The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20210593 Ver 1_BR-0032 Madison 84_CIAReport_20211012 STIP BR-0032 Madison County SHORT FORM COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PLANNER, FIRM: Robby Bessette, Three Oaks Engineering DIVISION: 13 Existing No. of Lanes: 2 Existing Median: No NCDOT/LOCAL PROJECT MANAGER: Jacquelyn Bowles, PE, NCDOT SMU WBS: 67032.1.1 Proposed No. of Lanes: 2 Addition of Median(s): No DOCUMENT TYPE: NEPA SEPA PROJECT TYPE: DIVISION CENTRAL LOCALLY-ADMIN. PROGRAM PROJECT (LAPP) Existing control of access: No Control Partial Control Limited Control Full Control Proposed control of access: No Control Partial Control Limited Control Full Control CS PROJECT REVIEWER (IF APPLICABLE): Simone Robinson PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project involves the replacement of Bridge No. 560084 over Meadow Fork on NC 209 in Madison County, North Carolina. The intersection of NC 209 and SR 1175 (Meadow Fork Road) is immediately northwest of the bridge site. Community Context STIP BR-0032  Madison County  SHORT FORM CIA  March 2019  page 2 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Project No. BR-0032 is a bridge replacement project meant to reconstruct a structurally deficient bridge. The bridge’s condition was deemed poor in its Structure Safety Report completed 04/13/2016. The bridge is located on the western side of Madison County in the mountains of North Carolina near the Tennessee border. The bridge is located between the communities of Hot Springs (population 560) and Spring Creek (population 914) on NC 209, approximately seven miles south of Hot Springs, and approximately three miles north of Spring Creek. The project is expected to be constructed using staged construction with a signalized, on-site detour, with traffic to be maintained on one lane during the construction period. Although the current bridge features only minimal paved shoulders, the proposed typical section features variable, 3 to 4-foot paved shoulders while the replacement bridge will feature 5’ 5” offsets with 42” vertical face concrete rails. The surrounding area is rural and primarily wooded, with residences but no businesses or commercial properties found within the Direct Community Impact Area (DCIA). On the east side of the NC 209/Meadow Fork Road intersection, there is a small, partially paved, partially gravel pull off/parking area. Notable Characteristics  No physical bicycle facilities (tracks, lanes or sharrows) or pedestrian facilities (sidewalks) exist within the DCIA. Local area plans identify existing on-road bicycle facilities for both NC 209 and Meadow Fork Road, classifying them as “Other Bicycle Corridors,” and propose that NC 209 through this corridor be utilized as part of the NC 2 – Mountains to Sea state bicycle route. Therefore, Land of Sky RPO and the NCDOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation recommend the inclusion of paved shoulders in the project designs.  One road and three driveways to private residences have access to NC 209 within the project’s DCIA.  NC 209 and bridge No. 84 are used for Madison County emergency response operations.  Six Madison County school buses utilize this bridge on a daily basis to transport students to and from school, and during the field visit, a school bus was observed making a student drop-off at the intersection of NC 209 and SR 1175 (Meadow Fork Road).  NC 209 through the project study area is part of the Appalachian Medley, a North Carolina Scenic Byway. Additionally, the Madison County Tourism Development Authority lists NC 209 on their motorcycle route map as part of the “Spring Creek Loop.”  Many Madison County residents consider the Spring Creek community, accessed via NC 209, to be one of the most difficult destinations in the county to access due to lack of a direct route.  Census data indicates a notable presence of low-income populations meeting the criteria for Environmental Justice within the DSA, and low-income communities were observed within the DCIA during the field visit.  Census data does not indicate Limited English Proficiency (LEP) populations meeting the US Department of Justice LEP Safe Harbor threshold or a notable presence within the DSA. Potential Project Impacts  Because the bridge will be replaced using staged construction with an on-site detour and will include a 5’5” offset from the travel lanes, this project will provide beneficial improvements for bicycle facilities.  As construction is currently slated to be staged with a one lane, on-site detour, impacts to access may occur but only minimally so, and access to properties with driveway connections to NC 209 will be maintained.  Because the bridge will be replaced using staged construction with an on-site detour, any temporary impacts to emergency services are expected to be minor. However, should the project designs change and an offsite detour be required, the project would have a high level of impact on emergency response.  Because the bridge will be replaced using staged construction with an on-site detour, any temporary impacts to school transportation are expected to be minor. However, should the project designs change and an offsite detour be required, the project would have a higher level of impact on school transportation. The Madison County Schools Transportation Director expressed concern with the condition/capacity of potential detour routes and said that no safe detour routes are available. Additionally, she noted that if a lane reduction approach is used, a minimum lane size of 9 feet would be necessary for the passage of school buses.  Due to the use of staged construction with an on-site detour, impacts to community resources of motorcycle and scenic routes will likely be minimal and restricted to the construction period if they occur at all.  While low-income populations are present in the DCIA, no notably adverse community impacts are anticipated with this project; thus, impacts to minority and low-income populations do not appear to be disproportionately high and adverse. Benefits and burdens resulting from the project are anticipated to be equitably distributed throughout the community. No disparate impacts are anticipated under Title VI and related statutes. STIP BR-0032  Madison County  SHORT FORM CIA  March 2019  page 3 Recommendations  If designs change prior to construction whereby paved shoulders and bridge railing recommendations are not met as they currently are, the Consultant Project Manager should coordinate with NCDOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation to evaluate the inclusion of bicycle/pedestrian facilities in the project design.  It is recommended that the NCDOT Project Manager ensure that access to properties and Meadow Fork Road is maintained during construction.  It is recommended that the NCDOT Project Manager coordinate with Madison County EMS, the Madison County Sheriff’s office, and the Spring Creek Fire Department to provide advanced notice of any potential detours, on-site or off-site, or construction activity that may impact emergency service operations.  It is recommended that the NCDOT Project Manager coordinate with Madison County Schools to provide advanced notice of any potential detours, on-site or off-site, or construction activity that may impact school transportation operations. STIP BR-0032  Madison County  SHORT FORM CIA  March 2019  page 4 COMMUNITY CONTEXT MAP STIP BR-0032  Madison County  SHORT FORM CIA  March 2019  page 5 COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS, IMPACTS & RECOMMENDATIONS Community Resource Presence RECREATIONAL RESOURCE(S) OR ACTIVITY Presence Are there any recreational resources, areas, or observed activities in the Direct Community Impact Area? If Federally-funded, are these potential 4(f) resources? YES, SEPA Parks & Recreation YES, NEPA potential 4(f); adjacent to/accessed from the project corridor YES, NEPA potential 4(f); present in DCIA but not adjacent to or accessed from the project corridor NO Impacts YES, SEPA Impact YES, potential NEPA impact NO Recommendation YES NO SECTION 6(F) LAND & WATER CONSERVATION FUND RESOURCES Presence Are there any areas protected under Section 6(f) in the Direct Community Impact Area? YES NO Impacts Is the project likely to impact identified Section 6(f) Land & Water Conservation Fund Resources? YES NO Recommendation YES NO FARMLAND SOILS Presence Are there any farmland soils within the project footprint? Prime agricultural and forest land is present within the project study area, the area of potential project impacts. Of the 18.37 acres within the project study area, 3.0 acres are designated as farmland soils of statewide importance and 0.001 acres are designated as farmland soils of local importance. YES, SEPA YES, NEPA (FPPA) NO, not present Not applicable - urbanized area Impacts Is the project likely to have a notable impact on identified Farmland Protection Policy Act soils? YES, SEPA conversion YES, NEPA does not exceed FPPA threshold YES, NEPA exceeds FPPA threshold NO Recommendation YES NO VOLUNTARY & ENHANCED VOLUNTARY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS [VAD/EVAD] Presence Is there a Voluntary Agricultural District or Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District in the project footprint? YES NO Impacts Is the project likely to impact designated Voluntary Agricultural Districts or Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural Districts? YES NO Recommendation YES STIP BR-0032  Madison County  SHORT FORM CIA  March 2019  page 6 NO AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES AND ACTIVITY Presence Are there any active agricultural operations located in the Direct Community Impact Area? Is there any documented activity related to goods movement in the Direct Community Impact Area (e.g. farm or logging trucks, tractors, or other agricultural equipment)? YES NO Impacts Is the project likely to impact identified agricultural operations? YES NO Recommendation YES NO BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND/OR GREENWAY FACILITIES AND ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION Presence Are there existing bicycle, pedestrian, greenway or other active transport facilities located in the Direct Community Impact Area? Are there future plans for bicycle, pedestrian, greenway or active transport facilities to be located in the Direct Community Impact Area? No physical bicycle facilities (tracks, separate lanes or shared lanes with pavement “sharrow” markings) or pedestrian facilities (sidewalks) exist within the DCIA. The Madison County Comprehensive Transportation Plan, 2012 (CTP) indicates that there are no state designated bicycle routes in Madison County. However, the 2010 Madison County Comprehensive Plan does list NC 209 and Meadow Fork Road as part of the local Spring Creek Loop bicycle route with a ranking of “Moderate”, and the Madison County CTP indicates existing on-road bicycle facilities for both NC 209 and Meadow Fork Road. The Land of Sky RPO’s Blue Ridge Bike Plan lists NC 209 and Meadow Fork Road as “Other Bicycle Corridors” on their Madison County Priority Corridors map. Additionally, WalkBikeNC has proposed NC 209 through this corridor be utilized as part of the NC 2 – Mountains to Sea bicycle route with improvement sections of “paved shoulder generally.” This portion of the network would seek to provide greater continuity between North Carolina and Tennessee bicycle routes. The Land of Sky RPO recommends that paved shoulders be included in the project design (Appendix E). Due to the bridge being (proposed to be) located on a state bike route and inclusion of bicycle recommendations at the bridge location in multiple plans, the NCDOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation recommends the inclusion of 4-foot (5-foot preferred) paved shoulders and 42” to 54” bridge railings in the project designs (Appendix E). YES NO Impacts Is the project likely to result in impacts to bicycle, pedestrian, and/or greenway facilities? Because the bridge will be replaced using staged construction with an on-site detour and will include a 5’5” offset from the travel lanes, this project will provide beneficial improvements for bicycle facilities. YES NO Recommendation If designs change prior to construction whereby paved shoulders and bridge railing recommendations are not met as they currently are, the Consultant Project Manager should coordinate with NCDOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation to evaluate the inclusion of bicycle/pedestrian facilities in the project design. YES NO BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY Presence Were bicyclists, pedestrians or worn paths observed in the Direct Community Impact Area? YES NO Impacts Is the project likely to result in impacts to bicycle or pedestrian activity? YES NO STIP BR-0032  Madison County  SHORT FORM CIA  March 2019  page 7 Recommendation YES NO TRANSIT ROUTES, FACILITIES, AND/OR ACTIVITY Presence Are transit routes present in the Direct Community Impact Area? Were buses, transit stops or route signs observed on the site visit? Were any riders observed using or known to use these facilities? Were any of these riders special users? Currently, no fixed-route transit services operate within Madison County. However, demand- respond transit services are provided by the Madison County Transportation Authority (MCTA). Their services require 24-hour advanced notice for local trips and two-day notice for trips outside of Madison County. These services are primarily used for medical related trips. YES NO Impacts Is the project likely to result in impacts to transit routes, facilities, and/or activity? YES NO Recommendation YES NO LOCAL AREA PLANS, GOALS, AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Presence Are there any local area plans, goals, or zoning initiatives specifically affecting the Direct Community Impact Area (e.g. comprehensive plan; corridor or thoroughfare plan; small area plan; long-range growth plan; health impact assessment; etc.)? Has recent development activity occurred in the Direct Community Impact Area and/or are there known plans for public or private development activity in the Direct Community Impact Area? In the Madison County Comprehensive Plan (2010), it is stated that the local Rural Planning Organization (RPO) (Land of Sky RPO) provides recommendations and priority preferences to NCDOT every two years to assist in the development of the State Transportation Improvement Program. In this Comprehensive Plan, the RPO had recently updated their regional list. Priority project #8 was improvements to NC 209: update and realign between NC 63 and US 25-70. However, no specific timeline or funding source was indicated, and no projects intended to improve NC 209 in Madison County are included in the current STIP. The local planner did not respond to requests for input. YES NO Impacts Is the project consistent or not consistent with existing plans, regulations, and policies at the local, regional, or state level? CONSISTENT NOT CONSISTENT Recommendation YES NO DRIVEWAYS AND CROSS STREETS Presence Are there any driveways or intersections located along the project corridor? One roadway intersects with NC 209 within the DCIA. • SR 1175 (Meadow Fork Road) – Joining at a T-intersection approximately 100 feet northwest of Bridge No.84 Three driveways connect to NC 209 within the DCIA. • Driveway to private residence, approximately 325 feet north of the NC 209/Meadow Fork Road intersection on the west side of NC 209 • Driveway (dirt) to private residence, approximately 650 feet south of the bridge on south/east side of NC 209 • Driveway (dirt) to private residence, approximately 1,200 feet south of the bridge on the south/east side of NC 209 Additionally, a vacant and unmaintained building is located just northwest of the subject bridge on the west side of NC 209 and just south of the Meadow Fork Road/NC 209 intersection. Although it YES NO STIP BR-0032  Madison County  SHORT FORM CIA  March 2019  page 8 may or may not be a driveway, there is a small, partially paved pull-off area from the road in front of the building. Impacts Is the project likely to result in access or accessibility impacts to driveways and cross streets? Long-term accessibility impacts are not anticipated for this project. As construction is currently slated to be staged with a one lane, on-site detour, impacts to access may occur but only minimally so, and access to properties with driveway connections to NC 209 will be maintained. YES NO Recommendation It is recommended that the NCDOT Project Manager ensure that access to properties and Meadow Fork Road is maintained during construction. YES NO BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES AND TRANSPORTATION ACTIVITY Presence Are any specific business and/or economic resources present in the Direct Community Impact Area (e.g. business parks or districts, distribution centers, manufacturing facilities, etc.)? Is there any documented activity related to goods movement in the Direct Community Impact Area (e.g. tractor- trailers, or industrial traffic)? YES NO Impacts Is the project likely to result in impacts to business and economic resources? YES NO Recommendation YES NO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SERVICES (EMS) OPERATIONS Presence Did the EMS local official note any emergency services operations within the Direct Community Impact Area that may be affected by the project, such as stations or corridors that are primary response routes? The Madison County EMS Supervisor indicated that this route and bridge are used for their emergency response operations. YES NO NO RESPONSE Impacts As checked on Local EMS Input Form The Supervisor of Madison County’s EMS reported that with no access over this bridge, EMS operations would need to use the alternative route of Meadow Fork Road to Caldwell Mountain Road to NC Hwy 209 in order to access residents on the eastern side of the bridge, adding between 20 and 25 minutes to their response time. No specifics were provided by the Madison County Interim Emergency Services Director other than a rating of this project as “low impact.” YES NO NO RESPONSE Recommendation It is recommended that the NCDOT Project Manager coordinate with Madison County EMS to provide advanced notice of any potential detours, on-site or off-site, or construction activity that may impact emergency service operations. Additionally, as recommended by the Madison County EMS Supervisor, coordination should also include the Madison County Sheriff’s office (Sheriff Buddy Harwood, sheriffharwood@madisoncountync.gov, (828) 649-2721) and the Spring Creek Fire Department (Fire Chief Coty Norton, scfd900@yahoo.com, (828) 206-5014). YES NO SCHOOL BUS ROUTES Presence Did the local school transportation official note any school bus routes within the Direct Community Impact Area that may be affected by the project? YES NO NO RESPONSE STIP BR-0032  Madison County  SHORT FORM CIA  March 2019  page 9 The Transportation Director of the Madison County School system indicated that six buses utilize this bridge on a daily basis to transport students to and from school. However, she also stated that the bridge is not used by carpool traffic or pedestrians as an access route to the area’s schools. During the field visit, a school bus was observed making a student drop-off at the intersection of NC 209 and SR 1175 (Meadow Fork Road). The bus was traveling south on NC 209 and crossed the subject bridge directly after making the student drop-off at the NC 209/Meadow Fork intersection. Additionally, a parent was observed parked in the gravel pull off area on the east side of the NC 209/Meadow Fork Road intersection waiting for the student that was being dropped off. Impacts As checked on Local Schools Input Form The Transportation Director expressed concern with the condition/capacity of potential detour routes and said that no safe detour routes are available. She stated that construction during the school year would be particularly disruptive to school transportation operations. Additionally, she clarified that if a lane reduction approach is used, a minimum lane size of 9 feet would be necessary for the passage of school buses. YES NO NO RESPONSE Recommendation It is recommended that the NCDOT Project Manager coordinate with Madison County Schools to provide advanced notice of any potential detours, on-site or off-site, or construction activity that may impact school transportation operations. YES NO COMMUNITY RESOURCES Presence Are there any notable community resources located in the Direct Community Impact Area, including places of worship; private and/or public schools; adult education and/or training facilities; daycares; cemeteries; private or public social service agencies; government facilities; other important destinations or resources for local residents? NC 209 through the project study area is classified within the Madison County Comprehensive Plan as an “NC Scenic Byway,” specifically called the “Appalachian Medley.” The indicated purpose of these byways is to “give visitors and residents a chance to experience North Carolina’s history, geography and culture, while also raising awareness for the protection and preservation of these treasures.” Additionally, the Madison County Tourism Development Authority lists NC 209 on their motorcycle route map as part of the “Spring Creek Loop.” YES NO Impacts Is the project likely to impact identified community resources, either directly or by affecting user access? Due to the use of staged construction with an on-site detour, impacts will likely be minimal and restricted to the construction period if they occur at all. YES NO Recommendation YES NO COMMUNITY COHESION Presence Were any specific signs or indicators of community cohesion observed / found within the Direct Community Impact Area? YES NO Impacts Is the project likely to alter the overall functioning of an identifiable district (e.g. interactions between, or isolation of, persons and groups; or change in the physical makeup of the community)? Is the project likely to disrupt connections between neighborhoods and commercial, recreational, institutional and employment facilities and/or areas? YES NO Recommendation YES NO COMMUNITY SAFETY Presence YES NO STIP BR-0032  Madison County  SHORT FORM CIA  March 2019  page 10 Are there any existing or perceived crime or safety issues in the Direct Community Impact Area, including unsafe bicycle or pedestrian facilities, inadequate lighting and/or isolated or poorly connected areas? Impact Is the project likely to change any existing or perceived crime or safety issues? YES NO Recommendation YES NO AREA/COMMUNITY CONCERNS Presence Are there any known community concerns or controversy relative to the project? If concerns were voiced during Public Involvement activities, please attach the relevant comment sheets or meeting comment summary in the Appendix. In the development of the Madison County CTP, citizens were asked to list destinations in Madison County that they perceived as unnecessarily difficult to access due to road congestion or lack of a direct route. Regarding the most difficult destination to access because of lack of a direct route, the Spring Creek community was the destination mentioned the most by the responders (20% of survey respondents). YES NO Impacts Is the project likely to be incompatible with or not address community concerns? YES NO Recommendation YES NO OTHER IMPACTS Are there any other potential impacts associated with the project? YES NO Recommendation YES NO RECURRING EFFECTS Impacts Is the project likely to result in recurring effects on any populations and communities within the Direct Community Impact Area? YES NO Recommendation YES NO ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (EJ) AND TITLE VI POPULATIONS Presence Are there any populations living in the Demographic Study Area that meet the criteria for Environmental Justice and/or Title VI? If so, note which groups are present (check all that apply): Minority Low-Income Title VI (non-EJ) Census data indicates a notable presence of low-income populations meeting the criteria for Environmental Justice within the DSA, and low-income communities were observed within the DCIA during the field visit. The criteria for EJ populations were met in the following Census Tract (CT) Block Groups (BG): CT 102, BG 2 based on the population considered Very Poor (12.8% vs. 5.9% for Madison County), and the population considered NearPoor (19.4% vs. 11.2% for Madison County). During the field visit, low income populations were observed in the locations described below: • Low-income properties were observed within the bend of NC 209 in the study area to the north of the roadway and east of the NC 209/Meadow Fork Road intersection. Most of the buildings are likely abandoned but at least one house appeared to still be occupied. Not present according to Census data and observation/local input Present; Census data indicates presence but there is no observation/local input to confirm Present; Census data does not indicate presence but communities were observed Present according to Census and communities were observed STIP BR-0032  Madison County  SHORT FORM CIA  March 2019  page 11 • A low-income property was observed on the south side of NC 209 just east of the eastern study area edge. Impacts Is the project likely to have a disproportionately high and adverse impact, including denial of benefits, on identified Environmental Justice and/or Title VI populations in the Direct Community Impact Area? While low-income populations are present in the DCIA, no notably adverse community impacts are anticipated with this project; thus, impacts to minority and low-income populations do not appear to be disproportionately high and adverse. Benefits and burdens resulting from the project are anticipated to be equitably distributed throughout the community. No disparate impacts are anticipated under Title VI and related statutes. No impacts; no EJ or Title VI population present No impacts; EJ and/or Title VI population present Community Impacts; no EJ or Title VI population present Impacts; EJ and/or Title VI population present; “No” finding Impacts; EJ and/or Title VI population present; “Yes” finding Recommendation YES NO LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY [LEP] OR LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE [LA] POPULATIONS Presence Are there any populations living in the Demographic Study Area that meet the criteria for Limited English Proficiency? Are there any populations within the Demographic Study Area that do not meet the LEP threshold but do meet the criteria for Language Assistance? Census data does not indicate Limited English Proficiency (LEP) populations meeting the US Department of Justice LEP Safe Harbor threshold or a notable presence within the Demographic Study Area. No LEP or LA No LEP, but LA population is present LEP population present [and LA population present] Recommendation YES NO ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTIC (Central only; skip if Division or LAPP) STIP PROJECTS Presence Are there any reasonably foreseeable STIP projects within 3 miles of this project and/or that have the potential to affect or be affected by this project? YES NO ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE(S) THAT UTILIZE A TEMPORARY ON-SITE DETOUR Staged construction with a signalized one-lane detour is anticipated for this project. YES NO EVALUATE ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION WORK SCHEDULES The NCDOT Project Manager should evaluate construction work schedules that minimize impacts during morning and afternoon school transportation times during the traditional school calendar from late August to the beginning of June. YES NO OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS YES NO Indirect and Cumulative Effects [Transportation Impact-Causing Activities (TICAs)] TRAVEL TIMES Will the project result in travel time savings of more than one minute? YES NO STIP BR-0032  Madison County  SHORT FORM CIA  March 2019  page 12 NEW NETWORK CONNECTIONS Will the project permanently add to the existing road network (i.e. new connections, intersection-to-interchange conversions or service roads)? YES NO PROPERTY ACCESS Will the project provide new or expanded access to properties? YES NO CREATION OF ACTIVITY CENTERS Will the project open areas for concentrated, moderate to high intensity land development or redevelopment? YES NO TICA SUMMARY Will the project result in one or more transportation impact-causing activities? Absence of TICAs Presence of TICAs INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS STATEMENT Will the project require completion of the ICE screening tool? YES NO SOURCES ESRI. World Imagery. Geospatial data accessed via http://goto.arcgisonline.com/maps/World_Imagery on 09/10/2015. French Broad River MPO and Land of Sky RPO Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan. http://www.landofsky.org/pdf/LGS/RPO/CPT2018_V2.pdf. Website accessed 01/22/2019 Land of Sky RPO, Blue Ridge Bike Plan, 2013. http://www.landofsky.org/pdf/LGS/BRBP/BlueRidgeBikePlan_2014_web.pdf. Website accessed 01/29/2019 Madison County Bicycle Routes and Hiking Trails Map, Madison County Tourism Development Authority. https://www.madisoncountync.gov/uploads/5/9/7/0/59701963/map_5b_-_hiking___biking.pdf. Website accessed 01/21/2019 Madison County Comprehensive Plan, 2010. https://www.madisoncountync.gov/uploads/5/9/7/0/59701963/madison_county_comprehensive_plan.pdf. Website accessed 01/21/2019 Madison County Comprehensive Transportation Plan, 2012. https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/TPBCTP/Madison%20County/MadisonCo_Report.pdf. Website accessed 01/21/2019 Madison County, NC GIS Data Online Map https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6ee394b589ae4135ba640873ac9dfa2d. Website accessed 01/17/2019 Madison County Parks and Recreation Facilities. https://www.madisoncountync.gov/parks-facilities.html. Website accessed 01/18/2019 Madison County Recreation and Adventure Map, Madison County Tourism Development Authority. https://www.madisoncountync.gov/uploads/5/9/7/0/59701963/adventure_map.pdf. Website accessed 01/22/2019 Madison County Recreation Map – Recreation Facilities, Motorcycle Routes, Madison County Tourism Development Authority. https://www.madisoncountync.gov/uploads/5/9/7/0/59701963/map_5a_-_recreation___motorcycle_routes.pdf. Website accessed 01/22/2019 STIP BR-0032  Madison County  SHORT FORM CIA  March 2019  page 13 Madison County Transportation Authority – MCTA. https://www.madisoncountync.gov/transportation-authority.html. Website accessed 01/18/2019 Mountain Home Properties, listing for 7191 NC 209 Highway, Hot Springs, NC 28743. http://www.mountaindream.com/listings/7191-NC-209-HIGHWAY-HOT-SPRINGS-NC-28743/3373196/44/. Website accessed 01/17/2019 Minnesota Population Center. National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 11.0 [Database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. 2016. http://doi.org/10.18128/D050.V11.0. Census 2000/Census 2010 Time Series Tables Geographically Standardized NC DEQ, Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). Watershed Priority Map. http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep/priorities-map Website accessed 04/27/2015. NC DEQ, Division of Water Resources. Water Supply Watersheds. Geospatial data downloaded from http://data.nconemap.com/ on 02/03/2015. NC DEQ. High Quality and Outstanding Resource Water Management Zones. Geospatial data downloaded from http://data.nconemap.com/ on 11/06/2014. NCDOT Current STIP, January 2019. https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/NCDOT%20Current%20STIP.pdf. Website accessed 08/29/2018 NCDOT, GIS Unit. GIS Data Layers for Integrated Statewide Road Network Data, Statewide Primary & Secondary Road Routes, NCDOT Bike Routes, Airports, and NCDOT Rail Track. Geospatial data downloaded from https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/gis/pages/gis-data-layers.aspx on 08/24/2015. NCDOT SMU Structure Safety Report for 560084. https://connect.ncdot.gov/site/preconstruction/division/div13/BR- 0032%20Madison%2084/Structures%20Design/Primary%20Folder/560084-Routine-1-20160802.pdf. Website accessed 01/29/2019 North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA). Digital GIS Wild and Scenic Rivers data set. Geospatial data downloaded from http://data.nconemap.com/ on 11/06/2014. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) Division of Water Resources. North Carolina 2012 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters. Geospatial data downloaded from http://data.nconemap.com/ on 11/06/2014. Ogle, Teresa, Interim Emergency Services Director, Madison County Emergency Operations Center/911. Email: e911@madisoncountync.gov Telephone: (828) 649-3602 (Appendix C). 09/21/2018 Ponder, Deanna, Transportation Director, Madison County Schools. Email: dponder@madisonk12.net Telephone: (828) 649-3751 (Appendix C). 08/24/2018 Snelson, Mark, Supervisor, Madison County EMS. Email: mark.snelson@msj.org Telephone: (828) 649-3815 (Appendix C). 09/28/2018 Steven Manson, Jonathan Schroeder, David Van Riper, and Steven Ruggles. IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 12.0 [Database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. 2017. http://doi.org/10.18128/D050.V12.0 Census 2000/Census 2010 Time Series Tables Geographically Standardized United States Census Bureau. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk. Website access 1/14/2019 US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2012-2016), Table B03002, "Hispanic or Latino Origin by Race." STIP BR-0032  Madison County  SHORT FORM CIA  March 2019  page 14 US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2012-2016), Table B16004, "Age by Language Spoken at Home by Ability to Speak English for the Population 5 Years and Over." US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2012-2016), Table C17002, "Ratio of Income to Poverty Level in the Past 12 Months." U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. USDOI NPS, Nationwide Rivers Inventory. Lower 48 NRI GIS Data. Geospatial data downloaded from http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri/index.html on 09/10/2015 WalkBikeNC State Bike Routes (9.3). https://www.ncdot.gov/bikeped/walkbikenc/pictures/bikeroutes.pdf. Website accessed 01/29/2019 STIP BR-0032  Madison County  SHORT FORM CIA  March 2019  page 15 APPENDIX ITEMS A. Summary of Demographics Used in Tabular Form B. Site Photographs C. Local Official Input Forms D. Agency Input STIP BR-0032  Madison County  SHORT FORM CIA  March 2019  page 16 APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHICS USED IN TABULAR FORM Minority Geography Total Population White, Non-Hispanic Minority Population* Meets NCDOT Thresholds # % # % 50% 10% over County CT 102, BG 2 1,076 1,052 97.8% 24 2.2% No No DSA 1,076 1,052 97.8% 24 2.2% No N/A Madison County 21,130 19,880 94.1% 1,250 5.9% * Minority population includes all races that are Non-White and Hispanic populations that are also White. Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2012-2016), Table B03002, "Hispanic or Latino Origin by Race." STIP BR-0032  Madison County  SHORT FORM CIA  March 2019  page 17 Poverty Poverty Total Population for whom Poverty Status is Determined Below Poverty Level Very Poor: Under 50% of Poverty Level Near Poor: Between 100% and 149% of Poverty Level Meets NCDOT Thresholds # % # % # % 25% 5% over County CT 102, BG 2 1,076 209 19.4% 138 12.8% 209 19.4% No Yes DSA 1,076 209 19.4% 138 12.8% 209 19.4% No N/A Madison County 20,067 3,337 16.6% 1,188 5.9% 2,254 11.2% Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2012-2016), Table C17002, "Ratio of Income to Poverty Level in the Past 12 Months." STIP BR-0032  Madison County  SHORT FORM CIA  March 2019  page 18 Limited English Proficiency Geography Total Adult Population, 18 years and older Primary Language Group of Persons Who Speak English Less than Very Well Meets NCDOT Thresholds Spanish Other Indo-Euro Asian/Pacific Other # % # % # % # % LEP LA CT 102, BG 2 883 - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% N/A No DSA 883 - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0.0% No N/A Madison County 17,242 202 1.2% 10 0.1% 13 0.1% 4 0.0% Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2012-2016), Table B16004, "Age by Language Spoken at Home by Ability to Speak English for the Population 5 Years and Over." STIP BR-0032  Madison County  SHORT FORM CIA  March 2019  page 19 APPENDIX B: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Figure 1: Bridge No. 84 over Meadow Fork on NC 209, facing south Figure 2: Residential and farm buildings within the bend of NC 209, located east and northeast of the subject bridge and the T-intersection of Meadow Fork Road and NC 209 Figure 3: Residential property on a small hill in the northwest quadrant of the intersection at NC 209 and Meadow Fork Road, appeared unoccupied Figure 4: Madison County school bus drop-off and parent waiting to pick up their child at the intersection of NC 209 and Meadow Fork Road STIP BR-0032  Madison County  SHORT FORM CIA  March 2019  page 20 Figure 5: T-intersection of Meadow Fork Road and NC 209 and road-side pull off area, facing east with Bridge 84 to the south Figure 6: Vacant and unmaintained building in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of NC 209 and Meadow Fork Road north of the subject bridge STIP BR-0032  Madison County  SHORT FORM CIA  March 2019  page 21 APPENDIX C: LOCAL OFFICIAL INPUT FORMS LOCAL EMS Name: Title: Agency: Phone: Email: Teresa Ogle Interim Emergency Services Director Madison County Emergency Operations Center/911 (828) 649-3602 e911@madisoncountync.gov FIRST CONTACT DATE METHOD(S) RESULT 08/27/2018 ☒ Email ☐ Phone ☐ In-person ☒ Form returned on 09/21/2018 ☐ Interview on (date) ☐ No response Comments: Name: Title: Agency: Phone: Email: Mark Snelson Supervisor Madison County EMS (828) 649-3815 Mark.snelson@msj.org FIRST CONTACT DATE METHOD(S) RESULT 08/27/2018 ☒ Email ☐ Phone ☐ In-person ☒ Form returned on 09/28/2018 ☐ Interview on (date) ☐ No response Comments: Name: Title: Agency: Phone: Email: Coty Norton Fire Chief Spring Creek VFD (828) 206-5014 Scfd900@yahoo.com FIRST CONTACT DATE METHOD(S) RESULT 08/27/2018 ☒ Email ☒ Phone ☐ In-person ☐ Form returned on (date) ☐ Interview on (date) ☒ No response Comments: Contacted 09/05/2018, 10/01/2018, and 10/23/2018 LOCAL PLANNER Name: Title: Agency: Phone: Email: Forrest Gilliam County Manager Madison County Manager’s Office (828) 649-2854 fgilliam@madisoncountync.gov STIP BR-0032  Madison County  SHORT FORM CIA  March 2019  page 22 FIRST CONTACT DATE METHOD(S) RESULT 08/27/2018 ☒ Email ☐ Phone ☐ In-person ☐ Form returned on (date) ☐ Interview on (date) ☒ No response Comments: Contacted 08/27/2018, 09/19/2018, and 10/23/2018 LOCAL SCHOOLS Name: Title: Agency: Phone: Email: Deanna Ponder Transportation Director Madison County Schools (828) 649-3751 dponder@madisonk12.net FIRST CONTACT DATE METHOD RESULT 08/24/2018 ☒ Email ☐ Phone ☐ In-person ☒ Form returned on 08/24/2018 ☐ Interview on (date) ☐ No response Comments: STIP BR-0032  Madison County  SHORT FORM CIA  March 2019  page 23 Local EMS Input Form Teresa Ogle – Interim Emergency Services Director, Madison County Emergency Operations Center/911 For all applicable questions, please provide a detailed explanation of your response in the field provided. Check if item is applicable 1. Are there any concerns related to EMS services for this project? Please be as specific as possible (e.g. location in a high call volume area, closure could affect response to schools, weight restrictions, expected new development in the area, coordination with partner agency required to facilitate service). 2. Based on your knowledge of the project area, do you have any concerns with the condition/capacity of potential detour routes, or the location of resources along these routes? 3. Are there any future time periods or events that you know of where bridge or road closure or reduction in number of lanes for construction would be of particular concern? 4. Rate the overall impact on emergency services if the bridge or roadway were closed or at reduced capacity for up to a year: No Impact Low Impact Moderate Impact High Impact 5. Are road names referenced by the names locals would use? 6. Is there anyone else you feel should be contacted regarding this project (i.e. local officials or stakeholders)? 7. Do you have any other concerns regarding the potential impact of this project on EMS services, or any additional comments? Please be as specific as possible. Mark Snelson – Supervisor, Madison County EMS For all applicable questions, please provide a detailed explanation of your response in the field provided. Check if item is applicable 8. Are there any concerns related to EMS services for this project? Please be as specific as possible (e.g. location in a high call volume area, closure could affect response to schools, weight restrictions, expected new development in the area, coordination with partner agency required to facilitate service). Yes. It would cause a extended response time to the residents across the bridge to app. 20-25 minutes 9. Based on your knowledge of the project area, do you have any concerns with the condition/capacity of potential detour routes, or the location of resources along these routes? STIP BR-0032  Madison County  SHORT FORM CIA  March 2019  page 24 Yes. EMS would need to go up Meadow Fork across Caldwell Mtn. down 209 Hwy to access residents. 10. Are there any future time periods or events that you know of where bridge or road closure or reduction in number of lanes for construction would be of particular concern? 11. Rate the overall impact on emergency services if the bridge or roadway were closed or at reduced capacity for up to a year: No Impact Low Impact Moderate Impact High Impact 12. Are road names referenced by the names locals would use? Yes 13. Is there anyone else you feel should be contacted regarding this project (i.e. local officials or stakeholders)? Emergency Management, Sheriff’s office, Spring Creek Fire Department 14. Do you have any other concerns regarding the potential impact of this project on EMS services, or any additional comments? Please be as specific as possible. EMS would be extended 20-25 minutes to houses on opposite side of bridge STIP BR-0032  Madison County  SHORT FORM CIA  March 2019  page 25 Local Planner Input Form No Response STIP BR-0032  Madison County  SHORT FORM CIA  March 2019  page 26 Local Schools Input Form Check all questions that apply and provide a detailed explanation of your response in the field provided. Check if item is applicable 1. How many school buses [cross the bridge/pass through the corridor] per day (total # of daily buses, total # daily of trips)? 6 X 2. Is the corridor used by carpool traffic or pedestrians to access local schools? If yes, please describe the location and time(s) of day. NO 3. [Applicable if schools are located in or near the project area] Are there any Safe Routes to School plans in place at schools in the vicinity of the project? NA 4. Based on your knowledge of the project area, do you have any concerns with the condition/capacity of potential detour routes or the location of resources along these routes with respect to school traffic? YES – There are no safe detours X 5. Are there any future time periods or events that you know of where bridge or road closure or reduction in number of lanes for construction would be of particular concern? During the school year 6. Rate the overall impact on school transportation if the bridge or roadway were closed or at reduced capacity for up to a year: No Impact Low Impact Moderate Impact x High Impact 7. Are road names referenced by the names locals would use? yes x 8. Is there anyone else you feel should be contacted regarding this project (i.e. local officials or stakeholders)? The community of Meadow Fork and The community of Spring Creek., Madison County 911 and Madison County Transportation Authority. x 9. Are there any other concerns you have regarding the potential impact of this project on school transportation services or any additional comments? Please be as specific as possible. There are no safe detours my buses could use. If lane reduction is used it will need to be at least a 9 foot lane for us to use. x STIP BR-0032  Madison County  SHORT FORM CIA  March 2019  page 27 APPENDIX D: AGENCY INPUT STIP BR-0032  Madison County  SHORT FORM CIA  March 2019  page 28 STIP BR-0032  Madison County  SHORT FORM CIA  March 2019  page 29