The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSR 1660 and SR 1662 (3)CONCURRENCE MEETING INFORMATION PACKET FOR YOUR REVIEW PRIOR TO MEETING ON Thursday, November 15, 2007 PROJECT ENGINEER Undrea Major R-4748 Please. bring this packet to the meeting. ~~~~~~ v c ~'~ ~ ~: 1NETLAN.,'~ ;:,~~ w; ro: :.RANCH AGENDA Eastern Concurrence Meeting Thursday, November 15, 2007 Board Room, Transportation Building Raleigh, North Carolina 10:30 AM to 12:00 Noon, Undrea Major, Project Planning Engineer, PDEA Branch TIP No. R-4748, New Route from SR 1660 to SR 1662 South of US 441 near Franklin Macon County, Division 14 NOTE: This is a western project meeting being held on an eastern day. Team Members• David Baker, USACE Undrea Major, PDEA Donnie Brew, FHWA Chris Militscher, USEPA Marla Chambers, WRC Marella Buncick, USFWS Brian Wrenn, DWQ Renee, Gledhill-Earley, SHPO Jon Loney, TVA Ryan Sherby, Southwestern RPO (non-signatory) NCDOT Technical Support Staff and Other Agency Staff: Kathy Matthews, USEPA Jake Riggsbee, FHWA Jamie Wilson, Division 14 Mark Davis, Division 14 David Chang, Hydraulics Doug Allison, Right of Way Jay Bennett, Roadway Design Charles Brown, Location and Surveys Tom Norman, Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Don Lee, Roadside Environmental Pat Simmons, Rail Division Njoroge Wainaina, Geotechnical Jim Dunlop, Congestion Management Carla Dagnino, NEU Teresa Hart, PDEA James Bridges, PDEA * The purpose of this meeting is to reach concurrence on CP 3. SELECTION OF THE LEAST ENVIRONMENTALLY DAMAGING PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE (LEDPA) TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS IN THE VICINITY OF SR 1 660 ~SILER ROAD) AND SR 1 662 ~WILEY BROWN ROAD) SOUTH OF US 64/23/441 MACON COUNTY STATE PROJECT NO. 401 1 8.1 .1 NCDOT T.I.P. PROJECT No. R-4748 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION '~x,w NOVEMBER 6, 2007 PREPARED BY MULKEY ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS 6750 TRYON ROAD CARY~ NORTH CAR^LINA 2751 1 TABLE DF CONTENTS 1.0 Meeting Purpose ......................................................................................................1 2.0 Project Description ..................................................................................................1 3.0 Purpose of the Proposed Action ..............................................................................1 4.0 Alternatives ..............................................................................................................1 4.1 No-Build Alternative ........................................................................................................ 2 4.2 Build Alternatives .............................................................................................................. 2 4.2.1 Alternative A ........................................................................................................ 2 4.2.2 Alternative B ........................................................................................................ 3 4.2.3 Alternative C ........................................................................................................ 3 4.2.4 Alternative D ........................................................................................................ 4 5.0 Alternatives Analysis ................................................................................................ 4 6.0 Public Involvement ..................................................................................................7 6.1 Public Hearing ...................................................................................................................7 Appendix A -Figures ..................................................................................................... 9 Figure 1. Project Vicinity Figure 2. Environmental Features Map with Alternatives A, B, and C Figure 3. Environmental Features Map with Alternative D Figure 4. Typical Sections LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Comparison of Preliminary Alternatives -Major Stream Crossings ........................... 4 Table 2. Comparison of Impacts for Build Alternatives ............................................................... 5 Table 3. Estimated Costs by Alternative .........................................................................................7 Table 4. Summary of Written Comments from Public Hearing .................................................. 8 ii LEAST ENVIRONMENTALLY DAMAGING PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE (LEDPA) SELECTION MERGER CONCURRENCE POINT 3 1.O MEETING PURPOSE The purpose of today's meeting is to present information to aid in the selection of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA). 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2007- 2093 State Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as Project Number R-4748. An Environmental Assessment (EA) was completed in August 2007 in accordance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended. The schedule for this project includes right-of- way acquisition beginning in 2009 and construction in 2010. The proposed project is located in Macon County, North Carolina just south of the Town of Franklin and US 64/23/441 (see Figure 1 in Appendix A). The project provides transportation improvements in the vicinity of SR 1660 (Siler Road) and SR 1662 (Wiley Brown Road). The proposed project as shown in the NCDOT TIP includes a new location roadway connecting Siler Road and Wiley Brown Road, and a new crossing of the Little Tennessee River. Three alternatives that include a river crossing and a fourth alternative that does not include a river crossing are under consideration. 3.0 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The purpose of the project is to create access to sites slated fox development in the vicinity of Siler Road and Wiley Brown Road and improve traffic flow in the project area. The purpose and need for the proposed action were approved by the NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team at their December 8, 2005 meeting. 4.0 ALTERNATIVES A range of alternatives were studied to address the project purpose and need and to minimize adverse impacts to the human and natural environment. The No-Build alternative and four build alternatives, Alternatives A, B, C, and D were approved by the NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team at their February 13, 2007 Merger Meeting for detailed study (Concurrence Point 2). The Merger Team also concurred on hydraulic structures and lengths (Concurrence Point 2a) at the February 2007 meeting. The four build alternatives are presented in Figures 2 and 3 (Appendix A). 4.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No-Build alternative assumes that there would be no transportation improvements in the study area to connect Wiley Brown Road to Siler Road, or to connect Siler Road to US 23/441. The No-Build alternative provides for maintenance of the existing transportation routes, which may include roadway patching and resurfacing, and shoulder and ditch maintenance. This alternative assumes that future travel demand would be placed on existing roads. The No-Build Alternative does not meet Purpose and Need and has been removed from further consideration. 4.2 BUILD ALTERNATIVES There are four Build alternatives for the project. Alternatives A, B, and C cross the Little Tennessee River, linking Siler Road and Wiley Brown Road. Alternative D provides secondary access to Siler Road from US 23/441 as well as improvements on the east side of the Little Tennessee River, but does not cross the river (see Figures 2 and 3 in Appendix A). Proposed intersection improvements for all alternatives realign the section of Dowdle Mountain Road east of SR 1701 to south of the gas station, increasing the distance of the intersection from US 64/23/441. A roundabout option is provided for all alternatives where they tie into existing roadways east of the Little Tennessee River. Proposed improvements for all alternatives remove the existing signal at the intersection of US 64/23/441, SR 1701 and SR 1702 (Oak Forest Lane). A "Superstreet" intersection design consisting of directional crossovers and a median U-turn DIRECTIONAL CROSSOVER WITH MEDIAN U-TURN is proposed. All movements (thru, left and right turns) are permitted on US 64/23/441. Traffic on SR 1701 and SR 1702 is restricted to right turns onto US 64/23/441. Through and left turn movements from SR 1701 are directed to a median U-turn crossover approximately 1,200 feet east on US 64/23/441. Through and left turn movements from SR 1702 would exit US 64/23/441 westbound at the US 23/441 interchange and re-enter eastbound onto US 64/23/441. All alternatives include lengthening the left and right turn lanes for SR 1701 on US 64/23/441 to provide additional storage. 4.2.1 ALTERNATIVE A Alternative A travels adjacent to US 64/23/441, functioning similar to a service road (see Figure 2 in Appendix A). It is approximately 1.09 miles long. Alternative A realigns the northern end of Siler Road (approximately 0.39 mile from US 23/441), and continues east on new location connecting to Dowdle Mountain Road. A signal is warranted at the intersection of Alternative A 2 and Dowdle Mountain Road within the design year of the project but will not be installed until traffic demands increase. Tyt~ical Section and Design Criteria -The proposed roadway will consist of two 12-foot travel lanes with eight-foot shoulders including four-foot paved (see Figure 4 in Appendix A). A 360- foot long bridge crossing the Little Tennessee River will provide two 12-foot travel lanes with four-foot shoulders on each side. The design speed is 40 mph. Additional design criteria include a maximum grade of 13 percent and side slopes of 6:1 minimum and 2:1 maximum for all cut and fill heights. Roundabout Option -This option will provide a 120-foot inscribed circle with four legs at the intersection of Alternative A and Dowdle Mountain Road. This would replace the signalized intersection. 4.2.2 ALTERNATIVE B Alternative B is approximately 580 feet south of US 64/23/441 and is 0.96 mile long (see Figure 2 in Appendix A). Alternative B realigns the northern end of Siler Road (approximately 0.48 mile from US 23/441), and continues east on new location connecting to US 64/23/441. Dowdle Mountain Road is realigned to forma "T" intersection with Alternative B. Typical Section and Design Criteria -The proposed road consists of two 12-foot travel lanes with eight-foot shoulders including four-foot paved (see Figure 4 in Appendix A). A 345-foot long bridge crossing the Little Tennessee River will provide two 12-foot travel lanes with four- foot shoulders on each side. The design speed is 40 mph. Additional design criteria include a maximum grade of 13 percent and side slopes of 6:1 minimum and 2:1 maximum for all cut and fill heights. Roundabout Option -This option will provide a 120-foot inscribed circle with three-legs at the intersection of Alternative B and Dowdle Mountain Road. 4.2.3 ALTERNATIVE C Alternative C realigns Siler Road (approximately 0.63 mile from US 23/441), and continues east on new location connecting to US 64/23/441 (see Figure 2 in Appendix A). Dowdle Mountain Road is realigned to forma "T" intersection with Alternative C. About 460-feet of the greenway adjacent to the Little Tennessee River will be relocated under the bridge. This alternative is approximately 0.91 mile long. Typical Section and Design Criteria -The proposed roadway will consist of two 12-foot travel lanes with eight-foot shoulders including four-foot paved (see Figure 4 in Appendix A). A 380- foot long proposed bridge crossing the Little Tennessee River will provide two 12-foot travel lanes with afoot-foot shoulder on each side. The design speed is 40 mph. Additional design criteria include a maximum grade of 13 percent and side slopes of 6:1 minimum and 2:1 maximum for all cut and fill heights. Roundabout Option -This option will provide a 120-foot inscribed circle with three-legs at the intersection of Alternative C and Dowdle Mountain Road. 4.2.4 ALTERNATIVE D Alternative D is on new location beginning at the intersection of Allman Drive and US 23/441, extending Siler Road approximately 0.29 mile toward the Little Tennessee River (see Figure 3 in Appendix A). Alternative D continues on the east (approximately 0.13 mile from the Little Tennessee River) connecting to US 64/23/441. Both Allman Drive and Dowdle Mountain Road are realigned to form "T" intersections with Alternative D. Alternative D includes improvements to US 23/441. The median on US 23/441 at Siler Road will be closed and the signal at the intersection will be removed. A new signal will be located to the south at the intersection of US 23/441 and Allman Drive. Alternative D is approximately 1.26 miles long. Typical Section and Design Criteria -The proposed roadway will consist of two 12-foot travel lanes with eight-foot shoulders including four-foot paved (see Figure 4 in Appendix A). The design speed is 40 mph. Additional design criteria include a maximum grade of 13 percent and side slopes of 6:1 minimum and 2:1 maximum for all cut and fill heights. Roundabout Option -This option will provide a 120-foot inscribed circle with three-legs at the intersection of Alternative D and Dowdle Mountain Road. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS A comparison of the alternatives is shown in Tables 1 through 3 and discussed below. The roundabout options for the alternatives have similar impacts to the intersection option for these alternatives; however, the roundabout option results in slight decreases in the right-of--way requirements and construction costs for each of these alternatives. Table 1. Comparison of Preliminary Alternatives -Major Stream Crossings Alternatives Major Stream Crossing A B C D Stream Little Tennessee River None Stream Classification Class C Class C Class C None Perennial Perennial Perennial Channel Dimensions Width (feet) 109 103 113 Average Water Depth (feet) 4 4 4 None De th from To of Bank feet 13 9.4 11.9 Pro osed Structure Bride Bride Bride None Dimensions of Proposed Structure Length (feet) 360 345 380 Width (feet) 32 32 32 None Hei ht feet 21 49 55 Ri arian Buffer Im acts acres 0 0 0 0 100-Year Flood lain Im acts acres 0.5 1.0 1.0 0 Cost of Structure $1,094,400 $993,600 $1,094,400 None Distance from existing US 64 Bridge feet, from centerlines 110 580 925 0 Table 2. Comparison of Impacts for Build Alternatives Impacts Alternatives A B C D Project Length (miles) 1.09 0.96 0.91 1.26 Interchanges 0 0 0 0 Railroad Crossings 0 0 0 0 Schools 0 0 0 0 Recreational Areas/Parks 0 0 0 0 Churches 0 0 0 0 Cemeteries 0 0 0 0 Major Utility Crossings 4 5 8 13 Historic Properties 0 0 0 0 Archaeological Sites* 0 0 0 0 Federal Listed Threatened or Endangered Species Present Within Corridor+ No; May Affect Critical Habitat No; May Affect Critical Habitat No; May Affect Critical Habitat No State Listed Threatened or Endangered Species 0 0 0 0 Forest Impacts (acres) 8.17 10.47 1.08 6.58 Important Farmlands# (acres) 2.51 5.27 9.41 10.77 Residential Displacements 0 0 4 6 Business Displacements 0 0 0 1 Hazardous Material Sites 0 0 0 0 Weiland Impacts (number/acre) 1 /0.024 0/0 0/0 0/0 Stream Impacts (number/linear feet) 1/580.5 0/0 0/0 1/311 Riparian Buffer Impacts 0 0 0 0 Water Supply Watersheds 0 0 0 0 Wildlife Refuges and Gamelands 0 0 0 0 On-site Restoration Potential Yes Yes Yes Yes Impacted Noise Receptor' 1 1 1 1 Section 4(~ Impacts 0 0 0 0 Federal Lands 0 0 0 0 Low Income/Minority Population Impacts No No No No Significant Natural Heritage Program Areas 1 1 1 0 Right-of--Way Area (acres): Intersection Option Roundabout Option 11.4 10.9 26.7 26.4 22.9 22.7 26.1 25.8 Existing and Proposed Greenway Crossings 1 1 1 0 Table Notes: *Preliininary. Additional studies to be conducted. +Virginia spiraea and small whorled pogonia not present; Little Tennessee River is listed as Critical Habitat for spotfin chub. # Includes Prime/Unique Farmlands and Farmlands of Statewide or Local Importance. ' Calculated using Alternative A as worst-case scenario. Terrestrial and aquatic impacts include impacts for mechanized clearing ten feet beyond slope stakes. Preliminary background research of state files showed no known historic sites and one archaeological site within the project study area. Archaeological studies will be conducted prior to construction. Alternatives A and D have 580.5 linear feet and 311.0 linear feet of stream impacts, respectively. Alternative B and C do not have stream impacts. Alternative A has 0.024 acre of wetland impacts. Alternatives B, C and D do not impact wetlands. Two water bodies within the project study area, the Cullasaja River and Cartoogechaye Creek, are designated trout waters (Tr). No high quality waters (HQW), outstanding resource waters (ORW), water supply (WS I-V), or 303(d) listed waters occur within the study area. There are no North Carolina Division of Water Quality buffer rules currently present in the Little Tennessee River Basin; however, the North Carolina Division of Land Resources does require a 25-foot vegetated buffer between Trout waters and graded construction sites. Scoping letter response comments received from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission indicate that there is a construction moratorium from May 1 to July 15 for the protection of smallmouth bass spawning. The proposed project is located in the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Land Management District. A permit pursuant to Section 26a of the TVA Act is required for all construction or development involving streams or floodplains in the Tennessee River drainage basin. A total of eight threatened or endangered species were identified by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as potentially occurring in Macon County as of the May 10, 2007 list. Natural Heritage Program maps (updated in March 2007) were reviewed on May 10, 2006 and May 14, 2007 to determine if any species receiving federal protection have been identified near the project area. This map review confirmed that two federally protected species, spotfin chub and Virginia spiraea, are known to occur within cone-mile radius of the study area. Suitable habitat is present in the study area fox Virginia spiraea as well as small-whorled pogonia. Abloom time survey of all appropriate habitat was conducted on June 6, 2006. No occurrence of either species was found during the survey; however, following NCDOT policy a re-survey for Virginia spiraea will need to be conducted on a biennial basis prior to permit issuance. Additionally, the Little Tennessee River is identified within the project study area as critical habitat for the spotfin chub. A biological conclusion of "May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect" has been issued for the spotfin chub. A biological conclusion of "No Effect" has been issued for the remaining species listed as federally protected. Impacts to the Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest community vary by alternative. Alternative B has the greatest impacts at 10.47 acres and Alternative C has the least impacts at 1.08 acres. Impacts to important farmland soils and residential displacements were calculated. Alternative A impacts approximately 2.51 acres of important farmland soils and has no displacements. Alternative B impacts 5.27 acres of important farmland soils and has no displacements. Alternative C impacts 9.41 acres of important farmland soils and has four residential and no business displacements. Alternative D has 10.77 acres of important farmland soils impacts and six residential and one business displacement. Alternative B traverses steep terrain with significant elevation changes. This alternative will require substantial earthwork. Right-of--way and construction cost estimates are shown in Table 3. The estimates range from a total of $7,423,000 to $10,685,000. Alternative A -Roundabout Option is the least expensive alternative and Alternative D -Roundabout Option is the most expensive alternative. Alternatives A, B and C cross the existing greenway adjacent to the Little Tennessee River. Alternative C will relocate a portion of the greenway closer to the river. Table 3. Estimated Costs by Alternative Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Intersection Roundabout Intersection Roundabout Intersection $oundabout Intersection Roundabout Construction $6,800,000 $6,500,000 $8,100,000 $7,900,000 $7,400,000 $7,400,000 $8,200,000 $8,300,000 Right-of--Way $923,000 $923,000 $1,730,000 $1,730,000 $1,656,500 $1,656,500 $2,385,000 $2,385,000 Total Cost $7,723,000 $7,423,000 $9,830,000 $9,630,000 $9,056,500 $9,056,500 $10,585,000 $10,685,000 6.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 6.1 PUBLIC HEARING A Public Hearing was held for the proposed project on September 18, 2007 at the Southwestern Community College Macon Campus on Siler Road in Franklin. The purpose of the hearing was to update the public on the project progress and present the alternatives studied in the EA. A number of verbal and written comments were received during and after the meeting. Seventy-nine citizens registered at the hearing. Verbal comments at the meeting included some opposition to the purpose and need for the project based on the belief the project would only benefit a few property owners. A few citizens verbally expressed support for Alternatives A and D. Several citizens raised a concern at the hearing that the proposed project would result in reduced access to businesses and other properties affected by the project. A number of citizens expressed opposition to the intersection modifications at US 64/23/441 and Dowdle Mountain Road. In particular, concerns regarding the removal of the traffic signal at Dowdle Mountain Road and US 64/23/441 and the U-turn on US 64/23/441 were cited. Several people indicated that Siler Road should be widened and upgraded as part of the project. Thirty written comments have been received to date. A summary of the comments is presented in Table 4. Eleven people did not think the project should be built. One person expressed support for the project but did not specify a preference in alternatives. First-choice build alternative preferences were nearly evenly divided among the written comments. A number of people also provided second-best alternative preferences. When first and second preferences are combined, the No-Build alternative was preferred by twelve people, Alternative A was preferred by six people, Alternative B was preferred by five people, three people preferred Alternative C, and Alternative D was preferred by four people. Three respondents supported Alternative D only if a bridge over the river is provided as part of the alternative. Table 4. Summary of Written Comments from Public Hearing Alternative or Design Consideration Responses* Alternative A 3 6 Alternative A as Second Choice 3 Alternative B 2 5 Alternative B as Second Choice 3 Alternative C 3 3 Alternative C as Second Choice 0 Alternative D 3 4 Alternative D as Second Choice 1 Alternative D with a bridge over river (1ST or 2nd choice) 3 Opposition to Superstreet Intersection Design (signal removal and/or U-turn) 14 Opposition to Project Overall 11 12 No Build as Second Choice 1 * Responses as of October 15, 2007 Most people who opposed all of the proposed build alternatives suggested other improvements in the area, including widening Siler Road, improving the Siler Road and US 64/23/441 intersection, improving the Dowdle Mountain Road and US 64/23/441 intersection, and revising signal timing. Fourteen people expressed opposition to the Superstreet intersection at US 64/23/441 and Dowdle Mountain Road because of concerns regarding the removal of the traffic signal and/or the U-turn on US 64/23/441. Note: A summary of comments from the State Clearinghouse on the Environmental Assessment and any additional comments received in response to the public hearing will be provided at the Concurrence Point 3 meeting. 8 APPENDIX A - FIGURES f~ ~ • North Carolina _~,' Department of Transportation _- r ~~ r ~ (t ~ C~+! x ~~.~~ ~ i ~, ~ .,~~ •--! ~_ y~ / - ~ _. r , '~ ~ - ~^~ r ~ , '* _ 1 ` ~ J A C` K r ~ ~. _ 11 MdTiUHAt ~ _ f ~ -~'~ ~ -{ .~~s~ E, ~ .a Y#~ M A . i D' N '~ , ~ ~ ~ ' 4 GkRtltl4A40 ~~~ ~ Figure 1 Project Vicinity New Route From SR 1660 (Siler Road) to SR 1662 (Wiley Brown Road) South of US 64/23/441 NCDOT TIP Project No. R-4748 ,~ ~'` B A M ~` a'- r ,,,~~ -i rank~i ~c. 0 ~' ~' ~ ~J _' - ~~ .~9; «~ t ~~` ~ ~ :.;~ ,' '' ~ d ,~ ~~~ ~ Y T '~ Shopping Center=, WithAngel Urgent- " ~~~t.-.~ `Care Center ~~~ Y' ~ • , ~ ~ l.~ ~~~~ , 8 ft.* 12 ft. 12 ft. 8 ft. 12 ft. 4 ft. ~ 4 FDPS ~ / FD I 'I` 0.0s _ 0.02 0.02 _ 2.1 Mnx. GRADE POINT ~ ~~~~~~ TYPICAL 1 APPROACH SECTION (PROPOSED) * 11 ft. WHEN GUARDRAIL IS WARRANTED E ~ ra ,~ sa I ,~ 6 ~ !+ I n _ 0.02 0.02 _ GRADE POINT ~ ~ TYPICAL BRIDGE SECTION (PROPOSED) Typical Sections R-4748 Proposed Transportation Improvements in the Area of SR 1660 and SR 1662 South of US 64/23/441 Macon County, North Carolina 6:~ Va :1 Prepared For: (','~~~. North Carolina Department ofTransportation t N „r~~, Figure 4