SR 1660 and SR 1662 (12)

Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Project Review Form
Project Number: 09-0334 County: Macon Date Received: 05/16/2009
Due Date: 6/17/2009
Project Description: Environmental Assessment - Connect SR 1660 (Siler Road) to SR 1662
(Wiley Brown Road) & construct new crossing over Little Tennessee River,
Macon County. TIP No. R-4748.

his Project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
_ Asheville Air Soil & Water _ Marine Fisheries
_ Fayetteville Water _ Coastal Management _ Water Resources
_ Mooresville Aquifer Protection _ Wildlife _ Environmental Health
_ Raleigh / Land Quality Engineer ? Wildlife - DOT _ Solid Waste Mgmt
_ Washington Forest Resources _ Radiation Protection
_ Wilmington _ Land Resources _ Other
Winston-Salem _ 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)

If you have any questions, please contact: ??Ia
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at [e-mail] MqY :, ,a

--,,.. . -.,r
41v,i: i/,c
11 T?p? ,
R
???y
V`
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
ern
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Colleen H. Sullins
Director
June 22, 2009
MEMORANDUM
Dee Freeman
Secretary
To: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental
Affairs
From: Brian Wrenn, Division of Water Quality, Transportation Permitting Unit
Subject: Comments on the Finding of No Significant Impact related to proposed new route from
SR 1660 (Siler Road) to SR 1662 (Wiley Brown Road) south of US 64/23/441 with a
new Bridge over Little Tennessee River, Macon County, WBS Element No. 401180.1.1,
TIP Project No. R-4748, State Clearinghouse No. 09-0334.
This office has reviewed the referenced document dated May 4, 2009. The NC Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) 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
not result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and other surface waters. NCDWQ offers the
following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:
Project Specific Comments:
NCDWQ disagrees with the statements that indicate the proposed road will only increase the rate of
development and not result in new developments that would not occur without the road. Other than
the Macon County Library and the Southwestern Community College, many of the "new"
developments that have occurred along the Little Tennessee River in proximity to the proposed road
are a result of land speculation that the road would be built. The alternatives proposed for the road
were not so significantly different to eliminate the feasibility of these new projects. This makes
these developments a direct result of the proposed road. NCDWQ can agree that the far eastern and
western portions of the expanded project area may not be significantly altered by the proposed road,
but those inside the focus are to the south of US 64 certainly will be. These areas will also be the
most environmentally sensitive areas. Although new zoning may prevent industrial and commercial
development, educational, institutional, and office use developments can result in high impervious
surface areas. The new 30-foot buffers and Unified Development Ordinance may mitigate some of
the stormwater impacts, but development of this area will surely impact water quality and have an
effect on the critical habitat of the Little Tennessee River.
General Comments:
2. NCDWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project.
NC DOT shall address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the
aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Location: 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Internet http:llh2o.encstate.nc.us/ncwetlandsl
NorthCarohna
Naturally
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer
3. NC DOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, fill,
excavation and clearing, and rip rap to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to
be included in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts,
temporary or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification
Application.
4. Bridge deck drains shall not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater shall be directed across
the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed scour holes,
vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to the most current version of
NCDWQ's Stormwater Best Management Practices.
5. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or streams.
6. Borrow/waste areas shall avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification and could
precipitate compensatory mitigation.
7. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area shall be maintained to prevent direct contact
between curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete shall
not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and
fish kills.
8. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction
contours and elevations. Disturbed areas shall be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
appropriate native woody species shall be planted. When using temporary structures the area shall
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.
9. If foundation test borings are necessary; it shall be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3687/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
10. 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. .
11. All work in or adjacent to stream waters shall 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 shall be used to
prevent excavation in flowing water.
12. Heavy equipment shall 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 shall be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from
leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
13. Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible.
Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of
the growing season following completion of construction.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any
questions or require any additional information, please contact Brian Wrenn at 919-733-5715.
cc: Dave Baker, US Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field Office
Clarence Coleman, Federal Highway Administration
Mark Davis, Division 14 Environmental Officer
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency (electronic copy only)
Marella Bunicick, US FWS (electronic copy only)
Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Mike Parker, NCDWQ Asheville Regional Office
File Copy
O

NEW ROUTE
FROM SR 1 660 (SILER ROAD) TO SR 1 662 (WILEY
BROWN ROAD) SOUTH OF US 64/23/441
MACON COUNTY
WBS ELEMENT No. 401 1 S.1 .1
. T.I.P. PROJECT No. R-4748
ADMINIHTRATIVE ACTION
STATE FINDING OF No SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
SUBMITTED BY THE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
I
IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
For further information contact:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
[phone]
I

V
Date of ApprovalGregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation

.I
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
I
NEW ROUTE
FROM SR 1660 (SILER ROAD) TO SR 1 662 (WILEY BROWN ROAD) SOUTH
OF US 64/23/441
MACON COUNTY
WBS ELEMENT No. 401 1 S.1 .1
T.I.P. PROJECT No. R-4748
I
I
I
i
I
MAY 2009
DOCUMENTATION PREPARED SY:
MULKEY ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
5-?-09 u
Date Liz kdvasckitz, AIC
Transportation Planning Group Manager
N CARO(s
weee? e'L
5?-05''?'oOFESSI®?°?9
Date . A. Bissett, Jr., P.E. a SEAL
Principal a 1.4842 -. Q6
DOCUMENT PREPARED FOR: Soo9?n?AyGINEE(??? .r ?J?%
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION e?0/.?11:` M. BISSI.?,
/1111 IIIOlAl11o
Date Undrea Major ` 'A CARD
O(/
Project Development Engineer ?FrcSS
i SEAL ``YY =
022109
jQ
Date es Btidges, P.E.
QIN?c? `
Project Engineer ????? ?'P aa
,gym
a
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
1.0 TYPE OF ACTION .................................................................... 1
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ................................ 1
3.0 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .......................... 2
3.1 Archaeological Sun-ev .......................................................................................................................... ..4
3.2 Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment Addendum ............................................................. ..5
4.0 COORDINATION AND COMMENTS ........................................ 6
4.1 Circulation of the State Environmental Assessment ...................................................................... -. 6
4.2 Comments Received on the State Environmental Assessment ..................................................... ..6
4.3 Comments Received During and Following the Public I-learmg .................................................. 22
4.4 Section 404/NFTA Merger'01 Team ............................................................................................... 24
5.0 REVISIONS TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL
2 4
I
ASSESSMENT .....................................................................
5.1 Correction of the Thoroughfare plan Date .... :................................................................................. 24
5.2 Revisions to Farmland Impacts ..........................._.............................................................................24
5.3 Revisions to Floodplain Impacts ........................ .... ._....................................................................... 24
5.4 Clarification of Federally-Protected Species, Federal Species of Concern, and State-
I.isted Spccics ........................................................................................................................................2i
6.0 BASIS FOR STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT ................................................................................ 25
Appendix A Figures
Appendix B Agency Correspondence
Appendix C Town of Franklin Principles of Growth and Zoning Map
Appendix D Public Hearing Notice and Handout
TABLE
Table 1. Impacts Summary
......................................2
iii
NEW ROUTE
FROM SR 1 660 (SILER ROAD) TO SR 1 662 (WILEY BROWN ROAD)
SOUTH OF US 64/23/441
MACON COUNTY
WBS ELEMENT No. 401 1 6.1.1
T.I.P. PROJECT No. R-4746
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit No. 14 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit
Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions,
NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, General
Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the following special
commitments have been agreed to by the NCDOT:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH, NATURAL
ENVIRONMENT UNIT
A Section 7 Consultation will be undertaken regarding the spotfin chub (Erimomx monarbus) critical
habitat.
A Biological Assessment will be produced for spotfin chub designated critical habitat.
ROADWAY DESIGN UNIT, HYDRAULIC DESIGN AND DIVISION 1 4
Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds will be adhered to for sediment and erosion control
procedures.
HYDRAULIC DESIGN
The 1-Ndrautics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP) to determine
the status of the project with regard to applicability of NCDOT's Memorandum of Agreement, or
approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final letter of Map
Revision (LOMB).
DIVISION 1 4
In-watcr work in the Little Tennessee River will be prohibited from May 1 to July 15 to protect the
egg and fry stages of smallmouth bass.
This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated stream(s).
Therefore, die Division shall subm t sealed as-built construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit upon
completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage structure(s) and roadway
embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown in the construction
plans, both horizontally and vertically.
GREEN SHEET PAGE 1 OF 1
R-4748 STATE FINDING OF No SIGNIFICANT IMPACT MAY 2009
NEW ROUTE
FROM SR 1 660 (SILER ROAD)
TO SR 1 662 (WILEY BROWN ROAD) SOUTH of US 64/23/441
MACON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
WBS No. 401 1 8.1 .1
T.I.P. PROJECT NO. R-4748
1.0 TYPE OF ACTION
This is a North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDO'I) Administrative Action, State
Finding of No Significant Impact (SFONSI).
The NCDOT has determined this project % kill not have any significant impact on the human or
natural environment. This SFONSI is based on the August 10, 2007 State Environmental
Assessment (SEA). The SEA provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an
1?nvironmental Impact Statement is not required. The NCDOT takes full responsibility for the
accuracy, scope, and content of the SEA.
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of'1'ransportation (NCDO"1') proposes to provide transportation
improvements in the vicinity of SR 1660 (Siler Road) and SR 1662 (Wiley Brown Road) in Macon
County (see Figure 1 in Appendix A). The project is included in the NCDO'1' 2009-2015 State
Tran.rporiatron Improvemeu Program (1113) as project R-4748. The purpose of the proposed project is to
create access to sites slated for development in the vicinity of Siler Road and \C/ilcy Brown Road and
improve traffic flow in the project area. Rcccnt and proposed development in the study area includes
a regional hbran, and a community college on Siler Road. Figure 2 in Appendix A shows the four
alternatives that were studied in detail.
The recommended project alternative (Alternative C) realigns Siler Road (approximately 0.63 mile
from US 23/441), and continues cast on new location connecting to US 64/23/441 (see Figure 3 in
Appendix A). A roundabout will be located at the intersection of the new roadway and Dowdle
Mountain Road. About 460 feet of the grccnway adjacent to the Little Tenncssce Rivcr will be
relocated under the bridge. The proposcd roadway is approximately 0.91 mile long.
The proposed roadway will consist of two 12-foot travel lanes with eight-foot shoulders including
four-foot paved (see Figure 4 in Appendix A). A 380-foot long proposed bridge crossing the Little
Tennessee River will provide two 12-foot travel lanes with a four-foot shoulder on each side. The
design speed is 40 mph. The project does not control access from properties adjacent to the
proposed facilities. Siler Road and Wiley Brown Road currently have no control of access. Access
to connecting roads is provided with at-grade intersections. Access to adjacent properties is
provided with driveways. Full access control is designated along US 64/23/441 interchange ramps.
Project estimates shown in the 2009-2015 Slate Trnnspodalion /mproremenl Program are 53,000,000 for
right-of-wap, $9,700,000 for construction, $256,000 for mitigation, and S1,095,000 in prior pears
costs. Total project funding in the TIP is Sl4,051,000.
Current cost estimates for the proposed project alternatives arc as follows
Right-of-Way Construction Total
Alternative A 5923,000 $8,200,000 $9,123,000
Alternative A w/Roundabout Option 5923,000 $8,000,000 $8,923,000
Alternative B S1,730,000 510,900,000 S12,630,000
Alternative B w/Roundabout Option 51,730,000 811,000,000 S12,730,000
Alternative C S1,656,500 $9,600,000 511,256,500
Alternative C w/Roundabout Option* $1,656,500 $9,700,000 511,356,500
Alternative D $2,385,000 $10,000,000 $12,385,000
Alternative D w/Roundabout Option $2,385,000 $10,200,000 $12,585,000
"Recommended alternative
3.0 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Discussions of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project are located in
Sections 3 and 4 of the SLa1. A summary of impacts for the proposed project is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Impacts Summary
ALTERNATIVES
Impacts Alternative Alternative Alternative C Alternative
A B (Recommended) D
Project Length (miles) 1.09 0.96 0.91 1.26
Dimensions of Proposed
Structure
Length (feet) 360 345 380 None
Width (feet) 32 32 32
Height (feet) 21 49 55
Cost of Proposed Structure $1,382,400 $1,324,800 $1,641,600 None
Major Utility Crossings 4 5 8 13
Federal Listed Threatened or No; ivlav No: nlav

EndangexedSpecies Present
Affect Critical
Affect Critical iI\IayAffecC
No: Critical Habitat

No
Within Corridor] Habitat Habitat

ALTERNATIVES
Impacts Alternative
A Alternative
B Alternative C
(Recommended) Alternative
D

State Listed Threatened or
Endangered Species Habitat for
Dlulriple
Species Habitat for
Multiple
Species
Habitat for Multiple
Species Habitat for
Multiple
Species
Forest Impacts (acres) 8.17 10.47 1.08 6.58
100-Year Floodplain bnpacts2
(acres) 0.48 1.40 0.71 0
Residential Displacements 0 0 4 10
Business Displacements 0 0 0 1
Wetland Impacts;
(number/acre) 1 /0.024 0/0 0/0 0/0
Stream Impacts' (number/linear

f
feet)
1/580.5
0/0
0/0
1/311
On-site Restoration Potential Yes Yes Yes Yes
Impacted Noise Rcceptor4 1 1 1 1
Significant Natural Heritage
Program Areas 1 1 1 0
Right-of Way Area (acres)
Intersection Option
Roundabout Option
11.4
10.9
26.7
26.4
22.9
22.7
26.1
25.8
Existing and Proposed
Greemvay Crossings 1 1 1 0
Important Farmlandss(acres) 0 0 0 0
Hazardous Material Sites 0 0 0 0
Riparian Buffer Impacts 0 0 0 0
Water Supply Watersheds 0 0 0 0
Wildlife Refuges and Gamelands 0 0 0 0
Interchanges 0 0 0 0
Railroad Crossings 0 0 0 0
Schools 0 0 0 0
Recreational Arcas/Parks 0 0 0 0
Churches 0 0 0 0
Cemeteries 0 0 0 0
ALTERNATIVES
Impacts Alternative
A Alternative
B Alternative C
(Recommended) Alternative
D
Historic Properties 0 0 0 0
Archaeological Sites 0 0 0 0
Section 4(0 Impacts 0 0 0 0
Federal Lands 0 0 0 0
Low Income/lAlinorin
Population Impacts No No No No
Virginia spiraea and small-whorled pogonia not present. Little Tennessee River is listed as Critical I-labitat for spotfin
chub.
21,71oodplain impacts for Mternative C are based on the updated design; floodplain impacts for -Alternatives A and B are
based on preliminary designs.
'Jurisdictional determination received September 20, 2007.
'Calculated using Alternative :1 as worst-case scenario.
'Includes Prime/Unique Farmlands and Farmlands of Statewide or Local Importance.
Terrestrial and aquatic impacts include impacts for mechanized clearing ten feet beyond slope stakes.
The recommended alternative will require the relocation of four residences and no businesses, with a
total of 22.7 acres of right-of-way acquisition required. Although the recommended alternative is
not expected to impact federally-protected species, some impacts to critical habitat for the spotfin
chub may occur. A Biological Assessment (13x\) is being prepared in coordination with the
Tennessee Valley Authority (T\'A) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). NCDOT is
reviewing the use of a hazardous spill basin for this project and a final determination is pending: A
hazardous spill basin will be added if deemed appropriate. Habitat for state-listed species, including
the Appalachian cottontail and olive darter (which are Federal species of concern), may also be
impacted by the proposed project. Approximately 0.7 acre of impacts is anticipated to the 100-year
tloodplain.
The recommended alternative Nvill not impact jurisdictional streams or wetlands, nor will it impact
riparian areas, important farmlands, historic properties, archaeological sites, or low-income or
minority populations. A Notification of Jurisdictional Determination was received from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers on September 20, 2007 (see page B-1 of Appendix 13).
3.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
In anticipation of the acquisition of a Tennessee Valley Authority (l NA) permit, an
archaeological sun?cy and evaluation of the project area was fulfilled in accordance with Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NI-IPA). Section 106 of the NI-IPA requires
consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) and the Office of State
Archaeology (OSA) on potential effects of the proposed project on historic properties and
archaeological resources (ER 05-2530). The sunrev was conducted August 18-20, 2008.
Based on the criteria established for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places
(NRI-IP), the archaeological reconnaissance and survey included the identification and evaluation
of cultural resources in the Area of Potential Effect
No archaeological deposits eligible for listing on the NRI-IP were identified during the
archaeological sun-ey, and no further work is recommended.prior to construction. Additionally,
pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 121-12(a), no existing NRI-IP listed properties are
contained within the project study area or APE. A finding of "no historic properties affected" is
considered appropriate for this state-funded road construction project The I-IPO has concurred
with the "No Effect" conclusion, and the memo dated Febntan, 10, 2009 is included on page B-3
of Appendix B.
3.2 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ADDENDUM
The indirect and cumulative effects (ICE) analysis completed in May 2007 for the project
provided a preliminary analysis of the potential for indirect and cumulative effects associated with
the project related to the human and natural environment. One of the key findings in the 2007
analysis was that "Additional study may be required to better assess the impacts of development
that could result because of the proposed project. Analyses on the amount and types of
development expected, potential associated traffic increases, and effects of a large increase in
impervious surfaces may help to better predict how the area's resources could be impacted."
Since the D1av 2007 ICI assessment, numerous changes in the project vicinity have occurred,
including public police and issues related to zoning and environmental regulations. Based on the
2007 ICE conclusions, findings of potential indirect and cumulative affects to the natural
resources in the project vicinity (spotfin chub habitat, rivers and streams), and requests of state
and federal agencies, it was determined by the NCDOT that an update be conducted as an
addendum to the original ICE report. Additionally, a new analysis study area, the ICE Focus
Area, is included in the report (see Figurc 5 in Appendix A). The following conclusions were
reached in the December 2008 Indirect and Culmllatire. 1-7
Indirectly, the proposed project will likely contribute to some changes in land use. However,
local planners agree that a large portion of the land in the ICE Focus Area experienced
cumulative-driven development pressures prior to R-4748, and that the project may only increase
the rate of development indirectly by providing improved west to east access across the study
area.
Since the May 2007 ICF: was completed, new developments have been constructed in the 1CE
Focus Area. Plans for new developments have also continued to be discussed. The construction
of the Macon County Library and Southwestern Community College in 2007 has added to growth
pressures on land in the project area. Numerous tracts of largely undeveloped land remain in the
center ICEFocus Area and are projected to be built-out in the coming years. R-4748 is expected
to improve access to these parcels. According to local planners, land in the far eastern portion
(along US 64/23/441) and western portion (along US 23/441) of the project area will continue to
be developed evith or without R-47 38 because of existing access to major roads.
The cumulative impact of R-4748, along with the past and future construction of developments
and transportation facilities in the ICE Focus Area, will change land use and the rate of growth in
the project area. In particular, construction of transportation projects (US 64/23/141, Little
Tennessee Greemvay) and development projects (US 23/441 commercial development,
Southwestern Cominunity College) has made land in the ICE Focus Area accessible and valuable.
From this perspective, IZ-4748 alone will not have a major effect on land use in the ICE Focus
Area.
Both the Little Tennessee River and Cartoogechaye Creek have Significant Natural Heritage
Designations within the ICE Focus Area. Also, the Little Tennessee River is designated as critical
habitat for the federally Threatened spotfin chub. Existing stormwater and floodplain protection
measures, including those in the Town of Franklin's new Uni/ied Developmenl Ordinance (UDO), will
assist in protecting these crater resources and others in the area. Thirty-foot stream buffers and
the Town of Franklin stormwater ordinance will all help to temper development effects.
Additionally, all development on properties in the ICE Focus Area will require Town approval
and a neighborhood compatibility meeting. The recent rezoning of a large part of the central ICE
Focus Area to institutional, educational, residential, and office uses, will also discourage
construction of large commercial or industrial developments in this area.
4.0 COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
4.1 CIRCULATION OF THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The SEA was approved by the NCDOT on August 10, 2007. The approved SEA was circulated
to the following federal, state and local agencies for review and comments. An asterisk (*)
indicates a written response was received from the agency. Copies of the correspondence
received are included in Appendix B, pages B-4 through 13-26.
Tennessee Valley Authority
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency*
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Scryicc*
N.C. Department of Administration, State Clearinghouse*
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quahty*
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Wildlife Resources Comtnission*
Macon County Board of Couun ssioners*
Macon Count- Planning Department*
Town of Franklin
4.2 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
Comment 1: EPA has substantial environmental concerns fora new bridge over the Little
Tennessee River. While direct "fill" impacts- to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. arc relatively low,
there is a significant potential for adverse water quality impacts from induced development and
associated activities to the Little Tennessee River and nearby tributaries.
Response: As stated in the Inrlirea and Cnmrdative L"'(recLc/l.ccrconenl.9ddendum (2008) for the
project, existing stormwater protection measures, including those in the Town of Franklin's
Uni/ied Development Ordinance (UDC), will assist in protecting water resources in the area. Thirty-

foot stream buffers and the Town of Franklin stormwater ordinance will help to temper
development impacts. The recent rezoning of a large part of the central ICE: Impact Area to
institutional, educational, residential, and office uses, will discourage construction of large
commercial or industrial developments in this area. In addition, Macon County and the Town of
Franklin both have regulations in place to discourage development in the 100-pear floodplain.
Comment 2: EPA requests that NCDOT remain actively engaged with local officials concerning
the coordination of local growth plans and the transportation plans, including the consideration
of incorporating pedestrian and bicycle facilities into the roadway design. The Town of Franklin
issued a "Best Development Practices Guidebook" in November of 2001 that includes
stormwater management issues, erosion and sediment control, landscape design considerations,
etc. EPA recommends that these practices also be employed for the development parcels that axe
obtaining access to NCDOT's new roadway.
Response: The project includes four-foot paved shoulders, which will accommodate bicyclists.
The Town of Franklin and/or Macon County must officially request the inclusion of any
additional bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the project, as well as participate in cost-sharing for
the facilities. NCDOT will continue to coordinate with local officials throughout the project
development process. The Town of Franklin approved a Unified Oevelopmenl Ordinance (available
online at http://nnvw.fratiklinnc.com/pdf/UDO_flnal.pdo, in conjunction with its new zoning
map (see Appendix C), in November 2007.
Comment 3: Because of the project setting in western North Carolina, EPA is also requesting
that NCDOT consider the use of the most recent "experimental/mountain" Best Management
Practices (BMPs) as was presented to the Merger Interagency representatives on September 27,
2007. EPA and other agencies would be interested in employing these new techniques for
construction areas near the Little Tennessee River and its tributaries.
Response: All appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP) measures for the protection of
water quality will be implemented, including Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds for
sediment and erosion control and B1\lPs from NCDOT's toolbox approved in )anuan, 2007 by
DVIQ for stormwater runoff.
Comment 4: While EPA signed the Concurrence Point 1 Purpose and Need statement, EPA
and other agencies expressed specific concerns that NCDOT had not fully documented any
actual benefit of'sustainable' economic development that might be gained from building a new
bridge across the Little Tennessee River less than a quarter mile from the existing four-lane
bridge at US 64/23/441. EPA and other agencies recognized NCDOT's desire to provide
roadway access to several parcels on either side of the river that local interests were expressing a
desire to develop. Other agencies and EPA also recognized that the primary purpose and need
for the proposed project is economic development. However, NCDOT was unable to
demonstrate specifically how this project and a new bridge would provide sustainable economic
development to the area.
Response: The Purpose and Need states that the purpose of the project is to "provide access to
sites slated for development." Economic development is not a primary purpose for the project.
However, service-oriented businesses such as gas stations, convenience stores, and restaurants are
likely to find the area more appealing if the project includes a river crossing. The connectivity
provided by Alternative C (Preferred Alternative) would create a new east-west alternative to
US 64/23/441 for local traffic.
Comment 5: One of several problems that EPA and other agencies expressed during the
meeting is that both the Town of Franklin and Macon County do not have formalized land use
plans and strict zoning requirements in this area. EPA notes that the Town of Franklin is in the
process of developing a final growth plan. The draft plan is now availablc on their website as of
September of 2006. EPA and other agencies had requested a copy at previous concurrence
meetings.
Response: The Town of Franklin approved a new Unified Development Ordinance (available
online at http://RAx1v.franklimic.com/pdf/UDO_finil.pdo and zoning map on November 6,
2007 (see Appendix C). A copy of the Town's "Principles of Growth" was provided to the
NlEPA/Section 404 Alerger Team on November 15, 2007 (see Appendix C). Macon County
currently has no zoning regulations.
Comment 6: EPA understands that there [are] no comprehensive transportation plans available
for the area (Page 1-6 of the 'A). It is also noted that a thoroughfare plan dated January of 2005
did not include the proposed project (Page 1-6).
Response: The Franklin Thoroughfare Plan was adopted in 1994. It does not include the
proposed project.
Comment 7: On Pages 2-4 and 3-5 of the 17 ' A, it states that there are no designated bicycle lanes
or pedestrian accommodations on roads that adjoin the proposed project and none are planned
for the new roadway. This recommendation potentially conflicts with the proposed development
of "... r nixed-use development with awalkable-t. pc community consisting of residences and
service businesses" (Page 3-1 of the EA). Quoting from the Town's draft plan and EA: "Mixed-
use development is encouraged that will promote connectivity, walkability, and a sense of
community". However, NCDOT does not propose any pedestrian or bicycle facilities within the
project study area as part of this "economic development" project.
Response: The project includes four-foot paved shoulders, which will accommodate bicyclists.
The Town of Franklin and/or Dlacon County must officially request the inclusion of any
additional bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the project, as well as participate in cost-sharing for
the facilities.
Comment 8: On Page 3-4 of the 1A, it states that a sewer line for the community college will
need to be extended along the west side of the Little Tennessee River. Section 4.2.5 of the FA
states that there are water and sewer services available or under construction in the project study
area. The EA contains no information on treatment capacity, permitting status, limitations, etc.,
for these `other' essential services for sustainable growth and development. The EA does not
contain details of any water supply facilities in the project study area or the means to meet future
demand from increased growth and development.
Response: The gravity sewer line expected to be installed by Macon County in the future along
the river has a planned capacity of 86 million gallons per minute. The project is not located within
a water supply watershed and no water treatment facilities are located within the project study
0
I
I
I
I

I
area. The water treatment plant currently serving the area has a capacity of 2.2 million gallons per
day.
Comment 9: EPA is concerned that the case has not been made in the EA that the potential
development of the parcels on either side of the Little Tennessee River are `connected', activity
dependant or even compatible. Depending upon the future development plans that are not
specified beyond the new library and community college on the west side of the river there is not
sufficient information to justify a new bridge between the two proposed development areas.
Response: As stated in the State Emvironmcntal Assessment (August 2007), the purpose of the
proposed action is to create access to sites slated for development in the vicinity of Siler Road
and Wiley Brown Road and improve traffic flow in the project area. The Town of Pranldin
approved a new zonng map in November 2007 (see Appendix C). Zoning in the project area
consists of residential areas, commercial areas, and a large area of mixed medical, institutional,
cultural, and residential.
Comment 10: EPA has reviewed the "principles of Growth for the Town of Franklin" and
notes that there are several references to `walkability'. Principle #4 of the plan includes a proposal
to "Create Walkable Neighborhoods" and provides that there be pedestrian connectivity and
safety. EPA is concerned that the proposed transportation improvements identified in the EA
conflict with the local desires for'vntlti-nodal' accommodations.
Response: See Response to Comment 7.
Comment 11: Similarly, Principle #6 highlights the local desire to "Preserve Open Space,
Natural Beauty and Critical Environmental Areas". However, there is also a'request' that the
little Tennessee River be provided %vith a new bridge. EPA is uncertain how a new bridge meets
the plans requirement to protect critical environmental areas such as the river and the existing
grcenway. Considering the potential development that is possible %vithin the project study area,
there is also an environmental concern that'open space' %vill be eliminated in such a manner as to
conflict with this local land use principle.
Response: The Town of I^ ranklin is responsible for approval of new developments in the area.
The Town approved a new Unified Development Ordinance (available online at
http://\vNvw.franklinnc.coin /pdf/UDO_final.pdo and zoning map on November 6, 2007 (see
Appendix C). Macon County has no zoning regulations.
Comment 12: On Page 4-3 of the EA there is a discussion concerning the vital importance of
the Little Tennessee River greenway to summer (and winter) visitors and that induced
development Nll likely impact the aesthetics associated «dth greenway. The grcenway is visited
approximately 15,000 times each summer and 5,000 visits in the Nvinter and helps generate
substantial 'eco-tourism' dollars for the local economy. Adversely impacting this greenway will
potentially eliminate the direct source of revenue and would have potentially longer-term impacts
to tourist interest. A 345 to 380-foot concrete bridge (without bicycle or pedestrian
accommodations) will not positively add to the grcenway area's aesthetic qualities or the
viewscape along the Little Tennessee River.
Response: Bicvcle accommodations (four-foot paved shoulders) are included in the bridge
design. In addition, a portion of the greemyay being spanned by the bridge Nvill be relocated
closer to the Little Tennessee River.
Comment 13: The information provided regarding the projected conditions of traffic in Section
1.8.3 of the EA does not show significant benefit of building the proposed project. The level of
service (LOS) for the design year does not show improvements of the build scenario over the no-
build scenario at either signalized or un-signalized intersections, with the exception of one
intersection showing LOS C in the no-build and LOS B in the build scenario. I n addition, there is
also another intersection that went from a LOS of D in the no-build projection to LOS E in the
build analysis. Nonetheless, the purpose and need for the project is to improve traffic flow and to
provide access for parcels proposed for development All of the Detailed Stud} Alternatives meet
the stated purpose and need. The future potential problems at intersections could be addressed
through Traffic System Management (TSN1) measures or other minor roadway or lane
improvements.
Response: The design year traffic analysis assumed a worst-case scenario, which includes the
assumption that the project area is completely developed. For the worst-case scenario, traffic
volumes are lower along US 64/23/441 and US 23/441 under the build condition than the no-
build condition, which indicates traffic flow would improve in dle area. A roundabout is
proposed at the intersection of Dowdlc Mountain Road, Oak Forest Road, and the proposed new
roadway, to help improve traffic flow in that area. In addition, due to substantial public input, the
traffic signal Nvill remain at the US 64/23/441 and SR 1701/SR 1702 intersection.
Comment 14: The EA states that Alternatives A. B. and C provide emergency responders
alternative access across the Little Tennessee River from the east properties in the area west of
the Little Tennessee River. It notes that Alternative D is not expected to provide notable
increases in emergency response times. The Town of Franklin's Principles of Growth plan of
September 2006 does not address any local problem with access or improved emergency
response times. Under Section 1.8 of the EA, Roadway Capacity, there is no analysis provided
that would indicate what the existing problem is regarding response times from US 64 or what
future development on either side of the river might mean to these response times. The signed
Purpose and Need statement in Appendix C does not include any reference to a problem
regarding existing or future emergency response times. In terms Of potential travel time from one
side of the river to the other, the close proximity of a new bridge to the existing US 64 Bridge
does not offer anv measurable travel time benefit The discussion on page 4-3 of the EA
concerning the change in accessibility (Pravel Time Savings) with the new bridge Alternatives has
not been quantified. Due to the proximity of the existing bridge on US 64, EPA does not believe
that there will be any substantial travel time saving between the detailed study alternatives.
Response: The traffic analysis conducted for the project did not include calculations of travel
time savings. However, there are differences in the lengths of the alternatives, and the shortest
alternative (Alternative C - preferred) is anticipated to provide the most travel time savings.
Comment 15: EPA does not understand how Alternatives A and C can have the same exact
bridge cost when the bridge for Alternative C is 20 feet longer and more than 30 feet higher.
10
Response: Construction costs, including structure cost estimates, have been updated since the
EA and were provided to the Merger team at the Concurrence Point 3 meeting in November
2007. The updated structure cost estimates are also included in Table 1 of this SFONSI.
Comment 16: EPA also notes that the impacts to the 100-year floodplain are also included in
Table 23 but not in Table 24 (Comparison of Impacts).
Response: Updated floodplain mapping was approved for Macon County in December 2007.
Impacts to the 100-year floodplain have been recalculated based on the new mapping. The
revised impacts are included in Tablc 1 of this SFONSI and Section 5.3, Revisions to Floodplain
Impacts.
Comment 17: The cost assumptions in the development of Alternatives A, 13 and C bridging
designs were not provided in the L--A. EPA understands that right of way costs for Alternative D
are expected to be higher than the other alternatives. However, EPA cannot discern why the
construction costs (for either the Intersection option or the Roundabout option) can be projected
to be more expensive than Alternatives A, B and C that include a new 340+ foot bridge.
Response: Although Alternative D does not include a bridge, it is a longer alternative, and
would require substantially more earthwork due to the topography of the area. This earthwork
significantly increases the cost of Alternative D.
Comment 18: It is important for 13PA to highlight to NCDOT the importance of the natural
resources within the project study area. Cartoogechayc Creek and Cullasaja River, both designated
Class B, Trout waters, arc within the project study area and join the Little Tennessee River, Class
C waters, in the project vicinity. The Little Tennessee River supports a small mouth bass fishery
and other warm water species in the project area. The Olive darter (Perin sgitamala), a Federal
Species of Concern (FSC) and state Special Concern (SC): the Wounded darter (I-EIheosloma
wdnewlum), FSC and state SC; the "Smoke dace" (Cliim.rlomnr fiurdnloider ssp.1), a FSC and state SC;
the Little Tennessee River crayfish (CambamsSeorgiae), a state SC; and the Yellowfin shiner
(I\tolropis hdipinnn), a state SC, are known to occur in the Little Tennessee River in the project
vicinity or in the Cullasaja River or Cartoogechaye Creek near their confluence with the Little
Tennessee River. In the project area, the Little I"ennessee River is designated as critical habitat for
the Spotfin chub (Erimonax monad s), a Federal and state Threatened (1) species. Downstream,
below the Franklin dam, there are a number of Federal and state listed species including
Appalachian elktoe (Alasnudonla rarenelimm), a Federal and state Endangered species, and the
LittleNving pearly mussel (Pegiarfabnla), a Federal and state Endangered species. EPA also
understands that the Cartoogechayc Creek is Hatchery Supported Designated Public Mountain
Trout Water (DPNMX in the project vicinity and the Cullasaja River is Hatchery Supported
DPMTVI a distance upstream of the project.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment 19: Surveys for the Appalachian cottontail are recommended where appropriate
habitat exists prior to any additional land clearing in the area, if recent surveys have not been
conducted. The EA does not state when the last surveys were specifically conducted.
11
Response: Based on the current GIS data from the Natural I-Icritagc Program, there arc only
four known occurrences of the Appalachian cottontail in all of Dlacon County. "three of those
occurrences are historic populations, with the occurrence of the Appalachian cottontail
immediately adjacent to the study area last observed in August 1956. The only "current"
occurrence of the cottontail in the county is near the IAlacon/Clay County line, and that
population was last observed in 1987. Sur evs for the Appalachian cottontail are not
recommended unless a population has been observed recently.
Comment 20: On page 4-2 of the EA, it includes the statement that the forested area in the
vicinity of the project study area could be cleared for development that could eliminate habitat for
this [Appalachian cottontail] species or cause remaining areas to be too small for the viability of
the species. Table 24 of the FA includes the information that there are no Federally-fisted
Threatened or Endangered Species present within the Corridor and no State-listed Threatened or
Endangered Species. This tabular information is potentially nnsleading. The information in
Section 3.5.10, Federal Species of Concern and State protected Species, is relevant to the
environmental analysis for the proposed project and incorporates the issues of the environmental
sensitivity within the project study area. Furthermore, I d)A does not understand this table
information in the contest of the discussion on Pages 3-17 and 3-18 for the Spotfin chub and the
biological conclusion of "May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect". Tables 19 and 24 of the FA
appear to be in direct conflict with one another. NCDOT should consult with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission regarding the FSC and State
protected species issues for the proposed project and revise Table 24 to reflect a more balanced
portrayal of the project's potential impacts to all listed species within the project study area.
Response: Section 5.4, Clarification of Federally-Protcctcd Species, Fcderal Species of Concerti,
and Statc-Listed Species, clarifies the information related to Federally-listed and State-fisted
species.
Comment 21: The portion of the Little Tennessee River that \ kill be impacted by a new bridge is
also designed as a Significant Natural Heritage Area (SNI-IA).
Response: Comment noted.
Comment 22: Table 20 of the LA (Pages 3-22 and 3-23) includes an extensive list of the FSC in
Macon County and if there is habitat present (within the project study area). EPA notes that the
there are t vo avian FSC, including the Cerulean warbler (Dendroica centlearr) and Yellow-bellied
sapsucker (Spbyrapienr radra oppalachiensis) that have potential habitat within the project study area.
The EA does not address the requirements of the Dligratory Bird Treaty Act (n113TA) and that
these two avian FSC are directly protected under this Federal law.
Response: Information related to the Migratory Bird Treat)' Act and the two subject avian FSC
is included in Section 5.4, Clarification of Federally-Protected Species, Federal Species of
Concern, and State-Listed Species.
Comment 23: Regarding Prime Farmlands, EPA reviewed the Natural Resource Consen-ation
Service (NRCS) forms included in Appendix 13. However, based upon the NCRS CPA-106
forms, none of the prime farmland soils or farmlands received a total point score requiring strict
compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) or the State's Executive Order. The
12
I
III
L1
impacts shown in Table 24 of the EA and described on Page 3-8 are to prime farmland soil types,
and not to "prime farmlands" (Prime, Unique or of Statewide importance). EPA believes that the
impacts to actual "prune farmlands" for all of the detailed study alternatives is 0 acres. The GA
should be revised to reflect this actual characterization.
Response: Farmland impacts have been revised to 0.0 acre for all build alternatives (sec Section
5.2, Revisions to Farmland Impacts).
m Comment 24: EPA notes the comment in this section that states that attempts will be made to
completely span the Little Tennessee River; however, it is likcl%' not feasible for the proposed
project to completely avoid impacts to \Vatcrs of the U.S. NCDOT does not specifically address
the fact that Alternative D does completely avoid direct impacts to the Little Tennessee River. On
Page 3-15 of the EA it states that the N.C. Division of Water Quality may consider areas directly
beneath a bridge to be impacted due to hand clearing and other disturbances resulting from
construction. EPA also considers these to be impacts to Waters of the U.S. under Section 401 of
the Clean Water Act. While bridging is a preferred minimization approach to placing culverts and
pipes in streams and rivers and direct filling activities under Section 404, it still represents a
potential water quality impact due to the removal of riparian and wetlands vegetation and from
discharges of stormwatcr runoff into receiving waters.
Response: The preferred alternative, Alternative C, will completely span the Little Tennessee
River, and no work is planned to occur in the water; therefore, it does not require a Section 401
Water Quafitv Certification or a Section 404 permit. Howevcr, a 'rcnncsscc Valley Authority
(TVA) permit will be required for Alternative C.
Comment 25: EPA acknowledges the previously permitted impacts to wetlands '\CB'.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment 26: EPA cannot identify from Figure 2 or elsewhere in the EA how the impact to the
1 stream crossing for Alterative D is 311 feet. This information should be clarified at the next
I\lcrgcr team meeting. EPA believes that some of the impacts can be avoided and minimized by
increasing side slopes, alignment adjustments and the use of retaining walls during the 1\4ergcr 01
process.
Response: The Alternative D stream crossing is located west of the Little Tennessee River, just
east of Allman Drive. NCDOT has chosen Alternative C with the roundabout option as the
preferred alternative for this project, as it best meets the Purpose and Need for the project.
Comment 27: EPA notes that Alterative D has 1 business relocation and 6 residential
relocations as estimated by NCDOT. Alternative C has potentially 4 residential relocations. Ii;PA
cannot ascertain where the residential relocations are from Figures 2 or 3 or from the text on
Pages 3-2 or 3-3.
Response: Relocation information, which was based on preliminary designs, was provided at
NE-PA/Section 404 Merger Meetings for the project, as well as at the Design Public Hearing.
Most Alternative C relocations are located near the western project terminus. For Alternative D,
relocations are generally located near the western project terminus and in the area between
13
existing Siler Road and the Little Tennessee River. Alternative C has been chosen as the
preferred alternative. NCDOT will continue to make efforts to minimize relocations during final
design.
Comment 28: EPt\ is concerned as to why Alternative D needs to be on new location on the
west side of the river and cannot take advantage of the existing Siler roadway that Alternatives A,
B, and C do. EPA and other agencies have asked this question at the previous Concurrence Point
2 meeting and we do not believe that this EA fully examines the issue or the specific rationale for
the difference in the alignments on the west side of the river.
Response: Alternative D is on a similar alignment to Alternative C. but provides another means
of access that Hill serve the community college expected on Siler Road. Because Alternative D
does not provide a river crossing, traffic projections indicated that some traffic would need to be
moved south to Allman Drive. Upgrading existing access along Siler Road is not feasible due to
the proximity of the US 64 interchange.
Comment 29: EPA acknowledges Section 3.8.2 on Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) and
1°1 WA's partial interim guidance discussion.
Response: Comment noted.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS)
Comment 1: The Little Tennessee River in the project area is designated critical habitat for the
federally threatened spotfin chub (F_rimonra monaebus). The area of the proposed bridge locations
encompasses a river reach that is a fixed aquatic biological monitoring station. Data from
monitoring indicate that this area supports two federal species of concern--the hellbender
(Cifplobranelws alleganienris) and the olive darter (Perin sgnamala). Based on monitoring, this reach
of the river is the hotspot for the olive darter throughout the watershed. In addition to sensitive
resources in the area of direct impact, the Little Tennessee River below Franklin supports the
federally endangered Appalachian elktoc (Alarmidonla ravenebana) and htde-wing pearly mussel
(pegiar fabula) and the federally threatened spotfin chub and is designated critical habitat for the
Appalachian elktoe and spotfin chub.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment 2: The Little Tennessee and the Cullasaja Rivers in the project area are designated
significant natural heritage areas. The Little Tennessee also provides important outdoor recreation
opportunities, including canoeing, rafting, fishing, and camping, and is of great cultural
importance, both historically and archeologically, to Western North Carolina. Its scenic beauty
and tourism draw cannot be overstated and should be preserved.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment 3: All of the alternatives proposed have the potential to negatively affect the scenic
views and recreational setting of the area either directly through the presence of a road or
indirectly through the induced development and subsequent increases in noise, congestion, and
storm-water runoff. Of the alternatives proposed, Alternative D is the only alternative that does
14

not include another bridge over the Little Tennessee and does not directly impact designated
critical habitat for a federally fisted species or the existing or future grecmvay in the area.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment 4: Although Alternative DI does not have a structure, it is the most expensive
alternative proposed. Given that a bridge is usually a high-cost item in any highway project, we do
not understand how the cost figures were derived and would appreciate further clarification of
costs for this alternative.
Response: Although Alternative D does not include a bridge, it is a longer alternative, and
would require substantially more earthwork due to the topography of the area. This earthwork
significantly increases the cost of Alternative D.
Comment 5: The information provided in Section 1.8.3 of the EA regarding projected traffic
numbers does not appear to show an overall benefit from building the proposed project. With
the exception of one intersection that improves, the levels of service (LOS) either stay the same
or get worse in the "build" versus the "no-build" scenarios. Of the seven intersections analyzed,
three are projected to fail in the design year (LOS 1?, and two others will operate at LOS D and F,
if the project is built. Given the apparent lack of improvement for current or projected traffic
problems in the area, we do not believe the negative impacts to the environment that will occur as
a result of this project are justified.
Response: The design year traffic analysis assumed a worst-case scenario, which includes the
assumption that the project area is completely developed. For the worst-case scenario, traffic
volumes are lower along US 64/23/441 and US 23/441 under the build condition than the no-
build condition, which indicates traffic flow would improve in the area. A roundabout is .
proposed at the intersection of Dowdle Mountain Road, Oak Forest Road, and the proposed new
roadway, to help improve traffic flow in that area. In addition, due to significant public input, the
traffic signal Nvill remain at the US 64/23/4.41 and SR 1701/SR 1702 intersection.
Comment 6: We are still opposed to another crossing of the Littlc Tennessee River and believe
the proposed road improvements and unregulated developments- are inappropriate for an area
this close to the river and its sensitive resources.
Response: Development in the area is no longer unregulated. As stated in die Indirea and
Caoodnliue E?ecbA.r?e.?.rmenlAddettdnnr (2008), the Town of Franklin has developed a Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO). A large portion of the central IC13 Impact Area has been
rezoned Medical, Institutional, Cultural, and Residential (MICR). N4ICR zoning allows for a mix
of medical, institutional, cultural, and residential uses while maintaining compatibility with
surrounding uses of land. This rezoning in addition to stortnovater protection measures and
policies regulating development in the 100-year floodplain should temper negative effects to
water resources.
Comment 7: Without strict controls on development (such as limits on the amount of
impervious surface area added, stringent storm-water controls, riparian buffer conservation and
restoration, and other low-impact development p_ID] strategies), significant negative indirect and
cumulative impacts will occur.
15
Response: As stated in the Indirecl and Caoudatia?e EI/ect.vA.v.e.IlVne/11Addeadlun (2008) for the
project, existing stormwater protection measures, including those in the Town of Franklin's
Unified Denelopolent Ordinance (UDC)), will assist in protecting water resources in the area. Thirty-
foot stream buffers and the Town of Franklin stormwatcr ordinance will help to temper
development impacts. The recent rezoning of a large part of the central ICE, Impact Area to
institutional, educational, residential, and office uses, will discourage construction of large
commercial or industrial developments in this area. In addition, Macon County and the "Town of
Franklin both have regulations in place to discourage development in the 100-year floodplain.
Comment 8: There is discussion in the L'A of the Town of Franklin's desire to grow in a way
that supports "compact" building design that will direct communities to grow vertically rather
than horizontally, reducing the footprint of new development, impervious surfaces, and
stonnwater runoff. Protection of the natural environment is important...." We fail to see how this
proposal promotes the Town's desired growth plan. Rather, the proposed road and the
development it is stated to serve encourages sprawl and offers no protection for the natural
environment. We strongly recommend that the NCDOT work closely with Macon County and
the "Town of Franklin to implement protective measures for all developing areas but especially the
area near the Little Tennessee and its tributaries. We understand the need for economic
development and growth for the local area and believe that such development can occur in a
sustainable and environmentally sensitive manner. Careful local planning and zoning and the use
of tools such as LID techniques can greatly enhance the economic value while protecting the
environment.
Response: The Town of Franklin is responsible for approval of new developments in the area.
The Town approved a new Unified Development Ordinance (available online at
http://vvsvsv.franklinnc.com/pdf/UD0_6nal.l)do, and zoning map on November 6, 2007 (see
Appendix C). Macon County has no zoning regulations.
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
Comment: The JFA has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of
the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. Because of the nature of the comments, it has
been determined that Vou maV submit a binding of No Significant Impact to the State
Clearinghouse for compliance with the Act.
Response: Comment noted.
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY (DW41)
Comment 1: The project is being planned as part of the 404/NF-PA Merger process. As a
participating team member, the NCDWQ will continue to work with the team.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment 2: It is unclear why the Alternative D alignment was chosen for the non-bridge
alternative. It appears that Alternative A, 11, and C could be proposed as non-bridge alternatives
as well. teach alternative could maintain their respective alignments without the bridge across the
16

Little Tennessee River. Please provide a rationale explaining why the Alternative D was chosen
and Alternative A, 13 and C cannot be non-bridge alternati ves.
Response: Alternative D is on a similar alignment to Alternative C, but provides another means
of access that will serve the thousands of community college students expected on Silcr Road.
Because Alternative D does not provide a river crossing, traffic projections indicated that some
traffic would need to be moved south to Allman Drive. Upgrading existing access along Siler
Road is not feasible due to the proxinuty of the US 64 interchange.
Comment 3: Section 42.4 in the referenced document states that the proposed developments of
the library and the community college will "spur development on Siler Road." It also discusses
the strong residential growth in the area for the second homes and retirees. In the area
immediately around the proposed road, residential development that would "cater to students of
the communing college" is predicted. It seems that the development activities predicted in this
m area as a result of the proposed road will be high impervious surface type developments. These
developments will result in increased stormwater runoff, pollutant loading and impacts to aquatic
habitats DWQ feels that because a portion of the proposed road's purpose and need is to
facilitate economic development, the "Town of Frankfin should work in coordination with DOT
and the resource and regulatory agencies to develop a growth plan for the area. The goal of this
plan would be to develop strategies for smart growth plan which would reduce the impacts to
water quality. The strategies would address enhanced stormwater BNIPs, riparian buffers,
impervious surface limitations, resource preservation, etc.
Response: The Town of Franklin is responsible for approval of new developments in the area.
The Town approved a new Unified Development Ordinance (available online at
http://Nvww.franklinnc.com/pdf/UDO_final.pdo, and zoning map on November 6, 2007 (see
Appendix C). Alacon County has no zoning regulations.
N.C. WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION (WRC)
Comment 1: Records of the Olive darter and the Appalachian cottontail (Syhr/agn.r obsriirrrr), a
FSC and state SC, exist %vithin the immediate project vicinity. Surveys for the Appalachian
cottontail are recommended where appropriate habitat exists prior to any additional land clearing
in the area, if recent surveys have not been conducted.
Response: Based on the current GIS data from the Natural Heritage Program, there are only
four known occurrences of the Appalachian cottontail in all of Macon County. Three of those
occurrences are historic populations, with the occurrence of the Appalachian cottontail
imnmcdiately adjacent to the study area last observed in August 1956. The only "current"
occurrence of the cottontail in the county is near the Macon/Clay Counn, line, and that
population was last observed in 1987. Surveys for the Appalachian cottontail are not
recommended unless a population has been observed recently.
Comment 2: A popular greenway exists along the Little Tennessee River and a portion of
Cartoogechaye Creek, with future extension proposed. The project should avoid impacts to the
greenway system, including its view shed.
I
17
Response: Alternative C is the recommended alternative, which includes one greeoway crossing.
In addition, a portion of the grecnway being spanned by the bridge will be relocated closer to the
Little Tennessee River.
Comment 3: Any potential for acidic soils in the project area should be addressed.
Response: There are 15 individual soil series in the study area, all of which are at least slightly
acidic. Eight of the soil series are strongly acidic, three are moderately to strongly acidic, one is
slightly to moderately acidic, and two are neutral to slightly acidic. One soil type does not have an
acidity rating because it is urban/disturbed sod. The range of acidity relates to the varying depths
of the soil where pl-I measurements were taken.
Comment 4: Hazardous spill basins should be used to protect sensitive resources.
Response: Hazardous spill basins are not required for this project since the Little Tennessee
River is classified as Class "C" Waters. However, NCDOT is reviewing the use of a hazardous
spill basin and a final determination is pending: A hazardous spill basin will be added if deemed
appropriate. Best Management practices (BMP) measures for the protection of water quality will
be implemented, including Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds for sedimcm and erosion
control and BDIPs from NCDOT's toolbox approved in January 2007 by D\\IQ for stormwater
runoff.
Comment 5: The project is intended to provide additional access to sites currently proposed for
institutional and commercial development. Most of the project area is currently zoned -
Residential, but expected to change. Current or proposed development projects include a
community college (under construction), a library, a resort theme park (based on the fictional
town of Mayberry) with support services, and a big box retail area. NC\VRC is vets, concerned
about the direct and indirect impacts to water quality and wildlife resources resulting from the
road project and other planned development in the area.
Response: As stated in the Indirea and Cumnlaline E(ferls-Assessmew Addendum (2008) for the
project, existing stormwater protection measures, including those in the Town of Franklin's
Uni/ied Deivlofimenl Ordinance (UDO), will assist in protecting water resources in the area. ThirtN -
foot stream buffers and the Town of Franklin stormwater ordinance will help to temper
development impacts. The recent rezoning of a large part of the central ICE Impact Area to
institutional, educational, residential, and office uses, \vill discourage construction of large
commercial or industrial developments in this area. A new zoning map was approved by the
'['own of Franklin in November 2007 (see Appendix C). In addition, Macon County and the
Town of Franklin both have regulations in place to discourage development in the 100-year
floodplain.
Comment 6: Another crossing of the Little Tennessee River and moderate to heavy
development is inappropriate in this sensitive watershed and diminishes its valuable amenities,
such as natural beauty and nature based recreation opportunities. These plans seem to be
inconsistent with the Town of Franklin's desire to protect the natural environment, such as the
area's rivers and mountainous landscape which arc closely ties to their sense of place and the
tourism so important to the local economy. The document indicated the Town is developing a
18
I

growth plan that supports some sound principles, however no specific measure or commitments
were provided that would minimize harm to the sensitive resources of the project area.
Response: As stated in the Indirea and Cnonllalme H?fectrA.rre.rrmenlAddendmn (2008) for the
project, existing stormwater protection measures, including those in the Town of Franklin's
UniTed Dei)elapmenl Ordinance (UDO), will assist in protecting water resources in the area. Thirty-
foot stream buffers and the Town of Franklin stormwater ordinance Nhdll help to temper
m development impacts. The recent rezoning of a large part of the central ICE Impact Area to
IWI I institutional, educational, residential, and office uses, will discourage construction of large
commercial or industrial developments in this area.
Comment 7: The information provided regarding projected conditions of traffic in Section 1.8.3
do not show significant benefit to the building of this proposed project. Level of Service (LOS)
for the design year does not show improvements of the build scenario over the no-build scenario
m at either signalized or un-signalized intersections, writh the exception of one intersection shoNving
LOS C in the no-build and LOS B in the build scenario. In addition, however, another
intersection went from a LOS of D in the no-build projection to LOS G in the build analysis. Of
the seven intersections analyzed, three are projected to fail in the design year (LOS F) and two
others will operate at LOS D and 1 if the project is built. The project floes not appear to solve or
even improve expected traffic problems. It may be that the no-build alternative is the most
m appropriate option.
Response: The design year traffic analysis assumed a worst-case scenario, which includes the
assumption that the project area is completely developed. For the worst-case scenario, traffic
volumes are lower along US 64/23/441 and US 23/441 under the build condition than the no-
build condition, which indicates traffic flow would improve in the area. A roundabout is
proposed at the intersection of Dowdle Mountain Road, Oak Forest Road, and the proposed new
roadway, to help improve traffic flow in that area. 1 it addition, due to substantial public input, the
traffic signal will remain at the US 64/23/441 and SR 1701/SR 1702 intersection.
Comment 8: NC\XIZC does not support alternatives that cross the little Tennessee River or
that open up developable lands in close proximity to the river and other sensitive resources. We
do not support uncontrolled growth and development that may negatively impact federal and
state listed species, important fish resources (such as smallmouth bass and trout), and natural
amenities valuable to the local community. Alternative D is the only build alternative that does
not include a bridge over the Little Tennessee River and the only alternative that does not impact
a federal listed species, Significant Natural Heritage Program Areas, or the green-way (existing or
proposed).
Response: NCDOT has chosen Alternative C with the roundabout option as the preferred
alternative for this project, as it best meets the Purpose and Need for the project.
Comment 9: Alternative A, B, and C propose to construct a bridge yvith lengths ranging from
345 to 380 feet. Surpris'ingly' however, Alternative D is presented as the most expensive build
option. A detailed discussion of how project cost estimates were determined would be helpful in
evaluating the alternatives for determination of the Least Environnnentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative.
19
Response: Although Alternative D does not include a bridge, it is a longer alternative, and
would require substantially more earthwork due to the topography of the area. This earthwork
significantly increases the cost of Alternative D.
Comment 10: We suggest reducing the length of Alternative D by terminating the roadways
further away from the river, which will not only reduce cost, but should discourage development
close to this important resource and will help to protect the view shed of the greenway and the
general project area.
Response: NCDOT has chosen Alternative C with the roundabout option as the preferred
alternative for this project as it best meets the purpose and Need for the project. Alternative C
includes one greenway crossing. In addition, a portion of the grecmvay being spanned by the
bridge will be relocated closer to the Little Tennessee River. Alternate C does not have stream or
wetland impacts.
Comment 11: Secondaq, and cumulative impacts are expected to be significant unless vital
protective measures are in place. For any development in the project area, strong stormwater
management requirements, limits on impervious area and protection (and restoration) of natural
buffers along waterways must be implemented to preserve the water quality, fish and wildlife
habitats, and scenic beauty. Other measures to mitigate secondary and cumulative impacts can be
found in the guidance Memorandum to Address and Mitigate Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
to Aquatic and terrestrial Wildlife Resources and Water quality (NC\N1RC 2002). We strongly urge
local authorities and NCDOT to adopt many of these measures and to use low impact
development techniques (see \yaw.lowimpactdevclopment.org for information) to manage
stormwater quantity and quahn- in developing areas. Additional information can be found at
Ntiw v.ncstorrmvater.org.
Response: As stated in the Indirect and Cunrrlalhe 67
,ftt A.crernven/Addenatim (2008) for the
project, existing stormwater protection measures, including those in the Town of Franklin's
Unified Deneloplilenl Ordinanre (UDO), will assist in protecting water resources in the area. Thirty-
foor stream buffers and the Town of Franklin stormwater ordinance will help to tetmpcr
development impacts. The recent rezoning of a large part of the central ICE Impact Area to
institutional, educational, residential, and office uses, will discourage construction of large
commercial or industrial developments in this area.
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES.
PROJECT REVIEW
Comment: There continue to be a number of concerns identified by the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission and the Division of Water Quality. We ask that the Department of Transportation
continue to work with our commenting agencies in order to adequately address project concerns.
Addressing these comments during the review process and/or during the NEPA Merger Process
Nvill avoid delays at the permit phase.
Response: NCDOT will continue to coordinate with all federal, state, and local agencies during
the project development process. The project was removed from the Section 404/NEPA
Merger '01 Process on March 19, 2008.
MACON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
20
Comment 1: Macon County supports road alternate A in order to maximize use of existing right
of way, keeping through traffic out of the Southwestern Communin° College Campus/County
facility, and having the least environmental impact.
Response: NCDOT has chosen Alternative C with the roundabout option as the preferred
alternative for this project, as it best meets the Purpose and Need for the project.
Comment 2: The traffic roundabout, if used at all, should have minimum impact on existing
businesses at the intersection yvith Dowdle Mountain Road. Heavy truck traffic and school bus
usage are key concerns.
Response: NCDOT will minimize impacts- to existing businesses to the extent possible. The
roundabout design will consider trucks and school buses.
II
E
II
I
Comment 3: The removal of the light system at the intersection of US 61/23/441 and
SR 1701 /SR 1702 is absolutely opposed. The county proposed alternative is to leave the current
light system until funds are available for a secondary road interchange using a ramp and over or
under pass system.
Response: The traffic signal at the US 64/23/441 and SR 1701 /SR 1702 intersection will
remain in place.
MACON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Comment 1: In regards to the Siler Rd. to Wiley Brown Rd. connection (TIP R-4748), if a bridge
crossing must be built, the Macon County planning Department supports option "A" as it will
have less impact on the Grccnway, the Litdc Tennessee River and the floodplain.
Response: NCDOT has chosen Alternative C with the roundabout option as the preferred
alternative for this project, as it best meets the Purpose and Need for the project.
Comment 2: The fill needed for options "B" and "C", in addition to the distance of those
options from the existing bridges will alter the character of that section of the Greenway and the
adjacent public (County-owned) lands. Further, the fill needed for both "B" and "C" has the
potential to interfere with the flood plain on the eastern side of the river as the flood plain widens
significantly in those areas according to our new FEMA maps.
Response: Alternative C will impact less than one acre of the 100-pear floodplain. A portion of
the greemvay in the vicinity of the proposed bridge will be relocated closer to the river.
Comment 3: Option "A" provides alternative access to the library, community college and other
areas along Siler Rd. and Wile% Brown road while at the same time having less impact on lands
and resources enjoyed by all Maconians.
Response: NCDOT has chosen Alternative C with the roundabout option as the preferred
alternative for this project, as it best meets the Purpose and Need for the project.
21
4.3 COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING AND FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC
HEARING
Following the circulation of the State Environmental Assessment, a Combined public 1-1caring
was held for the project. The public notice and handout from the hearing is located in Appendix
D. The hearing was held on September 18, 2007, at Southwestern Communinv College - Macon
Campus, 815 Siler Road in Franklin. Approximately 79 people attended the informal hearing.
Forty-one written comments were submitted. Written comments for and opposed to the project
were about evenly divided. Twenty-three comments indicated opposition to the supcrstrcct
concept, which included U-turns and removal of the signal at the Dowdle Mountain Road and
US 64 intersection. The local community's specific concerns are included in the following list:
SUPERSTREET CONCEPT/TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT DOWDLE MOUNTAIN ROAD
Numerous citizens expressed opposition to the proposed superstrcet concept along US 64, which
included U-turns and removal of the signal at US 64 and Dowdle Mountain Road. Many cited
safety as the reason for their opposition, due to the number of school buses and large trucks that
use this intersection.
Response: NCDOT has eliminated the supcrstrcct design from the project, and the traffic signal
will remain at the US 64/Dowdle Mountain Road intersection.
No-BUILD ALTERNATIVE
Several citizens expressed concern that a No-Build option was not presented. Others expressed a
preference for a No-Build alternative for the project.
Response: The purpose of the project is to create access to sites slated for development in the
vicinity of Siler Road and Wilcy Brown Road and improve traffic flow in the project area. The
No-Build option does not meet the purpose and Need of the project, and is, therefore, not
recommended.
OTHER AREA IMPROVEMENTS
A number of citizens suggested improvements to the study area, in heu of the proposed
improvements, as follows:
1. Construct a new interchange or intersection on US 64 between the US 23/441
interchange and the existing bridges over the ]..title Tennessee River, and provide a new
north-south access road from US 64 to the community college. Consider a merge lane
onto US 64 from Siler Road.
2. Terminate Siler Road at the community college.
3. Make improvements to US 441 to reduce traffic congestion.
4. Improve existing Siler Road through widening, intersection improvements, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities, etc.
5. Improve the Dowdle Mountain Road/Wells Grove Road intersection.
6. Construct/improve roads that scrvc Macon Middle School.
7. Build an access road adjacent to the existing highway in order to utilize the existing
bridges.
8. provide a right-in/right-out only access on Siler Road at US 441 and install a signal at
Allman Drive.
9. provide longer deceleration lanes to turn onto Oak Forest Road and Dowdle Mountain
Road.

W
10. Provide longer acceleration lanes to turn onto US 64 from Oak Forest Road and Dowdle
Mountain Road.
11. Lower speed hint to 45 mph between the US 441 interchange and the traffic signal at
Walmart.
12. Consider new alternatives with no additional access provided to Wiley Brown Road or
Dowdle Mountain Road.
Response: The following numbered responses correspond to the numbered comments above.
m 1. The close proximity of the existing interchange at US 23/441 and US 64/23/441, and the
bridges on US 64/23/441 over the Little Tennessee River prohibit construction of an
additional interchange or intersection at this location, as well as construction of a merge
lane from Siler Road onto US 64.
2. 't'erminating Silcr Road at the community college does not meet the Purpose and Need of
the project.
3. Congestion improvements on US 441 are outside of the project's scope.

4. Improvements to existing Siler Road arc not recommended as part of the proposed
project, but may be suitable as a Division 14 project.
5. Improvements to the Dowdle Mountain Road/Wells Grove Road intersection are outside
of the scope of the project, but may be suitable as a Division 14 project.
6. Constructing or improving roads that serve the middle school is outside the scope of the
project, but may be suitable as a Division 14 or a Safe Routes to School project.
7. Construction of an access road adjacent to the existing highway is not recommended as
part of the proposed project.
m 8. Right-in/right-out only access from Siler Road to US 441 and installation of a signal at
Allman Drive are not recommended as part of the proposed project, but map be suitable
as a Division 14 project.
9. Lxtension of turn lanes from US 64 onto Oak Forest Road and Dowdle Mountain Road
are not recommended as part of the proposed project, but may be suitable as a Division
14 project.
10. I3xtension of turn lanes from Oak Forest Road and Dowdle Mountain Road onto US 64
are not recommended as part of the proposed project, but may be suitable as a Division
14 project.
m 11. Lowering the speed limit is not recommended as part of this project, but may be suitable
as a Division 14 project.
12. Alternatives that would not provide additional access to Wiley Brown Road and Dowdle
in Mountain Road do not meet the Purpose and Need of the project.
BUSINESS IMPACTS
Several citizens expressed concern about impacts to The Pit Stop convenience store, specifically
related to access and the septic field. Large trucks currently access the store, and the driveway
and parking lot were designed to accommodate these vehicles. There is concern that the location
of the roundabout and the access road will make it impossible for these trucks to access the store.
The owners also expressed concern that the access road will impact their septic field, and they
have no access to sewer.
Response: The NCDOT is working towards providing better access to the store, including
consideration of additional driveways, right-in/right-out only access, and possible movement of
23
I
the road/ roundabout farther away. NCDOT is working with the business and local officials to
address the possible relocation of the septic field.
ROUNDABOUT OPTION
A number of citizens opposed the roundabout option, especially since large trucks would have to
use it. Several citizens also expressed concern that the roundabout would adversely impact the
Pit Stop convenience store.
Response: NCDOT will continue to try to minimize impacts to large trucks and the Pit Stop.
The roundabout design will consider trucks and school buses. NCDOT will also investigate
realigning SR 1659 to tic into the roundabout.
4.4 SECTION 404/NEPA MERGER 101 TEAM
The project was initially included in the Section 404/NI_:PA D,Icrger'01 Process. A iAlerger `01
team meeting to determine the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative
(L,EDPA) for the subject project was held on November 15, 2007. Alternative C was chosen as
NCDOT's preferred alternative. Because there are no wetland or stream impacts associated with
Alternative C, a USACE Section 404 and NCDWQ 401 Water Quality Certification will not be
required; therefore, the project was removed from the Merger Process on March 19, 2008. A
cope of the Merger removal letter is located on page 13-27 of Appendix 13. The USACF. and
NCD\\IQ were consulted and concurred with not carnIng this project through the Merger
Process.
5.0 REVISIONS TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
5.1 CORRECTION OF THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN DATE
The SEA incorrectly stated that the Franklin Thoroughfare Plan is dated January 2005. The
Franklin Thoroughfare Plan was adopted in 1994, and the report was completed in)anuary 1995.
This thoroughfare plan does not include the proposed project.
5.2 REVISIONS TO FARMLAND IMPACTS
The impacts shown in the SEA are to prime farmland soil types, and not to "prime farmlands"
(Prime, Unique or of Statewide importance). Impacts to prime farmlands are 0.0 acre for all of
the Build alternatives.
5.3 REVISIONS TO FLOODPLAIN IMPACTS
Floodplain mapping for Macon Count- was updated and approved in December 2007:
Floodplain impacts have been calculated based on the nc\v mapping: Alternative A impacts
approximately 0.48 acre; Alternative B impacts approximately 1.4 acres; Alternative C impacts
approximately 0.71 acre; and Alternative D impacts 0.0 acre. Impacts for Alternatives A and 13
were calculated based on the preliminary designs, while impacts for Alternative C (preferred)
were based on the updated design.
24

I
i
m
k
F
I
9
I
I

5.4 CLARIFICATION OF FED ERALLY- PROTECTED SPECIES, FEDERAL
SPECIES OF CONCERN, AND STATE-LISTED SPECIES
Table 19 of the SEA incorrectly stated that there is suitable habitat for the Appalachian elktoc
and the Little-wing pearlymussel in the project area. Suitable habitat for these two federally-
protected endangered species is not located in the project area. The proposed project will not
affect either species.
"fable 24 of the SEA only included impacts to federal and state-listed threatened and endangered
species. The Appalachian cottontail and the Olive darter are Federal Species of Concern, and are
listed by the state as Significantly Rate and of Special Concern, respectively. While habitat for
both species is present in the project area, neither the Appalachian cottontail nor the Olive darter
is listed as threatened or endangered, and were not included in Table 24 of the SEA.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (NIBTA) of 1918 decreed that all migratory birds and their parts
(including eggs, nests, and feathers) were fully protected. Specific provisions of statute include
establishment of a Federal prohibition, unless permitted by regulations, to "pursue, hunt, take,
capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase,
purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for transportation, transport,
cause to be transported, carry, or cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for
shipment, transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migraton, bird,
included in the terms of this Convention ... for the protection of migratory birds ... or any part,
nest, or egg of any such bird." (16 U.S.C. 703) The Cerulean warbler (Dendroi[ra centlean) and the
Yellow-bellied sapsucker (Splyrapiens tmrilu appalacbienris), each of which are Federal Species of
Concern and have habitat present in the project area, are protected under the 1\113TA.
6.0 BASIS FOR STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the proposed project documented in the SEA and upon comments received
from federal, state and local agencies and the public, it is the finding of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation that this project will not have a significant adverse impact upon the
human or natural environment. The project is not controversial from an environmental standpoint.
No significant impacts to natural, ecological, cultural, or scenic resources are expected. The
proposed project is consistent with local plans and will not disrupt any communities. In view of the
above evaluation, it has been determined a State Finding of No Significant Impact is applicable for
this project. Therefore, neither an Environmental Impact Statement nor further environmental
analysis will be required.
25
I
m
a
I
I
I
I
m
I
APPENDIX A - FIGURES
R-4748 STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IL
(a
9?f
C
_O
a a
n
O
N
o
N c
C E
7 n
c
LL o
9 n
N b av
n?
a `p
o. 2
00
Z
? LL F_0
V Q
. ? C p OVCL VW l N a WNW^ W N
a^
?Nn
n
02
l7' d go a e ^'e
U
N d2 N \ K EE'oU
ca me
m
?d 1
? O GZ
N ' Z 4? D N ' ' Z U C E c
V_ _ 8f =
?O
o L sN
/ of
CA
3 ?
o ?
z
? W
N
s
_ e
I
I
I
I
N
d

?
V ?? ? Y Y 3 -a I?
I
i ?

W ? ? ? o .? ? E = 3 3 =
O
o
O4 I
F S?I U
=
' ` \ \ u
\ !?? y
Z
? 2

od
r?
J
7
N
n3
I
m
m
APPENDIX B AGENCY
m
CORRESPONDENCE
m
I
I
I
I
I
R-4746 STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

m
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2007-2294-356 U.S.G.S. Quad: Franklin County: Macon
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner/Agent: NC Department of Transportation, Greeorv.l. Thorne. Ph.D., Manaecr
Address: PDEA, 15,18 Mail Seri ire Center
m Ralcieh. North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone No.: 919-733-3141
Property description:
Ncarest Town Franklin
Nearest Waterway LittleTennessee River River Basin Tennessee
USGS HUC 06010202 Coordinates 35.1615/83.3753
Location description New route from Sit 1660 (Sller Road) to SR 1662 (Wiley Brown Road) south of US 6423/441 in
Franklin. NC (TIP Protect No. R-4748).
Indicate Which (if the FolltrivinL Apply:
m A. Preliminary Determination
_ Based on preliminary information, there may be Cartoogechaye Creek, the Little Tennessee River, unnamed tributaries,
and adjacent wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have this property inspected to
determine the extent of Department of the Amty (DA)jmisdiction. To be considered final, a jurisdictional detemtination
niust be verified by the Corps. ']'his preliminary detemtination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program
Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CPR Pan 331).
m R. Approved Determination
_ ']'here are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
- 'T'here are wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the dale of this notification.
_ We strongly suggest you have the wet lands on your property delineated. Duc to the size of your properly and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wclland delineation in a finely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
- The wetland on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps.
Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWAjurisdiction on your property
which, provided [here is two change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon fora period not to exceed
five years.
X Cartoogechayu Creek, the Liu le Tennessee River, unnamed tributaries, and adlacenl wetlands have been delineated and
surveyed and arc accurately depicted on the GPS maps dated August I, 2006. Unless there is At change in the law or our
j published regulations, this dctenninafion may be relied upon for it period not to exceed five years from the date of ltis
notification.
- There arc no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Winer Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is at change in the paw or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years front the date of this
notification.
I
I
B-1
Action Id. SAW-2007-2294-356
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact David ]taker at 828-271-7980 x. 225.
C. Basis For Determination: 'rhe site contains wetlands as determined by the USACE 1987 Welland Delineation
Manual and is adjacent to stream channels located on the property that exhibit indicators of ordinary high water marks.
The stream channels on the property are tributaries to the Little Tennessee River which is a Section 10 navigable-in-fact
waterway. -
D. Remarks
E. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
D. above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional delermimnion for the above described site. If you object to this
detemnination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CPR part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
detennination you must submit a completed RPA form to the South Atlantic Division, Division Office al the following
address:
Mr. Michael F. Bell, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAD-ET-CO-R
U.S. Amny Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M 15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RPA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR pan 33 1.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RPA form, it must be received at the above address by November 20, 2007,
*It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the dclennination in this
correspondence.**
Corps Regulatory Official:
_
Date September 20, 2007 Expiration Date September 20, 2012
B-2
I
m North Carolina I)epartinent of Cultural Resources
Sunc Flimuric Presei-ation Office
1'rmr ft: Vndln,a, ldunni>rr:e.?r
U. ?rbr I .. rs : nJuc. l:a..v:.n • T.?.r. ,i t.. ?.. ,.,a I L:p?.
Ir?d :1 i1 nL:Iq 4.ut.r' Ili. ,f„ 'rv
eiin'r I Ln+.c, UCpuo: f<tirrl+:) U r .! Mn. k, 'hnro.
I'cbrnaty 10, 2009
M 1..IMOR.ANDU,U
Nar( Wilkerson
Office of Human FInvi onmunt
NCDOT Division of Hivhwa s
m f RON1: Vctcr Sandbeck pl. v Ate
m SUBIL'•Cf': Archaeological St'\TV fUr aIMIla[e C/Souther) Ali nmcut Ncw Lucniiun C:rcrssing of the
Little Tenncasce• Ricer C'onnecong SIt 1460 (Silcr Road) to SR-1662 (\ ilcv Brown Road
1'c-4748, .Nlacon Counn': I3R 05-2530
7lt?nlt t'ou for tour Ieucr of 0(:r0her 17, 3008, u'aasntit6lIg the arc1mclik"tcal max ev report by Scoll
Halvorsen of your surf f for the above project. We apologize Gir the delay In our rcaponse.
m During. the course. of the survu%, uo prchi.,curie cu historic sites were located within the project area. Doe m
the absence of resources and the hi-dik. di,turhed nanu'e of the project arcot, :Mr. H:d, ut:<cn has recummendcd
that no furiftcr archaeolol;ical investigation be conducted in connection with this prc,jec't. \C%c concur with [his
m rcmtnvnend:Itiun since [he project will not involve significant :Irchncologic:tircauurccs.
Tke icliort is quni d;ell-ariacn and"ufforiiiituce Ind maets oorofiicc s kuidclinci and.thox uadtr:S cn•u n of
div,, Intorior Sincc there are no+coriccnonc?to he mad(:. Svc consider this report'to c< n>tiitltc ilte final rciii.,i•r
f61 Ihts protect.
l he above comment; are made pursuant to Section 106 a( the National Historic Pic..crv:uion Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic P]'esel-valion', Regulations for Compliance with Sccli.n 106 o.dified nt 34 C:FR
Part '90C1.
Thank on for your eooprratl.on and consideration. If t'ou hate questions Coll C'.rning the abuse c0ionlrnt,
please contact RrnCC Gledhill-Ciarkry, environmental review eoordinmur, at 919!18(-,-,-6;79. fit all future
communication concerning this prcijeet, please cite the above-referenced tracking nuinhei,
cc: Scott Halyurscn, NIC: DO'1.
Glcariaehousc.
1 ?cai? Iu4 Pw p.:,,x i:nn.ht.4?h ]'r. "rdn
Atuiling A4,1,,.. AS. I- A:.id n'•n I:rani, It,l:: I
Tdq?L?uml Pon '!ro. ::?.i,;}i; ert'..4r'
B-3
.: '.IN)iFD F1 A1I S L rIVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC'
.? REGION 4
AN'A F-MERAL <:GN (EH
•?11?' ?: t H)RtiY fhl ti I HEI= f
October 11, 2007
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
SUBJECT: EPA Review Comments of the State Environmental Assessment (EA) for
R-4748, New Route from SR 1660 to SR 1662, Macon County, North
Carolina
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 (EPA) has reviewed the
subject document and is commenting in accordance with Section 309 of the Clean Air
Act and for general consistency with Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
propose to construct a new route between SR 1660 (Siler Road) and SR 1662 (Wiley
Brown Road) with a potential new bridge over the Little Tennessee River in Macon
County. The proposed project is approximately I mile in length. This project is included
in the NEPA/Seetion 404 Merger 01 process. This project is proposed as being State-
funded and the Lead Federal Agency is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
According to EPA's Merger 01 records, Concurrence point 1 was signed on
December 8, 2005, and Concurrence points 2 and 2A were signed on February 12, 2007.
EPA offers specific comments on the State EA for NCDOT's consideration in the
Attachment. The purpose and need for the proposed project is to create access for
development sites and improve traffic flow in the project study area.
EPA plans to stay actively involved in the Merger 01 process for the proposed
project. EPA has substantial environmental concerns for a new bridge over the Little
Tennessee River. These environmental concerns are also detailed in the Attachment to
this letter. While direct 'fill' impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are relatively
low, there is a significant potential for adverse water quality impacts from induced
development and associated activities to the Little Tennessee River and nearby
tributaries. EPA requests that NCDOT remain actively engaged with local officials
concerning the coordination of local growth plans and the transportation plans, including
the consideration of incorporating pedestrian and bicycle facilities into the roadway
design. The Town of Franklin issued a 'Best Development Practices Guidebook' in
November of 2001 that includes stormwater management issues, erosion and sediment
control, landscape design considerations, etc. EPA recommends that these practices also
InUa of Address (URI) . hltP'/lviww.eps ysv
sloe/cke0lorr. W blc . Piu1tral WA1, vagelafle od a:acd Inh; eU necy bd Vrymr (Mwtmmm'slr,.;. p„slca„anmxr)
B-4

I
I
U1I
be employed for the development parcels that are obtaining access to NCDOT's new
roadway.
Because of the project setting in western North Carolina, EPA is also requesting
that NCDOT consider the use of the most recent'experimental/mountain' Best
Management Practices (BMPs) as was presented to the Merger Interagency
representatives on September 27, 2007. This NCDOT-funded research to North Carolina
State University includes the use of 'coconut fiber logs', 'straw wattles', `PAM' and.
other innovative soil erosion and sediment control techniques to remove clays and other
fine particles from entering nearby waterways during construction. EPA and other
agencies would be interested in employing these new techniques for construction areas
near the Little Tennessee River and its tributaries.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment. EPA recommends that you address
our environmental concerns at future Merger 01 meetings and in the Finding of No .
Significant Impact (FONSI). We would appreciate receiving a copy of the FONSI when,
it becomes available. Should you have any questions concerning this proposed project,
please feel free to contact Mr. Christopher Militscher of my staff at 919-856-4206.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
NEPA Program Office
Cc: S. McClendon, USACE -Wilmington
S. Lund, USACE - Asheville
J. Hennessy, NCDWQ
M. Buncick, USFWS
B-5
ATTACHMENT
EPA's Specific Comments on State EA for R4748, New Route from SR 1660 to SR
1662, Macon County
Purpose and Need:
While EPA signed the Concurrence Point 1 Purpose and Need statement, EPA
and other agencies expressed specific concerns that NCDOT had not fully documented
any actual benefit of 'sustainable' economic development that might be gained from
building a new bridge across the Little Tennessee River less than a quarter mile from the
existing four-lane bridge at US 64/23/441. EPA and other agencies recognized
NCDOT's desire to provide roadway access to several parcels on either side of the river
that local interests were expressing a desire to develop. Other agencies and EPA also
recognized that the primary purpose and need for the proposed project is economic
development. However, NCDOT was unable to demonstrate specifically how this project
and a new bridge would provide sustainable economic development to the area.
One of the local development interests included the future site of the Macon
County Public Library and Southwestern Community College on the west side of the
Little Tennessee River. Other development ideas (Page 3-1 of the EA) include
approximately 80-88 residential units, restaurants and retail stores along US 23/441, and
a mixed-use development. There are also some ideas for a resort theme park (Mayberry
development theme) with extensive retail, hotels, etc., modeled after the fictional town of
"Mayberry" north of US 64. There were discussions during the Concurrence meeting
that a proposed convention center ('to handle the overflow from Atlanta, Georgia') was
also a local development interest.
One of several problems that EPA and other agencies expressed during the
meeting is that both the Town of Franklin and Macon County do not have formalized
land use plans and strict zoning requirements in this area. Furthermore, NCDOT and
regional authorities have not completed a comprehensive transportation plan for the area.
EPA notes that the Town of Franklin is in the process of developing a final growth plan.
The draft plan is now available on their website as of September of 2006. EPA and other
agencies had requested a copy at previous concurrence meetings. EPA understands that
there is no comprehensive transportation plans available for the area (Page 1-6 of the
EA). It is also noted that a thoroughfare plan dated January of 2005 did not include the
proposed project (Page 1-6). Several agencies recommended that NCDOT take a direct
approach to assisting the Town of Franklin and Macon County in developing a
meaningful comprehensive plan that incorporates sound land use planning principles with
essential multi-modal transportation needs and the environmental sensitivity of the
project study area. On Pages 2-4 and 3-5 of the EA, it states that there are no designated
bicycle lanes or pedestrian accommodations on roads that adjoin the proposed project and
none are olaimed for the new roadway. This recommendation potentially conflicts with
the proposed development of '...mixed-use development with a walkable-type
community consisting of residences and service businesses' (Page 3-1 of the EA).
Quoting from the Town's draft plan and EA: "Mixed-use development is encouraged that
B-6

m

will promote connectivity, walkability, and a sense of community". However, NCDOT
ilities within the project study area as part
l
f
i
ac
e
cyc
does not propose any pedestrian or b
of this "economic development" project.
While roadway access is one important element to economic development goals,
of other needed infrastructure can be just as important. On Page 3-4 of
vailabilit
th
y
e a
college will need to be extended
ommunit
th
i
f
y
e c
or
ne
the EA, it states that a sewer l
along the west side of the Little Tennessee River. Section 4.2.5 of the EA states that
there are water and sewer services available or under construction in the project study
area. The EA contains no information on treatment capacity, permitting status,
tial services for sustainable growth and
'
'
essen
other
limitations, etc., for these
development. The EA does not contain details of any water supply facilities in the
d
project study area or the means to meet future demand from increased growth an
development.
EPA is concerned that the case has not been made in the EA that the potential
'
,
development of the parcels on either side of the Little Tennessee River are 'connected
activity dependant or even compatible. Depending upon the future development plans
and community college on the west side of
librar
h
d
y
e new
t
that are not specified beyon
the river there is not sufficient information to justify a new bridge between the two
proposed development areas.
EPA has reviewed the "Principles of Growth for the Town of Franklin" and notes
a
l
d
i
es
nc
u
that there are several references to `walkability'. Principle #4 of the plan
proposal to "Create Walkable Neighborhoods" and provides that there be pedestrian
connectivity and safety. EPA is concerned that the proposed transportation
the EA conflict with the local desires for 'multi-modal'
d i
if
ie
n
improvements ident
accommodations. Similarly, Principle #6 highlights the local desire to "Preserve Open
Space, Natural Beauty and Critical Environmental Areas". However, there is also a
Tennessee River be provided with a new bridge. EPA is
Littl
'
e
that the
request
uncertain how a new bridge meets the plan's requirement to protect critical
environmental areas such as the river and the existing greenway. Considering the
ment that is possible within the project study area, there is also an
tial develo
t
p
en
po
environmental concern that `open space' will be eliminated in such a manner as to
conflict with this local land use principle.
On Page 4-3 of the EA there is a discussion concerning the vital importance of the
summer (and winter) visitors and that induced
t
o
Little Tennessee River greenway
development will likely impact the aesthetics associated with greenway. The greemvay is
visited approximately 15,000 times each summer and 8,000 visits in the winter and helps
Adversely impacting
m
l
'
y.
econo
dollars for the loca
generate substantial 'eco-tourism
this greenway will potentially eliminate the direct source of revenue and would have
potentially longer-term impacts to tourist interest. A 345 to 380-foot concrete bridge
(without bicycle or pedestrian accommodations) will not positively add to the greenway
area's aesthetic qualities or the viewscape along the Little Tennessee River.

?I B-7
The information provided regarding the projected conditions of traffic in Section
1.8.3 of the EA does not show significant benefit of building the proposed project. The
level of service (LOS) for the design year does not show improvements of the build
scenario over the no-build scenario at either signalized or un-signalized intersections,
with the exception of one intersection showing LOS C in the no-build and LOS B in the
build scenario. In addition, there is also another intersection that went from a LOS of D
in the no-build projection to LOS E in the build analysis. Nonetheless, the purpose and
need for the project is to improve traffic flow and to provide access for parcels proposed
for development. All of the Detailed Study Alternatives meet the stated purpose and
need. The future potential problems at intersections could be addressed through Traffic
System Management (TSM) measures or other minor roadway or lane improvements.
Detailed Study Alternatives
NCDOT has presented four Detailed Study Alternatives (DSAs) in the EA,
including Alternatives, A, B, C and D. Alternatives A, B, and C were the original
alternatives presented to the Merger team that included the construction of a new bridge
over the Little Tennessee River. The team included a `non-bridge' -alternative that
NCDOT designed to meet the purpose and need for the proposed project and added
Altemative D. Alternative D will provide increased accessibility to land currently being
developed or available for development east and west of the Little Tennessee River (Page
3-4).
The EA states that Alternatives A, B and C provide emergency responders
alternative access across the Little Tennessee River from the east properties in the area
west of the Little Tennessee River. It notes that Alternative D is not expected to provide
notableincreases in emergency response times. The Town of Franklin's Principles of
Growth plan of September 2006 does not address any local problem with access or
improved emergency response times. Under Section 1.8 of the EA, Roadway Capacity,
there is no analysis provided that would indicate what the existing problem is regarding
response times from US 64 or what future development on either side of the river might
mean to these response times. The signed Purpose and Need statement in Appendix C
does not include any reference to a problem regarding existing or future emergency
response times. According to Table 23 of the EA, the Alternative A bridge would be 110
feet from the existing US 64 bridge, the Alternative B bridge would be 580 feet from the
existing US 64 bridge and the Alternative C bridge would be 925 feet from the existing
US 64 bridge. In terms of potential travel time from one side of the river to the other, the
close proximity of a new bridge to the existing US 64 Bridge does not offer any
measurable travel time benefit. The discussion on Page 4-3 of the EA concerning the
change in accessibility (Travel Time Savings) with the new bridge Alternatives has not
been quantified. Due to the proximity of the existing bridge on US 64, EPA does not
believe that there will be any substantial travel time saving between the DSAs.
Tables 23 and 24 of the EA provide a breakdown of the different alternatives,
including a comparison of the impacts for each. Alternatives B and C are approximately
0.9 miles in length, Alternative A is approximately 1.1 miles in length, and Alternative D
B-8

I
I
E
is approximately 1.3 miles in length. The bridge for Alternative A is proposed to be
approximately 360 feet long, 32 feet wide and 21 feet in height at a cost of more than
$1,094,000. The bridge for Alternative B is proposed to be approximately 345 feet long,
32 feet wide, and 49 feet in height at a cost of more than $993,000. The bridge for
Alternative C is proposed to be approximately 380 feet long, 32 feet wide and 55 feet in
height at the same cost as Alternative A (i.e., $1,094,000). EPA does not understand how
Alternatives A and C can have the same exact bridge cost when the bridge for Alternative
C is 20 feet longer and more than 30 feet higher. EPA also notes that the impacts to the
100-year floodplain are also included in Table 23 but not in Table 24 (Comparison of
Impacts). Alternatives B and C impact 1.0 acres of the 100-year floodplain and
Alternative A impacts 0.5 acres of the 100-year floodplain. Alternative D does not
impact the 100-year floodplain. The cost assumptions in the development of Alternatives
A, B and C bridging designs were not provided in the EA. EPA understands that right of
way costs for Alternative D are expected to be higher than the other alternatives.
However, EPA cannot discern why the construction costs (for either the Intersection
option or the Roundabout option) can be projected to be more expensive than
Alternatives A, B and C that include a new 340+ foot bridge. EPA requests that further
detailed information on the development of the estimated costs for the DSAs be provided
to the Merger team at the next planned meeting.
Impact Analysis
It is important for EPA to highlight to NCDOT the importance of the natural
resources within the project study area. Cartoogechaye Creek and Cullasaja River, both
designated Class B, Trout waters, are within the project study area and join the Little
Tennessee River, Class C waters, in the project vicinity. The Little Tennessee River
supports a smallmouth bass fishery and other warm water species in the project area. The
Olive darter (Percina squantata), a Federal Species of Concern (FSC) and state Special
Concem (SC); the Wounded darter (Etheostoma vulneratum), FSC and state SC; the
"Smoky dace" (Clinosromus Jundttloides ssp.l), a FSC and state SC; the Little Tennessee
River crayfish (Cambarus georgiae), a state SC; and the Yellowfin shiner (Notropis
haipinnis), a state SC, are known to occur in the Little Tennessee River in the project
vicinity or in the Cullasaja River or Cartoogechaye Creek near their confluence with the
Little Tennessee River. In the project area, the Little Tennessee River is designated as
critical habitat for the Spotfin chub (Erimonax monachus), a Federal and state Threatened
(T) species. Downstream, below the Franklin dam, there are a number of Federal and
state listed species including Appalachian elktoe (Alasniidonta raveneliana), a Federal
and state Endangered species, and the Littlewing pearly mussel (Pegias jabttla), a Federal
and state Endangered species. EPA also understands that the Cartoogechaye Creek is
Hatchery Supported Designated Public Mountain Trout Water (DPMTW) in the project
vicinity and the Cullasaja River is Hatchery Supported DPMTW a distance upstream of
the project.
Records of the Olive darter and the Appalachian cottontail (Sylvilagus obscurus),
a FSC and state SC, exist within the immediate project vicinity. Surveys for the
Appalachian cottontail ar. recommended where appropriate habitat exists prior to any
B-9
additional land clearing in the area, if recent surveys have not been conducted. The EA
does not state when the last surveys were specifically conducted. On Page 4-2 of the EA,
it includes the statement that the forested area in the vicinity of the project study area
could be cleared for development that could eliminate habitat for this species or cause
remaining areas to be too small for the viability of the species. Table 24 of the EA
includes the information that there are no Federally-listed Threatened or Endangered
Species present within the Corridor and no State-listed Threatened or Endangered
Species. This tabular information is potentially misleading. The information in Section
3.5.10, Federal Species of Concern and State Protected Species, is relevant to the
environmental analysis for the proposed project and incorporates the issues of the
environmental sensitivity within the project study area. Furthermore, EPA does not
understand this table information in the context of the discussion on Pages 3-17 and 3-I8
for the Spotfin chub and the biological conclusion of "May Affect, Likely to Adversely
Affect". Tables 19 and 24 of the EA appear to be in direct conflict with one another.
NCDOT should consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission regarding the FSC and State protected species issues for the
proposed project and revise Table 24 to reflect a more balanced portrayal of the project's
potential impacts to all listed species within the project study area.
A popular greenway exists along the Little Tennessee River and a portion of
Cartoogechaye Creek, with a future extension of the greenway proposed. The portion of
the Little Tennessee River that will be impacted by a new bridge is also designed as a
Significant Natural Heritage Area (SNHA). Alternatives A, B and C all potentially
impact the greenway as shown on Figure 2.
Table 20 of the EA (Pages 3-22 and 3-23) includes an extensive list of the FSC in
Macon County and if there is habitat present (within the project study area). EPA notes
that the there are two avian FSC, including the Cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulean)
and Yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius appalachiensis) that have potential
habitat within the project study area. The EA does not address the requirements of the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and that these two avian FSC are directly protected
under this Federal law.
Regarding Prime Farmlands, EPA reviewed the Natural Resource Conservation
Service (MRCS) foams included in Appendix B. Alternatives A, B, and C received total
points of 116, 131, and 119, respectively out of 260 total points. Alternative D received a
total of 107 out of 260 total points. EPA also reviewed the information on Pages 3-8 and
3-9 of the EA including the requirements of North Carolina Executive Order 96,
Preservation of Prime Agricultural and Forest Lands. However, based upon the NCRS
CPA-106 forms, none of the prime farmland soils or farmlands received a total point
score requiring strict compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) or the
State's Executive Order. The impacts shown in Table 24 of the EA and described on
Page 3-8 are to prime farmland soil types, and not to "prime farmlands" (Prime, Unique
or of Statewide importance). EPA believes that the impacts to actual "prime farmlands"
for all of the DSAs is 0 acres. The EA should be revised to reflect this actual
characterization.
B-10
I
m

Page 3-26 of the EA includes information on mitigation to waters of the U.S.
EPA notes the comment in this section that states that attempts will be made to
it is likely not feasible for the
h
owever,
completely span the Little Tennessee River;
ct to completely avoid impacts to waters of the U.S. NCDOT does not
d
proje
propose
specifically address the fact that Alternative D does completely avoid direct impacts to
n of
i
Di
i
s
o
v
the Little Tennessee River. On Page 3-15 of the EA it states that the N.C.
acted due to hand
to be im
id
b
p
ge
r
Water Quality may consider areas directly beneath a
EPA also considers these to
ti
m on.
clearing and other disturbances resulting from construc
waters of the U.S under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. While
t
i
o
mpacts
be
bridging is a preferred minimization approach to placing culverts and pipes in streams
resents a potential
it still re
404
p
,
and rivers and direct filling activities under Section
n and wetlands vegetation and from
i
f
i
l
a
par
r
o
water quality impact due to the remova
discharges of stormwater runoff into receiving waters. EPA acknowledges the
previously permitted impacts to wetlands 'WB'. Alternatives B and C show no direct
impact to jurisdictional streams and wetlands. Alternative A has the greatest impact to
stream and wetlands. Alternative D is estimated to have 311 linear feet of impact to a
The
jurisdictional stream (UT to Cartoogechaye Creek) and no wetland impacts.
with an approximate right of way
d
e
way
roa
proposed facility is an undivided, two-lan
2 or elsewhere in the EA how the
Fi
gure
width of 150 feet. EPA cannot identify from
act to the 1 stream crossing for Alternative D is 311 feet. This information should be
im
p
clarified at the next Merger team meeting. EPA believes that some of the impacts can be
avoided and minimized by increasing side slopes, alignment adjustments and the use of
retaining walls during the Merger 01 process.
EPA notes that Alternative D has I business relocation and 6 residential
e C has potentially 4 residential
ti
Al
v
terna
relocations as estimated by NCDOT.
EPA cannot ascertain where the residential relocations are from Figures 2 or
i
ons.
relocat
3 or from the text on Pages 3-2 or 3-3. EPA is concerned as to why Alternative D needs
to be on new location on the west side of the river and can not take advantage of the
existing Siler roadway that Alternatives A, B and C do. EPA and other agencies have
asked this question at the previous Concurrence point 2 meeting and we do not believe
tionale for the difference in the
if
ic ra
that this EA fully examines the issue or the spec
alignments on the west side of the river.
EPA acknowledges Section 3.8.2 on Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) and
FHWA's partial interim guidance discussion.
a
m
I?
B-11
I?
N??e r r rM
°' s, United States Department of the Interior
O F
J
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
ygReN ?- e n Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
October 10, 2007
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: Review of the Environmental Assessment for a New Route from SR 1660 (Siler Road)
to SR 1662 (Wiley Brown Road), South of US 64/23/441, Macon County, North
Carolina (TIP Project No. R-4748, WBS Element No. 40118.1.1)
As requested by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), we have reviewed
the environmental assessment (EA) provided for the subject project. The following comments
are provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e); the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c));
and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The NCDOT is proposing to create access to sites slated for development in the vicinity of Siler
Road and Wiley Brown Road. Siler Road accesses land on the west and Wiley Brown Road
accesses land on the east side of the Little Tennessee River to the south of US 64/231441.
Portions of the Little Tennessee River, the Cullasaja River, Cartoogechaye Creek, and a
greenway occur within the project area.
We have participated on the Merger Team for this project and have provided input throughout
the development of the purpose and need and the formulation of alternatives. Three of the four
alternatives (A, B, and C) will require the construction of a new crossing over the Little
Tennessee River, within 1,000 feet of the existing crossing of US 64/23/441 (110 to 925 feet
away). At the request of the Merger Team, Alternative D was developed to address access needs
without crossing the Little Tennessee River. Project lengths for the four alternatives range from
0.91 to 1.26 miles.
The Little Tennessee River in the project area is designated critical habitat for the federally
threatened spotfin chub (Erimon" monachus). The area of the proposed bridge locations
B-12
I
I
encompasses a river reach that is a fixed aquatic biological monitoring station. Data from
monitoring indicate that this area supports two federal species of concem--the hellbender
(Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) and the olive darter (Percina sguamata). Based on monitoring,
this reach of the river is the hotspot'for the olive darter throughout the watershed. In addition to
sensitive resources in the area of direct impact, the Little Tennessee River below Franklin
supports the federally endangered Appalachian elktoe (Alasnddonta raveneliaha) and little-wing
pearly mussel (Pegias jabula) and the federally threatened spotfin chub and is designated critical
habitat for the Appalachian elktoe and spot£m chub.
The Little Tennessee and the Cullasaja Rivers in the project area are designated significant
natural heritage areas. The Little Tennessee also provides important outdoor recreation
opportunities, including canoeing, rafting, fishing, and camping, and is of great cultural
importance, both historically and archeologically, to Western North Carolina. Its scenic beauty
and tourism draw cannot be overstated and should be preserved.
m All of the alternatives proposed have the potential to negatively affect the scenic views and
recreational setting of the area either directly through the presence of a road or indirectly through
m the induced development and subsequent increases in noise, congestion, and storm-water runoff.
Of the alternatives proposed, Alternative D is the only alternative that does not include another
bridge over the Little Tennessee and does not directly impact designated critical habitat for a
federally listed species or the existing or future greenway in the area. Although this build
alternative does not have a structure, it is the most expensive alternative proposed. Given that a
bridge is usually a high-cost item in any highway project, we do not understand how the cost
figures were derived and would appreciate further clarification of costs for this alternative.
The information provided in Section 1.8.3 of the EA regarding projected traffic numbers does
not appear to show an overall benefit from building the proposed project. With the exception of
one intersection that improves, the levels of service (LOS) either stay the same or get worse in
the "build" versus the "no-build" scenarios. Of the seven intersections analyzed, three are
projected to fail in the design year (LOS F), and two others will operate at LOS D and E if the
project is built. Given the apparent lack of improvement for current or projected traffic problems
in the area, we do not believe the negative impacts to the environment that will occur as a result
of this project are justified.
We are still opposed to another crossing of the Little Tennessee River and believe the proposed
road improvements and unregulated development are inappropriate for an area this close to the
river and its sensitive resources. Without strict controls on development (such as limits on the
amount of impervious surface area added, stringent storm-water controls, riparian buffer
conservation and restoration, and other low-impact development [LID] strategies), significant
negative indirect and cumulative impacts will occur.
There is discussion in the EA of the Town of Franklin's desire to grow in a way that supports
"compact building design that will direct communities to grow vertically rather than
horizontally, reducing the footprint of new development, impervious surfaces, and stormwater
runoff. Protection of the natural environment is important .... " We fail to see how this
proposal promotes the Town's desired growth plan. Rather, the proposed road and the
B-13
development it is stated to serve encourages sprawl and offers no protection for the natural
environment. We strongly recommend that the NCDOT work closely with Macon County and
the Town of Franklin to implement protective measures for all developing areas but especially
the area near the Little Tennessee and its tributaries. We understand the need for economic
development and growth for the local area and believe that such development can occur in a
sustainable and environmentally sensitive manner. Careful local planning and zoning and the
use of tools such as LID techniques can greatly enhance the economic value while protecting the
environment.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this EA. 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 4-2-06-386.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Ms. Marla J. Chambers, Western NCDOT Permit Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, 12275 Swift Road, Oakboro, NC 28129
Mr. Brian Wrenn, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Central Office, 2321 Crabtree
Blvd., Suite 250, Raleigh, NC 27604
Mr. Steve Lund, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 151 Patton
Avenue, Room 208, Asheville, NC 28861-5006
Mr. Chris Militscher, c/o Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Terry Sanford Federal Courthouse, 310 New Bern Avenue, Room 206,
Raleigh, NC 27601
B-14
m
I
I
YI
II
.r'
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easlev, Governor Britt Cobb. Secretary
October 4. 2007
Mr. Gregory Thorpe
NC Department of Transportation
Project Dev. & Env. Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh. NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Thorpe:
Re: SCH File # 08-E-4220-0070; EA; Connect SR 1660 (Siler Road) to SR 1662 (Wiley Brown
Road) & construct new crossing over Little Tennessee River, Macon County. TIP No. R-4748.
The above referenced environmental information has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by state/local agencies in the course of this review, Because
of the nature of the comment(s), it has been determined that you may submit a Finding of No Significant
Impact to the State Clearinghouse for compliance with the Act. The attached comments should be taken
into consideration in project development.
Sincerely,
Ms. Chtys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc: Region A
Mailing Address:
1301 Mail Service Caller
Raleigh. NC 27699-1301
Telephone: [phone]
Fax [phone]
Stale Courier ac 1.01-00
e-rnnJ Chr3s.9ogg¢nf imnruril.nel
Locufian Addres:
116 west Jones Street
Raleigh. North Carolina
du F.nunl Oouorfunin••: Inrnmrrve Animr Fino/urer
B-15

YfAr
pP Bp
.3S ?Y? f? Wchanu F. Y. cw•.?-
W3am c. a::a 3r.,secsur
Iu .h Ca??m Dz;.iwtaem of?nkx:m6s'?[ erne '!v-t' '+rd nasv?rcr9
? ? Gaaan S'wtias, larecior
Y
'i UNsion d Watx iruaaq

September 2i, 3007
NIFNI4RANDU_Mf
't'o: Melba McGee, Envirowneotal Coordinator, Office of Legislaive and intergovernmental
Affairs
(y?
From: BriantVrctuyiMsion of Water Qaalit3,'X?ansportNim?p<#'nuttitrg Unit
Snbjeet: Comments ontheState EnvummenialAsses?oentrelatedtotheproposed `ewRotuC '
from SR 1660 (Sider broad) to SR 1662 (Wiley Brown Road) Souih of US 64123/441,
Ma,xm County, WBS IlletoenrNo. 401 MIA., TIP R4748, State Clearingbwtse No. 08-
0070.
Thta offace has revic swd the rtfet cod docuneut dated August. 10, W. 1Ue trivision of Water (ioslity
(DNVQ) is respowble for the iswance of the Section 401 Water QuallyCertiftcarion for aetitifies prat
impart Waters-of the U.S., including wctlmds. It is our understesd ng that the project as prewratd will
result In m4 ram to jumsdici o nt wcdande, streams, acrd other nuf#e warms. 11c DWQ offers the - i
following comnrCms based an review of the afuremtniioncd doCUtrr:nt? '
Projeet s,peciah Cotume1rim
i
I.: This project is being planned as pan ofdtt 4041NIPAMerga Process. As a patticipaling tram ,
member, the NCDTQ will continue to work avh the tram.
2_ It is utelear why the Alternative D alignnxrd was cliosen for thotton-badge alternative. It appears
tltei Al?na.Y.rs A, ? end C could f>c proposed as nnr>-bridge alterta6vcs es well. Each xl4ranativc '
Could Meiilptia..Oeirirsp?ctiveal[gmtrenis wtt vt the bridge across the Little Tennnsce Rivet:,
Please pmNW- aratinnale explaWmg wb), the. AjteMirtht D was chosen and why Altecnahvea A, B. - '
acrd C cannot bt. noo-bridge adtzrnutives. . 11
_
d document etatrs.shat the proposed develop aeots os"tilt library and .
i. Section 4a4 m;bc ref"r
ft connat pity college will "Apra development on $iles Road." k also diseas-ses the Shang
resideraial growy in the area tur sYmn d homes and tetWcs, In rho arse immediately around the
proposed road- residendat development drat would "ca€cr to students of the cornmtusky college" is
prrdtcted. It seems that the development activities predieted in this am at a.rtsuit oftM proposed
read ,vill be bgh impmr 4ous'surface type dm*elopmrata- Tlie_v_ developments will remit in
increased ssor.a Ater rugotf, polhtmrn loading and iupacto to aquatic habitats. DWQ ftels that -
becaosc a portion of the pmpostd road's purpose and need is to facilitate: economic development, '
the Town of Franklin should work in arordioation With DOT and the resource and regulatory
agencies to develop a growth plan for the area. Tho goal of this plan would be to develop strategies
for sn>art growth which would reduce rile nWaM to n'ater quality. 'II-.e strategies would address
enhanced smrm,s-attr BMPS. riparian bu?.ra, impervious surface limitations, resource preservation,
etc.
%M1' ,
tm9i??e??'.eCt?Pgph. ttnr:0asma 2vsga.i55a ? -
r faatUwrxaleearf. S:6a:5a. Rat'.i h.ta-'-0t32t•V 2MA .
Faroe%&tSr7 ;FAXYte i3}gEy:lhtk ;!ce &2-V44ara±cl din t:M.,t
Fa tza??cr+:fii:?asF.r7a,Em,?;7aT-SYA aa?W?rCSf.nCxsmS Fie
B-16
I
I
I
II
I
II
{ ICI
I
I
General Comments:
4. The environmental document anti provide a detailed and nemieed prsenrationgf the propased
impa of to w cOuru s and streaorm witli tofrespcnding mapping. if taitiga5on is necessaryas required
by I SA }kCAC 211.0506(h). it is profarabla m prasilit a conceptual-Gf nol finalized) mitigation plan
with the environmental documentation. Approptiine mrtigptioit l>lana wtil be required prior to
isguagcc oEa 40i W atcr Qttatity t`diticauaa
5. Etniron ntirml assessmetit alternatives shall aonsidtu design criteria that reduce the impacts to
streams and wetlands from etoim wvter tunof. . These uhemadves shall Mcludc road dasigns that
allow for 6'cafinent aWe storin via" runoff through best managehient practices as detailed in the
roost recent ver69otr of NCDWQSreimruwo: deriMmeagesnmu Practicer, such as grassed swates,
buffer areas, prefarmed seourholm,, retention basnis, at.
6. After the selection of die prefsarod alternative and ii-or !c on issuance of the d01 \vater Quality
Certification, the NI MOT is respeelfully reminded that ihey will need to detnonstrate the avoidance
and minimiZatton of impn1s to wcdands.(and streams) is the macimuniexientjra0cal. In
acebrdance with the Envi onnhrital Mauiigr+Wt Commission's Ruibs 115A NCAC 2lLM6(h)};
.mtligtttiou will be required for impacltc of 91=cr than I- sac to wetlands in the mat that
mitigation is requited, the 6viganort plan 4muld bednsigmed to replace appropriate last fivictiow
and types. The NC Ecosystno Enbaooornent Prosjam clay be available for use as ivetlaud
mitigation.
7. in uccorda:rcet svith the L`•uvironitxnial l lsuugcmenl Cotmriission's Rules 11 5A NCAC
2H.05061h1l, ntigation will berequlmd for itnpacis of gn-aler than 150 liner feet is inty single
{rrcnnial strcattt. is the cVCm that nYtigat#an sssequlfed..rhe m1upuitm plan snail he desig,md to
replace appropriate lost ftaxtinns and vvlurs. The NC Eot/.rystetu Emhauceraau Program may be
available fir use as stream mutigation.
R Future documentation, iocioding the 4p! Beater Quality Ceruficarort ApptitatitYn, should eantinuc
to include sit itendud lasing of the pmpoaid sveland and stream impacts with comsponding
mapping-
9. DWQ is very concerned with sediment mid erosion impacts that could result from this project. NC
DOTShatt address th^.sc concetmby descnbiug the potential hnpaols thatmay occur to the. aquatic.
oi%itonlnents and spy nutigaEng fetters tLat would reds- .the vrrpacis.
10. An mai5sis of cumulative and secondary impacts nnticiisatcd as a result of fnispr[yect is requised.
The type and delatl of ibtal5sis shalt mmtl'otm to the NC Division of Water Quality Policy on the.
vIesswni of secondary and oumulative impacts dated April 10, 2004.
11. NC DOT is tt' etfully reminded that ail impacts, including but ntot.limited to, biidJgng, fill.
ottcar tjon endclearing, .ta jurisdictional strdands. streams, and riparian belies need to be included
in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any eonstrucuan. impact, ternporary
or otherwise. also need to be included as pmt of the 401 Water Quality Cerlifttation Application.
12. Where ehrattis mast be crowd. EPA U\YQ prclrrs htidrys be rrsed. in lieu of culver4s. llowever, we
realize thmso<a-iontic cnnsidcrations often require the use of culverts. Please be advisedthat
Mjvctts SM11 be eount6sunl: to allow unimpeded paisuge by fish and other aquatic eirgwrisins.
B-17
Moreover. in arras where high quality wetlnn& or shcoms are impacted. a brid=e may provd
preferable. When applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in nje creek, to the rrraxiruum
extant praod able.
13. Sediment and erosion control mewe es shall not be pieced in walaods or stretmrs.
14. Borrosv.'svasta e.reas shall asroid wetlands to the ?maintum extent practical. hnaaets to wetlands in
barrowhvaste irew will need to be presented in the. 401 Water Quality Certification and could
pmapttate oomperrvurrp mitigawn.
15, The 401 Water Quality Cectdiication application will creed to specifically address the propaseti
methods for stotmwaw:mattagemem. Mbr -tincitlcaliy,stornnuatershallnotbepsamitmdto
discharge directly into streams or sutLice wniers.
16. Based on the information pn?iusd in the docurrrgrt, the magnitade ofirnpacts m wellands and
suiams may;cgUiro an indhidual pcrnut application to the Craps of Uginws and corresponding
40 f. Water Quality C;erti;rcation. Please be adrisod that a 401 Water Quality Certification mquires
sailsfaedory protections of water quality to ensure that cater quality standards are met and no wctfand
or strcarn rises an last. Pliant permit auttmrirauon trill regrhrrc dtt subwiital of a furn5al app6eatien-
bv the NCDOT end written convumV" from the NCOIVQ, Please be aumea that any approval will
be contingent On apluAdmiate, atvtdaneti grid roinbniyation of c wdami and stream impacts to dte
maximum wue t practical, the development. of an acecplahlestormamter marweement plan: and the
inclusion of appropriatc mitigation plans. where appropriate.
17, Whenever possible, the DWQ prcfres spinning Veruoture.,. Spanningstrucuavs usually tic not
regnne work within the stream m gobbing of the streambanl.•s and do not require strum channel
realignment, The horizontal and N rental oicaronocs prosided by bridges allow for Imman and
wildlife passage bemili the structure, do not block fish.passagc end do not blo* navigaam by
cadocists.and boaters.
18. Bridge deck drains shall not dischwV directly into the scrwL Siormaaterstrall be, directed across
the bridge and pretreated through rite•appropriatc means fgrassed swales, prcdormed scour holes,
vegetated buffer& am.) before entering the meam. Pleasetefet to the most carpe. version of NC-
OtvQ Stormmrrrer Bwr Manogeur mr Pramtcer.
14 if cmreete is rrseiidurosg construction, a dry hvorkama shad be maintained to prevent direct owitact
betwcencuring concrete and stream water. Water that inadrenattly contacts uncured concrete shall
not be ds clanged to syrface maters due to the potential for elevated psi and possible aquatic life and
fishkills,
2M if Icmporary access roads or detours are, Constructed, the site shall be graded to its precrost;uction
contours and elevations. Disturbed anal shall be seeded or mulched to stabilize the wil and
appropriate nativ4 wq dyspecies shall be plardcd. When using tarnporry structures the area shall
be cleared but not grobbed. Clearbig the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equtp he=re and leaving rbe stunips and mat ;rat intact allows the area to re.reaetare
naturally and mieitnaze soil disturbance. -
31. Plaernnertof ett?vCtts o nd other stnrcnu-cs m waters, streams, and wetlands shall be placed below
the elevztion of the streembed by one foot for an cuhlerts with a c'iamcle< greater than 4rs i nelr_
B-18
m

m
and 20 peuat of theculvcrt drmncler for culverts having a diameter leas than 0 mcltcs. to allow
low flow passage of water and aquatic lire. Dwp and placrment of culverts and other structures
including temporary erosion central measures shell not b- conducted in a manncrthat may result in
diatquilibrium of wetlands or ctreambeds or banKs. adjacent to m-upsucxm and &:<v strcam of the
above suruc tares. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilib:iarn is being
- maintained if mquested in writing by D W Q. If ibis condition is unable to be met due to bedrock or
other limiting features encountered during obnstttrctiwn, pleasecontact the NC D,VQ for guidance
on how to li mceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be required.
22. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they shall be designed to mimic natural stream cross smicm
as clwtly as possible including piper or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or-sills where
appropriate..Widemng the stream channel shall be avoided Siream.ohannel wicknsng at the inlet or
outlet and of structures *all), decreases wi,ter velocity causing sedimun deposition that requires
increased rpafnrerroius anddipnupts aquatic life passage,
-.23. If foundation tesl borings are oecessat7; it sball.twnoted in the document Geotecitrdtal work is
'
m o. G for Survey
approved under Gctim1461 Cpriifteadon Number.3494116-tiomvide PanWt A
Aotivdties.
24. Sediment and crosion control mcimires slfttcietu to protect water resources must be implemented
m and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of orth Carolina Sedimua grid Lroxion
Cannot planning and Design Manual and the ntntt recent version of NCS000250. .
25: All Worl: in oradjaceot to snesin waters shell be conducted in a dry.wodt.ares. Approyed.13MP
measures from $e most current vesston of NIMOT C onsi u lion and MaiTuenanec Axtirides
manna] yttch as taadbags, rock bum;, cofferdams and other diversion structures shall he rued to
prevent excavation in flawing wirer.
jr, Witte the use of National Weiland Invm Tory (NW1.) maps; NC Coastal Region £valuarian of
Wetland Sigmfieanoe 4TC-CP.Ei1"S) neaps and soil smery maps arc useful tools. their inhei-em
macouraoies require that qualified personnel perAminonsile wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
2T. Aeayy egaipment'shall be operated tiOmthe-banktanher than in stream abannels in order m
'
}is
mililittlSe xrdittxaAatiam and-reduce the llkciihond.ofintroducing other polhitatrts into siraams. T
equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contm)i mGmi of surface. waters
from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, m• other toxic malettals.
ZS. Riprap slttll notbi-pf::ced id the acdv c ihafwq ctianncl of placed nn. the streambed in a menaer that
pTeclndcb aquatic Ilse passage. 110migrhearirPbailldeM M bhLClmeb Ebell IK pfapetly dea[??aE(),
si-rtd and instated.
29. Riparian vegetation (native Ines and sh: ubs) shall be preserved to the maximum extent px4b1e.
Rtpmien v?egeeatimr niustite tresdablislted aitinn ilieronstrucoon limnils of t}ta proton by the end of
the grgwinv season tollowitg- cmnpktion of construction.
The NCONVQ appreciates the opportunity to provide commenis on your project Shall you have any
questions or regnire any oddinorai imfamwtiur.. please tatttaw Brian Wrenn it 919-M? 5715.

i 4.
B-19
co:' David Baker. LIS Army Corps of Engineers, Ashc"1AeField Office
Jake Rigsbce, Tederal Highwac Admini irefion
Chris Mililscher, Environmental Prolectioo Acency
Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resources Comrmssion
Marella Bunciek, US Fish and Wildlifc Senice
Mike parker, t)WQ :Asheville Regional Off=
File copy
5
B-20
m
m

I
I

I
I
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission >:;
IC): klelba hlc(jec. Fn%ironmetnal Coordlnntor
Office of i.egislative Land Imergncernmcntal Affaim. DP.1:•R
FRO\•f: Marla Chatters, Wcsnan NC DOT Permit Cooidinwor '''A r0
flabitai Conservation Program. NCWRC
'DATLi: September 25. 2007
SIIllILC ": Review of the F-m-rrminenial Assessment for NCDO Y's proposed project to
procidc tr'anspw mlienr impuovemenis in the vicinity al Siler Roud (Sit 1660) anti
Wiley Brottm Read (SR 1662}, Ivhrcnn Coumy. TIP No. R-4714.
?RoTth Cnrulina Department of Transportation iNCDOTi has suhmitled for review an
Gavimnmemni :assessment [VAI dixomcm Air the suhjecl project. Stuff bioloeists t.ilh the
North Carolina t\iidlile Reset.ncdF Cnnntris ion f:`'CWRC': haw rev.°cttrti the im'nmalino
provicicd and arc p.uticipating in Sic .\ ewl:r M prose:, bur Ihis IxojccL Thee are
a'oaidcd it, axcordanrc wick Iltc p:ot i>i,na nl lac\ati;nt[;i lint inmmeouii volj.y Act :;_' U.S C.
43 ;20(c)l and tha Filar and \ViltFle i'uordomtion ACI 149 Star. a!);. m amended; 16 l .S.C.
do I -owd I.
'fhe nlmo,r prolxvsne to creaw news to sites slated for drrelopmenc in the sjwnity of Siler
Read and Wiley Brown Road. which ate situated on either side & the Little't'ennessee River and
south of US 64i 23/441. Three or the firm- a l ternatit es (A, 13. and Cl WiII requnL the CC) nStFUCn0n
of a nt.m crossing over the Little Tennessee River within I.I)00 Neel of the exktinc, crossing of'
CS 6123!441 (110 10 925 feet amyl. Alternalk e D was developed ;u the reyum of Ile Merger
Team to address access nods without crossing the Ltuts renncswc River. ]'reject irrgths for
the fm:v alternatives range from 0.91 to 1.26 Ladles. 't-he prgicet is not inciuricd in (hc
thoroughfare plan dated January 2005.
C:annog; ohaye Creek and Cullasaju Rker.:xtth designated Cl s H, Tiom touters, are vAthin :he
proect study urea and join Lite Lillie Tennessee RivtT. Class C vtaters, in the priest vicinity.
1'he Little 'fennessec Riyar supptuts a cnrallmuuth bas lichen ::nd other o•:rm vier species in
the proit:cl ana. Olive darter (Percom ngrwmtrra). hech:ra'. Species of Concerr, a:SCI and start
- .
Mai141gAddrm: Di,;kion of Ii0and l'i.,hc•ries - 1731 Mail eeivCt-Center Ra Neigh, Al' ?boa-'?^_I
Telephone: ;alo)^iC_0220 • Fax: (911)1 ?i;'7.(f(12S
i
B-21
g.r;-1,1 Link l'emc.+r. line:
1,Ak'ar, 11n:o^ l:,
Special C.mlccnt ('Sc): wounded darter (Dhea.mlmo w,"Mrawril. PSC and state S(; "snmks
dace" (Clinoxmnm,s liaa/a1o)o'es asp. i), PSC and state SC: Lisle fenncsscc Rivcr eraylish
(Qauhorw eeoryiae). mate.SC: and Ncilrnefin shiner 1?+orropi3 haipinni.ul. slate SC. nic known
to occur in the Little Tennessee River in the project cicinip or in the Cullastja River er
Carurogechaye Creek near their confluence ttith the Little Tennessee River. ht the p %?ice( area.
the. Little 1'onnessee.River is designated critical habitat for the spotfin chub iEr'imon-:r
mema(lntr), federal slid statu Threatened (T), and is a Significant Natural Heritage Program Area
Dcaastream, Mow the Franklin dart, iuv a number of Moral and state listed species including
Appalachian ulktoe (41namidne+u rn.enrlr'mmj, federal and rme Endangered (1-1, Ind llulcwing
pearly mussel t!'eglay irurdni, federal and stele E. Cnrtooeethsve Creek is I latcherp Supported
Designated Public Mouutni l •t lour Water i'DPYffgl in the project vicious and the l:ullasaia
River is TWtchcrs Sapporicd DPN4Vv% a ways upstream o:' the proiacr.
Recnrdsof the Mile darter and the Appalachian axt,?tuail ( ririL+lrns' on....•tt.ee;i_ i sC and sums
SC, csist within the immeJinte project 1'i6nit\. S:rave; s i; r the :\pf+atacnim: ronmltail sett
recommended where appropriate hnbilai exists prior to tiny ad-2itiural land •:iaanll, in the aria, it
reecm suuvtys have not been cunducted. A pupulnr greenw'a) exists alon_ the Lillie '12nncssuz
River acid a ponion of C'ataoogechayc Creek. with future exmin !Ml pnlpnsad. 7110 pR )jeer shoal:r
:void itn{vacts to the grecrosm\' s)ste•m, indudir.•_ its t'ic:+ shad rum. powniiai k:r acidic veils in
the pro cot area shuuil Ix- ;addressed. Huardmis spill basins should be used to proles! %tnsnice
resources.
The project is intended to provide additional access to sites currently proposed for institutional
-Ind commercial development. Most of die project area is currently Tuned Residential, but
expected to change. Current ov proposed development projects intlude a coinmuniti college
(under corvtitruciion), a library. n roson thenic park (bared on the fictional ic..•nr of A?1.tvberr1
faith support scrcices, and a big box retail ar_a. NCWRC is eery concerned about tM direct and
indirect impacts to hater qualit? and wildfifcresouttes nasukil)g from this roan proiact and oilier
plancod development in the area. Another crossing ol'the uute'ronnNsce Riacr and moderate
to Imavy development is inuppropriate in this sensitive uuvershtd and diminishes its'v:tluable
tmtcnitirs. such t,s nowral bcaua'+ mud naaarc haled recreation opportunities. flesc p,ac,: scent to
he inculisistenl with rite Town of Frunklir's desire io protect she natural cm itt.mnra. cueb s5Ih0
area's rivers and mountainous nndscrepes tchieh :nr Ho ch tizd u, *..cir sense r,. niacc and the
tounvll su import:+nt uo tFd IonJ tc,'•nnn;s Pic dorutnent iodic a10J .he.'I oe,-'.:•: pct sloping a
.ImWl plan dial suprrort> .orate xntolc omicirdrs. mn•nv.e,a or a±.umilnum
..cur pnmidtd that 11uuM luin,nii;-?u.:he::cn.itisc nseurs:es of the istoiect arcs.
The information provided n:garding projected conditions of u:dlic in Section 1X3 do nol_ shear
significant benefit of building the proposed project. level of Sets ice. R.OS) for the design %enr
dues not show improvements of tha build scenario ore; die. 110-build ,scenario at either signalized
or unsignafimed intersections, witlr the exception of one intersection showing LOS C ut the no-
build and LOti 11 in the build scenario. In addition, however, anof ci intursezlinn went from a
LOS of D in the no•build projection to LOS E in the build analysis. of flit set'en intcrt=6or.s
ani dyzcd, dlrce are projected to iuil in ilic design )cat (LOS r) and two other. N911 op,rne at
LOS' D and F if the project is built. The project does not appear to scdvv. or even impmcc
expected traffic orublenis. It may be that the no-build nhernativc is the most al:pnrprlate nptimlt
B-22
I
m
m
I
I
I
II
4I;
I
I
E
I
I
1;-1`?8 Liuk'lmuaYa Y Rion
6remkti4 >•raum G.
-3-
25, M?
NCWRC does not support alternatives dint cross duo Little Tennessee River or that open up
developable lands in close proximity to the river and other sensitise resonTIVes. We do not
support uncontrolled growth and development that may negatively impact &deral and state listen
species, impoltant sport fish resources (such as smallmouth bass and imm), and natural atneniues
caitwble.tu the local community. Alternative D is the only build alternative tint does not include
a bridge over the Little Tennessee River and the only alternative that doe6 not impact a federal
listed species, Significant Natural Heritage Program .Areas, or he green.aay (existing or
proposed). Alternatives Ai B, and C propose to construct a bridge with langtbs ranging fi-om 345
to 380 &CL Surprisingly, however, Mutative D is presented as lie most expensive. build
ontioa. A detailed discussion of how project cost estimates were determined would be helpful in
evaluating the alternatives for dcrtr nination of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative. We suggest reducing the length of Alternative D by terminating due roadways
further away from the river: which will not only reduce coils, but should discourage
development close the this important resource and. will help to protect ilie view shed of the
greetl?vay and thegettet-al project area.
Secondary and.cranulativc impacts are expected to be signlfwant unless vital protective measures
arc in place. For any development in the project area. strong siurrn%ater management
requirements, limitk sett impun'ian ar::a, and protection (Stud restoration! of natural buffers alone
waterways must he implemented to presene due water quality, fish and miWlit'c hahitats.. and
'scenic beauty. (bier measures to mitigate sect+ndarv and cumulative impaw can be found in the
Guidance h4emorardum to Address and.Mitigste Secondary and Cumulative Impute to Aquatic
and ferresttial Wildlife Resources and Water Quality NCORC 2002), We sunngly urge local
unhorilies and D'CUUT to ndopt many of tttesY meastns and to m- lox impact development
techniques (see vrssw.lowtintrmctd elbmnent.org for information) to manage st0nnNkT1er
quantity end. quality in developing areas. Additional information can be found at
wsew:ncsurmivaterorg.
Thank you for the opportunity w review and comment on this project. If you have any questions
regarding these comments, please contact me at [phone].
Literature Cited:
):CWRC (North Carolina N ildlife Resources Commission'. 2002. Guidance hlemorandu n to
Address and Mitigate Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to Aquatic find Terrestrial
Wildlife Resourccs and Water Quality. KCWRC, Raleigh. ANaftble:
hup;'h+w?a.ac++ildlili.nr?p;fii lVilSlilcSpecicsfun:`)x",'e3.-imtactc.txar'. tTcbrtlar)
N031
cc: Marella Huncick. USI-WS
(Irian Wrenn. NCDN'Q
Mike Parker. NCD\VQ
Christopher MiliL.r1 r, USEPA
luigie Rodgers, NCNHP
B-23
EGA
NODE
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
fthael F. Easley, Govemor William G. Ross Jr., Sc?etar}
19L+tOP.A"ilia
... Cht:'u engjet
Anal n rROM: Mel,a trcC,ee ?
PTeject: ReAw Coordinator
RE: 04-0070 EA Fropob_d New Monte Srow tiler Hoar to Wiley noun
Road in Macon County
DA'193: 3eprember 20, 205,
The Depa Ctment. or $n?Awnmanc arc Plat'aeal P.eno'.ir tea ?ae revi Pa!ad Lho
proponed Pro'j'ect,
There continue, ;.C he a n4mbor -f concerns ider.tifie. d -11: 11C
Wildlife Reaouacee Co3rtnasur and the Division of hats= We rick
that the Department of Tr&nVpQL'tatieil contirra? to wk with cut etrn,enctn9
agencies in o[det :e adoqua,:f-ly ad?YCsned pro. sect concern.. 1.;dr=acAr,.4
there enn:mtntn dur-liq zhe :'e Yl eW pro(:r;i: :i ne IVr fur ir;g ;h. SLPd Har::ar
:roues., ',:L: avoid we_,.: rho Uemi•. phyae.
_'iant you Poor the Tp_•rtinir: taxmen, tr, [Aio or^-+c'
Attacimer._c
1601 Mail service Center. Raleigh, North Carolina 27693-1601
Phone: 9%733-49641 FAX: [phone]InlerneC 'tnm.enf.state.nc.uslFNRl
M e<rotOp(rsir•4ylAR+maAe RrAOn Erm'oyu './.i r. Fa:SUW : iL ^t aar,•:MSUre Pete
1 thCerO ina
Or
il
B-24
I I
m
m
I
October 16. 2007
I
I
I
I
I
Macon (follci2t?
Undrea Major
NCDOT PD&EA
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Liz Kovasekitz
Mulkey li:ngineers & Consultants
Dear Undrea Major
The Macon County 1366
res?Tonse to the Siler Ro
1 R", at So11lhWCS(CrR Ci
1. Macon Count) i
right of.way,.ke
College C6inpti,
.2. The Iraflic ra
businesses at
and school bl
3. `I•hC removal
1701/1702 ig
current 11 it
using a rallip.
I
I 1 lu:nloy6u for hL
comment.
II c ry 'I ?' i?
SIdCCt CI)' . %i
,.. ?. :.. .. •,. ..i?' 1Yr ?.. X11 w. ..-
Miinagcr-- -_? -
cc: Conrad Burrell
Joel Selzer
Board ol'ConTmissioners
z-
of,
missioners I'
doves as press
y College, Ma
road alternate
ough u•RffiC c
filcilily and It
if used al all, sill)
Ction Willi Dow(i
e kev concerns. 1:
system at the i
opposed. The
I funds are ava
banally adopted tile flollowing
at the public.hcaring on September
:0111111)'Can,pu191Building.
order 1o nwxiniize use ofexisting
the Southwestern Community
the least environmental impact.

have minimum unpact oil existing -
Mountain Road!
? i I-lca 1'y truck traffic' -_ ;------ -

cectiti I

n of US 64/23/441..11» d SR i
f
ly proposed alll hzl tivc is loliiiiVO the ..
imei•changc ,
fora secondary r6ad f
i
I I 1J

I
ffeting the opp0ltumly F J 10111 al,
l 1
r
i `_s;.?_.
r?
.
!

0 over 0r under pass sy
I 1
ij g the 1{311blic I d ring a
MACON COUNTY COURTHOUSE ANNEX 5 WEST MAIN STREET FRANKLIN, NORTH CAROLINA 28734
PHONE [phone] B-25 PAX: 828.349.2400
MACON, COUNTY
PLANNING. DEPARTMENT ,
Macon County,Counhouse Annex
-'5 West Main Street
Franklin, NC 28734-
Phone a28.349.2212 Fax [phone]
September 18, 2007
To: Undrea Major
NCDOT PD&EA
Dear Ms. Major.
In regards to the Siler Rd. to Wiley Brown Rd. connection (TIP R-4748), if a bridge crossing must be
built, the Macon County Planning Department supports option "A" as it will have less impact on the
Greenway, the Little Tennessee River and the floodplain. The fill needed for options °B" and "C", in
addition to the distance of those options from the.existing bridges mill alter the character of that
section of the Greenway and the adjacent public (County-owned) lands. Further, the fill needed for
both "B" and "C" has the potential to interfere with the flood plain on the eastern side of the river as
the flood plain widens significantly in those areas according to our new FEMA maps.
Option "A" provides alternate access to the library, community college and other areas along Siler
Rd. and Wiley Brown road while at the same time having less impact on lands and resources
enjoyed by all Maconians.
*SinreI,,,
Stacy J. G ey
Macon County Planning Director
CC: Sam Greenwood, County Manager
B-26
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 19, 2008
TO: David Baker, US Army Corps of Engineers
Brian Wrenn, NC Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources
FROM: Undrea Major, Project Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Removal of NCDOT Transportation Improvement Project
R-4748 from the Merger 01 Process
The purpose of this correspondence is to notify the lead agencies of the Merger 01 Team
for TIP Project R-4748 of the North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT)
intent to formally remove this project from the Merger Process. This decision is based on
the conclusion that anticipated impacts from the NCDOT recommended alternative
(alternative C), will not require a permit from the US Army Corps, or the NC Dept. of
Environment and Natural Resourses-Division of Water Quality for construction.
It should be noted that NCDOT will still fulfill avoidance and minimization
requirements.
NCDOT will continue to coordinate with the resource agencies throughout the
preconstruction phase of this project. In addition, resource agencies will have the
opportunity to review and comment on the final environmental document.
I would appreciate receiving your response to this proposed action by April 3, 2008. If
you have any questions, please contact me at 733-7844, extension 212 or email to
uimaior a,dot.state.nc.us.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 2 769 9-1 548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WESSITE WWW.DOH.DOT.STATENC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH INC
B-27
APPENDIX C - TOWN OF
FRANKLIN PR/NC/PLCS OF
GROWTH AND ZONING MAP
I
I
I
R-474B STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Principles of Growth for the Town of Franklin
Preamble
m
What can we do now to ensure that in 20 years Franklin will still be recognized as a
great place to live? This question is critical as we grapple with the formidable challenge
of managing growth. In North Carolina in the past 30 years, population has increased
50 percent while vehicle miles traveled have increased 300 percent. Historically, we
have handled growth in ways that have resulted in all of us living farther and farther
from our destinations, be they work, school, worship, play or shopping. These extra
miles have far-reaching consequences: more congestion and air pollution resulting
from our increased dependence on automobiles; the loss of precious open space; the
need for costly improvements to roads and public services; the inequitable distribution
of economic resources; and the loss of a sense of community.
We believe that in order to help maintain what we love about Franklin, and still
accommodate growth, we have to change our planning approach to create safe and
friendly streets for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists and to encourage attractive and
affordable housing choices closer to our daily destinations. We believe our land use
policies should recognize Franklin's architectural heritage, replicate its best-loved
patterns of building, encourage building approaches that create legacies instead of tear-
downs or franchise styles and, thus, preserve and enhance the special sense of place that
is Franklin, North Carolina.
m In our region, where the economy is driven by tourism, second home ownership, and
retiree migration, it is clear that sense of place is an asset as surely as a navigable
waterway or a mountain of buried coal was an asset in previous eras. Destinations that
attract investment are those that distinguish themselves from competitors by virtue of
their natural and man-made environments. Such communities are not sought out
because they have the biggest retail boxes or the most chain restaurants. They are
valued because they have deliberately preserved their traditional character and
protected their sense of place.
The principles contained in this document are intended to guide the Town's future land
use decisions. We recognize that many of the principles are dependent upon fiscal
capacity and support, as well as a commitment from the community and elected
officials. With that foundation of community commitment and support in place, we are
confident these principles will foster the continued vitality that has made Franklin a
great town and an original place.
i
Principles of Growth for the Town of Franklin
Principle #1. Mix Land Uses.
The Town of Franklin should continue to grow in a manner that encourages and rewards the
integration of land uses. Mixing land uses promotes connectivity, walkability, and a sense of
community. The integration of land uses provides denser cores of development which are
supportive of transportation alternatives, such as walking, bicycling and public transit. In
addition, the mixing of land uses promotes connectivity and walkability, thereby helping
revitalize community life by providing inviting places for people to live, work and play.
Policies and Strategies
? Ensure that zoning regulations allow a mix of uses in most classifications.
? Provide incentives, such as increased densities, to make it attractive for developers to
undertake mixed-use projects.
? Permit planned urban village zoning districts, where appropriate, through special use
zoning, thereby allowing the creation of entire communities consisting of an urban core
and associated residential development.
? Allow live/work units, structures which are used for business purposes and which also
serve as the principal residence of business proprietor, the in some zoning districts and
exempt them from density calculations.
? Actively promote Franklin as a "Smart Growth" town. Consider partnering with the
Chamber of Commerce and Board of Realtors in establishing a committee whose job is to
promote Franklin as friendly to Smart Growth and to search for developers who are
interested in developing mixed use buildings.
FRANKLIN PRINCIPLES OF GROWTH PAGEI DRAFT: 26 SEPTEMBER ,
2006
m
m Principles of Growth for the Town of Franklin
Principle #2. Take Advantage of Compact Building Design.
The Town of Franklin should support compact building design, a principle which promotes
the efficient use of land and resources by directing communities to grow vertically rather than
horizontally. This reduces the footprint of new development, thereby preserving more open
space and reducing impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff and, therefore, the amount of
surface water pollution discharged into our streams. This type of design also enables wider
transportation choices including public transit, walking and biking.
W Policies and Strategies
? Ensure that zoning regulations facilitate compact building design by allowing multi-family
and attached housing, by eliminating or reducing minimum lot sizes and minimum yard
requirements, and by taking care that height and density standards are adequate to
accommodate this principle.
? Educate the community , including the development community, of the benefits of
compact building design, via public meetings and informational sessions.
? Adopt parking standards which encourage compact building design by reducing the
amount of land needed for vehicular use. Examples include allowing shared parking and
on-street parking to count toward minimum parking standards. Alternatively, the Town
may wish to consider maximum parking standards in lieu of, or in addition to, minimum
standards.
I
FRANKLIN PRINCIPLES OF GROWTH PAGE2 DRAFT: 26 SEPTEMBER
2006
Principles of Growth for the Town of Franklin
Principle #3. Create a Range of Housing Opportunities and Choices.
The Town of Franklin should work in partnership with private enterprise to create a range of
housing opportunities and choices. In order for our town to grow and prosper, we must
provide many different types and prices of living quarters. To support a growing economy, it
is imperative that we find a way to provide affordable housing options both for current
residents and, also, to make the town an attractive option to potential employees and
employers.
Policies and Strategies
? Seek sources of funding, both public and private, which can be used to provide down
payment assistance and rent subsidies, and to finance the acquisition, construction and
rehabilitation of affordable housing.
? Ensure that the zoning ordinance allows auxiliary housing (e.g., garage apartments), both
attached and detached. Investigate the feasibility of reducing impact fees for such units.
? Establish a housing committee, composed of stakeholders from the Town and the County,
whose purpose will be to focus on public education and to investigate and recommend to
the Town realistic solutions for affordable housing.
FRANKLIN PRINCIPLES OF GROWTH PAGE3 DRAFT: 26 SEPTEMBER
2006
i?
m
Principles of Growth for the Town of Franklin
Principle #4. Create Walkable Neighborhoods.
The Town of Franklin should strive to make our town a walkable community. Walkable
communities are pedestrian-friendly, desirable places to live, work, learn, worship and play.
They stimulate economic viability and distinctive character, as well as improve residents'
health and safety and regional air quality. The benefits of walkable communities include
lower transportation costs, greater social interaction, improved personal and environmental
health, expanded consumer choices and an overall healthier way of living.
Policies and Strategies
m ? Adopt walkability standards designed to accommodate pedestrian connectivity, pedestrian
safety and mixed land uses.
m ? Develop gateway corridor plans for major entrance ways into town which address
pedestrian facilities, signage, landscaping and appearance.
m ? Ensure that new development contributes to the principle of walkability by installing
m pedestrian connections or, where that is not feasible, by contributing a fee-in-lieu thereof,
into a pedestrian facilities fund.
? Adopt a master pedestrian facilities plan for the Town.
I
I
FRANKLIN PRINCIPLES OF GROWTH PAGE4 DRAFT: 26 SEPTEMBER
2006
Principles of Growth for the Town of Franklin
Principle #5. Foster Distinctive, Attractive Communities with a Strong Sense of Place.
The Town of Franklin should strive to maintain and create a high quality urban environment
which reflects the unique character of our community. In doing so, we believe there is a
greater likelihood that buildings (and, therefore, entire neighborhoods) will retain their
economic vitality and value over time.
Policies and Strategies
? Ensure that land use regulations encourage reusable, multi-generational buildings that
instill pride over time and through a variety of owners and uses.
? Ensure that land use regulations permit the adaptive reuse of the best of our older
buildings. Every historic building we save bolsters sense of place. Educate developers and
property owners about the NC Rehabilitation Building Code and coordinate with the
Macon County Building department on the administration of this Code.
? Conduct an inventory of historic resources and, if justified, establish a Historic
Preservation Commission to help preserve historic structures and districts, thereby helping
to sustain Franklin's architectural heritage.
? Develop design standards for the downtown business district in order to protect and
enhance the sense of place provided by Main Street. Consider developing design codes for
other neighborhoods as appropriate.
? Commit to building civic spaces and buildings that are lasting landmarks which
distinguish Franklin. Public buildings should be built for their value over a lifetime, not for
short-term capital savings.
? Protect the natural environment. Our sense of place is tied forever to the quality of our
rivers and mountain landscapes. Sacrificing environmental quality for short term
economic gains spends down our legacy and puts us at a disadvantage in the competition
for our best customers.
FRANKLIN PRINCIPLES OF GROWTH PAGE5 DRAFT: 26 SEPTEMBER 1
2006
I
i? Principles of Growth for the Town of Franklin
Principle #6. Preserve Open Space, Natural Beauty and Critical Environmental Areas.
The natural environment in and around our mountain community is one of our greatest
treasures. The availability of open space and, significantly, greenways provides important
benefits to the quality of life and health of our community. As Franklin grows in population,
open space and greenway availability will become even more important and, potentially, more
difficult to preserve. Thus the Town of Franklin should commit today to ensure we have
ample open space in the future.
Policies and Strategies
? Create a working relationship with the county and FROGS (Friends of the Greenway) to
complete the Greenway Project. At a minimum this should include extending the
greenway to Suli Marsh in the north and Recreation Park in the south, bridging the Little
Tennessee River, and providing opportunities for water recreation, physical exercise
activities, picnic and playground facilities and an amphitheater.
? Develop a collaborative strategy between the city, county, and FROGS for developing,
funding, operating, and maintaining the greenway system.
0 Connect the greenway to other facilities by having walks to Southwestern Community
College (SCC), the Macon County Library, and other areas that would benefit Greenway
users.
? Adopt a master plan for developing and funding additional greenways, walking and
biking paths throughout the city, linking businesses, open space, and recreational and
other community facilities.
? Ensure that zoning and subdivision ordinances support the development of open space, .
and walking and biking areas.
e ? Establish minimum open space requirements for specific types of development including
multi-family and mixed use developments. Ensure that these requirements provide for
open spaces that are functional, and allow for recreation or conservation. Require inclusion
of walking and biking trails in developments, where feasible.
? Analyse the potential for "pocket parks"-a series of small (approximately 1/4 acre) parks
throughout the city minimal facilities for relaxation, picnics, children's play, and as a
gathering place for seniors.
FRANKLIN PRINCIPLES OF GROWTH PAGE6 DRAFT: 26 SEPTEMBER
2006
Principles of Growth for the Town of Franklin
Principal #7. Direct Development Toward Existing Communities.
The citizens of Franklin have made significant investments in the existing streets, sidewalks,
utilities, schools, and public spaces which make up the Town's infrastructure. The Town of
Franklin should ensure that new development is directed towards existing communities which
are already served by this infrastructure. This will help to conserve open space on the urban
fringe, strengthen the Town's tax base, allow for closer proximity of jobs and services, and
improve the efficiency of government and public resources.
Policies and Strategies.
? Review and, if necessary, revise the Town's Utilities Extension Policy to ensure that
extensions of water and sewer are consistent with these Principles of Growth and with
other land use plans and policies the Town may adopt.
? Maintain a brown field redevelopment resource center whose mission will be to educate
the development community about the benefits of brown field redevelopment and the
availability of qualifying sites.
? Adopt a fast-track policy whereby qualified redevelopment projects are given priority in
the development review process.
? Locate and promote suitable areas for development in order to realize efficiencies from
infrastructure and service investments. Provide incentives, such as density bonuses, to
encourage development in such areas.
? Adopt a policy where governmental and community services are located and encouraged
to locate downtown in the central business district, where feasible.
FRANKLIN PRINCIPLES OF GROWTH PAGE7 DRAFT: 26 SEPTEMBER
2006
m
Principles of Growth for the Town of Franklin
Principal #8. Provide a Variety of Transportation Choices.
We believe a community and its citizens should have multiple transportation choices. Those
choices should be affordable and available to all members of the community. Pedestrian
transportation is especially important as our community expands and fossil fuel costs direct
more people to use alternative modes of transportation. The Town of Franklin should resolve
to strive for a balanced, walkable community with a variety of transportation options.
I
I
E
I
Policies and Strategies.
? Ensure that transportation goals and needs are addressed in land use planning decisions by
providing or requiring an analysis of traffic impacts as part of the development review
process. Take care that transportation impacts are considered, as well, when evaluating
petitions to rezone property.
? Infrastructure planning should include multiple modes of transportation and provide for
growth and diversity.
? Road improvement plans should include safety planning for motorists, pedestrians,
bicyclists and transit users.
? Future development should encourage connections to adjacent properties. Provide
foot/cycle path connections to adjacent residential and business properties. Parking areas
should provide safety and ease of access.
FRANKLIN PRINCIPLES OF GROWTH
2006
PAGES
DRAFT: 26 SEPTEMBER
Principles of Growth for the Town of Franklin
Principal #9. Making Development Decisions Predictable, Fair, and Cost-Effective.
The Town of Franklin should strive to make all of its development-related processes (zoning
applications, rezoning, multi-family development applications, and sign applications) as
simple and straightforward as possible, with known time frames for making a decision.
Policies and Strategies.
? Land use regulations should be written so that they can be understood by, or readily
explained to, those who must abide by them. This material needs to be readily available in
hard copy at the Town office and on the Town's web site.
? The Town should identify and remove any barriers that may exist to ensuring that the
benefits of these initiatives accrue to all segments of the population, including women,
racial and ethnic minorities, people of low income, and people who are developmentally
disabled.
? The Town should work closely with Macon County regulatory officials to ensure that local
ordinances are enforced and that information regarding permits and development is
shared.
FRANKLIN PRINCIPLES OF GROWTH PAGE9 DRAFT: 26 SEPTEMBER
2006
I
Principles of Growth for the Town of Franklin
i? Principal #10. Encourage Community and Stakeholder Collaboration.
i
The Town of Franklin should engage all sectors of the community as partners, early in the
process of planning, to ensure that they will have a continued say in changes that take place.
The Town should offer opportunities for people to gather at convenient and comfortable
locations at a variety of times for sustained involvement and expertise by community
stakeholders employing clear, open, and consistent communications.
? Develop a more consistent dialogue with Macon County government, its elected officials
and key staff, in order to work more closely on issues of mutual interest. The town should
meet with the County Commission on a regular basis.
? Conduct periodic "planner's luncheons" to educate and inform the public about planning
initiatives and new development.
? Incorporate into the Zoning Ordinance a process whereby Town staff facilitates
neighborhood compatibility meetings between developers and neighboring property
owners and residents for developments likely to have considerable impact.
FRANKLIN PRINCIPLES OF GROWTH PAGE10 DRAFT: 26 SEPTEMBER
2006
a
m
m?

®I
?I
m,

U)U
•v Z
L
Y /
i
C7 O 4-
N p
ca C,
.U 0
F-

? N
O N
a)

_ d
U) J C
J
)
\
?
N FN
Y C C
C a O
\/
(
G v O
O a)
N
C
-
c
N
p w co
3 E o?
H 0 0
a)
cr:E
Z C N

V
y?Ay? Y O O
70,
M O
a a
d z
H Li o
?W Y
J 3 c c E
? a)
U U - F o
° 0 N

a O
c
a) O m
[? w ' N .U u7
4r?? U
N ° C O
?

O J a) N N
'O C N
a
O` :5
m m
N
U 7 aO C N
N
0
a 3 a) N
aE -m0
a`
y
SJ o E 0 ?-
° o
N >
T (D
H ? a) Q O
m
NOTICE OF ACOMBINED PUBLIC HEARING
FOR THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF SR 1660 (SILER ROAD)
TO SR 1662 (WILEY BROWN ROAD)
TIP No. R-4748 Macon County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold the
above Public Hearing on September 18, 2007 between the hours of 4:00 PM and
7:00 PM at the Macon Campus SouthWestern Community College, First Floor
Conference Room #212, 815 Siler Rd, Franklin, 28734.
Department of Transportation representatives will be available in an
informal setting to answer questions and receive comments relative to the
m project. The opportunity to submit written comments or questions will also be
provided. Interested citizens may attend at any time during the above mentioned
hours. There will be no formal presentation.
NCDOT proposes to construct a two lane roadway on new location from
SR 1660 (Siler Road) to SR 1662 (Wiley Brown Road). There are a total of four
alternatives; three alternatives cross the Little Tennessee River and one that
does not. Project includes Round-a-bout options at the intersection of Dowdle
Mountain Road and US 23/64/441 as well as access improvements. Additional
right of way and the relocation of homes and businesses may be required for this
project.
m A map displaying the location and design of the project and a copy of the
environmental document - Environmental Assessment (EA) - are available for
public review at the Franklin Town Hall, 188 West Main Street, Franklin, 28734
and at the NCDOT Division Office located at the County Maintenance Yard, 220
Windy Gap Road, Franklin, 28734.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Mr. Ed Lewis, Human
Environment Unit at 1583 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1583, phone
[phone], fax [phone], or email elewis( dot. state. nc.us. Additional
in comments may be submitted by October 19, 2007.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services under the Americans with
Disabilities Act for disabled persons who wish to participate in this workshop.
Anyone requiring special services should contact Mr. Lewis as early as possible
so that arrangements can be made.
I

I
I
I
I
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROPOSED EXTENSION OF SR 1660 (SILER ROAD)
From US 64/23/441 (Georgia Road) to SR 1662 (Wiley Brown Road)
TIP PROJECT R-4748
WBS Number 35871
Macon County
Combined Public Hearing
II
I
I
Southwestern Community College
Macon Campus
815 Siler Road, Franklin
4:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
September 18, 2007
PURPOSE OF PROJECT
The project will create access to sites in the vicinity of Siler Road (SR 1660) and Wiley
Brown Road (SR 1662). Providing access for development will stimulate economic
development and enhance the area's economy with new jobs in commercial,
institutional, and recreational development. The project area now has new
developments. The new regional library and the new Southwestern Community College
- Macon Campus on Siler Road has recently opened.
It will also improve traffic flow in the project area. The project will facilitate better
circulation in the vicinity, will help separate local and regional traffic, and minimize future
traffic on the Town of Franklin's main roads. US 64/231441 presently is the only
crossing of the Little Tennessee River in the area.
PURPOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Today's hearing is one step in the North Carolina Department of Transportation's
(NCDOT) procedure for making you, the public, part of the planning process. NCDOT is
soliciting your views on the location and design of the proposed extension of Siler Road
(SR 1660).
NCDOT's planning and environmental studies on the above project are presented in the
environmental document - Environmental Assessment. For the last 30 days, copies of
this report and today's hearing map have been available for public review at the Franklin
Town Hall, 188 West Main Street, Franklin, 28734 and at the NCDOT Division Office
located at the County Maintenance Yard, 220 Windy Gap Road, Franklin, 28734
YOUR PARTICIPATION
Now that the opportunity is here, you are encouraged to participate by asking questions
and/or comments. Several representatives of the NCDOT are present. They will be
happy to talk with you, explain the design and answer your questions. The opportunity
to submit written comments or questions will also be provided. You may write your
comments or questions on the comment sheet and leave it with one of the
representatives, fax, email or mail them by October 19, 2007.
WHAT IS DONE WITH THE INPUT?
A post-hearing meeting will be conducted after the comment period
° has ended. NCDOT staff representing Planning, Design, Traffic,
Division, and Right of Way along with the Federal Highway
Administration will attend this meeting. When appropriate, local governmental officials
also attend.
All public comments regarding this project are discussed at this meeting. Most issues
are resolved at the post-hearing meeting. The Department of Transportation considers
safety, costs, traffic service, social impacts and public comments in making decisions.
Complex issues may require additional study and may be reviewed by higher
management, Board of Transportation Members and/or the Secretary of Transportation.
Minutes of the post-hearing meeting are prepared and this summary is available to the
public. You may request this document on the attached comment sheet.
NEED FOR THE PROJECT
The proposed project is important to improve access to land available for development
and to improve Transportation service in the project area. Presently, there is limited
access to land available for development between Siler Road and Wiley Brown Road.
Although this project is not included in the local transportation plan, future year 2030
traffic volumes are expected to increase. The 2005 average daily traffic (ADT) along
US 64/23/441 between Georgia Road (US 23/441) and SR 1701 is 22,000 vehicles per
day (vpd); along Georgia Road (US 23/441) between US 64/23/441 and Siler Road is
22,600 vpd. The projected 2030 traffic for expected development is 48,900 vpd and
m 37,900 vpd, respectively.
2005 ADT on the existing Siler Road is 400 vpd and 3,000 vpd for SR 1701 between US
64/23/441 and Dowdle Mountain Road (SR 1659). Projected 2030 traffic for expected
development is 11,400 vpd and 14,400 vpd, respectively.
Three years of traffic accident data were analyzed between 2001 and 2005. The Total
Crash Rate shows the roads in the project area exceed the Statewide average for
United State routes and rural secondary routes. There were no fatalities reported:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project parallels US 64/23/441. It begins at the intersection Siler Road & Georgia
Road (US 23/441) and extends to the intersection with SR 1701, Wiley Brown Road and
Dowdle Mountain Road. The project calls for two 12-foot travel lanes with eight-foot
shoulders, four foot paved.
Rounder-bout Option
The Round-a-bout option is provide for all alternatives on east side of the river near
Dowdle Mountain Road. There are four alternatives that also include a round-a-bout
option. The Round-a-bout option would replace the signalized intersection.
Alternatives
Alternative A would function as a service road to US 64123/441. It extends from
Georgia Road to SR 1701 for about 1 mile crossing the Little Tennessee River. The
round-a-bout option would include four roads coming into circle.
Alternative B would realign the northern end of Siler Road and continue east on new
location running parallel to US 64/23/441, like Alternative A, but about 500 feet south of
US 64/23/441. It extends from Georgia Road to SR 1701 for about 1 mile crossing the
Little Tennessee River. The round-a-bout option would include three roads coming into
circle.
Alternative C would realign towards the end of Siler Road and continue east on new
location also running parallel to US 64/23/441, like Alternative A, but about 1,000 feet
south of US 64/23/441. It extends from Georgia Road to SR 1701 for about 1 mile
crossing the Little Tennessee River. The round-a-bout option would include three roads
coming into circle.
Alternative D would begin at the Allman Drive/Georgia Road Intersection and take off on
new location, then follow the same path as Alternative C for about 0.3 miles, but stop at
the Little Tennessee River. It would start up again about 0.13 miles east of the river and
connect near Dowdle Mountain Road. The round-a-bout option would include three
roads coming into circle.
Directional Crossover
The Directional crossover and median U-turn is also proposed.
IF
Superstreet Design:
Technical Term: Directional Crossover and Offset
Left Turns (U-Turn Knuckles)
Roadway design that limits access,
improves safety, reduces traffic accidents,
and reduces traffic delay by moving traffic
through intersections more efficiently
Superstreet
4-
The project is tentatively scheduled to start the right-of-way acquisition process in
Federal Fiscal Year March 2009 and the construction of the project is tentatively
scheduled to start in Federal Fiscal Year May 2010. Please remember that schedules
are subject to change.
Table S-L Comparison of Impacts for Build Alternatives.
I
I
II
(I
I
I
4 U,rtT IButc s'?'!
?I?m?pacts9} `
a r
?'F?'& t,,y $+ r7'? ?" k+,.Pn
?.:r'?un4
"R'F Lr5
Altemarive? e?'`AI.TERN
x,+rn x.
a "3Y' Ama-.?
"tt$Anmrna ATIVES " tr '
adwv? Frtx' MrYb? s, .. `.
,5g'-'tvXE4's ,ts a !t [#:.6."".-' '?°'+*
AlternattverC? 'AltemaeD,
?a
Schools, Churches, Cemeteries 0 0 0 0
Major Utility Crossings 4 5 8 13
Historic properties 0 0 0 0
Archaeological Sites* 0 0 0 0
Federal Listed Threatened or Endangered
Species Present IXrrthin Corridor* No, May Affect
Critical Habitat No, May Affect
Critical Habitat No, May Affect
Critical Habitat No
State Listed Species s 0 0 0 0
Forest Impacts (acres) 8.17 10.47 1.08 6.58
Important Farmlands* (acres) 2.51 5.27 9.41 10.77
Residential Displacements 0 4 6
Business Displacements 0 E 0 1
Hazardous Material Sites 0 0 0
Wetland Impacts- (number/acre) 1/0.024 0/0 0/0
Stream Impacts^ (aumber/linear feet) 1/580.5 0/0 0/0 1/311
Riparian Buffer Impacts 0 0 0 0
Water Supply Watersheds 0 0 0 0
Wildlife Refuges, Gamelands, Parks 0 0 0 0
Impacted Noise Recepto? 1 1 1 1
Section 4(f) Impacts, Federal Lands 0 0 0 0
Low Income/Minotity Population Impacts No No No No
Significant Natural Heritage Program Areas 1 1 1 0
Existing and Proposed Greenway Crossings 1 1 1 0
* GIS Data. Additional studies robe conducted. % State Listed Threatened or Endangered Species
Virginia spiraca and small-whoded pogonia not present little Tennessee River is listed as Critical Habitat for spotfin chub.
L Indudes Prime/Unique Farmlands and Faanlaads of Statewide or Local Importance.
Delineated; Judsdictioual status not yet determined. I Calculated usimg.5ltemative A as worst-case scenario.
Terrestrial and aquatic impacts include impacts for mechanized clearing ten feet beyond slope stakes.
lAltematives
Relocatees A B C D
Residential 0 0 4 6
Businesses 0 0 0 1
Cost Estimates
Type Intersection Roundabout Intersection Roundabout Intersection Roundabout Intersection Roundabout
Construction $ 6,800,000 $ 6,500,000 $ 8,100,000 $ 7,900,000 $ 7,400,000 $ 7,400,000 $ 8,200,000 $ 8,300,000
Right of Way $ 932,000 $ 923,000 $ 1,730,000 $ 1,730,000 $ 1,656,500 $ 1,656,500 $ 2,385,000 $ 2,385,000
Total Cost $ 772,300 $ 7,423,000 $ 9,830,000 $ 9,600,000 $ 9,056,500 $ 9,056,500 $ 10,585,000 $ 10,685,000
RIGHT OF WAY PROCEDURES
After decisions are made regarding the final design, the proposed right-of-way limits will
be staked in the ground. If you are an affected property owner, a Right of Way Agent
will contact you and arrange a meeting. The agent will explain the plans and advise you
as to how the project will affect you. The agent will inform you of your rights as a
property owner. If permanent right of way is required, professionals who are familiar
with real estate values will evaluate or appraise your property. The evaluations or
appraisals will be reviewed for completeness and accuracy and then the Right of Way
Agent will make a written offer to you. The current market value of the property at its
highest and best use when appraised will be offered as compensation. The Department
of Transportation must:
1. Treat all owners and tenants equally.
2. Fully explain the owner's rights.
3. Pay just compensation in exchange for property rights.
4. Furnish relocation advisory assistance.
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
If you are a relocatee, that is, if your residence or business is to be acquired as part of
the project, additional assistance in the form of advice and compensation is available.
You will also be provided with assistance on locations of comparable housing and/or
commercial establishments, moving procedures, and moving aid. Moving expenses
may be paid for you. Additional monetary compensation is available to help
homeowners cope with mortgage increases, increased value of comparable homes,
closing costs, etc. A similar program is available to assist business owners. The Right
of Way Agent can explain this assistance in greater detail.
NOTE: PAMPHLETS SUMMARIZING RIGHT OF WAY AND
RELOCATION PROCEDURES ARE AVAILABLE AT THE
SIGN IN TABLE OR FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY
REPRESENTATIVE.
i
m
m

COMMENT SHEET
PROPOSED EXTENSION OF SR 1660 (SILER ROAD) TO SR 1662 (WILEY BROWN ROAD)
Combined Public Hearing - September 18, 2007
TIP Project No. R-4748
NAME:
Macon County
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS:
Comments must be received by October 19, 2007. Send comments to:
Kimberly D. Hinton, Senior Public Involvement Officer
NCDOT - Human Environment Unit
1583 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1583
Telephone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
email: [e-mail]
-A -7 1
s
J m
, 01,
To?.n _ J A C? K 5
sN' ?'•i ?.w NATIONAL
.w~..r I
FOREST
M Arr. 0 N `
L A Y ?? Jt •au? 5a, L..' 4 %
Figure 1
Project Vicinity
Proposed Transportation Improvements in the Area of
SR 1660 and SR 1662 South of US 64/23/441
NCDOT TIP Project No. R-4748
Macon County
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
SR
Wor
co.
LnEl? -

e¢
o¢ i
o ?
`tee f
\? ?P I
9 G
e Creek

1 ?
1

r/--A
iCJ
SQ'
1? "I
Wiley Brown Rd.

Legend I
Roads
N
Study Area
Rivers
Franklin City Limits
U Mu.. ?.95 .r,,. 0
C
.q
a
C
m
a ?
_C
O N
V
G
O d
Z O