20000873 Ver 1_Complete File_20000703

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, XF
, XWAA
Health and Natural Resources
•
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor O FE B. Howes, , Secretary C
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
March 4, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn
From: Eric Galamb?/
Subject: Draft Reevaluation for US 64 Improvements
Clay County
State Project DOT No. 8.3064121, TIP # A-11 B
EHNR # 96-0543, DEM # 11193
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands.
The subject project will impact 0.2 acres of wetlands and 0.32 acres of waters.
DOT is reminded that the 401 Certification could be denied unless water quality
concerns are satisfied. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to
Eric Galamb (733-1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Asheville COE
Brian Yamamoto, DOT
Monica Swihart
us64rev.fin
FAXED
MAR Q 419961
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form R w14roft.
Project Number: County: Date:
? Project located in 7th floor library
I I Iq 3
Date Response Due (firm deadline):
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
???,?,
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
?Asheville ?All R/O Areas ?Soil and Water ?Marine Fisheries
ill
? F ? Air ? Coastal Management ? Water Planning
ayettev
e ? Water ? Water Resources ? Environmental Health
? Mooresville ?Groundwater ,Wildlife ?Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer ? Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
? W
hi
t ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster
on
ng
as ? Coastal Management Consultant ? Parks and Recreation . ? Other (specify)
? Wilmington ? Others Pnvironmental Management
El Winston-Salem PWS
RF Monica Swihart
F?
c???'FO

Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:

FS
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited) .
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
PS-704
, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
U-S 64
From NC 69
to 0.2 mile west of NC 175
Clay County
Federal-Aid Project Number APD-16-1(18)
State Project Number 8.3064121
T.I.P. Number A-11 B

FINAL REEVALUATION OF FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)
?z 9 s dJ
Date 'Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Date Nich Graf, P. .
Divi on Administrator, FHWA
US 64
From NC 69
to 0.2 mile west of NC 175
Clay County
Federal-Aid Project Number APD-16-1(18)
State Project Number 8.3064121
T.I.P. Number A-11 B
FINAL REEVALUATION OF FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Prepared by
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N. C. Department of Transportation
Brian F. Yamamo
Project Plan g Engineer
Linwood Stone, CPM
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
Richard B. Davis, P. E., Assistant
Planning and Environmental Branch
00 wtt iQfor?Ee?pfi
•. aF ESS id,%. I
r; SEAL
6944
,,y-- US 64
From NC 69
to 0.2 mile west of NC 175
Clay County
Federal-Aid Project Number APD-16-1(18)
State Project Number 8.3064121
T.I.P. Number A-11 B
FINAL REEVALUATION OF FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. To minimize impacts to water quality, NCDOT Best Management Practices
(BMP's) will be strictly adhered to. Non-point sediment sources will
be identified and efforts made to control sediment runoff. Finally,
the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan established by the
Division of Highways in cooperation with the N. C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources will be implemented prior
to and during project construction.
2. It is anticipated a United States Army Corps of Engineers Individual
Section 404 permit will be needed for proposed channel changes in
Downing Creek. All other construction activities in jurisdictional
wetlands and waters of the United States can be performed under the
same individual Section 404 permit.
3. Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) approval is necessary for
construction in the Hiwassee River and Chatuge Reservoir area. Final
plans for structures and associated approach fills at stream
crossings will be submitted to the TVA for review under Section 26a
of the TVA Act. In addition, a copy of a letter from the State
Historic Preservation Office stating the proposal complies with the
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 will be sent to the TVA.
4. The NCDEHNR-DEM requires a State 401 Water Quality Certification for
any construction activity which may result in a discharge and for
which a federal permit is required.
5. Before construction authorization, additional archaeological testing
and data recovery operations will be performed east of the Hiwassee
River at site 31Cy85. It is anticipated a conditional finding of no
adverse effect or a finding of no adverse effect will be issued
pursuant to 36 CFR 800.9 C. The scope for additional work at the
site will be provided to the SHPO for their review before project
construction authorization.
TA6.LE--OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECOMMENDED ACTION ...................... 1
II. ACTION REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES .......................... 1
III. NEED FOR ACTION ............................................ 2
IV. CIRCULATION OF DRAFT REEVALUATION OF FINAL
NEGATIVE DECLARATION ....................................... 2
V. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT REEVALUATION OF FINAL
NEGATIVE DECLARATION ....................................... 3
A. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers ......................... 3
B. Tennessee Valley Authority ............................ 4
C. N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission ................... 4
D. N. C. Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources - Division of
Environmental Management .............................. 5
E. N. C. Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources - Division of
Land Resources ........................................ 6
VI. REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE DRAFT
REEVALUATION ............................................... 7
A. Accident Analysis ..................................... 7
B. Capacity Analysis ...................................... 8
C. Stream Modifications .................................. 10
D. Threatened and Endangered Species ..................... 10
E. Air Quality .......................................... 11
VII. CONCLUSIONS ................................................ 11
TABLE-OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Tables
Table 1 - Accident Rates ................................... 7
Table 2 - Type of Collision ................................ 8
Table 3 - Levels-of-Service ................................ 8
Table 4 - 1 Hour CO Concentrations ........................ 11
Maps and Illustrations
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Proposed Cross Sections
Figure 3 - 1995 Average Daily Traffic
Figure 4 - 2020 Average Daily Traffic
Appendix
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers ..............................A-1
Tennessee Valley Authority .................................A-2
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission ........................A-3
N. C. Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources - Division of
Environmental Management ...................................A-5
N. C. Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources - Division of Land
Resources ..................................................A-6
JUS 64
From NC 69
to 0.2 mile west of NC 175
Clay County
Federal-Aid Project Number APD-16-1(18)
State Project Number 8.3064121
T.I.P. Number A-11 B
I. DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
The 1996-2002 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes
the upgrading of NC 69 and US 64 from the Georgia/North Carolina State
Line to NC 175 in Clay County (8.2 miles) under project A-11. The project
has been divided into parts A-11 A (NC 69 from the Georgia State Line to
US 64) and A-11 B (US 64 from NC 69 to NC 175). This reevaluation covers
project A-11 B (4.6 miles). Project A-11 A has already been studied in a
separate reevaluation approved by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) in April, 1991. Right of way acquisition for project A-11 B is
currently scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1997 and construction is to
begin in Fiscal Year 1998. The project area is shown in Figure 1.
The construction cost estimate for the project is $8,500,000
including the cost to upgrade US 64 to a 5-lane shoulder section from
NC 69 to 0.2 mile east of the Hiwassee River ($4,000,000) and upgrading
the existing two lanes from 0.2 mile east of the Hiwassee River to 0.2
mile west of NC 175 ($4,500,000). The total cost estimate for the
proposed improvements is $9,585,000, which includes $1,085,000 for right
of way and 8,500,000 for construction.
The proposed 5-lane section will consist of a 68-foot pavement
containing four 12-foot lanes, a 12-foot center turn lane, and 4-foot
paved shoulders. A total usable shoulder width of 10 feet will be
provided on each side of the 5-lane section, including the 4-foot paved
shoulders.
In the section of the project where 2-lane improvements are proposed,
the existing pavement will be widened to 32 feet including two 12-foot
travel lanes and 4-foot paved shoulders. A total usable shoulder width of
10 feet, including the 4-foot paved shoulders, will be provided on each
side of the improved 2-lane section. Ditches are to be improved, where
necessary. The proposed typical cross sections for US 64 in the project
area are shown in Figure 2.
II. ACTION REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES
It is anticipated a United States Army Corps of Engineers Individual
Section 404 permit will be needed for proposed channel changes in Downing
Creek. All other construction activities in jurisdictional wetlands and
waters of the United States can be performed under the same Individual
Section 404 permit.
2
Approval by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is also necessary
for construction in the Hiwassee River and Chatuge Reservoir area. Final
plans for the structures and associated approach fills at stream crossings
will be submitted to the TVA for review under Section 26a of the TVA Act.
In addition, a copy of a letter from the State Historic Preservation
Office stating the proposal complies with the Historic Preservation Act of
1966 will be sent to the TVA.
Two state approvals will be necessary for this project. The North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources -
Division of Environmental Management (NCDEHNR-DEM) requires a State 401
Water Quality Certification for any construction activity which may result
in a discharge and for which a federal permit is required. It is also
anticipated that a dredge and fill permit will be required from the
NCDEHNR - Division of Land Resources.
The NCDOT has studied asymmetric widening to avoid rechannelizing
parts of John Reese Branch and Downing Creek. Rechannelizing John Reese
Branch has been avoided; however, it is anticipated that 1140 feet of
Downing Creek will be rechannelized as a part of the project. The
proposed rechannel ization in Downing Creek cannot be avoided without
incurring unreasonable cost as discussed in Section VI.E. of this report.
III. NEED FOR ACTION
The proposed improvements to US 64 are part of an overall plan to
improve a corridor between Atlanta, Georgia and Asheville, North Carolina.
The subject project, together with improvements to NC 69 performed under
TIP project A-11 A, links with a 100-mile section of the Appalachian
Development Highway System that connects Atlanta to the North Carolina
State Line.
The total accident rate for US 64 is slightly higher than the average
statewide rate for rural "US" routes. Approximately one third are
accidents that occurred in the vicinity of the intersection of NC 69 and
US 64. The proposed cross section improvements along with the recent
signalization of the NC 69/US 64 intersection will improve traffic safety
at intersections and the main line within the project limits.
IV. CIRCULATION OF FINAL REEVALUATION OF FINAL NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
The Draft Reevaluation of Final Negative Declaration was circulated
among the following federal, state, and local agencies and officials:
Appalachian Regional Commission - Washington
* U. S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District
Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission - Atlanta
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
U. S. Forest Service - Asheville
3
* Tennessee Valley Authority
* N. C. State Clearinghouse
* N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
* N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources - Division of Environmental Management
* N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources - Division of Land Resources
* N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources - Raleigh Regional Office
* Written comments were received from agencies denoted with an
asterisk (*).
V. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT REEVALUATION
OF FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Comment:
"The project should be designed to meet the requirements of the
National Flood Insurance Program and be in compliance with all local
ordinances."
Response:
Clay County does not currently participate in the National Flood
Insurance Program. Although the project lies in a flood hazard zone,
the required drainage structures within the floodplain have been
designed so as not to cause a significant increase in upstream
flooding or greater than a 1.0-foot floodway surcharge.
Comment:
"From ...the environmental document, 0.62 acre of surface waters
and jurisdictional wetlands are involved. Please provide sufficient
information for our evaluation of environmental impacts for all
construction corridors which you are considering... Adverse
environmental impacts should be avoided and minimized."
Response.
Through early consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), the
NCDOT has evaluated design modifications to reduce the amount of
stream rechannel ization along the project. The original design
submitted to the USFWS and the NCWRC called for symmetric roadway
widening, which resulted in 3600 linear feet of stream
rechannelization in Downing Creek and John Reese Branch. That design
required fill in approximately 0.2 acres of wetlands and 0.59 acres
of surface waters. The current proposed design calls for asymmetric
roadway widening, reducing the required stream rechannel ization to
1140 linear feet along Downing Creek. John Reese Branch will no
4
B.
longer be affected by rechannelization. The remaining 1140 linear
feet of stream rechannel ization is unavoidable (See response to
NCDEHNR-DEM question on pgs. 4-5 of this document).
The Draft Reevaluation originally identified 0.2 acre of fill in
wetlands and 0.42 acres of fill in surface waters (0.62 acres total)
for the asymmetric widening. More refined calculations indicate a
total fill amount in wetlands and waters to total 0.52 acres. The
project impacts wetlands and waters of the United States at twelve
sites along the project. Seven of these sites occur above
headwaters. The project will fill a total of 0.2 acres of wetlands
at s i x sites. The amount of f i l l in surface waters will be 0.32
acres.
Tennessee Valley Authority
Comment:
"...approvals under 26a
stream and lake crossings.
also be needed to cross TVA
Reservoir.... TVA is not aware
be required."
of the TVA Act would be required for the
In addition, easements or licenses may
lands or landrights along Chatuge
of any reason why FERC approval would
Response:
It was originally anticipated that a Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) permit would be required for construction
activities in the Chatuge Reservoir. After consulting with TVA
officials, it is concluded that this will not be necessary. The TVA
is not regulated by FERC, therefore the lands affected by
construction along the project, which are owned by the TVA, are not
regulated by FERC.
C. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment:
"The NCDOT should include documentation that the 1140 linear
feet stream relocation still proposed for this project cannot be
avoided. While we have verbally agreed that the NCDOT has likely
minimized stream relocation to the extent practicable, the NCDOT
should document this finding in the Reevaluation."
Response:
Asymmetric widening was considered to avoid the rechannelization
of 3600 linear feet of Downing Creek and John Reese Branch. It is
anticipated improvements now recommended along US 64 will require
approximately 1140 linear feet of stream rechannel ization along
Downing Creek and no rechannelization in John Reese Branch.
5
Preliminary design studies for asymmetric widening along the
remaining 1140 linear feet would require a 15-foot shift to the south
side of the highway for approximately 2240 feet. These studies
indicate the cost to make this shift would exceed the cost of the
recommended improvements by more than $450,000. The primary
component of the additional cost associated with shifting the roadway
is the expense of excavating rock from a mountain on the south side
of US 64. Since the construction cost to shift the proposed widening
south of the existing centerline is excessive and the shift is
anticipated to require relocating two additional residences,
asymmetric widening is not a prudent choice to avoid rechannelizing
the remaining 1140 linear feet of Downing Creek.
Comment:
"The NCDOT should discuss mitigation measures that will be taken
to minimize adverse impacts to aquatic habitat from stream
relocation."
Response:
Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be implemented during the
planning, design, and construction of the project to reduce the
potential for adverse water quality impacts. Specifications to
simulate natural stream bottom conditions for rechannelized sections
along Downing Creek will be developed during the permitting stage of
the project.
Comment:
"The third paragraph on page 10 and second paragraph on page 13
(of the Draft Reevaluation of Final Negative Declaration) include
verbiage regarding the need for the NCDOT to obtain a letter of
concurrence from the NCWRC before the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
will issue a 404 permit for this project. This is correct only when
a Nationwide or General 404 permit is required in one of the 25 trout
counties. Although Clay County is a trout county, the Corps has
determined that an Individual 404 permit is required for this
project. The NCWRC is one of many entities, both public and private,
that provide comments on Individual 404 permit applications."
Response:
Since the Department of the Army has determined that this
project will require an Individual 404 permit, the NCWRC will comment
on the permit application as part of the standard permitting
procedure.
D. NCDEHNR - Division of Environmental Management
Comment:
"DEM recognizes efforts of DOT to reduce impacts by evaluating
asymmetric widening per WRC request and determining John Reese Branch
would not require relocation. Clarification as to whether similar
6
E.
avoidance options were evaluated to prevent rechannel ization of
Downing Creek would be beneficial for review ...and should be included
in the Final Reevaluation."
Response:
See response to similar comment from N. C. Wildlife Resources
Commission on pages 4-5 of this document.
NCDEHNR - Division of Land Resources
Comment:
"This project will impact 7 geodetic survey markers. N.C.
Geodetic Survey should be contacted prior to construction....
Intentional destruction of a geodetic monument is a violation of
N. C. General Statute 102-4."
Response:
Prior to the construction of the project, NCDOT will contact the
N.C. Geodetic Survey regarding the relocation of survey markers.
Comment:
"This project will require
sedimentation control plan prior
activity if more than one (1) acre
approval of an erosion and
to beginning any, land-disturbing
will be disturbed."
Response:
An erosion and sedimentation control plan will be provided prior
to any land disturbing activity.
Comment:
"If any portion
Water Zone (HQW), as
Management, increased
control will apply."
Response:
of the project is located within a High Quality
classified by the Division of Environmental
design standards for sediment and erosion
No High Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource Waters, or waters
classified WS-I and WS-II are located in the study area or within one
mile downstream. To minimize impacts to water quality, NCDOT Best
Management Practices (BMP's) will be strictly adhered to. Non-point
sediment sources will be identified and efforts made to control
sediment runoff. Finally, the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan
established by the Division of Highways in cooperation with the N. C.
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources will be
implemented prior to and during project construction.
Comment:
"The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this
project should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under
the erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways
from the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission."
Response:
The erosion and sedimentation control plan for this project will
be prepared under the erosion control program delegation from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
VI. REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE DRAFT REEVALUAT
A. Accident Analysis
Table 1 presents a comparison of accident rates along the subject
project with the statewide rates for all rural "US" routes. The rates
shown for US 64 were obtained from studies conducted between January 1,
1991 and February 28, 1995. The average statewide rates were obtained
from studies conducted between 1992 and 1994.
TABLE 1
Accident Rates
(per 100 million vehicle miles)
Accident Type Rates along US 64 Average Statewide Rates
Total Rate 194.4 174.3
Fatal 2.6 2.5
Non - Fatal Injury 84.1 82.2
Nighttime 28.9 40.0
Wet Conditions 36.8 41.5
These rates show the total accident rate along US 64 within
the project limits is slightly higher than the statewide average rate for
rural "US" routes. In addition, the rates of fatal accidents and
non-fatal accidents with injuries are higher than the statewide average
rates for similar routes. The remaining rates (nighttime, wet) are lower
than the corresponding statewide average rates.
Table 2 includes information on the types of accidents, by
percentage, that have occurred on US 64 between January 1, 1991 and
February 28, 1995. The proposed project is anticipated to reduce the
potential for those types of accidents to occur by providing a center turn
lane from NC 69 to 0.2 miles east of the Hiwassee River. The existing
20-foot pavement will be widened to two 12-foot travel lanes with 4-foot
paved shoulders from 0.2 miles east of the Hiwassee River to the east
project limits.
8
TABLE 2
Type of Collision
Manner of Collision Percent
Run off Pavement 17.7
Sideswipe/Angle 27.0
Rear End 23.0
Left Turn 29.8
Other 2.8
Of the total seventy-four accidents, twenty-five (thirty-four
percent) occurred in the immediate vicinity of the NC 69/US 64
intersection, twelve (sixteen percent) in the immediate vicinity of the
SR 1140/US 64 intersection, four (five percent) in the immediate vicinity
of the SR 1325/SR 1147/US 64 intersection, and four (five percent) in the
immediate vicinity of the SR 1333/US 64 intersection. The remaining
twenty-nine (thirty-nine percent) accidents occurred at various other
locations along the project.
B. Capacity Analysis
Capacity analyses were performed to compare the levels-of-service
(LOS) at which US 64 would operate considering both an unimproved facility
and the recommended two-lane and five-lane improvements. Analyses were
completed using both 1995 and projected 2020 traffic volumes. The results
of these analyses are shown below in Table 3.
TABLE 3
Levels-of-service
LOCATION
Intersection of
NC 69 and US 64
From NC 69 to US 64 Bus.
From US 64 Bus. to SR 1147
From SR 1147 to SR 1148
From SR 1148 to SR 1325
From SR 1325 to SR 1151
From SR 1151 to NC 175
1995 2020
LOS LOS
Existing Existing Improved
B C C
D E A
C E A
D E E
D E D
C E D
D E E
9
Table 3 shows the recommended 5-lane section from the west project
limit to SR 1147 will provide better operating conditions in the design
year than the unimproved facility. The level-of-service improves from "E"
for the existing facility in the year 2020 to "A" for the proposed 5-lane
section. A capacity analysis at the intersection of NC 69 and US 64 was
also performed. With the proposed improvements, the intersection will
operate at a level-of-service "C" in the design year.
The existing facility is currently operating at a level-of-service
"C" or "D" w-i th 1995 traffic volumes. If no improvements are made to
US 64, it is anticipated the level-of-service will reduce to "E" by the
year 2020. The two-lane improvements recommended for the portion of the
project east of the Hiwassee River will enhance the safety of the road.
The improvements raise the projected level-of-service from "E" to "D"
between SR 1148 and SR 1151. The sections of road that remain at
level-of-service "E" (SR 1147 to SR 1148 and SR 1151 to NC 175) require
additional travel lanes to raise the level-of-service. If the actual
design year traffic volumes approach the predicted volumes, consideration
should be given to constructing a multi-lane section east of the Hiwassee
River to increase traffic handling capabilities. Multi-lane improvements
to US 64 east for the Hiwassee River are beyond the current project scope.
Level-of-service "A" represents free flowing traffic. Individual
users are virtually unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic
stream. Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within the
traffic stream is extremely high. The general level of comfort and
convenience provided to the motorist is excellent.
Level-of-service "B represents traffic that is in the range of
stable flow. The presence of others in the traffic stream begins to be
noticeable. Selection of desired speed remains unaffected, but there is a
slight decline in the freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream.
Level-of-service "C" represents traffic that is in the range of
stable flow. The operation of individual users becomes significantly
affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream. Selection of
speed and maneuvering requires vigilance on the part of the user.
Level-of-service "D" represents high density, stable flow. Passing
demand is very high, while passing opportunities are extremely limited.
The driver generally experiences a poor level of comfort and convenience.
Small increases in traffic flow will cause operational problems at this
level. Platoon sizes increase, and turning vehicles disrupt continuity of
the traffic stream.
Level -of-service "E" represents operating conditions at or near the
capacity level. All speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform
value. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely
difficult, and is generally accomplished by forcing another vehicle to
adjust its speed. Comfort and convenience levels are very poor, leading
to driver frustration. Operations at this level are usually unstable
because increases in flow or minor perturbations within the traffic stream
will cause breakdowns.
10
C. Stream Modifications
No High Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource Waters, or waters
classified WS-I and WS-II are located in the study area or within 1 mile
downstream. None of the water resources impacted by the project are
identified as Designated Public Mountain Trout Waters by the N. C.
Wildlife Resources Commission.
Asymmetric widening was considered to avoid the rechannelization of
3600 linear feet of Downing Creek and John Reese Branch. It is
anticipated improvements now recommended along US 64 will require
approximately 1140 linear feet of stream rechannel ization along Downing
Creek and no rechannelization in John Reese Branch.
Preliminary design studies indicate shifting 2240 feet of US 64
approximately 15 feet to the south allows Downing Creek to remain in its
present channel. These studies indicate the cost to make this shift would
exceed the recommended improvements by more than $450,000. The added
costs result primarily from excavating rock from the south side of US 64.
Therefore, asymmetric widening is not a prudent choice to avoid
rechannelizing the remaining 1140 linear feet of Downing Creek.
To minimize adverse impacts to water quality, NCDOT Best Management
Practices will be strictly adhered to. Non-point sediment sources will be
identified and efforts made to control sediment runoff. An erosion
control and sedimentation control plan will be provided prior to any land
disturbing activity.
D. Threatened and Endangered Species
Two federally protected species are listed by the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service for Clay County as of March 28, 1995. They are the
green pitcher plant (Sarracenia oreophila) and the Virginia spiraea
S iraea virginiana). The green pitcher plant and the Virginia spiraea
have been assigned statuses of "federally endangered" and "federally
threatened," respectively. Suitable habitat for both plants occurs in the
project area. Habitat areas were surveyed in March, 1992 on a plant by
plant basis. No plants of either species were observed and no impacts to
these plants by the proposed project are anticipated.
The Water shrew, Bog turtle, Hellbender, Manhart's sedge, Cerulean
warbler, Parrish crayfish, A liverwort, Butternut, New Jersey rush, Wolf's
milk spurge, and Wooly berry are species that are vulnerable to
extinction. These species are afforded state protection under the State
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Species of Special Concern Act (1987)
and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act (1979). The
laws are designed to recognize these species, but do not impose penalties
against the landowner if the species are affected by an action of the
landowner. Though all or some of these species may be present in the
study area, no surveys were conducted.
11
E. Air Quality
The worst-case air quality receptor is the right of way line
approximately 50 feet from the proposed centerline of the roadway. The
one- hour CO concentrations for this receptor point for the years 2000 and
2020 are shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4
1-hour CO Concentrations (PPM)
Build No Build
Receptor 2000 2020 2000 2020
R/W Line 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.9
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (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 is less than 9 ppm, it is concluded the 8-hour CO level does not
exceed the standard.
The project is located in Clay County, which is in compliance with
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR, Parts 51 is not
applicable because the proposed project is located in an attainment area.
This project is not anticipated to create an adverse effect on the air
quality of this attainment area.
During project construction, all materials resulting from clearing
and grubbing, demolition, or other operations will be removed from the
project and disposed of by the contractor. Any burning will be done in
accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances. Burning will also
be performed in compliance with regulations of the North Carolina SIP for
air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Burning will be done at
the greatest practicable distance from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions will create a hazard to the public. Burning will only be
performed under constant surveillance. Measures will be taken to allay
dust generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for
the protection and comfort of motorists or area residents.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for air quality
of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process, and no
additional reports are necessary.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
It is anticipated the proposed improvements to US 64 will not result
in significant adverse impacts on the environment. The improvements now
proposed for US 64 have been downscaled since the Final Negative
Declaration for TIP project A-11 was approved in 1981; therefore,
12
anticipated environmental impacts have been reduced. Minimal additional
right of way is to be acquired, and 5 relocatees are anticipated.
Approximately 0.52 acre of waters of the United States will be impacted,
including 0.32 acre of surface water fill and 0.2 acre of fill in
jurisdictional wetland. No impacts to historic architectural resources
are anticipated. One archaeological site that is potentially eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places may be impacted by the proposed
improvements; however, the SHPO has concurred impacts can likely be
mitigated by data recovery or some other measures to be coordinated with
NCDOT staff before construction authorization. Minimal impacts on prime
and important farmland soils are anticipated and no known hazardous waste
sites exist within the proposed right of way. Furthermore, the proposed
improvements will enhance safety and increase traffic capacity along the
facility. It is concluded project A-11 B will have no significant adverse
impact on the environment.
BY/plr
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
O ?.r? V W N N =
a V-_ W () Q F-
7 7r O
0-0
v 7 -
3 S s l ?, 1.4 ro H ro
B s 3? 3
-Cc ?O lid ?d I'd
83`55 _ G colt G o
Vi
co Cb
.9 to
8 0 0 p 1 Z N Z
a C` Fj 1 y 1
Sd _ w IC Ut > Ut >
r
CD - J o b u
:'•:::'. ? s ?' N w .N 1. O -
s :u O Q
E ?w
M ? ? ,?•? '? ? to
-j cit
0 N r b
S ° W
G V rD a 1
1 a
/ 9,'-, add ?a 4Pole
s ?•
1 1
o
t _
A
N
?D / m .. l
I° J p D
1 V1 s c .2r ?• - ? N rr,
1 - 3. v _ !l _ ?' `'' IA Nat. F rest Rd' D <
10
f 10
a -< V
1 S Fqp o i. a c9S }~y.a \\ ° (p
Q tNBl r- m
\ -1 r
.3 j
-cr
:r , lip
ioa ` A V - T
o N,2 0 1 1 c~ N '-
W-
1 ?o I W 1 > o ? .
a - 2 -P
VIC"
a - C, r Q ILA
i m PPS t?' 100 ' ?' W `?O ? J
s •L I,? r, o
cow.
14
IN
i.,
14
CIS : > L .- ?W ?=' ?• : ?
1 ?, A TUGS ?k?, .? ?•;W !;, , ;,:; ? ?
1 ,a .2
m
A ?.. IN's
1
-` co Crppk
IO v o ?G1aN -? m
ICA
1
- rlf T. 9
'N
14
0 3'c ??; Dv `n N H
a, S. Azl?l
01
- m lO0 i.w fL O
cn o C'
IN= ;N O A oo, ;Lj W ti\ m? _
v iD \ W IW a Creek
Nutlockll/
U \ N V
lp T W
O
Lt, Cf 14
t 7 'w,_ rn
W W r?
9'1
?' I?w Iw W ?o D
Iw o \ 4k\
l ti N ?cj 3.4 Cree w 0
o• s 0 c
c., ROCA.. -4
c iA 3 .w yc17gir Qr \ m'
(A 4. o.- QfjC
0
n
'm
_ N D
E \ Z 4 ojionol 4. Z
1::'"•. !
f B Roo
N :
-4 C J
c0 zz•-?rz?
nr^z?ra=
DDNiv
, '< ..?>
1 n*r- >
Omm ?_--
c (n
<-n Z
:. J
Z 4 =
rc >
?n
-, n z Z
D A T4?? Forest
P
Creek D
D ? 8
O W
?<rn - _- Z v
a m /
O m
O
Ineyar
Z D
\\`?` Bpr?Pt f / i l?
US 64 PROPOSED TYPICAL
CROSS SECTION
TWO - LANE SECTION
rt

FIVE - LANE SECTION
rt
14- 1 30' ' I 30' 1 4 I 6
12' 12' 12' 12' 12

PROJECT A - 11 B
FIGURE 2
A A'
It
Ln
pm m
M 60 ®(2,1) ' ° 10 (2,1)b' 60
in O

O
tM0
n `O
O
pm ® LO
9 (2,1) 65
M
cn
N
pm o
m 9 (3,1 j '60
N
^N
J

C
t pm lp 10 (3 8060 W (D l 10 (3,21
60
rn
CO M ? N co
U LO to U
Z Z
O ? N
m -
10 p1" 60 co
(2,1)
CO
l U' cn
pm
10 (21)®60
co ?_
Q
U)
Lo
co
pm _
10 (2,1) 6Q ?
0
N
m
? y
40
E.
z

co W
c C?
Z
F d
a W
LL r. G
? LU
2 N
0
C4

Z
w??
F 0
y z

>

t
0x W LL
3 O H y I
IL
a
z
d N

a ?3
0 c
LC)
C4 O W
Z N W

J
C; O1 Z

w

N
? 2 (n
Owed
a Z)
O LL p W
Z O L
i
v 't
F-
Q
U
N
O

•q`
J
)
?C
a z
t

5
v .
z
f"
N
C z

Q
W
O O
a°
N
1 m
?
C
m

O LL,
_
O 01
0

o
I- ? O
W p o cn o°
C7 _ LL c vi n k 0 o m
W -
J o O w
y o CL 2 T
m
41
Q
V c
C
?
lp
o
?
CL ' w y
II O ?

2 II 2 ?
II
O Q C
ca
U)
c?
pm pm
0 6O x(2,1) 10 7 10 (2,1 6° 0
M ?J CV)
M L M
CO U)
n
pm
( r4 10 (2,1)x60
co u
cp z
La
N 60 m 0 10
M M
I
Cl)
N
LO

M ®
60 pm 10
1)
(2
,
cr)
I

N
LO
pm
10 (2,1)x 60 0
00
L
0
F
z x
w
m U)
LU
M
U
a a _
a
"? J
Cr
°

0Qz
IL 0
z
W m
Q

Hxz ~ LL
C
3 ~ y

a
d
d w ?- c o
as a J W Q
3
Opwa O
aaOW
UzzQ N {Y C 2
O W
xQO } r U

aF?H
z N
¢ o ? t
)
o
OwP.?
? D LL w
It
° F
zoa o H
Q o

a?
y, }
J (A ?
' to z
z
O u V
z F- .0
c z
3
3
e
• to
W 3
° Q<
dL x?R. ? D
m
Ln

M pm
60 ® (2,1) ' °
M

o= o
(n N
to
to
a

pm oe
M 60-4 (2,1
)
' °
'J
o
c
o E m
CV)
o?
m
3
N
to
y y
° J
Lo W C o F- to
Pm f 0 p?60 _ o a ? 0 o m

Lf)
1) 10
fi° ®(2
f2,1)
?Wi
c
m
m
' e
-,a
, Cz
0
i o
1?
- z o
to eo ?-

lb
'o - O m
CL

? z..

o p
a
Ln o

A A
l1)
CV)
fr e-
Ln
® pm
f 0
60 (2,1)
A A'
O
O
J 10 2,m 1)x60
((NN
0
O
t0
4?6
0
10 m x-60 m
1 N (2,1)
o `-
fW
N

0
10 2 1111 60
n
o
oc
pm _
r? 9 (2'1) lb 65 10 (2,1) N 1060
- N
-
? ( M U)
cn e U)
r
O
N
r
pm N
N
im 9 (3,1) '60 J
? a
Cl)
D N
N
pm o co pm
10 (3,2) 60 N I ` N 10 (3,2) 60 CY)
co o ? LO cC
U U
Z U) Z
O
M
N
ac
L N
L
F.
z
ca
-
y W
2

-

a a
a L,
o° :)

Q C
4
On
aw
aoaz a.
~ o
W LL m

3: 0 1.- to a
LL.
ZF?a W y Q W

A
aA
.ow
UzzA N W N Z
o d C w
Co3 } N x
Fayw
mg F?F
z o N Z
oc c Q U)
O
a W-,
Z0lzw 5
O LL O W
m F F-
o
U Q v

^.,y
J c" W z z
4

U

2 H

c 0
Z

? N

W 3
A a
?. „..? o 0
all

m
co
?p1 O o rn
Q VI J N h

z
?
c
3
"'
o
?'
I-
u
a c 0
n
°
W
C7 X o
LL c y E
n y
k o w o
m
W c o
J `y a CL ` O = v

O 2 Q m
E
p CL to
II c II Z )
= II
O 0 a
0
M
M
x
w
Obi
cli m 60 ®(2 1) 10
M
to
cc
N
N

C C pm
60 ®(2 1) ' °

N
a+
j
W ?

C' I
r
N
N
CV)
cr) ® pm
60 (2,1) 10
M 0
U)
w
co
0)

CV) o pm
60 x(2,1) '° M
M ?p
U)
N

C
M ® pm
60 (2,1) 10 cv
a
a
N
cr-
N
o?
No 1) ' pm 10 60
o 60 ® 10 J ° (2,1)
(2 s
Lo
cn Cl)

q*
co
coo v?
® pm pm
60 (2,1) 10 (2,1)60 p
M
tot ?-
1 cn
0 o ° to pm
m M 10 (2 1) v 60
N W Q ` M
U
-T N Z
co
10 pm
(260
o

0
r
A x
F
z

m y
W•
Z
F a
R Q =
LL J W
Q w
o

ZZ
0. O
z
N > N
.0
L1 ~ Lu LL

o C C
3

v
a
ze?z u
,
aE"xa =' w Q ¢

aa0w
uzza a W N Z
° p W
J
xao3 } ? N =
aH?F z o C Z o
>a D LL W
ZOE 0U m H
Q U O

• w cn z

U V
Z F"
c z
Z
`s y 3
a
e W 1O ¢

m

? m
m
3
O ? m
? J 41

W

o
Z

~-

U o °
p
U
a v
i o
CD 2 - C vi k p m
t
i
so o
C

lb
;j .0 CL ~ 2

0 0 o E
m m

0 0 C
July 17, 1995
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Draft Reevaluation of Final Negative Declaration for US 64 from NC 69 to 0.2
mile west of NC 175, Clay County, Federal Aid Project Number APD-16-1(18),
State Project Number 8.3064121, TIP Number A-11B" (Regulatory Action I.D. No.
199504010)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC -'Bobby L. Willis, Suecial Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
Clay County is within the planning jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Nashville District and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) with
respect to any construction or development involving the flood plains. At
this time, the Nashville District does not have any projects that would be
affected by this proposed project. Mr. Dennis Williams should be contacted at
[phone] for further information and comments from the Nashville
District. Flood plain concerns are normally addressed within the TVA Section
26a permitting process. A 26a permit is required for all construction or
development involving streams or flood plains in the Tennessee River drainage
basin. Mr. Roger Milstead at [phone] should be contacted for
information on the TVA 26a permitting- process. From a review of Section I.A.2
of the environmental document, it appears that you are aware of the TVA
requirements under their permitting process. The project should also be
designed to meet the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program and
be in compliance with all local ordinances. Specific quest iorLs-pertaining to
community flood plain regulations or developments should be referred to the
local building official..
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - David Baker, Asheville Field Office,
Regulatory Branch, at [phone]
Department of the Army (DA) permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge
of excavated or fill material, including construction debris, into waters of
the United States or any adjacent and/or isolated wetlands. From page 12 of
the environmental document, 0.62 acre of surface waters and jurisdictional
wetlands are involved. Please provide sufficient information for our
evaluation of environmental impacts for all construction corridors which you
are considering. Included should be wetland and soils mapping, indicating
wetland and soils types, and fish and wildlife habitat. Adverse environmental
impacts should be avoided and then minimized. Mitigation must be provided to
compensate for unavoidable impacts. Our comments will be provided in response
to such information. If the information is provided for early review and
evaluation, we would expect expeditious processing of your application for the
specific activity requiring Federal authorization.
We'wish to commend J*ur department for attempts to reduce adverse impacts
on waters and wetlands, as indicated on page 13 of the document. Questions or
comments concerning DA permits may be directed to Mr. Baker.
A-1
1
?C.L
?y
Tennessee Vallev Authority. 400 West summit Hiii Drive. KnoxWe. Tennessee 37902-1499
T
July 12, 1995 1995
z
VIS/CN
J)n
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager Fij?r ?wA?'$
Planning and Environmental Branch "?RC??4lEP?'
N.C. Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
-Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
'bear Mr. Vick:
DRAFT REEVALUATION OF FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR US 64 FROM NC 69
TO 0.2 MILE WEST OF NC 175, CLAY COUNTY, FEDERAL AID PROJECT NUMBER
APD-16-1(18), STATE PROJECT NUMBER 8.3064121, TIP NUMBER A-11B
TVA has reviewed the Draft Reevaluation of Final Negative Declaration
for U.S. 64 improvements across the Hiwassee River and along Chatuge.
Reservoir. The document is correct in noting that approvals under
Section 26a of the ?VA Act would be required for the stream and lake
crossings. In addition, easements or licenses may also be needed to
cross TVA lands or landrights along Chatuge Reservoir.
The document also states that -a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) permit will be required for construction activities in.Chatuge
Reservoir. Your office-may wish to check to make sure-this is-
correct. TVA is net aware of any reason why FERC approval would be
required.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. Should you have
any questions, please contact Harold M. Draper at [phone].
Sincerely,
Z-1 L
?t Dale V. Wilhelm, Liaison
National Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Management
cc: M.E. Danby, LM 1A-MRN
J.M. Loney, WT 8C-K
Files, EM, WT 8C-K

10
A-2

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0-
312 N. Salisbury S=e-, Raleigh, Norrh Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charier R. Fullwood, Executive Diref-mr
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Dept. bf Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: June 29, 1995
.SUBJECT:. State Clearinghouse Project No. 95-0899, Draft Reevaluation of Final Negative
Declaration for widening US 64, Clay County, TIP 'A--11B
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments regarding
the Draft Reevaluation of Final Negative Declaration for widening US 62-in.Clay County. These
comments are provided is accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat.-401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d.) and the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 through I13r- 10; I NCAC 25).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen a 4.6-
mile section of US 64 from NC 69 to 0.2 miie west of NC 175 in Clay County. The existing two-
lane facility will be upgraded to a four-lane divided facility, with a five-lane section from the NC
691US 64 intersection to 0.1 mfie east of the ITlwassee River. We previously commented on this
project in a memorandum to Mr. John Parker (Division of Coastal Management 404 Coordinator).
dated November 17, 1992 regarding a 404 permit application to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and in a memorandum to Mr. Brian Yamamoto (NCDOT Project Planning Engineer)
dated 17 May 1993 regarding the preliminary Reevaluation off'mal Negative Declaration.
Previous comments by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission focused on a
proposal by the NCDOT to relocate approximately 3600 linear feet of Downing Creek and John
Reese Branch. We recommended that the NCDOT examine alternatives to relocating this much
stream channel. In response, the NCDOT modified the project to include relocating 1140 linear
feet of Downing Creek and no relocation of John Reese Branch. Total impacts to waters and
wetlands will be 0.62 acre. We are pleased that relocation of 2460 linear feet of stream channel
will be avoided, and commend the NCDOT for their efforts to modify the project.
The Final Reevaluation of Final Negative Declaration should include the following:
A-3
95-0899 Page z June 29, 1995
1) The NCDOT should include documentation that the 1140 linear feet of stream relocation
still proposed for this project cannot be avoided- While we have verbally agreed that the
NCDOT has likely minimized, stream relocation to the extent practicable, the NCDOT
should document this finding in the Reevaluation.
2) The NCDOT should discuss mitigation measures that will be taken to minimize adverse
impacts to aquatic habitat from stream relocation. Examples may include constructing the
new channel to match the dimensions of the old channel, stabilizing the new channel
before turning water into it, and planting woody vegetation such as willow and alder along
the new channel to increase. bank stability, provide shade to the stream, and provide a
travel corridor for wildlife.
3) The third paragraph on page 10 and second paragraph on page 13 are inaccurate. These
paragraphs include verbiage regarding the need for the NCDOT to obtain a letter of
concurrence from the NCWRC before the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will issue a 404
permit for this project. This is correct only when a Nationwide or General 404 permit is
required in one of the 25 trout counties. Although Clay County is a trout county, the
Corps has determined that an Individual 404 permit is required for this project. The
NCWRC is one of many entities, both public and private, that provide comments on
Individual 404 permit applications.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any
questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/652-4257.
cc: Mr. Micky Clemmons, District 9 Fisheries Biologist.
Mr. Joffrey Brooks, District 9 Wildlife Biologist
Ms. Janice Nicholls, USFWS, Asheville _
A-4
K Dt" wQ eV mi Fax:°19-73a-°959
Sfia#e'at. Noilm -Cdrolina
pepartmentot Environment,
Health Qncf. Naturat Resources
Dh W6n of Environmental mcnagsm
James B. Hunt, Jr., Govemor
Jonethen S. Howes. Secretary
A. Preston Howard. Jr.. P.-. Director
Ji
MEMORANDUM.
To: Melba McGee "
Through: John Dorney"?S
Monica Swihart RI?7
From: Eric f4
Subject: Draft Reevaluation for C
Clay County
State Project DOT No.
EHNR * 15-0819, DEM
The subject document has been revii
Environmental Management is respo
Quality Certification for activities whit
The subject project will impact 0.62
commentT are based on a review of
DE, 'rscflgnizes efforts of DOT to red
per WIRC.request and determining Jot
Clarification as. to whether similar avoi
rechannelization of Downing Creek we
as to • ' feasible alternatives to mini
be included in the Final Reevaluation.
DOT is reminded that the 401 Certific
concerns are satisfied. Questions rec
Eric Gaiamb (733-1786) in DEM's We
cc: Asheville COE
Brian Yamamoto, DOT
us54rev.drt
29, 1985

Jun 29 "'95 - , 8:20 P.02/03
=&:==4 EEE"" F=?L
64 improvements
064121, TIP # A-115
10177
ri by this o'ff'ice. The Division of
le for the issuance- of the Section 401 Water
npact waters of the state including wetlands.
s otwetlands and waters. The following
Draft Reevaluation:
e impacts by evaluating asymmetric widening
Reese Branch would not require relocation.
nce options were evaluated to prevent
d be beneficial for review. Some discussion
ze rechannelization of Downing Creek should
n could be denied, unless water quality
ling the 401 Certd&ation should be directed to
Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
p.0. Box 29535. Rdeigh, North C=06nC V636-0535 Y ? eC c'sd/Ll0 3 Pest-eoc AX919 C -7'496 CPG(
An ? aP P-hA +? Ate Actto? E A-5

State of North Carolina.
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural R ur?& 2 0 1995
Division of Land Resources
By
ames G. Martin. Governor PROJECT REV=W COMIMNTS -
Miilam W. Cobey. Jr- Secretary Director
Project Number: STS- ??99 County: «Y
Project Name:
Geodetic Survey
/ This project will impact geodetic survey-markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be•contacted prior to construction at P.O_ Box" 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer Date
-rosion and Sedimentation Control
No Comment
r•
This Draject will recui.re approval of an erosion and sedi=mentation
control plan prior to becinnine any land-'dlsturbinc activity if more
than one (1) acre will be dist:srbed.
if an e,mv-4-onmental 'document is required to satisfy Environment!
Policy Act (ScPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
,'*' if any portion of the project is located wit hi.n a High Quality Water
Zone (EQW), as classified by the Division c? Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
!" The erasion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Depairtment of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways frcm the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commissi=on.
Other (comments attached)
Fcr'mare information contact the Land Quality Section at
6/zOl9 S
Reviewer oat
-6
P.O. Box 27687 - Raiegh. N.C. 27611-7687 [phone]
An r....it n,r nrntnlty AtF.rrudve AC-Cn E-nplOv<'
[phone].

State of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
' nt Health and Natural Resources
Department of vtronme
' Project Number. G Oue
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS - G _ tJ ?T
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s)i and/or approvals indicated may (need to be
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications. information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Regional Office.
PERMITS
.I
? Permit to construct 5 operate wastewater treatment
C11 (acuities. sewer system extensions. P. sewer
systems not discharging into state surface waters.
NPDES • permit to aiscnarge into surface water analor
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
discharging into state surface waters.
L_.1 water Use Permit
wail Construction Permit
Oredge and Fill Permit
Permit to construct S operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities analor Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 20.0520.
Demolition at renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in Compliance with 15A
NCAC 20.0525 wnicn requires notification and removal
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
011 Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 20.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be property addressed for any land aisturping activity: An erosion 3 seatmentam
C! control plan will be required it one or more acres to be disturoed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30
days before beatnnirto aCttvity A fee of Sr0 far the tint acre and 520.00 for each aeoitionai•acre or Dart must aCCOrriOanv the Olan
(-S The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenceo Local Ordinance:
L.r On-site inspection usual. qurety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
C Mining Permit vanes with type mine and'number of acres at-affected land. Any area
mines greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond
must be received before the permit can be issued.
Q? Nortn Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Oiviston Forest Resources it permit
l_ exceeds a days
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22 I On-site inspection by N.O. Division Forest Resources required:" If more
U counties in coastal N.C. with organic sails than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections
should be requested at least ten bays before actual bum is planned:'
•- .
CI Oil Refining Facilities NIA
01 Oam safety permit
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
Application 90. days before begin construction or award of
construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
tecnnical conference usual
90.120 days
(NIA)
30 days
(NIA)
7 days
(15 aaysi
55 days
(90 aaysi
60 days
f90 (says)
60 days
(90 days)
20 days
130 davs)
(30 days)
30 days
(60 (lays)
I day
(NIA)
I day
(NIA)
9012da s
(NIA)
Aoalicaticn 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection.
Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
construct wastewater treatment facility-grantee after NPDES. Reply
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPOES
permn•wntcnever is later.
Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation at a well.
Aoppcauon copy must be served on each adjacent riparian prooeny
owner. on-site inspection. Pre•aWlicatton conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to FIJI from N.C. Oeoanment of
Administration and Federal Oredge and Fill Permit.
NIA
NIA
if permit required. application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans.
inspect construction. certify construction is according to EHNR approv-
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And
a 404 -- mit tram Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces-
sary t Classification. A minimum fee of 5200.00 must ac-
camp action. An additional processing fee based on a
verce / tat proieCt cost will be required upon completion.
Continued on reverse
in
Normal Process
rime
(statutory time
limit)
30 (lays
(90 aaysi
30 days
(60 days)
ft , I--
A -. ?
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
E H N F?
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
June 29, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorney'?. ?
Monica Swihart
From: Eric Galam'
Subject: Draft Reevaluation for US 64 Improvements
Clay County
State Project DOT No. 8.3064121, TIP # A-11 B
EHNR # 95-0899, DEM # 10977
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands.
The subject project will impact 0.62 acres of wetlands and waters. The following
comments are based on a review of the Draft Reevaluation:
DEM recognizes efforts of DOT to reduce impacts by evaluating asymmetric widening
per WRC request and determining John Reese Branch would not require relocation.
Clarification as to whether similar avoidance options were evaluated to prevent
rechannelization of Downing Creek would be beneficial for review. Some discussion
as to why feasible alternatives to minimize rechannelization of Downing Creek should
be included in the Final Reevaluation.
DOT is reminded that the 401 Certification could be denied unless water quality
concerns are satisfied. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to
Eric Galamb (733-1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Asheville COE
Brian Yamamoto, DOT
us64rev.drf
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
J `. ,
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resnprces
? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
/7 LV, .
jAf(,i,S,L,
This aroiect is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
Asheville ? All RIO Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
Air El Coastal Management El Water Planning
El Fayetteville
Water
? Water Resources Environmental Health
? Mooresville Groundwater Wildlife ?Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh }'Land Quality Engineer ? Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection

n
hi
t
? W ED Recreational Consultant )RILand Resources 1:1 David Foster
ng
o
as ? Coastal Management Consultant Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
? Wilmington ? Others nvironmental Management
? Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager.
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached) '
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attachedlauthority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
PS-104
n
R

US 64
From NC 69
to 0.2 mile west of NC 175
Clay County
Federal-Aid Project Number APD-16-1(18)
State Project Number 8.3064121
T. I. P. Number A-11 B
DRAFT REEVALUATION OF FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)
4A
? s ZZY
JDate H. ran lin Vick> P. E. Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Date Nich as GF5f , P.
FuZDivision Administrator, FHWA

US 64
From NC 69
to 0.2 mile west of NC 175
Clay County
Federal-Aid Project Number APD-16-1(18)
State Project Number 8.3064121
T. I. P. Number A-11 B
DRAFT REEVALUATION OF FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Prepared by
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N. C. Department of Transportation
Brian F. Yam oto
Project Planning Engineer
Linwood Stone
•.•`?0 N.?,R,0*/; Project Planning Unit Head
SEAL
6944 4
Richard B. Davis, P. ., Asst. Manager
?'•,,?'tigR•??NE••'?P •.?` Planning and Environmental Branch
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. SUMMARY OF SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS .................... 1
A. Special Permits Required ............................. 1
1. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers ................... 1
2. TVA Coordination ................................ 1
3. FERC Coordination ............................... 1
4. State Agencies' Requirements .................... 1
B. Water Quality . .................... 2
C. Archaeological Sites ................................. 2
II. PROPOSED ACTION ............................................ 2
A. Project Status .....• .................. 2
B. Proposed Revisions to Project ........................ 3
C. Structures ........................................... 3
D. Right of Way ......................................... 4
III. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ............................. 4
A. Project Termini ...................................... 4
B. Existing Roadway ..................................... 5
C. Right of Way ..................................... 5
D. Accident Analysis .................................... 5
E. Traffic Volumes ..................................... 6
F. Capacity Analysis .................................... 6
G. Intersections ........................................ 8
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ..................................... 8
A.' . Relocatees ........................................... 8
B. Hydraulics ......... .... ........................... 9
C. Floodplain/Floodway Impacts ......................... 9
D. Special Permits Required ............................. 10
E. Traffic Noise ........................... ........... 10
F. Air Quality ......... ............................'. 10
G. Water Quality ........................................ 11
H. Wetlands ... ........................................ 12
I. Wetland Findings .. ......- ......................... 13
J. Stream Modifications ............................ 13
K. Federally Protected Species .......................... 13
L. Cultural Resources ................................... 14
1. Historic/Architectural Resources ................ 14
2. Archaeological Resources ........................ 15
M. Section 4(f) Properties .............................. 16
N. Farmland . ......... 16
0. Hazardous Wastes ..................................... 16
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PAGE
V. CONCLUSIONS ............................................... 17
Tables
Table 1 - Drainage Structures ............................. 4
Table 2 - Accident Rates ................................. 6
Table 3 - Levels-of-Service .............................. 7
Table 4 - Demographic Profile ...................... 9
Table 5 - Water Quality Classifications ................... 11
Table 6 - Wetland Locations ............................... 12
Maps and Illustrations
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Proposed Cross Sections
Figure 3 - 1992 Average Daily Traffic
Figure 4 - 2012 Average Daily Traffic
Figure 5 - 100-year Floodpla•in
Appendix
SHPO Correspondence ....................................... RA-1
Relocation Report ......................................... RA-3
Relocation Assistance Programs ............................ RA-4
US 64
From NC 69
to 0.2 mile west of NC 175
Clay County
Federal-Aid Project Number APD-16-1(18)
State Project Number 8.3064121
T. I. P. Number A-11 B
I. SUMMARY OF SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS
A. Special Permits Required
1. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Permits
It is anticipated a United States Army Corps of Engineers
Individual Section 404 permit will be needed for proposed channel
changes in Downing Creek. All other construction activities in
jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the United States can be
performed under the same Individual Section 404 permit.
2. Tennessee Valley Authority Coordination
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) approval is necessary for
construction in the Hiwassee River and Chatuge Reservoir area. Final
plans for structures and associated approach fills at stream
crossings will be submitted to the Tennessee Valley Authority for
review under Section 26a of the TVA Act. In addition, a copy of a
letter from the State Historic Preservation Office stating the
proposal complies with the Historic Preservation Act of 1966 will be
sent to the TVA.
3. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Coordination
It is anticipated a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
permit will be required for construction activities in Chatuge
Reservoir. The NCDOT-will coordinate with the FERC to obtain this
permit before construction.
4. State Agencies' Requirements
In addition to the federal permits required, two state approvals
will be necessary. The NCDEHNR-DEM requires a State 401 Water
Quality Certification for any construction activity which may result
in a discharge and for which a federal permit is required.
Concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
will be necessary before Department of the Army permits can be
issued. The NCDOT has studied asymmetric widening as discussed in
Section IV. I. of this report as a means to avoid rechannelizing
parts of John Reese Branch. The NCDOT has avoided rechannelizing
John Reese Branch; however, it is anticipated 1140 feet of Downing
Creek will be rechannelized as part of the project.
2
B. Water ualit
To minimize adverse impacts to water quality, NCDOT Best Management
Practices will be strictly adhered to. Non-point sediment sources will be
identified and efforts made to control sediment runoff. The Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Plan established by the Division of Highways in
cooperation with the NCDEHNR will be implemented prior to and during
project construction.
C. Archaeological Sites
Additional testing and data recovery operations will be performed at
site 31Cy85 east of the Hiwassee River before the project is constructed.
It is anticipated a conditional finding of no adverse effect or a finding
of no adverse effect will be issued pursuant to 36 CFR 800.9 C. The scope
for additional work at the site will be provided to the SHPO for their
review.
II. PROPOSED ACTION
A. Project Status
The 1995-2001 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) includes
the upgrading of NC 69 and US 64 from the Georgia/North Carolina State
Line to NC 175 in Clay County (8.2 miles) under project A-11. The project
has been divided into parts A-11 A (NC 69 from the Georgia State Line to
US 64) and A-11 B (US 64 from NC 69 to NC 175). This reevaluation covers
project A-.11 B (4.6 miles). Project A-11 A has already been studied in a
separate reevaluation approved by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) in April, 1991. Right of way acquisition for project A-11 B is
currently scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1997 and construction is to
begin in Fiscal Year 1998. The project area is shown in Figure 1.
A Final Negative Declaration for project A-11 was approved by the
FHWA in 1981. In that document, widening US 64 and NC 69 primarily to
4-lane divided facilities was recommended. A five-lane undivided section
was recommended from 0.8 mile south of the NC 69/US 64 intersection on
NC 69 to 0.1 mile east of the Hiwassee River on US 64. Prior to the
FHWA's approval of the Final Negative Declaration, a public meeting and a
combined corridor/design public hearing were held. Generally, strong
public support for the project was received.
Just prior to the publication of the 1990-1996 Transportation
Improvement Program, project A-11 was downscaled from proposed 4-lane and
5-lane improvements to an upgrade of the 2-lane facility consisting of
widening the travel lanes and paving the shoulders. A 5-lane shoulder
facility was still proposed for a 0.9 mile section of US 64 from NC 69 to
0.2 mile east of the Hiwassee River near Hayesville.
The 1995-2001 TIP includes an estimated right of way cost of
$1,000,000 and an estimated construction cost of $6,800,000 for project
A-11 B. The construction cost shown in the TIP reflects the cost of
expanding US 64 to a three-lane cross section from approximately 0.2 mile
west of NC 69 to 0.2 mile east of the Hiwassee River ($2,300,000) and
3
upgrading the existing two lanes from 0.2 mile east of the Hiwassee River
to 0.2 mile west of NC 175 ($4,500,000). The revised construction cost
estimate for the project is $8,500,000 including the cost to upgrade US 64
to a 5-lane shoulder section from NC 69 to 0.2 mile east of the Hiwassee
River ($4,000,000) and upgrading the existing two lanes from 0.2 mile east
of the Hiwassee River to 0.2 mile west of NC 175 ($4,500,000).- The total
cost estimate for the proposed improvements is $9,585,000, which includes
$1,085,000 for right of way and $8,500,000 for construction. The total
projected project cost exceeds the TIP cost by $1,785,000.
B. Proposed Revisions to Project
The recommendation presented in the Final Negative Declaration called
for upgrading US 64 to a 4-lane divided facility, with a 5-lane section
from the NC 69/US 64 intersection to 0.1 mile east of the Hiwassee River.
It is presently proposed to provide a 5-lane section from NC 69 to 0.2
mile east of the Hiwassee River (0.9 miles) and to upgrade the remaining
existing two lanes from 0.2 mile east of the Hiwassee River to 0.2 mile
west of NC 175 (3.7 miles).
The proposed 5-lane section will consist of a 68-foot pavement
containing four 12-foot travel lanes,, a 12-foot center turn lane, and
4-foot paved shoulders. A total usable shoulder width of ten feet will be
provided on each side of the 5-lane section, including the 4-foot paved
shoulders.
In the section of the project where 2-lane improvements are proposed,
the existing pavement will be widened to 32 feet including two 12-foot
travel lanes and 4-foot paved shoulders. A total usable shoulder width of
10 feet, including the 4-foot paved shoulders, will be provided on each
side of the improved 2-lane section. Ditches are to be improved, where
necessary.
It is anticipated the proposed 2-lane and 5-lane improvements can be
contained mostly within the existing variable width right of way.
However, at some locations construct ion easements, temporary and permanent
drainage easements, and additional right of way will be required. No
control of access is proposed. The proposed typical cross sections for
US 64 in the project area are shown in.Figure 2.
C. Structures
There is only one existing bridge along the project. That bridge,
Bridge Number 6 on the Clay County Inventory list, spans the Hiwassee
River. It has a total length of 248 feet and horizontal clearance of 23.7
feet. The sufficiency rating of the bridge, a measure of the structural.
adequacy of the bridge, is 51.3 out of a possible 100. Due to its poor
structural condition, the Final Negative Declaration (FND) recommends
replacing the bridge, rather than retaining and extending it.
The FND calls for replacing the bridge with a 72-foot wide structure
that is 282 feet long. After evaluating the roadway cross section now
proposed and applying updated design standards, it is now recommended the
4
existing bridge be replaced with
The recommended bridge width wil
in this area and allow 10 feet
lane and the bridge rail.
an 80-foot wide bridge (290 feet long).
1 accommodate the 5-lane facility proposed
of clearance between the outside travel
Three box culverts and one concrete pipe exist along the project. It
is recommended all existing culverts and pipes be retained and extended to
accommodate the proposed widened cross sections along US 64. Each
structure will be further examined during the design stage for hydraulic
adequacy and structural integrity. These drainage structures are
described in Table 1.
TABLE 1
US 64 Drainage Structures
Feature Intersected
Existing Structure
John Reese Branch 1 @ 5'x 8' RCBC
Byers Branch 1 @ 7'x 4' RCBC
Crawford Branch 1 @ 72" pipe
Licklog Creek 2 @ 10'x 8' RCBC
D. Right of War
The Final Negative Declaration for project A-11 called for acquiring
sufficient right of way for a 4-lane divided highway with a 46-foot median
along the majority of the project. The FND indicated no additional right
of way would be required to accommodate the then proposed 5-lane section
from approximately 0.8 mile south of US 64 on NC 69 to 0.1 mile east of
the Hiwassee River on US 64 near Hayesville. The earlier document also
indicated approximately twenty residences and two businesses would be
relocated if a multilane facility were constructed.
Project A-11 B has been downscaled to 2-lane and 5-lane improvements.
It is anticipated the proposed improvements will be contained mostly
within the existing right of way. Approximately 12.6 acres of construction
and drainage easement will be required. In addition, approximately 4.2
acres of additional right of way will be needed. It is anticipated 5
residences will be displaced as a result of the proposed improvements. No
business relocatees are anticipated. No control of access is proposed in
the project area.
III. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Project Termini
In 1966, a mutual agreement was reached between North Carolina,
Georgia, and the Appalachian Regional Commission calling for each state to
construct portions of the Appalachian Development Highway System.
Proposed improvements to US 64 are part of an overall plan to improve a
5
corridor between Atlanta, Georgia and Asheville, North Carolina. The
subject project, together with improvements to NC 69 performed under TIP
project A-11 A, links with a 100-mile section of the Appalachian
Development Highway System that will run from Atlanta, Georgia to the
North Carolina State Line. Presently, the State of Georgia does not have
a project programmed in its Transportation Improvement Program to improve
Georgia Highway 17, which joins the NC 69/US 64 corridor.
Project A-11 B begins at the NC 69/US 64 intersection. North of the
intersection, NC 69 terminates and SR 1313 continues north into
Hayesville. SR 1313 consists of a 20-foot pavement. Currently, there are
no plans to improve SR 1313 'north of the proposed project. South of the
NC 69/US 64 intersection, improvements to the existing two lanes of NC 69
are anticipated as outlined in the reevaluation for TIP project A-11 A.
Improvements to NC 69 consist of widening the existing facility to a
28-foot pavement with 8-foot usable shoulders. The pavement will contain
two 12-foot travel lanes and 2-foot paved shoulders. NC 69 continues
south approximately 3.5 miles to the Georgia State Line.
West of the project limit, US 64 consists of a 24-foot pavement with
8-foot to 12-foot usable shoulders; however, TIP project R-2703 proposes
to widen US 64 to a 5-lane shoulder facility in this area.
The eastern terminal of project A-11 B is located approximately 0.2
mile west of NC 175. East of the eastern project limit, US 64 consists of
a 32-foot pavement. containing two 12-foot travel lanes and 4-foot paved
shoulders. There are no projects in the 1995-2001 Transportation
Improvement Program that call for further improvements to US 64 east of
NC 175.
B. Existing Roadway
The existing cross section of US 64 varies within the project limits
of A-11 B. From NC 69 to the Hiwassee River (0.7 mile), the typical
pavement width is 24 feet. From just east of the Hiwassee River to 0.2
mile west of NC 175 (3.9 miles), US 64 consists of a 2-lane, 20-foot wide
pavement with grass shoulders that vary from 10 to 30 feet.
C. Right of Way
The existing right of way width varies from approximately 150 to 280
feet throughout the length of the project. Currently, there is no control
of access along US 64 within the project limits.
D. Accident Analysis
Table 2 presents a comparison of accident rates along the subject
project with the statewide rates for all rural "US" routes. The rates
shown for US 64 were obtained from studies conducted between January, 1987
and May, 1991. The average statewide rates were obtained from studies
conducted between 1989 and 1991. No changes to the facility that would
substantially increase or reduce the accident rates have occurred since
1991. Updated accident rates will be provided in the Final Reevaluation
of this project.
TABLE 2
Accident Rates
(per 100 million vehicle miles)
Accident Type Rates Average Statewide Rates
along (1989-1991)
US 64 Rural "US" Routes
Total Rate 212.8 176.5
Fatal 0.0 2.7
Non-fatal 99.3 84.3
Nighttime 14.2 47.9
Wet Conditions 39.0 42.2
These rates show the total accident rate for US 64 is higher than the
average statewide rate for rural "US" routes. In addition, the rate of
non-fatal accidents with injuries involved is higher the statewide average
rate for similar routes. The remaining rates (fatal, nighttime, wet
conditions) are lower than the corresponding statewide average rates.
Thirty-seven percent of the reported accidents were angle collisions;
twenty-three percent involved vehicles running off the existing pavement;
twenty-two percent involved left-turning vehicles; fifteen percent were
rear-end collisions; and three percent were either head-on or backing
collisions.
Of the sixty reported accidents, twenty-eight occurred in the
immediate vicinity of the. NC 69/US 64 intersection. No other
concentrations of accidents are apparent on the accident report for the
project. The proposed cross section improvements along with the recent
signalization of the NC 69/US 64 intersection should alleviate the overall
accident rate along US 64 within the project limits.
E. Traffic Volumes
Traffic volumes along US 64 for the year 1992 range from 6500
vehicles per day west of the NC 69/US 64 intersection to 4900 vehicles per
day at the east project limit. Projections for the design year ear
2012) along US 64 range from 12,800 vehicles per day west of the NC 69/
US 64 intersection to 8,900 vehicles per day at the east project limit.
Projected traffic volumes, design hour data, truck data, and turning
movements are shown in Figures 3 and 4. Updated traffic projections will
be provided in the Final Reevaluation for the project.
F. Capacity Analysis
Capacity analyses were performed to compare the levels-of-service at
which US 64 would operate considering both an unimproved facility and the
recommended two-lane and five-lane improvements. Analyses were completed
using both 1992 and 2012 traffic volumes. The results of.these analyses
are shown below in Table 3.
7
TABLE 3
Levels-of-Service
LOCATION
Intersection of
NC 69 and US 64
From NC 69 to
SR 1140
From SR 1140 to
SR 1147
From SR 1147 to
SR 1148
From SR 1148 to
SR 1325
From SR 1325 to
SR 1333
From SR 1333 to
SR 1332
1992 2012
LOS LOS
Existing Improved Existing Improved
B B B B
C A E A
D A E A
D C E E
C C E E
C C E D
C C D D
Table 3 shows the recommended 5-lane section from the west project
limit to 0.2 mile east of the Hiwassee River will provide better operating
conditions in the design year than an unimproved facility. The
level-of-service improves from "E" for the existing facility in the year
2012 to "A" for the proposed 5-lane section. A capacity analysis at the
NC 69/US 64 intersection was also performed. The results of that analysis
indicated level-of-service "B" can be maintained through the year 2012 for
the intersection.
From the end of the proposed 5-lane section east of the Hiwassee
River to the east project limit, most of US 64 will be operating at
level-of-service "C" with 1992 traffic and "E" in the design year with no
improvements to the existing facility. With recommended two-lane
improvements to US 64, design year level-of-service can be maintained at
"D" except in a 1.1 mile segment between SR 1147 and SR 1325 where it
falls to "E" in the year 2010. If the actual design year traffic volumes
approach the predicted volumes, consideration should be given to
constructing a multilane section east of the Hiwassee River to increase
traffic handling capability. Multilane improvements to US 64 east of the
Hiwassee River are beyond the current project scope.
8
Level-of-service "A" represents free flowing traffic. Individual
users are virtually unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic
stream. Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within the
traffic stream is extremely high. The general level of comfort and
convenience provided to the motorist is excellent.
Level-of-service "8" represents traffic that is in the range of
stable flow. The presence of others in the traffic stream begins to be
noticeable. Selection of desired speed remains unaffected, but there is a
slight decline in the freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream.
Level-of-service "C" represents traffic that is in the range of
stable flow. The operation of individual users becomes significantly
affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream. Selection of
speed and maneuvering requires vigilance on the part of the user.
Level-of-service "D" represents high density, stable flow. Passing
demand is very high, while passing opportunities are extremely limited.
The driver generally experiences a poor level of comfort and convenience.
Small increases in traffic flow will cause operational problems at this
level. Platoon sizes increase, and turning vehicles disrupt continuity of
the traffic stream.
Level-of-service "E" represents operating conditions at or near the
capacity level. All speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform
value. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely
difficult, and is generally accomplished by forcing another vehicle to
adjust its speed. Comfort and convenience levels are very poor, leading to
driver frustration. Operations at this level are usually unstable because
increases in flow or minor perturbations within the traffic stream will
cause breakdowns.
G. Intersections
The intersection of NC 69 and US 64 is a signalized, four-leg
intersection.. At the intersection, eastbound US 64 consists of two lanes;
one exclusive left-turn lane and one thru/right turn lane. Westbound
US 64 has the same configuration as the eastbound approach. On the
northbound approach to the intersection, NC 69 consists of one exclusive
left-turn lane and one thru/right turn lane. The southbound approach to
the intersection has the same configuration as the northbound approach.
The pavement width on all approaches to the NC 69/US 64 intersection
flairs to 36 feet. The remaining intersections along the project are
at-grade and stop sign controlled.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Relocatees
It is anticipated 5 residences will be displaced as part of the
project. An updated relocation report is included in the Appendix (see
page RA-3). Of the 5 anticipated displacees, 2 are owner occupants and 3
are tenant occupants. Estimated income levels of the relocatees vary from
9
below $15,000 to $35,000 per year. The estimated values of the residences
to be relocated vary from a low of $20,000 to a high of $40,000. Monthly
rent paid by the anticipated tenant relocatees is between $150 and $250.
The following table (Table 4) represents a sampling of available housing
in the area:
TABLE 4
Demographic Profile
For Sale
Units Available
$0 - $20,000
$20,000 - $40,000
$40,000 - $70,000
$70,000 - $100,000
$100,000 and above
For Rent
Under $150 per month 1
$150 - $250 per month 6
$250 - $400 per month 2
$400 - $600 per month 2
$600 and above per month 1
It is anticipated adequate replacement housing
will be available to accommodate the above residents.
relocation assistance, see pages RA-4 and RA-5 in the
B. Hydraulics
1
5
11
3
2
in the project area
For information on
Appendix.
The only bridge on US 64 in the project area is Bridge Number 6 that
spans the Hiwassee River. The Hiwassee River bridge is 248 feet long and
has a clear roadway. width of 23.7 feet. It is recommended to replace the
existing bridge with a new structure that is 80 feet wide and 290 feet
long. Existing culverts and pipes are to be retained and extended to
accommodate proposed improvements to US 64.
C. Floodplain/Floodway Impacts
The Final Negative Declaration stated no major effects on the water
courses in the project area or the floodplain areas are anticipated.
Since the recommended cross section for the proposed project has been
reduced, the potential effect on the floodplain areas is expected to be
less than under the original 4-lane divided facility recommended in the
Final Negative Declaration.
Clay County is a participant in the National Flood Hazard Insurance
Emergency Program. See Figure 5 for approximate limits of the 100-year
floodplain for the stream crossings along the project. The proposed
project will not raise the 100-year floodplain more than one foot.
10
The surrounding terrain has natural draws and streams located. such
that the proposed project can be drained without difficulty. Ground water
and existing drainage patterns along the project length will not be
adversely affected by project construction. Siltation of adjacent areas
and streams due to project construction will be kept to a minimum by
implementing NCDOT Best Management Practices (BMP's). The Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Plan established by the Division of Highways in
cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources will be followed during construction.
D. Special Permits Required
It is anticipated an Individual Section 404 permit will be applicable
for proposed construction in Downing Creek. The proposed channel change
to this creek does not qualify for Department of the Army General Permits
(Nationwide) because the flow rate is considered "below headwaters." It
is anticipated proposed construction in the vicinity of the remaining
streams and in Chatuge Lake can be performed under the same Individual
Section 404 permit. Tennessee Valley Authority and Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission approvals will also be required for construction in
the Hiwassee River and Chatuge Reservoir areas.
In addition to the federal permits required, it is anticipated two
state approvals will be necessary. A State 401 Water Quality
Certification issued through the NC Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources will be required for any construction activity which may
result in a discharge and for which a federal permit is required. Also,
concurrence from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission will be
necessary before Department of the Army Permits can be issued.
E. Traffic Noise
The Final Negative Declaration stated no substantial difference in
terms of expected noise levels exists between the "no-build" alternative
and the alternative to build a multilane facility. Regarding noise
impacts, the reduced facility now proposed is comparable to the "no-build"
facility in the Final Negative Declaration. While there have been some
changes in procedures concerning noise analysis since the Final Negative
Declaration was approved, the noise increase for each impacted receptor is
expected to be slight (approximately 3 dBA). Since development is
dispersed and each property will have direct access to the highway, no
noise abatement in the form of solid walls appears to be feasible, and
none is recommended.
F. Air Quality
The project is located in Clay County, which has been determined to
be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR
Part 51 is not applicable, because the proposed project is located in an
attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse
11
effects on the air quality of this attainment area. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional reports are
necessary.
G. Water ualit
The project is located in the Hiwassee River basin and crosses the
Hiwassee River, Chatuge Lake, Byers Branch, John Reese Branch, Downing
Creek, and several small unnamed tributaries to these resources. Two
point source dischargers registered through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) drain into the Hiwassee River at
Hayesville. The North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources - Division of Environmental Management best usage
classifications of these waters are listed in Table 5.
TABLE 5
Summary of Best Usage Classifications
Water Resource Classification
Chatuge Lake B
Hiwassee River WS-IV
Byers Branch C
John Reese Branch C
Downing Creek C
Best usage recommendations for Class B .waters include primary
recreation, secondary recreation, aquatic propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, and agriculture. Best usage recommendations for Class C
waters include aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation and agriculture. WS-IV waters are defined as water
supplies which are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds
and are suitable for all Class C uses. Local programs to control
non-point source and stormwater discharge of pollution are required.
No High Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource Waters, or waters
classified WS-I and WS-II are located in the study area or within 1 mile
downstream. None of the water resources impacted by the project are
identified as Designated Public Mountain Trout Waters by the NC Wildlife
Resources Commission.
Short term impacts to water quality could include sedimentation and
siltation from construction, changes in light incidence and water clarity,
alteration of water levels and flows, changes in water temperature, and
increased concentrations of toxic compounds.
12
To minimize adverse impacts to water quality, NCDOT Best Management
Practices will be strictly adhered to. Non-point sediment sources will be
identified and efforts made to control sediment runoff. Finally, the
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan established by the Division of
Highways in cooperation with the NC Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources will be implemented prior to and during project
construction.
H. Wetlands
Jurisdictional wetlands as defined by 33 CFR 328.3 are those areas
that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated
conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls
under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers under
the provisions of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344).
It is anticipated the proposed improvements to US 64 will impact a
total of approximately 0.62 acre of wetlands. The 0.62 acre estimated
total includes approximately 0.42 acre of fill in surface waters and 0.2
acres of fill in jurisdictional wetland.
A breakdown of anticipated impacts to surface waters and wetlands by
location is presented in Table 6 below.
TABLE 6
LOCATION IMPACTED WATERS AND WETLANDS
(acres)
Depression just west 0.05
of US 64 Business
Unnamed tributary of 0.03
Downing Creek east of SR 1148
Downing Creek
0.31
Depression 0.2 mile 0.07
east of SR 1325
Depression 0.3 mile west 0.01
of SR 1151
Depression at SR 1151 0.02
Chatuge Reservoir 0.12
13
I. Wetland Findings
Executive Order 11990 established a national policy to avoid, to the
extent possible, adverse impacts on wetlands and to avoid direct or
indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a
practicable alternative.
Since an Individual Section 404 Permit for proposed wetland impacts
is anticipated, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission must
concur that there is no feasible alternative to construction in wetland
areas before a Department of the Army permit can be issued for the
project. The Wildlife Resources Commission requested the NCDOT study
asymmetric two-lane widening near John Reese Branch. Asymmetric widening
on the south side of US 64 from 0.2 mile east of SR 1325 to 0.5 mile east
of SR 1325 (0.3 mile) was studied and it was determined rechannelizing
John Reese Branch will not be required as a part of the proposed project.
Construction in wetland areas has already been reduced substantially
from the recommendation in the Final Negative Declaration by reducing 3.7
miles of US 64 from four lanes to two lanes. The proposed improvements to
the existing facility impact wetlands that have been disturbed by prior
development. In addition, NCDOT Best Management Practices will be
implemented and provisions of the Erosion and Sedimentation control plan
established by the Division of Highways in cooperation with the NC
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources will be adhered
to. The NCDOT is taking all practicable steps to avoid wetlands, where
possible, and minimize impacts to unavoidable wetlands which may result
from such use.
J. Stream Modifications
The multilane improvements proposed in the Final Negative Declaration
would require rechannel izing approximately. 3600 linear feet of Downing
Creek and John Reese Branch. It is anticipated improvements now
recommended along US 64 will require 1140 linear feet of stream
rechannelization along Downing Creek and no rechannelization in John Reese
Branch. The NCDOT has coordinated with appropriate resource agencies in
accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 USC et. seq.) with regard•to stream rechannel ization. The
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Wildlife Resources Commission have
verbally concurred that stream rechannelization has been minimized to the
extent practicable.
K. Federally Protected Species
Two federally protected species are listed by the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service for Clay County as of March 28, 1995. They are the
green pitcher plant (Sarracenia oreo hila and the Virginia spiraea
S iraea virginiana). The green pitcher plant and the Virginia spiraea
have been assigned statuses of "federally endangered" and "federally
threatened," respectively. Suitable habitat for both plants occurs in the
14
project area. Habitat areas were surveyed in March, 1992 on a plant by
plant basis. No plants of either species were observed and no impacts.to
these plants by the proposed project are anticipated.
Twelve species are listed by the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service as "candidate" species in Clay County including the Southern water
shrew Sorex alustris unctulatus the Cerulean warbler (Dendroica
cerulea the Bog turt a Clemm ss muhlenbergii), the Hellbender salamander
(Cr_yptobranchus alleqaniensis), the Parrish crayfish Cambarus parrishi),
the Manhart s sedge Carex manhartii), the Wolf's milk spurge (Euphorbia
purpurea), the Butternut Ju lans cinerea the New Jersey rush Juncus
caesariensis), and two types of liverwort (Plagiochila caduciloba),
(Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullivantii). These species are not
afforded federal protection at this time, but their status may be upgraded
in the future.
The Water shrew, Bog turtle, Hellbender, and Manhart's sedge have
been identified as "threatened", "endangered", or "special concern" by the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. These species are afforded state
protection under the State Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Species of
Special Concern Act (1987) and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act (1979). The laws are designed to recognize these
species, but do not impose penalties against the landowner if the species
are affected by an action of the landowner. Though all or some of these
species may be present in the study area, no surveys were conducted.
L. Cultural Resources
1. Historic/Architectural Resources
The Final Negative Declaration identified five sites of
architectural or historic significance in the general area of the
project: (1) the Clay County Courthouse located on Main Street in
Hayesville, (2) the site of Fort Hembric located 0.75 mile northwest
of Hayesville on US 64, (3) a dwelling of architectural significance
located on the north side of SR 1147 0.4 mile south of US 64, (4)
Spikebuck Town located in the Hayesville vicinity at the mouth of
Town Creek and the Hiwassee River, (5) the Dr. George W. Truett
Birthplace located 2 miles west of Hayesville on SR 1343. A 1977
review of these sites by the State Historic Preservation Officer with
respect to multilane widening of NC 69 and US 64 resulted in a
determination that all of the sites are outside of the area of
potential environmental impact.
More detailed design studies have been completed.since the Final
Negative Declaration was completed in 1981 that reflect the.project's
reduction to mostly 2-lane improvements along the existing alignment,
with a 5-lane shoulder section from 0.2 mile west of NC 69 to 0.2
mile east of the Hiwassee River. This action is subject to
compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified
at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally funded,
15
licensed, or permitted
the National Register
Historic Preservation
project has an effect on a property listed on
of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on
ie given an opportunity to comment.
The area of potential effect (APE) of the subject project has
been reviewed in the field by an architectural historian on the staff
of NCDOT. No significant property was identified. In a letter dated
April 5, 1990, the State Historic Preservation Office concurred there
are no properties of architectural or historic significance either
listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register within the
APE of the subject project (See Appendix page RA-1).
Since there are no historic structures either listed in or
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106 is required
for architectural resources.
2. Archaeological Resources
The Final Negative Declaration indicates an archaeological
survey of the project area was conducted in 1981 at the request of
the State Historic Preservation Officer. The study found no
archaeological sites eligible for or listed on the National Register
of Historic Places would be affected by the then proposed multilane
facility. The SHPO concurred no further work for compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act was needed.
Since that time, two-lane and five-lane improvements to US 64
were recommended in lieu of the multilane improvements specified in
the Final Negative Declaration. In accordance with Federal Highway
Administration procedures, the NCDOT has reevaluated the project with
respect to archaeological resources to comply with contemporary
environmental and historic preservation regulations.
Two archaeological sites had been identified in the vicinity of
the US 64 bridge over the Hiwassee River. One of the sites (site
31Cy6) is located on the west side of the Hiwassee River north of
US 64. The other site (site 31Cy85) is located east of the Hiwassee
River on the north side of US 64.
The proposed improvements call for replacing the existing
24-foot wide bridge with an 80-foot wide structure on the north side
of the existing bridge centerline. On the west side of the Hiwassee
River, site 31Cy6 is located far enough north of the proposed highway
improvements that it will not be impacted by the proposed changes.
However, the eastern bridge approach will encroach upon prehistoric
site 31Cy85. Additional evaluative tests were conducted at the site
in October-November, 1991, and these tests indicated that the site
had significant deposits.
The SHPO has concurred that site 31Cy85 is potentially eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places (see pg. RA-2 of
Appendix). It contains cultural deposits dating from the Connestee
Phase (A.D. 200-600). These deposits occur in the upper levels of
deep alluvial soils, and although the materials have been disturbed
16
by cultivation, some archaeological features appeared to have
survived relatively intact. However, the land has since changed
hands and in 1994 the property was developed as a campground. It is
unknown whether the land alteration associated with construction of
the campground has destroyed site 31Cy85.
Additional archaeological testing and data recovery operations
will be conducted prior to construction of the project. The SHPO has
agreed impacts to site 31Cy85 can be mitigated through data recovery.
They have requested to review the scope of work for testing and data
recovery at this site and mitigation measures will be coordinated
with the SHPO. It is anticipated a conditional finding of no adverse
effect or a finding of no adverse effect will be issued pursuant to
36 CFR 800.9C after the archaeological data recovery investigation is
completed.
Since there are no visible remains or features that would be
appropriate for public display and interpretation, neither of the
prehistoric sites studied warrants preservation in place as a public
exhibit. Therefore, Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation
Act will not apply to this project.
M. Section 4(f) Properties
The recommended improvements will not involve any parks, public
recreation areas, or wildlife/waterfowl refuges. In addition, no
structures or sites of historic architectural significance and no
archaeological sites to be preserved in place are located within the
limits of this project. Therefore, there will be no impacts upon Section
4(f) properties.
N. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or
their representatives to consider the impact of construction and land
acquisition projects on prime and important farmland soils, as designated
by the U. S: Soil Conservation Service (SCS). In compliance with the Act,
the SCS was asked to identify all prime and important farmland soils which
occur in the vicinity of the proposed improvements. The SCS responded
that no soils mapping is currently available for the project area and they
are unable to determine whether prime or important farmland soils will be
impacted. Therefore, no further consideration of potential impacts to
farmlands is required.
0. Hazardous Wastes
An Underground Storage Tank and Hazardous Waste Highway Corridor
Assessment was conducted in 1989 to identify environmental hazards such as
underground storage tanks (UST's), hazardous waste sites, dumps,
landfills, or similar sites. The field survey was based on proposed right
of way limits for a 5-lane and-4-lane median divided facility.
17
In addition to the field survey, a records search of environmental
agencies was also conducted. The files of the Solid Waste Management
Section were investigated to determine if any unregulated dumps and
landfills were present within the corridor. The Environmental Protection
Agency's Superfund list was reviewed to determine if any known hazardous
waste sites were within the corridor. The files of the NCDEHNR• Division
of Environmental Management Groundwater Section were reviewed to determine
if UST's identified within the corridor were registered with that agency
as required by 40 CFR 280.22.
As a result of the above investigation, no sites containing potential
environmental hazards were identified within the proposed corridor for
multilane improvements. Since the recommended improvements to US 64 lie
within the corridor studied in 1989, it is concluded there are. no
hazardous waste sites or underground storage tanks within the proposed
right of way for the project.
V. CONCLUSIONS
It is anticipated the proposed improvements to US 64 will not result
in significant adverse impacts on the environment. The improvements now
proposed for US 64 have been downscaled since the Final Negative
Declaration for TIP project A-11 was approved in 1981; therefore,
anticipated environmental impacts have been reduced. Minimal additional
right of way is to be acquired, and 5 relocatees are anticipated.
Approximately 0.62 acre of waters of the United States will be impacted,
including 0.42 acre of surface water fill and 0.2 acre of fill in
jurisdictional wetland. No impacts to historic architectural resources
are anticipated. One archaeological site that is potentially eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places will be impacted by the proposed
improvements; however, the SHPO has concurred impacts can be mitigated by
data recovery or some other measures to be coordinated with NCDOT staff.
Minimal impacts on prime and important farmland soils are anticipated and
no known hazardous waste sites exist within the proposed right of way.
Furthermore, the proposed improvements will enhance safety and increase
traffic capacity along the facility. It is concluded project A-11 B will
have no significant adverse impact on the-environment.
BFY/plr
J Z U ?-
:1 Z LO
r? LL r
Y O ??? ?.LDFlaLtl? D z LL.
/
LLJ ? Z
i CL ?; Z zz3? 3:
cn m
Z w> o -_Zz WLUOr a?
UJ)
•?? ?? m MZzZZ OJVa O i
O M > Q
N
z E- CC CD
Q to
?? Q yaac7 Y
01
Q V
ooh ___! ;saaoj Cl)
8
v X040, ?-- - ~lp"nod C' \
1oN ? h •o
1.2 Z
C.) V
O
Je,
Q i - Q
z) co
FWD- llb(? ?ISL!! yJ? h co J
5 ss \ U cl f •? r ?9?^! !a-
O .o
V) co co Col C'?
t- „? s a CP
^I ?. N b
= Q oyJ M h! 1.6 1
1
1
1
1
.s
1

v ?
y a
?
0

M

W
O
W
y

W

L' J

i"

. ` . W
W
d 1.-
u
a
W
d
d o,
o £•
7
b
'0I
M 1.
? N
J
ss,ss
° !
Cl)
) r% r j
I?\
U ?1
.
m
\\ II

L?
(03an-l10N ! 3 H V)
a??tnsa? -H }o un;c?1.

-i

¦I
49
j

c C
. OA C
0 N 70] w - ::- ti =Z
? -
0 0 0 zz s=
o =
O DmN ZZ:.
r j0:EF
CD Omm z=
Z?C: (n
m « Z D
N D { O -n (n
O
z?
C) nO z?? y
4 -n w
Lrl n _
? ? z z
Ul -
v .....................?
......................................
........................................
.......................::::::::::::: :
r
!f l
I! ?ciiiiiiiiiii•. li. 1!- .•)( ?? ?\""?-?'?::::=?:(;`ilia
--% ?:
?/ :?iiiiiiiiiiii?iiiiiiiiiiiiiir??"''?`:?,?: \\? •i;:.?.
..................
................. ... .
io"
/ I -? eSLI

ZZ,

lit's
rm>
?m?
0a)
V 3NOZ
Nl.
Jam.
so.sW£Q?
r ?q
?? wr w???
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Parric Dorsey, Secretary
Apo 1 5, 1990
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 26806
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Re: Section 106 Consultation
Project reevaluation, US 64-NC 69 from Georgia
State Line.to NC 175, Clay County, All, APD-16-1(13)
ER 90-8065
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of March 28, 1990, concerning the above project.
On March 8, 1990, we met with Barbara Church of the.North Carolina
Department of Transportation and determined that no properties of
architectural or historic significance would be affected by the project.
Therefore, we have no comment on the project as it is currently proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning.the above comment, please contact. Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State. Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc:V / L. J. Ward
Barbara Church
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North-Carolina INk 27601-2807
RA - 1
STVt
OIMM
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
March 11, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Section 106 Consultation, Archaeological
Survey, Reevaluation of EIS, US 64, Clay
County, A-11 B, ER 92-7801
Dear Mr. Graf:

Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director

r <%
MqA

Thank you for your letter of January 29, 1992, concerning the above project.
During the survey two previously recorded sites were investigated by Thomas
Padgett. Site 31 CY6 was judged to be not eligible for listing on the National
Register. Site 31 CY85 was determined to be potentially eligible for listing on the
National Register under Criterion D. We concur with this evaluation. We also
concur that the adverse effect on this site may be mitigated by data recovery. We
look forward to reviewing the scope of work for the additional work at this site.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
tDav' Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: ?L. J. Ward
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
RA - 2
R E L_ O Cr A T 1 0 N R E R O R T North Carolina Department of Twansportation
X E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR - DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT- 8.3064121 COLtm: Clay Alternate I of 1 Alternate
I.D. N0.! A-11B F.A. PROJECT: APD-161(18)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT= US 64 From 0.2 Mile West of NC 69 to 0.2 Mile West of NC 175
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES _
""' ___...._.... •• INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacee
Owners
Tenants
Total M i nor-
ities
D-15M
15-25M 25-35M
35-50M
SO LIP
Individuals 0 0 0
? 0 0 0 0 0 0
Families 2 3 5 0 3 1 0 0-
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALLE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners -Tenants For Sale
- For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0
__ _ 0-20M ?0 .$ 0-150 0 0-20M 1 $ 0-150 1yW
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M2 150-250 3 20-40M
........ ..... _-_...._ 5 150-250 6
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" AI`LSLJERS
-^? 40-70M 0 250-400 D 40-70M 11 250-400 .2
X 1. Will special relocation
i 70-100 0 400-600 0 70-100 3 400-6002-

X serv
ces be necessary
2. Will schools or churches be
ff
100 LIP 0 600 LP 0 100 LF
2
600 UP _ 1 u

X a
ected by displacement
3. Will business services still
b
TOTAL M 2 _ 3
22
12??

X e available after project
4. Will any business be dis- ------
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of
l
3. Will not be'disrupted due to prject.
emp
oyees) minorities) etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a
h 6. a. Carolina Country Realty

X ousing shortage
6. Source for available hous- Hayesville; N. C. 389-8335
i
ns (list) b. Mountain Streams Real Estate
X 7. Will additional housing Hayesville, N. C. 389-8855

programs be needed
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing
b c. Local newspaper.
e considered
X 9. Are there larse? disabledi
ld
l S. As necessary in accordance with State law.
e
er
y) etc. families
ANSWER
THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
10. Will public housing be
d
d
nee
e
for project
11. Is public housing avail-
bl
a
e
12. Is it felt there will be ad-
equate DDS housing available
d
i
ur
ng relocation period
13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial
I-- - means
14. Are suitable business sites
il
bl
ava
a
e (list source)
15. Number months estimated to
qo_ mplete RELOCATION
q1 I/ hf
Reloca ion Agen Da e Approved Date
'arm 15.4 Revised 5190 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
RA-3
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement
housing will be available prior to construction of state and.
federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of
Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation:
* Relocation Assistance,
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and
prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing
or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Program, in
general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in
relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase
or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrange-
ment (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments
or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are
eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and
qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the
North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in reloca-
ting to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one
relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families,
individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for
relocation assistance advisory services without regard to race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to
allow ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations and possession
of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards.
The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT pur-
chases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in
areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and
commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will
be within the financial means of the families and individuals displaced
and will be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The
relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving
to replacement property. .
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will
receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as (1)
purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either
RA-4
private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to
another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply
information concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance
to displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in
order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new
location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the d i s-
placee for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway
project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate
in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings such
as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs and, if
applicable, make a payment for any increased interest expenses for
replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement
housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental purchase
expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the Last
Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed
$5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, includ-
ing incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The
down payment is based upon what the state determines is required when the
rent supplement exceeds $5250. -
It i.s a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the
NCDOT's state or federally-assisted construction projects unless and until
comparable replacement housing has been offered or provided for each
displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No
relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purposes
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance
under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing
is not available, or when it is unavailable-within the displacee's finan-
cial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal
limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in
methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary
replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt that this program
will be necessary on the project, since there appear to be adequate
opportunities for relocation within the area.
RA-5
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
AT4*asvJ
Division of Water Quality RIM*
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary Kerr T. Stevens, Director NCDENR
August 11, 2000
Clay County
DWQ Project No. 00-0873
TIP No. A-11BA, US 64 from NC 69 to east of Hiawassee River
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
(Revised)
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
&'Itale gh a 27699-1548
R Dear 1VIriirnore:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to
widen US 64 from NC 69 in Hayesville to 0.2 miles east of the Hiawassee River in Clay County,
including the replacement of the bridge over the Hiawassee River. The project should be
constructed in accordance with your application dated 21 June 2000 (received 3 July 2000).
After reviewing your application, we have decided that this project is covered by General Water
Quality Certification Numbers 3289, 3124, and 3114. This certification corresponds to the
Nationwide Permit Numbers 14, 31 and 33 issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you
should acquire any other federal, state or local permits before you proceed with your project
including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply
Watershed regulations. This approval will expire with the accompanying 404 permit, unless
otherwise specified in the Water Quality Certification. The following additional conditions will
be required:
1. Any culverts required for this project shall be installed in such a manner that the original
stream profile is not altered (i.e. the depth of the channel should not be reduced by a
widening of the streambed).
2. All culverts shall be installed at least one foot below the channel bed so as to allow passage
of water and aquatic life.
3. All work shall be performed during low flow conditions.
4. Care must be utilized such that live (wet) concrete does not enter the stream channel.
5. The presence of equipment in the channels must be minimized.
6. In-stream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot wide buffer zone are prohibited
during the trout spawning season of November 1 through March 31 to protect the egg and fry
stages of trout from off-site sedimentation during construction.
7. Mowing of existing vegetated buffers is strongly discouraged, so that they may be utilized
for stormwater sheet flow.
8. Use of rip-rap for bank stabilization is to be minimized; rather, native vegetation is to be
planted when practical.
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
This approval is valid solely for the purpose and design described in your application (unless
modified below). Should your project change, you must notify the DWQ and submit a new
application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and
approval letter, and is thereby responsible for complying with all the conditions. If the proposed
fill is in excess of 150 linear feet of stream length or 1 acre of wetlands, compensatory mitigation
will required as described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid,
you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and any additional conditions
listed above.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an
adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this
letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition that conforms to Chapter 150B of
the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714
Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions
are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-9646.
Sincerely,
Kerr T. Stevens
Attachment
Pc: Wilmington District.Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DWQ Regional Office
Central Files
%'. OJ
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality ?.,.,.?•.
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary Kerr T. Stevens, Director NCDENR
July 28, 2000
Clay County
DWQ Project No. 00-0873
TIP No. A-I IBA, US 64 from NC 69 to east of Hiawassee River
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to
widen US 64 from NC 69 in Hayesville to 0.2 miles east of the Hiawassee River in Clay County,
including the replacement of the bridge over the Hiawassee River. The project should be
constructed in accordance with your application dated 21 June 2000 (received 3 July 2000).
After reviewing your application, we have decided that this project is covered by General Water
Quality Certification Numbers 3289, 3124, and 3114. This certification corresponds to the
Nationwide Permit Numbers 14, 31 and 33 issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you
should acquire any other federal, state or local permits before you proceed with your project
including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply
Watershed regulations. This approval will expire with the accompanying 404 permit, unless
otherwise specified in the Water Quality Certification. The following additional conditions will
be required.
1. Any culverts required for this r0jegt a installed in such a manner that the original
stream profile is not altered (i of the channel should not be reduced by a
widening of the streambed). '**' ?
2. All culverts shall be installed at least one"it below the channel bed so as to allow
passage of water and aquatic life.
3. All work shall be performed during low flow conditions.
4. Care must be utilized such that live (wet) concrete does not enter the stream channel.
5. The presence of equipment in the channels must be minimized.
6. In-stream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot wide buffer zone are prohibited
during the trout spawning season of October 15 through March 31 to protect the egg and
fry stages of trout from off-site sedimentation during construction.
7. Mowing of existing vegetated buffers is strongly discouraged, so that they may be utilized
for stormwater sheet flow.
8. Use of rip-rap for bank stabilization is to be minimized; rather, native vegetation is to
be planted when practical.
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
'An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
This approval is valid solely for the purpose and design described in your application (unless
modified below). Should your project change, you must notify the DWQ and submit a new
application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and
approval letter, and is thereby responsible for complying with all the conditions. If the proposed
fill is in excess of 150 linear feet of stream length or 1. acre of wetlands, compensatory mitigation
will required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid,
you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and any additional conditions
listed above.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an
adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this
letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition that conforms to Chapter 150B of
the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714
Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions
are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-9646.
Attachment
Pc:
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DWQ Regional Office
Central Files

Er .
Sincerely,
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor NCDENR
Bill Holman, Secretary Kerr T. Stevens, Director
July 11, 2000
Clay County
DWQ Project No. 00-0873
TIP No. A-11BA, US 64 from NC 68 to east of Hiawassee River
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to
widen US 64 from NC 68 in Hayesville to 0.2 miles east of the Hiawassee River in Clay County,
including the replacement of the bridge over the Hiawassee River. The project should be
constructed in accordance with. your application dated 21 June 2000 (received 3 July 2000).
After reviewing your application, we have decided that this project is covered by General Water
Quality Certification Numbers 3289, 3124, and 3114. This certification corresponds to the
Nationwide Permit Numbers 14, 31 and 33 issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you
should acquire any other federal, state or local permits before you proceed with your project
including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply
Watershed regulations. This approval will expire with the accompanying 404 permit, unless
otherwise specified in the Water Quality Certification. The following additional conditions will
be required:
1. Any culverts required for this project shall be installed in such a manner that the original
stream profile tr nov al'tered' (i.e. the depth of the channel should not be reduced by a
widening of the-AAke beds
2. Sediment and erosion control measures shall adhere to design standards for sensitive
watersheds (15A NCAC 4B .0024) since Hiawasee River is designated as WS-IV Critical
Area.
3. Hazardous spill catch basins shall be used in locations within the Water Supply Critical
Area.
4. All culverts shall be installed at least one foot below the channel bed so as to allow
passage of water and aquatic life.
5. All work shall be performed during low flow conditions.
6. Care must be utilized such that live (wet) concrete does not enter the stream channel.
7.` The presence of equipment in the channels must be minimized.
8. In-stream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot wide buffer zone are prohibited
during the trout spawning season of October 15 through March 31 to protect the egg and
fry stages of trout from off-site sedimentation during construction.
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
9. Mowing of existing vegetated buffers is strongly discouraged, so that they may be utilized
for stormwater sheet flow.
10. Use of rip-rap for bank stabilization is to be minimized; rather, native vegetation
is to be planted when practical.
This approval is valid solely for the purpose and design described in your application (unless
modified below). Should your project change, you must notify the DWQ and submit a new
application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and
approval letter, and is thereby responsible for complying with all the conditions. If the proposed
fill is in excess of 150 linear feet of stream length or 1 acre of wetlands, compensatory mitigation
will required as described in 15A NCAC 211.0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid,
you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and any additional conditions
listed above.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an
adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this
letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition that conforms to Chapter 150B of
the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714
Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions
are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-9646.
Attachment
Sincerely,
Stevens
Pc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DWQ Regional Office
Central Files
fQ _
,„_, 101)
PAYMENT
RECEIVED
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
June 21, 2000
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Attention:
Subject:
Dear Sir:
Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
s?
2000
ULAN"(1 ?'
Clay County, US 64, from NC 68 in Hayesville to east of the Hiawassee
River; Federal Aid Project No. APD-16-1(18); State Project
No. 8.3064121; TIP No. A-I IBA; USACE Action ID 199504010.
()()0873
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen
US 64 from NC 68 in Hayesville to 0.2 mile east of the Hiawassee River in Clay County.
(TIP No. A-11BA). The existing two-land roadway will be widened to a five-lane
facility, including the replacement of the bridge over Hiawassee River. The project is 0.9
mile in length.
NEPA Documentation
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approved a Final Negative
Declaration (FND) for TIP No. A-11 in 1981. The FHWA signed a Draft Reevaluation
of the FND for TIP No. A-11 B on April 21, 1995. The Final Reevaluation of the FND
was approved by the FHWA on January 4, 1996. These documents include studies
pertaining to impacts to waters of the United States and protected species. Copies of each
document have been provided to regulatory agencies involved in the permit review
process.
For construction purposes, the subject project has been divided into three sections.
The following table includes the construction schedule of the project and a description of
each~section's termini.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH, NC
I
Table 1. Construction Schedule for TIP No. A-11
Section Let Date Project Description
A complete Widen NC 68, from Georgia state line to US 64 Bypass
BA June 1999 NC 68 to east of Hiwassee River
BB October 2007 East of Hiwassee River to NC 175
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) authorized Section A of TIP
No. A-11 under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 14 and 26 (Action ID 199202300).
This permit authorized minor stream relocations and culvert extensions.
The NCDOT proposes to widen the existing two-lane facility of US 64 to a five-
lane shoulder section. This section of the roadway includes four 12-foot travel lanes, one
12-foot center turn lane and a 10-foot usable shoulder width, 4-foot of which is paved.
The new bridge will be 80 feet wide and 290 feet in length.
Endangered Species Act
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) requested that the NCDOT perform
surveys for mussel species at the proposed bridge construction. The NCDOT has
submitted to the USFWS a biological conclusion per Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act for Tennessee clubshell (Pleurobema oviforme) and sickelfin redhorse (Moxostoma
sp.). A biological conclusion of "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" was reached and a
copy of this documentation has been attached to this permit application.
Historic Preservation Act
The NCDOT has conducted an archaeological investigation of the portion of site
31CY85. The NCDOT has determined that the proposed project will not impact any
significant archaeological features, and a copy of concurrence from State Historic
Preservation Office is attached.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
Project construction cannot be completed without impacts to waters of the United
States. Impacts to waters of the United States include one wetland site, pipe extension,
bridge construction and temporary causeway construction to accommodate bridge
construction.
Site 1 involves impacts to a wetland and pipe extension. The wetland impact
totals 0.05 acre. The wetland site was delineated by NCDOT staff biologist using the
criteria outlined in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.
The existing pipe will not be extended. A wetland evaluation was conducted according to
the N. C. Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Guidance for Rating the
Values of Wetlands in North Carolina, Fourth Version. The wetland has a DEM rating of
20. The dominant vegetation of the site is Japanese grass (Microstegium viminium).
Section 404/401 Permit Application June 21, 2000
TIP No. A-I 1 BA Page 2 of 4
Based on this information, the NCDOT believes this site can be permitted under a Section
404 Nationwide Permit 14.
Bridge construction over Hiawassee River will necessitate a temporary causeway
in the river. Based on this information, the NCDOT believes that bridge construction can
be permitted under a Section 404 General Permit 31 and that the temporary causeway can
be permitted under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33. These two permits do not
require concurrence of the N. C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
The NCDOT has attached plan drawings of Sites 1 and 2, as well as a profile of
the temporary causeway. Causeway construction will be performed in phases as depicted
on Sheet 3 of 4. Total impact to Hiawassee River from the causeway is 2140 cubic yards.
The amounts of fill per phase is 500 cubic yards each for Phases 1 and 2, and 570 cubic
yards each for Sites 3 and 4.
The site map for TIP No. A-11 BA includes sites for the BB section. Only Sites 1
and 2 are applicable to the permit application for TIP No. A-11 BA. A project
breakdown map has also been included.
The NCDOT does not intend to provide compensatory mitigation for impacts to
waters of the United States due to their minimal nature.
Summary of Permit Request
Based upon the discussed impact to waters of the United States, the NCDOT
requests that the proposed construction be authorized under several Section 404 permits:
a Section 404 Nationwide 14 for the wetland impact (Site 1); a Section 404 General
Permit 31 for bridge construction over Hiwassee River (Site 2); and, a Section 404
Nationwide Permit 33 for the construction of the temporary causeway within the
Hiwassee River (Site 2). A completed notification form and a permit drawing of the
bridge construction have been included with this letter. By copy of this letter and
application, the NCDOT requests that the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
review this project. Application is also made for 401 Water Quality Certification from
the North Carolina Division of Water Quality for the Section 404 Nationwide Permit 14
and 33, as well as a Section 404 General Permit 31.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr.
Phillip Todd of my staff at [phone], extension 314.
Sincerely,
61?or? C? ?? t
V
W. D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Section 404/401 Permit Application June 21, 2000
TIP No. A-11 BA Page 3 of 4
I
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ, Raleigh
Mr. Owen Anderson, NCWRC, Waynesville
Mr. Marella Buncick, USFWS, Asheville
Mr. N. L. Graf, P. E., FHWA
Mr. Tim Rountree, P. E., Structure Design
Mr. Calvin Leggitt, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Debbie Barbour, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. Dave Henderson, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John Alford, P. E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. R. G. Watson, P. E., Division 14 Engineer
Mr. Mark Davis, Division 14 DEO
Section 404/401 Permit Application
TIP No. A-11 BA
June 21, 2000
Page 4 of 4
I
DEM ID
CORPS ACTION ID: 199504010
TIP No. A-11 BA
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): 14, 31, 33
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: NC Dept. of Transportation; Project Development &
Envirormental Analysis Branch
2. MAILING ADDRESS: Post Office Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE:
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME
FROM MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK) :
919-733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
William D. Gilmore , P.E., Manager
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Clay NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Hayesville
25201
(IF DIFFERENT
1
J
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
US 64, from NC 68 in Hayesville to east of the Hiwassee River
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Hiawassee River
RIVER BASIN: Hiawassee River
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [] NO [X] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[X] NO[ ]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
No
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [X] NO [ ] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION): USACE Action ID 199202300
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [X] NO [ ] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
See Cover Letter for Future Sections
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND:
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
0.05 acre
2
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY: ti
FILLING: 0.05 acre EXCAVATION:
FLOODING: OTHER: 2100 cubic yards (causeway)
DRAINAGE: TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.05
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: FT AFTER: FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): FT
WIDTH AFTER: FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: FT AFTER: FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: .
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND?
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY): Widen US 64 using road construction equipment
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Construction of public roadway
3
+ 14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS):
Impacts to wetlands are unavoidable. Wetlands exist adjacent to
the existing roadway.
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR
PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL
HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: copy of this letter (ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE
AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: see attached correspondence
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [X] NO [I
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [X] NO [I
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Rural, single
family residential
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
OWNER'S/AGENT'S SIGNATURE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))

DATE
i
5
'00 _
cm '0
-46 ;i
m^• • _ N O -?. i ?L?-? 410
LLJ'
\_?
/ . ° J ai ?\ • c7 - , 'i ° °% ?? =GO ?/ ' - co
Y
rc,
IL-
T, (L
__ \ •? ?,•• `e C •D
2_ ?•? m `/
/.\•.y)?O?S?fr'??\ ' '•?••1,p iY-a --'? ,\ 1 ..,0 •c?,n
a '/. zoo i r r i i 1? \ 5 \ ;
1 )/ ? ` •S °•C I p / ? i ,,ems, I ?

0
'o
X
00

XV
%
30' CM X
k
/ZPROPOSED EARTH BERM LT. ;
a x STA. 42+CK) TO STA. 44+10
HORACE GARRISON
aaLATERAL `V' DITCH LT.
SEF DETAIL A -\
v, o
0005 2 3
\/• a^1 1 LL11 L
DISH
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Clay County
TIP No. A-11 BA
Proposed widening, pipe extension and new
Bridge on US 64 from NC 69 to Hiawassee River
USGS Quadrangle map of Hayesville
Scale P'= 50' Sheet a of 4
F\?'r•
?TCnN r? ??? ?`ST ?
33 + 3 7
0 R/W
1 i.
100
s
?. _ 0 S - PROP, R/W
6•
-R-1-3 4 `?O-
25
WALTER P
---_
_ -
,`

?
•

j
i FU IOR
ELSO
1
?'r??t+?ri??
•
!`??? ? ;_'... ?r?i?rlrf?rrr?rl+
• rlr ?• r rfv? r ??`?'?'?rlr J
?1 r r?rU?`?•
JE
CAT-1. . `?
??. .4
DITCH 24' CONC
NAIL ,.11
_ S 86° 47'42" E \ Z;
t .-

-;
CONC
--
-
YTL -4 1
?-_
MELT t?? i(r III 4c? 1(1 0r(r4D r . • lI,4c?. 'lie? III . r r(r t(i i(? ?Ir
1 1 -L J
1 ' ?? -

.'? ?{ T T Z
{? ri 1 Y

a

CC)

i
?
v
QC
II I
8 I lp
I

71
I
`v,4?YrLL q
0 0
1`\ o Q o o f
r;j

? ?? _? J V I I
H0, S
IN \ U
vig

J
3

--s
C3
Z
`?
0
t
1 ? i
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CLAY COUNTY
PROJECT 8.3064121 A-0011B
WIDENING OF US 64
SHEET Z OF 4
Z
O-^
'/
L
Lu
z
c
J

a
V)
W
O
W
v)
W
O J ?
O
p _O
^ l
O
D
N

O
O
41
49
O
v
_1
13
N
411
O
j
o
Q.
Cc Co
G
? W
Q ?
v ?
V 1y
J
v

7

UQr

v?
h -

1 y J
`?
J
-
I ?
s
?L W
r
Jl
? X
v
V UJ

w
J
J
i
t.i

1y
r0
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CLAY COUNTY
PROJECT 8.3064121 A-0011B
WIDENING OF US 64
SHEET q OF q
V.
37ATE
>i
N, a+
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
MAILING ADDRESS
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
July 27, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transpor tion
FROM: David Brook ' J
Deputy State Historic-Pr6servaon bffi?er
SUBJECT: US 64 Improvements, TIP A-11B, Clay
County, Federal Aid Project APD 16-1(18),
ER 99-8419
LOCATION
507 North Blount Street
Raleigh, NC
State Courier 53-31-31
Thank you for your letter of July 7, 1999, forwarding the archaeological management
summary for the above referenced project.
David Moore, Western Office staff archaeologist, visited the site while the investigation
was under way. The authors found no significant resources within the North Carolina
Department of Transportation project area. We concur with this finding and will
provide final comments upon receipt of the final project report.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning
the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review
coordinator, at 919 / 733-4763.
DB:slw/
cc: Tom Padgett
Loretta Lautzenheiser
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
02'r
10() East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2507 1
.,. STATE .
T -
•? aw •Nr
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
October 6, 1999
William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Re: US 64 improvements, TIP No. A-11, Clay County, ER 77-9086, ER 00-7381
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrev J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of August 17, 1999 transmitting the archaeological testing report for site 31 CY85 by
Coastal Carolina Research.
This work was well-done and well-reported. The site was determined to be not eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places. We concur with this recommendation.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part
800, and to Executive Order 11593, "Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment."
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comments, please
contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
V
;-David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:bjs
cc: Claggett/Moore
Loretta Lautzenheiser, Coastal Carolina Research
Thomas Padgett. NCDOT
Location
Blount St
507 N
Ra:eigh NC Jlailin-Address
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 2 7699-46 1 7 Telephone/Fax
[phone]/733-8653
ADMINISTRATION
ARCHAEOLOGY ..
.
421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 %fail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619 [phone].'715-2671
4801
;7
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4613 %fail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4613
Raleigh NC 27699-1618
il Servic: Center
4618 %f 15-
[phone]
[phone]/715-4801
SURVEY .& PLANNING 515 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC ,
a

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JANIEs B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
June 7, 2000
Mr. Brian Cole, State Supervisor
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville. North Carolina 28801
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Section 7 Biological Conclusion for the sicklefin redhorse and the
Tennessee clubshell relating to US 64 improvements from NC 69 to 0.2
mile east of the Hiwassee River, Hayesville, Clay County, Federal-Aid
Project Number APD-16-1(20). State Project Number 8.3064123 TIP
Project Number A-11 BA
Dear Mr. Cole:
Please review the attached location map, biological assessment, and list of
proposed project commitments for the subject project. My staff has concluded the
proposed action is "not likely to adversely affect" the species in question. We are seeking
your written concurrence with these findings.
Your timely attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. If you need further
information, or have any questions concerning the attached materials, please contact
either Brian Yamamoto, Project Development Engineer, or Tim Savidge, Environmental
Biologist, at [phone].
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/bfy
Attachments
J
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOTSTATE.NC.US RALEIGH. NC
STAIZ
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
June 07, 2000
Memorandum To: Brian Yamamoto, Project Manager
Consultant Unit
Attention: Phillip Todd, Permit Specialist (A-11BA)
From: Tim Savidge, Environmental Specialist
Subject: Biological Conclusion for the Tennessee clubshell mussel and
sickelfin redhorse for proposed Improvements to US 64, in Clay
County, TIP No. A-11BA
The attached Biological Assessment addresses potential project-related impacts to
the Tennessee clubshell (Pleurobema oviforme) and the sicklefin redhorse (Moxostoma
sp.). This project occurs in the Hiwassee River basin and involves a crossing of the river.
Both species have been found in the Hiwassee River, several miles downstream of the
project crossing. Based on the scope of impacts associated with the proposed action and
the distance of these species from the impact area, a Biological Conclusion of "Not
Likely to Adversely Affect" was reached. Please provide this Biological Assessment
along with any other pertinent information to the Fish and Wildlife Service to seek
concurrence with this determination. If you have any questions regarding this
assessment, or need an electronic copy of this report please contact me at 733-7844, ext.
313.
Cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D, Assistant Branch Manager Natural Systems
Gail Grimes, P.E., Unit Head, Consultant Unit
Introduction
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes
to improve US 64 from NC 68 in Hayesville to 0.2 mile east of the Hiawassee River in
Clay County. (TIP No. A-1 IBA). The existing two-land roadway will be widened to a
five-lane facility. including the replacement of the bridge over the Hiawassee River
(@River Mile 118). The project is 0.9 mile in length. Portions of the Hiwassee River
within North Carolina contain a diverse aquatic fauna. Two Federal Species of Concern
(FSC) the Tennessee clubshell (Pleurobema oviforme ) and the sicklefin redhorse
(Moxostoma sp.) have been found in the Hiwassee River in North Carolina, and are likely
to be afforded federal protection by the time construction of this project is complete.
Because of this NCDOT has decided to treat these two species as if they were afforded
protection under the Endangered Species Act.
Project History and Purpose and Need
Project A-1 I BA calls for improving US 64 to a five-lane facility from NC 69 to
approximately 0.2 mile east of the Hiwassee River in Clay County near Havesville. This
is a portion of the TIP Project A-11, which also includes two-lane improvements to US
64 from east of the Hiwassee River to NC 175 and two-lane improvements on NC 69
from US 64 to the Georgia State Line.
The original intent and scope of the project was to improve a portion of the route
between Atlanta, Georgia and Asheville, North Carolina. The improvements to NC 69
and US 64 will connect with a 100-mile section of the Appalachian Highway
Development System between Atlanta and the North Carolina State line.
A Final Negative Declaration for project A-11 was approved by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) in 1981. That document recommended widening NC
69 and US 64 primarily to four-lane median divided facilities, with a five-lane shoulder
section from 0.8 mile south of the US 64/NC 69 intersection on NC 69 to 0.1 mile east of
the Hiwassee River on US 64.
A reevaluation was completed for the portion of the project located on NC 69
between the Georgia State Line and US 64 (Project A-11 in April 1991. The four and
five-lane improvements to NC 69 recommended in the Final Negative Declaration were
reduced to improving the existing two-lane facility to a 28-foot pavement width (two
twelve-foot travel lanes with two-foot paved shoulders). It was determined the two-lane
improvements to NC 69 would accommodate projected year 2020 traffic at an acceptable
level of service and increase roadway safety.
A separate reevaluation was completed for the portion of the project located on
US 64 between NC 69 and NC 175 (Project A-11 B) in January 1996. Although a five-
lane cross section is still recommended between NC 69 and the Hiwassee River, the
remainder of the proposed US 64 improvements were reduced from a four-lane median
divided cross section to two lane improvements (two 12-foot travel lanes with 4-foot
paved shoulders). It is expected the proposed two and five lane improvements will
accommodate the regional movement between Georgia and North Carolina as well as
local movements south of Havesville.
Aquatic Fauna in the Hiwassee River
Although overlooked in recent years, portions of the Hiwassee River within North
Carolina contain a diverse aquatic fauna. Several aquatic Federal Species of Concern
have recently been found in the Hiwassee River (Table 1).
FC(' QnPniPQ RPnnrtPrl From the Hiwassee River
Scientific Name Common Name
Cambarus hiwasseensis Hiwassee crayfish
Cambarus parrishi Parrish crayfish
Cryptobranchus allegamensis Hellbender
Lithasia chrisryi Knotty rocksnail
Moxostoma sp. Sicklefin redhorse
Pleurobema oviforme Tennessee clubshell
in addition to this project (A-11BA), NCDOT also plans to relocate a portion of
US 64 in Cherokee County (R-0977). which will also impact the Hiwassee River. These
two projects are not dependent on each other, however because of these and any other
projects that occur in the Hiwassee River basin information regarding the aquatic
resources in the river was needed. A cooperative effort was made by biologists from
NCDOT, US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and NC Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) to survey the Hiwassee River for freshwater mussels in the summer of 1998
and 1999. Subsequent surveys followed in March 2000. Biologists from the Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA) and the US Geological Survey (USGS) were involved in the
most recent survey effort. Survey methodology included, mask and snorkel, SCUBA and
view buckets. Canoeing was used to access the majority of the survey sites. The
majority of the River between Hayesville and Murphy was surveyed at some point during
this effort.
A total of six species were found during the surveys. These include the spike
(Elliptio dilitata), longsolid (Fusconaia subrotunda), wavy-rayed lampmussel (Lampsilis
fasciola), Tennessee clubshell (Pleurobema oviforme), rainbow (Villosa iris) and
mountain creekshell (Villosa vanuxemensis). The rainbow and longsoild are the two most
common mussels in the river. while the mountain creekshell and the Tennessee clubshell
appear to be the most rare. Mitochondrial DNA analysis was used to aid in the
identification of the specimens of the Fusconaia and Pleurobema genera. Charles
Lydeard, Associate Professor at the University of Alabama, Department of Biological
Sciences, conducted this study for NCDOT.
Prior to these surveys. the longsolid was considered to have been extirpated from
North Carolina. This species has subsequently been found in the Little River of the
French Broad River Basin by NCDOT and FWS biologists. The longsolid population
found in the Hiwassee River appears to be genetically distinct from other lonusolid
populations that were compared in the genetic study. This study will continue through
2000 to compare other populations in the Fusconaia and Pleurobema genera.
Distribution of freshwater mussels was found to be very patchy in the Hiwassee
River, being fairly common in some areas and absent from others. The occupied range of
mussels in the river was found to be from the backwaters of Hiwassee Lake in Murphy
(just upstream of the US 19/74/64 crossing) upstream to approximately the confluence of
Fires Creek and the Hiwassee River (River Mile 111) in Clay County. In general mussel
concentrations increase downstream, and are fairly uncommon above Mission Dam (RM
106). Poor habitat conditions (for mussels) occur in the river from the US 64 crossing in
Hayesville downstream to approximately RM 115. These conditions are likely the result
of excessive sedimentation coming from Hayesville as well as the fluctuations in flow
regimes that create streambank instability. Although "good" habitat for mussels occurs
in stretches below RM 115, water temperatures are very low (9-12' C in June of 1999).
Mussel densities in the river are highest in the lower stretch of the river near Murphy.
Water temperatures in these lower reaches ranged from 21'C to 26C in the June 1999
surveys. The coldwater release of Chatuge Lake is believed to be the limiting factor in the
upriver distribution of mussels.
In addition to the mussel species observed, all of the other FSC species listed in
table 1 were observed at various locations during this survey effort. The sicklefin
redhorse appeared to be fairly common in some areas. Robert E. Jenkins of Roanoke
College conducted specific surveys for the sicklefin redhorse for the TVA in 1999 and
2000. The furthest upstream record of the sicklefin redhorse is just below Mission Dam
(RM 106). This hydroelectric dam is located approximately 13 miles downstream of the
A-11BA crossing of the river. The dam is believed to be the limiting factor in the
upstream migration of this species (Pers. comm. Bob Jenkins). Etmer (1997) identified
altered flow regimes as the reason for the imperiled status of the sicklefin redhorse.
Potential Impacts
Potential project-related impacts on these two species are considered here. Direct,
secondary and cumulative impacts are analyzed.
Direct Impacts
Direct impacts refer to consequences that are directly attributed to the the project.
Direct impacts associated with road construction include but are not limited to land
clearing, loss of habitat, stream rechannelization, hydrologic modification and erosion.
Potential direct impacts to mussel and fish species associated with transportation projects
include; siltation, substrate disturbance, alteration of flows and introduction of toxic
compounds.
Siltation resulting from improper erosion control of various land usage. including
agricultural. forestry and development activities has been recognized as a major
contributing factor to degradation of mussel populations (USFWS 1996). Siltation has
been documented to be extremely detrimental to mussel populations by degrading
substrate and water quality. increasing potential exposure to other pollutants and by direct
smothering of mussels lEllis 1936, Marking and Bills 1979). Sediment accumulations of
less than l inch have been shown to cause high mortality in most mussel species (Ellis
1936). In Massachusetts, a bridge construction project decimated a population of dwarf-
wedge mussel, because of accelerated sedimentation and erosion (Smith 1981). Species
of fish, such as redhorses, which spawn in clean gravel beds are also susceptible to
siltation.
The Sedimentation and Erosion Control Program (SECP) applies to construction
activities such as roadway construction, and is established and authorized under the
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973. This act delegates the responsibility of
administration and enforcement to the Division of Land Resources (DLR) (Land Qualit}
Section) of DEHNR. The SECP requires prior to construction, the submission and
approval of erosion control plans on all projects disturbing one or more acres. On-site
inspections by DLR are conducted to determine compliance with the plan and to evaluate
the effectiveness of the BMPs which are being used. The NCDOT in cooperation with
DWQ has developed a sedimentation control program for highway projects which adopts
formal BMPs for protection of surface waters. Additional erosion control measures as
outlined in Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds (NCAC TI5A:04B .0024) are
implemented by NCDOT for projects within WS-I, or WS-II water supply watersheds,
Critical Areas, waters designated for shellfishing, or any waters designated by DWQ as
High Quality Waters (HQWs). It is standard procedure for NCDOT to implement HQW
erosion control guidelines when crossing an aquatic resource containing a federally listed
species, regardless of the DWQ classification.
Numerous pollutants have been identified in highway runoff, including various
metals (lead, zinc, iron etc.), sediment, pesticides, deicing salts, nutrients (nitrogen,
phosphorus) and petroleum hydrocarbons (Gupta et al. 1981). The sources of these
runoff constituents range from construction and maintenance activities, to daily vehicular
use. The toxicity of highway runoff to aquatic ecosystems is poorly understood. A major
reason for this poor understanding, is a lack of studies on highway runoff alone.
Potential impacts of highway runoff have been inferred from studies conducted on urban
runoff, however, the relative loadings of pollutants are often much greater in urban
runoff, because of a larger drainage area and lower receiving water dilution ratios
(Dupuis et al. 1985). The few studies that examined actual highway runoff show that
some species demonstrate little sensitivity to highway runoff exposure, while others are
much more sensitive (Dupuis et al. 1985). Unfortunately, these studies only measured
acute toxicity to runoff and did not examine long-term impacts.
The effects of hiuhway runoff on freshwater bivalves have not been studied
extensively. Auuspurger (l 992) compared sediment samples and soft tissues of the
common Elliptio mussel (Elliptio complanata) upstream and downstream of the I-95
crossing of Swift Creek in Nash County North Carolina. The sediment samples as well
as the mussels (n=3) exhibited higher levels of aliphatic hydrocarbons, arsenic, lead, zinc
and other heavy metal contaminants in the downstream samples. Because of the small
sample size, the effect on the health of these mussels was not studied. The North
Carolina Mussel Research Program, which consists of representatives from various
federal and state conservation and regulatory agencies, academia and NCDOT, identified
this issue as a major research need.
The current design for the bridge crossing the Hiwassee River is a three-span
structure, with deck drainage directly into the river. NCDOT will try to minimize the
amount of direct discharge by examining the possibility of eliminating the deck drains in
the middle span.
Bridge construction activities such as causeway construction, bridge pilling
installation and bridge removal result in disturbances to the existing substrate of the water
body crossed. Alterations of flow also occur with the construction of causeways. A
causeway will be constructed with this project, however surveys indicate that neither
mussels, nor the sicklefin redhorse are present in this vicinity.
Given the distance of the upstream extent of mussels and sicklefin redhorse from
the project area (7 miles and 12 miles respectively) project-related direct impacts are not
anticipated. Any potential downstream impacts from sedimentation will be avoided by
the implementation of erosion control measures designed for sensitive species.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
Secondary impacts are not direct consequences of the road construction, but result
from modifications in access to parcels of land and from modifications in travel time
between various areas (Mulligan and Horowitz 1986). They are defined as those impacts
that are "caused by an action and are later in time or farther removed in distance but are
still reasonably foreseeable" (40CFR 1508.8). Secondary land use impacts have included
residential, commercial and industrial developments, or urban sprawl. Cumulative
Impacts: Are those effects of future State or private activities, not involving Federal
activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the proposed
Federal action. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) defines Cumulative
Impacts as those that result from "the incremental impacts of an action when added to
other past and reasonable foreseeable future actions" (40CFR 1058.7).
Economic development is often used as a criterion in highway funding (Eagle and
Stephanedes 1987). Historically, transportation has been viewed as a necessary precursor
to economic development (Anderson et al. 1992), and transportation infrastructure is
"one of the principle policy levers that state and local governments can use to increase
their attractiveness to business investors" (Forkenbrock 1990).
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts prepared by Bob Deaton (Community Impacts)
and Brian Yamamoto (Project Planning)
Demographic Information
The Office of State Planning 1999 population estimates are that Clay County has
approximately 8400 people, up from 7155 in 1990, a change of 17.4%. The Office of
State Planning 1998 population estimates are that the town of Hayesville has
approximately 383 people, up from 279 in 1990, a change of 37.3%. (This large
percentage increase gives the appearance of rapid growth, however. Havesville is very
small town and the addition of 104 people over an eight-year period does not seem
excessive.)
Land Use and Zoning
There are no current land use plans or other similar planning documents in effect
within Clay County or Havesville at this time. Havesville is currently undertaking a
feasibility study to consider annexing some areas of its Extraterritorial Zoning
Jurisdiction (ETJ), some of which is along portions of highway 64. It is unclear at this
time how much land, if any, the town will attempt to actually annex. It is also unclear as
to whether there would be any extension of utilities associated with the possible
annexation.
Local officials have indicated that, while there are some small pockets of new
development in various places, there are no large-scale plans for development which are
imminent along highway 64. In addition, the necessary utility infrastructure, which
would allow development to sprawl along the proposed project corridor, is not in place at
this time. However, annexation and utility extension in certain areas could alter these
conditions.
List of Potential Impacts
• Minor opportunities for highway, industrial and tourism-related development.
primarily near US 64.
• Minor relocation impacts anticipated.
• Minor to moderate impacts on community stability.
• No farmland impacts anticipated.
• No Environmental Justice concerns anticipated.
• As secondary impact, project may eventually hasten and intensify commercial growth
along a small segment of US 64 in Hayesville.
• As cumulative impact, the project may help induce growth along some portions of the
project corridor at some point in the future.
.Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
While the proposed improvement of highway 64 to a 5-lane section for
approximately 1.7 miles (under projects A-1 1 BA and R-2703) will increase traffic
capacity and improve flow, the 5-lane portions of these road improvements will have
some added impact upon the local area. Widening the roadway should make this route
much safer for large vehicles sharing the road with cars, motorcycles and bicycles.
1lo?\cver, a 5-lane section can create some difficulties for -vehicles making left turning
movements onto US 64, and for pedestrians attempting to cross the road. Use of wide
paved shoulders (4-foot paved shoulders recommended) could support bicycle and
pedestrian circulation while improving safety.
This project is anticipated to facilitate both local and tourist traffic, and could
eventually hasten and intensify growth along a small portion of the project through
Hayesville as a secondary impact. While the road improvements may spawn a small
amount of new commercial and service development typical of smaller towns, it is not
expected to be extensive, nor project wide. The lack of other infrastructure and low
population base in Clay County does not portend a large amount of development and
changes in land use throughout the project corridor in the near future.
One unintended consequence of roadway improvements can be, depending upon
local land development regulations, development demand, water/sewer availability, and
other factors, encouragement of additional development and sprawl'. Tourist-oriented
businesses providing goods and services for through travelers would generally locate
along US 64 in Hayesville, near existing businesses, and where both water and sewer
services might be proposed, or are already available. These conditions would likely be
limited to that portion of the project in Hayesville nearest the intersection of NC Highway
69 and US 64.
Area residents may welcome opportunities for new commercial uses along
improved roads. However, due to the general lack of planning and zoning throughout the
area, much of any new development could be expected to have negative visual impacts.
Most such developments may also occur in pockets or clusters.
New growth and development within mountain and piedmont areas always has
the potential to degrade water quality, scenic values and recreational opportunities unless
proper planning and development regulations are utilized. This potential increases when
it occurs in an area with minimal or new planning programs and virtually non-existent
development controls. Local development controls along this corridor should be
encouraged.
Although minor secondary impacts associated with project construction are likely
to occur, the location of these impacts and their magnitude are not expected to be great,
and are expected to be confined mainly to the Hayesville area along US 64. The area of
the Hiwassee River that is currently occupied by the Tennessee clubshell mussel and the
Some common traits of sprawl are 1. unlimited outward expansion and leapfrog development: 2. lo%%-densiq
residential and commercial settlements. 3. widespread strip commercial development: 4. large areas of homogeneous
land uses and 5. poor accessibility of related land uses such as housing. jobs. and services like schools and health care.
sicklefin redhorse occur 7 and 12 miles respectively downstream of the project area. Any
secondary impacts associated with project construction are not expected to contribute to
adverse impacts to these stretches of the Hiwassee River.
Biological Conclusion: Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Based on the distance that the Tennessee clubshell mussel and the sicklefin
redhorse occur from the project area, direct and secondary (indirect) impacts are not
expected to occur as a result of project construction. It is apparent that the populations of
these two species in the Hiwassee River have been adversely impacted by previous
projects (impoundments, development projects etc) in the river basin. Historically these
two species likely occurred throughout the Hiwassee River in North Carolina.
Construction of this project is not expected to result in any additional impacts to these
populations. It can be concluded that construction of this project "is not likely to
adversely affect- the Tennessee clubshell mussel or the sicklefin redhorse.
??3:
U O
won
? ? Q
CD <-:2j
ll:? W
n Cr
m
z
D
oe
V *10
g?
u z

LL)
J
J
N
LJ
Q
L L-V

W
W
N
N
Y
W
> W =
Z m
N O ~ O < W p O
In O N y O

= p
r
W \
<
N z
R
4
'0 O
0
< n

m x

V
N;
W p J

u J
s

•

f
Z
S F ? •
?¢ o
u a ?+
4 > ri
f Q

N
7
J R
W
W
g N ¢ O
y W ? N
\ =N
N Y
T Q
W Tc ; ": y r m Q o
< N > ? ? ; T T OO

s ^
O
?w y \

<N aC

QQZ

o

s

H

N p

O
O O 3 C • •
=
Z O
V ? O V
O N
O m W J
u
o
?
W
J?
N
?

N? to f H 1 Y
P O
T O O
<
x ?
O W U Y
Km \
Y \ Y
Z
m
m0 O
0
< wo W M f O m M
0 N J u
?
` l
M •
x ON
Cc r N
ri
N m2
N VO
Z?
Z
O
u Z
.
d ?
O O

V
N
O
1'
- o u
S
a 0p _ z
. a i 4
Z z
o z
o r N
? V
O
N
N
Z _
10
1
Z Z W 6 O V
< _ =
_ . N
? ? S o ? : F r; 2
u 3
2 V
W >
C
p V
« V W
J W
J <\
p6 O
U
O O
W O \ V ; ; G c d' W p
\ Q
a Y ¢
? ? Y x o
¢ a
p
p u

o
=
w
'o
W
o
? Z
a `s
z
u
z
u
oc
.
?
N a d O J R m m a a W W W

J /
US 64 PROPOSED TYPICAL
CROSS SECTION
TWO - LANE SECTION
ot
%//
FIVE - LANE SECTION
ct
6' 14' 1 30' 1 30' 1 4' 1 6'
12' 12' 12' 12' 12'

?
PROJECT A - 11 B
FIGURE 2
PROJECT A -11 B
US 64 FROM 0.2 MILE WEST OF NC 69 TO
0.2 MILE WEST OF NC 175
1992 ADT
US- 64
3 3
1s 1 * 17
1
1 14 1
?? 1 1
w :.
3 US-04
4 - 6
4- B
B

SRI 330 2

t ^?.r 3
SR1330

4 1 27
Cold Branch Rd + /6 ,
16 + ? 18
.1 23 .1
?- 1 4
?? ?? 0 16
2

17 8
NCI 75
3 .
2 -?
SRI 147
SR1325 1 26 1
23 1 1 25
1 22
3 4 4? l
SRI 332 1, 25
Van Ledford Rd
23 1 1 26
1 22
4 •? .? 1
2
,-l 1 25
SR1333
TTST %: 4
DUAL %: 8
DHV %: 10
231 126,
A_ 1
22 1
Y
? (? -?
5 i 3
23 1 127 SR1180

4 4- 1 22
1

2 1 -y 1 26
SRI 333
23 127
1 23
) 1
3 , 4

2 1 26
SR1361
244 127

3 1 22 1
I
?
?
?' 1
6 4- + .r= 1 4 3 6

3 , -? 3

SRI 151 ,^y
1 25 1
SR1151
24 1 127

B B
US -64
27 1 1 28
26
r' 2
28 2
28 1 T30
27 1 ,
l?.r-2
1l
29 1
291 130
3) 25 (1 ?--1
11 6 Y `? •-3
2
SR1147
45 1b
-?
5 2
r -?
5
SRI 140 2 -^. 1
2273
301 132
3 27
7 ) 1
4- 4

.#
6 I
,1 -'
US64BUS 4 26
32 1 130

24
4 4) - to 24 m •-
3 a
50
- 4- 51

26 t 1 -? 27 ro o
I l
NC69 9 17 ° NC69
35 1 130
69
US-64
3
SRI 148
3
?- 5
3
4- 6
FIG. 3
PROJECT A -11 B
US 64 FROM 0.2 MILE WEST OF NC 69 TO
0.2 MILE WEST OF NC 175
EST. 2012 ADT
US-64
81 '
291 132
26 2
.--2 US-64
B B
4-3 6
9 44 r3 4- •-2
r_ 1 5
4- 13
5 2
t
,
42
SI
SR 1330 14
4 -1-
2 _
~
?
1
(
6
SR 1330
Cold Branch Rd 51 * 55 29 2
3
, I
29

T3 1 40

4_
4 4 t 6
10 27 2 15 11 4- V'4 4- 11
service entrance ,l w- 14 ~- q2 -? -
t
I (
» NC175
7 2
_ 5
I
s
33 SR1325 V
4 z 49 2 SRI 147
41 1 1 40
48 1
53
3 2 3s
4) 1
4
6 4- ?- , 5
3 1 J' T i I r` 4 4- 10
SR1332 2 ?'r 1 47 * ) _,
Van Ledford Rd I 1/
41 1 1 48
6 1
24 4t 4)

2 ? 5 ?? 4) I
1
7 ^??
Main entrance
421 6 43

1qg
2 40
6 43 l?l
3 1 ?Jr 4 / I
SR,333 2 40
TTST %: 4
DUAL %: 8
DHV %: 10
42 1
40 2 1 49
2
4
10
T ?' -?
47 4 6
42 j 1 51 SRI180
2 40
4 3
?
4
6
. , A 4? r
-
3 z -?, , so
SR1333
42 1 1 51
, 41
.2
? 1
4
.
-? '? 1
2 1 50
SRI 361
421 151
1 40 1
2
.
3
)1 ? _
4?- 1 4
.
6
. ,r- 1 4- 8
3 4
SR1 i 51 1 46 2 SRI 151
42 1 151
B - B
US-64
52 4 5
SRI 148
51 i 156
49I 2 I` 2
i?v'4 4- 10
4
tr
54 2 SRI 147
53 1 56
6 45 2 --2

22 412
1 4-2
?5 414 20

SR1140 10 4 (
10
SRI 140
4 506
551 T60
6 49
413 ) 1
33
20 11 ?

US64BUS
9 I
7 e
s
58 1 T56
9 34 15 9
44 I C - to 44 e,
92 4- . j • `tom? ,7 4- 94
15
48 20 -' 1 I 50
NC69 13
17 32 15
64 1 1 64
.128
US-64
t ?r
u d
p U
NC69
FIG. 4
0
0
0
N
I
10
N
I
0
4-
ca
0
Z
O
Q
F
oa
?U)
s I.
LL
' O
F-
W Z
() W
z
LL_ F
a
a
W
D
U
Z
0
N
O
r-I
O
Z
C
L
L
0
t 0
z o
0 O
N
r
Q
H
W
Z -

Q
S E"` FS
(7 ? w
O
LL 1.= h-

Z r

z °.

?
0
O
0
N
Q
W
U_
O

z
U
z
20
U

'
aO
W o
0
a 0
G N
W
U_ p
O N
> I
z W
O
w
W
m

\Z
W
U_
O

Z