20071559 Ver 1_Environmental Assessment_20070917

SR 1323 (Riverview Street) and NC 28 (Bryson City Roadj Improvements
From SR 1729 (Depot Street Extension) to SR 1378 (Bennett Road)
Franklin, Macon County
WBS Element 34427.1.1
Federal Project Number STP-28(1)
State Project Number 8.1970801
TIP Project Number R-2408
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL ffiGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)
WETLANDS / 401 ~R~~1E
JUN 2 9 2004
WAf ER (~1JALITY SECTI~f
Cooperating Agency
Tennessee Valley Authority
APPR VED:
D to F~~regory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
y/~~
o~.,~
Date ,,/'John F. ull' n III, P. E., Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

SR 1323 (Riverview Street) and NC 28 (Bryson City Road) Improvements
From SR 1729 (Depot Street Extension) to SR 1378 (Bennett Road)
Franklin, Macon County
WBS Element 34427.1.1
Federal Project Number STP-28(1)
State Project Number 8.1970801
TIP Project Number R-2408
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
May 2004
Documentation Prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch by:
```III1111111„~,~,'
o`
R.~N CARD f ''~,
o
.; ~ ~ ~i o
~~
r '
L------ SEAL
_
_

Bryan D. Kluchar, PE -
~ y Q 2 6 8 7 7
•
Project Development Engineer • FN ~~
Y
~
,,
,~
,~ ..... ~
K~~ ,1~,
~'~. N Q

• .
r~~ffU 11141111,,

Linwood Stone, CPM
Project Development Unit Head
r

SR 1323 (Riverview Street) and NC 28 (Bryson City Road) Improvements
From SR 1729 (Depot Street Extension) to SR 1378 (Bennett Road)
Franklin, Macon County
WBS Element 34427.1.1
Federal Project Number STP-28(1)
State Project Number 8.1970801
TIP Project Number R-2408
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
May 2004
Documentation Prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch by:
:~~` ~~. f~p~ES O~`ti~9'~''s
• k~:
~Q
L--- _ ~ SEAL i
Bryan . Kluchar, PE 0 2 6 8 7 7 ;
Project Development Engineer ~~ Fiy ~~•~4'
.,~Py~•.hGINE..• ~Q~~•
'1~~9'V ~ ~~ ~'K`JG~~~,
P~
Linwood Stone, CPM
Project Development Unit Head

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
SR 1323 (Riverview Street) and NC 28 (Bryson City Road) Improvements
From SR 1729 (Depot Street Extension) to SR 1378 (Bennett Road)
Franklin, Macon County
WBS Element 34427.1.1
Federal Project Number STP-28(1)
State Project Number 8.1970801
TIP Project Number R-2408
Roadway Design
• The proposed action includes 4-foot paved shoulders for bicycle accommodations
throughout the length of the project.
Proiect Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
• Additional surveys are needed for the federally protected Spotfin chub, Appalachian
elktoe mussel, and Little-wing pearlymussel. The affect of the proposed action on these
species will be identified in the project's Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). A
Section 7 Consultation is required to assess the impacts of the proposed project on these
endangered species.
Proiect Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, Roadway Design, and
Division 14
• The proposed fill on the east side of NC 28 between Stations 117+00 and 119+00 will be
placed without removing the existing topsoil. This section of the project has been
identified as an environmentally sensitive area.
Roadway Design Unit, Hydraulics Unit, and Roadside Environmental Unit
• The proposed project is located within a critical habitat area for the federally protected
Appalachian elktoe mussel, spotfm chub, and the Virginia spirea. Therefore, NCDOT
will implement erosion and sedimentation control measures, as specified by NCDOT's
"Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B.0024). Detailed plans for
the placement of appropriate hydraulic drainage structures will be determined during the
final design of the project.
Hydraulic Design Unit
• A TVA Section 26a permit is required for all proposed obstructions involving streams or
floodplains in the Tennessee River drainage basin. The TVA is a cooperating agency for
this project.
Environmental Assessment
May 2004
page 1 of 2

Hydraulic Design Unit
• The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency
and local authorities in the final design stage to ensure compliance with applicable
floodplain ordinances.
Roadway Design, Roadside Environmental Unit, and Division 14
To avoid or reduce impacts to the federally protected Indiana Bat, NCDOT will:
• Leave damaged and dead trees as long as they do not create a safety hazard.
• Avoid, to the extent practicable, stream degradation by channelization, siltation, or other
pollution to protect macroinvertebrate food sources for bats.
Environmental Assessment
May 2004
page 2 of 2

Environmental Assessment
Prepazed by the
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
of the North Cazolina Department of Transportation
In Consultation with the Federal Highway Administration
SUMMARY
SR 1323 (Riverview Street) and NC 28 (Bryson City Road) Improvements
From SR 1729 (Depot Street Extension) to SR 1378 (Bennett Road)
1. Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Administrative Action,
Environmental Assessment (EA).
2. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve
SR 1323 (Riverview Street) and NC 28 (Bryson City Road) from SR 1729 (Depot Street
Extension) to SR 1378 (Bennett Road). The proposed action extends northwazd from the
Town of Franklin into Macon County. Figure 1 shows the location of the project. The
purpose of this project is to correct existing roadway deficiencies by improving the vertical
and horizontal alignment and widening the travel lanes and shoulders. The total length of the
project is approximately 3.6 miles. Figure 2 shows an aerial view of the project area.
The improvements to SR 1323 (Riverview Street) and NC 28 (Bryson City Road) aze
both state and federally funded. Project Number R-2408 is included in NCDOT's latest
approved Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The project is divided into sections A
and B for right of way acquisition and construction in the 2004-2010 TIP. Section A (state
funded) begins at SR 1729 (Depot Street Extension) and ends neaz the junction of NC 28.
Section B (federally funded) begins neaz the junction of NC 28 and continues north to
SR 1378 (Bennett Road). Right of way and construction for Section A aze scheduled in state
fiscal years 2005 and 2006, respectively. Right of way and construction for Section B are
scheduled for federal fiscal years 2006 and 2008, respectively.
3. Alternatives Considered
Two alternatives were considered for the proposed project. The alternatives include the
No-Build Alternative, and Build Alternative.
The No-Build Alternative does not correct existing roadway deficiencies along SR 1323
and NC 28. Since the No-Build Alternative does not address the purpose and need, it is not
recommended.

The Build Alternative contains three roadway improvement options identified as
Alternates 1, 2, and 3. The three alternates generally follow the existing alignment of
SR 1323 and NC 28 to minimize impacts to the human and natural environments. All
alternates widen the travel lanes and shoulders. Alternates 1 and 3 improve the horizontal
and vertical alignment while Alternate 2 maintains the existing alignment of the road.
All three alternates begin at the intersection of SR 1323 (Riverview Street) and SR 1729
(Depot Street Extension) and continue northward along SR 1323 (Riverview Street) to the
junction of NC 28. The proposed improvements then continue along NC 28 to the northern
project terminus at SR 1378 (Bennett Road). The project ends before crossing the Little
Tennessee River on NC 28.
The proposed typical section of Alternates 1, 2, and 3 include 12-foot travel lanes and 8-
foot shoulders. Shoulders include four feet of pavement to accommodate bicycles. The
typical section is shown by Figure 4.
4. NCDOT Recommended Alternative
The NCDOT is recommending Alternate 3 for the improvements proposed in this
Environmental Assessment. Alternate 3 provides the best balance between roadway
improvements and social and environmental impacts throughout the length of the project.
The total estimated cost of the project for Alternate 3 is $9,456,000 consisting of $5,300,000
for construction and $4,156,000 for right of way acquisition.
5. Coordination
The following federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the preparation of
this Environmental Assessment:
US Army Corps of Engineers -Asheville
US Army Corps of Engineers -Wilmington
US Fish and Wildlife Service -Asheville
US Environmental Protection Agency -Atlanta
NC Department of Administration, NC State Clearinghouse
NC Department of Public Instruction
NC Department of Cultural Resources - SHPO
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Division of Forest Resources
Division of Land Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Macon County
Town of Franklin
r
11

6. Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Environmental Impacts
Table 1 contains a compazative summary of the quantifiable impacts associated with the
three build alternates. The impacts associated with the proposed project aze described in
detail in Section III of this document.
Table 1
Comparative Summary
Category Units Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
Length miles 3.6 3.6 3.6
Residential Relocations total 25 16 10
minority 0 0 0
Business Relocations total 3 2 4
minority 0 0 0
Total Relocations total 28 18 14
Non-Profit Relocations total 0 0 0
Potential Hazardous Mat.
Sites each 2 1 1
Wetlands Acres 0 0 0
Stream Impacts Linear feet 575 430 500
Protected Species Species Unresolved Spotfin chub, Appalachian ellctoe mussel,
and Little-win earl ussel
Noise Impacted properties
residence and bus. 2 3 4
Historic Architecture Properties 0 0 0
Archaeology Sites Adverse Effect
on 2 sites Adverse Effect
on 2 sites No Adverse
Effect on 2 sites
Air Quality 1-Hour carbon m~ oxide Neutral project Neutral Project Neutral Project
Construction Cost Dollars $7,800,000 $3,950,000 $5,300,000
Right of Way Cost Dollars $5,085,000 $5,085,000 $4,156,000
Total Cost Dollars $12,885,000 $9,035,000 $9,456,000
ppm =parts per million
National Ambient 1-hour Air Quality Standards: 35 ppm
iii

7. Actions Required By Otter Agencies
Constructing the proposed action will result in impacts to jurisdictional surface waters.
In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a Nationwide
Permit is anticipated from the US Army Corps of Engineers. NCDOT will implement
erosion and sedimentation control measures, as specified by NCDOT's "Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters".
The proposed project will also require a Section 401 Water Quality General Certification
from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water
certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to
Waters of the United States. Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be
temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or other land manipulation.
The proposed project is located in the Tennessee River Watershed. A permit pursuant to
Section 26a of the TVA Act, is required for all obstructions involving streams or floodplains
in the Tennessee River drainage basin.
8. Other Major Actions
The Depot Street Extension (TIP Project Number U-2929) is currently under
construction at the southern terminus of the proposed action. The Depot Street Extension
(SR 1729) is a two-lane roadway on new location connecting to SR 1323 (Riverview Street).
9. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the assessment can be obtained by contacting the
following persons:
John F. Sullivan III, P. E., Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone [phone]
r
IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY ................................................................................................. i
I. PURPOSE AND NEED .............................................................................1
A. General Description of Project ..............................................................1
B. Purpose and Need .............................................................................. l
C. Project Status ...................................................................................1
II. EXISTING CONDI'I'IONS ........................................................................2
A. Length of Roadway Section Studied ........................................................2
B. Existing Typical Section ......................................................................................... 2
C. Speed Limits ........................................................................................................... 2
D. Sidewalks .............................................................................................................3
E. Right of Way ........................................................................................................... 3
F. Railroad Crossings .................................................................................................. 3
G. Intersecting Roads ................................................................................................... 3
H. Degree of Roadside Interference ............................................................................. 3
I. Structures .............................................................................................................3
J. Utilities .....................................................................................3
K. Bicycle Routes .................................................................................. 3
L. School Bus Data ................................................................................ 3
M. Navigable Waters .............................................................................. 3
N. Greenways .....................................................................................4
III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ..........................................•-----.......---.....4
A. Alternatives Considered for Detailed Study ............................................... 4
1. No-Build Alternative ................................................................... 4
2. Build Alternative ........................................................................ 4
a. Alternate 1 ........................................................................ 4
b. Alternate 2 ....................................................................... 5
c. Alternate 3 (recommended) ................................................... 5
d. Traffic Capacity ................................................................. 5
1) Existing Conditions ....................................................... 5
2) Year 2025 Conditions .................................................... 5
e. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature Comparison ........................... 6
IV PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................7
A. Length of the Proposed Project .............................................................. 7
B. Typical Section Description ..................................................................7
C. Right of Way ..............................................................................7
D. Access Control ..............................................................................7
E. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control .............................................. 7

Page
F. Speed Limit and Design Speed .......................................................7
G. Maintenance of Traffic ................................................................ 7
H. Noise Barriers ........................................................................... 7
I. Sidewalks ................................................................................8
J. Bicycle Accommodations .............................................................8
K. Structures ................................................................................8
L. Greenways .....................................................................8
M. Right of Way Cost ..................................................................... 8
N. Construction C~st ...................................................................... 8
O. NCDOT Recommended Alternate ...................................................8
V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ................................................................. 9
A. Land Use ........................................................................................ 9
1. Residential ............................................................................... 9
2. Commercial ..................................................................... . . . ...... 9
3 . Industrial ................................................................................ 9
4. Airport ...... ............................................................................ 9
5. Zoning .............................................................................. 10
6. Future Plans for Development ....................................................... 10
7. Local/Regional Land Use and/or Development Plans ........................... 10
B. Farmland .............................................................................. 10
C. Social and Economic Effects ................................................................. 10
1. Community Profile ..................................................................... 10
a. Race, Ethnicity, and Age ...................................................... 10
b. Income and Poverty Status .................................................... 11
c. Housing Characteristics ........................................................ 12
d. Business Activity/Employment Centers .................................... 12
e. Public Facilities, Schools, Institutions, and Historic Sites .............. 12
f. Police, Fire, EMS, and Public Services .................................... 13
g. Community/Neighborhood Description ..................................... 13
2. Project Impact Assessment ............................................................ 13
a. Consistency with Local/Regional Plans ..................................... 13
b. Economic Development Opportunities ...................................... 13
c. Traffic Congestion and Safety ................................................ 14
d. Accessibility and Parking ...................................................... 14
e. Transit Considerations ......................................................... 14
f. Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenway Considerations ....................... 14
g. Community Stability and Neighborhood Cohesion ....................... 14
h. Tax Base Changes and Changes in Employment .......................... 15
i. Visual Impacts ................................................................... 15
j. Scenic Rivers and Water Supply Watersheds .............................. 15
k. Title VI and Environmental Justice ................... . . . .................... 15
1. Indirect/Cumulative Impacts ................................................. 15

Page
D.
1) Change in the Rate of Development
Along Froject Corridor .......................................... .15
2) Change in the Character of Neighborhoods
Along the Corridor ............................................... .16
3. Relocation Impacts .................................................................... .16
4. Cultural Resources .................................................................... .17
a. Historic Architectural Resources .............................................. .17
b. Archaeological Resources ...................................................... .17
Environmental Effects ........................................................................ .18
1. Methodology ........................................................................... .18
2. Tenminology and Definitions ........................................................ .19
3. Physical Resources .................................................................... .19
a. Regional Characteristics ......................................................... .19
b. Soils ................................................................................. .19
c. Water Resources .................................................................. .19
1) Waters Impacted and Characteristics .................................. .19
2) Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters .......................... .20
3) Water Quality .............................................................. .20
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts .............................................. . 22
4. Biotic Resources ....................................................................... .23
a. Biotic Communities .............................................................. .23
1) Montane Oak-Hickory Forest .......................................... .24
2) Disturbed/Maintained .................................................... . 24
3) Large Mountain Perennial Stream ..................................... . 25
4) Small Mountain Perennial Stream ..................................... . 26
5) Faunal Communities ..................................................... .27
b. Summary of Anticipated Biotic Community Impacts ...................... .28
1) Terrestrial Community Impacts ........................................ .28
a) Quantitative Impacts: Habitat Loss ............................. .28
b) Faunal Population Impacts ........................................ . 28
2) Aquatic Community Impacts ............................................ .29
5. Jurisdictional Topics .................................................................. . 30
a. Waters of the United States ...................................................... . 30
1) Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ..................... 30
2) Permits ....................................................................... 31
3) Avoidance, Minimisation, and Mitigation ............................32
b. Rare and Protected Species ........................................................ 33
1) Federally Protected Species .............................................. 33
2) Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ............... 38
6. Flood Hazard Evaluation .............................................................. 38
7. Hazardous Materials ...................................................................40
8. Noise ..........................................................................41
a. Characteristics of Noise ........................................................41
b. Noise Abatement Criteria ......................................................41

Page
c. Ambient Noise Levels ..........................................................42
d. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels ........................... .42
e. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours ................................ .43
f. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures ......................................... . 44
1) Highway Alignment Selection ........................................ .44
2) Traffic System Management Measures ............................. . 44
3) Noise Barriers ........................................................... . 44
4) Other Mitigation Measures Considered ............................ . 45
g. No-Build Alternative ..................................
. 45
.
...................... .
h. Construction Noise ............................................................ .45
i. Noise Analysis Summary ..................................................... . 46
9. Air Quality Analysis 46
.................................................................. .
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ........................................................47
A. Comments Received ........................................................................... 47
B. Citizens Informational Workshop ........................................................... 47
C. Agency Coordination ..........................................................................47
D. Public Hearing ..................................................................................48
TABLES
Table 2 Comparative Summary ................................................................ iii
Table 2 Existing Deficient Horizontal and Vertical Curves along NC 28 .............. 2
Table 3 Horizontal Curvature Improvements by Alternate ............................... 6
Table 4 Vertical Curvature Improvements by Alternate ................................... 6
Table 5 Alternate Cost Comparison ........................................................... 9
Table 6 2000 Population by Race and Hispanic Origins .................................. 11
Table 7 2000 Population by Age ............................................................... l l
Table 8 2000 Income Measures and Persons Living Below Poverty Level ........... 12
Table 9 2000 Housing Characteristics ........................................................ 12
Table 10 Relocation Impact Summary .......................................................... 17
Table 11 Physical Characteristics of Project Study Area Streams ......................... 21
Table 12 Permitted Dischargers within the Project Study Area ........................... 22
Table 13 Estimated Terrestrial Community Impacts ......................................... 28
Table 14 Estimated Impacts to Jurisdictional Surface Waters .............................. 31
Table 15 Federally Protected Species in Macon County .................................... 33
Table 16 Federal Species of Concern for Macon County ................................... 39
FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Location
Figure 2 Froject Aerial
Figure 3 Existing Curve Design Speeds
Figure 4 Typical Section
Figure Sa 2002 Traffic Data

Figure Sb 2002 Traffic Data
Figure 6a 2025 Traffic Data
Figure 6b 2025 Traffic Data
Figure 7 Level of Service
Figure 8 Alternate 1, 2, and 3 Curve Design Speed
Figure 9a Intersection Lane Configurations
Figure 9b Intersection Lane Configurations
Figure 10 Thoroughfare Plan
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 NCDOT Relocation Reports
Appendix 2 Noise Tables
Appendix 3 Comments Received from Federal and State Agencies
Appendix 4 Relocation Assistance Program

SR 1323 (Riverview Street) and NC 28 (Bryson City Road) Improvements
From SR 1729 (Depot Street Extension) to SR 1378 (Bennett Road)
Franklin, Macon County
WBS Element 34427.1.1
Federal Project Number STP-28(1)
State Project Number 8.1970801
TIP Project Number R-2408
I. PURPOSE AND NEED
A. General Description of Project
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve
SR 1323 (Riverview Street) and NC 28 (Bryson City Road) from SR 1729 (Depot Street
Extension) to SR 1378 (Bennett Road). The proposed action extends northwazd from the
Town of Franklin into Macon County. The southern terminus of the project is located just
west of the Little Tennessee River. Figure 1 shows the location of the project. The total
length of the project is approximately 3.5 miles. Figure 2 shows an aerial view of the project
azea.
B. Purpose and Need
The purpose of this project is to correct existing roadway deficiencies along SR 1323
and NC 28. The road has substandard geometrics and an inadequate typical section. Travel
lanes and shoulders aze narrow and the vertical and horizontal alignments aze deficient
according to the current NCDOT design standazds. Because of the mountainous terrain, the
road has steep drop-offs and large inclines on opposite sides of the road. This makes it
difficult to travel along this road with narrow lanes and sharp curves that limit a driver's sight
distance. The corridor is also a preferred route for tractor trailer trucks.
Table 2 shows the existing deficient design speed of horizontal and vertical curves
along SR 1323 and NC 28 in the project azea. Horizontal curves aze either to the left or right
while vertical curves aze either uphill or downhill. The approximate locations of the
deficient curves are shown in Figure 3.
C. Project Status
The improvements to SR 1323 (Riverview Street) and NC 28 aze both state and
federally funded. Project Number R-2408 is included in NCDOT's latest approved
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The project is divided into sections A and B for
right of way acquisition and construction in the 2004-2010 TIP. Section A (state funded)
begins at SR 1729 (Depot Street Extension) and ends near the junction of NC 28. Section B
(federally funded) begins near the junction of NC 28 and continues north to SR 1378
(Bennett Road). Right of way and construction for Section A aze scheduled in state fiscal
years 2005 and 2006, respectively. Right of way and construction for Section B are
scheduled for federal fiscal years 2006 and 2008, respectively.

Table 2
Existing Deficient Horizontal and Vertical Curves along NC 28
Location Station Horizontal Desi n S eed Posted S eed Limit
64+00 +/- 40 m h 4$ m h
8$+00 +/- 40 m h 4$ m h
88+$0 +/- 3$ m h 4$ m h
92+$0 +/- 40 m h 4$ m h
138+00 +/- 4$ m h $$ m h
1$3+00+/- 4$ m h $$ m h

Vertical Desi n S eed
44+6$ +/- 40 m h 4$ m h
77+$0 +/- 3$ m h 4$ m h
84+7$ +/- 3$ m h 4$ m h
93+40 +/- 40 m h 4$ m h
98+7$ +/- 4$ m h $$ m h
109+00 +/- 3$ m h $$ m h
11$+$0+/- 4$m h $$m h
132+2$ +/- 30 m h $$ m h
139+$0 +/- 40 m h $$ m h
176+$0 +/- 4$ m h $$ m h
191+00 +/- 3$ m h $$ m h
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The proposed project is located in Macon County in southwestern North Carolina. The
project follows existing SR 1323 and NC 28 from SR 1729 (Depot Street Extension) to
SR 1378 (Bennett Road). NC 28 is identified as a Major Collector in the Functional
Classification System for highways and roads.
A. Length of Roadway Section Studied
The total length of the project is approximately 3.$ miles. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has determined that the project, as currently proposed, connects
logical termini. It is of sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad scope,
has independent utility and significance, and is a usable and reasonable expenditure even if
no additional transportation improvements are made in the area.
B. Existing Typical Section
SR 1323 and NC 28 are currently two-lane roads with travel lane widths of 11 feet and
variable width shoulders.
C. Speed Limits
Speed limits vary throughout the project area. At the southern terminus of the project,
SR 1323 currently has a posted speed limit of 3$ miles per hour. The speed limit increases to

45 miles per hour beyond the Franklin corporate limit and continues to just north of Windy
Gap Road on NC 28. From just north of Windy Gap Road to the northern project terminus,
the speed limit increases to 55 miles per hour.
D. Sidewalks
No sidewalks aze currently in place along SR 1323 and NC 28.
E. Right of Way
The existing right of way width along SR 1323 is approximately 30 feet. NC 28 has an
existing right of way width of approximately 60 feet.
F. Railroad Crossings
There aze no railroad crossings along SR 1323 and NC 28 in the project azea.
G. Intersecting Roads
All roadways in the project azea have at-grade intersections with SR 1323 and NC 28.
There aze no traffic signals in the project azea.
H. Degree of Roadside Interference
Land use in the project azea is a mixture of residential, commercial, and agricultural.
Residential and commercial development is scattered throughout the project. Agricultural
land uses aze generally located north of the intersection of SR 1323 and NC 28.
I. Structures
There are no existing bridges within the project area. A 6-foot wide by 6-foot high box
culvert is located below NC 28 at Rocky Branch.
J. Utilities
All major utilities aze located in the project azea. Water lines extend northward along
SR 1323 almost to the intersection with NC 28. SR 1323 crosses a sewer line near the
southern terminus of the project.
K. Bicycle Routes
There is one bicycle route in the project azea. Bicycle Route 30 (Nikwasi Route)
follows NC 28 between Windy Gap Road and Airport Road, for a distance of approximately
0.5 miles. The recommended typical section includes afour-foot paved shoulder to
accommodate bicycles throughout the project area.
L. School Bus Data
Within the project azea, Macon County school system buses make eight trips per day
along SR 1323 and NC 28.
M. Navigable Waters
There are no navigable waters in the project azea.

N. Greenways
There is one existing greenway in the project azea. The Suli Mazsh Greenway begins
approximately 0.5 mile north of the southern project terminus. An unpaved pazking azea for
greenway users is located adjacent to SR 1323 within the Franklin corporate limits. The
greenway extends along the mazsh southwazd to Main Street. The greenway does not cross
SR 1323. At the closest point, the greenway is located approximately 100 feet from
SR 1323. The county plans to extend the greenway fiuther south into Franklin, away from
the project azea.
III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. Alternatives Considered For Detailed Study
The alternatives considered in this Environmental Assessment include the No-Build
Alternative and the Build Alternative. The Build Alternative consists of three options for
improving SR 1323 and NC 28. The improvement options aze identified as Alternates 1, 2,
and 3.
1. No-Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative offers no improvements to the project azea. The No-
Build Alternative assumes all other projects currently planned or programmed in the TIP will
be constructed in the area as proposed. Continued roadway maintenance and minor
improvements along SR 1323 and NC 28 are a part of this concept.
The No-Build Alternative does not correct existing roadway deficiencies along
SR 1323 and NC 28. Since the No-Build Alternative does not address the purpose and need
of the proposed action, it is not recommended.
2. Build Alternative
The Build Alternative consists of three options for improving SR 1323 and
NC 28. These improvement options aze identified as Alternates 1, 2, and 3. All three
alternates begin along SR 1323 at SR 1729 (Depot Street Extension) and end along NC 28
near the intersection of SR 1378 (Bennett Road), before crossing the Little Tennessee River.
All three alternates maintain the existing two-lanes of traffic. The total length of Alternates
1, 2, and 3 is approximately 3.5 miles. The proposed typical section for all three alternates is
shown by Figure 4.
a. Alternate 1
Improvements for Alternate 1 include 12-foot travel lanes, 8-foot shoulders
(4-foot paved for bicycle accommodations), and vertical and horizontal alignment
improvements. This alternate upgrades the existing horizontal and vertical alignments to
meet the minimum American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) standazds for this type of facility.
4

b. Alternate 2
Alternate 2 maintains the existing horizontal and vertical alignments along
SR 1323 and NC 28 with minimal widening and resurfacing. This alternate provides two
12-foot travel lanes and 8-foot shoulders (4-foot paved for bicycles).
c. Alternate 3 (Recommended)
Improvements for Alternate 3 include 12-foot travel lanes, 8-foot shoulders
(4-foot paved for bicycle accommodations), and vertical and horizontal alignment
improvements. This alternate is a combination of Alternates 1 and 2. Alternate 3 minimizes
social and environmental impacts by incorporating retaining walls and expressway gutter into
the design. This alternate is recommended because it improves existing substandazd
conditions and avoids and minimizes human and natural impacts and costs associated with a
full upgrade.
d. TraffSc Capacity
Capacity is defined as the maximum number of vehicles that can be
accommodated in reasonable safety along a roadway within a specific time period. When
traffic volumes approach or exceed the capacity of the roadway, operating levels of service
aze diminished and congestion results. Simply defined, level of service is a qualitative
measure that describes operational conditions of a traffic stream along a roadway or at an
intersection of two roadways. Six levels of service aze defined from A to F, with Level of
Service A representing the best and Level of Service F the worst operational conditions.
Estimated Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes were developed for the
proposed SR 1323 and NC 28 improvements for years 2002 and 2025. The traffic volumes
are shown in Figures 5 and 6, respectively.
1). Existing Conditions
On SR 1323, the average daily traffic (ADT) volume for the yeaz
2002 is 5,200 vehicles per day between the Depot Street Extension and NC 28. This traffic
volume corresponds to Level of Service C conditions as shown by Figure 6.
Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes along NC 28 for the yeaz 2002
increases to 8,800 vehicles per day just north of the intersection of SR 1323. This traffic
volume results in Level of Service D conditions as shown by Figure 7.
2). Year 2025 Conditions
Yeaz 2025 conditions aze for both build and no build conditions,
since the proposed improvement retains one travel lane in each direction along SR 1323 and
NC 28. By the yeaz 2025, the average daily traffic volume on SR 1323 is expected to
increase to 9,100 vehicles per day, resulting in Level of Service D conditions. Yeaz 2025
average daily traffic volumes on NC 28 is expected to increase to 15,300 vehicles per day,
resulting in Level of Service D conditions. Yeaz 20251evels of service are shown by
Figure 7.
5

e. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature Comparison
The three alternates under consideration have different curve design speeds
within the project azea. Design speeds of horizontal curves (curves to the left or right) aze
shown by Table 3, while vertical curve (curves up or down) design speeds aze shown by
Table 4. Alternate 2 does not improve the design speed of the horizontal and vertical curves
along the length of the project. Alternates 1 and 3 improve the design speed of the horizontal
and vertical curves as indicated by the tables. The approximate location and design speed of
the proposed curve improvements aze shown by Figure 8.
Table 3
Horizontal Curvature (design speed) Improvements by Alternate
Location Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
recommended
42+g2 +/- 40 m h 40 m h 45 m h
51+75 +/- - 40 m h 40 m h
53+20 +/- - 40 m h 40 m h
64+00 +/- 50 m h 35 m h 50 m h
65+00 +/_ _ 40 m h -
85+00 +/- 50 m h 35 m h 45 m h
88+50 +/- - 30 m h -
92+50 +/- 50 m h 40 mph 45 m h
138+00 +/- 50 m h 45 m h -
153+00 +/- 50 m h 45 m h 50 m h
Hiiernate i upgrades the existing horizontal alignment to meet minimum AASHTO standazds
Alternate 2 horizontal curvature and design speed are the same as existing conditions
Alternate 3 is a combination of Alternates 1 and 2. It improves the curvature and minimizes impacts
Table 4
Vertical Curvature (design speed) Improvements by Alternate
Location Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
recommended
44+64 +/- 45 m h 40 m h 45 m h
77+50 +/- 50 m h 35 m h 50 m h
84+75 +/- 45 mph 35 mph 45 mph
93+39 +/- - 40 m h -
98+75 +/- 50 m h 45 m h 50 m h
109+00 +/- 45 mph 35 mph 40 mph
115+50 +/- 50 mph 45 mph 50 mph
132+25 +/- 45 m h 30 mph 45 m h
139+50 +/- 50 m h 40 mph 50 m h
176+50 +/- 50 m h 45 mph 50 m h
191+00 +/- 40 m h 35 mph 40 m h
Alternate 1 upgrades the existing vertical alignment to meet minimum AASHTO standazds
Alternate 2 vertical curvature and design speed are the same as existing conditions
Alternate 3 is a combination of Altennates 1 and 2. It improves the curvature and minimizes impacts

IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Length of the Proposed Project
The total length of the proposed project is approximately 3.5 miles.
B. Typical Section Description
A two-lane typical section with shoulders is being proposed for the improvements
along SR 1323 and NC 28. The typical section for the recommended improvement option
(Alternate 3) is shown in Figure 4. The typical section for Alternate 3 includes 12-foot travel
lanes and 8-foot shoulders (4-foot paved for bicycles).
C. Right of Way
The proposed right of way width varies throughout the length of the project and is
dependent on the terrain, slope of the cut and fill section, and typical section details. The
travel lanes and shoulders of Alternates 1, 2, and 3 require a minimum right of way width of
40 feet. The typical section for Alternates 1, 2, and 3 is shown by Figure 4. The overall
proposed right of way is approximately 100 feet with additional construction included in
easements along SR 1323 and NC 28.
D. Access Control
No control of access will be used for the proposed improvements along SR 1323 and
NC 28.
E. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
At-grade intersections will be used throughout the proposed project. All intersections
will remain unsignalized. Lane configurations of major intersections along SR 1323 and
NC 28 are shown by Figure 9. All intersections will be stop sign controlled.
F. Speed Limit and Design Speed
The current speed limits along SR 1323 and NC 28 will likely be maintained with the
proposed improvements. At the southern terminus of the project, SR 1323 currently has a
posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour within the Franklin corporate limits. The speed limit
increases to 45 miles per hour north of Franklin and continues to just north of Windy Gap
Road on NC 28. From just north of Windy Gap Road to the northern project terminus, the
speed limit increases to 55 miles per hour. The design speed is typically 5 miles per hour
higher than the posted speed limit. Alternate 3 will have design exceptions.
G. Maintenance of Traffic
All traffic control devices used on this project will conform to the most current Manual
of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
H. Noise Barriers
No noise barriers are proposed as part of this project.

I. Sidewalks
No sidewalks aze proposed for the SR 1323 and NC 28 improvement project. A
sidewalk was not included in the adjacent Depot Street Extension project (TIP Project
Number U-2929).
J. Bicycle Accommodations
Special accommodations for bicycles aze included in the proposed action. All
improvement options include 4-foot paved shoulders to accommodate bicycles. The four-
foot paved shoulder is consistent with the department's paved shoulder policy for two-lane
roadways with over 8,000 average daily traffic in the design yeaz.
K. Structures
There aze no bridges located within the project limits. A 6-foot wide by 6-foot high
box culvert is located below NC 28 at Rocky Branch. The NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
recommends replacing the existing culvert with a two barrel seven feet wide by seven feet
high reinforced concrete box culvert. Due to the anticipated fill height, phased construction
may not be practical. An off-site detour with a total length of 1.4 miles is available during
construction along SR 1381, SR 1382, and SR 1434 as shown by Figure 1.
L. Greenways
There is one existing greenway in the project azea. The Suli Mazsh Greenway begins
approximately 0.5 miles north of the southern project terminus near Lake Emory. An
unpaved parking area for greenway users is located adjacent to SR 1323 within the Franklin
corporate limits. The greenway extends along the mazsh southwazd to Main Street but does
not cross SR 1323. At the closest point, the greenway is located approximately 100 feet from
SR 1323.
M. Right of Way Cost
Right of way costs aze based on the preliminazy design of the three alternates studied in
detail. Right of way costs include: residential and business relocation, land and damage,
utilities, and acquisitions. The estimated right of way cost for Alternate 1 is $5,085,000,
Alternate 2 is $5,085,000, and Alternate 3 is $4,156,000.
N. Construction Cost
Estimated construction costs aze based on preliminary design of the three alternates.
The construction cost estimate includes items such as clearing and grubbing, earthwork,
drainage, structures, paving, and guardrail. The estimated construction cost for Alternate 1 is
$7,800,000, Alternate 2 is $3,950,000 and Alternate 3 is $5,300,000. Table 5 shows the right
of way cost, construction cost, and total cost of the alternates under consideration.
O. NCDOT Recommended Alternate
Alternate 3 is the construction option recommended by NCDOT. Alternate 3 provides
the best balance of typical section and alignment improvements while minimizing impacts to
the human environment. Natural environment impacts aze decreased by adding retaining
walls and expressway gutter.

Table 5
Alternate Cost Comparison

Cost Item
Alternate 1
Alternate 2 Alternate 3
recommended
Construction Cost $7,800,000 $3,950,000 $5,300,000
Right of Way Cost $5,085,000 $5,085,000 $4,156,000
Total COSt $12,885,000 $9,035,000 $9,456,000
V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Land Use
Macon County is located in southwestern North Carolina. Macon County is bounded by
Cherokee County to the west, the Georgia state line to the south, Jackson County to the east,
Swain County to the north, Graham County to the northwest, and Clay County to the
southwest. The Town of Franklin is the county seat and is located in the center of the county.
1. Residential
Residences are scattered along the comdor; however, few homes have direct access
to NC 28. Most homes access the corridor via connecting roads. The notable exception is
the residential neighborhood on the west side of the Riverview Street and north of Iotla
Street. Seven homes are located within 50 feet of the existing edge of pavement.
2. Commercial
There are scattered commercial sites along the comdor consisting of two
convenience stores and a Bed and Breakfast. Big D's convenience store is located on the
east side of NC 28 south of Riverbend Road. The Village Trader Exxon is located on the
west side of NC 28 south of Bryson City Road. Riverview Street and NC 28 intersect at the
southern portion of the project. The Rivers Bridge Bed and Breakfast is located west of
NC 28 and south of SR 1378 (Bennett Road). The Bed and Breakfast does not have direct
access to NC 28 and would not be directly impacted by the project.
3. Industrial
North of Airport Road on the west side of NC 28, there is an industrial site used for
tractor trailer engine repairs. The business, Desoto Trail Construction, has direct access to
NC 28.
4. Airport
The Macon County Airport is located in the Iotla Valley approximately 3 miles
north of Franklin and 1 mile west of NC 28. The airport plans to extend the existing runway
from 4,400 feet to 5,001 feet in order to accommodate commercial flights. The airport is not
in the proposed project area.

5. Zoning
Macon County has established no zoning ordinance for the county. Local officials
have proposed it in the past; however, the proposal was met with citizen opposition. The
area surrounding the corridor within the Town of Franklin is zoned residential.
6. Future Plans for Development
Neither Macon County nor the Town of Franklin currently have any existing plans
for development along the proposed improvement area.
7. Local/Regional Land Use and/or Development Plans
Neither the Macon County Planning Department nor the Town of Franklin has an
adopted comprehensive plan. The proposed project is included as a pazt of the 1996 North
Cazolina Department of Transportation Thoroughfare Plan for Macon County. In the
Thoroughfaze Plan, NC 28 is identified as a Major Thoroughfare as shown by Figure 10.
B. Farmland
North Carolina Executive Order Number 96, Preservation of Prime Agricultural and
Forest Lands, requires all state agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and
construction projects on prime farmland soils, as designated by the U.S. Natural Resources
Conservation Service (MRCS). These soils are determined by the SCS based on criteria such
as crop yield and level of input of economic resources. There aze no prime farmland
resources or active farms within the project azea.
C. Social and Economic Effects
1. Community Profile
For the purposes of formulating the demographics of the azea, U.S. Census block
groups were used. Census block groups that are within or touch the one-half-mile radius of
the project were examined. Some of these census block groups that aze only partially within
one-half-mile of the project were not used if the population from those block groups
appeared to be out of the general project area. The census block groups used include azeas
that fall outside of the general one-half-mile study azea; however, it is the closest
approximation of the Impact Assessment Area. These census block groups make up the
Demographic Study Area for the project. Census block groups used to define the
Demographic Study Area include block groups: 9702001, 9701002, 9703001, 9703003,
9703002, 9703004, 9703005 and 9703007.
a. Race, Ethnicity and Age
According to the 2000 Census, the population of Macon County was 29,811, as
seen in Table 6. Approximately 97.2 percent of the county is white, 1.2 percent is black, and
1.5 percent is Hispanic. Approximately 4.0 percent of the county's population is minority,
including Hispanic. The study area's white population, 96.6 percent, exceeds that of the state
72.1 percent. The black population in the study azea is similar to that of the county, but far
lower than the state. The minority population as a whole is a much smaller percentage in the
study azea and the county as compared to the state's average.
10

Table 6
2000 Population by Race and Hispanic Origins
Demo ra hic Stud Area Macon Coun North Carolina
Number % Number % Number
Total'Population-2000.. 7,567 100.0% 29,811 100.0% 8,049,313 100.0%
Total Hispanic 153 2.0% 454 1.5% 378,963 4.7%
White 7,309 96.6% 28,969 97.2% 5,804,656 72.1%
Hispanic (White) 130 1.7% 341 1.1% 157,501 2.0%
Black 91 1.2% 357 1.2% 1,737,545 21.6%
Hispanic (Black) - 0.0% 4 0.0% 14,244 0.2%
American Indian 37 0.5% 84 0.3% 99,551 1.2%
Hispanic (American
Indian
-
0.0%
5
0.0%
4,218
0.1
Asian/Pacific Islander 41 0.5% 122 0.4% 117,672 1.5%
Hispanic
Asian/Pacific Islander
1
0.0%
1
0.0%
2,091
0.0%
Other 89 1.2% 279 0.9% 289,889 3.6%
Hispanic (Other) 22 0.3% 103 0.3% 200,909 2.5%
Total Minority 388 5.1% 1,183 4.0% 2,402,158 29.8%
' Total minority is the sum of all persons other than white-non-Hispanic.
Table 7 highlights the age cohorts across the study area, county, and state. The
0 to 18 grouping shows consistency across the three geographic divides. The study azea and
the county show similaz percentages in the middle cohort, with the state showing a higher
percentage by approximately 13 percent. In the oldest grouping, the state's percentage is half
of the other geographic areas. The demographic study azea and county have almost twice the
percentage of persons 65 and older than the state.
Table 7
2000 Population by Age
Demo ra hic Stud Area Macon Coun North Carolina
Number % Number % Number
Total Population - 2000 7,567 100.0% 29,811 100.0% 8,049,313 100.0%
0 to 18 1,723 22.8% 6,385 21.4% 2,073,849 25.8%
19 to 64 4,183 55.3% 16,760 56.2% 5,006,416 62.2%
65 or above 1,661 22.0% 6,666 22.4% 969,048 12.0%
Median Age 42.9 45.2 35.3
b. Income and Poverty Status
According to the 2000 Census the median household income for the
demographic study azea was $28,203, approximately 72.0 percent of that of the state, as
shown in Table 8. The study azea median household income was slightly less than the
median for Macon County at $32,139. The study azea has 15.6 percent of persons living
below the poverty level. This percentage is slightly above the county at 12.6 percent and the
state at 12.3 percent. However, the study azea was below the state and county for persons
below 50 percent of poverty level at only 2.8 percent as shown in Table 8.
11

Table 8
2000 Income Measures and Persons Living Below Poverty Level
Demo ra hic St ud Area Macon Couu North Carolina
Number % Number % Number
Median H.H. Income $28,203 72.0% $32,139 82.0% $39,184 100.0%
Per Capita Income $18,531 91.3% $18,642 91.8% $20,307 100.0%
Persons below poverty
levelZ
1178
15.6%
3,722
12.6%
958,667
12.3%
Persons below 50% of
ove levelZ
213
2.8%
1,204
4.1%
431,894
5.5%
'Percent based on difference between the demographic study area or county and the same figure for the state
=Percent based on persons for whom poverty status is determined
c. Housing Characteristics
The median home value for the demographic study area in 2000 was $92,312,
as shown in Table 9. That was less than the median home value for Macon County at
$103,700, and less than that of the state at $108,300. The homeownership rate in the
demographic study area was 71.3 percent, which was lower than the rate in the county of
81.3 percent, but higher than the rate in the state, which was 69.4 percent. The median rent
for the demographic study area was $494, which was slightly higher than the county at $485
and lower than the state at $548.
Table 9
2000 Housing Characteristics
Demo ra hic Stud Area Macon Coun North Carolina
Median Home Value $92,312 $103,700 $108,300
Homeownershi Rate 71.3% 81.3% 69.4%
Median Rent $494 $485 $548
'Based on occupied housing units
d. Business Activity/Employment Centers
Macon County is the fastest growing county in western North Carolina with a
23 percent growth rate in the past 10 years. The State grew at 21.4 percent during the same
period. The county leads the region in retail sales, per capita personal income, and median
family income. Macon County's mixture of tourism and industry provides the azea with a
diversified economy. Due to the abundance of natural resources, the local economy is
oriented towazds retail trade and tourism. SR 1323 and NC 28 is an important route for
north-south travel in the county.
e. Public Facilities, Schools, Institutions, and Historic Sites
There aze no schools within the project study azea; however, 18 to 20 students
live along the project corridor. NC 28 is considered dangerous by the Macon County Boazd
of Education. The numerous horizontal curves, steep terrain, and limited sight distance
create safety concerns for school buses.
12

There is one church within the project area. The Church of Jesus Christ has
frontage along NC 28; however, the primary access and parking aze located along a side
street. Therefore, the project should have minimal impact on the facility.
Macon County operates the Macon Area Transit Services system for
transportation. They provide subscription and dial-a-ride services for their residents.
f. Police, Fire, EMS, and Public Services
There aze no police, fire, or EMS facilities located along SR 1323 or NC 28.
Emergency response agencies in the azea welcome the proposed improvements to SR 1323
and NC 28, because the project should improve safety.
g. Community/Neighborhood Description
Surrounded by the beautiful mountains of the Nantahala National Forest in
Western North Cazolina, Macon County is best known for its gem mines, its quilts & crafts,
its history & heritage, and for the natural beauty of the surrounding mountains. The Town of
Franklin is the largest municipality in Macon County, and is located along the Little
Tennessee River, in the central part of Macon County. The elevation of Franklin is about
2,000 feet above sea-level and the population is about 3,000. Franklin has a beautiful
panoramic view of the Smoky Mountains.
The project within the Town of Franklin, is semi-urban. Lake Emery is located
east of the corridor in this azea and the land is spazsely developed. A residential
neighborhood is located west and adjacent to the project corridor, north of Iotla Street. The
neighborhood consists of single family masonry dwelling units. Homes appeaz to be 15 to 30
years in age. Nine homes have frontage on SR 1323; however, only one of the homes has a
driveway connection. Some residences in the neighborhood, particulazly those fronting
SR 1323 have complete or partial views of Lake Emery.
The project north of the Franklin corporate limits is a rural two lane mountain
road with narrow vertical and horizontal curves and narrow lanes and shoulders. The road is
chazacterized by limited commercial development and scattered residential development.
2. Project Impact Assessment
a. Consistency with Local/Regional Plans
The improvement is included in the North Cazolina Department of
Transportation Thoroughfare Plan for Macon County in 1996. Neither Macon County nor
the Town of Franklin has long range plans for the corridor.
b. Economic Development Opportunities
Economic development in Macon County is concentrated in the tourist/retall
trade. The improvement of SR 1323 in conjunction with the Depot Street Extension should
alleviate traffic congestion within downtown Franklin by providing an alternate route for
truck traffic. The decreased congestion should aid in the development of a `mountain
village' like atmosphere which should create a more economically viable climate for business
owners who cater to the tourists' trade.
13

Within Macon County, the road would improve access to the local airport and
to US 19 to the north. This should provide a safer and faster route for tourists who frequent
the County's many recreational amenities.
c. Traffic Congestion and Safety
The purpose of the project is to improve roadway deficiencies along SR 1323
and NC 28. The Depot Street Extension, under construction, includes a 24-foot paved
roadway with 8-foot shoulders (4-foot paved for bicycles). The project will create an
alternate route for north-south truck traffic which currently uses Main Street in Franklin. The
proposed action and the Depot Street Extension should alleviate congestion within the Town
of Franklin by providing an alternate route for truck traffic. The proposed improvements
should provide a safer facility for motorists, including school buses.
d. Accessibility and Parking
Accessibility to businesses in downtown Franklin should increase because truck
traffic will have an alternate route along the Depot Street Extension to SR 1323 and NC 28.
The proposed improvements may impact a portion of the pazking for Desoto Trail
Construction and Big D's Convenience store. Public pazking does not exist and is not
planned along SR 1323 or NC 28 in the project azea.
e. Transit Considerations
The improvements should create a safer route along SR 1323 and NC 28. By
eliminating the unsafe curves and improving intersections, the potential for accidents should
be reduced for everyday travel as well as travel during inclement weather. Improving the
safety of NC 28 should assist the Macon Area Transit Services in meeting the needs of its
clients.
f. Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenway Considerations
Presently there aze no facilities along the road for bicycle or pedestrian uses.
The project as proposed would have afour-foot wide paved shoulder section for bicycle
usage.
Macon County currently has an existing greenway pazalleling the east side of
the Little Tennessee River, beginning at neaz the Franklin corporate limits and extending
south into Franklin. Impacts to greenway access during construction should be minimal.
g. Community Stability and Neighborhood Cohesion
Community stability may be impacted as a result of the excavation (cuts) and
increased traffic along SR 1323 within the Franklin corporate limits. Alternates 1 and 2
would impact several homes in a row fronting SR 1323. SR 1323 may isolate portions of the
neighborhood leading to long-term decline in the quality of life for neighborhood residents.
Alternate 3 avoids impacting these homes by using expressway gutter as a design element.
North of Franklin, there are scattered residences located along the length of the
project. Most of these homes access NC 28 via side streets. Neighborhood cohesion and
community stability should not be greatly unpacted as a result of the project.
14

h. Tax Base Changes and Changes in Employment
Improving safety along SR 1323 may have a positive impact for business
owners in the Town of Franklin. The removal of truck traffic and congestion should improve
the economic viability of downtown Franklin.
i. VisualImpacts
Along SR 1323, excavation (cuts) along the existing western side of SR 1323 is
needed for Alternates 1, 2, and 3. Alternate 3 minimizes the amount of excavation needed by
adding expressway gutter as an improvement option.
There aze inherent risks to the visual environment when constructing or
improving a highway in mountainous terrain due to the various cuts and fills necessary for
project construction. Visual impacts north of the Franklin corporate limits should not be
substantial because there aze limited azeas which will require deep cuts or lazge fills, NC 28
is primarily rural in nature, and there are no established recreational vistas. Therefore, visual
impacts to the existing viewshed should be minimal.
j. Scenic Rivers and Water Supply Watersheds
There aze no designated Wild and Scenic Rivers in the project area. The entire
project runs along the Little Tennessee River and is in the Little Tennessee River watershed.
The project corridor traverses many tributaries of the Little Tennessee River. Lake Emory is
located just outside the project azea and would not be directly affected by the project.
k. Title VI and Environmental Justice
Federal programs, under the statutes of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
have requirements to protect individuals from discrimination on the basis of race, color,
national origin, age, sex, disability, and religion. Furthermore, Executive Order 12898
"directs that programs, policies, and activities not have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on minority and low-income populations". The
proposed action does not relocate minority residences or businesses. The percentage of
persons below the poverty level in the study azea is slightly higher than the county and
statewide averages. However, the relocation report (Appendix 1) shows that potential
relocatees have income levels greater than $25,000 per yeaz. Therefore, this assessment finds
no evidence or indication of benefit, harm, or disproportionate impact to any social group.
1. Indirect/Cumulative Impacts
Indirect impacts may be caused by the actions of individuals that would occur
as a result of the proposed transportation improvement. Based on the analysis presented in
this section of the document, the following was concluded regazding indirect actions
associated with the roadway improvement project.
Two types of actions aze considered:
• Change in the Rate of Development Along the Project Corridor
• Change in the Character of Residential Neighborhoods Along the Corridor
1). Change in the Rate of Development Along the Project Corridor
Among the major considerations in indirect impact assessment of new or
improved roadways aze the effects of the activity on the pace and location of local and
15

regional development. Since this project involves widening pavement and improving both
horizontal and vertical curvature to improve safety, it is not anticipated to create the
conditions for inducing growth by itself. However, the completion of R-2408 in conjunction
with the Depot Street Extension (TIP Project U-2929), may have impacts on traffic patterns
and local economic development within the Town of Franklin. U-2929 extends Depot Street
and will connect to the proposed action, thereby providing an alternative route to and from
the downtown area. The new route could stimulate business in Franklin by alleviating traffic
congestion within downtown Franklin and creating a more economically viable climate for
business owners who cater to tourists. The increased economic viability may translate into
long-term growth and development for the Town.
The completion of the proposed action, as well as TIP Project U-2929, may
have positive indirect impacts and cumulative impacts on local economic development
within the Town of Franklin. Alleviating traffic congestion within downtown Franklin may
create a more economically viable climate for business owners who cater to the tourists'
trade. The increased economic viability may translate into long-term growth and
development for the Town.
2). Change in the Character of Neighborhoods along the Corridor
Proposed improvements to SR 1323 may contribute to the long-term
change in character of the residential neighborhood west of the project corridor. Under
Alternates 1 and 2, removal of the homes which front along Riverview Street may contribute
to the decline of the quality of life for neighborhood residents through the noise introduced
by truck traffic and the change in the quality of the visual environment. Alternate 3
minimizes impacts to this neighborhood. Improvements along NC 28 should not
substantially impact the existing character of the residential neighborhoods north of SR 1323.
3. Relocation Impacts
According to the relocation reports located in Appendix 1, all three alternates under
consideration displace residences and businesses. According to the relocation report, there is
more than adequate temporary housing available, either for sale or for rent, for all potential
displacees. Table 10 shows a summary of the relocation impacts associated with the three
alternates.
Alternate 1 is expected to displace 25 residences and three businesses. Several of
the residential displacements are part of an established neighborhood.
Alternate 2 will relocate 16 residences and two businesses. Several of the
residential displacees are part of an established neighborhood.
According to the relocation report (Appendix 1), Alternate 3 is expected to relocate
10 residences and four businesses. Alternate 3 minimizes residential impacts through the use
of expressway gutter and alignment shifts. Appendix 4 provides information on the NCDOT
relocation assistance program.
16

Table 10
Relocation Impact Summary
Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
recommended
Owners 13 9 6
R
id Tenants 12 7 4
es
ences Total 25 16 10
Minori 0 0 0
Owners 3 2 4
B
i Tenants 0 0 0
us
nesses Total 3 2 4
Minori 0 0 0
Farms 0 0 0
Non-Profit O anizations 0 0 0
4. Cultural Resources
a. Historic Architectural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106. Section 106 requires that if a
federally permitted project has an effect on a property listed in or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an
opportunity to comment. This project is also subject to compliance with Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
An azchitectural survey for structures listed in the National Register or eligible
for nomination to the National Register was conducted in the project azea. No properties in
the project area are eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places.
b. Archaeological Resources
Two of the six archaeological sites located within the project limits were
recommended as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Sites 31MA588 and 31MA589 consist of dense concentrations of cultural remains and intact
subsurface deposits dating to the Qualla Phase (A.D. 1450-1838). The two sites have been
recommended as eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D for their potential to yield
significant information about the prehistory of the region. In regazds to both of the
azchaeological sites, the project recommendations were for either site avoidance by planning
construction on the east within the proposed right of way or further azchaeological work.
The SHPO concurred with these recommendations according to a July 11, 2003
memorandum (Appendix 3).
Alternates 1 and 2 would have an adverse effect on Sites 31MA588 and
31MA589. Alternate 3 maintains the existing topography along the west side of NC 28 and
proposes to widen to the east. By employing retaining walls along the west side of NC 28,
17

impacts at the two azchaeological sites will be avoided. In addition, non-destructive
techniques will be used for placing fill on the east side of 31MA588. Therefore, Alternate 3
as proposed, would have no adverse effect on 31MA588 and 31MA589. The SHPO
concurred with these findings according to a Mazch 9, 2004 memorandum (Appendix 3).
This information is made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
(1966, as amended) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Section 4(f) does not apply to azcheological sites where the Administration,
after consultation with the SHPO and the ACHP, determines that the azcheological resource
is important chiefly because of what can be learned by data recovery and has minimal value
for preservation in place. This exception applies both to situations where data recovery is
undertaken or where the Administration decides, with agreement of the SHPO and, where
applicable, the ACHP, not to recover the resource.
D. Environmental Effects
1. Methodology
Prior to the site visit, published resource information pertaining to the project area was
reviewed and used in performing the site evaluation. Information sources include:
• Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (Franklin).
• USDA Soil Conservation Service, currently known as Natural Resource Conservation
Service, Soil Survey of Macon County, North Carolina (1993).
• NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Environmental Sensitivity Base Maps
of Macon County (1995).
Water resource information was obtained from publications of the NC Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR, 1997, NCDENR, 2002). Information
concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area was obtained
from the US Fish and Wildlife Service list of protected species (March 7, 2002) and from the NC
Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats. NC Natural Heritage
Program files were reviewed for documented occurrences of state or federally listed species and
locations of significant natural areas.
NCDOT Environmental Specialists, Lynn Smith, Tim Savidge, Logan Williams,
Michael Wood, and Jared Gray conducted a general reconnaissance of the project vicinity on
June 12, 2001. An additional field visit, to delineate streams and wetlands, was conducted on
March 26, 2002 by NCDOT Environmental Specialists, L. Smith, and LeiLani Paugh. Water
resources were identified and their physical chazacteristics were recorded. Plant communities
and their associated wildlife were also identified and described. Vegetative communities were
mapped using aerial photography of the project site. Predictions regarding wildlife community
composition involved general qualitative habitat assessment based on existing vegetative
communities. Wildlife identification involved using a variety of observation techniques:
qualitative habitat assessment based on vegetative communities, active searching, identifying
characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and burrows).
Jurisdictional wetlands, if present, were identified and evaluated based on criteria
established in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory,
18

1987). Wetlands were classified based on the classification scheme of Cowardin, et al. (1979).
Jurisdictional surface water determinations were performed using guidance provided by NC
Division of Water Quality (DWQ),"Field Location of Streams, Ditches, and Ponding"
(NCDENR-DWQ, 1997).
2. Terminology and Definitions
Definitions for areal descriptions used in this report aze as follows: Project Study
Area denotes the azea bounded by proposed construction limits; Project Vicinity describes an
azea extending 0.5 mile on all sides of the project study azea; and Project Region is
equivalent to an azea represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map with the project
occupying the central position.
3. Physical Resources
Soil and water resources, occurring within the project area, aze discussed below with
respect to possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site topography significantly
influence the potential for soil erosion and compaction, along with other possible
construction limitations or management concerns. Water resources within the project area
present important management limitations due to the need to regulate water movement and
the increased potential for water quality degradation. Excessive soil disturbance resulting
from construction activities can potentially alter both the flow and quality of water resources,
limiting downstream uses. In addition, soil characteristics and the availability of water
directly influence the composition and distribution of flora and fauna in biotic communities,
thus affecting the chazacteristics of these resources.
a. Regional Characteristics
Macon County lies in the southwestern part of the Mountain Physiographic
Province of North Cazolina. Elevation ranges from approximately 2000 to 2200 feet above
sea level. The physiography of the county consists of high, intermediate and low mountains,
low rolling hills, floodplains and low stream terraces.
b. Soils
There are fourteen soil map units located in the project azea.
c. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to
be impacted by the proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical
chazacteristics, best usage standards, and water quality aspects of the water resources, along
with their relationship to major regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to surface water
resources aze also discussed, as aze means to minimise impacts.
1) Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Water resources within the study azea aze located within the Little
Tennessee River Basin. The Little Tennessee River drainage basin is located within the Blue
Ridge Province of the Appalachian Mountains of western North Cazolina. The headwaters
arise in Georgia. This basin encompasses about 1,800 square miles and covers six counties.
Much of the land in the basin is federally owned and lies within Nantahala National Forest,
19

Great Smoky Mountains National Pazk or the Joyce Kilmer/Slick Rock Wilderness Area.
The basin also includes the entire Cherokee Indian Reservation.
Neazly half of the land in the Little Tennessee Basin is federal land, most
of which is forested. Most of the remaining non-federal lands aze also forested. The streams
and rivers of the Little Tennessee River basin aze still generally of high quality. However,
there aze sedimentation and erosion problems occurring in the upper Little Tennessee River
and several other streams in the basin. Sources of sedimentation include agriculture, mining
operations, development, highway construction, and forest clearing. Several areas of concern
include residential and commercial development in the Highlands azea, effects of nonpoint
source runoff, sand dredging operations, stream bank erosion in the upper Little Tennessee
River and runoff from gem mines to tributaries neaz Franklin.
Waters within the project study azea aze contained within subbasin 04-04-
01 of the Upper Little Tennessee River basin. The water quality of rivers and streams in this
subbasin is generally high. There aze five water resources in the project study azea, Rocky
Branch, Iotla Creek, the Little Tennessee River, and two unnamed tributaries (Ut) to the
Little Tennessee River (LTR) and Rocky Branch. Currently, the scope of work for the
proposed action does not include the Little Tennessee River or Iotla Creek, therefore, no
direct impacts are anticipated for these aquatic systems.
Streams aze assigned a best usage classification by the NC Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) which reflects water quality conditions and potential resource usage.
These portions of the Little Tennessee River [Index No. 2-(1)], Rocky Branch (Index No. 2-
26), and Iotla Creek (Index No. 2-27) aze classified as "C". Class C refers to waters suitable
for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and
agriculture. Unnamed tributaries receive the same best usage classification as the named
streams into which they flow. Therefore, the classifications for the Ut to Rocky Branch and
the Ut to the Little Tennessee River aze C as well.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies
(WS-I or WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of
the project study azea. No waters, identified on the North Cazolina 303(d) list, are located in
the project study azea.
2) Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
Table 11 presents information on the physical characteristics of the streams
and identifies their receiving streams.
3) Water Quality
The DWQ is the state agency responsible for regulating and enforcing
surface water quality regulations. To accomplish this task, the DWQ collects data on the
biological, chemical and physical condition of North Cazolina surface waters.
The DWQ has initiated a basinwide approach to water quality management
for the 17 river basins within the state. The basinwide approach allows for more intensive
sampling of biological, chemical and physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment
20

and planning. Benthic macroinvertebrates are intensively sampled for specific river basins.
Benthic macroinvertebrates have proven to be a good indicator of water quality because they
aze sensitive to subtle changes in water quality, have a relatively long life cycle, aze
nonmobile (compazed to fish) and aze extremely diverse. The overall species richness and
presence of indicator organisms help to assess the health of streams and rivers. All basins aze
reassessed every five yeazs to detect changes in water quality and to facilitate National
Pollution Dischazge Elimination System (NPDES) permit review.
Table 11
Physical Characteristics of Project Study Area Streams
Water Flow Channel Substrate Classification Receivin
Resource Width De th Width De th Stream
Ut to Little Little
Tennessee 3.0 6.0 3.0 24.0 Cl, S Perennial Tennessee
River
River
Ut to Rocky
Branch 1.0 2.0 15.0 60.0 S, Si Perennial Rocky
Branch
Rocky Little
Branch 3.0 6.0 7.0 48.0 S, B Perennial Tennessee
River
Little
Iotla Creek 20.0 18.0 30.0 60.0 B, Bo, S, Si Perennial Tennessee
River
Little
Tennessee 220.0 24.0 220.0 60.0 B, Bo, S, Si Perennial Tennessee
River River
Note: All stream channel measurements are averages.
' Feet
z Inches
s B=bedrock, Bo=Boulders, G=gravel, S=sand, Si=silt, C1=Clay
There are two biological sampling sites located within the project azea. At
the northern boundary of the project, Site B-3, located at the crossing of Little Tennessee
River at NC 28, received a bioclassification of Good-Fair in 1999. Site B-27 is located at the
crossing of Iotla Creek at SR 1372 (Iotla Church Road) and received a bioclassification of
Good in 1999 (NCDENR-DWQ, 2002).
Water pollution degrades surface waters making them unsafe for drinking,
fishing, swimming, and other activities. As authorized by the Clean Water Act, the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls water pollution
by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. Point
sources aze discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches. Individual homes that
aze connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface dischazge
do not need an NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must
obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters. Dischazge permits are issued
21

under the authority of North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 143.215.1 and the NPDES
program. The NPDES program was delegated to North Cazolina from the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). These permits serve as both state and federal permits. Table 12
lists the permitted dischargers located within the project study area (NCDEHNR-DEM,
1997).
Table 12
Permitted Dischargers within the Project Study Area
Facili NPDES # Receivin Stream
Franklin WWTP NC0021547 Little Tennessee River
Hazold Clazk SFR (Lake Emory NCG520039 Little Tennessee River
Sand Dredge)
Anthony J. Fiorillo Residence NCG550299 Little Tennessee River
Rodney W. Goehman Residence NCG550300 Little Tennessee River
Pinaud Gem Mine NCG520016 Mason Branch
• Nonpoint source discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters through
stormwater or snowmelt. Agricultural activities may serve as a source for
various forms of nonpoint source pollutants. Land clearing and plowing disturb
soils to a degree where they aze susceptible to erosion, which can lead to
sedimentation in streams. Sediment is the most widespread cause of nonpoint
source pollution in North Cazolina. Pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and land
application of animal wastes can be transported via runoff to receiving streams
and can potentially elevate concentrations of toxic compounds and nutrients.
Animal wastes can also be a source of bacterial contamination and may elevate
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Drainage ditches on poorly drained soils
enhances the transportation of stormwater into surface waters (NCDEHNR-
DEM, 1997).
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project azea aze likely to result from activities
associated with project construction. Activities likely to result in impacts aze clearing and
grubbing on streambanks, riparian canopy removal, instream construction, fertilizers and
pesticides used in revegetation, and pavement installation. The following impacts to surface
water resources aze likely to result from the above mentioned construction activities.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased erosion
in the project azea.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and
ground water flow from construction.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed azeas.
22

• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds from highway runoff.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction
equipment and other vehicles.
• Alteration of stream dischazge due to silt loading and changes in surface and groundwater
drainage patterns.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project azea,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters must be strictly
enforced during the construction phase of the project. Impacts may be further reduced by
limiting instream activities and revegetating stream banks immediately following the
completion of grading.
4. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This section describes
the biotic communities encountered in the project area, as well as the relationships between
fauna and flora within these communities. The composition and distribution of biotic
communities throughout the project azea are reflective of topography, soils, hydrology, and
past and present land uses. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems aze presented in the context
of plant community classifications. These classifications follow Schafale and Weakley
where possible. Representative animal species, which aze likely to occur in these habitats
(based on published range distributions), are also cited.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for
each animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to the same organism refer
to the common name only. Fauna observed during the site visits are denoted in the text with
an asterisk (*). Each stratum (canopy, midstory, shrub, etc.) is described with regard to
dominant species. Nomenclature of vascular plant species follows Radford et al.
Faunal community composition is influenced by a variety of factors, including
physiography, vegetative community type, habitat size and complexity (amount of
stratification), moisture and temperature regimes and prior land uses. Qualitative habitat
assessments along with actual observations of species were used to evaluate the faunal
communities likely to be impacted. Animal taxonomy follows Potter, et al. (1980), Martof et
al. (1980), Menhenick (1991), and Webster et al. (1985). Scientific nomenclature and
common names (when applicable) are used for plant and animal species described.
Subsequent references to the same organism will include the common name only.
a. Biotic Communities
There aze four distinct biotic communities identified within the project area.
Community composition is reflective of the physiography, topography, moisture regime, and
current and prior land uses of the area. All of the habitats aze reflective of varying degrees of
recent human disturbance. The habitat complexity (stratification), and the abundance of mast
producing plants provides numerous foraging and shelter opportunities, which results in a
rich and diverse faunal community. These communities also provide travel comdors to
access adjacent habitats, although fragmentation and habitat reduction from surrounding
23

development is threatening this function and is likely to result in declining biological
diversity.
1) Montane Oak-Hickory Forest
The moderately steep dry-mesic slope that is adjacent to the unnamed
tributary to the Little Tennessee and interspersed along the project corridor exhibits a
vegetative component that is most similaz to the Montane Oak-Hickory Forest described by
Schafale and Weakley (1990). However, some of the chazacteristics of this natural
community are lacking, likely due to previous disturbances. The canopy component is
dominated by white oak and southern red oak (Quercus alba and Q. falcata), Virginia and
white pine (Pinus virginiana and P. strobus), black walnut (Juglans nigra), mockernut hickory
(Carya tomentosa), and interspersed with red spruce (P. rubens). Yellow poplaz
(Liriodendron tulipifera) and hemlock (Tsuga sp.) aze present to a lesser extent. The
dominance of white pine in the canopy along with the presence of yellow poplar is indicative
of prior disturbance. Shingle oak (Quercus imbricaria), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana),
flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), American holly (Ilex opaca), sassafras (Sassafras
albidum), red maple (Acer rubrum), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and black gum (Nyssa
sylvatica) comprise the understory. Shrub-size sprouts of American chestnut (Castanea
dentata) are also present. Prior to being stricken with the chestnut blight, this species was a
dominant canopy species in many of the forested communities in the mountain regions of
North Cazolina.
The invasion ofnon-native species such as Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense), tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima), silverberry (Elaeagnus umbellata), and
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) has neazly precluded native shrub and herbaceous
species. Native shrubs such as blueberry (Vaccinium sp.), rose (Rosa spp.), and strawberry
bush (Euonyrnus americanus) and herbs, including Christmas fern (Polystichium
acrosticoides), milkweed (Asclepias sp.), trillium (Trillium sp.), and ebony spleenwort
(Asplenium platyneuron) are present, but not in the numbers expected for this community
type. Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) comprises the vine layer.
2) Disturbed/Maintained
Disturbed/maintained are lands that have been kept in anon-climax state
by clearing and/or grazing. Once regular maintenance (disturbance) ceases, these azeas are
populated by early successional species. This type of habitat occurs along road shoulders,
within powerline corridors, and fallow fields scattered throughout the project study area.
Vegetation within the disturbed/maintained community includes fescue (Festuca sp.), gamma
grass (Tripsacum dactyloides), red and white clover (Trifolium pratense and T. repens), giant
ragweed (Ambrosia trifida), violet (Viola sp.), lily (Cilium michauxii), wood sorrel (Oxalis
sp.), daylily (Hemerocallis fulva), everlasting pea (Lathyrus latifolius), Queen Anne's lace
(Daucus cazota), plantain (Plantago rugelii), Venus' looking-glass (Specularia perfoliata),
Cazolina geranium (Geranium cazolinianum), New Jersey tea (Ceanothus americanus),
mountain mint (Pycnanthemum sp.), black-eyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta), alumroot
(Heuchera sp.), cinquefoil (Potentilla sp.), mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris), dianthus (Dianthus
armeria), vetch (Vicia sp.), lespedeza (Lespedeza sp.), woolly mullein (Verbascum thapsus),
goldenrod (Solidago sp.), fire pink (Silene virginica), skullcap (Scuteilaria sp.), Indian
24

strawberry (Duchesnea indica), golden ragwort (Senicio aureus), and smooth sumac (Rhos
glabra). Red maple and white pine are found scattered throughout the project azea along the
roadside bordering fields and disturbed azeas.
3) Large Mountain Perennial Stream (Little Tennessee River)
The Little Tennessee River flows under NC 28 beyond the northern
terminus of the project. Trophic relationships of aquatic ecosystems aze very complex and
contain elements from both terrestrial and aquatic systems. Reseazch (Gregory et. al 1991,
Hynes 1970) has shown that a lazge amount of food chain energy of stream communities is
derived from allochthonous (produced outside of stream ecosystem) sources, in the form of
terrestrial detritus (leaves, stems etc.). Rocks, fallen debris (fallen branches, sticks etc.), and
low velocity areas in the stream trap or retain detritus within the stream. The detritus is then
broken down by detrivores and heterotrophic microorganisms, such as bacteria and fungi,
and then further broken down into particulate size by macroinvertabrates referred to as
shredders, such as aquatic insects (Plecoptera, Diptera and some Trichoptera), crayfish
(Cambaridae) and amphipods (Amphipoda). A host of organisms referred to as filter feeders,
or collectors filter the particulate organic matter from the water column. Some insect larvae
such as caddisfly (Trichoptera) and blackfly (Simuliidae) larvae and freshwater mussels
(Unionidae) and pea clams (Spharidae) are examples of collectors. The amount of
allochthonous energy input within a stream varies seasonally.
Autochthonous (produced within the stream ecosystem) energy sources
include planktonic and benthic micro and macro algae as well as aquatic vasculaz vegetation.
The amount of primary production occurring within a stream is greatly influenced by the
riparian community due to attenuation of light energy (Gregory et al. 1991). Heavily shaded
headwater streams receive very little solaz energy and consequently the trophic pathways are
largely driven by allochthonous sources. Streams receiving more sunlight will have greater
amounts of autochthonous energy. Primary consumers include grazers such as aquatic snails,
other invertebrates and some species offish.
Lazger organisms, or predators in turn, consume detritivores, collectors and
primary consumers. Primary predators include some insect larvae (stoneflies, dragonflies),
aquatic insects, small fish, turtles, and salamanders. Top level predators include larger fish,
water snakes, aquatic mammals, and wading birds.
US Fish and Wildlife Service Biologist, John Fridale, indicated the Little
Tennessee River supports eight species of mussels including the federally endangered
Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana) and littlewing peazlymussel, and the state
endangered Tennessee pigtoe (Fusconaia barnesiana). He stressed the biological importance
of the mainstem of the Little Tennessee River as well as its tributaries because they provide
the necessary spawning habitat for host fish.
Cursory surveys in the Little Tennessee River were conducted using tactile
and visual methods on June 12, 2001 by NCDOT biologists. Species observed include the
Appalachian elktoe, the state endangered slippershell mussel (Alasmidonta viridis), and the
state listed special concern wavyrayed lampmussel (Lampsilis fasciola).
25

Sampling data, from 1999 and 2001, was collected from the Little
Tennessee River at Iotla Bridge by consultant biologist, William Mcl,arney, Ph.D. as part of
a monitoring program of the Little Tennessee River Watershed. A total of 37 fish species
have been recorded at this location. Whitetail shiner (Cyprinella galactura), wazpaint shiner
(Luxilus coccogenis), river chub (Nocomis micropogon), rosyface shiner (Notropis rubellus),
telescope shiner (Notropis telescopus), rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris), redbreast su~sh
(Lepomis auritus), and gilt darter (Percina evides) were the most common species
encountered.
Portions of the Little Tennessee River are designated by the US Fish and
Wildlife Service as "critical habitat" and "proposed critical habitat". Critical habitat is
defined as "a specific geographic azea(s) that is essential for the conservation of a threatened
or endangered species and that may require special management and protection". The main
channel of the Little Tennessee River from the backwaters of Fontana Lake upstream to the
North Cazolina-Georgia state lines is designated as "critical habitat" for the spotfin chub
(Hybopsis monacha). The main stem of the Little Tennessee River, from the Lake Emory
Dam in Franklin, Macon County to the backwaters of Fontana Reservoir in Swain County, is
designated as "proposed critical habitat" for the Appalachian elktoe. Direct impacts aze not
expected to occur to the Little Tennessee River given that project construction limits
terminate south of the junction of NC 28 and the Little Tennessee River.
4) Small Mountain Perennial Stream (Rocky Branch, Iotla Creek, Ut to
Little Tennessee River, and Ut to Rocky Branch)
Three small streams flowing into the Little Tennessee River and one small
stream flowing into Rocky Branch may be directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed
project. Rocky Branch, Iotla Creek and the unnamed tributaries vary in size. Rocky Branch
and Iotla Creek aze slightly lazger than the unnamed tributaries. Faunal community
assemblages aze expected to be similaz at the project crossings. However, Rocky Branch and
Iotla Creek are likely to have more developed communities compazed to the other streams
producing a more diverse faunal community.
Dr. McLarney has sampled Rocky Branch and Iotla Creek in the project
vicinity. A total of 21 fish species were found within Rocky Branch neaz River Bend Road.
Central stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum), warpaint shiner, Tennessee shiner (Notropis
leuciodus), blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus), and northern hog sucker (Hypentelium
nigricans) are the most common species found in Rocky Branch. However, evaluation of the
data suggests these species have decreased significantly from 1995 to 2001. Sixteen fish
species were found in Iotla Creek (from mouth, 0.0-0.2 river miles to McCall residence).
Other consumers in small stream ecosystems include salamanders, frogs,
snakes, turtles, birds, and mammals. Snakes observed in Iotla Creek include northern water
snake* (Nerodia sipedon) and queen snake* (Regina septemvittata). The painted turtle*
(Chrysemys picta) and yellowbelly slider (Chrysemys scripts) were observed in a smaller
tributary. These snakes aze important consumers offish, amphibians, and crustaceans. The
belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) is a common consumer of small fish, frogs, and
26

crustaceans in mountain streams. Expected mammals in these creeks include, beaver (Castor
canadensis), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), and raccoon.
5) Faunal Communities
Due to the disturbed/degraded nature of all of the habitats in the project
area, the faunal component is expected to consist of opportunistic animals able to adapt to the
"edge" habitat created by human activities. Conversely, species which require large
undisturbed forested habitats are likely absent from the project area.
Primarily bird species such as downy woodpecker* (Picoides pubescens),
red-bellied woodpecker* (Melanerpes carolinus), white-eyed vireo* (Vireo griseus), indigo
bunting* (Passerina cyanea), eastern bluebird* (Sialia sialis), house finch* (Carpodacus
mexicanus), red-breasted nuthatch* (Sitta canadensis), yellow-romped warbler (Dendroica
coronata), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), solitary vireo (Vireo solitarius), and
northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) utilize the canopy. However, grey squirrel* (Sciurus
carolinensis), southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans), Virginia opossum* (Didelphis
virginiana), grey treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis or H. versicolor), and eastern fence lizard
(Sceloporus undulatus) also utilize this strata.
Bats are also important components of forested communities. The northern
long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and evening bat (Nycticeius humeralis) are two of the
more common species that forage on forested hillsides, while little brown bat (Myotis
lucifugus) and eastern pipistrelle bat (Pipistrellus subflavus) more commonly forage over
water. Old buildings, hollow trees, or crevices under tree bark are often used as roost sites by
these species. Caves and abandoned mine shafts (which are not present in the project area)
are used as hiburnacula by many bat species in winter months.
Top predators expected to occur here include great homed owl (Bubo
virginianus), various hawks (Accipiter spp. and Buteo spp.), gray fox (Llrocyon
cinereoargenteus), and copperhead (Agkistrodon contorix). These species are important in
maintaining populations of rodents, small birds, and other small animals. Because of the
open, relatively non-stratified nature of maintained/disturbed communities such as
pasture/field and roadside habitats, resident vertebrate fauna, are generally small in size.
Small mammals such as eastern cottontails* (Sylvilagus floridanus), least shrew, and house
mouse (Mus musculus) are able to utilize the limited amount of vegetative cover of crop
fields and pastures. The burrowing eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus) and woodchuck
(Marmots monax) are common in open areas bordering forested tracts. These small
mammals are important prey items for black rat snake (Elaphae constrictor), red fox (Vulpes
vulpes), red-tailed hawk (Bueto jamacensis), and other birds of prey.
Few animals reside along roadsides because of the limited size and
complexity of the habitat. Various species of birds feed along roadsides on seeds, berries,
and insects. Some of these species include the northern cardinal, American robin* (Turdus
migratorius), northern mockingbird* (Mimes polyglottos), and song sparrow* (Melospiza
melodic). Snakes such as the black racer (Coluber constrictor) and eastern garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis) may venture into this habitat to feed on insects and small mammals.
27

Virginia opossum* and raccoon frequently forage nocturnally in these
habitats, or travel along roadways between habitats. These animals are often road kill
victims. Consequently road kills attract a large number of scavenger species including turkey
vulture (Carthartes aura) and common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), aswell asdomestic
dogs and cats.
b. Summary of Anticipated Biotic Community Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic
communities described. This section quantifies and qualifies these probable direct impacts,
in terms of azea impacted (cleazed/modified), and ecological consequences to the
communities, during the construction and operation of the proposed roadway. Secondary
impacts, or impacts caused by other actions resulting from project construction (i.e.
development) are also addressed. Recommendations to minimize/avoid impacts aze also
given.
1) Terrestrial Community Impacts
Plant communities found within the proposed project azea serve as nesting
and sheltering habitat for various wildlife. Any construction related activities in or neaz these
resources have the potential to impact biological functions. However, due to the size and
scope of this project, it is anticipated that impacts to fauna will be minimal. This section
quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms of area impacted and
ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts aze considered here as well.
a) Quantitative Impacts: Habitat Loss
Portions of the two community types occurring in the project area will
be cleazed or altered as a result of project construction. These alterations consequently affect
the associated floral and faunal communities in a variety of ways. The estimated quantified
impacts to these communities for both alternates aze shown in Table 13. Estimated impacts
aze derived using the preliminary project plan sheets provided by NCDOT's Roadway
Design Unit. The calculations are based on the slope-stake limits unless an easement exists
outside of the slope-stake limits.
Table 13
Estimated Terrestrial Community Impacts
Community Alt. 1 Alt, 2 Alt 3
recommended
Montane oak-hickory

forest 7.8 acres 5.7 acres 9.5 acres
Maintained/

Disturbed 40.3 acres 31.7 acres 33.0 acres
Total Im acts 48.1 acres 37.4 acres 42.5 acres
b) Faunal Population Impacts
The plant communities found along the project alignment serve as
shelter, nesting and foraging habitat for numerous species of wildlife. Individual mortalities
aze likely to occur to numerous animals, during project construction as clearing will destroy
28

species living/nesting within trees, while grading/filling activities will impact ground
dwelling species. Many other individuals will simply be displaced into other habitats.
However, by concentrating these organisms into a smaller azea, over-utilization and
degradation of the habitat may occur, which ultimately lowers the carrying capacity of the
remaining habitat and is manifested in some species becoming more susceptible to disease,
predation and starvation.
Wildlife mortality caused by vehicles is a direct consequence of the
highway facility once the road is in operation. Historically, the impacts of highway related
mortality on the viability of wildlife populations were perceived to be minimal, except when
"unusual circumstances," such as habitat loss/degradation, disease, etc., from other sources
were also effecting the populations. As the density of road networks and traffic volumes
increases, these "unusual circumstances" become more common, and highway-related
mortality becomes more significant on animal populations.
Traffic-related noise impacts on wildlife is another consequence of a
road facility once in operation. Much of the reseazch on the effects of noise on wildlife
species has focused on noise events of high level but short duration, such as aircrafts, and
construction and blasting activities. Such noise events can cause startle effects (fleeing from
nest, panic behavior, etc.). The more constant, lower level noise sources such as highway
traffic, have only recently been investigated for their impacts on wildlife.
Changes in plant community composition in the surrounding habitats
aze another indirect consequence of road construction. Studies have shown that invasion of
exotic plant species into adjacent forest habitats is facilitated by roadways. The biotic
communities within the project azea have already been degraded by invasive species and
project construction will not affect these species.
2) Aquatic Community Impacts
Reseazch in North Cazolina streams has shown that water quality and biota
is greatly affected by land use. Streams in urbanized settings have comparatively lower
water quality and corresponding lower biotic diversity than streams in forested areas. The
associated watershed of the Little Tennessee River above Lake Emory has been degraded by
urbanization (Franklin) and agricultural sedimentation problems.
Impacts to stream communities resulting from project construction can be
directly attributed to sedimentation, rechannelization/loss of natural channel, substrate
disturbance, and reduced water quality resulting from project construction. Although
substrate disturbance and sedimentation may be temporary processes during the construction
phase of this project, environmental impacts from these processes may be long-lived or
irreversible. Suspended solids, sedimentation and turbidity result in reduced biodiversity as
well as a decline in productivity at all trophic levels.
Mobile aquatic organisms may escape some of the effects of siltation;
however, the abrasive action of sediment in the water column is harmful to the gills offish,
29

crustaceans, and larval amphibian and insects. Spawning habitats for fish may become filled
with sediment, diminishing reproductive success and inevitably reducing populations.
Benthic organisms aze particulazly sensitive to construction activities such
as dredging, filling, culvert construction/extension, pile-driving operations, and slope
stabilization. These activities physically disturb the substrate, resulting in loss of sessile
benthic organisms. Improperly placed culverts can have significant impacts on stream
morphology. Stream impacts often associated with culverts include alteration of flow, scour
at culvert outlets, degradation of adjacent streambanks and headcutting. Loss of natural
stream channel will eliminate the existing substrate and associated fauna. Many of these
aquatic organisms aze slow to recover or repopulate an azea, because they require a stabilized
substrate for attachment. Substrate stability may take a long time to develop, therefore,
changes in community composition will occur, particulazly in relocated segments.
Increased water temperature/decreased dissolved oxygen caused by loss of
riparian vegetation, and the introduction of toxic materials into the water is a potential
consequence of project construction. This water quality degradation will result in a continual
decline of species diversity and productivity, as the intolerant organisms disappeaz.
5. Jurisdictional Topics
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two significant
regulatory issues: waters of the United States and rare and protected species. These issues
retain particular significance because of federal and state mandates, which regulate their
protection. This section deals specifically with the impact analyses required to satisfy
regulatory authority prior to project construction.
a. Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3.
Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or wetlands falls
under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers (LJSACE) under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters include all standing or flowing waters
which have commercial or recreational value to the public. Wetlands aze identified based on
the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and saturated or flooded conditions
during all or part of the growing season.
1). Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were evaluated using the criteria specified
in the 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual". For an azea to be
considered a "wetland", the following three specifications must be met; 1) presence of hydric
soils (low soil chroma values), 2) presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and 3) evidence of
hydrology, including; saturated soils, stained leaf litter, oxidized root channels, matted
vegetation, high water marks on trees, buttressed tree bases and surface roots.. Wetlands aze
not located within the slope-stake limits or within easements shown on the project plan sheets
for any alternate.
30

Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters aze calculated based on the lineaz
feet of the stream that is located within the slope-stake limits or easements shown on the
preliminazy project plan sheets. These impacts do not include portions of the streams that aze
already encased in a pipe or culvert. Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters aze identified in
Table 14.
Table 14
Estimated Impacts to Jurisdictional Surface Waters
Water
Resource Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
recommended
Ut to Little Tennessee

River 140 feet 65 feet 70 feet
Ut to Roc Branch 35 feet 35 feet 100 feet
Roc Branch 400 feet 330 feet 305 feet
Iotla Creek 0 0 0
Little Tennessee

River 0 0 0
Totals: 575 feet 430 feet 475 feet
2). Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed
project. As a result, construction activities will require permits and certifications from
various regulatory agencies in chazge of protecting the water quality of public water
resources.
A Nationwide 33 CFR 330.5(a) (14) Permit is likely to be applicable for
project construction at each crossing of the waters of the United States if final design plans
show individual stream impacts will be less than 300 feet. Currently, Alternate 3
(recommended) impacts approximately 305 lineaz feet of Rocky Branch. The impact to
Rocky Branch may be reduced to less than 300 feet, after detailed survey and mapping
information becomes available. If stream impacts exceed 300 feet at Rocky Branch, an
Individual Permit will be required. These permits authorize activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by another Federal agency or
department where that agency or department has determined the pursuant to the Council on
Environmental Quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act:
(1) that the activity, work, or dischazge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually
nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and;
(2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency' or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
31

This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the
DWQ prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed
activity that may result in a dischazge to waters of the United States. Section 401
Certification states that water quality standazds will not be violated.
The proposed project is located in the Tennessee Valley Watershed. A
permit pursuant to Section 26a of the TVA Act is required for obstructions involving streams
or floodplains in the Tennessee River drainage basin. TVA is a cooperating agency for this
project.
3). Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation
The USACE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands"
and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical,
biological and physical integrity of waters of he United States, and specifically wetlands.
Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to
wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities
of averting impacts to waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the EPA and the USACE, in determining "appropriate and
practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to
the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology
and logistics in light of overall project purposes. There are no wetlands in the project area to
avoid or minimize impacts. However, the proposed roadway improvement project does
impact streams. Widening the existing roadway will likely require replacing the existing
culvert on NC 28 at Rocky Branch.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps
to reduce the adverse impacts to waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps
will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimisation typically
focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction to median
widths, right-of--way widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. All efforts will be made
to decrease impacts to surface waters. Compazed to Alternate 1, Alternate 3 (recommended)
reduces impacts to Rocky Branch by approximately 95 feet, as shown by Table 12.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated
unpacts to waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum
extent possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not
be achieved in each and every permit action. In accordance with 15A NCAC.2H .0506(h),
NCDWQ may require compensatory mitigation for projects with greater to or equal than 1.0
acre of impacts to jurisdictional wetlands or greater than or equal to 1501ineaz feet of total
perennial stream impacts. Furthermore, in accordance with 67 FR 2020, 2092; January 15,
32

2002, the USACE requires compensatory mitigation when necessary to ensure that adverse
effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. The size and type of proposed project impact
and function and value of the impacted aquatic resource are factors considered in
determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation.
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse
impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required.
Compensatory actions often include restoration, preservation and enhancement, and creation
of waters of the United States. Such actions should be undertaken first in azeas adjacent to or
contiguous to the dischazge site. Due to the impacts associated with this widening project,
compensatory mitigation may be required. Final compensatory wetland and stream
mitigation requirements will be determined by the USACE under the statutory provisions of
CWA §404 and the January 15, 2002 Final Notice of Issuance of Nationwide Permits.
b. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or aze in, the process of
decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human development.
Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended)
requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified asfederally-protected,
be subject to review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Other species may receive
additional protection under sepazate state laws.
1). Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) aze protected
under the provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. As of Mazch 7, 2002, the US Fish and Wildlife Service lists seven federally
protected species for Macon County as shown in Table 15.
Table 15
Federally-Protected Species in Macon County
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Bo Turtle Clemm s muhlenber 11 Threatened S/A
S otfin Chub C rinella =H bo sis monacha Threatened
Indiana Bat M otis sodalis Endan ered
A alachian Elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana Endan ered
Littlewin Pearl ussel Pe ias abula Endan ered
Small Whorled Po onia Isotria medeoloides Threatened
Vir inia S iraea S iraea vir iniana Threatened
• ~naangeren (a species that is ui danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
• Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range).
• Threatened (S/A) denotes Threatened by Similarity of Appearance (a species that is threatened due to
similarity of appearance with other raze species and is listed for its protection).
33

Clemmys muhlenbergii (bog turtle)
Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance
Family: Emydidae
Date Listed: O1 May 1997
The bog turtle is North Carolina's smallest turtle, measuring 3 to 4 inches in length. It
has a dark brown carapace and a black plastron. The bright orange or yellow blotch on each side
of the head and neck is a readily identifiable characteristic. The bog turtle inhabits damp grassy
fields, bogs and marshes in the mountains and western Piedmont.
The bog turtle is shy and secretive, and will burrow rapidly in mud or debris when
disturbed. The bog turtle forages on insects, worms, snails, amphibians and seeds. In June or
July, three to five eggs are laid in a shallow nest in moss or loose soil. The eggs hatch in about
55 days.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NOT APPLICABLE
The bog turtle is listed as Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (T S/A). This is
due to its similarity of appearance to the northern population of bog turtle that is federally
protected. T S/A species are not subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion for
this species is not required.
Hybopsis monacha (spotfin chub) Threatened
Formerly: Cyprinella monacha
Animal Family: Cyprinidae
Date Listed: 9/9/77
The spotfin chub is a small minnow that is olive green above with silver sides and
the females are whitish below. The males have a brilliant turquoise blue coloring on their
backs, sides of the head, and mid-lateral part of the body, fins are tipped with white
during peak development. Males and females are both characterized by a prominent
black spot on the lower part of the caudal fin.
The spotfin chub now occurs in the Little Tennessee River drainage system found
in Swain and Macon Counties. This minnow inhabits moderate to large streams, 49 to
230 feet in width. These streams should have a good current, clear water, cool to warm
temperatures, and pools alternating with riilles. Specimens of spotfin chub have been
taken from a variety of substrates but rarely from significantly silted substrates. The
spotfin chub feeds on insect larvae. It is considered to be a "sight feeder" that selects its
prey off of clean substrates.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
According to North Carolina Natural Heritage Program records, the spotfin chub occurs
within the project study area in the Little Tennessee River and approximately 1.0 mile outside the
project study area in Iotla Creek. The Little Tennessee River, main channel from the backwaters
of Fontana Lake upstream to the North Carolina-Georgia state line, has been designated as critical
34

habitat for the spotfin chub by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The Little Tennessee River is
within the project vicinity and the project study area contains tributaries that flow into the critical
habitat area. Additional fish surveys and a Section 7 consultation will be required for this project.
Alasmidonta raveneliana (Appalachian elktoe) Endangered
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 9/3/93
The Appalachian elktoe is a small mussel with a maximum length reaching up to 3 inches.
Its shell is thin although the shell is not fragile nor subovate (kidney-shaped). The periostracum
(outer shell) of the adult Appalachian elktoe is dark brown in color, while juveniles have a
yellowish-brown color.
Two known populations of the Appalachian elktoe exist in North Carolina; the Nolichucky
River (including its tributaries of the Cane River and the North Toe River), and the Little
Tennessee River and its tributaries. The Appalachian elktoe has been observed in gravelly
substrates often mixed with cobble and boulders, in cracks of bedrock and in relatively silt-free,
coarse sandy substrates.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
A survey of the Little Tennessee River was conducted on June 12, 2001 by NCDOT
biologists at the NC 28 crossing. Appalachian elktoe was found to exist in this area. The Little
Tennessee River is within the project vicinity and the project study area contains tributaries that
flow into the Little Tennessee River. Currently, the biological conclusion for this species remains
unresolved. Additional mussel surveys and a Section 7 consultation will be required for this
project.
Pegias fabula (littlewing pearlymussel) Endangered
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: considered 6/22/84
The littlewing pearly mussel is a small mussel having the anterior portion of its shell
evenly rounded and semi-circular. The periostrium is usually eroded, giving the shell a chalky or
ashy white appearance. If the periostracum is present it is light green or yellowish-brown with
dark rays on the anterior surface that vary in width. It has well developed but incomplete hinge
teeth and the lateral teeth are either vestigial or completely lacking.
The littlewing pearly mussel inhabits small to medium sized streams with low turbidity,
cool water, and a high to moderate gradient. This mussel can be found buried in gravel or beneath
boulders and slabrock, lying on top of the substratum in riffles, and partly buried or on the surface
of the substratum in the transition zone between long pools and riffles. It has been suggested that
the best times to find this mussel are in late spring and in the late fall, when they are on top or
partly buried in the substratum during spawning (Ahlstedt 1986).
35

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
Known populations of littlewing pearly mussel have been found downstream of the project
area on the Little Tennessee River and its tributaries. The Little Tennessee River is within the
project vicinity and the project study area contains tributaries that flow into the Little Tennessee
River. Currently, the biological conclusion for this species remains unresolved. Additional mussel
surveys and a Section 7 consultation will be required for this project.
Isotria medeoloides (small whorled pogonia) Threatened
Plant Family: Orchidaceae
Date Listed: 9/10/82
Flowers Present: mid May-mid June
Small whorled pogonia is a perennial orchid having long pubescent roots and a hollow
stem. Stems terminate in a whorl of five or six light green, elliptical leaves that are somewhat
pointed. One or two light green flowers are produced at the end of the stem. Flowers of small-
whorled pogonia have short sepals.
The small whorled pogonia grows in "second growth deciduous" or deciduous-coniferous
forests, with an open canopy, open shrub layer, and sparse herb layer. It prefers acidic soils.
Flowering is inhibited in areas where there is relatively high shrub coverage or high sapling
density.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Typical habitat for the small whorled pogonia, deciduous-coniferous forests, with an
open canopy, open shrub layer, and sparse herb layer, is not present within the project area.
However, the project was surveyed for this species on June 12, 2001 by NCDOT biologists, and
no species were found. In addition, a search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
database of rare species and unique habitats on May 5, 2002 shows no records of this species
being found in the project area. Thus, this project will have no effect on this species.
spiraea virginiana (Virginia spiraea) Threatened
Plant Family: Rosaceae
Date Listed: 6/15/90
Flowers Present: June -July
This shrub has arching and upright stems that grow from one to three meters tall. Virginia
spiraea often grows in dense clumps, having alternate leaves which vary greatly in size, shape, and
degree of serration. The leaves are green above and usually somewhat glaucous below. The
cream colored flowers are present from June to July and occur in branched, flat-topped
inflorescence. Virginia spiraea is easily located during the late fall while herbaceous growth is
minimal and the leaves are down.
36

Virginia spiraea is found in a very narrow range of habitats in the mountains of North
Carolina. Habitats for the plants consist of scoured banks of high gradient streams, on meander
scrolls; point bars, natural levees, or braided features of lower reaches. The scour must be
sufficient to prevent canopy closure, but not extreme enough to completely remove small, woody
species. This species occurs in the maximum floodplain, usually at the water's edge with various
other disturbance-dependent species. It is most successful in areas with full sunlight, but can
survive in shaded areas until it is released from competition.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for Virginia spiraea occurs minimally within the project area. However, a
plant-by-plant survey was conducted on June 12, 2001 by NCDOT biologists and no specimens
of Virginia spiraea were observed. In addition, a search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program database of rare species and unique habitats on May 5, 2002 shows no records of this
species being found in the project area. Thus, this project will have no effect on this species.
Myotis sodalis (Indiana bat) Endangered
Animal Family: Vespertilionidae
Date Listed: 3/11/67
Distribution in N.C.: Jackson, Mitchell, Rutherford, Swain, Graham, and Macon.
Adult Indiana bats are the smallest bats found in western North Carolina. Several
characteristics can be used to distinguish them from other bats; the hair on the feet is short and
does nat extend past the tips of the claws, the tail membrane is attached to the base of the keel,
and the calcar (cartilaginous spur from the bats heel which helps support tail or interfemoral
membrane) is keeled. The Indiana bats dorsal fur is brown in color and the ventral fur is lighter
with a cinnamon hue.
The range of the Indiana bat centers around cavernous limestone regions in the eastern
United States. The Indiana bat has different summer and winter habitat requirements. Winter
habitat is in caves and abandoned mines with standing water. The bat migrates to the winter
habitat between September and November; they stay there with occasional periods of activity
until they emerge in mid-March to early May. Hibernation only occurs in regions where winter
temperatures are stable and are around four degrees Celsius. Little is known of the summer
habitat of the Indiana bat. It is thought that they disperse throughout their range and spend the
summer foraging alone over streams or along forest margins. They have been found under loose
bark on dead and living trees along small to medium-sized streams.
Optimum foraging is over streams with mature riparian vegetation overhanging the water
by more than 10 feet. Streams that have been stripped of their riparian vegetation do not appear
to offer suitable foraging habitat. Rivers as foraging areas and as migration routes are extremely
important to this species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: MAY EFFECT -NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
AFFECT
37

The consulting firm Eco-Tech has completed surveys for the project, using mist-netting
guidelines set in the Indiana bat recovery plan and after coordinating with the US Fish and
Wildlife Service. The underside of bridges were also checked as potential bat habitat. Five
different species of bats were found, none of which is federally protected.
Recommendations for protecting bats along the proposed TIP projects are as follows:
• As long as they are not problematic, dead and damaged trees should be left standing
• Stream degradation by channelization, siltation or other pollution should be prevented as
much as possible in order to protect macroinvertebrate food sources for bats.
2). Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal species of concern aze not afforded federal protection under the
Endangered Species Act and aze not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they aze formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. However, the status
of these species is subject to change, and so should be included for consideration. Federal
Species of Concern (FSC) are defined as a species, which is under consideration for listing
for, which there is insufficient information to support listing. In addition, organisms which
aze listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North Cazolina
Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species aze afforded state protection
under the NC State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation
Act of 1979.
Table 16 lists federal species of concern, the state status of these species (if
afforded state protection), and the potential for suitable habitat in the project area for each
species. This species list is provided for information purposes as the protection status of
these species may be upgraded in the future.
A review of the NC Natural Heritage Program database of raze species and
unique habitats on May 5, 2002 shows no occurrences of raze species in the project study
area. However, the olive darter and sicklefm redhorse do occur in the Little Tennessee River,
approximately 1000 feet from the intersection of NC 28 and the Little Tennessee River. The
hellbender occurs less than 1.0 mile from the southern terminus of the project in the Little
Tennessee River. Surveys for FSC species were not conducted during the site visit.
6. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Macon County is currently participating in the National Flood Insurance Regulaz
Program and no detailed flood studies have been performed within the project azea. The
DENR Environmental Sensitivity Maps show that the project is not located within any
sensitive water azeas. Existing drainage patterns will be maintained to the extent practicable.
Erosion and sedunentation will be controlled through the specification, installation, and
maintenance of standazd erosion and sedimentation control methods. Groundwater resources
will not be affected by the project since the roadway is fill and existing cut. NCDOT's
Hydraulic Design Unit will coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and
local authorities in the final design to ensure compliance with applicable floodplain
ordinances.
38

Table 16
Federal Species of Concern for Macon County
Common Name Scientific Name NC Status Habitat
Bachman's S arrow Aimo hila aestivalis SC* YES
Green Salamander Aneides aeneus E NO
Olive-Sided Fl catcher Conto us coo eri SC* NO
Rafines ue's Bi -Eared Bat Co norhinus ra mes uii SC PT * YES
Hellbender C tobranchus alle aniensis SC YES
Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea SR YES
Southern A alachian Woodrat Neotoma oridana haematoreia SC YES
Olive Darter Percina s uamata SC YES
New En land Cottontail S Ivila s transitionalis SR* YES
A alachian Bewick's Wren Th omanes bewickii altos E* YES
Sicklefin Redhorse Moxostoma s . SR YES
Mountain River Cruiser Macromia mar arita SR Possibl
Lost Nantahala Cave S ider Nesticus coo eri SR NO
Tawn Crescent Butterfl P coides batesii maconensis SR YES
Carolina Skistodia tomus Skistodia tomus carolinensis SR NO
Diana Fritilla Butterfl S e eria diana SR YES
Piratebush Buckle a disticho Ila E YES
Glade S ur a Eu horbia ur urea SR-T Possibl
West Indian Dwarf Pol od Grammitis nimbata E NO
Butternut Ju lans cinerea WSA NO
Fraser's Loosestrife L simachia aseri E YES
Sweet Pinesa Monotro sis odorata SR-T YES
Carolina Saxifra a Saxi a a caroliniana SR-T NO
Divided-Leaf Ra ort Senecio mille olium T NO
Mountain Catchfl Silene ovata SR-T YES
A Liverwort Ce haloziella obtusilobula W2 NO
A Liverwort Pla iochila shay ll SR-L* NO
A Liverwort Pla iochila sullivantii var. sullivantii SR-T* NO
A Liverwort Pla iochila vir inica var. caroliniana SR-T* NO
A Liverwort Porella 'a onica var. a alachiana W3 NO
• ">/" (endangered) any native or once native species whose continued existence as a viable component of
the State's fauna or flora is determined by the WRC to be in jeopazdy, or one that is determined to be an
endangered species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
• "SC" (Special Concern) any native or once native species which is determined by the WRC to require
monitoring but which may be taken under regulations adopted under the provisions of this Article.
• "T" (Threatened) any native or once-native species which is likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one that is designated as
a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
• "C" (Candidate) any species which aze very raze in North Cazolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the
state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction.
• "W2" (Watch Category 2, raze, but taxonomical ly questionable) includes species with questionable
taxonomy requiring further study.
• "W3" (Watch Category 3, rare, but uncertain documentation) includes species which have been reported
from NC without adequate documentation.
• "WSA" (Watch Category 5, raze because of severe decline) includes species which have declined sharply
in North Cazolina, but which do not appear yet to wazrant site specific monitoring.
39

• "SR" (Significantly Rare) any species which aze very rare in North Cazolina, generally with 1-20
populations in the state, but are more common somewhere else in their range.
• SR-"L" (Limited) range of the species is limited to NC and adjacent states. These aze species which may
have 20-50 populations here but fewer than 50 populations rangewide. Their fate depends largely on
conservation in NC.
• SR-"T" (Throughout) species are rare throughout (fewer than 100 populations total).
• "P " (Proposed) a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or
Special Concern, but has not yet completed the legally mandated listing process.
• "*" Indicates historic populations (not seen since 1979)
7. Hazardous Materials
A "Limited Environmental Site Assessment" for the project azea was conducted to
identify azeas of potential environmental concern, such as underground storage tanks (CYST),
above ground storage tanks (AST), hazardous waste sites, or similar problem sites. There aze
no landfills or superfund sites within the project limits. The following is a description of the
potential areas of concern in the vicinity of the proposed action.
The Village Trader is an active gas station/mini-mart located in the southwest
quadrant at the intersection of NC 28 and SR 1323. The Division of Waste Management
(DWM) UST registry shows that two (2) gasoline tanks, one (1) diesel tank and one (1)
kerosene tank are currently in use at this site. The current UST areas are about 69 to 100 feet
from the centerline of NC 28. No monitoring wells were noted at the site and the site does
not appear to be under remediation. There are no anticipated impacts associated with any of
the alternatives being studied for this project
The Desoto Trail Construction Company is located on the west side of NC 28. The
pump island is located in the front of the building about 50 feet from the centerline of NC 28.
Four UST tanks were located on the property; two (2) diesel tanks, one (1) gasoline tank, and
one (1) waste oil tank (unpermitted). UST azea is located approximately 65 feet from the
centerline of NC 28. The site does not appear to be listed in the UST registry. No
monitoring wells were noted on the site and the site does not appear to be under remediation.
All of the alternatives will have possible impacts on the pumps at this site. Only Alternate 2
may impact the USTs at this site.
Jay's Big D is a gas station /convenience store located on the eastside of NC 28
approximately 200 feet north of the Desoto Trail Construction Company. A review of the
petroleum underground storage tank database for Macon County indicates that three (3)
USTs aze located on the property. One tank appears to be under the building on the
southwest corner, while another tank is partially exposed at the south end of the store. USTs
aze located approximately 80 feet from the centerline of NC 28. Five (5) ASTs are located
on the site and are in current use. No monitoring wells were noted at the site and the site
does not appear to be under remediation at this time. Only Alternate 1 will likely impact the
pumps at this site.
Crisp's Used Cazs & Parts is located west of NC 28 approximately 0.1 mile north of
SR 1381 (Lee Tallent Road). This property is a junkyard and contains oil stains, batteries,.
engines, transmissions, and junk cazs. There does not appear to be any underground storage
40

tanks on the property. There aze no anticipated impacts for any of the alternates under
consideration.
8. Noise
This analysis was performed to determine the effect on traffic noise levels in the
immediate project azea as the result of proposed improvements to SR 1323 (Riverview
Street) and NC 28 in Macon County.
a. Characteristics of Noise
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from many sources
including airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation plants, and highway vehicles.
Highway noise, or traffic noise, is usually a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive
train, and tire-roadway interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure. Since the
range of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to
some common reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in
decibels are called sound pressure levels and aze often defined in terms of frequency
weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency range to which the
human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels measured using aweighted-A
decibel scale aze often expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, all noise levels will be
expressed in dBA's. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA aze listed in
Appendix 2, Table N1.
Review of Table N1 (Appendix 2) indicates that most individuals in urbanized
azeas aze exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources as they go about their daily
activities. The degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on
three things:
1. The amount and nature of the intruding noise
2. The relationship between the background noise and the intruding noise
3. The type of activity occurring when the noise is heazd
Over time, particulazly if the noises occur at predicted intervals and are
expected individuals tend to accept the noises that intrude into their lives. Attempts have
been made to regulate many of these types of noises including. airplane noise, factory noise,
railroad noise, and highway traffic noise. In relation to highway traffic noise, methods of
analysis and control have developed rapidly over the past few yeazs.
b. Noise Abatement Criteria
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed Noise Abatement
Criteria (NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways to
determine whether highway noise levels are or are not compatible with various land uses.
These abatement criteria and procedures aze set forth in the aforementioned Federal reference
41

(Title 23 CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various land uses is
presented in Table N2 (Appendix 2). The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the level of
constant sound which in a given situation and time period has the same energy as does time
varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise aze represented in
terms of a steady noise level with the same energy content.
c. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to
determine ambient (existing) noise levels for the identified land uses. The purpose of this
noise level information was to quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide a
base for assessing the impact of noise level increases. The existing Leq noise levels in the
project azea were measured at 50 feet from edge of pavement of the neazest lane of traffic
ranged from 58.7 dBA to 65.9 dBA. The ambient measurement location is presented in
Table N3 (Appendix 2). A background noise level of 45 dBA was determined for the project
to be used in azeas where traffic noise was not the predominant source.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most current
prediction model for traffic noise in order to compaze calculated existing noise levels with
the measured existing noise levels. The computer modeled existing noise levels averaged
less than 1 dBA than the measured noise levels. Hence, the computer model is a reliable tool
in the prediction of noise levels. Differences in dBA levels can be attributed to "bunching"
of vehicles, low traffic volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly-
spaced" vehicles and single vehiculaz speed.
d. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
In general, traffic conditions consist of a lazge number of variables that describe
different cazs driving at different speeds through a continual changing highway configuration
and surrounding terrain. Due to the complexity of the problem, certain assumptions and
simplifications must be made to predict highway traffic noise. The procedure used to predict
future noise levels in this study was the Traffic Noise Model (TNM) 2.1. The TNM traffic
noise prediction model uses the number and type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their
speeds, the physical chazacteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.),
receptor location and height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier ground elevation, and
barrier top elevation.
In this regazd, it is noted that only preliminary alignment was available for use
in this noise analysis. The project proposes upgrading and safety improvements to SR 1323
(Riverview Street) and NC 28. This noise analysis evaluated three alternates, all consisting
of upgrading and safety improvements to an existing two-lane facility. Only those existing
natural or man-made barriers were included in setting up the model. The roadway sections
and proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus, this analysis
represents the "worst-case" topographical conditions. The noise predictions made in this
report aze highway-related noise predictions for the traffic conditions during the year being
analyzed.
42

Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were compazed, and
the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the proposed posted speed
limits. Hence, during all other time periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those
indicated in this report. The TNM computer model was utilized in order to determine the
number of land uses (by type) which would be impacted during the peak hour of the design
year 2025. Aland use is considered impacted when exposed to noise levels approaching or
exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or predicted to sustain a substantial noise
increase.
e. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either: [a]
approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning within
1 dBA of the Table N2 (Appendix 2) value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise
levels. The NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Table
N2 (Appendix 2). Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors
that fall in either category.
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the FederaUState
governments are not responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new
development which building permits are issued within the noise impact azea of a proposed
highway after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the location
of a proposed highway project will be the approval date of CEs, FONSIs, RODS, or the
Design Public Hearing, whichever comes later. For development occurring after this public
knowledge date, local governing bodies aze responsible to insure that noise compatible
designs are utilized along the proposed facility.
The number of receptors in each activity category for each section predicted to
become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table NS (Appendix 2). These aze noted
in terms of those receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by either approaching
or exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Under
Title 23 CFR Part 772, 2 residences and 1 business aze predicted to be impacted due to
highway traffic noise in the project azea by the selection of Alternate 3. The impacts for each
alternate can be found in Table NS (Appendix 2). The maximum extent of the 72-dBA noise
level contour is less than 37.0 feet from the center of the proposed roadway. The maximum
extent of the 67-dBA noise level contour is 62.7 feet from the center of the proposed
roadway. Contour information in Table NS (Appendix 2) shows this contour information by
section. This information should assist local authorities in exercising land use control over
the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction. For
example, with the proper information on noise, the local authorities can prevent further
development of incompatible activities and land uses with the predicted noise levels of an
adjacent highway.
Table N6 (Appendix 2) exhibits the exterior traffic noise level increases for the
identified receptors by roadway section. There aze no substantial noise level impacts
anticipated by this project by the selection of Alternate 3. The predicted noise level increases
for this project range up to +5 dBA. The amount of substantial noise level impacts for each
43

alternate can be found in Table N6 (Appendix 2). When real-life noises aze heazd, it is
possible bazely to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5-dBA change is more readily
noticeable.
f. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures
If traffic noise impacts aze predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative
noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to all impacted receptors. There
aze impacted receptors due to highway traffic noise in the project azea. The following
discussion addresses the applicability of these measures to the proposed project.
1). Highway Alignment Selection
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical orientation
of the proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize impacts and costs. The selection
of alternative alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the balance between
noise impacts and other engineering and environmental parameters. For noise abatement,
horizontal alignment selection is primarily a matter of siting the roadway at a sufficient
distance from noise sensitive azeas. Changing the highway alignment is not a viable
alternative for noise abatement.
2). Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic system management measures, which limit vehicle type, speed,
volume and time of operations, are often effective noise abatement measures. For this
project, traffic management measures are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due
to their effect on the capacity and level-of-service of the proposed facility.
Past project experience has shown that a reduction in the speed limit of 10
mph would result in a noise level reduction of approximately 1 to 2 dBA. Because most
people cannot detect a noise reduction of up to 3 dBA and because reducing the speed limit
would reduce roadway capacity, it is not considered a viable noise abatement measure. This
and other traffic system management measures, including the prohibition of truck operations,
aze not considered to be consistent with the project's objective of improving SR 1323 and
NC 28.
3). Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels aze often applied
with a measurable degree of success on fully controlled facilities by the application of solid
mass, attenuable measures strategically placed between the traffic sound source and the
receptors to effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid
mass, attenuable measures may include earth berms or artificial abatement walls.
The project will maintain uncontrolled or limited control of access,
meaning most commercial establishments and residents will have direct access connections
to the proposed roadway, and all intersection will adjoin the project at grade. For a noise
barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high enough and long enough to shield
the receptor from significant sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier
44

severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically
unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at access openings
(driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a concern.
Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would normally be 8 times
the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For example, a receptor located 50 feet from the
barrier would normally require a barrier 400 feet long. An access opening of 40 feet (10
percent of the azea) would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA
(FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No.
FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-1, USDOT, chapter 5, section 3.2, page 5-27). Hence, this type
of control of access effectively eliminates the consideration of berms or noise walls as noise
mitigation measures.
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments located
along a particular highway normally require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass,
attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two qualities,
and thus, would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case.
4). Other Mitigation Measures Considered
The acquisition of property in order to provide buffer zones to minimize
noise impacts is not considered a feasible noise mitigation measure for this project. The cost
to acquire impacted receptors for buffer zones would exceed the abatement threshold of
$25,000 per benefited receptor. The use of buffer zones to minimize impacts to future
sensitive areas is not recommended because this could be accomplished through land use
control.
The use of vegetation for noise mitigation is not considered reasonable for
this project, due to the amount of substantial amount ofright-of--way necessary to make
vegetative barriers effective. FHWA research has shown that a vegetative barrier should be
approximately 100' wide to provide a 3-dBA reduction in noise levels. In order to provide a
5-dBA reduction, substantial amounts of additional right-of--way would be required. The cost
of the additional right-of--way and plant sufficient vegetation is estimated to exceed the
abatement threshold of $25,000 per benefited receptor. Noise insulation was also considered;
however, no public or non-profit institutions were identified that would be impacted by this
project.
g. No-Build Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the No-Build alternative was also considered. If
the proposed widening did not occur, 4 receptors are anticipated to approach or exceed the
FHWA NAC. Also, the receptors could anticipate experiencing an increase in exterior noise
levels of approximately 2 dBA. As previously noted, it is bazely possible to detect noise
level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5-dBA change in noise levels is more readily noticed.
h. Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth
removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as
temporary speech interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working neaz the
45

project, can be expected particulazly from paving operations and from the earth moving
equipment during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term nature
of construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours, these impacts aze
not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss chazacteristics of neazby natural
elements and man-made structures aze believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of
intrusive construction noise.
i. Noise Analysis Summary
Traffic noise impacts aze an unavoidable consequence of transportation projects
especially in azeas where there are not traffic noise sources. All traffic noise impacts were
considered for noise mitigation. Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement
is not recommended, and no noise abatement measures aze proposed. This evaluation
completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772, and unless a
major project change develops, no additional noise reports will be submitted for this project.
9. Air Quality Analysis
The project is located in Macon County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standazds. 40 CFR part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not
anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance
with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for
highway traffic noise of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 772, and for air
quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional
reports are necessary.
46

VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Received
The project has been coordinated with appropriate federal and state agencies listed
below. Written comments were received from agencies noted with an asterisk (*). These
comments were considered during the preparation of this assessment. Appendix 3 contains
copies of the comments received.
US Army Corps of Engineers -Asheville
US Army Corps of Engineers -Wilmington
US Fish and Wildlife Service -Asheville
US Environmental Protection Agency -Atlanta
NC Department of Administration, NC State Clearinghouse
NC Department of Public Instruction
NC Department of Cultural Resources - SHPO
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
* Division of Water Quality
* Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Division of Forest Resources
Division of Land Resources
* Division of Parks and Recreation
* NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Macon County
Town of Franklin
B. Citizens Informational Workshop
An informal Citizens Informational Workshop for the project was held on June 21, 2001
at the Macon County Community Center. Representatives from NCDOT were available at
the workshop to discuss the project with citizens and local officials. Approximately 30
people attended the workshop. Representatives from the Town of Franklin attended the
workshop.
C. Agency Coordination
A Scoping Meeting was held for the project in Raleigh, on February 14, 2001. Based on
the minimal anticipated impacts, it was decided that this project did not need to go through
the NEPAlMerger process with the review agencies. It is anticipated that the project will not
impact wetlands and that the stream impacts would be minimal such that a Nationwide
Permit would apply. There were concerns about protected species in the Little Tennessee
River and the project's impact on essential habitat; however, the general consensus was that
these concerns could be addressed with the agencies on an individual basis along with other
environmental impacts. Additionally, the bridge over the River will not be replaced under
this project or any other project currently included in the Tranaportation Improvement
Program.
47

D. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held for this project following the circulation of this document.
At the hearing, more detailed information about the proposed improvements will be available
for the public. The public will be invited to make comments or voice concerns regarding the
proposed action. A final decision with regard to a preferred alternative will not be made until
all public hearing comments are fully evaluated.
48

FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Location
Figure 2 Project Aerial
Figure 3 E~sting Curve Design Speeds
Figure 4 Typical Section
Figure 5a 2002 Traffic Data
Figure 5b 2002 Traffic Data
Figure 6a 2025 Traffic Data
Figure 6b 2025 Traffic Data
Figure 7 Level of Service
Figure 8 Alternate 1, 2, and 3 Curve Design Speed
Figure 9a Intersection Lane Configurations
Figure 9b Intersection Lane Configurations
Figure 10 Thoroughfare Plan

N

RoS~ ~~~~ 28
~~
D PROJECT UNITS -
~
a ~ ,
~

~
r 0
."
BFN'VETT ' '~ ~ ti - - -
l ~ rF~NE / - ~ 5
~
C
~ ~ ~~

-- ~~~~ OTLA 'po
~ c
'
~~ ( / ~ m
--. ~ ~C
-- ! ~ / _\
,~-l ~
G'
~ ~R ~q3g ~ ~ -'~ ~~0 / \ ROAD
~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~'" CULVERT~~(x~
' / 0, , ~ ~ ~~B ~
,~~aP
a~~' ~~
~P " P~
~ " ~~
~~ ~ ~
~PGO G~6
~P
1
~ ~/ ~ r
ti ~ ~ ~
~~ ~
_; ~ ~~
Q~ ` ~ ~~ m
m ', • 4 0
j ~ ~ / ~ "~ ~
~ ~ ~-- ~~
~ ~
~~ ~ ~~ ~ `~
~ \
28 F
GAP '~`_ ~ `_
~\ ll ~~~\ ~9 S S~ REE
~~v`~-_ Via` ~~FS
~ FA O P
Potential Detour - ~~~~ \ ~ ° ~`~ ,~ ~ `~
\ s
~- Pro,%ect Location c~~ PROJECT UNITS ~~ ~ ~ ~ Cl fy Of
o ~ z ~, s,, :, ~ Franklin
M1LE5
Y r ~ N~4
Q
~.
~®~dT~l C~~®l~l~
I ~~®~L~~lf ®~l~®I~P~VL~~11r ~~I®
~~'~ ~ ~~~IF~®P~fR~I~I~1f~~~P~~~~~9~ ~~~~~
SR 1323 (RIVERVIEW STJ AND NC 28
i /MPROVEMENTS FROM SR I%29
T 0 SR 1378 IBENNETT RD)
i FRANKL_lN, MACON COUNTY
T lP PROJECT NDe R -2408
FIGURE- l PROJECT L_OCA7-lON

-i
F a" ~. 3
_`~+~ ~
~ ~ ~.~~~ s, ~A
r. • ~:., t,w1
F „
-a
it g .
`X
.r
,~:. ~: ~
~~ `
EAST PALMER STREET - ~
• ~ 9
i ~ s
M•

i~
~V 7 ji,'~
pfd
~t
~ ~~

~? ,.
~~,
,1~~*~ }
~;~i.
t*"

a~
0
I g
0
~ V 4 5 mph PG ~,~'~~
H 4 5 mph ~ / ee~NFTT / ~' '
4 r J
V 40 mph ~ ~~ '
H 45 mph ~o
~' UROH ~1
10T LP-'
----- LA
N
PROJECT LIMITS
Station 196f00~ ~
/ ~
V 35 mph o
Q
SR %~ I RSTOWN ~O
3S SAN,DE
C I
y
~ ~__., Q /
~ i ~ ~
T ~NNFSS -' - - ~
EF ~ /,
'RIVER ~ ~ -
C, ; m ~~'
- ioT , Station /39f50 / ~"
i
L V 130 h ~ ~ '
'" p
~G i
A/,Qp~RT 28 e,
r" ~
V 4 5 mph _ n. q0 ~h0 RoAO
~~~
V 35 mph ~ i ~ ~~ H 40 mph /
V 45 mph 0?',' oP~ H 30 mph I/ m
V 40 mph 'iG~~ H 35 mph ~ {
PGG-~ 5 V 35 mph Station 65f00 °
~ i~~p0 / V 1 40 mph -~
~ s-P ° 44 ~
V 35 mph ;" %~ r ~
~ 'P~```~ J `~
H 40 mph y 28 ~-~~ ~
~~ ~ ~
~oaa ~~ ~iy~~TS " ~
H 35 mph
H 40 mph / / `~~~ Fs~
H 40 mph / Q°~ °'S' `~~
o~ s~
H 4o mph °° PROJECT LIMITS ~ s ~ ., City of
I z station iofoo s~ ~~,~ Franklin
I ~ N~
Z
Q
LEGEND
V -VERTICAL CURVE - - ~ Protect Location
H -HORIZONTAL CURVE
mph - miles per hour ~ ~
M1LE5
~®li~~~ ~~~®~~ fl~tQa
~f~®~[E~~ ~~~IE4.~l~fr~fEl~~ ~1Uvl®
SR /323 (RIVERVIEW ST) AND NC 28
IMPROVEMENTS FROM SR 1729
TO SR 1378 IBENNFTT RD)
FRANKLIN, MACON COUNTY
TlP PROJECT N0. R-2408
FIGURE 3 EXISTING CURVE
DESIGN SPEED

Typical Section
TIP Project Number R-2408
-L- NC 28 & SR 1323
,`
ORIGIN,
~c WIDEN 3' AT GUARDRAIL LOCATIONS
IGINAL GROUND
-. -
31NAL GROUND
Figure 4

SR-1321
~~~
14
1
13 ~,
NC28 70
HARRISON AVE.
SR-1337
23
Fo
Qo'` ~Z
~~ `.y.
14
~8
~40
` PO
2 ~ w~
~-.
NC2'a 60 , Project Limits
9 p~) 6S ~ rJ2~
S R-1323
A ~-----~- _~. A
X85
3~ ;
1CSl,, 1~3
4 1 '~ 9
NC28~.1~-
h
`t.
60
US441 BUS. 46~ '~` 14
~ MAIN ST.
j (ONE WAY STREET)
2002 ESTIMATED ADT ~~ 90
FRANKLIN 63~PM r, E-
IN HUNDREDS ~~. r;
LEGEND LOCATION:
{ TRAFFIC FORECAST FOR NC28 AND
### VPD----# OF VEHICLES PER DAY
~
SR1323(RIVERVIEW ST.)
###- MUCH LESS THAN ### VPD
X MOVEMENT PROHIBITED ~
PM
DtIV Qd ~ ~ D
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%) = K_30
'

~«~,
F '

,
Traffic Data
e 5a 2 2
~
~
K30 = 30
TH HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUMF. ~d
Gs~ ~

D
DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (%)
m ~ s-
_...,..a
~~..
_T .
COUNTY: MACON
PM PM PEAK PERIOD
(d
t) DUALS
TT
ST'S
%) ~
°
, -
,
( ~
NOTE: DHV ~ D DIV.: 14 DATE: March, 2002
INDICATES THE DIRECTION D.
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK. T of
TIP i~ R-24O W. O. # 8.1970801

A ------ ---. A
134
6
~~ 130
8 ~ 10
~_~
/ b0
Q~ ~~
`o `ti.
43
33
\
_~
SR1321 j
,
153
NC28
,
,~72
a~` ~~ ~°

19 ~
3
22 ~
rya NC28 100 ;

20 P~ M~.65
9 ~q~2)
~ 9~ Project Limits

118 SR1323
RIVERVIEW ST.
NC28
HARRISON AVE.
41a
87

69 ~.
US441 BUS.
~ 18 MAIN ST.
(ONE WAY STREET)
198 147
2025 ESTIMATED ADT H FRANKLIN 6j~PM E-
(3,7)
LEGEND LOCATION:
### VPD--# OF VEHICLES PER DAY
TRAFFIC FORECAST FOR NC28 AND
###- MUCH L SS THAN ### VPD
N SR1323(RIVERVIEW ST.)
X MOVEME
T PROHIBITED
PM
DHV ~~ ~ ~ D
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%) = K30

D K30 = 30'TH HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (%) a dF NOR7'
~~ j
~ Figure 6a 2025 Traffic Data
`"`~""
PM PM PEAK PERIOD (• = i COUNTY: MACON
(d,t) DUALS, TT-ST'S (%)
NOTE: DHV - D DIV.: 14 DATE: March, 2002
INDICATES THE DIRECTION D. of
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK. TIP # R-2408 W. O. # 8.1970801

81
~13
33 SR1335
Project Limits -~ 20 P~~
)0--60
r:. I~
88
4
'~ /a- 8 SR1337
~+' 4 )0 PA-~60
NC28 ~ rz, )~
88 ;
SR1372 24 4
PROPOSED 6o py
INDUSTRIAL ~(`~ -\`O
PARK GOJ~ 20~
~PGO~ ~ a
`eQO~'~ 104; ~ I ~
P '
e
SR1434 52 11 ?~,
(3, J)
134
2025 ESTIMATED ADT ~
q ----r----- q
LEGEND
### VPD----# OF VEHICLES PER DAY
###- MUCH LESS THAN ### VPD
X MOVEMENT PROHIBITED
PM
DEIV ~d• ~~ ~ D
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%) = K30
K30 = 30'TH HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
PM PM PEAK PERIOD
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (%)
--- INDICATES DIRECTION OF D
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK
(d,t) DUALS, TT-ST`S (%)
LOCATION:
TRAFFIC FORECAST FOR NC28 AND
SR1323(RIVERVIEW ST.)
Figure 6b 2025 Traffic Data
COUNTY: MACON
DIV.: 14 ~ DATE: March, 2002
TIP # R-2408 W. O. # 8.1970801

N
5E ~~~ 28
Rp ~~ `~
PROJECT LIMITS ,-
g /, ~:
~' Q~pPo~~Ot S'~ ~-j3s SgN,pERST~N ~o ~ ~
~"' BEN ,'~ j
~~ NETT / ~ /,~--- q /
/--~___-' 0 1'
` /' I T ENNESS`cE ~'4NER ~ ~ l
~~ V~~ m /
TEA ~~ CN~RCN '9p ~~'; _~~ ~'~
G~
~~'~ 0
0 , ~pP
i ~
P~`
~i ~" 0~
~~p~ /0~'
~0
1 ~
ADT LOS
/ ~\
/~~ ~ .
• ~ L~
28 - e° ~
'qo
SR ig34 l ~~~0 ROAD \
~~ / ~~
SR X38/ , ~ r

I
~
F.~

~
m
o
` ~1 ~
O sk W ,\ ~ a a `~

28
~ i
.~2.~
Q
J
~ -

~

~
Rogo s~~ l/,y/T ~ „
'~~
~'~~~~
~q
s E
ST RE
~~
P ~`
~~
s
~
1 Q' OVA ~F ~~
°° PROJECT LIMITS ~ ~
s
~f City of
I s,, ~
~ Franklin
J
~ N
I
z
Q

2002 8800 D
2025 /5300 D
ADT LOS

2002 5200 C
2025 9/00 D
LEGEND
ADT = AVERAGE DAILY
TRAFFIC
LOS =LEVEL OF SERVICE
Project Location
o ~
MILES
~®~~o-~ c~~®~o~~
f~~9o9V4~®MI~IfE~I~~L s41~~a~~T~VS ~~~C~
SR /323 rRIVERVIEw ST) aN0 NC 28
lA9PROVEA4EPdTS FROM SR 1729
TO SR 13i 8 (BENNETT RD)
FRANKLIN, MACON COUNTY
TIP PROJECT N0. R-240B
FIvURE 7 LEVEL OF SERVICE

- -- ~ Project Location
o i
MILES
City of
Franklin
M®V~~I~ Cs~P~®LB~l~
®I~~~a~~fMI~I~V ®~ ~~~~~®~YATV®~I
~~®J(EC~ ®1~~9~L®I~Ahl~R9~ s~~l®
~f~V6VV~®~1P~Of~~~~~ ~f~~L~~V~ f~6~~IC~O
SR 1323 (RIVERVIEW ST) AND NC 28
IMPROVEMENTS FROM SR 1729
TO SR l378 ~BENNETT RO)
FRANKLIN, MACON COUNTY
T 1P PROJECT N0. R -2408
FIGURE 8 ALTERNATE 1, 2, AND 3
CURVE DESIGN SPEEDS

__ ,. ~ _ _~__~ t ,._... • ~....t.m~rnnnnc

TIP Project Number R-2408 NC 28
i
i
SR 1434 ___~
® ~Q
a
i
i
NC 28
Recommended Intersection of
NC 28 and SR 1434
Figure 9b Intersection Lane Configurations

APPENDIX 1
NCDOT Relocation Reports

RELOCATION REPORT I
x l E.LS. n CORRIDOR ~ DESIGN
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.1970801 couNTY Macon Alternate 1 of 2
I.D. NO.: R-2408 F.A. PROJECT STP-28 1
DESCRIPTION ol= PROJECT: SR 1323 (Riverview Street) and NC 28 from SR 1659 in Franklin to SR 1335
(Sanderstown Road)

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL '
Type of '
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential 13 12 25 0 0 0 10 15 0
BUSIneSS2S 3 0 3 0 VALUE O>=.DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For R ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 o-2oM Q S o-15o Q o-2oM Q S o-150 Q
ANSWER ALL DUESTIONS 20~doM Q 150-250 Q 20~40M Q 150-250 Q
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M Q 250-000 Q 40-70M Q 25000 Q
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 7o-100M Q 400-600 12 70-100M Q 40000 16
x 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 uv 13 600 uP 0 100 uP 25 600 uP Q
displacement? TOTAL 13 12 25 16
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS Respond b Number
project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Business sites are available.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. 4. Crafts boutique , 1 employee no minorities,
Produce stand (seasonal)1 employee no minorities,
Gas Station 1 employee, no minorities ,
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list). 6, local realtors and newspaper, Four Seasons Realty,
Coldwell Banker
x 7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? 11. HUD Housing available
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families? 14. Suitable business sites will be available during
relocation period.
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
x 11. Is public housing available?
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
available during relocation period?
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
'

-
15. source).
Number months estimated to complete
~ RELOCATION? 24 months

J.Rid a 06-18-02 ~ /
Ri ht of Wa ent Date A roved b Date
_.
Form 15.4 Revised 02/95 C//

Al-1

T
ELOCATION REPORT
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
~X E.I.S. ~ CORRIDOR ~ DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.1970$01 COUNTY Macon Alternate 2 of 2
I.D. NO.: R-240$ F.A. PROJECT STP-28 1
DESCRIPTION of PROJECT: SR 1323 (Riverview Street) and NC 28 from SR 1659 in Franklin to SR 1335
(Sanderstown Road)

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential 9 7 16 0 0 8 4 12 0
BUSIne55eS 2 0 2 0 VALUE OF DWELLING '' DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE '
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For R ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 o-2oM p S o-15o Q o-2oM Q S o-15o p
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20~OM Q 150-250 Q 20~40M Q 150-250 Q
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M Q 260-400 Q 40-70M Q 25000 Q
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M p 400-600 7 70-100M Q 400-600 16
x 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 uP g 600 ur Q 10o uP Y5 s0o uP Q
displacement? TOTAL 9 7 25 16
x 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Res Ond b ivumber}
project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Business sites are available.
indicate size, typg, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. 4. Crafts boutique , 1 employee no minorities,
Produce stand (seasonal) 1 employee no minorities,
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list). 6. local realtors and newspaper, Four Seasons Realty,
Coldwell Banker
x 7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? 11. HUD Housing available
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families? 14. Suitable business sites will be available during
relocation period.
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
x 11. is public housing available?
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
available during relocation period?
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 24 months
~, 6~2t-02
J.Riddle 06-18-02 ~ ~~l i r~ ~
Ri ht of Wa A ent Date A roved b Date
Al-2

R_~-;^OCATION REPORT
- ^X E.I.S. ~ CORRIDOR ~ DESIGN
• Orj~iri~ ~ 7 Copy: Stafe.Relocation Agent
r+,~~,~~~elocation Office
RIGHT Cr V';;=~~~ BR,~,NCH
North Carolina Department of Transportation
~nnf4FtEArft~L,QCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: NA COUNTY Macon Altemat~~D~ Dt~T. Gi= ~,r;~i~~T/~T!~~~temate
I.D. No.: R-2408 NA
DESCRIPTION of PROJECT: NC28 and SR 1323 Macon County SR 1729 (Depot St Ext.) to SR 1335
~° '_~-.
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 6 4 10 0 0 0 4 6
Businesses 4 O 4 0 VALUE OF DWELLING ASS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For R ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 o-2oM Q 3 0-150 p o-2oM p 3 o-1so p
'-: ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS ': i, i 20-40M Q 150-250 Q 2G-40M Q 150-250 Q
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 0 250-400 p 40-70M p 25000 Q
x 1 . Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-1ooM g 400-600 p 7o-10oM 6 400-600 p
x 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 10o uP $ soo uP 4 100 uP 25 600 uP 12
displacement? TOTAL 6 4 31 ~ 12
x 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (ReSpOnd by Number}
project? 3). (yes)
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 4). yes, (1 .health facility w/4 employees no minorities
2. Construction Co. w/5 employees no minorities
3. ConvenienUgas store w/2 employees no minorities
4. Small retail. w/ 1 employee no minorities)
indicate size, type, estimated number of 6). Macon Co. Bd of Realtors/ newspapers
employees, minorities, etc. 11. Public housing available through HUD
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 12. yes, several houses in the area for sale and rent
x 6. Source for available housing (list). 14. yes ,several commercial sites available
x 7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
X 8. Shculd Last Resort Housing be considered?
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
x 11. Is public housing available?
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
available during relocation period?
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 9 Months ~~~>;`

•
J Riddle ~ f
,~/! ~~~ 09/17/03 Y..~
~`~
T Greene /~~ ~~-~ 09/17/03
C~2~location Agent-~ Date ~~~~.~ J~~
''//// ~.d,~~ ed-by Date
Al-3 ',,,.

APPENDIX 2
Noise Tables

TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HU MAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
130 --- -------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110 --- -------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
90 --- -------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------
D Diesel truck 65 kmph at 15m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmph at 15m away MODERATELY LOUD
B 70 --- -------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50 --- -------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------=
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40 --- ------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper at 1.5m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10 --- ------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body, Encyclopedia
America, "Industrial Noise and Hearing Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski
and E. R. Harford (Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the
Chicago Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
~;.2-1

TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL -DECIBELS (dBA)
Activity "
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance
(Exterior) and serve an important public need and where the preservation of
those qualities are essential if the area is to continue to serve its
intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas,
(Exterior) parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and
hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories
(Exterior) A or B above.
p -- Undeveloped lands.
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
(Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration.
CRITERIA FOR SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL -DECIBELS (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 >= 15
>= 50 >= 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy.
A2-2

TABLE N3
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS (Leq)
SR 1323 and NC 28 Upgrade and Safety Imporvements, Macon County, TIP #R-2408

SITE
LOCATION
DESCRIPTION NOISE
LEVEL
(d[3A)
l SR 1323 @ Woodland Hills Road Grassy 58.7
2 NC 28 Just North of SR 1323 Grassy 65.9
3 NC 28 Just South of SR 1372 Gravel 64.3
4 NC 28 Just North of SR 1372 _ Grassy 63.6
NOTE: The ambient noise level sites were measured at 50 feet from edge of pavement of the nearest lane of traffic.
A2-3

TABLE N4 Page 1
TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 28 Upgrade and Safety Improvements, Macon County, TIP # R-2408
Alternate #1
~--
RECEP"1'OR INFORMATION I EXISTING i NOISE ~I PROPOSED ROADWAY FRED{CTED NOISE LEVELS i LEVEL
ID# BLAND USE 'CATEGORY ROADWAY ~ LEVEL !~ NAME CL DIST(ft) f -L- ': -Y- 1 MAXIMUM ~INCRGASE
SR 1323 (Riverview St.) From Start of Porject to NC 28
_
~
~~ I

1 -_
-
I
~
60.0 L
Residence B ~ SR 1323 58 ! -L- R/W

-
2 , - - - - _
Residence - - B " 56 I 85.0 L _ ~ R/VJ ~i
3 I

, - ~ ~ _
- -
57 ~~ -
70.0 L ~~
B
Residence
~
~
I
R/W
-

3A _
- . -
-
,
- _
_ _ - ~ -
I
65.0 L
Residence ~ _ B _ 1 ~~ ~ 58
I
I R/W

_
- ~

- - -

-

3B -_ -_ -
_ - -
-_ ~- - .. _
., 55 I 90.0 L -
Residence B
I
_ R/VV ~
-
-
4A ~ -
- ~
Residence ~ B- " I 54 ~ „ 1 10.0 L - R/W I -

-

5 !_

_
Busmess ~ - C 62 ~ 40.0 L - ~
~
~
I

R/W

-
'I - -
.-
8 iverb
SR 1337
( ~ end Rd.)
. 2
NC 28 from SR 1323 RiverwiewNt
- - -L
~
- _ -
~
~
I I _
I -
6 ', 6
8
C
_
-
_
_ -- -
-
l -L- , 45.0 L - I
Residence ~ B
I * 69
'
- +
_
_ _
NC 28-from SR 1337 (Riverbend Rd.) to SR 1434 (Airport Rd.)
-
I
i
7A - _
t
i
'i - - - - - ~ - i _ - -
Church i E I NC 28 57/<40 -L- ~ 170.0 R - t 58/<40

- + I/O

-
8 ~ Residence.. _ ~ - _ B 1 - " i - 64 i ~; ~ 75.0 L r -
R/W
_ - _ --
9 -
- ~~ - - ~ 1 60.0 L
~ Residence _ ~ - B 66 - ~ 67 --

-
-- --

I1 ~
- _ --_ _
-- _ i 64 i _ -_ „ 65.0 R -
Residence B " _ I
R/W -
-
-
12 62 I ;, - t- 35.0 R - ;
~ Residence ~ B I I R/W -
13 I --
- 35.0 R ; -
~ Business ~ C ~ " ~
-_
I
0 I R/W
f
_
_ - - )
' '
1a Church Rd.
~NC 28 from SR-1.434 (Airport Rd.) to SR 1372 (Iot _
-- ___ -
NO RECEIVERS WITHIN NOISE STUDY CORRIDOR I

_ __ -
-

- - - --
- - -- --
NC 28 from SR 1372 (Iotla Church Rd.) tp End of Project @ SR 1335 (Sanderstown R .
---
-- -_
--
NO RECEIVERS WITHIN NOISE-STUDY CORRIDOR ~
-L- Denotes proposed roadways's noise level contribution and -Y- denotes contributions from other roadways. _ _ _
"*" Denotes a noise impact per 23 CFR Part 772 and Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (68/48). -
A2-4

TABLE N4 Page 1
TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 28 Upgrade and Safety Improvements, Macon County, TIP # R-2408
Alternate #2
!NEAREST AMBIENT! NEAREST i NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION %~ EXISTING '~'i NOISE I PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS 'LEVEL
ID# LAND USE !CATEGORY! ROADWAY LEVEL ~ NAME I CL DIST(ft) -L- i -Y- 'MAXIMUM '.,INCREASE
~
i SR 1323 Riverview St. From Start of Porject to NC 28
~
( )
~ _
-_

-
~ 1 10.0 L ~ -
L-
54 ~
I
4ArResidence B SR 1323 ~ - R7W

i -
-_ _
-- -
~ -
-
-
CNC 28 from SR 1323 Riverview St. to SR 1337 Riverbend Rd.) f ~
~ ) ~ - -

- -
- - -

.
--
-
-L- ~ 45.0 L - -
8 T 6
NC
Residence
6 69 ~
+
( p
(
~
_ _ _ ~ -
- -
-
-- ~
rt Rd.
~NC 28 from SR 1337 Riverbend Rd. to SR 1434 Air o ) I ~
)
-- _- -
-

-- - -
-_ _
- -- --
7 Residence B NC 28 65 ~ L- ; 65.0 R i - -
- - I
_1
I
*
_ 66
+
1
-- - - - - - - - --- -- ~ -
-_ - --
7A~Church E „ ~ 57/<40 - - „ -,- 160.0 R ~ - -
1
I
58/<40
+ I~0

_ --- - -
-- - --
~
64 70.0 L ~
8 Residence -
~
B
_ - _ ! _ -
- - _ - --i - - - -
--
--
----
- - -
I
55.0 L I ~
* 67
-
+ ~
_
--
-
---- - -- I -- _ ------ 75.0 R - -- - - --_- - ~ __ ---
- -- - -
-- --- ---
10 1 Residence g j _ _ ~~ 64
~
i
65 1
+ 1
'
r-
-_ - - - -- -
- --
Il jResidence B I 64 I
'
- - - _ -
~

I'
+
-
I _-
~- -- „
~ __ 35.0 R I_ _ _- t _ -
- - l ----- „ - ~~
___ - _
13 ~Busu~ess f C 70
- ~- -_
a
~ -- R%W
i_ _
--- -
- __- --
-
ANC 28 from SR-1434 Air ort Rd. to SR 1372 Iotla Church Rd.
_ E- -
I I~ - - - - L
- _
-

- - __
-- -- -- --
';
jN0 RECEIVERS WITHIN NOSE STUDY CORRIDOR
-- -

- _

- -
- - - --
_ _ _ - ~ p ~ ( nderstown Rd.) ~~
~NC 28 from SR 1372 Iofla Church Rd) t End of Project a SR 1335 Sa
- __
,

-

-
-
- -
I --_ ~ B f NC28 63 - -
14 Residence ~ -L- ~ 65.0 L ~
i
~ 65
+ 2
-L- Denotes proposed roadways's noise level contribution and -Y- denotes contributions from other roadways.
"*" Denotes a noise impact per 23 CFR Part 772 and Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (68/48).
A2-5

TABLE N4 Page I
TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 28 Upgrade and Safety Improvements, Macon County, TIP # R-2408
Alternate #3

_- -----
- ~ V I NAME- - ~ -CL DIST(ft) ~ --_L- ED NOISE LEVELS
ID#CEPLOANDNUSOE MCA OGORYI ROADWAY L OIEL I PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICT -Y- MAXIMUM
~ i LEVEL

INCREASE
SR 1323 (Riverview St. From Start of Por ect to NC 28
J - _ - --
--- - -
1 ' _
Residence ~ -B - - 1 SR 1323 _ 58 - -- -L- 60A L - R/W + _

-- - - -
-

2
__
-- -- „ -
56 ~ 85.0 L - -
Residence B ~
-
3 II
I _ i -
Residence B -
_
! +
4 ~ I --40.p L
~
f 59
Residence B
,

5 ~
I - I
- - - - - __ 1 - 62 ~ 40.0 L ~ -
~
" ~ _
_ .
Business ~ C I
I R/W i
_ -
_
_ _
) _ ( end Rd.) i ~
I
NC 28 from SR 1323 (Riverview St. to SR 1337 Rrverb _
'

6
- _.
- -
45.0 L
68 -L- I 1 f
~ I
2
'
1
d + I
* 69

4
1
- II _- !L -
1434 (Airport Rd.)
to SR
from SR 133 (Riverbend Rd.
8
~ _ ~
NC
2 -_ _ _
-
7 ~ _
__ _
Residence- ,- - _--B- _ ~ NC 28 - 65 I -L- ~ - 65.0 R L
~
- 66 + 1
I --
-

7A (
_
Church - _ - E _ ~~ i 57 I 160.0 R I -
I _-
-
l
~ 1
~ 58 -

+ 1

8 ~
~
_ - ~~
_ _ ,- 64 ~
- --
-
_ 70.0 L { '
-
Residence ~ B
~
--_ - -
_ - -
_
~
I 65

+ _1
* - -_ _
-

- 9 -
_ -
- - I - - _ -
66 ' 55.0 L
''Residence B
f
65
---

0
- -
--
-_ 64 -- ~~ 75.0 R -
B ~
Residence
__ _ -

+ 1
- -- - _ -

-
-

11 I
-
--
~~
70.0 R - -
Residence B _64
- --
R/W
-_
-- -

-12 l
_
_
-- - - -
- ___ -
62 i -
~
_
Residence 1 B _

-R -
/W

13 ~
-
35.0 R
I
1 70 I ~
Business _ C *
+
- 71 I ~

tla Church Rd. ~
to SR-13
i
( p )
l
4 ~
~
IN NOISE STUDY COR
WITH
NO RECEIVERS ~
- _-
NC 28 from SR 1372 (lofla Church Rd.) tp End of Project @ SR 1335 (Sanderstown Rd.)

-
- _
i -
- 14 -- - - i
Residence ~ - B- - ~ - -NC28 ~ 63 -L- I 65.0 L + 2
~5
~
-L- Denotes proposed roadways's noise level contribution and -Y- denotes contributions from other roadways.
"*" Denotes a noise impact per 23 CFR Part 772 and Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (68/48).
A2-6

TABLE N4 Page
TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 28 Upgrade and Safety Improvements, Macon County, TIP # R-2408
No Build
--

RECEPTOR INFORMATION EXISTING
~ --- -- i

ID# BLAND USE CATEGORY( ROADWAY ~ - O

NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
~ - - --~-

LEVEL NAME CL DIST ft ED NOSE LEVELS

PREDI
--
----- - -
I -Y- ~ MAXIMUM
I L- ~
--I

( LEVEL

NCREASE
_
m Start of Porject to NC 28

t. ro
Riverview
(

~ ~ _
- ~
k

B
-
---
SR 1323- ~
1 (Reside ce _-
58 -L-
~
- 60.0 L
i--
- ,
I
61
I
+
3
-
- I
Residence
2
~ ~
i „ I
B -
i _ -_
I g ~
_ -
- _- 58- 1 + 2
-
'
_
- ,,_
57 -
0.0 L _ _
~
I
-
-
_ 3A Residence I B
-
58 L
65.0
i -
I
I _
_ 61

-- { + 3
_ --
-
-- _. -
B (
3B Residence ~

5 -

90.0 L
I
_
_
i
~ 58 i + 3
- I ~ -_ 1
- ~ - -
~
4 Residence B --
59 I
I i
_
55.0 R
--
I --
~_ _ _
I G2
~
+
3
-

---
-
4A Residence B ~
~
-
11
; -- --
-
- _-
~ 1 ~_ .
_ _-___ _ -
I
!
~ -
-
-
-56
_
-_

-
+
-
2
__- -
-
.
._
I I
- _ ~
---
mess C
~ 5 Bus
-- ~
~' - -
62 -__~-
-- _ I- - - - 40.0 L

- a -_ -
-
~ _ 1
~ -_ - ~~ 64

-

i + 2

- _
-- - -
- -
Rd.)
view St.) to SR 1337 (Rrverbend
R 132 aver
- INC 28 from S
( ~ I
I- - I _ _ - -
_
I

--
--
6 Residence B NC 28 _ -
.
L_
68 ,, I - -
~ 45.0 L

---- _ _
_
--

-~_ *
69
_-
-- - ~

- +

~ -
l
-
_ . _ -
NC 28 from SR 1337 (Riverbend Rd.) fo SR 1434 (Airport Rd.) I

- -
-
_r
-- - -
__
7 Residence ~ B ~ NC 28 1 65 j -L- I
,
65.0 R
7AIChurch E _ ~ 57/<40 t - ~~ ~ 160.0 R
8 Residence B 64 70 0 L ~
- - --

-

_ _ ----
-
_- __ ---
9 Residence B 66
_
-
55.0 L I - -
- +-__~-
~-- - ~ 58/<40 i + I/O
___
- GS - + 1
-- _
-- ~~ - + i-
- -- - + 1
65
-- - - --
-- _ - -C,S- + 1
-
10 Residence _
B 64 75 0 R
-
-_
11 Residence - _.. _
B
I
" _- „ - 75 0 R
-
- - ~ --
12 Residence
B ~~ - 62 -- ~~ 90 0 R

- - -

- -

-

- - -
l3 Business

~
-. --

C _

~

_ -1
~~

-
70
~

- - --
~~

35.0 R
1- _
~
rch Rd. I
NC 28 from SR 1434 (Airport Rd.) to SR 1372 (lotla-Chu ) ~ i
NO RECEIVERS WITHIN NOISE STUDY CORRIDOR
~ - -t - -
--- - -- - -
NC 28 from SR 1372 (Iotla Church Rd.) tp End of Project @ SR 1335 (Sanderstown Rd.)
- -- -r -_ --- _--- - ~-- --- --_ -~ ---
-_
14 Residence B ~ NC28 I 63 I - -L- I 65.0 L ~ -
-L- Denotes proposed roadways's noise level contribution and -Y- denotes contributions from other roadways.
"*" Denotes a noise impact per 23 CFR Part 772 and Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (68/48).
--
- --- . - I - - --
- --------~5-----f + 2
- _
A2-7

TABLE NS
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 28 Upgrade and Safety Improvements, Macon County, TIP # R-2408
MAXIMUM APPROXIMATE # OF IMPACTED
Leq NOISE LE VELS CONTOUR RECEPTORS ACCORDING T O
DESCRIPTION (dBA) DISTANCES TITLE 23 CFR PART 772
Alternate #1 Soft 100ft I200ft 72 dBA ~; 67 dBA A ~ B ! C I, D ~ E
I- SR 1323 From Start to NC 28 61.4 56.8 51.3 <37.0 <37.0 0 ~ 0 ! 0 0 ~ 0
2 - NC 28 From SR 1323 to SR 1337 67.1 ~ 62.1 ! 56.2 <37.0 ~ 62.7 0 ~ 1 ~ 0 0 0
3 - NC 28 From SR 1337 to SR 1434 67.0 ~ 62.0 ~ 56.1 <37.0 ~ 62.0 0 1 ' 0 0 i 0
4 - NC 28 From SR 1434 to SR 1372 66.2 61.3 55.5 <37.0 ~~~ 56.0 0 j 0 ' 0 ''i 0 , 0
5 - NC 28 From SR 1372 to End of Project 65.6 60.7 54.9 <37.0 I 52.0 0 '. 0 0 ~ 0 0
TOTALS ---> 0 2 0 0 ' 0
MAXIMUM APPROXIMATE # OF 1MPAC TED
Leq NOISE LEVELS CONTOUR RECEPTORS ACCORDING T O
DESCRIPTION (dBA) DISTANCES TITLE 23 CFR PART 772
Alternate #2 50ft ~ 100ft '200ft 72 dBA I, C>7 dBA A ' B C ~~ D I E
I- SR 1323 From Start to NC 28 61.4 56.8 51.3 <37.0 <37.0 0 i 0 0 ~'~ 0 ~
li 0

- NC 28 From SR 1323 to SR 1337

2

67.1

62.1

56.2 < ,

37.0 ' C2.7 0~ I 0 ~ 0 ~ 0
3 - NC 28 From SR 1337 to SR 1434 67.0 ~~ 62.0 '~ 56.1 <37.0 ~ C,2.0 0 2 ~, 0 ~~ 0 ~, 0
4 - NC 28 From SR 1434 to SR 1372 66.2 ~ 61.3 55.5 <37.0 I 56.0
~ 0 I 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0
5 - NC 28 Prom SR 1372 to End of Project 65.6 ~ 60.7 ~ 54.9 52.0
<37.0 0 0 0 ~ 0 I 0
TOTALS ---> 0 ~~ 3 ~ 0 ~ 0 !i 0
MAXIMUM APPROXIMATE # OF IMPAC TED
Leq NOISE LEVELS CONTOUR RECEPTORS ACCORDING TO
DESCRIPTION (dBA) DISTANCES TITLE 23 CFR PART 772
Alternate #3 Soft ~ 100ft ~200ft 72 dBA ' 67 dBA A ~ B '~ C ~ D ~' E
1- SR 1323 From Start to NC 28 61.4 56.8 51.3 <37.0 <37.0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~
~ 0
2 - NC 28 From SR 1323 to SR 1337 67.1 I, 62.1 56.2 <37.0 ~,~ 62.7 1 0 ; 0 I
0
~ 0
0
3 - NC 28 From SR 1337 to SR 1434 67.0 j 62.0 56.1 <37.0 j 62.0 ;
0 2 I ~ 0
4 - NC 28 From SR 1434 to SR 1372 66.2 ~ 61.3 55.5 <37.0 56.0 0 '~ 0 0 i 0
~ 0
5 - NC 28 From SR 1372 to End of Project 65.6 ~i 60.7 ' 54.9 <37.0 52.0 '~ 0 0 0 i
0 0
TOTALS ---> 0 3 1 ~ 0 0
SOft, I OOft, and 200ft distances are measured from the center of nearest travel lane.
72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from the center of proposed roadway.
AZ-8

TABLE NS
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 28 Upgrade and Safety Improvements, Macon County, TIP # R-2408
No Build

DESCRIPTION
Leq NOISE LEVELS
(dBA) MAXIMUM
CONTOUR
- DISTA_ NCES APPROXIMATE # OF IMPACTED
RECEPTORS ACCORDING TO
TITLE 23 CFR PART 772 _
SOft I 100ft ~200ft 72 dBA ~ 67 dBA A j B ~ C D ~ E
1- SR 1323 From Start to NC 28 61.4 56.8 ! 51.3 <37.0 <37.0 0 0 I 0 ~ 0 0
2 - NC 28 From SR 1323 to SR 1337 67.1 62.1 i 56.2
I <37.0 j 62.7 0 1 0 0 ', 0
3 - NC 28 From SR 1337 to SR 1434 67.0 ~ 62.0 56.1 <37.0 62.0 0 I 2 I 1 ' 0 I 0
4 - NC 28 From SR 1434 to SR 1372 66.2 61.3 ~, 55.5 <37.0 ~~ 56.0 0 ~~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~
j 'I 0
5 - NC 28 From SR 1372 to End of Project 65.6 I 60.7 ~ 54.9
' <37.0 ~ 52.0
I 0 j 0 0 0
~ 0
TOTALS ---> O 3 1 0 0
I . SOft, 100ft, and 200ft distances are measured from the center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from the center of proposed roadway.
A2-9

TABLE N6
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
SR 1132 and NC 28 Upgrade and Safety Improvements, Macon County, TIP # R-2408
SUBSTANTIAL IMPACTS DUE
RECEPTOR EXT ERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES NOISE LEVEL TO BOT}-{
DESCRIPTION I ~ I INCREASE CRITERIA
Alternate #1 <=0 I I-4 ~ 5-9 10-14 ~ 15-19 ! 20-24 ~~~ >=25 "1" "2.,
1- SR 1323 From Start of Porject to NC 28 0 0 ~~ 0 0 0
~ 0 ~, 0 0 0
2- NC 28 From sr 1323 to SR 1337 0 ~ I ~ 0 I 0 ~~ 0
~~ 0 I 0 0 0

C 28 From SR 1337 to SR 1434
3-N
0
! 2
0
0
0
0
0
0
_ 0
4- NC 28 From SR 1434 to SR 1372 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0
I 0 I 0 0 0
5 - NC 28 From SR 1372 to End of Project 0 0
~ 0 ' 0 ~' 0
' 0 ~ 0 0 0

___
TOTALS >

0

3

0
0
0 0 0 0 0

RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES SUBSTANTIAL
NOISE LEVEL, IMPACTS DUE
TO BOTI l
DESCRIPTION ' ' ' '~, INCREASE CRITERIA
Alternate #2 <=0 I-4 '~ 5-9 ~'~ 10-14 '~ 15-19 ~ 20-2a >=25 "I" ..2.,
1- SR 1323 From Start of Porject to NC 28 0 '~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 0
2- NC 28 From sr 1323 to SR 1337 0 1 ~ 0 ~' 0 0
~~ 0 0 0 0
3- NC 28 From SR 1337 to SR 1434 0 ' 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4- NC 28 From SR 1434 to SR 1372 0 ~ 0
~ 0 ~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0
End of Pro~ect
5 - NC 28 From SR 1372 to I 0 ~~ 1 '' 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ! 0 0 0 0
TOTALS ---> 0 I 8 ~, 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0
DESCRIPTION
Alternate #3 ~-0
1- SR 1323 From Start of Porject to NC 28 0
2 - NC 28 From sr 1323 to SR 1337 0
3 - NC 28 From SR 1337 to SR 1434 0
4 - NC 28 From SR 1434 to SR 1372 0
5 - NC 28 From SR 1372 to End of Project 0
TOTALS ---> 0

RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES SUBSTANTIAL
NOISE LEVEL IMPACTS DUE
TO BOTH

1-4 ;
5-9 I
10-14 I
15-19 ~ j
20-24 ~
>=25 INCREASE
" I " CRITERIA
" 2~~
0 1 0 0, 0 1 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
6 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 i 0 I 0 0 0 0
1 ~ -0 0 I 0 I 0 ' 0 0 0
8~ 1 ' 0~ O ~ O i 0 0 0
"1" As defined by only a substantial increase (See bottom of TABLE N2).
" 2" As defined by both criteria in TABLE N2.
A2-10

TABLE N6
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
SRI 132 and NC 28 Upgrade and Safety Improvements, Macon County, TIP # R-2408
No Build

RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES SUBSTANTIAL
NOISE LEVEL IMPACTS DUE
TO BOTH
DESCRIPTION ~ ~ I
<=0 ~ 1-4 j 5-9 ~
10-14 ' I
15-19
20-24 1~'~ >=25 INCREASE
"I" CRITERIA
"2"
1- SR 1323 From Start of Porject to NC 28 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 j
~ 0
I 0 ~
~ 0 0 0 0
2- NC 28 From sr 1323 to SR 1337 0 ~ 1 ~ 0 it
~ 0 0 ~
I 0 0
' 0 0
3- NC 28 From SR 1337 to SR 1434 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4- NC 28 From SR 1434 to SR 1372 0
i 0 ~ 0
~ 0
' 0 0 II 0 0 0
5- NC 28 From SR 1372 to End of Project 0 i 0 ~~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0

TOTALS --->
0 ' % ~
; 3 i 0 , 0
0
i 0 0
0
0
"1" As defined by only a substantial increase (See bottom of TABLE N2).
" 2" As defined by both criteria in TABLE N2.
A2-ll

APPENDIX 3
Comments Received from Federal and
State Agencies

Noz~th Caz'oli-na Department of
Enzriron.l~r~.ent and Natural Resources
Dizrision of Soil and ~Yater ConserYation
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
David S. Vogel, Director
MEMORANDUM: April 12, 2001
TO: Melba McGee
~~~
FROM: David Harrison
~~A
NCDENR
SUBJECT: NC 28 SR 1323 (Riverview Street) from SR 1659 (Depot Street Extension) in the
Town of Franklin to SR 1335 (Sanderstown Road) in Macon County.
If additional land is needed beyond the existing right-of--way, the environmental
assessment should include information on adverse impacts to Prime or Statewide Important
Farmland.
The definition of Prime or Statewide Important Farmland is based on the soil series and
not on its current land use. Areas that are developed or are within municipal boundaries are
exempt from consideration as Prime or Important Farmland.
For additional information, contact the soils specialists with the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, USDA, Raleigh, NC at [phone]
1614 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolias 27699-1614
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone]
Interact: yyznrvu_enr.6tate.ac.u6/ENR/DS~S7C/
AN EQUA3.. OPPORTUNITY \ AFFIRIKATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
50 % RECYCLED / 10 % POST CONSUMER PAPER
A3-1

North Carolina Wildlif e Resources Commission
Charles R FullQ'ood, Facecutice Director
MIj11dORA.NDUM
TQ: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental A.£faus, A>ENR
FROM: Maryellen Haggard
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: April 23, 2001
5iJ31~.4T; Request for information from the N. C. Depa~irnent of Transfortation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for NC 28 and SR 1323
(Rivernew Streel), from Slt 1659 (Depot Street Extettsivza) im Franklin to
SR 1335 (Sanderstown Road ), Macon County, North Carvllna_ TIP No.
R-2408, State Pro;e~ct 8.2970401, Federal Aid Rtoject STP-1659 (]}, OiE-
0600,
This memorandurzl responds to a request from Mr_ William D. Gilmore of the
Nc~bOT for our evnt~a~ regarding impacts on fish and wildlife t'esowces resulting fivm
the subject p~ojest. Biologists on the staff of the N. C_ Wildlit;e ~esvuzces Comrmsslon
(NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed improvements. Our comments are provided in
accordance with certain provi6fons of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2xc)) and the Fula aad V-'ildlife Coor~dislation Act (48 Stati_ 401, as amended; 16
U_S.C. 661-6b7d).
~Ve are concerned about the possible impacts this project will have on the Little
Tennessee River, We have designated the Little Tennessee Rrver as a priority aquatic
conservation area. We request that the foIlow•ing information be provided°
Aescription of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listizlg of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
ar special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for protect
construction should be included iua the inventories. A listing of dest~natOd
plarrt species can be developed through consultatiota with the following
progatns:
Tl-e Natural Heritage ~rogam
N. C. bivisiorl of Parks and Rec~atiotl
161 S Mail Service Censer
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1615
(9a 9) 733-7795
1~'L~iling Address: Division of znland Fish '21 Mail Senzce ~erttez • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: (919j 73: ~"~~-~ t. 2$1. - Fas: [phone]

Memo Page 2 Apri123, 2(}01
~~
and,
NGA,A, Plaint ConsezvatiQtt Program
P. O. Boy 2764?
Raleigh, N. C. 27b11
(919) 733-3b10
2. Description of any strea~oas or wetlands a$'ected by the ~roject_ If applicable,
include the linear feet of stream that will be channelrzed or relocated.
3. Covex type maps showing wetland acreage i~opacted by the project. Wetland
acreage should include all project-related areas that may undex~gp
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for
project construction. Wetland ideutifrcaUon maybe accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers {COE). If the COE
is not corrsuhed, the person delineating wetlands should be xde~ti~aed and
criteria listed.
Q. Cover type maps showing acreage of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the
proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. Show the extent to which the project will resuh in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Include the Mrtigaxion plan for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for
direct and indirect degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative
losses_
7. Address the overall environmental effects of highway construction and
quantify the contribution of this individual project to environmental
d~radativn.
8. Provide a discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources, which will
result from secondary development, facilitated by the unproved road
access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal-
, or private development projects, a description of these projects should be
included in the envirobrnetrtal doarment, and all project sponsors should
be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for
this project. if we can fwilaer assist your ofEce, please corrtact me at [phone].
3-3

North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation
vlichael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Philip K. McKnelly, Director
April 23, 2001
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Stephen Hall 5
SUBJECT: Scoping -Widen and Improve Riverview Street, Franklin
REFERENCE: O1E-0600
e~~
NCDENR
Tl~e Natural Heritage Program database contains records for the following aquatic species from the reach
of the Little Tennessee River downstream from Lake Emory:
• Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana), state and federally listed as Endangered
• Spotfin chub (Cyprinella monacha), state and federally listed as Threatened
• Slippershell mussel (Alasmidonta viridis), state listed as Endangered
• Olive darter (Percina squamata), state listed as Special Concern and a federal Species of
Concern
• Spike (Elliptio dilitata), state listed as Special Concern
• Wavy-edged lampmussel (Lampsilis fasciola),
• Wounded darter (Etheostoma vulneratum), state listed as Special Concern
• Sicklefin redhorse (Moxostoma sp. 1), a federal Species of Concern
All of these species are likely to be adversely affected by siltation or concrete toxicity. Due to the
presence of two federally listed species, we strongly recommend that the US Fish and Wildlife Service
be consulted regarding possible impacts and potential mitigation. The NC Nongame and Endangered
Wildlife Program should similarly be consulted with regard to the state listed species.'
1615 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1615
Phone:[phone] \ FAX:[phone] \ Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR/
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY \ AFFIRMATIVE ACT10N EMPLOYER - ~0°,'o REC~c"GEED / 10°,'o POST CONSU\fER PAPER
A 7 ~

O~O~ W AT~RQG
~ '^ J r
VW`/~ -{
O '~
MEMORANDUM
April 24, 2001
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Through: John Dorney, NC Division of Water Qua
From: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator ~',t,'~t~
Subject: Scoping comments on the proposed improvements to NC 28 and SR 1323.
SR 1323 (Riverview St.) from SR 1659 (TIP Project U-2929 Depot St. Ext.)
in Franklin to NC 28, and NC 28, from SR 1323 (Riverview St.) to SR 1335
(Sanderstown Rd.), Macon County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-28(1), State
Project No. 8.1970801, T.I.P. Project R-2408.
This memo is in reference to your correspondence dated March 20, 2001 (received March 27,
2001), in which you requested scoping comments for the above project. The project will
cross Jacob Branch, Crawford Branch and potentially impact Lake Emory, located in the
Little Tennessee River Basin. These water bodies are classified as C waters. The NC
Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues
for the proposed project:
A. NCDWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is
to be a culvert, it should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic
organisms passage through the crossing. Please be aware that floodplain culverts are
required under Nationwide 14.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If
mitigation is required, it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized)
mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes
that this may not always be practical, it should be noted that for projects requiring
mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401
Water Quality Certification.
D. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location
with road closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance
with the NCDWQ requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit
No. 33 (Temporary Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, 3-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-7~ A3-5 ax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/

Page 2 of 2
E. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum
extent practicable.
F. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible,
alternatives that minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for
unavoidable impacts will be required by DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one
acre and/or to streams in excess of 1501inear feet.
G. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory
mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
H. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document.
Geotechnical work is approved under General 401 Certification Number
3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey Activities.
I. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)},
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1501inear feet to any single
perennial stream. In the event that mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan
should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. In accordance
with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)},the Wetland
Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
J. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
K. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the
proposed methods for storm water management. More specifically, storm water should
not be permitted to discharge directly into the creek. Instead, storm water should be
designed to dT-ain to a properly designed storm water detention facility/apparatus.
L. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful
office tool, their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite
wetland delineations prior to permit approval.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401
Water Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that
water quality standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any
questions or require additional information, please contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at (919)
733.5715.
Pc' Steve Lund, USACE Raleigh Field Office
Marella Buncick, USFWS
MaryEllen Haggard, NCWRC
File Copy
Central Files
A3-6

State of North Carolina ~~, L, ~~
Department of Environment end Natural Resources Reviewing office:
IIVTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW -PROJECT COMMENTS Projca Number: y ~ ~ v tY y ~ Due Date: [ ~•~ ~' -C l
After review of this project it has heart detemtined that the ENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this projext to
comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addrrsud to the Regional OH'icc indicated on the reverse of the form.
~ n ....,t:,..r;,,.,.:.,r .,.,Ah~., o.,a o>>iddin~s relative to these plans and permits arc available from the same Regional OH-ice.

Normal Process Time
(stattrtory time limit)

PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQ[JIREMEN7'S
O Permit to troastrud do opcraic w~astewata trcatrnml Application 90 days before begin construction a award of rnnsbtrdion 30 days
faalities, sewer system exttruions & sewer systcazs contracts, On-sift irupectioo. Post-application tec~ninl caafercace usual
not discharging into soft surface waters. (~ ~Ys)
O NPDES -parrot to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. Otrsite itupa'tion Prrapph'ntian 90-120 nays
permit to operate and coasin,d waacwata facilitica eonfcrcnce usual Additionally, obtain permit to carstrud wuttvntc
discharging into state surface waters trcatmcal facility-granted aflsr NPDES. Reply time, 30 days aftc roceipt of (N/A)
plarss or issue of NPDF.S permit-whict-em u later.
D Water Use Permit pre-application technical confercroce usually necessary 30 days
(N/A)
O Well Coattrurtion Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to die 7 days
installation ofa well. (15 days)
D Drcdgc and Fi11 Fafnir Application copy must be served oo each adjaecnt riparian property owner. SS days
Un-site inspectioo_ Prrapplintioo conferatce usual. Filling may r>rquire
£aserncru to Fi11 from N.C. Departmrnt of AdminisUation and Federal Dredge (90 days)
( and Fill Permit
O Permit to mnsUUd & operate .4u Pollution Abatement N/A
facilities and/or Emission Sources as pa I S A NCAC 60 days
(?R.O100, 2Q.0300, 2H.0600)
t
~
Any oprn burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with IS A NCAC 2D.1900
O Demolition or renovations of structures containing 60 days
asbestos mattrial must be in ccxnpliance with 15 A
NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which rcquira notification and
rtmoval prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control N/A
Group 919-733-0820. (90 days)
D Camplcx Source Permit rcquucd under 15 A NCAC
2D.0800 I
D The Scdimrntation Pollution Control Ad of 1973 must be property addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion ~ '
sedimrntation control plan will be required if one or morz aQU to be disturbed Plan filed with proper Regional O>~ce (land Quality 20 days
Sect) At least 30 days before beginning activity. A fee of 530 for the fuse oat and 52000 for each additional aQe or part must (30 days)
accompany the plan.
D The Sedimentation Pollution control Ad oC 1973 must be addrrsted with respect to the referenced Luca) Ordinance. (30 days)
O Mining Permit Or1-site inspection usual. Surety hood filed with ENR Bond amount varies
with type mint and number of oats of affected land Any are mined greater 30 days
than one acre must be permitted. 'she appropriate bond must be received (60 days)
before the pernut can be issued. =3 •;" .
D North Carolina Burning permit On-sits inspection by N.C. Division ForeA Reporter if permit exceeds 4 days 1 day
(N/A)
D Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 Orrsite inspMion by N.C. Division Forest Resources required "if store than 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils five aaa of ground clearing activities arc involved Inspections should be (N/A)
requested at Icasl tat days before actual bum is planned"
D Oil Rc(iitirtg Facilities N/A 90-120 days
(N/A)
O Dam Safety Permit if permit rcquvcd, application 60 days before begin construction Applicant
must hue N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plar-s, inspect construction,
certify conNUdion is according to ENR approved plans. May also rrquirc 30 days
permit under mosquito control program And a 404 permit from Corps of
Engineers. An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification A (60 days)
minimum fee of 5200.00 must accompany the application. An additional
processing fee based on a percentage or the total project cost will. be required
upon completion
A3-7

Continued on reverse ,
Normal Proccas Tine

(stahnory time limit)
PERMFTS SPECIAL APPUCATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
O Permit to drill exploratory oil rx gu we!! )•ile surety bond of 53,000 with ENR rumiag to Slate of NC conditional that 10 days
any well opcacd by drill operator shall, upon abandatunmt, be plugged (N/A)
according to ENR rules and regulatiorta
O Geophysical E~loration Permit Application 51ed with ENR at least 10 days prior to iuue of permit. 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (N/A)
O State Lakes Construction Pemmit Appliation fee based on structure silt is charged. Must mdtadc desQiptioas d: 15-20 days
drawings of svudure de proof of ownership of riparian property. (I'I/A)
O 401 Water Quality l.,ertif cation N/A 60 days
(130 days)
D CAMA Permit for MAJOR devclopmrnl 5250.00 fa muss accompany application SS days
(1 SO days)
D CAMA Permit for MINOR development SS0.00 fee must accompany applintion 22 days
(25 days)
D Several geodetic monumrnu arc located in or near the project area lfany marnrmenLt need to be moved a destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survry, Box 27687, Raleig}s, NC 27611
O Abandon®ent of any wells, if rcqu'ved muss he in acrnrdan« with Title 1 SA Subchapter X.0100.
D NotiScatioo ofthc props rtgional o6ce is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) arc discovered during any exnvation operation
O Compliance with 1 SA NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stortnwater Rules) it required 45 days
(N/A)
• Other eanrrsenu (aIiach additional pages u necessary, being certain to cite eorrvnenl authority)
REGIONAL OFFICES
QUtltlOR7 RLar~dln= tl~cse penrtitl shOUld be addrused t0 the Reyiorul Otlice marittd below.
D Asheville Regional OHia O Fayetuville Regional O1~ce
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone] 919) 486-1541
O Mooresville Regional Office \ Raleigh Regional Office
919 North Main Sveet, P.O. Box 950 3800 Bamtl Drive, Suite 101
Mooresville, NC 281 IS Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone] [phone]
D Washington Regional UHi« O Wilmington Regional O1T«
943 Washington Square Mall 127 Cardinal Drive Exteruion
Wazhington, NC 27889 Wilmington, NC 28405
919) 946-6481 [phone]
D Winston-Salem Regional Qffiee
S85 Waughtown St
Wirvs7on~alem, NC 27107
[phone]
A3-8

~T~~ ~ Q
~_- -~
J~ ~~~
•e.,, awn.~°~
i
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisheth C. Evans. Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
)tine 25, 2002
~IEivIORANDU~i
Nol•th Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preser~~ation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Division of Historical Resources
David !.Olson, Director
TO: A~'illiam D. Gilmore,l\lanager
Project Development and En u-onmental Anah•sis Branch
Department of Transportation, Division of Highwa~~s
FROM: David Brook ~AU~ ~~~~
St'BJEC~ C: Historical Architectural Survey Report, NC 28 and SR 1323 Improvements, TIP
No. R-2408,1\Iacon Count}•, ER 02-9378
"Thank ~-ou for ~•our letter of March 27, 2002, transmitting the sun-e~- report b~~ Mattson, Alexander
and .-~ssociatcs, Inc. concerning the above project. ~~1e regret that staff vacancies prevented us from
responding in a timelier manner.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Presel-~-ation Act, we concur
that the t~ollo~ti-ing properties are not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places:
i Dui all House and Restaurant Complex
Calloway Farm
Civilian Conse>-~-ation Corps Stone Drainage S~-stem
The abo~-e comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the ~dvisorv Council on Historic Presen-ation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106
codified at 3G CFR Part 800.
Thank ~~ou for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earle}•, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all
future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cr. 1\Iar~• Pope Furr, NCDOT
i\Iattson, Alexander and 1=lssociates
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone] •733-8653
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh , NC 4613 Mail Service Center. Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone] •715-4801
Surve}' S Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618 [phone] •715-4801
A 7 n

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Historical Resources
Liebeth C. Evans, Secretary David J. Olson, Director
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
July 11, 2003
MEMORAI~~DUM
TO: Matt Wilkerson, Archaeology Supervisor
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: David Brook ~ ~,/ ~y~~~ U'~' "~'°~
SUBJECT: Archaeological Survey for Proposed Improvements to Riverview Street
(SR 1323) and Bryson City Road (NC 28), R-2408, Macon County, ER02-9378
Thank you for your letter of March 13, 2003, transmitting the archaeological survey report by
Legary Associates for the above project. We apologize for the delay in our response.
The report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior. For
purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we
concur that the following properties are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places under Criterion D:
31MA588 and These archaeological sites consist of dense concentrations of cultural
31MA589 cultural remains and intact subsurface deposits dating to the Qualls
Phase (A.D. 1450-1838).
The following properties are determined not eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places:
31MA587, 31MA590, 31MA591, and 31MA 598
The report authors recommend avoidance of 31MA588 and 31MA 589. If these sites cannot
be avoided additional archaeological work is recommended. We concur with these
recommendations.
www.hno.dcr.state.nc.us
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADb11NISTRATION 507 N. Dlount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] •733-8653
RES'1'ORA"PION 515 N. Dlount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Comer, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] • 715-4801
SURVF.l' & PLANNING 515 N. Dlount St., Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4618 [phone] .715-4801
.-+ •n
i

July 11, 2003
Page 2
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
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above-
referenced tracking number.
cc: Deborah Joy, Legacy Associates, Inc.
A3-11

a•~[o
y. ~,
~..
~ o...s~
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David L. S. Brook, Director
.,
March 9, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: Matt Wilkerson, Archaeology Supervisor
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch ;
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: David Brook ;~ ~~ 1 ~~
SUBJECT: Improvements to NC 28 and SR 1323, R-2408, Macon County; ER02-9378
Thank you for forwarding design plans for the three alternates for the above project.
We have previously concurred with the recommendation for National Register eligibility
under Criterion D for archaeological sites 31MA588 and 31MA589.
Alternates 1 and 2 would have an adverse effect on 31MA588 and 31MA589. It is our
understanding that Alternate 3 will confine ground disturbance to previously disturbed areas,
that retaining walls at 31MA588 and 31MA589 ~~ill be placed along the existing cuts, and that
non-destructive techniques will be used for placing fill on the east side of 31MA588.
Therefore, Alternate 3, as proposed, would have no adverse effect on 31MA588 and
31 MA589.
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
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above-
referenced tracking number.
whtir•. h po. d c r s to te. n G u s
Location Mailing Address Telephooe/Fax
ADMIIVISTRATION 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 [phone] •733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617 [phone] •715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Ralcigh, NC 27699-4617 [phone] •715-4801
AZ_1~

APPENDIX 4
Relocation Assistance Program

The Division of Highways offers a Relocation Assistance Program to help minimize
the effects of displacement on families. The occupants of the affected residences may
qualify for aid under one or more of the NCDOT relocation programs. It is the policy of the
NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing will be available prior to
construction of state and fedezally assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board
of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the inconvenience of
relocation:
*Relocation Assistance,
*Relocation Moving Payments, and
*Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and prices of homes,
apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing or other housing programs. The
Relocation Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for payment of actual moving
expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to
purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in
cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and qualify and up to
$5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation progamm for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance
with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act
of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-
S through 133-18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in
relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one relocation
officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation assistance advisory
services without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will
schedule its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations and possession
of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The displacees are
given at least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of
displaced persons will be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public
utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will be
within the financial means of the families and individuals displaced and will be reasonably
accessible to their places of employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of
displaced businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and
moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an
explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement housing, (2)
rental of replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-
occupanthousing to another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply
A4-1

information concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance to displaced '
persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in order to minimize hardships to
displaced persons in adjusting to a new location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the displacee
for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit organizations,
and farm operations acquired for a highway project. Under the Replacement Program for
Owners, NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for
replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs
and, if applicable, make a payment for any increased interest expenses for replacement
dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement housing payments, increased
interest payments, and incidental purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined
total), except under the Last Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed $5,250, to
rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including incidental expenses, on
the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the state
determines is required when the rent supplement exceeds $5,250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's state or
federally-assisted construction projects unless and until comparable replacement housing has
been offered or provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to
displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purposes
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining eligibility or the
extent of eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social Security Act or any other
federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is not
available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the
replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the program
is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and
sanitary replacement housing can be provided.
A4-2

.w RATE u~
y° ~,,, a
,~ .,...
~~ aw wm~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
June 25, 2004
INETLAN[lS i 4(11 ~~('+E.I~
Mr. Brian Wrenn
NCDENR -Division of Water Quality JUN 2 9 2004
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 WATER QUALITY ~~(:T1U~
Dear Mr. Wrenn:
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for Franklin, SR 1323 (Riverview Street) and NC 28
(Bryson City Road) Improvements, From SR 1729 (Depot Street Extension) to SR 1378
(Bennett Road), Macon County, Federal Project Number STP-28(1), State Project
Number 8.1970801, T.I.P. Project Number R-2408
Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment and the Natural Resources Technical Report
for the subject proposed highway improvement. It is anticipated this project will be processed with a
"Finding of No Significant Impact"; however, should comments received on the Environmental
Assessment or at the public hearing demonstrate a need for preparing a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement you will be contacted as part of our scoping process.
Copies of this Assessment are being submitted to the State Clearinghouse, areawide planning
agencies, and the counties, towns, and cities involved.
Permit review agencies should note it is anticipated Federal Permits will be required as discussed
in the report.
Any comment you have concerning the Environmental Assessment should be forwarded to:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Your comments should be received by August 20, 2004. If you desire a copy of the "Finding of
No Significant Impact," please so indicate.
Sincerely,
GJT/plr
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC