19950726 Ver 1_Complete File_19950713 (2)

1
' FHWA-NC-EIS-92-02-D
Federal Highway Administration
Region 4
t HICKORY EAST SIDE THOROUGHFARE
FROM US 127 TO STARTOWN ROAD
HICKORY, CATAWBA COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA

Federal Aid Project No. M-5621(1)
State Project No. 8.2790901
T.I.P. No. U-2307
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
COOPERATING AGENCY
US DEPARTMENT OF THE A MY CORPS F ENGI E
0 9a,
ate o Approval LJ. Ward-, P.E., Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
! !o Z g-??4 ,- JL
Date o Approval Nicholas (l/ Graf, , Division Administrator
FaR Federal Highway Administration
The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this document:
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, PE L.J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Division Administrator Planning & Environmental Branch
Federal Highway Administration North Carolina Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Ave, Suite 410 P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone] Telephone [phone]
This action involves consideration of constructing the East Side Thoroughfare, an arterial
highway link in east Hickory, North Carolina. The arterial provides a connection from US 127
through I-40 to US 70. This consideration includes evaluation of the proposed project need based
on projected traffic demand. Alternatives for the project, including alternate build locations, traffic
systems management, and a no action or no build option are evaluated. The impacts of these
alternatives on the natural and human environment, the commitment of natural resources, the project
cost and the public benefits are discussed and analyzed together with input from a public involvement
program. A final alternative will be selected based on the findings of this study, evaluation of the
comments received on this document, and the public inpu6
V *IV ta
i at a public hearing.
19
Comments on this Draft EIS are due by APR and should be sent
to Mr. L.J. Ward at the above address.
0 ?.?

' FHWA-NC-EIS-92-02-D
Federal Highway Administration
Region 4
' HICKORY EAST SIDE THOROUGHFARE
FROM US 127 TO STARTOWN ROAD
HICKORY, CATAWBA COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA

1

Federal Aid Project No. M-5621(1)
State Project No. 8.2790901
T.I.P. No. U-2307
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
COOPERATING AGENCY
US DEPARTMENT OF THE A =CORPS ENGI E
ate o Approval L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
l to z &?? "- J'LZ2--?
ate o Approval Nicholas (V. Graf, IT-, Division Administrator
FOR Federal Highway Administration
The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this document:
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, PE L.J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Division Administrator Planning & Environmental Branch
Federal Highway Administration North Carolina Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Ave, Suite 410 P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone] Telephone [phone]
This action involves consideration of constructing the East Side Thoroughfare, an arterial
highway link in east Hickory, North Carolina. The arterial provides a connection from US 127
through I-40 to US 70. This consideration includes evaluation of the proposed project need based
on projected traffic demand. Alternatives for the project, including alternate build locations, traffic
systems management, and a no action or no build option are evaluated. The impacts of these
alternatives on the natural and human environment, the commitment of natural resources, the project
cost and the public benefits are discussed and analyzed together with input from a public involvement
program. A final alternative will be selected based on the findings of this study, evaluation of the
comments received on this document, and the public input obtained at a public hearing.
Comments on this Draft EIS are due by An u 6 M
and should be sent
to Mr. L.J. Ward at the above address.

FHWA-NC-EIS-92-02-D
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
HICKORY EAST SIDE THOROUGHFARE
FROM US 127 TO STARTOWN ROAD
HICKORY, CATAWBA COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2790901
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. M-5621-(1)
TIP NO. U-2307
PREPARED FOR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PREPARED BY
RUMMEL • KLEPPER & KAHL
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
?OOy?a"44100dupt'•0"a61
,?? Q. 9ooonu?.oQO C ? GP.
n? I, F A L
o°V
e°?r+r,,? a a l a u o ? 6???
e RUMMI L. KLEPPER & K'AHI.
consulting engineers
MIA A RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA
WILLIAM R. BUTLER, JR., PE
? ?^^ PROJECT ENGINEER

' S.0 SUMMARY
SUMMARY
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in consultation with the
Federal Highway Administration
IN
S.1 Description of Action
The proposed action is the implementation of a surface transportation improvement
' in Hickory, Catawba County, North Carolina known as the Hickory East Side Thoroughfare
and identified as Project U-2307 in the North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program.
' This Environmental Impact Statement evaluates alternative actions and corridor locations for
the proposed highway project. Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year
' (FY) 1994 and construction in FY 1995.
' The Hickory East Side Thoroughfare is proposed as an arterial highway which would
' extend approximately seven miles, beginning at NC 127 north of Hickory, connecting to I-
40 east of Hickory, and continuing to US 70 in the vicinity of Startown Road. Proposed
' improvements include construction of the multi-lane roadway, a grade separation at Highland
Avenue and the Southern Railway tracks, and an interchange at 1-40. Lane configurations
' include both a five-lane roadway with continuous left-turn lane and a four-lane divided
roadway with grass median.
During this corridor location stage of the highway planning process, the corridors
1 under consideration are 400 feet in width. A preliminary centerline was established for
assessing environmental impacts and for planning purposes only. The final proposed
' centerline may be shifted to one side or the other depending upon design criteria or the need
' to mitigate potential impacts and will be established during the preliminary design stage.
I S-1
11
r
S.2 Action Proposed by Other Governmental Agencies
There are no major actions proposed by other governmental agencies in the same
geographic area as the subject action.
S.3 Alternatives Considered
Alternatives considered in the Environmental Impact Statement include the No Action
Alternative, a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative, and ten Build
Alternatives. Neither the No Build nor the TSM Alternative was determined to be a
satisfactory solution in consideration of the project purpose and needs.
Initially, six interconnecting Corridor Segments were identified as potential locations
for the proposed roadway improvements. These Corridor Segments were combined to form
eight Build Alternatives. One additional Corridor Segment providing two additional Build
Alternatives was identified in response to public concerns requesting that an alternative
crossing along Springs Road be considered. A total of ten Build Alternatives were considered
during the preliminary environmental analysis. Two Alternatives were dismissed as infeasible
at the conclusion of the preliminary analysis; thus, eight Build Alternatives remain under
consideration as a possible location for the proposed Hickory East Side Thoroughfare.
Table S.1 provides a summary of cost estimates for the eight Build Alternatives,
including construction, right-of-way acquisition, and utility relocation.

l
Table SA
Roadway Cost
Estimates
(Million $)

ALT 1 ALT 3 ALT 4 ALT 5 ALT 7 ALT 8 ALT 9 ALT 10
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ------
CONSTRUCTION $
22.6
$24.9
$26.3
$29.9
$32.3
$34.5
$32.7
$35.4
_. .# ROW $7.5 $9.3 $4.6 $10.9 $12.6 $8.0 $12.0 $7.3
UTILITY $0.2 $0.6 $0.3 $0.2 $0.6 $0.3 $0.7 $0.3
e ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ------
TOTAL COST $30.3 $34.8 $31.1 $41.0 $45.6 $42.7 $45.4 543.0
S-2

1
S.4 Environmental Impacts
All of the Build Alternatives involve similar environmental impacts, both beneficial
and adverse. Table S.2 provides a summary comparison of potential impacts and estimated
benefits as detailed throughout this document. The ranking system utilized in this summary
comparison is detailed in Section 4.24.
There is one historic structure in the project area which is eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places. No land from this property will be used for the proposed roadway
and no effects on the property are anticipated. Of four archaeological sites identified in the
project area, only one may be eligible for the National Register. Phase II investigations will
be required to determine the eligibility of this site if an Alternative utilizing Corridor
Segment D is selected. Alternatives 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 utilize Corridor Segment D. The site
is important chiefly because of the information it contains; therefore, preservation in place
is not warranted. A copy of the SHPO's opinion is provided in Appendix B.
Beneficial impacts associated with the various Build Alternatives include:
• Transportation demands would be met through the year 2010, relieving congestion
on existing roads and improving highway safety.
• A circumferential route connecting major arterial roadways would be provided,
advancing the objectives of the planned loop system identified in the Hickory-
Newton-Conover Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan.
• Air quality would be maintained within State and Federal standards.
• Access to, and between, residential neighborhoods, industrial areas, and commercial
centers would be improved.
• Development would be encouraged in accordance with the Land Development Plan.
• The tax base would be improved, resulting in increased local government revenues.
• Substantial monetary user benefits would result from improved transportation
efficiency and safety.
S-3

V1
d
i+
C
a
'b
W
O
C
e?
a
O
.yi
NS
a
O
u
N
6A
RS
C
3
- .T N
J2 C%j Q
M M ?
Q M ?A

M
v
v (A
v M
v
H
J CO ` O M
Q M
N
M
CD
N

J ry Q O O
Q !? N It
,O Ln
J

v
v M
v N
v
?
J n Q vi It
Q P M J
M M
s
M n n
V1
v ?O J
F v v v
Q co in
Q %0
P Ln

d n n
?
v
v 1
v N
v
?
J iA Q P Ln
Q 1 L N

P
M
•O
v
v f?
v ?O
v
F
J O Q P O
Q LO O
N IA
P
O W h

s `r P
a o .o
to 10
O
N
ti 2 N ic M
1? .-- N P- M M ?t
M CO t? O IA
M
M IA .- ?T N M
CD N f? O f? f?
N O N
? M
V1 ?t ? IA M N
v v v v v v v
Ln It N 00 O M 1A
00,- W O .T
M
?t ? M ? N J
00 ?T N O?0 ?O ?O M
O .- N O N
M
N N N 2 M It IA
P, N P N P
pn O O P
r N
O M N .O W M G
N (n .- N %0 M M
d O O
N
n
?t M N Iz ? N ti
0, Ln N M 0 P
P O 4
N
G : M G G s 2
-* Co O O IA N %0
r h O N
N
0
N ?a Z; N ~ : M
O - O O O .T P .t ?--• J
N IA P IA
.O .T O
N
.o
M IA N NM ?O M IA
O P O ^ N N M Lr%
J 1
N O
M
v v v N v v IA v v
v v
O - (O O CEO N N
10 ol
It O O
N
M
v . i ?v v v v v v v .M.
O ? - O O M
r
N O In N p
,
M
N O

CO W ?t M V1 M h
O 1? O If1 N IA ?T IA
M ?t ?A 0'
r O
O
O
N N J M 't J 'T M CO
v v v v vt v v v v v
O O N O M O 't r- O C) N N
IA N
N O

N M M N N •O N
v v v v v v v v v v
O O P O CO O P Co M 10
M M M M ?T e-
N O
N h 1? .O 1? N P
O O `O N N M O It W
N N .-
O
Y
u
C)
d
d
t
Y
d
O
C
C
O)
C
(A W W _ \ 3 C
C C p T 3 ~
O O d/ 3 O
_ W _ > U y y
4 f0 C d
E O E > O 'vp O L f Y N
p 'E v v d/ C t C s L
p
Q - N ?Gpp/ - cUpl Y -p O1 f0 ^ ?GGGp!!!
0) a) (S E 0 -W
v C C (A E v E '- v W C N Y C CM 2
> O U Y tNp Y N N 3 U
0 C
O of •a^.• Y C 00 L O (n 4J (n CA E d y O ad+ U 41 u m O L Y C 41 1
N ul O( NI
y N O m V7
p L C] Y U L. d Y Y Y v y N 2 3 m d d m
(7 Y d CC U O Y L V1 Y y U d Y L L. L O
W l0 y 2 m ? U O y o ?p E L y L U v O f,•J r
F- N O Y d u m l0 U d u a y d d 0 Z
Q v y L O U) E N m Y L yRF v o N
U -? O •.,? T T Y C Y ^ y d U C Y 1L d
N Y U d y W N y O d d v u 'S `.1 L
z y Y O U N L C 3 3 O UU Vl Ol L v Epp C ?p
Or u C Y C y O O T 7 ~ O Fyn Tyy N J .-• L Ol
m d d Y Y L ,L d C L Y M V.•.•` C
O C U Y Y •? Y O (0 (n m l0 yy 0 d
J v- L d d m t = (n Y L 'p d E d V! d OC Y
Q A d Y C 0 y W OI O) C as y U C L Y C
> L > d d d 7 `f Y O L L O Y d L O O C> N
w L O z co w co Q o< O U x Q a cn > a Z O F, C[
S-4

Adverse impacts associated with the various Build Alternatives include:
• Some wetland acreage, water resources, and natural vegetation within the area
required for construction of the roadway would be adversely impacted.
• Stream bottoms would be modified at stream crossings, and some channel relocation
would be necessary. -
• Right-of-way requirements would necessitate the relocation of between 26 to 68
residences, and between I to 8 businesses depending on the Alternative location
selected.
• Noise levels is some areas would increase beyond the FHWA criteria.
• The expenditure of fiscal resources would include costs associated with right-of-way
acquisition, utility relocation, and construction.
S.5 Section 4(f) Properties
There are no Section 4(f) properties involved with any of the Alternatives under
consideration.
S.6 Areas of Controversy
Public involvement and agency coordination programs were implemented early in the
EIS process. No areas of controversy were identified.
S.7 Unresolved Issues
There are no unresolved issues.
S.8 Action Required by Other Federal Agencies
US Army Corps of Engineers permits will be required for stream crossings and
wetland encroachments in compliance with Section 404 (b) of the Clean Water Act.
S-5
S.9 Commitments Made by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Regarding the Preferred Alternative
This section to be completed subsequent to the selection of a preferred alternative.
Potential commitments include:
• NCDOT will provide relocation assistance to residences and businesses displaced
during acquisition of right-of-way 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).
• NCDOT will reevaluate the need for and feasibility of potential noise barriers during
the final design phase of the project based on final alignment and grades, as well as
cut and fill locations. A final decision on the installation of noise barriers will be
made upon completion of the detail project design and public involvement process.
• NCDOT will minimize long-term water quality impacts through the use of NCDOT
Best Management Practices as identified in the Federal Aid Highway Program (FHPM)
and North Carolina Administrative Code, Chapter 4.
• NCDOT will minimize wetland infringement through the judicious development of
the roadway alignment during the final design phase of the project. Wetland loss
mitigation measures will include the use of NCDOT Best Management Practices in the
area of impact. NCDOT will identify specific permit requirements during the
preliminary design phase of the project. Permit applications will be submitted during
the final design and construction plan preparation phase.
• NCDOT will coordinate with the US Fish & Wildlife Service on stream relocations.
Stream relocations will be designed, and fill at stream crossings will be placed, in
accordance with NCDOT Best Management Practices.
S-6

• NCDOT will conduct Phase 11 test excavations to determine eligibility of
archaeological site 31CT146 if any one of Alternatives 5, 7, 8, 9, or 10 is selected.
If eligible, Section 106 consultation will be completed prior to the FEIS.
• NCDOT will maintain all construction equipment to comply with applicable standards
for noise and emissions.
• NCDOT will implement measures to reduce localized degradation of air quality during
construction. Burning of debris will be done in accordance with local laws and
regulations.
• NCDOT will implement an erosion control program in accordance with standard
policy to minimize erosion and sediment during construction.
• NCDOT will ensure coordination with appropriate state and local officials during
utility relocation phase of construction.
• NCDOT will take precautions to protect standing trees outside the construction limits
for the project.
S-7

1

1

1

S.0 SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tabl e of Cont ents

List of Tables
List of Exhibi ts

1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 Transportation Demand
1.2 System Linkage
1.3 Capacity of Existing Roadways
1.4 Planned Growth / Economic Development
1.5 Roadway Safety
2.0 ALTERNATIVES
2.1 No Build Alternative
2.2 Transportation Systems Management Alternative
2.3 Build Alternatives
2.3.1 Preliminary Build Alternatives
2.3.2 Evaluation of Preliminary Alternatives
2.3.3 Alternatives Considered for Detail Study
2.4 Design Features of the Build Alternatives
2.4.1 Roadway Design Criteria
2.4.2 Mainline Improvements
2.4.3 Typical Roadway Sections
2.4.4 At-Grade Intersections
2.4.5 I-40 Interchanges
2.4.6 Highland Avenue / Southern Railway Grade Separation
2.4.7 29th Avenue Connector
2.5 Traffic Analysis
2.5.1 Methodology
2.5.2 Traffic Volumes
2.5.3 Adequacy of Proposed Typical Sections
2.5.4 Traffic Operations at Major Intersections
2.5.5 I-40 Interchanges
2.5.6 Summary
2.6 Roadway Cost Estimates
2.7 Cost Effectiveness
2.7.1 Methodology
2.7.2 Project Costs
2.7.3 User Costs and Benefits
2.7.4 Conclusions
i
Page
S-1
i
IV
vi
1-1
1-4
1-5
1-10
1-10
2-1
2-2
2-2
2-8
2-15
2-38
2-39

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1 Social Setting 3-1
3.1.1 Population
3.1.2 Existing Land Use
3.1.3 Future Land Use
3.1.4 Transportation
3.1.5 Community Facilities and Utility Services
3.1.6 Historical and Archeological Resources
3.2 Economic Setting 3-31
3.2.1 Industry and Employment
3.2.2 Income
3.2.3 Economic Development
3.3 Physical Setting 3-33
3.3.1 Water Resources
3.3.2 Floodplains
3.3.3 Wetlands
3.3.4 Vegetation
3.3.5 Wildlife
3.3.6 Protected Species
3.3.7 Prime and Important Farmlands
3.3.8 Mineral Resources
3.3.9 Visual Environment
3.3.10 Noise
3.3.11 Air Quality
3.3.12 Hazardous Materials / Underground Storage Tanks
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.1 Land Use Impacts 4-1
4.2 Prime and Important Farmland 4-1
4.3 Social Impacts 4-3
4.3.1 Neighborhoods
4.3.2 Travel Patterns and Accessibility
4.3.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Considerations
4.3.4 Community Facilities and Utility Services
4.3.5 Safety
4.3.6 Social Groups
4.4 Relocation Impacts 4-7
4.5 Economic Impacts 4-12
4.6 Air Quality Impacts 4-12
4.6.1 Methodology
4.6.2 Results and Conclusions
4.7 Noise Impacts 4-17
4.7.1 Methodology
4.7.2 Noise Impacts
4.7.3 Noise Abatement
ii

G

4.8 Water Quality Impacts 4-30
4.9 Wetland Impacts 4-32
4.10 Water Body Modification 4-35
4.11 Floodplain Impacts 4-35
4.12 Permits 4-38
4.13 Wildlife and Habitats 4-39
4.14 Threatened and Endangered Species 4-40
4.15 Historical and Archeological Preservation 4-40
4.16 Hazardous Materials / Underground Storage Tanks 4-42
4.17 Mineral Resources 4-43
4.18 Visual Impacts 4-43
4.19 Vibration 4-44
4.20 Energy 4-44
4.21 Construction Impacts 4-44
4.20.1 Noise
4.20.2 Air Quality
4.20.3 Water Quality
4.20.4 Traffic Congestion and Detours
4.20.5 Utilities
4.20.6 Forest Resources
4.20.7 Public Health and Safety
4.22 Relationship Between Short-term Impacts and Long-term Benefits 4-47
4.23 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 4-48
4.24 Comparison and Ranking of Reasonable Alternatives 4-49
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
6.0 EIS DISTRIBUTION
7.0 COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
7.1 Public Involvement 7-1
7.2 Interagency Coordination 7-2
8.0 REFERENCES
9.0 INDEX
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Public Involvement
Appendix B. Interagency Coordination
Appendix C. Relocation Report
iii

LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1.1 Practical Capacity for Urban Facilities 1-9
Table 1.2 Accident Record 1-12
Table 2.1 Corridor Segment Combinations for the Build Alternatives 2-3
Table 2.2 Roadway Design Criteria 2-9
Table 2.3 Proposed Mainline Improvements for Each Corridor Segment 2-10
Table 2.4 Length of 5-Lane and 4-Lane Sections for Each Build Alternativl 2-11
Table 2.5 Description of Alternative Locations for 1-40 Interchange 2-14
Table 2.6 Description of Alternative Locations for Grade Separation at Highland
Avenue and the Southern Railway 2-15
Table 2.7 LOS Criteria for Class 1 Arterial Roadways 2-18
Table 2.8 Summary of Arterial Analysis - 2010 2-24
Table 2.9 LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections 2-25
Table 2.10 Overall Summary of Traffic Operations at Signalized Intersections 2-26
Table 2.11 LOS Criteria for Weaving Sections 2-32
Table 2.12 Summary of Weaving Analysis - 2010 2-34
Table 2.13 LOS Criteria for Checkpoint Flow Rates at Ramp-Freeway Terminals 2-36
Table 2.14 Summary of Ramp Analysis - 2010 2-37
Table 2.15 Roadway Cost Estimates (Million $) 2-38
Table 2.16 Cost Effectiveness Methodology 2-40
Table 2.17 Summary of Project Costs (PV, Million $) 2-40
Table 2.18 Basic Roadway Sections 2-42
Table 2.19 Summary of User Benefits (PV, Million $) 2-43
Table 2.20 Summary Comparison of Project Costs and Benefits (PV, Million $) 2-44
Table 3.1 Population Growth Trends 3-2
Table 3.2 Population Projections 3-2
Table 3.3 Age Demographics (1990 Estimates) 3-3
Table 3.4 Race and Sex Demographics (1990 Estimates) 3-3
Table 3.5 Community Facilities and Utility Services 3-10
Table 3.6 Historic Structures Considered Eligible for the National Register 3-29
of Historic Places
Table 3.7 Archaeologic Resources 3-30
Table 3.8 Employment, 1987 3-31
Table 3.9 Per Capita Income, 1966 - 1987 3-32
iv

1

Page
Table 3.10 Water Resources 3-33
Table 3.11 Wetlands 3-36
Table 3.12 Listing of Federally-protected Species Which May Occur Within the
Study Area 3-39
Table 3.13 Ambient Noise Conditions 3-47
Table 3.14 Underground Storage Tanks 3-49
Table 4.1 Summary of Potential Prime and Important Farmland Impacts 4-2
Table 4.2 Neighborhood Impacts - Potential Divided Neighborhoods 4-4
Table 4.3 Potential Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 4-5
Table 4.4 Summary of Potential Relocation Impacts 4-7
Table 4.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards, CO 4-13
Table 4.6 MOBILE3 Input Parameters 4-13
Table 4.7 CALINE3 Input Parameters 4-14
Table 4.8 Worst-Case CO Concentrations under the Build Alternatives, 2010 4-16
Table 4.9 FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria 4-18
Table 4.10 Interior Noise Impacts 4-20
Table 4.11 Summary of Exterior Noise Impacts 4-21
Table 4.12 Barrier Descriptions 4-24
Table 4.13 Noise Barrier Effectiveness Summary 4-25
Table 4.14 Jurisdictional Wetlands 4-32
Table 4.15 Wetland Impacts by Alternative 4-34
Table 4.16 Summary of Potential Waterbody Impacts 4-36
Table 4.17 Potential Habitat Impacts 4-39
Table 4.18 Potential Underground Storage Tank Involvement 4-42
Table 4.19 Potential Visual Impacts 4-43
Table 4.20 Comparison of Build Alternatives 4-51
Table 7.1 Scoping Letter Distribution List 7-3
Table 7.2 Summary of Agency Comments 7-4
v

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Page
Exhibit 1.1 General Project Location 1-3
Exhibit 1.2-1 Hickory-Newton-Conover Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan 1-6
Exhibit 1.2-2 Portion of Hickory-Newton-Conover Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan 1-7
Exhibit 1.3 1984 Deficient Corridors 1-8
Exhibit 1.4 2010 Deficient Corridors 1-11
Exhibit 1.5 Future Land Use 1-14
Exhibit 2.1 General Corridor Locations 2-5
Exhibit 2.2 Typical Sections 2-12
Exhibit 2.3 Traffic Volumes (Hickory East Side Thoroughfare) (sheets 1 - 5) 2-19
Exhibit 2.4 Traffic Volumes (Adjacent I-40 Interchanges) 2-30
Exhibit 2.5 Typical Sections (I-40 Improvements) 2-33
Exhibit 3.1 Existing Land Use 3-5
Exhibit 3.2 Transportation Network 3-8
Exhibit 3.3 Detail Corridor Locations 3-13
Exhibit 3.4 Prime and Important Farmland 3-43
Exhibit 3.5 Ambient Noise Measurement Sites 3-46
Exhibit 3.6 Underground Storage Tank Sites 3-50
Exhibit 4.1 Air Quality Receptor Sites 4-15
vi
L
1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
' This action involves the proposed construction of the Hickory East Side Thoroughfare in the
City of Hickory and Catawba County, North Carolina. The proposed project is included in the 1991-
1997 North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program
as Project Number U-2307. Exhibit 1.1 shows the general location of the proposed project.
The proposed project is located in a developing suburban area. Existing land use includes
' extensively developed residential areas in the northern part of the project area and
industrial/commercial development in the southern part. The existing roadway network is well
' developed and the Southern Railway provides rail transport parallel to Highland Avenue through the
' industrial area.
The primary purpose of and need for the proposed roadway is the development of a
circumferential arterial linking NC 127 and US 70 with adequate traffic capacity to meet the
transportation demand of existing and planned growth. Traffic volumes expected to utilize the
proposed roadway, given as average daily traffic (ADT), range from 12,500 to 26,000 vehicles per
' day. The improvement is needed to reduce traffic congestion on existing roadways and improve
roadway safety.

1.1 Transportation Demand
' The Hickory East Side Thoroughfare has a long history of planning. As early as 1949
the City of Hickory recognized the need to plan for transportation needs when it published
a report entitled "Hickory Looks Ahead, Preliminary Steps Toward a Major Street Plan". This
' plan was followed in 1959-60 by a three volume Regional Land Development Plan which
included a "sketch" thoroughfare plan. Both of these early plans were based on an intuitive
' "feel" for needed traffic improvements and both showed a general location for what was later
to become the Hickory East Side Thoroughfare.

In 1962 the City entered into an agreement with the NC Department of Transportation
to develop a comprehensive thoroughfare plan for the Hickory-Long View-Brookford area.
This study included the development of mathematical models to predict travel demand based
on socioeconomic data and traffic volume inventories, and concluded with the adoption of
the "Thoroughfare Plan, Hickory- Brookford-Long View, March 1, 1966". One of the
components of this 1966 plan was a loop system to provide a means for traffic to avoid the
central business district. A proposed loop road, identified only as "intermediate loop number
4", is shown utilizing a combination of new location and 29th Avenue between Startown Road
and NC 127 (see Exhibit 1.2-1).
The 1966 plan was reevaluated beginning in the 1970's as part of the continuing
transportation planning process. The result of this study was the adoption of the "Hickory-
Long View -Hildebran -Brookford Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan, 1983". The location of the
loop road, now identified as the 29th Avenue corridor and extension to Startown Road, is
shifted slightly to the west to provide better access to the planned industrial area. Identified
as a major thoroughfare (4 and 5 lanes), this proposed loop would allow for travel exchange
from residential areas in the north to the eastern industrial areas and to commercial/retail
development along the US 64-70 corridor.
As a result of the 1980 Census, the Hickory-Newton-Conover area was designated as
an urbanized area, a designation requiring that the comprehensive transportation process
promoted by Federal regulations be developed. By June of 1982 the Hickory-Newton-
conover Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) was operative. This organization
undertook to develop a major transportation study for the tri-city area as a unit. The result
of their study was the adoption in 1986 of the Hickory-Newton-Conover Urban Area
Thoroughfare Plan (HNCUATP). The HNCUATP is currently the official transportation
planning document for the Hickory area, having been mutually adopted by all local
governments in the four county area (Alexander, Burke, Caldwell and Catawba counties) and
1-2
a
Z
c?
r0
z U

i
i
-
c
F-
w o U
0 o w
LJLJ
Q

~
a Z
W 0
W 3C p Q Z Q'
`., v J
a w = J Q m
o U r 0 j Q U =
3 o 0 C) C) 0 X
Q
? o Y = W J w
LA-
c a
U
F-
;
Z
ao >- o f W
a Z a n ? y °' v UI

QO W W w (n a
U U
p Ua \ / Grz? O
a,
P?
1 ?
C
f 1. S?a?
L
I / n
? c

.\
,
,

I
?l
z
, L

Z
_
v v2 ?

,
? r--- . I
,
d S 3

IL

i -
\ W ?-

o
v Q
`J
C) 4?

! °G• rr a ? ? I z
'
p
Yza W
3 -
I
o xfa .I
N

W _; o
J y If* 1.
,-
HN
B SS
W G? ?t
?t
Q
V 0Q ?U
,
i
?d
,
A
133a 1S H31 ?? % ` I' \ZZZ

,
O
,

_ o

W c\
CA
m

r?
Imo'

1
1

F
the NC Department of Transportation. The Eastside Thoroughfare in this 1986 Plan is the
same location as the 29th Avenue corridor and extension to Startown Road from the 1983
Plan. The recommended improvements are widening 29th Avenue to a 4 and 5 lane facility,
and constructing a 5-lane roadway on the new location.
The HNCUATP map, shown on Exhibit 1.2-1, identifies existing and proposed
roadways, designated as major and minor thoroughfares. Generally, major thoroughfares are
four or more lanes and minor thoroughfares are two lanes. Exhibit 1.2-2 provides a detail
enlargement of the portion of the HNCUATP within the project area.
1.2 System Linkage
The existing road system in the project area is characterized by a basic radial system
where most of the major facilities converge toward the City of Hickory. NC 127, Springs
Road, I-40, and US 70 are the major radials serving the project area. There are segments of
loops connecting these radials, but they are not contiguous and do not allow for intra-area
circulation without routing through downtown Hickory. A detailed description of the existing
transportation network in the project area is provided in Section 3.1.4 of this document,
including a general discussion of railway and mass transit.
Current patterns of vehicular travel indicate a high demand for a circumferential route
to the north and east of downtown Hickory between the major radials. Travel demands
include local trips and interregional traffic between the rapidly developing residential areas
to the north and south of Lake Hickory and the commercial/retail/industrial area to the east
of downtown Hickory. Without the relief which the proposed loop system would provide, the
heavy traffic volumes found on existing radials will cause traffic to start filtering through the
residential street system to avoid congestion.
1-4

The HNCUATP identifies a number of links which constitute a planned loop system
for the Hickory area. The proposed Hickory East Side Thoroughfare is one of eight major
projects which are committed for funding and/or feasibility study and is a vital link in the
development of the planned thoroughfare system. As a major thoroughfare, the proposed
roadway will extend between NC 127 and US 70, providing a circumferential route through
the project area with access to nine major radial roadways, and facilitating travel between
regional residential, industrial and commercial developments.
In addition to improving vehicular travel through the project area, the proposed
thoroughfare will complement the existing rail system by increasing access between the rail
yard along Highland Avenue and the Interstate System and the US 70 corridor.
1.3 Cat)acity of Existinr, Roadways
Travel demands in the project area are currently placing a strain on the capacity of
existing roadways. Without the development of the planned thoroughfare system, including
the proposed Hickory East Side Thoroughfare, traffic operations on the existing road network
will continue to deteriorate, leading to increased congestion and more unsafe driving
conditions.
The tabulation and analysis of existing traffic volumes are part of the ongoing traffic
planning process at both the state and local levels. The HNCUATP report documents the
analysis of roadway deficiencies based on 1984 traffic data and 2010 traffic projections.
Deficient roadways were determined based on the relationship of traffic volumes to the
practical capacity provided by the existing roadways, as shown in Table I.I. Existing and
future operational problems in the project area are identified and discussed below.
Roadways in the project area which are currently operating near or above their
practical limits, based on 1984 traffic data, are shown on Exhibit 1.3. Roads which are
1-5
arty ttcc:'?:
it I I III! I !III Io I ??S 8? ?tlF etl>
III Y?jy?1II i l l l i i I' I ? ? . x. z o¢ +
1 IIII ?IIIIINIIIII?IIIILiI I?ililulilll?l?llliilllllli??l w z a a w a mo< m? ?1 III' I t
All
IIL.•".Ilt++1.°.At^!°111illli: ,°..:::1'" ct.°`,>Ym°z"Jm 3}?p?? ?ypy8? ,,}a?/'i yy 33
Y?OtfK0a XY?< F`w G? ig?! yI !?
l 2 x< ? O w G ?? ! JP
,s Q
z Cl
oU
1
v ,s?- - yJrF- ` `m N
C /-
yW! W
J / 1 I _./ +?' W av •~- s- O` 0 Wm
: i-
i ? Ca •O v ? goo ? a W ,
1 ? Q
I I p ? m 1 '
I 1
I 1
,f? I y
I
I J m ,,.; I
a- 14
u
00
-_ :, f L ^ A ,_ F v
LLJ
.r
'Tirz e? S
-T \ I ? ? '-I _ _-lam ? t
Lli
`-mil -•t? ? f. t ? ^r O iX t ? ', \I I
?- N
I M
\ r ?
1
I ?,. o r e ,?
I
i
III ; I < _ 1
1 'r 'y I
L /r II t
171-
1
' I
_ 1111
I
_/}I/`T1 1
1 Y v 1
\ 4 1
h /
T ?
1
1 L 111 r ? J
I ?
??11 I? 1 / l
I J I
t
I J i t? \
m m = m
co oul
o
? 2p?
O? k
0
11>0
i rd pd, O„
- ` , 0 ?N
?? I
Q J^ \
Q \
V
r
U
w
0
0
Q b0
\
de
?S
O?ib ?
?O)
O
N?3Hln pS 31 b1 1
1
W
Q 3nN3? b
ON
b )NOON
?
W
.. 0
U)
Q
W F- ?
O - -
•
O 2
O C_`
7
ccy r rl2? u
N w
i euj
? n

o vo AHVd 100)4
O
O
09
c
2
4
C,
2
I
a
J
co
0
J
0

?q33a
v
c
W o
0 v
(n W U
c t
~
(
!)
Q
= O
z
W j j
?- O 0
Ir (r U
0 0
= ?v
U
-
? 3
v
= v
U
cr-
W
O Z
Q
Z
J
U-
O < C%l

O O
~ w
<<
~
- Z= _

O W
Z Q r^
0 M
W
?
=
O
Y
H
U_
2
0
W
CO

I
I
•
d
0

C7
Z
~
•
O
O
X
w
N co
c
ro
L
L
IT
7 o

N
O cn

_C (13
3 U N
o v)
-C c
C13 a

U M
1-
N ?
li O I_
U
N .D
ro

°
O? O
Q
eQ °
LO
z w
z
cc
Q U
t7
Z ?
j N
J
G
O b0?
O-?
O
A 17
3-AV-1
X80-AOIH
a?
?E
w
Q

• Obod co
N hQ- ,?

Q
co
v

p

0c-
2

3p o
0
cL
w
Q ?
o

v

z
1114. 0

o
ti

u' co

Z
m

U)

Li

o
U
-

O
o a .
= Z li 0
00 o W j W m
0 ' >- 0 _
v
O X

0
0
U W
07

_
= v
v
or
i oo
co U
U r
LLI

o
0
bod

d?
?2
0 d%'? r
yd ??
a
u- ?b ?
CMS o??

00
9

H H N 0
o
0.
&
8
H?jnoS 000
006 3n S
0

NOSH
Un

006,6 U
co
co a U
ca
a

O
E
N
U N
U W
J

d

> U

U

- Q
U
U)
06, 22000 ro

??ON?dS
c? T ou
a
Q a
ul o
om o Z O

w rn M
cr a

7Q
W
C7
O c?
U V c0
s
(0
S
r
t0
J cu >_
0 a
> 0 a
0
-.LU
Od,
od,

'sp 00?
0 F=-w
w
y
ti
O N
N
?
3nN3nd 1S Iz
o°
P? b
cb
O
51? ?\?GS
-10

Ob ?
04, A VC, l00
N
PO
IO
Ow

p
Q

0
4
o w
uQ v
o
0
0
z

0)
Ob0
a N
(D U-
Cl) /ti

? 0
?O

Q
J
J
D
J
O
3'A V
x8oA OIH

' operating near practical capacity include Sandy Ridge Road (south of 29th Avenue), 16th Avenue,
' Highland Avenue, Tate Boulevard, and portions of Sweetwater Road. Roads which are operating
over practical capacity include NC 127, Springs Road south of Spencer Road, and portions of 16th
' Avenue.
Table 1.1 Practical Capacity for Urban Facilities
' Highway Tyne Number of Travel Lanes Vehicles Per Day
urban arterial 2 8,000 - 12,000
' urban arterial 3 12,000 - 16,000
urban arterial 4 18,000 - 22,000
t urban arterial 5 J 24,000 - 28,000
urban arterial 6 30,000 - 34,000
' urban arterial 7 J 36,000 - 40,000
urban freeway 4 40,000 - 60,000
' 000
000 - 80
6 60
f
b
,
,
ur
an
reeway
Notes: J A center turn lane or two, four, or six lane facility with adequate turning lanes
at key locations.
Source: Hickory-Newton-Conover Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan, 1986.

' Roadways in the project area which will operate near or over their practical capacity,
without the improvements recommended in the HNCUATP, based on 2010 traffic projections,
are shown on Exhibit 1.4. Roads which are expected to operate near practical capacity by
the year 2010 include Kool Park Road, Springs Road, and US 70. Roads which are expected
' to operate above practical capacity include Cloninger Mill Road, Sandy Ridge Road, 29th
Avenue (east of Sandy Ridge Road), 16th Avenue, Highland Avenue, Tate Boulevard,
i
2
Sweetwater Road, and Fa
rgrove Church Road, and NC 1
7.

1-9

The recent widening of Springs Road to 5 lanes and the planned widening of NC 127
to 5 lanes (scheduled for completion in 1993) will improve traffic operations in the project
area to some extent. However, these improvements are only a part of the overall roadway
plan. Traffic volumes on the improved NC 127 will be increased by 3,000 vehicles per day
over and above the NC 127 design year volumes by the year 2010 without implementation of
the Hickory East Side Thoroughfare. Volumes on Springs Road will be increased by 7,000
to 11,000 vehicles per day over and above the Springs Road design year volumes.
1.4 Planned Growth / Economic Development
Substantial growth is projected in the Hickory area according to the Land
Development Plan for the Hickory Regional Planning Area. Expansion of the industrial area
is planned, including a transition from residential use to industrial use between Tate
Boulevard and I-40 and between Lenoir-Rhyne Boulevard and Fairgrove Church Road.
Expansion of the commercial corridor along US 70 is also planned. Intensification of existing
residential development is expected in the northern part of the project area. Exhibit 1.5
presents future land use in the project area.
The City of Hickory has approved plans for several large industrial developments in
the vicinity of Tate Boulevard and for a large shopping center at the intersection of NC 127
and 29th Avenue. These sites are shown on Exhibit 1.5. Improved access through the project
area is necessary to support existing and planned development. Short term economic benefits
of the proposed roadway project include new jobs created in the construction industry. Long
term benefits include an improved tax base and increased revenues for local government.
1.5 Roadway Safety
Accident records for major roads in the project area were analyzed to evaluate
roadway safety. Accident rates on all roads examined during the analysis exceed the statewide
average for similar roads. Table 1.2 provides a summary of accident statistics. The statewide
accident rate for similar urban NC routes is provided for comparison purposes.
1-10

J

i

7
0 4v
00`0 04
t
ti
O
oQog p wit
r?
s
0
a
= o
U o
7
= (Y)
U
O
? bOb
X00
9
b
No3N1no'3 000 1
3nN3? b
OHb?y,q/N
00P6
Ob
ob
N?dS
Ob 0000
d ?
?S
/)O
ti
20
J?
S
P?
?O
?Q?\NGS
Q
O
X
Cf)
O
2
Q.
co
J
Z
Q
J
O
J
O

o
s

o v
?

Z
0
a s lJ.l
U
m
0 cn
Q I
i
= o
z O
U- p F-
=
O w ? A
c Ld
LL

0
0 O
U
O 0 W
v F=- 3 O
= v
`v N

0
v??
7
d
?

d
Om
O

o
o ?
o.
o

CY)
' T.T.

009s M (a
p
0
_0
[ c
M
m U U
a?
(13 M
3g0p0 ro c0 cti

3 N
>
Q (1) >

7 _0 o
m z0
Q1

Z
u?
?
p

w 00
M v
p .c c
M
o c° is
Q
r w a
c° ?a a
o rr > O O -
000 3f1N31\d LS IZ
00
10
00 X O
O
°) N

o0 ?ON
hh ?? b
^
6c,
Ia w
t7 J
0
Z
J
J
ObOcy LL
009 1E
)\HoAOIH
3NV-1
N
E
w
J
Q
U)

00
1-
=w
F- w
N?
00E,
Oa,
O 00
d Nated 100 `S
i
i
i
Table 1.2 Accident Record
Statewide Average
Total Accident Rate Accident Rate
Roadway Segment (ACC/100 MVM) J (ACC/100 MVM) J
NC 127 Brookford Road to 607.4 289.6
2nd Avenue J
NC 127 2nd Avenue to 16th 634.1 289.6
Avenue L/
NC 127 16th Avenue to 27th 1,080.8 289.6
Avenue L/
NC 127 27th Avenue to 336.4 289.6
Cloninger Mill Road
J
24th Street Springs Road to 29th 857.1 289.6
Avenue 3/
29th Avenue 24th Street to NC 127 399.7 289.6
Drive J
Springs Road Kool Park Road to 555.9 396.2
26th Street J
Springs Road 26th Street to Spencer 604.1 396.2
Road 3/
Notes:
J ACC/100 MVM = accidents per 100 million vehicle miles
J data summarized between November 1, 1986 and October 31, 1989
J data summarized between October 1, 1986 and September 30, 1989
J data summarized for 1988
Source: NCDOT Traffic Engineering Branch.
1-12
"I,**N

Specific safety hazards and the improvement provided by the proposed project are
discussed below. Future accident rates in the project area can be expected to improve to
levels similar to the statewide average depending on road type if the proposed project is
tl implemented. This safety improvement represents a decrease in accident rates of between 14
and 73 percent.
1 V"
NC 127 between Brookford Road and Cloninger Mill Road: The current widening of NC 127
will improve traffic safety along this stretch of roadway. However, traffic volumes on NC
127 will be increased by 3,000 vehicles per day over and above the NC 127 design year
volumes by the year 2010 if the proposed project is not implemented. The proposed Hickory
East Side Thoroughfare would reduce the potential for accidents along NC 127 by providing
an alternate route between the residential areas north of Hickory and the
commercial/ industrial areas to the southeast.
29th Avenue and 24th Street between NC 127 and Springs Road: The most common accident
types along 29th Avenue and 24th Street involve vehicles running off the road, rear-end
collisions, side-swipes, and accidents involving left-turn movements. The proposed
improvements include additional thru lanes, left-turn lanes, and a straightened horizontal
alignment. These improvements would reduce the potential for accidents by allowing drivers
to slow down for turns without slowing the entire through movement, by providing a place
for motorists to stop before attempting a left-turn without hindering traffic flow in either
direction, and by eliminating the sharp substandard curves along the road.
Springs Road between Spencer Road and Kool Park Road: The most common accident types
along Springs Road involve rear-end collisions, vehicles colliding at an angle, and accidents
involving left-turn movements. The proposed project would reduce the potential for
accidents along Springs Road by providing the traffic a more direct route through the project
area.
1-13
q
0
I II
_ W -
o=
l
I
I ? I pbpd,? ? ?A,
AQ
ICOQI
LL, C)
O S Z
ti
\\\ \\\\\?\ U
Y o
U = 3
\ f -- v
?s
I I-? I I ?.(b c
_ N ? N? Flt?_I (I 1
l?OS
- - T
-1?NI?b
Ob,
off,
Nods
Oa,
Od,
`O,
?O
ti
tia
ea,
S
I PO
I I e°
I \?G5 I
15P"1
Q
O
2
4
X
4
J
J
Q)
O
J
O
o11-0
y
HNbd 100N
=w
?- w
NF-
U)
II
III;!
C
?
OA
2
s'
r
O
Z
w
0
W
J
D
Z
Q
LLI
F-
U-
LO
m
X
W
C
C C .T?
N
CID U
o, a
? o
? a a
Z a _
o ?
L C
0 C/) G
C co O
°c E c
o U -°= U)
3 -° Q \
p c? c 0
ca o
cC o U o .ro o °?
I (z co N p M
o D o o° o Q
co •> = = a
-
D cr c0 Ir Z p GOO
I
is IZ
II I
I
I I ?pNO? b
? II ! p ti? 6?
I ?°P
O W
2 W
Q ?-
? U
Z_
I z
J
J
Obpd' LL
?j
/410
I I ?
I
N
ti
N
3Ad-1
x8oAOIH
N
E
W
J
Q
cUn
m m m ® = m ® = = m = m 0

US 70 / Startown Road Intersection: The most common accident types at the US 70 /
Startown Road intersection involve rear-end collisions, angle accidents, and accidents
1 involving left-turn movements. The proposed project would involve intersection
improvements, including exclusive right and left turn lanes, which would improve traffic
' operations and reduce the potential for accidents.

F7
J

1-15

1
fl

2.0 ALTERNATIVES
This section of the document provides a description of all alternatives considered for the
proposed action including the No Build Alternative, a Transportation Systems Management
Alternative, and ten Build Alternatives. It includes a discussion of "reasonableness" and identifies
those alternatives which are retained for detail study and those which are eliminated. Subsection 2.4
describes the design features of the Build Alternatives, and subsections 2.5 through 2.7 address traffic
capacity, roadway costs, and cost effectiveness. Subsection 2.8 provides a comparison and evaluation
of the reasonable Build Alternatives, based on established evaluation criteria.
2.1 No Build Alternative
The No Build Alternative provides only for regular maintenance of the existing
transportation routes and systems. Examples of regular maintenance include patching and
resurfacing roads, regrading shoulders, and maintaining ditches. No additional right-of-
way would be required; therefore, no acquisition of residential or business properties and no
loss of wetlands or biotic communities would occur. The No Build Alternative requires no
expenditure of public funds for right-of-way, relocation, or construction; however, some
outlay for maintenance and reconstruction will be required.
The No Build Alternative does not provide the needed circumferential arterial route
between NC 127 and US 70 and is not consistent with local transportation goals. Failure to
implement the proposed project will result in traffic overloads and unacceptable operating
conditions on the existing roadway network in the Hickory area as detailed in Section 1.0 of
this document. As roadways become more congested, travel delays and operating costs will
increase, and roadway safety and air quality will deteriorate.
The No Build Alternative is not consistent with the transportation needs of the project
area and does not provide a satisfactory transportation network. It is included in the detail
study phase only to provide the baseline condition for evaluating the impacts of the Build
Alternatives.
2-1

2.2 Transportation Systems Management Alternative
A Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative would provide low capital
cost improvements to the existing transportation system including railway and mass transit
as described in Section 3.1.4 of this document. Examples of TSM improvements include
retiming existing traffic signals, providing designated turn lanes, revising intersection
alignments, adjusting peak hour demand through staggered work shifts, and/or transit
programs such as ride sharing.
The TSM improvements would not provide a circumferential arterial route between
NC 127 and US 70. Retiming signals, modifying intersections, and adjusting work hours
cannot improve capacity on existing routes enough to accommodate future traffic demands.
Although rail and mass transit are currently available in the project area, expansion of these
services is not a practicable solution to the transportation needs of the project area. The TSM
Alternative is not deemed reasonable and is eliminated from further consideration.
2.3 Build Alternatives
Ten Build Alternatives, comprised of various combinations of sevo#corridor segments,
were evaluated for the proposed Build Alternatives. Each provides for construction of a
multi-lane arterial roadway, a grade separation at Highland Avenue and the Southern Railway
tracks, and an interchange at I-40.
2.3.1 Preliminary Build Alternatives
Initially, eight Build Alternatives, consisting of various combinations of six
interconnecting corridor segments, were identified as potential locations for the
proposed roadway improvements. The corridor segments were developed based on
a land suitability analysis taking into consideration terrain features, the existing
roadway network, land use, biotic resources, community facilities, and planned
development.
2-2

A public workshop was held early in the planning process to solicit public
input on the initial corridor locations. One additional corridor segment, resulting in
the identification of two additional Build Alternatives, was developed in response to
public concerns for an alternative crossing along Springs Road. Altogether, a total of
ten Build Alternatives consisting of the corridor segment combinations listed in Table
2.1 were considered during the preliminary evaluation.
Table 2.1 Corridor Segment Combinations for the Build Alternatives
Build Alternativ
Build Alternative 1
Build Alternative 2
Build Alternative 3
Build Alternative 4
Build Alternative 5
Build Alternative 6
Build Alternative 7
Build Alternative 8
Build Alternative 9
Build Alternative 10
rridor Segment Combination
Corridor Segments A and B
Corridor Segments A-1, A and B
Corridor Segments C and B
Corridor Segments E, C and B
Corridor Segments A and D
Corridor Segments A-1, A and D
Corridor Segments C and D
Corridor Segments E, C and D
Corridor Segments C, F and D
Corridor Segments E, C, F and D
The six corridor segments identified early in the EIS process are Corridor
Segments A through E and A-1. The corridor segment developed in response to
public concerns is Corridor Segment F. The general location of all corridors
considered in the preliminary evaluation are shown on Exhibit 2.1 and described as
follows:
Corridor Segment A follows the location identified in the NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program and on the Hickory-Newton-Conover Urban Area
Thoroughfare Plan. It begins at NC 127, extends eastward along existing 29th Avenue
and 24th Street, crosses Springs Road, and extends on new location to a point
approximately 1100' south of Springs Road. The corridor crosses Falling Creek and
Snow Creek.
2-3

Corridor Segment A-1 was developed to provide an alternate connection at NC 127
avoiding impacts to residences located along 29th Avenue. It begins at NC 127 in the
vicinity of 31st Avenue, and extends eastward to a point on Corridor Segment A
approximately 4000' east of NC 127. The corridor crosses Falling Creek.
Corridor Segment B follows the location identified in the NCDOT TIP and Hickory-
Newton-Conover Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan through the southern portion of the
project area. It begins at a point approximately 1100' south of Springs Road, extends
southward on new location to the intersection of Startown Road and US 70. The
corridor crosses two streams, Clarks Creek and Lyle Creek, and involves the relocation
of approximately 300'of Clarks Creek at I-40. This corridor involves crossing under
the Southern Railroad and Highland Avenue.
Corridor Segment C was developed as an alternate to Corridor Segment A. Its
location, to the north of Corridor Segment A, is designed to avoid the development
along existing 29th Avenue and divert eastbound NC 127 traffic from the segment of
NC 127 between Cloninger Mill Road and 29th Avenue. During the initial evaluation
process Corridor Segment C was modified to follow existing Cloninger Mill and Kool
Park Roads in response to public concerns regarding potential impacts to
neighborhoods. The Corridor begins at NC 127, extends eastward along existing
Cloninger Mill and Kool Park Roads to a point on Kool Park Road in the vicinity of
Snow Creek, turns south on new location, crosses Springs Road, and continues
southward to a point approximately 1100' south of Springs Road. The corridor crosses
Falling Creek and Snow Creek, and involves the relocation of approximately 950' of
Snow Creek south of Kool Park Road.
Corridor Segment D was developed as an alternate to Corridor Segment B. Its location
to the east of Corridor Segment B would avoid impacts to existing industrial and
commercial properties and provide an alternate crossing over Highland Avenue and
2-4
ObOd, ?i ?
N
Cf)
om
l O Z

E o C
0

? 3
? o
Q
o
W U (n O
z (n W U
z L
J
U
N
. U

ti z

Cl)
Q
u-

Q

O
?} ? Q = Z J
w 0 _T w m
W U y ao o
? C= Z S
U) O W
Q O O Q 0
Q
W

Ly-

= v
O
-mo
o
U C L }
O m
W ±- }
> Ob Q c J o`
m od
cr)
0
U

l)
m?
C)

-0
C:

C)

z
w ro ? ° cd
cr
? Q -0
c ro ro L
m
C7
O LLJ
'-
ro
U LL
U -
• oyb Un Q U w c) w
- > O

V O
? 8
CO
I?
00
?1 bl
N?3
N1 nos
1 > > > > > >

Q
Q
Q F
Q Q ?
Q
z z z z z z
C) m cr m mm (r

?y'./Vb,HJ? JW
?J W
J W
J w W
J J W
J
N
' mQ Q Q Q Q Q
v
LL. Un m
_ E
` +-
0 0 I-
Z 0
c m
CO U W

E c
_0

? C cr
m a Q ro Q
U

Ob
W cn ?
U ro ro U ro a U
\
O? U Q Q U w Q
c1
??N? > C *- N M V Ln
\
4??N ds 3 is w w w w w w
N U
0 > > >
o c -J Q Q Q Q Q Q
w o
Z o
a? ?o
E z
m z
m z
m zz
m m z
m
w o -0 o .` ro 0w w w W w w
Ip W •? `p ` J J J J J J
n i0 J U mQ Q Q Q Q Q -
Ob

0b
o Q ,
U)
`o
-v_ N
=
w U m v
i
-.
+ U
,tuj c E o

0 rn
in
/

s Q
Un
W

(1N3??1s ?1
?
o` ;O o
Z
PQ Q v
W
a? ?,

o .
`
o+
c
C)
'
U

?GS
c E N U
??
? E
rn
\
SQL a?i a?i ?
?O m Un
O
b m 0
0
0? LLJ
)?Ib'd 100) %- p GZ
0
?pP
111
L) E
C N O
Q
?c v OP/
0
O?
>
Y
U3
o C jo
.7

U
O
2
W (D

E<
3 J art

°a o
cn

'a c Ow
W U
0-
o z
U v
Q
0 0

b J
`
U
C
N `
O
c
(co Od Q
N u U a>

N N N
Un fn Cf) m (f)

J '.
2
4
J
J

O
J
w
o c
3?d
-1

X601 QIH o

m U
II_ IIIIIIIIIIIII. m = II- =

the Southern Railroad. It begins at a point approximately 1100' south of Springs Road, extends
southward on new location, crossing US 70 and connecting to a point on Startown Road
approximately 4200' south of US 70. The corridor crosses Clarks Creek, Lyle Creek, and Miller
Branch.
Corridor Segment E was developed as an alternate location for Corridor Segment C.
Its location to the north of Snow Creek was developed to bypass heavily developed
' residential areas. It begins at NC 127 in the vicinity of Cloninger Mill Road, extends
eastward on new location parallel to and north of Cloninger Mill Road, crosses Sandy
Ridge Road approximately 750' south of Snow Creek Road, turns south and crosses
Kool Park Road in the vicinity of Snow Creek, and connects to Corridor Segment C
' at a point approximately 1200' south of Kool Park Road. The corridor crosses Falling
Creek and Snow Creek, and involves the relocation of approximately 850' of Snow
' Creek south of Kool Park Road.
Corridor Segment F was developed to provide an alternate crossing at Springs Road.
It begins at a point on Corridor Segment C approximately 3500' north of Springs Road,
extends southward on new location, crosses Springs Road in the vicinity of 27th Street
Place, crosses Spencer Road in the vicinity of 27th Street, then connects to Corridor
Segment D at a point approximately 5400' south of Springs Road. The corridor crosses
' one stream, Herman Branch.
' 2.3.2 Evaluation of Preliminary Alternatives
The preliminary alternatives were evaluated to determine reasonableness
based on the following criteria:
1. satisfies purpose and needs as identified in Section 1.0 of this document, and
' is consistent with local land use and transportation plans, and
2. does not involve unacceptable community and/or environmental impacts.
1
2-6

The alternatives that were found not to be reasonable were eliminated from
further consideration. Those that met the criteria are carried forward for detail study
to evaluate potential impacts, both adverse and beneficial, that could be expected from
their implementation.
Each of the ten preliminary alternatives satisfies the purpose and need of the
proposed project. However, Alternatives 2 and 6 are eliminated from further
consideration based on unacceptable community impacts and inconsistency with local
transportation plans. Both Alternatives utilize Corridor Segment A-1 which would
require the relocation of the Viewmont Fire Station and impact the Huffman-Seaboch
cemetery. In addition, the point at which Corridor Segment A- I connects to NC 127
is not compatible with a future improvement of the 29th Avenue / Icard Ferry Road
corridor as identified in the Hickory-Newton-Conover Urban Area Thoroughfare
Plan.
2.3.3 Alternatives Considered for Detailed Study
Alternatives 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 (shown on Exhibit 2.1) are determined
to be reasonable locations for construction of the proposed project. The design
features for these alternatives are described in Section 2.4 of this document.
The eight "reasonable" alternatives are analyzed for traffic operations, roadway
costs, and cost effectiveness as detailed in Sections 2.5 through 2.7 of this document.
They are evaluated to determine potential impacts on the social, economic, and
physical environments as detailed in Section 4.0 of this document. A preferred
alternative will be selected after the corridor public hearing based on the analyses and
evaluations detailed in this document and on agency/public comments.
2-7

2.4 Design Features of the Build Alternatives
Proposed improvements for the various Build Alternatives include construction of a
multi-lane roadway utilizing two typical roadway sections, multiple at-grade signalized
intersections, an interchange at I-40, a grade separation at Highland Avenue and the Southern
Railway, and a new roadway connection to 29th Avenue for Alternatives 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10
which do not utilize Corridor Segment A. Partial access control, defined as access at
intersections and one driveway per parcel, would be provided along the length of the proposed
project except at the I-40 interchange where access would be fully controlled.
The corridors under consideration during the EIS phase of the highway planning
process are 400 feet wide. Preliminary functional plans are developed for evaluating the
feasibility of the corridor locations and assessing impacts and potential mitigation only. The
final alignment and construction limits will be established after a preferred corridor is
selected. The final alignment may be shifted within the corridor depending upon design
criteria or the need for mitigation of impacts.
2.4.1 Roadway Design Criteria
The roadway design criteria utilized in the development of the preliminary
functional plans are presented in Table 2.2. All improvements are designed to meet
NC Department of Transportation and American Association of State Highway
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards.
2.4.2 Mainline Improvements
Mainline improvements include the widening and realignment of existing roads
as well as the construction of roadway on new location. Specific improvements for
each alternative depend on the corridor combinations utilized. Table 2.3 presents a
summary of proposed mainline improvements for each Build Alternative under
consideration.
2-8
1

Table 2.2 Roadway Design Criteria
FACTOR
RECOMMENDED STANDARDS
5 LANE CURB & GUTTER ARTERIAL
Design Speed
Design Vehicle
Pavement Widths
Curb & Gutter
Berm Widths
Vertical Alignment:
Rate of grade
Stopping Sight Distance
Headlight Sight Distance
50 mph
WB 50
12' standard lane width
2'-6" standard
8' (from face of curb)
7% max.
475 ft. (crest vertical "K"
factor 160)
475 ft. (sag vertical "K"
factor 110)
Horizontal Alignment:
Degree of Curve
Maximum Superelevation Rate
Superelevation Transition
Proposed Right-of-Way
D = 6°00'
e = 0.04 ft./ft.
1:200
90 ft.
4 LANE DIVIDED ARTERIAL
Design Speed
Design Vehicle
Pavement Widths
Curb & Gutter
Outside Shoulder Widths
Inside Shoulder Widths
Median Width
Vertical Alignment:
Rate of Grade
Stopping Sight Distance
Headlight Sight Distance
50 mph
WB 50
12' standard lane width
P-6" standard - 24' raised grass median
12' - cut and fill sections
12' - grassed ditch median
60' - grassed ditch median
24' - raised grass median
Horizontal Alignment:
7% max.
475 ft. (crest vertical "K"
factor 160)
475 ft. (sag vertical "K"
factor 110)
Degree of Curve DC = 7°30'
Maximum Superelevation Rate e = 0.08 ft./ft.
Superelevation Transition 1:200
Proposed Right-of-Way 220' minimum - 60' grassed ditch median
190' minimum - 24' raised grass median
Sources: - A Policy on Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO, 1990
- North Carolina Department of Transportation Roadway Design Manual
2-9

n

l

coordination with the Railway Company has been established, details of the detour
design must be coordinated during final design.Table 2.6 presents a description of the
alternative locations, including proposed improvements.
Table 2.6 Description of Alternative Locations for the Grade Separation
at Highland Avenue and the Southern Railway
rridor Segment B
proposed project crosses under
Highland Avenue and Southern RR
2-lane bridge to carry Highland
Avenue over project and dual-track
bridge to carry Southern RR over
project
2-lane connector road between the
proposed project and Highland
Avenue
Corridor Segment D
proposed project crosses over
Highland Avenue and Southern RR
(2) 2-lane bridges to carry project
over Highland Avenue and Southern
RR
2-lane connector road between the
proposed project and Highland
Avenue
2.4.7 29th Avenue Connector
A connection to provide continuity between the Hickory East Side
Thoroughfare and a future project west of NC 127 will be needed if Corridor Segment
A is not utilized (Alternatives 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, or 10). The "29th Avenue Connector" is
proposed as a four-lane roadway with curb and gutter. A potential location for the
29th Avenue Connector is shown on Exhibit 2.1.
2.5 Traffic Analysis
Traffic operations were analyzed to verify the serviceability of the proposed roadway
elements in the design year, 2010. This analysis is detailed in Traffic Analysis Technical
Memorandum for the East Side Thoroughfare (Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, January 1991),
appended by reference. The traffic analysis evaluated the adequacy of the proposed typical
sections, operations at major intersections, and the feasibility of the proposed interchange at
2-15

I-40. The interchange feasibility evaluation is designed to provide the technical data needed ,
to evaluate a new interchange location on the Interstate System. '
2.5.1 Methodolopv
The traffic analysis follows the procedures defined in the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board. Base data were
provided by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Highway
Capacity Software (HCS), a computer software package, was utilized in the analysis. ,
The focus of the analyses is the determination of levels of service for the
proposed roadway improvements. The concept of levels of service (LOS) is defined ,
as a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, and
the perception of the operations by motorists and/or passengers. Six LOS are defined '
in the HCM. They are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A
representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. LOS definitions ,
depend on one or more operational parameters and the type facility being evaluated.
These parameters are called "measures of effectiveness". The HCM identifies measures '
of effectiveness for the various facility types which comprise the proposed project.
Specific definitions are provided in the following subsections of this document as ,
appropriate.
The adequacy of the Hickory East Side Thoroughfare is determined by an '
arterial analysis. The level of service on arterial roadways is based on average travel
speed. Average travel speed is computed for each Alternative by taking the length '
of the Alternative and dividing it by the average travel time of vehicles traversing the
proposed improvement. Travel times used in this computation include stopped delays
due to signalized intersections. Highway Capacity Software (HCS) was used to
determine average travel speeds.
2-16

I The levels of service for signalized intersections are based on average stopped
' delay per vehicle. Average stopped delay is computed for each signalized intersection
as the total stopped delay experienced by vehicles in each intersection approach
' divided by the total volume entering the approach during the same time period.
The feasibility of the I-40 interchange is evaluated based on traffic operations
at ramp junctions and weaving areas. The measure of effectiveness for ramp
' junctions is the rate of flow which can be accommodated while maintaining an
adequate LOS on the main roadway. Rate of flow is defined as the equivalent hourly
rate at which vehicles pass over a given point or section of roadway during the peak

i

interval. For weaving areas, the effectiveness is based on average running speed.
Average running speed depends upon the rate of flow per lane, the proportion of
weaving vehicles in the main roadway volume, and the length of weaving area.
The computer models utilized in the analysis require traffic inputs in one-
way hourly volumes. Design hour volumes are derived from NCDOT traffic
projections, based on a 10 percent design factor, 60/40 directional distribution, and
predicted truck percentages.
2.5.2 Traffic Volumes
Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for the years 1990 and 2010 were
developed based on projected population growth and anticipated development. These
volumes were developed individually for each corridor and roadway segment, as
shown on Exhibit 2.3, sheets 1 through 5. The preliminary capacity analysis and other
environmental analyses presented in this document are based on the 2010 traffic
volumes. Traffic volumes will be updated to the year 2015, a twenty year projection
from the construction year forward, for use during preliminary and final roadway
design.
2-17

2.5.3 Adeauacy of Proposed Typical Sections
The proposed improvements for the Hickory East Side Thoroughfare are
evaluated as an arterial roadway to determine adequacy of the proposed typical
roadway sections. Table 2.7 presents the criteria for LOS on arterial roadways based
on average travel speed. The proposed improvement is classified as a Class I arterial
based on the roadway's functional and design characteristics as defined in the HCM.
The proposed roadway will serve as a principal suburban arterial type roadway for
major through traffic movements with running speeds of between 40 and 45 mph.
The arterial will include an average of 2 signals per mile and exclusive left-turn lanes.
Table 2.7 LOS Criteria for Class I Arterial Roadways
Level of Service A B C D E F
Average Travel Speed (mph) .L/ >35 >28 >22 >17 >13 >13
Notes: J ">" means "greater than or equal to".
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board.
The LOS for each Alternative is determined by comparing the LOS criteria
and the average travel speeds for the individual Alternatives. The arterial analysis was
undertaken with synchronized traffic signals at the intersections. Table 2.8 presents
a summary of the arterial analysis including the length of proposed improvements and
number of signalized intersections along each Alternative, and the average travel time
and average travel speed. Based on the results of the arterial analysis, all Alternatives
will operate at LOS A.
2-18
m
oZ
ew
M:x
Ow
U V)
00
O O
O M
O ?
00
In O
0- 1 -t N
00
W O O
O
f -
Q
F -
z
W
W
En
w
O
N0
1N?
O
V
0000
O 00
o In
8
Ck:
O
M
00
.- M
Li
0 0
(0 00
N
NI 00
0? f O o
VO
M o 0
I LO
00
U') M
N
00
O O
00
N 00
00
00
00 M
O 0
N
00
00
r- lf)
M r--
N
00
O O
O O
00
00
N
o O
r, 0
O
- 04
00
M O
00
0 0
co 0
O 0
M L
00
r r-
O LO
00
o O
M N
O 0?
q-I
0I O
r o O
O O
00
N
O0
0
r°o °o
O
0
000 M
C:)?o
00
00 n
r-
O
O 0
cD
N
i)
00 010
?M U')
o lo
re) N
00
00
L 100
rO O
00
M N
M cp
N
8
C) 0
00
00 10-
Lo
fY
O O
O O h
00
a
N
CK
00
$,
00
v
o Ce
V
F?
OO N
00
0)O V
Z
w
F-
Z
W
w
V
"'
O
_a
Of
ir
O
V
00
cD l?
o?
00
00
°0
M tM
00
00
r- LO
NI --t
00
00
O LO
O o
? 14-
Po LO
O
C_
W 0 C
O o O 910
04 g 0 w
N U-) t
O? Cf) J ;
LL o
0o =Z O N
00 °? M W= c , F-
0 0? cr jr o
/? N tO 0 Y = Q W 00 U. X
o? 1 3
0 0
?00 ? =~o ?
W 0 yV r U
? LO
N
00
00 00
00 O O
CD 04 (D
N :LO 00
0 ° dam'
O 0 O O
'o,
00 00
co N N N
M M co
00
O O
M N
0 C:)

O
0
't

O
0
r ,
000 N

M
oic"
? ?
c
MI o
N 04 O o

•-IN
O O
O 0
LO
t j O
(O lO
CIO
N?
00
M N
00
:
O 0
00
r) 'cr
00
r00
N
M00
l
M }
?r
0°00 O
00
t
.
O
N
00
rO o
rr) LO
O O
00
4-0
N It
l 00
00
NIn
z
J
a
F- F-
0 0
Q Q
OIO
O N
00
00
001 00
I
Q'
00
00
C) 0
M to ;
8
fn
V
00
b
00
O co m
r r-
O
r•+
H
O
7
0 0
? cep 'O
O
S
w m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m o m m
v U)
c
00
°0 0'0 - ww
000 N Q 0 00? w v c 00 00
000 •- ?? ?? 0 00 ,r-°' y (n U D N
0 ? 0 ? N Q ? ? ?
O N U<. M
C]w 00? (,o0 0 0 000 N Q?z > N
?? cp o N o O wD>
N
Ow 00 p0? ?c0 LL.
U(n 00 NPr) ? N?o ?_.0 < LL.
x
CY) 0 0? r0 0 Cf) 39
?L w
0 M) O U F-
0 O O O O
O } 0 0 O N
O O 00
- r) - C14
0 0 N 1`,r O 0 W
00 00 a 00 00 00
U') (0 04 10- rl
O O) ? r N ! 00
y
& 0
? o n ? O?
00 O? O - 00
f
?
O I? p
00
co
cp dc
y?
00 00
r- C14
N O
N
a
00 0o y
N L
O O N F-
0 0 Z 00
cy) w 0 0 00
U (°
8
00 0
w 00 00
N Q 0 O 'w N 0) (D
r7
0 O v /? , 00 ? ?O O g
00
O 00 Q Oo 31
a 0 0 O N Z
N
U C,4 N
O 0 OO 00 IwL
z o LL' J
O 00 00
U Q
? 00 00
CD N M N
w?/? O O
VI O 0 00 0 0
O O O j
N O C
C) 0
1i O 00 cD
CA
O o O O 00
O
c
N LO ~
N? 0 0 0 0 O 00 M rM
N 00 00
N O Oj y O O
O 00
O
O O
00 M
U N M LO R ? N
0 o O
0 0 V
O r7 Lo
O
O O 00
0 r- -0
0 co 00
cy) 04 04 00 r- v LO 't r,
Lr)
N r7
L
00 00
I? N re) _
O 0
00 00
't O 0 00
N F- F-
a 0
LO
O O N? 00 N Q Q
,4- ? 00
r O O
C%4 CD U) 0 r- 0 T--
r- ,- z Q, O
N M o o? O o V 0 00 0 0
L°0 000 00 - C4
3 0 0
Z 0 0
0 0
0 0 O O
00
y
04 04
PO In
m m m
00 00
L rn v
s$ p
000 0 00 r0\ v 00 00 00 00 V c
Q N - N .- N 0 0 0
L-
} L
W
O O O O a' 0 00 ?/ 0 0 C W U M
O? ° LO (0 o (3) LO 00 r-)39
C)o ?4-
00 0 0 v Q2z > N
00 000 0 N ? 004 U) W? F-
Li U' Min 0 } O U m
OW?/? 000 ??v LL
C.) U) 0000 ?? 000 rn LO U X
Y=? Q W
N O O O O O U F- 3
N
Id- o N n M = v
U
00 00 oo?
00 00 It M_ N r?
00 K) f,
('00 ENO
0400 00 Q OM 00o
00 00 cr O O 00 ()
00 0
pr)
N 00 rn O A N M to M
.-- N A
- N M N
0 0 O O 00
0 00
I? N N rn
O O O O
00 0
O
O 0 N 0?0 O
?N
0
00 0'4-
04 g
?o
O0
0 O o O O
O O 00
° ?° °
V 00
0o °o 04 -t cr °oc°Ma
N
00 o g, F-
00 00
00 ° o V Z o 0 00 00 Lr)
S
o o r 2 ? ?? ? ? 0n a`DO
O O O o 0 0 0 0
'? =°' (c°n W < 00 QOM c
3
O Q
N O? ('00 p Z
N O O 00 LL In r? d- I? N
Q O
00 00 J
Z 0) M O L Q
w O
O O
V OOO O 00
rN N
W? o
N r)
o
V I n o 0 0 0 ?/ 00
a o 0 0 00
clr_ M
1i Ln M d
O (D Ln 00 M
0
0 00 0 N./ O 0 O1 O 00 O
r- F) CF) r- LO
N U M 04 '-d- CN
1.6. QI
00
'a '4'r- 00
O
N
V N ?,
00
0 0
0 0
00 00
0o M
0 0 00
000 M In
0 LO O O O O <
N
00 PO O O 00
M O 00 N
I? O O ? M co
O O
O O O O do- N o 0
N M 00 - N N M =
In
00
00 00 00 ON r
?t of b
N V O O
/?
M Z Q Q
00 f O O
00
M O M (C) O? 00 D O
00 O O
y
00
y 00
LO 000 O O
N
00

78
00
00 0
P ? .G S
$m a U)
0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0? V W 0 W
N °0 0) 0 D w o
00 00 00 Cf) Ix
F- 00 00 00
(C) K) 00
r-, 04 ji LL. ? (Y)LO o o O
pZ
00
?W oo? ooo 1 O° Q= z N
O o .. }
V) pr) cn °° 04W) N N W=O j U F-
? n
OW o o
00 ?o _
U V1
n? Yl1.
0 00 00 V 0 W
00 10-
N 0
ff) M U
00 oo to
0 0 0 0 ON O llO °
_ CY) 00 O
LO 00 - ./ N 000 0_' M 00 00 ('00 00 N N
O o
q
U-) r- 00 0
00 M r 00 0pr) 0 N P') M CO
0 O p.
M O 0 (n O ON
00 00
O N
C:) O
0 0 00 O
O
PO rl) O
0 0 r') lf)
"ONO oo 000 g
(0 V)
o ° 0004 O?
0 r-1) 1?0
(DD ° C 00 0 00
O N rn
Oo
O 0
r, 00
a p °
° O °0
0 0 N '') 04 W
00
H-
Z
w 4) °oo 000 g
LO CO 0 ce
00 M
00 ° C'1 o 00 o 0 00
W
00
? W < 0
04 fr)
0 ? cn N 3
O 0
O o S
CA N
I O O Q
? 0 ? tO O LO
U cr. O Z
"c o° o p_ O °o w?
Z a. ?' (3) 0 W
W $ 0000 O Q
u7 Oo U
oo °0 00 00 v
0 rl)
W ° 0 °N N
N ? '0- 00 0 00 00
00
O O O°r
v 00 ° 0 'v
p 00 00 0000 8 LO (0U') ?0 U F_
LO OO .-
00 00 ./ 00 00 g' 00
O N n In 00 Q-'$ 0 t?
U 0 0 r00 0 CY)
? Oo d
? 04 (
0 O O0
00 LC)
N
U-) ED 00 00
00 00
•- N It O CA v
00
i? ° O? r cD
O N
2
O o O N N O f
- 00 000 M
n
0 C)
.- y
00 C'.
O O
14- 0 Q Q
N r) r 0 C U
° o 0 o Z 0
°
CD 0 ° rn°
? 00 O N 00 O0) N
3
O O
i
° co 00 00
00
m m m w m = = = = = r = m m = = m m
00
00 V
M (D r8
.g v (n
00 00
00 . 0 0 °
00 0 g LLI o W
M LO} N O O N O a' W a
tc)
00 O r 00 O O O Op O C VI a' V D
04 0 (C) 00 1) .0 LL.
U') 0
00 00 1 1 O o a 00 0 o 00 o Q? Z ] N
O o N N N N W
M M C
U_
>- 0 m
000 cr ?U LL- 2
°0 0 tD o0i O = °G LL X
04
U- °'
° 00 00 C) 0 M =~ W
M t1 )r ?N M
0 0
Z °O U
0 0 ?
?
w 00 00 V ? ° N0
N 00 ?O O N
v 00 O O M I- 0°
O 0 O
LLI 0? N tD N M M cD
(n 00
00 0
N 00 l & O LO
04 r-1) O
00
Q 00 O
00 O O CY) re) O N (N
?r ?Q) to
LL O O 0 0
0 C,
°° g
0 (n C14 It
O 04 U) 04- U)O
U O M c0 -
00 00
0 0 ?° ° PC)
?00
0
°°0 0 O
----O N .. 0 ° tV)
t- - $$ M.- O
1 O O CL N ? N
cn L f) o o
W 00 00
g
(0 0
N a M r } (0 O O
00
O O / 1? °o °o °o ,V) T
00 w < 00 0 ' v V
? M V) ; N M
(C) O V'
? N N- O O ? p (A
8 00 O <
00
00 z
N
0 O O
00
CL U-) rn
a O o J
00 Y ?? 00 00 a
° 04
N M N
U 00 y O -
0 0 _0 0 00 0
O0 0°0 - rn co
W ° ° 000 i 1 O OO 00
I.L N ? 00 M ~
O 00
U LO ° O 0 0
H Oo 00 0?
Z N LO 0 CK
W 000 i ('00 00 >,.
V dN co o° 0 00 00
00 Pr) ?' N
W
N O O 0 00 0 0 00
00 It r- ° V00 ) ? v
N ?
O 00 00 1 o f
,t 04 N M
•-
N
O O O H F-
N Cy) 0 0 < Q
00
U 00 0
o lo 0 0 N U- O ° ° 0 0 Lr) N C14 Lo I- °N 't Co 0)
04 O
NM OO-) ? O O cD Z O~ (Y) N
00
00 z
O (D
3 W
0 O
Z O w 000
0
°N° Lr) U)
U (n

i
Table 2.8 Summary of Arterial Analysis - 2010
Alternative Length of Number of Average Average LOS
Proposed Signalized Travel Travel
Improvement Intersections Time Sr)eed
min J
1 6.6 miles 12 10.3 39 mph A
3 6.9 miles 12 10.8 39 mph A
4 7.4 miles 12 11.5 39 mph A
5 7.5 miles 13 11.5 39 mph A
7 7.8 miles 13 12.1 39 mph A
8 8.3 miles 13 12.7 39 mph A
9 7.9 miles 13 12.2 39 mph A
10 8.4 miles 13 12.8 39 mph A
Notes: J Average travel time based on sequencing of signalized intersections.
2.5.4 Traffic Operations at Maior Intersections
Traffic operations were evaluated to determine the LOS at all intersections
along the proposed Hickory East Side Thoroughfare warranting signalization based
on criteria defined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Depending
on the combination of Corridor Segments utilized, there are between 12 and 13
intersections along each of the Alternatives under consideration. All the intersections
warrant signalization under Warrant 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume or Warrant 2 -
Interruption of Continuous Traffic. The traffic volume criteria for each Warrant is
as follows:
Warrant 1 Minor road: 150 vph (one lane approach), or
200 vph (2 or more lane approach)
Major road: 600 vph (total on both approaches)
Warrant 2 Minor road: one-way volume = 75 vph (one lane approach)
Major street: 900 vph (both approaches 2 or more lanes)
2-24
The LOS at each intersection was determined, based on average stopped delay,
for the range of projected traffic volumes associated with each Alternative as shown
on Exhibit 2.3. The projected average daily traffic volumes were converted to design
hour volume to model predicted traffic conditions. The LOS for each signalized
intersection is determined using the LOS criteria presented in Table 2.9. LOS C is the
desired operating condition for the design year and LOS D is the minimum acceptable.
Table 2.9 LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections
Average Stopped Delay
Level of Service (sec/veh)
A < 5.0
B 5.1 to 15.0
C 15.1 to 25.0
D 25.1 to 40.0
E 40.1 to 60.0
F > 60.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board.
The initial intersection geometry analyzed for each intersection was based on
the typical sections for the proposed roadway and the planned roadway geometry for
intersecting roads as identified in the 2010 Thoroughfare Plan for the Hickory -
Newton - Conover Urban Area. This intersection geometry was refined through the
addition of turn lanes as necessary to ensure the minimum acceptable LOS D.
Additional detail study and analysis will be performed during preliminary design,
based on 2015 traffic volumes, to determine if LOS C can be obtained for all
intersections. Table 2.10 presents an overall summary of traffic operations at
2-25

signalized intersections based on the analyses detailed in the Traffic Analysis
Technical Memorandum (Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, January 1991).
Table 2.10 Overall Summary of Traffic Operations at Signalized Intersections - 2010
CORRID OR ALTERNATIVES

1 3 4 5 7 8 9 10
Number of Signalized
Intersections
Operating at:
LOS A 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
LOS B 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2
LOS C 3 5 5 3 5 5 5 5
LOS D 8 6 6 9 7 7 7 7
Total Number of 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14
Intersections
2.5.5 I-40 Interchanges
The evaluation of the proposed I-40 interchange follows the FHWA guidelines
for information needed to support a request for a new access point on the Interstate
System. These requirements take into consideration the interchange purpose and need,
as well as the impact of the proposed interchange on Interstate safety and capacity.
Traffic operations for the proposed interchange locations are analyzed utilizing the
procedures provided in the HCM. Potential impacts on the existing interchanges are
also evaluated.
Information needed to support a request for a new interchange is provided in
the format of the FHWA guidelines as follows:
2-26
1. Purpose
The Hickory East Side Thoroughfare serves as an arterial collector to relieve
traffic congestion on existing local roadways by providing a new improved route
between NC 127, I-40, and US 70. The proposed interchange at I-40 will provide a
direct connection for the 18,800 to 22,200 vehicles per day, ADT, desiring access to
the Interstate System from the Hickory East Side Thoroughfare.
The new interchange will provide access from the Interstate System to the
four square miles of industrial land located north of I-40, and three square miles of
commercial land located along US 70, adjacent to the Hickory East Side Thoroughfare.
The new interchange will also reduce congestion and improve the level of
service on the existing adjacent interchanges by diverting between 4,200 to 14,800
vehicles per day, ADT, from the I-40/Lenoir-Rhyne Boulevard Interchange and
between 6,200 to 17,500 vehicles per day, ADT, from the I-40/Fairgrove Church
Road Interchange.
2. Relationship to Highway Improvement Plans and Programs
The proposed interchange is an integral part of the Hickory East Side
Thoroughfare as identified on the Hickory-Newton-Conover Thoroughfare Plan and
included in the North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program.
3. Service Area
The proposed interchange serves as access to the Interstate System for traffic
utilizing the Hickory East Side Thoroughfare to avoid congestion through downtown
Hickory. The city of Hickory is the economic and geographic hub of a four county
area with a population of 285,000 persons. Six interchanges currently provide access
to the Interstate System through the Hickory area. The proposed interchange would
provide a new access point approximately midway along the 3.5 mile stretch between
the existing Lenoir-Rhyne Boulevard and Fairgrove Church Road Interchanges.
2-27

' The new interchange provides improved access to I-40 for industrial and
commercial areas adjacent to the interstate route. The four square mile area located
' between Lenoir-Rhyne Boulevard and Fairgrove Church Road to the north of I-40
is currently developed with mixed industrial and residential land uses. Several large
' and many smaller manufacturing firms are established in the area. A transition to
more industrial uses is anticipated based on policies identified in the City of Hickory's
' Land Development Plan. The commercial area to the south of I-40 extends along US
70 between US 321 and Fairgrove Church Road. Commercial developments include
retail outlets, malls, and other consumer services. Future plans in the vicinity of US
70 and Startown Road call for retail expansion.

' 4. Description of Existing and Proposed Interstate Access
a. Configuration of the existing and proposed interchanges
' Existing interchanges at Lenoir-Rhyne Boulevard and Fairgrove
Church Road are located adjacent to the proposed interchange. The Lenoir-
Rhyne Boulevard Interchange has a partial cloverleaf configuration, and the
Fairgrove Church Road Interchange has a diamond configuration. Two
' alternative locations are considered for the proposed Hickory East Side
Thoroughfare crossing of I-40 as described in Section 2.4.5 of this document.
' b. Distances to ad iacent interchanges
The basic criteria for spacing of interchanges is a minimum distance
' ti
f 2
ile
Th
di
b
th
lt
ti
i
t
h
l
c
d
t
t
m
s.
s
ances
e
ween
erna
ve
n
erc
ange
a
ons an
o
e
e a
o
' the existing interchanges are less than two miles; however, the distances
between ramp gores are adequate to taper ramps. The approximate distances
' between interchange locations are as follows:
Corridor Segment B: 1.9 miles west of Corridor Segment D: 0.9 mile west of
the Fairgrove Church Road Interchange the Fairgrove Church Road Interchange
and 1.1 miles east of the Lenoir-Rhyne and 2.0 miles east of the Lenoir-Rhyne
Boulevard Interchange Boulevard Interchange

2-28

C. Alternatives that have been considered
Two alternative locations for the proposed interchange are considered,
as described previously.
d. Description of any substandard features
The proposed roadway, including the interchange at I-40, is designed
in accordance with standards established by NCDOT and the American
Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). No
substandard features are proposed.
e. Interstate mainline and crossroad traffic volumes
Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for the years 1990 and 2010 were
prepared as part of this study. Traffic volumes for the interstate mainline at
the Hickory East Side Thoroughfare are shown on Exhibit 2.3. Exhibit 2.4
presents the traffic volumes for I-40 at the adjacent existing interchanges as
anticipated with each project alternate.
f. Number of mainline and crossroad lanes
I-40 is currently a 4-lane divided freeway, Lenoir-Rhyne Boulevard
is a 4-lane roadway, Fairgrove Church Road is a 3-lane roadway, and the
Hickory East Side Thoroughfare is proposed as a 4-lane divided roadway in
the vicinity of the proposed interchange. Although no improvement to the I-
40 mainline is planned at this time, future traffic volumes on I-40 will require
the addition of two extra lanes by the year 2010.
Auxiliary lanes will be required along portions of the I-40 mainline
if the proposed new interchange in implemented, as shown on the schematic
diagrams provided in Table 2.12. If Corridor B is selected, an auxiliary lane
2-29

I?
u
L 17

00
00
0 0
N l q-
M O N n
M cD M ?
O Cl)
CD 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 W O W
m °o o° O °O rn° O 0_ v`
N U M c0
U) t
0) w
°o °o °0 00 t 00 °o °o 00 Q ` J N C14 (3) (D
Q' r N r N U ON N M= Z
Q a? Q Q
•? o 'oO Z > 0 0° Z wU >>
0 00 00 o 0 o_ o° W? p v V
00 0 LO 0 :3
a a J O Ov U
LL-
_
Q °° Q Y 2 -0 ° U- X
00 0o 00 (°D U I- 3 Q W
0)
0)
O M O0 Lj
I I
00
00 00
0 o cD 0
tD M 00 (D
O 0) N d-
M d 0 00
v
0 0 0 0 w 0 .0 0 w
_> 00 00 p 00 O,0 O
C14 - C14
U M c0
m N
t?
oo 000 0(D o0
°o0 w
a r 00 r 000 U N 04 (D M d r
N M
L N
O Z
1 L > "0 0
•C 00 Or 0 O OL ° O) ° ??LI
J •v J
Q
0 0 o O
o M rn O
o° 00
LO to CO N
M M M to
O O
I I
00 00
00 cc
N d' 00
)n O - un
M cD M u7
v
00 0 o O o 0
m o0 00 to 00o O° U
M? N d' 1,' L N M (0
Frr' U F
0000 0000 Q C 0000 0000 Q
L 0 0 0 0 Z U N c0 u7 Z
N (/? N N Q) ?2 ?2 N M
A= 1 > 1 O
O O O O O O O O O
v o0 oo J 00 00) J
J r o°) Q 0' rn 'n Q
'v
00 00
c0 d O cD
0) I? N .-
M cD d- r
00 00
O O
I I
0 0 0 0
00 00
cD r 00
?t to c0 M
M In N
_> 0 0 O O O X o 0 0 0
m 00 0) N d' O
L
} U
00 00 ./ 000 0 W 00 00 00 0o M
00 CY) -C d- M 2 N r U ?j N ?o N
Q N Q
•-- N °? 0 O •- N Z > p? O Z
0 0
00 0 0 w 00
J M M^ d r r- 00 w
M L
J LL. J
0 o Q o o Q
00 00
N O r M
M
d- U) O(7)
O M )n O
I I
° ° O O
co O O
N d M (7)
If) O r- (D
M cD N
00
0 a a
_> 0 00 °0 00 r ° ° o o
m Of N L:. O ON d- (D O r- 0 O
U')
C ? 0)
T 00 co Q O 00 o o Q
L 00 0) d' (D Z M 00 M Z
Cif d' N M N N U M N O N w
O O
L
• Q 00 00 r > 00
c N o 00 J o 00 00 00 0 o J 00
J M? d r Q v) n Ln Q
v
LL
00 0 °_ o
d 0) M Ln
M M
00 00
1

' will be required along the westbound lane of I-40 between the Corridor B
interchange and the Lenoir-Rhyne Boulevard interchange. If Corridor D is
' selected, auxiliary lanes will be required along both the eastbound and
westbound lanes of I-40 between the Corridor D interchange and the Fairgrove
' Church Road interchange. Exhibit 2.5 provides a typical section of proposed
I-40 improvements.
' S. Traffic and Operational Analysis for Existing and Proposed Conditions
The potential impact of the proposed interchange on the Interstate System,
' including the Lenoir-Rhyne Boulevard and Fairgrove Church Road Interchanges, was
evaluated. Predicted I-40 traffic volumes of between 49,300 to 71,600 vehicles (ADT)
' indicate six through lanes will be required by the design year to maintain an
acceptable level of service. It is necessary to assume the I-40 traffic operations at a
satisfactory level in order to analyze the impact of the proposed interchange.
Therefore, although no improvement to capacity on I-40 is planned at this time, the
' interchange capacity analysis has been developed based on widening I-40 to six lanes.
The additional lanes will be provided within the existing 80' median along I-40.
The new interchange will reduce congestion and improve the level of service
on existing adjacent interchanges by diverting between 4,200 to 14,800 vehicles per
' day, ADT, from the I-40/Lenoir-Rhyne Boulevard Interchange and between 6,200
to 17,500 vehicles per day, ADT, from the I-40/Fairgrove Church Road Interchange.
' Improvements to these existing interchanges to maintain acceptable levels of service
are prohibited by the intense commercial and industrial development in the areas
' immediately adjacent thereto.
' Weaving movements were analyzed to determine the impact of the proposed
interchange on the Interstate System. The analysis was based on a Type A weave
' utilizing the traffic volumes shown on Exhibits 2.3 and 2.4, a design hour truck
1 2-31

percentage of 8, and a peak hour factor of 0.85. The LOS criteria for weaving
movements are presented in Table 2.11. Table 2.12 presents a summary of the analysis
for the weaving movements between existing and proposed ramps. Based on the LOS
criteria, all weaving areas will operate at LOS C or better in the year 2010.
Ramp junctions were analyzed to determine traffic operations on the proposed
interchange. Traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit 2.3. Table 2.13 presents the LOS
criteria for ramp junctions and Table 2.14 presents a summary of the ramp junction
analysis. The LOS for each ramp is determined by comparing the LOS criteria and
the predicted flow rate. All interchange ramps are predicted to operate at LOS C or
better in the year 2010.
Table 2.11 LOS Criteria for Weaving Sections
Minimum Average
Weaving Speed
Level of Service (mph)
A 55
B 50
C 45
D 40
E 35
FJ <35
Notes:
J "<" means "less than".
Minimum Average
Non-Weaving Speed
(mph)
60
54
48
42
35
< 35
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board.
2-32
-D C V

O w O
p Z
O
_ c)

l!lllll Fn w
X U
t
?--.
to
41
G-?

U)

o

U

N
Cl?l w Q 2 Z w I-
CT w C7 (n m
?- O
cr o -? X

0
0 U
Q
w

l

\
1 U
u L, v w ?°
Gtr
0
'x ° L
3J O
a Q U

C u
C
J
II

W t?
~ II
II
N II
vN
N C m
.
4-1
7
W 0
v0
? T
m
I
Z
LJ
I
C
o C
° I
rn
S E? -

LL. a_
X
W a.
I
1
O

m ?m
o
?

C u
c ? I I

J II
H
W ? II
N II
?
? T O1
?
.
ON
a? o
20
=c
'x v
a QJ OM
I ?
C
I 3
O
I c.?
?
I
x
Li
I
C?lll
r?

c
N
U O
3
O
C J
O
Z
?y
a
OI W
rl •? U
W t
N 61
O
O
N
?. Ny
? 1>0 N
C y
Q 3 U
O W
cl
3 =
a
w
o
S. N
G ?
L
?+ N
7 C E
(? U! N
J OC
N
r'I
N
.C
cl
H
rn L
m
d v
3 ?
U U
U U
In 10
v 1

0 C)
93 2
Vm
^
0
w
_L L
u) a?0
E 1 0 -?
3 L
?g
?wH
G
T
L
F- l in O O
1
Old
Cp ?

1

N ..
m m
W
co co
co co
O N
In Ln
Ln In
C D2 D p
N CO
C\j
O
O yo., m
acOI LO
N
O
E 4` E
0 og
G
T
L
f' ? m
G/

N
v O , G/
N N L
r ?? 1
cu m
m
V W 4-
L
L
O
C
GI O L 0 L L
0 10 01 0
L>
O rn

$

M
> 10 O
L O -? Y L N V
N U L C 7 U O tn 4+
w O O G1 0 L v
3 J U J m x H 3 Q Q W 4 Q
2-34
O
O
N
L
O
W
T
W
N
yEN
7
w
w
N
u
v
O
a
41
Y
l0
I
U
U
m
0
cc
2
10
0
N
cC
N
V
2
.j
C)
cC
Q

•> o
W J
s
O1 N
C O
•? J
>
l0
"Q
Q
Q
O
U cn
? m a
?+1 m L
a °1
^ 3 ?
H
N
.y D7
_T C N
m _a
Q 3 U
Q
C L
OD O a
C.• Z >
3
w
O a
31
L ~ •
Q m ?

q
G? It
?i O
d c0
J OC
N
N
Cd
H
c L
f0
a a
s ?
a
'O L
O U
N a+ L
7
Y O -
r-(A L U
D O O
C L w L >
? O
L j
C . O

, O O OI
,
> (? L Y L L 'a
10 U L U O .? f0
a 0 O •? L M O
:9 J U x /-- - OC
U U U
U U U
10 10 10
v It It
O 00 O
Ln It Ln
co CD 4D C)
CO co
M M M
a
a?
FFo-6
aL \\\\
Y _
w ?
Q O
?o:m
NO
c
H -
O
W ?
L L
O O
7
lA t? U
N
a
s a a a
O
H O
m H
3
U U U
U U U
•O %O 10
It It It
O O• O
Ln It Ln
O O O
M M M
ti
` L
O ?
OO
ac
O C
LL. W F-
00 2
L
OL O
7
Ln ti a
N
N N F+ Y
O
w a a a
2-35

Table 2.13 LOS Criteria for Checkpoint Flow Rates at Ramp-Freeway Terminals J
Level of
Service
A
B
C
D
E
F
Merge Flow
Rate (ncph) J
< 600
< 1,000
< 1,450
< 1,750
< 2,000
Widely variable
Diverge Flow
Rate (ncoh) J
< 650
< 1,050
< 1,500
< 1,800
< 2,000
Widely variable
Freeway Flow
Rate (vct)h) 4-1
J
< 4,000
< 5,600
< 6,800
< 8,000
Widely variable
Notes:
J Flow rates given as passenger cars per hour (pcph); "<" means "less than or
equal to".
J Lane-1 flow rate plus ramp flow rate for one-lane, right-side on-ramps.
31 Lane- I flow rate immediately upstream of off-ramps for one-lane, right-
side ramps.
J Total freeway flow rate in one direction upstream of off-ramp and/or
downstream of on-ramp; 8-lane freeway with 60 mph design speed.
Level of service not attainable due to design speed restrictions.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board.
2-36
Table 2.14 Summary of Ramp Junction Analysis for Proposed Interchange - 2010 J
Ramp
Location Alt. 1 Alt. 3 or 4 Alt. Alt. 7 or 8 Alt. 9 or 10
EB Exit Ramp
Diverge Volume (pcph) 1390 1290 1110 940 1130
Level of Service C C C B C
EB Entrance Ramp
Merge Volume (pcph) 950 850 710 J 610 J 770 J
Level of Service B B B B B
WB Exit Ramp
Diverge Volume (pcph) 1230 1110 930 J 1030 J 950 J
Level of Service C C B B B
WB Entrance Ramp
Merge Volume (pcph) 930 J 870 J 1000 800 1030
Level of Service C C B B C
Notes:
J Assumes that I-40 will be widened to 6 lanes to accommodate projected traffic volumes by
the year 2010.
ZJ Volume in auxiliary lane (extension of speed change lanes between Hickory East Side
Thoroughfare Interchange and existing interchange as shown on diagrams in Table 2.12).
2.5.6 Summary
The Hickory East Side Thoroughfare will increase roadway capacity in the
project area sufficiently to divert traffic from existing congested routes on the
roadway system while at the same time operating at a satisfactory LOS. The proposed
improvements for the Hickory East Side Thoroughfare will operate at LOS A in the
design year (2010) based on the traffic analyses detailed in this document. Signalized
intersections will operate at LOS D or better during the design hour. The traffic relief
provided by the Hickory East Side Thoroughfare will improve traffic operations on
the overall roadway network, including safety.
2-37

The basic criteria for introduction of a new access point on the Interstate
System is a minimum spacing of 2 miles. The distances between the proposed
interchange and existing interchanges are less than 2 miles; however, the distances
between ramp gores are adequate to taper ramps, and traffic operations in the weaving
areas will be LOS C or better. The entrance and exist ramps at the proposed
interchange will also operate at LOS C or better. The proposed interchange will divert
traffic from existing interchanges resulting in improved traffic operations on these
existing interchanges.
2.6 Roadway Cost Estimates
The cost estimates prepared for the various Build Alternatives, include right-of-way
(ROW) acquisition, utility relocation, and roadway construction costs. Table 2.15 presents a
summary of cost estimates based on 1990 dollars. ROW and utility costs are estimated based
on preliminary functional plans developed for the proposed project. ROW costs include land
acquisition and damages, as well as the relocation of residences and businesses. Construction
costs, based on preliminary functional plans, include clearing and grubbing, pavement
removal, earthwork, drainage, subgrade stabilization, new pavement, curb and gutter,
guardrail, culverts, and bridges, plus 15 percent for engineering design and contingency.
Table 2.15 Roadway Cost Estimates (Million $)
ALT 1 ALT 3 ALT 4 ALT 5 ALT 7 ALT 8 ALT 9 ALT 10

CONSTRUCTION -----
$22.6 -----
$24.9 -----
$26.3 -----
$29.9 -----
$32.3 -----
$34.5 -----
$32.7 ------
$35.4
ROW $7.5 $9.3 $4.6 $10.9 $12.6 $8.0 $12.0 $7.3
UTILITY $0.2 $0.6 $0.3 $0.2 $0.6 $0.3 $0.7 $0.3

TOTAL COST -----
$30.3 -----
$34.8 -----
$31.1 -----
$41.0 -----
$45.6 -----
$42.7 -----
$45.4 ------
$43.0
2-38

2.7 Cost Effectiveness
A cost effectiveness analysis was conducted to evaluate the economic benefit expected
to result if the proposed transportation improvements are undertaken. This analysis is detailed
in the technical memorandum Cost Effectiveness Study Report (Rummel,Klepper & Kahl,
December 1990), appended by reference. The analysis compares the costs associated with
implementing the proposed Hickory East Side Thoroughfare to the user benefits expected as
a result of more efficient and safe traffic operations. The No Build Alternative is included
in the analysis as the basis for computing user benefits. All project costs and user benefits
are converted to present value (year 1991) to facilitate the evaluation.
The methodology utilized in the cost effectiveness analysis is taken from A Manual
on User Benefit Analysis of Highway and Bus-Transit Improvements. 1977 which is published
by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
Table 2.16 presents a brief summary of the steps involved in the analysis and details are
provided in the technical memorandum.
Project costs included in the analysis are right-of-way acquisition, construction,
engineering design, and operation and maintenance. Right-of-way and construction costs,
including 15 percent for engineering and contingency, are discussed in Section 2.6 of this
document. Operation and maintenance (O&M) includes patching and repairing the road
surface, reshaping and mowing shoulders, and maintaining ditches. O&M costs are estimated
based on quantities developed from the preliminary functional plans. The residual value of
the proposed improvements, based on the market value of the facility and land for continued
use beyond the study period, is included as an offset to the project costs.
Table 2.17 presents a summary of project costs for each Build Alternative, including
all cost items and offsetting for the residual value of proposed improvements. There are no
project costs associated with the No Build Alternative.
2-39

Table 2.16 Cost Effectiveness Methodology
Step I Update user cost factors, including operating cost per mile, value of
time per traveler hour, and accident costs.
Step 2 Select economy study features, including study period and discount
rate.
Step 3 Estimate project costs, including engineering design, right-of-way
acquisition, construction, and maintenance.
Step 4 Estimate annual user costs based on user cost factors and vehicle miles
travelled.
Step 5 Estimate user benefits as the difference between user costs under the
No Build Alternative and the Build Alternatives.
Step 6 Estimate the residual value of improvements to include as an offset
to project costs.
Step 7 Determine the present value of the stream of project costs and benefits.
Step 8 Evaluate the economic desirability of the various Alternatives by
comparing project costs and user benefits.
Table 2.17 Summary of Project Costs (Present Value, Million $)
COST ITEM
------------------- ALT 1
----- ALT 3
----- ALT 4
----- ALT 5
----- ALT 7
----- ALT 8
----- ALT 9
----- ALT 10
------
ROW $7.5 $9.3 $4.6 $10.9 $12.6 $8.0 $12.0 $7.3
UTILITY $0.2 $0.6 $0.3 $0.2 $0.6 $0.3 $0.7 $0.3
CONSTRUCTION $19.6 $21.6 $22.8 $26.0 $28.1 $30.0 $28.5 $30.7
ENGINEERING $2.9 $3.2 $3.4 $3.9 $4.2 $4.5 $4.3 $4.6
GENERAL MAINT. $0.6 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.8 $0.7 $0.8
RESURFACING $0.4
----- $0.4
----- $0.4
----- $0.4
----- $0.4
----- $0.5
----- $0.4
----- $0.5
-----
RESIDUAL VALUE $22.4
----- $26.1
----- $21.9
----- $30.6
----- $34.4
----- $30.7
----- $34.1
----- $30.6
-----
TOTAL COST $8.8 $9.7 $10.3 $11.5 $12.4 $13.2 $12.6 $13.5
2-40
User benefits are estimated as the reduction in user costs between the No Build and
the Build Alternatives. User costs include the expenses associated with operating a vehicle
(fuel, oil, tires, maintenance and depreciation), the value of time spent in travel, and the
losses incurred from traffic accidents. All user costs are based on vehicle miles travelled.
Vehicle miles are calculated as the volume of vehicles on the road network times the
length of the roads travelled. Table 2.18 describes the basic roadway sections utilized in the
analysis, including length, and identifies the sections associated with each alternative. All
traffic volumes used in the analysis are based on projections developed for the years 1990 and
2010 by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). Traffic volumes are
assumed to increase at a steady rate of 2 percent per year for the years 1991 through 2009.
Vehicle operating costs were calculated as total vehicle miles travelled times a per mile
operating cost. Average vehicle operating costs are identified in the AASHTO manual. These
costs were updated to reflect current market prices based on the July 1990 Consumer Price
Index (CPI).
Time costs were calculated as the number of hours spent in travel times the hourly
value of time. The number of hours spent in travel was calculated from the total vehicle
miles divided by the number of miles driven in an hour, depending on average travel speed.
Value of time factors, identified in the AASHTO manual, were updated to reflect current
market prices based on the July 1990 CPI.
Accident costs were estimated from representative accident costs identified in the
AASHTO manual, updated to reflect current market prices. The number of accidents
expected under each alternative was calculated from the accident rates for both fatal and non-
fatal accidents.
2-41

Table 2.18 Basic Roadway Sections
Length No Alt. Alt. Alt. Alt. Alt. Alt. Alt. Alt.
Basic Section j/ mi. Build 1 3 4 5 7 8 9. 10
Existing Roads
NC 127: Cloninger Mill Rd. to 29th Av 2.5
NC 127: 29th Av to 14th Av 1.4
NC 127: 14th Av to US 70 2.6
14th Av: NC 127 to Highland Av 1.6
Sandy Ridge Rd: Cloninger Rd to 29th Av 1.5
Sandy Ridge Rd: 29th Av to Springs Rd 1.7
Springs Rd: 24th St to 16th St 1.6
Springs Rd: 16th St to Lenoir Rhyne Blvd 1.8
Lenoir Rhyne Blvd: Tate Blvd to US 70 1.7
Highland Av: Tate Blvd to Fairgrove Ch Rd 4.2
Fairgrove Ch Rd: Highland Av to I-40 1.6
Sweetwater Rd: Highland Av to Corridor B 0.9
Sweetwater Rd: Corridor B to 1-40 1.4
Sweetwater Rd: 1-40 to US 70 0.7
Corridor Segment A
EST: NC 127 to Falling Creek Rd 1.4
EST: Falling Creek Rd to Sandy Ridge Rd 0.2
EST: Sandy Ridge Rd to Springs Rd 1.5
Corridor Segment B
EST: Springs Rd to Spencer Rd 0.5
EST: Spencer Rd to Highland Av 0.9
EST: Highland Av to Tate Blvd 0.4
EST: Tate Blvd to Sweetwater Rd 0.2
EST: Sweetwater Rd to 1-40 1.1
EST: 1-40 to US 70 0.4
Corridor Segment C
EST: NC 127 to Sandy Ridge Rd 1.1
EST: Sandy Ridge Rd to Kool Park Rd 1.0
EST: KooL Park Rd to 29th Av Connector 0.8
EST: 29th Av Connector to Springs Rd 0.4
Corridor Segment D
EST: Springs Rd to Spencer Rd 0.5
EST: Spencer Rd to Highland Av 1.5
EST: Highland Av to Tate Blvd 0.8
EST: Tate Blvd to Sweetwater Rd 0.9
EST: Sweetwater Rd to 1-40 0.1
EST: 1-40 to US 70 0.7
Corridor Segment E
EST: NC 127 to Sandy Ridge Rd 1.0
EST: Sandy Ridge Rd to Kool Park Rd 1.7
Corridor Segment F
EST: 29th Av Connector to Springs Rd 0.5
EST: Springs Rd to Spencer Rd 0.7
EST: Spencer Rd to Highland Av 1.2
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x X X x x X
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x
x x
x x
x x
x x x
x x x
x x x
x x x
x x x
x x x
x x x
x x x
x x x x x x
x x x x
x x x
x x x
x x x x x
x X x x x
x x x x x
x x x x x
x x x
x x x
x x
x x
x x
1/ EST = Hickory East Side Thoroughfare
2-42
A summary of user benefits under the various Build Alternatives is presented in Table 2.19.
User costs associated with the No Build Alternative are higher than those associated with the
various Build Alternatives; therefore, there are no user benefits under the No Build
Alternative.
Table 2.19 Summary of User Benefits (Present Value, Million $)
BENEFIT CATEGORY ALT. 1 ALT. 3 ALT. 4 ALT. 5 ALT. 7 ALT. 8 ALT. 9 ALT. 10

OPERATING COSTS ------
$72.8 ------
$59.0 ------
$51.3 ------
$56.4 ------
$46.8 ------
$41.6 ------
$52.5 ------
$46.0
TIME COSTS $510.5 $487.7 $476.8 $484.3 $468.9 $460.6 $477.4 $467.5
ACCIDENT COSTS $30.5 $31.5 $31.5 $29.1 $31.4 $31.4 $32.2 $32.2

USER BENEFITS ------
$613.8 ------
$578.2 ------
$559.6 ------
$569.8 ------
$547.1 ------
$533.6 ------
$562.2 ------
$545.7
The basic criteria for cost effectiveness is that the benefits resulting from the
proposed project exceed the costs associated with implementing the project. Two measures
of cost effectiveness, net benefit and benefit/cost (B/C) ratio, are presented in Table 2.20.
Project costs and user benefits are shown for comparison. Net benefits range from a low of
$ 520.4 million dollars under Alternative 8 to a high of $ 605.0 million dollars under
Alternative 1. The B/C ratio ranges from a low of 40 under Alternatives 8 and 10 to a high
of 69 under Alternative 1. There are no direct project costs or user benefits associated with
the No Build Alternative; however, the lost opportunity for user savings can be considered
a cost and the absence of project implementation costs can be considered a benefit. In the
evaluation of the No Build Alternative under these assumptions there are no net benefits and
the B/C ratio is always less than 1.0 (considered the threshold for cost effectiveness).
2-43
t
Table 2.20 Summary Comparison of Project Costs and Benefits
(Present Value, Million $)
ALT. 1 ALT. 3 ALT. 4 ALT. 5 ALT. 7 ALT. 8 ALT. 9 ALT. 10

PROJECT COSTS $8.8 $9.7 $10.3 $11.5 $12.4 $13.2 $12.6 $13.5
USER BENEFITS $613.8 $578.2 $559.6 $569.8 $547.1 $533.6 $562.2 $545.7
NET BENEFIT $605.0 $568.5 $549.3 $558.3 $534.7 $520.4 $549.6 $532.2
B/C RATIO 69 60 55 50 44 40 45 40
2-44

' 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
' This section provides a description of the existing social, economic and environmental setting
for the area potentially affected by the proposed Hickory East Side Thoroughfare.
3.1 Social Setting
The Hickory Regional Planning Area (HRPA) is the geographic and economic hub of
a four county region including Alexander, Burke, Caldwell and Catawba Counties. The
HRPA provides shopping, employment and urban services for an estimated population of
285,000. The City of Hickory, which serves as the administrative center of the HRPA, is a
' rapidly expanding urban area with an estimated population of 29,621 persons in 1989.
1 3.1.1 Population
' The population of the City of Hickory nearly doubled between 1980 and 1989
as shown in Table 3.1. Most of this increase can be attributed to the annexation of
' over eight square miles of land during that time period. The population of Catawba
County, including the City of Hickory, grew at a faster rate than that of the state of
North Carolina during this same time period. This growth trend is expected to
continue through the year 2010 as shown by the population projections presented in
i Table 3.2.
A comparison of demographic data for Catawba County and North Carolina,
presented in Table 3.3, shows that age characteristics in the county are the same as
they are statewide. However, the county has a slightly higher percentage of white
persons (both male and female) than the state, as shown in Table 3.4. The mix of
male/female persons in the project area, also shown in Table 3.4, is the same as
statewide.

1 3-1
1
Table 3.1 Population Growth Trends
1980 189 est % Change

Catawba 105,208 118,767 12.9
County
City of 20,757 29,621 42.7
Hickory
North 5,880,415 6,559,406 11.5
Carolina
Notes:
J 71.6 percent (6355 persons) of the 1980-1989 population
increase can be attributed to annexation of 8.6 square miles of
land during that time period.
Source: Fore siptht. The Environmental Scan, 1989.
Table 3.2 Population Projections

1990 Change 2000 Change 2010 Change
80-90 (90-00) 00-10
Catawba 119,832 13.9 132,744 10.8 143,144 7.8
County
N o r t h 6,613,391 12.5 7,260,748 9.8 7,77579 7.1
Carolina
Source: North Carolina Population Projections: 1988 - 2010.
3-2

Table 3.3 Age Demographics (1990 Estimates)
A g e Catawba County N o r t h
Range County % Carolina
0-18 31,026 26 1,716,443
19-64 74,187 62 4,075,255
65 + 14,617 12 821,681
TOTAL 119,832 6,613,391
Source: North Carolina Population Proiections: 1988 - 2010.
State
%
26
62
12
Table 3.4 Race and Sex Demographics (1990 Estimates)
Race / Catawba County North State
Sex County % Carolina %
WM 52,024 43 2,433,097 37
WF 55,819 47 2,577,863 39
NWM 5,652 5 745,940 11
NWF 6,337 5 856,491 13
TOTAL 119,832 6,613,391
Source: North Carolina Population Proiections: 1988 - 2010.
3-3
3.1.2 Existing Land Use
Zoning is used to regulate land use in the project area and generally reflects
existing development. Some exceptions were noted during a field survey, especially
in the area between Tate Boulevard and I-40 where the land is zoned for industrial
uses but currently developed as residential. A transition in land use can be expected
in this area as the demand for industrially zoned land increases. Existing land use as
identified during the field survey is shown on Exhibit 3.1.
Residential development is the predominant land use north of Spencer Road.
Densities range from low (individual homesites) through moderate (subdivisions) to
high (apartments or mobile home parks). Neighborhood commercial uses are located
along the radial arterials and there are three isolated light industrial sites.
A mixture of land uses is found to the south of Spencer Road, including
industrial, commercial, institutional and residential developments. Industrial uses are
located primarily along Highland Avenue, Tate Boulevard, and I-40, while commercial
developments are located along US 70. Institutional uses include Sweetwater
Elementary School, Catawba Valley Community College, and the Catawba County
Social Services complex. Residential development accounts for the remainder of the
land use in the area.
Commercial uses in the project area range from neighborhood shopping and
services to retail sales and regional businesses. Neighborhood commercial uses are
generally located along the radial arterials in the northern part of the project area and
include convenience stores, gas stations, grocery stores, specialty shops, and banks.
Commercial uses that are located in the southern part of the project area include
furniture, mobile home, and auto sales along US 70, architectural, engineering, and
communications businesses near I-40, and trucking companies, landscaping and
3-4
obob c) 4v
O
OdQ.
Yd)
O
o
Oa ?
U
U
b
O pd???
- ode-
?dNl nos 1
3RN?? b oN -
O H ?H
.y
v m
4-
0
U
060 o
? U
?ON?ds
LL.
0
O °
U `-
b0
d'
ly
120
ti
do
JAS
P?
?o
5Q?\?G5
0
a
O
w
Cl)
2
Q.
r
r
a
J
J
Cl)
O
J
O
oQ
o?
z
O
z
m
O
cr z
X
0
!tea
{{ O
f?yyyd?

7
W
7a
w
r W
?p J
3nN3ny 1S IZ
E
a.
b
J0
Obp? Habd N ?b yes
00 H Pp 2
41
40
w
0 ° o W
v vJ Cl) u
O 0
U Z
v w
c V)
w v
`
U)
w ?.
0 Z

r Q
o0
_
cr
Y cr
Z c) Z
?--- W
U ?-- c (n
= v X
U w

O
T 3 a

O
-0 N
O J cU cd
M C
r N c
I O ' O M
_ O ? O

`
cU _> N O p
C U U -

J ?
a ;; N
Ob04,
3%Ad -1
x8ONOIH
a?
E
W
J
Q
U

17
u
II
?J
J

grading services, machine companies, and lp gas distributors along Tate Boulevard and
Highland Avenue.
Industrial uses are located primarily along Highland Avenue, Tate Boulevard,
and I-40 in the southern part of the project area. They include furniture
manufacturing, upholstery shops, a mill, a foam rubber plant, metal and steel
companies, a cable company, a lumber yard, and paper companies. A trend in newly
developing industrial areas is toward the industrial/business "park" concept.
3.1.3 Future Land Use
Future land use in the project area is guided by the 1986 Land Development
Plan for the Hickory Regional Planning Area. This plan was approved by the Hickory
Regional Planning Commission on June 10, 1986, and was adopted by the Hickory
City Council on June 17, 1986. It includes goals and policies as well as a future land
use map which is shown on Exhibit 1.5 in Section 1.0 of this document.
The Land Development Plan shows expansion of the commercial corridor along
US 70 to extend as far north as I-40. It also shows in-fill development of the
industrially zoned area between I-40 and Highland Avenue. Another feature of the
plan is the identification of radial roads along which neighborhood commercial uses
are allowed. These identified radials include NC 127, Sandy Ridge Road, Springs
Road, and Startown Road.
3.1.4 Transportation
The existing roadway network in the project area is well developed. In
addition, rail transport and mass transit are available. Pedestrian and bicycle
movements are restricted by a lack of facilities. Exhibit 3.2 shows the existing
transportation network.
3-6

The Norfolk Southern Corporation operates the Southern Railway which is ,
located parallel to Highland Avenue through a predominantly industrial area. The ,
Southern Railway operates as part of a national system of railways, connecting
Hickory to the coast and adjacent states. The railway system in the project area ,
consists of one main track and one passing track. A railroad yard with approximately
10 spur tracks is located between Corridor Segments B and D, in the vicinity of 27th ,
Street Drive NE.
1
The Piedmont Wagon is a public bus service operated by a consortium of
local governments in the project area. The 16th Street NE route provides hourly ,
service along Springs Road and into the downtown area. Transfers are available to
other routes which serve the greater Hickory area as well as Conover and Newton.
Major roads include NC 127, Springs Road, US 70, and I-40. NC 127 provides ,
the primary north/south route through the Hickory area and is currently being '
widened to 5-lanes with a continuous left-turn lane. Springs Road is an existing 5-
lane roadway with continuous left-turn lane which radiates from downtown Hickory
in a northeasterly direction. US 70 is a 4-lane divided roadway which provides the
primary uncontrolled-access east/west route through Hickory. I-40 is a 4-lane
divided freeway which provides interstate access to the city of Hickory. Other major
roads in the project area include: '
,
• Cloninger Mill Road is a 2-lane roadway extending southeast from NC 127
and providing access to residential areas north of Hickory. It transitions into ,
Kool Park Road as it crosses Sandy Ridge Road.
• Kool Park Road is the 2-lane extension of Cloninger Mill Road east of Sandy '
Ridge Road which provides access to residential areas and Clyde Campbell
Elementary School. It terminates at Springs Road. '
3-7 1

Obo C9 ?v v
?a
0
rd
a
0
ti
o O
o a•
U
U
> Oa,
04,
O ?'jfs+
0
0
U Ny,?? 8
?O
nOS dl b1
?nN3? b ON b'HO?H
0a.
Od.
??oN?ds
O6.
Od.
?O
ti
do
J?
S
PO
?o
?Q?\aG5
0
Q
O
M
co
U'
2
4
J
C co
4
J
J
co
J
O
It
O
O
U
?i
0`1
=w
~w
`~
v

a
°
°d

W p

e Z

O
w v
o
m
U) ? s
o Q Y N
M
Q = Z ? O I-
w
it

Y

=
U

;
V1
Z
Q 3::
W

Z co
X

w

U
O
v'yyyd d ??
di0 OP
y?
Ul
7
Z
7Q 0
W
Y LLJ
J
3(1N3nd is iz
b
BOA/-//Q
OdOb H ab'd N ? b y? 6
100 H PO 2
?O
Q
v ??O
v
W °o Y
o `O 2 W
v a
? v
o z
U _
J
J
Ob0& ?
?J
8
O
\

0

T
T C C N
O C
N
M
3: _0 ro
co Q
0 c Q
J Cl)
0
-0
?
O -
O Ca
Q
O
-S?

C

IT [ U 0 -
ti
N
a?
E
w
J
Q

3?N
,k8oAOIH

I

r_

LJ

Sandy Ridge Road is a 2-lane north/south roadway providing access to
residential areas north of Hickory. It extends from north of Cloninger Mill
Road to south of 29th Avenue.
29th Avenue is a 2-lane roadway which extends to the east from NC 127,
intersects with Sandy Ridge Road, and transitions into 24th Street as it turns
south to connect to Springs Road. It provides access to residential areas along
the outskirts of Hickory.
Falling Creek Road is a 2-lane roadway which extends to the southeast from
NC 127, connecting to 29th Avenue just west of Sandy Ridge Road. It
provides access to residential neighborhoods and two light-industrial sites.
24th Street is the 2-lane extension of 29th Avenue which connects to Springs
Road. It provides access to residential areas.
Spencer Road is a 2-lane roadway extending to the east from Springs Road and
providing access to residential areas east of Hickory. It loops to the south and
connects to Highland Avenue east of the project area.
Highland Avenue is a 2-lane roadway which runs in an east/west direction
parallel to the Southern Railway tracks. It provides access to industrial uses
along the railroad corridor.
Tate Boulevard is a 4-lane roadway which extends eastward from downtown
Hickory, narrowing to 2-lanes through the project area, and terminating at
Fairgrove Church Road. It provides access to several office parks in an area
which is targeted for industrial development.
Fairgrove Church Road is a 3-lane roadway with continuous left-turn lane
which extends between Highland Avenue and US 70, with an interchange at
I-40. It provides access to the hospital and other medical facilities.
Sweetwater Road is a 2-lane roadway which extends in a southeasterly
direction between Highland Avenue and US 70, with an overpass at 1-40. It
provides access to residential and industrial uses as well as a fire station.
3-9

• Startown Road is a 2-lane roadway which extends to the southeast from US
70. It provides access to residential areas southeast of Hickory.
3.1.5 Community Facilities and Utility Services
There are no parks in the project area. Recreation is generally limited to the
athletic fields located at the public schools in the area and to facilities provided by
private developments. Other facilities and services in the project area are listed in
Table 3.5, including a description of facility type and location, as well as a cross-
reference to Exhibit 3.3 which shows details of the various corridor locations.
Table 3.5 Community Facilities and Utility Services
Exhibit
Facility Name and Tyne Location Reference
Camp Joy (Parson of the Hills), 27th Street between Spencer 3.3-5, 3.3-12,
private day camp for Road and Highland Avenue and 3.3-13
underprivileged children
St. Stephens Elementary School, corner of 24th Street and 3.3-4
public school Springs Road
Clyde Campbell Elementary 35th Avenue 3.3-10, and
School, public 3.3-11
Sweetwater Elementary School, Main Avenue 3.3-6
public
Catawba Valley Community US 70 3.3-8, and
College, public 3.3-16
St. Stephens Lutheran School, Springs Road 3.3-5, and
private 3.3-12
Tabernacle Christian School, 29th Avenue 3.3-2, and
private 3.3-3
Sandy Ridge Baptist Church Kool Park and Sandy Ridge 3.3-10
Roads
Tabernacle Baptist Church 29th Avenue Drive and Falling 3.3-2, and
Creek Road 3.3-3
(continued)
3-10

1

Table 3.5 Community Facilities and Utility Services (continued)
Facility Name and Type Location
Church of the Master 29th Avenue Drive
St. Stephens Lutheran Church
Millers Lutheran Church
Sweetwater Baptist Church
Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's
Witnesses
New Jerusalem Church
Woodlawn Memorial Gardens,
cemetery
Huff man-Seaboch Cemetery
Springs Road
Springs Road
Sweetwater Road
Sweetwater Road
Startown Road.
Falling Creek Road
4th Street Drive NE
St. Stephens Cemetery
Viewmont Fire Station
St. Stephens Fire Station
Fairbrook Fire Station
Catawba County Sewage
Treatment Plant and pumping
station
Springs Road
NC 127
Springs Road
Sweetwater Road
Cloninger Mill Road
Exhibit
Reference
3.3-3, and
3.3-4
3.3-5
3.3-5
3.3-7
3.3-7
3.3-16
3.3-2
3.3-1, and
3.3-2
3.3-5
3.3-1
3.3-4
3.3-15
3.3-9
Other utilities in the project area include water, sewer, electric, gas, and
telephone. Service lines are commonly located along road right-of-ways and are
found throughout the project area.
No new schools or school expansions are planned in the project area at this
time according to the Catawba County Board of Education. No expansion of the
sewage treatment facilities is planned either according to the City engineer.
3-11

3.1.6 Historical and Archaeological Resources
An investigation of potential architectural, historical, and archaeologic
resources was conducted in the project area, as detailed in the following sections.
A. Historical Resources
A survey of historic structures in the project area was conducted as
detailed in Historic Structures Survey and Evaluation Resort (Stephenson,
February 1991), appended by reference. The purpose of this survey was to
determine the nature, extent, and significance of architectural/historical
resources within the area of potential environmental impact. All structures
located within the project area were investigated and evaluated to determine
if they are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The
survey files in the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) were consulted,
tax records were investigated, interviews were conducted, and maps and
literature pertaining to the project area were searched.
A total of thirty-two structures were recorded during the survey.
Although none of these structures are currently listed in the National Register,
the SHPO concurs that one is eligible for inclusion. St. Stephens School is
considered eligible based on Criterion A and Criterion C. The school is
significant in the context of the history of education in the county and is a
good example of typical schoolhouse construction and planning of the pre-
World War 11 period. Table 3.6 describes the eligible historic resource,
including a cross-reference to the location of the structure on Exhibit 3.3.
Copies of the correspondence documenting the SHPO's concurrrence on the
eligibility of potential historic sites is included in Appendix B.
3-12

F
L
LI

m m mm = = = = mil m = A = m = m = mm
ON mo 0 0 0 0 5 * 4 2
O
7 O
1 O O O O (D -4
(D
G
? 1 1 1 1
m? CL O O C 3 r
D • n 1 "
1 1 1
C 1 d ?
O

m

(n

(n

c

(n

u N
O
1
.
N
In 40 to to o m
1
3
3
3
3
3
?o
<'
m m (D m <o
w m o
• a
N
m
? Z
0 0 co D N v
v\j

0
n.
°.
O
Ile
0
N
a
I -

CpRR?GMF?TA
?g to
*C.
. 4_
3i
'
F`
.

M

m0
x a 0
° 00

Z- ?rn v
= D 0
O o
W -n --j
W ;U
°-rn00
T

(A

C
O 70
CD
(D co
CD CD
2
P-4.
(D 0
I
D?
tag
i . • 1 t
CD
0
(D
O

y ?..?.
<,00,
y°?F01 w _
.L
L ??r
` CD CD C
CD 03
c ? -3
Falling C,r?A n7 ""
--,Tributary /
?o
1.
C ?
ti / /' 29th
V
.6G
Y
r = m = = = = = = = = = = = = = = m
(D (D C / f
3?
cD 0 3
/
a '
n V/
Avenue /
Fa!ling C / / / f /
re
k Tri'bUta
/

fff//

O

FYI
2S //// /f/fff

ie, 4"J
0
0', /.
/>°
fan
v
r
o?
?t
y <i??ts
,?
`
q0
(D p
36
0
a
c?
NO
* t:
O
? Q4ip?
N?
n :?
4C p N' (D
reek Tri o jw
bUtarY :3 n
co -4
?w oO
% O R ° ° O fD Z a Q
n s C o O C N-1
m D m rn 3 0V?1 '"? iy
k O < N O
cn (n U) (n
m cv (o $ n
= D `° m
c ?/(D
CL rri
=r 0 00 0
Q c 0 0 ;a 0 co l J fp 0 -« D ?
II y
D -` +
? m
o z=DD + i 'o
G J
IV 0 °m 0
??> ' .? ':: • ` ? ? ?,: t?QJ/tea,\? ?<,,

r = = m = = m = m = = i = = = m = m
9 Cr?'e
Gary
v9
n
\V
Neo
av??
?e5
No
N
O
xxr
2S m ?s ?u
S .? ?
1

Snow
Cree
)b
Mary •

v
m
D
0 =
- )
M C
x mx
O o
-+ O -< ;a
z v
O Z
1 T D
2 <n O

W o emu) r0
° Ma 0
W =
o
m
D
i
O
(n
I

ON mo 0 0 0 0 0 g w 0
0 cD o 0 0 0 0 CD
7 -f ? 1 1 ; 1 1
m d d o. d n: a te: r
wy mo 0 0 0 o N co
3
o< (n U) cn cn (n o ° _
t 40 CL D N r
3 3 3 3- ° m
co m m 0 G)
3. 3 : a m
M :3 :3 v ao a N z
0

Q
CD
N =3
•-« 2)
n
0 CD
\C
n \
0
?o
0
C+ !L
?a
CO 6
Gf
?L
l?
m

All,
low

COS
a
N
4
C
(D

r = = m = = i = = m = = m i = s
9
?u? r
rrr rr
rrrr ? rr
rrrr; r rrr N
rrrrrrr ?
rrrrrrr r ,,,.
rrrrrrrii r ?
rrrrrrr r
rrrrrr rrr -p
rrrrrrrrr L
rrrrrr rr CD
rrrrr r 7
rrrrrr r \ G
rrrrr rr ?p
- rrrrr r
rrrrr rrr
rrrrrr rrr ) O
__ rrrrr rrr `L
rrrr rrrr
rrrr rrr ?? ? to
rrrivrrrr
rrrirrrrr ?O ,
rrr rrrrrr ? /'???
rr rrrrrr
'ir rrrrrr <.??
rrrr ^
rrrr ? l?` ?\?,?'
rrrr
rrr ? ? ??,-
m^
2 \
C; yC,
??fs
i m cn
z ?
0 0 '
n I
0
m o

N?
mm
-I
= D
rrl c')
o ?
?c=0O
O
Q r ? X N
?? 7 O
?cmv
Z z G) D 0
W?D??
(? J o m U) O
v0
g m D
O

o r>

CD C
n
N ?
N
.? 0
m -? y Match Clr?e
o See
,Exhibit
+ + + 3,3.11
N
., + + +' +
+ +
ti ++++?
\? h
+ + +
?+ + + t
' .' ?R?VE rnNNFCTOR ??\?\ +"? + +
'/,/' I'//' / ' + + + +
\\ \ + + + + +
+ + + O
+ + + +
a \ +++++ N
+++++
+++++
NOS J? ?\ + + + + +
O + + + + +
\ + + + +
?, ?` \?.. +++++
\\ N +++++
\ ++++++
\? \\\ \ O ++++++++++?
\ + + + + +
110, (p + + + + +
\ Y + + + +
\ c + + + + +
V ?\ Ai + + + + + +
v
+ + + + +
+ + + + +
+ + + + + +
\ \ + + + +
\ 0 s + + + + +
\ \ .? pry + + + + + +
?.\,? 00 Roaq ++++++
+++++
s
yew •.
a?
+ + + + + +
++t++
+ + + + + +
+ + + + + +
+ + + +
+ + +
+ + + + + +
+ + + + +
-10 + + + + + +
?- + + ± + +
r? t f t t t
?'1?` J/ t + + + t
+ +++

1
?-0
? N.
+++ + ++ 0(D o0 0 0 0 o O m
arc ++++ + ??? ?. ?o 0
+++++ +++++ ao 0 0 0 cao CL 3 r
?/ •h + + 0 D 1 1 ? 1 N N 3
e 0
/? o m
v W= u', v n W D ur v
??SEP ?a?°? r2
yO? ???
r rrrrrr
r rrrr
''? r rrr
/i
o?o?ooo
m m m m = = = = = = m = m m m m

o(No rn0 0 0 0 o O m
w
=
" =

? 1
n
0 1
M.
1a n
a
3
m .
6 o: r
0D -n 0 0 0 0 C
m (n cn (n (n (n a 0 m

p ,B tmo Jc Z r
3 3 3 3 3 v m
m m m m o a G7
CD Z
p n D p
V., i L, A ???? III
m?
3 cn
Cs
CD CD
?s

i
o x:
e
0
to '"
r cD?
?m
g r?
N

X
r
co
I
m
? =D
O
mf-1C-)
x =An
? 000
Q co-, o;u :
0 c D 0
_ (n
-n
-?
Wom(nr
1 o M 0
U? a m D
0
Z
cn
/
/
/
/
ca /
/
/
-T I
00
as
0
-- ao
0y

See ??f
Q c U)
.« oh
CD
CD
Cl) cD - ?,
0 :0
100 010
/ j '
000
000
- ,/
000
y.
/L-/r
?j
Ov // i ? c
/ /
,?%i
m ?
%i /
*
m
z +++++
+ +
C7
+ + + + + +
+ + +
i? /++ + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + +?
/ i + + + + + + + + 0 a O
+ + + + + + + + ,a
/ +++++++??. Oo
+ +++++++
+
/ / + + +
/ } } i a
+ + +
r / I
+ + =0T
+
+ + + + +
::r 0
it 3.3- 12
Match Line See xhib CD D

rr vn
CD co
?CD
:3 ?
C) CD
?.:3
C (n
n
o?
/ ? yob
r
me
c ? c?
I 0 CD
m = m m m m = ¦ll? m m m m m = m
as
i
/
/l
/
/
/Y
/
/
ni/ i/
u/ /
h.
p i
f
h
?a
o?
3^?
V
(n mto
_, m :*
cD
0 _ `+°
o
P
r
xm
0
6 C'.
AW,
dy
O?
Miller Branch Tributary
m
= D
o r
C7
X v = 7C C7
=r 000
o ;om m
=+ O -?
C:
0 0 O
w ? D
W ? cn r
m00
o m D
O
Z
U)
O?
a O
a0
y?
as
Oy
A
I.
1<
tp
n
CD I
C
?s Cr
+h???? 4
n
? 3.
p y
f/ A

u?uei?
Oy

S`
r
?O
Vow
.W . -_!
0
G-
/
o?
01
L
3?r
s
/
/
/
/
E k T 'y i ? 9 _
1
N m o 0 0 0 0 5 * cw 0
O
o E
ti
as
a
a
a p
a 0 fD
3 rt
-
0 -110 1 o 0 0 O o d N ?
D
? N
(n
(A
(n
(n
(A
m
O
N
0 3
-?
N
M
to (D
fm to
?3 C
c
m
1 3 3 3 3
CD 3 3 N m
3
0 0 W D 'A 0
0
o?o?ooo

f?
Co ?
(D

/
/

m

D

=
0
a -r
0000
T
T
7 O N N
Z o iD 0
5D-

W r
orrnncn0

?I E50
G m

z

7
O
CD
D]
0
C
Q)

?i f »

tD 00 0 0 0 0
? QL 0 0 0 0 3 r
0
-• D -n . 1 -% o 3

M
U)
U)
O t O
N
fm 40 to #m a

(D
(D
N
CD
N
p O
Q m
+n

Co
5 .
(n
p
o?o?ooo
Miller Branch Tributary

s
S
N ??
6,4
/
000 000 C,
0
e
7,4t

/
a4 ?

40 ?
00
O
vi 3

N 0 ?Ico
N Cow
N
o0
a
gdl'
!al
/ 01AJ6

mob
(D'
//.4////

_ _ q?r-ate

4

O

1
/
0 0
o
m
1
8
-ate
o
0
4C)
x

O
Jj
x
/ 0
ii o
r.
N
/

.??
s?
.,
*oo
yc?°
cl.
/

?
0
.00

Clarks Creek
Tributauta V
"',/.sr
1
OC /
? o
3 n??i

D ?%
O
o
o = w
r
(D=
cr
=r 0 MX
0
CD
Q c
=a 00
;0 m
O

Z z c
G) D p
0 /

U1 o m U) 0
0 0
0D g m
>

O

//
ON MO 0 0 0 0 o * 4 Q

-F
7' 1
? = M. M. M
(P • Q a. d 0. ?. 1 ? 3 r
0
D -no 0 0 0 o C '^ 3
o `
(D
N
cn
0)
m
(n

g

o
p ?o p ,o 'o o a -u r

< 3 3 m m m
s ? cmi
lD (D
, > >
-. >
..
; z
.. ?
p 0 0o o

a ?

41-
0-1-10
m
(D (D
a
IC7

+ +
+ + + +
_ AN
+ + + +
4 + + +
+++
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + +
N N + +
++1?++
+ t + + +
-a
O
2
n
N
/

nro mC) n n n p cn
o (D o 0 0 o m t
3 (D
//r// / m a s a n a G. 3 r
D '710 0 0 0 o y ?, 3 :-
N cn (n (n ?n (n 0
m m m fD m 0
t0
U3 to 0. 0 frrl
3 3 3
< CD
(D / /// ? C7 CD D m ? ??
/

%
0
O
0
a
r
J
11, i

c
-v
ca
04.
m
µ = D
= 00 ? 0
o
0 ADO
°. _ in
.?
;-n--j
w 0 v i-
Wo:0 (n0
° m p 0
t0 m
0
O
z
// /// + I + 11

++++++
+++++
++++++
++++++
+ + + + + +
++++++
++++++
\ + + + + + +

0T
IO
0
m
z
n
£ 5 Win L10,11,
oV elicouX3 90

+
+
i +
+
++
++++++
++++++
+++++
++++++
++++++
++++++
+++++
+++++
0
0
-v
w
0
0)
a

N
OJ\-

0
0
+ ?.A
+ s
++
+++
++++
+ + + + AN

+++++
++++++
++++++
+ + + + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + + +
+ + + + +
+ + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ + + + + +
+ + + + + +
+ + + + + +
+ + + + + +
+ + + + +
+++++
++++
,QJ
W Q\??
Q0`6
Q
m (lily m m = = = = = = = = = = = = ® = =
Q?)
aeS eu?,? ??1 W ?
x
6-£ a?q!u v ?v ????
0 (
Q. \
o
J7
% Q \
C
=r \ 0
CL
f
1
O
2
n
i
N
y
N
O
O
O
Ul
n
r
m
h)
O
+O
O T
\ 0
O
X
CO
m
z N
\ 0?
G?
mn
Match Line See Exhibit 3.3-11
a
m CD
3
C/) a
W p =r (D
o =
a
aJ??
?a'0 + +
??\Q?+ +++++++++++ C)
+ + + + + Q
6 +t++++
+ + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + +
+ + Ilk Tributary
+ + + + +
+ + + + + +
+ + + +
j + t t + }
/ + + + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + + + CO
.?, +++ C:
s . -p p //ii• / + + + + + + Ai CAD
W rr// ? } + + + + +
+++++++ + `C
m d
ON m0 0 0 0 0 O ? 4 n
0 (D
M ',•Y/
2-1 -4 r//3.3(// °
a a a a :) r
=r 0 00 O /iilfi // m? M.
_ 0 -no D o 0 o 0 o a .3
/0 1 1 1 1 1 -n N
=+ O CD M
m m m( c
C 40 40
O o ? ((D O ', ?? m >> m m m o N m
J y? ry>v Z
r +; j +d a y a O n D y
W Z7 u) P
r
s T + / 'e c I
0

N
O
O
O
N
C1
D
r
m
N
O
O
0
See Exhibit 3.3-10
too
Ad?/r R
°aa
0
\`j0
?I
oel-
n
m?
6G
d
Math C?r?e 3
eQ Lr
khibl
t '3' 3'4

1.1

x o - r
f
o
m X 7
°
000

-? :U .17
o
0 0
Z Z D 0
0 0 =
cn,
-,,
UI o m Ln 0
-
a m ,?
o
?.

(n

w
i-?
At
Ailk
-4 r
? yyk
u 9 ?
?? - - JAG
4 k r'
4
j
Match
O
0
O
U)
G)
K
m
z
o?
G,, n
m0
CD
N m
?n
? 3 .
I
/
/

I I A
= to .?
0 110
I (b .

Q ?, ro
' w?E3

N
O
O
O
a
r
9m
LL8

I
+:+.
= D Match Line
m o r gee Exhibit 3.3-13
Cr 00 0
Q O
C ;7 X ;v
o-< ;o

O F
o

_..
Crn E5
G)
D O
1 ?
/?
Ty U)
W O ;o V/ O
a rno n
N o m D
-i

O
Z
u)

or I

a ,
016
?.
0D 0 S
N ?aa ??
CD +
U) CD
o =L

/
N
O
O
AN
D
r:
?m .
ys?
?a
SOG i'6)
N,•
a
/ C7
T1 io
i m
/ ' Q
i i rn
,11
I

¦1

_ 0
Match Une
ee Exhibit 3.3-12 N :r 0
77
CD :3
1

ON m 0 -`

c0
=? 0
= 0
1 0
1
1 0
? 8
??
0
m 1
a0. M a a a , 3 r
0 0 o o
-
0
cn
cn
m
( n
o
o
w
N
CD (D

to
3

to
3
CD
,o
0
CL
v

0

r
m
3 3
m m > > o CL m
4. z
o n oo D N v

v
rn
D
= r
-
x cr
X0 00 0
o-< ;a
0 =D 0
0
D
W o ;u (A 0
° m0 0
o m D

O

/
dry, ?
P-
?o
'
r
`J.

b
1.
? s
/
N
O
O
O
N
n
rr
m
N
O
us
0

s?
02 `?S
CL
v
rn
2 D
o F) r
X
7, 0
A
0000
Q T
O ;U N
O {
Z Z?mv
0
o O 2
?
?
'? -I
iA
1 ? cn
O m
oo
o m>

O
Z

/

o?
MEAL
?N
o'a
%f -

m

0 0 n
0 o O
0 0 3 r
CL to 3
U (n p N 0 m
M
m (3D :3 G)
o
3 - N' co a m
W D p

N rno 9) 0

cD
o o
_ =r
1 1
3
1
1
1
co a
s
O d
0 O O
m

3 3 3
m (D

0

%?
so
?X

O
da
101.
iP4
0
"p-
LO
?OO
Miller Branch Tributary
D Co
?0 (m
d
0
CD

O yo'F \
tU• ? o-y
fA C
< p
N :3
/
/
m m = = = = ' = = m m = = = = = = m
4:
000,
mo o 0 0 o p* N 0
0CO oo o 0 o o 0 m
=
((p ? a CL a a a ~a 3 r-
o D -n 0 0 0 0 N N ?•
` coo Cn to (/) m m o o m
M CD =' m G7
p n p D ?^ p
I
(D
CD
w
CD
m
O
w
CL

11,

N
O
O
O
N
s
r
m
N
O
0
0

CD
aye
ya
0
N
CD
CD
f?
a
w
.w
j
I
°
m
D
o =
m
? 0 000

-c
o Ta
.? 3
Z z G)DO
?
W = m
?
W cn 0
m

(l
o o 0
m D
Z

`
v-
0
0
X,
CD

O `
\ N
V /
a
ao
O

f

Q?
c
(n
r
w o
CD
CD
x
/.

Cl.

?l• iiii/ / iiii

07

cl

i

/ / /0',,\
\.
s?

m m m m s m m m m m m m m m m r m m m

o0)
3s
3?
c o-
m su
O (D
N
O t?
O
O
Vl
n
D
r
m
to
O
O
O '
O,
A f,

m
D
M ?
o =
-?
--10
x a :;K 0
OO -
Q Co.,
; gym;
O -?
-«

Z
.?
z _
c p
C)DO
O o 2(
-n
D
w ; u cn p
00 N
(0 _
7? a1 1 1 1 '? ? 0' 0
0 110 O O O O 1 O 3 r
o D 1 -% "-4 1 11 N , 3
fD m m m m m g n
v to U3 ,o a -o r
3 3 3 3- 0 m
CCD co m °- C:3 G)
. m
v n m D p
ME; 0
<
O
4
/ 1
s /
/
?I
r

90
CD W
3s
O
. Q'
=-w

Table 3.6 Historic Structures Considered Eligible for Inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places
Corridor Exhibit
Site N Property Name Location Description Reference
A17 St. Stephens School A original building is 3.3-4
' Period style with
English antecedents

' B. Archaeological Resources
An archaeological survey was conducted as detailed in An
Archaeological Survey of the Proposed East Side Thoroughfare (Hargrove,
January 1991), appended by reference. The purpose of this survey was to
' examine the project area for prehistoric or historic archaeological sites with
significant remains that might be eligible for nomination to the National
' Register of Historic Places. Coordination with local historic societies and the
North Carolina Office of State Archaeology was initiated prior to conducting
the field work. Other background research included a review of maps and
secondary historical sources. No known archaeological sites and no National
Register structures with archaeological components were identified.
I The archaeological field survey methods relied heavily on screened
' shovel tests since most of the project area is in forest or pasture. In areas with
exposed surfaces (plowed fields, farmroads, treefalls, etc.), the surveyors
' closely examined the area starting with parallel transects spaced approximately
20 meters apart. The field survey resulted in the identification of three
prehistoric sites and one historic period site as described in Table 3.7.

1 3-29

Site No.
31CT146
31CT147
31CT148
31CT149
Table 3.7 Archaeologic Resources
Corridor
Twe Location Description
prehistoric D Potential Middle or Late
Woodland Woodland stratified site
prehistoric D Isolated find consisting
lithic of a single flake
prehistoric B Isolated find consisting
Early Archaic of a single Early Archaic
projectile point. Area
heavily impacted by
activities associated with
a stone quarry.
Huffman-Seaboch A
Cemetery
Family cemetery recently
restored by the Catawba
County Genealogical
Society
Sites 31CT147 and 31CT148 do not have the potential to provide
important information on the region's prehistory beyond what has already been
collected during the survey. The cemetery does not meet the National Register
criteria, since it does not contain graves of persons important in history, it has
no distinctive design features, nor is it associated with significant historic
events.
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurs that Sites
31CT147, 31CT148, and 31CT149 are not eligible for listing on the National
Register, and that site 31CT146 requires additional work (i.e., testing) to
determine its eligibility if it is impacted by the preferred alternative. A copy
of the SHPO letter presenting this opinion is included in Appendix B.
3-30

r

!J

3.2 Economic Setting
3.2.1 Industry and Employment
There is a diversity of businesses in Catawba County offering a range of
economic opportunities to residents in the project area. Table 3.8 presents an estimate
of manufacturing and non-manufacturing employment in Catawba County. The
major employment sectors are textiles at 12.6 percent, furniture manufacturing at 21.2
percent, trade at 21.8 percent, and service at 10.5 percent. The unemployment rate
in Catawba County is 4.0 percent as compared to the statewide rate of 4.6 percent,
according to the "North Carolina Preliminary Labor Force Estimates, January 1990"
prepared by the North Carolina Employment Security Commission.
Table 3.8 Employment, 1987
Emplovment Sector Number of Workers Percentage
Food 510 0.6
Textiles 10,080 12.6
Apparel 1,630 2.0
Lumber/Wood 1,500 1.9
Furniture 16,960 21.2
Paper 1,000 1.3
Printing 1,300 1.6
Rubber 1,550 1.9
Stone, Clay, Glass 570 0.7
Metals 3,420 4.3
Machinery 1,990 2.5
Other manufacturing 490 0.6
Construction 2,930 3.7
Transp., Commun., Utilities 2,700 3.4
Trade 17,400 21.8
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 1,560 2.0
Service 8,420 10.5
Government 5,720 7.2
Other non-manufacturing 190 0.2
TOTAL 79,920 100.0
Source: Foresight, The Environmental Scan, 1989.
3-31
r
3.2.2 Income
Income levels in Catawba County compare favorably with those statewide as
shown in Table 3.9 which presents per capita income for 1966, 1975, and 1987.
Table 3.9 Per Capita Income, 1966-1987
1966 1975 1987
Catawba $ 2,831 $ 5,242 $ 14,292
County
North $ 2,338 $ 4,860 $ 13,322
Carolina
Source: Foresight. The Environmental Scan. 1989.
3.2.3 Economic Development
The Land Development Plan for the Hickory Regional Planning Area identifies
an area between Highland Avenue and I-40 as the "Railroad Corridor" (see Exhibit
1.5 in Section 1.0 of this document). This area is targeted for manufacturing,
warehousing, office, and institutional economic development activity. One objective
of the Land Development Plan is to facilitate the smooth flow of employee traffic
through the area, and zoning ordinance provisions have been updated to encourage
the assembly of large parcel and planned development. The Southern Railway is an
integral part of the transportation system available to serve industry in this area.
The Land Development Plan also identifies an area directly to the south of the
"Railroad Corridor", between I-40 and US 70, as the "64/70 Corridor". This area is
designated for commercial development and redevelopment. Targeted uses include
regional shopping and businesses.
3-32

3.3 Physical Setting
3.3.1 Water Resources
Water bodies within the project area include six main watercourses and
associated tributaries, and two ponds. These resources are identified and described
in the technical report entitled Environmental Impacts Associated with the Proposed
East Side Thoroughfare from US 70 to NC 127 Hickory. Catawba County (Jernigan,
August 1990), appended by reference. Table 3.10 provides a summary of identified
resources, including resource type and location as well as a cross-reference to Exhibit
3.3 which shows details of the various corridor locations. An overview of stream
locations is shown on Exhibit 2.1.
Table 3.10 Water Resources
Name Resource Location Exhibit
Type Reference
Lake lake 0.5 mile north of 3.3-9
Hickory project area
Falling watercourse northwestern 3.3-1, 3.3-2,
Creek portion of project 3.3-3, and 3.3-9
area
Snow watercourse northeastern 3.3-3, 3.3-4,
Creek portion of project 3.3-10, and
area 3.3-11
Lyle Creek watercourse middle portion of 3.3-5, 3.3-6,
project area 3.3-12, and
3.3-13
Miller watercourse middle portion of 3.3-6, 3.3-7,
Branch project area 3.3-14, and
3.3-15
Herman watercourse middle portion of 3.3-4, 3.3-5, and
Branch project area 3.3-12
Clarks watercourse southern portion of 3.3-7, 3.3-8,
Creek project area 3.3-15, and
3.3-16
3-33
Lake Hickory is an artificial lake created by the construction of the Oxford
Dam which impounds the Catawba River, a part of the Santee-Cooper River System.
The water quality classification of Lake Hickory and the Catawba River is A-11 and
B meaning they can be used for water supply with approved treatment and for body
contact recreation (Lake Hickory is the sole water source for the City of Hickory and
Town of Longview). Falling Creek and Snow Creek drain north through the project
area into Lake Hickory. Lyle Creek, Miller Branch, Clarks Creek, and Herman
Branch drain southeast and southwest through the Catawba River Basin. The water
quality classification of all watercourses is C which means they are suitable for fish
and wildlife propagation as well as boating and other water activities.
A general description of watercourses in the project area is as follows.
Watercourse bottoms vary from sand to sand/gravel to sand/rock. The water is clear
and flows vary from slow to moderately fast. Lyle, Falling, Snow, and Clarks Creeks
are the largest watercourses with widths ranging from 17 to 25 feet. Riffle zones and
pools are present in the larger,,, swifter flowing watercourses, providing possible
habitat for fish. Water depth varies from 1 to 12 inches. Bank heights range from
1 to 10 feet with 4 feet being a representative mode. Little aquatic vegetation was
found. Soarganium sp. and Ludwigia sp. were sparsely present in Snow Creek and
its tributaries. Fish expected to be present include redbreast, bluegill, small- and
largemouth bass, chubs, shiners, and suckers. Although the smaller tributaries are
generally insignificant for fishing importance with few fish food organisms being
found, they are still biologically important for supporting life downstream.
In addition to the watercourses discussed above, there are two ponds located
in the project area. A 1.03 acre pond surrounded by a manicured lawn bank with an
average height of 2.5 feet is located within Corridor Segment B as shown on Exhibit
3.3-6. Tag alder and a rush were growing at the water fringe., Carp and bullfrogs
were observed in and around the pond. A second small (1.5 acre) pond is located
within Corridor Segment F as shown on Exhibit 3.3-4 and 3.3-12.
3-34

3.3.2 Floodolains
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published a flood
insurance study for the area within the extraterritorial limits of the City of Hickory
' in February 1981. This study established and mapped the 100-year flood boundaries.
The area of the 100-year flood is divided into a floodway and a floodway fringe. The
floodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be
kept free of encroachment in order that the 100-year flood may be carried without
substantial increases in flood heights.
' The floodplains and associated floodways in the project area are located along
the six main watercourses and their tributaries as shown on Exhibit 3.3. Many of the
smaller tributaries have well defined channels with minimal floodplain development.

3.3.3 Wetlands
' Three jurisdictional wetlands, as defined by the US Army Corps of Engineers,
were identified within the project area. Details are provided in the technical report
entitled Environmental Impacts Associated with the Proposed East Side Thoroughfare
from US 70 to NC 127, Hickory, Catawba County (Jernigan, August 1990), appended
' by reference. Wetland delineations were done using the methodology of the Federal
Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation (1989), including the use of the three
parameter approach for delineating jurisdictional wetlands using vegetation, soils and
hydrology. Wetland margins were marked with white flags and/or orange flagging
to facilitate later confirmation by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The wetlands
are listed in Table 3.11 which includes a physical description and cross-reference to
Exhibit 3.3 subnumbers.
All wetlands in the project area are typical bottomland hardwood forests.
These forests are dominated by red maple, yellow poplar, sweetgum, and river birch.
1 3-35

The average diameter at breast height (dbh) of the canopy dominants ranges from 6
to 10 inches with a maximum dbh of 20 inches. The sapling/shrub layer of this forest
type is comprised primarily of red maple, river birch, tag alder, common elderberry,
and American holly. The groundcover consists of giant cane, sedges, a rush,
Christmas fern, and assorted briars.
Table 3.11 Wetlands
Exhibit
Wetland No. Size c Tvge J Reference Comments
W 1 2.35 BHF 3.3-3, and Wetland has undergone selective
3.3-4 harvesting of canopy trees;
sewer line has been installed
through wetland.
W 2 0.37 BHF 3.3-6, and Wetandtis located adjacent to
3.3-7 a large area which has recently
been cleared and was
undergoing filling with soil at
time of field investigation.
W 3 0.19 BHF 3.3-10, and Wetland is completely
3.3-11 surrounded by residential
development.
Notes:
J BHF = Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Source: Environmental Impacts Associated with the Proposed East Side Thoroughfare from
US 70 to NC 127, Hickory. Catawba County; letter from Wetland Ecosystems
Technologists dated October 31, 1990.
None of the wetlands in the project area represent unique habitats. All have
been altered directly or indirectly as the result of development. Table 3.11 includes
a description of disturbances to the wetland areas which affect the quality and
function of the wetlands. These disturbances have had negative effects on the quality
and function of the habitat with respect to wildlife usage, flood control and
groundwater recharge. However, the wetlands still have some value as wildlife
corridors and habitat for small animals.
3-36

' 3.3.4 Vegetation
' The vegetation within the project area can be characterized by seven types
including bottomland hardwood forest, hardwood forest, mixed hardwood-pine forest,
' pine forest, cultivated field, pasture, and grassed area. Bottomland hardwood forest
is described in Section 3.3.3 of this document.
The hardwood forests are dominated by white oak, red oak, mockernut
hickory, sweetgum, yellow poplar, and red maple. The average dbh of the canopy
dominants ranges from 8 to 12 inches. Persimmon occurred occasionally in the
canopy. The understory of these forests is comprised primarily of American holly,
' flowering dogwood, American beech, and red cedar. Groundcover consists mostly of
scattered patches of great cane, Christmas fern, partridge berry, spotted wintergreen,
heartleaf, and crane-fly orchid.
The mixed hardwood-pine forests are dominated by the same hardwoods as
the hardwood forest, but various combinations of pines share the canopy. Four pine
1 species occur within this forest type including shortleaf pine, Virginia pine, white
pine, and loblolly pine. Shortleaf and Virginia pines are the most abundant, while
' Loblolly pine is not as abundant as the other three species. The understory is
primarily American holly, American beech, and flowering dogwood. Some of these
mixed forests also have mountain laurel and red cedar. The groundcover is comprised
' of spotted wintergreen, crane-fly orchid, Christmas fern, partridge berry, giant cane,
and greenbriar.
The pine forests range from pure stands of the aforementioned pines to mixed
stands of 2 to 3 species. Mixed stands of shortleaf and Virginia pine account for 65
percent of the pine forests. Pure stands of shortleaf pine account for 15 percent, pure
1 stands of Virginia pine for I 1 percent, and pure stands of loblolly pine for 4 percent.
3-37

The remainder of the pine forests are mixed stands of shortleaf, Virginia and white
pine (5%), and a mixed stand of loblolly and Virginia pine (<1%). The average dbh
for the pines ranges from 8 to 12 inches. The understory development in the pine
forests is sparse and comprised of a few scattered flowering dogwood and American
holly. The groundcover is also poorly developed with only scattered patches of ground
pine, heartleaf, and crane-fly orchid.
Other habitats that occur within the project corridors include cultivated fields,
pastures, and grassed areas. Cultivated fields are defined as currently having a crop
or having had a crop within the past year or two. Pastures are defined as grassed areas
(mown or unmown) which are fenced for the purpose of grazing livestock. Pastures
sometimes contain a few scattered trees. Grassed areas are distinguished from pastures
in that they are unfenced and appear to be regularly mown; however, they are not
closely associated with residential or commercial development. No unique habitats
or natural areas occur within the project corridors.
3.3.5 Wildlife
The diversity of vegetative types within the project area provides a wide range
of habitats capable of supporting various wildlife species including deer, fox, racoon,
muskrat, opossum, squirrel, rabbit, quail, dove, songbirds, woodpeckers, hawks, owls,
waterfowl, and various amphibians, reptiles and fish. Species observed during the
field studies included squirrels, racoon, deer, red-tailed hawks, songbirds, bullfrogs,
and pickeral frogs.
3.3.6 Protected Species
Under federal law, any federal action which is likely to result in a negative
impact to federally-protected plants or animals is subject to review by the US Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under one or more provisions of the Endangered Species
3-38

Act (ESA) of 1973. In the case of a state-funded action where federal wetland
permits are likely to be required, for example, the USFWS can require consultation
to insure that the proposed action does not jeopardize any endangered, threatened or
proposed species. Even in the absence of federal actions, the USFWS has the power,
through the provisions of Section 9 of the ESA, to exercise jurisdiction on behalf of
a protected plant or animal. The USFWS and other wildlife resource agencies also
exercise jurisdiction in this resource area in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.). North Carolina
laws are also designed to protect certain plants and animals where statewide
populations are in decline.
A. Federally-listed Species
' As part of its mandated role, the USFWS provided written notification of one
federally-listed species that may occur within the impact area of the proposed action.
This one species, Hexastylis naniflora (listed in Table 3.12), is known only from an
eight-county area in the upper piedmont of North Carolina and adjacent South
' Carolina. Catawba County supports one of the 24 known populations, a large site
including over 1,000 plants. This site has been protected to a limited extent through
the Natural Areas Registry Program of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program

t
I

(NC NHP). Hexastvlis naniflora grows in acidic soils along bluffs and adjacent slopes,
in boggy areas next to streams and creekheads, and along the slopes of nearby hillsides
and ravines. The species is distinguished from other members of the genus Hexastvlis
by its small flowers and its distinctive habitat.
Table 3.12 Listing of Federally-protected Species
Which May Occur Within the Study Area
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME US STATUS
Hexastvlis naniflora Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf Threatened
3-39

There are no bluffs in the project area; however, several boggy areas occur
around the headwaters of some of the area watercourses. Field investigations
conducted in mid-March yielded no evidence of this species in these boggy areas or
elsewhere within the project area. Although mid-March is too early in the season for
the dwarf-flower heartleaf to be in flower, the heartleaves that were found were in
flower and were keyed to other species. Consultation with the NC NHP indicates that
the known population occurs in the southern part of Catawba County, outside the
project area.
B. State-listed Species
Plants or animals with state designations of Endangered, Threatened, or Special
Concern are granted protection by the State Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331
to 113-337) and the State of NC 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.
The NC Natural Heritage Program was contacted for information regarding
State-listed species. No State-protected species were identified in addition to the
species in the "Federally-listed" section. One species, which has no legal protection
at present, but which is being considered for state listing, possibly for special concern
status or undetermined status, was identified as potentially occurring within the
project area. Dactvlocvthere isabelae (ostracod) has been found in Lyle Creek.
3.3.7 Prime and Important Farmlands
Prime farmlands are those identified at the federal level as best suited for
producing feed, fiber, food, forage, and oilseed crops. The soil qualities are such
that sustained high yields can be accomplished using acceptable farming methods.
Important farmlands are identified at the state level as those soils able to economically
3-40

Fil

I

J

produce crops with management utilizing current farming methods. Of the eighteen
soils that occur within the project area, seven are classified as prime and seven are
classified as important. Prime and Important Farmlands within the study corridors,
as identified by the USDA Soil Conservation Service, are shown on Exhibit 3.4.
3.3.8 Mineral Resources
The project area is underlain by late Proterozoic and Cambrian metamorphic
and metaigneous rock of the Inner Piedmont Geologic Belt. Gneiss, granite, diorite,
and schist are the dominant bedrock. Exposures are common in existing road cuts and
excavations found along the project corridors. Deep residual clays underlain by clayey
silts and sandy silts are expected to be found on upland portions of the project.
Alluvial soils encountered along the corridors are typically 100 to 300 feet wide, five
to 20 feet deep and consists of variable layers of sands, silts, clays, and gravel. Hard
rock is expected in cuts deeper than 25 feet throughout the area with shallow rock in
areas of granite and diorite bedrock.
Martin Marietta Aggregates' Hickory Quarry is located to the west of Corridor
B, as shown on Exhibit 3.3-7 and 3.3-8. Rock mined in this quarry is the Cambrian
Henderson Gneiss which is a gneissic biotite monzogranite with megacrysts of
microcline. Minable deposits of Henderson Gneiss contiguous to the quarry may be
present on Corridor B from Sweetwater Road to Clarks Creek. The mine map filed
with the Hickory Quarry mining permit indicates future expansion areas for the
quarry, including several mine pit sites to the north of the existing pit and an
overburden storage area to be located on the northeast corner of the quarry property.
No other economic deposits of rocks or minerals are known to exist within the
project corridors.
3-41

3.3.9 Visual Environment
The project area includes a mix of urban and suburban uses. Visual quality
ranges from low to moderate throughout the project area depending on the density
and type of manmade development. The predominant landform is moderate rolling
hills. Creeks and associated floodplains are narrow. Manmade development includes
residential uses in the northern portion of the project area and commercial/ industrial
uses in the southern portion. There are no designated open or green areas within the
project area and vegetation consist of pasture, cropland, and forest.
Persons who would be likely to view the proposed roadway include persons
driving on the road and persons living near the road. Those driving on the road are,
for the most part, using the road for local trips between their residence and local
employment centers, shopping, or services. The number of persons using the road will
be relatively high in comparison to the overall number of persons using roadways in
the project area. The number of residents who will have a view of the roadway from
their property will be relatively low in comparison to the overall population in the
project area.
3.3.10 Noise
The sensitivity of an area to highway noise is a function of land use. Noise
sensitive land uses within the project area include schools, churches, and residences.
There are no planned developments that are noise sensitive.
Most of the residential development in the project area occurs north of Spencer
Road along corridor segments A, C, E, and F. Sensitive land uses along Corridor
Segment A include strip residential development and two churches located adjacent
to existing 29th Avenue, and St. Stephens Elementary School. Corridor Segment C
includes strip residential development and one church located along existing Cloninger
Mill and Kool Park Roads, and low to moderate density residential development
3-42
Ob0d \i
N
?O
O
?d
a
rs
0
ti
°
o O
'd
m
x
U
7
U
W co
060 °
v
v
? S
U 9
? `? N?I3H1 nos ?? bl
3nN3^ b pN b'HpIH

Od
z
o
N
o
Q

?

w

U
p
U

s
0 QZ
1-

?

?

0

Q

M
-
= W CD

O
?+
- m

X

Y 0
3 LLJ
? Q
L- W
= v ?
U ?
O
?yyydd ?,
%O ?
4-
-0
Olt
Od,
&,? ONI?d
S

LL- W

Z

0

`
7Q
y
r w

0
w

CIA I, U
d- ?p J
?s

boy =W
?W
ax
+O
??? cn
3nN3ny is iz
s
e°PO
o?
b ? ,o
J
S "'tic s
Oa N i b
Od H 21b'd 1
00 H
Pp ?? 8
c?
?O

W
J C3

Q
p
4 Oa

Z .%
0 c
2
0

U
J
CO
a
Q
O ?
Z
?

Cl J
J
ObO? 'a'

Cl)
p?iNo?
?
J o
2
4
J

J
Cl)
O
J
O
Q

a
c
(a cc cB

cU
O
cr
0
-J LL
cr O U- (? M
O O O
x U d -
ti
N
N
N
E
w
J
Q
U

where the corridor is on new location. Corridor Segments E and F are entirely on new
location and are characterized by low to moderate density residential development.
Some residential development and community facilities occur in the southern
portion of the project area. Alternative locations for the proposed roadway through
this area include Corridor Segments B and D. Both corridors are characterized by
scattered residential development north of Highland Avenue and between Tate
Boulevard and I-40. Other sensitive uses along Corridor Segment D include the
Catawba Valley Community College, a retirement center, and a public housing
I project.
' Ambient noise conditions in the project area were identified by measuring
existing noise levels in the field. Noise measurements were taken at 30 sites on
February 20 and 21, and March 20 and 21. The locations of these sites, shown on
Exhibit 3.5, were selected to be representative of sensitive land uses in the project
area. Monitoring at sites along existing roadways included two reference
measurements so that noise drop-off rates could be calculated. A single measurement
was taken at each remote site.
I r-l
I

F-]
t
Existing noise levels were measured with a GR 1981-B Precision Sound-
Level-Meter with a flat random-incidence response Electret-Condensor Microphone
following the methodology outlined in the FHWA report, Sound Procedures for
Measuring Highway Noise. Measurements were taken at ten second intervals for
periods of eight to nine minutes.
Noise measurements are reported in terms of the Equivalent Sound Level

(Leq). Leq is a statistical sound level average and is the standard measurement used
to evaluate and compare noise levels. The unit used to quantify Leq is A-weighted
3-44
1
decibels (dBA). Decibel is the unit used to measure sound energy, and A-weighted
decibel is the scale that most closely approximates human frequency response
Existing Leq levels were found to range from 72 to 40 dBA. The 72 dBA level
was measured at site 13 which is located approximately 50 feet from the centerline
of 27th Street Drive, a service road which runs parallel to I-40. The 40 dBA level was
measured at sites 18 and 26, both of which are remote locations. Vehicular traffic was
found to be the predominant source of noise in the project area. Table 3.13 presents
a summary of ambient noise measurements.
The ambient noise measurements were used to estimate existing noise levels
at all potentially impacted receivers in the project area so that potential impacts
associated with the proposed project could be evaluated. Details, including a listing
of all potentially impacted receivers under each of the eight Build Alternatives, are
presented in the technical report entitled Noise Impact Assessment Report.
3.3.11 Air Quality
The project area is located in Catawba County which is in the Eastern
Mountain Air Quality Control Region. Ambient air quality in the county meets all
National Ambient Air Quality Standards, according to 1988 Ambient Air Quality
Re or published by the NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources in February 1990. Catawba County is classified as an air quality attainment
area in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Since the SIP does not contain any
transportation control measures for the project area, the conformity procedures of 23
CFR 770 do not apply.
3-45
Obod
A7
C,,?
2*0
d6
Yp
O
ti
° o
a (`)
T
U
O O
U ? N T
W
> ` Od
W 0 0d,
U d?
a ?b?f O
N
S
Ob'b
7? X00 O
O e T
.? ? N21?H1 nos
?3nN3^b p?b?H?IH
O
rn
m O
O
U
ObOdO c°
?30N?dS
Oa,
Od,
?s
?o
ti
+C,
?J
?s
P?
?O
gQvl\?
°
Q
O
X
ce)
CD
2
Cl)
I
Cl)
10
O
od 0 c
W w
z w v U) !n
o

0
?

Q

Lia

QL
= s

o
Z
c O

Z

z

w

In
M
f-
m
IX
Y

? cr
=

~
.a w
Fn

a
w
D
a x
w
= v
U w
m
O
?Zyyd 6
7
d?O om
I

L W

7
Q w
O
v s 0
r w

O
U c0

?w
3? N3ny 1S IZ
O

• c
O
E

3 0
? ?
O
p cr U
O
J U
O
Z

O
O ?
?° e
a) IA
C) cr U Q -
/ O V
T ? SON14-10 a
O d0
LOb°d ti O
Htlbd l00m ?sz
° O
o a
+% N
J ?\O
N `O Q OG
U
J Cl)
N 0
Z_
J ?
J
N
pb0& ?
N T p?/ti0
?J
V
3%AV-1
A80'IOIH
a?
E
w
J
Q
U
U)
m m== m ® m == m m = m w r r m

Table 3.13 Ambient Noise Conditions
Lea at Reference Distances
Site Site
No Location 50 100, 200 '
1 NC 127 & 30th Avenue NE 66 62
2 29th Ave. Dr. NE & 3rd Street NE 63 59
3 29th Ave. Dr. NE & 8th Street Court 59 58
4 29th Ave. Dr. NE & Sandy Ridge Road 58 55
5 29th Ave. Dr. NE & 20th St. Lane NE 59 55
6 24th Street NE & 19th Avenue NE 56 51
7 Springs Road & 18th Avenue NE 59 54
8 22nd St. Place NE & 9th Ave. NE 59
9 Highland Avenue & 23rd St. Circle NE 57 52
10 Tate Boulevard @ Miller Branch 63 60
11 Sweetwater Road & 22nd Street SE 60 55
12 22nd Street SE @ end of road 49
13 I-40 @ 25th St. Pl. SE & 27th St. Dr. SE 72 70
14 NC 127 & 1st Street Place NE 62 58
15 Cloninger Mill Rd. & 13th St. Cir. NE 57 50
16 Kool Park Road & 24th Street NE 57 50
17 24th Avenue NE & 25th Street NE 48
18 27th Street NE @ end of road 40
19 27th Street Drive NE & 6th Avenue NE 49
20 Highland Ave. NE & 33rd St. Court NE 63 57
21 Tate Boulevard @ retirement center 67 63
22 Sweetwater Road @ mobile home park 58 57
23 Sweetwater Road & 14th Ave. Cir. SE 58 54
24 US 70 @ Cat. Valley Com. College 61 58
25 Sandy Ridge Road @ Corridor Seg. E 62 50
26 22nd Street NE @ end of road 40
27 24th Street NE & 33rd Avenue NE 41
28 36th Ave. Drive NE & 37th Avenue NE 47
29 Sandy Ridge Road & 33rd Avenue NE 57 50
30 21 st Street NE & 29th Avenue Lane NE 44
Source: Field measurements taken February 20-21, 1990 and March 20-21, 1990.
3-47
3.3.12 Hazardous Materials / Underground Storage Tanks
The project area was surveyed to evaluate potential locations of hazardous
substances and/or waste sites. All potential locations and businesses located in the
project corridors were compared to file listings maintained by the Superfund Branch
of the North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Division of Health
Management Services, Solid Waste Management Section. The corridors were developed
to avoid impacts to businesses and the few businesses located within the corridor
boundaries are not listed in the State files. In addition, local public officials were
contacted to identify unlisted potential hazardous substances and/or wastes in the
project area, and the general public was asked to provide information on the project
area during public meetings. Local officials contacted include the director of public
works, the fire chief, the director of planning for the City of Hickory, and the
planning director for Catawba County. No hazardous waste sites were identified.
An open dump, approximately 10 acres in size, is located on the north side of
Cloninger Mill Road approximately 0.5 mile southeast of NC 127. It contains brush,
stumps, and building debris which is from three to ten feet deep and is not compacted
or buried. No hazardous materials are involved.
A field survey was conducted to identify sites with underground storage tanks.
Fourteen sites were identified in the general project area, including nine active gas
stations, two abandoned gas stations, and two businesses. These sites are described
in Table 3.14 and shown on Exhibit 3.6.
3-48
t
s
Table 3.14 Underground Storage Tanks
Site Site Site Number Approximate
No. Description Location of UST's Age of UST's
1 Wilco Food Mart NC 127 & Cloninger Mill 5 < 10 years
Road
2 Lake Hickory Village NC 127 & Cloninger Mill 4 < 10 years
Road
3 Quick Stop Cloninger Mill Road & Sandy 2 > 10 years
Ridge Road
4 abandoned Sandy Ridge Road 2 < 10 years
5 Shell Station NC 127 & 29th Avenue 3 < 10 years
6 Sunoco Station NC 127 & 29th Avenue n/a n/a
7 Northwood 76 NC 127 & 29th Avenue 4 > 10 years
8 Huffman Grading Co. 29th Avenue 1 > 10 years
9 Wilco Store 24th Street & Springs Road 5 < 10 years
10 abandoned Springs Road n/a > 10 years
11 Huffman Grading Co. Springs Road n/a n/a
12 Shell Station Springs Road n/a < 10 years
13 Sweetwater Grocery Sweetwater Road 4 < 10 years
14 Spur Station US 70 5 J n/a
Notes:
J tanks are located above ground
Source: Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, field survey Feb. 19-20, 1990.
3-49
o co
A??
hQ
0
Y,
d
a.
0
ti
0&
Oc
z
0
0
z
m
O
z
r
o?
° o
oa ?h
U
= O
U
W O m
> Oa `
°? ob °
0 O
V d?
I
J
Obb?? X00
8
/vhf nos 31 bl
3nN?^ b ON b-7N0/N
d.
??ON, d
0,0
S
LL
0
.D
O
Od
Od.
'1O
ti
410
r?
J?
S
?O
?Q?\aG5
U
AO
)lava 100)1
W
?I
O
A
O
Q
O
Cl)
2
a
Cl)
J
r
4
J
O
J
O
W
7
7Q
s
r
iD
P?
?O
(4p
2
O
x8o)40IH
O
?Z~yd ems,
dio Om
Z
W
J
3nN3nd 1S IZ
ti? sz
O
d
Y
W
U
t7
Z_
J
J
a
W
? o
(n W v
? ` i
Q
Z
a = 0
W
r
cr ?
00
.no
U F"' c
0
U
v
c
0
Z
D c)
WW cD

CD
cr
O Y m
=
w
o Cl) Q
z F-'
D
0

u)

3
_

cv co

U
Y
c
0
m 0
J
O
0

=
a
O

U Cl) -
OO/
ti
N
TAV -1
N
N
w
J
Q
U
r = m = m r m = m m m = = = m m = m
t

1
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This section identifies and discusses potential impacts which may occur if the construction
of the Hickory East Side Thoroughfare is implemented. It also identifies and discusses potential
mitigation strategies as appropriate. As stated in Section 2.0 of this report, corridor locations under
consideration for the proposed project are 400 feet in width. The alignment of the proposed roadway
may be shifted within the corridor during the design phase of the project depending on the need for
avoidance and/or mitigation of impacts.
4.1 Land Use Impacts
The eight Build Alternatives under consideration for the proposed Hickory East Side
Thoroughfare are consistent with the economic development goals identified in Land
Development Plan for the Hickory Regional Planning Area in that they include an interchange
at I-40 and will serve as an important connection between the developing industrial area and
the interstate. They also provide for improved access to the northern residential area and
provide a connecting route between this residential area and retail and employment centers.

s

As noted in Section 3.1.2 of this document, the area between Tate Boulevard and I-
40 is zoned for industrial uses but currently developed as residential. A transition in land
use has been occurring in this area as the industrial area expands. This trend can be expected
to accelerate if the proposed roadway is implemented because the improved access provided
by the roadway will increase the demand for industrially zoned land. Similarly, the proposed
roadway can be expected to accelerate land development throughout the project area as a
result of the improved access that the roadway would provide.
4.2 Prime and Important Farmland
Coordination with the USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was initiated to identify

impacts to farmland which could result from the conversion of Prime and Important Farmland
to roadway use. Copies of the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form AD-1006 are
provided in Appendix B.
4-1

L
The SCS indicates that areas which are urbanized or planned for urbanization are not
covered by the Farmland Protection Act. This applies to all of the Prime and Important
Farmland within the project corridors. The entire project area falls under the planning
jurisdiction of the Hickory Regional Planning Commission and is planned for development
of one type or another (see Exhibit 1.5). Therefore, Parts VI and VII of Form AD-1006 were
not completed and no Land and Site Assessment Score is given.
Although the Farmland Protection Act does not apply to the Prime and Important
Farmlands in the project area, these lands were given consideration in the evaluation of the
proposed project. Prime and Important Farmland areas located within the alternative project
corridors are shown on Exhibit 3.4. Table 4.1 presents a summary of potential farmland
t
impacts ranging from 67 acres under Alternative 8 to 21 acres under Alternative 1.
Table 4.1 Summary of Potential Prime and Important Farmland Impacts
Farmland Acre s within Alternative Proiect Corrid ors
Farmland Acres
Prime Important Total Within
Alternative Farmland Farmland Farmland Right-of-Way
1 47 16 63 21
3 55 30 85 30
4 64 49 113 40
5 60 32 92 42
7 68 46 114 54
8 77 65 142 67
9 68 50 118 54
10 60 58 118 54
4-2

J

I

t

t

J

1

4.3 Social Impacts
Social impacts evaluated for the proposed project include changes in neighborhood
or community cohesion, changes in travel patterns and accessibility, impacts on community
facilities and services, impacts on public safety, and impacts on general social groups such
as the elderly, handicapped, nondrivers, transit-dependent, and minority or ethnic groups.
4.3.1 Neighborhoods
Each of the eight Build Alternatives under consideration for the proposed
project was evaluated to determine potential impacts on neighborhoods, including the
division of neighborhoods, the isolation of a portion of a neighborhood, and the
separation of a neighborhood from community facilities. Two potential impacts were
identified.
Corridor Segment D bisects Paradise Valley Mobile Home Village, a recently
developed high density community. The 4-lane divided roadway proposed at this
location will divide the neighborhood in approximately in half. Internal circulation
within the neighborhood will be disrupted and neighbors at opposite ends of the
community will be required to cross the 4-lane arterial roadway in order to visit.
Possible mitigation for these neighborhood impacts includes the provision of service
roads to provide continuity for internal circulation; however, right-of-way acquisition
for such service roads will increase the number of relocations. An at-grade pedestrian
crossing can be used to provide safe access from one side of the neighborhood to the
other across the Hickory East Side Thoroughfare. Alternatives 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10
utilize Corridor Segment D.
The 29th Avenue Connector severs a portion of the Havenwood subdivision, a

moderate density residential development located to the north and east of 29th
4-3

Avenue. The 4-lane section proposed for the Connector will separate approximately
30 residences from the rest of the neighborhood. Possible mitigation for this '
neighborhood impact includes the provision of at-grade pedestrian crossings to
provide safe access across the proposed Connector. Alternatives 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10 ,
utilize the 29th Avenue Connector.
Table 4.2 identifies the potential neighborhood impacts associated with each
Build Alternative. ,
Table 4.2 Neighborhood Impacts - Potential Divided Neighborhoods I
Alternative Divided Neighborhood(s) Severity of Impact
i none none
3 Havenwood subdivision 30 residences separated
4 Havenwood subdivision 30 residences separated
5 P
di
ll
MH Vill
V id
30
d '
ara
se
a
age
ey res
ences separate
7 Havenwood subdivision 30 residences separated
Paradise Valley MH Village divided in half
8 Havenwood subdivision 30 residences separated
Paradise Valley MH Village divided in half
9 Havenwood subdivision 30 residences separated
Paradise Valley MH Village divided in half
,
10 Havenwood subdivision 30 residences separated
Paradise Valley MH Village divided in half

4.3.2 Travel Patterns and Accessibility
Minor realignment will be required to ensure safe movement of traffic on some '
neighborhood roads which intersect with the proposed roadway. However, access to
all
ro
erties
th
ill b
i
dj
t t
j
t
i
t t
n
i
hb
d
h
d
d ,
p
p
a
acen
e pro
w
o
ec
e ma
n
a
n access
g
an
o
e
or
oo
s
e
in general will be improved.
4-4 1

t

L J'
P?l

4.3.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Considerations
There does not appear to be any need for special accommodations for bicycles
and pedestrians along the proposed project. The proposed thoroughfare does not
correspond to a bicycle TIP request, nor is it part of the State Bicycling Highway
system. Although there is no indication of unusual levels of bicycling on the existing
roadways, reasonable efforts should be made to accommodate existing bicycle traffic
within the overall project design. There are no sidewalks along the existing roadways.
The project will enhance pedestrian and bicycle usage in that the 5-lane
typical section with curb and gutter lends itself readily to the development of sidewalk
and/or bike path facilities. Table 4.3 provides a summary of the potential lengths
available for pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Table 4.3 Potential Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Length of 5-lane Roadway
Alternative (miles)
1 5.0
3 5.3
4 5.8
5 4.0
7 4.3
8 4.8
9 4.4
10 4.9
Potential Length of
Pedestrian / Bicycle
Facility (miles) J
10.0
10.6
11.6
8.0
8.6
9.6
8.8
9.8
Notes:
J The potential for pedestrian / bicycle facilities exists along both sides of
the 5-lane roadway.
4-5

4.3.4 Community Facilities and Utility Services
Local officials were contacted to evaluate potential impacts to community
facilities and services including schools, recreation areas, churches, social services,
public works, and emergency services such as police and fire. The only facility
affected by any of the Build Alternatives is the pumping station located on the north
side of Cloninger Mill Road. The use of Corridor Segment C will require the
relocation of this pumping station, shown on Exhibit 3.3-9. Alternatives 3, 7, and 9
utilize Corridor Segment C. '
All of the Build Alternatives will require the relocation of water, sewer, '
electric, gas, and telephone lines commonly located along the existing road right-of-
ways throughout the project area.
4.3.5 Safety
Safety on roadways within the project area will be improved by the
construction of the proposed roadway, regardless of the Build Alternative selected.
The potential for accidents will be reduced by providing an alternate route through ,
congested areas. The additional through lanes will allow drivers to slow down for
right turns without slowing all through movements, and the center left-turn lane will
provide a place for motorists to stop before attempting a left-turn without hindering
traffic flow in either direction. ,
4.3.6 Social Groups I
The proposed project will not disproportionately benefit, harm, or impact any '
social group including the elderly, handicapped, nondrivers, transit-dependent, and
minority or ethnic groups, regardless of the Build Alternative selected.

4-6

4.4 Relocation Impacts
The Relocation Report identifies the number and type of households and businesses
which could be displaced during acquisition of right-of-way required for the proposed
project. It also includes information about minorities which could potentially be affected and
about the availability of housing and business sites for relocation. A copy of the Relocation
Report is included in Appendix C.
Information in the Relocation Report is provided by corridor segments. The
relocation impacts associated with a specific alternative are derived by combining the impacts
of each corridor segment utilized. Table 4.4 presents a summary of relocation impacts
associated with the various alternatives, including a breakdown of impacts by corridor
segments as provided in the Relocation Report.
Table 4.4 Summary of Potential Relocation Impacts
Corridor Residential Business Total
Alternative Sepments Relocations Relocations Relocations
1
A (2) 28 6 34
B 7 2 9
Total 44 8 32
3 C (1) 33 0 33
C (2) 0 0 0
C (3) 6 3 9
B 7 2 9
Connector 3 0 3
Total 49 5 54
4 E 10 0 10
C (2) 0 0 0
C (3) 6 3 9
B 7 2 9
Connector 3 0 3
Total 26 5 31
(continued)
4-7
Table 4.4 Summary of Potential Relocation Impacts (continued)
Corridor Residential Business Total
Alternative Sepments Relocations Relocations Relocations
5 A (1) 9 0 9
A (2) 28 6 34
D (1) 9 0 9
D (2) 17 1 18
Total 63 7 70
7 C (1) 33 0 33
)
C (3 6 3 9
D (1) 9 0 9
D (2) 17 1 18
Connector 3 0 3
Total 68 4 72
8 E 10 0 10
C (2) 0 0 0
C (3) 6 3 9
D (1) 9 0 9
D (2) 17 1 18
Connector 3 0 3
---------
Total --
45 -
4 --
49
9 C (1) 33 0 33
C (2) 0 0 0
F 7 0 7
D (2) 17 1 18
Connector 3 0 3
Total 60 1 61
10 E 10 0 10
C (2) 0 0 0
F 7 0 7
D (2) 17 1 18
Connector 3 0 3
Total 37 1 38
Source: NCDOT Relocation Report, August 1990
The number of potential residential relocations ranges from 26 to 68 households
depending on the alternative selected. Most of the households are owner occupied. No
minority families are involved. Relocation housing is readily available within the project
area.
4-8

h?

t

C]

The number of businesses which could be affected ranges from 1 to 8 businesses
depending on the alternative selected. These businesses support between 19 and 82
employees, of which between 4 and 12 employees are minorities. No permanent loss of
business services is anticipated.
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing would
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's 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 quality, 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). This program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in
4-9

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 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
di
l
ill b
ff
d i
ll
d
l
i
bl
i
bli
d
d
sp
ace
persons w
e o
ere
n areas not genera
y
ra
n regar
ess
es
e
to pu
c
utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices or 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
4-10

I?

11

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 Last Resort Housing Provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed $5,250 to rent
a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including incidental expenses, on the
purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the state
determines is required, when the rent supplement exceeds $5,250.
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 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 on the
project since there appears to be adequate opportunity for relocation within the area.
4-11

4.5 Economic Impacts
Economic impacts are similar, regardless of the Build Alternative selected for the
proposed project. Potential impacts to highway-related businesses such as gas stations and
convenience stores were evaluated. No long-term adverse impacts are anticipated because
travel patterns and roadway access will not change. Short-term impacts are limited to a
reduction in access during the construction phase. These impacts should be minimized by a
carefully planned construction schedule which allows traffic flow to remain on existing roads
to the maximum extent feasible.
Short-term benefits to the general economy that will result from the proposed project
include new jobs that will be created in the construction industry. Long-term benefits should
result from the new development and expansion of developments that will be encouraged by
the improved access. This development will occur in the existing commercial/industrial area
and will not adversely impact established businesses in the area. The new development will
increase the local tax base, leading to higher tax revenues for the local governments which
will more than offset increases in public expenditures for maintenance and related services.
New employment opportunities will improve the overall economy of the area.
4.6 Air Quality Impacts
An assessment of potential air quality impacts in the project area was conducted as
detailed in the Air Quality Technical Memorandum and summarized below. Air quality
concerns related to transportation involve increased carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations
since CO is the primary emission from motor vehicles. Therefore, the air quality analysis is
based on a microscale CO analysis.
4.6.1 Methodology
The worst-case CO concentrations in the project area were predicted for each
of the Build Alternatives utilizing two computer models, MOBILE3 and CALINE3.
4-12

These worst-case conditions were then compared to the National Ambient Air Quality
' Standards (NAAQS) for CO to evaluate potential air quality impacts. Table 4.5
presents the NAAQS for CO.

Table 4.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards, CO J
' '
'
l. Prim. Std. Nat
l. Sec. Std. NC Std.
Time of Avg. Nat
' 1 hour 35 ppm none 35 ppm
none 9
m
8 h
9
our
ppm
pp
' Notes: L/ Not to be exceeded more than once per year.
' MOBILE3 is a mobile source emissions model. This computer program was
developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to calculate emission
factors for motor vehicle exhaust pollutants. Table 4.6 presents the input parameters
utilized in the model.

Table 4.6 MOBILE3 Input Parameters
i
1. Region Low Alt
tude
2. Tampering Rate Default Value
3. Inspection/Maintenance No I/M Program
4. Ambient Temperature 30.7°F
' 5. Vehicle Mix Default Value
6. Vehicle Speed 45 MPH (East Side Thoroughfare, US 70, NC 127)
' 55 MPH (I-40)
CALINE3 is a pollutant dispersion model developed by the California
' Department of Transportation. This model uses the gaussian dispersion equation to
compute the CO concentration at specific sites (receptors) based on contributions
' from all emission source links. Receptors were located in areas of the highest
expected CO accumulation along each emission source link as shown on Exhibit 4.1.

4-13
1
Emission source links were established to represent the proposed roadway geometry
and assigned with the appropriate predicted traffic volumes, MOBILE3 emission rates,
and source heights as shown in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7 CALINE3 Input Parameters
1. Stability Class
2. Settling Velocity
3. Deposition Velocity
4. Surface Roughness
5. Wind Speed
6. Wind Direction
7. Mixing Height
8. Mixing Zone Width
9. Receptor Locations
10. Receptor Height
11. One Hour Background Concentration
12. Link Traffic Volumes
13. Persistence Factor
E
0
0
75 (grass 5-6 cm)
1 m/s
360° @ 10° intervals
10 - 1 ° intervals up and down
400 m
Width of roadway + 3 m each side
As noted in text
1.8 m
1.9 ppm
Design Hour Volumes
0.61 (Suburban Areas)
An initial analysis was performed for each receptor using wind directions in
10 degree intervals from 0 degrees to 360 degrees to determine the wind direction and
receptor with the highest CO concentrations. This receptor was remodeled using wind
directions in 1 degree intervals for ten degrees in each direction from the initial wind
direction producing the highest CO concentration to determine the worst-case CO
concentration for each Build Alternative.
4.6.2 Results and Conclusions
The results of the CALINE3 analysis are given as one-hour CO concentrations.
Table 4.8 presents a summary of the worst-case CO concentrations for each Build
Alternative. These CO concentrations are well within the one-hour NAAQS of 35
4-14
O
a
0
W
U
r
U
W
0
c?
a
u-
oy
Od,
?s
00
ti
+0/
?
J?
S
P?
?O
5
0
Q
O
ct
co
2
4
ce)
J
S
Q
co
O
Obo 0)
L
G C.,?
0 odd
co Ys
? 0 N
v
0
o °
0 °
0
V o
?
LID
v
o O
m
0
Oa. o
od,
S
0
U Obb??>?O9 m
Nv ??b1
3H1 nOS o`
? U
° ?nl y?^ b p/V
C>
O0
ObO o Cl)
ol)
o
&JO
?O?S
oQ\
od
z
0
z
m
O
cr
2
S
O?
O
vyyydd ?j
dr\-,O)l
?r
LL Z D
ul z
o ?a w
n
?
00 O y v
o o ?- W
0 i°
U
o .W
Ncr 0,
? O
o ? ?nN3^d is iz
o °
0
v
c.
w
? o
w U
? s
o
Q = Z
w
C
ix Cc
00
F' v
= O
U

W
L?

p m

CL x
Ir W w
V
Q

cr
0
O

? o
Co 3
3 a
O J .?

O ? O ?d a?

cc U Q -
0
ObOd o ?ON?I? b y °o
Habd 100H O o X62
M ?°P O
O
Cl)
ce)
W o Q
0 0 2 W
1o
0
U v Z
?0 J
C\j
O Doc?,) -
C) No
° ?O?i?O )O
N
O_
O
N O
0
N
N
E
W
J

ppm; therefore, no air quality violations are associated with any of the Build Alternatives under
consideration. Since none of the predicted one-hour CO concentrations exceed the NAAQS, an
analysis of eight-hour concentrations was not necessary.
Table 4.8 Worst-Case CO Concentrations under the Build Alternatives, 2010

Alternative Receptor with Description One-hour CO
highest CO of Receptor Concentration
concentration Area
1, 3, or 4 1023 NC 127 and 5.7 ppm
Cloninger
Mill Road
5, 7, 8, 9, or 10 1046 1-40 6.7 ppm
residential
CO concentrations are influenced by the number of vehicles traveling in an
area and the amount of stop and go traffic, as well as meteorological conditions. The
No Build Alternative is expected to result in increased CO concentrations within the
City of Hickory and the project area because future traffic on existing roads and
streets is expected to operate at or beyond capacity. Under these traffic conditions,
traffic operations are usually unstable, queues form and operations are characterized
by stop and go waves. The Build Alternatives alleviate congestion on existing
roadways. The improved operating conditions on the proposed roadway will
contribute to higher running speeds and free-flowing traffic movements. As a result
of the higher levels of service associated with the Build Alternatives, the CO
concentrations will decrease compared to the No Build Alternative.
Catawba County is classified as an air quality attainment area in the State
Implementation Plan (SIP). Since the SIP does not contain any transportation control
measures for the project area, the conformity procedures of 23 CFR 770 do not apply.
4-16

4.7 Noise Impacts
Future noise levels generated from traffic utilizing the proposed roadway were
developed to determine potential noise impacts on sensitive receivers in the project area. This
noise impact assessment is documented in the technical memorandum Noise Impact
Assessment Report (Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, November 1990), appended by reference and
summarized below.
The noise impact assessment was conducted in accordance with the procedures and
criteria approved by the FHWA and NCDOT. All noise measurements are reported in terms
of the Equivalent Sound Level (Leq). Leq is a statistical sound level average and is the
standard measurement used to evaluate and compare noise levels. The unit used to quantify
Leq is A-weighted decibels (dBA). Decibel is the unit used to measure sound energy, and
A-weighted decibel is the scale that most closely approximates human frequency response.
Future noise conditions under the No Build Alternative are expected to be the same
as existing noise levels because existing traffic volumes are already at or beyond the worst-
case level (LOS C) for traffic generated noise.
4.7.1 Methodoloav
Roadway generated noise was predicted for all potentially impacted receivers
in the project area using the FHWA computer model STAMINA 2.0. Traffic volumes
used in the model were peak hour volumes derived from ADT projections developed
specifically for this project by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. All
projected traffic volumes are below the LOS C capacity volumes for the proposed
roadway. A vehicle mix of 95 percent cars, 3 percent medium trucks, and 2 percent
heavy trucks was used for roadway segments north of Spencer Road, and a vehicle
mix of 91 percent cars, 5 percent medium trucks, and 4 percent heavy trucks was used
for roadway segments south of Spencer Road. Other assumptions used in the model
4-17

' include a proposed speed limit of 45 mph on all segments of the roadway, a peak hour
factor (K) of 10 percent, and a directional distribution of 60/40.
' 4.7.2 Noise Impacts
Two types of adverse noise impacts were considered, noise levels which
' approach or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) and substantial noise
increases. The first type of adverse noise impact evaluated was noise levels which
' approach or exceed the NAC. For purposes of impact evaluation, NCDOT considers
noise levels to "approach" the NAC when the Leq at a receiver is within 1 dBA of the
' NAC. The NAC are shown in Table 4.9. Noise sensitive receivers in the project area
include schools, churches, and residences. Primary consideration was given to exterior
h
l
h
h
h
f
h
h
i
d
ere are no
s w
ere t
n t
urc
es an
sc
oo
e case o
c
noise (Category B); however,
' exterior activities, the interior noise criterion (Category E) was used as the basis for
determining impacts.
'
Table 4.9 FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria
'
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leg(h) Description of Activity
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary
(Exterior) significance and serve an important public need and where
the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to
' continue to serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports
' (Exterior) areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches,
libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included
(Exterior) in Categories A or B above.
D -- Undeveloped lands.
' E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting areas,
(Interior) schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.

4-18

Following the NCDOT policy, an interior noise level of 51 dBA and an '
exterior noise level of 66 dBA is considered to approach the NAC. An interior noise ,
level of 52 dBA or more and an exterior noise level of 67 dBA or more is considered
to exceed the NAC. Receivers at which interior noise levels are the primary '
consideration are identified in Table 4.10. None would potentially experience interior
noise levels approaching or exceeding the NAC. Receivers at which exterior noise ,
levels are predicted to approach or exceed the NAC noise under the various Build
Alternatives are identified in the technical report. This information is summarized '
in Table 4.11 The number of receivers which would potentially experience exterior
noise levels approaching or exceeding the NAC ranges from 23 receivers under '
Alternative 8 to 77 receivers under Alternative 1. ,
The second type of adverse noise impact evaluated was substantial noise '
increases. NCDOT policy defines a substantial noise increase as an increase of 15
dBA or more when existing noise is < 50 dBA, or an increase of 10 dBA or more ,
when existing noise is > 50 dBA. Receivers at which interior noise levels are the
primary consideration are listed in Table 4.10 which shows that no substantial noise ,
increases are predicted. Receivers at which exterior noise levels are predicted to
increase substantially under the various Build Alternatives are identified in the
technical report. This information is summarized in Table 4.11. Note that all
predicted noise increases are summarized by magnitude of increase in Table 4.11; '
however, while all increases > 15 dBA are considered substantial, only some of the '
increases between 11-14 dBA are. The number of receivers which would potentially
experience a substantial noise increase ranges from 50 receivers under Alternative 5 '
to 97 receivers under Alternative 3.

4-19

Table 4.10 Interior Noise Impacts
Noise Levels (dBA)

Existing Future

Approach
Build Rcvr. Land Use /Exceed Noise
Alt. No. Tyne Exterior Interior J Exterior Interior J NAC Increase

1 61 Church of the 55 < 40 70 45 no 5
Master
1 63 Tabernacle 55 < 40 57 < 40 no 0
Baptist Church
and School
1 84 St. Stephens 61 < 40 63 < 40 no 0
Elementary
School
3 314 Sandy Ridge 50 < 40 61 < 40 no 0
Baptist Church
5 84 St. Stephens 61 < 40 62 < 40 no 0
Elementary
School
7 314 Sandy Ridge 50 < 40 60 < 40 no 0
Baptist Church
9 314 Sandy Ridge 50 < 40 60 < 40 no 0
Baptist Church
Notes:
J The exterior to interior noise reduction is based on structure type. The reduction which
can be expected for brick structures, the type found in the project area, is equal to 25
dBA.
4-20

W
r•+
u
a
H
•O
z
L
O
k
W
W
O
Ir
C?
VI
v
F
T ?

L W
•
>
Y Y
-+ C u
W W 0)
4-1 4.) 4J co
Y
u p0.. OWC a .... O a a C. N
N
u W
U
W

• W V
L.
? L N
` O L) M f? &n N I
A
O
a
4 m
O N
•
L N O)
u C N
> W W
. Y
L
? V
y1
C P s
.
0: (1)) ?O P In ?O n M
4
co
-o
10
N
II
A f? M 1? .t
J
m

v
J IA
0) N
N O
O O O d O
p N 11
?
z
C
Q
W co
N U
W
O O
L.
N
C IA %o N N M 00 f?
N IA N N M r- N

N Q
L
N 00
•

> D
•v s
w
cli
M
cz M h It M t? V1 •O
4-
O
L
Q

z O
a)
1 O N N N

E ? Ln 00 10 P N

O
L

a
M
N
M N 8 It zs (V
O Zt Z 10 wl v,
0)

W
C
L
0)
Y

Q
? M
It
V1
00
P O
Y
Y
v?
N
C O
W
•Y
c Y
W
Y L
J?
N N
W U
C
t y0)
OI x
C G/
U N
W N
•L
W
U
x d)
0) L
T
W N
Y 0)
C N
O) 7
Y W
a
L W
•N Y
9
L U
EO QECI
7 W
N Y
0)
at+ Q
C N
W
L O
Y Z
N 0)
N L
0) Y
N
•N
W
O U
N x
Y 0)
u
a O
•? N
T u
u
J W
W o
L
C ELL
0) (U
Y
a U
N L
0) 3
W
W ?
L
4- N
O O
L C
N
W Y
1U?
Q
W 0) •^
Y N 0)
O W N
Y 0) L
L O
0) U >
L C 'O

4-21

The total number of receivers potentially experiencing adverse noise impacts
under each Build Alternative is less than the sum of receivers potentially experiencing
both a substantial noise increase and a noise level which approaches or exceeds the
Noise Abatement Criteria, because some receivers experience both types of potential
adverse impacts. Totals range from 54 receivers under Alternative 10 to 110 receivers
under Alternative 3.
4.7.3 Noise Abatement
Noise barriers were considered for all receivers that would potentially
experience a noise impact under any of the eight Build Alternatives. The evaluation
of noise barriers is based on the following feasibility and reasonableness criteria per
NCDOT policy:
• minimum insertion loss of > 6 dBA given access and safety requirements
• proposed project must be the primary noise source
• barrier cost should not exceed $25,000 per benefited receiver
• distance between receiver and barrier should be > 4 X the barrier height
• cost considerations preclude the use of barriers for isolated receivers
Noise barriers reduce noise levels by blocking the sound path between a
roadway and noise sensitive areas. To be effective, the barrier must be continuous
and long enough (approximately 8 X the distance between the receiver and the noise
source) to shield the impacted receivers from the primary noise source. Openings in
a noise barrier negate the effectiveness of the barrier.
The only available access to many receivers in the project area is via driveway
directly onto the proposed roadway, or onto one of the many local streets which would
intersect the proposed roadway at grade. Noise barriers would not be effective for
4-22

reducing noise at these receivers because of the lack of continuity across driveways
and/or intersecting streets. These areas are not considered reasonable locations for
the use of noise barrier walls to mitigate or reduce predicted noise levels.
Existing noise generated by traffic along I-40 accounts for existing noise
impacts at several receivers located along the interstate highway. Noise barriers along
the proposed Hickory East Side Thoroughfare were determined to be ineffective for
abatement of these noise impacts.
Areas where potential noise abatement could be introduced through the
construction of noise barrier walls were identified. Nine noise barriers were studied
and evaluated to verify the potential for reducing noise at receivers along these
locations using the OPTIMA computer model. This computer model predicts the
maximum insertion losses provided by varying barrier heights. Barrier locations and
height constraints are described in Table 4.12, and OPTIMA output files are provided
in the technical report. The potential effectiveness of each barrier is summarized in
Table 4.13.
Potential benefits associated with each noise barrier were determined based
on an insertion loss of > 6 dBA for all adversely impacted receivers and > 4 dBA for
receivers which are not adversely impacted. Table 4.13 provides a summary of
potential barrier effectiveness, including barrier length, height, total cost, receivers
benefited, cost per benefited receiver, existing noise levels, predicted noise levels with
and without the barrier, noise increases with and without the barrier, and insertion
losses provided by the barrier. Estimated costs provided by the OPTIMA model were
revised per NCDOT cost criteria.
4-23
1
1
1
1
Table 4.12 Barrier Descriptions
Distance
to Maximum
Barrier Barrier Barrier Nearest Barrier
ID Location Length Receiver Height I/

1 600' - 1300' west of proposed intersection 700' 66' 16'
with Falling Creek Road along south side
of Corridor Segment A
2 1200' - 2300' north of Springs Road along 1100' 20' 5'
west side of Corridor Segment A
3 100' - 2200' north of Spencer Road along 2100' 46' 111
west side of Corridor Segment B
4 1300' - 3000' north of Highland Avenue 1700' 96' 24'
along west side of Corridor Segment B
5 200' - 1800' north of Springs Road along 1600' 96' 24'
west side of Corridor Segment C
6 100' - 1850' north of Spencer Road along 1750' 96' 24'
west side of Corridor Segment D
7 500' - 1900' south of Spencer Road along 1400' 56' 14'
west side of Corridor Segment D
8 500' - 1800' north of proposed intersection 1300' 56' 14'
with Sweetwater Road along west side of
Corridor Segment D
9 400' - 1650' north of Spencer Road along 1250' 66' 16'
west side of Corridor Segment F
Notes: J Distance between receiver and barrier should be > 4 X the barrier height.
The results of the noise barrier analysis indicate that only two of the nine
barriers could potentially be effective for reducing adverse noise impacts, Barriers 5
and 8. All barrier designs and evaluations are preliminary. The need and feasibility
of noise barriers will be reevaluated during the final design phase of the project based
on final alignment and grades, as well as cut and fill locations. A final decision on
the installation of noise barriers will be made upon completion of the detail project
design and public involvement process.
4-24
t
M
4)
W
W
W
d
.L
WL
m
M
r
d
O
J
C
Dv
J O 'o )n Pry in 't N 11 M rn sr?Mr?? P?)n M M
0) ?
y L
to
O1 O
•
y
L t(
L ?
O U NV r?f?M?OOp?MNN? .t cm r4 N1nOM
L2
2 .-. 3 co
T
Y L
U d ?
?

•••ppp
y L L 6
y
LSO Y OIV
C NN N O,NWNNCO dN ItN NLn N to
a z 3 CO .. 1010 10 ?O in r` Ln Ln in in Ln ?O Ln 10 V1 rn )n Ln

d
y Y L ?
01 7 G! _
01 O/ C i
y L L L s
u L- co

2
C
m?
MM
Ot2NMA:2 r ?t

ON ~N

NM?
3 f• NN N N
'
p
T
Y Y L
U
7 N
_ _
4!
T y L L
L. O ~ N'O
s N P M?TN
0 10 o1 O 0 P tn
0
0 co P IM P
Ln10Ln10 I?00
o?)nin
az
m.. 1
1
1

a+ 0/ '.
y y Q ?
• X O V P In )n ?"- )n )n In )n C. O O O C. O N N
W 2 v )n It It )n1n)n)nO?TrtdIt It It It It It It
L L ?

1 O O O O

i O (D
N C)
#
Y O 00 P
p
P
O 0) v ry
N co N
U K N P
L
O
m
0)
L. 1
W ,
U C M
m
z w r- # M N M
#
r a
L .O ?T M
O/ y ? r r
' ?
U O Q m u 0 N M s It O N s M
0) P N [? O Ln W P O .p O O O O N N N N N
2 v1 u1 )n )n V l
OC z 1 It 10 1z 1010 1? 00 ?O 1010,010 e- ? r e- e- -- e- e-
O O O
O C? C) CD

? J
?T
IO
41 y
v ( 00
U N
L Y ?
O1 O/ ?
d
•O1 ? ? O O O O
= v ? r r ? N

Y Y 1 C, CD CD
c 0)

4
4) CD
O

O

O CD

a a m m
L L
L O Q O O p

Y
•
•
•
,
•
L N
L U L
L L
L L
L L
L
co O O O O O
an J U U U U

Y

E
d •L
1+ L
L to
d
.L
D
Y
w
C
07
N
Yp
a
'O
L
LU
3
T
Y
U
W
y
L
0)
O
C
w
m
L
U
t
3
y
Ol
d
L
4-25

M_
d
d
H
L
N •? N m ? ? Vl 00
C V J
MI?Mf.- 0 P M M Op r, 1n Wh P P a- 0,
OO OO
J
W ?

m d

L
N
t L Q
u
u
•O C Y N? MONO ?JN .--M?OMN? .-O
Z •-+ 3 m v r N r N

u
d
w
NLL a
O ~ N co MONO It It 10hOPN?It It JIt In 1n
Q. Z 3 co 1n ?O 1n 10 Y1 1n 1n 1n 1n 1n 1n 1n 1n 1n In 1n 1n 1n
N 1
L
N N
7
07 W O •? 1
L
L L Q
N
u
u
O C N? 'O 1, 1nN O1n 1n PWW PI`N
-OOP00
Z •-• 2 m v i ?N - N N NE ;
.- .--- - NNNN

M i+ L
U O J •W _
N L L Q
L. o ~ 1ov ?O NLnN O1nN Ooo MMMMMM
a z= co .. 1n o 1n o 0 0 1n 0 1n o 0 0 0 0 0
1

N N Q ?
•% O V 1 OOOO OON in %010 NMMJIA
W 2 It It It JJJ JJJJJJJ J JJJ
#
L L
? CD Lr%
% Co
1 N O
O Ln o
O
?+ N J ?

O GW v 01
O
O
?
U Ix 1 W
m
v N M
O L #

• w ? P

4) 0) 00 co
Z oc co N 10 N J

L J M 10
W N N In
•
1
U NMIt 1 O- J N a1n ??ppO

C Z N N N N N

? r-.-'-'-? Vl r to

?-? 1!1

? N co o

00
co W (? O co W co
W
JJJJJJJJJJJ

J
O O O
O O O
J ?O In
N
O0 T
O /q 00
U • N J N

r a.
rn w

v O c
x i N
L

N
41
C
O O O O O
C G/
N v O O
1? O
•O
J v ? N •-- •-
m co
U
J L O O O O

tr
•L 10 ?
L
L
L
L U L L L
M m o o O o
m J ? U U U

41
d •L
V L
N O
I m •-• ? M J V1
4-26
L
10
41
pN
4,1
a
2
E
U
L
2
41
T
v
d
N
L
d
g
d
L
U
t
3
N
U
d
L
#
M
d
r
F
Lv rd y a
y y O N In
•-C+ ~ J v i .0 in P f?- in d N.t t M M f- PM M NLA NMfn ? •D%0co 10 O
d
y L ?
N d
W Ol
Q
L
t L
y
m
{
{?,?
m
O c N 'D
f? f? M 0 00 r- M N N
:O
?t W P 00 ?O
2 .... 2mv ??.-.--?-- .-?.-?? P? 001n It
i
u L
u v 1
_
ar
•
L
6
y L ?
p
ppp
O~ N 'O
3 N N N P tV co N N %0
O 0110 .t 00 P 00 ?O
Ln Ln
?O O O
10 10
0. z
m .. in in Ln ui Ln
1 10 10 10 ? It in Ln
Vi Ln
ar
y Y L 1
N 7 d
_
N W O ••-
1
fq
L L Q ?
U
O C J+ N? • f!tN N001nN Mf??0 ?n .T ?O Ln BOOM P O.TMO
2 •--• 2 co v N (Ij N N N N N

N N L
U 7 G!
d O
y 1 L Q
m
'
07
0
O s N JN OP
P P
n
o %O V1 f- 00M P
n
% 10 10 0 0 OP
Z8 11-10
..
a z
m 10 Ln
o r. o
O
•o Ln 10 L
Lr
0)
C O L

•1C O 'O
In In ?- ?-- m In Vl 1n
O O 10
O C. O O O O O
•O 10,010

•L
W z v It It V1MMN?O It It v3 .t3 It It It 3N In Ln Ln In

L
L
y
y
a > 0 C) C) O O C', CD
1
N ,y 0
CD C) • Ln
u O
i W
O o 00
?
N M
N v-
U OC N r C
#
O L f`
L > - N
N N

N W
U 0C1
O
P
O
N J
2 O
C m M It N _y
O
N c
W
L 1 M Q N y
?
> L fV P p

N a
U Q co u 0 NJ? MIt Ln It w in mN to 0,
N 777 O Lm 0 0 p O ?pp 0 0 0 O
?
?
N
N I n O O O O P P P N N N
K 2 00 ?O .O .O ID .O
•O 10 f` .-In
s NN r1i r1i ? NNNN N 0
2
t
O O O O
p O O O t
.t `0 N 3
O N
0
v ^
U .- M

a+
v
41 ^
++
0
O)
y
p
Ln
O
O
v
x
? ?
07
N
L
v

mw ' p 0 0 o m
c w o ?n o o
W ?2 O
J c
0 0 o O)
L
/0
L O O O O O
07 •? ? 'D V V L
.L ; L •L •L •L U
L U 1 L L L L
Ln cu O • O O O O Z
co J u u U U
y
L
01

0/
• W
d L
N L 1 ?"

t CU
00
N
`0
f?
co

•
4-27

M
_d
H
L C
y y m co 10 N C
•O. ~ JU • 00 f?ut 001 PPP a000w I P M Mh Y1CV MM ? '000 0
Ol
N L ?

Ol 0!
N L
L L a 1
uu
• O C Y N M N M N N M N V 1 J 0 00 0. 00 :2
Z
.... =m v ---- of ??? JJ
'
py
9
L
U 0)
_
?
N L L
m
m
L- 0 /0 V
'O r- 00. M N J J V1 %O 'O 'O
P V\
J o CO P tO •O
qq O
a z Zm v V\ V, MLn Ln V, LA Ln Ln LA N JLn Ln ?O Ln M W% W% ?O%O
w
N F? L
01 42 3
•?
L t L a i
N
u
•O 2 m? 0. 40000 CO C4 X00. ?O r Pt?M??P
I
n ON
Z •-• 2m v i r-e-r-(V CY N? ?N r
i
?N r-?

M 4+ L 1
u
d ..
a
y N
•
0
L co
s
o
1
L
Ln ?? o o°+
a. =
co Ln
0 10
rn #
c

.
0
41 4)
!! Nm
.
X O? ___
V\ 1O 10 NMMJ V•
C3 C)
(D 00000 ?O
0
%O %O
W Z v i J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J N V1 V%

L
L.
#
CD C-) W CD C,
C) o
.. 4) L _

O
L'i

M
O
W N O
U CC r N N
72
N # P N
0
O
>
w
• 0. N %O
W 0C/ CO CO P O N
Z w 00 N J J (a . -• _ J
O
'2 M
C%j
0/ N O N P N
> L
? ?- r
N

uN V1 O 00 O.-NMN NJ

_

_
mg Ln 00
J
Vl
N V1
00
N i W 00 r?^000000 W I? NIn MI OOOO OPP P N N ?
CC Z JJ ItJ J J J JJ J 'r It ?Ln NNNN.--.- .-- NN N
O O O O
O
V1 lll C
41
O N 000 O pn
U N M
M

m 0) ?

(D O O
v
x i r

V 1+
[0. N ?
W vO- O
C3 yO? O
OJ O
M
J v ? r r r r
U Cl 0 O
L O O O O O

N
L N L L L L
L U L L L L
00 J U U U U

1? L 1

d •L
M L

m V, •O N 00
4-28
L
0)
T
C
W
C
O
41
8
7
2
L
U
X
3
41
T
U
N
N
L
N
g
N
L
10
L
U
Z
3
N
L
W
>
•U
Q?
L

uu
V`^
L
H-
V-
W
L
r
?L
L
?O
M_
d
F
L C
N •
N Q 10
;
Y
C
«
+
J '000 0 In %0 10 %t
N
N L
m N
W d
•
a
L .c
N
?
U
O U W C O
z- sm..
i
Y L
U W ?
'p W
N N
N '
i
L co
f- O •? cu 'D

O O

co P O•
G. Z 3 m V 1010 In In In
w
N Y L-
0
d O ? ?
a
N 9- C L
p
p
•O U •- IO m
ON
in rti
3C 39 CO
T
Y Y L 1
U
? N
d
N L 4 ?
c
Y L CO

L-
°
1

10 10
z
s co

C
'Y Gl ?
N N Q ?
•X •O co 0 .0 co CO co
W Z v i in In It J .t
L L ? ?I
y
a > O C. O

• O 1t O
Y
G/ In D I!n
N U -
O N $A O

M

N
U Cc N M

N O 10
0
O O Y i
L >
• W %0
W O N
(C
2 OC m 1 ?
t f
M
N k
L N
N N ?f
_

, N In
U cm In W NMO
01 777 N N ?t 't %t J
CC Z N N N In In In In
O O
Cl O
N O
Y
N
M
O
O 0 fR M ?
U .
--
?

L Y ?
m v ?
.v w ? 0 0

L ?
Y Y
0) O O O
d v M N
J v ? ?- r
Q -
C 1 L L
L O O O
v• ? v v
Y
•
L (0 L L
O• L U
m O L
O L
O
co J U U
M
f? L

LC
N
• 1
.
d
L ?
Y L 1
10 D 1

4-29
L
Y
w
C
10
pO
a
'O
7
O
3
U
L
2
Y
Y
U
v
N
L
tV
O
O
C
G!
N
u
Z
N
L
N
W
L

L

4.8 Water Quality Impacts
Water resources in the project area that could be impacted by implementation of the
proposed project include Lake Hickory, the Catawba River, six watercourses and their
associated tributaries, three wetlands, and two ponds. Existing water quality in Lake Hickory
and the Catawba River is classified as A-I1 and B. The six watercourses are classified as C.
Water quality classifications are defined and escribed in Section 3.3.1 of this document (page
3-34).
Water quality impacts are similar for all of the Build Alternatives under consideration.
Potential impacts involve non-point source pollution from increased road surface runoff and
resource contamination from hazardous materials spills. Road surface runoff will be increased.
due to the increased impervious area associated with the construction of the proposed
improvements. Road surface pollutants include lead, hydrocarbons, nutrients, and trash. The
increased pollutant levels associated with the increased runoff would add to the loading of
the pollution-assimilation capacity of water resources downstream from the proposed
construction, possibly leading to an overload in the system if it is already near its assimilative
limit. Runoff from paved areas can have up to ten times more phosphorus and nitrogen than
runoff from forested areas. Excessive amounts of these nutrients can cause algal blooms in
slow moving streams and result in oxygen depletion. Sediment concentrations of some of the
EPA-regulated toxic metals could be increased as well.
Water quality impacts will be minimized through the use of NCDOT Best Management
Practices to control non-point source pollution. A 4-lane typical roadway section which
includes a 60' grass ditch median is proposed along the length of the Hickory East Side
Thoroughfare to the maximum extent feasible in consideration of property access
requirements. This median will filter stormwater runoff before it reaches the streams. Other
possible techniques to reduce water quality impacts include the use of stone lined ditches in
lieu of rigid concrete pavement to promote runoff infiltration, and special holding basins for
4-30

containment of hazardous spill. These techniques will be considered during the design phase
of the proposed project.
Indirect impacts to water quality may occur after completion of this project because '
of increased urban development. Local land use controls and ordinances will govern the water
quality impacts of future development in the area. This project is consistent with local land '
use plans and zoning. The project has been coordinated with local officials.

By reducing the congestion and accident potential of existing thoroughfares in the
hi
l
ill
f
i
l
f h
h
lik
lih
d
i
d
rom ve
c
e
s sp
s
azar
ous mater
a
oo
o
ll reduce t
e
e
area, the project w
collisions. Strategies to reduce the potential for resource contamination in the event of a
hazardous materials spill involve local emergency management planning. Emergency agencies
in the project area operate under a Mutual Aid Agreement which provides for the sharing of ,
manpower and equipment with each other and the State of North Carolina as necessary to
respond to potential hazardous waste spills that might threaten water resources in the project
area. The City of Hickory and Catawba County are in the process of developing coordinated
Disaster Plans which will define the command structure in such an emergency. These plans
will provide for the agency with jurisdiction over the accident site to respond to the
emergency, evaluate the situation, and then call on other agencies for assistance as ,
appropriate. The City of Hickory would respond to accidents occurring along the proposed
under the Count
v
artments
l
fi
de
li
it
d th
t
it
hi
h
i
y
un
eer
re
p
,
s an
o
m
e
project w
n t
e c
y
t
Emergency Coordinator, would respond to accidents occurring in the unincorporated county '
areas. The City maintains and operates a special emergency vehicle equipped to contain and
stabilize hazardous waste spills. The response time for this truck is 4 minutes within the city
limits and could be slightly higher along portions of the proposed road outside the city limits.
The person or persons responsible for causing the hazardous waste spill are required to t
provide for clean-up operations.

4-31 1

4.9 Wetland Impacts
Jurisdictional wetlands which occur in the project area are shown on Exhibit 3.3 and
described in Section 3.3.3 of this document (page 3-35 and 3-36). Table 4.14 provides a
listing for each wetland including location, total acreage, acreage within corridor, percent of
total wetland within corridor, and Alternatives which utilize the corridors involving the
wetlands.
Table 4.14 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Total Acreage Percent
Wetland within of Total
Wetland Wetland Location Acreage Corridor Wetland Alternatives

W 1 Snow Creek and 29th Avenue 2.35 1.74 74 1 and 5
Drive NE (Corridor Segment A)
W 2 Miller Branch and Tate 0.37 0.37 100 1,3 and 4
Boulevard (Corridor Segment B)
W 3 Snow Creek and Kool Park 0.19 0.19 100 3, 7, and 9 .
Road (Corridor Segment C)
Potential short-term impacts to the wetlands involve sediment loading during
construction and potential long-term impacts involve the loss of wetland areas due to filling.
Short-term impacts cannot be avoided; however, these impacts will be minimized through the
implementation of a Sediment Control Plan in accordance with NCDOT standard practices.
NCDOT will follow prescribed procedures for reducing long-term wetland impacts including
avoidance, minimization, and mitigation.
4.9.1 Avoidance
Alternatives 8 and 10 do not involve any wetland impacts. However, these
alternatives involve other significant adverse environmental consequences including
neighborhood impacts, high construction costs, and extensive stream relocations. The
4-32

environmental consequences associated with Alternatives 8 and 10, in conjunction with ,
the fact that wetland impacts under the other alternatives are minimal, preclude the
elimination of the other Alternatives from consideration. Wetlands 1 and 3 have been
avoided to the maximum extent practicable by locating the widening on the north side ,
of 29th Avenue and Kool Park Road, respectively. Wetland 2 cannot be avoided due
to the steep terrain in the area. Impacts to Wetland 2 involve only 0.37 acre. ,
4.9.2 Minimization I
Potential wetland losses will be minimized to the extent practicable during the
design phase of the proposed project through judicious development of the roadway
alignment, as discussed above. Impacts to Wetland 1 can be reduced by nearly 80
percent by locating the proposed improvement on the north side of 29th Avenue, and '
impacts to wetland 3 can be reduced by nearly 95 percent by locating the proposed '
improvement on the north side of Kool Park Road.
NCDOT Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be utilized to further '
minimize potential wetland impacts. BMP's include restriction of fill in drainage
areas, reduction of side slopes in wetlands, minimization of canopy removal, and
elimination of staging areas in lowlands.
Table 4.15 provides a summary of potential wetland impacts under each Build
Alternative, including the acreage of wetlands within each Alternative corridor and
i
l i
P
t
hi
h
f
i
i
otent
a
mpac
s
n t
-way.
e proposed r
ght-o
the extent of potential impacts w
t
involve less than 1.0 acre, regardless of the Alternative selected. There are no impacts
under Alternatives 8 and 10.

J
4-33 1

i
Table 4.15 Wetland Impacts by Alternative
Wetland Wetland
Acres Acres
within Within
Alternative Wetland Corridor Right-of-Way
I W 1 1.74 0.35
W 2 0.37 0.37
---- ----
Total 2.11 ----
0.72
3 W 2 0.37 0.37
W 3 0.19 0.01
---- ----
Total 0.56 ----
0.38
4 W 2 0.37 0.37
5 W 1 1.74 0.35
7 W 3 0.19 0.01
8 none - - - -
9 W 3 0.19 0.01
10 none - - - -
4.9.3 Mitigation
Although the extent of potential wetland impacts with minimization is less than
1.0 acre regardless of the Alternative selected, the OOMMO` for mitigation was
evaluated. No specific mitigation sites are identified; however, first consideration
should be given to sites within the highway right-of-way such as the low-lying area
within the proposed I-40.interchange. It is recommended that a disturbed area such
as this be selected for mitigation because it could be graded and planted withn
bottomland hardwood species without impacting an existing natural forest arep,
4-34
f
4.10 Water Body Modification
Some modification of water bodies in the project area will be necessary to
accommodate the proposed roadway improvements, 1he extent of which is dependent on the
Alternative which is selected. Potential impacts, summarized by Alternative in Table 4.16,
involve the crossing of streams, relocation of stream channels, and filling of ponds. Stream
crossings which involve watercourses with, drainage areas less than 0.5 acre will utilize pipe
culverts as indicated in Table 4.16. Crossings which involve streams with drainage areas
greater than 0.5 acre will be accomplished through the extension of existing I-40 culverts,
construction of new culverts, and replacement of existing bridges with culverts. All fill will
be placed in accordance with NCDOT Best Management Practices.
Stream relocations will be coordinated with the US Fish & Wildlife Service after
selection of the preferred alternative and will be designed in accordance with NCDOT Best
Management Practices, including the stabilization of relocated channel banks and beds with
vegetation and other protection such as rip-rap. Specific design techniques and mitigation
will be discussed in the FEIS subsequent to the selection of the preferred alternative.
4.11 Floodplain Impacts
The proposed roadway project will involve crossing and/or relocating six streams and
their associated tributaries, including floodways and floodplains. Floodplain limits are shown
on Exhibit 3.3. Minimum standards established by the Federal Insurance Administration
(FIA) limit increases in flood heights to 1.0 foot provided that hazardous velocities are not
produced. Any modification to floodplain elevations or limits must be coordinated and
approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Stream crossing will involve the use of culverts. An analysis of the hydraulics at
major stream crossings was conducted to determine the minimum structure sizes required at
each stream crossing, as detailed in the Hydraulic Location Technical Memorandum. Major
streams are defined as those having a watershed of 0.5 square mile or larger. Culvert sizes
4-35

L

i
Table 4.16 Summary of Potential Waterbody Impacts
Impact Channel
Type of Area Relocation
Alternative Waterbody Impact ac. (ft.)

1 Falling Creek box culvert 0.30
Snow Creek box culvert 0.15
Herman Branch pipe culvert 0.06
Lyle Creek box culvert 0.22
Miller Branch pipe culvert 0.32
Clarks Creek box culvert 0.49 220
pond fill 1.03 _
2.57 220
3 Falling Creek box culvert 0.26
Snow Creek box culvert 1.47 2120
Herman Branch pipe culvert 0.06
Lyle Creek box culvert 0.22
Miller Branch pipe culvert 0.32
Clarks Creek box culvert 0.49 220
pond fill 1.03
3.85 2340
4 Falling Creek box culvert 0.75
Snow Creek box culvert 2.34 2050
Herman Branch pipe culvert 0.06
Lyle Creek box culvert 0.22
Miller Branch pipe culvert 0.32
Clarks Creek box culvert 0.49 220
pond fill 1.03
5.21 2270
5 Falling Creek box culvert 0.30
Snow Creek box culvert 0.15
Herman Branch pipe culvert 0.09
Clarks Creek box culvert 0.46
Miller Branch box culvert 0.38
Lyle Creek box culvert 0.33
1.71 0
(continued)
4-36
Table 4.16 Summary of Potential Watercourse Impacts (continued)
Impact Channel
Type of Area Relocation
Alternative Waterbodv Impact ac. (ft.)
7 Falling Creek box culvert 0.26
Snow Creek box culvert 1.47 2120
Lyle Creek box culvert 0.33
Herman Branch pipe culvert 0.09
Clarks Creek box culvert 0.46
Miller Branch box culvert 0.38
2.99 2120
8 Falling Creek box culvert 0.75
Snow Creek box culvert 2.34 2050
Lyle Creek box culvert 0.33
Herman Branch pipe culvert 0.09
Clarks Creek box culvert 0.46
Miller Branch box culvert 0.38
4.35 2050
9 Falling Creek box culvert 0.26
Snow Creek box culvert 1.28 2490
Lyle Creek box culvert 0.49
Herman Branch pipe culvert 0.27
Clarks Creek box culvert 0.46
Miller Branch box culvert 0.38
pond fill 1.50 _
4.64 2490
10 Failing Creek box culvert 0.75
Snow Creek box culvert 2.15 2440
Lyle Creek box culvert 0.49
Herman Branch pipe culvert 0.27
Clarks Creek box culvert 0.46
Miller Branch box culvert 0.38
pond fill 1.50
6.00 2440
4-37

1
were determined in accordance with the North Carolina Handbook of Design for Highway
standards; therefore, no adverse impacts to flood elevations are expected.
Surface Drainage Structures. All culverts are designed to ensure compliance with the FIA
The potential for longitudinal floodplain encroachments was evaluated in compliance
with Executive Order 11988. No significant floodplain encroachments were identified based
on preliminary functional designs. Minor encroachments involving approximately 500 linean,'l
feet of floodplain occur along Snow Creek north of Kool Park Road. The roadway location
can be adjusted during the design phase of the project to maximize avoidance. If an
Alternative utilizing Corridor Segment C or E is selected, the floodplain will be relocated in
conjunction with the relocation of Snow Creek between Kool Park Road and 29th Avenue.
Alternatives 3, 7, and 9 utilize Corridor Segment C, while Alternatives 4, 8, and 10 utilize
Corridor Segment E.
4.12 Permits
Early coordination with the US Army Corps of Engineers indicates that permits will

be required for all wetland encroachments,and watercourse crossings under the authority of
Section 404 (b) of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Nationwide Permit (NWP) 14 covers,
minor road crossings..This permit is not applicable in situations where multiple crossings of-
the same tributary are involved. NWP 26 covers impacts of less than one acre above
headwaters. NCDOT has a General Permit issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers for
bridges that would apply to proposed bridge construction. An individual Section 404 permit
will be required for activities which are not covered by nationwide permits. A Public
Discharge Notice (PDN) may be required if impacts to "above headwater" watercourses and
wetlands exceed one acre.
All Alternatives under consideration will involve permits. Specific permit
I

requirements will be identified during the preliminary design phase of the project after the
4-38

corridor location is selected. Permit applications will be submitted during the final design and ,
construction plan preparation phase of the project.
4.13 Wildlife and Habitats
There should be very little impact to wildlife from the proposed project since most
of the project area is already heavily impacted by residential and commercial development.
The species expected in these developed areas adapt readily to human disturbance. Potential
impacts to wildlife involve the displacement of habitat by required right-of-way and '
fragmentation of the forested corridors along streams; however, the disturbance associated
with roadway construction can sometimes maintain or increase habitat diversity by creating
habitat margins which favor ecotonal species. Roadways create considerable amounts of
ecotonal habitats of varying successional stages resulting from periodic maintenance. Table
4.17 presents a summary of the habitat areas, by type, which are located within the Alternative '
corridors.
i l i
Table 4.17 Potent tat Im
Hab
a pacts

HA
ITAT TYPE
1
3
4 CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES
5 7 8
9
10
B
Bottomland Hardwood 4.1 22.4 21.8 6.7 23.7 23.0 24.3 23.7
d
d
H 8
1 12
0 17
3 0
4 4
3 6
9 10
1 4
15
woo
ar . . . . . . . .
Hardwood Pine 69.4 65.3 114.8 77.0 72.9 122.4 75.8 124.7
Pine 22.2 42.4 46.7 34.6 47.1 51.3 46.7 51.0
Cultivated Field - - 2.2 - - 0.9 3.1 0.9 5.5 3.3

Pasture 14.7 7.4 7.5 17.4 8.4 8.6 11.9 12.0
Grassy Area 4.7 3.8 2.6 9.1 9.0 7.8 11.7 10.6
Notes: 1/ Potential impacts a re defined as habitat acreage wit hin the 400' cor ridors.
Source: Environmental Impa cts Associ ated with the Propose d East Side Thoroug hfare Fr om US 70
to NC 127, Hickory, Catawba Count y.
II
4-39

IJ

'J

4.14 Threatened and Endangered Species
One federally-threatened species, Hexastylis nandiflora (dwarf-flowered heartleaf)
was identified as potentially occurring in the project area. As discussed in Section 3.3.6.A of
this document, Catawba County supports one of only 24 known populations of this species.
However, field investigations conducted in areas of potential habitat yielded no evidence of
the species and information received from the NC Natural Heritage Program indicates that
the known population occurs in the southern part of the county, outside the project area. No
threatened and endangered species impacts are anticipated under any of the Build Alternatives.
Lyle Creek has been listed as the type locality and only known location for
Dactvlocythere isabelae, an entocytherid ostracod which has no legal protection at present, but
which is being considered for state listing. Both Corridor Segments B and D cross Lyle Creek;
therefore, all of the Build Alternatives might have some impact on the species. However, the
magnitude of impact cannot be determined at present due to insufficient information
regarding the species.
4.15 Historical and Archeological Resources
Detailed descriptions of architectural, historical, and archaeological resources in the
project area are provided in the technical reports Historic Structures Survey and Evaluation
Report (Stephenson, May 1991) and An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed East Side
Thoroughfare (Hargrove, January 1991), appended by reference. Potential effects upon these
resources are described in the following sections.
A. Historical Resources
One structure which is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places is
identified in the project area as described in Section 3.1.6 of this document. St.
Stephens School is located in the northwest quadrant of the junction of 24th Street and
Springs Road on the west side of Corridor Segment A.
4-40

B.
If an Alternative utilizing Corridor Segment A is selected (Alternatives 1 or
5), existing 24th Street will be widened to 5 lanes. The widening along this portion
of Corridor Segment A is proposed on the east side of existing 24th Street, a distance
of approximately 70 feet from the historic property boundary.
i
No land from the historic property will be used for the proposed roadway, nor
will the proposed improvements introduce visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that '
are inconsistent with those characteristics which make the property eligible for the
and
th
l
tti
di
t
h
i
i
d
d
i
l R
i
i
N
ng
e proper
eve
ng surroun
y
ven t
e ex
ng
ope
se
ona
ster g
st
at
eg
the presence of existing streets.
A Finding of No Effect for this project was filed with the State Historic
Preservation Office. A copy of the letter stating their concurrence with this finding
is included in Appendix B of this document. '
Archaeological Resources
Four sites are identified in the project area as described in Section 3.1.6 of this
document. The SHPO has determined that three of these sites are not eligible for
listing on the National Register. One site, 31CT146, needs additional archaeological
testing to determine its eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. This
site, a potentially stratified Woodland site, is located in the vicinity of Lyle Creek
along Corridor Segment D. Phase II test excavations will be needed to assess the
eligibility of this site if an Alternative utilizing Corridor Segment D is selected.
Alternatives 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 utilize Corridor Segment D. If eligible, Section 106
consultation will be completed prior to the FEIS. Site 31CT146 is important chiefly
because of the information it contains; therefore, preservation in place is not
warranted.
4-41

i
s
t
i
4.16 Hazardous Materials / Underground Storage Tanks
Fourteen sites with underground storage tanks were identified in the project area as
discussed in Section 3.3.12 of this document and shown on Exhibit 3.6. Of these fourteen sites
with underground storage tanks, six are located within corridor boundaries. Table 4.18
presents a summary of the potential for underground storage tank involvement, ranging from
1 site (4 individual tanks) under Alternative 10 to 4 sites (13 individual tanks) under
Alternative 1. Underground storage tank sites will be avoided to the extent practicable during
the design phase of the project. Where sites can not be avoided, testing and removal will be
required. The potential for soil or groundwater contamination exists when any underground
storage tank is over 10 years old, especially if it is not protected against corrosion. Of the six
sites located within the corridor boundaries, three involve underground storage tanks which
are over 10 years old. These older sites represent as many as 5 individual tanks over 10 years
in age which could be involved depending on the Alternative selected.
Table 4.18 Potential Underground Storage Tank Involvement
Number Number of
of UST Individual Approximate
Alternative Sites Site Nos. 2/ UST's Age of UST's

1 or 5 4 5 3 < 10 years
7 4 > 10 years
8 1 > 10 years
9 5 < 10 years
3 or 7 3 2 4 < 10 years
3 2 > 10 years
9 5 < 10 years
4 or 8 2 2 4 < 10 years
9 5 < 10 years
9 2 2 4 < 10 years
3 2 > 10 years
10 1 2 4 < 10 years
Notes: J The potential for underground storage tank ( UST) involvement is defined as
the occurrence of a UST site within the 400' corridor.
J Site numbers correspond to Exhibit 3.6.
4-42
I
4.17 Mineral Resources
The only economic deposit of rocks or minerals identified in the project area is the
Martin Marietta Aggregates' Hickory Quarry. Minable deposits of stone contiguous to the
quarry may be present on Corridor Segment B from Sweetwater Road to Clarks Creek;
however, the mine map filed with the Hickory Quarry mining permit indicates no expansion
areas within the corridor limits with the exception of approximately 0.3 acres of land
identified as "future overburden storage area". Any future expansion of mining operations
would be restricted due to the location of a utility corridor along the eastern boundary of the
quarry property. Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 utilize Corridor Segment B.
4.18 Visual Impacts
There are no visually sensitive locations within the project area. Potential visual
impacts are similar for all Alternatives as described in Table 4.19.
Table 4.19 Potential Visual Impacts
Alternative Impact Location Impact
1 or 5 Corridor Segment A between construction of a 5-lane roadway along
NC 127 and Springs Road existing 29th Avenue will increase the
visual scale of the existing roadway,
including larger cut and fill slopes
3,7, or 9 Corridor Segment C between construction of a 5-lane roadway along
NC 127 and Snow Creek existing Cloninger Mill and Kool Park
roads will increase the scale of the
existing roadways, including larger cut
and fill slopes
1,3,4,5,7, all corridors along new location construction of a multi-lane roadway
8,9, or 10 along the new corridor location will
create a roadway corridor through the
suburban landscape
The proposed roadway can be designed to create a pleasing visual experience for the
driver; however, the increased scale of the existing roadway and the introduction of the new
roadway corridor will reduce the visual quality of the immediate area for the residents who
4-43

u

17
LI
L

t

I

will be able to view the roadway from their property. The visual effects associated with
clearing of vegetation should be mitigated by replanting slopes and denuded areas. Visual
impacts associated with cut and fill should be minimized by a careful utilization of maximum
grade lines to reduce the area of affected terrain and the depth of excavation and
1 embankment.
1 4.19 Vibration
' Vibration generated by traffic on the proposed may be a concern for one business
located adjacent to Corridor Segment B on the north side of I-40. Ongoing communication
with representatives of the Siecor Corporation indicates that the company operations, including
a plurality of jacketing lines and buffering machines, are sensitive to roadway generated
vibrations. Anti-vibration precautions may need to be installed and maintained at the Siecor
plant if one of the Alternatives utilizing Corridor Segment B is selected. The Alternatives
1 which utilize Corridor Segment B include Alternatives 1, 3, and 4.
' 4.20 Energy
Short-term energy usage required for construction of the proposed roadway are similar
under all of the Build Alternatives considered. Such usage would not be required under the
No-Build Alternate. However, the proposed roadway improvements will improve
transportation efficiency, reduce traffic congestion, and thereby reduce overall fuel
' consumption. The savings in operational energy requirements will more than offset energy
requirements for construction. The long-term result is a net savings in energy usage.
4.21 Construction Impacts
The temporary impacts associated with construction activities are limited in duration
to the actual construction period and immediate vicinity of the work in progress. Noise, air
quality, water quality, traffic congestion and detours, utilities, public health and safety, and
visual impacts are discussed in the following sections. Careful attention to proper construction
' methods can help control and reduce impacts.
4-44

4.21.1 Noise
An increase in noise and vibration would be anticipated during the construction
period. Equipment likely to be utilized in construction typically emanates noise levels
in excess of 80 dBA at 50 feet. All motorized equipment should comply with and be ,
maintained for applicable noise standards. Construction could be limited to the
relatively noise tolerant daylight, weekday hours to minimize noise impacts to residents
in the project area.
Vibration generated during construction may be a concern for the Siecor
Corporation, similar to the concern regarding traffic generated vibration discussed in
Section 4.19 of this document. The Siecor plant is located adjacent to Corridor ,
Segment B on the north side of I-40. Alternatives which utilize Corridor Segment B
include Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. '
4.21.2 Air Quality '
Construction activities may cause minor localized degradation of ambient air
quality, with the major concern being dust. Mitigation measures include minimizing
exposed erodible earth, stabilizing exposed earth with grass, mulch, pavement, or other
cover as early as possible, applying water as a stabilizing agent for both working and
hauling areas, and covering, shielding, or stabilizing stockpiled materials as necessary.
All motorized equipment should comply with and be maintained for applicable ,
exhaust emission standards. If vegetation is disposed of by open burning, it must be
done so in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations.
4.21.3 Water Quality I
Potential short term water quality impacts involve increased sediment loading
during construction, especially at stream crossings. An erosion control schedule, ,
4-45
n
LJ

including a detailed analysis of proposed construction sequences and erosion/sediment
control measures, will be implemented in accordance with NCDOT standard practices.
' 4.21.4 Traffic Congestion and Detours
Traffic congestion will be increased temporarily during construction of the
' proposed improvements. Detours will be required in locations where the proposed
improvements are along existing roadways.
4.21.5 Utilities
Utilities in the project area include water, sewer, electric, natural and liquid
' propane gas, and telephone. The contractor should contact the appropriate local
officials to coordinate a work schedule so that the potential for disrupting utility
' services during construction will be avoided. Eighteen geodetic survey markers are
located in the project area. The NC Geodetic Survey must be contacted prior to
' construction so that monuments can be relocated.
1 4.21.6 Forest Resources
All efforts should be made during clearing of the right-of-way to salvage
merchantable timber. Provisions should be taken during construction to prevent
erosion, sedimentation, and construction damage to standing trees outside the
construction limits.
4.21.7 Public Health and Safety
Potential health hazards associated with construction activities include mosquito
breeding on poorly drained construction sites and displaced vermin from demolished
structures or cleared vegetation. Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained to
eliminate breeding areas for mosquitoes. Care will be taken not to block existing
' ditches during construction. A rodent control program may be necessary during
clearing of the right-of-way to prevent the migration of rodents to adjacent properties.
4-46
Demolition debris shall be disposed of in a properly permitted landfill. The burning
of asbestos materials is prohibited under 15 NCAC 2D.0525.
4.22 Relationship Between Short-term Impacts and Long-term Benefits
The most serious impacts associated with the various Build Alternates under
consideration for the proposed project are short-term and will occur during the construction
period which is the time of greatest environmental disturbance. Most impacts will occur
within or in close proximity to the proposed right-of-way.
Existing homes and businesses will be displaced; however, there is adequate
replacement housing available and no permanent loss of business services is anticipated
Improved access within the project area will stimulate long-term residential and business
growth in accordance with the local Land Development Plan.
Residents near the proposed right-of-way will be affected by the use of heavy
equipment during construction. Dust and dirt will be increased, reducing air quality over the
short term, and temporary detours will disrupt traffic circulation patterns. However, the
proposed roadway improvements will increase the efficiency of traffic operations, reduce
traffic congestion, and improve air quality over the long term. Noise levels in the project area
will be increased both during and after construction. Limiting construction hours will
minimize the impact of short-term noise levels; and some abatement of long-term noise levels
may be possible.
Short-term water quality impacts involve increased sediment loading in streams during
the construction period. Implementation of an erosion control program in accordance with
NCDOT standard practices should reduce impacts. Long-term impacts associated with
pollutant loading can be minimized through the use of water quality control measures.
4-47

u

Short-term impacts to wetlands and water resources involve fill required for
construction. Some stream channel relocation may be necessary at lateral encroachments
depending on the Alternative selected. Impacts can be minimized by careful development of
the final roadway alignment during the design phase of the project. Flood elevations should
not be affected.
The short-term impact to wildlife and vegetation involves the conversion of natural
habitat to roadway uses. No threatened and/or endangered species were identified in the
project area and species which do occur adapt readily to human disturbance. Construction
activities create ecotonal habitats of varying successional stages and increase habitat diversity.
The project poses no serious long-term threat to natural resources.
The proposed project is consistent with State and local plans to improve traffic
operations in the Hickory area in consideration of present land use and future development.
' The short-term impacts associated with the proposed project are more than offset by the long-
term benefits which are expected, including improved traffic conditions on existing roads in
' the project area, substantial user savings, and enhanced opportunities for economic
development.
4.23 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
implementation of the proposed action will involve certain irreversible and
irretrievable commitments of resources.
' Land used in the construction of the proposed facility is considered an irreversible
commitment during the time period that the land is used for a highway facility. However,
' if a greater need arises for use of the land or if the highway facility is no longer needed, the
land can be converted to another use. At present, there is no reason to believe such a
conversion will ever be necessary or desirable.
1 4-48
n

Considerable amounts of fossil fuels, labor and highway construction materials such
as cement, aggregate, and bituminous material would be expended. Additionally, large
amounts of labor and natural resources are used in the fabrication and preparation of
construction materials. These materials are generally not retrievable. However, they are not
in short supply and their use will not have an adverse effect upon continued availability of '
these resources. Any construction will also require a substantial one-time expenditure of both
State and Federal funds which are not retrievable. '
The commitment of these resources is based on the concept that the residents in the
immediate area, State and region will benefit by the improved quality of the transportation
system. These benefits will consist of improved accessibility and safety, savings in time and
greater availability of quality services which are anticipated to outweigh the commitment of
these resources.
4.24 Comparison and Ranking of Reasonable Alternatives
The eight "reasonable" alternatives under consideration for the proposed project, as ,
identified and described in Section 2.3.3 of this document, have been evaluated for traffic
operations, roadway costs, cost effectiveness, and environmental impacts. Each of these Build
Alternatives provides for the development of a circumferential arterial linking NC 127 and
US 70. Each is capable of meeting the transportation demands of existing and planned '
development in the project area and improving access between residential, commercial, and
industrial areas. User benefits range between 520 and 605 million dollars, with benefit/cost
ratios far in excess of 1.0 (the threshold for cost effectiveness).
All of the eight Build Alternatives under consideration involve socioeconomic and ,
environmental impacts as detailed earlier in this section of the document. Social impacts
include residential and business relocations, and neighborhood disruptions. Economic impacts '
4-49 1

1
include monetary commitments for right-of-way, utilities, and construction. Environmental
' impacts involve the alteration of ponds, streams, wetlands, farmland, and forest land, as well
as noise level increases and the potential for hazardous wastes where underground storage
' tanks are located within the right-of-way. There are no adverse air quality impacts associated
with the Build Alternatives, rather improved roadway operations should reduce traffic
' congestion and improve air quality.
' A ranking of the eight "reasonable" alternatives was developed based on a summary
comparison of potential impacts and estimated benefits, as presented in Table 4.20.
Alternatives were ranked within individual evaluation categories (rankings are shown in
parenthesis), with the high ranking representing the Alternative which provides either the
greatest benefit or the least impact depending on the evaluation category. Then individual
rankings were summed to determine an overall ranking for each Alternative. All evaluation
categories were weighted equally for the summation.

t
1

4-50

O
HI
Q
P
H
Q
co
H
6
h
a
Q
J
a
M
H
a
4
J ? N h V1 N h M
N Q N O h N h M M J
M IMn M 00 h O 1n
M
r
v ?
v M
v v v v ?
v v v .--
v v
00 Q O in O .- N t? O h h
in J O 1`.- N O N

M
n
N n n
In
J n
In
M
N
N Q O O 1n J N 00 O M 1n
J J
•O Ln W O M

r
M N J M N J
h 4 1n J a0 J N ?O •O M
? n J `Ou
L N O N
? M
J

r
..
v
v
v n
v
v
v
v
v
v
o Q 00 0 m h N P N P
in n 1
P In o O P

h J In 0p M N ?O 00 M ?O
1n Q P in •O W% h o M M
O In N
Ln J O
N
P

•
O 4 0, CD ol Ln M •O P
_ 0, CD J
N 1n •- P O J
N
P
00 00 h •O M 00 •O J CO
(M Q ol J co O O In N •O
V1 o
O \
t' h O N

O
N
P
v Nv v v :L
v v v
O .- O O O J P J - J
N In P 1!1
O J O
N
G
v ? v v v v v v
O •O O J N N M
P O In f?
J N O
M
z „ ?s v v v v v
O .- J O O h h w N N
1n •O P h
J O O
N
Y '
N
W
d
i

V1
i
d
Q
b
V.y
C
a
0
.h
y
a
U
O
N
•a'
RS
F
M
.. . , v v v v v v v v
O O O J O O M
N O In h P
M
N O

v . . av ?v v v v v ..
O I,- O in N in •O J m
n J in P
O
C.
O
N N J M J J J M M
O O N O N O O O N h
h M J h P
In N
N O
G
v v v v v v N v
v v v
O O P O co C. P O M 10
M M M M J
N O
s
N h h O h N P
O O `O C> IM N .t W N h M O J M
N N
O
9
OC _
_ n C T
IA IA _ W
N C C T S
C O _ O W V
O 3 O
> W W Y G)
C 0
f- •E .Ei O .E.
C ?"• v .N.
79
L
U) m
L. 41 z -9 ch (A
??pp rtpp -C
co C N Q' ^ ^ `?- 79 C 1L0 Y C W
•> O V G/ Y G/ Y W D Y IL W F-
W O ^ 1A O L 0 Yfp Vi N G/ W t 3
ix O Y V) m O L Q) E y O Y U O C y (A Of NI
O L. W 40 U L N Y Y Y C ^ W 3 W a) 4) W
C7 Y W 0 O Y L N •Y V) v ,fn N Y L L L
w (a Vl m 18 U O N O E L N L. U v O C7
H N M U) U L W U G) U fA 4) Q W Y Z
Q .^ v f? L O O T T N W Y L (E]. v f/1 (/1
u ..-. o Y C Y U N N U Y ?L
(A .0
N 01 L v v .-. U 'Q
N V J C 2 3 O
z y a O l1 W 7C
O ^ 7 J V- U Y U J
Y N 'p V- 4- U Y U O v m O J
u -+ C M 1B C tp G1 O O T 7 C ^ O W •-•
Q y CG W W Y Y L L wm Y D) J
W
J 4- L u •^ •^ G) L L -+
C N Y W E W
Q W N Y Q? N N M- OI '^ N u U L. M L
> L w O) G W J 4- Y O L L Y L O O
w L F- 2 mm uo m a oc a u = Q m (n a LL z Z)
y t
4-51

L
Y
C
W
L
O)
L '
G!
r
V1
•N ,
CN
N
u_
O ,
d
L
W
N
C
Y
,
c m
GC
11 11I

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
' This Draft Environmental Assessment was prepared by Rummel, Klepper & Kahl Consulting
Engineers in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Federal
Highway Administration. The following personnel were instrumental in the preparation of this
document:

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
' Mr. L.J. Ward, PE, Manager of Planning & Environmental Branch
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, PE, Assistant Manager of Planning & Environmental Branch
' Mr. Dave Cochran, PE, Project Engineer, Roadway Design Branch
' Federal HiQhway Administration (FHWA)
Mr. Roy C. Shelton, District B Engineer
Mr. Bradley Hibbs, PE, Area Engineer, B-3 Division 12
' Rummel, Klepper & Kahl
' Mr. William R. Butler, Jr., PE, Project Manager
Ms. E. Michelle Wagoner, EIT, Project Engineer
Ms. Carol J. Sweeney, AICP, Social, Economic, and Noise Analyses
Mr. Mark Reep, EIT, Hydrologic, Traffic and Air Quality Analyses
' Mr. Leon Jernigan, MS, Ecological Studies
Mr. Tom Hargrove, Ph.D., Archeological Studies
' Ms. Margaret Stephenson, MA, Historical Studies

5-1
n

6.0 EIS DISTRIBUTION
' Regional Offices
Regional Representative of the Secretary of Transportation
' Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Housing and Urban Development
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Fish and Wildlife Service
' Federal Emergency Management Agency
General Services Administration
State Agencies
North Carolina Department of Human Resources
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
State Clearinghouse
Local Governments
Western Piedmont Council of Governments
' Chairman, Catawba County Commissioners
Mayor of Hickory
Local Agencies
' Catawba County Department of Engineering
Catawba County Department of Environmental Health
Catawba County Planning Commission
Catawba County Schools
City of Hickory, City Engineer
City of Hickory, Office of Planning

r-,
J

6-1

7.0 COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
7.1 Public Involvement
A public involvement program was formulated and conducted throughout the project
development process in recognition of the guidelines of Part 1506.6 - Public Involvement
Regulation for Implementing the Procedural Provision of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). This public involvement program included newsletters and public meetings.
Copies of all newsletters, meeting handouts, and meeting memorandums are provided in
Appendix A.
A project mailing list of nearly 900 names was compiled with the assistance of
Catawba County officials who supplied property maps and records which were used to
identify property owners and addresses in the project area. This list was continually updated
as additional names were received, and was used for the distribution of newsletters.
The first public meeting (February 7, 1990) was held early in the study process to
announce the study intention and to allow for public input at the scoping stage.
Approximately 220 persons attended the meeting held at the St. Stephens Elementary School
Cafeteria, a central location in the project area. Attendees included the NC Board of
Transportation member for Division 12, a representative from the Western Piedmont Council
of Governments, County officials, City officials, NCDOT personnel, and members of the
general public. The need for the proposed project to move traffic through the project area
was expressed by many attendees. Other issues identified at the meeting included potential
impacts to neighborhoods and historic resources, residential and business relocations, and
noise. The need for an alternative corridor crossing Springs Road was identified, and the
project schedule was criticized as keeping property owners in suspense for too long. A need
to coordinate with planned development projects was identified.
7-1

L
A second public meeting (June 20, 1990) was held after the preliminary corridor
locations were revised and preliminary evaluation data was developed. This meeting provided
the public an opportunity to review the revised corridor locations on a large scale map and '
to receive an update on the progress of the study. Major concerns expressed at the meeting
include the potential for flooding from increased stormwater runoff and stormwater impacts ,
on Lake Hickory, the right-of-way acquisition and relocation process, potential noise impacts,
,
and traffic operations especially regarding property access. The potential for flooding is
addressed in Section 4.11 of this document. Stormwater impacts are addressed in Section 4.8.
A formal public hearing will be held during circulation of this Environmental Impact '
Statement, prior to selection of an Alternative for final design.
7.2 Interagency Coordination
In accordance with the implementation procedures of the National Environmental '
Policy Act (NEPA) and the NCDOT policy of early coordination, a Notice of Intent letter was
published in the National Register on January 24, 1990. In addition, a scoping letter was ,
distributed on March 21, 1990 to solicit input from agencies regarding potential impacts.
Table 7.1 presents the scoping letter distribution list including an indication of whether a ,
response was received. Copies of the scoping letter and all responses are included in
Appendix B. Agency comments are summarized in Table 7.2.
Coordination was initiated at the local level to evaluate potential impacts to '
community services. Local officials who were contacted by letter include the City of Hickory
Public Works Department, City of Hickory Parks & Recreation Department, City of Hickory
Police Department, City of Hickory Fire Department, the Catawba County Emergency '
Services, Catawba County Board of Education, and Catawba County Social Services.
A Steering Committee was formed to provide ongoing coordination on the project,
including representatives from the NC Department of Transportation, FHWA, Western ,
Piedmont Council of Governments, Catawba County, and the City of Hickory. ,
7-2
1

Table 7.1 Scoping Letter Distribution List
FEDERAL AGENCIES
* US Army Corps of Engineers
US Department of Housing & Urban Development
Federal Emergency Management Administration
US Geological Survey
Intermountain Field Operations Center
* US Environmental Protection Agency
* US Fish and Wildlife Service
* USDA - Soil Conservation Service
STATE AGENCIES
* NC State Clearinghouse
* NC Division of Archives & History
NC Division of Health Services
* NC Division of School Planning
* NC NRCD - Environmental Assessment Section
NC Department of Transportation:
Hydrographics Unit
Geotechnical Unit
Location & Survey Unit
Right-of-way Branch
Traffic Engineering Branch
Statewide Planning
* Bicycle Coordinator
Division Engineer, Div. 12
* Roadway Design Branch
Western Piedmont Council of Governments
LOCAL AGENCIES
* Office of the Mayor, Hickory
Note: * indicates a response was received.
7-3

Table 7.2 Summary of Agency Comments
Agency
US Fish & Wildlife
Service
Date Comment
3-2-90, and Describe fishery and wildlife resources within affected areas
4-26-90 (see Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.5). Provide acreage and description
of affected streams and wetlands, and linear feet of relocated
streams. Identify techniques for design and construction of
relocated stream channels and/or creating replacement
wetlands (see Sections 4.9 and 4.10). Provide acreage, by
cover type, of upland habitats eliminated (see Section 4.13).
Describe secondary and cumulative environmental impacts (see
Section 4.8). Identify mitigation measures (see Section 4.8 and
4.9). The federally threatened plant species, Hexastylis
naniflora, may occur within the impact area (see Section
3.3.6).
USDA Soil 4-11-90 The project will not affect any farmland as defined by the
Conservation Service Farmland Protection Policy Act. The exception might be parts
of corridor segments D and E. Soils which meet the criteria
for Important Farmlands comprise 20 percent of corridor
segment D and 15 percent of corridor segment E (see Section
4.2).
US Department of the 4-17-90 Include a description of mineral resources in the project area
Interior, Bureau of (see Section 3.3.8). Assess potential impacts on mineral
Mines production and development (see Section 4.17).
US Environmental
Protection Agency,
Region IV
NC State
Clearinghouse
US Army Corps of
Engineers
4-26-90 Address potential impacts to water quality and aquatic life
including non-point source pollution. Address the potential
for hazardous materials being spilled into streams. Consider
impacts on area drinking water sources. Discuss techniques to
control highway runoff, the use of best management practices
is encouraged (see Section 4.8). Avoid disturbance of streams
and freshwater wetlands and identify any impacts (see Section
4.9 and 4.10). Address air quality (see Section 4.6), noise (see
Section 4.7), and wildlife including protected species (see
Section 4.13 and 4.14). Address construction impacts (see
Section 4.21). Include a plan for mitigation.

3-30-90 Acknowledgement of Receipt for intergovernmental review. I
4-23-90 Evaluate potential impacts on flood plains (see Section 4.11).
Permit authorization will be required for the discharge of
excavated or fill material in waters of the United States or
wetlands (see Section 4.12).

7-4

Table 7.2 Su mmary of Agency Comments (continued)
Agency Date Comment

NC Department of 4-27-90 Retain a qualified architectural historian to define and survey
' Cultural Resources the area, and identify potential impacts. A comprehensive
survey should be conducted by an experienced archaeologist
to identify the presence of any remains that may be affected
(see Sections 3.1.6 and 4.15).
NC Wildlife 4-12-90 Lyles Creek has been listed as the Type Locality and only
Resources known location for Dactvlocvthere isabelae (ostracod)(see
Commission Sections 3.3.6 and 4.14). Complete inventories of wildlife and
' aquatic resources affected (see Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.5). Map
and identify acreages of impacted wetlands (see Sections 3.3.3
and 4.9), including related areas that may undergo hydrologic
change (see Section 4.11). Map upland wildlife habitat by
' cover type and identify impacts (see Section 3.3.4 and 4.13).
Address mitigation and erosion control (see Section 4.8). p ')
Strongly oppose any Corridor Alternative utilizing corridor
segments C or E.
NC State 4-16-90 Intergovernmental Review Comments (transmittal).
' Clearinghouse
NC Department of 4-23-90 Divisions have identified some areas of concern (see below).
Environment, Health,
and Natural
Resources
NC NRCD, Division 4-2-90 Provide information regarding forest resources (see Section
of Forest Resources 3.3.4). If woodland is involved, merchandize lumber to reduce
piling and burning of debris. Address provisions to protect
standing trees during construction (see Section 4.21.6).
' NC EHNR, Division 4-11-90 Eighteen geodetic survey markers will be impacted. Contact
of Land Resources NCGS prior to construction (see Section 4.21.5).
NC EHNR, Division 4-17-90 Water lines are located in the project area, contact appropriate
' of Environmental officials to avoid rupture of lines during construction (see
Health Section 4.21.5). The proposed project will be constructed near
drinking water sources, address precautions to avoid
' contamination of the watershed (see Sections 4.8 and 4.21.3).
NC EHNR, Division 4-16-90 The use of grassed drainage swales is preferable to curb and
Water Resources gutter as a means to disperse highway pollutants (see Section
4.8). Consider a more narrow right-of-way for 4-lane divided
sections to reduce cost (see Section 2.4.3).
Hickory-Newton- 5-1-90 Support Corridor Alternative 1 which utilizes corridor
' Conover Metropolitan segments A and B as consistent with the Hickory-Newton-
Planning Organization Conover Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan.

7-5

Table 7.2 Summary of Agency Comments (continued)
Agency Date Comment
City of Hickory, 5-14-90 The City of Hickory strongly supports corridor segments A
Mayor and B (Alternative 1) as the best location for the proposed
Hickory East Side Thoroughfare. This location is consistent
with the Hickory-Newton-Conover Urban Area Thoroughfare
Plan. The City has worked with developers since 1983 to
insure that land development projects are designed in
conformance with this location, and has even purchased
property to protect the corridor from development. Corridor
segment A-1 misses the linkage with 29th Avenue Drive (see
Section 2.3.2), and corridor segments C and E conflict with a
future road project and are too far north to tap travel demands
south of Cloninger Mill Road. Corridor segment D bisects a
recently approved mobile home park, and is too far east to
allow the development of an interchange at I-40.

US Army Corps of 5-24-90 Confirming receipt of request for US Army Corps of
Engineers Engineers to be a cooperating agency. '
USDA Soil 8-7-90 Transmitting Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form AD-
Conservation Service 1006 with SCS part completed. Areas that are urbanized or '
planned for urbanization are not covered by the Farmland
Protection Policy Act.
NC Department of 3-26-91 Approval of Archaeological Survey Report.
Cultural Resources
NC Department of 4-25-91 Concurring that 29 potential historic sites are not eligible.
Cultural Resources Requesting additional information on the Honeycutt House
and Farm, the St. Stephen's School, and the Alonzo
Washington Shook House and Dependencies.
NC Department of 7-24-91 Concurring that St. Stephen's School is eligible for the
Cultural Resources National Register of Historic Places, and that the Alonzo
Washington Shook House and Dependencies is not. Requesting
additional information on the Honeycutt House.
NC Department of 9-26-91 Concurring that the Honeycutt House and Farm is not eligible
Cultural Resources for the National Register of Historic Places.
7-6

J

r

8.0 REFERENCES
• A Manual on User Benefit Analysis of Highway and Bus-Transit Improvements, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 1977.
• A Policy on Design of Highways and Streets, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, 1984.
• An Archaeological Survey of the Proposed East Side Thoroughfare from US 70 to NC 127,
Thomas Hargrove, Archaeological Research Consultants, Inc., January, 1991.
• "CALINE3 - A Versatile Dispersion Model for Predicting Air Pollutant Levels Near Highways
and Arterial Streets", Report No. FHWA/CA/TL-79/23, California Department of
Transportation, 1979.
• Entocytherid Ostracods of North Carolina, Hobbs, HH, and DJ Peters, Smithsonian
Contributions to Zoology No. 247, 1977.
• Environmental Impacts Associated with the Proposed East Side Thoroughfare From US 70
to NC 127, Hickory, Catawba County, Wetland Ecosystems Technologists, August 17, 1990.
• Flood Insurance Study. City of Hickory, North Carolina. Catawba and Burke Counties,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, August 3, 1981.
• Foresight, The Environmental Scan. 1989: A Second Look at the Local Economy in Catawba
County. North Carolina, Western Piedmont Council of Governments, September, 1989.
• Guidelines for Drainage Studies and Hydraulic Design, North Carolina Division of Highways,
1989.
• "Guidelines for Evaluating the Air Quality Impacts of Complex Sources", North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, October 1989.
• Hickory-Newton-Conover Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan, North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Planning and Research Branch, Statewide Planning Group, Thoroughfare
Planning Unit, 1986.
• Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council.
• Historic Structures Survey and Evaluation Report, Margaret Long Stephenson, Architectural
Conservation Associates, February, 1991.
• Land Development Plan, City of Hickory with Robert M. Leary & Associates, Ltd., 1986.
• Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, FHWA, 1978.
• North Carolina Handbook of Design for Highway Surface Drainage Structures, North Carolina
State Highway Commission, 1973.
• "North Carolina Population Projections 1988 - 2010", North Carolina Office of Budget and
Management.
• "North Carolina Preliminary Labor Force Estimates, 1988-2010", Employment Securities
Commission of North Carolina.
• Roadway Design Manual, North Carolina Department of Transportation, January 1, 1978.
8-1

• Sound Procedures for Measuring Highway Noise: Final Report, Federal Highway
Administration, August 1981.
• The North Carolina State Implementation Plan for Air Quality, North Carolina Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development, July, 1972.
• Transportation Improvement Program 1990 - 1996, North Carolina Department of
Transportation.
• "Users Guide to MOBILE3 (Mobile Source Emissions Model)", Report No. EPA 46013-84-
002, US Environmental Protection Agency, 1984.
• 1988 Ambient Air Quality Report, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, February 1990.
8-2

u
e

9.0 INDEX
Tonic Page(s)
Air quality 3-45, 4-12, 4-45
Alternatives, preliminary 2-2
Alternatives, reasonable 2-7
Archaeological resources 3-29, 4-41
Bicycle facilities 3-6, 4-5
Community facilites 3-10, 4-6
Cost estimates 2-38
Economic conditions 3-31, 4-12
Endangered species 3-38, 4-40
Energy 4-44
Farmlands 3-40,4-1
Floodplains 3-35,4-35
Hazardous materials 3-48,4-42
Historical resources 3-12, 4-40
Land use 3-4, 4-1
Mineral resources 3-41,4-43
Natural habitats 3-37,4-39
Neighborhoods 3-4, 4-3
Noise 3-42, 4-17,445
Pedestrian facilities 3-6, 4-5
Permits 4-38
Planning, land use 1-10, 3-6, 4-1
Planning, transportation 1-1
Preparers 5-1
Public involvement 7-1
Purpose and need 1-1
Relocations 4-7
Safety 1-10, 4-6, 4-46
Traffic analysis 2-15
Transportation demand 1-1
Typical sections 2-10
Utilities 3-10, 4-6, 4-46
Visual environment 3-42, 4-43
Water quality 4-30, 4-45
Water resources 3-33, 4-35
Wetlands 3-35, 4-32
Wildlife 3-38, 4-39
9-1

J

APPENDIX A
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

INDEX TO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Newsletter No. 1
1st Public Meeting Handout
1st Public Meeting Attendance Register
Memorandum of 1st Public Meeting
Newsletter No. 2
2nd Public Meeting Handout
2nd Public Meeting Attendance Register
Memorandum of 2nd Public Meeting
Newsletter No. 3

I

I
i

r

Ir-?
LJ

EAST SIDE
THOROUGHFARE
City of Hickory • Catawba County North Carolina
Newsletter No. 1 January 1990
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT INITIATED FOR
HIGHWAY PROJECT IN
HICKORY. CATAWBA COUNTY
The North Carolina Department of
Transportation has initiated an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for the proposed construction of the
East Side Thoroughfare in Hickory,
Catawba County. This Thoroughfare
will link NC 127 with US 70 and
function as a major arterial for the
Hickory area, relieving congestion on
existing routes.
Alternative corridors will be evaluated
during the EIS process. Figure 1 shows
six preliminary corridor segments that
make up the alternative corridors under
CJnsideiaiion as possible loca6wis fur
the project.
The EIS will study each alternative
corridor to evaluate the impacts on land
use, existing business and residential
properties, community resources, air
and water quality, noise levels, wetlands
and wildlife.
RUMMEL, KLEPPER & KAHL
SELECTED AS CONSULTANTS
The North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) has selected
and retained the firm of Rummel,
Klepper & Kahl (RK&K) to conduct
the engineering location studies and
prepare the Environmental Impact
Statement for the proposed East Side
Thoroughfare.
RK&K isa consulting firm specializing
in transportation, civil engineering,
structural design, planning and
economics. The firm's office is located
in Raleigh at 5800 Faringdon Place,
Suite 105. Project Manager for RK&K
will be Mr. William R. Butler, Jr., PE.
A Steering Committee has been formed
to guide the development of the
project. Committee members include
technical staff from the City of
Hickory, Catawba County, the Western
Piedmont Council of Governments,
Federal Highway Administration,
NCDOT, RK&K, and JE Greiner Co.
NORTH
N,p
LAKI 0 p? MM
SCALE
rridor Corridor
A-1 Z CorridoLA
?
`C
owl-
Co. ri0
A ' _
/ 1 p0
1
SMO
?y 1
HICKORY)l
Corridor
rArr 4vo. ' ?....
r) 1
-Corridor
To l•, ao
r •
r
Figure l: This map shows the locations of the
preliminary corridor segments to be evaluated for the
East Side Thoroughfare.
PUBLIC MEETING: FEBRUARY 7, 1990
(see page 2 for details)

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
A major part of the highway planning process
is an effective program of public involvement.
This program includes meetings with elected
officials and the public to distribute
information and solicit comments, a series of
new: :-tiers to report the status of project
development and advertise meetings, and small
group meetings on request. The public
involvement process will culminate with a
Public Hearing, where formal testimony
regarding the project will be presentea by all
interested parties. The purpose of the Public
Involvement Program is to ensure that all issues
and concerns are addressed in the planning
process.
A project "HOTLINE" has been established to
provide a local telephone number for interested
persons to request project information. This
number is [phone].
This newsletter is the first in a series. A
mailing list of interested persons will be
maintained and updated for newsletter
delivery. To add names to the list, contact
either of the parties listed under *INQUIRIES".
PROJECT SCH EDULE
2nd Newsletter May 1990
Submit Draft EIS Oct 1990
3rd Newsletter Nov 1990
Public Hearing Jan 1991
4th Newsletter June 1991
Submit Final EIS July 1991
ROW Acquisition 1994
Construction 1995
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl
5800 Faringdon Place, Suite 105
Raleigh, NC 27609
PROPOSED FAST SIDE THOROUGHFARE
NEWSLETTER NUMBER I
Page 2
INQUIRIES
Inquiries may be addressed to:
Mr. L. J. Ward, PE, Manager
Planning and Research Branch
NC DOT Division of Highways
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Telephone: [phone]
or
Mr. William R. Butler, Jr., PE
Rummel, Klepper & Kalil
5800 Faringdon Place, Suite 105
Raleigh, NC 27609
Project HOTLINE: [phone]
Raleigh Telephone: [phone]
PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE
A Public Meeting is scheduled for February 7,
1990 from 4:00 pm to 7:00 pm, at St. Stephens
Elementary School Cafeteria. St Stephens
Elementary School is located at the corner of
Springs Road and 24th St. NE.
The purpose of the meeting is to present the
preliminary corridor locations as presently
identified. The meeting will consist of
discussions on an individual basis to allow the
public to voice concerns and volunteer
information or ideas. All comments regarding
the proposed project, particularly with regard
to the community, and environmental and
social impacts, will be welcomed.
Representatives from NCDOT and RK&K will
be present to answer questions.

J

t
I
1 PUBLIC MEETING
1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
for EAST SIDE THOROUGHFARE
1 Hickory, Catawba County
I State Project No. 8.2790901

1

The North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) has selected and
retained the firm of Rummel, Klepper & Kahl
(RK&K) to conduct the engineering studies
and prepare the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the proposed construction
of the East Side Thoroughfare in Hickory,
Catawba County. This is the first Public
Meeting in the EIS process. The purpose of
this meeting is to obtain input regarding the
concerns of local officials and the public
during the development phase of the EIS.
The proposed East Side Thoroughfare would
extend approximately seven miles from NC
127, north of Hickory, to US 70 in the vicinity
of Startown Road (SR 1005). It would function
as a major arterial for the Hickory area,
relieving congestion on existing routes. Traffic
volume forecasts for the proposed roadway
range between 10,100 and 25,600 vehicles per
day by the year 2010. The proposed project is
identified in the NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program for 1990-1996, with
right-of-way acquisition to begin in 1994 and
construction to begin in mid-1995.
The alternatives under consideration in the EIS
include the No Build Alternate, the
Transportation Systems Management (TSM)
Alternate, and eight Build Alternates. The No
Build Alternate would only provide for normal
maintenance of existing roads, while the TSM
Alternate would include improvements such as
resetting of traffic signals, revision of
intersection alignments, and possible ride
sharing programs which would maximize the
efficiency of the existing roadway system.
TIP No. U-2307
DETAILS OF THE. BUILD ALTERNATES
The eight Build Alternates consist of various
combinations of six corridor segments which
are shown on the map on page 2 of this
handout and described on page 3. The eight
Build Alternates and corresponding corridor
segment combinations are as follows:
Alternate Corridor Segment Combinations
Alternate 1
Alternate 2
Alternate 3
Alternate 4
Alternate 5
Alternate 6
Alternate 7
Alternate 8
A and 13
A-1 and B
C and 13
E and 13
A and D
A- I and E
C and D
E and D
A five-lane curb and gutter roadway section
which includes a continuous left-turn lane will
be evaluated for all corridor segments. A four-
lane divided roadway with a 24' or 56' grass
median will also be evaluated for corridor
segments B, C, D and E. The proposed right-
of-way is 90' for the five-lane section and
approximately 300' for the four-lane divided
section, with additional right-of-way required
in areas of steep terrain.
The EIS will study each alternative to evaluate
the impacts on land use, existing business and
residential properties, community resources, air
and water quality, noise levels, wetlands and
wildlife.
City of Hickory - Catawba County - North Carolina
of Hip*,
p
1
y0 1670 ?Q
?lH C ARcl ((I $ tam/
Page 2
Begin Corridor
//Segments C,E. \?•`Hickory
CATAWBA Cab--- ?- _?L-ok-e-
Corridor Corridor z
Segment g
Segment
C i °E a
Corridor
r?Segment
,
Begin Corridor ?C
Segments A,A-1a
VENUE ?i` • Pooc, fk ROq pqp
29 F ? f-
0
Corridor
Segment ' 2O AvE Y' APO 1
A
End Corridor Corridor
Segments a,a-i,c,E H ICKORY Segment
D \
criPPie Begin Corridor
Segments B D th v
0
TATE SOUL EVARD
_
Th
2^Q A/ENUE W

F
B
Z

r
f
C,

F
W O
p ?? R
V
, -- -
Corridor
ment
Se S
°'c?
?Fr UE
g
l xK
w
O 4l. ?
_
B
I
- I-4
°

End Gbrridor
' B
Segment
- o ?? Us
'°
- ffo 'I s
End Corridor °o
e Se meet D Cb
Figure I. This map shows the locations of the preliminary corridor segments to be evaluated for the
East Side Thoroughfare. These corridors are described on page 3.

I

1

Page 3
DESCRIPTIONS OF PRELIMINARY CORRIDOR SEGMENTS
The six corridor segments for the Build Alternates are shown on Figure 1 and described as follows:
Corridor Sep,ment A: begins at NC 127, extends
eastward along existing 29th Avenue Drive NE
and 24th Street NE, crosses Springs Road, and
extends on new location to a point
approximately 1100' south of Springs Road.
Proposed improvements on this corridor
segment include widening and realigning parts
of 29th Avenue Drive NE and 24th Street NE.
No access control is proposed on this corridor
segment.
An initial review indicates there are two stream
crossings associated with this corridor segment,
including Falling Creek and Snow Creek.
Corridor Segment A-1: begins at NC 127 in the
vicinity of 31st Avenue NE, extends eastward
to a point on 29th Avenue Drive NE
approximately 4000' east of NC 127, then
follows the same corridor location as Corridor
Segment A. The proposed improvements on
this corridor segment include construction of
approximately 5100' of new roadway, and
widening and realigning existing 29th Avenue
and 24th Street. This corridor segment involves
the same at-grade intersections, roadway
sections and stream crossings as Corridor
Segment A.
Corridor Seement B: begins at a point
approximately 1100' south of Springs Road,
extends southward on new location to the
intersection of Startown Road and US 70.
Proposed improvements on this corridor
segment include construction of approximately
3.3 miles of new roadway and an interchange
at I-40. A crossing at the Southern Railway
tracks and a connection to Highland Avenue
will be evaluated in the EIS. Access control is
proposed only at the 1-40 interchange. At-
grade intersections will be provided at US 70,
Sweetwater Road, Tate Boulevard, and Spencer
Road.
An initial review indicates there are two stream
crossings associated with this corridor segment,
including Clarks Creek and Lyle Creek.
Corridor Segment D: begins at a point
approximately 1100' south of Springs Road,
extends southward on new location, connecting
to a point on US 70 approximately 3500' east
of Startown Road (SR 1005). The proposed
improvements on this corridor segment include
construction of approximately 3.8 miles of new
roadway and construction of an interchange at
I-40. Construction alternatives for the crossing
of the Southern Railway tracks, parallel to
Highland Avenue, and the connection to
Highland Avenue will be evaluated in the EIS.
At-grade intersections will be provided at US
70, Sweetwater Road, Tate Boulevard, and
Spencer Road. Access control is proposed only
at the 1-40 interchange.
An initial review indicates there are three
stream crossings associated with this corridor
segment, including Clarks Creek, Lyle Creek,
and Miller Branch.
Corridor Seement C: begins at NC 127 in the
vicinity of Cloninger Mill Road, extends
eastward on new location, crosses Sandy Ridge
Road and Springs Road, and continues
southward to a point approximately 1 100' south
of Springs Road. Proposed improvements on
this corridor segment include construction of
approximately 3.5 miles of new roadway. At-
grade intersections will be provided at Springs
Road, Sandy Ridge Road, Cloninger Mill Road,
and NC 127. No access control is proposed on
this corridor segment.
An initial review indicates there are two stream
crossings associated with this corridor segment,
including Falling Creek and Snow Creek.
Corridor Seement E: begins at NC 127 in the
vicinity of Cloninger Mill Road, extends
eastward on new location parallel to and north
of Cloninger Mill Road, crosses Sandy Ridge
Road, approximately 750' south of SR 1507,
Kool Park Road in the vicinity of Snow Creek,
and Springs Road, then continues southward to
a point approximately 1100' south of Springs
Road. The proposed improvements on this
corridor segment include construction of
approximately 4.1 miles of new roadway. At-
grade intersections will be provided at Springs
Road, Sandy Ridge Road, Cloninger Mill Road,
and NC 127. No access control is proposed on
this corridor segment.
An initial review indicates there are two stream
crossings associated with this corridor segment,
including Falling Creek and Snow Creek.
jl
Page 4
ggo?T?cT sc><?l?
2nd Newsletter ?ui-1?
May 1990
Submit Draft EIS Oct 1990
3rd Newsletter Nov 1990
Public Hearing' Jan 1991
4th Newsletter June 1991
Submit Final EIS July 1991
ROW Acquisition 1994
Construction 1995
RO-, ""TLINE"
P JECT
A project "HOTLINE" has been established to provide a local telephone number for
interested persons to request project information. This number is [phone].
This "HOTLINE" may also be used to submit comments on the project or to submit
names for the mailing list.
I

F
t
t_J

1
i
EAST SIDE THOROUGHFARE
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
Wednesday, February 7, 1990
St. Stephens Elementary School
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS
All suggestions, questions or comments may be submitted in writing by completing this form
and leaving it at this Public Meeting, or mailing it to:
W. R. Butler, Jr., PE
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl
5800 Faringdon Place, Suite 105
Raleigh, NC 27609
PLEASE PRINT:
NAME:
ADDRESS:
CITY/TOWN:
STATE
I am currently on the mailing list
Please add my/our name(s) to the mailing list
I/We wish to comment or inquire about the following aspects of this project:
ZIP
Use Other Side for Additional Comments)

EAST SIDE
THORolGHFARE
I
City of Hickory • Catawba County North Carolina
Newsletter No.2 June 1990
Ls' 4" NORTH
IL
A
"relitlli Itry GA

Corrf r
Corridor C "°fq LE
' 9?L
%*S Corridor
A-1 2 13
Revised
1
Corridor
?. O
+
Corridt -r'-1
O
p°
A J"-
j ' r?
rridor
r
HICKORY
NO,
N
LPN
r?tE eLVO.
i J
r

corridor 1
1
?k? fr
' I n -4 prf?

70 ?.. 40
?
1.1`-..•..1•.,
Corridor
D
Figure 1: This map shows the locations of the corridor
segments under evaluation for the East Side
Thoroughfare. The location of the preliminary Corridor
Segment C is shown for comparison with the revised
Corridor Segment C.
PUBLIC WORKSIiOP: JUNE 20, 1990
4:00 - 8:00 PM
ST. STEPHENS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
(see page 2 for details)
PROGRESS MADE ON
_ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT
The North Carolina Department of
Transportation has been progressing with the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
proposed construction of the East Side
Thoroughfare in Hickory, Catawba County.
This Thoroughfare will link NC 127 with
I-40 and US 70, and function as a major
arterial for the Hickory area.
Progress on the EIS includes:
• modification of the preliminary
corridor segments,
• development of traffic data,
• completion of the ecological study,
• identification of archaeologic and
historic resources, and
• establishment of ambient noise levels.
PRELIMINARY CORRIDOR
SEGMENTS RrVISrD
Six preliminary corridor segments were
identified early in the EIS process for
consideration as possible locations for the
project. The preliminary location for
Corridor Segment C has been modified and
an additional Corridor Segment F has been
developed, based on public input. Figure 1
shows the location of all corridor segments
under evaluation for the project.
The seven revised corridor segments combine
to make up ten alternative corridors which
will be evaluated in the EIS.
PUBLIC MEETING HELD
A public meeting was held on February 7,
1990 to solicit public input regarding the
proposed East Sid2 Thoroughfare. Thc-e
were approximately 220 persons in
attendance, and over 70 written comments
were submitted.
Major concerns expressed at the meeting
include:
• There is a very real need to move
traffic through the project area.
• Potential impacts to neighborhoods
must be considered.
• An alternative location for crossing
Springs Road should be developed.
• The project schedule keeps property
owners in suspense for too long.

1

LJ

t

I

Page 2
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UPDATE
This is the second newsletter in an ongoing
program for public involvement to keep you
informed regarding the status of the proposed
East Side Thoroughfare. The first newsletter
was published in January 1990, followed by a
public meeting in February 1990 (see page I
for details).
The Public Involvement Program will continue
with a public workshop scheduled for June 20,
1990 (see this page for details). Two more
newsletters and a formal Public Hearing are
planned for later in the EIS process as shown
on the project schedule (below).
The project "HOTLINE" continues to provide
a local telephone number for interested persons
to request project information. The number is
[phone].
A mailing list of interested persons is being
maintained and updated for newsletter
delivery. To add names to the list, contact
either of the parties listed under "INQUIRIES".
PROJECT SCFIE DUI.F:
Public Workshop June 20, 1990
Submit Draft EIS Oct 1990
3rd Newsletter Nov 1990
Public Hearing Jan 1991
4th Newsletter June 1991
Submit Final EIS July 1991
ROW Acquisition 1994
Construction 1995
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl
5800 Faringdon Place, Suite 105
Raleigh, NC 27609
PROPOSED FAST SIDE THQRQUGHFARE
NPWSI ETTER NUMBER 2
INQUIRIES
Inquiries may be addressed to
Mr. L. J. Ward, PE, Manager
Planning and Research Branch
NC DOT Division of Highways
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Telephone: [phone]
or
Mr. William R. Butler, Jr., PE
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl
5800 Faringdon Place, Suite 105
Raleigh, NC 27609
Project HOTLINE: [phone]
Raleigh Telephone: [phone]
PUBLIC WORKSHOP NOTICE
A Public Workshop is scheduled for June 20,
1990 from 4:00 pm to 8:00 pm, at St. Stephens
Elementary School Cafeteria. St. Stephens
Elementary School is located at the corner of
Springs Road and 24th St. NE.
The workshop will follow an informal format
beginning with a brief presentation followed by
discussions on an individual basis. A large
scale map showing the location of the corridor
segments will be on display so that the public
can review the potential corridor locations;
however, impacts to individual properties
cannot be identified. Representatives from
NCDOT and RK&K will be present to answer
questions.
The purpose of the workshop is to provide an
update of project information and to allow the
public to voice concerns and volunteer
information or ideas. All comments regarding
the proposed project will be welcomed.
BULK RATE
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
RALEIGH, N.C.
PERMIT rf 253
I?
?J
?I
PUBLIC WORKSHOP i
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
for EAST SIDE THOROUGHFARE
Hickory, Catawba County
State Project No. 8.2790901
TIP No. U-2307
PURPOSE OF THE WORKSHOP
This workshop is the second public meeting in the ongoing Public Involvement Program for the
proposed East Side Thoroughfare. The purpose of this meeting is to provide an update of progress
since the first public meeting and to allow the public to voice concerns.
A comment sheet is provided with this handout, and comments may be submitted during the
workshop or by mail. See "INQUIRIES" section of this handout for mailing address.
PURPOSE OF THE EIS PROCESS
The purpose of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process is to evaluate alternative corridors
as possible locations for the proposed East Side Thoroughfare. This evaluation process will culminate
in the selection of a corridor for preliminary roadway design, subsequent to a public hearing on the
Corridor Alternatives.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EAST SIDE THOROUGHFARE
The proposed East Side Thoroughfare would extend approximately seven miles from NC 127, north
of Hickory, to US 70 in the vicinity of Startown Road. It would function as a major arterial for the
Hickory area, relieving congestion on existing routes and improving access between residential
neighborhoods and commercial/employment areas.
PROJECT PLANNING TEAM
The firm of Rummel, Klepper & Kahl was selected by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation to conduct the engineering studies and prepare the EIS for the proposed East Side
Thoroughfare.

i
P

P-J

1

City of Hickory Catawba County North Carolina
I
0f 0011TH 0
.?.,. 0?? ` A.
f
r•'
I* 1070 ?'
Th CAR, ) ?T or if,
11
Page 2
DESCRIPTIONS OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives are being evaluated during the EIS process:
• No Build Alternative - would provide only for normal maintenance of the existing
transportation system,
• Transportation Systems Management Alternative - would provide improvements to the
existing roadway system such as retiming existing traffic signals, revising intersection
alignments, and/or transit programs such as ride sharing.
• Corridor Alternatives - would provide for the construction of the proposed thoroughfare.
i Eight Corridor Alternatives were identified early in the EIS process and two additional Corridor
Alternatives have been developed based on public input. The Corridor Alternatives consist of various
combinations of Corridor Segments (described below) as follows:
Corridor Alternatives Corridor Segment Combinations
Corridor Alternative 1 Corridor Segments A and B
Corridor Alternative 2 Corridor Segments A-1, A and B
Corridor Alternative 3 Corridor Segments C and B
Corridor Alternative 4 Corridor Segments E, C and B
Corridor Alternative 5 Corridor Segments A and D
Corridor Alternative 6 Corridor Segments A-1, A and D
Corridor Alternative 7 Corridor Segments C and D
Corridor Alternative 8 Corridor Segments E, C and D
Corridor Alternative 9 Corridor Segments C, F and D
Corridor Alternative 10 Corridor Segments E, C, F and D
DFSCRIPTIONS OF CORRIDOR SEGMENTS
Six preliminary Corridor Segments were identified early in the EIS process. Corridor Segment C has
been revised and an additional Corridor Segment F has been developed based on concerns identified
through the Public Involvement Program. Corridor Segments are delineated on Figure l (page 4) and
described as follows:
Corridor Segment A: begins at NC 127, extends eastward along existing 29th Avenue Drive NE and
24th Street NE, crosses Springs Road, and extends on new location to a point approximately 1100'
south of Springs Road. Proposed improvements on this corridor segment include widening and
realigning parts of 29th Avenue Drive NE and 24th Street NE. A 5-lane curb and gutter roadway
section with 90' minimum right-of-way is being evaluated. No access control is proposed, and at-
grade intersections will be provided at NC 127, Falling Creek Road, Sandy Ridge Road and Springs
Road. There are two stream crossings associated with this corridor segment, including Falling Creek
and Snow Creek.
Corridor Seement_A-1: begins at NC 127 in the vicinity of 31st Avenue NE, and extends eastward
to a point on Corridor Segment A approximately 4000' east of NC 127. The proposed improvements
on this corridor segment include construction of approximately 1 mile of new roadway. A 5-lane
curb and gutter roadway section with 90' minimum right-of-way is being evaluated. No access
control is proposed on this segment, and an at-grade intersection will be provided at NC 127. There
is one stream crossing associated with this corridor, Falling Creek.
(continued on page 3)

t
Page 3
Corridor Seement B: begins at a point approximately 1100' south of Springs Road, extends southward
on new location to the intersection of Startown Road and US 70. Proposed improvements on this
corridor segment include construction of approximately 3.3 miles of new roadway. A 5-lane roadway
section with 90' minimum right-of-way is being evaluated north of Sweetwater Road, and a 4-lane
divided highway with 330' minimum right-of-way is being evaluated south of Sweetwater Road. An
interchange is proposed at I-40, and a crossing at the Southern Railway tracks and a connection to
Highland Avenue will be evaluated in the EIS. Access control is proposed only at the I-40
interchange. At-grade intersections will be provided at Spencer Road, Tate Boulevard, Sweetwater
Road, and US 70. This corridor crosses two streams, Clarks Creek and Lyle Creek, and involves the
relocation of approximately 300'of Clarks Creek at I-40.
Corridor Segment C: begins at NC 127, extends eastward along existing Cloninger Mill and Kool Park
Roads to a point on Kool Park Road in the vicinity of Snow Creek, turns south on new location,
crosses Springs Road, and continues southward to a point approximately 1100' south of Springs Road.
Proposed improvements on this corridor segment include widening and realigning parts of Cloninger
Mill and Kool Park Roads, and construction of approximately I mile of new roadway. A 5-lane curb
and gutter roadway section with 90' minimum right-of-way is being evaluated. No access control
is proposed, and at-grade intersections will be provided at NC 127, Sandy Ridge Road and Springs
Road. This corridor segment crosses two streams, Falling Creek and Snow Creek, and involves the
relocation of approximately 950' of Snow Creek south of Kool Park Road.
Corridor Seetnent D: begins at a point approximately 1100' south of Springs Road, extends southward
on new location, crossing US 70 and connecting to a point on Startown Road approximately 4200'
south of US 70. The proposed improvements on this corridor segment include construction of
approximately 4.3 miles of new roadway. A 5-lane curb and gutter roadway section with 90'
minimum right-of-way is being evaluated north of Highlands Avenue, and a 4-lane divided roadway
section with 330' minimum right-of-way is being evaluated south of Highlands Avenue. An
interchange is proposed at 1-40. A crossing at the Southern Railway tracks, and a connection to
Highland Avenue will be evaluated in the EIS. Access control is proposed only at the I-40
interchange. At-grade intersections will be provided at Spencer Road, Tate Boulevard, Sweetwater
Road, US 70, and Startown Road. There are three stream crossings associated with this corridor
segment, including Clarks Creek, Lyle Creek, and Miller Branch.
Corridor Segment E: begins at NC 127 in the vicinity of Cloninger Mill Road, extends eastward on
new location parallel to and north of Cloninger Mill Road, crosses Sandy Ridge Road, approximately
750' south of Snow Creek Road, turns south and crosses Kool Park Road in the vicinity of Snow
Creek, then connects to Corridor Segment C at a point approximately 1200' south of Kool Park Road.
The proposed improvements on this corridor segment include construction of approximately 2.8
miles of new roadway. A 5-lane roadway section with 90' minimum right-of-way is being evaluated.
At-grade intersections will be provided at Kool Park Road, Sandy Ridge Road, and NC 127. No
access control is proposed on this corridor segment. This corridor segment crosses two streams,
Falling Creek and Snow Creek, and involves the relocation of approximately 850' of Snow Creek
south of Kool Park Road.
Corridor Seement F: begins at a point on Corridor Segment C approximately 3500' north of Springs
Road, extends southward on new location, crosses Springs Road in the vicinity of 27th Street Place
NE, crosses Spencer Road in the vicinity of 27th Street NE, then connects to Corridor Segment F at
a point approximately 5400' south of Springs Road. The proposed improvements on this corridor
segment include construction of approximately 1.9 miles of new roadway. A 5-lane roadway segment
with 90' minimum right-of-way is being evaluated. At grade intersections will be provided at
Springs Road and Spencer Road. No access control is proposed. There is one stream crossing
associated with this corridor segment, Herman Branch.
Note: Typical roadway sections are shown on page 7.
u

IF_
Lam'

1
t
Page 4
! )Begin Corridor i'
r' Se merits C ?•`NICKOHY'
-•-•-LAKE-"
CO
CAT A .
Corridor
Corrid Segment - ,•..
Segment c
v ., <ON/,v
E
orridor C ?
Segment n <<
a
A-1
Begin Corridor ?°o ? End Corridor
Segment A 1 0 l End Corridor"u
Segmen s A,A-1
a
Segment E
I
\
.?
RD
KOO(
q
Corridor Begin Co
Segment S, gment F
End Corridor `Ivo
- Corridor Segments A,C Segment
F
clippie
Begin Corridor
1
Segments B,D End Corridor
Segment F
-1 ..
7ATE BOULEVARD ?? QUTh
2EA A/ENUE W <?\ £
W
X 16
-00 n « - -
C, R.
W Corridor
1

S
1i--; Segment` wFF,
`'??n Corrido
--'. ;• _, ,
R?q of Segmen

D

_ a rI tte 2 cl
? J
??`` =i t
,N p?4o L
End Corridor s ?) Q
' us 70
13 ,
coq,, Segment B y
°y End Corridor
°
r ov ?' Segment D

0P
Figure 1. This map shows the locations of the Corridor Segments to be evaluated for the East
Side Thoroughfare. These corridors are described on pages 2 and 3.
Page 5
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
A preliminary comparison of Alternative Corridors can be made based on the findings of the
environmental analyses completed to date, as shown in Figure 2.
CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES
EVALUATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CRITERIA
Environmental
• stream 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6
crossings
• relocated 300 300 1250 1150 - - - - 950 850 950 850
stream channel
(feet)
Relocations
• residential 50 40 45 34 78 68 73 62 69 58
• business 10 9 7 7 10 9 7 7 4 4
• public -- 1 -- -- -- I -- -- --
buildings
Acreage Required
• wetlands 1.3 1.3 0.3 0.2 1.1 1.1 0.1 - - 0.1 -
• farmland 9.2 9.2 6.3 4.8 13.0 13.0 9.7 8.2 13.8 12.3
• urban 92.3 88.3 82.6 70.2 104.5 100.5 101.9 89.5 93.8 79.2
• forest 49.3 49.3 67.5 95.2 56.3 58.0 70.3 98.0 74.2 102.0
Roadway Design
• length (miles) 6.6 6.5 6.8 7.4 7.6 7.5 7.9 8.5 7.9 8.4
Figure 2. This table shows the findings of the preliminary evaluation of Corridor Alternatives
for the East Side Thoroughfare.
i
i
Page 6
i
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
A preliminary evaluation of Corridor Alternatives has been initiated, including an analysis of future
traffic conditions and identification of potential environmental impacts. A comparison of Alternative
Corridors is shown in Figure 2 (page 5), based on the findings of the environmental analyses
completed to date. The final evaluation, when complete, will provide the basis for selection of a
Corridor Alternative for preliminary roadway design.
Studies completed to date include:
• Ecology: Natural resources have been identified through field surveys. Potential
' impacts to streams, ponds, wetlands, vegetative habitats, and wildlife
have been evaluated.
• Land Use: Land uses, including residential, public, commercial/ industrial, and
farmland, were identified from the zoning maps for Catawba County.
These uses were verified in the field. Potential impacts have been
evaluated.
' Hazardous Sites: A survey was conducted to identify hazardous waste sites, land fills,
and underground storage tanks within the project area. Potential
impacts have been evaluated.
Socioeconomics: A preliminary evaluation of relocation impacts has been conducted.
An estimate of the potential number of residential, business, and
' community facilities that will be relocated has been made.
• Hydrology: Floodplain encroachments have been identified. Preliminary
engineering designs have been developed at stream crossings and
relocations.
Additional studies which will be conducted include:
' Traffic: Project specific traffic is being developed. Projected traffic volumes
will be used to analyze future traffic conditions and noise.
• Cultural Resources: The background research for archaeologic and historic resources is
complete. A field survey is being conducted to identify potential sites.
Potential impacts will be evaluated.
• Noise: Ambient noise levels have been established from noise measurements
taken in the field. Roadway generated noise will be predicted using
the STAMINA 2.0 computer model and potential impacts will be
' identified. Noise abatement measures will be evaluated using the
OPTIMA computer model.
• Air Quality: Air quality will be predicted using the MOBILE 3 and CALINE 3
computer models. Potential impacts will be evaluated.
• Cost Estimates: Cost estimates will be developed, including costs for construction and
i right-of-way acquisition.
• Mineral Resources: A geologic investigation will be conducted to identify potential mineral
resources and potential impacts.

Page 7
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION
Two typical roadway sections are being evaluated for the East Side Thoroughfare. A 5-lane curb and
gutter roadway section with a continuous left-turn lane is being evaluated for all Corridor Segments.
A 4-lane divided roadway section with either a 24' or 56' grass median is being evaluated for portions
of Corridor Segments B, and D. The minimum right-of-way for the 5-lane roadway section is 90'
as shown in Figure 3, and the minimum right-of-way for the 4-lane divided roadway section is 2'20'
as shown in Figure 4. Additional right-of-way may be required in areas of steep terrain.

Clear Area
2 Thru Cont.
Left
2 Thru
Clear Area
Lanes Turn Lanes
Curb k Gutter Curb do Gutter

/ r
i /i /, / /, r, r, /i. / / .
Figure 3. This drawing shows the typical roadway section for the 5-lane curb and gutter
roadway being evaluated for the East Side Thoroughfare.
Clear Area 2 Thru Grass Median 2 Thru Clear Area
Lanes Lanes
Paved Shoulder I 4 Paved Shoulder
\ r\
/. ?/. 7/.
Figure 4. This drawing shows the typical roadway section for the 4-lane divided roadway being
evaluated for the East Side Thoroughfare.
t
t

r-,
?JI

Page 8
MAILING LIST
A mailing list of interested persons is being maintained and continually updated for use in the
delivery of project newsletters. To add names to the list, complete the top portion of the comment
sheet provided with this handout, or contact either of the parties listed under "INQUIRIES".
INQUIRIES
Inquiries may be addressed to:
Mr. L. J. Ward, PE, Manager
Planning and Research Branch
NC DOT Division of Highways
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Telephone: [phone]
REMAINING STEPS
The EIS is proceeding according to the project
schedule. Remaining Steps in the EIS process
' include:
1. Completion of the environmental
' analyses and alternatives evaluation.
2. Submittal of the Draft EIS for State and
Federal review. Copies will be
available to the public.
3. Public Hearing on the Draft EIS. An
"Open House" will be held one week
prior to the Public Hearing to allow
interested persons to review the
Corridor Hearing Map.
' 4. Submittal of the Final EIS. This
document will incorporate State and
Federal comments as well as input from
' the Public Hearing.
Mr. William R. Butler, Jr., PE
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl
5800 Faringdon Place, Suite 105
Raleigh, NC 27609
Project HOTLINE: [phone]
Raleigh Telephone: [phone]
PROJECT SCHED ULE
Public Workshop June 20, 1990
Submit Draft EIS Oct 1990
3rd Newsletter Nov 1990
Public Hearing Jan 1991
4th Newsletter June 1991
Submit Final EIS July 1991
ROW Acquisition 1994
Construction 1995
' PROJECT BACKGROUND
The East Side Thoroughfare is included in the NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program for
1990-1996 as Project U-2307. Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in 1994 and
' construction is scheduled to begin in mid-1995. A thoroughfare connecting NC 127 and US 70 is also
identified on the Hickory-Newton-Conover Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan.

PROJECT HOTLINE : [phone]

EAST SIDE THOROUGHFARE
PUBLIC INFORMATION WORKSHOP
Wednesday, June 20, 1990
St. Stephens Elementary School
QUESTIONS AND/OR COMMENTS
All suggestions, questions or comments may be submitted in writing by completing this form
and leaving it at this Public Workshop, or mailing it to:
W. R. Butler, Jr., PE
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl
5800 Faringdon Place, Suite 105
Raleigh, NC 27609
PLEASE PRINT:
NAME:
ADDRESS:
CITY/TOWN:
STATE ZIP
I am currently on the mailing list
Please add my/our name(s) to the mailing list
I/We wish to comment or inquire about the following aspects of this project:
(Use Other Side for Additional Comments)

EAST SIDE THOROUGHFARE
Hickory, North Carolina
PUBLIC MEETING
Wednesday, February 7, 1990
' St. Stephens Elementary School Cafeteria
ATTENDANCE REGISTER
i
NAME

41 )?AtJD
.TL
ADDRESS
REPRESENTING
28677
71 iZ's virZ, A) C

¦ ? ?
/tai r,M'? a r t r.?? k'f• 4 9-3ax qkU
/ S`U - oZ? ' sez? ^/e CUICo /
Z Oral
4e • ?6 Q ?t C I' \ i s S-f. • ? ? ? ?
R+-. PlRox ? 3 ff?cko#-t/ znea l

L.,14 964 Cu. 7 c,t.= ?7' !L{ f3o X110
C?N)t•'?. 6c?1
14(
?..,t+df ewe` ?` . 4C.

IAY 7ao5z?5ov,-

.C-,2;jj'0f`j
ao L
'2flk
a 9441
EAST SIDE THOROUGHFARE
Hickory, North Carolina
1
PUBLIC MEETING
Wednesday, February 7, 1990
St. Stephens Elementary School Cafeteria i
ATTENDANCE REGISTER
i
NAME ADDRESS REPRESENTING

;-Z D/ -5:&
Plc- zgGo t
1
LLo <owEU r

EAST SIDE THOROUGHFARE
Hickory, North Carolina
PUBLIC MEETING
Wednesday, February 7, 1990
St. Stephens Elementary School Cafeteria
`? ATTENDANCE REGISTER
1 .-
NAME ADDRESS REPRESENTING
d0 X o v C? w-ckorvrUrildwe ?'krr
!67a Z6f k
ell Yz'
_ ? t 90 19'acw
1 .37.5.3 ,pAoi -
-tL
As ? ?-
i
0 yt -6 120C, 1 2 a'd'd
71
EAST SIDE THOROUGHFARE
Hickory, North Carolina
PUBLIC MEETING
Wednesday, February 7, 1990
St. Stephens Elementary School Cafeteria
Oe ATTENDANCE REGISTER
i
NAME ADDRESS REPRESENTING
-Ax,ze-L
61
s '?L
• g
mVl_ "7 33
May- a- P Ri ce J i al
r l? n N? 402
'vic
'?Y1ng-•A ?I?E".,?d??_.
L^?• C ?- C sP-` ?-"i.mow ?f/ . 3// _ ???) Z r e el
91ver Se kPx- P-4 G I a iC o r
.0119 ./7 1 - ... - -

h
EAST SIDE THOROUGHFARE
1
Hickory, North Carolina
PUBLIC MEETING
' Wednesday, February 7 1990
St. Stephens Elementary School Cafeteria
ATTENDANCE REGISTER
i
NAME ADDRESS REPRESENTING
1
i
3
lE4 /Q r' /y o 60/ /Z'71/cA'a!? d•?.
C
?..?? ?D • _ a.28G a 3
i C ?-21 1 gg Z fh ? ?' i• r
-74
75?- 1
GJ PCO C
ll?Gf-P Q -P 3 S ?? ?? / ? or
EAST SIDE THOROUGHFARE
Hickory, North Carolina
PUBLIC MEETING
Wednesday, February 7, 1990 i
St. Stephens Elementary School Cafeteria 1
Inn
NAME

1 tvt
ATTENDANCE REGISTER

ADDRESS REPRESENTING
i

i
6Y/Y- 4
1

ATJ

//4-

???,-n vl?? ? SA'C' ? ? ? • `?.? --
7?4Q?

O QOM °f'L+O c2.5 .ST NL
Le 2 12
/o ??
1

F
EAST SIDE THOROUGHFARE
Hickory, North Carolina
PUBLIC MEETING
Wednesday, February 7, 1990
' St. Stephens Elementary School Cafeteria
ATTENDANCE REGISTER
NAME ADDRESS REPRESENTING
1?4 CO
ZT
?1rw.mot, P- ax 3 b Neu,-Iw, N a ?c3 C.?, L.
14
z;?/ R .c E t' ''i s ,?F/? /3 T G !3 a /447
_e-
'
'LL of
QQ
ew ?? ard?_?_ (o
QP iziS dw Q c,p af(Q
Q. 260 G a 8'60
EAST SIDE THOROUGHFARE
Hickory, North Carolina
PUBLIC MEETING
Wednesday, February 7, 1990
St. Stephens Elementary School Cafeteria '
ATTENDANCE REGISTER
NAME ADDRESS REPRESENTING
3
-'
jt? "Q WE L a
al ?, r %Vnn i ik:1. 66vv- l o o (n L1co N L 6
3-g"6II
'R7'. a coy P/ clc'a #2'v
r
i d
'IA Ate, 44 Ep.
0 6
dqjfO
1
EAST SIDE THOROUGHFARE
Hickory, North Carolina
PUBLIC MEETING
Wednesday, February 7, 1990
St. Stephens Elementary School Cafeteria
ATTENDANCE REGISTER
NAME
e
'
/-r"0XA Cv
C
Z
?P60
.29"
1
1
1
1
ADDRESS
REPRESENTING

r? 3 , ,t3vx 3 9 5"
EAST SIDE THOROUGHFARE
Hickory, North Carolina
1
Wednesday, February 7, 1990 ,
St. Stephens Elementary School Cafeteria
0
NAME

ATTENDANCE REGISTER
ADDRESS
PUBLIC MEETING

e, << it
g. 40 -
(, 3o Z5T''Ar?c PI, PjE
ibis- .sY 5;,4 A/0
DAS '/v- st ,?L h)
nganr) °), 'Jt
1

4/C

eJ .e,?06 d, ,

REPRESENTING _
Alfe , -2 5K
1
1
1

EAST SIDE THOROUGHFARE
Hickory, North Carolina
PUBLIC MEETING
Wednesday, February 7, 1990
St. Stephens Elementary School Cafeteria
ATTENDANCE REGISTER
NAME
ADDRESS
REPRESENTING
-2 ZMW?
1 J 1- H I C KD R y AI C
?' W ??d? N n hA}? P g aC 11,5-1-
A)4r) Z460-r it-- ?Vl'r- /Z/-/
? G/?a l/ ,i/V r
?i L1 ',*All- ,lGZI,? WOE/ )1- 3 V,57
at 161n? o??
ZY/
("{U'-jr & L C'J'K MW uwG -Lk-t-_ --2-
M% S?• N_W- LC

MEMORANDUM OF MEETING
GAS ?A '
DATE: February 7, 1990
PLACE: St. Stephens Elementary School Cafeteria 1
PRESENT: Mr. H. Dean Proctor, NC Board of Transportation
Mr. J.W. Rand, NCDOT '
Mr. Jimmy Goodnight, NCDOT
Mr. John Tippett, WPCOG
Mr. Cecil Clark, City of Hickory
Mr. Tom Carr, City of Hickory
'
Mr. Chuck Hansen, City of Hickory
Mr. Jim Kier, Catawba County
Ms. Sharon Phillips, J.E. Greiner Company

Ms. Cindy Sharer, j.E. Greiner Company '
Mr. William Butler, RK&K
Mr. Charles Flowe, RK&K
Ms. Carol Sweeney, RK&K

Mr. Mark Reep, RK&K '
Residents
SUBJECT: East Side Thoroughfare '
From NC 127 to US 70
Project No. 8.2790901 (U-2307)
Federal Project M-5621(1)
Hickory, Catawba County
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
The public meeting was held to gather input from the public regarding the proposed East Side
Thoroughfare between NC 127 and US 70 in Hickory, Catawba County. A brief presentation was
made at 4:00 pm, followed by an open house until 7:00 mp. Exhibits on display during the meeting
included:
• general project location map
• typical roadway section drawings
• aerial photography with preliminary corridor locations
• project schedule
• project flow chart showing the EIS process
Approximately 220 persons attended the meeting. Fifteen written comments were submitted,
16 names were provided for addition to the mailing list, and two letters of correspondence were
received. The following summarizes the major concerns expressed by residents:
1. A very real need exists for the project to move traffic through the project area and
to provide connection from NC 127 to US 70.
2. Corridor Segment C bisects and significantly impacts relatively new neighborhood in
the vicinity of 36 Avenue Drive NE.
3. An alternative location should be developed for evaluation south of Springs Road.
4. Corridor Segment A would result in significant relocations.
5. Potential mall planned at intersection of NC 127 and Corridor Segments A/A-1.
6. Potential historic site noted south of the 29th Avenue/Falling Creek Intersection.
7. Noise travels well; roadway noise could be a factor in Alternate E.
8. Property values along Corridor Segment C are high.
i
i
Memorandum of Meeting
Page 2
9. Fourteen of the written comments expressed support and/or opposition to the corridor
segments as follows:
Corridor Segment u or Opposition
A 1 3
B 2
C - 3
D 4 -
E - 1
10. Four of the written comments requested details of the impacts on specific properties.
By: Cam- e q - S =4
Carol J. Sweeney
CJS/np
PC EMW/WRB/file
389-61
C?
EAST SIDE THOROUGHFARE ,
Hickory, North Carolina

PUBLIC WORKSHOP
,
Wednesday, June 20, 1990
St. Stephens Elementary School Cafeteria ,

ATTENDANCE REGISTER
i
NAME ADDRESS REPRESENTING

1
AlGe P V11 f{/` I 17

3 S ! Isr AJL:
1
a 33

?Y A0.Y 4 KAY FewµAo )Z4 `t (3ox 8h
OZ) \,l FWL--A L F--,Fp (4p).-Bj? 2.?-(o ?j k?Lr-d JLV_
1

z ? a ?lC ? 6-? 1

S/e co•- ?ar?r N,c a+ R?o3 S iCQ" Cn?

s? ? 1? ?-?1; ? /l?Cf.?? ??, lY(3? S z G ? /??'?. ,?a,?, ,?-c. 2 ?Ga 1

? St.

NAME
EAST SIDE THOROUGHFARE
Hickory, North Carolina
PUBLIC WORKSHOP
Wednesday, June 20, 1990
Stephens Elementary School Cafeteria
ATTENDANCE REGISTER
ADDRESS
y ?
REPRESENTING
x'sxj- /' a
X ," 1 Z 3 Y? Qxar-?? I? k Sv1
01,
R15 A114OTvAl Inn, ?? •?. x 2 T019 Nrc orC SACS'
AIECV 1' 4 ,SAO 1w ce-40roe' F-T r t/gEC
?L l ?. -?? F? . I , _ yK +t P 111"CAftly Spin. it
to

EAST SIDE THOROUGHFARE '
Hickory, North Carolina
PUBLIC WORKSHOP
Wednesday, June 20, 1990 ,
St. Stephens Elementary School Cafeteria '
NAME
ATTENDANCE REGISTER I
ADDRESS REPRESENTING
. 'IS6 o 1
P . B 3 4 ?ccv ZsrGo
. b 3l a? e/
V) A
Nc- Z-oouf
i
EAST SIDE THOROUGHFARE
Hickory, North Carolina
PUBLIC WORKSHOP
Wednesday, June 20, 1990
St. Stephens Elementary School Cafeteria
ATTENDANCE
NAME ADDRESS
REGISTER
REPRESENTING
13

EAST SIDE THOROUGHFARE
Hickory, North Carolina
PUBLIC WORKSHOP
Wednesday, June 20, 199x
St. Stephens Elementary School Cafeteria
ATTENDANCE REGISTER
NAME ADDRESS REPRESENTING

0
All& 4??AA7,,) 6 9
?o,?•?? sue/ fC v c. Joey
_ ?ss _ ??aw.u? Z ?' ?s,1?x'L G4•I PL. Ar F ? I
. .
A/ A
ze-4p'
Na,
I
?C
1
Il
1
IF
1
1
1
1

2 ??Jo
i % {• V 4
G
EAST SIDE THOROUGHFARE
Hickory, North Carolina
PUBLIC WORKSHOP
Wedne-sday, June 20, 1990
St. ',')tephens Elementary School Cafeteria
ATTENDANCE REGISTER
REPRESENTING
NAME ADDRESS /y S ???
I5
EAST SIDE THOROUGHFARE
Hickory, North Carolina
PUBLIC WORKSHOP
June 20, 1990 -
Wednesday,
St. Stephens Elementary School Cafeteria I
ATTENDANCE
REGISTER
NAME ADDRESS
REPRESENTING
I
I
i
1 EAST SIDE THOROUGHFARE
Hickory, North Carolina
PUBLIC WORKSHOP
Wednesday, June 20, 1990
r St. Stephens Elementary School Cafeteria
1
ATTENDANCE REGISTER
1
NAME ADDRESS REPRESENTING
1
Ac'
61
6 I
C2-.C- E /L?2 ez ct 15
r
1
1
r
1
1 .
1
to.,
0

MEMORANDUM OF MEETING
DATE: June 20, 1990
PLACE: St. Stephens Elementary School Cafeteria
Springs Road, Hickory, NC
PRESENT: Mr. H. Dean Proctor, NC Board of Transportation
Mr. Tom Carr, City of Hickory
Mr. Chuck Hansen, City of Hickory
Ms. Sharon Phillips, J.E. Greiner Co.
Ms. Cindy Sharer, J.E. Greiner Co.
Mr. William R. Butler, RK&K
Mr. Charles Flowe, RK&K
Ms. Carol Sweeney, RK&K
Mr. Mark Reep, RK&K
Mr. Chris Powell, RK&K
Residents
SUBJECT: East Side Thoroughfare
From NC 127 to US 70
Project No. 8.2790901 (U-2307)
Federal Project M-5621(1)
Hickory, Catawba County
This second public meeting was held to solicit further input from the public regarding the
proposed East Side Thoroughfare between NC 127 and US 70 in Hickory, Catawba County. A brief
presentation was made at 4:00 pm, followed by an open house until 8:00 pm. Exhibits on display
during the meeting included:
• general project location map
• typical roadway section drawings
• project schedule
• project flow chart showing the EIS process
• V = 200' scale aerial photography showing corridor segment locations
Approximately 130 persons attended the meeting. Two written comments were submitted,
and 2 names were provided for addition to the mailing list. The following summarizes the major
concerns expressed by residents:

1
J

1. The proposed roadway will increase stormwater run-off, lead to flooding of properties
along streams, and impact Lake }hickory.
Noise generated by the proposed roadway will impact residents, especially those who
live in quiet neighborhoods in areas where the corridors are on new location.
3. Many residents requested information about right-of-way acquisition and relocation,
including what the NCDOT process is and when it would begin. They were advised
that there are pamphlets available which explain the NCDOT process, and that no
action would be taken until after the final roadway design is complete and right-of-
way requirements are identified.
The aerial photography does not show recent development along Kool Park Road and
29th Avenue NE.

cis
Memorandum of Meeting
Page 2
5. Some property owners claim they were not notified of the meeting. They were
advised that their names would be added to the mailing list for future mailings.
6. Residents who live along 29th Avenue near NC 127 prefer corridor segment A-1 over
corridor segment A so that their properties would not be taken for right-of-way.
7. Corridor segment A-1 would impact a number of elderly residents who live along 31st
Avenue.
8. Corridor segment B will impact traffic operations near St. Stephens Elementary
School.
9. A business located on the north side of 27th Street Drive SE adjacent to corridor
segment B plans to expand to the north of their present location, including an access
road connecting to 22nd Street SE. The company representative wants access to the
proposed roadway if access to 22nd Street SE is blocked.
10. Concern was expressed that corridor segment C would replace a proposed project on
the Hickory-Newton-Conover Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan which would utilize
Cloninger Mill, Kool Park, and Section I-louse Roads.
11. A shopping center is planned on the north side of Springs Road adjacent to corridor
segment C. The developer is interested in access to the proposed roadway.
12. Wildlife habitats and the existing green space along corridor segment E would be
impacted by the proposed roadway.
13. A resident reported that Indian artifacts have been found along Snow Creek in the
vicinity of corridor segment E.
' pc: WRB
EMW
Steering Committee Members
389-61
EAST SIDE
I

THOROUGHFARE ;
• Catawba County North Carolina
Newsletter No.3 October 1990
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UPDATE
This newsletter is to inform you of the status of
the planning study and preparation of the
Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed
East Side Thoroughfare.
The newsletters are published as part of an ongoing
program for public involvement to keep you
informed regarding the status of the proposed East
Side Thoroughfare. The first newsletter was
published in January 1990, and the second followed
in June 1990.
Public meetings and workshops are held as another
component of the public involvement program. The
first public meeting was held in February 1990, and
the second was held in June 1990 (see page 2 for
details).
Additional newsletters and a formal Public Hearing
are planned in the EIS process as shown on the
revised project schedule.
The project "HOTLINE" continues to provide a
local telephone number for interested persons to
request project information. The number is (704)
322-9083.
A mailing list of interested persons is being
maintained and updated for newsletter delivery. To
add names to the list, contact either of the parties
listed under "INQUIRIES".
ETS SCHEDULE REVISED
The schedule for completion of the Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed East Side
Thoroughfare has been revised to allow more time
to fully evaluate the historic resources in the project
area.
The revised schedule, shown below, reflects a three
(3) month delay for the EIS and public hearing. No
change has been made in the schedule for right-of-
way acquisition or construction.
The publication of this newsletter is in addition to
previously scheduled newsletters to keep the public
abreast of the project status. Remaining newsletters
have been renumbered on the revised schedule.
REVISED PROJECT SCI-ITDULE
Newsletter No. 1 Jan. 1990
lsr Public Meeting Feb. 1990
Newsletter No. 2 June 1990
2nd Public Meeting June 1990
Submit Draft EIS Jan. 1991
4th Newsletter Feb. 1991
Public Hearing Apra 1991
5th Newsletter Sept 1991
Submit Final EIS Oct. 1991
ROW Acquisition 1994
Construction 1995

PROGRESS MADE ON ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
continues to make progress on the EIS for the East
Side Thoroughfare in Hickory, Catawba County.
This Thoroughfare will link NC 127 with I-40
and US 70, and function as a major arterial for the
Hickory area.
Progress on the EIS includes the analysis of noise
and air quality impacts, the determination of user
benefits from improved traffic operations, and the
evaluation of m;ne.ral resources and hydrology.
PUBLIC 1VORKSHOP HELD
A public workshop was held on June 20, 1990 to
provide an update of project information and to
allow the public to voice concerns. There were
approximately 130 persons in attendance, and 13
written comments were submitted.
Major concerns expressed at the meeting include:
• Potential flooding from increased stormwater
' runoff and stormwater impacts on Lake Hickory.
• The right-of-way acquisition and relocation
methods and procedures.
• Noise impacts, especially in quiet neighborhoods
' where the corridors are on new location.
• Traffic operations and provisions for property
access.
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl
5800 Faringdon Place, Suite 105
Raleigh, NC 27609

PROPOSED FAST SIDE THOROUGHFARE.
' NEWSLETTER NUMI3ER 3
Page 2
INQUIRIES
Inquiries may be addressed to:
Mr. L. J. Ward, PE, Manager
Planning and Research Branch
NC DOT Division of Highways
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Telephone: [phone]
or
Mr. William R. Butler, Jr., PE
Rummel, Klepper & Kahl
5800 Faringdon Place, Suite 105
Raleigh, NC 27609
Project HOTLINE: [phone]
Raleigh Telephone: [phone]
BULK RATE
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
RALEIGH, N.C.
PERMIT # 253

?I

1

APPENDIX B
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION

INDEX TO AGENCY COORDINATION
North Carolina Department of Transportation - Agency Scoping Letter, March 21, 1990
US Fish & Wildlife Service, March 2, 1990
USDA Soil Conservation Service, April 11, 1990
US Department of the Interior - Bureau of Mines, April 17, 1990
US Environmental Protection Agency, April 26, 1990
US Fish & Wildlife Service, April 26, 1990
NC State Clearinghouse, March 30, 1990
US Army Corps of Engineers, April 23, 1990
NC Department of Cultural Resources, April 27, 1990
NC State Clearinghouse, April 16, 1990
NC Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, April 23, 1990
NC Wildlife Resources Commission, April 12, 1990
NC EHNR - Division of Forest Resources, April 2, 1990
NC EHNR - Division of Land Resources, April 11, 1990
NC EHNR - Division of Environmental Health, April 17, 1990
NC EHNR - Division of Water Resources, April 16, 1990
Hickory-Newton-Conover Metropolitan Planning Organization, May 1, 1990
City of Hickory, Office of the Mayor, May 14, 1990
US Army Corps of Engineers, May 24, 1990
USDA Soil Conservation Service, August 7, 1990
NC Department of Cultural Resources, March 26, 1991
NC Department of Cultural Resources, April 25, 1991
NC Department of Cultural Resources, July 24, 1991
NC Department of Cultural Resources, September 26, 1991
r rnr ;4t t
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
' DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. NARTIN March 21, 1990 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON GEORGE E. WELLS, P.E.
SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
Ms. Cynthia D. Sharer, P. E.
Project Coordinator
J. E. Griener Company
' 4630 Paragon Park Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Dear Ms. Sharer:
SUBJECT: East Thoroughfare from US 70 to NC 127, in the City of Hickory,
Catawba County, approximately 7 miles, State Project No. 8.2790901,
TIP No. U-2307, Federal Project M-5621(1)
The Division of Highways, North Carolina Department of Transportation, has
retained the firm of Rummel, Klepper & Kahl to prepare a combined project
' location planning report and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
proposed East Side Thoroughfare in Hickory, Catawba County. This thoroughfare
would function as a major arterial for the Hickory area. The arterial would
link US 70 and NC 127, provide access to nine major roadways serving the area,
and facilitate travel between major residential, industrial and commercial
developments.
The proposed project extends approximately seven miles from US,70, in the
vicinity of Startown Road (SR 1005) to NC 127 north of Hickory. Trdffic volume
forecasts for the year 2010 range between 10,100 and 25,600 vehicles per day.
' The project is included in the NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program for
1990-1996, with right-of-way acquisition to begin in 1994 and construction to
begin in mid-1995.
This letter is to solicit comments and initiate coordination for the
project. Alternates to be considered include the "do-nothing" or No Build
Alternate, the Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternate, and eight
Build Alternates. The eight Build Alternates consist of various corridor
segment combinations. There are six preliminary corridor segments which will be
refined based upon an engineering analysis, environmental studies, and input
from the public and Federal, State and local agencies.
RECEIVED
' MAR 2. 6 1990
' E. GREINER COMPANY
An Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer ).

Page 2 '
March 21, 1990
The eight Build Alternates and corresponding corridor segment combinations '
are as follows:
Alternate Corridor Segment Combinations
Alternate 1 A-and B
Alternate 2 A-1 and B

Alternate
3
C and B ,
Alternate 4 E and B
Alternate 5 A and 0
Alternate 6 A-1 and D
Alternate 7 C and D
Alternate 8 E and D

DESCRIPTIONS OF PRELIMINARY CORRIDOR SEGMENTS
The preliminary corridor segments for the Build Alternates are shown on the
attached map and described as follows:
Corridor Segment A: begins at NC 127 at 29th Avenue Drive NE, extends eastward
along existing 29th Avenue Drive NE and 24th Street NE, crosses Springs Road, and
extends on new location to a point approximately 1110' south of Springs Road.
At-grade intersections will be provided at Springs Road, Sandy Ridge Road,
Falling Creek Road, and NC 127. No access control is proposed on this corridor
segment. An initial review indicates there are two stream crossings associated
with this corridor segment, including Falling Creek and Snow Creek.
A five-lane curb and gutter roadway section which includes a continuous
left-turn lane will be evaluated for this corridor segment. The proposed
right-of-way 90' is varying easement widths.
Corridor Segment A-1: begins at NC 127 in the vicinity of 31st Avenue NE,
extends eastward to a point on 29th Avenue Drive NE approximately 4000' east of
NC 127, then follows the same corridor location as Corridor Segment A. The
proposed improvements on this corridor segment include construction of
approximately 5100' of new roadway, and widening and-realigning existing 29th
Avenue and `14th Street. This corridor segment involves the same at-grade
intersections, roadway sections and stream crossings as Corridor Segment A.
Corridor Segment B: begins as a point approximately 1100' south of Springs Road,
extends southward on new location, connecting to the intersections of Startown
Road (SR 1005) and US 70 The proposed improvements on this corridor segment
include construction of approximately 3.3 miles of new roadway and an interchange
at I-40. Alternate crossings of the Southern Railway tracks, parallel to
Highland Avenue, and alternate connections to Highland Avenue will be evaluated
in the EIS. At-grade intersections will be provided at US 70, Sweetwater Road,
Tate Boulevard, and Spencer Road. Access control is proposed only at the I-40
interchange.

Page 3
March 21, 1990
Roadway sections evaluated for this corridor segment include a five-lane
curb and gutter roadway with a continuous left-turn lane and a four-lane divided
roadway with a 24' or 56' grass median. The proposed right-of-way is 90' for the
five-lane section and approximately 300' for the four-lane divided section, with
additional right-of-way required at the I-40 interchange and in areas of steep
terrain.
An initial review indicates there are two stream crossings associated with
this corridor segment, including Clarks Creek and Lyle Creek.
Corridor Segment C: begins at NC 127 in the vicinity of Cloninger Mill Road,
extends eastward on new location south of Cloninger Mill Road, crosses Sandy
Ridge Road and Springs Road, and continues southward to a point approximately
1100' south of Springs Road. The proposed improvements on this corridor include
construction of approximately 3.5 miles of new roadway. At-grade intersections
will be provided at Springs Road, Sandy Ridge Road, Cloninger Mill Road, and
NC 127. No access control is proposed on this corridor segment.
Roadway sections evaluated for this corridor segment include a five-lane
curb and gutter roadway with continuous left-turn lane and a four-lane divided
roadway with a 24' or 56' grass median The proposed right-of-way is 90' for the
five-lane section and approximately 300' for the four-lane divided section, with
additional right-of-way required in areas of steep terrain.
An initial review indicates there are two stream crossings associated with
this corridor segment, including Falling Creek and Snow Creek.
Corridor Segment D: begins at a point approximately 1100' south of Springs Road,
extends southward on new location, connecting to a point on US 70 approximately
3500' east of Startown Road (SR 1005). The proposed improvements on this corri-
dor segment include construction of approximately 3.8 miles of new roadway and
?. construction of an interchange at I-40. Construction alternatives for the
crossing of the Southern Railway tracks, parallel to Highland Avenue, and the
connection to Highland Avenue will be evaluated in the EIS. At-grade inter-
sections will be provided at US 70, Sweetwater Road, Tate Boulevard, and Spencer
Road. Access control is proposed only at I-40 interchange.
' Roadway sections evaluated for this corridor segment include a five-lane
curb and gutter roadway with continuous left-turn lane and a four-lane divided
roadway with a 24' or 56' grass median. The proposed right-of-way is 90' for the
five-lane section and approximately 300' for the four-lane divided section, with
additional right-of-way required in areas of steep terrain.
An initial review indicates there are three stream crossings associated with
this corridor segment, including Clarks Creek, Lyle Creek, and Miller Branch.
Corridor Segment E: begins at NC 127 in the vicinity of Cloninger Mill Road,
extends eastward on new location parallel to and north of Cloninger Mill Road,
crosses Sandy Ridge Road, approximately 750' south of SR 1507, Kool Park Road in
the vicinity of Snow Creek, Jnd Springs Road, then continues southward to a point
approximately 1100' south of Springs Road. The proposed improvements on this
corridor segment include construction of approximately 4.1 miles of new
I
Page 4
March 21, 1990
roadway. At-grade intersections will be provided at Springs Road, Sandy Ridge
Road, Cloninger Mill Road, and NC 127. No access control is proposed on this
corridor segment.
Roadway sections evaluated for this corridor segment include a five-lane
curb and gutter roadway with continuous left-turn and a four-lane divided roadway
with a 24' or 56' grass median. The proposed right'-of-way is 90' for the
five-lane section and approximately 300 feet for the 4-lane divided section, with
additional right-of-way required at the 1-40 interchange and in areas of steep
terrain.
An initial review indicates there are two stream crossings associated with
this corridor segment, including Falling Creek and Snow Creek.
ENVIRONMENT
The proposed project is located in a developing suburban area. Land use
includes extensively developed residential areas in the northern part of the
project area and industrial/commercial development in the southern part. The
Norfolk Southern Corporation operates the Southern Railway which runs parallel to
Highland Avenue in the industrial area. The land adjacent to this railway and
extending southward to I-40 is identified in the Hickory Land Development Plan
for continued industrial development. The land adjacent to US 70 is identified
for continued commercial development, especially regional shopping. The relo-
cation of some residences and businesses is expected under any of the eight Build
Alternates.
Community facilities in the project area include the Catawba Valley
Community College, located on US 70 in the vicinity of the proposed southern
terminus of the project. There are three public elementary schools, one public
middle school, one public high school, and two private schools located in the
project area, as well as a day camp for underprivileged children, a home for the
elderly, and a low-income housing complex.
Cultural resources will be evaluated during the EIS process. The initial
literature search for this project shows that no archaeological sites have been
recorded in the project vicinity by the Office of State Archaeology. Only one
archaeologic site in Catawba County, the Yoder's Mills Historic District, is on
the National Register of Historic Places. The Shuford site, a prehistoric site
near the confluence of Henry Fork and Jacob Fork, is on the National Register
study list. Both Yoder's Mills and the Shuford site are several miles south of
the project area. Initial studies also have not identified any historic
structures or resources in the study area.
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
An initial review of the project area indicates that Lake Hickory, a class
WS-III & B water, is located north of the project area. In addition to the
proximity of Lake Hickory, the review indicates that corridor segments will cross
five major streams, including Falling Creek, Snow Creek, Clarks Creek, Lyle
Creek, and Miller Branch. All of these streams are class C waters. The specific
stream crossings for each corridor segment are listed in the

' Page 5
March 21, 1990
"Description of Preliminary Corridor Segments Potential impacts to these
streams and freshwater wetlands associated with these crossings will be evaluated
during the EIS process. A field survey is currently being conducted to assess
and analyze potential impacts to water resources as well as to wildlife and
habitats.
I SCOPING
Please note that there will be no formal interagency scoping meeting for
this project. This letter, therefore, constitutes solicitation for scoping
comments related to the proposed project.
In order that we may fully evaluate the impacts of the proposed project, it
is requested that you respond, in writing, concerning any beneficial or adverse
impacts of the project related to the interest of your agency. Comments should be
submitted within 30 days of receipt of this letter If further information is
needed, please contact Mr. Frank Vick, P. E., Assistant Branch Manager, NCDOT, at
[phone].
Sincerely,
L. J. Ward, P. E.
Manager, Planning and Research
LJW/wp

t - o
N
02
m
1 E W o N
N l0
is C x w Z In o
CL -j
h I ' LL OW a
1 '^
° t W= ~ W o
w v o Z OM O Z `c r
?, a o = W Of
n° 4
cc 0
fr. fr
Zu cn LL = J
wwainaa W?-- •}=
c a
V
?l_ ' ? ?w \ oar • . r
I
stn" OY?Hdi es a1v ,? v er ?r nin ApAp
?.???
n4i
/ ,.d N o DA UV)
tr OD F
'? s ti' pp0 s S? ?' ti S .taPpP
•}? V r
! rv 1"".`? of p N bi9? ? V bD ? ?j C
.? K pono V O w $ G?01dF C; ?,.' r W fn w In
cncc c E W
v /d,N
c 00 to ra e v .. `.•.ri•
f C t jU `` 1yr ' ??
I O ° j of '.
k4 V ? ? ? ff.'s /
lid ? . y ? I? ? , ... `v ' ? ? • ?ti ? ''- 1
oln
f ?. O N GD O ?. J ?1.? /•,ebp
UV) I's
t- t'?. eon Mr?F / S r.. - r C
Fj. K
*-.'? i l M
K' vl ? F+y
K No „
Z Y 2
. ? ? ??=K \11. 4 x
Jy'?\ ? v x i R \ :1
11 ;7:'+i:' w:ksr?, .{._{. ;.., r, v^'.'2 3t' 't ?..fi r: .=?..--5a•tctRri?/+w.+T?. .. l:l.v. ?. 'n"'°:.•M1.1?1CN}-?,•r., .:'F'?f}' '': <I?'ff"•:'?`°tiidt
LC!RD
I
LIST OF STATE AGENCIES
Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Dept. of Administration
Dr. William S. Price
Division of Archives and History
Dept. of Cultural Resources
' Mr. Howard Ellis
Division of Health Services
Dept. of Human Resources
' Dr. Charles H. Weaver
Division of School Planning
' Dept. of Public Instruction
Ms. Melba McGee
Environmental Assessment Section
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Jr., P. E.
Hydrographics Unit
Mr. W. L. Moore, III
Geotechnical Unit
Mr. Horace Jernigan
Location & Survey Unit
Mr. J. P. Rumley
Right of Way Branch
Mr. J. M. Lynch, P. E.
Traffic Engineering Branch
Dr. M. R. Poole. P. E.
Statewide Planning
Peden Steel Building
Mr. Curtis Yates
Bicycle Coordinator
' Mr. R. W. Spangler
Division Engineer, Div. 12

District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
1000NAd00
I
Director
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Greensboro Area Office
415 N. Edgeworth Street
Greensboro, North Carolina 27401
Director
Federal Emergency Management Adm.
Region IV, 1371 Peachtree St., N.E.
Suite 700
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
District Chief
Geological Survey
Century Station, Room 436
P. 0. Box 2857
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Executive Director
Western Piedmont Council of Governments
317 First Avenue, N. W.
Hickory, North Carolina 28601
Intermountain Field Operations Center
P. 0. Box 25086
Bldg. 20, Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
Environmental Review Branch
Environmental Protection Agency, Region I
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta,'Georgia 30365
Field Supervisor
Fish & Wildlife Service
Fish & Wildlife Enhancement
P. 0. Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Bobbye J. Jones, State Conservationisl1
Soil Conservation Service
Federal Bldg.-Room 535
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
The Honorable William R. McDonald, III
Mayor of Hickory
P. 0. Box 398
Hickory, North Carolina 28603
United States Department of the Interior TA]ff
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
ASHEVILLE FIELD OFFICE
100 OTIS STREET, ROOM 224 ??
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801
March 2, 1990
Mr. Roy C. Shelton, District Engineer
' Federal Highway Administration
4505 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 470
F.O. Box 26806
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
' Dear Mr. Shelton: '
Subject: Environmental Input for the EnvironmeiiLal impact btatement on the
proposed Eastside Thoroughfare in the City of Hickory, Catawba
County, North Carolina (ER 90/77)
L This responds to the request for our comments on the subject proposal
published in the Federal Register [55(16):2474] dated Wednesday,
January 24, 1990 (received February 12, 1990). These 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 1 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
I The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if the document contained the following information:
(1) 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
1 indirectly by the proposed improvements.
(2) Acreage and descriptions of branches, creeks, streams, rivers, or
wetlands which will be filled as a consequence of proposed
highway improvements.
(3) Linear feet of any water courses which will be relocated as a
consequence of the proposed improvements.
(4) Acreage of upland habitats, by cover type, which will be
eliminated as a consequence of proposed highway improvements.
(5) Techniques which will be employed for designing and constructing
any relocated stream channels or for creating replacement
wetlands.

(6) Description of all expected secondary and cumulative
environmental impacts associated with this project.
(7) 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, the federally threatened plant species, Hexastvlis
naniflora (dwarf-flowered heartleaf), may occur within the impact area of
the proposed action. In accordance with the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended, it is the responsibility of the appropriate Federal
regulatory agency to review its activities or programs and to identify any
such activity or programs that may affect endangered or threatened species
or their habitat. If it is determined that these proposed activities may
adversely affect any species listed as endangered or threatened, formal
consultation with this office must be initiated. If it is determined that
these proposed activities may jeopardize the continued existence of a
species proposed for listing, or adversely modify or destroy proposed
critical habitat, you must initiate a conference with this office.
The legal responsibilities of a Federal agency under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended) were detailed in material sent
to you previously.: If you would like another copy of this material, or if
you have questions, please contact Mr. John Fridell of our office at
704/259-0321 (FTS 672-0321).
We appreciate the opportunity to provide
further assistance, please let us know.
concerning this project, please reference
these comments. If we can be of
In any future correspondence
our log number 4-2-90-031.
Sinc relyI
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
USFWS, Branch of Federal Activities, DOI, Hamilton Building #403,
1375 K Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20240-0001
Field Supervisor, FWS, Raleigh Field Office, P.O. Box 33726, Raleigh,
NC 27636-3726
P?
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager, Planning and Research Branch, North Carolina
Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, P.O. Box 25201,
Raleigh, NC 27611
United States
Department of
.IL Agriculture

Soil
Conservation
Service
r?
C".,.
aA
1
4405 Bland Road, Suite 205
Raleigh, NC 27609
Telephone: [phone]
PpR 1 ?? ?9 ?:.:
April 11, 1990
ti 07 F Ass lr
.. T. iTr!^ri-.r?
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E.
Manager of Planning of Research
N. C. Dept. of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
SSJ
v?S ?09°t/lam
L !b l -- ?l
r
' Re: East Thoroughfare from US 70 to NC 127, in the City of Hickory,
Catawba County, approximately 7 miles, State Project No. 8.2790901,
TIP No. U-2307, Federal Project M-5621(1)
' Dear Mr. Ward:
This is in response to your request for Important Farmland Information for
the proposed East Thoroughfare in the city of Hickory. Our findings indi-
cate that this project will not affect any farmland as defined by the Farm-
land Protection Policy Act, since it essentially involves land already in
or committed to urban development. The exception to this might be parts of
Corridor's Segment D and E. We estimate that about 20 percent of Segment D
contains soils that meet the soils criteria for Important Farmlands.
Whereas, about 15 percent of soil areas in Segment E would meet the
criteria for Important Farmlands.
Sincerely,
' b ye J s
state Zservationist

u
cc: Richard H. Grant, District Conservationist
RECEIVED
APR 17 1990
1
O The Soil Conservation Service
it rn agency of the
' Department of Agriculture
1. E GREINER COMPANY
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF MINES
P. O. BOX 25086
BUILDING 20, DENVER FEDERAL CENTER
DENVER. COLORADO 80225
Intermountain Field Operations Center
-id

P. E
J. Ward
L a W
.
Manager, ,
Planning and Research
? !. --?
co
North Carolina Department of Transportation
?
Division of Highways y
P.O. Box 25201 tiC,y
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 ,
Dear Mr. Ward:
,r TAKE PRUDE IN
AMERKA.w..?.?.i,
ril 17, 1990
9?

Subject: Review of Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement for East Thoroughfare from US 70 to NC 127, in the City
of Hickory, Catawba County, approximately 7 miles, State Project
No. 8.2790901, TIP No. U-2307, Federal Project M-5621(1).
Personnel of the Intermountain Field Operations Center, Bureau of Mines,
reviewed the subject notice for possible conflict with mineral resources and
mineral-producing facilities, as you requested.
The Bureau of Mines' primary concern is potential project impacts to mineral
resources and their development. Because the final route has not been
selected, we can provide only general comments at this time. Known mineral
resources in the project vicinity include stone (crushed), and sand and
gravel. Therefore, we suggest that mimer_al_r_esou_r_c_e_s be assessed 1_n_the_draf-t
en_v_ironmental__impact stateme.nt_(_D-ELSl,_i.nclu_cting-a_desc_r_i_Rtion_of miner_a-
re_sourc_es in_the_-Pr_oiect_ar_e_a_a.n._ct_a_ctiscussion_o-L.potentiaJ mpActs, either
adverse or beneficial, on mineral production and development. If no impacts
would occur, then a statement to that effect should be included. Such an
inclusion would provide users of the document with the knowledge that mineral
resources had been considered during project planning. We look forward to
reviewing the DEIS. /11
in erely yours,
Z 1990
MAY -
1. E. GREINER WMPANY
William chran, Chief
Intermountain Field Operations Center
RAC E1V E.C?
'
' _ ??? f 0 5 r? tF
J T
A '? J
? Z
'VAIM
<
.
ti,?? oaQf??
1
I 4PM-FAB/DM
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET, N.E.
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365
APR z G 1990
L. J. Ward, Manager
Planning and Research Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201

.pR3 b
Z
?Z
Nigy ,?
?C3
rI,

Subject: Proposed East Thoroughfare from US 70 to NC 127; City of
Hickory, Catawba County, NC; State Project No. 8.2790901
Federal Aid Project No. M-5621(1)
Dear Mr. Ward:
We have reviewed the 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 you will find a list of special environmental concerns
1 relating to potential impacts from highway construction projects. As
you can see, -p?otential--mpacts to water qua]?i_ty-,-wetlands,__and_air--
quality,_ due to the construction and use of the proposed fac_ility
must_be_inv_estigated. Noise_ related impacts due to the project must
' also be documented. Potential impacts to aquatic liie? wa.ldLife? and
pr-otected_oi sens_ztaw_e spec_i es_ 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 wet_1_ands_ 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. July _qnaXcLidAh?J_cL
;Lmpacts associated__w th the_p o?ect_must be_ca?eSuUy do_cumente_d_ and
the reason that the impacts are unavoidable must be thoroughly
explained. If alternatives are evaluated that indicate possible
disturbance of these areas, a compl`ete--plan_for_m.itigat on of any
damage should be included in the document. If impacts to wetlands
are anticipated, Mr. Lee Pelej of EPA's Wetlands Unit (404-347-2126)
should be contacted for additional information.
An additional area of concern that needs to be addressed is non-point
-sourc.e_pol.luttoz>-from the highway. We encourage the utilization of
pest management practice s to control non-point source p tit V1 J x#,51 z
--galA
--- b t
MAY -2 1990
Printed on Recycled Paper
-2-
prevent pollutants contained in highway runoff water from entering
area waterways. techniques to be__used_to control highway_?unvtf.
should be discussed. These control methods could include the use of
closed bridge drainage systems, retention basins, grassed swales or
other techniques. The potential impact of the increase of highway
related non-point source pollutants on Lake Hickory and area streams
should be investigated. Consideration for the potential impact that
the roadway could have on area drinking water sources and the
p_otarLt1a.l_,_for-hazardous mates.als_bei.ng_s_piUe-d-into the wa_tel--way_s.
should_a_l,so be addressed. Finally, the routes must be examined for
hazardous materials that may be present in permitted or unpermitted
dump sites.
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 give
serious consideration to the alternative that utilizes current
roadway alignment. Environmental impacts should be carefully
considered in the final route selection and preference given to the
least environmentally damaging alternative. We appreciate the
opportunity to provide comments to you early in the NEPA review
process. Please continue to keep us advised of the status of the
project and provide copies of environmental documents when they are
available. If you have any questions regarding our comments please
contact David Melgaard of my staff at [phone] or (FTS)
257-3776.
Sincerely,
cG?
F in J. M e er, Chief
Envir ental Policy Section
Federal Activities Branch
Attachment
cc: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh, NC

SPECIAL CONCERNS
The following list is a generalized synopsis of special concerns
relevant to generic highway projects.
Wetlands/Water Quality
° 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 altera-
tion and state mechanisms to properly address them.
Air Quality
° Conformance with National Ambient Air Quality 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
° Existing and predicted levels of various relevant air-
quality parameters such as carbon monoxide (CO).
° Public complaints concerning construction-related fugitive
emissions.
Noise
° Conformance of on-site existing (ambient) and project
predicted noise levels with FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria
(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
predicted percentage of trucks using the old/new highway.
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.
,,?NI pr r
o

t
11

t
t
1

?j ¦
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE AWRI(A
now"
ASHEVILLE FIELD OFFICE
100 OTIS STREET, ROOM 224 ¦
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801 .?
April 26, 1990
f 6
?J
rr,, , M ?• ar
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Research Branch Pj ?;ie?J\?G
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
Subject: East Thoroughfare from US 70 to NC 127 in the City of Hickory,
Catawba County, North Carolina [State Project No. 8.2790901, TIP
No. U-2307, Federal Project M-5621(1)]
This responds to your letter of March 21, 1990 (received March 29, 1990),
requesting our comments on the subject proposal. These 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).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is particularly concerned about the
potential impacts the_proposed action may-_h-axe-on e_n_d.ange_red/-t.hrea_tene-d
Jiec_i_es_and_o_n_str_e.am_and-wet]_and_eco?ystems-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.
Based on our records, the federally threatened plant species Hexastylis
naniflora (dwarf-flowered hPartleaf) may occur within the impact area of
the proposed action. The legal responsibilities of a Federal agency or
their designated non-Federal representative under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act, as amended, were detailed in material sent to you
previously. If you would like another copy of this material or if you have
any questions, please contact Mr. John Fridell at 704/259-0321
(FTS 672-0321).
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.
(2) A descrip tio_n of the-fishery and wildlife resources within
existing and required additional rights-of-way and RECEIVED
MAY - 2 1990
. r nnruvrn 1%A110A&W
such as borrow areas, which may be affected directly or
indirectly by the proposed improvements.
(3) Acreae_and descriptions of branches, ^creeks, streams, rivers, or
?land.s_whish_w_ Ltze_£iLLe.d-as a concMCP of proposed
highway improvements. Wetlands affected by the proposed project
W6uTd--be mappeTin accordance with the Federal Manual for
Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
(4) Linear _feet _of_any. water courses which will be-re acalp as a
consequence of the proposed improvements.
(5) A_cre_age_of upl and_habi tats-, 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 relo c-a_teA-s tre_am-chamels or for creating x-en 1? P n t
%te. ands .
(7) Description of all expected secondary and cumulative
environmental impacts associated with this proposed work.
(8) k
will be employed to avoid, eliminate,
reduce, or compensate for habitat value losses associated with
any of the proposed improvements.
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 4-2-90-048.
' cere y,
Robert R. Currie
Acting Field Supervisor
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
Mr. Rob Sutter, 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

1 NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
206 03/30/90 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES
RALEIGH NORTH STREET
CAROLINA

C^
ACKNO14LEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT ..,
?, r r 9 1990
?
't
MAILED TO FROM
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION MS. JEANS §~--,Tbgd- R??
?RG
?I
L.J. WARD CLEA RINGHOU
51R?fl
DIV. OF HIGHWAYS
HIGHWAY BLDG./INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SCOPING FOR. COMMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED EAST THOROUGHFARE FROM
US 70 TO NC 127, IN THE CITY OF HICKORY (T.I.P. U-2307)
TYPE - SCOPING
THE N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE HAS RECEIVED THE ABOVE PROJECT FOR
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW. THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED STATE
' APPLICATION NUMBER 90 E42200737. PLEASE USE THIS NUMBER WITH ALL
INQUIRIES OR CORRESPONDENCE WITH THIS OFFICE.
REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 04/26/90.
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL (9191 733-0499.

RECEIVED
MAY - 3 1990
J. E GREINER COMPANY
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1890
April 23, 1990
IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Division
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E. , Manager
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:

?f ^
We have reviewed your letter of March 21, 1990, requesting information
on the "East Thoroughfare from US 70 to NC 127, in the City of Hickory,
Catawba County, approximately T miles, State Project No. 8.2790901,
TIP No. U-2307, Federal Project M-5621(1)" and offer the following comments.
The potential imoaets on the flood?lains of this project will need to
be evaluated and addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement.
Department of the Army hermit au_t_h_orizat_ion, 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 proj_ect,_including ldisQosal
of construction debris. Specific permit requirements will depend on the final
project design, area of waters and/or wetlands filled, construction methods,
etc. 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. Steve Lund, 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,
awrence W. Saunders
Chief, Planning Division RECEIVED
MAY - 3 1990
I E GREINER COMPANY
1
1
1
t
t
North Carolina Department
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
April 27 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:

Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
David Brook, Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer
East thoroughfare from US 70 to NC 127, U-2307,
8.2790901, Hickory, Catawba County, CH 90-E-4220-0737
We have received notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning
the above project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located numerous
structures of historical or architectural importance that have been recorded
in the general area of the project. We recommend, therefore, that the
firm of Rummel, Klepper & Khal retain a quIni ied_architectural historian
?o define and survey the area of?otential effect for this project. We
will provide further comment when we have reviewed the resulting survey
report.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project
boundaries. However, the project area has never been systematically
surveyed to determine the location or significance of archaeological
resources.

We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological
remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project.
Potential effects on unknown resources should be assessed prior to the
initiation of construction activities.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CPR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have quPFCOVED
tconcerning the above comment, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Ear -;J 1990
environmental revi? coprdi,1torj t g?9 rt Carolina 27611
IQ<J` ast ona trcet Ftalei J. E. GREINER COMPANY
6,s, y
o.. I •
ultural Kf>ources
42 08

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
04/16/90 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
C E ?j RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27611
CILED TO
MAY 3
I NT ERGO19WNME
JlVISIO,,40F Z
HIGljVVAYS
•r?;? A OQ,P
AL REVIEW COMMENTS
FROM
I.C. CREPT. Of TRANSPOR GN MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
.J. WARD DIRECTOR
DIV. OF HISHWAYS N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
?IGHWAY BLDG./INTER-OFFICE
ROJECT DESCRIPTION
C')P ING FOR COMMENTS FOR. THE PROPOSED EAST THOROUGHFARE FROM
US 70 TO K 127, IN TI-IC CITY rF HICKORY (T.I.P. U-2307)
Sb I Ne 40C42200737 PROGRAM TITLE - SCOPING
111E ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
I NITERGOVEPNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
I ( X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
i HOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS,

I
C.C. REGION E
I

11

PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
RECEIVE
MAY - ?
7 1990
j E GREINER COMPANY

.t
9M,.
r ron
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street * Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
Douglas G. Lewis
Director
Planning and Assessment

RE: 90-0737 - East Thoroughfare from US 70 to NC 127 in the
City of Hickory in Catawba County
DATE: April 23, 1990
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the Department of Transpcrtation's scoping notice
regarding the referenced project.
In general, our divisions have identified some areas of
concern and have requested the Department of Transportation
provide specific information during the environmental review.
Should there be any problem in providing this information or
additional information is needed from our divisions, the
Department of Transportation should not hesitate to call on us.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
MM: bb
attachments
P.O. {lox 77687, Raleigh, Nonh Carolhu 27611-7687 Trlephonu 919-733-6376
? V\ ILV?'J

I d,% p , VSO 1-5
X, 9 "S O'`FIC
E
L
?'? c,
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM APR 1 4Qn
r_
TO: Melba McGee, Division of Planning and Assessment o'' v tla??
De m. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources °' pu%!; h?
p4SE-ST"
FROM: . Don Baker,'Program Manager Sb
Division of Boating and Inland Fisheries C (ll.ti?r
I DATE: April 12, 1990
SUBJECT: Proposed East Thoroughfare from US 70 to NC 127, in the City of
Hickory (Catawba County); State Project No. 8.2790901; TIP No. U-
2307.
This correspondence responds to a request from Mr. Ward of the N.C.
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for our concerns regarding impacts on fish
and wildlife resources resulting from proposed construction of the east thoroughfare
in the City of Hickory. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) is concerned about potential i-!npacts to wildlife, fisheries and wetland
resources within and adjacent to the construction corridor.
' Biological field staff of the NCWRC have reviewed the scoping letter, and
have conducted a preliminary site visit. Due to limited information in Mr. Ward's
memorandum, we can express our concerns and requests for information only in
general terms. Although located within residential and commercial areas of
Hickory, the proposed project would pass through substantial acreage of available
upland habitat for small game, woodlands composed of mixed pine and hardwood
' stands, several creeks with associated riparian and wetland areas and increasingly
important urban wildlife habitat for nongame species. Also in a publication by the
N.C. Natural Areas Planning Committee called Ecologically Sensitive Areas of
North Carolina, Lyles' Creek, which is within the project area, has been listed as the
' Type Locality and only known location for Dactylocythere isa elae (ostracod). This
listing was compiled by William F. Adams.
' Our ability to completely evaluate project impacts and provide beneficial
recommendations when reviewing the project Environmental Assessment will be
enhanced by inclusion of the following information:
1. Complete maps of road alignments and alternatives, showing areas to
be cut and filled, and location of erosion control measures.

Memo (2) April 12, 1990
2. Complete inventories of wildlife and aquatic resources within,
adjacent to or utilizing the study corridors. These inventories should
include any species on State or Federal lists of threatened,
endangered or special concern species.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project.
Wetland acreages should include all pro ected related areas that may
undergo hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or
filling for project construction. A wetland area exists on Snow Creek
along corridor segment A.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted
by the proposed project, including. potential borrow sites. Substantial
acreage of Resource categories 3 and 4 is found within all of the
corridor segments.
5. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and
indirect impacts to habitat quantity and quality.
The No Build Alternate would of course be best for protection of wildlife
habitat. We were not provided information on the Transportation Systems
Management (TSM) Alternate and therefore cannot comment on this alternate.
We recommend Alternate 1 of the eight presented build alternatives as being least
detrimental to wildlife habitat. Our field personnel strongly oppose any Build
Alternates which include Corridor Segments C and E.
Project plans must contain detailed erosion control plans to protect streams
and wetlands from sedimentation. Erosion control measures need to be maintained
throughout the life of the project and protective ground cover established as soon as
any phase of the project is completed,
We request that the draft Environmental Assessment and all supporting
documents be provided the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission for
review and comment. 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 et seq.).
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide early input in the early
stages of this project. If we can provide further assistance, please call on us.
DB/lp _
Jack Mason, District 8 Wildlife Biologist
Chris Goudreau, District 8 Fisheries Biologist
STAIj,
ar r?. mac; `-' s'
31
,? Qwr ^W. n? ?' (. /? 9`90
State of North Carolina ?'?9
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development ?t?4
Division of Forest Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
' fames G. Martin, Governor Griffiths Forestry Center Harry F. Layman
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary 2411 Garner Road Director
' Clayton, North Carolina 27520 22324?,S
April 2, 1990 ,Lp`112 ?6?j
?y
MFMnPANTITTM
APR r9
90 Y
SFC o?I V[U
FTDOA CffICC
T0: • Melba McGee
' Environmental Assessment Unit
U1?,?3L
FROM: Don H. Robbins /?l??
Staff Forester 906
' SUBJECT: EIS of the Proposed East Thoroughfare from US 70 to NC 127 in the
City of Hickory in Catawba County, N.C.
PROJECT #90-0737
DUE DATE 4-13-90

To bette r determine the impact, if any, to forestry in the area of the
' proposed
location project, the combined Environmental Impact Statement/Corridor
report should contain the following information concerning the
proposed alternative routes for the possible right-of-way purchases for the
project:

1. The number of total woodland acres that would be taken out of timber
production as a result of new right-of-way purchases.
' 2. The acres breakdown of this woodland concerning present conditions
such as clear-cut areas, young growing timber, and fully stocked
stands of very productive timber within the new right-of-way
purchases for disturbed and undisturbed portions.
3. The site indexes of the forest soils that would be involved within
the proposed right-of-way, so as to be able to determine the
productivity of these forest soils in the area.
4. The number of woodland acres that would affect any watersheds in the
area
if the woodland was r
moved
,
.
e
P.O. Box 27687, 12alciph, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
Melba McGee
PROJECT 90-0737
Page 2
5. If woodland is involved, it is hoped that the timber could be
merchandised and sold to lessen the need for piling and burning of
debris during right-of-way construction.
Provisions should be indicated in the EIS that the contractor will
make all efforts to salvage any merchantable timber to permit
construction, once the contractor takes charge of the right-of-way.
6. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction
phase to prevent erosion, sedimentation and construction damage to
the remaining standing trees outside of the right-of-way boundary
and construction limits.
We would hope that a route could be chosen, that would have the least
impact to forest and related resources in that area.
DHR: gm
pc: Fred White
File
. X\) - 7?S
.? •? ,rnrr v ?
R qp
s££ AFC 19,94 J
? p?q ??f?C£ ?I.
' State of North Carolina
'!??i? NG?,?
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources 1
Division of Land Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Stephen G. Conrad
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
' MEMORANDUM
Date: April 11, 1990
To: Melba McGee
From: Randy Cotten
Thru: Gary Thompson
Subject: Catawba County, Hickory, N.C.
' East Thoroughfare from US 70 to NC 127,
approximately 7 miles
State Project No. 8.2790901, TIP No. U-2307
Federal Project M-5621(1)
' We have reviewed the above referenced project and find
that 18 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/ajs
' cc: Joe Creech, NCD•OT
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.7687 Telephone [phone]
' An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
171819,,0
D,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Number
9 0 - 073
County
KIClzIType of Project
Several water lines are 1
proposed project. Due to
contractor should contact
specify a work schedule..
Gated in the path of and adjacent to the
a possible rupture during construction, the
the appropriate water system officials to
The proposed project will be constructed near water resources which
are used for drinking. Precautions should be taken to prevent
contamination of the watershed and stream by oil or other harmful
substances. Additional information is available by contacting the
Public Water- Supply Branch at'•[phone].
If this project is.constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure
? of feet of adjacent waters to the harvest of shellfish. For
informationregarding the shellfish sanitation program, the applicant
should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Branch at [phone].
The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a
mosquito breeding problem. For information concerning appropriate
F1 mosquito control measures, the applicant should contact the Public
Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demo-
lition of dilapidated structures, an extensive rodent control program
maybe necessary in order to prevent the migration of the rodents to
? adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control, contact
the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management
Section, [phone].
The applicant should be advised to contact the local health depart-
F1 ment regarding their requirements for septic tank installations (as
required under 10 NCAC 10A .1900 et. seq.). For information con-
cerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods, contact
the On-Site Sewage Branch at [phone].
? The applicant should be advised to contact the
County Health Department regarding the sanitary facilities required
for this project.
1-79o
Reviewer Branc /Unit Date
DFJD?R 3198 (Revised 2/90)
Division of Environmental Health
Review 2/91

7-
L i

• ?M?T^?;o,? 2232?Z5?6
A PR 1990
s? PECEA D -?
CRrs OFFICE
UOA
State of North Carolina,
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Res6-"Llw s:-! f
Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor ?,?: •? ti I ??
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
April 16, 1990 =° r•?, +,;.,
MEMORANDUM
?? L't b c; i;•G ?c,
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: John Sutherlandw.
SUBJECT: 90-0737, East 9horoughfare, City of Hickory
John N. Morris
Director
We have reviewed the information provided on this project and
have the following comments:
1) The use of grassed drainage swales is preferable to curb and
gutter as a means to disperse highway pollutants.
' 2) The use of 300-foot right-of-ways for the divided highway
alternatives will obviously make them much more costly than the
90-foot right-of-way, 5-lane curb and gutter sections. Why could
' not divided highways be built on 120-foot right-of-ways?

P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.7687 Telephone [phone]
HICKORY-NEWTON-CONOVER
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
317 First Avenue, NW, Hickory, N.C. 28601 I
.;ss
May 1, 1990 ?' '•?
7
Mr. Frank Vick, P.E.
Assistant Branch Manager " {? BI;ANG
NC Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201 I
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
The Hickory-Newton -Conover Metropolitan Planning Organiza-
tion's Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) and Technical
Coordinating Committee (TCC) met on April 26, 1990 and considered
the eight Build Alternates for the East Side Thoroughfare (TIP U-
2307). The TAC and TCC unanimously supported Corridor Segment A
and Corridor Segment B as shown on the attached map. These two
(2) alternates are consistent with the Hickory-Newton -Conover
Urban Area's Thoroughfare Plan.
We appreciate your support for this much needed project. If i
we can be of further assistance, please advise.
Sincerely,
?(::? R. DougI Taylor, hairman
Technical Coordinating Committee
/vbd
Attachment
cc: B. Gary McGee
G. Cecil Clark
Chuck Hansen
RECEIVED
MAY - 7 1990
1. I- GREINER COMPANY
Serving the transportation needs of Hickory, Newton, Conover, Longview, Claremont, Hildebran, Brookford,
and the Hickory urbanized areas of Alexander, Burke, Caldwell, and Catawba Counties
SI
LI O
X •E Ld N
F al 0:: z (O
W a
w 0- n
+r l r I^
d U U `- CL
{jJ U o °" W 2 r` W a
1
11 to ii b N U U
r.. ? Z I Q? ri M O Z r
o N[I: o Z
z v p' CL _j Q U< _O
o F-
x 0 a i` 0:: = W n:
rc rc m} ° Z: S u "? L (n O F' W `o Q
tI'.. Z V Q= n' i,.., W u 0
II D wwa: N VCL `
Y, i ???•''d \4 Obi I/ "? '?i?? •' •? ??:•.
fS ?1
.. / S? rl ?• QO
?Id)n5 Cl v `?. FAIR !l9
fNAU
6J j• QJ- . O O d r ?? O
r ?. EW aP UCH f i
Q GJ ? a Q' ? P
UC/)
\.\ `r ??' Or0 .7'xti x e 5, rt 1• ,? /?\ h O /?/pr/pv
J O C ..Y r5
0-1
. 0 ?A •?..w '?'' W 0
CREEK Ra An `. Y• ' U L $ quip"
\t
\el W
/ i gyp. • \ . l .1W , ' i 17 T / ?T ?T W
?'(v/_`Y\tZ7 U 6.1+.+ r e ... ?.J W U)• [D
N ?? U uP i ?? •.
C?,d 11?• O C== ./ 1J3B1S N31t1'!? ' A - \.. l
?? \ O tL 1 <l~" b0? GI?'F/Wi •I? i ` J T r,- ...
UU] ?`? O aJ . 4,?.. `I r o
r , .? a l1 \w? o bob
I '? Ir 2 ? ?? ? W F?-?
Y ti C
1 ^.ti\ ? G 12 4 - - ? n
.tti r -
CITY OF HICKORY
POST OFFICE BOX 398 • HICKORY, NORTH CAROLINA 28603 • '-?--? -'=.+113
FAX [phone]
MAYOR
William R. McDonald, III
Mr. Frank Vick, P.E.
Assistant Branch Manager
North Carolina Department
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Vick:
of Transportation
27611
\NA 0 `• N /CEO
y is TO t
t
CA Wk
May 14,.

17 r
The City of Hickory has considered the eight build
alternates for the East Side Thoroughfare (TIP U-2307). Hickory
strongly supports corridor segment A and corridor segment B as
shown on the attached map as the best location for the East Side
Thoroughfare. These two alternates are consistent with the
Hickory-Newton-Conover Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan.
Corridors A and B have been a part of the City's
Thoroughfare Plan since 1983. During that time the City has
worked with developers to insure that land development projects
in this corridor would be designed in conformance with this
location of the East Side Thoroughfare. The design and location
of several residential, commercial and industrial projects have
been affected by the City's effort to protect the rights-of-way
shown on the Thoroughfare Plan. Other projects, particularly
residential projects north of 29th Avenue N.E., have been
approved in the belief that they would not be affected by the
East Side Thoroughfare. The City has even purchased property in
corridor segment A in order to protect the corridor that is
identified on the Thoroughfare Plan from development.
The City also feels that corridor segment A, which involves
the widening of an existing thoroughfare, is preferable from an
environmental standpoint to construction in corridor segments C
or E which would impact undeveloped and recently developed
residential property in a rapidly growing area. Corridor
segments C and E are too far north to effectively tap travel
demands south of Cloninger Mill Road (SR 1400). Corridor
segments C and E also conflict with the future widening of
Cloninger Mill Road/Kool Park Road (SR 1400) which is proposed
for linkage to Section House Road and Fairgrove Church Road.
Finally, corridor A-1 misses the linkage with 29th Ave. Dr. N.E.
which will make the Fast Side Thoroughfare accessible to the
residents west of N.C. 127. R `E V .
19S JUN 1-) 1990
11 M1 it 1, E GREINER COMPANY
1
ALL-A311:'NIG1 CITY

Mr. Frank Vick, P. E.
' Page -2-
May 14, 1990
1
Corridor segment D would bisect a recently approved mobile
' home park, and we have been told that there is a family graveyard
in or near corridor segment D at the location shown on the
enclosed map. It is our understanding that corridor D is too far
east to allow the development of an interchange where it crosses
I-40. Development of an interchange would be permissible on
corridor B. An interchange between I-40 and the East Side
Thoroughfare is critical for addressing the issue of traffic
' congestion in the U. S. 70 corridor and at the existing Lenoir
Rhyne Blvd. and Fairgrove church Rd. interchanges.
' We appreciate your support for this much needed project. If
we can be of further assistance please let us know.

WRMcD:lfs
' pc: John Tippett
C

Sincerely,
William R. McDonald, III
Mayor
Eastside.Thr

Y? 11
IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402 1890
May 211, 1990
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
t
P-4Y
9 199
Thank you for your letter of April 12, 1990, requesting the
Corps of Engineers to be a cooperating agency for the Draft
Supplement Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Smith
Creek Parkway in Wilmington, North Carolina, New Hanover County
(T.I.P. # U-92), and your letters dated March 22, 1990, requesting
the Corps of Engineers to bra OQOaer ti agency for the
following projects:
a. Environmental Impact Statement for I-85, Greensboro
Bypass, Multi-lane Facility on New Location, Guilford County,
North Carolina. State Project No. 6498002T. TIP No. I-2402;
b. Environmental Impact Statement for US 1, Lakeview to Four
Lanes South of Sanford, Moore and Lee Counties, North Carolina.
State Project No. 8.1560301. TIP No. R-210 (EIS);
c. Environmental Impact Statement for US 117, from US 70 in
Goldsboro, Northward to US 301 South of the City of Wilson, Wayne
and Wilson Counties, North Carolina. State Project No. 8.1330501.
TIP No. R-1030;
d. Environmental Impact Statement for Northern Wake
Expressway from NC 55 near Morrisville to US 64 near Knightdale,
Wake and Durham Counties, North Carolina. State Project
No. 8.2401701. TIP No. R-2000;
e. Environmental Impact Statement for US 64, SR 1515 West
of Pittsboro to SR 1008, Chatham County, North Carolina. State
Project No. 8.1520801. TIP No. R-2219;

' f. Environmental Impact Statement for US 17, New Bern By-Pass,
Four-Lane Expressway on New Location, Bridge over Neuse River,
Craven County, North Carolina. State Project No. 6.179001T.
TIP No. R-2301;
g. Environmental Impact Statement for High Point Rd.,
(US 29A/70A) Improvements, Greensboro, Guilford County,
' North Carolina. State Project No. Pending. TIP No. U-2412;
h. Environmental Impact Statement for Hickory, East Side
' Thoroughfare, US 611 to NC 127, Catawba County, North Carolina.
State Project No. 8.2790901. TIP No. U-2307;
i. Environmental Impact Statement for Western Urban Loop,
' from I-85 to Lawndale Drive, Guilford County, North Carolina.
State Project No. 6.498001T. TIP No. U-2524; and
' J. Environmental Impact Statement for US 13 Extension from
NC 211 to I-95, Cumberland County, North Carolina. State Project
No. 6.449001T. TIP No. X-2.
' Due to a shortage of manpower and funds, our involvement must
be limited to our jurisdictional responsibilities. Once the
wetlands have been delineated pursuant to the January 1989 Federal
' Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands,
a representative of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory
Branch will verify the survey in the field. We will be happy to
' discuss alternatives that involve loss of wetlands and mitigation
measures for wetlands.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these projects.
' If we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate
to contact us.
erely,
i
Lawrene Wr Saunders
Chief, Planning Division

4-----l. States Soli
United
7 1 Department of Conservation 4405 Bland Road, Suite 205
E? Agriculture Service r Raleigh, NC 27609
Telephone: [phone]
August 7, 1990
Mr. WI IIlam R. Butler, Jr., P.E.
Senior Associate
Rum-le-l, Klepper & Kahl
5800 Faringdon Place, Suite 105
Raleigh, NC 27609
3,6,01
Re: East Side Thoroughfare
From NC 127 to US 70
Project No. 8.2790901 (U-2307)
Federal Project M-5621(1)
Hickory, Catawba County
Dear Mr. Butler:
AUG 15 1990

This Is in response to your request for Important Farmland Information for
U-2307 project. We have identified by color codes the important farmland
soils for the project area. This information is plotted on one of the
attached base maps that you provided. The color codes are defined:
1) Color Code Green: All areas meet the soil criteria for Prime
Farmlands.
2) Color Code Blue: Only drained areas that are either protected
from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season
are Prime Farmland. `
3) Color Code Yellow: All areas meet the soil criteria for State
Important Farmlands.
4) The non--marked areas do not qualify for Important Farmland. This
is mainly due to the urban setting. Areas that are urbanized or
planned for urbanization are not covered by the Farmland Protection
Policy Act. This could apply to most or all of this project area.
We lack specific Information regarding this In our office. The low
relative value noted in Part 4 is mainly due to the urban setting.
We have attached a copy of the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form
AD-1006 with SCS part completed.
If there are questions, please contact Ernest Hayhurst, at [phone].
Sincerely
Bobbye J. Jon s
State Conservationist
cc: Richard H. Grant
0 The Sod Conservation Service
`.J is an agency of the
Department of Agriculture

1 U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
'PART 1 (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of L nd E• afu an Aeouest
/ 9O
N e Of Pr ?cl Federal Aenc Involved
ar? ?0a, '16 y cu%? )arc !- (•%30
Pro osea Lind Use County A Td State
r- /I C, vi b a u u .. ?1 r l Cn r le'*.-
c •, t
ART II (To be completed by SCSI Date He unst wecarved By SC5
7??e/ 9n
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No
' (If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete, additional parts of this form), ® ?
Major Crops/ Farmable Land in Govt. Jurisdiction
(or n Acres: z % 7 Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
/V 6 e°
Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: 45' 76 % 39,
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
o L E Name Of Local Sit Assessment System
o7,? Date Land Evaluation Returned By SCS
217/`70
Alternative Site Hatin
PART I I I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site A Site B Sit-1 C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly / / $ LIZ 2
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirect)
C. Total Acres In Site I $ 3
ART IV (To be completed by SCSI Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland 2- Z r -R A
B. Total Acres Statewide! And Local Important Farmland to 24
2
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted 0 0 •0
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
ART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
. Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scaleof 0 to 100Pointsl
T'S.
is
.24
1
ART V I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
ite Avessment Criteria (These criteria err explained in 7 CFR 658.5(bl Maximum
Paints
1, Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availabili Of Farm Support Services
10. On-Farm Investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
I Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part VI 100 4 IS
Total Site Asse$sment (From Part VI above or a local
site asse.ismenrl 160
TOTAL POINTS (Total ofabove 2linesl 260

Site Selected:
Date Of Selection Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes ? No ?
eason For Selection:
Re?ntlve .Values Aroj?c?ed
' Pr• n+e g 6
S ICLIC 7 q
1.,
';v-I,. 'a•r••.' -n•':•.'... _c . :1n- . -.. _ t
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To he cornotered by ?ederal Agency) ° - - -- - - ° -- - __..
Name Of Project I Federal Agency Involved
Proposeo Linn Use County And State
PART 11 (To be completed by SCSI Date Request Received By SCS
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No
(lf no, the FPPA does not apply - do nor complete additional parts of this form). ? ? Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
Major CropW Farmable Lind In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: % Amount Of Farmland As Detined to FPPA
Acres: %
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Name Of Local Site Assessment System Date Land Evaluation Returned By SCS
Alternative Site I'lating
PART III (To be complered by Federal Agency) Site Ar Si to ET Site,e Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly / 9 /
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site
PART IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland -? O
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland O
C. Percentage Of Farmland In Countv Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted OD `00
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Juritdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value 75 17I
PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of0ro 100Points)
2 157
s
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (There crlreris are airplained try 7 CFR 658.5(bl Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
0. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
B. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availabili Of Farm Support Services
10. On-Farm Investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility With Exiiting Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Parr V) 100 a q
Total Site Assessment (From Parr Vl above ora local
sire asaessmenrl 160
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines) 260

Site Selected:
Date Of Selection Wes A Loral Site Assessment Used?
Yes ? No ?
Reason For Selection:

PGGC1aFZ
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Feceril Agency)
N. Of P•n/IRct1
Cn?4 .71x1 - T tin vc+ti i -f^nr e .
Pro osed Land Use
C----r
PART I I (To be completed by SCS)

Date Qf L nd E1aluanon Request
71i7 q o
a o d Federal A Rnc Involved
I County And State
b c t, U
-7 .2 Oate;?gsbt 7cg1?d By SGs
UAY 11, Cd r' 1 //
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No
' (/f no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form). ® ? Acres Irrigated
0 e Average Farm Size
Major Crop(sl
Co r n Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: Z `Ye 17 Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: QS 70 °" 3
' Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
Cr ?' n L E Name Of Local Sit Assessment System
Olll P Date Land Fvaluation Returned By SCS
217 90
Alternative Site Hating
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) S,tR A Site B Site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly / 1(.5 1'7 2
'
0. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirect)
C. Total Acres In Site
1 7
3
PART IV (To be complered by SCS) Land Evaluation Information
'
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland 2
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Loral Govt. Unit To Be Converted O 0 •00?_
-
D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdictlon With Same Or Higher RRIatIve Value
1
75
"7 -6
PART V (To be completed by SCSI Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of0 to 1`00Poinrsl
r'5
l
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained In 7 CFR 658.5(b) Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
'
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5, Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
_
S. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
10. On-Farm Investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility With Existing`Agricultural Use
' TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
160
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
' Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
Total Site Assessment (From Parr V( above or a local
site, assessment) 100
160 ??r I zL? ??
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2linesl 260

mite Selected:
Date Of Selection Was A Local Site Assessment Used
Yes ? No ?
lesson For Selection:
Re(atIVe ,Values Projecyed
,Qt^i rHe Q (p
S tale 7 9
1 I

Pac,c 2 of Z
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To he corno/ered by zederil Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation rleduvst I
Name Of Project I Federal Agency Involved
Proposed Land Use I County And State
PART II (To be completed by SCS) I Date Request Received By SCS
Does the site contain prime, unique. statewide or local important farmland? Yes No
(If no, the FPPA does not appl y - do nor complere additional parts of this form J. ? ? Acres irrigated Average Farm Size

Major Crop(sl
Formable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: % I
Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: e
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Name Of Local Site Assessment System Date Land Evaluation Returned By SCS
Alternative Site Haun
PART II I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site a Site ft Site'e
Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly ! Q
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site
PART IV (To be completed by SCSI Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland 3 O
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland O l
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted 00 'OD
0. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value rJ?j Q

PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Convened (Scale of0to IOOPoints)

2

S I
PART V I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (Thera crinrris ere explained In 7 C-eR 658.5(bl MR)dmum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
B. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availabili Of Farm Su ort Services
10. On-Farm Investment
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. Com atibili With Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part VJ 100 Q
Total Site Assessment (From Part Vl above ora local
site assessmentl 160
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines) 260

Site Selected:
Date Of Selection Was A Local Site Aueument Used? I
Yes ? No ?
Reason For Selection:

pole- l 1
a Z
' U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be rornplet-°d by Federal Agency) Date Ot L nd E' on Request
• 01 "77c Federal RM???? c Involved
N'
?S+ d- T hc?yoc., l 1'ar e Nrc-o?, iVC CU•7 307 III
Pro oseo Land Use County And State
11 +!:1 W R b r- to rJ 4 U r l J Ca
c-
' PART 11 (To be completed by SCSI DateIR7 2sA / '91) By SCS
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland?- Yes No Acres irrigated Average Farm Size
(!f no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form). Go ? p,v P.
'
Major Croplfl Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction Amount Of Farmland As Defined m FPPA
23P % 75 Acres: 45-, 70 - % '-6
Acres: 1 eq
Co
.
r n
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Name Of Local Sit Assessment System Datn Land Evaluation Returned BY SCS
I n LE nl r 7
C
c
Alternative Site Hating
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site A Site B Site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly $ / 7 2/13

'
Total Acres To Be Converted Indirect)
B
.
C. Total Acres In Site 15 ?
3

PART IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information
'
Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
A Z
.
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted O . D D O •???_
0. Pereentege Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same-Or Higher Relative Value
' 7
PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
4
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (ScaleofOto 100Pointsl f a $
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Maximum
Site Assessment Criteria (Those criteria ere explained la 7 CFR 658.51b) Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use

2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use,
'
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government

5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
' 6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availabili Of Farm Su ort Services
'
10. On-Farm Investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
'
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
' Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100 4 ,Z
Total Site. Assessment (From Part V! above or a local 160
site, assessment/

TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2linesl 260
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Site Selected: Date Of Selection Yes ? No ?
' Reason For Selection:
Reifn & I ve A lues Projfecled
Pri'oc 96

Po ac 2 o-F Z
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
Date (]f Land Evaluation Request
PART I (To he cornolered by .=ederil Agency)
Name Of Project I Federal Agency Involved
Proposed Lind Use County And State
PART II (To be completed by SCSI Date Request Received 8v SCS
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No
Of no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form). ? ? Acres Irrigated Average Filrm Size
Major Crop tl Formable Land in Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: % Amount Of Farmland As Defined to PPA
Acres: %
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Name Of Local Site Assessment System Data Land Evaluation Returned By SCS
PART III
T
l
l
F At

tve Site Haun
ternat
(
o be comp
edera
eted by
Agency) Site A r-
Site -R $ Site,t3 Site O
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly / p 97 /
0. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site /
PART IV (To be completed by SCSI Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland O
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland Q
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted Q "OD
0. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value 17 Q
PART V (To be completed by SCSI Land Evaluation Criterion
• Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Sca/eof0tof0OPointsl
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Mottimum
Site Assessment Criteria (These, criteria aro explained In 7 CFR 658.5(6/ Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided BY State And Local Government
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availabili Of Farm Support Services
10. On-Farm Investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. -Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Parr Vl 100 :l9 3'
otal Sit" Assessment (,Prom Parr Vl above ora local 160
site assessment/
TOTAL POINTS (Total ofabove 2linesl 260

Site Selected:
Date Of Selection Was A Local Site Auasament Used?
Yes ? No ?
nenon FOr selection:
- I-V ?s
.,r •? . O
1v 1
' North Carolina Department of
Cultural Resources
' James C. Martin, Governor Division of Archives and History
Patric Dorsey, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
' March 26, 1991
Nicholas L. Graf
' Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
' P. 0. Box 26806
Raleigh, N.C. .27611
Re: Section 106 Consultation
' East Thoroughfare, US 70 to NC 127, U-2307,
Catawba County, CH 90-E-4220-07379 ER 91-7848
' Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of February 21, 1991, forwarding the archaeological
survey report prepared by Archaeological Research Consultants, Inc.,
' concerning the above project. We have reviewed the report and offer our
couma nts. In general, the report meets our guidelines and those of the
Secretary of the Interior.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we concur that the following property requires additional
investigation (i.e., limited testing) co determine its,potential eligibility
' for the National Register:
31CT146. Potential Middle or Late Woodland stratified site.
' The following properties were determined not eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places:
31CT147. Isolated find.
31CT148. Isolated find.
31CT149. Huffman-Seaboch Cemetery
' The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservations Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CPR Part 800.
109 Easdones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
March 26, 1991, Page Two
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comments, please contact Ms. Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
l
vi rook It a t e
Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: L. J. Ward--
Louis Berger & Associates
&-A,fchaeological Research Consultants

North Carolina Department of Cultural Rcsources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
April 25, 1991
' Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 26806
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
' Re: Section 106 Consultation
Historic Structures survey report for Hickory
East Side Thoroughfare, Catawba County, ER 91.8012,
' State Project 8.2790901, CH 90-E-4220-0737, TIP U-2307
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of April 4, 1991, concerning the above project. We have
reviewed the historic structures survey report by Margaret Stephenson and offer our
comments.
' For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we
concur that the following properties are not eligible for listing In the National Register of
Historic Places under the criterion cited:
Davy Seaboch House (A02). The house has undergone several character-altering
changes.
' Frank and Myrtle Harris House (A03). Though Intact, the house is a typical example
of a building type of which there are many survivors.
A 1
' Jones Seaboch House (A04). The house has undergone several character-altering
changes.
' Miller-I:okard House (A06). The house has undergone several character-altering
changes.
Marvin E. Deal House-(A07). The house is not over fifty years of age.
' Fred A. Cline House (A08). The house is not over fifty years of age.
Paul R. Kirby House (A09). The house is not over fifty years of age.
Stine Family House (A10). The house is not over fifty years of age. MEG ' ~ LIVED
Alp
R 2 9 1991
GREINE
109 East)oncs Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 R, I NC.
' [phone]
l u BERGER P. 05
Nicholas L. Graf
April 25, 1991, Page 2
Charles D. Propst Family House (A11). The house does not appear to have
significance in American history. architecture, archaeology, and culture.
Bryce Drum House (A15). The house does not appear to have significance In
American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture.
(Floyd W. Sr.?) Frye House (B01). The house does not appear to have significance
in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture.
Hickory Frye Furniture Company (802). The building does not appear to have
significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture.
Floyd Arthur Bowman House (806). The house does not appear to have significanoe
in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture.
Hugh David Huffman House (810). The house is not over fifty years of age.
Levi Langdon Huffman House (1312). The house has lost its structural integrity and
has undergone numerous character altering changes.
Albert Lafayette Miller House (813). The house has undergone several character-
altering changes.
David L. Walker House (C02). Although'intact, the house is a typical example of a
building type of which there are many intact survivors.
New Jerusalem Lutheran Church, Parsonage, and Cemetery (D01), The church and
parsonage are not over fifty years of age,
Fred Edward Huffman House (D02). The house does not appear to have significance
in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture because It does not
possess integrity of feeling and association.
John B. Steele House (003). The horse is not over fifty years of age.
Steele Rulane Gas Service Building (005). The house is not over fifty years of age.
Shuford Factory Building (D06). The house is not over fifty years of age.
Fred Coleman Shell House (F01). Although virtually intact, the house is a typical
example of a building type of which there are many intact survivors.
Franklin Andrew M. Huffman House (F02). Although intact, the house Is a typical
example of a building type of which there are many intact survivors.
Guy Honeycutt House (1703). Although intact, the house is a typical example of a
building type of which there are many intact survivors.
Robert Lee Jones House (F05). Although Intact, the house Is's typical example of a
building type of which there are many intact survivors.
Roy Spencer House (F07). Although intact, the house is a typical example of a
building type of which there are many intact survivors.
- Nicholas L. Graf
April 25. 1991, Page 3
Elmore Spencer House and Farm (F08). Although virtually intact, the house is a
typical example of its type and period.
Vernon G. Bumgarner House and Small Farm (F10). The house is 'not over fifty
years of age.
Until additional Information for the properties listed below is provided, we are unable to
' make a determination of their eligibility for listing In the National Register:
Honeycutt House and Farm (A16).
' St. Stephen's School (Al 7).
Alonzo Washington Shook House and Dependencies (E01).
In general the report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior.
Specific concerns and/or corrections which need to be addressed in the preparation of a
final report are attached for the author's use.
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
9191733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
' Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slvy
cc: L. J. Ward, NCDOT
Louis Berger & Associates
B. Church, NCDOT
Margaret Stephenson
' bc: 106.
Southern/Brown/Bishir/Stencil
County

1-7
J

ATTACHMENT
Historic Structures Survey Report for Hickory East Side
Thoroughfare, Catawba County, ER 91.8012, State Project
8.2790901, CH 90-E-4220.0737, TIP U-2307
General comments regarding the report:
1. The evaluations of the properties determined to be ineligible use the same language
repeatedly. We feel the evaluations could be more specific with a little additional
work. For example, most of the bungalows are said to be ineligible because they do
not have special significance. This is true, but it Is more accurate to explain that,
although they are intact, they are typical examples of a building type of which there
are lots of intact survivors. Some of the evaluations come close to doing this, such
as site F03.
2. The evaluations often state that a building does not possess integrity of six of the
aspects considered by the register (all except location) when, in fact, only one or
two aspects may have been altered (such as site F01).
Specific comments regarding the report:
Honeycutt House and Farm (A16). The evaluation states that this property is eligible
under Criterion C for architecture because it is "a fine example of a Craftsman-style
Bungalow." Hickory has many good examples of bungalows. It is not clear why
this one is eligible and the other "good bungalows" cited In the report are not. We
feel knowing how.this bungalow fits into the locality's inventory of bungalows and
is worth of National Register eligibility is important. '
St. Stephen's School (A17). The evaluation of the interior integrity is confusing.
The report states that it possesses integrity and that it has been altered, but it
seems to justify the alterations by implying that they were necessary and, In fact,
are part of the significance. We do not feel this argument is valid. Also, we feel the
school needs a sense of place in the community. The State Historic Preservation
Office has information about schools of this type as a category with a general level
of eligibility. If this building is reevaluated as eligible, it should be eligible under
Criterion A for education as well.
.
Alonzo Washington Shook House and Dependencies (E01). Unless this property is
more impressive than it appears, we do not feel that it is eligible. While the porch
supports are quite distinctive, we do not think that "local architectural significance"
has been established. The argument that the house is the only one in the study area
is insufficient. Considering that there has been a survey of the county, the property
should be evaluated in the context of the entire county's rural historic fabric.
TnTrO 0 n"
' Mgt-It" brand fax transmittal metno 7671 Not pages ? ur
Cu.
Dept. Phone
Fux w'?
Fug N

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James C. Mardn, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secrttary
Division of Archives and History
William S, Price, Jr., Director
July 24, 1991
' Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
' Dop tirtment of Transportatlon
P.d. Box 26806
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Re; Change ages, Historical Structures Survey
Report, Last Slde Thoroughfare, US 70 to
NC 127, 8.2790901, M-5621(1),U-2307,
Hickory, Catawba County, ER 92-7019
Dear Mr. Graf:
' Thank you for your lotter of July 2, 1991, concerning the 9 above protect.
We concur that the following property is eligible for listing in the National
t Register of Historic Places under tho criteria c,tod:
St. Stephen's School (A 17), Criterion A--The school is significant in
' the context of th© history of education in the county, Criterion C--The
school Is a good example of typical schoolhouse construction and
planning of the pre-World War II period.
' The following property was determined not eligible for llstin In t
Register of I-fistoric Places: 9 he National
' Alonzo Washington Shook House and Dependencies (F01). The house
Is not representative of any significant parsons, events, architectural
styles, or construction types,
' Until additional Information for the ropcrty listed below i p
unable to make a determination of Its eligibility for listing In the INattional are
aoglster:
Honeycutt House and Farm (A16). While it is true that the Multiple
Property Documentation Form for the Catawba County Multiple
' Property Listing stotes that there arc many potentially eligible early
twentloth contury buildings that hava been overlooked and merit
special attention, this Is not a registration requirement. The passage
which more accurately addresses our concerns is: "Twentieth century
dwellings, being the most numerous, require close scrutiny, and only
109 Ew Jones Strret 9 ILleigh, North Camlina ?7G01-28()7
July 24, 1991, Page 2
those which best repraSOnt their rQspective architectural styie, unless
otherwise significant, should be considered." This statement relates to
our original comment--why is thl5 one bungalow elZe ble and the other
"o ood bungalows" cited In the report not eligible? feel this solved by comparing the Honeycutt House with tho other bun9canalobps
in the Hickory community. Unless there Is something especially
significant about this particular bungalow, we are inclined to consider
it not eligible.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 pf the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
4-
David Brook

Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
08:slw
cc: L. J. Ward
8. Church
Louis ©er er & Associates
Margaret Long Stephenson
TCIT?iL P. 07

1
,wSU7
.` ? r .
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Govcrnor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
September 26, 1991
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Deppartment of Transportation
P.O. Box 26806
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Re: Addendum to Historic Structures Survey.
Report for East Side Thoroughfare, US 70 to
NC 127, Hickory, Catawba Countyy U-2307,
8.27909011 M-5621(1), ER 92-7244
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of September 3, 1991, concerning the above pproject. We
have reviewed the addendum to the historic structures survey report by Margaret Long
Stephenson and offer our comments.
' For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,
we concur that the following property is not eligible for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places:
Honeycutt House and Farm (A16). The house lacks qualities of design,
construction, or use of materials that would distinguish it from the many other
bungalows in Hickory.
We would like to note that the context provided concerning bungalows in Hickory is
excellent.
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.
1 ? Iy 1
109 East Jones Street 11 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning
the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review
coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
Da vi Brook
AA64-
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: L. J. Ward
,1"hurch
'rerry Klein, Greiner, Inc.
M. Stephenson

F
µ sTAr^
q?d
yY .. ? -'?- ?(Py1
IJi ` l
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
' January 9, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
' Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 26806
Raleigh, N.C. 27611

Re: Hickory East Side Thoroughfare, from
NC 127 to Startown Road, Catawba County,
U-2307, 8.2790901, M-5621(1), ER 92-7609
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
7) ? ' .? 1992
Thank you for your letter of December 4, 1 991 , concerning the above
project.
We have reviewed the documentation provided to us to determine the effect
of this project on the National Register-eligible St. Stephen's School. We
concur with the Department of Transportation's determination that there will
be no effect on the St. Stephen's School for all of the project's proposed
alternatives.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
/ David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: --C. J. Ward
i B. Church
109 East Jones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

APPENDIX C
RELOCATION REPORT

Rai O CAT L o N R a p O R-F North Carolina Department of Transportation
' X E.I.S. CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT- 6.2790901 COUNTY- CATAWBA Alternate A of (1) Alternate
C NO . - l_I-2307 F . A . PROJECT : M--5621(2)
IPT I ON OF PROJECT : EAST TI-1QEOU(;HFARE , U.S. 64 TO N . C . 127 IN HICKORY
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Pe of Minor-
D i sp I acee Owners Tenants Total i t i es 0-15M 15-25M i 25-35M - -35-SOM - - 50 UP -
..._.. ......................................................_.........._....._?I 0
a l s 0 0_ 0 0 0 0
d ii v i d u
9 0 9 0
am i es
.?_ - I._ _._......__.__... 3 0
rsinesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING OSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
t............«_.._.._..-.....-....__...__...,__...._....._._. ..............
0 0 10 I 0 Owners I Tenants For Sale For Rent
...___...__............__....._.._.._ .................-....................._-!.._.........._.._.......,..._.«..I...... ............ _.._.._..._. ___ _._........_...I_.«__.. .._.__..«,..___«_._......__.I.. _.____._.._. ____..__
.. ...........0. _
11 0-9.50 0 0-20M I 2$ 0-150 15
Non-Profit 0 0 0 h 0 0-2.OM
__...__._.... _.._....... __....___.!1...._._..__._ _ .__......_---_,..._.._____. _. _._........ ........ _._..«....-._..._?_-___.__,...._._.._
ANSWER ALL QLCSTIONS 20-40M 1 150-250 0 20-40M 21 150-250 a
_...._-.........._.._ ................... _.............
NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 4.0-70M 5 250-400 0 4Q-70M 55 250-400 40
X 1. Will special Yrelocation - ? - 70-100? 3- 400-600 -?0? 70-100 30 400-600 15
services be necessary l_ OQUI' D 100 UP _.___ __ ._
X 2. Will schools or churr_hes be 10Q l IP D ? 45 600 UP 1
affected b> d i p l arement. -
? iTOTAL 9 D 153 79
X i 3. W i I I bus i nPss sere i cps st i I I- y._
be ava i I ab I e of ter project _...__.__._.
--?X 4. Will any business be (--I is- I REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of ( 3. No permanent loss of business services.
employees, minorities, etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a 16. Real estate agency) nenpapers, real estate
?.__?.._-.. housing shortage I pub I i cations, brokers, and M.L.S.
6. Source for available hous-
ing (list) 18. If needed, last resort housing will be implemented
X 7. Will additional housing i according to State law.
programs be needed II
X (-- B. Should Last Resort Housing
he considered ?I
X 9. Are there large, disablech
- elderly, etr-. families
ANSWER TI-F_SE ALSO FOR DF_S I GN ' ?,q 1
11
p- 10. W i I I Pub I i c hou, i ng hf?
-?I--- needed for project
11. Is pub I i c hous i ng ava i I -
ab I e I R ?qg0
12. Is it felt there will be ad-` AU6 1
eciuate 00S housing ava i t ab l e
during relocation period
13. I,Ji I I there be a prop I om of
housing within financial
means
14. Are suitable business sites A C
- available (list source)
A 15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION
............... ........... __ _.._._- 90
L. Thrower, Relocation Agent. Date Approved Date
rm 15.4 Revised 5/90 Original & 1 Copy- State Relocation Agent
/ ? Y 1 ' 2 Copy: Area Relocation F i l e
?\ _I
Rai _ O CATION R a R O R T North Carolina Department of Transportatior
X E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT= 13.2790901 COUNTY= CATAWBA Alternate A of 1 Alternate
I.D. NO.: U-2307 F.A. PROJECT: M-5621(2)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT- EAST SIDE: THOROUGHFARE) U . S . 64 TO N.C. 127 IN HICKORY
_ ____-__._... __._.._......__.................__.,__._......__._._....._..,..._......_ . ___._ _ _. _____ . _ _ _ . _...._..._.,............. ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
.. __ ._,._._....__..... _.._., .- __ __ ....,. ..... .,.... ......... ._...... ......... _.... .... __ .._.__.,.,__I._,.•._. _ _ _ _ __._ ._,. __ _.. •_ .._... _
Type of Minor-
Displacee Owners Tenants Total ities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Individuals 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 0
Families 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 2
_...._.__?.__-- -
__ __ . _ ._ ._... •••. __._...,...._,.,__.,...__........................... ............... .................... _.......,.............._..................._ .._,.........._._....... _.._......._,._..............
Businesses 0 0 0 ? -- VALLE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABE
Farms 0 0 0 0-_I Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 1 0 1 0 0-20M 0 0-150 0 0-20M 2$ 0-150 15
ANSGER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 1 150-250 0 20-40M 21 ISO-250 B
........_._....._.._.. ._.._...__ ..._._..._......, ____._.__ ..__.. ..._•.
_...?, .___ ....... •........
YES N0 EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 1 250-400 0 40-70M 55 250-400 40
X 1. Will special relocation 70-100 0 400-600 0 70-100 30 400-600 15
-- services be necessary ............ ....... _..._......__.
X 2. Will schools or churches be 100 UP 2 600 UP 0 100 UP 45 6,00 UP 1
-_._,........,.._....._......_....., _.___. ,..__..._
-- affected by displacement
X 3. Will business services still TOTAL 4 0 ?I 153 79
be ava i I ab I e after r- ro,jer_t •....... ......_._._......_..... _............. .......__..._...__..
X 4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
t
placed. If so, indicate size)
type, estimated number of 3. No permanent loss of business services.
- employees, minorities, etc.
- XW 5. Will relocation cause a 6. Real estate agency, newspapers, real estate
- housing shortage publicationsy brokers, and M.L.S.
6. Source for available Hous-
ing (list) 6. If neededi last resort housing will be implementec
X 7. Will additional housing according to State law.
programs be needed
x e. Should Last Resort Housing
be considered
m _IX 9. Are there large) disablech
elderly, etc, families I
..•-.... .... ...... ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
1.0. Will public housing be
needed for project
11. Is public housing avail-
.._..._........... ... able
12. Is it fe It there w i I I be ad-
equate DOS housing available
during relocation period
X13. WiII there be a probIcm of
housing within financial
means
14. Are suitable business sites
- - available (I i st source)
15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION
_ _. _....,..__. _.._..__.._.. __.._........................................ ..__......_.........__._..._.......... _._.............. ..................
D. L. Thrower, Relocation A•ent Date Approved IDate
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation At
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
R i= L O C A T L O N R F R O R-F North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
'PROJECT= 8.2790901 COUM : CATAWI3A Alternate B
I.D. NO.= U-2307 F.A. PROJECT= M-5621(2)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT : EAST 5 X 01 THOROUGI-11= AIDE , U.S. 64 TO N.C. 127 IN HICKORY
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
ype of l Minor-?
isplacee Owners Tenants ?Total ?ities 0-15M 15-25M
ndividuals l 0 0 ! 0 0 I 0 0
._.._.............._.......__........__........_
.
...

amilies
7 _.__.
0 .._.__......... _.._ ..
I! ..........................._.... .._........
_.....
_
0
.-
.......... ......2
?
.
..
...... _................
.
___
_
Businesses ?._..?.
2 ._. _ _.
0 ....
,___......__.
2 _..._ ,
....................
0 ._....___..___.__..._._ ..
....
.
..
VALLE OF DWELLING
_.._........ _............ __.....____. ___..,......._____.._.__

rarms
0
0
0 ..
0
Owners Tenants

ry,
Ron-Profit
I 0 I____ ....__. ..
0 ._.
_...__._._.
0 ?
(....._._._..._...__.._._
I 0
0- 20Mu_....
._.2 $ 0-150
ES I NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
?Ix
_?._._. _.__.... ___.._....._ _..._..._.._ ....... ................. .............._......__.._.. _ ..._..__..... ._...... ..... ..--_......... ..._........_.....-_.............._....I_
ANSWER ALL QIEST I ONS 1 20-40M..I............_ 1 150 -2`30 ;
.............
EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 3 250-400
______._......_......__.__. ..................._......._.................... __.._.._.__...... _...._......... _.._
1 Will sperinl relocation 70-1001 1 400-6001
INCOME LEVEL
25-35M 35-50M 50 LP

4 0 1
..... ..... ............_.................._.__......._..._......_..............._.. -
DWELLINGS AVA I L.ABLE -
DSS
^
V
For Sale For Rent
0 0-20M 2 $ 0-150 15
0 20-40M 21 150-750 8
. 0 40-70M I 55 SS 250-/+00 40
0 , 70-100 .
30 400-600 15
, _ .
services be n P c e s s a t- y -.._.._..... ....._.......... ................
2. 4)iII sr_hooIs or r_hurches he 100 IIPi 0 600 UP I 0 100 UP 45 600 UP 1
affected by displacement 1........... _.... ......._.' ....................._.__..........,..._.........._._............,........_..__._..._? ........... ......... 3. WiII business services stiIII TOTAI._ i 7 I 0 153 79
be available after projPc-t ' ......... ............ _.._._._.._..!.... _.._....... ....... 4. Will any business be dis- I REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size )
type, estimated numbr-r of 3.
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation caUSP a 4.
i
Housing shortage
6. Source for available hour- i
ing (list)
7. Will additional hauling 6.
programs he needed
8. Should Last Resort Housing
he considered F1.
9. Are there large, dis@bled,
elder- ly, etc. fami I ir_r
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
10. W i l l puh I i c hoUs i ng hP
needed for project.
11. Is public housing avail-
able
12. Is it felt there will he ad-
equate DDS housing available
during relocation period
13. WiII there be a problem of
housing within financial
I
means I

9.4.
Are su i tab I ca hus i eels s i t.es
?
'
I
available (list. source) I I
I.S. Number months estimated t.o
complete RELOCATION T
No permanent loss of business services.
Body shop, 1000 square feet, 2 employees, no
minorities.
Plumbing (defunct), 900 square feet, no employees
Real estate agency, newspapers, real estate
publications, brokers, and M.L.S.
If needed, last resoi-t housing will be implemented
according to State law.
I_. Thrower, Relocati on Agentat Agent
rm 15.4 Revised 5/90zg;?? L
B- /(" 9d
Date
4-, oved Date
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File

R E LO C A T ION R I P O R T Nord-, Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT= 8.2790901 COUNTY= CATAWBA Alternate A of 12) Alternate
I.D. NO.: U-2307 F.A. PROJECT: M-57.1(7)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT : IELc.;T G 1,I11- YLQ ,000l--lE-A 1= l_1 5 . 64 TO N. C . 127 I N H I CKORY
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
Type of I
Displacee
Owners I
Tenants I
Total
.............I
. Minor-
ities
......._._.._.........,.......
0-15M 15-25M

....,_.-._...__......
..... ._...... ._........ _..__....... ......
Individuals 0 0 ...
.
0 0 I 0 0
Families 23 S 28 0 0 4
Businesses 8 0 S i 0
_......__......__..
...
, VALUE OF DWELLING
.._....... _...................... .....
Farms 0 0 I O .
_
0 Owners Tenants
Non-Profit 0 0 0 I 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150
YES
-? X. _...,
X
X
X
X
X
ANSWER ALL OJESTIONS 2.0-40M 0 150-250
EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 4.0-70M 10 750-400
_......._.._...._._..__.._....._._..__......., --...__...... ...... _...
1 Will s Peisl relocation 70-100 11 400766'
INCOME LEVEL
ZS-35M 35-SOM
..__.._...
___-50..._.___
q ..___....
_.
.. 0

12 .........
_..__.._.,........
_
10
_._._

2
OSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
For Sal e For Rent
5 0-20M 2 $ 0-150 15
0? 20-40M 2.1.__. -
150-250 6
0 40-70 M 55 250-400 40
0 70-100 T 30 400-000 15
services be necessary 2. Will schools or churches be 100 UP 2 i60 UP 0 10q UPI 45 SOD UP 1
affected by d i sp I arement _______...._...____.._.._._._...__..__.___..._.___._._._..,.._..__..
i
3. Will business services still TOTAL 23 I 5 153 79
be available after project ......... ....._..__..._._._.._._ ._.___..__._._...
4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of 3. No permanent loss of business services.
q
during re I ocat. i on period
13. Will there be a problem Of
housing within financial
means
14. Are suitable business sites
available (list source)
IS. Number months estimated to II
complete RELOCATION _
GENERAL STORE (Maybe closed), 2700 square feet
4 employees, no minorities
FISH CAMP, 7200 square feet, 20 employees)
4 minorities
GARAGE & BODY SHOP, 5000 square feet, 6 employ
no minorities
PLUMBING BUSINESS, 5000 square feet, 12 employ
3 minorities
VIDEO SHOP, 1500 square feet, 5 employees, no
minorities
PHARMACY, 1500 square feet, 8 employees, one
minority.
11. Is public housing avail- A. Real estate agency, newspapers, real estate
able publ ir_at.ions, brokers, and M.L.S.
12. Is it felt there will be ar_I-
e u-ttn DDS housing availablel 8. If needed, last resort. housing will be implemented
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a 4. a.
Housing shortage
b. Source for available hous- b.
ing (list)
7. Will additional housing c.
programs be needed
8. Should Last Resort Housing d.
be considered
9. Are there large, disabled, e.
elderly, etc_. fami I it-'s
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN f.
10. Will public housing be
needed for prniect.
Date
D. L. Throi,ier, Re I ocat i o gent. Oat.? Approved
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90,tiot? ` Original & 1 -n v- State Relocation Alter
2 Copy: Area Relocation File

R E IL O C A T I ON R a p OR T North Carolina Department of Transportation
' X E.I.S. - CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT= 8.2790901 COMITY= CATAWBA Alternate C of (1) Alternate
I.D. NO.: 1-I-2307 _ F.A. PROJECT= -M-5621(2)
'DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT : LA5T S I DI-:- THOROLJGI-IFARF. ? U.S. 64. TO N.C. 127 IN I-I I CKORY
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
Type of Minor-?
Displacee Owners Tenantd Total iities 0-15M 15-25M
dividuals
V 0 0 0 N 0 0 0

........_
.
.
.......
milies 22 ._.__.__..
11 1 ,__.............. ...
33 i....._., _ _._..._
0
! ...._.-.
.
.
Cl 15
___...__._......_.......... ..__._......___.___ ..
..
ustnesses 0 0 O I O ....____..
.
VALLE OF DWELLING
arms 0 0 0 0 I Owners Tenants
Non-Profit 0 0 0 l 0 I O-2 0M 4 `h 0-150
ES NO
_ x
x
x
x
x
Ix
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 7 1150-250
.... __......_....__._._=_.._ ..
....... ...._.-_._.......... .._.__.._.....
EXPLAIN ALL 'YES' ANSWERS 60-7171M 6 250-4nn
...._....,........._........ _.,.. _._...-...-.._._.._ ..
_ _..._......__._._..._...,.......... .._....._ _....... ...... ........... ....... ...._.......... ...... ...... ...... _ .......... _._.._ _._
1 Will special relocation 70-1001 5 400-600
INCOME LEVEL
25-35M 35-SOM 50 U' _
DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
For S ale For Rent
7 0-20M I 2 $ 0-9.50 15
0 20-40M 21 150-250 e
_.,
4 _...__.
..__...
_
40-70M _ _ ._....._...
.
55 .......... .... _. ..........

40
250-400
_
0 70-10R ^ 30~ ?
410-600 15
S P I- v I r-e s be n p u e s s a r y ...... _.....___.................. _
2. Wi l l schon Is or r_hurrl,es br 100 UP D 60D UP 0 10D Lll' 4`? 600 UP 1
i
affected by d i sp l ar ement .-...-........ _..... _.- ...... .... ?...____?
3. Will business services stIII,TOTAL. 22 11 153 79
be av a i l a b l e after p r n j e r_ t _ ...... ................_._...............11 ........._.._._..____
4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size)
type, estimated number of i 3. No permanent loss of business services.
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a 6. Real estate agency, newspapers, real estate
housing shortage publications, brokers, and M.L.S.
6. Source for available, Hous-
ing (list) 8. If needed, last resort housing will be implemented
7. Will additional housing according to State law.
programs be needed
8. Should Last Resort Housing
be considered
9. Are there large, disabled,
elderly, etc. families
II
ANSI TI-ESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
10. Will public housing be
needed for project
11. Is public housing avail- i
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
14. Are suitable business sites
available (list source)
i ^
15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION
¦
9 L. Thrower, Relocation gent Date
rm 15.4 Revised 5/90
- z - -
Approved Date
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File

R E L_ O CATION R E P ©R T North Carolina Department of Transportati o
X E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANC
PROJECT= 8.2790901 COUNTY: CATAWBA Alternate C of (2) Alternate
I.D. NO.: U-2307 F.A. PROJECT= M--5621(2)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT : EAST SIDE TI-InRDJGNFARh ,_ IJ . S . 64 TO N.C. 127 IN HICKORY
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
Type of I ' ! Minor-"
Displacee Owners Tenants Total ities _0-151 M 15-25M
I nd i v i dua I s 0 0 0 0 !I _
0
?
Fam i l i es 0 _
_
0 ? O y W 0 ....
_-
0
0
Businesses 0 0 0 I
W ....._..._ VALUE OF DWELLING
I_..
Farms 0 0 .__..._
0 0
? .
Owners Tenants
Non-Profit 0 I 0 10 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150
YES' NO
...............
Ix_
X
x
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 150-250
EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 0 250-400
_.._................................ _....____..........._._......._. _......__............ ....... .......... ._...... _....... _._........... ...
1 Will special relocation ?70-100 0 ?400-617101
6. Source for available Hous-
ing (list) I A. If needed, last resort housing will be implemente
X 7. Will additional housing according to State law.
placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of 3. No permanent loss of business services.
- employees, minorities, etc. I
X- S. Will relocation cause a 6. Real estate agency, newspapers, real estate
housing shortage publications, brokers, and M.L.S.
INCOME LEVEL
25-35M
D 35-SOM
0 50 U' M
? o

DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
OSS
-
W ?
For Sale For Rent

_•__.. _

0
._____ __.

0-20M _.
__.._.... .....

2

._., _.__.._.•. ___
.
15
M 0-150
0 20-40M _ -
21 -
150-250 a
0 40-70M ?+?55 250-400 40

0

70-10011 -......_....__._.

30 ...__.__................ ....
_
.
400-600 15
._
2. Will I.._____...___..._._......__...___
services be necessar>, . ........
schools or churches be 100 UP 0 600 UI' 0 100 l_IP 4.5 600 UP 1
...._.____...____,...._.._.._..___...._...,.________ _ I._._..-_-.
affected by displacement
3. Will business services still TOTAL I 0 I 0 I 153 ? 79
be available after project 4. Will any business be dis- ~REMARKS (Respond by Number)
-?--- programs be needed
x B. Should Last Resort Housing
- - be considered
X 9. Are there large, disabled,
- - - elderly, etc_. families
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
10. Will public housing be
needed for project.
11. Is public housing avail-
................ . ab I e
12. Is it felt there will be ad-
equate ODS housing available
...... -......... during relocation period
13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial
-- •._...- means
14. Are, suitable business sites
J • •--• available (I i st. source)
15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION
?_. THrower, Relocation Agent _ Date Approve. Date
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agen
low, 2 Copy: Area Relocation File
1 .1

R all O C A T 1 0 IV REP O R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT- 6.2790901 COUNTY: _ CATAWBA Alternate C of (3) Alternate
I.D. NO.: UU2307 F.A. PROJECT: M-51,71(2)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: EAST SInE THOROUGHFARE, U.S. 64 TO N.C. 127 IN HICKORY
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
Type of Minor-'
Displacee Owners Tenants Total ities 0-15M 15-25M
I
__..._..._.. ._.._............... ........ ..... _.......__. _...._..----- _.-.......__._ .
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0

"amilies -
_
6

0

6

1 0 .__.._ __?.
_._.._...._._..... ......... ... . _..........
0 0

usinesses
3
0
3
i 0 ..______.._.._.........._ ............................_.............._...__...... _
VALUE OF DWELLING
.
_.
-
_
.
_
_
.
.

arms
0
0
0 p
0 _
.
._.
_...
_
.._
_
.
..
Owners Tenants
I

Non-Profit
0
0
0 .
0 .._..... _.......... _......... ........__..__.
._...______._.._ .
.0-20M _....__. 0..._- $......0. _150..
N
_._... _..__.......... . ............. ...._............. .... .._._.._.__..........
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 0 150-250

YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS
I ._................
_..__...
40-70M
!
_...__._._..._..
4
• ..._....... _ _ .....
250-400
__..._ ._...._..
.- -- -_.._..__......_............ ............... .....__.._.._........-_....._ ........................................... ......_
X 1. Will special relocation ._............ ...... _......

170-100 .._....._.-.............

2
...
,................ _............
400-6001
services he necessary
I
i I I
h
h
I
2
I ............. .._.......L
11f10
P .............. ...........
n .................. ....._......__...I .
6
0 UP
,urr_
sr_
on
es
n e
X
. W
s or r_ U 0
- - --- of fer_ted by d i sp I ar_.ement

_._
...... _......

......_....... ......_ .

.
............._.__.............
X 3. W i I I business services Estill TOTAL !_ I
'..... _.....__.... . be ava i I ah I P aftr_r prnject ... ....... .............. L..,........__........I ......_..........._...............1.
INCOME LEVEL
25-35M 35-SOM 50 LP

_ . .. __ ?._._.-.. _ _ _..._ _..__._..___._..........
DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
For Sale For Rent
0 0-20M 2 $ 0-150 15

0 ........._..__....___
7_0-40M
21
150-250
8
A._0 1 40-70M 55 250-400w 40
_..._,.. ...

0 ..

1 ............. ..... _...... _.,

70-100 .._._........ .....

30
...__..__.....-....._
400-600

15
0 11 100 UP II 45 1600 UP ? 1
0 II II 153
X 4. Will any business he dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of i 3. No Permanent Inss of business services.
- - employees, minorities, etc.
X S. W i I I relocation cause a i 4. a
housing shortage
i 6. Sourr_e for available hous- b
..--- L-? . ing (I i s t )
X 17. W i I I additional housing c
programs be needed li
X -I 18. Should Last Resort Housing II
79
FENCE COMPANY, 6600 square feet, 20 employees,
5 minorities
FOOD MART, 3500 sgi_jarP feet, 8 employees, no
minorities
GARAGE, 4000 square feet, 5 employees, no
minorities
be considered 6. Real estate agency, newspapers, real estate
X-yI 9. Are there large, disabled, II pub l i r-at i ons, brokers, and M._ .S.
elderly, etc, families
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGNI? 8. If needed, last resnrt housing aj i I I be implemented
I10. W i I I pub Iir_ housing he i ar_.rorr_linq to State law.
needed for project
11. Is pub l i r_ housing ava i I-
nble
t 12. Is i t fe I t. there i ill be ad-I
f Pquate 0115 hnus i ng ava i I alb I e
- during reIor_atinn per incl
13. W i I I tke °e be a prrab l em ni
hous i ng i i t.h i n f i nanr_ i ?i I
meeans II
14. Are suitab IP husiness site-, III
--I ava i I ah I r, ( I i st ,rjurce )
15. Number mnnths r-.-;t i matr rl to
romp I ete Rf-.l_.OCATION C) 5 5 4?0
,{-rower fie I on -gent. `nt? pr017jJ ? Date
Farm 15.4 Revised 5/90 Or i g i na 1 &. 1 Copy 3 tat e Re 1 orat i on Agent
6' 2 Copy: Area Relocation File
R E I._ O C A T I O RI R F P (DR T North Carolina Department of Transportatic
X E.I.S. - CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANC
PROJECT= 82790901 COUNTY= CATAWR A Alternate D of 1) Alternate
I.D. NO.= U-2307 F.A. PROJECT= M-5&21(2)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT : PAST SIDE Tljg:POQGH1 AR1= , U , S . 64 TO N.C. 127 IN HICKORY
ESTIMATED DISPLACES
Type of IMinor-
Displacee Owners Tenants Total ities 0-15M 15-25M
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 I 0

Families
_..__......___.. ............ _........ .
9 0 9 I 0
_ _......._._.
0
_....._....., 1
...........__...................
2

Businesses __.._._..-_-._........ ...... r...... . ................. ............ ?........,......

0 0 0
•_._..-
.
_
i .......................VAL..?........ ..OF

I
I ._....................
DWFa-LING
Farms O
.._._.
_
.__. ?...._.....c ...._.. ..............
I ._..Owners .... . ................_ ,_.....Tenants
____
Non-Profit _.__.
... __ ___.._....__._..___. _....._.......
0 0 I 0 N 0
0-20M ?_.__
....__ _.... _. ........
. 0- .._ 7. ?0
A NSWER ALL QUESTIONS _ 20-40M 3- 150-25U
YES__._
?. ? EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS
_.__.,_.._............. ......
.. .
. ................_................,......_

0
i /,0-70M ___..........
5 ?._..........._...._..........,._.,._
2'50-4.00

X 1. .
.
...__........ _.. _.._.._.._._._.........-.._._.................... ..__.._.._.__
Will special relocation ......._... ...
170-1
? ... 1--.
1 1---.-
11400-6001
X
X
X
services be necessary ......_...___._._.• ....__............ _.......... __..
2. Will schools or r_hurr_hes be 1100 UPI 0 1600 UP
affected by bus ne displacement
3. Will bus i ness services still+TO TAL 9
•.••.••.•N....._.A«. _L....?. _._......f.._y...._....M.._..
be available after project i
79
6. Source for available hoes-
- ins (list.) 8. If needed, last resort housing will be implementec
X 7. IJ i I I add i t, i ona I housing according to State law.
placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of 3. No permanent loss of business services.
employees, minorities, etc.
X WI S. Wi I I relocation cause a 6. Real estate agency, newspapers, real estate
housing shortage publications, brokers, and M.L.S.
INCOME LEVEL
25-35M 35-SOT 50 U'
0 0 -
_ _
0

6 __
7. ..
. _.
_.
0
DSS DWELLINGS AVAII..ABIE
For Sale For Rent
0 0-20M 7 _ $ 0-150 1s
0 .
20-40M 21 -
_
150-250 Q
0 ? 40-70M 55 250-400 40
0 1 70-100 30 400-600 15
0 1 100 UPI 45 1600 UP n 1
0 II n 153
4. Will any business be dis- i REMARKS (Respond by Number)
-?-- programs be needed
?X 8. Should Last Resort Housing
be considered
X 9. Are there large, disabled,
---° I°-• e l d e r l y, etc. fam i l i es
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
10. Will public housing be
-°y-I°- - needed for project.
11. Is public housing avail-
able
12 . Is it felt there wi I I be ad-?
equate 005 Housing available )
1- - during relocation period f
13. Will there be a problem of I
Housing within financial
.......... means
14. Are suitable business sites
---I-- available (list source)
15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION
,,_ yy_ _ _?.._/_.._.. ._...__......_ ____._....... _.._............... .. Y I ..__...._._....._............._............. ..........
_ _ _ __... __ ___ _ __.......... .__._........_......?.._ _..__.
0. L. Thrower, Relocation Agent Date Approved Date
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy= Area Relocation File
R E I O CAT I a N R F P O R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E . I . S . CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASS I STANCE
PROJECT- 8.2790901 COUNTY= CATAWBA Alternate D of (2) Alternate
' I.D. NO.= L1-2307 F.A. PROJECT= M-5621(2) _
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT* EAST SInE THOROUGHFARE, U.S. 64 TO N.C. 127 IN HICKORY
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
'T'ype of
Displacee

ndividuals
Owners

0
Tenants
__................. ..... _.

0
Total
........ _......._.___.

0 M i nor-'
ities
...-

0
0-15M
_...

0

.......
15-25M

_____._.__
n
Families 17 17 0
0
I 0 13
.._....
....
..____._.._....
u s i n e s s e s 1 ?
..____._..__...__
____-._._ _
0 I 1. 0 -
__._ __,._...
I VALUE
... _____......__...__..
I
. ___.._
OF
... _...... _ _
.
.
DWELLING
.
................... __...___......
arms 0 .._....... ..... _...... __._._...... ...... ....._
Q 10 0 __..
....
I Owners I
Tenants
_ _. __ _.
Nan-Profit
0
Y _..__.._._....._..._.
0
Q n ?

0-20M 13

I$ 0-15n1

_ . _ __
A
___. _._
N5IJER
• _ _
QUESTIONS
ALL
0-4 OM
2
150-250
YES; NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSI-ERS 4.0-70MI 2 250-400
X 1 Will special relocation 70-100 0 400-600
INCOME LEVEL
25-35M
0 35-50M
0 50 LP
0
4 0 0
DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
...
......... _.._?
.
For Sale .
.
For Rent --
0 0-20M 2 $ 0-150 15
0 20-40M 21 150-250 8
0 40-70M 55 250-400 40

0
70-100
30 ...-..._.,........ .... ....... __..._._,_,_._...
400-600 15
services be necessary _,_...... _.__...... _................. .... ..___ _ _..__,....-.._..__.___........._......_._....,..__..___........._._...._____.___..__
X 2. WiII sckooIs or r_kurr_kes be 100 UP 0 6nn UI' n I1nQ UP 45 600 UP 1
affected by d i s p l a c r, m e n t .... .. .... .......................... ........ ...._................ X , 3 . W i l l business services st i I I TOTAL. I 17 _,.• L
_, 0 I 153 79
- h e av a i l ab I e o f 1: 2 r r r o ,j r7 r_ t .._........ ...... ....._................... ..... ...
IX 4. Will any husiness he clis- REMARKS (Respond by Numh(-r-)
Placed. If so, indicate size
type) estimated number of 3. No permanent loss of business services.
- emp I oyees , m i nor i t. i en; etc.
1
X 5. Will relocation c]U5e a 4. WOOD STRUCTURE BUSINESS, 12,600 square feet, 15
- housing shortage employee,, 4 minorities
i 6. Source for available Hous-
I---..... 1.,,_-- ing (list.) 16. Real estate agency newspapers, real estate
X 7. Will additional housing publications, brokers, and M.L.S.
programs be needed I
x
Y 8. Should Last Resort Housing 8. If needed, last resort housing will be implemented
--- --
- be considered according to State law.
X 9. Are there large, disabled,
- elderly etc. families
PAR THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN 10. Will public housing be
needed for project
11. Is publir_ housing avail-
-. •_• ah I e ?I
~112. Is it felt tkerP will he ad-I
equate DDS Hou, i nr7 ava i lab l e l
during relocation per ind II
1.3. Wi I I t.Here be a problem of
l Housing ?,,i1,1,in finanr_ial
means ?j
r- I 14. Are su i t.ah 10 bus i ness s i t.PS
ava i I ab I e ( I i st. source)
I.S. Numher months est. i mated t.o
I comp I Pte RELOCATION
......................
_.._.....-__....... _..--- .......... --_- .......... ............... ....... ____....._.... _.......
L. Thrower, Relocation Agent_
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90
9d L)
Date Approved f Date
Original Fx 1. Copy State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
Rat O C A T ION R E P O R T' North Carolina Department of Transportatior
X E . I . S . CORRIDOR ____ DESIGN RELOCATION ASS I STANCE
PROJECT: 0.2790901 COUNTY= CATAWBA Alternate E
I.D. NO.: t_I-2307 F.A. PROJECT: M-5621(2)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT. EAST SIDE THOROUCI-IFARE U.S. 64 TO N.C. 127 IN HICKORY
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
INCOME LEVEL.
Type of Minor-
Displacee Owners Tenants Total sties 0-15M 15--25M 25-35M 35--SOM 50 U'
___._..•____.......!._....... _..... ..... ................. ..__....__ ______._....___._.._....___ _ _..__ _ ._ _...,.•..___.._ _ _. _ _ __. ._. _.
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Families 10 0 10 0 0 0 9 1 0
.".._._.............• _._.... _ _. _•
__ _ _ ...._ ___ _ _ __ _..........._.............._.....•._._...... ....._....... ....... .. .................... ......... ......... .....
Businesses ? 0 0 0 VALLE OF DWELLING OSS DWELLINGS-AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Nnn-Profit 0 ? fl 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 2 $ 0-150 15
..__.w_.._.._.._..._._._...._............ _........... ......,....... _................ ....A....._..___....... _..._._..._ ._ .. _._.._ _._.._.._... __ •..__.. _.._..._ _? .._
ANSWER ALL QL;ESTIONS 70-40M 0 150-250 0 20-40M 21 150-250 D
40-70M 9 "YES"
............. _ ._. ?. 250-/a00 0 55 250-400 40
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL YES ANSWERS rLl 1(lrl^ t ' _.....__...---_......._..___._.....__....... _....... ...
X 1. Will special relnr_.atinn i 400-6001 0 170-100 30 4.00-600 15
v i r_ es be necessary i-
ser UP n 100 UP 45 600 UP 1
IX 2. Will sr_hnnls or churr_hec. he 100 UP, 0 inn
...^ --------
X 3. Will business services still T0TA1._ lfl i 0 153 79
affected by displacement ........................._.?...
.L..............._......._...........,...._..............»__....._...__ -1 -
be avai I ab I e after project ._.._._
X 4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of 3. No permanent loss of business services.
employees, minorities) etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a 6. Real estate agency, newspapers) real estate
housing shortage publications, brokers and M.L.S.
6. Source for available hous-
•-• ing (list) 8. If needed, last resort housing will be implemente
X? 7. Will additional housing according to `state law.
- programs be needed
X 6. Should Last Resort Housing
- br- considered
X 9. Are there large, disabled,
------- elderly, etc. families
- A JER THESE ALSO FOR DESICam'
10. Will pub Iic housing he
needed for project
11. Is public housing avail-
ahle
- 12. Is it felt there 1,ii I I I.» ad-
equate ODS housing ava i I ab l e I
l
._.••••••••-• •---- during re I ocat. i nn per i r_id
X9.3. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial
means i
14. Are suitable business sites
-?--- available (list source)
I? 15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION
U. L. Thrower, Relocation Aclent. - oate Approved Date
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Alter
-1?L" 2 Copy' Area Relocation File

Rai _ O C A T ION R a P OR T North Carolina Department of Transportation
' X E.I.S. - CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 6.7190901 COLfm: CATAWRA Alternate F
I - D. NO.= U-2307 - F.A. PROJECT= M-56.21(2) (Same as Connector 2)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT : !PAST S I ICE THOROUG1-•IFAR1=, l_I . S . 64 TO N.C. 127 IN HICKORY
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES

Type a I

'
Minor-1
Displacee Owners Tenants Total ities
I
! 0-15M 15-25M
!

?d i v i duo I s ._.._._._-_.._....
? ....... .._._.. _._.._.
0 !.___.........__._.
0 I .._..__.....__.._...
?
? .__.____...»____._....
__......_»_.. .-_.-..
.................._?............... .._.....
..
?
Families 7 0 7 ....... -_..
.......
0 ._............
............_.._.
.
0 0
s i nesses n OWELI_nN..
ASLF OF-
.--
-
?
arms a______ I ____
_
I i
T
Owne
I

Non-Profit
0 _.
? .___._.._...__»
I D ...».._.----._..._
0 .__....._............
0-20M 0 $ 0-1.50
_ ......_.............. ............... _._......__._..._»..._. ..
_ __._.._ ........
ANSWER ALL QLIFST IONS ............ _...............
20-40M I..._...... ....... ......
0 .:.........._..._....-...... ....i..

L '
150-2 ` 0
.
1
_._... _........_
YESNO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS .........__..._____..»
. 40 . -70M /+ .........
..
. 00,
750-4
X 1. Will special relocation I 70-100 3 , 400-600?
I
-- _-
X services be necessary
2. Will schools or churches be
100 UP?
0
600 UP
- --
X - -

- affected by displacement

3. Will business services still
be ava i I ah I e after pro jer_.t

TOTAL i
.... .............. _......

l 7
.......... ...... .........
-

NCOME LEVEL
u

25-35M 35-50M 50 LP
0 0 ?
_._____..
_......... ......
4 3 0
_ -
DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
For Sale For Rent
0 0-20M 2 $ 0-1.50 15

0 ._............
20-40M
21 -
150-250 -----
8
0 40-70M 55 250-400 40
?TT 70-100 30 - 400-6DD- 15
0 ?1.100 L' 45
0 153
600 UP II 1
79
X 4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size.
type, estimated number of 13. No permanent loss of business services.
--- employees, minorities5 etc.
X S. Will relocation cause a 6. Real estate agency, newspapers, real estate
housing shortage publications, brokers, and M.L.S.
6. Source for available
hous- ing (list) 8. If needed, last resort. housing will be implemented
X _ 7. Will additional housing I according to State law.
- programs be needed
8. Should Last Resort Housing
be considered
X 9. Are there large; disabled,
elderly, etc. families
ANSWER TI-ESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
-wI10. Will public housing be
- needed for project.
11. Is public housing avail-
-1b
12. Is it felt there will be ad-I
equate DDS housing available)
- during relocation period
13. Will there be a problem of
housing witin in finanr_ial i
__ means
14. Are suitable business sites
- available (list source)
_ 15. Number months est i mat.ed to
complete RELOCATION I?
(NI'l w-01 C?_ 16 - 90
LL. Thrower, Re Incation Agent Date Approved Date
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
7 Copy: Area Relocation File

Rai O CAT Z O RI R a p OR T North Carolina Department of Transportatic
X E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANC
PROJECT= 8.2790901 COUNTY: CATAWI3A Alternate CONNECTOR (1
I.D. NO.= U-2307 F.A. PROJECT= 11-5621(2)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: FAST SIDE T40ROUGHFAR1=, U.S. 64 TO N.C. 127 IN HICKORY
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
INCOME LEVEL
Type of Minor- '
Displacee Owners Tenants Total ities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 U'
Individuals 0 0 0 U 0 0 I ? 0 0
Families 3 ? _
__.._. ? ? 0
._
.........
.
_. _. _ _ __.
L3usinesses __ _
0 __ . _._........
_•..
_
0 ....
................
0 . _ .............
Q ..... .._......................... ..
VALUE ...........
OF .
_. ................................. _.
DWELLING . ........._...
DSS .
.............. _.... ..... .......
. _..
DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 I 0 Owners Tenants For S ale For Rent
Non-Profit ? 0
I 0
A H
n 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 I 0 0-20M - 2 $ 0-150 ? 0
c
___.......
A ._...--_-.-.
NSIWER .,......
............
..__.....
.... .. .._.._....._.,._.
ALL QUESTIONS ..._
___.._ .,...,
_....
20-40M _ ._..__
0 _ ? _._.__
................ .....
150-250 1 .
._....
0 20-40M .........
21 -
,150-250 E
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-7QM ? 250-400 Q 40-70M 5! 250-400 4G
X 1. Will special re location 70-1f10 3 400-600 0 70-100 30 400-600 1c
_-^ services be necessary ..
X 2. Will schools or churches be 1100 LJP 0 600 UP 0 100 UP 45 1600 UP 1
affected by displacement .-._._..-___._ ..._.. ..._.
X 3. Will business services still TOTAL 3 0 153 _ 71
be a v a i l a b l e after project _._.........._...---------- I._....._.... ...... _....__......... __._____ _
X 4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size
type, estimated number of 3. No permanent loss of business services.
- employees, minorities, etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a 6. Real estate agency, newspapers, real estate
-- housing shortage publications, brokers, and M.L.S.
6. Source for available hous-
ing (list) 8. If needed, last resort housing will be implements
X 7. Will additional housing according to State law.
programs be needed
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing
- -- be considered
__..X _I 9. Are there large, disabled,
elderly, etc. families
ANSI,JER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN
10. Will public housing be
- needed for project
11. Is public housing avail-
able
12. Is it felt there wi l l 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
_4 - C ?
0. L. Thrower, Relocation Agent
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90 ?w
'i ct.

Date
Approved ate
Original & I Copy: State Relocation Agen
2 Copy: Area Relocation File