19950971 Ver 1_Complete File_19950911

AL
e M ST/Vp °
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GovERNoR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
September 8, 1995
q?)9? ?
R. SAMUEL HUNT II I
SECRETARY
SEP 1 110
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION: G. Wayne Wright
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Cherokee County - Widening of NC 60 from the Georgia State Line to
US 19/64/129; State Project No. 6.911010; T.I.P. No. R-2110, DOA
Action ID. 199401484
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen the
existing five-mile, two-lane facility to a 64- foot paved (five 12-foot lanes
with 2-foot paved shoulders) roadway. This project is discussed in a State
Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact approved on January
31, 1995. This document was prepared in coordination with the appropriate
federal and state environmental review agencies. Copies of the EA/FONSI are
available upon request.
The proposed work will involve fill in a total of 1.24 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands and 0.36 acre of surface waters at seventeen
locations along the project corridor. These wetlands are associated with
existing culverts and roadside ditches. No new stream crossings will be
required. Channel changes will be required at six locations. Culvert or
bridge extensions will be required at twelve sites. All of the wetland fill
sites occur above stream headwaters. None of the streams along the project
corridor are Designated Public Mountain Trout Waters.
The wetland and stream impacts were reviewed and verified in the field
on June 14, 1995 with the Corps of Engineers, N.C. Division of Environmental
Management, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and Tennessee Valley Authority. The wetland sites were delineated
in accordance with the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating
0
September 8, 1995
Page 2
Jurisdictional Wetlands (1987 Manual). It is anticipated that this project
may be authorized under Nationwide Permit #26 for projects Above Headwaters,
33 CFR 330.5(3). As this project occurs in a Designated Mountain Trout
County, a letter of concurrence must be obtained from the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). By copy of this letter, we hereby
request that WRC review the project and provide their comments. Design
drawings illustrating the location and proposed work at each crossing are
attached.
Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, or need
additional information, please contact Cyndi Bell in Raleigh at (919)
733-3141, Extension 306.
Sincer y
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/tp
Enclosures
cc: Mr. David Yow, WRC,
Mr. David Baker, COE, Asheville Field Office
Mr. Eric Galamb, DEM, DEHNR
Mr. John Parker, DCM, DEHNR
Mr. F. D. Martin, P. E., Division 14 Engineer
Mr. Archie Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. John Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design
Aw
DEM ID:
ACTION ID:
199401-
Nationwide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide permit #): 26 - Above Str -,am Headwaters
JOINT FORM FOR
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E
Telephone [phone]
WATER QUALITY PLANNING
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
P.O. Bor. 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNEY
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.
PLEASE PRINT.
1. Owners Name: North Carolina Dapartment of Transportation
2. Owners Address: ,l1 4i1mington Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27611
3. Owners Phone Number (Home): N/A (Work): [phone]
4. If Applicable: Agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch
5. Location of work (MUST ATTACH MAP). County: Cherokee
C??lb?rson
Nearest Town or City:
Specific Location (Include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Existing NC 60, from the Georgia/
North Carolina State Line to US 19/64/129
6. Name of Closest Stream/River:
7. River Basin:
Hiwassee
Nottely River
8. Is this project located in a watershed classified as Trout, SA, HQW, ORW, WS I, or WS H? YES [ ] NO X]
9. Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for use on this property? YES X] NO ( ]
If yes, explain. N4P #6 for Drilling/Geotechnical work, 1994
1.6 arras
10. Estimated total number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located on project site:
11. Number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, impacted by the proposed project:
Filled: 1 6 acres
Drained:
Flooded:
Excavated:
1.6 acres
Total Impacted:
461
12. Description of proposed work (Attach PLANS-8 1/2" X 11" drawings only): ink; rieni ng -if eYistin6
five-mile, two-lane facility to 3 64-foot paveme-it. This will include five 12 foot
lanes (4 travel, one turning) with 2-foot paved shoulders
13. Purpose of proposed work: Pu'olic Transpportation
14. State reasons why the applicant believes that this activity must be carried out in wetlands. Also, note measures
taken to minimi.,e wetland impacts. rod ect is linear and thus cannot avoid all wetlands.
Agency coordination to determine hydraulic desigi 3--id construction methods discussed
in FA/FnNST of 1/21195
15. You are required to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) regarding the presence or 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. Have you done so? YES g X ] NO [ ]
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS. SEE EA/ FONSI
16. You are required to contact the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the presence of historic
]
properties in the permit area which may be affected by the proposed project? Have you done so? YES [Xq NO[
RESPONSE FROM THE SHPO SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS. SEE EA/ FONSI
17. Additional information required by DEM:
A. Wetland delineation map showing all wetlands, streams, and lakes on the property.
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. If a stormwater management plan is required for this project, attach copy.
E. What is land use of surrounding property? Rural/Agricultural
F. If applicable, what is proposed method of sewage disposals N/A
O er s Signature Date
Abb.
VCN11TY MAPS

GA
I
A
rit N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
2 60 CHEROKEE COUNTY
G_ HATTAHOOCHEE ' t 16 i PROJECT: 6.911010 (112110)
Ridge gan 1.
111.
311.
.Id.
5LALE I
C1{}I fLEt-ci-----1 7 3 _ _ Mxtl
0.3 1 Mtl!
SCALE FOR ENLARGEMENTS
Scale of Miles
0 5 10 20 30
10 20 30 40 48
Su to of KllorrKten

asset
H.4
O.?e IrKn ep..N epptomut.y 13 mot erd approunulMr 21 +,bm.trs.
North Caroiha's highway system is the nation's 4xgest starrrna ntained neMOrk ",I E
P1
*{ Tepoco
\ village
Knoltvills Knoxville 12
t Nlit:e flint •_? '
Elowsk ??Sanr.vrlaA enlw
czcRa.ndq. , S .`ara LaA,r?, 1 s
,.; LaA>r 1G,ft
Robbins the
60 1 ?`. 411 CHEROKEE NATIONAL O j +
2y .
NANTAHALA -
-, r Violet
fvtbod r„ Ni?• "I Unsks I Andrews _t
.
f "? •on. ?. . t yi
M.rDl,e .-.?
30
IF T efMr E R
60 f w ?' O Ky' E1
,. 1, n y CT Nlwag Tomotle ?.
- ? 27 -Oak 19B ? is
11 Perk ,a I
60 P
NC 60 FROM GEORGIA STA CE
LINE TO US 64-74
SHEET 1 OF 2a
AAL
J
/i v v
waU
NC?v

?C?
O

ccl-

\
N
06 o

1
Q
^
? N 1J?

k = ''
t
i N
O

'
z
J
J
w

o?
M
F
O
z
0
0
X7,

h
/ w
J: / / / w t? c
V)
o
03
o
C.0 V)
m
LLJ..?
/ 3Nl 1 1 1 1 I
06 co
1
r ? II
ii
V Ln I I _ w N
o CL
N _
Q i I I NL NN Lr)
I = Vf
I I I' ma 0 00 o z
SZ _ l 1. _ MuzQ ?w H
i I I _JJJ?- m 0 m
cw w 3
z (n p z
?i ry I 1 _ » n
? I ?;? rrr 11 ? ??
I I o
\?r W; ?? II (; oN o
I?\ ? II III `? _
/ Za'H 3N1,1 W I I I ??
3, ? \ ? I 1 1 I I ?;4? ?'
?"? \ I I I I I ? 1 ? W ._
- AdL

I
?f I

//
? / ?
f

?? I
?
?? I w

Q) b
o??

w

o b ?1
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I i
.
i

?
LQ

J ll
I I
t I
I I
II

II
II
I I
I I
I I
4

I E..,
?
°
z
?

w
o

w
z .,,
r
y
x
w

z
4

>
?,
z
u
w

o

x
U
?4

z
?

H
w
o
...

Q
o
w

Q

o
z

o

r

z

N

o

z
. ?n 1 I I
?
?C II
G '?
S ? I I i
C3 I I
G `
' I I I
\ III I I I I-
? ? ? i I I N
> ? m

L i I?
I +. , ? I i
I I I
I A
-?

r? I I I I 7
,? I I I w
I ? II I J F
o

? I I? I I z
I
I ?
? I ?I
I I\
I I I I
I I
I ?

\

w
\ 2 Q I I ?" cn ?{
\ U ? :' I I F
\ ~°? I , o l i I I ?, Q o
\ QNw I I I 1 ?I _ Z o
° o C7
\ wQw I I ?I I Q, U o a
C3 \ vi ca ?n I I ?I I E- 0 W w
\ I JI I H o w c? EQ.,
C'3 \ I I ?I I o 0 0 ?, w
\ II
I I E.: 0 w W a z
a
I I s Q
\ I l i I I Q a v c. I
;\ I I I I v
\ I V
I II z z ?
`^ = \ I I
? I I
- \\ I I I I I oW
co
+? I I I I r-
w Ld I II I
t;l \ I lit
? uJ ? I ? ? I I I ?
o\ ;? I I I I ?- I N
os L:f \ 1 ; J I I I I ° I o ??
?c " o \ 1 I I I I oU I ~ `?
w
Y I "I - w
c ° W
v \\ I I I ??-`
I I I w
Ln (A
o \ I I ?1 1 a N. 3:°C.
o \I I? I l °' < o N°
N O
3I t-`
I I I I I 16-0
? V 11 i z
1 A I I I I -??.
I I ?.
I I I I ?
\ I I W
I ~
/ \ I I I H
-ZL
Q I I I o
l0 1 1 1
I 1
N
1 ;' I y T W
\ I I I f' zz
I 1 1 ,? 1 1 1 I w
1 11 A
11 '11 1 O
-c> ; 1 I ! I I
I ;' I I i l l ?
' 11 ?l f I o
11 Ilfi? ?
i
,\ ?+ \ ,; z
1 \ kog 0
b9•c,6}? U?\ \ J ; V'i 1 "- Fes, ''" cFn
R
91 ? - m \ r F ca '?
V) (D
0
'a 1 ?` \ 1 W 11 F o 0 ad
"\1 11 1 z 0 o U ti m ?-
\1 \1 1 F o ,COI
.14 c" a '1
1 c?a > v 0
-4 r- 0
v
11 ?? 1111 11 z z ?
d
? c 1? 11 1 + 11 z
U
o°Q 11 11 1
1
w
-j LLJ
:5 V)
UN° 111 11 1-l'' 11 CO
WQW I1 11 '' 1 z
CL N CDN 1 1 1 ' 1 ?- 1
1 1 1 1, 1\ :o
1 1 1 1+ F ? ,
1 1 1 1 II w'
> 1 11 1 t
w 1 1 1 11 V
? II 1111 111
I 11 11 1
1 1 11-}- 1 vM /
LL-
I 11 II 1 ?
I 11 11 I Q?
I 11 11 ' ??
Uoa I,1 1 1 + I QO
t LLJ I 1 11
oLO °-J `?1 1I II
L) N )
aV I 11 11 u V)
ti nes. waw I Il+ I
LLJ
0 00
N 0
w ii ? s?
u o ? w I I 1 1? "' I a0 ?
I I1 11 I o
I ll II ?_ co
1 ?;; I I I I Y??' I
1 ?? I I 1 1 I
II ?I + w
CC3 CD
? J; i l 1,11 ?
I
r• II II I I\ 0
I 1
z
(z CL
> w a N N a ?. >
LL z V)
x I ; 0OC ?, U o ?D
L O 0 N 'eq
' u? O
> c o c?a Cw7 F cal
cv O
-
HOcVJ 1 o, u F w " LLI < N ? .
qC? \ _ Cr
PLI C) -Z Ld-J j w a- Z OQ J 0> U ? '??
N V) + p O(? ? L:a
aN $, u U
m U LLI V) o N° QOMo I? Z z
a
C J N 0$. Q
??\ 1 V W 00%= I( I
• Oa \ I o . w
y Q 0 I I ??
1 sixes ''r • 1 I ? ? = v
I
m Q 60-6)1
/
Q? -? -cam' S? \ \ I =
I
CO
Q / as ?i \ \y\ acr
Lij
eon / ?/Y y? \ I I' •?
-rt
oCL wl \
LLI
0 C
°° \? \ ?\ O ( I I I H
\ U- M.96? I I i
?'? \ ? mod'/ ? • • `? ? .1?? I I ?' F
0
? ?? c ? ?. I I I I
O?\y% ?\? ? \ ,? 0 0 o I I? ml I °
? ? ? II II
?p ? -- I I o l l
' ?I I ,
z
I I I I I v I ° v
? ? ? I I I I I ?? ,. Q
x I I I I I I o? z
w I II II I °
0
t_- ? i t ? I I I ? Q W v???
U) i I I .i I I = ° a
Zz;
I I I I ( ?" a
J I I I I I 0 z o F c.
o "!. w o
I I I I I ?; o o z
i II II I o
I I I? I I I Q> v
ci I I I c? I I I U° U w
I III II ?
I 31 I? I l; ?
' • I ?I I? I I? I /
WI I I IW ?/ /
I II II I //?
I II II I / /?
? I I f I I / o?/ ? „
I I I ? / tee-/ ? :,
? I I I I / ?/ ? m
m 1 I I I ° u
I z I I i t ? ? •-
.- .55 I I I ? Q b r ?? y
I I2 • I I Z? PT 71;53.56
I II 1
Ln I I I I II I z
?(00 I I I Ld I I ?? a
I I o f I ?, 03
w
I I I ?I I j= ?? z
I II II I ?,?
I II II I C3
I II I ?\
I I i I
02 i i I

b
= a
I c
I m c:
I ?I?
,1/
> it II
? II II
'?-' II II
? y= I I ?I
Z I I I I
I I I I
I II
I ? II
I ?i I
I II
I z a
o ;,
I

?IL z x

to ? ? ? O
? o F
F
z
o w ti ° z
o

? U G
U "
p v E..
w
U z

z
w
ozQ
Q N W
U Cl
WQLj
CL a W
V)
X
w
n
J
I
I
I/
I
I
I
I
I
II
?I II
I I
?I I
d6I I I
II

II
'
?
t9 I
I
II
II
II II
II
II
it
II
i t
II
II II
II
I I
II
II

1
I
I '

rn
?
II
I I II
I I i
? ? h

II ;
bll a.

` I p z
II
I I II
I I I rr, a
;
?I I s
;
?I I? I w
N
` I
?L+ I I
`'' I I I I ?
1 141 ?-

II
II I 3

II
N- i
I I I I b CT+- -I• _

I

I I M
°I

I I _

?

5-_ _
?' ????

II
II
I 6Z s

'ji ,
92

v\
? OD
LLI
w
I
I
w I
I
I
W I
I
. i
W I
I
? I
I
l11 I
I
58
M
m
?a
cc
J ?
w
V
? II
II
= II
II
- II
? II
= II
?3 I I -
? II
II
_ II
II
- II
II
= Ilf
II
-- I I
?_ II
II
? II
? II
II
? I Iw
- ?I to
?I Iw
ui I?
(?3 I I`
= II
? I
1If,W n,0 I I
=
r?? I
o
T
z
O

Q
Z
?
E .
o
G

.
O
zo
LO
?
O
r.=a
c:a
9
5
o
c
%6
U
O CIO

o
w

o

z

j

.

c r
c U C'
U
z U
z
I I ?'
I I 4`?
? p
II ?
II o

i
I I I ' ? ? l/l
? '
I I
o
+ w I ? ?
•,;3
? 0
N
I
"
x
II I

w
I I 0-
1 • n
I` =
-1

?
II
I w
+
I I a? I U
M
I
?
II
I
Z
I I ? ,cl I :<?, ,.? W
4
? ?
l z
_ !

II G
I I ? ' z

?
11 = to v
I I U o o
I,
- w wz

•
z
.
a 1 w
I u I ° o !
?- I Z
I I A
U
w

O<

X
I J

w
o
o?

IL
I ITN V
i II ? oo ?
. t
881 co - y ' x,v I
ILO 0
?? la P" W
Z)r
r'
W 58I18? _ I I
O G
W Op O --
? I I ? t 00 -C
co _J
-? W
?J ^\?'r I I w
ui V)
-J tn :D+ I l 00 b0c0C7-?
C O O O r
kL -4
X 7 w I II II I I 00 0~
w ?„ > I I r y
I
I +? III I I a?
gin"'' I I Q ?w N 1
t- U
w I :?oI I I I I Nw NN 1 ?u
4; c
Q- L, I I I t r a w
Q W I I I I m` ? p W
Z
tr pl u-
w
I
- - ? 1
010,0
--
° 1
, d o
a o
.o
O
rt I

-- w o
i
.0 0
LP I I ?.s .0

1

?s
lc OI LL,
J
ol a
r W a.

Li
n
a
I I
I 1
I
' 0
c
?w I
:
1z
0..
dNI I.II M.
I I

.,, Z
U I I 1

co I "+- I I 2
a
= vcr- 71- 3 I I I I
,
I 12 co
V
I I
Q w M+ II II
cr-
w Q
P
I
I b2 0l
J
- ? 4 5 I
I
I
o w Ln
of ? I I 02
?
Q'
m ml I
y
m'u' WI II
ail II03
? + I I
1 I
II
1 I I II
i 04
? ? II I
I I I 05
It
O
W
3 0
z W a
b :t]
W
0 0
tr.
v V
D p ?
w
.L

10 1?3
N ?a
U\ 1 ,1; I U Q -4 V)
si cr.
< 7• F c' •?
Y,1 1 1 f` N a? a - o C?
W 1 1 \ m 0U o 00
cn
:1 1 J \ F °
1 IIQ 1 co co, ° o cua o
T ! .n. 1 F-- Cr
(A V) 0
Q ?98.?6 ml V
w
. a ?
CO U
1 1 C)1 z z V)
J
w 1 w 1 ?I + ?•
LLJ
_ 1 1
I d II 11 11 - a 1 X
I 1 1 - 11 LLJ o
? ? 0 1 1 .;? 1 t!?
LLJ
i = 1 I `y
w I = I I I =
I
of 1' II ? I
I 1 I 1 `°
? LU
CD 11 II
Q .. ? ? ?? 1111 Ill I ?
I I 1 1 I I r,
o I
I - it II ( N
Ll w II I1 I ?, e
V) CD
; ? = 1 1 1? ? w ? Q
a I I I I I t I
I I I I ? z a w
?1 ? I I 11 ? ? a a
it II
0
?? 1 I I I I I o
A o
X1 3 1 I I ?" cc I
1 = II illb I
?? ?3 I I ' I I? v I
! I I I I "o - 1-? ,8

I

16
ca
CD
?~'- III II
I N I I
I I
j / III I I
I ? I? I i
I I? I I
I II' II
I II II
I ? II II
go I Ii
? II tt
I II II
I II
I / II
II II
I ?I II II
? II
? / II II
l ; II II
?/ I I I I
II II
I II
CN.
I? II II
III ? II II

1
w
0
olm I
I,
,
;
,
;
;
;
w
0
z
a
v
J
w
z
Z
Q
U
ncl:
O?
V) I
I I I
I
0o
I P \
I - j1
co
cn i
l -
II I °z??
? ? I I b(I

II > I
II °I

cD II /
ON00 I I I
II I?
I
I wll I
?l1
y'
?., I 1 1
.I
a

0
Cc) I III ?°
l=
I I I I /I<<?
II;
I I co
W
?O

a
4 o Q yr?°n
1 : LU
I.I vi it
W Q F
1my,Cwn` w ^1
' l.?J I III'I\ VJ
C
El)
\ 0
C3 z
,,rrte? \
`v? \ E
\ w z wW
C
\ ~
\ ? :L LL w
\ ? cNa
\ o a z
`tom \\ A c C
0
0
0
o
? X
= = n u % INC

? 4
-
?N -

wa
I
vl ?-

r
1;1 1 1 1 a /'} O V
'.1 I o
1 1 C
C) In
..
CUO
CC3
;1111 I I I? N 1 zC
;11 11 x 1 \ v, ?? oo C? L
,t 1 11 1 - Z Uo ?-'
u C) V)
1'. 1, ? ;II 1 I I 00 V) w ? o v c O
57< 060
w
r? ,\ \\ o tll 11 I I o X 1 w co
'E-? U ti ,,off?
-I w l 1 ~ _LD p U F,
y I c U L
U
I I I\ I I- I Li
I II I = I..?., I zQ
v.? I I 1 1 K 1?3 I o? N o
I I I I I ?-- w In ' o
?- a w
I I I I I I wJ(3 cn ii
? ?, I I I I ?, ? I o ?.
- 1 II II ? ~ w
U 1 I I I CD oU co V)
?1I l l i A ?- u1
1 1 1 I ?;3 0
4 N N
cr- o.
1 I i'' I I
j 11 I•- ?r w ? Lo rn
11 i l l I s,ly i. o CO m
c o
I I I I I ?'/?? a
N I I I I I I '/? w a
°- I I I I I w ?/, o
y_ I I I I w
w
LES =<
I / I I I J " ~ F W C4
50 w O
/ I I I I
i z Q Z
z - w N
' I l .w w
o 0
- - .h I I I I
X >00
?N11 31M I
t?
? III I I ? -?•

w I I I I )IR
-4 V)
w I al I f\ o z .? .
o
o I? I =1 1 ? ?" ou?
F- I= I i I I z o v c:a
= o o z o
Q J I .?,; I I I I I o
ova o ?? I I II I L U
CL I,--
w w ?' _ I X Y I/ o ca E~
V) u
1
0 mmw , I Z I // I I Z z
0
Z Jw I-
o ° u N ?o S 3NI eN 1c-
c? ? 4 \
zQ z Q
I. _
00 v m? ~' oI
_ ", I \
J J U
??O I rr `h I Lu o
wow I ICI
V) ° o f I I I / c:v
m a
co J w °? ?" sf I I I = E
u V)
0
I it I I -
? w ,s ? I I I
ox _ i t I I I
LLJ 0 o `' I I I ICI ?? I?
N I ? I JI I _- a_-? o
- w o i-- CD I I I I H
X iD (-
_..:: _ _ . J? as p ?1 I P I I ?, o
0 o t- ;? I I I
<L I I I I
m p
I I I
i ? I I I
I II
o f ? .i I I
i? l I I C)\ r a
?J

I II ? o Q o
w
C c
gip; I I I / o w o z o
o ?-
I I I L A
/ /
,
I
? I I I
II s I
I ?J
I
.CD; I I I
I I I 1 1 o
l Y
I I I
?d ? i i u I o

6: Ali

Id

I I I

id I I ° C

t

I I
Ltj

I - W N
F- N

0
y

I
I
I I
I
I -
I I ?C`3 N 6
I I c.u ?? > °'
?

-. I

I I I
>I I I ??
,.. Q
I U u °
I
I I I Q o

??
-
?
I
I ?
wl I
?
I
I
Jx
?
I I =
I I u
/ ? z
a

ip

5
c

1

I
I
11??,
I
CD

J
w
123
=°

z
1 I _,
/ J
" z Q w

t 1 I I I ?3 a v) co LLJ
N Z

I _
1 cc.
cr 1
l
10 l
1
y
w j

t0 ?
1
1
I
I
I
7C/T?I?? i O
j \ O
\\ I ? o
W
c I?
I U
C?NC ,
00
1l?
ll?
V)m 11
1,., 1
O
co
I
w I
\ I
? I
I
z
e ?
J ?
?j 3 F
3 O
z a x
U
Via] W
y ?
0 0 z
z z o
0 o p
CONC.._. ---j
0
C3 C3
0

11 I ?I
?? I? I I I I= W o F
I? o I I I I? ?° r? .r,
Q
II
T ? r
i I I ?I I I I ?i o; F ??
? ? I ? ?( I I I a zb` ? ? , ~ z ? U o ? cn
? yN III I ,a Fo?,;c? ?
\ Zl'M? nip I ° o W o z o
I
a
w F o a m
\ / I I I I I f- o U E~
/I I I i l -
3:1 I I I I v
LLI LL O LtJ
`°
?I I I I f ??,?` I o
co z
41- c _j
? I I I I I I YN z
?
o l l I I I 0 w CO L =
o Z ? z
rr VIII III > I I co ,
V - I
Ld =?
/ m xs X I u?a
` x
I ( ?i I - o w?Lil = .?
co uj
LIJ
a. I I V: I - o iflcJJV vwiu
I 1 JI I I I '- mo
C6aN ? '? L-L "'I I I I I I ??
w N
?, J; I(j U LtJ w
o
Z I ?- ?=
°w I J s i I l I NI I I i u
N
C
c
C) I ;I IY I
Sa I I ?? I ?Z<
Q w
Cf N?n
w VI J
. I I I I _ r cj J ca N 3 a
CLL:,) U- 020
T
r?i I O w
,? o I ';Ilia II"! ~ ?`?°`° o oz
x / _Z
CL CL w C?
In 0
I l ?,
Y NM 'T OC)
tJ ° r ?I I I _ J rM N
I co mm
~ r WI I w
r 1 1 z 'c \ z cc o
w 0
r II lf \ °
a
ck
X
W

I ?
I
I (z'HS
J
9II
?I I
?I I
?I I
=1 I

I ? -

Oil
?11 E3
/
/ ? LtJ M ?
v
IBC-
? n. cL O
o
~~ o
I U rnco }
I _ J C66
?I ? o0
O J`
II
> ? I =-
_1 1 0
I?
do I -
o-
?1=
Ids
nIR/I
it
I ?-
I
z U
z ? o ?-
I
^ R
I C? o C7 `O
Y? i z z q o Q?
x? 1 I ,_ • ; F ? NI
E"' ? as p c.?., J ??
i?lll?ll o > U ?. .°a Ft
v U o (? C:V
N, N l NO p O` O
ZO
M 11-1 I f v XSt•R7'? \ OO
C b \
111
:?I N
\ ;-4
I /I F
I I of l ?
I I Ld I
II III I ? I
I I i l? ?
LLJ
I I I I z I
II
II a
II U
II III Ld
I
l l ? z
z a-
Q I
I (?/ Q
I I u? I =
II I?'I N? I -
I I ? am I -
II ,II j mJ I\.
II U
IT o
Iy? I I I ????i
/ ? I I _\ I
II ;_
? i I
\ LLI
J \ • V
?\ - w \
"LLJ
?-
'OD
I W O
LLJ
N\ I U
• ?S Q•
w on
-r w Ya y F
a
II c
1 = m? °
LLI =cm z
I, w W
w\ /i F F .?
C) ' o o ?
f-"
a o
ctf
Li o
.
z
o ca
\ \ \ _ C tv
E-. 0
o o o 04
c.
0 _j
LLJ
f- U U tF-a
V) z z ?
Q 1 •?' \ \ \ \ W
£ C3 \\ a \ \ j
1 1 1 1\, „?
1?' p d
u V)
(D
T l l I l ° In ? CL
Y
1 08 0 Y p = a C6
I I =_
?r U _j 0
Q I T I I_ ? I
Ua. - cr-
b 1 NxQ lay I I w w y o
U
CL F- A
1 N?o LLJ
I I I I x? I= y
I mmW = 05 = I w U F H
p J
NUN I IJ 1 I f-W O G
z z w
_ I Iza d?
_II? II_ I acs -?"
W=cr .? ., s
d3 I I= I o U i:. r
-I I 11= WNW o z
/? I = I dz 11 3 I Q CO o z z o
I OZ'HS qa
Fr
XX>
co 1-0 LLJ
I13 o
/??' II I
CIO
?I I I i? x^ I
LLJ
?.Ii III r I,
z Z x t7_1 0 Lo
W I p a O
((? O_ o o ? Q
w > U C
U U U
z z x
I ?:t
J
I
t O Q O
it
N v)
I Q
(o > t
C3 -I ° -
N J ?
I I
I
I•
t z
t
dw z
? U
W ?' a a
r /? w w
I v J ? ? o
w ?
a h w
? A
I Z .
i
? O
O
O
? LO

w
F-
J
-4-
d'
EID
?I
(Ow
?' t a
81 1
,I
Iul
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 ?
I Z
I
l?
I
I
I
W
c?
zd...
U
J
W
Z
U

`v
V

F
r

O
L-
O
O U
?. E~
z x v o ? ? .
Q ?
0 o w w o z o
, U
x ° a N
Q Q G" V
U U cw?
z z
W O
J N
UQ
•I r
m
z
z
0
a
o
ncl z
U
c. ? w
O W O
z
w ? w
N a
I\X

0 0 o z ?
\ o z V
\ N z W U
c, ? o
H o ? ? ? p
\ o o w o w
., w z o
\ v z w
w
\ c.n o z x
w
I w
O _O
O
moo
Q o0
•? •(1
Qa) V) °d
c4-J 2 I O- J 59
ct- w U
LLJ
0 0
o
O Z,10-01P-0-0, Q
dam" ? ? ? U
f
0
\ z
O °
e
?-- 3 W
0 0
n I U Ld z
n W
?? E. C H
?
z z z
? N Q
8- ,
N
X?c
I ! '
O
Z x U c G' cn
1 ^ ?, O O
O czw
C-D 2%
N
O O W V O z 0
U z
V)
l ?
o-.
I
w \ o
/
J
W
N i
v?
o
°' "
o I I
cv p w
CC) I cD O U
CV I Z
Q
U
o w
, a
I U dC?
z
o 1
LO °o
Z
O ? ? N w
a
Z
xx.
I
O O I O
O
? ? C9
-------------

o z
O
C?5 ? ? ? C1 N R
v Y
FV V'
Q - O
III \ ? ? E-O ? `' U F+
LLI
E-'
A ?z
U U ?
w,('? z z
co
z
1 Q
,, I V
I Cw9
Q O
I = ?
W I
C?
J /) J O
co /
O /
N ?
J I
O ?
p-
N ?
? 0 z
.a
3 w
i I--- F
? o a
t dw z
U
1 O U O
o
Z zc o
I O_ a
O? O_
?0 Lo

co ? i w
.?
• Q- O0 Ile
5
/ ? Gs. W o W
F,,, O ? ? C7
col
1 o oC4 o z
a
I N x o o
A Q Q. v° ?
U U U
? z z
z
I =
U
I O
Ln-
I tla
z
Z
? = c
1 U
}
j Ld
J
1
? I I
N ?
I LL-
I
I 0 z
I <
0 a
I 'U ? w z
? v1 W
D
I

* SUMMARY
SITE STATION STRUCTURE
SHEET - 7-17
FILL IN FILL IN SURFACE
WETLANDS WATERS
(ACRES) - (ACRES)
I STA. 22+70 -L- RT 24' RCP 0.05 0.05
STA.24+50 TO
4
9 CHANNEL CHANGE & WETLANDS
!'f
v]
?
II +
2
3 -L- RT IS' RCP 0.06 0.05
!
I ?
4 o 121X11' RCBC _L-
III STA. 30+20 -L- LT WETLANDS 0.02 0.0
STA.33+05 TO
IV 37+00 -L- LT NO STRUCTURE 0.22 0.0
STA.32+80 TO
V 35+80 -L- RT NO STRUCTURE 0.31 0.0
STA. 49+10 TO
VI 50+10 -L- RT NO STRUCTURE 0.07 0.0
• . STA. 58+10 TO
VII 59+50 -L- LT NO STRUCTURE 0.09 0.0
STA. 09+35 TO 4 Q 12' X II'
VIII 10+10 -YIREV RCBC 0.18 0.0
& 08+50 -YI- RT
IX STA. 71+75 -L- RT 24' RCP 0.07 0.0
STA.76+70 TO
X 79+15 -L- RT 24' RCP 0.15 0.0
G? XII STA. 145+50 -L- & COFER DAM 0.0 0.0
STA. 176+30 TO
36' RCP
1XI STA. 84+70 -L- LT CHANNEL (HANrc 0.02 0.01
3 SPAN BRIDGE
XIII 178+35 -L- 42' RCP 0.0 0.03

_XIV J IA. ZIZ+bO TO
219+80 -L-
CHANNEL CHANGE
0.0
0.06 /
/?0 /

?
b
STA. 231+35 TO 36'RCP'S 6
XV 238+00 -L- RT CHANNEL CHANGE 0.0 0.07
STA. 264+00 TO 18' & 42' RCP
XVI 266+50 -L- CHANNEL CHANCE 0.0 0.02 7iS01 I
STA. 269+15 TO 72' & 24' RCP
XVII 279+00 -L- CHANNEL CHANGE" 0.0 0.07 S l 1

7 z l 3'
TOTAL FILL IN
WETLANDS =1.24 ACRES
TOTAL FILL IN
SURFACE WATERS = 0.36
ACRES
ALL WETLAND FILL SITES ARE LOCATED
ABOVE STREAM HEADWATERS
N. C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CHEROKEE COUNTY
PROJECT: 6.911010 (R2110)
NC 60 FROM GEORGIA STATE
LINE TO US 64-74
SHEET 2$ OF 2S
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Freston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
December 1, 1995
Cherokee County
DEM Project # 95971
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Mr. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201 71 1
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 i.
Dear Mr. Vick:
You have our approval to place fill material in 1.24 acres of wetlands and 0.36 acres of waters for the
purpose of widening NC 60 from the Georgia state line to US 19/64/129, as you described in your application
dated 8 September 1995. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General
Water Quality Certification Number 2671. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 26
when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change
your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us'a new application. For this approval to be
valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification. Additional conditions are that DOT shall
use Class A ditch stone and/or hydromulch to stabilize the stream banks where channel changes are required.
Ditch stone is not to be placed in the stream channel. Also, relocated stream banks shall be planted with woody
vegetation. Two rows of willows shall be planted along the toe of bank on 2.5 foot center and sycamore and
river birch planted along the top of the banks on 10 foot centers. DOT stream relocation guidelines shall be
used. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project.
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
which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative
Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding
unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Environmental Management under Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorsey at 919-733-1786.
W Si Ely1, ,
I,
Pr on Howard, Jr. P.E.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Asheville DEM Regional Office
Dir. John Dorsey
Central Files
Stephanie Briggs; DOT
95971.1tr
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
--N-C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DAR
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
TO•
GGt.Q REF. NO. OR ROOM, 0,
PF H N X - DI RA
FRO R[ii. NO.. OR ROOMS BLDG.

ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER! OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ?. PER!YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR' YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR' YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ?. FOR. YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission K
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
February 2, 1996
Mr. Robert Johnson, Office Manager
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
SUBJECT: NCDOT Nationwide 404 Permit Application
Widening of NC 60 from the Georgia State Line to US 19/64/129, TIP No. R-2110
Fill above headwaters in multiple tributaries to Nottely River
Cherokee County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Johnson:
I have reviewed information provided by the applicant regarding a 404 permit for the proposed highway
widening, and I am familiar with habitat values of the project area. A site visit has been conducted to assess
project impacts on fish and wildlife habitat. These comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the
Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen an existing highway
facility. While we do not believe this project will have significant direct impact on waters supporting trout or on
forested wetlands, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) is concerned about the extent of
channel relocations and fill in associated riparian wetlands. Therefore we recommend the following project
modifications to avoid loss of stream habitat values:
The relocations of small tributaries to the Nottely River, as proposed in the permit document, are not
consistent with guidelines for minor stream relocations developed mutually by NCDOT, NCWRC,
and North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. Because of the amount of stream
invloved, all relocated segments should resemble original channels in length and gradient, width,
depth, and substrate. By not including meanders from relocated channels, future channel stability of
reconstructed segments and downstream reaches is compromised. While we appreciate that the
NCDOT has used vegetative plantings where possible in relocated channels, it is also important to
reproduce the physical character of the lost stream channel. The NCWRC is available to provide
guidance on channel design upon request.
2. Relocated channel segments should be replanted with shrub vegetation wherever possible and fenced
against livestock within NCDOT easements where necessary to ensure channel stability. During site
review of the project, NCDOT staff expressed concern about obtaining shrub vegetation, particularly
alders, to plant along relocated channels. Alders and other shrubs are seasonally available through
the North Carolina Division of Forest Resources and may be obtainable from other suppliers. We
maintain that availability of shrubs is not a constraint on proper channel restoration.
NC 60 NW 26 permit, R-2110 Page 2 February 2, 1996
3. All culverts should be placed with the floor of the barrels approximately one foot below the level of
the stream bottom to allow natural stream bottom materials to become established in the culvert
following installation. This may require increasing the size of the culvert to meet flow conveyance
requirements.
4. If possible, culverts should be placed in a dry work area. Where multiple barrels are involved, stream
flow may be directed through one barrel while other barrels are installed. Where one barrel is placed,
flexible pipe or other diversion structures should be used where possible to minimize excavation in
flowing water.
5. Adequate sedimentation and erosion control measures must be implemented and maintained on the
project site to avoid impacts to downstream aquatic resources,
6. Where concrete is used during culvert installation, a dry work area should be maintained to prevent
direct contact between curing concrete and stream water. Uncured concrete affects water quality and
is toxic to fish and other organisms.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Pending availability of field staff,
the NCWRC may inspect the work site during or after construction. If there are any questions regarding these
comments, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
David L. Yow
District 9 Habitat Biologist
cc: Cyndi Bell, Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT, representing applicant
Eric Galamb, Water Quality Planning, NCDEM

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR
GOVERNOR
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
June 14, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
File
Missy Dickens, Project Planning Engine
Planning and Environmental Branch
RECEIVED
JUN 21 1995
ENVIRON.-%CITAI. SCIENCLS
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY

SUBJECT: NC 60, From the Georgia State Line to US 64-74,
Cherokee County, State Project No. 6.9110 10, TIP Project
No. R-2110
A field meeting was held on June 7, 1995 to discuss channel changes proposed as a
part of the subject project. The following people attended:
David Cox
David Yow
Harold Draper
Mark Danby
Dave Baker
Janice Nichols
Eric Galamb
Ron Watson
Randy Henegar
John Taylor
Hubert Thaggard
Johnny Metcalfe
Logan Williams
Cyndi Bell
Aileen Scott
Missy Dickens
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission - Northside
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission - Asheville
Tennessee Valley Authority - Knoxville
Tennessee Valley Authority - Murphy
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers - Asheville
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville
N.C. Division of Environmental Management - Raleigh
NCDOT - Division 14 Construction
NCDOT - Hydraulics
NCDOT - Roadway Design
NCDOT - Roadway Design
NCDOT - Roadside Environmental
NCDOT - Planning & Environmental - Environmental Unit
NCDOT - Planning & Environmental - Permits &
Mitigation Unit
NCDOT - Planning & Environmental - Project Planning
NCDOT - Planning & Environmental - Project Planning
We began the meeting in the conference room of the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA) office in Murphy. There we perused the plans and discussed briefly the proposed
channel changes before heading to the project site. Once at the project site, we examined
the locations of the proposed channel changes. Following is a summary of what was
discussed.
0
A
Eric Galamb and David Yow asked if the new channels could be constructed and
planted well in advance of the water being turned into them. This would allow the
vegetation to become well-established and reduce sedimentation in the relocated streams.
Ron Watson said that it would not be possible to let the channel construction as a separate
contract, nor does the division have the resources to construct the channels prior to the
project let. However, it was decided that the contractor could be asked to maximize the
time between the construction of the channels and the re-routing of the stream flow. It
was also recommended that, after seeding (hydro-mulch), class B ditch liner (smaller stone
than rip-rap) be placed along slopes of channels to help stabilize them until the vegetation
can germinate. It was recommended that the ditch liner be kept off the floor of the
channels in order to simulate the most natural stream conditions.
Along the east side of NC 60 at the intersection of SR 1595 (at the Alice
Kilpatrick House), the plans show a modification of the existing stream that is more severe
than necessary. It was suggested that only the sections of that stream lying inside the
proposed slope-stake, lines be relocated in order to maintain natural meanders wherever
possible. Randy Henegar agreed to revise the hydraulic plans in order to accomplish this.
The temporary drainage easement shown on the plans on the west side of NC 60 at
SR 1595 needs to be expanded. John Taylor will coordinate with the Right of Way
Branch regarding this. Randy Henegar will investigate the possibility of constructing more
meanders in the rechannelization at this location.
David Yow suggested that some alder trees be used for reforestation, but it was
indicated that they were not readily available through NCDOT nursery sources. David
asked if the roots of cleared alder trees along the project be stockpiled for replanting along
the project after construction. Ron Watson suggested that maybe the project could be
phased so that trees removed from one section of the project could be planted along
another.
Some review agency representatives expressed concern over the method of
drainage of the proposed Nottely River bridge. The proposed bridge will include MELTs
(Modified Eccentric Terminal Anchors), which use funnel drains at the bridge approaches.
The MELTS will intercept runoff, possibly contaminated by accidents, at the bridge
approaches and direct it away from the river. Scuppers are proposed on the bridge, but
Eric Galamb is concerned about the impacts to water quality due to the lack of filtration.
An NCDOT representative pointed out that without the proposed scuppers, water spread
into the travel lanes could create a safety hazard. John said he would consider other
design options that might help reduce direct runoff into the river.
It was confirmed that NCDOT would honor the project commitments stated in the
SEA/FONS1.
MAD/plr
cc: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
Meeting Attendees
eM SfA7[ u
Y x{43 -
STATF, OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
GOWRNOR RO. BOX 25201, RALEIGI 1, N.C. 27611-5201 SPCRGIARY
February 23, 1995
RErEIVEO
0 61995
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEHNR - Div. of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1148
Dear Mr. Galamb:
SUBJECT: State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact for
NC 60, From the Georgia State Line to US 64-74, Cherokee County,
State Project 6.911010, TIP Project No. R-2110
Attached for your information is a copy of the approved State
Environmental Assessment/FONSI and the Natural Systems Technical Report for
the subject proposed highway improvement. This report contains information
included in the approved State Environmental Assessment/FONSI which records
the determination that implementing the proposed action will not have a
significant effect upon the quality of the human environment.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
Attachment
i.?

JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR

RECE/V'F p
M4 Yiag1995
????ON^?arA 4SCiE,y?Fs
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
May 5, 1995
R. SAMUEL HUNT 111
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: David Cox
Wildlife Resources Commission
FROM: Missy Dickens, Project Planning Engineeukwl?
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: NC 60, From the Georgia State Line to US 64-74,
Cherokee County, State Project No. 6.9110 10, TIP Project
R-2110
This is to confirm that a field meeting for the subject project has been scheduled on
June 7, 1995 to discuss proposed channel changes. We will meet at 10:00 a.m. in the
conference room of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Office in Murphy, located at
201 Old Murphy Road (see attached directions). We will go from there to the project site.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Missy Dickens,
Project Planning Engineer, at [phone], Ext. 223.
MD/plr
Attachment
cc: Eric Galamb, Division of Environmental Management
David Baker, Corps of Engineers
Janice Nichols, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Harold Draper, Tennessee Valley Authority
Mark Danby, Tennessee Valley Authority
R. G. Watson, Division Construction Engineer
John Taylor, Roadway Design Unit
Randy Henegar, Hydraulics Unit
Charles Tomlinson, Roadside Environmental Unit
H. Franklin Vick, Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
Hal Bain, Planning and Environmental Branch
Cyndi Bell, Planning and Environmental Branch
Julie Hunkins, Planning and Environmental Branch
0

To TVA OFFICE:
FROM US 19-74, TURN NORTHWARD AT THE MCDONALDS ONTO US 19 BUSINESS
(JUST WEST OF THE MWASSEE RIVER).
TAKE THE FIRST LEFT ONTO OLD MURPHY ROAD (SR 1398), BETWEEN
MCDONALDS AND NO NAME DELI.
THE TVA OFFICE IS LOCATED LESS THAN 0.25 MILE DOWN ON THE LEFT, ACROSS
FROM WILSON BUILDING SUPPLY.
r 0 *vIz, i (1'e?ol GnD?z?
l17 < < r c? 4i ?? ? r
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, F15WA
Health and Natural Resources ??,
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor p E H N F?
Jonathan B, Howes, Secretory
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
April 6, 1995
Through: John Dorney?
Monica Swiha?
From: Eric Galamba'
Subject: EA/FONSI for NC 60
Cherokee County
State Project DOT No. 6.9110101, TIP #R-2110
EHNR # 95-0615, DEM WQ # 10879
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 as
proposed would impact up to 1.01 acres of wetlands. DEM offers the following comments:
A) DEM commends DOT for the environmental commitments stated on page 11 regarding
the channel changes. You also mention on page 11 that, "NCDOT will carry out
coordination with the NC Wildlife Commission prior to beginning construction." We are
pleased that an attempt (page 11, #2 of the document) will be made during
rechannelization "to simulate natural conditions" regarding "meanders and topographic
discontinuity". We request that DEM be included in rechannelization planning and that
we receive preliminary and final stream relocation diagrams.
B) DEM requests that DOT remove bridges No. 28 and No. 55 after traffic is routed onto
the new lanes. DEM requests that the approach fill be removed to "preconstruction"
contours and revegetated with tree species removed by the new bridges. This request
also applies to the temporary detour for bridge No. 49.
C) Should the COE require mitigation, the DOT should develop a mitigation plan for the
wetland impacts. The mitigation plan should be submitted to DEM for review and
comment.
D) Please be advised DEM may deny the 401 Certification upon application if wetland
impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's
Environmental Sciences Branch at 733-1786.
cc: Asheville COE
Missy Dickens, DOT
nc60.ea
P.O. Box 29536, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
4
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs /
Project Review Form l ?87
Project Number: County: ( Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:

Regional Office/Phone r- ?
Regional Office Area -
In-House Review
Asheville ? All RIO Areas ? Soil and Water El Marine Fisheries
Air El coastal management El Water Planning
Fayetteville
1Nater
? Water Resources Environmental Health
? Mooresville Groundwater Wildlife Solid Waste Management
El Raleigh (,,
pSLLand Quality Engineer crest Resources ? Radiation Protection

? Washington ILJ Recreational Consultant Land Resources ? David Foster
? Coastal Management Consultant Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
E
? Wilmington El Others CEIVED
nvironmental Management R
El Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart MAR 0 91995
EWPZNWNTAL SCIENCES
BRANCH
Manager Sign-OfflRegton: 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
PS -104
, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs

NC 60
From the Georgia State Line to US 64-74
Cherokee County
State Project 6.911010
TIP Project R-2110
r
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In compliance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
For further information contact:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
APPROVED:
Date -? H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
r Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
NC 60
From the Georgia State Line to US 64-74
Cherokee County
State Project 6.911010
TIP Project R-2110
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
January, 1995
Documentation Prepared in the Planning and Environmental Branch by:
ar A i e Dickens
Project lanning Engineer
J. son Strou q,?•`?`???. ??'.
P ject Planning Engineer Unit Head
&Z"t- 3 I-.5
Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT ' "
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. Summary ................................................... 1
A Type of Action ....................................... 1
.
B. Additional Information ............................... 1
- C. Summary of Special Project Commitments .............. 1
D. Actions Required by Other Agencies ................... 2
E. Description of Action .. .................... ........ 2
F. Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Environmental
....
..
.
Effects 2
=
G. .
.
... .... .....................
Alternatives Considered .............................. 2
H. Coordination ......................................... 3
I. Basis for Finding of No Significant Impact ........... 3
II. Need for the Proposed Project ............................. 3
A. General Description .... ... ....................... 3
B. Historical Resume and Project Status ................. 4
C. Existing Conditions .................................. 4
1. Route Classification ............................ 4
2. Existing Cross-Section ........................... 4
3. Existing Right of Way ........................... 4
4. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment ............... 5
5. Speed Limit ..................................... 5
6. Intersecting Roads .............................. 5
7. Access Control .................................. 5
8. Degree of Roadside Interference ................. 5
9. Sidewalks ... ......................... 5
10. Degree of Utility Conflicts ..................... 5
D. Stream Crossings ..................................... 5
E. Traffic Volumes ..................................... 6
F. Capacity Analysis .................................... 6
1. Mainline Analysis. ............................ 6
2. Intersection Analysis ............................ 7
G. Accident Analysis .................................... 7
H. School Bus Data ...................................... 8
I. Thoroughfare Plan .................................... 8
J. Other Highway Projects in the Area ................... 8
III. Desc ription of Proposed Action ............................ 8
r
A. Proposed Roadway Improvements ........................ 8
1. Cross-Section ................................. 8
2. Project Termini ................................. 8
3. Right of Way .................................... 8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
4. Control of Access ............................... 9
5. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment ............... 9
6. Temporary Construction Detours .................. 9
7. Speed Limit .................................... 10
8. Design Speed .................................... 10
9. Sidewalks ................................. 10
10. Bicycle Provisions .............................. 10
11. Intersection Treatments ......................... 10
12. Changes in the State Highway System ............. 10
13. Channel Changes ................................. 10
B. Drainage Structures .................................. 11
C. Estimated Costs ...................................... 12
IV. Alternatives to the Proposed Action ....................... 12
A. Recommended Alternative .............................. 12
B. "Do Nothing" Alternative ....... ...... ............ 12
C. Two-Lane Improvements on Two-Lane Right of Way........ 12
D. Five-Lane Widening With Staged Construction .......... 13
V. Effects on the Environment ................................ 13
A. Land Use ............................................. 13
1. Scope of Local Planning Activities .............. 13
2. Existing Land Use ............................... 13
3. Future Land Use ................................. 13
4. Prime and Important Farmland .................... 14
B. Socioeconomic Impacts ................................ 14
1. Neighborhood Characteristics .................... 14
2. Economic Factors ................................ 14
3. Public Facilities ..... 14
4. Relocations ..................................... 14
5. Social Impacts .................................. 16
C. Historic and Cultural Resources ...................... 16
1. Archaeological Resources ........................ 16
a. Introduction ............................... 16
b. Setting . ..... ................... 18
C. Archaeological Background .................. 18
d. Methodology .... ......... ............. 19
e. Study Results and Recommendations .......... 20
f. Summary .................................... 22
2. Architectural/Historical Resources .............. 22
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE

I

Y
D. Natural Resources .................................... 21
1. Purpose ........................................ 23
2. Methodology ..................................... 23
3. Soils ........................................... 24
4. Water Resources ................................. 24
a. Project Water Resources .................... 24
b. Best Usage Classification .................. 25
C. Water Quality ........................... 25
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ............. 26
5. Biotic Resources ................................ 26
a. Terrestrial Communities .................... 26
b. Aquatic Communities ...................... 29
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ............. 30
6. Jurisdictional Issues ........................... 31
a. Waters of the United States ................ 31
i. Sites Within the Project Area.......... 32
ii. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ........ 32
iii. Permits ... ... ...... ..... 33
iv. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation... 33
b. Rare and Protected Species ................. 33
i. Federally-Protected Species ........... 34
ii. Federal Candidate and State Listed
Species ........................... 34
7. Flood Hazard Evaluation ......................... 35
8. Geological Features ............................. 36
E. Hazardous Materials . .......................... 36
F. Traffic Noise and Air Quality ........................ 36
1. Traffic Noise ................................... 36
a. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise
Analysis .. . ..................... 36
b. Characteristics of Noise ................... 37
C. Noise Abatement Criteria ................... 37
d. Ambient Noise Levels .......... ........ 38
e. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise
Levels ........... ............... 38
f. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis .............. 40
g. "Do Nothing" Alternative ................... 41
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
h. Construction Noise ......................... 41
i. Summary .................................... 42
2. Air Quality Analysis ............................ 42
G. Construction Impacts ................................. 45
VI. Comments and Coordination ................................. 47
A. Chronology of Coordination ........................... 47
1. Original (2-lane) Start of Study Coordination ... 47
2. First Public Meeting (2-lane) ....... ...... . 47
3. Circulation of the (2-lane) State Environmental
Assessment .... 48
4. Public Hearing (2-lane) .... . ... ....... 48
5. Second (5-lane) Start of Study Coordination ..... 49
6. Second Public Meeting (5-lane) .. ........... 50
7. Coordination With the State of Georgia .......... 50
B. Agency Comments Received ............................. 50
VII. Conclusions ............................................... 54
TABLES
Table 1 - Level of Service - Mainline ..................... 6
Table 2 - Accident Analysis.. ......... ............. 7
Table 3 - Water Resources Best Usage Classifications....... 25
Table 4 - Wildlife Sightings in the Study Area ............. 29
Table 5 - Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities........ 30
Table 6 - Anticipated Impacts to Wetlands.. .......... 32
Table 7 - Federal Candidate/N.C. Protected Species,
Cherokee County ............................. 35
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Photos of Existing Conditions
Figure 3 - Aerial Mosaic
Figure 4 - Traffic Volumes
Figure 5 - 100-year Floodplain Map
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Additional Tables
Table 8 -
Table 9 -
Table N1
Table N2
Table N3
Table N4
Table N5
Tables Al
PAGE
Upland Herbaceous Flora in Study Area ................ A-1
Upland Woody Flora in Study Area ................... A-2
Hearing: Sounds Bombarding Us Daily .................. A-3
Noise Abatement Criteria ............................. A-4
Leq Traffic Noise Exposures A-5
through A-7
FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria Summary ................ A-8
Traffic Noise Level Increase Summary ................ A-8
and A2 - CAL3QHC: Line Source Dispersion Models ...... A-9
and A-10
APPENDIX B - Relocation Report
APPENDIX C - Comments Received at the Start of Project Studies
(2-Lane Improvements)
APPENDIX D - First Public Meeting Information (2-Lane Improvements)
APPENDIX E - Comments Received on the State Environmental Assessment
(2-Lane Improvements)
APPENDIX F - Public Hearing Inform ation (2-Lane Improvements)
APPENDIX G - Comments Received at the Start of Five-Lane Widening Studies
APPENDIX H - Second Public Meeting Information (Five-Lane Widening)

NC 60
From the Georgia State Line to US 64-74
Cherokee County
State Project 6.911010
TIP Project R-2110
I. SUMMARY
A. Type of Action
This is a North Carolina Department of Transportation Action, State
Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact.
This document is a "stand-alone" document, superseding and
encompassing the previous State Environmental Assessment that was approved
in September, 1991 for the subject project.
B. Additional Information
The following person may be contacted for additional information
concerning this proposal and statement:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
C. Summarv of SDecial Protect Commitments
Construction activities that are likely to impact the streams in the
project area will be curtailed during the months of February through April
to avoid impacts to the white bass and walleye, both important fishery
resources.
This project will require several stream modifications. NCDOT will
coordinate with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission regarding these
rechannelizations. NCDOT will carry out the measures discussed in Section
III.A.13 to minimize adverse impacts of the proposed rechannelizations.
Strict adherence to Best Management Practices and erosion and
sedimentation guidelines will be used during the design and construction
phases of this project in order to minimize impacts to water resources.
Consideration will be given to the use of sediment control devices such as
vegetated berms or filter basins to ameliorate the impacts from non-point
source dischargers. In-stream construction activities will be scheduled
during the driest season to preclude unnecessary sedimentation from
highway construction.
Appropriate waste and borrow areas for the project will be
investigated, in cooperation with appropriate review agencies, prior to
project construction.
2
D. Actions Required by Other Agencies
It is anticipated that the proposed project will require one of the
Nationwide Permits (either Nationwide 14 or Nationwide 26) from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE). However, based upon the COE Discretionary
Ruling for Trout Waters, it will be necessary that the NCDOT coordinate
with the NCWRC prior to applying for any Section 404 authorization. In
order for the project's impacts to qualify for consideration under the
Nationwide Permit, special conditions, 330.5(b), must be followed and
special management practices (330.6) must be adopted. Final judgement
about specific permit jurisdiction should be left until final designs are
completed so that actual impact areas can be verified. Final
discretionary permit authority rests with the COE.
It is anticipated that the proposed project will also require a
Section 401 General Water Certification from the N.C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
In compliance with Section 26a of the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA) Act, the Structure Design Unit of NCDOT will provide a copy of
design plans upon their completion to TVA for the Authority's approval.
E. Description of Action
Project R-2110 proposes to widen NC 60 from the Georgia State Line to
US 64-74 in Cherokee County to a 5-lane shoulder section. This project
also includes the replacement of three bridges, two over South Fork Rapier
Mill Creek and one over the Nottely River.
F. Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Environmental Effects
It is anticipated that the proposed project will have an overall
positive effect on Cherokee County by improving access to Atlanta and
other areas south of Cherokee County and by helping to promote economic
growth. Approximately 140 feet of right of way will be needed for the
proposed project. The project will result in the relocation of 18
residences and 1 business. The project will also impact the wells and/or
septic systems of 2 additional residences and 1 additional business.
These three properties will be relocated if suitable sites for wells and
septic tanks cannot be found on the properties. Approximately 1.01 acres
of wetlands will be affected by the proposed widening. No farmland, as
defined by the Farmland Protection Policy Act, will be affected.
G. Alternatives Considered
The following alternatives were considered: 2-lane improvements on
2-lane right of way, 5-lane improvements (staged construction), 5-lane
improvements (no staged construction-recommended alternative), and "do
nothing." More information regarding studied alternatives is found in
Section IV.
H. Coordination
The following federal, state, and local officials were consulted
regarding the currently proposed project (5-lane widening):
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Asheville
U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs - Washington
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Raleigh
Oconee/Chattahoochee National Forest
U.S. Forest Service - Asheville
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR)
N.C. DEHNR - Division of Environmental Management
N.C. DEHNR - Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. DEHNR - Division of Environmental Health
N.C. DEHNR - Division of Land Resources
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
N.C. Department of Human Resources
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Tennessee Valley Authority
Region A Council of Governments
Cherokee County Commissioners
Town of Murphy
State of Georgia
1. Basis for Finding of No Significant Impact
Based on planning and environmental studies conducted, it is
anticipated that the subject project will not have a significant
detrimental effect on the quality of the human environment. The proposed
project will cause no significant changes in route classification and land
use and is not controversial in nature. The project has been reviewed by
federal, state, and local agencies, and no objections have been raised.
For these reasons, it is concluded that a Combined State Environmental
Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact is applicable to the project.
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description
The NCDOT proposes to widen NC 60 to a 5-lane facility from the
Georgia State Line to US 64-74 in Cherokee County. The subject project is
5.0 miles long. The project location is shown in Figure 1.
This document is a "stand-alone" document, superseding and
encompassing the previous State Environmental Assessment that was approved
in September, 1991 for the subject project.
B. Historical Resume and Project Status
The proposed project is included in the 1995-2001 NCDOT
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) with a total estimated cost of
$17,300,000, including $2,000,000 for right of way and $15,300,000 for
construction. Right of way acquisition and construction are both
scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1995.
Originally, TIP Project R-2110 called for two-lane improvements along
the subject section to NC 60. Agencies were given the opportunity to
comment on the two-lane improvements during the scoping phase of the
project (see correspondence contained in Appendix C). A public meeting
was held to allow citizens opportunity to comment on the proposed action
(see Section V1.A.2 and Appendix D).
A State Environmental Assessment addressing two-lane improvements was
approved on September 25, 1991. The State EA recommended a two-lane,
24-foot pavement with 8-foot grassed shoulders on a 100-foot right of way
(approximately 43 acres of additional right of way was to have been
acquired). The State EA was distributed to agencies for comment, and the
comments received are found in Appendix E. An Open House Public Hearing
was held on October 21, 1993 (see Section VI.A.4 and Appendix F).
Following the hearing, it was decided to expand the scope of the
project to include 5-lane widening to be done in stages. The first stage
would include 2-lane improvements on 5-lane right of way; these
improvements are what is shown in the 1994-2001 TIP for Project R-2110.
Widening to a 5-lane facility (Stage 2) was to occur in the future.
In August, 1994, the project scope was again expanded to include
unstaged 5-lane widening. The project was rescoped among agencies, giving
them opportunity to comment on the proposed 5-lane widening. The comments
received on this action are included in Appendix G, and responses to these
comments where required are found in Section VI.B. A second public
meeting was held on November 16, 1994 to give the public opportunity to
comment on the proposed 5-lane widening (see Section VI.A.6 and Appendix
H). This document addresses 5-lane widening on 5-lane right of way.
C. Existing Conditions
1. Route Classification
NC 60 in Cherokee County is a classified as a Rural Major
Collector in the Functional Classification System.
2. Existing Cross-Section
The existing roadway is a two-lane facility with an 18-foot
pavement (two 9-foot lanes) and grassed shoulders that vary from
2 feet to 3 feet in width. Figure 2 shows photographs of existing
conditions.
3. Existing Right of Way
The existing right of way is approximately 30 feet (maintained).
5
0
4. Horizontal and Vertical Aliqnment
Rolling terrain exists along the subject section of NC 60.
Horizontal alignment is judged to be fair. Vertical alignment is
judged to be fair to poor. Approximately 85% of the project has
restricted passing sight distances of less than 1500 feet.
5. Speed Limit
The subject section of NC 60 has a 55 mph posted speed limit.
6. Intersectinq Roads
' All intersecting roads connect with NC 60 at grade. The
intersections are stop-sign controlled. On US 64-74, there is a
westbound left-turn lane for traffic accessing NC 60. On NC 60 at US
64-74, there is channelization (provided by two monolithic islands)
that separates northbound (NC 60) right turns and left turns,
eastbound (US 64-74) right turns, and westbound (US 64-74) left
turns.
7. Access Control
No access control exists along the project.
8. Degree of Roadside Interference
Roadside development is light throughout the project area and is
primarily residential and rural in nature.
9. Sidewalks
There are no sidewalks existing along the project.
10. Degree of Utility Conflicts
There is an underground telephone cable inside the proposed
right of way that parallels NC 60 on alternating sides for t;ie length
of the project.
D. Stream Crossings
The existing roadway crosses South Fork Rapier Mill Creek (also
41 called Rapier's Creek) twice and the Nottely River. Characteristics of
structures at these crossings are given below:
Bridge No. 28, at the project's southernmost crossing of South Fork
16 Rapier Mill Creek, has a clear roadway width of 20.2 feet and is 52 feet
in length. The bridge has a sufficiency rating of 54.2 and an estimated
remaining life of 14 years.
Bridge No. 49, at the project's northern most crossing of South Fork
Rapier Mill Creek, has a clear roadway width of 20.2 feet and is 69 feet
in length. The bridge has a sufficiency rating of 48.4 and an estimated
remaining life of 14 years.
6
Bridge No. 55 over Nottely River has a clear roadway width of 20 feet
and is 160 feet in length. The bridge has a sufficiency rating of 56.9
and an estimated remaining life of 22 years.
E. Traffic Volumes
Estimated traffic volumes for the year 1995 for the subject section
of NC 60 range from 2200 to 2900 vehicles per day (vpd). Estimated
traffic volumes for the year 2015 range from 3600 to 4800 vpd. Traffic
volumes and turning movements are shown in Figure 4.
F. Capacity Analysis
The concept of level of service is defined as a qualitative measure
describing operational conditions within a traffic stream and how these
conditions are perceived by motorists and/or passengers. A level of
service definition generally describes these conditions in terms of such
factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions,
comfort, convenience, and safety. Six levels of service are defined for
each type of facility for which analysis procedures are available. They
are given letter designations from A to F, with level of service A repre-
senting the best operation conditions and level of service F representing
the worst.
A mainline analysis was run for NC 60 without the proposed project in
place for the years 1995 and 2015. A mainline analysis was also run for
NC 60 with the project in place for the years 1995 and 2015. An
unsignalized intersection analysis was run for the NC 60/US 64-74
intersection without the proposed improvements for the years 1995 and
2015. An analysis of the NC 60/US 64-74 intersection with the proposed
improvements was not run because there is no provision in the Highway
Capacity software for analyzing the unsignalized intersection of two
multilane highways. The results of the analyses are presented below.
1. Mainline Analysis
Without the proposed improvements, NC 60 is expected to operate
at LOS C in 1995 and at LOS D in 2015. After the proposed
improvements, NC 60 is expected to operate at LOS A in both 1995 and
2015. These results are summarized in Table 1.
TABLE 1. LEVEL OF SERVICE - MAINLINE
WITHOUT WITH
YEAR IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS
1995 C A
2015 D A
7
2. Intersection Analysis

J
At the unsignalized intersection of NC 60 and US 64-74, in 1995
with no improvements in place, northbound (NC 60) left-turning
traffic is expected to operate at LOS E, northbound right-turning is
expected to operate at LOS A, and westbound (US 64-74) left-turning
traffic is expected to operate at LOS A. In 2015, with no
improvements in place, northbound (NC 60) left-turning traffic is
expected to operate at LOS F, northbound right-turning traffic is
expected to operate at LOS C, and westbound (US 64-74) left-turning
traffic is expected to operate at LOS D.
G. Accident Analysis
An accident study of the existing highway was conducted for the time
period from January 1, 1991 through December 31, 1993. Summarized
statistics are shown in Table 2. Also shown in Table 2 are the statewide
averages of accidents occurring on rural, 2-lane NC routes from 1991-1993.
TABLE 2. ACCIDENT ANALYSIS
SUBJECT STATEWIDE AVERAGES
ACCIDENT TYPE SECTION FOR SIMILAR RURAL
OF NC 60 NC ROUTES
Total Accidents 29 N/A
Fatal Accidents 1 N/A
Non-Fatal Injury Accidents 11 N/A
Total Accident Rate
(ACC/100MVM)* 169.99 195.5
Fatal Accident Rate
(ACC/100MVM)* 5.86 2.6
Non-Fatal Injury
Accident Rate
(ACC/100MVM)* 64.48 91.0
*ACC/100MVM = Accidents per 100 million vehicle miles
8
The accident analysis shows that the studied segment has a total
accident rate and a non-fatal injury accident rate below the statewide
averages for similar two-lane rural NC primary routes. The studied
segment has a fatal accident rate above the statewide average for similar
two-lane rural NC primary routes. A further review of the accident data
shows that "running off road" (31.9%), "rear-end" (10.3%), "angle"
(10.31-.), and "animal" (10.3%) accident types constitute the highest
percentages of accidents occurring on this segment of NC 60. Five of the
accidents (17%) occurred in the vicinity of Bridge No. 49 over South Fork
Rapier Mill Creek and the intersections with SR 1123 and SR 1599 (see
Figure 3, Sheet 2 of 9). Three (10%) occurred in the vicnity of the
SR 1122 intersection, three (10%) occurred at the intersection with
SR 1596, and four (13%) occurred in the vicinity of SR 1596, and four
(13%) occurred at the intersection with US 64-74. The remaining accidents
are distributed evenly over the length of the project.
H. School Bus Data
Presently there are 3 school buses using this route twice each day
for a total of 6 trips daily.
I. Thoroughfare Plan
Currently there is no Cherokee County Thoroughfare Plan. The subject
project is outside the limits of the Murphy Thoroughfare Plan.
J. Other Highway Projects in the Area
No other highway projects are currently proposed in the subject
vicinity.
III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Proposed Roadway Improvements
1. Cross-Section
It is proposed to widen NC 60 to a 64-foot pavement (five
12-foot lanes with 2-foot paved shoulders) with 8-foot grassed
shoulders.
2. Project Termini
The project is to begin at the Georgia State Line and is to end
at US 64-74 in Cherokee County.
3. Right of Way
The proposed right of way width is 140 feet. The right of way
proposed on each side of the existing roadway centerline varies from
50 to 90 feet depending upon the side on which the widening is
proposed. Alternating eastside-westside widening is proposed to
minimize relocations and to improve existing horizontal curvature
(see Figure 3). Approximately 67 acres of additional right of way
will be required. Construction easements will also be required.
9
4. Control of Access
No control of access is proposed as a part of this project.
5. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
The proposed improvements include horizontal alignment revisions
in three places along the subject section. The horizontal realign-
ments are recommended in order to improve horizontal or vertical
curvature or to facilitate construction of proposed bridges and
culverts.
The first horizontal alignment revision, approximately 2280 feet
long, is proposed to the north in the vicinity of South Fork Rapier
Mill Creek (see Figure 3, sheets 1 of 9 and 2 of 9) in order to
replace the bridge with a culvert on new location. The second
horizontal alignment revision, approximately 2210 feet long, is
proposed in a section that begins approximately 1.4 miles from the
southern project terminal (see Figure 3, sheet 4 of 9) in order to
improve the existing vertical alignment. The third horizontal
alignment revision, approximately 2310 feet long, is proposed to the
south over the Nottely River (see Figure 3, sheet 5 of 9) in order to
replace the bridge on new location.
The subject project will also include realigning the following
intersecting roads at NC 60 in order to create perpendicular
junctions and/or to increase distance between successive junctions:
SR 1123, SR 1599, SR 1598, SR 1626, SR 1602, SR 1596, and SR 1595.
Approximately 17,400 linear feet (3.3 miles) of the project will
undergo vertical realignment. The locations of three of the proposed
vertical realignments correspond with the locations of the three
horizontal realignments described above. Vertical realignments will
also be made at the proposed locations of temporary construction
detours 2 through 5 (see table below, Section III.A.6).
6. Temporary Construction Detours
The subject project proposes five temporary construction detours
as follows:
LENGTH* SIDE OF SHEET OF
NO. feet NC 60 PURPOSE FIG. 3

1 1100 south bridge (#49) replacement 2 of 9
2 1070 north vertical realignment 3 of 9
•
3 2200 north vertical realignment 6 of 9
4 1700 north vertical realignment 6, 7 of 9
5 3300 south vertical realignment 7, 8 of 9
* Lengths are approximate
10
7. Speed Limit
The proposed speed limit is 55 mph.
8. Design Speed
The proposed design speed is 60 mph.
9. Sidewalks
No sidewalks are proposed as a part of this project.
10. Bicycle Provisions
No bike lanes or other special bicycle provisions are proposed
as a part of this project.
11. Intersection Treatments
All intersections along the project will be stop-sign
controlled. No turn lanes (other than the continuous left-turn lane
provided by the proposed 5-lane cross section) are proposed on NC 60
or on the intersecting roads. Realignments of intersecting roads are
proposed (see Section III.A.5 and Figure 3).
12. Changes in the State Highway System
This project will not result in any changes to the state highway
system.
13. Channel Changes
The lengths and locations of the major proposed channel changes
are as follows:
APPROX. APPROX. STREAM
LENGTH LOCATION NAME
from 700 north o Ga. State Line unnamed
to South Fork Rapier Mill Creek
100 feet 2000' north of SR 1599 unnamed
t 800' north of SR 1598 unnamed
W,1*
from 2100' south of SR 1602 Walker Mill Creek
to 1000' south of SR 1602
=met: from 200' north of SR 1602 unnamed
to 850' north of SR 1602
V
r
CA
•
st from 550' south of SR 1595 unnamed
to 300' north of SR 1595
11
The following measures will be included in the project, where
feasible, to minimize adverse effects of the proposed
rechannelizations:
(1) The new channel should be constructed under dry conditions.
w
(2) In order to simulate natural conditions, the new channel should
include meanders and topographic discontinuity (for a pool and
riffle effect).
(3) Streamside planting of native vegetation should be performed
immediately following completion of the new channel in order to
stabilize embankments.
NCE 'ai411 carry out coordination with the N.C. Wildlife N
R 4PA-Ts - Commission regarding the required rechannelo zati ons prior
to-beg nning construction.
B. Drainage Structures
Also proposed as a part of this project are six culvert extensions as
follows:
It is proposed to replace Bridge No. 55 over Nottely River with a new % J nA
bridge upstream (south) of the existing structure (see Figure 3, sheet 5 Y Vy
of 9). The structure proposed for the first stage of improvements is 220
feet long with a clear roadway width of 30 feet. Traffic will be 1^?
maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
It is proposed to replace Bridge No. 28 over South Fork Rapier Mill
Creek with a 4 barrel 11-foot X 9-foot reinforced concrete box culvert on
new location upstream (north) of the existing structure (see Figure 3,
sheet 1 of 9). Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge while
construction is underway.
Q,
It is proposed to replace Bridge No. 49 over South Fork Rapier Mill
Creek with a 4 barrel 12-foot X 9-foot reinforced concrete box culvert in
D?
the same location (see Figure 3, sheet 2 of 9). A temporary construction
detour to the south will carry traffic during construction.
J?
The existing 3-foot X 3-foot reinforced concrete box culvert
(RCBC) located approximately 2200 feet north of SR 1123 is to be
extended for 30 feet on the east side and for 80 feet on the west
' side with 36-inch corrugated steel pipe to be placed through the
culvert. (floo-)
The existing 5-foot X 5-foot RCBC located approximately 800 feet
north of SR 1626 is to be extended for 80 feet on the east end and
for 160 feet on the west end with 42-inch corrugated steel ipe.,
qO
The existing 6-foot X 5-foot RCBC located approximately 1000
feet south of SR 1602 is to be extended for 70 feet on the east end
and for 35 feet on the west end.
12
The existing 4-foot X 5-foot RCBC located approximately 200 feet
north of SR 1602 is to be extended for 40 feet on the west end and
for 80 feet on the east end with 60-inch concrete pipe. ?a
The existing 5-foot X 5-foot RCBC located approximately 150 feet
south of SR 1596 is to be retained and extended for 50 feet on each
end. (00.4 )
The existing 5-foot X 4-foot
south of SR 1595 will be either
(7-foot X 6-foot) or extended with
RCBC located approximately 500 feet
replaced with a larger culvert
60-inch corrugated steel pipe.
C. Estimated Costs
The estimated right of way cost for the proposed improvements is
$1,934,000. The estimated construction cost for the proposed improvements
is $15,300,000. The total estimated cost of the proposed improvements is
$17,234,000. The 1995-2001 TIP funding is $17,300,000 ($2,000,000 of
which is for right of way and $15,300,000 of which is for construction).
Therefore, the TIP funding exceeds the project cost estimate by $66,000.
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Recommended Alternative
The recommended alternative is to widen NC 60 from the Georgia State
Line to US 64-74 to a 5-lane shoulder section. Vertical and horizontal
realignments are also proposed along much of the project. The recommended
improvements are presented in detail in Section III of this report.
B. "Do Nothing" Alternative
The "do nothing" alternative would avoid some negative impacts of the
proposed project, such as the disruption of the natural environment caused
by the use of additional land and increased noise levels. However,
benefits of the proposed action, such as an improved and safer facility
and enhancement of the economic environment, would also be eliminated.
The long term benefits resulting from the improvement of the NC 60
facility will more than compensate for any unavoidable adverse impacts.
Consequently, a "do nothing" decision is not considered prudent and is not
recommended.
C. Two-Lane Improvements on Two-Lane Right of Way
Originally, Project R-2110 called for the widening of NC 60 to a
24-foot pavement on two-lane (100-foot) right of way (see Section II-B).
This alternative would have impacted approximately 1 acre of wetlands,
relocated 10 residences and one business, and taken approximately 43 acres
of right of way. This alternative is not recommended because it fails to
meet the project purpose and need, which is to provide multi-lane access
to Georgia, to improve capacity, and to promote economic development.
A

11.
13
D. Five-Lane Widening With Staged Construction
Five-lane widening utilizing staged construction (widening the
existing 18-foot pavement to a 24-foot pavement on 140-foot (5-lane) right
of way now and widening to a 5-lane cross section in the future) is not
recommended because it would not meet the project purpose and need stated
above in Section IV.C. and because of the support of local officials and
citizens (see Sections VI.A.2 and VI.A.4 for the recommended alternative
(5-lane widening - no staged construction)).
V. EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT
A. Land Use
1. Scope of Local Planning Activities
The proposed improvement is located within Cherokee County. The
county has not adopted a land use plan and does not enforce a zoning
ordinance.
The project lies within the acquisition boundary of the
Nantahala National Forest, but it does not effect land currently
owned by the U.S. Forest Service. The Forest Service's Land and
Resource Management Plan: 1986-2000 directs land use an orest
management activities or t e N_antaFala Forest, including the general
area of the project.
2. Existing Land Use
The area of the proposed improvement is rural in character, with
some small farms and scattered residential development fronting the
roadway. Several clusters of mobile homes are accessed from NC 60.
Some "cottage industries," such as firewood sales, are also located
along NC 60. The only major industry in the area is the Bradford
Construction Company.
NC 60 passes through a portion of the unincorporated cummunity
of Culberson. Though most of the residences within the community are
located just west of NC 60, some community facilities and retail
businesses are located adjacent to the roadway. The Culberson Post
Office is located along the proposed project site on the west side of
SR 1123. The Culberson Community Center, Nichols Field (a baseball
diamond), and a county trash receptor site are located in the project
area. The Culberson Community Center and Nichols Field are both
Cherokee County Parks and Recreation facilities.
10 3. Future Land Use
Although Cherokee County does not engage in land use planning,
it does emphasize economic development, particularly through tourism.
The widening of NC 60 to a multi-lane roadway is anticipated to aid
in the county's economic development efforts.
14
4. Prime and Important Farmland
North Carolina Executive Order Number 96, Conservation of Prime
Agricultural and Forest Land, requires state agencies to minimize the
impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime and
important farmland soils. As no modern soil survey has been prepared
by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service for Cherokee County, the
presence of prime or important farmland soils cannot be determined at
this time.
B. Socioeconomic Impacts
1. Neighborhood Characteristics
Cherokee County is in the western section of the state and is
bounded by Graham, Macon, and Clay Counties, the State of Georgia,
and the State of Tennessee. According to the N.C. State Data Center
for 1992, Cherokee County has a population of 20,628.
Cherokee County is a rural, mountainous county. In 1990, the
population density (persons per square mile) of the county was 44.31.
In terms of racial composition, there are 19,313 whites and 857
nonwhites residing in the county.
The landscape along the proposed project site is characterized
by mountainous and sloping terrain. There is rural development at
various intervals along the proposed project site. Homes are located
on both sides of existing NC 60 at various intervals. Many of these
homes are set back from the existing NC 60 highway facility and will
not be adversely impacted by the proposed improvement. There are
rural housing clusters along segments of the proposed project.
Commercial development is scattered along the proposed project site
at various intervals.
2. Economic Factors
There are 8,680 persons in Cherokee County's labor force. Out
of this total, 8,110 persons are gainfully employed. This left an
unemployment total of 570, or 6.6 percent (taken from North Carolina
Civilian Force Estimates Preliminary Data for May 1994).
3. Public Facilities

Friendship Baptist Church is located in the state of Georgia •
near the North Carolina border. The Culberson Post Office is located
along the proposed project site on the west side of SR 1123. Also
located along the project are the River Valley Baptist Church and the
Culpepper Fire Department.
4. Relocations
Efforts were made to minimize the relocation of businesses and
residences in the selection of the side on which the proposed
widening is to occur along the project and in the selection of the
proposed horizontal realignments.
15
There will be an estimated 18 residences and 1 business
displaced along the proposed project. The project will also impact
the wells and/or septic systems of 2 additional residences and 1
additional business. These three properties will be relocated if
suitable sites for wells and septic tanks cannot be found on the
properties. A relocation summary report giving a demographic profile
of the relocatees is included in the Appendix (see page B-1).
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 arrangement (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
the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through
133-18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced
persons in relocating 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 purchases 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.
16
All tenant and owner resider
will receive an explanation regar
(1) purchase of replacement hou
housing, either private or pub
owner-occupant housing to another
officer will also supply inform
federal programs offering assisti
provide other advisory services
hardships to displaced persons in
tial occupants who may be displaced
ding all available options, such as
ing, (2) rental of replacement
lic, or (3) moving existing
site (if possible). The relocation
ition concerning other state or
nce to displaced persons and will
as needed in order to minimize
adjusting to a new location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate
the displacee 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.
It is 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 financial 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.
5. Social Impacts
The proposed action will not disturb social cohesion. The
project will not interfere with public facilities and services, nor
will it divide any neighborhoods or communities.
C. Historic and Cultural Resources
1. Archaeological Resources
a. Introduction
In August, 1990, an archaeological investigation was
conducted of the area where highway NC 60 crosses the Nottely
River in Cherokee County, North Carolina. At that time, the

17
North Carolina Department of Transportation was studying plans
to widen the roadway pavement of NC 60 from two 9-foot wide
lanes to two 12-foot wide lanes.
The highway widening project also involved construction of
a new bridge over the Nottely River. An archaeological site,
number 31Ce42, had been reported in the bridge vicinity in 1964.
The 1990 archaeological tests indicated that the highway project
and bridge replacement would not affect that site. A
reconnaissance of the widening project at that time showed that
it had little potential to affect any significant archaeological
resources. Since 1990, the scope of the project has changed to
widening to a five-lane facility, thus necessitating additional
consideration of potential impacts upon archaeological
resources.
Current plans are to construct a five-lane facility with a
60-foot pavement (12-foot lanes) and 8-foot grassed shoulders.
This will require a 140-foot wide right of way, with additional
right of way required for cut slopes, intersections, and
drainage, where necessary. The existing right of way width is
30 feet. The additional land is to be acquired asymmetrically,
such that the right of way proposed on each side of the existing
roadway centerline varies from 50 to 90 feet, alternating sides
for the length of the project to minimize impacts (combination
of northside, southside, and symmetrical widening - see Figure
3).
The funding for the project has not changed, and it is
programmed as an entirely state funded project. Consultation
with the State Historic Preservation Office has been carried out
in compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
(GS 113) and with the North Carolina Archives and History Act,
specifically GS 121-12(a), "Protection of Properties Listed on
the National Register of Historic Places." In addition, the
project has areas of potential federal permits for stream
crossings, where compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act may be required as a condition of the
permit. These stream crossings, at Nottely River and South Fork
Rapier Mill Creek, were intensively investigated to fulfill the
Section 106 requirements to locate and evaluate historic
properties.
The project area was first surveyed on August 30, 1990, by
Tom Padgett, and was revisited on June 7, 1994 by Tom Padgett
and John Mintz, archaeologists with the North Carolina
Department of Transportation. The results of the archaeological
studies indicate that the project will have no impacts upon any
archaeological sites that are eligible for or are listed on the
National Register of Historic Places.
18
b. Setting
The project is located in Cherokee County, in extreme
western North Carolina. The highway corridor runs through a
broad basin of gently rolling hills with elevations in the 1600
to 1700 foot range. Nearby ridges exceed 2500 feet. The
underlying geology is composed mostly of schists that make up
the Mineral Bluff Formation of the Murphy Belt. Soils are rocky
loams and clay loams, varying according to topographic location
(Daniels et al 1984). At the present time there is no published
county soil survey for Cherokee County.
Land use in the area is primarily rural residential, with
some small farms and businesses. Over half of the land along the
highway corridor is wooded. Most of the open land is in
pasture. A few cultivated fields are found, primarily along the
narrow floodplain of the Nottely River, a tributary of the
Tennessee River.
C. Archaeological Background
The most useful summaries of the archaeology of the
Appalachian Summit Region are by Dickens (1976), Keel (1976),
and Purrington (1983). The studies by Dickens and Keel review
the history of archaeological studies in the region from the
early mound explorations of the 1880's and 90's to their own
research undertaken at the University of North Carolina in the
1960's and 1970's as part of a program referred to as the
Cherokee Archaeological Project.
The Cherokee Archaeological Project, under the direction of
Dr. Joffre Coe at the UNC Research Laboratories of Anthropology,
remains the most important archaeological work completed in the
mountain area. In addition to the many scholarly treatises
produced as a result of studies that were part of the overall
project, the project personnel were responsible for recording
over one thousand archaeological sites in the Appalachian Summit
of North Carolina. The excavation of a number of major sites
resulted in defining the archaeological cultures present in the
region (Dickens 1976, 1978, Keel 1976).
One of the archaeological sites recorded by the UNC
Research Laboratories in 1964 was site 31Ce42, located on the
east side of the Nottely River near NC 60. The site form for
this site notes the presence of a "small number of sherds..."
which may have been redeposited. No other cultural information
is recorded. Based upon this information, the site (if a
primary deposit) dates either to the Woodland or Mississippian
Period or both.
In the middle of the Sixteenth Century, Europeans first
entered the Southern Appalachian Region. Both the De Soto
expedition (1540) and the expeditions of Juan Pardo (1567-68)
are now thought to have penetrated into the western Piedmont and
19
mountains of North Carolina, encountering the native societies
located there. From the accounts of these Spanish expeditions,
it appears that the Indian villages were organized into
territorial groups commanded by a chief or, in the case of
larger groups, a hierarchy of chiefs subservient to a "chief of
chiefs" (Depratter 1983, Hudson et al 1984, Hudson 1986).
The routes of the early Spanish explorers, particularly De
• Soto, have been a matter of study and speculation for some time.
The United States Desoto Commission (Swanton et al 1939) traced
the De Soto route through the Murphy area, while Hudson and
others (1984) dispute this placement. The Murphy Museum has
some artifacts on display that might date to the middle
Sixteenth Century, but there is no accurate provenience of the
material. Some of the material is identified as coming from the
Peachtree Mound site on the Hiwassee River (Setzler and Jennings
1941) and other material is simply labeled "from a site on
Nottely River." Whether any of these artifacts derive from the
De Soto or Pardo Excavations has not been determined.
During the 17th and 18th Centuries, the Cherokee Indians
controlled the mountains and part of North Carolina and adjacent
South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee. As whites moved
westward, pressures on the Indians increased. After several
disastrous wars, numerous broken treaties, and the Indian
Removal of 1838-39, the westward migration of whites into the
region was unimpeded.
Cherokee County was formed in 1939, with court being held
at Fort Butler until a suitable building could be constructed.
Fort Butler was one of several forts used by General Scot to
assemble the Indians for removal. It was located just south of
Huntersville, which in 1851 became incorporated as Murphy
(Powell 1968).
d. Methodology
In 1990, the main focus of investigation was the Nottely
River crossing area because Site 31Ce42 had been recorded in
that vicinity in 1964, but no evaluation of the site had been
completed. Accordingly, this locality was subjected to intensive
survey and subsurface testing, while the remainder of the
project was covered in a drive-over reconnaissance.
16 In the site 31Ce42 locality, a series of four shovel tests
at 10-m intervals was placed perpendicular to the highway
beginning at the edge of the roadway fill embankment. Test
M units were approximately 50 cm in diameter and were excavated
into undisturbed subsoil levels. The units ranged from 50 to 70
cm in depth. Soil matrix from the tests was carefully examined
and sifted by hand.
20
Soil profiles were inspected but not drawn to scale.
A broader area was covered by pedestrian survey. Ground
surface visibility in the Nottely River area was about 60% as
most of the land had been cultivated, but some areas were
overgrown with weeds.
In June, 1994, additional survey and subsurface testing was
conducted in the Culberson area, where the project crosses South
Fork Rapier Mill Creek (also called Rapier's Creek). The revised
plans call for additional right of way acquisition on the north
and south sides of the existing highway in this vicinity, where
a culvert will be constructed at the site of the existing bridge
and the intersection with SR 1123 and SR 1599 will be realigned
(see Figure 3, Sheet 2 of 9). (A temporary construction detour
is proposed at this location, see Section III.A.6.). A brief
inspection of the south side of the creek was done, but the land
in the proposed right of way area on that side had been subject
to stream meandering and scouring, so had little potential for
significant archaeological resources. The land on the north
side of South Fork Rapier Mill Creek was higher and held more
archaeological potential. Subsurface testing was confined to
the north side.
A series of five shovel tests was excavated on the north
side of NC 60 west of South Fork Rapier Mill Creek, similar to
the testing conducted at the Nottely River crossing. Most of
these test units concentrated upon a small knoll evident on the
terrace as a slightly higher (_ 20 cm ) rise. One of these
units (Unit 2) was screened using a standard one-quarter inch
mesh screen. The soil was too wet for this method to be
effective, so the soil matrix was sifted by trowel in the
remaining units. The soil profile consisted of a 15 to 35 cm
deep plowzone of brown clayey loam underlain by a yellow-brown
loamy clay. Four small pieces of possibly fire-cracked quartz
rock were recovered in Unit 3, but upon closer examination in
the laboratory these fragments were classified as non-artifacts.
In addition to the shovel tests, a series of auger units
were placed at ten-meter intervals across the first terrace to
the edge of the second terrace. Wet clay loamy were encountered
in these tests, with no distinguishing features that would
indicate archaeological deposits.
e. Study Results and Recommendations
In the Nottely River vicinity during both investigations no
artifacts or cultural deposits were found within 100 feet of the
present roadway. All of the subsurface tests were negative - no
artifacts or cultural deposits were present. However, one
artifact, a quartz projectile point tip fragment (possibly a
Pisgah Triangular type with missing stem), was found on the

21
ground surface approximately 125 feet east of the roadway during
the first inspection. In the 1994 fieldwork, the surface
collection was expanded slightly with the addition of a small
amount of lithic debris (one quartz flake, 1 core-shatter
fragment, and two pieces of fire-cracked rock). No other
artifacts were discovered in the vicinity of 31Ce42. The
artifacts were found on a small bench or terrace that protrudes
from the slope above the floodplain outside the project APE.
This may be all that remains of site 31Ce42. The near lack of
cultural material on the surface, despite the recent cultivation
of the property, is a good indication that the site has little
or no potential to add to the information currently available on
the prehistory of the region. It does not appear to be eligible
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
A previously unrecorded site was found on the opposite
(west) side of the Nottely River, north of NC 60. This site,
31Ce609, is situated on the floodplain and sloping terrace
remnant which is under cultivation. A crop of burley tobacco
had been recently planted before the 1994 fieldwork. A small
amount of lithic debris was found, consisting primarily of
quartz flakes and core fragments, but also with one small chert
flake. The lithics were scattered over an area of approximately
50 square meters (5 m by 10 m). No subsurface testing was
conducted at the site because it appears to be outside the APE
for this project, and testing would have been unadvisable anyway
because the field was saturated from recent rains. From the
deep tractor ruts visible, it appears likely that the upper
soils are highly disturbed to a depth of at least 40 cm. There
is some colluvial wash from the adjacent slopes that may have
buried some of the cultural deposits on the floodplain, but this
was not investigated for the same reasons as above. Based upon
the available information, the site would not appear to be
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places.
Site 31Ce608 is located on a ridgetop west of the Nottely
River. A small scatter of lithics was found in an area covering
about 30 square meters on a recently cleared ridgetop. The area
had been covered in hardwood forest and scrub vegetation but had
been logged, and the detritus was bulldozed into piles on either
side of a trail. One quartzite bifacial thinning flake, one
quartz biface tool fragment (basal end of unsealed projectile
point/knife), one fragment of fire-cracked rock (quartz), two
pieces of quartz core shatter, and a small quartz flake fragment
were all recovered from the surface. The site is heavily
eroded, with the rocky clay loam deflated to bedrock in some
spots. Quartz fragments occur naturally in the soil, making it
hard to distinguish stone artifacts from quartz "float". This
site is unlikely to provide any additional significant
information since it appears to lack integrity and the scarcity
of material culture probably is indicative of an ephemeral
occupation. The site does not appear to be eligible for
inclusion on the National Register.
22
f. Summary
Since this is not a Federal Highway Administration project,
the archaeological investigations have concentrated on the areas
of potential federal permits for stream crossings, where
compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act may be required as a condition of the permit.
The rest of the project was covered by a windshield survey and
reconnaissance to assure that no National Register properties
would be affected, in compliance with North Carolina historic
preservation legislation (GS 121.12a).
During the reconnaissance of the remainder of the project
area, no tracts with high potential for significant cultural
remains, historic or prehistoric, were noted. Since the project
as currently planned will have no effects on any archaeological
sites that are on or are eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places, no further archaeological work is
recommended. The SHPO has concurred with this determination
(see the Appendix, page G-7).
2. Architectural/Historical Resources
The earlier State Environmental Assessment (approved 9/25/91),
which addressed the original scope of the subject project (2-lane
improvements on 2-lane right of way), stated that no properties
listed in the National Register of Historic Places were located in
the project area. The SHPO concurred with this finding, and
compliance with G.S. 121-12(a) was complete (see letter in the
Appendix, page C-11). However, the SHPO did state that he was aware
of one structure in the project area, the Hyatt House, which is of
historical or architectural importance. The SHPO expressed concern
over the possible existence of other unknown structures of historical
or architectural significance.
Since the project scope was expanded to five-lane widening, the
project area was re-evaluated by NCDOT staff for buildings of
historic or architectural significance. The Hyatt House was
determined to be outside the project area. Two buildings over fifty
years of age were found inside the project area: a one-story frame
store and the Alice Kilpatrick House (found on Figure 3, sheets 2 of
9 and 9 of 9, respectively). Neither building is listed in the
National Register of Historic Places; therefore, no further
compliance with G.S. 121-12(a) is necessary.
Only the portions of the project located in the sixteen federal
wetland permitting areas (see Section V.D.6.a. of this report and the
circled wetland site numbers on Figure 3 for these locations) are
subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who would be the lead agency for
state-funded projects in which compliance to Section 106 is based
upon Corps permits, does not consider Corps jurisdiction and
23
applicability of Section 106 to extend beyond the permitting areas.
The SHPO has stated that the Alice Kilpatrick House may be eligible
for the National Register. However, neither this house nor the
one-story frame store mentioned above is located inside a Corps
permitting area. Therefore, no further compliance with Section 106
is necessary, unless initiated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
D. Natural Resources
1. Purpose
The purpose of this natural resources technical report is to
inventory, catalog, and describe the various natural resources likely
to be impacted by the proposed action. The report also attempts to
identify and estimate the probable consequences of the anticipated
impacts to these resources. Recommendations are made for measures
which will minimize resource impacts. These descriptions and
estimates are relevant only in the context of existing preliminary
design concepts. If design parameters and criteria change,
additional field evaluation may be necessary.
2. Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations.
Information sources used in this pre-field investigation of the study
area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (Murphy,
Culberson, and Persimmon Creek), National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map
(Murphy and Persimmon Creek), NCDOT aerial photographs of project
area (1:3000), and Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps of
Cherokee County. Water resource information was obtained from
publications of the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources (DEHNR, 1993) and from the N.C. Center for Geographic
Information and Analysis publication of the Environmental Sensitivity
Base Map of Cherokee County. Information concerning the occurrence
of federal and state protected species in the study area was gathered
from the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected and
candidate species and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP)
database of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
alignment by NCDOT biologist (M. Randall Turner) on August 16, 1990.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified and
recorded. Wildlife identification involved using a variety of
observation techniques: active searching and capture, visual
observations (binoculars), identifying characteristic signs of
wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks, and burrows). Cursory studies for
aquatic organisms were conducted using a hand held dip net; tactile
searches for benthic organisms were administered as well. Organisms
captured during these searches were identified and then released.
Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed utilizing
delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual" (Environment Laboratory, 1981).
24
The original scope of the project included widening on two-lane
right of way. Recently, an additional alternative was developed
(five-lane widening), which has necessitated additional analyses. No
supplemental field work was deemed necessary for this newly scoped
alternative, and none was performed. Field notes from the 1990 study
were used to make extrapolations of impacts to biotic communities.
However, the entire project was reviewed and updated where resource
information has changed.
3. Soils

The site lies within the Murphy Belt Mineral Bluff Formation.
Mineral soils in upland areas originated from metamorphic rock,
formed during the Late Proterozoic Era. Some of the soils likely to
be disturbed in this project are fill soils, introduced during
original roadway construction. A published soil survey is not
available for Cherokee County, but soil information was obtained from
the SCS office in Murphy. Eight native soil series exist in areas
adjacent to the roadway. These soils include Junaluska, Tsali,
Arkaqua, Toxaway, Rosman, Hemphill, Dillard, and Shelocta. Junaluska
and Tsali soils are generally located in upland areas, whereas
Arkaqua, Toxaway and Rosman soils are found in floodplain locations.
Hemphill, Dillard, and Shelocta series are mostly associated with low
stream terraces and drainageways. Toxaway loam is listed as a hydric
soil and Arkaqua loam often has hydric inclusions of Toxaway soils.
4. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water
resources likely to be impacted by the project. Water resource
information encompasses physical aspects of the resource, its
relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards, and water
quality of the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are
also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
This section addresses surface water resources and does not
consider ground water, aquifers, or soil-borne waters, nor does it
consider storm sewers, except where these facilities serve to support
or affect natural populations.
a. Project Water Resources
All streams in the study area are located within the
Hiwassee River Basin. Two major stream crossings are
anticipated: Nottely River (one crossing) and South Fork Rapier
Mill Creek (two crossings), as well as several smaller, unnamed
drainages, most of which are tributaries to the main streams and
are either seepages or intermittent, "wet weather" streams.
South Fork Rapier Mill Creek, the smaller of the named streams,
flows from its headwaters southwest of the study area to its
confluence with the Nottely River west of the study area. The
Nottely, flowing south-to-north, ultimately empties into the
Hiawassee Lake approximately 6.4 km (4 mi) north-northeast of
25
the project study area. Headwaters for the Nottely River lie
mostly south and east of the study area in Cherokee County,
N.C., and Fannin County, Ga. South Fork Rapier Mill Creek
originates southwest of the study area.
A -strem in the study area carry a heavy
cobble, and boulder substrates are
?sms. Small, unnamed tributaries are narrow,
ranging 0.5-1.5 m (1.6-5.0 ft) in width, and <
in depth. At the crossing of Nottely River,
approximates 39 m (125 ft) in width. During th
the stream was loaded with sediment, taking on
Channel depth ranges from 0.5 to 2.0 m (1.6 to
shoals and riffles present. Both channels of
Creek are less than 6.1 m (20 ft) wide. Stream
than 1.0 m (3.3 ft).
b. Best Usage Classification
silt load, but
apparent in all
with channels
0.3 m (<1.0 ft)
the channel
e field survey,
a reddish hue.
6.5 ft) with
Rapier's Mill
depth was less
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by
the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). Table 3 lists
best usage classifications for all water resources likely to be
impacted by the proposed project.
Table 3. Water Resources Best Usage Classifications
WATER RESOURCE CLASSI ATION
Nottely River
Nottely River Tributaries
South Fork Rapier Mill Creek
South Fork Rapier Mill Creek Tributaries C

Note: Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or
WS-II), nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6
km (1 mile) of project study area.
C. Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
managed by DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality
monitoring program which addresses long term trends in water
quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for
selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring
sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes
in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass
are reflections of water quality.
26
No BMAN data has been taken south of Murphy along the
Nottely and South Fork Rapier Mill Creek watersheds. The only
data available are from the Hiwassee River.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina
are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required
to register for a permit.
No NPDES dischargers are registered for Nottely River or
South Fork Rapier Mill Creek.
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Streams in the study area carry the visible signs of
agricultural and development impacts. Cattle are seen watering
indiscriminately in streams. Consequently,'sedimentation and
animal waste are routine problems associated with these streams.
However, highway construction should not contribute to the
further decline of these important resources.
Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters in N.C. will be full implemented during all phases of
construction activity. wroom construction activities will
be schecWIed during the driest season to preclude unnecessary
sedi ntwotion from highway construction.
5. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
This section describes those ecosystems encountered in the study
area, as well as the relationships between fauna and flora within
these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic communities
l/ throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic
influences, and past and present land uses in the study area.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context
of plant community classifications. Dominant flora and fauna
observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described and
discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are
provided for each animal and plant species described. Subsequent
references to the same organism will include the common name only.
a. Terrestrial Communities
Three distinct terrestrial communities were identified in
the project study area: the man-dominated, the unclassified
mixed forest, and the pasture seep (a subset of the
man-dominated community). Community boundaries are frequently
ill-defined; contiguous communities generally merge without any
transition zone between them. Many faunal species are highly
adaptive and may populate the entire range of terrestrial
communities discussed.
27
Man-dominated Community:
Widening and realignment will impact numerous parcels which
are mostly residential and/or agricultural. Commercial site
impacts include a country store/gas station. One federal
facility (a U.S. Post Office) lies adjacent to roadway near the
intersection with SR 1123. Roadside shoulders and slopes of the
existing roadway are to receive the majority of impacts in this
category.
Predominant vegetation varies at each impacted site, but
lawns, pastured areas, and roadside shoulders/slopes have tall
fescues/creeping fescues/chewing fescues Festuca spp.) and
bluegrasses Poa spp.), or combinations o t ese as
groundcovers. Other planted areas include zones of ornamental
trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plantings associated with
homes/farm structures. These plantings include a variety of oak
(uerc?us spp.), maples Acer spp.), white pine Pinus strobus ,
walnut Ju lans ni ra , Canadian hemlock Tsu a Cana ensis),
white poplar Po ulus alba , bear-grass Yucca filamentosa var.
smalliana), an other ornamentals.
These areas, considered highly modified and disturbed, are
attractive to a range of opportunistic wildlife which experience
increased fitness in these areas. Their adaptive behavior has
enabled them to enjoy a relatively safe existence at the fringes
of man's domain, often cohabiting the same structure (rodents).
Unclassified Mixed Forests:
Other communities likely to be impacted by the proposed
project are mostly fringe areas of upland forests and
unmaintained roadside shoulder areas, including the
fill-/cut-zones. Since the proposed action is likely to result
in impacts to less than 23 m (15 ft) back of the existing right
of way on one side and 11 m (35 ft) back of the existing right
of way on the other side (alternating, depending on avoidance
goals), most of the impacts will occur to narrow forest fringes
or strips of open (pasture) habitat. Forests are either stands
of mixed hardwoods, relatively pure white pine, or areas of
pine-mixed hardwood, or mixed hardwood-pine. Except for
isolated stands, most areas have been logged in recent years and
climax character is not easy to discern.
w
This community, located at the edges of maintained shoulder
and slope areas, or roadside ditches, consists of large numbers
of herbaceous plants in the ecotones, intermixed with a less
diverse woody flora. Dominance in this fringe community is
difficult to specify for herbaceous flora, but white pine Pinus
strobus , Virginia pine PPiinuuss vir iniana , short-needle pine
Pinus ech?inatta , flowering dogwood Cornus florida , tulip tree
(Liriodendron tulipifera), black cherry Prunus serotina , and
28
white oak uercus alba were the dominant canopy and sapling
class plants. Deeper into these forested zones, herbaceous plant
density declines rapidly, giving way to a predominance of woody
vegetation. For a more complete listing of woody and herbaceous
flora identified in areas adjacent to NC 60, see Tables 8 and 9
in the Appendix (pages A-1 and A-2).
Such mammals as opossum Didel his vir iniana), gray
squirrel Sciurus carolinensis , short-tailed shrew Blarinaa
brevicauda , white-footed mouse (Peromyscus l?eucopus), southern
ying squirrel (Glaucomys volans , eastern chipmunk Tamias
striatus , raccoon Prrooc on lotor , bobcat (Lynx rufus , eastern
cottontail Slvila9us floridanus , striped skunk Mephitis
mephitis), white-tailed deer 0 ocoileus vir inianus , and
occasional woodchuck Marmota monax long-tail weasel Mustela
frenata , and gray fox Uroc on cinereoar enteus are li e y to
be common or occasional inhabitants of each community in the
area.
Common birds in the vicinity of the project would include
common flicker Cola tes auratus , common nighthawk Chordeiles
minor), blue-jay C anocitta cristata , common crow Corvus
vrh nchos , Carolina chickadee Parus carol iniensis ,
rac F
ebird
white-breast nuthatch Sitta caroliniensis , eastern 61,
Sialia sialis , and coopers hawk Acci iter coo erii .
Amphibians common to the area include hellbender
Cr tobranchus alle aniensis , eastern newt Noto hthalmas
viri escens , common mu puppy Necturus maculosus , Cherokee
salamander (Des?mo nathus aeneus , an spotted salamander
Amb stoma maculatum , as we as American toad Bufo
americanus , northern cricket frog Acris cre itans , spring
peeper H a crucifer), and bullfrog Rana cates eiana).
Likely reptiles would include snapping turtle Chel dra
ser entinna , eastern musk turtle Sternotherus odoratus , as
well as eastern fence lizard Scelo orus un u atus five-lined
skink Eumeces fasciatus , corn snake E a e uttata , rat
snake E. o soleta , eastern king snake Lam ro a tis etulus ,
northern water sna a Nerodiiaa sipedon), copperhead A intro on
contortrix), and timber rattlesnake Crotalus horri us .
Complete inventories of animal species likely to occur
within the study area are provided in various, widely-recognized
references. Wildlife observed during the site survey are listed
in Table 4 below.
.f
29
Table 4. Wildlife Sightings in the Study Area
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
Sciurus carolinensis gray squirrel
Eumeces fasciatus five-lined skink
Corvus brae rah nchos common crow
Sia is sia is eastern bluebird
Accipiter coo erii Cooper's hawk
Pasture Seeps:
Wetlands are variously defined, but, ecologically, they
tend to be ecotones, or transitional areas between uplands and
deeper water systems. These areas can be important to wildlife
and, depending on individual attributes, can serve other
functions.
Several relatively small wetland areas lie adjacent to the
roadway. Most of these areas are seepages from groundwater, or
are depressional areas where stormwater collects. Each site
displays characteristic needlerush Juncus spp.) and sedges in
addition to fescue, blackberry Rubus spp.), and small
elderberry Sambucus canadensis).
All sites are highly disturbed, either by cattle or mowing
activities.
b. Aquatic Communities
Approximately 12-15 stream-based aquatic communities occur
within the study area of the proposal, although most are piped
drainages and small ditches. Geo-morphology and hydrological
characteristics of the streams and the physico-chemical features
of the waters greatly influence faunal composition of these
aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water
resource also greatly influence aquatic communities.
Dominant conspicuous plants in the vicinity of these
R streams include box elder Acer Ne undo , red maple A. rubrum ,
black willow Salix ni ra , si y ogwood (Cor?nus amomum ,
touch-me-not Im atiens allida , branch alder %T-nus
serrulata cane Arun inaria i antes , elderberry am ucus
r cans ensis carding lower (Lobelia cardinalis , blue o e is
L. syp i itica), knotweed Po onum enns vanicum , sedges
C erus spp. and Carex spp. , rushes Juncus spp. , and water
hemlock Cicuta macul-ata .
30
In addition to cattle and other domestic animals which
frequently use these streams, numerous wildlife species use
these areas as refuge, forage, or nursery. Many of the animals
listed above are predicted to routinely use streams in the study
area. Fish diversity is predicted to be low due to the small
size and condition of most of the streams. The central
stoneroller Cam ostoma anomalum , rosyside dace (Clinostomus
funduloides , cubs Nocomis spp.), shiners Notro is spp., or
C rine a spp.), an northern hogsucker (Hypenthelium
ni ricans may occur in a few or all of the study area streams.
The larger streams may support redhorse suckers Moxostoma
spp.), rock bass Amblo lites ru estris , sunfish Le omis
spp.), smallmouth ass Micro terus punctulatus), scu pin
Cottus spp.), and rainbow trout Oncorh nchus m kiss . Based
upon information supplied by the NCWRC, the large streams in the
area also support a spring spawning run of white bass Morone
chr so s and walleye Stizostedion vitreum , both important
game is .
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will Have various
impacts on the biotic resources described. Any
construction-related activities in or near these resources have
the potential to.impact biological functions. This section
quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in
terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary and
permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the
relative abundance of each community present in the study area.
Project construction will result in clearing and degradation of
portions of these communities. Table 5 summarizes potential
quantitative losses to these biotic communities, resulting from
project construction. Estimated impacts are derived using a
width of 110 feet (140-foot proposed right of way less 30 feet
of existing maintained right of way).
Table 5. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
w
COMIMIUN I TY
Man-dominated 45.9
Unclassified Mixed Forest 82.1
Pasture Seeps* 0.51
Wetlands 11-1v
Note: Values cited are in acres; "*" indicates a subset of
man-dominated community and of wetlands; pasture seeps and
wetlands are broken down further in Table 6.
31
41
Although the proposed action does not pose as a significant
threat to terrestrial fauna, it is likely to have substantial
affects on the aquatic environment. Demolition activities are
likely to place sediment into the water column, as will pier/end
bent installation activities. Sediment-loading of the stream
channels by such activities can be devastating to local
populations of aquatic organisms, including sport fish such as
smallmouth bass, trout, and bream (or sunfish), as well as
invertebrates such as mollusks, crustacea, and insect larvae,
important parts of the aquatic food chain.
Based upon information supplied by the NCWRC, the streams
in the area support a spring spawning run of white bass and
walleye, both important game fish. Critical months during these
spawning activities are February-April. Construction activities
that are likely to impact these streams will be curtailed during
these months to avoid impacts to these important fishery
resources.
Slow-moving, burrowing and/or subterranean organisms will
be directly impacted by construction activities, while mobile
organisms will be displaced to adjacent communities.
Competitive forces in these adoptive communities will result in
a redefinition of population equilibria.
6. Jurisdictional Issues
This section provides descriptions, inventories, and impact
analysis pertinent to two important issues--rare and protected
species and Waters of the United States.
a. Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category
of "Waters of the United States," as defined in Section 33 of
the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands,
defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface or ground water as often and at ample
duration to support, and normally 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 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Wetlands tend to be ecotones, or transitional areas between
uplands and aquatic habitats. They perform critical functions
for wildlife, as well as serving to remove pollutants from
stormwater and delaying flooding of downstream areas by storing
floodwaters. Numerous other functions are attributed to
wetlands, but it suffices to say they are important features in
the landscape.
32
Jurisdictional ly, wetlands can be identified by the
presence of hydric soils, sustained hydrology, and a plant
community which can be considered hydrophytic. Field indicators
of each of these three wetland criteria provide the basis for
identifying and delineating wetland-upland boundaries.
Surface waters are streams, lakes, rivers, and other water
resources which, although not necessarily wetlands, by
definition, serve invaluable functions to wildlife, the
landscape, and society.
i. Sites Within the Project Area
All of the 16 sites identified as Waters of toe U.S.
are small, constituting less than 0.25 acre of w tlands
(see circled wetland site numbers on Figure 3). Most are
small cross drains with little or no flow except during
periods of rainfall. Sites 4-5, 7 and 10 are seeps located
within pasture settings. All other sites are st0eamside
wetlands, most comprising only narrow strips of marginal
wetlands.- Plant species are as described in Section V.D.5.
Soils were saturated to the surface at most sites.
ii. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The information in Table 6 provides estimates of the
anticipated magnitude of impacts at each wetland site.
Table 6. Anticipated Impacts to Wetlands

1 C"UNITY TYPE
1R4SB3
0.05
2 R4SB3 0.05
3 R3SB3 0.05
4* PEM1 0.17
5* PEM1 0.23
6 R4SB3 0.05
7* PEM1 <0.02
8 R3SB3 0.03
9 R4SB3 0.05
10* PEM1 0.09
11 R4SB3 0.03
12 R4SB3 <0.02
13 R3SB3 0.05
14 R4SB3 0.02
15 R4SB3 0.05
16 R4SB3 0.05
TOTAL 1.01
Note: Values cite are in acres; R4SB3, R3SB3 an PEM1 denote Riverine
Intermittent Stream Bed, Riverine Upper Perennial Stream Bed,.
and Palustrine Emergent Persistent (* = Pasture Seeps),
respectively.
33
iii. Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters
are anticipated. In accordance with provisions of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will
be required from the COE for the discharge of dredged or
fill material into "Waters of the United States."
4 Based upon the estimated magnitude of anticipated
impacts to wetlands (Table 6), it is likely that one of the
Nationwide Permits (eit)ur_Nationwide 14 or Nationwide 26)
will cover the proposed action. However, based upon the
COE Discretionary Ruling for Trout Waters, it will be
necessary that the NCDOT coordinate with the NCWRC prior to
applying for any Section 404 authorization. In order for
the project's impacts to qualify for consideration under
the Nationwide Permit, special conditions, 330.5(b), must
be followed and special management practices (330.6) must
be adopted. Final judgement about specific permit
jurisdiction will be left until final designs are completed
so that actual impact areas can be verified. Final
discretionary permit authority rests with the COE.
In addition, any action which places fill in more than
0.33 acre of wetlands must apply for a Section 401 Water
Quality Certification from the DEM. This project will
require Section 401 authorization.
iv. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The project is essentially a widening of an existing
roadway, hence total avoidance of impacts to Waters of the
U.S. is not feasible. However, efforts to minimize impacts
to study area sites will be undertaken by the use of BMP's.
Since project impacts are likely to be authorized under one
of the Nationwide permits, mitigation will not be required
in accordance with the COE/EPA Memorandum of Agreement
(November, 1989).
b. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been, or are in,
the process of decline either due to natural forces or their
inability to coexist with man. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended)
requires that any action likely to adversely affect a
federally-protected species be subject to review by the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional
protection under separate state laws.
34
i. Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE),
and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. As of November 17, 1994, the FWS does
not list any protected species for Cherokee County.
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of
uncommon and protected species revealed no recorded
occurrence of federally-protected species in or near the
project study area.
ii. Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
There are 9 federal candidate (C2) species listed for
Cherokee County. Federal Candidate species are not
afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species
Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including
Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. Candidate 2 (C2) species are
defined as organisms which are vulnerable to extinction
although no sufficient data currently exist to warrant a
listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered, or
Proposed Threatened.
Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North
Carolina Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal
species are afforded state protection under the State
Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 7 lists federal candidate species, the species'
state status (if afforded state protection), and the
existence of suitable habitat for each species in the study
area. This species list is provided for information
purposes only. The status of these species may be upgraded
in the future.
35
Table 7. Federal Candidate/N.C. Protected Species
Cherokee County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NC STATUS HABITAT
Plecotus rafines uii* Rafinesque's big-eared bat SC No
• Cr_yptobranc us
alle aniensis* hellbender SC Yes
Clemm s mu en ergii bog turtle T No
Pitu is m.
me Tanoleucus northern pine snake SC No
` Percina squam?ata olive darter SC Yes
Cambarus ih'wassee Hiwassee crayfish - Yes
E iimia
to
n?terup knotty elimia E Yes
_
_
Messo on c i ngmanicus
- Clingman covert T Yes
P
ahera integri
a ia* white fringeless orchid E No
NOTE: "*" Population not documented in Cherokee County in the past
twenty years;
"-" Species not afforded state protection but listed as Federal
Candidate.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during
the site visit, nor were any of these species observed.
Records in the N.C. Natural Heritage Program files do not
report any plant or animal species with a N.C. status of
Endangered (E) or Threatened, but 2 amphibians with Special
Concern (SC) status, the mole salamander (Ambystoma
tal oideum and the four-toed salamander Hemidact lum
scutatum , are listed as occurring in the area o t e
propose action.
7. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Cherokee County is participant in the National Flood Insurance
Program. Figure 5 shows the limits of the 100-year flood boundaries
for South Fork Rapier Mill Creek and the Nottely River. The terrain
in the vicinity of the project is rolling and mountainous with
natural draws and streams located such that the proposed project can
be drained without difficulty.
Groundwater and existing drainage patterns will not be
significantly affected by the, project construction. Siltation of
adjacent areas and streams due to project construction will be kept
to a minimum by the use and maintenance of the standard erosion
control measures and devices. None of the streams involved in the
proposed project limits are designated as a trout stream.
36
8. Geolooical Features
The project area consists of rock which is gray-green, mica
schist with thin interbeds of quartzite. Most of the material on the
project is soft weathered rock or hard saprolite. Very little of the
exposed rock in the cuts is fresh rock. The dip angles of the rock
range from 55 to 60 degrees southeast while the regional strike in
the area is north 50-60 degrees east.
As NC 60 trends northeast-southwest, the road cuts on the
northwest side have fallen back to the steeply dipping foliation
planes. However, on the southeast side of NC 60, the foliation
planes dip into the cut slopes, which are also very steep. Though
these cuts are very steep on both sides, they are vegetated and
appear stable.
On this project, the majority of work will consist of widening
the existing very narrow cuts. Past improvements to NC 60 has left
as little as 3-4 feet between the toe of the slope and the pavement's
edge. At most, there is only 5-6 feet from the edge of pavement to
the cut slope.
No impacts resulting from the exposure of acidic rock are
anticipated.
E. Hazardous Materials
The project is not expected to impact any underground storage tanks.
F. Traffic Noise and Air Quality
1. Traffic Noise
a. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the
proposed widening of NC 60 in Cherokee County on noise levels in
the immediate project area. This investigation includes an
inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses and a field
survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the study area. It
also includes a comparison of the predicted noise levels and the
ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts can
be expected resulting from the proposed project. Traffic noise
impacts are determined from the current procedures for the
abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise,
appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted,
examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement
measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be
considered.
37
Characteristics of Noise
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted
from many sources including airplanes, factories, railroads,
power generation plants, and highway vehicles. Highway noise,
or traffic noise, is usually a composite of noises from engine
exhaust, drive train, and tire-roadway interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound
pressure. Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a
logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to some
common reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound
pressures described in decibels are called sound pressure levels
and are often defined in terms of frequency weighted scales (A,
B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in
vehicle noise measurements because it places the most emphasis
on the frequency range to which the human ear is most sensitive
(1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels measured using a weighted-A
decibel scale are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this
report, all noise levels will be expressed in dBA's. Several
examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are listed in Table N1.
Review of Table N1 (see page A-3 in the Appendix) indicates
that most individuals in urbanized areas are exposed to fairly
high noise levels from many sources as they go about their daily
activities. The degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted
sound depends essentially on three things:
1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) The relationship between the background noise and the
intruding noise.
3) The type of activity occurring where the noise is heard.
Over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted
intervals and are expected, individuals tend to accept the
noises which intrude into their lives. Attempts have been made
to regulate many of these types of noises including airplane
noise, factory noise, railroad noise, and highway traffic noise.
In relation to highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and
control have developed rapidly over the past few years.
C. Noise Abatement Criteria
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or
are not compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria
(NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of
highways. These abatement criteria and procedures are set forth
in the aforementioned Federal reference (Title 23 CFR Part 772).
38
A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various land uses
is presented in Table N2 (see page A-4 in the Appendix). The
Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound
which in a given situation and time period has the same energy
as does time varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating
sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of a
steady noise level with the same energy content.
d. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken along NC 60 to
determine the existing background noise levels. The purpose of
this noise level information was to quantify the existing
acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the
impact of noise level increases. The existing Leq noise levels
along NC 60 as measured at 50 feet from the roadway ranged from
59.4 to 63.3 dBA.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with
the most current traffic noise prediction model in order to
calculate existing noise levels for comparison with noise levels
actually measured. The calculated existing noise levels were
within 0.5 to 3.9 dBA of the measured noise levels for the three
locations where noise measurements were obtained. Differences
in dBA levels can be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low
traffic volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's
"evenly-spaced" vehicles and single vehicular speed.
e. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large
number of variables which describe different cars driving at
different speeds through a continual changing highway
configuration and surrounding terrain. Due to the complexity of
the problem, certain assumptions and simplifications must be
made to predict highway traffic noise.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this
study was the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA
2.0 and OPTIMA (revised March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost
Reduction) procedure is based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic
Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-71-108). The BCR traffic noise
prediction model uses the number and type of vehicles on the
planned roadway, their speeds, the physical characteristics of
the road (curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.), receptor
location and height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier
ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary
alignment was available for use in this noise analysis. The
project proposes to widen the existing 18-foot pavement with 2
to 3-foot shoulders to five lanes (60-foot pavement with 8-foot
39
grassed shoulders). Only those existing natural or man-made
barriers were included in setting up the model. The roadway
sections and proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and
at-grade. Thus, this analysis represents the "worst-case"
topographical conditions. The noise predictions made in this
report are highway-related noise predictions for the traffic
conditions during the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were
compared, and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions
were used with the proposed posted speed limits. Hence, during
all other time periods, the noise levels will be no greater than
those indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to
determine the number of land uses (by type) which would be
impacted during the peak hour of the design year 2015. A land
use is considered to be impacted when exposed to noise levels
approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria
and/or predicted to sustain a substantial noise increase. The
basic approach was to select receptor locations such as 25, 50,
100, 200, 400, 800, and 1600 feet from the center of the near
traffic lane (adaptable to both sides of the roadway). The
location of these receptors were determined by the changes in
projected traffic volumes and/or the posted speed limits along
the proposed project. The result of this procedure was a grid
of receptor points along the project. Using this grid, noise
levels were calculated for each identified receptor.
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this
project are listed in Table N3 (see page A-5 through A-7 in the
Appendix). Information included in these tables consist of
listings of all receptors in close proximity to the project,
their ambient and predicted noise levels, and the estimated
noise level increase for each.
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category
that are predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise as
a result of the proposed improvements is shown in Table N4 (see
the Appendix, page A-8). These are noted in terms of those
receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by
approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a substantial
increase in exterior noise levels. Under Title 23 CFR Part 772,
one residential receptor was determined to be impacted by
highway traffic noise as a result of the proposed improvements.
Other information included in Table N4 is the maximum extent of
the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours. This information should
assist local authorities in exercising land use control over the
remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local
jurisdiction. For example, with the proper information on
noise, the local authorities can prevent further development of
incompatible activities and land uses with the predicted noise
levels of an adjacent highway.
40
Table N5 (see page A-8 in the Appendix) indicates the
exterior traffic noise level increases for the identified
receptors in each roadway section as a result of the proposed
project. Predicted noise level increases range from +2 to +9
dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is possible to barely
detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5-dBA change is more
readily noticeable. A 10-dBA change is judged by most people as
a doubling or a halving of the loudness of the sound.
f. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic
noise levels either: [a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise
abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning within 1-dBA of the
Table N2 value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise
levels. The NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown
in the lower portion of Table N2. Consideration for noise
abatement measures must be given to all receptors which fall in
either category.
Highway Alignment
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or
vertical orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way
as to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of alternative
alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the
balance between noise impacts and other engineering and
environmental parameters. For noise abatement, horizontal
alignment selection is primarily a matter of siting the roadway
at a sufficient distance from noise sensitive areas. Changing
the highway alignment is not a viable alternative for noise
abatement.
Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type,
speed, volume, and time of operations are often effective noise
abatement measures. For this project, traffic management
measures are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due
to their effect on the capacity and level-of-service on the
proposed roadway.
Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels
can often be applied with a measurable degree of success by the
application of solid mass, attenuable measures to effectively
diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions.
Solid mass, attenuable measures may include earth berms or
artificial abatement walls. The project will maintain no
control of access, meaning most commercial establishments and
residences will have direct access connections to the proposed
roadway, and all intersections will adjoin the project at grade.
41
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction
it must be high enough and long enough to shield the receptor
from significant sections of the highway. Access openings in
the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the
barrier. It then becomes economically unreasonable to construct
a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at access
openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted
sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a
sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would normally be 8
times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For
example, a receptor located 50 feet from the barrier would
normally require a barrier 400 feet long. An access opening of
40 feet (10 percent of the area) would limit its noise reduction
to approximately 4-dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF HIGHWAY
TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-13-7976-1, USDOT, Chapter
5, section 3.2, page 5-27).
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related
establishments located along a particular highway normally
require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass,
attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to
disallow these two qualities, and thus, would not be acceptable
abatement measures in their case.
Based on the above factors, no physical abatement measures
are feasible, and none are recommended for this project.
g. "Do Nothing" Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or
"no-build" alternative were also considered. If the proposed
widening did not occur, two residences would experience traffic
noise impacts by approaching or exceeding the FHWA's NAC. Also,
the receptors could anticipate experiencing an increase in
exterior noise levels in the range of +1 to +6 dBA. As
previously noted, it is barely possible to detect noise level
changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5-dBA change in noise levels is more
readily noticed.
h. Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are
expected to be earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving.
General construction noise impacts, such as temporary speech
interference for passers-by and those individuals living or
working near the project, can be expected, particularly from
paving operations and from the earth moving equipment during
grading operations. However, considering the relatively
short-term nature of construction noise and the limitation of
construction to daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to
be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby
natural elements and man-made structures are believed to be
sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction
noise.
42
i. Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement
is not recommended, and no noise abatement measures are
proposed. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise
requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772, and unless a major
project change develops, no additional noise reports will be
submitted for this project.
2. Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from
industrial and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent
sources. Other origins of common outdoor air pollution are solid
waste disposal and any form of fire. The impact resulting from
highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution
problems to improving the ambient air conditions. The traffic is the
center of concern when determining the impact of a new highway
facility or the improvement of an old highway facility. Motor
vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons
(HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO ), and lead (Pb) (listed
in order of decreasing emission rate). AuGobiles are considered to
be the major source of CO in the project area. For this reason, most
of the analysis presented is concerned with determining expected
carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic
flow.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration for the
receptor closest to the highway project, two concentration components
must be used: local and background. The local concentration is
defined as the CO emissions from cars operating on highways in the
near vicinity (i.e., distances within 100 meters) of the receptor
location. The background concentration is defined by the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(DEHNR) as 'the concentration of a pollutant at a point that is the
result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that is, the
concentration at the upwind edge of the local sources." In this
study, the local concentration was determined by the NCDOT Traffic
Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer modeling and the
background concentration was obtained from the DEHNR. Once the two
concentration components were resolved, they were added together to
determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor in question
and to compare to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen
oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are
carried into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form
ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Area-wide automotive emissions of HC and
NO are expected to decrease in the future due to the continued
installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new
cars. Hence, the ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels in the
atmosphere should continue to decrease as a result of the
improvements on automobile emissions.
43
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide
require several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of
ozone generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the source of
hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as
sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The
emissions of all sources in an urban area mix together in the
atmosphere, and in the presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to
form ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and other photochemical oxidants. The
best example of this type of air pollution is the smog which forms in
Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources
` account for less than 7 percent of particulate matter emissions and
less than 2 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter
and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of
non-highway sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural).
Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from
automobiles are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic
on the project will cause air quality standards for particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular
gasoline. The burning of regular gasoline emits lead as a result of
regular gasoline containing tetraethyl lead which is added by
refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel. Newer cars
with catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline eliminating lead
emissions. Also, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has required the reduction in the lead content of leaded
gasolines. The overall average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was
2 grams per gallon. By 1989, this composite average had dropped to
0.01 grams per gallon. In the future, lead emissions are expected to
decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead content of
leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 make
the sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead additives
unlawful after December 31, 1995. Because of these reasons, it is
not expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause the
NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine
future CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway
improvements. "CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology For Predicting
Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections" was used to
predict the CO concentration at the nearest sensitive receptor to the
project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions
with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and
worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based
on the annual average daily traffic projections. The traffic volume
used for the CAL3QHC model was the highest volume within any
alternative. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were
44
calculated for the completion year of 1995 and the design year of
2015 using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and
the MOBILE 5A mobile source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was
estimated to be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the
Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental Management, North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.9 ppm is suitable for
most suburban/rural areas.
Upon the completion of the proposed improvements, the worst-case
air quality receptor was determined to be receptor #65 at a distance
of 45 feet from the proposed centerline of the median. The "build"
and "no-build" one-hour CO concentrations for the nearest sensitive
receptor at the end of construction for the years of 1995 and 2015
are shown in the following table:
One Hour CO Concentrations (PPM)
Nearest
Sensitive
Receptor
No-Build
1995 2015
R-65
Build
1995 2015
2.4 2.4
2.3 2.3
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS
maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour
averaging period = 9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards.
Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis is less than 9
ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the
standard. See Tables Al and A2, pages A-9 and A-10 in the Appendix,
for input data and output.
The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality
of the Asheville Regional Office of the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. The ambient air quality
for Cherokee County has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This project is not
anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this
attainment area.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials
resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition, or other operations
will be removed from the project, burned, or otherwise disposed of by
the contractor. Any burning will be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North
Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
45
Care will be taken to insure that burning will be done at the
greatest practical distance from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning
will only be utilized under constant surveillance. Also during
construction, measures will be taken to reduce the 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
x Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional
reports are necessary.
G. Construction Impacts
To minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction, the
following measures, along with those already mentioned, will be enforced
during the construction phase.
1. All possible measures will be taken to insure that the public's
health and safety will not be compromised during the movement of
any materials to and from construction sites along the project
and that any inconveniences imposed on the public will be kept
to a minimum.
2. Dust control will be exercised at all times to prevent
endangering the safety and general welfare of the public and to
prevent diminishing the value, utility, or appearance of any
public or private properties.
3. The contractor shall be required to observe and comply with all
laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees, including
those of the N.C. State Board of Health regarding the disposal
of solid waste. All solid waste will be disposed of in
accordance with the Standard Specifications of the Division of
Highways. These specifications have been reviewed and approved
by the Solid Waste Vector Control Section of the Division of
Health Services, N.C. Department of Human Resources.
4. Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas provided by the
contractor outside of the right of way unless otherwise required
by the plans or Special Provisions or unless disposal within the
right of way is permitted by the engineer. Disposal of waste
and debris in active public waste or disposal areas will not be
permitted without prior approval by the engineer. Such approval
will not be permitted when, in the opinion of the engineer, it
will result in excessive siltation or pollution.
5. An extensive rodent control program will be established for
• structures to be removed or demolished.
6. The construction of the project is not expected to cause any
serious disruptions in service to any of the utilities serving
the area. Before construction is started, a preconstruction
conference involving the contractor, pertinent local officials,
46
and the Division of Highways will be held to discuss various
construction procedures. This conference will include a
discussion of precautionary steps to be taken during
construction to minimize interruption of water service.
1. Prior to construction, it will be determined whether any
existing utilities in the project area need to be relocated or
adjusted. At that time it will also be determined whether the
NCDOT or the utility owner will be responsible for this work.
8. During construction of the proposed project, all materials
resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition, or other
operations will be burned, removed from the project, or
otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning will be
done in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and
regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan for
Air Quality. Care will be taken to insure burning is be done at
the greatest distance practicable form dwellings and not when
atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the
public. Burning will be performed under constant surveillance.
9. An erosion control schedule will be devised by the contractor
before work is started. The schedule will show the time
relationship between phases of the work which must be
coordinated to reduce erosion and shall describe construction
practices and temporary erosion control measures which will be
used to minimize erosion. In conjunction with the erosion
control schedule, the contractor will be required to follow
those provisions of the specifications which pertain to erosion
and siltation. These contract provisions are in accordance with
the strict erosion control measures as outlined in the
Department of Transportation's FHPM 6-1-3-1. Temporary erosion
control measures such as the use of berms, dikes, dams, silt
basins, etc. will be used as needed.
10. Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on
this project, the contractor shall obtain a certification from
the N.C. Department of Cultural Resources certifying that the
removal of material from the borrow source will have no effect
on any known district, site, building, structure, or object that
is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places. A copy of this certification shall
be furnished to the engineer prior to performing any work on the
proposed borrow source.
11. Traffic service in the immediate project area may be subjected
to brief disruption during construction of the project. Every
effort will be made to insure that the transportation needs of
the public will be met both during and after construction.
47
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Chronology of Coordination
1. Original (2-Lane) Start of Study Coordination
During the preparation of the State Environmental Assessment,
which was approved in September, 1991, input concerning the effects
of 2-lane improvements on the environment was requested from
appropriate federal, state, and local agencies. Listed below are the
agencies which were contacted during this start of study process for
2-lane improvements.
*U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington
U.S. Department of Interior - Washington
U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs - Washington
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Atlanta
*U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
U.S. Forest Service - Asheville
*U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
*U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
*N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources (DEHNR)
*N.C. DEHNR - Wildlife Resources Commission
*N.C. DEHNR - Division of Environmental Health
*N.C. DEHNR - Division of Land Resources
*N.C. Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
N.C. Department of Human Resources
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Region A Council of Governments
Cherokee County Commissioners
Town of Murphy
*Denotes agencies from which input was received
No major problems or objections were raised by the above
agencies. Copies of the comments received are included in the
Appendix, pages C-1 through C-20.
2. First Public Meeting (2-Lane)
A public meeting, which addressed 2-lane improvements (the
original scope of the project), was held on October 23, 1990 at
Murphy High School. The purpose of this meeting was to familiarize
local citizens with the background and intent of the proposed project
and to solicit their comments at an early stage in the planning
process. A copy of the handout provided to citizens who attended the
meeting is found in the Appendix, pages D-1 through D-4. A local
newspaper article that was run in the Cherokee Scout about the
meeting is found in the Appendix, page D-5.
48
The general feeling of the local officials and residents was a
strong desire to have a four-lane facility. Reasons stated for
wanting a four-lane facility are as follows:
1. Upcoming Olympics in Atlanta
2. General access to Atlanta
3. A possible state resort park in Cherokee County
4. Expanding development along NC 60
5. Generally, to attract development and tourists to Cherokee
County.
3. Circulation of the (2-Lane) State Environmental Assessment
The original State Environmental Assessment which addressed
2-lane improvements was approved on September 25, 1991 and was
subsequently distributed to the following federal, state, and local
agencies:
*U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington
U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Atlanta
*U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
*N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources (DEHNR)
*N.C. DEHNR - Wildlife Resources Commission
*N.C. DEHNR - Division of Environmental Management
*N.C. DEHNR - Division of Forest Resources
*N.C. DEHNR - Division of Natural Resources -
Asheville Regional Office
N.C. DEHNR - Division of Land Resources
Region A Council of Governments
Cherokee County Commissioners
*Town of Murphy
*Denotes agencies from which comments on the SEA were received
Copies of the letters received are found in the Appendix, pages
E-1 through E-17.
4. Public Hearino (2-Lane
An Open House Public Hearing was held on October 21, 1993 from
4:00 to 8:00 p.m. in the Cherokee County Courthouse Annex. At this
hearing, plans for 2-lane improvements on 2-lane right of way only
(the original project scope addressed in the State Environmental
49
Assessment) were presented. The press release advertising this
hearing is found on page F-1 in the Appendix. A copy of the handout
provided at the hearing is found on pages F-2 through F-5 in the
Appendix.
Approximately 50 people attended the hearing. Most people
supported the proposed project, agreeing that it is needed and that
it would improve safety. In fact, many people said they thought the
four-lane widening of NC 60, rather than just 2-lane improvements, is
needed. According to local thought, the traffic projections presented
in the State Environmental Assessment are too low. Citizens stated
that there are three north-south routes that local residents use to
travel to Atlanta; many residents felt if NC 60 were improved,
north-south traffic would be drawn from the other two routes to
NC 60, thereby increasing traffic volumes on NC 60. Since the public
hearing, the traffic volumes were re-evaluated to determine if they
were indeed too low. It was determined that the traffic estimates in
the SEA were accurate (see Figure 4 for these volumes).
A few attendees believed that widening was not needed and
questioned the need for the proposed 2-lane improvements.
A few citizens expressed concern over the poor site distance at
a particular driveway's junction with NC 60. They said that this
driveway, which provides access to approximately 100 homes, is a
safety hazard at its intersection with NC 60. This concern will be
addressed during the design phase of the project.
5. Second (5-Lane) Start of Study Coordination
When the project scope was expanded to include 5-lane widening,
appropriate federal, state, and local agencies were again contacted
and asked to provide input on the effects of the expanded project.
Listed below are the agencies which were contacted during this start
of study process for 5-lane widening.
*U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Asehville
U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs - Washington
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
*U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville
*U.S. Forest Service - Asheville
Chattahoochee/Oconee National Forest
*Tennessee Valley Authority
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
*N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources (DEHNR)
*N.C. DEHNR - Wildlife Resources Commission
*N.C. DEHNR - Division of Environmental Management
*N.C. DEHNR - Division of Forest Resources
50
*N.C. DEHNR - Division of Land Resources
*N.C. DEHNR - Division of Environmental Health
*N.C. DEHNR - Division of Natural Resources -
Asheville Regional Office
Region A Council of Governments
Cherokee County Commissioners
Town of Murphy
*Denotes agencies from which input was received
Copies of the letters received are found in the Appendix, pages
G-1 through G-20.
6. Second Public Meeting (5-Lane)
In order to give the public an opportunity to comment on the
proposed 5-lane widening, a second public meeting was held on
November 16, 1994 from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. in the Cherokee County
Courthouse Annex. Approximately 100 people attended. A copy of the
news release advertising the meeting is found in the Appendix on page
H-1, and a copy of the meeting handout is found on pages H-2 through
H-6.
NCDOT officials presented those present with preliminary right
of way plans.
A few people expressed doubt that 5-lane improvements were
needed. Others expressed support for the proposed widening. Most
people came to find out how the proposed action would impact their
property and to ask questions about right of way appraisal,
acquisition, and relocation procedures.
Since this second public meeting served in lieu of a public
hearing, an additional public hearing is not deemed necessary and is
not planned.
7. Coordination With the State of Georgia
A copy of the earlier State Environmental Assessment approved on
September 25, 1991 was sent to the Georgia DOT, as will be a copy of
this SEA/FONSI. The State of Georgia currently has no plans to
improve the Georgia portion of Highway 60 Spur that adjoins NC 60 at
the North Carolina State Line.
B. Agency Comments Received
Most of the comments received in response to the 5-lane start of
study letter that required responses and all of the comments received in
response to the circulated SEA and the 2-lane start of study letter are
addressed in this document. The sections of the document addressing
individual comments are noted in the right margin of the letters found in
Appendices C, E, and G. Comments received in response to the 5-lane start
of study letter which require additional responses are addressed below.
51
1. U.S. Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
Comment: "Impacts to waters of the United States mentioned in
your nformation include two bridge replacements over South Fork
Rapier Mill Creek and a new bridge over the Nottely River. The
original environmental assessment described impacts to 1.04
acres of unnamed tributaries and adjacent wetlands. The new
SEA/FONSI should fully address practicable alternatives explored
to avoid and minimize impacts to waters and wetlands, and
describe compensatory mitigation planned for any unavoidable
impacts. Temporary impacts, such as fill platforms associated
with the bridge replacements, should be addressed as well."
Response: The proposed action will upgrade an existing
aci ity. Preliminary studies found only minor jurisdictional
sites located along the existing alignment. A total of 16 sites
were identified along the project, and none of wetland areas of
anticipated impact are larger than 0.23 acre. Most of the 16
sites fall on both sides of the existing highway; therefore,
shifting the alignment would not avoid wetlands. Due to the
limited wetlands located in the project area, priority in
selecting the proposed alignment was placed on minimizing
relocatees, providing safe horizontal and vertical curvature,
minimizing cost, and enabling the maintenance of traffic during
construction. Best Management Practices will be used to insure
minimal impacts to wetlands in the project area.
2. U.S. Department of Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
a. Comment: "Candidate species are not legally protected
under t e Endangered Species] Act and are not subject to any of
its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as endangered or threatened. We are
including these species in our response in order to give you
advance notification. The presence or absence of these species
in the project impact area should be addressed in any
environmental document prepared for this project."
a. Response: NCDOT acknowledges that one or more candidate
species may exist in the project area (see Section V.D.6.b.ii.
and Table 7). Should any of these species be listed in the
future prior to the completion of the proposed construction,
additional surveys and consultations with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service will be conducted as needed.
b. Comment: "The Service's review of the environmental
document would be greatly facilitated if the document
contained... [a] description of all expected secondary and
cumulative environmental impacts associated with this proposed
work."
b. Response: Widening projects are not typically expected to
result 'insignificant secondary development because access to
the adjacent land already exists. While the NCDOT respects the
52
Service's concerns regarding this issue, the Department has no
means by which to reasonably predict secondary development and
accurately address the resulting impacts.
C. Comment: "The Service's review of the envrionmental
document would be greatly facilitated if the document
contained... mitigation measures that will be employed to avoid,
eliminate, reduce, or compensate for habitat value losses
associated with any of the proposed project."
C. Response: NCDOT does not mitigate for upland habitat
losses. For a discussion of mitigation of wetland losses, see
Section V.D.6.a.iv.
3. Tennessee Valley Authority
Comment: "Preliminary review suggests that there are five
stream or river crossings which will require an approval from
TVA under Section 26a of the TVA Act. Section 26a requires that
no dam, appurtenant works, or other obstruction, affecting
navigation, flood control, or public lands or reservations shall
be constructed without approval of TVA. TVA's 26a jurisdiction
applies to activities in the floodplains of the Tennessee
Valley. Please include information of Section 26a in any
environmental documents which are prepared for this proposed
action."
Response: In compliance with Section 26a of the TVA Act, the
Structure Design Unit of NCDOT will provide a copy of design
plans upon their completion to TVA for the Authority's approval.
4. N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
a. Comment: "We understand that the scope of the project has
changed nce the Environmental Assessment was approved in
September 1991. The North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) now proposes to construct the two-lane improvements on a
five-lane right of way rather than on a two-lane right of way."
a. Response: Since the time that this letter was received,
the project scope has changed again to include five-lane
widening on five-lane right of way.
b. Comment: "We are unable to concur with NCDOT's determi-
nation t at no further compliance with Section 106 or G.S.
121-12(a) is necessary based upon the information provided to
us. Please send a map or aerial photograph delineating the
project area, the five-lane right of way in relation to the two
improvements, the sixteen wetland areas, and the location of the
two structures over fifty years of age. Please also send
photographs of the two structures over fifty years of age if
these are readily available."
53
b. Response: Since this correspondence was received, NCDOT
supplied the SHPO with the requested information. Since neither
structure is listed on the National Register of Historic Places,
no further compliance with G.S. 121-12(a) is necessary. Since
the area of potential effect of the proposed project in the
vicinity of these two structures does not overlap any of the
wetland areas subject to a Section 404 permit issued by the Army
Corps of Engineers, NCDOT maintains that no further compliance
with Section 106 is necessary, unless initiated by the Army
Corps of Engineers (see Section V.C.2).
5. N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: "The NCWRC recommends that the environmental document
Uisc:uss adverse environmental impacts of commercial development
and urban growth resulting from highway widening. Such impacts
should be weighed against anticipated benefits of the
transportation improvements."
Response: See USFWS response, Section VI.B.2.b.
6. N.C. DEHNR - Division of Environmental Management
a. Comment: "Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized?
DEM requests that these catch basins be placed at all water
supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible party for
maintenance."
a. Response: The proposed project will not cross any water
supply stream crossings (see Section V.D.4.b. and Table 3), and
no permanent spill catch basins are recommended.
b. Comment: "Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and
temporary to be employed."
b. Response: Decisions regarding the permanent and temporary
stormwater controls will be made during final hydraulic design.
C. Comment: "Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/
waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent
practicable. Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a
wetland, the contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from
DEM."
C. Response: Wetland sites will be avoided as much as
possible in the selection of borrow/waste sites. Prior to
approving any waste/borrow sites, NCDOT will make sure that the
contractor has carried out any required additional coordination.
d. Comment: "Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments
as muci as possible? Why not (if applicable)?"
d. Response: NCDOT did utilize the existing road alignment as
much as possible. Vertical and horizontal alignment shifts are
proposed to improve safety and minimize relocations.
54
e. Comment: "To what extent can traffic congestion management
techniq` ues alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?"
e. Response: Traffic congestion management techniques would
not meet the purpose of the project, which is to improve safety
along NC 60, to encourage economic development, and to provide
multi-lane access to Georgia.
f. Comment: "Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to
help t e environmental review. The mitigation plan may state
the following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order: restoration,
creation, enhancement, and lastly banking."
f. Response: Section 404 permit discretionary authority lies
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. If the Corps deems that
mitigation is required as a condition for the Section 404
permit, NCDOT will coordinate with the Corps and other
appropriate agencies to develop mitigation plans.
7. N.C. DEHNR - Division of Forest Resources
Comment: "It appears that forestry will not be seriously
impacted as a result of the project. However, the document does
not indicate the number of woodland acres that will be lost due
to construction. We would like to know how many acres will be
lost."
Response: The project is anticipated to result in 82.1 acres of
ost woodlands (see Table 5 and Section V.D.S.a.).
VII. CONCLUSIONS
It is anticipated that the proposed project will have an overall
positive effect on Cherokee County by improving access to Atlanta and
other areas south of Cherokee County and by helping to promote economic
growth. Traffic safety will also be improved as a result of the project.
In general, the local citizens and public officials support 5-lane
widening. Therefore, five-lane widening is recommended.
Approximately 140 feet of right of way will be needed for the
proposed project. The project will result in the relocation of 18 to 20
residences and 1 to 2 businesses. Approximately 1.01 acres of wetlands
will be affected by the proposed 5-lane widening. No farmland, as defined
by the Farmland Protection Policy Act, will be affected.
55

Based on planning and environmental studies conducted, it is
anticipated that the subject project will not have a significant
detrimental effect on the quality of the human environment. The proposed
project will cause no significant changes in route classification and land
use and is not controversial in nature. The project has been reviewed by
federal, state and local agencies, and no objections have been raised.
For these reasons, it is concluded that a Combined State Environmental
Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact is applicable to the project.
MAD/plr

4

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 60
GEORGIA STATE LINE TO US 64-74
CHEROKEE COUNTY
R-2110
1 / Violet
U-ka
.wdoa•.
E R
Hiwai Tomotl
Oak 19E
? Park k ?
Postell Suit 7 N
'' 11
.,Rang 19
119
`??? . 71
1709 1308 1 03
1 Lam'
?
1130
l O
?0
' ? r
L 5 ??
b ?`
1307
7 1303
s 294
1127
s o
Ki
\
1163
Creek 1129 A Letitia ? 1300 i 1`104 Cn?

1 130
1
1 130 a 1127 e
' D ~s
11
142
131 1128 ?

. 130 1.9 .y

••
2
'
2
?? Ik
t7
/ •J _ ` •e
.. '.?;1..,.:. 1393 •?
. ,
•
1113 1114 112'
4 is 1164 1126 v Jr 1610

/
11 16 ':.;_, .:.::•. 5::1 . A 1121
? Ranger
`? 01596
8
1394
e J t ?
1
1120 ' ?
Q 1- Z
1 1 1 5 1 1 17 .3 1 10 S91hddy • • \ _'S 1602 ?..r
l ? \ - -
D t J O t0 ?ti
• P0 60
Shields ;Y; 111a z.5 1? ar`` 1e2e
- ll?o
\1d3::::'!•.•-....i:.ar:.'r::.,:.:iii:i':I(' 1396
e
1 9
116 ?h?? • e Macedonia
6x - .8
\•? • Culberson?i:y .B 1397 '.,
1 ? ,6 .6 1 599 1391
\...? . ...r . ...ate... ? Z. ?? .. ? .
t? •? F GEORGIA STATE LINE
?\pG
e?
/10 0
1593
- cS'" 7d1
Oflwi? 19 I

T e
FIG. 1

ii
i? 4 ? 1 } I. I i ti
u
mph
m
A M
Mc
?a
rn?
N

I Q C)
Z
m ?
aZ
i
t
F t + I ? l
4 ? ( 1

toe,
ray _
`
? f • ? fro ? -
;rA
low
r
R k? -
I
i
17
a
H LINE A" 4-A
r
.ice
f s.
Got
1 4.1
?I "? r•
sub
BZIV
r?
f ?.
•` err z
:s ? ?` it "? ?' ?•? ' i fl"•.;t .?,
00
00
' „ s? J+.:
j ?I v
Y 4
? or
' iii
Y:

r a,

t
r
IA
m

m
E ? ? +?'?kf . • A, _ hi III
F &V
IA ?1. ?I w.. 1 h
a?
r.
• ?k.. ? S? Seg... ?? . t.+i: ? ? ?? ? ? 2 }y '?c, _.- ?.. , r I ' I r +IQ Y {'9?? v ? _,ey .
4 Al
"?'!.. ` M ? is ? ,? MMllk !I
o.
?A

P
NC 60
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
EST. 1990/1995/2015 ADT IN HUNDREDS
NC 60 FROM US-64-74 TO GEORGIA STATE LINE
NC-60
22
.EZ m
ZZ 159
116
121 US 64-74 2
2
5
fi
z
11 SR 1123
2
2
4 SR 1122
2@ TTST 2%
22 2 DUAL 3°'0
48 2
3 2
2
SR 1595 4
1
1
22
22
46 .2
4
7 4

1 SR 1596 9
1
2
21

41 1-
1: 1
1
1
L SR 1602 2
i

21
21 1
41 Lt
2 1
2

l SR 1598 3
1
1
21
2?
4 1 41
2 1
8 2 2
2

2 1 SR 1599 4
2 1
3 2
12
1 22
1 36
2
1
1 1`1
2 22
36
NC - 60
FIGURE 4

r ?.\
1650
a
1S n c ?f `? '? ? I ?
fpo
L
NNA
1
G
5
0 V4
1\\?O \\ ('j `;....... • 1111 /'? . Q „? > \J-?- V\ O?l 1`f -' ?( ?c?`' ``• ?\ ) ?/ n
L.U 91
cc:
17\ 2
Z;z \ 1
c
c
LLI
W
r ?. 1
L?j
I?/ ?-.. -?\\ •v l?lb -''-?, li? `??f` «_ .+ 2 `` ?? ^t-- ??'' `iii /,?? ?_i_.
:,, c•?? z?, z s?
?--?-- ? ? ?L(.. ??'`.-.--`??- ?-.. •r?7 •? ? PIS
71
---
\t 44"t
,? =ice. - ? ? ° ???? ??? ? V? ?? 1 ? ?_? ? ?,j l? ? ????1 ?;
?. ? '?-???'i``' Vim. ??_ I ?S ?- I •??? ?? t°??(?? ?-?`
_ . o'er ? ` `_iB /-? ? ? - / ? / _ / • ?? ? . . , ; _ ? ? <_, ,I`?
?? `7 / ?i i , 1. ' .? l •`a ? - ?.-
A-3)
`',
o I \
r, CL
Table 8. Upland Herbaceous Flora in Study Area
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
1 Ambrosia artemisiifolia ragweed
2 Amphicarpa bracteata hog peanut
3 Asclepias spp. milkweeds
4 Cacalia atriplicifolia pale indian-plantain
5 Capsella bursa-pastoris shepherd's purse
6 Chenopodium album lamb's quarters
7 Chrysanthemum leucanthemum ox-eye daisey
8 Coreopsis tripteris coreopsis
9 Cuscuta sp. dodder
10 Daucus carota Queen Anne's lace
11 Desmodium nudiflorum beggar's ticks
12 Erigeron strigosus daisey fleabane
13 Euonymous americana strawberry bush
14 Eupatorium fistulosum Joe Pye weed
15 Euphorbia maculate euphorbia
16 Festuca spp. tall fescue
17 Gnaphalium obtusifolium rabbit tobacco
18 Heuchera americana alumroot
19 Hieracium venosum hawkweed
20 Lactuca canadensis wild lettuce
21 Lathyrus latifolius sweet-pea
22 Lepidium virginicum peppergrass
23 Lespedeza spp. lespedeza
24 Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle
25 Melilotus alba tall white clover
26 Oenothera biennis evening primrose
27 Oxalis stricta wood sorrel
28 Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia creeper
29 Phlox subulata moss pink
30 Phytolacca americana poke
31 Plantago lanceolata English plantain
32 Polystichum acrostichoides Christmas fern
33 Prunella vulgaris heal-all
34 Pueraria lobate kudzu
35 Pycnanthemum sp. mountain mint
36 Ranunculus recurvatus buttercup
37 Rosa mu)tiflora multiflora rose
38 Rubus spp. blackberry
39 Rumex crispus sourgrass
40 Sabatia angularis rose-pink
41 Schrankia microphylla sensitive brier
42 Smilax spp. greenbriers
43 Solanum carolinense nightshade
44 Toxicodendron radicans poison ivy
45 Trifolium arvense, T. pretense clovers
46 Verbascum thapsus mullein
47 Verbesina alternifolia verbesina
48 Vitis aestivalis summer grape
49 Xanthium strumarium var. glabratum cocklebur
A-1
Table 9. Upland Woody Flora in Study Area
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
1 Acer negundo box elder
2 Acer rubrum red maple
3 Amelanchier arborea serviceberry
4 Carya glabra pignut hickory
5 Carya tomentosa mockernut hickory
6 Cornus florida flowering dogwood
7 Ilex americans American holly
8 Juniperus virginiana eastern red cedar
9 Leriodendron tulipifera tulip tree
10 Ligustrum sinense privette
11 Nyssa sylvatica black gum
12 Oxydendron arboreum sourwood
13 Pinus echinata short-needle pine
14 Pinus strobus white pine
15 Pinus virginiana Virginia pine
16 Prunus serotina black cherry
17 Quercus alba white oak
18 Quercus coccinea scarlet oak
19 Quercus velutina black oak
20 Rhus copallina winged sumac
21 Rhus glabra smooth sumac
22 Rhus typhirra staghorn sumac
23 Sassafras albidum sassafras
24 Tsuga canadensis Canadian hemlock
A-2
TABLE N1
HEARING; SOUNDS BCMBAHDIND US DAILY
Ito Shotgun blast, jot 100 ft away at takenff PAIN
Motor teat chamber HUMAN EM PAIN THRESHOLD
170
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mover, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic,. noisy factory LOUD
90
D Diesel truck 40 mph SO ft. away
E HO Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum clasher
I passenger car SO Mph SO ft- away MODERATELY LOUD
B 70
E Qpiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, eveng• Office QUIET
SO
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
{0
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
whisper S feet away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEMING
Whimper JUST AUDIBLE
10
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACVPE HEARING
Sourcoes world Book, Rand McNally Atlas CC the Rumem Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Raise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and I. R. HarCOrd
(Researched by R. Jane Bunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Beinz.)
A-3
TABLE N2
NOISE ASATFXENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Bound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area in to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 57 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 27 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE .
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 13
> So > 10 ,
Sources Borth Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
A-4
TABLE N3 1/3
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPCSVRFS
NC 60 (5 Lanes)
From Georgia State Line to U9 61-74, Cherokee County
State Project# 6.9110101 TIPIR-2110
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
1 ID I LAND VSI CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
From Georgia State Line to SR 1123
1 Residence B NC 60 30 L 62 NC 60 10 L --------------------R/w--------------
2 Residence B '• 40 R 60 •' 70 R - - 64 + 4
3 Residence B " 105 R 55 '• 35 R --------------------R/w--------------
4 Residence a " 60 R 58 •' 90 R - 62 + 4
5 Business C '• 35 R 61 " 65 R - - 65 + 4
6 Residence S " 60 R 36 105 R - - 61 + 5
7 Residence a 105 R SS ^ 135 R - - 59 + 4
a Business C 50 R 59 " 75 R - - 64 + 5
9 Residence a " 145 L 52 120 L - - 60 + 6
' 10 Business C '• SO L 59 70 L - - 64 • 5
From SR 1123to SR 1596
12 Residence B NC 60 225 R 49 NC 60 235 R - - 54 + 5
13 Residence B '• 100 R 56 '• 125 R - - 60 + 4
14 Residence B 165 R 52 " 140 R - 59 + 7
15 Residence B '• 65 R 59 ^ 115 R - - 61 + 2
1SA Residents B 115 R 55 ^ 150 R - - 58 + 3
16 Residence B ^ 130 L 54 ^ 155 L - - SB + 4
17 Residence B " 130 L 32 ^ 125 L - - 60 + B
13 Residence B '• 205 L SO ^ 160 L - - 57 + 7
20 Residence B '• 143 L 53 120 L - - 60 + 7
22 Residence B « 160 L 12 ^ 135 L - - 59 + 7
23 Residence B •• 275 R 48 ^ 260 R - - 53 + 5
24 Residence B ^ 295 L 45 ^ 270 L - - 52 + 6
25 Residence B ^ lea L 51 '• 155 L - • - SS + 7
27 Residence B '• 273 R 47 ^ 300 R - - 51 + 4
26 Residence B SO L 60 ^ 25 L --------------------R/W--------------
29 Residence B ^ 135 R 53 « 155 R - - 58 + 5
30 Res ldence B ^ 113 R 55 ^ 140 R - - 59 + 4
• « ..
]I Residence B 240 L 48 215 L - SS * 7
32 Residence E ^ 283 L 46 ^ 260 L - - 53 * 7
33 Residence B ^ 325 L 43 ^ 300 L - - 51 + 6
34 Residence B ^ 230 L 48 ^ 225 L - - SS + 7
35 Residence B « 90 L 36 ^ 65 L - - 65 + 9
I NOTES Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-«? Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--a Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/ interior (38/48). - «> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-5
TABLE N3
2/3
Leq TRAFFIC NOISY EXPOSURES
NC 50 (5 Lanes)
From Georgia State Line to US 64-74, Cherokee County
State Project# 6.9110101 TIPIR-2110
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID 1 LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL RAMS DISTANCE(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
From SR 1123 to SR L596 (Cont'd)
36 Residence B NC 60 220 L 49 NC 60 195 L - - 56 . 7
30 Residence B '• 125 L 54 " 100 L - - 62 + 8
39 Residence B " 105 R 56 •' 130 R - - 60 . 4
40 Residence B " 05 L 57 " 60 L - - 65 + 8
41 Residence B •' 235 L 48 " 210 L - - 55 + 7
42 Residence B '• 190 R 50 " 215 R - - 55 + 5
42A Residence a " 175 R 51 '• 200 R - - 56 . 5
43 Residence B 235
. R 48 " 260 R - - 53 • 5
44 Residence_ B 205
" R 50 •' 230 R - - 54 + 4
45 Business C " 100. R 56 " 125 R - - 60 + 4
46 Residence 8 '• 90 .R 56 " 115 R - - 61 . 5
47 Residence a '• 150 R 52 175 R - - 57 + 5
46 Residents B •' 50 L 60 '• 25 L --------------------R/W----------- ---
49 Residence B '• 160 A 52 •' 1B5 R '- - 56 + 4
50 Residence B " 265 L 47 " 240 L - - 54 + 7
51 Residence a •• 155 R 52 " 130 R - - 60 + B
52 Residence a ^ 115 R 55 " 90 R - - 63 + B
54 Residence B " 45 L 61 " 70 L - - 65 + 4
55 Residence B " 310 L 45 " 335 L - - SO + 5
56 Residence B '• 290 L 46 " 315 L - - 51 + 5
57 Residence B •' 125 L 54 '• 150 L - - 58 + 4
58A Residence B " 90 R 56 ^ 65 A - - 65 + 9
58B Residence B '• 225 R 49 " 200 R - - 56 + 7
SBC Residence B " 235 R 48 '• 210 A - - 55
+ + 7
500 Residence B ^ 260 R 47 " 235 R - - 54 + 7
59 Residence B '• 50 L 60 " 75 L - - 64 + 4
60 Residence 9 '• 145 L 53 " 170 L - - 57 + 4
61 Residence a " 100 R 56 ^ 75 R - - 64 + B
62 Residence 8 ^ 170 L 51 ^ 195 L - - 56 + S
64 Residence B ^ 165 L 32 ^ 190 L - 56 + 4
65 Residence a ^ 70 R 58 ^ 45 R - • 67 . 9
66 Residence B ^ 110 L 55 " 135 L - - 59 + 4
67 Residence a " 170 L 51 ^ 145 L - - 59 + 8
NOTE: Distances are fres center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level Contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--a Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). • e> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-3
TABLE N3 1/]
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EMOSURES
NC 60 (5 Lanes)
From Georgia State Line to US 64-74, Cherokee County
V
State Project# 6.9110101 TIPIR-2110
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
ID I LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM
From SR 1596 to US 64-74

68 Residence B NC 60 245 L 51 RC 60 220 L - -
69 Residence B " 40 R 64 " 65 R ------------
70 Residence B 285 L 49 '• 260 L - -
71 Residence a '• 60 L 62 " 15 L ------------
72 Residence B '• 160 R 54 " 205 R - -

NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
55 • 4
--R/W--------------
57 • 4
--R/W--------------
56 • 2
NOTE: Distances are from center of the skistinq or proposed roadways. -L--? Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as a:Rarior/interior (58/48). • -? Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-7
TABLE N4
TWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 60 (5 Lanes)
From Georgia State Line to US 64-74, Cherokee County
State Project/ 6.9110101 TIP1 R-2110
Maximum Predicted Contour Approximate Number of Impacted
Leq Noise Levels Distances Receptors According to
dBA (Maximum) Title 23 CFR Part 772
Description 50' 100' 200' 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E
1. Georgia State Line to SR 1123 64 60 54 <49, <491 0 0 0 0 0
2. SR 1123 to SR 1596 54 60 55 <491 51' 0 1. 0 0 0
3. SR 1596 to US 64-74 65 61. 56 449' 56, 0 0 0 0 0
TOTALS 0 1 0 0 0
NOTES - 1. 501, 1001, and 200' distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of orooosed roadway.
TABLE N5
TRAFFIC WISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
NC 60 (5 Lane*)
'
From Georgia State Line to US 54-74, Cherokee County
State Project) 6.9110101 TIPI R-2110
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Due
Section Noise Level to Both
<.0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25 Increases(1) Criteria(2)
1. Georgia Line to SR 1123 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
2. SR 1123 to SR 1596 0 15 36 0 0 0 0 0 0
3. SR 1596 to US 64-74 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTALS 0 21 40 0 0 0 0 0 0
(1) Am defined by only a substantial Increase (See bottom of Table 92).
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2.
A-8
TABLE Al
F;VE LANES
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: R-2110: NC 60 Cherokee County RUN: NC 60 5-Lanel995, BUILD 55 MPH
DATE: 07/20/1994 TIME: 21:54:24.60
A
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS - .0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION
1. Far Lane Link 11.0 -804.7 11.0 804.7 1609. 360. AG 160. 17.6 .0 13.4
2. Near Lane Link .0- 804.7 .0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 160. 17.6 .0 13.4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
VD - .0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
CLAS - 6 (F) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 400. M AMB - 1.9 PPM
LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEC) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R65, 45' LT. CL RES .0 1.8
JOB: R-2110: NC 60 Cherokee County RUN: NC 60 5-Lane1995, BUILD 55 MPH
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM) ,
` (DEGR) REC1
MAX 2.4
DEGR. 3
A-9
TABLE A2
FIVE LANES
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: R-2110: NC 60 Cherokee County RUN: NC 60 5-Lane2015, BUILD 55 MPH
DATE: 07/20/1994 TIME: 21:54:36.41
SITE a METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
Vs . .0 CM/S VD - .0 CM/S 20 - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 6 (F) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 400. M AMB - 1.9 PPM
LINK DESCRIPTION I LINK COORDINATES (M) I LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1. Far Lane Link 11.0 -804.7 11.0 804.7 1609. 360. AG 264. 9.8 .0 13.4
2. Near Lane Link .0 604.7 .0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 264. 9.8 .0 13.4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
e
1. R65, 45' LT. CL RES -8.2 .0 1.8
JOB: R-2110: NC 60 Cherokee County RUN: NC 60 5-Lane2015, BUILD 55 MPH
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REC1
MAX 2.4
DEGR. 4
A-10
p VISED
FR E-;; L_ O C A T I O N R E R O R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. - CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 6.911010 COUNTY. Cherokee _ Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate
I.D. NO.: B-2110 F.A. PROJECT: -
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 60 From the Georgia State Line to US 19-64-74
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of Minor-
Displacee Owners Tenants Total ities
0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-SOM 50 LP
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'
Families 11 6 17 0 1 7 5 1 3
Businesses 1 1 2 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent , Y
Non-Profit 0 0 ? 0? ?-20M 0
- $ 0-150 1 0-20M 4 $ 0-150 0
ANSWER ALL QUEST IONS _ 20-40M 3 150-250 2 20-40M 15 150-250 2
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 413-70M -5-- 250-400 3 40-70M 33 250-400 3

?-- X
? 1. WIII special relocation
services be necessary 70-100 1
--?
?•
? 400-600 0
-
- 70-100
t 25

1 400-600

0 Lj l 3

0
-

1 1
x 1
2. W i l l schools or churches be 1
100 U
P I 2
600 IF 0
LP
oo
10
60
••-
--
affected by displacement
ill
TOTAL 11-?
1-6-
1 87 8
3. Will business services st I
t F A -- - -
- -----
be available after projec
X 4. WIII any business be dis- I REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of 3. The project will not disrupt business services
minorities, etc
lo
ees in the area.
X .
,
emp
y
Will relocation cause a
S 4. Two small businesses are affected by the project.
.
shorta
e
Housin (a) A small retail grocery (Bryers Grocery Store)
X g
g
6. Source for available hous- occupies 2,500 SF with two (2) employees
(list)
i and no minorities.
X ng
7. Will additional housing (b) An automotive repair shop (Certified
rams be needed
o Automotive Electronic Specialists) occupies
x pr
g
8. Should Last Resort Housing 1,800 SF with two (2) employees and no
be considered minorities.
X 9. Are there large, disabled, 6. Blake Realty of Murphy, NC supplied the housing
families
etc
elderl Information..
.
y,
*%ER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN 8. As necessary in accordance with State law.
X 10. Will public housing be 11. Four Square Community Action, Jerry Sherrill,
needed for project 321-4475.
X 11. Is public housing avail- 12. From Information supplied by local realtors,
able newspapers, and numerous on-site "for sale" signs
x 12. Is it felt there will be ad- 14. Blake Realty of Murphy, N. C.
equate DDS housing available
relocation period
durin
g
X 13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial
means

x 14. Are suitable business sites
available (list source)

15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION 12 MOS.

1-25-95
Relocation ent Date
For 15.4 Revised 5/90
REVISED
B-1
(.,Z_ ,?- 1-31-95
Approved Date
Original & 1 Copy' State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
._

?qty DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
J WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1890
J
_ October 17, 1990
IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Division
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
I I ?vC'

d

cn

o

We have reviewed your letter of August 27, 1990, requesting
information for "NC 60, from the Georgia State Line to OS 19-64-74,
Cherokee County, State Project No. 6.911010, T.I.P. #R-2110" and
offer the following comments.
n
0
0

Department of the Army 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 in waters
of the United States or any adjacent and/or isolated wetlands in
conjunction with this project, including disposal of construction
debris. Under our mitigation policy, impacts to wetlands should
first be avoided or minimized. We will then consider compensation
or mitigation for unavoidable impacts. When final plans are
completed, including the extent and location of any work within
waters of the United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch
would appreciate the opportunity to review these plans for a
project-specific determination of Department of the Army permit
requirements. Should you have any-questions, please contact
Mr. David Baker-, Regulatory Branch, at [phone].
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project.
If we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate
to contact us.
Sincerely,
1 "--wrence W. Saunders
Chief, Planning Division

VI.B.1.,
V'.B.6.f.
C-1
I
United States Department of the Interior ?•
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
ASHEVILLE FIELD OFFICE
100 OTIS STREET, ROOM 224 ¦
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801
_? C £I?
L
September 14, 1990 (,t
Yj
Fp 1
9po
M
r. L. J. Ward, P.E. ,Ma
nager, Planning and Research Branch North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Sax 25201 " '.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 -
Dear Mr. Ward:
Subject: Proposed widening of NC 60 from the Georgia state line to
US 19-64-74 in Cherokee County, North Carolina (State Project
No. 6.911010, TIP No. R-2110)
This responds to your letter of August 27, 1990 (received August 30, 1990),
requesting our comments on the subject proposal. These comments are
provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish Ad Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543)...
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is particularly concerned about the
potential impacts the proposed action may have on stream'-and wetland
ecosystems within the project impact area. Preference should.be given.,to
alternative alignments, stream crossing structures, and construction-
techniques that avoid and/or minimize encroachment and impacts to these
resources.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if the document contained the following information:
(1) A complete analysis and comparison of all available alternatives IV•
including the no action alternative.
n
(2) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within V.C...?.
existing and required additional rights-of-way and any areas,
g such as borrow areas, which may be affected directly or
indirectly by the proposed improvements.
(3) Acreage and descriptions of branches, creeks, streams, rivers, or
wetlands which will be filled as a consequence of proposed V.D.6.
highway improvements. Wetlands affected by the proposed project
should be mapped in accordance with the Federal Manual for
(4) Linear feet of any water courses which will be relocated as a
consequence of the proposed improvements.
C-2
(5) Acreage of upland habitats, by cover type, which will be
eliminated as a consequence of proposed highway improvements.
(6) Techniques which will be employed for designing and constructing
any relocated stream channels or for creating replacement
wetlands.
(7) Description of all expected secondary and cumulative
environmental impacts associated with this proposed work. •.B.2.b.
" (8) Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate,
reduce, or compensate for habitat value losses associated with VI.B.2.c.
any of the proposed improvements.
Based on our records there are no federally listed or proposed endangered
or threatened species within the impact area of the proposed action. In
view of this, we believe that requirements of Section 7(c) of the
Endangered Species Act, as amended (Act), are fulfilled. However,
obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new
.information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
endangered or threatened species or critical habitat in manner not
previously considered; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner
not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or critical
habitat determined that may be affected by the action.
y VI.8.2.a.
Although our records indicate there are no federally listed or proposed
species within the project vicinity, we have enclosed a list of species
that are currently under status review by the Service which may occur in
the project impart area, Status review species are not legally protected
under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed
as endangered/threatened. We are including these species in our response
for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These species may be
listed in the future, at which time they will be protected under the Act.
In the meantime we would appreciate anything you might do to avoid
affecting these species.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and request that
you continue to keep us apprised on the progress of this project. In any
future correspondence concerning this project, please reference our log
number 4-2-90-092.
9
Sincerely,
o
V. Gary Henry
Acting Field Supervisor

Enclosure

c-3
cc:
Section Manager, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Archdale
Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 21611
Mr. Charles Roe, Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Plant Conservation Program,
P.O. Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611
Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, Box 26806,
Raleigh, NC 27611
Field Supervisor, FWS, P.O. Box 33726, Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
10 V,

Z
0
J
6
1
C-4
IN REPLY REFER TO
LOG NO. 4-2-90-092
STATUS REVIEW SPECIES
"Status Review" (SR) species are not legally protected under the Endangered
Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including
Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
endangered/threatened. We are including these species in our response for
the purpose of giving you advance notification. These species may be
listed in the future, at which time they will be protected under the
Endangered Species Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you
might do to avoid impacting them.
MAMMALS
Rafinesque's big-eared bat - Plecotus rafinesquii
AMPHIBIANS
Hellbender - Cryatobranchus alleganiensis
FISHES
Olive darter - Percina sauamata
PLANTS
Yellow fringeless orchid - Platanthera integrilabia
v
s
2 ?
n
O
? O
4r
1
C-5
Z
an./J3
(r r?
4PM-FAB/DM
345 COURTLANO STREET. N.E.
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365
OCT 2 4 1990
Mr. L.J. Ward, Manager
Planning and Research
1 North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
J,1 ?,r a
0199
?AHCH?'
Subject: Upgrade of NC 60 from Georgia State Line to US 19-64-74
Cherokee County, NC; State Project No. 6.911010
Dear Mr. Ward:
We have reviewed your advanced information for the above referenced
project. Because of the limited nature of the information provided,
it is difficult to make substantive comments at this time. However,
we are able to make some generic comments as well as provide some
specific comments.
Enclosed is a list of special environmental concerns relating to
potential .impacts from highway construction projects. As you can
see, potential impacts to water quality, wetlands, and air quality
due to the construction and use of the proposed facility must be
investigated. Noise related impacts due to the project must also be
documented. Potential 'impacts to aquatic life, wildlife, and
protected or sensitive species of the area should also be
investigated and discussed. All potential environmental impacts and
ways to minimize them should be carefully evaluated in your draft
environmental document and this evaluation should be conducted for
each project alternative, including the no-build alternative.
Also, we note in the information provided that several streams and V.D.6.
-freshwater wetlands are in the project corridor. Disturbance of
these areas should be avoided and project alternatives that do not
impact wetlands and streams
impacts associated with the
the reason that the impacts
explained. If alternatives
o disturbance of these areas,
damage should be included ir.
must be investigated. Any unavoidable
project must be carefully documented and
are unavoidable must be thoroughly
are evaluated that indicate possible
a complete plan for mitigation of any
the document.
An additional area of concern that needs to be addressed is non=point
source pollution from the highway. We encourage the use of best VI.B.6.a.
management practices to control non-point source pollution and
prevent pollutants contained in highway runoff water from entering
area waterways. These control methods could include the use of
closed bridge drainage systems, retention basins, grassed swales or
other techniques. Consideration for the potential impact that the
roadway could have on area drinking water sources and the potential
-- C-6 Printed on Recycled Pape
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
-2-
V
.?
for hazardous materials being spilled into the waterways should also
be addressed. Also, the corridors under consideration should be
investigated for the presence of acidic shales. In Appalachian
areas, acid bearing shales will occasionally be encountered during V.D.S.
excavation. In some cases, serious water quality problems can occur
from runoff from disturbed areas that contain these shales.
Therefore, a careful survey of the routes must be made so the areas
that contain the shales can be identified and avoided. If the shales
are encountered in the right-of-way, a complete contingency plan for
handling these shales in an environmentally acceptable manner should
be included in the document. Also, a monitoring plan for streams
that drain the project area, especially areas that contain the acidic
shales, should be presented in the document. This monitoring should
be conducted before, during and after construction. The stream
monitoring would be used to determine if the water quality of area
streams is impacted by construction activities and indicate if
further mitigation is required. Finally, the routes must be examined
for hazardous materials that may be present in permitted or
unpermitted dump sites.
Highway construction.. in mountainous areas requires extremely diligent
efforts to control erosion from the project due to the steepness of
the terrain and the large number of streams. Large areas of cut and V.G.
fill in the steep slopes also require special construction techniques
to prevent erodable material from entering and degrading streams.
The special construction techniques that will be used to control
erosion from the project site should be completely discussed in the
document.
Since overall environmental impacts associated with improvement of
the existing roadway corridor can be much less environmentally
harmful than constructing a new corridor, we encourage you to
continue to give serious consideration to the alternative that
utilizes the current roadway alignment. We appreciate the
opportunity to provide comments to you early in the SEPA review
K process. Please continue to keep us informed about the progress of
' this project and provide copies of environmental documents when
available. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please
contact David Melgaard of my staff at [phone] or (FTS)
257-3776.
Sincerely,
?" %UIVV
Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
Environmental Policy Section
Federal Activities Branch
C-7
The following list is a generalized synopsis of special concerns
relevant to generic highway projects.
Wetlands/Water Quality G „ t, p =.-.
° Protection of wetlands pursuant to the Section 404(h) Guidelines
of the Clean Water Act
° Avoiding/minimizing wetland activities such as:
* channel realignments
* dredging and filling
* flow alterations causing wetland drainage or flooding
* erosion and siltation
* habitat loss
* disturbance of rare and endangered species
4.
Conformance with Executive order 11988 ("Floodplain Manage-
ment") and Executive Order 11990 ("Protection of Wetlands"),
if federal funds are involved
Avoidance of environmental impacts and feasible mitigation
for unavoidable impacts (e.g.,.wetland creation and restora-
tion).
° Construction impacts (e.g., erosion)
° Public complaints concerning construction-related wetland altera-
tion and state mechanisms to properly address them.
Air Ouality V.F.2.
Conformance with National Ambient Air Ouality Standards
(NAAOS) of the Clean Air Act to determine whether a site is
located in an attainment, non-attainment, or unclassified
area
° Conformance with the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
° Conformance with the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) regulations
° Conformance with EPA and state modeling guidance
0
Existing and predicted levels of various relevant air-
quality parameters such as carbon monoxide .(CO).
e o Public complaints concerning construction-related fugitive
emissions.
Noise
Conformance of on-site existing (ambient) and project
predicted noise levels with FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria

• -- C-8
(-NAC) guidelines for commercial/industrial receptors
(L10=75dBA; Leq=72dBA) and residential/institutional
receptors (L10=70dBA; Leq=67dBA). Preferred descriptors
for existing, predicted, and NAC levels are Leq(1) or L10.
The hour (1) of the Leq(1) descriptor should be defined
(e.g., peak rush hour). Leq(24) values are also helpful
in association with Leq(1) data. Ambient levels should
be measured,at representative sites rather than estimated.
Preferably, determinations for predicted noise levels
should be made for all noise receptors along the entire
highway corridor (as opposed to just specific sites
along the corridor) affected by the project and should
be compared with existing (ambient) noise levels. The
name of the FHWA-approved noise model (e.g., STAMINA)
used for predictions should be listed. The number of
project-affected noise receptors should be arranged
into the following groups:
* receptors receiving an increase of 5-9 dBA
* receptors receiving an increase of 10-14 dBA
* receptors receiving an increase of 15 dBA and greater.
Those receptors receiving a noise increase resulting in
a level above their NAC should be indicated. Inclusion
of actual ambient vs. predicted noise levels would be
beneficial to an evaluation (e.g., 60dBA elevated to
75dBA L10 for a given receptor). It would be of parti-
cular interest to know how many decibels a predicted
level exceeded the NAC for all so-affected receptors.
° Project-related ;noise level elevations: all project-generated
noise increases above the existing site noise level are
considered impacts, but particularly if above design
levels, if elevated 10 dBA or more, and/or if long
termed. An increase of 5-9 dBA is considered important,
a 10-14dAA is considered substantial, and a 15 dBA and
greater increase is considered severe, even if the
resultant elevated noise levels are below the NAC.
Feasible mitigation of project-generated increases above
the NAC should be accomplished and feasible mitigation
for increases of 10•dBA or more (below the NAC) should
be considered. Mitigation should at least be at the
level of FHPM 7-7-3 guidance.
° Additional helpful information includes the existing and
o predicted percentage of trucks using the'old/new highway.
? o
° Construction 'impacts (e.g., construction machinery, pile
driving, blasting)
L Also of concern are public complaints concerning construc-
tion-related noise emissions and state mechanisms to
properly address them.
C-9

DePar
United States
Dopartment of
Agriculture
O
Soil
Conservation
Servico
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation-
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
4405 Bland Road, Suite 205
Raleigh, NC 27609.
Telephone:-[phone]
November 19, 1990
r ??. (;r n
We are unable to complete your request for Important FarmlatiZnlfformation at
this time. The soil survey for Cherokee County has not been completed. We
regret the negative response.
Sincerely,
Bobbye Jones
State Conservationist

poolz
Gudcca i•..:.. _ _.. t:rtaa::
nuiier
tJotwozd hcdwiduk
tdodlin r'r_i,b _ Springer
Tewcll Elmore _
Grimes
s
© The Soi Conservation Service
is an agency of the
DeParuuant of Agroculture
C-10
5TATZ
s X? s,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
June 5, 1991
MEMORANDUM
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
TO: B. J. O'Quinn
Assistant Branch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Trans ortation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State His oric Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: NC 60 from the Georgia State Line to
US 64-74, R-2110, GS 91-0102
Thank you for your letter of April 4, 1991, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no National Register-
listed properties located within the planning area. Therefore, we concur that no
further compliance with G.S. 121-12(a) is required.
However, we have located the following structure of historical or architectural
importance within the general area of the project:
Hyatt House. South side of SR 1599, 0.1 mile southeast of the junction
with NC 60, Culberson.
Since the last historic and architectural inventory of Cherokee County was v . C. 2.
conducted in 1981, we feel there may be other properties in the project area of
which we are unaware and.that we would now consider historically or
architecturally significant. We are especially concerned because we can see on
the USGS topographical map that the houses along NC 60 aye located very close
to the roadway.

Also, please note that the Western Office of the Division of Archives and History
requires that an appointment be made to view their maps and files. Members of
our staff noticed that your architectural historian used the Western Office files on
April 2 and 3, 1991. However, our staff was not informed of which project was
being investigated or which files were needed. This means that files could have
been missed or overlooked by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
architectural historian and thereby invalidate her findings.
109 EastJones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone]
C-11
While we note that this project is to be state funded, the potential for federal
permits may require further consultation and compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act. '
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive '
. XVI. If you have an Order
Earley, environmental review coo dinator, at 919%7334763tact Renee Gledhill-
DB:slw
' cc- B.
Church

s
y

C-12
1%u RI rl k?. r, tx fin.. J a -6 C l.L C,+ n A. i I lJ I J?
FM208• DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET C,CI?J?rI
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27611 _
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
MAILED TO FROM
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
L.J. WARD - DIRECTOR
PLANNING E ENV. BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
HIGHWAY BLDG./INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SOLICITING COMMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO NC 601
FROM THE GEORGIA STATE LINE TO US 19-16-74 IN CHEROKEE
COUNTY (TIP R-2110)
SAI NO 91E42200159 PROGRAM TITLE - SCOPING
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED ( ) NO'COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X ) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
X.C. REGION A
n
0
o

C-13
I let
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

n
1
0
It o
I
James G. Martin, Governor Douglas G. Lewis
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Z2324Director
4i ^ Planning and Assessment
OCT 1990 ?'
_1 w
`D RECENED w
? SECAE11+i(YS OFFICE . _ ,
MEMORANDUM DOA
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Bill Flournoy
RE: 91-0159 - Scoping - Upgrade of NC 60 from the
Georgia State Line to US 19-64-74, Cherokee County
DATE: October 19, 1990
The Department of Environment, Health, and'Natural Resources
(EHNR) has reviewed the proposed project. Please find attached
EHNR's comments which include several concerns that need to be
addressed before moving forward with the upgrading of NC 60 from
the Georgia State Line to US 19-64-74.
If there are any questions, please advise.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
WLF:bsb
Attachments

P.O. Box 27687. Palcigh, North Carulilu 27611.76X7 Tclc;hone 919.733.6376
C-14
--- U/ F S,
olina Wildlife Resources Co slop=
0 North Car
512 N. Salisbury Screet, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
. Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
i
I
I
t
.I
"l
7;
0
0
D

MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Melba McGee, Planning
Dept. of Environment,
Richard B. Hamilton
Assistant Director
October 10, 1990
Scoping comments
from US 19-64-74
t Line State
and Assessment
Health & Natural Resources
8. day" for the planned upgrade of NC 60
to the North Carolina-Georgia
T.I.P.
Project No. 6.911010,
e
?R-2110.
The Wildlife Resources Comm rdslofnNChas DOTrandeprofessional
information provided by L. J-
biologists on our staff famiiliar with on
the project qLrea. An onsi e
1990 for the purpose of further assessing
October 2,
construction impacts on wildlife and fisherieSoresources.
visions of
Our comments are provided in accordance with Pr s
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401,
C. 661 et seq.), and North Carolina General
amended; 16 U.S.
Statutes (G-S- 110-131 et. seq.).
V.D.4.,
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission is V D 5.b
the potential adverse impa
concerned about cts of rolect
proposed project on fish and wildlife along the project
route. The present NC 60 crosses the Nottely River,
Mill Creek and at least 3 unnamed tributadoes nottoavoidthe
River. Proposed constructs plans
minimize the negative impacts to these habitats may cause
damage. While the quality of the fisheries habitat
acin the es
River has been reduced by land disturbing
Nottely dro ower operation its fisheries are
and by an upstream by p
still utilized by the public. The Nottely River and
spawning
possible the other streams also support a spring run of white bass and walleye. Any construction work which
the late winter and early spring months could
occurs during awning success of these
decrease or eliminate the sp
important species.
C-15'
ew rage vc:oper ?0, lyyo
-In addition to an erosion control plan and other
activities which decrease the negative impacts of =
construction, we require that all wetlands and stream losses
due to construction- be mitigated by replacement of these
habitats with areas of equal habitat value. If replacement
of wetlands or a stream channel change is needed with the
final road alignment, plans should be made during the right-
of-way acquisition period to acquire land for this
mitigation; however, we prefer avoidance over mitigation.
Any construction plans requiring filling of wetlands will
R require a 404 permit and NCWRC will be a review agency for
the Corps of Engineers.
On this project there exists an excellent opportunity
for DOT to mitigate negative impacts caused by this project
?j or other projects which may result in the loss of fisheries
habitat. Between the two Rapier Mill Creek bridges the
creek passes through a pasture in which livestock have
access to the full length of the creek. DOT could work with
the Soil Conservation Service (through their cost-share
program) to develop a plan were by the livestock would be
fenced out of the creek. The Wildlife Resources Commission
would consider this mitigation for lost habitat due to
filling of wetlands or other negative impacts from this
project or other road projects within the DOT district.
since all streams affected by this project are either trout
waters or tributaries to trout waters.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our comments
concerning this project. If we can provide further
assistance, please contact us.
RBH/lp
cc: Micky Clemmons, D-9 Fisheries Biologist
Joffrey Brooks, D-9 Wildlife Biologist
Robert Johnson, Army Corps of Engineers
J
0
0
0
C-16
r
D£PARTf< NT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH Project Number
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENYIRONMENTAL HEALTH CoNn1ty
Ater-Agency Projocf Review Response C/?.•-Ie lc_c_1 ,
Project Nam,_ (!p (7 ,? y (?S G
Typo of Pro Jact
The following are our comments on the abovo roforonced subject.
The applicant should Do AdYlsed that plan; *and specificatlons for all water system Improvemants
e must be approved by the DlYlslon of Environmental Health prior to the award of a contract or the
Initiation of constructlon (as requlrod by 10 NCAC 100 .0900 et. saq.). For Information, contact
the Publlc Water Supply Section, [phone].
+ Several water liner, possibly are located In tho path of an adjacent to the proposed, project.
Due to a possible rupture during construction, the contractor should contact The appropriate water
system officials to specify o work schedule.
L", The proposed project will be constructed near rotor rosourcos which are used for drinking. Precoutic
should be taken To prevent contamination of the watershed and stream by ol1 or other harmful :ubstoiiL
Additional Information Is availablo by contacting the Public Notcr Supply Section at [phone].
Back flow prevontors should be Installed on all Incoming potable water lines. Additional Informotlor
Is available by contacting The Public Water Supply Sectlnn of (919) 733-232).
This project will be classified as a community public water supply and must comply with state
and fooeral drinking water monitoring requirements. For more InformhTlon the applicant thnuld
C0474CT the Public Slater Supply Section. [phone].
It this project Is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of adjacent
waters to the harvest of shelltish. For InformaTlon regarding the shellilsn sanitotlon program,
the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation branch [phone].
The applicant should be advised to contact tho local health deporrment regarding their requlrements
for septic tank Installations (as required under 10 NCAC IDA .1900 eT. suq. and/or sanitary tacllltic
requirements for This project It applicable.) For information concerning septic tank and other
on-slto waste disposal methods, contact the On-site Sewage Branch at [phone].
V? The applicant should be advised that prior to The removal or demolition of dilapidated structural,
on extensive rodent control project may be necessary In order to prevent the migration of the
rodents to adjacent areas. For Information concerning rodent control, contacT 'rho local health
o
departmont or the Public-Health Post Haneigement Section [phone].
o ?. The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mOsqulto breeding problem.
` For Information concerning approprlate•mosqulto contro: tonsures. the applicant should contact
the Public Hoalln'PesT Manhgement ;eetloa at (919) 7334:(11.
? r
Ruviwwer Grdncn/U it Jain
I
C-17
a r?
VJ.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
nes G, Martin, Governor
Mam W. Cobey, Jr., Seuetary

r
Charies H. Gardner
Director

OCT 1990 ?
MEMORANDUM °
ECEI SE?
cE
_
R
Ft
Date: September 10, 1990 C'1 p

To:
Melba McGee %
?/ qA
Cow

From: Randy Cotten

Thru : Gary Thompson 0V-N
Subject: 91-0159, Cherokee County , NC 60, from the
Georgia state line to US 19-64-74,
State Project 6.911010, TIP R-2110
We have reviewed the above referenced project and find
that 2 geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
The N.C. Geodetic Survey should be contacted at P.O.
Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611, [phone] prior to
construction. Intentional destruction of a geodetic-
monument is a violation of N.C. General'Statute 102
GWT/ajs
cc: Joe Creech. NCDOT
0
I
a
0
r

1
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleig#r; N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
M Eau, i nnoonuniry Aflirrnnnve Acrrn% Unnlnver
C-18

to
hays
days)
'0 days
V!A
days
IrA)
lays
days)
lays
clays)
j rys
lays)
lays
laysl
plan
rely.
ays
ays)
ay
q
ly
i
I
ays
ys
I1
i
i

f
tt/,
4i
I
r
G
North Carolina Depart
James C. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
October 25, 1990
We have received notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning
the above project, a-s well as the archaeological survey report by
Thomas Padgett.
d
.n

MaMORANDUM y? SI G l Z?
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager ,
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
Fl.OM: David Brook, Deputy State / ?C/???v
Historic Preservation Officer (((
SUBJECT: Upgrading 14C 60 from Ceorgia State Line
to US 19-64-74, Cherokee County, State
Project 6.911010, TIP R-2110, Cli 91-E-4220-0159,
CS 91-0013
During the course of the survey one previously recorded site was located V•C,1.
within-the project area. Hr. Padgett has recommended that no further
archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
We concur with this reconmiendation since this project will not involve
significant archaeological resources.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive
Order XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Ms.
Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 733-4763.
a
i
0
0
DB: slw?.
cc: VStace Clearinghouse
T. Padgett
1 Resources
OCT 1990 Division of Archives and History
J' William S. Price, Jr., Director
RECEIVED
- SECRETAfiYS OFFICE
DOA
Ce, .??

109 East ones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-.2807
C-19

16
'S
S
I
T.
H
."c
0
a
n
O
O

f
North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
Jamcs G. Martin, Governor Division of Emergency Management
Joseph W. Dean, Secretary 116 W. Jones St., Ralcigh, N. C. 27603-1335
(919) 73 3-3 867
September 14, 1990
MEMORANDUM
1.0: N.C. State Clearinghouse, Department of Administration
From: J. Russell Ca , Division of Emergency Management,
NFIP Section
Subject: Intergovernmental Review
--------------------------------.------------------
Re: State # N.C. 91-E-4220-0159
N. C. DOT - Proposed improvements to NC 60 in
Cherokee Coun.ty.
For information purposes, the Commission is advised that
on July 24, 199p, Governor Martin signed Executive Order 1233
a Uniform Floodp.lain Management Policy, which must be
followed for development on any site.
,
1
f
An Gated C?rrunic"t Attinu:uicr Acn?m ?nq•l.n:r
C-20
r
?' APPENDIX D

??; or ?h Caron Ana Decar t:men o. rans?oor ?a??on
Panning and Lnv'ronmen tai Branch
N C 6-0
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
FROM GEORGIA STATE LINE
TO US 64-74
CHEROKEE COUNTY
OCTOBER 23, 1990
Public Meet'in

E-
PUBLIC MEETING
NC 60 -
From the Georgia State Line to US 64-74
Cherokee County
Project R-2110
PURPOSE OF MEETING
. This meeting is being held to review proposed improvements for NC 60. Any
comments or suggestions concerning the proposed highway improvement or areas of 7
environmental concern in the study will be appreciated. All comments and sugges-
tions received during the project study will be considered in determining a
recommendation for the project. #
to:
Request for additional information or written comments should be addressed
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 1990-1996 Transportation Improvement Program calls for up-grading the
existing two-lane facility.
CURRENT SCHEDULE
Right of way acquisition and construction are scheduled to begin in Fiscal
Years 1993 and 1995, respectively. These schedules are subject to the avail-
ability of highway funds.
EXISTING FACILITY
The studied segment of NC 60 is approximately 5 miles in length. NC 60 is
basically a two-lane facility with an 18-foot pavement and three-foot shoulders.
Current (1990) Average Daily Traffic along NC 60 ranges from 1900 to 2500
vehicles per day. Projected (2015) Average Daily Traffic ranges from 2200 to
4000 vehicles per day. -
COST ESTIMATE
Construction $ 5,900,000
Right of Way $ 2,050,000
Total $ 7,750,000
D-2
a

0
NORTH LARULWA DEPARTMENT Ui
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIMVAYS
PLANNING AND RESEARCH BRANC:
GEORGIA STATE LINE TO US 19-64.74
CHEROKEE COUNTY
D-3
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PUBLIC MEETING IN MURPHY, N. C.
October 23, 1980
COMMENT SHEET
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO NC 60, TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT
R-2110: CHEROKEE COUNTY
NAME:
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS:
1 -,4
I A
F
Fi
1
STATEMENTS RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED NC 60 IMPROVEMENT MAY ALSO BE MAILED TO:
MR. L. J. WARD, P. E., MANAGER OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL, P. 0. BOX 25201,
RALEIGH, N. C. 27611

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
D-4

W
4)
FMM4
r?u^-
O O I
to ?
U ° d
Z? 3 ai
_ o
"t U
° Onl Y
6^.? Y
C C ?... Ln
Y O
E C
o 'G r
o.1Y
0.
y C •
?
C
O N?
c C,a 1
? o
fj ° 0
o r c
`7, Y S C V/
Y
4
0
0
8
O
Y
7
r
O
V
C S .?. O• L O u v m o i Co Cos r ° O V A ?•r = S ° L C o
F °- ^° o E _ .moo G Ei+ .o o v u > °'O i
o • o° v "'? 3 9` o ° c
C 7 0 ; C ai.0 ^o V 3
; N 'O ID Q r G '° 'O ' V °.O ¦
° j w C 9 •?c Y C V V v 7 .E V°° _.c
° • t y F a °.>', >, Ica t W e x ° c •O Ic °
0 'a
c°. ?x0LP13d?''" o?Yoa?no=`??oaY
..°. 6• s v • 3 1• y .y.. 'a pp F O V .0 V I E 'O .E 'S ^ A •_ C Y f 'O r .? r
?? m ??(GL c t h y c p? c9 MJ. m p o a p c o°
E •O 3 Y Y O ?. Y •O Io ., m C .°.r 4- V E V 6 .?
u
• y iao r Y ?' a i o •c, U y ?3 x 'o u u o E i .p c 'a •: ?u E C
Y; f v C 'O Z C Y ?Ja °° °° y 1 Y u o ` E o° C L C C°
l"' 0. Y O r r o. E. S V V O M 1L Z .O l? r Y, Y Q.2 V t¦ o ?.
3 w C m `.C •_YCD -C ?. 1 _ .•
v O g Y
-a E
14x- 0
C C •.?l tyy Y- L-0
u•e°' •'u o'o?E?J;
O 0 3 a 8-
r= Y h .c : 'O
rsY?oyO:E`i
v Y i ° Q.
^
C
O O .J Y •O C O •VC y O C °? F C Y {L 'p 'O Of
?~" c u u" $ i c u o c `o y .. i" °. c r a` c Y c c c e i •G c« t o a c ° tq t
•'.1 o y• g 4. Y Y O p j 7 a V ` 1`• y 'X C Oi.. 'O . • O U .Oq .C
JI!
J O •6 q L IC V 'p Q t U ?^ .i°.• .? C T . • .•°•? G2 L « Y
CC T1 u vYi 5 u i F G ±i a O ° 7 0° v r° .y d: b« r ,co 0 o a L C 00
cu 1? 3 c i E o '- • x c ° °c a a.°. u p ° ` 3 c o o c 'o
Pal M O NL O. i '? Y_. m• C` O O.5 'V ° C y •? v Y V I U L Y¦ • Y y;_ Y>
3•° c ?r •• `.! t e > YL '"; a ¦? ??•?.. e c o•- U ctA_
W O • 'C . o E.5 u 'S 3» c E s ^ o U > Ya° $ u f° -c .o c p
?=" Y.r?=3?>°`y?c?° wa a. •LUgs, c?S °ac 6? ?s ° s«o^°e
V S° h 7 o P. `^ r `^ u C Y a d N` p t7 4« C ^.? t:
'O L r .. ?, >?1 r .IL j u i^ .p u O 'o ?. '7 yi . E 3
° o .t s E i c c u c° • c
3 ' i °` o r3• • N 0.Y u ?- f '? a 3= m y c y c• • pl
v P ° 0 1D c > . O . ., E ° • ° r v r • p « °'.. a .°, o -
° o° oc ?• }}°vo5 si,? oY V>c G[.S a r^ Mc°AE^s c9
•. N° 7•„• U C P. f? c V u c rc•1 L c i C Cc
C V r i C Y s . v -o x° C •- Y C °'? ` t •
W
z s a • Z Y 'c F o Y p ?i 3 V Y° o w .? m u^ u_ o e c
7 ^> p 3 a -. .+ 7 C `°
V l .Y+ _ C C C V } Y Y W. L
J C .•? V .? {Y r d• 5 'N w 6 Y •il F• N C 'C y V D O n
'? ??.^?'c-_:4'?,u i E c iJiK •c? t ?O. : o ? '? « gZ t'6e-r. `o • wp + it o
w
U c y 2° o= •- •e ° c ? 2 0 eal • o u
v ^ Y t J o e 4
V1 p o C C V C ?•1? w ..
•c•o'Da«EL?.?yj?MNC 'x')•.) - `?! .S ° ?1 ^^ll °o^s_-°Y`O
•1'p- o
?.1 7 O? u e ?C F EA • - ''s, 'i 1. ' W o c L it r
Q! O c
m o o i^'t(\ ioy• _ O •` O E M °•S « W
.v ?: C i E dp • c v alo 3 A r=o 3 ° ° o °
O* `o ?O o °o E'- U d ?` _ _ . of 1 E
° C a c A E to « V ?.? ?''o sE c Y^° o y
CL t.0
j y p L .. "V. r ' ••
p i Y) 7 w a j° .? • d q .? _ J h l u O O .g o C° 0 x C Ln
r? t-i : c EE"soc iEc,,. O p.?•mQ
r as
O!
?w
W

0
a?
4
?d
G
Q?
0
Q
A
C.
co
or.

I
C M C • J
uyL?` j7 s V7
O C - O ^ ? Y
A A ^•ruYyl ?.2 L
o T 3
4. j .J u ., o m o
A E
pmw,
E
?i _ • o«
c ° a'p Y C • V
0 P-4 scales Y.'«^oi
uU? ?1= w
aU o
T, 0 YL-5 .C°.. pp
V r? .' > u ? Q
Y 7 $? O c
C x Y
'O : •p V 9 O
n.? M W ° V O
.3 o r.? .
• , 01y•L ^
E. y
r-2 ,? GU_ o 02 'o-O
- (.1)-5

0
• DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
OF ENGINEERS
WI
RI
T
RP
LMINGTON DIST
C
, CO
S
t
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1890
November 13, 1991
IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Division
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
I
? OG
Z
v
?3, err ?%? '?!
? !y p
G
rr.
V
As requested in your letter of October 23, 1991, we have reviewed
the "State Environmental Assessment for NC 60, From Georgia State Line to
US 64-74, Cherokee County, State Project 6.911010, T.I.P. #R-2110" and offer
the following comments.
The roadway and structures in the flood plain should be designed not to
cause a significant increase in the upstream flood elevations.

Since our letter of-,.October 17, 1990, there has been a change in the
procedure for delineation of wetlands. On August 17, 1991, the 1992
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act became law and invalidated
jurisdictional determinations made pursuant to the January 1989 "Federal
Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands." Pursuant
to guidance from the Chief of Engineers, Directorate of Civil Works, wetland
delineations made subsequent to August 17, 1991, must be made utilizing the
1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual" and those made prior to
August 17, 1991, must be reviewed. Since this action has not been finalized,
the areas should be redelineated using the 1987 manual.
As indicated in our letter of October 17, 1990, a Department of the Army
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
in waters of the United States or any adjacent and/or isolated wetlands in
conjunction with this project, including disposal of construction debris.
Under our mitigation policy, impacts to wetlands should first be avoided or
minimized. We will than consider compensation or mitigation for unavoidable
impacts. When final plans are completed, including the extent and location
of any work within waters of the United States and wetlands, our Regulatory
Branch would appreciate the opportunity to review these plans for a project-
specific determination of Department of the Army permit requirements. Should
you have any questions, please contact Mr. David Baker of our Regulatory
Branch, Asheville, North Carolina, at [phone].
v.D.6.a.
IV.D.-2.
V.D.6.a-
E-1
-2-

0
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can
be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Lawrence W. Saunders
Chief, Planning Division

E-2
?MENT OF l
9
O
? a
CH 3 X9,9
United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
November 22, 1991
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Ward:
¦
TA?
PRIDEEIIN r
AMERICA ??
•Mc o

Subject: State environmental assessment for NC 60, from Georgia state
line to US 64-74, Cherokee County, North Carolina, State
Project 6.911010, T.I.P. ;#R-2110
This responds to your letter of October 23, 1991, received November 12,
1991, requesting our comments on the subject document. These comments
are provided in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
GENERAL COMMENTS:
Based on the information provided in the subject environmental
assessment, we have concerns about the amount of wetland impacts
documented, the lack of proposed mitigation, and the need for a U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) permit for the entire project, not just select
portions. As with any environmentally damaging project, we recommend
mitigation on a habitat value basis for all unavoidable losses of
significant habitat associated with the proposed action:
SPECIFIC COMMENTS:
Section IV, C. 3, b, Page 15: At this time we cannot concur with your
determination that no federally listed or proposed species are found
within the immediate project vicinity. The federally endangered
little-wing pearly mussel is found in Cherokee County and may occur_
within the project impact area. We will need information, either through
surveys for the species or documentation as to whether or not the habitat
is suitable, before we can concur that this species will not be adversely
affected by the proposed project. Two additional candidate species, the
bog turtle (Clemmvs muhlenbergii) and northern pine snake Pituoahis m.
melanoleucus, are known from Cherokee County and are not included in the
environmental assessment. Therefore, we recommend the project area be
V.D.6.b.
E-3
surveyed prior to any construction to prevent inadvertent harm to these
species. Candidate species are not legally protected under the _
Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions,
including Sections 7 and 9, until they are formally proposed or listed as
endangered/threatened. We are including these species in our response to
give you advance notification. These species may be listed in the
future, at which time they will be protected under the Endangered Species
Act, which could affect this or other projects in the vicinity.
Meanwhile, we would appreciate anything'you might do to avoid impacting
these species. No other proposed or listed species are known to occur in
Cherokee County. Obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be
reconsidered if: (1) new information suggests that the action may affect
listed species in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner not previously considered, or (3) a new
species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected
by the identified action. The legal responsibilities under Section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act, as amended, are on file with the North
Carolina Department of Transportation. If you would like a copy of this
material or if you have any questions, please contact Mr. Allen Ratzlaff
at 704/665-1195, Ext. 229.
Section IV, 5. Page 16: It is not clear whether the wetlands and impacts
detailed in the table include the channel relocations described in
paragraph 4 on page 17. If not, the amount of wetlands impacted is
likely considerably more than stated. Further, it is the Service's
belief that stream channel changes would be contrary to the provisions of
the Environmental Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) Guidelines for
Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material (Federal
Register (249):85344-85357, December 24, 1980) that prohibit wetland
filling for nonwater-dependent activities when a practicable alternative V.D.6.a.,
exists and are not covered under a Corps regional or nationwide permit III.A.13.,
(see below). Because the purpose of this wetland filling is III.A.3.
nonwater-dependent, a practical alternative is presumed by the guidelines
to be available. The aerial photography of the project area included in
the environmental assessment appears to support this presumption. It
seems that it would be possible to make minor route adjustments that
.i would eliminate the need for channel relocation. Further, because
highways can be constricted to avoid impacts to cultural resources, we
assume similar constrictions can be applied to avoid impacting wetlands.
Accordingly, in the Service's review of the application for the
Department of the Army (.Corps of Engineers) Section 404 permit, which we
believe is necessary for the proposed channel relocations, the Service
will recommend against issuance of a permit that will result in the
adverse alteration or elimination of water and wetland habitat when
practicable alternatives that would avoid/minimize impacts are available.
Additionally, the North Carolina Department of Transportation's best
management practives for protection of surface waters state, "Realignment
• of existing stream channels is to be done when it is the only (our
emphasis] practical alternative...."
Section IV, 5. Page 17: We believe the entire project should be
permitted under a Corps permit. Applying for permits for distinct
portions of a project can results in significant wetland losses. We V.D.6.a.
believe the intent of the permit process is to minimize wetland losses
E-4
and piecemealing projects simply circumvents the intent. Therefore,
because the entire project results in greater than 1 acre of wetland
loss, the Corps should be notified of all wetland impacts and losses
associated with the proposed project in accordance with section 330 CFR
330.7. The Corps should then determine the permit requirements for this
entire project.

SUMMARY COMMENTS:
The proposed Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for this project
appears inappropriate at this time. In order for us to concur with a
FONSI, we will need: (1) a determination of what Corps permits are
necessary, (2) a detailed mitigation plan which will describe measures
that will be implemented to fully replace all stream and wetland habitat
losses associated with the project, (3) the location and description of
proposed mitigation sites, (4) the plans for follow-up monitoring and any
necessary enhancement of the sites in order to ensure the success of
mitigation and, (5) information to support your conclusion that no
endangerd or threatened species are likley to be affected by the proposed
project. Once we have all this information in hand, we will again review
the project and determine if a FONSI is appropriate. We appreciate the
opportunity to provide these comments and request that you continue to
keep us informed on the progress of this project. In any future
correspondence concerning this project, please reference our log number
4-2-92-012.
Sin erely,
V
rian P. Col e
Field Supervisor
cc:
Program Manager, Division of Boating and Inland Fisheries, North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, 512 N. Salisbury Street,
Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
Mr. Randall C. Wilson, Nongame Section Manager, 'Division of Wildlife
Management, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Cecil Frost, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Plant
Conservation Program, P.O. Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Lee Pelage, Wetlands Regulatory Unit, Environmental Protection
Agency, 345 Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, GA 30365
Mr. David Baker, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory
Office, Room 75, Grove Arcade Building, 37 Battery Park Avenue,
Asheville, NC 28801
E-5
Crchivesto North Carolina Department of Cultural Resour
James G. Martin, Governor Divisio Patric Dorsey, Secretary WilDecember 13, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State His ric Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: NC 60 from Georgia State Line to
US 19-16-74 Cherokee County, R-21 10,
6.91 1010, CH 92-E-4220-0319
We have received the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the above project
from the State Clearinghouse and would like to comment.
As noted in our letter of June 5, 1991, and the EA, no National Register-
listed properties are located in the area of potential effect for this project.
However, due to the need for nationwide permits from the Army Corps of
Engineers for sixteen wetland sites, the project appears to be subject to
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. We, therefore,
recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by a qualified
architectural historian to identify the presence and significance of any
historic structures, buildings, or districts.
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.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church, NCDOT
Army Corp of Engineers, Wilmington
V.C.2.
109 Fast Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
E-6
North Carolina
Department of Administration
V.
James G. Martin, Governor James S. Lofton, Secretary
December 17, 1991
Mr. Calvin Leggett i'
N.C. Department of Transportation
Program Development Branch
Highway Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Leggett:
RE: SCH File #92-E-4220-0319; Environmental Assessment for the
Proposed Improvements to NC 60, from the Georgia State Line
to US 19-16174 in Cherokee County (TIP# R-2110)
The above referenced environmental information has been reviewed
through the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by state/local
agencies in the course of this review. Because of the nature of
the comment(s), it has been determined that you may submit a
Finding of No Significant Impact to the State Clearinghouse for
compliance with the Act. The attached comments should be taken
into consideration in project development.
Best regards.
JSL:jt
Attachment
cc: Region A
S-nc rely,
J s S. ofton
E-7
116 West Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003,0 Telephone [phone]
An "equal Commmirv / Aff'irmarive Acton Emolnw-
a STAR
Y
r'
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
MEMORANDUM r~ SEA=;? ,...::
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee ?".?
Project Review Coordinator
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
(CC ?? .
Douglas G. Lewis
Director
Planning and Assessment
RE: 92-0319 - Improvements to NC 60, Cherokee County
DATE: December 9,, 1991
11
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the Environmental Assessment .and Finding of No
Significant Impact. Generally speaking, our divisions have no
objection to the project as proposed provided the conditions in
the attached comments are followed.
Thank you for the opporunity to respond.

attachments

E-8
N.O. flux 27687. Ralachi Nnnh Carcilina 27611.7687 TGIrphone 919-733-637n
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Cornrxsi?on
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: Dennis Stewart, Manager ??uvucr ?t/??
Habitat Conservation Section
DATE: November 20, 1991
SUBJECT: Review of State Environmental Assessment for proposed
improvements to NC 60 from the Georgia State Line to US
64-74, Cherokee County, State Project No. 6.911010,
T.I.P. No. R-2110.

This correspondence responds to a request by you for our
review and comments regarding the Environmental Assessment (EA)
for proposed improvements to the five-mile section of NC 60 from
the Georgia State Line to US 64-74 in Cherokee County. These
comments are provided in 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 113A-10; 1 NCAC 25).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
proposes to widen the existing 18-foot wide roadway having 2 to
3-foot grassed shoulders to a 24-foot wide roadway with 8-foot
shoulders. Right-of-way width will increase from 30 feet to 100
feet. Existing bridges over Rapiers Creek, Rapiers Mill Creek
(HIW 1-9-15-7), and the Nottely River (HIW 1-9-15) will be
replaced with new bridges. Reinforced concrete box culverts in
two unnamed tributaries to the Nottely River will be retained and
extended in one stream and replaced with a pipe in the other.
Approximately 0.03 acre of wetlands associated with small
tributaries will be impacted by the project. The NCDOT will not
work in the streams during the period of February 15 to gay 15 to
protect spring spawning runs of white bass and walleye.
Staff field biologists of the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the EA and conducted a
site visit on October 2, 1990. Fisheries resources of the
Nottely River have been adversely impacted by sedimentation and
an upstream hydropower operation, but the river and possibly
E-9
Meno Page 2 _ November 20, 1991
other streams support a spring spawning run of white bass and
walleye. Wildlife habitat is limited in this area, with most
land use being agricultural.
The NCWRC does not object to this project, provided the
following. conditions are followed by the NCDOT and the EA is made
more complete:
« 1) A mitigation plan to compensate for wetlands losses must
be developed and presented to the NCWRC for review before V.D.6.a.
construction begins. One possibility mentioned in our
memorandum of October 10, 1990 is for the NCDOT to work with
the U.S. Soil Conservation Service to fence cattle out of
Rapiers Mill creek in the pasture between the Rapiers Creek
and Rapiers Mill Creek bridges.
2) The NCDOT should clearly state in the EA if stream
relocations are proposed for this project. This possibility
is briefly mentioned on page 17 under the wetlands section
with no site descriptions or details. New channels must III.A.13.
match the old in terms of length, average depth, width,
slope, and substrate. Several stream cross sections should
be surveyed at each site to determine what these values
should be. The NCW-RC requests to review this information
before construction begins.
3) Acreages of various upland communities to be impacted by V.D.5.a.
this project should be included in the EA.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
project. If we can be of further assistance, please advise.
DLS/lp
cc: Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Habitat Biologist
Mr. Micky Clemmons, District 9 Fisheries Biologist
Mr. Joffrev Brooks, District 9 Wildlife Biologist
^` -\N1 ! 411;r ?
c ?cr i Cc "I7
"t r
E-10
SAATZ n
ti
- ?•? :_? •? ? - D?O1grr
State of North Carona:. ?-? I
Department of Environment, Health, al d Natu?al• esourlreS
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street - Raleigh, North Carahna-276O4
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
December 4, 1991

MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: Alan Clark
From: Ron Ferrell
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
Subject: EA for NC 60 from Georgia state line to US 64-74
State Project No. 6.911010, TIP #R-2110
Cherokee Countv
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The
Division of Environmental Management is responsible for the
issuance of the Sect--on 401 relater Quality Certification for
activities which may impact waters of the state including
wetlands. The following comments are offered in response to the
E1. prepared for this project which will impact 1.04 acres or
wetlands.
1. Prior to the approval of any borrow source or disposal
area developed for use on this project, the contractor
shall obtain confirmation from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers that the removal of borrow material or the
disposal of excavated spoil material will not impact
jurisdictional wetlands. -
2. As stated above, a 401 Water Quality Certification will
be required for this project.
3. Endorsement of the EA by DEM does not pi-ec lude the denial
of the 401 Certification upon application if wetland
impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed
to Ron Ferrell in DEM's Water Quality Planning Branch.
NC60.EA/REFI I
cc: Ron Ferrell
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Faycttcville Mooresville Ralcigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-5203 919/436.1541 704/663-1699 919/733-2314 919/946-6431 919/395-3900 919/396-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh. North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Arfirmative Action Empioyer
E-11
=.D.
r
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James
James G. Martin, Governor
W. MCobey Jr., artin,
Secretary Griffiths Forestry Center Stanford M. Adams
2411 Garner Road Director
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
November 13, 1991
1141516//5'.
i
co
? SFr, rcy? o
TO: MEMORANDUM '? fi ? . ,
c c SF?.Pr•;; ; '
Melba McGee, Planning & Assessment
FROM: Don H. Robbins, Staff Forester v` wte
SUBJECT: DOT EA for Proposed Widening of NC 60 From Georgia State Line to US
64-74 in Cherokee County, North Carolina
PROJECT: #9- 4-0319
DUE DA'L'E: 12-2_91
We have reviewed the above subject document and have the following comments:
1• We have no objections to the proposed widening.
2• It appears that forestry will not be seriously impacted as a result
of the project. However, the document does not indicate the number V.D.5.a.
Of woodland acres that will be lost due to construction. We would
like to know how many acres will be lost. ,
r
y
3• It is hoped that the ROW contractor will make efforts to salvage
pulpwood and saw timber whenever possible.
DHR/la
Pc: Warren Boyette - CO
File
_ •?c,;11 I G ?
E-12
P.O. Box 2768:. Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Teiephone 919e733.7-162'
An Equal Opporrinrrv Affirmative Action Emclov-
State of North Carolina -
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Reviev?iyg O ttce:

INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Prole t Number. due Date:
? -0,3 l9 x ;
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR perrnit(s) indicated must be obtained in order for this
comply with North Carolina Law. project to
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the for
m.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Regional Office
. Normal Process

PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Time
(statutory time

Permit to construct S limit)
? operate wastewater treatment
facilities, sewer system exten
i Application 90 days before begin construction or award of
30 days
s
ons, 3 sewer
systems not discharging Into state surface waters t
On-site Inspection. Pgstappllcatlon
tl
. technical
conferece
u (90 days)
NPOES

? - permit to discharge into surface water and/or
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Application 160 days before begin activity. On-site inspection.
P 90.120 days

discharging into state surtace re-application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to
waters.
construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply
(N/A
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPOES
permit-whichever le later.

? Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
30 days
(N/A)
? Well Constructlon Permit 7 days
N/A
(15 days)
? Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each riparian property owner.
O 55 days
n-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct b
? operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources i J 10/l
60 days
NIA .f5
I
(90 (lays)
Any open burning associ '
ated with subject proposap
must be in compliance with 15 NCAC 20.0520. 1 ?' • ???
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must b
I r- '

C e
n compliance with
NCAC 20.0525 which requires notification and removal
%
Il:,

60 days
prior to demolition. N/A ` . -
C+ Complex Source Permit required under 15 NCAC 2D.0800. r r-_
r : L (90 days)
edlmentati
on Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be property addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion E sedimentation
will be required if one or mor control plan
e acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least _^0 days before be gin activity.
C The Sediment
ti
I a
on Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance:
On-site inspection usual. Surely bond flied with EHNR as shown:

C Any area mined greater than one acre must be permiled.
AFFECTED LAND AR
Mining Permit EA AMOUNT OF BOND 30 days
less than 5 acres S 2,500
S but less than 10 acres 5,000
10 but less than 25 acres 12,500
25 or more acres (60 days)

North Carolina Burnin
er 5,000
?I g p
mit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 d

y
exceeds 4 days ay
(NIA)
Special Ground Clea
B
rance
urning Permit .22 g
counties In coastal N.C. with organic solis On-site inspection by N.O. Division Forest Resources required "If more 1 day
than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved, Inspections (NIA
)
should be requested at least ten days before actual bum is planned."

Ell Off Relining Facilities 90.120 day;
NIA
(N/A)
It permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.
Dam Safety Permit Applicant muss hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 days
inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv-
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. An a
404 permit from Corps of En
in (NIA)
g
eers.
m oos
?? Continued on rev erse

PERMITS
?I Permit to drill exploratary oil or gas well
? Geophysical Exploration Permit
? State Lakes Construction Permit
401 Water Quality Certification
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to Stale of N.C.
conditional that any well opened by drill operator shell, upon
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to Issue of Permit
Application by letter. No standard application form.
Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must Include
descriptions A drawings of structure & proof of ownership
of riparian property.
NIA
$10.00 fee must accompany application
? CAMA Permit for MINOR development
510.00 fee must accompany application
? Several geodetic monuments are located In or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify-
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Normal Process
Time
(statutory time
limit)
10 days
(N/A)
10 days
(N/A)
1520 days
(N/A)
60 days
(130 days)
55 days
(180 days)
22 days
(60 days)
?) - °^• a"y wens, it required, must be in accordance with Title 15, Subchapter 2C.0100.
--- v¦yez as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):
A
I
reviewer signature

agency
A
REGIONAL OFFICES
sheville Re ional Office
a9 Woodfln Race
? Fayetteville Regional Office
Asheville, NC 28801
[phone] Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Fayetteville, NC 28301

? Moorseville Regional Offi [phone]
ce
919 North Main Street ? Raleigh Regional Office
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone] Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
[phone]
? Washingtc- Regional Offi
ce
.24 =% = -a Avenue ?Wilmington Regional Off Ica
- NC 27889 7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone]
? Winston-Salem Re ion
l Offi
a
ce E-14
8003 Silas Creek Parkway Extension
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
[phone]
.?,.; DEC 1991
State of North Carolina hr??lVE
Department of Environment, Health, and Natti;alSkgs`"" z
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin. Governor PROJECT RSV=W - COHHENTS - arses H. Gardner
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary - Director
Project Number: County:
N C L4 Oo,?n (,??????4k- . • ??. to U S lam{ -'[ Ll
Project Name: ?1Q_.l>z (???? ,L NO . U All 010 -,1 0 Q' -QIla
v
Geodetic Survey
L' This project will impact A?_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].
??G-/.???•? %?.? ??.s /? ' /3 - mil/
Reviewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within?a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
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.
Other (comments attached)
Fo more information contact the Land Quality Section at (919) '733-4574.
Reviewer Date
E-15
P.O. Box 27687 Raleigh. N.C 27611-7687 • Telephone ;.919) 733-3833
Y C. c•.
E J? ?oQ ? ?'?y? a • ``'% ? of
01.
??O ? `vQ. ? S \ ? 9 ?50
P O
r
1o? ?`c mob ?S/ 0~
Li
IzIVF,R ® a 4
0 q? Q o 6
• - . oil 14 tv o ' `5'?
D co
FPS ,tiq? ?, Q ??o ?e FC S s ® w m ,? "''4 I ai>
`\0 9 `,? p%w.D ®? i \bo1 1,9
?? tit ?%l P E- b
45 qb
?/ ? _ ?.? `?<c. Cps F Q ? ,`O ?S/ ...
0 C.;
i
wttcx?HiR!l9S;}f:!i!Ri,:><r:!C b ? ? . D ? , .., ?. tiie'"r?!t?>{tu'ti.<.i?t?><
Q
O V b, 6 ? ?
? Q;
`As t.2 o I4 h yqq,
:::?::J,( ?? a?r fir, `b?' L , lop
o Q.
r a ?` ??
p A ..9
41,
• b?
?b
/ ` LU
m
E-16
Commissioners
William J. Wells
Margaret M. Warner
William R. Dyer
October 19, 1992
union of Aup4Lj
Cloe Moore, Mayor
P.O. Box 130
Murphy, North Carolina 28906
[phone]

Commissioners
Henry S. Simmons
Robert A. Jordan
William N. Hughes
OCT 2 1 1902

Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, N. C. 27611-5201
Re: N C 60 from the Georgia State Line to
U S 64-74, Cherokee County, State
Project 6.911010, T.I.P. # R-2110
Dear Sir:

We appreciate your letter of August 27 in regards to proposed improve-
ments to Highway 60 consisting of upgrading the existing two-lane
facility to a standard two-lane cross-section and improving passing
sight distance.
We do not find any potential environmental impacts for this project.
There are not any permits or approvals required by the Town of Murphy.
If I may be of more help to you, please contact the writer.
Sincerely,
i
s
Cloe Moore
Mayor, Town of Murphy

E-17
Faye B. Kinney, Clerk-McKeever, Edwards, Davis & Hays, Attorneys
NOTICE OF AN OPEN HOUSE PUBLIC HEARING
ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TQ NC 60 FROM US 64-74
TO THE GEORGIA STATZ T,INI
Project 6.911010 R-2110 Cherokee County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold the above
open house public hearin on October 21, 1993 between the hours of
X1:00 pm anc 0 pm at the Cherokee County Courthouse Annex in
Murphy. Interested individuals may attend this hearing at their
convenience between the above stated hours. Division of Highways
personnel will be available to provide information, answer
questions, and take comments regarding this project.
Under this project, it'is proposed to-widen NC 60 to a 24 ft.
roadway with 8 ft. shoulders. Some realignment of the roadway is
proposed to reduce curvature and improve sight distance.
Additional right of way and the relocation of some homes will be
required as a part of the project.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Mr. C. B. Goode,
Jr., P. E. at P..0. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611 or phone (919)250-
4092.
NCOOT. will provide reasonable accommodations, auxiliary aids and
services for any qualified disabled person interested in attending
the hearing. To request the above you may call Mr. Goode at the
above number no later than seven days prior to the date of the
workshop.

4
*A 4
F-1
v Mo?M 4 _
r
NC.60
oR t?t1??f
k
FROM THE GEORGIA STATE LINE
TO US 64-74
PROJECT 6.911010
TIP NO. R-2110
CHEROKEE COUNTY
OPEN HOUSE PUBLIC HEARING
CHEROKEE COUNTY COURTHOUSE ANNEX
OCTOBER 21, 1993
R
4
F-2 -
PURPOSE OF PROJECT

The construction of this project will provide a more efficient
and safe facility to accommodate existing and projected traffic
volumes for NC 60.
PURPOSE OF PUBLIC MEETING
Today's meeting is one step in the Department of Transportation's
procedure for making you, the public, a part of the planning
process. The Department of Transportation is soliciting your views
on improving NC 60 from the Georgia state line to US 64-74 in
Cherokee County.
Several representatives of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation are present at this proceeding. Any of these people
will be happy to talk with you, explain the design to you and
answer your questions. Now that the opportunity is here, you are
urged to participate by voicing your comments to Department of
Transportation representatives at this meeting or by writing them
on the comment sheet and leaving it with one of the representatives
or mailing them in during the 15 days following the public hearing.
Those wishing to submit written material may do so to:
Mr. C. B. Goode, Jr., P. E.
Public Hearing Officer
Division of Highways
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Phone [phone]
WHAT IS DONE WITH THE INPUT?
All input received through th
made available for review and
and Engineering staffs of the
Engineering staff will review
individual basis to determine
design.
e public involvement process will be
consideration by the Administrative
Division of Highways. The
and consider all comments on an
if any can be incorporated into the
The project will widen NC 60 to a 24 ft. roadway with 8 ft. grassed
shoulders. This will provide 12 ft. lanes in each direction and
F-3
RIGHT OF WAY PROCEDURES
After the route is selected and the final design is completed, the
proposed right of way limits will be staked on the ground.
Affected owners of property will be contacted by a Right of Way
Agent and a meeting will be arranged. The agent will explain the
plans and the property owner will be advised as to how the project -
will affect him. The agent will inform you of your rights as a
property owner. Professionals who are familiar with real estate
values will evaluate or appraise your property. The evaluations or
appraisals will be reviewed for completeness and accuracy and then
a written offer will be made to you by the Right of Way Agent. The
current market value of the property at its highest and best use
when it is appraised will be offered as compensation. The
Department must:
1) Treat all owners and tenants equally.
2) Fully explain the owner's rights.
3) Pay just compensation in exchange for property rights.
4) Furnish relocation advisory assistance.
5) Initiate legal action if settlement cannot be reached.
RELOCATION ASSISTANCR
If you are a relocaree, that is, if your residence is to be
acquired as a part of the project, additional assistance in the
form of advice and compensation is available. In addition to being
contacted by a Right of Way Agent, you will also be contacted by a
Relocation Agent. This agent can provide you with assistance on
locations of comparable housing, moving procedures, and moving aid.
Moving expenses may be paid for you. In addition, over and above
the compensation received for the property, up to $22,500 for
owners and up to $5,250 for tenants may be paid to those qualified
to help offset such things as mortgage increases, increased value
of comparable homes, closing costs, etc. Your Relocation Agent can
explain this in greater detail.
Pamphlets about right of way procedures and relocation assistance
are available free of charge. .
F-4

a
COMMENT SHEET
NC 60 from the Georgia State Line to US 64-74
October'21, 1993
R-2110 Cherokee County Project 6.911010
NAME
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS AND\OR QUESTIONS:

Comments may be mailed to:
W. A. Garrett, Jr.,-P. E., Manager of Citizens Participation
1 N. C. Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Phone: [phone]
F-5
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
Action ID No. 199401484
November 7, 1994
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
c E>?
a
Nov 0 8 1994
L ?? DIVISICN OF
HIGHWAYS 0Q?'.
ONME?
Reference your October 3, 1994 letter requesting comments on
the proposed improvements to NC Highway 60 from the Georgia state
line to U.S. Highway 64/74 in Cherokee County, North Carolina
(TIP Project R-2110). Comments'.were submitted in 1991 in
response to the environmental assessment addressing two lane
improvements. The scope of the project is now being upgraded to
a five-lane widening.
Impacts to waters of the United States mentioned in your
information include two bridge replacements over South Fork
Rapier Mill Creek, and a new bridge over the Nottely River. The
original environmental assessment described impacts to 1.04 acres
of unnamed tributaries and adjacent wetlands. The new SEA/FONSI
should fully address practicable alternatives explored to avoid
and minimize impacts to waters and wetlands, and describe
compensatory mitigation planned for any unavoidable impacts.
Temporary impacts, such as fill platforms associated with the
bridge replacements, should be addressed as well.
A Section 404 permit will be required for the discharge of
dredged and/or fill material into waters and wetlands. The type
of permits required (general vs. individual) will be determined
once final plans are available.
If you have any further questions please contact David Baker
in our Asheville Field Office at [phone].
Sincerely,
T,?Wie" Wri
Regul tory y Branch
VI.B.1.
G-1
t,pENT OF T ¦
TAKE
zp United States Department of the Interior RIIDEEIIN
N 0
7 ?
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
9_ -
?r4 cN 1.+s°9 Asheville Field Office ? ¦
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806 E I
November 16. 1994
NOV 1 8 1994
Z? D!V1SIC^!
HIGHWA',',?
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Subject: Scoping for proposed widening of NC 60, from the Georgia state
line to US 64-74, Cherokee County, North Carolina, T.I.P.
No. R-2110
In your letter of October 3. 1994, you requested information regarding
potential environmental impacts that could result from the subject
project for your use in the preparation of an environmental assessment.
The following comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e).
and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to information provided in your letter, this project will
involve the widening of NC 60 to a five-lane shoulder section with a 60
foot travelway and 8 foot grassed shoulders. The project will also
include the replacement of three bridges: bridge numbers 28 and 49 over
the South Fork Rapier Mill Creek and bridge number 55 over the Nottely
River. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is particularly
concerned about the potential impacts the proposed actions may have on
Federal candidate species and on stream and wetland ecosystems within the
project impact area. Preference should be given to alternative
alignments, stream-crossing structures, and construction techniques that
avoid or minimize encroachment and impacts to these resources.
The enclosed page identifies:federally listed endangered and threatened-
species known from Cherokee County that may occur within the area of
influence of this proposed action. The legal responsibilities of a
Federal agency or their designated non-Federal representative under
Section 7 of the Act are on file with the Federal Highway Administration.
The enclosed page also contains a list of candidate species that are
currently under status review by the Service which may occur in the
project impact area. Candidate.species are not legally protected under
vI.B.2.a.
the Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including
G-2
Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as endangered or
threatened. We are including these species in our response in order to
give you advance notification. The presence or absence of these species
in the project impact area should be addressed in any environmental
document prepared for this project.

4
The Service's review of the environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if the document contained the following information:
(1) A complete analysis and comparison of the available
alternatives (the build and no-build alternatives). Iv.
(2) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources
within existing and required additional rights-of-way

and any areas, such as borrow areas, that may be v.D.5.
affected directly or indirectly by the proposed road
improvements.
(3) Acreage and description of wetlands that will be
filled as a consequence of the proposed road
improvements. Wetlands affected by the proposed V.D.6.a.
project should be mapped in accordance with the
Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating
Jurisdictional Wetlands. We recommend contacting the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory
Field Office (704/271-4856), to determine the need
for a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit.
(4) Linear feet of any water courses that will be 13
A
III

relocated as a consequence of the proposed project. .
.
.
(5) Acreage of upland habitat, by cover type, that will
be eliminated because of the proposed project. V. D.5.
(6) Description of all expected secondary and cumulative
environmental impacts associated with this proposed VI.B.2.b•
work.
(7) An analysis of the crossing structures considered
(i.e., spanning structure, culverts) and the III.B.
rationale for choosing the preferred structure(s).
(8) A discussion on the extent to which the project will
result in loss, degradation, or fragmentation of V.D.5.c.
wildlife habitat, from direct construction impacts
and from secondary development impacts.
(9) Mitigation measures that will be employed to avoid,
eliminate, reduce, or compensate for habitat value VI.B.2.c.
losses associated with any of the proposed project.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and
request that you continue to keep us informed, as to the progress of this
&-3
project. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please
reference our Log Number 4-2-95-013.
Sin r ly,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Ms. Linda Pearsall, Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
320 S. Garden Street. Marion, NC 28752

G4
a -'. lao 1* ck:L*1,5
United States Forest _ National Forests
?•4
?i Department of
Agriculture Servi
? fG North Carolina
L

United States Federal
Courthouse Building
100 Otis Street
P.O. Box 2750
Asheville. NC 28802
i? OCT 1 0 1994 File Code: 2730
Date: October 17, 1994
1, DIVISIG?, nF 2
CP HIGHI?F'. ?QQ
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
State of North Carolina, Dept. of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on State Project 6.911010, as
requested in your October 3, 1994, letter.
No National Forest System lands in North Carolina are impacted by the project;
however, we suggest that you contact the Forest Supervisor, Chattahoochee/
Oconee National Forest, 508 Oak Street, Gainesville, Georgia 30501. They
manage land on the Nottely River and reservoir and may have concern about
stream protection measures at the bridge site.
Please address future correspondence to:
Forest Supervisor
Attn: Recreation and Lands Staff Officer
National Forests in North Carolina
P. 0. Box 2750
Asheville, North Carolina 28802
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the project.
Sincerely,
MARY A. NOEL
Recreation and Lands Staff Officer
cc: Tusquitee
Chattahoochee/Oconee NF
e
Caring for the Land and Serving People
U>S G-5 Printed on Recycled Paper ?I??
FS-6200-28b1122!93) 741
RA?
Tennessee Valley Authonty, 400 West Summit Hill Dnve, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499

November 8, 1994
r
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
G E
NOV 17 1994
D1 S_ICAI_OF
HIGHWAYS
$1???RONME?P?,
NORTH CAROLINA (NC) 60, FROM THE GEORGIA STATE LINE TO US 64-74,
CHEROKEE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, STATE PROJECT 6.911010, TIP PROJECT
R-2110
Thank you for the opportunity to provide scoping comments on the
proposed five-lane widening of NC Highway 60. Preliminary review
suggests that therE are five stream or river crossings which will
require an approval from TVA under section 26a of the TVA Act.
Section 26a requires that no dam, appurtenant works, or other
obstruction, affecting navigation, flood control, or public lands or VI. B.3.
reservations shall be constructed without approval of TVA. TVA's 26a
jurisdiction applies to activities in the floodplains of the Tennessee
Valley. Please include information on section 26a in any
environmental documents which are prepared for this proposed action.
Please send me ten copies of the state environmental assessment when
it is completed. Should you have any questions, please contact Harold
M. Draper at [phone].
Sincerely,
Dale V. Wilhelm, Man- ger
National Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Manaf,Linent
WT 8C-K
G6
9AYZ
1994
2Z plV1SICN OF ?Q4
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resour HIGHWAYS
James B. Haat. Jr.. Governor Division of
BeUY Ray McCain. Swttary William S. Price. Jr.. Director
August 10, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of7ransportation
FROM: David Brook 4i'sto Deputy State ric Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Revised archaeological study, NC 60 from Georgia
state line to US 64, Cherokee County, 6.911010, TIP
R-2110, ER 95-7122
Thank you for your letter of July 13, 1994, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Thomas J. Padgett concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey two previously unrecorded prehistoric sites and
one previously recorded site were located within the project area. Mr. Padgett has
recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project. We concur with this recommendation since this
project will not involve significant archaeological resources.
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.
DB:slw
cc: T. Padgett
G7
109 E39 loan Street - R3leigb, North C X00112 27601-2807
?n?rzo
r", E / ,
Z 2 1994
North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 19, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook iiT(1?J
Deputy State hYistnc reservation Officer
SUBJECT:' Improvements to NC 60 from Georgia state line to US
19-64-74, Cherokee County, R-2110, 6.911010, GS
'94-0102
,f
DIVISIC,q OF
,p ?HIGHN S
??/RONN00C
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of June 20, 1994, concerning the above project.
We understand that the scope of the project has changed since the Environmental V I . B. 4. a.
Assessment was approved in September 1991. The North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) now proposes to construct the two-lane improvements on
a five-lane right-of-way rather than on a two-lane right-of-way. Also, we
understand that NCDOT will need federal permit approval from the Army Corps of
Engineers for sixteen wetland areas within the project limits.
We are unable to concur with NCDOT's determination that no further compliance v I . B. 4. b .
with Section 106 or G.S. 121-12(a) is necessary based upon the information
provided to us. Please send a map or aerial photograph delineating the project
area, the five-lane.right-of-way in relation to the two improvements, the sixteen
wetland areas, and the location of the two structures over fifty years of age.
Please also send ph3t6graphs of the two structures over fifty years of age if these
are readily available.
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.
DB:siw
cc: Wayne Wright, Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
B. Church
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
G8
FM208
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARIN
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATI f V?
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CARCLINA Z 603-8003
11-15-94
NOV 17 1994
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS DIVISIC"IOF
<? HIGHWAYS ?Q
MAILED TO: FROM: 6-,vV/RON1
N-C- DEPT- OF TRANSPORTATION MRS- CHRYS BAGGETT
FRANKLIN VICK DIRECTOR
PLANNING & ENV- BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
TRANSPORTATICN BLDG-/INTER-OFF
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SCCPING - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO NC 609 FROM THE GEORGIA STATE
LINE TO US 64-74 IN CHEROKEE COUNTY TIP #R-2110
SAI NO 95E42200234 PROGRAM TITLE - SCCPING
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED: ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
(X ) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHCULD YCU HAVE ANY CUESTIONSi PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone]-
C-C- REGICN A
e
G-9
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources •
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Governor C)? H N
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Henry M. Lancaster II, Director

MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
IL/
FROM: Melba McGee ti\1
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 95-0234 Scoping NC 60 US 64-74, Cherokee County
DATE: November 8, 1994
The Department of Environment, Health, and
has reviewed the proposed scoping notice. The
list and describe information that is necessary
to evaluate the potential environmental impacts
More specific comments will be provided during
review.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
encouraged to notify our commenting divisio
assistance is needed.
attachments
Natural Resources
attached comments
for our divisions
of the project.
the environmental
The applicant is
ns if additional
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 2761 1-7687 Telephone 919-733 d _;
An Equal Cpoortunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%%ecvcled/ 10% post-consumer paper
G-10
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Policy Development
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: David Yow, District 9 Habitat Biologist rAp?
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: November 1, 1994
SUBJECT: N. C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) request
for scoping comments, NC 60 from the Georgia state
line to US 64-74, Cherokee County, North Carolina,
TIP No. R-2110, Policy Development Project No. 95-
0234.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H.
Franklin Vick of the NCDOT for our concerns regarding
impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the
subject project. The N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) has reviewed the proposed project, and our comments
are provided in accordance with provisions of the North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 et seq., as
amended; 1 NCAC 25).
The proposed work involves widening of an existing
roadway facility. The NCWRC prefers improvement of existing
roadways over construction of new highway corridors and
supports such an alternative for this project. Our primary
areas of concern are surface waters and possible wetlands
along South Fork Rapier Mill Creek and the Nottely River,
and potential impacts to rare, threatened or endangered.
species that may occur in the project area. In addition to
direct habitat loss from highway construction, secondary
habitat loss will occur as commerci?L? development follows
improvement of the highway corridor:
The NCWRC recommends that the environmental documerr ' ?I.g,2,b,
discuss adverse environmental impacts of commercials ? LS o C -
G-11 _
95-0234 Memo Page 2 November 1, 1994
development and urban growth resulting from highway
widening. Such impacts should be weighed against
anticipated benefits of the transportation improvements.
In addition to the specific concerns mentioned above,
the NCWRC offers the following list of general
recommendations and informational needs:
• 1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources
within the project area, including a listing of V.D.5.,
federally or state designated threatened, V.D.6.b.
endangered, or special concern species. When
practicable, potential borrow areas to be used for
project construction should be included in the
inventories. A listing of designated animal and
plant species can be developed through consultation
with.
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
Cecil C. Frost, Coordinator
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. 0. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by III.A.13.,
the project. V.D.4.,
V.D.6.a.
3. Project map identifying wetland areas.
Identification of wetlands may be accomplished
through coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of FIGURE 3
Engineers (COE). If the COE is not consulted, the
person delineating wetlands should be identified
and criteria listed.
4. Description of project activities that will occur
within wetlands, such as fill'or channel V.D.6.a.
alteration: Acreages of wetlands impacted by
alternative project designs should be listed.
e
5. Description of project site and.non-wetland V.D.5.
vegetative communities.
G-12
95-0234 Memo Page 3 November 1, 1994
6. The extent to which the project will result in v.D.5.
loss, degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife
habitat (wetlands and uplands).
7. Any measures proposed to avoid or reduce impacts of VI.B.2.c.
the project or to mitigate unavoidable habitat
losses.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural
resources which will result from secondary VI.B.2.b.
development facilitated by the improved highway
facility.
9. A list of document preparers which shows each
individual's professional background and
qualifications.
It is the policy of the NCWRC that impacts to wetlands
be avoided. Non-wetland and non-riparian alternatives V.D.6.a.iv.,
should be examined during project design. Where wetland VI.B.1.
losses are unavoidable, the NCWRC will recommend mitigation
of the losses.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the
early planning stages for this project. If I can further
assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
CC: Joffrey Brooks, District 9 Wildlife Biologist
Micky Clemmons, District 9 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Section Mgr.
David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator

4
G-13
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Aug
ED EHNR
November 3, 1994
RANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihart* Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0234; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to NC 60, TIP No. R-2110
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
_A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current. Iv.D.4.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, III A 13
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings. II.D., Iv.D.4.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance. VI.B.6.a.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) VI.B.6.b.
to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures I.C.
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and IV.D.2.
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized? v.D.6.
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%.Tecycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
G-14
Melba McGee
November 3, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas V=.E.6.c.
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as VI.B.6.d.
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniquesVI.B.6.e.
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the VI.B.6.f.
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
1076ler..mem
cc: Eric.Galamb
to
G-15
P
Note: This memo is also found on page E-72. It was originally submitted on November 13, 1991 in
response to the first (2-lane) start of study letter. It was resubmitted on November 17, 1994 in
response to the second (5-lane) start of study letter.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning & Assessment
FROM: Don H. Robbins, Staff Forester aJ61^
SUBJECT: DOT EA for Proposed Widening of NC 60 From Gec
64-74 in Cherokee County, North Carolina
PROJECT: #92-0319
DUE DATE: 12-2-91
We have reviewed the above subject document and have the
1. We have no objections to the proposed widening.
2. It appears that forestry will not be seriously impacted as a result
of the project. However, the document does not indicate the number VI.B.7.
of woodland acres that will be lost due to construction. We would
like to know how many acres will be lost.

r• l Z +??
3 r
F.S -o 0 3 y
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Stanford M. Adams
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Griffiths Forestry Center Director
2411 Garner Road
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
November 13, 1991
3. It is hoped that the ROW contractor will make efforts to salvage
pulpwood and saw timber whenever possible.
DHR/la
pc: Warren Boyette - CO
File
C:-C , r ,? n rJ
NOV 9
i
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative - ^-,n Employer
G-16
e''
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS Charies H. Gardner
Wiillam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: 96- 023:f_ County:
Project Name: tiJC, & 0
Geodetic Survev
This project will impact V 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].
Reviewerl?? Date
Erosion ar„d SLLedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
? If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
? 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 Contro}ACommission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
10 A
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh. N.C. 27611-76187 • .Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Ni
?J I I t _ i.! ) I '. i'•I V I 1" I I . N
lri cr-Ageney :ojcCt l?evic\v l;cspcllsc
??,.iltlIACN,
' -e
1'ypc of Projccc
Nan-: 1?•?? Z)Pq
V
-? The applicant: should be advised th'.ic plans and specifications for all water s}'stem
- ilnprovenleritS rrlust be approved by the Division of Ei:vironmeatal Health prior to.the award
of a contract or the IMEtatiOr. of construction (as requi-ed by 15A NCAC 18C .0300 cc. seq.).
For information, contact the Public Water Supply Sezilon, [phone].
-? This project will be classified as a. non-community pugic water supply and MUSE Comply with
-! state and federal drinking water monitoring requirenle:•:u. For more'Information the applicant
should contact the Public Water Supply Section, (911 733-232-1.
-? If [his project is constructed as proposed, we will recc-nmend closure of _ feet of adjacent
-? waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information -egarding the shellfis?i sanitation progra
rn, the applicant shoulc contact the Shellfish Sanitaci:,n Branch ac [phone].
The spoil disposal area( s) proposed for this project :na-.- produce a rnosquiLo breeding•preblern.
For information concerning appropriate mosquito _ontrol measures, Lhe applicant should`.
contact the Public Heaich Pest Management Section !E [phone].
-? The applicant should be advised that pl-'01to tnc rerrio,'ai or demolition of dilllapid_azt-_'
J sir-iczures, an exzcnsiv roL:ii coi?Erol progr m rna'• be riccessa_-y 1.1i 0rr!er co p:'event Li e
migration of tl":e t-Ode'_s CC Idiacen_ ale _. The '.._formacion conc.'__rli "ig roacr-i: contr-l,
contact the local heal-:- departinent or chc Pubiic Healti7 Pest MariaC"CMeric SeCtioR' at (919)
733-6407.
-? The applicant should be advised co contract the local health department regarding hell
reouireme:.ts for septic tank inscailacions (as required under 15A NCP.C 18A .19C0 eL. seal.
rnnr?-Wino SP.pC:C tan) aRd OC.^.°.r f1r •S1 1'e! wasEe Qlsoosai methVUS, contact LiiC
Cln-Si,z ??'aSCewnter SeCrinn at (~_?1 !J' 2895
The appliennt s`1ould i-c advised cr. Contract. dit loci! -iealtrl dip:.rtnlen-. regarding tnc sanitnr'•'
.._._.. J !nClh6c-s required for :'rils Pro)ec'.
y '
t 1f existing wntc:' lirle: lll he re'oca-e:i du;!ng tb_ eonsr.nicti0n, ns ir?r the \vnter in:
relocation 1;1ust be su'-mittec! to rl?lvlsion ol r`c:.lronlne ntal.T.?en c i'uhliC water Su1)p:`.
JCCCICII, i?!alT :\ VIC\/ .;nllCll, ?_t' Jt. 1V?aC i ltleCl ?\ 1lC.l?l'. North I_, .7!x!1;12, !9141 73.}
`A
='z ?cwiewer Sea on/l3rnnclz Dace
G-18
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Rev e Inc ce
Pro ect Numoer,
s'0z3?
/ll!?_ o
Due Date. N
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications. information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Regional Office. Normal Proce Time

PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS is;atutory ;:c;
limit)
Permit to construct 8 operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions. 8 sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection 90120 days
oermtt to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to j
discharging into stale surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility granted after NPDES Reply IN.'
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permrt-whichever is later.
30 Pays
j Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary j
-1 1 --• IN/ A)
7 days
J WPtll Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
pnor to the installation of a well. (15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 bays
Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual Filling
- may require Easement to Fill from N C Deoartm«; of (90 days'
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Perini;
Permit to construct 8 operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 cav=_
'acihties and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06 N,A (90 da,s
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520. j
Demolition or -enovaudns of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 C&i5
NCAC 2D.0525 Nnicn requires notification and removal N,A
prtor to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
010-733-0820 - (9C ;a. s;

_ I Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 20.0800
- The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. Ar• 9rosion d se'Jimentatio i
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Cuality Sec; I at least 30 ? 20 cars
davs before bec!nninactivity. A fee of 530 for the first acre and 420.00 for each additional acre or Dart must ac-emcanv !re Tan !30 ]avs
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 mus: De addressed with resDect to the referrenced Local Ordinance. i3c
_ On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bone amount
Mining Permi; varies with type mine and number of acres of afrec'ed land Ar.v area 30 :av<
mined greater than one acre must be permueo The aporopnale bond (6v^ da:s j
must be received before the derma can be issuec
-`I' ,torah Carolina Burning pormi; On site inspection by N C Division Forest Reso;_-as I pie -t
exceeds 4 days I (NiA)
_ Special Grourd Clearance Burning Permit 22 On site inspection by N D Division Forest Resdurc=_s requued it more ,
_ counties in coastal N.C with organic sods than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (r1,-
should be requested at least ten days before aclt,al burn is planned "
- 90 :2C ca...
- Oil R0ining Facilities N/A tNl_,
If permit required. application 60 days before bec n construction
Acoticant must hire N.C qualified en^ineer to precare plans ?? •
inspect construction. cemly construction is ac.:d:_-,rg to &-NR aDprov
,!n plans Mav also require permit unoe• rrlr)SOI,PtC ^antrr,l prrgram And 15^.
404' permit irorn Corps of Engineers An nspeat.u, PI silo s neces
sary to verily Hazard Classification A minimum ee of 5200 00 must ac
company the application. An additional prdcesslrC '9e based on a
_ Dercentade or the total prriect cost will be rpawr- Moon r%; ?,;let non
G_19
Normal Pro(.es_
Time
-- t>i --y nme
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)

File surety bond of 55.000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. i
10 days
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional trial any well opened by drill operator snail, upon (NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Geoonysicat Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit
f 10 days
NIA)
orm
Applicauon 5y letter. No slandarc application (
Stale lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 1520 days
descriptions & drawings of structure & proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
60 days i
401 Water Quality Certification NIA (130 days)
55 days i
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $250.00 fee must accompany application (150 days)
I
22 nays
L CAMA Permit for MINOR development $50.00 fee must accompany application (25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. It any monuments need to be moved or destroyed. please notify:
27611
R
l
h
N
C
27687
B
.
eig
,
.
.
ox
a
N.C. Geodetic Survey.
Abandonment of any wells, if required. must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100.
n Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.

days
45
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Slormwater Rules) is required. (NIA

` Other comments lattach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority) .
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions r g rding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
Asheville Regicnal Office C Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville. NC 28801 Fayetteville. NC 28301
[phone] [phone]
?e
E Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street. P O Box 950
Mooresville. NC 28115
t704) 66" 16Ji
I_ Washin:)Icn R.,t].,)nal Office
1424 Carolina Avrjnile
Washington. NC 27889
[phone]
? Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive. Suite 101
Raleign. NC 27609
(91JI 1:
?i
V'Mrningtcn qeq;onal Office
127 Caroinai Drive Exlension
Wilmington NC 28405
(919i) 195.3900
171 l^Jinston S,llrtm Pecion,al Office
150 `_ NiN'!1 Poiril Brlvtl?n
Si:rtn 11.E 13 2Q,,
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC MEETING
ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO NC 60 FROM US 64-74
TO THE GEORGIA STATE LINE
Project 6.911010 R-2110 Cherokee County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold the above
public meeting on November 16 between the hours of 4:00 pm and
7:00 pm at the Cherokee County Courthouse Annex in Murphy.
} Interested individuals may attend this informal drop in meeting at
their convenience between the above stated hours. Division of
Highways personnel will be available to provide information and
answer individual questions regarding this project.
Because of public comments received at
October 21, 1993, it has been decided
a five lane roadway instead of the two
that hearing.. Additional right of way
will be required for this project.
Anyone desiring additional information
Mr. C. B. Goode, Jr., P.E. at P.O. Box
phone [phone].
the public hearing held on
to construct this project as
lane roadway presented at
and the relocation homes
may contact
25201 Raleigh, NC 27611 or
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons
who wish to participate in the meeting to comply with ADA. To
receive special services, please contact Mr. Goode at the above
address or phone number or fax [phone] with adequate notice
prior to the date of the meeting so that arrangements can be made.
H-1
Of NORTH
r
.
NC 60
FROM THE GEORGIA STATE LINE.
TO US 64-74
PROJECT NO. 6.911010
TIP NO. R-2110
CHEROKEE COUNTY
- - - OPEN HOUSE PUBLIC MEETING
CHEROKEE COUNTY COURTHOUSE ANNEX
NOVEMBER 16, 1994
4

H-2
PURPOSE OF PROJECT
The construction of this project will provide a more efficient and
safe facility to accommodate existing and projected traffic volumes
for NC 60.
PURPOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Today's meeting is one step in the Department of Transportation's
procedure for making you, the public, a part of the planning
process. The Department of Transportation is soliciting your views
on improving NC 60 from the Georgia state line to US 64-74 in
Cherokee County.
YOUR PARTICIPATION
Representatives of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
are present at this meeting. Any of these people will gladly talk
with you, explain the design to you and answer your questions. You
are invited to offer comments to these representatives today or by
writing them on the comment sheet and leaving it in the designated
location or by submitting them in writing during the 15 days
following this meeting.
Those wishing to submit written material may do so to:
Mr. C. B. Goode, Jr., P. E.
Public Hearing Officer
Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
WITH THE INPUT All input received through the public involvement process will be

made available for review and consideration by the Administrative
and Engineering staffs of the Division of Highways, and the Federal
Highway Administration prior to final decisions being made.
WHY THE CHANGES?
After the first public meeting held on October 21, 1993, many
comments were received from the public that this roadway needs to
be a multi-lane facility. Many indicated that this roadway is
vital to the community and the county as it is a major commuter
route and serves as a route used by many traveling through the
area. After much study and deliberation, it was decided to
construct the route as a five lane facility rather than build two
H-3
lanes and widen it again later.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project will widen NC 60 to a 60 ft. roadway with 8 ft.
shoulders,•2 ft. of which will be paved and 6 ft. grassed. This
will provide 2-12 ft. lanes in each direction with a center 12 ft.
lane which will offer a two way left turn lane. Sight distance
will be increased by lowering several hills and filling several
valleys. Many rear end accidents should be eliminated since sight
distance will be improved and a turn lane will be added. Passing
will now be permitted throughout the project.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Length: 5 Miles
Tentative Schedule: Right of Way Acquisition - February, 1995
Construction - June, 1996
Typical Section: 5-12 ft. lanes with shoulders. 2-12 ft. lanes
in each direction with a center turn lane.
8 ft. shoulders, 2 ft. paved, 6 ft. grassed.
Estimated Cost: Construction - $ 15,250,000
5 LANE SHOULDER SECTION

r

H-4

I 12' u• 12' . is, . - lr -
RIGHT OF WAY PROCEDURES
After-the route is selected and the final design is completed, the
proposed right of way limits will be staked on the ground.
Affected owners of property will be contacted by a Right of Way
Agent and a meeting will be arranged. The agent will explain the
plans and the property owner will be advised as to how the project
will affect him. The agent will inform you of your rights as a
property owner. Professionals who are familiar with real estate
values will evaluate or appraise your property. The evaluations or
appraisals will be reviewed for completeness and accuracy and then
a written offer will be made to you by the Right of Way Agent. The
current market value of the property at its highest and best use
when it is appraised will be offered as compensation. The
Department must:
1) Treat all owners and tenants equally.
2) Fully explain the owner's rights.
3) Pay just compensation in exchange for property rights.
4) Furnish relocation advisory assistance.
5) Initiate legal action if settlement cannot be reached.
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
If you are a relocatee, that is, if your residence is to be
acquired as a part of the project, additional assistance in the
form of advice and compensation is available. In addition to being
contacted by a Right of Way Agent, you will also be contacted by a
Relocation Agent. This agent can provide you with assistance on
locations of comparable housing, moving procedures, and moving aid.
Moving expenses may be paid for you. In addition, over and above
the compensation received for the property, up to $22,500 for
owners and up to $5,250 for tenants may be paid to those qualified
to help offset such things as mortgage increases, increased value
of comparable homesS closing costs, etc. Your Relocation Agent can
explain this in greater detail.
Pamphlets about right of way procedures and relocation assistance
are available free of charge.
q
H-5
COMMENT SHEET
NC 60 from the Georgia State Line to US 64-74
November 16, 1994
R-2110 Cherokee County Project 6.911010
NAME:
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS AND\OR QUESTIONS:

to
t
Comments may be mailed to:_..
C. B. Goode, Jr., P. E., Public Hearing Officer
N. C. Department of Transportation, Division of Highways •
P. 0.. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
H-6

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
August 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Wilson Stroud, Unit Head
Project-Planning Unit
FROM: M. Randall Turner. Environmental Supervisor
Environmental Unit
ATTENTION: Missy Dickens, Project Manager
SUBJECT: Natural ResourcC technical Report for
proposed improvements to NC-60 in Cherokee
County; TIP No. R-2110; State Project No.
6.911010
The following report is submitted to assist in your.pre-
paration of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the subject
project. I have attempted to consider the full range of
natural resource issues which may receive either direct or
indirect impacts from the proposed action.
This report represents a reanalysis of a study conducted
in August 1990. New alter-native selection resulted in a
change in the scope of the project, necessitating a
reevaluation of impacts to natural.resources. In addition to
reexamining impacts based upon revised project parameters,
all resources were reevaluated in the context of current
environmental laws and guidelines.
If you have any questions or comments, please call me at
314.
cc: V. Charles Bruton. Ph.D.

IMPROVEMENTS TO NC-60
FROM US-19/64/74 TO GEORGIA STATE LINE
CHEROKEE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP ? R-2110
State Project No. 6.9110101
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
R-2110
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Planning and Environmental Branch
Environmental Unit
M. Randall Turner, Environmental Supervisor
August 7, 1994

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ......................................... 1
1.1 Project Description ............................. 1
1.2 Purpose ......................................... 1
1.3 Methodology ..................................... 1
2.0 Physical Resources ................................... 2
2.1 Soils ........................................... 3
2.2 Water Resources ................................. 3
2.2.1 Project Water Resources .................. 3
2.2.2 Best Usage Classifications ............... 4'
2.2.3 Water Quality ............................ 4
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts........... 5
3.0 Biotic Resources.......... 5
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ......................... 5
3.2 Aquatic Communities ............................. S
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .................. 4
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics ................................10
4.1 Waters of the United States .....................10
4.1.1 Project Waters of the U.S ................11
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ........... 11
4.1.3 Permits ..................................11
4.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation ...... 12
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ......................12
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ..............12
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and,
State Listed Species .......... 13
5.0 References ...........................................15
Appendix A: Study Area Flora Observed ...................
Appendix B: Comments from Resource Agencies .............

I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is
submitted to assist in preparation of an Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for the
proposed project. The project lies in Cherokee County, from
near Murphy to the Georgia state line (Figure 1.)
1.1 Project Description
The project, as proposed, is the widening and general
improvements to NC-60 from its intersection with US-19/64/74
in south Cherokee County, to the NC/Ga state line. The 2-
lane roadway is approximately 7.7 km (4.3 mi) in length.
Existing pavement and shoulders are 5.5 m (13 ft) and 1.2 m
(4 ft) wide, respectively. Improvements will widen pavement
and shoulder areas to 7.3 m (24 ft) and 2.4 m (8 ft),
respectively. In addition to widening, some realignment
(both vertical and horizontal) may take place to improve
sight distances. Existing right of way is 9.1 m (30 ft);
proposed right-of-way is 42.5 m (140 ft). Seven secondary
roads.and 3 bridges are intersected by the proposal.
Three alternatives, including No-Build, are being
considered in the planning study: (1) Widening on 18.2 m (60
ft) right of way; (2) widening on 42.5 m (140 ft) right of
way; and (3) No Build. A Finding Of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) is tentatively planned after approval of the EA.
Proposed project is located in south central Cherokee
County, approximately 5 miles south of 'Murphy, the County
Seat (Figure 1). Area of proposed action is highly rural
with agricultural and residential development predominating
along the entire length of the roadway.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory,
catalog and describe the various natural resources likely to
bo impacted by the proposed action. The report also attempts
to identify and estimate the probable consequences of the
anticipated impacts to these resources. Recommendations are
made for measures which will minimize resource impacts.
These descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the
context of existing preliminary- design concepts. If design
parameters and criteria change, additional field evaluation
may be necessary.
1.3 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations.
Information sources used in this pre-field investigation of
the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle maps (Murphy, Culberson and Persimmon Creek),

? ` K
? • 1 7r ' C Ih rS ? ?! 1
I
l
.? 1

Violet _ I - Andre-
I Ir
IA f
cvd.d?¦ U^'ka MuEla t 1
-- E R 0 E .. r
Tomotl?
Hiwas ) / (-
r 94 Oak ,T 190 If Ir
1 Park lh '
c' /
Postell Suit M, rph
1@
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT l
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
i
NC 60
GEORGIA STATE LINE TO US 64-74
CHEROKEE COUNTY
R-2110
,I- .
1)
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map (Murphy and Persimmon
Cree'K), NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:3000) and
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps of Cherokee County.
Water resource information was obtained from publications of
the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(DEHNR, 1993) and from the NC Center for Geographic
Information and Analysis publication of the Environmental
Sensitivity Base Map of Cherokee County. Information
concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected
species in the study area was gathered from the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected and candidate
species and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database
of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
alignment by NCDOT biologist (M. Randall Turner) on August
16, 1990. Plant communities and their associated wildlife
were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification
involved using a variety of observation techniques: active
searching and capture, visual observations (binoculars).
identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds. SCAt,
tracks and burrows). Cursory studies for aquatic org-anism5
were conducted using a hand held dip net: tactile searches
for benthic organisms were administered as \?-ell. Organisms
captured during these searches were identified and then
released. Jurisdictional wetland determinations were
performed utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the
"Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environment
Laboratory, 1987).
The original scope of the project included widening on
two-lane right of way. Recently, an additonal alternative
was identified (widening on five-lane right of way), which
has necessitated additional.analyses. No supplemental field
work was undertaken for this newly scoped alternative. Field
notes from the 1990 study were used to make extrapolations of
impacts to biotic communities. However, the entire project
was reviewed and updated where resource information has
-changed.
2.0. Physical Resources
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area,
are discussed below. Soils and availability of water
directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
Cherokee county lies within the Mountain Physiographic
Province. Topography in the project area is rolling with
occasional steep gradients and relatively flat valley
bottoms.

2.1 Soils
The site lies within the Murphy Belt Mineral Bluff
Formation. Mineral soils in upland areas originated from
metamorphic rock, formed during the Late Proterozoic Era.
Some of the soils likely to be disturbed in this project are
fill soils, introduced during original roadway construction.
A published soil survey is not available for Cherokee Count,,
but soil information was obtained from the SCS office in
Murphy. Eight native soil series exist in areas adjacent to
the roadway. These soils include Junaluska, Tsali, Arkaqua,
Toxaway, Rosman, Hemphill, Dillard and Shelocta. Junaluska
and Tsali soils are generally located in upland areas,
whereas Arkaqua, Toxaway-,and Rosman soils are found in
floodplain locations. Hemphill, Dillard and Shelocta series
are mostly associated with low stream terraces and
drainageways. Toxaway loam is listed as a hydric soil and
Arkaqua loam often has hydric inclusions of Toxaway soils.
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water
resources likely to be impacted by the project. Water
resource information encompasses physical aspects of the
resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage
Standards and water quality of the resources. Probable:
impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are
means to minimize impacts.
This section addresses surface water resources and does
not consider ground water, aquifers or soil-borne waters, nor
does it consider storm sewers, except where these facilities
serve to support or affect natural populations.
2.2.1 Project Water Resources
All streams' in the study area are located within the
Hiwassee River Basin. Two major stream crossings are
anticipated: Nottely River (one crossing) and South Fork
Rapier Mill Creek (two crossings), as well as several
smaller, unnamed drainages, most of which are tributaries to
the main streams and are either seepages or intermittent,
"wet weather" streams. South Fork Rapier Mill Creel:, the
smaller of the named streams, flows from its headwaters
southwest of the study area to its confluence with the
Nottely River west of the study area. The Nottely, flowing
south-to-north ultimately empties into the Hiawassee Lake
approximately 6.4 km (4.mi) north-northeast of the project
study area. Headwaters for the Nottely River lie mostly
south and east of the study area in Cherokee County, NC and
Fannin County, Ga. South Fork Rapier Mill Creek on°inates
southwest of the study area.
All streams in the study area carry a heavy silt load,
4
but sand, gravel, cobble and boulder substrates are apparent
in all streams. Small, unnamed tributaries are narrow, with
channels ranging 0.5-1.5 m (1.6-5.0 ft) in width, and < 0.3 m
(<1.O.ft) in depth. At the crossing of Nottely River, the
channel approximates 39 m (125 ft). During the field survey,
the stream was loaded with sediment, taking on a reddish hue.
Channel depth ranges from 0.5 to 2.0 in (1.6 to 6.5 ft) with
shoals and riffles present. Both channels of South Fork
Rapier Mill Creek are less than 6.1 in (20 ft) wide. Stream
depth was less than 1.0 m (3.3 ft).
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification
by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). Table 1
lists best usage classifications for all water resources
likely to be impacted by the proposed project.
Table 1. Water Resources Best Usage Classifications
WATER RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION
Nottely River r
Tributaries C
South Fork Rapier Mill Creek C
Tributaries C
Note: Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I
or WS-II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (OR,V) occur within
1.6 km (1 mile) of project study area.
2.2.3 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BAfAN) is
managed by DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water
quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends
in water quality. The program assesses water quality by
sampling for selected benthic macro invertebrate organisms at
fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to
very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species
richness and overall biomass are reflections of water
quality.
No BMAN data has been taken south of Murphy along the
Nottely and Rapier Creek watersheds. The only data available
are from the Hiwassee River
Point source dischargers located throughout North
Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger
S
is required to re-gister for a permit.
No NPDES dischargers are registered for Nottely River or
South-Fork Rapier Mill Creek.
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Streams in the study area carry the visible signs of
agricultural and development impacts. Cattle are seen
watering indiscriminately in streams. Consequently,
sedimentation and animal waste are routine problems
associated with these streams. However, highway construction
should not contribute to the further decline of these
important resources.
Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters in NC should be fully implemented during. all phases of
construction activity. In-stream construction activities
should be scheduled during the driest season to preclude
unnecessary sedimentation from highway construction.
3.0 Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems. This section describes those ecosystems
encountered in the study area, as well as, the relationships
between fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition
and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project
area are reflective of topography, hydrologic influences and
past and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions
of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of
plant community classifications. Dominant flora and fauna
observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described
and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
applicable) are provided for each animal and plant species
described. Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Three distinct terrestrial communities were identified
in the project study area: the man-dominated, the
unclassified mixed forest and the pasture seep (a subset of
the man-dominated community). Community boundaries are
frequently ill-defined: contiguous communities generally
merge without any transition zone between them. Many faunal
species are highly adaptive and may populate the entire range
of terrestrial communities discussed.
6
Man-dominated Community:
Widening and realignment will impact numerous parcels
which dre mostly residential and/or agricultural. Commercial
site impacts include a country store/gas station. One
federal facility (a U.S. Post Office) lies adjacent to
roadway near the intersection with SR 1123. Roadside
shoulders and slopes of the existing roadway are to receive
the majority of impacts in this category.
Predominant vegetation varies at each impacted site, but
lawns, pastured areas and roadside shoulders/slopes have tall
fescues/creeping fescues/chewing fescues (Festuca spp.) and
bluegrasses (Poa spp.j, or combinations of these as
groundcovers. Other planted areas include zones of
ornamental trees, shrubs and herbaceous plantings associated
with homes/farm structures. These plantings include a
variety of oak (Quercus spp.), maples (Ater spp.), white pine
(Pinus strobes), walnut (Juglans nigra), Canadian hemlock
(Tsuga canadensis), white poplar (Populus alba), bear-grass
(Yucca filamentosa. var. sma lliana) and other ornamentals.
These areas, considered highly modified and disturbed,
are attractive to a range of opportunistic wildlife which
experience increased fitness in these areas. Their adaptive
behavior has enabled them to enjoy a relatively safe
existence at the fringes of man's domain, often cohabiting
the same structure (rodents).
Unclassified Mixed Forests:
Other communities likely to be impacted by the proposed
project are mostly fringe areas of upland forests and
unmaintained roadside shoulder areas, including the fill-
/cut- zones. Since the proposed action is likely to result
in impacts to less than 23 m (75 ft) on one side and 11 m (35
ft) on the other side of the existing roadway (alternating.
depending on avoidance goals), most of the impacts will occur
to narrow forest fringes or strips of open (pasture) habitat.
Forests are either stands of mixed hardwoods, relatively pure
white pine, or areas of-pine-mixed hardwood, or mixed
hardwood-pine. Except for isolated stands, most areas have
been logged in recent years and climax character is not easy
to discern.
This community, located at the edges of maintained
shoulder and slope areas, or roadside ditches, consists of
large numbers of herbaceous plants in the ecotones,
intermixed with a less diverse woody flora. Dominance in
this fringe community is difficult to specify for herbaceous
flora, but white pine (Pinus strobes), Virginia pine (Pinus
virginiana), short-needle pine (Pinus echinata), flowering
dogwood (Corpus florida), tulip tree (Liriodendron
tulipifura), black cherry (Prunus serotina) and white oak
7
(Quercus alba) were the dominant canopy and sapling class
plants. Deeper into these forested zones, herbaceous plant
density declines rapidly, giving way to a predominance of
woody vegetation. For a more complete listing of woody and
herbaceous flora identified in areas adjacent to NC-60, see
Appendix A.
Such mammals as opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray
squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), short-tailed shrew (BIaI'IIIa
brevicauda), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus),
southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans), easterm chipmunk
(Tarnias striatus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), bobcat (Lynx
rufus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), striped
skunk (Mephitis mephitis), white-tailed deer (Odoco1leus
virginianus) and occasional woodchuck (Marinota rnonax), long-
tail weasel (Mustela frenata) and gray fox (Urocyon
cinereoargenteus) are likely to be common or occasional
inhabitants of each community in-the area.
Common birds in the vicinity of the project would
include common flicker (Colaptes auratus), common nighthawk
(Chordeiles minor), blue-jay (Cyanocitta cristata), common
crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Carolina chickadee (Pares
caroliniensis), white-breast nuthatch (Sitta ca.roliniensis),
eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis) and cooper's hawk (Accipiter
cooperii).
Amphibians common to the area include hellbender
(Crvptobranchus alleganiensis), eastern newt (Notophthalmas
viridescens), common mudpuppy (Necturus maculosus), Cherokee
salamander (Desrriognathus aeneus) and spotted salamander
(Ambystoma maculatum), as well as, American toad (Bufo
americanus), northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans), spring
peeper (Nyla crucifer) and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana).
Likely reptiles would include snapping turtle (C'helydra
serpentina), eastern musk turtle (Sternotherus odoratus), as
well as, eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), five-
lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), corn snake (Elaphe guttata)
rat snake (E. obsoleta), eastern king snake (Lampropeltis
getulus), northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon), copperhead
(A'kistrodon contortrix)'and timber rattlesnake (Crotalus
horridus).
Complete inventories of animal species likely to occur
within the study area are provided in various, widely-
recognized references, cited on pages 15-16. Wildlife
observed during the site survey are listed in Table 2 below.
g
Table 2. Wildlife Sightings in the Study Area
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Sciurus carolinensis
Eumeces fasciatus
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Sialia sialis
Accipiter coopers
Pasture Seeps:
COMMON NAME
gray squirrel
five-lined skink
common crow
eastern bluebird
Cooper's hawk
Wetlands are variously defined, but, ecologically, they
tend to be ecotones, or transitional areas between uplands
and deeper water systems. These areas can be important to
wildlife and, depending on individual attributes, can serve
other functions.
Several relatively small wetland areas lie adjacent to
the roadway. Most of these areas are seepages from
groundwater, or are depressional areas where stormwater
collects. Each site displays characteristic needlerush
(Juncus spp.) and sedges in addition to fescue, blackberry
(Rubus spp.) and small elderberry (Sambucus canadensis).
All sites are highly disturbed, either by cattle of
mowing activities.
3.2 Aquatic Communities
Approximately 12-15 stream-based aquatic communities
occur within the study area of the proposal, although most
are piped drainages and small ditches. Geo-morphology and
hydrological characteristics of the streams and the physico-
chemical features of the waters greatly influence faunal
composition of. these aquatic communities. Terrestrial
communities adjacent to a water resource also greatly
influence aquatic communities.
Dominant conspicuous plants in the vicinity of these
streams include box elder (Acer Vegundo), red maple (A.
rubrum), black willow (Salix nigra), silky dogwood (Corvus
amomum), touch-me-not (Impatiens pallida), branch alder
(Alnus serrulata), cane (Arundinaria -ioantea), elderberry
(Sambucus canadensis), cardinal flower (Lobelia cardinalis),
blue lobelia (L. syphilitica), knotweed (Polydonum
pennsylvanicum), sedges (Cyperus spp. and Carex spp.rushes
(Juncus spp.) and water hemlock (Cicuta maculata).
In addition to cattle and other domestic animals which
frequently use these streams, numerous wildlife species use
these areas as refuge, forage or nursery. Many of the
animals listed above are predicted to routinely use streams
9
in the study area. Fish diversity is predicted to be low due
to the small size and condition of most of the streams. The
central stoneroIler (Campostoma anomaIum), rosyside dace
(Clinostomus funduloides), chubs (Nocomis spp.), shiners
(Notropis spp., or Cyprinella spp.) and northern hogsucker
(H.vpenthelium nigi'icans) may occur in a few or all of the
study area streams. The larger streams may support redhorse
suckers (bfoxostoma spp.), rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris),
sunfish (Lepornis spp.), smallmouth bass (Nicropterus
punctulatus), sculpin. (Cottus spp.) and rainbow trout
(Oncorhvnchus mykiss). Based upon information supplied by
the NCWRC, the large streams in the area also support a
spring spawning run of white bass (bforone chrysops) and
walleye (Stizostedion vit.reum), both important game fish.
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various
impacts on the biotic resources described. Any construction-
related activities in or near these resources have the
potential to impact biological functions. This section
quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in
terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary
and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the
relative abundance of each community present in the study
area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 3
summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic
communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts are derived using the entire proposed right of way
less the width of the existing footprint, or a width of 9.1 in
(30 ft) for Alternate 1 and 33.5 m (110 ft) for Alternate 2.
Table 3. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2
Man-dominated 5.1 (12.5) 18.6 (45.9)
Unclassified Mixed Forest 9.1 (22.4) 33.2 (52.1)
Pasture Seeps* (See Table 4)
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres); * a subset of
titan-dominated community
Although the proposed action does not pose as a
significant threat to terrestrial fauna, it is likely to have
substantial affects on the aquatic environment. Demolition
activities are likely to place sediment into the water
column, as will pier/end bent installation activities.
Sediment-loading of the stream channels by such activities
can be devastating to local populations of aquatic organisms,
including sport fish such as smallmouth bass, trout and bream
10
(or sunfish), as well as invertebrates such as molluscs,
crustacea and insect larvae, important parts of the aquatic
food chain.
Based upon information supplied by the NCWRC, the
streams in the area support a spring spawning run of white
bass and walleye, both important game fish. Critical months
during these spawning activities are February-April.
Construction activities that are likely to impact these
streams should be curtailed during these months to avoid
impacts to these important fishery resources.
Slow-moving, burrowing and/or subterranean organisms
will be directly impacted by construction activities, while
mobile organisms will be displaced to adjacent communities.
Competitive forces in these adoptive communities will result
in a redefinition of population equilibria.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and
impact analysis pertinent to two important issues--rare and
protected species, and Waters of the United States.
3.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States," as defined in
Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CRF) Part 328.3.
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are,those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water as often
and at ample duration to support, and normally do support, a
prevalence of vegetation.typically adapted to life in
saturated conditions. Any ac-tion that proposes to place fill
into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Arm; Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Wetlands tend to be ecotones, or transitional areas
between uplands and aquatic habitats. They perform critical
functions for wildlife,-as well as serve to remove pollutants
from stormwater, and delay flooding of downstream areas by
storing floodwaters. Numerous other functions are attributed
to wetlands, but it suffices to say they are important
features in the landscape.
Jurisdictionally, wetlands can be identified by the
presence of hydric soils, sustained hydrology and a plant
community which can be considered hydrophytic. Field
indicators of each of these three wetland criteria provide
the basis for identifying and delineating wetland-upland
boundaries.
Surface waters are streams, lakes, rivers and other
11
water resources which, although not necessarily wetlands, by
definition, serve invaluable functions to wildlife, the
landscape and society.
3.1.1 Project Waters of the U.S.
All of the 16 sites identified as Waters of the U.S. are
small, consituting less than 0.1 ha (< 0.1 ac) of wetlands.
Most are small cross drains with little or no flow except
during periods of rainfall. Sites 4-5, 7 and 10 are seeps
located within pasture settings. All other sites are
streamside wetlands, most comprising only narrow strips of
marginal wetlands. Plant species are as described in Section
3.0. Soils were saturated to the surface at most sites.
3.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The information in Table 4 'provides estimates of the
anticipated magnitude of impacts at each wetland site.
Table 4. Anticipated Impacts to Wetlands
SITE COMMUNITY TYPE ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2
1 R4SB3 <0.01 (0.02) 0.02 (0.05)
2 R4SB3 <0.01 (0.02) 0.02 (0.05)
3 R3SB3 <0.01 (0.02) 0.02 (0.05)
4* PEM1 0.03 (0.07) 0.07 (0.17)
5* PEM1 0.02 (0.04) 0.09 (0.23)
6 R4SB3 <0.01 (0.02) 0.02 (0.05)
7* PEM1 <0.01 (<0.01)' <0.01 (0.02)
8 R3SB3 <0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.03)
9 R4SB3 <0.01 (0.02) 0.02 (0.05)
10* PEM1 0.02 (0.04) 0.04 (0.09)
11 R4SB3 <0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.03)
12 R4SB3 <0.01 (<0.01) <0.01 (0.02)
13 R3SB3 <0.01 (0.02) 0.02 (0.05)
14 R4SB3 <0.01 (0.01) <0.01 (0.02)
15 R4SB3 <0.01 (0.02) 0.02 (0.05)
16 R4SB3 <0.01 (0.02) 0.02 (0.05)
TOTAL <0.20 (<0.36) <0.41 (1.01)
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres); R4SB3, R3SB3 and
PEM1 denote Riverine Intermittent Stream Bed, Riverine Upper
Perennial Stream Bed and Palustrine Emergent Persistent (* _
Pasture Seeps), respectively.
3.1.3 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters
are anticipated. In accordance with provisions of section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be
required from the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill
material into "Waters of the United States."
12
Based upon the estimated magnitude of anticipated
impacts to wetlands (Table 4), it is likely that one of the
Nationwide Permits (either Nationwide 14, or Nationwide 26)
will cover the proposed action. However, based upon the COE
Discretionary Ruling for Trout Waters, it will be necessary
that the NCDOT coordinate with the NCWRC prior to applying
for any Section 404 authorization. In order for the
project's impacts to qualify for consideration under the
Nationwide Permit, special conditions, 330.5(b), must be
followed and special management practices (330.6) must be
adopted. Final judgement about specific permit jurisdiction
should be left until final designs are completed so that
actual impact areas can-be verified. Final discretionary
permit authority rests.with the COE.
In addition, any action which places fill in more than
0.12 ha (0.33 ac) of wetlands must apply for a Section 401
Water Quality Certification from the DEM. This project will
require Section 401 authorization.
3.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
Project is essentially a widening of an existing
roadway, hence total avoidance of impacts to Waters of the
U.S. is not feasible. However, efforts to minimize impacts
to study area sites should be undertaken by the use of BMP's.
Since project impacts are likely to be authorized under one
of the Nationwide permits, mitigation will not be required in
accordance with the COE/EPA :Memorandum of Agreement
(November, 1989).
3.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been, or are
in, the process of decline either due to natural forces or
their inability to coexist with man. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended)
requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a
federally-protected species, be subject to review by the Fish
and Wildlife (FWS). Other species may receive additional
protection under separate state laws.
3.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. As of July 8, 1994, the FNS does not list
any protected species for Cherokee County.
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of
uncommon and protected species revealed no recorded
13
occurrence of federally-protected species in or near the
project study area.
3.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
There are 9 federal candidate (C2) species listed for
Cherokee County. Federal Candidate species are not afforded
federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are
not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as
organisms which are vulnerable to extinction although no
sufficient data currently exist to warrant a listing of
Endangered, Threatened,.P.roposed Endangered or Proposed
Threatened.
Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened
(T), or Special Concern (SC) by-the North Carolina Heritage
Program list of Rare Plant and Animal species are afforded
state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and
the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of
1979.
Table 5 lists federal candidate species, the species'
state status (if afforded state protection) and the existence
of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This
species list is provided for information purposes only. The
status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Table 5. Federal Candidate/N.C. Protected Species, Cherokee
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NC STATUS HABITAT
Plecotus rafinesquii* Rafinesque's big-
eared bat SC No
Cryptobranchus
alleganiensis* hellbender SC Yes
Clemmys inuhlenberl-ii bog turtle T No
Pituophis m.
inelanoleucus northern pine snake SC No
Percina squamata olive darter Sc Yes
Cambarus hiwassee Hiwassee crayfish - Yes
Elimia interupta knotty elimia E Yes
bfesodon clingmanicus Clingman covert T Yes
Platanthera integri-
labia* white frin-eless
0
orchid E No
NOTE: "*" Population not documented in Cherokee County in
the past twenty years;
Species not afforded state protection but listed
as Federal Candidate.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the
site visit, nor were any of these species observed. Records
14
in the NC Natural Heritage Program files do not report any
plant or animal species with a fiC status of Endangered (E),
or Threatened, but 3 amphibians with Special Concern (SC)
status, the mole salamander (Ambvstoma talpoideum) and the
four-toed salamander (Homldactylum scutatum) are listed as
occurring in the area of the proposed action.
15
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-list of North
American Birds (6th ed.). Lawrence, Kansas, Allen
Press, Inc.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical report Y-87-1,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Miss.
Lee, D.S., J.R. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A
Distributional Survev of North Carolina Mammals.
Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Natural History.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program List of
the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina". North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III.
1980. Amphibians and Reptile of the Carolinas and
Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Grolkna
Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North
Carolina. N.C. WRC., Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1988. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1986.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality
in North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Data Base and Long Tern Changes in Water Quality, 19S3-
1990.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. "Classifications and Water Quality
Standards for The Hiwassee River Basin." Raleigh,
Department of Environment. Health and Natural Resources.
NCWRC. 1990. "Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina".
Raleigh, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
Plant Conservation Program. 1991. "List of North Carolina's
Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Plant Species".
Raleigh, North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds
of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of
the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hitt, The
University of North Carolina Press.
16
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley: 1990. Classification of
The Natural Communities of North Carolina. Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Classifications of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States.,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Weakley, A.S. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Plant Species of North Carolina". North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1935. Mammals
of the Carolinas, Virginia and Maryland. Chapel Hill,
The University of North Carolina Press.
APPENDIX A
Appendix Table 1. Upland Herbaceous Flora in Study Area
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Ambrosia artemisiifolia
Amphicarpa bracteata
Asclepias spp.
Cacalia atriplicifolia
Capsella bursa-pastoris
Chenopodium album '
Chrysanthemum leucanthemum
Coreopsis tripteris
Cuscuta sp.
Daucus carota
Desmodium nudiflorum
Erigeron strigosus
Euon vinous americana
Eupatorlum flstulosum
Euphorbia maculata
Festuca spp.
Gnaphalium obtusifolium
Heuchera americana
Hieracium venosum
Lactuca canadensis
Lathyrus latifolius
Lepidium virginicum
Lespedeza spp.
Lonicera japonica
hlelilotus alba
Oenothera biennis
Oxalis stricta
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Phlox subulata
Phytolacca americana
Plantago lanceolate
Polystichum acrostichoides
Prunella vulgaris
Pueraria lobata
Pycnanthemum sp.
Ranunculus recurvatus
Rosa multiflora
Rubus spp.
Rumex crispus
Sabatia angularis
Schrankia microphylla
Smilax spp.
Solanum carolinense
Toxicodendron radicans
Tri fol i um arvense, T. pra tense
Verbascum thapsus
Verbesina alternifolia
Vi tis aestival is
Xanthium strumarium var. glabraturu
COMMON NAME
ragweed
hog peanut
milkweeds
pale indian-plantain
shepherd's purse
lamb's quarters
ox-eye daisey
coreopsis
dodder
Queen Anne's lace
beggar's ticks
daises' fleabane
strawberry bush
Joe Py,e weed
euphorbis
tall fescue
rabbit tobacco
aIumroct
hawkweed
wild lettuce
sweet-pea
pepperrass
lespedeza
Japanese honeysuckle
tall white clover
evening primrose
,wood sorrel
Virginia creeper
moss pink
poke
English plantain
Christmas fern
heal-all
F,udzu
mountain mint
buttercup
multiflora rose
blackberry
sourgrass
rose-pink;
sensitive brier
greenbriers
nightshade
poison ivy
clovers
mullein
verbesina
summer -rape
cocklebur
Appendix Table 2. Upland Woody Flora in Study- Area
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
1 Acer neoundo boa elder
2 Acer rubrum red maple
3 Amelanchier arborea serviceberrv
4 Carya glabra pignut hickory
5 Carva tomentosa mockernut hickory
6 Cornus florlda flowering do-wood
7 Ilex americana American holly
S Juniperus virginiana eastern red cedar
9 Leriodendron tulipifera tulip tree
10 Ligustrum sinense privette
11 Nvssa sylvatica black gum
12 Oxydendron arboreum ? sourwood
13 Pinus echinata short-needle pine
14 Pinus strobus white pine
15 Pinus viroiniana Virginia pine
16 Prrunus serotina black cherry
17 Quercus alba white oak
1S Quercus coccinea scarlet oak
19 Quercus velutina black oak
20 Rhus copallina winged sumac
21 Rhus glabra smooth sumac
22 Rhus typhina sta -horn sumac
23 Sassafras albidum sassafras
24 Tsuga canadensis Canadian hemlock
APPENDIX B

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
10-3-94-
TO-
C
-
te
?r
C
Ga
t REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
c? ? M
.
r
.,
?
_ cv
Ch
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.

ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
[-; PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? SIGNATURE
? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
yo
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPAPUMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
October 3, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
. A Z'
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: NC 60, From the Georgia State Line to US 64-74, Cherokee
County, State Project 6.911010, TIP Project R-2110
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways began
studying proposed improvements to NC 60 in August, 1990. At that time, the
proposed project called for the construction of two-lane improvements. A
State Environmental Assessment addressing two-lane improvements was approved
in September 1991, and it was distributed to appropriate federal, state, and
local agencies and individuals for comment on October 23,'1991. A State
FONSI has not been completed.
NCDOT has recently decided to upgrade the scope of the project to
five-lane widening. The Planning and Environmental Branch is preparing a new
document, a combined State Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant
Impact.(SEA/FONSI), to address the proposed five-lane improvements. The
project is currently scheduled for right of way acquisition in fiscal year
1995 and construction in fiscal year 1996.
The proposed improvements include widening NC 60 from the Georgia State
Line to US 64-74 in Cherokee County (see attached map) to a five-lane
shoulder section (60-foot travelway with 8-foot grassed shoulders). The
project will also include the replacement of three bridges: bridge numbers 28
and 49 over South Fork Rapier Mill Creek (culverts are proposed at these
locations) and bridge number 55 over the Nottely River (a new bridge is
proposed at this location). The proposed right of way width for the subject
project is 140 feet.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful
in evaluating potential environmental impacts of the expanded project. If
applicable, please identify any permits or approvals which may be required by
your agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation of the state
D
i 1
October 3, 1994
Page 2
funded EA/FONSI. This document will be prepared in accordance with the State
Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond by
November 18, 1994 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of
this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Missy
Dickens, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
MAD/plr
Attachment

x
-,S,
G
drew• _t If 7
E'K l ?J

1309 1308 ' 1303
- {

?_\2
5

y
1130 ?o
/ 1307 130

d
}
S 1127 294 Kinsey 3
.
\
\\\ 1129
Creek
q 1163 !
Letitia 13 o o T t 404
• `.
! t?? ` 1
?h
\\\

11
30

130
•6 r'T 1127 •• - 4

1 23
" ? ?r
•Ly1• 304

^ {

129
I1J1 1128 •
iE 1 02\ 1.6 1306
?l 2 ..
?`• 2 ?2 t
'.•I ? ? ? m
.?
1593
/ .) b
}
64 5 X E ?? \ 112A Pn 1610 1, 1 8
1 111 1114 74 12 ' 1 A1164 1124 Ranger v 0IS96 1594 1593
c
)Wv se t • 1120 (() s ,Q
1115 n 1119y'?' 1602 1119
1117 •3 kiddy t1 \ ??TS
ch,
D J
. a060 1 6A3 J * ?1
Shields t t t e 2.5 t 121a 1626 ? Y,'
1120 }k
• ? r '?°` 7 ''3 1596 ?
163 1598
t 1 t d N, • Macedonia
CSX' •,? •9 • 1396
* 13
Culberson ' t. 1597 4? ?
• b? .6 1599
1597
60 % GEORGIA STATE LINE
w •r
w
4
0
h
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARnIENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGMVAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRON"NIENTAL
BRANCH
NC 60
GEORGIA STATE LINE TO US 64-74
CHEROKEE COUNTY
R-2110
FIG. 1
1 Yiolet
I U? ka
111.,,` E R
H iwassee ?.c•.i. Tomoti
191
9r Oak i
? Park u ?
Postell Suit 1 H
9.4
1 • ` flt Rana la
•`•` 4 -1 In
74
/
1
..4v--,
NC 60
From Georgia State Line
to US 64-74
Cherokee County
State Project 6.911010
T.I.P. 4R-2110
I

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In Compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
For further information contact:
Mr. L. J. Ward, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
T
f

*' ?4 ?7 ?, Dat ?y L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning.and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
NC 60
From Georgia State Line
to US 64-74
Cherokee County
State Project 6.911010
T.I.P. #R-2110
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
September, 1991
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
ce Jackson
P ject Planning ngineer
r -? q1' //' -? ? -
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E.
Rural Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
`??tN u t
i hr?r?i
C A,?
SEAL
6976
%
G' ~
061 ; •'
4.
Ilk
V. P V,
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.
II.
III.
IV.
PAGE
Need for the Proposed Project 1
A. General Description .1
B. Historical Resume and Project Status 1
C. Characteristics of the Existing Facility 1
1. Cross-Section 1
2. Right of Way 1
3. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment 1
4. Speed Limit 1
5. Intersecting Roads 2
6. Access Control 2
7. Degree of Roadside Development 2
8. Drainage Structures 2
9. Terminals for the Project
D. Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis 2
E. Accident Study 3
F. School Bus Data 3
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 4
A. General Description 4
B. Summary of Proposed Action 4
1. Cross-Section 4
2. Right of Way 4
3. Proposed Design Speed 4
4. Access Control 4
5. Permits 4
6. Structures Required 4
7. Cost Estimates 5
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 6
A. Alternative Improvements along the Existing Facility 6
B. "No Build" Alternative 6
C. Postponement of the Proposed Action 6
D. Corridor on New Location 6
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS CONSIDERED 7
A. Social Impacts 7
1. Land Characteristics 7
a. Scope and Status of Planning 7
b: Existing Land Use 7
C. Farmland 7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2. Neighborhood Analysis
3. Relocation of Individuals and Families
4. Public Facilities
5. Cultural Resources
a. Architectural and Historical
b. Archaeological
B. Economic Impacts
C. Environmental Impacts
1. Geological Features
2. Plant Communities
a. Uplands
b. Unclassified Fringe Community
C. Animal Life
3. Natural Resources
a. Man-dominated Systems
b. Federally-listed Species
C. State-listed Species
4. Soils
5. Water Quality
6. Wetlands
7. Special Commitments
8. Flood Hazard Evaluation
9. Traffic Noise Analysis
10. Air Quality Analysis
11. Construction Impacts
V. Comments and Coordination
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 - Geographic Location
Figure 2 - Photos of Existing Conditions
Figure 3 - Aerial Mosaic/Wetland Map
Figure 4 - Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Figure 5 - Limit of 100 year Floodplain
Appendix
PAGE
8
8
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
12
12
12
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
16
17
17
18
22
25
27
NC 60
From Georgia State Line
to US 64-74
Cherokee County
State Project 6.911010
T. I. P. #R-2110
I. NEED'FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description
This report presents the results of a study of possible improvements
--to a segment of NC 60 (See Figure 1). The studied section begins at the
Georgia state line and ends at US 64-74, which is a distance of five
miles.
Within the project limits,. NC 60 is classified as a Rural Major
Collector in the North Carolina Functional Classification System. It is
also designated as Federal-Aid route 2711.
B. Historical Resume and Project Status
The proposed project is included in the 1991-1997 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program with an estimated cost of $10,050,000.
Right of Way acquisition and construction are scheduled for Fiscal Years
1993 and 1996, respectively.
C. Characteristics of the Existing Facility
1. Cross-Section
The existing roadway consists of 18 feet of pavement and varies
from 2-foot to 3-foot grassed shoulders.
2. Right of Way
The existing right of way width is 30 feet (maintained).
3. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
Rolling terrain exists along the subject section of NC 60.
Horizontal alignment is judged to be fair. Vertical alignment is
judged to be fair to poor. Approximately 85% of the segment has
restricted passing sight distances of less than 1500 feet (Figure 2
offers photos of existing conditions).
4. Speed Limit
The subject section of NC 60 has a 55 mph posted speed limit.
2
5. Intersecting Roads
All intersecting roads connect with NC 60 at grade. The
intersections are stop sign controlled.
6. Access Control
No access control exists along the project.
7. Degree of Roadside Development
Roadside development is very light throughout the project area.
8. Drainage Structures
The existing roadway crosses Rapiers Creek, Rapiers Mill Creek,
and Nottely River. Characteristics of structures at these crossings
are given below:
Bridge No. 28 over Rapiers Creek has a travelway width of 20.2 feet
and is 52 feet in length. The bridge has a sufficiency rating of
54.2, and an estimated remaining life of 14 years.
Bridge No. 49 over Rapiers Mill Creek has a travelway width of 20.2
feet and is 69 feet in length. The bridge has a sufficiency rating
of 48.4, and an.estimated remaining life of 14 years.
Bridge No. 55 over Notte.ly River has a travelway width of 20,feet and
is 160 feet in length. The bridge has a sufficiency rating of 56.9,
and an estimated remaining life of 22 years.
9. Terminals of the Project
The southern terminal of the proposed project is at the Georgia
State Line. The existing.cross section consists of 24 feet of
pavement and 8-foot shoulders (2' paved).
The northern terminal of the proposed project is US 64-74. The
existing cross section consists of 2 24' pavements divided by a 36'
median, and 10 feet of outside shoulder area (4' paved).
D. Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis
Existing traffic volumes along the studied section of NC 60 range
from 2100 to 2500 vehicles per day (See Figure 4). Presently, an average
of 275 vehicles per hour are using the facility during peak traffic
periods. An analysis of the existing two-lane roadway indicates that the
flow rate for level of service C is approximately 491 vehicles per hour
and 1921 vehicles per hour for level of service E. The subject two-lane
section of NC 60 is currently operating at a level, of service C. However,
if upgraded to a 24-foot cross section as proposed this section will
operate at level of service B.
3
The design year (2115) average daily traffic volumes are estimated to
range from 4100 to 4800 vehicles per day (See Figure 4). Based on the
analysis of future traffic volumes, the Level of Service of the existing
facility, if not improved, would decline to D in the design year. If the
existing facility is upgraded to a standard 24-foot cross section as
proposed, it will operate at a Level of Service B through the design year.
Currently at the NC 60 US 64-74 intersection all moves are operating
at a Level of Service A with the exception of the left turn movement (from
NC 60 onto US 64 going west). Based on an estimated 15 turns at peak hour
it is operating at Level of Service D. No signal is recommended for this
intersection at this time. However, it is anticipated that a signal will
be provided at this intersection during the design life of the project.
Capacity analysis shows a signal will provide a level of service A for the
design life.
E. Accident Study
An accident study of the existing highway was conducted by the
Traffic Studies Section of the Traffic Engineering Branch of the NCDOT for
the time period from January 1, 1987 through April 30, 1990. Summarized
statistics are as follows:
NC 60 Statewide
From Georgia State Line Average for Similar NC
to US 64-74 Primary Routes
Total Accidents 35 N/A
Fatal Accidents 0 N/A
Non-Fatal Injury
Accidents 20 N/A
Total Accident Rate 330.50 210.4
(ACC/100MVM)*
Fatal Accident Rate 0.00 2.7
(ACC/100MVM)
Non-Fatal Injury 188.86 99.7
Accident Rate
(ACC/100MVM)
*ACC/100 MVM = Accident per 100 Million Vehicle Miles.
The accident analysis shows that the studied segment has a total
accident rate and non-fatal injury accident rate above the statewide
averages for similar two-lane NC primary routes. A further review of the
accident data shows that "running off road" (46%), "rear-ends" (17%), and
"angles" (14%) constitute the highest percentage of accidents types
occurring on this segment of NC 60.
F. School Bus Data
Presently there are 3 school buses using this route.
4
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to improve
NC 60 to a 24-foot pavement plus 8-foot shoulders between the Georgia
state line and NC 64-14 in Cherokee County (See Figure 3). The total
length of the subject project is 5 miles.
B. Summary of Proposed Action
1. Cross-Section
It is recommended that the studied roadway be widened to a
24-foot pavement, with 8-foot shoulders.
2. Right of Way
The acquisition of adequate right of way to contain the
recommended cross-section is proposed. A Right of Way width of 100
feet plus easements is anticipated to contain construction.
3. Proposed Design Speed
The design speed for the roadway improvements is proposed to be
60 mph. This speed should not be confused with the posted speed
limit, as the design speed reflects the geometrics of the highway.
It is anticipated that the proposed facility will have a posted 55
mph speed limit.
4. Access Control
No control of access is recommended.
5. Permits
Based upon the estimated impacts to wetlands, it is anticipated
that the Nationwide Permits will be applicable for the proposed
action. In order for the project's impact to qualify for
consideration under the Nationwide Permit, special conditions,
330.5(b), must be followed and special management practices (330.6)
must be adopted. Final judgement concerning specific permit
applicability will be made when final designs are completed, so that
actual impacts can be verified. Final discretionary permit authority
rests with the COE.
6. Structures Required
The existing structures over Rapiers Creek, Rapiers Mill Creek,
and Nottely River will be replaced.
5
SITE STREAM EXISTING RECOMMENDED
NO. NAME STRUCTURE STRUCTURE
1 S. Fork Rapier 52' bridge 80' bridge
Mill Creek
2 Rapier Mill Ck. 69' bridge 100' bridge
3 Nottely River 160' bridge 180' bridge
4 Nottely River
Tributary 1 @ 5' x 5' RCBC Retn. & Extn.
5 Nottely River
Tributary 1 @ 5' x 4' RCBC 1 @ 71" RCP
7. Cost Estimates
Construction $5,691,700
Structures 808,300
Right of Way 1,662,000
Total $8,162,000
6
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Alternative Improvements along the Existing Facility
In order to determi ni
the Georgia State Line to
project area to investig<
alternatives. The studies
and cost-effectiveness of
the alternatives as they
community, the relocation
on the-natural environment
the best method of improving NC 60 from
US 64-74, studies were conducted in the
to the costs and impacts of several
reviewed the utility, capacity, safety,
the various alternatives. The effects of
relate to the disruption of the local
of families and businesses, and the impact
were also considered.
After examining all of the possible methods of improving the
subject section of NC 60, the NCDOT determined that widening the
existing facility to a standard two-lane cross-section and improving
passing sight distance offered the most feasible and cost-effective
choice.
B. "No Build" Alternative
The "no build" alternative would avoid some negative impacts of
the proposed project, such as the disruption of the natural
environment caused by the use of additional land and an increased
noise level. However, benefits of the proposed action, such as an
improved and safer facility and enhancement of the economic
environment, would also be eliminated. The long term benefits
resulting from the improvement of the NC 60 facility will more than
compensate for any unavoidable adverse impacts. Consequently, a "no
build" decision is not considered prudent and is not recommended.
C. Postponement of the Proposed Action
Postponing the implementation of the proposed improvements is
not considered a prudent course of action. The existing facility is
currently an 18-foot roadway with 2 to 3-foot shoulders and an
eighty-five percent (85%) "no-passing" zone. This is not considered
desirable and is not in conformance with the standard 24-foot
cross-section.
D. Corridor on New Location
A relocation alternative does not offer any advantages over the
recommended improvement. The existing highway is a direct route
between the project terminals, while the relocation alternative is
not direct and would be more environmentally damaging and costly.
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS CONSIDERED
A. Social Impacts
The proposed action will not disturb social cohesion. The
project will not interfere with public facilities and services, nor
will it divide any neighborhoods or communities.
1. Land Characteristics
a. Scope and Status of Planning
The proposed improvement is located within the
jurisdiction of Cherokee County, which does not currently
engage in land use planning or zoning activities.
The project also lies within the boundary of the
Nantahala National For but does not directly affect
land owned or managed by the National Forest Service.
1986-2000 The Land and Resources Management Plan: directs
land use activities for the Nantahala and Pisgah National
Forests.
b. Existing Land Use
The land adjacent to NC 60, north from the Georgia
State Line, to just beyond SR 1123, is used predominantly
for agriculture. There is also residential structures and
accompanying accessory buildings along the proposed
project. Portions of the Nottely River floodplain adjacent
to US 60, land at the intersections of US 60 and SR 1598,
and US 60 and SR 1626 are also farmed. The remaining land
along US 60 is wooded, with residential structures set back
several hundred feet from the existing road. Some small
farms are interspersed among the forested areas.
C. Farmland
The Governors Executive Order Number 96 and the
National Environmental Protection Act require that state
and federal agencies consider the potential impact on
farmland caused by construction and land acquisitions. The
Soil Conservation Service was contacted to determine
whether farmland, as defined by the Farmland Protection
Policy Act, exists within the project area. To date, no
soil survey has been completed for Cherokee County.
Therefore, the Soil Conservation Service is unable to
determine the existence of farmland soils in the vicinity
of the project (See page A-16). Therefore, the project is
exempt from further consideration under the Farmland
Protectional Policy Act and North Carolina Executive Order
No. 96.
8
2. Neighborhood Analvsis
Cherokee County is in the western section of the state and
is bounded by Graham, Macon, and Clay Counties, the State of
Georgia and the State of Tennessee. Based on the 1980 US
Census, Cherokee County - has a total population of 18,933
persons.
The proposed project site is characterized by a mountainous
rural setting. Development such as homes and commercial
establishments are scattered at various intervals along the
proposed project site.
3. Relocation of Individuals and Families
There will be an estimated 5 residences and 1 businesses
displaced along the proposed project. A relocation summary
report giving a demographic profile of the relocatees is
included in the Appendix.
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable re-
placement housing will be available prior to construction of
federally assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina.
Board of Transportation has the following three programs to
minimize the cost 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 arrangement (in case 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 con-
ducted in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970
(Public Law 91-646), and the North Carolina Relocation
Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-17). The program is
designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in
relocating 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.
9
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 so 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 purchases 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 housing offered will be
within the financial means of the families and individuals
displaced, and 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 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 displacee 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. If applicable, the NCDOT will pay 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.
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, including incidental expenses, on the purchase
of a replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what
the state determines is required.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be
displaced by the NCDOT's federally-assisted construction
projects unless and until comparable or adequate replacement
housing has been offered or provided for each displacee within a
10
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 financial means, and the replacement
payment exceeds the federal and 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 since it is used as the name implies,
only as a "last resort". There appears to be adequate
opportunities for relocation within the area. However, it will
be available if necessary.
4. Public Facilities
The Culberson Post Office is located along the proposed
project site.
5. Cultural Resources
a. Architectural and Historical
This project is subject to review pursuant to North
Carolina General Statutes 121-12(a) which requires that if
a state action will have an adverse effect upon a property
listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the
North Carolina Historical Commission will be given an
opportunity to comment.
The area of potential effect on historic architectural
properties was delineated, and the maps and files of the
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
were consulted. This search revealed no properties listed
in the National Register located within that area of
potential effect.
These results were conveyed to the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO), and he concurred with these
findings. (See page A-32). This completes compliance with
GS 121-12(a).
b. Archaeological
This project was coordinated with the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) in accordance with the
procedures for compliance with the Borth Carolina
Environmental Policy Act (GS 113) and the North Carolina
Historic Commission (G$ 121.12). The SHPO requested that
11
this archaeological study be conducted in order to evaluate
the project's possible impact upon sites listed in the
National Register of Historic Places.
The project area was surveyed on August 30, 1990, by
the NCDOT staff Archaeologist. The results of the
archaeological study indicate that the project will have no
impacts upon any archaeological sites that are eligible
for, or are listed on, the National Register of Historic
Places.
In the Nottely River vicinity, no artifacts or
cultural deposits were found within 100 feet of the
existing roadway. All of the subsurface tests were
negative, no artifacts or cultural deposits were present.
However, one artifact, a quartz projectile point tip
fragment (possibly a Pisgah Triangular type with missing
stem), was found on the ground surface approximately 125
feet east of the roadway. No other artifacts were
discovered in the vicinity. The place where the artifact
was found is on a small bench or terrace that protrudes
from the slope above the floodplain. This may be all that
remains of site 31Ce42.
During the reconnaissance of the remainder of the
project area, no tracts with high potential for significant
cultural remains (historic or prehistoric) were noted.
Since the project (as currently planned) will have no
effects on any archaeological sites that are on or are
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places, no further archaeological work is recommended.
B. Economic Impacts
In the month of July 1990, Cherokee County had a labor force of
10,400 persons. Of this total, 8,670 persons were employed, leaving
an unemployment total of 1,730 persons, or 16.6 percent. It appears
that the proposed improvements will not significantly impact the
economy.
C. Environmental Impacts
1. Geological Features
The project area consists of rock which is gray-green,
mica schist with thin interbeds of quartzite. Most'of the
material on the project is soft weathered rock or hard
saprolite. Very little of the exposed rock in the cuts is
fresh rock. The dip angles of the rock range from 55 to 60
degrees southeast while the regional strike in the area is
North 50-60 degrees East.
12
As NC 60 trends northeast-southeast, the road cuts on
the northwest side have fallen back to the steeply dipping
foliation planes. However, on the southeast side of NC 60,
the foliation planes dip into the cut slopes, which are
also very steep. Though these cuts are very steep on both
sides, they are vegetated and appear stable
On this project, the majority of work will consist of
widening the existing very narrow cuts. Past improvements
to NC 60 has left as little as 3-4 feet between the toe of
the slope and the pavement's edge. At most, there is only
5-6 feet from the edge of pavement to the cut slope.
No acidic rock is anti ci pted on the project and no
underground storage tanks should be affected by the
project. There are three stream crossings where the
existing narrow bridges may have to be widened or replaced.
2. Plant Communities
a. U lands
Upland communities likely to be impacted by the
proposed project are mostly fringed areas of upland forests
and unmaintained roadside shoulder areas, including the
fill slope zones. Since the proposed action is likely to
impact areas less than 25 feet outside of the existing edge
of pavement, most of these impacts will be experienced by
forested fringe areas or open habitat. Some forested
strips may be cut particularly where construction easements
are necessary to accommodate realignments and drainage or
slope modifications.
Forests are either stands of mixed hardwoods,
relatively pure white pine, or areas of pine-mixed hardwood
or mixed hardwood pine. Except for isolated-stands, most
areas had been logged in recent-years and climax character
was not easy to discern. Because of their relatively young
age, the hardwood forests were characteristic of several
communities. Since almost all of the anticipated impacts
to these forests are in fringe zones, these communities
will be designated as Unclassified Fringe Communities.
b. Unclassified Fringe Community
This community, located at the edges of maintained
shoulder and slope areas on roadside ditches, consists of
large numbers of herbaceous plants, intermixed with a less
diverse woody flora. Dominance in this.fringe community is
difficult to specify for herbaceous flora, but white pine
Pinus strobus , Virginia pine Pinus virginiana), short
needle pine Pinus-echinata , flowering dogwood Cornus
13
florida , tulip tree (Leriodendron tulipifera), black
cherry Prunus serotina and white oak Ouercus alba were
the dominant canopy and sapling class plants.
Impacts to this fringe community are likely to be
minor. Some upland habitat will be removed; however,
successional recruitment of indigenous flora is likely to
rapidly supplant post-construction erosion control planting
in roadside areas.
C. Animal Life
The forested types in and around the project area are
homing sites for a variety of wildlife. Such mammals as
opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray squirrel Sciurus
carolinensis , short-tailed shrew Blaring brevicauda),
white-footed mouse.(Peromyscus leuco us , southern flying
squirrel Graucom s leuco us , eastern chipmunk Tamias
striatus , raccoon (Procyon lotor , bobcat (Lynx rufus ,
eastern cottontail (Sylvilaqus floridanus), striped skunk
(Mephitis me hitis , white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus) and occasional woodchuck Marmota monax ,
longtail weasel Mustela frenata and gray fox Uroc on
cinereoatgenteus) are likely to be common inhabitants of
the area. Amphibians common to the area include hellbender
Cr tobranchus alleganiensis), eastern newt (Notophthalmas
viri escens), common mudpuppy Necturus maculosus),
Cherokee salamander (Desmognathus aeneus and spotted
salamander Amb stoma maculatum), as well as American toad
Bufo americanus), northern cricker frog Acris crepitans),
spring peeper H la crucifer and bullfrog Rana
catesbeiana). Likely reptiles would include snapping
turtle Chel dra serpentina), eastern fence lizard
(sceloporus unddulatus), fivelined - skink Eumeces
fasciatus), corn snake Ela he uttata , rat snake (E.
obsoleta , eastern king snake (Lampropeltis etulus ,
northern water snake Nerodia si edon , copperhead
(Agkistrodon contortrix and timber rattlesnake Crotalus
horridus . Common birds in the vicinity of the project
would include common flicker Cola tes auratus , common
nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), blue-jay (Cyanocitta
cristata , common crow Corvus brachyrhynchos), Carolina
chickadee Parus caroliniensis), white-breast nuthatch
Sitta caroliniensis), eastern bluebird Sialia sialis and
cooper's hawk Acci iter coo erii .
Although the proposed action does not pose a
significant threat to terrestrial fauna, it is likely to
have substantial effects on the aquatic environment.
Demolition activities are likely to place sediment into the
water column, as will pier/end bent installation. These
activities can be devastating to local populations of
aquatic organisms, including sport fish such as smallmouth
14
bass, trout and bream (or sunfish), as well as inverte-
brates such as mollusks, crustacea and insect larvae, which
are important parts of the aquatic food chain.
Based upon information supplied by the NCWRC, the
streams in the area support a spring spawning run of two
important game fish: whitebass and walleye. Critical
months during these spawning activities are February
through April. Construction activities that are likely to
impact these streams should be curtailed during these
months to avoid disturbing to these important fishery
resources.
Slow-moving, burrowing and/or subterranean organisms
will be directly impacted by construction activities, while
mobile organisms will be displaced to adjacent communities.
Competitive forces in these adoptive communities will
result in a redefinition of population equilibria.
3. Natural Resources
a. Man-dominated Svstems
Predominant vegetation varies at each impacted site,
but lawns, pastured areas and roadside shoulders/slopes
have tall fescues/creeping fescues/chewing fescues (Festuca
spp.) and bluegrasses (Poa spp.), or combinations thereof,
as groundcovers. Other planted areas include zones of
ornamental trees, shrubs and herbaceous plantings
associated with homes/farm structures. These plantings
include a variety of oak uercus spp.), maples Acer
spp•), white pine Pinus strobus , walnut Ju lans ni ra ,
Canadian hemlock Tsu a canadensis), white poplar Po ulus
alba), bear-grass Yucca filamentosa var. smalliana), and
other ornamentals.
These areas, considered highly modified and disturbed,
are attractive to a range of opportunistic wildlife which
experience increased fitness in these areas. Their
adaptive behavior has enabled them to enjoy a relatively
safe existence at the fringes of man's domain, often
cohabiting the same structure, as rodents do. Impacts on
these habitat zones are not likely to be severe in terms of
diminishing populations. Some temporary fluctuation in
populations of animal groups which utilize these areas is
anticipated during the course of construction, but
post-project levels are expected to return to normal.
The so-called natural communities, which the proposed
alignment is likely to impact, are only natural in the
relative sense. They are in various stages of succession,
recovering from previous disturbances, whether from
15
forestry practices, construction/development activities.
They are indeed natural when contrasted with a parking lot
or a well-groomed residential site, but are far from
natural in the context of "virgin", old-growth, or native.
b. Federally-listed Species
Plants and animals with federal protection statuses of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE)
and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of the Endangered Species Act. In a September 1990 letter
from USFWS, that agency informed NCOOT that-neither E, T,
PE, nor PT species are likely to be encountered by the
proposed project. Although not protected by federal law,
the USFWS letter did report that, Four Status Review (SR)
species are found in the general geographic area. Table 3
lists these species and their status.
Table 3. Federal SR species listed for
study area by USFWS.
Scientific Name
Plecotus rafinesquii
Cryptobranchus
alleganiensis
Percina squamata
Platanthera
integrilabia
Common Name US Status
Rafinesque's
Big-eared Bat C2
Hellbender C2
Olive Darter C2
White Fringeless Orchid C2
C2 (Candidate 2) species are those for which there is some
evidence of vulnerability, but for which there are not enough
data to support listing as endangered or threatened at this
time. Listing is "warranted but precluded by other pending
proposals of higher priority."
No efforts were made to confirm or refute the possible
occurrence of either of these species within the study area.
C. State-listed Species
Plants or animals with state designations of Endangered
(E), Threatened (T) or Special Concern (SC) are granted
protection by the State Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 to
113-337) and the State of North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979 (G.S. 196:106-202.12 to 106-202.19),
administered and enforced by the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission and the NC Department of Agriculture, respectively.
Records in. the NC Natural Heritage Program files do not
report any plant or animal species with a NC status of
16
Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), but 2 amphibians with Special
Concern (SC)'status, the mole salamander (Ambystoma talpoideum)
and the four-toes salamander (Hemidactylum scutatum) are listed
as occurring in the area of the proposed action.
No efforts were made to locate these aquatic organisms in
streams crossed by the project.
3. Soils
A published soil survey is not available for Cherokee County,
but soil information was obtained from the SCS office in Murphy.
Eight native soil series exist in areas adjacent to the roadway.
These soils include Junaluska, Tsali, Arkaqua, Toxaway, Rosman,
Hemphill, Dillard and Shelocta.. Junaluska and Tsali soils are
generally located in upland areas, whereas Arkaqua, Toxaway and
Rosman soils are found in floodplain locations. Hemphill, Dillard
and Shelocta series are mostly associated with low stream terraces
and drainageways. Toxaway loam is listed as a hydric soil and
Arkaqua loam often has hydric inclusions of Toxaway soils.
4. Water Quality
Two major stream crossings are anticipated, Nottely River and
Rapier Mill Creek, as well as several smaller, unnamed drainages,
most of which are tributaries to the main streams, or are either
seepages or intermittent, "wet weather" streams. Rapiers Mill Creek,
the smaller of the named streams, flows from its headwaters into
Nottely River, which ultimately empties into the Hiawassee River.
These streams are given a "Best Usage" classification of C. Class C
fresh waters are best suited for aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
5. Wetlands
The information in the table below provides estimates of the
anticipated magnitude of impacts at each wetland site. Wetland sites
are shown on Figure 3.

Summary of likely Impacts to Wetlands along NC 60
WETLAND SITES
1, 2, 6-9, 11-14
3
4
10
15
16
5
ote: Pp and Pa deno
respectively.
COMMUNITY TYPE AREA OF IMPACT (sq. ft.)
(Pp) Drainage 800 (p s.»
er site)
(Pa) Drainage 7500
" 7500
" 2500
" 2500
" 2500
Pastureland 15000
q.r5 o u
perpendicular and parallel drainages
17
Wetlands are variously defined, although ecologically, they tend
to be ecotones, which are transitional areas between uplands and
deeper water systems. These areas can be important to wildlife and,
depending on individual attributes, can serve to buffer flood flow,
remove pollutants from surface waters, recharge subsurface water
tables. Jurisdictional wetlands are specifically defined by CFR
328.3 (b) (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation,
1989).
Several relatively small wetland areas lie adjacent to the
roadway. Most of these areas are associated with small tributary or
intermittent stream channels which bisect the roadbed via corrugated
metal pipe. The only other wetland type is a pasture site, adjacent
to the highway on the west side, south of SR 1122. All three major
stream crossing involve bank-to-bank wetlands only. No floodplain
wetlands are apparent at any of these sites.
All sites are highly disturbed excavated channels or
pastureland. Dominant conspicuous plants in the vicinity of these
wetlands include box elder Acer Ne undo red maple Acer rubrum ,
black willow Salix ni ra , silky dogwood Cornus amomum ,
touch-me-not (Impatiens al ida , branch alder Alnus serrulata),
cane (Arundinaria i antea elderberry Sambucus canadensis),
cardinal flower Lobelia cardinalis) blue lobelia (L. syphilitica)
knotweed (Polygonum pennsylvanicum), sedges C erus spp. an Carex
spp.), rushes Juncus spp.) and water hemlock Cicuta maculata .
Impacts on these wetlands are likely to be relatively minor. In
the case of the stream channel fringe wetlands, those channels which
lie parallel to the roadbed are likely to be relocated outside the
impact zone. It is anticipated that the wetlands which derive from
the saturated soils adjacent to these channels will be reestablished
following channel relocation. Impacts on the pastureland wetland is
likely to result in the conversion of farm-use land to roadbed,
although impacts to natural communities is negligible. Wetland sites
are shown on Figure 3. The Nationwide Permit is anticipated to be
applicable for wetland impacts caused by the project. No other
special permits are anticipated to be required. NCDOT Best
Management Practices will be used to minimize and avoid environmental
impacts associated with this project.
6. Special Commitments
NCDOT proposes that no construction will be conducted in the
streams between February 15 and May 15 of any year without prior
approval of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission.
7. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Cherokee County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance
Program. Figure 5 shows the limits of the 100-year flood boundaries
for South Fork Rapier Mill Creek, Rapier Mill Creek, and Nottely
River. The terrain in the vicinity of the project is a rolling
mountainous with natural draws and streams located such that the
proposed project can be drained without difficulty.
18
Ground water and existing drainage patterns will not be
significantly affected by the project construction. Siltation of
adjacent areas and streams due to project construction will be kept
to a minimum by the use and maintenance of the standard erosion
control measures and devices. None of the streams involved in the
proposed project limits are designated as a 'trout stream'.
8. Traffic Noise Analysis
A traffic noise analysis was performed to determine the effect
of the widening and segmental relocation of NC 60 in Cherokee County
on noise levels in the immediate project area between the Georgia
State Line and US 64-74. The investigation included an inventory of
existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient
(existing) noise levels in the study area. It also included a
comparison of the predicted noise levels and the ambient noise levels
to determine if traffic noise impacts can be expected to result from
the proposed project. Traffic noise impacts were determined from the
current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and
construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. Where traffic noise impacts are predicted,
examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures
for reducing or-eliminating the noise impacts are considered.
CHARACTERISTICS OF NOISE
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from
many sources, including airplanes, factories, railroads, power
generation plants and highway vehicles. Highway noise, or traffic
noise, is usually a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive
train, and tire-roadway interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound
pressure. Since the range of sound pressures varies greatly,- a
logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to some common
reference level, usually the decibel (db). Sound pressures described
in decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in
terms of frequency weighted scales (A, B, A, or D).
The weighted "A" scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle
noise measurements because it places most emphasis on the frequency
range to which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz).
Sound levels measured using "A" weighting are often expressed as dbA.
Throughout this report, references will be made to dbA, which means
an "A" weighted decibel level. Several examples of noise pressure
levels in dbA are listed in Table N1 (See page A-2).
A review of Table N1 indicates that most individuals in
urbanized areas are exposed to fairly high noise levels from various
sources as they go about their daily activities. The degree of
disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on
three things: 1) the amount and nature of the intruding noise, 2)
the relationship between the background noise and the intruding
noise, and 3) the type of activity occurring where the noise is
heard.
19
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are
not, compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria and
procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways. These
abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned
Federal reference (Title 23 CFR, Part 772). A summary of the noise
abatement criteria for various land uses is presented in Table N2.
The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound
which, in a given situation and time period, has the same energy as
does time-varying sound. In'other words, the fl-uctuating sound levels
of traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady noise level
with the same energy content.
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the
project to determine the existing background noise levels. The
purpose of this noise level information was to quantify the existing
acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact
of noise levels for residences, businesses, and other noise sensitive
receivers in the vicinity of the project. The existing Leq noise
level along NC-60, as measured at 50 feet from the roadway, ranged
from 65 dbA in areas just north of the Georgia State Line to 66 dbA
near the northern terminus at US-64-74.
PROCEDURE FOR PREDICTING FUTURE NOISE LEVELS
The prediction of highway traffic noise is a complicated
procedure. In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large
number of variables which describe different cars driving at
different speeds through a continually changing highway configuration
and surrounding terrain. Obviously, to assess the problem certain
assumptions and simplifications must be made.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study
was the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction (BCR) Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and
OPTIMA (revised March 1983). The BCR procedure is based upon the FHWA
Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The BCR
traffic noise prediction model uses the number and type of vehicles
on the planned roadway, their speeds, the physical characteristics of
the road (curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.), receptor
location and height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier ground
elevation, and barrier top elevation.
In this regard, it should be noted that only preliminary
alignment was available for use in this noise analysis. The proposed
project is to widen and upgrade the existing 2-lane roadway to a
24-foot section with 2-foot paved shoulders and upgrade the
horizontal and vertical alignment using minor relocation
improvements. The proposed project was modeled assuming no special
noise abatement measures would be incorporated. Only those existing
natural or man-made barriers which could be modeled were included.
20
The roadway sections and proposed intersections were assumed to
be flat and at-grade. Thus,
topographic conditions. The noise this a predict onse made ins thisrreport "-case"
highway-related noise predictions for the traffic conditions during
the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and Level-of-Service (LOS) C volumes were ions were compared, and the volumes resulting in the noisiest dng coal dl tither t me
used with proposed posted speed limits. Thus,
periods, the noise.levels will be no greater than those indicated in
this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized to , enable hethe
determination of the number of land used (by type) during
peak hour in the design year 2015, would be exposed to noise levels
approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and those se increas land uses predicted to expect substantial
locationsisuch as 25 e50,T100,
basic approach was to select receptor
200, 400, 800, and 1600 feet from roadway). t nter T of the near raff i c lane
(adaptable to both sides of
the changn projected traffic volumes
receptors were determined by the
along the proposed project. The result Using this procedur was levels
of receptor.points along the project.
this gri, noise were calculated for each identified receptor.
The traffic noise impact of this project, n+3 naterm6 of increas
When ed
noise levels, is predicted to range rel real-life noise is heard, level
more readilyf dbAceableareand as 10 dbA
mot People as a doubling or a halving of the
change perceptible. is jA 5udged bdbA y by
loudness of the sound.
The number of receivers in each activity category that are
teria
predicted to approach or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement receptors
(NAC) is shown in Table N3 (See page A-4). As shown, two roach or
(both residences) in the project area are predicted to app
information
exceed the NAC. However, nresults of this projeclevel Otherincreases
expected along NC 60 as a
included in Table N3 is the maximum should extent of
level contours. This information undeveloped lands
exercising land use control over the remaining icti adjacent to the roadway in local dand land and to prevent further
development of incompatible activities uses.
TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
the FHWA predictedNoisetraffi
Traffic noise impacts occur when the
AbatementSe
levels either (a) approach or exceed
Criteria (NAC), with approach meaning within 1 dbA of the Table N2
substantially exceed existing noise
(See page A-3) value, or (b)
levels. The NCDOT definition of substantial increase is displayed at
the bottom of Table 142.

21
Noise abatement must be considered when either of the two
preceding conditions exist. Physical measures to abate anticipated
traffic noise levels can often be applied with a measurable degree of
success by the application of solid mass, attenuable measures which
effectively defract, absorb and reflect highway traffic noise
emissions. Solid mass, attenuable measures may include earth berms
or artificial abatement walls.
The project will maintain no control of access, most commercial
establishments and residences will have direct driveway connections,
and all intersections will adjoin the project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction, it
must be high enough and long enough to shield the receptor from
significant sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier
severely reduce the noise reduction provide by the barrier. It then
becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small
noise reduction. Safety at access openings. (driveways, crossing
streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a concern.
Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length
would normally be eight times the distance from the barrier to the
receptor. For example, a receptor located 50 feet from the barrier
would normally require a barrier 400 feet long. An access opening of
40 feet (10 percent of the area) would limit its noise reduction to
approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF HIGHWAY TRAFFIC
NOISE, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-1, USDOT, chapter 5, section
3.2, page 5 -27). Businesses,' churches, and other related
establishments located along a particular highway normally require
accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass, attenuable measures
for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two
qualities and thus, would not be acceptable abatement measures in
that case.
Based on past project experience, isolated receptors generally
require noise barriers which are too costly because of the length and
height required for a reasonable noise level reduction. For this
reason, no isolated receptors were analyzed in detail for this
report.
Based on past project experience, these. factors effectively
negate the effectiveness of any phiscal abatement measures and none
are recommended for this project.
"DO NOTHING" ALTERNATIVE
The traffic noise impact for the "Do Nothing" alternative was
also considered. Due to the nature of the project, with lane
widening (no additional through-lane construction) and minor
horizontal and vertical alignment alteration, the "Do Nothing"
alternative is very similar to the build condition in terms of
traffic noise impacts and the effect on the acoustical environment in
the project area. Like the "build" scenario, results of "Do Nothing"
analysis show that two receptors (both residences) would experience
22
traffic noise impacts. Furthermore, noise level increases would be
on the order of 3-6 dBA. This increase would represent a barely to
readily perceptible change in traffic noise levels for those living
and working in the project area.
CONSTRUCTION NOISE
The major construction elements of this project are expected to
be earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction
noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passerby and
those individuals living or working near the project, can be
expected, particularly from paving operations and from the earth
moving equipment during grading operations. Overall, construction
noise impacts are expected to be minimal since the project is along
the existing roadway, traversing through low-density areas.
Considering the relatively short-term nature of construction noise,
these impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission
loss characteristics of nearby wooded areas and structures will
likely be sufficient' to moderate the effects of intrusive
construction noise.
SUMMARY
Based on these preliminary studies, no traffic noise abatement
is reasonable or feasible along this project and none is proposed.
This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of
Title 23 CFR, Part 772, and unless a major project change develops,
no additional reports are required for this project.
9. Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution is the result of industrial emissions and
emissions from internal combustion engines. The impact resulting
from the construction of a new highway or the improvement of an
existing highway can range from aggravating existing air pollution
problems to improving the ambient air conditions. Motor vehicles are
known to emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons
(HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (S02), and lead (Pb) (listed
in order of decreasing emission rate).
The primary pollutant emitted from automobiles is carbon
monoxide. Automobiles are considered to be the major source of CO in
the project area. For these reasons, most of the analyses presented
are concerned with determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the
vicinity of the project.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor
near a highway, two concentration components must be used: local and
background. The local component is due to CO emissions from cars
operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances within
100 meters) of the receptor location. The background component is
due to CO emissions from cars operating on streets further from the
receptor location.
23
In this study, the local component was determined using line
source computer modeling and the background component was determined
by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources (NCDEHNR). These two concentration components were
determined separately, then added together to determine the ambient
CO concentration for comparison to the National'Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are generally regarded as sources of hydrocarbons
and nitrogen oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from
cars are carried into the atmosphere where they react with sunlight
to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide. It is the ozone and nitrogen
dioxide that are of concern and not the precursor, hydrocarbons and
nitrogen oxide. Area-wide automotive emissions of HC and NO are
expected to decrease in the future due to the continued installation
and maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars, and thus
help lower ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide
require several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of
ozone generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the source of
hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole, not individual
streets and highways, are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons. The
emissions of all sources in an urban area mix together in the
atmosphere, and in the presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to
form ozone,.nitrogen dioxide, and other photochemical oxidants. The
best example of this type of air pollution is the smog which forms in
Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not generally regarded as significant sources of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources
account for less than seven percent of particulate matter emissions
and less than two percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of
non-highway sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural).
Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from cars
are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the
project will cause air quality standards for particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles emit lead as a result of burning gasoline containing
tetraethyl lead, which is added by refineries to increase the octane
rating of the fuel. Vehicles with catalytic converters burn unleaded
gasoline, thereby eliminating lead emissions. Also, the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required the
reduction in the lead content of leaded gasoline. The overall
average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was 2 grams per gallon
(gpg). By 1989, this composite average had dropped to 0.01 gpg.
In the future, lead emissions are expected to decrease as more
cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead content of leaded gasoline is
reduced. Because of these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on
the proposed project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
24
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine
future CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway
improvements. "CALINE3 - A Versatile Dispersion Model For Predicting
Air Pollutant Levels Near Highways And Arterial Streets" was used to
predict the CO concentration at the nearest sensitive receptor to the
project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions
with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and
meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the
annual average daily-traffic projections. The modeling analysis was
performed for a "worst-case" condition, using winds blowing parallel
to the roadway. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were
calculated for the years 2005 and 2015 using the EPA publication
"Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the MOBILE4 mobile source
emissions computer model.
The background CO concentrations for the project area was
estimated to be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the
Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental Management (DEM),
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources (NCDEHNR) indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.9
ppm is suitable for most rural environs.
The. receptor affected by "worst-case" air quality conditions
resulting from building the proposed project is R54 (residence). The
"Do Nothing" alternative was also' considered for its effects on air
quality in the project area. Receptor R54 (residence) will also
experience "worst-case" air quality conditions if the project is not
built in future years. Predicted 2005 and 2015 one-hour average CO
concentrations for the proposed project and the "do nothing"
alternative are presented in the table below:
PROJECT ALTERNATIVE "WORST-CASE"
RECEPTOR
Widen/realign facility R54 (RES)
"Do Nothing" R54 (RES)
ONE-HOUR CARBON
MONOXIDE
CONCENTRATION (ppm)
2005 2015
2.2 2.2
2.2 2.2
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS
(maximum 1-hour-35 ppm; 8 hour average - 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 can be concluded that the
8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard. See Tables Al through
A4 for input data (See pages A-5 - A-6).
25
The project is located within the Western Mountain Air Quality
Control Region. The ambient air quality for'Cherokee County has been
determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. Since this project is located in an area where the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control
measures, the conformity procedures of 23 CFR 770 do not apply to
this project.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials
resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition, or other operations
will be removed from the project, burned, or otherwise disposed of by
the Contractor. Any burning done will be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of North
Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at the greatest
distance practicable from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning
will be performed under constant surveillance.
Measures will be taken in allaying the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection
and comfort of motorists or area residents.
10. Construction Impacts
To minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction,
the following measures, along with those already mentioned, will be
utilized during the construction phase:
1. Solid wastes created as a result of highway construction
will be disposed of in accordance with Section-802 of the
NCDOT Standards Specifications.
2. Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as
possible to alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes. In
addition, care should be taken not to block existing
drainage ditches.
3. An extensive rodent control program will be established
where structures are to be removed or demolished in order
to prevent the migration of rodents into surrounding areas.
4. Any burning will be done in accordance with applicable
local laws and ordinances, along with regulations of the
North Carolina Plan for Implementing National Ambient Air
Quality Standards. Burning will be done only on the Right
of Way, under constant surveillance, with good atmospheric
conditions, as remote from dwellings as possible.
5. The contractor shall maintain the earth surface of all
waste areas, both during the work and until the completion
of all seeding and mulching or other erosion control
measures specified, in a manner which will effectively
control erosion and siltation.
26
6. Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for
use on this project, the Contractor shall obtain a
certification from the State Department of Cultural
Resources certifying that the removal of material from the
borrow source will have no effect on any known district,
site, building, structure, or object that is included, or
is eligible for inclusion, in the National Register of
Historic Places. A copy of this certification shall be
furnished to the Engineer prior to performing any work on
the proposed borrow source.
7. Traffic services in the immediate area may be subjected to
brief disruption during construction of the project. Every
endeavor will be made to insure that the transportation
needs of the public will be met both during and after
construction.
8. Before construction is started, a preconstruction
conference involving the Contractor, pertinent local
officials, and the Division of-Highways will be held to
discuss various construction procedures, including a
discussion of precautionary steps to be taken during the
time of construction that will minimize interruption of
water service. In all cases, the contractor is responsible
for any damages to water lines incurred during the
construction process. This procedure will insure that
water lines, as well as other utilities, are relocated with
a minimum of disruption in service to the community.
9. The NCDOT will contact the National Geodetic Information
Center prior to construction.
27
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
Input concerning the effects of the project on the environment was
requested from appropriate Federal, State, and Local agencies in prepari.ng
this Environmental Assessment. Listed below are the agencies which were
contacted.-
*U. S. Army of Corps of Engineer-Wilmington
*U. S. Department of Interior-Washington
U. S. Bureau of Indian Affairs-Washington
*U. S. Environmental Protection Agency-Atlanta
U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service-Atlanta
U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service-Raleigh
U. S. Forest Service-Asheville
*State Clearinghouse
*N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. Department of Human Resources
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
N. C. Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development
Region A Council of Governments
Cherokee County Commissioners
City of Murphy
*Denotes agencies from which input was received.
No significant problems or objections were raised by the above
agencies. Copies of the comments received are included in the Appendix.
A public meeting was held on October 23, 1990 at the Murphy High
School. The purpose of this meeting was to familiarize local citizens
with the background and intent of the proposed project, and to solicit
their comments at an early stage in the planning process.
The general feeling of the Local officials and residents was a strong
desire to have a four-lane facility. Reasons stated for wanting a
four-lane facility are as follows:
1. Upcoming Olympics in Atlanta
2. General access to Atlanta
3. A possible State Resort Park in Cherokee County
4. Expanding Development along NC 60
5. Generally, to attract development and tourists to Cherokee
County.
JSJ/plr
APPENDIX

b qS ,,
9
0
b
:S 1117 294 305
Kinsey 1 Q u
1129 1165
Crc?k Letitia 1 300 1404 1 305
Ck
r 6 < \? .
v
1 1 30 1 1 27 _ •D i 1423 LSD 304 1274
9
rip,
3 13.02 O ?.6 1306
2 3 a 1301• to co
3 q 5 1593
b .3' 1 5 9 5
.3?,1. P • ., isaa
64 5 t ` 1580
74 1125 ?" j' 1126 1610
6 5.. l a 1164 1124 Ranger ivv 11596
1 3 s
g 2 1594 1593 a 1582
Q
1
1 19' 120 `O S
I
1117 .3
1602 19
Shady 1 129 t set
4 s Ch: ?o
1118 2.5+ r 1120 1626 y
112q ? , !I
r ° :.3 :.
1 16398
Ma
r c sx
Culberson
•6 1599 b 1597
1so7
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
- DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 60
GEORGIA STATE UNE TO US 64-74
CHEROKEE COUNTY
R-2110
0 Milo 1
1 r FIG.1
rn p
(n
X<0
?c
D =
m -?
m
U)
11
z
O ?'
?Q
a2
C: 0

44 CPC.*?. a ? * ^i v, t y16, ? F IF 11 J!-?
r, R *Y ?,? •, ???: ? ; . .'? ??u•#`' ? ;,fir-'+
ANI
- ?-' ml
y^ # Fk
-1 oaw
- fr .f '•F + ?/ Y R k+ ;!F i "4' .ryk1?I • d fy _ ,''' •i y
i,q "i ? fa?I`IF i •??..'N' .?,. ?r.a ? ,9. A?; a14.._.
. 7t•
. 41
1 ..{- D ? .`` 'i bra +"?p"^.If?? h? •?'I?/t' ?PF.,.?,,?• ??A 1I
i , X'r
r ? 8! ,!. .? £ /? ? ? r rte' i',,,?? y S?!'? # •*. ? s.-
9
r { - ?. ",r •(-1?'?. 11 v 44p?! _ .??? x?'.? ?' ?# sk? ? ? '? ?°'.r `• n.r i ?-?,a,3t .s.,
M
jo,
wanutOawco
IVA.
4Y e'
.p. cn
i s _ ' ' ? e. a .a?6. ,w? - e "'• a'-
M LE
D Z Zn `
v -
m m m 410
y `J
POP-
i
raf j ?
Z
c7
Ol
O

t.

-
r

M •??

5
4,

s4" ? t i'v
?y s

_ Fr
I'
M?

rs

nIr

r
1
r
f
r .
t
3 _.
JIM
y
t
a ?Jaw?n? .
'tin
a T 1 5 F AX. ,q.
,
F
f?
I. Y
MATCH LINE D
Try, -- ? • " ?.?.
.o ,,r?'?t '•P ?`?".,? +' ? ,:,.:»? a .'" r? L, p ?q?' tlr sr ? I''.?' aF"c "7"N
V;w
,.y • <a+? • * ¢? y .'f _. ' ?j?,?.?i *?i f ? yxx ? :k ?y,,,??•e?° ? « °"m,,?. ?n 4 x
r
.
1 ?.
r a
t>
.Ie
r _
4 . Y
3-
k
_,. M ? .. sue,,, ? - .,., , ? ? an•'• -
.. f
4qF
?Yr r , R
-INA
.M
R f'?VfR ?
m ? y ? ? ? 159
'• awlilNer.... ? .
• v
rv m * ^ , ' '
?? J J ? Y ?S _x _ • '?? 4e j fs
?
a
N ?, i t? Y ?
? -Yl , S ?
,D
Z ; y
m
r
'lot
n
-4 -4
AL -*I
?;...
588F9n
: If
aw 'A
04
s°'`"#,? ;? ?C ?^w??r yy?. ?,? •,•? ? '?!3 .i. ??. 'y?? ..gar .iY?";
4Ap
• ? -? " fM .ice . 1 'F t '? R -
Alb
f a? ? . rya-? . ? ? ?? • 4? i
?
s - '
dt;
7 4.
MATCH LINE E , .,. ?0-1 #. ay
x w
4 .4k
rT a - .hiin•.` ' ,L eh -+'7•.. f, yM ?• yln •3 r '?
T, , •i9f p? Fi' ? .?' li z ? yr• ? fi` e • .........
K • 21 It
`
-oil
'lot
Iw ft
+TS j?' ? f ice' •.,.
?. ? ? .,` x may. .? ?+:.: ??. ? ? ? ; i ?
°w 14 s . .
i?
AI. I.
W It
il, y ? tie •p:+ '?°' .? e '. ?????r
i5-. ?8,?atx 1?
44
? ? ' • , y Lk Sh ?
Awl.
ti ? p ML
IMML
9+.. ,111 ? ^ E .e. .y, A` ti._, 1
ilk
r
, - ?tz
al*
si. `"t ~ rya i
si 1?' .r y1.. ' Y4?. sYr3lR ! v
4Sv
Lcn)
:+1) t' + "r t a' dt: z r Q
yti Mir. ?.4 w
•. z z
low
V_ N11
CL m
Io.
'lot
"id . 41 dc') .0 o
04
TTU
? ? ? ""'¢ " .?"? ?°.- r?• ' • `o', ? "''.fir'""
•? `.? .w`t .?. _ . ?F., .y? -qty ?- l•? -. (..k, ?.. ?.y-.?
* ?N1'_• .. RN T •?1:? - WeMkw +?4 v "'ill.-n"'.
e(w u. , x: fir. ' a ^ +" ° P "r
maw 4,
? *•- ` . ? "?' `? ?';? • ? x'1401 '? '?
yy?l? A?, M V ?R' yid, .! 1
1,M N F"sA t.'l? Y ?!N ^? .'•T'.? _ ? .yam .af .r.?r I?? '... SII CI'.??^•+?S?T'•? u
• 9f
>
'
? i
^l1?
? ?. '¢,. ? ?f i?•T. ,.. -?R ?' ? y r ?, fP'ex ,y? .-?,? VtnW,, "?,x`
Ivw
/? tr

of ,.?„ ? „ • ?'? . ` , - ? ?? ? 1W A?` ? ? +g, ,
'.
as - .2a' • ? ? Jf ? ??? ? e° s? 1???.: t".a „ T ? `9a' ? ??? '+r
x
- .:.. 'tom ? -;? ? i*? ?? ?? - ?'y?' 's' ? 7 y {? ? ?" ? r ?i?, f M
MA TCH LINE -
G .. e,
c. +
-Mv
- mow, •,f ?y, . j' , `° ' V !!? ? + 'fr??$ ?.J ? h* ?y?
F ii it
A •t,4e r f 5 r ?,? ?? ? 1"?`.
IL ,
OAL
10,
00,
?` ? ? ?`? ? ? .,r ? ?.? ? ?• • ? ? *4 rv ', ?T a,?1? •. .. A r? ?lM y ,?v' Iw•"
Nk P,
w a.
^ f r
q
? a 7i. ?*}-J+. -'3t,?_ "??,4 ?iv'.?y?y_,??•I??' "'1 ? _. ?t ,j? °'?fi?`kk?? _? .? ??? ;,?,,???? ? .-?{ Ted.. ,????jr??5 ?+. ??
?.i'lar .~???«?rc we "?lz_ ?, .•-'+lE,. '?-?' r _ '."t~_ ???? ?"?P,_•
?Ac:•' y '? ,,y,- , ?. ' ' iri$r '9p.. "1? ,? ? ,fat, ? `?£"?' p, ; P 4?yiry?? r ? ?'? ' •i,n
?y J
t i'
Ssit
MAT ,???ti ? . ? ?'• ? ? ? ? ? ? ?`•"?,, ?'??r ,:. ?.?„? ; '?`*? .:?""
CH LINE H
r, it t ?1r."
Epp
M. „ ....??? y:•W "y ??p?gY} ?7 iy?;,F r'.J i .-.fir- 1` {,.yl.?rv-+1'
°X
r4 4.
1-1596 4
r r J P 1
C) cn 0 A W (o z v i Y?'ion.
tow- -
'7 • 4 'sp! Y 11 ?' h yiF? A..
N w alr ,;?-?i O ,;? a,;?.
i _
K
Aft
(A N N N V 11 O t, r y ;k
k. - +?. ,4 as • a rn
Q0000° ?' ¢ rfi Z?
100 -
C) z
tow
? a ._..- - - '.°?'IR??' ?t7 ? ?„ ~1 4.. 4r?rs'4?. ? t ? 4 -? ? . ,R3 i .. •,. r
?Nk
-? -n *?: =s. _. ? -'?C ? .?• ?? ... ', - .. ..- -. tic. .a.
(O T "?- -?$Y?r;R
i
tic"
r
71
m
als-
"r
m
B ?m"nxyo •Aa
O m c` o ' ,IrF
_a
(n 7 cn ;
>. ?•r
14
Aft
a
NC 60
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
EST. 1990/1995/2015 ADT IN HUNDREDS
NC 60 FROM US 64-74 TO GEORGIA STATE LINE
NC-60
fiZ u
Z4 7 1159
116
$4
121 US 64-74
5
fi
Z
11 SR 1123
2
2
4 SR 1122
2d TTST 2%
22 2 DUAL 3%
48 2
3 2
2
SR 1595 4
1
1
22
2a
46 .2
4
7 4

1 SR 1596 9
1
2
21
2.5
41
L SR 1602 2
L
21
2? 1•
41 1t
2
L
1
1
21
21
4 1 41
5 1
8 2
2 1
2 1
3 2
14
1 ?
1 36
2
1
1 12
2 22
36
NC - 60
1
2
SR 1598 3
2
2
SR 1599 4
FIGURE 4
P, I
JQ
-?
?01
o _
1680
?i6D0
1
L
Lc7 LL
W
Q y?z ? z
¢z?xw la-n0 v
z?xzAz ?°
OHCv6 U(ry?W c?
?aOC7 Za YC?
000
zu c, _
o
z?Q?p T' ?
r
o
UUUU " l??l r
?' \,? • \ \? // / / p ? fit. J,'? oo° ? ??'`? ?-? 1. ? ` /' -
vqk \z
C) tj
x,600
10
Q ?? ?? - G'- « J I c.
\TV
1. ! ??` '?\? ?? •? '? _ "?? ?. ?_" LLI /
- -- " -
lot ??? 1 ,, y ? ? ? ? •? ???,?,?, ?? ? s ? - I ? 1,
S? U
-/^"? '?/ ???? : ? ?? ??_.- 1? ? ? -?? 'V ?6• ? ''fib` v 1 =- -- ?? ?? .??? ?
J
_ 4e-
etc
- all
?? Q1/ t l
(? C TT ?, is 1
?_? )
STOP

APPENDIX
A-1
1111 '' b 81 N PANTHER TOP
ens 1709 ? 1141, ti :124.1.
LUZ I i
•J 1 J 294
CrxrA 1122 a L?lilia 1]sl '• 7141 ??? `tip'
a
`? X1134
LU2 112! ,? ?.'? 1121 15? 14! 12?
<• b i, a: ! ut?1. Y;' ENO PROJECT
u?? i S 7? 11 a J- 1610
It7 1!21' 11 4 -1 9
H10YM / 1111 1 Ie :. ._ ...;. S .? 1 ! 1174 R got ?Cv? 1Y3. 119 L2YJ .?
,? ?? 1'/ .?•I???r /1124 .:?uti I .?, .2 ,,.? ?,
129
:P S+?ady \ _ ;:'` vr'4Vila
1172- '?`? i4'• a0 1?3 `^ Y ??
Swodi 1 2.3
1J33.
U14
Matsdonia
-•?Sx p? .R .•?..
START PROJECT o baron Ila _ 1141 LWV
017 'a
ap
N T Y 10dJ? c U N 1 O N
f
W '
r
G E O R G I A
FIGURE N1 - PROJECT LOCATION
NC-60 FROM GEORGIA STATE LINE
TO US-19-64-14, CHEROKEE COUNTY
STATE PROJECT 4 6.9110101.
A-2
TABLE 111
HEARi11G: SOUNDS BORBARDINu US DAIL'
1{0 I Sh:tgun blast, jet 100 ft away at tar.ECff FAIN
Hot:r test :hamber HUHAII EAR PAIL' THRESHOLD
1?0

FUEcrackers
120 SEvEr2 thunder, pneuaatic tackhamaer
HockE y :rowel
Amplified rock ausic UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
li0

Textile 1.003
100 I Subway train, elevated train, far¢ tractor
?cover lawn mower, newspapEr.press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
90

D DiESel truck i0 aph 50 ft. away
E 30 Crowdad rEStauranc, garbage disposal
C average factory, vacuus cleaner
r Passenger car 50 3ph 50 ft. away 4DERATELY LOUD
B 10

E Quiet c7AE;,;riter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet ad WaobilE
11craal conversation, atiErage office QUIET
SO

Household refrigerator
Quiet offi:E '!ZRY QUIET
10

Average :ace
30 Dr.pping faucet
{,tiSper 5 IEEE aiay
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
WhispEr JUST AUDI?LE
10

0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
SourcES: World Eook, Rand HvIally Atlas of the Human Bally,
Encyclopedia Anertcana, 'Industrial Itoi:E and Hearing
Conversation' b7 J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
jResearched by iI. Jare Hunt and publishEd in tha Chicago
Tribuna in an illustrated graphic by Tco Hain:.)
A-3
Table NZ
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly V%'Ei'ghtrd Sound Level -'dEcibels (d-iA;
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of ,ctivity Category
A 57 Lands on which serEnity and quiet are of Extraordinary sig::lfiCcG:2 and sErVE in ::pC:t nt purl::
(UtErior) Acid and ahErv :he 0rEiErV1t10n of C110sE qualities is assentlil if the area 1-- to :on:, . nu;-. to
sErvi its iDtE::dad purpcsE.
5 61 Picnic areis„ ri:reaticn irEis, pliygrcunds, i„tive sports arias, ;irks,
(Ex taricr) hoEel5', schools, chuIChis, libraries, and hospitals.
C 12 Developed laads, properties, Cr activities not included in Categfriis A or 5 ah3vE.
(ExtErioC)
D -- Undeveloped Tanis
E 5'- Residences, ioC:ls, hotels, public .eEEiag rocus, schcoli, :harches, lihrarias, hC:piCils, and
(Interior) auditoriua:.
Source: Title 22 Code of FEderal Regulations (CRF) Fart 112, U. 3. DEpartaEnt of Transportation, ?Ed--ral H.ghway
Adaini:tratitn
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-hEight_d sound Level - decibels (83dj
Existiag Uoise Level Increase in d8A froa Existing :,oise
in LEgih) LEYEls to Future Noise LEVels
50 > 15
50 > 10
Source: North C m ling Dar.irtccnt of Transpa mtion HoisE ?.?ire?cnC rUlieli.^.?:.
DESCription
A-4
GEORGIA STATE LIHE TO SR-1123
SR-1123 TO SR-1596
SR-1596 TO US-19-64-7;
TABL°. ;13
MI-k 1;0:3E ;BATEHENT CRITERIA SUr1HAci
!IC-60 IRON GEORGIA STATE LINE TO U-13-14-74,
CHEROKEE COL'IITY, R-2110,
VAT". PROJECT F 6.9110101
Haaizua PIEdiCtEd Contcur
LEq Hcisc L:vels Oistancas
dSA (Haxicus;
53, 100, 200' 72 d6A 67 dD.
65 60 55 <1-5' 3:'
65 61 SS (25' 35'
66 61 56 (25' 40'
TOTAL -)
Notes-
1. 501, 1001,. and 200, distanCES are :Eaiurcd frCG canter cf nearist travel land.
.. 72 d6k and 67 dui cmour dl5tancc, arc jEisurid IrGW CEI:CFr OI prGpGSEd
Aporom atE Nu:bEr J: GCCCCttr.
Approac. " or E..Cc-din; ."nr.
hoist 'LcEui t Cr:t_r:a
A C C _
0 G G G ;,
0 1 0 J J
0 i G 0
G 2 G 0
n-?
TABLE Al
CALIN63: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION HODEL - SEPTEMBER, 15.3 VERSIGII
JOB: NC-60/CHEROK=E/P.-2110 RUN: ;005 BUILD/65 MPH
I. SITE VARIABLES
U : 1 H/S CLAS = 6 (F) VS : 0 C41S ATIH : 60 HINUT:S GC .1
BRG : S DEGREES 20 : 13 CM 1D : 0 CH/S AIiB = 1.9 ?F:1
II. LII:K VARIABLES
LINK CESCRI?TIG:I r LIN3 COORM ATES ill) ' LINK LENGTH LINT; BRG T& VPH EF H S
' 1'1 Y1 7 ' ('1) (eac) iC .4i lri (Y'
......................... .................. ..............r.............. ......------------ .............-.--......
NC-6 L' 0 -1000 0 .:00 2000 360 aBG x.60? l 1 ..
III. -RECEPT02 LOCATIONS AND AODEL RESULTS
RECEPTOR 1 COCP.DI::ATES (:11 ' CO
' Y Y ` (PPM)
......................... '.............................. '.......
1. R54 RES 50' LEFT r -15.2 C 1.1 r 1.2
TABLE A2
CALIN2 3: CALIFORNIA LINZ SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - SEPTEMBER, 1975 V:RSION
JOB: HC-60iCHZROKEE/R-2110 RUN: 'Z015 BUILD/55 HFH
I. SITE VARIABLES
U : 1 H/S CLAS : 6 (F) = 0 CH'S :TIM = 6G MINUTES I1i_:H = tco A
BRG : S DEGREES 1.0 : 10 CH VD = L. CH/S A:lB : 1.3 PF4 ?E1:P = 26 ''F
II. LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION ` LINK COCRCINATES (H) ' LINK. LENGTH LINK Bi?^j "YP? VPH ZF ;H
' Y1 Y1 Y.' y ' (4) (DEG) (C/2) (H) (H)
.........................r................................t.......................................................
A. IIC-60 r 0 -1000. 0 1(60 :000 360 AG {BO 6.5:6 0 1:.
III. RECEPTOR LOCATIONS AND 40DEL RESULTS
RECEPTOR ' CCORDINATES (H) ` CO
` Y Y (PPM)
.........................r..............................r.......
1. R51 RES SO' LZ?T -15.2 0 1.3 2.2
^--r.-..v..?+.?..<r1-.?..?,.?.T'?• ?..• "?`,^TF.rs?T?•±^,.-a-rsTr?r? ".'?"C'?Tn+^
A-6
?ABLE Al
CALIN33: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE DISPERSION HODEL - SEPTEMBER, 19,3 'JERSICII
JOB: NC-60/CHEROKEE/R-2110 RUN: :065 BUILD/55 14FH
I. SITE VARIABLES
U = 1 H/S CLAS = 6 (F) 'JS = 0 CHJS ATII{ : 60 HINUT:S :{I'_'H = 400 H
BRG = S DEGREES ?0 = 13 CM VD = 0 CH/S Al(B : 1.9 PH TE::P = 25, IF
II. LIY,K VARIABLES
LIMY CESCRIPTIC!1 ° LI113 CCCRDIi:ATES IM) ' LINK LENGTH LINE; ERG T'i"c? V P H EF H a
v_1 Yi !: i.' (:{) IDEG) iG/`III (Ni (M)
......................... -................................ '--...-----------..
A. ;;C-60 0 -1000 0 .:00 ' 2000 260- AG 460 E.602 L. 13.1
III. RECZPTCR LOCATIONS AND !{ODEL RESULTS
RECEPTOR = COORDI!IATES (:{I = CO
Y Y * (PPM)
......................... t.............................. 7.......
1. R54 RES 50' LEFT = •15.2 C 1.3 ' 1.2
TABLE A2
CALIN23: CALIFORNIA LINE SOURCE OISFERSION HODEL - SEPTEMBER, 19]6 VERSIO!I
JOB: lIC-601'CHEROKEE/R-2110 RUN: X015 BUILD155 !{PH
1. SITE VARIABLES
U : 1 H/S CLAS = 6 (F) .S = 0 CHjS 4TiH = 60 MIMES
A
BRG = S DEGREES 20 : 10 CH VD = 0 CH/S A1!B = 1.9 FPH M.? = ?6 IF
II. LINK VARIABLES
. LINK DESCRIPTION t LINE COCRDIN,,TES (H) = LINE LENGTH LINK BRG '.YP°. VPH 2F 3 lot,
Y1 E2 Y2 t (H) (DEG) (G/HI) IHl (rl
......................... -................................ -.......................................................
A. IIC-60 = 0 -1000 0 1(00 ' :000 360 AG 480 6.Su 0 1:.:
III.- RECEPTOR LOCATIONS AND MODEL RESULTS
RECEPTOR COORDINATES (H) ' CO
t I l' (PPN)
......................... -.............................. -.......
1. RS( RES 50' LE?T = -15.2 0 1.3 = 2.2

?y ^?J
A-7
DEPARTI.IENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1890
October 17, 1990
IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Division
Mr. L. J. Hard, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Hard:
a
i
x
0
0
/ old
m
z-.
Pc,eJeLtt
J-C" (<S6
m
We have reviewed your letter of August 27, 1990, requesting
information for "NC 60, from the Georgia State Line to US 19-64-74,
Cherokee County, State Project No. 6.911010, T.I.P. #R-2110" and
offer the following comments.
Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Hater Act of 1977, as amended, will be
required for the discharge of excavated or fill material in waters
of'the United States or any adjacent and/or isolated wetlands in
conjunction with this project, including disposal of construction
debris. Under our mitigation policy, impacts to wetlands should
first be avoided or minimized. We will then consider compensation
or mitigation for unavoidable impacts. When final plans are
completed, including the extent and location of any work within
waters of the United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch
would appreciate the opportunity to review these plans for a
project-specifio determination of Department of the Army permit
requirements. Should you have any_-quostions, please contact
Mr. David Baker', Regulatory Branch, at [phone].
We appreeiata the opportunity to comment on this project.
If we can be of further assistanoo to you, please do not hesitate
to contact us.
Sincerely,
?-uronce W. Saunders
hief, Planning Division

..._ -:..
7"- 7?71
A-8
United States Department of the Interior
i FISH AND WIIDLIFE'SERVICE
ASHEVILLE FIELD OFFICE
100 OTIS STREET, ROOM 224
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801
September 14, 1990

r
11990
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Research Branch
North Car olina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201 •F`?:-
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 -
Dear Mr. Ward:
Subject: Proposed widening of NC 60 from the Georgia state line to
US 19-64774 in Cherokee County, North Carolina (State Project
No. 6.911010, TIP No. R-2110) ,
This responds to your letter of August 27, 1990 (received August 30, 1990),
requesting our comments on the subject proposal. These comments are
provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish Snd Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of.the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543)...
The U:S. Fish and Wildlife Service is particularly concerned about the
potential impacts the proposed action may have on stream and wetland
ecosystems within the project impact area. Preference should..be given to'
alternative alignments, stream crossing structures, and construct-ion.••
techniques that avoid and/or minimize encroachment and impacts to these
resources.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if the document contained the following information:
(1) A complete analysis and comparison of all available alternatives
including the no action alternative.
A
J
(2) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within
existing-and required additional rights-of-way and any areas,
such as borrow areas, which may be affected directly or
indirectly by the proposed improvements.
(3) Acreage and descriptions of branches, creeks, streams, rivers, or
wetlands which will be filled as a consequence of proposed
' highway improvements. Wetlands affected by the proposed project
should be mapped in accordance with the Federal Manual for
Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
(4) Linear feet of any water courses which will be relocated as a
consequence of the proposed improvements.

A-9
(5) Acreage of upland habitats, by cover type, which will be
eliminated as a consequence of proposed highway improvements.
(6) Techniques which will be employed for designing and constructing
any relocated stream channels or for creating replacement
wetlands.
(7) Description of all expected secondary and cumulative
environmental impacts associated with this proposed work.
(8) Mitigation measures which will be employed-to avoid, eliminate,
reduce, or compensate for habitat value losses associated with
any of the proposed improvements.
Based on our records there are no federally listed or proposed endangered
or threatened species within the impact area of the proposed action. In
view of this, we believe that requirements of Section 7(c) of the
Endangered Species Act, as amended (Act), are fulfilled. However,
obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new
.information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
endangered or threatened species or critical habitat in manner not
previously considered; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner
not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or critical
habitat determined that may be affected by the action.
Although our records indicate there are no federally listed or proposed
species within the project vicinity, we have enclosed a list of species
that are currently under status review by the Service which may occur in
the.project impact area. Status review species are. not legally protected
under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed
as endangered/threatened. We are including these species in our response
for.the purpose of giving you advance notification. These species may be
listed in the future, at which time they will be protected under.the Act.
In the meantime we would appreciate anything you might do to avoid
affecting these species.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and request that
you continue to keep us apprised on the progress of this project. In any
future correspondence concerning this project, please reference our log
number 4-2-90-092.
a
Sincerely,
a
V. Gary Henry
Acting Field Supervisor
Enclosure

A-10
cc:
Section Manager, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Archdale
Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Charles Roe, Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Plant Conservation Program,
P.O. Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611
Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, Box 26806,
Raleigh, NC 27611
Field Supervisor, FWS, P.O. Box 33726, Raleigh, NC 27636-3726

a
Z
J
1 ?
A-11
IN REPLY REFER TO
LOG NO. 4-2-90-092
STATUS REVIEW SPECIES
"Status Review" (SR) species are not legally protected under the Endangered
Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including
Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
endangered/threatened. We are including these species in our response for
the purpose of giving you advance notification. These species may be
listed in the future, at which time they will be protected under the
Endangered Species Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you
might.do to avoid impacting them.
MAMMALS
Rafinesque's big-eared bat - Plecotus rafinesquii
AMPHIBIANS
Hellbender - Cryatobranchus alleganiensis
FISHES
Olive darter - Percina squamata
PLANTS
Yellow fringeless orchid - Platanthera integrilabia
n
n
0
n
i

.??`t`v ar?rfS
A ? ?J
c
"01?
A-12
UNITE'] STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLANO STREET. N.E.
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365
4PM-FAB/DM
OCT 2 4 1990
Mr. L.J. Ward, Manager
Planning and Research
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
J,3
IgSC
r"?ARCH
Subject: Upgrade of NC 60 from Georgia State Line to US 19-64-714
Cherokee County, NC; State Project No. 6.911010
Dear Mr. Ward:
We have reviewed your advanced information for the above referenced
project. Because of the limited nature of.the information provided,
it is difficult to make substantive comments at this time. However,
we are able to make some generic comments as well as provide some
specific, comments.
Enclosed is a list of special environmental concerns relating to
potential impacts from.highway construction projects. As you can
see, potential impacts to water quality, wetlands, and air quality
due to the construction and use of the proposed facility must be
investigated. Noise related impacts due to the project must also be
documented. Potential impacts to aquatic life, wildlife, and
protected or sensitive species of the area should also be
investigated and discussed. All potential environmental impacts and
ways to minimize them should be carefully evaluated in your draft
environmental document and this evaluation should be conducted for.
each project alternative, including the no-build alternative.
Also, we note in the information provided that several streams and
-freshwater wetlands are in the project corridor. Disturbance of
these areas should be avoided and project alternatives that do not
impact wetlands and streams must be investigated. Any unavoidable
n impacts associated with the project must be carefully documented and
the reason that the impacts are unavoidable must be thoroughly
explained. If alternatives are evaluated that indicate possible
S disturbance of these areas, a complete plan for mitigation of any
damage should be included in the document.
An additional area of concern that needs to be addressed is non-point
source pollution from the highway. We encourage the use of best
management practices to control non-point source pollution and
prevent pollutants contained in highway runoff water from entering
area waterways. These control methods could include the use of
closed bridge drainage systems, retention basins, grassed swales or
other techniques. Consideration for the potential impact that the
roadway could have on area drinking water sources and the potential
Printed on Recycled P

A-13
-2-
for hazardous materials being spilled into the waterways should also
be addressed. Also, the corridors under consideration should be
investigated for the presence of acidic shales. In Appalachian
areas, acid bearing shales will occasionally be encountered during
excavation. In some cases, serious water quality problems can occur
from runoff from disturbed areas that contain these shales.
Therefore, a careful survey of the routes must be made so the areas
that contain the shales can be identified and avoided. If the shales
are encountered in the right-of-way, a complete contingency plan'for
handling these shales in an environmentally acceptable manner should
be included in the document. Also, a monitoring plan for streams
that drain the project area, especially areas that contain the acidic
shales, should be presented in the document. This monitoring should
be conducted before, during and after construction. The stream
monitoring would be used to determine if the water quality of area
streams is impacted by construction activities and indicate if
further mitigation is required. Finally, the routes must be examined
for hazardous materials that may be present in permitted or
unpermitted dump sites.
Highway construction in mountainous areas requires extremely diligent
efforts to control erosion from the project due to the steepness of
the terrain and the large number of streams. Large areas of cut and
fill in the steep slopes also require special construction techniques
to prevent erodable material from entering and degrading streams.
The special construction techniques that will be used to control
erosion from the project site should be completely discussed in the
document.
Since overall environmental impacts associated with improvement of
the existing roadway corridor can be much less environmentally
harmful than constructing a new corridor, we encourage you to
continue to give serious consideration to the alternative that
utilizes the current roadway alignment. We appreciate the
opportunity to provide comments to you early in the SEPA review
process. Please continue to keep us informed about the progress of
this project and provide copies of environmental documents when
g available. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please
contact David Melgaard of my staff at [phone] or (FTS)
257-3776.
Sincerely,
-?k"%JL/
Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
Environmental Policy Section
Federal Activities Branch

i A-14
The following list is a generalized synopsis of special concerns
relevant to generic highway projects.
Wetlands/Water Ouality
° Protection of wetlands pursuant to the Section 404(b) Guidelines
of the Clean Water Act
Avoiding/minimizing wetland activities such as:
* channel realignments
* dredging and filling
* flow alterations causing wetland drainage or flooding
* erosion and siltation
* habitat loss
* disturbance of rare and endangered species
° Conformance with Executive order 11988 ("Floodplain Manage-
ment") and Executive order 11990 ("Protection of Wetlands"),`
if federal funds are involved
° Avoidance of environmental impacts and feasible mitigation
for unavoidable impacts (e.g., wetland creation and restora-
tion).
° Construction impacts (e.g., erosion)
° Public complaints concerning construction-related wetland alterz.-
tion and state mechanisms to properly address them.
Air Ouality
Conformance with National Ambient Air Ouality Standards
(NAAOS) of the Clean Air Act to determine whether a site is
located in an attainment, non-attainment, or unclassified
area
° Conformance with the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
° Conformance with the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) regulations
° Conformance with EPA and state modeling guidance
v
° Existing and predicted levels of various relevant air-
quality parameters such as carbon monoxide (CO).
0
Public complaints concerning construction-related fugitive
emissions.
Noise
° Conformance of on-site existing (ambient) and project
predicted noise levels with FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria

A-15
(NAC) guidelines for commercial/industrial receptors
(L10=75dBA; Leq=72dBA) and residential/institutional
receptors (L10=70dBA; Leq=67dBA). Preferred descriptors
for existing, predicted, and NAC levels are Leq(1) or L10•
The hour (1) of the Leq(1) descriptor should be.defined
(e.g., peak rush hour). Leq(24) values are also helpful
in association with Leq(1) data. Ambient levels should
be measured at representative sites rather than estimated.
Preferably, determinations for predicted noise levels
should be made for all noise receptors along the entire
highway corridor (as opposed to just specific sites
along the corridor) affected by the project and should
be compared with existing (ambient) noise levels. The
name of the FHWA-approved noise model (e.g., STAMINA)
used for predictions should be listed. The number of
project-affected noise receptors should be arranged
into the following groups:
* receptors receiving an increase of 5-9 dBA
* receptors receiving an increase of 10-14 dBA
* receptors.receiving an increase of 15 dBA and greater.
Those receptors receiving a noise increase resulting in
a level above their NAC should be indicated. Inclusion
of actual ambient vs. predicted noise levels would be
beneficial to an evaluation (e.g., 60dBA elevated to
75dBA L10 for a given receptor). It would be of parti-
cular interest to know how many decibels a predicted
level exceeded the NAC for all so-affected receptors.
Project-related noise level elevations: all project-generated
noise increases above the existing site noise level are
considered impacts, but particularly. if above design
levels, if elevated 10 dBA or more, and/or if long
termed. An increase of 5-9 dBA'is considered important,
a-10-14dAA is considered substantial, and a 15 dBA and
greater increase is considered severe, even if the
resultant elevated noise levels are below the NAC.
Feasible mitigation of project-generated increases above
the NAC should be accomplished and feasible mitigation
for increases of 10•dBA or more (below the NAC) should
be considered. Mitigation should at least be at the
level of FHPM 7-7-3 guidance.
A
J
Additional helpful information includes the existing and
o predicted percentage of trucks using the old/new highway.
0
° Construction impacts (e.g., construction machinery, pile
driving, blasting)
° Also of concern are public complaints concerning construc-
tion-related noise emissions and state mechanisms to
properly address them.

united*Statos soil A-16 4405 Bland Road, Suite 205
GD- Departmonl of Conservation
Agriculture Service Raleigh, NC 27609
Telephone: [phone]
November 19, 1990
ti)OINNb)?
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager nJ? zt.
Planning and Environmental Branch 7 C.
N. C. Department of Transportation- 0 ` 17 'b tr,
P. 0. Box 25201 b
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
We are unable to complete your request for Important Far•mlariiltnFormation at
this time. The soil survey for Cherokee County has not been completed. We
regret the negative response.
Sincerely,
Bobbye Jones
State Conservationist
© The Sod Conservation Service
V an agency of ins
00owl nanl of Agriculture
C°at :,-::??e 10:
Pouf: Quinn

Nolwo;al _ .a: ?:: hcdwiuux
Moulin N?Jub Springer
Tewcll Elmore _
Grimes_..,

FM2013 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
A-17 116 NEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27611
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
MAILED TO FROM
S?. c Kz
N.:. DFPT. OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
L.J. WARD DIRECTOR
PLANNING E ENV. BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
HIGHWAY BLDG./INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SOLICITING COMMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO NC 60,
FROM THE GEORGIA STATE LINE TO US 19-16-74 IN CHEROKEE
COUNTY (TIP R-2110)
SAI NO '191E42200159 PROGRAM TITLE - SCOPING
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE 'FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS; PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
n
J
X.C. REGION A
Z
0
0

------- N-10
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Douglas G. Lewis
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Z?222324?q Director
Planning and Assessment
0CT 1990
_ W
s RECEIVED o
MEMORANDUM S>CHE1 ooAOFFICE
L
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Bill Flournoy
RE: 91-0159 - Scoping - Upgrade of NC 60 from the
Georgia State Line to US 19-64-74, Cherokee County
DATE: October 19, 1990
The Department of Environment, Health, and' Natural Resources
(EHNR) has reviewed the proposed project. Please find attached
EHNR's comments which include several concerns that need to be
addressed before moving forward with the upgrading of NC 60 from
the Georgia State Line to US 19-64-74. -
If there are any questions, please advise.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
WLF:bsb
z
o Attachments
H
1
f
RO Box 77687, Ralcigh. North Carolitw 27611.7687 Telephone [phone]
r- -1 ?'S7K:ttiZJFtir t v
=--_ North _C_a_rol ina W_ ildlife_R_e °j F ?. c
. - sources Co/
slon
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-73
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director 3 3391
MEMORANDUM

TO: Melba McGee
Planning
Dept,, of Environment,
FROM:
Richard B. Hamilton 1 n
Assistant Director L/
DATE: October 10, 1990
SUBJECT: Scoping comments
from us 19-64-74 tortheeNorthnCaroPgrade of NC 60
State Line, State Pro3ject No. Ina-Georgia
#R-2110. 6.911010, T.I.P.
The Wildlife Resources Commission has reviewed
iinformation provided by L. J.
War and the
biologists on our staff are familiarfwithOhabitat values
t the project area. Professional
October 2 An onsite investigation was conducted on
1990 for the purpose of further assessing
construction impacts on wildlife and fisheries resources.
Our comments are provided in accordance with
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act provisions of
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et se (48 Stat. 401, as,
Statutes (G.S. 113-131 et, seq. eq.) and North Carolina General
. ,
The North Carolina Wildlife
concerned about the pot Resources Commission is
ential adverse impacts of this
proposed project on.fish and wildlife aloe
route. The present NC 60 crosses the Nottel R
Mill Creek and at least 3 unnamed tributaries top he No
River. Y River, Rapiers
Proposed construction plans that do not avoid ortely
minimize the negative impacts to these habitats may damage. While the
quality of the fisheries habitat in the
° NNotttely River has been reduced by land istrbing and by an upstream hydropower operationaitsufisherieslva e
still utilized by the public,
re
Possible the other streams alsoTsupport a Nottel spring spawning
7 run of white bass and walleye. y River and
occurs during the late winter andnearly sprin work which
decrease or eliminate the spawning success of these
important species, Y P 9 months could
1 Y
and Assessment
Health & Natural Resources
7 -r
Memo Page 2 October 10, 1990
A-20
In addition to an erosion control plan and other
activities which decrease the negative impacts of
construction, we require that all wetlands and stream losses
due to construction be mitigated by replacement of these
habitats with areas of equal habitat value. If replacement
of wetlands or a stream channel change is needed with the
final road alignment, plans should be made during the right-
of-way acquisition period to acquire land for this
mitigation; however, we prefer avoidance over mitigation.
Any construction plans requiring filling of wetlands will
require a 404 permit and NCWRC will be a review agency for
the corps of Engineers.
On this project there exists an excellent opportunity
for DOT to mitigate negative impacts caused by this project
or other projects which may result in the loss of fisheries
habitat. Between the two Rapier Mill Creek bridges the
creek passes through a pasture in which livestock have
access to the full length of the creek. DOT could work with
the Soil Conservation service (through their cost-share
program) to develop a plan were.by the livestock would be
fenced out of the creek. The Wildlife Resources Commission
would consider this mitigation for lost habitat due to
filling of wetlands or other negative impacts from this
project or other road projects within the DOT district.
since all streams affected by this project are either trout
waters or tributaries to trout waters.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our comments
concerning this project. If we can provide further
assistance, please contact us.
RBH/lp
cc: Micky Clemmons, D-9 Fisheries Biologist
Joffrey Brooks, D-9 Wildlife Biologist
Robert Johnson, Army Corps"of Engineers
a
z
n
o'
0
H

A-21
DEPMTKUT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH
AND NATURAL RESOURCES Project Number
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH - l ?- x
Co my
ntor-Agency Project Review Response
Nam o W D 4 --
Typo of Project
The following are our comments on the abovo referenced aubjoct.
t--? The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all rater system Improvements
must Do approved by the Olvlslon of Environmental Health prior to the award of o contract or the
Initiation of construction (as required by 10 NCAC 100 ,0900 st. seq.), For information, comet,
/ the PubliC Watsr Supply Section, [phone].
= Several water lines possibly aro located In
Due to a possible rupture during construction,lothetcontractor jshouldlcontactrTheSappropriate watt
system officials to specify a work schedule.
The proposed project will be constructed near rotor resources which are used for drinking. Prec4
should be taken to prevent contaminatlon of the wator3hvd and stream by olI or other harmful subs
Addltlonal Information Is avaIIbb Ia by contacting the Public Wotcr Supply Section at (919) 733-2:
Back flow proventors should be Installed on all incoming potable water Ilnos. Additional Informa
Is aveIIobIa by contacting the Public Hater SuDDIy Section at [phone].
This project will be class IIIad as a community public water supply and must comply with state
and federal drinking voter monitoring requirements. For more Information the applicant Should
contact the Public Water Supply Section. [phone].
It this project Is constructed as Proposed, we will recommend closure of -- feet of adjocdnt
waters to the harvest of shellfish. For Information regarding the shellfish sanitatlon program,
the applicant should contact the Shollflsh Sanitation Branch (9)9) 726-6x27.
The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regording their requlremen
for septic tank Installations (as rt:qulred under 10 NCAC 10A .1900 et. suq. and/or sanitary facil
requirements for this project If applicable.) For Information concerning septic tank and other
on-slto waste disposal methods, contact the On-site Sewage Branch at (919) 7?'3-2595.
The applicant should ba advised that
prior
an extensive rodent control project may be necessary minaordordtooprevent othe migration ofrth„uros,
rodents to adjacent areas. For Information concerning rodent control, contact the local health
` deportment or the Public Health Past Hanhq) went Section [phone].
I
n
$ The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a n4squlto breedin r
For Infor'malton concerning a g p oblam.
g pproprlato mosqulto control coosures. the applicant should contact
the Public Health Pest Management Section at (919) 733407,
Ruviv.er
. firnncn/U f t Jete --.__ -?
tinA.. i arw?
-7
i

?r A-22
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James Q Niartin, Governor
WIIIIam W. Cobey, Jr.. Secretary
Charles H. Gardner
Director

OCT 1990
MEMORANDUM
D
t RECESSED
FFtC?
a
e: September 10, 1990
SCCRtt pqA
ti
To: Melba McGee ?
U1 6
From: Randy Cotten
' Thru : Gary Thompson
Subject: 91-0159, Cherokee County, NC 60, from the
Georgia state line to US 19-64-74,
State Project 6.911010, TIP R-2110

We have reviewed the above referenced project and find
that 2 geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
The N.C. Geodetic Survey should be contacted at P.O.
Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611, [phone] prior to
construction. Intentional destruction of a geodetic
monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
GWT/a,js
cc: Joe Creech. NCDOT
n
a
n
0
0

P.O. Box 27687 • Meigh.. N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Fnua! nnoonunity Alfir*mtnve Acron fmn1nvrf
A-23 . VAIr
North Carolina Depart gal Resources
a '
James C. Martin, Governor ti OCT 1990 fl Division of Archives and History
i Patric Dorsey, Secretary s William S. Price, Jr., Director
RECEIVED
o SECRETARYS OFFICE -`
October 25, 1990 DOA
MDMOItANDUM/(?y? S! G 14 ??\\?\
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager ,
Planning and Environmental Branch
4j Division of Highways
f Department of Transportation ?l
FROM: David Brook, Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer
l? SUBJLCT: Upgrading 11C 60 from Ceorgia State Line
to US 19-64-74, Cherokee County, State-
Project 6.911010, TIP R-2110, C11 91-E-4220-0159,
CS 91-0013
We have received notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning
the above project, as well as the archaeological survey report by
Thomas Padgett.
During the course of the survey one previously recorded site was located
d within the project.area. Mr. Padgett has recommended that no further '
archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
We concur with this recommendation since this project will not involve
significant archaeological resources.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive
Order XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Ms.
I:enee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 733-4763.
z
o DB: slw?
y cc: "tate Clearinghouse
T. Padgett
109 &r Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
A-24
•?ar?

North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Emergency Management
Joseph W. Dean, Secretary 116 W. Jones St., Raleigh, N. 0.'27603-1335
[phone]
is September 14, 1990
S MEMORANDUM
A
1 1'0: N.C. State Clearinghouse, Department of Administration
From: J. Russell Ca , Division of Emergency Management,
NFIP Section i?
T. Subject: Intergovernmental Review
------------------------------------------------------------
Re: State # N.C. 91-E-4220-0159
N. C. DOT - Proposed improvements to NC 60 in
H Cherokee County.
For information. purposes, the Commission is advised that
on July 24, 1990, Governor Martin signed Executive Order 123,
a Uniform Floodplain Management Policy, which must be
followed for development on any site.

v
n
0
0
- - - iNartn uaroltna Uepartment-ot Transportz
X E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR DESIGN A-25 RELOCATION ASSISI
PROJECT: 6.911010 COUNTY: Cherokee Alternate 1 of 1 Alter
I.D. NO.: R-2110 F.A. PROJECT: -
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 60 Frnm GFOr?7ia St ate Line to Lk? 64-74

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES - INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacee
R
Owners
Tenants
Total Minor-
ities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-5OM
50 L
Individuals 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 0
Families 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses 1 0 1 0 VALVE OF DUELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILAE
Farms U 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 1 0 1 0 0-20M 2 0-150 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150
ANSGEI? ALL QLESTI ONS 20-40M 3 150-250 0 20-40M 25 150-250

YES N0. EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANShERS 40-70M 0 250-400 0 40-70M 100 250-400 . y
x 1. Will special relocation 70-100 11 400-600 0 70-100 100 400-600
services be necessary

x
2. Will schools or churches be
100 LP 0
600 UP
0
100 UP
50
600 LF _
affected by displacement

X
3. Will business services still
'TOTAL 5
0
275 _
be available after project

x
4. Will any business be dis-
placed. If so, indicate size _
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
type, estimated number of 3. Only one retail grocery is being affected .ir,r_4

x employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a
Housing shortage project w.ill not disrupt business services in
area.
x

x 6. Source for available hous-
ing (list)
7. Will additional housing 4. A small retail grocery is affected by the pro
The business occupies approximately 2,500 ?3 w
three (3) employees and no minorities. A Unit

x - programs be needed
8. Should Last Resort Housing States Post Office building is affected. The
building is approximately 900 square feet with

x be considered
9. Are there large, disabled, two employees and no minorities.

elderly, etc. families 6. Blake Realty of Murphy, N. C., Supplied the Ho
PM1Z R THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
10. Will public housing be . iniormation.
- needed for project .
11. Is public housing avail- a. As necessary in accordance with State Law.

able
12. Is it felt there will be ad-
equate DDS housing available

during relocation period
13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial

means
14. Are suitable business sites

available (list source)
15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION
Relo ation Agent
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90
-15-90 /V2
Date Approved / Oat
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation A
2 Copy: Area Relocation Fi
77
A-26
;or zn Caro'
a Jecar ?me^ ? of ranseor:aL
;on
P ann'n5 and - Branc,
1
i
fir- s ? F .
NO 60
CHEROKEE COUNTY
OCTOBER X30 1990
13
IP u ?jn
A-27
PUBLIC MEETING
NC 60
From the Georgia State Line to US 64-74
Cherokee County
Project R-2110
PURPOSE OF MEETING
This meeting is being held to review proposed improvements for NC 60. Any
comments or-suggestions concerning the proposed highway improvement or areas of
environmental concern in the study will be appreciated. All comments and sugges-
tions received during the project study will be considered in determining a
recommendation for the project.
to:
Request for additional information or written comments should be addressed
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 1990-1996 Transportation Improvement Program calls for up-grading the
existing two-lane facility.
CURRENT SCHEDULE
Right of way acquisition and construction are scheduled to begin in Fiscal
Years 1993 and 1995, respectively. These schedules are subject to the avail-
ability of highway funds.
EXISTING FACILITY
The studied segment of NC 60 is approximately 5 miles in length. NC 60 is
basically a two-lane facility with an 18-foot pavement and three-foot shoulders..
Current (1990) Average Daily Traffic along NC 60 ranges from 1900 to 2500
vehicles per day. ..Projected (2015) Average Daily Traffic ranges from 2200 to
4800 vehicles per day.
COST ESTIMATE
Construction $ 5,900,000
Right of Way S 2,050,000
Total $ 7?d?
Y
c
?b
.
3 11&27 S 294 •
1 129 1.165
Letitia 1300 1404
a
1127 9J D •-, 1423
1130 1 118
0 1.8
3 13.02
p 1301 •
3
OK 3U5
V1 05
0 .i
u
I3 0b
j 1593
b 1595 T 1%
% ti Jr '70 '1580
PQ J 4 a_ 1580
64 S t 15 1126 -ti , J 1 1610 ` g 1582
a t?25 a 1164 t 124 Ranger \??' i5 96 1594 i 593 J a
A
•?..' • ?L S
1120 `,? ? R' •o
1'1 19,'?!? ?. 1602 1129 1 593
t t 17 _ Sho c,y i1 L
Q I l l s , Chi 1120 P\`Q01 f. 1626 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT C
2.5 1124 TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1163 PLANNING AND RESEARCH BRAN(
1598
( Ma NC 60
CSx ' g
GEORGIA STATE LINE TO US 19.64.74
ulberson a 1597 CHEROKEE COUNTY
b 1599
1 Soy R•21 10
' Kinsey
r
LSi 304
n /
f 0 mile 1 FIG. 1
I
I N V" 1 1 1 V L'1I 1 V L II N" A-29
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PUBLIC MEETING IN MURPHY, N. C.
October 23, 1980
COMMENT SHEET
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO NC 60, TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT
R-2110: CHEROKEE COUNTY
NAME:
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS:
STATEMENTS RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED NC 60 IMPROVEMENT MAY ALSO BE MAILED TO:
MR. L. J. WARD, P. E., MANAGER OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL, P. 0. BOX 25201,
RALEIGH, N. C. 27611
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
.J-
O

A-30

° 7 'm m
f, O. ? i A n w ? Li
o C O Tv 7 S' ? ? p I p .- - ?'
y N Oo m ? <. J ?L °
y^ N 7 .1 x /? ?? Y .

is.
° C1 ym g 1?1 • !P! I 1?
YM ° m L - r ?
7 G Q 0°1T ? M 1` ? 0. ? ? ' ? • -
G v J. YG m O n - - .'.J ?+ \C 7 m 7!?YO Y{ O'? ^ C
.p? Jy?yn°$ ? O o n iG?? t'?+\? i? ?A `m i'yv n'?anw^V
Y, n }? a o '° o a a - . a y ti m o o G C p m
d °0 n Y '3
o.v
'o ^ m N ] _. 7 dv 3 a
M ^ 3 u 1•d ® , &' g °?o;' = \ can
A ^ v f 7 - /}? .?0 H3Z0,0 T ?' :r +. f O N „?' f G .. o v n 7'
Oc ^??o'? lV 2? _ °? C1 ,^ m ?. tF=gym °°e
^? U u s.? rT'? T = <+ o c n° y°9. u' 3 ?" v ?i a
a. 01,
n? a " 9 N A N 6'i ° v. ?o m .°? 9.?x? C .. o . ^a? f r,.7 Cc nIr n
3 Q
m] C N t: -cf 01 ?l 7 O r p f A 00 Z ?w 7 u•f°j ?j ?. s 770 ^ n p• n n A
ft :3 j
'w n o u 7 7 7 0 ?° 7 n T] 0.
O ] G y n °_. n d u• u F° ^ O C w ?' Y O n 'l• Cf In
m ••t Y.. v 'n _. n v 0. ?• n ° A m 7< 7 "?' o 4x A 7 . 7. 7°o?e
n m c v N , a .
o. v a °?' 3' °] a w vo a s ! Y °?. n ;< (? " n c m c] w 5 n n 7 1. 7
a _7`7
7 v ] 7. '.. ^ ? ? .°-. ? 40 ? = W <. ? 01 A ? (b ^ m (y' O o ? Y ^ ? f C
f 3 m 'a `° ? m' A m ? T m 7 O ? N
Y ?i ?. v a ci. °: 7 GL E n C d o 7 E S. S o r. •? 1'.t n y' ?y f+' o n ^ 7. 3 ° T o.
O i v ' .70 t• n o N n 7 tJ v '?
°° Go ?? era. s'??? ? ? ?•ao ? < SC7Y+ 7 '-o' '? ?^ ?' a ? 7 ?c < ?swa o ^
"' V1 ] A ?'<°' -. o ? ? ? ? ?- A. 7 ? j °' T s ? CI c°c f w ? ] ?, c G 7 ? c ? < 7 7 ? ;C ° ~ m ? -7 ao 7• m
W
_. t7 v n ^ 0.o G ' o a -. ° ? „ E ' °9. $ o v E T y 70 m ??°'}} T {e{.? 3 1?n/? y t -
S C 7 V ? O m ? 00 G V m 71 Q• ° _, ? ' .? O •d v 7 ?? b J n 7 ^^ G. ? O
7 g n: y t1 7. ? T o n 7°? i o I o n? n JOl o T .. w? 7 ^' 0 0. ? ?• ?? 7 u ' 7 0. a T Y O.
m 7 O n ] 0 7' 7 .i ^ Y 7 0
7 n M] ° 1 l k ?. ?. <
n
n m r O• 00 ll ^') .° 70 1 . ?. i u? n n ]
^ Cc
E o a 3° o^ 3° a c Q o,
o ?
Q' O 7•1q 0 7 A
3
33
n 3 Yn o.r o. r• ?n : < ] taw o. ("1 o.G Y w ac ^
t''ov a 7 ^° 3 w a G" 7 tD^ r.rnG13'. w w_ s w 3 °
.: m O G n 7 n 7 C N M s 7 ?° 4 G m •O S -. 7 ?° ?. .? °' V A a
n -?^ o.f, n 7 =??•?0 3.? ?n.3 ? e o..". ? ?°. Jav c ^0o
N 0.` n a. `i
C G ?, n' o y n o^ G Y n S 7 r G to '° Y M 7 0 _
c '^ cr 0 j^ y '? 0 7 m. ] n m o n , m or
... o n 3
a G v .7. j °. ? fi o^ o? °' .N. f 7" V o?? C? k i° n ?• ?. 7 m G o
T ?°, -^ b E? G o oYm n b d 7 Cl..p V V Go E n
*I C6 z 0
W. N
O 7 7 A .m. n> A : m d o' o S° 7 F .,+ 7 M1 'C ?f' s

0
C
w
0
O
b
n
S Z'!!
n o- .n v
n y f
o '
1 Y O
m ? n 2
r u G rn
O ? O
? ? f9

fw•?Jj V

1J • t.-.J??l

...... -... .• ..-.-.+ - ?-...- _._...?..? ?__??.....-?._ ... _.._? _..?-?...-?--?-•?!?-?-rtrr.r -Ttr-?+.•I?r, -sw.r•.•t'T?•-+.+v-+••.?.-.-w
A-31
R E L. O CAT I O N R E R O R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT, 6.911010 COLNT1f, Cherokee Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate
I.D. NO.3 R-2110 F.A. PROJECT, -
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 60 From Georqia State Line to US 64-74
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCME LEVEL
Type of Minor-
Displacce Owners Tenants Total ities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 Lip
Individuals 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 0
Families 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses 1 0 1 0 VALLE OF DWELLING OSS DUE LINGS AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 1 0 1 0 0-20M 2 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0
ANSWER ALL GLIESTI ONS 20-40M 3 150-250 0 20-40M 25 150-250 0
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 0 250-400 0. 40-70M 100 250-400 1
x 1. Will special relocation 70-100 0 400-600 0 70-100 100 400-600 1.
services be necessary
x 2. Will schools or churches be
f 100 LP 0 600 LP 0. 100 LP 50 600 LP 0
a
fected by displacement
x 3. Will business services still TOTAL 5 0 275 2
- be available after project
4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
x placed. If so, Indicate size
type, estimated number of 3. Only one retail grocery Is being affected and thA
employees, minoritiesf etc. project will not disrupt business services in the
x 5. Will relocation cause a area.
- housing shortage
x 6. Source for available hous-
' i 4. A small retail grocery Is affected by the project.
- ng (list) _ The business occupies approximately 2,500 SF with
x 7. Will additional housing three (3) employees and no minorities. A United
- programs be needed States Post Office building is affected. The
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing
b building is approximately 900 SF with two employees
e considered and no minorities.
x 9. Are there large, disabled,
ld
e
erly, etc. families
AN
W 6. Blake Realty of Murphy, N. C., supplied the housinq
S
ER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN 'information.
10. Will public housing be
needed for project 8. An necessary in accordance with State law.
11. Is public housing avail- ..
bl
a
e NOTE:
12. Is it felt there will bead- (1) In addition to the above, one other residence
equate DDS housing available
d may be affected by a limited access.
uring relocation period (2) There are two vacant business buildings which
13. Will there be a problem of may be occupied by the time the project start
housing within financial
means
14. Are suitable business sites
i
ava
lable (list source)
15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION

Y
elocatio Agent
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90

6-3-91
Date
Approved Date
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
4 Copy: Area Relocation File
A-32
STATE 3
K 4/ Qp
IyM p?'?•
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
June 5, 1991
MEMORANDUM
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
TO: B. J. O'Quinn
Assistant Branch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Trans ortation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State His oric Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: NC 60 from the Georgia State Line to
US 64-74, R-2110, GS 91-0102
Thank you for your letter of April 4, 1991, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no National Register-
listed properties located within the planning area. Therefore, we concur that no
further compliance with G.S. 121-12(a) is required.
However, we have located the following structure of historical or architectural
importance within the general area of the project:
Hyatt House. South side of SR 1599, 0.1 mile southeast of the junction
with NC 60, Culberson.
Since the last historic and architectural inventory of Cherokee County was
conducted in 1981, we feel there may be other properties in the project area of
which we are unaware and that we would ' now consider historically or
architecturally significant. We are especially concerned because we can see on
the USGS topographical map that the houses along NC 60 are located very close
to the roadway.
Also, please note that the Western Office of the Division of Archives and History
requires that an appointment be made to view their maps and files. Members of
our staff noticed that your. architectural historian used the Western Office files on
April 2 and 3, 1991. However, our staff was not informed of which project was
being investigated or which files were needed. This means that files could have
been missed or overlooked by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
architectural historian and thereby invalidate her findings.
109 EastJones Street o Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone]
_........... ..... ........ -.. _?..
A-33
While we note that this project is to be state funded, the potential for federal
permits may require further consultation and compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive Order
XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee Gledhill-
Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
i?• B. Church

- 1 /-'
November 3, 1994
=Opium
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihart`;'Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0234; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to NC 60, TIP No. R-2110
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.
I
Melba McGee
November 3, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
10761er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
i`?ad

• _ . _
. _
• - ~ - _ , 5 i
' ~ / DI ? Mx~ ,5`, ~V y
I I ~ R .i~, x ~?v. PROJ.REFERENCE NOe t a
q ~ ~ T c _ SHEET 'N0e TOTAL SHET~a'• - - -
~ ~ / ~o T 0 A 5 A ; U-23 7A _ > STAT ~''w
I ;i / . E PROD. N0. F.A. PROJ. N0. DESCRI'P'TION - , ~ ,
I ~n - r ~ s S ~ ~ / p ~t }~r~
~ . t~f~~ / r t W ~ ~ / o .D ~ , , y / ~ ~ ~ ~ a~C, ~.1`~ O PIS - 2 ~ ~±16.2 3 P I = 2 3 +4 5.03 _ - o . Pis - 25+70.92
D Vl DK ~ r Os = 6 00 00.0 ~ = 19°16 53.0 RT - o ~ _ ° Os - 6 00 00.00 ax:
I I I 1 ~ ~ o~ t , / ~ ~ p (q m L s = 200.00 D - 6 00 00.00 _ ~ L s 200.00
s F ~ i, ~ / P I = 11 +4 6.7 4 LT = 133.41 L = 321.36 _ ~ ~ ` 1 +46.74 LT - 133.41
a A~~~ I ,i w ~ ~ o ~ U I i_- I Q... q3g TRU ~ Fl. ~ l r 17 08 44.1. S T = 66.7 4 T - .162.21 _ , ~ 08 44.13 (RT) ST 66.14
w~ sr ; / ~ ~ UR _ a RFr / ~ ~ D 12 00 00. C ~ ° R = 954.9...30.. 00 00.00
s ~ ~s., ~ ~ ~ ~ , L 142 , 88 SE = 06 ~ 2.88 .
FAIRBROOK DEV ~ ~ ~ / ~ / ~i/~~ ' _ , ELOPMENT ~ ,a ' o c'/ ~ <s' ~ / ~ 'S0 T 7 i / 1.9 8
CORP. _ l ~ ~ % = i ; 5' , ~ ~ Q , l DB 888 PG 561 k ~ , / i, ' l; i R 4 7 7.4 6 ~j • 9 8 7.465
1 ~ ~ 60 / ! i > ~ ~
r ~ , ~s\ r' SE =SEE PLAN EE PLANS - <~;
Z r?~ /
co ~ _ s~Ur ' ~ / ~ - ~ ~ ~ ,r 10 - ~I / ~ ~ - PIS = + - - P 33 09.85 P I- 37+74.0$ ~ P I s= + A _ ° 42 33.28
-PST i~< j ~ ~ ~ / c,~; ~ _3 ~ ~ ~ Os - 2 00 00.0 ~ = 15° 4 ~ _ ° 8 Q~,~ LT Os 2 00 00.00 w.:,.
co i - - ~ ; ; ; ~ P I Sta 13+40.11 P I 355+44.22 L s = 200.00 p = 2 ° 00 ` -C s = y , + 00 flQ 200.00 ~ 4
- w Y ~ l"i %~s ~ ~ - -27 ~9 00 (RT) ~ = 10 ~3 18. 5 44.22 LT = - . ~ _ / 133.34 L - 790.10 LT - ~;;:q, 03 1 133.34
O / ~ ~ , / ~ ; ill - a ~ u c ~ . - ~ , ~ ~ , ~ '80 ~r ~ i ~ d - 11 UO 00 D = 0 15 00. 8 0 LT. ST = 66. - ~ ~~x:: 74 T - 397.57 ST = ° 15' 00. 66.74
~ .5, I„ ~ N ~ / , I~ ~ ~ ra5~ ~ ~o L = 249, ~5 L = 4, 0 R = 2,864.789 .Y , 022.00
~t I _ ~ l l 1 D22 00 ~ T - 12 7.3 T ` a ~ i ~ ~ _ -i- ~ ~ ' / / 8 - 2 , 016.1$ SE = 04 ti ,016.1$ 23.
~ [ q - ~ ~ ~ u C / rV ~ ~ / r ~ - - , _ - - _ z~ i ~ R 5 2 U . 8 7 R - 2 2 , 9~ 18.312 o 9~ 18.312 ~ F N'~~:
'~,~;~~-3 POT ~ ~U~, _ _ SE- 06 SE - NC 200 O. , :fir'.
~ C 10 7~.7~ to ' t ~ ~ l ~ r ' ~ ~ -1'3R~ s , , / NOTE: FOR PROFILE OF -L- SEE SHT.. i4`
~ ~ ~ o , i L 9,5~ l i 1 ~k+ ~J• ~ / ~ t0 F - OR PROFILE OF Y-4 SEE SHT. l6
~ ~ ~ _ V •4.~ I~ 3RD / ~ ~ - 9 Ln~~, / ~ ~
~9.~ \ R~ ~ / w b 2c~ ~ VALLEY FOR PR Fl F - - 0 LE 0 Y 3 SEE SHT. Il VALLEY CORNERS SHOPPING CENTER .
f1t25 ~ ~ - ~ ~ r, / ~ E,p I . / ~ l i~ i FOR PROFILE OF -Y-6 SEE SHT I LIMI 9 N TED PARTNERSHIP 23,
BEGIN ~ONST. l0 I / • / x , - r Oq,9
~h,r, E~ -i- n ~ - c~~rG ~ I ~ D OB I790 PG 594,595,596 20 iF 0 00
.5~ ~ ~ r~ OE R ° 8 r , ~ ~ `x ~ l ' ^~c SHOU , . .
~RP,~ F~aF, 1~. I ~ ~ % i~ ~A ~ / ~ P, ~ ti'~ ~ LDER BERM GUTTER 2b,ooo 20,000 '200 3booo
~ NpJ ~ , RE 0 - ~ ~ e l---yam
E f r o , ~ _ ,~ENrE~ ~ 1 • R EMOVE AND OBLITERATE I,ooo loon
I ~ _ ~ , I8G , 5180 Y-3 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 _ 16 ~ . 00 2000 fry
- - i r l cuR cur ~ ~ /v - ® ~ r , , ~ St T - ati.R ~ S 0 ~ I ~ i, l I / N 5 PROPuSED C& G ~ ~ MoNOUTHIC coNCRETE Is AN _ ~ L D
G~ 12 ~ / ! ~ ~ / rS i ~,'r X144' l~ A. i I~ ~ ~ <~; o ~ ST 0 ~0 J c° n
~T~F~,~ ~ F c a 1 ~ / i3 -;i i ~ s~;eK 1 0 ; ~ A~ ~ / Q ~ o~ r ti PAINTED IsL
~ -GR DE 0 I ISO/ m ~ C1' r 'o - , ,6 I`1 DR IN i ~ ~ l 4 Q0~ ~ . ~ P AND ~ ~ ~ -
~EMO!lF~ a~ 2 c~B,i:~ ~ / o 5 ;R ~1' 3v , • o ~ F_ ~ ( ~ ~l~ v , 1 ~ S -w9 ~i /
~Jl 111 2000 r
_ U~ 'I, - / _ ( ek , ~ / ~ I a~ 6' _ ~ i CURB ~l7• ao 17 / , ~ ; ~ ~
~ i ur F~~ - JOE y ~ ,
a llI ; ~ \ti 6s ~ ; ~ , ~ < c 1 C. ROWS ANO HOWARD PR 0~ ~ 996/2016 ADT. UiTT ~ ~ ~ ~QR D ~
~o i ~ ri / ~ ' D p S~ 6 1482 PG 540.541,5415 ~ ~ w ~q,, 33+ a ~ , 51,552,551 ~ ~ ~~--_.__1s.5 RE~ ~ .558 ~ ~o,
o r~ x~a~ l~ ~ ~ 1 a, ~ ~ ~ Cg ~00~, ~ - 1 6 c DB 1790 PG 598 ro , ~ i ;,r ti ~
~ i' , / ` , ~--CttR~ CUr ~ t~ ~5 ~ ~ ~ ti : ~ ~ ` ~ N~ (N
, ' ~
ti,, , I- ~ ~ - - ' - OAT / ~ ~ " 4 , ~ ~ (n
~ , _ i n /
i~ ~ ~ r .
_ r- m `a~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ C r ~ ~ 1. , •
J l292~6 ~ n,,~ , . POT ~ l ~ rr' • -Y REV F cu,~~ curs ~ - _ ~ •
77 _ -~e } a Y s. F". ~ ~ ~ 'I(`~ ~ ~ yT .ter ~ 5 p.`
! ` i!I r ..1 w' ~ ~ ~ 'i~'~.. kit ~ d, t t S _ ~ - N / j`i
~ ~ _ N / / w ~ < »o.. ~ ~ ~ ~
4~' R e ~ ~ ~ _ ~ i _ " . .r \ ' s ~ ti
/ / ~ FAT 'r ~ ,t~., ~ ~ ~u ~ .a~ . - car-~ .,r. 1 }y > ~ -~M1 I
~ / / CURo CUTS - _ l F r ~ t. , . ~ T ` >:r _ fin, ; ~ ~ ~ •i~
/ / / F ~ a1. - i I - / W p~S n{ r
r~~ Fl , \ ~~FtiO / ~ , ~ - _ ~N - I ~ F' ~ ,.r~ / ~ CtJR9 Ct1t'
g ~~``cs ~ 0 STD. 15
/ ~ / n- ~ ~ a 6MO0D5 2.03 - r - I~w ~ m N M.
~ ~ ~
,r ~ i ~ ~ - _ SOUTH 9 PR ~ & c ,
Q~ / io % ~ ~ ~:r~ -L' '1- "I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~l l ~ I~ V' \ ~ r r' 1 ~ 1~„^ ~ PG 959,960 ~ ~ _ is , ~ .t r
' ~ m ~ / ~ ~oRp ~ ~ ~
~ L r ; 5 ~ ~ ~ l~ ! ~ ~ F RD 1 ~ _ POT 27+05.74- .25 a~,
/ 15 -Y- ~ iia c R, ~ ~ z / 4 POC 354+87.1 zs.a o
F >f 6; o ' ~ M cuRe cur ~y ,r~ ~ ~ _ ''a ~
~ ~ a`~. F ~ ~ / ~ ~ / / > .76.51 & c ~ (,,J 2'-6"C&G
~ ~ ~ ~ 1 C~ ~ 'h•. 7; ' _ ; l t,-~ EIP~~ ~ ~ ,,,u ~ ,
f t r ~ ~ M 1 ri l ~ l ~ f ~ ~ ~O~ ~ \ , ; 15 S ~ ~i ~ /Q ~ ~
~ g' 15' ~ r`~ ~ ~ ~3 Jr i' ~ ~ ~ ~ Q
STATE ~ ~4`/ ~ ~.l ~ 2 C / ~ ,OER,E ,
IE BAS' ~ ~ / ~ F ~r A MAR ' , , ~ boo 6,aoo 5,eoo 20,00 ,uR p6 160 . ~ i ~ 24,4 0 _ 12,600 9,600 2.60 ~`i`~' • - ~ ~ ~ E`----~%~ ~ ~~i~r - ~ ~ r~~.
A86 ~ ) s--~ ~ 111 , i _r {~~ll -/1 / REMOVE ~ - ~ ~ w J ~ OT l . . . ~ ~ ,
a ~ . / ~ / 600 ~ - ~ ~ , i~ _ j~ .
~ 1, ~ / c ~ (V ~ / i P t q~ i,2oo 9,400 ti ~ ~ C l~ ' -fir, • F+T _ " . ~ r - f .
/ ~ ~ ~ / ~ FSl S ~ Q i ' - ~ Q ~ , , Q a , ; ~ / / ~ _ ~ Rip ~ ~ '
~q ~ R F Ap ~ h h t d . ~1~ i f ~ =1 , o Y ~ , n~ .z
i eF ~Ri 2 t 0 ~ i ~ s\Y w 6 . a
~ / ~ , ~ ~ sy r , ~ , ~ ~ eo ~ ~ I u - - 1.:.,
~ ~ I 175 ~ f ~ - - ~ ~
ti .ti ~ - ~ ~ ~ / r _ ~ 19,400 'ne • , ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ . tik r t ~ l
~ ti/ ' I i ~ ~ r _ a, ~ ~ C' , 93,400 , x / ~ / LfLA i, r ~ SOPPS INVESTMENT 'r'` ~ ! s I
ti, / ~ r. M. BARGER.~NEft2S Ei~ I ,r l RAY ALV k i . i / ~ / IN BARGER 1996/201E ADT. 6 4g~ .1409 <.Rl°i. 404,4 . , b`Et°
t / ~ ~ ~ , i.At1RA M. BARGER °0`E D.B. 142 • 3 .j~C, 549.5 ' ~ ~ J53' ~ D.B. t50 ~ s ~ •
/ ~ ~ r ao MINA `IRFN '0s 1 E Q ~~R •4g- i 5 `'f'G, 855, .~M I
'r0 ~ / r ~s c~ / • Ai6 4 ti WAYNE A I / ; , ~ ~`~3 86 PC ~ ~ ~ ~ ERT `W~YNE A W .168#~ ~G.33~ :~.;W/ ~ P. b IILIS 1, 1. ~ 12,7 ~QBERT M. HART ~S '?~P~~9`~?S ~
/ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ , ~ ~ Nit 79E-426 °flB 1920 Pa _ / / t a?8`'1920 PC 124 N nN~, ' FILTER F1l6Rt~ ;~M35 S 35 m _
/ . 4• ~ , - / Acr zDETAIL ~ ~ 85, - a l r ~ ~ ~ r`, ~ F / ' ~ / J , , P BASE DITCH ,Zp, w ~ s~ pDE~x3 ' Y. ~ 1 .5~ ~ ~0~ a ~ EE; s
R ~ / ~ G9 / / ~ ~e ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ .DETAIL C
/ ~ 2~~~ ~ PG X73 b F,I, BA3B DITCH ~ i / ~ / ~ ~ / ~ , , ~ s Natural Shope! 26.5 ~ 126 -k=: ~ ~ ~ , .59' ~ ~ sT4r~ ~ ROAD~MkII DESIGN : Hl!D ;..d~5 ~;,q . ~
/ ~ ~ ~ Ground P/Ft. r~ ~ d B Natur~~i N, ~NGI~EER K° ENG ~ A .:A ~ . f
I i r ~ ~ 16 ~ MI ,D= L Ft. ~ - 2; ti~ Naturroi n Ground / Ground DETAII, / ~J T 1 ~ _ . ~
i ~ B Mox.d=.~.Q.Ft, d 0 FAL3B 9UMP ~ ~ Min.D= I 0 / / ~ ~ / ~ _ • ti ~ _ 5 ~ Ft. OutslGe Difch ~ N•re„I. i ~ _ 1 ~
~ ~ rr When B Is <6' G- .0 Ft. Max. ~.0 ~ ~ ~ `t 6 d-_Ft. Tr q /T / ~ _ Ctfic Fbw n ~ - • I B-Z,~Ft. ~ . ~ _ ~ 4+'
t, ~ OL 2' / ~ . 0 Type of Liner. CI. I Rip Rap Type oi' tin~r. I Rlp Rap w/ 2 - i / ~ ~ _ s r,
T - _ - 4 Q w/Filter Fabric Fil'k®r, Fabric r . .r , -
S ~ c FROM STA I +00 T OUT E 1T - ~ ~ • ~ ~ / / T 2 0 L D CH ~ s-b~+,x, T ~~`i SSA 14+75 -Y-6 RT, STA 33+73 -l- RT, ~ s~ttnn pope - -t ppaef! ttt~ot, ' '
0
;h..~',f,~, ~ 1 Y~ ti_
~ , ~~.s~r Ij7
k
Jlf1'-999 •08:41 a i f /t sr/rd /u2 a?ap/u2307 sO'

PROJECT REFERENCE N0. SHEET N0.
_ 1±-2307AA 13
!R A~ ~ 0 L,WAY DESIGN HYDRAULIC
ENGINEER ~ ENGINEER
f
t I
QUO
'25
~E 2.4' Spp , \ ~ ~ F P~
E ~03 ~ lN~E 140 E _ 8.lq ST t ~~r D.g o9 P MFNT
~ E . !q C. S ~l TONS C L I p,e, 23 P 904,
P IP-RAP W/39SY p lSOS G' Sq9 ~5 ~ Q .g, !6 P~, 8 ~SSO
ILTER FABRIC 89 P SS,BS L - +Zi 331 6
~ W ~ i~6-
o to 42' RCP -CL y Q Q
W/ METHOD B ~
_ INSTALLATION 1 •50 O l30`
Q
~ r O
Q \ 'OT O o ~
f~ ~ Q ~5~.
114 6 b +23 ~ \
~ ~ 3s ~ 8
v ~ r o +az \ l~ /sx ~ \ +5s ,o P1 Sto =13{40.11 Pl Sta =17+89.96
i~ ~ 35' Q q Q \ ~ 275' _ i n °
~ I~ 62.58 ~ F \ T ~ 75 ~ - 27° 29 00 ~RT~ ~ = 35 36' 00° (LT ~E D = ll° 00 OD D ° 1l° 00 00
1,, •S 35 •F ~ \ w = o L 249.85 L - 323.64
° ~ - ~ ~ w T =127.38 l ~ =167,23
~ SE DITCH 520.871 R 520.871
~ ~ ~S ~ ~ ~ w W/ CLASS I RIP-RAP - - ~ ; t SE - 06 SE - 06
~ III , , ~ \ ~ ~ 35 ~ o a I EST 130 TONS i ~ I W/ FILTER FABRIC
\ \ -00 CLASS B RIP I~ •22.73 ~ EST 249 SY
~ EST I TON O o`~ A 35 ~ DDE 244 C.Y.
z ~ EST FILTER ~ \ ~ ~ ~ \ ABRIC 4 S G~ \ ~40 ~ I' o SEE DETAIL C 1 1 f--
~ ~ ~ - , , ~ 2.5 \ r 1 ~~I~~.~, o ~ ~ 60 ~ I ~ w ~ r; w '~~ti li~,li~~31~ ~ ~ RAL DIT''~fi~ ~ r~ 1., ~ ~ i , ili. i ,r:~i ~,j~i:.~~~f:~;i~C~~li ~lli~;~l'~~~ 'v'
~ ~ rn ~ O ~ \I w ~ \ ~ , W/ CLI IF~RAP ti ~
a c ~ ~ 115 EST 106 TOt>uS {ss w X50' ~ W/ FILTER FABRIC: 150 SY ~ w
~wz~ w •00 ~ \ ~ ~;3 ~ao~~' 125` ~ ~ \ DDE 44 C.Y,', ~ Q
a~~-m w ~ 90 ~ ~ a u a rn Q 35 ~ .43 it SEE DETAIL E ~ ~ E
~~w ~ I ~ F woo Mw h ` R~'W . +e5 ~i RETAIN RIP-RAP DISSIPATOR
v~_rn~~`~ ~ o / 0 ~ F Q ~ a! w- CON . HW ~ Izo~ w w
pow ~ ~ F ~ ~ s ~N~ 20 ~ ~ ~ 20 i
•65 ~ 90 / n ~ Q ~TDE
150' ~ < 15 / F ~ :"6.36 56.05 1 ~ , ~4 ,V ~ ` T DE + _ 56.05 ~ T (~D I' -
'cam" ~ F ~ _ 117 - ~27 Q~4 T +9 N ~ +oo 117 S 0~ ~ ..o'
F C~. B RIP RAP T~~ ,yF ~ . 35. R/w PR T r L, _ . •70 , 0 ECTION W/ \ _ , ~ E ~ R/W G , , lob o F. ~5 / d ~ Il F, ~ i
- Fl ~ (r'S' L ~ ER FABRIC 71 SY ~ _ ~ _ _ _ C Q pF., ' ~ ~i Q~ Q ~iI J
- 35 TONS CLB STONE F .ti ____i -e G ~ 2 , +q - ~5 5 ' -1t
~0 ~ ,F ~ 35 ~ '~E \ ~ 50' 11 ~x~srr EN R/WI ~ ~ , a/W
~ ~c R,w ,y GRADS ; l i,;; S f BK. F'W CONC. DITCH ~ti.,
Q ~ _ 6 i 0 DRAT. Q S `0 ~ ~ Gf-B ~ GQ _ ~ 2T W/BK. HW ~ GfB~, , 35'~
~ c ' ~ ~ ~ O 11
` ~ Z¢ P E~ ~ S 8546 N -
~ ~0', C ~ ~ x _s y~-u- ~ .96 E FUTURE /5TH AV. N 86.45'55' W Sf'
\ _ S P P ~ ~6 .O...S. INVESTMENTS F ~ ~ R is.oo' ,
b5' ~ ~j - RD B'46'38 W / D.B. 1409 PG. 404 405 \ ~ ti , '38 W ~'I' f 113.32' _ - _
D.B. 1423 PG. 549,550 ~ ~ ~ ~ ' \ ~ . BE . ~&G , ~ '27 ~ ' CB -____--N 86 45 55~ W 549.95' '
D.B.1505 PG. 855 856 116 ' F +q6 D.B.1684 PG. 331 ~ i T RAIN ~ R/W , , T RAIN
F a
0 ~ X46.36, ~ ~ 1-- E •46.30, , 35' END _C&G -
r~ _ _ i , RETAIN V -R +2 i ETAIN 35'
L_
~L?~ 8C' - _ ~ ~`,Gr
- _ _
~M _
coNC. vC, ' PAVED B~,

a it _ -
s~. ~ ~
i IS BLK HUS
~ WAL-MART STORES I~ I p ZT STORES INC. ~ O
a ~ ~ O
w ~ D.8.1720 PG. 73 720 PG. 73 ! O
~ M ~
o~ N
ti h
,~z O

o ~ y ~
~ 5SF ~
~'~i _ ~ . 9g N
~J
DETAIL E - -
p FIB ~ETAIL ---1 ~l BASE DrrcH ; DETAIL ~ (N.t a S.I.) BASE DITCH STONE TOE PROTECTION
P ( Net b Sub) (N.t a Sa{e 1 ~ ~ Fill Natural rill r___-- SIOpe Nat ~i tv'~~~-~.~ral / Slone
h~ a., Ground D ~ I'/Ft. Grou^~-~~~`a' D ti~ Ground /
VIH'rE ~Ak w d Min.D= ~QFt, ~_i Mir.~~=2_OFt, Natural
B tutax.d= ~ QFt. B Mc~ ~=~Ft.
When B is <6' b = 5_0 Ft. B= 4,.QFt. Ground
, 6= 3_0 Ft. TYPe of Liner= CI. I Rip Rap w/ Min. d = I_0 Ft. Type of Liner=Cl•'I`Rip-Rap Filter Fcb_ric
w/Fitter Fabric FROM STA, 21+75 1140) ~ 0 TYDe of Llner= CI, 'B' RIP RAP
F FR M + _ STA. 21+75 (255) LT. Y-6 w/Filter Fabric 0 STA 12 00 TO STA 14+75 -Y 6 RT,
FI FROM STA 20+85 TO STA 21+75 -Y-6 LT. FROM STA 14+50 TO STA 16+50 -Y-6 RT.
9il v 9~ ~
°/s Sf SHOO! DER BERM GUTTER • ~ ~ ~ •
~l'
NOTE: FOR PROFILE OF -Y-6 SEE SHT.18
5-JUN-1995 13:48 / srird /u2307aa/u2307s13.psh

PROD. REFERENCE NO. SHEET N0. TOTAt SHEETS' ~ - AA '
, STATE PROJ. NO. F.A. PROJ. NO. pESCRtPTION ~ r ,
r r 1 ' i
, ~ ?11 ? ~ ~ ~ t 1 4 i 1 t
CURVE DATA RAMP B ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ car. ro +naET CURVE DATA RAMP A ' ,aaR car.
' PI = 1+33.37 PI = 2+96.94 P1 ¦ 4+60.29 ~ ?1 ? t ' ' _ ° = 4• ' 00.00" ' t ~ ? k : t 1 d ,qas a obis ro m T, y$ .400'00.Op" ~ 7 44'37.48 (LT) 6s 00 ~ 1 ? a oeh ro m ~ ' ~ ro ~ ~,,et Pib = 1+47.37 ~ P1 = 4+07.92 " PI8 ¦ 6+70.05 " PIa = 9+86.90 PI 1+63.38 a 15 44 02.27 (ATI Aa = 4'00'00.00 6a = 10 00'00.00 21 44'25.85 ~LTI
Ls = 200.0000' D = 4.00'00.00" La = 200.00' , •1 ? \ s3 t of a?T ro °N _ _ ~ ~1 QI ~1 ~ 1 1 LT = 133.3674 L - 193.59' LT 133.31' rERAL ~ .q I '+r~l1al t ' E pdr• Lis ¦ P00~,Op' ~ D = 4°00'00.00" La = 200.00 L8 = 2 , D ¦ 10'00'00.00 ; S T X~ _ _ LT = 133.37 LT = 137.5 L = 211.41 Y T LT 133.31 L 393.35.
' ST = 66.6976` T = 96.94' ST = 66.70` ifq,AU%'~IVaAV + ,u @ • i~•Cr ' ~_~~@ TS Sta 0+00.0000 R = 1,432.395' CS Sta 3+93.59 T F i ~ , ~4 ST ¦ 66.70' T = 197.92' ST = 66. TO' ST = 66.86' T = 110.03
4r~ SC Sto 2+00.00 ST Sta 5+93.59 ~ , ? / Q, SC Sta 2+00.0000 ES r ~ ~ . ~ r 1 t ; •s CS Sto 3+93.59 ~ , ~ , ~'i,. 4, ~ ~ ~ 5 1 ~ ~/~5~~R •APCN TS Sto 0+10.00 R = 1.132.395' CS Sta 6+03.35 TS Sto 8+53.35 R = 512.96 +10.00 SC Sta 2+10.00 ST Sta 8+03.35 SC Sta 10+53.35 PC St0 10+53.35 ' ~ SC Sta 2 ' pTCN ` PT St0 12+70.76 '
.Ins MARTq - wREttA Cdr. SE = SEE PLANS ~ ` ? ~~3 o ?s 10115 w ~L'~~p 'pAp Rr CS Sto 6+03.35 ntaa L ~ SE =SEE PLANS SE =SEE PLANS
NM ro!p N1011 roNI ~ 't:-$T11~75 ? ~ - ~ g_,~288 Nrq roaaa rot N ? ? ~ l ,®'u ~A''t~s~ r fAlAlt K SY [TALE _ _ ' ~
,Bp/ ~W 76.Grr N M ro W r qq ro ar ~ ~y ~ , ? ~ OETAL E e, 4w _ a s ro Ns N qet ro tro ~ , • r~ ,ti • r6 CY ? ~ r,y, N 010 ro !M N qN re N1 diCN ~ \ ? ~ M1 CY ~ a T/ i
~ N NI ro q N q10 ro IN arJ+c~ ? ? \ ~ b a m Pe N r ae ro ett Es . t 1Td~b + ~ ~ ? i ~ u6 ' - ~ RVE DATA -Y-5 ' a CU - M
~.ZYq N W ?0 ~t M p t0 (p F~ 210' -~TDE-"T ~ ~ ~ ~ y ER , l~.b N eN rs ~n N as1 ro eu Y t0E•-TDE ~ \ ~ • ? ~ , ER 43 r+~ P I = 10+91.29 P 1 = 13+6.35 P ! = 15+84.27 " ~ ~=2'44'17.OG~tRT1 ~=2827 77.00~(ATId=45'5 10.00 (ATI
N N ro w r 1w ro SEE DETAL N • ~Of,, TDE- , ` ; ? ~ ` N eN ro» N 1Nro rasa ~ , ? • ~ 1 ~ ~p 6 D ¦ 1.30 00.00 D = 12 00 00.00 D 23 00 00.00" 1
e \ ~ ? ~ ~ STA54°50 -1• END CT U•2301AA • S. , ` ? s , ~ L = 182.54' L = 231.71' L = 196.75' M00DS ~ a xrxoRYatArt T = 91.29' T ~ 121.08' , T .103.83 W
.OSB 1~ ~ ? 0 , R ~ ~ ~ , 8 © sT a ea N ~ R = 3.819.719 R 417.485 R 249 1 2 _ ; - { SE _ ~ SE ¦ ~ SE ¦ 08 y, 'w t3 RUNOFF 150' RUNOFF = 150' g - .~T
~,~5 ENTER ~ ~ ~ ~ I s r
I , !996/20/6 ADT s~/ i r• 'm~ ~ ! ;
j ~'co~' i M l9y~ ~ S
1~ i i 551RPRAP i i i i s v. , aTU DB" ~ ~ tErt FAe~ieC n sY i 4, 7374 I j ~
~Y ss~ Rp a ~ , i~ a s orr a Naoer _ _ SC Sla ~pT FAD ~ sY ST Sta i i S _ „©w n a 1~0 N R' ~ ~ it 5 S ~ ~
IA --ac---~-x A 'B'~ ..._•r•--• _ _ ~ u i a'\p ~ /~~I , SS 4 ~ tsp'%q'M~C , ul x t, - - ~ ~ ASS 8 RP 11A ' M ~"`x--_x t AaIaC ~ sY RP'B' TS SAT ~Q t 2 TONY i ~ ASS ~ ~ 80' R • t ~ , 1 ) , fi
+pQ'I©'U q, ,I,©rp x hA7 \ ~ ; Gl' " - .-w._. ~ ~ F 6 iT ~C / '©Nbtti
fl n4~lr rl,p,IrQq, . , x~.x 137T•SM 359'9/ rg r4 • - - sry aMru" a fl ,p ~4 1 ,Ir gid'p 9' qr q, I '4~J9'Sj,P~+~l'C3~1 x~-x~ ~ ~m N 9 i ,I, ,p© Q~ - .Vp ~ ~ ~ RE ' 7.40 SYO ~t JB394J1
, ,,,~~J7, _,~I©'U©,I'Qd~Q,li(,j,1,~1, rr OEVONIIIC ~ ?srv 'h~'I'p~6 ,Dp'4 ~4'FDP © ' 'Ul~'p ,P , 'fir 1 t~ 149'P • wGh N P / ~ Ali}' ~ . q.. m~+-, ~ x_ r na rrA. esr 30 f~ - 7•i 1 ~ ~i . ~ ~o ~ . ~ ~ - Q f~ a _ s~ aao0 ' I ~ z+'~ G~
~ ~ ~ ~ FOP , . ~ ~ FA ~ sr a y~ ~,I~i ~ f - a
ard' • ,l,p,l,p I ExT~fo--~ amo--1~ x ~ I~p I r~cw cia. rw. A ~tov . ' ~ plp,l,pd, ,I~p,l, ~ v t0 ,1,4'1'~~ ~,p,I,t3,I. R•rsP r e" ~ h ' . 0,4, ©I~p,l, ~Ir d. ,I~p~l,pd,pq~prb - , . as _ _ Q~,~, 2 ~ c u ~v - ~ z'~ n c F a 3 Pl7T. ~ Q p cap - SEE OEi Os~,•.• 1(rU 0 ~ ~ ~ ~~p,~c q6
i d p 1 p'I~p'I'©dip,lr . b . r, ~ , i1'~'I L?' ~ 'I' , ~ ~ ~ 2- ~ r' ~ ~ ~ o - - 9 pI Irp,i~p~i,pa ~ ~idd,. ~ ~2 rR~ x x--__ •
~ - -y- - - , ~ r ~1rp,lprlrp~l~prl~prl~p,l,p I ,Ir K' ---=`'`'-x---x fl 9 re'R~ ca+c. , - - N - x•---X ITONS r~ •Qy Z 1 - •E?r ~ - 0 0 -
_ . - II kEAGYf EXA7 CiR - ' ~ . r, • ~I~p,~,~ I /T - ~ _ - A'EAaVE EXIST OiA - -N / ~rl,d,l JB a~4'1'~'I'p'up, yW~Q pa SC ~ 1 rr,~11~ r1 ; y TI ~ 0 'd'P . M1~~ ~ ~ ~ fl
~ ~ - - . _ - - - t0 P ~ QI' rhprl .I. rbp'44) / / ELIMS ~ c ~ ~ ;
' ' AETAN--^ fPMED ~ - - _ _ - I/ ` ~1 - - F C PQT $ta. ` ~ q ~ a uSAq'N 6Y lYP °e tvfaC ---.---C - rrr
V _ ~ - - - - - - - - RP.'RPOT SID-f3•~.T5 / ,t ' pmp,l, . 1t a Ir RAP dT r ~ ~ s1a2P7P'f ~en - _ - - - - - - - ~ - RP.'8'ROT Sia rhL'099v N v AP RAP aT N ~ i
' ' °"r~A 111 , '10'Cpl~ ~{,I~ ~ TS _ - ~ ~ CBST 8 STAEft OAYE SF Q'~ OAA6
_ $10°22'2 -`~~.,i - P'A 'b 'A ,pd W .p \ ~ ..jC - - - , 1.. x , ~drld'('~q~61~pQrbfd~~~ Ip , `,Q 1~' T ~-%-^"~x~J '
~ - ~ - _ f •t I-/- 4esr RETAM ~ _ ~ 43 f tr31b 166~i~p'i'+is F - --L n {~-x x x$-x ;
~ 2•p TO 2.a ~ T. !I I ` - - - f'-- - ~ ~ '
r C FSS~ HO f& 2440M; y/ ~ C I 3B 2-a8 M:aT - - - - 9' ~ a ~ ~ ~ _ _ . - _ - _ ~
T E105 ~ - _ _ ro _ 11 r + !1~R3
I ~'I'4'I'fl'I'4'I' 'I'~~l~p~l'©n, I ~ ,Dfl~nb'I~Lf'n „ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.-_lE,. - _ ~I flq'k3ght3 Q 1 E; ~`1 ®I Q'I Qf~l'ti~,l, ~ - ~ q~1314~Q _ - _ _
~ Q Naios O _ _ _ ~
, ' , ~ _p . ~ ~ . ~ RETAw ~ ~ AS SNaRI~ d' IYP A7A
_ ~ • 4 Y,_ r ,',8y'®u,~ Q is Q ~ w i~,. • ~ - r ~ ~ - - a, H ~ AEAq'E w r r= y
= r ~x ro *q, xr• ~ \ ~ X 4@ 0n,0,A x~e, ,H®i1' ~'A0 tr - ~ _ - .r. ~
- c1 ~ ~'h~dr ~ ~r d H® t?r41§T~®?'6'A@q~®*,~ ~ • a ~~1'~ r ~ Q N ~ 43rA 41 C ~Mr „ A' ~ , ,T 'I'®~ ~ r tY ~IPe"1,4~1,1, r ~ - - - ` - - - - -o.~." ~ LLnY~' '~:'T'~ ~ yt' 541 ~q'I'~d'b~fd1©r - nmlr - ' .1`'.t~ K~ Ir®qr '?•'cdK ~s ~ ~tl'L'-0gr@gr~7Ar ` .r _.asv ~ 1 } 'tt s.-°.f .;;.;•~4!' : ~t.•+ti.
- © X• X~ ~ 1~ p~ ~~i ~ QgiQ,/ , ~yr~rl, ,€}j,1,~r~,Q~1 "'--z= l _ "1 j. _ _ ~ ~ w~+'w~~Y7..r ? •M°~• @s , '43,1, Q '~9'Q~N - - - - - - - - -
' d 9,y ~ m ,t,Q' ~ ~ A a r b'1'~,1 r - rR a , 43u~ fl PRAM I q ~ 'a ' p~ oDRAM ~J
~ v •%~I,p,hp,l' ~ 4aF ~ • AIAp1A acaurER AID OONUD C.RICf5E1 I ~ ~ ~ s -aB 9 _ ~~1 dl,p~ F ®,~~,1 ~ , et t 0.8LTYN. ~ , ~ 4~~t~•.
4s - - De ITTT ro e2t PY"TS Sfo pgpgi E' ~ ~S ~`o r ' ~ • \ M7 Po~`"-"---- F \ sw Dw~wACE ~ Cf ~ Q IL r 8 ELlOM t,~rli~' di~rlr~~U{~~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Est SY ' ~~1~G+~I~~,i'8~~'0~I~0'i'0~(~4r I~ i i. i i i r i K ® FXTBG a ~ W
Sta 359.55.08 k ~ ~ 3'n rE ~nEt EL~rs I f r,, I . H~ 4 vE o ~ I ,u4 " 4b1414~JP$I{9~PQ9~f~ "F r ` , T ' b p ~'AS3 ~ ~ , ~ ~ / ,
aTCH E705 , ~ f3 ~ .,vQ ' a~ ~RAPe + ~ ° 0 r L4 z I~ it i ~ 6 Z ` \ \ '~(i'35A0 F ~ fl - - - - ~ ~ .b x-x--x--~}~--x_"x 'x--
• ~ w O W ~1 r _ _ - ~ ]6' PENF -RSER ° \ 9,~,Qq~d 1, ~ ` \ \ ~ p• ' \ gr14.86 p,l,®ar6~npr
O w' a1P BA~ b q ~ DETAIL J ~ ~ ` p ' ~ ~ u.ir~an77~ 'c Eygi ip4J~l'4§'PP.1' i 4w~ ~V~1'~r43 Ir .0 m ~ ~G I R~r? RA! /TONS n ~ RP• Q \ \ ~ d ~ a FOp TEI1 F~ItlC ~ SY A ,
DETAIL g ~Ep~~Tg~5e~ c ~ a \ \ PT DETAIL D CxAxxBL CHANQB cN..e.rl REPL EfOST.t/ ~ \ s a , \ a i r, ~.P~J~UQiUQrP y, \ a 2 e 10' x id RCBCJ ~ ~ ~t9 : R ~ °A \ p / < , ~'r, \ \ TB' CSP S p ~
' I.AT~IAL 'V' D[1+CfI DYEN~IIS 1 SPECS. , (Nraa°J.1 NoiW01 Noturtl ~ / ~ ~ ~ \ \ q,©d,©i1' _ _ _ _ ~"'4'1,{~A l N.t a 9•°E.1 Pweri w i bTy ~ \ \ Q _ ~ Q+q, r, ~y e ©i ~ ~ T. TER~AdtlCIla3Y ~
Flil ~ a.r MIn.D=~Ft. ti ~ ~ TH ~ 1 ~ ~ s~ ~ Naturcl rte--=' Slope N,~,I iWz.d=~Ft. SPIlrAY ~ + \ JOE CNOIE AID MDR~EIn PRUTT ,(~'I'4~~~{~~I'Q'pyg'U~, ~ \'G~~/ ~ 'C~ \ \ \ a , ~ ' AtA'&
~ D ~ yr r~ • wnen B is 2s' e= 20 Ft. + TOE-- p~ \ u.IMt ro s14sr a' T'~ ~ , • ,t3,1, roan p ~ /Ft. / sta Ho. Bse.o1 - iDE-. 1 \ ~ `A6 ~ ~q d+~ iDE ~y19q, ti ~rA¢y, Y ypp ~p I10j5 / f~ r~ ' ~ SEE SHT.15 ~4 H~ r 1 TER FAQ ~i ~a~r / ~ f~ ~ 'Y'S $EE $Ill.li' ' 1
Mln.O' .LQFt. a M...J= ],Qr• Type of uner.Class I Rtp Rcp \ DLME ro ~ q~ ~ S , w/Filter Fabrlc \ GLMEE ro MT,1l1 ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ _ ~ - , b= ZaS~Ft. 1: 10 Pa Am l3 P. \ 0J?R'Ie MlIR i 4f P1 \ I ~ - . ~ V I , AI~111~111 ~ , ~ Q, + ~ 49re O EST (q ~ Fdt QF RP.'C St~E SHT.19 \ 1 i
J IJ.. =Close I Rl Rop - CH AT STA 12+00 -RAMP D- LT• 9ERM dTpi u ~ ; Q ~ FROM STA 10+00 TO STA 12+p0 -RAMP A- RT. T'•" w/Fllter Fabrlc OUTLET DIT ' ,H ° A F T S ~ fQq t~ l,iF:'D" SM.80 ' t ` 25 { SHEEf G THAU dP ' PW~lS 1
FROM STA 54*75 TO STA 55+15 -L- RT. FAOM STA 5+00 TO STA 9+40 -RAMP B- LT. L EEit FM~ir FaOeprk~50l~5 ton. \ \ <3 / Q; = r , ~ s ~Y ar ~ ~ f~OR 57AUCfUIRE FLAMES SEE SHEET TNpU '
DE ~ s/ , ~ ~ ~ ~ Ix.~1.L0I a -I ~ n9 \ \ p CIR ' 1 1 ~ • J$ O t~ I RA~ 1 1 2 ~ F pN~ I r 1 ; i pr. sr ~ FAETtlC d YgNIxITH~C C1pMCAETE ISLAND
D~TAaI,L~ E DETAIL ~ a Hatura sbQe \ Est aow B nP ar n tone sr 1 $UMP ~ Z \ Fit FEter Fabrio SO ST 1 sJt v, A+°` Est FRisr Fabrb 531 sr ~ j~'ypyE ANp OBLITERATE
, I Nr r 1rL 0 F IANN~ a°y) io r/Ft. ~ CLA 'B' Ri' RAP r/ $S ' ~ ~ ~ Outside Ditch _ - Mk1.D=J.Q..Ft, ~ I: `-•'I SIOOe - \ FLIER FABIEC /C I ~ © , f 3 ENTER ~ ~ 1~~-., I 18!}45-180 ~ TOE TOE- TOE / ~ ipE iOE~ i0E_ SHOULDER BERM IxAT£R Cist~f A
'tea Traffic Fbw / Mox.d=.I•Q.Ft. - L ` / round 0 rhD= Ft. Oil Or/ 2' 'Nhen 8 le <6' D=~+.O~ft. ~ ~ Q ~ \ 6' OFFSET TOE ~O(c. i ' QI A ~ ~ * T~, tOE~
Mm.d=1.QFt, f Lmx= Ra P(S = 55+b3.89 PI - 59+37.14 " P[s - 6308 OB " r r _ ~ I b• Ft. GI Type ° Cloea I RIp p Os 2°00` 0 .0" ~ = 12° 13 02.0 RT 0a = 2000.00 Q I J
wren B le <c~ ? Q _ •fa w/filter Fabrlc = Q Ls = 200 e=Ft. +-s La 200.00 D 2'00'09.00 g / G Type of liner=C1.'B' RIP RAP S=Oltch Slope fL Proposed Ditch FROM STA 14+00 TO STA 16+50 -RAMP D- LT. LT = 137.34' L = 610.86 LT = 133.34' p J C~ ~ \ ~ u tN ~ /1oE
rlc T - .67' T = 306.59' ST = 66.61' - I C w/Fllter Fab S 66 ~ ~ AL. ~ s~ - I -40 Est aon Ipp (~o ratans Y ~
t ~ FROM STA S3+q5 TO STA 54+15 -L• AT. R = 2.864.789' O ~ ,bd~ DET M sE = 04 r'T w u~~ '~'d ~ ~ Est FaCriO TOT sY CURVE RAMP D ~ ~Y ~ ` ~ P1 '28;28.28" P15 = 3e1H5~.27 " PI = 388+58.88 " Pla = 39+54.37 "
' DETAIL "~"-~'I ^I FA ~ v+ ' ~ ~ / p' tH ri ~ O8 300 04.0 D = 16 52 00.0 IAT ~ 300 04.00 ; t ~ 1 a La = 200.00 Ls a 400.00 D 1'30'00.00 Le ¦ 400.00,
' FALSE SUbtP d x a ~ SloDe DETAIL F rAer D~ (N.t a bS I Z ~ round JFt. - 071 R0I PO Eat IN.r4iI Medlon Ditch ~ Wn.D=iFt. PIS = 33+09.85 PI = 37+74.08 PIa 42+33.28 ~ ~ fA~IC LT = 133.34' LT 266.71' L 1124.41' LT 266.11,
rbt - Mm1.d= t. Os = 2'00'00.0' ~ ¦ 15.4807.0"LT Os = 2'00'00.00" ST = 173.37' T i 566.3'', ST 133.37 , r I ~ aE~il ~ ST - 66.67 G~ / / t Fi ~IFa~a-tc ~ sr CS St0 0+00 00 R 3.819. T 9 ~ ;
Hround round ZOiI ?O+l ~ 2 F 'when B la <6' b• Ft. La = 200.00' D = 2'DO 09.OC LS = 200.00 ! ~ MIn.O=...6_Ft. B= Ft. LT = 133.34' L ~ 190.10 LT 133.34' ~ Type of Liner=Gloss I Rlp Rap ST = 66.61' T = 397.57' ST = 66.67' { ~ 1 ~ ST Sto 2+00.00 = O7 (E>tlSTINGI 70 ~ ~ ' ~ SE =SEE PLANS ~ ; I ~ .
I • wnen B IA 26' um1.a=.~pFt. .-5-' •ta /Flit F tic R = 2.664.789' ! B= YFt. Sta no, ese.a ProDoaed Dffch , S=Ditch Slope ~ FAOM STA 12+15 TO STA M+00 -RAMP 0- LT. SE _ ~ r 8? ~ i 49 ~
Type of liner- Class I Alp Rap C L' R V E DATA RAMP C w/Fllter Fabric ~ ~ b Z9 ~ ~ '
OUTLET DITCH Al STA 9+40 -RAMP D- LT. DETAIL N LA.7811AL M DE'l'CB s = i+33.37 PI = 4+23.68 Pls = T+10.47 P[s = 10+27.21 Pl= 13+14.44 p 16 ;
, DETAIL (IL.e.LI PI = n= r) ~ = 4.00'00.00' Ba = 7.00'00.00" o= 3c•to'35.1o'1LT? FALEIB 9UMP ~ K As 4 00 00.00 i 7 45 03.09 E R 49 , 1 ~ t~ saFS M~rNOrts ; ' ~ ~ © oeNOS ro.a _
utslde Ditch `N"a'I'' ~ ~ Sbv Ls = 200.00 D ®4.00'00.00" Ls = 200.00' L8 = 200.00' D = 7.00'00.00' DE AIL 0 _ rl LT = 133.37' L = 443.77' LT = 133.37' LT ¦ 133.44' L = 431.09' ~ ~ U 2307AA W F6 Ml,Ni ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~K•~ Fo311 /
aPacut. N'DRY.7[ Traffic Flow D Y/Ft_ I.0 "b+w ST = 66.70' T = 223.68' ST =66.70' ST = 66.76' T = 220.67' ' lxraa.l.t FiD ` 2 ~ ~•a= ~T. TS Sta 0+00.00 R = 1,432.795' CS Sto 6+43.77 TS Sto 8+93.17 R = 818.511' m; - / ~ .r ~
b=Z•~ Ft, C Sta 2+00.00 SC Sta 2+00.00 ST Sta AM3.77 SC Sta 10+93 TT PC Sta 10+93.7107 Natural o< of Slope _ a °"'~d• PT Sta 15+24.8624 ~ r 1 a INTERCHANGE OF THE ~ p( a ,
round p p ~o{t Type of Liner=CIOSa 'B' RIP RAP CS Sta 6+43.77 ~ Mln. D:LOFt• ~ S~Itoh Slaps E Proposed Ditch I ` SE = SEE PLANS SE =SEE PLANS 1 1 a • ~ UGHFARE A911C ~ ~ _ EAST SIDE THORO ~p , _ ~ flhr 4ST SY ~ 1 @ E----E"- E-'" - ' a _ E AND 140 ;
FROM 5TA 55+00 TO STA 55+T5 -l• LT. E?I FROM STA 0+20 TO STA 1+25 -RAMP A- RT. 6 RT.TO IT. ACROSS END OF -L- A n ,
FROM STA I*i5 TO STA 3+20 -RAMP A- RT. DETAIL R ~ FROM STA 14+50 TO STA 15+50 -Y5- LT. aQ61[ .y. D17'CEt DETAIL P ~TAluTAlll " . ~ © TON TO BRIDGE MIDTH CATAWBA COUNTY ; " a SKETCH OF PAVEMENT IN RELA I
(N.E w 8•.4) (~Nr.~ wc,h "k ~'Re +aoa ~ t t ~ ~ = I ~ ~ AOA ~Ti DDS ICN E~R ~ ' v (M e ~ 1 Rltu ,7 ,
~ Ot ~ t Naturd w .ci~t+oa a ~ ~ , 140 50 100 2 \ , TALLA11011 ~
~ Ground p b Ground round JOE C.AOE AIp IIOrMO PRUTT Min. ~.Q,F ' r? RDWY Max.a= I D t. oawa ro sa+e v • then B Ie 26' AY/~ : 'L• ~ k ~ ~ ~ i?
Sta No. 868.01 8= I Ft. ro ~ A;yam .
b :5_Q Ft. Type of Liner_CIOSS I R{ ROP A?Mlt ro EST,lEI " p nl.lno ro xe Mlin. D =1,QFt, w/Fllter fabric ~.5 v PANS ; / O SN >e StlB' PAVED SHOULOEFR : R5 ~
AT STA 42+05 -L- AT. FROM STA 354+50 TO STA 356*00 I-40 RT. OUTLET DITCH ~ c. r_\g~ 0 4 ~ RS~~
, ' -
. • , . r.
.r coca r e un N .m ,