constructed along 
Natural Resources 

271 

portions of the parkway that pass through 

highly developed urban areas such as 

Roanoke and Asheville. These areas are 

already highly modified environments that 

would not be noticeably degraded by a 

multiuse trail. As a result, the multiuse trail 

segments proposed under this alternative 

could possibly cause long-term minor to 

moderate adverse local to regional impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife communities of the 

parkway. 

Segments 4, 5, and 7: Highlands, Black 

Mountain, and Pisgah—As in alternative B, 

the special natural resource zone buffering the 

parkway along portions of segments 4, 5, and 

7 above 4,000 feet in elevation would have 

long-term moderate beneficial local to 

regional effects on globally imperiled, highelevation spruce/fir forests. These benefits are 

due in part to a modified vista management 

strategy that emphasizes protection of 

ecological values in balance with maintaining 

scenic viewsheds. As a result, vistas and 

overlooks would be thinned rather than 

entirely cleared out to improve habitat 

connectivity. Other benefits to vegetation and 

wildlife communities that would result from 

this zoning approach include management 

activities that emphasize research, 

inventorying, monitoring, exotic species 

eradication, and other types of resource 

stewardship. Because the special natural 

resource zone is the same under alternatives B 

and C, the beneficial effects from both 

alternatives would be equal. 

Segment 6: Asheville—Under alternative C, 

the parkway would provide designated 

parking spaces for visitors accessing trail 

systems along the Asheville segment of the 

parkway. This would reduce the effects of 

vegetation damage along the road shoulder 

caused by the high frequency of vehicles 

currently parking in unpaved areas. As a 

result, there would be long-term minor 

beneficial local impacts on plant communities. 

Segment 7: Pisgah—Similar to alternative B, 

alternative C would also emphasize 

partnerships and collaboration with other 

land management agencies to develop 

regional strategies for managing invasive 

plants. These efforts would help further 

protect the sensitive and imperiled vegetation 

communities along segment 7 (in addition to 

managing these areas as a special natural 

resource zone). This would have long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial local effects on 

vegetation and wildlife habitat in segment 7. 

Parkway Recreation Areas. Only those 

parkway recreation areas that would 

experience more specific impacts than those 

described under the parkway-wide section are 

described below. 

Humpback Rocks—Under alternative C, low 

and high-elevation barren rock outcrops 

would receive long-term, minor beneficial 

local effects by reducing trail-related impacts. 

By zoning the majority of Humpback Rocks as 

natural, visitor use would be managed at low 

levels to avoid further degradation of these 

rare plant communities. Any sites that have 

been impacted by social trails and off-trail use 

would be restored in order to reestablish 

natural systems and processes associated with 

these rare habitats. However, under this 

alternative, some long-term minor to 

moderate adverse local effects would result 

from the development of a paved, multiuse 

trail parallel to the parkway. The trail and its 

use would displace vegetation in this area and 

fragment and disturb wildlife habitat. These 

adverse effects may be compounded by the 

fact that the recreation zone (which 

accommodates this trail) allows for a medium 

tolerance for natural resource impacts in 

order to accommodate visitor use. 

In addition, long-term moderate adverse local 

effects would also result from the extension of 

the visitor season from 6 months under 

alternative A to 12 months under alternative 

C. Because the year-round visitor services 

would likely draw increased visitor use to the 

parkway during the extended months (relative 

to alternative A), the duration, and possibly 

the overall extent, of adverse visitor use 

impacts on vegetation and wildlife habitat in 

this area would also increase. Conversely, the 

extension of visitor services would also have 

long-term minor beneficial local effects, 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

272 

because it would extend NPS staff presence in 

the park, which would likely limit 

disturbances from unmonitored visitation. 

James River/Otter Creek—As in alternative B, 

the proposed hiking trail realignment in the 

vicinity of the lake and restaurant and the 

possibility for expanded trail uses in this area 

(i.e., both hiking and equestrian use) could 

also have long-term minor to moderate 

adverse local effects on vegetation and 

wildlife. 

Peaks of Otter—Under alternative C, and 

similar to Humpback Rocks, some long-term 

moderate adverse local effects would result 

from the extension of the visitor season from 

6 months under alternative A to 12 months 

under alternative C. Because the year-round 

visitor services would likely draw increased 

visitor use to the parkway during the extended 

months (relative to alternative A), the duration 

and possibly the overall extent of adverse 

visitor use impacts on vegetation and wildlife 

habitat in this area would also increase. 

Conversely, the extension of visitor services 

would also have long-term minor beneficial 

local effects, because it would extend NPS 

staff presence in the park, which would likely 

limit disturbances from unmonitored 

visitation. 

Roanoke Mountain—Under alternative C, 

some long-term minor to moderate adverse 

local effects would result from the 

development of a paved, multiuse trail parallel 

to the parkway and to Mill Mountain Spur 

Road. The trails and their use would displace 

vegetation in this area and fragment and 

disturb wildlife habitat. These paths would be 

separated from the roadways to minimize 

interaction between bicyclists and 

automobiles and to maintain the historic 

integrity of the parkway’s designed 

landscapes. Because the exact location of the 

trail has not been identified along this segment 

of the parkway and in this park, it is difficult to 

determine the intensity of impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife. If any portion of the 

trail is proposed for implementation, then 

additional appropriate environmental 

compliance documentation would be 

prepared in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act. These adverse 

effects may be compounded by the fact that 

the recreation zone (which accommodates 

this trail) allows for a moderate tolerance for 

natural resource impacts in order to 

accommodate visitor use. 

Mabry Mill—Under alternative C, and similar 

to Humpback Rocks and Peaks of Otter, some 

long-term moderate adverse local effects 

would result from the extension of the visitor 

season from 6 months under alternative A to 

12 months under alternative C. Because the 

year-round visitor services would likely draw 

increased visitor use to the parkway during 

the extended months (relative to alternative 

A), the duration and possibly the overall 

extent of adverse visitor use impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife habitat in this area 

would also increase. Conversely, the 

extension of visitor services would also have 

long-term minor beneficial local effects, 

because it would extend NPS staff presence in 

the park, which would likely limit 

disturbances from unmonitored visitation. 

Blue Ridge Music Center—Under alternatives 

B and C, the special natural resource zone 

would have long-term moderate beneficial 

local effects on rare plant communities in the 

bottomlands of Chestnut Creek. However, the 

intensive level of use and development in such 

close proximity to this sensitive area may 

prove difficult to manage. For instance, 

visitors may wander from the adjacent visitor 

services zone into this area, causing vegetation 

trampling and wildlife disturbances. As a 

result, there may be some short- and longterm minor adverse local impacts. 

Doughton Park—Under alternatives B and C, 

the fields at Brinegar Cabin would be managed 

to replicate the historic landscape of this 125-

acre farm. To achieve this, Table Mountain 

pine, an endemic species, would be removed, 

resulting in long-term minor to moderate 

adverse local impacts on this native species. 

Because Table Mountain pine is restricted to 

dry ridges and slopes of the Appalachians, 

removing them from the fields at Brinegar 
Natural Resources 

273 

Cabin would further reduce their available 

habitat. 

Also under both action alternatives, the 

majority of Doughton Park would be zoned 

natural, resulting in the same parkway-wide 

benefits described previously. However, 

designating multiple use trails for horseback 

riding and hiking and providing equestrian 

backcountry campsites would cause some 

long-term minor adverse local impacts on 

vegetation communities of the Basin Cove 

watershed, including vegetation loss and 

greater potential to introduce nonnative 

species to the area, resulting from off-trail use 

and horse manure. Constructing additional 

trailhead parking to accommodate horse 

trailers would also cause local habitat 

degradation. 

Under alternatives B and C, the recreation 

zone along the upper portion of the watershed 

would likely attract a greater number of 

visitors, especially if additional “leg-stretcher” 

trails are developed. These shorter trails are in 

demand, because Doughton Park mostly 

provides opportunities for long-distance 

backcountry hiking. New trail-related 

developments in this area could inadvertently 

increase access to low-elevation rocky 

summits and other ecologically sensitive areas 

and increase the establishment and spread of 

invasive species. New developments could 

also make it more difficult to carry out 

prescribed fire to maintain fire-dependent 

plant communities. As a result, there is a 

potential for short- and long-term minor 

adverse local impacts. 

Julian Price Park—Under alternative C, the 

recreation zoned portion of Julian Price Park 

would provide the potential for mountain 

biking opportunities on certain designated 

trails, as well as the potential to designate a 

backcountry campsite near Hebron Falls. 

Additional infrastructure and improvements 

would be needed to accommodate these uses, 

resulting in some resource modifications (i.e., 

trail improvements and pit toilets). More 

visitors would be expected due to the new 

recreational opportunities provided. These 

changes could bring about long-term minor 

adverse local impacts on vegetation and 

wildlife communities as a result of vegetation 

loss, wildlife habitat alterations, increased 

sensory-based disturbances to wildlife, and 

the increased potential for the spread of 

invasive species. 

On the other hand, designating a backcountry 

campsite with a toilet facility at Hebron Falls 

would reduce trampling impacts and water 

quality degradation (which impact aquatic 

fauna) that continue to result from 

unregulated camping in this area. Also, the 

special natural resource zone that buffers the 

parkway along most of this area would 

provide additional protection of rare plant 

and animal communities. These changes 

would result in long-term minor beneficial 

local effects. 

Also, under alternative C, some long-term 

moderate adverse local effects would result 

from the development of a paved, multiuse 

trail parallel to the parkway from the 

parkway’s eastern boundary in the Price Lake 

area. The trail and its use would displace 

vegetation in this area and fragment and 

disturb wildlife habitat. These adverse effects 

may be compounded by the fact that the 

recreation zone (which accommodates this 

trail) allows for a moderate tolerance for 

natural resource impacts in order to 

accommodate visitor use. 

Linville Falls—Under alternative C, the area 

surrounding the Linville Falls trail system 

would be zoned natural. This zone has a low 

tolerance for resource impacts and prescribes 

low visitor use levels. Rather than redesign 

trails to accommodate heavy use, this 

alternative would allow for only minimal 

modifications to the environment and lowimpact recreational use to avoid degrading the 

old growth hemlock forest. This shift in 

management emphasis would result in longterm, moderate, beneficial, local impacts on 

the area’s vegetation and wildlife 

communities. 

Under this alternative, some adverse impacts 

could result from relocating the visitor contact 

station out of the floodplain by displacing 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

274 

native vegetation. However, because the exact 

location of this new site has not been 

identified, it is difficult to determine the type 

and intensity of impacts on vegetation and 

wildlife at this time. 

Under alternative C, as with some other 

recreation areas, long-term moderate adverse 

local effects would also result from the 

extension of the visitor season from 6 months 

under alternative A to 12 months under 

alternative C. Because the year-round visitor 

services would likely draw increased visitor 

use to the parkway during the extended 

months (relative to alternative A), the duration 

and possibly the overall extent of adverse 

visitor use impacts on vegetation and wildlife 

habitat in this area would also increase. 

Conversely, the extension of visitor services 

would also have long-term minor beneficial 

local effects, because it would extend NPS 

staff presence in the park, which would likely 

limit disturbances from unmonitored 

visitation. 

Craggy Gardens—Under alternative C, 

globally imperiled grassy bald habitat at 

Craggy Gardens would be restored to its 

historic size and actively maintained. 

Removing successional plant growth from this 

rare plant community would result in longterm moderate beneficial local effects. 

Under this alternative, improving methods to 

keep visitors on the Craggy Pinnacle trail and 

overlooks would reduce trampling of adjacent 

rare plant communities, including grassy 

balds, heath balds, and high-elevation rocky 

outcrops. Methods such as signs, physical 

obstructions, staffing, and education would all 

help to decrease these ongoing impacts; 

however, the true benefits of these actions 

would depend mostly on visitor compliance. 

Because there is little likelihood of full 

compliance, some ongoing impact would be 

expected. Because of this, these methods 

would have a long-term minor beneficial local 

effect.

Mt. Pisgah—As with alternative B, under 

alternative C, the cultural landscape at Buck 

Spring Lodge would be restored by clearing 

native vegetation that has encroached on the 

area since the hunting lodge was removed in 

the early 1960s. The vegetation type in this 

area is predominately high-elevation red oak 

forest. This plant community was originally 

cleared from the site in the early 1900s when 

the lodge was built and then began to 

reestablish itself 40 to 50 years ago when the 

lodge was torn down. Because this community 

occurs on most of the major mountain ranges 

of the southern Appalachian Mountains, it is 

not considered exceptionally rare. Because 

the vegetation clearing would occur in the 

immediate area surrounding the lodge ruins, 

there would be long-term minor adverse 

impacts on this plant community. Additional 

clearing may also increase the occurrence of 

invasive plants at this site. 

Also, some long-term minor beneficial local 

effects on the local plant community and 

wildlife habitat would occur as a result of the 

closure and rehabilitation of all tent campsites 

that are directly adjacent to the bog. Visitor 

use in sensitive resource areas near the bog 

would also be restricted to trails. These 

actions would help restore and/or protect 

some of the vegetation communities and 

wildlife habitat associated with the bog area. 

Overall, across the entire parkway, its 

segments, and recreation areas, alternative C 

would result in both adverse and beneficial 

effects on the vegetation and wildlife 

communities of the parkway. The adverse 

impacts would be short- and long-term minor 

to moderate and local, primarily resulting 

from habitat fragmentation and sensory 

disturbances from new trail/facility 

development and use (including substantial 

campground upgrades and multiuse trail 

development in four segments) and extended 

visitation seasons at some recreation areas. 

The beneficial impacts would be long-term 

negligible to moderate and local to regional, 

primarily resulting from ecosystem-based 

management, a relatively large area zoned as 

natural or special natural zones, expanded 

land protection strategies, regional land 

management partnerships (e.g., to address 

invasive plant control), closed trails in 

sensitive areas, increased NPS presence at 
Natural Resources 

275 

some recreation areas during the extended 

visitation season, and improvements in 

enforcement of illegal activities such as 

poaching. 

Cumulative Effects. The past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions 

described under the “Cumulative Effects” 

section for alternative A would be the same 

under this alternative, resulting in long-term 

moderate adverse regional impacts on 

vegetation and wildlife. Impacts from 

alternative C, combined with the impacts of 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in 

short- and long-term minor to moderate 

adverse local to regional cumulative impacts, 

and long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

local to regional cumulative impacts. This 

alternative’s contribution to these adverse 

cumulative effects would be small. However, 

due to the parkway’s importance in providing 

regional connectivity to other public and 

private lands that protect these resources and 

the focus on a regionwide ecosystem 

management approach, this alternative would 

contribute a considerable amount to the 

beneficial cumulative effects. 

Conclusion. Alternative C would have shortand long-term minor to moderate and local 

adverse impacts and long-term negligible to 

moderate local to regional beneficial impacts 

on the overall vegetation and wildlife 

communities of the parkway. Impacts of this 

alternative, combined with the impacts of 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in 

short- and long-term minor to moderate 

adverse local to regional cumulative impacts 

and long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

local to regional cumulative impacts. This 

alternative’s contribution to these adverse 

cumulative effects would be small. However, 

due to the parkway’s importance in providing 

regional connectivity to other public and 

private lands that protect these resources and 

the focus on a regionwide ecosystem 

management approach, this alternative would 

contribute a considerable amount to the 

beneficial cumulative effects. 

FEDERAL AND STATE LISTED SPECIES 

This impact topic includes threatened, 

endangered, and federal candidate species. 

Methods and Assumptions for 

Analyzing Impacts 

Federal and state listed threatened and 

endangered species are addressed together in 

this section, because many of these species (1) 

have dual federal and state special status, (2) 

occur together in the same habitats, or (3) 

would be impacted similarly under each 

alternative. However, for federal listed and 

candidate species, impact thresholds are 

defined separately based on terminology from 

section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 

No effect: When a proposed action would not 

affect a federal listed species, candidate 

species, or designated critical habitat. 

May affect/not likely to adversely affect:

Effects on federal listed or candidate species 

are discountable (i.e., extremely unlikely to 

occur and not able to be meaningfully 

measured, detected, or evaluated) or are 

completely beneficial. 

May affect/likely to adversely affect:

Adverse effects to a federal listed or candidate 

species may occur as a direct or indirect result 

of proposed actions and the effects are either 

not discountable or completely beneficial. 

Is likely to jeopardize proposed 

species/adversely modify proposed critical 

habitat: The appropriate conclusion when the 

National Park Service or the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service identifies situations in which 

the proposal could jeopardize the continued 

existence of a federal listed or candidate 

species or adversely modify critical habitat to 

a species within or outside parkway 

boundaries. 

The following impact threshold definitions 

are used to describe the severity and 

magnitude of changes to federal and state 

listed species under each of the alternatives. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

276 

Each threshold definition references the 

Endangered Species Act determinations 

described previously for federal listed species. 

Negligible: Adverse impact—There would be 

no observable or measurable impacts on 

federal or state listed species, their habitats 

(including critical habitat designated under 

the Endangered Species Act), or the natural 

processes sustaining them in the proposed 

project area. For federal listed species, this 

impact intensity would equate to a 

determination of “no effect” under section 7 

of the Endangered Species Act. 

Beneficial impact—There would be no 

observable or measurable impacts on federal 

listed species, their habitats, or the natural 

processes sustaining them in a parkway site. 

For federal listed species, this impact intensity 

would equate to a determination of “no 

effect” under section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Minor: Adverse impact—Impacts would not 

affect critical periods of life-cycle processes 

(e.g., reproduction) or their habitat. 

Individuals may temporarily avoid areas. 

Essential features of critical habitat would not 

be impacted. For federal listed species, this 

impact intensity would equate to a 

determination of “may affect / not likely to 

adversely affect” under section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act. 

Beneficial impact—Impacts would result in 

slight increases to viability of the species in the 

parkway as species-limiting factors (e.g., 

habitat loss, competition, and mortality) are 

kept in check. Nonessential features of critical 

habitat in a parkway site would be slightly 

improved. For federal listed species, this 

impact intensity would equate to a 

determination of “may affect / not likely to 

adversely affect” under section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act. 

Moderate: Adverse impact—Individuals may 

be impacted by disturbances that interfere 

with critical life-cycle processes or their 

habitat; however, the level of impact would 

not result in a physical injury, mortality, or 

extirpation from the park. Some essential 

features of designated critical habitat would 

be reduced; however, the integrity of the 

habitat would be maintained. For federal 

listed species, this impact intensity would 

equate to a determination of “may affect / 

likely to adversely affect” under section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act. 

Beneficial impact—Impacts would result in 

slight increases to viability of the species in the 

parkway as species-limiting factors (e.g., 

habitat loss, competition, and mortality) are 

reduced. Some essential features of critical 

habitat would be improved. For federal listed 

species, this impact intensity would equate to 

a determination of “may affect / not likely to 

adversely affect” under section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act. 

Major: Adverse impact—Individuals may 

suffer physical injury or mortality or 

populations may be extirpated from the park. 

Essential features of designated critical habitat 

would be reduced affecting the integrity of the 

designated unit. For federal listed species, this 

impact intensity would equate to a 

determination of “may affect / likely to 

adversely affect” under section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act. 

Beneficial impact—Impacts would result in 

highly noticeable improvements to species 

viability, population structure, and species 

population levels in the park, as specieslimiting factors (e.g., habitat loss, competition, 

and mortality) are eliminated. All essential 

features of critical habitat would be improved. 

For federal listed species, this impact intensity 

would equate to a determination of “may 

affect / not likely to adversely affect” under 

section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 

Plants and animals that have federal and state 

“species of concern” status are not included as 

part of this environmental impact analysis. 

However, these species are protected under 

all of the management alternatives and general 

NPS policy. Examples of species of concern 

that inhabit parkway lands include the timber 

rattlesnake and Allegheny woodrat. 
Natural Resources 

277 

Due to the extensive poaching problem facing 

the parkway, this analysis does not describe 

the locations of federal or state listed species, 

because it could assist poachers in finding and 

illegally collecting these rare species. Because 

of this, the following analyses of potential 

impacts to listed species are presented on a 

parkway-wide basis without calling attention 

to any specific segment or site along the 

parkway. However, it should be noted that 

actions that are specific to particular 

recreation areas or parkway segments have 

been factored into the overall analyses of 

listed species. To help quantify potential 

effects on threatened and endangered species, 

the impact analyses are organized by the 

following impact categories: habitat alteration, 

habitat loss and fragmentation, sensory-based 

disturbances, and poaching. 

Alternative A—No-action 

Parkway-wide. Under the no-action 

alternative, the parkway would continue to 

strive to protect federal and state listed 

threatened and endangered species. In many 

locations, these species would not be directly 

impacted under current management, because 

they occur away from existing developments 

and visitor use areas. For example, wetlands 

along the Blue Ridge Parkway provide 

important habitat for bog turtles, offering one 

of the last refuges where both the bog turtle 

and its habitat are protected in the southern 

Appalachians. Additionally, the restoration of 

rare habitats in select areas of the parkway, 

such as the grassy balds at Craggy Gardens, is 

having a beneficial effect on certain rare plant 

species. Because of these and other ongoing 

management strategies, many threatened and 

endangered species would continue to be 

protected, resulting in long-term moderate 

beneficial local to regional effects. 

However, under the no-action alternative, 

potential adverse impacts on federal and state 

listed species would also continue. These 

impacts would be similar to those described in 

the “Vegetation and Wildlife” section. This is 

because many of parkway’s threatened and 

endangered species inhabit the same rare 

plant communities discussed in that section. 

Similarly, the parkway’s limited number of 

natural resources staff would continue to 

constrain their ability to carry out a 

comprehensive recovery program for all 

threatened and endangered species. Without 

this level of active management, certain 

habitats would continue to decline because of 

the spread of invasive species or the lack of 

natural fire disturbances to prevent the 

encroachment of nonnative vegetation. An 

inability to substantially curtail poaching of 

rare species would also continue. These and 

other impacts are further discussed under the 

following categories, which are used to assess 

the environmental consequences of the 

alternatives: habitat alteration, habitat loss and 

fragmentation, sensory-based disturbances, 

and poaching. 

Habitat Alteration. Habitat alterations are 

changes made to the environment that 

adversely affect ecosystem function, although 

not completely or permanently. An example 

of this type of impact specific to the parkway 

is the repeated trampling of rare plant species 

when hiking off trail or camping in 

undesignated areas. This can lead to the loss 

of one or more individuals of a species, which 

can in turn further impact the remaining 

population by making the habitat less suitable. 

Not only can this adversely impact entire 

plant communities, but also wildlife 

dependent on these habitats for survival. 

Under the no-action alternative, the following 

threatened and endangered species would 

continue to receive long-term minor adverse 

local impacts from repeated vegetation 

trampling at multiple local sites within the 

parkway: mountain avens, Heller’s blazing 

star, rock gnome lichen, and small whorled 

pogonia. 

Another example specific to the parkway is 

the alteration of Carolina northern flying 

squirrel habitats to maintain overlooks and 

vistas. Under the no-action alternative, the 

parkway would implement its new vista 

management strategy within Carolina 

northern flying squirrel habitat. Of the 264 

overlooks and vistas along this portion of the 

parkway, 115 of them have suitable habitat for 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

278 

the flying squirrel. These areas would be 

managed by removing select red spruce, 

Fraser fir, yellow birch trees, and other woody 

vegetation as necessary to open up or to 

maintain the view while keeping enough trees 

so that squirrels can still glide from one tree to 

another. These trees are important for the 

squirrel not only for mobility, but also for 

nesting sites and food resources. Additionally, 

each site would be evaluated to see if the 

boundaries of the vista can be modified to 

reduce the total area cut without degrading 

the view. 

Historically, any vegetation that was growing 

up and blocking views along the parkway was 

routinely cut down, resulting in substantial 

adverse impacts on the squirrel by reducing 

nesting sites, movement corridors, and 

foraging opportunities. However, the new 

strategy would be an improvement from the 

parkway’s past vista management approach 

and would benefit flying squirrels at each 

vista. The amount of benefits would vary from 

site to site, depending on local natural 

conditions, size of the vista, and tree density. 

These management actions would likely result 

in long-term minor beneficial and local to 

regional impacts on flying squirrels overall. 

Another type of habitat alteration is the spread 

of invasive species, which out-competes native 

vegetation and wildlife to the point where the 

overall composition of plant and animal 

communities changes. Under the no-action 

alternative, the control of invasive species 

would continue to be limited to specific sites, 

rather than across the entire parkway. These 

invasive species control actions would 

continue to have long-term negligible to 

minor beneficial local effects. However, the 

following threatened and endangered species 

would continue to be subject to considerable 

adverse effects from invasive species, such as 

the balsam woolly adelgid and the multiflora 

rose: bog turtle and swamp pink. 

Habitat Loss and Fragmentation. 

Habitat loss is defined as the complete 

elimination of a local or regional ecosystem 

leading to the total loss of its former biological 

function. Development of the nine 

campgrounds of the parkway is an example of 

local habitat loss. Habitat fragmentation is a 

secondary effect of habitat loss. It occurs 

when populations of plants or animals are 

isolated because the links between their 

habitats have been destroyed. Road 

developments are a common example of 

habitat fragmentation and the original 

construction of the parkway is no exception. 

Under the no-action alternative, there are no 

current or future plans to expand the extent of 

these developments within the parkway. 

Therefore, no additional adverse impacts 

would occur beyond what took place during 

the initial construction of the parkway (see 

“Cumulative Effects” below). 

Sensory-based Disturbances. 

Disturbances to wildlife that are the result of 

noises, sights, or scents associated with visitor 

use are referred to as sensory-based 

disturbances. If these types of disturbances are 

intense or prolonged, they can lead to a 

population-level response, such as 

displacement or reduced reproductive 

success. An example of a sensory-based 

disturbance is frequent noise from passing 

vehicles that causes a bird species to abandon 

nearby nesting sites. 

Threatened and endangered wildlife species 

that occur in close proximity to recreation 

developments of the parkway would continue 

to be affected by human-caused disturbances 

from parkway operations, vehicular traffic, 

and visitor use. Noise disturbances include 

maintenance equipment (e.g., mowers, 

chainsaws, chippers), vehicles (e.g., 

motorcycles, RVs, cars), generators, music, 

and human voices. Sight disturbances within 

the parkway occur primarily in the form of 

light pollution. Artificial light at nighttime 

from vehicles and campgrounds can cause 

varying levels of disturbance to wildlife, 

especially those that are nocturnal. Under the 

no-action alternative, the following 

threatened and endangered species would 

continue to be subject to long-term minor 

adverse local to regional impacts from these 

sensory-based disturbances within the 

parkway: Virginia big-eared bat, Indiana bat, 

and the northern saw-whet owl. 
Natural Resources 

279 

Poaching. Poaching is the illegal hunting, 

fishing, or harvesting of wild animals or 

plants. The wide-spread illegal collection of 

rare plants and animals within the parkway 

has the potential to substantially reduce the 

viability and recovery of many rare species. 

Under the no-action alternative, current park 

management efforts to curtail poaching 

activities would continue to have long-term 

negligible to minor beneficial local effects. 

However, given the limited effectiveness of 

this management effort and the pervasiveness 

of poaching, the following threatened and 

endangered species would continue to receive 

notable adverse impacts from poaching: bog 

turtle, Heller’s blazing star, and small whorled 

pogonia. 

Overall, across the entire parkway, its 

segments, and recreation areas, alternative A 

would continue to result in both adverse and 

beneficial effects on the federal and state 

listed threatened and endangered species of 

the parkway. The adverse impacts would be 

long-term minor and local to regional, 

primarily resulting from rare vegetation 

trampling from dispersed off-trail use and 

habitat disturbances from designated trail use. 

The beneficial impacts would be long-term 

negligible to minor and local to regional, 

primarily resulting from the protection or 

restoration of rare habitat areas, the new vista 

management strategy, and management 

efforts to address resource threats such as 

invasive plants, poaching, and boundary 

encroachment. For alternative A, the overall 

determination of effect on federal threatened 

and endangered species protected under 

section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

would be may affect / not likely to adversely 

affect. The section 7 determinations for each 

individual federal listed threatened and 

endangered species are provided below in 

table 51. 

TABLE 51. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO FEDERAL LISTED SPECIES OF THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY, ALTERNATIVE A 

Species Federal Status Endangered Species Act 

Determination 

Virginia big-eared bat 

(Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus) 

Endangered May affect / not likely to adversely affect

Carolina northern flying squirrel 

(Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus) 

Endangered May affect / not likely to adversely affect

Gray bat 

(Myotis grisescens) 

Endangered May affect / not likely to adversely affect 

Indiana bat 

(Myotis sodalis) 

Endangered May affect / not likely to adversely affect

Kirtland’s warbler (Dendroica kirtlandii) Endangered No effect 

Bog turtle 

(Clemmys (=Glyptemys) muhlenbergii) 

Threatened* May affect / not likely to adversely affect

Roanoke logperch 

(Percina rex) 

Endangered No effect

Mountain avens 

(Geum radiatum) 

Endangered May affect / not likely to adversely affect

Swamp-pink 

(Helonias bullata) 

Threatened May affect / not likely to adversely affect

Small whorled pogonia 

(Isotria medeoloides) 

Threatened May affect / not likely to adversely affect

Heller’s blazingstar 

(Liatris helleri) 

Threatened May affect / not likely to adversely affect
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

280 

Species Federal Status Endangered Species Act 

Determination 

Bog asphodel 

(Narthecium americanum) 

Candidate No effect

Rock gnome lichen 

(Gymnoderma lineare) 

Endangered May affect / not likely to adversely affect

*Southern population of bog turtle (as found in park) is listed as Threatened due to similarity of appearance with 

northern population of the same species. 

Cumulative Effects. Adverse impacts on 

the parkway’s threatened and endangered 

species occurred mostly during the initial 

construction of the parkway. Although 

environmental protection was taken into 

consideration during this early development 

phase, plant and animal inventories were not 

conducted prior to construction. As a result, 

the habitats of many rare species were likely 

adversely affected. This now makes it difficult 

to quantify the extent of these past impacts. 

However, it is easy to assume that the 

construction of 469 miles of roadway and the 

development of 15 recreation areas across 

sensitive, high-elevation habitats has had an 

adverse effect on threatened and endangered 

plants and animals. 

Beyond the boundary of the parkway, ongoing 

development of private lands continues to 

cause habitat loss and fragmentation, leading 

to the isolation of many rare species within the 

parkway. Past land uses adjacent to the 

parkway have also had a cumulative effect on 

these species. For instance, logging has 

reduced spruce/fir forests in the southern 

Appalachians by about half, which has had a 

detrimental effect on threatened and 

endangered species, such as the Carolina 

northern flying squirrel. However, there are 

currently no substantial logging operations 

because most all of this habitat is either owned 

by government agencies (e.g., U.S. Forest 

Service) or private organizations that have 

conservation missions (e.g., The Nature 

Conservancy). 

These past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions are having regional, 

long-term moderate adverse and beneficial 

effects on threatened and endangered species. 

The continuation of the no-action alternative, 

when considered in combination with these 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in 

long-term minor to moderate adverse local to 

regional effects and long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial local to regional 

cumulative impacts on threatened and 

endangered species of the parkway. This 

alternative’s contribution to these effects 

would be small. 

Conclusion. Implementation of the noaction alternative would result in long-term 

negligible to minor local to regional beneficial 

effects on threatened and endangered species 

of the parkway from new vista management 

strategies and poaching and invasive plant 

controls. It would also have long-term minor 

adverse local to regional effects from sensorybased disturbances caused by park operations 

and visitor use and habitat alteration caused 

by recreational use (e.g., off-trail vegetation 

trampling). Impacts of the no-action 

alternative, combined with the impacts of 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in 

long-term minor to moderate adverse local to 

regional effects and long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial local to regional 

cumulative impacts on threatened and 

endangered species of the parkway. This 

alternative’s contribution to these cumulative 

effects would be small. 

For alternative A, the overall determination of 

effect on federal threatened and endangered 

species protected under section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act would be may affect / 

not likely to adversely affect.
Natural Resources 

281 

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 

Parkway-wide. Under alternative B, federal 

and state listed threatened and endangered 

species would have many of the same broad 

effects described under the “Vegetation and 

Wildlife” section for this alternative. For 

example, this alternative’s more ecosystembased approach would include parkway-wide 

and regional strategies that emphasize 

multiyear and multiagency projects to protect, 

restore, and enhance natural communities. 

This would also benefit threatened and 

endangered species that rely on these natural 

communities for their habitat. 

Another similar benefit described under the 

“Vegetation and Wildlife” section for 

alternative B is the expanded scope of the 

parkway’s land protection strategy to include 

the option of acquiring interests in adjacent 

lands to protect natural resources. Properties 

that provide habitat for threatened and 

endangered species could be acquired from 

willing sellers, rather than just for scenery and 

access management purposes as stated in the 

no-action alternative. This new approach 

would allow for broader protection of critical 

habitats, especially those that straddle the 

parkway boundary. In addition, under 

alternative B, NPS staff would proactively seek 

out willing sellers of high-priority private 

parcels in the region to help protect sensitive 

habitat and/or maintain habitat connectivity. 

Also, as described in the “Vegetation and 

Wildlife” section, the National Park Service 

would undertake a more regional approach to 

protecting threatened and endangered species 

by expanding partnerships with private 

landowners, land management agencies, and 

other organizations. This would benefit listed 

species by mounting recovery efforts for 

populations that extend beyond the boundary 

of the parkway and by limiting sensitive 

habitat fragmentation from surrounding 

developments. 

Certain benefits to threatened and 

endangered species under current 

management would also continue under 

alternative B. For instance, all state-designated 

natural heritage areas, globally ranked natural 

communities, and other ecologically sensitive 

areas that support special status species within 

the parkway would continue to be protected 

to the fullest extent. An additional benefit to 

these areas under alternative B would be the 

application of management zones, all of which 

include prescriptions that more proactively 

protect these areas. 

To further emphasize the protection of 

habitats that support threatened and 

endangered species, the special natural 

resource zone would be applied to 10,068 

acres (12.2%) of parkway lands under this 

alternative. An example of proactive 

management that would occur within this 

zone is the new vista management strategy 

designed to improve habitat for the Carolina 

northern flying squirrel. This new approach 

was recently initiated under the no-action 

alternative (NPS 2008a) and it would be 

carried forward under alternative B, resulting 

in continued beneficial impacts on flying 

squirrels. 

Under alternative B, 10,139 acres (12.3%) of 

parkway lands would be zoned recreation in 

order to enhance outdoor recreational 

opportunities for visitors. Expanding or 

improving amenities and services within this 

zone would attract more visitors to less 

accessible areas of the parkway, increasing the 

likelihood of adverse impacts on threatened 

and endangered species. However, 

management prescriptions under the 

recreation zone state that any additional 

developments or use would be adapted as 

needed to protect threatened and endangered 

species. 

As a result of this alternative’s more 

ecosystem-based management approach, 

expanded land protection strategy, and 

management zones that emphasize desired 

natural resource conditions, there would be 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

regional effects to threatened and endangered 

species. 

Adverse impacts on threatened and 

endangered species would also occur under 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

282 

alternative B. These impacts are assessed 

based on the following four categories: habitat 

alteration, habitat loss and fragmentation, 

sensory-based disturbances, and poaching. 

Please refer to these subheadings under 

alternative A for definitions of these impact 

categories. 

Habitat Alteration. As stated previously, 

alternative B would apply the recreation zone 

across a large portion of the parkway, leading 

to expanded developments and increased 

visitor use in certain areas. More extensive 

trail systems, backcountry campsites, and 

other infrastructure could inadvertently alter 

habitats essential for threatened and 

endangered species. Additional hikers, 

mountain bikers, horseback riders, and 

campers could also alter these habitats by 

repeatedly trampling vegetation as a result of 

off-trail use. For example, without carefully 

considering the location of new trails, longdistance hikers in need of water could disturb 

streams, springs, and seeps that provide 

specialized habitats for a number of 

threatened and endangered mollusk and 

amphipod species. Another example of habitat 

alteration is the spread of invasive species 

unintentionally brought to a site during 

construction or recreational use. However, 

any development proposed under this 

alternative would require additional 

environmental compliance documentation, 

including Endangered Species Act section 7 

consultation, prior to implementation in order 

to mitigate for these types of impacts. Also, as 

under the no-action alternative, alternative B 

would include the vista management strategy 

that incorporates habitat mitigation measures 

to protect Carolina northern flying squirrel 

habitat. Under alternative B, the following 

federal and state listed threatened and 

endangered species would be most vulnerable 

to these types of habitat alterations, 

potentially resulting in short- and long-term 

minor adverse local to regional impacts: 

mountain avens, rock gnome lichen, and small 

whorled pogonia. 

Habitat Loss and Fragmentation. Under 

alternative B, strategies to expand recreational 

developments could result in the loss or 

fragmentation of habitats essential to 

threatened and endangered species. For 

example, new trail development physically 

fragments habitats and the secondary effect of 

visitors along trail corridors can disrupt the 

natural movement of species across them. 

Even limited off-trail use by visitors can lead 

to the loss of habitat for small isolated 

populations of rare species. Yet, it is unlikely 

that any new developments would directly 

impact the habitats of threatened and 

endangered species, because none of the 

management zones have a tolerance for such 

impacts. In fact, alternative B calls for 

additional measures in a number of recreation 

areas to keep visitors on trails and away from 

sensitive habitats. However, there is still a 

potential for such effects. Under this 

alternative, the following listed species could 

potentially be subject to long-term negligible 

to minor adverse and local to regional impacts 

if new developments and uses are not 

carefully considered before implementation: 

Wehrle's salamander and the bog turtle. 

Sensory-based Disturbances. Under 

alternative B, sensory-based disturbances to 

threatened and endangered species would be 

greatest in portions of the parkway that would 

offer expanded recreational opportunities in 

close proximity to their habitats. These areas 

would in turn attract greater numbers of 

visitors, resulting in heightened levels of noise 

and sight disturbance, which could cause 

species to avoid areas, especially during peak 

periods of visitor use. Under this alternative, 

the northern saw-whet owl could potentially 

be subject to long-term negligible to minor 

adverse local to regional impacts due to its 

location in areas that would be zoned 

recreation or visitor services. 

Poaching. Under alternative B, the threat of 

poaching and its impacts on threatened and 

endangered species would continue, as 

described under the no-action alternative. 

This is due to the difficulty of curtailing this 

activity across the expanse of the parkway, 

regardless of which alternative is selected. In 

addition, certain management strategies 

proposed under this alternative can directly or 

indirectly affect poaching activity. For 
Natural Resources 

283 

example, applying the recreation zone across a 

large portion of the parkway could increase 

trail access to more remote areas, allowing 

poachers to more easily find and poach 

populations of rare species. 

Conversely, increased trail use could also 

increase the chances of a visitor observing 

illegal activities and reporting them to 

parkway law enforcement staff. The 

recreation zone would also involve more 

proactive management and staff monitoring of 

the trail systems along the parkway. Also, 

under this alternative’s more proactive, 

comprehensive approach to natural resource 

management, along with provisions under 

each management zone to protect rare 

species, poaching problems would likely be 

addressed more effectively. 

Although poaching would continue to be a 

problem along the parkway, the actions of 

alternative B would help reduce the adverse 

impact of poaching in some ways. This 

alternative would also possibly compound it 

in other ways (e.g., increase in recreational 

access). Overall, alternative B would have a 

long-term minor beneficial local to regional 

effect on the species that are most vulnerable 

to poaching, which include: the bog turtle, 

Heller’s blazing star, and the small whorled 

pogonia. 

Overall, across the entire parkway, its 

segments, and recreation areas, alternative B 

would result in both adverse and beneficial 

effects on the federal and state listed 

threatened and endangered species of the 

parkway. The adverse impacts would be 

short- and long-term negligible to minor local 

to regional, primarily resulting from increased 

recreational use zones, habitat fragmentation 

and sensory disturbances from new trail 

development and use, and extended visitation 

seasons at some recreation areas. The 

beneficial impacts would be long-term minor 

to moderate and local to regional, primarily 

resulting from ecosystem-based management, 

expanded land protection strategies, regional 

land management partnerships (e.g., to 

address invasive plant control), new natural 

and special natural zoning, closed trails in 

sensitive areas, designated parking at 

recreation areas, increased NPS presence at 

some recreation areas during the extended 

visitation season, and improvements in 

enforcement of illegal activities such as 

poaching. For alternative B, the overall 

determination of effect on federal threatened 

and endangered species protected under 

section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

would be may affect / not likely to adversely 

affect. The section 7 determinations for each 

individual federal listed threatened and 

endangered species are provided below in 

table 52. 

TABLE 52. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO FEDERAL LISTED SPECIES OF THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY, ALTERNATIVE B 

Species Federal Status Endangered Species Act 

Determination 

Virginia big-eared bat 

(Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus) 

Endangered May affect / not likely to adversely 

affect

Carolina northern flying squirrel 

(Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus) 

Endangered May affect / not likely to adversely 

affect

Gray bat 

(Myotis grisescens) 

Endangered May affect / not likely to adversely 

affect 

Indiana bat 

(Myotis sodalis) 

Endangered May affect / not likely to adversely 

affect

Kirtland’s warbler (Dendroica kirtlandii) Endangered No effect 

Bog turtle 

(Clemmys (=Glyptemys) muhlenbergii) 

Threatened* May affect / not likely to adversely 

affect

Roanoke logperch 

(Percina rex) 

Endangered No effect
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

284 

Species Federal Status Endangered Species Act 

Determination 

Mountain avens 

(Geum radiatum) 

Endangered May affect / not likely to adversely 

affect

Swamp-pink 

(Helonias bullata) 

Threatened No effect

Small whorled pogonia 

(Isotria medeoloides) 

Threatened May affect / not likely to adversely 

affect

Heller’s blazingstar 

(Liatris helleri) 

Threatened May affect / not likely to adversely 

affect

Bog asphodel 

(Narthecium americanum) 

Candidate No effect

Rock gnome lichen 

(Gymnoderma lineare) 

Endangered May affect / not likely to adversely 

affect

* Southern population of bog turtle (as found in park) is listed as Threatened due to similarity of appearance with 

northern population of the same species. 

Cumulative Effects. The past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions 

described under the “Cumulative Effects” 

section for alternative A would be the same 

under this alternative, resulting in regional 

long-term moderate adverse and beneficial 

effects to threatened and endangered species. 

Alternative B, when considered in 

combination with other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 

result in long-term minor to moderate adverse 

local to regional cumulative impacts and longterm minor to moderate beneficial local to 

regional cumulative impacts on threatened 

and endangered species of the parkway. This 

alternative’s contribution to these adverse 

cumulative effects would be small. However, 

due to the parkway’s importance in providing 

regional connectivity to other public and 

private lands that protect these resources and 

the focus on a regionwide ecosystem 

management approach, this alternative would 

contribute a considerable amount to the 

beneficial cumulative effects. 

Conclusion. Alternative B would have longterm minor to moderate beneficial local to 

regional impacts and short- and long-term 

negligible to minor local to regional adverse 

impacts on federal and state listed threatened 

and endangered species. Impacts of this 

alternative, combined with the impacts of 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in 

long-term minor to moderate adverse local to 

regional cumulative impacts and long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial local to regional 

cumulative impacts on threatened and 

endangered species of the parkway. This 

alternative’s contribution to these adverse 

cumulative effects would be small. However, 

due to the parkway’s importance in providing 

regional connectivity to other public and 

private lands that protect these resources and 

the focus on a regionwide ecosystem 

management approach, this alternative would 

contribute a considerable amount to the 

beneficial cumulative effects. 

For alternative B, the overall determination of 

effect on federal threatened and endangered 

species protected under section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act would be may affect / 

not likely to adversely affect.

Alternative C 

Parkway-wide. Under alternative C, there 

would be many of the same benefits to federal 

and state listed threatened and endangered 

species as described under alternative B (i.e., 

added protection from parkway-wide 

management strategies). Also, as with 

alternative B, the parkway would undertake a 

more regional approach to protecting 

threatened and endangered species by 
Natural Resources 

285 

expanding partnerships with private 

landowners, agencies, and other 

organizations. This would benefit listed 

species by mounting recovery efforts for 

populations that extend beyond the boundary 

of the parkway or become isolated by habitat 

fragmentation from surrounding 

developments. 

Certain benefits to threatened and 

endangered species under current 

management would also continue under 

alternative C. For instance, all statedesignated natural heritage areas, globally 

ranked natural communities, and other 

ecologically sensitive areas that support 

special status species within the parkway 

would continue to be protected to the fullest 

extent. To further emphasize the protection of 

habitats that support threatened and 

endangered species, the special natural 

resource zone would be applied to 10,074 

acres (12.3%) of parkway lands under this 

alternative. An example of proactive 

management that would occur within this 

zone is the new vista management strategy 

designed to improve habitat for the Carolina 

northern flying squirrel. This new approach 

was recently initiated under the no-action 

alternative (NPS 2008a), and it would be 

carried forward under alternative C, resulting 

in continued beneficial impacts on flying 

squirrels. 

Under alternative C, 24,584 acres (29.9%) of 

the parkway would be zoned natural, which 

emphasizes greater protection of natural 

resources, including threatened and 

endangered species, than many of the other 

zones—except for the special natural 

resources zone, which is equal between the 

two action alternatives. The amount of 

parkway land zoned natural under alternative 

C is notably larger when compared to the 

19,491 acres (23.7%) of this zone under 

alternative B. With less emphasis on providing 

recreational opportunities for visitors and a 

lower tolerance for resource impacts, the 

natural zone would focus on managing for a 

more pristine environment across a greater 

portion of the parkway. 

As a result of this alternative’s more regional 

management approach, expanded land 

protection strategy, and management zones 

that emphasize desired natural resource 

conditions, there would be long-term 

moderate beneficial regional effects to 

threatened and endangered species. 

Adverse impacts on threatened and 

endangered species would also occur under 

this alternative. These impacts are assessed 

based on the following four categories: habitat 

alteration, habitat loss and fragmentation, 

sensory-based disturbances, and poaching. 

Please refer to these subheadings under 

alternative A for definitions of these impact 

categories. 

Habitat Alteration. Under alternative C, a 

variety of developments would be enhanced 

within the parkway’s visitor services zone to 

provide modern-day amenities, such as 

comfort stations with hot showers, RV sites 

with water and electrical hookups, larger tent 

sites to better accommodate family sized tents, 

and wider turning radii along campground 

roads to improve RV access. To accomplish 

this, portions of some recreation 

developments would be upgraded or 

redesigned, resulting in local habitat 

alterations. However, because the majority of 

these developments are already highly 

modified environments that do not support 

threatened and endangered species, these 

changes would not directly affect these 

species. Even so, some indirect short-term 

minor adverse local to regional impacts may 

occur to the following species that inhabit 

areas adjacent to these recreation 

developments due to their close proximity: 

Carolina northern flying squirrel, Heller’s 

blazing star, and northern saw-whet owl. 

Conversely, under alternative C, the adverse 

effects of habitat alteration on threatened and 

endangered species could be diminished by a 

more proactive strategy to controlling invasive 

species. By reducing competition between 

invasive and rare species, long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial local to regional impacts 

would result. Also, as under the no-action 

alternative, alternative B would include the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

286 

vista management strategy that incorporates 

habitat mitigation measures to protect 

Carolina northern flying squirrel habitat. 

Habitat Loss and Fragmentation. Under 

alternative C, it is unlikely that any upgrades 

or redesigns to existing developments would 

result in the direct loss or fragmentation of 

habitats for threatened and endangered 

species because the majority of these 

developments are already highly modified 

environments that do not support these 

species. However, there is still a potential for 

such effects. Under this alternative, the 

following listed species could potentially 

receive long-term minor adverse local to 

regional impacts if changes to developments 

are not carefully considered before 

implementation: Carolina northern flying 

squirrel, Heller’s blazing star, and northern 

saw-whet owl. 

Sensory-based Disturbances. Under 

alternative C, sensory-based disturbances to 

threatened and endangered species would be 

greatest in portions of the parkway that would 

offer expanded recreational opportunities in 

close proximity to their habitats. These areas 

would in turn attract greater numbers of 

visitors, resulting in heightened levels of noise 

and sight disturbance, which could cause 

species to avoid areas, especially during peak 

periods of visitor use. Under this alternative, 

the following listed species could potentially 

receive long-term negligible to minor adverse 

local to regional impacts due to their locations 

in areas that would be zoned recreation or 

visitor services: northern saw-whet owl. 

Poaching. Under alternative C, poaching 

would continue to cause adverse impacts on 

threatened and endangered species, as 

described under the no-action alternative. 

This is due to the difficulty of curtailing this 

activity across the expanse of the parkway, 

regardless of which alternative is selected. 

However, certain management strategies 

proposed under each alternative can directly 

or indirectly affect poaching activity. For 

example, applying the natural zone across a 

large portion of the parkway would help 

maintain the inaccessibility of some areas, 

preventing poachers from easily collecting 

populations of rare species. Furthermore, 

given this alternative’s more proactive, 

comprehensive approach to natural resource 

management, along with provisions under 

each management zone to protect rare 

species, poaching problems would likely be 

addressed more effectively. Thus, although 

poaching would continue to be a problem 

along the parkway, the actions of alternative C 

would help reduce the adverse impact of 

poaching. As a result, alternative C would 

have a long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

regional effect on the species that are most 

vulnerable to poaching, which include: the 

bog turtle, Heller’s blazing star, and small 

whorled pogonia. 

Overall, across the entire parkway, its 

segments, and recreation areas, alternative C 

would result in both adverse and beneficial 

effects on the federal and state listed 

threatened and endangered species of the 

parkway. The adverse impacts would be 

short- and long-term, negligible to minor, 

local to regional, primarily resulting from 

habitat fragmentation and sensory 

disturbances from new trail/facility 

development and use (including substantial 

campground upgrades), and extended 

visitation seasons at some recreation areas. 

The beneficial impacts would be long-term, 

minor to moderate, local to regional, primarily 

resulting from ecosystem-based management, 

a relatively large area zoned as natural or 

special natural zones, expanded land 

protection strategies, regional land 

management partnerships (e.g., to address 

invasive plant control), closed trails in 

sensitive areas, increased NPS presence at 

some recreation areas during the extended 

visitation season, and improvements in 

enforcement of illegal activities such as 

poaching. For alternative C, the overall 

determination of effect on federal threatened 

and endangered species protected under 

section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

would be may affect / not likely to adversely 

affect. The section 7 determinations for each 

individual federal listed threatened and 

endangered species are provided below in 

table 53. 
Natural Resources 

287 

TABLE 53. POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO FEDERAL LISTED 

SPECIES OF THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY, ALTERNATIVE C 

Species Federal 

Status 

Endangered 

Species Act 

Determination 

Virginia big-eared 

bat (Corynorhinus 

townsendii 

virginianus) 

Endangered May affect / not 

likely to adversely 

affect

Carolina northern 

flying squirrel 

(Glaucomys 

sabrinus 

coloratus) 

Endangered May affect / not 

likely to adversely 

affect

Gray bat 

(Myotis 

grisescens) 

Endangered May affect / not 

likely to adversely 

affect

Indiana bat 

(Myotis sodalis) 

Endangered May affect / not 

likely to adversely 

affect

Kirtland’s warbler 

(Dendroica 

kirtlandii) 

Endangered No effect

Bog turtle 

(Clemmys 

(=Glyptemsy) 

muhlenbergii) 

Threatened* May affect / not 

likely to adversely 

affect

Roanoke logperch 

(Percina rex) 

Endangered No effect

Mountain avens 

(Geum radiatum) 

Endangered No effect

Swamp-pink 

(Helonias bullata) 

Threatened No effect

Small whorled 

pogonia 

(Isotria 

medeoloides) 

Threatened May affect / not 

likely to adversely 

affect

Heller’s 

blazingstar 

(Liatris helleri) 

Threatened May affect / not 

likely to adversely 

affect

Bog asphodel 

(Narthecium 

americanum) 

Candidate No effect

Rock gnome 

lichen 

(Gymnoderma 

lineare) 

Endangered No effect

* Southern population of bog turtle (as found in park) is listed 

as Threatened due to similarity of appearance with northern 

population of the same species. 

Cumulative Effects. The past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions under 

this alternative would be the same as those 

described under the “Cumulative Effects” 

discussion for alternative A, resulting in 

regional, long-term moderate adverse and 

beneficial impacts on threatened and 

endangered species. Alternative C, when 

considered in combination with these other 

actions, would result in long-term minor to 

moderate adverse local and regional 

cumulative impacts and long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial local to regional 

cumulative impacts on threatened and 

endangered species of the parkway. This 

alternative’s contribution to these adverse 

cumulative effects would be slight. However, 

due to the parkway’s importance in providing 

regional connectivity to other public and 

private lands that protect these resources and 

the focus on a regionwide ecosystem 

management approach, this alternative would 

contribute a considerable amount to the 

beneficial cumulative effects. 

Conclusion. Alternative C would have longterm minor to moderate local to regional 

beneficial impacts, and short- and long-term 

negligible to minor local to regional adverse 

impacts on federal and state listed threatened 

and endangered species. Impacts of this 

alternative, combined with the impacts of 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in 

long-term minor to moderate adverse local 

and regional cumulative impacts and longterm minor to moderate beneficial local to 

regional cumulative impacts on threatened 

and endangered species of the parkway. This 

alternative’s contribution to these adverse 

cumulative effects would be slight. However, 

due to the parkway’s importance in providing 

regional connectivity to other public and 

private lands that protect these resources and 

the focus on a regionwide ecosystem 

management approach, this alternative would 

contribute a considerable amount to the 

beneficial cumulative effects. 

For alternative C, the overall determination of 

effect on federal threatened and endangered 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

288 

species protected under section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act would be may affect / 

not likely to adversely affect.

GEOLOGIC RESOURCES AND SOILS 

Methods and Assumptions for 

Analyzing Impacts 

The effects of the management alternatives on 

geologic resources and soils of the parkway 

are analyzed based on impacts resulting from 

visitor use patterns and levels of development 

associated with each alternative. The 

thresholds to determine the intensity of 

impacts are defined as follows. 

Negligible: The impact is barely detectable 

and/or would result in no measurable or 

perceptible changes to geologic resources or 

soils. 

Minor: The impact is slight but detectable, 

and/or would result in small but measurable 

changes to geologic resources or soils. 

Moderate: The impact is readily apparent 

and/or would result in easily detectable 

changes to geologic resources or soils. 

Major: The impact is severely adverse or 

exceptionally beneficial and/or would result 

in appreciable changes to geologic resources 

or soils. 

Alternative A—No-action 

Parkway-wide. Visitor activities that would 

continue to impact soils of the parkway 

include hiking, horseback riding, backcountry 

camping, recreating along the banks of rivers 

and lakes, and parking in undesignated areas. 

Ongoing impacts from existing developments 

along the parkway, such as trails, can also 

occur if they are improperly designed or 

unmaintained. The lack of adequate 

developments to support varying types and 

levels of visitation can also lead to soil-related 

impacts, such as the lack of directional fencing 

to prevent off-trail use. Under the no-action 

alternative, these activities and developments 

would continue to cause short- and long-term 

minor adverse local to regional impacts on 

soils, primarily as a result of routine visitation 

to designated areas of the parkway. More 

specific impacts on geologic resources and 

soils are described below. 

Parkway Segments. Only those parkway 

segments that would experience more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide section are described below. 

Segments 1 and 6: Ridge and Asheville—

Under the no-action alternative, vehicles 

parking in undesignated areas along the Ridge 

and Asheville segments of the parkway would 

continue to cause local soil compaction and 

erosion. This is particularly evident at sites 

that access trail systems where designated 

parking is not provided. The high frequency 

of vehicles that park off the roadway in these 

areas would continue to result in long-term 

minor adverse local impacts on soils. 

Parkway Recreation Areas. Only those 

parkway recreation areas that would 

experience more specific impacts than those 

described under the parkway-wide section are 

described below. 

Humpback Rocks and Linville Falls—Under 

the current management approach, the trail 

systems at Humpback Rocks and Linville Falls 

would continue to cause soil erosion and 

compaction, resulting in long-term moderate 

adverse local impacts. This is due to a 

combination of poorly designed and 

inadequately maintained trails that cannot 

sustain current levels of visitor use, which has 

led to trail widening, social trails, and off-trail 

use. 

Julian Price Park—Unauthorized 

backcountry camping would continue at 

Hebron Falls, causing local soil compaction 

and increased soil erosion as vegetation is 

disturbed. This would continue to result in 

long-term minor adverse local impacts. The 

designated picnic area and adjacent trail at 

Julian Price Park is also causing extensive soil 

compaction and bank erosion near the stream, 
Natural Resources 

289 

resulting in long-term moderate adverse local 

impacts. This is due to the close proximity of 

the picnic area and trail to Boone Fork, which 

frequently floods, combined with the high 

concentration of visitors who frequent this 

popular recreation site. 

Overall, across the entire parkway, its 

segments, and recreation areas, alternative A 

would continue to result in a short- and longterm minor to moderate adverse local to 

regional impact on the geologic resources and 

soils of the parkway. The adverse impacts 

would primarily result from continued soil 

compaction and erosion from off-trail use, 

undesignated parking, trail widening, and 

unauthorized backcountry camping. 

Cumulative Effects. Other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

would contribute to impacts on geologic 

resources and soils include developments on 

adjacent private lands, such as residential 

homes, subdivisions, and commercial 

industries. These developments primarily 

cause short-term moderate adverse local to 

regional impacts during the initial 

construction phase, as a result of soil 

compaction, erosion, and removal. 

Developments would also continue to impact 

geologic features of the landscape, such as cut 

slopes from excavation. In many cases, these 

developments are occurring directly adjacent 

to the parkway boundary, some of which are 

highly visible from the parkway. It is likely that 

these private developments would continue at 

their current pace, resulting in long-term 

moderate adverse local to regional cumulative 

impacts on geologic resources and soils. 

Similar impacts on geologic resources and 

soils occurred during the initial construction 

of the parkway. Although special attention 

was given to preserve the natural geologic 

features of the park, construction-related 

disturbances resulted in long-term moderate 

adverse regional impacts during this early 

development phase. The impacts of these 

actions, in combination with those described 

for the no-action alternative, would result in 

short- and long-term minor to moderate 

adverse local to regional impacts. The 

parkway’s current management approach is 

expected to contribute a small amount to 

these cumulative effects, because no 

substantial developments are planned beyond 

routine maintenance of the parkway’s existing 

infrastructure.

Conclusion. The no-action alternative would 

have a short- and long-term minor to 

moderate adverse local to regional impact on 

geologic resources and soils. Impacts of this 

alternative, combined with the impacts of 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in 

short- and long-term minor to moderate 

adverse local to regional cumulative impacts. 

This alternative’s contribution to these effects 

would be small. 

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 

Parkway-wide. Under alternative B, 

geologic resources and soils of the parkway 

would receive added management attention 

through this alternative’s more ecosystembased approach. This would result not only 

from parkway-wide management strategies, 

but from the application of management 

zones, which establish desired natural 

resource conditions and include management 

prescriptions to more proactively address 

potential impacts, including those to geologic 

resources and soils. For example, this 

alternative would zone 10,139 acres (12.3%) 

of parkway lands as recreation in order to 

enhance visitor opportunities. As a result, 

management strategies could include such 

actions as the realignment of erosion-prone 

trails to improve visitor experiences. These 

types of new management approaches would 

result in long-term minor beneficial regional 

effects to geologic resources and soils of the 

parkway. 

On the other hand, expanding or improving 

amenities and services within the recreation 

zone would attract more visitors to more 

remote areas of the parkway, increasing the 

likelihood of adverse impacts on soils. For 

example, mountain bikers and horseback 

riders who might venture off designated trails 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

290 

could compact soils or trample vegetation, 

leading to increased erosion in previously 

inaccessible areas. These impacts, as well as 

the new trails, campsites, or other 

infrastructure, could lead to local soil 

disturbances, resulting in long-term minor to 

moderate adverse local impacts. However, 

management prescriptions under the 

recreation zone state that any additional 

developments would be adapted as needed to 

minimize impacts on natural resources, 

including soils and other geologic resources. 

Parkway Segments. Only those parkway 

segments that would experience more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide section are described below. 

Segment 1: Ridge—Under alternative B, 

visitors would continue to park their vehicles 

in an unpaved area along the parkway to 

access trails on adjacent U.S. Forest Service 

land, resulting in local soil compaction and 

erosion. The regular occurrence of vehicles 

parking in this undesignated area would 

continue to result in long-term minor adverse 

local impacts on soils. 

Segment 6: Asheville—Under alternative B, 

the parkway would provide designated 

parking spaces for visitors accessing trail 

systems along the Asheville segment of the 

parkway. This would reduce the effects of soil 

compaction and erosion caused by the high 

frequency of vehicles currently parking in 

unpaved areas. As a result, there would be 

long-term minor beneficial local impacts on 

soils. 

Parkway Recreation Areas. Only those 

parkway recreation areas that would 

experience more specific impacts than those 

described under the parkway-wide section are 

described below. 

Humpback Rocks and Linville Falls—Under 

alternative B, the area surrounding the trail 

systems at Humpback Rocks and Linville Falls 

would be zoned recreation. This zone would 

emphasize the need to address soil 

compaction and erosion problems associated 

with these trails, which were not designed to 

support current levels of visitor use. This has 

led to trail widening, social trails, and off-trail 

use. As a result of improving or realigning 

trails to better accommodate current and 

future levels of visitors, soils would receive 

long-term minor beneficial local effects in 

these areas. 

Julian Price Park—Under alternative B, the 

majority of Julian Price Park would be zoned 

natural. Within this zone, visitor use would be 

managed at low levels, allowing for only lowimpact recreational activities, to avoid 

resource degradation. In addition, degraded 

sites would be restored in order to reestablish 

natural systems and processes. These 

management prescriptions would help to 

address soil compaction and erosion 

associated with unregulated tent camping at 

Hebron Falls, either by designating a 

backcountry campsite or by closing and 

rehabilitating the impacted area. Either of 

these actions would result in long-term minor 

beneficial local impacts on soils in this 

immediate area. 

Under alternative B, the picnic area near 

Boone Fork would be relocated out of the 

floodplain to higher ground near Old John’s 

River Road. This would allow for 

rehabilitation of the existing picnic area, 

where concentrated visitor use has caused 

extensive soil compaction and erosion near 

the stream. As a result, there would be longterm moderate beneficial local impacts on 

soils in this area. However, some adverse 

impacts on soils would be transferred to the 

site of the new picnic area. Construction of a 

new picnic area of comparable size and with 

similar amenities (e.g., comfort stations, 

parking areas, drinking water, and septic 

system) to the existing one along Boone Fork 

would cause short-term moderate adverse 

local impacts on soils. Long-term minor 

adverse local impacts on soils would also 

result from visitor use of the new picnic area. 

However, the location of the new picnic area 

would have fewer overall adverse impacts on 

soils than the existing location as a result of 

being away from the compounded effects of 

flooding and natural stream channel 

dynamics. 
Natural Resources 

291 

Overall, across the entire parkway, its 

segments, and recreation areas, alternative B 

would result in both adverse and beneficial 

effects on the geologic resources and soils of 

the parkway. The adverse impacts would be 

short- and long-term minor to moderate local 

to regional, primarily resulting from soil 

disturbances from new visitor amenities and 

services in recreation zones, trail 

development, and other infrastructure/facility 

development. The beneficial impacts would 

be long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial, 

local to regional, primarily resulting from an 

ecosystem-based management approach, new 

natural management zones, removal of 

existing visitor facilities out of eroding areas, 

and designated parking in some areas. 

Cumulative Effects. The past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions 

described under the “Cumulative Effects” 

discussion for alternative A would be the same 

under alternative B, resulting in long-term 

minor to moderate adverse local to regional 

impacts on geologic resources and soils. The 

cumulative effects of these actions, in 

combination with those described for 

alternative B, would result in short- and longterm minor to moderate adverse local to 

regional cumulative impacts and long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial local cumulative 

impacts. However, this alternative’s 

contribution to these cumulative effects is 

expected to be relatively small.

Conclusion. Alternative B would have longterm minor to moderate beneficial local to 

regional impacts and short- and long-term 

minor to moderate adverse local to regional 

impacts. Impacts of this alternative, combined 

with the impacts of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 

result in short- and long-term minor to 

moderate adverse local to regional cumulative 

impacts and long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial local cumulative impacts. However, 

this alternative’s contribution to these 

cumulative effects is expected to be relatively 

small. 

Alternative C 

Parkway-wide. Under alternative C, 

geologic resources and soils would receive 

many of the same management considerations 

described under alternative B (i.e., added 

protection due to parkway-wide management 

strategies). In addition, under this alternative, 

24,584 acres (29.9%) of the parkway would be 

zoned natural, which emphasizes greater 

protection of geologic resources and soils. 

With less emphasis on providing recreational 

opportunities for visitors and a lower 

tolerance for resource impacts, the natural 

zone designation would bring focus to 

managing for a more pristine environment 

across a greater portion of the parkway. These 

desired resource conditions along with a 

broader ecosystem-based approach would 

result in long-term minor beneficial regional 

effects to geologic resources and soils of the 

parkway. 

Parkway Segments. Only those parkway 

segments that would experience more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide section are described below. 

Segment 1: Ridge—Under alternative C, the 

parkway would provide paved parking spaces 

for visitors accessing trails on adjacent U.S. 

Forest Service land. This would reduce the 

effects of soil compaction and erosion caused 

by the regular occurrence of vehicles that park 

in this undesignated area. As a result, there 

would be long-term minor beneficial local 

impacts on soils. 

Segments 1 and 2: Ridge and Roanoke—

Under alternative C, the redesign of certain 

overlook pullouts to enhance the visibility of 

parking areas along these segments of the 

parkway would further alter these highly 

modified environments. To achieve this, 

construction could require the use of large 

earth-moving equipment to recontour 

landforms that screen these areas from the 

parkway, resulting in long-term moderate 

adverse local impacts on geologic resources 

and soils. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

292 

Segment 6: Asheville—Under alternative C, 

the parkway would provide designated 

parking spaces for visitors accessing trail 

systems along the Asheville segment of the 

parkway. This would reduce the effects of soil 

compaction and erosion caused by the high 

frequency of vehicles currently parking in 

unpaved areas. As a result, there would be 

long-term minor beneficial local impacts on 

soils. Additionally, this alternative allows for 

the development of new staging areas for a 

shuttle system with the city of Asheville. As a 

result, the size of paved parking and staging 

areas would be larger compared to the other 

alternatives, resulting in the permanent loss of 

soils. These local impacts would have a longterm moderate adverse local effect on soils. 

Segments 1, 2, 4, and 6: Ridge, Roanoke, 

Highlands, and Asheville—Under alternative 

C, a paved multiuse trail would be developed 

parallel to the parkway along portions of the 

Ridge, Roanoke, Highlands, and Asheville 

segments. This path would be separate from 

the parkway road to minimize interaction 

between bicyclists and automobiles and to 

maintain the historic integrity of the 

parkway’s designed landscapes. Along each of 

these segments, the trail would extend 11 to 

16 miles for a total distance of 53 miles. 

Because the exact location of the trail has not 

been identified along any of these segments, it 

is difficult to determine the type and intensity 

of impacts on geologic resources and soils. If 

any portion of the trail is proposed for 

implementation, then additional appropriate 

environmental compliance documentation 

would be prepared in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

The National Park Service completed a 

feasibility study (February 2005) to determine 

the most appropriate segments of the parkway 

on which to construct a multiuse trail. The 

study found that the proposed trail sections 

under this alternative would be in areas where 

generally only minor impacts would be 

necessary to overcome physical constraints 

(e.g., steep ridge slopes, unreasonable profile 

grades). However, more substantial impacts 

would be necessary along very short distances 

to overcome large obstacles. In these cases, 

additional tunnels and bridges may be 

required, which could substantially alter 

certain geologic features. As a result, the 

multiuse trail segments proposed under this 

alternative could cause long-term moderate 

adverse local to regional impacts on rock 

outcroppings, mountain slopes, soils, and 

other geologic features along the parkway. 

Parkway Recreation Areas. Only those 

parkway recreation areas that would 

experience more specific impacts than those 

described under the parkway-wide section are 

described below. 

Humpback Rocks and Linville Falls—Under 

alternative C, soils in the Humpback Rocks 

and Linville Falls recreation areas would 

receive long-term, minor beneficial local 

effects by reducing trail-related impacts. By 

zoning the majority of Humpback Rocks and 

Linville Falls as natural, visitor use would be 

managed at low levels to avoid further 

degradation of these soils. Any sites that have 

been impacted by trail widening, social trails, 

and off-trail use would be restored in order to 

reestablish the ecological integrity of these 

areas. As a result, soils would receive longterm, minor beneficial local effects. However, 

the development of a paved, multiuse trail 

parallel to the parkway, and the addition of 

the recreation zone to accommodate this trail, 

would introduce long-term moderate adverse 

local effects to geologic resources and soils in 

this recreation area. 

Roanoke Mountain—Under alternative C, 

some long-term moderate adverse local 

effects on geologic resources and soils would 

result from the development of a paved, 

multiuse trail parallel to the parkway. These 

paths would be separate from the roadways to 

minimize interaction between bicyclists and 

automobiles and to maintain the historic 

integrity of the parkway’s designed 

landscapes. Because the exact location of the 

trail has not been identified along this segment 

of the parkway and in this park, it is difficult to 

determine the intensity of impacts on geologic 

resources and soils. If any portion of the trail 

is proposed for implementation, then 

additional appropriate environmental 
Natural Resources 

293 

compliance documentation would be 

prepared in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 

Julian Price Park—Under alternative C, the 

areas surrounding the Boone Fork Trail 

system at Julian Price Park would be zoned 

recreation. This zone would allow for the 

establishment of a designated backcountry 

camping area at Hebron Falls, which would 

address soil compaction associated with 

unregulated tent camping at this site. If 

established, the new campsites would result in 

long-term minor beneficial local impacts on 

soils by containing overnight use to a specific 

location, rather than having it spread 

throughout the area. 

Although some enhancements to the 

designated picnic area would result from 

upgraded comfort stations and other historic 

parkway zone actions under this alternative, 

the picnic area would remain in its existing 

location. Thus, it would continue to cause 

extensive soil compaction and bank erosion 

near the stream as described under the noaction alternative (due to the close proximity 

of the picnic area to Boone Fork combined 

with the high concentration of picnic area 

users). 

Also, under alternative C, some long-term 

moderate adverse local effects on geologic 

resources and soils would result from the 

development of a paved, multiuse trail parallel 

to the parkway from the parkway’s eastern 

boundary to the Price Lake area. This path 

would be separate from the parkway road to 

minimize interaction between bicyclists and 

automobiles and to maintain the historic 

integrity of the parkway’s designed 

landscapes. Because the exact location of the 

trail has not been identified along this 

segment, it is difficult to determine the 

intensity of impacts on geologic resources and 

soils. If any portion of the trail is proposed for 

implementation, then additional appropriate 

environmental compliance documentation 

would be prepared in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

Overall, across the entire parkway, its 

segments, and recreation areas, alternative C 

would result in both adverse and beneficial 

effects on the geologic resources and soils of 

the parkway. The adverse impacts would be 

long-term, moderate, adverse, local to 

regional, primarily resulting from soil 

disturbances from new visitor amenities and 

services in recreation zones, new trail 

development, and other infrastructure/facility 

development. The beneficial impacts would 

be long-term, minor, and local to regional, 

primarily resulting from an ecosystem-based 

management approach, large areas of new 

natural management zones, new designated 

camping areas, and designated parking in 

some areas. 

Cumulative Effects. The past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions 

described under the “Cumulative Effects” 

discussion for alternative A would be the same 

under this alternative, resulting in short- and 

long-term minor to moderate adverse local to 

regional impacts on geologic resources and 

soils. The cumulative effects of these actions, 

in combination with those described for 

alternative C, would result in short- and longterm minor to moderate adverse local to 

regional cumulative impacts and long-term 

minor beneficial local to regional cumulative 

impacts. However, this alternative’s 

contribution to these cumulative effects is 

expected to be relatively small. 

Conclusion. Alternative C would have longterm minor beneficial local to regional 

impacts and long-term moderate adverse local 

to regional impacts on soils. Impacts of this 

alternative, combined with the impacts of 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in 

short- and long-term minor to moderate 

adverse, local to regional cumulative impacts 

and long-term minor beneficial local to 

regional cumulative impacts. However, this 

alternative’s contribution to these cumulative 

effects is expected to be relatively small. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

294 

WATER-RELATED RESOURCES 

This impact topic includes wetlands, riparian 

areas, floodplains, streams, and water quality. 

Methods and Assumptions for 

Analyzing Impacts 

Wetlands, riparian areas, floodplains, streams, 

and water quality are analyzed together in this 

section because of the similarities of these 

resources, their interrelationship to each 

other, and their collective effect on the overall 

hydrologic systems of the parkway. For 

example, the health of a riparian area not only 

influences the ability of a floodplain to store 

and release water, but also affects bank 

stability, which contributes to the natural 

sinuosity of a stream. Healthy riparian 

vegetation can also filter pollutants before 

they reach a stream, which in turn affects 

water quality. Also, many riparian areas are 

often referred to as wetlands, depending in 

part on how long their soils remain saturated 

each year. Because these water-related 

resources are so entwined, the following 

impact thresholds have been developed for 

analyzing all of them. 

Negligible: Wetlands, riparian areas, 

floodplains, streams, or water quality would 

not be impacted, or the impacts would be 

either undetectable or if detected, the effects 

would be considered slight. Any measureable 

changes would be within the natural range of 

variability. 

Minor: Impacts on wetlands, riparian areas, 

floodplains, streams, or water quality would 

be limited to isolated areas. Natural processes, 

functions, and integrity would be temporarily 

affected, but would be within the natural 

range of variability. The impacts would only 

affect a few individuals of plant or wildlife 

species dependent on one or more of these 

water-related resources. Any changes would 

require considerable scientific effort to 

measure and have barely perceptible 

consequences. 

Moderate: Impacts on wetlands, riparian 

areas, floodplains, streams, or water quality 

would be readily apparent. Natural processes, 

functions, and integrity would be affected, but 

would be only temporarily outside the natural 

range of variability. The impacts would have a 

measurable effect on plant or wildlife species 

dependent on one or more of these waterrelated resources, but all species would 

remain indefinitely viable within the park. 

Major: Impacts would have drastic and 

permanent consequences for wetlands, 

riparian areas, floodplains, streams, or water 

quality, which could not be mitigated. Species 

dependent on one or more of these waterrelated resources would be at risk of 

extirpation from the park. Changes would be 

readily measurable, outside the natural range 

of variability, and would have substantial 

consequences. 

Alternative A—No-action 

Parkway-wide. Under the no-action 

alternative, the lack of a comprehensive, 

science-based approach would continue to 

deemphasize active management of the 

parkway’s broader natural resource 

conditions, including wetlands, riparian areas, 

floodplains, streams, and water quality. 

Management would continue to focus on sitespecific issues, rather than a more proactive, 

ecosystem-based strategy that considers the 

long-term health of these water-related 

resources. This is evident in one of the 

parkway’s primary objectives, which is to 

maintain the designed landscapes of the 

parkway, rather than emphasize the 

protection and restoration of its natural 

resources. For example, a number of historic 

wetlands along the parkway were converted 

into human-made lakes (e.g., Abbott Lake, 

Otter Lake), which today serve as major 

attractions for visitors. As a result, these areas 

would continue to be impacted by high 

concentrations of use (e.g., vegetation 

trampling, soil compaction, erosion, and the 

introduction of pollutants into these 

waterways). In addition, these impoundments 

increase water temperatures, change the 
Natural Resources 

295 

composition of aquatic invertebrate and fish 

communities, and alter nutrient levels 

downstream from the dams. Also, when 

beavers occupy water bodies in close 

proximity to developed areas of the parkway, 

their constructed dams would continue to be 

removed in most cases, resulting in adverse 

effects on beaver habitat. Consequently, 

under this alternative, there would continue 

to be long-term minor to moderate adverse 

local to regional impacts on water-related 

resources when considering the parkway’s 

overall approach to natural resource 

management. 

In contrast, the parkway would continue to be 

committed to protecting water-related 

resources as required by federal law and NPS 

policy. For the most part, these resources (e.g., 

sensitive wetlands) occur away from existing 

visitor use areas, and therefore, would not be 

directly impacted under current management. 

This alternative would protect all statedesignated natural heritage areas and globally 

ranked natural communities, a number of 

which are rare bogs, seeps, and other wetland 

plant communities. 

Furthermore, no new developments outside 

of existing developed areas would occur 

under this alternative. The ongoing 

acquisition of adjacent private lands for 

scenery conservation may also indirectly help 

to protect adjoining wetlands and other 

water-related resources. The parkway has not 

actively managed wetlands and it is widely 

believed that many are drying out due to 

encroachment by woody plants such as the 

nonnative multiflora rose. A project was 

recently funded that would allow the parkway 

to gather information about the size, 

condition, and natural resources that are 

found in wetlands. Once the full range of 

conditions and risks are known, a 

management plan can be developed that 

would direct future management actions. Due 

to this funding, the parkway will begin active 

management of wetlands. Because of these 

aspects of the current management approach, 

the majority of water-related resources 

throughout the parkway would continue to be 

protected, resulting in long-term minor 

beneficial regional effects. 

Parkway Recreation Areas. Only those 

parkway recreation areas that would have 

more specific impacts than those described 

under the parkway-wide section are described 

below. 

James River/Otter Creek—As mentioned 

previously, a historic wetland along Otter 

Creek was dammed to create Otter Lake. 

Under the no-action alternative, it would 

continue to be dredged periodically to remove 

silt in order to maintain lake qualities for 

visitors. In addition to the wetland habitat 

originally lost and the ongoing visitor-related 

impacts described previously, routine 

dredging would result in short-term moderate 

adverse local impacts due to temporary 

degradation of water quality and disruption of 

fish and wildlife. 

Peaks of Otter—Under the no-action 

alternative, existing developments at Peaks of 

Otter would continue to have an adverse 

effect on natural floodplain dynamics, riparian 

areas, a historic wetland, and water quality. A 

majority of these impacts occurred during 

construction of the area’s designed landscape, 

including the flooding of a large wetland to 

create Abbott Lake near the lodge. In addition 

to the displacement of wetlands, the relatively 

warm water exiting Abbott Lake into Stony 

Creek was likely the main cause for the loss of 

trout in the stream due to the increase in water 

temperature. And, the construction of a picnic 

area within the Stony Creek riparian corridor 

downstream from the lake has diminished the 

ecological integrity of this area. 

Although the initial impacts of these 

developments have already occurred, ongoing 

visitor-related impacts within these areas 

would continue. For instance, petroleumbased runoff from parking lots and roads has 

the potential to drain pollutants into the 

Abbott Lake watershed, affecting water 

quality. Salting roads and walkways in the 

winter time also contributes to this impact. 

This is exacerbated by lack of adequate 

riparian vegetation along the lake and stream 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

296 

to filter these chemicals. This is due in part to 

the large number of visitors attracted to these 

areas, resulting in riparian vegetation 

trampling and soil compaction. Additionally, 

the lawns surrounding the lake are routinely 

mowed to the water’s edge, leaving no 

vegetative buffer. These impacts adversely 

affect water quality and vegetation and disturb 

native wildlife dependent on these areas for 

their habitat. Collectively, these activities 

would continue to result in long-term 

moderate adverse local impacts on the 

floodplain, riparian areas, wetlands, and water 

quality in the Abbott Lake watershed. 

Rocky Knob—Under current management, 

long-term moderate adverse local impacts on 

wetlands would continue. This is due in part 

to a lack of active vegetation management to 

prevent the succession of these rare habitats. 

With the absence of natural fires and native 

herbivores to inhibit the spread of 

encroaching woody plants, many wetlands 

scattered throughout this recreation area 

would gradually disappear. There are adverse 

impacts on Rock Castle Creek at the bottom 

of the gorge, possibly the result of a leaky 

septic system at the Rocky Knob cabins and 

the latrine at the backcountry campsite 

further downstream. Under this alternative, 

long-term moderate adverse local impacts on 

water quality would continue. 

Blue Ridge Music Center—The Blue Ridge 

Music Center is one of the newest additions to 

the parkway. Historically the area was used 

for livestock grazing, which resulted in some 

bank erosion and vegetation trampling along 

Chestnut Creek. Since then, much of the 

riparian vegetation has recovered and the 

stream banks have stabilized. Under the noaction alternative, these long-term minor 

beneficial local effects would continue as a 

result of limiting use within this riparian area. 

Due to the close proximity of the music center 

to Chestnut Creek, some local impacts on the 

riparian area would continue from routine 

maintenance of the area (e.g., cutting of 

streamside vegetation behind the visitor 

center). The potential for visitor-related 

impacts would also continue, because visitors 

can easily hike down and wander along the 

stream, increasing the likelihood of trampling 

vegetation and creating social trails over time. 

Overflow parking in the meadow during large 

events would continue to compact soils, 

increasing the risk of erosion and surface 

runoff. Due to these local impacts on riparian 

vegetation and the slight potential for 

degrading water quality, some long-term 

minor adverse local impacts would continue 

under alternative A. 

Doughton Park—Under alternative A, 

agricultural leases at Doughton Park would 

continue to result in long-term moderate 

adverse local impacts on wetlands, streams, 

and water quality. This is primarily due to 

livestock tramping within these sensitive 

areas. Sanitation problems associated with the 

backcountry campsite would also continue to 

cause long-term moderate adverse local 

impacts on water quality of the adjacent creek, 

especially during the peak season when the 

campsite can receive over 40 overnight 

backpackers. Horseback riding on Grassy Gap 

Fire Road also contributes to these water 

quality impacts when runoff washes manure 

into the creek. 

Julian Price Park—Under the no-action 

alternative, existing developments, visitor use, 

and agricultural leases at Julian Price Park 

would continue to impact wetlands, riparian 

areas, the floodplain, and water quality. As 

discussed earlier under the “Geologic 

Resources and Soils” section, the designated 

picnic area in the floodplain and riparian area 

of Boone Fork is causing long-term moderate 

adverse local impacts on these water-related 

resources. The picnic area’s septic system, 

drain field, restrooms, and parking lot are 

frequently flooded, which washes 

contaminants into the stream and adjacent 

wetland, periodically degrading water quality. 

Unauthorized backcountry camping 

downstream at Hebron Falls would also 

continue under this alternative, resulting in 

the trampling of riparian vegetation and 

sanitation problems that further degrade 

water quality. This would continue to result in 

long-term minor adverse local impacts. 
Natural Resources 

297 

Livestock foraging in unfenced areas of the 

agricultural leased areas within Julian Price 

Park would also continue to cause long-term 

moderate adverse local impacts on riparian 

areas and wetlands. 

Linville Falls—Under this alternative, the 

location of existing developments (including a 

campground, picnic area, and visitor center) 

within the Linville River floodplain would 

continue to affect this high-gradient mountain 

stream. For example, a dike was recently 

constructed along the Linville River to divert 

floodwater away from the picnic area. This 

type of stream channel modification can alter 

stream bottom composition, sediment 

transportation, and inhibit natural stream 

channel dynamics. Recreational activities that 

occur within these developed areas would also 

continue to impact water-related resources. 

For instance, riparian vegetation trampling is 

common along the river due to the high 

volume of visitors. Under alternative A, 

existing developments and recreation 

activities would continue to result in longterm minor to moderate adverse local impacts 

on the floodplain, riparian area, and stream. 

Mt. Pisgah—Under the no-action alternative, 

the location of the Mt. Pisgah campground 

would continue to affect a rare high-elevation 

bog. This unique wetland is surrounded on 

three sides by the campground, increasing the 

potential for contamination from surface 

runoff, faulty restrooms, and other point and 

nonpoint sources. The campground also 

isolates the bog from the surrounding 

spruce/fir forest, which fragments habitat and 

hinders wildlife movement. Recreational 

activity would also continue to cause 

vegetation trampling and disturb wildlife, 

including rare amphibian species. Combined, 

these actions would continue to result in longterm moderate adverse local impacts on the 

wetland and its water quality. 

Overall, across the entire parkway, its 

segments, and recreation areas, alternative A 

would continue to result in both adverse and 

beneficial effects on the water-related 

resources of the parkway. The adverse 

impacts would be short- and long-term minor 

to moderate and local to regional, primarily 

resulting from continued wetland and riparian 

degradation from visitor use, lake dredging, 

the lack of active vegetation management in 

wetlands and riparian areas, grazing and 

livestock impacts, and unauthorized camping. 

The beneficial impacts would be long-term 

minor and local to regional, primarily 

resulting from the development of a wetland 

management plan and the riparian protection 

efforts in some previously disturbed areas. 

Cumulative Effects. Past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions that 

impact wetlands, riparian areas, floodplains, 

streams, and water quality include the original 

development of the parkway (and its designed 

landscapes) and ongoing development of 

adjacent private lands. During the 

construction phase of the parkway, less was 

known about the importance and sensitivity of 

these water-related resources. As a result, 

some wetlands, riparian areas, floodplains, 

and streams have been highly modified or 

continue to be impacted by adjacent 

developments and recreational activities. 

The creation of human-made lakes, stream 

channel diversions, floodplain developments, 

conversion of natural sheetflow to 

channelized flow, and livestock grazing all 

contributed to the initial degradation of 

water-related resources within the parkway. 

These types of impacts are also common on 

private lands adjacent to the parkway, 

resulting in short- and long-term moderate 

adverse local to regional cumulative effects. 

The parkway’s current management approach 

contributes a small amount to these 

cumulative effects, because no substantial 

developments are planned beyond routine 

maintenance of the parkway’s existing 

infrastructure. 

In contrast, the parkway protects a 469-mile 

contiguous stretch of the Blue Ridge 

Mountains. Most of the parkway remains 

undisturbed, ensuring the long-term viability 

of numerous rare high-elevation wetlands and 

several hundred headwater streams. When 

combined with Shenandoah and Great Smoky 

Mountains national parks, several adjacent 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

298 

national forests, state parks, and numerous 

natural heritage areas, the parkway provides 

connectivity vital for this regional network of 

conservation areas. Collectively, these areas 

provide long-term moderate beneficial 

regional effects on the region’s water 

resources. 

Overall, the impacts of these past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, in 

combination with those described for the noaction alternative, would result in short- and 

long-term minor to moderate adverse local to 

regional cumulative impacts and long-term 

minor beneficial local to regional cumulative 

impacts. Continuation of current management 

under alternative A would contribute a 

considerable amount to the beneficial 

cumulative effects, but only a small amount to 

the adverse cumulative effects. 

Conclusion. The no-action alternative would 

have short- and long-term minor to moderate 

adverse local to regional impacts and longterm minor beneficial local to regional 

impacts on wetlands, riparian areas, 

floodplains, streams, and water quality. 

Impacts of this alternative, combined with the 

impacts of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in 

short- and long-term minor to moderate 

adverse local to regional cumulative impacts 

and long-term minor beneficial local to 

regional cumulative impacts. Alternative A 

would contribute a considerable amount to 

the beneficial cumulative effects but only a 

small amount to the adverse cumulative 

effects. 

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 

Parkway-wide. As under alternative C, 

alternative B would provide a more 

ecosystem-based approach and a 

collaborative partnership approach to 

managing the parkway’s natural resources, 

including wetlands, riparian areas, 

floodplains, streams, and water quality, than 

would the no-action alternative. This would 

include parkway-wide strategies that 

emphasize multiyear projects to protect, 

restore, and enhance water-related resources. 

This long-term comprehensive approach 

would be more proactive in nature, rather 

than one that reacts to site-specific impacts as 

they occur. As a result, some areas of the 

parkway would be managed differently to 

address natural resource concerns. For 

example, certain areas traditionally managed 

for visitor use could be modified to better 

protect water resources. Mowing regimes and 

visitor use patterns near human-made lakes 

could be adjusted to allow for the 

establishment of native vegetation along the 

lakeshores. 

Also, under this alternative, the special natural 

resource zone would be applied to 10,068 

acres (12.2%) of parkway lands to emphasize 

the protection of its unique natural resources, 

including rare wetlands, bogs, and seeps. 

This alternative would also look beyond the 

boundaries of the parkway to develop a more 

regional approach to natural resource 

management. By expanding partnerships with 

private landowners, nonprofit organizations, 

local governments, and state and federal 

agencies, the parkway would have greater 

opportunities to protect streams, wetlands, 

and other habitats that cross ownership 

boundaries. 

These types of alternative management 

approaches would help to improve the overall 

integrity of water-related resources along the 

parkway (e.g., filter pollutants and enhance 

habitat quality for fish and wildlife) resulting 

in long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

local to regional effects, depending on the 

scale and effectiveness of projects and 

programs implemented under this alternative. 

In contrast, some adverse impacts on waterrelated resources could also result from this 

alternative’s management zoning approach. As 

described for the other natural resource 

topics, alternative B would zone 7,751 acres 

(9.4%) of parkway lands as recreation in order 

to enhance visitor opportunities. Within this 

zone, management strategies could include 

expanded recreational opportunities, which 

allow for up to a moderate level of resource 
Natural Resources 

299 

modifications to accommodate additional 

levels and types of use. New trails, campsites, 

restrooms, and other related infrastructure 

have the potential to impact wetlands, water 

quality, and riparian vegetation if improperly 

located or maintained, which could result in 

short- and long-term minor to moderate 

adverse local to regional impacts. However, 

the exact location of these facilities has not yet 

been identified; when they are, appropriate 

environmental compliance documentation 

would be prepared in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

Parkway Recreation Areas. Only those 

parkway recreation areas that would 

experience more specific impacts than those 

described under the parkway-wide section are 

described below. 

James River/Otter Creek—Under alternative 

B, Otter Lake would continue to be dredged 

periodically to remove silt in order to 

maintain lake qualities for visitors. Routine 

dredging would result in short-term moderate 

adverse local impacts due to the temporary 

degradation of water quality (i.e., increased 

turbidity and possible release of contaminants 

stored in the dredge material) and disturbance 

to fish and wildlife (i.e., disrupt foraging 

behavior of waterfowl and disturbing 

substrate used by aquatic invertebrates). 

Peaks of Otter—Under alternative B, the area 

surrounding Abbot Lake and along Stony 

Creek would be zoned historic parkway, 

which emphasizes the historic character and 

traditional recreation uses of the area. As a 

result, many of the existing developments 

(e.g., the human-made lake and the picnic area 

within the riparian area of Stony Creek) and 

visitor-related impacts (e.g., vegetation 

trampling along the lake and nonpoint source 

pollution from surface runoff) described 

under the no-action alternative would 

continue to have an adverse effect on water 

quality, riparian vegetation, natural floodplain 

dynamics, and a historic wetland and disturb 

native wildlife dependent on these areas. The 

potential for adding new facilities near the 

lake to maintain the viability of concession 

services would further compound these 

impacts. 

However, this alternative’s management 

concept and the historic parkway zone allow 

for some modifications of designed landscape 

areas to enhance protection of sensitive 

natural resources. By mitigating for some of 

these impacts, management of the developed 

areas at Peaks of Otter would result in longterm minor to moderate adverse local impacts 

on the floodplain, wetlands, riparian areas, 

and water quality in the Abbott Lake 

watershed. 

Rocky Knob—Under alternative B, the upper 

portion of Rock Castle Gorge would be zoned 

recreation, which allows for increased visitor 

use of the area. Additionally, this alternative 

proposes to improve or expand the Rocky 

Knob cabins, the lower trailhead parking area, 

the backcountry camping area, and the trail 

system. These additional amenities and 

potential increases in use could degrade water 

quality, trample riparian vegetation, and 

disrupt natural processes that affect plants 

and animals dependent on the area’s waterrelated resources. 

These impacts would be exacerbated by 

existing conditions associated with this area. 

For example, Rock Castle Creek has already 

shown signs of water quality degradation, 

possibly the result of a leaky septic system at 

the Rocky Knob cabins and the latrine at the 

backcountry campsite. Also, the size of the 

lower trailhead parking lot is already 

constrained by the steep topography and close 

proximity to the stream in the bottom of the 

gorge. However, future projects designed to 

improve or expand these facilities could 

address these ongoing impacts (i.e., upgrade 

the septic system at the cabins). Considering 

these combined effects, there would likely be 

short- and long-term minor to moderate 

adverse local impacts on water quality of the 

stream and its riparian areas. 

On the other hand, this alternative’s emphasis 

on multiyear projects to protect, restore, and 

enhance water-related resources would 

benefit a number of rare wetlands scattered 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

300 

throughout this recreation area. These 

wetlands are gradually disappearing due to the 

absence of natural fires to inhibit the spread of 

encroaching nonwetland plant species (e.g., 

trees and shrubs). These wetland restoration 

and maintenance efforts would result in longterm moderate beneficial local impacts. 

Blue Ridge Music Center—Under alternatives 

B and C, the bottomlands of Chestnut Creek 

would be zoned special natural resources to 

place a priority on protecting the stream’s 

high water quality and intact riparian habitat. 

In addition, the majority of the upper 

watershed of this recreation area would be 

zoned natural, which allows for low-impact 

recreation (e.g., hiking) with an emphasis on 

resource protection. Under this zoning 

approach, the water-related resources of the 

area would receive long-term moderate 

beneficial local effects. 

Also under both action alternatives, a majority 

of visitor use would occur within the visitor 

use zone, which encompasses the 

amphitheater, interpretive center, shops, and 

parking areas. Due to this zone’s close 

proximity to Chestnut Creek, there is a 

potential for some visitor-related impacts. As 

described for the no-action alternative, 

visitors can easily hike down and wander 

along the stream, increasing the likelihood of 

trampling vegetation and creating social trails. 

Overflow parking in the meadow during large 

events would continue to cause soil 

compaction, increasing the risk of erosion and 

surface runoff. Due to these local impacts on 

riparian vegetation and the slight potential for 

degrading water quality, there would be some 

minor adverse impacts. 

Doughton Park—Under alternatives B and C, 

agricultural leases at Doughton Park could be 

modified (e.g., install fencing) to reduce 

livestock-related impacts on wetlands, 

streams, and water quality (e.g., vegetation 

trampling, bank erosion, defecating in water), 

resulting in long-term moderate beneficial 

local effects. Also under both action 

alternatives, the majority of Basin Cove 

watershed would be zoned natural, which 

establishes a low tolerance for natural 

resource impacts. This would establish a 

management priority to address the sanitation 

problems associated with the backcountry 

campsite, which has degraded the water 

quality of Basin Creek during peak camping 

seasons. As a result of installing more 

adequate pit toilets under this alternative, 

there would be long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial local effects. However, horseback 

riding on Grassy Gap Fire Road would 

continue to contribute to water quality 

problems when runoff washes manure into 

Basin and Cove creeks, as described under the 

no-action alternative. 

Alternatives B and C would also zone the 

uppermost portion of the watershed as 

recreation to allow for expanded trail-based 

recreational opportunities (e.g., additional 

short hiking trails). These trails could impact a 

number of headwater streams if improperly 

designed or inadequately maintained, 

potentially resulting in long-term minor 

adverse local impacts on their water quality, 

riparian vegetation, and overall stream 

character. 

Julian Price Park—Under alternative B, the 

picnic area near Boone Fork would be 

relocated out of the floodplain to higher 

ground near Old John’s River Road. This 

would allow for rehabilitation of the existing 

picnic area, which periodically degrades water 

quality, resulting from frequent flooding of 

the septic system, drain field, restrooms, and 

parking lot, which wash contaminants into the 

stream. Visitor activities within the picnic area 

have also caused devegetation and bank 

erosion along the stream. As a result of 

relocating the picnic area, there would be 

long-term moderate beneficial local impacts 

on water quality, riparian habitat, and the 

natural floodplain dynamics along Boone 

Fork. 

Under alternative B, the majority of Julian 

Price Park would be zoned natural. Within 

this zone, visitor use would be managed at low 

levels, allowing for only low-impact 

recreational activities, to avoid resource 

degradation. Moreover, degraded sites would 

be restored in order to reestablish natural 
Natural Resources 

301 

systems and processes. These management 

prescriptions would help to address possible 

water quality impacts associated with 

unregulated tent camping at Hebron Falls, 

either by designating a backcountry campsite 

with established low-impact camping 

guidelines or by closing and rehabilitating the 

impacted area. Either of these actions would 

result in long-term minor beneficial local 

impacts on the stream’s water quality. 

As stated previously for Doughton Park, 

agricultural leases in Julian Price Park could 

also be modified under this alternative to 

reduce livestock-related impacts on wetlands, 

streams, and water quality (i.e., install fencing 

to prevent livestock access to these areas). 

Furthermore, the wetlands and small streams 

adjacent to the parkway in this area would be 

zoned special natural resources, emphasizing 

their protection. Combined, these 

management approaches would result in longterm moderate beneficial local effects to these 

water-related resources. 

Linville Falls—Under alternative B, the 

portions of Linville Falls where most visitors 

frequent would be zoned either visitor 

services or recreation. Under these 

management zones, the existing developments 

along the Linville River would continue to 

have adverse impacts on the floodplain, 

riparian area, and stream channel, as 

described under the no-action alternative. 

However, this alternative’s zoning approach 

would more proactively manage this popular 

area’s high levels of visitor use. For example, 

trails to the falls could be improved to reduce 

trail widening, social trails, and off-trail visitor 

use, which trample riparian vegetation and 

increase the potential for surface runoff into 

the river. These types of improvements would 

minimize further resource impacts, resulting 

in a long-term minor beneficial local effect on 

the area’s water-related resources. However, 

added amenities, such as the campground 

upgrades proposed under this alternative, 

could increase this area’s popularity, 

eventually exceeding the capacity of these 

improvements to support additional visitor 

use. 

Mt. Pisgah—Under alternative B, the Mt. 

Pisgah campground would be reduced in size 

by moving a number of tent sites away from 

the bog. In addition, the special natural 

resource zone would be extended beyond the 

edge of the bog to include portions of two 

campground loop roads. This would create a 

buffer around the bog to reduce the risk of 

water contamination and decrease visitor 

disturbances to wetland-dependent wildlife 

species. As a result, there would be long-term 

moderate beneficial local impact on this rare 

high-elevation wetland. However, this 

alternative could increase the potential for 

water quality degradation by upgrading 

existing RV sites with water hookups and 

comfort stations with showers, placing 

increased demands on the campground’s 

sewage system and increasing chances of spills 

from the water system. 

Overall, across the entire parkway, its 

segments, and recreation areas, alternative B 

would result in both adverse and beneficial 

effects on the water-related resources of the 

parkway. The adverse impacts would be 

short- and long-term, minor to moderate, and 

local to regional, primarily resulting from 

increased areas of recreational use zones and 

new visitor amenities and activity in proximity 

to wetland or riparian areas. The beneficial 

impacts would be long-term, minor to 

moderate, and local to regional, primarily 

resulting from (1) ecosystem-based 

management, (2) expanded land protection 

strategies, (3) regional land management 

partnerships, (4) new natural and special 

natural zoning, (5) an emphasis on multiyear 

projects to protect and restore water-related 

resources, (6) closing/relocating visitor 

amenities near sensitive wetlands and riparian 

areas, and (7) increased efforts in 

grazing/livestock controls near riparian areas. 

Cumulative Effects. The past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions 

described under the “Cumulative Effects” 

discussion for alternative A would be the same 

under this alternative, resulting in short- and 

long-term moderate adverse local to regional 

cumulative impacts and long-term moderate 

beneficial regional cumulative impacts on 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

302 

water-related resources. The cumulative 

effects of these actions, in combination with 

those described for alternative B, would result 

in short- and long-term minor to moderate 

adverse local to regional cumulative impacts 

and long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

local to regional cumulative impacts. This 

alternative’s contribution to these adverse 

cumulative effects is expected to be small. 

However, due to the parkway’s importance in 

providing regional connectivity to other 

public and private lands that protect these 

resources and the focus on regionwide 

resource management strategies, this 

alternative would contribute intermediate 

considerable amount to the beneficial 

cumulative effects. 

Conclusion. Alternative B would have longterm minor to moderate beneficial local to 

regional impacts and short- and long-term 

minor to moderate adverse local to regional 

impacts on water-related resources. Impacts 

of this alternative, combined with the impacts 

of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in 

short- and long-term minor to moderate 

adverse local to regional cumulative impacts 

and long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

local to regional cumulative impacts. This 

alternative’s contribution to these cumulative 

impacts would be small for adverse effects and 

considerable for beneficial effects. 

Alternative C 

Parkway-wide. Under alternative C, the 

parkway’s water-related resources would see 

many of the same benefits described 

previously for alternative B. These advantages 

would result from an ecosystem-based 

approach that emphasizes parkway-wide 

management strategies and multiyear projects 

to protect and restore wetlands, riparian 

areas, floodplains, streams, and water quality. 

As a result, some areas of the parkway would 

be managed differently to address natural 

resource concerns, including areas 

traditionally managed for visitor use to better 

protect water resources. 

As with both other alternatives, this 

alternative would protect all state-designated 

natural heritage areas and globally ranked 

natural communities, a number of which are 

rare wetland plant communities, including the 

High-Elevation Seep, Southern Appalachian 

Bog, and Swamp Forest-Bog Complex. Under 

alternative C, the special natural resource 

zone would be applied to 10,074 acres (12.3%) 

of parkway lands to further emphasize the 

protection of these and other unique natural 

features. 

In addition to these benefits, alternative C 

would protect the broader water-related 

resources of the parkway by zoning 24,584 

acres (29.9%) of the parkway as natural, which 

places greater emphasis on the overall 

protection of water-related resources, 

establishes a lower tolerance for resource 

impacts, and allows for only low-impact types 

of recreational activities. 

As under alternative B, this alternative would 

also look beyond the boundaries of the 

parkway to develop a more regional approach 

to natural resource management. By 

expanding partnerships with private 

landowners, nonprofit organizations, local 

governments, and state and federal agencies, 

the parkway would have greater opportunities 

to protect streams, wetlands, and other 

habitats that cross ownership boundaries. 

These types of alternative management 

approaches would help to improve the overall 

integrity of water-related resources along the 

parkway (e.g., filter pollutants and enhance 

habitat quality for fish and wildlife) resulting 

in long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

local to regional effects, depending on the 

scale and effectiveness of projects and 

programs implemented under this alternative. 

Alternative C would, however, bring about 

some adverse impacts, namely those 

associated with expanded amenities in the 

visitor services zone. Alternative C would 

result in the greatest level of upgrades and 

redesigns to portions of seven of the 

parkway’s nine campgrounds (excluding 

Roanoke and Mt. Pisgah). These changes 
Natural Resources 

303 

could include expanded sewage treatment 

facilities, additional paved areas, and greater 

numbers of visitors, potentially causing shortand long-term minor to moderate adverse 

local to regional impacts on nearby streams 

(e.g., water quality degradation, increased 

runoff rates, and riparian vegetation 

trampling). However, because the exact 

location of these facilities has not yet been 

identified, additional appropriate 

environmental compliance documentation 

would be prepared in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act.

Parkway Recreation Areas. Only those 

parkway recreation areas that would 

experience more specific impacts than those 

described under the parkway-wide section are 

described below. 

James River/Otter Creek—Under alternative 

C, the dam and spillway at Otter Lake would 

be removed and dredging would be 

discontinued in order to restore the historic 

wetland. Removal of the dam and spillway 

would result in short-term moderate adverse 

local impacts due to the temporary 

degradation of water quality and stream 

channel characteristics (i.e., increased 

turbidity and siltation of Otter Creek 

downstream) and disturbance to fish and 

wildlife (i.e., loss of lake habitat). Restoration 

of the wetland would result in long-term 

moderate beneficial local effects to the waterrelated resources of the area by reestablishing 

native wetland and riparian species, natural 

stream channel processes, and floodplain 

dynamics. Additional appropriate 

environmental compliance documentation 

would be prepared in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act before 

implementation to thoroughly analyze the 

environmental consequences of this action. 

Peaks of Otter—Under alternative C, the area 

surrounding Abbot Lake and Stony Creek 

would be zoned visitor services, which 

supports moderate to high levels of 

development and visitor use. As a result, many 

of the existing developments (e.g., the humanmade lake and the picnic area within the 

riparian area of Stony Creek) and adverse 

visitor-related impacts (e.g., vegetation 

trampling along the lake and nonpoint source 

pollution from surface runoff) described 

under the no-action alternative would 

continue. Under this alternative, existing 

developments could also be upgraded or 

expanded to enhance services and amenities 

for visitors (e.g., redesign of the campground), 

which would further compound these 

impacts. As a result, management of the 

developed areas at Peaks of Otter would result 

in short- and long-term moderate adverse 

local impacts on water quality, riparian 

vegetation, natural floodplain dynamics, and a 

historic wetland. 

However, this alternative’s emphasis on 

natural resource protection and the 

designation of the majority of Peaks of Otter 

as natural zone would prevent these types of 

impacts from expanding beyond the area 

affected by existing development and visitor 

use. 

Rocky Knob—Under alternative C, the 

majority of Rock Castle Gorge would be 

zoned natural, placing a greater emphasis on 

the restoration of a number of rare wetlands 

in this recreation area that are gradually 

degrading due to the absence of natural fire 

disturbance. These regular vegetation 

maintenance efforts would result in long-term 

moderate beneficial local effects on these 

habitats and their associated rare plants and 

animals. The natural zone would also 

prescribe management actions to improve the 

degraded water quality of Rock Castle Creek, 

which is possibly the result of a leaky septic 

system at the Rocky Knob cabins and the 

latrine at the backcountry campsite further 

downstream. However, a portion of this 

stream is zoned special cultural resource, 

which would place less emphasis on 

correcting this problem. Overall, there would 

be long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

local impacts on the wetlands and water 

quality of the stream at Rocky Knob. 

Blue Ridge Music Center—Under alternatives 

B and C, the bottomlands of Chestnut Creek 

would be zoned special natural resources to 

place a priority on protecting the stream’s 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

304 

high water quality and intact riparian habitat. 

In addition, the majority of the upper 

watershed of this recreation area would be 

zoned natural, which allows for low-impact 

recreation (e.g., hiking) with an emphasis on 

resource protection. Under this zoning 

approach, the water-related resources of the 

area would receive long-term moderate 

beneficial effects. 

Also under both action alternatives, a majority 

of visitor use would occur within the visitor 

use zone, which encompasses the 

amphitheater, interpretive center, shops, and 

parking areas. Due to this zone’s close 

proximity to Chestnut Creek, there is a 

potential for some visitor-related impacts. As 

described for the no-action alternative, 

visitors can easily hike down and wander 

along the stream, increasing the likelihood of 

trampling vegetation and creating social trails. 

Overflow parking in the meadow during large 

events would continue to cause soil 

compaction, increasing the risk of erosion and 

surface runoff. Due to these local impacts on 

riparian vegetation and the slight potential for 

degrading water quality, there would be some 

minor adverse impacts. 

Doughton Park—Under alternatives B and C, 

agricultural leases at Doughton Park could be 

modified (e.g., install fencing) to reduce 

livestock-related impacts on wetlands, 

streams, and water quality (e.g., vegetation 

trampling, bank erosion, defecating in water), 

resulting in long-term moderate beneficial 

local effects. 

Also under both action alternatives, the 

majority of Basin Cove watershed would be 

zoned natural, which establishes a low 

tolerance for natural resource impacts. This 

would establish a management priority to 

address the sanitation problems associated 

with the backcountry campsite, which has 

degraded the water quality of Basin Creek 

during peak camping seasons. As a result of 

installing more adequate pit toilets under this 

alternative, there would be long-term minor 

to moderate beneficial local effects. However, 

horseback riding on Grassy Gap Fire Road 

would continue to contribute to water quality 

problems when runoff washes manure into 

Basin and Cove creeks, as described under the 

no-action alternative. 

Alternatives B and C would also zone the 

uppermost portion of the watershed as 

recreation to allow for expanded trail-based 

recreational opportunities (e.g., additional 

short hiking trails). These trails could impact a 

number of headwater streams if improperly 

designed or inadequately maintained, 

potentially resulting in long-term minor 

adverse local impacts on their water quality, 

riparian vegetation, and overall stream 

character. 

Julian Price Park—Although some 

enhancements to the designated picnic area 

would result from upgraded comfort stations 

and other historic parkway zone actions 

under this alternative, the picnic area would 

remain in its existing location. Thus, it would 

continue to cause adverse impacts on waterrelated resources, as described under the noaction alternative (due to frequent flooding of 

the picnic area’s septic system, drain field, 

restrooms, and parking lot, combined with the 

high concentration of picnic area users). 

Under alternative C, the area surrounding 

Boone Fork Trail, Old John’s River Road, and 

Green Knob Trail would be zoned recreation. 

This zone would allow for additional types 

and levels of trail-based recreation, such as 

mountain biking on certain designated trails. 

These increases in recreation could lead to 

erosion and vegetation loss, impacting nearby 

tributary streams and wetlands. However, by 

zoning the area as recreation, management 

could also improve trail designs to make them 

more resilient to such use (e.g., install 

additional foot bridges, water bars, or reroute 

trails away from wet areas as necessary). 

These actions would mitigate for some of 

these potential impacts. 

The recreation zone in this area would also 

allow for the establishment of a designated 

backcountry camping area at Hebron Falls, 

which would address riparian vegetation 

trampling and potential water quality 

degradation associated with unregulated tent 
Natural Resources 

305 

camping at this site. If established, the new 

camping area would result in long-term minor 

beneficial impacts on these water-related 

resources by containing overnight use to a 

specific location, by providing toilet facilities, 

and by establishing low-impact camping 

guidelines to reduce impacts on the area. 

However, if additional camping exceeds the 

capacity of the designated area, then adverse 

impacts would likely return. 

As stated previously for Doughton Park, and 

as in alternative B, agricultural leases in Julian 

Price Park could also be modified under this 

alternative to reduce livestock-related impacts 

on wetlands, streams, and water quality (i.e., 

install fencing to prevent livestock access to 

these areas). Furthermore, the wetlands and 

small streams adjacent to the parkway in this 

area would be zoned special natural resources, 

emphasizing their protection. Combined, 

these management approaches would result in 

long-term moderate beneficial local effects to 

these water-related resources. 

Under alternative C, a portion of a paved, 

multiuse trail could be established through 

Julian Price Park for pedestrians and bicyclists 

to safely recreate in the area. Due to the 

proximity of the special natural resource zone 

next to the parkway (and the wetlands it 

protects), construction of the paved trail 

could conflict with this zone’s approach to 

maintain pristine resource conditions. If the 

trail is constructed parallel to the parkway and 

crosses through adjacent wetlands, it could 

fragment habitat, disrupt hydrologic 

processes, and degrade water quality, resulting 

in long-term moderate adverse local impacts. 

However, if the trail is designed to go around 

these sensitive areas (or elevated over them), 

these impacts would be avoided. Because the 

exact location and design of the trail has not 

been determined, additional appropriate 

environmental compliance documentation 

would be prepared in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act before 

implementation to more thoroughly analyze 

the environmental consequences of this 

action. 

Linville Falls—Under alternative C, the visitor 

contact station would be relocated out of the 

floodplain and the existing facility would be 

converted to a trailhead shelter. This would 

reduce the risk of flooding to the new contact 

station, but because the existing site would not 

be rehabilitated to a more natural condition, 

this action would not measurably benefit 

floodplain processes. In addition, the redesign 

of the campground to better accommodate 

visitors (e.g., widen roads for RVs and enlarge 

tent sites) would further modify natural 

floodplain conditions (i.e., increased run-off 

rates, decreased infiltration rates). These 

expanded amenities would result in long-term 

moderate adverse local impacts on the 

floodplain, especially if stream channel 

modifications (e.g., dikes, riprap) become 

necessary to protect additional infrastructure. 

Under alternative C, the majority of Linville 

Falls would be zoned natural, including the 

popular trail system to the falls. Within this 

zone, visitor use would be managed at low 

levels to avoid resource degradation. This 

zone would also establish a low tolerance for 

natural resource impacts, allow for only 

minimal facilities, and provide opportunities 

for visitors to experience solitude and 

tranquility. By achieving these desired 

resource conditions, this zoning approach 

would reduce ongoing impacts from trail 

widening, social trails, and off-trail visitor use, 

which trample riparian vegetation and 

increase the potential for erosion and runoff 

into the river. As a result, there could be longterm minor to moderate beneficial local 

effects on the riparian areas and water quality 

of Linville River. However, due to the current 

popularity of this recreation area, achieving 

these desired conditions would be 

challenging. In fact, the additional 

campground amenities proposed under this 

alternative would likely attract greater 

numbers of visitors to the trail system, placing 

more pressure on management to reduce 

visitor-related impacts within the natural 

zone. 

Mt. Pisgah—Under alternative C, the Mt. 

Pisgah campground would be reduced in size 

by removing a number of tent sites that are 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

306 

near the bog. In addition, the special natural 

resource zone would be extended beyond the 

edge of the bog to include portions of two 

campground loop roads. These actions would 

create a buffer around the bog to reduce the 

risk of water contamination and decrease 

visitor disturbances to wetland-dependent 

wildlife species. As a result, there would be 

long-term moderate beneficial local impact on 

this rare high-elevation wetland. However, 

this alternative could increase the potential for 

water quality degradation by upgrading 

existing RV sites with water hookups and 

comfort stations with showers, placing 

increased demands on the campground’s 

sewage system and increasing chances of spills 

from the water system. 

Overall, across the entire parkway, its 

segments, and recreation areas, alternative C 

would result in both adverse and beneficial 

effects on the water-related resources of the 

parkway. The adverse impacts would be 

short- and long-term minor to moderate and 

local to regional, primarily resulting from 

increased areas of recreational use zones, new 

visitor amenities and activity in proximity to 

wetland or riparian areas, and trail 

development near wetlands. The beneficial 

impacts would be long-term minor to 

moderate and local to regional, primarily 

resulting from ecosystem-based management, 

expanded land protection strategies, regional 

land management partnerships, large areas of 

new natural and special natural zoning, an 

emphasis on multiyear projects to protect and 

restore water-related resources, 

closing/relocating visitor amenities near 

sensitive wetlands and riparian areas, and 

increased efforts in grazing/livestock controls 

near riparian areas. 

Cumulative Effects. The past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions 

described under the “Cumulative Effects” 

section for alternative A would be the same 

under this alternative, resulting in short- and 

long-term minor to moderate adverse local to 

regional cumulative impacts and long-term 

minor beneficial local to regional cumulative 

impacts on water-related resources. The 

cumulative effects of these actions, in 

combination with those described previously 

for alternative C, would result in short- and 

long-term minor to moderate adverse local to 

regional impacts and long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial local to regional impacts. 

This alternative’s contribution to these 

adverse cumulative effects is expected to be 

small. However, due to the parkway’s 

importance in providing regional connectivity 

to other public and private lands that protect 

these resources and the focus on regionwide 

resource management strategies, this 

alternative would contribute a considerable 

amount to these beneficial cumulative effects. 

Conclusion. Alternative C would have longterm minor to moderate beneficial local to 

regional impacts and short- and long-term 

minor to moderate adverse local to regional 

impacts on water-related resources. Impacts 

of this alternative, combined with the impacts 

of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in 

short- and long-term minor to moderate 

adverse local to regional impacts and longterm minor to moderate beneficial local to 

regional impacts. This alternative’s 

contribution to these cumulative impacts is 

expected to be small for the adverse effects 

and considerable for the beneficial effects. 

AIR QUALITY 

Methods and Assumptions for 

Analyzing Impacts 

The area of consideration for this impact topic 

includes the 29 counties in Virginia and North 

Carolina that the parkway passes through. 

This geographic region was selected because it 

includes large portions of the parkway’s 

viewsheds and the analysis considers countylevel socioeconomic data that indirectly 

correlates to air quality conditions. For 

example, changes in population, land uses, 

industry, transportation, and tourism all affect 

air pollution levels. Not only does this impact 

air quality in the park, but also the quality of 

scenic views as seen from the parkway’s 

numerous vistas and overlooks. 
Natural Resources 

307 

Impacts on the parkway’s air quality are based 

on anticipated changes from baseline data and 

national standards as measured at authorized 

air quality monitoring stations. The impact 

intensity thresholds used to compare 

management alternatives are defined as 

follows: 

Negligible: Impacts would result in a change 

to local air quality, but the change would be so 

slight that it would not be of any measurable 

or perceptible consequence. These changes 

would not affect the attainment status of the 

airshed and would be consistent with the 

airshed designation of the parkway. Emissions 

would be substantially less than any applicable 

air emissions regulatory thresholds. 

Minor: Impacts would result in a detectable 

change to local air quality, but the change 

would be small and of little consequence. 

These changes would not affect the 

attainment status of the airshed and would be 

consistent with the airshed designation of the 

parkway. Emissions would be considerably 

different than any applicable air emissions 

regulatory thresholds. 

Moderate: Impacts would result in a change 

to local air quality that would be readily 

detectable. Impacts could affect the 

attainment status of the airshed and could be 

inconsistent with the airshed designation of 

the parkway. 

Major: Impacts would result in a change(s) to 

regional air quality that would be severe. 

These changes would affect the attainment 

status of the airshed and/or be inconsistent 

with the airshed designation of the parkway. 

Alternative A—No-action 

Parkway-wide. Under alternative A, the 

parkway would continue to be managed as a 

class II attainment area, as designated by 

Congress. Air quality with class II areas is 

protected under the act, but less stringently 

than in class I areas, which include 

international parks, national wilderness areas, 

and national parks larger than 6,000 acres 

(e.g., Shenandoah and Great Smoky 

Mountains national parks). 

The class II designation of the parkway does 

not diminish the importance of protecting and 

improving air quality to ensure the parkway 

provides high quality scenic and recreational 

experiences for visitors. However, class II 

areas, in contrast to class I areas, do not 

typically receive the same level of technical 

assistance or funding in order to pursue more 

extensive air quality monitoring or develop 

collaborative efforts with other federal, state, 

or local agencies or research/academic 

institutions. As a result, the parkway has not 

developed a more comprehensive 

management approach to improve air quality 

conditions. 

Under the no-action alternative, there would 

be no substantial changes in the operation or 

visitation of Blue Ridge Parkway, so no 

noticeable changes to air quality trends would 

be anticipated. However, even without 

substantial changes to parkway management, 

there would likely be a continuation of poor 

air quality conditions as a result of ongoing 

uses within and outside the boundary of the 

parkway. This is evident from NPS air quality 

monitoring results described in “Chapter 3: 

Affected Environment,” which found that 

ozone levels, visibility, and atmospheric 

deposition ranged from a moderate condition 

to a significant concern. On days when air 

quality conditions are poor, regional haze can 

substantially diminish visibility at any one of 

the 264 overlooks and vistas along the 

parkway. Also, ozone pollution and acid 

deposition can adversely affect vegetation, 

streams, and soils throughout the parkway. 

Overall, across the entire parkway, its 

segments, and recreation areas, the primary 

contributor to air quality degradation within 

the parkway is motor vehicle emissions caused 

by visitors and commuters traveling the 

parkway. Other contributors include the 

operation of maintenance equipment, 

campfires, generators, and heating systems to 

name a few. Because these sources are 

relatively evenly distributed along the 

parkway, a recreation area and segment-
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

308 

specific analysis is not included for this impact 

topic. And collectively, under current 

management, these contributing factors 

would continue to result in long-term minor 

adverse regional impacts on air quality. 

Cumulative Effects. Most sources of air 

pollution affecting the parkway come from 

outside the parkway and are expected to 

continue to degrade air quality over the 

coming years. Population is projected to 

increase an average 15% in the 29 counties 

surrounding the parkway by the year 2030. 

With this population growth, economic 

expansion is also expected to continue. All 

counties are projected to show an increase in 

earnings in all industrial categories, including 

agricultural and natural resources, 

construction and manufacturing, sales and 

services, and government. The annual change 

in the number of building permits is another 

indicator of economic growth and is also 

expected to increase in the region based on 

current trends. From 1990 to 2000, building 

permits have increased by an average of 5.7% 

each year in the 29 counties. 

All of these changes increase air pollutant 

emissions. Of these, motor vehicle emissions 

are by far the largest source of air pollution, 

which is closely linked to population. 

Although emission reductions are projected 

due to new EPA regulations mandating 

cleaner fuels and cleaner engines, these 

improvements may be negated by regional 

population and economic growth over the 

long term. Overall, the current and anticipated 

net increases in air pollutant emissions would 

result in a long-term moderate adverse 

regional impact. 

The extensive network of national forests, 

state parks, and privately owned protected 

areas adjacent to the Ridge, Black Mountain, 

and Pisgah segments of the parkway, along 

with two national parks on either end, 

enhance regional air quality conditions. 

Without these lands, the entire stretch of the 

parkway would be susceptible to adjacent 

development, further exacerbating air 

pollution problems. Continued protection of 

these adjacent public and private lands would 

result in long-term minor beneficial regional 

effects on air quality. 

The impacts of these past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, in 

combination with those described for the noaction alternative, would result in long-term 

moderate adverse regional cumulative impacts 

and long-term minor beneficial regional 

cumulative impacts. Implementation of the 

no-action alternative would only have a small 

effect on air quality conditions due to the 

more significant influences of regional 

population and economic growth. 

Conclusion. Implementing the no-action 

alternative would result in long-term minor 

adverse regional impacts on the air quality of 

the parkway. There would be long-term minor 

to moderate adverse regional cumulative 

impacts and long-term minor beneficial 

regional cumulative impacts on air quality. 

However, this alternative’s contribution to 

these effects would be small. 

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 

Parkway-wide. Under alternative B, the 

parkway would continue to be actively 

managed as a traditional scenic driving 

experience, while also enhancing outdoor 

recreational opportunities and promoting a 

regional approach to ecosystem management. 

Although improving amenities and services 

would likely draw some additional visitors, 

there is not expected to be a substantial 

change in visitation levels to the parkway 

under this alternative (see the “Visitor Use 

and Experience” section of this chapter). As a 

result, emissions from motor vehicles, 

maintenance equipment, campfires, and other 

pollution sources would be relatively similar 

to the no-action alternative. Consequently, 

there would likely be a continuation of poor 

air quality conditions on certain days as a 

result of ongoing uses within and outside the 

boundary of the parkway. With improved 

visitor facilities, expanded recreation 

opportunities in some areas, and extended 

visitor service seasons at selected recreation 

areas, the parkway visitation could increase 
Natural Resources 

309 

under alternative B. Thus, this alternative 

could contribute to the poor air quality 

conditions, resulting in a long-term minor 

adverse regional impact on air quality. 

Under alternatives B and C, the parkway 

would pursue a class I area redesignation by 

Congress to better address these air quality 

issues. If successful, this new classification for 

the parkway would establish the highest 

degree of air quality protection possible with 

only a small amount of certain kinds of 

additional air pollution allowed. This more 

stringent standard along with a proactive 

management approach (i.e., comprehensive 

monitoring and a multipollutant reduction 

strategy) could prevent further air quality 

degradation along the parkway and perhaps 

even enhance air quality conditions on certain 

days. As a result, there could be long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial regional impacts 

on air quality of the parkway under this 

alternative. 

In addition, under alternatives B and C, the 

parkway would develop a more regional 

approach to improving natural resource 

connectivity. This could include programs 

that monitor and address broader air quality 

issues, such as regional haze problems that can 

substantially reduce visibility along parkway 

overlooks and vistas. A more regional 

approach would also emphasize the need to 

collaborate with state and local air pollution 

control agencies. Furthermore, this alternative 

proposes mass transit connections and shuttle 

systems to provide alternative transportation 

to the parkway, which would reduce 

emissions from private vehicles on the 

parkway. As a result of these efforts and 

proposals, there could be long-term moderate 

beneficial regional impacts on air quality. 

Across the entire parkway, its segments, and 

recreation areas, alternative B would result in 

both adverse and beneficial effects on air 

quality. The adverse impacts would be longterm minor and regional, primarily resulting 

from increasing vehicular emissions from 

likely increased visitation (due to expanded 

visitation opportunities and seasons). The 

beneficial impacts would be long-term, minor 

to moderate, and regional, primarily resulting 

from more stringent air standards, a new air 

quality management approach, and regional 

collaboration efforts to reduce air pollution. 

Cumulative Effects. The past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions 

described under the “Cumulative Effects” 

section for alternative A would be the same 

under this alternative, resulting in long-term 

moderate adverse regional cumulative impacts 

and long-term minor beneficial regional 

cumulative impacts. The impacts of these 

actions, in combination with those described 

for the alternative B, would result in long-term 

minor to moderate adverse regional 

cumulative effects and long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial regional cumulative 

impacts. Implementation of the alternative B 

would only have a small effect on air quality 

conditions due to the more significant 

influences of regional population and 

economic growth. However, if the parkway 

was redesignated as a class I area, this 

alternative could have more influence on 

reducing regional air pollution. 

Conclusion. Implementing alternative B 

would result in long-term minor adverse 

regional effects and long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial regional effects on the air 

quality of the parkway. There would be longterm minor to moderate adverse regional 

cumulative impacts and long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial regional cumulative 

impacts on air quality. This alternative’s 

contribution to these cumulative effects 

would be small. 

Alternative C 

Parkway-wide. Under alternative C, the 

parkway would continue to be managed 

primarily for scenic driving, while also 

improving natural resource connectivity and 

enhancing visitor services. The campground 

upgrades proposed under this alternative 

would likely draw some additional visitors, 

but there is not expected to be any substantial 

change in visitation levels to the parkway 

under this alternative (see the “Visitor Use 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

310 

and Experience” section of this chapter). As a 

result, emissions from motor vehicles, 

maintenance equipment, campfires, and other 

pollution sources would be relatively similar 

to the no-action alternative. Consequently, 

there would likely be a continuation of poor 

air quality conditions on certain days as a 

result of ongoing uses within and outside the 

boundary of the parkway. With improved 

visitor facilities, expanded recreation 

opportunities in some areas, and extended 

visitor service seasons at selected recreation 

areas, the parkway visitation could increase 

slightly under alternative C. Thus, this 

alternative could contribute to the poor air 

quality conditions, resulting in a long-term 

negligible to minor adverse regional impact on 

air quality. 

Under alternatives B and C, the parkway 

would pursue a class I area redesignation by 

Congress to address these air quality issues. If 

successful, this new classification for the 

parkway would establish the highest possible 

degree of air quality protection with only a 

small amount of certain kinds of additional air 

pollution allowed. This more stringent 

standard along with a proactive management 

approach (i.e., comprehensive monitoring and 

a multipollutant reduction strategy) could 

prevent further air quality degradation along 

the parkway and perhaps even enhance air 

quality conditions on certain days. As a result, 

there could be long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial regional impacts on air quality of 

the parkway. 

In addition, under alternatives B and C, the 

parkway would develop a more regional 

approach to improving natural resource 

connectivity. This could include programs 

that monitor and address broader air quality 

issues, such as regional haze problems that can 

substantially reduce visibility along parkway 

overlooks and vistas. A more regional 

approach would also emphasize the need to 

collaborate with state and local air pollution 

control agencies. Furthermore, these 

alternatives propose mass transit connections 

and shuttle systems to provide alternative 

transportation to the parkway, which would 

reduce emissions from private vehicles on the 

parkway. As a result of these efforts and 

proposals, there could be long-term moderate 

beneficial regional impacts on air quality. 

Overall, across the entire parkway, its 

segments, and recreation areas, alternative C 

would result in both adverse and beneficial 

effects on the air quality of the parkway. The 

adverse impacts would be long-term minor 

and regional, primarily resulting from 

increasing vehicular emissions from likely 

increased visitation (due to expanded 

visitation opportunities and seasons). The 

beneficial impacts would be long-term, minor 

to moderate, and regional, primarily resulting 

from more stringent air standards, a new air 

quality management approach, and regional 

collaboration efforts to reduce air pollution. 

Cumulative Effects. The past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions 

described under the “Cumulative Effects” 

section of alternative A would be the same 

under this alternative, resulting in long-term 

moderate adverse regional cumulative impacts 

and long-term minor beneficial regional 

cumulative impacts. The impacts of these 

actions, in combination with those described 

for the alternative C, would result in longterm negligible to moderate adverse regional 

cumulative effects and long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial regional cumulative 

impacts. Implementation of the alternative B 

would only have a small effect on air quality 

conditions due to the more significant 

influences of regional population and 

economic growth. However, if the parkway 

was redesignated as a class I area, this 

alternative could have more influence on 

reducing regional air pollution. 

Conclusion. Implementing alternative C 

would result in long-term minor adverse 

regional effects and long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial regional effects on the air 

quality of the parkway. There would be longterm minor to moderate adverse regional 

cumulative impacts and long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial regional cumulative 

impacts on air quality. This alternative’s 

contribution to these cumulative effects 

would be small.
311 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

INTRODUCTION 

The analysis of the environmental 

consequences of alternatives A, B, and C on 

cultural resource components of the Blue 

Ridge Parkway is based on the professional 

judgment of parkway staff, National Park 

Service planners, and other specialists in the 

field of cultural resource management. This 

analysis describes impacts of the management 

alternatives at two different scales: a parkwaywide analysis, which describes the overall 

effect of broad parkway-wide strategies; and a 

parkway segment and recreation area analysis, 

which looks at more site-specific impacts on 

the parkway’s 7 segments and 15 recreation 

areas. 

Potential impacts (direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects) are described in terms of 

type, context (site-specific, local, or regional), 

duration (short-term, long-term, or 

permanent), and intensity (negligible, minor, 

moderate, or major degree or severity of 

effects). Because definitions of intensity 

(negligible, minor, moderate, or major) vary 

by impact topic, intensity definitions are 

provided separately for each impact topic 

analyzed in this environmental impact 

statement. 

In accordance with section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 

800), “Protection of Historic Properties,” 

impacts on cultural resources should be 

identified and evaluated by (1) determining 

the area of potential effects; (2) identifying 

cultural resources present in the area of 

potential effects that were either listed in or 

eligible to be listed in the national register; (3) 

applying the criteria of adverse effect to 

affected cultural resources either listed in or 

eligible to be listed in the national register; and 

(4) considering ways to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate adverse effects. Under the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation’s (Advisory 

Council) regulations, a determination of either 

adverse effect or no adverse effect must also

be made for both affected national registerlisted and national register-eligible cultural 

resources. Additionally, section 110(f) of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (see 36 

CFR 800.10) includes special requirements for 

undertakings that could involve impacts to 

national historic landmarks. If the parkway is 

designated a national historic landmark in the 

future, these requirements and applicable 

processes will also apply. 

The 2008 Programmatic Agreement between 

the National Park Service, Advisory Council, 

and the National Conference of State Historic 

Preservation Officer allows for streamlined 

section 106 compliance for a large number of 

low-impact or repetitive activities that occur 

on a daily basis at the parkway. This 

programmatic agreement applies only to 

undertakings involving cultural resources for 

which national register eligibility has been 

previously determined with state historic 

preservation office concurrence, and for 

undertakings will not have adverse effects per 

36 CFR 800. 

An adverse effect occurs whenever an impact 

alters, directly or indirectly, any characteristic 

of a cultural resource that qualifies it for 

inclusion in the national register (e.g., 

diminishing the integrity of the resource’s 

location, design, setting, materials, 

workmanship, feeling, or association). 

Adverse effects also include reasonably 

foreseeable effects caused by the preferred 

alternative that would occur later in time, be 

farther removed in distance, or be cumulative 

(36 CFR Part 800.5 Assessment of Adverse 

Effects). A determination of no adverse effect 

means there is an effect, but the effect would 

not diminish in any way the characteristics of 

the cultural resources that qualify it for 

inclusion in the national register. 

Council on Environmental Quality regulations 

and the National Park Service’s Conservation 

Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis and 

Decision-making (Director’s Order 12) also 

call for a discussion of the appropriateness of 

mitigation, as well as an analysis of how 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

312 

effective the mitigation would be in reducing 

the intensity of a potential impact from major 

to moderate or minor. Any resultant reduction 

in intensity of impact due to mitigation, 

however, is an estimate of the effectiveness of 

mitigation under the National Environmental 

Policy Act only. It does not suggest that the 

level of effect as defined by section 106 is 

similarly reduced. Although adverse effects 

under section 106 may be mitigated, the effect 

remains adverse. 

A section 106 summary is included in the 

impact analysis sections for the action 

alternative. The section 106 summary, which 

is applicable only to lands owned or managed 

by the National Park Service, is intended to 

meet the requirements of section 106 and is an 

assessment of the effects of the undertaking 

(implementation of the alternative) on cultural 

resources, based on the criteria of effects and 

criteria of adverse effects found in the 

advisory council’s regulations. 

To provide a thorough analysis of effects on 

the parkway’s cultural resources, this section 

has been organized by the four impact topics 

listed below, which correspond to the cultural 

resource topics described in “Chapter 3: 

Affected Environment.” Similar topics have 

been grouped together to limit redundancy 

and to present the analysis in a concise, 

understandable way. 

HISTORIC STRUCTURES 

Methods and Assumptions for 

Analyzing Impacts 

Impacts on historic structures were evaluated 

by comparing projected changes resulting 

from the action alternatives (B and C) to those 

of the no-action alternative (A). The 

thresholds used to determine impacts on these 

resources are defined as follows. 

Negligible: Impacts would be at the lowest 

levels of detection – barely perceptible and 

measurable. For purposes of section 106, the 

determination of effect would be no adverse 

effect. 

Minor: Impacts would affect characterdefining features but would not diminish the 

overall integrity of the building or structure. 

For purposes of section 106, the 

determination of effect would be no adverse 

effect. 

Moderate: Impacts would alter a characterdefining feature(s), diminishing the overall 

integrity of the building or structure to the 

extent that its national register eligibility could 

be jeopardized. For purposes of section 106, 

the determination of effect would be adverse 

effect. 

Major: Impacts would alter characterdefining features, diminishing the integrity of 

the building or structure to the extent that it 

would no longer be eligible to be listed on the 

national register. For purposes of section 106, 

the determination of effect would be adverse 

effect. 

Cumulative Impacts. The Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations, which 

implement the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (42 USC 4321 et seq.), require 

assessment of cumulative impacts in the 

decision-making process for federal projects. 

Cumulative impacts are defined as "the impact 

on the environment which results from the 

incremental impact of the action when added 

to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

agency (federal or nonfederal) or person 

undertakes such other actions" (40 CFR 

1508.7). Cumulative impacts are considered 

for all alternatives, including the no-action 

alternative. 

Cumulative impacts were determined by 

combining the impacts of the alternatives with 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions. Therefore, it was 

necessary to identify other ongoing or 

reasonably foreseeable future projects at Blue 

Ridge Parkway and, if applicable, the 

surrounding region. 
Cultural Resources 

313 

Parkway-wide Actions Common to 

All Alternatives 

For all alternatives, parkway-wide historic 

structures that are in keeping with the 

parkway’s original design intent would be 

given priority for preservation as contributing 

elements to the parkway as a national registereligible national historic landmark. This 

prioritization would be a long-term beneficial 

impact on historic structures. Moreover, 

designation of the parkway as a listed national 

historic landmark would have a beneficial 

impact on all parkway cultural resources, 

including historic structures. Continued 

priority for historic preservation would 

benefit historic structures through national 

register listing and appropriate preservation 

activities. Historic views and vistas associated 

with historic structures would be inventoried 

as the basis of informed decision making in 

the future regarding how the views and vistas 

should be preserved. Impacts would be longterm and beneficial.

The surveys and research necessary to 

determine the eligibility of a structure for 

listing in the national register, or for 

designating the Blue Ridge Parkway as a 

national historic landmark, are a prerequisite 

for understanding the resource’s significance, 

as well as the basis of informed decision 

making in the future regarding how such 

resources should be managed. Such surveys 

and research, as well as nominations to the 

national register or designation as a national 

historic landmark, would be a long-term 

beneficial impact to historic structures. 

All alternatives include working with partners 

to avoid sensitive resource areas and 

relocating some sections of the Appalachian 

Trail. Under alternative C, the development of 

new multiuse trails could constitute an 

adverse impact on historic structures, which 

could be disturbed or destroyed with the 

introduction of new features and elements. 

The impacts from the possible destruction of 

historic structures would be site-specific and 

could be kept in the minor to moderate range 

through appropriate mitigative measures. The 

use of areas with existing disturbance and 

construction within the existing footprint of 

prior construction would help to minimize 

any of the above impacts. 

Campground upgrades at the nine parkway 

campgrounds would be accomplished within 

the existing design and configuration of the 

historic campground structures, such as 

comfort stations. Potential adverse impacts on 

the historic structures could result from 

adaptations for universal accessibility and the 

introduction of noncontributing elements to 

the historic structures. If additions to provide 

for universal accessibility are designed in 

keeping with the historic setting, impacts 

could be mitigated, and as a result, potential 

adverse impacts would be negligible to minor 

intensity, site-specific, and long-term. 

Maintenance of the other existing 

infrastructure and facilities would be a 

beneficial long-term impact on historic 

structures because no disturbance or changes 

to the historic infrastructure would occur. 

Although concession services determined to 

be no longer economically feasible would be 

eliminated and the structures housing those 

services would either be adaptively used or 

removed, these actions would not include 

facilities that national register-listed or -

eligible for listing because they would be 

exempted from removal under this action. 

Therefore, the impact of planned concession 

removal to historic structures would be sitespecific, negligible to minor and short-term 

because these activities likely would not be 

noticeable to historic structures. 

Alternative A—No-action 

Parkway-wide. The parkway’s existing land 

protection program under alternative A would 

result in long-term beneficial impacts on 

cultural resources. Acquisition of 

conservation easements and land from willing 

sellers would benefit historic structures 

through added protection. 

Under alternative A, management of natural 

resources could pose a site-specific short-term 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

314 

negligible to minor adverse impact on historic 

structures, as parkway staff would have to 

respond as needed to activities related to 

natural resources. 

The continued management of designed 

landscape features, roadsides, vistas, and 

agricultural leases for primarily scenic and 

recreational purposes would be a beneficial 

impact on historic structures because there 

would be no anticipated disturbance to these 

resources. 

Under alternative A, historic structures would 

benefit from existing partnership management 

strategies that would continue to grow and 

develop. Continued implementation of 

partnership management strategies, such as 

the scenery conservation management 

strategy, would emphasize the significance 

and potential fragility of the parkway’s 

historic structures and engage parkway 

stakeholders, neighbors, and local 

governments in active preservation of the 

resources and discourage inadvertent impacts 

and vandalism. 

Working reactively with parkway 

stakeholders, neighbors, and local 

governments using the current Scenery 

Conservation Management Strategies under 

alternative A would be of negligible benefit to 

cultural resources. There would be no adverse 

impacts on historic structures related to 

scenery conservation under alternative A. 

Generally, historic structures would benefit 

for the long term from maintenance of current 

use of the parkway trails and management 

relative to trails because there would be no 

new disturbance and no introduction of 

noncontributing elements to national registerlisted or -eligible properties. 

Parkway Segments. Only those parkway 

segments that would experience more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide section are described below. 

Segment 3: Plateau—Continued NPS 

management of the historic Kelley School 

would allow for continued monitoring of the 

resource as a historic structure. The presence 

of law enforcement staff could curtail 

inadvertent impacts and discourage 

vandalism, minimizing adverse impacts. 

Adverse impacts to the historic structure from 

the daily wear-and-tear of continued use 

would be long-term and of negligible to minor 

intensity. 

Segments 4 and 6: Highlands and 

Asheville—Continued partnering with local 

stakeholders would benefit all cultural 

resources through directing use away from 

fragile historic sites. 

Recreation Areas. Only those parkway 

recreation areas that would have more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide and segment sections are 

described below. 

James River/Otter Creek—Upgrading certain 

comfort stations that are historic structures in 

the no-action alternative would be 

undertaken in accordance with The Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995). New additions to 

historic structures would be similar in scale, 

size and massing to the existing structure. Any 

materials removed during rehabilitation 

efforts would be evaluated to determine their 

value to the parkway’s museum collections or 

for their comparative use in future 

preservation work at the sites. Because the 

rehabilitation of historic structures would be 

undertaken in accordance with Secretary of 

the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995) (and other current 

NPS guidance concerning new construction 

and historic buildings, when available), any 

adverse impacts would be of negligible to 

minor intensity and long-term.

Peaks of Otter—Under the no-action 

alternative, the possible adaptive reuse of 

concession facilities and comfort station 

upgrades to historic structures would involve 

providing showers and RV water and 

electrical hookups, which would require 

expanded sewage treatment facilities and 

electrical lines. Such modifications to historic 

structures would be undertaken in accordance 
Cultural Resources 

315 

with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties (1995).

New additions to historic structures would be 

similar in scale, size, and massing to the 

existing structure. Any materials removed 

during rehabilitation efforts would be 

evaluated to determine their value to the 

parkway’s museum collections or for their 

comparative use in future preservation work 

at the sites. Because the rehabilitation of 

historic structures would be undertaken in 

accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties (1995), any adverse impacts would 

be of negligible to minor intensity and longterm. 

Mabry Mill—Under the no-action alternative, 

adverse impacts on historic structures from 

the adaptive reuse of concession facilities as a 

visitor contact station in the area would be 

undertaken in accordance with The Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995). New additions to 

historic structures would be similar in scale, 

size and massing to the existing structure. Any 

materials removed during rehabilitation 

efforts would be evaluated to determine their 

value to the parkway’s museum collections or 

for their comparative use in future 

preservation work at the sites. Because the 

rehabilitation of historic structures would be 

undertaken in accordance with The Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995), any adverse impacts 

would be of negligible to minor intensity and 

long-term. 

Doughton Park—The Doughton Park 

recreation area contains the Brinegar Cabin, 

which is listed in the national register. 

Continued deteriorating of the landscape and 

setting surrounding the building could 

jeopardize the site’s national register 

eligibility, and such actions would result in an 

adverse impact that would be site-specific, 

moderate, and long-term. 

Cumulative Impacts. Over the years, 

historic structures outside the parkway may 

have been demolished for agriculture and the 

development and expansion of communities. 

Types of development include residential 

homes, subdivisions, commercial businesses, 

and industry. Increasing trends in these 

developments are projected to continue with 

the ongoing influx of people to these areas. As 

a result, new developments and increasing 

population in the region could result in loss or 

diminished integrity of historic structures, 

increased vandalism or other illegal activities, 

or unsupervised use. Cumulative impacts from 

these activities have been adverse, moderate, 

and long-term. 

As described above, implementation of the 

no-action alternative would result in both 

long-term minor to moderate adverse effects 

and beneficial effects to historic structures. 

Both the beneficial and minor to moderate 

long-term adverse impacts of this alternative, 

in combination with the moderate long-term 

adverse impacts of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 

result in a long-term moderate adverse 

cumulative effect. The adverse effects of the 

no-action alternative, however, would be a 

small component of the adverse effect 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Alternative A would have longterm minor to moderate adverse impacts and 

long-term beneficial impacts on historic 

structures. Impacts of this alternative, 

combined with the moderate long-term 

adverse impacts of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 

result in local long-term minor to moderate 

adverse cumulative impacts and long-term 

beneficial cumulative impacts. However, 

because most of these adverse impacts 

occurred in the past or now take place beyond 

the boundary of the parkway, this alternative’s 

contribution to these effects would be small. 

The impact under section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act would be an adverse 

effect for the moderate adverse impacts and 

would be no adverse effect in the case of the 

beneficial impacts, cumulative and otherwise. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

316 

Alternative B (NPS Preferred)

Parkway-wide. Under alternative B, there 

would be potential impacts on historic 

structures through the construction of new 

grade separation structures when at-grade 

crossings are replaced. Impacts would be 

caused by the potential modification of 

structures or changes in access and use in the 

vicinity of the construction. The impacts 

would be site-specific and could be kept in the 

minor to moderate range through appropriate 

mitigative measures, such as sensitive redesign 

in accordance with The Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995). The use of areas 

with existing disturbance and construction 

within the existing footprint of prior 

construction would help to minimize any of 

the above impacts. 

Sensitive design would ensure that 

improvements to walkways, trails, and parking 

areas adjacent to historic structures or for 

making walkways, trails, and parking 

structures universally accessible would 

minimally affect the scale and visual 

relationships among the structure and site 

features. The topography and land use and 

native vegetation patterns of such sites would 

also remain largely unaltered, leaving 

unaffected the existing association between 

the structure and the surrounding landscape. 

Any adverse impacts would be long-term and 

minor intensity. 

Planned facility upgrades, such as providing 

showers and RV water and electrical hookups 

and lines, and additions of new facilities for 

concessions under alternative B would be 

undertaken in accordance with The Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995). New additions to 

historic structures would be similar in scale, 

size, and massing to the existing structure. Any 

materials removed during rehabilitation 

efforts would be evaluated to determine their 

value to the parkway’s museum collections or 

for their comparative use in future 

preservation work at the sites. Because the 

rehabilitation of historic structures would be 

undertaken in accordance with The Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995), any adverse impacts 

would be of negligible to minor intensity and 

long-term.

Historic structures used for interpretation, 

whether staffed or unstaffed, could suffer 

wear and tear from visitation and vandalism. 

Continued law enforcement patrol and 

emphasis on visitor education regarding the 

significance and fragility of historic structures 

and how visitors can reduce their impacts to 

such resources would curtail inadvertent 

impacts and discourage vandalism, 

minimizing adverse impacts. In addition, 

monitoring the carrying capacity of the 

historic structures could result in the 

imposition of visitation levels or constraints 

that would contribute to the stability or 

integrity of the resources without unduly 

hindering interpretation for visitors. Adverse 

impacts to the historic structures from 

visitation would be long-term and of 

negligible to minor intensity. 

Like alternative A, alternative B would also 

have long-term beneficial impacts on historic 

structures from the land protection program 

that includes acquisition of conservation 

easements and land from willing sellers. 

Alternative B’s beneficial impact would be 

farther reaching to include enhanced 

beneficial impacts on the preservation of 

historic structures through acquisition and the 

targeting of specific cultural resources to be 

acquired. The establishment of criteria for 

acquisition and protection would further 

enhance preservation of all cultural resources, 

including historic structures, for a long-term 

beneficial impact. 

Implementation of enhanced partnership 

management strategies, such as the scenery 

conservation management strategy, would 

emphasize the significance and potential 

fragility of the parkway’s historic structures 

and engage parkway stakeholders, neighbors, 

and local governments in active preservation 

of the resources and discourage inadvertent 

impacts and vandalism. Impacts would be 

long-term and beneficial. 
Cultural Resources 

317 

Generally, historic structures would benefit 

for the long term from maintenance of current 

use of the parkway trails and management 

relative to trails because there would be no 

new disturbance and no introduction of 

noncontributing elements to national registerlisted or -eligible properties. 

As under alternative A, under alternative B 

historic structures would benefit for the long 

term from maintenance of current use of the 

parkway trails and management relative to 

trails because there would be no new 

disturbance and no introduction of 

noncontributing elements to national registerlisted or -eligible properties. 

Parkway Segments. Only those parkway 

segments that would experience more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide section are described below. 

Segment 1: Ridge—Improvements to the 

north entrance and providing additional 

visitor contacts and working with partners 

would likely be beneficial to cultural 

resources, including historic structures, 

because visitors would enter with additional 

historical interpretation and orientation, 

which would be an indirect long-term benefit 

to all cultural resources 

Segment 3: Plateau—NPS management of 

the Kelley School would allow for continued 

monitoring of the resources. The presence of 

law enforcemtn staff could curtail inadvertent 

impacts and discourage vandalism, 

minimizing adverse impacts. Adverse impacts 

to the historic structure from the daily wearand-tear of continued use would be long-term 

and of negligible to minor intensity. 

Segments 4 and 6: Highlands and 

Asheville—Working with partners to protect 

cultural resources, including historic 

structures, would benefit historic structures in 

the segment. 

Sensitive design would ensure that 

improvements to walkways, trails, and parking 

areas adjacent to historic structures, or for 

making walkways, trails, and parking 

structures universally accessible, would 

minimally affect the scale and visual 

relationships among the structure and site 

features. The topography and land use and 

native vegetation patterns of such sites would 

also remain largely unaltered, leaving 

unaffected the existing association between 

the structure and the surrounding landscape. 

Any adverse impacts would be long-term and 

minor in intensity.

Segment 7: Pisgah—Redesign of the visitor 

entry and exit experience would be 

undertaken in accordance with The Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995). New additions to 

historic structures would be similar in scale, 

size, and massing to the existing structure. Any 

materials removed during rehabilitation 

efforts would be evaluated to determine their 

value to the parkway’s museum collections or 

for their comparative use in future 

preservation work at the sites. Because the 

rehabilitation of historic structures would be 

undertaken in accordance with The Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995), any adverse impacts 

would be of negligible to minor intensity and 

long-term. 

Recreation Areas. Only those parkway 

recreation areas that would have more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide and segment sections are 

described below. 

Humpback Rocks—Drawing attention to the 

historic Howardsville Turnpike route under 

alternative B would cause a potential minor 

site-specific adverse impact through increased 

use of the historic structures present in this 

segment. Increased use of structures from 

increased visitation could lead to a rise in 

vandalism and general wear and tear of 

historic structures. The improved 

interpretation of the turnpike would be a 

beneficial impact to associated historic 

structures in this area because visitors would 

obtain new understanding of the site through 

the marking of the turnpike that would 

discourage vandalism and could lead to better 

preservation of all cultural resources. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

318 

The longer visitor use season in this area 

would allow for historic structures to be used 

for interpretation, whether staffed or 

unstaffed. Increased use could suffer wear and 

tear from visitation and vandalism. Continued 

law enforcement patrol and emphasis on 

visitor education regarding the significance 

and fragility of historic structures and how 

visitors can reduce their impacts to such 

resources would curtail inadvertent impacts 

and discourage vandalism, minimizing adverse 

impacts. In addition, monitoring the carrying 

capacity of the historic structures could result 

in the imposition of visitation levels or 

constraints that would contribute to the 

stability or integrity of the resources without 

unduly hindering interpretation for visitors. 

Adverse impacts to the historic structures 

from visitation would be long-term and of 

negligible to minor intensity. 

Zoning at Humpback Rocks under alternative 

B is primarily focused on recreation and 

natural zoning. In the recreation zone, cultural 

resources such as historic structures would be 

used to support interpretation and other 

visitor services which could include a minor 

adverse site-specific short-term impact on 

such resources due to potential vandalism and 

wear and tear from increased use. At the same 

time, improved interpretation of the turnpike 

would be a beneficial impact to associated 

historic structures in this area because visitors 

would obtain new understanding of the site 

through the marking of the turnpike that 

would discourage vandalism and could lead to 

better preservation of all cultural resources. 

Where there is zoning for natural, scenic 

character, and historic parkway, historic 

structures would be well protected and would 

primarily be beneficially impacted for the long 

term as historic structures contributing to 

national historic landmark designation and 

national register eligibility would be protected 

and emphasized. 

James River/Otter Creek and Peaks of 

Otter—New facilities or upgrades in these 

areas under alternative B would be 

undertaken in accordance with The Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995). New additions to 

historic structures would be similar in scale, 

size and massing to the existing structure. Any 

materials removed during rehabilitation 

efforts would be evaluated to determine their 

value to the parkway’s museum collections or 

for their comparative use in future 

preservation work at the sites. Because the 

rehabilitation of historic structures would be 

undertaken in accordance with The Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995), any adverse impacts 

would be of negligible to minor intensity and 

long-term. 

Historic structures used for interpretation, 

whether staffed or unstaffed, could suffer 

wear and tear from visitation and vandalism 

due to the longer visitor use season proposed 

under alternative B. 

Zoning at James River/Otter Creek and the 

Peaks of Otter is primarily focused on 

recreation. In the recreation zone, cultural 

resources such as historic structures would be 

used to support interpretation and other 

visitor services. Continued law enforcement 

patrol and emphasis on visitor education 

regarding the significance and fragility of 

historic structures and how visitors can 

reduce their impacts to such resources would 

curtail inadvertent impacts and discourage 

vandalism, minimizing adverse impacts. In 

addition, monitoring the carrying capacity of 

the historic structures could result in the 

imposition of visitation levels or constraints 

that would contribute to the stability or 

integrity of the resources without unduly 

hindering interpretation for visitors. Adverse 

impacts to the historic structures from 

visitation would be long-term and of 

negligible to minor intensity.

Peaks of Otter—Although zoning at the Peaks 

of Otter under alternative B is primarily 

focused on recreation, zoning for natural, 

scenic character, historic parkway structures 

would be better protected and would 

primarily be beneficially impacted for the long 

term as historic structures contributing to 

national historic landmark designation and 

national register eligibility would be protected 

and emphasized. The special cultural resource 
Cultural Resources 

319 

zones at Saunders Farm and Johnson Farm 

would provide for beneficial impacts on 

historic structures through added protection. 

Roanoke Mountain and Smart View—

Although zoning at Roanoke Mountain and 

Smart View is focused on recreation under 

alternative B, there is an added natural zone 

surrounding the Roanoke Mountain Loop. In 

the recreation zone in both recreation areas, 

historic structures would be used to support 

interpretation and other visitor services which 

could be an adverse short-term site-specific 

impact on such resources due to potential 

vandalism and wear and tear from increased 

use. At the same time, improved interpretation 

of the turnpike would be a beneficial impact 

to associated historic structures in this area 

because visitors would obtain new 

understanding of the site through the marking 

of the turnpike that would discourage 

vandalism and could lead to better 

preservation of all cultural resources. 

In the natural zone, efforts would be made to 

retain and enhance historic structures that 

contribute to the national historic landmark 

designation and national register listing and 

eligibility. Efforts would be made to stabilize 

and harden historic structures to provide 

improved educational and interpretive 

opportunities for visitors and there would be 

less tolerance for impacts on cultural 

resources such as historic structures. Where 

there is zoning for scenic character and 

historic parkway, historic structures would be 

better protected and would be beneficially 

impacted for the long term as contributing 

resources to national historic landmark 

designation, and national register eligibility 

would be emphasized and protected. 

Rocky Knob—Under alternative B, adverse 

impacts on the historic structures in the 

Rocky Knob recreational area would possibly 

result from some of the planned conversions, 

facility upgrades, and additions of new 

facilities for concessions and campgrounds. 

Sensitive design in accordance with The

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (1995) would 

ensure that the introduction of nonhistoric 

elements to historic structures would not 

impact historic, contributing elements. This 

would offset the impacts of the facility 

upgrades reduce potential adverse impacts to 

the negligible to minor range for the long 

term. Such impacts would be site-specific. 

Zoning at Rocky Knob is primarily focused on 

recreation. In the recreation zone under 

alternative B, historic structures would be 

used to support interpretation and other 

visitor services, which could be an adverse 

site-specific short-term impact on such 

resources due to potential vandalism and wear 

and tear due to increased use. At the same 

time, improved interpretation of the turnpike 

would be a beneficial impact to associated 

historic structures in this area because visitors 

would obtain new understanding of the site 

through the marking of the turnpike that 

would discourage vandalism and could lead to 

better preservation of all cultural resources. 

Where there is zoning for scenic character and 

historic parkway, cultural resources would be 

better protected and would be beneficially 

impacted for the long term as historic 

structures contributing to national historic 

landmark designation and national register 

eligibility would be emphasized and 

protected. There is a special cultural resource 

zone in Rockcastle Gorge where there are 

remnants of an abandoned mountain 

community. Trail improvements in this area 

would allow for more law enforcement-led 

programs that would result in an increase in 

park law enforcement presence, and thus, an 

increase monitoring and protection of historic 

buildings in this area. Because this area can 

tolerate little impact on historic structures, 

this special cultural resource zone would 

provide for long-term beneficial impacts on 

historic structures through added protection. 

Mabry Mill—The facility upgrades, addition 

of new facilities for concessions, or the 

creation of a visitor contact station under 

alternative B would be undertaken in 

accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties (1995). New additions to historic 

structures would be similar in scale, size, and 

massing to the existing structure. Any 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

320 

materials removed during rehabilitation 

efforts would be evaluated to determine their 

value to the parkway’s museum collections or 

for their comparative use in future 

preservation work at the sites. Because the 

rehabilitation of historic structures would be 

undertaken in accordance with The Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995), any adverse impacts 

would be of negligible to minor intensity and 

long-term. 

The longer visitor use season in this area 

would allow for historic structures to be used 

for interpretation, whether staffed or 

unstaffed. Increased use could suffer wear and 

tear from visitation and vandalism. Continued 

law enforcement patrol and emphasis on 

visitor education regarding the significance 

and fragility of historic structures and how 

visitors can reduce their impacts to such 

resources would curtail inadvertent impacts 

and discourage vandalism, minimizing adverse 

impacts. In addition, monitoring the carrying 

capacity of the historic structures could result 

in the imposition of visitation levels or 

constraints that would contribute to the 

stability or integrity of the resources without 

unduly hindering interpretation for visitors. 

Adverse impacts to the historic structures 

from visitation would be long-term and of 

negligible to minor intensity. 

Zoning in this area includes scenic character, 

historic parkway, visitor services, and special 

natural resource. A greater level of protection 

would be afforded in the scenic character, 

historic parkway, and special natural resource 

zoned areas where historic structures 

contributing to national historic landmark 

designation and national register eligibility 

would be protected. In the visitor services 

zone, historic structures would be used to 

support interpretation and other visitor 

services which could be an adverse short-term 

site-specific impact on such resources due to 

potential vandalism and wear and tear. At the 

same time, improved interpretation of the 

turnpike would be a beneficial impact to 

associated historic structures in this area 

because visitors would obtain new 

understanding of the site through the marking 

of the turnpike that would discourage 

vandalism and could lead to better 

preservation of all cultural resources. 

Blue Ridge Music Center—Under alternative 

B, there would be no adverse impacts on 

historic structures from maintaining the 

current management, facilities, and design. 

Zoning in the Blue Ridge Music Center area 

includes a large area devoted to natural zoning 

where historic structures would be actively 

protected for the national register eligibility 

and for the role as contributing elements to 

the designation of the parkway as a national 

historic landmark. This is also true of the areas 

zoned for scenic parkway and historic 

parkway, as well as special natural zone. 

Historic structures in these areas would be 

evaluated and appropriate treatments 

determined following The Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995). Impacts on historic 

structures in these areas would be long-term 

and beneficial. 

In the visitor services zone, there could be 

some site-specific short-term minor adverse 

impacts on historic structures, as some 

resources may be adapted or used to 

accommodate the needs of the visiting public 

due to potential vandalism and wear and tear. 

Cumberland Knob—Under alternative B, the 

restoration of the visitor contact station to its 

historical appearance would be undertaken in 

accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties (1995). Any materials removed 

during rehabilitation efforts would be 

evaluated to determine their value to the 

parkway’s museum collections or for their 

comparative use in future preservation work 

at the sites. Because the rehabilitation of 

historic structures would be undertaken in 

accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties (1995), any adverse impacts would 

be of negligible to minor intensity and longterm. 

Zoning at Cumberland Knob includes natural, 

park support and visitor services, scenic 
Cultural Resources 

321 

parkway, and historic parkway. Zoning in this 

area would generally benefit historic 

structures although there could be some sitespecific minor adverse short-term impacts in 

the areas zoned for visitor services because of 

impacts from future or increased use due to 

potential vandalism and wear and tear. 

Doughton Park—Planned facility upgrades 

and additions of new campground facilities in 

the area under alternative B would possibly 

result in adverse site-specific impacts on 

historic structures. Sensitive design in 

accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties (1995) would ensure that the 

introduction of noncontributing elements to 

the historic structures would be kept to the 

negligible to minor level and would be a sitespecific impact for the long term. 

Under this alternative a substantial part of the 

area is zoned natural. The parkway itself is 

zoned for historic parkway with scenic 

character zoning adjacent. There is visitor 

service zoning in the developed areas, while 

the Brinegar Cabin and Caudill Cabin are 

zoned as special cultural resource zones. The 

Grassy Gap Fire Road is zoned for park 

support. Zoning in this area would generally 

benefit historic structures for the long term, 

although there could be some minor sitespecific adverse short-term impacts in the 

areas zoned for park support or visitor 

services due to potential vandalism and wear 

and tear. Few impacts on historic structures 

would be tolerated in the special cultural 

resource zones. This zoning would be an 

added long-term beneficial impact to those 

resources. 

Julian Price—Under alternative B, zoning at 

Julian Price includes a substantial amount of 

natural zone, a small visitor services area at the 

campground, and a new picnic area. The area 

around the lake is zoned for recreation. There 

are special natural resource zones adjacent to 

the parkway in several locations and the 

parkway itself is zoned for historic parkway. 

Zoning in this area would generally benefit 

historic structures, although there could be 

some minor adverse site-specific short-term 

impacts in the areas zoned recreation due to 

potential vandalism or wear and tear. 

Linville Falls—Planned upgrades and trail 

improvements, including paving, under 

alternative B in this area would be undertaken 

in accordance with The Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995). Any modifications 

to historic structures, if required, would be 

similar in scale, size, and massing to the 

existing structure. Any materials removed 

during rehabilitation efforts would be 

evaluated to determine their value to the 

parkway’s museum collections or for their 

comparative use in future preservation work 

at the sites. Because the rehabilitation of 

historic structures would be undertaken in 

accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties (1995), any adverse impacts would 

be of negligible to minor intensity and longterm. 

The longer nine-month visitor use season in 

this area would allow for historic structures to 

be used for interpretation, whether staffed or 

unstaffed. Increased use could suffer wear and 

tear from visitation and vandalism. Continued 

law enforcement patrol and emphasis on 

visitor education regarding the significance 

and fragility of historic structures and how 

visitors can reduce their impacts to such 

resources would curtail inadvertent impacts 

and discourage vandalism, minimizing adverse 

impacts. In addition, monitoring the carrying 

capacity of the historic structures could result 

in the imposition of visitation levels or 

constraints that would contribute to the 

stability or integrity of the resources without 

unduly hindering interpretation for visitors. 

Adverse impacts to the historic structures 

from visitation would be long-term and of 

negligible to minor intensity. 

Zoning in the Linville Falls area focuses on 

recreation and scenic character of the 

parkway, as well as some natural zoning. A 

greater level of protection would be afforded 

in the scenic character and natural zone areas 

where historic structures contributing to 

national historic landmark designation and 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

322 

national register eligibility would be 

protected. This would be beneficial to historic 

structures for the long term. In the recreation 

zone, historic structures would be used to 

support interpretation and other visitor 

services which could be a short-term sitespecific adverse impact on such resources due 

to potential vandalism and wear and tear. At 

the same time, improved interpretation of the 

parkway would be a long-term beneficial 

impact to associated historic structures in this 

area because visitors would obtain new 

understanding of the site through the marking 

of the turnpike that would discourage 

vandalism and could lead to better 

preservation of all cultural resources. 

Crabtree Falls—Under alternative B, the 

introduction of noncontributing elements to 

the cultural landscape could result in an 

adverse impact to historic structures. Sensitive 

design in accordance with The Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995) would ensure that 

the introduction of noncontributing elements 

to the historic structures to be kept to the 

negligible to minor level and would be a sitespecific impact for the long term. 

Zoning in the Crabtree Falls area focuses on 

recreation and scenic character of the 

parkway. A greater level of protection would 

be afforded in the scenic character zoned 

areas where historic structures contributing to 

national historic landmark designation and 

national register eligibility would be 

protected. In the recreation zone, historic 

structures would be used to support 

interpretation and other visitor services which 

could be an adverse short-term site-specific 

impact on such resources due to potential 

vandalism and wear and tear. At the same 

time, improved interpretation of the parkway 

would be a long-term beneficial impact to 

associated historic structures in this area 

because visitors would obtain new 

understanding of the site and would 

discourage vandalism and could lead to better 

preservation of all cultural resources. 

Mt. Pisgah—Planned facility upgrades and 

additions of new facilities campground 

facilities in the area under alternative B would 

possibly result in adverse site-specific, impacts 

on historic structures. Sensitive design in 

accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties (1995) would ensure that the 

introduction of noncontributing elements to 

the historic structures to be kept to the 

negligible to minor level and would be a sitespecific impact for the long term. 

This recreation area is zoned primarily as a 

natural zone and the parkway is designated for 

historic parkway with some adjacent special 

natural resource zones. The campground and 

amphitheater area would be designated 

historic parkway for added protections to 

historic structures, resulting in a long-term 

beneficial impact. There would be added 

protection from the designation of the Buck 

Springs Lodge Ruin special cultural resource 

zone where few impacts on cultural resources 

would be tolerated. 

Cumulative Effects. Over the years, historic 

structures outside the parkway may have been 

demolished for agriculture and the 

development and expansion of communities. 

Types of development include residential 

homes, subdivisions, commercial businesses, 

and industry. Increasing trends in these 

developments are projected to continue with 

the ongoing influx of people to these areas. As 

a result, new developments and increasing 

population in the region could result in loss or 

diminished integrity of historic structures, 

increased vandalism or other illegal activities, 

or unsupervised use. Cumulative impacts from 

these activities have been adverse, moderate, 

and long-term. 

As described above, implementation of 

alternative B would result in both long-term 

minor to moderate adverse effects and 

beneficial effects to historic structures. Both 

the beneficial and minor to moderate longterm adverse impacts of this alternative, in 

combination with the moderate long-term 

adverse impacts of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 

result in a long-term moderate adverse 

cumulative effect. The adverse effects of 
Cultural Resources 

323 

alternative B, however, would be a small 

component of the adverse effect cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. Alternative B would have longterm minor to moderate adverse impacts, and 

long-term negligible to moderate beneficial 

impacts on the historic structures. Impacts of 

this alternative, combined with the impacts of 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions would result in 

long-term minor to moderate adverse 

cumulative impacts and long-term beneficial 

cumulative impacts. However, because most 

of these impacts occurred in the past or now 

take place beyond the boundary of the 

parkway, alternative B’s contribution to these 

effects would be small. The impact under 

section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act would be a minor to 

moderate adverse effect for historic structures 

and would be no adverse effect in the case of 

the beneficial impacts, cumulative and 

otherwise. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

advisory council’s criteria of adverse effects 

(36 CFR 800.5 Assessment of Adverse Effects), 

the National Park Service concludes that 

implementation of alternative B would include 

minor to moderate adverse impacts on some 

historic structures that could result in an 

adverse effect at some sites. Any beneficial 

impacts would have no adverse effect for the 

purposes of section 106. When adverse effects 

could occur as a result of an action under 

alternative B, NPS staff would work with the 

state historic preservation officer and advisory 

council to avoid or minimize the adverse 

effect. Any unavoidable adverse effects that 

would occur under section 106 would be 

mitigated according to The Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995). 

Alternative C 

Parkway-wide. Under alternative C, similar 

to alternative B, there would be potential 

impacts on historic parkway structures 

through the construction of new grade 

separation structures when at-grade crossings 

are replaced. Impacts would be caused by the 

potential modification of structures or 

changes in access and use in the vicinity of the 

construction. The impacts would be sitespecific and could be kept in the minor to 

moderate range through appropriate 

mitigative measures, such as sensitive redesign 

in accordance with The Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995). The use of areas 

with existing disturbance and construction 

within the existing footprint of prior 

construction would help to minimize any of 

the above impacts. 

Sensitive design would ensure that 

improvements to walkways, trails, and parking 

areas adjacent to historic structures or for 

making walkways, trails, and parking 

structures universally accessible, would 

minimally affect the scale and visual 

relationships among the structure and site 

features. The topography and land use and 

native vegetation patterns of such sites would 

also remain largely unaltered, leaving 

unaffected the existing association between 

the structure and the surrounding landscape. 

Any adverse impacts would be long-term and 

minor intensity. 

Under alternative C, although concession 

services determined to be no longer 

economically feasible would be eliminated 

and the structures housing those services 

would either be adaptively used or removed, 

these actions would not include facilities that 

national register-listed or -eligible for listing 

because they would be exempted from 

removal under this action. Therefore, the 

impact of planned concession removal to 

historic structures would be site-specific, 

negligible to minor, and short-term because 

these activities likely would not be noticeable 

to historic structures. 

Creating new parkway land use maps that 

allow for a deviation from the historic 

character when necessary to capture regional 

landscape character and provide for 

recreational uses could be a site-specific longterm adverse impact on the historic designed 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

324 

parkway. The intensity of the impact would 

range from negligible to moderate depending 

on the degree of deviation from the original 

design. However, such deviation would be in 

keeping with the original intent of the 

parkway and, as such, could be a beneficial 

impact. 

The closure of some pull-offs where views 

have been substantially compromised could 

be a site-specific long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impact on historic parkway structures 

as consequences would be local. The 

replacement of pull-offs in another location 

where the views are open and could be 

protected would be beneficial to the original 

intent but could be an adverse impact on the 

parkway as a national historic landmark as it 

would introduce a noncontributing element to 

the setting of historic structures. 

As under alternative B, historic structures 

used for interpretation, whether staffed or 

unstaffed, could suffer wear and tear from 

visitation and vandalism. Continued law 

enforcement patrol and emphasis on visitor 

education regarding the significance and 

fragility of historic structures and how visitors 

can reduce their impacts to such resources 

would curtail inadvertent impacts and 

discourage vandalism, minimizing adverse 

impacts. In addition, monitoring the carrying 

capacity of the historic structures could result 

in the imposition of visitation levels or 

constraints that would contribute to the 

stability or integrity of the resources without 

unduly hindering interpretation for visitors. 

Adverse impacts to the historic structures 

from visitation would be long-term and of 

negligible to minor intensity. 

Under alternative C, there would be long-term 

beneficial impacts on historic structures from 

the land protection program with the added 

benefit of regional partnerships to enhance 

the protection of cultural resources, including 

historic structures. Implementation of 

partnership management strategies, such as 

the scenery conservation management 

strategy, would emphasize the significance 

and potential fragility of the parkway’s 

historic structures and engage parkway 

stakeholders, neighbors, and local 

governments in active preservation of the 

resources and discourage inadvertent impacts 

and vandalism. The acquisition of 

conservation easements and land from willing 

sellers would also protect historic structures 

from inappropriate alteration or demolition. 

Impacts would be long-term and beneficial. 

The modification of some landscape areas 

could cause adverse impacts on cultural 

resources, such the historic structures’ 

historic setting and the existing association 

between the structure and the surrounding 

landscape. Such adverse impacts would be 

indirect to historic structures and would, 

therefore, be negligible to minor, adverse, and 

short-term. 

A long-term regional ecosystem health 

approach would be a beneficial impact to 

historic structures because impacts on cultural 

resources would be realized and anticipated in 

a larger context providing for better 

understanding of impacts on their continued 

management and preservation. 

Under alternative C, possible conversion of 

some human-made water features to natural 

habitat could adversely impact nearby historic 

structures for the long term if they are 

considered national register eligible or listed 

due to potential modifications to the historic 

setting and the existing association between 

the structure and the surrounding landscape. 

Adverse impacts on historic structures could 

be site-specific, minor intensity, and longterm. 

Parkway Segments. Only those parkway 

segments that would have more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide sections are described below. 

Segments 1 and 2: Ridge and Roanoke—

Sensitive design would ensure that new 

multiuse trails and some pullouts adjacent to 

historic structures under alternative C would 

minimally affect the scale and visual 

relationships among the structure and site 

features. The topography and land use and 

native vegetation patterns of such sites would 
Cultural Resources 

325 

also remain largely unaltered, leaving 

unaffected the existing association between 

the structure and the surrounding landscape. 

Any adverse impacts would be long-term and 

minor in intensity. 

Segment 3: Plateau—Changes in use for the 

Kelley School under alternative C could pose 

some minor adverse impacts on historic 

structures if major alterations were required 

to create a visitor use and education 

attraction. Modification of the Kelley School 

would be undertaken in accordance with The 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (1995). New 

additions to historic structures would be 

similar in scale, size, and massing to the 

existing structure. Because the rehabilitation 

of historic structures would be undertaken in 

accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties (1995), any adverse impacts would 

be of negligible to minor intensity and longterm.

Segments 4 and 6: Highlands and 

Asheville—Continued partnering with local 

stakeholders under alternative C would 

benefit all cultural resources through directing 

use away from fragile historic sites. The 

creation of new multiuse trails in the 

Highlands segment could possibly pose a 

potential negligible to minor site-specific, 

adverse, short-term impact on historic 

structures during the duration of construction 

activities, which could temporarily impact the 

historic setting of nearby historic structures. 

Recreation Areas. Only those parkway 

recreation areas that would have more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide and segment sections are 

described below. 

Humpback Rocks—The increased capacity of 

the visitor contact station under alternative C 

would improve interpretation of the turnpike 

would be a long-term beneficial impact to 

historic structures in this area because visitors 

would obtain new understanding of the 

parkway’s historic structures, which could 

lead to better preservation of all cultural 

resources. 

The longer visitor use season in this area 

would allow for historic structures to be used 

for interpretation, whether staffed or 

unstaffed. Increased use could suffer wear and 

tear from visitation and vandalism. Continued 

law enforcement patrol and emphasis on 

visitor education regarding the significance 

and fragility of historic structures and how 

visitors can reduce their impacts to such 

resources would curtail inadvertent impacts 

and discourage vandalism, minimizing adverse 

impacts. In addition, monitoring the carrying 

capacity of the historic structures could result 

in the imposition of visitation levels or 

constraints that would contribute to the 

stability or integrity of the resources without 

unduly hindering interpretation for visitors. 

Adverse impacts to the historic structures 

from visitation would be long-term and of 

negligible to minor intensity. 

Zoning at Humpback Rocks under alternative 

C emphasizes the natural zone with some 

recreation zoning to accommodate multiuse 

trail development. In the natural zone, historic 

structures that contribute to the national 

historic landmark designation and national 

register listing and eligibility would be 

retained and enhanced by stabilizing or 

hardening historic structures to provide 

improved educational and interpretive 

opportunities for visitors. Impacts would be 

beneficial and long-term. 

James River/Otter Creek—Planned adaptive 

reuse, facility upgrades, and additions of new 

facilities in the James River and Otter Creek 

recreation area under alternative B in this area 

would be undertaken in accordance with The 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (1995). Any 

modifications to historic structures, if 

required, would be similar in scale, size, and 

massing to the existing structure. Any 

materials removed during rehabilitation 

efforts would be evaluated to determine their 

value to the parkway’s museum collections or 

for their comparative use in future 

preservation work at the sites. Because the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

326 

rehabilitation of historic structures would be 

undertaken in accordance with The Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995), any adverse impacts 

would be of negligible to minor intensity and 

long-term. 

Zoning at James River and Otter Creek under 

alternative C emphasizes the natural zone. In 

the natural zone, historic structures that 

contribute to the national historic landmark 

designation and national register listing and 

eligibility would be retained and enhanced by 

stabilizing or hardening historic structures to 

provide improved educational and 

interpretive opportunities for visitors. Impacts 

would be beneficial and long-term. 

The special cultural resource zone at Canal 

Lock would provide for beneficial impacts on 

cultural resources through added protection. 

An area adjacent to the parkway south of the 

canal is zoned for scenic character while the 

parkway itself is zoned history parkway. Areas 

adjacent to the Otter Creek Restaurant and 

Campground are zoned park support. As with 

alternative B where there it is zoned natural, 

scenic character, or historic parkway, cultural 

resources would be well protected and would 

primarily be beneficially impacted for the long 

term as cultural resources contributing to 

national historic landmark designation and 

national register eligibility would be 

emphasized. In the park support zone cultural 

resources would also be protected, providing 

for a long-term beneficial impact. 

Peaks of Otter—Site-specific adverse impacts 

on the historic structures in the Peaks of Otter 

area under alternative C could result from 

some of the potential new facilities and 

upgrades for concessions and campgrounds. 

If additions are provided in keeping with any 

eligible cultural landscape, impacts could be 

mitigated to be kept to the negligible to minor 

level and would be long-term. The 

stabilization of the Saunders Farm structures 

and rehabilitation of the Johnson Farm 

landscape would be undertaken in accordance 

with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties (1995).

New additions to historic structures would be 

similar in scale, size, and massing to the 

existing structure. Any materials removed 

during rehabilitation efforts would be 

evaluated to determine their value to the 

parkway’s museum collections or for their 

comparative use in future preservation work 

at the sites. Because the rehabilitation of 

historic structures would be undertaken in 

accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties (1995), any adverse impacts would 

be of negligible to minor intensity and longterm. 

The 12-month visitor use season in this area 

would allow for historic structures to be used 

for interpretation, whether staffed or 

unstaffed. Increased use could suffer wear and 

tear from visitation and vandalism. Continued 

law enforcement patrol and emphasis on 

visitor education regarding the significance 

and fragility of historic structures and how 

visitors can reduce their impacts to such 

resources would curtail inadvertent impacts 

and discourage vandalism, minimizing adverse 

impacts. In addition, monitoring the carrying 

capacity of the historic structures could result 

in the imposition of visitation levels or 

constraints that would contribute to the 

stability or integrity of the resources without 

unduly hindering interpretation for visitors. 

Adverse impacts to the historic structures 

from visitation would be long-term and of 

negligible to minor intensity. 

Zoning at Peaks of Otter under alternative C 

emphasizes the natural zone in which 

management efforts would retain and enhance 

historic structures that contribute to the 

parkway’s national historic landmark 

designation and national register eligibility by 

stabilizing or hardening historic structures to 

provide improved educational and 

interpretive opportunities for visitors. The 

special cultural resource zones at Saunders 

Farm and Johnson Farm would tolerate very 

little cultural resource impacts and would 

provide for long-term beneficial impacts on 

cultural resources through added protection. 

Roanoke Mountain—Zoning at Roanoke 

Mountain is primarily focused on recreation. 
Cultural Resources 

327 

In the recreation zone, cultural resources 

would be used to support interpretation and 

other visitor services which could be a minor 

to moderate site-specific short-term adverse 

impact on such resources due to potential 

vandalism and wear and tear. At the same 

time, improved interpretation of the parkway 

would be a long-term beneficial impact to 

associated historic structures in this area 

because visitors would obtain new 

understanding of the site and would 

discourage vandalism and could lead to better 

preservation of all cultural resources. Where 

there is zoning for scenic character and 

historic parkway, historic structures would be 

better protected and would be beneficially 

impacted as cultural resources contributing to 

national historic landmark designation and 

national register eligibility would be 

emphasized and protected. 

Smart View—In the natural zone surrounding 

the picnic area in the Smart View recreation 

area, under alternative C efforts would be 

made to retain and enhance cultural resources 

that contribute to the national historic 

landmark designation and national register 

listing and eligibility and fewer impacts on 

cultural resources would be tolerated. 

Historic structures could be hardened or 

stabilized in these areas to provide improved 

educational and interpretive opportunities for 

visitors. Impacts would be beneficial and longterm. In this recreation area, the parkway is 

zoned historic parkway and is surrounded on 

either side with scenic character zoning. 

Where there is zoning for scenic character and 

historic parkway, historic structures would be 

better protected and would be beneficially 

impacted as resources contributing to national 

historic landmark designation and national 

register eligibility would be emphasized and 

protected. 

Rocky Knob—Under alternative C, comfort 

station, campground upgrades, and RV access 

would be improved. Adverse impacts on the 

historic buildings in the area would possibly 

result from some of the planned conversions, 

facility upgrades, and additions of new 

facilities associated with these activities. 

Sensitive design in accordance with The 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (1995) would 

ensure that the introduction of 

noncontributing elements to the historic 

structures to be kept to the negligible to minor 

level, and would be a site-specific impact for 

the long term. 

Zoning at Rocky Knob under alternative C 

emphasizes the natural zone. Visitor services 

zones are situated at the campground, 

trailhead shelter, and Rocky Knob Cabins. 

Some park support zoning is present for the 

maintenance area and district offices near the 

campground and the fire road in the gorge is 

also designated as such. Areas adjacent to the 

parkway leading into and exiting the 

recreation area are zoned for scenic character 

while the parkway itself is zoned history 

parkway. In the natural zone, efforts would be 

made to retain and enhance cultural 

resources, including historic structures that 

contribute to the parkway’s national historic 

landmark designation and national register 

listing and eligibility. Historic structures could 

be hardened or stabilized in these areas to 

provide improved educational and 

interpretive opportunities for visitors. Impacts 

would be beneficial and long-term. 

As with alternative B, the special cultural 

resource zone in the Rockcastle Gorge would 

tolerate very little cultural resource impact so 

would provide for beneficial impacts on 

historic structures through added protection. 

As with alternative B, where there it is zoned 

natural, scenic character, and historic 

parkway, historic structures would be well 

protected and would primarily be beneficially 

impacted for the long term as historic 

structures contributing to national historic 

landmark designation and national register 

eligibility would be emphasized. In the park 

support and visitor services zones, historic 

structures would also be protected, providing 

for a long-term beneficial impact. 

Mabry Mill—The Mabry Mill area under 

alternative C is zoned very similarly to 

alternative B. Zoning in this area includes 

scenic character, historic parkway, visitor 

services, and special natural resource. A 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

328 

greater level of protection would be afforded 

in the scenic character, historic parkway, and 

special natural resource zoned areas where 

cultural resources contributing to national 

historic landmark designation and national 

register eligibility would be protected. In the 

visitor services zone, cultural resources, 

including historic structures, would be used to 

support interpretation and other visitor 

services, which could be an adverse sitespecific short-term impact on such resources 

due to potential vandalism and wear and tear. 

At the same time, improved interpretation of 

the parkway would be a long-term beneficial 

impact to associated historic structures in this 

area because visitors would obtain new 

understanding of the site and would 

discourage vandalism and could lead to better 

preservation of all cultural resources. 

Blue Ridge Music Center—Under alternative 

C, there would be no adverse impacts on 

historic structures from maintaining the 

current management, facilities, and design. 

Zoning in the Blue Ridge Music Center area 

includes a large area devoted to natural zoning 

where cultural resources, such as historic 

structures, would be actively protected for the 

national register eligibility and for the role as 

contributing elements to the designation of 

the parkway as a national historic landmark. 

This is also true of the areas zoned for scenic 

parkway and historic parkway, as well as 

special natural zone. Impacts to historic 

structures in these areas would be beneficial 

and long-term due to the added protection. 

Cumberland Knob—Sensitive design would 

ensure that additional trails and picnic areas 

adjacent to historic structures would 

minimally affect the scale and visual 

relationships among historic structures and 

site features. The topography and land use 

and native vegetation patterns of such sites 

would also remain largely unaltered, leaving 

unaffected the existing association between 

the structure and the surrounding landscape. 

Any adverse impacts would be long-term and 

minor in intensity. 

Zoning at Cumberland Knob includes natural, 

recreation, scenic parkway, and historic 

parkway. Zoning in this area would benefit 

cultural resources, including historic 

structures, although there could be some 

adverse impacts in the areas zoned recreation. 

In the recreation zone, cultural resources 

would be used to support interpretation and 

other visitor services which could be a minor 

to moderate site-specific short-term adverse 

impact to historic structures due to potential 

vandalism and wear and tear. At the same 

time, improved interpretation of the parkway 

would be a long-term beneficial impact to 

associated historic structures in this area 

because visitors would obtain new 

understanding of the site and would 

discourage vandalism and could lead to better 

preservation of all cultural resources. 

Doughton Park—Planned facility upgrades, 

and additions of new facilities campground 

facilities in the area under alternative C would 

possibly result in site-specific adverse impacts 

on historic structures. Sensitive design in 

accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties (1995) would ensure that the 

introduction of noncontributing elements to 

the historic structures to be kept to the 

negligible to minor level, and would be a sitespecific impact for the long term. 

Under alternative C, a substantial part of the 

area is zoned natural. The parkway itself is 

zoned for historic parkway with scenic 

character zoning adjacent. There is visitor 

service zoning in the developed areas, while 

the Brinegar Cabin and Caudill Cabin are 

zoned as special cultural resource zones. The 

Grassy Gap Fire Road is zoned for park 

support. Zoning in this area would generally 

benefit historic structures, although there 

could be some site-specific minor short-term 

adverse impacts in the areas zoned for park 

support or visitor services if historic structures 

are used to support interpretation and other 

visitor services. This could be a minor to 

moderate, site-specific short-term adverse 

impact on such resources due to potential 

vandalism and wear and tear. At the same 

time, improved interpretation of the parkway 
Cultural Resources 

329 

would be a long-term beneficial impact to 

associated historic structures in this area 

because visitors would obtain new 

understanding of the site and would 

discourage vandalism and could lead to better 

preservation of all cultural resources. 

Where there is historic parkway, scenic 

character, and natural zoning, parkway 

historic structures would benefit from 

evaluation and protection for their possible 

national register listing or as contributing 

elements to the designation of the parkway as 

a national historic landmark. Few impacts on 

historic structures would be tolerated in the 

special cultural resource zones. Added 

protection would be an added long-term 

beneficial impact to those historic structures 

in these zones. 

Julian Price—Under alternative C, zoning at 

Julian Price is primarily focused on recreation 

and natural zoning. There is some historic 

parkway zone in the area around Price Lake 

and some special natural resource zoning 

interspersed with the natural zone. Zoning in 

this area would generally benefit cultural 

resources, including historic structures, 

although there could be some site-specific 

minor short-term adverse impacts in the areas 

zoned recreation. In the recreation zone, 

historic structures would be used to support 

interpretation and other visitor services, 

which could be a minor to moderate sitespecific short-term adverse impact on such 

resources due to potential vandalism and wear 

and tear. At the same time, improved 

interpretation of the parkway would be a 

long-term beneficial impact to associated 

historic structures in this area because visitors 

would obtain new understanding of the site 

and would discourage vandalism and could 

lead to better preservation of all cultural 

resources. Where there is historic parkway, 

natural and special natural zoning, parkway 

historic structures would benefit from 

evaluation and protection for their possible 

national register listing or as contributing 

elements to the designation of the parkway as 

a national historic landmark. 

Linville Falls—Planned upgrades, trail 

improvements, improved RV access, and 

possible redesign of the picnic area and 

conversion of the visitor contact station to a 

trailhead shelter would be undertaken in 

accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties (1995). Any modifications to 

historic structures, if required, would be 

similar in scale, size, and massing to the 

existing structure. Any materials removed 

during rehabilitation efforts would be 

evaluated to determine their value to the 

parkway’s museum collections or for their 

comparative use in future preservation work 

at the sites. Because the rehabilitation of 

historic structures would be undertaken in 

accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties (1995), any adverse impacts would 

be of negligible to minor intensity and longterm. 

The longer 12-month visitor use season in this 

area would allow for historic structures to be 

used for interpretation, whether staffed or 

unstaffed. Increased use could cause wear and 

tear from visitation and vandalism. Continued 

law enforcement patrol and emphasis on 

visitor education regarding the significance 

and fragility of historic structures and how 

visitors can reduce their impacts to such 

resources would curtail inadvertent impacts 

and discourage vandalism, minimizing adverse 

impacts. In addition, monitoring the carrying 

capacity of the historic structures could result 

in the imposition of visitation levels or 

constraints that would contribute to the 

stability or integrity of the resources without 

unduly hindering interpretation for visitors. 

Adverse impacts to the historic structures 

from visitation would be long-term and of 

negligible to minor intensity. 

Zoning at Linville Falls includes more natural 

zoning. The spur road to the visitor contact 

station and the campground would be zoned 

differently from alternative B and would be 

visitor service designated. The parkway itself 

is zoned for historic parkway with scenic 

character designated to either side. Park 

support zones exist at the maintenance 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

330 

facility. Impacts from this zoning would 

generally benefit cultural resources, including 

historic structures, for the long term through 

added protection of these resources. 

Crabtree Falls—Zoning at Crabtree Falls 

Recreation Area under alternative C is natural. 

The picnic area, campground, and gift shop 

are all zoned for visitor services. The parkway 

is zoned historic parkway with scenic 

character designated to either side. Historic 

structures would be beneficially impacted for 

the long term from the natural zone 

designation through added protection and 

low-level visitor use within this zone. Historic 

structures would be evaluated for national 

register eligibility and would be better 

preserved in the natural, scenic character, and 

historic parkway zones. 

Mt. Pisgah—Under alternative C, this 

recreation area is zoned primarily as a natural 

zone and the parkway is designated for 

historic parkway with some adjacent special 

natural resource zones. The campground and 

amphitheater area would be designated visitor 

services zone, which would tolerate greater 

impacts when compared to alternative B. 

These impacts would likely be site-specific, 

short-term, adverse, and minor due to 

potential vandalism and wear and tear from 

increased use. 

Historic structures would be evaluated and 

managed to maintain their eligibility for the 

national register and for their role in the 

designation of the parkway as a national 

historic landmark and resources protected. 

Historic structure treatments in this area 

would be in keeping with The Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995). There would be 

added protection from the designation of the 

Buck Springs Lodge Ruin special cultural 

resource zone where few impacts on cultural 

resources would be tolerated, resulting in a 

long-term beneficial impact to historic 

structures. 

Cumulative Impacts. Over the years, 

historic structures outside the parkway may 

have been demolished for agriculture and the 

development and expansion of communities. 

Types of development include residential 

homes, subdivisions, commercial businesses, 

and industry. Increasing trends in these 

developments are projected to continue with 

the ongoing influx of people to these areas. As 

a result, new developments and increasing 

population in the region could result in loss or 

diminished integrity of historic structures, 

increased vandalism or other illegal activities, 

or unsupervised use. Cumulative impacts from 

these activities have been adverse, moderate, 

and long-term. 

As described above, implementation of 

alternative C would result in both long-term 

minor to moderate adverse effects and 

beneficial effects to historic structures. Both 

the beneficial and minor to moderate longterm adverse impacts of this alternative, in 

combination with the moderate long-term 

adverse impacts of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 

result in a long-term moderate adverse 

cumulative effect. The adverse effects of 

alternative C, however, would be a small 

component of the adverse effect cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. Alternative C would have longterm site-specific minor to moderate adverse 

impacts and long-term beneficial impacts on 

historic structures. Impacts of this alternative, 

combined with the impacts of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would result in short- and long-term 

minor to moderate adverse cumulative 

impacts, and long-term beneficial cumulative 

impacts. However, because most of these 

impacts occurred in the past or now take place 

beyond the boundary of the parkway, this 

alternative’s contribution to these effects 

would be small. The impact under section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act 

would be an adverse effect for the moderate 

adverse impacts and would be no adverse 

effect in the case of the beneficial impacts, 

cumulative and otherwise. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

advisory council’s criteria of adverse effects 

(36 CFR 800.5 Assessment of Adverse Effects) 
Cultural Resources 

331 

the National Park Service concludes that 

implementation of this alternative would 

include site-specific minor to moderate 

adverse impacts on some historic structures 

that could result in an adverse effect at some 

sites. Any beneficial impacts would have no 

adverse effect for the purposes of section 106. 

National Park Service staff would work with 

the state historic preservation officer and 

advisory council to prevent an adverse effect. 

Any adverse effects under section 106 would 

be mitigated according to the Secretary of the 

Interior's Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995). 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES 

Methods and Assumptions for 

Analyzing Impacts 

Impacts on cultural landscapes were evaluated 

by comparing projected changes resulting 

from the action alternatives (B and C) to those 

of the no-action alternative (A). The 

thresholds used to determine impacts on these 

resources are defined as follows. 

Negligible: Impacts would be at the lowest 

levels of detection—barely perceptible and 

measurable. For purposes of section 106, the 

determination of effect would be no adverse 

effect. 

Minor: Impacts would affect characterdefining features but would not diminish the 

overall integrity of cultural landscapes. For 

purposes of section 106, the determination of 

effect would be no adverse effect. 

Moderate: Impacts would alter a characterdefining feature(s) of a cultural landscape and 

result in measurable changes that could 

diminish the overall integrity of the resource 

to the extent that its national register eligibility 

could be jeopardized. For purposes of section 

106, the determination of effect would be 

adverse effect. 

Major: Impacts would alter characterdefining features of a cultural landscape, 

diminishing the overall integrity of the 

resource to the extent that it would no longer 

be eligible to be listed on the national register. 

For purposes of section 106, the 

determination of effect would be adverse 

effect. 

Cumulative Impacts. The Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations, which 

implement the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (42 USC 4321 et seq.), require 

assessment of cumulative impacts in the 

decision-making process for federal projects. 

Cumulative impacts are defined as "the impact 

on the environment which results from the 

incremental impact of the action when added 

to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

agency (federal or nonfederal) or person 

undertakes such other actions" (40 CFR 

1508.7). Cumulative impacts are considered 

for all alternatives, including the no-action 

alternative. 

Cumulative impacts were determined by 

combining the impacts of the alternatives with 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions. Therefore, it was 

necessary to identify other ongoing or 

reasonably foreseeable future projects at Blue 

Ridge Parkway and, if applicable, the 

surrounding region. 

Parkway-wide Actions Common to 

All Alternatives 

For all alternatives, parkway-wide cultural 

landscapes that are in keeping with the 

parkway’s original design intent would be 

given priority for preservation as contributing 

elements to the parkway as a national registereligible national historic landmark. This 

prioritization would be a long-term beneficial 

impact on cultural landscapes. Moreover, 

designation of the parkway as a listed national 

historic landmark would have a beneficial 

impact on all parkway cultural resources, 

including cultural landscapes. Continued 

priority for historic preservation would 

benefit cultural landscapes through national 

register listing and appropriate preservation 

activities. Historic views and vistas associated 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

332 

with cultural landscapes would be inventoried 

as the basis of informed decision making in 

the future regarding how the views and vistas 

should be preserved. Impacts would be longterm and beneficial. 

The surveys and research necessary to 

determine the eligibility of a cultural 

landscape for listing in the national register, or 

for designating the Blue Ridge Parkway as a 

national historic landmark, are a prerequisite 

for understanding the resource’s significance, 

as well as the basis of informed decision 

making in the future regarding how such 

resources should be managed. Such surveys 

and research, as well as nominations to the 

national register or designation as a national 

historic landmark, would be a long-term 

beneficial impact to cultural landscapes. 

Although the emphasis is on off-parkway 

views in the no-action alternative, the 

completion of the baseline evaluation of offparkway scenic views would be a long-term 

beneficial impact to cultural landscapes as 

knowing condition and quality of historic 

scenic views would provide for informed 

decision making when working to preserve 

cultural landscapes along and within the 

parkway. 

Alternative A—No-action 

Parkway-wide. Under alternative A, some 

of the planned campground upgrades at the 

nine parkway campgrounds, such as providing 

showers and RV water and electrical hookups, 

could result in adverse impacts on cultural 

landscapes. However, because upgrades 

would be accomplished within the existing 

design and configuration of the campgrounds, 

adverse impacts would be short-term and 

long-term, site-specific, and negligible to 

minor, because they would not alter the 

features and patterns of the cultural 

landscapes; therefore, they would likely not 

be noticeable. Maintenance of the other 

existing infrastructure and facilities would be 

a beneficial long-term impact on cultural 

landscapes because the infrastructure would 

be maintained in good condition without 

disturbance or changes to the cultural 

landscape features, such as spatial 

organization, land use patterns, circulation 

systems, topography, vegetation, structures, 

cluster arrangements, small-scale features, or 

views and vistas. 

The parkway’s existing land protection 

program under alternative A would result in 

long-term beneficial impacts on cultural 

resources. Acquisition of conservation 

easements and land from willing sellers would 

benefit cultural landscapes for the long term 

through added protection. 

The continued management of cultural 

landscape features and patterns, such as 

designed landscape features, roadsides, and 

vistas, as well as agricultural leases for 

primarily scenic and recreational purposes 

would be a beneficial impact on cultural 

landscapes because there would be no 

anticipated disturbance to these resources and 

would protect cultural landscapes from 

inappropriate alteration or demolition. 

Under alternative A, cultural landscapes 

would benefit from existing partnership 

management strategies that would continue to 

grow and develop. Continued implementation 

of partnership management strategies, such as 

the scenery conservation management 

strategy, would emphasize the significance 

and potential fragility of the parkway’s 

cultural landscapes and engage parkway 

stakeholders, neighbors, and local 

governments in active preservation of the 

resources and discourage inadvertent impacts 

and vandalism. Beneficial impacts would 

result from engaging the public and partners 

in active preservation programs that include 

cultural landscapes. Therefore, overall, 

partnering would have a long-term beneficial 

impact. 

Working reactively with parkway 

stakeholders, neighbors, and local 

governments using the current scenery 

conservation management strategies under 

alternative A would emphasize the 

significance and potential fragility of the 

parkway’s historic structures and engage 
Cultural Resources 

333 

parkway stakeholders, neighbors, and local 

governments in active preservation of the 

resources and discourage inadvertent impacts 

and vandalism. The impacts would be longterm and beneficial. 

Generally, cultural landscapes would benefit 

for the long term from maintenance of current 

use of the parkway trails and management 

relative to trails because there would be no 

new disturbance and no introduction of 

noncontributing elements to national registerlisted or -eligible cultural landscapes. 

Parkway Segments. Only those parkway 

segments that would experience more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide section are described below. 

Segment 3: Plateau—Continued NPS 

management of the historic Kelley School and 

farms near milepost 149 would benefit the 

historic setting and cultural landscape by 

allowing for continued monitoring of the 

historic site and landscape. The presence of 

law enforcement staff could curtail 

inadvertent impacts and discourage 

vandalism, minimizing such adverse impacts 

to the site. Adverse impacts to the cultural 

landscape at the Kelley School from the daily 

wear-and-tear of continued use would be 

long-term and of negligible to minor intensity. 

Segments 4 and 6: Highlands and 

Asheville—Continued partnering with local 

stakeholders would benefit all cultural 

landscapes by directing use away from fragile 

historic sites. Beneficial impacts would result 

from engaging the public and partners in 

active preservation programs that include 

cultural landscapes. Therefore, overall, 

partnering would have a long-term beneficial 

impact. 

Recreation Areas. Only those parkway 

recreation areas that would have more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide and segment sections are 

described below. 

James River/Otter Creek—Upgrading certain 

comfort stations in the no-action alternative 

could possibly result in an adverse impact on 

cultural landscapes if a noncontributing 

element that is introduced to cultural 

landscapes diminishes the patterns or features 

that make it eligible for the national register. 

Sensitive design in accordance with The 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (1995) would 

ensure that such upgrades would minimally 

affect the patterns and site features of the 

cultural landscape. The topography and land 

use and native vegetation patterns of such 

sites would also remain largely unaltered, 

leaving unaffected the cultural landscape. Any 

adverse impacts would be long-term and of 

minor intensity.

Peaks of Otter, Roanoke Mountain, Julian 

Price Memorial Park, Linville Falls, Crabtree 

Falls, Craggy Gardens, Mt. Pisgah—Adverse 

impacts on cultural landscapes in these areas 

could result from the adaptive reuse of 

concession facilities and campground comfort 

station upgrades such as adding showers and 

RV water and electrical hookups, which 

would require expanded sewage treatment 

facilities and electrical lines. Sensitive design 

in accordance with The Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995) would ensure that 

such upgrades would minimally affect the 

patterns and site features of the cultural 

landscape. The topography and land use and 

native vegetation patterns of such sites would 

also remain largely unaltered, leaving 

unaffected the cultural landscape. Any adverse 

impacts would be long-term and of minor 

intensity. 

Mabry Mill and Doughton Park—Under the 

no-action alternative, adverse impacts on 

cultural landscapes in the area could result 

from possible adaptive reuse of concession 

facilities if these activities diminish the 

cultural landscape’s patterns or features. 

Sensitive design in accordance with The 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (1995) would 

ensure that this adaptive reuse would 

minimally affect the patterns and site features 

of the cultural landscape. The topography and 

land use and native vegetation patterns of 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

334 

such sites would also remain largely unaltered, 

leaving unaffected the cultural landscape. Any 

adverse impacts would be long-term and of 

minor intensity. 

Doughton Park—The Doughton Park 

recreation area contains the Brinegar Cabin, 

which is listed in the national register. 

Continued deterioration of the landscape and 

setting surrounding the site would be a longterm moderate adverse impact on the cultural 

landscape that could jeopardize its eligibility 

as a cultural landscape. Such actions would 

result in an adverse impact that would be sitespecific, moderate, and long-term. 

Cumulative Effects. Over the years, 

cultural landscapes outside the parkway may 

have been demolished for agriculture and the 

development and expansion of communities. 

Types of development include residential 

homes, subdivisions, commercial businesses, 

and industry. Increasing trends in these 

developments are projected to continue with 

the ongoing influx of people to these areas. As 

a result, new developments and increasing 

population in the region could result in loss or 

diminished integrity of the cultural landscapes 

surrounding the parkway, increased 

vandalism or other illegal activities, or 

unsupervised use. Cumulative impacts from 

these activities have been adverse, moderate, 

and long-term. 

As described above, implementation of the 

no-action alternative would result in both 

long-term minor to moderate adverse effects 

and beneficial effects to cultural landscapes. 

Both the beneficial and minor to moderate 

long-term adverse impacts of this alternative, 

in combination with the moderate long-term 

adverse impacts of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 

result in a long-term moderate adverse 

cumulative effect. The adverse effects of the 

no-action alternative, however, would be a 

small component of the adverse effect 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Alternative A would have sitespecific, short- and long-term minor to 

moderate adverse impacts, and long-term 

negligible to moderate beneficial impacts on 

the cultural landscapes. Impacts of this 

alternative, combined with the impacts of 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in 

short- and long-term minor to moderate 

adverse cumulative impacts, and long-term 

beneficial cumulative impacts. However, 

because most of these impacts occurred in the 

past or now take place beyond the boundary 

of the parkway, this alternative’s contribution 

to these effects would be small. The impact 

under section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act would be an adverse effect 

for the moderate adverse impacts and would 

be no adverse effect in the case of the 

beneficial impacts, cumulative and otherwise. 

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 

Parkway-wide. Under alternative B, there 

would be potential impacts on cultural 

landscapes through the construction of new 

grade separation structures when at-grade 

crossings are replaced. Impacts would be 

caused by the potential modification of 

landscape features or changes in access and 

use in the vicinity of the construction. The 

impacts from the possible modification of 

landscape features or patterns could be kept 

in the minor to moderate range through 

appropriate mitigative measures and would be 

in accordance with The Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995). The use of areas 

with existing disturbance and construction 

within the existing footprint of prior 

construction would help to minimize impacts 

on cultural landscapes. Before all construction 

site-specific surveys would be conducted and 

cultural resources would be avoided to the 

greatest extent possible. Adverse impacts 

would be site-specific, primarily minor and 

short-term, although some moderate adverse 

impacts could occur. 

As with alternative A, some of the planned 

campground upgrades, such as adding 

showers and RV water and electrical hookups, 

at the nine parkway campgrounds, other 

facility upgrades, adaptations for universal 
Cultural Resources 

335 

accessibility, and additions of new facilities for 

concessions could result in adverse impacts 

on cultural landscapes. Sensitive design in 

accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties (1995) would ensure that such 

upgrades would minimally affect the patterns 

and site features of the cultural landscape. The 

topography and land use and native 

vegetation patterns of such sites would also 

remain largely unaltered, leaving unaffected 

the cultural landscape. Any adverse impacts 

would be long-term and minor intensity.

Updates to the historic Parkway Land Use 

Maps under alternative B would provide for a 

long-term beneficial impact because it would 

guide current park managers to making 

appropriate decisions for preserving parkway 

cultural landscapes. The inability of the 

parkway to strictly adhere to the Parkway 

Land Use Maps to accommodate new laws 

and policy requirements and operational 

constraints, an adverse impact on the 

designed cultural landscape could occur. This 

impact would be site-specific, adverse, minor 

to moderate, and likely long-term. 

Under alternative B, an active and engaged 

interpretation and visitor services 

management program along the parkway 

would benefit cultural landscapes because 

continued law enforcement patrol and 

emphasis on visitor education regarding the 

significance and fragility of cultural 

landscapes and how visitors can reduce their 

impacts to such resources would curtail 

inadvertent impacts such as vandalism or wear 

and tear, thus minimizing adverse impacts. In 

addition, monitoring the carrying capacity of 

cultural landscapes could result in the 

imposition of visitation levels or constraints 

that would contribute to the stability or 

integrity of the resources without unduly 

hindering interpretation for visitors. Adverse 

impacts to cultural landscapes from visitation 

would be long-term and of negligible to minor 

intensity. 

Similar to alternative A, alternative B would 

also have long-term beneficial impacts on 

cultural resources from the land protection 

program that includes acquisition of 

conservation easements and land from willing 

sellers, which would protect cultural 

landscapes from inappropriate alteration or 

demolition. Alternative B’s beneficial impact 

would be farther reaching to include 

enhanced beneficial impacts on the 

preservation of cultural landscapes through 

acquisition and the targeting of specific 

cultural resources to be acquired. The 

establishment of criteria for acquisition would 

further enhance preservation and protection 

of all cultural resources, including cultural 

landscapes, for a long-term beneficial impact 

on cultural landscapes. 

Partnerships would be enhanced for even 

greater beneficial impact on cultural 

landscapes for the long term. Continued 

implementation of partnership management 

strategies, such as the scenery conservation 

management strategy, would emphasize the 

significance and potential fragility of the 

parkway’s cultural landscapes and engage 

parkway stakeholders, neighbors, and local 

governments in active preservation of the 

resources and discourage inadvertent impacts 

and vandalism. Impacts would be long-term 

and beneficial. 

Generally, cultural landscapes would benefit 

for the long term from maintenance of current 

use of the parkway trails and management 

relative to trails because there would be no 

new disturbance and no introduction of 

noncontributing elements that could 

otherwise diminish the integrity of cultural 

landscapes through trampling or wear and 

tear from new trail use. 

Under alternative B, working more actively 

with parkway stakeholders, neighbors, and 

local governments using the current Scenery 

Conservation Management Strategies would 

emphasize the significance and potential 

fragility of the parkway’s cultural landscapes 

and engage parkway stakeholders, neighbors, 

and local governments in active preservation 

of the resources and discourage inadvertent 

impacts and vandalism. The acquisition of 

conservation easements and land from willing 

sellers would also protect cultural landscapes 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

336 

from inappropriate alteration or demolition. 

These impacts would be long-term and 

beneficial. 

Under alternative B, the construction of new 

walking paths could cause some minor sitespecific adverse long-term impacts on cultural 

landscapes because of the introduction of 

noncontributing elements to the cultural 

landscapes, such as new circulation systems or 

land use patterns. The design of new trails 

would be undertaken in accordance with The 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes. Any modifications would 

consider the cultural landscape qualities and 

features and implement appropriate 

placement of the trails and vegetative 

screening. Modern additions to cultural 

landscapes would be of compatible design 

using like materials, form, colors, and patterns 

and would not be intrusive on the landscape. 

Because trail construction would be 

undertaken in accordance with The Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties with Guidelines for the 

Treatment of Cultural Landscapes, any adverse 

impacts would be of negligible to minor 

intensity and long-term. 

Parkway Segments. Only those parkway 

segments that would experience more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide sections are described below. 

Segment 1: Ridge—Improvements to the 

north entrance and providing additional 

visitor contacts would likely be a long-term 

beneficial impact to cultural landscapes 

because visitors would enter with additional 

historical interpretation and orientation, 

which would be an indirect long-term benefit 

to all cultural resources. Improved 

interpretation of the parkway’s cultural 

landscapes would allow visitors to obtain new 

understanding of the site and would 

discourage vandalism and could lead to better 

preservation of all cultural resources. 

Segment 3: Plateau—NPS management of 

the Kelley School would allow for continued 

monitoring of the resources. The presence of 

lwas enforcement staff could curtail 

inadvertent impacts and discourage 

vandalism, minimizing adverse impacts. 

Adverse impacts to the cultural landscape 

from the daily wear-and-tear of continued use 

would be long-term and of negligible to minor 

intensity. 

Segment 4: Highlands—Working with 

partners to protect cultural resources would 

benefit cultural landscapes in the segment. 

Segment 6: Asheville—Development of 

additional parking and trails under alternative 

B would possibly result in site-specific shortterm minor adverse impacts on cultural 

landscapes if noncontributing elements are 

introduced to the cultural landscape. Impacts 

would be kept in the minor range through 

appropriate mitigative measures whereby 

topography, land use, and native vegetation 

patterns of such sites would remain largely 

unaltered, leaving unaffected the cultural 

landscape. 

Recreation Areas. Only those parkway 

recreation areas that would have more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide and segment sections are 

described below. 

Humpback Rocks—Drawing attention to the 

historic Howardsville Turnpike route under 

alternative B would cause a potential minor 

site-specific adverse impact through increased 

attention on this cultural resource. Increased 

use could lead to trampling, vandalism, and 

integrity loss of previously undocumented 

cultural landscapes and additional 

deterioration to the turnpike itself. The 

improved interpretation of the turnpike could 

be a long-term beneficial impact as visitors 

would obtain new understanding of the site 

through the marking of the turnpike and 

would discourage vandalism. That could in 

turn lead to better preservation of the cultural 

landscape. 

Zoning at Humpback Rocks under alternative 

B is primarily focused on recreation and 

natural zoning. In the recreation zone, cultural 
Cultural Resources 

337 

landscapes would be used to support 

interpretation and other visitor services which 

could include an adverse short-term sitespecific impact on such resources due to 

potential vandalism and wear and tear. At the 

same time, improved interpretation of the 

parkway would be a long-term beneficial 

impact to cultural landscape features in this 

area because visitors would obtain new 

understanding of the site and would 

discourage vandalism and could lead to better 

preservation of all cultural resources. Where 

there is zoning for natural, scenic character, 

and historic parkway, cultural landscapes 

would be well protected and would primarily 

be beneficially impacted for the long term as 

cultural resources contributing to national 

historic landmark designation and national 

register eligibility would be emphasized. 

James River/Otter Creek and Peaks of 

Otter—Adverse impacts on cultural 

landscapes in the area could result from some 

of the potential new facilities or upgrades 

under alternative B. Sensitive design in 

accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties (1995) would ensure that this 

adaptive reuse would minimally affect the 

patterns and site features of the cultural 

landscape. The topography and land use and 

native vegetation patterns of such sites would 

also remain largely unaltered, leaving 

unaffected the cultural landscape. Any adverse 

impacts would be long-term and minor 

intensity. 

Maintaining Otter Lake would be a long-term 

beneficial impact on the cultural landscape as 

it would preserve a part of the designed 

historic cultural landscape, of which Otter 

Lake is a contributing feature in this area. 

Zoning at James River/Otter Creek and the 

Peaks of Otter is primarily focused on 

recreation. In the recreation zone, cultural 

resources, such as cultural landscapes, would 

be used to support interpretation and other 

visitor services, which could be an adverse 

site-specific short-term minor impact on such 

resources. In the recreation zone, cultural 

landscapes would be used to support 

interpretation and other visitor services which 

could be a minor to moderate site-specific 

short-term adverse impact on such resources 

due to potential vandalism and wear and tear. 

At the same time, improved interpretation of 

the parkway would be a long-term beneficial 

impact to cultural landscape features in this 

area because visitors would obtain new 

understanding of the site and would 

discourage vandalism and could lead to better 

preservation of all cultural resources. 

Peaks of Otter—Zoning at Peaks of Otter 

under alternative B is primarily focused on 

recreation. Where there is zoning for natural, 

scenic character, historic parkway cultural 

landscapes would be better protected and 

would be beneficially impacted for the long 

term as cultural resources contributing to 

national historic landmark designation and 

national register eligibility would be 

emphasized. The special cultural resource 

zones at Saunders Farm and Johnson Farm 

would provide for beneficial impacts on 

cultural landscapes through the added 

protection of significant cultural landscape 

features in this zone. 

Roanoke Mountain and Smart View—

Under alternative B, the conversion of the 

campground to a picnic area in the Roanoke 

recreation area could be a minor site-specific 

long-term adverse impact on the cultural 

landscape of the historic parkway from 

altering the use and appearance of the historic 

setting. Sensitive design in accordance with 

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (1995) would 

ensure that this adaptive reuse would 

minimally affect the patterns and site features 

of the cultural landscape. The topography and 

land use and native vegetation patterns of 

such sites would also remain largely unaltered, 

leaving unaffected the cultural landscape. Any 

adverse impacts would be long-term and 

minor intensity. 

Although zoning at Roanoke Mountain and 

Smart View is focused on recreation under 

alternative B, there is an added natural zone 

surrounding the Roanoke Mountain Loop. In 

the recreation zone, cultural landscapes would 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

338 

be used to support interpretation and other 

visitor services which could be a minor to 

moderate site-specific short-term adverse 

impact on such resources due to potential 

vandalism and wear and tear. At the same 

time, improved interpretation of the parkway 

would be a long-term beneficial impact to 

cultural landscape features in this area 

because visitors would obtain new 

understanding of the site and would 

discourage vandalism and could lead to better 

preservation of all cultural resources. 

In the natural zone, efforts would be made to 

retain and enhance cultural landscapes that 

contribute to the national historic landmark 

designation and national register listing and 

eligibility and there would be less tolerance 

for impacts on cultural landscapes. Where 

there is zoning for scenic character and 

historic parkway, cultural landscapes would 

be better protected and would primarily be 

beneficially impacted as contributing 

resources to national historic landmark 

designation and national register eligibility 

would be emphasized. 

Rocky Knob—Under alternative B, adverse 

impacts on cultural landscapes in the Rocky 

Knob recreational area would possibly result 

from some of the planned conversions, facility 

upgrades, and additions of new facilities for 

concessions and campgrounds. Sensitive 

design in accordance with The Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995) would ensure that 

the introduction of nonhistoric features 

would minimally affect the patterns and site 

features of the cultural landscape. The 

topography and land use and native 

vegetation patterns of such sites would also 

remain largely unaltered, leaving unaffected 

the cultural landscape. Any adverse impacts 

would be long-term and minor intensity. 

Zoning at Rocky Knob is primarily focused on 

recreation. In the recreation zone, cultural 

landscapes would be used to support 

interpretation and other visitor services which 

could be a minor to moderate site-specific 

short-term adverse impact on such resources 

due to potential vandalism and wear and tear. 

At the same time, improved interpretation of 

the parkway would be a long-term beneficial 

impact to cultural landscape features in this 

area because visitors would obtain new 

understanding of the site and would 

discourage vandalism and could lead to better 

preservation of all cultural resources. 

Where there is zoning for scenic character and 

historic parkway cultural resources would be 

better protected and would primarily be 

beneficially impacted as cultural landscapes 

contributing to national historic landmark 

designation and national register eligibility 

would be emphasized. There is a special 

cultural resource zone in Rockcastle Gorge 

where there are remnants of an abandoned 

mountain community. Trail improvements in 

this area would allow for more law 

enforcement-led programs that would result 

in an increase in park law enforcement 

presence, and thus, an increase in monitoring 

and protection of historic landscape features 

in this area. Because this area can tolerate only 

little impact on cultural landscapes, this 

special cultural resource zone would provide 

for beneficial impacts on cultural landscapes 

through added protection of significant 

cultural landscape features. 

Mabry Mill—As with alternative A, under 

alternative B, adverse impacts on cultural 

landscapes would possibly result from facility 

upgrades, addition of new facilities for 

concessions, or the creation of a visitor 

contact station. Sensitive design in accordance 

with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties (1995)

would ensure that this adaptive reuse would 

minimally affect the patterns and site features 

of the cultural landscape. The topography and 

land use and native vegetation patterns of 

such sites would also remain largely unaltered, 

leaving unaffected the cultural landscape. Any 

adverse impacts would be long-term and 

minor intensity. 

The relocation of the state road crossing could 

produce adverse impacts on the cultural 

landscape because this would be a substantial 

change in circulation in how visitors access 

the site. Sensitive design in accordance with 
Cultural Resources 

339 

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (1995) would 

ensure that the crossing would minimally 

affect the patterns and site features of the 

cultural landscape. The topography and land 

use and native vegetation patterns of such 

sites would also remain largely unaltered, 

leaving unaffected the cultural landscape. Any 

adverse impacts would be long-term and 

minor intensity. 

Zoning in this area includes scenic character, 

historic parkway, visitor services, and special 

natural resource. A greater level of protection 

would be afforded in the scenic character, 

historic parkway, and special natural resource 

zoned areas where cultural resources 

contributing to national historic landmark 

designation and national register eligibility 

would be protected. In the visitor services 

zone, cultural landscapes would be used to 

support interpretation and other visitor 

services which could be an adverse short-term 

site-specific minor impact on such resources 

due to potential vandalism and wear and tear. 

At the same time, improved interpretation of 

the parkway would be a long-term beneficial 

impact to cultural landscape features in this 

area because visitors would obtain new 

understanding of the site and would 

discourage vandalism and could lead to better 

preservation of all cultural resources. 

Blue Ridge Music Center—Zoning in the Blue 

Ridge Music Center area includes a large area 

devoted to natural zoning where cultural 

resources, such as cultural landscapes, would 

be actively protected for the national register 

eligibility and for the role as contributing 

elements to the designation of the parkway as 

a national historic landmark. This is also true 

of the areas zoned for scenic parkway and 

historic parkway, as well as special natural 

zone. In the visitor services zone, there could 

be some short-term site-specific minor 

adverse impacts on cultural landscapes, as 

some resources may be adapted or used to 

accommodate the needs of the visiting public. 

The cultural landscape in these areas would be 

evaluated and appropriate treatments 

determined following The Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties with Guidelines for the 

Treatment of Cultural Landscapes to ensure 

that adverse impacts would be kept in the 

minor range. 

Cumberland Knob—Under alternative B, the 

restoration of the visitor contact station to its 

historical appearance would be undertaken in 

accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of 

Cultural Landscapes. Any materials removed 

during restoration efforts would be evaluated 

to determine their value to the parkway’s 

museum collections or for their comparative 

use in future preservation work at the sites. 

Because the restoration of historic structures 

would be undertaken in accordance with The 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes, any adverse impacts would be of 

negligible to minor intensity and long-term. 

Increased visitor services could suffer wear 

and tear from visitation and vandalism.

Continued law enforcement patrol and 

emphasis on visitor education regarding the 

significance and fragility of cultural 

landscapes and how visitors can reduce their 

impacts to such resources would curtail 

inadvertent impacts and discourage 

vandalism, minimizing adverse impacts. In 

addition, monitoring the carrying capacity of 

the landscape could result in the imposition of 

visitation levels or constraints that would 

contribute to the stability or integrity of the 

resources without unduly hindering 

interpretation for visitors. Adverse impacts to 

the cultural landscapes from visitation would 

be long-term and of negligible to minor 

intensity. 

Zoning at Cumberland Knob includes natural, 

park support and visitor services, scenic 

parkway, and historic parkway. Zoning in this 

area would generally benefit cultural 

resources although there could be some minor 

site-specific adverse short-term impacts in the 

areas zoned for visitor services because of 

impacts from future or increased use. Where 

there is historic parkway, scenic parkway, and 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

340 

natural zoning parkway cultural landscapes 

would benefit from evaluation and protection 

for their possible national register listing or as 

contributing elements to the designation of 

the parkway as a national historic landmark. 

Doughton Park—Improved management of 

the fields at Brinegar Cabin under alternative 

B would provide for a long-term beneficial 

impact on cultural landscape by replicating 

the historic landscape’s patterns and features. 

Planned facility upgrades and additions of 

new facilities campground facilities in the area 

under alternative B would possibly result in 

adverse impacts on cultural landscapes 

through ground disturbance and altering 

significance features of the cultural landscape. 

A change in landscape management in the 

vicinity of the wetlands could also produce 

moderate short-term adverse impacts on the 

historic designed landscape. Sensitive design 

in accordance with The Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995) would ensure that 

new facilities would minimally affect the 

patterns and site features of the cultural 

landscape. The topography and land use and 

native vegetation patterns of such sites would 

also remain largely unaltered, leaving 

unaffected the cultural landscape. Any adverse 

impacts would be long-term and minor 

intensity. 

Under this alternative a substantial part of the 

area is zoned natural. The parkway itself is 

zoned for historic parkway with scenic 

character zoning adjacent. There is visitor 

service zoning in the developed areas, while 

the Brinegar Cabin and Caudill Cabin are 

zoned as special cultural resource zones. The 

Grassy Gap Fire Road is zoned for park 

support. Zoning in this area would generally 

benefit cultural landscapes, although there 

could be some minor adverse site-specific

short-term impacts in the areas zoned for park 

support or visitor services due to potential 

vandalism and wear and tear to significant 

landscape features. Where there is historic 

parkway, scenic character, and natural zoning, 

parkway cultural landscapes would benefit 

from evaluation and protection for their 

possible national register listing or as 

contributing elements to the designation of 

the parkway as a national historic landmark. 

Few impacts on cultural landscapes would be 

tolerated in the special cultural resource 

zones, so this would be an added long-term 

benefit that would further protect cultural 

landscapes in this area. 

Julian Price—Under alternative B, zoning at 

Julian Price includes a substantial amount of 

natural zone, a small visitor services area at the 

campground, and a new picnic area. The area 

around the lake is zoned for recreation. There 

are special natural resource zones adjacent to 

the parkway in several locations and the 

parkway itself is zoned for historic parkway. 

Zoning in this area would generally benefit 

cultural landscapes, although there could be 

some minor site-specific adverse short-term 

impacts in the areas zoned recreation. In the 

recreation zone, cultural landscapes would be 

used to support interpretation and other 

visitor services which could be a minor to 

moderate site-specific short-term adverse 

impact on such resources due to potential 

vandalism and wear and tear. At the same 

time, improved interpretation of the parkway 

would be a long-term beneficial impact to 

cultural landscape features in this area 

because visitors would obtain new 

understanding of the site and would 

discourage vandalism and could lead to better 

preservation of all cultural resources. 

Where there is historic parkway, natural, and 

special natural zoning, parkway cultural 

landscapes would benefit from evaluation and 

protection for their possible national register 

listing or as contributing elements to the 

designation of the parkway as a national 

historic landmark. 

Linville Falls—Adverse impacts on cultural 

landscapes in the Linville Falls area would 

possibly result from some of the planned 

upgrades and trail improvements, including 

paving. Some impacts could be mitigated for 

the long term through appropriate screening 

and use of vegetation and appropriate 

redesign. Sensitive design in accordance with 

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 
Cultural Resources 

341 

Treatment of Historic Properties (1995) would 

ensure that upgrades and improvements 

would minimally affect the patterns and site 

features of the cultural landscape. The 

topography and land use and native 

vegetation patterns of such sites would also 

remain largely unaltered, leaving unaffected 

the cultural landscape. Any adverse impacts 

would be long-term and minor intensity. 

Zoning in the Linville Falls area focuses on 

recreation and scenic character of the 

parkway, as well as some natural zoning. A 

greater level of protection would be afforded 

in the scenic character and natural zoned 

areas where cultural landscapes contributing 

to national historic landmark designation and 

national register eligibility would be 

protected. This would be beneficial to cultural 

landscapes. In the recreation zone, cultural 

resources, including cultural landscapes, 

would be used to support interpretation and 

other visitor services, which could be a minor 

to moderate site-specific short-term adverse 

impact on such resources due to potential 

vandalism and wear and tear. At the same 

time, improved interpretation of the parkway 

would be a long-term beneficial impact to 

cultural landscape features in this area 

because visitors would obtain new 

understanding of the site and would 

discourage vandalism and could lead to better 

preservation of all cultural resources. 

Crabtree Falls—Under alternative B, adverse 

impacts on cultural landscapes in the area 

would possibly result from some of the 

potential upgrades and additions of new 

facilities at the campground and in relation to 

concession operations. Sensitive design in 

accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties (1995) would ensure that upgrades 

and new facilities would minimally affect the 

patterns and site features of the cultural 

landscape. The topography and land use and 

native vegetation patterns of such sites would 

also remain largely unaltered, leaving 

unaffected the cultural landscape. Any adverse 

impacts would be long-term and minor 

intensity. 

Zoning in the Crabtree Falls area focuses on 

recreation and scenic character of the 

parkway. A greater level of protection would 

be afforded in the scenic character zoned 

areas where cultural landscapes contributing 

to national historic landmark designation and 

national register eligibility would be 

protected. In the recreation zone, cultural 

landscapes would be used to support 

interpretation and other visitor services, 

which could be a minor to moderate sitespecific short-term adverse impact on such 

resources due to potential vandalism and wear 

and tear. At the same time, improved 

interpretation of the parkway would be a 

long-term beneficial impact to cultural 

landscape features in this area because visitors 

would obtain new understanding of the site 

and would discourage vandalism and could 

lead to better preservation of all cultural 

resources. 

Craggy Gardens—Under alternative B, 

improved management of the fields at 

Brinegar Cabin would provide for a long-term 

beneficial impact on cultural landscape by 

replicating the significant features of the 

historic setting. 

Adverse impacts on campground facilities and 

cultural landscapes would possibly result from 

some of the planned facility upgrades and 

additions of new facilities. Sensitive design in 

accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties (1995) would ensure that upgrades 

and new facilities would minimally affect the 

patterns and site features of the cultural 

landscape. The topography and land use and 

native vegetation patterns of such sites would 

also remain largely unaltered, leaving 

unaffected the cultural landscape. Any adverse 

impacts would be long-term and minor 

intensity. 

Under alternative B, a substantial part of the 

area is zoned natural. The parkway itself is 

zoned for historic parkway with scenic 

character zoning adjacent. There is visitor 

service zoning in the developed areas, while 

the Brinegar Cabin and Caudill Cabin are 

zoned as special cultural resource zones. The 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

342 

Grassy Gap Fire Road is zoned for park 

support. Zoning in this area would generally 

cultural landscapes, although there could be 

some site-specific minor adverse short-term 

impacts in the areas zoned for park support or 

visitor services. Where there is historic 

parkway, scenic character, and natural zoning, 

parkway cultural landscapes would benefit 

from evaluation and protection for their 

possible national register listing or as 

contributing elements to the designation of 

the parkway as a national historic landmark. 

Few impacts on cultural landscape features 

would be tolerated in the special cultural 

resource zones, which would be an added 

long-term benefit to cultural landscapes in this 

area. 

Mt. Pisgah—Under alternative B, adverse 

impacts on cultural landscapes in the area 

could result from some of the planned 

upgrades at the campground and concessions 

operation, which could alter significant 

topographical features, vegetation, or smallscale features in these areas. Sensitive design 

in accordance with The Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995) would ensure that 

upgrades would minimally affect the patterns 

and site features of the cultural landscape. The 

topography and land use and native 

vegetation patterns of such sites would also 

remain largely unaltered, leaving unaffected 

the cultural landscape. Any adverse impacts 

would be long-term and minor intensity. 

Restoration of the Buck Spring Lodge cultural 

landscape would be undertaken in accordance 

with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for the treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes. Any materials removed during 

restoration efforts would be evaluated to 

determine their value to the parkway’s 

museum collections or for their comparative 

use in future preservation work at the sites. 

Because the restoration of the cultural 

landscape would be undertaken in accordance 

with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes, any adverse impacts would be of 

negligible to minor intensity and long-term. 

This recreation area is zoned primarily as a 

natural zone and the parkway is designated for 

historic parkway with some adjacent special 

natural resource zones. The campground and 

amphitheater area would be designated 

historic parkway for added protections to the 

significant cultural landscape features there. 

The cultural landscape would be evaluated 

and managed to maintain their eligibility for 

the national register and for their role in the 

designation of the parkway as a national 

historic landmark. Cultural landscape 

treatments would be in keeping with The 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (1995). There 

would be added protection from the 

designation of the Buck Springs Lodge Ruin 

special cultural resource zone where few 

impacts on cultural resources would be 

tolerated. 

Cumulative Effects. Over the years, 

cultural landscapes outside the parkway may 

have been demolished for agriculture and the 

development and expansion of communities. 

Types of development include residential 

homes, subdivisions, commercial businesses, 

and industry. Increasing trends in these 

developments are projected to continue with 

the ongoing influx of people to these areas. As 

a result, new developments and increasing 

population in the region could result in loss or 

diminished integrity of the cultural landscapes 

surrounding the parkway, increased 

vandalism or other illegal activities, or 

unsupervised use. Cumulative impacts from 

these activities have been adverse, moderate, 

and long-term. 

As described above, implementation of 

alternative B would result in both long-term 

minor to moderate adverse effects and 

beneficial effects to cultural landscapes. Both 

the beneficial and minor to moderate longterm adverse impacts of this alternative, in 

combination with the moderate long-term 

adverse impacts of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 

result in a long-term moderate adverse 
Cultural Resources 

343 

cumulative effect. The adverse effects of 

alternative B, however, would be a small 

component of the adverse effect cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. Alternative B would have shortand long-term minor to moderate adverse 

impacts, and long-term beneficial impacts on 

the cultural landscapes along the parkway. 

Impacts of this alternative, combined with the 

impacts of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in 

site-specific short- and long-term minor to 

moderate adverse cumulative impacts and 

long-term beneficial cumulative impacts. 

However, because most of these impacts 

occurred in the past or now take place beyond 

the boundary of the parkway, this alternative’s 

contribution to these effects would be small. 

The impact under section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act would be an adverse 

effect for the moderate adverse impacts and 

would be no adverse effect in the case of the 

beneficial impacts, cumulative and otherwise. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

advisory council on Historic Preservation’s 

criteria of adverse effects (36 CFR 800.5 

Assessment of Adverse Effects) the National 

Park Service concludes that implementation 

of this alternative would include moderate 

adverse impacts on cultural landscapes that 

could result in an adverse effect at some sites. 

National Park Service staff would work with 

the state historic preservation officer and 

advisory council to prevent an adverse effect. 

Any adverse effects to cultural landscapes 

under section 106 would be mitigated 

according to The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of 

Cultural Landscapes.

Alternative C 

Parkway-wide. Under alternative C, there 

would be potential impacts on cultural 

landscapes through the construction of new 

grade separation structures when at-grade 

crossings are replaced. Impacts would be 

caused by the potential modification of 

landscape features or changes in access and 

use in the vicinity of the construction. The 

impacts from the possible modification of 

landscape features or patterns could be kept 

in the minor to moderate range through 

appropriate mitigative measures and would be 

in accordance with The Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995). The use of areas 

with existing disturbance and construction 

within the existing footprint of prior 

construction would help to minimize impacts 

on cultural landscapes. Before all construction 

site-specific surveys would be conducted and 

cultural resources would be avoided to the 

greatest extent possible. Adverse impacts 

would be site-specific, primarily minor and 

short-term, although some moderate adverse 

impacts could occur. 

The creation of new multiuse trails could 

constitute an adverse site-specific impact on 

cultural landscapes under alternative C. These 

impacts could be mitigated by planning new 

trails in areas of existing disturbance and 

planning construction activities to be 

compatible with the existing historic setting 

and cultural landscapes. Impacts would be 

kept in the minor range through appropriate 

mitigative measures whereby topography, 

land use, and native vegetation patterns of 

such sites would also remain largely unaltered, 

leaving unaffected the cultural landscape. 

As with alternatives A and B, some of the 

planned campground upgrades at the nine 

parkway campgrounds, facility upgrades, and 

additions of new facilities for concessions 

under alternative C could result in sitespecific adverse impacts on historic 

campgrounds. Adverse impacts on cultural 

landscapes in the area would possibly result 

from some of the planned adaptations for 

universal accessibility at the nine 

campgrounds. The introduction of 

noncontributing elements to the historic 

setting could result in a minor to moderate 

site-specific adverse impact for the long term. 

However, because upgrades would be 

accomplished within the existing design and 

configuration of the campgrounds, adverse 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

344 

impacts would be site-specific, negligible to 

minor, and short-term because they would 

not alter the features and patterns of the 

cultural landscapes; therefore, they would 

likely not be noticeable. Maintenance of the 

other existing infrastructure and facilities 

would be a beneficial long-term impact on 

cultural landscapes because the infrastructure 

would be maintained in good condition 

without disturbance or changes to the cultural 

landscape features, such as spatial 

organization, land use patterns, circulation 

systems, topography, vegetation, structures, 

cluster arrangements, small-scale features, or 

views and vistas. 

Creating new parkway land use maps that 

allow for a deviation from the historic 

character when necessary to capture regional 

landscape character and provide for 

recreational uses could be a long-term adverse 

impact on the historic designed parkway. The 

intensity of the impact would range from 

negligible to major depending on the degree 

of deviation from the original design. 

However, such deviation would be in keeping 

with the original intent of the parkway and as 

such could be a long-term beneficial impact 

on cultural landscapes. 

The closure of some pull-offs where views 

have been substantially compromised could 

be a long-term site-specific minor to moderate 

adverse impact on cultural landscapes, as the 

impacts would be local. The replacement of 

pull-offs in another location where the views 

are open and could be protected would be 

beneficial to the original intent but could be 

an adverse impact on the parkway as a 

national historic landmark because it would 

introduce a noncontributing element to the 

designed landscape. There would also be 

potential adverse impacts on cultural 

landscapes resulting from ground-disturbing 

activities resulting from vista maintenance and 

restoration. Sensitive design in accordance 

with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes would ensure that replacement 

pull-offs would minimally affect the patterns 

and site features of the cultural landscape. The 

topography and land use and native 

vegetation patterns of such sites would also 

remain largely unaltered, leaving unaffected 

the cultural landscape. Any adverse impacts 

would be long-term and minor intensity. 

As under alternative B, an active and engaged 

interpretation and visitor services 

management program along the parkway 

under alternative C would benefit cultural 

landscapes because continued law 

enforcement patrol and emphasis on visitor 

education regarding the significance and 

fragility of cultural landscapes and how 

visitors can reduce their impacts to such 

resources would curtail inadvertent impacts 

such as vandalism or wear and tear, thus 

minimizing adverse impacts. In addition, 

monitoring the carrying capacity of cultural 

landscapes could result in the imposition of 

visitation levels or constraints that would 

contribute to the stability or integrity of the 

resources without unduly hindering 

interpretation for visitors. Adverse impacts to 

cultural landscapes from visitation would be 

long-term and of negligible to minor intensity. 

Under alternative C, there would be long-term 

beneficial impacts on cultural landscapes from 

the land protection program with the added 

benefit of regional partnerships to enhance 

the protection of cultural resources, including 

cultural landscapes. Continued 

implementation of partnership management 

strategies, such as the scenery conservation 

management strategy, would emphasize the 

significance and potential fragility of the 

parkway’s cultural landscapes and engage 

parkway stakeholders, neighbors, and local 

governments in active preservation of the 

resources and discourage inadvertent impacts 

and vandalism. The acquisition of 

conservation easements and land from willing 

sellers would also protect cultural landscapes 

from inappropriate alteration or demolition. 

Impacts would be long-term and beneficial. 

Long-term beneficial impacts to cultural 

landscapes through a long-term regional 

ecosystem health approach as impacts on 

cultural resources would be realized and 

anticipated in a larger context providing for 
Cultural Resources 

345 

better understanding of impacts on their 

continued management and preservation. 

Under alternative C, possible conversion of 

some human-made water features to natural 

habitat could adversely impact nearby cultural 

landscapes as the designed landscape could be 

altered causing an adverse impact and 

threatening the eligibility of the landscape for 

national register listing if the historic setting of 

the cultural landscape is jeopardized. Adverse 

impacts on cultural landscapes could be sitespecific, minor or moderate, depending on the 

degree of alteration in the setting and the 

cultural landscape features impacted. 

As under alternative B, partnerships would be 

enhanced for even greater beneficial impact 

on cultural landscapes for the long term in 

alternative C. Continued implementation of 

partnership management strategies, such as 

the scenery conservation management 

strategy, would emphasize the significance 

and potential fragility of the parkway’s 

cultural landscapes and engage parkway 

stakeholders, neighbors, and local 

governments in active preservation of the 

resources and discourage inadvertent impacts 

and vandalism. Impacts would be long-term 

and beneficial.

Cultural landscape features representative of 

the parkway’s original design intent would be 

given priority for preservation as contributing 

elements to the national historic landmark. In 

addition, continued implementation of 

partnership management strategies, such as 

the scenery conservation management 

strategy, would emphasize the significance 

and potential fragility of the parkway’s 

cultural landscapes and engage parkway 

stakeholders, neighbors, and local 

governments in active preservation of the 

resources and discourage inadvertent impacts 

and vandalism. The acquisition of 

conservation easements and land from willing 

sellers would also protect cultural landscapes 

from inappropriate alteration or demolition. 

These impacts would be long-term and 

beneficial. 

Similar to alternatives A and B, alternative C 

includes working with partners to avoid 

sensitive resource areas when relocating some 

sections of the Appalachian Trail. Under 

alternative C, the development of new 

multiuse trails could constitute an adverse 

impact on cultural landscapes, which could be 

disturbed or destroyed with the introduction 

of new features and elements to significant 

landscape features. Impacts would be kept in 

the minor range through appropriate 

mitigative measures whereby topography, 

land use, and native vegetation patterns of 

such sites would remain largely unaltered, 

leaving unaffected the cultural landscape. 

The use of areas with existing disturbance, 

and construction within the existing footprint 

of prior construction would also minimize any 

of the above impacts. 

Parkway Segments. Only those parkway 

segments that would have more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide sections are described below. 

Segments 1 and 2: Ridge and Roanoke—

Under alternative C, the redesign of multiuse 

trails and some pullouts would involve ground 

disturbance that could result in short-term 

minor adverse impacts on pullouts that 

contribute to the national register eligibility of 

the historic parkway. Impacts would be kept 

in the minor range through appropriate 

mitigative measures whereby topography, 

land use, and native vegetation patterns of 

such sites would remain largely unaltered, 

leaving unaffected the cultural landscape. 

Segment 4: Highlands—The creation of new 

multiuse trails in the Highlands segment could 

possibly pose a potential site-specific adverse 

short-term impact on cultural landscapes. 

Impacts would be kept in the minor range 

through appropriate mitigative measures 

whereby topography, land use, and native 

vegetation patterns of such sites would remain 

largely unaltered, leaving the cultural 

landscape. 

Segment 6: Asheville—The development of 

additional parking and trails would possibly 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

346 

result in site-specific short-term minor 

adverse impacts on cultural landscapes if 

noncontributing elements may be introduced 

to the cultural landscape, impacting significant 

landscape features in this area. The addition 

of the shuttle system would introduce other 

noncontributing elements to the parkway 

cultural landscape and could impact 

significant circulation systems or land use 

patterns. Sensitive design in accordance with 

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes would ensure that modifications 

would minimally affect the patterns and site 

features of the cultural landscape. The 

topography and land use and native 

vegetation patterns of such sites would also 

remain largely unaltered, leaving unaffected 

the cultural landscape. Any adverse impacts 

would be long-term and minor intensity.

Segment 7: Pisgah—Under alternative C, 

some modifications to vistas and overlooks 

could impact significant cultural landscape 

features in an adverse way by altering historic 

vistas or small-scale features. Sensitive design 

in accordance with The Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties with Guidelines for the 

Treatment of Cultural Landscapes would 

ensure that modifications would minimally 

affect the patterns and site features of the 

cultural landscape. The topography and land 

use and native vegetation patterns of such 

sites would also remain largely unaltered, 

leaving unaffected the cultural landscape. Any 

adverse impacts would be long-term and of 

minor intensity. 

Recreation Areas. Only those parkway 

recreation areas that would have more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide and segment sections are 

described below. 

Humpback Rocks—The increased capacity of 

the visitor contact station under alternative C 

would improve interpretation of the turnpike. 

This would be a long-term beneficial impact 

as visitors would obtain new understanding of 

the site through the marking of the turnpike, 

which could in turn lead to better 

preservation of cultural landscapes because 

visitors would obtain new understanding of 

the site and would discourage vandalism and 

could lead to better preservation of all cultural 

resources. At the same time, however, drawing 

attention to the historic Howardsville 

Turnpike route would cause a potential sitespecific minor adverse impact through 

increased attention on this cultural resource. 

Increased use could lead to trampling and 

disturbance of previously undocumented 

historic sites and additional deterioration to 

the turnpike itself. 

The 12-month visitor use season under 

alternative C could cause adverse impacts, 

such as deterioration, wear and tear, or 

vandalism to cultural landscapes. Adverse 

impacts from visitation would be long-term 

and of negligible to minor intensity. However, 

increased monitoring and the presence of 

park staff could also provide a beneficial longterm impact these resources through 

additional interpretive programming and 

resource management activities designed to 

educate and protect such cultural resources, 

including cultural landscapes. 

Zoning at Humpback Rocks under alternative 

C emphasizes the natural zone with some 

recreation zoning to accommodate multiuse 

trail development. In the natural zone, efforts 

would be made to retain and enhance cultural 

landscapes that contribute to the national 

historic landmark designation and national 

register listing and eligibility. An area adjacent 

to the parkway near Greenstone Overlook is 

zoned for scenic character while the parkway 

itself is zoned history parkway. Areas adjacent 

to the visitor contact station and the picnic 

area are zoned park support. As with 

alternative B where it is zoned natural, scenic 

character, and historic parkway, cultural 

landscapes under alternative C would be well 

protected and would primarily be beneficially 

impacted for the long term as cultural 

landscapes contributing to national historic 

landmark designation and national register 

eligibility would be emphasized. In the park 

support zone, cultural landscapes would also 
Cultural Resources 

347 

be protected, providing for a long-term 

beneficial impact. 

James River/Otter Creek—Under alternative 

C, the restoration of the natural wetland by 

removing the dam and the lake in the James 

River and Otter Creek recreation area would 

likely be an adverse impact on the cultural 

landscape of the designed historic parkway 

because these water features are significant 

contributing features of the cultural 

landscape. This impact would be site-specific, 

long-term, and moderate. 

Adverse impacts on cultural landscapes would 

also possibly result from some of the planned 

adaptive reuse, campground and facility 

upgrades, and additions of new facilities in the 

James River and Otter Creek recreation area. 

However, because upgrades would be 

accomplished within the existing design and 

configuration of the campgrounds, adverse 

impacts would be site-specific, negligible to 

minor, and short-term because they would 

not alter the features and patterns of the 

cultural landscapes, and therefore, would 

likely not be noticeable. Maintenance of the 

other existing infrastructure and facilities 

would be a beneficial long-term impact on 

cultural landscapes because the infrastructure 

would be maintained in good condition 

without disturbance or changes to the cultural 

landscape features, such as spatial 

organization, land use patterns, circulation 

systems, topography, vegetation, structures, 

cluster arrangements, small-scale features, or 

views and vistas. 

Zoning at James River and Otter Creek under 

alternative C emphasizes the natural zone. In 

the natural zone, efforts would be made to 

retain and enhance cultural landscapes that 

contribute to the national historic landmark 

designation and national register listing and 

eligibility. The special cultural resource zone 

at Canal Lock would provide for beneficial 

impacts on cultural resources through added 

protection of significant cultural landscape 

features. An area adjacent to the parkway 

south of the canal is zoned for scenic 

character while the parkway itself is zoned 

history parkway. Areas adjacent to the Otter 

Creek Restaurant and Campground are zoned 

park support. Where there it is zoned natural, 

scenic character, or historic parkway, cultural 

resources would be well protected and would 

primarily be beneficially impacted for the long 

term as cultural resources contributing to 

national historic landmark designation and 

national register eligibility would be 

emphasized. In the park support zone, 

cultural landscapes would also be protected, 

providing for a long-term beneficial impact. 

Peaks of Otter—Site-specific minor to 

moderate adverse impacts on cultural 

landscapes in the Peaks of Otter area under 

alternative C would possibly result from some 

of the potential new facilities and upgrades for 

concessions and campgrounds. Sensitive 

design in accordance with The Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties (1995) would ensure that 

new facilities or upgrades would minimally 

affect the patterns and site features of the 

cultural landscape. The topography and land 

use and native vegetation patterns of such 

sites would also remain largely unaltered, 

leaving unaffected the cultural landscape. Any 

adverse impacts would be long-term and 

minor intensity. 

The rehabilitation of the Johnson farm in this 

area to its historical appearance would be 

beneficial to cultural landscapes for the long 

term. Restoration would be undertaken in 

accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of 

Cultural Landscapes. Any materials removed 

during restoration efforts would be evaluated 

to determine their value to the parkway’s 

museum collections or for their comparative 

use in future preservation work at the sites. 

Because the restoration of historic structures 

would be undertaken in accordance with The 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural 

Landscapes, any adverse impacts would be of 

negligible to minor intensity and long-term.

The longer visitor use season in this area 

would allow cultural landscapes to be used for 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

348 

interpretation. Increased visitation could 

cause cultural landscapes to suffer wear and 

tear from visitation, trampling, and vandalism. 

Continued law enforcement patrol and 

emphasis on visitor education regarding the 

significance and fragility of historic structures 

and how visitors can reduce their impacts to 

such resources would curtail inadvertent 

impacts and discourage vandalism, 

minimizing adverse impacts. In addition, 

monitoring the carrying capacity of the 

cultural landscapes could result in the 

imposition of visitation levels or constraints 

that would contribute to the stability or 

integrity of the resources without unduly 

hindering interpretation for visitors. Adverse 

impacts from visitation would be long-term 

and of negligible to minor intensity. 

Zoning at Peaks of Otter under alternative C 

emphasizes the natural zone in which 

management efforts would retain and enhance 

cultural resources that contribute to the 

parkway’s national historic landmark 

designation and national register eligibility. 

The special cultural resource zones at 

Saunders Farm and Johnson Farm would 

tolerate very little cultural resource impact so 

would provide for beneficial impacts on 

cultural landscapes through added protection. 

Areas adjacent to the parkway leading into 

and exiting the recreation area are zoned for 

scenic character while the parkway itself is 

zoned history parkway. Areas adjacent to 

Abbott Lake are zoned park support. As with 

alternative B, under alternative C, cultural 

landscapes would be well protected and 

would primarily be beneficially impacted for 

the long term as cultural resources 

contributing to national historic landmark 

designation and national register eligibility 

would be emphasized. In the park support 

zone, cultural landscapes would also be 

protected, providing for a long-term 

beneficial impact. 

Roanoke Mountain—Adverse impacts on 

campground facilities and cultural landscapes 

in the Roanoke Mountain recreation area 

would possibly result from some of the 

planned campground upgrades. The 

introduction of noncontributing elements to 

the historic setting could result in an adverse 

impact for the long term. Sensitive design in 

accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties (1995) would ensure that upgrades 

would minimally affect the patterns and site 

features of the cultural landscape. The 

topography and land use and native 

vegetation patterns of such sites would also 

remain largely unaltered, leaving unaffected 

the cultural landscape. Any adverse impacts 

would be long-term and minor intensity. 

Zoning at Roanoke Mountain is primarily 

focused on recreation. In the recreation zone, 

cultural landscapes would be used to support 

interpretation and other visitor services which 

could be a minor to moderate site-specific 

short-term adverse impact on such resources 

due to potential vandalism and wear and tear. 

At the same time, improved interpretation of 

the parkway would be a long-term beneficial 

impact to cultural landscape features in this 

area because visitors would obtain new 

understanding of the site and would 

discourage vandalism and could lead to better 

preservation of all cultural resources. 

Where there is zoning for scenic character and 

historic parkway, cultural landscapes would 

be better protected and would primarily be 

beneficially impacted as cultural resources 

contributing to national historic landmark 

designation and national register eligibility 

would be emphasized. 

Smart View—In the natural zone surrounding 

the picnic area in the Smart View recreation 

area, under alternative C efforts would be 

made to retain and enhance cultural resources 

that contribute to the national historic 

landmark designation and national register 

listing and eligibility and fewer impacts on 

cultural resources would be tolerated. In this 

recreation area, the parkway is zoned historic 

parkway and is surrounded on either side with 

scenic character zoning. Where there is 

zoning for scenic character and historic 

parkway, cultural landscapes would be better 

protected and would primarily be beneficially 

impacted as resources contributing to national 

historic landmark designation and national 
Cultural Resources 

349 

register eligibility would be emphasized. The 

picnic area is zoned for visitor services, which 

would also preserve cultural landscapes while 

allowing for ongoing visitor uses in the area. 

Rocky Knob—Under alternative C, actively 

managing the cultural landscape’s historic 

settlement sites through interpretive waysides, 

self-guiding trails, and guided walks would 

likely have a long-term beneficial impact from 

enhancing preservation and increasing 

monitoring of the significant cultural 

landscape features. 

Comfort station, campground upgrades, and 

RV access would be improved. Site-specific 

adverse impacts on the cultural landscape in 

the area would possibly result from some of 

the planned conversions, facility upgrades, 

and additions of new facilities associated with 

these activities. The introduction of 

noncontributing elements to the historic 

setting could result in adverse impacts the 

cultural landscapes. Sensitive design in 

accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties (1995) would ensure that 

modifications would minimally affect the 

patterns and site features of the cultural 

landscape. The topography and land use and 

native vegetation patterns of such sites would 

also remain largely unaltered, leaving 

unaffected the cultural landscape. Any adverse 

impacts would be long-term and minor in 

intensity. 

Zoning at Rocky Knob under alternative C 

emphasizes the natural zone. Visitor services 

zones are situated at the campground, 

trailhead shelter, and Rocky Knob Cabins. 

Some park support zoning is present for the 

maintenance area and district offices near the 

campground and the fire road in the gorge is 

also designated as such. Areas adjacent to the 

parkway leading into and exiting the 

recreation area are zoned for scenic character 

while the parkway itself is zoned history 

parkway. In the natural zone, efforts would be 

made to retain and enhance cultural 

resources, including cultural landscapes that 

contribute to the parkway’s national historic 

landmark designation and national register 

listing and eligibility. 

As with alternative B, the special cultural 

resource zone in the Rockcastle Gorge would 

tolerate very little cultural resource impact so 

would provide for beneficial impacts on 

cultural landscapes through added protection. 

Where there it is zoned natural, scenic 

character, and historic parkway, cultural 

landscapes would be well protected and 

would primarily be beneficially impacted for 

the long term as cultural landscape features 

and patterns contributing to national historic 

landmark designation and national register 

eligibility would be emphasized. In the park 

support and visitor services zones, cultural 

landscapes would also be protected, providing 

for a long-term beneficial impact. 

Mabry Mill—The Mabry Mill area under 

alternative C is zoned very similarly to 

alternative B. Zoning in this area includes 

scenic character, historic parkway, visitor 

services, and special natural resource. A 

greater level of protection would be afforded 

in the scenic character, historic parkway, and 

special natural resource zoned areas where 

cultural resources contributing to national 

historic landmark designation and national 

register eligibility would be protected. In the 

visitor services zone, cultural resources, 

including cultural landscapes, would be used 

to support interpretation and other visitor 

services, which could be an adverse shortterm site-specific impact on such resources. 

Blue Ridge Music Center—Zoning in the Blue 

Ridge Music Center area includes a large area 

devoted to natural zoning where cultural 

resources, such as cultural landscapes, would 

be actively protected for the national register 

eligibility and for the role as contributing 

elements to the designation of the parkway as 

a national historic landmark. This is also true 

of the areas zoned for scenic parkway and 

historic parkway, as well as special natural 

zone. Impacts on cultural landscapes in these 

areas would be primarily long-term and 

beneficial. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

350 

In the visitor services zone, there could be 

some short-term site-specific minor adverse 

impacts on cultural resources, including 

cultural landscapes, as some landscapes may 

be adapted or used to accommodate the needs 

of the visiting public. Sensitive design in 

accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties (1995) would ensure that 

modifications would minimally affect the 

patterns and site features of the cultural 

landscape. The topography and land use and 

native vegetation patterns of such sites would 

also remain largely unaltered, leaving 

unaffected the cultural landscape. Any adverse 

impacts would be long-term and minor 

intensity. 

Cumberland Knob—The potential creation of 

additional trails and picnic infrastructure 

under alternative C could adversely impact 

cultural landscapes with the addition of 

noncontributing elements. Impacts would be 

kept in the minor range through appropriate 

mitigative measures whereby topography, 

land use, and native vegetation patterns of 

such sites would remain largely unaltered, 

leaving unaffected the cultural landscape. 

Zoning at Cumberland Knob includes natural, 

recreation, scenic parkway, and historic 

parkway. Zoning in this area would generally 

benefit cultural resources, including cultural 

landscapes, although there could be some 

minor site-specific adverse short-term impacts 

in the areas zoned recreation. Where there is 

historic parkway, scenic parkway, and natural 

zoning, parkway cultural landscapes would 

benefit from evaluation and protection for 

their possible national register listing or as 

contributing elements to the designation of 

the parkway as a national historic landmark. 

Doughton Park—Under alternative C, 

improved management of the fields at 

Brinegar Cabin would provide for a beneficial 

impact on the cultural landscape by 

replicating the historic setting. 

Planned facility upgrades, and additions of 

new facilities campground facilities in the area 

under alternative C would possibly result in 

adverse impacts on cultural landscapes. The 

introduction of noncontributing elements to 

the historic setting could result in an adverse 

impact for the long term. Sensitive design in 

accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties (1995) would ensure that 

modifications would minimally affect the 

patterns and site features of the cultural 

landscape. The topography and land use and 

native vegetation patterns of such sites would 

also remain largely unaltered, leaving 

unaffected the cultural landscape. Any adverse 

impacts would be long-term and minor 

intensity. 

Under alternative C, a substantial part of the 

area is zoned natural. The parkway itself is 

zoned for historic parkway with scenic 

character zoning adjacent. There is visitor 

service zoning in the developed areas, while 

the Brinegar Cabin and Caudill Cabin are 

zoned as special cultural resource zones. The 

Grassy Gap Fire Road is zoned for park 

support. Zoning in this area would generally 

benefit cultural landscapes, although there 

could be some minor site-specific adverse 

short-term impacts in the areas zoned for park 

support or visitor services. Where there is 

historic parkway, scenic character, and 

natural zoning, parkway cultural landscapes 

would benefit from evaluation and protection 

for their possible national register listing or as 

contributing elements to the designation of 

the parkway as a national historic landmark. 

Few impacts on cultural landscapes would be 

tolerated in the special cultural resource zones 

so this would be an added long-term benefit 

to those resources. 

Julian Price—Under alternative C, zoning at 

Julian Price is primarily focused on recreation 

and natural zoning. There is some historic 

parkway zone in the area around Price Lake, 

and some special natural resource zoning 

interspersed with the natural zone. Zoning in 

this area would generally benefit cultural 

resources, including cultural landscapes, 

although there could be some minor sitespecific adverse short-term impacts in the 

areas zoned recreation. In the recreation zone, 

cultural resources would be used to support 

interpretation and other visitor services which 
Cultural Resources 

351 

could be a minor to moderate site-specific 

short-term adverse impact on such resources 

due to potential vandalism and wear and tear. 

At the same time, improved interpretation of 

the parkway would be a long-term beneficial 

impact to associated historic structures in this 

area because visitors would obtain new 

understanding of the site and would 

discourage vandalism and could lead to better 

preservation of all cultural resources. Where 

there is historic parkway, natural and special 

natural zoning, parkway cultural landscapes 

would benefit from evaluation and protection 

for their possible national register listing or as 

contributing elements to the designation of 

the parkway as a national historic landmark. 

Linville Falls—Under alternative C, adverse 

impacts on cultural landscapes in the Linville 

Falls area would possibly result from some of 

the planned upgrades, trail improvements, 

improved RV access, and possibly from 

redesigning the picnic area and converting the 

visitor contact station to a trailhead shelter. 

Some of these impacts could alter significant 

topographical features, vegetation, or smallscale features in these areas. Impacts could be 

mitigated for the long term through 

appropriate screening and use of vegetation 

and appropriate redesign, and in accordance 

with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guidelines for Cultural Landscapes. Impacts 

would be site-specific, short-term, adverse, 

and minor. 

The 12-month visitor use season in this area 

would allow cultural landscapes to be used for 

interpretation. Increased visitation could 

cause cultural landscapes to suffer wear and 

tear from visitation, trampling, and vandalism. 

Continued law enforcement patrol and 

emphasis on visitor education regarding the 

significance and fragility of historic structures 

and how visitors can reduce their impacts to 

such resources would curtail inadvertent 

impacts and discourage vandalism, 

minimizing adverse impacts. In addition, 

monitoring the carrying capacity of the 

cultural landscapes could result in the 

imposition of visitation levels or constraints 

that would contribute to the stability or 

integrity of the resources without unduly 

hindering interpretation for visitors. Adverse 

impacts from visitation would be long-term 

and of negligible to minor intensity. 

Zoning at Linville Falls includes more natural 

zoning. The spur road to the visitor contact 

station would be zoned for visitor services and 

would allow for a greater degree of impact. 

The campground would also be zoned 

differently from B and would be visitor service 

designated. The parkway itself is zoned for 

historic parkway with scenic character 

designated to either side. Park support zones 

exist at the maintenance facility. Impacts from 

this zoning would generally benefit cultural 

landscapes for the long term through added 

protection of significant cultural landscape 

features in these areas. 

Craggy Gardens—Under alternative C, 

improved management of the fields at 

Brinegar Cabin would provide for a beneficial 

impact on the cultural landscape by 

replicating the historic setting. Planned facility 

upgrades, and additions of new facilities 

campground facilities in the area under 

alternative C would possibly result in adverse 

impacts on cultural landscapes. The 

introduction of noncontributing elements to 

the historic setting could result in an adverse 

impact for the long term. Sensitive design in 

accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties (1995) would ensure that 

modifications would minimally affect the 

patterns and site features of the cultural 

landscape. The topography and land use and 

native vegetation patterns of such sites would 

also remain largely unaltered, leaving 

unaffected the cultural landscape. Any adverse 

impacts would be long-term and minor 

intensity. 

Zoning at Craggy Gardens Area under 

alternative C is natural. The picnic area, 

campground, and gift shop are all zoned for 

visitor services. The parkway is zoned historic 

parkway with scenic character designated to 

either side. The cultural landscape would 

benefit from the natural zone designation 

through added protection and low-level 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

352 

visitor use within this zone. The cultural 

landscape would be evaluated for national 

register eligibility and would be better 

preserved in the natural, scenic character, and 

historic parkway zones. 

Mt. Pisgah—Restoration of the Buck Spring 

Lodge cultural landscape would be 

undertaken in accordance with The Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties with Guidelines for the 

treatment of Cultural Landscapes. Any 

materials removed during restoration efforts 

would be evaluated to determine their value to 

the parkway’s museum collections or for their 

comparative use in future preservation work 

at the sites. Because the restoration of the 

cultural landscape would be undertaken in 

accordance with The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of 

Cultural Landscapes, any adverse impacts 

would be of negligible to minor intensity and 

long-term. 

Under alternative C, the Mt. Pisgah recreation 

area is zoned primarily as a natural zone and 

the parkway is designated for historic parkway 

with some adjacent special natural resource 

zones. The campground and amphitheater 

area would be designated visitor services zone, 

which would tolerate greater impacts when 

compared to alternative B. These impacts 

would likely be site-specific, short-term, 

adverse, and minor. The cultural landscape 

would be evaluated and managed to maintain 

their eligibility for the national register and for 

their role in the designation of the parkway as 

a national historic landmark and resources 

protected. Cultural landscape treatments 

would be in keeping with The Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties with Guidelines for the 

treatment of Cultural Landscapes. There would 

be added protection from the designation of 

the Buck Springs Lodge Ruin special cultural 

resource zone, where few impacts on cultural 

resources would be tolerated. 

Cumulative Effects. Over the years, 

cultural landscapes outside the parkway may 

have been demolished for agriculture and the 

development and expansion of communities. 

Types of development include residential 

homes, subdivisions, commercial businesses, 

and industry. Increasing trends in these 

developments are projected to continue with 

the ongoing influx of people to these areas. As 

a result, new developments and increasing 

population in the region could result in loss or 

diminished integrity of the cultural landscapes 

surrounding the parkway, increased 

vandalism or other illegal activities, or 

unsupervised use. Cumulative impacts from 

these activities have been adverse, moderate, 

and long-term. 

As described above, implementation of 

alternative C would result in both long-term 

minor to moderate adverse effects and 

beneficial effects to cultural landscapes. Both 

the beneficial and minor to moderate longterm adverse impacts of this alternative, in 

combination with the moderate long-term 

adverse impacts of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 

result in a long-term moderate adverse 

cumulative effect. The adverse effects of 

alternative C, however, would be a small 

component of the adverse effect cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. Alternative C would have shortand long-term minor to moderate adverse 

impacts, and long-term beneficial impacts on 

the cultural landscapes. Impacts of this 

alternative, combined with the impacts of 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in 

short-and long-term minor to moderate sitespecific adverse cumulative impacts, and longterm beneficial cumulative impacts. However, 

because most of these impacts occurred in the 

past or now take place beyond the boundary 

of the parkway, this alternative’s contribution 

to these effects would be small. The impact 

under section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act would be an adverse effect 

for the moderate adverse impacts and would 

be no adverse effect in the case of the 

beneficial impacts, cumulative and otherwise. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council’s criteria of adverse effects 
Cultural Resources 

353 

(36 CFR 800.5 Assessment of Adverse Effects) 

the National Park Service concludes that 

implementation of this alternative would 

include moderate site-specific adverse 

impacts on cultural landscapes that could 

result in an adverse effect at some sites. 

National Park Service staff would work with 

the state historic preservation officer and 

advisory council to prevent an adverse effect. 

Any adverse effects to cultural landscapes 

under section 106 would be mitigated 

according to The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of 

Cultural Landscapes. 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Methods and Assumptions for 

Analyzing Impacts 

Impacts to archeological resources were 

evaluated by comparing projected changes 

resulting from the action alternatives (B and 

C) to those of the no-action alternative (A). 

The thresholds used to determine impacts on 

these resources are defined as follows. 

Negligible: Impacts would be at the lowest 

levels of detection with neither adverse nor 

beneficial consequences. For purposes of 

section 106, the determination of effect would 

be no adverse effect. 

Minor: Disturbance of a site(s) results in little, 

if any, loss of integrity. For purposes of 

section 106, the determination of effect would 

be no adverse effect. The determination of 

effect for section 106 would be no adverse 

effect. 

Moderate: Disturbance of a site(s) results in 

loss of integrity and result in measurable 

changes that could diminish the overall 

integrity of the resource to the extent that its 

national register eligibility could be 

jeopardized. For purposes of section 106, the 

determination of effect would be adverse 

effect. 

Major: Disturbance of a site(s) results in loss 

of integrity, diminishing the overall integrity 

of the resource to the extent that it would no 

longer be eligible to be listed on the national 

register. For purposes of section 106, the 

determination of effect would be adverse 

effect. 

Cumulative Impacts. The Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations, which 

implement the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (42 USC 4321 et seq.), require 

assessment of cumulative impacts in the 

decision-making process for federal projects. 

Cumulative impacts are defined as "the impact 

on the environment which results from the 

incremental impact of the action when added 

to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

agency (federal or nonfederal) or person 

undertakes such other actions" (40 CFR 

1508.7). Cumulative impacts are considered 

for all alternatives, including the no-action 

alternative. 

Cumulative impacts were determined by 

combining the impacts of the alternatives with 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions. Therefore, it was 

necessary to identify other ongoing or 

reasonably foreseeable future projects at Blue 

Ridge Parkway and, if applicable, the 

surrounding region. 

Parkway-wide Actions Common to 

All Alternatives 

The surveys and research necessary to 

determine the eligibility of archeological sites 

for listing in the national register, or for 

designating the Blue Ridge Parkway as a 

national historic landmark, are a prerequisite 

for understanding the resource’s significance, 

as well as the basis of informed decision 

making in the future regarding how such 

resources should be managed. Such surveys 

and research, as well as nominations to the 

national register or designation as a national 

historic landmark, would be a permanent 

beneficial impact to archeological resources. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

354 

The designation of the parkway as a national 

historic landmark under alternative A would 

have a beneficial impact on all parkway 

cultural resources, including archeological 

resources. Designation would make historic 

preservation a management priority, promote 

appropriate preservation activities, and could 

result in increased survey and identification of 

more national register-eligible archeological 

sites. Archeological resources would be 

managed in accordance with the parkway’s asbuilt conditions and maintenance standards 

for the designed landscape, as well as in 

consideration of their national register 

eligibility. 

Alternative A—No-action 

Parkway-wide. Under alternative A, the 

parkway staff would continue to use the 

historic Parkway Land Use Maps that 

document the as-built conditions and desired 

future maintenance standards for the 

designed landscape as a guide for the 

maintenance of the national register-eligible 

motor road and its contributing archeological 

resources. Related ground-disturbing 

activities could result in site-specific and 

permanent minor to moderate adverse 

impacts to archeological sites if some of these 

sites are altered and lose integrity as a result.

There would be no impacts on archeological 

resources from access and circulation 

management strategies under the no-action 

alternative because ground-disturbing 

activities, if any, would be limited to 

previously disturbed areas. 

Planned upgrades and other work in 

campgrounds under alternative A would be 

accomplished within the existing design and 

configuration of the campgrounds. Since all 

ground disturbances would be contained 

within the existing campground footprint, 

there would be no adverse impacts to 

archeological resources in these areas. 

The removal of concession structures and 

related landscape maintenance under 

alternative A would involve ground 

disturbance that could result in the 

disturbance of archeological features or 

artifacts, or other alterations to sites, which 

could result in loss of integrity to 

archeological sites. This could result in sitespecific permanent minor adverse impacts on 

both historic and prehistoric archeological 

resources. 

Archeological resources could be adversely 

impacted if the maintenance of historic vistas 

and cultural landscapes involved some ground 

disturbance. Potential adverse impacts on 

archeological resources would likely be sitespecific, minor, and permanent. 

The land protection program under 

alternative A would involve acquisition of 

conservation easements and land from willing 

sellers. This would provide a permanent 

beneficial impact on archeological resources 

within these areas through added protection 

of resources on these newly acquired lands by 

including provisions for the protection of 

archeological resources. 

Archeological resources would benefit from 

the partnership management strategies 

included in alternative A. Beneficial impacts 

would result from engaging the public and 

partners in active preservation programs for 

archeological resources. One example of 

partnering might include working with local 

colleges or universities to conduct 

archeological survey and inventory, which 

could result in the identification of more 

archeological resources in the parkway. 

The continued management of designed 

landscape features, roadsides, vistas, and 

agricultural leases for primarily scenic and 

recreational purposes would be a beneficial 

impact on archeological resources because 

there would be no anticipated ground 

disturbance of archeological resources. 

Working with partners to avoid sensitive 

resource areas and the relocation of some 

sections of the Appalachian Trail would 

provide a permanent beneficial impact on 

archeological resources. New trail 

construction or ground disturbance from 
Cultural Resources 

355 

relocating Appalachian Trail segments or from 

work on the Mountains-to-Sea Trail would be 

undertaken to avoid loss of integrity to 

archeological resources in these areas and 

would be informed by the results of cultural 

resource investigations prior to these 

activities. No adverse impacts on 

archeological resources are anticipated. 

The maintenance of the existing trail system 

and uses, as well as the continued prohibition 

of off-road bicycling and the use of designated 

trails for equestrians would be a permanent 

beneficial impact on archeological resources 

because keeping disturbance in areas where 

use is already occurring would prevent new 

impacts in currently undisturbed areas where 

archeological resources exist. Many areas of 

the parkway have not been surveyed for 

archeological resources and the use of existing 

trails would help protect previously unknown 

sites and resources from being impacted or 

inadvertently damaged. 

Parkway Segments. Only those parkway 

segments that would experience more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide section are described below. 

Segments 1, 4, and 6: Ridge, Highlands, and 

Asheville—Continued partnering with local 

stakeholders and the U.S. Forest Service could 

benefit all cultural resources through active 

trail management and the possible direction of 

use away from fragile archeological sites. 

Ground-disturbing activities from trail 

improvements would be undertaken to avoid 

loss of integrity to archeological resources in 

these areas and would be informed by the 

results of cultural resource investigations 

prior to these activities. No adverse impacts 

on archeological resources are anticipated. 

Segment 2: Roanoke—Development of trails 

and related construction activities could 

involve ground-disturbing activities near 

archeological sites. Such activities would be 

undertaken to avoid loss of integrity to 

archeological resources in these areas and 

would be informed by the results of cultural 

resource investigations prior to these 

activities. No adverse impacts on 

archeological resources are anticipated. 

Segment 7: Pisgah—Efforts to maintain vistas 

in this segment would involve some possible 

ground disturbance that could potentially 

cause loss of integrity to archeological sites. 

However, ground-disturbing activities would 

be undertaken to avoid loss of integrity to 

archeological resources in these areas and 

would be informed by the results of cultural 

resource investigations prior to these 

activities. Adverse impacts on archeological 

resources would be negligible to minor and 

permanent due to the potential for slight and 

inadvertent disturbance to archeological 

resources. 

 

Recreation Areas. Only those parkway 

recreation areas that would have more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide and segment sections are 

described below. 

Humpback Rocks—Under alternative A, the 

possible rerouting of Appalachian Trail 

segments in the Humpback Rocks area is 

focused on preserving sensitive resources. 

This work would most likely result in 

permanent beneficial impacts because 

archeological resources would be avoided. 

James River, Rocky Knob, Julian Price 

Memorial Park, Linville Falls, Crabtree Falls, 

and Mt. Pisgah—Under alternative A, these 

recreation areas would experience upgrades 

to existing comfort stations. Related grounddisturbing activities from the upgrade of 

comfort stations would be undertaken to 

avoid loss of integrity to archeological 

resources in these areas and would be 

informed by the results of cultural resource 

investigations prior to these activities. No 

adverse impacts on archeological resources 

are anticipated. 

Peaks of Otter, Mabry Mill, Doughton Park, 

and Craggy Gardens—Under alternative A, 

changes are proposed for comfort stations 

and some concession facilities in these 

recreation areas. Ground disturbance 

involved with the reuse or adaptation of 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

356 

concession facilities or with comfort station 

upgrades would be undertaken to avoid loss 

of integrity to archeological resources in these 

areas and would be informed by the results of 

cultural resource investigations prior to these 

activities. No adverse impacts on 

archeological resources are anticipated. 

Cumulative Impacts. Archeological sites 

continually deteriorate, due primarily to the 

effects of weather and gravity. Left alone, sites 

will inevitably degrade over time. Human 

disturbance contributes to the effects of 

natural agents of deterioration and can 

substantially increase the rate of site 

deterioration. Over the years, archeological 

resources on both private and parkway lands 

have been vulnerable to inadvertent damage 

and vandalism. Inadvertent impacts would 

include picking up or otherwise displacing 

shards and other artifacts, the compaction of 

cultural deposits, and the creation of social 

trails (which can lead to erosion and 

destabilization of the original site 

architecture). Intentional vandalism includes 

removing artifacts and probing or digging in 

sites. Inadvertent damage or vandalism would 

result in a loss of surface archeological 

materials, alteration of artifact distribution 

and a reduction of contextual evidence, 

resulting in permanent adverse impacts of 

minor to major intensity. 

Past, present, and future construction and 

agricultural practices on lands adjacent to the 

parkway and throughout the region lands 

have disturbed archeological resources, 

resulting in permanent, moderate to major 

adverse impacts on archeological resources 

outside of but adjacent to the parkway. 

As described above, implementation of the 

no-action alternative would result in both 

beneficial and minor to moderate permanent 

adverse effects to archeological resources. 

The minor to moderate permanent adverse 

impacts of this alternative, in combination 

with the minor to major permanent adverse 

impacts of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in a 

long-term moderate to major cumulative 

effect. The adverse effects of the no-action 

alternative would be a small component of the 

adverse cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Alternative A would have 

permanent site-specific minor to moderate 

adverse impacts when considering the overall 

archeological resources of the parkway. Longterm beneficial impacts on these resources 

would continue to occur on a more local siteby-site level. Impacts of this alternative, 

combined with the impacts of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions described above, would result in 

permanent moderate to major adverse and 

beneficial cumulative effects. However, 

because most of these impacts occurred in the 

past or now take place beyond the boundary 

of the parkway, alternative A’s contribution to 

these effects would be small. 

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 

Parkway-wide. Under alternative B, 

expanding the campground infrastructure 

needed to offer greater amenities (septic 

systems, drinking water), the construction of 

new grade separation structures, and upgrades 

to campground infrastructure could involve 

ground-disturbing activities. Activities would 

be undertaken to avoid loss of integrity to 

archeological resources in these areas and 

would be informed by the results of cultural 

resource investigations prior to these 

activities. Activities in areas with existing 

disturbance and construction within the 

existing footprint of prior construction would 

also help to avoid adverse impacts. No adverse 

impacts on archeological resources are 

anticipated. 

Like alternative A, ground-disturbing 

activities associated with planned facility 

upgrades and additions of new facilities for 

concessions would be undertaken to avoid 

loss of integrity to archeological resources in 

these areas and would be informed by the 

results of cultural resource investigations 

prior to these activities. Activities in areas with 

existing disturbance and construction within 

the existing footprint of prior construction 

would also help to avoid adverse impacts. No 
Cultural Resources 

357 

adverse impacts on archeological resources 

are anticipated. 

Historic vistas would be inventoried and 

maintained for scenic viewing. Archeological 

resources could be adversely impacted if the 

maintenance and restoration of historic vistas 

involved some ground disturbance. Such 

activities would be undertaken to avoid loss of 

integrity to archeological resources in these 

areas and would be informed by the results of 

cultural resource investigations prior to these 

activities. Potential adverse impacts on 

archeological resources would likely be sitespecific, minor, and permanent. 

As in alternative A, land protection 

management activities under alternative B 

would involve beneficial impacts on the 

preservation of archeological resources 

through acquisition and the targeting of 

specific cultural resources to be acquired. This 

approach would be a long-term beneficial 

impact on archeological resources because 

more potentially national register-eligible 

archeological sites would be protected. The 

establishment of criteria for acquisition and 

protection would further enhance 

preservation of all cultural resources for a 

long-term beneficial impact. 

Under alternative B, partnerships would be 

enhanced for even greater beneficial impact 

on archeological resources under alternative B 

for the long term. Beneficial impacts would 

result from engaging the public and partners 

in active preservation programs for 

archeological resources. One example of 

partnering might include working with local 

colleges or universities to conduct 

archeological survey and inventory, which 

could result in the identification of more 

archeological resources in the parkway. 

Under alternative B, the active management of 

scenery and the preservation of historic views 

would be a beneficial impact on archeological 

resources because there would be no 

anticipated ground disturbance of 

archeological resources and archeological 

resources could gain greater protection 

through collaboration with adjacent 

landowners, county officials, and developers. 

As under alternative A, working with partners 

to avoid sensitive resource areas and the 

relocation of some sections of the 

Appalachian Trail would provide a permanent 

beneficial impact on archeological resources. 

New trail construction or ground disturbance 

from relocating Appalachian Trail segments or 

from work on the Mountains-to-Sea Trail 

would be undertaken to avoid loss of integrity 

to archeological resources in these areas and 

would be informed by the results of cultural 

resource investigations prior to these 

activities. No adverse impacts on 

archeological resources are anticipated. 

As under alternative A, the maintenance of the 

existing trail system and uses, as well as the 

continued prohibition of off-road bicycling 

and the use of designated trails for equestrians 

would be a permanent beneficial impact on 

archeological resources because keeping 

disturbance in areas where use is already 

occurring because not result in new impacts in 

currently undisturbed areas where 

archeological resources exist. Many areas of 

the parkway have not been surveyed for 

archeological resources and the use of existing 

trails would help protect previously unknown 

sites and resources from being impacts or 

inadvertently damaged. 

The construction of new walking paths under 

alternative B and associated ground 

disturbance activities would be undertaken to 

avoid loss of integrity to archeological 

resources in these areas and would be 

informed by the results of cultural resource 

investigations prior to these activities. No 

adverse impacts on archeological resources 

are anticipated. 

Archeological resources adjacent to or easily 

accessible from visitor use areas or trails 

would be vulnerable to inadvertent damage 

and vandalism. Such adverse impacts could be 

mitigated through additional stabilization of 

the sites and the elimination of social trails to 

disturbed or vulnerable sites. In addition, 

continued law enforcement patrol and 

emphasis on visitor education regarding the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

358 

significance and fragility of such resources 

and how visitors can reduce their impacts to 

them would discourage inadvertent impacts 

and vandalism and minimize adverse impacts. 

Potential adverse impacts would be minor and 

permanent. 

Parkway Segments. Only those parkway 

segments that would experience more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide section are described below. 

Segment 1: Ridge—Improvements to the 

north entrance under alternative B could 

impact archeological and other cultural 

resources in this segment if ground-disturbing 

activities are needed. 

Improvements to the north entrance and 

providing additional visitor contacts would 

likely be beneficial to cultural landscapes 

because visitors would enter with additional 

historical interpretation and orientation, 

which would be an indirect permanent benefit 

to all cultural resources. 

Modifications to vegetation at some pullouts 

in this segment could be a site-specific shortterm adverse negligible to minor impact to 

archeological resources under alternative B, 

depending on the degree of ground 

disturbance required. 

Segment 2: Roanoke—Minor modifications 

to vegetation at some pullouts in this segment 

could be a site-specific short-term adverse 

negligible to minor impact to archeological 

resources under alternative B, depending on 

the degree of ground disturbance required. 

Segment 4: Highlands—Working with 

partners to protect cultural resources would 

benefit all cultural resources, including 

archeological resources, under alternative B. 

Segment 6: Asheville—As in alternative A, 

continued partnering with local stakeholders 

and the U.S. Forest Service could benefit all 

cultural resources through active trail 

management and the possible direction of use 

away from fragile archeological sites. Grounddisturbing activities from trail improvements 

would be undertaken to avoid loss of integrity 

to archeological resources in these areas and 

would be informed by the results of cultural 

resource investigations prior to these 

activities. No adverse impacts on 

archeological resources are anticipated. 

Segment 7: Pisgah—Redesign of the entrance 

in this segment could entail some grounddisturbing activities. Such activities would be 

undertaken to avoid loss of integrity to 

archeological resources in these areas and 

would be informed by the results of cultural 

resource investigations prior to these 

activities. No adverse impacts on 

archeological resources are anticipated. 

Recreation Areas. Only those parkway 

recreation areas that would have more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide and segment sections are 

described below. 

Humpback Rocks—Drawing attention to the 

historic Howardsville Turnpike route under 

alternative B, would cause a potential minor 

adverse impact through increased attention 

and visitation on this cultural resource. The 

results of cultural resource investigations 

prior to these activities would allow for 

avoidance and protection of any archeological 

resources in this area. Therefore, no adverse 

impacts on archeological resources are 

anticipated. 

The longer visitor use season could cause 

adverse impacts to archeological resources 

from potential ground disturbance, which 

could cause loss of integrity to these sites due 

to trampling. Such adverse impacts would be 

site-specific, short-term to permanent, and 

minor to moderate. However, the results of 

cultural resource investigations prior to these 

activities would allow for avoidance and 

protection of any archeological resources in 

this area. Increased monitoring and the 

presence of park staff could also benefit 

archeological resources through additional 

interpretive programming and resource 

management activities designed to educate 

and protect such cultural resources. 
Cultural Resources 

359 

As with alternative A, alternative B involves 

the possible rerouting of Appalachian Trail 

segments. Because the rerouting is focused on 

preserving sensitive resources, this work 

would most likely result in permanent 

beneficial impacts if archeological resources 

could be avoided. The results of cultural 

resource investigations prior to these activities 

would allow for avoidance and protection of 

any archeological resources in this area. 

Zoning at Humpback Rocks under alternative 

B is primarily focused on recreation and 

natural zoning. Where there is zoning for 

natural, scenic character, and historic 

parkway, cultural resources would be well 

protected and would primarily be beneficially 

impacted for the long term as archeological 

resources contributing to national historic 

landmark designation and national register 

eligibility would be emphasized. 

James River—The longer visitor use season 

under alternative B could cause additional 

adverse impacts to archeological resources 

due ground disturbance. However, increased 

monitoring and the presence of park staff 

could also benefit these resources through 

additional interpretive programming and 

resource management activities designed to 

educate and protect archeological resources. 

The results of cultural resource investigations 

would also allow for avoidance and protection 

of any archeological resources in this area. 

Ground-disturbing activities related to 

upgrading campground facilities and the 

realignment of trails at James River would be 

undertaken to avoid loss of integrity to 

archeological resources in these areas, and 

would be informed by the results of cultural 

resource investigations prior to these 

activities. No adverse impacts on 

archeological resources are anticipated. 

Zoning at James River and Otter Creek is 

primarily focused on recreation. Where there 

is zoning for scenic character and historic 

parkway, archeological resources would be 

better protected and would primarily be 

beneficially impacted as cultural resources 

contributing to national historic landmark 

designation and national register eligibility 

would be emphasized. 

Peaks of Otter—Adverse impacts on 

archeological sites in the area would possibly 

result from some of the potential new facilities 

and upgrades for concessions and 

campgrounds if ground disturbance 

diminishes the integrity of archeological 

resources. The rehabilitation of the Saunders 

and Johnsons farms could also cause some 

similar adverse impacts on archeological 

resources where ground disturbance would be 

involved. However, all ground-disturbing 

activities would be undertaken to avoid loss of 

integrity to archeological resources in these 

areas, and would be informed by the results of 

cultural resource investigations prior to these 

activities. No adverse impacts on 

archeological resources are anticipated. The 

longer visitor use season could cause adverse 

impacts to archeological resources from 

potential ground disturbance, which could 

cause loss of integrity to these sites due to 

trampling. Such adverse impacts would be 

site-specific, short-term to permanent, and 

minor to moderate. However, the results of 

cultural resource investigations prior to these 

activities would allow for avoidance and 

protection of any archeological resources in 

this area. Increased monitoring and the 

presence of park staff could also benefit 

archeological resources through additional 

interpretive programming and resource 

management activities designed to educate 

and protect such cultural resources. 

Zoning at Peaks of Otter under alternative B is 

primarily focused on recreation. In the 

recreation zone, archeological resources 

would be used to support interpretation and 

other visitor services which could be a minor 

adverse permanent impact on such resources 

due to potential vandalism and wear and tear 

with increased visitation. 

Where there is zoning for natural, scenic 

character and historic parkway archeological 

resources would be better protected and 

would primarily be beneficially impacted as 

cultural resources contributing to national 

historic landmark designation and national 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

360 

register eligibility would be emphasized. The 

special cultural resource zones at Saunders 

Farm and Johnson Farm would provide for 

beneficial impacts on archeological resources 

through added protection. 

Roanoke Mountain—Ground-disturbing 

activities from removing the campground or 

from future trail development would be 

undertaken to avoid loss of integrity to 

archeological resources in these areas and 

would be informed by the results of cultural 

resource investigations prior to these 

activities. No adverse impacts on 

archeological resources are anticipated. 

Zoning at Roanoke Mountain is focused on 

recreation; however, there is an added natural 

zone surrounding the Roanoke Mountain 

Loop. In the natural zone, efforts would be 

made to retain and enhance cultural resources 

that contribute to the national historic 

landmark designation and national register 

listing and eligibility and there would be less 

tolerance for impacts on archeological 

resources. Where there is zoning for scenic 

character and historic parkway, archeological 

resources would be better protected and 

would primarily be beneficially impacted 

because cultural resources contributing to 

national historic landmark designation and 

national register eligibility would be 

emphasized. 

Smart View—Under alternative B, the 

acquisition of conservation easements and 

land from willing sellers would protect 

archeological resources from disturbance or 

integrity loss. These impacts would be longterm and beneficial to archeological 

resources. 

In the natural zone, efforts would be made to 

retain and enhance cultural resources that 

contribute to the national historic landmark 

designation and national register listing and 

eligibility, and fewer impacts on archeological 

resources would be tolerated. Where there is 

zoning for scenic character and historic 

parkway, archeological resources would be 

better protected and would primarily be 

beneficially impacted because resources 

contributing to national historic landmark 

designation and national register eligibility 

would be emphasized. 

Rocky Knob—Ground-disturbing activities 

related to upgrades in the campground and 

improvements to trails, parking and trail 

staging area, and the backcountry camping 

area would be undertaken to avoid loss of 

integrity to archeological resources in these 

areas and would be informed by the results of 

cultural resource investigations prior to these 

activities. No adverse impacts on 

archeological resources are anticipated. 

Zoning at Rocky Knob is primarily focused on 

recreation. Where there is zoning for scenic 

character and historic parkway, archeological 

resources would be better protected and 

would primarily be beneficially impacted 

because resources contributing to national 

historic landmark designation and national 

register eligibility would be emphasized. 

Alternative B includes a special cultural 

resource zone in Rockcastle Gorge where 

there are remnants of an abandoned mountain 

community. The special cultural resource 

zone in the Rockcastle Gorge would provide 

for added protection of archeological 

resources, and thus, result in a long-term 

beneficial impact on archeological sites in this 

area through added protection. 

Mabry Mill—As in alternative A, proposed 

changes for comfort stations and some 

concession facilities and the relocation of the 

state road crossing in this recreation area 

could involve ground disturbance. Ground 

disturbance would be undertaken to avoid 

loss of integrity to archeological resources in 

these areas and would be informed by the 

results of cultural resource investigations 

prior to these activities. No adverse impacts 

on archeological resources are anticipated. 

The longer visitor use season under 

alternative B could cause adverse impacts to 

archeological resources from potential ground 

disturbance, which could cause loss of 

integrity to these sites due to trampling. Such 

adverse impacts would be site-specific, shortterm to permanent, and minor to moderate. 
Cultural Resources 

361 

However, the results of cultural resource 

investigations prior to these activities would 

allow for avoidance and protection of any 

archeological resources in this area. Increased 

monitoring and the presence of park staff 

could also benefit archeological resources 

through additional interpretive programming 

and resource management activities designed 

to educate and protect such cultural 

resources. 

Zoning in this area includes scenic character, 

historic parkway, visitor services, and special 

natural resource. A greater level of protection 

to archeological resources would be afforded 

in the scenic character, historic parkway, and 

special natural resource zoned areas where 

resources contributing to national historic 

landmark designation and national register 

eligibility would be protected. 

Blue Ridge Music Center—The grounddisturbing activities involved in the creation of 

multiuse trails would be undertaken to avoid 

loss of integrity to archeological resources in 

these areas and would be informed by the 

results of cultural resource investigations 

prior to these activities. No adverse impacts 

on archeological resources are anticipated. 

 

Zoning in this area includes a large area 

devoted to natural zoning and areas zoned for 

scenic parkway and historic parkway where 

cultural resources would be actively protected 

as contributing elements to the designation of 

the parkway as a national historic landmark. 

Impacts on cultural resources in these areas 

would be primarily beneficial and long-term. 

In the visitor services zone, although 

archeological sites may be adapted or used to 

accommodate the needs of the visiting public, 

activities would be informed by the results of 

cultural resource investigations prior to these 

activities to prevent disturbance or integrity 

loss to these sites. No adverse impacts on 

archeological resources are anticipated. 

Increased monitoring and the presence of 

park staff could also benefit these resources 

through additional interpretive programming 

and resource management activities designed 

to educate and protect archeological 

resources. 

Cumberland Knob—Increased visitor services 

could cause minor site-specific permanent 

adverse impacts on archeological resources in 

the form of ground disturbance and the 

potential for diminished integrity as a result. 

However, increased monitoring and the 

presence of park staff could also benefit these 

resources through additional interpretive 

programming and resource management 

activities designed to educate and protect 

archeological resources. Activities would also 

be informed by the results of cultural resource 

investigations prior to these activities to 

prevent disturbance or integrity loss to these 

sites. 

Zoning at Cumberland Knob includes natural, 

park support and visitor services, scenic 

parkway, and historic parkway. Although 

zoning in this area would generally benefit 

archeological resources, some minor sitespecific adverse permanent impacts in the 

areas zoned for visitor services could occur 

from increased visitor use. Activities would 

also be informed by the results of cultural 

resource investigations prior to these activities 

to prevent disturbance or integrity loss to 

these sites. 

Where there is historic parkway, scenic 

parkway, and natural zoning, parkway 

archeological resources would benefit from 

evaluation and protection for their possible 

national register listing or as contributing 

elements to the designation of the parkway as 

a national historic landmark. 

Doughton Park—Under alternative B, 

ground-disturbing activities related to 

providing tent site and utility upgrades in the 

campground and the conversion of tent sites 

to RV sites would be undertaken to avoid loss 

of integrity to archeological resources in these 

areas and would be informed by the results of 

cultural resource investigations prior to these 

activities. No adverse impacts on 

archeological resources are anticipated. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

362 

Under alternative B, zoning in the Doughton 

Park area would generally benefit 

archeological resources. However, some 

minor site-specific adverse permanent 

impacts in the areas zoned for park support or 

visitor services could occur as a result of 

increased use in or near archeological sites 

due to disturbance or vandalism. At the same 

time, improved interpretation of the parkway 

would be a long-term beneficial impact to 

associated archeological resources in this area 

because visitors would obtain new 

understanding of the site and would 

discourage vandalism and could lead to better 

preservation of archeological resources. 

Where there is historic parkway, scenic 

character, and natural zoning, parkway 

cultural resources would benefit from 

designation for possible national register 

listing or as contributing elements of a 

national historic landmark. Few adverse 

impacts on archeological resources would be 

tolerated in the special cultural resource 

zones. This management approach would be a 

long-term benefit to archeological resources. 

Julian Price Memorial Park—Upgrades to 

existing comfort stations would be 

undertaken to avoid loss of integrity to 

archeological resources in these areas and 

would be informed by the results of cultural 

resource investigations prior to these 

activities. No adverse impacts on 

archeological resources are anticipated. 

Zoning at Julian Price under alternative B 

includes a substantial amount of natural zone, 

a small visitor services area at the campground 

and a new picnic area. The area around the 

lake is zoned for recreation. There are special 

natural resource zones adjacent to the 

parkway in several locations and the parkway 

itself is zoned for historic parkway. Although 

zoning in this area would generally benefit 

archeological resources, there could be some 

minor adverse site-specific short-term impacts 

in the areas zoned for recreation. Where there 

is historic parkway, natural, and special 

natural zoning, parkway cultural resources 

would benefit from evaluation for possible 

national register eligibility or as contributing 

elements to the parkway as a national historic 

landmark. 

Linville Falls—The longer visitor use season 

could cause adverse impacts to archeological 

resources from potential ground disturbance, 

which could cause loss of integrity to these 

sites due to trampling. Such adverse impacts 

would be site-specific, permanent, and minor 

to moderate. However, the results of cultural 

resource investigations prior to these activities 

would allow for avoidance and protection of 

any archeological resources in this area. 

Increased monitoring and the presence of 

park staff could also benefit archeological 

resources through additional interpretive 

programming and resource management 

activities designed to educate and protect such 

cultural resources. 

Ground-disturbing activities related to 

campground upgrades and trail work under 

alternative B would be undertaken to avoid 

loss of integrity to archeological resources in 

these areas and would be informed by the 

results of cultural resource investigations 

prior to these activities. No adverse impacts 

on archeological resources are anticipated. 

Zoning in the Linville Falls area focuses on 

recreation and scenic character of the 

parkway, as well as some natural zoning. A 

greater level of protection would be afforded 

in the scenic character and natural zone areas 

where cultural resources contributing to 

national historic landmark designation and 

national register eligibility would be 

protected. This would be a long-term 

beneficial impact to archeological resources. 

Crabtree Falls—Ground-disturbing activities 

related to campground and concession 

upgrades and changes would be undertaken to 

avoid loss of integrity to archeological 

resources in these areas and would be 

informed by the results of cultural resource 

investigations prior to these activities. No 

adverse impacts on archeological resources 

are anticipated. 

Zoning in the Crabtree Falls area focuses on 

recreation and scenic character of the 

parkway. A greater level of protection would 
Cultural Resources 

363 

be afforded in the scenic character zoned 

areas where cultural resources contributing to 

national historic landmark designation would 

be protected. 

Craggy Gardens—Ground-disturbing 

activities related to providing tent site and 

utility upgrades in the campground and for 

improving campground access for RVs under 

alternative B would be undertaken to avoid 

loss of integrity to archeological resources in 

these areas and would be informed by the 

results of cultural resource investigations 

prior to these activities. No adverse impacts 

on archeological resources are anticipated. 

Under alternative B, a substantial part of the 

area is zoned natural. The parkway itself is 

zoned for historic parkway with scenic 

character zoning adjacent. There is visitor 

service zoning in the developed areas, while 

the Brinegar Cabin and Caudill Cabin are 

zoned as special cultural resource zones. The 

Grassy Gap Fire Road is zoned for park 

support. Zoning in this area would generally 

benefit archeological resources although there 

could be some minor, site-specific adverse 

short-term impacts in the areas zoned for park 

support or visitor services due to increases in 

disturbance or vandalism of archeological 

sites in the area. Where there is historic 

parkway, scenic character, and natural zoning, 

parkway cultural resources would benefit 

from evaluation and protection for their 

possible national-register listing or as 

contributing elements to the designation of 

the parkway as a national historic landmark. 

Few impacts on archeological resources 

would be tolerated in the special cultural 

resource zones, resulting in a permanent 

benefit to those resources. 

Mt. Pisgah—Restoration of the Buck Spring 

Lodge cultural landscape and changes to 

camp sites in this area would be undertaken to 

avoid loss of integrity to archeological 

resources in these areas and would be 

informed by the results of cultural resource 

investigations prior to these activities. No 

adverse impacts on archeological resources 

are anticipated. 

This recreation area is zoned primarily as a 

natural zone and the parkway is designated for 

historic parkway with some adjacent special 

natural resource zones. The campground and 

amphitheater area would be designated 

historic parkway for added protections to the 

cultural landscape and historic resources 

there. Archeological sites would be evaluated 

and managed to maintain their eligibility for 

the national register and for their role in the 

designation of the parkway as a national 

historic landmark and resources protected. 

The Buck Springs Lodge Ruin special cultural 

resource zone would tolerate few impacts on 

cultural resource, including archeological 

resource, resulting in a long-term beneficial 

impact in this zone. 

Cumulative Impacts. Archeological sites 

continually deteriorate, due primarily to the 

effects of weather and gravity. Left alone, sites 

will inevitably degrade over time. Human 

disturbance contributes to the effects of 

natural agents of deterioration and can 

substantially increase the rate of site 

deterioration. Over the years, archeological 

resources on both private and parkway lands 

have been vulnerable to inadvertent damage 

and vandalism. Inadvertent impacts would 

include picking up or otherwise displacing 

artifacts, the compaction of cultural deposits, 

and the creation of social trails (which can 

lead to erosion and destabilization of the 

original site). Intentional vandalism includes 

removing artifacts and probing or digging in 

sites. Inadvertent damage or vandalism would 

result in a loss of surface archeological 

materials, alteration of artifact distribution, 

and a reduction of contextual evidence, 

resulting in permanent adverse impacts of 

minor to major intensity. 

Past, present, and future construction and 

agricultural practices on lands adjacent to the 

parkway and throughout the region lands 

have disturbed archeological resources, 

resulting in permanent, moderate to major 

adverse impacts on archeological resources 

outside of but adjacent to the parkway. 

As described above, implementation of 

alternative B would result in both beneficial 

and minor to moderate permanent adverse 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

364 

effects to archeological resources. The minor 

to moderate permanent adverse impacts of 

this alternative, in combination with the minor 

to major permanent adverse impacts of other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, would result in a long-term 

moderate to major cumulative effect. The 

adverse effects of alternative B would be a 

small component of the adverse cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. Alternative B would have 

permanent minor to moderate adverse 

impacts and permanent negligible to moderate 

beneficial impacts on the archeological 

resources. Impacts associated with other past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable actions are 

the same as described under alternative A. As 

described above, implementation of 

alternative B would result in both long-term 

beneficial and minor to moderate permanent 

adverse effects to archeological resources. 

The impacts of alternative B, in combination 

with the minor to major permanent adverse 

impacts of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in a 

permanent moderate to major adverse 

cumulative effect. The adverse effects of 

alternative B, however, would be a small 

component of the adverse cumulative impact. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council’s criteria of adverse effects 

(36 CFR 800.5 Assessment of Adverse Effects) 

the National Park Service concludes that 

implementation of alternative B would include 

moderate adverse impacts on archeological 

resources that could result in an adverse effect 

at some sites. National Park Service staff 

would work with the state historic 

preservation officer to prevent an adverse 

effect. Any adverse effects under section 106 

would be mitigated according to the Secretary 

of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for 

Documentation and Treatment of Historic 

Properties. Impacts would be mitigated 

through the use of a memorandum of 

agreement with the state historic preservation 

officer and advisory council to counteract 

such adverse effects. 

Alternative C 

Parkway-wide. Under alternative C, some 

human-made water features would be 

converted to natural habitat and would 

involve draining human-made lakes. This 

activity and the potential for exposing 

submerged archeological resources could 

cause minor site-specific permanent adverse 

impacts to archeological sites if archeological 

if integrity is lost as a result of these activities. 

Activities would be informed by the results of 

cultural resource investigations prior to these 

activities, thus minimizing adverse impacts to 

archeological resources. 

The relocation of some parkway overlooks 

under alternative C could adverse impacts to 

archeological resources, depending on the 

location of these activities and their proximity 

to archeological resources. Such activities 

would be undertaken to avoid loss of integrity 

to archeological resources in these areas and 

would be informed by the results of cultural 

resource investigations prior to these 

activities. Potential adverse impacts on 

archeological resources would likely be sitespecific, minor, and permanent. 

Expanding the infrastructure needed to offer 

greater amenities, such as leech fields, under 

alternative C could have an adverse impact to 

archeological resources that are adjacent to 

campgrounds. Because the extent of the 

upgrades is larger under alternative C, the 

impact intensity under this alternative would 

be higher under alternative C than alternatives 

A and B. Activities would be undertaken to 

avoid loss of integrity to archeological 

resources in these areas and would be 

informed by the results of cultural resource 

investigations prior to these activities. 

Potential adverse impacts on archeological 

resources would likely be site-specific, minor, 

and permanent. 

The construction of new grade separation 

structures, creation of new multiuse trails, 

planned upgrades for universal accessibility, 

and improvements for RV access and the 

widening of roads for better turning radii in 

alternative C would be undertaken to avoid 
Cultural Resources 

365 

loss of integrity to archeological resources in 

these areas and would be informed by the 

results of cultural resource investigations 

prior to these activities. The use of areas with 

existing disturbance and containing 

construction activities within the existing 

footprint of prior construction would help to 

avoid or lessen adverse impacts to 

archeological sites. No adverse impacts on 

archeological resources are anticipated from 

these activities. 

As in alternative A, the removal of concession 

structures and related landscape maintenance 

under alternative A would involve ground 

disturbance. Such activities would be 

undertaken to avoid loss of integrity to 

archeological resources in these areas and 

would be informed by the results of cultural 

resource investigations prior to these 

activities. No adverse impacts on 

archeological resources are anticipated. 

 

Creating new parkway land use maps could 

allow for a deviation from the historic 

character when necessary in an attempt to 

capture regional landscape character and 

provide for recreational uses. This approach 

could cause a permanent adverse impact to 

archeological resources that are part of the 

historic designed parkway due to 

deterioration of such resources. The intensity 

of the impact would range from negligible to 

moderate depending on the degree of 

deviation from the original design and the 

impacts would generally be local. Activities 

would be informed by the results of cultural 

resource investigations prior to these activities 

to minimize potential adverse impacts. 

The replacement of pull-offs along the 

parkway to maintain vistas and capture the 

original intent of the parkway could pose be 

potential adverse impacts on archeological 

resources resulting from ground-disturbing 

activities related to vista maintenance and 

restoration. Ground-disturbing activities 

would be informed by the results of cultural 

resource investigations to avoid archeological 

resources, and as a result, potential adverse 

impacts would be kept to the negligible to 

minor range and would be permanent. 

As in alternative B, partnerships would be 

enhanced for even greater beneficial impact 

on archeological resources under alternative 

C for the long term. Beneficial impacts would 

result from engaging the public and partners 

in active preservation programs for 

archeological resources. One example of 

partnering might include working with local 

colleges or universities to conduct 

archeological survey and inventory, which 

could result in the identification of more 

archeological resources in the parkway. 

There could be some additional benefits to 

archeological resources through a long-term 

regional ecosystem health approach under 

alternative C because impacts on 

archeological resources would be realized and 

anticipated in a larger context providing for 

better understanding of impacts on their 

continued management and preservation. 

As in alternative B, the active management of 

scenery and the preservation of historic views 

under alternative C would be a beneficial 

impact on archeological resources because 

there would be no anticipated ground 

disturbance of archeological resources and 

archeological resources could gain greater 

protection through collaboration with 

adjacent landowners, county officials, and 

developers. 

As in alternative B, working with partners to 

avoid sensitive resource areas and the 

relocation of some sections of the 

Appalachian Trail would provide a long-term 

beneficial impact on archeological resources 

in alternative C. Ground disturbance from 

new trail construction or from relocating 

Appalachian Trail segments or the 

Mountains-to-Sea Trail would be undertaken 

to avoid loss of integrity to archeological 

resources in these areas and would be 

informed by the results of cultural resource 

investigations prior to these activities. No 

adverse impacts on archeological resources 

are anticipated. 

As in alternative B, there would be generally 

beneficial impacts on archeological resources 

from an active and engaged interpretation and 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

366 

visitor services management program along 

the parkway under alternative C because 

archeological resources are better protected 

when visitors understand and appreciate the 

significance of the area’s cultural resources. 

However, increased visitation to a year-round 

visitor season would also result in potential 

permanent adverse impacts to archeological 

sites due to increased trampling of 

archeological sites and inadvertent discoveries 

of sites and features. Potential impacts would 

be site-specific permanent adverse impacts on 

archeological resources that could range from 

minor to moderate intensity. 

Parkway Segments. Only those parkway 

segments that would experience more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide section are described below. 

Segment 1: Ridge—Impacts in alternative C 

would be the same as those in alternative B 

with regard to the improvements to the north 

entrance, such as the redesign of some 

pullouts. Activities involving ground 

disturbance would be undertaken to avoid 

loss of integrity to archeological resources in 

these areas and would be informed by the 

results of cultural resource investigations 

prior to these activities. No adverse impacts 

on archeological resources are anticipated. 

Segment 4: Highlands—As in alternative A, 

working with partners to protect cultural 

resources would benefit all cultural resources, 

including archeological resources, under 

alternative C. Ground-disturbing activities 

from trail construction and new multiuse trails 

would be undertaken to avoid loss of integrity 

to archeological resources in these areas and 

would be informed by the results of cultural 

resource investigations prior to these 

activities. No adverse impacts on 

archeological resources are anticipated. 

Segment 6: Asheville—As in alternative A, 

continued partnering with local stakeholders 

and the U.S. Forest Service under alternative 

C could benefit all cultural resources through 

active trail management and the possible 

direction of use away from fragile 

archeological sites. However, grounddisturbing activities from trail improvements 

and addition of the shuttle system under 

alternative C would be undertaken to avoid 

loss of integrity to archeological resources in 

these areas and would be informed by the 

results of cultural resource investigations 

prior to these activities. No adverse impacts 

on archeological resources are anticipated. 

Segment 7: Pisgah—As in alternative B, the 

redesign of the entrance in this segment under 

alternative C would be undertaken to avoid 

loss of integrity to archeological resources in 

these areas and would be informed by the 

results of cultural resource investigations 

prior to these activities. No adverse impacts 

on archeological resources are anticipated. 

Recreation Areas. Only those parkway 

recreation areas that would have more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide and segment sections are 

described below. 

Humpback Rocks—As in alternative B, 

drawing attention to the historic Howardsville 

Turnpike route under alternative C, would 

cause a potential minor adverse impact 

through increased attention on this cultural 

resource. Increased use of this resource could 

lead to trampling and disturbance of 

archeological sites in the area. However, 

measures would be undertaken to avoid loss 

of integrity to archeological resources in these 

areas and would be informed by the results of 

cultural resource investigations prior to these 

activities. Resulting adverse impacts would be 

site-specific, minor, and permanent. 

Enlarging the visitor center and the 

development of the multiuse trail and new 

trails in this area would also be undertaken to 

avoid loss of integrity to archeological 

resources in these areas and would be 

informed by the results of cultural resource 

investigations prior to these activities. No 

adverse impacts on archeological resources 

are anticipated from these activities because 

impacts would be avoided. 

The 12-month visitor use season under 

alternative C could cause adverse impacts to 
Cultural Resources 

367 

archeological resources from potential ground 

disturbance, which could cause loss of 

integrity to these sites due to trampling. Such 

adverse impacts would be site-specific, 

permanent, and minor to moderate. However, 

increased monitoring and the presence of 

park staff could also benefit archeological 

resources through resource management 

activities designed to educate and protect such 

cultural resources. 

The development of the multiuse trail and 

new trails under alternative C and the ground 

disturbance this development would involve 

could be a potential site-specific permanent 

minor adverse impact on previously 

undocumented archeological sites and 

features. However, because the trail rerouting 

is focused on preserving sensitive resources, 

this work would mostly likely result in 

permanent beneficial impacts if archeological 

and historic resources could be avoided. 

As with alternatives A and B, alternative C 

involves the possible rerouting of Appalachian 

Trail segments. This action would be 

undertaken to avoid loss of integrity to 

archeological resources in these areas and 

would be informed by the results of cultural 

resource investigations prior to these 

activities. No adverse impacts on 

archeological resources are anticipated from 

these activities because impacts would be 

avoided. 

Zoning at Humpback Rocks under alternative 

C emphasizes the natural zone with some 

recreation zoning to accommodate multiuse 

trail development. An area adjacent to the 

parkway near Greenstone Overlook is zoned 

for scenic character, while the parkway itself is 

zoned history parkway. Areas adjacent to the 

visitor contact station and the picnic area are 

zoned park support. As with alternative B 

where there it is zoned natural, scenic 

character, and historic parkway, archeological 

resources would be well protected and would 

primarily be beneficially impacted for the long 

term as those contributing to national historic 

landmark designation and national register 

eligibility would be emphasized. In the park 

support zone, archeological resources would 

also be protected, providing for a long-term 

beneficial impact. 

James River—The restoration of the wetland 

in this area instead of maintaining and 

dredging the lake could have some potential 

adverse impacts on archeological sites that are 

currently submerged. The exposure of these 

archeological resources could make them 

subject to vandalism and further deterioration 

resulting in integrity loss. These impacts 

would be permanent, adverse, and minor to 

moderate depending on the potential loss of 

information potential. 

As in alternative B, the realignment of trails 

and the redesigning and upgrading the 

campground at James River in alternative C 

would be undertaken to avoid loss of integrity 

to archeological resources in these areas and 

would be informed by the results of cultural 

resource investigations prior to these 

activities. No adverse impacts on 

archeological resources are anticipated from 

these activities because impacts would be 

avoided. 

Zoning at James River and Otter Creek 

emphasizes the natural zone. In the natural 

zone, efforts would be made to retain and 

enhance cultural resources that contribute to 

the national historic landmark designation 

and national register listing and eligibility. The 

special cultural resource zone at Canal Lock 

would provide for beneficial impacts on 

cultural resources through added protection. 

An area adjacent to the parkway south of the 

canal is zoned for scenic character while the 

parkway itself is zoned history parkway. Areas 

adjacent to the Otter Creek Restaurant and 

Campground are zoned park support. As with 

alternative B, where there are natural, scenic 

character, or historic parkway zones, 

archeological resources would be well 

protected and would primarily be beneficially 

impacted for the long term as cultural 

resources contributing to national historic 

landmark designation and national register 

eligibility would be emphasized. In the park 

support zone, archeological resources would 

also be protected, providing for a long-term 

beneficial impact. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

368 

Peaks of Otter—As in alternative B, grounddisturbing activities associated with the 

potential construction of new facilities, 

upgrades for concessions and campgrounds, 

widening the entrance, and converting 

campsites to rental cabins, and the 

rehabilitation of the Saunders and Johnsons 

farms would be undertaken to avoid loss of 

integrity to archeological resources in these 

areas and would be informed by the results of 

cultural resource investigations prior to these 

activities. No adverse impacts on 

archeological resources are anticipated from 

these activities because impacts would be 

avoided. 

Zoning at Peaks of Otter under alternative C 

emphasizes the natural zone. In the natural 

zone efforts would be made to retain and 

enhance cultural resources that contribute to 

the national historic landmark designation 

and national register listing and eligibility. The 

special cultural resource zones at Saunders 

Farm and Johnson Farm would tolerate very 

little cultural resource impact so would 

provide for beneficial impacts on cultural 

resources through added protection. Areas 

adjacent to the parkway leading into and 

exiting the recreation area are zoned for 

scenic character while the parkway itself is 

zoned history parkway. Areas adjacent to 

Abbott Lake are zoned park support. As with 

alternative B, cultural resources would be well 

protected and would primarily be beneficially 

impacted for the long term as cultural 

resources contributing to national historic 

landmark designation and national register 

eligibility would be emphasized. In the park 

support zone cultural resources would also be 

protected, providing for a permanent 

beneficial impact. 

Roanoke Mountain—Ground-disturbing 

activities from upgrading the campground 

under alternative C would be undertaken to 

avoid loss of integrity to archeological 

resources in these areas and would be 

informed by the results of cultural resource 

investigations prior to these activities. No 

adverse impacts on archeological resources 

are anticipated from these activities because 

impacts would be avoided. 

Zoning at Roanoke Mountain is primarily 

focused on recreation. Where there is zoning 

for scenic character and the historic parkway, 

archeological resources would be better 

protected and would primarily be beneficially 

impacted as cultural resources contributing to 

national historic landmark designation and 

national register eligibility would be 

emphasized. 

Smart View—The possible picnic area 

improvements in this area under alternative C 

would be undertaken to avoid loss of integrity 

to archeological resources in these areas and 

would be informed by the results of cultural 

resource investigations prior to these 

activities. No adverse impacts on 

archeological resources are anticipated from 

these activities because impacts would be 

avoided. 

In the natural zone surrounding the picnic 

area, efforts would be made to retain and 

enhance cultural resources that contribute to 

the national historic landmark designation 

and national register listing and eligibility and 

fewer impacts on cultural resources would be 

tolerated. In this recreation area, the parkway 

is zoned historic parkway and is surrounded 

on either side with scenic character zoning. 

Where there is zoning for scenic character and 

the historic parkway, archeological resources 

would be better protected and would 

primarily be beneficially impacted as cultural 

resources contributing to national historic 

landmark designation and national register 

eligibility would be emphasized. The picnic 

area is zoned for visitor services which would 

also preserve cultural resources while 

allowing for ongoing visitor uses in the area. 

Rocky Knob—This recreation area would 

experience upgrades to existing comfort 

stations and construction activities for RV 

access under alternative C. Related grounddisturbing activities would be undertaken to 

avoid loss of integrity to archeological 

resources in these areas and would be 

informed by the results of cultural resource 

investigations prior to these activities. No 

adverse impacts on archeological resources 
Cultural Resources 

369 

are anticipated from these activities because 

impacts would be avoided. 

Zoning at Rocky Knob under alternative C 

emphasizes the natural zone. Visitor services 

zones are situated at the campground, 

trailhead shelter, and Rocky Knob Cabins. 

Some park support zoning is present for the 

maintenance area and district offices near the 

campground and the fire road in the gorge is 

also designated as such. Areas adjacent to the 

parkway leading into and exiting the 

recreation area are zoned for scenic character 

while the parkway itself is zoned history 

parkway. In the natural zone efforts would be 

made to retain and enhance cultural resources 

that contribute to the national historic 

landmark designation and national register 

listing and eligibility. 

As with alternative B, the special cultural 

resource zone in the Rockcastle Gorge would 

tolerate very little cultural resource impact so 

would provide for beneficial impacts on 

cultural resources through added protection. 

As with alternative B where there it is zoned 

natural, scenic character, and historic 

parkway, cultural resources would be well 

protected and would primarily be beneficially 

impacted for the long term as cultural 

resources contributing to national historic 

landmark designation and national register 

eligibility would be emphasized. In the park 

support and visitor services zones, 

archeological resources would also be 

protected, providing for a long-term 

beneficial impact. 

Mabry Mill—As in alternative A, changes for 

comfort stations and some concession 

facilities and a multiuse trail developed 

between Mabry Mill and Meadows of Dan 

would involve ground-disturbing activities. 

These activities would be undertaken to avoid 

loss of integrity to archeological resources in 

these areas, and would be informed by the 

results of cultural resource investigations 

prior to these activities. No adverse impacts 

on archeological resources are anticipated 

from these activities because impacts would 

be avoided. 

The Mabry Mill area under alternative C is 

zoned very similarly to alternative B. Zoning 

in this area includes scenic character, historic 

parkway, visitor services, and special natural 

resource. A greater level of protection would 

be afforded in the scenic character, historic 

parkway, and special natural resource zoned 

areas where archeological and other cultural 

resources contributing to national historic 

landmark designation and national register 

eligibility would be protected. 

Blue Ridge Music Center—The creation of 

multiuse trails in the area under alternative C 

would be undertaken to avoid loss of integrity 

to archeological resources in these areas, and 

would be informed by the results of cultural 

resource investigations prior to these 

activities. No adverse impacts on 

archeological resources are anticipated from 

these activities because impacts would be 

avoided. 

Zoning in this area includes a large area 

devoted to natural zoning and areas zoned for 

scenic parkway and historic parkway where 

cultural resources would be actively protected 

as contributing elements to the designation of 

the parkway as a national historic landmark. 

Impacts on cultural resources in these areas 

would be primarily beneficial. In the visitor 

services zone, there could be some short-term 

site-specific minor adverse impacts on 

archeological resources if areas that include 

archeological sites may be adapted or used to 

accommodate the needs of the visiting public. 

Cumberland Knob—The ground-disturbing 

activities associated with the potential 

creation of additional trails and picnic 

infrastructure would be undertaken to avoid 

loss of integrity to archeological resources in 

these areas, and would be informed by the 

results of cultural resource investigations 

prior to these activities. No adverse impacts 

on archeological resources are anticipated 

from these activities because impacts would 

be avoided. 

Zoning at Cumberland Knob includes natural, 

recreation, scenic parkway, and historic 

parkway. Zoning in this area would generally 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

370 

benefit archeological resources although there 

could be some minor adverse short-term 

impacts in the areas zoned recreation. Where 

there is historic parkway, scenic parkway, and 

natural zoning, parkway cultural resources 

would benefit from evaluation and protection 

for their possible national register listing or as 

contributing elements to the designation of 

the parkway as a national historic landmark. 

Doughton Park—As in alternative B, grounddisturbing activities related to providing tent 

site and utility upgrades in the campground in 

alternative C would be undertaken to avoid 

loss of integrity to archeological resources in 

these areas, and would be informed by the 

results of cultural resource investigations 

prior to these activities. No adverse impacts 

on archeological resources are anticipated 

from these activities because impacts would 

be avoided. 

At Doughton Park, zoning is primarily focused 

on natural zoning under alternative C. There 

is some historic parkway zone in the vicinity 

of the developed areas, and some recreation 

zoning. Zoning in this area would generally 

benefit cultural resources although there 

could be some minor adverse permanent 

impacts in the areas zoned recreation from 

continued or increased use. Where there is 

historic parkway, and natural zoning, parkway 

archeological resources would benefit from 

evaluation and protection for their possible 

national register listing or as contributing 

elements to the designation of the parkway as 

a national historic landmark. 

Julian Price Memorial Park—Planned 

upgrades to comfort stations and utilities in 

the campground and improving area trails 

would involve ground-disturbing activities. 

Such activities would be undertaken to avoid 

loss of integrity to archeological resources in 

these areas, and would be informed by the 

results of cultural resource investigations 

prior to these activities. No adverse impacts 

on archeological resources are anticipated 

from these activities because impacts would 

be avoided. 

At Julian Price under alternative C, zoning is 

primarily focused on recreation and natural 

zoning. There is some historic parkway zone 

in the area around Price Lake, and some 

special natural resource zoning interspersed 

with the natural zone. Zoning in this area 

would generally benefit archeological 

resources, although there could be some 

minor adverse short-term impacts in the areas 

zoned recreation. Where there is historic 

parkway, natural and special natural zoning, 

parkway archeological resources would 

benefit from evaluation and protection for 

their possible national register listing or as 

contributing elements to the designation of 

the parkway as a national historic landmark. 

Linville Falls—Impacts to archeological 

resources in this recreation area would be the 

same as those in alternative B in that the 

longer visitor use season could cause 

permanent minor to moderate adverse 

impacts on archeological resources in the 

form of ground disturbance and potential loss 

of integrity to archeological sites. This area 

also would include improving RV access in the 

campground and possibly from redesigning 

the picnic area and converting the visitor 

contact station to a trailhead shelter. Grounddisturbing activities associated with these 

undertakings would be undertaken to avoid 

loss of integrity to archeological resources in 

these areas, and would be informed by the 

results of cultural resource investigations 

prior to these activities. No adverse impacts 

on archeological resources are anticipated 

from these activities because impacts would 

be avoided. 

Zoning at Linville Falls includes more natural 

zoning. The spur road to the visitor contact 

station would be zoned for visitor services and 

would allow for a greater degree of impact. 

The campground would also be zoned 

differently from B and would be visitor service 

designated. The parkway itself is zoned for 

historic parkway with scenic character 

designated to either side. Park support zones 

exist at the maintenance facility. Impacts from 

this zoning would generally benefit 

archeological resources for the long term. 
Cultural Resources 

371 

Crabtree Falls—Zoning at Crabtree Falls 

Recreation Area under alternative C is natural 

where it is recreational in alternative B. The 

picnic area, campground, and gift shop are all 

zoned for visitor services. The parkway is 

zoned historic parkway with scenic character 

designated to either side. Archeological 

resources would benefit from the natural zone 

designation through added protection, and 

fewer adverse impacts would be tolerated. 

Cultural resources, including archeological 

resources, would be evaluated for national 

register eligibility and better preserved in the 

natural, scenic character and historic parkway 

zones. 

Craggy Gardens—As in alternative B, grounddisturbing activities related to providing tent 

site and utility upgrades in the campground 

and for improving campground access for 

RVs in alternative C would be undertaken to 

avoid loss of integrity to archeological 

resources in these areas, and would be 

informed by the results of cultural resource 

investigations prior to these activities. No 

adverse impacts on archeological resources 

are anticipated from these activities because 

impacts would be avoided. 

Mt. Pisgah—As in alternative B, restoration of 

the Buck Spring Lodge cultural landscape and 

changes to camp sites in this area in alternative 

C would be undertaken to avoid loss of 

integrity to archeological resources in these 

areas, and would be informed by the results of 

cultural resource investigations prior to these 

activities. No adverse impacts on 

archeological resources are anticipated from 

these activities because impacts would be 

avoided. 

Under alternative C, this recreation area is 

also zoned primarily as a natural zone and the 

parkway is designated for historic parkway 

with some adjacent special natural resource 

zones. The campground and amphitheater 

area would be designated visitor services zone 

which would tolerate greater impacts as 

compared to alternative B. These impacts 

would likely be short-term, adverse, sitespecific, and minor. There would be added 

protection from the designation of the Buck 

Springs Lodge Ruin special cultural resource 

zone where few impacts on cultural resources 

would be tolerated. 

Cumulative Impacts. Archeological sites 

continually deteriorate, due primarily to the 

effects of weather and gravity. Left alone, sites 

will inevitably degrade over time. Human 

disturbance contributes to the effects of 

natural agents of deterioration, and can 

substantially increase the rate of site 

deterioration. Over the years, archeological 

resources on both private and parkway lands 

have been vulnerable to inadvertent damage 

and vandalism. Inadvertent impacts would 

include picking up or otherwise displacing 

shards and other artifacts, the compaction of 

cultural deposits, and the creation of social 

trails (which can lead to erosion and 

destabilization of the original site). Intentional 

vandalism includes removing artifacts and 

probing or digging in sites. Inadvertent 

damage or vandalism would result in a loss of 

surface archeological materials, alteration of 

artifact distribution, and a reduction of 

contextual evidence, resulting in permanent 

adverse impacts of minor to major intensity. 

Past, present, and future construction and 

agricultural practices on lands adjacent to the 

parkway and throughout the region lands 

have disturbed archeological resources, 

resulting in permanent, moderate to major 

adverse impacts on archeological resources 

outside of but adjacent to the parkway. 

As described above, implementation of 

alternative C would result in both beneficial 

and minor to moderate permanent adverse 

effects to archeological resources. The minor 

to moderate permanent adverse impacts of 

this alternative, in combination with the minor 

to major permanent adverse impacts of other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, would result in a long-term 

moderate to major cumulative effect. The 

adverse effects of alternative C would be a 

small component of the adverse cumulative 

impact. 

Conclusion. Alternative C would have 

permanent minor to moderate adverse 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

372 

impacts, and permanent negligible to 

moderate beneficial impacts on the 

archeological resources. Impacts associated 

with other past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable actions are the same as described 

under alternative A. As described above, 

implementation of alternative C would result 

in both long-term beneficial and minor to 

moderate permanent adverse effects to 

archeological resources. The impacts of 

alternative C, in combination with the minor 

to major permanent adverse impacts of other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, would result in a permanent 

moderate to major adverse cumulative effect. 

The adverse effects of alternative C, however, 

would be a small component of the adverse 

cumulative impact. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council’s criteria of adverse effects 

(36 CFR 800.5 Assessment of Adverse Effects) 

the National Park Service concludes that 

implementation of alternative C would 

include moderate adverse impacts on 

archeological resources that could result in an 

adverse effect at some sites. National Park 

Service staff would work with the state 

historic preservation officer to prevent an 

adverse effect. Any adverse effects under 

section 106 would be mitigated according to 

the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and 

Guidelines for Documentation and Treatment 

of Historic Properties. Impacts would be 

mitigated through the use of a memorandum 

of agreement with the state historic 

preservation officer and advisory council to 

counteract such adverse effects. 

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES 

The ethnographic resources in Blue Ridge 

Parkway are sites, structures, objects, 

landscapes, and/or natural resource features 

that have cultural associations with local and 

regional communities and individuals. For the 

purposes of impact analysis, these 

ethnographic resources are identified in 

“Chapter 3: Affected Environment” of this 

document. Parkway ethnographic resources 

are primarily related to traditional 

instrumental and vocal music, storytelling, 

dancing, and crafts. 

Methods and Assumptions for 

Analyzing Impacts 

Impacts to ethnographic resources were 

evaluated by comparing projected changes 

resulting from the action alternatives (B and 

C) to those of the no-action alternative (A). 

The thresholds used to determine impacts on 

these resources are defined as follows. 

Negligible: Impacts would be at the lowest 

levels of detection and barely perceptible. 

Impacts would neither alter resource 

conditions, such as traditional access or site 

preservation, not alter the relationship 

between the resource and the associated 

group’s body of practices and beliefs. For 

purposes of section 106, the determination of 

effect would be no adverse effect. 

Minor: Impacts would be slight but 

noticeable and would neither appreciably alter 

resource conditions, such as traditional access 

or site preservation, nor alter the relationship 

between the resource and the associated 

group’s body of beliefs and practices. For 

purposes of section 106, the determination of 

effect would be no adverse effect. 

Moderate: Impacts would be apparent and 

would alter resource conditions or interfere 

with traditional access, site preservation, or 

the relationship between the resource and the 

associated group’s beliefs and practices, even 

though the group’s practices and beliefs 

would survive. For purposes of section 106, 

the determination would be adverse effect. 

Major: Impacts would alter resource 

conditions. Proposed actions would block or 

greatly affect traditional access, site 

preservation, or the relationship between the 

resource and the associated group’s body of 

beliefs and practices to the extent that the 

survival of a group’s beliefs and/or practices 

would be jeopardized. For purposes of section 

106, the determination would be adverse 

effect. 
Cultural Resources 

373 

Cumulative Impacts. The Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations, which 

implement the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (42 USC 4321 et seq.), require 

assessment of cumulative impacts in the 

decision-making process for federal projects. 

Cumulative impacts are defined as "the impact 

on the environment which results from the 

incremental impact of the action when added 

to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

agency (federal or nonfederal) or person 

undertakes such other actions" (40 CFR 

1508.7). Cumulative impacts are considered 

for all alternatives, including the no-action 

alternative. 

Cumulative impacts were determined by 

combining the impacts of the alternatives with 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions. Therefore, it was 

necessary to identify other ongoing or 

reasonably foreseeable future projects at Blue 

Ridge Parkway and, if applicable, the 

surrounding region. 

Parkway-wide Actions Common to 

All Alternatives 

All ethnographic resources would be 

protected according to existing applicable 

federal laws and policies. Currently no 

traditional cultural properties (ethnographic 

resources listed in the national register, or that 

are eligible for listing) have been identified for 

the Blue Ridge Parkway. However, further 

Native American consultations should be alert 

to the possibility of unevaluated traditional 

cultural properties to be potentially eligible 

for listing. Ethnographic resources identified 

in chapter 3 Affected Environment illustrate 

that there is potential for the future 

identification of cultural properties that may 

be identified as ethnographic resources 

and/or traditional cultural properties.

The surveys and research necessary to 

determine the eligibility of ethnographic 

resources for listing in the national register of 

Historic Places, or for designating the Blue 

Ridge Parkway as a national historic 

landmark, are a prerequisite for 

understanding the resource’s significance, as 

well as the basis of informed decision making 

in the future regarding how such resources 

should be managed. Such surveys and 

research, as well as nominations to the 

national register or designation as a national 

historic landmark, would be a long-term 

beneficial impact to ethnographic resources. 

The land protection management approach in 

all alternatives would provide long-term 

beneficial impacts on ethnographic resources 

through the acquisition of conservation 

easements and land from willing sellers, which 

would include added protection of sites or 

features of ethnographic resources and 

traditional access to them. 

In all alternatives, ethnographic resources 

would benefit from parkway-wide 

partnerships, and there would be no adverse 

impacts from partnership management 

strategies to cultural resources. Beneficial 

impacts would result from engaging the public 

and partners in active preservation programs 

for ethnographic resources. One example of 

partnering might include inventory of 

ethnographic features and sites, or possibly 

oral history interviews that could be 

accomplished by local colleges or universities. 

Alternative A—No-action 

Parkway-wide. No parkway-wide 

ethnographic resources have been identified. 

Parkway Segments. 

Segment 4: Highlands—Under alternative A, 

continued partnering with local stakeholders 

would benefit the ethnographic resources in 

this area, including the Fox Hunters Paradise 

Ethnographic Site and the Saddle Mountain 

Union Church Baptismal Site, the Brinegar 

Cabin Complex, the Parkway Craft Center at 

Moses H. Cone Memorial Park, and the Folk 

Art Center. Partnering would increase 

awareness and understanding of these sites 

and would help direct parkway visitor use 

away from these sites that could otherwise 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

374 

cause inadvertent damage to fragile 

ethnographic sites and their associated 

cultural activities and practices. Partnering 

would help preserve and protect these 

resources and would result in a long-term 

beneficial impact to ethnographic resources in 

this segment. 

Proposed trail improvements in this segment 

under alternative A would be informed by 

cultural resource investigations of 

ethnographic resources in this area, allowing 

potential impacts to avoid areas of 

ethnographic resources. As a result, potential 

adverse impacts due to diminished access to 

these ethnographic sites and activities would 

be minimized, and would likely be local 

negligible to minor short-term adverse 

impacts. 

Segment 7: Pisgah—Efforts to maintain vistas 

in this segment in alternative A would provide 

a long-term beneficial impact ethnographic 

resources in this segment, which are Devils 

Courthouse Overlook Waterrock Knob, Plott 

Balsams Overlook, Soco Gap Overlook, Big 

Witch Gap Overlook, Thomas Divide 

Overlook, and Raven Fork View. Maintaining 

the views and vistas associated with these sites 

and their viewsheds would preserve and 

protect the qualities of these resources’ 

significant vistas. 

The identified Devils Courthouse, Soco Falls, 

Big Witch Tunnel, and Raven Fork River 

ethnographic resources in this segment would 

not be impacted by activities under alternative 

A. 

Recreation Areas. Only those parkway 

recreation areas that would have more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide and segment sections are 

described below. 

Crabtree FallsUnder alternative A, existing 

comfort stations would be upgraded in this 

area. The ethnographic site of Crabtree Falls 

identified within this recreation area would 

not be impacted by this proposed activity 

because the site is isolated from the location of 

the comfort stations, and activities associated 

with the upgrades, such as temporary 

construction activities, would not be seen 

from the resource. As a result, no 

ethnographic resources would be impacted 

under alternative A. 

Peaks of OtterThe ethnographic resource 

identified in this area is associated with the 

historical and ongoing Native American use of 

this area, which includes the Johnson Farm 

and Polly Wood’s Ordinary. Changes 

proposed for comfort stations as well as some 

concession facilities at this recreation area 

under alternative A could result in adverse 

impacts to this ethnographic resource if 

associated construction activities result in 

reduced access to the resource, or prolonged 

noise disturbance during the period of 

construction activities. Such adverse impacts 

would be indirect to this ethnographic 

resource, and thus, would be negligible to 

minor, local, and short term for the duration 

of the proposed activities. 

Mabry Mill—The ethnographic resource 

identified in this area is the Mabry Mill, which 

is a gathering site of cultural expression for 

musical, dancing, and storytelling 

performances. Changes proposed for comfort 

stations as well as some concession facilities at 

this recreation area under alternative A could 

result in adverse impacts to this site if 

associated construction activities result in 

reduced access to the site, or from prolonged 

noise disturbance during the period of 

construction activities. Such adverse impacts 

would be indirect to the ethnographic 

resources, and thus, negligible to minor, local, 

and short-term for the duration of the 

proposed activities. 

Craggy Gardens—The ethnographic resource 

identified in this area is the Craggy Dome site, 

an open area associated with the Cherokee 

American Indians. Changes proposed for 

comfort stations as well as some concession 

facilities at this recreation area under 

alternative A could result in adverse impacts 

to this ethnographic resource if associated 

construction activities result in reduced access 

to the resource, or due to prolonged noise 

disturbance during the period of construction 
Cultural Resources 

375 

activities. Such adverse impacts would be 

indirect to this ethnographic resource, and 

thus, would be negligible to minor, local, and 

short-term for the duration of the proposed 

activities. 

Cumulative Effects. Over the years, 

ethnographic resources on both private and 

parkway lands have been vulnerable to 

inadvertent damage and vandalism. 

Inadvertent impacts would the loss of access 

to sites that prevent the practice of the beliefs, 

traditions, or other cultural values associated 

with the site, intentional or inadvertent 

vandalism by removing or damaging features 

or qualities that contribute to the sites’ 

cultural importance, resulting in permanent 

adverse impacts of minor to major intensity. 

Past, present, and future construction and 

agricultural practices on lands adjacent to the 

parkway and throughout the region lands 

have disturbed ethnographic resources, 

resulting in permanent, moderate to major 

adverse impacts to ethnographic sites outside 

of the parkway boundary. 

As described above, implementation of the 

no-action alternative would result in both 

long-term beneficial minor short-term 

adverse impacts to ethnographic resources. 

The beneficial minor long-term adverse 

impacts of this alternative, in combination 

with the moderate to major adverse impacts of 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, would result in a 

long-term moderate to major adverse 

cumulative impact to ethnographic resource. 

The adverse effects of the no-action 

alternative would be a small component of the 

adverse cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Alternative A would have longterm beneficial and negligible to minor shortterm adverse impacts when considering the 

overall ethnographic resources of the 

parkway. Long-term beneficial impacts on 

these resources would continue to occur on a 

more local, site-by-site level. Impacts of this 

alternative, combined with the impacts of 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions described above, 

would result in long-term moderate to major 

adverse and some long-term beneficial 

cumulative effects. However, because most of 

these impacts occurred in the past or now take 

place beyond the boundary of the parkway, 

this alternative’s contribution to these effects 

would be small. 

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 

Parkway-wide. Alternative B involves 

enhanced beneficial impacts on the 

preservation of cultural resources through 

acquisition and the targeting of specific 

cultural resources to be acquired. This would 

be a long-term beneficial impact on 

ethnographic resources through added 

protection. The establishment of criteria for 

acquisition and protection would further 

enhance preservation of ethnographic 

resources for a long-term beneficial impact. 

Although the emphasis for scenery 

conservation is on off-parkway views, the 

completion of the baseline evaluation would 

be beneficial to ethnographic resources to the 

extent that knowing condition and quality of 

historic scenic views would provide for 

informed decision making when working to 

preserve cultural landscapes and potentially 

associated ethnographic resources within the 

parkway. In addition, working more actively 

under alternative B would enhance 

opportunities to preserve historic off-parkway 

views and would be beneficial for the long 

term to ethnographic resources. 

There would be generally beneficial impacts 

on ethnographic resources from an active and 

engaged interpretation and visitor services 

management program along the parkway. 

Ethnographic resources would be better 

protected when visitors understand and 

appreciate the importance of such resources 

in the area. 

There could be negligible to minor local longterm adverse impacts to ethnographic 

resources from increased visitation and 

inadvertent vandalism or damage to 

significant features of ethnographic resources 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

376 

as a result of increased use of certain areas 

where ethnographic areas exist. 

Parkway Segments. Only those parkway 

segments that would experience more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide section are described below. 

Segment 4: Highlands—Under alternative B, 

continued partnering with local stakeholders 

would benefit the ethnographic resources in 

this area, including the Fox Hunters Paradise 

Ethnographic Site and the Saddle Mountain 

Union Church Baptismal Site, the Brinegar 

Cabin Complex, the Parkway Craft Center at 

Moses H. Cone Memorial Park, and the Folk 

Art Center. Partnering would increase 

awareness and understanding of these sites 

and would help direct parkway visitor use 

away from these sites that could otherwise 

cause inadvertent damage to fragile 

ethnographic sites and their associated 

cultural activities and practices. Partnering 

would help preserve and protect these 

resources, and would result in a long-term 

beneficial impact to ethnographic resources in 

this segment. 

Proposed trail improvements in this segment 

under alternative B would be informed by 

cultural resource investigations of 

ethnographic resources in this area, allowing 

potential impacts to avoid areas of 

ethnographic resources. As a result, potential 

adverse impacts due to diminished access to 

these ethnographic sites and activities would 

be minimized, and would likely be local 

negligible to minor short-term adverse 

impacts. 

Segment 7: Pisgah—Efforts to maintain vistas 

in this segment in alternative A would provide 

a long-term beneficial impact ethnographic 

resources in this segment, which are Devils 

Courthouse Overlook Waterrock Knob, Plott 

Balsams Overlook, Soco Gap Overlook, Big 

Witch Gap Overlook, Thomas Divide 

Overlook, and Raven Fork View. Maintaining 

the views and vistas associated with these sites 

and their viewsheds would preserve and 

protect the qualities of these resources’ 

significant vistas. 

The identified Devils Courthouse, Soco Falls, 

Big Witch Tunnel, and Raven Fork River 

ethnographic resources in this segment would 

not be impacted by activities under alternative 

B. 

Recreation Areas. Only those parkway 

recreation areas that would have more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide and segment sections are 

described below. 

Peaks of Otter—The ethnographic resource 

identified in this area is associated with the 

historical and ongoing Native American use of 

this area, which includes the Johnson Farm 

and Polly Wood’s Ordinary. Changes 

proposed for comfort stations as well as some 

concession facilities and the longer visitor use 

season at this recreation area under alternative 

B could result in adverse impacts to this 

ethnographic resource if associated 

construction activities result in reduced access 

to the resource, or prolonged noise 

disturbance during the period of these 

activities. Adverse impacts would be 

minimized by increased monitoring and the 

presence of park staff that could protect the 

ethnographic resources in this area. Adverse 

impacts would be indirect to this 

ethnographic resource, and thus, would be 

negligible to minor, local, and short-term for 

the duration of the proposed activities. 

Mabry Mill—The ethnographic resource 

identified in this area is the Mabry Mill, which 

is a gathering site of cultural expression for 

musical, dancing, and storytelling 

performances. Under alternative B, changes 

proposed for comfort stations, new 

concession facilities, or a new visitor contact 

station at this recreation area could result in 

adverse impacts if associated construction 

activities result in reduced access to the site or 

if construction activities cause prolonged 

noise disturbance that diminish the qualities 

of the Mabry Mill site as an ethnographic 

resource. Such adverse impacts would be 

indirect to the ethnographic resources, and 

thus, negligible to minor, local, and short-term 

for the duration of the proposed activities. 
Cultural Resources 

377 

Crabtree Falls—Under alternative B, existing 

comfort stations, campgrounds, and 

concession stations would be upgraded in this 

area. The ethnographic site of Crabtree Falls 

identified within this recreation area would 

not be impacted by these proposed activities 

because the site is isolated from the location of 

the comfort stations, and activities associated 

with the upgrades, such as temporary 

construction activities, would not be seen 

from the resource. As a result, no 

ethnographic resources would be impacted 

under alternative B. 

Craggy GardensThe ethnographic resource 

identified in this area is the Craggy Dome site, 

an open area associated with the Cherokee 

American Indians. Upgrades proposed for 

comfort stations and new concession facilities 

at the campgrounds in this recreation area 

under alternative B could result in adverse 

impacts to the Craggy Dome ethnographic 

resource if associated construction activities 

result in reduced access to the resource, or 

prolonged noise disturbance during the 

period of construction activities. Such adverse 

impacts would be indirect to this 

ethnographic resource, and thus, would be 

negligible to minor, local, and short-term for 

the duration of the proposed activities. 

Cumulative Effects. Over the years, 

ethnographic resources on both private and 

parkway lands have been vulnerable to 

inadvertent damage and vandalism. 

Inadvertent impacts would the loss of access 

to sites that prevent the practice of the beliefs, 

traditions, or other cultural values associated 

with the site, intentional or inadvertent 

vandalism by removing or damaging features 

or qualities that contribute to the sites’ 

cultural importance, resulting in permanent 

adverse impacts of minor to major intensity. 

Past, present, and future construction and 

agricultural practices on lands adjacent to the 

parkway and throughout the region lands 

have disturbed ethnographic resources, 

resulting in permanent, moderate to major 

adverse impacts to ethnographic sites outside 

of the parkway boundary. 

As described above, implementation of 

alternative B would result in both long-term 

beneficial minor short-term adverse impacts 

to ethnographic resources. The beneficial 

minor long-term adverse impacts of this 

alternative, in combination with the moderate 

to major adverse impacts of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would result in a long-term moderate 

to major adverse cumulative impact to 

ethnographic resources. The adverse effects 

of alternative B would be a small component 

of the adverse cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Alternative B would have longterm beneficial negligible to minor short-term 

adverse impacts when considering the overall 

ethnographic resources of the parkway. Longterm beneficial impacts on these resources 

would continue to occur on a more local siteby-site level. Impacts of this alternative, 

combined with the impacts of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions described above, would result in longterm moderate to major adverse and some 

long-term beneficial cumulative effects. 

However, because most of these impacts 

occurred in the past or now take place beyond 

the boundary of the parkway, this alternative’s 

contribution to these effects would be small. 

Section 106 Summary. After applying the 

Advisory Council’s criteria of adverse effect 

(36 CFR 800.5 Assessment of Adverse Effects) 

the National Park Service concludes that 

implementation of this alternative would 

include moderate adverse impacts on 

ethnographic resources that could result in an 

adverse effect to ethnographic resources at 

some sites. National Park Service staff would 

work with the state historic preservation 

officer and advisory council to prevent an 

adverse effect. Any adverse effects under 

section 106 would be mitigated according to 

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties (1995). 

Alternative C 

Parkway-wide. Maintaining vistas to 

capture the original intent of the parkway 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

378 

designers would be a beneficial impact to 

ethnographic resources. However, the closure 

of some pull-offs where views have been 

substantially compromised could be a longterm minor to moderate local adverse impact 

if such closures prevent access to 

ethnographic resources or impact their 

features. 

The conversion of some human-made water 

features to natural habitat would possibly 

cause some short-term adverse local minor 

impacts on ethnographic resources from any 

alteration that would occur. However, the 

restoration of natural habitat could be 

beneficial for the long term to ethnographic 

resources that are important to indigenous 

communities. 

As in alternative B, the completion of the 

baseline evaluation under alternative C would 

be beneficial to ethnographic resources to the 

extent that knowing condition and quality of 

historic scenic views would provide for 

informed decision making when working to 

preserve cultural landscapes and potentially 

associated ethnographic resources within the 

parkway. In addition, working more actively 

would enhance opportunities to preserve 

historic off-parkway views and would be 

beneficial for the long term to ethnographic 

resources. 

There could be minor local long-term adverse 

impacts to ethnographic resources from 

increased 12-month visitation and the 

possible use of ethnographic resources for the 

purposes of interpretive programs and 

activities. 

Parkway Segments. Only those parkway 

segments that would experience more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide section are described below. 

Segment 4: Highlands—As under alternative 

B, in alternative C, continued partnering with 

local stakeholders would benefit the 

ethnographic resources in this area, including 

the Fox Hunters Paradise Ethnographic Site 

and the Saddle Mountain Union Church 

Baptismal Site, the Brinegar Cabin Complex, 

the Parkway Craft Center at Moses H. Cone 

Memorial Park, and the Folk Art Center. 

Partnering would increase awareness and 

understanding of these sites and would help 

direct parkway visitor use away from these 

sites that could otherwise cause inadvertent 

damage to fragile ethnographic sites and their 

associated cultural activities and practices. 

Partnering would help preserve and protect 

these resources, and would result in a longterm beneficial impact to ethnographic 

resources in this segment. 

Proposed trail improvements and the 

introduction of multiuse trails in this segment 

under alternative C would be informed by 

cultural resource investigations of 

ethnographic resources in this area, allowing 

potential impacts to avoid areas of 

ethnographic resources. As a result, potential 

adverse impacts due to diminished access to 

these ethnographic sites and activities would 

be minimized, and would likely be local 

negligible to minor short-term adverse 

impacts. 

Segment 7: Pisgah—As in alternative B, 

efforts to maintain vistas in this segment in 

alternative C would provide a long-term 

beneficial impact ethnographic resources in 

this segment, which are Devils Courthouse 

Overlook Waterrock Knob, Plott Balsams 

Overlook, Soco Gap Overlook, Big Witch Gap 

Overlook, Thomas Divide Overlook, and 

Raven Fork View. Maintaining the views and 

vistas associated with these sites and their 

viewsheds would preserve and protect the 

qualities of these resources’ significant vistas. 

The identified Devils Courthouse, Soco Falls, 

Big Witch Tunnel, Raven Fork River 

ethnographic resources in this segment would 

not be impacted by activities under alternative 

B. 

Recreation Areas. Only those parkway 

recreation areas that would have more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide and segment sections are 

described below. 
Cultural Resources 

379 

Peaks of Otter—The ethnographic resource 

identified in this area is associated with the 

historical and ongoing Native American use of 

this area, which includes the Johnson Farm 

and Polly Wood’s Ordinary. Changes 

proposed for comfort stations, concession 

facilities, conversion of campsites to rental 

cabins, and the longer visitor use season at this 

recreation area under alternative C could 

result in adverse impacts to this ethnographic 

resource if associated construction activities 

result in reduced access to the resource, or 

prolonged noise disturbance during the 

period of these activities. Adverse impacts 

would be minimized by increased monitoring 

and the presence of park staff that could 

protect the ethnographic resources in this 

area. Adverse impacts would be indirect to 

this ethnographic resource, and thus, would 

be negligible to minor, local, and short-term 

for the duration of the proposed activities. 

Mabry Mill—The ethnographic resource 

identified in this area is the Mabry Mill, which 

is a gathering site of cultural expression for 

musical, dancing, and storytelling 

performances. Changes proposed for comfort 

stations, new concession facilities, a new 

visitor contact station, and a new multiuse 

trail at this recreation area under alternative C 

could result in adverse impacts if associated 

construction activities result in reduced access 

to the site, or from prolonged noise 

disturbance during the period of construction 

activities that diminish the qualities of the 

Mabry Mill site as an ethnographic resource. 

Such adverse impacts would be indirect to the 

ethnographic resources, and thus, negligible 

to minor, local, and short-term for the 

duration of the proposed activities. 

Crabtree Falls—Under alternative C, existing 

comfort stations, campgrounds, and 

concession stations would be upgraded in this 

area. The ethnographic site of Crabtree Falls 

identified within this recreation area would 

not be impacted by these proposed activities 

because the site is isolated from the location of 

the comfort stations, and activities associated 

with the upgrades, such as temporary 

construction activities, would not be seen 

from the resource. As a result, no 

ethnographic resources would be impacted 

under alternative C. 

Craggy GardensThe ethnographic resource 

identified in this area is the Craggy Dome site, 

an open area associated with the Cherokee 

American Indians. Upgrades proposed for 

comfort stations and new concession facilities 

at the campgrounds in this recreation area 

under alternative C could result in adverse 

impacts to the Craggy Dome ethnographic 

resource if associated construction activities 

result in reduced access to the resource, or 

prolonged noise disturbance during the 

period of construction activities. Such adverse 

impacts would be indirect to this 

ethnographic resource, and thus, would be 

negligible to minor, local, and short-term for 

the duration of the proposed activities. 

Cumulative Effects. Over the years, 

ethnographic resources on both private and 

parkway lands have been vulnerable to 

inadvertent damage and vandalism. 

Inadvertent impacts would the loss of access 

to sites that prevent the practice of the beliefs, 

traditions, or other cultural values associated 

with the site, intentional or inadvertent 

vandalism by removing or damaging features 

or qualities that contribute to the sites’ 

cultural importance, resulting in permanent 

adverse impacts of minor to major intensity. 

Past, present, and future construction and 

agricultural practices on lands adjacent to the 

parkway and throughout the region lands 

have disturbed ethnographic resources, 

resulting in permanent moderate to major 

adverse impacts to ethnographic sites outside 

of the parkway boundary. 

As described above, implementation of 

alternative C would result in both long-term 

beneficial and minor short-term adverse 

impacts to ethnographic resources. The 

beneficial minor long-term adverse impacts of 

this alternative, in combination with the 

moderate to major adverse impacts of other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, would result in a long-term 

moderate to major adverse cumulative impact 

to ethnographic resource. The adverse effects 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

380 

of alternative C would be a small component 

of the adverse cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Alternative C would have longterm beneficial and negligible to minor shortterm adverse impacts when considering the 

overall ethnographic resources of the 

parkway. Long-term beneficial impacts on 

these resources would continue to occur on a 

more local site-by-site level. Impacts of this 

alternative, combined with the impacts of 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions described above, 

would result in long-term moderate to major 

adverse and some long-term beneficial 

cumulative effects. 
381 

VISUAL RESOURCES (SCENERY AND VIEWSHED) 

INTRODUCTION 

This analysis of the environmental 

consequences of alternatives A, B, and C on 

the visual resources of the Blue Ridge Parkway 

is based on the professional judgment of 

parkway staff, National Park Service planners 

and landscape architects, and other 

specialists. This analysis describes impacts of 

the management alternatives at primarily two 

different scales: a parkway-wide analysis, 

which describes the overall effect of broad 

parkway-wide strategies; and a parkway 

segment analysis, which looks at more sitespecific impacts on certain parkway segments 

where conditions or trends vary from the rest 

of the parkway. 

As introduced in the affected environment 

discussion, the visual resources being 

analyzed here are the scenic landscape areas 

viewed from parkway overlooks, vistas, and 

agricultural openings. Ninety-five percent of 

this scenery is land outside the parkway 

boundary in private or other public 

ownership. These scenic, historic, and natural 

features of the central and southern 

Appalachians are key elements of the Blue 

Ridge Parkway’s purpose and significance, 

particularly the scenic driving experience. 

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR 

ANALYZING IMPACTS 

This analysis looks at the effect of 

management strategies primarily related to 

scenery conservation, land protection, 

resources management and partnerships, on 

the quality of the visual resources viewed from 

parkway, primarily outside park boundaries. 

This analysis may overlap with the analysis of 

effects on the parkway’s designed landscape, 

which is addressed within the cultural 

resources analysis section, and the analysis of 

visitor use and experience. 

Negligible: Effects to the visual quality of the 

landscape would be at or below the level of 

detection; changes would be so slight that they 

would not be of any measurable or perceptible 

consequence to the observer. 

Minor: Effects to the visual quality of the 

landscape would be detectable, local, and 

would be small and of little consequence to 

the observer. 

Moderate: Effects to the visual quality of the 

landscape would be readily detectable, local, 

with consequences over a relatively large area. 

Major: Effects to the visual quality of the 

landscape would be obvious, with substantial 

consequences in the region. 

ALTERNATIVE A—NO-ACTION 

Parkway-wide 

Designation of the parkway as a national 

historic landmark would place added 

emphasis on the special qualities of the 

parkway and its principal components, 

particularly within the parkway boundary. 

This would be a long-term minor regional 

improvement to the overall scenic quality of 

the parkway’s visual resources, as the parkway 

is currently managed as an eligible resource. 

Continuing the parkway’s moratorium on 

secondary road improvement projects would 

continue to have short- and long-term 

moderate beneficial local and regional impacts 

on visual resource quality. Limiting road 

improvements into the parkway has the 

associated effect of reducing adjacent 

subdivision growth proximate to the parkway 

and within the parkway’s viewshed. 

Park management of vistas and overlooks 

would continue to be guided by the Parkway 

Land Use Maps and management of the 

parkway as an eligible national historic 

landmark; however, some of these original 

windows to parkway scenery now overlook 

highly compromised landscapes outside the 

parkway boundary. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

382 

Under alternative A, scenery would be 

managed to enhance the scenic driving 

experience in keeping with the early plans and 

Parkway Land Use Maps developed from the 

1930s through the 1950s. Within the park, 

every attempt would be made to maintain 

vistas as they were originally conceived, 

however, constraints from budget and 

personnel over time have caused the parkway 

to maintain fewer of the original views. Many 

of the overlooks have become overgrown and 

wooded. Other vista sites are wide open and 

overlooking views of subdivisions. This loss of 

parkway views detracts from the ideal scenery 

as envisioned by parkway designers, and 

would continue to be a local long-term 

adverse impact on the quality of visual 

resources. 

The completion of the baseline evaluation of 

the parkway’s current Scenery Conservation 

System would be beneficial at a local and 

regional level to protecting visual resources. 

Knowing the condition, quality, and desired 

conditions of off-parkway scenic views would 

provide park staff the ability to accomplish 

long-term informed decision making the 

length of the parkway. Guided by the Scenery 

Conservation System, NPS planners, 

landscape architects, realty specialists, and 

others would continue to work with other 

public agencies, private landowners, 

developers, and parkway partners to enhance 

the visual resources of the parkway through 

conservation easements, purchase from 

willing sellers, and partnerships. These 

activities would continue to have long-term 

local and regional beneficial impacts on visual 

resource quality viewed from parkway vistas, 

overlooks, and agricultural areas. This process 

would also help prioritize the vistas and 

overlooks to be open for viewing. There 

would, however, continue to be long-term 

moderate adverse impacts on the long-term 

integrity of off-parkway views because the 

program would continue to be reactive to 

opportunities that come to the attention of 

park staff. 

An element of visual resource effect that is 

difficult to assess but could have substantial 

implications is the current status of the 

parkway as a class II air quality designation. 

Increased regional air pollution over the years 

has substantially affected the quality of the 

views from the parkway, including visibility 

and damage to vegetation. Also, the parkway 

links the two class I designated national parks 

of Shenandoah and Great Smoky Mountains. 

The parkway’s class II designation does not 

allow the parkway to comment on projects 

that could impact air quality conditions. Given 

that a fundamental purpose of the parkway is 

to provide for high quality scenery, continued 

inability of parkway management to have the 

authority to influence regional projects 

affecting air quality in the region would 

continue to be a long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impact on the overall visual resource 

conditions. 

Vegetation management at vistas and 

overlooks to ensure quality scenery is a big 

parkway-wide undertaking during the 

growing season that is complicated by the 

problem of invasive flora becoming 

established in these disturbed sites. The 

parkway’s continued management of invasive 

flora in a site-specific manner and only where 

it affects endangered species would result in 

continued difficulties for maintaining vista 

and overlook clearings and the quality of the 

viewshed. This kind of vegetation 

management would be a long-term minor 

beneficial impact on scenic quality. 

Parkway Segments 

Only the parkway segments that would 

experience more specific impacts than those 

described under the parkway-wide section are 

described below. 

Segments 2, 3, and 4: Roanoke, 

Plateau, and Highlands. These three 

segments of the parkway are, or have the 

potential for, the most substantial permanent 

loss of visual resource integrity along the 

parkway, especially of pastoral and 

agricultural views. While other parkway 

segments have added protection from 

proximity of U.S. Forest Service land, 

including cooperation between the parkway 
Visual Resources 

383 

and the U.S. Forest Service to mitigate the 

visual impacts of timber management, these 

three segments are bordered primarily by 

privately owned lands. Once primarily remote, 

rural, and agricultural, these segments are 

changing rapidly due to increases in 

population and development. This includes 

increasing difficulty of finding easement 

holders for the parkway’s many agricultural 

easements. The parkway’s current Scenery 

Conservation System program and 

partnerships and its moratorium on secondary 

road improvements would help provide longterm beneficial impacts on protecting these 

resources; however, the benefit is likely to be 

local and minor relative to the rate of growth 

in the region. 

Segments 5 and 7: Black Mountains 

and Pisgah. There are approximately 80 

miles combined within these two segments 

that are high-altitude areas of the parkway. 

The proximity of U.S. Forest Service lands 

provides substantial protection of the 

dramatic views of classic Appalachian 

mountain ridgelines. For the parkway, there 

are some ongoing conflicts between 

maintaining vistas to provide these 

exceptional views and managing for the 

protection of certain resources, including the 

northern flying squirrel. In general, current 

vista management continues to provide visitor 

access to the special scenic qualities of these 

high altitude views. 

Cumulative Effects 

Under alternative A, the ongoing development 

of private lands throughout the region is 

causing increased impacts on the parkway’s 

visual resources and the visitor’s associated 

scenic driving experience. This has especially 

been the case around population centers such 

as the cities of Roanoke and Asheville. Types 

of development include residential homes, 

subdivisions, commercial businesses, and 

industry. For example, in Roanoke County 

there are 11 ongoing residential 

developments, totaling over 2,000 new homes, 

6 new commercial developments, and 

associated plans for new roads and utilities. 

The southern half of Watauga County where 

the parkway is located is being developed 

faster than the rest of the county. There are 

three developments of 1,800 units planned 

and there are plans to expand dining and 

shopping venues. This county is also planning 

commercial wind power projects that may be 

visible from the parkway. The growing trends 

in all of these types of developments are 

projected to continue, although the rate of 

change would be dependent on the condition 

of the economy. As a result, new 

developments and increasing population 

would create moderate long-term adverse 

impacts on parkway views at local and 

regional scales. 

However, there are ongoing efforts by some of 

the surrounding counties to improve habitats 

and restore mountain scenery and pastoral 

landscapes. For example, Allegheny, Ashe, 

Avery, Watauga, Wilkes, and Yancey counties 

have, or are considering, voluntary easements 

for working farms. Also, the town of 

Waynesville has placed its 8,000 acre 

watershed into a conservation easement, 

which borders nine miles of the parkway. 

These kinds of efforts would provide for longterm minor to moderate beneficial impacts on 

the parkway scenery and views at a local scale. 

These past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions would result in 

long-term moderate mostly adverse local and 

regional impacts and long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial local impacts on parkway 

visual resources. This alternative’s 

contribution to these effects would be small, 

although the parkway’s secondary road 

improvement moratorium would continue to 

contribute a considerable amount to helping 

protect visual resources on lands immediately 

adjacent to the park. 

Conclusion 

There are current management activities that 

are contributing to the parkway’s ongoing 

ability to increase protection of the parkway’s 

visual resources. These include efforts to 

manage the parkway’s internal landscape 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

384 

elements consistent with the original Parkway 

Land Use Maps; managing the parkway as an 

eligible resource for national historic 

landmark designation; continuing the 

moratorium on secondary road 

improvements; and the planned completion of 

the baseline inventory of the parkway’s 

Scenery Conservation System. Also, within 

available resources and staffing, the parkway 

maintains a network of working relationships 

with city, county, state, and federal agencies, 

and partnerships with private landowners, 

developers, and others to encourage scenery 

protection and learn about future plans for 

land use changes. As information becomes 

available, the parkway is able to react to 

opportunities to try to protect or mitigate 

changes to individual parcels through 

easements, acquisition from willing sellers, 

and other arrangements. These management 

activities have long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts on helping protect the 

quality of the parkway’s visual resources, 

especially at a local scale for areas adjacent to 

the parkway. 

Given the extent of the viewshed along 469 

miles of parkway, the inability of park 

management to track and react to all potential 

changes, the contributing effect of growth in 

many of the adjacent counties, and the 

ongoing county and city efforts to protect 

some visual resources, the cumulative impacts 

would be long-term, moderate, and adverse 

on visual resources on a local and regional 

scale and long-term, minor, and beneficial on 

a local scale. This alternative’s contribution to 

these effects would be small, although the 

parkway’s secondary road improvement 

moratorium would continue to contribute a 

considerable amount to visual resource 

protection on lands immediately adjacent to 

the park. 

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS PREFERRED) 

Parkway-wide 

The establishment of parkway management 

zones, particularly the historic parkway zone 

and scenic character zone, would provide 

long-term guidance for parkway managers to 

help achieve protection of historic and scenic 

parkway characteristics and desired 

conditions within the boundary. One purpose 

of the updated parkway land use maps would 

be to retain and maintain the existing vistas 

and overlooks to the greatest extent possible. 

Some reopened vistas would add to scenic 

opportunities; however, there would also be 

vistas where scenic easements could not or 

were not obtained that would remain open 

and display views that have lost their scenic 

characteristics. As a result, there would be 

both beneficial and adverse effects on the 

quality of scenic views which would be longterm minor to moderate and local. Also, when 

the at-grade crossings are replaced with new 

grade separation structures, there is potential 

for the new structures to modify views from 

the parkway, and therefore, sensitive facility 

design would be important to help mitigate 

that possibility. 

For visual resources outside the parkway 

boundary, alternative B represents a shift from 

alternative A’s primarily reactive approach to 

scenery conservation, to active identification 

and prioritization of views along the parkway 

for protection. Based on these priorities, the 

parkway would, on a site-specific project 

basis, actively seek out and work with 

landowners, and other entities as appropriate, 

to conserve this scenery. This approach would 

be enhanced by the establishment of land 

protection criteria that would evaluate the 

merits of properties when they become 

available. These actions would have long-term 

beneficial effects on the ability of the parkway 

to more effectively and efficiently identify, 

prioritize, and act on scenery conservation 

projects throughout the region. This would be 

a long-term moderate beneficial impact on the 

future integrity of the parkway’s visual 

resources. 

As part of alternative B, the current emphasis 

of alternative A to protect adjacent lands 

primarily for scenery and boundary 

improvements would shift to include 

protection of natural, cultural, and 

recreational resources. Especially as this 

addresses natural and cultural resources, and 
Visual Resources 

385 

alternative B’s emphasis on advancing regional 

ecosystem health through active partnerships, 

visual resources are likely to be enhanced 

overall, which would be a long-term benefit to 

parkway scenery on a regional scale. 

However, this could also introduce additional 

competition for adjacent resource protection 

projects and take resources away from some 

scenery conservation projects, which would 

be a minor adverse local impact. 

The establishment of the parkway as a class I 

air quality classification would provide the 

parkway greater input on projects that could 

impact air quality conditions in the local and 

regional areas. Currently class I air quality 

classification is usually assigned only to units 

of the national park system identified as 

“National Parks.” Should this proposal 

become reality, the parkway would have 

substantial additional responsibilities on a 

regional level to track and comment on 

projects in the southwestern Virginia and 

northwestern North Carolina region. Given 

the complex dynamics of air pollution 

movement in this region of the United States, 

the parkway’s added status would likely have 

mostly minor short- and long-term beneficial 

effects on the viewing quality of visual 

resources in the region. 

In alternative A, where natural resource 

management currently is primarily reactive 

and species and site-specific in approach, the 

alternative B preferred alternative takes a 

much more strategic parkway-wide and 

regional approach to invasive flora and fauna 

management. This would improve the 

potential to enhance vista management and 

parkway viewsheds. This would likely be a 

long-term moderate beneficial improvement 

in the quality of parkway vista clearings, 

although it is difficult to know whether this 

would be at a local or regional scale. 

Parkway Segments 

Only the parkway segments that would 

experience more specific impacts than those 

described under the parkway-wide section are 

described below. 

Segments 2, 3, and 4: Roanoke, 

Plateau, and Highland. These segments, 

due to their current and future vulnerability to 

loss of scenery, especially agricultural and 

pastoral landscapes, would sustain the greatest 

long-term benefit of alternative B’s enhanced 

scenery, land protection, natural and cultural 

resource management, and partnership 

strategies. Although these actions would not 

reverse the inevitable population and 

development growth of these regions, these 

actions would contribute substantially to 

improved ability of the parkway staff to 

prioritize and work with landowners and 

others to take action to protect these rapidly 

disappearing views of rural landscapes of the 

central Appalachian highlands. 

Segments 5 and 7: Black Mountain and 

Pisgah. In areas zoned Special Natural 

Resources, management of vistas above 4,000 

feet would consistently be modified to 

improve habitat conditions for northern flying 

squirrels. As a result, views would be heavily 

thinned, rather than cleared out entirely. 

Spruce and fir trees would frame the views, 

which would highlight the uniqueness of the 

habitat. This would result in some 

diminishment of the ability to view scenery 

from specific overlooks. This would be a 

negligible to minor local adverse impact on 

scenery within this particular zone. 

Cumulative Effects 

As discussed in alternative A, the ongoing 

development of private lands throughout the 

region is causing increased impacts on 

viewsheds associated with the parkway. This 

has especially been the case around 

population centers such as the cities of 

Roanoke and Asheville. Types of development 

include residential homes, subdivisions, 

commercial businesses, and industry. For 

example, in Roanoke County there are 11 

ongoing residential developments, totaling 

over 2,000 new homes, 6 new commercial 

developments, and associated plans for new 

roads and utilities. The southern half of 

Watauga County, through which the parkway 

travels, is being developed faster than the rest 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

386 

of the county. There are three developments 

of 1,800 units planned and plans to expand 

dining and shopping venues. This county is 

also planning commercial wind power 

projects that may be visible from the parkway. 

The growing trends in all of these types of 

developments are projected to continue. As a 

result, new developments and increasing 

population in the region are creating more 

adverse impacts on parkway views. However, 

there are ongoing efforts by some of the 

surrounding counties to improve habitats and 

restore mountain scenery. For example, 

Allegheny, Ashe, Avery, Watauga, Wilkes, and 

Yancey counties have, or are considering 

voluntary easements for working farms. Also, 

the town of Waynesville has placed its 8,000-

acre watershed into a conservation easement, 

which borders nine miles of the parkway. 

Also, Buncombe County is using conservation 

easements to protect lands adjacent to the 

parkway and is planning to replace a portion 

of its public transportation fleet with 

alternative fuel vehicles. These kinds of efforts 

would provide for long-term minor to 

moderate local beneficial impacts on parkway 

scenery and views. 

These past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions would result in 

long-term moderate adverse local and 

regional impacts and long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial local impacts on visual 

resources. This alternative’s contribution to 

these effects would be considerable and 

beneficial at both a local and regional scale. 

Conclusion 

The preferred alternative takes a substantial 

step toward moving the parkway into a much 

more proactive role in visual resource 

management. This includes implementing 

zoning management inside the parkway 

boundary that includes historic parkway and 

scenic character zones, actively advancing a 

program of regional ecosystem health, 

prioritizing external views for protection, 

establishing criteria to evaluate the merits of 

lands available for acquisition, and actively 

pursuing resource protection with a broader 

base of public and private entities. Also, 

establishing the parkway as a class I air quality 

classification would improve the parkway’s 

ability to comment on local and regional 

projects that affect the quality of visual 

resources. All of these actions would combine 

to have a moderate impact on improving the 

parkway’s ability to protect its visual 

resources. 

Given the extent of the viewshed along 469 

miles of parkway, the contributing effect of 

rapid growth in many of the adjacent counties, 

the improved ability of park management to 

be able to track and act on land protection 

opportunities, and ongoing land protection 

efforts by local entities, the cumulative 

impacts on visual resources would be longterm moderate adverse effects on visual 

resources at a regional scale. This alternative 

would contribute a considerable amount to 

reducing those adverse effects relative to 

alternative A. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Parkway-wide 

The establishment of parkway management 

zones, particularly the historic parkway zone 

and scenic character zone, would provide 

long-term guidance for parkway managers to 

help achieve protection of historic and scenic 

parkway characteristics and desired 

conditions. The creation of new parkway land 

use maps would increase the parkway’s ability 

to shift some scenery management priorities 

from designed landscapes to natural and 

regional cultural (vernacular) landscapes, 

thereby replacing some of the lost pastoral 

and Appalachian agricultural landscapes . It 

would also allow for the closure of some views 

that have lost their scenic qualities and allow 

for new views to be developed that can be 

better protected. These actions would have 

mostly moderate long-term beneficial impacts 

on the quality of scenery within the parkway 

at a regional scale. The replacement of some 

at-grade crossings with new grade separation 

structures could result in the new structures 
Visual Resources 

387 

modifying views from the parkway, and 

therefore, sensitive facility design would be 

important to help mitigate that possibility. 

For visual resources outside the parkway 

boundary, alternative C represents an even 

greater shift from alternative A’s primarily 

reactive approach to scenery conservation. In 

this alternative, the parkway would not only 

collaborate with adjacent landowners, 

developers, and county officials to conserve 

priority scenery, but would also provide, with 

the assistance of partners, a leadership role to 

help establish long-term viewshed 

conservation strategies in the region. This 

would be a long-term beneficial effect on 

helping coordinate and maximize view 

protection in the 29-county region. This 

approach would be enhanced by the 

establishment of land protection criteria that 

would evaluate the merits of properties when 

they become available. Under this alternative, 

the parkway would have increased capability 

to seek regional partnerships for broader 

resource protection strategies, including 

heritage tourism projects. All of these actions 

would have long-term beneficial effects on the 

ability of the parkway to more effectively and 

efficiently identify, prioritize, and act on 

scenery conservation projects throughout the 

region. This would be a long-term beneficial 

impact on the future integrity of the parkway’s 

visual resources. 

As part of alternative C, the current emphasis 

of alternative A on protection of adjacent 

lands primarily for scenery and boundary 

improvements would shift to include 

protection of natural, cultural, and 

recreational resources. Especially as this 

addresses natural and cultural resources, and 

alternative C’s emphasis on advancing 

regional ecosystem health through active 

partnerships, visual resources are likely to be 

enhanced overall, which would be a long-term 

benefit to parkway scenery on a regional scale. 

However, this could also introduce additional 

competition for adjacent resource protection 

projects and take resources away from some 

scenery conservation projects, which would 

be a minor adverse local impact. 

The establishment of the parkway as a class I 

air quality classification would provide the 

parkway greater input on projects that could 

impact air quality conditions in the local and 

regional areas. Currently, class I air quality 

classification is usually assigned only to units 

of the national park system identified as 

“national parks.” Should this proposal 

become reality, the parkway would have 

substantial additional responsibilities on a 

regional level to track and comment on 

projects in the southwestern Virginia and 

northwestern North Carolina region. Given 

the complex dynamics of air pollution 

movement in this region of the United States, 

the parkway’s added status would likely have 

mostly minor short- and long-term beneficial 

effects on the viewing quality of visual 

resources in the region. 

In alternative A, where natural resource 

management currently is primarily reactive 

and species and site-specific in approach, 

alternative C also takes a much more strategic 

parkway-wide and regional approach to 

invasive flora and fauna management. This 

would improve the potential to enhance vista 

management and parkway viewsheds. This 

would likely be a long-term beneficial 

improvement in the quality of views from the 

parkway, although it is difficult to know 

whether this would be at a local or regional 

scale. 

Parkway Segments and Recreation 

Areas 

Only the parkway segments and recreation 

areas that would experience more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide section are described below. 

Segments 2, 3, and 4: Roanoke, 

Plateau, and Highlands. These segments, 

due to their current and future vulnerability to 

loss of scenery, especially agricultural and 

pastoral landscapes, would sustain the greatest 

long-term benefit of alternative C’s enhanced 

scenery, land protection, natural and cultural 

resource management, and partnership 

strategies. Although these actions would not 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

388 

reverse the inevitable population and 

development growth of these regions, these 

actions would contribute substantially to 

improved ability of the parkway staff to 

prioritize and work with landowners and 

others to take action to help protect these 

rapidly disappearing rural landscapes of the 

central Appalachian highlands. These 

segments would benefit the greatest from the 

parkway’s enhanced capability in alternative C 

to provide regional leadership for scenery 

conservation. 

Segments 5 and 7: Black Mountain and 

Pisgah. In areas zoned special natural 

resources, management of vistas above 4,000 

feet would consistently be modified to 

improve habitat conditions for northern flying 

squirrels. As a result, views would be heavily 

thinned, rather than cleared out entirely. 

Spruce and fir trees would frame the views, 

which would highlight the uniqueness of the 

habitat. This would result in some 

diminishment of the ability to view scenery 

from specific overlooks. This would be a 

negligible to minor local adverse impact on 

scenery within this particular zone. 

James River/Otter Creek Recreation 

Area. Removal of Otter Lake and allowing it 

to transition back to a wetland to better 

support habitat for sensitive species would be 

an adverse impact on a designed scenic water 

feature of this recreation area. At a local scale, 

this would be a moderate adverse impact on 

the viewshed of this recreation area. 

Cumulative Effects 

As discussed in alternative A, the ongoing 

development of private lands throughout the 

region is causing increased impacts on 

viewsheds associated with the parkway. This 

has especially been the case around 

population centers such as the cities of 

Roanoke and Asheville. Now the more rapid 

trend is retirees moving into the less 

developed county areas. Types of 

development include residential homes, 

subdivisions, commercial businesses, and 

industry. For example, in Roanoke County 

there are 11 ongoing residential 

developments, totaling over 2,000 new homes, 

6 new commercial developments, and 

associated plans for new roads and utilities. 

The southern half of Watauga County, 

through which the parkway travels, is being 

developed faster than the rest of the county. 

There are three developments of 1,800 units 

planned and plans to expand dining and 

shopping venues. This county is also planning 

commercial wind power projects that may be 

visible from the parkway. 

However, there are ongoing efforts by some of 

the surrounding counties to improve habitats 

and restore mountain scenery. These kinds of 

efforts would provide for a long-term minor 

to moderate beneficial impacts on the 

parkway scenery and views. These past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions would result in long-term moderate, 

mostly adverse and regional impacts and longterm minor to moderate beneficial local 

impacts on visual resources. Impacts from the 

implementation of alternative C, added to 

these other impacts, would result in long-term 

moderate local adverse cumulative effects and 

long-term moderate local beneficial impacts. 

This alternative’s contributions would be 

considerable to large in moderating adverse 

impacts and contributing to beneficial impacts 

at a local and potentially regional scale. 

Conclusion 

Alternative C has the greatest potential of 

moving the parkway into a much more 

proactive role in visual resource management. 

This includes implementing zoning 

management inside the parkway boundary 

that includes historic parkway and scenic 

character zones, actively advancing a program 

of regional ecosystem health, prioritizing 

external views for protection, establishing 

criteria to evaluate the merits of lands 

available for acquisition, and the parkway 

becoming a regional leader in helping 

establish long-term strategies for parkway 

view conservation. Also, establishing the 

parkway as a class I air quality classification 

would improve the parkway’s ability to 
Visual Resources 

389 

comment on local and regional projects that 

affect the quality of visual resources. 

Given the extent of the viewshed along 469 

miles of parkway, the contributing effect of 

rapid growth in many of the adjacent counties, 

the substantially improved ability of park 

management to be able to track and act on 

land protection opportunities, and ongoing 

land protection efforts by local entities, the 

cumulative impacts on visual resources would 

be long-term moderate adverse effects on 

visual resources at a regional scale. This 

alternative would contribute a considerable to 

large amount to reducing those adverse effects 

relative to alternative A. 
390 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

 

INTRODUCTION 

Analysis of Blue Ridge Parkway’s visitor use 

and experience is based on the best 

professional judgment of parkway staff, NPS 

planners, and other specialists. This analysis 

describes impacts of the management 

alternatives at two different scales: a parkwaywide analysis, which describes the overall 

effect of broad programmatic actions, and a 

parkway segment and recreation area analysis, 

which looks at more site-specific impacts on 

the visitor use in these areas. 

Analysis of the alternative strategies on the 

parkway’s visitor use and experience has been 

organized by the impact topics listed below. 

Similar topics have been combined to limit 

redundancy and to present the analysis in the 

most understandable, concise means possible. 

Impacts on Visitor Use and Experience 

include 

 access and circulation 

 recreational opportunities 

 visitor orientation, information, 

education 

 opportunities to experience natural 

soundscapes 

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR 

ANALYZING IMPACTS 

Impacts on the visitor experience related to 

driving or bicycling in the parkway or parking 

at parkway sites were determined through an 

assessment of changes in access to parkway 

uses and the character of visitors’ experiences 

while traveling the parkway. Beneficial 

impacts would result from actions that 

improve visitor access, circulation, and safety 

in the park. This includes access to activities, 

the range of available activities, or the 

enjoyment associated with driving or cycling 

the parkway. To reduce overlap in analysis, 

the scenery and viewshed-related impacts 

associated with the scenic driving experience 

are addressed primarily in the separate visual 

resources impacts section. 

The alternatives were evaluated qualitatively 

in terms of their effect on personal safety and 

security of personal property. Traffic-related 

safety concerns, including vehicular accidents, 

are addressed under the transportation 

impacts section of this document. 

Visitor access and circulation refers to the 

ease and convenience of accessing the 

parkway and recreational areas by transit, 

automobile, bicycle, and/or walking. 

Implementation of the alternatives may result 

in changes in the mode of transportation used 

by travelers to and within the parkway area. 

The transit and multiuse trail impacts of the 

alternatives could affect the number of auto 

trips made to and within the parkway area. 

The auto trip impacts, in combination with the 

changes in parking supply and access 

modifications included in the alternatives, 

would cause impacts on traffic on parkway 

segments, including the potential for changes 

in traffic volumes and levels of service. Each 

alternative was evaluated for impacts on 

general access to the parkway and recreational 

area destinations by transit, automobile, 

bicycling, or walking. 

Visitor length of stay and crowding related to 

each alternative was assessed to measure the 

potential effects on visitor satisfaction. A 

visitor use and carrying capacity study 

conducted in August 2002 and documented in 

the Visitor Survey Study Completion Report for 

the Blue Ridge Parkway (December 2002) 

determined the average length of stay and the 

preferred level of crowding for visitors at 

recreational areas during a typical summer 

weekend. Visitor satisfaction related to the 

traffic volumes and levels of service 

experienced while traveling along the parkway 

were also measured. Using the results of the 

2002 study, expected effects to the visitor 

length of stay and visitor satisfaction at 

recreational areas and along the parkway was 

considered with the 2020 traffic volumes, 
Visitor Use and Experience 

391 

levels of service, and proposed modifications 

to the recreation areas under each alternative. 

The following impact thresholds have been 

developed for analyzing the effects of the 

alternatives on visitor experience. 

Negligible: Visitors would not likely be aware 

of the effects associated with changes 

proposed for visitor use and enjoyment of 

park resources. 

Minor: Visitors would likely be aware of the 

effects associated with changes proposed for 

visitor use and enjoyment of park resources. 

Impacts on visitor use, conflicts between 

different users or user groups, and/or visitor 

experience would be detectable, although the 

changes would be slight. Few visitors would 

be affected. 

Moderate: Visitors would be aware of the 

effects associated with changes proposed for 

visitor use and enjoyment of park resources. 

Impacts on visitor use, conflicts between 

different users or user groups, and/or visitor 

experience would be readily apparent. Many 

visitors would be affected and would likely 

express an opinion about the effects. The 

impact on visitor safety would noticeably 

create additional hazards where they currently 

do not exist, or noticeably decrease existing 

personal safety hazards. 

Major: Visitors would be highly aware of the 

effects associated with changes proposed for 

visitor use and enjoyment of park resources. 

Impacts on visitor use, conflicts between 

different users of user groups, and/or visitor 

experience would be readily apparent and 

have important consequences. The change in 

visitor use and experience would preclude 

future generations of some visitors from 

enjoying park resources and values or would 

greatly enhance their enjoyment. Most visitors 

would be affected and would likely express a 

strong opinion about the effects. The impact 

on visitor safety would be substantial either 

through the elimination of potential hazards 

or the creation of them. 

ACCESS, CIRCULATION, AND SAFETY 

Alternative A—No-action 

Parkway-wide. Driving the parkway to view 

scenery is the number one recreational activity 

in the park. In addition to the quality of the 

visual resources inside and outside the 

parkway (see the Visual Resources analysis 

section), there are other factors that can affect 

the quality of the driving experience. 

 

These factors include such things as traffic 

levels, traffic mix, and access to park services 

and programs which are addressed in this 

visitor experience analysis and in the traffic 

and transportation impacts section. 

During peak season along the parkway, 

visitors have noted traffic congestion and 

difficulty finding a parking space as two of the 

parkway’s biggest problems. Crowding at 

some overlooks and visitor centers were also 

noted as a capacity issue. Under alternative A, 

these conditions would not change and would 

worsen if visitation increases in the long term. 

Nonrecreational traffic would continue to 

increase with increased urban and rural 

residential growth, creating congestion along 

the roadway and conflicts that would diminish 

recreational visitors’ driving experience of the 

parkway. For example, commuters are less 

interested in a leisurely and scenic driving 

experience and many are impatient of slower 

visitor drivers. 

Despite the parkway’s design as a limitedaccess roadway, it has a high number of 

parkway access points that add to the ease of 

local nonrecreational access. The parkway’s 

ongoing moratorium of secondary road 

improvement projects in both Virginia and 

North Carolina would help limit adjacent 

growth of subdivisions and other 

development and help reduce levels of local, 

nonrecreational traffic growth and congestion 

on the parkway. Also, the growing popularity 

of RVs, motorcycling, and bicycling, adds to 

the mix of transportation types and speeds 

and contributes to frustrations and conflicts. 

At specific popular visitor sites, congestion 

and crowding issues would continue, although 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

392 

most visitors who were surveyed felt that 

visitation would have to increase substantially 

at many sites before management action 

would be warranted. These trends would 

continue to cause long-term minor to 

moderate impacts on the visitor experience, 

especially during the peak season in the more 

urban areas along the parkway. 

The parkway and other park roads would 

continue to be available to bicyclists and 

provide an outstanding cycling experience. In 

general, the parkway’s limited access, lower 

traffic levels, and scenic setting provide for a 

quality cycling experience. This would 

continue to be a long-term beneficial impact 

on the quality of visitor’s bicycling experience. 

However, the parkway was not built as a 

bicycling facility, and therefore, the 

narrowness of the roadway, lack of paved 

shoulders, foggy weather, and local road 

paving or other construction activities would 

continue to challenge cyclists and pose safety 

concerns as they share the road with 

motorists, especially in areas where traffic 

levels are increasing, especially 

nonrecreational traffic in the more urban 

areas of Waynesboro, Roanoke, 

Boone/Blowing Rock, and Asheville. In these 

areas, especially with the growing popularity 

of larger bike touring groups, there are 

increasing conflicts between bicyclists and 

motorists. These ongoing conditions would 

likely continue to increase and the quality of 

the bicycling experience would be moderately 

adversely affected primarily during 

commuting times at a local level within those 

urban areas over the long term. 

Short-term impacts would be related to 

disruptions that could result from ongoing 

maintenance and park operations activities 

that would continue to occur along the 

parkway, such as repaving the motor road and 

parking areas or repairing rock slides. These 

impacts would be detectable but slight and 

would affect visitors in specific areas. 

Therefore, short-term impacts would be 

adverse, local, and minor. 

Parkway Segments. Only those parkway 

segments that would have more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide section are described below. 

Segments 1 and 2: Ridge and Roanoke—At 

some of the more isolated overlooks in these 

segments, illegal activities such as car breakins, would likely continue to occur. The 

parkway would continue to manage visitors’ 

personal safety using current law enforcement 

resources. Impacts related to personal safety 

could increase in this segment, resulting in 

adverse local long-term moderate impacts. 

Segment 3: Plateau—Nonrecreational trips 

comprise a substantial amount of traffic 

between I-77 and Roanoke—49% in the 

Roanoke and Plateau segments. In visitor 

surveys, traffic congestion is an issue visitors 

have rated as one of the parkway’s biggest 

problems. Parking and congestion problems 

could increase in this segment if visitation and 

urban growth increase. Impacts on the visitor 

driving experience and visits to popular 

destinations would be readily apparent; 

therefore, long-term impacts would be local, 

adverse, and moderate in this area. 

Segment 4: Highlands—Parking areas at the 

Moses H. Cone Memorial Park (being 

addressed under a separate planning study) 

and Julian Price Memorial Park, both in this 

segment, exceed capacity during peak 

visitation. Park law enforcement staff also 

note parking problems during events at 

Brinegar Cabin at milepost 238.5 near 

Doughton Park. Similar to the Plateau 

segment, parking and congestion problems 

could increase in this segment if regional 

tourism, parkway visitation and suburban 

growth continue to increase, resulting in 

readily apparent traffic congestion impacts. 

The Highlands segment would experience the 

highest traffic volume forecasts and the levels 

of service would fall below the level for visitor 

acceptance. Long-term impacts would be 

adverse, local, and moderate. 

Segment 5: Black Mountain—Linn Cove 

Viaduct is one of the most frequently visited 

areas in the park and visitors see more people 

than they prefer at this location. Parking and 

congestion problems could increase in this 
Visitor Use and Experience 

393 

segment if visitation and urban growth 

increase, resulting in readily apparent impacts. 

Long-term impacts would, therefore, be local, 

adverse, and moderate. The Craggy Gardens 

visitor contact station and hiking trails just 

north of the Asheville segment are another 

popular visitor area in which pedestrian and 

automobile conflicts occur. 

Segment 6: Asheville—The Asheville 

community in particular would continue to 

experience issues related to overcrowding and 

traffic conflicts at entrance and exit ramps. 

Asheville has the parks only intersection that 

is rated at a level of service C, as described in 

the “Traffic and Transportation” section. This 

is likely a result of high recreational use mixed 

with commuter traffic. The Folk Art Center in 

this segment is one of the parkway’s most 

frequently visited areas. A mile and half south 

of the Folk Art Center another major facility, 

the Blue Ridge Parkway Visitor Center, 

opened in 2008. Recreationists also park 

vehicles in undesignated areas in this segment 

and the Asheville community wants developed 

parking and better trail access to various trails 

on and off of the parkway. Parking and 

congestion problems would increase if 

visitation and urban growth increase, as 

reflected by the desire for more access and 

activities in this segment. Impacts related to 

traffic congestion would be readily apparent, 

resulting in adverse local long-term moderate 

effects. 

Several bicycle tour groups are active in this 

area. Some use a section of the parkway for a 

weekly ride and other sections are favored by 

cyclists as well. Safety is of paramount 

concern to cyclists in this congested area. 

Similar to Roanoke, the percentage of riders in 

Asheville may be higher than the rest of the 

parkway and conflicts between different users 

or user groups would be readily apparent. The 

impact on visitor safety may create the 

potential for additional visitor conflicts, 

resulting in adverse local long-term moderate 

impacts. 

Segment 7: Mt. Pisgah—Visitors typically see 

more people than they prefer to at Graveyard 

Fields and Looking Glass Rock in this 

segment. Even though these differences are 

the highest for the entire parkway, they are 

substantially less than what visitors expected 

to see at both locations. Therefore, local longterm adverse impacts related to crowding in 

this area would be detectable but slight, 

resulting in minor effects to visitor 

experience. 

Recreation Areas. Only those recreation 

areas that would have more specific impacts 

than those described under the parkway-wide 

section are described below. 

Humpback Rocks—Visitors have complained 

to park staff about limited parking at the 

Humpback Rocks recreation area. The 

current size of the picnic area, visitor contact 

station, and trailhead parking does not allow 

accommodation of higher use levels and more 

interpretive programs. This constraint could 

lead to additional crowding and access and 

circulation issues in the future, particularly if 

visitation increases. This situation is 

complicated by the lack of orientation at the 

north entrance of the parkway. This makes 

Humpback Rocks the first point of contact for 

visitors. Impacts of continuing current 

management practices on crowding and 

access and circulation would be adverse, local, 

long-term, and moderate. 

Peaks of Otter, Rocky Knob, Cumberland 

Knob—Peaks of Otter Recreation Area (in the 

Ridge segment) experiences high local, 

nonrecreational use and is a destination for 

recreational users as well. Despite high levels 

of use, visitors saw fewer people than they 

preferred at Peaks of Otter. Similarly, visitors 

saw fewer people than they preferred at 

Rocky Knob in the Plateau segment and at 

Cumberland Knob in the Highlands segment. 

For these reasons, continuation of current 

management practices would likely have no 

measurable effect on crowding at these 

locations. 

Mabry Mill—Park law enforcement staff have 

noted parking problems during the peak 

season at Mabry Mill and the amphitheater at 

milepost 213. Visitors have rated finding 

parking spaces one of the biggest problems of 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

394 

their visit. Parking and congestion problems 

would likely increase because Mabry Mill is a 

popular and traditional destination for many 

visitors, especially on weekends. Access and 

circulation would be adversely affected as 

drivers circle the area looking for parking 

spaces. Therefore, long-term impacts would 

be adverse, local, and moderate in this area. 

Linville Falls—Linville Falls in the Black 

Mountain segment is one of the parkway’s 

most frequently visited areas. However, 

visitors’ perception of crowding was low, 

despite this being a very popular, highly used 

recreation area with a heavily used trail to 

waterfalls and several recreational 

opportunities. Similar to Graveyard Fields in 

the Pisgah segment, visitors expected to see 

far more people than they preferred to see at 

Linville Falls. Therefore, local long-term 

adverse impacts related to crowding and 

access and circulation in this area would be 

detectable but slight, resulting in minor 

effects. 

Craggy Gardens and Mt. Pisgah—Craggy 

Gardens, in the Black Mountain segment, and 

Mt. Pisgah, in the Pisgah segment, are also 

major recreational destinations and some of 

the most frequently visited areas along the 

parkway. Similar to the other popular areas 

previously mentioned, the potential for 

crowding and congestion could increase, 

affecting few to many visitors, with effects 

ranging from slightly detectable to readily 

apparent. The result would be long-term local 

adverse minor to moderate impacts. 

Cumulative Impacts. Several counties and 

municipalities adjacent to the parkway have 

implemented or are planning to undertake a 

variety of recreation and tourism initiatives to 

grow local economies and improve quality of 

life. Several counties also anticipate 

substantial new residential developments. The 

greatest ongoing activity is development on 

private lands adjacent to the Roanoke, 

Highlands, and Asheville segments. These 

actions would draw more nonrecreational and 

recreational use overall, increasing congestion 

and demand for park services, thereby 

adversely affecting access and circulation, 

crowding, and personal safety. In addition, 

many state and local plans call for widening of 

highways and improvements to transportation 

systems in certain areas of the parkway, 

particularly in Roanoke and North Carolina. 

Other counties also plan to construct new 

roads or implement deferred maintenance 

projects. 

Several counties are establishing conservation 

easements to prevent conversion of lands to 

residential or commercial developments. Also, 

the large tracts of U.S. Forest Service lands 

along the Ridge, Black Mountain, and Pisgah 

segments provide long-term protection of 

adjacent lands from development. The 

easement projects would provide some 

beneficial effects related to access and 

circulation and crowding in local areas. The 

U.S. Forest Service lands contribute 

considerable long-term protection for those 

areas. 

Some cities and counties along the parkway 

are developing greenway and bike path 

projects or promoting cycling in other ways. 

Roanoke is planning a 30-mile 

bicycle/pedestrian path from western 

Roanoke County to the parkway. Buncombe 

County may develop two greenway projects 

that would create a continuous trail system 

connecting three counties, five municipalities, 

the parkway, and the Appalachian Trail. As 

roadways experience increasing traffic, 

moving cyclists onto greenways would 

improve safety and potentially reduce 

conflicts. However, conflicts between cyclists 

and pedestrians using new pathways would 

likely occur and some cyclists may prefer to 

continue riding on roads. 

These past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions would result in 

primarily long-term moderate, mostly adverse 

cumulative impacts at a regional scale to park 

road driving congestion, parking, and safety 

concerns, especially in the more urban and 

growing counties along the parkway. At a local 

level some of the greenway projects would 

help remove some traffic from the parkway, 

but the effect would be negligible to minor. 

Alternative A impacts, when combined with 
Visitor Use and Experience 

395 

these regional activities and trends, would also 

be primarily long-term, adverse, minor to 

moderate, and local. Alternative A would be 

mostly a small contributor to these effects, 

both adverse and beneficial. 

Conclusion. Continued popularity of the 

parkway in general, and ongoing population 

growth and related development in the 29-

county area, would result in increasing use 

levels along the parkway. Local commuter 

traffic in urban areas of the parkway would 

continue to impact visitor traffic, as 

commuters tend to drive at higher speeds and 

are less patient of visitor drivers. As a result, 

the quality of the recreational driving 

experience would continue to be adversely 

affected. Overall, long-term adverse impacts 

on the visitor experience would primarily 

result from increased local nonrecreational 

traffic, peak season crowding, limited parking 

at popular sites, conflicts between motorists 

and motorcyclists and bicyclists, and personal 

safety concerns at isolated overlooks (for 

traffic safety concerns, go to the 

Transportation section). These impacts would 

be mostly local, e.g., near urban areas where 

cycling is popular and commuter traffic is 

most prevalent and at specific overlooks 

where more isolated conditions create 

personal safety issues. Visitors are already 

aware of these issues as they have expressed 

concern about them. This awareness would 

continue or increase and impacts would be 

readily apparent. Visitor length of stay would 

not be measurably affected. 

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 

Driving the parkway to view scenery is the 

number one recreational activity in the park. 

In addition to the quality of the visual 

resources inside and outside the parkway (see 

the Visual Resources analysis section), there 

are other factors that can affect the quality of 

the driving experience. 

These factors include such things as traffic 

levels, traffic mix, and access to park services 

and programs can affect the driving 

experience and are addressed in this visitor 

experience analysis and in the traffic and 

transportation impacts section. 

The management zones that would be applied 

to different areas of the parkway would affect 

crowding and access and circulation, with the 

recreation zone having the most potential to 

affect visitor experience. In recreation zones, 

visitors would have opportunities to 

participate in a range of structured and selfguiding recreational, interpretive, and 

educational opportunities in a mostly natural 

setting where some visitor services are 

available. Under alternative B, just over 7,750 

acres parkway-wide—approximately 9.4 % of 

the parkway—would be zoned recreation to 

enhance outdoor recreational opportunities 

by accommodating a wider range of trailbased recreational activities and/or increased 

use. Recreational opportunities would focus 

on the outdoors and include organized group 

programs, self-guiding interpretation, nature 

observation, picnicking, hiking, backpacking, 

viewing natural and cultural resources, 

photography, exploring, and backcountry 

camping. 

Additional campsites, picnic areas, restrooms, 

and interpretive media would likely attract 

more visitors and increase visitation along the 

parkway. Adding and enhancing these 

recreational opportunities would increase 

length of stay where they are provided, which 

could have adverse effects on mostly peak 

season crowding, congestion, and parking at 

affected recreation areas. Expanding visitor 

services from a six-month to a nine-month 

visitor season would also draw more visitors 

to the parkway, but primarily during the 

shoulder seasons of spring and fall. This 

dispersed time frame would result in no 

measurable impact on visitor congestion or 

parking concerns. 

Providing overflow parking would help lessen 

crowding at popular areas and allow for 

longer stays, alleviating some of the adverse 

impacts that could result from increased 

visitation. Improving visitor orientation 

services at the underserved north and south 

parkway entrances would slightly improve 

visitor circulation by offering information in 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

396 

advance to help visitors plan their visit and 

avoid frequently crowded areas. Replacing atgrade crossings with new grade separation 

structures would beneficially affect visitors’ 

driving experience by separating recreational 

visitors from local commuter traffic—an issue 

that has frustrated visitors and adversely 

affected access, circulation, and traffic safety, 

particularly near urban areas. Where grade 

separations without access are constructed, 

parkway commuter traffic would also likely 

decrease. Also, the parkway’s ongoing 

moratorium of secondary road improvement 

projects in both Virginia and North Carolina 

would help limit adjacent growth of 

subdivisions and other development and 

further contribute to reduced levels of local, 

nonrecreational traffic growth and congestion 

on the parkway. The overall effect of these 

beneficial impacts would help limit the 

adverse impacts that may result from 

increased traffic and visitation. 

Overall, actions that would increase visitation, 

such as additional recreational opportunities 

or lodging capacity, as well as the 

improvement of campground services, 

additional picnic areas, restrooms, and 

interpretive media, would adversely affect 

crowding and access and circulation parkwaywide. Management actions to alleviate these 

adverse conditions, including providing 

overflow parking and new grade separation 

structures, would have beneficial effects to 

recreational visitors. Thus, impacts on 

crowding and access and circulation, would 

be adverse and beneficial, parkway-wide, 

long-term, and range from minor to moderate, 

depending on the area of the parkway. 

The parkway and other park roads would 

continue to be available to bicyclists and 

provide an outstanding cycling experience. In 

general, the parkway’s limited access, lower 

traffic levels, and scenic setting provide for a 

quality cycling experience. This would 

continue to be a long-term beneficial impact 

on the quality of visitor’s bicycling experience. 

However, the parkway was not built as a 

bicycling facility, and therefore, the 

narrowness of the roadway, lack of paved 

shoulders, foggy weather, and local road 

paving activities would continue to challenge 

cyclists and pose safety concerns. Cyclists 

share the road with motorists, especially in 

areas where traffic levels are increasing such 

as commuter traffic in the more urban areas of 

Waynesboro, Roanoke, Boone/Blowing Rock, 

and Asheville. The proposals to construct 

grade separation structures at some locations 

along the parkway would have a long-term 

beneficial impact on helping manage 

commuter traffic levels in some locations. 

This would likely help improve safety and the 

bicycling experience at local areas along the 

parkway. 

No changes to visitor safety in terms of 

emergency response time would result in the 

long term from expanding some visitor 

services from a six-month to a nine-month 

visitor season because law enforcement staff 

are all permanent full time employees and no 

seasonal staff is used. Short-term impacts 

would be related primarily to construction 

activities, such as building grade separated 

structures and overflow parking, as well as 

conducting ongoing maintenance activities. 

These impacts would be readily apparent and 

could affect many visitors in specific areas, 

resulting in adverse local moderate effects. 

Mitigation measures, such as implementing a 

traffic control plan, would reduce adverse 

impacts on minor where construction 

activities would occur. 

Parkway Segments. Only those parkway 

segments that would have more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide section are described below. As 

previously mentioned, approximately 9.4% of 

the parkway would be zoned recreation 

parkway-wide. When applied to all recreation 

areas, this percentage increases to 

approximately 21% under alternative B. The 

majority—52%—of the parkway’s recreation 

areas would be zoned natural. 

Segments 1 and 2: Ridge and Roanoke—

Under this alternative, modifications would 

be made to the landscaping of remote 

overlooks to improve visibility of parked cars 

by passing traffic. These modifications would 

be slightly detectable, resulting in a beneficial 
Visitor Use and Experience 

397 

local long-term minor impact on visitors’ 

personal safety. 

Segments 3 and 5: Plateau and Black 

Mountain—Providing overflow parking 

would help alleviate crowding at popular areas 

in both segments. Nonrecreational trips also 

constitute a large percentage of traffic in the 

Plateau segment. Replacing at-grade crossings 

with new grade separation structures would 

help separate recreational visitors from local 

commuter traffic in this segment. The overall 

results would be beneficial, local, long-term, 

and moderate, as visitors would be aware of 

the changes, which would be readily apparent. 

Segment 4: Highlands—The traffic and 

parking congestion problems in this segment 

would benefit from the overflow parking and 

grade separation structures. Impacts would be 

beneficial, local, long-term, and moderate for 

the same reasons described for the Plateau 

segment. 

Segment 6: Asheville—Asheville in particular 

experiences overcrowding issues and has the 

parkway’s only level of service C intersection. 

Implementing additional overflow parking at 

trailheads would be of particular benefit in 

this segment given its large urban setting and 

popularity of attractions, such as the Folk Art 

Center and Blue Ridge Parkway Visitor 

Center. Formalized parking would improve 

the flow of vehicles getting on and off the 

road, improving safety. Visitors would be 

aware of these readily apparent changes, 

resulting in beneficial local long-term 

moderate impacts. 

Segment 7: Pisgah—Dispersing visitors and 

managing crowding conditions throughout 

the parkway, as well as developing overflow 

parking, would help alleviate congestion at 

Graveyard Fields and Looking Glass Rock in 

this segment. Impacts would be beneficial, 

local, long-term, and minor to moderate; 

changes would be slightly or readily 

detectable, depending on the season and day 

of week. 

Recreation Areas. Only those recreation 

areas that would have more specific impacts 

than those described under the parkway-wide 

section are described below 

Humpback Rocks, Crabtree Falls—Under this 

alternative, the parkway would allow for and 

accommodate future increases in demand for 

traditional recreational activities at these areas 

and visitors would be expected to have 

modest to high contact with others at both 

locations. The actions proposed under this 

alternative would help proactively manage for 

crowding and access and circulation issues in 

the future, particularly at Humpback Rocks, 

where visitors have complained about 

parking. Trails would be improved and 

possibly more developed at Humpback Rocks 

to accommodate future increases in use levels 

and programs, likely increasing length of stay. 

Long-term impacts would be beneficial, local, 

and minor, as these changes would be 

detectable but slight compared to existing 

conditions. Developing trails without 

expanding parking would cause crowding 

here. 

James River/Otter Creek, Smart View, 

Cumberland Knob, Linville Falls—Similarly, 

the parkway would allow for and 

accommodate future increases in demand for 

traditional recreational activities at these areas 

as well. Providing new recreational activities 

would result in increased length of stay. The 

contact station at James River/Otter Creek 

would be converted to a shelter, with no 

measurable impact on orientation, and thus, 

the driving experience, as this station is 

underused and this recreation area was not 

identified as a primary destination or as 

experiencing crowding or circulation issues. 

Providing additional trail links at James 

River/Otter Creek, restoring the visitor 

contact station and providing additional 

visitor services at Cumberland Knob, and 

improving trails at Linville Falls could increase 

future visitation and length of stay at these 

areas, potentially affecting access and 

circulation and crowding issues. Expanding 

the visitor season at James River/Otter Creek 

to nine months would potentially spread out 

local use. Altogether, the long-term impacts 

related to these issues would be adverse, local, 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

398 

and minor, as these changes would be 

detectable but slight. 

Peaks of Otter—Peaks of Otter already 

experiences high local and recreational use. 

This would increase further under this 

alternative because campground 

improvements would be substantial, including 

providing rental cabins, RV hookups, and 

redesign of some of the campground to 

accommodate larger RVs. This is likely to 

increase RV traffic on the parkway and visitor 

activity in the park. However, current high use 

at this area is not perceived as a crowding 

problem. Also, the visitor use season increase 

to nine months would help spread out local 

visitor use. Consequently, these 

improvements would likely have negligible to 

minor local adverse impacts on access and 

circulation. 

Rocky Knob—The small visitor contact 

station in this area would be converted to a 

trailhead shelter once a new visitor contact 

station is established at Mabry Mill. Because 

this station was originally designed as a gas 

station, it is inadequate as a visitor contact 

station. This change would result in no 

measurable impact on visitors. 

Upgrades to the campground, including water 

and electrical hookups for RVs, would likely 

increase the use levels of this campground. 

The Rockcastle Gorge trail system would be 

upgraded and trailhead staging would be 

provided. These improvements could result in 

increased visitation and length of stay, but the 

parking improvements near the backcountry 

campsite would help alleviate crowding and 

access and circulation issues. Currently, 

visitors see fewer people than they prefer to at 

Rocky Knob, indicating that crowding is not a 

problem. Therefore, no measurable 

congestion or parking impacts are anticipated. 

Mabry Mill—Virginia Secondary Road 603 

(VA 603) would be relocated to improve the 

safety of visitors who have to cross this road 

from the overflow parking area. This would be 

a minor local beneficial effect on visitor safety. 

The potential development of a new 

restaurant and a new visitor contact facility, as 

well as a redesign of pedestrian circulation 

and waysides, would add to visitor interest 

and demand at an already popular site, 

resulting in additional crowding and parking 

demand. Careful location and design of these 

facilities and accompanying parking would 

help mitigate the additional crowding. Also, 

increasing this site’s visitor season from six to 

nine months may help disperse some of the 

crowding, because much of the visitation is 

repeat local use. Therefore, long-term impacts 

would be primarily local, adverse, and minor. 

Blue Ridge Music Center—Expanding 

information and orientation capabilities and 

park participation in heritage tourism projects 

generally would not result in any measurable 

change to visitor access, circulation, and 

parking. Impacts would be adverse, local, 

long-term, and negligible to minor. However, 

public awareness of, and interest in, this 

relatively new venue on the parkway 

continues to grow in popularity. The parkway 

would need to monitor this growth and 

related impacts on on-site circulation and 

parking and be prepared for adjusting 

management accordingly. 

Julian Price Park—At Julian Price Park, visitor 

services would be enhanced. The redesign and 

upgrades to accommodate RV campers would 

potentially increase campground use levels 

and length of stay. Recreational vehicle usage 

of the parkway would likely increase at a local 

level but would be dispersed. 

Craggy Gardens—Closing the trail to Craggy 

Pinnacle and opening a new formal trail to 

Craggy Dome may shift some visitor use and 

parking to another, less used pullout. This 

would be a negligible to minor beneficial 

impact on parking conditions. 

Mt. Pisgah—Campground service upgrades, 

such as showers at comfort stations and water 

and electrical hookups for RVs, would 

increase the popularity of the campground 

and potentially add to visitor use levels. 

However, there would be fewer RV sites 

compared to alternative A because of 

reduction of campground size. Therefore, 

long-term impacts on access and circulation 
Visitor Use and Experience 

399 

would likely be local, adverse, and negligible 

to minor. 

Cumulative Effects. Several counties and 

municipalities adjacent to the parkway have 

implemented or are planning to undertake a 

variety of recreation and tourism initiatives to 

grow local economies and improve quality of 

life. Several counties also anticipate 

substantial new residential developments. The 

greatest ongoing activity is development on 

private lands adjacent to the Roanoke, 

Highlands, and Asheville segments. These 

actions would draw more nonrecreational and 

recreational use overall, increasing congestion 

and demand for park services, thereby 

adversely affecting access and circulation, 

crowding, and personal safety. In addition, 

many state and local plans call for widening of 

highways and improvements to transportation 

systems in certain areas of the parkway, 

particularly in Roanoke and North Carolina. 

Other counties also plan to construct new 

roads or implement deferred maintenance 

projects. 

Several counties are establishing conservation 

easements to prevent conversion of lands to 

residential or commercial developments. Also, 

the large tracts of U.S. Forest Service lands 

along the Ridge, Black Mountain, and Pisgah 

segments provide long-term protection of 

adjacent lands from development. The 

easement projects would provide some 

beneficial effects related to access and 

circulation and crowding in local areas. The 

U.S. Forest Service lands contribute 

considerable long-term protection for those 

areas. 

Some cities and counties along the parkway 

are developing greenway and bike path 

projects or promoting cycling in other ways. 

Roanoke is planning a 30-mile 

bicycle/pedestrian path from western 

Roanoke County to the parkway. Buncombe 

County may develop two greenway projects 

that would create a continuous trail system 

connecting three counties, five municipalities, 

the parkway, and the Appalachian Trail. 

Several bicycling tour groups are active along 

the parkway, particularly in Roanoke and 

Buncombe County, and bicycle use is 

increasing. Along the Highlands and Black 

Mountain segments of the parkway, the High 

Country Council of Governments has and is 

preparing road cycling maps of its counties. 

Watauga County is also planning land 

acquisition for greenways and bike trails. As 

roadways experience increasing traffic, 

moving cyclists onto greenways would 

improve safety and potentially reduce 

conflicts. However, conflicts between cyclists 

and pedestrians using new pathways would 

likely occur and some cyclists may prefer to 

continue riding on roads. 

The parkway’s improved scenery 

conservation, land protection program, and 

partnership activities would be beneficial in 

reducing some of this adjacent development 

and associated traffic, as would continuation 

of the parkway’s moratorium on secondary 

road improvements and construction of some 

grade separation structures. Also, improving 

parking and actions to disperse some uses 

would help limit the increases in visitation 

anticipated with the implementation of 

alternative B, with its 9.4% of recreation 

zoning and improved trail, camping, lodging, 

and interpretive opportunities. 

 

These past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions at would result in 

primarily long-term moderate, mostly adverse 

cumulative impacts on a regional scale to 

parkway congestion, parking, and safety 

concerns, especially in the more urban and 

growing counties along the parkway. 

Alternative B actions, when combined with 

these regional changes, would be result in 

primarily adverse minor to moderate local 

long-term impacts on access, circulation, and 

safety. The contribution of this alternative 

would be moderate, both adverse and 

beneficial. 

Conclusion. Access and circulation would 

continue to be affected by growth in the 

surrounding counties and increased 

popularity of the park. This increased 

popularity would be from the additional 

recreational opportunities provided, including 

the zoning of 9.4% of the parkway as 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

400 

recreation zone. These opportunities would 

increase visitation to the parkway and increase 

length of stay in many recreation areas. 

Providing additional overflow parking, 

providing a multiuse trail in the Highlands 

segment, building at-grade road separation 

structures, and improved land protection and 

partnership efforts would be beneficial and 

help to moderate some of this potential 

growth and resultant congestion. Overall, 

long-term adverse impacts on the visitor 

experience would primarily result from 

increased local nonrecreational traffic, peak 

season crowding at popular sites, and 

continuing conflicts between motorists and 

motorcyclists and bicyclists. These impacts 

would be mostly local, e.g., near urban areas 

where cycling is popular and commuter traffic 

is most prevalent. 

Short-term impacts would be related primarily 

to construction activities, such as during the 

building of grade separated structures and 

overflow parking, as well as conducting 

ongoing maintenance activities. With 

mitigation measures, these impacts would be 

adverse, local, and minor. Parkway-wide, 

actions that would increase visitation under 

this alternative would adversely affect 

crowding and access and circulation. 

Management actions to alleviate these impacts 

would have beneficial effects. Thus, impacts 

on crowding and access and circulation, as 

well as the driving experience, would be longterm, minor to moderate, both adverse and 

beneficial. 

Alternative C 

Parkway-wide. Under alternative C, the 

parkway-wide strategy would be to maintain 

more flexibility of the design and function of 

the recreation areas and infrastructure, 

especially in the visitor services zone, to adapt 

to changing visitor use needs and operational 

efficiency. The visitor services zone would 

help concentrate and enhance visitor facilities 

and better enable the parkway to address 

crowding and access and circulation issues on 

a case-by-case basis. For example, 662 acres, 

1% of the park, would be zoned as visitor 

services under alternative C, compared to 356 

acres, or 0.4%, under alternative B. Also, 

compared to alternative B, more than 6,000 

additional acres would be zoned natural, 

which would help enhance opportunities for 

more solitude and backcountry recreation. 

The concentrated visitor services areas would 

provide a designed setting that supports 

moderate to high levels of use, including a 

variety of visitor services and overnight 

accommodations within easy access from the 

parkway. Recreational opportunities in these 

areas could include dining, lodging, camping, 

walking, bicycling, picnicking, shopping, 

scenic viewing, park special events, 

interpretive programs, and guided walks. Five 

campgrounds would be substantially 

upgraded and redesigned to better 

accommodate RV campers. In general, these 

improved amenities would potentially 

increase the length of stay in these areas, 

especially campers; however, some concession 

services that lose economic viability may 

close, reducing some services and visitation. 

In general, it is anticipated most visitor 

activities would remain close to these 

amenities. Improvements of some of the day 

use facilities may help make some uses, like 

restroom stops, more efficient and reduce 

length of visit. 

The resulting impacts of these improvements 

on access and circulation would be beneficial, 

especially for RV campers, and adverse, as 

length of stay may increase, affecting 

circulation and parking congestion. Also, road 

segments servicing these campgrounds would 

likely see an increase in RV traffic that would 

be local and dispersed. On a parkway-wide 

basis, these effects would range from minor to 

moderate, depending on the location, type, 

degree of change, and number of visitors 

affected. 

Expanding visitor services from a 6-month to 

a 12-month visitor season at a few recreation 

areas would potentially attract more visitors to 

the parkway, such as heritage tourism visitors, 

but over a dispersed time frame, resulting in 

no adverse impact on crowding and access 

and circulation and potentially encouraging 
Visitor Use and Experience 

401 

more dispersed local use because of extended 

time frames for access. 

Improving orientation and information 

services at the four major parkway entrances, 

including the north, south, Roanoke, and 

Boone/Blowing Rock areas, could improve 

access and circulation parkway-wide. By 

offering these services as or before visitors 

enter the parkway, visitors could learn about 

and plan their visit to the parkway and 

potentially help disperse use away from 

traditionally crowded peak season sites. 

Compared to alternative A, where no new 

orientation services would be provided, longterm impacts would be beneficial, parkwaywide, and minor to moderate, as most 

recreation visitors using the parkway access it 

through one of these areas. 

Replacing at-grade crossings with new grade 

separation structures would beneficially affect 

visitors’ driving experience in the long term by 

separating recreational visitors from local 

nonrecreational traffic and where grade 

separations without access are constructed 

commuter traffic would also likely decrease. 

The change would be readily detectable, more 

so in areas where there are numerous at-grade 

secondary roads and near urban areas where 

local traffic use is high. These impacts would 

be local and moderate. 

Extending local mass transit services, such as 

public and private shuttle systems, to parkway 

destinations from nearby urban areas, would 

provide alternative transportation to some 

parkway visitor facilities, helping to alleviate 

parking congestion at popular sites. 

Alternative transportation would also result in 

fewer private vehicles on the parkway, which 

would improve access and circulation, 

particularly near large urban areas such as 

Roanoke and Asheville. Impacts would have 

beneficial local long-term minor impacts on 

overall traffic congestion and parking. 

The parkway and other park roads would 

continue to be available to bicyclists and 

provide an outstanding cycling experience. In 

general, the parkway’s limited access, lower 

traffic levels, and scenic setting provide for a 

quality cycling experience. This would 

continue to be a long-term beneficial impact 

on the quality of visitor’s bicycling experience. 

However, the parkway was not built as a 

bicycling facility, and therefore, the 

narrowness of the roadway, the lack of paved 

shoulders, foggy weather, and local road 

paving activities would continue to challenge 

cyclists and pose safety concerns as they share 

the road with motorists, especially in areas 

where traffic levels are increasing, especially 

commuter traffic in the more urban areas of 

Waynesboro, Roanoke, Boone/Blowing Rock, 

and Asheville. The proposals to construct 

grade separation structures at some locations 

along the parkway would have a long-term 

beneficial impact on helping manage 

commuter traffic levels in some locations. 

This would likely help improve safety and 

reduce conflicts a local area along the 

parkway. 

No changes to visitor safety in terms of 

emergency response time would result in the 

long term from expanding visitor services 

from a 6-month to a 12-month visitor season 

at select locations because law enforcement 

staff are all permanent full time employees 

and no seasonal staff is used. 

Similar to alternative B, short-term impacts 

would be related primarily to construction 

activities, such as building grade separated 

structures and separate multiuse paths, as well 

as conducting ongoing maintenance activities. 

With mitigation measures, these impacts 

would be adverse, local, and minor where 

construction activities would occur. 

Parkway Segments. Only those parkway 

segments that would have more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide section are described below. 

Segments 1, 2, 4, and 6: Ridge, Roanoke, 

Highlands, and Asheville—Under alternative 

C, the parkway would pursue development of 

four paved multiuse trails parallel to, but 

separate from, the parkway in the 

Waynesboro, Roanoke, Boone/Blowing Rock, 

and Asheville areas. These trails would range 

from about 11 to 15 miles in length. As noted 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

402 

under alternative A, cycling is popular in these 

areas of the parkway and conflicts between 

cyclists and motorists do occur and may be 

increasing. Local planning departments 

encourage use of multiuse paths for cyclists 

and many motorists are in favor of them. 

Providing a separate path that cyclists could 

use would help alleviate some roadway traffic 

congestion and conflicts between cyclists and 

motorists. However, many cyclists do not like 

to use paths and some would continue to use 

the parkway and mix with motorists. 

Pedestrian and cyclist conflicts could occur on 

the new paths, which could impact the quality 

of the experience and result in congestion.

Depending on subsequent use levels of these 

paths, some to many local and repeat visitors 

would be aware of the changes and decreases 

in conflicts between different user groups 

would be readily apparent, affecting some to 

many visitors in a local area. Therefore, these 

impacts would be moderate. 

Also, a relatively long distance paved trail 

would be a new attraction to which some 

mostly local visitors would drive to and park 

in order to bicycle these paths. This would 

potentially increase parking congestion and 

length of stay. Long-term impacts would 

generally be beneficial and local and minor to 

moderate by helping to increase safety and 

decrease bicyclist-motorist conflicts and 

congestion along these sections of the 

parkway. 

Some pullouts would be substantially 

redesigned to enhance visibility of parking 

areas to passing traffic to reduce illegal 

activities. These land form and vegetation 

modifications would be detectable and readily 

apparent, noticeably decreasing existing 

personal safety hazards in this segment. The 

result would be a beneficial local long-term 

moderate impact on personal safety. 

Segments 3 and 4: Plateau and Highlands—

Replacing at-grade crossings with new grade 

separation structures would beneficially affect 

visitors’ driving experience in the long term by 

separating recreational visitors from local 

nonrecreational traffic and where grade 

separations without access are constructed 

commuter traffic would also likely decrease. 

The overall impacts would be beneficial, local, 

long-term, and moderate. 

Segment 4: Highlands—As described under 

alternative A, parking is a problem at Moses 

H. Cone Memorial Park, Julian Price 

Memorial Park, and Brinegar Cabin. Under 

this alternative, no specific actions would 

address these issues. However, parking issues 

for the Moses H. Cone Memorial Park are 

being addressed under a separate 

management planning project. The presence 

of a multiuse path would be an additional 

attraction for campers and day users, adding 

to length of stay and potential parking 

congestion. The multiuse path would help 

reduce the number amount of cyclists on the 

road and the potential for conflicts between 

motorists and cyclists. Parking and crowding 

problems could increase in this segment if 

visitation and urban growth increase, in turn 

affecting access and circulation, resulting in 

long-term local adverse moderate impacts. 

Some of these impacts would be mitigated 

slightly by providing visitor orientation 

services in the Boone/Blowing Rock area. This 

would help visitors better plan their visit and 

potentially avoid congested parkway areas. 

Segment 5: Black Mountain—As described 

under alternative A, Linn Cove Viaduct is a 

popular and crowded attraction. Under this 

alternative, no specific actions would address 

these issues. Parking and crowding problems 

could increase in this segment if visitation and 

urban growth increase, affecting access and 

circulation, resulting in long-term local 

adverse moderate impacts. 

Segment 6: Asheville—Providing designated 

overflow parking at trailheads would be of 

particular benefit in this segment given its 

large urban setting and popularity of 

attractions, such as the Folk Art Center and 

Blue Ridge Parkway Visitor Center. This 

would help eliminate illegal parking along the 

parkway and associated impacts on traffic 

flow. Visitors would be aware of these readily 

apparent changes, resulting in beneficial local 

long-term moderate impacts. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

403 

Also, sites along the parkway near Asheville 

would be added to a transit system with the 

city of Asheville. This would help reduce 

traffic from the parkway and provide 

additional opportunities for residents and 

visitors to experience the parkway, especially 

for those who cannot drive. This would be a 

minor long-term local beneficial impact on 

parkway access and circulation opportunities 

for the Asheville area. 

Segment 7: Mt. Pisgah—Visitors typically see 

more people than they prefer to see at 

Graveyard Fields and Looking Glass Rock in 

this segment. Just as in alternative B, 

developing overflow parking would help 

alleviate congestion at Graveyard Fields and 

Looking Glass Rock in this segment. Impacts 

would be beneficial, local, long-term, and 

minor to moderate; changes would be slightly 

or readily detectable, depending on the season 

and day of week. 

Recreation Areas. Only those recreation 

areas that would have more specific impacts 

than those described under the parkway-wide 

section are described below. 

Humpback Rocks—Increasing the capacity of 

the visitor contact station would better 

accommodate current and future visitor use 

levels and improve current congestion 

problems and visitor experience. This would 

help support potential additional use from 

linking hiking trails with U.S. Forest Service 

and Sherando Lake facilities and development 

of a multiuse path. In Waynesboro, the 

parkway section most commonly used by 

cyclists is from milepost 0 to the intersection 

with VA 664 at milepost 13.7 (DEA 2005). This 

route would take cyclists through the 

Humpback Rocks recreation area. Creating 

this path would likely increasing length of 

stay. Long-term impacts would be mostly 

beneficial, local, and minor to moderate, as 

these changes would be detectable compared 

to existing conditions. Developing trails 

without expanding parking would cause 

crowding here. 

James River/Otter Creek—The trail between 

the restaurant and lake in this area may be 

improved and expanded for future multiuse. 

Impacts related to creating a separate path for 

cyclists and other visitors would be adverse 

and beneficial, local, long-term, and 

moderate. 

Peaks of Otter, Smart View, Linville Falls, 

Crabtree Falls—The parkway would manage 

the natural zone acreage for low-level visitor 

use and visitors would be expected to have 

lower levels of contact with each other. Peaks 

of Otter experiences high local and 

recreational use, although visitors have not 

indicated that this is a problem. Focusing most 

use and activity in the visitor services zone and 

managing for low-level use in the natural zone 

could prevent potential future crowding 

issues. Redesign of some of the campgrounds 

at Peaks, Linville, and Crabtree to 

accommodate larger RVs would attract 

additional visitors and increase dispersed 

levels of RV traffic on the roadway. This 

would be both adverse and beneficial, local, 

long-term, and moderate depending on visitor 

preferences. 

Cumberland Knob—Providing additional 

visitor services at Cumberland Knob, and 

improving trails at Linville Falls could increase 

future visitation and length of stay at these 

areas, resulting in local minor adverse impacts 

on circulation and parking.

Mabry Mill—Virginia Secondary Road 603 

(VA 603) would be relocated or closed to 

improve the safety of visitors who have to 

cross this road from the overflow parking 

area. This would be a minor local beneficial 

effect on visitor safety. The comprehensive 

redesign of pedestrian circulation and 

waysides would add some slight increase in 

visitor interest, especially by repeat visitors. 

This may initially cause some increase in 

demand at this already popular site, resulting 

in additional crowding and parking demand 

for the short term. Also, increasing this site’s 

visitor season from 6 to 12 months may help 

disperse some of the crowding, because much 

of the visitation is repeat local use. Therefore, 

long-term impacts would be primarily local, 

adverse, and minor. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

404 

Also under alternative C, the parkway would 

investigate development of a multiuse trail 

between Mabry Mill and the nearby 

community of Meadows of Dan. Mabry Mill is 

a popular and traditional destination for many 

visitors, especially on weekends. Providing a 

separate path that pedestrians and cyclists 

could use would help alleviate safety issues 

and conflicts with motor vehicles. Impacts 

related to parking and crowding problems 

would remain similar to alternative A: adverse, 

local, long-term, and moderate. 

Blue Ridge Music Center—Expanding 

information and orientation capabilities and 

park participation in heritage tourism projects 

generally would not result in any measurable 

change to visitor access, circulation, and 

parking. Impacts would be adverse, local, 

long-term, and negligible to minor. However, 

public awareness of, and interest in, this 

relatively new venue on the parkway 

continues to grow in popularity. The parkway 

would need to monitor this growth and 

related impacts on site circulation and parking 

and be prepared for adjusting management 

accordingly. 

Mt. Pisgah—No changes are planned under 

this alternative that would measurably affect 

access and circulation or crowding at this 

major recreational destinations outside of the 

RV hookup upgrades that may draw more 

demand for RV camping. Therefore, longterm impacts would be local, adverse, and 

minor to moderate. 

Cumulative Impacts. Several counties and 

municipalities adjacent to the parkway have 

implemented or are planning to undertake a 

variety of recreation and tourism initiatives to 

grow local economies and improve quality of 

life. Several counties also anticipate 

substantial new residential developments. The 

greatest ongoing activity is development on 

private lands adjacent to the Roanoke, 

Highlands, and Asheville segments. These 

actions would draw more nonrecreational and 

recreational use overall, increasing congestion 

and demand for park services, thereby 

adversely affecting access and circulation, 

crowding, and personal safety. In addition, 

many state and local plans call for widening of 

highways and improvements to transportation 

systems in certain areas of the parkway, 

particularly in Roanoke and North Carolina. 

Other counties also plan to construct new 

roads or implement deferred maintenance 

projects. 

Several counties are establishing conservation 

easements to prevent conversion of lands to 

residential or commercial developments. Also, 

the large tracts of U.S. Forest Service lands 

along the Ridge, Black Mountain, and Pisgah 

segments provide long-term protection of 

adjacent lands from development. The 

easement projects would provide some 

beneficial effects related to access and 

circulation and crowding in local areas. The 

U.S. Forest Service lands contribute 

considerable long-term protection for those 

areas. 

Some cities and counties along the parkway 

are developing greenway and bike path 

projects or promoting cycling in other ways. 

Roanoke is planning a 30-mile 

bicycle/pedestrian path from western 

Roanoke County to the parkway. Buncombe 

County may develop two greenway projects 

that would create a continuous trail system 

connecting three counties, five municipalities, 

the parkway, and the Appalachian Trail. Along 

the Highlands and Black Mountain segments 

of the parkway, the High Country Council of 

Governments has and is preparing road 

cycling maps of its counties. Watauga County 

is also planning land acquisition for greenways 

and bike trails. As roadways experience 

increasing traffic, moving cyclists onto 

greenways would improve safety and 

potentially reduce conflicts. However, 

conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians 

using new pathways would likely occur and 

some cyclists may prefer to continue riding on 

roads. 

The parkway’s enhanced role in the region as 

a leader in scenery conservation, the 

expanded land protection program, and 

partnership activities would be beneficial in 

reducing some of the adjacent development 

and associated traffic, as would continuation 
Visitor Use and Experience 

405 

of the parkway’s moratorium on secondary 

road improvements and construction of some 

grade separation structures. This would 

contribute to an improved driving experience. 

Less recreation zoning and more natural 

zoning would limit some demand for these 

areas due to limited backcountry access. 

Development of four multiuse paths in the 

Ridge, Roanoke, Highlands, and Asheville 

segments would tie in with community 

greenways and provide considerable 

alternatives for local visitors to driving or 

cycling on the roadway. Also, working with 

local entities to develop mass transit access to 

parkway sites in urban nodes such as 

Asheville, would further enhance alternative 

transportation choices and provide 

opportunities for some who would otherwise 

not visit the parkway. 

These past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions would result in 

primarily long-term moderate, mostly adverse 

cumulative impacts on a regional scale to 

parkway congestion, parking, and safety 

concerns, especially in the more urban and 

growing counties along the parkway. 

Alternative C actions, when combined with 

these regional changes, would result in 

adverse and beneficial minor to moderate 

local long-term impacts on access, circulation, 

and safety. The contribution of this alternative 

would be moderate and primarily beneficial. 

Conclusion. Alternative C would manage for 

lower-level visitor use due to the higher 

percentage of Natural zoning. Managing for 

lower level visitor use in most of the 15 

recreation areas would be a beneficial impact 

on crowding and access and circulation. 

Although few new hiking trails would be 

developed to accommodate future increases 

in use levels, visitors would have more 

backcountry opportunities for solitude in a 

natural setting. Visitor services would be 

concentrated in visitor services zones, which 

would be designed for concentrated use. This 

could lead to some crowding and increased 

length of stay in the recreation areas; however, 

updated facilities would help increase level of 

service and efficiency in those areas. In the 

frontcountry along three urban sections of the 

parkway, development of about 52 miles of 

multiuse paths would help reduce bicyclistmotorist conflicts in those areas. Compared to 

existing conditions, visitors who most value a 

quality scenic driving and improved bicycling 

experience would experience long-term 

beneficial impacts. Those visitors who desire 

more and better access to backcountry areas 

would experience adverse impacts. These 

long-term impacts would be noticeable and 

affect many visitors in a local area, resulting in 

adverse and beneficial moderate effects 

depending on visitor preference. 

RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 

Alternative A—No-action 

Parkway–wide. Under this alternative, the 

parkway would continue to have limited 

ability to provide adequate trail-based 

recreational opportunities for visitors. This is 

because the parkway was originally designed 

for leisure and relaxation, rather than active 

outdoor recreation that many visitors seek 

today. As a result, parkway trail systems were 

not designed to handle the large number of 

visitors currently using them, and 

consequently, trail damage and visitor 

crowding is not uncommon. For example, the 

heavily used trail system at Humpback Rocks 

is complex and confusing to visitors, resulting 

in multiple social trails and off-trail use. 

However, the high level of use along many of 

the parkway’s trails points to their popularity 

among visitors. 

Other than the Appalachian Trail (managed as 

a separate national park system unit) in the 

northern part of the parkway, few of the 

parkway’s long-distance trails provide 

designated camping sites. This dissuades 

visitors from taking extended hiking trips and 

results in some illegal camping, for example, at 

Hebron Falls in Julian Price Park. Equestrian 

use is also popular and the parkway has 

limited opportunities to support this use. Also, 

mountain biking is also currently in high 

demand, but the parkway offers no 

opportunities for this activity. Furthermore, 

few trails within the parkway are designed for 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

406 

universal accessibility. As a result, the parkway 

is not meeting visitor expectations for trailbased recreation. This is compounded by the 

parkway’s challenge of maintaining existing 

trail systems with current staffing levels and 

budget constraints. Overall, these factors 

diminish the experience for visitors seeking 

trail-based opportunities along the parkway. 

Under the no-action alternative, the parkway 

would continue to provide diverse 

recreational opportunities for visitors; 

however, minimal services and outdated 

facilities would continue to limit the National 

Park Service’s ability to offer these at the 

highest quality possible. Although the 

parkway is open year-round, visitor contact 

services are only offered during six months of 

the year in most places. There are three visitor 

centers in the Asheville area that are open 

year-round. More recently, the parkway has 

had to shorten the duration of visitor services 

by several more weeks, due to budget 

constraints. Currently, few facilities along the 

parkway are open until mid-May, whereas 

they were previously available to the public 

during the first week of April. Most visitors 

traveling the parkway during the off-season 

are unaware of the lack of services available to 

them. Even basic amenities, such as restrooms, 

cannot be found along major stretches of the 

parkway during this time of the year. As a 

result, the parkway receives numerous 

complaints from visitors each year about the 

lack of services available during the offseason. 

The parkway was designed for, and relies on, 

concession operators to provide a wide range 

of visitor services, including lodges, 

restaurants, and shops at numerous recreation 

sites. However, some concessions have closed 

because they are not as economically viable as 

before. This is due in part to the increase in 

services provided adjacent to the parkway in 

nearby communities. For example, more than 

60% of visitors now stay overnight in hotels, 

bed and breakfasts, and other campgrounds 

off the parkway. Furthermore, park 

concessions are in facilities that lack modern 

amenities visitors are seeking. Under this 

alternative, it is possible that more 

concessions would close in the future because 

of these factors. As a result, the original 

concept behind the parkway to provide a selfcontained, leisurely driving experience could 

be further diminished if visitors feel they have 

to leave the parkway frequently to obtain 

lodging or food. This would be a long-term 

local and regional adverse impact on the 

quality of the visitor’s traditional parkway 

experience. 

The nine parkway campgrounds are following 

a similar trend as concessions. Although the 

campgrounds are well located, most are 

underused. This is primarily because their 

facilities are outdated and do not provide the 

types of modern-day amenities people are 

looking for—such as showers, RV hook-ups, 

larger tent and RV sites, and universal 

accessibility. Conversely, private 

campgrounds adjacent to the parkway offer 

these amenities and, as a result, attract many 

parkway visitors seeking overnight 

accommodations. Currently the parkway is 

upgrading some campground comfort stations 

to include showers and to be universally 

accessible. This would be a long-term local 

beneficial impact on park campers. However, 

this improvement would not offset the larger 

problems that keep many visitors from using 

these campgrounds. It would, however, 

maintain the rustic character of these 

campgrounds, which some visitors prefer. 

Parkway Segments and Recreation 

Areas. Only those parkway segments and 

recreation areas that would have more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide section are described below.

Segments 1, 2, 4, and 6As discussed under 

access and circulation, the north end of the 

parkway near Waynesboro, the Roanoke area, 

the Boone/Blowing Rock area, and Asheville, 

are the four areas that currently experience 

steady levels of bicycle use and some incidents 

of bicycle-motorist conflicts. Conflicts 

between motorists and cyclists would likely 

continue to escalate in this segment under 

continuation of current management actions. 

Local long-term adverse impacts would be 
Visitor Use and Experience 

407 

detectable and hazards could noticeably 

increase in this area, resulting in moderate 

effects if conflicts continue to escalate. 

Roanoke MountainThe campground is the 

least used in the entire parkway. This site is 

close to other community attractions, such as 

Mill Mountain zoo and is a popular site to 

access trails for hiking and horseback riding. 

 

Mabry MillThis recreation area is very 

popular, especially on weekends for music 

and pancake breakfasts, and receives much 

repeat visitation. The current restaurant is too 

small for the visitor demand and the outdoor 

network of pedestrian access and circulation 

is inefficient. Because the site is bisected by a 

state road, visitors must cross it to access the 

overflow parking area. 

Cumulative Impacts. A number of counties 

and municipalities adjacent to the parkway 

have projects that would improve recreation 

and tourism opportunities in the region. Some 

of the projects that would improve 

recreational opportunities include the 

completion in Roanoke County of several 

greenway projects, including a 30-mile 

multiuse path from western Roanoke County 

to the parkway and improvements to the Mill 

Mountain attractions by Roanoke Mountain. 

Stone Mountain State Park (Highlands 

segment) has a number of capital 

improvement projects planned to improve 

public recreational and educational use of the 

park, including expansion of their visitor 

center. Mount Mitchell State Park, adjacent to 

the parkway in the Black Mountain segment, 

proposes to provide some new recreational 

opportunities including a backcountry 

campground and new hiking and mountain 

biking trails. 

Along the Black Mountain segment, Burke 

County has recreation and tourism initiatives 

that include promotion of the Overmountain 

Victory Trail and the Blue Ridge National 

Heritage Area. Two greenway projects in 

Buncombe County would create 26 miles of 

trail, creating a continuous trail system 

connecting three counties, the parkway, and 

the Appalachian Trail. The Carl Sandberg 

Home National Historic Site, near the Pisgah 

segment, has several new projects to enhance 

its historic character and visitor experiences, 

including a future visitor center. Also, the 

proximity of U.S. Forest Service lands, 

including the Jefferson/George Washington 

and Pisgah national forests provide an 

extensive network of frontcountry and 

backcountry hiking, biking, horseback riding 

opportunities adjacent to Ridge, Black 

Mountain, and Pisgah segments. 

These past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions as they relate to 

lodging and camping would result in 

additional choices for visitors. However, there 

would be long-term local adverse effects on 

visitor use of parkway campgrounds and 

lodging concessions. Alternative A impacts on 

the visitor experience due to outdated 

facilities and services, would contribute a 

moderate amount to reducing visitor interest 

in parkway facilities and the reduction of a 

quality driving experience as visitors choose 

to get off the parkway to seek better services. 

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions as they relate to trail recreation 

would contribute additional opportunities to 

visitors to the region, potentially improving 

the overall attractiveness of the visitor 

experience and visitor length of stay. Some of 

these opportunities can help meet some 

recreational demands that the parkway cannot 

meet, such as mountain biking and more 

extensive backcountry hiking and camping. 

Many of the county greenway projects would 

help to improve recreational access to the 

parkway and potentially connect to some 

existing trails. Alternative A impacts, when 

combined with these regional opportunities, 

would result in local and regional moderate 

long-term beneficial impacts on the 

availability of recreational opportunities in the 

29-county parkway region. Alternative A 

would contribute a comparatively small level 

of beneficial effects to the overall cumulative 

impacts. 

Conclusion. Visitors would continue to have 

access to a variety of quality recreational trails 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

408 

and relatively rustic campground 

opportunities the length of the parkway. This 

would continue to be a long-term primarily 

beneficial impact on the visitor experience. 

Visitors may continue to have access to a 

variety of concession services, including 

lodging; however, current limitations of 

parkway concession amenities result in more 

and more visitors choosing to leave the 

parkway to access more modern food, 

lodging, and camping services. As a result, 

some parkway concessions are closing. This 

has the potential to substantially impact the 

quality of the traditional self-contained, 

leisurely driving experience of the parkway. 

This would be a long-term moderate adverse 

impact on the quality of the overall visitor 

experience for many visitors. Alternative A 

impacts, when combined with regional 

opportunities, would result in local and 

regional moderate long-term beneficial 

impacts on the availability of recreational 

opportunities in the 29-county parkway 

region. Alternative A would contribute a 

comparatively small level of beneficial effects 

to the overall cumulative impacts. 

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 

Parkway-wide. This alternative would 

enhance trail-based opportunities primarily 

within those areas zoned recreation inside 

parkway recreation areas. This zone would 

account for 9.4% of the parkway’s total land 

base. This would be accomplished through 

projects to improve trail conditions, provide 

more universal accessibility, construct new 

trails, and in some locations by 

accommodating a wider range of trail 

activities. Such activities would potentially 

include designated equestrian camping and 

parking facilities at Doughton Park. Trails 

would be designed to more adequately 

accommodate greater numbers of visitors and 

specific types of use—thereby improving trail 

conditions and recreational circulation, which 

would enhance the visitor experience. 

Additional designated backcountry campsites 

would also be allowed within the recreation, 

natural, and special natural resource zones, 

which would improve long-distance 

backpacking or trail riding opportunities and 

reduce illegal camping. This would not help 

most long distance cyclists that need more 

frequent places to camp than the current 

spacing of parkway campgrounds allow. 

Cyclists would continue to have to leave the 

parkway to find legal places to camp. 

 

Increased availability of trails, primarily in the 

recreation zones, would provide greater 

visitor opportunities for trail recreation; this 

would help meet increasing local use of the 

parkway in the more urban areas. However, 

where hikers have to share unpaved trails with 

horses, it may have an adverse impact on the 

hikers’ experience. Some of this would be 

dependent on use levels and the potential for 

conflicts. Opportunities for solitude and 

natural sounds would be less available in the 

recreation zone during peak season.

Under alternative B, the parkway would 

expand recreational opportunities, amenities, 

and services for visitors, while emphasizing 

the original parkway design and traditional 

driving experience. Visitor services would be 

extended to nine months a year from the 

current six-month season at five locations. 

This would allow for more facilities and 

services (e.g., restrooms, visitor contact 

stations, etc.) to be available to visitors 

traveling the parkway during the shoulder 

seasons. 

Under this alternative, strategies would be 

applied to ensure the long-term viability of 

concession services at all existing locations 

(e.g., lodges, restaurants, and shops) along the 

parkway. For some concessions that are doing 

well, few changes would be necessary. 

However, for others, changes could include 

upgrading facilities with more modern 

amenities and/or increasing capacity. 

Ensuring that these important services 

continue would support the parkway’s 

original concept to provide a self-contained, 

leisurely driving experience for visitors—an 

important part of the parkway designers’ 

original concept. 

Eight of the parkway campgrounds would 

receive modest upgrades under this 
Visitor Use and Experience 

409 

alternative to improve the camping experience 

for visitors. These improvements would 

include providing showers and universal 

access to comfort stations, enlarging tent sites, 

and upgrading RV sites with water and 

electrical hookups. These improvements 

would likely attract more visitors, increasing 

campground occupancy rates and ultimately 

their self-sufficiency. As with improvements 

to concessions, campground upgrades would 

also enhance the self-contained, leisure 

driving experience for visitors. However, 

upgrading RV sites could disturb tent campers 

if upgrades result in more noise from RV use 

of campgrounds, which would diminish their 

camping experience. Separation of camper 

types would help to mitigate such conflicts. 

Parkway Segments. Under alternative B, 

there are no parkway segments that would 

have more specific impacts than those 

described under the parkway-wide section 

above. 

Recreation Areas. Only those recreation 

areas that would have more specific impacts 

than those described under the parkway-wide 

section are described below. 

Peaks of Otter—The only campground that 

would be partly redesigned to accommodate 

larger RVs in alternative B, would be the Peaks 

of Otter campground. This would result more 

amenities to RV campers. This would be a 

local long-term beneficial impact on the 

camping opportunities of RV campers and 

potentially an adverse impact on some tent 

campers’ experience. 

Roanoke Mountain—Elimination of the 

Roanoke Mountain campground would have 

local minor to moderate adverse impact on 

those visitors who use and enjoy this 

campground. The average seasonal occupancy 

rate of the Roanoke Mountain campground is 

the lowest of all parkway campgrounds, at less 

than 25%, which points to limited demand for 

this use. Changing it to a day use area for 

picnicking and trail use would broaden 

Roanoke area day use recreational 

opportunities with connections to Roanoke 

trails and venues at Mill Mountain and other 

Roanoke attractions. Especially for local 

visitors, this would be a long-term local minor 

to moderate enhancement of recreational 

opportunities. For infrequent out-of-town 

visitors, loss of the campground might cause 

some confusion and inconvenience. The 

parkway would need to ensure that website, 

brochure, and visitor center information is 

updated. 

Rocky Knob—The Gorge trail system would 

be upgraded, backcountry camping enhanced, 

and trailhead staging and parking would be 

improved. Also, as part of the camping and 

concession improvements at this area, the 

parkway would find ways to enhance cabin 

camping opportunities, potentially through 

upgrading and/or adding additional 

structures. These changes would provide local 

long-term minor improvements to visitor 

opportunities for backcountry and cabin 

camping recreation. Such improvements 

could result in increased visitation and length 

of stay but the parking improvements near 

these areas would help alleviate crowding and 

access and circulation issues. Currently, 

visitors see fewer people than they prefer to at 

this recreation area, indicating that crowding 

is not a problem. Therefore, no measurable 

impacts are anticipated. 

Doughton Park—Designating mixed-use 

trails for horses and hiking; constructing 

trailhead parking that would accommodate 

horse trailers; and providing equestrian 

camping would be a local long-term beneficial 

impact on equestrian opportunities in this 

recreational area. This mixed use of current 

hiking trails would be a minor adverse impact 

on some hikers’ experience.

Craggy Gardens—Closing Craggy Pinnacle 

trail would remove a very popular hiking trail 

from the Craggy Gardens Recreation Area. 

For frequent hikers of this trail, it potentially 

would be a local moderate adverse impact on 

their enjoyment of this area. Public use and 

satisfaction in replacing the trail with a 

designated trail to Craggy Dome would take 

time and would not be readily accepted. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

410 

Cumulative Impacts. A number of counties 

and municipalities adjacent to the parkway 

have projects that would improve recreation 

and tourism opportunities in the region. Some 

of the projects include the completion in 

Roanoke County of several greenway projects, 

including a 30-mile multiuse path from 

western Roanoke County to the parkway and 

improvements to the Mill Mountain 

attractions by Roanoke Mountain. 

Stone Mountain State Park (Highlands 

segment) has a number of capital 

improvement projects planned to improve 

public recreational and educational use of the 

park, including expansion of their visitor 

center. Mount Mitchell State Park (Black 

Mountain segment) proposes to provide some 

new recreational opportunities including a 

backcountry campground and new hiking and 

mountain biking trails. 

Along the Black Mountain segment, Burke 

County has recreation and tourism initiatives 

that include promotion of the Overmountain 

Victory Trail and the Blue Ridge National 

Heritage Area. Two greenway projects in 

Buncombe County would create 26 miles of 

trail, creating a continuous trail system 

connecting three counties, the parkway, and 

the Appalachian Trail. The Carl Sandberg 

Home National Historic Site, near the Pisgah 

segment, has several new projects to enhance 

its historic character and visitor experiences, 

including a future visitor center. Also, the 

proximity of U.S. Forest Service lands, 

including the Jefferson/George Washington 

and Pisgah national forests provide an 

extensive network of frontcountry and 

backcountry hiking, biking, and horseback 

riding opportunities adjacent to Ridge, Black 

Mountain, and Pisgah segments. 

These past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions as they relate to 

lodging and camping would potentially result 

in long-term local minor to moderate adverse 

effects on visitor use of parkway campgrounds 

and lodging concessions. Alternative B would 

contribute long-term beneficial moderate to 

major effects by enhancing the amenities of 

these parkway services. Over time, this would 

substantially increase the ability of parkway 

concessions and campgrounds to attract 

visitor use and keep visitors on the parkway. 

Overall, the cumulative impacts related to 

concession and camping activities on the 

parkway would have mostly beneficial, minor 

to moderate long-term impacts on quality of 

the traditional parkway experience for many 

visitors. 

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions as they relate to trail recreation 

would contribute additional opportunities to 

visitors to the region, potentially improving 

the overall attractiveness of the visitor 

experience and visitor length of stay. Some of 

these opportunities can help meet some 

recreational demands that the parkway cannot 

meet, such as mountain biking and more 

extensive backcountry hiking and camping. 

Many of the county greenway projects would 

help to improve recreational access to the 

parkway and potentially connect to some 

existing trails. Alternative B impacts, when 

combined with these regional opportunities, 

would result in local and regional moderate 

long-term beneficial impacts on the 

availability of recreational opportunities in the 

29-county parkway region. Alternative A 

would contribute a comparatively small to 

medium level of beneficial effects to the 

overall cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. The improvement of 

campground amenities, the substantial efforts 

to ensure that parkway concessions remain 

viable, and a variety of trail and day use 

enhancements primarily in the recreation 

zones, would have long-term local and 

regional moderate to major beneficial impacts 

on the availability of recreational 

opportunities to visitors. Actions such as the 

elimination of the Roanoke campground, 

more use of parkway campgrounds by RVs, 

and designating mixed use horse and hiking 

trails at Doughton, would result in some local 

minor to moderate long-term adverse impacts 

on some visitors’ experiences. The regional 

availability of alternative camping and lodging 

services would continue to draw some visitors 

from the parkway, but this would be 

considerably less than in alternative A. The 
Visitor Use and Experience 

411 

growing variety and miles of trail 

opportunities in local communities, state 

parks, and national forests would help meet 

some demand for types of trails that the 

parkway would not meet, and enhance local 

visitor connections to the parkway through 

greenway projects. Alternative B impacts, 

when combined with these regional 

opportunities, would result in local and 

regional moderate long-term beneficial 

impacts on the availability of recreational 

opportunities in the 29-county parkway 

region. Alternative B would contribute a 

comparatively small to medium level of 

beneficial effects to the overall cumulative 

impacts. 

Alternative C 

Parkway-wide. Under this alternative, less 

than 1% of the parkway’s total land base 

would be zoned recreation, compared to 12% 

under alternative B. Lands zoned recreation 

under alternative B would be zoned natural 

under this alternative. As such, there would be 

fewer trail-related improvements to 

accommodate activities such as hiking, 

horseback riding, and universal access. Some 

trail damage, illegal camping, and visitor 

crowding and circulation problems would 

likely continue to diminish the visitor 

experience. Mountain biking would continue 

to not be allowed, precluding future 

opportunities for this type of use. Conversely, 

visitors venturing into these areas of the 

parkway would likely encounter a more intact 

natural environment and may have greater 

opportunities experience solitude and selfreliance. 

Under alternative C, the proposed 

management approach would enhance visitor 

services in developed areas along the parkway. 

This would be accomplished through the 

implementation of projects designed to 

achieve desired conditions outlined in the 

visitor services zone, which include more 

modern-day recreational amenities, such as 

campground redesigns and upgrades. This 

zone would account for 2.2% of all lands 

within parkway recreation areas, compared to 

0.3% under alternative B. These 

improvements would allow greater numbers 

of visitors to experience a variety of 

recreational opportunities in a setting 

designed to support high levels of use. 

Year-round visitor services would increase 

from the three visitor centers in the 

Asheville/Black Mountain area, to eight visitor 

facilities, including several in Virginia. These 

year-round services (e.g., restrooms, visitor 

contact stations) would be the most helpful 

along segments of the parkway that continue 

to be heavily used by visitors during the 

shoulder seasons, such as Asheville and 

Roanoke. Higher elevation areas would 

continue to be closed to vehicles in the 

wintertime due to snow and ice conditions. 

Under this alternative, concession services 

may close in the future if they continue to lack 

the economic viability as discussed in 

alternative A. The parkway would not pursue 

strategies to improve their success as 

proposed under alternative B. Rather, the 

parkway would rely more on the private 

sector in nearby communities to provide 

lodging and food services. As a result, the 

original concept behind the parkway to 

provide a self-contained, leisure driving 

experience could be diminished. 

Most parkway campgrounds would receive 

the greatest level of upgrades under this 

alternative to improve the camping experience 

for visitors. Improvements would include 

providing showers and universal access to 

comfort stations, enlarging tent sites, 

upgrading RV sites with water and electrical 

hookups, and redesigning a section of each 

campground to improve access and 

circulation for larger RVs (except at Mt. 

Pisgah). These improvements would likely 

attract more visitors, increasing campground 

occupancy rates and ultimately their selfsufficiency. Also, campground upgrades 

would help keep some visitors from leaving 

the parkway for commercial campgrounds 

and help maintain a traditional self-contained, 

leisure driving experience for them. However, 

upgrading RV sites could disturb tent campers 

if upgrades result in more RV use of 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

412 

campgrounds, which would diminish their 

camping experience. 

Parkway Segments. Only those parkway 

segments that would have more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide section are described below. 

Segments 1, 2, 4, and 6: Ridge, Roanoke, 

Highlands and Asheville—Under alternative 

C, the parkway would pursue development of 

four paved multiuse trails parallel to, but 

separate from, the parkway in the 

Waynesboro, Roanoke, Boone/Blowing Rock, 

and Asheville areas. These trails would range 

from about 11 to 15 miles in length. As noted 

under alternative A, cycling is popular in these 

areas of the parkway and conflicts between 

cyclists and motorists do occur and may be 

increasing. Local planning departments 

encourage use of multiuse paths for cyclists, 

and many motorists are in favor of them. 

Providing these off-road paths would be 

popular, especially with local visitors and 

parkway campers, and provide many miles of 

new recreational trail opportunities. This 

would be a long-term major beneficial impact 

on recreational trail opportunities in the park. 

As with any mixed-use trail, there is the 

potential of conflicts between cyclists and 

pedestrians. As a result, some cyclists would 

continue to use the parkway. 

Segment 4: Highlands—The multiuse path 

proposed for this segment in the 

Boone/Blowing Rock area and south, in the 

Moses H. Cone and Julian Price recreation 

areas, would provide an alternative off-road 

opportunity parallel to the parkway to bicycle 

and walk without having to mix with traffic. 

This would be a new recreational opportunity 

that would be popular and could potentially 

link with adjacent community trails. This 

would be a long-term improvement in the 

visitor experience because it would provide an 

additional recreational opportunity for 

visitors and provide another way of seeing the 

parkway landscape and the Moses H. Cone 

and Julian Price parks without having to drive 

or bicycle on the parkway. This would be 

especially attractive to families that live locally 

or are camping or lodging along the parkway. 

Recreation Areas. Only those recreation 

areas that would have more specific impacts 

than those described under the parkway-wide 

section are described below. 

Mabry Mill—Under alternative C, the 

parkway would investigate development of a 

multiuse trail between Mabry Mill and 

Meadows of Dan. Mabry Mill is a popular and 

traditional destination for many visitors, 

especially on weekends. Providing a separate 

path that pedestrians and cyclists could use 

would help alleviate safety issues and conflicts 

with motor vehicles. This would be a local 

minor to moderate beneficial impact on 

recreational trail opportunities in this area. 

Julian Price Park—The Highlands segment 

multiuse trail would parallel the parkway 

through Julian Price Park, ending at the 

campground and Price Lake area. As 

mentioned under the Highlands segment, this 

would be a new and popular recreation 

opportunity that would be attractive to local 

residents of the Boone/Blowing Rock urban 

area and campers at Julian Price. Mixing 

bicycle use and hikers could result in conflicts 

and adversely affect the quality of the 

recreational experience. Also, these trails 

increase the likelihood that they would 

become destination attractions to which 

visitors may drive to and park in order to 

access the trails. This would add demand for 

parking and potentially increase length of stay.

Cumulative Impacts. A number of counties 

and municipalities adjacent to the parkway 

have projects that would improve recreation 

and tourism opportunities in the region. Some 

of the projects include the completion in 

Roanoke County of several greenway projects, 

including a 30-mile multiuse path from 

western Roanoke County to the parkway and 

improvements to the Mill Mountain 

attractions by Roanoke Mountain. Stone 

Mountain State Park (Highlands segment) has 

a number of capital improvement projects 

planned to improve public recreational and 

educational use of the park, including 

expansion of their visitor center. Mount 

Mitchell State Park (Black Mountain 

segment), proposes to provide some new 
Visitor Use and Experience 

413 

recreational opportunities including a 

backcountry campground and new hiking and 

mountain biking trails. Along the Black 

Mountain segment, Burke County has 

recreation and tourism initiatives that include 

promotion of the Overmountain Victory Trail 

and the Blue Ridge National Heritage Area. 

Two greenway projects in Buncombe County 

would create 26 miles of trail, creating a 

continuous trail system connecting three 

counties, the parkway, and the Appalachian 

Trail. The Carl Sandberg Home National 

Historic Site, near the Pisgah segment, has 

several new projects to enhance its historic 

character and visitor experiences, including a 

future visitor center. Also, the proximity of 

U.S. Forest Service lands, including the 

Jefferson/George Washington and Pisgah 

national forests provide an extensive network 

of frontcountry and backcountry hiking, 

biking, horseback riding opportunities 

adjacent to Ridge, Black Mountain, and Pisgah 

segments. 

These past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions as they relate to 

concession services such as lodging would 

result in long-term local adverse effects on 

visitor use of parkway concessions. 

Alternative C impacts on the visitor 

experience due to continuing to provide 

outdated concession facilities and services 

would contribute a moderate amount to 

reducing visitor interest in parkway 

concessions, concession closures, and the 

reduction of a quality driving experience as 

visitors choose to get off the parkway to seek 

better services. 

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions as they relate to trail recreation 

would contribute additional opportunities to 

visitors to the region, potentially improving 

the overall attractiveness of the visitor 

experience and visitor length of stay. Some of 

these opportunities can help meet some 

recreational demands that the parkway cannot 

meet, such as mountain biking and more 

extensive backcountry hiking and camping. 

Many of the county greenway projects would 

help to improve recreational access to the 

parkway and potentially connect to the four 

multiuse trails proposed. Alternative C 

impacts, when combined with these regional 

opportunities, would result in local and 

regional moderate long-term beneficial 

impacts on the availability of recreational 

opportunities in the 29-county parkway 

region. Alternative A would contribute a 

comparatively small to medium level of 

beneficial effects to the overall cumulative 

impacts. 

Conclusion. The substantial improvement of 

campground amenities, the 52 miles of 

multiuse trails in the Ridge, Roanoke, 

Highlands, and Asheville segments and the 

variety of other trail and day use 

enhancements primarily in the visitor use 

zones would have long-term local and 

regional moderate beneficial impacts on the 

availability of recreational opportunities to 

visitors. More use of parkway campgrounds 

by RVs and potential conflicts between 

cyclists and pedestrians on the multiuse trails, 

would result in some local minor to moderate 

long-term adverse impacts on some visitor 

experiences. The regional availability of 

alternative lodging and food services would 

continue to draw many visitors from the 

parkway as the parkway would not go to extra 

lengths to upgrade these parkway concession 

services. The potential closure of parkway 

concessions would be a long-term moderate 

adverse impact on the tradition parkway 

experience. The growing variety and miles of 

trail opportunities in local communities, state 

parks, and national forests would help meet 

some demand for types of trails that the 

parkway would not meet and enhance local 

visitor connections to the parkway through 

greenway projects. Alternative C impacts, 

when combined with these regional 

opportunities, would result in local and 

regional moderate long-term beneficial 

impacts on the availability of recreational 

opportunities in the 29-county parkway 

region. Alternative C would contribute a 

comparatively small to medium level of 

beneficial effects to the overall cumulative 

impacts. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

414 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR ORIENTATION, 

INFORMATION, AND INTERPRETATION 

Alternative A—No-action 

Parkway-wide. Orientation and entry 

experience. The parkway’s current lack of 

adequate orientation services at the north and 

south entrances to the parkway has local longterm moderate adverse impacts on the visitor 

experience, especially for first time visitors. 

These entrances are poorly marked and the 

sense of arrival to the parkway is missing. 

Without proper orientation, visitors are 

uninformed and consequently miss 

opportunities to fully experience and 

appreciate the parkway. Two other popular 

entry areas where orientation is lacking are at 

Roanoke and Boone/Blowing Rock urban 

areas. The visitor center at Explore Park near 

Roanoke does provide opportunities to orient 

visitors to the parkway; however, it is not 

along any of the primary access points to this 

portion of the parkway and it is staffed by 

non-NPS employees. 

Information and InterpretationA primary 

purpose of parkway information and 

interpretation services is to provide for public 

enjoyment and understanding of the park, 

including its history, scenery, and the natural 

resources and cultural heritage of the central 

and southern Appalachian Mountains. Park 

interpretive and education programs currently 

offered along the parkway are highly regarded 

by visitors. Common to all alternatives is the 

curriculum-based school outreach programs 

at schools and the parkway that reach over 

25,000 students. Other examples include the 

summer guided hike at Rock Castle Gorge 

(Rocky Knob), interpretation of Brinegar 

Cabin (Doughton Park), and overall 

interpretive programming at Peaks of Otter 

and James River/Otter Creek. The parkway 

has recently developed the Blue Ridge Music 

Center and the Blue Ridge Parkway Visitor 

Center—two modern facilities with 

interpretive exhibits and programs that 

enhance visitors’ understanding and 

appreciation of the parkway and Appalachian 

heritage. The continuation of the parkway’s 

many interpretive programs and information 

services would continue to be a long-term 

local and regional moderate beneficial impact 

on visitors and local youth. 

Altogether, the parkway offers six visitor 

centers and eight smaller contact facilities 

along the 469 miles of parkway. Some of the 

contact facilities are too small to adequately 

meet public need. Also, the parkway’s 

information and interpretive services have 

and continue to be negatively affected by staff 

reductions and a lack of adequate funding to 

support programs and facilities. As a result, 11 

out of those 14 visitor contact facilities and 

park-based interpretive programs are 

available only six months out of the year. Only 

about 5% of visitors receive personal contact 

from park staff; and there is very little 

interpretation of the parkway’s diverse natural 

environments. One visitor contact station 

(Cumberland Knob) has been closed. This is 

an ongoing long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impact on the ability of visitors to 

interact with park staff and learn about the 

park. 

Also, other entities are beginning to develop 

heritage tourism attractions and “trails” that 

share some of the parkway’s stories and sites. 

These heritage tourism areas provide added 

opportunities for visitors to explore in more 

depth the Appalachian themes and stories of 

interest to them, such as music and crafts. 

Currently the parkway works in cooperation 

with the Blue Ridge Heritage Area to share 

facilities at the new Blue Ridge Visitor Center. 

However, in general, the parkway is limited in 

their assistance to promote these heritage 

tourism stories or sites off the parkway. This is 

a negligible to minor adverse impact on visitor 

opportunities to learn about more 

opportunities off the parkway. 

Parkway Segments. Only those parkway 

segments that would have more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide section are described below. 

Segment 3: Plateau—The parkway’s 

interpretive program at Kelley School and the 

Harris Farm is very limited. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

415 

Segments 5 and 6: Black Mountain and 

Asheville—Three of the parkway’s 14 visitor 

facilities are open year-round and they are all 

in North Carolina. They are the Folk Art 

Center and Blue Ridge Visitor Center in the 

Asheville segment, which are 2 miles apart, 

and the Museum of North Carolina Minerals, 

which is 50 miles from the Folk Art Center in 

the Black Mountain segment. This results in 

all of the Virginia segments of the parkway 

and much of the North Carolina segments 

without visitor contact facilities 50% of the 

year. 

Recreation Areas. Only those recreation 

areas that would have more specific impacts 

than those described under the parkway-wide 

section are described below. 

Humpback Rocks—The Howardsville 

Turnpike is under interpreted and this limits 

the public’s opportunities to learn about early 

transportation routes between remote 

Appalachian settlements. This would be a 

local long-term negligible to minor adverse 

impact on visitor opportunities. 

Peaks of Otter—The two farm sites, the 

Johnson and Saunders farms, are in poor 

condition and are not interpreted to the 

public. As a result, visitors lack the 

opportunity to learn about the farms’ 

respective stories about early Appalachian 

tourism and rural mountain settlement of 

African Americans. 

Rocky Knob—Current interpretation of the 

old Rockcastle Gorge settlement area is 

limited to guided law enforcement walks. As a 

result, visitors have limited access to 

information and interpretation about this 

area, which is a local, negligible to minor 

adverse impact on park visitors. 

Mabry Mill—Mabry Mill is one of the most 

visited sites on the parkway, receives much 

repeat visitation, and is open only six months 

of the year. As an outdoor museum of 

mountain industry and lifestyles, its program 

has remained relatively static and its current 

circulation system is inefficient. This results in 

missed opportunities to reach many visitors 

with additional and varied messages about 

park themes, which is a long-term minor local 

adverse impact on visitor opportunities. 

Cumberland Knob—The visitor center is 

closed to the public. This is a long-term local 

adverse impact on visitor access to 

information and interpretation services as well 

as emergency assistance. 

Mt. Pisgah—The Buck Spring Lodge site of a 

historic hunting lodge receives minimal 

management and interpretation with 

waysides, which limits public awareness and 

appreciation of this site, which is a local longterm minor adverse impact on visitor 

opportunities to learn about the story of early 

use and tourism by the wealthy. 

Cumulative Impacts. There are adjacent 

counties and municipalities that have projects 

ongoing or planned that would improve 

information and interpretation opportunities 

in the region. Some of the projects include the 

city of Roanoke’s ongoing or planned 

recreation and tourism projects, including 

renovation of the Historic City Market and 

Center in the Square. Stone Mountain State 

Park (Highlands segment) has a number of 

capital improvement projects planned to 

improve public recreational and educational 

use of the park, including expansion of their 

visitor center. Along the Black Mountain 

segment, Burke County has recreation and 

tourism initiatives that include promotion of 

the Overmountain Victory Trail and the Blue 

Ridge National Heritage Area and is 

collaborating to improve the Brown Mountain 

Overlook, a stopping point for tourists on 

their way to the parkway. The Carl Sandberg 

Home National Historic Site, near the Pisgah 

segment, has several new projects to enhance 

its historic character and visitor experiences, 

including a future visitor center. Also, Great 

Smoky Mountains National Park is 

developing plans to improve the Oconoluftee 

Visitor Center. 

These past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions at would result in 

long-term local negligible to minor beneficial 

impacts on visitor opportunities to learn about 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

416 

the parkway resources and stories. Alternative 

A impacts, when combined with these 

regional activities, would be local and regional 

minor to moderate long-term beneficial 

impacts. Alternative A actions would be a 

considerable beneficial contributor to these 

effects. 

Conclusion. The parkway currently provides 

the majority of information, interpretation, 

and educational opportunities about the 

parkway. These services enhance visitor 

knowledge and understanding of parkway 

resources and themes at a local and regional 

level and are a long-term beneficial impact on 

visitors. There are 14 visitor centers or smaller 

contact facilities open along the 469-mile 

parkway. Most of these facilities and related 

programs are limited to a six-month visitor 

season and currently only about 5% of visitors 

ever interact with park staff. There are only 

three visitor centers open year-round and all 

of them are near the Asheville, North Carolina 

area. Virginia and much of the North Carolina 

segments of the parkway have no visitor 

contact services between November and 

April. Some of the current facilities are too 

small to adequately serve the public, and other 

sites that receive high use, such as Mabry Mill, 

or have important stories to tell, such as 

Cumberland Knob or the Saunders and 

Johnson farm sites, have inadequate 

interpretive information or programs. The 

Asheville segment provides considerable 

orientation opportunities, these services are 

mostly absent at the north and south 

entrances to the parkway and at Roanoke and 

the Boone/Blowing Rock areas, all important 

entry areas to the parkway. Consequently, 

while the parkway provides quality 

information and interpretation services for 

the peak visitor season, many visitors receive 

inadequate orientation to the parkway and do 

not have access to services for six months of 

the year and at certain sites year-round. These 

conditions result in long-term beneficial and 

adverse minor to moderate impacts on visitor 

access to orientation, information, and 

interpretive services along the parkway. 

Alternative A impacts, when combined with 

regional activities, would be local and 

regional, minor to moderate, long-term, and 

beneficial. Alternative A actions would be a 

considerable beneficial contributor to these 

effects. 

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 

Parkway-wide. 

OrientationUnder alternative B, the 

parkway would improve orientation services 

at the north and south entrances and in the 

Roanoke area of the parkway and would 

achieve the goal of contacting through staffed 

and unstaffed facilities a larger percentage of 

visitors before they start their journey on the 

parkway. Providing information about the 

location of visitor services and recreational 

opportunities, sensitive resources, and safety 

concerns would allow visitors to make more 

informed decisions about their visit—

ultimately improving their sense of arrival to 

the parkway and increasing their satisfaction 

and overall experience. This would be a longterm moderate beneficial impact on visitor 

orientation at these areas of the parkway. 

Interpretation and EducationBy 

extending, from six months to nine months, 

access to visitor services at four locations in 

Virginia (Humpback Rocks, James 

River/Otter Creek, Peaks of Otter, and Mabry 

Mill) and at Linville Falls in North Carolina, 

the parkway would more than double the 

facilities accessible to the public in the spring 

and fall seasons. Also, this alternative would 

improve the quality and number of the 

contact facilities in the upper half of the park. 

These actions would substantially improve 

visitor access to park staff and interpretive 

information in the north half of the park. This 

would be a long-term beneficial moderate 

impact on visitor access to information and 

interpretive services. 

Also, this alternative would improve overall 

interpretation of the parkway’s primary 

themes, with enhancement of a particularly 

underrepresented theme of the parkway’s 

ecological significance. Through a more 

ecosystem-based management approach, 

visitors would also have greater opportunities 
Visitor Use and Experience 

417 

to experience more intact natural 

environments of the Southern Appalachians. 

Expanding the database on the parkway’s 

natural resources (through comprehensive 

inventories and ongoing monitoring of species 

and their habitats) would also allow for the 

development of more meaningful interpretive 

and educational programs for the public. This 

not only would allow visitors to gain a deeper 

appreciation of the parkway’s natural 

environments, but also increase awareness of 

sensitive resources and ways to protect them. 

An example project would be the restoration 

of the grassy balds at Craggy Gardens and 

providing interpretation of this rare plant 

community (and ways to avoid damaging it) to 

visitors. 

Alternative B would also improve 

interpretation of the parkway’s historic 

resources that are representative of the 

cultural heritage of the Appalachian 

mountains. Examples include providing 

interpretation of the historic Howardsville 

Turnpike (at Humpback Rocks), improving 

interpretive media of the historic mountain 

industry at Mabry Mill, and rehabilitating and 

offering interpretation at the Saunders and 

Johnson Farms (at Peaks of Otter). The visitor 

contact station at Cumberland Knob would 

also be restored, staffed, exhibits installed, 

and law enforcement programs added that 

interpret the history of the parkway. 

Parkway Segments. Only those parkway 

segments that would have more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide section are described below. 

Recreation Areas. Only those parkway 

segments and recreation areas that would 

have more specific impacts than those 

described under the parkway-wide section are 

described below. 

Humpback Rocks—Interpretation of the 

Howardsville Turnpike would be improved, 

helping to enhance the public’s opportunities 

to learn about early transportation routes 

between remote Appalachian settlements. 

This would be a local long-term negligible to 

minor adverse impact on visitor opportunities. 

James River/Otter Creek—Converting the 

contact station to a wayside shelter would not 

substantially affect visitors, as this facility is 

very inadequate for its current uses. 

Peaks of Otter—The two farm sites, the 

Johnson and Saunders farms, would be 

rehabilitated and stabilized, respectively, 

interpreted to the public. As a result, visitors 

would have added opportunity to learn about 

the farms’ stories of early Appalachian tourism 

and rural mountain settlement of African 

Americans. 

Rocky Knob—The visitor contact station 

would be closed and converted to a trailhead 

shelter once a new contact facility is 

established at Mabry Mill. The current facility 

is in an old gas station and is inadequate for its 

current use. This would be a local negligible to 

minor adverse impact on park visitors. 

Cumberland Knob—The visitor center is 

closed to the public. This is a long-term local 

adverse impact on visitor access to 

information and interpretation services as well 

as emergency assistance. 

Mabry Mill—The potential development of a 

new restaurant and a new visitor contact 

facility, as well as a redesign of pedestrian 

circulation and waysides, would add to visitor 

interest and demand at an already popular 

site, resulting in additional crowding and 

parking demand. Careful location and design 

of these facilities and accompanying parking 

would help mitigate the additional crowding. 

Also, increasing this site’s visitor season from 

six to nine months may help disperse some of 

the crowding, as much of the visitation is 

repeat local use. Therefore, long-term impacts 

would be primarily local, adverse, and minor. 

Cumberland Knob—The visitor contact 

station at Cumberland Knob would be 

reopened. It would be restored to its historic 

appearance, staffed, exhibits installed, and law 

enforcement programs added that interpret 

the history of the parkway. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

418 

Mt. Pisgah—The Buck Spring Lodge cultural 

landscape would be restored to improve 

visitor awareness and appreciation of this site. 

Cumulative Impacts. A number of counties 

and municipalities adjacent to the parkway 

have projects that would improve recreation 

and tourism opportunities in the region. Some 

of the projects that would improve 

information and interpretation services 

include the city of Roanoke’s ongoing or 

planned recreation and tourism projects, 

including renovation of the Historic City 

Market and Center in the Square. Stone 

Mountain State Park (Highlands segment) has 

a number of capital improvement projects 

planned to improve public recreational and 

educational use of the park, including 

expansion of their visitor center. Along the 

Black Mountain segment, Burke County has 

recreation and tourism initiatives that include 

promotion of the Overmountain Victory Trail 

and the Blue Ridge National Heritage Area 

and is collaborating to improve the Brown 

Mountain Overlook, a stopping point for 

tourists on their way to the parkway. The Carl 

Sandberg Home National Historic Site, near 

the Pisgah segment, has several new projects 

to enhance its historic character and visitor 

experiences, including a future visitor center. 

Also, Great Smoky Mountains National Park 

is developing plans to improve the 

Oconoluftee Visitor Center. 

These past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions at would result in 

long-term local negligible to minor beneficial 

impacts on visitor opportunities to learn about 

the parkway resources and stories. Alternative 

B impacts, when combined with these regional 

activities, would be local and regional 

moderate long-term beneficial impacts. 

Alternative B actions would be a substantial 

beneficial contributor to these effects. 

Conclusion. Implementation of alternative B 

would lengthen the visitor season from six to 

nine months at five of the recreation areas, 

especially in the northern half of the park. 

That would increase from three to eight the 

visitor contact facilities at which people could 

obtain information and other services at least 

nine months a year. This alternative would 

improve the quality of visitor contact services 

at places such as Mabry Mill and Cumberland 

Knob and enhance interpretation of 

underrepresented themes, such as parkway 

ecosystems and history of the parkway. It 

would also introduce orientation services at 

three out of the four currently under serviced 

sitesthe north and south entrances and at 

Roanoke. As a result, considerably more 

visitors would have improved access to 

information to plan their visit at the start of 

their visit. All of these actions would 

substantively enhance the visitors’ 

opportunities to learn about and appreciate 

parkway resources and themes, considerably 

more than what the surrounding region can 

contribute through local programs and 

services. All of these actions would be longterm local and regional moderate 

improvements to visitor’s access to 

information and interpretation services. 

Alternative C 

Parkway-wide. 

OrientationUnder alternative C, the 

parkway would improve orientation services 

at the north and south entrances, as well as at 

the Roanoke and Boone/Blowing Rock urban 

areas and at Explore Park. Implementing this 

would help meet the parkway’s goal of 

contacting substantially more visitors before 

they start their journey on the parkway. 

Providing information about parkway services 

and recreational opportunities, sensitive 

resources, and safety concerns would allow 

many more visitors to make more informed 

decisions about their visit—ultimately 

improving their sense of arrival to the 

parkway and increasing their satisfaction and 

overall experience. 

Interpretation and EducationBy 

extending, from 6 months to 12 months, 

access to visitor services at three locations in 

Virginia (Humpback Rocks, Peaks of Otter, 

and Mabry Mill) and at Linville Falls in North 

Carolina, the parkway would go from only 

three visitor centers open year-round—all in 
Visitor Use and Experience 

419 

North Carolina near Asheville, to seven yearround facilities. This would more than double 

the facilities accessible to the public in the 

winter, early spring and late fall seasons. Also, 

this alternative would improve the quality of 

the contact facilities in the upper half of the 

park, such as Humpback Rocks and 

Cumberland Knob. These actions would 

substantially improve visitor access to park 

staff and information and interpretation 

services especially in the north half of the 

park. This would be a long-term beneficial 

moderate impact on visitor access to 

information and interpretive services. 

This alternative would also improve overall 

interpretation of the parkway’s primary 

themes, with enhancement of a particularly 

underrepresented theme of the parkway’s 

ecological significance. Through a more 

ecosystem-based management approach, 

visitors would also have greater opportunities 

to experience more intact natural 

environments of the Southern Appalachians. 

Expanding the database on the parkway’s 

natural resources (through comprehensive 

inventories and ongoing monitoring of species 

and their habitats) would also allow for the 

development of more meaningful interpretive 

and educational programs for the public. This 

not only would allow visitors to gain a deeper 

appreciation of the parkway’s natural 

environments, but also increase awareness of 

sensitive resources and ways to protect them. 

An example project would be the restoration 

of the grassy balds at Craggy Gardens and 

providing interpretation of this rare plant 

community (and ways to avoid damaging it) to 

visitors. 

Alternative C would also improve 

interpretation of the parkway’s historic 

resources that are representative of the 

cultural heritage of the Appalachian 

mountains. Examples include providing 

interpretation of the historic Howardsville 

Turnpike (at Humpback Rocks); improving 

interpretive media about, and diversifying 

demonstrations of, the historic mountain 

industry at Mabry Mill; and stabilizing and 

interpreting the Saunders and Johnson Farm 

sites (at Peaks of Otter). The visitor contact 

station at Cumberland Knob would also be 

restored, staffed, exhibits installed, and law 

enforcement programs added that interpret 

the history of the parkway. Also, within the 

visitor services zone, future growth of the 

Park-as- Classrooms program would be 

accommodated with additional program 

shelters and tables. 

This, combined with increased park 

participation in heritage tourism projects, 

would provide visitors more expansive and 

integrated opportunities to experience the 

greater region and enhance the likelihood of 

more return visits. Over time, it would likely 

increase visitor use year-round. This would be 

a moderate long-term beneficial impact on the 

visitor experience along many sections of the 

parkway. 

Parkway Segments. Only those parkway 

segments that would have more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide section are described below. 

Recreation Areas. Only those recreation 

areas that would have more specific impacts 

than those described under the parkway-wide 

section are described below. 

Humpback Rocks—Interpretation of the 

Howardsville Turnpike would be improved, 

helping to enhance the public’s opportunities 

to learn about early transportation routes 

between remote Appalachian settlements. 

This would be a local long-term negligible to 

minor adverse impact on visitor opportunities. 

James River/Otter Creek—Converting the 

contact station to a wayside shelter would not 

substantially affect visitors, as this facility is 

very inadequate for its current uses. 

Peaks of Otter—The two farm sites, the 

Johnson and Saunders farms, would be 

rehabilitated and stabilized, respectively, and 

the sites interpreted to the public. As a result, 

visitors would have added opportunity to 

learn about the farms’ stories of early 

Appalachian tourism and rural mountain 

settlement of African Americans. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

420 

Rocky Knob—Closing the visitor contact 

station and converting it to a trailhead shelter 

once a new contact facility is established at 

Mabry Mill would be a local negligible to 

minor adverse impact on park visitors. The 

current facility is in an old gas station and is 

inadequate for its current use. Enhanced 

interpretation of the historic mountain 

community in Rockcastle Gorge would be a 

long-term moderate beneficial impact on the 

visitor experience. 

Mabry Mill—Increasing this site’s visitor 

season from 6 to 12 months may help disperse 

some of the crowding, as much of the 

visitation is repeat local use. Long-term 

impacts would be primarily local, adverse, and 

minor. 

Cumberland Knob—The visitor contact 

station at Cumberland Knob would also be 

restored, staffed, exhibits installed, and law 

enforcement programs added that interpret 

the history of the parkway. Also, within the 

visitor services zone, future growth of the 

Park-as-Classrooms program would be 

accommodated with additional program 

shelters and tables. 

Mt. Pisgah—The Buck Spring Lodge cultural 

landscape would be restored to improve 

visitor awareness and appreciation of this site. 

Cumulative Impacts. A number of counties 

and municipalities adjacent to the parkway 

have projects that would improve recreation 

and tourism opportunities in the region. Some 

of the projects that would improve 

information and interpretation services 

include the city of Roanoke’s ongoing or 

planned recreation and tourism projects, 

including renovation of the Historic City 

Market and Center in the Square. Stone 

Mountain State Park (Highlands segment) has 

a number of capital improvement projects 

planned to improve public recreational and 

educational use of the park, including 

expansion of their visitor center. Along the 

Black Mountain segment, Burke County has 

recreation and tourism initiatives that include 

promotion of the Overmountain Victory Trail 

and the Blue Ridge National Heritage Area 

and is collaborating to improve the Brown 

Mountain Overlook, a stopping point for 

tourists on their way to the parkway. The Carl 

Sandberg Home National Historic Site, near 

the Pisgah segment, has several new projects 

to enhance its historic character and visitor 

experiences, including a future visitor center. 

Also, Great Smoky Mountains National Park 

is developing plans to improve the 

Oconoluftee Visitor Center. 

These past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions would result in 

long-term local negligible to minor beneficial 

impacts on visitor opportunities to learn about 

the parkway resources and stories. Alternative 

C impacts, when combined with these 

regional activities, would be local and regional 

moderate to major long-term beneficial 

impacts. Alternative C actions would be a 

substantial beneficial contributor to these 

effects. 

Conclusion. Implementation of alternative C 

would lengthen the visitor season from 6 to 12 

months at five of the recreation areas, 

especially in the northern half of the park. 

That would increase from three to eight the 

visitor contact facilities at which people could 

obtain year-round information and other 

services. This alternative would improve the 

quality of visitor contact services at places 

such as Humpback Rocks and Cumberland 

Knob. It would also enhance interpretation of 

underrepresented themes, such as parkway 

ecosystems and history of the parkway. The 

doubled use of the visitor services zone in this 

alternative substantially increases the 

parkway’s flexibility to redesign visitor 

services to help maximize visitor program 

opportunities, such as the Cumberland Knob 

Park-as-Classrooms program. It would also 

introduce orientation services at all four of the 

currently under serviced entrance sitesthe 

north and south entrances, Roanoke, and 

Boone/Blowing Rock. As a result, many more 

visitors would have improved access to 

information to plan their visit at the start of 

their visit. All of these actions would 

substantively enhance the visitors’ 

opportunities to learn about and appreciate 

parkway resources and themes, considerably 
Visitor Use and Experience 

421 

more than what the surrounding region can 

contribute through local programs and 

services. All of these actions would be longterm local and regional beneficial 

improvements to visitor’s access to 

information and interpretation services. 

Alternative C impacts, when combined with 

these regional activities, would be local and 

regional moderate long-term beneficial 

impacts. Alternative C actions would be a 

substantial beneficial contributor to these 

effects. 

OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPERIENCE 

NATURAL SOUNDSCAPES 

Alternative A–No-action 

Parkway-wide. Under alternative A, the 

parkway would not have formal management 

strategies for soundscapes. There would be no 

increase in visitor contacts or interpretive 

information pertaining to soundscapes and 

some visitors would continue to submit 

complaints about excessive noise. Types of 

activities that generate complaints along the 

parkway include motorcycle noise and RV 

(generator) noise in campgrounds. As a result, 

there would continue to be long-term minor 

to moderate adverse impacts to visitor 

opportunities to experience natural sounds 

due to loud, excessive, or disturbing noise 

events, limited education about how visitors 

can reduce self-noise, and limited interpretive 

materials for visitors seeking to learn more 

about the natural soundscapes of the Blue 

Ridge Parkway. 

Parkway Segments. Parkway segments 

would not experience more specific impacts 

than those described under the parkway-wide 

and recreation areas sections. Therefore, 

analysis conducted within the aforementioned 

sections also applies to all parkway segments. 

Recreation Areas. Under alternative A, 

existing RV camping would continue without 

water and electrical hookups at all 

campgrounds. Without electrical hookups, 

visitors with RVs would be more likely to use 

their generators, increasing the likelihood of 

disturbance to other visitors. Therefore, some 

visitors in parkway campgrounds might 

experience long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impacts due to unacceptable use of 

generators or experience unsatisfactory 

perceptions of generator noise. 

 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, or 

reasonably foreseeable actions may affect 

visitor opportunities to experience natural 

soundscapes. Based on responses from 29 

counties which represent the regional 

influence, those actions include recreation 

and tourism enhancements, residential and 

commercial developments, road constructions 

and improvements, and resource protection 

activities. Possible impacts from recreation 

and tourism enhancements include 

development of greenways, bike trails, and 

other recreation opportunities that would 

allow visitors more access to natural areas and 

experiences of natural sounds. For example, 

increased stream access would allow visitors 

opportunities to hear the sounds of flowing 

water. Nearby residential and commercial 

developments could increase the percentage 

of time that human caused noise is audible 

from the parkway. For instance, the 

development of wind power may increase the 

audibility of low-frequency noise which is 

emitted from wind turbines. Additionally, 

actions associated with road construction may 

cause short-term disruptions and increased 

noise. Developments of new highways would 

cause long-term increases in the amount of 

noise that would be audible in certain 

locations of the parkway. Finally, resource 

protection activities would likely help 

preserve the natural soundscape of the 

parkway by providing a buffer from extrinsic 

noise. For example, conservation easements 

would prevent the conversion of farmlands to 

residential developments, thereby decreasing 

the amount of extrinsic noise in proximity to 

the parkway. 

There would be beneficial impacts to visitor 

opportunities to experience natural 

soundscapes from recreation and tourism 

enhancements and resource protection 

activities. There would be adverse impacts to 

visitor opportunities to experience natural 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

422 

soundscapes from residential and commercial 

developments and road construction and 

improvements. Overall, there would be longterm negligible adverse impacts to visitor 

opportunities to experience natural 

soundscapes when the effects of alternative A 

are added to the enhanced recreation and 

resource protection activities. Impacts from 

the ongoing implementation of the no-action 

alternative combined with the effects of 

residential and commercial development and 

road construction and improvements would 

cause short-term and long-term negligible to 

moderate adverse impacts to visitor 

opportunities to experience natural 

soundscapes. The NPS contribution to 

adverse cumulative effects would be 

considerable due to a lack of management 

strategies to address noise issues within the 

parkway. 

Conclusion. There would continue to be 

long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts 

to visitor opportunities to experience natural 

sounds due to loud, excessive, or disturbing 

noise events, limited education about how 

visitors can reduce self-noise, and limited 

interpretive materials for visitors seeking to 

learn more about the natural soundscapes of 

the Blue Ridge Parkway. Additionally, some 

visitors in parkway campgrounds might 

experience long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impacts due to unacceptable use of 

generators or experience unsatisfactory 

perceptions of generator noise. Overall, there 

would be long-term negligible adverse impacts 

to visitor opportunities to experience natural 

soundscapes when the effects of alternative A 

are added to the enhanced recreation and 

resource protection activities. Additionally, 

there would be short-term and long-term 

negligible to moderate adverse impacts to 

visitor opportunities to experience natural 

soundscape when the impacts of alternative A 

are added to the effects of residential and 

commercial development and road 

construction and improvements.

Alternative B (NPS Preferred) 

Parkway-wide. Under alternative B, the 

parkway would have formal management 

strategies for soundscapes. There would be an 

increase in visitor contacts and the use of 

interpretive information pertaining to 

soundscapes. Possible indirect management 

strategies include identifying quiet zones, 

encouraging visitors to be aware of self-noise 

and how it affects others, discouraging the use 

of modified exhaust systems on motorcycles, 

and working with federal, state, and local 

agencies to reduce noise. Direct management 

strategies include stricter enforcement of rules 

and regulations (including 36 CFR 2.12), 

consideration of permits for organized group 

rides or events passing through the parkway 

and the reduction of parkway maintenance 

noise especially in sensitive areas or at 

ecologically sensitive times. However, some 

visitors would continue to submit complaints 

about excessive or disturbing noise. The types 

of activities that generate complaints include 

motorcycle noise and RV (generator) noise in 

the campgrounds. As a result of the above 

strategies, there would be long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impacts to visitor 

opportunities to experience natural sounds 

due to possible reduction of loud, excessive, 

or disturbing noise events, increased 

education about how visitors can reduce selfnoise, and improved interpretive materials for 

visitors seeking to learn more about the 

natural soundscapes of the Blue Ridge 

Parkway. 

Parkway Segments. The individual

parkway segments would not experience 

more specific impacts than those described 

under the parkway-wide and recreation areas 

sections. Therefore, analysis conducted within 

the aforementioned sections applies to all 

parkway segments.

Recreation Areas. Compared to alternative 

A, campgrounds under alternative B would be 

quieter. Under alternative B, all RV sites 

would be upgraded with water and electrical 

hookups, except for Roanoke Mountain. 

Roanoke Mountain would be converted to a 

day use area; therefore, noise from RVs would 
Visitor Use and Experience 

423 

no longer be an issue. At RV camping sites 

with new electrical hookups, visitors with RVs 

would be less likely to use their generators in 

the campground, decreasing likelihood of 

disturbance to other visitors. Under 

alternative B, visitors would be encouraged to 

observe quiet hours and there would be 

increased interpretive material available 

pertaining to the benefits of natural 

soundscapes. Therefore, some visitors in 

parkway campgrounds would experience 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

impacts due to reduced noise from generators 

and increased opportunities to experience 

natural sounds. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, or 

reasonably foreseeable actions may affect 

visitor opportunities to experience natural 

soundscapes. Based on responses from the 29 

counties that represent the regional influence, 

those actions include recreation and tourism 

enhancements, residential and commercial 

developments, road constructions and 

improvements, and resource protection 

activities. Possible impacts from recreation 

and tourism enhancements include 

development of greenways, bike trails, and 

other recreation opportunities that would 

allow visitors more access to natural areas and 

experiences of natural sounds. For example, 

increased stream access would allow visitors 

to hear the sounds of flowing water. Nearby 

residential and commercial developments 

could increase the percentage of time that 

human caused noise is audible from the 

parkway. For example, the development of 

wind power may increase the audibility of 

low-frequency noise which is emitted from 

wind turbines. Additionally, actions 

associated with road construction may cause 

short-term disruptions and increased noise. 

However, developments of new highways 

would cause long-term increases in the 

amount of noise that would be audible in 

certain locations of the parkway. Finally, 

resource protection activities would help 

preserve the natural soundscape of the 

parkway by providing a buffer from extrinsic 

noise. For example, conservation easements 

would prevent the conversion of farmlands to 

residential developments, thereby decreasing 

the amount of extrinsic noise in proximity to 

the parkway. 

There would be beneficial impacts to visitors 

from an increase in opportunities to 

experience natural soundscapes from 

recreation and tourism enhancements and 

resource protection activities. There would be 

adverse impacts to visitor opportunities to 

experience natural soundscapes from 

residential and commercial developments and 

road construction and improvements. 

Overall, there would be long-term moderate 

beneficial impacts to visitor opportunities to 

experience natural soundscapes when the 

effects of alternative B are added to the 

enhanced recreation and resource protection 

activities. However, there would also be shortterm and long-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts to visitor opportunities to 

experience natural soundscapes when the 

impacts of alternative B are added to the 

effects of residential and commercial 

development and road construction and 

improvements. Overall, NPS management 

under alternative B would contribute a 

considerable amount to beneficial cumulative 

effects and a small amount to adverse 

cumulative effects. 

Conclusion. There would be long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial impacts to 

visitor opportunities to experience natural 

sounds due to possible reduction of loud, 

excessive, or disturbing noise events, 

increased education about how visitors can 

reduce self-noise, and improved interpretive 

materials for visitors seeking to learn more 

about the natural soundscapes of the Blue 

Ridge Parkway. Some visitors in parkway 

campgrounds might experience long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial impacts due to 

reduced use of generators and increased 

opportunities to experience natural sounds. 

Roanoke Mountain campground would be 

converted to a day use area and noise 

complaints related to generator noise would 

no longer apply. Due to improved education 

on the importance of natural soundscapes, 

there would be long-term minor beneficial 

impacts to visitor opportunities to experience 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

424 

natural soundscapes in the campgrounds. 

Overall, there would be long-term moderate 

beneficial impacts to visitor opportunities to 

experience natural soundscapes when the 

effects of alternative B are added to the 

cumulative impacts of enhanced recreation 

and resource protection activities. However, 

there would also be short-term and long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impacts to visitor 

opportunities to experience natural 

soundscapes when the impacts of alternative B 

are added to the cumulative effects of 

residential and commercial development and 

road construction and improvements.

Alternative C 

Parkway-wide. Under alternative C, the 

parkway would have formal management 

strategies for soundscapes. There would be an 

increase in visitor contacts and the use of 

interpretive information pertaining to 

soundscapes. Possible indirect management 

strategies include identifying quiet zones, 

encouraging visitors to be aware of self-noise 

and how it affects others, discouraging the use 

of modified exhaust systems on motorcycles, 

and working with federal, state, and local 

agencies to reduce noise. Direct management 

strategies include stricter enforcement of rules 

and regulations (including 36 CFR 2.12), 

consideration of permits for organized group 

rides or events passing through the parkway, 

and the reduction of parkway maintenance 

noise especially in sensitive areas or at 

ecologically sensitive times. However, some 

visitors would continue to submit complaints 

about excessive or disturbing noise. The types 

of activities that generate complaints along the 

parkway include motorcycle noise and RV 

(generator) noise in the campgrounds. As a 

result of the above strategies, there would be 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

impacts to visitor opportunities to experience 

natural sounds due to possible reduction of 

loud, excessive, or disturbing noise events, 

increased education about how visitors can 

reduce self-noise, and improved interpretive 

materials for visitors seeking to learn more 

about the natural soundscapes of the Blue 

Ridge Parkway. 

Parkway Segments. Individual parkway 

segments would not experience more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide and recreation areas sections. 

Therefore, analysis conducted within the 

aforementioned sections applies to all 

parkway segments.

 

Recreation Areas. Under alternative C, all 

RV sites would be upgraded with water and 

electrical hookups. At RV camping sites with 

new electrical hookups, visitors with RVs 

would be less likely to use their generators in 

the campground, decreasing the likelihood of 

noise disturbance to other visitors. Therefore, 

some visitors in the parkway campgrounds 

might experience long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impacts due to reduced 

noise from generators and increased 

opportunities to experience natural sounds. 

Under alternative C, visitors would be 

encouraged to observe quiet hours and there 

would be increased interpretive materials 

available pertaining to the benefits of natural 

soundscapes. Due to increased availability of 

education materials, there would be long-term 

minor beneficial impacts to visitor 

opportunities to experience and understand 

the importance of natural soundscapes. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past, present, or 

reasonably foreseeable actions may affect 

visitor opportunities to experience natural 

soundscapes. Based on responses from the 29 

counties that represent the regional influence, 

those actions include recreation and tourism 

enhancements, residential and commercial 

developments, road constructions and 

improvements, and resource protection 

activities. Possible impacts from recreation 

and tourism enhancements include 

development of greenways, bike trails, and 

other recreation opportunities that would 

allow visitors more access to natural areas and 

experiences of natural sounds. For example, 

increased stream access would allow visitors 

to hear the sounds of flowing water. Nearby 

residential and commercial developments 

could increase the percentage of time that 

human caused noise is audible from the 

parkway. For instance, the development of 

wind power may increase the audibility of 
Visitor Use and Experience 

425 

low-frequency noise which is emitted from 

wind turbines. Additionally, actions 

associated with road construction may cause 

short-term disruptions and increased noise. 

However, developments of new highways 

would cause long-term increases in the 

amount of noise that would be audible in 

certain locations of the parkway. Finally, 

resource protection activities would likely 

help preserve the natural soundscape of the 

parkway by providing a buffer from extrinsic 

noise. For example, conservation easements 

would prevent the conversion of farmlands to 

residential developments, thereby decreasing 

the amount of extrinsic noise in proximity to 

the parkway. 

There would be beneficial impacts to visitor 

opportunities to experience natural 

soundscapes from recreation and tourism 

enhancements and resource protection 

activities. There would be adverse impacts to 

visitor opportunities to experience natural 

soundscapes from residential and commercial 

developments and road construction and 

improvements. Overall, there would be longterm moderate beneficial impacts to visitor 

opportunities to experience natural 

soundscapes when the effects of alternative C 

are added to the enhanced recreation and 

resource protection activities. However, there 

would also be short-term and long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impacts to visitor 

opportunities to experience natural 

soundscape when the impacts of alternative C 

are added to the effects of residential and 

commercial development and road 

construction and improvements. Overall, NPS 

management under alternative C would 

contribute a considerable amount to 

beneficial cumulative effects and a small 

amount to adverse cumulative effects. 

Conclusion. There would be long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial impacts to 

visitor opportunities to experience natural 

sounds due to possible reduction of loud, 

excessive, or disturbing noise events, 

increased education about how visitors can 

reduce self-noise, and improved interpretive 

materials for visitors seeking to learn more 

about the natural soundscapes of the Blue 

Ridge Parkway. Some visitors in the parkway 

campgrounds may experience long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial impacts due to 

reduced use of generators and increased 

opportunities to experience natural sounds. 

Due to improved outreach, there would be 

long-term minor beneficial impacts to visitor 

opportunities to experience and understand 

the importance of natural soundscapes in the 

campgrounds. Overall, there would be longterm moderate beneficial impacts to visitor 

opportunities to experience natural 

soundscapes when the effects of alternative C 

are added to the cumulative impacts of 

enhanced recreation and resource protection 

activities. However, there would also be shortterm and long-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts to visitor opportunities to 

experience natural soundscapes when the 

impacts of alternative C are added to the 

cumulative effects of residential and 

commercial development and road 

construction and improvements.
426 

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION 

INTRODUCTION 

This analysis describes impacts on traffic and 

transportation from the management 

alternatives at two different scales: a parkwaywide analysis, which describes the overall 

effect of broad programmatic actions, and a 

parkway segment and recreation area analysis, 

which looks at more site-specific impacts on 

the parkway’s 7 segments and 15 recreation 

areas. 

This section has been organized by the impact 

topics listed, which correspond to the topics 

described in “Chapter 3: Affected 

Environment.” Similar topics have been 

grouped together to limit redundancy and to 

present the analysis in the most 

understandable and concise means possible. 

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR 

ANALYZING IMPACTS 

Impacts on Traffic and Transportation 

include 

 vehicular access (related to potential 

grade separations or driveway 

limitations) 

 future traffic volumes and levels of 

service 

 traffic mix (cars / motorcycles / bicycles / 

RVs) 

 traffic-related safety 

 parking conditions 

 alternative transportation modes 

Impacts have been assessed in regards to what 

effect the management actions of each 

alternative would have on recreational users 

of the parkway. As an example, elements of an 

alternative that are expected to reduce 

nonrecreational traffic in parts of the parkway 

by replacing at-grade intersections with grade 

separations, are described as having a 

beneficial impact. This is because it improves 

conditions for recreational users. The 

resulting negative impacts for nonrecreational 

users would not be considered as adverse 

impacts, because accommodating these users 

is not part of the parkway’s mission. Impacts 

are assessed in the context of traffic and 

transportation conditions during the 

parkway’s peak seasons, which include the 

summer travel season from July through 

August and the viewing of fall leaves in 

October. 

Traffic forecasts for the Blue Ridge Parkway 

were projected from traffic counts that were 

obtained in 2002 (DEA 2002). With no 

entrance fees, the parkway handles a relatively 

large amount of nonrecreation trips as local 

residents use the parkway road for commuting 

or personal business. Local traffic on the 

parkway occurs in the urban as well as in the 

rural areas where the parkway may be the 

most direct route or where there are fewer 

desirable alternate routes. These 

nonrecreation trips are included in the 

existing traffic counts along the parkway. 

Trip purpose was estimated from roadside 

surveys collected in August 2002 (DEA 2002). 

Recreational trips make up the majority of 

trips along the parkway, but nonrecreational 

trips make up a substantial amount of the 

traffic traveling the parkway in particular 

areas. Considering the relatively high amount 

of nonrecreational trips on the parkway in 

some areas, these trips were projected 

separately from the recreational traffic 

volumes. Nonrecreational trips were 

separated from the recreational trips and a 

different growth rate was applied to the 

volumes based on expected changes in local 

population and traffic growth surrounding the 

parkway. Traffic forecasts were estimated 

using growth rates applied to the existing 

(2002) average peak season traffic volume at 

each parkway and intersection location. The 

growth rate used at each location considered 

the expected population growth of the 

surrounding area and the types of trips 

normally found at that location (recreational 

versus nonrecreational). 
Traffic and Transportation 

427 

The historic traffic counts, and therefore, 

visitation estimates vary widely from year to 

year. High and low volume years could be a 

factor of economic, social, and other 

conditions, such as weather, local and national 

economy, regional events, road construction, 

and mechanical counter malfunction. 

Considering these anomalies, calculations for 

time periods between 5 and 10 years were 

made to estimate a reasonable historical 

growth rate for each location. This growth 

rate was applied to the recreational traffic 

volumes along the parkway. 

Growth rates for the nonrecreational traffic 

along the parkway were found from county 

population trends and forecasts documented 

in the Socioeconomic Atlas for Blue Ridge 

Parkway and its Region (NPS 2003). Updated 

socio-economic data, obtained from the states 

of Virginia (2007a, b) and North Carolina 

(2008a, b), were also incorporated into these 

projections. This estimate assumes that the 

average per-person frequency of accessing the 

parkway for nonrecreational use would 

remain generally the same across the forecast 

period. The population forecasts shown in the 

socioeconomic report were modified prior to 

applying the growth rates to the 

nonrecreational traffic volumes to account for 

the differences in topography and access to 

the parkway in each segment. For example, 

there is over 31% growth in population 

identified for the counties surrounding the 

Pisgah segment (NPS 2003), which translates 

to a 2.7% annual growth rate. However, the 

annual growth rate was adjusted for 

nonrecreational travel to account for the 

geographic constraints and limited access to 

the parkway in the area. 

The baseline annual growth rates for each 

study segment are shown in table 54. As 

explained previously, different annual growth 

rates were determined for recreational and 

nonrecreational trips by study segment. 

To evaluate the impacts of each alternative, 

2020 weekday and weekend roadway segment 

and intersection traffic volumes were 

estimated for each alternative based on 

proposed changes to the roadway network 

(i.e., access modifications), changes in parking 

conditions, changes to recreation areas, and 

estimated reductions in automobile trips due 

to transit service. 

TABLE 54. BASELINE ANNUAL GROWTH RATES 

FOR PARKWAY TRAFFIC FORECASTS

Study 

Segment 

Annual Growth by Trip Purpose 

Recreational Nonrecreational 

Ridge 1.9% 0.6% 

Roanoke 1.1% 0.3% 

Plateau 1.0% 0.5% 

Highlands 1.7% 0.4% 

Black 

Mountains 1.0% 0.8% 

Asheville 1.7% 1.2% 

Pisgah 1.7% 1.2% 

Source: Calculations by DEA. 

A visitor use and carrying capacity study was 

conducted in August 2002 and documented in 

the Visitor Survey Study Completion Report for 

the Blue Ridge Parkway (December 2002) to 

determine the visitor acceptability of different 

level of service traffic conditions along the 

parkway during a typical summer weekend. 

Visitor satisfaction related to the traffic 

volumes and levels of service experienced 

while traveling along the parkway were also 

measured. The results indicate that any 

operation at or below level of service C is 

unacceptable for parkway visitor experience 

(DEA 2004). Using the results of the 2002 

study, expected effects to visitor satisfaction 

along the parkway was considered with the 

2020 traffic volumes, levels of service, and 

proposed modifications to the recreation 

areas under each alternative. 

It is expected that alternatives that would 

provide more amenities for RVs would attract 

more RV drivers to the parkway, which would 

impact traffic conditions on the parkway. 

Large changes in the traffic mix may also 

impact the vehicular safety along the parkway. 

Each alternative was evaluated on the basis of 

its expected impact on vehicular safety, 

including the potential for increasing or 

reducing traffic-related accidents. 

Evaluating the existing parking conditions and 

traffic growth estimates for year 2020, 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

428 

expected parking use at recreational areas was 

considered with the proposed parking 

changes under each alternative. Each 

alternative was also evaluated on the basis of 

its expected impact on the usage of alternative 

modes of transportation (primarily public or 

private buses or shuttles) to access and travel 

along the parkway. 

The following impact thresholds have been 

developed for analyzing the effects of the 

alternatives on traffic and transportation. 

Negligible: The impact would be a change 

that would not be perceptible or would be 

barely perceptible by recreational travelers of 

the parkway.

Minor: The impact would have a slight 

adverse or beneficial change to travel time or 

delay. The impact would be noticeable, but 

would result in little inconvenience or benefit 

to recreational travelers of the parkway. 

Impacts on vehicular safety could be realized 

through a slight increase or decrease in the 

potential for vehicular conflicts. The impact 

would be measurable or perceptible and it 

would be limited to a relatively small number 

of visitors at local areas. 

Moderate: The impact would affect a large 

number of recreational travelers of the 

parkway and it would result in a noticeable 

change in travel time, delay, convenience, or 

benefit. 

The impact on vehicular safety would be 

sufficient to cause an increase or decrease in 

accident rates at existing high accident 

locations or to create the potential for 

additional vehicular conflicts in areas that do 

not currently exhibit noticeable vehicular 

conflict trends. 

Major: There would be a substantial impact 

on a large number of recreational travelers of 

the parkway and it would result in a highly 

noticeable change in travel time, delay, 

convenience, or benefit. 

The impact on vehicular safety would be 

substantial either through the elimination of 

potential hazards or the creation of them. 

ALTERNATIVE A—NO-ACTION 

Parkway-wide 

Alternative A represents a continuation of 

current management direction. The parkway 

would continue to be managed primarily as a 

scenic recreational driving experience and 

designed landscape to provide visitors an 

uninterrupted, primarily self-contained drive, 

with parkway amenities along the way. 

However, continued development along the 

parkway outside the parkway’s jurisdiction 

would detract from the idyllic mountain 

driving experience. Scenic quality of views 

along the parkway would be lost as rural farm 

and undeveloped forest landscapes continue 

to undergo commercial and residential 

development. Visitors at the busiest recreation 

areas during the summer peak weekends have 

noted traffic congestion and difficulty finding 

a parking space as two of the parkway’s 

biggest problems. Under alternative A, these 

conditions would worsen due to projected 

increases in visitation over time. 

Nonrecreational traffic would continue to 

increase with increased urban growth, 

compounding the congestion issues that 

currently frustrate recreational visitors. This is 

addressed in more detail under “Cumulative 

Effects,” below. 

Traffic forecasts for alternative A are shown in 

table 55. Average peak season daily traffic 

volumes were estimated for the weekday and 

weekend conditions in 2010, 2015, and 2020. 

The growth rates for each segment consider 

the variation of trip type at each location and 

the different growth rates for the recreational 

and nonrecreational trips. 
Traffic and Transportation 

429 

TABLE 55. PEAK SEASON AVERAGE DAILY 2020 TRAFFIC CONDITIONS - ALTERNATIVE A 

Segment 

Weekday Daily Volume 

 (vehicles/day) 

Weekend Daily Volume 

(vehicles/day) 

2020 Weekend 

2010 2015 2020 2010 2015 2020 Level of Service 

Ridge 1,940 2,090 2,250 2,200 2,380 2,560 B 

Roanoke 940 980 1,010 1,260 1,300 1,350 A 

Plateau 850 890 920 1,950 2,030 2,110 B 

Highlands 2,840 3,040 3,260 3,790 4,070 4,360 C 

Black Mountains 1,680 1,770 1,860 2,400 2,520 2,650 B 

Asheville 1,710 1,860 2,020 2,430 2,640 2,880 B 

Pisgah 1,220 1,320 1,430 2,800 3,030 3,280 B 

Source: Calculations by DEA and traffic counts by TRA in August 2002. 

Alternative A is based on current management 

approaches and trends. These approaches 

include substantial guidance from the original 

Parkway Land Use Maps. The maps do not 

include management zones. As part of this 

alternative, the parkway would continue to 

acquire interests in lands adjoining the 

parkway boundary from willing sellers to 

eliminate private road accesses, protect high 

quality scenic views, and better manage the 

boundary. These acquisitions are part of an 

approved overall land protection strategy. 

Management of these acquired parcels by the 

parkway would eliminate the added 

nonrecreational traffic that would be 

associated with potential residential or 

commercial developments on those parcels. 

This would result in a slight beneficial 

reduction in traffic delay and a slight decrease 

in the potential for vehicular conflicts. Only a 

small number of visitors in local areas would 

be affected. This would result in beneficial 

local long-term minor impacts on traffic 

volume, level of service, and traffic safety 

conditions. 

As part of this alternative, the parkway would 

continue to cyclically cut vistas currently on 

the vista inventory for scenic viewing 

purposes. About 10% of the original vista 

locations are no longer being maintained. 

Decisions to eliminate a vista or open up a 

new one have occurred over time in a 

piecemeal fashion. Parkway staff has not 

developed a comprehensive parkwide 

approach for vista management. Without a 

flexible management strategy in place to guide 

modifications of these historic locations, the 

parkway would not have the ability to provide 

alternate locations when it may be advisable to 

relocate them for reasons of traffic safety. As a 

result, there would be the potential for 

adverse local long-term minor impacts in the 

area of traffic safety conditions. 

No additional constraints would be placed on 

nonrecreational local and commuter traffic. 

Traffic volumes associated with these trip 

purposes would continue to increase as rural 

and urban lands adjacent to the parkway are 

developed for residential and commercial 

purposes, outside the potential parkway land 

acquisitions described earlier. As this 

alternative would not include access 

modifications, there would be no measurable 

impact in the area of vehicular access. There 

would be adverse local long-term minor to 

moderate impacts on traffic volumes, level of 

service, and traffic safety conditions. 

Certain campground comfort stations would 

be upgraded to provide showers and universal 

accessibility. Improvements to this 

campground amenity would be expected to 

increase campground use somewhat, although 

this is only one of many factors in the 

decision-making process for potential 

overnight visitors. This would result in 

adverse local long-term negligible impacts on 

traffic volumes, level of service, and traffic 

safety conditions. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

430 

Short-term impacts on traffic and 

transportation would occur from ongoing 

maintenance and traffic control activities. As 

the parkway road requires repair, vehicular 

access, level of service, traffic mix, and trafficrelated safety would be adversely affected as 

construction crews close sections of the 

parkway or reroute traffic around work areas. 

At congested parking areas parkway staff may 

need to implement temporary traffic control 

measures, such as directing traffic to other 

parking lots or closing lots when full, 

adversely affecting vehicular access and 

parking conditions until the issue subsides. 

Depending on the location and extent of the 

maintenance work or congestion, these 

impacts would be noticeable but of little 

inconvenience, or would affect a large number 

of travelers, resulting in a noticeable change in 

travel, time, delay, convenience, or benefit. 

Therefore, short-term impacts would be local, 

adverse, and minor to moderate. Mitigation 

measures, such as implementing a traffic 

control plan, would reduce adverse impacts 

on minor where construction activities would 

occur. 

Parkway Segments and Recreation 

Areas 

Only those parkway segments and recreation 

areas that would experience more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide section are described below. 

Segment 4: Highlands. The largest 

volumes along the parkway are projected for 

the Highlands segment, with 2020 daily 

volumes of 3,260 vehicles per day on the 

weekdays and 4,360 vehicles per day on the 

weekends. The segment would operate at level 

of service C during the peak season weekends, 

which falls below the level of acceptable 

conditions for the visitor’s driving experience 

according to the results of the 2002 visitor use 

and carrying capacity study. However, no 

congestion problems would be expected at the 

intersections that provide access to the 

parkway in this segment with all intersections 

projected to operate at level of service B or 

better. Long-term impacts would be adverse, 

local, and minor to traffic volumes, level of 

service, and traffic safety conditions during 

peak season weekends. 

Segment 6: Asheville. The highest growth 

in traffic volumes along the parkway is 

projected for the Asheville segment, with an 

annual growth rate of 1.7%. The segment 

would operate at level of service B. The 

intersection with the highest delay along the 

parkway would be in this segment at the south 

intersection with U.S. 74 in the southeast part 

of Asheville. The average delay during the PM 

peak hour of a peak season weekend would be 

about 30 seconds per vehicle and the 

intersection would operate at level of service 

D, which is below the acceptable level for 

visitor experience and would result in adverse 

local long-term minor impacts on traffic 

volumes, level of service, and traffic safety 

conditions. 

Segment 7: Pisgah. This segment has a 

number of popular overlooks. The most 

crowded parking conditions are at the 30-

space lot at the Graveyard Fields Overlook 

(milepost 416), which currently operates overcapacity on peak season weekends. Future 

increases in traffic volumes would intensify 

this parking issue, resulting in adverse local 

long-term minor impacts. The 30-space lot at 

the Looking Glass Rock Overlook (milepost 

413) is currently underused with a weekend 

occupancy rate estimated at about 35%. The 

Waterrock Knob Visitor Center (milepost 

451) has a large 110-space lot that is also 

currently underused with a weekend 

occupancy rate of about 40%. For these 

reasons, continuation of current management 

practices would likely have no measurable 

effect on parking conditions at these 

locations. 

Moses H. Cone Memorial Park. The 

Moses H. Cone Memorial Park Visitor Center 

(milepost 293) in the Highlands segment has a 

45-space lot that currently operates overcapacity on peak season weekends. Because 

this recreation area is being addressed under a 

separate management planning study, the 

future impacts of the alternatives will not be 
Traffic and Transportation 

431 

addressed as part of this parkway-wide 

general management plan. 

Peaks of Otter. The Peaks of Otter 

Recreation area (milepost 85) in the Ridge 

segment has a 29-space lot that is currently 

operating near-capacity on peak season 

weekends. Future increases in traffic volumes 

would intensify this parking issue that would 

be barely perceptible or noticeable but of little 

inconvenience for travelers, resulting in 

adverse local long-term negligible to minor 

impacts. 

Linville Falls. The Linville Falls Visitor 

Center (milepost 315) in the Black Mountains 

segment has an 85-space lot that currently 

operates at capacity on peak season weekends. 

Future increases in traffic volumes would 

intensify this parking issue to be noticeable 

but of little inconvenience for travelers, 

resulting in adverse local long-term minor 

impacts. 

Cumulative Effects 

Several counties and municipalities adjacent 

to the parkway have implemented or are 

planning to undertake a variety of recreation 

and tourism initiatives to grow local 

economies. Several counties also anticipate 

substantial new residential developments. 

These actions would draw more visitors and 

residents overall, impacting vehicular access, 

increasing future traffic volumes, degrading 

level of service, and increasing traffic-related 

safety issues. These effects would be 

particularly evident in areas such as the 

Highlands and Asheville segments, which 

experience the largest parkway volumes and 

largest growth rates, respectively. Safety issues 

related to traffic mix could also increase as 

more recreational drivers share the roads with 

local and commuter drivers. Increased 

tourism would contribute to deterioration of 

parking conditions in the parkway, especially 

in those segments that experience 

overcrowding at parking areas, such as Pisgah 

and Linville Falls. 

Some local efforts would beneficially affect 

traffic volumes. Many state and local plans call 

for widening of highways and improvements 

to transportation systems in certain areas near 

or crossing the parkway, particularly in 

Roanoke and North Carolina. Other counties 

also plan to construct new roads or implement 

deferred maintenance projects. In addition, 

resource protection activities occurring on 

surrounding lands would preserve those areas 

and remove them from the possibility of 

development, which would help control 

development to a limited extent in specific 

areas. These activities would help offset some 

of the effects of increased traffic volumes, 

particularly related to traffic-related safety 

and level of service, resulting in long-term 

beneficial impacts that would vary in intensity 

depending on location. 

The actions described previously would 

combine with those the parkway would 

conduct under alternative A that are expected 

to have minor adverse and beneficial longterm impacts. The resulting cumulative 

impacts on vehicular access, future traffic 

volumes and level of service, traffic mix, 

traffic-related safety, and parking would be 

long-term adverse and beneficial, local, and 

vary from minor to moderate. 

Conclusion 

Short-term impacts would occur from 

ongoing maintenance and traffic control 

activities. As the parkway road requires repair, 

vehicular access, level of service, traffic mix, 

and traffic-related safety would be adversely 

affected by construction-related closures or 

reroutes. At congested parking areas, parkway 

staff may need to implement temporary traffic 

control measures. Depending on the location 

and extent of these activities, short-term 

impacts would be local, adverse, and minor to 

moderate. 

Parkway-wide beneficial local long-term 

minor impacts on traffic volume, level of 

service, and traffic safety would result from 

acquisition of adjacent land, by eliminating 

some additional nonrecreational traffic 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

432 

associated with nearby development. Adverse 

local long-term minor impacts would result 

from the lack of a vista management strategy, 

which would hamper the parkway’s ability to 

relocate scenic vistas based on traffic safety 

reasons. As traffic volumes associated with 

nonrecreational local and commuter traffic 

increases, adverse local long-term minor to 

moderate impacts on traffic volumes, level of 

service, and traffic safety would occur. 

Increased use of campgrounds would also 

result in adverse local long-term negligible 

impacts on traffic volumes, level of service, 

and traffic safety. 

Individual segments and recreation areas 

would experience adverse local long-term 

minor impacts, mostly related to high traffic 

volumes, which would affect traffic volumes, 

level of service, and traffic safety. Some 

segments and recreation areas would 

experience over-capacity issues, particularly 

affecting parking areas, resulting in adverse 

local long-term negligible to minor impacts on 

traffic volumes, level of service, and traffic 

safety. 

Cumulative impacts on vehicular access, 

future traffic volumes, level of service, traffic 

mix, traffic-related safety, and parking would 

be long-term adverse and beneficial, local, and 

minor to moderate. These impacts would 

result from combining the adverse impacts of 

local recreation and tourism initiatives that 

would draw more visitors and residents to the 

area, the beneficial impacts of state and local 

highway and transportation improvements, 

and the minor adverse and beneficial impacts 

of the actions planned under alternative A. 

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS PREFERRED) 

Parkway-wide 

Alternative B would provide an emphasis on 

the original parkway design and traditional 

driving experience, while enhancing outdoor 

recreational opportunities and regional 

natural resource connectivity. This alternative 

emphasizes a commitment to continuation of 

traditional visitor services, such as hiking, 

picnicking, and campground facilities, and 

commercial services for food, lodging, and 

sales. A majority of the developed, 

frontcountry portions of recreation areas 

would be zoned historic parkway and a 

majority of the backcountry portions would 

be zoned recreation. This zoning approach 

focuses on providing recreational 

opportunities that are dispersed in the 

recreation zone. To enhance outdoor 

recreational opportunities, 7,751 acres 

parkway-wide—9.4% of the parkway’s total 

area—would be zoned recreation. 

Recreational opportunities would focus on 

the outdoors and include organized group 

programs, self-guiding interpretation, nature 

observation, picnicking, hiking, backpacking, 

viewing natural and cultural resources, 

photography, exploring, and backcountry 

camping. Trails in the Blue Ridge Parkway 

would be modified to better link visitor use 

sites with parkway recreation areas. Where 

appropriate, horseback riding would be 

allowed on certain designated trails. The 

Historic Parkway Zone in the majority of the 

frontcountry areas would result in minimal 

changes from the alternative A condition. 

The enhanced recreational opportunities and 

upgrades to visitor services would be expected 

to attract more visitors and increase visitation 

along the parkway, particularly in areas near 

the population centers of Roanoke and 

Asheville. The changes would also encourage 

longer stays at a recreation area and draw 

users farther away from the roadway into the 

backcountry. Although the primary elements 

of alternative B involve improvements to 

specific locations, such as recreation areas, 

visitors would typically be required to travel 

substantial portions of the parkway segments 

to get to their desired destinations. Traffic 

forecasts for alternative B are shown in table 

56. 
Traffic and Transportation 

433 

TABLE 56. PEAK SEASON AVERAGE DAILY 2020 TRAFFIC FORECASTS - ALTERNATIVE B

Segment 

Weekday Daily Volume 

(vehicles/day) 

Weekend Daily Volume 

(vehicles/day) 

2020 Weekend 

2020 Level of Service 

Increase from 

Alternative A 2020 

Increase from 

Alternative A 

Ridge 2,320 70 2,860 300 B 

Roanoke 1,030 20 1,590 240 A 

Plateau 920 0 2,280 170 B 

Highlands 3,260 0 4,710 350 C 

Black Mountains 1,910 50 2,900 250 B 

Asheville 2,060 40 3,530 650 B 

Pisgah 1,490 60 3,740 460 B 

Source: Calculations by DEA. 

Visitors from the local and regional 

population centers around the Blue Ridge 

Parkway who would be drawn to the 

enhanced recreational opportunities along the 

parkway are more likely to visit on a weekend 

than on a weekday. Therefore, the greatest 

differences between weekday and weekend 

growth rates would be in the Roanoke and 

Asheville segments. 

It is estimated that weekday recreational 

traffic would increase by about 3% to 5% as 

compared to alternative A, with the greatest 

increases in the end segments due to their 

proximity to the largest portions of the 

regional population base within a day’s drive 

from the parkway. Because new grade 

separations would be constructed that would 

remove access to the parkway at some existing 

public road intersections, it is assumed that 

nonrecreational traffic on both weekdays and 

weekends would decrease by as much as 10%, 

with the greatest decreases in the Plateau and 

Highlands segments which have the greatest 

number of secondary road accesses. It is 

estimated that weekend recreational traffic 

would increase by 10% to 25% as compared 

to alternative A, with the greatest increases in 

the Roanoke and Asheville segments because 

the enhanced recreational opportunities 

would draw most day use visitors from these 

regional population centers. 

Visitor services would be expanded from six 

months to nine months as part of this 

alternative. This would draw more visitors to 

the parkway, although over a dispersed time 

frame. The proposed change in length of 

operating season would not be expected to 

produce any appreciable difference in 

parkway visitation during the peak season 

months and there would be no measurable 

impacts. 

Historic overlook and roadside vistas would 

be maintained and some closed roadside vistas 

would be reestablished in accordance with the 

historic designed landscape illustrated on the 

Parkway Land Use Maps and some new 

overlook or parking areas may be added. 

Adding these overlooks or parking areas along 

the parkway would add access points and 

slightly increase traffic turning movement 

conflicts. For this reason, there would be local 

long-term minor adverse impacts on traffic 

safety conditions. These new overlooks or 

parking areas would also have the potential to 

address parking shortages at other overlooks 

and parking areas by adding new parking that 

would disperse visitors and by discouraging 

motorists from stopping on the side of the 

parkway at unsafe locations. As a result, there 

would be the potential for local long-term 

minor beneficial impacts on parking and 

traffic safety conditions. 

Alternative B would provide some 

management of nonrecreational local and 

commuter traffic by replacing some at-grade 

intersections with new grade separation 

structures (either with or without indirect 

parkway access). Removing access at existing 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

434 

intersections where an appreciable amount of 

nonrecreational local and commuter traffic is 

known to access the parkway would reduce 

conflicts for recreational traffic along that 

section of the parkway. The grade separations 

would result in local long-term negligible 

adverse impacts in the area of vehicular access 

(due to providing less direct access for 

recreational travelers) and local long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial impacts on 

traffic volumes, level of service, and traffic 

safety conditions. 

Select comfort stations would be upgraded to 

provide showers and universal accessibility at 

all campgrounds (except Roanoke Mountain). 

Selected tent sites would also be enlarged to 

better accommodate family sized tents. 

Recreational vehicle sites would be upgraded 

to include water and electrical hookups but 

RV access would only be improved at three 

campgrounds (Peaks of Otter, Doughton 

Park, and Julian Price Park). These 

improvements to campground amenities 

would be expected to increase campground 

use more than alternative A resulting in local 

long-term minor adverse impacts on traffic 

volumes, level of service, and traffic safety 

conditions. It would also result in local longterm minor adverse impacts in the area of 

traffic mix, due to the increased volumes of 

RVs that may occur over time. 

Short-term impacts would be similar to 

alternative A. The enhanced recreational 

opportunities would accommodate more 

visitors and increase visitation along the 

parkway. Building grade separated structures 

and overflow parking would increase the 

amount of construction and repair activities. 

Alternative B’s zoning approach would focus 

on providing more dispersed recreational 

opportunities, thus potentially reducing 

congestion at parking areas as visitors become 

less concentrated at popular sites, with a 

comparable reduction in the need for traffic 

control measures. Depending on the location 

and extent of the maintenance work or 

congestion, these impacts would be noticeable 

but of little inconvenience, or would affect a 

large number of travelers, resulting in a 

noticeable change in travel, time, delay, 

convenience, or benefit. Therefore, shortterm impacts would be local, minor to 

moderate, and adverse. Mitigation measures, 

such as implementing a traffic control plan, 

would reduce adverse impacts where 

construction activities would occur. 

Parkway Segments and Recreation 

Areas 

Only those parkway segments and recreation 

areas that would experience more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide section are described below. 

Segments 1 and 2: Ridge and Roanoke.

As part of this alternative, slight modifications 

would be made to overlook landscaping, as 

necessary, to improve overlook visibility by 

passing traffic. While this action would be 

primarily provided to improve personal safety, 

it would also improve traffic safety where the 

sight distance would be improved for vehicles 

pulling out to the parkway. This would result 

in local long-term minor beneficial impacts in 

traffic safety conditions. 

Segment 4: Highlands. The largest 

volumes along the parkway are projected for 

the Highlands segment, with 2020 daily 

volumes of 3,260 vehicles per day on the 

weekdays and 4,710 vehicles per day on the 

weekends. The weekday volume forecast 

shows no change from alternative A due to 

two competing factors. It is expected that the 

addition of new grade separation structures 

would decrease the nonrecreational traffic 

volumes while the enhanced recreational 

opportunities would increase the recreational 

traffic volumes slightly. Because about 80% of 

the overall traffic in this segment is 

recreational, the increase in recreational 

volume is projected to be offset by the 

decrease in nonrecreational traffic. 

The segment would operate at level of service 

C during the peak season weekends, which 

falls below the level of acceptable conditions 

for the visitor’s driving experience according 

to the results of the 2002 visitor use and 

carrying capacity study. However, no 
Traffic and Transportation 

435 

congestion problems would be expected at the 

intersections that provide access to the 

parkway as part of this alternative with all 

intersections projected to operate at level of 

service B or better. Long-term impacts would 

be local, minor, and adverse to traffic 

volumes, level of service, and traffic safety 

conditions on peak season weekends. 

Segment 6: Asheville. The highest growth 

in traffic volumes along the parkway is 

projected for the Asheville segment, with an 

annual growth rate of 1.9% on weekdays and 

3.4% on weekends. These increases are a 

combination of the expected growth of the 

Asheville area population, which is relatively 

high as compared to the other segments, and 

the enhanced recreational opportunities that 

are part of this alternative. The segment would 

operate at level of service B.

The intersection with the highest delay along 

the parkway would be in this segment at the 

south intersection with U.S. 74 in the 

southeast part of Asheville. The average delay 

during the PM peak hour of a peak season 

weekend would be about 75 seconds per 

vehicle and the intersection would operate at 

level of service F, which is below the 

acceptable level for visitor experience and 

would result in local long-term moderate 

adverse impacts on traffic volumes, level of 

service, and traffic safety conditions. The 

addition of turn lanes at the intersection 

would mitigate the delay experienced by a 

large number of recreational travelers, 

reducing the adverse impacts on traffic safety 

conditions from moderate to minor. The 

adverse impacts on traffic volumes and level 

of service would remain moderate with the 

addition of turn lanes at the intersection. 

As part of this alternative, new parking 

facilities for recreational use would be added 

at locations along the parkway where illegal 

roadside parking currently occurs. These 

areas currently have recreational attractions, 

such as backcountry trail crossings, but no 

legal places to park. Illegal roadside parking 

causes traffic safety and traffic flow issues, 

with parked cars potentially encroaching on 

the already narrow parkway width, drivers 

opening car doors into the parkway driving 

lanes and drivers making u-turn maneuvers. 

Providing a solution to these problems would 

outweigh the increased traffic volumes the 

added parking may create, resulting in a local, 

long-term moderate beneficial impact on level 

of service, traffic safety conditions, and 

parking. 

Segment 7: Pisgah. As part of this 

alternative, water and electrical hookups 

would be added to existing RV sites at the Mt. 

Pisgah Campground. The impact of the 

potential increase in RV volumes associated 

with these improvements would be moderate 

in this segment, which includes 17 of the 

parkway’s 26 tunnels. A number of these 

tunnels have among the lowest vertical 

clearances along the parkway. Larger RVs 

would have a tendency to move towards the 

center of the tunnels, decreasing their 

potential to run into the tunnel lining but 

increasing the accident potential with 

oncoming traffic. This would result in local 

long-term moderate adverse impacts on traffic 

mix, traffic safety, traffic volumes, and level of 

service. 

This segment has a number of popular 

overlooks. The 30-space lot at the Graveyard 

Fields Overlook (milepost 416) would operate 

over-capacity on peak season weekends under 

alternative A. There would be increased traffic 

volume in this segment. During peak season 

weekends associated with alternative B, but 

this would be offset by the provision of added 

overflow parking. As a result, there would be 

local long-term minor beneficial impacts in 

the area of parking. 

Peaks of Otter. Enhanced recreational 

opportunities under alternative B at this 

recreation area would increase parking 

demand and visitor length of stay on peak 

season weekends but this would be offset by 

the provision of added overflow parking. As a 

result, there would be local long-term minor 

beneficial impacts in the area of parking. 

Roanoke Mountain. With its proximity to 

the Roanoke area, the enhanced outdoor 

recreational opportunities associated with the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

436 

Recreation zoning and new picnic facilities 

would attract an appreciable amount of new 

users. (The campground would be converted 

to a day use area, including picnic and trail 

staging facilities.) The changes would be 

noticeable, but would result in little 

inconvenience. Therefore, there would be 

local long-term minor adverse impacts on 

traffic volumes, level of service, and parking. 

Rocky Knob. The historic Civilian 

Conservation Corps campsite in Rock Castle 

Gorge would be zoned Special Cultural 

Resource. Increased emphasis on this area and 

interpretation at the site would result in a 

slight increase in overall visitation. As a result, 

it is expected that there would be local longterm minor adverse impacts on traffic 

volumes, level of service, and parking. 

Mabry Mill. The portion of the Mabry Mill 

area between the parkway and secondary road 

VA 603 would be zoned as Historic Parkway 

as part of this alternative. Within the historic 

parkway zone, the quality of existing trails and 

wayside exhibits would be improved and site 

signs would be upgraded. In the remainder of 

the site, pedestrian circulation, signs, and 

wayside exhibits would be redesigned. 

Additionally, interpretive media would be 

improved and more diverse presentations of 

mountain industry would be provided. This 

would lead to a slight increase in traffic which 

would result in local long-term minor adverse 

impacts on traffic volumes, level of service, 

and parking. 

VA 603 would be relocated to improve the 

safety of visitors crossing the road in this area 

as part of this alternative. There would be a 

slight decrease in the potential for vehicular 

conflicts in a local area. Therefore, this would 

provide local long-term minor beneficial 

impacts in traffic safety. 

Blue Ridge Music Center. Alternative B 

would expand information and orientation 

capabilities through partnerships and parkway 

staff would expand the parkway’s active 

participation in regional tourism projects. It is 

expected that these efforts would increase 

usage and cause adverse local long-term 

minor impacts on traffic volumes, level of 

service, and parking. 

Linville Falls. Enhanced recreational 

opportunities under alternative B at this 

recreation area would increase visitor length 

of stay on peak season weekends, but this 

would be offset by the provision of added 

overflow parking. There would be local longterm minor beneficial impacts in the area of 

parking. 

Craggy Gardens. Under alternative B the 

entire area is zoned Special Natural 

Resources, which limits hiking to designated 

trails and does not provide other backcountry 

facilities. The trail to Craggy Pinnacle would 

be removed and a trail to Craggy Dome would 

be developed. There is some concern that the 

proposed Craggy Dome trailhead parking area 

would not have the same capacity as the 

existing parking area. There would be no 

measurable impacts on traffic volumes, but 

there may be local long-term minor to 

moderate adverse impact in the area of 

parking if the proposed lot proves to be too 

small to accommodate the demand for the 

new trail. 

Mt. Pisgah. The size of the campground 

would be decreased by the closure of all tent 

camping sites that are directly adjacent to the 

rare high-elevation bog. A portion of the 

existing RV sites would be converted to tent 

camping, but water and electrical hookups 

would be added to the remaining RV sites. It is 

expected that the decreased number of RV 

sites and the improved amenities at the 

remaining sites would offset each other, with 

the net result being campground usage with 

no measurable impacts.

Cumulative Effects 

The parkway would provide additional trailbased recreation opportunities in recreation 

zones under this alternative, which would 

accommodate more visitors in the parkway 

and increase traffic and transportation-related 

impacts. However, other NPS management 

actions would help disperse visitors and lessen 
Traffic and Transportation 

437 

crowding. Increased visitation resulting from 

the parkway’s enhanced recreation 

opportunities, added to the local tourism 

initiatives, residential development, and 

increased demand for parkway resources, 

would affect vehicular access, future traffic 

volumes and level of service, traffic mix, traffic 

related safety, and parking conditions to a 

greater extent than alternative A. 

As described for alternative A, highway 

widening and roadway improvements planned 

near certain areas of the parkway would have 

a beneficial effect on traffic volumes and 

safety conditions. Resource protection 

activities occurring on surrounding lands 

would also help control development to a 

limited extent in specific areas. These actions 

would be combined with the primarily 

beneficial effects of the parkway’s plans to 

implement grade separations at certain 

locations, as described previously. Such 

actions would be particularly advantageous at 

large urban centers such as Roanoke, which is 

expected to experience a 10% to 25% increase 

in weekend recreational traffic under this 

alternative. 

Alternative B’s overall beneficial minor to 

moderate effects of the grade separations and 

parking improvements at overlooks and the 

minor to moderate adverse effects of 

additional recreational use at the parkway 

would combine with the adverse and 

beneficial results of local development, 

roadway improvements, and resource 

protection activities that would occur outside 

the park. Similar to alternative A, the resulting 

cumulative impacts on vehicular access, future 

traffic volumes,level of service, traffic mix, 

traffic-related safety, and parking would be 

long-term, adverse and beneficial, local, and 

vary from minor to moderate. However, the 

overlook parking improvements and grade 

separations planned under alternative B 

would increase the level of beneficial effects. 

Conclusion 

Short-term impacts would be similar to 

alternative A. The enhanced recreational 

opportunities may increase visitation, and 

thus, the number of road repairs needed. 

Alternative B’s zoning approach would 

potentially reduce congestion at parking areas 

as visitors become less concentrated at 

popular sites, with a comparable reduction in 

the need for traffic control measures. Shortterm impacts would be local, minor to 

moderate, adverse. 

Parkway-wide, increases in recreational traffic 

volumes would have the potential for local 

long-term minor adverse impacts on traffic 

volumes and level of service where the 

parkway is removed from local population 

centers. These impacts increase to minor to 

moderate where the parkway is closer to local 

and regional population centers as additional 

recreational and nonrecreational traffic 

volumes interact due to expected increased 

development. There would be beneficial local 

long-term minor to moderate impacts in the 

area of parking, based on the assumption that 

additional parking would be added to existing 

lots or new overflow lots to accommodate 

future demand. 

Individual segments and recreation areas 

would accommodate additional visitation, 

resulting in increased traffic volumes, with 

associated adverse impacts on level of service, 

parking, and traffic safety. These impacts 

would be offset at many areas with the 

benefits of additional overflow parking. 

Impacts would be beneficial, local, long-term, 

and range from minor moderate. Where 

parking improvements are not prescribed, 

impacts would be adverse, local, long-term, 

and minor. Potential increases in RV traffic 

would be adverse, local, long-term, and 

moderate in the Pisgah segment, which 

includes many tunnels with low clearance. At 

the Asheville segment, the intersection with 

the highest delay along the parkway would 

operate at level of service F, resulting in 

adverse local long-term moderate impacts. 

The addition of turn lanes at the intersection 

to mitigate the delay experienced by a large 

number of recreational travelers would 

change the traffic safety impacts on minor. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

438 

Cumulative impacts would result from a 

combination of enhanced recreational 

opportunities that would accommodate more 

visitors under alternative B with the increased 

local tourism initiatives, residential 

development, and increased demand for 

parkway resources, with adverse effects. 

Highway grade separations called for under 

this alternative would combine with local 

highway and transportation improvements 

and resource protection activities on adjacent 

lands, with beneficial effects. Similar to 

alternative A, cumulative impacts on vehicular 

access, future traffic volumes, level of service, 

traffic mix, traffic-related safety, and parking 

would be long-term, adverse and beneficial, 

local, and vary from minor to moderate. 

However, NPS management actions planned 

under alternative B would increase the level of 

beneficial effects over alternative A. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Parkway-wide 

Alternative C would provide the parkway with 

increased flexibility to manage scenic qualities 

and regional natural resource connectivity, 

while enhancing parkway visitor services. 

Under alternative C, a majority of the 

developed areas would be zoned visitor 

services and a majority of the backcountry 

areas would be zoned Natural. This zoning 

configuration emphasizes more extensive 

redesign of infrastructure in the recreation 

areas to manage for higher levels of 

concentrated visitor use and puts less 

emphasis on providing additional recreational 

opportunities beyond these frontcountry 

areas. Under alternative C, 24,584 acres 

parkway-wide—approximately 30% of the 

parkway—would be zoned Natural and 662 

acres parkway-wide—1% of the parkway—

would be zoned as Visitor Services. The 

concentrated visitor services areas would 

provide a designed setting that supports high 

levels of use, including a variety of visitor 

services and overnight accommodations with 

easy access from the parkway. Visitors would 

have more opportunities compared to current 

conditions to connect to and explore the 

region’s natural and cultural heritage. 

For users who primarily visit the parkway for 

the driving experience, the visitor services 

designation in the frontcountry areas would 

increase their likelihood of stopping and, if 

they stop, would extend their amount of time 

at the recreation area. The improved 

amenities within these zones may include 

increased provision of interpretive programs 

and visitor contact facilities. The level of usage 

and average length of stay would increase 

somewhat compared to alternative A. Visitor 

use levels would be managed for lower 

density, dispersed use in natural zone areas to 

avoid degrading natural resources and values 

and to provide more opportunities for 

solitude. It would be expected that natural 

zone areas would generate fewer trips than if 

they were zoned recreation. 

Because alternative C is primarily geared 

towards users who visit the parkway for the 

driving experience, additional visitors 

attracted by its new improvements would 

typically travel substantial portions of the 

parkway segments. Traffic forecasts for 

alternative C are shown in table 57. 

Visitors from the local and regional 

population centers around the Blue Ridge 

Parkway who would be drawn to the 

improved frontcountry attractions along the 

parkway and the added recreational parking 

in the Ridge and Asheville segments are more 

likely to visit on a weekend than on a 

weekday. As a result, the greatest difference 

between weekday and weekend growth rates 

would be in the Ridge and Asheville segments. 

It is estimated that weekday recreational 

traffic would increase by about 2% to 4% as 

compared to alternative A, with the greatest 

increases in the end segments due to their 

proximity to the largest portions of the 

regional population base within a day’s drive 

from the parkway. 

Because new grade separations would be 

constructed that would remove access to the 

parkway at some existing public road 

intersections, it is assumed that 
Traffic and Transportation 

439 

nonrecreational traffic on both weekdays and 

weekends would decrease by as much as 10%, 

with the greatest decreases in the Plateau and 

Highlands segments, which have the greatest 

number of secondary accesses. It is estimated 

that weekend recreational traffic would 

increase by 7% to 10% as compared to 

alternative A, with the greatest increases in the 

Ridge, Roanoke, Asheville, and Pisgah 

segments due to the additional recreational 

parking near Asheville and the improved 

frontcountry amenities that would be 

provided along the parkway that would draw 

day use visitors from the Roanoke and 

Asheville areas. 

Visitor services would be expanded from 6 

months to 12 months at select locations as 

part of this alternative. This would draw more 

visitors to the parkway, although over a 

dispersed time frame. The proposed change to 

a year-round operation would not be 

expected to produce any appreciable 

difference in parkway visitation during the 

peak season months and there would be no 

measurable impacts. 

Vista management in this alternative would be 

more flexible without strict adherence to the 

Parkway Land Use Maps. Some traditional 

roadside vistas might be closed where views 

had been substantially compromised and 

might potentially be replaced in new locations 

where the view could be protected. For the 

same reasons, some new overlooks with 

parking may be added where the quality of the 

view could be protected. 

However, overlook parking areas would not 

be closed and/or removed but maintenance of 

the overlook vista may be stopped or cut 

differently to obscure unsightly views. If the 

overall number and density of vistas were not 

increased and the design of the new vistas 

takes into account good roadway design 

practices (i.e., not in a sharp curve, away from 

other access points), there would be no 

measurable impacts. 

Some new overlook or parking areas may be 

added along the parkway. Adding these 

overlooks or parking areas along the parkway 

would add access points and slightly increase 

traffic turning movement conflicts. For this 

reason, there would be local long-term minor 

adverse impacts on traffic safety conditions. 

These new overlooks or parking areas would 

also have the potential to address parking 

shortages at other overlooks and parking 

areas, by adding new parking that would 

disperse visitors and by discouraging 

motorists from stopping on the side of the 

parkway at unsafe locations. As a result, there 

would be the potential for beneficial local 

long-term minor impacts on parking and 

traffic safety conditions. 

TABLE 57. PEAK SEASON AVERAGE DAILY 2020 TRAFFIC FORECASTS - ALTERNATIVE C 

Segment 

Weekday Daily Volume 

(vehicles/day) 

Weekend Daily Volume 

(vehicles/day) 

2020 Weekend 

2020 Level of Service 

Increase from 

Alternative A 2020 

Increase from 

Alternative A 

Ridge 2,300 50 2,860 300 B 

Roanoke 1,030 20 1,470 120 A 

Plateau 920 0 2,230 120 B 

Highlands 3,240 -20 4,590 230 C 

Black Mountains 1,890 30 2,830 180 B 

Asheville 2,050 30 3,400 520 B 

Pisgah 1,480 50 3,650 370 B 

Source: Calculations by DEA. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

440 

New grade separation structures may be 

potentially added, as in alternative B. 

Removing access at existing intersections 

where an appreciable amount of 

nonrecreational local and commuter traffic is 

known to access the parkway would reduce 

conflicts for recreational traffic along that 

section of the parkway. The grade separations 

would result in local long-term negligible 

adverse impacts in the area of vehicular access 

(due to providing less direct access for 

recreational travelers) and local long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial impacts on 

traffic volumes, level of service, and traffic 

safety conditions. 

Under alternative C, the parkway would work 

with partners in the parkway urban areas to 

consider the extension of existing mass transit 

connections as well as public and private 

shuttle systems to provide alternative 

transportation to parkway visitor facilities, 

where feasible. The dispersed nature of the 

attractions along the parkway makes it 

unlikely that new transit services would attract 

an appreciable amount of ridership. However, 

transit shuttles to events and educational field 

trips may be practical applications of 

alternative modes along the parkway. This 

would result in local long-term minor 

beneficial impacts in the area of alternative 

transportation modes. Impacts on traffic 

volumes, level of service, and traffic safety 

conditions are expected to be beneficial, local, 

long-term, and negligible. 

At campgrounds, the same improvements 

would be provided as in alternative B. In 

addition, this alternative would include 

additional upgrades to better accommodate 

RV access, including widening the 

campground loop road that provides access to 

the RV sites at six campground (James River, 

Peaks of Otter, Rocky Knob, Doughton Park, 

Linville Falls, and Crabtree Falls). These 

campground improvements would be 

expected to increase campground use. This 

would result in local long-term minor adverse 

impacts on traffic volumes, level of service, 

and traffic safety conditions. It would also 

result in adverse local long-term minor 

impacts in the area of traffic mix, due to the 

increased volumes of RVs that may occur over 

time. 

Some new trails would be constructed to 

provide new connections between existing 

trails in the parkway and existing or new trails 

outside the parkway. This would link parkway 

recreation areas with off-parkway locations. 

Improved connections with regional 

equestrian trails would also be considered. 

There would be the potential for local longterm minor beneficial impacts on parking, 

traffic volumes and level of service if an 

appreciable amount of users access the 

parkway trails from trailheads outside of the 

parkway. 

Short-term impacts would be similar to 

alternative A. The zoning configuration under 

alternative C would result in more extensive 

infrastructure redesign, resulting in higher 

levels of concentrated visitor use. Therefore, 

the amount of repairs needed may be more 

concentrated in local areas where visitation 

would be high. Traffic control measures 

would also be more concentrated in these 

areas. Short-term impacts would be local, 

adverse, and minor to moderate depending on 

the location and extent of the maintenance 

work or congestion. Mitigation measures, 

such as implementing a traffic control plan, 

would reduce adverse impacts to minor where 

construction activities would occur. 

Parkway Segments and Recreation 

Areas 

Only those parkway segments and recreation 

areas that would experience more specific 

impacts than those described under the 

parkway-wide section are described below. 

Segment 1: Ridge. The parkway would 

work with the U.S. Forest Service to identify 

opportunities for wilderness/trail recreation. 

Parking lots and other support services would 

be provided in the scenic character zone for 

access to U.S. Forest Service recreational 

opportunities. These areas currently have 

recreational attractions, such as backcountry 

trail crossings, but no legal places to park. 
Traffic and Transportation 

441 

Illegal roadside parking causes traffic safety 

and traffic flow issues, with parked cars 

potentially encroaching on the already narrow 

parkway width, drivers opening car doors into 

the parkway driving lanes and drivers making 

u-turn maneuvers. Providing a solution to 

these problems would outweigh the increased 

traffic volumes the added parking may create, 

resulting in a local long-term moderate 

beneficial impact on level of service, traffic 

safety conditions, and parking. 

Segments 1 and 2: Ridge and Roanoke.

Under alternative C, some of the isolated 

overlooks that experience criminal activity 

would be substantially redesigned to improve 

visibility by passing traffic. While this action is 

primarily provided to improve personal safety, 

it would also improve traffic safety in 

instances where the sight distance is improved 

for vehicles returning from a given overlook 

to the parkway. This would result in local 

long-term minor beneficial impacts in the area 

of traffic safety conditions. 

Segments 1, 2, 4, and 6: Ridge, 

Roanoke, Highlands, and Asheville.

Under alternative C, the parkway would 

pursue the development of paved multiuse 

trails parallel to, but separate from, the 

roadway in three urban areas of the 

parkway—Waynesboro, Roanoke, 

Boone/Blowing Rock, and Asheville. These 

trails would be most effective in reducing 

bicycle and automobile conflicts if cyclists 

were required to use them instead of riding on 

the parkway road. Restriction of bicycles from 

the roadway, however, is not proposed as part 

of any of the alternatives. There is some 

concern that bicyclists would be less likely to 

use the multiuse trails if pedestrians or other 

users occupy them and vice versa. If a path is 

constructed, cyclists (especially large cycling 

clubs) would likely still use the roadway. As a 

result, only minor local long-term beneficial 

impacts would be expected to traffic mix, 

traffic volume, level of service, and traffic 

safety conditions. Where these multiuse trails 

connect with regional greenway systems, there 

may be a negligible decrease in some local 

recreational traffic due to the alternative 

transportation option, which would result in 

local negligible beneficial impacts on parking, 

traffic volumes, and level of service. 

Segment 4: Highlands. The largest 

volumes along the parkway are projected for 

the Highlands segment, with 2020 daily 

volumes of 3,240 vehicles per day on the 

weekdays and 4,590 vehicles per day on the 

weekends. The weekday volume shows a 

slight decrease from the baseline condition 

due to the two competing factors that are 

described in alternative Bthe expected 

decrease in nonrecreational traffic with the 

addition of new grade separation structures 

and smaller increases in recreational traffic 

expected. 

The segment would operate at level of service 

C during the peak season weekends, which 

falls below the level of acceptable conditions 

for the visitor’s driving experience according 

to the results of the 2002 visitor use and 

carrying capacity study. However, no 

congestion problems would be expected at 

intersections that provide access to the 

parkway as part of this alternative with all 

intersections projected to operate at level of 

service B or better. Long-term impacts would 

be adverse, local, and minor to moderate on 

traffic volumes, level of service, and traffic 

safety conditions. 

Segment 6: Asheville. The highest 

weekend growth in traffic volumes along the 

parkway is projected for the Asheville 

segment, with an annual growth rate of 3.1% 

on weekends. These increases are a 

combination of the expected growth of the 

Asheville area population and the added 

frontcountry and parking amenities that are 

part of this alternative. The segment would 

operate at level of service B. 

The intersection with the highest delay along 

the parkway would be at the south 

intersection with U.S. 74 in the southeast part 

of Asheville. The average delay during the PM 

peak hour of a peak season weekend would be 

about 60 seconds per vehicle and the 

intersection would operate at level of service 

F, which is below the acceptable level for 

visitor experience and would result in local 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

442 

long-term moderate adverse impacts on traffic 

volumes, level of service, and traffic safety 

conditions. The addition of turn lanes at the 

intersection to mitigate the delay experienced 

by a large number of recreational travelers 

would change the traffic safety impacts on a 

slight increase in potential for vehicular 

conflicts. Therefore, the mitigation would 

reduce adverse impacts to minor for traffic 

safety conditions. The adverse impacts on 

traffic volumes and level of service would 

remain moderate with the addition of turn 

lanes at the intersection. 

New parking facilities for recreational use 

would be added at locations along the 

parkway where illegal roadside parking 

currently occurs. The impact would be 

beneficial, local, long-term and moderate to 

level of service, traffic safety conditions, and 

parking. 

Also, staging areas for a shuttle system with 

the city of Asheville would potentially be 

provided. If such a shuttle system were 

implemented, this would result in local longterm minor beneficial impacts in the area of 

alternative transportation modes and impacts 

on traffic volumes, level of service, and traffic 

safety conditions would be beneficial, local, 

long-term, and negligible. 

Segment 7: Pisgah. Although no new 

recreational amenities are proposed for the 

Graveyard Fields Overlook, there would be 

increased traffic volume in this segment 

associated with alternative C. Future increases 

in traffic volumes would intensify the current 

parking issue, resulting in local long-term 

minor adverse impacts. 

Peaks of Otter. Alternative C would bring 

increased traffic in the Peaks of Otter Visitor 

Center parking area which is currently 

operating near-capacity on peak season 

weekends. Increases in traffic volumes would 

intensify this parking issue that would be 

barely perceptible or noticeable but of little 

inconvenience for travelers, resulting in local 

long-term negligible to minor adverse impacts 

at this recreation area. 

Roanoke Mountain. The majority of this 

recreation area would be zoned recreation as 

part of alternative C. With the proximity to 

the Roanoke area, the increased trails that 

would be associated this zoning would attract 

new users. The improvements to this 

underused campground would also result in 

small increases in use. It is expected that 

overall visitation to this area would slightly 

increase and there would be local long-term 

minor adverse impacts on traffic volumes, 

level of service, and parking. 

Rocky Knob. The historic Civilian 

Conservation Corps campsite in Rock Castle 

Gorge would be zoned Special Cultural 

Resource. Increased emphasis on this area and 

interpretation at the site would result in a 

slight increase in overall visitation. As a result, 

it is expected that there would be local longterm minor adverse impacts on traffic 

volumes, level of service, and parking. 

Mabry Mill. The portion of the Mabry Mill 

area between the parkway and VA 603 would 

be zoned as visitor services as part of this 

alternative. Within the visitor services zone, 

pedestrian circulation, signs, and wayside 

exhibits would be redesigned. Additionally, 

interpretive media would be improved and 

more diverse presentations of mountain 

industry would be provided. If it is 

determined that operation of the restaurant is 

not economically feasible, restaurant services 

would be discontinued and the existing 

restaurant would be converted to a visitor 

contact station. Outside of restaurant closure, 

these improvements would lead to a slight 

increase in visitation which would result in 

local long-term minor adverse impacts on 

traffic volumes, level of service, and parking. 

However, if the restaurant were closed, traffic 

levels, particularly on weekends, would likely 

drop considerably. 

VA 603 would be relocated or closed through 

the Mabry Mill area as part of this alternative. 

There would be a slight decrease in the 

potential for vehicular conflicts in a local area. 

This would provide local long-term minor 

beneficial impacts in the area of traffic safety 

conditions. 
Traffic and Transportation 

443 

Opportunities would be explored to develop a 

paved multiuse trail that would connect this 

site with the gateway community of Meadows 

of Dan. This would be expected to result in 

local long-term minor beneficial impacts on 

traffic volumes, level of service, and parking, 

as it is expected that most trips along this path 

would start and end in Meadows of Dan. 

Blue Ridge Music Center. Alternative C 

would expand information and orientation 

capabilities through partnerships and parkway 

staff would expand the parkway’s active 

participation in regional tourism projects. It is 

expected that these efforts would increase 

usage and cause local long-term minor 

adverse impacts on traffic volumes, level of 

service, and parking. 

Linville Falls. Recreational improvements 

under alternative C at this recreation area 

would increase parking demand and visitor 

length of stay. Resulting increases in traffic 

volumes would intensify the parking issues at 

the Linville Falls Visitor Center, resulting in 

local long-term minor adverse impacts. 

Craggy Gardens. The entire area would be 

zoned Special Natural Resources, which limits 

hiking to designated trails and does not 

provide other backcountry facilities. The trail 

to Craggy Pinnacle would be retained. Various 

management strategies would be implemented 

to keep visitors on the designated trail and 

overlooks. The proposed changes are not 

expected to produce any appreciable 

difference in traffic volumes or parking 

demand and there would be, thus, no 

measurable impacts. 

Mt. Pisgah. The size of the campground 

would be decreased by the closure of all tent 

camping sites that are directly adjacent to the 

rare high-elevation bog. A portion of the 

existing RV sites would be converted to tent 

camping, but water and electrical hookups 

would be added to the remaining RV sites. It is 

expected that the decreased number of RV 

sites and the improved amenities at the 

remaining sites would offset each other, with 

the net result being campground usage with 

no measurable impacts. 

Cumulative Effects 

Visitation would increase compared to 

baseline conditions. For example, under this 

alternative the Roanoke area is expected to 

experience a 7% to 20% increase in weekend 

recreational traffic. Visitor Service zones 

planned for this alternative would support 

high levels of use in particular areas, shifting 

transportation impacts on those locations. 

These actions would combine with the 

increased visitation expected from local 

tourism initiatives and residential 

development, as well as the resource 

protection activities that would preclude some 

development. 

Alternative C considers extending existing 

mass transit connections and public and 

private shuttle systems to provide alternative 

transportation to parkway visitor facilities. 

Alternative transportation may help alleviate 

transportation-related impacts that would 

result from the increased tourism initiatives 

and residential development expected to 

occur outside the park, particularly near large 

urban areas such as Asheville. In addition, 

these actions would also combine with the 

grade separations and overlook parking 

improvements as described under alternative 

B, as well as the highway and transportation 

improvements planned by local agencies, 

resulting in overall beneficial effects. 

Anticipated increases in parkway visitation 

would be more concentrated in specific areas. 

The addition of alternative transportation 

would add another beneficial element to the 

cumulative mix. The resulting cumulative 

impacts on vehicular access, future traffic 

volumes, level of service, traffic mix, trafficrelated safety, parking, and alternative 

transportation modes would be long-term, 

adverse and beneficial, local, and vary from 

minor to moderate. 

Conclusion 

Short-term impacts would be similar to 

alternative A. Alternative C would result in 

more extensive infrastructure redesign, 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

444 

resulting in higher levels of concentrated 

visitor use. Therefore, the amount of repairs 

and traffic control measures needed may be 

more concentrated in local areas where 

visitation would be high. Short-term impacts 

would be local, adverse, and minor to 

moderate depending on the location and 

extent of the maintenance work or 

congestion. Mitigation measures, such as 

implementing a traffic control plan, would 

reduce adverse impacts on minor where 

construction activities would occur. 

Under alternative C, vista management would 

be more flexible than current conditions, 

without strict adherence to the Parkway Land 

Use Maps. The parkway would, therefore, 

have more ability to address parking shortages 

at overlooks and parking areas and by adding 

new parking, resulting in local long-term 

minor beneficial impacts on parking and 

traffic safety. Also under alternative C, the 

parkway would extend mass transit 

connections and provide shuttle systems, with 

local long-term negligible beneficial impacts 

on traffic volumes, level of service, and traffic 

safety. Campground improvements would 

increase campground use, resulting in adverse 

local long-term minor impacts on traffic 

volumes, level of service, traffic mix, and 

traffic safety. If an appreciable number of 

visitors access the parkway trails from new 

trails outside the parkway, local long-term 

minor beneficial impacts on parking, traffic 

volumes, and level of service would occur. At 

the Asheville segment, the intersection with 

the highest delay along the parkway would 

operate at level of service F, resulting in local 

long-term moderate adverse impacts. The 

addition of turn lanes at the intersection to 

mitigate the delay experienced by a large 

number of recreational travelers would 

change the traffic safety impacts to minor. 

Anticipated increases in visitation as a result of 

actions specified under alternative C would 

combine with increased visitation expected 

from local tourism initiatives and residential 

development expected nearby. The alternative 

transportation and grade separations and 

overlook parking improvements called for 

with alternative C would combine with the 

highway and transportation improvements 

planned for by local agencies. Therefore, 

cumulative impacts on vehicular access, future 

traffic volumes and level of service, traffic mix, 

traffic-related safety, parking, and alternative 

transportation modes would be long-term, 

adverse and beneficial, local, and vary from 

minor to moderate. However, NPS 

management actions planned under 

alternative C would increase the level of 

beneficial effects over alternative A. 
445 

PARKWAY OPERATIONS 

INTRODUCTION 

Information about park operations was 

compiled from various sources including the 

Blue Ridge Parkway staff, National Park 

Service planners, and other knowledgeable 

individuals. Information was gathered about 

the parkway’s management structure to 

analyze how the alternatives effect parkway 

operations. The management structure of the 

parkway is described by division in chapter 3 

and includes staffing and budget data. The 

analysis focuses on how NPS operations 

would vary based on the different 

management alternatives in chapter 2. Given 

the conceptual nature of the alternatives, the 

analysis is qualitative rather than quantitative 

in nature. Professional judgment was used to 

reach reasonable conclusions as to the type, 

intensity, and duration of potential impacts. 

The effects of the alternatives on parkway 

operations are based on 

 changes in operational structure, 

including the operations budget and 

staffing 

 changes in infrastructure, including 

visitor facilities 

 changes in maintenance needs 

 changes in parkway services and 

availability 

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR 

ANALYZING IMPACTS 

Type: Effects are classified as either adverse of 

beneficial. 

 Adverse impacts would reduce the 

parkway’s ability to meet its purpose, 

preserve resources and provide a safe 

parkway experience for visitors. 

 Beneficial impacts would enhance the 

parkway’s ability to meet its purpose, 

preserve resources and provide a safe 

parkway experience for visitors. 

Intensity: Impact intensity thresholds for 

NPS operations are defined as follows: 

Negligible: The effects would be at or below 

the level of detection and would not have an 

appreciable effect on park operations. The 

change would not be noticeable to the public 

or most staff. 

Minor: The effects would be small but 

detectable and would not have an appreciable 

effect on park operations. The change would 

be noticeable to some staff but probably not to 

the public. 

Moderate: The effects would be readily 

apparent and would have an appreciable 

effect on park operations. The change would 

be noticeable to staff and possibly to the 

public. 

Major: The effects would be readily apparent 

and would result in substantial changes that 

are markedly different from existing 

operations. The change would be obvious to 

staff and the public. 

Duration: The length of time park operations 

would be affected is defined as follows: 

 Short-term impacts would last for no 

more than two seasons or during the life 

of construction projects lasting longer 

than two seasons but would not have 

permanent effects. 

 Long-term impacts would persist for 

more than two seasons or may be 

permanent. 

Context: Given that NPS park operations are 

integrally linked across the parkway, all 

actions that affect operations are considered 

to be parkway-wide. Actions that are local or 

impact operations at the district level impact 

the budget, staffing, facility, and maintenance 

considerations across the parkway, and 

therefore, no additional specificity about 

context is included in this analysis. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

446 

ALTERNATIVE A—NO-ACTION 

Parkway-wide 

Under alternative A parkway staff would 

continue to manage without a comprehensive 

parkway-wide management direction. Many 

operational issues would continue to be 

addressed on a case-by-case basis through 

superintendent’s orders or other programspecific guidance. This would result in 

operational inefficiencies because it is reactive 

in nature and division chiefs have to 

continually inform and/or train their 

employees about ever-changing management 

direction. A comprehensive plan, however, 

would not eliminate the need to update the 

superintendent’s compendium or other 

guidance as necessary, but reduce the 

frequency with which changes are made. 

Because more staff time and money is 

required to respond to management decisions 

that occur on a case-by-case basis, impacts on 

operations would be minor to moderate and 

adverse over the long term. 

Under alternative A, the parkway would 

continue to use the historic Parkway Land 

Use Maps where operationally feasible to 

direct maintenance of the parkway road 

prism. Strict adherence to these maps is often 

infeasible for a variety of reasons and results 

in minor adverse impacts on operations. The 

existing six-month visitor season and staffing 

levels would remain in place and the parkway 

would continue to experience operational 

inefficiencies due to the fact that current 

staffing is barely able to meet all basic 

operations needs. The parkway would 

continue to rely heavily on seasonal 

employees due to the six-month season, 

increasing the workload and operational 

expenses across all divisions to adequately 

train and mentor seasonal employees in the 

early portion of each season. This minor to 

moderate adverse impact is particularly 

detrimental to the efficiency of the 

administration division due to the need to 

process all of the requisite documents to hire 

people each year. This impact is mitigated to 

some extent by relying heavily on volunteers 

to offset the lack of paid staff. 

Park operations would continue to be 

adversely impacted by a lack of personnel to 

adequately meet the needs of the visiting 

public for law enforcement and for the 

interpretation program, resulting in long-term 

minor to moderate adverse impacts. Under 

alternative A the parkway would continue to 

meet current operational needs in 

interpretation and law enforcement using 

cyclic and project funds. 

Much effort would continue to be expended 

by the external affairs and partnership staff in 

cooperation with the planning staff to 

continue to actively develop and maintain a 

wide range of partners, both government and 

private. External partnership work would 

continue to be necessary to protect resources 

and provide a quality visitor experience, but 

no changes from current efforts are proposed 

under alternative A. Under a no-action 

scenario, some inefficiency arises due to the 

need to respond to external needs and 

demands on a case-by-case basis, rather than 

proactively. As urban development 

encroaches on the parkway, the need to 

partner becomes more necessary and the 

adverse impact from inefficiencies increases. 

Therefore, under alternative A, impacts on the 

external affairs and partnership staff would be 

long-term, minor to moderate, and adverse. 

Operational issues related to access and 

circulation involve both automobile traffic 

and bicycles. The moratorium on secondary 

road improvements would require fewer 

hours and dollars to be spent by maintenance 

and engineering staff to implement the 

improvements, resulting in beneficial impacts 

until a management plan is in place. Road 

improvements necessary to ensure public 

health and safety would continue, as would 

evaluations of primary highway improvements 

or new construction projects, mitigating 

potential adverse impacts on visitor safety. 

The continuation of bicycle use and the 

increase in commuter traffic and roadway 

conflicts in urbanized sections of the parkway 

could result in negligible to minor adverse 

impacts because law enforcement staff would 

continue to be diverted from other duties to 
Parkway Operations 

447 

respond to user conflicts and accidents due to 

current use patterns. 

Impacts on the maintenance and engineering 

division under alternative A are related to 

campgrounds, concessions, and trails. 

Maintenance hours and expenses related to 

campground upkeep would remain largely 

unchanged under alternative A because 

campground access, tent sites, and RV 

hookups would remain as they are today. 

Meeting backlog maintenance needs while 

simultaneously maintaining aging 

infrastructure would continue to strain the 

maintenance and engineering staff and would 

likely require additional staff and funding 

beyond that currently being spent. Additional 

staff or funding would enhance operational 

efficiency, but without it, this minor to 

moderate adverse impact would continue over 

the long term because infrastructure would 

continue to deteriorate. Upgrades to comfort 

stations at select campgrounds would likely 

come from project funding, and therefore, 

would only require minimal staff time to 

oversee construction in the short term and 

some additional maintenance requirements in 

the long term. Impacts would be nonexistent 

to negligible and adverse over the short term 

and long term. 

Lodging and food service concessions would 

continue along the parkway where 

economically feasible, which would require 

continued effort by the concession contract 

and oversight staff. The adaptive reuse or 

removal of concession facilities that are no 

longer financially viable would likely only 

require minimal staff time or budget beyond 

current levels because reuse or removal would 

be accomplished through project funds and 

labor. Implementation of alternative A could 

result in long-term minor beneficial impacts 

on the concession staff due to fewer contracts 

to administer and to the maintenance and 

engineering division if facilities are removed 

and no longer require upkeep. 

The management and maintenance of the 

extensive parkway trail system would 

continue to allow for the current types and 

levels of visitor use. The only change to the 

current scenario is that additional time would 

need to be spent working with partners to 

complete the Mountains-to-Sea Trail. The 

additional time necessary to complete this 

could potentially remove partnership staff 

from other duties, resulting in a short-term 

negligible adverse impact. 

Impacts on the resource management and 

science staff would be varied. For example, 

seeking designation of the parkway as a 

national historic landmark would likely 

require cultural resource staff to be diverted 

away from other work in the short term to 

focus on designation. This reprioritization 

would result in negligible adverse impacts on 

operations in the short term because other 

cultural resource work would suffer from a 

lack of attention. In the long term, cultural 

resource management operations would 

continue to focus on historic structure 

preservation and viewshed management as 

currently practiced, but compliance with the 

requirements of the landmark designation 

could require some additional work on the 

part of the planning, lands, and compliance 

staff, resulting in negligible to minor adverse 

impacts in the short term. 

Operations related to management of flora 

and fauna, designed landscape features, and 

roadside vistas and other scenic resources 

would primarily continue as currently 

practiced and operational inefficiencies would 

continue because resource management is 

implemented on a project-specific basis or as a 

result of annual planning. This does not allow 

for multiyear planning, which is often needed 

for effective resource management, resulting 

in minor to moderate adverse impacts in both 

the short and long term. In the short term, 

negligible adverse impacts would result 

because staff time and dollars would be 

needed to oversee the completion of the 

baseline resource inventory. Once completed, 

the inventory would enhance operations and 

management of resources, thus having a longterm beneficial impact on operations. 

Conserving the idealized scenes of the 

parkway through land purchases, easements, 

and other creative strategies would add to 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

448 

parkway staff workload and require additional 

funding or reprioritization of existing funding 

in the short and long term. Additional time 

would need to be spent by planning, lands, 

and compliance staff, as well as external affairs 

and partnership staff to ensure the effective 

implementation of these complicated 

strategies over time as they are identified, 

resulting in minor adverse impacts over time. 

In addition, an increase in the land under the 

parkway’s control would mean additional 

resources would need to be spent maintaining 

and managing it in alignment with the 

parkway’s purpose and policy and legal 

requirements. This would result in additional 

adverse impacts, albeit negligible to minor in 

nature. Overall impacts on operations would 

be long-term and minor to moderate, due to 

project-specific management and an everincreasing need for such work with limited 

staff and budget. 

Land acquisition from willing sellers to 

consolidate irregular portions of the parkway, 

eliminate private road access, and conserve 

scenic views would continue as currently 

practiced on a case-by case basis in 

accordance with the land protection plan. So 

long as the time and dollars spent on this 

program remain within the historic range, 

beneficial impacts would accrue over time 

because less effort would be spent managing 

an irregular boundary and responding to 

roadway incidents as a result of private access. 

However, the time spent amending the 

current land protection plan in a reactive 

mode to address current needs costs the 

planning, lands, and compliance staff and 

superintendent’s office time and money and 

results in minor adverse impacts over time. 

Parkway Segments 

Impacts not previously discussed in the 

parkway-wide section are included in the 

parkway segment analysis. 

Segment 1: Ridge. Continuing at current 

levels would require no increase in funding, 

scheduling or staffing in this area. Operational 

challenges and responsibilities would 

continue to be at the same levels as are 

currently experienced. For example, no 

physical changes or management related to 

the overlook pullouts would occur in segment 

1, which would pose a long-term minor 

adverse impact on park operations because 

law enforcement personnel have to spend 

more time responding to incidents related to 

illegal activities at these locations. Minor to 

moderate impacts on operations would 

continue in the long term due to a lack of 

interpretation and orientation services at the 

north entryway. Overall, impacts in segment 1 

would be long-term minor to moderate and 

adverse. 

Segment 2: Roanoke. The Roanoke 

segment would continue to be heavily used 

due to its proximity to the city of Roanoke, 

which is the largest urban area along the 

parkway. No physical changes or management 

related to the overlook pullouts would occur 

in segment 2, which would pose long-term 

minor adverse impacts on park operations 

because illegal activities at these locations 

would continue and would require continued 

enhanced law enforcement presence to 

respond to such incidents. These issues and 

limited staffing would contribute to long-term 

minor to moderate adverse impacts on park 

operations. 

The development of trails and the provision of 

trail connections in segment 2 would require 

more effort and time by the planning, lands, 

and compliance staff and trail maintenance 

crews and would impact the budget if trail 

development is not project funded. Impacts 

on park operations related to trail 

development and connections would be 

short-term, minor, and adverse in the short 

term because of additional spending, but 

additional recreational facilities and trail 

connections would result in minor beneficial 

impacts on operations in the long term. 

Overall, operational impacts at segment 2 

would be minor and adverse in the long term. 

Segment 3: Plateau. No changes to park 

operations are proposed for segment 3; and 

therefore, no impacts on park operations are 

anticipated under alternative A. 
Parkway Operations 

449 

Segment 4: Highlands. Operations in 

segment 4 would continue to be adversely 

impacted over the long term because of unmet 

needs for recreational trails and lack of a 

prominent location for interpretation and 

orientation in the Boone/Blowing Rock Area. 

Should new uses be allowed on existing trails, 

adverse impacts on park operations could 

occur because new uses have the potential to 

increase trail user conflicts and issues that 

require law enforcement response. In 

addition, in order to properly monitor user 

conflicts and maintain the trails in a usable, 

safe condition for all visitors, law enforcement 

and resource management and science staff 

time and focus may have to be directed away 

from other issues and areas of the parkway. 

The potential for additional staff time and 

funds to be directed toward accommodating 

new uses and redirected from other 

operational needs would result in long-term 

minor to moderate adverse impacts on 

operations. 

Segment 5: Black Mountain. No changes 

to park operations are proposed for segment 

5, and therefore, no impacts on park 

operations are anticipated under alternative A. 

Segment 6: Asheville. Impacts related to 

allowing new trail uses would be the same as 

in segment 4. Attempts to limit informal 

parking to increase visitor safety and reduce 

road shoulder damage would have both 

adverse and beneficial impacts on operations. 

Limited law enforcement personnel time 

would continue to be directed toward 

reducing informal parking, which could 

reduce their effectiveness in road patrols and 

other duties, resulting in minor adverse shortterm impacts. If the law enforcement 

personnel are successful in reducing informal 

parking and road shoulder damage, the result 

would be both short- and long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impacts due to reduced 

maintenance staff time and dollars directed at 

road shoulder maintenance needs. Overall, 

impacts on operations at segment 6 would be 

long-term, minor to moderate, and beneficial. 

Segment 7: Pisgah. The location of 

orientation and interpretation waysides at the 

south entrance creates visitor safety issues that 

require law enforcement personnel’s 

attention, resulting in minor adverse impacts 

because their time could be spent addressing 

other issues. Keeping vistas open in this 

segment by direct management action in 

spruce/fir habitat not only requires staff time 

to remove/limb trees, etc., but also the time of 

the resource management and science and 

planning, lands, and compliance staff to 

mitigate adverse impacts on sensitive species 

and comply with federal law and 

requirements. Vista management, therefore, 

results in long-term minor adverse impacts on 

park operations. 

Managing invasive species between Asheville 

and Mt. Pisgah is challenging because of use 

levels and because trail corridors are 

accelerating the introduction of these species. 

Current management of invasive species is 

reactive in nature, which is an inefficient use 

of time and money when compared to a more 

comprehensive management approach. This 

approach results in minor adverse impacts on 

operations and maintenance. Overall impacts 

on operations along segment 7 would be longterm, minor, and adverse. 

Parkway Recreation Areas 

Impacts not previously discussed in the 

parkway-wide section or parkway segment 

analysis are included in the recreation area 

analysis. 

Humpback Rocks. Under alternative A, 

maintaining the current facilities and design 

would lead to long-term adverse impacts on 

operations because the anticipated increases 

in visitation over time could not be 

accommodated with the current size of the 

picnic area, visitor contact station, and 

trailhead parking. 

The parkway would continue to partner with 

the Appalachian Trail as a means of reducing 

impacts on operations through sharing 

workloads and resources in the development 

and maintenance of trails. However, if the trail 

sections need to be rerouted, planning, lands, 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

450 

and compliance and resource management 

and science staff time and money would have 

to be redirected to this effort and could result 

in minor adverse impacts during the time 

period of planning for and rerouting the trail. 

Overall, operational impacts at Humpback 

Rocks would be long-term, minor to 

moderate, and adverse. 

James River/Otter Creek. Under 

alternative A, retaining the underused contact 

station requires staff time and expenditures, 

which is not the most efficient use of dollars in 

the long term, resulting in a minor adverse 

impact on operations. Continuing to dredge 

the lake requires staff time and dollars to be 

expended over the long term, but ensures a 

safe environment for visitors. Overall, impacts 

on operations would be long-term, minor, and 

adverse. 

Peaks of Otter. Continuing current 

management direction for Saunders Farm and 

Johnson Farm would lead to continued loss of 

integrity of the cultural landscape, which 

would adversely impact the parkway’s 

protection of resources. Overall, this would 

have a long-term minor to moderate adverse 

impact on operations. 

Roanoke Mountain. The National Park 

Service would continue to manage the 

Roanoke Mountain loop road through lease 

agreements with the city of Roanoke. This 

effort would continue to occupy external 

affairs and administrative time to maintain a 

strong working relationship with the city and 

to meet all requirements of the lease 

agreement. In addition, law enforcement 

patrol of the loop and maintenance of the 

road itself would continue to occupy staff 

time and consume operational funding. 

Maintaining the underused campground also 

requires staff time and expenditures, which 

may be more effective if directed elsewhere. 

All of these actions would have minor 

negligible beneficial impacts on operations in 

the long term because visitors would be able 

to continue to access and enjoy the loop road 

and campground, despite somewhat 

inefficient use of scarce operational dollars. 

Smart View. Under alternative A, the 

existing qualities of the pastoral agricultural 

landscape would be retained, requiring 

continued diligence on the part of parkway 

operational staff. The maintenance staff, for 

example, would continue to mow roadsides 

and the external affairs and partnership staff 

would continue to build relationships with 

private agricultural landholders and 

conservation organizations within the 

parkway to ensure the land continues to be 

used and/or maintained as an agricultural 

landscape. The continuation of this effort in 

light of continued urban development would 

continue to require more and more staff time 

and money, which would result in incremental 

minor to moderate adverse impacts over the 

long term given current staffing and budget 

levels. 

Rocky Knob. Managing the historic gas 

station structure to retain the historic 

architectural character and visitor contact 

function would continue to require operating 

and maintenance expenditures as well as the 

time of both cultural resource and 

maintenance and engineering staff. 

Continuing to manage the picnic site as is 

would require minimal increases in general 

maintenance and upkeep to the site as 

visitation increases. In addition, continuing to 

maintain the hiking trails and fire road for 

guided walks and safe visitor use would 

require law enforcement and trail crew focus, 

time, and money given visitation increases. 

Continuing to manage the trails, picnic site 

and gas station as is results in long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impacts due to the 

need for additional staff time and operational 

expenditures. 

Mabry Mill. Pedestrian access and 

circulation would remain inefficient and 

continuing to provide interpretation and 

visitor information services to more and more 

visitors would result in long-term minor to 

moderate adverse impacts on operations. The 

state road that bisects the parkway forces 

visitors to cross it to access parking. This 

crossing is unsafe and visitor crossings 

interfere with traffic flow and vehicle 

accidents that require law enforcement and 
Parkway Operations 

451 

emergency incident response. This results in 

negligible adverse impacts on law 

enforcement patrol efforts along the parkway 

during these temporary episodes. Overall, 

operations at Mabry Mill would experience 

long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts. 

Blue Ridge Music Center. Under 

alternative A, the Blue Ridge Music Center 

recreation area would be maintained in its 

current condition. The anticipated growth in 

public visitation to this recreation area would 

adversely impact operations in the long-run 

given the continuation of limited funding and 

staffing levels. This impact would be due to 

the need for increased grounds maintenance 

and law enforcement presence, particularly 

during summer concerts, cultural 

demonstrations, and other popular events. 

Cumberland Knob. No changes to park 

operations are proposed for the Cumberland 

Knob recreation area; therefore, no impacts 

on park operations are anticipated under 

alternative A. 

Doughton Park. No changes to park 

operations are proposed for the Doughton 

Park recreation area, but increased visitation 

to the area could require additional staff time 

over the long term, which could have a 

negligible to minor adverse impact on 

operations. 

Julian Price Memorial Park. Wetland and 

species management could be complicated for 

increasing visitation and associated visitor use 

impacts. Response to such impacts would 

require additional staff time and operational 

expenditures, resulting in minor adverse 

impacts. Providing picnicking opportunities at 

the current picnic area would require 

additional staff time and expenditures due to 

heavy use and increasing visitation over time, 

resulting in long-term minor adverse impacts 

on operations. Overall, impacts would be 

long-term, minor, and adverse. 

Linville Falls. The existing maintenance 

facility does not adequately meet the needs of 

the maintenance and engineering staff. As a 

result, maintenance activities are less efficient 

than they could be. This inefficiency leads to 

long-term minor to moderate adverse impacts 

on maintenance operations. In addition, as 

visitation in the area increases, additional 

interpretation staff may be needed to provide 

site orientation and interpretation services at 

the newly enlarged visitor contact station. 

Directing additional staff to this visitor 

contact station would reduce services 

elsewhere in the parkway, which could have 

adverse impacts on interpretation services in 

other areas of the parkway. Overall, impacts 

would be long-term minor to moderate and 

adverse primarily due to the need to continue 

to operate out of an inadequate maintenance 

facility. 

Crabtree Falls. No changes to park 

operations are proposed for the Crabtree Falls 

recreation area; therefore, no impacts on park 

operations are anticipated under alternative A. 

Craggy Gardens. The short- and longdistance trails would continue to be managed 

as they are today. Given that off-trail hiking by 

visitors causes resource damage, continuing 

this management strategy leads to the need for 

trail maintenance and resource management 

and science staff to rehabilitate social trails 

and work to restore natural habitat conditions 

and function. This results in minor adverse 

impacts over the long term due to the need to 

use staff time and operational money for these 

purposes. 

Mt. Pisgah. No changes to park operations 

are proposed for the Mt. Pisgah recreation 

area; therefore, no impacts on park operations 

are anticipated under alternative A. 

Parkway operations across all segments and 

recreation areas would continue to experience 

some inefficiencies and adverse impacts as a 

result of a lack of overall guidance and the 

inability of current staff to appropriately deal 

with the maintenance backlog and growing 

workloads due to increased visitation. The 

continued need to rely on seasonal employees 

has inherent operational inefficiencies 

because of the need to train new employees 

on an annual basis. Collectively, the impacts 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

452 

on park operations under alternative A would 

be minor to moderate, adverse, and long-term. 

Cumulative Effects 

Recreation and tourism enhancements in 

adjacent counties and municipalities enhance 

the spectrum of opportunities for visitors, but 

also impact the operations of the parkway. For 

example, the external affairs and partnerships 

staff in coordination with the planning, lands, 

and compliance staff have to dedicate large 

amounts of time to ensuring that recreation 

path connections are appropriately planned to 

ensure resource protection and ensure 

adequate access and circulation with the 

existing network. In some instances, the 

maintenance and engineering division is 

affected when parkway infrastructure needs 

to be renovated and maintained. The 

development of non-NPS facilities such as 

campgrounds and visitor centers alleviates the 

need to further develop and maintain as much 

infrastructure inside the parkway, resulting in 

a beneficial impact. 

The ongoing development of private lands 

throughout the region requires a more 

coordinated and time-consuming effort on 

the part of the external affairs, partnership, 

and planning, lands, and compliance staff to 

work with municipalities, counties, and 

organizations to protect scenic vistas and 

other park resources through easements and 

other land protection tools. This is especially 

true in areas adjacent to large population 

centers such as Roanoke and Ashville. Types 

of development include residential homes, 

subdivisions, commercial businesses, and 

industry. Urban development is projected to 

continue with the ongoing influx of people to 

these areas. As a result, new developments and 

increasing population in the region are 

creating more impacts on parkway 

infrastructure and programs, which requires 

additional staff and funding to maintain the 

parkway. This results in long-term minor to 

moderate adverse impacts on operations. 

The quantity and types of road construction 

and improvements may alleviate some 

commuter traffic along the parkway, reducing 

volume and associated road impacts and 

automobile conflicts. This would result in 

beneficial impacts on operations. Proposed 

roadway crossings, such as with I-73, would 

require the involvement of planning, lands, 

and compliance and resource management 

and science staff to work with the federal 

highway administration and department of 

transportation during planning, design, and 

construction. This would require staff time to 

be diverted from other efforts, resulting in a 

short-term minor adverse impact on specific 

division personnel. 

The extensive network of national forests, 

state parks, and privately owned protected 

areas adjacent to the Ridge, Black Mountain, 

and Pisgah segments and two national parks 

(i.e., Shenandoah and Great Smoky 

Mountains) assist with protecting resources 

and mitigating other resource issues, such as 

the spread of invasive species. Although the 

impacts of resource protection in the form of 

easements, preservation programs, and 

conservation zoning are beneficial, the 

external affairs, partnership, and planning, 

lands, and compliance staff must spend time 

building relationships and working with 

partners, which requires time and money, 

resulting in recurring short-term minor 

adverse impacts. 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions would require an increasing 

amount of staff time and operational funding 

as surrounding communities and areas 

continue to experience population growth 

and corresponding development of 

infrastructure that impacts the parkway. 

Managing the impacts of transportation 

improvements, external resource protection, 

and recreation and tourism efforts, generally 

result in long-term minor to moderate adverse 

cumulative impacts on park operations given 

the need to manage these impacts with a 

constrained budget and corresponding 

staffing levels. 

When the likely effects of implementing the 

actions contained in alternative A are added to 

the effects of other past, present, and 
Parkway Operations 

453 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, there 

would be long-term moderate adverse 

cumulative impacts on park operations. The 

actions contained in alternative A would 

contribute a modest increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion 

Alternative A would have minor to moderate 

long-term adverse effects to park operations 

due to system inefficiencies resulting from a 

lack of comprehensive guidance, the inability 

of current staff to appropriately deal with the 

maintenance backlog, the continued need to 

rely on seasonal employees. When combined 

with the potential impacts related to 

increasing development adjacent to the 

parkway, the need to manage recreation 

enhancements that impact parkway 

operations and manage partnerships to 

protect resources and scenic viewsheds, the 

actions in alternative A would have a longterm moderate adverse cumulative impact on 

park operations. Alternative A would 

contribute a modest increment to this impact. 

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS PREFERRED) 

Parkway-wide 

Under alternative B the parkway would be 

managed with comprehensive parkway-wide 

management direction that would blend 

newer law and policy requirements with the 

traditional parkway concept. As a result, many 

of the current inefficiencies of managing on a 

case-by-case basis would be removed. 

Management across division would be more 

proactive than under alternative A, resulting in 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

operational impacts. 

Assuming the parkway receives the full $21 

million in operating funds, more staff would 

be hired to begin to address the maintenance 

backlog and other needs that have not been 

addressed due to a lack of funding and 

adequate staffing, which would lead to 

operational efficiencies and minor to 

moderate beneficial long-term impacts on 

operations. The parkway’s use of seasonal 

employees would remain, but the extension of 

the season to nine months in certain 

recreation areas would result in operational 

efficiencies because seasonal staff would 

become more efficient in fulfilling their duties 

during a longer working season and annual 

seasonal employee retention would likely 

increase from year-to-year, which would 

reduce training needs and expenses at the 

start of every season and result in minor 

beneficial impacts over the long term. 

Updating the historic Parkway Land Use 

Maps would likely be done by a contractor in 

cooperation with park staff using project 

funds, so only some staff time, primarily that 

of the planning, lands, and compliance staff, 

would be required. Using updated historic 

Parkway Land Use Maps would reduce the 

infeasible nature of some of the original map 

requirements, providing operational 

efficiencies and minor beneficial impacts in 

the long term. 

Additional effort would be expended by the 

external affairs and partnership staff in 

cooperation with the planning, lands, and 

compliance staff in alternative B relative to 

that in alternative A to identify views along the 

parkway to be protected and to actively 

collaborate with adjacent landowners and 

partners to conserve priority scenery and 

pastoral landscapes. Moreover, actively 

pursuing new partnerships and exploring a 

broader base of partnerships to plan and 

implement joint ventures and support 

parkway goals would require more external 

affairs, partnership, and planning, lands, and 

compliance staff time as well as operational 

funding. If additional operational funding can 

absorb the staff time, this proactive effort 

would provide minor to moderate, beneficial 

operational efficiencies in the long term due 

to viewshed and land protection. 

 

Visitor and education staff would experience 

operational efficiencies in the long term with 

more staff and funding under alternative B. In 

the short term, more interpretation and 

education staff time would be spent 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

454 

developing a more comprehensive 

interpretation program, including waysides 

and emerging technologies. A more 

comprehensive program would translate into 

visitors that are better informed and more 

sensitive to the resource issues along the 

parkway. More informed visitors are less 

likely to be responsible for resource and other 

impacts that require staff time to deal with, 

but also further the parkway’s mission, 

resulting in long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts on operations. An 

expansion of the parkway’s participation in 

regional heritage tourism projects would 

require operations dollars and staff time that 

would likely be absorbed by the operations 

budget increase. Long-term benefits may also 

accrue as a result of leveraging additional 

volunteer staff due to additional exposure and 

new partnerships related to heritage tourism. 

Overall, impacts would be long-term, minor to 

moderate, and beneficial. 

Operations related to managing access and 

circulation would experience beneficial 

impacts as a result of implementing alternative 

B. Replacing at-grade crossings with new 

grade separation structures would have 

multiple beneficial impacts on operations. 

First, the likely reduction of commuter traffic 

would lessen the burden on law enforcement 

patrols and result in fewer automobile 

accidents and incident response needs. 

Second, less commuter traffic would reduce 

impacts on the road itself and associated 

maintenance needs as well as maintenance 

and upkeep of roadway pull-outs and 

bathrooms. Design and construction of atgrade separations would likely be funded 

through project monies; therefore, the 

operational expenditures would be small to 

pay for some staff time to assist with planning 

and monitoring construction efforts. This 

additional staff time would likely be absorbed 

by the increase in the operations budget and 

overall impacts related to access and 

circulation would be long-term, moderate, 

and beneficial. 

Impacts on the maintenance and engineering 

division under alternative B are primarily 

related to changes and upgrades to 

campgrounds, concession facilities, and trails. 

Enlarging select tent sites, upgrading 

amphitheaters and RV sites, in addition to 

providing universal accessibility at all 

campgrounds, would impact the operations 

budget because some staff time would be 

required during planning and construction. 

Many of these upgrades would use project 

dollars and contract construction, which 

would mitigate the need for large amounts of 

engineering, maintenance, and planning, 

lands, and compliance staff time to implement 

these actions. In the long term, the 

infrastructure changes and upgrades would 

better meet the parkway’s mission and 

enhance visitor safety and opportunities, 

which would result in minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts on operations. 

The commitment to provide viable concession 

services at all locations could include the need 

to upgrade existing infrastructure and/or add 

new facilities. An overarching strategy, such as 

a new commercial services plan, would be 

developed to ensure the long-term availability 

of in-parkway lodging, food, and other 

services. The development of this strategy and 

upgrades to existing facilities or construction 

of new facilities would likely be accomplished 

with project funding, but some staff time 

would be needed during planning and 

construction, which could reduce efficiencies 

as staff time is reprioritized. This impact 

would be adverse and negligible in the short 

term, but the overall impact in the long term, 

would be minor to moderate and beneficial. 

Long-term facility maintenance would require 

a continued commitment in the form of staff 

time and budget above that under alternative 

A. If operational funding is increased to the 

proposed level under alternative B, long-term 

adverse maintenance impacts would be 

mitigated. Overall impacts on commercial 

services would be long-term, minor to 

moderate, and beneficial. 

Under alternative B, the construction of new 

walking paths would be implemented with 

project dollars, with little to no impact on the 

operational budget in the short term. New 

trails and equestrian improvements would add 

to the parkway assets requiring long-term 
Parkway Operations 

455 

maintenance work, which would have minor 

adverse long-term impacts on operations. The 

addition of capacity could alleviate some user 

conflict and law enforcement response as 

recreational demand grows, proactively 

mitigating potential adverse impacts in the 

long term. 

Impacts on the resource management and 

science staff would be varied. Operations 

related to management of flora and fauna, 

designed landscape features, and roadside 

vistas and other scenic resources would be 

more proactive and use a long-term, 

comprehensive, multiyear planning, 

ecosystem approach. Working with partners 

to improve habitats outside the parkway 

boundary would require additional staff time 

that would likely be absorbed by the increase 

in the operations budget. Operational 

efficiencies would be realized by not having to 

react to and manage resources on a site-bysite basis, leading to minor to moderate 

beneficial long-term impacts. In addition, 

actively protecting natural resources that were 

once managed and maintained in an unnatural 

state would ease the maintenance and upkeep 

burden as well as time spent to manage 

agricultural leases. This would provide 

additional minor beneficial impacts in the 

long term. Pursuing a class I air quality 

classification would require some operational 

funding and resource management and 

science; planning, lands, and compliance; 

external affairs; and partnership staff time to 

be directed to this effort in the short and long 

term, which would be absorbed by the 

operations budget increase. Overall, 

operations related to resource management 

would experience long-term moderate 

beneficial impacts on operations under 

alternative B. 

Land protection efforts under alternative B 

would have both beneficial and adverse 

impacts. The amount of staff time necessary to 

pursue land acquisition to protect resources 

would be greater than that in alternative A, 

especially for staff to proactively seek out 

willing sellers of high-priority parcels, 

although the operational funding and staffing 

increase would likely absorb this increase. The 

resources staff would then have additional 

acreage to manage, but the external affairs and 

partner staff would have fewer partners to 

work with, resulting in a change in priority but 

no net change in staff time or resources. The 

implementation of a land protection strategy 

with established criteria for acquisition or 

other protection would create efficiencies 

across the parkway and lead to minor to 

moderate beneficial impacts on operations 

over the long term. 

Parkway Segments 

Impacts not previously discussed in the 

parkway-wide section above are included in 

the parkway segment analysis. 

Segment 1: Ridge. Under alternative B, 

operational impacts in segment 1 would result 

from the redesign of pull-off parking areas 

and installing new waysides. Given that the 

north entrance right-of-way is very narrow, 

more partnership work and operational 

expenditures would be necessary to build 

relationships and develop agreements with 

adjacent landowners to provide parkway 

information and orientation, which could 

adversely impact the budget, but would likely 

be absorbed by the funding increase proposed 

under alternative B. Education and 

interpretation staff increases would also be 

required to greatly increase the number of 

visitor contacts and enhance information and 

orientation at this entrance. Depending on 

funding levels and the priority of this effort 

under alternative B relative to other actions, 

the operational funding increase could absorb 

all of this work and the ability to contact more 

visitors and provide them with relevant 

information and pull-off parking would 

enhance the parkway’s ability to meet its 

mission and enhance operations, resulting in 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

impacts. 

The amount of effort required to modify some 

of the overlook landscaping to improve 

pullout visibility by passing traffic would be 

absorbed with operational funding and 

staffing increases and any impact would be 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

456 

negligible and adverse on specific days. 

Improved visibility for passing traffic and law 

enforcement personnel would facilitate traffic 

flow and visitor safety, thus reducing law 

enforcement requirements in this area. These 

changes would provide a long-term minor 

beneficial impact on park operations. Overall 

impacts in segment 1 would be long-term, 

minor to moderate, and beneficial. 

Segment 2: Roanoke. Some effort would 

be required to make minor modifications to 

some of the overlook landscaping to improve 

pullout visibility by passing traffic in the 

Roanoke segment. This additional expense 

would likely be project funded and the 

minimal staff time required to manage the 

modifications contract, etc., would be 

absorbed with operational funding and 

staffing increases and any impact would be 

negligible and adverse on specific days if 

traffic flow is impeded during modification 

implementation. Improved visibility for 

passing traffic and law enforcement personnel 

would facilitate traffic flow and visitor safety 

in the long term, thus reducing law 

enforcement requirements in this area. These 

changes would provide a long-term minor 

beneficial impact on park operations. 

Improved visitor orientation in this area 

would assist with increasing visitor contacts 

given anticipated heavy visitor use in this area 

and increasing population in the city of 

Roanoke. Increases to the operational budget 

would likely absorb additional staff and 

workloads and overall impacts in the long 

term would be minor to moderate and 

beneficial due to enhanced visitor safety and 

more visitor orientation services in this 

segment. 

Segment 6: Asheville. Under alternative B, 

the only additional impacts on operations in 

the Asheville area would be due to the 

development of additional parking for 

recreational users. Parking development 

would likely be project funded and not affect 

the operational budget outside of the need for 

some park staff to assist with planning and 

compliance work. Additional parking would 

need to be maintained periodically by 

maintenance staff; however, impacts from this 

action would be short-term and easily 

absorbed by operational funding increases 

under this alternative. The overall impact 

would be long-term, minor to moderate, and 

beneficial. 

Segment 7: Pisgah. Under alternative B, 

operational impacts in segment 7 would result 

from the redesign of pull-off parking areas 

and installing new waysides. Given that the 

south entrance right-of-way is very narrow, 

more partnership work and operational 

expenditures would be necessary to build 

relationships and develop agreements with 

adjacent landowners to provide parkway 

information and orientation, which could 

adversely impact the budget distribution in 

the short term. Staff time and expenditures 

would likely be absorbed by the funding 

increase proposed under alternative B and 

would result in long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts. 

Modifying designed landscapes to protect 

natural resources could include additional 

staff time from personnel in a number of 

divisions, including resource management and 

science; planning, lands, and compliance; and 

maintenance and engineering. Modifying 

drainage structures could be done with 

project funds, but some operational funding 

would be required. Developing a 

comprehensive invasive plant management 

strategy would take additional effort of 

planning, lands, and compliance and resource 

management and science staff, but would 

likely be completed with project funds, 

minimizing budget impacts. In the long run, 

this approach would yield efficiencies in 

managing and protecting natural resources, 

which would have minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts on operations. Overall, 

impacts would be long-term minor to 

moderate and beneficial. 

Parkway Recreation Areas 

Impacts not previously discussed in the 

parkway-wide section or parkway segment 

analysis above are included in the recreation 

area analysis. 
Parkway Operations 

457 

The management zones applied to all of the 

recreation areas along the parkway, from 

Humpback Rocks in the north to Mt. Pisgah 

in the south, under alternative B would 

require a concerted and coordinated effort 

across the parkway’s division’s to ensure that 

specific resource conditions, visitor 

experience, appropriate recreational activities, 

and levels and types of development are both 

achieved and maintained. Eight management 

zones are designated for the parkway and each 

would require the focus and attention of 

certain divisions and staff. For example, the 

recreation zone under alternative B would 

require the dedication and time of 

interpretation and education staff to provide 

visitor services andlaw enforcement staff and 

trail maintenance staff to provide safe 

recreational opportunities. Multiple divisions 

would need to coordinate to effectively 

achieve and maintain the conditions and 

experiences called for in each zone. The 

addition of management direction by zone 

decreases decision making on a case-by-case 

basis and leads to efficiencies as staff are all 

working toward a common set of desired 

outcomes. Overall impacts from the 

application of management zones would be 

long-term, minor to moderate, and beneficial. 

Humpback Rocks. The effort to mark the 

Howardsville Turnpike route and improve 

interpretation for visitors would require 

additional planning, lands, and compliance 

and interpretation staff time, which would 

likely be absorbed with operational funding 

increases, and would have long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impacts on operations. 

Improving existing trails and adding trail 

capacity would require additional law 

enforcement time in the area, but would also 

mitigate future trail user conflicts, trail 

damage, and corresponding maintenance 

needs with increasing visitation. Overall, these 

additional actions would result in short-term 

negligible adverse impacts and minor 

beneficial impacts in the long term. 

James River/Otter Creek. Changing the 

function of the Otter Creek Trail visitor 

contact station to a wayside shelter would 

lower the operations budget at this area 

because fewer interpretation and education 

staff and maintenance resources would be 

directed at this underused facility. These 

resources could be used elsewhere, which 

would have long-term minor beneficial 

impacts on operations. 

Realigning the trail between the restaurant 

and lake would require planning, lands, and 

compliance staff time, as well as trail 

maintenance staff time to implement, but 

would provide for more efficient operations in 

the area with increasing use levels over time. If 

the trail expanded to a multiuse trail, 

additional law enforcement time may need to 

be focused in this area. Overall, these actions 

would have a minor beneficial impact on 

operations. Trail realignment and additional 

trail capacity would require additional law 

enforcement time in the area, but would also 

mitigate future trail user conflicts, trail 

damage, and corresponding maintenance 

needs with increasing visitation. Overall 

impacts at this recreation area would be longterm, minor to moderate, and beneficial. 

Peaks of Otter. Stabilizing the Saunders 

Farm structures and rehabilitating the 

landscape at Johnson Farm would require 

relatively high levels of funding and staff 

resources. This could be mitigated with 

outside and/or project funding, but could 

result in short-term minor adverse impacts on 

the budget because some staff may have to be 

redirected from other efforts. Improving RV 

access to a portion of the campground at 

Peaks of Otter by widening the entrance and 

one of the loops, increasing turning radii, and 

enlarging RV parking spaces would require 

additional time from professional services and 

resource staff in the short term, despite a lot of 

planning, design, and construction work being 

project funded and implemented through 

contracts. Maintaining this infrastructure 

would likely be absorbed with operational 

funding and staffing increases. Overall 

impacts on operations would be long-term, 

minor, and beneficial as a result of improved 

RV access and cultural resource 

improvements. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

458 

Roanoke Mountain. The work required to 

establish an agreement with the city of 

Roanoke to manage the Mill Mountain spur 

road in partnership would require the time 

and effort of the external affairs and 

partnership staff in the short term, which 

would likely be absorbed by the higher 

operations budget under alternative B. In the 

long term, a cost and staff sharing 

management arrangement would reduce the 

amount of money and staff time spent 

managing and maintaining this road, which 

would result in long-term minor beneficial 

impacts on operations. 

The conversion of the Roanoke Mountain 

campground to a day use area would require 

some facility improvements and additions to 

provide picnic and trail staging facilities, 

which would likely be funded with operation 

budget increases and through project funds. 

Maintenance would not change drastically 

from the current condition. New trails could 

be developed in this recreation area, which 

would be compatible with the Roanoke Trail 

Plan. Maintaining new trails in the long term 

would require additional resource 

management and science and trail 

maintenance staff time and funding, but 

operational budget increases would likely be 

able to fund this work. Additional trail 

capacity in the area would also have long-term 

operational efficiencies by mitigating future 

trail conflicts and resource damage as 

visitation increases over time. Overall, the 

impacts in the Roanoke area would be longterm, minor, and beneficial given new trail 

capacity and partnership management of the 

Mill Mountain spur road. 

Smart View. Under alternative B, 

operational funding increases would likely 

cover the provision of traditional recreational 

pursuits, including additional trail 

infrastructure, to more and more visitors 

during the life of this plan. Overall impacts on 

operations would be long-term, minor, and 

beneficial because the parkway could allow 

and accommodate increasing visitation and 

recreational demand over time. 

Rocky Knob. Converting the visitor contact 

station to a trailhead shelter when the visitor 

contact facility is established at Mabry Mill 

would reduce the number of interpretation 

and education staff and maintenance 

resources needed at this location, which 

would benefit operations in the long term. 

Phasing this facility conversion to follow the 

establishment of the Mabry Mill visitor 

contact station allows staff and operational 

funding needs to be stretched across multiple 

years, mitigating potential budget stresses and 

ensuring effective operations from year-toyear. 

Reducing the size of the picnic area would 

require maintenance and resource 

management and science staff time to 

rehabilitate the area in the short term, but 

long-term maintenance needs would be 

reduced. Short-term staff and funding needs 

would likely be project funded or absorbed 

through the operations budget increase. This 

would result in negligible to minor beneficial 

impacts in the long term. Important upgrading 

to Rocky Knob infrastructure is proposed, 

including upgrades to the Gorge trail system, 

enhancing the backcountry camping area, 

providing trailhead staging and improved 

parking. These actions would require fairly 

large amounts of funding, some of which 

would come from project funding, which 

would mitigate the adverse impacts on the 

operations budget. Full planning, design, and 

construction would require the focus and time 

of staff across multiple divisions and although 

the workload and funding necessary would 

likely be absorbed through operation funding 

increases over multiple years, short-term 

impacts on the budget could occur. In the long 

term the upgrades and changes would 

enhance visitor experiences and make 

maintenance and operations requirements 

more efficient, resulting in long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impacts. 

Mabry Mill. Working with the state and 

federal highway department to relocate the 

state road that bisects the parkway would 

require a large investment in staff time and 

money to accomplish. Another large effort in 

terms of time and money would be pursuing 
Parkway Operations 

459 

development of a visitor contact facility. 

These two actions, in conjunction with 

upgrades to pedestrian circulation, signage, 

and wayside exhibits would require dedicated 

planning, lands, and compliance and 

partnership staff, in addition to resource 

management and science staff to ensure 

resources are protected and adverse impacts 

mitigated to the extent possible. Given the 

investment in time and dollars to implement 

these actions, adverse impacts on operations 

could be felt without large project funding and 

outside partner assistance in the short term. 

The full build-out of upgrades and changes 

would increase overall functionality and 

usability of the area. Overall, long-term 

impacts would be minor to moderate and 

beneficial due to increased visitor safety, 

better traffic flow and distribution, a new 

facility, signage, and pedestrian circulation to 

more effectively inform and educate visitors. 

Blue Ridge Music Center. The expansion 

of information and orientation capabilities 

would require interpretation, education, and 

partnership staff time that would likely be 

absorbed by operations budget increases. 

Enhancing services would lead to long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial impacts on 

operations in the music center area. 

Cumberland Knob. Under alternative B the 

visitor contact station would be restored to its 

historic appearance and visitor services would 

be enhanced through dedicated staffing, 

exhibits, etc. Additional infrastructure 

improvements, such as outdoor program 

shelters and trails would be developed. These 

actions would require increases in funding 

and staffing in both the short and long term. 

Planning and construction of the 

infrastructure would likely be project funded, 

but additional interpretation, law 

enforcement and maintenance staff time 

would likely be absorbed by budget increases 

in the long term. Increasing visitor services, 

such as providing more law enforcement led 

programs, would require additional 

interpretive and law enforcement staff time 

that would also be absorbed by the budget. 

Overall, these actions would result in minor to 

moderate beneficial long-term impacts due to 

enhanced visitor and student opportunities 

that could be provided with budget and staff 

increases. 

Doughton Park. Under alternative B, 

improvements would be made to better 

accommodate equestrian use in the area. 

Short-term impacts on the budget could 

result, but if priorities are established, 

constructing trailhead parking and providing 

equestrian backcountry campsites could be 

implemented with the help of project funds 

and outside grants, minimizing budget 

impacts. Overall operational efficiency would 

be increased due to more efficient parking and 

marked trails, reducing law enforcement 

efforts in the area. This would have long-term 

minor beneficial impacts. 

Altering the management strategy at Brinegar 

Cabin to replicate the historic landscape 

would require additional staff time and 

expenditures that would likely be absorbed by 

the budget increase. This is also true for staff 

time to convert some tent sites to RV sites. 

Impacts due to changes in management 

strategies and campsite conversions would be 

minor to moderate and beneficial in the long 

term. Overall operational impacts from these 

changes would be long-term minor to 

moderate and beneficial. 

Julian Price Memorial Park. Under 

alternative B an increased focus on resource 

management to protect wetlands would likely 

require additional time, attention, and funds 

to be directed to this area to adequately 

manage landscape management practices at 

this location. In the short term, relocating the 

picnic area and boat rental office would 

require minimal staff time and funding to 

provide planning and oversight of project 

funds and contracts. Enhancing visibility at 

the boat rental office and removing the picnic 

area would have long-term beneficial impacts 

on operations by enhancing visitor safety and 

reducing law enforcement responses. 

Improving RV access to a portion of the 

campground at Peaks of Otter by widening the 

entrance and one of the loops, increasing 

turning radii, and enlarging RV parking spaces 

would require additional time from 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

460 

professional services and resource staff in the 

short term, despite a lot of planning, design, 

and construction work being project funded 

and implemented through contracts. Overall 

impacts on operations would be long-term 

minor to moderate and beneficial as a result of 

the provision of more effective resource 

management and visitor service delivery. 

Linville Falls. Formalizing access to visitor 

opportunities, allowing and accommodating 

increased visitation, and improving universal 

access for fishing and maintenance facility and 

area landscaping would require 

interpretation, law enforcement, and 

maintenance staff time that would likely be 

absorbed by operational funding increases. 

Overall, long-term impacts would be minor to 

moderate and beneficial due to more effective 

management of visitor opportunities given 

increasing visitation over time. 

Crabtree Falls. Allowing and 

accommodating increased visitation and 

managing moderate to high visitor contact 

would require additional staff time and 

expenditures for law enforcement and 

interpretation staff, among others. This would 

lead to long-term minor beneficial impacts on 

operations. 

Craggy Gardens. Under alternative B the 

grassy bald would be restored to its historic 

size. This would require a sustained effort on 

behalf of the resource management and 

science and maintenance staff over the long 

term, which would primarily be funded 

through the operations budget, which could 

potentially have minor adverse impacts over 

time if other operations have to be scaled 

down or not completed. Strategic 

management of budget increases could 

mitigate this impact and reduce it to be almost 

unnoticeable. Restoration of the trail tread 

along the Craggy Pinnacle trail once closed 

would adversely impact the trail maintenance 

crew’s ability to work in other areas, which 

would result in short-term minor adverse 

impacts. By using planning, design, and 

construction project funds to develop a new 

formal hiking trail to Craggy Dome, impacts 

on the operations budget in the short term 

would be mitigated. Long-term maintenance, 

monitoring, and visitor management along the 

trail would not be expected to be noticeably 

different from that required on the existing 

trail as to impact operations in a very 

noticeable manner. Overall, impacts on 

operations would be long-term, minor to 

moderate, and beneficial due to enhanced 

operations resource management direction 

and management. 

Mt. Pisgah. Landscape and other restoration 

projects at the Buck Spring Lodge would 

likely be project funded, keeping operational 

expenditures to a minimum. Rehabilitation of 

tent camping sites adjacent to the bog and 

conversion of some existing RV sites to tent 

camping sites would require maintenance and 

engineering and resource management and 

science staff time and effort in the short term, 

but would likely be absorbed by the 

operations budget increase if properly 

prioritized and planned for in annual budget 

cycles. Long-term maintenance and 

management of the area to protect the bog, in 

addition to the need for additional law 

enforcement staff to restrict visitor use to 

trails, would impact the operations budget 

adversely if the operations budget couldn’t 

absorb it. Overall impacts on operations 

would be long-term, minor to moderate, and 

beneficial due to enhanced resource 

management combined with staffing and 

funding increases under alternative B. 

Overall, the proposed changes in alternative B 

would provide operational efficiencies across 

the parkway, including within each segment 

and recreation area. The presence of an 

overarching plan in conjunction with large 

increases to the annual operational budget 

would allow the parkway to hire additional 

staff to address the maintenance backlog, 

enhance visitor experiences, better protect 

resources, and deal with external threats. 

Collectively, the impacts on park operations 

under alternative B would be long-term, 

minor to moderate, and beneficial. 
Parkway Operations 

461 

Cumulative Effects 

The recreation and tourism enhancements, 

development of private lands, road 

construction and improvements, and resource 

protection impacts at the cumulative level 

would be the same as in alternative A. Past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions would require an increasing amount of 

staff time and operational funding as 

surrounding communities and areas continue 

to experience population growth and 

corresponding development of infrastructure 

that impacts the parkway. Managing the 

impacts of transportation improvements, 

external resource protection and recreation 

and tourism efforts would have long-term 

minor to moderate adverse cumulative 

impacts on park operations, primarily because 

some of the operations budget would be spent 

on managing external pressures. However, 

beneficial impacts are realized due to these 

expenditures because the parkway is able to 

continue to meet its mission given the everchanging environment that surrounds the 

parkway. Overall cumulative impacts on 

operations are long-term, minor to moderate, 

and adverse. 

When the likely effects of implementing 

alternative B are added to the effects of past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, there would be long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial cumulative impacts on 

park operations. Alternative B would 

contribute a large increment to this 

cumulative impact. The proposals in 

alternative B in combination with additional 

operational dollars and staff would be better 

able to overcome the external adverse threats 

to park operations than in alternative A. 

Conclusion 

Alternative B would have minor to moderate 

long-term beneficial effects to park operations 

primarily as a result of an increase in the 

operations budget and staffing levels, 

comprehensive guidance, enhanced partner 

outreach and collaboration, an ecosystem 

approach to managing natural resources, and 

the ability of staff to appropriately deal with 

the maintenance backlog. When combined 

with the potential impacts related to 

increasing development adjacent to the 

parkway, the need to manage recreation 

enhancements that impact parkway 

operations, and manage partnerships to 

protect resources and scenic viewsheds, 

alternative B would have a long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial cumulative impact on 

park operations. Alternative B would 

contribute a large increment to this 

cumulative impact. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Parkway-wide 

Under alternative C, the parkway would be 

managed with comprehensive parkway-wide 

management direction and include a large 

increase to the operations budget. This 

alternative has an increased focus on 

providing more modern recreational and 

visitor service amenities. As a result, a number 

of recreation areas along the parkway would 

require upgrades, redesign, or replacement. 

The parkway would emphasize a 

comprehensive approach to resource and 

visitor use management. By not managing on a 

case-by-case basis, operational efficiency 

would result from a more coordinated, 

strategic approach. Management across 

division would be more proactive than under 

alternative A. This would lead to long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial operational 

efficiencies. 

Assuming the parkway receives the full $23 

million in operating funds each year, more 

staff would be hired to begin to address the 

maintenance backlog and other needs that 

have not been addressed due to a lack of 

funding and adequate staffing, which would 

lead to operational efficiencies and beneficial 

long-term impacts on operations. The 

parkway’s use of seasonal employees would 

diminish somewhat with the extension of the 

season to 12 months in certain recreation 

areas, which would enhance workforce 

stability and likely increase productivity and 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

462 

reduce the need to process paperwork for as 

many seasonal employees at the beginning of 

each season. This would result in minor 

beneficial impacts over the long term. 

The role and importance of the external 

affairs and partnership staff’s work in 

cooperation with the resource management 

and science and planning, lands, and 

compliance staff would be much greater than 

that in alternative A. The emphasis under 

alternative C to provide leadership for 

regional efforts among adjacent landowners—

local, state, and federal officials and 

developers—to establish long-term strategies 

for conserving views from the parkway, in 

addition to conserving pastoral landscapes 

and pursuing a broader base of partnerships 

would require a great deal of time and 

funding. This work would enhance the 

effectiveness and efficiency of management 

and operations in the long term. If additional 

operational funding can absorb the staff time 

and necessary expenditures to truly enhance 

the partnership work already taking place, this 

proactive effort would result in minor to 

moderate beneficial operational impacts over 

the long term because viewshed management 

and land protection operations would be 

comprehensive, targeted, and based on 

resource boundaries and not political 

jurisdictions, such as county and city lines. If 

the additional budget and personnel are not 

able to be directed toward this effort, the 

result would be minor to moderate adverse 

impacts in this functional area as the need for 

partnerships is becoming an increasingly 

important part of operations related to 

meeting the parkway’s mission. 

Visitor and education staff would see 

operational efficiencies in the long term with 

more staff and funding under alternative C. 

More interpretation and education staff time 

would be spent enhancing visitor’s ability to 

connect to, explore, and learn about the 

region’s natural and cultural heritage. This 

would include enhancing parkway programs 

and even directing visitors to resources 

outside the parkway, such as heritage trails, 

scenic byways, and other public lands. In 

addition, an expansion of the parkway’s 

participation in regional heritage tourism 

projects and provision of regional information 

services in the Roanoke and Boone/Blowing 

Rock areas would require operations dollars 

and staff time that would likely be absorbed by 

the operations budget increase. Long-term 

benefits might also accrue as a result of 

leveraging additional volunteer staff due to 

additional exposure and new partnerships 

related to heritage tourism. More informed 

visitors are less likely to be responsible for 

resource and other impacts that require staff 

time to deal with, but also further the 

parkway’s mission. Overall, impacts would be 

long-term, minor to moderate, and beneficial. 

Adapting to changing visitor needs could 

require intense, short periods of time when 

staff would have to adjust the strategies and 

tools employed and even the location of 

visitor services to meet visitor use needs. An 

adaptable program could result in short-term 

adverse impacts on operational efficiency, but 

once necessary changes were implemented, 

operational efficiencies would result due to 

better educated and more informed visitors 

that are more sensitive to the resource issues 

along the parkway. More informed visitors are 

less likely to be responsible for resource and 

other impacts that require staff time, leading 

to long-term minor beneficial impacts on 

operations. 

Operations related to managing access and 

circulation would realize beneficial impacts as 

a result of implementing alternative C. 

Replacing at-grade crossings with new grade 

separation structures would have multiple 

beneficial impacts on operations by reducing 

commuter traffic and enforcement needs and 

maintenance of the road itself. Project funds 

or partner funds would pay for most of this 

effort and the impact on the operations 

budget would be absorbed in the budget 

increase. Working with partners to potentially 

provide alternative transportation options to 

parkway facilities would require a lot of 

partner, external affairs, and planning and 

compliance work, but sharing personnel and 

resources and using project funds would keep 

impacts on the budget to a minimum. 

Enhancing transportation options would 
Parkway Operations 

463 

enhance traffic flow and distribution and 

reduce law enforcement needs, resulting in a 

moderate long-term beneficial impact. 

Impacts on the maintenance and engineering 

division under alternative C are primarily 

related to changes to campgrounds, 

concessions, and trails. Reducing the number 

of operational campgrounds from nine to 

eight would have minimal beneficial impacts 

because staff time would be used at the day 

use recreation area at Roanoke Mountain. 

Infrastructure changes at the eight 

campgrounds would include enlarging select 

tent sites and upgrading amphitheaters and 

RV sites. In addition, providing universal 

accessibility at all campgrounds would require 

additional funding and staff. However, many 

of these upgrades would use project dollars 

and contract construction, mitigating the need 

for large amounts of maintenance and 

engineering and planning, lands, and 

compliance staff time. In the long term, the 

infrastructure changes and upgrades would 

better meet the parkway’s mission and 

enhance visitor safety and opportunities, 

which would result in moderate beneficial 

impacts on operations. 

Under alternative C, the construction of new 

walking paths would enhance visitor 

opportunities and connect with regional trail 

systems, including regional equestrian trail 

connections. These developments would be 

implemented with project dollars, with little to 

no impact on the operational budget in the 

short term. New trails and equestrian 

improvements would add to the parkway 

assets requiring long-term maintenance work, 

which could have minor adverse long-term 

impacts on operations if the operations 

budget increase is not able to absorb them. 

The addition of capacity could alleviate some 

user conflict and law enforcement response as 

recreational demand grows, proactively 

mitigating potential adverse impacts in the 

long term. 

Impacts on the resource management and 

science staff would be varied. For example, 

operations related to management of flora and 

fauna, designed landscape features, and 

roadside vistas and other scenic resources 

would be more proactive and use a long-term, 

multiyear planning, ecosystem approach. 

Working with partners to improve habitats 

outside the parkway boundary would require 

additional staff time, but could reduce other 

operational needs. This more comprehensive 

approach to resource management would 

require additional staff time that would likely 

be absorbed through operational budget 

increases under alternative C. Operational 

efficiencies would be realized by not having to 

react to and manage resources on a site-bysite basis, leading to minor to moderate, 

beneficial long-term impacts. In addition, 

actively protecting natural resources that were 

once managed and maintained in an unnatural 

state would ease the maintenance and upkeep 

burden as well as time spent to manage 

agricultural leases. This would provide 

additional minor beneficial impacts in the 

long term. Pursuing a class I air quality 

classification would require operational 

funding and staff time from the resource 

management and science; planning, lands, and 

compliance; external affairs; and partnership 

staff time to be directed to this effort in the 

short- and long-term, which would be 

absorbed by the operations budget increase. 

Overall impacts on the resource management 

and science staff would be long-term, 

moderate, and beneficial due to efficiencies 

realized from a focused, strategic approach to 

management that is not reactive. 

The creation of new parkway land use maps 

that allow for deviations from the historic 

character of the parkway when necessary 

would likely be accomplished through the use 

of an outside contractor in cooperation with 

park staff using project funds. Therefore, only 

some staff time, primarily that of the resource 

management and science and planning, lands 

and compliance staff would be required. The 

parkway would experience operational and 

maintenance efficiencies once the new maps 

are completed because some of the 

constraints imposed by the old maps required 

excess work and dollars to accomplish 

specific tasks. The new maps would provide 

operational efficiencies and minor beneficial 

impacts in the long term. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

464 

Land protection efforts under alternative C 

would have both beneficial and adverse 

impacts. The amount of staff time necessary to 

provide leadership for regional efforts among 

adjacent landowners; local, state, and federal 

officials; and developers to establish longterm strategies for conserving views from the 

parkway would require a concerted effort in 

time and money above that in alternative A, 

especially for staff to proactively seek out 

willing sellers of high-priority parcels, 

although the operational funding and staffing 

increase would likely absorb this increase. The 

resource management and science staff would 

then have additional acreage to manage, but 

the external affairs and partner staff would 

have fewer partners to work with, resulting in 

a change in priority but essentially no net 

change in staff time or resources. The 

implementation of a land protection strategy 

with established criteria for acquisition or 

other protection would create efficiencies 

across the parkway and have beneficial 

impacts in the long term. Overall, such efforts 

would result in minor to moderate, beneficial 

impacts on operations over the long term. 

Parkway Segments 

Impacts not previously discussed in the 

parkway-wide section above are included in 

the parkway segment analysis. 

Pursuing the development of paved multiuse 

trails parallel, but separate from, the parkway 

in the Waynesboro, Roanoke, and Asheville 

urban areas would have adverse and beneficial 

impacts on operations. Initial partnership, 

planning, design, and construction oversight 

work would require dedicated staff time and 

could hinder other efforts called for under 

alternative C. Much of the work would be 

project funded and implemented by 

contractors, which would mitigate the adverse 

impact of redirecting staff time to this effort 

and straining the annual operations budget. 

Once completed, the trails would reduce user 

conflict on the roadway and law enforcement 

response needs, which would be beneficial to 

operations. However, maintaining the trails 

for visitor safety and quality experience would 

continue to require staff time and operational 

funding in the long term. Assuming 

operational funding and staffing increases 

under alternative C absorb the short-term 

work from partnership development to final 

construction, as well as long-term 

maintenance needs, this effort would have 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

impacts on operations. 

Segment 1: Ridge. Under alternative C, 

operational impacts in Segment 1 would be 

result from the redesign of pull-off parking 

areas, installing new wayside, and partnership 

work to given the narrow right-of-way at the 

north entrance. The resulting impact on 

operations would be an increase in staff time 

and funding to build relationships and 

develop agreements with adjacent landowners 

to provide parkway information and 

orientation. Education and interpretation staff 

increases would also be required to greatly 

increase the number of visitor contacts and 

enhance information and orientation at this 

entrance. Depending on funding level and the 

priority of this effort under alternative C 

relative to other actions, the operational 

funding increase could absorb this work and 

the ability to contact more visitors and 

provide them with relevant information and 

pull-off parking would enhance the parkway’s 

ability to meet its mission and enhance 

operations, resulting in long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impacts. 

Pursuing the development of paved multiuse 

trails parallel to, but separate from, the 

parkway would have adverse and beneficial 

impacts on operations. Initial partnership, 

planning, design, and construction oversight 

work would require dedicated staff time and 

could hinder other efforts called for under 

alternative C. However, much of the work 

would be project funded and implemented by 

contractors, which would mitigate the adverse 

impact of redirecting staff time to this effort. 

Once completed, the trails would reduce user 

conflict on the roadway and law enforcement 

response needs, which would be beneficial to 

operations. However, maintaining the trails 

for visitor safety and quality experience would 

continue to require staff time and operational 
Parkway Operations 

465 

funding in the long term. Assuming that 

operational funding and staffing increases 

under alternative C absorb the short-term 

work from partnership development to final 

construction and long-term maintenance 

needs, this effort would have long-term minor 

to moderate beneficial impacts on operations. 

The amount of effort required to modify some 

of the overlook landscaping to improve 

pullout visibility by passing traffic would likely 

be absorbed with operational funding and 

staffing increases and any impact would be 

negligible and adverse on specific days while 

modifications are being implemented. 

Improved visibility for passing traffic and law 

enforcement personnel would facilitate traffic 

flow and visitor safety, thus reducing law 

enforcement requirements in this area. These 

changes would provide a long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impact on park 

operations. Overall, impacts on operations 

would be long-term minor to moderate and 

beneficial due to enhanced visitor services and 

safety, reduced law enforcement needs, and 

more informed visitors. 

Segment 2: Roanoke. Pursuing the 

development of paved multiuse trails parallel 

to, but separate from, the parkway would have 

adverse and beneficial impacts on operations. 

Initial partnership, planning, design, and 

construction oversight work would require 

dedicated staff time and could hinder other 

efforts called for under alternative C. 

However, much of the work would be project 

funded and implemented by contractors, 

which would mitigate the adverse impact of 

redirecting staff time to this effort. Once 

completed, the trails would reduce user 

conflict on the roadway and law enforcement 

response needs, which would be beneficial to 

operations. However, maintaining the trails 

for visitor safety and quality experience would 

continue to require staff time and operational 

funding in the long term. Assuming that 

operational funding and staffing increases 

under alternative C absorb the short-term 

work from partnership development to final 

construction and long-term maintenance 

needs, this effort would have long-term minor 

to moderate beneficial impacts on operations. 

Also, the redesign of some overlooks to 

greatly enhance visibility of the parking area 

to passing traffic would reduce traffic flow 

issues, enhance safety, and result in fewer law 

enforcement incident responses and presence 

to monitor these areas. These changes would 

provide long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts on park operations. 

Implementing the actual redesign would likely 

be accomplished through project funding with 

minimal staff time to deal with planning and 

contracting responsibilities, which would 

likely be absorbed by operational budget 

increases. Given heavy visitor use in this area 

and increasing population in the city of 

Roanoke, some of the operational funding 

increase would need to be used to enhance 

law enforcement presence in this segment, 

which would improve efficiency and visitor 

safety, resulting in a minor to moderate 

beneficial local impact. The parkway would 

also expand their information and orientation 

capabilities at Explore Park. This would 

require some additional staff time and 

operations expenditures, but the overall 

impact would be mitigated by using partner 

resources to assist in implementation. Overall, 

the impact on operations in segment 2 would 

be long-term, minor to moderate, and 

beneficial. 

Segment 3: Plateau. The Kelley 

School/Harris Farm area would be managed 

as a visitor use and education attraction in 

partnership with universities. Initially, 

partnership and contracting work would be 

needed to implement this idea, which would 

require staff time and expenditures, although 

the impact would be relatively negligible given 

the operations budget increase. In the long 

term, additional interpretation and education 

staff and maintenance work would be needed 

to ensure a safe and educational visitor 

experience but impacts would be negligible 

because resource needs would be shared with 

partners. Placing a greater emphasis on Kelley 

School and the Harris Farm for visitor use and 

education would not only benefit visitor 

experience, but also the viability and 

protection of these cultural sites. Partnerships 

would place additional demands on park staff; 

however, new partnerships with universities 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

466 

and nonprofits would mitigate the impacts on 

park operations, thereby resulting in longterm minor to moderate beneficial impacts 

over the long term. 

Segment 4: Highlands. Under alternative 

C the parkway would seek to improve visitor 

information and orientation services in the 

Boone/Bowling Rock area. The information 

desk would be staffed and programs could be 

provided at a site off the parkway, such as 

downtown. The goal would be to increase the 

number of visitor contacts a great deal from 

current levels. This would be a beneficial 

impact on park operations by having better 

informed visitors that are less likely to cause 

resource damage, etc. Although additional 

staff time would be required to implement this 

action, the expense is likely to be absorbed by 

the operation budget increases. Due to a 

better informed visitor and improved services, 

overall impacts on operations would be longterm, minor, and beneficial. 

Also, pursuing the development of paved 

multiuse trails parallel to, but separate from, 

the parkway would have adverse and 

beneficial impacts on operations (this includes 

the Julian Price Memorial Park recreation 

area, if determined to be feasible). Initial 

partnership, planning, design, and 

construction oversight work would require 

dedicated staff time and could hinder other 

efforts called for under alternative C. 

However, much of the work would be project 

funded and implemented by contractors, 

which would mitigate the adverse impact of 

redirecting staff time to this effort. Once 

completed, the trails would reduce user 

conflict on the roadway and law enforcement 

response needs, which would be beneficial to 

operations. However, maintaining the trails 

for visitor safety and quality experience would 

continue to require staff time and operational 

funding in the long term. Assuming 

operational funding and staffing increases 

under alternative C absorb the short-term 

work from partnership development to final 

construction and long-term maintenance 

needs, this effort would have long-term minor 

to moderate beneficial impacts on operations. 

Segment 6: Asheville. Under alternative C, 

additional impacts on operations in the 

Asheville area would be due to the 

development of additional parking for 

recreational users. Parking development 

would likely be project funded and not affect 

the operational budget outside of the need for 

some park staff to assist with planning and 

compliance work. Additional parking would 

need to be maintained periodically by 

maintenance staff; however, impacts from this 

action would be short-term and likely 

absorbed by operational funding increases 

under this alternative. 

Also, pursuing the development of paved 

multiuse trails parallel to, but separate from, 

the parkway would have adverse and 

beneficial impacts on operations. Initial 

partnership, planning, design, and 

construction oversight work would require 

dedicated staff time and could hinder other 

efforts called for under alternative C. 

However, much of the work would be project 

funded and implemented by contractors, 

which would mitigate the adverse impact of 

redirecting staff time to this effort. Once 

completed, the trails would reduce user 

conflict on the roadway and law enforcement 

response needs, which would be beneficial to 

operations. However, maintaining the trails 

for visitor safety and quality experience would 

continue to require staff time and operational 

funding in the long term. Assuming 

operational funding and staffing increases 

under alternative C absorb the short-term 

work from partnership development to final 

construction and long-term maintenance 

needs, this effort would have long-term minor 

to moderate beneficial impacts on operations. 

Connecting the multiuse path with 

community trails and adding pedestrian/bike 

lanes to bridges would require additional law 

enforcement presence in certain areas, but 

enhance visitor safety, reducing incident 

response needs. The parkway would also 

explore the possibility of establishing a staging 

area for the city of Asheville shuttle system, 

which would require additional staff time to 

implement. Overall, the impact on operations 

in the Asheville area would be long-term, 
Parkway Operations 

467 

minor, and beneficial due to the ability of staff 

to provide safe visitor opportunities beyond 

those that currently exist. 

Segment 7: Pisgah. Under alternative C, 

operational impacts in segment 7 would be 

focused on the redesign of pull-off parking 

areas, installing new wayside, and partnership 

work to given the narrow right-of-way at the 

south entrance. Additional impacts would 

result from modifying the landscape to 

protect natural resources and managing 

invasive plants. The impact on operations 

would be an increase in staff time and funding 

to build relationships and develop agreements 

with adjacent landowners to provide parkway 

information and orientation. Depending on 

funding level and the priority of this effort 

under alternative C relative to other actions, 

the operational funding increase could absorb 

this work, resulting in long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial impacts on operations. 

Modifying designed landscapes to protect 

natural resources could include additional 

staff time from resource management and 

science; planning, lands, and compliance; and 

maintenance and engineering. Modifying 

drainage structures could be done with 

project funds, but some operational funding 

would likely be required. Developing a 

comprehensive invasive plant management 

strategy would take additional effort of 

planning and resource staff, but would likely 

be completed with project funds, minimizing 

budget impacts. In the long-run, this approach 

would yield efficiencies that would have 

minor to moderate beneficial impacts on 

operations related to operations related to 

managing natural resources. Overall, impacts 

would be long-term, minor to moderate, and 

beneficial.

Parkway Recreation Areas 

Impacts not previously discussed in the 

parkway-wide section or parkway segment 

analysis above are included in the recreation 

area analysis. 

The management zones applied to all of the 

recreation areas along the parkway, from 

Humpback Rocks in the north to Mt. Pisgah 

in the south, under alternative B would 

require a concerted and coordinated effort 

across the parkway’s divisions to ensure that 

specific resource conditions, visitor 

experience, appropriate recreational activities, 

and levels and types of development are both 

achieved and maintained. Eight management 

zones are designated for the parkway and each 

would require the focus and attention of 

certain divisions and staff. For example, the 

natural resource zone under alternative C 

would require the dedication and time of the 

resource management and science staff, as 

well as partnership and external affairs staff, 

to maintain the broad ecological integrity of 

the parkway. Multiple divisions would need to 

coordinate to effectively achieve and maintain 

the conditions and experiences called for in 

each zone. The addition of management 

direction by zone decreases decision making 

on a case-by-case basis and leads to 

efficiencies as staff are all working toward a 

common set of desired outcomes. Overall 

impacts from the application of management 

zones would be long-term minor to moderate 

and beneficial. 

Humpback Rocks. The effort to mark the 

Howardsville Turnpike route and improve 

interpretation for visitors would require 

additional planning and interpretation staff 

time. The operations extension and route 

marking would likely be absorbed with 

operational funding increases and would have 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

impacts on operations. In addition, increasing 

the capacity of the visitor contact station, 

linking site trails with U.S. Forest Service trails 

and Sherando Lake facilities would require 

additional staff time across multiple divisions 

and relatively large amounts of project 

funding to minimize impacts on the 

operations budget. In the long term additional 

facility maintenance, trail maintenance and 

law enforcement patrol needs would impact 

the budget, despite the likelihood that much 

of the long-term funding increase would be 

absorbed by increases to the budget. Some 

long-term beneficial impacts would be 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

468 

realized as a result of fewer bicycle and vehicle 

conflicts along the parkway road and the 

ability to better manage increasing visitation. 

Overall, the impacts at Humpback Rocks 

would be long-term minor to moderate and 

beneficial due to enhanced services and 

facilities. 

James River/Otter Creek. Operations 

under alternative C would be impacted due to 

the change in the function of the Otter Creek 

Trail visitor contact station to a wayside 

shelter would reduce operational 

expenditures because fewer interpretation 

and education staff and maintenance 

resources would be directed at this underused 

facility. These resources could be used 

elsewhere, which would have long-term 

minor beneficial impacts on operations. 

Under alternative C, unlike alternative A, the 

parkway would manage park operations at a 

low-level outside of the visitor service areas. 

Although this would require fewer law 

enforcement staff, managing the large natural 

zone to meet desired conditions and visitor 

experiences would require a more concerted 

effort on the part of resource management 

and science staff. More staff time and 

resources would be required to work on dam 

and spillway removal as part of wetland 

restoration of the lake. Although most of these 

actions would be absorbed by the increase in 

the operations budget, some negligible to 

minor adverse impacts could be felt given the 

need to reprioritize staff focus. Beneficial 

impacts would result from discontinuing 

dredging, which could help offset the staff and 

funding increase of the other actions.

Realigning the trail between the restaurant 

and lake would require planning, lands, and 

compliance and trail maintenance staff time to 

implement, but would provide for more 

efficient operations in the area given 

increasing use levels. If the trail expanded to a 

multiuse trail, additional law enforcement 

time may need to be focused in this area. 

Overall, these actions would have a minor 

beneficial impact on operations. Additional 

trail capacity and a large recreational zone 

would require additional law enforcement 

time in the area, but would also mitigate future 

trail user conflicts, trail damage, and 

corresponding maintenance needs with 

increasing visitation. 

Improving RV access to a portion of the 

campground at Peaks of Otter by widening the 

entrance and one of the loops, increasing 

turning radii, and enlarging RV parking spaces 

would require additional time from resource 

management and science and planning, lands, 

and compliance staff in the short term, despite 

a lot of planning, design, and construction 

work being project funded and implemented 

through contracts. Maintaining this 

infrastructure would likely be absorbed with 

operational funding and staffing increases. 

Overall, impacts on operations would be longterm, minor to moderate, and beneficial due 

to enhanced visitor services, facilities, and 

reduced staff needs at the wayside shelter, 

discontinued dredging, and low park 

operations outside visitor service areas. 

Peaks of Otter. Stabilizing Saunders farm 

and rehabilitating the landscape at Johnson 

farm would require relatively high levels of 

funding and staff resources. This could be 

mitigated with outside and/or project funding, 

but could result in short-term minor adverse 

impacts on the budget and because some staff 

may have to be redirected from other efforts. 

Improving RV access to a portion of the 

campground at Peaks of Otter by widening the 

entrance and one of the loops, increasing 

turning radii, and enlarging RV parking spaces 

as well as converting some campsites to rental 

cabins would require additional time from 

resource management and science and 

planning, lands, and compliance staff in the 

short term, despite the fact that much of the 

planning, design, and construction work 

would be project funded and implemented 

through contracts. Maintaining this 

infrastructure would likely require some 

additional maintenance staff time that would 

be absorbed by operational budget increases. 

Overall impacts on operations would be longterm, minor, and beneficial due to the staff’s 

ability to enhance services and cultural 

resource protection. 
Parkway Operations 

469 

Roanoke Mountain. No additional impacts 

not already discussed. 

Smart View. If improvements to the existing 

picnic area are made, they would likely be 

made with project funding and changes to 

maintenance needs over the long term would 

be minimal. Impacts on operations would be 

long-term, negligible to minor, and beneficial 

as a result of improved facilities and the ability 

to absorb the staff and expenditures with the 

increased budget. 

Rocky Knob. Converting the visitor contact 

station to a trailhead shelter when the visitor 

contact facility is established at Mabry Mill 

would reduce the number of interpretation 

and education staff and maintenance 

resources needed at this location, which 

would benefit operations in the long term. 

Phasing this facility conversion to follow the 

establishment of the Mabry Mill visitor 

contact station allows staff and operational 

funding to be stretched across multiple years, 

migrating potential budget stresses and 

ensuring effective operations from year-toyear. Implementation of potential 

improvements to the existing picnic area 

would likely use project funding to 

implement, but would enhance visitor 

services. Managing historic settlement sites as 

a cultural landscape, with interpretive 

waysides, self-guiding trails, and guided walks 

would require additional staff time, 

particularly cultural resource, interpretation, 

education, and law enforcement staff. This 

operational increase would likely be absorbed 

by the budget increase and enhance visitor 

services and facilities in this area, resulting in 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

impacts. 

Improving RV access to a portion of the 

campground at Peaks of Otter by widening the 

entrance and one of the loops, increasing 

turning radii, and enlarging RV parking spaces 

as well as converting some campsites to rental 

cabins would require additional time from 

resource management and science and 

planning, lands, and compliance staff in the 

short term, despite the fact that much of the 

planning, design, and construction work 

would be project funded and implemented 

through contracts. The addition of 

maintenance staff time to this infrastructure 

would likely be absorbed with operational 

funding. This would enhance overnight visitor 

accommodations in the long term and annual 

operating expenditures could be absorbed, 

resulting in long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial impacts on operations. Overall, 

impacts on operations would be long-term 

minor to moderate and beneficial. 

Mabry Mill. Improving interpretation would 

require short-term investments to develop 

diverse presentations, but would result in 

more educated visitors less likely to damage 

key resources. This would lead to beneficial 

impacts across multiple divisions. Redesigning 

circulation and way finding would require 

some planning, lands, and compliance; 

resource management and science; and 

maintenance and engineering staff to plan and 

oversee these changes. More staff time and 

dollars would also be needed to plan for and 

oversee the adaptive reuse construction of the 

restaurant into a visitor contact station if its 

services are discontinued. Although this work 

would be implemented through project 

funding, some short-term operations dollars 

may be needed, which could adversely impact 

the budget and redirect staff from other work. 

Exploring the opportunity to develop a 

multiuse trail between Mabry Mill and 

Meadows of Dan would require staff time 

during initial exploration phases and 

additional time to oversee planning and 

construction, which would be project funded. 

The full build-out of upgrades and changes 

would increase overall functionality and 

usability of the area and overall impacts would 

be minor to moderate and beneficial in the 

long term. By providing additional visitor 

services, enhanced circulation, way finding, 

and recreational opportunities, overall 

impacts on operations would be minor to 

moderate and beneficial in the long term. 

Blue Ridge Music Center. The expansion 

of information and orientation capabilities 

would require interpretation, education, and 

partnership staff time that would likely be 

absorbed by operations budget increases. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

470 

Enhancing services would lead to long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial impacts on 

operations in the music center area. 

Cumberland Knob. Under alternative C the 

visitor contact station would be restored to its 

historic appearance and visitor services would 

be enhanced through dedicated staffing, 

exhibits, etc. Additional infrastructure 

improvements, such as trails and picnic sites 

would also be developed. These actions would 

require increases in funding and staffing in 

both the short and long term. Planning and 

construction of the infrastructure would likely 

be project funded, but additional 

interpretation, law enforcement, and 

maintenance staff time would impact the 

budget in the long term. Overall, however, 

these actions would primarily be absorbed by 

the operational budget and result in minor to 

moderate beneficial long-term impacts on 

operations. 

Doughton Park. Under alternative C, 

improvements would be made to better 

accommodate equestrian use in the area. 

Short-term impacts on the budget could 

result, but if priorities are established, 

constructing trailhead parking and providing 

equestrian backcountry campsites could be 

implemented with the help of project funds 

and outside grants, minimizing budget 

impacts. Overall operational efficiency would 

be increased due to more efficient parking and 

marked trails, reducing law enforcement 

efforts in the area. This would have long-term 

minor beneficial impacts. 

Altering the management strategy at Brinegar 

Cabin to replicate the historic landscape 

would require additional staff time and 

expenditures that would likely be absorbed by 

the budget increase. This is also true for staff 

time to convert some tent sites to RV sites. 

Impacts due to changes in management 

strategies and campsite conversions would be 

minor to moderate and beneficial in the long 

term. Overall operational impacts from these 

changes would be long-term, minor to 

moderate, and beneficial. 

Julian Price Memorial Park. Under 

alternative C, an increased focus on resource 

management at Julian Price Memorial Park to 

protect wetlands would likely require 

additional time, attention, and funds to be 

directed to this area to adequately direct 

landscape management practices at this 

location. This would have a moderate 

beneficial impact on operations if the 

operations budget increase is able to absorb 

the additional staff time and dollars required 

to make this management emphasis shift. 

Upgrading the comfort stations in the picnic 

area, upgrading existing trails and 

constructing new trails, and improving site 

signage would require staff time and 

expenditures in the short term. Comfort 

station upgrades and new trail construction 

would likely be project funded, whereas other 

upgrades and enhancements would likely be 

absorbed by the operational budget increase. 

In the long term, enhanced way finding and 

additional trails would better facilitate 

increased visitation, but the infrastructure 

upgrades would require additional 

maintenance time and funding. The full buildout of upgrades and changes would increase 

overall functionality and usability of the area 

and overall impacts would be minor to 

moderate and beneficial in the long term. 

Also, refer to the above segment 4 (Highlands) 

analysis regarding the effects of the proposed 

multiuse trail through portions of Julian Price 

Memorial Park. 

Linville Falls. Operations under alternative 

C would be impacted by infrastructure and 

visitor facility changes, including converting 

the visitor contact station to a trailhead 

shelter, relocating the contact station function 

outside of the floodplain, redesigning the 

picnic area, improving the maintenance 

facility and area landscaping, improving RV 

access and campground upgrades, and 

formalizing recreational access. In the short 

term, planning, lands, and compliance and 

maintenance and engineering staff would be 

required to plan and oversee these changes. 

Short-term construction related funding 

would be project based, but in the long term, 
Parkway Operations 

471 

additional maintenance staff and time would 

be necessary to keep the facilities safe and 

functional, which would have to be absorbed 

by the operations budget increase. 

Improvements to the maintenance facility 

would have minor beneficial impacts in the 

long term as would managing for low-visitoruse levels and minimal visitor interaction. 

Overall, the changes under alternative C 

would enhance the ability of the parkway staff 

to provide for efficient and safe visitor 

services, which would result in a minor to 

moderate long-term beneficial impacts. 

Crabtree Falls. Under alternative C, fewer 

law enforcement staff and time would be 

needed to manage for low-level visitor use and 

minimal visitor interaction, which would have 

minor beneficial impacts in the long term. 

Improving RV access and campground 

upgrades would require some staff time in the 

short term during planning and construction 

and could require additional maintenance 

needs in the long term, which would be 

absorbed by the operations budget increase. 

Overall, the impacts on operations would be 

minor to moderate and beneficial as a result of 

more efficient visitor facilities and the ability 

to better meet the parkway mission. 

Craggy Gardens. Under alternative C the 

grassy bald would be restored to its historic 

size. This would require a sustained effort on 

behalf of the resource management and 

science and maintenance staff over the long 

term, which would primarily be funded 

through the operations budget, which could 

potentially have minor adverse impacts over 

time if other operations have to be scaled 

down or not completed. Strategic 

management of budget increases could 

mitigate this impact and reduce it to be almost 

unnoticeable. Additional resource 

management and science and law 

enforcement staff time would be needed to 

monitor sensitive resources and research, 

apply, and adjust management actions (e.g., 

signs, physical obstructions, staffing, 

education) as needed to meet desired resource 

conditions. Additional staff or budget would 

likely be absorbed by the operations budget 

increase and when combined, these actions 

would protect resources to more effectively 

meet the parkway’s mission, resulting in 

minor to moderate long-term beneficial 

impacts on operations. 

Mt. Pisgah. Landscape and other restoration 

projects at the Buck Spring Lodge would 

likely be project funded, keeping operational 

expenditures to a minimum. Rehabilitation of 

tent camping sites adjacent to the bog and 

converting some existing RV sites to tent 

camping sites would require maintenance and 

engineering and resource management and 

science staff time and effort in the short term, 

but would likely be absorbed by the 

operations budget increase if properly 

prioritized and planned for in annual budget 

cycles. Long-term maintenance and 

management of the area to protect the bog, in 

addition to the need for additional law 

enforcement staff to restrict visitor use to 

trails would impact the operations budget 

adversely if the operations budget couldn’t 

absorb it. Overall impacts on operations 

would be long-term minor to moderate and 

beneficial due to enhanced resource 

management combined with staffing and 

funding increases under alternative B. 

Overall, the proposed changes in alternative C 

would provide operational efficiencies across 

the parkway, including within each segment 

and recreation area. The presence of an 

overarching plan in conjunction with large 

increases to the annual operations budget 

would allow the parkway to hire additional 

staff to address the maintenance backlog, 

enhance visitor experiences and amenities, 

and better protect resources and deal with 

external threats. Collectively, the impacts on 

park operations under alternative C would be 

long-term, minor to moderate, and beneficial. 

Cumulative Effects 

The recreation and tourism enhancements, 

development of private lands, road 

construction and improvements, and resource 

protection impacts at the cumulative level 

would be the same as in alternative A. Past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

472 

actions would require an increasing amount of 

staff time and operational funding as 

surrounding communities and areas continue 

to experience population growth and 

corresponding development of infrastructure 

that impacts the parkway. Managing the 

impacts of transportation improvements, 

external resource protection and recreation 

and tourism efforts would have long-term 

minor to moderate adverse cumulative 

impacts on park operations, primarily because 

a portion of the operations budget would be 

spent on managing external pressures. 

However, beneficial impacts are realized due 

to these expenditures because the parkway is 

able to continue to meet its mission given the 

ever-changing environment that surrounds 

the parkway. Overall cumulative impacts on 

operations are long-term, minor to moderate, 

and adverse. 

When the likely effects of implementing 

alternative C are added to the effects of past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, there would be long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial cumulative impacts on 

park operations. Alternative C would 

contribute a large increment to this 

cumulative impact. The proposals in 

alternative C in combination with additional 

operational dollars and staff would be better 

able to overcome the external adverse threats 

to park operations than in alternative A. 

Conclusion 

Alternative C would have minor to moderate 

long-term beneficial effects to park operations 

primarily as a result of an increase in the 

operations budget and staffing levels, 

comprehensive guidance, enhanced partner 

outreach and collaboration, an ecosystem 

approach to managing natural resources, 

paved multiuse trail development, and the 

ability of staff to appropriately deal with the 

maintenance backlog. When combined with 

the potential impacts related to increasing 

development adjacent to the parkway, the 

need to manage recreation enhancements that 

impact parkway operations, and the need to 

manage partnerships to protect resources and 

scenic viewsheds, alternative C would have a 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

cumulative impact on park operations. 

Alternative C would contribute a large 

increment to this cumulative impact. 
473 

REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMICS 

INTRODUCTION 

The assessment of socioeconomic effects on 

the human environment surrounding the Blue 

Ridge Parkway reflects the professional 

judgment of parkway staff, NPS planners, and 

an interdisciplinary team of outside specialists 

assisting the NPS staff. This assessment 

describes the potential impacts of the 

management alternatives at two scales: (1) a 

parkway-wide scale assessing the overall 

effects of broader programmatic actions 

affecting all or much of the parkway; and, (2) a 

focused assessment of more local or sitespecific actions affecting one or more parkway 

segment or recreation area(s). 

The principal connections between parkway 

management actions and policies and the 

socioeconomic environment include the 

following: 

 actions which affect levels of overall 

visitor use and spending including types, 

levels, seasonality, and geographic 

distribution 

 National Park Service staffing, payroll, 

maintenance and operating outlays 

 capital construction, equipment and 

professional services outlays for goods 

and services from parkway 

concessioners 

 lifestyles, attitudes, and established 

social relationships among groups and 

organizations formally or informally 

affiliated with the parkway 

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR 

ANALYZING IMPACTS 

Socioeconomic impacts would be tied to the 

effects of the management alternatives on 

visitor use and spending, parkway operations, 

access/circulation, concession operations, and 

land use and ownership. The “Visitor Use and 

Experience” section addresses the long-term 

effects of visitor use associated with the three 

alternatives. Potentially affected parties 

include visitors, adjacent landowners, 

municipalities, residents and other parties 

economically influenced by the parkway and 

concession contracts and commercial use 

authorizations that rely economically on the 

parkway. Linkages between visitor use and the 

socioeconomic environment are assessed 

based on established economic and social 

relationships as described in chapter 3, an 

understanding of how parkway operations 

affect local economies, the Money Generation 

Model (Version 2), and the professional 

judgment of the analysts and preparers. 

Economic and social impacts associated with 

the alternatives are assessed in terms of 

scale/intensity, duration, and type/character. 

Scale/Intensity 

The scale or intensity of impacts refers to the 

change(s) associated with the alternatives 

when compared to current and future 

conditions under alternative A. In addition to 

the relative magnitude of changes, factors 

considered in assessing scale and intensity 

include the likelihood of people being aware 

of the changes, the ability to measure the 

changes and/or effects of those changes, and 

the number of people or areal extent of the 

region that would be affected. 

Negligible: Effects on the socioeconomic 

environment would be nonexistent, barely 

detectable, or detectable only through indirect 

means and with no discernible impact on local 

social or economic conditions. 

Minor: Effects on the socioeconomic 

environment would be small but detectable, 

comparable in scale to typical year-to-year or 

seasonal variations, affect few people in a 

relatively small area or limited number of 

communities, and not expected to alter 

established social or economic structures and 

conditions to any substantive degree. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

474 

Moderate: Effects on the socioeconomic 

environment would be apparent or observable 

across a wider geographic area, affect many 

people, and could have noticeable and 

enduring effects on established economic or 

social structures and conditions. 

Major: Effects on the socioeconomic 

environment would be readily apparent or 

observable across a wide geographic area, 

affect a large segment of the population, 

extend across much of a community or region, 

and have substantial influence on, or even 

shift, established social or economic 

conditions and structure. 

Duration 

Social and economic changes caused by an 

alternative may be temporary or last for an 

extended time. Temporary or short-term 

impacts may be noticeable locally, but not 

result in enduring changes to underlying 

economic and social conditions of the region. 

Long-term impacts, on the other hand, may 

lead to fundamental and enduring changes in 

the economic base, construction or closure of 

public facilities, changes in real estate markets, 

how people and groups relate to one another, 

and other changes in established social and 

economic conditions. Many long-term effects 

would extend beyond the life of the approved 

general management plan, and could in some 

cases, be permanent. 

Short-term: Short-term effects are those that 

occur during and in response to planning, 

design, construction, and maintenance of 

buildings, trails, parking areas, and other 

facilities. These effects diminish or disappear 

after the activity is completed. The “short 

term” may include the initial response(s) in 

social or economic conditions to fundamental 

changes in park management and operations 

and changing visitor use, which give way to 

broader changes over time. Generally, “shortterm” describes effects lasting up to five years. 

The short term, however, is not a specific fiveyear period tied to the signing of the “Record 

of Decision”. Distinct actions could each 

trigger short-term effects, such that there are 

multiple “short-term” time horizons. 

Long-term: Long-term effects are generally 

those lasting longer than five years, including 

some that may not begin until after 

completion of direct activities associated with 

the initial federal government spending or 

changes in management associated with an 

alternative. Such changes include increases in 

the parkway’s base budget for operations and 

maintenance and effects related to changes in 

visitation over time. 

Type/Character 

Social and economic consequences may be 

beneficial, adverse, or indeterminate. 

Beneficial: Effects that many individuals or 

groups would accept or recognize as 

improving economic or social conditions, 

either in general or for a specific group of 

people, businesses, organizations, or 

institutions. Examples of beneficial effects 

include lower unemployment, higher personal 

income, and economic and social diversity 

and sustainability. 

Adverse: Effects that most individuals or 

groups would accept or generally recognize as 

diminishing economic or social welfare, either 

in general or for a specific group of people, 

businesses, organizations, or institutions. 

Examples of adverse effects include fewer job 

opportunities, increases in the cost of living 

without matching increases in income, or an 

erosion of public sector fiscal resources to 

fund public facilities and services. 

Indeterminate: Effects for which the size, 

timing, location, or individuals or groups that 

would be impacted cannot be determined, or 

those that include both beneficial and adverse 

effects, in some instances affecting different 

communities, populations, or public entities 

or jurisdictions, such that the net effect is 

indeterminate. 
Regional Socioeconomics 

475 

ALTERNATIVE A—NO-ACTION 

Parkway-wide 

Maintaining current management practices 

under alternative A would result in subtle, 

long-term changes in the socioeconomic 

connections between the parkway and 

surrounding region. Catalysts for most of 

these changes would emanate outside the 

parkway, placing the parkway in a more 

reactive than proactive posture. Annual 

recreation visitor use to the Blue Ridge 

Parkway would trend upwards over time in 

response to population growth in the 

Asheville and Roanoke metropolitan areas 

and more distant metropolitan areas including 

the Washington, D.C./Baltimore metroplex, 

Atlanta, Raleigh-Durham, and Knoxville, as 

well as tourists coming from further afield. 

However, year-to-year fluctuation in visitor 

use would occur such that recreation 

visitation in any given year may be lower than 

the preceding year. Overall visitor use would 

climb over time, though not necessarily 

uniformly. 

Subtle shifts in recreation use patterns, such as 

a relative increase in day use as compared to 

overnight use, would occur. Rising visitor use, 

aging parkway infrastructure, and increased 

development pressures adjacent to the 

parkway would collectively contribute to 

needs for higher authorized staffing levels and 

operating and capital outlays. However, actual 

levels of future funding would reflect 

congressionally approved funding for the 

National Park Service and the parkway’s 

ability to compete for such funding. Actual 

funding levels would be expected to remain 

within the historical range. 

Visitor-Related Economic Impacts. 

Parkway-related visitor spending in the region 

would increase under alternative A, 

maintaining the parkway’s role as a vital 

element of the region’s heritage tourism and 

outdoor recreation economy. Spending 

directly associated with recreational visits to 

the parkway, including spending for overnight 

lodging, meals, fuel and various merchandise, 

would increase, as would visitor spending on 

crafts, entertainment and other goods and 

services before and after their actual use of the 

parkway. Higher visitor spending would likely 

occur in communities along the parkway’s 

entire length, although not uniformly. 

Asheville, Roanoke, Boone/Blowing Rock, 

and other larger communities in the region, 

that offer wider ranges of goods and services 

and are close to the parkway, are likely to 

capture increased shares of the spending. 

Parkway concessioners would garner some of 

the spending, but business establishments 

near the parkway and in nearby communities 

would realize greater benefits from the 

increased spending. Other businesses and 

governmental entities in the region would 

benefit indirectly from the increased visitor 

spending. 

Visitor spending and the economic stimulus it 

provides in local economies would continue 

to be highly seasonal. The seasonal variation 

of spending, among other factors, would 

continue to challenge the long-term financial 

viability of some concessions, increasing the 

likelihood of one or more of these operations 

ceasing operations. Should current concession 

operations become economically unviable, 

recruiting new operators may be difficult. 

Reduced availability of concession services in 

the parkway under alternative A would benefit 

establishments near the parkway due to the 

displacement of demand from the parkway to 

nearby locations. 

Visitor spending would directly and indirectly 

support jobs, payrolls, and proprietor income 

in the tourism and hospitality related sectors 

of the economy. State and local governments 

would benefit from fees and taxes linked to 

the visitor spending. 

As a result, the incremental economic 

contributions to the region from visitor 

spending under alternative A would be longterm, beneficial, and minor to moderate. 

Economic Impacts Related to NPS 

Operations. Authorized staffing at the Blue 

Ridge Parkway would be expected to remain 

near its current level. Current staffing includes 

many vacancies due to funding shortfalls and 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

476 

difficulties recruiting qualified candidates, as 

well as many temporary positions and a large 

cadre of volunteers, which augment the 

parkway’s permanent staff. The parkway 

would continue to rely on temporary 

positions and volunteers to provide services. 

Economic impacts related to operations 

would remain similar to today, with annual 

operating and payroll expenditures directly 

providing some NPS jobs and indirectly 

benefiting the area’s economy due to 

employee spending and other NPS 

expenditures. 

The economic contributions associated with 

NPS operations under alternative A would be 

long-term, mostly beneficial, and negligible to 

minor. 

Effects on Regional Heritage Tourism. 

Parkway management and staff would 

continue to encourage and participate in 

partnerships focused on natural, cultural, and 

visual resource education and conservation. 

The parkway would continue to serve as a 

featured destination and critical, unifying 

element in regional heritage tourism and 

outdoor leisure promotion efforts including 

the Blue Ridge National Heritage Area in 

North Carolina and “The Crooked Road”4

and “HandMade in America” auto-route 

trails5

 in Virginia (The Crooked Road 2009; 

HandMade in America 1998, 2002, 2009). 

Specific activities and levels of participation 

would depend on staffing and budget 

availability. Continuing resource constraints 

would likely limit direct participation by NPS 

staff to efforts focused within parkway 

boundaries under alternative A. 

 

4

 “The Crooked Road” refers to a 250-mile highway route in 

southwestern Virginia that promotes tourism and economic 

development by focusing on the region’s unique musical 

heritage. See http://www.thecrookedroad.org. 5

 HandMade in America is a nonprofit organization that 

promotes economic revitalization through the promotion of 

regional heritage, handmade crafts, and culture in western 

North Carolina. The organization has identified and 

published guides for two auto-route “trails.” See 

http://www.handmadeinamerica.org.

The economic effects on regional heritage 

tourism development associated with regional 

heritage tourism under alternative A would be 

long-term, mostly beneficial, and negligible to 

minor. 

Effects on Communities, Local 

Governments, and State Agencies.

Implementation of alternative A would not 

directly affect regional population growth, 

housing demand, or demands on other public 

facilities and services. Effects on facilities and 

services, including local and regional highway 

transportation networks and emergency 

service providers would mirror changes in 

annual visitor use, with such effects dispersed 

over the length of the parkway. Management 

of the Blue Ridge Parkway under alternative A 

would continue to support local interest in 

traditional Appalachian lifestyles and attitudes 

through exhibits, arts and crafts 

demonstrations, musical events, and other 

activities. 

The incremental indirect effects on 

communities, local governments and state 

agencies associated with parkway 

management under alternative A would be 

long-term, mostly beneficial, and negligible to 

minor. 

At the parkway-wide scale, implementation of 

alternative A would leave established visitor 

use patterns, parkway staffing and operations, 

economic linkages between the parkway and 

nearby communities, land use patterns and 

trends, and ties to local lifestyles and attitudes 

largely unaltered, although some increase in 

visitor use and related economic effects would 

be foreseeable. However, some differential 

effects would be expected along the extended 

length of the parkway. Such effects are 

described below, under each specific parkway 

segment. 

Parkway Segments and Recreation 

Areas 

Additional impacts at the segment and 

recreation area scale are considered below if 
Regional Socioeconomics 

477 

not already included in the impacts analysis 

included above at the parkway-wide scale. 

Segment 1: Ridge. Growth in visitor use 

over time would likely be higher in the Ridge 

segment than across the parkway as a whole. 

Factors contributing to this difference include 

projected local population growth, the 

parkway’s northern entrance functioning as a 

gateway to the growing metropolitan 

populations in northern Virginia and 

connection to the Shenandoah National Park, 

and the Peaks of Otter concession. The latter 

is the sole prominent year-round lodging and 

dining establishment operating in the park. 

The increases in visitor use and expenditures 

would support additional indirect and 

induced jobs and income in nearby 

communities. Implementation of alternative A 

would require little additional capital 

spending beyond that associated with large 

cyclic maintenance work. 

Segment 2: Roanoke. This segment of the 

parkway traverses portions of the Roanoke 

metro area, the second most populous urban 

area along the parkway. The primary changes 

in visitor use and connections between the 

Blue Ridge Parkway and surrounding 

environment in the Roanoke segment would 

arise primarily due to growth and 

development outside the park, rather than 

being attributable to effects related to 

management under alternative A. Local use, 

including local commuting travel and bicycle 

use, would likely increase more rapidly than 

nonlocal use. Implementation of alternative A 

would not require capital construction 

spending beyond the normal cyclic 

maintenance associated with aging road and 

campground infrastructure. Increasing 

resident and visitor use of the area would 

result in additional induced and indirect 

economic stimulus in the region. 

Segment 3: Plateau. The area surrounding 

the Plateau segment is the least populous of 

the entire Blue Ridge Parkway region and it is 

projected to experience the least population 

growth through 2030. Consequently, longterm increases in recreation use in the Plateau 

segment would be primarily due to general 

increases in travel along the parkway and 

heritage and cultural tourism events, parkway 

programs, and interpretation activities 

associated with the Blue Ridge Music Center 

and similar facilities nearby but off the 

parkway. Future increases in visitor use would 

trigger additional induced and indirect 

economic stimulus in the region, benefitting 

an area having an economy that is less 

diversified and generally weaker than that of 

other areas along the parkway. 

Segment 4: Highlands. The economic and 

social connections between the parkway and 

adjacent region are perhaps the strongest and 

most evident in the Highlands segment. The 

strong linkage results from the parkway’s 

proximity to the Boone/Blowing Rock 

communities and in particular to the Moses 

H. Cone and Julian Price memorial parks, the 

Northwest Trading Post, and Cumberland 

Knob and Doughton Park recreation areas. 

Recreation use at these areas combines with 

long-distance and local travel along this 

segment to produce some of the higher traffic 

volumes on the entire parkway. In the 

Boone/Blowing Rock area, residential and 

commercial development near to and visible 

from different vantages along the parkway 

create a strong sense of a gateway connection 

between the communities and parkway and 

provides ready access to traveler support 

services. The proximity of the parkway to 

these communities aids in the recruitment of 

seasonal employees and volunteers to help 

staff the various visitor centers. Continued 

management under alternative A would 

sustain those connections. 

Concession services at Doughton Park would 

be maintained as long as economically 

feasible. However, should these services be 

eliminated, currently used structures would be 

adaptively reused. Closure of a concession 

would result in some indirect job losses, 

although some of the loss may be offset by 

gains outside the parkway associated with 

displacement of visitor expenditures and 

demand. 

Segment 6: Asheville. The highest traffic 

volumes along the parkway occur in this 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

478 

segment and visitor data suggest that the 

Asheville area is a key gateway community for 

the entire parkway. This segment contains the 

parkway’s headquarters, the Folk Art Center, 

and the recently opened Blue Ridge Parkway 

Visitor Center. The latter is affiliated with the 

Blue Ridge National Heritage Area, which 

encompasses 25 counties and Qualla 

Boundary in western North Carolina. The 

world famous Biltmore Estate is readily 

accessible from the parkway and the Asheville 

area has gained recognition as an attractive 

community for retirees, second home 

development, and a base of operations for 

individual professionals and small 

professional service companies whose 

economic livelihoods provide them a high 

degree of flexibility in workplace location 

choice. As a result, the region has experienced 

more rapid population growth than other 

segments of the parkway, a trend that is 

anticipated to continue over the life of this 

general management plan. 

Recreational use by local residents, 

particularly trail use and other day use 

activities has risen in response to the rapid 

population growth. The parkway and 

numerous other attractions in the region 

create a synergy generating a strong economic 

infusion to the region, supporting multiple 

millions in annual business revenues for local 

lodging, dining, and other retail and service 

establishments. These sales translate into jobs, 

tax revenues, and investment. Unlike in many 

of the other locations, where public lands abut 

the parkway, private lands border much of the 

parkway in this segment. New commercial 

and residential development spawned by 

recent population growth has brought the 

boundary of urban development into close 

proximity to the parkway in many locations in 

this segment. 

Segment 7: Pisgah. The Pisgah segment 

contains much of the parkway’s most rugged 

terrain, higher elevations, curvy roads, and 

extensive scenic vistas. The northern portion 

of this segment is bordered by the Nantahala 

National Forest and is more distant from 

communities than many locations on the more 

northerly segments. The Mt. Pisgah recreation 

area, including the Pisgah Inn, is in this 

segment. The southern portion of this 

segment crosses the Maggie Valley, an area 

that has seen substantial growth and 

development, prior to entering into and 

crossing through the Qualla Boundary / 

Cherokee Indian Reservation. The southern 

end of the parkway intersects one of the 

primary access roads to the Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park near that park’s 

Oconaluftee Visitor Center and the town of 

Cherokee. Traffic volumes and average travel 

speed on this segment are among the lowest 

on the parkway. The Mt. Pisgah Lodge and 

tent and RV campgrounds in this segment are 

among the more popular and heavily used on 

the entire parkway. 

Alternative A would not alter the established 

economic and community development 

processes or social interaction patterns in the 

affected area. Neither would alternative A 

trigger or induce any noticeable changes in 

cumulative employment or population growth 

in the region. Overall, the impacts from 

actions under alternative A would be 

negligible to minor in the short-term and the 

long-term and generally beneficial. 

Cumulative Effects 

The parkway, its management, the tourism it 

supports, and the commuting it 

accommodates cannot be readily separated 

from the rich cultural heritage, transportation 

network, and economic and community 

development in the surrounding area. In 

addition to the initial construction of the 

roadway and associated resource protection, 

site protection, and restoration activities, 

other past and present actions in the region 

include agriculture, forestry, mining, and 

manufacturing. These activities, along with 

establishment of the park, are largely 

responsible for the existing economic 

structure, community development and 

infrastructure, and land use patterns. Those 

uses contribute to the cultural and historical 

landscapes that are among the parkway’s 

fundamental resources. 
Regional Socioeconomics 

479 

Development of the parkway on an alignment 

generally following ridgelines, and the road 

connections to the adjacent valleys, which 

were originally developed to support project 

construction and provide work force access, 

now serve as destinations, transportation 

conduits and gateways for commerce, 

tourism, and cultural exchange. 

Future residential, commercial, and 

transportation developments near the 

parkway, along with various resource 

protection activities are also part of the 

cumulative scenario. These future 

developments are generally consistent with 

projected economic and population growth 

for the region. Such growth would be 

accompanied by a broad spectrum of 

community development and fiscal and social 

interactions and processes; for example, 

temporary construction jobs, changes in retail 

shopping patterns and availability of 

consumer services, changing demands on 

public infrastructure and services, and 

influences affecting social interactions. 

Cumulative social and economic effects of 

these actions would also include short and 

long-term increases in traffic on local roads 

and long-term changes in land use and 

additional potential loss of scenic views from 

the parkway. The development pressures 

would concurrently bolster habitat and 

viewshed protection efforts by the parkway, 

local communities, and other interests. 

The cumulative developments would have 

short-term demands on local construction 

trades, short- and long-term demands on 

community services, and local changes in 

visitor use and commuting travel along the 

parkway. This would result in long-term 

minor to moderate indeterminate cumulative 

impacts on the social and economic 

environment. Combining the likely effects of 

implementing alternative A with the effects of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, would result in minor to 

moderate, short- and long-term, 

indeterminate cumulative impacts on the 

social and economic environment. Alternative 

A would contribute a relatively small amount 

to this impact. 

Conclusion 

The economic and social effects of alternative 

A would include negligible to minor, shortand long-term, economic and social benefits. 

Long-term social consequences would 

include assisting in maintaining the region’s 

population base and the parkway’s role in 

supporting heritage tourism, in particular 

traditional music, arts, and cultures. Overall, 

the cumulative social and economic effects 

associated with alternative A would be minor 

to moderate, short- and long-term, and 

indeterminate because they include effects 

that might be concurrently viewed as 

beneficial or adverse by various individuals, 

organizations, and stakeholder groups. 

Alternative A would contribute a relatively 

small amount to this impact. 

ALTERNATIVE B (NPS PREFERRED) 

Parkway-wide 

Implementation of alternative B would have 

long-term implications for the socioeconomic 

connections between the parkway and 

surrounding region. Catalysts for change 

include extended visitor information and 

interpretation services in selected locations 

for a nine-month season, improvements to 

campgrounds and some concession facilities, 

and enhanced outdoor recreation 

opportunities. These and other actions under 

alternative B would increase overall levels of 

recreation visitation on the parkway, 

particularly day use during the shoulder 

seasons and overnight visitor use of 

campgrounds in the parkway. A likely 

secondary effect of higher visitation during 

the shoulder season would be an increase in 

the number of travelers affected by temporary 

closures of the parkway due to inclement 

weather. 

Visitor use levels would increase along the 

entire parkway over the long term, as 

compared to that under alternative A, though 

not necessarily uniformly. Increases in 

recreational visitor use would boost business 

revenues for concessioners, enhancing the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

480 

long-term economic viability of some 

concession operations. Under alternative B, 

the National Park Service would strive to 

maintain all presently offered concession 

services, including options to make upgrades 

to existing infrastructure and/or adding new 

facilities. 

Visitor-Related Economic Impacts. Total 

direct spending by visitors would increase 

under alternative B, as compared to 

alternative A. The largest increases would be 

outlays for fuel, dining, and lodging. Sales of 

arts and crafts, as well as merchandise sold by 

the Eastern National outlets at the Folk Art 

Center, Moses H. Cone Memorial Park, and 

Blue Ridge Visitor Center would increase. As 

with alternative A, the larger shares of the 

visitor expenditures would be captured in the 

larger communities along the parkway. 

Receipts associated with camping in the 

parkway would increase in response to 

improvements in tent and RV camping 

facilities, which would promote higher use 

and extend the camping season, particularly 

for RVs. 

Enhanced outdoor recreation opportunities 

would benefit local sporting goods, 

recreational clothing and equipment retailers, 

as well as hospitality establishments. 

Concessioners may alter their merchandise 

offerings in response to changes in market 

demands associated with the enhanced 

recreation opportunities. Local artisans and 

craftsmen would, as a group, realize increased 

demand for their products, thereby benefiting 

the region’s heritage tourism economy. 

Regional employment, income, and business 

revenues of suppliers and vendors indirectly 

related to the parkway would increase under 

alternative B, as compared to alternative A. In 

many instances, the effects on employment 

would include additional work hours for 

business owners and employees, and 

extended duration of employment for some 

seasonal employees. 

Increased indirect and induced economic 

activity associated with alternative B would 

occur primarily outside the parkway 

boundaries. State and local governments 

would realize additional revenues, for 

example, sales taxes associated with the 

increases in visitor use. Some public service 

providers, emergency medical services, for 

example, would experience increased demand 

for services. 

The incremental direct and indirect economic 

contributions associated with visitor spending 

under alternative B would be long-term, 

mostly beneficial and minor to moderate, and 

larger than those under alternative A. 

Economic Impacts Related to NPS 

Operations. Potential increases in visitor use 

over what is anticipated under alternative A 

would create additional demands on parkway 

staff and facilities, as well as the need for more 

volunteers to aid with interpretation, serve as 

campground hosts, and staff visitor contact 

stations over an extended nine-month season 

in some locations. Rising visitor use, aging 

parkway infrastructure, and increased 

development pressures adjacent to the 

parkway would collectively contribute to a 

need for authorized staffing levels and 

operating and capital outlays higher than 

those under alternative A. Although the actual 

levels of funding available would reflect 

congressionally approved funding for the 

National Park Service and the parkway’s 

ability to compete for such funding, the 

annual operating budget under alternative B is 

larger than alternative A. A larger operating 

budget would allow for additional employees 

to be hired, increases in direct spending and 

associated tax revenues. Over the life of the 

general management plan, implementation of 

alternative B for such actions as campground 

improvements, concession facility upgrades, 

and additional parking and trails, would 

require higher capital construction spending 

at the parkway than under alternative A. 

Indirect and induced economic activity in the 

region, and the corresponding jobs associated 

with parkway operations would likely be 

higher under alternative B than under 

alternative A. Although long-term and 

beneficial, the incremental differences would 
Regional Socioeconomics 

481 

likely be limited in scale as compared to 

existing conditions. 

Effects on Regional Heritage Tourism. 

The Blue Ridge Parkway would actively 

pursue opportunities with local and regional 

partners in regional heritage tourism 

development and cultural preservation to 

cooperatively plan and implement joint 

ventures that would be mutually beneficial. 

Over the long term, the parkway’s active 

engagement in this area would increase staff 

effort, funding and other resource availability 

directed to these activities, as compared to 

alternative A. The development of enhanced 

outdoor recreation activities may provide 

sufficient market demand to foster startup or 

expansions of recreation “outfitters” and 

guide services in some communities along the 

parkway and the expanded operating season 

for some visitor services would support 

increased tourism promotion efforts of nearby 

attractions and hospitality establishments. 

The indirect economic effects on regional 

economic development associated with 

regional heritage tourism under alternative B 

would be higher than under alternative A and 

would be long-term, mostly beneficial and 

negligible to minor. 

Effects on Communities, Local 

Governments, and State Agencies. As 

with alternative A, implementation of 

alternative B would not be expected to affect 

regional population growth, housing demand, 

or demands on other public facilities and 

services directly. Indirect effects on facilities 

and services, including local and regional 

highway transportation networks and 

emergency service providers would mirror 

changes in annual visitor use, which are 

projected to be higher than under alternative 

A. Management of the Blue Ridge Parkway 

under alternative B would continue to support 

local interest in traditional Appalachian 

lifestyles and attitudes through exhibits, arts 

and crafts demonstrations, musical events and 

other activities. The indirect effects on 

communities, local governments, and state 

agencies associated with parkway 

management under alternative B would be 

long-term, mostly beneficial, and negligible to 

minor. 

At the parkway-wide scale, implementation of 

alternative B would result in some changes to 

established visitor use patterns, parkway 

staffing and operations, economic linkages 

between the parkway and nearby 

communities, land use patterns and trends, 

and ties to local lifestyles and attitudes. 

Increased visitor use and related economic 

effects beyond those associated with 

alternative A would be foreseeable along the 

entire parkway over the long term, although 

not uniformly. 

Parkway Segments and Recreation 

Areas 

Additional impacts at the segment and 

recreation area scale are considered below if 

not already included in the impacts analysis 

included above at the parkway-wide scale. 

Segment 1: Ridge. Alternative B includes 

visitor orientation enhancements to the 

parkway’s north entrance, enhanced trail and 

recreation opportunities at Humpback Rocks, 

conversion of the visitor contact station to a 

wayside shelter and RV and tent campground 

improvements at Otter Creek, stabilization of 

the Saunders Farm structures and 

rehabilitation of the landscape of the Johnson 

Farm, and RV and tent campground 

enhancements at Peaks of Otter. Over the long 

term, these changes would bolster market 

demand for concession operations at Otter 

Creek and Peaks of Otter, increase usage rates 

and campground receipts at campgrounds, 

support additional jobs, and place higher 

demands on parkway staff and volunteers. 

The effects of these changes would support 

management objectives to maintain 

concession food and lodging services at Peaks 

of Otter. 

Implementation of alternative B would 

require moderate capital construction 

spending to improve the northern 

gateway/entrance visitor information, 

complete campground improvements, 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

482 

redesign some pullouts, and upgrade existing 

infrastructure or add new facilities to existing 

concession operations. 

Segment 2: Roanoke. There is 

considerable suburban development near the 

parkway in the Roanoke urban area. 

Consequently, much of the traffic on the 

parkway in this segment is associated with 

commuter travel and local recreation use. 

Implementation of alternative B would have 

little effect on those characteristics or the 

future incidence of land use conflicts in the 

area. 

Alternative B would enhance day use in the 

Roanoke segment, converting the underused 

Roanoke Mountain campground to a day use 

recreation area and seeking to partner with 

the city of Roanoke for management of the 

Mill Mountain spur road. Many of the 

additional visitors to the parkway would come 

from the nearby surrounding area. The 

reduction in camping would shift demand to 

other campgrounds in the parkway or to 

private campgrounds outside of the parkway 

and simultaneously reduce demand on 

parkway staff and volunteers. 

Seasonal staffing of a parkway information 

desk and presentation of programs at an offsite location, in downtown Roanoke, for 

example, would enhance visitor orientation 

services regarding cultural and recreation 

opportunities and availability of services along 

the entire parkway. Provision of such 

information would promote improved 

economic viability for concession operations 

and economic linkages with communities near 

the parkway. 

Segment 3: Plateau. Over the long term, 

implementation of alternative B would result 

in increased levels of visitor use at the Rocky 

Knob and Blue Ridge Music Center recreation 

areas. Expanded trail options and upgraded 

campground and backcountry camping would 

lengthen the duration of stay of some visitors. 

Hospitality establishments in Galax, Mount 

Airy, Meadows of Dan, and other local 

communities would realize increased sales to 

parkway visitors. Converting the Rocky Knob 

visitor contact station to a trailhead shelter, in 

conjunction with development of a visitor 

contact facility at Mabry Mill, could reduce 

demands on parkway staff and volunteers, and 

concurrently improve the parking availability 

for day use. Alternative B could include 

upgrading concessioner infrastructure and/or 

adding new facilities to enhance the long-term 

economic feasibility of lodging services at 

Rocky Knob, supporting the associated jobs 

and income. 

The co-location of the visitor contact station 

and the concession operations at Mabry Mill 

would enhance the economic viability of the 

concession food service operations by 

boosting sales. Such increases could come at 

the expense of establishments in nearby 

Meadows of Dan. 

Over time, an increasing number and type of 

events, demonstrations of traditional music 

and arts, and other exhibits are expected at 

the Blue Ridge Music Center under alternative 

B. Under alternative B, an increase in visitor 

orientation services and expanded 

participation in regional heritage tourism 

projects would further elevate the facility’s 

stature as a key venue in the region’s heritage 

tourism arena. The changes at the Blue Ridge 

Music Center would function synergistically 

with those at nearby Cumberland Knob to 

increase the indirect and induced economic 

stimulus generated in nearby communities. 

Segment 4: Highlands. An important 

change in the Highlands segment under 

alternative B would be to restore and reopen 

the visitor contact station at Cumberland 

Knob and to enhance the infrastructure for 

trail and picnic use. These changes would 

function synergistically with those at the 

nearby Blue Ridge Music Center to increase 

day use and increase demands on NPS staff 

and on volunteers. 

Campground improvements at Doughton 

Park and Julian Price Memorial Park, 

including the conversion of some tent sites to 

RV sites at Doughton Park, would increase 

overnight use in the segment, including in the 

shoulder seasons. The designation of multiuse 
Regional Socioeconomics 

483 

(horse/hiking) trails in Doughton Park would 

also enhance day use .That increase in use 

would increase the level of indirect and 

induced economic contributions in the region. 

Under alternative B, the parkway would 

continue to provide concession services at 

Doughton Park. Doing so may include 

upgrading existing infrastructure or adding 

new facilities. Concession revenues and 

seasonal employment would be higher under 

alternative B than under alternative A. 

Segment 5: Black Mountain. No 

segment-specific management strategies are 

proposed for the Black Mountain segment 

under alternative B. Extending parkway 

operations to nine months at Linville Falls, 

along with upgrading RV campground sites at 

Linville Falls and Crabtree Falls, would 

promote more recreation use and indirect and 

induced visitor use and economic activity in 

nearby locations, e.g., the Museum of North 

Carolina Minerals, Little Switzerland, and 

Mount Mitchell State Park. 

Current food and gift store concessions would 

be maintained under alternative B. Strategies 

might include upgrading existing 

infrastructure or adding new facilities. Such 

improvements would require additional 

capital investment and subsequently support 

more temporary employment, income, and 

business sales. 

Segment 6: Asheville. Alternative B would 

increase the availability of parking for 

recreational use in this segment, in part to 

accommodate rising trail and other day use, 

much of it by local residents. No specific 

changes to the Folk Art Center are proposed. 

However, the center would benefit from 

higher visitation and sales due to increased 

shoulder season use. 

Segment 7: Pisgah. Alternative B includes 

enhanced visitor orientation services at the 

parkway’s southern entrance. Because of the 

narrow right of way at the south entrance, the 

parkway would seek to partner with another 

entity to achieve this goal. The National Park 

Service would not fund or own a visitor center 

facility. Alternative B would close and relocate 

some tent camping and upgrade RV sites with 

water and electricity hookups at the Mt. 

Pisgah recreation area. Campground access 

redesign would not be undertaken in this 

location in order to protect natural resources. 

These changes may affect the experience for 

some recreation visitors. The relocated tent 

sites, along with the upgraded comfort 

stations and addition of electrical and water 

utility service to the existing RV sites, would 

continue to support active use of the area. 

Concession food, lodging and gift store 

services at Mt. Pisgah, one of the stronger 

concession operations on the parkway, would 

likely remain economically viable. However, if 

such services became economically unviable, 

the National Park Service would look to the 

private sector to provide services outside the 

parkway and the parkway would adaptively 

reuse or remove the structures being used for 

concessions. 

The long-term effects of these changes, when 

combined with the effects of the enhanced 

southern entrance/gateway in promoting 

recreation visitor use along the southernmost 

segments of the parkway, would result in 

beneficial but minor increases in visitor 

spending, indirect and induced economic 

activity, and jobs and income in the Maggie 

Valley, Cherokee, and elsewhere in the 

surrounding region. 

Alternative B would not trigger or induce any 

noticeable changes in cumulative employment 

or population growth in the region; it would 

not substantively alter the established 

economic and community development 

processes or social interaction patterns in the 

affected area, although slight changes in the 

seasonal influences attributable to the 

parkway could result over the long term due 

to actions associated with alternative B. The 

higher number of visitors under alternative B 

could enhance the commercial development 

potential for parkway concessioners and 

private businesses in nearby communities and 

along the access roads to the park. The added 

social and economic effects arising from 

alternative B would be of the same type, but 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

484 

somewhat higher in intensity and magnitude, 

as those occurring under alternative A. 

Overall, the impacts from actions under 

alternative B would be minor to moderate in 

the short term and long term, and generally 

beneficial. 

Cumulative Effects 

Other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future social and economic 

actions under alternative B would be the same 

as under alternative A. Future residential, 

commercial, and transportation developments 

near the parkway are generally consistent with 

projected economic and population growth 

for the region. Such growth would be 

accompanied by a broad spectrum of 

community development and fiscal and social 

interactions and processes; for example, 

temporary construction jobs, changes in retail 

shopping patterns and availability of 

consumer services, changing demands on 

public infrastructure and services, and 

influences affecting social interactions. 

Cumulative social and economic effects of 

these actions would also include short- and 

long-term increases in traffic on local roads 

and long-term changes in land use and 

additional potential loss of scenic views from 

the parkway. The development pressures 

would concurrently bolster habitat and 

viewshed protection efforts by the parkway, 

local communities, and other interests. 

The cumulative developments would have 

short-term demands on local construction 

trades, short- and long-term demands on 

community services, and local changes in 

visitor use and commuting travel along the 

parkway. This would result in long-term 

minor to moderate indeterminate, cumulative 

impacts on the social and economic 

environment. Combining the likely effects of 

implementing alternative B with the effects of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, would result in minor to 

moderate, short- and long-term, 

indeterminate cumulative impacts on the 

social and economic environment. Alternative 

B would contribute a relatively modest, 

generally beneficial amount to this impact. 

Conclusion 

The economic and social effects of alternative 

B would include minor to moderate shortand long-term economic and social benefits. 

Long-term consequences would include 

assisting in maintaining the region’s 

population base and the parkway’s role in 

supporting heritage tourism, in particular 

traditional music, arts, and cultures. Overall, 

the cumulative social and economic effects 

associated with alternative B would be minor 

to moderate, short- and long-term, and 

indeterminate because they include effects 

that might be concurrently viewed as 

beneficial or adverse by various individuals, 

organizations, and stakeholder groups. 

Alternative B would contribute a relatively 

modest, generally beneficial amount to this 

impact. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Parkway-wide 

Implementation of alternative C would, over 

time, subtly reshape some established 

socioeconomic connections between the 

parkway and the surrounding region. For 

much of its history, the parkway, along with 

the neighboring Shenandoah and Great 

Smoky Mountains national parks, has served 

as an important unifying, but somewhat 

insular element of the region’s heritage 

tourism efforts. The established connections 

are relatively informal, externally based, and 

predicated on proximity and the highway 

connections/intersections between the 

parkway and nearby areas. 

Under alternative C, management of the 

parkway would become more integrated with 

the surrounding region’s resources and 

economic base. Connections between the 

parkway’s natural resources and scenic 

qualities and those outside the parkway would 
Regional Socioeconomics 

485 

be considered when developing overall 

management direction and policies. 

Management of the parkway would place 

increased emphasis on community outreach 

and developing links with regional natural, 

recreational, and cultural heritage resources 

and experiences. 

Catalysts for change under alternative C 

include providing year-round visitor services 

in some locations, more active participation in 

regional heritage tourism projects, and 

enhanced outdoor recreation opportunities, 

such as improved trail connectivity to 

community trails and greenways outside the 

park, and access and other improvements at 

parkway campgrounds. Alternative C would 

provide for redesign, closure, and relocation 

of some scenic overlooks and a proactive 

strategy of land acquisition and protection 

(one still predicated on working with willing 

sellers). These and other actions under 

alternative C would increase the overall level 

and time frame of recreation visitor use on the 

parkway above levels expected under 

alternative A. A likely secondary effect of 

increased use during the shoulder season 

would be an increase in the number of 

travelers affected by temporary parkway 

closures due to inclement weather. 

Increases in use would occur over the entire 

length of the parkway under alternative C, 

although not necessarily uniformly. Increases 

in visitor use would help boost business 

revenues for concessioners, thereby 

enhancing the long-term economic viability of 

some concession operations. Under 

alternative C, the National Park Service would 

continue to offer concession services, 

primarily lodging and food, where 

economically viable. Where concessions are 

eliminated, consumer demand would either 

shift to nearby locations within or outside the 

parkway, or remain unserved. Reduced 

availability of concession services in the 

parkway under alternative C would benefit 

establishments near the parkway due to the 

displacement of demand from the parkway to 

nearby locations. As with alternative A, the 

private sector would have the opportunity to 

provide services off-site that are no longer 

economically feasible for concessioners to 

provide. 

Visitor-Related Economic Impacts. 

Direct spending in the region by visitors 

would increase in all categories under 

alternative C as compared to alternative A. 

The largest increases would be outlays for 

fuel, snacks, dining, and lodging. Sales of arts 

and crafts, and merchandise sold by the 

Eastern National outlets at the Folk Art 

Center and Moses H. Cone Memorial Park 

and parkway Visitor Center would increase. 

Improvements at campgrounds, combined 

with year-round visitor services at certain sites 

could extend the camping season at lowerelevation campgrounds. The share of visitor 

expenditures captured in the larger 

communities along the parkway would be 

higher under alternative C than under 

alternative A. Campground receipts would 

likely be substantially higher for some of the 

campgrounds compared to alternative A. 

Enhanced outdoor recreation opportunities 

and the connectivity to regional recreation 

resources would benefit local sporting 

clothing and equipment retailers, as well as 

hospitality establishments. Parkway 

concessioners may alter their merchandise 

selections in response to changes in market 

demands associated with the enhanced 

recreation opportunities. Local artisans and 

craftsmen would as a group, realize increased 

demand for their products, thereby helping to 

sustain the region’s heritage tourism 

economy. 

Regional employment, income and business 

revenues of suppliers and vendors indirectly 

related to the parkway would increase under 

alternative C, as compared to alternative A. In 

many instances, the effects on employment 

would include additional work hours for 

business owners and employees, and longer 

extended duration of employment for 

seasonal employees. 

Increased indirect and induced economic 

activity associated with alternative C would be 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

486 

higher than under alternative A occurring 

primarily outside the parkway boundaries. 

State and local governments would realize 

additional revenues, primarily from sales taxes 

associated with the increases in visitor use. 

Some public service providers would also 

experience increases in demand for services. 

The direct and indirect economic 

contributions associated with visitor spending 

under alternative C would be long-term, 

mostly beneficial, minor to moderate, and 

larger than those under alternative A. 

Economic Impacts Related to NPS 

Operations. Higher visitor use levels and 

year-round operations under alternative C 

would create additional demands on parkway 

staff, equipment, and facilities and the need 

for more volunteers to aid with interpretation, 

serve as campground hosts, and staff visitor 

contact stations at some locations. Higher 

visitor use, demand on aging parkway 

infrastructure, and increased development 

pressures adjacent to the parkway would 

collectively contribute to the need for higher 

staffing levels and budget than those under 

alternatives A. Although the actual levels of 

funding available would reflect 

congressionally approved funding for the 

National Park Service and the parkway’s 

ability to compete for such funding, the 

annual operating budget is much larger under 

alternative C than alternative A. A larger 

operations budget would allow for additional 

employees to be hired, increases in direct 

spending and associated tax revenues above 

and beyond that proposed under alternative 

A. Over the life of the general management 

plan, implementation of alternative C would 

require much higher capital construction 

spending across the parkway than under 

alternative A. 

Indirect and induced economic activity in the 

region, and the corresponding jobs associated 

with parkway operations would likely be 

higher under alternative C than under 

alternative A. Although long-term and 

beneficial, the differences would likely be 

limited in scale as compared to existing 

conditions. 

Effects on Regional Heritage Tourism.

The Blue Ridge Parkway would participate 

more actively with local and regional partners 

in regional heritage tourism development and 

cultural preservation efforts under alternative 

C than under alternative A. The parkway 

would actively seek new partnerships, rather 

than responding to opportunities on a caseby-case basis, as presently occurs. The 

development of enhanced outdoor recreation 

activities may foster startup or expansions of 

recreation “outfitters” and guide services in 

some communities along the parkway and the 

year-round operation of some visitor services 

would support increased tourism promotion 

efforts of nearby attractions and hospitality 

establishments. 

The indirect economic effects on regional 

economic development associated with 

regional heritage tourism under alternative C 

would be long-term, mostly beneficial, and 

minor. 

Indirect Effect on Communities, Local 

Governments, and State Agencies. 

Alternative C would not be expected to affect 

regional population growth, housing demand, 

or demands on other public facilities and 

services directly. Indirect effects on facilities 

and services, including local and regional 

highway transportation networks and 

emergency service providers would mirror 

changes in annual visitor use, which are 

projected to increase under this alternative. 

Management of the Blue Ridge Parkway 

under alternative C would continue to 

support local interest in traditional 

Appalachian lifestyles and attitudes through 

exhibits, arts and crafts demonstrations, 

musical events, and other activities. 

The indirect effects on communities, local 

governments, and state agencies associated 

with parkway management under alternative 

C would be long-term, mostly beneficial, and 

negligible to minor. 
Regional Socioeconomics 

487 

At the parkway-wide scale, implementation of 

alternative C would result in the long-term 

alteration of some established visitor use 

patterns, support for increased parkway 

staffing and operating budgets, and stronger 

economic linkages between the parkway and 

nearby communities. A more active land 

protection program would affect land use 

patterns and trends near the parkway, and 

closer integration between the parkway and 

regional natural, recreational, and cultural 

resource organizations would promote 

stronger ties to local lifestyles and attitudes. 

Increases in visitor use and related economic 

effects, beyond those associated with 

alternative A, would be foreseeable along the 

extended length of the parkway, although not 

uniformly. 

Parkway Segments and Recreation 

Areas 

Additional impacts at the segment and 

recreation area scale are considered below if 

not already included in the impacts analysis 

included above at the parkway-wide scale. 

Segment 1: Ridge. Alternative C allows for 

the development of parking to facilitate access 

to nearby U.S. Forest Service recreational 

opportunities, as well as pursuing 

development of multiuse trails separate from 

the parkway and in/through the Humpback 

Rocks area. The Humpback Rock visitor 

contact station may be expanded, existing RV 

campsites would be upgraded and access 

improved, and some campsites at Peaks of 

Otter could be converted to rental cabins. 

Over the long term, these changes would 

result in higher overall levels of day and 

overnight use in the Ridge segment than under 

alternative A, and support additional visitor 

spending and indirect jobs and income in the 

region. Developing coordinated recreation 

opportunities with the U.S. Forest Service 

would respond to increasing local demand 

tied to projected population gains in the 

region surrounding the Ridge segment 

through 2030. Adding cabins at Peaks of Otter 

would increase concession revenue and 

concession fees to the parkway. Cooperative 

access arrangements with the U.S. Forest 

Service would increase use of the National 

Forest, and potentially increase demands on 

U.S. Forest Service staff and budget. 

Expanded visitor services and recreation 

opportunities at Humpback Rocks and Peaks 

of Otter would promote more integration with 

heritage tourism promotion efforts in nearby 

Waynesboro and Bedford. 

Implementation of alternative C would 

require the highest capital construction 

spending relative to alternative A in order to 

develop a new northern gateway/entrance, 

parking, multiuse paths, and redesigning 

pullouts. 

Segment 2: Roanoke. Proposed 

campground improvements would boost 

overnight use at the presently underused 

Roanoke Mountain campground, including 

increased shoulder season weekend use by 

area residents. Alternative C would support 

added day use in the Roanoke segment by 

developing a multiuse trail corridor for 

pedestrian and bicycle use. 

Construction of a multiuse path parallel to the 

roadway would require higher spending than 

under alternative A. Additional capital 

construction spending beyond the normal 

cyclic maintenance associated with aging road 

and campground infrastructure would occur 

in order to make minor improvements to 

pullouts and complete improvements at the 

Roanoke Mountain campground. Indirect and 

induced economic stimulus along this 

segment would be higher than that under 

alternative A. 

Segment 3: Plateau. The relocation of a 

visitor contact station from Rocky Knob to 

Mabry Mill under alternative C, combined 

with the management of historical settlements 

as a cultural landscape and development of 

additional interpretation, could result in some 

alteration of the established visitor use 

patterns in this segment. The National Park 

Service would encourage continued 

concession food service at Mabry Mill, but if 

doing so becomes economically nonviable, the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

488 

facility would be adaptively reused to facilitate 

relocation of the visitor contact station from 

Rocky Knob. In that event, establishments in 

Meadows of Dan would likely see increases in 

business volume. Closure of the visitor 

contact station at Rocky Knob would improve 

the parking availability for picnicking and 

related day use. 

Under alternative C, the visitor contact station 

at the Blue Ridge Music Center and associated 

facilities would be one of the cornerstones of 

the National Park Service’s more active 

participation in regional heritage tourism 

programs, further elevating the facility’s 

stature in the region’s heritage tourism arena. 

The changes at the Blue Ridge Music Center 

would function synergistically with the day 

use, Parks-as-Classrooms, and interpretive 

exhibits at nearby Cumberland Knob to create 

a prominent event/destination venue for the 

Blue Ridge Parkway. Hospitality 

establishments in Galax, Mount Airy, 

Meadows of Dan, and other local 

communities would realize minor increases in 

sales to parkway visitors. The combined draw 

would support increased employment, 

income, business sales, and tax revenues in the 

region. 

Due to the proximity of private lands to the 

parkway and active development interest in 

the area, future land acquisition and 

protection efforts could be a high priority in 

this segment under alternative C, albeit with 

such acquisition proceeding on a “willing 

seller” basis. 

Segment 4: Highlands. Important changes 

in the Highlands segment under alternative C 

would include accommodations for more day 

use at Cumberland Knob, the designation of 

multiuse (horse/hiking) trails in Doughton 

Park, the development of a paved multiuse 

trail in the Boone/Blowing Rock area, 

development of parking to accommodate 

horse trailers, and provision of equestrian 

backcountry campsites. Alternative C also 

provides for new trails and allowing mountain 

biking on a portion of the trail system in Julian 

Price Memorial Park, along with 

improvements to enhance the access and 

visibility of the existing boat rental concession 

at Price Lake. The expanded trail system and 

permitting mountain biking would increase 

day use in that park, generating additional 

visitor expenditures that support businesses in 

nearby Boone/Blowing Rock. 

The changes at Cumberland Knob would 

function in concert with those at the nearby 

Blue Ridge Music Center to increase day use 

and increase demands on NPS staff and 

volunteers. The multiuse trail and 

campground improvements at Doughton Park 

and Julian Price Memorial Park would 

increase recreation visitor use in the segment, 

including in the shoulder seasons, supporting 

concession operations and jobs, and 

increasing the level of indirect and induced 

economic contributions in the influence area. 

The proposed paved, multiuse trail for 

pedestrian and bicycle use under alternative C 

would support added day use in the 

Highlands segment. Construction of a 

multiuse path parallel to the roadway would 

also require higher spending than under 

alternative A. 

Under alternative C, the parkway would 

encourage continued concession services at 

Doughton Park, but if such services became 

economically unviable, the National Park 

Service would look to the private sector to 

provide services outside the parkway and 

would adaptively reuse or remove the 

structures being used for concessions. 

Segment 5: Black Mountain. The visitor 

centers and contact stations in this segment 

would likely continue to operate on a seasonal 

schedule under alternative C. Upgraded 

campground sites and amenities at Linville 

Falls and Crabtree Falls would promote more 

recreation use and indirect and induced 

visitor use and economic activity in nearby 

locations, e.g., the Museum of North Carolina 

Minerals, Little Switzerland, and Mount 

Mitchell State Park. 

Under alternative C, the concession craft and 

gift stores would be maintained at Crabtree 

Falls as long as they were economically viable. 
Regional Socioeconomics 

489 

If such services became economically 

unviable, visitors would look to private 

establishments outside the parkway to fill the 

gap in services. 

Segment 6: Asheville. Alternative C would 

increase the availability of parking for 

recreational use in this segment, in part to 

accommodate rising trail and other day use by 

local residents. Indirect and induced 

economic stimulus along this segment would 

be comparable with that under alternative A. 

Under alternative C, the parkway would 

potentially work cooperatively with the city of 

Asheville to provide staging areas for a shuttle 

system that could provide area residents and 

out of town visitors to Asheville access to 

popular parkway venues/attractions along the 

parkway and to the north and south to 

destinations such as Craggy Gardens and Mt. 

Pisgah. If developed, the system would likely 

operate during the summer season, when 

traffic volumes on the parkway are the 

highest. The shuttle would provide visitors an 

opportunity to visit without use of a personal 

vehicle. This would potentially open up 

opportunities for visitor use and spending by 

new groups of visitors. 

A lengthened visitor season for certain 

facilities such as the Blue Ridge Visitor Center 

and Folk Art Center, as well as potentially 

more visitors from a shuttle service to these 

sites and others, would benefit Eastern 

National Association sales and the Folk Art 

Center from higher visitation and sales due to 

increased use during shoulder seasons. 

The proposed paved, multiuse trail for 

pedestrian and bicycle use under alternative C 

would support added day use in the Asheville 

segment. Construction of a multiuse path 

parallel to the roadway would also require 

higher spending than under alternative A. 

Segment 7: Pisgah. Alternative C includes 

enhanced visitor orientation services at the 

parkway’s southern entrance. Because of the 

narrow right of way at the south entrance, the 

parkway would seek to partner with another 

entity to achieve this goal. The National Park 

Service would not fund or own a visitor center 

facility. Alternative C would close and relocate 

some tent camping and upgrade RV sites with 

water and electricity hookups at the Mt. 

Pisgah recreation area. Campground access 

redesign would not be undertaken in this 

location in order to protect natural resources. 

These changes may affect the experience for 

some recreation visitors. The relocated tent 

sites, along with the upgraded comfort 

stations and addition of electrical and water 

utility service to the existing RV sites, would 

continue to support active use of the area. 

Concession food, lodging, and gift store 

services at Mt. Pisgah, one of the stronger 

concession operations on the parkway, would 

likely remain economically viable. However, if 

such services became economically unviable, 

the National Park Service would look to the 

private sector to provide services outside the 

parkway and the parkway would adaptively 

reuse or remove the structures being used for 

concessions. 

The long-term effects of these changes, when 

combined with the effects of the enhanced 

southern entrance/gateway in promoting 

recreation visitor use along the southernmost 

segments of the parkway, would result in 

beneficial but minor increases in visitor 

spending, indirect and induced economic 

activity, and jobs and income in the Maggie 

Valley, Cherokee, and elsewhere in the 

surrounding region. 

Impacts arising from alternative C would be of 

the same type but somewhat higher in 

intensity and magnitude than those expected 

under alternative A. The impacts include 

slightly higher traffic on local roads and 

related impacts on public safety, higher 

spending that bolsters community and 

tourism-oriented businesses in the region, 

increased demands on public services, and 

additional tax revenues to fund public services 

and facilities. 

Alternative C would, over the long term, 

subtly influence established economic and 

community development processes or social 

interaction patterns in the affected area, due 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

490 

to the more regionally integrated actions 

associated with alternative C. The influences 

would not occur uniformly, either spatially or 

temporally, across the parkway, as 

implementation of alternative C is contingent 

upon many factors beyond the control of the 

National Park Service. Overall, the impacts 

from actions under alternative C would be 

minor to moderate in the short term and long 

term and generally beneficial. 

Cumulative Effects 

Other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions affecting the social and 

economic conditions of the region would be 

the same as under alternative A. Future 

residential, commercial, and transportation 

developments near the parkway are generally 

consistent with projected economic and 

population growth for the region. Such 

growth would be accompanied by a broad 

spectrum of community development and 

fiscal and social interactions and processes; 

for example, temporary construction jobs, 

changes in retail shopping patterns and 

availability of consumer services, changing 

demands on public infrastructure and 

services, and influences affecting social 

interactions. Cumulative social and economic 

effects of these actions would also include 

short- and long-term increases in traffic on 

local roads and long-term changes in land use 

and additional potential loss of scenic views 

from the parkway. The development 

pressures would concurrently bolster habitat 

and viewshed protection efforts by the 

parkway, local communities, and other 

interests. 

The cumulative developments would have 

short-term demands on local construction 

trades, short- and long-term demands on 

community services, and local changes in 

visitor use and commuting travel along the 

parkway. This would result in long-term 

minor to moderate indeterminate cumulative 

impacts on the social and economic 

environment. Combining the likely effects of 

implementing alternative C with the effects of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions would result in minor to 

moderate short- and long-term indeterminate 

cumulative impacts on the social and 

economic environment. Alternative C would 

contribute a modest, generally beneficial 

amount to this impact. 

Conclusion 

The economic and social effects of alternative 

C would include minor to moderate shortand long-term economic and social benefits. 

Long-term social consequences would 

include assisting in maintaining the region’s 

population base and the parkway’s role in 

supporting heritage tourism, in particular 

traditional music, arts, and culture. Overall, 

the cumulative social and economic effects 

associated with alternative C would be minor 

to moderate, short- and long-term, and 

indeterminate because they include effects 

that might be concurrently viewed as 

beneficial or adverse by various individuals, 

organizations, and stakeholder groups. 

Alternative C would contribute a modest, 

generally beneficial amount to this impact. 
Consultation and Coordination 5

Floyd County Dry Goods Store

Pine Tree in Bloom

493 

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 

The Final General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Blue 

Ridge Parkway was based on input from the 

National Park Service, other agencies, 

American Indian tribes, and the public. 

Consultation and coordination among these 

groups were vitally important throughout the 

planning process. The public had three 

primary avenues for participation during the 

development of the plan: participation in 

public meetings, responses to newsletters, and 

comments submitted by way of the NPS 

planning website and regular mail. 

PUBLIC MEETINGS AND NEWSLETTERS 

Public meetings and newsletters were used to 

keep the public informed and involved in the 

planning process for the Blue Ridge Parkway. 

A mailing list was compiled that consisted of 

members of governmental agencies, 

organizations, businesses, legislators, local 

governments, and interested citizens. 

Comments and suggestions offered by 

hundreds of participants provided NPS 

planners with important insights about what 

parkway visitors, neighboring landowners, 

county officials, science experts, and others 

expect from the general management plan. 

The notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement was 

published in the Federal Register on March 13, 

2002 (Volume 67, Number 49, Pages 11361–

11362). 

Public Scoping Meetings 

Four general public open houses were held in 

Staunton and Vinton (near Roanoke), 

Virginia, and in Asheville and Boone, North 

Carolina, during September 2002. The 

purpose of these meetings was to obtain early 

input on the public’s vision for the parkway’s 

future and any parkway issues, concerns, and 

ideas related to the general management plan. 

More than 140 people attended this set of 

public meetings. 

Newsletters 

The National Park Service issued five 

newsletters between 2002 and 2008 during 

preparation of the Draft General Management 

Plan. The total number of people who 

responded to the first four newsletters was 

362. This figure includes people who mailed 

back comment forms enclosed in a newsletter, 

people who wrote letters to the parkway 

superintendent, and people who commented 

about the plan by electronic mail. The total 

number of responses to the fifth newsletter 

was 257, including electronic comments 

posted on the NPS Planning, Environment 

and Public Comment website 

(http://parkplanning.nps.gov/blri). 

Newsletter #1 described the process of general 

management planning and invited comments 

on the purposes of the Blue Ridge Parkway 

and the significance of its cultural and natural 

resources. Newsletter recipients were asked if 

the stated purpose reflected their sense of why 

the parkway was created and why it is 

important. Most of those responding 

indicated agreement with the parkway’s 

purpose and significance statements. Some 

went further, saying that these statements 

especially mirror their personal feelings about 

the merits of the parkway. 

Newsletter #2 was a scoping newsletter and 

solicited input about issues facing the Blue 

Ridge Parkway that people wanted to see 

addressed by the new general management 

plan. People were asked what they value about 

the Blue Ridge Parkway, what concerns they 

have, and for other thoughts and ideas. 

Newsletter #3 presented a summary of the 

scoping comments received from the public at 

meetings and from written comments in 

response to Newsletter #2. Three issues of 

special note were discussed to clarify public 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

494 

concerns. These three were parkway 

bicycling, horse and bicycle use at Moses H. 

Cone Memorial Park, and the planned 

expansion of Interstate 73 (I-73) across the 

parkway. 

Newsletter #4 introduced the concept of 

different prescriptions and their purpose in 

describing how to achieve a variety of 

parkway resource and visitor experience 

conditions. A preliminary set of management 

prescriptions was presented and members of 

the public were asked if they thought the draft 

prescriptions encompassed a full range of 

desired conditions for resources and visitors. 

They were asked to provide ideas on these 

topics and for any other comments or 

concerns. 

Newsletter #5 was an extensive document that 

compared three preliminary management 

alternatives and invited comments. To aid in 

discussion and analysis, the parkway was 

divided into seven segments identified 

between certain mileposts. Corresponding 

color-coded maps showed how the 

application of eight proposed management 

zones would differ among the three 

alternatives. 

Members of the public predominantly valued 

the beauty of the scenic views from and along 

the parkway and the trails within parkway 

boundaries for recreation and education. 

Many people expressed the importance of 

experiencing the peaceful and leisurely 

character of parkway travel with its 

architectural, natural, and landscape design 

features. 

RELEASE OF THE DRAFT GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT PLAN / 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

The Blue Ridge Parkway Draft General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement was released to the public on 

October 7, 2011. Four public meetings were 

held across Virginia and North Carolina to 

review and discuss the draft plan and receive 

public input 

 November 2, 2011 in Asheville, NC 

 November 3, 2011 in Blowing Rock, NC 

 November 9, 2011 in Lovingston, VA 

 November 10, 2011 in Roanoke, VA 

The public comment period closed on 

December 16, 2011. 

Approximately 3,360 pieces of 

correspondence about the draft plan were 

received from individuals, organizations, 

tribes, and agencies. The pieces of 

correspondence were submitted via email, 

hardcopy letters, comment cards provided at 

public meetings, or the National Park 

Service’s internet-based Planning, 

Environment, and Public Comment system 

(PEPC). A total of 9,179 comments were 

derived from the correspondence received. 

All comment letters received from agencies 

and organizations are posted to the PEPC 

internet site 

(http://parkplanning.nps.gov/blri) for public 

inspection. 

A report titled “Comments and Responses on 

the Blue Ridge Parkway Draft General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement” is included at the end of this 

chapter. The report summarizes the substance 

of the comments received during this draft 

review period and provides a collection of 

National Park Service responses to the various 

categories of concerns that were raised. 
495 

CONSULTATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES/OFFICIALS AND 

ORGANIZATIONS 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, 

SECTION 7 CONSULTATION 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended, requires in section 7 (a)(2) that each 

federal agency, in consultation with the 

Secretary of the Interior, ensure that any 

action the agency authorizes, funds, or carries 

out is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a listed species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. This section sets 

out the consultation process as implemented 

by regulation 50 CFR 402. 

During the preparation of this document, the 

National Park Service coordinated informally 

with offices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service in Annapolis, Maryland, and Asheville, 

North Carolina (see appendix B). The list of 

threatened and endangered species (see table 

22 in chapter 3 of this document) was 

compiled using information received from the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

On December 21, 2001, the then parkway 

superintendent (Daniel W. Brown) initiated 

informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service on behalf of the planning 

team. This letter requested determination of 

federally listed threatened and endangered 

species, candidate species, species of special 

concern, and critical habitat that might be 

present within the boundaries of the parkway. 

After a subsequent delay in the planning 

process (from the plan being put on hold), on 

June 2, 2008, the parkway superintendent 

(Philip A. Francis Jr.) re-initiated this 

consultation by requesting U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service input on the updated list of 

listed species and critical habitat within the 

parkway boundaries. To remain up-to-date 

about listed and proposed threatened and 

endangered species, the National Park Service 

has consulted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service website and provided copies of the 

five newsletters to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service over the duration of the planning 

process. 

In accordance with the Endangered Species 

Act and relevant regulations at 50 CFR Part 

402, the National Park Service determined 

that the preferred alternative would have “no 

effect” or “may affect, not likely to adversely 

affect” the various federally-listed species that 

occurs in the parkway (see table 22 in chapter 

3). 

The National Park Service has also committed 

to consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

on future actions conducted under the 

framework described in this management plan 

to ensure that such actions are not likely to 

adversely affect threatened or endangered 

species. 

In October 2011 the National Park Service 

provided copies of the Blue Ridge Parkway 

Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement to the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service for review. Via 

letters dated April 12, 2012, and May 12, 2012, 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Asheville 

Field Office and Virginia Field Office, 

respectively, concurred with the section 7 

assessment determinations made by the 

National Park Service on the potential effects 

to listed species from the general management 

plan. 

FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES 

BASED IN NORTH CAROLINA AND IN 

VIRGINIA 

A meeting with representatives of federal and 

state agencies based in North Carolina was 

held at the headquarters of the Blue Ridge 

Parkway, Asheville, North Carolina, during 

January 2002. A similar meeting with such 

representatives in Virginia was held in Vinton, 

Virginia, during April 2002. Members of the 

planning team outlined the general 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

496 

management plan scope and time frame and 

agency participants offered information about 

their interests and in their desired level of 

involvement with the plan. Information was 

sought about each agency’s planning cycles 

and availability of data that could be useful for 

the management plan. Topics discussed 

included loss of wildlife habitats such as 

wetlands, invasive exotic species, declining 

water and air quality, encroaching 

urbanization by way of economic and 

residential development, lack of funding for 

cultural and natural resource preservation and 

for parkway operations, increasing 

recreational demands, and problems of vista 

management. 

WORKSHOP OF RESOURCE EXPERTS 

Cultural Resources 

The planning team invited a number of 

individuals recognized as experts on the 

history and cultural resources of the Blue 

Ridge Parkway and surrounding region to a 

one-day workshop in Jonesville, North 

Carolina, on April 16, 2002. The purpose of 

this workshop was to obtain the perspective of 

experts outside the National Park Service 

concerning the significance of parkway 

cultural resources from a regional and 

national context and visions for future 

desirable conditions to manage parkway 

cultural resources. Nine of the 17 invited 

experts attended. Members of the NPS 

planning team and a consulting firm also 

attended. 

Most of the discussion about cultural resource 

significance centered on the parkway itself as 

a major historic resource important in its own 

right. Its conception, design, and 

construction, as well as for the politics 

associated with its location and 

construction—all contributed to its national 

significance. The parkway’s long association 

with the region through which it passes and its 

influence on the public’s perception of an 

“idealized pioneer culture,” make it an 

important avenue for interpreting regional 

culture and helping adjacent communities tell 

the story of their heritage. Thus, parkway 

cultural resources contribute to its national 

significance. 

It was recognized that to improve cultural 

resource management the National Park 

Service needs to complete comprehensive 

inventories of prehistoric, historic, and 

ethnographic sites for archeological, 

ethnographic, and historic resources and for 

cultural landscapes. It was further recognized 

that the conditions for managing and curating 

the parkway’s archives need improvement. 

Discussions during the 2002 meeting led to 

the parkway’s preparation of an updated 

Historic Resource Survey that includes a 

national historic landmark nomination for the 

Blue Ridge Parkway Historic District. This 

report is currently underway. To improve 

cultural resource inventory and management 

at the parkway, the preparation of cultural 

landscape reports for several cultural 

landscapes identified within the parkway are 

also underway. This general management plan 

will incorporate these reports’ conclusions 

and recommendations when they become 

available. 

Transportation 

The Blue Ridge Parkway planning team 

invited a number of individuals recognized as 

experts on Blue Ridge regional transportation 

activities to a one-day workshop on April 17, 

2002, in Jonesville, North Carolina. Thirteen 

representatives from the Virginia and North 

Carolina transportation departments and the 

Federal Highway Administration attended. 

Also attending were two representatives of the 

National Parks Conservation Association and 

planning team members from the National 

Park Service and EDAW consulting firm. The 

purpose of this workshop was to provide 

meeting attendees an overview of the general 

management plan process, the transportation 

implementation plan that would follow, and 

how these efforts may affect state road 

improvement programs. 
Consultation with Other Agencies/Officials and Organizations 

497 

Workshop participants were asked to identify 

pertinent issues relative to the transportation 

organizations they represented. As the 

National Park Service continues with its 

proposed transportation planning process, the 

disposition and improvements made to 

primary and secondary roads will be of 

particular interest to these regional 

transportation experts. Examples of specific 

topics discussed are as follows: 

 ways to balance state and local needs 

versus NPS needs now and in the future, 

including the extent to which the 

viewshed should be considered in 

designing road changes/improvements 

and safety versus “scenery” criteria for 

road crossings of the parkway 

 sharing road specification guidelines, 

including future maintenance and rightof-way issues, for mutual understanding 

among the National Park Service and the 

transportation departments of Virginia 

and North Carolina 

 desired programmatic approval for 

certain types of basic road 

improvements 

 identifying funding sources for road 

improvements and bridge replacements 

The extent to which the parkway is a multiple 

use versus a leisurely use facility, and thus, an 

integral part of the primary transportation 

systems of Virginia and North Carolina was 

emphasized for discussion. 

Natural Resources 

Of the 13 experts invited, 4 attended the 

natural resource workshop on April 18, 2002, 

in Jonesville, North Carolina. Also attending 

were several resource specialists from the NPS 

Blue Ridge Parkway’s Natural Resource 

Office, planning team members from the 

National Park Service, and a consulting firm. 

The purpose of this workshop was to obtain 

the perspective of natural resource experts 

primarily from outside the National Park 

Service about the significance of the parkway 

and their vision for the future condition and 

management of parkway natural resources. 

Several comments about resource significance 

focused on the importance of the parkway as 

an “ecological rope” or corridor that links 

major ecosystems of the southern 

Appalachians. This corridor enables the 

movement of wildlife such as bear and bobcat 

and migratory birds that follow the ridgelines. 

Wildlife movement is often adversely affected 

by the fragmentation of this corridor by roads 

and development. The parkway sets an 

example in the region for resource protection 

and preservation and this continuous corridor 

can positively influence adjacent resource 

protection/preservation decisions by others, 

such as the Nature Conservancy, because they 

can “link” their properties to this corridor. 

Recommended was the use of natural tools 

such as fire and beavers to maintain 

ecosystems, along with a more proactive 

approach in working with adjacent 

jurisdictions and other entities, such as land 

conservancies and trusts, to improve adjacent 

land use, and thus, better protect/preserve 

parkway lands. It would be helpful to view the 

parkway more as a “natural area” rather than a 

“theme park,” with the management goal of all 

native natural resources being stable or 

thriving, with exotic species under control, 

and with extirpated species such as the 

chestnut reintroduced. Through more 

communication and cooperation among the 

parkway’s divisions, resource management 

and interpretation could improve to make 

natural resource interpretation much more 

accessible to publics and constituencies of all 

ages. 

Regional and Local Governments 

The National Park Service met with North 

Carolina and Virginia county planners in 2001 

and 2002 for early scoping input. 

In September and October 2001, two meetings 

were held in each state, in Little Switzerland 

and Asheville, North Carolina, and Roanoke 

and Staunton, Virginia. These meetings were 

coordinated in advance with the North 

Carolina Councils of Governments and the 

Virginia Planning District Commissions. 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

498 

Forty-eight planners attended from 75% of 

the 44 municipal, state, and adjacent county 

jurisdictions. The planners were asked to 

identify benefits and issues of the parkway, 

and then discuss other groups to contact for 

scoping input. 

Values and Benefits. Some of the primary 

parkway values and benefits that these 

planners identified included, in order of 

frequency of comments: (1) economics and 

tourism, including attractiveness to businesses 

and industry, greater publicity, and increased 

revenues and property values; (2) recreational 

variety and easy accessibility that attracts 

residents and tourists; (3) scenic views both of 

and from the parkway; (4) land preservation 

of natural landscapes, open space, and the 

Blue Ridge crest; and (5) protection of wildlife 

corridors and water resources. 

Issues and Concerns. By far the most 

prevalent concern discussed by planners was 

the increasing pressure for residential 

development and cell towers and impacts on 

the parkway’s scenery and ultimately its 

economic value. Many were concerned about 

the lack of funding for acquisition of land and 

easements. They were also concerned that 

development would turn the parkway into a 

transportation corridor rather than a 

recreational venue. Other frequent comments 

related to pedestrians, motorists, and bicycles 

all having to use the same roadway; the 

overuse of the parkway by commuters; the 

need for better facility upkeep; resource 

damage from visitor uses; winter road closings 

disrupting communities; and the desire to see 

the parkway provide visitors information 

about adjacent communities and attractions. 

In 2002, another set of four meetings were 

held for the purpose of keeping local 

governments informed about the planning 

effort and to hear from local planners about 

local population and land use trends, as well 

as major projects planned for their 

jurisdictions. 

Land Use Trends. Meetings were held in 

Boone and Asheville, North Carolina, and 

Staunton and Roanoke, Virginia. Meeting 

attendees represented a cross section of the 44 

jurisdictions. Some of the land use trends that 

attendees discussed included the fact that 

even with the slowing economy, development 

of second or retirement residences continued 

to be strong; there has been closure of plants 

and unemployment is high; the alarming rate 

of agricultural conversion and lack of concern 

or support for “slow growth” in communities; 

the rise in niche crops such as vineyards and 

Christmas trees; planned road improvements 

in both states that would impact traffic and 

visual quality on the parkway; and many 

planners discussed the benefits of the parkway 

to residents’ quality of life—especially for 

counties not near major parkway entrances. 

Parkway Partner Organizations 

Sessions with parkway partner organizations 

were held at parkway headquarters, Asheville, 

North Carolina, during January 2002. There 

were eight key parkway partner groups 

involved—Blue Ridge Parkway Association, 

FRIENDS of the Blue Ridge Parkway, Blue 

Ridge Parkway Foundation, Southern 

Highlands Craft Guild, Eastern National 

Monuments and Parks Association, 

Conservation Trust for North Carolina, 

Explore Park, and the National Council for 

the Traditional Arts. (Representatives of the 

last two organizations were unable to attend 

the meeting.) Overall, the partners expressed 

enthusiasm about the plan and said they want 

to be actively involved. Concerning public 

meetings, the group advised parkway and NPS 

staff to take advantage of the opportunity to 

help communities along the parkway better 

understand the parkway’s mission and values 

and those of the National Park Service itself. 

Partners encouraged the National Park 

Service to develop ways of recognizing and 

communicating the character and special 

features of communities near the parkway. 

Groups producing periodic newsletters 

offered to include general management plan 

updates in their publications. Details were 

discussed about developing the mailing list, 

about the electronic availability of geographic 

base data such as topography and city and 

county roads, contracting for transportation 
Consultation with Other Agencies/Officials and Organizations 

499 

and visitor data and analysis, and determining 

each partner’s desired level of involvement 

with the general management plan. Questions 

to ask at subsequent workshops were also 

discussed; for example, “What are desired 

future conditions for parkway resources 

within national and regional contexts?” 

SECTION 106 CONSULTATION 

Federal agencies that have direct or indirect 

jurisdiction over historic properties are 

required by section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 

(16 USC 470, et seq.) to take into account the 

effect of any undertaking on properties listed 

in or eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places. To meet these 

requirements, on January 4, 2002, with followup on February 6, 2003, the National Park 

Service sent letters to the Virginia and North 

Carolina state historic preservation officers 

(Ms. Kathleen Kilpatrick and Dr. Jeffrey 

Crow, respectively) and the Advisory Council 

(Mr. Don Klima, director of planning and 

review) inviting and confirming opportunities 

to participate in the planning process. Letters 

were sent again to the Virginia and North 

Carolina state historic preservation officers 

and the Advisory Council on November 2010 

(see appendix B). Throughout the planning 

process, each office was informed of 

opportunities to attend agency and public 

meetings and to comment on the newsletters. 

The National Park Service commits to 

complete the section 106 review for each 

undertaking that may stem from this general 

management plan in accordance with the 2008 

Programmatic Agreement among the National 

Park Service, the Advisory Council, and the 

National Conference of State Historic 

Preservation Officers for Compliance with 

section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. All undertakings that do not 

conform to the stipulations for streamlined 

review as described in section III of the 

National Historic Preservation Act would be 

subject to review in accordance with 36 CFR 

Part 800. 

A copy of the Draft General Management Plan 

/ Environmental Impact Statement was sent to 

the state historic preservation offices and the 

advisory council for their review and 

comment. The Blue Ridge Parkway also 

consulted with the two state historic 

preservation officers about the Draft Blue 

Ridge Parkway Historic Resource Study and 

the draft National Register of Historic Places 

nomination form of the parkway as a national 

historic landmark. This general management 

plan applies the conclusions and 

recommendations of these reports. 

CONSULTATION WITH AMERICAN 

INDIAN TRIBES 

Traditionally associated with the area now 

containing the parkway, the following eight 

federally recognized American Indian tribes 

were invited, initially by letter dated January 

16, 2002 and followed by telephone calls, to 

meet for government-to-government tribal 

consultations about the general management 

plan 

 Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, 

Shawnee, Oklahoma 

 Catawba Indian Nation, Rock Hill, 

South Carolina 

 Cherokee Nation, Tahlequah, Oklahoma 

 Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, 

Cherokee, North Carolina 

 Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, 

Seneca, Missouri 

 Shawnee Tribe, Miami, Oklahoma 

 Tuscarora Nation, Lewiston, New York 

 United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee 

Indians, Tahlequah, Oklahoma 

During 2002 and 2003, parkway staff met with 

representatives of the Absentee Shawnee 

Tribe, Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of 

Cherokee Indians, Eastern Shawnee Tribe, 

Shawnee Tribe, and the United Keetoowah 

Band of Cherokee Indians. The Tuscarora 

Nation did not respond and the Catawba 

Indian Nation responded in writing. 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

500 

The consulting tribes advised the National 

Park Service to continue to notify relevant 

tribes of inadvertent discoveries associated 

with ground-disturbing parkway projects. It 

was noted that such projects would 

presumably be authorized by general 

management plan guidance. The inadvertent 

discoveries of interest would be those 

involving prehistoric or historic American 

Indian artifacts, other evidence of Indian 

village habitation or occupation, and/or 

American Indian human remains, especially 

the latter. The tribes definitely want to be 

notified about the discovery of American 

Indian human remains to possibly instruct the 

National Park Service on an NPS-led reburial 

in which the remains would return to the 

earth as close by as possible to where they 

were found. Under the guidance of the Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act, the National Park Service and consulting 

American Indian tribes would develop a plan 

for dealing with the inadvertent discovery of 

human remains. Other than the reference to 

overall guidance for parkway projects, no 

issues came up during Native American 

consultations relating to the general 

management plan. 
501 

AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING A 

COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT 

FEDERAL AGENCIES 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Federal Highway Administration 

National Endowment for the Arts 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North 

Carolina 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

North Carolina Soil and Water Conservation 

Districts, Mountain Valleys Resource, 

Conservation, and Development Council 

U.S. Forest Service 

Cradle of Forestry in America National Forest 

Historic Site, North Carolina 

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson 

National Forests, Virginia 

Glenwood Ranger District of Jefferson 

National Forest 

Grandfather Ranger District, Pisgah National 

Forest, North Carolina 

National Forests in North Carolina, including 

Pisgah and Nantahala 

Southern Research Station, North Carolina

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Climatic Data Center 

U.S. Department of Defense 

U.S. Air Force Combat Climatology Center, 

14th Weather Squadron, North Carolina 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Bureau of Reclamation 

National Biological Informatics Office, 

Tennessee 

National Park Service 

Andrew Johnson National Historic Site 

Appalachian National Scenic Trail 

Booker T. Washington National Monument 

Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site 

Cowpens National Battlefield 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park 

Guilford Courthouse National Military Park 

Shenandoah National Park 

Southeast Archeological Center 

Southeast Regional Office 

Water Resources Division 

National Park Service Affiliated Areas 

Path of Progress National Heritage Tour 

Route also known as Southwestern 

Pennsylvania Industrial Heritage Route 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U. S. Geological Survey 

U. S. Department of Justice 

U.S. Attorney’s Office, Virginia 

U. S. Regional Solicitors’ Offices, Georgia and 

Tennessee 

U. S. Treasury 

Internal Revenue Service 

U. S. SENATORS AND 

REPRESENTATIVES 

North Carolina 

Honorable Richard Burr, Senator 

Honorable Kay Hagan, Senator 

Honorable Virginia Foxx, House of 

Representatives 

Honorable Patrick T. McHenry, House of 

Representatives 

Honorable Mark Meadows, House of 

Representatives 

Honorable Howard Coble, House of 

Representatives 

Virginia 

Honorable Mark Warner, Senator 

Honorable Timothy Kaine, Senator 

Honorable Morgan Griffith, House of 

Representatives 

Honorable Robert Hurt, House of 

Representatives 

Honorable Bob Goodlatte, House of 

Representatives 

STATE AGENCIES 

North Carolina Attorney General’s Office 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

502 

North Carolina Department of Agriculture 

and Consumer Services, Plant Conservation 

Program 

North Carolina Department of Commerce, 

Division of Tourism, Film, and Sports 

Development 

North Carolina Department of Cultural 

Resources 

North Carolina State Historic Preservation 

Officer 

North Carolina Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources 

North Carolina Division of Water Quality 

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program 

North Carolina Natural Heritage Trust Fund 

North Carolina Regional Trails 

North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission and District 

North Carolina Department of 

Transportation 

Division of Highways 

Scenic Byways Coordinator’s Office 

North Carolina Division of Parks and 

Recreation 

Mount Mitchell State Park 

Rendezvous Mountain Educational State 

Forest 

North Carolina Division of State History 

Museums 

North Carolina Museum of History 

Mountain Gateway Museum and Heritage 

Center 

North Carolina Governor’s Office 

North Carolina State Clearinghouse, 

Environmental Policy Act Coordinator’s 

Office 

North Carolina State Historic Sites 

Reed Gold Mine State Historic Site / National 

Historic Landmark 

North Carolina Western Office of the 

Governor 

South Carolina Department of Parks, 

Recreation, and Tourism 

Virginia Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services 

Virginia Department of Commerce and 

Resources 

Virginia Department of Conservation and 

Recreation 

Environmental Programs 

Natural Heritage Program 

Virginia Department of Economic 

Development 

Virginia Department of Forestry 

Virginia Department of Game and Inland 

Fisheries 

Wildlife Diversity Division 

Virginia Department of Transportation 

Environmental Manager’s Office 

Scenic Byway Coordinator’s Office 

Virginia Department of Historic Resources 

Roanoke Regional Preservation Office 

Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer 

Virginia Governor’s Office 

Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority 

Virginia Tourism Corporation, Official 

Tourism Website of the Commonwealth of 

Virginia 

STATE OFFICIALS 

North Carolina 

Honorable Pat McCrory, Governor 

State Senator Jim Davis 

State Senator Ralph Hise 

State Senator Tom Apodaca 

State Senator Martin Nesbitt 

State Senator Warren Daniel 

State Senator Daniel Soucek 

State Senator Shirley Randleman 

State Representative Joe Sam Queen 

State Representative Michele D. Presnell 

State Representative Chuck McGrady 

State Representative Tim D. Moffitt 

State Representative Nathan Ramsey 

State Representative Susan C. Fisher 

State Representative Chris Whitmire 

State Representative Mitch Gillespe 

State Representative Hugh Blackwell 

State Representative Edgar V. Starnes 

State Representative Johnathan C. Jordan 

State Representative Jeffrey Elmore 

State Representative Sarah Stevens 

Virginia 

Honorable Robert F. McDonnell, Governor 

State Senator Charles W. Carrico, Sr. 

State Senator Charles K. Smith 

State Senator William M. Stanley, Jr. 
Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Receiving a Copy of this Document 

503 

State Senator John S. Edwards 

State Senator Stephen D. Newman 

State Senator Thomas A. Garrett, Jr. 

State Senator Emmett W. Hangar, Jr. 

State Senator R. Creigh Deeds 

State Representative Israel D. O'Quinn 

State Representative Anne B. Crockett-Stark 

State Representative Nick Rush 

State Representative Gregory D. Habeeb 

State Representative Charles D. Poindexter 

State Representative Onzlee Ware 

State Representative Christopher T. Head 

State Representative Lacey E. Putney 

State Representative T. Scott Garrett 

State Representative Benjamin L. Kline 

State Representative Richard P. Bell 

AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES 

TRADITIONALLY ASSOCIATED WITH 

THE PARKWAY 

Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of 

Oklahoma, Shawnee, Oklahoma 

Catawba Indian Nation, Rock Hill, South 

Carolina 

Cherokee Nation, Tahlequah, Oklahoma 

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Cherokee, 

North Carolina 

Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Seneca, 

Missouri 

Shawnee Tribe, Miami, Oklahoma 

Tuscarora Nation, Lewiston, New York 

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians 

in Oklahoma, Tahlequah, Oklahoma 

LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENT 

AGENCIES 

Albemarle County, Virginia, Office of 

Community Development 

Alleghany County, North Carolina, Offices of 

County Board, Manager, and Planning 

Amherst County, Virginia, Offices of County 

Board, Administrator, and Planning 

Arlington County, Virginia, Planning Office 

Ashe County, North Carolina, Offices of 

County Board and Planning 

Asheville, North Carolina, Offices of Mayor, 

City Council, Community Development, 

Convention and Visitors’ Bureau, Parks and 

Recreation, Planning, and Transit 

Augusta County, Virginia, Offices of County 

Board, Administrator, and Planning 

Avery County, North Carolina, Offices of 

County Board and Manager 

Bedford County, Virginia, Office of County 

Board 

Bedford, Virginia, Offices of City 

Administrator/Manager and Commercial 

Development 

Blowing Rock, North Carolina, Office of 

Planning and Inspections 

Boone, North Carolina, Offices of Mayor, 

Town Council, and Development 

Botetourt County, Virginia, Offices of 

Administrator and Planning 

Buena Vista, Virginia, Offices of City Manager 

and Community Development 

Buncombe County, North Carolina, Offices of 

County Board, Manager, and Schools 

Burke County, North Carolina, Offices of 

County Board, Manager, and Planning 

Caldwell County, North Carolina, Offices of 

County Board and Planning 

Carroll County, Virginia, Offices of County 

Board and Administrator 

Charlottesville, Virginia, Offices of City 

Council and Neighborhood Services 

Chesterfield County, Virginia, Office of 

Planning 

Floyd County, Virginia, Offices of County 

Board and Administrator 

Franklin County, Virginia, Offices of County 

Board, Administrator, and Planning 

Galax, Virginia, Office of Tourism 

Glasgow, Virginia, Office of Town Manager 

Grayson County, Virginia, Offices of County 

Board and Administrator 

Haywood County, North Carolina, Offices of 

County Board and Commercial Development 

Council 

Henderson County, North Carolina, Offices 

of County Board, Planning, and 

Travel/Tourism 

Hendersonville, North Carolina, Office of 

Planning 

Hickory, North Carolina, Office of Planning 

Hillsville, Virginia, Office of Building 

Inspection 

Jackson County, North Carolina, Offices of 

County Board, Manager, and Planning 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

504 

Lexington, Virginia, Office of Planning 

Lynchburg, Virginia, Office of Planning 

Madison County, North Carolina, Offices of 

Administrator and Planning 

Martinsville, Virginia, Office of Tourism 

McDowell County, North Carolina, Offices of 

County Board and Administrator/Manager 

Mitchell County, North Carolina, Offices of 

County Board and Manager 

Morganton, North Carolina, Office of City 

Council 

Nelson County, Virginia, Offices of County 

Board, Administrator, Planning, and Tourism 

North Carolina Region D Council of County 

and Municipal Governments 

Patrick County, Virginia, Offices of County 

Board and Administrator 

Roanoke County, Virginia, Offices of County 

Board, Administrator, Community Relations, 

Economic Development, Planning, Public 

Information, 

Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Planning 

District Commission of Virginia 

Roanoke, Virginia, Office of Planning 

Rockbridge County, Virginia, Offices of 

County Board, Administrator, and Planning, 

Rockbridge Partnership of the Cities of 

Lexington and Buena Vista and Rockbridge 

County, Virginia 

Salem, Virginia, Office of City Director 

Statesville, North Carolina, Office of City 

Director 

Staunton, Virginia, Offices of Planning and 

Economic Development 

Surry County, North Carolina, Offices of 

Administrator and Planning 

Swain County, North Carolina, Offices of 

County Board, Administrator/Manager, and 

Planning 

Transylvania County, North Carolina, Offices 

of County Board, Manager, and Planning 

Vinton, Virginia, Office of Planning 

Virginia 2000 Regional Commission 

Watauga County, North Carolina, Offices of 

County Board, Manager, and Planning 

Waynesboro, Virginia, Offices of City 

Director, Planning, Tourism, and Economic 

Development 

Waynesville, North Carolina, Offices of 

Historic Preservation and Planning 

Wilkes County, North Carolina, Offices of 

Manager and Planning 

Yancey County, North Carolina, Offices of 

Administrator/Manager and Planning 

ORGANIZATIONS AND BUSINESSES 

Abbott and Partners, Architects, Virginia 

Abingdon Convention and Visitors Bureau, 

Virginia 

Access Fund, Colorado 

Advantage West Economic Development 

Group, North Carolina 

Alleghany Chamber of Commerce and 

Visitors Center, North Carolina 

Alleghany Highlands Chamber of Commerce, 

Virginia 

Alicia Patterson Foundation, Virginia 

Alpine Inn, North Carolina 

American Automobile Association, Carolina 

Motor Club, North Carolina 

Amherst County Chamber of Commerce, 

Virginia 

Appalachian Consortium, Board of Directors, 

Tennessee and North Carolina 

Appalachian State University Chancellor’s, 

Vice Chancellor’s, and Academic Affairs 

Offices; Biology and Communications, and 

Technology Departments; and Hospitality 

Management Program; North Carolina 

Appalachian Trail Conservancy (formerly 

Appalachian Trail Conference), West Virginia 

Ashe County Chamber of Commerce, North 

Carolina 

Asheville Chamber of Commerce and 

Visitors’ Bureau, North Carolina 

Avery-Banner Elk County Chamber of 

Commerce, North Carolina 

Beattie Foundation, North Carolina 

Bedford Chamber of Commerce, Virginia 

Biltmore Estate, The Biltmore Company, 

North Carolina 

Black Mountain-Swannanoa Chamber of 

Commerce, North Carolina 

Blacksburg Regional Chamber of Commerce, 

Virginia 

Blowing Rock Chamber of Commerce, North 

Carolina 

Blue Ridge Mountain Host, North Carolina 

Blue Ridge National Heritage Area Parkway 

Destination Center, North Carolina 

Blue Ridge Parkway Association Board, North 

Carolina 
Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Receiving a Copy of this Document 

505 

Blue Ridge Parkway Foundation, North 

Carolina 

Boone Area Chamber of Commerce, North 

Carolina 

Boone Climbers Coalition, North Carolina 

Boone High Country Regional Transportation 

Planning Organization, North Carolina 

Botetourt County Board of Supervisors 

Botetourt County Chamber of Commerce, 

Virginia 

Brevard College, North Carolina 

Brevard/Transylvania Chamber of Commerce, 

North Carolina 

Caldwell County Chamber of Commerce, 

North Carolina 

Capital Area Visitor Services Center, North 

Carolina 

Carolina Climber's Coalition, North Carolina 

Carolina Mountain Club, North Carolina 

Carroll County Chamber of Commerce, 

Virginia 

Cashiers Area Chamber of Commerce, North 

Carolina 

Center on Rural Development, Virginia 

Cherokee County Chamber of Commerce, 

Executive Director’s Office, North Carolina 

Cherokee Historical Association, North 

Carolina 

Clemson University, Department of Forest 

Resources, South Carolina 

Community Foundation of Western North 

Carolina 

Conservation Trust for North Carolina 

Cradle of Forestry in America Interpretive 

Association, North Carolina 

East Tennessee State University, Departments 

of English, Family Medicine, and Information 

Research Technology, and Center for 

Appalachian Studies 

Eastern National Parks Association, 

Pennsylvania 

Environmental Federation of North Carolina 

Emory and Henry College, Geography 

Department, Virginia 

Explore Park, Virginia 

Ferrum College’s Blue Ridge Institute and 

Museum, Virginia 

Forever Resorts, Arizona, concessioner on the 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

FRIENDS of the Blue Ridge Parkway, Board 

of Directors and Executive Director, North 

Carolina and Virginia 

Foundation for The Carolinas, North 

Carolina 

Galax Chamber of Commerce, Virginia 

Global Warming Campaign Blue Water 

Network, California 

Grandfather Mountain, Incorporated, North 

Carolina 

Greater Augusta Regional Chamber of 

Commerce, Director’s Office, Virginia 

Greater Haywood County Chamber of 

Commerce, Executive Director’s Office, 

North Carolina 

Green River Preserve, North Carolina 

Grove Park Inn and Country Club, North 

Carolina 

Handmade in America, North Carolina 

Harley Owners Group, Pennsylvania 

Hearthside Handmades, North Carolina 

Highlands Gateway Visitor Center, Virginia 

Hill Studio, Interstate 40 (I-40) Welcome 

Center, Historic National Road, Pennsylvania 

Historic Orchard at Altapass, North Carolina 

Interstate 26 (I-26) Welcome Center, North 

Carolina 

Interstate 40 (I-40) Welcome Center, North 

Carolina 

Interstate 64 (I-64) Welcome Center, Virginia 

Interstate 77 (I-77) Welcome Center, Virginia 

Interstate 81 (I-81) Welcome Center, Virginia 

Interstate 85 (I-85) Welcome Center, North 

Carolina 

Iowa State University, Department of 

Landscape Architecture 

Jackson County Chamber of Commerce, 

North Carolina 

Janirve Foundation, Chairman’s Office, North 

Carolina 

Kentucky Society of Natural History 

Land of Sky Regional Council, Environmental 

Programs Director’s and Regional Planner’s 

Offices, North Carolina 

Lexington Visitors Bureau, Virginia 

Luray Caverns, Virginia 

Maggie Valley Chamber of Commerce, North 

Carolina 

Mars Hill College, President’s and Dean’s 

Offices, North Carolina 

McDowell County Chamber of Commerce,

North Carolina County Chamber of 

Commerce 

Mitchell County Chamber of Commerce, 

North Carolina 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

506 

Mount Airy Chamber of Commerce, North 

Carolina 

Mountain Adventures, North Carolina 

Mountain Magic Cycling, North Carolina 

Mountain Resources Center, North Carolina 

Musselwhite and Associates, Virginia 

National Audobon Society, North Carolina 

National Council for the Traditional Arts, 

Maryland 

National Park Concessions, Incorporated, 

Kentucky 

National Parks Conservation Association, 

North Carolina and Tennessee 

National Park Service Employees and Alumni 

Association, Pennsylvania 

National Trust for Historic Preservation, 

Washington, D.C. 

Nature Conservancy, North Carolina 

New Leaf Fund, North Carolina 

New River Community Partners, North 

Carolina 

North Carolina Arboretum of the University 

of North Carolina 

North Carolina Center for Nonprofits 

North Carolina High Country Host, Executive 

Director’s Office 

North Carolina Museum of Natural Science 

North Carolina National Park, Parkway, and 

Forests Development Council 

North Carolina State University, Department 

of Parks, Recreation and Tourism 

Management; School of Design; and College 

of Forest Resources 

North Carolina Welcome Centers 

North Carolina Zoological Park 

Northwest Trading Post, Incorporated, North 

Carolina 

Northwestern University, Environmental 

Policy Program, Illinois 

Oldham Historic Properties, Virginia 

Ohio and Erie Canalway Coalition, Ohio 

Park Foundation, North Carolina 

Peaks of Otter Lodge / Peaks of Otter 

Company, Virginia 

Pisgah Inn, North Carolina 

Preservation North Carolina (Historic 

Preservation Foundation of North Carolina, 

Incorporated) 

Radford University, Appalachian Regional 

Studies Center, Director’s Office, Virginia 

River Link, Executive Director’s Office, 

North Carolina 

Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce, 

Virginia 

Roanoke Valley Chamber of Commerce, 

Virginia 

Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors 

Bureau, Virginia 

Rock Dimensions, North Carolina 

Rockfish Gap Tourist Information Center, 

Virginia 

Rocky Mount Chamber of Commerce, 

Virginia 

Salem Chamber of Commerce, Virginia 

Scenic America, Incorporated, Washington, 

D.C. 

Scenic Virginia, Incorporated 

Shenandoah Valley Travel Association, 

Virginia 

Skyland Camp, North Carolina 

Sierra Club, North Carolina, Tennessee, and 

Virginia 

Smoky Mountain Host of North Carolina 

Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition, 

North Carolina 

Southern Appalachian Highlands 

Conservancy, Executive Director’s Office, 

North Carolina 

Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere 

Program, Tennessee 

Southern Highland Craft Guild, North 

Carolina Southern Appalachian Highlands 

Spruce Pine Chamber of Commerce, North 

Carolina 

Staunton Office of Tourism, Virginia 

Stuart Chamber of Commerce, Virginia 

Talisman Summer Programs, North Carolina 

The Climbing Place, North Carolina 

The Institute at Biltmore, North Carolina 

Tidewater Hotels and Resorts, Virginia 

Travelhost Travel Magazine, North Carolina 

Trust for Public Land, North Carolina 

University of North Carolina at Asheville, 

Chancellor’s Office, Community Leadership 

Programs, and Department of Biology 

University of Virginia, News Director’s Office 

Valley [Shenandoah Valley] Conservation 

Council, Virginia 

Venture Out, North Carolina 

Veterans Administration Medical Center, 

Executive Director’s Office, North Carolina 

Vinton Chamber of Commerce, Virginia 

Virginia Outdoors Foundation 
Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Receiving a Copy of this Document 

507 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 

University; Art and Design Learning Center, 

College of Forestry and Wildlife, Department 

of Fisheries and Wildlife, Landscape 

Architecture Program, and Pamplin College of 

Business 

Virginia’s Southwestern Blue Ridge 

Highlands, Incorporated 

Virginia Tourism Corporation 

Wake Forest University, Department of 

Biology, North Carolina 

Warren Wilson College, North Carolina 

Western Carolina University, Chancellor’s 

and Mountain Heritage Center Director’s 

Offices, North Carolina 

Western North Carolina Alliance 

Western North Carolina Associated 

Communities 

Western North Carolina Chamber of 

Commerce 

Western North Carolina Development 

Association 

Western North Carolina Film Commission 

Western North Carolina Tomorrow, 

Executive Director’s Office 

Western Virginia Land Trust 

Wilkes County Chamber of Commerce, North 

Carolina 

Wytheville-Wythe-Bland Chamber of 

Commerce, Virginia 

Yancey County Chamber of Commerce, 

North Carolina 

 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

508 

INDIVIDUALS 

The list of individuals receiving a copy of the plan is available from parkway headquarters. 
509 

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY 

DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN / ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT STATEMENT 

This section summarizes the comments 

received following the release of the Blue 

Ridge Parkway Draft General Management 

Plan / Environmental Impact Statement on

October 7, 2011. All written comments were 

considered during the preparation of the final 

general management plan and environmental 

impact statement in accordance with the 

requirements of Council on Environmental 

Quality’s regulations for implementing the 

National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 

1503). The comments allow the planning 

team, NPS decision makers, and other 

interested parties to review and assess the 

views of other agencies, organizations, and 

individuals related to the preferred 

alternative, the other alternatives, and 

potential impacts. It is important to stress that 

the selection of the preferred alternative and 

revisions to the alternative are not based on 

how many people supported a particular 

alternative. 

All comments received during the public 

review and comment period have been duly 

considered and will remain in the project 

administrative record. The administrative 

record (or project file) documents the NPS 

decision-making process and records the basis 

and rationale for making the decision. 

METHODOLOGY 

The Blue Ridge Parkway received 

approximately 3,360 pieces of 

correspondence during the public review and 

comment period from October 7, 2011, 

through December 16, 2011. Correspondence 

was received by one of the following methods: 

email, hard copy letter via mail, comment 

sheet submitted at the public meetings, or 

entered directly into the PEPC system. Letters 

received by email or through the postal mail, 

as well as the comments received from the 

public meetings, were entered into the PEPC 

system for analysis. Each of these letters or 

submissions is referred to as correspondence. 

Once all the correspondence was entered into 

PEPC system, each was read, and specific 

comments within each correspondence were 

identified. A total of 9,179 comments were 

derived from the correspondence received. 

In order to categorize and address comments, 

each comment was given a code to identify its 

general content and that coding allowed 

similar comments to be grouped together. A 

total of 86 codes were used to categorize all of 

the comments received on the draft general 

management plan / environmental impact 

statement. An example of a code developed 

for this project is AE19000 Affected 

Environment: Other Agencies’ Land Use 

Plans. In some cases, the same comment may 

be categorized under more than one code, 

reflecting the fact that the comment may 

contain more than one issue or idea. 

During coding, comments were also classified 

as substantive or non-substantive. A 

substantive comment is defined in the NPS 

Director’s Order 12 (DO-12) Handbook as 

one that does one or more of the following 

(DO-12, section 4.6A): 

 question, with a reasonable basis, the 

accuracy of information presented in the 

environmental impact statement 

 question, with reasonable basis, the 

adequacy of the environmental analysis 

 present reasonable alternatives other than 

those presented in the environmental 

impact statement and/or 

 cause changes or revisions in the proposal 

As further stated in DO-12, substantive 

comments “raise, debate, or question a point 

of fact or policy. Comments in favor of or 

against the proposed action or alternatives, or 

comments that only agree or disagree with 

NPS policy, are not considered substantive.” 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

510 

In addition to the substantive comments 

discussed above, the parkway received a 

variety of additional comments. Some were 

received from the public, and some from 

other agencies. These comments that did not 

meet the NEPA definition for “substantive 

comments” were all read, recorded, and 

coded according to topic area and are part of 

the administrative record, which is the official 

history of the general management plan / 

environmental impact statement. In addition, 

these comments were addressed in a variety of 

ways in the agency responses to comments 

(below). 

Approximately 42% of the comments received 

related to 3 of the 86 codes. These codes were 

related to likes or dislikes about the plan, 

suggestions for improving the preferred 

alternative, and other comments related to the 

plan, and were all non-substantive. Of the 

3,360 correspondences, 36% came from 

commenters in the state of North Carolina, 

19% came from commenters in the state of 

Virginia, while the remaining comments came 

from 48 other states and nine other countries. 

The majority of comments (74%) came from 

unaffiliated individuals, with 22% of the 

correspondence coming from recreational 

groups. 

GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT 

This report has the following two primary 

components: 

Content Analysis Report: This is the basic 

report produced from the PEPC system that 

provides information on the numbers and 

types of comments received, organized by 

code and by various demographics. The first 

section is a summary of the number of 

comments that fall under each code or topic. 

Data are then presented on the amount of 

correspondence by type (i.e., amount of 

comments through the PEPC system, emails, 

letters, etc.); and amount received by 

organization type (i.e., organizations, 

governments, individuals, etc.); and amount 

received by state and country. 

Concern Response Report: The concern 

response report identifies concern statements 

that are based on the substantive comments 

and other comments that necessitate 

clarification which were received during the 

draft general management plan / 

environmental impact statement public review 

comment process. The concern statements are 

organized by comment category and are 

supported by representative quotes from 

actual comments. Representative quotes are 

provided for each concern statement. An NPS 

agency response is then provided for each 

concern statement. 

CONTENT ANALYSIS REPORT 

As mentioned above, this is the basic report 

produced from the PEPC system that provides 

information on the numbers and types of 

comments received, organized by code and by 

various demographics. Table 58 provides a 

summary of the number of comments that fall 

under each code or topic, and what 

percentage of comments falls under each 

code. This table lists the substantive and nonsubstantive comments received on the draft 

plan/environmental impact statement; 

however, only the substantive comments are 

included in the response portion of this 

document. The codes are presented 

alphabetically in this table. 

Data are then presented on the amount of 

correspondence by type (i.e., number of 

comments through the PEPC system, emails, 

letters) (table 59), number received by 

organization type (i.e., organizations, 

governments, individuals) (table 60), and 

number received by state (table 61) and 

country (table 62). 
Comments and Responses on the Blue Ridge Parkway Draft General Management Plan 

/ Environmental Impact Statement 

511 

TABLE 58. CONTENT ANALYSIS REPORT

Code Description 

Number 

of 

Comments 

AE1003 Affected Environment: Solid and Hazardous Wastes, and Hazardous Materials 6 

AE1010 Other Agencies' Land Use Plans: Impact Of Proposal And Alternatives 22 

AE11000 Affected Environment: Species Of Special Concern 3 

AE19000 Affected Environment: Other Agencies? Land Use Plans 93 

AL2999 Alternatives: In favor of Alternative A 74 

AL3001 Alternatives: In favor of Alternative B (Preferred) 137 

AL3002 Alternatives: In favor of Alternative C 158 

AL4000 Alternatives: New Alternatives Or Elements 89 

AQ1000 Air Quality: Guiding Policies, Regs, Laws 2 

CC1000 Consultation and Coordination: General Comments 197 

CO001 Commercial Operations: Continue/Add 23 

CO002 Commercial Operations: Restrict/Outsource/No Additional Services 23 

CR1000 Cultural Resources: Guiding Policies, Regs And Laws 2 

CR1001 Cultural Resources: National Historic Landmark Determination 939 

CR1002 Cultural Resources: Historic Structures, Cultural Landscapes, Archeological Resources 3 

ED1000 Editorial 5 

ES1001 Erosion and Sediment Control: Guiding Policies, Regs and Laws 1 

GC001 Other Comments: Global Climate Change 76 

GR1000 Geologic Resources: Guiding Policies, Regs And Laws 1 

IP100 ISSUES - Park management issues 52 

IV002 Visitor Facilities: Facilities/Trails/Campsite Closures 207 

IV101 Natural Resources: Soundscapes 49 

IV102 Visitor Use: Hunter Access/Parking 2 

MA9900 Maps: Zoning Maps 4 

MI1002 Mitigations: Required/Recommended 64 

MT1000 Miscellaneous Topics: General Comments 97 

NE1001 NEPA: Public Involvement 20 

NE1003 NEPA: Alternatives 25 

NE5000 NEPA: Cumulative Impacts 1 

NE5001 NEPA: Guiding Policies, Regs And Laws 3 

NH0001 Visitor Facilities: Rocky Knob Natural Heritage Center 12 

NR1001 Natural Resources: Air Quality 27 

NR3001 Natural Resources: Soils 5 

NR5003 Natural Resources: Floodplains 3 

NR5004 Natural Resources: Wetlands 5 

NR5005 Natural Resources: Geology 1 

NR6000 Natural Resources: Impact Of Proposal And Alternatives 9 

NR8500 Natural Resources: Water Resources/Quality 9 

NR9001 Natural Resources: T&E/Rare Species And Habitat 29 

NR9002 Floodplains: Guiding Policies, Regs And Laws 2 

ON1000 Other NEPA Issues: General Comments 3 

PM0001 Park Management: Ag Leases/Farmlands 4 

PM0100 Park Management: Interpretation/Education 15 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

512 

TABLE 58. CONTENT ANALYSIS REPORT

Code Description 

Number 

of 

Comments 

PM1001 Park Management: Employees 5 

PM1002 Park Management: Land Protection/Adjacent Landowners 34 

PM6000 Park Management: Advertise/Better Marketing 22 

PM7000 Park Management: Law Enforcement 19 

PM7001 Park Management: Safety 87 

PM9001 Park Management: Fire Management 1 

PN1000 Purpose And Need: Planning Process And Policy 1 

PN4000 Purpose And Need: Park Legislation/Authority 329 

PN6000 Purpose And Need: Land Management Laws, Exec Orders 2 

PO4001 Park Management: Budget/Funding Issues 108 

PO5001 Park Management: Seasonal Use of Facilities 18 

PO6000 Park Management: Public Involvement (Volunteering/Programs/Partnerships) 298 

RE1000 Regional Agencies Planning: Guiding Policies, Regs And Laws 2 

RF1000 References: General Comments 1 

RR1000 Resolution: City of Roanoke Resolution 7 

SE2000 Socioeconomics: Methodology And Assumptions 2 

SE4000 Socioeconomics: Impact of Proposal And Alternatives 588 

SH0001 Solid and Hazardous Wastes, and Hazardous Materials: Guiding Policies, Regs and 

Laws 1 

SH0002 Solid and Hazardous Wastes, and Hazardous Materials: Impact of Alternatives 2 

SI001 Park Management: Add/Redesign Signs 64 

SM1000 Stormwater Management: Guiding Policies, Regs and Laws 1 

SN1000 State Agency Planning: Guiding Policies, Regs And Laws 2 

TC1000 Visitor Facilities: Infrastructure/Utilities 63 

TE1000 Threatened And Endangered Species: Guiding Policies, Regs And Laws 4 

TQ1-43487 What proposals or aspects do you like/dislike about the alternatives in this Draft 

General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement (DGMP / EIS)? 1,802 

TQ2-43487 Do you have any suggestions for improving the preferred alternative in this DGMP / 

EIS? If so what are they? 1,531 

TQ3-43487 Do you have any other comments related to this DGMP / EIS ? 1,115 

TR0001 Visitor Facilities: Trail Access/Parking 50 

TR1002 Transportation: Traffic/Congestion/Speed Limit 294 

TR1003 Transportation: Relationship To Other Transportation Systems 369 

VE4000 Visitor Experience: Impact Of Proposal And Alternatives 563 

VF9000 Visitor Facilities: Sustainability/Pollution Prevention Management 5 

VF:5001 Visitor Use: River Access/Water Activities 14 

VH100 VALUES - Value the history or cultural resources 207 

VN100 VALUES - Value the natural resources or setting (flora, fauna, views, natural quiet, 

undeveloped areas) 218 

VQ001 Visual Resources: Viewsheds 202 

VR6000 Natural Resources: Vegetation (Exotic Species) 15 

VU1000 Visitor Use: Transportation (Alternative/Motorized/Non-motorized) 563 

VU1001 Visitor Use: Cycling/Hiking/Bike Lanes/Access 3,108 

VV100 VALUES - Value the visitor opportunities (activities, programs, recreation) 495 
Comments and Responses on the Blue Ridge Parkway Draft General Management Plan 

/ Environmental Impact Statement 

513 

TABLE 58. CONTENT ANALYSIS REPORT

Code Description 

Number 

of 

Comments 

WH1000 Wildlife And Wildlife Habitat: Guiding Policies, Regs And Laws 2 

WI9000 Natural Resources: Wildlife/Wildlife Habitat 8 

WQ1000 Water Resources: Guiding Policies, Regs And Laws 2 

Total 9,179 

 

 

TABLE 59. CORRESPONDENCE DISTRIBUTION BY 

CORRESPONDENCE TYPE

Type Number of 

Correspondences 

Web Form 2,850 

Park Form 18 

Letter 46 

E-mail 446 

Total 3,360 

TABLE 60. CORRESPONDENCE SIGNATURE COUNT BY 

ORGANIZATION TYPE

Organization Type Number of 

Correspondences 

Town or City Government 1 

County Government 10 

Business 36 

Federal Government 7 

University/Professional Society 10 

State Government 9 

Conservation/Preservation 46 

Recreational Groups 723 

Non-Governmental 1 

Civic Groups 1 

Unaffiliated Individual 2,515 

Churches, Religious Groups 1 

Total 3,360 

TABLE 61. CORRESPONDENCE DISTRIBUTION BY STATE

State Percentage 

Number of 

Correspondences 

AK 0.03% 1 

AL 0.27% 9 

AR 0.12% 4 

AZ 0.27% 9 

CA 1.04% 35 

CO 0.95% 32 

TABLE 61. CORRESPONDENCE DISTRIBUTION BY STATE

State Percentage 

Number of 

Correspondences 

CT 0.39% 13 

DC 0.74% 25 

DE 0.68% 23 

FL 2.83% 95 

GA 3.57% 120 

HI 0.03% 1 

IA 0.18% 6 

ID 0.09% 3 

IL 0.68% 23 

IN 0.71% 24 

KS 0.12% 4 

KY 0.45% 15 

LA 0.15% 5 

MA 0.36% 12 

MD 15.00% 504 

ME 0.21% 7 

MI 0.77% 26 

MN 0.48% 16 

MO 0.21% 7 

MS 0.09% 3 

MT 0.15% 5 

NC 36.31% 1,221 

ND 0.03% 1 

NE 0.09% 3 

NH 0.30% 10 

NJ 0.77% 26 

NM 0.09% 3 

NV 0.06% 2 

NY 0.98% 33 

OH 1.40% 47 

OK 0.15% 5 

OR 0.57% 19 

PA 1.67% 56 

RI 0.09% 3 

SC 2.65% 89 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

514 

TABLE 61. CORRESPONDENCE DISTRIBUTION BY STATE

State Percentage 

Number of 

Correspondences 

TN 2.35% 79 

TX 0.77% 26 

UN 0.03% 1 

UT 0.12% 4 

VA 19.02% 639 

VI 0.03% 1 

VT 0.27% 9 

WA 0.33% 11 

WI 0.33% 11 

WV 0.27% 9 

Total 3,360 

TABLE 62. CORRESPONDENCE DISTRIBUTION BY 

COUNTRY

Country Percentage Number of 

Correspondences 

Ireland 0.03% 1 

Unspecified 0.03% 1 

United 

Kingdom 0.03% 1 

United States 

of America 99.26% 3,335 

New Zealand 0.03% 1 

Germany 0.06% 2 

Spain 0.03% 1 

Wallis and 

Futuna Islands 0.03% 1 

Canada 0.45% 15 

Israel 0.03% 1 

Netherlands 0.03% 1 

Total 3,360 

CONCERN RESPONSE REPORT 

NPS Responses to Comments 

Comments that contain substantive points 

regarding information in the draft general 

management plan / environmental impact 

statement or comments that need clarification 

are extracted below. A concern statement has 

been developed to summarize each of these 

comments or collections of similar comments. 

Following each concern statement, 

“representative quotes” are also included 

from original letters, edited only for style 

consistency and spelling. Representative 

quotes are a select subset or sampling of 

comments taken directly from the 

correspondence to illustrate the issue, 

concern, or idea expressed by the comments 

grouped under that concern statement. An 

NPS response is then provided for each 

concern statement. All comment letters from 

agencies, organizations, and businesses have 

been scanned and are included in this chapter. 

Where appropriate, text in the Blue Ridge 

Parkway Final General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement has been 

revised to address comments and changes, as 

indicated in the following responses. 

Visitor Use and Experience 

Concern Statement #1: Clarify how bicycles 

may use the Blue Ridge Parkway under the 

management zoning proposed in 

alternative B. There were numerous 

concerns communicated to the Park, Region 

and WASO regarding the draft general 

management plan / environmental impact 

statement on the issue of bicycle use. 

Specifically, there were concerns that the 

draft general management plan / 

environmental impact statement would 

limit or prohibit bicycle use on the entire 

parkway. 

Correspondence Id: 1073

Commenter: Carol A. Parker 

Representative Quote: “Please do not 

prohibit bicycling along the Blue Ridge 

Parkway. It is a dream trip for cyclists and 

should remain open to them. This is 

something the National Park Service should 

promote - they are quiet, do not contribute to 

air pollution or use energy, and promote good 

health. Please keep the parkway open to 

cyclists.” 

Correspondence Id: 2253

Commenter: David Hutton 

Representative Quote: “Please do not 

consider the option to ban bicycling on the 

Parkway.” 
Comments and Responses on the Blue Ridge Parkway Draft General Management Plan 

/ Environmental Impact Statement 

515 

Correspondence Id: 2150

Commenter: Denise Lachniet 

Representative Quote: “I have just been 

advised that there are changes being 

considered that would prohibit bicycling on 

the Blue Ridge Parkway. I am very concerned 

about this possibility.” 

Correspondence Id: 2379 

Organization: Roanoke Valley Greenway 

Commission

Representative Quote: “The GMP should 

initiate approval of bicycle use on non-paved 

surfaces... The GMP should encourage 

multiuse trails, including mountain 

bicycling...” 

NPS Response: 

The National Park Service does not propose 

limiting or prohibiting bicycle use on the Blue 

Ridge Parkway beyond existing law and policy 

related to safety and events and off pavement 

utilization. None of the alternatives, including 

the NPS preferred alternative, state that 

existing visitor uses such as bicycling would 

not continue; nor does the plan preclude 

consideration of new uses. There are many 

activities that occur on the parkwayhiking, 

horseback riding, motorcycle use, running, 

bird watchingsuch uses are allowed where 

appropriate given resource protection and 

safety concerns. All uses of the Blue Ridge 

Parkway are currently and will continue to be 

managed under federal laws and NPS policies. 

Some public comments suggested that biking 

on non-paved trails (e.g., mountain biking) 

should be allowed on parkway lands. 

However, during the development of 

alternatives process, NPS staff applied a 

cost/benefit analysis tool (called Choosing by 

Advantages) to assess the value of allowing 

biking on non-paved trails. The analysis 

determined that the benefits of this use did 

not justify the costs (e.g., impacts to resources, 

trails, etc.) and that adding an additional 

active use such as this to the parkway is not 

appropriate. 

Also, as it relates to bicycling and as 

mentioned in the NPS response to “Factual 

Corrections” comments, it should be noted 

that the Boone/Blowing Rock multiuse trail is 

not an element of alternative B (the NPS 

preferred alternative). In the draft general 

management plan / environmental impact 

statement this trail was mistakenly included 

under alternative B, when it should have been 

described under alternative C. The correction 

has been made in the final general 

management plan / environmental impact 

statement. This proposed action was not 

identified as part of the NPS preferred 

alternative due to high costs to construct and 

maintain and the potential adverse effects to 

the parkway’s cultural and scenic landscapes. 

Concern Statement #2: The final general 

management plan / environmental impact 

statement should clarify that residential 

neighborhoods abutting the parkway and 

other adjacent private lands will not be 

negatively affected by visitor traffic, visitor 

parking, off-leash dogs, and/or 

undesignated social trail development 

near/through neighborhoods. 

Correspondence Id: 84 

Commenter: Calvin Underwood 

Representative Quote: “I am concerned 

about connecting to 'community trails' since 

some may emerge into residential 

neighborhoods.” 

Correspondence Id: 80 

Commenter: Kept Private 

Representative Quote: “Alternative B (NPS 

Preferred) can be improved by saying up front 

that the residential neighborhoods adjoining 

the Parkway will not be impacted. These are 

residential neighborhoods that were not 

designed for visitor traffic to access the 

Parkway. Many have narrow winding roads 

that can barely accommodate the people who 

live there. All access to trails should be from 

the Parkway.” 

Correspondence Id: 2594 

Commenter: Warren J Gaughan 

Representative Quote: “I'm also someone 

who lives adjacent to an informal trail that has 

been worn by locals behind Munn Drive in 

the Haw Creek area, and my own quality of 

life has been compromised considerably by 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

516 

inconsiderate hikers, bikers and dog walkers 

who use no leashes . . . Development of this so 

called "trail connector" or any others should 

consider input from legitimate local 

stakeholders whose land is adjacent to such 

connector trails, not necessarily local hikers, 

bikers and dog walkers who feel "entitled" to 

use it. I support maintaining current paved 

parking areas to accommodate trail access. I 

do have concerns about informal parking near 

any trail which affects the safety, land, and 

lifestyle of those living immediately nearby.” 

Correspondence Id: 2603 

Organization: County of Roanoke

Representative Quote: “As outlined in the 

County's comments for the Roanoke 

Valley/Blue Ridge Parkway Trail Plan 

(enclosed and included as part of the County's 

comments)... The following modifications to 

Alternative C of the Roanoke Valley/Blue 

Ridge Parkway Trail Plan were recommended 

by the County in support of the development 

of bicycle and pedestrian connections 

between the Blue Ridge Parkway and the 

Roanoke Valley's regional trail system: 

...Unauthorized social trails remain open 

until such time that resources are available to 

provide alternative access points for the 

citizens in our communities...” 

NPS Response: 

As noted by the above representative quotes, 

some varying opinions on unauthorized social 

trails exist amongst the public and agency 

comments. Local residents and property 

owners expressed concerns with adverse 

effects on private property and local 

neighborhoods from the public use and 

spread of undesignated social trails. Whereas, 

one local government requested that 

unauthorized social trails remain open until 

alternative access points are made available to 

community residents. 

The National Park Service has responded to 

these comments as follows. The descriptions 

of alternatives B and C in chapter 2 have been 

modified to specifically state that 

undesignated social trails are not authorized 

within the parkway and any future designated 

connections to parkway trails would only be 

developed on public lands in collaboration 

with the associated land management 

agencies. In addition, the alternative 

descriptions now state that the National Park 

Service will strive to close and restore 

undesignated social trails in the parkway as 

much as possible, particularly when the 

undesignated trails are known to be causing 

notable negative impacts to local natural 

resources, visitor experiences, or adjacent 

neighborhoods. 

The alternative descriptions have also been 

revised to state that adequate, formal parking 

areas to designated parkway trails would be 

developed to ensure visitor safety, protect 

resources, and preserve community character 

in adjacent or nearby neighborhoods. 

Concern Statement #3: Consider recreation 

plans of other local, regional, state, and 

federal agencies, such as Roanoke Valley 

Greenway System, and allow for 

connections to other recreational systems, 

sites, and communities. 

Correspondence Id: 2603 

Organization: County of Roanoke

Representative Quote: “As the Draft GMP 

provides over-arching, long-range strategies, 

as opposed to the inclusion of specific details 

for implementation, the County has a 

particular concern with the reference in 

Alternative B to "actively manage [the 

Parkway] as a traditional, self-contained, 

scenic recreational driving experience..." 

While Alternative B indicates support of 

enhanced opportunities for dispersed outdoor 

recreation activities, Alternative C has more 

emphasis on reaching out to communities 

along the Blue Ridge Parkway. Alternative B 

appears to focus on promoting the driving 

experience with less emphasis on the bicycle 

and pedestrian amenities. It is important that 

connections between our parks and trails be 

promoted for expanded use of the Blue Ridge 

Parkway for outdoor recreational purposes. In 

particular, the County is very supportive of 

the development of multiuse trails for hiking, 

biking and equestrian use. As outlined in the 

County's comments for the Roanoke 

Valley/Blue Ridge Parkway Trail Plan 
Comments and Responses on the Blue Ridge Parkway Draft General Management Plan 

/ Environmental Impact Statement 

517 

(enclosed and included as part of the County's 

comments), volunteer trail development and 

re-establishment of maintenance agreements 

are encouraged to connect the Blue Ridge 

Parkway to the Roanoke Valley Greenway 

system through an adaptive management 

approach of trail resources. The following 

modifications to Alternative C of the Roanoke 

Valley/Blue Ridge Parkway Trail Plan were 

recommended by the County in support of the 

development of bicycle and pedestrian 

connections between the Blue Ridge Parkway 

and the Roanoke Valley's regional trail 

system: -Provide extension of the Roanoke 

River Greenway along the Roanoke River 

from the Parkway to Explore Park; exact route 

to be determined upon coordination with the 

Parkway, Roanoke Valley Resource Authority 

(RVRA), Explore Park/VRFA, and Roanoke 

County; ...- Include one-year pilot project to 

evaluate shared use of the Chestnut Ridge 

Loop for hikers, equestrians, and mountain 

bikers; and - Acknowledge the need for a trail 

crossing (bridge) at the Roanoke River; and - 

Explore additional options for access and 

crossings at Rutrough Road, as current 

location shown on maps has limited sight 

distance.” 

Correspondence Id: 2472 

Organization: Roanoke Valley-Alleghany 

Regional Commission

Representative Quote: “Work with localities 

and stakeholders to provide a seamless 

connection from the Parkway corridor and 

Roanoke utilizing the on-road 

accommodations (Mill Mountain Parkway 

Spur), existing parks (Mill Mountain), Mill 

Mountain trails (Chestnut Ridge Loop, Wood 

Thrush Trail, etc.), and greenways (Mill 

Mountain Greenway).” 

Correspondence Id: 2379 

Organization: Roanoke Valley Greenway 

Commission

Representative Quote: “The GMP should 

endorse the connection of the Parkway to 

regional trail networks, such as the Roanoke 

Valley Greenway system." 

NPS Response:

The National Park Service is authorized and 

directed to prepare general management plans 

for each park unit. The purpose of a general 

management plan is to identify and clearly 

describe specific resource conditions to be 

achieved, and to identify the kinds of 

management that would be appropriate in 

achieving and maintaining those conditions. 

For the Blue Ridge Parkway, the policy set 

forth in NPS Management Policies 2006

section 8.2 was adopted regarding recreational 

activities. The decisions made as part of the 

general management plan / environmental 

impact statement planning process, including 

the decision to reflect current NPS 

management policies for visitor use and trail 

planning, are appropriate to that level of 

planning. 

Overall, the general management plan is not 

intended to address the details of site-specific 

or trail-specific design projects or 

coordination strategies. Instead, the general 

management plan is more of a long-term, 

conceptual guidance document that guides 

the National Park Service to collaborate and 

partner with local, state, and other federal 

agencies or organizations to achieve the 

management goals outlined in the general 

management plan. The exact ways these 

partnerships or partnership projects are 

carried out is left to the various subsequent 

implementation plans/projects that will follow 

the general management plan in future years. 

The “Future Studies and Implementation 

Plans Needed” section of chapter 2 provides 

some insight into expected areas of future 

planning projects (including access and trail 

plans). 

In the section called “Relationship of Other 

Planning Efforts to This General Management 

Plan” (in “Chapter 1: Purpose and Need”), the 

general management plan / environmental 

impact statement notes that the “Roanoke 

Valley Trail Plan / Environmental 

Assessment” is currently underway, thereby 

appropriately deferring alternatives for and 

decisions about the goals, objectives, and 

development of trails along/adjoining the 

parkway in the Roanoke Valley to this 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

518 

Roanoke Valley Trail Plan / Environmental 

Assessment. 

This section of the general management plan / 

environmental impact statement also 

references other related planning efforts along 

the extent of the parkway. There are 

numerous other areas where the National 

Park Service has worked with localities, 

regions, state or other federal partners on 

planning projects that intersect with or impact 

the parkway. The projects mentioned in this 

section of the general management plan / 

environmental impact statement are projects 

currently underway and do not represent all 

planning projects that the National Park 

Service has been a partner in, nor does the 

plan address actions not on federal lands that 

may be included in those plans. 

All draft general management plan / 

environmental impact statement alternatives, 

including the “no-action” alternative, allow 

for such planning and the consideration of 

connections to other recreational systems. 

The general management plan / 

environmental impact statement in fact 

encourages those connections in the 

Waynesboro, Roanoke, Boone/Blowing Rock, 

and Asheville areas. Nothing in any of the 

general management plan alternatives 

precludes connections to trail systems where 

appropriate. The parkway is currently 

working on such plans in several areas and 

will continue to do so in the future, regardless 

of which alternative is selected. 

Concern Statement #4: The Roanoke 

Campground should not be closed, as per 

the NPS preferred alternative of the draft 

general management plan / environmental 

impact statement.

Correspondence Id: 2379 

Organization: Roanoke Valley Greenway 

Commission 

Representative Quote: “Retain Roanoke 

Mountain Campground and improve it with 

showers and mountain biking opportunities. 

e. Continue the parkway design features in 

any new buildings.” 

NPS Response:

To determine the future of the Roanoke 

Mountain campground in the general 

management plan, the National Park Service 

assessed demand for overnight camping and 

the cost to maintain and operate the facility. 

As noted in the “Visitor Use and Experience” 

section of “Chapter 3: Affected Environment”, 

the Roanoke Mountain campground has the 

lowest level of average seasonal occupancy of 

all NPS campgrounds along the parkway (less 

than 25% average seasonal occupancy). The 

National Park Service determined that it is not 

cost-effective to continue operating Roanoke 

Mountain campground. As described in the 

alternative descriptions in chapter 2, the 

National Park Service intends to convert this 

campground area to a day-use recreation area. 

Over the duration of this conversion from a 

campground to a day use area, the National 

Park Service will collaborate with local 

communities and other park partners to 

consider innovative ways to effectively 

manage this area in the interim. 

Cultural Resources 

Concern Statement #1: Clarify how 

designation as a national historic landmark 

differs from the current status of the Blue 

Ridge Parkway as a cultural resource. 

Specifically, would it preclude changes to 

the resource or create a new regulatory 

requirement? 

Correspondence Id: 2379 

Organization: Roanoke Valley Greenway 

Commission 

Representative Quote: “Other 

Recommended Changes a. National Historic 

Landmark Designation is the wrong way to 

protect the Parkway. This status will create 

obstacles and red bureaucratic red tape, and 

entomb the parkway in a virtual time capsule. 

Protect and maintain individual historic 

structures instead.” 

NPS Response:

The Blue Ridge Parkway is currently eligible 

for listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places because of its significant designed 

landscape, age, and contributing features, and 
Comments and Responses on the Blue Ridge Parkway Draft General Management Plan 

/ Environmental Impact Statement 

519 

its status as a world-renowned exemplar of 

rural parkway design. This determination of 

eligibility for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places means that NPS managers are 

required by law to manage all national 

register-eligible properties in the same manner 

as national register-listed properties, adhering 

to the same laws and standards, primarily the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as 

amended) and The Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and 

Historic Preservation.

Section 110 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act requires all federal agencies 

to ensure that all "historic properties under 

the jurisdiction or control of the agency, are 

identified, evaluated, and nominated to the 

National Register." The National Register of 

Historic Places is the federal government's 

official list of properties that are worthy of 

preservation. While properties listed in the 

national register can be significant at a local, 

state, or national level, properties designated 

to be national historic landmarks are 

recognized by the Secretary of the Interior as 

possessing national significance for their 

exceptional national value in representing or 

illustrating an important theme in the history 

of the Nation. National historic landmarks are 

America's most historically significant places 

and are instrumental to the understanding of 

American history. Determinations of national 

significance are made by professional 

historians who judge and evaluate properties 

within a historic context. For example, a Civil 

War skirmish might be judged to be significant 

at a local level, while a battle that represented 

a turning point in a specific campaign might 

achieve state or national significance. A major 

battle that represented a turning point in the 

war—like Vicksburg—would be judged to rise 

above national significance in the national 

register and would be designated an national 

historic landmark. The National Park Service 

is required by law to evaluate the parkway by 

using national register criteria. After applying 

these criteria, historians believe that Blue 

Ridge Parkway’s parkway rises to the national 

historic landmark level of exceptional national 

significance, and therefore, national historic 

landmark designation is the most appropriate 

level of designation for the parkway. 

It is important to understand that the Blue 

Ridge Parkway is a resource that is comprised 

of an interconnected system of features 

designed to form a cohesive scenic driving 

experience. The parkway includes not only 

historic structures but, beyond this, forms a 

continuous landscape created by natural and 

cultural elements such as vegetation, scenic 

views and vistas, important roadway 

circulation patterns, historic structures, and 

numerous small-scale features. All of these 

elements work together to form a unified 

whole, and thus, they cannot be separated as 

discreet, individual resources. This is why the 

resource nominated for national historic 

landmark designation is the Blue Ridge 

Parkway as one whole resource. 

Activities that affect national register-listed or 

-eligible resources and national historic 

landmarks are regulated principally by 

sections 106 and 110(f) of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, which states that 

federal agencies must "take into account" the 

effects of their undertakings on historic 

properties, and afford the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation an opportunity to 

comment on the undertaking and its effects. 

Implementing regulations of the Council may 

be found in 36 CFR Part 800, "Protection of 

Historic Properties," which establish a process 

of consultation with the State Historic 

Preservation Officer and the Council leading, 

in most instances, to agreement on how the 

undertaking will proceed. As with an 

assessment of impacts to resources eligible for 

listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places, steps in the process include 

identification and evaluation of national 

historic landmark-designated properties that 

may be affected, assessment of the effects of 

the federal action, and resolution of any 

adverse effects that would occur. If a federal 

activity will "directly and adversely affect" a 

landmark, section 110(f) of the act also calls 

for federal agencies to undertake 'such 

planning and actions as may be necessary to 

minimize harm to such Landmark.' If adverse 

effects would occur, the National Park Service 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

520 

must request the participation of the Council 

to resolve such adverse effects, as outlined in 

36 CFR Part 800.10. The Secretary of the 

Interior must also be notified of any potential 

effects and be invited to participate in 

consultation. It is important to keep in mind 

that the law does not forbid specific actions, 

even those damaging to historic properties, 

including national historic landmarks. The 

purpose of the law is to require federal 

agencies to consider the effects of their 

undertakings on the nation's historic 

properties, and minimize effects to national 

historic landmarks in particular to the 

maximum extent possible. This means that if 

the Blue Ridge Parkway is designated a 

national historic landmark, there would be 

less tolerance for adverse effects to significant 

features identified to be contributing to the 

parkway’s significance as a Landmark, than 

those that might be allowable for a national 

register-listed or -eligible resource. Once the 

statutory requirements for consultation are 

accomplished, federal agencies may choose to 

proceed with the undertaking as originally 

planned, modify it to mitigate damage to the 

historic property, or not undertake the project 

(NPS 2011c). Stakeholder groups would be 

notified of such projects or activities that have 

potential to impact any national historic 

landmark-designated resources, such as the 

Blue Ridge Parkway. All groups would have an 

opportunity to provide feedback and 

comment concerning these activities.

In addition to a higher level of resource 

protection afforded by national historic 

landmark designation, the Landmark 

nomination for the Blue Ridge Parkway would 

include a list of contributing and noncontributing resources. Activities impacting 

non-contributing elements is not required to 

meet The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic 

Preservation (the standards for maintaining 

cultural resources), provided that those 

actions do not directly or indirectly impact 

adjacent contributing elements. In the absence 

of a National Register nomination, parkway 

management has had to assume that all 

resources are potentially contributing to the 

Blue Ridge Parkway. Therefore, the 

identification of contributing and noncontributing resources in the forthcoming 

national historic landmark nomination will 

facilitate assessments of impacts to cultural 

resources associated with actions and 

activities that may occur along the parkway by 

streamlining the process for non-contributing 

features. For more information on national 

historic landmarks and their designation, 

please visit the NPS website: 

http://www.nps.gov/nhl/QA.htm 

Concern Statement #2: Appendix B. 

Determination of Impairment includes 

phrases more appropriate for cultural 

landscapes and historic structures rather 

than for archeological resources, which 

may be national register-eligible for their 

information value under National Register 

Criterion D. Such adverse impacts would be 

permanent.

Correspondence Id: 2642 

Commenter: Commonwealth of Virginia, 

Department of Historic Resources 

Representative Quote: “On page 567, 

Archaeological resources, it is stated that: 

Some impacts could be mitigated through the use 

of appropriate screening and use of vegetation 

and appropriate design and new, noncontributing additions could be designed to be 

compatible with the historic setting. These are 

not in fact appropriate mitigations for 

archaeological sites, but for cultural 

landscapes and structures. On page p. 568 it is 

stated that Ground-disturbing activities related 

to the construction of new concession facilities 

could result in long-term adverse impacts 

because some sites features or artifacts could be 

altered, even though their information value 

would be retained. However, archaeological 

sites may be eligible for more than their 

information value. Archaeological sites may be 

eligible under criteria A and B as well as D. 

They may also be of cultural importance to 

living communities. Again, on p.568 it is stated 

that any potential ground-disturbing activities 

could cause short-term adverse impacts on 

archaeological resources. Unfortunately 

archaeological sites are non-renewable 

resources. Ground-disturbing activities have 

the potential to cause permanent and severe 
Comments and Responses on the Blue Ridge Parkway Draft General Management Plan 

/ Environmental Impact Statement 

521 

impacts to archaeological resources to the 

point of total destruction.” 

 

NPS Response: 

The National Park Service agrees with this 

characterization of impacts and appropriate 

mitigating measures for archeological 

resources. The determination of impairment 

has been revised to state that project-related 

activities could result in permanent adverse 

impacts on archeological resources due to loss 

of surface archeological materials, altered 

artifact distribution, or a reduction of 

contextual evidence could result from these 

activities. However, such adverse impacts 

would be avoided or mitigated prior to 

ground-disturbing activities. Archeological 

survey in the area of potential effect would 

identify sites listed or eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places. 

Archeological resources listed or eligible for 

listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places would be avoided or mitigated through 

consultation with the State Historic 

Preservation Officer. 

Please note that, in accordance with recent 

NPS policy, Appendix B: Determination of 

Impairment has been removed from this plan 

and will instead be attached to the record of 

decision for the final general management 

plan / environmental impact statement. The 

revised text, described above, will be included 

in this attachment. 

Concern Statement #3: The type of trail 

improvements to the Rockcastle Gorge 

system alternative B is not clear, making it 

difficult to assess potential impacts to 

cultural resources. 

Correspondence Id: 2642 

Commenter: Commonwealth of Virginia, 

Department of Historic Resources 

Representative Quote: “We have some 

concern about the effects of Alternative B as 

presented in the comparison of alternatives 

from upgrading the Gorge Trail System. There 

is a special cultural resource zone is 

Rockcastle Gorge where there are remnants of 

an abandoned mountain community. 

Alternative C proposes In proximity of the 

historic settlement sites, including the fire road, 

allow hiking only. We are not clear whether 

the upgrade proposed in Alternative B would 

be for a multiuse trail, rather than hiking 

only.” 

NPS Response: 

Alternative B for Rocky Knob has been 

revised to state that, “In proximity of the 

historic settlement sites, including the fire 

road, allow hiking only.” This clarifies that a 

multiuse trail system in Rock Castle Gorge is 

not proposed under the NPS preferred 

alternative. In addition, the cultural resource 

impact analysis now explains that trail 

improvements in the Rockcastle Gorge area 

would allow for more law enforcement-led 

programs that would result in an increase in 

park law enforcement presence, and thus, an 

increase monitoring and protection of historic 

buildings and landscape features in this area. 

Concern Statement #4: The discussion of 

impacts in the Rockcastle Gorge area is too 

narrowly focused on “historic structures” 

and does not include impacts to “buildings.” 

A cultural landscape report and 

ethnographic overview and assessment 

have not been submitted to the Department 

of Historic Resources for approval.

Correspondence Id: 2642 

Commenter: Commonwealth of Virginia, 

Department of Historic Resources 

Representative Quote: “Discussion of 

impacts to historic structures here and 

elsewhere in the document is too narrowly 

focused on structures that make up the 

parkway. Impacts to buildings, such as the 

CCC-era cabin and the Rock Castle Gorge 

Mountain Community must also be 

considered. We understand that the cultural 

landscape report for Rocky Knob is 

incomplete. No draft has yet been submitted 

to DHR. DHR has also not received the 

ethnographic overview and assessment 

scheduled for approval in 2011(p. 227). 

Consequently we do not know the status or 

condition of the buildings remaining in the 

special cultural resource zone.” 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

522 

NPS Response: 

The National Park Service defines “historic 

structures” to be "a constructed work. . . 

consciously created to serve some human 

activity." The term “historic structures” 

includes buildings and monuments, dams, 

millraces and canals, nautical vessels, bridges, 

tunnels and roads, railroad locomotives, 

rolling stock and track, stockades and fences, 

defensive works, temple mounds and kivas, 

ruins of all structural types, and outdoor 

sculpture. Therefore, the use of the term 

“historic structures” in this document is 

inclusive of the historic buildings identified in 

the Rock Castle Gorge Community. The 

cultural landscape report for Rocky Knob and 

the ethnographic overview and assessment are 

forthcoming, and the National Park Service 

plans to submit these reports to the Virginia 

Department of Historic Resources as soon as 

they are ready. Until this documentation is 

completed, these areas will be managed as 

historic properties, as required under the 

National Historic Preservation Act. 

Soundscapes

Concern Statement #1: Under Soundscape 

(chapter 1, page 31) define what the BLRI 

Noise Ordinance and 36 CFR 2.12 states. In 

addition, the noise abatement mitigations 

(chapter 2, page 93) could be referenced. 

These items document issues that need to be 

further explained for better understanding 

in the final general management plan / 

environmental impact statement.

Correspondence Id: 2 

Commenter: Grant Millin

Representative Quote: “I have not viewed 

the entire BRP DGMP/EIS plan for solutions 

related to motorcycles, but having followed 

the subject and communicated with 

Superintendent Francis, Chief Ranger 

Stinnett, the NPS Natural Sounds Program, 

the acting NPS director, and even US Rep. 

Shuler, no significant response has been 

generated to date regarding POV noise 

pollution on the Blue Ridge Parkway. Nothing 

whatsoever, all despite decades of federal 

code supporting action. The good news is the 

BRP DGMP/EIS officially recognizes the 

situation. I have often framed the noise issues 

as important, but I am also concerned for the 

safety of motorcyclists. I address both issues 

here. One of the important adjacent solutions 

would be to create a coalition with community 

stakeholders and mutual aid public safety 

agencies in regions adjoining the BRP, with a 

NPS Noise Mitigation Program in hand. The 

Blue Ridge Parkway needs a relevant Noise 

Mitigation Strategy.” 

Correspondence Id: 2 

Commenter: Grant Millin

Representative Quote: “The National Park 

Service needs a new Noise Mitigation 

Program, and the Blue Ridge Parkway needs 

to be a leader in making that happen. The 

entire National Park Service needs to support 

BRP on this matter with a uniform policy. This 

would in all likelihood mean an end to Rolling 

Thunder at the National Mall. Even with NPS 

managed EPA label-match up stops, the idea 

of having to accommodate such interdiction 

would mean a special 'noise mitigation fee' to 

bring in extra staff. It would seem that the idea 

of hundreds of motorcycles grouped at a 

single time in a specific geographic area is not 

compatible with the NPS mission, its 

programs and ordinances. Thus, elementary 

changes in the NPS relationship with illegally 

modified privately owned vehicles (POVs) 

and those violators is part of the solution. 

They may be taxpayers with constitutional 

rights, but their behavior is still obviously not 

part of the NPS mission and the needs of the 

majority of NPS visitors. That's really the first 

strategic, conceptual sort of thinking and 

communication element needed in these 

matters; surprisingly significant matters given 

the relative small population these noise 

violators represent.” 

Correspondence Id: 2561 

Commenter: Bob Gale 

Organization: Western North Carolina 

Alliance 

Representative Quote: “There has been an 

increase in sound impacts on the Parkway, in 

recent years, attributable to motorcycles 

specifically designed for, or altered to 

produce, a high decibel output. This is 
Comments and Responses on the Blue Ridge Parkway Draft General Management Plan 

/ Environmental Impact Statement 

523 

inconsistent with what a majority of Parkway 

users consider a major adverse impact. The 

General Management Plan should address the 

issue if current Parkway or Park Service 

standards do not adequately cover this.” 

NPS Response: 

The parkway’s natural soundscape is a very 

important resource that contributes to the 

park’s character. Based on public input and 

further consideration, the National Park 

Service determined that the issue of noise and 

soundscape were not adequately addressed in 

the draft general management plan / 

environmental impact statement. To clarify 

NPS and Blue Ridge Parkway policy on noise 

and soundscape, multiple sections have been 

added to the final general management plan / 

environmental impact statement. More 

specifically, the “Alternatives” section in 

chapter 2 includes general and specific 

soundscape management strategies that are to 

be implemented with the GMP (including 

strategies for motorcycle noise mitigation). 

The final general management plan / 

environmental impact statement also includes 

a description of the park’s soundscape 

(“Chapter 3: Affected Environment”) and a 

discussion of the potential impacts from 

implementing the general management plan 

alternatives (“Chapter 4: Environmental 

Consequences”). 

 

Administrative Commitments 

Concern Statement #1: The North Carolina 

Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) 

requested that the general management 

plan clearly document the existing registry 

agreements between the National Park 

Service and the NCNHP on significant 

natural heritage areas. The NCNHP also 

requested that all management strategies at 

parkway recreation areas be consistent 

with the registry agreements of the 

respective natural heritage areas within the 

recreation areas.

Correspondence Id: 2532 

Organization: North Carolina Natural 

Heritage Program 

Representative Quote: “The NC Natural 

Heritage Program holds Registry Agreements 

with the National Park Service on Significant 

Natural Heritage Areas (SNHAs) within the 

Blue Ridge Parkway in areas of especially high 

conservation value. The objectives of the 

Registry Agreements are to establish reserves 

for rare species, encourage educational 

activities and scientific research, preserve 

unique and unusual natural features, and 

protect natural areas against uses which would 

destroy their natural conditions. NHP 

recommends recognition of the Registry 

Agreements in the section of the General 

Management Plan entitled "Special Mandates 

and Administrative Commitments" in Chapter 

1 and also in the Natural Resources Protection 

section.” 

Correspondence Id: 2532 

Organization: North Carolina Natural 

Heritage Program 

Representative Quote: “There are a total of 

42 Registered Natural Heritage Areas (RHAs) 

within the Blue Ridge Parkway. Six out of the 

fifteen recreation areas described in detail in 

this Plan have Registered Natural Heritage 

Areas within them. These sites include the 

Linville Falls RHA, The Craggies RHA, Mount 

Pisgah RHA, Julian Price Park Wetland RHA, 

Doughton Park RHA, and Chestnut Creek 

Swamp Forest-Bog Complex RHA, which 

occurs within the Cumberland Knob 

recreation area. NHP requests that strategies 

for these recreation areas be consistent with 

the Registry Agreements in order to minimize 

impacts to these sensitive areas. Ideally, the 

Registered Natural Heritage Areas would be 

designated as Special Natural Resource Areas 

in the Parkway. At a minimum, new trails or 

proposed recreation areas should be designed 

in a way that avoids rare species populations 

and sensitive habitats to prevent trampling 

and deter poaching activity.” 

NPS Response: 

The National Park Service acknowledges the 

registry agreements between the National 

Park Service and the North Carolina and 

Virginia Natural Heritage Programs on 

managing natural heritage areas on parkway 

lands. The “Special Mandates and 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

524 

Administrative Commitments” section in 

chapter 1 has been modified to include a 

reference to the registry agreements. Also, the 

National Park Service considers the assigned 

management zoning at the parkway recreation 

areas (see descriptions of alternatives in 

chapter 2) and the standard NPS mitigation 

measures used to protect natural resources to 

be consistent with the registry agreements. 

The zoning and mitigation measures should 

sufficiently protect the sensitive resources of 

the designated natural heritage areas in the 

recreation areas. As noted in the 

“Management Zones” section of chapter 2, 

“All globally imperiled habitats, state natural 

heritage areas and conservation sites, and 

federal and state listed species would be 

protected within all of the management zones, 

as required by NPS policy” (see summary 

table of management zone descriptions). 

However, it is also important to note that 

designated natural heritage areas were 

intentionally not zoned with the “Special 

National Resources” zone because this would 

identify their exact locations in the general 

management plan and on the parkway maps. 

Due to the concern and real threat of 

poaching of rare species, this approach was 

not taken. Regardless, NPS park staff is aware 

of the natural heritage area locations, 

resources, and conditions and factor the 

designations into their management of the 

sensitive resources that inhabit the areas. 

Natural Resources 

Concern Statement #1: The NPS preferred 

alternative should be enhanced by 

incorporating various natural resource 

management and mitigation measures that 

would improve ecological health along the 

parkway corridor and beyond. 

Correspondence Id: 2517 

Organization: U.S.D.A. Forest Service 

Representative Quote: “Management of 

spruce and fir around Mt. Pisgah should be 

emphasized including use of vegetation 

management techniques that increase the 

vigor of individuals and groups of the 

species.” 

Correspondence Id: 2532 

Organization: North Carolina Natural 

Heritage Program 

Representative Quote: “...we recommend 

that preserving and enhancing landscape 

connectivity along the entire length of the 

Parkway be given a high priority. At the I-40 

crossing shown on the map, for instance, 

construction of a wildlife overpass adjacent to 

the existing bridge would greatly increase the 

connectivity value of this corridor. Enhancing 

the ability of species to move between the 

southern and northern mountains would 

improve the connectivity function provided 

by the Parkway.” 

Correspondence Id: 2623 

Organization: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Representative Quote: "EPA recommends 

that NPS consider large mammal wildlife 

passages to address this safety concern. NPS 

should consult with NCWRC and USFWS on 

the design of appropriate wildlife passages.” 

Correspondence Id: 2623 

Organization: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Representative Quote: “EPA supports the 

use of registered herbicides if they are 

properly applied by licensed applicators, 

because there does not appear to be any costeffective alternatives for controlling the 

spread of invasive exotic plant infestations. 

Infested sites are often situated in remote 

areas making mechanical removal impractical 

because of access difficulties. Keeping abreast 

of treatment frequencies, vulnerabilities of 

pest species, protection for threatened and 

endangered species residing at hundreds of 

differing locales, clearly require sophisticated 

management tools. Integrated management 

techniques including herbicides, mechanical 

removal, fire, biological controls, need to be 

coordinated through the use of GIS-based 

management tools to ensure that invasive 

species control is achievable for the long term. 

EPA recommends an integrated pest 

management approach be developed using 
Comments and Responses on the Blue Ridge Parkway Draft General Management Plan 

/ Environmental Impact Statement 

525 

products with a low toxicity profile in 

sensitive ecosystems, since studies done in 

labs and under controlled conditions cannot 

always predict the effects on particularly 

sensitive individuals, biota or ecosystems. 

Successful eradication measures and other 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be 

clearly identified in the FEIS with emphasis on 

the construction of new trails and parking 

facilities.” 

Correspondence Id: 2379 

Organization: Roanoke Valley Greenway 

Commission

Representative Quote: “Trail Management a. 

The Greenway Commission is concerned that 

there is so little discussion in the plan of 

sustainable trail design. While the GMP 

recognizes that trails are in poor condition 

and that this is a big issue to visitors (p. 254), it 

addresses that by hardening the trails, rather 

than be designing them sustainably. The 

Parkway has the most poorly designed trails in 

our region and uses asphalt to correct erosion 

problems, thus significantly altering the trail 

experience. b. The GMP fails to recognize the 

pivotal role of volunteers in sustainable trail 

design and maintenance...” 

NPS Response: 

As appropriate, the description of the NPS 

preferred alternative (alternative B) and the 

description of mitigation measures that apply 

to all action alternatives have been modified to 

address various comments and suggestions 

that were offered to improve the proposed 

alternative (in chapter 2, see sections titled, 

“The Alternatives” and “Mitigation Measures 

Common to the Action Alternatives”). For 

example, the issues raised in the above 

representative quotes are addressed as 

follows: 

The forest management emphasis for parkway 

segment 7 (which includes the higher altitude 

forests in and around the Mount Pisgah 

recreation area) has been strengthened in the 

description of the NPS preferred alternative 

(alternative B). This change highlights the 

importance of maintaining healthy spruce and 

fir stands in this area. 

As noted in various comments, the parkway 

has great ecological importance in that it 

provides ecological connectivity along the 

Virginia and North Carolina Appalachian 

ranges. The NPS preferred alternative 

incorporates multiple approaches and 

strategies that will help maintain and enhance 

this ecological connection. For example, this 

alternative shifts the park’s wildlife 

management focus to a regional, ecosystembased approach that encourages active 

regional partnerships with public and private 

entities. Invasive flora and fauna would also be 

managed via a similar approach. Park staff will 

also be more proactive in managing natural 

resources by following a multiyear resource 

management plan for monitoring and 

management actions. In addition, the NPS will 

implement a land protection strategy that 

would identify high priority tracts of adjacent 

private land (based on prioritization criteria, 

including resource value) that would be 

pursued if/when the tracts become available 

from willing sellers. Also, and more 

specifically, the overall regional, ecosystembased approach to wildlife management under 

the NPS preferred alternative would allow the 

consideration of the suggested large mammal 

wildlife passages along the parkway (e.g., at 

the I-40 crossing, etc.), as wildlife passages are 

consistent with the general management plan. 

However, subsequent analysis and decisions 

related to potential wildlife passage placement 

would be subject to available funding and 

interagency compliance and support. 

The “Mitigation Measures Common to the 

Action Alternatives” section on invasive 

species has been modified to emphasize the 

use of an integrated pest management 

approach for invasive plant management. This 

use of this approach will identify the various 

integrated management techniques that would 

be applied at various park sites and offer 

mechanisms for tracking long-term results 

and trends (e.g., GIS-based tools). The use of 

registered herbicides has been noted, as well 

as the importance of using low toxicity 

applications in areas of sensitive resources. 

The mitigation measure narrative has also 

been modified to emphasize that integrated 

pest management would not only be applied at 
Comments and Responses on the Blue Ridge Parkway Draft General Management Plan 

/ Environmental Impact Statement 

527 

the Boone/Blowing Rock area (Segment 4) as 

part of the Preferred Alternative B. The 

existing habitat and proposed length and 

width of the paved trail is not specified in the 

DEIS.” 

Correspondence Id: 2623 

Organization: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Representative Quote: “Page 202 of the DEIS 

uses both meters and miles in the same 

paragraph. EPA recommends consistent units 

of measure should be employed.” 

Correspondence Id: 2519 

Organization: EASTERN NATIONAL 

Representative Quote: “Both printed and 

online versions of the DGMP/EIS Chapter 4 

comparison of alternatives repeatedly refer to 

Doughton Park area features under a Craggy 

Gardens heading.” 

Correspondence Id: 3 

Commenter: Kept Private 

Representative Quote: “There were at least 3 

different numbers used for the number of 

annual visitors (pg 5 - 17 million; pg 44 21 

million; pg 95 more than 16 million). Be 

consistent or explain the difference between 

recreational visitors and visitors.” 

NPS Response: 

The final general management plan / 

environmental impact statement has been 

modified and edited to address the various 

factual inaccuracies or inconsistences noted in 

the public comments. For example, to address 

the above representative quotes, the final 

general management plan / environmental 

impact statement includes corrected and 

consistent references to numbers of 

threatened and endangered species in the 

parkway and annual visitation numbers. Other 

confusing or misleading uses of meters/miles 

and parksite names have also been corrected. 

Also, for clarification, it should be noted that 

the Boone/Blowing Rock multiuse trail is not 

an element of alternative B (the NPS preferred 

alternative). In the draft general management 

plan / environmental impact statement this 

trail was mistakenly included under 

alternative B, when it should have been 

described under alternative C. The correction 

has been made in the final general 

management plan / environmental impact 

statement. This proposed action was not 

identified as part of the NPS preferred 

alternative due to high costs to construct and 

maintain and the potential adverse effects to 

the parkway’s cultural and scenic landscapes. 

Comments Already Addressed in the 

General Management Plan 

Concern Statement: Several commenters 

had concerns or suggestions on issues that 

have already been addressed by the draft 

general management plan / environmental 

impact statement. These concerns related to 

items such as carbon footprint mitigation 

measures, reduced reliance on automobiles, 

and the application of guidance from the 

NPS Organic Act of 1916. 

Correspondence Id: 2623 

Organization: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Representative Quote: “EPA recommends 

the NPS identify mitigative measures to 

reduce potential increased pollutant emissions 

(e.g., Solar powered electrical sources).” 

Correspondence Id: 2623 

Organization: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Representative Quote: "Air pollution sources 

from within the parkway is also expected to 

continue to contribute to poor air quality, 

with the major contributor being motor 

vehicle emissions from visitors and 

commuters traveling the parkway. EPA 

recommends NPS should look to develop 

other options that reduce reliance on 

automobiles and that favor other forms of 

recreational transportation for visitors (i.e. 

Bicycles).” 

Correspondence Id: 2567 

Organization: National Parks Conservation 

Association

Representative Quote: “...in choosing to 

increase the management emphasis on 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

528 

enhanced recreation, the language of the draft 

document may leave some readers with the 

impression that recreational access and use 

will take precedence over the protection of 

the Parkway's natural and cultural resources. 

This impression can be eliminated by more 

directly stating the Park Service's obligation 

under the Organic Act to protect the purpose 

of the parks? " . . . which purpose is to 

conserve the scenery and the natural and 

historic objects and the wild life therein and to 

provide for the enjoyment of the same in such 

manner and by such means as will leave them 

unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

generations. ...for the benefit of future 

managers, we feel that it is important that the 

final GMP clearly and repeatedly state, in 

stronger and more emphatic language, that the 

push for recreational improvements cannot 

override resource protection. Only in this way 

will Alternative B be able to strike a true 

balance between resource preservation and 

recreational enhancement, while fulfilling the 

requirements of the Organic Act.” 

Correspondence Id: 2519 

Organization: EASTERN NATIONAL 

Representative Quote: “Significantly expand 

the assessment and planning alternatives for 

the very heavily used Craggy Gardens 

recreation area to include improvements for 

the visitor contact station and parking.” 

NPS Response: 

The NPS staff found that several of the 

commenters’ suggested improvements to the 

general management plan / environmental 

impact statement were already addressed and 

adequately covered in the draft general 

management plan / environmental impact 

statement. For example, in chapter 2 

(“Alternatives”), there are two sections that 

provide mitigation guidance and explanation 

to reduce the carbon footprint of the parkway, 

promote energy efficient practices, and 

sustainable design (see chapter 2 sections 

titled “Mitigation Measures Common to the 

Action Alternatives” and “Management 

Strategies to Address Climate Change”). 

Another commenter expressed concern that 

the general management plan doesn’t 

effectively emphasize the guidance from the 

NPS Organic Act. However, the “Servicewide 

Laws and Policies” section of chapter 1 

provides a description of how the NPS follows 

the Organic Act, as it relates to the 

development of the general management plan. 

This section of the document also identifies 

other mandated policy guidance that the NPS 

must uphold. In addition, the proposed 

management zoning in the general 

management plan prescribes management 

across the landscape in a way that inherently 

aims to fulfill the intention of the Organic Act 

by effectively balancing recreation with 

resource protection and ensuring that 

resources are not impaired by the allowed 

uses. The proposed management zoning and 

mitigation measures also allow for the NPS to 

manage to the desired conditions of parkway 

resources in ways that may be “above and 

beyond” what is required by the abovementioned laws and policies. 

A commenter requested that the general 

management plan expand the assessment and 

alternatives for the heavily used Craggy 

Gardens recreation area to include contact 

station and parking improvements. However, 

the general management plan already 

addresses this concern via the proposed 

configuration of management zoning at 

Craggy Gardens. The heavily used areas are 

zoned “Visitor Services.” This zone allows for 

a wide variety of uses and facilities that 

primarily aim to serve visitor needs and 

preferences. The description of the Visitor 

Services zone can be found in the 

“Management Zones” section of chapter 2. 

More specifically, the Management Zone 

Comparison Table in this section provides 

descriptions of the uses, services, and facilities 

that can be expected in this zone. Parking 

needs and contact station services can be 

addressed in this zone. As appropriate, future, 

site-specific and facility-specific plans and 

projects can be implemented by the NPS n this 

zone to address visitor needs. The impact 

analysis of these zones (i.e., uses in the zones) 

is summarized in “Chapter 4: Environmental 

Consequences” across the parkway-wide 

corridor, as well as individual parkway 

segments and recreation areas. 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

528 

document may leave some readers with the 

impression that recreational access and use 

will take precedence over the protection of 

the Parkway's natural and cultural resources. 

This impression can be eliminated by more 

directly stating the Park Service's obligation 

under the Organic Act to protect the purpose 

of the parks? " . . . which purpose is to 

conserve the scenery and the natural and 

historic objects and the wild life therein and to 

provide for the enjoyment of the same in such 

manner and by such means as will leave them 

unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

generations. ...for the benefit of future 

managers, we feel that it is important that the 

final GMP clearly and repeatedly state, in 

stronger and more emphatic language, that the 

push for recreational improvements cannot 

override resource protection. Only in this way 

will Alternative B be able to strike a true 

balance between resource preservation and 

recreational enhancement, while fulfilling the 

requirements of the Organic Act.” 

Correspondence Id: 2519 

Organization: EASTERN NATIONAL 

Representative Quote: “Significantly expand 

the assessment and planning alternatives for 

the very heavily used Craggy Gardens 

recreation area to include improvements for 

the visitor contact station and parking.” 

NPS Response: 

The NPS staff found that several of the 

commenters’ suggested improvements to the 

general management plan / environmental 

impact statement were already addressed and 

adequately covered in the draft general 

management plan / environmental impact 

statement. For example, in chapter 2 

(“Alternatives”), there are two sections that 

provide mitigation guidance and explanation 

to reduce the carbon footprint of the parkway, 

promote energy efficient practices, and 

sustainable design (see chapter 2 sections 

titled “Mitigation Measures Common to the 

Action Alternatives” and “Management 

Strategies to Address Climate Change”). 

Another commenter expressed concern that 

the general management plan doesn’t 

effectively emphasize the guidance from the 

NPS Organic Act. However, the “Servicewide 

Laws and Policies” section of chapter 1 

provides a description of how the NPS follows 

the Organic Act, as it relates to the 

development of the general management plan. 

This section of the document also identifies 

other mandated policy guidance that the NPS 

must uphold. In addition, the proposed 

management zoning in the general 

management plan prescribes management 

across the landscape in a way that inherently 

aims to fulfill the intention of the Organic Act 

by effectively balancing recreation with 

resource protection and ensuring that 

resources are not impaired by the allowed 

uses. The proposed management zoning and 

mitigation measures also allow for the NPS to 

manage to the desired conditions of parkway 

resources in ways that may be “above and 

beyond” what is required by the abovementioned laws and policies. 

A commenter requested that the general 

management plan expand the assessment and 

alternatives for the heavily used Craggy 

Gardens recreation area to include contact 

station and parking improvements. However, 

the general management plan already 

addresses this concern via the proposed 

configuration of management zoning at 

Craggy Gardens. The heavily used areas are 

zoned “Visitor Services.” This zone allows for 

a wide variety of uses and facilities that 

primarily aim to serve visitor needs and 

preferences. The description of the Visitor 

Services zone can be found in the 

“Management Zones” section of chapter 2. 

More specifically, the Management Zone 

Comparison Table in this section provides 

descriptions of the uses, services, and facilities 

that can be expected in this zone. Parking 

needs and contact station services can be 

addressed in this zone. As appropriate, future, 

site-specific and facility-specific plans and 

projects can be implemented by the NPS n this 

zone to address visitor needs. The impact 

analysis of these zones (i.e., uses in the zones) 

is summarized in “Chapter 4: Environmental 

Consequences” across the parkway-wide 

corridor, as well as individual parkway 

segments and recreation areas. 
Comments and Responses on the Blue Ridge Parkway Draft General Management Plan 

/ Environmental Impact Statement 

529 

Rationale for Concerns Not 

Incorporated into the General 

Management Plan 

Concern Statement: Some commenters had 

concerns with paddling restrictions, zoning 

for designated natural heritage areas, and 

other issues that may not necessarily be 

appropriate for incorporation into the final 

general management plan / environmental 

impact statement.

Correspondence Id: 2624 

Organization: VA DEQ Office of 

Environmental Impact Review 

Representative Quote: “Place all 

conservation sites and associated natural 

heritage resources into the "Special Natural 

Resource Management Zone" designation as 

defined on page 52 of the management plan to 

recognize their significance.” 

Correspondence Id: 2389 

Commenter: Kept Private 

Representative Quote: “I disagree with the 

proposal which could close done whitewater 

runs such as the Linville Gorge.” 

Correspondence Id: 2529 

Organization: American Whitewater 

Representative Quote: “We ask that the Blue 

Ridge Parkway eliminate the unnecessary 

closures on the Linville River, Rock Castle 

Creek, Otter Creek, and the Boone Fork River 

through the management planning process. 

Lifting these closures will have virtually no 

effect on actual paddling use levels on any of 

these streams, but will send a message that the 

Park Service supports sustainable river 

recreation, and does not view paddling river 

as a criminal act.” 

NPS Response: 

A large number of comments included 

suggestions and recommendations that, while 

having merit and warranting consideration, 

are not appropriate for incorporation into the 

final general management plan / 

environmental impact statement for a variety 

of objective reasons. The above representative 

quotes are examples of concerns that are not 

appropriate for inclusion in the document. 

First, designated natural heritage areas were 

intentionally not zoned with the “Special 

National Resources” zone because this would 

identify their exact locations in the GMP and 

on the parkway maps. Due to the concern and 

real threat of poaching of rare species, this 

approach was not taken. National Park 

Service park staff is aware of the natural 

heritage area locations, resources, and 

conditions and factor the designations into 

their management of the sensitive resources 

that inhabit the areas. 

As for concerns with particular paddling 

restrictions, the National Park Service has 

determined it necessary to maintain the 

existing boating regulations due to serious 

visitor safety concerns. For example, several 

fatalities have resulted from visitors being 

swept over Linville Falls, and such activity 

poses an unacceptable risk to potential 

rescuers. Furthermore, boats are restricted 

from many parkway waters due to conflicts 

with other public enjoyment values and lack 

of adequate launching areas. Many humanmade water features were created as an 

element of a cultural landscape and not for the 

purpose of providing boating opportunities. 

Comments Outside the Scope of the 

General Management Plan 

Concern Statement: The draft general 

management plan / environmental impact 

statement does not provide enough detail on 

proposed site-specific changes, agency 

coordination, and the analysis of 

environmental consequences from the 

proposed actions. 

Correspondence Id: 2623 

Organization: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Representative Quote: “Page 90 of the DEIS 

includes information on Water Resources. 

EPA recommends stringent water quality 

BMPs, including geo-tech fabric, coconut 

fiber matting, and potentially Polyacrylamide 

(PAM) near steep slopes to help prevent offsite soil erosion and sedimentation into 

creeks, rivers and other water bodies.” 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

530 

Correspondence Id: 2623 

Organization: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Representative Quote: “Pages 296 and page 

314 -Cumulative impacts discussions are very 

vague. EPA recommends the FEIS should 

address all other activities in more detail and 

how these activities relate to the proposed 

project.” 

Correspondence Id: 2624 

Organization: VA DEQ Office of 

Environmental Impact Review 

Representative Quote: “1(c) Agency 

Recommendations. The following 

recommendations may be useful in planning 

site-specific projects. In general, DEQ 

recommends that stream and wetland impacts 

be avoided to the maximum extent 

practicable. To minimize unavoidable impacts 

to wetlands and waterways when planning for 

land-disturbing activities, DEQ recommends 

the following practices: 

- Operate machinery and construction 

vehicles outside of stream-beds and wetlands; 

use synthetic mats when in-stream work is 

unavoidable. 

- Preserve the top 12 inches of material 

removed from wetlands for use as wetland 

seed and root-stock in the excavated area. 

- Design erosion and sedimentation controls 

in accordance with the most current edition of 

the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control 

Handbook. These controls should be in place 

prior to clearing and grading, and maintained 

in good working order to minimize impacts to 

state waters. The controls should remain in 

place until the area is stabilized. 

- Place heavy equipment, located in 

temporarily impacted wetland areas, on mats, 

geotextile fabric, or use other suitable 

measures to minimize soil disturbance, to the 

maximum extent practicable. 

- Restore all temporarily disturbed wetland 

areas to pre-construction conditions and 

plant or seed with appropriate wetlands 

vegetation in accordance with the cover type 

(emergent, scrub-shrub or forested). The 

applicant should take all appropriate measures 

to promote revegetation of these areas. 

Stabilization and restoration efforts should 

occur immediately after the temporary 

disturbance of each wetland area instead of 

waiting until the entire project has been 

completed.” 

Correspondence Id: 2624 

Organization: VA DEQ Office of 

Environmental Impact Review 

Representative Quote: “... if any portion of 

future projects involve any encroachments 

channelward of ordinary high water along 

natural rivers and streams above the fall line 

or mean low water below the fall line, a permit 

may be required from VMRC (Virginia 

Marine Resources Commission).” 

Correspondence Id: 2624 

Organization: VA DEQ Office of 

Environmental Impact Review 

Representative Quote: “VDH ODW states 

that plans requiring changes to potable water 

facilities and/or water supply must be 

coordinated with the local VDH ODW Field 

Office for review and approval.” 

NPS Response: 

Given the broad scope and large geographic 

scale of a general management plan, the 

National Park Service considers the level and 

detail of proposed actions, impact analyses, 

mitigation measures, and agency coordination 

needs in the final general management plan / 

environmental impact statement appropriate. 

This general management plan is a long-range, 

park-wide document. If and when specific 

actions and implementation plans identified in 

the general management plan are 

implemented throughout the park in the 

future, the National Park Service will do 

further environmental analysis, regulatory 

compliance, and agency coordination, as 

necessary. At that time, a much more sitespecific, detailed level of description and 

analysis will be provided. This is when the 

level of analysis noted in some public 

comments will be addressed. The 

introduction to the “Mitigation Measures 

Common to the Action Alternatives” section 

in chapter 2 outlines this commitment. 
Appendixes, References, 

Preparers and Contributors, index

The Parkway

Otter Creek

533 

APPENDIX A—LEGISLATION 

XI. LEGISLATION RELATING TO NATIONAL PARKWAYS' 

1. Blue Ridge Parkway' 

Administration and maintenance of the parkway by the National Park Service .......................................................................... Act of June 30, 1936 Cherokee Indian Reservation lands, authorizing acquisition by ex- chal!fe for a parkway right-of-way .................... Act of August 19, 1937 Amendmg Act of June 30, 1936, providing for administration and maintenance of the parkway ................................................ Act of June 8, 1940 Cherokee Indian Reservation lands, authorizing conveyance thereof to North Carolina for parkway right-of-way purposes; authorizing grant of Great Smoky Mountains National Park lands to the Indians ........................................................................................ Act of June 11, 1940 

An Act To provide for the administration and maintenance of the Blue Ridge Parkway, in the States of Virginia and North Carolina, by the Secretary of the Interior, and for other purposes, approved June 30, 1936 (49 Stat. 2041) • 

Be it enacted by the Senate and Howe of Representatives 

of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

Page 

183 

184 

185 

186 

conveyed 

That hereafter 

to the 

all 

United 

lands 

States 

and easements 

by the States 

conveyed 

of Virginia 

or to 

and 

be !':d;et;: 

Blu~

Va., 

North Carolina for the right-of-way for the projected park- ~~~~~~!r~be 

way between ·the Shenandoah and Great Smoky 1\1ountains 3':-:fS~~r/nd 

National Parks, together with sites acquired or to be ac- Mountains Na· 

quired for recreational areas in connection therewith, and ~~~~.a~Ph:t~own 

a right-of-way for said parkway of a width sufficient to as. 

include the highway and all bridges, ditches, cuts, and fills 

appurtenant thereto, but not exceeding a maximum of two 

hundred feet through Government-owned lands as designated on maps heretofore or hereafter approved by the 

Secretary of the Interior, shall be known as the Blue Ridge 

Parkway and shall be administered and maintained by the 

Secretary of the Interior through the National Park Service, subject to the provisions of the Act of Congress approved August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535), entitled "An Act 

to establish a National Park Service, and for other purposes'\ the provisions of which Act, as amended and supplemented, are hereby extended over and made applicable 

to said parkway: Provided, That ¢he Secretary of Agriculture is hereby authorized, with the concurrence of the 

Secretary of the Interior, to connect with the parkway such 

roads and trails as may be necessary for the protection, ad~ 

ministration, or utilization of adjacent and nearby national 

183 

Roads and trails. 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS, AND INDEX

534 

HS4 

Coordination of recreational de· 

velopment br 

Forest Servtce 

and National 

Park Serviee. 

Great Smoky Mountains Na· tional Park, N.C. 

Exchange of cer· tain lands with· 

in, for lands 

within the Cher· 

okee Indian Res- ervation au¥ 

thorized. 

Conditions. 

Right-of·way 

grant to State. 

Consent of In· dians to be de· 

termined by ballot. 

Consent by 

State. 

Lands trans- ferred to In· dians to be held in trust; nontaxable, etc. 

XI. NATIONAL PARKWAYS- BLUE RIDGE 

forests and the resources thereof: And provided further, That the Forest Service and the National Park Service 

shall, insofar as practicable, coordinate and correlate such 

recreational development as each may plan, construct, or 

permit to be constructed, on lands within their respective 

jurisdictions which, by mutual agreement, should be given 

special treatment f'Or recreational purposes. ( 16 U.S.C. 

sec. 460a-2.) 

An 

Great 

Act To authorize the exchange of certain lands within the Smoky Mountains National Park for lands within the Cherokee Indian Reservation, North Carolina, and for other purposes, approved August 19, 1937 (50 Stat. 699) 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 

of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized, 

under such terms and conditions as he may deem proper, 

to exchange a tract of land of approximately one thousand 

two hundred and two acres, near Smokemont, North Carolina, known as the Towstring tract and forming a part of 

the Cherokee Indian Reservation, for three tracts of land, 

totaling approximately one thousand five hundred and 

forty-seven acres, in the vicinity of Ravensford, Nonth 

Carolina, known as the Boundary Tree, Ravensford, and 

Tight Run tracts and forming a part of the Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park, conditioned upon the consent of 

the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians to this exchange 

and to the acquisition by the State of North Carolina of a 

right-Qf-way, which shall vary in width between two hundred feet and eight hundred feet, for the Blue Ridge Parkway across the said reservation, and further conditioned 

upon payment to the said Cherokee Indians by the said State 

of North Carolina of such compensation as shall have been 

determined by the said Secretary as just and reasonable for the said right-of-way. When the foregoing conditions 

have been complied with, the Secretary of the Interior is 

hereby further authorized to grant to the State of North 

Carolina a right-of-way as hereinbefore provided for. 

SEc. 2. The consent of the said Chemkee Indians to any 

proposed exchange and the acquisition of a right-of-way by 

the State of North Carolina as provided for herein shall be 

expressed by secret ballot in a. general election, in which a 

majority vote in favor thereof. Such election to be arranged 

and supervised by the tribal council within sixty days after 

the passage of this Act, and the results of such election shall 

be final. 

SEc. 3. No exchange shall be consummaJt:ed pursuant to 

the provisions of this Act unless and until the consent of 

the State of North Carolina is first had and obtained thereto 

as indicated by an Act of its legislature. 

SEc. 4. Upon the consummation of the exchange made 

pursuant to the provisions of this Act, the lands transferred 

to the Indians shall be held in trust by the United States 
Appendix A—Legislation 

535 

XI. NATIONAL PARKWAYS- BLUE RIDGE 

for the said Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and shall 

be nontaxable and nonalienable the same as the balance of 

the Indian land of the aforesaid reservation, and the lands 

transferred to the United States for park purposes shall 

become and be a part of the Great Smoky Mountains N ationa! Park and shall be subject il:o the provisions of the 

Act of Congress approved August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535), 

as amended : Provided, That should any of the exchanged 

area or parkway right-of-way herein dealt with cease to 

be used for park or parkway purposes, the title thereto shall 

revert rto its status prior to the exchange. 

An Act To amend the Act of June 30, 1936 (49 Stat. 2041), providing for the administration and maintenance of the Blue Ridge Parkway, in the States of Virginia and North 

Carolina, by the Secretary of the Interior, and for other 

purposes, approved June 8, 1940 (54 Stat. 249) 

Be it enacted by the S cnate and House of Representatives 

of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

That the Act entitled "An Act to provide for the administration and maintenance of the Blue Ridge Parkway, in 

the States of Virginia and North Carolina, by the Secretary 

of the Interior, and for other purposes", approved June 

30, 1936 ( 49 Stat. 2041), be amended to read as follows: 

"That all lands and easements heretofore or hereafter 

conveyed to the United States by the States of Virginia and 

North Carolina for the right-of-way for the projected parkway between the Shenandoah and Great Smoky Mountains 

National Parks, together with sites acquired or to be acquired for recreational areas in connection therewith, and a right- of-way for said parkway of a width sufficient to include the 

highway and all bridges, ditches, cuts, and fills appurtenant 

thereto, but not exceeding a maximum of two hundred feet 

through Government-owned lands (except that where small 

parcels of Government-owned lands would otherwise be 

isolated, or where topographic conditions or scenic re9.uirements are such that bridges, ditches, cuts, fills, parkmg overlooks, landscape development, recreational and 

other facilities requisite to public use of said parkway 

could not reasonably be confined to a width of two hundred 

feet, the said maximum may be increased to such width 

as may be necessary, with the written approval of the department or agency having jurisdiction over such lands) 

as designated on maps heretofore or hereafter approved by 

the Secretary of the Interior, shall be known as the Blue 

Ridge Parkway and shall be administered and maintained 

by the Secretary of the Interior through the National 

Park Service, subject to the provisions of the Act of Congress approved August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535), entitled 

'An Act to establish a Natienal Park Service, and for other 

purposes', the provisions of which Act, as amended and 

supplemented, a.·re hereby extended over and made applicable to said parkway: Provided, That the Secretary of 

185 

Acquisition by United States for park pur- poses. 

16 U.S.C. sec. I. 

Reversionary 

provision. 

Projected park· way between Shenandoah and Great Smoky Mountains Na- tional Parks to be known as. 

Administration~ 

etc. 

16 U.S.C. sees. 1-4. 

Prat,jsos. 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS, AND INDEX

536 

186 

Roads and trails. 

Coordination of recreational de- velopm.,nt. 

Issuance of re- vocable licenses for rights-of-way. 

Acceptance by U. S. of lands, 

etc., ior Biue Ridg" or Nat· chez Trace Parkways. 

Blue Ridg" Parkway, N.C. 

Conveyance of land to State ofN. C., authoriud. 

Deocription. 

~,. NATIONAL PARKWAYS-BLUE RIDGE 

Agriculture is hereby authorized, with the concurrence of 

the Secretary of the Interior, to connect with the parkway 

such roads and trails as may be necessary fur the protection, administration, or utilization of adjacent and nearby 

national forests and the resources thereof: And Provided 

further, Thai the Forest Service and the National Park 

Service shall, insofar as practicable, coordinate and correlate 

such recreational development as each may plan, construct, 

or permit to be constructed, on lands within their respective jurisdictions which, by mutual agreement, should be given 

special treatment for recreational purposes. (16 U.S.C. 

sec. 460a-2.) "SEc. 2. In the administration of the Blue Ridge Parkway, the Secretary of the Interior may issue revocable 

licenses or permits for rights-of-way over, across, and upon 

parkway lands, or for the use of parkway lands by: the 

owners or lessees of adjacent lands, for such purposes and 

under such nondiscriminatory terms, regulations, and conditions as he may determine to be not inconsistent with 

the use of such lands for parkway purposes. ( 16 U.S.C. 

sec. 460a-3.) 

"SEc. 3. The Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to approve and accept, on behalf 

of the United States, title to any lands and interests in land 

heretofore or hereafter conveyed to the United States for 

the purposes of the Blue Ridge or the Natchez Trace Parkways, or for recreational areas in connection •therewith." 

(16 U.S.C. sec. 460a-l.) 

An Aet To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to eonvey to the State of North Carolina for use in eonneetion with the Blue Ridge Parkwar eertain land within the Cherokee Indian Reservation m the State of North Carolina, ap- proved June 11, 1940 (54 Stat. 299) 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed 

to convey .to the State of North Carolina for use as a rightof-way in connection with the Blue Ridge Parkway in the 

State of North Carolina all right, title, and interest of the 

United States and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians 

in such land and the timber thereon, to be determined as 

hereinafter provided, within the Cherokee Indian Reservation in the State of North Carolina as may .be necessary 

for the construction and maintenance of such parkway over 

the following course: Beginning at a point in State Highway Numbered 293 near Soco Gap and extending to a junction with State Highway Numbered 107, near the mouth 

of the Ravens Fork of the Oconoluftee P~ver by way of the 

following approximate controls : Leaving Soco Gap and 

following the east and northerly slopes of Soco and Bunches 

Bald ridge and crossing through Docks Gap to the south 

and west side of Soco and Bunches Bald ; thence crossing 

Lickstone Ridge and entering Bunches Gap from the south ; 
Appendix A—Legislation 

537 

XI. NATIONAL PARKWAYS- BLUE RIDGE 

thence from Bunches Gap, following the south slopes of the 

main ridge, crossing Jenkins Divide ridge and ~nteri~g 

Big Witch Gap from the southeast; thence leavmg Btg 

Witch Gap in a northwesterly direction and keeping on the 

northerly and westerly slopes of the main ridge, but crossing 

the various spur ridges circling around the heads of Mingo 

Creek and Sherrills Cove, and around the north end of 

the ridge lying immediately northeast of the Ravensford 

Mill site, crossing the Oconoluftee River to the junction 

with State Highway Numbered 107, previously referred to, 

and in addition, starting in a northeasterly direction from 

Bunches Gap passing about one-half mile north of Soco 

Bald ; thence turning north and intersecting the boundary 

between the Qualla Indian Reservation and the Great 

Smoky Mountains National Park at a point approximately one mile northeast of Bunches Gap. 

SEc. 2. Before making such conveyance, the Secretary 

of the Interior shall have the lands along such course surveyed and shall determine the exact location and boundaries 

of the land to be conveyed for use as such right-of-way, 

which shall not exceed one hundred and twenty~five acres 

per mile. The deed of conveyance for such land shall contain an accurate description of the location and boundaries 

of such land in order that the interests of the United States 

and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians may be properly 

protected. 

SEc. 3. In consideration of conveyance, ,the State of 

North Carolina shall pay to the United States the sum of 

$40,000 or $30 per acre for the lands embraced in the rightof-way described in section 1, whichever sum is the largest, 

which shall be deposited in the Treasury to the credit of 

the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and held in trust 

by the United States for the Eastern Band of Cherokee 

Indians. It is understood and agreed that the State of North 

Carolina shall build without further payment for rightof-way, and without expense to the United States or the 

Cherokee Indians, a suitable State highway between Soco 

Gap and Cherokee Village, subject to the same laws, rules 

and regulations applicable to all State highways of North 

Carolina. · 

SEc. 4. The Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to grant to the Eastern Band of 

Cherokee Indians the beneficial interest in any lands selected 

by the council of said band within the Boundary Tree tract, 

containing approximately eight hundred and eighty-four 

acres; and the said Secretary is hereby directed to exclude 

from the Great Smoky Mountains National Park any lands 

so selected and granted. Prior to the consummation of 

any such grant, payment shall be made for all lands included therein by the transfer of a sum equal to the fair 

market value of such lands, as determined by the Secretary 

of the Interior, from any funds in the United States Treasury to the credit of said band, including funds made avail187 

Survey before conveyance. 

Deed of con· veyance. 

Payment by State to U.S. 

Deposit. 

Construction of State highway; location. 

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. 

:;,~~~~~:de~~ 

ignated lands, authorized. 

Payment by transfer of funds. 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS, AND INDEX

538 

188 

Availablilty of 

transferred 

iunds. 

Inclusion of ac- quired lands in 

reservation. 

XI. NATIONAL PARKWAYS- BLUE RIDGE 

able under section 3 hereof, to the credit of the fund "N ationa! Park Service, donations", which transfer the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to make upon 

request by the council of said band approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Funds so transferred shall be available 

for national park and monument uses, including the acquisition of lands for inclusion in the Great Smoky Mountain~ 

National Park. All lands purchased or otherwise acquired 

for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians under authority 

contained in this Act shall constitute a part of the Cherokee 

Indian Reservation in North Carolina, shall be held by the 

United States in trust for said band and shall be nontaxable, nonalienable to the same extent as other lands within 

said reservation. 
Appendix A—Legislation 

539 

196 

]J!!le 30.,_196J LH. R. :>765] 

Blue Ridge and 

Natchez Trace 

Parkways. 

Land a c qui s 1-

tlon. 

PUBLIC LAW 87-76-JUNE 30, 1961 (Tti STAT. 

Public Law 87-76 

AN ACT 

To authorize the purchase and exchange of land and interests therein on the 

Blue Ridge and Natchez Trace Parkways. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 

United States of America in Congress assemhled, That, in order to 

consolidate, on the Blue Ridge Parkway and the Nat chez Trace Parkway, the land forming each such parkway, to adjust ownership lines, 

and to eliminate hazardous crossings of and accesses to these parkways, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire, by purchase or exchange, land and interests in land contiguous to the parkways. In consummating exchanges under this Act, the Secretary 

may transfer parkway land, interests therein, and easements: Provlded, That the property rights so exchanged shall be approximately 

equal in value. 

Approved June 30, 1961. 

541 

APPENDIX B—CONSULTATION LETTERS 

United States Department of the Interior 

Ms. Suzette Moiling 

· ;nal Park Service 

Ridge Parkway 

-Iemphill Knob Road 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Asheville Field Office 

160 Zillicoa Street 

Asheville, North Carolina 2880 l 

July I 0, 2008 

ville, North Carolina 28803 

Ms. Moiling: 

ect: Scoping for the Envirorunental Impact Statement for the Blue Ridge Parkway's General 

Management Plan 

·eceived a Jetter from Superintendent Philip A. Francis, Jr., dated June 2, 2008, in which he 

!sted our comments on the subject project. We previously provided comments on this 

:ct in a letter dated January 17, 2002, and on April 14, 2008 (via a form provided with your 

:letter on the Preliminary Alternative). The following comments are provided in accordance 

the provisions of the National Envirorunental Policy Act; the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

J.S.C. 703-711); and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

J.S.C. 153 1-1543). Please note that our comments are relative to the portion of the Blue 

e Parkway (Parkway) that occurs in North Carolina. Additional comments should be 

ited from our Southwest Virginia Field Office in Abingdon, Virginia. 

1rding to Mr. Francis's letter, the National Park Service is developing a General 

Management Plan for the Parkway in North Carolina and Virginia. The plan will be designed to 

provide a long-term vision and overall management direction for the Parkway. 

Mr. Francis's letter included a list of rare species (with their federal and state status) that are 

believed to occur on Parkway land and asked that we provide comments on the accuracy of the 

list. In general, the list appears complete; however, the "State Status" is excluded for all the 

N011h Carolina species (e.g., Gray's lily= NC Threatened, brook floater = NC Endangered). 

Also, based on our records, it appears that S01!1e species are erroneously listed as occurring on 

Parkway land (though some are close to the boundary; e.g., dwarf-flowered heartleaf, Virginia 

spiraea). We recommend that you review our website; it provides a list of federally endangered 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS, AND INDEX

542 

and threatened species and federal species of concern by the county in which they occur 

(http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html). 

In any future correspondence pertaining to this matter, please reference our Log Number 

4-2-02-108 Questions regarding our comments should be directed to Mr. Allen Ratzlaff of our 

staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 229. 

cc: 

Brian P. Cole 

Field Supervisor 

Mr. David McHenry, Mountain Region Reviewer, North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission, 20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway, Waynesville, NC 28786 
Appendix B—Consultation Letters 

543 

United States Department of the Interior 

u.s. FISH A WlLDU. •• E 91E:QV'J(;£ 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Ecological Services ~ 

Mr. Phillip A. Francis, Jr. 

Superintendent 

U.S. Department oflnterior 

National Park Service 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

199 Hemphill Knob Road 

Asheville, North Carolina 28803 

Attn: Ms. Suzette Moiling 

Dear Mr. Francis: 

6669 Short Lane 

Gloucester, VA 2306 1 

August 8, 2008 

Re: Blue Ridge Parkway, General 

Management Plan/Environmental 

Impact Statement, Project # 2008-

TA-0535, Blue Ridge Parkway, 

Virginia 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received your letter on June 6, 2008 regarding your 

General Management Plan (GMP) for the Blue Ridge Parkway in Virginia and North Carolina. 

You asked that we review your species table for accuracy and thoroughness of information for 

federally listed species that occur within the Virginia potiion of the Parkway. Attached are lists 

of species with Federal status and species of concern that have been documented or may occur in 

the counties the Blue Ridge Parkway transects. These lists were prepared by this office and are 

based on information obtained from previous surveys for rare and endangered species. 

We have reviewed your table that lists species of special status in the Blue Ridge Parkway. 

Comments on the table are provided below. 

The Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) is proposed for delisting. It is also a coastal 

species and is unlikely to occur in the same counties as the parkway. 

The Service does not have any documented records of the following species in Virginia: 

Kirtland's warbler (Dendroica kirtlandii), Dwarf-flowered heatileaf (Hexastylis naniflora), 

Heller's blazingstar (Liatris helleri), and Spreading avens (Geum radiatum). 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS, AND INDEX

544 

and threatened species and federal species of concern by the county in which they occur 

(http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html). 

In any future correspondence pertaining to this matter, please reference our Log Number 

4-2-02-108. Questions regarding our comments should be directed to Mr. Allen Ratzlaff of our 

staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 229. 

Brian P. Cole 

Field Supervisor 

Mr. David McHenry, Mountain Region Reviewer, North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission, 20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway, Waynesville, NC 28786 
Appendix B—Consultation Letters 

545 

AMHERST COUNTY, VIRGINIA 

Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species 

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME 

fNVERTEBRA TES 

Pleurobema collina James spinymussel 

MAMMALS 

Myotis sodalis 1 Indiana bat 

VASCULAR PLANTS 

Echinacea laevigata Smooth coneflower 

Isotria medeoloides 1 Small whorled pogonia 

Protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle 

Species of Concern (No official Federal status) 

VASCULAR PLANTS 

Iliamna remota Kankakee globe mallow 

STATUS 

LE 

LE 

LE 

LT 

G5 

GlQ 

1

This species has been documented in an adjacent county and may occur in this county. 

June 19,2008 

Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Virginia Field Office 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS, AND INDEX

546 

AUGUSTA COUNTY, VffiGINJA 

FederaUy Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species 

SCIENTIFIC NAME 

JNVERTEBRA TES 

Antrolana lira 

MAMMALS 

Corynorhinus towusendii virginianus 1 

Myotis sodalis1 

VASCULAR PLANTS 

Arabis serotina 

Helenium virginicum 

Helonias bullata 

Platanthera leucophaea 

Scirpus ancistrochaetus 

COMMON NAME 

Madison Cave isopod 

Virginia big-eared bat 

Indiana bat 

Shale barren rock cress 

Virginia sneezeweed 

Swamp pink 

Eastern prairie fringed orchid 

Northeastern bulrush 

Species of Concern (No official Federal status) 

BIRDS 

Tlrryomanes bewickii altus Appalachian Bewick's Wren 

FISH 

Notropis semperasper Roughhead shiner 

INVERTEBRATES 

Apochthonius coecus A cave pseudoscorpion 

Kleptochthonius sp. l A cave pseudoscorpion 

Pseudosinella granda A cave springtail 

Pyrgus centaureae wyandot Appalachian grizzled skipper 

Striaria sp. I A millipede 

Stygobromus sp. 7 Sherando spinosoid amphipod 

Stygobromus stegerorum Madison cave amphipod 

VASCULAR PLANTS 

Carex roanensis Roan Mountain sedge 

[soetes virginicia Virginia quillwort 

Paxistima canbyi 1 Canby's mountain-lover 

Phlox buckleyi Sword-leaved phlox 

Potamogeton tennesseensis Tennessee pondweed 

Trillium pusillum var. virginianum Virginia least trillium 

1

This species has been documented in an adjacent county and may occur in this county. 

September 28, 2007 

Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Virginia Field Office 

STATUS 

LT 

LE 

LE 

LE 

LT 

LT 

LT 

LE 

G5T2Q 

G2G3 

GlG2 

Gl 

GlG2 

G5TIT2 

Gl 

G2 

Gl 

G2 

Gl 

G2 

G2 

G2 

G3T2 
Appendix B—Consultation Letters 

547 

BOTETOURT COUNTY, VIRGINIA 

Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species 

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS 

INVERTEBRATES 

Antrolana lira1 Madison Cave isopod LT 

Pleurobema collina James spinymussel LE 

MAMMALS 

Myotis sodalis2 Indiana bat LE 

VASCULAR PLANTS 

Echinacea laevigata Smooth coneflower LE 

Isotria medeoloides2 Small whorled pogonia LT 

Scirpus ancistrochaetus2 Northeastern bulrush LE 

Species of Concern (No official Federal status) 

AMPHIBIANS 

Plethodon hubrichti 

BIRDS 

Thryomanes bewickii altus 

FISH 

Notropis semperasper 

Noturus gilberti 

INVERTEBRATES 

AIThopalites caedus 

Elliptio lanceolata 

Fusconaia masoni 

Phyciodes batesii batesii 

Stygobromus fergusoni 

VASCULAR PLANTS 

Buckleya distichophylla 

Clematis addisonii 

Iliamna remota 

Paxistima canbyi2 

Peaks of Otter salamander 

Appalachian Bewick's wren 

Roughhead shiner 

Orangefin madtom 

G2 

G5T2Q 

G2G3 

G2 

A cave springtail G I G2 

Yellow lance G2G3 

Atlantic pigtoe G2 

Tawny Crescent G4Tl 

Montgomery County cave amphipodG2G3 

Piratebush 

Addison's leatherflower 

Kankakee globe-mallow 

Canby's mountain-lover 

G2 

G2 

GlQ 

G2 

1

This species has not been documented in this county, but may occur in this county. 2

This species has been documented in an adjacent county and may occur in this county. 

September 28, 2007 

Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Virginia Field Office 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS, AND INDEX

548 

BEDFORD COUNTY, VIRGINIA 

Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species 

SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FISH 

Percina rex 

MAMMALS 

Myotis sodalis

1 

VASCULAR PLANTS 

Echinacea laevigata1 

Isotria medeoloides 

AMPHIBIANS 

Plethodon hubrichti 

INVERTEBRATES 

Fusconaia masoni 

VASCULAR PLANTS 

Iliamna remota 

Phlox buckleyi 

COMMON NAME 

Roanoke logperch 

Indiana bat 

Smooth coneflower 

Small whorled pogonia 

Species of Concern (No official Federal status) 

Peaks of Otter salamander 

Atlantic pigtoe 

Kankakee globe-mallow 

Sword-leaved phlox 

STATUS 

LE 

LE 

LE 

LT 

G2 

G2 

Gl 

G2 

1

This species has been documented in an adjacent county and may occur in this county. 

September 16, 2005 

Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Virginia Field Office 
Appendix B—Consultation Letters 

549 

CARROLL COUNTY, VIRGINIA 

Federa lly Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species 

SCIENTIFIC NAME 

INVERTEBRATES 

Pleurobema collina 1 

INSECTS 

Neonympha mitchelli mitchelli1 

MAMMALS 

Myotis sodalis1 

REPTILES 

Clemmys muhlenbergii 

VASCULAR PLANTS 

Echinacea laevigata1 

Helianthus schweinitzii 1 

Spiraea virginiana 

COMMON NAME 

James spinymussel 

Mitchell's satyr 

Indiana bat 

Bog turtle 

Smooth coneflower 

Schweinitz's sunflower 

Virginia spiraea 

Species of Concern (No official Federal status) 

VASCULAR PLANTS 

Buckleya distichophylla 

Saxifraga caroliniana 

Trillium pusillum var. virginianum1 

Piratebush 

Carolina saxifrage 

Virginia least trillium 

STATUS 

LE 

LE 

LE 

LT(S/A) 

LE 

LE 

LT 

G2 

G2 

G3T2 

1

This species has been documented in an adjacent county and may occur in this county. 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS, AND INDEX

550 

SCIENTIFIC NAME 

TNVERTEBRA TES 

Pleurobema coli ina 1 

INSECTS 

FLOYD COUNTY, VIRGINIA 

Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species 

COMMON NAME 

James spinymussel 

STATUS 

LE 

Neonympha mitchelli mitchelli Mitchell's satyr LE 

MAMMALS 

Myotis sodalis1 

REPTILES 

Clemmys muhlenbergii 

VASCULAR PLANTS 

Echinacea laevigata 1 

FISH 

Noturus gilberti 

Th.lVERTEBRA TES 

Escaryus cryptorobius 

Puto kosztarabi 

Sigmoria whiteheadi 

VASCULAR PLANTS 

Indiana bat LE 

Bog turtle LT(S/A) 

Smooth coneflower LE 

Species of Concern (No official Feder al status) 

Orangefin madtom G2 

Montane centipede G2 

Buffalo Mountain mealybug G l 

Laurel Creek Xystodesmid millipede G I 

Buckleya distichophylla 1 Piratebush G2 

Phlox buckleyi Sword-leaved phlox G2 

'This species has been documented in an adjacent county and may occur in this county. 

August 8, 2005 

Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Virginia Field Office 
Appendix B—Consultation Letters 

551 

FRANKLIN COUNTY, VIRGINIA 

Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species 

SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FISH 

Percina rex 

INVERTEBRATES 

Alasmidonta heterodon 1 

Neonympha mitchelli mitchelli' 

Pleurobema col!ina 1 

VASCULAR PLANTS 

Echinacea iaevigata 

Isotria medeoloides 1 

COMMON NAME 

Roanoke logperch 

Dwarf wedgemussel 

Mitchell's satyr 

James spinymussel 

Smooth coneflower 

Small whorled pogonia 

Species of Concern (No official Federal status) 

FISH 

Noturus gilberti 

INVERTEBRATES 

Acroncmia kosztarabi 

Fusconaia masoni 

NON-VASCULAR PLANTS 

Orthotrichum keeverae 

VASCULAR PLANTS 

Pycnanthemum torrei 

Orangefin madtom 

Virginia stonefly 

Atlantic pigtoe 

Keever's bristle-moss 

Torrey's mounwin-mint 

STATUS 

LE 

LE 

LE 

LE 

LE 

LT 

G2 

Gl 

G2 

G2 

G2 

1

This spec1es has been documented in an adjacent county and may occur in this county. 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS, AND INDEX

552 

ROANOKE COVNTY, VIRGINIA 

Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species 

SCIENTIFIC l'fAM~ 

FISH 

Percina rex 

MAM1v!ALS 

Myotis sodalis 1 

V ASCULA_E PLANTS 

Echinacea laevigata 

Isotria mcdcoloides 1 

COMMON NAME 

Roanoke !ogpcrch 

[ndiana bat 

Smooth coneflower 

Smn11 l},'horled pogonia 

Species of Concern (No official Federal status) 

FIS!:f 

Nohtruc> gilberti 

!!i\lfJnfJ:lRA TES 

Pseudanophtha!mus pusio 

Pseudosinella bona 

Frynnis persiu<; per<;ius 

VASCULAR P_LANTS 

Buck!eya distichophylla 

Clematis addisonii 

Orangetln mad tom 

A cave beetle 

A cave springtail 

Persius duskywing 

Piratehush 

Addison's leathertlO\.ver 

STATUS 

LE 

LE 

LE 

LT 

G2 

G2G3 

GIG2 

GSTIT3 

G2 

02 

1

This species has been documented in an adjacent county and may occur in this county. 

September 28, 2007 

Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Virginia Field Office 
Appendix B—Consultation Letters 

553 

ROCKBRIDGE COlJNTY, VIRGINIA 

Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species 

INVERTEBRATES 

Antro]ana lira 

Pleurobema col tina 

Jv[AMMALS 

Myotis sodalis 1 

VASCULAR PLANTS 

J\rabis serotina 

Echinacea laevigata1 

Jsotria medeoloides 1 

Scirpus ancistrochaetus 1 

COMMON NAME 

Madison Cave isopod 

James spinyrnussel 

Indiana bat 

Shale banen rock cress 

Smooth conetlower 

Small whorled pogonia 

Norihcastcrn bulrush 

Protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle 

Species of Concern (No official Federal status) 

AMPHIBIANS 

Plethodon hubrichti 

FISH 

Notropis semperasper 

INVERTEBRATES 

Arrhopalites pavo 

Caecidotea bowmani 

Elliptio lanceolata 

Fusconaia masoni 

Hclicodiscus diadema 

Helicodiscus lirellus 

Islandiana muma 

Procotyla typhlops 

Pseudanophthalmus pontis 

Pseudanophthalmus sp. 11 

Pyrgus centaureae \Vyandot 

Sphalloplana virginiana 

August l. 2008 

Peaks of Otter salamander 

Roughhead shiner 

A cave springtail 

Natural Bridge cave isopod 

Yellow lance 

Atlantic pigtoe 

Shaggy coil 

Rubble coil 

A cave spider 

A ground v .. ·ater planarian 

Natural Bridge cave beetle 

A cave beetle 

Appalachian grizzled skipper 

Rockbridge County cave planarian 

Prepared hy U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Virginia Field Office 

STATUS 

LT 

LE 

LE 

LE 

LE 

LT 

LE 

GS 

G2 

G2G3 

GIG2 

G!Gl 

G2G3 

G2 

Gl 

GI 

G!G2 

G!G2 

Gl 

Gl 

G5TlT2 

GJ 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS, AND INDEX

554 

Stygobromus baroodyi 

VASCULAR PLANTS 

Clematis addisonii 

Clematis viticaulis 

Paxistima canbyi 1 

Rockbridge County cave amphipod G2G3 

Addison's lcatherflower 

Millboro leatherflm.ver 

Canby's mountain-lover 

G2 

G2 

G2 

1

This species has bct.":n documented in an adjacent county and may occur in this county. 

August I, 2008 

Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Virginia Field Office 
Appendix B—Consultation Letters 

555 

NELSON COUNTY, VIRGINIA 

Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species 

SCIENTir!C NAME 

INVERTEBRATES 

PI~~~~~bema co11ina 1 

MAMMALS 

Myoti~-·~odalis 1 

VASCULAR PLANTS 

Echinacea laevigata 1 

Hclcnium virginicurn 1 

Helonias bullata 

INVERTE_BRA TES 

Elliptio lanceolata 

Escaryus cryptorobius 

COMMON NAME 

James spinymussel 

Indiana bat 

Smooth coneflower 

Virginia sneezcweed 

Swamp pink 

Species of Concern (No official Federal status) 

Yellow lance 

~1ontane centipede 

STATUS 

LE 

LE 

LE 

LT 

LT 

G2G3 

G2 

1

TI1is species has been documented in an adjacent county and may occur in this county. 

September 16, 2005 

Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Virginia Field Office 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS, AND INDEX

556 

PATRICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 

Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species 

SCIENTIFIC NAME 

FISH 

Percina rex 

INSECTS 

COMMON NAME 

Roanoke logperch 

Neonympha mitchelli mitchelli1 Mitchell's satyr 

INVERTEBRATES 

Pleurobema collina 

REPTILES 

Clemmys muhlenbergii 

VASCULAR PLANTS 

Cardamine micranthera 

FISH 

Noturus gilberti 

James spinymussel 

Bog turtle 

Small-anthered bittercress 

Species of Concern (No official Federal status) 

Orangefin madtom 

STATUS 

LE 

LE 

LE 

LT(S/A) 

LE 

G2 

1

This species has been documented in an adjacent county and may occur in this county. 

August 8, 2005 

Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Virginia Field Office 
Appendix B—Consultation Letters 

557 

L. Preston Bryant, Jr. 

Secretary of NaturJI Resources 

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA 

DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION 

Philip A. Francis, JL 

Superintendent 

National Park Service 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

199 Hemphill Knob Road 

Asheville, North Carolina 28803 

21 7 Governor Street 

Richmond, Virginia 23219-2010 

(804) 786-7951 FAX (804) 371-2674 

Re: Blue Ridge Parkway, General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 

Dear Mr. Francis: 

Joseph H. Maroon 

Din:ctor 

July 1, 2008 

The Department of Conservation and Recreation's Division of Natural Heritage (DCR) has searched its 

Biotics Data System for occurrences of natural heritage resources from the area outlined on the submitted 

map. Natural heritage resources are defined as the habitat of rare, threatened, or endangered plant and 

animal species, unique or exemplary natural communities, and significant geologic formations. 

According to the information currently in our files, several natural heritage resources have been 

documented within the Virginia portion of the Blue Ridge Parkway (see attached table). DCR 

recommends using this information to revise the Blue Ridge Parkway Federal and State Listed Threatened 

and Endangered Species Table to accurately reflect the resources found in Virginia. 

Under a Memorandum of Agreement established between the Virginia Depat1ment of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services (VDACS) and the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), DCR 

represents VDACS in comments regarding potential impacts on state-listed threatened and endangered 

plant and insect species. 

In addition, our files do not indicate the presence of any State Natural Area Preserves under DCR's 

jurisdiction in the project area. 

New and up dated information is continually added to Biotics. Please contact DCR for an update on this 

natural heritage information if a significant amount of time passes before it is utilized. 

The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries maintains a database of wildlife locations, 

including threatened and endangered species, trout streams, and anadromous fish waters, that may contain 

information not documented in this letter. Their database may be accessed from 

www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlifeinfo maplindex.html, or contact Shirl Dressler at (804) 367-6913. 

State Parks • Soil and Water Co11servation • Natural Herllage • Outdoor Recreation Plmming 

Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance • D11111 Safety and Floodplaill Management • Limd Conservation 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS, AND INDEX

558 

Should you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me at 804-371-2708. Thank you for the 

opportunity to comment on this project. 

Sincerely. 

S. Rene Hypes 

ProJect Review Coordinator 
559 

Groupname ·Scientific Name I Common Name Global Rank State Rank , Federal Status 

Invertebrate Animal Boloria selene i 5H~!!!-@~d Friti ~ + ~s 

~ 2 

Invertebrate Animal 51gmorta whilOheadi [Laurel Creek Millipede Invertebrate Animal Phyciodes batesii batesii frawny Crescent G4T1 SH 

lnvertebrate Ani'Tial 5tygobromussp_7_ "5herando5p;nosoidAmphipod ·G2 -

Animal -Phyciodes batesii batesii 

Invertebrote Anim81 sp. 7- She'3ndo sp;nosoid Amphipod - - -rG2 --- S- 2- -

Animal Hadena - A Noctuid Moth - - - - -&-- _ _;_; 

_

_ ____ _ 

Invertebrate Animal Semionellus pladdus A Minipede- TG3 -tS2 +------1 

tnvertebriteAnunal rli1G¢mphus - --- i Spine-aOYtned Clvbta1t lG3G4 ' 5253 --t 

NonvaicUrar Plant Sphagnum qUJnqUefaMum ____ Peatmoss ·c;s- -s2s3 

LT 

,,, .. ___ ,_, '"'' ;:err;Stnal Co.TiiTl\.mity Low· Elevation Basic Outcrop Barren 1 lem-EJevatlon Basic Outcr:"o:"p'-iB<-'a'=rr:'en:'-----iiGNR SNR:----+--- - Terrestrial Communit Mountalo I Piedmont Addie Seepage I Piedmont Acidic GNR SNR -+j -----"------_t_ 

TerrestriaiCommunity OakiHeathForest OakiHeathForest GNR SNR8_ Terrestrial Community MesiciWet·Mes:ic Pl"ailie jMeslciWet-MesicPrairie GNR SNR 

Terrestrial Community Rich Cove I Slope FOrest Rich Cove I $Jape Forest 

;:;;;;trial Community MOO'tane I Oak- Hickory Oak I Oak 

Terrestrial Community I Northern Red Oak _ !Northern Red Forest 

!errestrial Hemk>ck Forest ___ 1Carotina Hemlock Forest;:-

Terrestrial Community Montane Mixed Qak I Oak- Hickory Forest Montane Mixed Oak I Oak 

Terrestrial COOliliunity Higi;"EieVitiOn Boutderfteld Forest I Woodland High-Elevation Boulderlield Terrestrial H1gh-Eievation See"Pcige Swamp High-Elevation Seepage Sw 

Montane Mixed Oak I Oak- Forest MOOtane Mixed Oak I oak 

T erresttial Community Mountain 1 Piedmont BaSiC Seepage Swamp Tiiountain I Piedmont Basic 

Terrestrial Community • Low·Eievallon Boolderfteld Forest I Boulderfield 

GNR 

--

SNR 

t- - - + 

- Hickory Forest - -tGNR - - tst.iR + 

-

GNR SNR 

_

! 

--•GNR - - ----j- - -+ -

- Hickory Fore.st .GNR _ --- ·--- r-- SNR 

--- ---

Forest I Woodland CSNR t ... ----r-- - amp GNR SN_R __ 

-

:-HiCkory For.,st .GNR SNRSeepage SWamp GNR - S2 

Forest I Woodland GNR SNR I - - · 

Vascular Plant SoiKiago uliginosa var. uliginosa _ BogcoGeool:;d:::•:::nrod.::::_---,-----=-Vascular glaucophyRa !White--leaved Leathel'flowe 

G4G5Till t- t-- +- r G4? SH 

Vascular Plant Carex buxbaumii Brown Bog Sedge GS 

--

Vasrular Plant Chalone culhbertii c.7ihbert T uroehead 

Vascular Plant uliginos.a var. uliginosa ·Bog "GOldenrod ::;_ _ _ Vascular Plant Leucolhoe fontaneslana ' Highland Dog.-hobble 

Vascular Plant Sofidago uliginosa var. ufiglnosa ____ ___,Bog::: Goldenrod 

V8SC:Utar Plant-.-Platanlhera grandiflore LarQePUrPie-fringe Ordlis 

Vascular Plant I Lilium gray; 1 Gray's l.Jly 

vaScutar Plant _____}Carex conoidea Field Sedge 

Vascular Plant Viei<J americana ssp. americana American Purple VetCh 

Liliumgrayi 

Quercus prinoldes 

"EPilobium leptoph)11um 

Uy Dwarf Chincp.Japin Oak 

Unear-leaved Wilkhv-herb 

--

- -

'fu -{2 S2 

G4GST4rs-'52 

-r 

G5 S1S2 

'52 

51 

--- .... 

G3 s2 

____ .,.. _ 

GS S1S2 

f 5152 3 52 5 5 1 - - - __ I__ -4 52 - - - 1- - G3 --S2 I Vascular Plant Vascular Plant Vascular Ptant 

Vascular Plant VaScular Plant 

Llliuffi grayi ---· 

Cheione cuthbertii 

Grays Uty ---- ------l bert 

peclded Alder 

---G3 - 52 --1-- l 

Vaso.Jtar Plant V8so.J!ar Plant 

--

Vascular 

--

Plant 

V8Scutar Plant Vasc;:;rar Plant Vascular Vascular Plant 

Vascular Plant 

---.--Alnus 

' Chek>oe cuthbertii --

Sanguisort:la canadensis 

Ulium gray! - -

Anemone canadensis 

-----Craiiegus momS 

--Lilium gf"ayi 

Euphort>la purpurea UliUm gra"Yf -

Galopogon tuberosu.s var. tuberosus t.ium grayl - -

Ubum grayi 

Uium gray; 

Litium grayi 

UtuingTayi 

grayi 

lvacciniummacrocarpon 

-

!cuthbert Turtlehead 

-rca-nada 

·Canada Anemone 

-

Gray's Uly 

h uberOs"us Grass-pink 

GrifsLiy- -

rGray'sUy 

'GnoysUy 

GraisLily 

TGray'slily 

Gray's LOyLarge Cranberry 

.GsT5 S2 

GJ s2 - - + 

S2 + 

G3 -ts2 - - +-G5 - 51 

G5 ls1 

G3 ,g 

-+§_3 S2 .. r G3 -1- G3 fGST1_ 2 G3 

Gl S2 

G3 s2 G3 '52 G3 

IG3 f 2 52 

G4 IS2 

-

711611992 B HUMPBA

819Ji001 1E SHARP T

+--61171194? H---+M 

61291i992 S IS- O

6/811999 BC IS HUMPBA

+- 81211987 c- Ts LOVE SW

612411999-C I .THUNDE

9i2912004TC I AKERS M

8/1412ooJ_B__ JAMES R

8113120031c SMART V

712/1999 B APPLE O

B/1911999 te APPLE O

712912003-B 

7131i200J_C__ I APPLE O

S/12i2004l c TAPPLE O

_

M HUMPBA

+ - ----+- M 

5123/2001 D 

f___ 

FISHER PHUMPBA

KN

1WEST FO

• BRP MON

6128/2001 -D l RT. 612 M

B/28/2001 B l ooDD CR

CR

----sn--B/20011-C--IS jOQDJl CR

B/2912001 ic S DODD CR

6128/2001. C . DAVIS ME

6128/2001 D 

6i28ii001 '[) 1 B12B12oc11· c 

11978-ol' H 

- i9n:07 ·D 

91iM 997 E 

s 

s 

IS 

i s 

s 

WEST FO

CHESTNU

} AKERS M

\SHORTTS 
560 

Natural Heritage Resources documented within the Blue Ridge Parkway 

Vascular Plant \lilium 

Vascular Solidago uliginosa var. uliginos.a 

Vascular fHoustoOia canadensis __ _ 

Vascular Plant i hleribergia QkJmerata 

VasCular Plant tria medeok>ides 

Vascular Piant lobium leptophyllum 

Vascular Plant l epilobium lep-tophyllum 

Vascular Plan! J C3reX vesicaria -

Vascular Plant Vascular Pfant Helonias bu11ata 

Vascular Plant repens -

'Va'SCUtar Piant--,Oallbarda repens 

Vascular !Iliamna remota 

vascular - ' Euphorbia Purpurea -

An.J_fn!! 

Animal hullrid1

_

ti _ 

Vertebrate Animal Troglodytes troglodytes 

Vertebrate Anirnai muhlenbcrgii 

Animal teretulus 

_ 

Animal l Desmognathus marmoratus 

j Thobumia hamiltoni 

Grays Lily G3 52 

1iOg Goldenrod . G4G5T4 T5 52 

I canada Bluets G4G5. · · S2 

"G5- 52 

Small Pogonia S2 LT 

lunear-leaved WitiOW-herb 'Gs- 52 

f'lant;o.n tS2? 

152 t 

.tnnatedSedge 

Cuthbert TurtJehead G3 2 

·m 3 ;LT 

Robin Runaway G5- Sl 

Robtn RUMWBy ----. G5 --- j Kankakee GloDe-ma!tow G 1 Q -

Glade Spurge __.QJ__ _)§.2 

_;BOglurUe __ .. G3 IS2 __,LT 

Peaks of Otter SalamandM --cf2 ·52 

-vv.nterWren ·c;s ·s2B.S4N 

!Bog Turtle G3 52 LT 

!Kanawha Minnow GJG.: S2S3 

l Kana'Wha MinnO'N 

:sh;,vel-nosed Salamander 

Rustyside Sucker 

- BogTurUe 

G3 

Vertebrate Animal G 3 52 1Gtyptemys muhlenbergii Vertebrate Animal Gtyptemys muhlenbergii 

Vertebrate AniMal - t(;typtemys muhlenbergii 

Vertebrate Animal __._GiYptemys tnuhlenbergii 

Vertebrate --IGtyptemys muhienbergii 

:Yertebrate Animal _j Gtyptemys muhlenbergii 

------ Bog TurUe G 3 52 

Vertebrate Animal JGtyptemys muhlenbergii 

yertebrate Animal ___JQ!yptemys 

yertebrate muhlenbergii 

Vertebrate Animal Gtyptemys muhlenbergii 

VeneDrate Animal Glyptemys muhlenberg·; 

Vertebrate An1mal Gtyptemys muhlenbergii 

'Verteorate Ammal Gtyptemys muhlenberg'' 

Vertebrate Annnal G tem s muhlenber ::-

Bog TurUe 

og TurUe 

Bog Turtle Bog Turtle Bog TurUe Bog Turtle Bog Turtle Turtle 

jBog TurUe 

G3 52 LT G3 S2 LT G3 52 LT 

'G3 S2 LT 

G3 S2 ·cr G3 52 LT G3 52- LT 

G3 S2 jLT 

GJ S2 LT 

G3 52 

G3 52 

G3 S2 

LE 

---+ 

1L 

sc sc 

LE 

-+-

sese 

-_jLE 

LE LE 

LE 

--soc 

soc 
Appendix B—Consultation Letters 

561 

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA 

L. Preston Bryant, Jr. 

Secretary of Natural Resources 

Park Superintendent 

Biue Ridge Parkway 

199 Hemphill Knob Road 

Asheville, NC, 28803 

Dear Park Superintendent: 

Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 

May 30,2008 

Robert W. Duncan 

Executive Director 

RE: Blue Ridge Parkway 

General Management Plan 

ESSLog # 25103 

We have reviewed the National Park Service's (NPS) newsletter, "Blue Ridge Parkway News", 

which includes the preliminary alternatives for the development of the General Management 

Plan (Plan) for the Blue Ridge Parkway (Parkway). Based on our review of that document and 

our data, we offer the following comments and recommendations. The Virginia Depm1ment of 

Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF), as the Commonwealth's wildlife and freshwater fish 

management agency, exercises full law enforcement and regulatory jurisdiction over those 

resources, inclusive of State or Federally Endangered or Threatened species, but excluding listed 

insects. We are a consulting agency under the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 

401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), and we provide environmental analysis of projects or 

permit applications coordinated through the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. the 

Virginia Marine Resources Commission, the Virginia Department of Transportation, the U. S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, and other state or federal agencies. Our role in these procedures is to 

determine likely impacts upon fish and wildlife resources and habitats, and to recommend 

appropriate measures to avoid, reduce, or compensate for those impacts. 

According to our records, the following listed wildlife species have been documented in the 

Parkway or within 0.5 mi le of its borders: federal Threatened state Endangered bog turtle, federal 

Endangered Roanoke logperch, state Threatened Laurel Creek xystodesmid, state Endangered 

eastern tiger salamander, state Threatened peregrine falcon and state Threatened bald eagle. 

Managing and protecting habitats for these species is very important to ensuring their long-term 

survival and viabi lity. We recommend coordination with our agency and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) to identify suitable habitats for these species and work cooperatively 

to protect those habitats and manage the species they supp011. We recommend that any projects 

occurring within areas identified as habitat for listed species be closely coordinated with our 

agency and the USFWS so that we may make recommendations to protect listed species and 

their habitats. 

4010 WEST BROAD STREET, P.O. BOX 11104, RICHMOND, VA 23230-1104 

(804) 367-1000 (V/TDD) Equal Opportunity Employment, Programs and Facilities FAX (804) 367-0405 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS, AND INDEX

562 

Park Superintendent 

May 30,2008 

Page 2 of 3 

We document 148 trout streams, both wild and stockable, in the Parkway or within 0.5 mile of its 

borders. We have attached a table with information about each of these streams. We 

recommend coordination with our agency to ensure protection of these streams and the imp01tant 

fisheries they support. In particular, Chestnut Creek, adjacent to the Blue Ridge Music Center at 

milepost 213, is a historically valuable native brook trout stream. Over time, however, the 

habitat in this stream has become degraded. If growth at this complex within the Parkway is 

expected and projects planned to occur in the area, we recommend that emphasis be placed to 

protect this fishery resource and protect it from further degradation. We recommend 

coordination with our agency to ensure the protection of this resource and are happy to help the 

NPS with such efforts. 

Stewarts Creek Wildlife Management Area is located very nearby the Parkway borders. We 

recommend that any management action or project that may impact this land or the resources on 

it be coordinated with our agency. 

In addition to the listed species and wildlife resources mentioned above, a number of species 

included as species of greatest conservation need in Virginia's Wildlife Action Plan are likely to 

occur, if suitable habitat exists, in and around the Parkway. We recommend that the Virginia 

Wildlife Action Plan (available through www.bewildvirginia.gov) be reviewed to determine 

what threats are known to these species, what suitable habitat for these species consists of and 

how to best protect them and their habitats from harm. This document, in conjunction with 

assistance from our agency, can serve as a tool to assist the NPS in developing long-term 

management plans in a manner that reduces impacts upon the Commonwealth's wildlife and 

their habitats. 

In general, we are supportive of Alternative Cas outlined in the newsletter. This alternative 

promotes integration of the parkway and its resources to nearby economies and resources. This 

alternative appears to encourage partnerships and regional initiatives that intend to expand 

recreational opportunities within the parkway; enhance natural resource connectivity; and 

improve the visitor's ability to connect with, explore, and learn about the region's natural and 

cultural heritage. Alternative Coffers long-term approaches to resource and wildlife 

management with an emphasis on ecosystem health and habitat improvement. We support his 

concept as well as the management of unique habitats located with the Parkway such as 

mountain wetlands, streams, and rock outcrops. These habitats may not only provide habitat for 

imperiled species, but also provide denning and refuge habitat for many common species. 

We support the NPS's efforts to better manage the wildlife and natural resources within and 

surrounding the Parkway while also improving visitor access, recreational access, and safety. 

We recommend that the NPS manage white-tailed deer to lower populations in an attempt to 

reduce deer-vehicle collisions and to alleviate damage to adjacent farms and residential 

properties. In addition, we recommend that the Parkway install bear-proof trash containers to 

minimize the attraction of bears to Parkway facilities. We recommend the continuation of 

recreational access to water features such and lakes and streams within the parkway. We 

recommend that any projects or plans to naturalize recreational areas, such as Peaks of Otter 

Lake, Rockcastle Gorge, or Chestnut Creek, be coordinated with our agency so that we may 
Appendix B—Consultation Letters 

563 

Park Superintendent 

May 30,2008 

Page 3 of 3 

recommend ways to allow for the continuation of safe, enjoyable access to such features for 

recreation. To minimize impacts upon known freshwater mussel populations, we recommend 

coordination with our agency if any lake or dam repairs are planned at Lake Abbot. We suppolt 

a regional approach to invasive species management and recommend that the NPS consider best 

management practices that may reduce the introduction of invasive species or prohibit their 

spread within the Parkway. 

We support allowing better access to and within the park for biking, hiking, walking, and 

horseback riding by improving connectedness between trails in the Parkway and those in 

surrounding communities. We support plans to improve camping and other visitor facilities. 

We recommend allowing for various camping experiences. This may include secluded tent 

camping sites further off roads while allowing recreational vehicles in areas near the roads that 

are easily accessible and where noise and emissions would not impact campers looking for 

secluded, natural settings. It is important that the Parkway provide high-quality visitor 

experiences by also maintaining historic and cultural sites such as Mabry Mill Restaurant and 

Peaks of Otter Lodge. We recommend that the NPS continue to work with local, regional and 

state tourism officials to promote local communities along the Parkway as well as initiatives like 

the Crooked Road Trail, Mountain Heritage Trail, and the Virginia Birding and Wildlife Trail. 

The following Virginia Birding and Wildlife Trail sites are located within the Parkway: Trail of 

the Trees, Peaks of Otter Recreation Area, Harvey's Knob Overlook, Smart View Recreation 

Area, Rocky Knob/Rock Castle Gorge Trails, Saddle Overlook, Lower Rock Castle Creek Trail, 

and Mabry Mill. We recommend coordination with our agency if any changes need to be made 

to the cun·ent layout of these sites or if any work is planed at these sites that may preclude use by 

visitors. 

We recommend continued coordination with our agency regarding management of wildlife in the 

Parkway, access to the Parkway for fishing and wildlife watching, access from the Parkway to 

adjacent lands for hunting, and the avoidance and minimization of impacts upon wildlife and 

their habitats during specific restoration or management projects. As stated above, we are 

willing to assist the NPS in efforts to enhance wildlife habitats and.manage wildlife resources 

under our jurisdiction. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the development of General Management Plan 

for Blue Ridge Parkway. Please contact me or Amy Ewing at 804-367-691 3 if we may be of 

further assistance. 

Cc: John Fisher, DEQ 

z·~z/ 

v 

Raymond T. Fernald, Manager 

Nongame and Environmental Programs 

Append

565 

Cold Water Streams (trout streams) known from Blue Ridge Parkway area 

brook trout brown trout rainbow trout NRCS HUC reach code reach name class* type 

y N13 04BLL-01 Big Laurel Creek Ill y y N14 04BRF-01 Burks Fork Ill y N06 04CEF-01 Chestnut Creek, EF II 

04CEF-01T Chestnut Creek, EF II tributary 

y y N07 04COK-01 Crooked Creek, EF Ill 

04COK-01T Crooked Creek, EF Ill tributary 

y y N07 04CRK-02 Crooked Creek II y N06 04CST-01 Chestnut Creek Ill 

04CWF-01 Chestnut Creek, WF Ill 

y N20 04DWK-01 Dodd Creek, WF Ill 

04FEP-01T Furnace Creek, EP II tributary 

y N13 04GRS-01 Grassy Creek Ill 

04GRS-01T Grassy Creek Ill tributary 

y N06 04HKS-01 Hanks Branch Ill 

04HKS-01T Hanks Branch Ill tributary 

y N20 04HWL-01 Howell Creek II y N15 04LEF-01 Little Reed Island Ck., EF Ill y N30 04LTL-01 Little Creek II y N19 04MWC-01 Meadow Creek Ill 

04MWC-01T Meadow Creek Ill tributary 

y y N13 040LD-01 Oldfield Creek II y N13 04PIC-01 Pine Creek 2 Ill 

y N19 04PIN-01 Pine Creek Ill 

04PIN-01T Pine Creek Ill tributary 

y y N13 04PNC-01 Pine Creek 1 Ill y N19 04PYN-01 Payne Creek Ill y y N13 04RIC-01 Big Reed Island Creek Ill 

04RTE-01 Ate. 640 tributary 

y y N13 04SKE-01 Snake Creek Ill y N19 04SLF-01 Silverleaf Branch Ill 

y L42 OSBND-01 Barnard Creek II 

y y L51 OSBRA-01 BroQan Branch II 

y y y L42 OSDAN-04 Dan River II y LOS OSDRU-01 Daniels Run Ill 

y LOS OSGCR-01 Green Creek II 

05GCR-01T Green Creek II tributary 

LOS OSGLA-01 Glade Creek v 

y y LOS OSGLA-02 Glade Creek Ill 

y L42 OSHUN-01 Haunted Branch II 

y L01 OSLKF-01 Lick Fork II 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS, AND INDEX

566 

05LKF-01T Lick Fork II tributary 

y y L50 05LRC-01 Little Rock Castle Creek II 

L50 05L TT-01 Little Creek VI 

y L42 05MAY-01 Mayberry Creek Ill 

y L42 05MWP-01 Maple Swamp Branch II 

L14 05PGG-01 Pigg River II 

05PGG-01T Pigg River II tributary 

y y L51 05RBC-01 Runnett Bag Creek II 

y y L50 05RCC-01 Rock Castle Creek I 

y y L50 05RCC-02 Rock Castle Creek Ill 

y y y L42 05RMC-01 Round Meadow Creek Ill 

y y L51 05RRI-01 Roaring Run II 

y LOB 05RUN-01 Roaring Run II y y y L50 05SNP-01 Smith River, NP II y L42 05SQL-01 Squall Creek II 

05SRE-03T Smith River Ill tributary 

y L42 05TGG-01 Tuggle Creek y y y L51 05WID-01 Widgeon Creek y B31 07BKE-01 Back Creek, EF y B31 07BKN-02 Back Creek, NF y B31 07BKS-01 Back Creek, SF 

07LLK-01 Laurel Fork 

y B31 07MLS-02 Mills Creek y B31 07RON-01 Robinson Hollow IV 

07RON-01T Robinson Hollow IV tributary 

y B31 07TMS-01 Toms Branch Ill 

07TMS-01T Toms Branch Ill tributary 

H01 10BAT-01 Battery Creek VI 

y H02 10BBR-01 Big Branch y H02 10BFF-01 Bluff Creek y 136 10BMC-01 Big Marys Creek y H02 10BNC-01 Browns Creek y H09 10CBL-01 Campbell Creek y y 127 10CES-01 Cornelius Creek y 136 10CHM-01 Chimney Branch y H09 10DHM-01 Durham Run 

H02 10DNC-01 Dancing Creek I 

y H02 10ECH-01 Enchanted Creek II 

10EKE-01 T Elk Creek, EF II tributary 

126 10ESR-01 Ellis Creek VI 

y 127 10FAW-01 Fallingwater Creek II 

y H01 10FRC-01 Falling Rock Creek Ill y y L24 10GNS-01 Gunstock Creek II y 136 10GRR-01 Bear Branch II 
Append

567 

y HOt tOHUO-Ot Hunting Creek II y tOIGR-Ot Indian Gap_ Run IV y 136 tOISH-Ot Irish Creek Ill 

tOISH-OtT Irish Creek Ill tributary 

tOJES-01T JenninQs Creek II tributary 

y H02 tOLAD-Ot Lady Slipper Run II y H02 tOLIF-Ot Little Irish Creek Ill y 136 t OLIJ-Ot Little Marys Creek II y L23 tOLST-Ot Little Stony Creek II 

tOLST-01T Little Stony Creek II tributary 

y 137 tOLWR-Ot Lowry Run Ill y 136 tOMBC-Ot Mine Bank Creek II 

127 tOMFL-Ot McFalls Creek 

VI 

tOMI0-01T Mill Creek II tributary 

y Ht5 tOMLL-Ot Mill Creek II y H02 tONCH-Ot Nicholson Run II 

tONRT-01T North Creek II tributary 

y 136 tONS B-Ot Nettle Spring Branch II y 136 tONTL-Ot Nettle Creek II y HOt tOOTC-Ot Otter Creek Ill 

tOOTC-Ot T Otter Creek Ill tributary 

HOt tOOTR-Ot Otter Creek 

VI 

y L24 tOOVS-Ot Overstreet Creek II 

tOOVS-01T Overstreet Creek II tributary 

y Ht5 tOPAU-Ot Pauls Creek IV 

y 137 t OPGP-Ot Pedlar Gap Run Ill y y H02 t OPOL-Ot Pedlar River Ill y HOt t OPRC-Ot Peters Creek IV y H02 10RBT-Ot Roberts Creek Ill y 136 t ORCK-Ot Rock Branch v y HOt t ORE D-Ot Reed Creek y 137 t ORES-Ot Reservoir Hollow 

tORES-01T Reservoir Hollow tributary 

y H15 10RFS-01 Rockfish River, SF y H15 tOROD-Ot Rodes Creek y 136 tOSGC-01 Sugertree Branch y 136 tOSRN-01 Spy_ Run, NF y L23 tOSTC-01 Stony Creek 

10STC-01T Stony Creek tributary 

y 136 tOSUR-01 Spy Run 

y H15 tOSYC-01 Stony Creek 

10SYC-01T Stony 

Creek tributary 

HOt 10TRR-Ot Terrapin Creek I 

y H09 tOTYN-01 Tye 

River, NF II 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS, AND INDEX

568 

10TYN-01T Tye River, NF tributary 

y H09 10TYS-01 Tye River, SF 

y 136 10WGG-01 Wigwam Creek 

y H09 10WHB-01 White Rock Creek y H02 10WHL-01 Wheelers Run 

10WHL-01T Wheelers Run tributary 

y M03 12ARA-01 Ararat River 

y M02 12ELK-01 Elk Spur Branch I y M03 12JEF-01 Johnson Creek, EF Ill 

y M01 12LFR-01 Little Fisher Creek I y y M02 12LIT-01 Little Pauls Creek II 

y M02 12LOV-01 Lovills Creek Ill 

y M02 12PAU-01 Pauls Creek II 

12PAU-01T Pauls Creek II tributary 12STE-01T Stewarts Creek Ill tributary 

y M02 12STW-01 Stewarts Creek, NF I 

y M03 12SUN-01 Sun Run Ill 

y y M03 12TH0-01 Thompsons Creek II y M02 12TUR-01 Turkey Creek II 

y M02 12WAT-01 Waterfall Branch II 

* Class I-IV = wild trout stream; Class V and VI = stockable trout stream 
Appendix B—Consultation Letters 

569 

.AVA 

NCDENR 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

M1chael F. Easley, Govemor 

Ms. Suzette ~1olling 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

i 99 Hemphill Knob RuaJ 

Ashc\'ille, NC 28803 

William G. Ross Jr., Secretary 

July 2. 2008 

Subject Stntc listed threatened and endangered species tOr NC portion uf Blue Ridge Parkway 

Dem· !vis. Moiling: 

The attac.hed table shows the state listed threatened or endangered species known to occur Lll1 the 

NC p011ion of Lhc Blu~ Ridge Parkway, according to the North Carolina Naturalllcritage 

Program. 

!'hank you for the opportunity to provide this information. We look forward to V..'orking with the 

National Park Servic-e as you prepare a draft Ceneral Management Pl<m and Environmental 

Impact Statement. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-7~08 if you have quc~tions or need furtiH.'r 

informJtion. 

Sincerely, 

Katie Armstrong, Nat ural Area Specialist 

NC Natural Heritagl' Program 

1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 

Phone: 919-733-4984 \FAX: 919-715-3060\ Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENRJ 

An Equal Opportuntty I Affirmative Action Employer· 50% Recycled 1 10% Post Consumer Paper 

~IthCarolina 

;vaturallv 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS, AND INDEX

570 

-- -~~- ---- --

Catcuory 

Funaus 

Nonvascular Plant 

Nonvascular Plant 

Vascular Pl:1nt 

Vascular Plant 

Vascular Plant 

Vascular Plant 

Va..,cular Plant -

Vascular Plant 

Vascular Plant 

Vascular Plant 

Vascular Plant ,----

i Vascular Plant 

~ Vascular Plant 

' Vascular Plant 

Vascular Plant 

Vascular Plant 

Vascular Plant 

i Vasculur Plant 

Vascular Plant 

Vascular Plant 

lnver1ebmte Animal 

V ertebratc Animal 

Vertebrate Animal 

Vertebrate Animal 

Vertebrate Animal ----

Ver1ebmte Animal 

Venebratc Animal 

Vertebrate Animal 

Ve-rtebrat~: Animal 

Vertebrate Animal 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

F~deral and State Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina 

From NC Natural Heritage Program, July 2008 

- - - - -- ------

:"'C us ~(' Global 

Scil·ntitic Name Common ~arne Status Status - -Rank -~----

R~ 

Gymnoclerma lineare Rock Gnome Lichen T E S2 co ,_ 

Sphagnum fuscum Brown Peatmoss E I Sl G5 i 

~-J2h~~Q!Q~_Qfl~~Q£ars<2!1Ji A Liverw-ort E I FSC S2 G2? ------------ --------- ---------

Calanw.grosti~~caini L~- _ Cain's Reed Gra'>s E FSC Sl Gl -- ·------·-· ---·-

Dalibarda repens Robin Runawav E - S2 G5 __ j 

Delphinium exaltatum _I~).!. L~!.~:~pur E-SC FSC S2 G3 -- -- ---- -----~r 

Filircndula rubra Quecn-of-the-prai rk F Sl G4G5 -

r" ~um g ·niculatum '" ' Bent 1\ vcn" I SC SlS' U'"~ '" - ' Gcum radiatum ~preading A Yens · E-SC E 'L so 02 --~------ ' ---------- -rs~Oky \1ountain - - --

Glyceria nubig,ena i Mannagrass I FSC S2 G2 

I !elonias bullata [ Svvamp Pink T-SC T S2 ' G3 

I !oustonia montana Roan Mountain Bluet F _S_2 ___ _l Gc ' E - -------

.!uncus trifidus Highland Rush E Sl G5 ' 

Liatris helleri llcllcr's Blazing-star T-SC iT S2 co ,_ 

Lilium "fa'Yi Gray's Lily r-sc FSC s--' G3 

Packcra millcfolium llivided-leaf Rauwort T FSC S2 G2 

Large-leaved Grass-of ... 

Parnassia grandifolia parnassus T FSC S2 U3 

Rhodiola rosca Roseroot (=Sedum rosea) E Sl G:'i 

Rugelia nudicaulis 

(""'""Caca!ia rugclia) Rugel's Ragwort T FSC SJ G3 

Solidago spithamaen Blue Ridge Goldenrod E T Sl Gl -- -- ~------ ---: 

·rhelypteris simulata Boo fern T Sl u4(i5 --1 

rumonelix orestes Engraved Covert T S I (il I 

Southern Appulachian S2I3. 

A~golius acadicus pop. I Northern Saw-wlrct Owl T FSC S21' G5TNR --- -

Corynorhinus townsendii 

vir 'inianus Virginia bi,.-carcd bat E E Sl G4T2 ---· SIB, 

ralco peregrinus Peregrine falcon E S2~' G4 

Glaucomys sabrinus Carolina northern flying 

colora\ us squirrel E E S2 GSTI 

Glyptem)s muhlenbenrii Ho.f.!: turtle T ! T (SI/1) so G3 

Pldhodon \vehrle1 Wehrle's Salamander l Sl G4 --------

Polyodon spathula Paddlcfish E rsc SH G4 

Puma concolor _E_o_u~mr Eastern ['Uma E E Sll GSTIIQ 

Thyomanes beVI·ickii Appalachian Bewick's 

altus v,:ren E FSC Sllfl I G5T2Q 
Appendix B—Consultation Letters 

571 

/ 

December 23, 20 I 0 

Mr. Philip A. Francis, Jr. 

Superintendent 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

National Park Service 

199 Hemphill Knob Road 

Asheville, North Carolina 28803 

Preserving Americas Heritage 

RE: Blue Ridge Parkway Ge11eral Managemeflt Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Dear Mr. Francis: 

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) received your letter dated November 30, 2010 

regarding the NPS's renewed efforts in general management planning for the Blue Ridge Parkway. We 

remain interested in the NPS 's efforts to meet the requirements of Section I 06 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act and the ACHP's regulations, "Protection of Historic Properties" (36 CFR Part 800) 

regarding this program. As the NPS develops and evaluates alternatives for the general management plan, 

we urge you to continue your consultation with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Offices 

(SHPOs), Indian tribes, local governments, and other consulting parties witl1 an interest in historic 

preservation so that their input can be considered in your identification and evaluation of historic 

properties in the area of potential effect and assessment of how such historic properties may be affected by 

the alternatives. 

Remember to notifY the ACRP and provide the documentation specified at 36 CFR § 800.ll(e) should the 

NPS find that the general management plan program has the potential to adversely affect historic properties 

or if you propose to develop a programmatic agreement in order to phase the identification and evaluation 

of historic properties and assessment of effects. If you believe at any time that ACHP participation in such 

consultation could be helpful, please feel free to contact us. Our staff assigned to this undertaking is Katry 

Harris, •ncl she c.1n he reachecl hy telephone at (202) 1\06-8520 or e-ma il at kh"rris@achp.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Assistant Director 

Office of Federal Agency Programs 

Federal Property Management Section 

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 803 • Washington, DC 20004 

Phone: 202-606·8503 • Fax: 202-606-8647 • achp@achp.gov • www.achp.gov 

United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

11'< R.EPI..Y llEFE~ TO 199 Hemphill Knob Road 

Asheville. North Carolina 28803 

D18 

November 30,2010 

Mr. George Blanchard, Governor 

Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma 

2025 South Gordon Cooper Drive 

Shawnee, Oklahoma 74801 

Reference: Government to Government Consultations with American Tndian Tribes 

Subject: Draft General Management Plan for the Blue Ridge Parkway 

Dear Govemot· Blanchard: 

We first contacted your office in 2002 to request your involvement in accordance with the 

consultation process in various laws, executive orders, and federal regulations and policies 

calling for government-to-government Native American consultations with American Indian 

tribes, such as Section 1 06 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended. Since then the 

Parkway has been gathering data, conducting public and other consultation meetings, all while 

formuLating a draft. After several delays and changes in personnel, the Parkway is again moving 

forward with a draft. The draft will include analysis pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act as well as Section I 06 of the National Historic Preservation Act. We will be 

coordinating N ational Environn1ental Policy Act analysis with the Section 106 assessment of 

effect. To that end documentation has been provided to all consulting parties in accordance with 

36 CFR 800.11. 

To date five newslettet·s have gone out to the public on seeping and alternatives. Four public 

seeping meetings were held in Virginia and North Carolina with more than 140 people in 

attendance. More than 600 pieces of correspondence have been received and analyzed. 

Comments have been received from federal and state agencies, Parkway partner organizations, 

and from experts in the areas of cultural resource management, transportation, and natural 

resources. Eight federally recognized Ametican Indian tribes were also contacted regarding the 

general management plan. Parkway staff met in person with the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe, 

Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Eastern Shawnee Tribe, Shawnee Tribe, 

and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee lndians. The Catawba Indian Nation responded in 

writing. 

All of the comments and issues identified during public seeping, stakeholder meetings, and tribal 

consul.tation were taken into consideration in the formulation of the draft alternatives and in the 

selection of the prefetTed alternative. No controversial issues were identified relevant to cultural 

resources during public meetings or in the comments received. 
A draft general management plan and environmental impact statement should be available in late 

2011 for your review and comment. If you have any questions, or require additional information, 

please contact Mr. Gary Johnson, Landscape Architect at 828-271-4779, x210: or Mr. Steven 

Kidd, Cultural Resource Specialist at 828-271-4779, x264. 

Sincerely, 

Jtt_ Philip A. Francis, Jr. 

r Superintendent 

cc: Karen Kaniatobe, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma 

2025 South Gordon Cooper Drive 

Shawnee, Oklahoma 74801 

Chris Church, Project Manager, DSC 

--
United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

~ UP ~V flEFER TO 

Dl 8 

November 30, 2010 

Mr. Donald W. Rodgers, Chief 

Catawba Indian Nation 

996 Avenue of the Nations 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

1 99 Hemphill Knob Road 

Asheville, North Carolina 28803 

Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730 

Reference: Government to Government Consultations with American Indian Tribes 

Subject: Draft General Management Plan for the Blue Ridge Parkway 

Dear Chief Rodgers: 

We first contacted your office in 2002 to request your involvement in accordance with the 

consultation process in various laws, executive orders, and federal regulations and policies 

calling for government-to-government Native American consultations with American I ndian 

tribes, such as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended. Since then the 

Parkway has been gathering data, conducting public and other consultation meetings, aU while 

fonnulating a draft. After several delays and changes in persom1el, the Parkway is again moving 

forward with a draft. The draft will include analysis pursuant to the National Enviromnental 

Policy Act as well as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. We wi II be 

coordinating National Environmental Policy Act analysis with the Section l 06 assessment of 

effect. To that end documentation has been provided to all consulting parties in accordance with 

36 CFR 800.11. 

To date five newsletters have gone out to the public on scoping and alternatives. Four public 

scoping meetings were held in Virginia and North Carolina with more than 140 people in 

attendance. More than 600 pieces of correspondence have been received and analyzed. 

Comments have been received from federal and state agencies, Parkway partner organizations, 

and from experts in the areas of cultural resow·ce management, transportation, and natural 

resources. Eight federally recognized American Indian tribes were also contacted regarding the 

general management p lan. Parkway staff met in person with the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe, 

Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Eastern Shawnee Tribe, Shawnee Tribe, 

and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. The Catawba Indian Nation responded in 

writing. 

' All of the comments and issues identified during public scoping, stakeholder meetings, and tribal 

consultation were taken into consideration in the formulation of the draft alternatives and in the 

TA KE PRIDESR:f::. ~ 

INAMERICA~ 
selection of the preferred aJtemative, No controversial issues were identified relevant to cultural 

resources during public meetings or in the comments received. 

A draft general management plan and envirorunentaJ impact statement should be available in late 

2011 for your review and comment. If you have any questions, or require additional information, 

please contact Mr. Gary Johnson, Landscape Architect at 828-271-4779, x210; or Mr. Steven 

Kidd, Cultural Resource Specialist at 828-271-4779, x264. 

Sincerely, 

iJ."L Philip A. Francis, Jr. 111 - Superintendent 

cc: Dr. Wenonah G. Haire, THPO 

Catawba Indian Nation 

Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

1536 Tom Steven Road 

Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730 

Chris Church, Project Manager, DSC 

-
United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

199 Hemphill Knob Road 

Asheville, North Carolina 28803 

Dl8 

November 30, 2010 

Mr. Chadwick Smith, Principal Chief 

Cherokee Nation 

Post Office Box 948 

Tahlequah, Oklahoma 74465 

Reference: Government to Government Consultations with American Indian Tribes 

Subject: Draft General Management Plan for the Blue Ridge Parkway 

Dear Principal Chief Smith: 

We first contacted your oftice in 2002 to request your involvement in accordance with the 

consultation process in various Jaws, executive orders, and federal regulations and policies 

calling for government-to-government Native American consultations with American Indian 

tribes. such as Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act, as amended. Since then the 

Parkway has been gathering data, conducting public and other consultation meetings, all while 

formulating a draft. After several delays and changes in personnel, the Parkway is again moving 

forward with a draft. The draft will include analysis pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act as well as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. We will be 

coordinating National Environmental Policy Act analysis with the Section 106 assessment of 

effect. To that end documentation has been provided to all consulting parties in accordance with 

36 CFR 800.11. 

To date five newsletters have gone out to the public on scoping and alternatives. Four public 

scoping meetings were held in Virginia and North Carolina with more than 140 people in 

attendance. More than 600 pieces of correspondence have been received and analyzed. 

Comments have been received from federal and state agencies, Parkway partner organizations, 

and from experts in the areas of cultural resource management, transportation, and natural 

resources. Eight federally recognized American Indian tribes were also contacted regarding the 

general management plan. Parkway staff met in person with the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe, 

Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Eastern Shawnee Tribe, Shawnee Tribe, 

and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. The Catawba Indian Nation responded in 

writing. 

All 'Of the comments and issues identified during public scoping, stakeholder meetings, and tribal 

consultation were taken into consideration in the formulation of the draft alternatives and in the 

selection of the prefened alternative. No controversial issues were identified relevant to cultural 

resources during public meetings or in the comments received. 

TAKE PRIOE~i:F=::;. ~ 

INAMERICA .. ~ 
A draft general management plan and environmental impact statement should be available in late 

2011 for your review and comn1ent. If you have any questions, or require additional information, 

please contact Mr. Gary Johnson, Landscape ·Architect at 828-271-4779, x210; or Mr. Steven 

Kidd, Cultural Resource Specialist at 828-271-4779, x264. 

Sincerely, 

il.11_Philip A. Francis, Jr. r-Superintendent 

cc: Chris Church, Project Manager, DSC 
United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

199 Hemphill Knob Road 

Asheville, North Carolina 28803 

018 

November 30, 2010 

Mr. Michell Hicks, Principal Chief 

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians 

Qualla Boundary 

POB 455 

Cherokee, N01th Carolina 28719 

Reference: Government to Government Consultations with American Indian Tdbes 

Subject: Draft General Management Plan for the Blue Ridge Parkway 

Dear Chief Hicks: 

We first contacted your office in 2002 to request your involvement in accordance with the 

consultation process in various laws, executive orders, and federal regulations and policies 

calling for govenl!Tlent-to-government Native American consultations with American Indian 

tribes, such as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended. Since then the 

Parkway has been gathering data, conducting public and other consultation meetings, all while 

formulating a draft. After several delays and changes in personnel, the Parkway is again moving 

forward with a draft. The draft will include analysis pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act as well as Section 1 06 of the National Historic PreseJ:"Vation Act. We will be 

coordinating National Environmental Policy Act analysis with the Section 106 assessment of 

effect. To that end documentation has been provided to all consulting parties in accordance with 

36 CFR 800.11. 

To date five newsletters have gone out to the public on scoping and alternatives. Four public 

scoping meetings were held in Virginia and North Carolina with more than 140 people in 

attendance. More than 600 pieces of correspondence have been received and analyzed. 

Comments have been received from federal and state agencies, Parkway partner organizations, 

and from experts in the areas of cultural resource management, transportation, and natural 

resources. Eight federally recognized American Indian tribes were also contacted regarding the 

general management plan. Parkway staff met in person with the Absentee-Shawnee T1ibe, 

Cherokee Nation., Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Eastern Shawnee Tribe, Shawnee Tribe, 

and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. The Catawba Indian Nation responded in 

writing. \ 

All of the comments and issues identified during public scoping, stakeholder meetings, and tribal 

consultation were taken into consideration in the formulation of the draft alternatives and in the 

T A KE PRIOE ft:::. ~ 

INAMERICA~ 
selection of the preferred alternative. No controversial issues were identified relevant to cultural 

resources during public meetings or in the comments received. 

A draft general management plan and environmental impact statement should be available in late 

20 I I for your review and comment. If you have any questions, or require additional information, 

please contact Mr. Gary Johnson, Landscape Architect at 828-271-4779, x210; or Mr. Steven 

Kidd, Cultural Resource Specialist at 828-271-4779, x264. 

Sincerely, 

~ ))1ttv0] 

~ Philip A. Francis, Jr. 

Superintendent 

cc: Mr. Russell Townsend, THPO 

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians 

Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

Qualla Boundary 

Post Office Box 455 

Cherokee, North Carolina 28719 

Chris Church. Project Manager, DSC 

---- --- -
United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

fN R£PLY R£f'EII TO I 99 Hemphill Knob Road 

Asheville, North Carolina 28803 

018 

November 30, 20 I 0 

Ms. Glenna 1. Wallace, Chief 

Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma 

Post Office Box 350 

Seneca, Missou ri 64865 

Reference: Government to Government Consultations with American 1ndian Tribes 

Subject: Draft General Management Plan for the Blue Ridge Parkway 

Dear Chief Wallace: 

We first contacted your office in 2002 to request your involvement in accordance wilh the 

consultation process in various laws, executive orders, and federal regulations and policies 

calling for government-to-government Native American consultations with American Indian 

tribes. such as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended. Since then the 

Parkway has been gathering data, conducting public and other consultation meetings, all while 

formulating a draft. After several delays and changes in personnel, the Parkway is again moving 

forward with a draft. The draft will include analysis pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act as well as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. We will be 

coordinating National Environmental Policy Act analysis with the Section 106 assessment of 

effect. To that end documentation has been provided to all consulting parties in accordance with 

36 CFR 800.11. 

To date five newsletters have gone out to the public on scoping and alternatives. Four public 

meetings were held in Virginia and North Carolina with more than 140 people in attendance. 

More than 600 pieces of correspondence have been received and analyzed. Conunents have been 

received from federal and state agencies, Parkway partner organizations, and from experts in the 

areas of cultural resource management, transportation, and natural resources. Eight federally 

recognized American Indian tribes were also contacted regarding the general management plan. 

Parkway staff met in person with the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe, Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band 

of Cherokee Jndians, Eastern Shawnee Tribe, Shawnee Tribe, and the United Keetoowah Band 

of Cherokee Indians. The Catawba Indian Nation responded in wri6ng. 

All of the conunents and issues identified during public scoping, stakeholder meetings, and tribal 

consultation were taken into consideration in the fOJmulation of the draft alternatives and in the 

selection of the preferred alternative. No controversial issues were identified relevant to cultural 

resources during public meetings or in the comments received. 
A draft general management plan and environmental impact statement should be available in late 

201 1 for your review and comment. If you have any questions, or require additional information, 

please contact Mr. Gary Johnson, Landscape Architect at 828-271-4779, x210; or Mr. Steven 

Kidd, Cultural Resource Specialist at 828-271-4779, x264. 

Sincerely, 

Philip A. Francis, Jr. 

Superintendent 

cc: Chris Church, Project Manager, DSC 

-
United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

11" REPLY REFER TO 199 Hemphill Knob Road 

Asheville, North Carolina 28803 

018 

November 30,2010 

Dr. Jeffrey Crow 

North Carolina Office of Archives and History 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

461 0 Mai I Service Center 

Raleigh, North Carol ina 27699-461 0 

Reference: Blue Ridge Parkway, General Management Plan and Environmental impact Statement 

Subject: Draft General Management Plan for the Blue Ridge Pa rkway 

Dear Dr. Crow: 

The National Park Service is continuing with general management planning for the Blue Ridge 

Parkway that began in December 2001. We first contacted your office in early 2002 to request 

your involvement at that time in accordance with stipulation VI.E of the 1995 Programmatic 

Agreement Among the National Park Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 

and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers. Since then the Parkway has 

been gathering data, conducting public and other consultation meetings, all while formulating a 

draft. After several delays and changes in personnel, the Parkway is again moving forward with a 

draft. The draft will include analysis pursuant to the National Enviroru11ental Policy Act as well 

as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. We will be coordinating National 

Environmental Policy Act analysis with the Section 106 assessment of effect. To that end 

documentation has been provided to all consulting parties in accordance with 36 CFR 800.11. 

To date five newsletters have gone out to the public on scoping and alternatives. Four public 

seeping meetings were held in Virginia and North Carolina with more than 140 people in 

attendance. More than 600 pieces of correspondence have been received and analyzed. 

Conunents have been received from federal and state agencies, Parkway partner organizations, 

and from experts in the areas of cultural resource management, transportation, and natural 

resources. Eight federally recognized American Indian tribes were also contacted regarding the 

general management plan. Parkway staff met in person with the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe, 

Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Eastern Shawnee Tribe, Shawnee Tribe, 

and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. The Catawba 1ndian Nation responded in 

writing. 

All of the comments and issues identified during pub! ic seeping, stakeholder meetings, and tribal 

consultation were taken into consideration in the formulation of the draft alternatives and in the 
selection of the preferred alternative. No controversial issues were identified relevant to cultural 

resources during public meetings or in the comments received. 

A draft general management plan and environmental impact statement should be available in late 

201 1 for your review and comment. If you have any questions, or require additional information, 

please contact Mr. Gary Johnson, Landscape Architect at 828-271 -4 779, x21 0; or Mr. Steven 

Kidd, Cultural Resource Specialist at 828-271 -4779, x264. 

Sincerely, 

Philip A. Francis, Jr. r Superintendent 

cc: Chris Church, Project Manager, DSC 
United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

II" RfPLY R£Ftll10 I 99 Hem phi 11 Knob Road 

Asheville, North Carolina 28803 

D18 

November30, 2010 

Ms. Kathleen Kilpatrick 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

Department of Historic Resources 

280 I Kensington A venue 

Richmond, Virginia 23221 

Reference: Blue Ridge Parkway, General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

Subject Draft General Management Plan for the Blue Ridge Parkway 

Dear Kilpatrick: 

The National Park Service is continuing with general management planning for the Blue Ridge 

Parkway that began in December 200 l. We first contacted your office in early 2002 to request 

your involvement at that time in accordance with stipulation VI.E of the 1995 Programmatic 

Agreement Among the National Park Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 

and the National Conference of Sta te Historic Preservation Officers. Since then the Parkway has 

been gathering data, conducting public and other consultation meetings, all while formulating a 

draft. After several delays and changes in personnel, the Parkway is again moving forward with a 

draft. The draft will include analysis pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act as well 

as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. We will be coordinating National 

Environmental Policy Act analysis with the Section 106 assessment of effect. To that end 

documentation has been provided to aLl consulting parties in accordance with 36 CFR 800.11. 

To date five newsletters have gone out to the public on seeping and alternatives. Four public 

seeping meetings were held in Virginia and North Carolina with more than 140 people in 

attendance. More than 600 pieces of correspondence have been received and analyzed. 

Conunents have been received from federal and state agencies, Parkway partner organizations, 

and from experts in the areas of cultural resource n1anagement, transportation, and natural 

resources. Eight federally recognized American Indian tribes were also contacted regarding the 

general management plan. Parkway staff met in person with the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe, 

Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Eastern Shawnee Tribe, Shawnee Tribe, 

and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. The Catawba Indian Nation responded in 

writing. 

' 

All of the comments and issues identified during public seeping, stakeholder meetings, and tribal 

consultation were taken into consideration in the formulation of the draft alternatives and in the 

TAKE PRIDE®Ilf=:· ~ 

INAMERICA~ 
selection of the preferred alternative. No controversial issues were identified relevant to cultural 

resources during public meetings or in the comments received. 

A draft general management plan and enviromnental impact statement should be available in late 

2011 for your review and comment. If you have any questions, or require additional information, 

please contact Mr. Gary Johnson, Landscape Architect at 828-271-4779, x210; or Mr. Steven 

Kidd, Cultural Resource Specialist at 828-271-4779, x264. 

Sincerely, 

Philip A. Francis, Jr. 

Superintendent 

cc: Chris Church, Project Manager, DSC 

-
United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

lt. REP LV REFER TO 199 Hemphi II Knob Road 

Asheville, North Carolina 28803 

018 

November 30, 2010 

Mr. George Wickliffe, Chief 

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians 

Post Office Box 

Tahlequah , Oklahoma 74465 

Reference: Govemment to GoverTiment Consultations with American fndian Tribes 

Subject: Draft General Management Plan for the Blue Ridge Parkway 

Dear Chief Wickliffe: 

We first contacted your office in 2002 to request your involvement in accordance with the 

consultation process in various laws, executive orders, and federal regulations and policies 

ca!Jing for govenunent-to-govemruent Native American consultations with American Indian 

tribes, such as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended. Since then the 

Parkway has been gathering data, conducting public and other consultation meetings, all while 

formulating a draft. After several delays and changes in persormel, the Parkway is again moving 

forward with a draft. The draft will include analysis pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act as well as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. We will be 

coordinating National Envirorunental Policy Act analysis with the Section 1 06 assessment of 

effect. To that end documentation has been provided to all consulting parties in accordance with 

36 CFR 800.11 . 

To date five newsletters have gone out to the public on scoping and altematives. Four public 

scoping meetings were held in Virginia and North Carolina with more than 140 people in 

attendance. More than 600 pieces of correspondence have been received and analyzed. 

Comments have been received from federal and state agencies, Parkway partner organizations. 

and from experts in the areas of cultural resource management, transportation, and natural 

resources. Eight federally recognized American Indian tribes were also contacted regarding the 

general managemet:It plan. Parkway staff met in person with the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe, 

Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Eastern Shawnee Tribe, Shawnee Tribe, 

and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. The Catawba Indian Nation responded in 

writing. 

All of the comments and issues identified during public scoping, stakeholder meetings, and tribal 

consultation were taken into consideration in the fom1Ulation of the draft alternatives and in the 

selection of the preferred alternative. No controversial issues were identified relevant to cultural 

resources during public meetings or in the comments received. 
A draft general management plan and environmental impact statement should be available in late 

2011 for your review and comment. If you have any questions, or require additional information, 

please contact Mr. Gary Jolmson, Landscape Architect at 828-271-4779, x210; or Mr. Steven 

Kidd, CulturaJ Resource Specialist at 828-271-4779, x264. 

Sincerely, 

hil' A ,F J n 1p . ranc1s, r. t Superintendent 

cc: Chris Church, Project Manager, DSC 
United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

IN R.EPLV REFER TO 199 Hemphill Knob Road 

Asheville, North Carolina 28803 

Dl8 

November 30, 2010 

Reid Nelson, Director 

Office of Federal Agency Programs 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #803 

Washington, D.C. 20004 

Reference: Blue Ridge Parkway, General Management Plan and Environmental lmpact Statement 

Subject: Draft General Management Plan for the Blue Ridge Parkway 

Dear Mr. Nelson: 

The NationaJ Park Service is continuing with general management planning for the Blue Ridge 

Parkway that began in December 2001. We first contacted your office in early 2002 to request 

your involvement at that time in accordance with stipulation VI.E of the 1995 Programmatic 

Agreement Among the National Park Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 

and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers. Since then the Parkway has 

been gathering data, conducting public and other consultation meetings, all while formulating a 

draft. After several delays and changes in personnel. the Parkway is again moving forward with a 

draft. The draft will include analysis pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act as well 

as Section I 06 of the National Historic Preservation Act. We will be coordinating National 

Environmental Policy Act analysis with the Section 106 assessment of effect. To that end 

documentation has been provided to all consulting parties in accordance with 36 CFR 800.11. 

To date five newsletters have gone out to the public on seeping and alternatives. Four public 

seeping meetings were held in Virginia and North Carolina with more than 140 people in 

attendance. More than 600 pieces of correspondence have been . received and analyzed. 

Comments have been received from federal and state agencies, Parkway partner organizations, 

and from experts in the areas of cultural resource management, transportation, and natural 

resources. Eight federally recognized American Indian tribes were also contacted regarding the 

general management plan. Parkway staff met in person with the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe. 

Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Eastern Shawnee Tribe, Shawnee Tribe, 

and the United Keetoowab Band of Cherokee Indians. The Catawba Indian Nation responded in 

writing. 

All of the comments and issues identified dl)Iing publ ic seeping, stakeholder meetings, and tribal 

consultation were taken into consideration in the formulation of the draft alternatives and in the 

T A KE PRIDE®iJ;:.:. ~ 

INAM ERICA~ 
selection of the preferred alternative. No controversial issues were identified relevant to cultural 

resources during public meetings or in the comments received. 

A draft general management plan and environmental impact statement should be available in late 

2011 for your review and comment. If you have any questions, or require additional information, 

please contact Mr. Gary Johnson, Landscape Architect at 828-271-4 779, x21 0; or Mr. Steven 

Kidd, Cultural Resource Specialist at 828-271-4779, x264. 

Sincerely, 

Philip A. Francis, Jr. 

Superintendent 

cc: Chris Church, Project Manager, DSC 
United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

IN REPLY llEA:R TO 

D18 

November JO, 2010 

Mr. Ron Sparkman, Chairman 

Shawnee Tribe 

Post Offi.ce Box 189 

Miami, Oklahoma 74355 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

199 Hemphill Knob Road 

Asheville. North Carolina 28803 

Reference: Goverrunent to Government Consultations with American fndian Tribes 

Subject: Draft General Management Plan for the Blue Ridge Parkway 

Dear Chairman Sparkman: 

We first contacted your office in 2002 to request your involvement in accordance with the 

consultation process jn various laws, executive orders, and federal regulations and policies 

calling for govemment-to-govenunent Native American consultations with American Indian 

tribes, such as Section 106 of the Natjonal Historic Preservation Act, as amended. Since then the 

Parkway has been gat11ering data, conducting public and other consultation meetings, all while 

formulating a draft. After several delays and changes in personnel, the Parkway is again moving 

forward with a draft. The draft will include analysis pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act as well as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. We will be 

coordinating National Environmental Policy Act analysis with the Section 106 assessment of 

effect. To that end documentation has been provided to all consulting parties in accordance with 

36 CFR 800.11. 

To date five newsletters have gone out to the public on scoping and alternatives. Four public 

scoping meetings were held in Virginia and North Carolina with more than 140 people in 

attendance. More than 600 pieces of correspondence have been received and analyzed. 

Comments have been received from federal and state agencies, Parkway partner organizations, 

and from exper1s in the areas of cultural resource management, transportation, and natural 

resources. Eight federally recognized American Indian tribes were aJso contacted regarding the 

general management plan. Parkway staff met in person with the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe, 

Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Eastem Shawnee Tribe, Shawnee Tribe, 

and the Uruted Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. The Catawba Inilian Nation responded in 

writing. 

All 'of the conunents and issues identified during public scoping, stakeholder meetings, and ttibal 

consultation were taken into consideration in the formulation of the draft alternatives and in the 

selection of the preferred alternative. No controversial issues were identified relevant to cultural 

resources during public meetings or in the comments received. 
A draft general management plan and environmental impact statement should be available in late 

2011 for your review and comment. If you have any questions, or require additional information, 

please contact Mr. Gary Johnson, Landscape Architect at 828-271-4779, x210; or Mr. Steven 

Kidd, Cultural Resource Specialist at 828-271-4779, x264. 

Sincerely, 

~ Philip A. Francis, Jr. 

~u - Superintendent 

cc: Chris Church, Project Manager, DSC 

-
United States Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

ll< REPLY R.UER TO 

018 

November 30, 2010 

Mr. Leo R. Henry, Chief 

Tuscarora Nation 

2006 Mt. Hope Road 

Lewistown, New York 14092 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

I 99 Hemphill Knob Road 

Asheville, North Carolina 28803 

Reference: Government to Government Consultations with American Indian Tribes 

Subject: Draft General Management Plan for the Blue Ridge Parkway 

Dear Chief Henry: 

We first contacted your office in 2002 to request your involvement in accordance with the 

consultation process in various laws, executive orders, and federal regulations and policies 

calling for government-to-government Native American consultations with American Indian 

tribes, such as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended. Since then the 

Parkway has been gathering data, conducting public and other consultation meetings, all while 

formulating a draft. After several delays and changes in personnel, the Parkway is again moving 

forward with a draft. The draft will include analysis pursuant to the National Envirotunental 

Policy Act as well as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. We will be 

coordinating National Environmental Policy Act analysis with the Section 106 assessment of 

effect. To that end documentation has been provided to all consulting parties in accordance with 

36 CFR 800. I 1. 

To date five newsletters have gone out to the public on seeping and alternatives. Four public 

seeping meetings were held in Virginia and North Carolina with more than J 40 people in 

attendance. More than 600 pieces of correspondence have been received and analyzed. 

Comments have been received from federal and state agencies. Parkway partner organizations, 

and from experts in the areas of cultural resource management, transportation, and natural 

resources. Eight federally recognized American Indian tribes were also contacted regarding the 

general management plan. Parkway staff met in person with the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe, 

Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Eastem Shawnee Tribe~ Shawnee Tribe, 

and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. The Catawba Indian Nation responded in 

writing. 

All of the comments and issues identified during public seeping, stakeholder meetings, and t1ibal 

consultation were taken into consideration in the formulation of the draft alternatives and in the 

selection of the preferred alternative. No controversial issues were identified relevant to cultural 

resources dUJing public meetings or in the comments received. 

TAKE PRIDE~if::. "! 

INAMERICA~ 
A draft general management plan and environmental impact statement should be available in late 

20 I 1 for your review and comment. If you have any questions, or require additional information, 

please contact Mr. Gary Johnson, Landscape Architect at 828-271-4779, x210~ or Mr. Steven 

Kidd, Cultural Resource Specialist at 828-271-4779, x264. 

Sincerely, 

~klh~ nJ(l., Philip A. Francis, Jr. f Superintendent 

cc: Chris Church, Project Manager, DSC 

-
To: 

Meeting: 

Subject: 

Background: 

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 

Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council 

December 19, 2011 

Blue Ridge Parkway Draft General Management Plan/Environmental 

Impact Statement 

7a./. 

The National Park Service published the final Draft General Management Plan/ 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Blue Ridge Parkway in September 2011, and 

requested public comments. A public forum on the Plan was held on November 1 0, 

2011, at the Br<imbleton Center in Roanoke County. 

Since its founding in 1936 the Parkway has operated using a master plan, the Parkway 

Land Use Maps and applicable laws and policies for guidance. However, the master 

plan is outdated and the Parkway is facing an increasing array of issues that require 

consideration. The new plan is intended to define resource conditions and visitor 

experiences to be achieved. It will provide a framework for National Park Service 

managers to use when making decisions about how to best protect Parkway 

resources, provide a diverse range of visitor experiences, manage visitor use, and 

develop facilities for the next twenty years or more. It provides an opportunity for the 

National Park Service to consult with interested stakeholders and analyze the benefits, 

impacts, and economic costs of alternative courses of action. 

The Plan presents three alternatives for the future management of the Parkway. 

Alternative A is the "no action" alternative of continuing existing management and 

trends. Under Alternative B, the Parkway would be managed as a traditional, selfcontained, scenic recreational driving experience· and designed landscape with 

enhanced opportunities for dispersed outdoor recreation activities. Alternative B is 

the National Park Service's Preferred Alternative. Under Alternative C, Parkway 

management· would be more integrated with the larger region's resources and 

economy. More emphasis would be placed on reaching out to communities and 

linking to regional . natural, recreational, and cultural heritage resources and 

experiences. 

On May 19, 2008, the City responded to the initial draft of the Plan with support for 

Alternative C, with modifications. The City recommended that the National Park 

Service recognize that the Parkway is enjoyed as a national recreational resource by 

more than the motoring public; asked the National Park Service to identify increased 

funding for roadway maintenance as a priority; requested the Parkway to continue 

management of the Roanoke Mountain and Mill Mountain spur roads and enhance the 

Roanoke Mountain Campground; recommended that the Parkway accommodate 

increasing bicycle use with paved shoulders rather than adding separate paved bike 

paths; recommended improved Parkway visitor orientation services at Explore Park 

and at the Discovery Center on Mill Mountain; supported unpaved multi-use trails 

designed for use by hikers, mountain bikers and equestrians; recommended 

volunteer trail development and maintenance, and linking Parkway trails to the 

Roanoke Valley Greenway system; requested that the Parkway work with local groups 
to develop a solution to providing mountain bike access to the Chestnut Ridge loop; 

and recommended creating a seamless connection from the Parkway corridor, 

through the Mill Mountain spur to Mill Mountain Park. 

Considerations: 

The Blue Ridge Parkway contributes greatly to the quality of life in Roanoke, and it is a 

critical economic development and tourism asset for our region's future. The general 

premise of Alternative C is the most beneficial to the City of Roanoke. Benefits of 

Alternative C include a potential Parkway information desk and programs at a site off 

the Parkway in Roanoke; expanded information and orientation capabilities at 

Virginia's Explore Park; connections between multi-use Parkway paths and community 

trails; continued Parkway management of the Roanoke Mountain and Mill Mountain 

spur road areas that are under lease agreement with the City of Roanoke; and 

enlarging selected tent sites to better accommodate family-sized tents, upgrading 

comfort stations to provide showers and universal access, and upgrading existing RV 

sites with water and electrical hookups at Roanoke Mountain Campground. 

However, each of the proposed Alternatives includes elements that do not benefit the 

greater Roanoke community or elements that the City has previously opposed. None 

of the Alternatives explicitly embrace the National Park Service's "Healthy Parks, 

Healthy People," "Pathways to Healthy Living," and "America's Great Outdoors" 

initiatives, which seek to encourage active recreation and are compatible with 

Roanoke's Healthy Living Initiative. All of the Alternatives include a recommendation 

to close social trails. Alternative B (the National Park Service's Preferred Alternative) 

includes a provision that would guide the Parkway to "establish an agreement with the 

City of Roanoke for partnership management of the Mill Mountain spur road area" and 

convert the Roanoke Mountain Campground to a day-use area. The City of Roanoke 

does not have the financial capability, nor should it be requested, to undertake any 

action that is currently within the purview of the National Park Service, including the 

ownership, lease, or operation of any land or facility. 

Recommended Action: 

Approve the attached resolution supporting Alternative C with modifications. 

Approval of the resolution will not create any additional obligations for the City of 

Roanoke. The City has received permission to submit its written comments on 

December 20, following Council consideration of a response to the Draft General 

Management Plan. 

~~---------- Christopher P. Morrill 

City Manager 

Distribution: Council Appointed Officers 

R. Brian Townsend, Assistant City Manager for Community Development 

Thomas N. Carr, Director, Planning Building and Development 

Steven C. Buscher, Director Parks and Recreation 

2 
November 5, 2011 

COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE 

Department of Parks and Recreation 

401 Mcintire Road, Room 323 

Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 

(434) 296- 5844 

Fax ( 434) 293-0299 

Supetintendent Philip A. Francis Jr. 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

199 Hemphill Knob Road 

Asheville, NC 28803 

Dear, Su~ ent, 

After reviewing the General Management Plan and Environmental Impact options being 

considered for the Blue Ridge Parkway, and considering opportunities and concerns we are 

working with as adjacent natural area recreational land managers, the County of Albemarle, 

Department of Parks and Recreation offers the following comments. 

While the northern end of Blue Ridge Park Way terminates before entering Albemarle County, it 

contributes to a significant "gateway" at Rock Fish Gap, where Nelson County, Albemarle 

County, Augusta County, the City of Waynesboro and Charlottesville aU share an interest. 

Interstate 64, Rt.250 (the historic "Plank Road" and the Three Notched Trail"), the Blue Ridge 

Tunnels, the Appalachian Trail, the Southern entrance to the Sky Line Drive, and the 

Shenandoah National Park all come together to join the Blue Ridge Parkway. 

Of these three management plans, alternative C would be more in line with other regional 

initiatives where natural and cultural heritage resources are concerned. However, any of these 

alternatives could be beneficial with an effort towards a closer working relationship betv.'een 

localities and Department oflnterior land managers. 

Sincerely, 

Bob Crickenberger, 

Director 

Dan Mahon 

Greenways Coordinator 
Administrative Services

10 Courthouse Ave.

Petersburg, VA 23803

Tel: (804) 862-6416

Fax: (804) 862-6196

Capital Region Office

2801 Kensington Office

Richmond, VA 23221

Tel: (804) 367-2323

Fax: (804) 367-2391

Tidewater Region Office

14415 Old Courthouse Way 2nd

Floor

Newport News, VA 23608

Tel: (757) 886-2807

Fax: (757) 886-2808

Western Region Office

962 Kime Lane

Salem, VA 24153

Tel: (540) 387-5428

Fax: (540) 387-5446

Northern Region Office

5357 Main Street

PO Box 519

Stephens City, VA 22655

Tel: (540) 868-7031

Fax: (540) 868-7033

Figure 1 

May 30, 2012 

Philip A. Francis, Jr., Superintendent 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

199 Hemphill Knob Road 

Asheville, North Carolina 28803 

RE: Blue Ridge Parkway 

General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

 DHR File No. 2002-1902

Dear Superintendent Francis: 

Thank you for requesting our comments on draft General Management Plan and Environmental Impact 

Statement. We have appreciated the opportunity to participate in earlier meeting leading up to the GNP in 

Jonesville, North Carolina in 2002 and 2004 to discuss the significance of parkway cultural resources and 

goals for future management. We are very pleased to see that the action alternatives include a comprehensive 

parkway-wide approach to cultural resource management. We strongly support the Park’s preferred 

alternative, Alternative B. The draft document is generally very written and organized. We offer the 

following minor comments for your consideration: 

Appendix B. Determination of Impairment. 

 On page 567, Archaeological resources, it is stated that: Some impacts could be mitigated through the use of 

appropriate screening and use of vegetation and appropriate design and new, non-contributing additions 

could be designed to be compatible with the historic setting. These are not in fact appropriate mitigations for 

archaeological sites, but for cultural landscapes and structures. 

On page p.568 it is stated that Ground disturbing activities related to the construction of new concession 

facilities could result in long term adverse impacts because some sites features or artifacts could be altered, 

even though their information value would be retained. However, archaeological sites may be eligible for 

more than their information value. Archaeological sites may be eligible under criteria A and B as well as D. 

They may also be of cultural importance to living communities. 

Again, on p.568 it is stated that any potential ground disturbing activities could cause short-term adverse 

impacts on archaeological resources. Unfortunately archaeological sites are non-renewable resources. 

Ground disturbing activities have the potential to cause permanent and severe impacts to archaeological 

resources to the point of total destruction. 

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA

Department of Historic Resources

2801 Kensington Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 23221 Douglas W. Domenech

Secretary of Natural Resources

Kathleen S. Kilpatrick

Director

Tel: (804) 367-2323

Fax: (804) 367-2391

TDD: (804) 367-2386

www.dhr.virginia.gov
Administrative Services

10 Courthouse Ave.

Petersburg, VA 23803

Tel: (804) 862-6416

Fax: (804) 862-6196

Capital Region Office

2801 Kensington Office

Richmond, VA 23221

Tel: (804) 367-2323

Fax: (804) 367-2391

Tidewater Region Office

14415 Old Courthouse Way 2nd

Floor

Newport News, VA 23608

Tel: (757) 886-2807

Fax: (757) 886-2808

Western Region Office

962 Kime Lane

Salem, VA 24153

Tel: (540) 387-5428

Fax: (540) 387-5446

Northern Region Office

5357 Main Street

PO Box 519

Stephens City, VA 22655

Tel: (540) 868-7031

Fax: (540) 868-7033

However, we can agree that implementation of the preferred alternative would not result in impairment to 

archaeological resources through implementation of the mitigation measures presented on page 91 and 92. 

Rocky Knob.Mileposts 166-174.

We have some concern about the effects of Alternative B as presented in the comparison of alternatives from 

upgrading the Gorge Trail System. There is a special cultural resource zone is Rockcastle Gorge where there 

are remnants of an abandoned mountain community. Alternative C proposes In proximity of the historic 

settlement sites, including the fire road, allow hiking only. We are not clear whether the upgrade proposed in 

Alternative B would be for a multi-use trail, rather than hiking only. On page 140 it is stated that Because this 

area can tolerate only little impact to historic structures, this special cultural resource zone would provide for 

long term beneficial impacts on historic structures through added protection. Discussion of impacts to historic 

structures here and elsewhere in the document is too narrowly focused on structures that make up the parkway. 

Impacts to buildings, such as the CCC- era cabin and the Rock Castle Gorge Mountain Community must also 

be considered. Upgrading the trail does have the potential to affect historic buildings and the cultural 

landscape. We understand that the cultural landscape report for Rocky Knob is incomplete. No draft has yet 

been submitted to DHR. DHR has also not received the ethnographic overview and assessment scheduled for 

approval in 2011(p. 227). Consequently we do not know the status or condition of the buildings remaining in 

the special cultural resource zone. Nonetheless, the mitigation measures presented on pages 91 and 92 should 

serve to address the effects that may occur. 

We apologize for the delay in our response and look forward to working with you on future projects as 

Alternative B is implemented. If you have any questions, or if we may provide any further assistance, please 

do not hesitate to contact me at (804) 367-2323, ext. 112; fax (804) 367-2391; e-mail 

ethel.eaton@dhr.virginia.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Ethel R. Eaton, Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst 

Division of Resource Services and Review 
North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety 

Division of Emergency Management 

Office ofGeospatial and Technology Management 

Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor 

Reuben F. Young, Secretary 

H. Douglas Hoell, Jr., Director 

Mail: 

State Clearinghouse 

N.C. Department of Administration 

1301 Mail Service Center 

Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1301 

November 15,2011 

Subject: Intergovernmental Review State Number: 12-E-0000-0094 

Blue Ridge Parkway Management and Use Plan Draft EIS 

As requested by the North Carolina State Clearinghouse, the North Carolina Department of 

Crime Control and Public Safety Division of Emergency Management Office of Geospatial 

and Technology Management (GTM) reviewed the proposed Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement listed above and offer the following comments: 

1) The following guidance is offered for any project, maintenance, or improvement 

activities that could impact the base floodplains or special flood hazard areas within 

and along the Blue Ridge Parkway. 

2) Executive Order 11988 (EO 11988) requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent 

possible the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and 

modification of flood plains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain 

development wherever there is a practicable alternative. In accomplishing this 

objective, each agency shall provide leadership and shall take action to reduce the risk 

of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, 

and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by flood plains in 

carrying out its responsibilities for the following actions: 

a. Acquiring, managing, and disposing of federal lands and facilities; 

b. Providing federally-undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and 

improvements; and 

c. Conducting federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but 

not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulation, and 

licensing activities. 

4 719 Mail Service Center 

Raleigh, NC 27699-4719 

Telephone: 919-715·5711 A Location: 

1812 Tillery Place. Suite 105 

Raleigh, NC 27604 

Fax: 919-715·0408 

www.NCCrimeControl.org 

--

A Nationally Accredited Agency 

An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer 
Page 2 of2 

November 15, 2011 

3) As part of the decision-making process for actions which could impact floodplains, the 

following eight steps are required under Section 2(a) of EO 11988: 

a. Determine if an action is in the base floodplain; 

b. Conduct early public review, including public notice; 

c. Identify and evaluate practicable alternatives to locating in the base floodplain, 

including alterative sites outside of the floodplain; 

d. Identify impacts of the proposed action; 

e. If impacts cannot be avoided, develop measures to mitigate unavoidable 

impacts and restore and preserve the floodplain, as appropriate; 

f. Reevaluate alternatives; 

g. Present findings and a public explanation; and 

h. Implement the action. 

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have any questions concerning the 

above comments, please contact Dan Brubaker, P.E., CFM, the NC NFIP Engineer at (919) 

715-5711 ext. 110, by email at dbrubaker@ncem.org or at the address shown on the footer of 

this document. 

s~LD~ 

Kenneth W. Ashe, P.E., CFM 

Assistant Director 

c: John Gerber, NFIP State Coordinator 

Dan Brubaker, NFIP Engineer 

Location: 1812 Tillery Place, Suite I 05 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • (919) 715-5711 

An Equal Opportunity/ Aff1111lative Action Employer 
AVA 

NCDENR 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs 

Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor Linda Pearsall, Director Dee Freeman, Secretary 

Superintendent Philip A. Francis, Jr. 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

199 Hemphill Knob Road 

Asheville, NC 28803 

Dear Superintendent Francis, 

December 16, 2011 

The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft 

General Management Plan for the Blue Ridge Parkway. NHP endorses Alternative C because of its prioritization to take a 

more ecosystem-based approach to managing the Park's natural resources, its lower tolerance towards impacts on 

natural resources, its more comprehensive, Parkway-wide, and regional management of invasive species, and its 

emphasis for NPS staff to proactively seek out willing sellers of high priority private parcels in the region. Additionally, 

NHP strongly supports and encourages targeting parcels of high biological diversity and conservation value. Alternative 

C also fully protects threatened and endangered species and all designated natural heritage areas, globally ranked 

natural communities, and other ecological ly sensitive areas that support special status species within the Parkway. 

The NC Natural Heritage Program holds Registry Agreements with the National Park Service on Significant Natural 

Heritage Areas (SNHAs) within the Blue Ridge Parkway in areas of especially high conservation. value. The objectives of 

the Registry Agreements are to establish reserves for rare species, encourage educational activities and scientific 

research, preserve unique and unusual natural features, and protect natural areas against uses which would destroy 

their natural conditions. NHP recommends recognition of the Registry Agreements in the section of the General 

Management Plan entitled "Special Mandates and Administrative Commitments" in Chapter 1 and also in the Natural 

Resources Protection section. 

There are a total of 42 Registered Natural Heritage Areas (RHAs) within the Blue Ridge Parkway. Six out of the fifteen 

recreation areas described in detail in this Plan have Registered Natural Heritage Areas within them. These sites include 

the Linville Falls RHA, The Craggies RHA, Mount Pisgah RHA, Julian Price Park Wetland RHA, Doughten Park RHA, and 

Chestnut Creek Swamp Forest-Bog Complex RHA, which occu rs within the Cumberland Knob recreation area. NHP 

requests that strategies for these recreation areas be consistent with the Registry Agreements in order to minimize 

impacts to these sensitive areas. Ideally, the Registered Natural Heritage Areas would be designated as Special Natural 

Resource Areas in the Parkway. At a minimum, new trails or proposed recreation areas should be designed in a way that 

avoids rare species populations and sensitive habitats to prevent trampling and deter poaching activity. 

The Blue Ridge Parkway plays a very significant role in landscape and species habitat connectivity across multiple states 

in the Southern Appalachians. In the Asheville area, the Parkway contains one of the last remaining strands of natural 

habitat connecting the northern and southern mountains of North Carolina. This is shown in the attached map, which is 

based on NHP's Landscape Indicator Habitat Guild (LHIG) Analysis, our best estimate of where natural habitats still 

possess a high degree of landscape integrity. In addition to protecting individual natural areas located within the 

Pa rkway, we recommend that preserving and enhancing landscape connectivity along the entire length of the Parkway 

be given a high priority, At the 1-40 crossing shown on the map, for instance, construction of a wildlife overpass adjacent 

1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 

Phone: 919-715-4195 I FAX: 919-715-3060 Internet: www.oneNCNaturally.org 

OnehC l. Nort aro tna 

An Equal Opportunity\ Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper Natural! !I 
to the existing bridge would greatly increase the connectivity value of this corridor. Enhancing the ability of species to 

move between the southern and northern mountains would improve the connectivity function provided by the Parkway. 

It would also address one of the Parkway's expressed goals to deal with the effects of climate change, i.e., to "restore 

key ecosystem features and processes, and protect cultural resources to increase their resilience to climate change" (p. 

99 of the General Management Plan). While enhancement of the wildlife crossing at 1-40 should be given a very high 

priority in this regard, other actions taken by the Parkway should also be viewed in terms of their positive or negative 

impacts on landscape connectivity, including land acquisition, siting of recreational facilities, traffic management, and 

bridge replacement. 

The General Management Plan includes a list the Threatened and Endangered Species that occur in the Blue Ridge 

Parkway. Please be aware that the North Carolina Plant Conservation Program (PCP} revised the NC Protected Plant List 

in December, 2010 and because of these recent changes NHP is providing an updated list of all NC protected plants that 

occur in the Parkway, attached with this letter. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me at (919} 707-8647 or laura.gadd@ncdenr.gov if you have any questions or need 

further information. 

Sincerely, 

Laura Gadd, Botanist 

NC Natural Heritage Program 

Enclosure 

1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 

Phone: 919-715-4195\ FAX: 919-715-3060 Internet: www.oneNCNaturally.org 

An Equal Opportunity I Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled I 10% Post Consumer Paper 

N~rth Carolina 

/Vatural/lf 
&if~ 

NCDENR 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

Division of Parks and Recreation 

Beverly Eaves Perdue. Governor Dee Freeman, Secretary 

November 23, 20 II 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: 

FROM: 

Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator 

Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs 

Amin Davis, Environmental Review Coordinator Q'):(J:r 

Division of Parks and Recreation 

Lewis Ledford. Director 

SUBJECT: Blue Ridge Parkway Draft General Management Plan & Environmental Impact Statement 

REFERENCE: Project No. 12-0094 

Dear Melba, 

The Nonh Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation (DPR) has reviewed the Draft General Management Plan (GMP) 

and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Blue Ridge Parkway which encompasses 469 miles through the 

Appalachian Mountains in Nonh Carolina and Virginia, DPR understands that the National Park Service (NPS) is 

soliciting input regarding this GMP/EIS per the NPS cover lener dated October 7, 2011 you provided us. 

DPR operates and manages the following State Parks that are adjacent to the Parkway: 1.) Grandfather Mountain State 

Park (GRMO), an approximately 2,500 acre tract of land that is bordered by the Parkway to the east; 2.) Mount Mitchell 

State Park (MOM I), an approximately 1,700 acre tract of land bordered by the Parkway to the south and west; and 3.) 

Stone Mountain State Park (STMO), an approximately 13,440 acre tract of land bordered by the Parkway to the 

nonhwest. After our preliminary review of the GMPIEIS, DPR respectfully requests that NPS planners conduct funher 

consultations with DPR staff in the earliest stages of project planning for any development proposed in the vicinity of 

DPR lands or interests. Specific comments received are listed below: 

• DPR have a voice in the concept of a user capacity strategy mentioned in the plan. This could affect visitor access 

to MOM! and the southeastern ponion of GRMO, 

• NPS continue to suppon access to MOM!. This has been an issue during periods of construction or repair 

projects. Some projects cannot avoid state park access issues, but we ask that this be given consideration when 

planning projects, 

1615 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 2i699-1615 

Phone: 919-733-4181 I FAX: 919-715-30851 Internet: www.ncparks.gov 

An Equal Cppe!'llllrt)' J Alfitn\.'ltive Adlon Emp/gyer · 50 % Rcc-Jdett 1 10 ~~~ Post Coosumer Pap.Jr 
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments for this Draft GMPIElS. If you need further information concerning 

these comments. please feel free to contact me. 

Anachments: Park Maps (3) 

Vicinity Map 

CC via email: Brian Strong, DPR Natural Resources & Planning Head 

Jon Blanchard, DPR Natural Resources Head 

Marshall Ellis, DPR Mountain Region Biologist 

Michael Schafale, NHP Community Ecologist 

Mike Edwards, STMO Acting Park Superintendent 

Rusty Bradley, MOM I Park Superintendent 

Sue McBean, GRMO Park Superintendent 

Sue Regier, DPR Land Protection Head 

Tom Jackson, West District Superintendent 

1615 Mail Service Center. Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1615 

Phone: 919-733-4181 I FAX; 919-715-3085 I Internet: www.ncpa£ks.gov 

An Equar C-pporrunccy r An'inT'.ilDve Acncn Emp!oyer, 50~.;, RQC'jOed \ 10% Posl consumer p~~r 
PEPC Project ID: 10419, Document ID: 43487 

Correspondence: 2502 

Author Information 

Keep Private: 

Name: 

Organization: 

Organization Type: 

Address: 

E-mail: 

No 

Gregory J. Thorpe 

NC Dept. of Transportation 

S - State Government 

1548 Mail Service Center 

(1000 Birch Ridge Drive) Raleigh, NC 27699 

Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 

USA 

gthorpe@ncdot.gov 

Correspondence Information 

Status: Reviewed 

Date Sent: 12/16/2011 

Number of Signatures: 1 

Contains Request(s): No 

Notes: 

Correspondence Text 

Topic Question 1: 

Park Correspondence Log: 

Date Received: 12/16/2011 

Form Letter: No 

Type: Web Form 

Please see detailed comments, below 

Topic Question 2: 

Please see detailed comments, below 

Topic Question 3: 

Please see detailed comments, below 

Comments: December 16, 2011 

Superintendent Philip A. Francis, Jr. 

National Park Service 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

199 Hemphill Knob Road 

Asheville, North Carolina 28803 

Reference: Draft General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the Blue Ridge 

Parkway 

Dear Superintendent Francis: 






































This is in response to your letter dated October 7, 2011 regarding the National Park Service's vision to 

reinvest in the Blue Ridge Parkway's future. We have reviewed the Draft General Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Blue Ridge Parkway which identified Alternative Bas the 

National Park Service's preferred management approach. NCDOT agrees with the selection of 

Alternative B. 

Based upon our review of the subject document, we offer the following comments and recommendations: 

The last twenty miles of the Blue Ridge Parkway (BRP) pass through land owned by the Eastern 

Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI). A Welcome Center is needed at the south entrance of the BRP. 

A Welcome Center in Cherokee would aid in visitor orientation of both the EBCI and the BRP. If 

requested by a local government, NCDOT could become involved through enhancement 

funding. 

Restoration of the visitor center at Cumberland Knob. The north entrance is a major access point 

for visitors. Restoration would aid in visitor orientation. 

The construction of nineteen grade separated structures is proposed under Alternative B. The 

locations of these structures were not identified within the Draft General Management Plan 

(GMP). 

The locations of proposed grade separations in urban areas without access to the BRP 

(to decrease commuter traffic) were not identified within the GMP. 

R-2596, widening of US 221 from NC 226 to NC 194 in Avery and McDowell Counties, is 

unfunded. 

U-3403, widening ofNC 191 from NC 280 to NC 112 in Buncombe County, has been deleted 

from the program. 

1-4700, widening ofl-26 in Buncombe and Henderson Counties, is unfunded. 

U-2801, widening of US 25A in Buncombe County, currently is unfunded. 

R-4751, US 19 improvements in Swain County, has been deleted from the program. 

R-2100, NC 16 improvements in Ashe County, has been deleted from the program. 

R-2811, NC 184 widening in Avery County, has been deleted from the program. 

R-5307, NC 184 improvements in Avery County, has been deleted from the program. 

R-2588, NC 191 improvements in Buncombe and Henderson counties, has been deleted from the 

program. 

Bicycle lanes should be considered between Cherokee (US 441) and Asheville (NC 191). 

Viewshed protection and land development may involve NCDOT during our Comprehensive 

Transportation Planning (CTP) and NEPA processes, and may include NCDOT review of 

subdivision roads. 

Air quality issues, both visual and environmental, are important to the BRP's basic function as a 

scenic roadway. Although much of the air pollution in the region is from power plants outside of 

the region, NCDOT may become involved in air quality issues through our CTP program and 

associated air quality modeling. 

How the NPS will determine whether or not local or regional roads should be allowed to intersect 

or cross the BRP was not addressed in the GMP. 

How the conversion of farmland to subdivisions with driveway access onto the BRP and 

associated access management issues were not addressed in the GMP. 

The GMP proposes to accomplish management of some non-recreationallocal and commuter 

traffic in areas where the BRP is used for other trip purposes by replacing at-grade crossings with 

new grade separated structures without access between the BRP and state roads. These proposed 

areas were not identified in the GMP. 




The GMP noted high recreational use mixed with commuter traffic in the Asheville area. The 

GMP proposed an assessment of the desirability of a side path to accommodate high bicycle 

demand in the Boone and Blowing Rock areas including the relocation of the Appalachian Trail 

and the Mountain to Sea Trail within the park. NCDOT may become involved in these issues 

through the CTP process, as well as through specific Bicycle/Pedestrian initiatives. 

The GMP proposes to seek designation of the BRP as a National Historic Landmark while 

continuing management as an eligible resource. Such designation could affect NCDOT road 

construction and improvement projects crossing and adjacent to the BRP. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft General Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Blue Ridge Parkway. Please contact me ifyou have any 

questions or you need additional information. I may be reached by telephone at 919-707-6000, or 

by email at gthorpe@ncdot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Original signed by: 

Gregory]. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager 

Project Development & Environmental Analysis Unit 

North Carolina Department of Transportation 

1548 Mail Service Center 

1000 Birch Ridge Drive 

Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 
~North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission § 

Gordon Myers, Executive Director 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator 

Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

FROM: Dave McHenry, Habitat Conservation Biologist-:;?~· 

DATE: 

SUBJECT: 

December 8, 20 II 

United States Department of Interior, National Park Service, Blue Ridge Parkway 

Draft General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

OLIA No. l:Z-0094 

Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) reviewed the United 

States Department oflnterior, National Park Service (NPS), Blue Ridge Parkway (BRP), Draft General 

Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Comments from the NCWRC on the plan are 

offered for your consideration under provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act ( 48 Stat. 40 l, 

as amended; 16 U.S.C. 66 I et seq.) and the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-I et 

seq., as amended; I NCAC-25). 

The NCWRC offers the following comments on the plan: 

I. We greatly value our long-standing collaboration with the BRP and look forward to continuing 

this relationship. We have worked with BRP staff over the years on coldwater management 

issues that range from native brook trout conservation to increased angling opportunities on BRP 

waters. In the end, this collaborative approach has been beneficial for the resources and anglers 

that utilize them. 

2. We support the two action alternatives (Band C) which involve "more proactive management of 

natural resources, incorporating long-term approaches, and advancing regional ecosystem health 

through active partnerships" rather than the no-action alternative which would address 

management needs on a case-by-case basis. There are numerous partners and conservation 

partnerships (e.g., Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture, Appalachian Landscape Conservation 

Mailing Address: Division of inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699·1721 

Telephone: (919) 707-0220 • Fax: (919) 707-0028 
NPS, BRP Management Plan Page2 December 8, 20 II 

Cooperative, Central Appalachian Spruce Restoration Initiative, NC and Southeast Goldenwinged warbler working groups, etc) for NPS efforts to integrate with, so the action alternatives 

would be the best directions to accomplish regional conservation goals. 

3. We recommend including a broader scope of habitat enhancement in the Craggies with a 

proactive ecosystem approach (consistent with alternatives 8 & C) while also recognizing the 

inherent, but not insurmountable, conflicts between management for balds species and forestdwelling species that will have to be evaluated by the NEPA process. Restoration of both balds 

and surrounding forest are needed and conservation measures can be designed to achieve both. 

For example, management of grassy bald and surrounding spruce/northem hardwood forest has 

been addressed recently in other parts of the Southem Appalachians (e.g., Roan Mtn./Roan Mtn. 

Stewardship Comminee). We recommend that the NPS (I) coordinate with NCWRC and US 

Fish and Wildlife Service to avoid negative impacts to Carolina northem flying squirrel (CNFS), 

pigmy salamander, northem saw whet owl, and other spruce-associates and (2) develop a spruce 

restoration plan/project for the Craggies to restore ecosystem function and processes for listed 

species and to offset any forest habitat lost to bald restoration. To emphasize the ecosystem 

approach, the NCWRC can provide guidance on associated species (in addition to listed or target 

species) benefiting from restoration of the grassy bald and restoration ofspruce-northem 

hardwood forest. There is currently momentum for analysis of spruce restoration needs in the 

Southem Appalachians that will include an evaluation of the Craggy Mountain region. 

4. Although we are supportive of both alternatives B&C because of similar natural resource 

guidelines, we do have some potential reservations with Altemative C if facility redesigns would 

increase the developed footprints and cause either (I) more loss of habitat to accommodate these 

facilities (especially if in T&E species habitat) or (2) increased disturbance to species that are 

sensitive to disturbance. Part 3 of the EIS specifies that facility expansions are not likely to 

impact CNFS or saw whet owl (see pg.s 325, 332), but that would require thorough evaluation of 

specific projects and development plans to verify that impacts would be avoided. 

The NCWRC appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the plan. Please call me at (828) 452-

0422 extension 24 if you would like to discuss these comments. 

Cc: 

C. Kelly, NCWRC 

J. Rash, NCWRC 
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources 

State H istoric Preservation Office 

Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor 

Linda A. Carusle, Secretary 

J effrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary 

March 26, 2009 

Park Superintendent 

199 Hemphill Knob Road 

Asheville, N C 28803 

Peter B. Sandbeck, \dmini~trator 

O ffice of t\rd u"es and History 

Oi n of Historical Resources 

David Brook, Director 

Re: General Management Plan for Blue Ridge Parkway, Multi County, ER 08-0886 

Dear Sir: 

We have received notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning the above project. We apologize for 

the delay in our response. 

As parkway planning progresses, we recommend that individual projects involving ground disturbance be 

submitted to our office for review. 

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR 

Part 800. 

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, 

please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/807-6579. In all future 

communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number. 

Sincerely, 

c;;eter 

~~~~ Sand beck 

cc: State Clearinghouse 

Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailiog Address: 461 7 Mail Service Ccntct, Raleigh NC 27699-4(>17 Telephooe/Fn: (919) 807·6570/807-6599 
1 

Superintendent Philip A. Francis, Jr. 16 December 2011 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

199 Hemphill Knob Road 

Asheville, NC 28803 

Dear Superintendent Francis, 

The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) would like to thank you for this 

opportunity to comment on the Blue Ridge Parkway’s Draft General Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement. Since our founding in 1919, NPCA has grown to represent 

more than 600,000 members and supporters through our DC headquarters and 23 regional and 

field offices, all working to "protect and enhance America's National Park System for present 

and future generations." Our members care deeply about the shared natural and cultural heritage 

that is preserved by the National Park Service on behalf of all Americans. 

Before offering a critique of certain details of the plan, we would like to note our belief that the 

Draft GMP is one of the most well written and well organized GMP documents that have been 

produced in the southeast region. The language is clear and concise and the maps, tables, and 

figures are well designed and helpful in deciphering what is necessarily a highly detailed plan for 

a unique and complex park. Having recognized the overall quality of the document, we would 

like now to address several issues that we believe deserve further attention. 

I. NPCA support for Alternative B 

NPCA supports the Park Service’s preferred Alternative B, which attempts to provide for 

reasonable outdoor recreational opportunities while preserving and enhancing the resources of 

the park. However, in choosing to increase the management emphasis on enhanced recreation, 

the language of the draft document may leave some readers with the impression that recreational 

access and use will take precedence over the protection of the Parkway’s natural and cultural 

resources. This impression can be eliminated by more directly stating the Park Service’s 

obligation under the Organic Act to protect the purpose of the parks... 

“...which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the 

wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such 

means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” 

In other words, even under preferred Alternative B, the protection of wildlife and the Parkway’s 

natural and cultural resources must take precedence over recreational access, and recreational use 

must leave the resource “unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations”. There are places 

in the draft document where this point is made, such as on page 113 where it states, “... alternative B places greater emphasis on enhancing outdoor recreational opportunities without 

degrading the park’s environment.” However, for the benefit of future managers, we feel that it 

is important that the final GMP clearly and repeatedly state, in stronger and more emphatic 

language, that the push for recreational improvements cannot override resource protection. Only 
2 

in this way will Alternative B be able to strike a true balance between resource preservation and 

recreational enhancement, while fulfilling the requirements of the Organic Act. 

NPCA also believes that it is important to stress that National Parks are not intended to support 

all types of recreation. Various other federal, state, local, and private recreation providers exist 

to share the demand for recreational opportunities and to provide for those types of recreation 

that generally do not belong in the National Parks, or that must be carefully limited. Again, the 

1916 NPS Organic Act emphasizes conservation for future generations and is substantially 

different from the organic laws of the US Forest Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Management, or any other federal agency. The 

NPS mission is also different from that of state park agencies, or of county or city park agencies. 

Together, these agencies provide for many forms of public recreation—but not all forms of 

recreation are appropriate in National Parks. 

NPCA supports a plan that promotes appropriate outdoor recreational opportunities, so long as 

such enhancements do not impair the resources and purpose of the park. We think that having 

this principle in the GMP will provide important guidance for future managers. 

NPCA supports the nomination of the Parkway as a National Historic Landmark. We believe 

that this designation will provide the National Park Service with a stronger basis and rationale 

for requesting funding for trail and road maintenance, and for funding to enhance appropriate 

recreational uses. NPCA understands that the Park Service faces serious challenges, both in 

garnering adequate operations and maintenance funding from Congress, and in managing 

multiple user groups, possessing differing goals, in such a way as to avoid potential conflicts. 

The Parkway will stand a better chance of increasing its funding base and addressing these needs 

under a National Historic Landmark designation. 

Furthermore, we recognize the Parkway’s efforts to support President Obama’s America’s Great 

Outdoors initiative and NPS Director Jon Jarvis’s Call to Action, both of which underscore the 

importance of outdoor recreation for the health and well-being of Americans. We believe that 

Alternative B does this by committing to “provide enhanced opportunities for dispersed outdoor 

recreation activities” and promising to “seek to... build stronger connections with adjacent 

communities” (p. 45). Alternative B also pledges to... “Actively pursue new partnerships with 

public and private entities to plan and implement joint ventures that support parkway goals” (p. 

48). Finally, NPCA supports the Parkway’s proposal to expand the visitor season from 6 to 9 

months as another means of broadening access for visitors and recreational users. 

II. Cumulative impacts of potential improvements to the 199 public secondary 

roads that cross the Parkway at-grade 

It is the belief of NPCA that the single most important issue, having the potential to radically 

alter the nature of the Parkway in the coming generation, is the determination and management 

of the cumulative impacts of improvements to the secondary roads that intersect the Parkway. 

According to a recent study by the UNC Charlotte Center for Applied Geographic Information 

Science (see http://renci.uncc.edu/nearly-570-increase-in-development-in-western-nc-mountains-
3 

since-1976/), since 1976, western North Carolina’s mountains have experienced a 42% increase 

in population and a 568% increase in land development. Though growth has temporarily slowed 

due to the economic downturn, the Parkway’s relationship to the regional transportation network 

is at a crossroads. The general management plan, if properly framed, can greatly assist the 

Parkway in preserving its integrity as a self-contained, scenic motorway separate and distinct 

from the regional highway system. Alternatively, a GMP that does not clearly address this 

problem could be ill-equipped to respond to, and may even foster, a process of sporadic and 

piecemeal road development that will, over time, trigger additional poorly conceived 

development and slowly transform the historic parkway into just another link in the regional 

transportation network, to be used by increasing numbers of non-Parkway visitors as a commuter 

traffic route. 

The GMP should more explicitly recognize that under the National Environmental Policy Act, 

the National Park Service is required to analyze cumulative impacts of secondary road 

improvements on Parkway resources. NPCA applauds the fact that all three plan alternatives 

continue the current “...moratorium on secondary road improvement projects, in both Virginia 

and North Carolina, until a comprehensive corridor access management plan and environmental 

impact statement are completed” (pages 44, 47, and 50, under Access and Circulation). In all 

three alternatives, NPCA suggests that the Park Service append clarifying language such as: 

“The National Environmental Policy Act mandates that NPS undertake such a planning process 

in order to properly and comprehensively assess the cumulative impacts of secondary road 

improvements to Parkway resources.” 

Similarly, on page 103 under Access Plans, the draft document states that NPS will... “Develop 

a comprehensive access management plan that defines locations and traffic control strategies for 

all driveway and secondary road access on the parkway, including locations for the potential 

replacement of at-grade crossings with new grade separation structures.” Again, NPCA urges 

the Park Service to append a statement similar to the following: “The National Environmental 

Policy Act mandates that NPS undertake such a planning process in order to properly and 

comprehensively assess the cumulative impacts of secondary road improvements to Parkway 

resources. The current moratorium on secondary road improvement projects cannot be lifted 

until the National Park Service can fulfill this mandate by completing a comprehensive access 

management study.” 

NPCA further believes that in addition to identifying locations for new grade separation 

structures, any comprehensive access management plan or transportation implementation plan 

must also answer the following questions: 1) Which secondary roads must remain at-grade, but 

can be left permanently unimproved? And 2) Which at-grade crossings could be closed or 

eliminated, possibly through roadway redesign and merger into off-Parkway frontage roads, or 

through conversion of automobile-centered roads to non-auto, multi-use trails? 

Additional places in the draft document where language can be strengthened in recognition that a 

comprehensive access management planning process is needed following the GMP, in order to 

fulfill the requirements of NEPA, are as follows. 

(p. iv) NPCA suggests that the following statement... 
4 

“Under alternative B, the parkway would be actively managed as a traditional, self-contained, 

scenic recreational driving experience and designed landscape.” 

might be enhanced by language similar to this... 

“Under alternative B, the parkway would be actively managed as a designed landscape and 

traditional, self-contained, controlled access, scenic recreational driving experience, separate and 

distinct from the regional transportation network.” 

(p. 8) We suggest that the following statement... 

The general management plan does not describe how particular programs or projects should be 

prioritized or implemented. Those decisions would be addressed during more detailed planning 

efforts associated with the development of future strategic and implementation plans. All future 

plans would tier from the approved general management plan and would be based on the goals, 

future conditions, and appropriate types of activities established in it. 

might be expanded to read something like this... 

The general management plan does not describe how particular programs or projects should be 

prioritized or implemented. Those decisions would be addressed during more detailed planning 

efforts associated with the development of future strategic and implementation plans. All future 

plans would tier from the approved general management plan and would be based on the goals, 

future conditions, and appropriate types of activities established in it. An example of such an 

implementation plan would be the comprehensive access management plan to assess cumulative 

impacts of secondary road improvement projects to Parkway resources, as required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act. The current moratorium on secondary road improvement 

projects cannot be lifted prior to the completion of this implementation plan. 

(p. 9) Under the section on Park Purpose, to add weight and to distinguish the Parkway from 

the regional road network, the list of bullet point purpose statements should draw from the 

language found on page 4 with a statement such as: 

• Provide, as a national rural roadway, the experience of a limited access road 

designed for pleasant motoring, a form of recreational driving free from 

commercial traffic. 

On a related note, the Parkway’s authorizing legislation, on p. 555-556, specifically provides 

that... “The Secretary of Agriculture is hereby authorized, with the concurrence of the Secretary 

of the Interior, to connect with the parkway such roads and trails as may be necessary for the 

protection, administration, or utilization of adjacent and nearby national forests and the resources 

thereof...” In this clause, Congress established the expectation of otherwise limited access. 

(p. 22) We believe that the following statement may be potentially misleading... 
5 

“Many of these (secondary roads intersecting the Parkway) are scheduled to be upgraded over 

the next several years.” 

NPCA suggests clearer and more specific language such as... 

“It can be expected that in the coming years a significant number of the secondary roads that 

intersect the Parkway could be subject to requests for road widening or upgrade. The 

authorization of any such requests will be subject to NPS jurisdiction, this general management 

plan, and the subsequent comprehensive access management plan assessing cumulative impacts, 

as required by NEPA.” 

(p. 24) NPCA commends the National Park Service for including a clear statement addressing 

climate change in the GMP, this statement should also include recognition of the Parkway’s 

unique role as a potential north-south migration corridor. The length and orientation of the 

Parkway may facilitate movement and adaptation that cannot reasonably happen otherwise and, 

therefore, provide a unique and valuable ecological service. 

(p. 25) Under the section Decision Points Arising From Issues, NPCA suggests that the 

following question... 

6. What criteria should the National Park Service use to determine whether or not and how 

secondary local and regional roads should be allowed to intersect or cross the parkway? 

be changed to read... 

6. What criteria should the National Park Service use to determine whether or not and how 

secondary local and regional roads should be allowed to intersect or cross the parkway, and how 

will the cumulative impacts from secondary road improvement projects be mitigated and 

managed? 

(pp. 476-482) NPCA believes that this section on Alternative B needs to reiterate the existence 

of the moratorium on secondary road improvement projects, the NEPA requirement, and express 

a greater sense of urgency regarding the importance of and need for a comprehensive access 

management plan. On page 481, for example, under Cumulative Effects, NPCA believes that the 

following statement is problematic. 

“As described for Alternative A, highway widening and roadway improvements planned near 

certain areas of the parkway would have a beneficial effect on traffic volumes and safety 

conditions. Resource protection activities occurring on surrounding lands would also help 

control development to a limited extent in specific areas” 

We suggest language similar to the following. 

“As described for Alternative A, requests for highway widening and roadway improvements 

intersecting the parkway are expected in the future. Some of these might have beneficial effects 

on traffic flow and safety conditions. However, they may also spur resource-impacting parkway 
6 

adjacent development and result in increased use of the parkway for non-visitor commuter 

transportation. The National Park Service is required under NEPA to assess the cumulative 

impacts of these road improvement projects and will do so through a comprehensive access 

management plan that will follow the GMP.” 

In conclusion, in an age of budget austerity the GMP will lay the groundwork and set the 

priorities for critical management decision for a generation to come. We hope that the problem 

of managing the cumulative impacts of secondary roads will be definitively addressed in the final 

GMP and that the resolution of this problem will be expressed as an urgent priority going 

forward. 

We are grateful for this opportunity to provide comments and appreciative of the hard work and 

dedication of the National Park Service in preserving the best examples of America’s natural and 

cultural heritage for future generations. We look forward to a GMP/FEIS that addresses and 

incorporates our concerns. 

Sincerely, 

Chris Watson 

Program Manager, Southeast Regional Office 

National Parks Conservation Association 

706 Walnut Street, Suite 200 

Knoxville, TN 37902 

(865) 329-2424, ext.24 

cwatson@npca.org 

To protect and preserve America's National Park System for present and future generations 
December 15,2011 

Superintendent Phillip A. Francis, Jr. 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

199 Hemphill Knob Road 

Asheville, NC 28803 

ROANOKE 

REGIONAL 

CHAMBER OF 

COMMERCE 

Re: Blue Ridge Parkway Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement 

Dear Superintendent Francis 

On behalf of the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce, I am writing to express our support 

for Alternative C of the proposed Blue Ridge Parkway Final Draft General Management 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. 

Access to outdoor amenities is a vital component of the Roanoke region's quality of life and a 

catalyst for economic development and tourism. Alternative C would further integrate the 

Parkway with our region's economy and existing outdoor recreational amenities. The Chamber 

believes that all reasonable steps to create a seamless connection between the Parkway and Mill 

Mountain Park through the Mill Mountain Spur and the Chestnut Ridge Loop to the Wood 

Thrush Trail and other trails in Mill Mountain Park should be given substantive consideration. In 

addition, the Chamber supports improvements to the Roanoke Mountain Campground to meet 

market demand for additional campsites in the Roanoke region. Permitting mountain biking on 

the Chestnut Ridge Loop Trail would stimulate additional interest in the campground. 

Based on their knowledge of the geographic proximity of the Parkway to the Roanoke Valley, 

the Chamber believes that local stakeholders are ideally suited to evaluate the network of "social 

trails" that are currently used by bicyclists, hikers, and equestrians to access the Parkway. Safe 

access to the Parkway that is adaptable to a diverse range of user activities is critical to the 

Roanoke region's ongoing efforts to develop its outdoor recreational amenities into a thriving 

economic driver. 

The Chamber appreciates the Parkway administration's on-going commitment to working with 

this region's users ofthe Parkway. 

Sincerely, 

President 

newva 

2 10 5. JEFFE:RSON STREET 

ROANOKE, VA 240 I I · I 702 

(540J 993-0700 

FA X (540 ) 983-07Z3 

ousiness@roanokecnamtJer.org 

WWW.ROANOKECHAM6ER.ORG 
~ountp of ~oanoke OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 

B. CLAYTON GOODMAN III 

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 

PO Box 29800, 5204 Bernard Drive 

Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 

December 15, 2011 

Superintendent Philip A. Francis, Jr. 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

199 Hemphill Knob Road 

Asheville, VA 28803 

TEL: (540) 772.2004 

FAX: (540) 561.2884 

Subject: Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for the Blue 

Ridge Parkway 

Dear Superintendent Francis: 

The County of Roanoke has completed its review of the Draft General Management 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (GMP) for the Blue Ridge Parkway. The Draft GMP 

is a long-range comprehensive plan that will manage growth and development of the Blue 

Ridge Parkway for the next 20 or more years. The Draft GMP provides for three alternative 

management approaches (generally outlined below) to determine the most appropriate way 

to manage park resources and visitor experiences. 

Alternative A Alternative 8 Alternative C · · 

• "No-action" 

• Consists of the 

existing parkway 

management and 

trends; 

• Serves as a basis for 

evaluating the other 

alternatives 

• NPS Preferred 

• Parkway would be 

actively managed as a 

traditional, selfcontained, scenic 

recreation driving 

experience and 

designed landscape 

• Enhance outdoor 

recreational 

opportunities and 

regional natural 

resource connectivity 

• Parkway management 

more integrated with 

regional resources and 

economy 

• Focus on enhancing 

parkway visitor 

services 

• More emphasis on 

community outreach 

• Linking regional 

natural, recreational, 

and cultural heritage 

resources and 

experiences 

As the Draft GMP provides over-arching, long-range strategies, as opposed to the inclusion 

of specific details for implementation, the County has a particular concern with the reference 

in Alternative B to "actively manage [the Parkway) as a traditional, self-contained, scenic 

recreational driving experience ... ". While Alternative B indicates 
Letter to Superintendent Francis 

December 15, 2011 

Page2 

support of enhanced opportunities for dispersed outdoor recreation activities, 

Alternative C has more emphasis on reaching out to communities along the Blue Ridge 

Parkway. Alternative B appears to focus on promoting the driving experience with less 

emphasis on the bicycle and pedestrian amenities. It is important that connections 

between our parks and trails be promoted for expanded use of the Blue Ridge Parkway 

for outdoor recreational purposes. 

In particular, the County is very supportive of the development of multi-use trails for 

hiking, biking and equestrian use. As outlined in the County's comments for the 

Roanoke Valley/Blue Ridge Parkway Trail Plan (enclosed and included as part of the 

County's comments), volunteer trail development and re-establishment of maintenance 

agreements are encouraged to connect the Blue Ridge Parkway to the Roanoke Valley 

Greenway system through an adaptive management approach of trail resources. The 

following modifications to Alternative C of the Roanoke Valley/Blue Ridge Parkway 

Trail Plan were recommended by the County in support of the development of bicycle 

and pedestrian connections between the Blue Ridge Parkway and the Roanoke 

Valley's regional trail system: 

• Provide extension of the Roanoke River Greenway along the Roanoke River from 

the Parkway to Explore Park; exact route to be determined upon coordination with 

the Parkway, Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RVRA), Explore Park/VRFA, 

and Roanoke County; 

• Unauthorized social trails remain open until such time that resources are available 

to provide alternative access points for the citizens in our communities; 

• Include one-year pilot project to evaluate shared use of the Chestnut Ridge Loop 

for hikers, equestrians, and mountain bikers; and 

• Acknowledge the need for a trail crossing (bridge) at the Roanoke River; and 

• Explore additional options for access and crossings at Rutrough Road, as current 

location shown on maps has limited sight distance. 

From an economic development and tourism perspective, the Blue Ridge Parkway 

serves as a catalyst for drawing visitors to the Roanoke Valley. The County supports 

improvement of regional visitor information and service facilities (i.e. Virginia's Explore 

Park) and interpretive programs for the Roanoke area. The County is also working with 

citizen groups such as the Bent Mountain Community to promote activities which 

hopefully will provide connection to the Parkway visitors experience when traveling the 

Roanoke Valley section of the Parkway. The Virginia Outdoors Plan identifies the need 

for more campsites in our region. The County supports improvements to the Roanoke 

Mountain Campground to better accommodate varying user interests. Including 

campgrounds along the Parkway into the Blue Ridge Parkway Concessions 

Management Plan should be considered as the upgrade costs outlined in the Draft 

GMP are significant. 
Letter to Superintendent Francis 

December 15, 2011 

Page 3 

Regarding transportation improvements, the County supports the redesign of overlook 

pullouts to enhance visibility to passing motorists. The County is opposed to the 

replacement of any existing entrances with grade separated crossings that would restrict 

access to the Blue Ridge Parkway. The County is also opposed to the moratorium on 

secondary road improvement projects until a comprehensive corridor access 

management plan and environmental impact statement are completed since no time 

frame is provided for when this would be completed in the Draft GMP. The County does 

support the consideration of extending mass transit connections and shuttle systems to 

provide alternative transportation to parkway visitor facilities. 

In summary, the County supports "Alternative C" of the Draft GMP, which is more 

comprehensive in providing integration with the region's economic, natural, recreational, 

cultural and historical resources, with inclusion of modifications recommended by the 

County in response to the Roanoke Valley/Blue Ridge Parkway Trail Plan. 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft General Management 

Plan I Environmental Impact Statement for the Blue Ridge Parkway. We appreciate the 

hard work and dedication you have demonstrated in the preparation of this plan. If you 

have any questions, please contact me or Philip Thompson at (540) 772-2068 x365 or 

pthompson@roanokecou ntyva .gov. 

Enclosure 

Sincerely, 

Cl ~~ 

B. Clayton Goodman, Ill 

County Administrator 

Copy: Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 

Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development 

Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning, Community Development 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION4 

SAMNUNN 

ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 

61 FORSYTH STREET 

ATLANTA GEORGIA 30303-8960 

Superintendent Philip A. Francis, Jr. 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

199 Hemphill Knob Road 

Asheville, NC 28803 

December 6, 20 II 

RE: Draft General Management Plan /Environmental Impact Statement Blue Ridge 

Parkway Virginia and North Carolina 

CEQ Number: 20110334 

Dear Mr. Francis: 

Pursuant to Section l 02(2)(C) of the National Environmental Pohcy Act (NEPA) and 

Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 

reviewed the subject Draft General Management Plan /Environmental Impact Statement Blue 

Ridge Parkway Virginia and North Carolina. This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 

was reviewed by EPA Region 3 (Virginia) and EPA Region 4 (North Carolina). 

General management plans are intended to be long-term documents that establish and 

articulate a management philosophy and framework for decision making and problem solving in 

units of the national park system. General management plans usually provide guidance during a 

15- to 20-year period. 

This Draft General Management Plan /Environmental Impact Statement presents three 

alternatives for the future management of the Blue Ridge Parkway. The alternatives, which are 

based on the parkway's purpose, significance, and special mandates, present different ways to 

manage resources and visitor use and improve facilities and infrastructure. The three alternatives 

are the no-action alternative (continue current management), alternative 8 , and alternative C. 

Alternative B has been identified as the National Park Service's preferred alternative. 

ALTERNATIVE A: THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE (CONTINUE CURRENT 

MANAGEMENT) 

The no-action alternative consists of a continuation of existing management and trends at 

the parkway and provides a baseline for comparison in evaluating the changes and impacts of the 

other alternatives. The National Park Service would continue to manage the parkway as it is 

currently being managed, but there is not a comprehensive parkway-wide resource and visitor 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer) 
use management direction for setting priorities. Resource and visitor use issues and conflicts 

would continue to be reso[ved oh a case-by-case basis without the guidance o~· an agreed upon 

parkway-wide management strategy. 

ALTERNATIVE B (NATIONAL PARK SERVICE PREFERRED) 

Under alternative B, the paJkway would be actively managed as a traditional, self 

contained, scenic recreational driving experience and designed landscape. To :5upport that 

experience, many of the parkway's recreation areas would provide enhanced opportunities for 

dispersed outdoor recreation activities. This alternative would provide a comprehensive 

parkway-wide approach to resource and visitor use management. Specific management zones 

detailing acceptable resource conditions, visitor experience and use levels, and appropriate 

activities and development would be applied to parkway lands consistent with this concept. This 

alternative would also seek to enhance resource protection, regional natural re;;ource 

connectivity, and build stronger connections with adjacent communities. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Under alternative C, parkway management would be more integrated with the larger 

region's resources and economy. More emphasis would be placed on reaching out to 

communities and linking to regional natural, recreational, and cultural heritage resources and 

experiences. The parkway would continue to be managed to retain the fundamental character of 

the traditional designed landscape and scenic driving experience. However, a variety of more 

modem recreational and visitor service amenities would be provided, primarily concentrated in 

visitor services areas. As a result, portions of some recreation areas would be redesigned. 

EPA's COMMENTS and RECOMMENDATIONS 

General Comments 

Parkway Biodiversity: 

The 469-mile Blue Ridge Parkway has about 400 road crossings, each one a pathway for 

exotics. The parkway is home to nine federaliy listed species and 14 species df federal concern. 

Its flora includes more than 2,000 species of vascular plants, 400 mosses and more than 100 

kinds oftrees. It supports more than 2,000 types of fungi, as well as 67 mammal, 93 fish, 43 

amphibian, 40 reptile and 227 bird species. Along its 4 70-mile length, it intersects 15 

watersheds. It contains 600 miles of streams, more than 150 wetlands and bogs and more than 

300 seeps. Sixteen of its peaks rise above 5,000 feet, and it bisects six of 11 major sites 

supporting southern Appalachian spruce-fir forests. Sometimes-abrupt e]evation changes occur 

regularly as the parkway climbs toward summits winds through gaps and descends to cross the 

James, Roanoke, Linville and French Broad rivers. Overall, its elevation ranges from 600 to 

6,000 feet. 
Threats to Blue Ridge Parkway biodiversity: 

1. Exotic plants and forest pests. The parkway cannot handle all threats posed by exotic plants 

(among the worst problems: oriental bittersweet, microstegium, Chinese yam, coltsfoot, Japanese 

spirea, honeysuckle and wisteria, tree ofheaven, princess tree, garlic mustard and kudzu), so it 

developed an exotic-plant management plan five or six years ago that established high-elevation 

sites and wetlands as top priority areas for fighting invasives. Forest pests the parkway is fighting 

include the hemlock woolly adelgid and gypsy moth. 

Controlling invasive species is accomplished using a variety of methods: the use of 

herbicides, mechanical controls, physical control, such as fire, biological controls by the 

intentional introduction melaleuca-damaging beetlesand and public awareness. Herbicides, 

however, are generally are non-selective in inhibiting plant growth. Control methods most 

appropriate for widely differing park habitats need to be determined by NPS scientific staff, who 

must balance the protection of native plants/wildlife with exotic plant control objectives. 

There is discomfort among some members of the public who harbor concerns over 

herbicides having unforeseen consequences adversely impacting park ecosystems and ultimately 

human health. These concerns include herbicide movement in soils, persistence in 

ground/surface waters, long-term ecological effects on non-target species such as fish, birds, 

mammals, and target plant species becoming resistant to herbicides. 

EPA supports the use of registered herbicides if they are properly applied by licensed 

applicators, because there does not appear to be any cost-effective alternatives for controlling the 

spread of invasive exotic plant infestations. Infested sites are often situated in remote areas 

making mechanical removal impractical because of access difficulties. Keeping abreast of 

treatment frequencies, vulnerabilities of pest species, protection for threatened and endangered 

species residing at hundreds of differing locales, clearly require sophisticated management tools. 

Integrated management techniques including herbicides, mechanical removal, fire, biological 

controls, need to be coordinated through the use of G IS-based management tools to ensure that 

invasive species control is achievable for the long term. 

EPA recommends an integrated pest management approach be developed using products 

with a low toxicity profile in sensitive ecosystems, since studies done in labs and under 

controlled conditions cannot always predict the effects on particularly sensitive individuals, biota 

or ecosystems. Successful eradication measures and other Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

should be clearly identified in the FEIS with emphasis on the construction of new trails and 

parking facilities. 

2. Trampling by visitors and poaching. Unfortunately visitors right walk out on the edges of rock 

ledges, which is where many of our rare species occur. Trampling also occurs along trails. 

3. Land development along the parkway. In some areas, adjacent landowners are bushwhacking 

to reach parkway trails, which provide additional corridors for exotics to migrate onto parkway 

lands. Development is a view shed issue, but it also has the effect of squashing whatever is rare 

and exotic onto parkway land. 
4. Air pollution and global warming. Because it wasn't isted as a Class 1 air shed under the 

Clean Air Act, the parkway does not monitor air quality, although potentially air pollution and 

climate change could dwarf aU other issues. 

EPA recommends the final Management Plan include significant monitoring activities to 

ensure that the increase in hardened access areas and likely subsequent increase in recreational 

and educational usage of the park do not negatively impact biodiversity, natural and cultural 

resources. 

Other general issues identified in DEIS: 

"In general, most motorcycle accidents occurred in the southern portions of the parkway where 

the roadway geometry is more varied, and most of the deer-related accidents occurred in the 

northern portions where the topography and land use creates more wildlife crossings. The most 

common area for deer related accidents is near Roanoke between milepost 104 and milepost 

128. Over 70% of the accidents in this 24-mile section ·were deer-related (DEA 2004) ". EPA 

recommends that NPS consider large mammal wildlife passages to address this safety concern. 

NPS should consult with NCWRC and USFWS on the design of appropriate wildlife passages. 

"Utility Operations is responsible for monitoring systems for water, sewer, electric, heating and 

cooling. The parkway currently maintains 45 individual potable ·water treatment systems, 94 

wastewater treatment units, and 118 HVAC systems. There are also three solar powered units, 

two of which support visitor services areas. lvfany of these systems have exceeded their maximum 

effective l({e of 15 years, therefore creating greater operational costs". EPA recommends 

replacement of failing systems and further exploration of more energy efficient "green" systems. 

In the spirit of collaboration and technical assistance the EPA recommends some sustainability 

concepts which could be considered in the final management plan. 

Green Building 

Green building is the practice of creating structures and using processes that are 

environmentally responsible and resource-efficient throughout a building's life-cycle from design 

to, construction, operation, maintenance, renovation and deconstruction. This practice expands 

and complements the classical building design concerns of economy, utility, durability, and 

comfort. Green building is also known as a sustainable or high performance building. 

Green buildings are designed to reduce the overall impact of the built environment on 

human health and the natural environment by: 

-Efficiently using energy, water, and other resources 

- Protecting occupant health and improving employee productivity 

- Reducing waste, pollution and environmental debrradation 

For example, green buildings may incorporate sustainable materials in their construction 
(e.g., reused, recycled-content, or made from renewable resources); create healthy indoor 

environments with minimal pollutants (e.g., reduced product emissions); and/or feature 

landscaping that reduces water usage (e.g., by using native plants that survive without extra 

watering). 

In the United States, buildings account for: 

- 39 percent of total energy use 

- 12 percent of the total water consumption 

- 68 percent of total electricity consumption 

- 38 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions 

Potential benefits of green building can include: 

Environmental benefits 

Enhance and protect biodiversity and ecosystems 

Improve air and water quality 

Reduce waste streams 

Conserve and restore natural resources 

Economic benefits 

Reduce operating costs 

Create, expand, and shape markets for green product and services 

Improve occupant productivity 

Optimize life-cycle economic performance 

Social benefits 

Enhance occupant comfort and health 

Heighten aesthetic qualities 

Minimize strain on local infrastructure 

Green Parking 

Green parking refers to several techniques that when applied together reduce the 

contribution of parking lots to total impervious cover. From a storm water perspective, green 

parking techniques applied in the right combination can dramatically reduce impervious cover 

and, consequently, reduce the amount of storm water runoff. Green parking lot techniques 

include: setting minimums of permanent parking spaces; minimizing the dimensions of parking 

lot spaces; utilizing alternative pavers in overflow parking areas; using bioretention areas to treat 

storm water; encouraging shared parking. 

Green parking lots can dramatically reduce the creation of new impervious cover. How 

much is reduced depends on the combination of techniques used to achieve the greenest parking. 

While the pollutant removal rates ofbioretention areas have not been directly measured, their 

capability is considered comparable to a dry swale, which removes 91 percent of total suspended 
solids, 67 percent of total phosphorous, 92 percent of total nitrogen, and 80-90 percent of metals 

(Claytor and Schueler, 1996). 

North Carolina's Fort Bragg vehicle ma~ntenance facility parking lot is an excellent 

example of the benefits of rethinking parking tot design (NRDC, 1999). The redesign 

incorporated stonn water management features, such as detention basins located within grassed 

islands, and an onsite dra nage system that exploited existing sandy soils. The redesign reduced 

impervious cover by 40 percent, increased parking by 20 percent, and saved 20 percent or $1.6 

million on construction costs over the original, conventional design. 

Briefly three other sustainable activities which may applicable to the Park Service's 

general management plan are as follows: 

o Green Detention Ponds 

o Rain Water Harvesting 

o Rain Gardens 

"Under alternative B, 10,139 acres (12.3%) of parkway lands would be zoned recreation in 

order to enhance outdoor recreational opportunities for visitors. Expanding or improving 

amenities and services within this zone would attract more visitors to less accessible areas of the 

parkvvay, increasing the likelihood of adverse impacts on threatened and endangered species. 

However, management prescriptions under the recreation zone state that any additional 

developments or use would be adapted as needed to protect threatened and endangered species" 

EPA recommends earlier and greater coordination with USFWS to avoid potential future 

conflicts under the Endangered Species Act. 

Specific Comments 

Page 5 of the DEIS indicates that there are 9 Federally-listed threatened & endangered 

species (animals); 24 plants globally rare; 7 considered globally imperiled. Page 10 of the DEIS 

indicates there are 8 Federally-listed species. Page 23 indicates 4 rare and endangered animal 

species and 25 rare and endangered plant species. Page 199 includes 7 Federally-listed 

threatened and endangered animal species and 5 Federally-listed threatened and endangered 

plant species. EPA recommends these sections need to be clarified and better defined in FEIS. 

The DEIS indicates that the Moses H. Cone Estate Developed Area Management Plan is 

expected to be issued by NPS as a separate document in the Fall of2011. EPA requests a copy 

for review. 

Page 13 mentions the Roanoke River Parkway and the potential Explore Park in VA. 

EPA recommends that these projects be discussed further in the cumulative impact section to 

address issues such as potential secondary development. 

Page 27 of the DEIS identifies the Wilson Creek Comprehensive River Management 

Plan. In this plan, riverbanks should remain largely undeveloped, "but may be accessible in 
places by roads". EPA recommends that to the greatest extent practicable, new roads should 

not be placed in riparian areas to creeks and rivers designated as Wild and Scenic. 

Page 38 of the DEIS identifies the development of a multi-use trail parallel to but 

separate from the parkway in the Boone/Blowing Rock area (Segment 4) as part of the Preferred 

Alternative B. The existing habitat and proposed length and width of the paved trail is not 

specified in the DEIS. 

Page 83 indicates that under Alternative B the picnic area will be relocated out of the 

floodplain and the current site restored. EPA supports this option under Alternative B. 

Page 84 indicates that trails will be possibly 'paved'. Further justification for recreational 

use requiring paved trails needs to be provided in the FEIS. 

The DEIS identifies numerous locations under Alternative B that will include new water 

and electrical hook-ups for RVs. EPA recommends that NPS strongly consider solar-powered 

or other "green energy sources". 

Page 89 This section is vague regarding the activities listed. EPA recommends the 

activities be listed in the FEIS. 

Page 90 of the DEIS indicates that endangered species surveys will be conducted "as 

warranted". EPA recommends that NPS consult with the USFWS on the frequency required for 

surveys prior to the commencement of construction activities. 

Page 90 of the DEIS includes information on Water Resources. EPA recommends 

stringent water quality BMPs, including geo-tech fabric, coconut fiber matting, and potentially 

Polyacrylamide (PAM) near steep slopes to help prevent off-site soil erosion and sedimentation 

into creeks, rivers and other water bodies. 

Concerning the comments on Page 91, EPA recommends that the USACE be contacted 

by the NPS to assist in the Section 404 wetland jurisdictional delineations. 

Page 91 of the DEIS discusses soils and other geological information along the BRP. 

This section does not include any discussion of identification of acid-bearing rocks, including 

pyritic shale and other high sulfur-bearing rocks. Acid drainage from exposed rock faces 

following construction can potentially cause long-term and significant environmental 

degradation to downstream waters. EPA recommends the FEIS identify known geologic 

formations that may present this long-term impact to waters of the U.S. 

Page 126 of the DEIS states: "Impacts on Federal and state listed species have not been 

analyzed in terms of parkway segments or recreation areas". EPA recommends direct and 

timely coordination with the USFWS on Federally-listed species, including detailed Section 7 

analysis for each segment of the BRP for the Preferred Alternative. 

Page 130 discusses Routine Dredging for James River/Otter Creek- EPA recommends 
that more information be provided. lt is unclear if the dredging is related to NPS activities. Can 

these impacts be avoided or minimized? 

Page 131 Peaks of Otter- the DEIS states that the management of developed area would 

result in long term adverse and local impacts to floodplain, riparian areas, wetlands and water 

quality. EPA recommends that more information be provided related to these impacts and 

avoidance and minimization measures be considered. 

Page 202 of the DEIS uses both meters and miles in the same paragraph. EPA 

recommends consistent units of measure should be employed. 

Page 207 of the DEIS indicates that there are counties in non-attainment with the Clean 

Air Act for ozone in both NC and VA. Alternative B encourages greater RV usage along the 

BRP. EPA recommends the NPS identify mitigative measures to reduce potential increased 

pollutant emissions (e.g., Solar powered electrical sources). 

Page 208: "Air pollution sources from within the parkway is also expected to continue to 

contribute to poor air quality, with the major contributor being motor vehicle emissions from 

visitors and commuters traveling the parfo,vay ". EPA recommends NPS should look to develop 

other options that reduce reliance on automobiles and that favor other forms of recreational 

transportation for visitors (i.e. Bicycles). 

Page 285 of the DEIS utilizes 2007 U.S. Census data. EPA recommends the NPS use 

more recent 2010 U.S., Census data. Future population and growth estimates based upon past 

growth trends may not be realistic considering economic conditions in western NC and VA. 

Pages 296 and page 314 - Cumulative impacts discussions are very vague. EPA 

recommends the FEIS should address all other activities in more detail and how these activites 

relate to the proposed project. This analysis should also include the extended visitor season, 

proposed upgrades, and potential secondary development. 

Page 329 indicates that poaching may increase with Alternative B, including providing 

greater accessibility to unique and rare habitats with new trails. EPA recommends the NPS 

should recommend appropriate mitigative strategies to off-set this potential illegal activity 

resulting from the Preferred Alternative. 

Page 565 includes a statement regarding 'possible ahernative transportation systems' 

including buses and shuttles to address impairment to air quality resulting from Alternative B. 

EPA does not understand how there will be a future use of buses and shuttles under the current 

Preferred Alternative. 

We rate this document LO (Lack of Objections). However, as noted above, additional 

information, data, analyses, or discussion should be included in the FEIS. 
We appreciate the opportunity to review the proposed action. Please contact Ken Clark 

of my staff at ( 404) 562- 8282 if you have any questions or want to discuss our comments 

further. 

Sincerely, 

_)JVJJJJL 

Heinz J. Mueller, Chief 

NEP A Program Office 

Office of Policy and Management 
Memorandum 

To: 

From: 

Subject: 

United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Ecological Services 

6669 Short Lane 

Gloucester, Virginia 23061 

HAY 11 2012 

Superintendent, Blue Ridge Parkway, Asheville, North Carolina 

(Attn: Suzette Moiling, Environmental Protection Specialist) 

Supervisor, Virginia Field Office, Gloucester, Virginia /J .ldi~ A ~ 

Blue Ridge Parkway Draft General Management Plan!E:z~:~n~l Impact 

Statement, Multiple Counties, Virginia and North Carolina 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service received your email on April4, 2012 requesting concurrence 

on the section 7 determinations in the Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Blue Ridge Parkway dated October 2011. The following comments are 

provided under provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 

Stat. 884), as amended, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190,42 U.S.C. 

4321-4347, 83 Stat. 852), as amended, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 

668-668c, 54 Stat. 250) as amended. 

We support your efforts to manage the park using a regional approach (Alternative B) and to 

identifY and prioritize land management activities more protective of threatened and endangered 

spectes. 

·Page 199, Table 22: The table is correct in stating the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) has 

been delisted under the Endangered Species Act. However, the bald eagle is still protected under 

the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. We recommend clarifYing this distinction in the 

table. 

We concur with your section 7 determinations for the species listed in Alternatives A, B, and C, 

in Tables 47, 48, and 49 on pages 326-334 ofthe Draft General Management Plan/Environmental 

Impact Statement. We have detemtined that no impacts to federally designated critical habitat 

will occur and no Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act permit is required. 

When individual projects contemplated in the General Management Plan are at the initial 

planning stage, use our online project review system to assist in the selection of specific site 

locations or in the design of project plans. Use of our online project review system will ensure 

the proposed project is compliant with the Endangered Species Act. This process allows the user 
to define work areas and identifY proposed and listed species and proposed and designated 

critical habitat that may occur in the area. The online project review process can be found at: 

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield!Project Reviews.html. 

In some instances, through use of the online project review process, a determination of"may 

adversely affect" will be made and formal consultation will be necessary. In those instances the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will conduct formal consultation with the National Park Service 

and issue a biological opinion for that particular project. 

2 

We have provided comments for the Virginia portion of the Blue Ridge Parkway. Please contact 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office in Asheville, North Carolina for comments on the 

portion of the Blue Ridge Parkway in North Carolina. If you have any questions for the Virginia 

portion of the Blue Ridge Parkway, please contact Sumalee Hoskin of this office at (804) 693-

6694, extension 128, or via email at sumalee _hoskin@fws.gov. 

cc: Service, Asheville, NC (Attn: Alan Ratzlaff) 

I 

I 
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA 

Douglas W. Domenech 

Secretary of Natural Resources 

Mr. Philip A. Francis, Jr. 

Superintendent 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Street address: 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219 

Mailing address: P.O. Box 1105, Richmond, Virginia 232 18 

TDD (804) 698-402 1 

www .deq. virginia.gov 

December 12, 2011 

199 Hemphill Knob Road 

Asheville, North Carolina 28803 

David K. Paylor 

Director 

(804) 698-4000 

1-800-592-5482 

RE: Draft General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, Blue Ridge 

Parkway (DEQ-11-172F) 

Dear Mr. Francis: 

The Commonwealth of Virginia has completed its review of the above-referenced draft 

environmental impact statement (EIS) and draft general management pl'an. The 

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is responsible for coordinating Virginia's 

review of federal environmental documents prepared pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and responding to appropriate federal officials on 

behalf of the Commonwealth. The following agencies and planning district comm1issions 

joined in this review: 

Department of Env,ironmental Quality 

Department of Game and lnl1

and Fisheries 

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

Department of Conservation and Recreation 

Department of Health 

Marine Resources Commission 

Department of Forestry 

Mount Rogers Planning District Commission 

Central Shenandoah Planning District Commission 

The Department of Transportation, Department of Historic Resources, Department of 

Mines, Minerals and Energy, Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional! Commission, West 
Draft EIS/Pian 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

DEQ#11-172F 

Piedmont Planning District Commission, Virginia Region 2000 Local Government 

Council, and Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission also were invited to 

comment. 

PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION 

According to the draft general management plan and EIS, the Blue Ridge Parkway, 

established in 1936 by an act of Congress, has been administered by the National Park 

Service (NPS) pursuant to a master plan and parkway land use maps as well as 

applicable laws and policies. A general management plan is now needed because the 

master plan is outdated, and because the parkway faces an increasing array of issues 

requiring guidance through an approved general management plan. Specifically, a 

general management plan is intended to: 

• Clearly define resource conditions and visitor experiences to be achieved; 

• Provide a framework for decision-making by 1\IPS managers on resource 

protection, visitor experience opportunities, managing visitor use, and what kinds 

of facilities are needed, if any, along the parkway; and 

• Ensure that this foundation is developed in consultation with interested 

stakeholders and adopted by NPS managers after adequate analysis of benefits, 

impacts, and costs of alternative courses of action. 

The associated draft EIS is mandated by 1\JEPA and its implementing regulations 

(40 CFR Parts 1500 through 1508). The EIS describes three alternatives: 

• Alternative A: No action (continue current management); or 

• Alternative 8: NPS-preferred alternative, combining newer law and policy 

requirements with the parkway concept developed in the parkway's first twenty 

years (1936-55), enhancing resource protection and connectivity, and building 

stronger connections with adjacent communities; or 

• Alternative C: Greater integration with regional resources and economy, including 

the establishment of management zones detailing acceptable resource 

conditions, visitor experience and use levels, and appropriate activities. 

Future Site-Specific Reviews 

Once the general management plan has been approved, additional feasibility studies 

and more detailed planning and environmental documentation would be completed, as 

appropriate, before any proposed actions can be carried out. The EIS states that the 

action alternatives are described in a general, conceptual nature, and the impacts of 

these actions are analyzed in general qualitative terms. If and when site-specific 

developments or other actions are proposed for implementation subsequent to this 

general management plan, appropriate detailed environmental and cultural compliance 

documentation would be prepared in accordance with 1\IEPA and National Historic 

Preservation Act requirements. DEQ will coordinate future site-specific environmental 

documents when they become available. 

2 
Draft EIS/Pian 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

DEQ # 11-172F 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 

1. Water Quality and Wetlands. The EIS (pages 204 and 205) describes water 

resources, including wetlands, on parkway lands. The EIS (page 349) states that the 

preferred alternative's contribution to cumulative impacts would be small for adverse 

effects and considerable for beneficial effects. The adverse impacts would result from 

increased areas of recreational resources, new visitor amenities and trail development 

near wetlands. The beneficial impacts would result from expanded land protection 

strategies, restoration of water-related resources and closing or relocating visitor 

amenities away from sensitive areas. 

1(a) Agency Jurisdiction. The State Water Control Board promulgates Virginia's water 

regulations, covering a variety of permits to include Virginia Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System Permit (VPDES), Virginia Pollution Abatement Permit, Surface and 

Groundwater Withdrawal Permit, and the Virginia Water Protection (VWP) Permit. The 

VWP Permit is a state permit which governs wetlands, surface water and surface water 

withdrawals/impoundments. It also serves as§ 401 certification of the federal Clean 

Water Act§ 404 permits for dredge and fill activities in waters of the United States. The 

VWP Permit Program is under the Office of Wetlands and Water Protection and 

Compliance within the DEQ Division of Water Quality Programs. In addition to central 

office staff who review and issue VWP Permits for transportation and water withdrawal 

projects, the six DEQ regional offices perform permit application reviews and issue 

permits for the covered activities. 

1(c) Agency Recommendations. The following recommendations may be useful in 

planning site-specific projects. In general, DEQ recommends that stream and wetland 

impacts be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. To minimize unavoidable 

impacts to wetlands and waterways when planning for land-disturbing activities, DEQ 

recommends the following practices: 

• Operate machinery and construction vehicles outside of stream-beds and 

wetlands; use synthetic mats when in-stream work is unavoidable. 

• Preserve the top 12 inches of material removed from wetlands for use as wetland 

seed and root-stock in the excavated area. 

• Design erosion and sedimentation controls in accordance with the most current 

edition of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. These controls 

should be in place prior to clearing and grading, and maintained in good working 

order to minimize impacts to state waters. The controls should remain in place 

until the area is stabilized. 

• Place heavy equipment, located in temporarily 1

impacted wetland areas, on mats, 

geotextile fabric, or use other suitable measures to minimize soil disturbance, to 

the maximum extent practicable. 

• Restore all temporarily disturbed wetland areas to pre-construction conditions 

and plant or seed with appropriate wetlands vegetation in accordance with the 

cover type (emergent, scrub-shrub or forested). The applicant should take all 

3 
Draft EIS/Pian 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

DE0#11-172F 

appropriate measures to promote revegetation of these areas. Stabilization and 

restoration efforts should occur immedi!ately after the temporary disturbance of 

each wetland area instead of waiting until the entire project has been completed. 

• Place all materials which are temporarily stockplled in wetlands, designated for 

use for the immediate stabilization of wetlands, on mats or geotextile fabric in 

order to prevent entry in state waters. These materials should be managed in a 

manner that prevents leachates from entering state waters and must be entirely 

removed within thirty days following completion of that construction activity. The 

disturbed areas should be returned to their original contours, stabilized within 

thirty days following removal of the stockpile, and restored to the original 

vegetated state. 

• Clearly flag all non-impacted surface waters within the project or right-of-way 

limits that are within 50 feet of any clearing, grading or fiJiing activities and mark 

them for the life of the construction activity within that area. The project 

proponent should notify all contractors that these marked areas are surface 

waters where no activities are to occur. 

• Employ measures to prevent spills of fuels or lubricants into state waters. 

1(d) Requirement. The disturbance of surface waters or wetlands may require prior 

approval by DEQ and/or the Corps. 

2. Subaqueous Lands. 

2(a) Agency Jurisdiction. The Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) 

regulates encroacl"lments in, on or over state-owned subaqueous beds as well as tidal 

wetlands pursuant to§ 28.2-1200 through 1400 of the Code of Virginia. 

The VMRC serves as the clearinghouse for the Joint Permit Application (JPA) used by 

the: 

• Corps for issuing permits pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and 

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act; 

• DEQ for issuance of a VWP permit; 

• VMRC for encroachments on or over state-owned subaqueous beds as well as 

tidal wetlands; and 

• local wetlands board for impacts to wetlands. 

The VMRC will distribute the completed JPA to the appropriate agencies. Each agency 

will conduct its review and respond. 

2(b) Agency Comments. For planning activities in Virginia, any jurisdictional impacts 

and permitting will be reviewed by VMRC during the JPA process. Pursuant to Section 

28.2-1200 et seq. of the Code of Virginia, VMRC has jurisdiction over any 

encroachments in, on or over the beds of the bays, ocean, rivers, streams or creeks 

which are the property of the Commonwealth. Accordingly, if any portion of future 

projects involve any encroachments channelward of ordinary high water along natural 

4 
Draft EIS/Pian 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

DEQ#11-172F 

rivers and streams above the fall line or mean low water below the fall line, a permit 

may be required from VMRC. 

3. Erosion and Sediment Control, and Stormwater Management. 

3(a) Agency Jurisdiction. The Department of Conservation and Recreation (OCR) 

Division of Stormwater Management administers the Virginia Erosion and Sediment 

Control Law and Regulations (VESCL&R) and Virginia Stormwater Management Law 

and Regulations (VSWML&R). 

3(b) Recommendations. 

• For projects that are proposed in the approved plan which involve land 

disturbance, NPS must ensure that future site-specific projects are in accordance 

with the following laws and regulations, as applicable: 

o Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law§ 1 0.1-563.0 ; 

o Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations §4VAC50-30-30 and 

§4VAC50-30-40; 

o Virginia Stormwater Act§ 10.1-603.1 et seq.; 

o Virginia Stormwater Management Program Permit Regulations §4VAC50 et 

seq. 

• Site-specific environmental documents should adequately describe site 

conditions, potential impacts, protection and mitigation methods, permitting and 

regulatory requirements, including local requirements, and any other applicable 

information. 

Questions regarding annual erosion and sediment control specifications should be 

directed to OCR (Larry Gavan at 804-786-4508). Specific questions regarding the 

VSMP General Permit for Construction Activities requirements should be directed to 

DCA (Holly Sepety at 804-225-2613). Detailed comments from DCA are attac'hed for 

guidance. 

4. Air Quality Impacts. 

4(a) Agency Jurisdiction. The DEQ Air Division, on behalf of the State Air Pollution 

Control Board, is responsible for developing regulations that become Virginia's Air 

Pollution Control Law. DEQ is charged with carrying out mandates of the state law and 

related regulations as well as Virginia's federal obligations under the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990. The objective is to protect and enhance public health and quality of 

life through control and mitigation of air pollution. The division ensures the safety and 

quality of air in Virginia by monitoring and analyzing air quality data, regulating sources 

of air pollution, and working with local, state and federal agencies to plan and implement 

strategies to protect Virginia's air quality. The appropriate regional office is directly 

responsible for the issuance of necessary permits to construct and operate all stationary 

5 
Draft EIS/Pian 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

DEQ # 11-172F 

sources in the region as well as monitoring emissions from these sources for 

compliance. In the case of certain projects, additional evaluation and demonstration 

must be made under the general conformity provisions of state and federal law. 

4(b} Agency Finding. According to the DEQ Air Division, the project location is in an 

ozone attainment area. 

4(c) National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The primary goals of the federal Clean 

Air Act are the attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAOS) and the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality in areas 

cleaner than the NAAOS. The NAAOS establish the maximum limits of pollutants that 

are allowed in the outside ambient air. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

requires the submission of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that includes laws and 

regulations necessary to enforce the plan and shows how the air pollution 

concentrations will be reduced to levels at or below these standards (attainment). Once 

pollution levels are within the standards, the SIP must also demonstrate how the state 

will maintain the air pollution concentrations at the reduced levels (maintenance). 

The standards have been attained for most pollutants in most areas. However, 

attainment for the pollutant, ozone, has proven problematic. While ozone is needed at 

the earth's outer atmospheric layer to protect us from the sun's ultraviolet and other 

harmful rays, excess concentrations at the surface have an adverse effect on animal 

and plant life. Ozone is formed by a chemical react,ion between volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (N'Ox) in the presence of 

sunlight. When VOC and NOx emissions are reduced, ozone is reduced. 

4(d) Agency Recommendation. Site-specific documentation should address the 

applicable regulatory requirements for air emissions due to the construction and 

operation of any proposed facility, including 9VAC5-50-60 et seq. governing fugitive 

dust emissions and 9VAC5-130 et seq. for open burning. 

5. Solid and Hazardous Wastes, and Hazardous Materials. 

5(a) Agency Jurisdiction. Solid and hazardous wastes in Virginia are regulated by 

DEQ, the Virginia Waste Management Board' and EPA. They administer programs 

created by the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 

Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, commonly 

called Superfund, and the Virginia Waste Management Act. DEQ administers 

regulations established by the Virginia Waste Management Board and reviews permit 

applications for completeness and conformance with facility standards and financial 

assurance requirements. All Virginia localities am required, under the Solid Waste 

Management lanning Regulations, to identify the strategies they will follow on the 

management of their solid wastes to include items such as facility siting, long-term (20-

year) use, and alternative programs such as materials recycling and composting. 

6 
Draft EIS/Pian 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

DEQ#11-172F 

5(b) Database and Data File Search. The DEQ Division of Land Protection and 

Revitalization (formally the Waste Division) (DLPR) states that the EIS did not address 

potential solid and/or hazardous waste issues or indicate that D~Q's databases were 

searched or that information was obtained from DEO's databases. The DLPR 

conducted a cursory review of its database files, including a Virginia Environmental' 

Geographic Information System (VEG1

IS) database search, of the area and determined 

that a few facility waste sites of concern were located within or a half-mile radius or 

distance of the parkway; however, potential impact of the identified sites to future 

projects should be further evaluated, if not done already. 

Hazardous Waste Facilities 

No RCRA facility sites are inventoried under the DEQ's VEGIS; however, no RCRA 

facility sites are believed to be located within one-half-mile of the parkway. A search of 

the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) RCRAinfo database under zip codes 

under large quantity generators (LOGs) and permitted treatment, storage, disposal 

(TSD) facilities under the RCRA regulations would identify potential RCRA facility sites 

which may be in close proximity to the parkway. 

Solid Waste Facilities 

A search of the DEQ's Solid Waste Sites Inventory found the following facility: 

• SWP581, Country South LLC- COD Landfi 1

11, 7390 Merriman Road, Boones Mill, 

VA, 24015, Solid Waste Unit Status ~ Achve, Solid Waste Permit StatusPermitted 

CERCLA Sites 

No Comprehensive Environmental~ Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) sites are inventoried under the DEQ's VEGIS; however, no CERCLA facility 

sites are believed to be located within 0.5 miles of the parkway. A search of the EPA's 

CERCUS database under specific zip codes would identify potential CERCLA facility 

sites which may be in close proximity to the parkway. 

FUDS Sites 

No Formally Used Defense Sites (FUDS) are inventoried under the DEQ's VEGIS; 

however, no FUDS are believed to be located within 0.5 miles of the parkway. 

VRP Sites 

A search of the DEQ's Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP) facility sites within 0.5 

miles of the parkway under the VEGIS found no VRP facilities. 

7 
Draft EIS/Pian 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

DEQ # 11-172F 

Petroleum Release Sites 

A search of the DEQ's petroleum release facility sites within 0.5 miles of the project site 

parkway under the VEGIS found the following facilities: 

• Afton Convenience Store, 5186 Howardsville Turnpike, Afton, VA, 22920, DEQ 

PC No. 19985040, 4/06/2006, Status- Release Confirmed, Case Closed. 

• Afton Convenience Store, 5186 Howardsville Turnpike, Afton, VA, 22920, DEQ 

PC No. 19975124, 4/06/2006, Status- Release Confirmed, Case Closed. 

• Afton Mountain Chevron, 5186 Howardsville Turnpike, Afton, VA, 22920, DEQ 

PC No. 19921472, 4/06/2006, Status- Release Suspected, Case Closed. 

• Afton Mountain Chevron, 5186 Howardsville Turnpike, Afton, VA, 22920, DEQ 

PC No. 19900670, 4/06/2006, Status- Release Confirmed, Case Closed. 

• Afton Mountain Chevron, 5186 Howardsville Turnpike, Afton, VA, 22920, DEQ 

PC No. 20036068, 6/15/2007, Status- Release Confirmed, Case Closed. 

• Afton Convenience Store, 5186 Howardsville Turnpike, Afton, VA, 22920, DEQ 

PC No. 19995219, 6/15/2007, Status- Release Confirmed, Case Closed. 

• Afton Convenience Store, 5186 Howardsville Turnpike, Afton, VA, 22920, DEQ 

PC No. 20086093, 3/26/2008, Status- Release Confirmed, Case Closed. 

• Afton Convenience Store, 5186 Howardsvtlle Turnpike, Afton, VA, 22920, DEQ 

PC No. 20076153, 6/15/2007, Status- Release Confirmed, Case Closed. 

• Margaret Blacmon Property, 4486 Howardsville Turnpike, Afton, VA, 22920, DEQ 

PC No. 20106008, 9/24/2009, Status- Release Confirmed, Case Closed. 

• Montebello Maintenance Area, 2551 Mountain View Road, Montebello, VA, 

24179, DEQ PC No. 19931195, 5/24/2006, Status- Release Confirmed, Case 

Closed. 

• James River Blue Ridge Parkway, 1184 Bellamy Creek Lane, Big Island, VA, 

24526, DEQ PC No. 19941603, 6/04/2009, Status- Release Confirmed, Case 

Closed. 

• Bedford Air Rote Surveillance Radar, Apple Orchard Mountain, Blue Hidge 

Parkway, Bedford, VA, 24523, DEQ PC No. 20102044, 9/21/2009, StatusRelease Confirmed, Case Closed. 

8 
Draft EIS/Pian 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

DEQ # 11-172F 

• Blue Ridge Parkway Maintenance Facility, 85919 Blue Ridge Parkway, Bedford, 

VA, 24523, DEQ PC No. 19911886, 7/31/2009, Status- Release Confirmed, 

Case Closed. 

• Peaks of Otter SS, Milepost 86, Blue Ridge Parkway, Bedford, VA, 24523, DEQ 

PC No. 19901484, 9/07/2006, Status- Release Confirmed, Case Closed. 

• Well, 131 Walker Street, Roanoke, VA, 24018, DEQ PC No. 20002094, 

5/29/2009, Status -Release Suspected, Case Closed. 

• Coyner Springs Exxon, 645 Blue Ridge Boulevard, Blue Ridge, VA, 24012, DEQ 

PC No. 19890469, 6/10/2008, Status - Release Confirmed, Case Closed. 

• Coyner Springs Exxon, 645 Bilue Ridge Boulevard, Blue Ridge, VA, 24012, DEQ 

PC No. 20012099, 6/19/2009, Status- Release Suspected, Case Closed. 

• J & J Market, 1950 Blue Ridge Boulevard, Blue Ridge, VA, 24064, DEQ PC No. 

19860366, 8/02/2006, Status- Release Confirmed, Case Closed. 

• Garnand Residence, 4964 Glade Creek Road, Roanoke, VA, 24012, DEQ PC 

No. 20112012, 7/26/2010, Status- Release Confirmed, Case Closed. 

• Bulk Storage Facility, 2516 Mountain View Avenue, Stewartsville, VA, 241179, 

DEQ PC No. 20002070, 1/26/2006, Status- Release Confirmed, Case Closed. 

• Bulk Storage Facility, 2516 Mountain View Avenue, Stewartsville, VA, 24179, 

DEQ PC No. 19911420, 2/28/2008, Status- Release Confirmed, Case Closed. 

• Nancy Pritchard ,Residence, 18025 Stewartsville Road, Vinton, VA, 2419, DEQ 

PC No. 20082013, 8/23/2007, Status- Release Suspected, Case Closed. 

• Roanoke Valley Sanitary Landfill, Rutrough Road, Roanoke, VA, (No zip code), 

DEQ PC No. 20012109, 9/16/2010, Status - 1Release Confirmed, Case Closed. 

• April Brown Residence, 2720 Rutrough Road, Roanoke, VA, 24014, DEQ PC No. 

20082043, 2/119/2008, Status- Release Suspected, Case Closed. 

• Pauline A. Musser Residence, 3333 Alcoa Road, Roanoke, VA, 24014, DEQ PC 

No. 20042011, 4/14/2010, Status - Release Confirmed, Case Closed. 

• Tracy Huffman Residence, 3413 Ventnor Road, Roanoke, VA, 24014, DEQ PC 

No. 20102132, 3/15/2010, Status- Release Confirmed, Case Closed. 

• Former Buck Mountain GriU Property, 5002 Franklin Road, Roanoke, VA, 24014, 

DEQ PC No. 20032059, 9/27/2006, Status- Release Confirmed, Case Closed. 

9 
Draft EIS/Pian 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

DEQ # 11-172F 

• Ronald Rhodes Property, 3640 Sndlewood Road, Roanoke, VA, 24014, DEQ PC 

No. 19921976, 9/09/2010, Status- Release Confirmed, Case Closed. 

• Virginia Asphalt Paving Company, Inc.- Shop, Eagle Crest Drive, Roanoke, VA, 

24014, DEQ PC No. 19981050, 2/23/2011, Status- Release Confirmed, Case 

Closed. 

• Roden Rental Property, 4459 Keefer Road, SW, Roanoke, VA, 27018, DEQ PC 

No. 20022038, 9/28/2006, Status- Release Confirmed, Case Closed. 

• Reeds Garage, Inc., 9564 Floyd Highway N, Copper Hill, VA, 24079, DEQ PC 

No. 19944141, 8/17/06, Status- Release Confirmed, Case Closed. 

• Hodge Podge Store, U.S. Route 58, Meadows of Dan, VA, 24120, DEQ PC No. 

19981070, 2/24/2011, Status- Release Confirmed, Case Closed. 

• Pruitt's Store, Route 2, Hillsville, VA, 24343, DEQ PC No. 19930187, 2/24/2009, 

Status -Release Suspected, Case Closed. 

• Spencer Knitting Mill, Route 2, Box 320, Hillsville, VA, 24343, DEQ PC No. 

19960217, 3/27/2009, Status- Release Suspected, Case Closed. 

• Emmitt Meredith Residence, 2123 Skyview Drive, Fancy Gap, VA, 24328, DEQ 

PC No. 20091013, 11/18/2008, Status- Release Confirmed, Case Closed. 

• Allen Victor Residence, 174 Foggy Ridge Lane, Fancy Gap, VA, 24328, DEQ PC 

No. 20021090, 6/26/2006, Status- Release Suspected, Case Closed. 

5(c) Agency Recommendations. 

• For planning purposes, DEQ encourages all construction projects and facilities to 

implement pollution prevention principles, including: 

o the reduction, reuse and recycling of all solid wastes generated; and 

o the minimization and proper handling of generated hazardous wastes. 

• For future site-specific projects, further evaluate identified potential waste sites of 

concern to the parkway and/or potential impact to the parkway, if not already 

done. 

• For future projects, identify the potential zip codes which are in the project area 

and use the following EPA RCRAinfo database search tool (www.epa.gov 

/enviro/factslrcrainfol search htm~ in order to search for potential RCRA facility 

sites by zip code, and by LOG, or TSD facilities. Should any RCRA facility sites 

be identified which may be located within close proximity to the project area, 

10 
Draft EIS/Pian 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

DEO # 11-172F 

contact tihe DEQ's Waste Program Manager at the appropriate DEQ regional 

office for further RCRA facility information. The DEQ regional contacts may be 

found on the DEQ website at www.deq. virginia.gov/regions. 

• Should any solid waste disposal facility sites (closed or permitted) be identified 

which may be located within a future site-specific project area, contact the DEQ's 

Waste Program Manager at the appropriate DEQ regional office 

( www.deq. virginia.govlregions). 

• For future pro~ects, identify the potential zip codes which are in the project area 

and use the following EPA database search tool, www.epa.gov/superfund/ sites/ 

cursiteslindex.htm, to search for potential CERCLA facility sites. If any CERCLA 

sites are found to be in close proximity to a future site-specific project, then 

further information regarding the identified CERCLA sites may be necessary. 

• For future site-specific projects, the identified petroleum releases should be 

evaluated by the project engineer or manager to establish the exact location of 

the release and the nature and extent of the petroleum release and the potential 

to impact the proposed project. The facility representative should contact the 

appropri1ate regional office for further information and the administrative records 

of the cases. 

• Site-specific projects should discuss measures proposed to reduce, reuse and 

recycle solid waste that will be generated during construction, how contamination 

(if applicable) on the property has been or will be addressed, applicable 

regulations and laws related to asbestos-containing materials and lead-based 

paint for any demolition associated with future construction, and applicable 

regulations and laws rel'ated to solid and hazardous waste management. 

6. Natural Heritage Resources. The EIS (page 315) states that the implementation of 

the preferred alternative would contribute a considerable amount to the beneficial 

cumulative effects on wildlife and vegetation communities. 

6(a) Agency Jurisdiction. The mission o~ DCR is to conserve Virginia's natural and 

recreational resources. The OCR Division of Natural Heritage's (DNH) mission is 

conserving Virginia's biodiversity through inventory, protection and stewardship. The 

Virginia Natural Area Preserves Act, 10.1-209 through 217 of the Code of Virginia, was 

passed in 1989 and codified OCR's powers and duties related to statewide biological 

inventory: maintaining a statewide database for conservation planning and project 

review, land protection for the conservation of biodiversity, and the protection and 

ecological management of natural heritage resources (the habitats of rare, threatened 

and endangered species, significant natural communities, geologic sites, and other 

natural features). 

11 
Draft EIS/Pian 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

DEQ # 11-172F 

6(b) Agency Findings. The OCR DNH states that it searched its Biotics Data System 

for occurrences of natural heritage resources from the area outlined on the submitted 

map. 

According to the information currently in OCR DNH's files, several natural heritage 

resources have been documented within the Virginia portion of the Blue Ridge Parkway 

(see attached table, ArcGIS shapefiles and maps). 

In addition, the Blue Ridge Parkway is situated on karst-forming carbonate rock within 

the counties of Bedford, Botetourt and Roanoke, and the City of Roanoke. The karst 

topography can be characterized by sinkholes, caves, disappearing streams, and large 

springs. Discharge of runoff to sinkholes or sinking streams, filling of sinkholes, and 

alteration of cave entrances can lead to surface coillapse, flooding, erosion and 

sedimentation, groundwater contamination, and degradation of subterranean habitat for 

natural heritage resources. 

The Roanoke River and Rock Castle Creek have been designated by the Department of 

Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) as Tnreatened and Endangered Species Waters and 

are located within the Blue Ridge Parkway boundaries. The species associated with the 

Roanoke River are the Orangefin madtom (Noturus gilberti, G2/S2/SOC/L T) and the 

Roanoke logperch (Percina rex, G1 G2/S1 S2/LE/LE) and in Rock Castle Creek the 

Roanoke logperch. 

6(c) Threatened and Endangered Plant and Insect Species. Under a Memorandum 

of Agreement established between the Virginia Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer SeNices (VDACS) and OCR, OCR has the authority to report for VDACS on 

state-listed plant and insect species. 

• OCR states that the current activity will not affect any documented state-listed 

plants or .insects. 

• VDACS states that statements in the project document concerning endangered 

species were reviewed and compared to available information. No additional 

comments are necessary in reference to endangered plant and insect species. 

6(d) Natural Area Preserves. OCR's files indicate the presence of Big Spring Bog 

State Natural Area PreseNe, Grayson Glades Natural Area PreseNe and Crawford's 

Knob Natural Area PreseNe under its jurisdiction within two miles of the Blue Ridge 

Parkway. 

6(e) Agency Recommendations. 

• Contact the OCR DNH at (804) 786-7951 for an update on this natural heritage 

information if a significant amount of time passes before it is utilized since new 

and updated information is continually added to the Biotics Data System. 

• Place all conseNation sites and associated natural heritage resources into the 

"Special Natural Resource Management Zone" designation as defined on page 

52 of the management plan to recognize their significance. 

12 
Draft EIS/Pian 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

DEO # 11-172F 

• Due to the legal status of the Roanoke logperch and Orangefin madtom, 

coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and DGIF to ensure 

compliance with protected species legislation. 

7. Wildlife Resources. The EIS (page 331) indicates that overall the implementation of 

Alternative B may affect federal threatened and endangered species but is not likely to 

cause an adverse effect. 

l(a) Agency Jurisdiction. DGIF, as the Commonwealth's wildlife and freshwater fish 

management agency, exercises enforcement and regulatory jurisdiction over wildlife 

and freshwater fish, including state- or federally-listed endangered or threatened 

species, but excluding listed insects (Virginia Code Title 29.1 ). DGIF is a consulting 

agency under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. sections 661 et 

seq.) and provides environmental analysis of projects or permit applications coordinated 

through DEQ and several other state and federal agencies. DGIF determines likely 

impacts upon fish and wildlife resources and habitat, and recommends appropriate 

measures to avoid, reduce or compensate for those impacts. For more information, see 

the DGIF website at www.dgif.virginia.gov. 

l{b) Agency Comments. DGIF states that during seeping for development of the plan 

and EIS in May 2008, DGIF sent the attached letter and associated trout stream list to 

the NPS. DGIF continues to support the comments and recommendations included in 

that letter. However, since the 2008 seeping period, NPS has updated Alternative B, the 

NPS-preferred alternative, to include using an ecosystem approach to resource 

management, implementing management zones, and actively pursuing partnerships 

with public and private entities to implement joint ventures in support of Parkway goals. 

In addition, Alternative B has been updated to include improved visitor access and 

experiences. As stated in DGIF's 2008 letter to NPS, DGIF supports managing the 

parkway in a manner that encourages ecosystem-based natural resource management 

and protection, improving visitor access, and providing additional recreational 

opportunities within the parkway. 

DGIF states that it supports the following: 

• the NPS's plan to be proactive in its inventory and management of natural 

resources and to establish a multi-year approach to natural resource project 

planning. 

• the acquisition of properties adjacent to the Parkway for the purposes of 

protection of natural and recreational resources, in addition to other purposes, as 

well as working with partners to improve habitats external to the Parkway. 

• the development of a natural resources protection program that includes 

implementing best management practices to protect sensitive species and 

habitats, using native species for all plantings, removing food-related items to 

reduce or prevent bear encounters, and species and habitat monitoring. 

• the determination of Alternative B (considering its updates) as the NPS-preferred 

alternative. 

13 
Draft EIS/Pian 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

DEQ# 11-172F 

As stated in the 2008 letter to the NPS, DGIF is willing to assist the NPS in efforts to 

enhance wildlife habitats and manage wildlife resources under 1its jurisdiction 

7(c) Agency Findings. DGIF identified, lin its 2008 letter to the NPS, those species and 

habitats DGIF has a particular interest in the NPS protecting and managing to support 

imperiled wildlife and provide recreational opportunities. (DGIF appreciates the NPS's 

interest in also protecting and managing these resources for these purposes.) As stated 

in the plan, wetlands known to support bog turtles, located primarily in Grayson, Carroll, 

and Floyd counties, and trout streams are particularly valuable resources l'ocated with 

the parkway and are deserving of protection. 

DGIF recently documented a new peregrine fal.con eyrie in western Virginia. The 

parkway and nearby lands contain cliff habitat suitable to support fa1lcon nesting. 

7(d) Agency Recommendations. DGIF has the following recommendations: 

• Regarding the protection of wetlands, develop and perform caUie crossings over 

streams or wetlands and ditching projects in a manner protective of those 

resources and that wherever possible restrict access that cattle have to streams 

and wetlands. 

• Regarding the recently documented peregrine falcon eyrie, protect the species' 

habitats and monitor them for peregrine falcon nesting. 

• Manage all habitats within parkway boundaries that are known to support 

imperiled wildlife for their protection. 

• Coordinate with DGIF regarding management of wildlife in the parkway, access 

to the parkway for fishing and wildlife watching, access from the parkway to 

adjacent lands for hunting, and the avoidance and minimization of impacts upon 

wildlife and their habitats during specific restoration or management projects. 

8. Historic and Architectural! Resources. The EIS (page 371) states that 

implementation of the preferred alternative (Alternative B) would include minor to 

moderate adverse impacts on some historic structures that could result in an adverse 

effect at some sites. The EIS (page 371) indicates that implementation of Alternative B 

would result in long-term beneficial cumulative impacts. 

B(a) Agency Jurisdiction. DHR conducts reviews of projects to determine their effect 

on historic structures or culltural resources under its jurisdiction. DHR, as the designated 

State's Historic Preservation Office, ensures that federal actions comply with Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, and its 

implementing regulation at 36 CFR Part 800. The preservation act requires federal~ 

agencies to consider the effects of federal projects on properties that are listed or 

eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Section 1 06 also applies if 

there are any federal involvements, such as licenses, permits, approvals or funding. 

DHR also provides comments to DEQ through the state environmental impact report 

review process. 

14 
Draft EIS/Pian 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

DEQ # 11-172F 

B(b) Agency Comments. DHR did not respond to DEQ's request for comment. 

B(c) Agency Recommendation. Coordinate the project or any portion thereof with 

DHR (Roger Kirchen at Roger.Kirchen@dhr.virginia.gov), as the designated Virginia 

SHPO, to ensure compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 

as amended, and its implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800. 

9. Recreational Resources. 

9(a) Agency Jurisdiction. OCR's Division of Planning and Recreat·ional Resources 

(DPRR) administers the Virginia Scenic Rivers, Virginita Byways, and state trails 

programs and is responsible for developing the Virginia Outdoors Plan (VOP), the 

state's comprehensive outdoor recreation and open space plan. The VOP recognizes 

the importance of scenery to Virginians and many of the top ten activities are water 

based. 

9(b) Agency Findings. OCR DPRR notes that the draft plan does not mention that the 

Blue Ridge Parkway is a federally designated "A'II American Road". This designation 

helps to identify the scenic resource for local citizens and tourists. This recognition does 

not counter any of the proposed actions; however, it does address the planning issues 

and concerns raised by the corridor management plan required by the Federal Highway 

Administration for national designation, which can provide additional funding for 

resource protection and other activities under the Scenic Byway funding program. 

Additionally, the draft plan does not identify the designated, and proposed, Virginia 

Byways that intersect or cross the parkway, including routes 56, 661, 250, 130, 43, 402, 

640, 58 and potential Route 8. 

9(c) Agency Recommendation. OCR DPRR recommends that the draft plan include 

the "All American Road" and "Scenic Byway" designations since driving for pleasure is a 

recognized pastime for most Virginian's according to the 2007 Virginia Outdoors Plan. 

Contract OCR (Jennifer Wampler at Jennifer. Wampler@dcr. virginia.gov) for additional 

information about these comments and recommendations. 

10. Water Supply. 

10(a) Agency Jurisdiction. The Virginia Department of Health (VDH) Office of 

Drinking Water (ODW) reviews projects for the potential to impact public drinking water 

sources (groundwater wells, springs and surface water intakes). 

10(b) Agency Findings. VDH ODW states that an extensive listing of public water 

sources (attached) in proximity of the Parkway centerline was provided during a 

previous review of a parkway project. No specific plans for providing water and potable 

water to described upgrades and/or additions have been provided in the plan. 

15 
Draft EIS/Pian 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

DEQ # 1 H72F 

10(c) Requirements. VDH ODW states that plans requiring changes to potable water 

facilities and/or water supply must be coordinated with the local VDH ODW Field' Office 

for review and approval. 

Contact VDH ODW (Barry Matthews at Barry.Matthews@vdh.virginia.gov) for additional 

information. 

11. Agricultural Lands. The EIS (page 28} states that the alternative woUIId have no 

effect or a negligible effect on farmlands. This topic was dismissed from comprehensive 

consideration in the document. 

11 (a) Agency Jurisdiction. The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services (VDACS) Office of Farmland Preservation works to prevent the loss of 

farmlands. 

11(b) Agency Recommendation. VDACS encourages the minimal transfer of 

agricultural land to non-agricultural purposes in the development of this project. 

12. Forest Resources. 

12(a) Agency Jurisdiction. The mission of the Virginia Department of Forestry (DOF) 

is to protect and develop healthy, sustainable forest resources for Virginians. DOF was 

established in 1914 to prevent and suppress forest fires and reforest bare lands. 

Since the Department's incepHon, it has grown and evolved to encompass other 

protection and management duties including: protecting Virginia's forests from wildfire, 

protecting Virginia's waters, managing and conserving Virginia's forests, managing 

state-owned lands and nurseries, and managing regulated incentive programs for forest 

landowners. 

12(b) Agency Finding. DOF tinds no significant impact to the forest resources of the 

Commonwealth for following the preferred alternative (B) within the plan. 

13. Pollution Prevention. DEQ advocates that principles of pollution prevention be 

used in all construction projects as well as in tacility operations. Effective siting, 

planning and on-site best management practices will help to ensure that environmental 

impacts are minimized. However, pollution prevention techniques also include decisions 

related to construction materials, design and operational procedures that will facilitate 

the reduction of wastes at the source. 

13(a) Agency Recommendations. We have several pollution prevention 

recommendations that may be helpfu'l in planning for future construction: 

• Consider environmental attributes when purchasing materials. For example, 

the extent of recycled material content, toxicity level and amount of packaging 

should be considered and can be specified in purchasing contracts. 

• Consider contractors' commitment to the environment when choosing 

16 
Draft EIS/Pian 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

DEQ# 11-172F 

contractors. Specifications regarding raw materials and construction practices 

can be included in contract documents and requests for proposals. 

• Choose sustainable materials and practices for infrastructure and building 

construction and design. These could include asphalt and concrete containing 

recycled materials, and integrated pest management in landscaping, among 

other things. 

The DEQ Office of Pollution Prevention provides information and technical assistance 

relating to pollution prevention techniques. If interested, please contact DEQ (Sharon 

Baxter at 804-698-4344) for more information. 

14. Pesticides and Herbicides. In general, when pesticides or herbicides must be 

used, their use should be strictly in accordance with manufacturers' recommendations. 

In addition, to the extent feasible, DEQ recommends that the responsible agent for the 

project use the least toxic pesticides or herbicides effective in controlling the target 

species. For more information on pesticide or herbicide use, please contact the Virginia 

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services at (804) 786-3501. 

15. Local and Regional Comments. As customary, DEQ invited the Roanoke ValleyAlleghany Regional Commission, Mt. Rogers Planning District Commission, West 

Piedmont Planning District Commission, Virginia Region 2000 Local Government 

Council, Central Shenandoah Planning District Commission and Thomas Jefferson 

Planning District Commission to comment. 

15(a) Jurisdiction. In accordance with the Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-4207, 

planning district commissions encourage and facilitate local government cooperation 

and state-local cooperation in addressing, on a regional basis, problems of greater than 

local significance. The cooperation resulting from this is intended to facilitate the 

recognition and analysis of regional opportunities and take account of regional 

influences in planning and implementing public policies and services. Planning district 

commissions promote the orderly and efficient development of the physical, social and 

economic elements of the districts by planning, and encouraging and assisting localities 

to plan for the future . 

15(b) Comments. 

• The Central Shenandoah Planning District Commission states that it waives 

review of the project. 

• The Mount Rogers Planning District Commission states that it supports the Blue 

Ridge Parkway's draft general management plan. 

• The Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission, Piedmont Planning 

District Commission, Virginia Region 2000 Local Government Council, and 

Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission did not respond to DEQ's 

request for comment. 

17 
Draft EIS/Pian 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

DEQ # 11-172F 

REGULATORY AND COORDINATION NEEDS 

1. Solid and Hazardous Waste Coordination. Contact the DEQ's Waste Program 

Manager at the appropriate DEQ regional office (www.deq. virginia.govlregions) for 

information regarding RCRA sites, solid waste disposal facility sites (closed or 

permitted) , CERCLA sites, or petroleum release sites during development of sitespecific environmental documents. 

2. Natural Heritage Resources. Contact the DCR DNH at (804)371-2708 for an update 

on natural heritage information if a significant amount of time passes before site-specific 

documents are developed. 

3. Wildlife Resources and Protected Species. 

• Coordinate with DGIF (Amy Ewing at Amy.Ewing@dgif virginia.gov) regarding 

management of wildlife in the parkway, access to the pa~kway for fishing and 

wildlife watching, access from the parkway to adjacent lands for hunting, and the 

avoidance and minimization of impacts upon wildlife and their habitats during 

specific restoration or management projects. 

• Coordinate with the DGIF (Amy Ewing at Amy.Ewing@dgif virginia.gov) and 

FWS (804-693-6694) to ensure compliance with protected species legislation 

when preparing site-specific documents. 

4. Historic Resources. Coordinate with DHR (Roger Kirchen at Roger.Kirchen@dhr. 

virginia.gov), as the designated Virginia SHPO, to ensure compli>ance with Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and its implementing regulations 

at 36 CFR 800. 

5. Site-specific Reviews. Site-specific environmental documents should be submitted 

to the DEQ Office of Environmental Impact Review (Attention: Ms. Ellie Irons), P.O. Box 

1105, Richmond, VA 23218. Please submit one hard copy for DEQ and each affected 

locality and associated planning district commission as well as 16 compact discs (COs) 

with electronic copies or provide a website or FTP site for distribution during a 

coordinated review. 

18 
Draft EIS/Pian 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

DEQ#11 -172F 

CONCLUSION 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft EIS and general management plan. 

Detailed comments of reviewing agencies are attached for your review and guidance. 

Please contact me at (804) 698-4325 or Julia Wellman at (804) 698-4326 for 

clarification of these comments. 

Enclosures 

Sincerely, · 

t. . L - ( . >J_) ~ If · 

. Ellie L. Irons, Program Manager 

Environmental Impact Review 

cc: Wayne Strickland, Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission 

Dave Barrett, Mt. Rogers Planning District Commission 

AaronS. Burdick, West Piedmont Planning District Commission 

Gary F. Christie, Virginia Region 2000 Local Government Council 

Bonnie Riedesel, Central Shenandoah Planning District Commission 

Stephen Williams, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission 

ec: Amy Ewing, DGIF 

Keith Tignor, VDACS 

Robbie Rhur, OCR 

Barry Matthews, VDH 

Steve Coe, DEQ ORP 

Kotur S. Narasimhan, DEQ DAPC 

Kevin Harlow, DEQ BRRO 

Keith Fowler, VRO 

Teresa Frazier, SWRO 

Roger Kirchen, DHR 

James Cromwell/Alfred Ray, VDOT 

Tony Watkinson, VMRC 

Dan Bacon, VMRC 

19 
Beverly Eaves Perdue 

Governor 

Dee Freeman 

Secretary 

Department of 

Environment & 

Natural! Resources 

Council Members 

Jason Love, Chair 

Macon County 

Nelda Holder, Vice-Chair 

Buncombe County 

Delos Monteith 

Jackson Cou·nty 

Jason Robinson 

Yancey County 

Jonathan Douthit 

Swain County 

Myma Campbell 

Haywood County 

Tim Nicholson 

Cherokee County 

Thomas Massie 

Ex-Officio Member 

Bob McCollum 

Ex-Officio Member 

Judith Francis, AICP 

DENR Representative 

WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA 

PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL 

Superintendent Phil,ip A. Francis, Jr. 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

199 Hemphill Knob Road 

Asheville, NC 28803 

Dear Superintendent Francis, 

NoRTH CA.Rol.I HA 0E.PARTM£NT OF 

EtNiAOI'IMENT AND N,.t,Ti.fV\J... RESOUACf:S 

8 December 20 II 

The Western North Carolina Public Lands Council is writing to endorse Alternative Bon the 

Blue Ridge Parkway General Management Plan (GMP)/EIS. On November 41

h, the Council 

heard a presentation by David Anderson, a Landscape Architect from the Blue Ridge Parkway, 

concerning the u f'. Following the presentation, Council members Jonathan Douthit and 

Jason Robinson, who represent Swain County and Yancey Counties respectively (two counties 

that border the Parkway), reviewed the GMP more in depth and came to the conclusion that it 

was the best of the three alternatives. 

The Council finds that Alternative B strikes a balance between updating aging infrastructure to 

encourage more tourism, but also strives to keep the ecological integrity of the 469-mile long 

park intact. We agree that reducing the number of roads that cross the Parkway "at grade" will 

reduce commuter traffic and help decrease development pressures at the edges of the park. We 

also agree that modest improvements to campsites, visitor centers, food concessions, and 

lodging are needed, but feel Alternative C's wholesale re-design wou ld leave too large an 

ecological footprint and is simply too expensive in these lean economic times. 

We are encouraged to see that Alternative B seeks to increase recreational activities, such as 

hiking, and includes planning for regional trail connections. We are also encouraged that the 

Parkway is pursuing Class I designation for air quality standards. Attaining Class I air quality 

designation, which is the same designation as Great Smoky Mountains National Park, wilJ be 

an important first step in both increasing visitor's Parkway experience by decreasing haze and 

increasing visibility and protecting the park's diverse and rare high-elevation flora and fauna. 

Finaliy, the Council is pleased to see that Aiternative B addresses the importance of 

partnerships in managing the Blue Ridge Parkway. As you know, the citizens ofwestern North 

Carolina have a vested interest in seeing the Blue Ridge Parkway not only continue to be both a 

place of recreation and refuge, but also continue to be a major economic engine for the region. 

It is only through partnerships that this delicate balancing act can be successful. 

J:-ly,p ~-

Jason P. Love 

Chair 

CC: Governor Beverly E. Purdue 

2090 U.S. Highway 70, Swannanoa NC 28778-8211 

828-296-4523 Fax 828-299-7043 
PEPC Project ID: 10419, Document ID: 43487 

Correspondence: 24 72 

Author Information 

Keep Private: No 

Name: Wayne G. Strickland 

Organization: 

Organization Type: 

Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission 

C - County Government 

Address: 313 Luck Avenue SW 

Roanoke, VA 24016 

USA 

E-mail: wstrickland @rvarc.org 

Correspondence Information 

Status: Reviewed 

Date Sent: 12/16/2011 

Number of Signatures: 1 

Contains Request(s): No 

Notes: 

Correspondence Text 

Comments: December 15, 2011 

Superintendent Phil Francis 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

National Park Service 

Park Correspondence Log: 

Date Received: 12/16/2011 

Form Letter: No 

Type: Web Form 

Re: Blue Ridge General Management Plan/EIS 

Dear Superintendent Francis: 

Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on the Blue Ridge Parkway General Management 

Plan (GMP)/EIS. The Blue Ridge Parkway is recognized as a significant cultural, recreational, and 

economic asset in the greater Roanoke region. Given recent and likely future, budgetary constraints 

impacting the National Park Service, I am sure basic maintenance of the Parkway and associated amenities 

is an ongoing challenge and commend the NPS for working to improve management of the Parkway 

through development of the GMP. 

While understanding the historical vision and purpose of the Blue Ridge Parkway, motorized vehicles 

should not be the only (or even preferred) way to experience the Blue Ridge Parkway. Instead, a range of 

active and passive recreational opportunities should be encouraged, beyond motor vehicle tourism, such 

as cycling, hiking, birding, horseback riding, running and other activities for visitors to the Parkway as 

well as local residents in communities near the Parkway. Review of the draft GMP plan and Alternatives 

presented and numerous auto-centric references within the document (i.e., "actively managed as a 
traditional, self-contained, scenic recreational driving experience") tend to favor the driving experience 

over other uses along the Parkway. 

Of the alternatives presented in the GMP, Alternative C, with modifications, is most consistent with the 

Roanoke region's general vision and desires as related to management and utilization of the Parkway. As 

such, please accept and consider the following comments and recommendations as part of the official 

record related to the GMP. 

General Comments and Recommendations 

Develop closer relationships with local communities and work with them throughout the planning 

process and continue to work with local stakeholders to address issues related to the Parkway as they 

arise (i.e., consult with local stakeholders to provide for reasonable and safe access for hikers, cyclists, and 

equestrians to the Parkway before closing social trails in the Roanoke area). 

Work with localities and stakeholders to provide a seamless connection from the Parkway corridor and 

Roanoke utilizing the on-road accommodations (Mill Mountain Parkway Spur), existing parks (Mill 

Mountain), Mill Mountain trails (Chestnut Ridge Loop, Wood Thrush Trail, etc.), and greenways (Mill 

Mountain Greenway). Roanoke is the largest population center on the Parkway and greater connectivity 

would provide economic, health, recreation, and benefits to Parkway visitors, local residents, and 

businesses adjacent to the Parkway. Although under the jurisdiction of the NPS, the Mill Mountain Spur 

is also included in the RVAMPO Bikeway Plan as a "priority" corridor to serve as a link in this connection. 

Additionally, the Bikeway Plan supports allowing mountain biking on the Chestnut Ridge Loop Trail. 

Not only allow, but encourage, cycling (and other active recreation) on the Parkway in the GMP. We 

clearly understand the Parkway is under the jurisdiction of the NPS, the Bikeway Plan for the Roanoke 

Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (2012) lists the Parkway as a "priority" corridor for 

consideration for improvements to better accommodate cyclists on the Parkway itself, as well as mountain 

biking opportunities on Parkway lands (i.e., Chestnut Ridge). Increased accommodation could be 

achieved through shoulder improvements, spot improvements, signage, enforcement, etc. 

Work with the local community to plan for and promote mountain bicycling and other non-motorized 

forms of recreation in the Park including opening Chestnut Ridge Loop to mountain biking. Local trail 

organizations and volunteers (i.e., Pathfinders for Greenways) stand ready to assist in trail development 

and maintenance. The NPS is also encouraged to consider a one-year trial period permitting mountain 

biking on the Chestnut Ridge Loop Trail, similar to the recently approved addition of mountain biking at 

a Parkway facility in North Carolina. Comments from the Roanoke region on the recent Blue Ridge 

Parkway/Roanoke Valley Trail Plan were overwhelmingly in support of allowing mountain biking on 

Chestnut Ridge Loop Trail. 

Link Parkway trails to the Roanoke Valley Greenway system and work with the Roanoke Valley 

Greenway Commission to extend the Roanoke River Greenway to Explore Park as discussed in the 

Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan (2007) and more recent planning efforts. Detailed comments 

regarding this issue were submitted by the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission and other Roanoke 

area stakeholders during the public comment period for the Blue Ridge Parkway /Roanoke Valley Trail 

Plan. 

Provide and/ or expand information to better integrate the Parkway with surrounding communities. 

Information could include wayfinding/directional signage, trail information, activity centers, and 
upcoming events specific to the Roanoke area. 

Provide for continued NPS management of the Mill Mountain Parkway Spur Roanoke Mountain road 

and corridors. Maintenance of these corridors would present a significant financial burden to any local 

government (i.e., City of Roanoke) charged with their maintenance and general upkeep. 

National Historic Landmark designation is currently not supported as it would potentially make it more 

difficult to make changes needed to encourage non-motorized travel and active recreation activities along 

the Parkway corridor. 

Roanoke Mountain Campground 

Do not close Roanoke Mountain Campground. Although currently underutilized, the Roanoke Mountain 

Campground is the only NPS maintained campground along the Roanoke portion of the Parkway and is 

an important asset for the Roanoke Region as we work to stimulate economic development for our region 

through promotion of the region's scenic beauty and outdoor recreation amenities. Additionally, the 

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation's Virginia Outdoor Plan indicates there is a demand 

for more campsites in the Roanoke area. According to the National Park Service website there are five 

campgrounds along the Virginia section of the Parkway with an average distance between them of 38 

miles. Without Roanoke Mountain Campground, the average distance increases to 50.6 miles. 

Comparatively, there are nine camping areas in North Carolina with an average distance between them of 

28.6 miles. Closing the campground puts not only Roanoke, but the entire state of Virginia and the 

Parkway at a disadvantage with regards to attracting motor vehicle (i.e., RV) and as well as cycling tourism 

to the Roanoke area. It is generally acknowledged that improvements (showers, electrical, water, etc.) to 

Roanoke Mountain Campground would be required to significantly increase usage. However, an urban 

campground within minutes of downtown Roanoke is an affordable option to hotels for families and 

other users of the Blue Ridge Parkway. Additionally, allowing mountain biking on the Chestnut Ridge 

Loop Trail would increase the marketability of the campground by positioning it as the premier camping 

area for both road cycling and mountain biking. It would also serve as a connection to downtown 

Roanoke, the largest population center along the Parkway. 

The Blue Ridge Parkway, the most visited unit in the National Park system, is recognized as one of the 

primary outdoor recreation and tourism assets in the Roanoke region. I thank you for the opportunity to 

comment on the future of this critical regional asset and hope you the NPS will give careful consideration 

of these comments. The staff of the Regional Commission looks to working with NPS as the planning 

process continues. If there is anyway the Regional Commission can assist you and your staff, please do not 

hesitate to contact me. 

Yours truly, 

Wayne Strickland, Executive Director 

Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission 
PEPC Project ID: 10419, Document ID: 43487 

Correspondence: 23 79 

Author Information 

Keep Private: No 

Name: 

Organization: 

Organization Type: 

Address: 

E-mail: 

Liz Belcher 

Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission 

C - County Government 

1206 Kessler Mill Road 

Salem, VA 24153 

USA 

lbelcher@roanokecountyva.gov 

Correspondence Information 

Status: Reviewed 

Date Sent: 12/15/2011 

Number of Signatures: 1 

Contains Request(s): No 

Notes: 

Correspondence Text 

Topic Question 3: 

Park Correspondence Log: 

Date Received: 12/15/2011 

Form Letter: No 

Type: Web Form 

Superintendent Phillip A. Francis, Jr. 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

199 Hemphill Knob Road 

Asheville, NC 28803 

Re: Comments on the Draft General Management Plan/EIS 

Dear Superintendent Francis: 

The Draft General Management Plan (GMP) for the Blue Ridge Parkway is a beautiful document and 

reflects a great deal of work by staff. It has a wonderful summary of the Parkway history and a great deal 

of very interesting information on the Park resources. 

The Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission and its Executive Committee have discussed the Plan several 

times and provide the comments herein. The Greenway Commission was established in 1997 by 

Intergovernmental Agreement by the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, Roanoke County, and the Town of 

Vinton. The Commission is appointed by the four localities. The original Roanoke Valley Conceptual 

Greenway Plan of 1995 was adopted by all four localities, and the 2007 Update to the Roanoke Valley 

Conceptual Greenway Plan has been incorporated into each of the local Comprehensive Plans. The 

Greenway Commission was established to oversee implementation of the plan and works continuously to 

develop trail linkages and partnerships to complete the greenway network. 
1. In 2001 the Greenway Commission signed General Agreement #1443GA514001005 with the National 

Park Service for the Planning, Design, Construction, and Maintenance oft he Roanoke Valley Greenway 

and Parkway Trail System. During the five years of this agreement, the Greenway Commission worked 

with Park staff to upgrade and maintain the Park trail network, in anticipation of increased use with 

connection to the Valley greenway system. The Commission spent over $40,000 on sustainable trail 

construction, coordinated thousands of volunteer hours, and worked with a Park Service committee to 

assess all the Parkway trails in the Roanoke area and develop a draft Trail Management Plan Qan 2004), 

which was later modified into the 2011 Roanoke Valley/Blue Ridge Parkway Trail Plan. Under the 

General Agreement the Parkway agreed to confer with the Commission regarding planned greenways that 

involve Parkway property and recognize the Greenway Commission as a lawfully organized body for the 

planning, design, maintenance, and construction of greenway projects in the Roanoke area. Greenway 

Commission members always attend Parkway public meetings in the Roanoke area. 

Given this background, the Greenway Commission is surprised to find no mention in the G MP document 

or appendices of the regional Roanoke Greenway Plan or the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission. 

While there is mention of the Parkway's Roanoke Trail Plan and of one of Roanoke's planned 

bicycle/pedestrian paths, there is no acknowledgement that this is part of a large regional planning effort 

that has been coordinated with the Parkway for many years. Other greenway plans for North Carolina 

communities are recognized. 

2. Elements Missing from the GMP 

a. The GMP fails to acknowledge the issue of encroachment on Parkway lands. Right now the Parkway 

appears to be ignoring encroachments, failing to maintain boundaries, and failing to coordinate with local 

governments to prevent and correct encroachments such as buildings on Park property, mowing of Park 

woodlands, harvest and/or clearing of Park trees, dumping, discharge of stormwater, and other damage to 

Park resources. 

b. The GMP fails to address the critical need for law enforcement of speed limits and to acknowledge how 

such enforcement could reduce non-recreational overuse (commuting), reduce conflicts between 

bicyclists and motorized users, and improve recreational experiences. 

c. The GMP fails to acknowledge the impact of gasoline prices on the volume of users, length of stay, and 

service needs. 

d. The GMP ignores funding issues and fails to address how to manage the Park without the monies 

needed. 

e. The GMP does not address the Presidents Americas Great Outdoors initiative, which includes a goal to 

enhance recreational access and opportunities on public land. It is also inconsistent with the Call to 

Action: Preparing for a Second Century of Stewardship and Engagement Initiative of National Park 

Service director Jon Jarvis which challenges park managers to; (a) expand the use of our national parks for 

outdoor recreation, (b) connect parks in or near urban areas through public transportation and 

pedestrian and bike paths, and (c) decrease each parks carbon footprint. 

f. The GMP does not address the issues of carrying capacity, impact of crowding on visitor experience, 

and control of visitor experience through facility/parking limitation. 

g. The GMP states that management zones are the primary building block for reaching an approved 

management plan (p. 35), but yet declines to show such zones for Alternative A. Thus Alternative A has 

not been given due consideration and comparison to the other alternatives is difficult. While I understand 

that the Park is not currently operated with management zones, staff should have developed maps 

showing how current actions would be mapped under the zones developed for Alternatives Band C. 
3. Preferred Alternative 

Our preferred alternative is C, not B. Alternative B has too much focus on being self-contained and a 

traditional scenic driving experience. Alternative B: 

-ignores that the modes and speeds of driving have changed significantly since 1936; 

-ignores that land uses around the Park have changed; 

-presents an isolationist approach that garners little constituent support and fails to utilize potential 

partners; 

-ignores the many active recreationists who want to use the Park for healthy exercise; 

- ignores the recreationists who want to enjoy the scenery without being in a vehicle; 

-utilizes trail hardening and parking lot enlargement, instead of sustainable design techniques; 

-proposes closing Roanoke Mountain campground, over the objections of local governments and 

citizens; 

-focuses on tradition, but without fiscal reality. 

Alternative C is preferred because it utilizes regional resources, supports local economies, recognizes the 

need for alternative transportation systems, emphasizes collaboration and flexibility, and integrates the 

Park into local cultural resources. It has the same direction as B in scenery conservation, land protection, 

natural resources, and cultural resources, but has better options for Interpretation and Visitor Services, 

Access, and Campgrounds. 

4. Trail Management 

a. The Greenway Commission is concerned that there is so little discussion in the plan of sustainable trail 

design. While the GMP recognizes that trails are in poor condition and that this is a big issue to visitors (p. 

254), it addresses that by hardening the trails, rather than be designing them sustainably. The Parkway has 

the most poorly designed trails in our region and uses asphalt to correct erosion problems, thus 

significantly altering the trail experience. 

b. The GMP fails to recognize the pivotal role of volunteers in sustainable trail design and maintenance. 

c. The GMP should initiate approval of bicycle use on non-paved surfaces. 

d. The G MP should encourage multi-use trails, including mountain bicycling, and recognize that horses 

have the most environmental impact on trails. 

e. The GMP should endorse the connection of the Parkway to regional trail networks, such as the 

Roanoke Valley Greenway system. 

f. New, sustainable trails should be allowed in Management Zone Natural. 

5. Other Recommended Changes 

a. National Historic Landmark designation is the wrong way to protect the Parkway. This status will 

create obstacles and bureaucratic red tape, and entomb the Parkway in a virtual time capsule. Protect and 

maintain individual historic structures instead. 

b. Promote safe bicycling on the Parkway and alternative transportation modes. 

c. Open Chestnut Ridge Trail to mountain biking. 

d. Retain Roanoke Mountain Campground and improve it with showers and mountain biking 

opportunities. 

e. Continue the Parkway design features in any new buildings. 

f. Work with the Greenway Commission to facilitate completion of Roanoke River Greenway and of 

linkages to Mill Mountain Trails. 

USDA 

~ 

Vnited States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

National Forests in North Carolina 

Supervisor's Office 

160 ZILLICOA ST STE A 

ASHEVILLE NC 28801-1082 

828-257-4200 

File Code: 1950 

Date: December 15, 2011 

Superintendent Philip A. Francis, Jr. 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

199 Hemphill Knob Road 

Asheville, NC 28803 

Dear Mr. Francis: 

Thank you for giving managers at the National Forests in North Carolina (NFsNCI the 

opportunity to provide comments on the Draft General Management Plan for the Blue Ridge 

Parkway. We appreciate the close partnership we share as resource managers, and believe the 

proposed plan will offer us the opportunity to continue to strengthen this relationship. 

• Mt. Pisgah Recreation Area: Management of spruce and fir around Mt. Pisgah should be 

emphasized including use of vegetation management techniques that increase the vigor of 

individuals and groups of the species. 

• Future Studies and Management Plans Needed- Natural Resources (Page 101): lt is 

strongly recommended that future resource strategies consider the use of active 

management to maintain and restore natural ecosystems. A prime example being the 

maturing oak forest on the landscape that has been subject to fire exclusion for 80 to 100 

years. 

• While we applaud the use of fire within the Parkway's management plan, its 

reintroduction is not the sole mechanism for restoration when mesic species have 

encroached into the overstory and are casting enough shade on the understory to prevent 

the development of advanced oak regeneration. Other cultural treatments such as 

herbicide and mechani cal removal may be necessary where the objective is to 

restore/maintain the native system. 

• Resource Protection Activities (page 301): The document mentions " limited" timber 

harvest on National Forest Service (NFS) lands within the Parkway viewshed. Consider 

replacing that phrase with something like ... "The Parkway will work with the US Forest 

Service to insure that timber harvest on adjacent NFS lands will be implemented in a way 

that protects and maintains scenic views from the Blue Ridge Parkway." 

• Alternative A - Environmental Consequences (page 305): We would like to see 

acknowledgement of the change in forest species composition that will occur if a no 

action alternative is selected. It is our estimation that a shift towards more mesic species 

would be counter to the NFS goal of restoration and maintenance of native vegetation. 

• Environmental Consequences- Parkway Segments (311 ): In several instances the term 

"other types of resource stewardship" is used to encompass a vague list of management 

Caring for the Land and Serving People 
actions. What types of actions fit into this category? Do they include a greater degree of 

options than researching, documenting (inventory and monitoring), and exotic species 

treatment? Are they defined within the document? 

• Partnership Expansion: We applaud the desire expressed in the document to increase 

partner coordination especially where management options on adjacent lands are in the 

interest of Parkway goals and objectives. It is the hope of the National Forests in North 

Carolina to increase coordination where restoration of ecosystems extend across shared 

boundaries. Several pertinent examples include: 

1) NFS land on and surrounding Mt. Pisgah that is visible from the Parkway. This area 

represents a large portion of our shared landscape that is composed of declining, 

m_f!ture mixed_oak forest that is eing ache esik fire-imolerant c;:pe_cie_S. 

This change in species composition is not desirable for the Parkway viewshed or NFS 

land management goals. However, it is highly unlikely that the NFS would undertake 

such a project without the involvement (or interest) by the Parkway. 

2) Unique ecosystems such as spruce/fir or table mountain/pitch pine forest communities 

that extend across boundaries and are considered in peril across their range in the 

. southern Appalachians. There may be instances where management should cross 

boundaries to preserve a larger or more significant part of the ecosystem. 

3) American Chestnut Restoration: Some of the best restoration potential may exist 

along the interface of Parkway and NFS lands. The opportunities for future planting 

strategies should be explored in anticipation of production of resistant hybrids and 

solutions to out-planting complications. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Management Plan. We look forward to 

cooperating with the Park Service in managing these special lands into the future . Your plan will 

help to accomplish these goals. 

Sincerely, 

MARISUE HILLIARD 

Forest Supervisor 
United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Asheville Field Office 

160 Zillicoa Street 

Asheville, North Carolina 28801 

Phone: (828) 258-3939 Fax: (828) 258-5330 

April 12, 2012 

Ms. Suzette Molling 

National Park Service 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

199 Hemphill Knob Road 

Asheville, North Carolina 28803 

Dear Ms. Molling: 

Subject: Environmental Impact Statement for the Blue Ridge Parkway’s General Management 

Plan 

We received your email of April 4, 2012, requesting our comments on the subject document. 

We previously provided comments on this project in a letter dated January 17, 2002, April 14, 

2008 (via a form provided with your newsletter on the Preliminary Alternative), and July 10, 

2008. The following comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act; the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-711); and section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). Please note that our 

comments are relative to the portion of the Blue Ridge Parkway (Parkway) that occurs in North 

Carolina. Additional comments should be solicited from our Southwest Virginia Field Office in 

Abingdon, Virginia. 

We support the two action alternatives (B and C) which involve "more proactive management of 

natural resources, incorporating long·term approaches, and advancing regional ecosystem health 

through active partnerships" rather than the no-action alternative which would address 

management needs on a case-by-case basis. Further, we concur with the North Carolina Wildlife 

Resources Commission’s (NCWRC) comment on this project stating that the Parkway include a 

“. . . broader scope of habitat enhancement in the Craggies with a proactive ecosystem approach 

(consistent with alternatives B & C) while also recognizing the inherent, but not insurmountable, 

conflicts between management for balds species and forest dwelling species . . .” and that the 

Parkway develop a spruce restoration plan/project for the Craggies to restore ecosystem function 

and processes for listed species . . .” Although we are supportive of both alternatives B and C 

because of similar natural resource guidelines, like the NCWRC, we do have some potential 
reservations with Alternative C if facility redesigns would increase the developed footprints and 

cause either (1) more loss of habitat to accommodate these facilities (especially within threatened and 

endangered species habitat) or (2) increased disturbance to species that are sensitive to disturbance.

Based on the information provided in the Environmental Impact Statement and a review of our 

records, we concur with your assessment that for each of the three alternatives, “no affect” and 

”may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determinations (as specified in Tables 47, 48 and 49) 

are appropriate for the species evaluated. Therefore, the requirements under section 7(c) of the 

Endangered Species Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified 

action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, 

(2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or 

(3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the identified 

action. Also, please note that project-level planning may require further consultation under 

section 7. 

In any future correspondence pertaining to this matter, please reference our Log Number 

4-2-02-108. Questions regarding our comments should be directed to Mr. Allen Ratzlaff of our 

staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 229. 

cc: 

Mr. David McHenry, Mountain Region Reviewer, North Carolina Wildlife Resources 

Commission, 20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway, Waynesville, NC 28786 
Administrative Services

10 Courthouse Ave.

Petersburg, VA 23803

Tel: (804) 862-6416

Fax: (804) 862-6196

Capital Region Office

2801 Kensington Office

Richmond, VA 23221

Tel: (804) 367-2323

Fax: (804) 367-2391

Tidewater Region Office

14415 Old Courthouse Way 2nd

Floor

Newport News, VA 23608

Tel: (757) 886-2807

Fax: (757) 886-2808

Western Region Office

962 Kime Lane

Salem, VA 24153

Tel: (540) 387-5428

Fax: (540) 387-5446

Northern Region Office

5357 Main Street

PO Box 519

Stephens City, VA 22655

Tel: (540) 868-7031

Fax: (540) 868-7033

Figure 1 

May 30, 2012 

Philip A. Francis, Jr., Superintendent 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

199 Hemphill Knob Road 

Asheville, North Carolina 28803 

RE: Blue Ridge Parkway 

General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 

 DHR File No. 2002-1902

Dear Superintendent Francis: 

Thank you for requesting our comments on draft General Management Plan and Environmental Impact 

Statement. We have appreciated the opportunity to participate in earlier meeting leading up to the GNP in 

Jonesville, North Carolina in 2002 and 2004 to discuss the significance of parkway cultural resources and 

goals for future management. We are very pleased to see that the action alternatives include a comprehensive 

parkway-wide approach to cultural resource management. We strongly support the Park’s preferred 

alternative, Alternative B. The draft document is generally very written and organized. We offer the 

following minor comments for your consideration: 

Appendix B. Determination of Impairment. 

 On page 567, Archaeological resources, it is stated that: Some impacts could be mitigated through the use of 

appropriate screening and use of vegetation and appropriate design and new, non-contributing additions 

could be designed to be compatible with the historic setting. These are not in fact appropriate mitigations for 

archaeological sites, but for cultural landscapes and structures. 

On page p.568 it is stated that Ground disturbing activities related to the construction of new concession 

facilities could result in long term adverse impacts because some sites features or artifacts could be altered, 

even though their information value would be retained. However, archaeological sites may be eligible for 

more than their information value. Archaeological sites may be eligible under criteria A and B as well as D. 

They may also be of cultural importance to living communities. 

Again, on p.568 it is stated that any potential ground disturbing activities could cause short-term adverse 

impacts on archaeological resources. Unfortunately archaeological sites are non-renewable resources. 

Ground disturbing activities have the potential to cause permanent and severe impacts to archaeological 

resources to the point of total destruction. 

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA

Department of Historic Resources

2801 Kensington Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 23221 Douglas W. Domenech

Secretary of Natural Resources

Kathleen S. Kilpatrick

Director

Tel: (804) 367-2323

Fax: (804) 367-2391

TDD: (804) 367-2386

www.dhr.virginia.gov
Administrative Services

10 Courthouse Ave.

Petersburg, VA 23803

Tel: (804) 862-6416

Fax: (804) 862-6196

Capital Region Office

2801 Kensington Office

Richmond, VA 23221

Tel: (804) 367-2323

Fax: (804) 367-2391

Tidewater Region Office

14415 Old Courthouse Way 2nd

Floor

Newport News, VA 23608

Tel: (757) 886-2807

Fax: (757) 886-2808

Western Region Office

962 Kime Lane

Salem, VA 24153

Tel: (540) 387-5428

Fax: (540) 387-5446

Northern Region Office

5357 Main Street

PO Box 519

Stephens City, VA 22655

Tel: (540) 868-7031

Fax: (540) 868-7033

However, we can agree that implementation of the preferred alternative would not result in impairment to 

archaeological resources through implementation of the mitigation measures presented on page 91 and 92. 

Rocky Knob.Mileposts 166-174.

We have some concern about the effects of Alternative B as presented in the comparison of alternatives from 

upgrading the Gorge Trail System. There is a special cultural resource zone is Rockcastle Gorge where there 

are remnants of an abandoned mountain community. Alternative C proposes In proximity of the historic 

settlement sites, including the fire road, allow hiking only. We are not clear whether the upgrade proposed in 

Alternative B would be for a multi-use trail, rather than hiking only. On page 140 it is stated that Because this 

area can tolerate only little impact to historic structures, this special cultural resource zone would provide for 

long term beneficial impacts on historic structures through added protection. Discussion of impacts to historic 

structures here and elsewhere in the document is too narrowly focused on structures that make up the parkway. 

Impacts to buildings, such as the CCC- era cabin and the Rock Castle Gorge Mountain Community must also 

be considered. Upgrading the trail does have the potential to affect historic buildings and the cultural 

landscape. We understand that the cultural landscape report for Rocky Knob is incomplete. No draft has yet 

been submitted to DHR. DHR has also not received the ethnographic overview and assessment scheduled for 

approval in 2011(p. 227). Consequently we do not know the status or condition of the buildings remaining in 

the special cultural resource zone. Nonetheless, the mitigation measures presented on pages 91 and 92 should 

serve to address the effects that may occur. 

We apologize for the delay in our response and look forward to working with you on future projects as 

Alternative B is implemented. If you have any questions, or if we may provide any further assistance, please 

do not hesitate to contact me at (804) 367-2323, ext. 112; fax (804) 367-2391; e-mail 

ethel.eaton@dhr.virginia.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Ethel R. Eaton, Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst 

Division of Resource Services and Review 
December 9, 2011 

717 Main Street 

P.O. Box 727 

North Wilkesboro, NC 28659 

336.838.8662 

www.wilkesnc.org 

Superintendent Philip A. Francis, Jr. 

Blue Ridge Parkway 

199 Hemphill Knob Road 

Asheville, NC 28803 

RE: Future of the Blue Ridge Parkway 

Dear Superintendent Francis: 

Wilkes Chamber of Commerce submits this letter in support of the preservation of the 

Blue Ridge Parkway. The chamber feels strongly about the sustain ability of the 

parkway's historic appearance, character, and the overall visitor experience. The Blue 

Ridge Parkway is a tourism destination for thousands of visitors seeking to escape from 

traffic, noise, crowding, and intrusive development. Each visitor values the peace, 

solitude, quiet, and spectacular scenic views the parkway experience provides. We feel 

these values must be protected and enhanced. 

Wilkes Chamber of Commerce believes the Blue Ridge Parkway should remain separate 

and distinct from the regional transportation system . Road connectors may trigger 

additional adjacent residential development and increase the non-visitor, commuter 

traffic flow. We encourage the Park Service of the Blue Ridge Parkway to sustain the 

parkway's scenic and rustic character for future generations. 

~0, Linda Cheek ~ President- Wilkes Chamber of Commerce 
References 

667 

REFERENCES 

Alderman, J. Anthony 

1997 Wildflowers of the Blue Ridge Parkway: Where to Find What’s Blooming in 

Every Season. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 

Amberg, Rob 

2002 Sodom Laurel Album: Photographs, Stories, and Songs—A Contemporary 

Example of a [Blue Ridge] Community with a Strong Sense of Place, including 

Appalachian Ballads from Madison County, North Carolina. Iris Tillman Hill, 

editor. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: A Lundhurst Book of the University of 

North Carolina Press in association with the Center for Documentary Studies at 

Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 

Anderson, Becky 

2003 “The Blue Ridge Heritage Initiative: Partnerships to Preserve Traditions and 

Promote Positive Change.” Forum Journal of the National Trust for Historic 

Preservation 17 (4, Summer 2003): 27- 32. 

Appalachian State University 

2008 “Not Just a Scenic Road: The Blue Ridge Parkway and Its History.” Boone, North 

Carolina: Appalachian State University, Department of History. Available on the 

Internet at 

<http://www.history.appstate.edu/news- events/neh- blueridge- parkway- workshop>. 

Ball, Julie 

2002a “Blue Ridge Music Center Will Highlight Region’s Old- time Roots: Blue Ridge 

Parkway Stories.” The Asheville (North Carolina) Citizen- Times, November 1, 

2002. 

2002b “Historic Scenic Roadway Plays Big Role in Region's Identity and Economy: Blue 

Ridge Parkway Stories.” The Asheville (North Carolina) Citizen- Times, October 10, 

2002. 

2002c “Mabry Mill Attracts Visitors from All Over the World: Blue Ridge Parkway 

Stories.” The Asheville (North Carolina) Citizen- Times, November 1, 2002. 

2002d “Management Plan in the Works for Parkway: Blue Ridge Parkway Stories.” The 

Asheville (North Carolina) Citizen- Times, October 10, 2002. 

2002e “Parkway Advocates Historical Accuracy: Blue Ridge Parkway Stories.” The 

Asheville (North Carolina) Citizen- Times, November 1, 2002. 

2002f “Parkway Design: Part Nature, Part Planning (Blue Ridge Parkway Stories).” The 

Asheville (North Carolina) Citizen- Times, October 10, 2002. 

2002g “Parkway Provided Living to Workers in Hard Times: Blue Ridge Parkway 

Stories.” The Asheville (North Carolina) Citizen- Times, November 1, 2002. 

2002h “Parkway Travels Through Time and Space: Blue Ridge Parkway Stories.” The 

Asheville (North Carolina) Citizen- Times, October 10, 2002. 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS, AND INDEX

668 

2002i “Places on the Parkway: Blue Ridge Parkway Stories.” The Asheville (North 

Carolina) Citizen- Times, October 10, 2002. 

2002j “Serving Country Ham and Cobblers with a Smile for 53 Years: Blue Ridge 

Parkway Stories.” The Asheville (North Carolina) Citizen- Times, October 10, 2002. 

Barker, Garry G. 

1991 The Handicraft Revival in Southern Appalachia, 1930- 1990. Knoxville, TN: 

University of Tennessee Press. 

Bartram, William 

1791 Travels through North & South Carolina, Georgia, East & West Florida, the 

Cherokee Country, the Extensive Territories of the Muscogulges, or Creek 

Confederacy, and the Country of the Choctaws: Containing an Account of the 

Soil and Natural Productions of Those Regions, Together with Observations on 

the Manners of the Indians. Philadelphia, PA: James and Johnson. Reprinted 

1955. Mark Van Doren, editor. New York, NY: Dover Publications. 

1853 “Observations on the Creek and Cherokee Indians, 1789.” in Transactions of the

American Ethnological Society, 3, part 1 (1853), 1–81. Published posthumously. 

New York, NY: Bartlett & Welford. 

Beadle, Michael 

2003 “Museum of the Cherokee Indian.” Smoky Mountain Living 3 (1, Winter 2003): 

25. 

Bledsoe, Jerry 

1996 Blue Horizons: Faces and Places From a Bicycle Journey Along the Blue Ridge 

Parkway. Second printing; first published in 1993. Asheboro, North Carolina: 

Down Home Press. 

Blue Ridge Now (BRN).com: Times- News Online 

2008 “Tar Heel Faculty Bus Visits Hendersonville,” by Mark Schulman, May. Available 

on the Internet at 

<http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/20080515/NEWS/758357041>. 

Blue Ridge Parkway Association (BRPA) 

n.d. “Linn Cove Viaduct.” Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.blueridgeparkway.org/linncove.htm>. Accessed July 18, 2008. 

Brawner, Renee 

2003 “Music Review: Blue Ridge Mountain Music, Ivy Creek Recordings.” [Blue 

Ridge] Parkway Milepost (Fall- Winter 2002- 2003): 9. 

Brothers, Gene, and R.J.C. Chen. 

1997 1995- 96 Economic Impact of Travel to the Blue Ridge Parkway: Virginia and North 

Carolina. Prepared for the Coalition for the Blue Ridge Parkway and the 

National Park Service by North Carolina State University, Department of Parks, 

Recreation and Tourism Management, Office of Parks, Tourism Research. 

Raleigh, North Carolina. 
References 

669 

Brown, Daniel W. 

2003 “Parkway Begins Long- Needed Comprehensive Plant Survey.” [Blue Ridge] 

Parkway Milepost (Fall- Winter 2002- 2003): 4. 

Brown, Elizabeth 

2000 “Blue Ridge Parkway, Collection Storage Report, May 2000.” Asheville, North 

Carolina: Blue Ridge Parkway, National Park Service. 

Brumm, Henrik, and Hans Slabbekoorn 

2005 Acoustic communication in noise. Advances in the Study of Behavior 35: 151–209. 

Bryant, Bill

2003 “The Civilian Conservation Corps.” [Blue Ridge] Parkway Milepost (Fall- Winter 

2002- 2003): 11. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis 

2008 Regional Economic Accounts [Brochure]. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/default.cfm?catable=CA25: U.S. Department 

of Commerce>. 

Bushnell, David I., Jr. 

1940 “Evidence of Early Indian Occupancy near the Peaks of Otter, Bedford County, 

Virginia.” Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 99 (15). 

Cabanis- Brewin, Jeannette 

2003 “Western Carolina University’s Mountain Heritage Center.” Smoky Mountain 

Living 3 (1, Winter 2003): 27- 28. 

Cameron, Catherine M. 

1994 “The Destruction of the Past: Nonrenewable Cultural Resources.” Natural 

Resources Research 3 (1): 6- 24. 

Chamlee, Ken 

2003 “Crafts and Community: A Week at the John C. Campbell Folk School.” Smoky 

Mountain Living 3 (2, Spring 2003): 79- 81. 

ChanginGears.com 

n.d. “RV FAQ's & Tips.” Available on the Internet at 

<http://changingears.com/tip- cat- considering- rving.shtml>. 

Clarke, Georgine Rummage, Charles Counts, and Maude Southwell Wahlman 

Gifts of the Spirit: An Exhibit of Regional, National, and International Folk Art, 

September 2, 1984 – November 28, 1984, Folk Art Center Milepost 382, Blue 

Ridge Parkway, Asheville, North Carolina. Asheville, North Carolina: Southern 

Highland Craft Guild. 

Cobb, Charles R. 

2001 “Geography, History, and the Appalachian Axis Mundi.” In Archaeology of the 

Appalachian Highlands 306- 318. Edited by Lynne P. Sullivan and Susan C. 

Pressano. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press. 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS, AND INDEX

670 

David Evans and Associates 

2002 “Transportation Data Collection Report, Blue Ridge Parkway.” December. 

2004 “Transportation System Data Analysis, Blue Ridge Parkway.” September. 

2005 “Blue Ridge Parkway Multiuse Path Feasibility Study.” February. 

Dickens, Roy S., Jr. 

1970 “The Pisgah Culture and Its Place in the Prehistory of the Southern Appalachians.” 

Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, 

Chapel Hill. 

1976 Cherokee Prehistory: the Pisgah Phase in the Appalachian Summit Region. 

Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press. 

Driver, B. L., Howard E.A. Tinsley and Michael J. Manfredo 

1991 “Leisure and recreation experience preference scales: Results from two 

inventories designed to assess the breadth of the perceived psychological benefits 

of leisure.” In The Benefits of Leisure, 263- 287. B.L. Driver, P.J. Brown , & G.L. 

Peterson edition. State College, PA: Venture. 

Duncan, Barbara R., and Brett H. Riggs 

2003 Cherokee Heritage Trails Guidebook. Chapel Hill, North Carolina and London, 

ENG: University of North Carolina Press in association with the Museum of the 

Cherokee Indian, Cherokee, North Carolina. 

Eaton, Allen H. 

1973 Handicrafts of the Southern Highlands. New York: Dover Publications. Reprint of 

the first edition published in 1937 by the Russell Sage Foundation of New York, 

including the original photographs of Doris Ulmann, with a Dover preface by 

Ralph Rinzler and a Dover introduction by Rayna Green. 

Edwards, Grace Toney 

2002 Personal telephone conversation, May 21, 2002, of Grace Toney Edwards, 

director, Appalachian Regional Studies Center, Radford University, Radford, 

Virginia, with Lawrence F. Van Horn, cultural resource specialist, Denver Service 

Center, National Park Service, United States Department of the Interior. 

Eiler, Lyntha Scott, Terry Eiler, and Carl Fleischhauer, editors 

1981 Blue Ridge Harvest: A Region’s Folklife in Photographs. An Essay from the Blue 

Ridge Parkway Folklife Project Conducted by the American Folklife Center in 

Cooperation with the National Park Service in August and September 1978. 

Washington, D.C.: The Library of Congress. 

Fields, Jay and Brad Campbell 

1996 The Craft Heritage Trails of Western North Carolina. Second edition. Asheville, 

North Carolina: Hand Made in America, Incorporated. First edition published 

in 1996. 
References 

671 

Foster, Will 

2003 “These Old Molasses.” [Blue Ridge] Parkway Milepost (Fall- Winter 2002- 2003): 

8. 

Frederickson, Mary 

1998 “Collection Condition Survey for the Blue Ridge Parkway Museum.” Canyon, TX: 

Art Care, Incorporated, Conservation and Collection Care for The Blue Ridge 

Parkway, North Carolina and Virginia, headquartered in Asheville, North 

Carolina. 

Givens, Peter 

2003 “Music Celebrations and Events Bring Attention to Musical Heritage.” [Blue 

Ridge] Parkway Milepost (Fall- Winter 2002- 2003): 4. 

Goodman, Clay and Janet Scheid 

2010 “Community Challenges and Successes: Last Chance Landscape Revisited 1998-

2010,” Available on the internet at 

<http://blueridgeparkway75.org/files/Last_Chance_Landscape_RevisitedGoodman_Scheid.pdf>. Accessed March 23, 2010. 

Goodrich, Frances Louisa 

Mountain Homespun. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 

1989 Mountain Homespun: A Facsimile of the Original, Published in 1931, with New 

Introduction by Jan Davidson. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press. 

Griffin, John W., and John H. Reeves, Jr. 

1968 “A Stratified Site at Peaks of Otter, Blue Ridge Parkway.” Quarterly Bulletin of the 

Archeological Society of Virginia 23 (2): 54- 62. 

Haas, Glenn E., and Timothy J. Wakefield 

1998 National parks and the American public: A national public opinion survey on the 

national park system. Washington DC: The Association. 

HandMade in America 

2009 HandMade in America Website. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.handmadeinamerica.org/>. Accessed December 2009. 

Harley, Jolley E. 

2007 That Magnificent Army of Youth and Peace: The Civilian Conservation Corps in 

North Carolina, 1933- 1942. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina Office of 

Archives and History. 

Harris, Cyril M. 

1998 Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control. Third edition, New 

York: McGraw- Hill. 

Hasty, David 

2002 “Blue Ridge Parkway Cultural Landscape Hierarchy,” October 24, 2002. 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS, AND INDEX

672 

Heffner, Gwen 

2001 The Test of Time: An Exhibition of Works by Southern Highland Craft Guild 

Members at the Art- Space of the Berea Arts Council, Berea, Kentucky, April 19-

25, 2001. Asheville, North Carolina: Southern Highland Craft Guild. 

Historic American Engineering Record 

1998 Blue Ridge Parkway: HAER No. North Carolina- 42. 

Hoffman, Michael A., and Robert W. Foss 

1977 “Man in the Blue Ridge—An Archaeological and Environmental Perspective.” 

Paper presented at the Second Annual Shenandoah Research Symposium, April 

21, 1977, Luray, Virginia, and at the Forty- second Annual Meeting of the Society 

for American Archaeology, April 28, 1977, New Orleans, Louisiana. 

Holland, C. G. 

1970 An Archeological Survey of Southwest Virginia. Smithsonian Contributions to 

Anthropology Number 12. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. 

Holt, Jacqueline 

2000 “The Blue Ridge Parkway Archives.” The Curator, Annual Newsletter of the [Boone, 

North Carolina] Appalachian Consortium (Fall 2000): 1. 

Hunter, Chuck, Robert Katz, David Pashley, and Bob Ford 

1999 “Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan for the Southern Blue Ridge 

(Physiographic Area 23), Version 1.0.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 

partnership with the American Bird Conservancy and Partners in Flight. Atlanta, 

Georgia. 

International Human Dimensions Programme (IHDP) on Global Environmental Change 

2008 Some Guidelines for Helping Natural Resources Adapt to Climate Change, by 

Baron, J.S., et al. IHDP Update 2: 46- 52. 

International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

2007a Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working 

Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change, edited by S. Solomon, et al. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Keel, Bennie C. 

1976 Cherokee Archaeology: A Study of the Appalachian Summit. Knoxville, TN: 

University of Tennessee Press. 

Kephart, Horace 

1984 Our Southern Highlanders. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press. First 

published in 1914, New York, NY: Outing Publishing Company. 

Lambeth, T.W. 

2006 “Employment in North Carolina.” N.C. Rural Economic Development Center 

Website. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.ncruralcenter.org/databank/trendpage_Employment.asp>. Accessed 

October 15, 2008. 
References 

673 

Lane, Leon, and David G. Anderson 

2001 “Paleoindian Occupations of the Southern Appalachians.” Archaeology of the 

Appalachian Highlands, edited by Lynne P. Sullivan and Susan C. Pressano: 88-

102. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press. 

Lawliss, Lucy and David Hasty 

2001 “Blue Ridge Parkway Cultural Landscapes Inventory Strategic Plan,” Prepared for 

the National Park Service Southeast Regional Office. Summer. 

Lefler, Susan 

2003 “The French Broad Riverkeeper, Phillip Gibson.” Smoky Mountain Living 3 (2, 

Spring 2003): 54- 56, 58. 

Lord, William G. 

1974a “The Blue Ridge Parkway Guide: Shenandoah Park to Roanoke, Miles 0- 110.” 

Asheville, North Carolina: Stephens Press. First published in 1964 with revised 

editions in 1969 and 1974. 

1974b “The Blue Ridge Parkway Guide: Roanoke to Boone/Blowing Rock, Miles 110-

292.” Asheville, North Carolina: Stephens Press. First published in 1964 with 

revised editions in 1969 and 1974. 

1974c “The Blue Ridge Parkway Guide: Boone/Blowing Rock to Asheville, Miles 292-

383.” Asheville, North Carolina: Stephens Press. First published in 1964 with 

revised editions in 1969 and 1974. 

1974d “The Blue Ridge Parkway Guide: Asheville to Great Smokies, Miles 383- 469.” 

Asheville, North Carolina: Stephens Press. First published in 1964 with revised 

editions in 1969 and 1974. 

Love, Jan J., Elizabeth Hunter, Mary Lynn White, and L. M. Sawyer 

2002 Farms, Gardens, and Countryside Trails of Western North Carolina. Asheville, 

North Carolina: Hand Made in America, Incorporated. 

Mace, B. L., Paul A. Bell, R. J. Loomis and G.E. Haas 

2003 Source attribution of helicopter noise in pristine national park landscapes. Journal 

of Park and Recreation Administration 21(3), 97- 119. 

Mathis, Mark A., and Jeffrey J. Crow, editors 

1982 The Prehistory of North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina State 

University Press. 

McDonald, Cary D., Robert M. Baumgartner and Ronaldo Iachan 

1995 National Park Service aircraft management studies: Visitor survey (US Department 

of Interior Rep. No. 94- 2). Denver, CO: National Park Service. 

Medford, Houck M. 

2003 Letter to the Planning Team. Dated May 20, 2003. From Houck M. Medford, 

executive director Blue Ridge Parkway Foundation, Winston- Salem, North 

Carolina. 

Melnick, Robert Z. 

2009 “Climate Change and Landscape Preservation: A Twenty- First Century 

Conundrum.” Journal of Preservation Technology 40(3- 4): 35- 42. 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS, AND INDEX

674 

Miller, Carl J. 

1962 Archeology of the John H. Kerr Reservoir Basin, Roanoke River, Virginia- North 

Carolina. River Basin Surveys Paper Number 25. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of 

American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution. 

Mitchell, Anne Virginia 

1997a “Culture, History, and Development on the Qualla Boundary: The Eastern 

Cherokees and the Blue Ridge Parkway, 1935- 1940.” Appalachian Journal 24 (1, 

Winter 1997): 144- 191. 

1997b “Parkway Politics: Class, Culture, and Tourism in the Blue Ridge.” Ph.D. 

dissertation. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: Department of History, University of 

North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 

Morfey, Christopher L. 

2001 Dictionary of Acoustics. London, UK: Academic Press. 

Museum of the Cherokee Indian 

n.d. “Walk through Time with the Ancient Cherokee at the Museum of the Cherokee 

Indian.” Cherokee, North Carolina: Museum of the Cherokee Indian. 

National Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

2005 Wilson Creek National Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive River 

Management Plan. Nantahala- Pisgah Land and Resource Management Plan 

Amendment 18. Asheville, North Carolina. 

National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) 

2010 http://www.npca.org/climatechange/wildlife_survival/>. “Climate Change and 

National Park Wildlife: A Survival Guide for a Warming World.” Washington D.C. 

Available on the Internet at < 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior 

1964 A Stratified Site at Peaks of Otter, Blue Ridge Parkway, by John W. Griffin. 

Asheville, North Carolina: Blue Ridge Parkway. Copy on file, Denver, CO: NPS 

Technical Information Center, Denver Service Center, Number D- 10 under Blue 

Ridge Parkway. 

1973 A Preliminary Report on Archeological Excavations at Boone Fork Rock Shelter 

Number 1, Site 31WT105, Watauga County, North Carolina, by Burton L. 

Purrington. Tallahassee, FL: Southeast Archeological Center. 

1976 Assessment of Archeological Resources of the Proposed Blue Ridge Parkway 

Extension within Great Smoky Mountains National Park, by Ellen B. Murphy, 

Steven J. Shephard, and Sandra Jo Forney. Tallahassee, FL: Southeast 

Archeological Center. 

1976b Peaks of Otter [Blue Ridge Parkway] Archeological Reconnaissance for the Sewer 

System Environmental Impact Statement, by John E. Ehrenhard. Tallahassee, FL: 

Southeast Archeological Center. 
References 

675 

1977 Blue Ridge Parkway, Archeological Investigations and Assessments of Proposed 

Construction Projects, by Ellen B. Ehrenhard. Tallahassee, FL: Southeast 

Archeological Center. 

1978 Archeological Reconnaissance at the Humpback Rocks Visitor Center of the Blue 

Ridge Parkway, Augusta County, Virginia, by Douglas C. McLearen. Tallahassee, 

FL: Southeast Archeological Center. 

1987 An Archeological Overview and Assessment of the Blue Ridge Parkway, by Susan L. 

Hammersten. Tallahassee, FL: Southeast Archeological Center. 

1987 Archeological Investigations for the Proposed Linn Cove Septic Tank and Drain 

Field, [North Carolina], Blue Ridge Parkway, North Carolina [and Virginia], by 

Elizabeth A. Horvath. Tallahassee, FL: Southeast Archeological Center. 

1990 Preliminary Research Design and Cost Estimates for the Archeological 

Investigations for the Roanoke River Parkway, by Elizabeth A. Horvath, and 

George S. Smith. Tallahassee, FL: Southeast Archeological Center. 

1991 Report on Archeological Investigations at Blue Ridge Parkway for an Interpretive 

Center at Fisher Peak, by Ken Wild. Tallahassee, FL: Southeast Archeological 

Center. 

1992 Resource Management Plan. Blue Ridge Parkway. Asheville, North Carolina: Blue 

Ridge Parkway, National Park Service. 

1993 Archeological Report on Testing at Humpback Rocks Site 1 (44AU242) at the 

Humpback Rocks Visitors Center and Chestnut Creek Rockshelter 1 (44GY88) at 

Fisher Peak, Blue Ridge Parkway, Virginia, by John E. Cornelison, Jr. Tallahassee, 

FL: Southeast Archeological Center. 

1995 “Blue Ridge Parkway Log.” April. Asheville, North Carolina: Blue Ridge Parkway, 

National Park Service. 

1996 Corridor Management Plan, Phase One, Blue Ridge Parkway. Asheville, North 

Carolina: Blue Ridge Parkway, National Park Service. 

1997 Archeological Testing at Humpback Rocks 2 and Peaks of Otter, Blue Ridge Parkway, 

by John E. Cornelison, Jr., and Regina M. Meyer. Tallahassee, FL: Southeast 

Archeological Center. 

2001 Collections Management Report for the Blue Ridge Parkway, October 31, 2001, by 

Jacqueline Holt. Asheville, North Carolina: Blue Ridge Parkway, National Park 

Service. 

2001 Management Analysis, Blue Ridge Parkway [Virginia and North Carolina], October 

12, 2001, by Charlie Powell, associate regional director, Southeast Region, 

National Park Service, to the regional director, Southeast Region, National Park 

Service, and to the superintendent, Blue Ridge Parkway. Atlanta, GA: Southeast 

Region, National Park Service. 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS, AND INDEX

676 

2002 “Highways in Harmony, Blue Ridge Parkway, Virginia and North Carolina.” 

National Park Service. 

2002 Report on the Status of Tribal Consultation Between the Blue Ridge Parkway and 

Eight American Indian Tribes, May 2, 2002, by Allen R. Hess. Asheville, North 

Carolina: Cultural Resource Management, Blue Ridge Parkway, National Park 

Service. 

2003 “Blue Ridge Parkway Business Plan.” Asheville, North Carolina: Blue Ridge 

Parkway, National Park Service. 

2003 “Blue Ridge Parkway General Management Plan Cultural Resource Listings.” 

Compiled March 25–28, 2003, by Allen Hess, cultural resource specialist, Blue 

Ridge Parkway, with the help of David Hasty, landscape architect, Southeast 

Regional Office; Harlan D. Unrau, cultural resource specialist, Denver Service 

Center; and Lawrence F. Van Horn, cultural resource specialist, Denver Service 

Center. Asheville, North Carolina: Blue Ridge Parkway, National Park Service. 

2003 A Socioeconomic Atlas for Blue Ridge Parkway and its Region, by McKendry, J. E., A. 

J. Novak, and G. E Machlis. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service. Available 

on the Internet at <http://www.nps.gov/Parkway/siteindex.htm>. 

2003 “Report on the Tribal Consultation between the Eastern Band of Cherokee 

Indians and the Blue Ridge Parkway, Held at Eastern Cherokee Band Offices in 

Cherokee, North Carolina, February 12, 2003.” Asheville, North Carolina: 

Cultural Resource Management, Blue Ridge Parkway, National Park Service. 

2003 “Socioeconomic Atlas for Blue Ridge Parkway and its Region,” by J. E. McKendry, 

A.J. Novak, and G.E. Machlis. 

2006 “Natural Resource Background, Community Types, and Rare Species Found in 

the Park.” Asheville, North Carolina: Blue Ridge Parkway, National Park Service. 

2007 “Weather and Climate Inventory: National Park Service Appalachian Highlands 

Network.” Natural Resource Technical Report. 2007/008. 

2008a Vista Management within Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel Habitat Along the Blue 

Ridge Parkway Environmental Assessment. Asheville, North Carolina: Blue Ridge 

Parkway. Available on the Internet at 

<http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=355&projectId=11396&do

cumentID=25489>. 

2008b Visitor Services Project, Blue Ridge Parkway Visitor Study, Fall: October 20- 28, 

2007; Summer: June 17- 23, 2008. Asheville, North Carolina: Blue Ridge Parkway, 

National Park Service. 

2008c Blue Ridge Parkway Scenery Conservation System Guidebook. Asheville, North 

Carolina: Blue Ridge Parkway, National Park Service. 

2008d “Blue Ridge Parkway Impact Analysis Trip Report.” April. Asheville, North 

Carolina: Blue Ridge Parkway, National Park Service. 
References 

677 

2008e Public Comment Summary Blue Ridge Parkway General Management Plan. 

Newsletter No. 5. Asheville, North Carolina: Blue Ridge Parkway, National Park 

Service. 

2008f National Park Visitor Spending and Payroll Impacts, 2007. East Lansing, MI: 

Daniel J. Stynes, Michigan State University, Department of Community, 

Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies. Available on the Internet at 

http://web4.canr.msu.edu/mgm2/parks/MGM2_CY07.pdf> 

2009a Public Use Statistics Office Website. Annual Park Visitation, 1978- 2008, Blue 

Ridge Parkway. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/park.cfm>. 

2009b “2008 Annual Performance and Progress Report: Air Quality in National Parks.” 

Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/ARD/NRR—2009/151. Denver, CO: 

Natural Resource Program Center, Air Resources Division. 

2009c Budget and Concessions Information Website. Available on the Internet at 

<http://inside.nps.gov/index.cfm?handler=parkconcessioniers&alphacode=blri>. 

2010 Park Ethnography Program Website. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.nps.gov/history/ethnography/aah/aaheritage/keyConceptsC.htm>. 

2010b “Air Quality in National Parks: 2009 Annual Performance and Progress Report:” 

Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/ARD/NRR—2010/266. Denver, CO: 

Natural Resource Program Center, Air Resources Division. 

2011a NPS Air Resources Division website. http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/ (accessed 

March 2011). 

2011b "Blue Ridge Parkway Historic District," National Historic Landmark 

nomination. DRAFT. Southeast Regional Office. March 21, 2011. 

2011c “National Historic Landmarks Program: Frequently Asked Questions,” Available 

on the Internet at 

< http://www.nps.gov/nhl/QA.htm#4>. 

n.d.a. “Tunnel Heights: Tunnels Along the Parkway.” Blue Ridge Parkway Website. 

Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.nps.gov/blri/planyourvisit/tunnel- heights.htm>. 

NCNatural 

n.d. “Blue Ridge Parkway Travel Guide: Parkway History.” Available on the Internet at 

<http://ncnatural.com/Parkway/BRP- History.html>. Accessed September 3, 2009. 

Newman, Peter, Ericka J. Pilcher and Robert E. Manning 

2005 Muir Woods National Monument: Phase I Soundscape Report. Environmental 

Management 43(3): 425- 435. 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS, AND INDEX

678 

Noblitt, Phil 

1994 “Blue Ridge Parkway Myths of the Pioneer.” Appalachian Journal 21 (4, Summer 

1994): 394- 408. 

1995 A Mansion in the Mountains: The Story of Moses and Bertha Cone and Their 

Blowing Rock Manor. Boone, North Carolina: Parkway Publishers. 

North Carolina Arts Council, Virginia Commission for the Arts, and Blue Ridge Institute and 

Museum of Ferrum College 

2002 “Blue Ridge Music Trails: A Traveler’s Guide to Live Traditional Music and Dance 

along the Blue Ridge.” Internet website. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina 

Arts Council. 

North Carolina Employment Security Commission 

2007 Employment and Wages by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)

[Brochure]. Available on the Internet at 

<http://eslmi23.esc.state.nc.us/ew/MainMSAPR.asp?Report=1&Year=2007&Peri

od=00&AreaTyname=County&areatype=04&stfips=37: State of North Carolina>. 

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP), Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources 

1986 “Flat Laurel Gap Bog Natural Area.” Compiled by Laura Mansberg (NCNHP). 

Raleigh, North Carolina. 

1990 “Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third 

Approximation,” by Michael P. Schafale, and Alan S. Weakley. MSC 1615. 

Raleigh, North Carolina. 

1994 “Julian Price Park Wetlands Natural Area.” Compiled by Ann Prince, Michael P. 

Schafale, and Inge Smith (NCNHP). Raleigh, North Carolina. 

2008a “Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animals of North Carolina.” 

Compiled by H. E. LeGrand et al. MSC 1601. Raleigh, North Carolina. Available 

on the Internet at <http://www.ncnhp.org/ Pages/publications.html>. Accessed 

December 7, 2009. 

2008b “Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plants of North Carolina.” Edited by 

M. A. Franklin and J. Finnegan. MSC 1601. Raleigh, North Carolina. Available on 

the Internet at <http://www.ncnhp.org/ Pages/publications.html>. Accessed 

December 7, 2009. 

2009 “Guide to Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species of North 

Carolina.” MSC 1615. Raleigh, North Carolina. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.ncnhp.org/ Pages/publications.html>. 

North Carolina Office of State Management and Budget 

2008a “County/State Population Projections to 2029.” Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.osbm.state.nc.us/ncosbm/facts_and_figures/socioeconomic_data/po

pulation_estimates/county_projections.shtm>. Accessed April 2009. 
References 

679 

2008b “Projected Annual County Population Totals 2010- 2019.” Available on the 

Internet at 

<http://www.osbm.state.nc.us/ncosbm/facts_and_figures/socioeconomic_data/populatio

n_estimates/demog/cpa2010p.html>. Accessed April 2009. 

North Carolina State University 

1996 1995- 96 Economic Impact of Travel to the Blue Ridge Parkway Virginia and North 

Carolina, by Gene Brothers, PhD. and Rachel J.C. Chen. Raleigh, North Carolina: 

Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Office of Parks, 

Tourism Research. 

O’Connell, Kim A., and Mary Myers 

2002 “A Road To Match the Mountains: The Most Ambitious Parkway Project Ever 

Undertaken, The Blue Ridge Parkway Offers Lessons for Twenty- first Century 

Road Building.” Landscape Architecture (March 2002): 68- 75, 93- 96. 

Olson, Ted 

1999 “Blue Ridge Folklife.” Folklife in the South. Jackson, MS: University Press of 

Mississippi.

Parkway Milepost 

2003 “Native Wildflower – Galax – Threatened by Harvesters.” [Blue Ridge] Parkway 

Milepost (Fall- Winter 2002- 2003): 4. 

Patricelli, Gail L., and Jessica L. Blickley 

2006 Avian communication in urban noise: causes and consequences of vocal 

adjustment. The Auk 123(3): 639–649. 

Pittillo, Dan J., and Ashley Greene 

1998 “Rare Plants of the Blue Ridge Parkway Developed Areas in North Carolina.” 

Department of Biology, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, North Carolina. 

Pleasantvue.com 

2008 “The Most Scenic Places in the World: GIS Project Aimed at Keeping the Blue 

Ridge Parkway a Scenic Byway.” July 30. Available on the Internet at 

<http://pleasantvue.com/article.cfm/id/343720>. 

Rives, Margaret Rose 

1997 Blue Ridge Parkway: The Story Behind the Scenery. Las Vegas, NV: KC 

Publications. First published in 1982. 

Rodning, Christopher B. 

2000 “Architecture and Landscape in Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric Western North 

Carolina.” Archaeology of the Appalachian Highlands, Edited by Lynne P. Sullivan 

and Susan C. Pressano: 238- 249. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press. 

Sabbioni, C., et al. 

2006 “Global Climate Change Impact on Built Heritage and Cultural Landscapes.” 

Heritage, Weathering and Conservation. ISBN 0- 415- 41272- 2. London, ENG: 

Taylor & Francis Group. 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS, AND INDEX

680 

Sassaman, Kenneth E. 

2001 “Articulating Hidden Histories of the Mid- Holocene in the Southern 

Appalachians.” Archaeology of the Appalachian Highlands, edited by Lynne P. 

Sullivan, and Susan C. Pressano: 103- 120. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee 

Press. 

Schroedl, Gerald F. 

2004 “Cherokee Archaeology since the 1970s.” Archaeology of the Appalachian 

Highlands, edited by Lynne P. Sullivan, and Susan C. Pressano: 278- 297. 

Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press. 

Slabbekoorn, Hans, and Erwin A.P. Ripmeester 

2008 Birdsong and anthropogenic noise: implications and applications for conservation. 

Molecular Ecology 17(1): 72–83. 

Snedeker, Rodney J., and Brad A. Ruesch 

1987 “Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Blue Ridge Parkway Headquarters 

Facility at Hemphill Knob.” Asheville, North Carolina: National Forests in North 

Carolina. 

Southern Highland Craft Guild 

n.d. “Southern Highland Craft Guild.” Introductory video acquired by the National 

Park Service on May 29, 2002. Asheville, North Carolina: Southern Highland 

Craft Guild. 

2002a From Mountain Hands: The Story of Allanstand Craft Shop’s First 100 Years 

[1902- 2002]. Asheville, North Carolina: Southern Highland Craft Guild. 

2002b “Southern Highland Craft Guild Folk Art Center Programs, 2002 [Milepost 382, 

Blue Ridge Parkway].” Asheville, North Carolina: Southern Highland Craft Guild. 

2002c “The Craft Fair of the Southern Highlands, July 18- 21, 2002, and October 17- 20, 

2002, Asheville Civic Center, Asheville, North Carolina.” Asheville, North 

Carolina: Southern Highland Craft Guild. 

2002d “Guild Crafts [930 Tunnel Road, Asheville, North Carolina], the Shops of the 

Southern Highland Craft Guild.” Asheville, North Carolina: Southern Highland 

Craft Guild. 

2002e “Parkway Craft Center at Moses Cone Manor [Milepost 294, Blue Ridge 

Parkway], the Shops of the Southern Highland Craft Guild.” Asheville, North 

Carolina: Southern Highland Craft Guild. 

2002f “Celebrating Scotland’s Crafts: A Festival of Traditional Craft Skills, May 4 – 

September 29, 2002, at the Blue Ridge Parkway’s Folk Art Center [Milepost 382, 

Blue Ridge Parkway].” Asheville, North Carolina: Southern Highland Craft Guild. 

2002g “Folk Art Center, Milepost 382, Blue Ridge Parkway.” Asheville, North Carolina: 

Southern Highland Craft Guild. 
References 

681 

2002h “Arrowcraft [576 Parkway, Gatlinburg, Tennessee], the Shops of the Southern 

Highland Craft Guild.” Asheville, North Carolina: Southern Highland Craft Guild. 

2002i “Gifts: An Exhibit of Beauty and Cultural History, Organized by the Southern 

Highland Craft Guild Folk Art Center [Milepost 382, Blue Ridge Parkway].” 

Sponsored with funding by the North Carolina Arts Council. Asheville, North 

Carolina: Southern Highland Craft Guild. 

Sullivan, Lynne P., and Susan C. Pressano 

2001a “The Concept of Appalachian Archaeology.” Archaeology of the Appalachian 

Highlands: xix- xxxiii. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press. 

2001b “A Conscious Appalachian Archaeology.” Archaeology of the Appalachian 

Highlands: 323- 331. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press. 

Sutton, Jane 

2004 “Remembering [Phipps] ‘Festus’ [Bourne, 1930- 2002] Blacksmith, Woodcarver, 

and Storyteller in the Appalachian Tradition.” [Blue Ridge] Parkway Milepost

(Fall- Winter 2002- 2003): 8. 

The Sentinel 

2006 “Author Sees More Than Just Pretty Views on Blue Ridge Parkway,” by Tim 

Whitmire. October 15. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.cumberlink.com/travel/article_aff93d3f- b5a9- 57a6- a959-

9382d5e9b7c1.html>. 

Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies. 

2000 Highway Capacity Manual 2000. ISBN: 0- 309- 06746- 4. Washington, D.C.: 

Transportation Research Board.

Templeton, Duncan and Peter Sacre 

1997 Acoustics in the built environment: advice for the design team. Architectural Press. 

United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE) 

2008 “Retail Gasoline Historical Prices.” Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_history.html

>. 

United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration 

2000a “Table 5- 1: Virginia and U.S. Motor- Vehicle Registrations.” Available on the 

Internet at 

<http://www.bts.gov/publications/state_transportation_statistics/virginia/html/table_05_

01.html>. 

2000b “Table 5- 1: North Carolina and U.S. Motor- Vehicle Registrations.” Available on 

the Internet at 

<http://www.bts.gov/publications/state_transportation_statistics/north_carolina/

excel/table_05_01.xls>. 

2008 Economic Development History of Interstate 81 in Virginia. Available on the Internet 

at <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/econDev/i81va.htm>. Accessed 

November 7, 2008. 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS, AND INDEX

682 

2011 “Motorcycle noise in a park environment: Final Report.” Volpe Report # D)TVNTSC- NPS- 11- 15. 

U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division 

2005 “Table A1: Interim Projections of the Total Population for the United States and 

States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2030.” Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST- ann- est.html>. Accessed April 2009. 

2007 “2007 County Population Estimates.” Available on the Internet at 

http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/ 

2008a “Population Estimates” Estimates data for states and counties, 2008. Available on 

the Internet at < http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.php>. 

2008b “Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Area Estimates.” Available on the 

Internet at <http://www.census.gov/popest/metro/CBSA- est2008- annual.html>. 

2009 “Population Estimates” Estimates data for states and counties, 2007. Available on 

the Internet at <http://www.census.gov/popest/estbygeo.html>. Accessed May 

2009. 

U.S. Climate Change Research Program (USCCRP) 

2009 “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States.” Thomas R. Karl, Jerry M. 

Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson, (eds.). Cambridge University Press, 2009. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

2001 “How Will Climate Change Affect the Mid- Atlantic Region?” National Service 

Center for Environmental Publications. EPA Number 903F00002: June, Region 3. 

Philadelphia, PA. 

University of Maryland (UMD) 

2008 “Economic Impacts of Climate Change on North Carolina.” A review and 

assessment conducted by The Center for Integrative Environmental Research. 

Available on the Internet at <http://www.cier.umd.edu/climateadaptation/>. 

University of North Carolina- Asheville 

2004 Blue Ridge Parkway Scenic Experience Project, Results Synthesis, Phase I 

Southwest Virginia and Phase II Northern North Carolina, by Leah Greden 

Mathews, Steven Stewart, and Susan Kask. Asheville, North Carolina: Department 

of Economics, University of North Carolina- Asheville. 

University of Vermont, Burlington 

2002 “Blue Ridge Parkway, Visitor Survey Study Completion Report.” Burlington, VT: 

Park Studies Lab, University of Vermont. 

Vinch, James J. 

1999 “The Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Viewshed Protection For the National 

Scenic Trails.” Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law. Available on the 

Internet at <http://www.law.fsu.edu/Journals/Landuse/vol151/vinch1.htm>. 

Accessed May 20, 2009. 
References 

683 

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) 

2008 “Governor’s Commission on Climate Change. Final Report: A Climate Change 

Action Plan.” Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.deq.virginia.gov/info/climatechange.html>. 

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), Natural Heritage Program 

2006a “The Natural Communities of Virginia: Classification of Ecological Community 

Groups, Second Approximation.” Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/ncoverview.shtml>. 

2006b “Natural Heritage Resources of Virginia: Rare Animals.” Compiled by Steven M. 

Roble. Richmond, Virginia. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/ infoservices.shtml#lists>. 

2009 “Natural Heritage Resources of Virginia: Rare Plants.” Compiled by John F. 

Townsend. Richmond, Virginia. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/ infoservices.shtml#lists>. 

Virginia Workforce Connection 

2009 Population Projections to 2030. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.vawc.virginia.gov/gsipub/index.asp?docid=359>. Accessed April 

2009. 

2008 Labor Market Data [Brochure]. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.vawc.virginia.gov//analyzer/default.asp?: Virginia.gov>. 

2007 “Future County Population Projections.” Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.vawc.virginia.gov/gsipub/index.asp?docid=359>. 

Wall, Steve 

1987 Appalachian Life along the Blue Ridge Parkway: Photography by Steve Wall. 

Charlottesville, Virginia: Thomasson- Grant, Incorporated. 

Walthall, John A. 

1980 Indians of the Southeast: Archaeology of Alabama and the Middle South. 

Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. 

Warren, Paige S., Madhusudan Katti, Michael Ermann and Anthony Brazel 

2006 “Urban bioacoustics: It’s not just noise.” Animal Behavior 71(3): 491–502. 

Watson, Patty Jo 

2001 “Ridges, Rises, and Rocks: Caves, Coves, Terraces, and Hollows: Appalachian 

Archaeology at the Millennium.” Archaeology of the Appalachian Highlands, edited 

by Lynne P. Sullivan, and Susan C. Pressano: 319- 322. Knoxville, TN: University 

of Tennessee Press. 

Weaver, Emma 

1974 Crafts in the Southern Highlands. Asheville, North Carolina: Southern Highland 

Craft Guild. 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS, AND INDEX

684 

Welch, Paul D. 

2002 “Political Economy in Late Prehistoric Southern Appalachia.” In Archaeology of 

the Appalachian Highlands. Edited by Lynne P. Sullivan and Susan C. Pressano. 

Pages 222- 237. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. 

Whisnant, Anne Mitchell 

2006 Super- Scenic Motorway, A Blue Ridge Parkway History. Chapel Hill, North 

Carolina: University of North Carolina Press. 

Whisnant, David E. 

1983 All That Is Native and Fine: The Politics of Culture in an American Region. 

Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press. Reprinted in 

1999. 
685 

PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS 

PREPARERS 

National Park Service, Denver Service 

Center 

Chris Church, Project Manager/Natural 

Resource Specialist. B.S. Wildlife and 

Fisheries Science, 15 years’ experience, 5 years 

with National Park Service. Responsible for 

managing the project and writing sections of 

the plan. 

Ann Van Huizen, (retired), Project Manager 

(2001–2010). Responsible for managing the 

project and writing sections of the plan. 33 

years with the National Park Service; B.A. in 

Liberal Arts (Forest Resource Management, 

Biology, and Communications). 

Harlan Unrau, Cultural Resources Specialist 

(retired). 35 years with the National Park 

Service; B.A. and M.A. in History. Prepared 

early drafts of Cultural Resource Affected 

Environment sections. 

Larry Van Horn, Cultural Resource Specialist 

(retired). Responsible for early drafts of 

Cultural Resource Affected Environment 

sections and Consultation chapter. 30 years as 

a cultural anthropologist and cultural resource 

specialist in the National Park Service and one 

year as an NPS volunteer. B.A. in History, 

M.A. in Anthropology, and Ph.D. in 

Anthropology. 

Gretchen Ward, Cultural Resource Specialist 

(2008–2010). Responsible for later drafts of 

Cultural Resource Affect Environment and 

Environmental Consequences. 18 years with 

the National Park Service; B.A. in History, 

B.A. in Anthropology, and M.A. in 

Anthropology. 

Carrie Miller, Cultural Resource Specialist. 1 

year with the National Park Service, 8 years as 

an architectural historian in survey and 

environmental planning; Master of 

Architectural History; B.S. in Human Ecology. 

Don Wojcik, Natural Resource Specialist. 2 

years with the National Park Service, 11 years 

as natural resource planner with county 

government open space programs, 5 years as 

environmental policy analyst with nonprofit 

and academic organizations, and 2 years as 

civil engineer with municipal government; 

Master of Public Affairs in Environmental 

Policy and Natural Resource Management; 

B.S. in Civil and Environmental Engineering. 

Andrew Coburn, Community Planner; B.A. 

Economics; B.S. Business Administration; 

Master Urban and Regional Planning, Land 

Use and Environmental Planning; Master of 

Public Administration; 3 years with the 

National Park Service. 

Jim Corbett, Visual Resource Specialist, 6 

years with National Park Service. 

Nell Conti, GIS Specialist; B.A.in Geography; 

M.S.in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) 

Science; expertise in GIS and remote sensing; 

6 years with the National Park Service. 

Ericka Pilcher, Visitor Use Management 

Specialist / Community Planner. B.S. 

Conservation Biology; M.S. Parks and 

Protected Areas Management; 7 years with the 

National Park Service. 

Jennifer Stein, Visitor Use Management 

Specialist. B.A. Environmental Studies; M.A.S. 

Environmental Policy and Management; one 

year with the National Park Service. 

National Park Service, Blue Ridge 

Parkway 

Philip A. Francis Jr., Superintendent 

Monika Mayr, Deputy Superintendent 

Gary W. Johnson, Chief of Resource Planning 

and Professional Services/Landscape 

Architect 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS, AND INDEX

686 

Bambi Teague, Chief of Resource 

Management 

Dawn Leonard, Community Planner 

J. David Anderson, Landscape Architect 

Ann Childress, Chief of Interpretation 

National Park Service, Southeast 

Regional Office 

Ben West, Chief of Planning 

John Barrett, Planner, Regional Project 

Liaison/ Planner 

Zackary Ray, Student Planner 

Consultants 

EDAW, INC (now AECOM) 

Drew Stoll, GIS Specialist, Landscape 

Architect 

Maria Michieli-Best, Editor 

David Evans and Associates 

Stacy Tschour, Transportation Engineer 

Patty Steinholtz, Writer/Editor 

University of Vermont, Visitor Use/Carrying 

Capacity Sub-Contractor 

E2M/ Sammons & Dutton Subcontractor 

Ron Dutton, Economist 

Cardno TEC, Inc. 

Elaine Emerson, Editor 

CONTRIBUTORS 

National Park Service, Denver Service 

Center 

Bob Merrick, Cost Estimator, DSC 

Marilyn Hof, (retired) Visitor Use Specialist/ 

Planner, Denver Service Center 

Terri Urbanowski, Landscape Architect, 

Denver Service Center 

Ian Shanklin, (former) Landscape Architect, 

Denver Service Center 

Jeff Reinbold, (former) Community Planner, 

Denver Service Center 

Linda Dahl, (former) Community Planner, 

Denver Service Center 

Sharon Miles, (former) Community Planner 

detailed to Denver Service Center 

Carla McConnell, Architect/Planner, 

Denver Service Center 

Erin Flanagan, Community Planner, 

Denver Service Center 

Christy Fischer, (retired) Editor, 

Denver Service Center 

Linda Ray, (retired) Visual Resource 

Specialist, Denver Service Center 

Doug Williams, (former) Landscape Architect 

Bill Witmer, (retired) Project Manager (2001–

2003) 

Kerri Cahill, Community Planner 

Leslie Peterson, Contract Coordinator, 

Denver Service Center 

National Park Service, Blue Ridge 

Parkway 

Phil Francis, Superintendent 

Monika Mayr, Deputy Superintendent 

Dan Brown, (retired) Superintendent, Blue 

Ridge Parkway (2001–2005) 

Laura Rotegard, (former) Management 

Assistant/Planner, Blue Ridge Parkway 
Preparers and Contributors 

687 

Gary W. Johnson, Chief of Resource Planning 

and Professional Services/Landscape 

Architect 

Mike Molling, Chief of Maintenance 

Suzette Molling, Environmental Protection 

Specialist 

Steven Kidd, Cultural Resource Specialist 

Al Hess, (retired) Cultural Resource 

Management Specialist 

Ann Childress, Chief of Interpretation 

Patty Lockamy, (former) Chief of 

Interpretation 

Peter Givens, Interpretation Specialist 

Mindy DeCesar, Field Staff 

Representative/Interpreter 

Bob Cherry, Field Staff 

Representative/Natural Resource Specialist 

Chris Ulrey, Natural Resource Specialist 

Bruce Bytnar, Field Staff 

Representative/District Law Enforcement 

Carolyn Sparks, Field Staff 

Representative/Maintenance Worker 

Tim Francis, Field Staff 

Representative/District Law Enforcement 

Representative 

Phil Noblitt, (retired) Public Information 

Specialist 

David Anderson, Resident Landscape 

Architect 

Joe Aull, Administrative Officer 

Ricky Baker, Facility Manager 

Lena Boesser-Koschmann, Assistant Chief 

Ranger 

Don Coleman, Supervisory Ranger 

Dawn Godwin, Community Planner 

Roy Jones, Facility Manager 

Michele Maertens, District Interpreter 

Bobby Miller, District Ranger 

Danny Myrtle, Facility Manager 

Laura Nelson, Concessions Specialist 

Michael Ryan, Facility Manager 

Steve Stinnett, Chief Ranger 

Chris Ulrey, Plant Specialist 

Tina White, District Interpreter 

National Park Service, Harpers Ferry 

Center 

Keith Morgan, (retired) Interpretive Planner, 

HFC 

National Park Service, Southeast 

Regional Office 

Ben West, Chief of Planning and Compliance 

John Barrett, Planner 

John Fischer, (retired) Regional Liaison/ 

Planner 

David Hasty, Historical Landscape Architect 

National Park Service, Washington 

Support Office—Park Planning and 

Special Studies 

Tokey Boswell, Program Analyst 

John Haubert, (retired) Liaison/Policy 

Reviewer 

Kevin Percival, Transportation Planner 

Susan Grosser, Transportation Planner 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS, AND INDEX

688 

Consultants 

Karen Lusby, Natural Resource Specialist, 

EDAW (AECOM) 

Cassie Vetter, David Evans and Associates 

Woolpert LLP, View Area Mapping 

Contractor 

Timberly Belish, Parsons 

John Hoesterey, Parsons 

Alexa Miles, Parsons 
689 

INDEX 

Access and Circulation, 43, 47, 51, 109, 126, 

390 

Agricultural Land Use Program, 13 

Alternative A, x, xi, 36, 41, 63, 111-12, 115, 

129, 130-33, 135-36, 139, 140, 258, 261, 

277, 279, 288, 294, 298, 307, 313, 315, 332, 

334, 354, 356, 373, 375, 381, 391, 394, 405, 

407, 408, 410, 413, 414, 416, 421, 428, 429, 

433, 439, 446, 453, 475, 478-79, 511, 526 

Alternative B, iii, x, xi, xii, xiii, 44, 63-64, 75, 76, 

111-18, 120, 129, 130-33, 135, 138-140, 

262, 264, 268, 281, 283-84, 289, 291, 298, 

302, 308, 316, 323, 334-35, 343, 356, 360, 

364, 375, 377, 384, 395, 399, 408, 410-11, 

416-18, 422, 432-34, 436-37, 453, 461, 479, 

481-84, 511, 515-16, 521, 527-28 

Alternative C, 48, 63-64, 75-76, 111, 113, 115-

18, 120, 129, 135, 268-69, 275, 284, 287, 

291, 293, 302, 306, 309, 323, 330, 343, 352, 

364, 371, 377, 380, 386-88, 400, 405, 411, 

413, 418-21, 438-39, 442-43, 461, 472, 484-

90 

Blue Ridge Music Center, 10, 41, 46, 50, 75, 84, 

112-13, 125, 165, 190, 195, 201-02, 233, 

235, 260, 265, 272, 296, 300, 303, 320, 328, 

339, 349, 361, 369, 398, 404, 414, 436, 443, 

451, 459, 469, 477, 482, 488, 667 

Blue Ridge Parkway Visitor Center, 194, 196, 

201, 234, 393, 397, 402, 414, 478 

Brinegar Cabin, 113-14, 169, 172, 174, 207, 

265, 272, 315, 321, 328, 334, 340, 341, 350-

51, 363, 373, 376, 378, 392, 402, 414, 459, 

470 

Campgrounds, 40, 43, 47, 51, 109, 116, 122, 

126, 197, 198, 232 

Carbon Footprint, 25, 27, 29 

Civilian Conservation Corps, 31, 162-64, 167, 

172, 436, 442, 669, 671 

Climate Change, 24, 105, 108, 143, 250, 672-

74, 679, 682-83 

Climate Change Response Program, 105 

Concessions, 20, 40, 43, 47, 51, 109, 122, 126, 

164, 197, 229, 230, 506, 677 

Crabtree Falls, 41, 51, 75, 89, 116-17, 127, 164, 

171, 174, 195, 197-98, 215, 229, 233, 322, 

330, 333, 341, 355, 362, 371, 374, 377, 379, 

397, 403, 440, 451, 460, 471, 483, 488 

Craggy Gardens, 41, 46, 50, 75, 90, 112-13, 

118, 125, 163-64, 171, 173-74, 194-95, 201, 

206, 215, 217, 233, 260, 267, 274, 277, 330, 

333-34, 341, 351, 355, 363, 371, 374, 377, 

379, 393-94, 398, 409, 417, 419, 436, 443, 

451, 460, 471, 489 

Cultural Resources, 10, 16, 20, 24, 27 ,40, 42, 

46, 50, 54, 57-59, 95, 103, 108, 124, 160, 

311,371, 496, 502, 669, 680, 685 

Cumberland Knob, 38, 41, 75, 85, 112-13, 116-

17, 162-64, 171-72, 174, 186, 195, 202, 

208-09, 226, 233, 320, 328, 339, 350, 361, 

369, 393, 397, 403, 414-20, 451, 459, 470, 

477, 482, 488 

Doughton Park, 13, 41, 75, 86, 116-18, 164, 

169, 171-72, 174, 192, 195-98, 207, 214, 

229, 233, 260, 265-66, 272-73, 296, 300-01, 

304-05, 315, 321, 328, 333-34, 340, 350, 

355, 361, 370, 392, 408-09, 414, 434, 440, 

451, 459, 470, 477, 482-83, 488 

E.B. Jeffress Park, 41, 171, 174, 194, 196 

Eastern National, 12, 161, 196, 198, 201, 235, 

480, 485, 489, 498, 505 

Environmental Justice, 27, 30 

Environmentally Preferable Alternative, 35, 119, 

120 

Folk Art Center, 10, 46, 50, 112-13, 125, 165, 

186-87, 190, 194, 196, 198, 200-02, 206, 

208, 215, 226, 229, 373, 376, 378, 393, 397, 

402, 415, 478, 480, 483, 485, 489, 669, 680, 

681 

Humpback Rocks, 41, 46, 50, 75, 77, 112-13, 

117-18, 125, 163-64, 167, 171-72, 175, 177, 

195-96, 200-01, 207, 212, 233, 259, 264, 

265, 271-72, 288, 290, 292, 317-18, 325, 

336, 346, 355, 358-59, 366-67, 393, 397, 

403, 405, 415-20,449-50, 457, 467, 481, 

487, 675 

Indian Trust Resources, 27, 30 

Interpretation and Visitor Services, 43, 46, 50, 

125 

James River/Otter Creek, 41, 51, 75, 78, 116-18, 

127, 189, 265, 272, 295, 299, 303, 314, 318, 

325, 333, 337, 347, 388, 397, 403, 414, 416-

17, 419, 450, 457, 468 

Julian Price Memorial Park, 41, 75, 87, 164, 168, 

174, 195, 207, 232, 333, 355, 362, 370, 392, 

402, 451, 459, 466, 470, 482, 488 

Land Protection, 15, 42, 44, 49, 107, 123 

Linville Falls, 41, 46, 50, 51, 75, 88, 112-13, 

116-18, 125, 127, 164, 171, 174, 186-87, 
APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS, AND INDEX

690 

189, 195, 197, 201, 206-08, 215, 226, 233, 

260, 266, 273, 288, 290, 292, 297, 301, 305, 

321, 329, 333, 340-41, 351, 355, 362, 370, 

394, 397, 403, 416, 418, 431, 436, 440, 443, 

451, 460, 470, 483, 488 

Mabry Mill, 31, 41, 46, 50, 75, 83, 112-13, 117-

18, 125, 168, 172, 175, 177, 189, 195, 198, 

207, 214, 229, 233, 272, 315, 319, 327, 333, 

338, 349, 355, 360, 369, 374, 376, 379, 393, 

398, 403-04, 407, 412, 415-20, 436, 442, 

450, 458, 469, 482, 487, 667 

Moses H. Cone Memorial Park, 26, 41, 164, 

171, 173, 194, 196, 206-07, 226, 231, 373, 

376, 378, 392, 402, 430, 480, 485, 494 

Mountains-to-Sea Trail, 13, 18, 20, 44, 47, 51, 

127, 197, 207, 231, 252, 355, 357, 365, 447 

Mt. Pisgah, 41, 75, 91, 109, 116, 118, 155, 

163, 171, 174, 187, 194-95, 197-98, 206, 

233, 267, 269, 274, 297, 301-02, 305, 322, 

330, 333, 342, 352, 355, 363, 371, 393, 394, 

398, 403-04, 411, 415, 418, 420, 435-36, 

443, 449, 451, 457, 460, 467, 471, 478, 483, 

489 

Museum Collections, 17, 31 

Museum of North Carolina Minerals, 46, 50, 

112-13, 125, 164, 174, 190, 194, 196, 201, 

202, 215, 415, 483, 488 

National Environmental Policy Act, xv, 3, 36, 93, 

101, 119-20, 249-50, 270, 272, 292-93, 299, 

303, 305, 312, 331, 353, 373 

National Historic Landmark, iii, iv, 20, 41, 58, 

59, 108, 124, 169, 170-71, 173, 215, 311, 

313, 318-22, 324-32, 337-42, 344-54, 359-

63, 367-70, 373, 381, 384, 447, 496, 499, 

502, 677 

National Historic Preservation Act, 101 

National Register of Historic Places, 16-17, 24, 

38, 42-3, 46, 50-1, 58, 96, 124, 126, 167, 

169, 170-01, 173-76, 179, 311-20, 322-34, 

337-42, 345-54, 357, 359-63, 367-71, 373, 

499 

Natural Resources, 10, 13, 15, 24, 27, 28-9, 42, 

45, 50, 53, 57, 63, 65, 75, 93, 103, 107, 123, 

169, 240, 242, 385, 436, 443, 497, 501-02, 

669, 672 

NPS Organic Act, 14, 93, 181 

Partnerships, iv, 40, 41, 44, 48, 52, 98, 109, 

128, 161, 229, 234, 335, 465, 667 

Peaks of Otter, 10, 31, 38, 41, 46-7, 50-51, 75, 

79, 112-13, 116-18, 125, 127, 163-64, 167, 

171-72, 175, 186, 189, 191, 195-99, 201, 

206, 208, 212, 226, 229, 233-34, 265, 272, 

295, 299, 303, 314, 318, 326, 333, 337, 347, 

348, 355, 359,367-68, 374, 376, 379, 393, 

398, 403, 409, 414-19, 431, 434-35, 440, 

442, 450, 457, 459, 468-69, 477, 481, 487, 

506, 669, 671, 674-75 

Prime and Unique Farmlands, 27, 29 

Road Conditions, 27, 31 

Roanoke Mountain, 38, 41, 47, 75, 80, 109, 

116-17, 127, 171, 195, 197, 200, 213, 233, 

272, 292, 319, 326, 333, 337, 348, 360, 368, 

407, 409-10, 412, 434, 435, 442, 450, 458, 

463, 469, 482, 487 

Roanoke River Parkway, 13, 675 

Rocky Knob, 38, 41, 51, 75, 82, 116-18, 127, 

163-64, 171-72, 175, 186, 195-99, 201, 208, 

214, 226, 233, 234, 296, 299, 303, 319, 327, 

338, 349, 355, 360, 368-69, 393, 398, 409, 

414-15, 417, 420, 436, 440, 442, 450, 458, 

469, 482, 487 

Scenery Conservation, 40, 42, 44, 48-49, 107, 

122, 123, 182, 314, 335, 382, 384, 676 

Section 106, 101 

Smart View, 38, 41, 75, 81, 116, 163, 171-72, 

175, 195, 319, 327, 337, 348, 360, 368, 397, 

403, 450, 458, 469 

Soundscape, 27 

Threatened and Endangered Species, 8, 15, 42, 

58, 103, 124, 146, 148-50, 155, 257, 275, 

277-88, 495 

Trails, 11, 18, 40, 44, 47, 51, 61, 109, 122, 127, 

160, 231-32, 397, 408, 432, 502, 670, 673, 

678, 682 

Visitor Use and Interpretation, 108 

Whetstone Ridge, 41, 175, 194, 196, 233 

Wild and Scenic Rivers, 27-28 

U.S. De pa rt m e n t o f t h e I n t e rio r • Natio n a l Pa r k S e rvic e

Blue Ri d ge Park way

Fi n a l Ge n era l Ma n a geme n t P l a n / E n viro nme n ta l Impact Stateme n t