20140033 All Versions_NC 209 Widening & Improvements_20090604

???
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Colleen H. Sullins
Governor Director
July 6, 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 P^'
Subject: Comments on the Finding of No Significant Impact related to proposed improvements to
NC 209 from US 19-23 to just north of SR 1523, Haywood County, Federal Aid Project
No. STP-209(2), State Project No. 8.1944301, TIP R-4047, State Clearinghouse Project
No. 09-0378.
This office has reviewed the referenced document dated received June 25, 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 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:
L NCDWQ has no specific comments for this project.
General Comments:
2. The environmental document shall provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary as required
by 15A NCAC 21-1.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan
with the environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to
issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
Environmental assessment alternatives shall consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives shall include road designs that
allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the
most recent version of Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed swales, buffer
areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
4. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance
Transportation Permitting Unit One
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 NorthCarolina
Location: 2321 Crahlree Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 ry F?piy////
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] NK6ioal f?
Internet: htfp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nmetlands/
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Acton Employer
and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. In
accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)l,
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. In the event that
mitigation is required, the mitigation plan shall be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and
values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as wetland mitigation.
5. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules (15A NCAC
2H.0506(h)), mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single
perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan shall be designed to
replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be
available for use as stream mitigation.
6. Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application, shall continue to
include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding
mapping.
7. 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.
8. An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this project is required.
The type and detail of analysis shall conform to the NC Division of Water Quality Policy on the
assessment of secondary and cumulative impacts dated April 10, 2004.
9. 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.
10. Where streams must be crossed, NCDWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we
realize that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that
culverts shall be countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms.
Moreover, in areas where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove
preferable. When applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum
extent practicable. (IfyouiwanEapec?cbridEieQ loc»tions; puYin,here
11. Whenever possible, NCDWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require stream channel
realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges shall allow for human and
wildlife passage beneath the structure. Fish passage and navigation by canoeists and boaters shall
not be blocked. Bridge supports (bents) shall not be placed in the stream when possible.
12. 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.
13. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or streams.
14. 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.
15. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater shall not be permitted to
discharge directly into streams or surface waters.
16. Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams may require a Nationwide Permit application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding
401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires
satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland
or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal application
by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will
be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the
maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the
inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be placed below
the elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches,
and 20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow
low flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures
including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in
dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the
above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being
maintained if requested in writing by NCDWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock
or other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact NCDWQ for guidance on
how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be required.
20. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they shall be designed to mimic natural stream cross section
as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation, floodplain benches, and/or
sills may be required where appropriate. Widening the stream channel should be avoided. Stream
channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing
sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
21. 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. '
22. 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. .
23. 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.
24. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of
Wetland Significance (NC-CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent
inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
25. 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.
26. Riprap shall not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner that
precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures shall be properly designed,
sized and installed.
27. 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: David Baker, US Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field Office
Clarence Coleman, Federal Highway Administration
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency (electronic copy only)
Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Mike Parker, NCDWQ Asheville Regional Office
File Copy
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Project Review Form
Project Number: 09-0378 County: Haywood Date Received: 06/22/2009
Due Date: 7/17/2009
Project Description: Finding of No Significant Impact - Proposed Improvements to NC 209 from
US 19-23 to just North of SR 1523; Haywood County; TIP #R-4047
Regional Office
_ Asheville
Fayetteville
Mooresville
Raleigh
Washington
_ Wilmington
Winston-Salem
Office Area
In-House Review
_ Soil & Water
_ Coastal Management
_ Wildlife
Wildlife - DOT
_ Forest Resources
_ Land Resources
_ Parks & Recreation
Water Quality
,/. ?r_ Water Quality: - DO_T
Air Quality
_ Marine Fisheries
_ Water Resources
_ Environmental Health
_ Solid Waste Mgmt
_ Radiation Protection
Other
Sign-Off/Region:
_ Air
Water
Aquifer Protection
Land Quality Engineer
Response (check all applicable)
In-House Reviewer/Agency:
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:
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at [e-mail]
JUN 2 - 2009 1
?tE71gr?ps" - wriEk
STOp4Y1TE?1]Y
NCH
NC 209 IMPROVEMENTS
From west of SR 1801 (Liner Cove Rd.) to north of SR 1523 (Old
Clyde Rd.), Lake Junaluska, Haywood County
WBS Element 34599.1.1
Federal Project No. STP-209 (2)
State Project No. 8.1944301
TIP PROJECT R-4047
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Submitted Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)
APPROVED:
09
D t
(,1,0/0?
Grdgory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT

Date ?1,_John F. Sullivan III, P.E., Division Ad
r _Federal Highway Administration
istrator
(2?2
JUN 2 5
III@#
20C9
i
y®
O
O
0
0
0
Q
0
NC 209 IMPROVEMENTS
From west of SR 1801 (Liner Cove Rd.) to north of SR 1523 (Old
Clyde Rd.) Lake Junaluska, Haywood County
WBS Element 34599.1.1
Federal Project No. STP-209(2)
State Project No. 8.1944301
TIP PROJECT R-4047
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
June 2009
Documentation prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch by:
cE /
Date
00w4/01
2e-t V".t /I ?
Zahid M. Baloch, P.E.
Project Development Engineer.
JOCOnforti, REM _
Project-Development Group Leader

JOHN G.

z
CONFORTI

v ` A
REM

d' 9766
.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
1. TYPE OF ACTION ....................................................................... 1
II DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................. L
A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................1
B. RECOMMENDED CROSS SECTION ..................................................................................................2
C. RIGHTOFWAY ............................................................................................................................ .2
D. ESTIMATE PROJECT COST ............................................................................................................ . 3
III. SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE IMPACTS .............. 3
A. BENEFICIAL.IMPACrS .................................................................................................................. .3
B. ADVERSE IMPACTS ...................................................................................................................... .4
IV. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS ...........................................6
A. CIRCULATION OFTHE ENvIRONMENTALASSESSMENT....
B. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSES:
1. Tennessee Valley Authority(TVA) .....................
2. US Environmental Protection Agency ..............
3. NCDENR Division of Water Quality ..................
4. North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
5. NCDNR (Natural Heritage Program) ................
.............................................................. 6
MENT .................................................... 6
............................................................6
.......................................................... 6
.......................................................... 8
......................... ........::..................... 9
.........................................................10
C. PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMENTS ............................................................................................. 10
1. Public Hearing ................................................................................................................10
2. Written Comments .................................................................................:.........................12
V. REVISION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .............18
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ...............20
FIGURES
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
APPENDIX
Vicinity Map
Project Existing Condition
Proposed Widening of NC 209
Traffic Noise Receptors Map
A. Agency Comments on Environmental Assessment
B. Relocation Report
C. Public Hearing
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
NC209 IMPROVEMENTS
From west of SR 1801 (Liner Cove Rd.) to just north of SR 1523 (Old Clyde Rd.)
Lake Junaluska, Haywood County
WBS Element 34599.1.1
Federal Project No. STP-209 (2)
State Project No. 8.1944301
TIP PROJECT R-4047
PDEA (Natural Environmental Unit)
In addition to the Individual Nationwide Permit Conditions, Section 404
Nationwide Permit, State Stormwater Permit, Section 401 Water Quality
Certification (WQC) Conditions, Regional Conditions, State, Consistency
Conditions, NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface
Waters (March 1997), NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Construction
and Maintenance Activities (August 2003), and General Certification Conditions,
the following special commitments were agreed to by NCDOT:
GeoEnvironmental Section
Based on field reconnaissance and a database search, five (5) sites were
identified that could pose environmental concerns for the proposed project. Four
out of the five sites are within the proposed right of way. One site is an active
,gas station and the remaining sites are former gas stations. Further
investigations will be conducted before right of way acquisition to determine if
USTs and contaminated soil remain on these sites.
The Geographical Information Service (GIS) was consulted for the project
corridor. The research showed no regulated , or unregulated landfills or
dumpsites occurred within the project limits. If further design studies indicate
right of way from subject properties is to be acquired, preliminary site
assessments for soil and groundwater contamination will be performed prior to
right of way purchase.
T.I.P Project R4047
Environmental Assessment Project C ornmitments Page I of 2
June, 2009
Hydraulics Unit
Stormwater drainage will be controlled and not shunted directly into the
existing stream channels.
Division 14
Bridge No. 32 is a railroad trestle that is 197 ft long and 9.0 ft wide, Bridge
demolition will occur by removing the steel beams and steel pile piers. The bridge
components will be removed without dropping them into UT 3. Consequently,
there will be no temporary fill resulting from bridge demolition.
All concrete used for the construction of bridges and culverts will be
allowed to cure before making contact with streams or river.
T.I.P Prulect R4047
Enx n onmental Assessment Project Commumrnu Page 2 of 2
luny. _'009

®
NC 209 IMPROVEMENTS

From west of SR 1801 (Liner Cove Rd.) to just north of SR 1523 (Old Clyde Rd.)
O
WBS Element 34599
1
1
4 .
.
Federal Project No. STP-209 (2)
4) State Project No. 8.1944301
a

I?
® TIP PROJECT R-4047
I. TYPE OF ACTION
® This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative action, Finding
0 of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
® The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the FHWA have
® determined this project will not have any significant impact on the human and natural
® environments. This FONSI is based on the March 2008 Environmental Assessment,
which has been independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately
o and accurately discuss the environmental issues, providing sufficient evidence and
O analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The
FHWA takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the Environmental
o Assessment.

® II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A
® A. General Description
® NCDOT proposes to improve NC 209 from west of the SR 1801 (Liner Cove Rd.) to
® just north of SR 1523 (Old Clyde Road) (Figure 1). The build alternative will consist of
® widening NC 209 to a four-lane divided facility with a raised median from SR 1801 (Liner
Cove Road) to SR 1523 (Old Clyde Road). Improvements to US 23 Business south of
Liner Cove Road and NC 209 North of SR 1523 (Old Clyde Road) will be made to
O facilitate the transition from the four lane divided facility to the two lane facility. (Figure 3)
NC 209 will also be realigned from SR 1526 (Carley Road) to SR 1523 (Old Clyde
o Road). The project also proposes to reconfigure ramps at the US 19-23-74/US 23
Business/NC 209 interchange. The proposed project will also replace railroad structure
R-32, which carries the Norfolk Southern Railway tracks over NC 209. The
0 improvements proposed by the project will reduce congestion, and improve access
within the project study area.
19 ® The proposed project is included in NCDOT's approved 2009-2015 Transportation
ao Improvement Program (T.I.P.) with right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in
Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2010 and construction is scheduled to begin in FFY 2014.
A The preliminary right-of-way and construction costs for the NCDOT-preferred alternative,
O which involves widening NC 209 to a four-lane raised median facility and modifying the
existing NC 209/US 19-23-74/US 23 Business interchange is $9,762,500 and
$18,500,000 respectively.
U
O
O
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
iQ
B. Recommended Cross Section
Based on information from comprehensive studies of the natural and human
environment, engineering evaluations, and comments from all interested groups,
NCDOT.recommends to improve NC 209 from west of SR 1801 (Liner Cove Rd.) to
north of SR 1523 (Old Clyde Road). The build alternative will consist of widening NC
209 to a four-lane divided facility with a raised median from the SR 1801 (Liner Cove
Road) to SR 1523 (Old Clyde Road). Improvements to NC 209 North of SR 1523 (Old
Clyde Road) will be made to facilitate the transition from four lanes divided facility to the
two lanes facility.
Currently the US 19-23-74 south on and off ramps, and SR 1375 (Access Road)
share a common roadway and experience confusing traffic patterns resulting in traffic
congestion and potentially unsafe conditions. The recommended build alternative will
provide on and off-ramps for US19-23-74 separate from SR-1375 (Access Road). This
will aid in reducing congestion and will improve access to homes and businesses in the
area by separating local traffic from ramp traffic.
From north of SR 1801 (Liner Cove Road)/US 23 Business intersection to SR 1375
(Access Road) and US 19-23-74 south ramp there are five intersections within a 1400 ft
distance resulting in traffic congestion and difficulties in accessing nearby businesses
and homes. The proposed improvements will reduce/combine . the existing five
intersections to three signalized intersections. This will reduce congestion, traffic conflict
points, and improve access to nearby homes and businesses.
The proposed improvements will also realign NC 209 from SR 1526 (Carley Road) to
SR 1523 (Old Clyde Road). NCDOT also proposes to reconfigure the interchange of NC
209 at US 19-23-74. The existing ramp to connect US 19-23-74 (southbound) to US 23
Business will be realigned and reconfigured to allow left-turns to access NC 209 (north).
SR 1546 (Paragon Parkway) will be realigned to tie directly across into the intersection
of NC 209 and the US 19-23-74 (southbound) on and off ramps.
The project will also replace rail structure R-32, which carries the Norfolk Southern
Piedmont District's T-line. Construction of a new structure will result in the rail line being
realigned to the south of its existing location.-- The project will also close existing at-
grade crossings of the Norfolk Southern rail line at SR 1526 (Carley Road).
C. Right of Way
The current vertical and horizontal alignments of existing roads within the project
limits of the proposed project are poor. The new proposed vertical and horizontal
alignment will provide smooth curves and improved intersection. In the vicinity of railroad
structure R-32, NC 209 will be realigned in order to accommodate the proposed
widening.
The existing right of way width varies throughout the project study corridor. Additional
right of way will be necessary along NC 209 to accommodate propose widening. Also
there will be need of additional right of way along SR 1375 (Access Road) to provide
separate on and off ramps for US 19-23-74 south.
It is estimated that thirty-six parcels will be affected by this project. Five residence and
ten businesses will be relocated due to the widening of this NC 209 project.
'®
:A
i®
I®
I®
I®
i®
10
0
I®
i®
1®
:®
D. Estimate Project Cost
Table 1 Cost Estimates
Approved 2007 - 2013 TIP Estimate
Construction Right of Way Mitigation Total Cost
$10,200,000 $600,000 $115,000 $10,915,00
Current Project Cost Estimate (Build Alternative)
Construction Right of Way Mitigation Total. Cost
$18,500,000 $9,762,500 $206,000 $28,4681500
III SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE IMPACTS
A. Beneficial Impacts
The proposed improvements will reduce congestion and improve access to homes,
business, and public facilities in the area. The proposed improvements will complete the
improvements to NC 209 started under T.I. P. Project R-2117.
Currently the US 19-23-74 south on and off ramps, and SR-1375 (Access Road) share a
common roadway and experience confusing traffic patterns resulting in traffic congestion
and potentially unsafe conditions. The recommended build alternative will provide
southbound on and off-ramps for US19-23-74 separate from SR-1375 (Access Road).
From SR 1801 (Liner Cove Road)/US 23 Business intersection to SR 1375 (Access
Road) and US 19-23-74 South Ramp on NC 209 there are five intersections within a
1400 ft distance resulting in traffic congestion and difficulties in accessing nearby
businesses and homes. The proposed improvements will reduce/combine the existing,
five intersections to only three signalized intersections. This will reduce congestion,
traffic conflict points, and improve access to nearby homes and businesses.
Furthermore, the proposed improvements will realign NC 209 from SR 1526 (Carley
Road) to SR 1523 (Old Clyde Road). NCDOT also proposes to reconfigure the
interchange of NC 209 at US 19-23-74. The existing ramp to connect US 19-23-74
(southbound) to US 23 Business will be realigned and reconfigured to allow left-turns to
access NC 209 (north). SR 1546 (Paragon Parkway) will be realigned to tie directly
across the intersection of NC 209 and the US 19-23-74 (southbound) on and off ramps.
With these proposed improvements two existing intersections on NC 209 will be
eliminated which will provide smooth traffic flow along NC 209.
The SR 1801 (Liner Cove Road) and Hospital Drive proposed connecting loop has
been removed from the project due to public comments, construction costs, and the
proposed impacts associated with the relocation of Hospital Drive. The existing Hospital
Drive intersection with NC 209 will remain at its current location.
The project will also replace rail structure R-32, which carries the Norfolk Southern
Piedmont District's T-line. Construction of a new structure will result in the rail line being
realigned to the south its existing location. Also it will help to improve the horizontal
alignment of NC 209. The project will also close the existing at-grade crossing of the
Norfolk Southern rail line at SR 1526 (Carley Road). This will help eliminate safety
concerns for the rail crossing.

i
I®
I®
B. Adverse Impacts
The proposed improvements to NC 209 will require additional right of way along
eastside of NC 209. This will necessitate the acquisition of the majority of the properties
abutting the eastside of NC 209 between Paragon Road (SR 1646) and north of Old
Clyde Road (SR 1523). Also additional right of way is needed for improving access to
US 74-23-19 along Access Road, this will impact businesses along Westside of Access
Road (SR1375). There will be total of five (Owners/tenants) residential relocations and
ten (owners/Tenants) business relocation during implementation of this project.
The proposed alternative includes a raised concrete median that will result in
changes in access for the adjacent properties and intersecting streets within the project
corridor. Access to Carley Road (SR1526) and Access Road (SR 1375) will be limited to
right-in, right-out only movements. Vehicles attempting to reach businesses or
residences on the opposite side of the street from which they are traveling will be forced
to make a U-turn movement. In previous design proposal, left turn from NC 209 North
bound to Access Road (SR 1375) was not permitted. Due to numerous comments and
request form citizen new design will accommodate left turn from NC 209 north bound to
Access Road (SR 1375).
The stream impact has been further reduced from 420 linear feet to 150 linear feet
as Liner Cove Road (SR 1801) loop has been removed due to numerous comments
received in opposition. The existing Hospital Drive intersection with NC 209 will remain
at its current location.
Case studies from the document "Economics Impacts of Access Management" state;
the majority of businesses report no change in business activity following a median
project. Destination type businesses, such as restaurants and stores, appear less
sensitive to access changes than businesses that rely on passer-by traffic. Because the
likelihood of left-turns into a business declines as opposing traffic volumes increase,
medians or other access changes will have less effect on the frequency of left turns into
businesses on high volume roadways during peak travel periods.
The following Table 2 provides summary of impacts and total cost of the project.
Table 2 (Impact Summary of NCDOT- Preferred Alternative)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
RESOURCE
As Presented in EA
Updated Design
Archaeological 0 0
Architectural District/Properties 0/0 0/0
Total Stream impacts 420 feet 150
Jurisdictional Wetland 0 acres 0 acres
Endangered Species Community 0 0
Terrestrial Community Impacts 0 acres 0
Potential Hazardous Material
Sites 5 4
Total Noise Receptors/Impacted 23/20 23/20
Prime Farmland 0 acres 0 acres
Section 4(f) Impacts 0 0
Schools 0 0
Churches 0 0
EJ Communities 0 0
Air Quality No No
Residential Relocations
(Owners / Tenants) 9 5
Business Relocations
(Owners / Tenants) 8 10
Critical Water Supplies 0 0
Total Project Cost $34,251,000 $28,468,500
5
IV COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment
The Environmental Assessment (EA) was approved by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, Division of Highways on March 10, 2008, and by the
Federal Highway Administration on March 26, 2008. Copies of the approved EA were
provided to the North Carolina Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse.
The approved EA was circulated to the following federal, state, and local agencies
for review and comment. An asterisk (*) indicates a response was received from that
agency.
Appalachian Regional Commission
US Department of the Army Corps of Engineers
US Environmental Protection Agency*
US Fish and Wildlife Service
US Geological Survey
Tennessee Valley Authority*
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NC Division of Water Quality*
NC Wildlife Resources Commission*
NC State Clearinghouse*
NC Department of Cultural Resources
B. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment
Written comments on the Environmental Assessment were received from several
agencies. The following are excerpts of the substantive comments with responses,
where appropriate:
1. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
Comment:
"The EA states that a total of 420 feet of two segments of perennial stream would
be impacted. Some of.these impacts appear to be associated with extension of the
reinforced concrete box culvert under SR 1375, which would likely require a Section 26a
permit. Our Holston/Cherokee/Douglas Watershed Team (phone [phone]) can
provide more definitive information on Section 26a permit requirements."
Response:
NCDOT will coordinate with TVA for further information for 26a permit
requirement.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 Raleigh Office
Comment:
(a) "Most of the impacts to human and natural environment are identified in
the Summary Table on page v and in section 5 of the Environmental Assessment (EA).
This table was very helpful in identifying environmental quality indicators. However,
noise receptor impacts were not included." Section 5.D.2 of the EA refers the reviewer to
Appendix C, Table N2 for noise receptors would be impacted (approach or exceed NAC)
6
from the Do-Nothing Alternative". However, this specific table in Appendix C does not
actual summarize the number of impacted receptors with the recommended alternative.
From Table N4, EPA estimates that approximately 20 receptors will experience a noise
level increase. Most of the increase are +7 and + 8 dBA above existing levels (i.e., 19
out of 20 receptors). Also, information on receptor (Residence ID # 12), is expected to
approach or exceed NAC. For the "No build Alternative", the table N4 information
indicates that 14 receptors will experience noise level in the design year. Moreover, 12
of these increases are +1 dBA, with one at +2 dBA and one at +3 dBA. The N3 summary
table should be revised to reflect this difference. This information may need to be
appropriately characterized and provided in the Section D noise text and in the
environment impact summary table for Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
Response:
The noise receptor impacts are included in Table 1 (Impact Summary of NCDOT-
Preferred Alternative).
There are projected noise level increases for 21 of 23 receptors identified within the
project area. Revisions to R/W since our Noise Analysis in 2004 have resulted in 8 of
the original 23 noise receptors shown in Table N4 now within proposed RNV and no
longer considered to be impacted receptors. Table N5 in the Traffic Noise Analysis
clearly indicates the number of impacted receptors according to 23 CFR Part 772.
Although predicted noise impacts range to 7 and 8 decibel increases, none meet the
substantial impact criteria or exceed the allowable threshold (66 dBA), except Receptor
#12.
Furthermore, noise receptor No. 4, 5, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, and 20 are in the right of way
and presented in the noise receptor map in Figure 4.
Comment:
(b) EPA also acknowledges that NCDOT and FHWA have included a
qualitative assessment on Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) in the EA. Page 37 to 45
of the EA contain similar 2006 FHWA interim guidance information on MASTS as what
has been included in other NEPA documents for other project. EPA notes that the EA's
MAST analysis on the identification of any specific near-roadway sensitive receptors
(e.g., Nursing homes, hospitals, children daycares, schools) is not included. It is
important in a site-specific analysis to identify and describe the affected environment. If
NCDOT and FHWA have determined that there are no near-roadway sensitive
receptors, the NEPA documents should state this situation. From EPA's review of
features in Figure 2 and 3, there does not appear to be any near-roadway sensitive
receptors. The Tuscola high School appears to be more than 500 feet from the nearest
proposed roadway improvement.
Response:
Comment acknowledged. All FHWA guidance regarding MSAT analysis is met in the
EA.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be 1.8 parts
per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental
Management (DEM), North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 PPM is suitable for most suburban
and rural areas.
The worst-case air quality scenario was determined to be in the vicinity of the
intersection of NC 209 and SR 1801. The predicted 1-hour average CO concentrations
aA
1®
?O
10
O
'O
O
O
O
Q
O
O
O
a
O
A
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
for the evaluation build years of 2005, 2010, and 2025 are 3.50, 3.50, and 3.70 ppm,
respectively. Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS
(maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period = 9
ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the worst-case 1-
hour CO analysis for the build scenario is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the
8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard Appendix C Table A-1 to A-3). There are
no sensitive receptor within 500 feet from the nearest proposed roadway. improvement.
Comment:
(c) Richland Creek and its tributaries are Class C; 303(d) listed waters
(Impaired biological integrity). The proposed project will potentially impact 420 linear
feet to unnamed tributaries (UTs) #3 and #5 to Richland Creek. EPA requests that
stringent adherence to Best Management Practices (BMPs) be implemented to minimize
any downstream impacts from soil erosion and additional roadway runoff. Further, EPA
is concerned that the EA states on Page 28: "currently, specific mitigation measures for
this project are not warranted." The guidelines developed pursuant to Clean Water Act
Section 404(b) (1) (Guidelines) require that impacts to aquatic resources be avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable. The Guidelines apply to all impacts
subject to Section 404. EPA recommends that measures to avoid and minimize impacts
to the UTs be proposed and outlined, such as steeper side slopes, narrow medians, and
compensatory mitigation plans.
Response:
NCDOT will adhere to Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize any down
stream impact from soil erosion and additional roadway runoff. Furthermore, stream .
impact to (UTs) #3 and 5 have been reduced from 420 linear feet to 150 feet to minimize
the impact on Richland Creek and it tributaries.
3. NCDENR Division of Water Quality
Comment:
This project is being planned as part of the 404/NEPA Merger Process. As a
participating team member, the NCDWQ will continue to work with the team.
Response:
This project is not a merger project and it expected to remain non-merger project.
Comment:
None of the maps for the project show the project boundary and there is no map
showing the location of historic structures located within the project study area.
Response:
There are no historic properties located in the project area and therefore it was not
shown in the map.
Comment:
There is no map showing the location of noise receptors used to determine noise
barrier applicability. However, a description of locations is provided on Table 3 of
Appendix C.
Response:
The new map of noise receptors is included as Figure 4
Comment:
Richland Creek and associated unnamed tributaries are a class C; 303 (d) waters of
the State. Richland Creek is on the 303 (d) list for impaired used for aquatic life due to
impaired biological integrity. DWQ recommends that the most protective sediment and
erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to Richland
Creek and its tributaries. DWQ requests that road design plans provide treatment of the
storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most recent
version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
Response:
NCDOT will adhere to Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize any down
stream impact from soil erosion and additional roadway runoff.
4. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: .
The Commission has no major concerns with direct effects of the project on fish and
wildlife resources provided effective erosion controls are used during construction. The
project area is in the Richland Creek watershed which drains to the Pigeon River where
there are ongoing efforts to restore native fishes that were extirpated, or presumed
extirpated, by historic water quality degradation. Therefore, it is important that this
project not contribute to water quality declines in the watershed, most notably as result
of sedimentation.
Response:
NCDOT will adhere to Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize any down
stream impact form soil erosion and sedimentation.
Comment:
Regarding secondary and cumulative impacts of the project, the EA conclude in part,
that these should be minor because the project area is small and already well-
developed. However, if the project improves access to the region along NC 209 north of
the project area, it may induce growth. It appears that this part on NC 209 is or already
has been assessed under TIP project R-2117, so secondary and cumulative impacts
there already have been or will be evaluated and mitigated as necessary.
Response:
New development within the project study area is not expected to occur due to the
improvements to NC 209 as the project is only 0.77 miles and include widening of an
existing road. The improvements are likely to increase the level of safety along the
project corridor and increase the traffic carrying capacity of NC 209. Storm runoff is
expected to continue to follow the existing topography and flow into Richland Creek.
The project should not result in changes in the land use patterns within the project study
area. The area surrounding the project study area is already well developed and the
project does not offer new access to undeveloped land. Therefore, the indirect impacts
of the project should be minor. The proposed improvements are not anticipated to result
in changes to the visual quality of the project area.
5. NCDENR (Natural Heritage Program)
Comments:
The Natural Heritage Program has no record of the rare species, significant natural
communities, significant natural heritage areas, or conservation /managed area at the
site or within % -mile of the project area.
Response:
Comments are noted.
C. Public Hearing and Comments
1. Public Hearing
Following circulation of the Environmental Assessment, a combine public hearing
was held at the Shackford Hall in Lake Junaluska on August 12, 2008. Approximately
100 people attended the hearing and 6 citizens spoke for the record.
There were numerous comments received in opposition to the realignment of
Hospital Drive. Due to public comments, construction costs, and the proposed impacts
associated with the relocation of Hospital Drive its proposed realignment has been
removed from the project. The existing Hospital Drive intersection with NC 209 will
remain at its current location.
There were numerous comments. received in opposition to making the intersection at
NC 209/Access Road right-in right-out only. Concerning this request, a directional left-
over to provide access is proposed. Northbound traffic on NC 209 will be allowed to
make a left turn on to Access Road. Eastbound traffic from Access. Road will be
restricted to right-in right-out access only.
There was a request from the Division personnel to lengthen the acceleration lane on
the entrance ramp to US 19-23-74 westbound. This will require additional realignment of
Access Road northward resulting in additional impacts to properties on Access Road.
The following comments were made during public hearing meeting:
Comment: Speaker 1
He and his wife own a car lot and a feed and tack store. They oppose the right-in
right-out access at the relocated intersection of Access Road/NC 209. They noted that
the trucks with supplies and the car haulers could not negotiate a u-turn at the next
intersection north (Depot Road (SR 1375)/NC 209). They also do not think customers
from US 19-23-74 will go to their store if they have to make the u-turn at Depot Road.
They requested a full movement intersection at Access Road/NC 209. Otherwise, they
like the rest of the proposed design.
They sent in a second letter requesting that we buy their property and remove the
Access Road intersection with NC 209. Speaker 1 requested follow up information
concerning what decisions are made in regards to the subject project.

10
Response:
A directional left-over to provide access to Access
traffic on NC 209 will be allowed to make a left turn
traffic on Access Road will still be restricted to right-
requests and comments noted. The Department will s
Meeting Minutes to speaker 1.
Road is. proposed. Northbound
m to Access Road. Eastbound
n right-out access only. Other
and a copy of the Post Hearing
Comment: Speaker 2
Speaker 2 lives in Tuscola Park, he is opposed to the right-in right-out movement at
the relocated intersection of SR 1375 (Access Road). He would be required to use the
entrance from Depot Road .(the other end of Access Road) to turn left from his
community. He would like SR 1375 (Access Road) reconnected to the ramp on US 19-
23-74. He would also like a ramp added to provide improved access to the hospital. He
thinks the right turn on red should be eliminated at SR 1929 (Hospital Drive/NC 209). He
would like to avoid the expense of relocating Hospital Drive.
Response:
A directional left-over to provide access to Access Road is proposed. Northbound
traffic on NC 209 will be allowed to make a left turn on to Access Road. Eastbound
traffic on Access Road will still be restricted to right-in right-out access only.
Access Road and the ramps to US 19-23-74 will remain separate as proposed.
There were numerous comments and written request in opposition to the realignment of
Hospital Drive. Due to public comments, construction costs, and the proposed impacts,
associated with the relocation of Hospital Drive its proposed realignment has been
removed from the project. The existing Hospital Drive intersection with NC 209 will
remain at its current location.
Comment: Speaker 3
Speaker 3 lives at Liner Cove Road (Transcript and Written Comments Combined) -
He thinks the recent improvements to NC 209/Hospital Drive (SR 1929) and Tuscola
School Road (SR 1927) are satisfactory. He does not think the design south of NC 209
will handle the traffic at Lowe's, the high school, the new condominiums, and the traffic
to the hospital and medical center. He thinks the design is a waste of money. He also
does not like the design to the northwest quadrant of the NC 209/ US 19-23-74
interchange since it takes the only two restaurants in the area. Furthermore, he
disagrees with the right-in right-out access at the relocated intersection of Access
Road/NC 209. He questioned why 3 residences are being taken along SR 1526 (Carly
Road). He requested widening of NC 209 north from Paragon Parkway to Old Clyde
Road only.
Response:
A directional left-over to provide access to Access Road is proposed. Northbound
traffic on NC 209 will be allowed to make a left turn on to Access Road. Eastbound
traffic on Access Road will still be restricted to right-in right-out access only.
Due to public comments, construction costs, and the proposed impacts associated
with the relocation of Hospital Drive its proposed realignment has been removed from
the project. The existing Hospital Drive intersection with NC 209 will remain at its
current location.
The residences along Carly Road are being taken due to the realignment of the
railroad. Additional comments noted.
Comments: Speaker 4
Speaker 4 lives at Hollow Tree Court. (Castle Creek Condominiums COA) He is
opposed to the design. He does not like the perceived impacts to the condominium
community. He does not like the cut that is necessary to relocate SR 1929 (Hospital
Drive) and the removal of the trees necessary for the cut. He thinks we are just moving
the location of the accidents.
Response:
Due to public comments, construction costs, and the proposed impacts associated
with the relocation of Hospital Drive its proposed realignment has been removed from
the project. The existing Hospital Drive intersection with NC 209 will remain at its
current location.
Comments: Speaker 5
Speaker 5 had a questioned how access would be provided to his property based
upon the proposed design. His current access is off Liner Cove Road.
Response
This property's access will remain off Liner Cove Road.
2. Written Comments
Comment:
There were total of eleven written requests for a turn lane into Foxfi, re II Estates Y<
mile north of NC 209/SR 1523 (Old Clyde Road).
Response:
This request is outside the project limits and scope of work.
Comment:
One written request received for a turn lane into Foxfire II Estates ''% mile north of NC
209/SR 1523 (Old Clyde Road). They would also like to see the speed reduced to 35
mph.
Response:
This request is outside the project limits and scope of work.
Comment:
Six written requests were about the section of SR 1801 (Liner Cove Road) be
widened and paved. The area is just south of the end of the existing pavement and
project limits. One person requested a response concerning this matter.
Response:
This is outside the project limits and scope of work. The Department will send a copy
of the Post Hearing Meeting Minutes to the person who requested the response.
Comment:
One written comment received about providing guardrail along the stream under the
proposed railroad structure.
12
Response:
The proposed horizontal alignment for NC 209 in this area will shift far enough away
from the stream that no guardrail will be warranted to protect motorist from the stream.
Comment:
One written suggestion was that a map should have been projected onto a screen at
the public hearing.
Response:
Comment noted.
Comment:
One Lake Junaluska resident requested to improve signing for traffic going to the
Lake Junaluska Assembly. Busses take Exit 102 and get hung up at dam. They are
then redirect to Exit 103. Mr. Ed Lewis spoke with Mr. Mitchell in regards to this issue.
Response:
Comment noted.
Comment:
One resident of Castle Creek Condominium wants to provide the Castle Creek
Condominium Association, Inc views and wrote. She represents the Board of Directors.
They are opposed to the project as proposed. They are opposed to extending Liner
Cove Road to Hospital Road because the residents of Castle Cove Condominiums
would have to cross two lanes of traffic to turn left. They think the traffic delays will be
worse than they are now. Furthermore, they had the following questions: How will the
Department address the traffic problems and safety at the US 23 Business/NC 209 -
Liner Cove intersection? What will be done to address trucks stopped on Liner Cove
Road waiting to enter Lowe's? What is the proposed speed limit on Liner Cove Road?
They think the curve on Liner Cove Road will be a "Dead Man's Curve." Also they
are concerned with the deep cut to relocate Liner Cove Road and the noise impact
residents will experience due to construction and traffic. They questioned if trees could
be planted to reduce noise. She requested follow up information concerning what
decisions are made in regards to the subject project.
Additional request by the Castle Creek Condominium Association includes:
(i) Retain current intersection of Hospital Road/NC 209 and make Hospital Road
one way east.
(ii) Add a ramp onto US 19-23-74 west bound from Jones Cove Road.
(iii) Add exit ramp from US 19-23-74 to Hospital Road.
Response:
Due to public comments, construction costs, and the proposed impacts associated
with the relocation of Hospital Drive its proposed realignment has been removed from
the project. The existing Hospital Drive intersection with NC 209 will remain at its
current location.
Other requests and comments noted. The NCDOT will send a copy of the Post
Hearing Meeting Minutes to the requester.
13
Comment:
Written comment received form a resident of Tuscola School Road and indicated
they approve of the proposed improvements, but would like to be treated as a hardship
case.
Response:
Due to public comments, construction costs, and the proposed impacts associated
with the relocation of Hospital Drive its proposed realignment has been removed from
the project. The existing Hospital Drive intersection with NC 209 will remain at its
current location`.
Due to the relocation of Hospital Drive being eliminated from the project, the
proposed impact to writer's property be reduced. Thus reducing the likelihood they
could meet the Departments' requirements for Advanced Acquisition.
Comment:
Written comment received from a resident of Mount Valley who indicated that he is
opposed to the realignment of ramps, loops, and Liner Cove Road/Hospital Drive. He
compares the 4-laning of NC 209 to "the bridge to nowhere." He would like to have the
left-entrance from US 19 to US 23-74 improved.
Response:
Due to public comments, construction costs, and the proposed impacts associated
with the relocation of Hospital Drive its proposed realignment has been removed from
the project. The existing Hospital Drive intersection with NC 209 will remain at its
current location.
The left-entrance from US 19 to US 23-74 is outside of the project limits and scope of
work.
Comments:
Written comment received form the owner of Shell Station, Burger King and Morgan.
Family Holdings indicating his opposition to the project.
Response:
Comment noted.
Comment:
A resident of Villa Court points out that he is opposed to the realignment of the Liner
Cove/Hospital Road intersection, but likes the improvements to the north.
Response:
Due to public comments, construction costs, and the proposed impacts associated
with the relocation of Hospital Drive its proposed realignment has been removed from
the project. The existing Hospital Drive intersection with NC 209 will remain at its
current location.
Comment:
A written comment received by commercial real estate broker. He is opposed to the
right-in right-out movement at the Access Road/NC 209 intersection.
14
Response:
A directional left-over to provide access to Access Road is proposed. Northbound
traffic on NC 209 will be allowed to make a left turn on to Access Road. Eastbound
traffic on Access Road will still be restricted to right-in right-out access only.
Access Road and the ramps to US 19-23-74 will remain separate as proposed.
There were numerous comments and written request in opposition to the realignment of
Hospital Drive. Due to public comments, construction costs, and the proposed impacts
associated with the relocation of Hospital Drive its proposed realignment has been
removed from the project. The existing Hospital Drive intersection with NC 209 will
remain at its current location.
Comment:
. A couple, resident of Heritage Court, suggests the traffic will be reduced when Wal-
Mart relocates. They think a traffic light at the westbound entrance to US 19-23-74 from
NC 209 would help traffic flow. They oppose to the realignment of the Liner Cove
Road/Hospital Drive intersection. They think this is a huge expense for little gain.
Response:
A directional left-over to provide access to Access Road is proposed. Northbound
traffic on NC 209 will be allowed to make a left turn on to Access Road. Eastbound
traffic on Access Road will still be restricted to right-in right-out access only.
Access Road and the ramps to US 19-23-74 will remain separate as proposed.
There were numerous comments and written request in opposition to the realignment of
Hospital Drive. Due to public comments, construction costs, and the proposed impacts
associated with the relocation of Hospital Drive its proposed realignment has been
removed from the project. The existing Hospital Drive intersection with NC 209 will
remain at its current location.
Comment:
The owner of Venture Properties owns the Lowe's Home Improvement center
requested a copy of the hearing map.
Response:
A half size copy of the hearing map was sent to the requester.
Comment:
A resident of Lakeview Drive indicated that he agrees with the realignment of
Paragon Parkway and the ramp and loop to and from US 19-23-74, but opposes the
realignment of Access Road. He noted that it places a needless burden on the residents
of Tuscola Park neighborhood.
He thinks the relocation of Liner Cove/Hospital Road makes access to the hospital
and the medical center more difficult and time consuming. He also thinks an off ramp to
the hospital would be more advantageous. He would like to eliminate the right turn on
red onto NC 209 from Hospital Drive and to synchronize the traffic signals. He thinks
adding space between the eastbound off-ramp from US 19-23-74 to NC 209 would be
helpful. Furthermore, he thinks we should add a road from Tuscola High School behind
Lowe's to US 23 Business to reduce the traffic at the NC 209/1-iner Cove Road/Ramps to
and from the US 19-23-74 intersection. He agrees with the right turn only lane from NC
209 to eastbound US 19-23-74. He thinks we should improve Depot Road and add
sidewalks and crosswalks. He would like for the Department to try to redirect traffic to
the Jones Cove exit.
15
iO
?O
?O
,o
0
0
A
A
0
0
0
Response:
There were numerous comments and written request in opposition to the realignment
of Hospital Drive. Due to public comments, construction costs, and the proposed impacts
associated with the relocation of Hospital Drive its proposed realignment has been
removed from the project. The existing Hospital Drive intersection with NC 209 will
remain at its current location. Other comments noted.
Comment:
A resident of the area suggested that she does not see how the proposed design will
lessen traffic at the intersection with Lowe's. She thinks the design cuts off access to the
hospital. She thinks traffic will lessen when Wal-Mart relocates. She suggests a bridge
from US 19-23-74 to Tuscola Road and Asheville Highway (US 23 Business).
Response:
There were numerous comments and written request in opposition to the realignment
of Hospital Drive. Due to public comments, construction costs, and the proposed impacts
associated with the relocation of Hospital Drive its proposed realignment has been
removed from the project. The existing Hospital Drive intersection with NC 209 will
remain at its current location. Other comments noted.
Comment:
A resident of Castle Creek Drive, Waynesville expects a major problem at the
intersection of Lowe's Drive and Liner Cove Road without a traffic signal. He also thinks
the left turn from the relocated intersection of Tuscola School Road to Liner Cove Road
will be dangerous.
Response:
There were numerous comments and written request in opposition to the
realignment of Hospital Drive. Due to public comments, construction costs, and the
proposed impacts associated with the relocation of Hospital Drive its proposed
realignment has been removed from the project. The existing Hospital Drive intersection
with NC 209 will remain at its current location. Other comments noted.
Comment:
A resident of Denali Lane of Waynesville opposes to the relocation of Hospital Drive.
She is concerned with the two left turns onto the proposed Hospital Drive that do not
have proposed traffic signals. One is from Liner Cove Road onto the proposed Hospital
Drive and the second is Tuscola School Road onto the proposed Hospital Drive. She
does not think the hearing was adequately advertised. She has contacted both
Representative Phil Haire's office and Senator Queen's office with her complaint and
concerns.
Response:
Due to public comments, construction costs, and the proposed impacts associated
with the relocation of Hospital Drive its proposed realignment has been removed from
the project. The existing Hospital Drive intersection with NC 209 will remain at its
current location. The Department will send a copy of the Post Hearing Meeting Minutes
to the requester. Other comments noted.
Comment:
16
The Owner of Smoky Mountain Foot and Ankle Clinic requests that full movement
access be provided to the relocated intersection of NC 209/Access Road. He noted that
his office has approximately 80 cars a day, the daycare about 60 cars a day, and the
rental storage unit business has large trucks requiring ingress and egress.
Response:
A directional left-over to provide access to Access Road is proposed. Northbound
traffic on NC 209 will be allowed to make a left turn on to Access Road. Eastbound
traffic on Access Road will still be restricted to right-in right-out access only.
Comment:
A resident of Castle Creek Village, Waynesville suggests adding more lanes in
critical areas, keeping the existing traffic pattern, reducing the speed limit, allowing only
protected left turns into Liner Cove Road from NC 209, restricting right turns on red from
Liner Cove to NC 209, and adding a traffic signal at Access Road with a protected left
turn to clear backed up traffic. She is opposed to the Liner Cove Road/Hospital Road
relocation. Ms. McCracken noted that Traffic will reduce when Wal-Mart relocates.
Response:
Access Road and the ramps to US 19-23-74 south will remain separate as proposed.
There were numerous comments and written request in opposition to the realignment of
Hospital Drive. Due to public comments, construction costs, and the proposed impacts
associated with the relocation of Hospital Drive its proposed realignment has been
removed from the project. The existing Hospital Drive intersection with NC 209 will
remain at its current location. Other comments noted.
Comment:
A resident requests that pedestrian and biking friendly improvements be made along
the project.
Response:
No designated bike routes are in the vicinity of this project. Furthermore, the
Department has not received any request from the County to add sidewalk. Ten-foot
berms will be provided behind the curb and gutter along NC 209, which will not preclude
the placement of sidewalk at some future date.
Comment:
A resident of 15 Pacific Drive opposes the project and points out that Wal-Mart is
moving, which will decrease traffic congestion in the area. She also noted that it is only
congested for 45 minutes on school days then the congestion is gone.
Response:
Comments noted.
Comment:
The residents of P. O. Box 203, Lake Junaluska are opposed to the project.
Response:
Comment noted.
Comment:
17
1o
0
0
to
I?
0
O
O
O
0
0
0
O
O
O
Q
0
O
O
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
The resident of Leroy George Drive, Clyde is concerned about access to the hospital
by emergency vehicles and patients. He is concerned that the proposed Hospital Drive
will have more traffic and cause a delay in getting to the hospital. There is also a
concern that more cars will take the next exit at Jones Cove Road when going to the
hospital and cause more traffic delays there. What he suggests is a new exit ramp from
US 19-23-74 eastbound to Hospital Road that ends in front of the hospital.
Response:
Access Road and the ramps to US 19-23-74 will remain separate as proposed.
There were numerous comments and written request in opposition to the realignment of
Hospital Drive. Due to public comments, construction costs, and the proposed impacts
associated with the relocation of Hospital Drive its proposed realignment has been
removed from the project. The existing Hospital Drive intersection with NC '209 will
remain at its current location. Other comments noted.
The NCDOT has reviewed and thoroughly considered all of the incoming comments
from the public and the environmental agencies. A post-hearing meeting was held to
discuss the comments and make final decisions regarding the proposed action. While it
is not reasonable or feasible to expect that all public recommendations can be
adequately incorporated into the final design, the proposed highway improvement does
reflect the prevailing consensus of the motoring public and their local officials while
serving the best interest of their welfare..
V. REVISION AND UPDATES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The following revisions and/or updates to the Environmental Assessment.have been
made:
There are projected noise level increases for 21 of 23 receptors identified within the
project area. Revisions to R/W since our Noise Analysis in 2004 have resulted in 6 of
the original 23 noise receptors shown in Table N4 now within proposed R/W and no
longer considered to be impacted receptors. Table N5 in the Traffic Noise Analysis
clearly indicates the number of impacted receptors according to 23 CFR Part 772.
Although predicted noise impacts range to 7 and 8 decibel increases, none meet the
substantial impact criteria or exceed the allowable threshold (66 dBA), except Receptor
#12.
Changes in Preferred Alternative
SR 1801 (Liner Cove Road) and SR 1929 (Hospital Drive) Loop is eliminated. There
were numerous comments received in opposition to the realignment of Hospital Drive.
Due to public comments, construction costs, and the proposed impacts associated with
the relocation of Hospital Drive its proposed realignment has been removed from the
project. The existing Hospital Drive intersection with NC 209 will remain at its current
location. (see figure 3)
A directional left-over to provide access to Access Road is provided from NC 209
north to address many citizens concern who demanded the left turn from NC 209 North
to Access Road. Northbound traffic on NC 209 will be allowed to make a left turn on to
Access Road. Eastbound traffic on Access Road will still be restricted to right-in
right-out access only.
18
Public Involvement Efforts
NCDOT held a Citizen's Informational Workshop (CIW) for the project on November
18, 2003. Twelve citizens were in attendance. Handouts provided at the workshop
included a comment sheet, so written comments could be received. The primary
concern of citizens was the potential relocations due to the reconfiguration of the US 19-
23-74/NC 209 interchange. In particular, concern was the possible relocations along SR
1375 (Access Road) when the new on ramp will be constructed. Other concerns
included bicycle and pedestrian safety along the existing and improved NC 209.
A public hearing for the R-4047 project was held on August 12, 2008 at Shackford
Hall, Lake Junaluska. Approximately 100 people attended the hearing and 6 citizens
spoke for the record.
A summary of verbal and written comments made during the hearing is presented in
Appendix C.
Public Comments
There were numerous comments received in opposition to the realignment of Liner
Cove Road (SR4801) and Hospital Drive. Due to public comments, construction costs,
and the proposed impacts associated with the relocation of Hospital Drive its proposed
realignment has been removed from the project. The existing Hospital Drive intersection
with NC 209 will remain at its current location.
There were also many comments received in opposition to making the intersection at
NC 209/Access Road right-in right-out only. Concerning this request, a directional left-
over is provided to access from NC 209 north bound to SR 1375 (Access Road).
Eastbound traffic from Access Road will be restricted to right-in right-out access only..
In addition, many written comments were about Foxfire sub-division, the resident
wanted to extend the project towards north NC 209 to include turn lanes into Foxfire II
Estates. Also there were written request for extending Liner Cove Road (SR 1801)
beyond Lowe's Home Improvement Store. Both of these requests are outside the project
limits and scope of work.
There was a request from the Division personnel to lengthen the acceleration lane on
the entrance ramp to US 19-23-74 westbound. This will require additional realignment of
Access Road northward resulting in additional impacts to properties which front Access
Road.
In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 128, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
certifies that a public hearing for the subject project has been held and the social,
economic, and environmental impacts, consistency with local community planning goals
and objectives, and comments from individuals have been considered in the selection of
the recommended alternative for the project. A transcript of the public hearing was
prepared and forwarded to the Federal Highway Administration along with the
certification.
Available Mitigation Programs
19
The NCDOT Relocation Assistance Program is in place as a mitigation measure to
compensate and assist business owners and residents displaced by the proposed
widening. This program has three basic components: Relocation Moving Payments,
Relocation Replacement Housing Payments, and Relocation Assistance.
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based on a study of the impacts of the proposed action,. as documented in the
Environmental Assessment, and on comments from federal, state, and local agencies, it
is the finding of the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Federal
Highway Administration that the project will not have 'a significant impact upon the quality
of the human or natural environment. The proposed action is not controversial from an
environmental perspective. No significant impacts on natural, ecological, cultural, or
scenic resources are expected. In view of the above evaluation, it has been determined
that a Finding of No Significant Impact is applicable for this project. Neither an
Environmental Impact Statement nor further environmental analysis is required.
20

v
rl FI
t

oo/
O - _
w ¦ ?r
gig
® M
c- Z
oD c) _
CD
c n D ;r\ r' 4
O r m O W c at?
o
rn
110-
0
n o n ®?y.
fD ..
o o n VICINITY MAP
v W
o? ?? PROPOSED WIDENING OF NC 209 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT elk
c„ & REPLACEMENT OF RAILROAD OF TRANSPORTATION
N _? - STRUCTURE R-32 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
D O PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND 4jr
-
*t z HAYWOOD COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
C) 0
y TIP PROJECT R-4047
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
o ? o
`
,

` c'
C N (D
?
T
•V .1 T
Yt
V Q

V
n EXISTING CONDITIONS
N PROPOSED WIDENING OF NC 209
& REPLACEMENT OF RAILROAD
STRUCTURE R-32

O
?
HAYWOOD COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-4047
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS <
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH

PROPOSED WIDENING OF NC 209
N & REPLACEMENT OF RAILROAD
STRUCTURE R-32
HAYWOOD COUNTY
TIP PROJECT R-4047
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
m 0 0
co 5
c
U' A
-n D ? D
Z
= N CD
O
(D j O
co
O
V
?

o g o 0 N PROPOSEDIMPROVEMENTS
Z? cad A< 72 - PROPOSED WIDENING OF NC 209 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT °' "q
O ? OF TRANSPORTATION
W < Q & REPLACEMENT OF RAILROAD DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
C) o STRUCTURE R-32 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
4 0`11 HAYWOOD COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
?' TIP PROJECT R-4047
Appendix A
Agency Comments on Environmental Assessment
Tennessee Valle%v Authont
Slav 2. 2008
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: FEDERAL CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION FOR NC 209 IMPROVEMENTS.
FROM SR 1801 TO SR 1523. LAKE JUNALUSKA, HAYWOOD COUNTY. FEDERAL
AID PROJECT NO. STP-209(2), WBS ELEMENT 34599.1.1, TIP NO. R-4047
This is in response to your letter of April, 2, 2008, to Jon Loney requesting comments
on the Environmental Assessment (EA) of this project. We have reviewed the EA and
do not have any specific comments on it. In our previous 2001 correspondence on this
project. we noted that it appeared a TVA Section 26a permit would not be required.
The EA states that a total of 420 feet of two segments of perennial streams would be
impacted. Some of these impacts appear to be associated with the extension of the
reinforced concrete box culvert under SR 1375, which would likely require a Section
26a permit. Our Holston,'Cherokee/Douglas Watershed Team (phone [phone])
can provide more definitive information on Section 26a permit requirements.
Pair. Loney has retired from TVA, so please send future correspondence related to this
EA to me. I would appreciate receiving a copy of the Finding of No Significant Impact.
Should you have any questions, please me at [phone] or cpnicholsonC,tva.gov.
Sincerer
c r _ /4
Charles P. Nicholson
Program Manager. NEPA Resources
Environmental Services and Programs
US. EN\"IRo)NNIE'\'TAL. PROTECTION AGFNCY
RLGIC`N 4 RALLIC.41 OFFICE
TERRY SA\FC>RD FEDER.A.L COl RTHOUSL
?10 NEW BERN AVEN1__E
RALEIGH. NORTH C.MROLINA 2"601
Date: May o. Zuuti
Dr. Gregory ,I. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1544 Mail Service Center
Raleigh. North Carolina 2-0Q0-154,
SUBJECT: EPA Revie%\ Comments on the Environmental Assessment for R-404
NC 209 Improvements, Haywood Counhv. North Carolina
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 (EPA) has reviewed the
sttb)ect document and is commenting in accordance with Section 300 of the Clean Air
Act and Section 102(2)W) of the National Environmental Polio Act (NEPA ). The
North Carolina Department of-Transportation (NCDOT) and the Federal Hi-hwav
Administration (FHWA) propose to provide improvements to NC 2(W from west of SR
1801 to north of SR 152in H.;Iv good County for an approximate distance of 0.8 miles
EPA has file correspondence from NCDOT dated April 3, -'(.-)00, conceminizz the
proposed project and it is further described as a 'Stage II' of the improvements to
up,,,,Tade NC 2Oy. The ori`_inal protect was State- funded under TIP= R-21 1- and
im ok es widening NC 20y to a three or four lane section. Current improvements
proposed by NCDOTT include «idening NC 201) to a four-lane, divided facilii with a
raised median and other improvements on t'S 25 Business and NC 20U to facilitate the
transition to the two-lane sectiun. NC 209 will also be reahgTned from SR 1 526 to SR
1 -;2; and include replacement of a railroad structure and other minor improvements in
the pn?tect study area.
Due to the scope of the proposed project and the anticipated minimal impacts to
streams and wetlands, this protect was not placed in the NEPA Section 404 Merger 01
process Most of the impacts to the human and natural enyi-k,nment are identified in the
Summary Table on page v and in Section 5 of the Enytronmental Assessment (EA) This
table was very helpful in identifying important environmental quality indicators.
Ho%? er er, noise receptor impacts «ere not included Sectloll 5 D 2 of the EA refers the
reyieuer to Appendix C. Table \_' for noise abatcrinent cntcna (?.?CI Section 5.D.4
identifies that 1 noise receptors would be impacted (apprn?ach ui- exceed NAC) from the
"Du-N?_?thing :'Alternative". Howevei. this specific table in :Appendix C d(les nut actu.llk
summarize the number of impacted receptors with the recommended alter7iati%c. I rE,m
Table N4, FPA estimates that approximatel% 2(I receptors will experience a noise lcx-el
increase. Most of the increases are -2 and -S dBA above existtn`-, lex els (i.e.. 1 rt out f.
the 20 receptors). Also_ information on receptor ID =5 is missing and the table slap` this
number without an explanation One (1 ) impacted receptor (Residence ID =12). is
expected to approach or exceed ?SAC. For the "No build Alternative". the Table N4
information indicates that 14 receptors will expenence noise level increases in the desigm
year. Moreover, 12 of these increases are -1 dBA, with one al +2 dBA and one at
-',dBA. The N3 summary table should be revised to reflect this difference. Tl:is
information may need to be appropriate],,- charactenzed and provided in the Section D
noise text and in the environment impacts summary table for the Finding of \o
Significant Impact (FO:tiSh
Other Project Impacts
Relocations: Q Residences 8 Businesses
Wetlands: 0 acres
Streams: 420 linear feet
Sections -I(f) 106 Properties: 0/0
Archaeoloinca) Sites: 0
Churches'Schools: 0 0
E1 Communities: 'None
Ten-estnal Forests: 0 acre`
Pnme Farmlands: 0 acres
Hazardous Material Sites
Endangered species: 0
Critical Water Supplies: 0 acres
Air Quahtt: No
EPA also acknowledges that INCDOT and FHA' A have included a qualitati%e
assessment on Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) in the EA. Pages ;- to 45 of the EA
contain similar 2(--)()6 FHWA intenm Guidance information on MSATs as what has been
included in other'NEPA documents for other projects. EPA note: that the EA's NISAT
analysis 011 the identification of any specific near-roadv.,ay sensitive receptors (c L,
.
\ur',in111 h(mes. hospitals. children dayeares. schools) is not included. It is important in a
site-specific analysis to identify and describe the affected enN iromnent If NCD()'I .and
I-HWA have determined that there are no near-roadway sensitive receptors. the NFPA
d CUmCnt should state this situation. From EPA's revie?.v of features in Fg:ures 2 and
there does not appear to be any near-roadway sensitive receptor,,. The Tuscola High
School .appears to be more than X00 feet from the nearest proposed ra?adv ay
improvement.
Richland Crecy: and its tributaries are Class C. ?03(d) lasted NNaters (Impaired
hioloulcal inicgrit- ) 'fhe l,ropw ed pro(e`t %k-ill potentially impact 42H linear feet to
unnamed tributaries (UZ s) =, and to Richland Creek. EPA requests that stn112cnt
idherrnce to .I3rst Management Practices 11i?11'sl he impl(_mented to minimize and
downstream impacts from soil erosion and additional roadway runoff. Further; EPA is
concerned that the EA states on Page ZS: "cunentl% specific mitigation measures for this
project are not warranted." The guidelines developed pursuant to Clean Water Act
Section 404(b)(1) (Guidelines) require that impacts to aquatic resources be avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable. The Guidelines apply to all impacts
subject to Section 404. EPA recommends that measures to avoid and minimize impacts
to the UTs be proposed and outlined, such as steeper side slopes, narrow medians, and
compensatory mitigation plans.
Summary
EPA does not have any environmental objections to the proposed project. EPA
recommends that the specific avoidance and minimization measures are identified in the
FONSI and discussed and included in the meeting minutes during the future hydraulic
and permit review meetings. Please include Ms. Kathy Matthews of EPA's Wetlands
Section on future meeting notices. EPA also requests a copy of the FONS7 when it
becomes available. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Christopher A. Militscher. REIM, CHN4NI
Merger Team Representative
NEPA Program Office
For: Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
EPA Region 4 NEPA Program Office
cc Steve Lund. USACE
Clarence Coleman. FHWA
Brian Wrenn, 1NtCDWQ
'O
O
O
O
t0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

t?hCrtac: F c=ane), Go?,ernor
Wiliam G' Foss Jr , Secretary
North Carolina Deoanment o.` Env;ronmen: and Natural Resources
Coleen Sullins, Duevor
Division Of N'aler Quality
April 2L 2008
AIEM OR-AADLL nI
To: Melba McGee, DENR Environmental Coordinator
1
From: David Wainwright, Division of Water Qualit-4i,4
Subject: Comments on the Environmental Assessment related to proposed widening and
improvements of NC 209 from west of existing SR 1801 (Liner Cove Road) to just north
of existing SR 1523 (Old Clyde Road) Lake Junaluska. Haywood Counn. Federal Aid
Project No.STP-209(2), State Project No. S. 1944301, TIP R-4047.
SC14 No. 08-0300.
This office has reviewed the referenced document dated March 2008. The Division of Water Quality
(DNVQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 ',rater Quality Certification for activities that
impact W'aters of the U.S., including wetlands. It is our understanding that the project as presented will
result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and other surface waters. The DWQ offers the
following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:
Project Specific Comments:
This project is being planned as pan of the 404.1NEPA Mereer Process. As a participating team
member, the NCDWQ will continue to work with the team.
The scoping letter for the project (dated April 3, 2000) indicates the project was initialh scheduled
to begin construction in 2004. It is assumed the project would be completed in 2006. W`Iule the
project was not completed in 2006, much of the data and discussion appears to be writlen as if it had
been. Generally speaking, the document should be updated to reflect more recent data. For
example:
For each intersection along the project. the "Traffic Cam me Capacity'" section contains
reference to the current LOS. 2006 LOS, and 2030 LOS. Several discussions. such as the one
for SR 1929 (Hospital Drive) and SR 1927 (Tuscola Road), states that "...the northbound
approach currently operates at LOS F" and ".. the northbound approach to operate at LOS D
in 2006."
\NATF9
0
? y
• Table lb and Table lc make reference to 2006 build and no build alternatives-
• The traffic forecasts included in Appendix E include forecasts for 2006.
None of the maps for the project show the project study boundarc.
4. There is no map showing the location of historic structures located w°ithin the project sudv area.
V 5. There is no map showing the location of noise receptors used to determine noise barrier
O applicabilil However, a description of locations is provided on Table 3 of Appendix C.
O 0,,-
N , orthCarolina
O T ransponation R-n ,in nn Unit ,'?'illl{lil??1?
1950 Niail Service Center Raleign, Nonn Carolina 27699-1650
O 2321 Crabtree boulevard Sui e 250, Raleigh, North Caro:ina 77604
Phone. 919-,3-1,-17S;1 1 Fax 9i9 ?336593 r!nternet blip 1/h2o enr.state ncus%ncwe:iands
[fnplCr. .°.?°,o ^.e000led?l3,c=qC .__. - ___
-..2n'oal ?p-.Ortu`f;:?=`.(?tnalive 4CliO n
O
0
0
?o
10
0
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
A
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
13. NC DOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, brideing, fill,
excavation and clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included
in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to anv construction impacts, temporary
or otherwise. also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application.
14. Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we
realize that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that
culverts should be countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms.
Moreover, in areas where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove
preferable. When applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum
extent practicable.
16. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands or streams.
16. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Qualirv Certification and could
precipitate compensatory mitigation.
I T The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into streams or surface waters.
I& Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams may require an Individual Permit application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding
401 Water Qualit} Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires
satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure-that water quality standards are met and no wetland
or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal application
by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will
be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the
maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the
inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.
19. Whenever possible, the DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require stream channel
realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allow for human and
wildlife passage beneath the structure, do not block fish passage and do not block navigation b.
canoeists and boaters.
20 Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream. Storinwater should 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
NC D WQ Stormrrater Best Management Practices.
21 If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to prevent direct
contact between curiae concrete and stream water. Water that inadvenentIN contacts uncured
concrete should not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and
possible aquatic life and fish kills.
30. Riprap should not be placed in the active thahveg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner
that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly
designed, sized and installed.
31. Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) should be preserved to the maximum extent possible.
Riparian vegetation must be re-established 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 Vol] have any
questions or require any additional information, please contact David Wainwright at [phone].
cc: David Baker, US Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field Office
Clarence Coleman, Federal Highway Administration
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Marla Chambers, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Mike Parker, DWQ Asheville Regional Office
File Copy
0, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
MEIAORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
FROM: Dave McHenry, Habitat Conservation Biologist ? X- .
?
/
DATE: April 23, 2008
SUBJECT: Comments on NC 209 Improvements from SR 1801 to near SR 1523, NCDOT, TIP
Project R-4047, Haywood County.
OLIA No. 08-0300
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (Commission) reviewed the
Envirotmtental Assessment (EA) for North Carolina Department of Transportation's proposed
improvements to a portion of NC 209 in HavWood Count-v. We are familiar with the project area and its
habitat values. Our comments are provided under provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S.
I I3A-1 et seq., as amended; 1 NCAC-25).
The Commission has no major concerns with direct effects of the project on fish. and wildlife resources
provided effective erosion controls are used during construction. The project area is in the Richland
Creek watershed which drains to the Pigeon River where there are ongoing efforts to restore native fishes
that were extirpated, or presumed extirpated, by historic water quality degradation. Therefore, it is
important that this project not contribute to water quality declines in the watershed, most notably as a
result of sedimentation.
Regarding secondary and cumulative impacts of the project, the EA concludes, in part, that these should
be minor because the project area is small and already well-developed. However, if the project improves
access to the region along NC 209 north of the project area, it may induce growth. It appears that this pan
of NC 209 is or already has been assessed under TIP project R-2117. so secondary and cumulative
impacts there already have been or will be evaluated and mitigated as necessarv.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries ^ 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh. NC 2-699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
i0
O
O
O
O
;O
IO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
IO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
!O
i
O
O
10
O
O
i0
!O
r` r
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
April 16, 2005
ME-N1QRAND1JM
TO: Melba McGee; DENR Environmental Coordinator
FROM: Harry LeGran Natural Heritage Program
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
SUBJECT: Proposed Improvements to NC 209 from US 19-23 to Just North of SR 1523;
Waynesville, Haywood County
REFERENCE: Project No. 08-0300
The Natural.Heritage Program has no record of rare species; significant natural communities, significant
natural heritage areas, or conservation/hnanaged areas at the site nor within 1/4-mile of the project area.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have questions or need further information.
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone [phone] FAX; 919-715-30601 Internet www enr.state.nc.us/ENR/
An Eaua! oppoaumly /A rcrtmatrve Action Employer . 50 % Recycled ? 10 % PosI Consumer Paper
Boone Carolina
turallry
.O
O
O
,O
O
OO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
OI
O
O
O
O
O
'O
O
O
O
i®
I®
I
I®

North Cal alma
Department of Administration
\4ichael F. Easley, Governor Britt Cobb. Secretary
Ivlay 30. 2005
Mr. Gregory Thorpe
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Project Dey. & Env. Analysis Branch
1548 Nlail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Re: SCH File # 08-E-4220-0300; EA; Proposed Improvements to NC 209 from US 19-23 to just
North of SR 1523: Haywood County; TIP #R-4047
Dear Mr. Thorpe:
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental policy Act. According to G.S. 113A-1 0, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law. the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this
letter for your consideration are additional comments made by agencies in the course of this review.
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project; they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review.
ShOuld you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincereh
Valerie W. Mc-Millan. Director
State Environmental Policy Act
\ttachinrnu
AN i 2000
cc: ReLion A
Mad;ng Address'
GJ7 i.'.:ni Servme Centel
Rakich ` - ^?oy9-i301
Telephone: (919)86--'42_
Fax [phone]
Stale C"ne; t51-01-00
e-ma;l wiena.,mennl!mr cua 'C go,:
Location Address:
I I c 0.'es? loner Suce;
F.zingL, t'01111 Czrohna

0
0
0
0
A
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I®
10
10
I0
0
!0
'A 0
M
Borth Carolina Department of Environment and I\Iatural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary

MAY 2008

MEMORA'DUM

TG Ch_rys Bacgett
State Clearinghouse

FROM: ff c
Melba McGee
Environmenc-al Review Coordi nator
EE: 08-0300 NC 205 Improvements from SR 1801 to near SR ?523 in
Haywood County ,
DATE: May 1, 2008 ,
Department of Environment and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed information. The applicant is encouraged to consider t.._ attached
recommendatio s by our review agencies. Addressing these comments durinc
revieo: process and/or during the NEPA Merger Process will ave_d de:a:'s
dur_ng the oerm_t phase.
-..ank you for the opportunity-to review.
:._ta_hme^ts
1601 Nail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601 .
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state,nc us/ENR/
An Eouai Opponuniry I Affirmative Action Employer - 50 % Pecycietl t t0 % Posl Consumer Paper
One
No
rthCar®Brna
j
® 7D, fi: f x
Q
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT A-ND Project umber
08-0300
O NATURAL RESOURCES C
ounty
Q _ DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Haywood
IQ
Inter-Agency Hro)ect Keview Kesponse
Q Project Name US DOT d NC DOT Type of Project Proposed improvements to
Q NC 209 from US 19-23 to
lust North of SR 1523;
Q The applicant should be advised that plans Havvvood Count
Q and specifications for all water system improvements must be approved by the Division of
Environmental Health prior to the award of a contract or the initiation of construction (as
Q required by 15A NCAC 18C .0300et. seq.). For information, contact the Public Water

Q Supply Section, (919)
733-2321.
-
O F
1 This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply
with state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the
Q applicant should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
Q ? If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of
Q adjacent waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfish
sanitation program, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Section at (252)
Q i26-6827.
Q ? The soil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding
Q problem. For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the
Q applicant should contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at (9191 733-6407.
Q ? The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated
structures, a extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the
®
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control.
® contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management Section at
[phone].
Q
® ? The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A. 1900 et
Q sep.). For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods.
Q contact the On-Site Wastewater Section at [phone].
Q ? The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding the
Q sanitary facilities required for this project
'Q ? If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the vrater line
relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health. Public Water
iQ Supply Section, Technical Services Branch, 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Q Carolina 27699-1634, [phone].
Q ] For Regional and Central Office comments, see the reverse side of this form
Q
Q ,Jim McRight PWSS 4/21/08
Q Reviewer Section/Branch Date

Q
IQ
Q
I®
I®
I®
10
I®
i0
t0
I®
i
O
O
IO
O
O
O
O
.O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
'O
O
O
O
O
O
0
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE.
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
NiS RENEE GI_EDHILL-EARL="
CLEARINGHOUSE COORD
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
-
ARCH !VES-B:STORY BLDG - MSC 9017
RALEIGH NO
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
CC&PS - DEM, NFIP
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
='E?^ OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF CUL RESOURCES
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
JWNC PLANN & ECON DEV COMM
P`r:OJECT INFORMATION
STATE APUMSER: 08-E-4220-0300
DATE RECEIVED: 04/08/2008
AGENCY RESPONSE: 04/30/2008
REVIEW CLOSED: 05/05/2008
• t? oo- 9158
% l
r
i'
---2-TCAN7: N.C. Dept. of Transportation
National Environmental Policy Act
-.`._. Environmental Assessment ?? ?JaSf pf?
Fronosed Improvements to NC 209 from US 19-23 to just Nort^ of SR 1:23; Havwood
Co'_nty; TIP ;R-90<7
- 3EFEREPiCE NUMBER: 01-E-5220-0397 00-E-4220-0519
?_?ached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Ciearinahouse `o•-
-_-,nve rni-
nental review. Please review and submit your response b%: the abore
t0 13,11 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NO 27699-1301. .
-eeie4. time is needed, please contact th's c`fxce at (919)E,;--_,__.
.. --_. .:_ T'-3S P.EVIEW TY.E FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:
eTT?, -ED
. h by
' ll

APF , r 2008
F02
P r L'
y`,f
HAY, C'' no ?ii0u'
idorth Carolina
Department of Administration 1
Michael F. Easley, Governor Britt Cobb, Secretary
Mav 6, 2008
Mr. Gregory Thorpe
\'. C. Dept. of Transportation
Pro ject Dev. & Env. Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Re: SCH File # 08-E-4220-0300; EA; Proposed improvements to NC 209 from US 19-23 to just
North of SR 1523; Haywood County; TIP 9R-4047
Dear Mr. Thorpe:
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the. National Environmental Policy Act. According to G.S. 113A-] 0. when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law. the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this
letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this review.
If anv further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Attachments
cc: Region A
rt,?
Sincerely,
W. Kevin McLaughlin, Jr.. General Counsel
Interim Environmental Policv Act Coordinator
illailingAddresr: Telephoner [phone] 1.o,.non.4,1&es:
lioi h1ail service center Fa> (919)73,3-05i 1 I! G West !ones strew
Raleigh,NC 27699-1301 State Courier;: 1-01-00 Raleigh, North Carolina
A a =svol Orccnuarry?A;j; rn+on ve .; nio-n 5•r:rio:. e:

I
,O NCDENR

®

O IN4EN40P ANDUM ?'1 .-
10
® TO Valerie McMillan
O State Clearinghouse
iA FROA1: Melba McGee V
Q Environmental Projects Officer

A SUBJECT =08-0300 Improvements to NC 209 from US 19-23 tojust north of SR 1 23, Ha good County
O D-ATE: Mai 29; 2008

® I he attached comments were received b% this office after the response due date,
:,,rnarded to the applicant and made a part of our
revio These comments should be

O
. p
us comment package.
I0 !
aal< ou for the opportunity to respond.

® .';.??hnlrilt
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O

O One
NorthCarOlina
O . ??lltlfl"ll?l?

O
O
Appendix B
Relocation Report

?O
REQUEST FOR RAT' COST ES TE-MAT TE

DA fE. KLCE1%ED, 2'23/09 DISTRIBUTED 2"300
V
RE
ISION: No

?0 ID.NO.i
BREAK DESCRLPTION SCHEDU LE

0 NC 209 IMPROVEMENTS FROM US 19-23-74 !GREAT SMOKES
R-4047 MOUN R/W
FYN/A
TAINS EXPR(1I TO SR 1523 (OLD CLYDE ROAD) LAKE

0 JUNALSKA CONST FYNiA UNFUND El POST }'RS ,?

0 RRV FY
-
'
CONST _
F} UNFUN
D ? POST YRS ?
o RMI FY

0 CONST F}-
_
U'NFUND
? POST YRS
?
ACCESS. FULL C/A ? PARTIAL C/A ? NO CONTROL ?
0 WBS ELEMENTNUMBER 34599.1.1 COUNTY. HAYNVOOD
0 ENGINEER ZAHiD M. B.ALOCH / PDEA
0 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: -
10 N/A
0 TYPE OF PLANS FURNISHED FOR ESTIMATE. PRELIMINARY
0 DATE DUE 03/20;09
® PRIOR ESTIMATES OF LAND AND DAMAGES (WITH DATES):
0 6,104001110-26-07
0 IF INCREASES OR DECREASES ARE SIGNIFICANT, PLEASE EXPLAIN.
0
0 BASED ON PAST- PROJECT HISTORICAL DATA, THE LAND AND DAMAGE FIGURES HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED BY A
O FACTOR OF 50`7 TO INCLUDE CONDEMNATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE INCREASES THAT OCCUR DURING
SETTLE:V ENT OF ALL PARCELS. THESE FIGURES PROJECTTHE MOST ACCURATE ACQUISITION ESTIMATES FOR
0 YEARS FRO,N1 THE DATE OF THIS ESTIMATE
0 ESTIMATED BY BRAD LOPP COMPLETED DATE 03-16-09
0 AL T£RNA TES
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O

L'STIDLATED Nn. OF PARCELS: 36
RESIDE NTLAL RELOCATIONS: 5 / 75,000
BUSINESS RELOCATIONS 10
/200,000
LAND A\TJ DA,%IAGE. .
9247500
ACQUICI-ION 240.000
TOT_4L EST/RL47ED R/1F COST: 9.762-500
THERE ARFNO FIGURES FOR UTILITY INVOLVEMENT ON THIS ESTIMATE.
Appendix C 1
Public Hearing Handout

'O
I®
O
O
O
O
'O
O
O
O
O
'O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NC 209 Improvements
From west of SR 1801 (Liner Cove Road) to
just north of SR 1523 (Old Clyde Road)
WBS Number 34599. 1.1
TIP PROJECT R-4047
Haywood County
Combined Public Hearing
Shackford Hall
90 Shackford Hall Road,
. • Lake Junaluska
Informal Open House 4:00 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Formal Presentation 7:00 p.m.
August 129 2008
O 250 copies of this handout was reproduced at a cost of $0.35/copy
O
O
I®
iO
I®
i®
I®
{
A
O
U
0
10
O
O
O
O
O
O
A
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
?Q
0
PURPOSE OF PROJECT
The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion and improve access to homes, businesses, and
public facilities in the area. The proposed improvements will complete the improvements to NC
209 started under TIP project R-2117, which acquired some right of way for the widening of the
road.
PURPOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Today's hearing is an important step in the North Carolina Department of Transportation's
CNCDOT) procedure for making you, the public, a part of the project development process. The
purpose of the hearing is to obtain public input on the location and design of the proposed
proj ect.
Planning and environmental studies on this highway project are provided in the environmental
report - Environmental Assessment (EA). Copies of this report and today's hearing map
displaying the location and design have been available for public review at the Town of
Waynesville Town Hall located at 16 South Main Street, Waynesville and at the NCDOT
Maintenance Office located at 619 Paragon Parkway, Clyde.
YOUR PARTICIPATION
Now that the opportunity is here, you are encouraged to participate by making your comments
and/or questions a part of the public record. This may be done by having them recorded at the
Formal Public Hearing or by writing them on the attached comment sheet. Several
representatives of the North Carolina Department of Transportation are present. They will talk
with you, explain the design to you and answer your questions. You may write your comments or
questions on the attached comment sheet and leave it with one of the representatives or mail
them by September 12, 2008 to the following address:
Mr. Jamille A. Robbins
NCDOT - Human Environment unit
1583 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1583
Email: iarobbins(ccilncdot.Rov
Everyone present is urged to participate in the proceedings. It is important, however, that THE
OPINIONS OF ALL INDIVIDUALS BE RESPECTED REGARDLESS OF How
DIVERGENT THEY NIAY BE FROM YOUR OWN. Accordingly, debates, as such, are out
of place at public hearings. Also, the public hearing is not to be used as a POPULAR
REFERENDUM to determine the location and/or design by a majority vote of those present.
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.
Right of Way, Public Involvement $ Community Studies and others
who play a role in the development of a project will attend this meeting.
The project will also be reviewed with federal agencies such as the US
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as well as state agencies such as the NC Department of
Environment and.Natural Resources. When appropriate, local government officials will attend.
All spoken and written issues are discussed at this meeting. Most issues are resolved at the post-
hearing meeting. The NCDOT considers safety, costs, traffic sen ice, 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 a summary is available to the public. You
may request this document on the attached comment sheet.
STATE-FEDERAL RELATIONSHIP
This proposed project is a Federal-.Aid Highway Project and thus will be constructed under the
State-Federal Aid Highway Program. Financing of this project will be 80% Federal Funds and
20°io State Funds. The Board of Transportation is responsible for the selection and scheduling of
projects on the Federal Aid System, their location, design and maintenance cost after
construction. FHWA is responsible for the review and approval of the previously mentioned
activities to ensure that each Federal Aid Project is designed, constructed and maintained to
Federal Aid Standards.
NEED FOR THE PROJECT
The proposed project will address the following needs:
Increasing development along the NC 209 corridor is causing congestion and a tremendous
strain on the existing two-lane facility. Currently, this section of NC 209 serves. at the
northern project limit, 9,400 vehicles per day (vpd) and at the southern project limit the
traffic volume is around 20,500 vpd. By the design year 2030, the number of vehicles per day
is expected to increase to up to 13,700 vpd and 29,200 vpd respectively. The existing design
of the road will not be able to carry this number of vehicles. Level of service (LOS) is a
qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream and how
motorists and/or passengers perceive these conditions. A LOS definition generally describes
these conditions in terms of speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions,
comfort, and convenience. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) has defined levels of
service (LOS) in categories from A to F. LOS A represents ideal, free flow conditions, while
LOS F represents forced or breakdown flow with stop and go conditions. A two-lane road
'O
I®
I®
ID
?O
I0
,®
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,0
0
0
?0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
analysis indicates that NC 209 is presently operating at LOS E. and expected to operate at a
LOS F in 2n30, along the heaviest traveled section. Based on traffic projections and without
the proposed project, NC 209 would operate very poorly with considerable traffic delays in
the future.
Above average crash rates. During a three year period between December 1. 2004 and March
31, 2007, a total of 52 crashes were reported along the project corridor. Approximately, 85%
of all crashes within the project study corridor occurred between US-19-23-74 and the
intersection of SR 1375 (Depot Road). Left turns accounted for 60% of all crashes. This
was followed by rear end (21%) and sideswipe crashes (6%). The total crash rate within the
project study corridor is 1052.08 accidents per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (mvirtt).
This rate is significantly (5.5 times) higher than the statewide crash rate for rural NC routes,
which were 191.04 accidents per 100 mvmt.from 2003 to 2005.
The improvements to NC 209 in conjunction with the improvements made to NC 209 under TIP
R-211 7 will provide an improved connection between US 19-23-74 at Lake Junaluska,
Waynesville, and I-40 towards Knoxville, Tennessee.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The NCDOT. Division of Highways, proposes to improve NC 209 from west of SR 1801 (Liner
Cove Rd.) to north of SR 1523 (Old Clvde Road). The project will consist of widening NC 209
to a four-lane divided roadway with a raised median from the SR 1801 (Liner Cove Road) to SR
1523 (Old Clvde Road). Improvements to US 23 Business south of Liner Cove Road and NC
209 North of SR 1523 (Old Clyde Road) will be made to facilitate the transition from the four-
lane divided roadway to the two-lane roadway.
Currently the US 19-23-74 South on and off ramps, and SR 1375 (Access Road) share a common
roadway and experience confusing traffic patterns resulting in traffic congestion and potentialh
unsafe conditions. The recommended build alternative will provide on and off-ramps for US 19-
23-74 separate from SR-1375 (Access Road). This will aid in reducing congestion and will
improve access to homes and businesses in the area by separating local traffic from ramp traffic.
Also from north of SR 1801 (Liner Cove Road)/US 23 Business intersection to SR 1375 (Access
Road) and US 19-23-74 South Ramp there are five intersections within a 1400 ft distance
resultine in traffic congestion and difficulties in accessing nearby businesses and homes. The
proposed improvements will reduce/combine the existing five intersections to oni two
signalized intersections. This will reduce congestion, traffic conflict points, and improve access
to nearbv homes and businesses.
The proposed improvements will also realign NC 209 from SR 1526 (Carley Road) to SR 1523
(Old Clyde Road). NCDOT also proposes to reconfigure the interchange of NC 209 at US 19-
23-74. The existing ramp to connect US 19-23-74 (southbound) to US 23 Business will be
realigned and reconfigured to allow left-rums to access NC 209 (north). SR 1929 (Hospital
Drive) currently intersects NC 209 adjacent to the US 19-23-74 interchange. The project
proposes to remove this connection to NC 209 and realign SR 1929 along new location and tie it
into SR 1801 (Liner Cove Road). SR 1546 (Paragon Parkway) will be realigned to tie directl\
into the intersection of NC 209 and the US 19-23-74 (southbound) on and off ramps.
The project will also replace rail structure R-32, which carries the Norfolk Southern Piedmont
District's T-line. Construction of a new structure will result in the rail line being realigned to the
south its existing location. The project will also close the existing at-grade crossing of the
Norfolk Southern rail line at SR 1526 (Carley Road).
PROPOSED PROJECT INFORMATION
Length: - 0.78 miles
Typical Section: See Figures
Right of Way: Varies
Access Control: Interchange
Full Control ojAccess
No Private Driveway connections will be allowed.
Relocatees
Outside of Interchange Area
No Control ojAccess; However,-Access Management measures will be used
Residences: 9
Businesses: 8
Estimated Cost:
Construction Cost:
Mitigation Cost:
Right of Way Cost:
Total:
$ 24,400,000.
$ 206,000
$ 9,645,000
$ 34,251,000
Current
Schedule: The tentative schedule is shown below. A number of factors can affect a
project schedule, so schedules are subject to change.
Right of Way Acquisition - Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2009
Construction - FFY 2014
C
VN Y'_rr

rNwu
voti Y
vNrnt
sore
ourrua
ccrt?ND
_ ______
oauNN
v?oyii
iDr
e
rywl
54Rt
TYPICAL SECTION - US 23 BUS / NC 209 (CRABTREE ROAD)
C
Ir I Yy lr_Y' Vy II'_L' Y lY

ar ? n
ouuNu
fJJUND
yl
?GIN4

H
rl
fApIND
N
vNMO!
LOB
Y? YNY41
?.?
TYPICAL SECTION -Yl- LINER COVE ROAD YOr6
C
vy air
v vy war
r r
r
r
? ?
rNwce vNwl
sore
core

" D[plNl
cd?w orrrw
W0 M0'
vlpMll
pgrC YApWI
YQ6
TYPICAL SECTION -Y4- ACCESS ROAD
YM L•- Y•
VM Ir_ rD'
VM
Y
I ? ? ? ? ? t r r
o
® COMMENT SHEET
NC 209 Transportation Improvements
® from west of SR 1801 (Liner Cove Road) to just north of SR 1523 (Old Cl de Road)
® Formal Combined Public Hearing - August 12; 2008
TIP Project No. R-4047
® Haywood County WBS No. 34599
® NAME:
® ADDRESS:
® COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS:
O
0
0
O
0
0
O
0
0
0
0 Comments may be mailed by September 12, 2008:
O
o Mr: Jamille A. Robbins
Public Involvement Officer
NCDOT - Human Environment Unit
0 1583 Mail Service Center
o Raleigh, NC 27699-1583
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone]
Email: iarobbinst(ncdot goy
O
Q
0
Appendix C - 2
Public Hearing Certification

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEVERLS' EAVES PERDUE
GOVERNOR
January 14, 2009
Mr. John F. Sullivan, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
Dear Mr. Sullivan,
EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
SECREIARY
SUBJECT: Proposed improvements of NC 209 from west of SR
1801 (Liner Cove Rd.) to north of SR 1523 (Old Clyde
Rd.), Lake Junaluska, Haywood County, TIP R-4047,
Federal Project No. STP-209 (2), State Project No.
8.1944301, WBS Element 34599. 1.1
CERTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This is to certify that a combined public hearing was held for the subject project on
August 12, 2008. A copy of the public hearing transcript is attached for your records.
This is also to certify that the North Carolina Department of Transportation. Division of
Highways, has considered the impact of the project on the environment, its economic and social
effects, and the consistency of the project with the goals and objectives of the region.
Sincerely,
Qregory J. Thorpe, PhD, Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
MAILING ADDRESS:
NO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NO 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX'. 919-733-9794
WESSITE: W .DOH_DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NO
1 OFFICIAL PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT
Combined Public Heanng
3 NC 209 Improvements
4 .from west of SR 1801 ('Liner Cove Road) to just north of SR 1523 (Old Clyde Road)
5 Shackford Hall
6 August 14, 2008
TIP# R-4047
S
9
10 Good Evening Ladies and Gentlemen. My name is Jamille Robbins. I'm 'a Public
1 I Involvement Officer with the Department of Transportation. I'll be your moderator for
12 tonight's public heanng on the transportation improvements to North Carolina Route 209
13 from just west of Liner Cove Road to just north of Old Clyde Road. This is Transportation
14 Improvement Program project number R-4047. I ask that you use this number when sending
15 in any correspondence to myself or any other DOT staff. Does everyone have a handout? If
16 not, raise your hand and we'll make sure you get one.
17
18 While they are getting those handouts to you, I like to take the time to introduce other DOT
19 staff present here tonight, all of which have or will have a role to play in the development of
20 this project. I'd like to introduce Mr. Conrad Burrell,, the North Carolina Board of
21 Transportation Member. From our local Division, we have Mr. Joel Setzer, Division
22 Engineer. From the Division Right_of_ray office, we have Mr. Teddv Greene and Mr.
23 Reuben Moore and. il4r..Norman.Medford. From our Locations and Surveys Unit we have
24 Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Brett Hinson. From Raleigh, from our Roadway Design Unit, the
25 gin's responsible for the design you see here, we have Mr. Mike Little aid k r. Paul _
26 Rochester. From our Planning Project & Development Analysis Branch, the branch that is
27 responsible for the enviromnental document, the Environmental Assessment, we have. Mr.
28 John Confoni, Mr Zahid BalQch_and Mr. Michael Wray. From my office, the Public
29 Involvement group, A;& have Mr. Ed Lewis and Ms. Eileen Fuchs.
30
31 Does everyone have a handout? Just to let you know how tonight will run, I'm going to
32 review the handout with you then I'll review the map. Once we've done that,. I'll open it up
33 to anyone that's signed up to speak at that point.
34
35 Let's start with the Purpose of this Project. The purpose of the project is to reduce
36 congestion and improve access to homes and businesses and public facilities in the area.
37 Tonight's public hearing is an important step in the Department's continual efforts to
38 make you, the public, a part of the project development process. Tonight we are out here
39 specifically to Let your input on the location and the design of the project.
40
41 Planning and environmental studies were done and catalogued in the Environmental
42 Assessment. We also refer to that as the EA. Copies of this report along with tonight's
43 public hearing map have been available at the following locations.
44
45 This is a public hearing. We have come out here to hear what you have to say so your
46 participation is greatly encouraged in this process. Some of you may ask, how do 1
47 participate? )'ou can have your comments recorded here tonight as part of the official
48 public transcript or by writing them on the attached comment sheet. I'll talk more about that
1 -4047 - NC 209 Improvemenis page I
49 in a minute- Wntten comments carrthe same weight as verbal comments. The comment
5o period is open until September I2, 20'08 if you want to take time tonight and digest all of
51 the information given out, take time to formulate your ideas, you have a month to get those
52 in to us. YOU can mail them into my office. The information is listed below. This is a
53 public hearing. I'm not here to debate anybody. I'm here to hear what you have to say. 1
54 ask also that you not argue amongst yourselves, as opinions will differ This is not a popular
55 referendum where there'll be voting done. There will be no decisions made tonight.
56
57 Now you say, well, what are going to do with the input once you've got it? In 6 weeks, after
58 the comment period is ended, we will have an internal DOT meeting, which we refer to as a
59 post hearing meeting. At this meeting various branches of DOT has staff there all of which
60 play a role in the development of this project. We'll sit down and discuss each and every
61 comment that has been received in the comment period. Most issues are resolved at this
62 meeting. DOT not only has to take into account public input and public comment, we also
63 have to consider traffic service, safety, social impacts and costs in making these decisions.
64 If there are issues that are complex, those issues may have to be escalated up to the Board of
65 Transportation or to the Secretary of Transportation. The minutes from this meeting will be
66 prepared and available to the public. So if you desire a copy of the post-hearing meeting
67 minutes, you can give me a call or on the cormnent sheet, write a note that you would like to
68 receive a copy. '`'e'll mail them out once those minutes have been prepared.
69
70 This is a Federal-Aid Highway Project. That means the funding quill be 80% Federal. 20%
71 State.
73 The 'Need for the Project. Increasing development along the NC 209 is causing congestion
74 and a tremendous strain on the existing two-lane facility that is out there now. Currently.
75 this section of 209 is serving anywhere from 9,400 vehicles per day to 20.500 vehicles per
dav.
7_
'6 By the design year, we didn't design this project for right now, but more so for the design
-? year of 2030. We're looking long range. By the year 2030 the number of vehicles per day
S(J is expected to increase in range from 13,700 vehicles per day to 29,200 vehicles per day.
N i The existing design of this road will not be able to carry the number of vehicles. Lex el of
service is a measure we use to describe the capacity of the roadway. These cicfnutions
basically describe these conditions in terms of speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver.
?4 nafflc interruptions, comfort, and convenience. The Transportation Research Board has
S5 defined levels of service in categories "A" to "F". "A" means free flow conditions. "F"
represents forced or breakdown flow with stop and go conditions. A two-lane road analysis
?- \, as done on NC 209. It is presently operating at level of service "F", and expected to
operate at a level of service "F" in 2030. Based on the future traffic projections and Without
S4 the proposed project, NC 209 would operate very poorly with considerable traffic delays in
op the future. It would also contribute to inefficient operation of motor vehicles. With gas
91 prices the way they are, I don't think anyone wants to be in a congested area.
93 Another need for this project is the above average crash rates. Crash rates for this section of
y NC 209 were almost 6 times higher than comparable two-lane roadways to North Carolina.
95 These improvements to NC 209 in conjunction with the improvements made to NC 209
?o under Transportation Improvement Program project number R-21 17 will provide an
R-4047 - NC 209 Improvements page 2
97 unproved connection between US 19-23-74 at Lake Iunaluska, Waynesville, and 1-40
98 towards K-toxville- Tennessee.
99
100 Next is the Project Description. I'll cover that when I review the map. If you would turn to
101 the next page, I'll talk about the project information. The length of the project is just over
102 three quarters of a mile. The typical section. The typical section is what the roadway would
103 look like if 1 had a magical knife to cut a section of the road out and turn it up on its side,
104 Turn to the next page and this is what the typical section would look like. The typical
105 section for NC 209 would be a for-lane divided roadway. Liner Cove Road will be
106 widened to a four-lane roadway. The access road will remain a two-lane roadway. The
107 right-of-way on this project will vary. The control of access, in the area of the interchange,
108 you will have full control of access. That means no private driveways will be allowed to
109 connect with that area of the roadway within that vicinity. Outside of the interchange area,
110 there will be no control of access; however, we are implementing access management
Ill measures such as the construction of the median and consolidation of driveways and
112 intersections. This project will relocate 9 residences and 8 businesses.
113
114 Estimated cost of this project, the total cost is $34,251,000. The current schedule for this
115 project - Right-of-Way Acquisition is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year 2009, with
116 construction scheduled for 2014. Keep in mind that is a tentative schedule. Various factors
117 can affect a project schedule so schedules are subject to change.
IlS
119 If you turn on the back, the next section is the typical section. On the back of that, we'll talk
120 about Right-of-Wav Procedures. Once decisions are made regarding the final design, the
121 proposed right-of-way limits will be staked on the ground by our Locations and Sun evs
122 Unit. If you are an affected property owner, a Right-of-Way Agent will contact you and
123 arrange a meeting. The agent will explain to you the plans and how the project will affect
124 you and your rights as a property owner. If permanent right-of-way is required, an appraisal
125 will be done on your property. Once the appraisal is reviewed for completeness and
126 accuracy, the Right-of-Way Agent will make a written offer to you. The current market of
127 that property at its highest and best use is what we offer as monetary compensation. During
128 this process the Department must treat all owners and tenants equal]; we must fully explain
129 the owners rights; we must pay just compensation in exchange for property rights; and we
130 must furnish relocation advisory assistance.
131
132 That is a perfect segue into the next paragraph. If you are a rclocatee, if you are being
133 displaced as part of the project, there is additional assistance available in the forni of advice
134 and compensation. I would recommend to anyone if you have very detailed tight-cf-wav
135 questions, talk to Teddy Greene of anyone from his staff. They are very good at what they
136 do and very knowledgeable. There are also pamphlets that were available at the sign in
137 table. A pamphlet on Frequently Asked Questions for Right-of- lhayAcquisition and a
138 Relocation Assistance brochure, which explains the process.
1.0
140 The next is a map of the area and project, more of a conceptual. Behind that is the most
141 important sheet in this handout. This is why we've come out; to hear what VOL] have to say -
142 This is the last sheet because you can just rip it off and mail it in. You can leave comments
143 with us tonight if you've already written them out and turn them in at the commenl box.
14, Your comments don't have to specifically be on this sheet of paper- You can email rne.
R-4047 -NC 209 Lnpro,ements page 3
145 You can send your comments on your own letterhead. Just get the comment in to us. We
146 really want to hear from the public
147,
148 Let's review the map. By now I know most people have had a chance to look at the map. I
149 still want to go over it with you First let's get orientated with the map. Ed, do we have any
150 batteries? I'm sorry, if you could just bear with us for a second. We don't have any extra
151 batteries so I'll point everything out to you the old fashioned way. First to get orientated to
152 the map, this is North, this is the north arrow. This is South, East, West This is US 19/ 23/
153 74. Here is Old Clyde Road, Carley Road, Liner Cove Road, US 23 Business. This is 209
154 and Access Road.
155
156 Let's familiarize ourselves with the colors on the map. Anywhere you see Dark Green, that
157 represents existing right-of-way. Any of the Light Green is proposed right-of-way, the
158 right-of-way that will need to be acquired to construct the project. Anywhere you see the
159 Light Green with the Hatching, that represents easements. In most cases easements are
160 temporary. It is usually an area of land we need to construct the project- Once construction
161 is complete in most cases the land reverts back to the property owner. Anywhere you see
162 Gray, that represents existing pavement. Orange would represent existing pavement to be
163 resurfaced as a part of the project. Any Yellow would represent new pavement. Where you
164 see Gray with the Hatching would represent existing pavement to be removed as a part of
165 the project. Any Red would represent concrete structures of some sort; bridges, islands,
166 curb and gutter, Any concrete structure. Where you see the Red and White Candy Cane
167 Striping, that would represent existing concrete structures that will remain in place. The
168 Black and Red Candy Cane Striping represents existing concrete structures that will be
169 removed as part of the project- This Lavender color would represent railroad right-of-way. _
170 Brown would be buildings or homes. Any Blue would represent bodies of water. That's it.
171
172 Let's start with the Project- The main purpose of the project is to improve NC 209 from just
173 west of Liner Cove Road to north of Old Clyde Road. You are widening from a two-lane
174 facility/roadway to a four-lane divided. The median will be constructed throughout the
175 entire project study area with median breaks at Liner Cove Road, at the newly formed four-
176 way intersection with Paragon Parkway and the southbound on and off ramps and at the
777 northern most entrance of Access Road and Old Clyde Road.
ns
179 A7ren I was talking about the access management measures, part of that is cOnstrucune
ISO medians to separate opposing streams of traffic. We also are eliminating several
181 intersections that currently exist, one of those being Hospital Road. Hospital Road ties into
182. NC 209 in this location currently That will be removed. That signal will be removed and
1S3 Hospital Road will be realigned to the south and tie into Liner Cove Road. Also in this area.
184 Tuscola School Road will be realigned. (Inaudible) will be removed. It will tie into the new
185 aligunent of Hospital Road at this point. During construction a temporary roadway will be
186 built to allow access to the Motel 6 in this area. This connection will be removed once the
187 permanent connection is made at this point. The existing Liner Cove Road will be realigned
188 to the south. The existing pavement will be removed here and it will tie into this four-way
189 intersection on the new alignment. The northern side of the interchange, Paragon Parkway,
190 its connection will be removed and it.will be realigned to the north to tie into the new four-
191 way intersection with the southbound on and off ramp- Those access management measures
192 are being put in because the proximity of these intersections contribute to the poor
R-4047 - NC 209 Improvements page 4
193 operational efficiency of NC 209- On the northwest side, currently Access Road shares a
194 common roadway with the southbound on and off ramps. That desiim does not meet -our
!95 current standards. It is very confesing to drivers. \Vfiat we've done is reconfigm ed the
196 ramps. Now access to US 19/ 23% 74 will be the ramps only. Access Road will be realigned
197 to the northwest and tie in just north of our control of access. As it currently stands. this
198 access will be right-in, right-out only. With this reconfiguration of ramps, if you're getting
199 off the southbound exit ramp, you will be allowed to make left turns to access NC 209
20o North. This is Carley Road. Carley Road will be realigrred to tie into NC 209 at this point.
201 The major reason for this realignment is the new alignment of the railroad in this area.
202 We're taking out the existing railroad structure over NC 209 and constructing a new one.
203 The rail tracks will remain on the existing alignment until this is completed. Access Road,
204 the northern most intersection will be a full movement intersection. Left turns will be
205 allowed here. It is important to note from Carley Road to Old Clyde Road, NC 209 will be
206 on new alignment. This is mainly to fix the sight distance, make it a safer roadway. We
207 reach Old Clyde Road_ This will be a new four-way intersection with the entrance to
208 Haywood Park. It is not shown here but it will be a signalized intersection. To the north we
209 transition back to the two-lane roadway. That covers the map.
210
2t 1 Now we get to the comment session. I'll open it up to those who signed up to speak- Right
212 now that is Mr. Chris Simson. As you come up, please state your name and address. Once
213 Mr. Simson has spoken, I'll open it up to anyone who would like to speak at that point
214
215 Chris Simson: A4y name is Chris Simson. I own the property at 250 Access Road.
216 My personal property is here. Nov businesses are here. 1 have an automobile dealership and
217 a tack and feed store. I MN, wife and I also own property on this side.
21S
219 First 1'd like to commend the design. It is very efficient. I am very well
220 pleased with it. I wouldn't be standing here if there wasn't a "but". We have conservatively
221 850NO of our customers come off of 23/ 74 - Waynesville, Maggie Valley, Clyde, Canton,
222 Asheville, whatever. Very few come from Crabtree. Our tourist business is 50% of our
223 retail store. It's not 50% of our cars. Our car owning is done mostly local or off the
224 Internet. With this configuration there is no left turn from 209 to Access Road. That is
225 devastating to us because customers can not get to us. Nor will they be adventurous to get to
2^_6 us. `
'27
72S If you're here from out of town, you might not be familiar with how Access
229 Road works, you pass this point, you get down here, you turn left here and you are in the
230 Junaluska area and all the foot traffic, e.tc_ If you're lost it's not a good thing- We also have
231 two to three times a week 50' tractor trailers delivering to us feed, supplies- Thev would
232 need access here and out of here- We could turn them around here. If we have car hauls
23,3 come into our dealership and bring cars to us, they cannot come in this way because of the
234 grade crossing. Plus there are low overhanging limbs here. This road is not improved nor
235 was it intended for commercial traffic. One of the worst things we can trv to do is to put
^-36 tractor trailers in this section of Lake Junaluska's access to the walking trail- There are a lot
237 of kids here, a lot of pets here A lot of nice things here and a lot of cars parked in the road.
235 That would be a terrible situation It is inherently dangerous.
239
R-4047 - NC 209 hnprovements page 5
240
241
242
24;
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
^_56
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
,274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
252
2S3
2S4
2S5
2S6
2S7
The spontaneous business generated in this corridor is phenomenal. When I
invested in this property, people looked at me kind of cross-eyed when 1 bought 1.4: Bookct
out. I made him a deal he couldn't refuse. I was counting on the 60,000 people a day to go
by here. A spontaneous customer is a customer that says, doggone I need to visit Cindy and
buy her something. I meant to see her yesterday. Or doggone that is a nice looking tntck
Chris has got. I1n going back in there and get that. In our retail stores spontaneous
customers make up a great percentage of our business. We have asked our regular
customers and people who would listen to us and understood what we meant, if the access
road were moved down and you couldn't turn left in here, how would that affect you?
You'd be surprised at the answers If this is open to us and we can have access and left turn
here onto Access Road, we are totally not affected. 'v>,'e are absolutely pleased with the
entire plan. Without a left turn here the impact is devastating. Our business, I don't think
would survive. Asking people to come through here is not acceptable. It would not work.
If they tried to figure out how to U-turn here, that is not acceptable. It won't work. Nothing
works without a left turn access into Access Road.
I asked the design people and I asked Mr. Robbins,to please consider that in
the future for our well being. Most of you guys and ladies have invested in properly for
retirement. That's exactly what Cindy and I have done. We invested in this property as
future commercial property, for future values. Without that left turn here our property
values would depreciate overnight. ]Nobody wants to buy this place if they can't get to it.
No restaurant would want to be there. Nobody would want to buy our existing businesses.
Other than that I believe this is a wonderful plan. 1 think it does everything
we need it to do. I don't think it adversely affects any customers, business owners or
property owners. I would propose, and I have in writing, that if we can't get a left turn here.
we don't build it. We take me out, Ms. Reeves out and Dr. Banks out, just don't build this
road. I believe that the money saved in not constructing this access road would be more
than enough to take us out. That is how deeply I believe that without a left turn access we
wouldn't survive. Thank- you very much-
Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Simson. Anyone? Come up. Sir, we're recording
this and 1 need to get you on tape. Come on up here and state your name and address.
Paul Starnes: Paul Starnes, I live at Tuscola Park, this area right here. That's my
house right there.
I have some of the same problems that you have. This is going to do a lot to
isolate our community, make it more difficult to get home. When I come home on this loop
now, I can make a left and go home. If this is closed off, all of us in here would have to go
past this intersection, go down here and I was told, make a left here?
Unidentified DOT Employee:
Not in the present plan
Paul Starnes: That means Pve got to go around and come back in. So will
everybody else in that community- That does add gasoline and time for us. 'We're going to
be backing traffic up to this traffic light here
1t-4047 - NC 209 Improvements
page 6
28S A second problem, is that this is great but I don't see why Access Road can't
289 feed right on into that like it is doing now. Now to get out onto the higlnceay. we've Lot to
290 come out here, make a right inm, go back here to the traffic light, make another right turn
291 and swing back almost meeting ourselves on this. Exiting off here and coming like this. this
292 is a good intersection. I feel like this hasn't hurt anything to have that left tum on Access
293, Road. If an ambulance is coining down through here, they're going to have to swing all the
294 way back up here to Hospital Drive. If I had a heart attack, everv second counts. This
295 ambulance is going to have to make a good long sweep to get back here to the hospital. If
296 you're going to do this it makes sense to put an exit ramp to the hospital. That's the major
297 concerns that I see.
298
299 Moderators Thank you sir. Just to address the issue that you'd like to see the
Soo access road and the ramps stay like they are. You have access from the ramp from Access
301 Road. It is not a convenience issue. It is more of a safety issue.
302
303 Rav Rouser: Good Evening, I am Ray Rouser. My business address is 452 Wall
304 Street in Waynesville. My residence address is 280 Liner Cove Road. I livejust off the
305 map here.
306
307 You have surveyors coming up into my driveway. I know what vou're
30S trying to do. There's about 23 to 29 rear end accidents right here at this red light. There's
309 about 4 where the exiting route turns off to the left there. There's about 3 or 4 down here
310 where the trussle -is at the road there. You've got a six-lane road coming in to a two-lane
311 road with a 40 mph sign right here and none down through here. I'm sitting tight here at
312 this red light, many times have seen a youngster come flying in a jeep here at 65 mph.
313 Between this red light, he's seen it change, he'll swing on over through here. He's going to
314 have to stop at one of these two red lights. They're not synchronized. I think- all this is a
315 boondoggle. The state mission is to improve access to homes, businesses and public
316 facilities. )"on are hindering access to homes, public facilities such as schools, hospitals and
3 i 7 businesses by closing off these 2 intersections right here where the overpass is on 209. This
Ill 4 acres for sale here and has been for sale for over 2 years. Thev are asking 600,000 for it. I
319 know this is a nice family and I'm sure its been a loyal democrat. I think the state does not
320 need to run 6 lanes of traffic up this residential area and close off a four-lane existniL access
321 to Tuscola High School.
323 Since this staved being proposed Tuscola has had the Inglrwav department
334 put in an additional road into Tuscola High School. There is 4 lanes here going up the hill
325 that you \+ ant to do awa}' with and put it into 2 lanes. There is 3 lanes here. That is 7 lanes
320 of traffic. To help protect our students at Tuscola High School from a mad man \? ith a
327, ;automatic rifle or bornb, that's why this second road was put.m. That's why this was
32S widened. That was what the school system has to improve (inaudible). But you're going
329 backwards when you turn around and put it into a two-lane road here. This will eventually
330 have to have a light. You're dumping all the hospital access, all Tuscola High School, all
33 i these new apartments/condos into Lowe's parking lot right there. Instead of having a
332 straight run at this red light at Liner Cove, you can turn up here going to the condos, then
333 bring them back down into Lowe's parking lot then back over here. This whole section is a
334 boondoggle. Look how wide your access is in order to cut a road through that mountain.
335 That's a real high hill there- You're going to have to fill in a tremendously deep ravine here.
R-4047 - NC _209 Improvements page 7
336
333
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
353
359
360
361
362
363
364
,65
366
367
36S
,69
370
371
372
373
374
375
37,6
,77
37S
379
350
331
3S2
3S3
That's a lot of money wasted. If anyone (inaudible), major population center is in Haywood
County, has !ike the other eenden:an mentioned a hear, attack where minutes cot;nt you are
blocking access to a major public facility - Haywood County Hospital. That can cost lives
sending them this roundabout way. Your biggest problem, safety wise with this road is right
here on the Access Road eoine up to Sky Citv. You've had 23, 29 rear end accidents.
That's from people not paying attention to where they're driving. They're used to this being
a straight shot. Anybody's lived on this road more than 20 }ears, that's been a good
raceway to get to that end of the county- You don't need to block off Hospital Drive.
You're taking the only two restaurants, a family style restaurant and fast food
restaurant at the gas station in this vicinity, you go down 209, there's no (inaudible). You
have to go all the way to Clyde; all the way to Waynesville or the other end of Lake
Junaluska, people come to Shoney's from all over the county. They like their.All You Can
Bat Breakfast. Right? What you need to do, I'm not an engineer, but, I am a professional
photographer you need to put right in here a sign above traffic that shows this left hand lane
as you come out under this second bridge as a Left Turn. Then people back here start
thinking, this is a left tum. 1 need to stay in this middle lane of 6 lanes so that I can proceed
through here. You've got them proceeding through here and coming back in the middle
lane. Fin sure you will be able to straighten that out.
I agree with the gentleman that the no access, left turn lane for these people is
a boondoggle too. If I were an engineering professor at State, I would give an "F" to this
project. It is a boondoggle. You don't need to spend all this money, send all this 6 lanes of
traffic up here into a residential area, across a hill with a wide cut all the way up here. You
will have to fill in a tremendous amount of dirt here.. You'll eventually have a red light here.
You've got to. Lowe's has more business traffic than does Wal-Mart. Thev start at 7:00 in
the moming filling their cars up with building materials. They are still there at 800 at night.
Ninety five percent of them get in and out right there at Liner Cove. The State has built this
road up to make it easy to get into Lowe's. It used to be a solid, smooth road that -you could
drive in any weather. You put ice and snow on this hill through all these traffic
intersections, you're going to have major problems. You're endangering citizens' lives,
going to the hospital and the lives of our high school students by taking away the proper
access road. right here. Thank you, sir.
Moderator: Thank you sir for your comments. Just to address the issue of Liner
Cove Road's new alignment will be 4 lanes. We're not just dumping it out. From this point
on it will be a two-lane roadwav.
Ray Rouser: It's a six-lane now. Anybody coming down that hill wanting to go up
the hill towards the hospital they've got 4 lanes coming down, 2 on the other exit. Thev're
going to be trapped on that hill if there is ever a madman with a bomb or a (inaudible).
Moderator: Thant: you for vour comment, sir.
Leon Sellers: A9y name is Leon Sellers. I live at 23 Hollow Tice Court. The
previous gentleman referenced our condominiums, Castle Creek Condominiums- I am the
treasurer of the COA.
J
R-4047 - NC 209 Improvements
page 8
3$4
3S5
386
387
3SS
3s9
390
391
392
393
344
,95
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
4 04
405
406
401
40S
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
41
41S
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
I won't characterize it as a boondoggle but 1 do disapprove of the plan. I will
make my thoughts in writing and send them to the people in DOT. This section rnght here is
going to impact us in Castle Creek. It is off the map. Not only are you talking about taking
out a lot of dirt, you're going to cut down several hundred trees. It will probably be one of
the biggest deforestation projects on this side of the county in a long time. You've got trees
on both sides of the ridge. What vou're left with is a four-lane highway, which will come
almost to our property lines. You have retired people. I'm one of the younger people in the
project. I just don't see any good in this. You're going to end up in the future running
around. You're going to put signals in. You're going to have left turns. You're going to
have the same number of accidents. Five years after this is finished you'll still have the
same number of accidents. Many accidents occur because people are unfamiliar with the
area, tourists. It happens every year. That's all.
Moderator: Thant: you sir. Anyone else? Written comments carry the same
weight as verbal comments. We have two more? You raised your hand first.
Unidentified Male: (Inaudible) 277 Castle Creek Drive. (Inaudible)
My question is can you tell us what the cut would be going through here?
There is a very large slope here. Were very high. My (inaudible) the Super 8. With this
cut in here, how much of that ground is going to be taken out? How much of that slope, that
bat-ier for the (inaudible)?
Moderator: Sir, I can't give you a specific number. Our designers, Mike Little
may have that information. You can speak to him about that. Thank you, sir.
Richard Graves: My name is Richard Graves.
My father has been through a land deal before right in here. I have some land
that lie left me. I was wondering, how will I access that land? Is there any way to get to that
when the project is complete?
Moderator: From the current design plans, it doesn't look like you have access. If
that is the case, we would purchase your property in its entirety. If you don't have access,
we are required to buy it out. Anyone else? Su, when you speak, will you-come up because
1 need to get you on tape.
Rav Rouser: I'm Ray Rouser again
This map is different from that map over there. That map shows you taking
across from Lawns Chapel Methodist Church, the Post Office, the Fire Department and
these two businesses. Why is there a difference in this map and the maps that are hanging
over there? What is the plan for the Post Office and the two businesses beside it? On this
map, it shows the right-of-way coming behind it. The green area came all the up to here-
Moderator: The maps are identical sir. There wouldn't be any difference. We
will have a right-of-way claim with them.
R-4047 - NC 209 Improvements
page 9
I 32
433
434
435
436
4
43S
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
44S
449
450
451
452
457
454
45±
456
457
45S
459
460
46
4i0
4 n.i
464
4„7
468
469
470
a71
4 %2
473
474
4'.5
476
477
47i
Ray Rouser: Wb%7 are you taking these 3 houses when you saying vou're going to
increase access to homes? You're actually taking` these 3 homes for this little two-lane road
that you are realigning. Why does the State need to come all the wa,, into these people's
property? This is fairly level land here. If you are having a two-lane road, %N,hv are von
having to take this step?
Moderator: One of the reasons is because of the neA alignment of the railroad.
Second, the topography dictates how much right of way will have to be acquired.
Ray Rouser: You say you're giving us increased access to homes and vet -you're
taking homes. You're taking 9 businesses and 6 homes.
Moderator: Unfortunately sir, someone is always going to be impacted by one of
our projects. That's just the reality of it If we could build roadways without effecting
anyone we would and we would save a lot of money.
Paul Starnes: It's Paul Starnes again.
It seems a lot of money would be saved by keeping this and not permitting a
nght turn on red. That is one thing that bottles up traffic here, people tuming right on red
when you've got people trying to turn left. This intersection, if you're going to move it
down here its going to improve things. It seems if there was no right on red here that would
eliminate a lot of the problems von have with this section that goes out to the hospital.
Avoid the expense of the loop down here. The highschoolers, people going to Tuscola back
up the interstate here. I wonder if it might be cheaper to add a lane further back than to do
all this. Widen the bridge and create an additional lane through here. It would save a lot of
money if you did not take this motel and this business in order to create ...to have a separate
access road down to here.
?9oderator: Thank you, sir for your comments. Anyone else? A'ith that we'll
adjourn the meeting. I would like to thank everyone for coming out. We will be around for
a few minutes afterwards if you have any questions or just want to talk to us. Thanks again
for coming out. Have a good night. -
Hearing Adjourned.
Jamille Robbins. Moderator
Human Environment Unit
August 12, 2008
Typed by Cyndy D. Hummel
R-4047 - NC 209 Improvements
page 10