SR 1660 and SR 1662 (9)

Re: Siler Rd. project
Subject: Re: Siler Rd. project
From: "Jenny Sanders" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 14:22:39 -0500
To: "Brian Wrenn" <[e-mail]>
Brian,
Thank you very much. The stormwater runoff was not something that Macon County had
addressed as of yet, I don't think. I know that your comments will be really
helpful. The county planner and manager are hopeful that they can bring these
concerns to the table in a conference call with the Town of Franklin and the DOT on
the 15th to work toward a compromise. I also expect that the County Commissioners
will endorse the comments that you and the various other agencies submitted. So
again, thank you for your time and quick response!
Jenny Sanders
Executive Director
Little Tennessee Watershed Association
16 Stewart St.
Franklin, NC 28734
828 369 6402
www.ltwa.ora
----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Wrenn" <[e-mail]>
- _ ._ ..
-
To: "Jenny Sanders <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 5:36 PM
Subject: Siler Rd. project
Jenny,
attached is an unsigned, electronic version of DWQ's comments. They don't address
all of our environmental concerns with the project. They mainly focus on the
document itself. However, our main concerns are an additional bridge over a
critical habitat within 0.25 mi. of an existing bridge and the projected secondary
impacts associated with the increased development. specifically, stormwater flows
will skyrocket as a result of the increased impervious surface. although we have
regulations that address stormwater runoff, these are implemented on a project by
project basis. The cumulative impacts on a sensitive receptor like the Little
Tennessee will be adverse and long-term. that is the main reason for comment 3.
in the attached document. If you need additional information, please let me know,
919-733-5715.
Brian
1 of 1 12/12/2007 10:32 AM
TABLES FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Table 19. Federally-Protected Species for Macon County.
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Suitable
Habitat Biological
Conclusion
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii Threatened (S/A)1 Yes N/A
Indiana bat (S)- Myotis sodalis Endangered No No Effect

Spotfin chub
Erimonax monachus
Threatened
Yes May Affect, Likely
to Adversely Affect
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered No No Effect
Little-wing pearlymussel Pegias fabula Endangered No No Effect
Small-whorled pogonia lsotria medeoloides Threatened Yes No Effect
Virginia spiraea Spiraea viginiana Threatened Yes No Effect
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered No No Effect
Threatened due to similarity of appearance.
'- Summer habitat
Table 23. 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
Depth from To of Bank feet 13 9.4 11.9
Proposed Structure Bride Bride Bride None
Dimensions of Proposed Structure
Length (feet) 360 345 380

Width (feet)
32
32
32 None
Height feet 21 49 55
Riparian Buffer Impacts acres 0 0 0 0
100-Year Flood lain Impacts acres 0.5 1.0 1.0 0
Cost of Structure $1,382,400 $1,324,800 $1,641,600 None
Distance from existing US 64 Bridge

feet, from centerlines 110 580 925 0
Table 24. Comparison of Impacts for Build Alternatives
Impacts Alternatives
A B C D
Project Length (miles) 1.09 0.96 0.91 1.26
Major Utility Crossings 4 5 8 13
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 Habitat for Multiple
Species Habitat for Multiple
Species Habitat for Multiple
Species Habitat for Multiple
Species
Forest Impacts (acres) 8.17 10.47 1.08 6.58
100-Year Flood lain Impacts acres 0.5 1.0 1.0 0
Residential Displacements 0 0 7 10
Business Displacements 0 0 0 1
Wetland 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
On-site Restoration Potential Yes Yes Yes Yes
Impacted Noise Receptor! 1 1 1 1
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
Interchanges 0 0 0 0
Railroad Crossings 0 0 0 0
Schools 0 0 0 0
Impacts Alternatives
A B C D
Recreational Areas/Parks 0 0 0 0
Churches 0 0 0 0
Cemeteries 0 0 0 0
Historic Properties 0 0 0 0
Archaeological Sites* 0 0 0 0
Important Farmlands# (acres) 0 0 0 0
Hazardous Material Sites 0 0 0 0
Riparian Buffer Impacts 0 0 0 0
Water Supply Watersheds 0 0 0 0
Wildlife Refuges and Gamelands 0 0 0 0
Section 4(f) Impacts 0 0 0 0
Federal Lands 0 0 0 0
TABLES FROM THE CONCURRENCE POINT 3 DOCUMENT
Table 3. Estimated Costs by Alternative
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
Intersection Roundabout Intersection Roundabout Intersection Roundabout Intersection Roundabout
Construction $8,200,000 $8,000,000 $10,900,000 $11,000,000 $9,600,000 $9,700,000 $10,000,000 $10,200,000
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 $9,123,000 $8,923,000 $12,630,000 $12,730,000 $11,256,500 $11,356,500 $12,385,000 $12,585,000

Table 4. Summary of Written Comments from Public Hearing
Alternative or Design Consideration Responses*
Alternative A 7
Alternative B 2
Alternative C 3
Alternative D 4
TOTAL 1 6
Opposition to Superstreet Intersection Design (signal
removal and/or U-turn) 23
Opposition to Project Overall 17
* Responses as of November 8, 2007
MaconNews.com - Motivations for extending Siler Road unclear Pagel of 3
Motivations for extending Siler Road unclear.
Thursday, 08 November 2007
By Jessica Richardson
Staff Writer
It's not 100% clear how the Siler Road extension became a priority for the county. Improving access to the recently opened new
Macon County Library and Southwestern Communty College have been among the top priorities. Some, like Macon County
commisisoner chairman Charles Leatherman, have said that the alternatives proposed by DOT are not the most logical in order to
serve the college.
Vanderwoude's inflence questioned
Public comments during the community forum questioned whether local property owner James Vanderwoude's interests to
develop could have played a strong role in the project's design.
Although those reached at the Department of Transportation (DOT) Friday said that SCC was among the leading reasons for the
proposed Siler Road extension, minutes from prior meetings indicate that Vanderwoude's interests to develop were clearly among
the priorities, which have since been down-played.
In most recent DOT documents, such as the Administrative Action State Environmental Assessment, the need for the road is
described as the need for economic development. "The proposed project is important to improve access to land available for
development and to improve transportation service in the project area... several tracts of land are currently being developed or
are slated for future development in this area." Relieving increased traffic to the area is also sighted as a reason for the proposed
road.
In a DOT "scoping meeting" Nov. 15, 2005, Vanderwoude's desire to have access to property he owns in the area was mentioned
during several points in the discussion, although it was concluded at the end of the meeting that the focus, when presented to the
public, should be on the need for the road for Southwestern Community College's new campus. The meeting was among several
representatives from NCDOT, including those from state offices and the local division, who met with engineers with Mulkey
Engineers & Consultants.
Mention is made of the Vanderwoude's input several times. Jamie Wilson, of NCDOT division 14, refers to Vanderwoude's
property. "Mr. Wilson also brought to the group's attention the fact that Mr. James Vanderwoude, the developer for the Mayberry
project that is proposed west of the Little Tennessee River, wants access for a road under the existing double bridges that carry
US 64/23/441 over the river."
Ray Moore, with NCDOT structures, made a second mention of the bridge and "commented that there would not be enough room
for the road that the Mayberry developer wants under the US 64/23/441 bridges. He said that at the maximum it could be two
nine-foot lanes, and that the greenway and river banks would be impacted."
At the end of the meeting discussions, the engineering consultant and DOT indicate a push to focus more on SCC as a priority
and to downplay interests of local developers.
Liz Kovasckitz, with the Mulkey Engineers & Consultants firm, asked how well the upcoming February meeting would be attended
and someone estimates about 75 or 100 would likely attend. Then, the minutes read, "It was noted that there is public opposition
to the Mayberry development, but that the public is supportive of the community college and increased access to it."
Among the notes, a majority of the comments are linked specifically to a speaker, however, in aforementioned statement, no one
is linked to the comment that there is public opposition to Mayberry.
In response, Undrea Major notes that the project is on a tight schedule. "He said that if anything will change on the project
besides what is already scoped, that it needs to be organized quickly. He indicated that as much information as possible is
needed to make a strong presentation to the Merger team. Mr. Major said that topics to add to the Purpose and Need document
outside of economic development would go over well with the resource agencies."
At the discussion point, those with DOT made it indicated that they would focus on needs other than economic development to
sell the proposed Siler Road extension to resource agencies such as the Division of Water Quality and later to the local public.
Indeed, during the public hearing held in September, many noted they opposed Mayberry as one of the primary targets for the
road extension.
http://www.maconnews.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1657&pop... 11/9/2007
MaconNews.com - Motivations for extending Siler Road unclear Page 2 of 3
According to Major, several members of the public at the September public hearing "talked about a specific developer and people
had strong opinions about the project in relation to him," said Major. He confirmed that James Vanderwoude was the one people
were referring to.
How Vanderwoude sees it
"We approached DOT about five years ago," said Vanderwoude. "Originally, we requested an interchange."
DOT said there would be better access from Siler Road and promoted the extension of the road.
Vanderwoude said that although he would benefit from road access, becuase it will make developing the area for commercial and
some residential, there are some downsides as well.
"My property taxes have already trippled from what we originally bought it for," said Vanderwoude. If we get good access, the
property value will go up again and we will pay that much more taxes."
Vanderwoude said he didn't think it was DOT's policy to ask property owners who would benefit from the road to help pay for it.
Vanderwoude said he would "work around" any of the proposals. He said the most logical would be alternative A or alternative C.
"I don't have a strong opinion, any would be workable," said Vanderwoude.
He said the road was not just for him. "Even if we don't build Mayberry, which we do plan on doing, but if we didn't, if you had an
accident of somesort on Siler Road, you wouldn't be able to get an ambulance or a firetruck to the college," said Vanderwoude.
He said creating two points of access "was only logical."
Vanderwoude has had plans for sometime to build Mayberry as a tourist attraction that would have the feel of an older town to it,
based on Mayberry of the Andy Griffith Show. Use of the area would include some residential, primarily for short term stays and
perhaps some condominiums. Work has begun in the past few months to clear and do grading on the property. "We've been
waiting a long time already," said Vanderwoude. He said that there is an access road underneath the 441 bridge and parallel to
the Greenway pedestrian and bike path along the river.
In response to why more than 10 acres at a time has been cleared, he said that it is a more economically viable strategy and that
he owns about 90 acres in the area.
Vanderwoude stressed that relieving traffic problems on the Siler Road and Hwy 441 intersection was also a driving force to
extend the road and create a second access point.
DOT says SCC primary
"it has never been the case that the project was solely for him," said Major. "We are looking more toward development that is
already there." Major said Southwestern Community College was "one of the driving forces" in the beginning of the project.
Major said that despite the fact that many have expressed concern that Vanderwoude's interests to develop was the driving force
behind the road, he said alternative A has been the most popular alternative among people locally. "Alternative A is right next to
the existing road and is where Vanderwoude's properties are."
Local concerns
The Macon County Board of Commissioners sent a letter in response to the Siler Road alternatives presented at the public
hearing in September, and indicated dissatisfaction with the alternatives at one of its last meetings. The letter claims that Macon
County supports alternative A because it keeps traffic out of the SCC campus and has the least environmental impact. The
Commissioners express concern that any roundabout proposed for the Dowdle Mountain Road should not have negative impacts
on existing businesses and that heavy truck traffic and school bus usage are top concerns. Finally, the letter makes a clear
statement that the removal of the light at the intersection of US 64/23/441 and SR 1701/1702 is "absolutely opposed." An
alternative to leave the light was suggested.
Interviews with citizens at the meeting indicated that several people were concerned about the proposed removal of the light.
According to Major, input from the public could sway the DOT's original plan to remove the light for thoroughfare traffic.
"The community input is very important on this project. It has had a very strong input in terms of direction," said Major. "With that
being said, there is a strong possibility the light will remain."
http://www.maconnews.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1657&pop... 11/9/2007
! i t \ COARLDORDESWN PVBUCi fZEARJM M4P
_ ¦ rM ?? ' o rurvwx s ..! 'G `?` rY , `` ???` ,H ? ? rROpET /ow fora)
IFGEND a t:° Z3 i
? ,y, y r ? r I a SIdCDN OOUARY
x /,,? \ wont us
. W...o, r ?T=-Q. r ?? r? oxiromra roe'??t 3 A` , 4 ?, Ul

e n x
1 _ ._ cua xl.

LEGEND
o w
¦
a. wz x?ax.?

(ENGUSM)

?( A

PIXCGOIW.DA5561G110N: WI0.LLouI cm0.
osier S4 :aMBE
IV%9J)EPHEAIIGI: on
J
uu?iabo
\
MaconNews.com - Motivations for extending Siler Road unclear Page 3 of 3
Macon County Planner Stacy Guffey concurs with commissioners, agreeing that alternative A is the most sensible of the
proposed options. "Of the options, option A makes the most sense," said Guffey. "It is the least detrimental on the greenway, the
river and the floodplain." The biggest concern, said Guffey, is the bridge.
Major said that no-build is still an option, but that it is not included in the alternatives because it doesn't meet the purpose and
need of the project.
Major said public input has been included in the decisions. The first community meeting was held February 15, 2006 at the Macon
County Community Building and was an informal drop-in question and answer session. Major said that there was a good turn out
at both of the meetings, but there were more people that attended September's meeting.
How Siler Rd. became a priority is still unclear
It is unclear for sure when and how the decision was reached to include Siler Road as a priority.
Joel Setzer, P.E. the current division engineer for division 14 said that the decision to make Siler Road a priority for Macon
County happened prior to him becoming the division engineer. He indicated that Conrad Burrell, division 14 board member and
chairman of SCC board, brought the need for improving transportation to the new campus on Siler Road to the table.
Ryan Sherby, of the Southwest Commission (Region A) Rural Planning Organization (RPO), said that the project was included on
the most recent priority needs list. "At the time, the community seemed to support option A," said Sherby, adding that input at a
recent RPO meeting revealed that the commissioners felt the proposed alternative needed refining.
Choosing the path
Even though how the project got to this point is not entirely clear, the Siler Road extension is certainly moving forward.
According to Major, the next step in the process of the Siler Road project is to determine which of the options is the least
environmentally damaging and best meets the projected needs. In the merger process, which all major roads go through, other
federal and state agencies are involved in the process from close to the beginning of the project. Those agencies include the
Federal Highways, Army Corps of Engineers, Division of Water Quality, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others such as the
Environmental Protection Agency and NC Historical Preservation.
Environmental agencies involved in the merger process have had concerns about the proposed bridge across the Little
Tennessee River and its impacts as well as the overall impact of development along the river.
Marella Buncick, US Fish and Wildlife biologist, said she has been involved in the discussion. "We have concerns about another
bridge over the river within the existing one," said Buncick. "The larger concern is the indirect cumulative impact of development
that close to the river. That's a big concern for our agency."
Concerns about development increase, said Buncick, if they do not include stormwater controls and use low-impact techniques.
Four alternatives for a two-land road seek to alleviate projected increased traffic in the area. Alternatives A,B and C would
connect Siler Road to Wiley Brown Road with a bridge across the Little Tennessee River and alternative D would provide a new
roadway east and west of the river with no bridge.
Close Window
http://www.maconnews.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=165 7&pop... 11/9/2007