20140033 All Versions_EA Comments_20080421

\NATF Michael F. Easley, Governor
Q 9 William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
\Q~ QG North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
r Coleen Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality

April 21, 2008

MEMORANDUM

To: Melba McGee, DENR Environmental Coordinator

From: David Wainwright, Division of Water Quality`Q)

Subject: Comments on the Environmental Assessment related to proposed widening and
improvements of NC 209 from west of existing SR 1801 (Liner Cove Road) to just north
of existing SR 1523 (Old Clyde Road) Lake Junaluska, Haywood County, Federal Aid
Project No.STP-209(2), State Project No. 8.1944301, TIP R-4047.
SCH No. 08-0300.
This office has reviewed the referenced document dated March 2008. The Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that
impact Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. It is our understanding that the project as presented will
result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and other surface waters. The DWQ offers the
following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:

Project Specific Comments:

1. This project is being planned as part of the 404/NEPA Merger Process. As a participating team
member, the NCDWQ will continue to work with the team.
2. The scoping letter for the project (dated April 3, 2000) indicates the project was initially scheduled
to begin construction in 2004. It is assumed the project would be completed in 2006. While the
project was not completed in 2006, much of the data and discussion appears to be written as if it had
been. Generally speaking, the document should be updated to reflect more recent data. For
example:

• For each intersection along the project, the "Traffic Carrying Capacity" section contains
reference to the current LOS, 2006 LOS, and 2030 LOS. Several discussions, such as the one
for SR 1929 (Hospital Drive) and SR 1927 (Tuscola Road), states that "...the northbound
approach currently operates at LOS F" and "...the northbound approach to operate at LOS D
in 2006."
• Table 1 b and Table 1 c make reference to 2006 build and no build alternatives.
• The traffic forecasts included in Appendix E include forecasts for 2006.
3. None of the maps for the project show the project study boundary.

4. There is no map showing the location of historic structures located within the project study area.

5. There is no map showing the location of noise receptors used to determine noise barrier
applicability. However, a description of locations is provided on Table 3 of Appendix C.

NotthCarolina
Transportation Permitting Unit Naturally
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

6. Richland Creek and associated unnamed tributaries are class C; 303(d) waters of the State. Richland
Creek is on the 303(d) list for impaired use for
impacts that oou d resin fromithiscal
DWQ is very concerned with sediment and e
DWQ recommends that the most protective
sediment Creek and d s tributaries. DWQ requestslthat road d to
reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to Richland water runoff
best manaement design plans provide treatment of the storm DWQ Stormwater Best Managemen Pra picesices as
detailed in the most recent version of
General Comments: of the pr 7. The environmental document should provide
ll If itemized igat onaslnecessary aopose
requa ed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
by 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan
with the environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to
issuance of a 401 Water Quality Cer
impacts tification.
ce the
s~nolff consier
8. Environmental assessment alternatives
These alternatives shouldtin c de road des gns that
streams and wetlands from storm water ces
as detailed allow for treatment of the storm water
m runoff through best mangement ater Best Management Practicesasulch as grassedswales,
most recent version of NC DWQ Stor
buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
uality
9. After the selection of the preferred alt lrnrteminded that they will need to demonstrate theQavoidance
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully
and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. In
accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules {1 5A NCAC 2H.0506(h)},
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. In the event that
mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions
and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as wetland
mitigation.
10. In accordance with the Environmental Manageemen Commission's
eater than Se I5A N A any single
2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will be required for impacts
perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to
replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be
available for use as stream mitigation.
impaicit Application correshould sponding continue
11. Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification
to include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream
mapping.
12. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. NC
DOT should address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the
aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.

ridging 13. NC DOT is respectfully reminded that all etpands, s eamisgand rnot

Sneed to bellincluded
excavation and clearing, to jurisdictional
in the final impact calculations. These asimpacts, the addition to any
r QualitytCertificatilonaAppli apion~
or otherwise, also need to be included part of
14. Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we
realize that economic considerations oft unimpeded by fish and other squat c odrgarii ms.
culverts should be countersunk to allow passage prove Moreover, in areas where hig quality should not install the bridge bentsin the clree knto the maximum
preferable. When applicable,
extent practicable.

15. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands or streams.
16. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent
Qualty tical. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Certification and co
precipitate compensatory mitigation. dress
the
proposed 17. The 401 Water Quality Certification application specificashoully
not be permitted to
methods for stormwater management. More pec fi
discharge directly into streams or surface waters.
18. Based on the information presented in the a ° the lmagnitude
Engineers to
corresponding
streams may require an Individual Permit application to the Corps tion ires
401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401
that water quality stanQual dard are metaand no wuetland
satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure
or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal ap approval will
by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any app
be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland
of an acceptable stormwaterdmstream impacts to anagementplan, and the
maximum extent practical, the development
inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.
19. Whenever possible, the DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require stream channel
realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allow for human
and do not block nav g tian by
wildlife passage beneath the structure, do not block f passage
canoeists and boaters.
prefe directs our
20. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream. Starmd ter should
across the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means gr
holes, vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to the most current version of
NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
irect
acts event
21. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to
cured
contact between curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently
concrete should not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and
possible aquatic life and fish kills.

22. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site should be graded to its preconstruction
contours and elevations. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
appropriate native woody species should be planted. When using temporary structures the area
should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re-vegetate
naturally and minimizes soil disturbance.
23. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands should be placed below
the elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches,
and 20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow
low flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures
including temporary erosion control measures should not be conducted in a manner that may result
in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream of
the above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being
maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock or
other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact the NC DWQ for guidance
on how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be required.
24. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they should be designed to mimic natural stream cross
section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills where
appropriate. Widening the stream channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at the inlet
or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that
requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.

25. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.

26. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented
and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and Erosion
Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250. .
27. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area. Approved BMP
measures from the most current version of NCDOT Construction and Maintenance Activities
manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and other diversion structures should be used to
prevent excavation in flowing water.

28. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of
Wetland Significance (NC-CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent
inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
29. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This
equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters
from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.

RipraP should not be placed in the active thalweg chb ulders orastructures should bedpr p r y ner
30.
that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering
designed, sized and installed.
t con lit t of the project extent possible
end of by the
31. Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) should be reserved to e maximum
Riparian vegetation must be re-established within the co
the growing season following completion of construction. uld
have The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project.
contact Dav d Wainwright a~(9 9) 715 3415 Y
questions or require any additional information, please

cc: David Baker, US Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field Office
Clarence Coleman, Federal Highway Administration
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Mike Parker, DWQ Asheville Regional Office
File Copy
{

Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs

Project Review Form

Project Number: 08-0300 County: Haywood Date Received: 04/08/2008
Due Date: 04/30/2008

Project Description: Proposed Improvements to NC 209 from US 19-23 to just North of SR 1523; Haywood County;
TIP #R-4047
This Project is being reviewed as indicated below:

Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? Air Soil & Water Marine Fisheries
Fayetteville V Water Coastal Management
Wildlife Water Resources
Mooresville v/ Groundwater
? Environmental Health
Raleigh
? Land Quality Engineer V Wildlife - DOT Solid Waste Mgmt
Washington Forest Resources Radiation Protection
Wilmington Land Resources Other
Winston-Salem V Parks & Recreation
Water Quality
? Water Quality - DOT
Air Quality
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:

Response (check all applicable)

No objection to project as proposed. No Comment

Insufficient information to complete review - Other (specify or attach comments) a 416; 4

Regional Office Only:
Please log into the IBEAM system and update your comments in the DSS (Decision Support System) application,
SEPA module. If you have any questions, please contact
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at [e-mail]

21
APP 1 nn

l Tl A{VD3 ,4; ~;TOJ IA,~ ;T"A L I Ty
FR BRANCH

NC 209 IMPROVEMENTS

From west of SR 1801 (Liner Cove Rd.) to just north of SR 1523 (Old
Clyde Rd.), Lake Junaluska, Haywood County

WBS Element 34599.1.1
Federal Project No. STP-209 (2)
State Project No. 8.1944301
i

TIP PROJECT R-4047

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)

Ot HQRTH C44

h

TOrItAN

APPROVED:

D to Gregory J. Thorpe, P .D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
i
3~ZG~OS

Date ,John F. Sullivan III, P.E., Divisio Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

NC 209 IMPROVEMENTS

From west of SR 1801 (Liner Cove Rd.) to just north of SR 1523 (Old
Clyde Rd.) Lake Junaluska, Haywood County

WBS Element 34599.1.1
Federal Project No. STP-209(2)
State Project No. 8.1944301

TIP PROJECT R-4047

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

March 2008

Documentation prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch by:

J n . Confo , REM
Pr ' ct Development Group Leader

2,,a AxJx~ .
Zahid M. Baloc .E.
Project Development Engineer

PROJECT COMMITMENTS

NC209 IMPROVEMENTS

From west of SR 1801 (Liner Cove Rd.) to just north of SR 1523 (Old Clyde Rd.)
Lake Junaluska, Haywood County

WBS Element 34599.1.1
Federal Project No. STP-209 (2)
State Project No. 8.1944301

TIP PROJECT R-4047

PDEA (Natural Environmental Unit)

In addition to the Individual Nationwide Permit Conditions, Section 404
Nationwide Permit, State Stormwater Permit, Section 401 Water Quality
Certification (WQC) Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency
Conditions, NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface
Waters (March 1997), NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Construction
and Maintenance Activities (August 2003), and General Certification Conditions,
the following special commitments were agreed to by NCDOT:

GeoEnvironmental Section

Based on field reconnaissance and a database search, five (5) sites were
identified that could pose environmental concerns for the proposed project. Out
of five sites, only one is an active gas station and four former underground
petroleum storage tank sites. All USTs have been removed from the four former
UST sites.
The Geographical Information Service (GIS) was consulted for the project
corridor. The research showed no regulated or unregulated landfills or
dumpsites occurred within the project limits. If further design studies indicate
right of way from subject properties is to be acquired, preliminary site
assessments for soil and groundwater contamination will be performed prior to
right of way purchase.

TIP Project R-4047
Environmental Assessment Project Commitments Page 1 of 2
March, 2008

Hydraulics Unit

Stormwater drainage will be controlled and not shunted directly into the
existing stream channels.

Division 14

Bridge No. 32 is a railroad trestle that is 197 ft long and 9.0 ft wide, Bridge
demolition will occur by removing the steel beams and steel pile piers. The bridge
components will be removed without dropping them into UT 3. Consequently,
there will be no temporary fill resulting from bridge demolition.

All concrete used for the construction of bridges and culverts will be
allowed to cure before making contact with streams or river.

TIP Project R-4047
Environmental Assessment Project Commitments Page 2 of 2
March, 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY PAGE

A. Type of Action i
B. Description of Action i
C. Summary of Purpose and Need ii
D. Alternatives Considered ii
1. Proposed Alternatives ii
2. Transportation System Management (TSM) iii
3. Alternative Mode of Transportation iii
4. "Do Nothing" Alternative iv
E. NCDOT Preferred Alternative iv
F. Summary of Environmental Impacts iv
G. Anticipated Design Exceptions V
H. Permits Required V
1. Coordination vi
J. Contact Information vi

1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION 1
A. General Description 1
B. Project Status 1
C. Cost Estimates 1

II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT 2
A. Purpose of Project 2
B. Need for Project 2
1. Description of Existing Conditions 2
a. Funtional Classification 2
b. Physical Description of Existing Facility 2
1. Roadway Cross Sections 2
2. Horizontal & Vertical Alignment 2
3. Right of Way 2
4. Access Control 3
5. Speed Limits 3
6. Intersections & Type of Control 3
7. Railroad Involvement 3
8. Structures 3
9. Greenway, Pedestrian, & Bicycle 4
10. Utilities 4
11. Geodedic Markers 5
c. School Bus Usage 5
d. Traffic Carrying Capacity 5
e. Accident Data and Analysis 10
f. Airports 11
2. Thoroughfare Plan and System Linkage 11
C. Benefits of Proposed Project 12

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
PAGE

III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 13
A. General 13
B. Build Alternatives 13
C. Typical Section Alternatives 13
D. Transportation System Management (TSM) 14
E. Alternatives Modes of Transportation 14
F. "Do Nothing Alternative 14
G. NCDOT-Preferred Alternative 15

IV. DECSRIPTION OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 16
A. Length of Project 16
B. Typical Section 16
C. Structures 16
D. Traffic Control during Construction 16
E. Right of Way 16
F. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control 16
G. Sidewalks/Bicycle Accommodations 17
H. Access Control 17
1. Design Speed and Proposed Posted Speed Limit 17
J. Degree of Utility Conflicts 17
K. Airports 17
L. Cost Estimates 18

V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION 19
A. Cultural Resources Archaeological Resources 19
B. Land Use and Community Impacts Assessment 19
1. Community Characteristics 19
a. Geographic Location 19
b. Land Use Transportation Plan 20
c. Population and Demographic Characteristics 20
2. Project Impacts 21
a. Land Use 21
b. Economic Condition 21
c. Mobility and Access 21
d. Safety 22
e. Provision of Public Services 22
f. Displacements 23
3. Environmental Justice 23
4. Indirect and Cumulative Effects 23
C. Natural Resources 24
1. Physical Resources 24
a. Physiography, Topography, and Land Use 24
b. Geology and Soils 24
c. Biotic Resources 25
2. Jurisdictional Topics 26
a. Water Resources 26

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
PAGE

3. Mitigation 28
4. Permits 28
5. Federally Protected Species 29
D. Traffic Noise 33
1. General 33
2. Noise Abatement Criteria 34
3. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures 34
a. Highway Alignment Selection 34
b. Traffic System Management Measures 34
c. Noise Barriers 35
d. Other Mitigation Measures Considered 36
4. "Do-nothing" Alternative 36
5. Construction Noise 36
6. Summary 36
E. Air Quality Analysis 37
1. Mobile Source Air Toxics 37
2. Unavailable Information for Project Specific MAST
Impact Analysis 39
3. Information that is Unavailable or Incomplete 39
a. Emissions 39
b. Dispersion 40
c. Exposure levels and Health Effects 40
4. Summary of Existing Credible Scientific evidence
Relevant to Evaluating the Impacts of MASTs 41
5. Minor widening Project 43
6. MAST Mitigation Strategies 44
7. Mitigation for Construction MAST Emissions 44
8. Post-Construction Mitigation for Projects with
Potentially Significant MAST Levels 45
F. Hazardous Materials Evaluation 45
1. Purpose 45
2. Summary 46
G. Construction Impacts 46

VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION 49
A. Coordination 49
B. Public Involvement and Comments 49

VII. BASIS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 50

TABLES
Table 1 Cost Estimates 1
Table la Structural Inventory 4
Table lb Intersection Level of Service "No Build Scenario" 9
Table 1c Intersection Level of Service "Build Scenario" 10
Table 1d Crash Rates (Per Million Vehicle Miles) 11
Table le Crash Type Summary 11
Table 2 Preliminary Cost Estimates 18
Table 3a Population by Race and Demographics Origin 20
Table 3b Project Study Area Soils & Characteristics 25
Table 3c Stream Classification and Impacts 27
Table 3d Wetlands Impacts 27
Table 3e Federally Protected Species in Haywood County 30
Table 3f Underground Storage Tank Facilities 46

FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map A-1
Figure 2 Existing Conditions A-2
Figure 3 Proposed Improvement A-3
Figure 4 Crash Locations A-4

APPENDICES
Appendix A Figures
Appendix B Correspondence
Appendix C Combined Air and Noise Report
Appendix D Relocation Report
Appendix E Traffic Forecast
Appendix F NCDOT Capacity Analysis Guidelines

NC209 IMPROVEMENTS

From west of SR 1801 (Liner Cove Rd.) to just north of SR 1523 (Old
Clyde Rd.), Lake ,lunaluska, Haywood County

WBS Element 34599.1.1
Federal Project No. STP-209(2)
State Project No. 8.1944301

TIP PROJECT R-4047

SUMMARY

A. Type of Action

This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Administrative Action,
Environmental Assessment (EA).

B. Description of Action

NCDOT proposes to improve NC 209 from west of the SR 1801 (Liner
Cove Rd.) to just north of SR 1523 (Old Clyde Road). The build alternative will
consist of widening NC 209 to a four-lane divided facility with a raised median
from SR 1801 (Liner Cove Road) to SR 1523 (Old Clyde Road). Improvements
to US 23 Business south of Liner Cove Road and NC 209 North of SR 1523 (Old
Clyde Road) will be made to facilitate the transition from the four lane divided
facility to the two lane facility. (Appendix A Figure 1)

NC 209 will also be realigned from SR 1526 (Carley Road) to SR 1523
(Old Clyde Road). The project also proposes to reconfigure ramps at the US 19-
23-74/US 23 Business/NC 209 interchange. The proposed project will also
replace railroad structure R-32, which carries the Norfolk Southern Railway
tracks over NC 209. The improvements proposed by the project will reduce
congestion, and improve access within the project study area.

The proposed project is included in NCDOT's approved 2007-2013
Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.) with right-of-way acquisition is
scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2009 and construction is
scheduled to begin in FFY 2011. The preliminary right-of-way and construction
costs for the NCDOT-preferred alternative, which involves widening NC 209 to a
four-lane raised median facility and modifying the existing NC 209/US 19-23-
74/US 23 Business interchange is $9,645,000 and $24,400,000 respectively.

i

C. Summary of Purpose and Need

The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion and improve access to
homes, businesses, and public facilities in the area. The proposed
improvements will complete the improvements to NC 209 started under TIP
project R-2117, which acquired some right of way for the widening of the road.

D. Alternatives Considered

1. Build Alternative

NCDOT proposes to improve NC 209 from west of SR 1801 (Liner
Cove Rd.) to north of SR 1523 (Old Clyde Road). The build alternative will
consist of widening NC 209 to a four-lane divided facility with a raised
median from the SR 1801 (Liner Cove Road) to SR 1523 (Old Clyde
Road). Improvements to US 23 Business south of Liner Cove Road and
NC 209 North of SR 1523 (Old Clyde Road) will be made to facilitate the
transition from four lanes divided facility to the two lanes facility.

Currently the US 19-23-74 south on and off ramps, and SR 1375
(Access Road) share a common roadway and experience confusing traffic
patterns resulting in traffic congestion and potentially unsafe conditions.
The recommended build alternative will provide on and off-ramps for
US19-23-74 separate from SR-1375 (Access Road). This will aid in
reducing congestion and will improve access to homes and businesses in
the area by separating local traffic from ramp traffic.

Also from north of SR 1801 (Liner Cove Road)/US 23 Business
intersection to SR 1375 (Access Road) and US 19-23-74 South Ramp
there are five intersections within a 1400 ft distance resulting in traffic
congestion and difficulties in accessing nearby businesses and homes.
The proposed improvements will reduce/combine the existing five
intersections to only two signalized intersections. This will reduce
congestion, traffic conflict points, and improve access to nearby homes
and businesses.

The proposed improvements will also realign NC 209 from SR 1526
(Carley Road) to SR 1523 (Old Clyde Road). NCDOT also proposes to
reconfigure the interchange of NC 209 at US 19-23-74. The existing ramp
to connect US 19-23-74 (southbound) to US 23 Business will be realigned
and reconfigured to allow left-turns to access NC 209 (north). SR 1929
(Hospital Drive) currently intersects NC 209 adjacent to the US 19-23-74
interchange. The project proposes to remove this connection to NC 209
and realign SR 1929 along new location and tie it into SR 1801 (Liner
Cove Road). SR 1546 (Paragon Parkway) will be realigned to tie directly

ii

into the intersection of NC 209 and the US 19-23-74 (southbound) on and
off ramps.

The project will also replace rail structure R-32, which carries the
Norfolk Southern Piedmont District's T-line. Construction of a new
structure will result in the rail line being realigned to the south its existing
location. The project will also close existing at-grade crossings of the
Norfolk Southern rail line at SR 1526 (Carley Road).

2. Transportation System Management (TSM)

Transportation system management was considered for the project.
However, the improvements would not have met the purpose and the
need of the project. Transportation systems management strategies are
low-cost but effective in nature, which include, but are not limited to:

• Intersection and signal improvement

Intersection and signal improvement alone would not address the
purpose and need of the project. The intersections of NC 209 with SR
1929 (Hospital Drive) and SR 1646 (Paragon Parkway) are in close
proximity and signal improvements will not reduce congestion or improve
access to homes, businesses, and public facilities within the area. The
proposed removal of the two adjacent signals at SR 1929 (Hospital drive)
and SR 1446 (Paragon Parkway) will provide less conflict in traffic
patterns and will improve the traffic flow.

• Freeway bottleneck removal programs

Additional capacity on US 19-23-74 will not address congestion issues
along NC 209.

3. Alternative Modes of Transportation

Haywood County Transit provides bus and shuttle van service for
the public use throughout the county. The service operates by
appointment only and there are no fixed routes. The service at its current
capacity does not address the congestion currently experienced along the
NC 209-study corridor. Upgrades in service still would not improve access
to private and public facilities within the study corridor.

Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations are not presently being
used within the project boundaries. No transit system exists within the
project area. These alternatives would not address the congestion
currently experienced along the NC 209 study corridor and are not
proposed as part of this project

iii

4. "Do Nothing" Alternative

If the proposed improvements to NC 209 and the US 19-23-74/US
23 Business/ NC 209 interchange are not made, the entire project study
area will continue to experience considerable congestion. The project
study area currently has an accident rate that is nearly six times the state
rate for comparable facilities. If no improvements are made, there will be
no reduction in congestion and no access improvement to homes,
business, and public facilities in the area. Therefore, NCDOT does not
recommend implementation of the no-build alternative

E. NCDOT Preferred Alternative

The NCDOT-preferred alternative is the build alternative. The build
alternative will address the congestion issues experienced within the project
study corridor. The proposed improvements will also decrease congestion and
improve access to the businesses and residences adjacent to the project study
corridor.

F. Summary of Environmental Impacts

The environmental impacts associated with the proposed project are
detailed in Section V of this document. The following table summarizes the
environmental impacts.

iv

SUMMARIZING IMPACTS
RESOURCE
Build Alternative
(Four- Lane Divided Facility) NCDOT-Preferred

Archaeological 0

Architectural 0/0
District/Properties
Total Stream Impacts 420 feet

Jurisdictional 0 acres
Wetland
Endangered Species 0
Community

Terrestrial Community 0 acres
Impacts
Potential Hazardous 5
Material Sites

Prime Farmland 0 acres

Section 4(f) Impacts 0
Schools 0
Churches 0

EJ Communities 0
Air Quality No
Residential Relocations 9
(Owners/Tenants)

Business Relocations 8
(Owners / Tenants)
Critical Water Supplies No

Total Cost $ 34,251,000

G. Anticipated Design Exceptions

There are no anticipated design exceptions anticipated for this project.

H. Permits Required

A section 404 Individual Permit will be required due to over 300 feet of
cumulative streambank impacts. A North Carolina Division of Water Quality
General Certification is required prior to the issuance of the Section 404
Individual Permit.

1. Coordination

The following federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the
preparation of this environmental assessment:

US Army Corps of Engineers (Asheville, NC Regulatory Field Office)*
US Environmental Protection Agency (Raleigh)*
US Fish and Wildlife Service (Asheville)*
Tennessee Valley Authority*
NC Dept. of Administration (State Clearinghouse)*
NC Dept. of Cultural Resources (Historic Preservation)*
NC Dept. of Public Instruction (School Planning)*
NC Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources*
NC Wildlife Resources Commission*
Haywood County Schools
Community of Lake Junaluska

Written comments were received from agencies noted with an asterisk
Copies of the 6 comments received are included in Appendix B.

J. Contact Information

The following persons can be contacted for additional information
concerning the proposal and assessment:

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
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone [phone]

Vi

NC 209 IMPROVEMENTS

From west of SR 1801 (Liner Cove Rd.) to just north of SR 1523 (Old Clyde Rd.)

WBS Element 34599.1.1
Federal Project No. STP-209 (2)
State Project No. 8.1944301

TIP PROJECT R4047

1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION

A. General Description

NCDOT proposes to improve NC 209 from west of SR 1801 (Liner Cove
Road.) to just north of SR 1523 (Old Clyde Road). This alternative will consist of
widening NC 209 to a four-lane divided facility with a raised median from SR
1801 (Liner Cove Road) to SR 1523 (Old Clyde Road). Improvements to US 23
Business west of Liner Cove Road and NC 209 North of SR 1523 (Old Clyde
Road) will be made to facilitate the transition from four lanes divided facility to
the two lanes facility. The project will also reconfigure the ramps in the US 19-23-
74/US 23 Business/NC 209 interchange. The proposed Improvement will realign
portions of NC 209, SR 1929, and SR 1375. This will also replace bridge # R-32
and realign the Norfolk Southern Railway T-line over NC 209 (Appendix A figure
3). The total project length is 0.77 Miles.

B. Project Status

Project R-4047 is included in NCDOT's approved T.I.P. 2007-2013
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The project is scheduled for right of
way acquisition in Fiscal Year (FFY) 2009 and construction in FFY 2011.

C. Cost Estimates
Table 1 Cost Estimates

Approved 2007 - 2013 TIP Estimate

Construction Right of Way Mitigation Total Cost

$10,200,000 $600,000 $115,000 $10,915,00

Current Project Cost Estimate (Build Alternative)

Construction Right of Way Mitigation Total Cost

$24,400,000 $9,645,000 $206,000 $34,251,000

1

II PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT

A. Purpose of Project

The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion and improve access to
homes, businesses, and public facilities in the area. The proposed improvements
will complete the improvements to NC 209 started under T.I.P R-2117, which
acquired some right of way for the widening of the road.

B. Need for Project

1. Description of Existing Conditions

a. Functional Classification

NC 209 is classified as a major collector on the North Carolina
Highway Functional Classification System.

b. Physical Description of Existing Facility

1. Roadway Cross-Sections

NC 209 in the vicinity of US 19-23-74 (Great Smokey
Mountain Expressway) is a four to five-lane undivided facility with
curb and gutter. As NC 209 continues north along the project
corridor, it becomes a two-lane undivided facility with a 12-foot lane
in each direction and 4-foot grass shoulders (Appendix A figure 2).

2. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment

The current vertical and horizontal alignments of existing
roads within the project limits of the proposed project are poor. The
new alignment will follow the existing alignment in most of the
project limits. In the vicinity of railroad structure R-32, NC 209 will
be realigned in order to accommodate the proposed widening.

3. Right of Way

The existing right of way width varies throughout the project
study corridor. Additional right of way will be necessary to
accommodate propose widening of NC 209. It is estimated that
fifty-three parcels will be affected by this project. Nine residence
and eight businesses will be relocated due to the widening of this
NC 209 project.

2

4. Access Control

Control of access exists in the vicinity of the US 19-23-74/US
23 Business/NC 209 interchange. Beyond the interchange area,
NC 209 does not have control of access. Major intersections are at
grade and adjacent residences and businesses have driveway
access.

5. Speed Limits

NC 209 has a posted speed limit 40 of mph from north of US
23 Business to a point 0.12 miles north of SR 1523 (Old Clyde
Road). The speed limit is 45 mph from a point 0.12 miles north of
SR 1523 (Old Clyde Road) to a point 1.04 miles north of SR 1523
(Old Clyde Road).

6. Intersections and Type of Control

Within the project limits, NC 209 is a two-lane facility with at-
grade intersections. Signals are used to control traffic at the
intersections of NC 209 at the US 19-23-74 (northbound) off/on-
ramps, SR 1646 (Paragon Parkway) and SR 1929 (Hospital Drive).
Due to the low traffic volumes at other at-grade intersections, stop
signs are used to control traffic.

7. Railroad Involvement

The Norfolk Southern Railway Piedmont Division's T-line
crosses NC 209 on bridge number R-32. TIP Project R-4047
proposes to replace this structure due to the realignment of NC
209. The T-line runs from Asheville to Sylva and is used by
approximately 2 - 3 freight trains per day. The maximum allowable
train speed at this location is 15 miles per hour due to the steep
grades and high degree of radius in the area.

NCDOT proposes to realign the rail line south of the existing
location and construct a new structure to replace bridge # R-32
(see figure 3). The NCDOT also proposes to close one at-grade
rail crossing within the project study area. The crossing closure is
located along SR 1526 (Carley Road).

8. Structures

Railroad structure R-32 currently carries the Norfolk
Southern Railway Piedmont Division's T-line over NC 209. NCDOT
proposes to replace the structure with a new structure due to the
widening and realignment of NC 209. Bridges #121 and #122 carry

3

US 19-23-74 over NC 209. There are currently no plans to replace
either of these bridges.

The existing 8ft by 6ft reinforced concrete box culvert
(RCBC) is to be retained and extended. There will be a new
crossing of UT3, which will also require a new 8ft by 6ft RCBC.

Table 1 a lists existing structural information along the project.

Table 1a. Structural Inventory

Bridge Bridge Bridge Sufficiency Remaining
Number Facility Carried Length (ft) Width (ft) Rating Life (Years)

#121 US 19-23-74 North 155 48.1 79.0 22
over NC 209

# 122 US 19-23-74 South 155 48.1 79.0 22
over NC 209
8X6 RCBC under Existing 8X6 Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert is to be
N/A SR-1375 (Access retained and extended.
Rd.

# R32 2 S9R.R. over NC Owned by Norfolk Southern Railway

9. Greenway, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Considerations

There are no greenways within the project study area nor
are there any sidewalks within the project corridor. NC 209 is not
designated as a bicycle route nor does it correspond to a bicycle
TIP request.

10. Utilities

The Project contains both above ground and sub-surface
utilities over good portion of project. Power, telephone and cable
television are all carried on utility poles. A total of twenty-five power
poles, fifteen light poles and two cable telephone poles need to be
relocated. Furthermore water and sewer lines will need to be
relocated to accommodate the widening of the NC 209.

4

11. Geodetic Markers

The project may impact two geodetic survey markers. The
N.C. Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction
regarding the location of the survey markers. Intentional
destruction of a geodetic monument is a violation of the N.C.
General Statue 102-4.

C. School Bus Usage

Approximately forty-five (45) school bus pass through the project
study area daily. School buses that utilize the project corridor serve
Tuscola High School, Waynesville Middle School, Junaluska Elementary
School, and Clyde Elementary school.

d. Traffic Carrying Capacity

Traffic volumes for the years 2006 and 2030 were determined to
quantify existing and future traffic demands within the project area. The
"no build" alternative is for the current configuration of the US 19-23-74
and NC 209 (Crabtree Road). The "build" alternative assumes re-
configuration of the US 19-23-74 and NC209 interchange, and re-
alignment of SR 1646 (Paragon Parkway), SR1929 (Hospital Drive) and
SR1927 (Tuscola Road). Currently, the "No build" alternative average
annual daily traffic (AADT) at the northern project limit is 9,400 Vehicles
per day (vpd). At the southern project limit, the base year traffic volume is
20,500 vpd. (Appendix - E, Base Year "No Build" Page 1-4)

Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing
operational conditions within a traffic stream and how motorists and/or
passengers perceive these conditions. A LOS definition generally
describes these conditions in terms of speed, travel time, freedom to
maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, and convenience. Six LOS, letter
designations from A (Best) to F (Worst) represent operations for each type
of facility for which analysis procedures are available.

The Highway Capacity Manual, Third Edition (Transportation
Research Board Special Report 209, 1997) and HCS2000 traffic analysis
software were utilized to determine the 2006 and 2030 level of service.
CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS

The "no build" projection for year 2030 the average annual daily
traffic (AADT) at the northern project limit is 13700 (vpd). At the southern
project limit, the project design year volume is 29,200. (Appendix - E,
Future Year "No Build" Pagel-4)

5

The "build" projected volume for design year 2030 at the northern
project limit is 13,700. At southern project limit, the projected design
volume is 31,900 vpd. (Appendix - E, Future Year "Build" Page 1-4)

The no build main line analysis is based on a design speed limit of
45 miles per hour and a two-lane typical section, the existing NC 209 is
expected to operate at LOS E in 2006 and LOS F in 2030, along heaviest
traveled section.

The build alternative assumes re-configuration of the US 19-23-74
& NC 209 interchange, and realignment of SR 1646 (Paragon Parkway)
and the School Bus Entrance in 2030. The upgraded NC 209 is expected
to operate at LOS C from SR 1523 (Old Clyde Road) to SR 1375 (Access
Road) and from north of SR 1801(Liner Cove Road) to school bus
Entrance in 2030. The segment of NC 209 between the US 19-23-74
Northbound and Southbound interchange ramp intersections is expected
to operate at LOS F in 2030.

The build scenario proposes three signalized intersections and nine
un-signalized intersections. The following section provides a discussion of
each individual intersection analysis. NCDOT Capacity Analysis guidelines
are attached in Appendix F.

NC 209 & SR 1523 (Old Clyde Road) - Signalized

Given the existing geometry, this intersection currently operates at
LOS A. Without changes to the existing roadway, the intersection is
expected to operate at LOS F in 2030. This intersection will be improved
with the addition of a turn lane. Based on the proposed built geometry, this
intersection is expected to operate at LOS B in 2006 and at LOS C in
2030.

NC 209 & Havwood Office Park Entrance - Unsignalized

Given the existing geometry the eastbound approach currently
operates at LOS E. Without changes to the existing roadway, the
eastbound approach is expected to operate at LOS F in 2030. This
intersection will be realigned to connect with Haywood Office Park
Entrance as part of the project improvements.

NC 209 & SR 1375 (Depot Road) - Unsignalized

Given the existing geometry the eastbound approach currently
operates at LOS F. Without changes to the existing roadway, the
eastbound approach is expected to operate at LOS F on 2030. Based on
the proposed build geometry, the eastbound approach is expected to
operate at LOS D in 2006 and at LOS F on 2030.

6

SR 1375 (Depot Road) & SR 1376 (County Road) - Unsignalized

Given the existing geometry the eastbound approach currently
operates at LOS B. Without changes to the existing roadway, the
eastbound approach is expected to operate at LOS B in 2030. No
intersection improvements are proposed at this location in the future. The
southbound approach is expected to operate at LOS B in 2006 and 2030.

NC 209 & SR 1526 (Carley Road) - Unsignalized

Given the existing geometry, the westbound approach currently
operates at LOS F. Without changes the existing roadway, the westbound
approach is expected to operate at LOS F in 2030. This intersection will
be restricted to right-in right-out movement as part of the project
improvement. Based on the proposed build geometry, the westbound
approach is expected to operate at LOS B in 2030.

NC 209 & SR 1375 (Access Road) - Unsignalized

Given the existing geometry, the eastbound approach currently
operates at LOS F. without changes to the existing roadway, the
eastbound approach is expected to operate at LOS F in 2030. Based on
the proposed build geometry, the eastbound approach will operate at LOS
E in 2006 and at LOS F in 2030.

SR 1375 (Access Road) & US 19-23-74 Ramp - Unsignalized

Given the existing geometry, the westbound approach currently
operates at LOS C. Without changes to the existing roadway, the
westbound approach is expected to operate at LOS F in 2030. This
intersection will be eliminated and the US 19-23-74 southbound ramp will
be realigned with the NC 209/SR 1626 intersection as part of the project
improvement.

NC 209 & SR 1646 (Paragon Parkway) & US 19-23-74 SB Ramp -
Signalized

Given the existing geometry, the intersection currently operates at
LOS E. Without changes to the existing roadway, the eastbound
approach is expected to operate at LOS F in 2030. This intersection will
be realigned to include all the US 19-23-74 SB ramp vehicles as part of
the project improvements. Currently, vehicles desiring to travel north and
west of the interchange have the exit onto SR 1375 (Access Road). The
newly realigned interchange ramp will tie in directly across from SR 1646
(paragon Parkway) to form a four-way signalized intersection. Vehicles-
desiring to travel north and west will have direct access to NC 209.
Vehicles desiring to travel south and east will use the southbound loop
7

ramp. Based on the proposed build geometry, the eastbound approach
will operate at LOS D in 2006 and at LOS F in 2030.

SR 1646 (Paragon Parkway) & Wal-Mart Entrance- Unsignalized

Given the existing geometry, the southbound approach currently
operates at LOS F. Without changes to the existing roadway, the
southbound approach is expected to operate at LOS F in 2030. No
intersection improvements are proposed at this location in the future. The
southbound approach is expected to operate at LOS F 2006 and 2030.

NC 209 & SR 1929 (Hospital Drive) - Signalized

Given the existing geometry, the intersection currently operates at
LOS E. Without changes to the existing roadway, the intersection is
expected to operate at LOS F in 2030. This intersection will be eliminated
as part of the project improvement.

SR 1929 (Hospital Drive) & School Bus Access Road -
Unsignalized

Given the existing geometry, the northbound approach currently
operates at LOS B and is expected to operate at LOS C in 2030. No
intersection improvements are proposed at this location.

SR 1929 (Hospital Drive) & SR 1927 (Tuscola Road) -
Unsignalized

Given the existing geometry, the northbound approach currently
operates at LOS F. Without changes to the existing roadway, the
northbound approach is expected to operate at LOS F in 2030. Based on
the proposed build geometry, the northbound approach to operate at LOS
D in 2006 and at LOS F in 2030.

SR 1929 (Hospital Drive) & SR 1801 (Liner Cove) Unsignalized

Given the existing geometry, the northbound approach currently
operates at LOS B. Without changes to the existing roadway, the
northbound approach is expected to operate at LOS F in 2030. Based on
the proposed build geometry, the northbound approach to operate at LOS
F in 2006 and 2030.

SR 1801 (Liner Cove Road) & Lowe's Entrance - Unsignalized

Given the existing geometry, the eastbound approach currently
operates at LOS B. Without changes to the existing roadway, the
eastbound approach is expected to operate at LOS F in 2030. Based on

8

the proposed build geometry, the eastbound approach is expected to
operate at LOS C in 2006 and 2030.

NC 209, US 19-23-74 NB Ramps, SR 1801 (Liner Cove Road) &
US 23 Business - Signalized

Given the existing geometry, the intersection currently operates at
LOS F. Without changes to the existing roadway, this intersection is
expected to operate at LOS F in 2030. Based on the proposed build
geometry, this intersection is expected to operate at LOS D in 2006 and at
LOS F in 2030.

Tables lb and 1c summarize intersection Level of Service for No Build
and Build Scenarios.

TABLE 1 b. Intersection Level of Service for No Build Scenario

INTERSECTION APPROACH 2006 2030
NO BUILD NO BUILD
NC 209 & Clyde Road Signal A F
NC 209 & Haywood Park Entrance NB L A A
EB LR E F
NC 209 & Depot Road NB L A C
EB LR F F
Depot Road & County Road EB L A A
SB LR B B
NC 209 & Long Road SB L A A
WB LR F F
NC 209 Access Road NB L B F
EB LR F F
Access Road & US 19-23-74 SB SB L A A
Ramps WB LR C F
NC 209 & Paragon Pkwy/ US 19- Signal E F
23-74 SB Ramps
Paragon Pkwy & Wal-Mart SB LR F F
Entrance EB L A A
NC 209 Hospital Drive Signal E F
Hospital Drive & School Bus WB L A A
Access Road NB LR B B
Hospital Drive & Tuscola Road SB L A A
WB LR F F
Hospital Drive Liner Cove Road WB L A A
NB LR B F
Liner Cove road & Lowe's Entrance NB L A A
EB LR B B
NC 209/US Business & US 19-23- Signal F F
74 NB Ram s/Liner Cove Road
9

TABLE 1c. Intersection Level of Service for Build Scenario

INTERSECTION APPROACH 2006 2030
BUILD BUILD
NC 209 & Old Clyde Road/Haywood Signal B C
Park Entrance
NC 209 & Depot Road NB L B C
EB LR D F
Depot Road & County Road EB L A A
SB LR B B
NC 209 & Long Road WB R A B

NC 209 Access Road NB L B C
EB JLR E F
Access Road & US 19-23-74 SB Signal D F
Ramps
Paragon Pkwy & Wal-Mart Entrance SB LR F F
EB L B F
Hospital Drive & School Bus Access WB L A A
Road NB LR B C
Hospital Drive & Tuscola Road SB L A B
WB LR D F
Hospital Drive Liner Cove Road WB L A A
NB LR F F
Liner Cove road & Lowe's Entrance NB L A A
EB LR C C
NC 209/US Business & US 19-23- Signal D F
74 NB Ramps/Liner Cove Road

e. Accident Data and Analysis

During a three year period between December 1, 2004 and March
31, 2007, a total of 52 crashes were reported along the project corridor.
Approximately, 85% of all crashes within the project study corridor
occurred between US-19-23-74 and the intersection of SR 1375. Left
turns accounted for 60% of all crashes. This was followed by rear end
(21 and sideswipe crashes (6%) as shown in Figure 4. The total crash
rate within the project study corridor is 1052.08 accidents per 100 million
vehicle miles traveled (mvmt). This rate is significantly higher than the
statewide crash rate for rural NC routes, which were 191.04 accidents per
100 mvmt from 2003 to 2005.

A comparison of the rates for different crash types on NC 209 versus other
NC rural undivided highways in North Carolina is shown in Table 1d.

10

Table 1d. Crash Rates (per 100 million vehicle miles)

Statewide Average
Crash Rate NC 209 NC Rural Undivided
Highways*
Total Rate 1052.08 191.04
Fatal Crash Rate 0 2.24

Non-Fatal Crash Rate 485.57 73.98
Night Crash Rate 101.16 63.99
Wet Crash Rate 101.16 33.32

*2003 - 2005 Crash Rates

Table 1e. Crash Type Summary

Crash Type Number of Crashes Percent of Total
Fixed Object 4 7.69

Left Turn, Different Roadways 4 7.69
Left Turn, Same Roadway 27 51.92
Overturn / Rollover 1 1.92

Rear End, Slow or Stop 11 21.15
Right Turn, Different 1 1.92
Roadways
Right Turn, Same Roadway 1 1.92

Sideswipe, same direction 3 5.77
12/01/2004 - 03/31/2007

f. Airports

Asheville Regional Airport is located approximately 32 miles from
the project study area. The airport provides passenger and general
aviation services.

2. Thoroughfare Plan and System Linkage

Currently, there is no thoroughfare plan for Haywood County or the
unincorporated community of Lake Junaluska. NC 209 is classified as a major
collector on the North Carolina Highway Functional Classification System.
Collectors provide a lower degree of mobility than arterials. They are designed

11

for travel at lower speeds and for shorter distances. The improvements to NC
209 in conjunction with the improvements made to NC 209 under TIP # R-2117
will provide an improved connection between US 19-23-74 at Lake Junaluska,
Waynesville, and 1-40 towards Knoxville, Tennessee.

C. Benefits of Proposed Project

NCDOT proposes to improve NC 209 from west of SR1801 (Liner Cove
Road) to north of SR 1523 (Old Clyde Road). This alternative will consist of
widening NC 209 to a four-lane divided facility with a raised median from the SR
1801 (Liner Cove Road) to SR 1523 (Old Clyde Road). Improvements to US 23
Business west of Liner Cove Road and NC 209 North of SR 1523 (Old Clyde
Road) will be made to facilitate the transition from four lanes divided facility to

the two lanes facility. The project will also reconfigure the ramps in the US 19-23-
74/US 23 Business/NC 209 interchange, and reduce the number of intersections
along NC 209. Railroad structure R-32, which carries the Norfolk Southern
Railway tracks over NC 209 will be replaced and the Railway T-line over NC 209
will be re-aligned. The improvements proposed by the project will reduce
congestion and improve access to homes, businesses, and public facilities in the
area.

12

III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

A. General

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) propose to upgrade NC 209 to a four-lane
divided with a raised median from west of US 19-23-74 to north of SR 1523 (Old
Clyde Road). NC 209 will also be realigned from SR 1526 (Carley Road) to SR
1523 (Old Clyde Road). The project also proposes to reconfigure ramps in the
US 19-23-74/US 23 Business/NC 209 interchange. The proposed project will
also remove the at-grade railroad crossing SR 1526 (Carley Road). The project
will replace railroad structure R-32, which carries the Norfolk Southern Railway
tracks over NC 209 and realign the railroad tracks immediately south of rail
structure R-32.

B. Build Alternatives

The NCDOT-preferred alternative consists of widening NC 209 to a four-
lane divided facility with a raised median throughout the project study corridor
(See Appendix A figure 3). The proposed improvements will also realign NC 209
from SR 1526 (Carley Road) to SR 1523 (Old Clyde Road). NCDOT also
proposes to reconfigure the interchange of NC 209 at US 19-23-74. The existing
ramp to connect US 19-23-74 (southbound) to US 23 Business will be realigned
and reconfigured to allow left-turns to access NC 209 (north).

Currently, traffic from NC 209 and US 23 Business access US 19-23-74
(southbound) via an access road (SR 1375). SR 1375 is a two-way street that
provides access to adjacent businesses as well as US 19-23-74 (southbound).
SR 1375 will be realigned and the connection to US 19-23-74 (southbound) will
be via a direct on-ramp. SR 1929 currently intersects NC 209 adjacent to the US
19-23-74 interchange. The project proposes to remove this connection to NC
209 and realign SR 1929 along new location and tie it into SR 1891 (Liner Cove
Road). SR 1646 (Paragon Parkway) will be realigned to tie directly into the
intersection of NC 209 and the US 19-23-74 (southbound) off and on ramps.

TIP Project R-4047 also proposes to replace rail structure R-32, which
carries the Norfolk Southern Piedmont District's T-line. Construction of a new
structure will result in the rail line being realigned to the south of its existing
location. The project will also close existing at-grade crossings of the Norfolk
Southern rail line along SR 1526 (Carley Road).

C. Typical Section Alternatives

NC 209 will have a varied cross-section within the project study. area. In
the vicinity of the US 19-23-74 southbound ramp and SR 1646 (Paragon
Parkway) intersection, NC 209 will be a four-lane divided with exclusive left and
13

right turn lane. In the vicinity of the US 19-23-74 northbound ramp and SR
1801(Liner Cove Road), NC 209 south will be four- lane divided with exclusive
dual left lanes towards SR 1801(Liner Cove Road) and one right lane. As the
facility approaches the northern project limit, it transitions to a two-lane facility.

D. Transportation System Management (TSM)

Transportation system management was considered for the project.
However, the improvements would not have met the purpose and the need of the
project. Transportation systems management strategies are low-cost but
effective in nature, which include, but are not limited to:

• Intersection and signal improvement

Intersection and signal improvement alone would not address the purpose and
need of the project. The intersections of NC 209 with SR 1929 (Hospital Drive)
and SR 1646 (Paragon Parkway) are in close proximity and signal improvements
will not reduce congestion or improve access to homes, businesses, and public
facilities in the area. The proposed removal of the two adjacent signals at SR
1929 (Hospital drive) and SR 1446 (Paragon Parkway) will provide less conflict in
traffic patterns and will improve the traffic flow.

• Freeway bottleneck removal programs

Additional capacity on US 19-23-74 will not address congestion issues along NC
209.

E. Alternative Modes of Transportation

Haywood County Transit provides bus and shuttle van service for the
public use throughout the county. The service operates by appointment only and
there are no fixed routes. The service at its current capacity does not address
the congestion currently experienced along the NC 209 study corridor. Upgrades
in service still would not improve access to private and public facilities within the
study corridor.

F. "Do Nothing" Alternative

If the proposed improvements to NC 209 and the US 19-23-74/US 23
Business/ NC 209 interchange are not made, the entire project study area will
continue to experience considerable congestion. The project study area
currently has an accident rate that is nearly six times the state rate for
comparable facilities. If no improvements are made, there will be no reduction in
congestion and no improvement in travel times. Therefore, NCDOT does not
recommend implementation of the no-build alternative

14

G. NCDOT Preferred Alternative

The NCDOT-preferred alternative is the build alternative. The build
alternative will reduce congestion and improve access to homes, businesses,
and public facilities within the project study area.

Currently, the horizontal alignment along NC 209 from SR 1526 (Carley
Road) to SR 1523 (Old Clyde Road) provides poor sight distance, substandard
curve radii and driver discomfort and over reaction. The proposed improvements
will correct geometric deficiencies and reduce congestion along NC 209.

In addition, from north of SR 1801 (Liner Cove Road)/US 23 Business
intersection to SR 1375 (Access Road) and US 19-23-74 South Ramp there are
five intersections within a 1400 ft distance resulting in traffic congestion and
difficulties in accessing nearby businesses and homes. The proposed
improvements will reduce/combine the existing five intersections to only two
signalized intersections. The intersection at NC 209 and SR 1929 (Hospital
Drive) will be eliminated. The intersection at NC 209 and SR 1646 (Paragon
Parkway) will be realigned with the US 19-23-74 SB ramp as part of the project
improvements. Currently, vehicles desiring to travel north and west of the
interchange have the exit onto SR 1375 (Access Road). The newly realigned
interchange ramp will tie in directly across from SR 1646 (Paragon Parkway) to
form a four-way signalized intersection. Vehicles desiring to travel north and west
will have direct access to NC 209. Vehicles desiring to travel south and east will
use the southbound loop ramp. This will reduce congestion, traffic conflict points,
and improve access to nearby homes and businesses.

Presently, Haywood Park entrance is an un-signalized intersection and
operates at LOS E. This intersection will be realigned with SR 1523 (Old Clyde
Road) and will be signalized. This will reduce congestion and improve access to
the businesses and public facilities in the Haywood Park area.

The build alternative will improve traffic flow and LOS along most
intersections; will reduce congestion along NC 209 and US19-23-74 interchange,
and reduce traffic conflict points.

15

IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

A. Length of Project

The total length for the proposed project is approximately 0.777 miles.

B. Typical Section

The build alternative proposes to upgrade NC 209 within the study area to
a four lane divided raised median facility.

C. Structures

The project proposes to dismantle bridge #R 32 and replace it with a new
structure. The new structure will accommodate the realigned and widened NC
209 in the vicinity of the Norfolk Southern Railway Bridge. No additional
structures are proposed to be or improved.

D. Traffic Control during Construction

Traffic will be maintained on site during construction. Railroad structure
No. 32 will be replaced with new Railroad Bridge over the NC 209. The existing
bridge will be used to service rail traffic during construction new Railroad Bridge
span. Upon completion of the new Bridge, rail traffic will be diverted and old
structure will be dismantled

E. Right of Way

NCDOT owns right of way with variable width along the project corridor.
Additional right of way will be purchased to accommodate the widened NC 209.
Additional right of way will also have to be purchased to accommodate the
realignments of SR 1375(Access Road), SR 1526(Carley Road) SR 1646
(Paragon Parkway), SR 1801 (Liner Cove Road), and SR 1929 (Hospital Drive).

Temporary construction easements on both sides of the project may also
be required. Permanent drainage easements may be required in some areas
along the proposed project.

F. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control

NCDOT proposes to reconfigure the interchange of NC 209 at US 19-23-
74. The existing ramp to connect US 19-23-74 (southbound) to US 23 Business
will be realigned and reconfigured to allow left-turns to access NC 209 (north).
Currently, traffic from NC 209 and US 23 Business access US 19-23-74
(southbound) via an Access Road (SR 1375). SR 1375 is a two-way street that

16

provides access to adjacent businesses as well as US 19-23-74 (southbound).
SR 1375 will be realigned and the connection to US 19-23-74 (southbound) from
NC 209 will be via a direct on-ramp.

SR 1929 currently intersects NC 209 adjacent to the US 19-23-74
interchange. The project proposes to remove this connection to NC 209 and
realign SR 1929 along new location and tie it into SR 1891 (Liner Cove Road).
SR 1646 (Paragon Parkway) will be realigned to tie directly into the intersection
of NC 209 and the US 19-23-74 (southbound) off and on ramps. NC 209 and SR
1523(Old Clyde Road) intersection will be realigned to accommodate a stoplight
and access to the NC 209 from Haywood Office Park will be reconfigured.

G. Sidewalks/Bicycle Accommodations

The proposed project does not include plans for sidewalks or
bicycle accommodations. Through coordination with the public and local officials,
the need for such accommodations has not been identified. Due to the nature of
the proposed improvements to US 74, accommodations for pedestrians and
bicyclist along the project will not be included.

H. Access Control

Access control will be maintained along NC 209 in the vicinity of the US
19-23-74 interchange. NCDOT does not propose controlling the access along
NC 209 outside of the interchange area.

1. Design Speed and Proposed Posted Speed Limit

The proposed project will have a minimum design speed of 30 miles per
hour (mph) throughout the project study corridor. The anticipated-posted speed
limit is 25 mph due to the alignment in the vicinity of the US 19-23-74
interchange.

J. Degree of Utility Conflicts

Utility conflicts along the proposed project are considered to be an
average. Aerial lines carrying power, telephone and limited fiber optics cable run
parallel to NC 209 for the entire length of the project. The sub-surface utilities
consist of multiple sewer and water lines that need to be relocated during
widening of the project

K. Airports

The proposed project will have no impact on the Asheville Regional
Airport, which is located approximately.32.miles from the project study corridor.

17

L. Cost Estimates

The. proposed project is included in NCDOT's Approved 2007-2013
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP estimated costs and the
total project construction costs are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Preliminary Cost Estimates

Approved 2007 - 2013 TIP Estimate

Construction Right of Way Mitigation Total Cost
$10,200,000 $600,000 $115,000 $10,915,000

Current Project Cost Estimate (Build Alternative)

Construction Right of Way Mitigation Total Cost

$24,400,000 $9,645,000 $206,000 $34,251,000

18

V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION

A. Cultural Resources and Archaeological Resources

This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106,
codified as 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires federal agencies to take into
account the effect of their undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted)
on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places and to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to
comment on such undertakings.

The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) requested surveys for
historic structures in their memo to NCDOT dated April 8, 2000. A field survey of
the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted in May 2000 by an NCDOT
architectural historian and three structures over fifty years of age within the APE
were recorded. The photographs of these properties along with their evaluations
were shown to the SHPO in two meetings on July 20, 2000 and August 17, 2000.
At those meetings SHPO staff concurred that all three properties were not
eligible for the National Register and two forms were signed that reflects these
findings. Therefore, there are no National Register-listed or National Register-
eligible properties within the APE for this project. Copies of all correspondence
are included in Appendix B.

Another survey of the above referenced project was requested by SHPO
on March 19, 2001. Following clarification of the project APE in consultation with
the NCDOT project engineer, a pedestrian inspection of the project area was
carried out in March 2005. Consultation with staff of Western SHPO following
the pedestrian survey of the project area resulted in issuance of a letter to the
SHPO dated March 2, 2005. A letter for R-4047 issued by SHPO on June 6,
2005 recommended that no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project.

B. LAND USE AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

1. Community Characteristics

a. Geographic Location

TIP Project R-4047 is located in the mountains of western North
Carolina. The area is surrounded to the north by the Great Smokey
Mountains, the Newfound Mountains to the east, the Pisgah Ridge and
Blue Ridge Parkway to the south, and the Balsam Mountains to the west.
Waynesville is the closest town to the project study area. The project
actually lies within the unincorporated community of Lake Junaluska.

19

b. Land Use and Transportation Plan

The land use within the project study area consists of residential,
commercial, and recreation facilities. Residential properties are primarily
located adjacent to Lake Junaluska along SR 1375 (Depot Street) and
south of the project corridor along SR 1801 (Liner Cove Road). Large
commercial developments include Wal-Mart bordering SR 1646 (Paragon
Parkway), Lowe's adjacent to US 23 Business (Asheville Road), and the
Haywood Office Park, neighboring NC 209 at the northern project limit.
Tuscola High School is located near the southeastern quadrant of the US
19-23-74 interchange.

Currently, there is not a land use or transportation plan for
Haywood County. Zoning plans do not exist outside of the city limits of
Waynesville, Clyde, and Canton. Also, there is not a thoroughfare plan
for Haywood County. The unincorporated community of Lake Junaluska
does not have a planning department.

C. Population and Demographic Characteristics

The Haywood County experienced a population growth of 15.1
percent between the 1990 and 2000 census. Lake Junaluska experienced
a 7.8 percent increase in population between the two censuses.

The majority of the residents of the study area are of white origin.
Additional ethnic groups are located within the project study area. Of
those, Hispanics have shown the largest population increases from 1990
to 2000. The African-American population has seen continued decrease
within the project study area.

Table 3a. Population by Race and Demographic Origin
(2000 Census Data)

Population by Race and Demographic Haywood County Demographic Study
Origin Area

Number % Number %
Total Population 54,033 2,675
White 52,330 96.6% 2,639 98.7%
Black or African-American 684 1.3% 10 0.37%
American Indian and Alaska Native 266 0.49% 7 0.26%
Asian 114 0.21% 3 0.11%

Hawaiian Native and Pacific Islander 20 0.04% 0 0

Hispanic or Latino 763 1.4% 36 1.35%

20

19.01 percent of the population of Haywood County lies within the
65 and older age group. 28.11 percent of Lake Junaluska's populations
lies within 65 and older age bracket. The median age of the project study
area is older than that of the state of North Carolina. The higher number
of elderly citizens is indicative of the nature of the area as a retirement and
resort community.

In Haywood County, 7.1 percent of households are below the
poverty level. In Lake Junaluska 3.99 percent of the total households are
below the poverty level. This percentage is consistent with a "well-off'
retirement community. The median household income in Lake Junaluska
is $25,948.

2. Project Impacts

a. Land Use

The proposed improvements to NC 209 are expected to be
consistent with the existing land use patterns within the project study area.
Currently, there are no land use plans for the project study area or
Haywood County. Current land use includes large lot, residential
development and large lot commercial development. Due to the lack of
land use planning, ordinances are used to dictate development within the
study area. The proposed improvements are not expected to result in the
loss of farmland, increased development, or induced changes to current
land use patterns.

b. Economic Conditions

The proposed project is not expected to severely impact business
within the project study area. The proposed improvements will result in
nine residential and eight business relocations along the project area.
This may impact the tax base and the property values within the study
area. During construction, temporary detours may temporarily impede the
flow of traffic along the study corridor and to businesses within the study
area. The detour will only result in short-term impacts to the economic
conditions of the area.

C. Mobility and Access

The proposed improvements to NC 209 will improve traffic flow
through the project study area. The inclusion of the raised median will
restrict the left- turns but will improve the flow of the traffic on NC 209. The
improvements to the US 19-23-74 interchange will benefit traffic heading
to and from Lowe's, Wal-Mart, and Tuscola High School. Lowe's Home
Improvement is located along US 23 Business (Asheville Road)
immediately south of the US 19-23-74 interchange. Tuscola High School

21

is located southeast of project corridor and is currently connected to NC
209 via SR 1929. Access to the high school will be improved by the
proposed realignment of SR 1929 to SR 1801 (Liner Cove Road). The on
and off ramps of US 19-23-74 are located in the northwest quadrant of the
interchange, and US 19-23-74 south is accessed via SR 1375. Also
businesses align SR 1375 and residential areas adjacent to the Lake
Junaluska utilize SR 1375. The project proposes to realign SR 1375 and
reconfigure the on and off ramps from US 19-23-74. The improvements in
the northwest quadrant will improve access to the neighboring business
and the residences along SR 1375.

d. Safety

The proposed improvements should also result in lower accident
rates within the project study area. The project is expected to improve
safety by improving the ability of NC 209 to handle current and future
traffic. Thus, reducing the congestion and the safety concerns associated
with the facility not being able to accommodate the existing traffic. The
improvements to NC 209 will also improve transportation for EMS and
health service vehicles within the study area.

e. Provision of Public Services

Tuscola High School lies at the southern end of the project study
area. The school experiences traffic back-ups from 7:20 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.
and again from 2:45 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. Currently, 300 to 400 students
drive to school each day. The existing traffic combined with the large
number of student drivers creates a bottleneck during school day peak
hours.

Lake Junaluska provides recreational boating and swimming. NC
209 provides access to the lake. The proposed improvements will not
hinder access to Lake Junaluska.

The Junaluska Volunteer Fire Department and the Junaluska Post
Office are located near the northern project limit along SR 1523 (Old
Clyde Road). The communities surrounding the project study area are
served by both facilities. Access to and by the services should only be
hampered during the construction phase of the project. Upon completion
of the proposed improvements, access to and by both services will be
greatly improved, as more capacity is added and operational
improvements to NC 209 are made.

A health service facility, a women's medical facility, and a
vocational rehabilitation center are located within the Haywood Office
Park. The proposed improvements to NC 209 are not expected to impact

22

the Haywood Office Park. The upgraded NC 209 will improve accessibility
to the facilities housed there.

f. Displacements

Additional right of way will be needed to construct the project.
Temporary construction easement will also be required. Relocation report
indicates that there will be nine residential and eight businesses will be
relocated. None of the businesses are own by minorities. Out of eight
businesses five are tenants.

For all relocations, it is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that
comparable replacement housing will be available prior to construction of
State and Federally assisted projects. Appendix D contains Relocation
Report.

3 Environmental Justice

One of the fundamental environmental justice principles is, "to
avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human
health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects,
on minority populations or low-income populations." The 2000 census data
and field surveys indicate that the project study area does not include any
low-income or minority communities. The proposed improvements will not
adversely impact any environmental justice populations.

4. Indirect and Cumulative Effects

The northern portion of the project will occur on right-of-way
acquired during the preliminary engineering phase of TIP Project R-2117.
Therefore, impacts to adjacent properties should be minimal. New
development within the project study area is not expected to occur due to
the improvements to NC 209 as the project is only 0.77 miles and widen
an existing road. The improvements are likely to increase the level of
safety along the project corridor and increase the traffic carrying capacity
of NC 209. Storm runoff is expected to continue to follow the existing
topography and flow into Richland Creek. The project should not result in
changes in the land use patterns within the project study area. The area
surrounding the project study area is already well developed and the
project does not offer new access to undeveloped land. Therefore, the
indirect impacts of the project should be minor. The proposed
improvements are not anticipated to result in changes to the visual quality
of the project area.

23

C. NATURAL RESOURCES

1. Physical Resources

a. Physiography. Topography, and Land Use

Haywood County lies in the Mountain Physiographic Province of
North Carolina. Haywood County encompasses approximately 546 mil
and consists of gently rolling and steep topography within the North
Carolina Blue Ridge Mountains. Elevations within the project vicinity
range from approximately 2,585 to 2,650 ft above mean sea level (msl).

The French Broad River Basin encompasses 2,809 mil (11 % of the
state) and contains the second longest linear distance of stream (4,113
mi) in North Carolina. The French Broad River Basin is composed of
three major drainages; the French Broad, Pigeon, and Nolichucky Rivers,
which all flow north into Tennessee. Water resources in this river basin
support recreational-based businesses such as whitewater rafting,
canoeing, and trout fishing. Many streams within the basin are classified
as High Quality or Outstanding Resource Waters because of the abundant
trout populations. Over fifty percent of the basin is forested with
agricultural activities occurring primarily in river valleys. Cultivated land
area is decreasing in this basin while urban lands are increasing. Major
industries involve agriculture (dairy, livestock, apple orchards, and
Christmas tree farms), mining, and tourism. Land uses within the project
vicinity are comprised of maintained/disturbed land, urban
residential/commercial areas, and forests.

b. Geology and Soils

The project study area extends through eight mapped soil series. The soil
series descriptions were obtained by NRCS for Haywood County (USDA
1997).

24

Table 3b. Project Study Area Soils and Characteristics

Specific Map Unit Percent Slope Drainage Class Hydric Class

Dillsboro Loam 8 to 15 Well Drained Non-hydric

Dollsboro-Urban land 2 to 15 Well Drained Non-hydric
cmplex

ille-Chestnut 15 to 30 Well Drained Non-hydric
come
lex
Evard-Cowee complex 15 to 30 Well Drained Non-h dric

Ha esville clay loam 8 to 15 Well Drained Non-h dric

Saunook loam 2 to 8 Well Drained Non-h dric

Saunook loam 8 to 15 Well Drained Non-h dric
Udorthents, loamy

c. Biotic Resources

There are three terrestrial communities located within the project
study area. Community boundaries within the study area are generally
well defined without a significant transition zone between them. The
observed communities in order of their predominance within the study
area are: (1) Disturbed Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont
Subtype) (2) Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype), and (3)
maintained/disturbed.

Terrestrial impacts can result in changes in both species numbers
and composition. Plant communities found along the proposed project
study area often serve as nesting and sheltering habitat for wildlife. The
proposed project construction may reduce the existing habitat for these
species, thereby diminishing fauna numbers. Additionally, the reduction of
habitat within the project study area concentrates wildlife into smaller
areas of refuge, therefore causing some species to become more
susceptible to disease, preditors, and starvation. Ecological impacts can
also occur outside of the project study area because of habitat reduction.
Typically, those areas modified by construction (but not paved) will
become road shoulders and early successional habitat. The
reduction/change of habitat, while attracting other wildlife, may displace
25

existing wildlife further from the roadway. The animals displaced by
construction activities may repopulate other areas suitable for the species.
However, the increased animal density can result in an increase in
competition for the remaining resources.

The widening of NC 209 may result in certain unavoidable impacts
to the aquatic communities. Probable impacts resulting from changes in
water quantity and quality will include the physical disturbance of the
benthic and water column habitats. Significant disturbance of stream
segments can also have an adverse effect on aquatic community
composition by reducing species diversity and the overall quality of
aquatic habitats. Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the
following impacts to aquatic communities:

• Inhibition of plant growth.

• Resuspension of organic detritus and removal of aquatic vegetation
that can lead to increased nutrient loading. Nutrient loading can lead
to algal blooms and ensuing depletion of dissolved oxygen levels.
• Increases in suspended and settleable solids that can lead to clogging
of feeding structures of filter-feeding organisms and the gills of fish.
• Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through increased scouring and
sediment loading.
• Loss of fish shelter through removal of overhanging stream banks and
snags.
• Increases in seasonal water temperatures resulting from removal of
riparian canopy.

Unavoidable impacts to aquatic communities within and
immediately downstream of the project study area will be minimized to the
fullest degree practicable through strict adherence to NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT
1997).

2. Jurisdictional Topics

a. Water Resources

The USACE promulgated the definition of "waters of the United
States" under 33 CFR §328.3(a). 'Waters of the United States" include
most interstate and intrastate surface waters, tributaries, and wetlands. A
wetland is an area that is inundated or saturated by surface or
groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (33 CFR §328.3(b)).
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and other similar
areas. Any action that proposes to place dredged or fill materials into
"waters of the United States" falls under the jurisdiction of the USACE, and
26

must follow the statutory provisions under Section 404 of the CWA (33
U.S.C. 1344).

Water resources within the project study area include five unnamed
tributaries (UTs) to Richland Creek, and six wetlands. The streams are
located within the French Broad Drainage Basin and are designated as
Subbasin 04-03-05 according to the NCDWQ system for cataloging
drainage basins, and USGS Hydrologic Unit (HU) 06010106 according to
the federal system for cataloging drainage basins. Richland Creek from
the Lake Junaluska dam to the Pigeon River is included on the 303(d) list
for impaired biological integrity. The potential sources include agriculture
and urban runoff/storm sewers.

Table 3c. Stream Classification and Impacts

DWQ

STREAM PRIMARY WATER CLASSIFICATION STREAM
RESOURCE IMPACTS (ft)
CLASSIFICATION
UT 1 (Richland Creek) C Perennial Oft
UT 2 (Richland Creek) C Perennial Oft
UT 3 (Richland Creek) C Perennial 120 ft
UT 4 (Richland Creek) C Perennial 0
UT 5 (Richland Creek) C Perennial 300 ft

TOTAL IMPACTS 420 ft

Table 3d: Wetland Impacts

WETLAND NAME AREA IMPACTS (ac)

Wetland 1 0 acres

Wetland 2 0 acres
Wetland 3 0 acres

Wetland 4 0 acres
Wetland 5 0 acres

Wetland 6 0 acres

TOTAL IMPACTS 0 acres

27

3. Mitigation

The USACE has adopted, through the CEQ, a wetland mitigation
policy that embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands". The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological,
and physical integrity of "waters of the United States", specifically
wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to
include: avoiding impacts; minimizing impacts; rectifying impacts; reducing
impacts over time; and compensating for impacts (40 CFR §1508.20).
These three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory
mitigation) must be considered sequentially. Currently, Specific mitigation
measures for this project are not warranted.

4. Permits

The factors that may determine the applicability of a Nationwide
Permit (NWP) as authorized by 33 CFR §33 include total stream and
wetland impacts, impacts to cultural resources, impacts to federally
protected species, or impacts to High Quality Waters (HQW). Although an
individual site may qualify under NWP authorizations, overall, cumulative
impacts from a single and complete project may require authorization
under an Individual Permit (IP).

Due to the scope of this project, minimal impacts are expected to
occur. An Individual Permit will likely be applicable for the proposed
project because cumulative stream impacts exceed 300 feet. Impacts to
less than 300 linear feet of the same stream maybe permitted by
nationwide Permit (NWP) from the US Army Corps of Engineers under the
authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Impacts greater than 300
linear feet of the same stream or cumulative impacts require an Individual
Permit (IP). Wetland impacts of greater than 0.5 acres would require an IP
as well. Wetland impacts are not a factor in determining permit
applicability in this project.

Other permits that may apply include a NWP No. 33 for temporary
construction activities such as stream dewatering, work bridges, or
temporary causeways that are often used during bridge construction or
rehabilitation. The USACE holds the final discretion as to what permit will
be required to authorize project construction.

In addition to the 404 permit, other required authorizations include
the corresponding Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the
NCDWQ. Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state can issue or
deny a WQC for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result
in a discharge to "waters of the United States". A NCDWQ Section 401
Water Quality General certification for minor road crossing (GC 3404) may
be required prior to the issuance of a Section 404 Permit. Other required

28

401 certifications may include a GC 3366 for temporary construction
access and dewatering.

The project occurs in Haywood County, which is a NCWRC
designated "trout" county. Since the proposed project is located in a
designated "trout" county, the authorization of nationwide permit by the
USACE is conditioned upon the concurrence of the NCWRC.

Haywood County is currently participating in the National Flood
Insurance Regular Program. UT3 to Richland Creek is not in a designated
flood hazard zone on the currently effective Flood Insurance Rate Map
(8/17/1998) published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with FEMA and local authorities in
the final design stage of the project to ensure compliance with applicable
floodplain management ordinances.

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 also required for all construction or development involving
streams or floodplains in the Tennessee River Drainage Basin.

5. Federally Protected Species

Species federally classified as Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), Proposed Threatened (PT), and Threatened
due to similarity of appearance (T (S/A)) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Endangered refers to "any species
which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range", and threatened refers to "any species likely to become an
Endangered Species within the foreseeable future throughout all of a
significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532)." The USFWS lists the
following federally protected species for Haywood County.

29

Table 3e. Federally Protected Species in Haywood County

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME FEDERAL BIOLOGICAL
STATUS CONCLUSION
Alasmidonta Appalachian Endangered No Effect
raveneliana elktoe
Glyptemys Bog Turtle T (S/A) No Survey
muhlenber ii Required
Glaucomys sabrinus Carolina northern Endangered No Effect
coloratus flying squirrel

Gymnoderma lineare Rock gnome Endangered No Effect
lichen
Haliaeetus Bald eagle Recoverd No Eagle
leucocephalus Found Small- Isotria medeoloides pogoniawhotled Threatened No Effect

0
Myotis Sodalis Indiana bat Endangered No Effect

Myotis grisescens Gray bat Endangered No Effect
Puma concolor cougar Eastern cougar Endangered No Effect

Microhexura montivaga I Spruce-fir moss Endangered No Effect
spider

Appalachian elktoe Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Endangered

Transportation Improvement Project R-4047 will impact a small unnamed
tributary to Richland Creek, Pigeon River Watershed of the French Broad
Basin. The federally endangered Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta
ravaneliana) is listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for Haywood
County. A known population of this species occurs in the Pigeon River
near the project site. The habitat that will be affected by the project is not
suitable for this species. Additionally, habitat degradation caused by the
development of the towns of Waynesville, Canton and Clyde as well as a
long history of pollution from a paper mill on the Pigeon River in the town
of Canton have eliminated this species from the watershed in the area that
the project will affect directly or indirectly. The biological conclusion for
this species is No Effect.

Critical habitat for the Appalachian elktoe is designated within Haywood
County. The entire critical habitat is located in the Pigeon River
mainstem, East Fork Pigeon mainstem and West Fork Pigeon River
mainstem upstream of NC 215 crossing of the Pigeon River in the town of

30

Canton. The mouth of Richland Creek at the Pigeon River is
approximately 9 miles downstream of the downstream limits of the
designated critical habitat. There is no chance for project R-4047 to affect
the critical habitat

Bog turtle Biological Conclusion: No survey required
Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance (southern population)

Habitat for the bog turtle consist of fens, sphagnum bogs, swamps marshy
meadows and pastures. Areas with clear, slow-flowing water, soft mud
substrate, and an open canopy are ideal. As of October 25, 2004, site
investigations revealed that habitat for the bog turtle in the form of fens,
sphagnum bogs, swamps, marshy meadows, and marshy pastures were
not present within the project study area. Additionally, an October 4, 2004
review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats
revealed no known population of bog turtle within 1.0 mile of the project
study corridor. This species is listed as Threatened Due to Similarity of
Appearance, and is therefore not protected under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act. Consequently, no survey is required for this
species. The biological conclusion for the bog turtle remains "No Survey
Required".

Carolina northern flying squirrel Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Endangered

Habitat for the Carolina northern flying squirrel consists of areas found at
the ecotone between coniferous and northern hardwood forests, at
elevations greater than 5,000 ft. As of October 25, 2004, site
investigations revealed that habitat for the Carolina northern flying squirrel
in the form of an ecotone between coniferous and northern hardwood
forests at elevations greater than 5,000 ft were not present within the
project study area. The highest elevation within the project study area is
2,650 ft above msl. Additionally, an October 4, 2004 review of the
NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no known
populations within 1.0 mile of the project study area. Consequently, the
proposed project will have "No Effect" on the Carolina northern flying
squirrel.

Rock gnome lichen Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Endangered

The rock gnome requires a habitat of high humidity and bare rock faces
for its survival. Suitable habitat for the rock gnome can be found either at
high elevations where it is frequently exposed to fog, or (less frequently)
deep river gorges. As of October 25, 2004, site investigations revealed
that habitat for the rock gnome lichen in the form of high elevations
(>5,000 ft), or deep river gorges were not present within the project study

31

area. Additionally, an October 4, 2004 review of the NCNHP database of
rare species and unique habitats revealed no known populations within
1.0 mile of the project study area. Consequently, the proposed project will
have "No Effect" on the rock gnome lichen.

Bald eagle Biological Conclusion: No eagle found
Recovered (July 9, 2007)

The bald eagle requires nesting resources found in close proximity to
water (within 0.5 mile), with a clear flight path to the water, and having an
open view of the surrounding land The bald eagle has been delisted from
the Endangered Species Act as of August 8, 2007. It is still protected
under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. A survey for Bald
Eagles was conducted August 1, 2005 by Emilio Ancaya of HSMM, Inc.
Bald Eagle habitat is present approximately a half mile to the west of the
project at Lake Junaluska. Large trees near the lake were examined for
eagle nests with no eagles or eagle nests being observed. The Natural
Heritage Database was reviewed January 24, 2008 and no eagles were
listed within one mile of the project area.

Small-whorled pogonia Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Threatened

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. A survey for Small-whorled pogonia
was conducted August 1, 2005 by Emilio Ancaya of HSMM, Inc. Habitat is
present in the project area; however no plants were observed during the
survey. The Natural Heritage Database was reviewed January 24, 2008
and no populations of small-whorled pogonia were listed within one mile of
the project area. The Biological Conclusion for Small-whorled pogonia is
"No Effect".

Indiana bat Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Endangered

The Indiana bat requires deep, vertical caves for summer roosting and
winter hibernation. These caves are usually within 0.6 mile of a river or
reservoir, which provides foraging habitat. Site investigations revealed that
habitat for the Indiana bat in the form of deep vertical caves with large
rooms were not present within the project study area. Additionally, the
review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats
revealed no known populations within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
Consequently, the proposed project will have "No Effect" on the Indiana
bat.

32

Gray bat Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Endangered

The gray bat requires deep, vertical caves for summer roosting and winter
hibernation. These caves are usually within 0.6 mile of a river or reservoir,
which provides foraging habitat. As of October 25, 2004, site
investigations revealed that habitat for the gray bat in the form of deep
vertical caves with large rooms were not present within the project study
area. Additionally, an October 4, 2004 review of the NCNHP database of
rare species and unique habitats revealed no known populations within
1.0 mile of the project study area. Consequently, the proposed project will
have "No Effect" on the gray bat.

Eastern cougar Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Endangered

Habitat requirements for the Eastern Cougar consist primarily of large
tracts of wilderness and adequate prey. As of October 25, 2004, site
investigations revealed that habitat for the Eastern Cougar in the form of a
large wilderness area with an adequate food supply was not present within
the project study area. Additionally, an October 4, 2004 review of the
NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no known
populations within 1.0 mile of the project study area. Consequently, the
proposed project will have "No Effect" on the Eastern Cougar.

Spruce-fir moss spider Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Endangered

The spruce-fir moss spider is typically found in damp moss and liverwort
mats growing on rocks in well shaded, mature, high elevation Fraser fir
and red spruce forests. As of October 25, 2004, site investigations
revealed that habitat for the spruce-fir moss spider in the form of damp
moss and liverwort mats growing on rocks in well shaded, mature, high
elevation Fraser fir and red spruce forests were not present within the
project study area. Additionally, an October 4, 2004 review of the NCNHP
database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no known
populations within 1.0 mile of the project study area. Consequently, the
proposed project will have "No Effect" on the spruce-fir moss spider.

D. TRAFFIC NOISE

1. General

This analysis was performed to determine the effect on traffic noise
levels in the immediate project area as the result of widening of NC 209 to

33

four lane divided with median, from south of US 19-23-74 to north of SR
1523 (Appendix C).

2. 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 are set forth in the aforementioned Federal reference (Title 23
CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various
land uses is presented in Appendix C, Table N2. 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 are represented in terms
of a steady noise level with the same energy content.

3. Traffic Noise Abatement Measures

If traffic noise impacts are 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 are impacted
receptors due to highway traffic noise in the project area. The following
discussion addresses the applicability of these measures to the proposed
project.

a. 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 areas. Changing the
highway alignment is not a viable alternative for noise abatement.

b. 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.
34

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 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, are not
considered to be consistent with the project's objective of providing
a high-speed, limited-access facility.

C. Noise Barriers

Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels are 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.

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 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' from the barrier
would normally require a barrier 400' long. An access opening of
40 feet (10 percent of the area) 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.

35

d. Other Mitigation Measures Considered

The use of vegetation for noise mitigation is not considered
reasonable for this project, due to the amount of substantial amount
of right-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 $35,000 per benefited
receptor. Noise insulation was also considered; however, no public
or non-profit institutions were identified that would be impacted by
this project.

4. "Do-Nothing" Alternative

The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build"
alternative was also considered. If the proposed widening did not occur,
12 receptors would experience traffic noise impacts by approaching or
exceeding the FHWA NAC. Also, the receptors could anticipate
experiencing an increase in exterior noise levels in the range of +1 to +7
dBA. It is barely possible to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5-
dBA change in noise levels is more readily noticed.

5. 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 near the project, can be expected particularly
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 are not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss
characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-made structures are
believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction
noise.

6. Summary

Traffic noise impacts are an unavoidable consequence of
transportation projects especially in areas 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 are proposed. This

36

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.

E. Air Quality Analysis

Haywood County has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 and 93 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.

The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to
be 1.8 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division
of Environmental Management (DEM), North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO concentration
of 1.8 PPM is suitable for most suburban and rural areas.

The worst-case air quality scenario was determined to be in the vicinity of
the intersection of NC 209 and SR 1801. The predicted 1-hour average CO
concentrations for the evaluation build years of 2005, 2010, and 2025 are 3.50,
3.50, and 3.70 ppm, respectively. Comparison of the predicted CO
concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging period
= 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period = 9 ppm) indicates no violation of these
standards. Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis for the build
scenario is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does
not exceed the standard Appendix C Table A-1 to A-3).

1. Mobile Source Air Toxics

In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), EPA also regulates air toxics.
Most air toxics originate from human-made sources, including on-road
mobile sources, non-road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes), area sources
(e.g., dry cleaners) and stationary sources (e.g., factories or refineries).

Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air
toxics defined by the Clean Air Act. The MSATs are compounds emitted
from highway vehicles and non-road equipment. Some toxic compounds
are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the fuel evaporates or
passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted from the
incomplete combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products.
Metal air toxics also result from engine wear or from impurities in oil or
gasoline.

The EPA is the lead Federal Agency for administering the Clean Air
Act and has certain responsibilities regarding the health effects of MSATs.

37

The EPA issued a Final Rule on Controlling Emissions of Hazardous Air
Pollutants from Mobile Sources. 66 FR 17229 (March 29, 2001).

This rule was issued under the authority in Section 202 of the Clean
Air Act. In its rule, EPA examined the impacts of existing and newly
promulgated mobile source control programs, including its reformulated
gasoline (RFG) program, its national low emission vehicle (NLEV)
standards, its Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline
sulfur control requirements, and its proposed heavy duty engine and
vehicle standards and on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements.

Between 2000 and 2020, FHWA projects that even with a 64
percent increase in VMT, these programs will reduce on-highway
emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde by
57 percent to 65 percent, and will reduce on-highway diesel PM emissions
by 87 percent, as shown in the following graph:

VW Emissions
(trillions/year) (tonsiyear)

200,000
Benzene (-57%)
'u MT (M51x)
DPM+DWG (87%)

100,000
FomapeLytle KZ%)

?Ae tWe 1'ytle
f ,3-61Litlle le ( M)
ACIDIell ($3%)
0-
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Notes: For on-road mobile sources. Emissions factors were
generated using MOBILE6.2. MTBE proportion of market for oxygenates
is held constant, at 50%. Gasoline RVP and oxygenate content are held
constant. VMT: Highway Statistics 2000, Table VM-2 for 2000, analysis
assumes annual growth rate of 2.5%. "DPM + DEOG" is based on
MOBILE6.2-generated factors for elemental carbon, organic carbon and
SO4 from diesel-powered vehicles, with the particle size cutoff set at 10.0
microns.

As a result, EPA concluded that no further motor vehicle emissions
standards or fuel standards were necessary to further control MSATs. The
agency is preparing another rule under authority of CAA Section 202(1)

38

that will address these issues and could make adjustments to the full 21
and the primary six MSATs.

2. Unavailable Information for Project Specific MSAT Impact Analysis

This EA includes a basic analysis of the likely MSAT emission
impacts of this project. However, available technical tools do not enable us
to predict the project-specific health impacts of the emission changes
associated with the alternatives in this EA]. Due to these limitations, the
following discussion is included in accordance with CEQ regulations (40
CFR 1502.22(b)) regarding incomplete or unavailable information:

3. Information that is Unavailable or Incomplete.

Evaluating the environmental and health impacts from MSATs on a
proposed highway project would involve several key elements, including
emissions modeling, dispersion modeling in order to estimate ambient
concentrations resulting from the estimated emissions, exposure modeling
in order to estimate human exposure to the estimated concentrations, and
then final determination of health impacts based on the estimated
exposure. Each of these steps is encumbered by technical shortcomings
or uncertain science that prevents a more complete determination of the
MSAT health impacts of this project.

a. Emissions

The EPA tools to estimate MSAT emissions from motor
vehicles are not sensitive to key variables determining emissions of
MSATs in the context of highway projects. While MOBILE 6.2 is
used to predict emissions at a regional level, it has limited
applicability at the project level. MOBILE 6.2 is a trip-based model--
emission factors are projected based on a typical trip of 7.5 miles,
and on average speeds for this typical trip. This means that
MOBILE 6.2 does not have the ability to predict emission factors for
a specific vehicle operating condition at a specific location at a
specific time. Because of this limitation, MOBILE 6.2 can only
approximate the operating speeds and levels of congestion likely to
be present on the largest-scale projects, and cannot adequately
capture emissions effects of smaller projects. For particulate
matter, the model results are not sensitive to average trip speed,
although the other MSAT emission rates do change with changes in
trip speed. Also, the emissions rates used in MOBILE 6.2 for both
particulate matter and MSATs are based on a limited number of
tests of mostly older-technology vehicles. Lastly, in its discussions
of PM under the conformity rule, EPA has identified problems with
MOBILE6.2 as an obstacle to quantitative analysis.

39

These deficiencies compromise the capability of MOBILE 6.2 to
estimate MSAT emissions. MOBILE6.2 is an adequate tool for
projecting emissions trends, and performing relative analyses
between alternatives for very large projects, but it is not sensitive
enough to capture the effects of travel changes tied to smaller
projects or to predict emissions near specific roadside locations.

b. Dispersion

The tools to predict how MSATs disperse are also limited.
The EPA's current regulatory models, CALINE3 and CAL3QHC,
were developed and validated more than a decade ago for the
purpose of predicting episodic concentrations of carbon monoxide
to determine compliance with the NAAQS. The performance of
dispersion models is more accurate for predicting maximum
concentrations that can occur at some time at some location within
a geographic area. This limitation makes it difficult to predict
accurate exposure patterns at specific times at specific highway
project locations across an urban area to assess potential health
risk. The NCHRP is conducting research on best practices in
applying models and other technical methods in the analysis of
MSATs. This work also will focus on identifying appropriate
methods of documenting and communicating MSAT impacts in the
NEPA process and to the general public. Along with these general
limitations of dispersion models, FHWA is also faced with a lack of
monitoring data in most areas for use in establishing project-
specific MSAT background concentrations.

C. Exposure Levels and Health Effects.

Finally, even if emission levels and concentrations of MSATs
could be accurately predicted, shortcomings in current techniques
for exposure assessment and risk analysis preclude us from
reaching meaningful conclusions about project-specific health
impacts. Exposure assessments are difficult because it is difficult to
accurately calculate annual concentrations of MSATs near
roadways, and to determine the portion of a year that people are
actually exposed to those concentrations at a specific location.
These difficulties are magnified for 70-year cancer assessments,
particularly because unsupportable assumptions would have to be
made regarding changes in travel patterns and vehicle technology
(which affects emissions rates) over a 70-year period. There are
also considerable uncertainties associated with the existing
estimates of toxicity of the various MSATs, because of factors such
as low-dose extrapolation and translation of-occupational exposure
data to the general population. Because of these shortcomings, any
calculated difference in health impacts between alternatives is likely

40

to be much smaller than the uncertainties associated with
calculating the impacts. Consequently, the results of such
assessments would not be useful to decision makers, who would
need to weigh this information against other project impacts that
are better suited for quantitative analysis.

4. Summary of Existing Credible Scientific Evidence Relevant to
Evaluating the Impacts of MSATs.

Research into the health impacts of MSATs is ongoing. For
different emission types, there are a variety of studies that show that some
either are statistically associated with adverse health outcomes through
epidemiological studies (frequently based on emissions levels found in
occupational settings) or that animals demonstrate adverse health
outcomes when exposed to large doses.

Exposure to toxics has been a focus of a number of EPA efforts.
Most notably, the agency conducted the National Air Toxics Assessment
(NATA) in 1996 to evaluate modeled estimates of human exposure
applicable to the county level. While not intended for use as a measure of
or benchmark for local exposure, the modeled estimates in the NATA
database best illustrate the levels of various toxics when aggregated to a
national or State level.

The EPA is in the process of assessing the risks of various kinds of
exposures to these pollutants. The EPA Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) is a database of human health effects that may result from
exposure to various substances found in the environment. The IRIS
database is located at http://www.epa.gov/iris. The following toxicity
information for the six prioritized MSATs was taken from the IRIS
database Weight of Evidence Characterization summaries. This
information is taken verbatim from EPA's IRIS database and represents
the Agency's most current evaluations of the potential hazards and
toxicology of these chemicals or mixtures.

Benzene is characterized as a known human carcinogen.
The potential carcinogenicity of acrolein cannot be determined because
the existing data are inadequate for an assessment of human
carcinogenic potential for either the oral or inhalation route of exposure.

Formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen, based on limited
evidence in humans, and sufficient evidence in animals.
1,3-butadiene is characterized as carcinogenic to humans by inhalation.

Acetaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen based on increased
incidence of nasal tumors in male and female rats and laryngeal tumors in
male and female hamsters after inhalation exposure.

41

Diesel exhaust (DE) is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by
inhalation from environmental exposures. Diesel exhaust as reviewed in
this document is the combination of diesel particulate matter and diesel
exhaust organic gases.

Diesel exhaust also represents chronic respiratory effects, possibly
the primary noncancer hazard from MSATs. Prolonged exposures may
impair pulmonary function and could produce symptoms, such as cough,
phlegm, and chronic bronchitis. Exposure relationships have not been
developed from these studies.

There have been other studies that address MSAT health impacts
in proximity to roadways. The Health Effects Institute, a non-profit
organization funded by EPA, FHWA, and industry, has undertaken a major
series of studies to research near-roadway MSAT hot spots, the health
implications of the entire mix of mobile source pollutants, and other topics.
The final summary of the series is not expected for several years.

Some recent studies have reported that proximity to roadways is
related to adverse health outcomes particularly respiratory problems-'.
Much of this research is not specific to MSATs, instead surveying the full
spectrum of both criteria and other pollutants. The FHWA cannot evaluate
the validity of these studies, but more importantly, they do not provide
information that would be useful to alleviate the uncertainties listed above
and enable us to perform a more comprehensive evaluation of the health
impacts specific to this project.

Relevance of Unavailable or Incomplete Information to
Evaluating Reasonably Foreseeable Significant Adverse Impacts on
the Environment, and Evaluation of impacts based upon theoretical
approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific
community.

Because of the uncertainties outlined above, a quantitative
assessment of the effects of air toxic emissions impacts on human health
cannot be made at the project level. While available tools do allow us to
reasonably predict relative emissions changes between alternatives for
larger projects, the amount of MSAT emissions from each of the project
alternatives and MSAT concentrations or exposures created by each of
the project alternatives cannot be predicted with enough accuracy to be
useful in estimating health impacts. (As noted above, the current
emissions model is not capable of serving as a meaningful emissions
analysis tool for smaller projects.) Therefore, the relevance of the
unavailable or incomplete information is that it is not possible to make a
determination of whether any of the alternatives would have "significant
adverse impacts on the human environment." In this document, FHWA
42

has provided a quantitative analysis of MSAT emissions relative to the
various alternatives, (or a qualitative assessment, as applicable) and has
acknowledged that (some, all, or identify by alternative) the project
alternatives may result in increased exposure to MSAT emissions in
certain locations, although the concentrations and duration of exposures
are uncertain, and because of this uncertainty, the health effects from
these emissions cannot be estimated.

5. Minor Widening Project

For each alternative in this EIS/EA, the amount of MSATs emitted
would be proportional to the vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, assuming that
other variables such as fleet mix are the same for each alternative. The
VMT estimated for each of the Build Alternatives is slightly higher than that
for the No Build Alternative, because the additional capacity increases the
efficiency of the roadway and attracts rerouted trips from elsewhere in the
transportation network. This increase in VMT would lead to higher MSAT
emissions for the action alternative along the highway corridor, along with
a corresponding decrease in MSAT emissions along the parallel routes.

The emissions increase is offset somewhat by lower MSAT
emission rates due to increased speeds; according to EPA's MOBILE6
emissions model, emissions of all of the priority MSATs except for diesel
particulate matter decrease as speed increases. The extent to which these
speed-related emissions decreases will offset VMT-related emissions
increases cannot be reliably projected due to the inherent deficiencies of
technical models.

Regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions will likely be lower
than present levels in the design year as a result of EPA's national control
programs that are projected to reduce MSAT emissions by 57 to 87
percent between 2000 and 2020. Local conditions may differ from these
national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates,
and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA-projected
reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT
emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future in nearly all
cases.

The additional travel lanes contemplated as part of the project
alternatives will have the effect of moving some traffic closer to nearby
homes, schools and businesses; therefore, under each alternative there
may be localized areas where ambient concentrations of MSATs could be
higher under certain Build Alternatives than the No Build Alternative. The
localized increases in MSAT concentrations would likely be most
pronounced along the expanded roadway sections that would be built at
intersection of US 321/US421 (East King Street) and US 221/NC 105,
under alternatives 1 and 2. However, as discussed above, the magnitude

43

and the duration of these potential increases compared to the No-build
alternative cannot be accurately quantified due to the inherent deficiencies
of current models. In sum, when a highway is widened and, as a result,
moves closer to receptors, the localized level of MSAT emissions for the
Build Alternative could be higher relative to the No Build Alternative, but
this could be offset due to increases in speeds and reductions in
congestion (which are associated with lower MSAT emissions). Also,
MSATs will be lower in other locations when traffic shifts away from them.
However, on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled
with fleet turnover, will over time cause substantial reductions that, in
almost all cases, will cause region-wide MSAT levels to be significantly
lower than today.

6. MSAT Mitigation Strategies

Lessening the effects of mobile source air toxics should be
considered for projects with substantial construction-related MSAT
emissions that are likely to occur over an extended building period, and for
post-construction scenarios where the NEPA analysis indicates potentially
meaningful MSAT levels. Such mitigation efforts should be evaluated
based on the circumstances associated with individual projects, and they
may not be appropriate in all cases. However, there are a number of
available mitigation strategies and solutions for countering the effects of
MSAT emissions.

7. Mitigating for Construction MSAT Emissions

Construction activity may generate a temporary increase in MSAT
emissions. Project-level assessments that render a decision to pursue
construction emission mitigation will benefit from a number of technologies
and operational practices that should help lower short-term MSATs. In
addition, the SAFETEA-LU has emphasized a host of diesel retrofit
technologies in the law's CMAQ provisions - technologies that are
designed to lessen a number of MSATs.-'

Construction mitigation includes strategies that reduce engine
activity or reduce emissions per unit of operating time. Operational
agreements that reduce or redirect work or shift times to avoid community
exposures can have positive benefits when sites are near vulnerable
populations. For example, agreements that stress work activity outside
normal hours of an adjacent school campus would be operations-oriented
mitigation. Also on the construction emissions front, technological
adjustments to equipment, such as off-road dump trucks and bulldozers,
could be appropriate strategies. These technological fixes could include
particulate matter traps, oxidation catalysts, and other devices that provide
an after-treatment of exhaust emissions. The use of clean fuels, such as
ultra-low sulfur diesel, also can be a very cost-beneficial strategy.

44

The EPA has listed a number of approved diesel retrofit
technologies; many of these can be deployed as emissions mitigation
measures for equipment used in construction. This listing can be found at:
www.epa..qovlotaqlretrofitlretroverifiedlist.htm

8. Post-Construction Mitigation for Projects with Potentially Significant
MSAT Levels

Longer-term MSAT emissions can be more difficult to control, as
variables such as daily traffic and vehicle mix are elusive. Operational
strategies that focus on speed limit enforcement or traffic management
policies may help reduce MSAT emissions even beyond the benefits of
fleet turnover. Well-traveled highways with high proportions of heavy-duty
diesel truck activity may benefit from active Intelligent Transportation
System programs, such as traffic management centers or incident
management systems. Similarly, anti-idling strategies, such as truck-stop
electrification can complement projects that focus on new or increased
freight activity.

Planners also may want to consider the benefits of establishing
buffer zones between new or expanded highway alignments and areas of
vulnerable populations. Modifications of local zoning or the development
of guidelines that are more protective also may be useful in separating
emissions and receptors.

The initial decision to pursue MSAT emissions mitigation should be
the result of interagency consultation at the earliest juncture. Options
available to project sponsors should be identified through careful
information gathering and the required level of deliberation to assure an
effective course of action.

F. Hazardous Materials Evaluation

1. Purpose

The purpose of this evaluation is to identify properties within
the project study area that are or may be contaminated and
therefore result in increased project costs and future liability if
acquired by the NCDOT. Geo-environmental impacts may include,
but are not limited to, active and abandoned underground storage
tanks (UST) sites, hazardous waste sites, regulated landfills and
unregulated dumpsites. Table 6 shows the potential hazardous
sites on the project and any impacts brought on by its construction.

45

2. Summary

Five sites currently or formerly containing petroleum
underground storage tanks (USTs) exist within the project study
area. This total number includes one active gas station and four
former underground petroleum storage sites. All USTs have been
removed from the four former UST sits.

The Geo-environ mental Section observed no additional
contaminated properties during the field reconnaissance and
regulatory agencies' record search. If any USTs or any potential
source of contamination is discovered by Right of Way personnel
during the initial contacts with impacted property owners, NCDOT
be notified of their presence prior to acquisition, so an assessment
can be conducted to determine the extent of any contamination.
This assessment will also serve to estimate the associated clean up
costs and allow for right of way recommendations.

Table X Underground Storage Tank Facilities

Underground Storage Tank (UST) Facilities

Site # Business Name and Anticipated Anticipated Comments
Location Impacts Severity

Convenience King #7 Petroleum Negligible to Active gas
1 65 Paragon Pkwy contaminated Low station has four
Wa nesville, NC soils 4) USTs
David's Home Petroleum Former gas
2 Entertainment contaminated Negligible to station. USTs
100 Access Road soils Low removed in 1986
Waynesville, NC
Biller Automotive Petroleum
3 Repair contaminated Negligible to Four USTs
20 Old Clyde Road soils Low removed in 1991
Waynesville, NC
Clear View Glass Petroleum Negligible to Five USTs
4 11 Old Clyde Road contaminated Low removed in 1992
Waynesville, NC soils
9 Haywood Office Park Petroleum Seven USTs
5 Waynesville, NC contaminated Negligible removed from
soils site in 1992
G. Construction Impacts

To minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction of the
proposed project, the following measures, along with those previously
stated, will be enforced during the construction phase:

46

1. All possible measures will be taken to insure that the public's health
and safety will not be compromised during the movement of any
materials to and from construction sites along the project, and that
any inconveniences imposed on the public will be kept to a
minimum.

2. Dust control will be exercised at all times to prevent endangering
the safety and general welfare of the public and to prevent
diminishing the value, utility, or appearance of any public or private
properties.

3. The contractor shall be required to observe and comply with all
laws, ordinances, regulations, orders and decrees, including those
of the N.C. State Board of Health, regarding the disposal of solid
waste. All solid waste will be disposed of in accordance with the
Standard Specifications of the Division of Highways. These
specifications have been reviewed and approved by the Solid
Waste Vector Control Section of the Division of Health Services, N.
C. Department of Human Resources.

4. Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of the right of
way and provisions or unless disposal within the right of way is
permitted by the Engineer. Disposal of waste and debris in active
public waste or disposal areas will not be permitted without prior
approval by the Engineer. Such approval will not be permitted
when, in the opinion of the Engineer, it will result in excessive
siltation or pollution.

5. The construction of the project is not expected to cause any serious
disruptions in service to any of the utilities serving the area. Before
construction is started, a pre-construction conference involving the
contractor, pertinent local officials and the Division of Highways will
be held to discuss various construction procedures, including a
discussion of precautionary steps to be taken during the time of
construction that will minimize interruption of service.

Prior to construction, a determination will be made regarding the
need to relocate or adjust any existing utilities in the project area. A
determination of whether the NCDOT or the utility owner will be
responsible for this work will be made at that time.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting
from clearing and grubbing, demolition, or other operations will be
removed from the project, burned, or otherwise disposed of by the
contractor. Any burning will bedone in accordance with applicable- local
laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina State
Implementation Plan for Air Quality. Care will be taken to insure burning
47

will be done at the greatest distance practicable from dwellings and not
when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public.
Burning will be performed under constant surveillance.

The contractor will devise an erosion control schedule before work
is started. The schedule will show the time relationship between phases
of the work that must be coordinated to reduce erosion and shall describe
construction practices and temporary erosion control measures that will be
used to minimize erosion. In conjunction with the erosion control
schedule, the contractor will be required to follow those provisions of the
plans and specifications that pertain to erosion and siltation. These
contract provisions are in accordance with the strict federal erosion control
measures. Temporary erosion control measures such as the use of
berms, dikes, dams, silt basins, etc. will be used as needed.

Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on
this project, the contractor shall obtain a certification from the state
Department of Cultural Resources certifying that the removal of material
from the borrow source will have no effect on any known district, site,
building, structure, or object that is included or eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places. A copy of this certification shall be
furnished to the Engineer prior to performing any work on the proposed
borrow source.

Traffic service in the immediate project area may be subjected to
brief disruption during construction of the project. Every effort will be
made to insure that the transportation needs of the public will be met both
during and after construction.

48

VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION

A. COORDINATION

During the preliminary engineering phase of this project, NCDOT
maintained contact with several local, state and federal agencies.
Correspondence requesting environmental input was sent to the following
agencies, and replies were received from those marked with an asterisk

US Army Corps of Engineers (Asheville, NC Regulatory Field Office)*
US Environmental Protection Agency (Raleigh)*
US Fish and Wildlife Service (Asheville)*
Tennessee Valley Authority*
NC Dept. of Administration (State Clearinghouse)*
NC Dept. of Cultural Resources (Historic Preservation)*
NC Dept. of Public Instruction (School Planning)*
NC Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources*
NC Wildlife Resources Commission*
Haywood County Schools
Community of Lake Junaluska

B. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COMMENTS

NCDOT held a Citizen's Informational Workshop (CIW) for the project on
November 18, 2003. Twelve citizens were in attendance. Handouts provided at
the workshop included a comment sheet, so written comments could be
received. The primary concern of citizens was the potential relocations due to
the reconfiguration of the US 19-23-74/NC 209 interchange. In particular,
concern was the possible relocations along SR 1375 (Access Road) when the
new on ramp was constructed. Other concerns included bicycle and pedestrian
safety along the existing and improved NC 209.

A public hearing will take place after the publication and distribution of this
Environmental Assessment. At this hearing citizens are given the chance to
learn about all of the project's design features and state publicly their individual
choice for implementation and/or recommendations for modifications. After the
hearing, a Finding of No Significant Impact document will be distributed and will
include the recommended alternative for this project. The recommended
alternative will be selected based on engineering, environmental information, and
public comments.

49

VII. BASIS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

On the basis of planning and environmental studies, it is anticipated that
this project will not have a significant detrimental effect on the quality of the
human environment. The proposed project will cause no significant changes in
route classification and land use and is not controversial in nature. The project
has been reviewed by federal, state and local agencies and no objections have
been raised., No major objections to the project were voiced at the citizen's
informational workshop held on November 18, 2003. For these reasons, it is
concluded that an Environmental Assessment is applicable to this project.

50

APPENDIX A

(FIGURES)

r I .v ar f~l~l

y l
°y. ~4+r 4' 7Y J Y~ .ry.•a my ~I l~f ~rr~iw,J,~ 1 ~v. `Ey ~.y y '.J 1
via
~-:w
Y=r i• •s,'-4"' M~~,~?'a,~~,w~.~•~~~+^N«'~' ,~;;r~,q_" " , 9 ~~I !r ;I fl+,i I
Iii, ~ i~ ~ ~ v I~~ ,h rMnr~a,;?,r~' ~ dhMf'k I
1

f
fto
a
0

P t
b 1.
NO
op Q
rff' I s

ot +k k ~~9r, FCr 7Y"k"'~ ! 7 s ~uS?,~Q•~ 1 uF '.°vry1ryl ul~.•' „ r~
~ Mr A ! s k c i r e~ ~,">F~JIY n ~ t ~Y1 STN ihh c{{ ~ "fit
,.A a ~ v a A rk rK t1F ~~7 aSF d.7~ G k>6' ~ .A9' f. r
~r ~~YY~ k - a r 1 r k 1` ~ q q ~ y ~~•ly,~ Y,ra•~':? - _ I
as
v~
,y„arr~F .raF , v w h ~ ` ~ o a L~ cZ - ~ I ~ 0 a.
A ~ 'e~ n ~t t}~}J ,G~,p ~s '?w t ~ t .ro ~ ?Mh d
v.~ ! 11 t5M y9k wS (tl iJ~ ~ ` ~r3"^~ ,r,~ ~ ! 9 frv<
µ Cre ant Fry
~ : ~1+5'>~w,a'~ ~!a " ter Y$S 'I~ - `G C I ~
s( r
yam-` ~ ~
Y ~y,"' A '"i` '.'~,.w,~~ 4~ ,r; rl?y aM9 Via.,;, r~ `~~p~' •""'ti..._.w.
two
N a
w r~c I a
ra,) c " u La shore v
E
« Y
V/~.® `n+w".y-. F r+A'dW'$N k} y1 1 ' I~
I
Z gam! Fr I~
~a
r
H . w
Q r
fie'
J'y
X in
Yi F Q
01
P
,
^
s o
;
I J)

w
N '0
Q cD
r.
o m 1 ca
o
o y m y o
e
m oftcy•,a
°
Q ?le
r.
n
-n O m
O J?
CD S rR M9
«
W o VICINITY MAP
z`° PROPOSED WIDENING OF NC 209 ,0RTH,
Q NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT p~ 4e
< & REPLACEMENT OF RAILROAD OF TRANSPORTATION y~~ ¢
o o STRUCTURE R-32 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
I of p z HAYWOOD COUNTY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH ~y,afTR
TIP PROJECT R-4047

;
: a
-
• w f

0l k tQ lJ~ 1r l G~ " 1~~
,
20
m 1
_
' b'~~ r ~ r1 'ti` r: .~I; ~ J RIB 1~' T` ,T,`~ µ
N
r
r a
;
is
„
13
--4 M+~ i
i Y
16.
Y
44
3 a6"
a.
•
Ir
0
n • .
y .y~ ~ ~1!' fVl t11.
i
•
x
44-
®V a®
eew
w rw ~ a~
jab °i~~4~a,"T~ 1 ~ fir" ~ Y - ,
r W p ,
.,..,,®I~ at y t
~VI r
RRR {I I
" J
:
d..
-iL
AAW
T r
Yh ~
" I`
. r
o ~ -
V
r
~
p'
O W
06
4 4
ORA
"
r
1
A A,

CD z
N 'lS°r r •~"1

Q
N EXISTING CONDITIONS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT tN~f 7H (qQ
"n 0
PROPOSED WIDENING OF NC 209 OF TRANSPORTATION
N) T=l o & REPLACEMENT OF RAILROAD DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
o it PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
C 0 I MUIN Iff-42
TIP PROJECT R-4047 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCHpr of `ftpNg~~

jr.
,ANEW&V

a

c-
¦
olo~
r.

ok:
.;f r
W-.'r Z 1ftA.hi~ 'ik II SIG ? ® m e
'
, ~'q
N
y
~ "M_ e :Y~ yLti
.
CL Y•h~ ; 'may:±~ 5.' o,, ~e
i rry k Yy CA
-
c
6.~ a' ~ -~.~,j`~~ ~~t~y,~,~'`~`~', '`-~`K ~ r<~"~ ~.~,+'`a"'a~p ~ 'I1rN"~ y~~~ ~
w a
`Fp •-r p^. , jl to
t
. 7
,
a
~ F \ f ~~i/ - r y .'fit' `
a,
yE , i. ~ F',S ~ ~ a. }EI"n •,!F r ~ @'. " ~ ` inS`ay te7 ~ a.J
r~ ~ d i.
Y°
.
Sy 7r/
r

i~4.'T ,r 't v' , ifs pv+~r,^ f J mow' c ° i~A~7
,ta 9471
dpw
Vic'.: i J~~~ - • yli' Pp
r
•
-
1.1 , rf
•

a .a. , ~ " 5~:, , V? c r a~ ~~Y• +w'
A,., '-8 aa,^~.. ~f s e.'- r _ ~ ~ r'e'f r", s'~.. 1 1.`F.
•
1.
, r
V
"
,xf:ate 3 '.c
06
%
r:
A\o 44
,
,t - r ~ 4 `5 !fit- . a
.r r ,1•',~~ "..~fG{~~].(`(•~~`~• ~ j r::. 'fir t _ f+"~°~~
.
` A
1 ` CY7
} r
a'
d -alts
(D _71
d ? s a 4 arx
CL .4
E7 iu
-n C)
a " ` £
a~ F y
CD A
e
W p
=T N PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
4
-n 0 D~ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT TjoF17I C
c_n < PROPOSED WIDENING OF NC 209 OF TRANSPORTATION H
W N REPLACEMENT OF RAILROAD DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
c'D o p PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
CD 0 I 1aYlYiI~~WJ~ ~2 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH ' h'0r TA
TIP PROJECT R-4047

, X004
P
a r

~rZ t ,7 J ~Y„'r'•R^.i fifJ. ~F IA ~ '.y*r ~ ~ l r~ ~~rp"YU:~~~ _ t

1 14,
r

F
, + W
y
• I x ~ ice'` ~ x~[~ ~ ~5 oL~
•
r. r• "
TP '

o" ~f yj ,Q, ~ Zr} .4. •S~! 1 ,la _ R >.1, f,^4 "!u ~d. 04
j
li a
F
IMF
.a. '`4.~ d'~ln'. aF.,•: a. ' e~ qq~".: i' 1 + .,1 is ,':l aT_R~7
10 jr
ilo~
y v R
54
:q 0
r
•,ti
,
is
~M it b./ '~Y~~~r ~ _ ~ ~ _ Y` r , f - ~ • ".Y'
t~/' ~ ~Mr~r•' •g~'~,~, h ~.s ~ & - ~ .nr ;+.A. - ..yry ~""A$:
,
mKS'1 J,.. R• )I~ OQ\6]yl~`~\V\*`\y or.

f
y ar
,
r

y ,

g CRASH LOCATION FOR Ito ~l
q
.r .
01
"
~I
0 t
T N
3 3
° h O ° ® IIm BFI 4'
V1 N
N ° o a $ fro
0) =4
v o. .v! ..A: :F'
O TI a F '
'lZ
zoo s' D N PROPOSED WIDENING OF NC 209 NOp7i1 ,R
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT o
< & REPLACEMENT OF RAILROAD OF TRANSPORTATION y
C.0 STRUCTURE R-32 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
o o
cD o p PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
p HAYWOOD COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH hT Q°`~P
TIP PROJECT R-4047 OFTNPH~

APPENDIX B

(CORRESPONDENCE)

STAYZ

North Carolina

Department of Administration

Michael F. Easley, Governor Office of the Secretary
January 9, 2001

Ms. Karen Capps
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Project Dev. & Env. Analysis Branch
Transportation Bldg. - 1548 MSC
Raleigh NC 27699-1548

Dear Ms. Capps:

Subject: Scoping - Proposed Improvements to NC 209 from US 19-23 to just North of SR 1523;
Haywood County; TIP 9R-4047

The N. C. State Clearinghouse has received the above project for intergovernmental review. This
project has been assigned State Application Number 01-E-4220-0397. Please use this number with
all inquiries or correspondence with this office.

Review of this project should be completed on or before 03/14/2001 . Should you have any
questions, please call [phone].

Sincerely,

Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator

PLEASE NOTE NEW MAILING ADDRESS
EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY

N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
1302 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1302

116 West Jones Street * Ralei;h, North Carolina 27603-8003 * Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01-00
i -,,,-,.i % ff-, I we F'nrln%of

0 z:,

North Carolina
Department of Administration

James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary

June 1 2060

Mr. Karen Capps
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Project Dev. & Env. Anal. Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh, NC 27603

Dear Mr. Capps:

Re: SCH File # 00-E-4220-0514; Scoping Proposed Improvements to NC 209 from 0.2 Mile North
of US 19-23-74 to Just North of SR 1523, Haywood County; TIP 9R-4047

The above referenced project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental
Review Process. Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].

Sincerely,
4* 13k;~

Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator

Attachments

cc: Region A

116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM

To: Karen Capps ~~~v
From: Sarah LeCount~l`"
Subject: R-4047: widen NC 209 from .2 mile north of US 191123/74 to just north of
SR 1 523 at Lake Junaluska, Haywood County
Date: 21 August 2000

Attached is a copy of the partially-signed concurrence form which states that the NCDOT and
NCSHPO agree that:

? There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet
Criterion Consideration G within the project's Area of Potential Effects.

? There are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential
Effects., but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each
property. the property identified as # 3 is considered not eligible for the National Register
and no further evaluation of it is necessary.
? There are no National Register-listed properties within the project's Area
of Potential Effects.

You have on file the signed concurrence form stating that Properties 4 1 & 2 are also not eligible
for the National Register. I will forward to you a copy of the form signed by the State Historic
Preservation Officer when I receive it.

Please notifi us in writing if the scope of this project changes. A change in scope may
necessitate a new survev of the APE.

HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE SECTION

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

t-CuCra, .-111 7 (,c. /y /U! ) , /&f

CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
I' OPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

Brief Project Descri tion
3- - o
n
-/2 152 30 40
On representatives of the
i
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at

A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review sessionkonsultation
Other

All parties present agree::
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.

there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.

there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as 1-2-- are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.

there are no historic properties affected by this project.
Si;ned:

7, ej7j,
R resentative,.NCDOT s' Date

FHwA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date

Repr entative, SHP Date

State Historic Preservation Officer Date

If a survey report is prepared. a final cope of this form and the attached hst will be included.

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM

To: Karen Capps. PE. Project Planning Engineer
From: Sarah LeCount, Architectural Historian 4,.ti-
Subject: R-4047, Widening NC 209 from 0.2 miles north of US 19/23/74 to just north of SR 1523
at Lake Junaluska. Haywood County
Date: S September 2000

Attached are copies of the fully-signed concurrence forms which state that the NCDOT and the
NC State Historic Preservation Office agree, for the above-mentioned project, that:

There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to
Meet Criterion Consideration G within this project's Area of Potential
Effects (APE).

There are properties over fifty years old within the project's APE, but based on the
historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as 41 - 3 are considered not eligible for the National Register
and no further evaluation of them is necessary.

There are no National Register-listed properties within the project's APE.

Since there are no historic properties effected by the proposed project, compliance with Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is complete.

Please notify us in writing if the scope of this project changes. A change in scope may
necessitate a new survey of the APE.

HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE SECTION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH

TIP E - Federal Aid STP-2 d ~2 County "

CONCURRENCE FORD!
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THENATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

Brief Project Description
' l
I}~-C YJ ' Y , v'1 { ;i * l 6~ ( 17
v,; 11 4 -1 La
r
On ! 1 J l a I' representatives of the
i, North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
4., North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHFO)
Other
reviewed the subject project a'

A scoping meeting
Historic arctutectural resources photoeraph review session/consuttauoi,
Other
All parties present agrees'

there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.

there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential Chess.

Y there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect.
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as ft- 3 are
considered noc eligible for the i ational Register and no turther evaluation of them is necessary-.
i there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
T there are no historic properties affected by this project

Signed:

&g&J~L
1 ~j(! , C 7
Re resentacive, NCDOT Dace

FHwA, for the Division Adtniniscrator, or other Federal Agency Date

Representative, SHPO Date

14
V (D
Sate Historic Preservation Officer Date
a ,tip ~rr~rti-1 Iii? \v1II Irf- inrIiiri -d

STATE

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director

April 8, 2000

MEMORANDUM

TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation

FROM: David Brook .)j (,t,7_4 Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer

SUBJECT: NC 209 from 0.2 mile north of US 19-23-74 to just north of SR 1523,
TIP R-4047, Haywood County, ER 00-9158

We regret that staff was unable to attend the March 15, 2000, scoping meeting for the above project.

We recommend that an architectural historian with NCDOT identify and evaluate properties over fifty
years of age within the project area, paying special attention to the Lake Junaluska Assembly Grounds,
and report the findings to us.

We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify the
presence and significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed
project. Potential effects on unknown resources should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
activities.

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.

DB:scb

cc: B. Church

Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] 733-8653
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619 [phone] 715-2671
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] 715-4801
cr M ev, e nt ~NN:INC; cic \ Rlrnmt Q- R,iN~t.h N( 16!8 Mid Semce Center_ Raleigh NC 27699-4618 [phone] •'715-4801

p STA'[

J ``vQ
r '

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director

May 30. 2000

MEMORANDUM

TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation

FROM: David Brook I~-~z~__
De ut State Histdl~c Preseryati
p S on Officer
SUBJECT: NC 209 from North of US 19-23-74 to North of SR 1523, R-4047, Haywood County,
ER 00-9158

Thank you for your letter of April 3, 2000, concerning the above project.

We apologize for the delay in our response.

We previously recommended that a comprehensive archaeological survey be conducted in association
with this project. Our recommendation remains the same at this time.

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.

DB:scb

Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] 733-8653
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619 [phone] 715-2671
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] 715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4618 [phone] 715-4801

MW/gg

cc: Linda Hall, Office of State Archaeology, Western Office
Jeff Weller, PDEA
John Sullivan, FHwA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETI'
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 2, 2005

Mr. Peter Sandbeck
Deputy SHPO
Historic Preservation Office
Dept. of Cultural Resources
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-46517

Dear Mr. Brook:

Subject: Reconnaissance of NC 209 Widening, Haywood County, TIP R-4047, State
Project No. 8.1944301, Federal Project No. STP-209(2), WBS# 34599.1.1, ER
00-9158, Division 13.
The State Historic Preservation Office has requested a full survey for the NC 209
Widening. The project consists of a short segment of two-lane roadway connecting already
improved and widened five-lane curb and gutter facility. This section of less than 200 meters
will be improved as a five-land roadway with curb and gutter. The current Railway Bridge that
passes over the road will be replaced in place. A brief pedestrian survey revealed that the
widening of the roadway will only impact an area of already disturbed hillside. The hillside
south of the railway has been already cut away, removing soil probably used as fill for the
original roadway construction. North of the railway, the narrow roadway segment merges
with a new five- lane roadway bordered by small commercial buildings. Replacement of the
Railway Bridge that crosses above NC 209 will involve construction of a new bridge on the
same location with wider support spans to accommodate the wider highway.
In consultation with the staff archaeologist for the Western Office of the Office of
State Archaeology on February 24, a USGS map, a sketch map, and digital photographs
demonstrated the disturbed nature of the proposed project. The on-site inspection concludes
that the proposed project will impact no archaeological sites within the APE. A survey report
would be unnecessary.
Any questions regarding the report findings should be directed to Gerold Glover,
Ph.D. at [phone].

Sincerely,

Matt Wilkerson,
.Archaeological Supervisor
Office of Human Environment
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH. DOT. STATE. NC. US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources •

Michael F. Easley, Governor NCDENR
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary

MEMORANDUM

TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse

FROM: Melba McGee V
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: 01E-0397 Scoping NC 209 Improvements, Haywood
County

DATE: March 1, 2001

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has
reviewed the proposed information. The attached comments are
for the applicant's information and consideration.

Thank you for the opportunity to review.

Attachments
,rte • • -

MAR 5- 2001

1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: 919 - 733-4984 \ FAX: 919 - 715-3060 \ Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/F-NR/
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY \ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/ 10% POST CONSUMER PAPER

North Carolina

Department of Administration

Michael F. Easley, Governor Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary
March 19, 2001

Ms. Karen Capps
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Project Dev. & Env. Analysis Branch
Transportation Bldg. - 1548 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548

Dear Ms. Capps:

Re: SCH File # 01-E-4220-0397; Scoping Proposed Improvements to NC 209 from US 19-23 to just
North of SR 1523; Haywood County; TIP #R-4047

The above referenced project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovemmental
Review Process. Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].

Sincerely,

Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator

Attachments

cc: Region A

116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality

Michael F. Easley, Governor NCDENR
Sherri Evans-Stanton, Acting Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director

January 12, 2001

MEMORANDUM

TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch

THROUGH: John R. Dorney, NC Division of Water Quality
FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele C.t&C)

SUBJECT: Scoping comments on the proposed improvements to NC 209 from US 19/23/74
to SR 1523 in Haywood County, F.A. Project No. STP-209(2), State Project No.
8.1944301, TIP R-4047.

In reply to your correspondence dated December 19, 2000 (received January 11, 2001), in which
you requested comments for the referenced project, preliminary analysis of the project reveals no
potential for direct impacts to perennial streams or jurisdictional wetlands in the project area.
Lake Junaluska and Richlands Creek are noted to be adjacent to the project site and have a water
quality classification of B. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the
following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges, particularly in higher quality waters
(i.e. trout streams, water supply watersheds, high quality and outstanding resource waters).
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.

B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts
to- wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. 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.
C. If there are impacts to water bodies, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North
Carolina regulations entitled, "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC
04B .0024) throughout design and construction of the project, since the project is located
in a trout county. In addition, please be aware that trout moratoriums set by the NG
Wildlife Resource Commission will apply.

Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50e1c recycled/109e post consumer paper

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 27261Nationwide Permit No. 33
(Temporary Construction. Access and Dewatering) must be followed.

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 150 linear 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.

1. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)}, mitigation
will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear 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 stormwater-management. More specifically, stormwater should not
be permitted to discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed
to drain to a properly designed stormwater 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 [phone].

pc: Steve Lund, Corps of Engineers
Marella Buncick, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
File Copy
Central Files

State of Nortb Carolina n
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Reviewing 0$ice-

ENTERGOVER-NifENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number: U Due Date:
y~
err ^rx o"this ^re?-ct bears determined that the ENR pcrmit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project to
comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
I acp!ications, it f,rm_-6cn and auide!ines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
Normal Process Time
(statutory time limit)
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
O Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction
30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems contracts On-site inspection. Post-application technical conference usual.
not discharging into state surface waters.
(90 days)
O NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site
construct was. Pre-application 90-120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater
discharging into state surface waters. treatment faciiity-granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of (N/A)
plans or issue ofNPDES permit-whichever is later.
O Watt Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
30 days
(N/A)
O Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the 7 days
installation of a well. (15 days)
Gr~
Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner. 55 days
On-site insp iom Pre-application conference usual. Filling may require
Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge (90 days)
and Fill Permit.
O Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement , - N/A
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC
(2Q.0100, 2Q.0300, 2H.0600) 60 days
O Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900
O Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15 A 60 days
NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notification and
removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control N/A
Group 919-733-0820.
(90 days)
O Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.0800
O The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion &
sedimentation control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed Plan filed with proper Regional Office (land Quality 20 days
Sect) At least 30 "days before Beginning activity. A fee of S30 for the first acre and 52000 for each additional acre or part must
accompany the plan. (30 days)
O The Sedimentation Pollution control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance. (30 days)
O Mining Permit On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with ENR. Bond amount varies
with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any are mined greater 30 days
than one sere must be pertnined. The appropriate bond must be received (60 days)
before the permit can be issued.
O North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days I day
(N/A)
O Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources required "if more than I der
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils five acres of ground clearing activities are involved Inspections should be /q
requested at least ten days before actual bum is planned" )
O Oil Refining Facilities
T N/A 90-120 days..
(N/A)
O Dam Safety Permit If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction,
certify construction is according to ENR approved plats. May also require 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.

Continued on reverse
ti
Normal Pro=s Time
j PERMITS (statutory timt limit)
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
tJ Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well File surety bond of $5,000 with ENR running to State of NC conditional that 10 days
any well opened by drill operator shah upon abandonment, be plugged (NIA)
according to ENR rules and regulations
O Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with ENR at least 10 days prior to issue ofpermit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form (N/A)
O State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged Must include descriptions & 15-20 days
drawings of structure & proof of ownership of riparian property. (N/A)
O 401 Water Quality Certification N/A 60 days
(130 days)
O CAMA Permit for MAJOR development 5250.00 fee must accompany application 55 days
(150 days)
O CAMA Permit for MINOR development 550.00 fee must accompany application 22 days
(25 days)
O Several geodetic monuments arc located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
O Abandonment of any wells, if required must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100.
O Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation
O Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required 45 days
(N/A)
' Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority)

REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions retarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional OMce marked below.
Asheville Regional Office O Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wacbovia Building
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone] [phone]
O Mooresville Regional Office O Raleigh Regional Office
919 North Main Street P.O. Box 950 3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Mooresville, NC 28115 Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone] (919) S714700
O Washington Regional Office O Wilmington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Washington, NC 27889 Wilmington, NC 28405
919) 946-6481 [phone]
O Winston-Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown St.
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
[phone]

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

KDENR
Y ~ y f.

.J R+z
~JAMES.B. HUNT
a
GOVERNOR
a
LIMA
,SEETI~RY:~' < MEMORANDUM
a p:
i
r' TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
d~
RE: 00-E-0514 Scoping NC 209 Improvements, Haywood
rt' County
DATE: May 31, 2000
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has
\~9 reviewed the proposed project. The attached comments are a
result of this review. More specific comments will be
provided during the environmental review process.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If during the
preparation of the environmental document, additional
t information is needed, the applicant is encouraged to notify
our respective divisions.
Attachments

K

4 MAY 3 12000

:`N.C. STATE CI-EARIAIGHOUSE

t w 1601 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1601
3.f-=..
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone] WWW.ENR.STATE.NC.US/ENR/
AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER

North Carolina

Department of Administration

James B. Hunt. Jr., Governor Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
June 1, 2000

Mr. Karen Capps
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Project Dev. & Env. Anal. Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh, NC 27603

Dear Mr. Capps:

Re: SCH File # 00-E-4220-0514; Scoping Proposed Improvements to NC 209 from 0.2 Mile North
of US 19-23-74 to Just North of SR 1523, Haywood County; TIP #R-4047

The above referenced project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental
Review Process. Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone].

Sincerely,

C* `~4';Z~
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator

Attachments

cc: Region A

116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality CDENR

James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor ~
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director

May 30, 2000

MEMORANDUM

TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs

THROUGH: John R. Dome

FROM: Cynthia F. Van Feriele, NC Division of Water Quality c.-)oG-0

SUBJECT: Scoping comments on the proposed improvements to NC 209 from 0.2 mi.
North of US 19/23/74 to SR 1523 in Haywood County, State Project No.
8.1944301, TIP R-4047.

In reply to your correspondence dated April 3, 2000 in which you requested comments for
the referenced project, preliminary analysis of the project reveals no potential for direct
impacts to perennial streams or jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. Lake
Junaluska and Richlands Creek are noted to be adjacent to the project site and have a
water quality classification of B. However, in the event that the project corridor shifts,
the Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT send notification of any proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.

The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. If you
have any questions, please call me at 733.5715.

CVDW/cvdw

pc: File Copy
Central Files

1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

NCDENR

MEMORANDUM
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. D
.GOVERNOR - TO. Chrys Daggett

BILL HOLMAN - FROM: Melba McGee
SECRETARY
Project Review Coordinator
RE: #OOE-0514

DATE: June 6, 2000

The attached comments were received by this office after the
response due date. These comments should be forwarded to the applicant
and made a part of our previous comment package.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

Attachment

t r m ti.J

2000

r.0, STATE 'OLEAR' GHOU';

- I3-. I h•1 11~ SER'.:CL_- CENTER, PALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1601
9f9-733-4984 FAX [phone] WWW. ENR. STATE. NC. US/EN R/
AN EOLJAL C:PPQRT,,T-.--- ACT---N E?APL._-E.R - 50°.1 RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment

C and Natural Resources `
Division of Water Quality i
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor NCDENR
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director

May 11, 2000
WY ism

MEMORANDUM

TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, NCDOT
Project Development & Environmental Analysis

THROUGH: John R. Dorne

FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NC Division of Water Quality

SUBJECT: Scoping comments on the proposed improvements to NC 209 from 0.2 mi.
North of US 19/23/74 to SR 1523 in Haywood County, State Project No.
8.1944301, TIP R-4047.

In reply to your correspondence dated Apri13, 2000 in which you requested comments for
the referenced project, preliminary analysis of the project reveals no potential for direct
impacts to perennial streams or jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. Lake
Junaluska and Richlands Creek are noted to be adjacent to the project site and have a
water quality classification of B. However, in the event that the project corridor shifts,
the Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT send notification of any proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.

The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. If you
have any questions, please call me at 733.5715.

CVDW/cvdw

pc: Steve Lund, Corps of Engineers
Mark Cantrell, USFWS

David Cox, NCWRC
File Copy
Central Files

1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS

Fraser fir Abies fraseri FSC
Piratebush Buckleya disticophylla FSC
Mountain bittercress Cardamine clematitis FSC
Manhart's sedge Carex manhartii FSC
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum FSC*
Glade spurge Euphorbia purpurea FSC
Smoky Mountain manna grass Glyceria nubigena FSC
Small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides Threatened
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Fraser's loosestrife Lysimachia fraseri FSC
Rugel's ragwort Rugelia nudicaulis FSC
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
Mountain catchfly Silene ovata FSC
Alabama least trillium Trillium pusillum var. 1 FSC
Nonvascular Plants
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered
A liverwort Plagiochila sharpii FSC
A liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii FSC
A liverwort Sphenolobopsis pearsonii FSC

KEY:

Status Definition
Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range."
FSC A Federal species of concern--a species that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly
C2 candidate species or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing).
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance (e.g., American alligator )--a species that is
threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection.
These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7
consultation.
Species with 1, 2, 3, or 4 asterisks behind them indicate historic, obscure, or incidental records.
*Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
"Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
***Incidental/migrant record - the species was observed outside of its normal range or habitat.
""Historic record - obscure and incidental record.

'In the November 4, 1997, Federal Register (55822-55825), the northern population of the bog turtle (from New
York south to Maryland) was listed as T (threatened), and the southern population (from Virginia south to
Georgia)was listed as T(S/A) (threatened due to similarity of appearance). The T(S/A) designation bans the
collection and interstate and international commercial trade of bog turtles from the southern population. The T(S/A)
designation has no effect on land-management activities by private landowners in North Carolina, part of the
southern population of the species. In addition to its official status as T(S/A), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
considers the southern population of the bog turtle as a Federal species of concern due to habitat loss.

December 20, 1999 Page 2 of 2

ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES AND FEDERAL
SPECIES OF CONCERN, HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

This list was adapted from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's County Species List. It is a
listing, for Haywood County, of North Carolina's federally listed and proposed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species and Federal species of concern (for a complete list of rare species in the state, please
contact the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program). The information in this list is compiled from a
variety of sources, including field surveys, museums and herbariums, literature, and personal
communications. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database is dynamic, with new records
being added and old records being revised as new information is received. Please note that this list cannot
be considered a definitive record of listed species and Federal species of concern, and it should not be
considered a substitute for field surveys.

Critical habitat: Critical habitat is noted, with a description, for the counties where it is designated.

Aquatic species: Fishes and aquatic invertebrates are noted for counties where they are known to occur.
However, projects may have effects on downstream aquatic systems in adjacent counties.

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS

HAYWOOD COUNTY

Vertebrates
Southern Appalachian saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus FSC
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)'
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus borealis FSC
Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FSC
Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea FSC
Eastern cougar Felis concolor couguar Endangered*
Carolina northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
Southern Appalachian red crossbill Loxia curvirostra FSC
Southern rock vole Microtus chrolorrhinus carolinensis FSC
Southern Appalachian woodrat Neotoma floridana haematoreia FSC
Alleghany woodrat Neotoma magister FSC
Southern Appalachian black-capped Parus atricapillus practicus FSC
chickadee
Southern water shrew Sorex palustris punctulatus FSC
Southern Appalachian yellow-bellied Sphyrapicus varius appalaciensis FSC
sapsucker
Appalachian cottontail Sylvilagus obscurus FSC
Appalachian Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii altus FSC
Invertebrates
Appalachian elktoe . Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered
Tawny crescent butterfly Phyciodes batesii maconensis FSC*
Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria dana FSC

Vascular Plants

December 20, 1999 Page I of 2

cc:
Mr. Steve Lund, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton
Avenue, Room 143, Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Section, 1621 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Mr. Owen Anderson, Eastern Piedmont Region Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 1142 I-85 Service Road, Creedmoor, NC 27522

1

North Carolina Wfldlife Resources Commission

312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188,919-733-3391
Charles R. Pullwood, Ewwvti ?e Director

MEMORANT)UM

TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR

FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: May 25, 2000

SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for the NC 209
improvements, from US 19-23-74 near Lake Junaluska to just north of SR
1523, Haywood County, North Carolina. TIP No. R-4047, SCH Project
No. 00-E-0514.

This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. William D. Gilmore of the
NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from
the subject project, Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed improvements. Our comments are provided in
accordance with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
At this time, the NCWRC has no specific recommendations or concerns regarding
the subject project. However, to help facilitate document preparation and the review
process, our general informational needs are outlined below:

1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for project
construction should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
1615 Mail Service Center.
Raleigh, N, C. 27699-1615
[phone]

i OM0 2 May 25, 2000

and,

NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. d. Box 27647
i~ Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need for
channelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of
such activities.

3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project.
Wetland acreages should include all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for
project construction. Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the COE
is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and
criteria listed,
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the
proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).

6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and indirect
degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes the environmental
effects of highway construction and quantifies the contribution of this
individual project to environmental degradation.

8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will result
from secondary development facilitated by the improved 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 environmental document, 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 further assist your office, please contact me at [phone].

COPP

i

Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499

February 1, 2001

Mr. William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548

Dear Mr. Gilmore:

NC 209 FROM US 19-23-74 TO JUST NORTH OF SR 1523, FEDERAL AID NO. STP-209(2),
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1944301, TIP NO. R4047, HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH
CAROLINA

Thank you for informing us, by letter of December 19, 2000, of the expansion in scope of the NC
209 improvement project near Lake Junaluska and Richland Creek. From the project description,
it appears that there would be no TVA approvals or other involvement with this project.
However, if it appears that any obstructions are placed in the stream or floodplain areas, TVA
would be interested in reviewing the project under Section 26a of the TVA Act.

We look forward to reviewing the Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact
re-evaluation document. Should you have any questions, please contact Harold M. Draper at
[phone] or [e-mail].
Sincerely,

Jon M. ney, M ager
NEPA Administration
Environmental Policy and Planning

cc: Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 400
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601

f

Tennessee Valley Authority, -OC Vlc-Y Summa Hal! D, ,e, rnoxvdie. Tennessee 3-902-1,199
May 18, 2000

'MAY rR

Mr. William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:

NC 209 FROM 0.2 MILE NORTH OF US 19-23-74 TO JUST NORTH OF SR 1523,
FEDERAL AID NO. STP-209(2), STATE PROJECT NO. 8.1944301, TIP NO. R-4047,
HAYWOOD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

TVA has reviewed information provided in your letter of April 3, 2000, on the proposed
improvements to NC 209 at the Norfolk-Southern Railroad bridge. From the project description,
it appears that there would be no TVA approvals or other involvement with this project. In
addition, we are not aware of any new issues that need to be addressed since the original state
Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact was completed.

Should you have any questions, please contact Harold M. Draper at [phone] or
[e-mail].

Sincerely,

ttj
Jon IM!, _Mxanag~;
NEPA Administration
Environmental Policy and Planning

cc: Mr. Charles S. Boyd, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
640 Grassmere Park, Suite 112
Nashville, Tennessee 37211

Prntecl on recyCletl oape'

e"T OF Ty
United States Department of the Interior
D
y O
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
M4g ~$n
CH 160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville. North Carolina 28801
June 9, 2000 <

?(2p0

Mr. William D. Gilmore. P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548

Dear Mr. Gilmore:

Subject: Proposed Improvements to NC 209 from 0.2 Mile North of US 19-23-74 to just North
of SR 1523, Haywood County, North Carolina, F.A. No. STP-209(2), State Project

No. 8.1944301, TIP No. R-4047

We have reviewed the subject project as requested by your letter of April 3, 2000 (response
requested by early June), and are providing the following comments in accordance with the
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).

The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen NC 209 to a three- or
four-lane section from 0.2 mile north of US 19-23-74 to just north of SR 1523. This action also
includes moving the existing Norfolk-Southern Railroad bridge and track southwest of its current
location.

Enclosed is a list of species from Haywood County that are on the Federal List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants and species of Federal concern that may occur in the project
impact area. Although our records indicate no known locations of these species in the project
area, we recommend surveying the area for them prior to any further planning or on-the-ground
activities to ensure that no adverse impacts occur to these species. Species of Federal concern
are not legally protected under the Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including
Section 7, unless they are formally proposed or listed as endangered or threatened. We are
including these species in our response to give.you advance notification. The presence or

absence of these species in the project impact area should be addressed in the reevaluation of the
Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact prepared for this project.

Based on our field review, it appears that the project area is primarily an urban, human-altered
environment. The one small stream near the existing railroad trestle is heavily impacted by
culverts and the existing development in the area. While it is not completely clear, it doesn't
appear that this project will further impact the stream. However, the reevaluation document
should contain the following information, if pertinent:

(1) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing and
required additional rights-of-way and any areas, such as borrow areas, that
may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed road improvements.

(2) The acreage and a description of wetlands that will be filled as a result of the

proposed road improvements. Wetlands affected by the proposed project
should be mapped in accordance with the Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. We recommend contacting the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to determine the need for a Section 404 Clean
Water Act permit.

(3) The extent (linear feet as well as discharge) of any water courses that will be
impacted as a result of the proposed project. A description of any streams
should include the classification (Rosgen 1995, 1996) and a description of the
biotic resources.

(4) An analysis of the crossing structures considered (i.e., spanning structure,
culvert) and the rationale for choosing the preferred structure(s). We prefer
stream crossings that span the bank-full width of the stream and do not
impede natural stream functions or fish passage.

(5) The mitigation measures that will be employed to avoid, eliminate, reduce, or
compensate for habitat value losses (wetland, riverine, and upland) associated

with any phase of the proposed project.

10'e appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and request that you continue
t keep us informed as to the progress of this project. If you have questions about these
comments, please contact Ms. Marella Buncick of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 237. In any
future correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-00-132.

Sincerely,

Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor

Enclosure

A John McCracken
g Assistant Superintendent
CS
IlsTw"d Haywood County Schools
Cwt' 1230 N. Main Street
SCbNs Waynesville, North Carolina 28786
828/456-2400
Fax [phone]

November 26, 2001

Ms. Karen B. Capps, P.E.
4000 Graham Newton Road
Raleigh, NC 27611

RE: Access Road
Tuscola High School

Dear Ms. Capps:

Enclosed is the latest version of the design for the access road to Tuscola
High School. The designer, Matt Bundy with David D. Smith Company, is
talking with Rick Styles, District Engineer, about some additional changes

the D.O.T. may request. I am hopeful that the funding for this project may
be available by March or April, 2002, so construction can be done during the
Spring and early Summer months.

Have you developed other recommendations which may affect this access

road project?

Cordially yours,

r;

, ohn C. McCracken
`/Assistant Superintendent

APPENDIX C

(COMBINED AIR &

NOISE REPORT)

Table Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
Page 1
JOB: R-4047,NC 209/SR 1801, HAYWOOD CO. 2005 RUN: R-4047, NC 209/SR 1801,HAYWOOD CO.2005
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES

VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM BRG = 0. DEGREES
LINK VARIABLES

LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (FT) * LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (FT) (DEG) (G/MI) (FT) (FT) (VEH)

1. NB Approach * 12.0 -1000.0 12.0 .0 * 1000. 360. AG 372. 17.7 .O 32.0
2. NB LT * 6.0 -36.0 2.1 -173.4 * 137. 182. AG 242. 100.0 .0 12.0 .73 7.0
3. NB RT * 30.0 -36.0 30.0 -50.1 * 14. 180. AG 255. 100.0 .0 12.0 .09 .7
4. NB THRU * 12.0 -36.0 12.0 -66.7 31. 180. AG 255. 100.0 .0 12.0 .19 1.6
5. NB Departure * 12.0 .0 12.0 1000.0 1000. 360. AG 151. 17.7 .0 32.0
6. SB Approach * -12.0 1000.0 -12.0 .0 1000. 180. AG 151. 17,7 .0 32.0
7. SB LT * .0 36.0 .0 48.2 12. 360. AG 622. 100.0 .0 24.0 .38 .6
3. SB RT * -30.0 36.0 -28.3 170.9 135. 1. AG 305. 100.0 .0 12.0 1.05 6.9
9. SB THRU * -18.0 36.0 -18.0 52.8 17. 360. AG 305. 100.0 .0 12.0 .35 .9
10. SB DEPT -12.0 .0 -12.0 -1000.0 * 1000. 180. AG 372. 17.7 .0 32.0
11. EB APPR * -1000.0 -18.0 .0 -18.0 * 1000. 90. AG 501. 17,7 .0 44.0
12. EB LT -42.0 .0 -146.4 .O * 104. 270. AG 297. 100.0 .0 12.0 .95 5.3
13. EB THRU/RT * -42.0 -18.0 -101.4 -18.0 * 59. 270. AG 311. 100.0 .0 24.0 .24 3.0
14. EB DEPT * .0 -18.0 1000.0 -18.0 * 1000. 90. AG 644. 17.1 .0 44.0
15. WB APPR * 1000.0 18.0 .0 18.0 1000. 270. AG 644. 17.7 .0 44.0
16. WB LT 42.0 .0 103.3 5.3 * 62. 85. AG 297. 100.0 .0 12.0 .76 3.1
17.. WB THRU/RT * 42.0 18.0 126.5 18.0 * 85. 90. AG 311. 100.0 .0 24.0 .35 4.3
18. WB DEPT * .0 18.0 -1000.0 18.0 1000. 270. AG 501. 17.7 .0 44.0
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS

LINK DESCRIPTION * CYCLE RED CLEARANCE APPROACH SATURATION IDLE SIGNAL ARRIVAL
* LENGTH TIME LOST TIME VOL FLOW RATE EM FAC TYPE RATE
• (SEC) (SEC) (SEC) (VPH) (VPH) (gm/hr)

2. NB LT * 120 87 2.0 283 1600 124.20 1 3
3. NB RT * 120 92 2.0 28 1600 124.20 1 3
4. NB THRU * 120 92 2.0 61 1600 124.20 1 3
7. SB LT * 120 112 2.0 41 1600 124.20 1 3
8. SB RT 120 110 2.0 83 1600 124.20 1 3
9. SB THRU * 120 110 2.0 28 1600 124.20 1 1
12. EB LT 120 107 2.0 113 1600 124.20 1 3
13. EB THRU/RT * 120 56 2.0 388 1600 124.20 1 3
16. WB LT * 120 107 2.0 90 1600 124.20 1 3
17. WB THRU/RT * 120 56 2.0 553 1600 124.20 1 3

Table Al (Cont'd)
Paa

RECEPTOR LOCATIONS

* COORDINATES (FT)
RECEPTOR X Y 2

1. REC 1 * 80.0 110.0 5.0
2. REC 2 160.0 110.0 5.0
3. REC 3 -80.0 100.0 5.0
4. REC 4 * -160.0 100.0 5.0
5. REC 5 * 80.0 -130.0 5.0
6. REC 6 * 160.0 -130.0 5.0
7. REC 7 * 80.0 -270.0 5.0
8. REC 8 * 90.0 -400.0 5.0
9. REC 9 * -80.0 -130.0 5.0 '
10. REC 10 -160.0 -130.0 5.0 '
11. REC 11 -80.0 -270.0 5.0
12. REC 12 * -90.0 -400.0 5.0
MODEL RESULTS

REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4 REC5 REC6 REC7 REC8 REC9 REC10 REC11 REC12
*
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.50 PPM AT 117 DEGREES FROM REC3 .

Table A2

CAL3QHC. LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
Page 3
JOB: R-4047,NC 209/SR 1801, HAYWOOD CO. 2010 RUN: R-4047, NC 209/SR 1801,HAYWOOD C0.2010
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES

VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO = 106. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MTXH = 1000. M AND = 1.8 PPM BRG = 0. DEGREES
LINK VARIABLES

.LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (FT) ' LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/( QUEUE
* Xi Y1 X2 Y2 (FT) (DEG) (G/MI) (FT) (FT) (VEH)

1. NB Approach ' 12.0 -1000.0 12.0 .0 * 1000. 360. AG 564. 10.1 .0 32.0
2. NB LT * 6.0 -36.0 -15.4 -800.9 * 765. 182. AG 122. 100.0 .0 12.0 1.12 38.9
3. NB RT * 30.0 -36.0 30.0 -57.1 * 21. 180. AG 129. 100.0 .0 12.0 .13 1.1
4. NB THRU * 12.0 -36.0 12.0 -81.3 * 45. 180. AG 129. 100.0 .0 12.0 .28 2.3
5. NB Departure 12.0 .0 12.0 1000.0 ' 1000. 360. AG 228. 10.1 .0 32.0
6. SB Approach * -12.0 1000.0 -12.0 .0 * 1000. 180. AG 228. 10.1 .0 32.0
7. SB LT .0 36.0 .0 263.0 227. 360. AG 322. 100.0 .0 24.0 2.31 11.5
8. SB RT * -30.0 36.0 -22.4 643.6 * 608. 1. AG 154. 100.0 .0 12.0 1.59 30.9
9. SB THRU * -18.0 36.0 -18.0 62.1 26. 360. AG 154. 100.0 .0 12.0 .53 1.3
10. SB DEPT * -12.0 .0 -12.0 -1000.0 * 1000. 180. AG 564. 10.1 .0 32.0
11: EB APPR * -1000.0 -18.0 .0 -18.0 * 1000. 90. AG 761. 10.1 .0 44.0
12. EB LT * -42.0 .0 -784.7 -.1 * 743. 270. AG 150. 100.0 .0 12.0 1.48 37.7
13. ED THRU/RT * -42.0 -18.0 -131.4 -18.0 ' 89. 270. AG' 157. 100.0 .0 24.0 .37 4.5
14. ED DEPT * .0 -18.0 1000.0 -18.0 * 1000. 90. AG 982. 10.1 .0 44.0
15. WB APPR 1000.0 18.0 .0 18.0 * 1000. 270. AG 982. 10.1 .0 44.0
16. WB LT * 42.0 .0 359.4 27.5 * 319. 85. AG 150. 100.0 .0 12.0 1.15 16.2
17. WB THRU/RT * 42.0 18.0 171.2 18.0 * 129. 90. AG 157. 100.0 .0 24.0 .53 6.6
18. WB DEPT * .0 18.0 -1000.0 18.0 * 1000. 270. AG 761. 10.1 .0 44.0
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS

LINK DESCRIPTION * CYCLE RED CLEARANCE APPROACH SATURATION IDLE SIGNAL ARRIVAL
* LENGTH TIME LOST TIME VOL FLOW RATE EM FAC TYPE RATE
* (SEC) (SEC) (SEC) (VPH) (VPH) (gm/hr)

2. NB LT * 120 87 2.0 432 1600 62.60 1 3
3. NB RT * 120 92 2.0 42 1600 62.60 1 3
4. NB THRU * 120 92 2.0 90 1600 62.60 1 3
7. SB LT 120 115 2.0 60 1600 62.60 1 3
8. SB RT * 120 110 2.0 126 1600 62.60 1 3
9. SB THRU * 120 110 2.0 42 1600 62.60 1 3
12. EB LT 120 107 2.0 176 1600 62.60 1 3
13. ED THRU/RT * 120 56 2.0 585 1600 62.FO 1 3
16. WB LT ' 120 107 2.0 137 1600 62.60 1 3
17. WB THRU/RT * 120 56 2.0 845 1600 62.60 1 3

Table A2 (Cont'd)
Page 4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS

' COORDINATES (FT) '
RECEPTOR X Y Z

1. REC 1 80.0 110.0 5.0
2. REC 2 * 160.0 110.0 5.0 '
3. REC 3 * -80.0 100.0 5.0 '
4. REC 4 * -160.0 100.0 5.0
5. REC 5 * 80.0 -130.0 5.0 '
6. REC 6 * 160.0 -130.0 5.0 '
7. REC 7 * 80.0 -270.0 5.0 '
'8. REC 8 * 90.0 -400.0 5.0
9. REC 9 * -80.0 -130.0 5.0
10. REC 10 * -160.0 -130.0 5.0
11. REC 11 -80.0 -270.0 5.0
12. REC 12 * -90.0 -400.0 5.0
MODEL RESULTS

REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)' REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4 RECS REC6 REC7 REC8 REC9 REC10 REC11 REC12
*
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.50 PPM AT 115 DEGREES FROM REC3 .

Table A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
Faye `JOB: R-4041,NC 209/SR 1801, HAYWOOD CO. 2025 RUN: R-4047, NC 209/SR 1801,HAYWOOD 00.2025

SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES

VS = .0 CM/S VD .0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM BRG = 0. DEGREES
LINK VARIABLES

LINK DESCRIPTION * LINK COORDINATES (FT) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 * (FT) (DEG) (G/MI) (FT) (FT) (VEH)

1. NB Approach * 12.0 -1000.0 12.0 .0 * 1000. 360. AG 564. 10.1 .0 311.0
2. NO LT * 6.0 -36.0 -15.4 -800.9 765. 182. AG 122. 100.0 .0 12.0 1.12 38.9
3. NO RT * 30.0 -36.0 30.0 -57.1 ' 21. 180. AG 129. 100.0 .0 12.0 .13 1.1
4. NO THRU * 12.0 -36.0 12.0 -81.3 * 45. 180. AG 129. 100.0 .0 12.0 .28 2.3
5. NO Departure 12.0 .0 12.0 1000.0 * 1000. 360. AG 228. 10.1 .0 32.0
6. SO Approach ` -12.0 1000.0 -12.0 .0 * 1000. 180. AG 228. 10.1 .0 32.0
7i SO LT * .0 36.0 .0 133.8 * 98. 360. AG 327. 100.0 .0 24.0 * 5.0
8. SO RT * -30.0 36.0 -17.1. 1068.9 1033. 1. AG 158. 100.0 .0 12.0 3.23 52.5
9. SB THRU * -18.0 36.0 -IB.0 124.4 * 88. 360. AG 158. 100.0 .0 12.0 1.08 4.5
10. S8 DEPT ' -12.0 .0 -12.0 -1000.0 ' 1000. 180. AG 564. 10.1 .0 32.0
11. ED APPR * -1000.0 -18.0 .0 -18.0 * 1000. 90. AG 761. 10.1 .0 44.0
12. ED LT * -42.0 .0 -784.7 -.1 743. 270. AG 150. 100.0 .0 12.0 1.48 37.7
13. ED THRU/RT ' -42.0 -18.0 -131.4 -18.0 * 89. 270. AG 157. 100.0 .0 24.0 .37 4.5
14. ED DEPT * .0 -18.0 1000.0 -18.0 1000. 90. AG 982. 10.1 .0 44.0
15. WB APPR ' 1000.0 18.0 .0 18.0 * 1000. 270. AG 982. 10.1 .0 44.0
16. WB LT * 42.0 .0 359.4 27.5 * 319. 85. AG 150. 100.0 .0 12.0 1.15 16.2
17. WB THRU/RT * 42.0 18.0 171.2 18.0 * 129. 90. AG 157. 100.0 .0 24.0 .53 6.6
18. WB DEPT .0 18.0 -1000.0 18.0 * 1000. 270. AG 761. 10.1 .0 44.0
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS

LINK DESCRIPTION ' CYCLE RED CLEARANCE APPROACH SATURATION IDLE SIGNAL ARRIVAL
* LENGTH TIME LOST TIME VOL FLOW RATE FM FAC TYPE RATE
' (SEC) (SEC) (SEC) (VPH) (VPH) (gm/hr)

. NO LT ' 120 87 2.0 432 1600 62.60 1 3
3. NO RT * 120 92 2.0 42 1600 62.60 1 3
4. NO THRU * 120 92 2.0 90 1600 62.60 1 3
7. SO LT 120 117 2.0 60 1600 62.60 1 3
8. SO RT * 120 113 2.0 126 1600 62.60 1 3
9. SO THRU * 120 113 2.0 42 1600 62.60 1 3
12. ED LT ' 120 107 2.0 176 1600 62.60 1 3
13. ED THRU/RT * 120 56 2.0 585 1600 62.60 1 3
16. WB LT ' 120 107 2.0 137 1600 62.60 1 3
17. WB THRU/RT * 120 56 2.0 845 1600 62.60 1 3

Table A3 (Cont'd)

Pag?
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS

* COORDINATES (FT)
RECEPTOR * X Y Z

1. REC 1 80.0 110.0 5.0 `
2. REC 2 * 160.0 110.0 5.0 `
3. REC 3 * -80.0 100.0 5.0
4. REC 4 * -160.0 100.0 5.0
5. REC 5 * 80.0 -130.0 5.0
6. REC 6 * 160.0 -130.0 5.0 `
7. REC 7 * 80.0 -270.0 5.0
8. REC 8 * 90.0 -400.0 5.0
9. REC 9 * -80.0 -130.0 5.0 "
10. REC 10 * -160.0 -130.0 5.0
11. REC 11 -80.0 -270.0 5.0
12. REC 12 * -90.0 -400.0 5.0
MODEL RESULTS

REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1 REC2 REC3 REC4 RECS REC6 REC7 REC8 REC9 REC10 REC11 REC12

THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.70 PPM AT 111 DEGREES FROM REC3 .
~I
I

i
Figure N1
Project Location & Ambient Measurement Sites
NC 209 Widening
Haywood County

"P6 Lt6g

BEGIN PROJECT g 4 par

Youth ceiste SM A Ode~gd {iGr _ ° u
e e ` o
25rA T - r,/ l l
n Swi mini ?1 ~ 2t S k'
r. C \ Doom 1L PM N,
/~u1na~usk
C-
o i
I N ~
J f
END PROJECT
fiuscotaiv~rRh
Modeled
r
I' = GOIfa~•
Fairw ~X~77~77 , I 1
1111,~ Oyu
J{ ra o 6
NORTH CAAOUNA DEPARTMENT r
~2~ Of TMNSroII IGKW
® DIVLSION Of NIGYIwAYi
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND -1
•lSf, T 61~. Ji~5 1 / f - ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS !RANCH
Ouod Mop
as METERS NC 209
Y 0 200 400 600 800 1000 UPGRADING FROM US 19-23-74 -
TO SR 1523
0 1000 2000 3000 ~ R-4047
FEET

TABLE N1

HEARING. SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY

140 Shotgun blast, jet 30m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN 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.)

TABLE N2

NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA

CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY
HOURLY- A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
Activity
Category Le (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.

D - 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 Le (h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
50 15
51 14
52 13
53 12
54 11
55 10

Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy (09/02/04).

TABLE 3
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS (Leq)

NC 209, Widening Haywood County, TIP 0 R-4047

NOISE
SITE LOCATION DESCRIPTION LEVEL
dBA
1 NC 209 North; SR 1801 to SR 1646 Modeled 693

NC 209 North, SR 1646 to SR 1523 Modeled 65.1

~I
I
3 NC 209 North; SR 1523 to End of Project Modeled 66 1

III
136 "Background" for the entire project area Modeled 45 0

NOT1', The ambient noise level sites were measured at 15 meters from edge of pavement of the nearest lane of traffic.

t

TABLE N4 Page 1
TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 209, Widening and Interchange with US 19-23-74

Haywood County, TIP # R-4047
-NEAREST AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE

RECEPTOR INFORMATION EXISTING NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
1D# LAND USE CATEGORY ROADWAY LEVEL NAME CL -1 (ft) -L -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
NC 209; SR 1801 TO SR 1646 NC 209
1 Business C SR 1001 45 -L- 340.0 R - - 47 + 2
2 Resi end B SS --`r 110.0 R - - 60 + 5
3 Resi ence B 54 125.0 R - - 59 + 5
- 209;~R 1646 TO R 1523
09 48 -L- 140.0 R - 56 + 8
4 Business NC -209---4T-8---
G Business _ 47 -T 160.0 L - - 54 + 7
7 Residence ---B7 46 - - 180.0 R - - 53 + 7
8 Resdence B 60.0 R - - 65 + 8
9 Resr ence B - -`r 51 110.0 R - - 58 + 7
]0 Resi ence B 'r 45 195.0 L - - 52 + 7
11 Resr ence B 51 110.0 L - 58 + 7
12 Residence B 58 55.0 L - - 66 + 8
13 Resr ence B S3 960 R - - 60 + 7
14 Resr ence B 47 ° 160.0 R - - 54 + 7
I S Business r 52 100.0 R - - 59 + 7
Nr 20~R 1523 fo End of ro~ect
16 Res-idence B NC 209 48 -L- 120.0 R - 56 + 8
17 Business 53 75.0 R - - 60 + 7
18 Business 52 85.0 L - - 59 + 7
19 Business 54 70.0 L - 61 + 7
20 Business C 57 50.0 R - W
31 Resr end ce B 47 130.0 R - - 55 + 8
22 Resr ence B 50 105.0 R - - 57 + 7
23 Busyness 60 40.0 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).

TABLE N4 Page I
TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
NC 209,Haywood County, TIP #R-4047
No Build

NE ST AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL

ID# LAND USE CATEGORY ROADWAY LEVEL NAME CL DIST(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
NC 209; SR 1801 TO SR 1646 NC 209
1 Business NC 209 45 -L- 340.0 R - - 45 + 0
2 Residence B 55 " 110.0 R - - 58 + 3
3 Rest ence B 54 125.0 R - - 56 + 2
NC 209; SR 1801 TO SR 1646 NC 209
4 Business N -C 209 48 -L- 140.0 R - - 49 + 1
5 Business 55 -'r 80.0 R - - 55 + 0
6 Business C 47 160.0 L - - 48 + 1
7 Residence B 46 180.0 R - - 46 + 0
8 Residence B 57 60.0 R - - 58 + 1
9 Resi ence B r' 51 110.0 R - - 52 ± 1
10 Residence B 45 195.0 L - - 46 + 1
11 Resi ence B 51 110.0 L - - 52 + I
12 Resdence B --r 58 55.0 L - - 58 + 0
13 Residence - - B - - 53 - - 90.0 R - - - 54 + I
- - -
- ~r - rr- - -
48 + 1,
14 Rendlice B 47 160.0 R.
15 Business 52 100.0 R. - - 53 + 1
NC-2-09,-,M- 1523 to En o rolect
10 Residence B N 209 48 -L- 120.0 R - - 49 + 1
-+0
17 Business- 53 „ 75.0 R
18 Buseness--- --C- 52 rr- - 85.0 L 52 - + 0
19 Business - --C--- ----54 - - 70.0 L - - - - 54 + 0
20 Business 57 50.0 R - - 58 + I
21 Resi ence B ° 47 130.0 R - 48 + 1
22
- 23 Business ----C--- 60 40.0 L - - 60 + 0
-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).

TABLE N5
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 209, Haywood County, TIP # R-4047

MAXIMUM APPROXIMATE # OF IMPACTED
Leq NOISE LEVELS CONTOUR RECEPTORS ACCORDING TO
DESCRIPTION (dBA) DISTANCES TITLE 23 CFR PART 772
BUILD 50ft 100ft 200ft 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E

I- NC 209, SR 1801 to SR 1646 72.8 68.7 62.9 81.2 146.4 0 0 0 0 0

2 NC 209, SR 1646 to SR 1523 70.9 66.8 61.0 58.7 120.5 0 1 0 0 0

3- NC 209, SR 1523 to The End of Project 69.5 65.3 59.6 <49.0 99.4 0 0 0 0 0

TOTALS 0 1 0 0 0 z

MAXIMUM APPROXIMATE # OF IMPACTED
Leq NOISE LEVELS CONTOUR RECEPTORS ACCORDING TO
DESCRIPTION dBA) DISTANCES TITLE 23 CFR PART 772
NO BUILD 50ft IOOft 200ft 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E

1- NC 209, SR 1801 to SR 1646 71.7 67.7 61.3 69.2 131.8 0 0 0 0 0

2- NC 209, SR 1646 to SR 1523 65.5 60.0 55.9 <43.0 55.4 0 0 0 0 0

3- NC 209, SR 1523 to The End of Project 66.4 60.4 54.3 <37.0 56.5 0 0 0 0 0

TOTALS 0 0 0 0 0
r

1. 50ft, I00ft, 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.

TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
NC 209, Haywood County, TIP # R-4047

SUBSTANTIAL IMPACTS DUE
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES NOISE LEVEL TO BOTH
DESCRIPTION INCREASE CRITERIA
BUILD <=0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20 24 >=25 "l" "T'
I- NC 209, SR 1801 to SR 1646 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

2- NC 209, SR 1646 to SR 1523 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0

3- NC 209, SR 1523 to The End of Project 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTALS 0 1 19 0 0 0 0 0 0

I

SUBSTANTIAL IMPACTS DUE
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES NOISE LEVEL TO BOTH
DESCRIPTION INCREASE CRITERIA
NO BUILD 17=07 1-4 5-9 10-14 I5-19 20-24 >=25 111"
I- NC 209, SR 1801 to SR 1646 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2- NC 209, SR 1646 to SR 1523 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3- NC 209, SR 1523 to The End of Project 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTALS 8 15 0 0 0 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.

TABLE N2

NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA

CRITERIA FOR EACH FHWA ACTIVITY CATEGORY
HOURLY A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA)
Activity
Cate o 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.

D 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 Le (h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
50 15
51 14
52 13
53 12
54 11
55 10

Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Policy (09/02/04).

I

TABLE 3
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS (Leq)

NC 209, Widening Haywood County, TIP # R-4047

NOISE
SITE LOCATION DESCRIPTION LEVEL
dBA)

I NC 209 North; SR 1801 to SR 1646 Modeled 69.3

2 NC 209 North; SR 1646 to SR 1523 Modeled 65.1

3 NC 209 North; SR 1523 to End of Project Modeled 66.1

BG "Background" for the entire project area Modeled 45.0

I

NOTE' The ambient noise level sites were measured at 15 meters from edge of pavement of the nearest lane of traffic.

APPENDIX D

(RELOCATION REPORT)

CIS RELOCATION REPORT

North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
E.I.S- ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN
WBS: 34599.1.1 COUNTY Ha ood Alternate 1 of 1
I. D. NO.: R-4047 F.A. PROJECT STP-209 2
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 209 US19-23-74 to SR 1523 widen to multi-lanes and replace rail structure R-32
Haywood Co.

ESTIMATED'DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 9
Businesses 3 5 8 0 VALUE OF DWELLING' DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0-20m 0 $0-150 0 0-20M 0 so-ISO 0
ANSWER-ALL QUESTIONS 2040M 0 150-250 0 20-40r 0 150-250 0
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70r 0 250400 0 40-70M 0 250-400 0
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400-400 0 70-100w 0 400-400 0
X 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 up 9 600 up 0 100 up 20 600 ua 0
displacement? TOTAL 9 0 20 0
X 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS (Respond by Number)
after project? 3. Yes, available business space in the area.
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 4. Yes, 1.) Gas station 6 employees, no minorities 2.) Restaurant, 22 employees, 4
minorities, 3.)Restaurant 24 employees, 4 minorities 4.) Insurance Agency 4
employees, no minorities 5.) Bedding Store,4 employees, no minorities 6.)
Restaurant, 15 employees, 2 minorities 7.) Retail 2 employees, no minorities,
8. ) Retail 2 employees, no minorities.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list). 6. Multiple Listing Asheville/Haywood Co. area, local real estate listings
x 7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
X 8. Should 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? 11. Public housing is available should it become necessary.
X 12, Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 12. DSS housing should be available for the forseeable future.
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).na
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 12
04-20-2005 Relocation Coordinator Date

Right of Wax A ent
FRM15-E Revised 09-02 Original & 1 Copy. Relocation Coordinator
2 Copy Division Relocation File

APPENDIX E

(TRAFFIC FORECAST)

SR1523 Old SR1526

Clyde Rd. Long Rd.
U P
33
N
2 N
l'
N NC209 A
Crabtree
Rd. 5~ ~8 1
94 117 118 128 130

65 og PM i~ 65 44 PM tt 65 4 11 10 20 65 4 11 bs 4 ii
(3,2) (3,2) 2 3 (3,2) (3,2) (3,2)

5 N 30 Z~l
Y
Haywood P N NC209
Office Park N Crabtree
Entrance 15 Rd.

S R1376 17
County Rd. S5.0 PM 12
(41) 2% N DRAFT

SR1375
17 2006 Estimated AADT
Page 1 of 4 Depot Rd. No Build
LOCATION:
LEGEND Prepared by Paul S. Schroeder, Ph.D., P.E.
NC209 Crabtree Road from SR1523 Old
VPD---- # OF 100 VEHICLES PER DAY Clvde Road to US19-23-74 interchange.
- MUCH LESS THAN VPD
X MOVEMENT PROHIBITED
PROJECT:

DHV rM D Widen NC209.

DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME = K30 of NORTH
K30 = 30'TH HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME ~DOc
PM PM PEAK PERIOD yP COUNTY: Haywood
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT 0
w, P~Q
INDICATES DIRECTION OF D DIV.: 14 BATE: Nov-13,2006
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK ~FtiT
(d,t) DUALS, TT-ST'S of TPTIP # R-4047 VVBS #34599.1.1

II

SR1646 Paragon Pkwy.
N i
70 w
SR1929

12 US19-23-74 Hospital Dr.
92
Wal-Mart
Entrance PM C_ C,
60 11
(2,1) 80 N
104
138
U N
A U
X
50 B
64 50 26 67 32 20
130 ~ 53 158 X 193 38 205
35 -o 1
PM PM 12 60 PM 14 60. Pmt 10
65 4 11 30 75 f-_ 11 29 - ' x 21 . ) 11 62 -0 (3'2)
` (3,2) 1 6 (3'2)
A~ X
90
NC209
US23 Bus
Crabtree Rd. 1073 4,_2 21 to NC209
a b Po
4`1 82 US19-23-74 v ! Crabtree
southbound 350 v Rd.
PM
60, 12
(3,1) ramps 21
6
N 5 US19-23-74
southbound DRAFT
22 SR1375 exit ramp 2006 Estimated AADT
~ Page 2 of 4
access road No Build
LEGEND LOCATION:
Prepared by Paul S. Schroeder, Ph.D., P.E.
NC209 Crabtree Road from SR1523 Old
VPD---# OF 100 VEHICLES PER DAY Clyde Road to US19-23-74 interchange.
- MUCH LESS THAN VPD
X MOVEMENT PROHIBITED
PROJECT:
DRV PM loo- D Widen NC209. j
(d,,)
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME = K30 Ha+n C
K30 = 30'TH HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
PM PM PEAK PERIOD
yP 9 COUNTY: Haywood
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT m a
? INDICATES DIRECTION OF D w, r DIV.: 14 DATE: NOV. 13, 2006
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK
(d,c) DUALS, TT-ST'S of (~io) TIP # R-4047 WBS #34599.1.1 I
i

US19-23-74
northbound ramps

107

12 10 B
5 57 44--- 60

144 4) 12 205 US23 Bus
US23 Bus to NC209
11 PM bo 20 io PM 60 Crabtree
2 51 7 15 (3,2
1 Rd.
3

50
U

Lowe's 6
Entrance PM '%6
65 11
(2,1)

3
56 "

DRAFT

SR1801 Liner Cove Rd. 2006 Estimated AADT
Page 3 of 4 No Build

LEGEND Prepared by Paul S. Schroeder, Ph.D., P.E. LOCATION:
NC209 Crabtree Road from SR1523 Old
VPD---- # OF 100 VEHICLES PER DAY Clyde Road to US 19-23-74 interchange.
- MUCH LESS THAN VPD
X MOVEMENT PROHIBITED
PROJECT:

DHV PM D Widen NC209.
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME = K30 N«+rH
K30 = 30711 HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
PM PM PEAK PERIOD 9 COUNTY: Haywood
Hayes
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT m o
9 0
? INDICATES DIRECTION OF D ~Q DIV.: 14 DATE: Nov. 13, 2006
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK
(d,t) DUALS, TT-STS tiT OF TIP # R-4047 WBS #34599.1.1

SR1929
Hospital Dr.

0
u~
87
U
N

5 School Bus

75 M 14 Access Rd.
~i (4,1)

I
o
84
U
U
32 SR1927

60 f PM - 12 Tuscola Rd.

26 (3,1)
0

104 =
v.
U
C- - - - C' DRAFT
2006 Estimated AADT
Page 4 of 4 No Build

LEGEND LOCATION:
Prepared by Paul S. Schroeder, Ph.D., P.E.
NC209 Crabtree Road from SR1523 Old
VPD---# OF 100 VEHICLES PER DAY Clyde Road to US19-23-74 interchange.
- MUCH LESS THAN VPD
X MOVEMENT PROHIBITED
PROJECT:

DHV PM D Widen NC209.
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME = K30 r,a n,
K30 = 30'TH HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
PM PM PEAK PERIOD y 9 COUNTY: Haywood
z
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT o
%
INDICATES DIRECTION of D P DIV.: 14 DATE: Nov. 13, 2006
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK Fro, OF TV%
(d,t) DUALS, TT-STS (io) TIP # R-4047 WBS #34599.1.1

SR1523 Old SR1526
Clyde Rd. Long Rd,
I
C,
33 'Z
N ~
_z 2
N
N
NC209 J
Crabtree A
5 28
Rd. 1 2
94 117 118 128 130
65 o- ] l 65 44 11 2~ ~3 65 ~ PM a ~ ~ 6 4_ 11 65
11
(3,2 ) (3,2) (3,2) (3,2) (3,2)
30
N
Haywood P NC209
Office Park Crabtree
Entrance 15 Rd.
SR1376 17
County Rd. SS®PM 12
(a,1
2
N
SR1375
17 N Depot Rd. DRAFT
2006 Estimated AADT
i
Page 1 of 4 Build

LEGEND LOCATION:
Prepared by Paul S. Schroeder, Ph.D., P.E.
NC209 Crabtree Road from SR1523 Old
VPD---# OF 100 VEHICLES PER DAY Clyde Road to US19-23-74 interchange.
- MUCH LESS THAN VPD
X MOVEMENT PROHIBITED
PROJECT:
PM Widen NC209. Np. DHV (d, t)
D
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME = K30 HontH
K30 = 30'TH HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
s
PM PM PEAK PERIOD "
COUNTY: Maywood
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT
- INDICATES DIRECTION OFD DIV
~ . :
P, 14 DATE: Nov. 13 20
S,P 06
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK ~FroT
OF rt;
(d,t) DUALS, TT-ST'S ~~ro~ TIP # R-4047 WBS #34599.1.1

SR1646 Paragon Pkwy.
N

70
_z
,z US19-23-74
Wal-Mart 92
Entrance PM
60 .4 11
80%
N
'J
138
A ~
44 B
Af- 61 10 15 X50

130 7 136 ~ 23 7 223 US23 Bus
to NC209
PM 61 PM 10
65 44- a f- bo PM w-» Crabtree
(3,2) 4 (3,2) 51 -)0 1 27 (3.2)
a 7 7 Rd.
N
NC209 22 o
rabtree Rd.
111 ~ o
350
N ?
SR1375 v
access road US19-23-74

southbound DRAFT
ramps 2006 Estimated AADT
Page 2 of 4 Build

LOCATION:
LEGEND Prepared by Paul S. Schroeder, Ph.D., P.E.
NC209 Crabtree Road from SR1523 Old
VPD---# OF 100 VEHICLES PER DAY Clvde Road to US19-23-74 interchange.
- MUCH LESS THAN VPD
X MOVEMENT PROHIBITED
PROJECT:

DxV PM D widen 1.C209.
(d, 9 -
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME = K30. Na+n
K30 = 30'TH HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
PM PM PEAK PERIOD COUNTY: Haywood
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (°i°) m ° DIV. : 14 DATE: Nov. 13
INDICATES DIRECTION OFD 2006
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK
14 (d,t) DUALS, TT-STS of (°r°) TIP # R-4047 WBS #34599.1.1

US19-23-74

northbound ramps

111

0
B
24 ~45 13

144 l ~ 8 2 223 US23 Bus
y
US23 Bus to NC209
PM 2O PM Crabtree
11 110 60 10 - FO
I ~ ~ 37 0 15 48
Rd.
15 4
ti
134

Lowe's 6
Entrance
65 PM
11
6
X2,1)
N ~
140 DRAFT
C_ _ C1 2006 Estimated AADT
Page 3 of 4 SR1801 Liner Cove Rd. Build.

LEGEND LOCATION:
Prepared by Paul S. Schroeder, Ph.D., P.E.
VPD---- # OF 100 VEHICLES PER DAY NC209 Crabtree Road from SR1523 Old
- MUCH LESS THAN VPD Clyde Road to US19-23-74 interchange.
X MOVEMENT PROHIBITED
PROJECT: j

PM D Widen NC209.
DHV
-7d, T)
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME = K30 NORTH
K30 = 30'TH HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
PM PM PEAK PERIOD " 7 COUNTY: Haywood
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (°r°)
° Z DIV.: 14 DATE: Nov, 13, 2006
INDICATES DIRECTION OFD
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK stir
(d,t) DUALS, TT-ST'S (°i°) OF TIP # R-4047 WBS #34599.1.1

84 sl SR1929

ss 4 10 4-'~ 44 ss~Pn1 10 Hospital Dr.
/ (3, 1) (3,11
J

I ~
5 a ,
SR1801 Liner ' v
I
Cove Rd.
(
C- - - - - C, 32 School Bus
SR1927 Access Rd.
60 -.4 12 Tuscola Rd.
1 26 (3,1>
140 = i
i
N
N /
//SR1929 Hospital Dr.
/
104
q6
PM 44 `S 1 10
(3,1)
70
S6

DRAFT
SR1801 Liner Cove Rd. 2006 Estimated AADT
Page 4 of 4 Build

LEGEND LOCATION:
Prepared by Paul S. Schroeder, Ph.D., P.E.
VPD---- # OF 100 VEHICLES PER DAY NC209 Crabtree Road from SR1523 Old
- MUCH LESS THAN VPD Clyde Road to US19-23-74 interchange.
X MOVEMENT PROHIBITED
PROJECT:

Dxv PM 1 u Widen NC209.
(d, t)
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME = K30 NORTh
K30 = 30'TH HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
PM PM PEAK PERIOD COUNTY: Haywood
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (io>
% DIV.: 14 DATE: Nov. 13, 2006
? INDICATES DIRECTION OFD, ~P I
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK of TA
(d,t) DUALS, TT-ST'S (pro) TIP # R-4047 WBS #34599.1.1

SR1523 Old SR1526
Clyde Rd. Long Rd.

63
4 N~
NC209

Crabtree A
Rd. 137 15 `?8 1 4
170 171 182 186

PM
6' 11 6< 4 M 11 6' PM PM PM
(3,2) (3,2) u 6 11 6s 4 11
3 4 17 28 ~
(3,2) (3,2) .4
(3,
7 N y 45
Haywood NC209
Office Park Crabtree
Entrance zs Rd.
SR1376 30
County Rd. S5. PM 12
(4,1) l 1
N DRAFT
SR1375
23 2030 Estimated AADT
Page 1 of 4 N Depot Rd. No Build
LEGEND LOCATION:
Prepared by Paul S. Schroeder, Ph.D., P.E.
NC209 Crabtree Road from SR1523 Old
VPD---# OF 100 VEHICLES PER DAY Clyde Road to US19-23-74 interchange.
- MUCH LESS THAN VPD
X MOVEMENT PROHIBITED
PROJECT:

DaV (P~M~-? D Widen NC209.
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME = K30 OATH q~
K30 = 30'TH HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME P
PM PM PEAK PERIOD 9 COUNTY: Haywood
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT z
INDICATES DIRECTION OFD DIV.: 14 PATE: Nov. 13,2006
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK ~Ftir
(d,t) DUALS, TT-ST'S (pro) OF TIP # R-4047 WBS #34599.1.1

SR1646 Paragon Pkwy.
N
112 U
SR1929

16 US19-23-74 Hospital Dr.
Wal-Mart 116
Entrance C
60 ~ PM C_ _ '
- Ii
(2,1) 1~Q o
N
148
196 3
A "
x 71 B
4 - 91 71 37 96 46 28 4
186 76 225 ~y x 276 4 4 421 292
PM 50
E' 1 I PM 17 60 PM 11 20 60 PM 10
(3,2) 43 f - n 41

X 30 (3,2) 89
2 8 (3,2) x (3,2)
x
N
NC209 = 129
US23 Bus
Crabtree Rd. 14105 81 t3 30 2 o to NC209
V/' 2 11 s U S 19-23-74 v
494 Crabtree
PM southbound
12 N ~ Rd.
60 44
8 (3,1) ramps A
US19-23-74
7
ti southbound
31 exit ramp DRAFT
SR1375 2030 Estimated AADT
Page 2 of 4 access road No Build
LEGEND LOCATION:
Prepared by Paul S. Schroeder, Ph.D., P.E.
NC209 Crabtree Road from SR1523 Old
VPD---# OF 100 VEHICLES PER DAY Clyde Road to US19-23-74 interchange.
- MUCH LESS THAN VPD
X MOVEMENT PROHIBITED
PROJECT:
DaV P-M ? D Widen NC209.
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME = K30 NonTH c
K30 = 30'TH HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME P ~~9
PM PM PEAK PERIOD COUNTY: Haywood
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT m of
- _ INDICATES DIRECTION OF D DIV.: 14 DATE: Nov. 13 2006
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK ~Ftir
(d,r) DUALS, TT-ST'S °r°> OF Tf~
TIP # R-4047 WBS #34599.1.1

U S 19-23-74
northbound ramps

148 v

0
7 1581 13
89
210 15 292 US23 Bus
US23 Bus PM 28 PM I to NC209
60. 75
Crabtree
' 60
9 19 10 (3, 2
10,
( Rd.
2 4
64
N
Lowe's $

Entrance
65 FPM 11 7
(2,1)

70 N

DRAFT
SR1801 Liner Cove Rd. 2030 Estimated AADT
Page 3 of 4 No Build

Prepared by Paul S. Schroeder, Ph.D., P.E. LOCATION:
LEGEND
NC209 Crabtree Road from SR1523 Old
VPD---- # OF 100 VEHICLES PER DAY Clyde Road to US19-23-74 interchange.
- MUCH LESS THAN VPD
X MOVEMENT PROHIBITED
PROJECT:

DHV PM D Widen NC209.

DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME = K30 NORTH
K30 = 30'TH HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
PM PM PEAK PERIOD 9 COUNTY: Haywood * 19 D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT DIV.: 14 DATE: Nov. 13, 2006
%

INDICATES DIRECTION OF D P `
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK
tiT
(d,t) DUALS, TT-ST'S OF 17?~° TIP # R-4047 WBS #34599.1.1

I

SR1929
Hospital Dr.

o

125
i

7 School Bus
s M 14 Access Rd.

(4,1)
i

120

g 46

SR1927
60 M 12 Tuscola Rd.
37 (3,1)
I
o
u
148
i
C- - - - C' DRAFT
2030 Estimated AADT
Page 4 of 4 No Build

LEGEND Prepared by Paul S. Schroeder, Ph.D., P.E. LOCATION:
NC209 Crabtree Road from SR1523 Old
VPD---# OF 100 VEHICLES PER DAY Clyde Road to US19-23-74 interchange.
- MUCH LESS THAN VPD
X MOVEMENT PROHIBITED
PROJECT:

DHV pM n Widen NC209.
(d, t)
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME = K30 NORTH
K30 = 30'TH HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME ; wg
PM PM PEAK PERIOD 9 COUNTY: Haywood . C7 D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT °
? INDICATES DIRECTION of DP DIV.: 14 DATE: Nov, 13, 2006
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK ~FHT of 1N
(d,t) DUALS, TT-ST'S (°r°) TIP # R-4047 WBS #34599.1.1

SR1523 Old SR1526

Clyde Rd. Long Rd.

63
4 N
I
N
NC209 w A
Crabtree
Rd. 137 1~ 170 171 182 1~ 186
PM PM PM PM PM
65
q4 11 ,2) 65 3,2) 3% ~4 bs~ 2) 11 17% ~8 6s f 2) - 6s 44 11
,
7 N . 45 N

Haywood P NC209
Office Park Crabtree
Entrance 2s Rd.
30
SR1376
County Rd. 55PM 12
(4, 1) 4
N
U
SR1375
23 Depot Rd.
DRAFT
2030 Estimated AADT
Page 1 of 4 Build

LEGEND LOCATION:
Prepared by Paul S. Schroeder, Ph.D., P.E.
NC209 Crabtree Road from SR1523 Old
VPD---# OF 100 VEHICLES PER DAY Clyde Road to US19-23-74 interchange.
- MUCH LESS THAN VPD
X MOVEMENT PROHIBITED
PROJECT:

PM
DEW D Widen NC209.
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME = K30 NaRn c
K30 = 30'TH HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
PM PM PEAK PERIOD 9 COUNTY: IlayWOod
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT °
INDICATES DIRECTION OFD DIV.: 14 DATE: Nov, 13, 2006
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK
(d,c) DUALS, TT-ST'S (°r°) ' OF TIP # R-4047/1 WBS #34599.1.1

SR1646 Paragon Pkwy.
N

112

Wal-Mart 116 1s US19-23-74
Entrance PM
60 a 11
(2,1) 100
N
l ~
196
A B
63 71
88 14 21 82

186 10 196 4) 33 319 US23 Bus
PM 88 PM 14 to NC209
6~~- 11 75~- 11 60M 1i
(3,2) 5 (3,2) 74 0 2 (38" (3,2 Crabtree
5 10 10 13 Rd.
N '
NC209 15 15 3

rabtree Rd.
159
30 494
N
SR1375 A
access road US19-23-74
southbound DRAFT

ramps 2030 Estimated AADT
Page 2 of 4 Build

LEGEND LOCATION:
Prepared by Paul S. Schroeder, Ph.D., P.E.
NC209 Crabtree. Road from SR1523 Old
VPD---# OF 100 VEHICLES PER DAY Clyde Road to US19-23-74 interchange.
- MUCH LESS THAN VPD
X MOVEMENT PROHIBITED
PROJECT:
DHV rM D Widen NC209.

DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME = K30 NonAf
K30 = 30'TH HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
PM PM PEAK PERIOD h 9\ COUNTY: Havwood
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT
INDICATES DIRECTION OF D TP DIV.: 14 DATE: Nov. 13, 2006
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK of mP'j5
(d,t) DUALS, TT-ST'S (~io) TIP # R-4047 WBS #34599.1.1

U S 19-23-74
northbound ramps

159

0
C,
34 B
8 64 ~ 19
210 8 ~ 64 404 319 US23 Bus

US23 Bus to NC209
PM 29
PM
„ 60 55 6G Crabtree
21
(3, 2 23 67 ('°2 Rd.
190

Lowe's 8

Entrance
6` o4 PM
- tl 7
N
~ 196 v 3
DRAFT

C- - C' 2030 Estimated AADT
Page 3 of 4 SR1801 Liner Cove Rd. Build

LEGEND LOCATION:
Prepared by Paul S. Schroeder, Ph.D., P.E.
VPD---- # OF 100 VEHICLES PER DAY NC209 Crabtree Road from SR1523 01d
- MUCH LESS THAN ###VPD
X MOVEMENT PROHIBITED Clyde Road to US19-23 74 interchange.
PROJECT:

DHV ~dM~ ? D Widen NC209.

DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME = K30 °F N°RT#l
c
K30 = 307H HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
PM PM PEAK PERIOD ~P ~i
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT COUNTY: Haywood
?0 INDICATES DIRECTION OF D DIV. ; 14 DATE: NOV. 13 2006
REVERSE FLOW FORAM PEAK stir , (a,c) DUALS, TT-ST'S OF T' TIP # R-4047 VVBS #34599.1.1

120 125
SR1929
~
PM M PM Hospital Dr.
~ ~5 10 SS
/ (31) (31)
a

SR1801 Liner '
I
Cove Rd.
C- C' School Bus
46
SR1927 Access Rd.
6D. Tuscola Rd.
N I 37 (3,1)
196 z
i
U /
/
//SR1929 Hospital Dr.
/
148
59 PMf
S-` -414- 10
(3,1)
11

ry
DRAFT
SR1801 Liner Cove Rd. 2030 Estimated AADT
Page 4 of 4 Build

LEGEND LOCATION:
Prepared by Paul S. Schroeder, Ph.D., P.E.
VPD---- # OF loo VEHICLES PER DAY NC209 Crabtree Road from SR1523 Old
- MUCH LESS THAN VPD
X MOVEMENT PROHIBITED Clyde Road to L'519-23 74 interchange
PROJECT:

DHV PM D Widen NC209.
(d, t)
DHV DESIGN HOURLY VOLUDIE = K30 eo~~a
K30 = 307H HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUME
PM PM PEAK PERIOD y+ COUNTY: Haywood
D DIRECTIONAL SPLIT (°r°) \ Z
INDICATES DIRECTION OF D DIV.: 14 DATE: Nov. 13, 2006
P'
REVERSE FLOW FOR AM PEAK % of Ilk
(d,t) DUALS, TT-ST'S TIP # R-4047 WBS #34599.1.1
i

APPENDIX F

(NCDOT CAPACITY

ANALYSIS GUIDELINES)

NC®OT Congestion Management

CAPACITY ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
TIP Project Traffic Analyses

The values and information below serve as standard practices and default input values
for traffic analysis reports as they relate to TIP Projects. Changes or deviations from
these standards are allowed, but should be discussed, justified and documented.
Failure to properly justify and document changes and deviations may result in the
analysis being returned for changes, corrections and justification without a detailed
review and the additional analysis will be performed at the consultant's expense. A
meeting regarding a scope of study is encouraged where significant deviations from
standard practice are anticipated. They are also encouraged before scope is agreed to
when contracting with other Branches of the Department.
By reviewing reports, plans, and submittals, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) in no way relieves the Team / PEF of possible claims or
additional work resulting from errors or omissions. The reviews and comments by
NCDOT are cursory in nature and do not involve in-depth analysis and design review.

General

When submitting a traffic analysis for a TIP Project, all available documentation that
would prove beneficial in review of said analyses should be included in the submittal.
This includes but is not limited to, available plans, traffic forecast used in the analysis,
appropriate software printouts, any assumptions used in the analysis, etc. Information
regarding existing conditions should be provided where applicable.
All submittals must be in latest version of the software that NCDOT is utilizing.

When performing analyses for Build Conditions providing an adequate overall level of
service alone is not sufficient. Items such as volume to capacity ratio, queuing, and
intersection movement level of service should be evaluated and addressed.

Documentation should be provided to justify any change in default values.

When new developments or schools are located along a TIP Project, coordination with
the Access Management Group and Municipal and School Transportation Assistance
Group is required, accordingly.

For median divided facilities, the Department's Median Crossover Guidelines should be
used. Any median openings not adhering to these guidelines will require a design
exception. These guidelines are provided on our webpage.

Before beginning a review, the corridor should be checked to see if it is a Strategic
Highway Corridor. If so, the vision for the corridor should be maintained. Interim

2006-02-15 NCDOT TIP Project Analysis Guidelines Page 1

measures, such as signalized intersections on expressways for identified interchange
locations, may be required due to scoping limitations for a specific project.

Where feasible alternate intersection treatments should be evaluated, including various
treatments of median U-turns as described in the memorandum from the State Highway
Administrator dated January 6, 2006 on the Implementation of Directional Crossover
with Median U-turns.

Signalized Intersections

Coordinated Signal Systems

,O . When analyzing multiple signalized intersections, the default should be to analyze as
a coordinated signal system. If the analysis procedure indicates that coordination is
not recommended that information should be included in submittals.
• For coordinated signals, under recall, the usual condition will specify none for minor
streets or movements, and the coordinated phase should be the main street through
movement, typically phases 2+6.
• Cycle lengths for individual intersections in coordinated systems should be equal;
double or half cycles can be used with justification if the minimum cycle lengths are
accommodated.
• For existing conditions, the existing system cycle length should be used where
known.
General Information
• For analysis of future improvements, when protected left-turns are used, use
protected only phasing not protected / permitted phasing. This analysis will identify
the maximum queuing storage necessary in the event that protected-only phasing is
necessary. In the design of the traffic signal, the use of protected/permitted phasing
may be allowed.
• When analyzing existing signalized intersections, only use a leading phase
sequence for protective/permitted phasing left turn movements, to prevent the yellow
trap. Lagging operation is allowed for protective left turn movements only.
• Check for the possibility of using overlapping right-turn phasing where appropriate.
• For analysis of future operations, Right-Turn-On-Red (RTOR) operation should not
be included. In the design of the traffic signal RTOR may be allowed. Exceptions
will require justification and approval. To provide for a proper comparison, do not
use RTOR for existing conditions.
• If an intersection is not anticipated to be signalized as part of the T.I. P. Project but
may warrant signalization by the design year, both signalized and unsignalized
analyses should be performed to ensure adequate laneage and storage is provided
for both signalized and unsignalized operations in the future. The recommended
storage lane lengths should reflect the maximum queue from both analyses. Signal
recommendations should be obtained from the Regional Traffic Engineer (RTE).
• Due to uncertainty in determining between Rural and Urban conditions and
predicting future land use, a PHF of 0.90 should be used, which is a median value
between the 0.88 for Rural and the 0.92 for Urban conditions listed in the 2000

2006-02-15 NCDOT TIP Project Analysis Guidelines Page 2

HCM. If field traffic counts have been acquired, the resulting PHFs should be used
for existing conditions.
Use the AADT, K (DHV), 0/o Trucks, and D (directional split) provided by the
Transportation Branch's forecast. Percent trucks used in the analysis should be the
total of TTST and Duals divided by two.
® Where appropriate pedestrians should be considered and accommodated. This can
include but is not limited to pedestrian phases, adequate pedestrian clearance, and
potential conflicts with phasing, such as overlapping phases.

Signal Timing and Phasing
• Total Lost Time - 5.0 sec/phase for most intersections, and increase clearance as
needed for large cross sections such as a single point urban interchanges (SPUI).
• For existing traffic use yellow = 5 sec., red = 2 sec or existing timings. For analysis
purposes, rounding up to the nearest second is preferred.
• For future No-Build and Build traffic use yellow = 5 sec., red = 2 sec. Clearance
times using NCDOT criteria may also be used. If design plans are available, the
clearance calculation spreadsheets provided by the Signals and Geometrics Section
is acceptable. The calculation for these clearance times shall be included and the
spreadsheets may be found on our website.
• The minimum initial green time for all protected left turn movements and all side
street movements is 7 seconds.
• The minimum initial green time for the main street through movements is dependent
on the speed limit and policy provided in the NCDOT Signals and Geometrics
Design Manual. For 35 mph or less, use 10 seconds; for 36-45 mph use 12
seconds, for 46 mph or higher use 14 seconds.
• All cycle lengths should be rounded to the nearest 5 seconds.
• Phasing should remain consistent for all time periods. As an example, if split
phasing is used for the AM peak, it must be used for the PM peak. Changing the
phasing sequence such as altering left-turn phasing from leading left to lagging left is
dependent on the traffic signal controller equipment.
• Laneage should be identical for all time periods for the same alternative.
• Intersections with combination through/left-turn lanes should have a split phase left-
turn treatment for that approach. This is not a recommended geometric
configuration, try to avoid if at all possible.

Recommended minimum cycle lengths by phase
Number of Phases Minimum Recommended
seconds
_ 2 60
3 90
4 110
5 110
6 140
8 140
Note: Maximum recommended cycle length is 180, but certain circumstances may
warrant cycle lengths u to 240 seconds.

2006-02-15 NCDOT TIP Project Analysis Guidelines Page 3

Left Turn Treatment

Use protected left turn treatment not protected/permitted when (a) dual left turn lanes
are present, (b) when left-turn lanes are crossing 3 or more opposing through lanes of
traffic, or (c) when a condition is satisfied in the table below:

Number of Opposing Lanes
Condition
(Through and Right)
1 Left Turn Volume ' Opposing Volume > 50,000
2 Left Turn Volume * Opposing Volume > 90,000
3 or more Left Turn Volume ' Opposing Volume > 110,000

Additional Guidelines

The use of field values may be used in lieu of these standard values where conditions
are not likely to change from the current operation.
• Full storage for queue lengths should be rounded up to the nearest 25 feet with a
minimum of 100' for both right-turn and left-turn lanes.
• Ideal Saturated Flow Rate = 1900 vphpl

• The Plan Review Group will provide traffic breakout spreadsheets provided by the
Transportation Planning Branch to assist in the conversion of forecasted AADT to
Peak Hour Volumes. If this spreadsheet is not used, justification should be provided
for any alternate method chosen. This spreadsheet is available on our website. The
Plan Review Group will also provide an interpolation spreadsheet to determine
intermediate year traffic volumes.
• The Intersection Analysis Utility (IAU) spreadsheet should be used only when traffic
forecast volumes are displayed with two-way arrows. The Intersection Analysis
Utility for Directional Data (IAU_directional) spreadsheet should be used only when
traffic forecast volumes are displayed with one-way arrows.
• AM and PM Peak hour analysis should be performed for all reports; explanation
should be provided for alternate time periods or to not perform an analysis for the
AM or PM peak. The requirement to review other key analysis periods, such as a
seasonal peak, lunch peak, or weekend peak, should be discussed with NCDOT
prior to completion of the traffic analysis.
• System analysis software (such as Synchro) should be used for arterials and
multiple signalized intersections. Analyses for roundabouts should use aaSIDRA.
For unsignalized intersections, analysis based on HCM procedures should be used.

2006-02-15 NCDOT TIP Project Analysis Guidelines Page 4

Synchro and SimTraffic

To facilitate review of the traffic analysis, electronic copies of the Synchro data file
should be submitted along with the appropriate printouts.

The values stated previously should be correctly applied to the Synchro capacity
analyses. Provided below are additional methodologies and inputs in Synchro that
should be incorporated into the analyses.
• If there are existing protected/permitted left-turn treatments, lead/lag optimization
should be fixed for lead operation for the respective phases.
• Any approaches or movements whose queue length are flagged by a or a "m"
should be reviewed for improvements given there may be serious delay and queuing
problems for this approach or in the vicinity. These problems will need to be
addressed in order for the intersection to operate properly. In these cases, it is
recommended the Synchro output should be compared to the SimTraffic output and
/or other analysis tools such as CORSIM, VISSIM, or the Red Time Formula. Red
Time Formula should only be used for protected phasing when operations are under
capacity.
• When creating a Synchro output report, the 'Intersection: Lanes, Volumes, and
Timings' report will provide all necessary information for review. The data selection
"Actuated Green Times" is not necessary information for our review.
• SimTraffic should be utilized to aid in verifying geometry, determining storage
lengths and spotting other trouble areas. A SimTraffic queue analysis report should
be included for review.
• Networks should be seeded for a period long enough to traverse the network
including stops prior to recording. We typically use 10 minutes as a default seed
time for the network. Also, the simulation should record for the entire one (1) hour
period.
• When evaluating facilities with U-turns, the U-turns should be modeled both as left-
turns to obtain an estimation of level of service and as U-turns in SimTraffic to
compare to the left-turn level of service and to help determine operations and
required storage.

Highway Capacity Software (HCS2000)

General HCS Guidelines
• Due to uncertainty in determining between Rural and Urban conditions and
predicting future land use, a PHF of 0.90 should be used, which is a median value
between the 0.88 for Rural and the 0.92 for Urban conditions listed in the 2000
HCM.
• Provide output by means of the formatted report.
• Enter fp = 1.00, unless in a tourist area, then use 0.95.

• Appropriate terrain should be used depending on location.

2006-02-15 NCDOT TIP Project Analysis Guidelines Page 5

Use the AADT, K (DHV), 0,0 Trucks, and D (directional split) provided by the
Transportation Branch's forecast. Percent trucks used in the analysis should be the
total of TTST and Duals divided by two.
When U-turns are present, they should be modeled as left-turns to obtain a level of
service estimation. This should be compared to a simulation of the U-turns to
determine operations and required laneage and storage.

HCS Unsignalized Analysis
• Median storage should be zero as a standard unless there is sufficient width to
provide adequate storage. Do not enter a storage exceeding one vehicle. No
median storage should be used for TWLTL's.
• Enter appropriate information from upstream (per direction) signalized intersections.
• Do not provide an overall level of service (LOS) for unsignalized intersections.
According to the 2000 HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL, LOS for an unsignalized
intersection is determined by the computed or measured control delay and is defined
for each minor movement. LOS is not defined for the intersection as a whole.

HCS Freeway Analysis
• Use the Base Free Flow Speed unless measured flow speeds are available. Base
Free Flow Speed for an ideal freeway segment is 70 mph for urban conditions or 75
mph for rural conditions. However, this can be limited by design constraints.
Therefore, this should be compared to the design speed of the facility and
adjustments made to these inputs, as appropriate.

HCS Weaving Analysis
• The Weaving Section Analysis applies to weaving segments up to 2,500 feet
maximum.
• Enter the Freeway Free Flow Speed (use the design speed or the posted speed plus
5 mph). Note: typical freeway situations have free-flow speeds of 65mph, collector-
distributor (C-D) facilities are 45mph. The analyst can also use the base free flow
speed to obtain an estimated free flow speed.
• Check Weaving Area Limitations to ensure that none of the limitations specified are
exceeded. Where any limits are exceeded, consult the appropriate notes near the
bottom of the output. These situations should be eliminated where feasible and
addressed in the included report.

HCS Ramp Analysis
• For Freeway Free Flow Speed use the design speed or the posted speed plus 5
mph. Note: typical freeway situations = 65mph. You can also use the base free flow
speed to obtain an estimated free flow speed.
• Typical Free Flow Speed for Ramps = 45 mph, and for Loops = 25 mph. These can
be adjusted as needed based upon designs if that information is available.
• Enter appropriate information for any adjacent ramps that exist within 6,000 feet of
an analyzed on-ramp or within 1,400 feet of an analyzed off-ramp.
• If analysis indicates an LOS F and the freeway is not over capacity, extending the
ramp acceleration/deceleration lengths could improve the LOS.

2006-02-15 NCDOT TIP Project Analysis Guidelines Page 6

® If the freeway operation is the limiting factor, a failure year and the required number
of lanes for adequate level of service should be provided.
HCS Multilane Analysis
• This methodology does not address highways that have one of the following
categories: Signal spacing of 2.0 miles or less, significant presence of on street
parking, heavily used bus stops, significant pedestrian activity. Facilities falling
under one or more of these categories may be analyzed evaluated with the
methodology of Urban Streets (HCS Arterials or Synchro Arterials)

• If no information is available for access points per mile, use 12 for rural sections and
25 for urban sections. If there is potential for rural section to become urban by
design year, use 25. This includes right-side only access points. For a one-way
roadway it is appropriate to include intersections and driveways on both sides of the
roadway. Existing and proposed driveways and intersections may be used where
known for specific conditions.
• Use the base Free Flow Speed unless measured flow speeds are available. For
Multilane Highways, Base Free Flow Speed may be estimated by increasing the
speed limit by 7 mph for 40 and 45 mph, and increasing the speed limit by 5 mph for
50 and 55 mph.

HCS Two-Lane Highway Analysis
• This methodology does not address two-lane highways with signalized intersections.
Two-lane highways in urban and suburban areas with multiple signalized
intersections at spacings of 2.0 miles or less can be evaluated with the methodology
of Urban Streets (HCS Arterials or Synchro Arterials)
• Enter 100% no passing zones.
• If no information is available for access points per mile, use 12 for rural sections and
25 for urban sections. If there is potential for rural section to become urban by
design year, use 25. This includes access points on both sides of the roadway
segment. Existing and proposed driveways and intersections may be used where
known for specific conditions.
• Use the Base Free Flow Speed unless measured flow speeds are available. For
Two-Lane Highways, Base Free Flow Speed may be estimated by increasing the
speed limit by 7 mph for 40 and 45 mph, and increasing the speed limit by 5 mph for
50 and 55 mph.
HCS Arterial Analysis
• Free Flow Speed may be estimated by the speed limit or default values found in the
2000 HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL.

• Used when Urban Street criteria are met.
HCS Signalized Analysis
• Enter Right-turn-on-red (RTOR) as 0.

• Unless you have progressed movements use Arrival Type = 3.
• Enter Unit Extension (normally 3 seconds).
• Enter Start-up Lost Time (normally 2 seconds).

2006-02-15 NCDOT TIP Project Analysis Guidelines Page 7

• Enter the Phasing Design. (use 5.0 seconds of yellow time and 2.0 seconds of red
time).

• Note that HCS Signalized analysis is recommended only for isolated intersections
and even in these cases, i` is recommend an optimization software package is used
to provide the recommended signal timing.

aaSidra

General aaSidra Guidelines
• When creating an aaSidra output report, the S7 and S15 reports will provide all
necessary information for review.
• For proposed roundabouts a minimum lane width of 13 feet should be used.
• For proposed one-lane roundabouts a minimum of 120 feet should be used for the
inscribed diameter (88-foot island diameter and 16 foot circulating road width). For
proposed two-lane roundabouts a minimum of 148 feet should be used for the
inscribed diameter (88-foot island diameter and 30 foot circulating road width).

• If the roundabout operation is a limiting factor, a failure year should be provided.
This can be determined by calculating a variable Flow Scale run for the intersection.

References

The POLICY ON STREET AND DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO NORTH CAROLINA HIGHWAYS is the
dictating standard related to all aspects of development access for the State of North
Carolina. All pertinent standards, found within this document shall be implemented
during the analysis to provide for the safe, efficient, consistent treatment of the traveling
public.
Most signal standards can be found in the TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS UNIT DESIGN
MANUAL.

Congestion Management Website:
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/traffic/congestion/CM/default.html

2006-02-15 NCDOT TIP Project Analysis Guidelines Page 8