20011669 Ver 1_Complete File_20011114

r
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
? Project located in 7th floor library
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
1 L4
RECEIVED
JUN 1.2 19964
This project is being reviewed as indicated below: IRONMENTALSCIENCES
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All RIO Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
? F
ill
t ? Air ? Coastal Management ? Water Planning
ev
ayet
e ? Water [::,water Resources ? Environmental Health
? Mooresville
? Groundwater 1_/
Wildlife ? Solid Waste Management
\
? Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
?
hi
? W ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster
ngton
as ? Coastal Management Consultant Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
? Wilmington
? Others
Environmental Management
? Winston-Salem PWS
?_'_ f ., L_-,J".--V,>
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:

All Response (check all applicable) U

Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
KNo objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
-In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
? Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
DConsistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EI$ must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
FAXED
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
PS IN

Tate Boulevard Extension
From SR 1468 to I-40
Hickory-Conover, Catawba County
Federal-Aid Project NHF-1216(5)
State Project 8.1792301
TIP Project U-2414
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
And
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted pursuant to 42 U. S. C. 4332(2)(C)
APPROVED:
Date H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager of Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
q/3L ?;
Date Nichol . Gra , E.
F'O'oq- Divisi Administrator, FHWA
4
Tate Boulevard Extension
From SR 1468 to I-40
Hickory-Conover, Catawba County
Federal-Aid Project NHF-1216(5)
State Project 8.1792301
TIP Project U-2414
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Irk
J es A. McInnis Jr., P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
A. Q i?
Robert P. Hanson, P.E.
Project Planning Unit Head
-3 0 -96
v
r
l
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. TYPE OF ACTION .................................................................................. .................. I
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION .................................................................
lI .................. I
.
STATUS OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS ...........................................
Ill .................. 2
.
A. Summary of Project Commitments ....................................................... .................. 2
Status of Project Commitments ............................................................
B .................. 3
.
COMMENTS AND COORDINATION .................................................
IV .................. 3
.
Distribution of the Environmental Assessment ......................................
A .................. 3
.
B. Comments on the Environmental Assessment ....................................... .................. 4
C. Public Hearim. ..................................................................................... .................. 5
5
REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .................
V ..................
.
Proposed Intersection Configurations ...................................................
A .................. 5
.
Corrections to the Environmental Assessment ......................................
B .................. 6
.
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ..................... .................. 7
APPENDIX
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
PREPARED BY THE
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
IN CONSULTATION WITH THE
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined that this project will have no significant impact on the
human environment. This Finding of No Significant Impact is based on the June 29, 1995
Environmental Assessment (EA) which has been independently evaluated by the FHWA
and determined to adequately and accurately discuss the need, environmental issues, and
impacts of the proposed project and appropriate mitigation measures. It provides
sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and
content of the Environmental Assessment.
II. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
The subject project involves widening SR 1692 (Tate Boulevard) to four lanes
with a 14 meter (46-foot) median from approximately 24 meters (80 feet) east of
SR 1468 (Sweetwater Road) to approximately 0.9 kilometers (0.6 mile) west of SR 1476
(Fairgrove Church Road), a distance of approximately 2.3 kilometers (1.4 miles). Existing
SR 1692 will be widened to five lanes with curb and gutter from the end of the proposed
four-lane divided section to SR 1476. The project also involves constructing a five-lane
roadway on new location connecting SR 1692 with SR 1007 (Old US 70A, referred to as
Highland Avenue in the EA), and widening SR 1007 to five lanes with curb and gutter
from the connector to 1-40. The total length of the project is 7.4 kilometers (4.6 miles).
The project area is shown on Figure 1.
The subject project is included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation
1996-2002 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Since completion of the
environmental assessment, the project has been broken into two phases for design and
construction (see Figure 1). Project U-2414A is approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles)
long and includes the proposed widening of existing SR 1692 between SR 1468 and
SR 1476. Project U-2414B is approximately 4.2 kilometers (2.6 miles) long, and includes
the proposed SR 1692/SR 1007 connector and the proposed widening of existing SR
1007 from the connector to I-40.
2
Right of way acquisition for project U-2414A is scheduled for fiscal year 1999 and
construction is scheduled for fiscal year 2001. Right of way acquisition for project
U-2414B is scheduled for fiscal year 1997 and construction is scheduled for fiscal year
1999.
The estimated costs for project U-2414 are as follows:
U-2414A U-2414B TOTAL
Construction Cost $4,500,000 $ 8,350,000 $12,850,000
Right of Way Cost $ 210,000 $ 3,404,000 $ 3,614,000
Total Cost $4,710,000 $11,754,000 $16,464,000
The total estimated cost included in the 1996-2002 TIP for project U-2414 is
$13,825,000. This includes $2,925,000 for right of way acquisition and $10,900,000 for
construction.
III. STATUS OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS
A. Summarv of Proiect Commitments
The environmental assessment for the subject project presented the following
project commitments:
NCDOT best management practices for protection of surface waters will be
followed during the construction of this project to prevent siltation of nearby streams.
The transition between four-lanes divided and five-lanes undivided for the project
will be made approximately 0.9 kilometers (0.6 mile) west of SR 1476 in order to avoid
impacts to the dwarf-flowered heartleaf, a federally-protected threatened species.
NCDOT will take the following steps during project construction to prevent
impacts to the dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations:
Locations of these plant populations will be denoted on project construction
plans with a note that areas containing plants are not to be disturbed during
construction.
2. Exclusion fencing will be erected around the perimeter of the populations to
prevent entry.
3. No trees, saplings, shrubs, etc. will be cut or injured within the limits outlined
by the exclusion fencing.
4. The contractor for the project will provide written notification of the start
date for project construction to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
NCDOT Environmental Unit. Following this notification, USFWS and

NCDOT Environmental Unit personnel may perform unannounced on-site
inspections during project construction.
Right of way needed from the former S & W Chemical property will be obtained
as permanent easements, rather than fee simple right of way, due to the potential for
hazardous materials involvement.
During construction of the proposed project, the entrance to the Conover Fire
Station Number Two will not be blocked by materials or unattended equipment. The
contractor for the project will be required to maintain a driveway for the fire station at all
times during project construction.
The needs of emergency vehicles trying to access Catawba Memorial Hospital will
be taken into consideration during the development of construction phasing/traffic control
plans.
A 1.2 meter (4-foot) paved shoulder is proposed for 4-lane divided sections of the
project. This paved shoulder will accommodate bicycles. Wider outside through lanes 3.9
meters (13 feet) wide will be provided on five-lane undivided portions of the project in
order to accommodate bicycles. In addition, 1,372 mm (54-inch) handrails will be
provided on both sides of the proposed bridge over the Carolina and Northwestern
Railroad.
B. Status of Project Commitments
The locations of the dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations have been mapped and
will be included on the construction plans for the project. All the project commitments
have been noted by NCDOT design personnel and will be implemented as project
development progresses.
IV. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Distribution of the Environmental Assessment
Copies of the environmental assessment were made available to the public and to
the following federal, state, and local agencies.
U. S. Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
(Wilmington District)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
* U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville
U. S. Geological Survey - Raleigh
Federal Railroad Administration
* N. C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
* N. C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
Western Piedmont Council of Governments (Region E Planning Commission)
Catawba County Board of Commissioners
City of Conover
City of Hickory
Asterisks (*) indicate agencies from whom comments on the environmental
assessment were received. Copies of comments received are included in the appendix of
this document.
B. Comments on the Environmental Assessment
Substantive comments on the environmental assessment are discussed below:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
COMMENT: "The Service concurs with the "not likely to adversely affect"
determination made regarding this project and potential impacts to the two dwarf-
flowered heartleaf populations located within the existing right of way...In view
of this, we believe the requirements of Section 7(c) of the Act, as amended, are
fulfilled. However, obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered
if (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
endangered or threatened species or critical habitat in a manner not previously
considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner not considered
during this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined
that may be affected by the action."
NCDOT RESPONSE: NCDOT will notify the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service if any
new information regarding potential impacts of the project on federally-protected
species becomes available, including design changes to the project or newly listed
species for Catawba County.
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
COMMENT: "DEM should be consulted on stream relocation (if any)."
NCDOT RESPONSE: Presently, it is anticipated no stream relocations will be required
for the proposed project. Should stream relocations be necessary, NCDOT will
consult with the Division of Environmental Management as a part of the project
permit process.

C. Public Hearin;
The combined corridor/design public hearing for the subject project was held on
February 27, 1996 at the Webb Murray Elementary School in Conover. Approximately 50
persons attended the hearing. No objections to the project were voiced at the hearing.
Several written comments were received from citizens following the hearing. All
of these comments concerned the project's effect on individual properties. No new issues
or concerns were raised in this correspondence.
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Proposed Intersection Configurations
Figures 5A and 513 of the environmental assessment presented proposed
intersection configurations for the project. Since completion of the environmental
assessment, proposed configurations for four intersections along the project have changed,
these changes are discussed below and are presented on Figures 2A and 213 of this
document.
Intersection of proposed Tate Blvd. Extension with proposed SR 1007 And SR 1622
Dual left turn lanes are now recommended on proposed SR 1007 at this
intersection. A single right turn lane, rather than dual right turn lanes, is now proposed on
SR 1622 at this intersection due to the proximity of the railroad crossing located south of
the intersection (see Figure 2A). With the currently proposed configuration, the
intersection will operate at level of service D in the design year (2019).
Intersection of SR 1007 with SR 1491
A single left turn lane, rather than dual left turn lanes, is now proposed for
SR 1491 in order to avoid impacts to a business (see Figure 2A). Without the dual left
turn lanes, the intersection will operate at level of service D in 2019.
6
Intersection of SR 1007 with SR 1483 and SR 1485
A left turn lane is proposed for SR 1483 at this intersection and the proposed lane
configurations for SR 1485 have changed (see Figure 213). Instead of a shared left-
through and a separate right lane on SR 1485, an exclusive left and a shared through-
right is proposed. This change is proposed due to the relatively high left turn volume
on SR 1485. This intersection will operate at level of service B in 2019 with the
proposed configuration.
Intersection of SR 1007 with westbound I-40 ramp
This intersection was not addressed in the environmental assessment. However,
modifications are now proposed for this unsignalized intersection. A separate right turn
lane is now proposed along the I-40 ramp (see Figure 213). Even with this separate right
turn lane, this intersection will not operate at a satisfactory level of service. Signalization
of this intersection will be considered during project design.
B. Corrections to the Environmental Assessment
Section H-A-7 "Railroad Crossings"
The last two sentences of this section of the environmental assessment read as
follows:
"SR 1476, SR 1479, SR 1622, and SR 1483 all cross this railroad at-grade. Jhe
exposure index for these railroad crossings in the year 2019 is 196,000."
The last sentence of the section implies that all of the railroad crossings have the
same exposure index. That is not the case. The exposure index for the crossings listed in
the year 2019 with and without the proposed project are listed below:
Exposure Index Exposure Index
Crossing Without Project With Project
SR 1476 196,000 120,000
SR 1479 16,000 4,000
SR 1622 80,000 80,000
SR 1483 6,000 6,000
Figure 3A 1999/2019 ADT Volumes in Hundreds
The truck percentages for SR 1007 presented on Figure 3A of the environmental
assessment are incorrect. The TTST percentage for SR 1007 should be 3%, not 2%, and
the dual percentage should be 5%, not 3%. Figure 3A of this document is a corrected
version of that figure. Figure 3B from the environmental assessment is presented as
Figure 3B in this document for information, no corrections have been made to Figure 3B.
VI. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon environmental studies and coordination with appropriate federal, state,
and local agencies, it is the finding of the Federal Highway Administration and the North
Carolina Department of Transportation that the proposed action will have no significant
impact upon the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact
statement will not be required. No objections to the proposed project were raised at the
citizens informational workshop, held July 21, 1994, nor at the public hearing, held
February 27, 1996.
The following persons may be contacted for additional information regarding this
proposal and statement:
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, PE
Division Administrator, FHWA
Suite 410, 310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, PE
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Telephone [phone]
JAM/tp

t
2 e i we
11 HICKORY AND NEWTON QUADRANGLES
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
HICKORY - CONOVER
TATE BOULEVARD EXTENSION
FROM SR 1468 TO I - 40
CATAWBA COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT U - 2414
L FIG. 1 1
TIP PROJECT U-2414
REVISED
PROPOSED INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS
TATE BLVD EXT./SR 1007 & SR 1622
SR 1007
TATE BLVD. EXT. :1* i
s
4-

SR 1622
SR 1007
TATE BLVD. EXT. ?1-Lo -6
s
r------

SR 1622
TATE BLVD. EXT./SR 1491
d44
SR 1491
i
4--

T ATE BLVD. EXT.
4j: 61
J
s
SR 1491
i
4-
TATE BLVD. EXT.
FIGURE 2A

TIP PROJECT U-2414
REVISED
PROPOSED INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS
TATE BLVD EXT./SR 1483 & SR 1485
CONFIGURATION PRESENTED IN EA
SR 1007
TATE BLVD. EXT. 4J.I
s

SR 1483
SR 1485
REVISED CONFIGURATIN
SR 1485
SR 1007
TATE BLVD. EXT. 41:4
,L
--------- +°-----
- 4-
TATE BLVD EXT./1-40 WESTBOUND RAMP
1-40 W.B. RAMP
L
l
SR 1007 TATE BLVD. EXT.
SR 1483
REVISED CONFIGURATION
I-40 W.B. RAMP
i
1
SR 1007 TATE BLVD. EXT.
FIGURE 213
I
D
W
W
LU
J
Q
U?

Ilk

Q
(Y)
W
cr
/D
V_
U-
?NIV ?
00
U)
.I?
o 00
Z
? ???I? I- ? al m? o IQ tlI? y v,'I? co y
co
tl l? o?• oI? -?- v
a) y i
T
VJ
tlltl? ^I? nl? qI

tl
nIN
- V
-?pltl
T
? E- a lao
T y VJ

??ol? Z
0 tl T
T OIN? 0??? ll.i 7

cm C\J

. .
I
N CC
. .
. . . .
CL CC
LL Q .
.
.
. ¢ W Q

T T O T co O O O O O N

T.
T
T
T
T
T
T
T ,? T T
to tn 0 0 0 O tn t(> 0 0 0
p to (O (O (O CC) to LC) to (O 0 CO

Q In (h C7 N tr) M of 0 N N to

7
0
a?
r Cl) LO CO T N N N T T T T
to T
r
r
I- N to
ti N
N
-
? LO
OD Cr)
OD
O
O 0)
(O ( i O

i
U) (n (n (t) (n W U)
rX
0
;o m
Z
-I?
T
Co
r
Q? cn
• ? ? . Ni-? Ni.-?rv
LL
?
• L1J O
•?>
^ 1 N
N
O
O
T LID
• ? ^I?
Q C cr

T
N
1
U
W
0
cr-
(L
H
H
cn v w w C?
w w g n
n cn
?a ?° O-j a: W 0
=a o 2ww W
> O n 5 Q > O J D T-D a:
UHw _0 0Z V U r 0Z
LL 0 q: LL U)
0 Z
Q V
?l^ Q ILL LL
V! V/ V!
r
0 r CD O
0 O
I; In N r N uJ r N
tND Ll.l Q N
J
q: C\1
cn 0)
CD 0 q: (D
? .n r
cc
? ? ml+ N?Y? NIY
T IQi ? ? V! Y f?l
Z
N i. ?. cn cn ° I
Via
e N? ?'In Y? alb
N 0)
NY
010,
7
-? ccnn
IOO I? ? ? NI? NIY
nIo N^ NIY ? ml?
``LL .SIN NI?
?YN h Y
? l9 co
n n ? I? ? I? v
'^ plN N?Y I. '_
olOio'-i'±elo -? NIA `Ol ?p OI-N tN ?Nl.
N
_ ?llo
ole ? \ \ ? '/ ??lo omlw
to „I? ? ? ??lo E-
Ylm F?Ie ? ? ? ??
m+
N ele ?' alm
h N
t0
Y
1? N 1? N
O (0 0.1. t 0
O (V
r r N I m r CD
a: cc T-
cn cn cn
¦
?MENT OF Ty -
oW'P"'"' ?'ym United States Department of the Interior P,;o I
th O
' FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
/ / / /Asshheviillle?{,FYiuelldd./pOfiV?f/cye?/ ?/ (X40XXX?/ ?/
CM3 XX ?9p9 X((??XXXyy??VyyI,,Q?/yX??A?l(??F(yc?A/4p??Y??(My?,XXXX
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
?G E 1 V?
September 11, 1995 ? Q
r SEP 1 z 1995
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways `North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Subject: Federal environmental assessment for the proposed construction
of the Tate Boulevard Extension, from SR 1468 to I-40,
Hickory-Conover, Catawba County, North Carolina, TIP No. U-2414
In your letter of July 20, 1995 (received July 27, 1995), you requested
our comments on the subject document. The following comments are
provided in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to the environmental assessment, this project will involve the
widening of SR 1692 (Tate Boulevard) from a two-lane to a four-lane
facility for a distance of 4.6 miles. A 14-meter median will be included
from approximately 61 meters east of SR 1468 (Sweetwater Road) to
approximately 430 meters west of SR 1476 (Fairgrove Church Road), a
distance of approximately 2 miles. The project also involves the
construction of a five-lane roadway on new location from SR 1692 to
SR 1007 (Highland Avenue) and the widening of SR 1007 to five lanes from
the connector to I-40. Six streams will be crossed--Miller Branch, Cline
Creek, and four unnamed tributaries--which will require extensions and/or
the construction of culverts or pipes. The project will not impact any
jurisdictional wetlands. The purpose of the project is to improve the
capacity and safety of these road sections.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is familiar with the project
area, which is primarily within an urban/residential area, and we believe
this project will not result in significant environmental impacts.
The Service concurs with the "not likely to adversely affect"
determination made regarding this project and potential impacts to the
two dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastvlis naniflora) populations located
within the existing right-of-way. The Service believes the four steps
listed in the environmental assessment that will be taken to protect the
plant populations during construction are excellent, and the Service
appreciates the North Carolina Department of Transportation's efforts to
assist in the conservation of these populations. In view of this, we
believe that requirements of Section 7(c) of the Act, as amended, are
fulfilled. However, obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be
reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified
action that may affect endangered or threatened species or critical
habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner not considered in this review, or (3) a
new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be
affected by the action.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any
questions regarding our comments, please contact Ms. Janice Nicholls of
our staff at 704/258-3939, Ext. 227. In any future correspondence
concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-94-034.
Sincerely,
? 6yuu
Robert R. Currie
Acting Field Supervisor
cc:
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
320 S. Garden Street, Marion, NC 28752
FMzct3
09-06-95

*;O?.TH CARCLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DtPA, TM-ENJ OF ACMINISfRATION
llo wrST JUNES SfREFT
:LEIGH ?CRTr! CAROLINA L7o03-6JG3
I'.lTzERGOVER-%Mz_: JT.%L REVIEN COMMENTS
MAIL-ED TO FROM
?c 5
q
IN.C. DEPT. 0= TRAMSPC;TATION MRS. CHRYS CAGGETT
WH11 ,rc?3 CIRECTOR
PRL'?RAv O=V. C?'a"+C`+ N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
H1G trlaY 6LJG•/INTEK-0F-rICL
NRUJ?:UI U_SCK! PTIUN
ENV. : SSES?. - PRCPOSc-D TATE 5CULEVA'ZD FXTE`:SICNY FRCS SR 147b
(FA1RGRUV= CruRCH RD.) TO I-40, CoNCV7Rr NC
TIP 9U-'_414
SAT ? r y? ra?2JCC5R P1=.CGRAil TITLE ASSESS.
. ?.w
THE A+3'JV= F''.UJECT hA S tiE` q SU3MITTED TU THE MCFTH CARCLI+`IA
1."?t?:KGUVc,0lML?:TAL :K_vlL?ti PRUCcSS. AS A RESULT Gt THE REVILW TmE FOLLOWING
IS 5u•JMITfE1) ( ) NU COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X) COMMENTS ATTACH=3
SHOULD YJU HAV= AN.Y C,UESTIDNST
C.L• KtG1JN
PLEASE CALL THIS CFFICE [phone]•
', ;;' _ 7 X995
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources A
4 Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James Hunt, Jr., Governor ®? H N FR
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGel??
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: 96-0069 Tate Boulevard Extension, Catawba County
DATE: August 30, 1995
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has reviewed
the proposed information. The attached comments are for your consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
attachments

1199
I.C. STA. t GLE.?RI Ire
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources / • •
Division of Environmental Managembnt?
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director ED FE F=1
August 30, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorney
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: EA for Tate Boulevard Extension
Catawba County
State Project DOT No. 8.1301401, TIP #U-2414
EHNR # 96-0069, DEM # 11014
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact of waters of the state including
wetlands. The document states that waters but not wetlands will be impacted. The
following comments are based on a review of the EA document:
DEM should be consulted on stream relocation (if any).
DOT Is reminded that endorsement of, an EA by DEM would not preclude the denial of
a 401 Certification upon application if wetland or water impacts have not been avoided
and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-
1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Asheville COE
Monica Swihart
tate.ea
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh. North Carolina 27626.0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled( Ic)%pcct-consumer Paper
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: August 14, 1995 ?t
SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 96-0069, Environmental Assessment for the Tate
Boulevard Extension, Catawba County, TIP 4U-2414.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments on the
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Tate Boulevard Extension in Catawba County. These comments
are provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as .
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d.) and the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G. S. 113A-1 through
113A-10; 1 NCAC 25).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen the existing two-lane section
of SR 1692 (Tate Boulevard) between SR 1468 (Sweetwater Road) to the intersection of SR 1692 with SR
1476 (Fairgrove Church Road). Also included is the construction on new location of a five-lane roadway
connecting SR 1692 with SR 1007 (Highland Avenue) and the widening of SR 1007 to five lanes from the
new connector to I-40. Total length of the project is 4.6 miles. The project will impact a total of 60.3
acres, including 34.9 acres of maintained community and 25.4 acres of hardwood and pine forest. Six
small streams will be crossed by the project, but no wetlands were found in the project area. The project
has been modified to prevent impacts to the dwarf-flowered heartleaf, a federally protected threatened plant
species found in the project area.
We believe that this project will have minimal impacts on fisheries and wildlife resources;
therefore, we concur with the findings of the EA and would concur with a Finding of No Significant
Impact.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions
regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/652-4257.
cc: Mr. Chris Goudreau, District 8 Fisheries Biologist
Mr. Jack Mason, District 8 Wildlife Biologist
Ms. Janice Nicholls, USFWS, Asheville
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B, Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B, Howes, Secretary C) E H N 11
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
August 30, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorney
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: EA for Tate Boulevard Extension
Catawba County
State Project DOT No. 8.1301401, TIP #U-2414
EHNR # 96-0069, DEM # 11014
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact of waters of the state including
wetlands. The document states that waters but not wetlands will be impacted. The
following comments are based on a review of the EA document:
DEM should be consulted on stream relocation (if any).
DOT is reminded that endorsement of an EA by DEM would not preclude the denial of
a 401 Certification upon application if wetland or water impacts have not been avoided
and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-
1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Asheville COE
Monica Swihart
tate.ea
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
.Y -0 'T1 k
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
July 20, 1995
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEHNR - Div. of Environmental Management
Water Quality Lab
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Mr. Galamb:
/JV'Iq
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SECRI EARY
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for Tate Boulevard Extension, from
SR 1468 to I-40, Hickory-Conover, Catawba County, Federal-Aid
Project NHF-1216(5), State Project 8.1792301, TIP Project U-2414
Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment and the Natural
Systems Technical Report for the subject proposed highway improvement. It is
anticipated this project will be processed with a "Finding of No Significant
Impact"; however, should comments received on the Environmental Assessment or
at the public hearing demonstrate a need for preparing a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement you will be contacted as part of our scoping process.
Copies of this Assessment are being submitted to the State
Clearinghouse, areawide planning agencies, and the counties, towns, and
cities involved.
Permit review agencies should note it is anticipated Federal Permits
will be required as discussed in the report.
Any comment you have concerning the Environmental Assessment should be
forwarded to:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Your comments should be received by September 11, 1995. If no comments
are received by that date we will assume you have none. If you desire a copy
of the "Finding of No Significant Impact," please so indicate.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P E. , Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr

Tate Boulevard Extension
from SR 1468 to I-40
Hickory-Conover, Catawba County
Federal-Aid Project NHF-1216(5)
State Project 8.1792301
TIP Project U-2414
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted pursuant to 42 U. S. C. 4332(2)(C)
APPROVED:
Date H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
'"Manager of Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
6z .?
D is o L. raf, P.E.
Jt2?4 ivision Administrator, FHWA
Tate Boulevard Extension
from SR 1468 to I-40
Hickory-Conover, Catawba County
Federal-Aid Project NHF-1216(5)
State Project 8.1792301
TIP Project U-2414
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
6%0141eu,08"
,•'' CAR0i .r'''•.
•a•`•???0?E$?9i? ? A I:
kvaa&??- ? EA
Ja s A. McInnis Jr., E. .
Project Planning Engineer •6N6?M???.?•••?4,
• ?iS' ........• r' 0
.
A % ;00
Robert P. Hanson, .E.
Project Planning Unit Head

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY .................................................. i
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ........................... 1
A. Project Purpose ..................................... 1
B. General Description .................................. 1
C. Historical Resume and Project Status ................. 1
D. Cost Estimates ....................................... 1
II. NEED FOR PROJECT ......................................... 2
A. Existing Facility .................................... 2
1. Route Classification ........................... 2
2. Roadway Cross-section .......................... 2
3. Right of Way and Access Control ................ 2
4. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment .............. 3
5. Speed Limit .................................... 3
6. Intersections ................................ 3
7. Railroad Crossings ............................. 3
8. Structures ........ .. .............. 3
9. Existing BicycleAccommodations/Use ............ 3
10. Sidewalks ...................................... 4
11. Utilities ...................................... 4
B. School Bus Data ..................................... 4
C. Traffic Volumes .................................... 4
D. Capacity Analysis ................................... 4
E. Accident Record ..................................... 5
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS .................................... 6
A. Roadway Cross-section .............................. 6
B. Right of Way and Access Control .................... 6
C. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment ................... 7
D. Speed Limit ........................................ 7
E. Design Speed ....... .......................... 7
F. Anticipated Design Exceptions ....................... 7
G. Intersections ..................................... 8
H. Railroad Crossings .................................. 8
I. Structures .......................................... 9
J. Bicycle Accommodations .............................. 9
K. Sidewalks .. ........ ............................ 9
L. Degree of Utility Conflict .......................... 9
IV. PROJECT BENEFITS ......................................... 10
A. Capacity ............................................ 10
B. Safety ... ..................................... 10
C. Thoroughfare Plan .... ....... . ..... ........... 10
D. Benefits to the State, Region and Community 10
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
V.
VI.
PAGE
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ...................... 11
A. Roadway Improvement Alternatives .................... 11
1. Typical Section ................................ 11
2. Alignment Alternatives ......................... 11
B. "No-Build" Alternative .... ..................... 11
C. Alternate Modes of Transportation ................... 12
PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED
ACTION ................................................... 12
A. Natural Resources ................................... 12
1. Biotic Resources ............................... 12
a. Terrestrial Communities ................... 12
b. Aquatic Communities .... ................ 14
C. Summary of Anticipated Effects ............ 15
2. Water Resources ................................ 15
a. Streams, Rivers, Impoundments ............. 15
b. Best Usage Classification ................. 16
C. Water Quality ... . .............. 16
d. Summary of Anticipated Effects ............ 16
3. Jurisdictional Issues .......................... 17
a. Wetlands (Waters of the U.S.) ............. 17
b. Summary of Anticipated Effects ............ 17
C. Anticipated Permit Requirements ........... 17
d. Wetland Mitigation ........................ 17
4. Rare and Protected Species ..................... 18
a. Federally-Protected Species ............... 18
b. Federal Candidate/State-Protected
Species ................................... 19
B. Cultural Resources ................................... 19
1. Historic Architectural Resources ............... 20
2. Archaeological Resources ....................... 20
C. Social Effects ...................................... 20
1. Neighborhood Characteristics .............. 20
2. Relocation of Residences and Businesses......... 20
3. Public Facilities .............................. 21
D. Section 4(f) Properties ............................. 21
E. Land Use ............................................ 21
1. Existing Land Use .............................. 21
2. Status of Planning ............................. 21
3. Future Land Use ................................ 21
4. Project Compatibility With Local Plans.......... 22
F. Prime and Important Farmland ........................ 22
G. Geological Factors ............................... 22
H. Flood Hazard Evaluation ............................. 23
I. Traffic Noise Analysis .............................. 23
1. Introduction . ........................ 23
2. Noise Abatement Criteria ....................... 23
3. Ambient Noise Levels ........................... 24
4. Analysis Results ............................... 24
5. Noise Abatement Alternatives ................... 24
6. Construction Noise ............................. 25
7. Summary ........................................ 25
J. Air Quality Analysis ................................. 25
1. Introduction .......... ...... .............. 25
2. Background CO Concentrations 26
3. Air Quality Analysis Results ................... 26
4. Construction Air Quality Effects ............... 26
5. Summary ........................................ 26
K. Hazardous Materials Involvement ..................... 27
VII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ................................ 27
A. Local Officials . ........................ 27
B. Citizens Informational Workshop ..................... 28
C. Public Hearing ................................... 28
D. Agency Coordination ................................. 28
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 - Geographic Location Map
Figure 2 - Proposed Improvements
Figure 3A - Traffic Volumes
Figure 3B - Traffic Volumes (contd.)
Figure 4A - 4-Lane Typical Section
Figure 4B - 5-Lane Curb and Gutter Section
Figure 4C - Typical Section on Structure
Figure 5A - Proposed Intersection Configurations
Figure 5B - Proposed Intersection Configurations (contd.)
Figure 6 - Hickory-Newton-Conover Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 7 - 100-Year Floodplain
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Comments Received
NCDOT Relocation Assistance Program/Relocation
Reports
Highway Traffic Noise Analysis Procedure
Air Quality Analysis Procedure
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table 1 - Existing Cross-sections of SR 1692/SR 1007 ................. 2
Table 2 - Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis .................. 5
Table 3 - Accident Rates............................................. 6
Table 4 - Anticipated Effects on Biotic Communities .................. 15
Table 5 - Water Resources Characteristics... ....................... 16
Table 6 - Federal Candidate Species for Catawba County ............... 19
Table 7 - Soils in the Project Area .................................. 23
SUMMARY
Environmental Assessment
Planning and Environmental Branch
of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in Consultation with the
Federal Highway Administration
1. Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration Action, Environmental
Assessment.
2. Additional Information
The following persons may be contacted for additional information
concerning this proposal and statement:
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Suite 410, 310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
3. Summarv of Saecial Project Commitments
NCDOT best management practices for protection of surface waters will
be followed during the construction of this project to prevent siltation
of nearby streams.
The transition between four-lanes divided and five-lanes undivided
for the project will be made approximately 430 meters (1,400 feet) west of
SR 1476 in order to avoid impacts to the dwarf-flowered heartleaf, a
federally-protected threatened species (see Section VI-4-a).
NCDOT will take the following steps during project construction to
prevent impacts to the dwarf flowered heartleaf populations:
1. Locations of these plant populations will be denoted on project
construction plans with a note that areas containing plants are
not to be disturbed during construction.
2. Exclusion fencing will be erected around the perimeter of the
populations to prevent entry.
i
3. No trees, saplings, shrubs, etc. will be cut or injured within
the limits outlined by the exclusion fencing.
4. The contractor for the project will provide written notification
of the start date for project construction to the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the NCDOT Environmental Unit. Following
this notification, USFWS and NCDOT Environmental Unit personnel
may perform unannounced on-site inspections during project
construction.
Right of way needed from the former S & W Chemical property will be
obtained as permanent easements, rather than fee simple right of way, due
to the potential for hazardous materials involvement (see Section VI-K).
During construction of the proposed project, the entrance to the
Conover Fire Station Number Two will not be blocked by materials or
unattended equipment. The contractor for the project will be required to
maintain a driveway for the fire station at all times during project
construction.
The needs of emergency vehicles trying to access Catawba Memorial
Hospital will be taken into consideration during the development of
construction phasing/traffic control plans.
A 1.2 meter (4-foot) outside paved shoulder is proposed for 4-lane
divided sections of the project. This paved shoulder will accommodate
bicycles. Wider outside through lanes 3.9 meters (13 feet) wide will be
provided on five-lane undivided portions of the project in order to
accommodate bicycles. In addition, 1,372 mm (54-inch) handrails will be
provided on both sides of the proposed bridge over the Carolina and
Northwestern Railroad.
4. Permits Required
All crossings and subsequent fill into "Waters of the United States"
(Surface Waters) will likely be permitted under Nationwide Permit 33 CFR
330.5(a) (14) or (26). A Nationwide Permit (14) is likely to be
applicable at most ditch and stream crossings of the project.
A Section 401 Water Quality General Certification from the N.C.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM) will be required prior to
issuance of the Nationwide permit.
A railroad agreement will be required for the proposed bridge over
the Carolina and Northwestern Railroad.
5. Project Purpose/Description of Action
The proposed project is intended to improve the capacity and safety
of existing SR 1692, SR 1007, and SR 1476. The project will tie into an
existing multi-lane section at its western terminus and complete a
continuous east-west route across Catawba County.
ii
The project involves the widening of the existing two-lane section of
SR 1692 (Tate Boulevard) between approximately 61 meters (200 feet) east
of SR 1468 (Sweetwater Road) to the intersection of SR 1692 with SR 1476
(Fairgrove Church Road). Also included is the construction on new
location of a five-lane roadway connecting SR 1692 with SR 1007 (Highland
Avenue) and the widening of SR 1007 to five lanes from the new connector
to I-40. The total project length is 7.4 kilometers (4.6 miles).
6. Summary of Environmental Effects
It is anticipated the relocation of homes and businesses will be the
major adverse environmental effect of the proposed project. The project
will require the relocation of five homes and two businesses (see Section
VI-C-2).
7. Alternatives Considered
Design alternatives, the "No-Build" alternative and alternative modes
of transportation have been considered during the project planning study.
See Section V of this report for further discussion of alternatives
considered.
8. Coordination
The following .federal, state, and local agencies were consulted
regarding this project.
U. S. Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
(Wilmington District)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville
U. S. Geological Survey - Raleigh
N. C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
N. C. Department of Public Instruction
Western Piedmont Council of Governments (Region E Planning
Commission)
Hickory-Newton-Conover Metropolitan Planning Organization
Chairman of the Catawba County Board of Commissioners
Mayor of Conover
Mayor of Hickory
i i i
Tate Boulevard Extension
from SR 1468 to I-40
Hickory-Conover, Catawba County
Federal-Aid Project NHF-1216(5)
State Project 8.1792301
TIP Project U-2414
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Pro.iect Puruose
The proposed project is intended to improve the capacity and safety
of existing SR 1692, SR 1007, and SR 1476. The project is also intended
to complete a continuous east-west route across Catawba County and provide
an alternative to I-40 and US 70 for traffic traveling between Hickory and
Conover.
B. General Description
The subject project involves widening SR 1692 (Tate Boulevard) to
four lanes with a 14 meter (46-foot) median from approximately 61 meters
(200 feet) east of SR 1468 (Sweetwater Road) to approximately 430 meters
(1,400 feet) west of SR 1476 (Fairgrove Church Road), a distance of
approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles). The project also involves
constructing a five-lane roadway on new location connecting SR 1692 with
SR 1007 (Highland Avenue), and widening SR 1007 to five lanes from the
connector to I-40. The total length of the project is 7.4 kilometers (4.6
miles). The project area is shown on Figure 1.
C. Historical Resume and Project Status
SR 1692, from 5th Street S.E. to SR 1476, was constructed in 1969.
The portion of SR 1692 from 5th Street S.E. to approximately 61 meters
(200 feet) east of SR 1468 was constructed as a four-lane roadway with a
13.4 meter (44-foot) median. The remainder of SR 1692 was constructed as
a two-lane roadway on multi-lane right of way (see Section II-3).
SR 1007 has been a part of the state highway system since before
1930. The roadway was at one time designated as US 70-NC 10. Residents
of the area refer to the road as "Old US 70-A".
The subject project is included in the North Carolina Department of
Transportation 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Right
of way acquisition is scheduled for fiscal year 1997 and construction is
scheduled for fiscal year 1999.
D. Cost Estimates
The estimated costs for project U-2414 are as follows:
Construction Cost $12,850,000
Right of Way Cost $ 3,614,000
Total Cost 16,464,000
2
The total estimated cost included in the 1996-2002 TIP for the
project is $13,825,000. This includes $2,925,000 for right of way
acquisition and $10,900,000 for construction.
II. NEED FOR PROJECT
A. Existing Facility
1. Route Classification
SR 1692 and SR 1007 are both classified as "Other Principal
Arterials" on the North Carolina functional classification system.
2. Roadway Cross-section
The existing cross-sections of SR 1692 and SR 1007 in the project
area are described in Table 1 below.
Table 1
Existina Cross-sections of SR 1692/SR 1007
TOTAL PAVED
SHOULDER SHOULDER
ROUTE SEGMENT NO. LANES-WIDTH WIDTH WIDTH
SR 692 W. OF PROJECT *4-3.6m (12 3.6m(12') 1.2m(4*)
SR 1692 E. OF SR 1468
TO SR 1476 2-3.6m (12') 3.6m(12') 1.2m(4')
SR 1007 SR 1476 TO 275m 2-3.3m (11') 0.3-0.9m -
E. OF SR 1490
SR 1007 275m E. OF #VAR.-3.6m(12') 3.6m(12') -
SR 1490 TO I-40
SR 1007 E. OF I-40 2-3.3m (11') 0.3-0.9m -
(1'-3')
* - Four lanes alvlaea Dy a 44-root mealan.
# - Three and four lanes wide (four lanes between SR 1485 and I-40).
3. Right of Way and Access Control
Existing right of way along SR 1692 between SR 1468 and SR 1476 is
61 meters (200 feet) wide. No control of access exists along this section
of SR 1692.
Existing right of way along SR 1692 (Debra Herman Road) east of
SR 1476 is 24 meters (80 feet) wide. No control of access exists along
Debra Herman Road.
Existing right of way along SR 1007 between SR 1476 and SR 1490
varies from 12 meters (40 feet) to 15 meters (48 feet) wide. From SR 1490
to I-40, existing right of way along SR 1007 varies from 18 meters
(60 feet) to 55 meters (180 feet) wide and is offset to the north. No
3
control of access exists along SR 1007 except near I-40.
4. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
The existing horizontal and vertical alignment of SR 1007 is fair.
One horizontal curve, near the intersection of SR 1490 with SR 1007, has
design speed of less than 65 Km/h (40 MPH).
5. Speed Limit
The existing speed limit along SR 1692 between'SR 1468 and SR 1476 is
55 MPH. The existing speed limit along SR 1007 is 45 MPH.
6. Intersections
All intersections along the subject project are at-grade, with the
exception of the interchange of I-40 with SR 1007 at the eastern terminus
of the project.
The intersections of SR 1692 with SR 1476, SR 1476 with SR 1007,
SR 1007 with SR 1490, SR 1007 with SR 1491, and SR 1007 with
SR 1483/SR 1485 are signal-controlled. All other intersections within the
project limits are stop-sign controlled.
7. Railroad Crossings
The Carolina and Northwestern Railroad parallels SR 1007 to the
south. Eight to ten trains per day use this rail line. SR 1476, SR 1479,
SR 1622, and SR 1483 all cross this railroad at-grade. The exposure index
for these railroad crossings in the year 2019 is 196,000.
8. Structures
A single barrel 2.4 meter by 2.1 meter (8-foot by 7-foot) reinforced
concrete box culvert is located along SR 1692 approximately 700 meters
(2,600 feet) east of SR 1468, at Miller Branch. A single barrel 2.4 meter
by 2.4 meter (8-foot by 8-foot) reinforced concrete box culvert is located
along SR 1692 approximately 1.1 kilometers (0.7 miles) west of SR 1476, at
an unnamed tributary to Miller Branch. Both of these culverts appear to
be hydraulically adequate and in good condition. No other structures over
1,800 mm (72 inches) in diameter are located within the project limits.
9. Existing Bicycle Accommodations/Use
No bicycle facilities exist along the subject sections of SR 1692 or
SR 1007. SR 1007 is not currently a designated bike route. Bicyclists
do, however, use SR 1007 during off-peak hours as a route between Hickory
and Conover.
A bicycle and pedestrian plan for the area is currently being
developed by the Hickory-Newton-Conover Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO). It is expected the subject sections of SR 1692/SR 1007 will be
designated a bicycle route in this plan. This plan is expected to be
completed in July, 1995.
4
10. Sidewalks
No sidewalks are provided along existing SR 1692 or SR 1007.
11. Utilities
Overhead power and telephone lines and underground water, sewer, and
gas lines parallel SR 1007 within the project limits.
B. School Bus Data
Two school buses use the subject section of SR 1692 twice daily.
Five school buses use the portion of SR 1476 between SR 1692 and SR 1007
twice daily, crossing the railroad tracks south of SR 1007. Four school
buses use SR 1007 between SR 1476 and 1-40 twice daily.
C. Traffic Volumes
Traffic volumes for the project area were estimated for the
construction year (1999) and the design year (2019), both with and without
the proposed project. Traffic volumes along the. subject section of
SR 1692-SR 1007 are projected to range from 10,000 to 21,200 vehicles per
day (vpd) in 1999 and from 18,000 to 38,200 vpd in 2019. Figures 3A and
3B present the predicted traffic volumes.
D. Capacity Analysis
Mainline (arterial) capacity analyses were performed for
SR 1692/SR 1007 within the project limits for the years 1999 and 2019,
both with and without the proposed project.
The subject section of SR 1692/SR 1007 is projected to operate at
level of service F in both 1999 and 2019 without the proposed project.
With the proposed project, SR 1692/SR 1007 will operate at level of
service B in 1999 and at level of service C in 2019.
Capacity analyses were also performed for signalized intersections
within the project limits. The results of these analyses are given in
Table 2.
5
Table 2
Signalized Intersection Caoacitv Analvsis
LEVEL OF SERVICE
INTERSECTION WITHOUT PROJECT WITH PROJECT
1999 2019 1999 2019
SR 1692 SR 1476# C F C F
SR 1007/SR 1476* D F B F
SR 1007/SR 1622# n/a n/a B C
TATE BLVD. EXT./# n/a n/a
DEBRA HERMAN RD.
SR 1491 F F B D
SR 1490 F F A B
SR 1485 B F A B
# - Denotes intersections which will be reconfigured with the
proposed project (See Section III-G).
* - The SR 1007/SR 1476 intersection is not a part of this project.
Improvements are required along SR 1476 in order to increase the
capacity of the SR 1692/SR 1476 intersection. A future highway project,
TIP Project U-2529 (identified as a future need in the 1996-2002 TIP),
will upgrade SR 1476 to a multi-lane facility. The SR 1692/SR 1476
intersection will operate at level of service D in 2019 with the subject
project and project U-2529.
E. Accident Record
Accident studies were performed for subject portions of SR 1692,
SR 1476, and SR 1007. The accident studies for SR 1692 and SR 1007
covered the time period from January 1, 1990 to April 30, 1993. The study
for SR 1476 covered between January 1, 1990 and March 31, 1993.
There were 50 reported accidents along the subject portion of SR 1692
during the study period. Of these, one accident was fatal. Rear-end type
accidents due to vehicles slowing or stopping (17), accidents related to
vehicles making left turns (11), and angle accidents (8) were the most
frequent types of accidents to occur along SR 1692 during the study
period.
There were 64 accidents reported along the subject section of SR 1007
within the study period. No fatal accidents were reported. The majority
of the accidents (35) were rear-end type accidents due to vehicles slowing
or stopping. Accidents related to vehicles making left turns (10),
accidents from vehicles running off the road (8), and angle accidents (6)
were the next most frequent types of accidents.
Thirty one accidents were reported along the approximately one-half
mile section of SR 1476 between SR 1692 and SR 1007. Of these, 16 were
rear-end type accidents and five involved vehicles making left turns.
Table 3 below lists the total and fatal accident rates for all three
roadways and compares them with the statewide average rates for 1993.
TABLE 3
ACCIDENT RATES
TOTAL ACCIDENT FATAL ACCIDENT
ROUTE RATE (ACC/100MVM) RATE (ACC/100MVM)
SR 1692 200.72 4.01
SR 1007 237.21 0.00
SR 1476 668.10 0.00
STATEWIDE 311.00 1.00
AVERAGE 1993
ACC 100MVM = accidents per 100 million vehicle miles.
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
Figures 2 and 4 presents the proposed improvements to the subject
section of SR 1692/SR 1007.
A. Roadway Cross-section
Two 3.6 meter (12-foot) lanes and a 14 meter (46-foot) median are
proposed on the south side of the existing two lanes along SR 1692, from
approximately 61 meters (200 feet) east of SR 1468 to approximately 430
meters (1,400 feet) west of SR 1476. Grassed shoulders, 3.0 meters (10
feet) wide will be constructed. 0.6 meters (2 feet) of the inside
(median) shoulders and 1.2 meters (4 feet) of the outside shoulders will
be paved (see Figure 4A).
West of SR 1476, the four-lane divided section will transition to a
five-lane undivided section with curb and gutter (see Figure 4B). Outside
lanes 3.9 meters (13 feet) wide will be provided in order to accommodate
bicycles (see Section III-J). Inside through lanes and the center turn
lane will be 3.3 meters (11 feet) wide. A 2.4 meter (8-foot) berm will be
provided for utility placement and for construction of sidewalks by
others.
East of SR 1476, construction will continue on new location for
approximately 1,280 meters (4,200 feet), crossing SR 1479 (GE Plant Road)
and the Carolina and Northwestern Railway before tieing into SR 1007 east
of SR 1622 (see Figure 2).
Existing SR 1007, from the connector to I-40, will be widened to five
lanes with curb and gutter, with a cross-section matching that of the new
location connector.
B. Right of Way and Access Control
Sufficient right of way exists along SR 1692 between SR 1468 and
SR 1476 to contain the proposed improvements. Temporary easements may be
required in some areas.
7
Twenty five meters (80 feet) of right of way, along with temporary
easements of varying width will be acquired for construction of the new
location connector. Sufficient right of way will be acquired east of
SR 1476 to accommodate future dual left turn lanes at the SR 1692/SR 1476
intersection.
Approximately 10 to 12 meters (32 to 40 feet) of additional right of
way, for a total right of way width of 25 meters (80 feet), will be
required along SR 1007 from the connector to east of SR 1490. Temporary
easements will be required as well.
From east of SR 1490 to I-40, it is anticipated sufficient right of
way exists to contain the proposed improvements.
Right of way needed from the former S & W Chemical Company property
will be obtained as permanent easements, rather than fee simple right of
way, due to the potential for hazardous materials involvement (see Section
VI-K).
C. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
Realignment of SR 1692 (Tate Boulevard) in the vicinity of SR 1476
may be necessary in order to accomplish the transition from four lanes
divided to five lanes undivided.
SR 1692 (Debra Herman Road) east of SR 1476 will be realigned to
intersect with the new location connector at a "tee" intersection (see
Figure 2).
SR 1007 west of the new location connector will be relocated to the
north to intersect with the connector across from SR 1622, forming a
four-leg intersection (see Figure 2).
SR 1007 will be realigned in the vicinity of SR 1490 in order to
eliminate the existing low design speed curve.
D. Speed Limit
A 55 MPH speed limit is proposed for four-lane median divided
portions of SR 1692. A 45 MPH speed limit is proposed for five-lane
undivided portions of SR 1692/SR 1007 within the project limits.
E. Design Speed
A 100 Km/h (60 MPH) design speed is proposed for four-lane median
divided portions of the project. An 80 Km/h (50 MPH) design speed is
proposed for five-lane curb and gutter portions of the project. The
proposed design speeds are consistent with proposed speed limits.
F. Anticipated Design Exceptions
It is anticipated no design exceptions will be required for the
project.
8
G. Intersections
All proposed intersections along the project will remain at-grade.
Presently, Debra Herman Road, (SR 1692), intersects with SR 1476
across from Tate Boulevard (SR 1692). Unlike Tate Boulevard, which is an
arterial, Debra Herman Road is a local road leading into an industrial
area. The proposed new location connector will extend Tate Boulevard
across SR 1476 to SR 1007. Debra Herman Road will be relocated to the
east and will intersect with Tate Boulevard extension at a "tee"
intersection. Signalization is proposed for this intersection.
As discussed in Section II-D, the proposed intersection of SR 1692
with SR 1476 will operate at level of service F in the design year with
the proposed project. Dual left turn lanes are required onto SR 1476 from
SR 1692, however, SR 1476 is a two-lane roadway. Further improvements
(widening) beyond the scope of this project are required along SR 1476 in
order to increase the capacity of the intersection. A future highway
project, TIP Project U-2529 (identified as a future need in the 1996-2002
TIP), will upgrade SR 1476 to a multi-lane facility. The SR 1692/SR 1476
intersection will operate at level of service D in 2019 with the subject
project and project U-2529. Sufficient right of way will be acquired east
of SR 1476 to accommodate future dual left turn lanes at the intersection.
It is anticipated sufficient right of way exists west of SR 1476 to
accommodate both dual left and dual right lanes.
The existing "tee" intersection of SR 1007 with SR 1622 will be
relocated and converted to a four-leg intersection. Relocated SR 1007 (see
Figure 2) will intersect with the new location connector across from
SR 1622 east of the existing SR 1007/SR 1622 intersection. Signalization
is proposed for this intersection.
The intersections of SR 1476, SR 1491, SR 1490, and SR 1485 will
remain signalized with the proposed project.
Additional studies will be performed during the design phase of this
project at the SR 2309 and the I-40 westbound ramps intersections in order
to determine the need for signalization.
Proposed lane configurations for intersections along the project are
shown on Figures 5A and 5B.
H. Railroad Crossings
A grade separation will
Northwestern Railroad. The
carried over the railroad on
index of 158,000 in the yea
separation is warranted.
be constructed at the Carolina and
proposed new location connector will be
a bridge. This crossing has an exposure
r 2019. Therefore, the proposed grade
No improvements are proposed for the existing SR 1476 railroad
crossing, which is not a part of this project. With the proposed project,
the exposure index for this crossing in 2019 will be reduced from 196,000
to 120,000.
9
I. Structures
One major structure, the proposed bridge over the Carolina and
Northwestern Railroad, will be constructed as part of the proposed
project. The proposed bridge will be 20.4 meters (68 feet) wide and 85
meters (280 feet) long. A 1.5 meter (5-foot) sidewalk will be provided on
the north side of the bridge. 1,372 mm (54-inch) handrails will be
provided on both sides of the bridge in order to accommodate bicyclists.
The existing culverts (see Section II-A-8) located along SR 1692 at
Miller Branch and a tributary of Miller Branch will be retained and
extended.
J. Bicvcle Accommodations
The proposed 1.2 meter (4-foot) paved outside shoulders along SR 1692
and the proposed 3.9 meter (13-foot) outside lanes along the new location
connector and SR 1007 will accommodate bicyclists. In addition, 1,372 mm
(54-inch) handrails will be provided on both sides of the proposed bridge
over the Carolina and Northwestern Railroad. These provisions are
recommended because of the anticipated designation of SR 1692/SR 1007 as a
bicycle route (see Section II-A-9).
K. Sidewalks
No sidewalks are proposed to be constructed as a part of the project.
A 2.4 meter (8-foot) berm will be provided behind the curb on curb and
gutter sections of the project. This berm will provide space for
construction of sidewalks by others. A 1.5 meter (5-foot) sidewalk will
be provided on the north side of the proposed bridge over the Carolina and
Northwestern Railway (see Section III-I).
A sidewalk is not proposed for the south side of the bridge because
the railroad right of way adjoins the highway right of way on the south
side of SR 1007 east of the proposed railroad crossing. No businesses or
other pedestrian traffic generators could ever be located south of SR 1007
in this area.
L. Dearee of Utilitv Conflict
The proposed project is expected to have a high degree of utility
conflict. Water, sewer, gas, telephone, and power lines are likely to
require relocation. A railroad agreement will be required in order to
construct the proposed railroad grade separation.
Utilities which will be impacted by the proposed project will be
relocated prior to the start of construction. During construction, care
will be taken to prevent damage to utilities along the project, especially
water and gas lines. The contractor will prepare a work schedule which
will minimize impacts on water and other utility service.
10
IV. PROJECT BENEFITS
A. Capacity
The proposed widening and new location connector will improve the
capacity of the subject section of SR 1692/SR 1007. Without the proposed
project, the subject section of SR 1692/SR 1007 will operate at level of
service F in both the construction year (1999) and the design year (2017).
With the proposed project, SR 1692/SR 1007 is projected to operate at a
level of service B in 1999 and LOS C in 2017 (see Section II-D).
B. Safety
As discussed in Section II-E, the majority of the accidents occurring
along SR 1692/SR 1007 during the study period were rear-end collisions.
The high percentage of this type of accident may be attributable to the
congested condition of the roadways within the project limits and the lack
of turn lanes at many intersections. The next most frequent types of
accidents in the project area, accidents involving left turns and angle
accidents, may also be attributable to the congested condition of the
existing facility.
The greater capacity provided by the proposed project should reduce
the amount of "stop and go" driving conditions encountered on the
facility, helping to reduce the number of rear-end collisions and turning
accidents. The continuous left turn lane to be provided along five-lane
portions of the project and proposed right turn lanes at intersections
should also help to reduce the number of these types of accidents, as
well.
Traffic using SR 1476 between SR 1692 and SR 1007 has to use an
at-grade railroad crossing (see Section II-A-7). Five school buses cross
these tracks daily. The proposed new location connector is anticipated to
reduce traffic along SR 1476 between SR 1692 and SR 1007 from 19,600 vpd
to 12,000 vpd in 2019 (see Figure 3B) and provide an alternative to
crossing the tracks for school buses. This reduction in traffic using the
crossing will reduce the chance of a car-train accident occurring at this
crossing.
C. Thoroughfare Plan
SR 1692 and SR 1007 in the project area are designated minor
thoroughfares on the mutually adopted Hickory-Newton-Conover Area
Thoroughfare Plan, approved in January, 1987 (see Figure 6). The
thoroughfare plan includes the proposed new location connector between
SR 1692 and SR 1007. The subject project will fulfill a need identified
in the approved Hickory-Newton-Conover Area Thoroughfare plan and is
therefore compatible with the plan.
D. Benefits to the State, Region and Community.
The proposed project will improve access to the industrial area
located between SR 1007 and I-40. Travel time and travel costs for
workers traveling to and from jobs in this area should be reduced. The
proposed new location connector will complete an additional continuous
east-west route through Catawba County, providing an alternative to
I-40 and US 70 for cross-county traffic.
11
V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Roadway Improvement Alternatives
1. Typical Section
Four-lanes divided by a 14 meter (46-foot) median was the only
typical section considered for existing SR 1692 from the beginning of the
project to approximately 1,400 feet west of SR 1476. Sufficient right of
way exists along this portion of the project for a median divided
facility. Existing SR 1692 west of the project is four lanes with a 13.4
meter (44-foot) median.
Originally, the transition from a four-lane divided section to a
five-lane undivided section was to be made just west of the SR 1476
intersection. Due to the presence of a federally-protected species (see
Section VI-A-4-a) in the existing right of way of SR 1692, the transition
to five-lanes undivided will occur approximately 430 meters (1,400 feet)
west of SR 1476. This will avoid impacting this species.
For the new location connector, both two-lane and five-lane undivided
typical sections were investigated. A two-lane typical section was
rejected due to requests made by local government officials and because
such a cross-section would not accommodate projected future traffic.
A five-lane curb and gutter
investigated for portions of the
improvements were not considered
this portion of roadway.
section was the only cross-section
project along SR 1007. Two lane
due to the high traffic volumes using
2. Alignment Alternatives
Widening along the existing roadway was the only alignment
alternative investigated for portions of the project along existing
SR 1692. As stated above, enough right of way exists to contain the
proposed improvements in this area.
Several alignment alternatives were investigated for the new location
connector. The 1989 feasibility study for the project recommended an
alignment for the connector south of the proposed alignment. This
alignment was rejected early in the project study because it would be
longer than the proposed alignment and would have a less desirable skew
angle with the railroad.
Alignments north and south of existing SR 1007 were examined for the
proposed relocation of SR 1007 near SR 1490. The northern alignment was
developed due to the presence of a potential hazardous materials site (see
Section VI-K) south of SR 1007. However, the northern alignment would
impact a large furniture plant located north of SR 1007. After further
investigation, it was determined that the hazardous materials
contamination was not extensive enough to warrant selection of the
northern alignment. For this reason, the northern alignment was rejected.
B. "No-Build" Alternative
The "no-build" alternative is the least expensive alternative from a
construction cost standpoint. The "no-build" alternative also avoids the
anticipated effects of the proposed project on homes, businesses,
12
utilities, and undeveloped lands in the project area. However, if the
"no-build" alternative were chosen, none of the project's benefits would
be realized. It is anticipated the project's benefits outweigh any
adverse effects the project might have. For this reason, the "no-build"
alternative is not recommended.
C. Alternate Modes of Transportation
Public transportation is provided in the project area by a regional
bus line funded by the cities of Hickory, Newton, and Conover. This line
provides service within and between these three cities. Buses use
SR 1476, SR 1692, and SR 1007 daily.
The predominant mode of transportation in the project area is the
automobile. It is not believed expansion of the existing public
transportation service to the project area or other alternate modes of
transportation would be a viable alternative to the proposed roadway
improvements.
VI. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Natural Resources
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by
NCDOT biologists in December, 1994 and March, 1995. Plant communities
and their associated wildlife were identified and recorded. Cursory
studies for aquatic organisms were conducted, along with tactile searches
for benthic organisms. Specimens captured during these searches were
identified and released. Jurisdictional wetland determinations were
performed utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
1. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of
plant community classifications. Dominant flora and fauna observed or
likely to occur in each community are described and discussed. Asterisks
(*) indicate faunal species identified during natural resources
investigations.
a. Terrestrial Communities
Five distinct terrestrial communities were identified in the study
area: mixed hardwood forest, mixed hardwood/pine forest, mixed pine pa
forest, mixed pine/hardwood forest, and maintained areas. Many faunal
species are highly adaptive and may populate the entire range of
terrestrial communities found in the project area.
Mixed Hardwood Forest Community
The mixed hardwood forest community is found on steep slopes
associated with stream bottoms. The canopy is dominated by white oak,
rock chestnut oak, northern red oak, tuliptree, and hickory. Understory
representatives include saplings of canopy species, as well as sourwood
and red maple. Japanese honeysuckle, Christmas fern, crane-fly orchid,
and pipsissewa are scattered throughout the vine/herb strata.
13
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexast lis naniflora), a federally-listed
threatened species, was located in the mixed ar wood forest and mixed
hardwood/pine forest communities of the project area by NCDOT biologists
(see Section VI-A-4-a).
Gray squirrel*, downy woodpecker*, Carolina chickadee*, rufous-sided
towhee*, eastern box turtle*, marbled salamander, slimy salamander,
copperhead, and barred owl* are common members of the mixed hardwood
forest community.
Mixed Hardwood/Pine Forest Community
The mixed hardwood/pine forest community is found on sloping to
nearly level terrain upslope of the hardwood forest community. The canopy
is dominated by white oak, northern red oak, Virginia pine, and shortleaf
pine. Understory and shrub/vine/herb layer representatives include
saplings of canopy species as well as American beech, mountain laurel,
greenbrier, and dwarf-flowered heartleaf.
Red-bellied woodpecker*, red-breasted nuthatch, and red-eyed vireo
are common. Gray treefrogs and gray squirrel also nest and/or forage in
the canopy. A canopy species which forages on the forest floor is the
eastern screech-owl.
The vegetative cover in shrub/vine/herb layer forms many refuges for
a variety of smaller animals, such as the slimy salamander and
southeastern shrew. Passerine birds such as tufted titmouse*, Carolina
wren*, and northern cardinal* may be present throughout this habitat.
Pine Forest Community
The pine forest community is found in areas that have been cleared or
disturbed in the past. Typically, the community is in an early to
moderate stage of succession. Canopy species are few and include Virginia
pine and red cedar. Saplings of red maple and black cherry grow just
above a ground cover including Japanese honeysuckle, downy rattlesnake
plantain and ground cedar.
The limited size, mesic moisture regime, and low vegetative diversity
of this community results in a low diversity of animal species. Many
animals found in the other communities along the proposed project
alignment are transient through the pine forest community and do not
utilize this habitat as primary foraging or residence areas.
14
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest Community
The mixed pine/hardwood forest community is found in areas which have
been recently logged. The canopy is dominated by Virginia pine, shortleaf
pine, red cedar, red maple, sweetgum and white oak. Understory and
shrub/vine/herb layer representatives include sourwood, flowering dogwood,
greenbrier, Japanese honeysuckle, ebony spleenwort and saplings of canopy
species.
Birds found in this community include northern flicker*, white
throated sparrow*, bluejay*, and yellow-rumped warbler*. Eastern
cottontail prefer the tangled undergrowth found in the lower strata of
this community. Reptilian species likely to be common here are the
eastern fence lizard and rat snake.
Maintained Community
The maintained community includes road shoulders, lawns, pasture,
industrial grounds and parking lots. Tall fescue, Bermuda grass,
plantain, and various other herbaceous species dominate the roadside and
other more intensively mowed portions of the maintained community. A
variety of ornamental species are also found around homes and offices.
Less frequently maintained portions of the community along cut slopes
exhibit scrub/shrub habitat. Virginia pine, red maple, black cherry, water
oak, willow oak, Japanese honeysuckle, saxifrage and ebony spleenwort
comprise the vegetative component of these slope habitats.
Animal species diversity here is low and is limited to those species
which are commonly found in areas saturated by development. Mortality of
animals living in and migrating through roadside habitats provides forage
for opportunistic species such as Virginia opossum* and turkey vultures*.
The grey squirrel is a common inhabitant of lawn and park-like settings in
the project vicinity. Broad-winged hawk, red-tailed hawk*, European
starling*, house sparrow*, northern mockingbird*, and American robin*, are
birds that can be found nesting and/or foraging in this community.
b. Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type, Piedmont Stream, will be impacted by the
proposed project. Physical characteristics of the water bodies and
condition of the water resources reflect faunal composition of the aquatic
communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water resource also
greatly influence aquatic communities. See Section VI-A-2-a for physical
descriptions of the six streams located in the project area.
These piedmont streams are typically located in steep-sided narrow
valleys. Mixed hardwood and mixed hardwood/pine forests are found
adjacent to the stream beds. The relatively small size of the streams
found in the project area suggests that the level of fish diversity will
be low. Bluegill, shiners, and darters may be present. Other animal
species known to exist in these streams include northern dusky salamander,
two-lined salamander, and a variety of invertebrates such as crayfish.
15
C. Summarv of Anticipated Effects
Project construction will result in clearing and degradation of
portions of biotic communities in the project area. Table 4 summarizes
potential quantitative losses to these biotic communities resulting from
project construction.
Destruction of terrestrial communities along the project alignment
will result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for many of the
terrestrial species which utilize these areas. Much of the roadside
habitat loss will be temporary as new road shoulders will be constructed.
Impacts to the other communities will likely result in permanent reduction
of habitat and displacement of species. Species displacement is likely to
result in an increased level of competition among resident animals and
newly displaced individuals searching for food and cover.
Table 4
Anticipated Effects on Biotic Communities
CO MMUNITY AREA IMPACTED
Mixed Hardwood Forest 0.5 (1.3)
Mixed Hardwood/Pine Forest 3.3 (8.1)
Pine Forest 2.7 (6.7)
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 3.8 (9.3)
Maint ained 14.1 34.9
TOTAL IMPACTS 24.4 60.3
e: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
The aquatic component of the project area has already been altered by
siltation from erosion due to development in the project area. Project
construction is likely to temporarily increase sediment loads to Miller
Branch, its unnamed tributaries and the unnamed tributary of Cline Creek.
Construction-related sedimentation can be harmful to local populations of
invertebrates which are important parts of the aquatic food chain. Less
mobile organisms such as many of the filter feeders may be covered and
smothered by sedimentation resulting from construction related erosion.
Local fish populations can also be harmed by construction-related
sedimentation. Increased sediment loads and suspended particulates can
lead to the smothering of fish eggs.
In order to reduce the effect of construction on aquatic communities,
sedimentation and erosion control measures will be strictly enforced
during construction of this project.
2. Water Resources
a. Streams. Rivers. Impoundments
Water resources located within the project area lie within the
Catawba River-Drainage Basin. Six:-smahl streams will be crossed by the
proposed project. Water resource characteristics are described in
Table 5.
16
Table 5
Water Resources Characteristics
WATE R D imensions riow
RESOURCE Width De pth Substrate Rate
Mi er Br. .9 m 3.0 t 0.3 m 1.0 t si,sa,co slow
Un. Tr. #1 0.9 m (3.0 ft) 0.3 m (1.0 ft) sa,pe,co slow
Un. Tr. #2 1.8 m (6.0 ft) 0.5 m (1.5 ft) si,sa,co mod
Un. Tr. #3 2.4 m (8.0 ft) 0.6 m (2.0 ft) si,pe,co mod
Un. Tr. #4 2.4 m (8.0 ft) 0.6 m (2.0 ft) sa,pe,co mod
Un. Tr. to
Cline C reek 0.6 m (2.0 ft) 0.2 m (0.6 ft) si,sa slow
Note: mo =mo erate, si=si t, sa=san , pe=pe e, co=co e
Un. Tr.=Unnamed Tri butary
b. Best Usage Classification
The best usage classification for all water resources likely to be
impacted by the proposed project is Class C. Class C refers to waters
suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture. No High Quality Waters (HQW),
Water Supply waters (WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW)
occur within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the project study area.
C. Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by
the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) and is part
of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses
long term trends in water quality. The program assesses water quality by
sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed
monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes
in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass are
reflections of water quality. No BMAN information exists for the project
study area.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are
permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program. Any dischargers are required to register for a permit.
No licensed dischargers are located in the project study area.
d. Summary of Anticipated Effects
Impacts to water resources in the project area will result from
sedimentation and turbidity, as well as non-point discharge of toxic
substances from increased roadway surface area (engine fluids and
particulate rubber). Increased sediment loads and suspended particulates
can lead to reduced depth of light penetration in the water column,
reduction in the water's oxygen carrying capacity, and changes in water
temperature.
Sedimentation and erosion control measures will be strictly enforced
during construction of this project to reduce impacts to water resources
in the project area.
17
3. Jurisdictional Issues
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters
of the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are
those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at
a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to
life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into
these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
a. Wetlands (Waters of the U.S.)
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. No jurisdictional
wetlands were found in the study area.
b. Summary of Anticipated Effects
Surface waters are the only "Waters of the U.S." that will be
affected by the proposed project. Six streams are crossed by the proposed
project (see Section VI-A-2 and Table 5). Culverts and pipes located in
these streams will be extended in order to accommodate the proposed
widening. No wetland impacts are anticipated to result from project
construction.
C. Anticipated Permit Requirements
In accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the COE for the discharge
of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
All crossings and subsequent fill into "Waters of the United States"
(Surface Waters) will likely be permitted under Nationwide Permit 33 CFR
330.5(a) (14) or (26). A Nationwide Permit (14) is likely to be
applicable at most ditch and stream crossings of the project.
A Section 401 Water Quality General Certification from the N.C.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM) will be required prior to the
issuance of the Nationwide permit.
d. Wetland Mitigation
Projects issued Nationwide permits usually do not require
compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement
between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers.
However, final permit/mitigation requirements for this project will be
established by the Corps of Engineers.
18
4. Rare and Protected Species
a. Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are
protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of March 28, 1995, the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists one federally-protected (Threatened)
species for Catawba County; dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis
naniflora).
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf is found only in five northern piedmont
counties in North Carolina and adjacent portions of South Carolina.
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf has heart-shaped leaves, supported by
long thin petioles that grow from a subsurface rhizome. The leaves are
dark green in color, evergreen, and
mid-March to mid-May and are small,
brown in color. They are found near
mature from mid-May to early July.
leathery. Flowers are present from
inconspicuous, jugshaped, and dark
the base of the petioles. Fruits
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations are found along bluffs and their
adjacent slopes, in boggy areas next to streams and creekheads, and along
the slopes of nearby hillsides and ravines. It grows in acidic soils in
regions with a cool moist climate. Regional vegetation is described as
upper piedmont oak-pine forest and as part of the southeastern mixed
forest.
Biological Conclusion: **NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT**
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations do exist in the project study
area. Two populations were located on either side of SR 1692
approximately 0.4 km (0.25 mile) west of SR 1476 inside the existing right
of way. In order to prevent impacts to these populations NCDOT has
reduced the cross-section of the roadway by moving the transition from
five-lanes undivided to four-lanes divided westward. This reduction in
cross-section will not adversely affect the operation of the roadway.
With the proposed reduction in cross-section, both populations of dwarf
flowered heartleaf are outside of the project construction limits. NCDOT
will take the following steps during project construction to insure the
safety of the dwarf flowered heartleaf populations.
1. Locations of these plant populations will be denoted on project
construction plans with a note that areas containing the plants
are not to be disturbed during construction.
2. Exclusion fencing will be erected around the perimeter of the
populations to prevent entry.
3. No trees, saplings, shrubs, etc. will be cut or injured within
the limits outlined by the exclusion fencing.
19
4. The contractor for the project will provide written notification
of the start date for construction to USFWS and the NCDOT
Environmental Unit. Following this notification, USFWS and
NCDOT Environmental Unit personnel may perform unannounced
on-site inspections during project construction.
Given the location of these populations and NCDOT's commitments to
maintain the populations' integrity, it is concluded that Project U-2414
is not likely to adversely affect the dwarf-flowered heartleaf.
b. Federal Candidate/State Protected Species
Two federal candidate (C2) species are listed for Catawba County.
Federal candidate species are not afforded federal protection under the
Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions,
including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered.
Table 6 lists federal candidate species, the species state status (if
afforded state protection) and denotes whether or not suitable habitat for
each species exists in the study area.
Table 6
Federal Candidate Species
for Catawba County
NC
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS HABITAT
Dacty of ere isa a ae Catawba cray is - N
ostracod
Monotro sis odorata * sweet inesa - YES
NOTE: * Population documented as extant in Cataw a County
in the past ten years (1983-1993).
"-" Species not afforded state protection but listed
as Federal Candidate.
No surveys for these species were conducted, nor were any of these
species observed during the site visit. A review of the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program rare species and unique habitats data base revealed no
records of these species in or near the project study area.
Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Heritage Program list of Rare
Plant and Animal species are afforded state protection under the State
Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979.
No state-protected species are listed for Catawba County.
B. Cultural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and Section 4(f)
of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
20
1. Historic Architectural Resources
A survey of historic architectural resources was performed in the
project's area of potential effect (APE). Twenty properties over 50 years
old were identified within the APE. None of these properties were
determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
The State Historic Preservation Office concurred with this finding in a
letter dated January 12, 1995 (see Appendix A).
No properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places or
on the State Study List are located in the APE of the project. The George
Huffman House, a National Register-listed property noted in a December 22,
1993 letter from the State Historic Preservation Office as being in the
general project area (see Appendix A), is located outside the APE.
2. Archaeological Resources
There are no known archaeological resources in the vicinity of the
proposed project. Due to the disturbed nature of the project's APE, it is
unlikely any archaeological resources are present. The project is not
expected to affect any archaeological resources eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places. The State Historic Preservation Office
concurred with this finding and recommended that no archaeological
investigations be conducted for this project in a letter dated December
22, 1993 (see Appendix A).
C. Social Effects
1. Neighborhood Characteristics
The proposed project is located in a heavily industrialized and
urbanized portion of Catawba County, within the city limits of both
Hickory and Conover. Although industrial development predominates, there
are scattered homes and retail businesses in the project area.
2. Relocation of Residences and Businesses
The proposed project will result in the relocation of five homes and
two businesses.
The relocation program for the proposed project will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the
North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in
relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business.
Appendix B of this document contains further information regarding NCDOT
relocation programs and copies of the relocation report prepared for the
project.
21
3. Public Facilities
Catawba Memorial Hospital is located south of SR 1692 on the west
side of SR 1476. St. Timothy's Lutheran Church is located south of
SR 1007 on the east side of SR 1622. Conover Fire Station Number Two is
located on the south side of SR 1007, west of SR 1485.
Neither the hospital nor the church will be directly affected by the
proposed project. Right of way may be acquired from the fire station's
property, however, the fire station building itself should not be
affected.
During construction of the proposed project, the entrance to the
Conover Fire Station Number Two will not be blocked by materials or
unattended equipment. The contractor for the project will be required to
maintain a driveway for the fire station at all times during project
construction.
Although Catawba Memorial Hospital is outside the project limits, the
needs of emergency vehicles trying to access the hospital will be taken
into consideration during the development of construction phasing/traffic
control plans for this project.
D. Section 4(f) Properties
The proposed project will not require the use of any property
protected by Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966,
as amended.
E. Land Use
1. Existing Land Use
A significant amount of industrial development is located along
SR 1692 between SR 1468 and SR 1476. Single family residences and
scattered commercial properties are located along SR 1476 in the vicinity
of SR 1692. Industrial and some residential development is located along
the proposed connector between SR 1692 and SR 1007. Industrial,
commercial, and residential development is located along SR 1007 from the
connector to I-40. A shopping center is located north of SR 1007 near
I-40.
2. Status of Planning
The Cities of Hickory and Conover both have active planning programs.
Hickory's Land Development Plan was adopted in 1986 and Conover s Land
Development Plan was adopterin 1993. Both cities enforce zoning
ordinances and subdivision regulations.
3. Future Land Use
The municipal boundary between the cities of Hickory and Conover in
the project area is located just west of SR 1479. Land to the west of the
boundary is within Hickory's jurisdiction while land to the east is within
Conover's jurisdiction.
22
The City of Hickory's land development plan seeks to encourage
industrial and institutional development in the City's "Railroad Corridor"
(which includes SR 1692 in the project area). As a way to accomplish
this, the plan calls for limitations on additional retail and commercial
development along SR 1692 between Lenoir-Rhyne Boulevard and SR 1476.
According to the City of Conover's land development plan, industrial
development is expected to continue in the area surrounding SR 1007 near
SR 1476. The area between SR 1692 and SR 1007 through which the proposed
new location connector will pass is expected to support a mix of
commercial, office, and industrial uses. The land along SR 1007 from
SR 1490 south to I-40 will support additional commercial development.
Most of the land along SR 1007 in the project area is zoned for
industrial uses. Areas with existing residential and commercial uses are
the only exceptions.
4. Project Compatibility With Local Plans
The proposed project is second on the list of transportation
improvement priorities included in Conover's land development plan.
Hickory's land development plan states that SR 1692 should serve as an
arterial for moving employment-based traffic through the area.
The proposed project is identified as a transportation need in local
land development plans and is compatible with these plans.
F. Prime and Important Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal
agencies or their representatives to consider the impact of land
acquisition and construction projects on prime and important farmland
soils. Land which has been developed, or is committed to urban
development by local government is exempt from the requirements of the
Act. The area of the proposed improvements already supports a significant
amount of industrial and other urban development. Expansion of these uses
is planned by both Hickory and Conover. Therefore, no further
consideration of potential impacts to farmland soils is required.
G. Geological Factors
The topography of Catawba County is characterized by rolling foot
hills with associated steep banks located along drainages of rivers and
their tributaries. Elevation of the project area ranges from 272-303 m
(900-1000 ft) above sea level.
Table 7 provides an inventory of soil types which occur in the
project area. Three soil associations (Cecil, Hiwassee-Cecil and
Pacolet-Cecil) will be crossed by proposed project construction.
23
Table 7
Soils in the Project Area
map unit speciTic Percent Hydric
Symbol Mapping Unit Slope Classification
CmB2 Cecil sandy loam 2-6 -
CmC2 Cecil sandy loam 6-10 -
CnC2 Cecil clay loam 6-10 -
CnE3 Cecil clay loam 10-25 -
CW Chewacla loam - B
HsB2 Hiwassee loam 2-6 -
PeE Pacolet soils 10-25 -
Note: B denotes soils with inclusions o y ric soils or
which have wet spots.
"-" denotes soils not included in the listing of
hydric soils.
H. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Catawba County and the cities of Hickory and Conover are participants
in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. Figure 7 shows the
approximate limits of the 100-year floodplain in the vicinity of the
project. There are no buildings in the vicinity of the stream crossings
with floor elevations below the 100-year flood level. It is anticipated
the proposed project will not have any significant adverse impact on
existing floodplain areas and will not increase existing flood hazards.
I. Traffic Noise Analysis
1. Introduction
A traffic noise analysis was performed to determine the effect of the
proposed improvements on noise levels in the immediate project area.
Appendix C contains a description of the procedures used to perform this
analysis and Tables N1 through N6, which are discussed below.
This investigation included an inventory of existing noise sensitive
land uses and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the
study area. These ambient noise levels were compared with the predicted
future noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts will result from
the proposed project. If traffic noise impacts are predicted, alternative
noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts
must be considered. An analysis was performed considering the "no-build"
or "do nothing" alternative, as well.
Only preliminary alignment was available for use in this noise
analysis. The "worst-case" topographical and traffic volume conditions
were assumed.
2. Noise Abatement Criteria
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are compatible
with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has
developed noise abatement criteria (NAC) and procedures to be used in the
24
planning and design of highways. These abatement criteria and procedures
are set forth in Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
A land use is considered to be impacted when exposed to noise levels
approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or
predicted to sustain a substantial noise increase. Table N2 in Appendix C
presents the noise abatement criteria. Table N2 also presents the
definition of "substantial increase."
3. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project
to determine the existing background noise levels. This noise level
information was used to provide a base for assessing the impact of noise
level increases.
The existing Leq noise levels in the project area as measured at 15
meters from the roadways ranged from 66 to 70 dBA. The ambient
measurement sites and measured exterior Leq noise levels are presented in
Figure N1 and Table N3 of Appendix C, respectively. The ambient
background noise level was determined to be approximately 45 dBA.
4. Analysis Results
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are
given in Table N4 of Appendix C. Twenty residences and 11 businesses are
predicted to be impacted by the subject project according to Title 23 CFR
Part 772 (see Table N5 of Appendix C). These receptors are expected to
experience traffic noise impacts either due to substantial increases in
noise levels or due to noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA
Noise Abatement Criteria.
Table N5 also shows the maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise
level contours. This information should assist local authorities in
exercising land use controls over remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to
the roadway. With the proper information on noise, local authorities can
prevent further development of activities and land uses which are
incompatible with the predicted noise levels of an adjacent highway.
Predicted exterior noise level increases for this project range up to
+26 dBA (see Table N6 of Appendix Q. Predicted noise level increases for
the "do nothing" alternative are approximately 3 dBA.
5. Noise Abatement Alternatives
Measures for reducing or eliminating the traffic noise impacts of the
project were considered. Noise abatement alternatives investigated for
the project include: highway alignment changes, traffic system management
measures, and noise barriers.
Cost and environmental considerations make highway alignment changes
an impractical noise abatement measure for this project.
Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type, speed, volume
and time of operations are not considered appropriate for noise abatement
25
due to the adverse effect they would have on the capacity and level of
service of the proposed roadway.
Noise barriers, such as earth berms or artificial abatement walls,
are not considered prudent noise abatement measures for the project,
either. No control of access is proposed for the project, meaning
commercial establishments and residences will have direct access
connections to the proposed roadway, and all intersections along the
project will be at-grade. For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise
reduction it must be high enough and long enough to shield the receptor
from significant sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier
severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. Safety at
access openings due to restricted sight distance is also a concern. In
addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments located
along a highway normally require accessibility and high visibility. Noise
barriers would reduce the visibility of businesses and churches from the
roadway.
6. Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be
earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise
impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passers-by and those
individuals living or working near the project can be expected. However,
considering the relatively short-term nature of construction noise and the
limitation of construction to daytime hours, these impacts are not
expected to be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of
nearby natural elements and man-made structures are believed to be
sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise.
7. Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not
recommended, and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation
completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772,
and unless there is a major change in the project, no additional noise
reports will be submitted.
J. Air Quality Analysis
1. Introduction
The effect on air quality of highway construction ranges from
intensifying existing air pollution problems to improving ambient air
conditions. Automobiles are considered to be the major source of carbon
monoxide (CO) in the project area. For this reason, most of the analysis
presented is concerned with determining expected CO levels in the vicinity
of the project due to automobile traffic. Appendix D presents a
description of the procedure used to perform this analysis.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future
CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements.
"CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations
Near Roadway Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration at
the nearest sensitive receptor to the project.
26
Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for 1999 and
2019 using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the
MOBILE 5A mobile source emissions computer model.
2. Background CO Concentrations
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to
be 1.8 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality
Section, Division of Environmental Management, North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO
concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable for most suburban/rural areas.
3. Air Quality Analysis Results
The worst-case air quality receptor was determined to be receptor
#49, located at a distance of 16.8 meters from the proposed centerline.
The "build" one hour CO concentrations for this nearest sensitive receptor
for the years 1999 and 2019 are predicted to be 2.9 and 3.2 parts per
million, respectively.
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS (maximum
permitted CO concentrations for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour
averaging period = 9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards.
Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis is less than 9 ppm,
it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the standard.
See Tables Al through A2 in Appendix D for input data and output.
4. Construction Air Quality Effects
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting
from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed
from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any
burning will be performed in accordance with applicable local laws and
ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure that
burning is performed at the greatest practical distance from dwellings and
not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the
public. Burning will only be conducted under constant surveillance.
Measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated by construction when
the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of
motorists or area residents.
5. Summary
The project is located in Catawba County, which has been determined
to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Part
51 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations does not apply to this
project. This project is not anticipated to have any adverse effect on
the air quality of this attainment area.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for air quality
of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process, and no
additional reports are necessary.
27
K. Hazardous Materials Involvement
Two sites likely to contain hazardous materials contamination were
identified in the project area. Both sites will be impacted by the
proposed project.
The first site, a convenience store, is located north of SR 1007
approximately 275 meters (900 feet) west of SR 1490. Two underground
storage tanks (USTs) containing gasoline are located on this site. The
two USTs are located approximately 22 meters (72 feet) north of the
centerline of existing SR 1007. These two tanks were installed in 1982.
Additional investigation will be required prior to the start of right of
way acquisition to determine if any soil contamination is present at this
site.
The second site is a collection of vacant buildings once used by the
S & W Chemical Company. Both a Phase I and a Phase II site assessment
were performed for portions of this property likely to be impacted by this
project.
Two areas of possible concern were identified on the S & W Chemical
Company site. The first area of concern is at the location of a former
service station. Three gasoline USTs were removed from this area in 1988.
Soil' borings placed in the suspected former location of the tanks
identified gasoline in the soil at concentrations above the state action
level. Additional borings placed west of the area found concentrations
below detection limits.
The second area of concern is located on the eastern side of a former
equipment warehouse on the site. Two USTs were located in this area. One
of these, a gasoline tank, was reportedly removed in 1988. It is not
known if the second UST, containing diesel, was removed. Three soil
borings were placed in the area. One of these found diesel fuel
contamination in the soil at concentrations above the state action level.
Petroleum from leaking USTs was the only hazardous materials
contamination found within the proposed right of way on the former S & W
Chemical Company property. The estimated cost for clean up of the
proposed right of way is $35,000.
Right of way acquisition from the S & W Chemical Company property
will be by permanent easement rather than fee simple title in order to
limit NCDOT's liability regarding present contamination on the property.
VII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Local Officials
The subject project has been coordinated with local government
officials. Local governments were contacted during the initial scoping
phase of the project. Written comments received from local officials are
included in Appendix A.
28
A meeting on the project was held on July 21, 1994 in Conover City
Hall. Representatives of Hickory, Conover, and the Western Piedmont
Council of Governments attended this meeting.
No opposition to the project was expressed by local officials.
Requests were received at the meeting to extend the project to the end of
the existing four lanes on SR 1692 and to construct the connector as a
five-lane roadway. At the time of the public official's meeting, the
project was to begin at the SR 1692/SR 1476 intersection and the proposed
new location connector was to be constructed as a two-lane roadway on
multi-lane right of way. The project's scope was changed to accommodate
these requests.
B. Citizens Informational Workshop
A citizens informational workshop was held on the project on July 21,
1994. Approximately 40 persons attended the workshop. The majority of
citizen's comments regarding the project were positive. A few expressed
concerns regarding the project's impacts on their property.
C. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held on the project prior to the start of
right of way acquisition.
D. Agency Coordination
Comments have been requested from the agencies listed below. An
asterisk (*) denotes agencies from which written comments have been
received. Comments are included in Appendix A.
*U. S. Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
(Wilmington District)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Atlanta
*U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville
U. S. Geological Survey - Raleigh
*N. C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
*N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N. C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources
*N. C. Department of Public Instruction
*Western Piedmont Council of Governments (Region E Planning
Commission)
Chairman of the Catawba County Board of Commissioners
*Hickory-Newton-Conover Metropolitan Planning Organization
Mayor of Conover
Mayor of Hickory
JAM/tp
! • ? w•
HICKORY AND NEWTON QUADRANGLES
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1( 1 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
HICKORY -CONOVER
TATE BOULEVARD EXTENSION
FROM SR 1488 TO I - 40
CATAWBA COUNTY
T.1. P. PROJECT U - 2414
FIG. 1 I
Y??, ?1
o
(f
v
O -
a? { I-
- ? ? r ! •' c ? ?, rf_ - ? , ]ty : mil:;..:
CAM
" O
O
Y
•-I_ -! "1 A ?l`,?.' is - r
zg-
x/?y R r P
ivi v, "Yr, .r! h' '421, ?- • 1@TE?.. rt_{
i.il,

? M +
?+? ''?2 rte: ,' !
t ? ,+E 7 tt ??
e.e
Ic. A
a
E

r -r
s
.?
.?. '!'
,. ,?? f f
3?? ?:
??? ? ..
r .? , ?F r -
?lyt 'C ? ?
P ??? ,?!}
V C=1
??

o ?o
h f H f
W
Q
O O AIn
AI?
O CO f I -?
Z r Illp ^?f "I+ °IV tVlf
0.0
°
??
m I
CC)
oI°ol: ^ol? _?_ et
O N T
O)^ ''^^
_ A
N I f o I N V/
? ^I^?
0 ?I? ?' ?I? OIL
u f w ? ?
q
I
p pl? ?
I
-W co
O
?
'
I
r W CO
/? AI10?
co
f o
?' o f ? ?

IIIp Q
?I? ?
?I:, ply A J ?
^ ? ^ ?
I^
p Z
f' Yf
-
^ N
N I- Z
Q Ala -? o?? -? Q
cn

m C)
CY)
T
0
...... .. ....
.. r N

• N
'^
A

LLa C) ?
O
• CC 6

• o Z
ryr?
cc

?M
I
CC
?D
V
U-
A-
r. O
T
rn
= r ' o - co 0 0 0 0 O N
Q r T T T T T T T r r T
to 10 0 0 0 0 to to 0 0 0
v co w o o 0 IX) O O W O O

Q m co co cm m co 't co N N to

D
a

?- N to co , cm N N r r T T
N T
F

N co N O r 0 to M
O ? ? N O Q1 Q1 CO CO
O 0 14' O M 'T 'T tr 0
r T T T N T- T T T v
cc cr- a: a a: cr- a: cr- cc cc

' m _ vi
C9 CID
w
c
c

yr--?o

`x-11=
.
:3 co
• 2w

r
. U. A
_ W3 • cn
w o
alf alf??°
n
fA ?

^ m
•
O
•O
T to ^I?
•
•
• ••.. cr
v Mr
•
L.
L

• "• • • • •
• • • •
. /
/
?
• • • • • • • i v'
w w _
m
w w o Cl)
0 0
CL ? U)
w :3
0 n 2w cn
W
O = 0 O J a:
0 > F-
3: W

TO J cc

D

L W
C N
I
rv o
T o
> Z ti
O
?
O
?
Q o
.
-
Q.
o a:
U)

Z U-
/?
/<
LL a
tV
_- L
A r /
NI
ffLL
? Q
^
D P
A
I 1..
6 LL
O O 0
N
°'
N
N
N
co
(1,J J

©© -i
Q
4- C14
N
"f

p '^
Q

VJ U

'^
U)

O

n
^
Irv f
?

N ?.[? NIY

T-
CD

O
I- `
?
. co
I

0 n

I? ^^
VJ
',c
1--
I I
1 C
O
Z
m I `?
^
rv
-elm
NIY

n1o NIf
N?f
O • I? n
T
NIV
NIY

F V, co cr- cc
N
f VI U)
O vJ
©©
`. I
co m In
Y m
I
.
.
?
Yln fh"If
n
to
T- ;;I
O O L
O I O ? I? ? N ' ^ ^ t0
NIY
N
N I
e
n

N Io NH V, m
NIY
©
1
??
tOI19 L
O
`I.
© N IN
N ?1 1
NIY
?I? 'O N
NIA N 0
NIN
`^
W
0
N n
I
Y
m
h
cb
A oI_ ?I_-?

Y c0
u1 O
ol??
0
m IN ? o?
? O N
? I^
N I^ I n
I^ r
'^ o IN Ntf
1 'n
^ o OI• Nlf NIN ? NI„ v/
? In Om I? o In n n ?I e o I^ ?
2
I^
I? -? ° I??I: GIs
®® q co
?I..oI?NIo OIL ? Y m
N M f0
n N
0
o (
0 o 100
T T
0[ OC ?

n

)

IY
O
O
I W IZ
? N
N I.
CO
(Z
Y
O N
z
0
F-
U
Ow
w
cj) J
o
a. U
0?
CL
w
z
1
I'll
Q
LL
0
Q
z
VJ
w
O
O
N
E
co
00
vi Ir.
EcZ
N ?
T v
cf) E N
? N
z
J

D

F- E
T
CO `"
o -
E c
.
w s o
z
?Q
E?-p
w

E
co
T
N

w 0a
Z w
J z
J

z ?

~ N
X M
w
N
r-
E
co N
ci r
w
z
g
N p
O z
co ?
r 0
'CC m
v/
w
z
N
0 Z
(o
0
m
CD F-
O
w

w
J
U
U)
0
z
Q
ui
V
U.
ZE
Ly
® W
W
? P
o D
gm= 0
Mi m
(1) Ix
On
LO
SIN
? W
LL tr
O
m
a
a
0
LL
w O
CO)
O =
IX a
0 it
a O
o ?
o N
W W
N %-.
E e- E
4q v a
c4 in
N
r
V co GI
N --" im
/ O
ci
U
E CD
E N
Ln
1-
LS
cs
U
E
O v
Ln
f-
E
cr)
T-
(f)
c! r
cf
? T
E ?-
M r
E e-
0
(h v
co
I.i
0
LL
W
U
D
Ir
F-
0CO
w
U'
00
CL Z
00
I?
EL
U
W
U)
J
Q
U
IL
I--
F
U
vQ
E Z
E_
N \
co
T
Y
(!
C ?C3
(n m
N
C L1
? N
146
CO
t?
E
?v
E
co ,
v
r -
E
N r
co
Q
O ?Ej r
a:
c) CO
vl
0
C-)%
_ J
? Q
v Q
Ez
E Q
N
M
r

7
W
J
U
0
z
U
W
TIP PROJECT U-2414
PROPOSED INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS
SR 1476
SR 1692 (TATE BLVD.)
TATE BLVD. EXT.
(FUTURE LEFT TURN LANE)
SR 1476
SR 1007
: I T
TATE BLVD. EXT.
SR 1692 (DEBRA HERMAN RD.)
TATE BLVD. EXT. ??
SR 2309
.4 ;t';r'
SR 1622 TATE BLVD. EXT.
FIGURE 5A
TIP PROJECT U-2414
PROPOSED INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS
.
SR 1491
;b;L> -t------
TATE BLVD. EXT.
TATE BLVD. EXT.
SR 1485
--#
........ J-

SR 1483
SR 1490
TATE BLVD. EXT.
FIGURE 513
` ?? 1 I I I III I ? >i a?
I 11 IIII Ilr9lliI I?I11'';I I ? I 8 ? ?? el'
IIII??IIYIIiIlI1111??1 I???IInhI1111dI1u11111hi?I r•= ?? ° _< ate.(. ???s ?I III I ? ?
ur?m'I Ietiw.illeist+Ir,irl•.'>•.•:.?:.'+.o ? o??s???? a?? ? ?' 'd' ?' u_?Sli I? ? ? A
gig
e eV i BI
--,-7
Is ?
1
/ 1
LIJ LAJ
r r -,I -- _
I.1 .1 r? i 1 ' 5
CL
?'c '.. ? ?r Yt
4 I w ? , ?? ' W ?.r
, RN
1
1
I? 1 I. 1 ? , i
1 ?
r L r , , ?
/ i
i ' , 1 155 - - - a°?, \ . ? •?__"_ - ?-[- ? I I r y ys.
i i ,l ? - - 1 r - sarll _ ' j ? ?;? y rly 'I• i
r
?'???? ?? \?. , ? i 1 ? . ? / /'t.. / 5 ( i? a. M. a ?^-? .
' \\? \ !?/ ,.111.1 i , -+? '?r? ? - It ?•-?--{-. ", ,j k.: i ?-'p K...l Frn
• ' ?+ it T ? 1
`- ' F 1 ' -? ' ter i '` ' ?, :/ r. -r• V., ? ;?.._.1i 1_
, I
........ / Iii'' : Lf- )„', e' .v _- li i . + ?,,,'•?, / -
?, x 1?n7 1 ?' ?" . I
i y j? 1 l '? 11 r? 1 , . •yl,r r-,., . 4 'r ?! ^..?}Ar ..?.4i+??' , ^ I I ,'_ .??? ?? `\ _ ?-j/ \
i
I? ? 1 ? ? rr.?? / ?`??»•?1 ` {? -. r , t _ .. ?.?e. ,III, 1+,? ^ d? I^' .... _?/ ????-?? [ G ? Q
?? _ i y ? 1 is . ', ?'-'-: ''(77?WW1? `? ? 1 1 s y „y `r. ?`h ?.•lC,.l ti? r [I r / ? ' ? i
5 v 1 f/
V. 'r• 1•---. '? 1'. 1 /' i 11 +. 1 ?l F ? / , q_ Fi \ /' ? I \? ? \r \ / \ \ /?f? --
.
( r ai
rIf \ ? 1 _
'tt
O mow... / ? 1
1 1)
11 Y. .. i I wa
_ ? ? is IJ °""'? - ,m ' .?•'`' _ •i. ? ,? 14 ` \
7 G 1 \ /
I ^?
1

' ? •\ >I ?? / ? ° , 1. ? \ ! nl \ 1 4 wt l .J '?
'? ? \\\\»>>???\ '? ?' ., , . ; '\?` 1 ?.l 1 ? \• l -• it \ I I o?p, ? • ,
'I ;. ll' ? , _ 1 1 - ?j1 (f ,, i ' .? '? , ? ?' / - ? 1? ? •' r" a jy a too 'a ',
1 ll f r. )? \ I f? y I I\ A 3 z 1xx--N ?i-
Z>
fl1''? I/) ( II ?/ ! / _? , fa 1 ' ? ? ? yl s / Q p V W
Lo
Off. ?„
0C3
.5c 1W
??\\; 11` %? I' / f i / rr? /' 1 , \ ?{ °? • U/ \ /lr I_ _ ?? ?`??? I? ?7 _U O 7. ! O J N Q d
F-
r\ t ( 1, ' _ ( •. r oz\ c OEM v)O-U Y0•z0 CL.
( opQ;sQ< =w LL
IA z
11 1° -\\ ' ,- I ''?, '1 ; ?;1.,?. `;=?? _ a'= -? .( .? JIB ? °' 'J. •I 1 ? Il\? "'\?%,I?1
l y
LJL
l ' ° 1 ll
V?t
E-I
y 'o, uj
to •. ? •r,• ''''77 z h I I / ? "" ?`
. 1 • 1 1 \1 I ??lf- o? % 1 I_ _ W NO t I \ I ( ' N ?._\ p - J • ' '.
y ?• ? ---- 1 ? , ?lj? 1 ' ?:? II ' ` I r _ 1 ,\,`''??•.,, I'I,rj `I?• Q ?::\yj ? I ?I ' rrr• _`?`I
'IJ
000
1 .-? ; ?`2 1 1 \? / ', r ) I• I ;Z ?j ? ?? ? mm ?- !-? + ? --,-_.i? - arm I I
00
J _
? ? W ?/ /. • ?, a, ?T ... J• J- J?a°? , l o ••1 r nr %,? ? 1 l• _.? -!?'- _ J % __ _
Q $ '\\, ? ..?•.?: _ -.? •,? (- /1 \\ ! ( (?11 ?. Il ? ` h l\• ?I ? ?°aaa? a) ! ?,' j ! J
•"• /q ,? •.%;-; sT- •?\ ??%? ? r ? ( ?•\ I :' f l J f r ,Q ,j l _ ?JJ? E ° Q I" ! ? ./, •! _ (?" ( ( ??} ' '
y ?j ,? Jf\? /?, 1 ? _ _ ? 1 ?< ? •,",_S__ ?\ \_. ? , _ `11 I o I ? I ?? _ `YJ ?, ? I I
N .. ??, '?1'' - -;. ?,'?i' _._ w`Q.• ? •'Q/ ?°c:? 1 •\??: _ :, ;II ? ?, ? •'1c-1 ?`' ?- )1?. - ?' l ? S?,_.
17
=?" ,.S ? _ -, , ? ;;: • II ?? ?)? ? ,: ?? sue'
• ? •?•? Ir ? (?• ?• \ _ ,? ?. ____\ 1`? ? '/ 2 ' \\ ' •,? \'. II ? III ? . _ 1 ?' ? _ _ 1 ? -? ; 1-.
• Y .. /7 `may 1 \?C---? J j y (' (, //(??I ??l •\, •c•'-? : '' ,?i f i ,?lY? '.i -,? ?i :a t3' \\??"-_._ I (. -_ _;x
Ilk il?.l
?`• -)• ?___.?) J- ? / J ?. l ,tea' , ?'? i,?t• ;?' ?f( , •1. / ?? _ ? ' ..~ - : ? ? r.- .? ,?! S! Jjl
• ?\' .Y III _ i ?( ` , "?/ mc0 ?( - - ??I IN '•\• '1._ ? l ) ._.. -?` E"y ./,// 1 •? I? l` ?ZV
? `?'?? a J? ??``'`\_ ry, ? •/?a?'?. "\.` of \ ,•\• r\a\• _-_-.'?• __ __ ` p 1? ???._ ? ' t Q i ;• ? •!?
S a
H \ I
r4 0
? ;'? ,.??• ??-° `` ? ?? ? ? x `, )1 .1 ? tl',( •- 1 ?) /, / '\? iii ? `???,\?']O f'( .•? !
(?:? 6 -J ' • ?It I W ill , •; 'fib" ' °•' :•, -_ . ) ? -_ ?%,? ? ?.a'i a i ` ,;\
` 7-\ _II ?, I) •(??l fIIf #? y?. ,?./1I?? ??'If ?- \ f / r \? ?f f ,.; a+! (' .' ! :)\r-
CFP
-Ak
1214 1 ? ?? ? \ ( ?•'' ? / I ?? o .pi 1y14 . , I__' i ./(? ??(l ll?`??• ?•) ? Cyr'' E,y U II/,•
is~ ? J,,/.. _ . t??., _? J? ? '-_ ? n. .f..-'-`,?_?? ?? ?`?R ? l 1?. -IJ `.l ?( /.•,-.?(?\? U ? '" '' 1 ?\
1:4 7T
S ' 4.1
O ',? ` ? ro ,• " v• ? •? .) 2 aa?,?a- a_) ? ?) _?1J •uJ.yg\ Q-.)I ? ? ?? `(-r/? •?I? lll`..
swm n c ?'?\ o
•>W I \ .? •"/'? 1. ,1 \` l+ ..? f \`?` ! )a ) f r?r p ci- 14 =?a? j
dltt 11\ I f?: h, IMi `O, /!,• ../ ?1 1' J 1 ?? .,, I I\ /i? .?1? 1. ` I

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER M
Planning Division
January 24, 1994
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
C E I
'JAN 2 7 1994
DIVISION OF y
HIGHWAYS
1,__ _ccPy
This is in response to your letter of November 3, 1993,
requesting our comments on the "Tate Boulevard Extension, from
SR 1476 (Fairgrove Church Road) to I-40, Conover, Catawba County,
Federal-Aid Project NHF-1216(5), State Project 8.17292301, TIP
Project U-2414" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199400628).
Our comments, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
perspective, involve impacts to COE projects, flood plains, and
other environmental aspects, primarily waters and wetlands. The
proposed project would not involve any COE-constructed navigation
or flood control project.
The proposed project is sited in the city of Conover and
Catawba County, both of which participate in the National Flood
Insurance Program. However, from a review of your location map
and the September 1980 City of Conover and Catawba County Flood
Insurance Rate Maps, it does not appear that the proposed road
improvements would be in an identified flood-hazard area. This
is confirmed by a review of the pertinent United States Geological
Survey topo maps of the area.
Our Regulatory Branch has reviewed your letter, and a
representative from our Asheville Field Office has inspected
the entire alignment of the new roadway. He reports that there
were no wetlands found and only one creek crossing. The align-
ment consists of upland cutover woods (dominated in the canopy
by virginia pine, red cedars, and upland oaks) and open fields
(dominated by broomstraw). The creek to be crossed has been
highly degraded by siltation, bank erosion, and cattle (which use
the creek for drinking). The cattle have walked the banks in and
caused heavy erosion to occur. The creek is steep-banked and no
wetlands occur adjacent to it.
-2-
In conclusion, they find no reason not to permit this project.
There are no environmentally sensitive areas in the alignment or
other concerns involved. If you have any questions relating to
permits, please contact Mr. Steve Chapin at the Asheville Field
Office, telephone [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.
Sin rely,
s
Lawrence . Sa, ders
Chief, P1 nnirA Division

FT U-
United States Department of the Interior
A
a
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
a 330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
November 17, 1994
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
?G E 1"V-Z-,7
0
Nov 2 1 1994
DIVISION OF ?
HIGHWAYS
Subject: Scoping for proposed construction of the Tate Boulevard
Extension, from SR 1468 to I-40, Conover, Catawba County, North
Carolina, T.I.P. No. U-2414
In your letter of November 7, 1994, you requested any additional
information regarding potential environmental impacts that could result
from the subject project for your use in the preparation of an
environmental document. The following comments are provided in
accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
On January 25, 1994, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
provided scoping comments on the subject project. However, the original
project has since been extended westward along SR 1692 for two miles.
The project now involves the widening of SR 1692 to four lanes to
SR 1476, the construction of a connector between SR 1692 and SR 1007, and
the widening of SR 1007 to five lanes. Thee Service has no additional
comments regarding these project modifications. Additionally, there are
no changes to the list of federally endangered, threatened or candidate
species for Catawba County.
We appreciate being informed of these project changes and request that
you continue to keep us informed as to the progress of this project. In
any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference our
Log Number 4-2-94-034.
Sincerely,-
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
United States Department of the Interior
-- o
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
January 25, 1994
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager 22
Planning and Environmental Branch C
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
TAKE??
A?MEB CA M

JAN 2 8 19%
DIVISICN OF
HIGHWAYS
Subject: Scoping for proposed construction of the Tate Boulevard
Extension, from SR 1476 (Fairgrove Church Road) to I-40,
Conover, Catawba County, North Carolina, TIP. No U-2414
In your letter of November 3, 1993, you requested information regarding
potential environmental impacts that could result from the subject
project for your use in the preparation of an environmental document.
The following comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e),
and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to information provided in your letter, this project will
involve the construction of a two-lane road to connect SR 1692 (Tate
Boulevard) to SR 1007 (Highland Avenue). The project will also include
the widening of existing SR 1007 to five-lanes, from the above-mentioned
connector to I-40. On January 20, 1994, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) biologist conducted a site inspection.
The Service's review of the subject environmental assessment would be
greatly facilitated if the document contained the following information:
(1) A complete analysis and comparison of the available
alternatives (the build and no-build alternatives).
(2) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources
within existing and required additional rights-of-way
and any areas, such as borrow areas, that may be
affected directly or indirectly by the proposed road
construction.
(3) Acreage and description of the creeks, streams, or
wetlands that will be filled as a consequence of the
proposed road improvements. Wetlands affected by the
proposed project should be mapped in accordance with
v
the
Jurisdictional Wetlands. We recommend contacting the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory
Field Office (704/271-4854), to determine the need
for a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit.
(4) Linear feet of any water courses that will be relocated as
a consequence of the proposed project.
(5) Acreage of upland habitat, by cover type, that will
be eliminated because of the proposed project.
(6) Description of all expected secondary and cumulative
environmental impacts associated with this proposed work.
(7) An analysis of the crossing structures considered (i.e.,
spanning structure, culverts) and the rationale for
choosing the preferred structure(s).
(8) Mitigation measures that will be employed to avoid,
eliminate, reduce, or compensate for habitat value
losses associated with any of the proposed project.
The enclosed page identifies federally protected endangered and
threatened species known from Catawba County that may occur within the
area of influence of this proposed action. The legal responsibilities of
a Federal agency or their designated non-Federal representative under
Section 7 of the Act are on file with the Federal Highway Administration
and the North Carolina Department of Transportation. The enclosed page
also contains candidate species that are currently under status review by
the Service which may occur in the project impact area. Candidate
species are not legally protected under the Act and are not subject to
any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as endangered or threatened. We are including these
species in our response to give you advance notification.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and
request that you continue to keep us informed as to the progress of this
project. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please
reference our Log Number 4-2-94-034.
Since ,
i
Ric G. :Biggi ns
Act g FieSupervisor
Enclosure
cc:
Mr. Randy C. Wilson, Section Manager, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife and
Permits Section, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
Archdale Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
Mr. Dennis L. Stewart, Program Manager, Division of Boating and Inland
Fisheries, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Archdale
Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
Ms. Linda Pearsall, Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Cecil Frost, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Plant
Conservation Program, P.O. Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611
IN REPLY REFER TO
LOG NO. 4-2-94-034
January 25, 1994
CATAWBA COUNTY
CRUSTACEANS
Catawba crayfish ostracod (Dactvlothere isabelae) - Candidate
PLANTS
Dwarf-flowered (Hexastvlis naniflora) - Threatened
Sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata) - Candidate*
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
w208 ??.•,f DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRAT E I V
i y- 116 WEST JONES STREET
01-28-94 RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 3-8003
i
FEB 0 1 1994
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS2
?qg
2 DIVISION OF
MAILED TO: FROM: HIGHWAYS
' cg ?P
MRS. CHRYS BAGGE
N, C, DEPT* OF TRANSPORTATION
FRANKLIN VICK "DIRECTOR
PLANNING E ENV. BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
HIGHWAY BLDG./INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SLOPING - PROPOSED TATE BOULEVARD EXTENSIONV FROM SR 1476
(FAIRGROVE CHURCH RD.) TO I-409 CONOVER, NC
TIP 9U-2414
SAI NO 94E42200321 PROGRAM TITLE - SCOPING
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
I'`lTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED: ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X) C?104MENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
'_.C. ' 11\ =•3IOti E
a"SINL'%'W?
?IGF l
North Carolina Department of Cultural Reso
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
February 10, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Tate Boulevard Extension from SR 1468 to 1-40,
Hickory and Conover, Catawba County, U-2414,
Federal Aid Project No. NHF-1216(5), State Project
No. 8.1792301, 95-E-4220-0311
Dear Mr. Graf:
EI
S FEB 1 4 1995 _
of A?t?i story`'
S. A 'c
??N?RC?NNIEN???,
We understand that the Historic Structures Survey Report for the above project
included the two-mile extension of the project from SR 1468 to SR 1476. Given
that there are no structures over fifty years of age in this new portion of the
project, there is no need for further survey of the revised area of potential effect
as we recommended in our January 12, 1995 letter.
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.
,_ncerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw;
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 bbd
SIA4
North Carolina Department of Cultural
Jarnes B. Hunt. Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 12, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Historic Structures Survey Report for Tate
Boulevard Extension from SR 1648 to 1-40,
Hickory and Conover, Catawba County, U-2414,
Federal Aid No. NHF-1216(5), State Project No.
8.1792301, ER 95-7970, CH 95-E-4220-0311
Dear Mr. Graf:
ZJ P? C E 1
)urce 'JAN 17 1995
s
Division hiYgAA51 k f ?
W, cHIr
?cN?RON.
Thank you for your letter of December 1, 1994, transmitting the historic structures
survey report by Clay Griffith concerning the above project.
We concur that the following property is not eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places because it has little historical or architectural
significance:
Miller House
We have reviewed the photographic inventory which includes nineteen properties
over fifty years of age in the area of potential effect that were not evaluated in the
report. Based upon these photographs we concur that properties #1-19 do not
appear eligible for the National Register and need no further evaluation.
We also concur that the National Register-listed George Huffman Farm is located
outside the undertaking's area of potential effect.
The report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior.
Since receipt of the historic structures survey report we have received a State
Clearinghouse notice from H. Frank Vick of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation stating that the scope of the project has changed. The project has
been extended approximately two miles and now begins just east of the
intersection of SR 1692 and SR 1468. The portion of SR 1692 from SR 1468 to
SR 1476 will be widened to four lanes with a forty-six-foot median. The proposed
connector between SR 1692 and SR 1007 will. be constructed as a five-lane
undivided roadway with curb and gutter. SR 1007 will be widened to five lanes
from the connector to 1-40 as originally proposed.
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 QEC9
Nicholas L. Graf
January 12, 1995, Page 2
Given that the project has changed considerably and the survey of historic
architectural resources in Catawba County is fifteen years old, we recommend that
the North Carolina Department of Transportation's architectural historian survey
the revised area of potential effect and report the findings to us.
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,
I a d Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
State Clearinghouse
"('I C:-r nrn i 5

North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt. Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 22, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of sportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State is ric Prese vation Officer
SUBJECT: Tate Boulevard Extension from SR 1476 to 1-40,
Conover, Catawba County, U-2414, NHF-1216(5),
8.1792301, ER 94-7277, CH 94-E-4220-0321
DIVIS!CN or 3
MHWAYS
;til,,? `-
ris es and History
William S. Price, Jr.. Director
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following
structures of historical or architectural importance within the general area of the
project:
George Huffman House. East side of SR 1479, 0.6 mile southeast of the
junction with Tate Boulevard, Conover vicinity. The farm was included in
the National Register of Historic Places on June 21, 1990.
Since the historic architectural survey of Catawba County was conducted over a
decade ago, additional historic properties may be located in the area of potential
effect. We recommend that an architectural historian survey and evaluate
structures over fifty years of age in the area of potential effect. We look forward
to meeting with North Carolina Department of Transportation and Federal Highway
Administration representatives once the fieldwork is complete.
Because of the location and topographic situation of the proposed project area, it
is unlikely that any archaeological sites which may be eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the proposed construction.
We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project.
1 F
r DEC 2 8 1993
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
Nicholas Graf, Federal Highway Administration
B. Church, NCDOT
T. Padgett, NCDOT
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources •
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor ®E H N R
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee V,
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 95-0311 Scoping Tate Boulevard Extension,
Catawba County
DATE: December 12, 1994
The Department of Environment, Health, and
has reviewed the proposed scoping notice. The
list and describe information that is necessary
to evaluate the potential environmental impacts
More specific comments will be provided during
review.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
encouraged to notify our commenting divisio
assistance is needed.
attachments
Natural Resources
attached comments
for our divisions
of the project.
the environmental
The applicant is
ns if additional
M
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Policy Development
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program K---
yLt_Z.
DATE: December 2, 1994
SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 95-0311, Scoping
comments for modification of Tate Boulevard Extension,
Catawba County (TIP #U-2414).
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our
Scoping comments regarding a modified plans for the Tate
Boulevard Extension in Catawba County. We previously commented
on this project in a memorandum to you dated 22 November 1993.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
proposes to extend the project westward along SR 1692
approximately two miles. The project will now begin just east of
the intersection of SR 1692 with SR 1468 and involve the widening
of SR 1692 to four lanes to SR 1476. The proposed connector
between SR 1692 and SR 1007 will widened to five lanes, as will
SR 1007 from the connector to I-40 as originally planned. The
total length of the project is now 4.6 miles rather than 2.6
miles.
We have no additional special concerns regarding the
expanded scope of the project, with the exception bf potential
impacts on Miller Branch and any associated wetlands. These
impacts should be addressed in the Environmental Assessment along
with other concerns listed in our previous memorandum.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments,
please contact me at 704/652-4257.
cc: Mr. Chris Goudreau, District 8 Fisheries Biologist
Mr. Jack Mason, District 8 Wildlife Biologist
T

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS
i-COVE

Charles H. Gardner
Director
Wiliam W. Cobey, jr., Secretary
Project Number: R f =G31/ County:
Project Name: (j 3 !/
Geodetic Survey
his project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be'contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box'27687,
.Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
i
.No comment
This proje(it will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land=disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
/ of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
y If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality ISection at [phone].
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 a Melgh, N.C. 27611-7687 - Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
James B. Hunt, Jr„ Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
C. Dewey Botts, Director
MEMORANDUM
A kvI.WXA
14
[D F= F1
November 21, 1994
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: David Harrison ,0r;71
SUBJECT: Proposed Tate Boulevard Extension, from SR 1468 to I-40
(Hickory to Conover). Project No. 95-0311/94-0321.
The proposal involves construction of a new road between Tate
Boulevard (SR 1692) and Old US 70 (SR 1007), widening of Tate
Boulevard, and widening of SR 1107 to I-40. The Environmental
Assessment should include an estimate of the amount of prime,
unique, and statewide important farmland that will be impacted.
DH/tl
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
r?I?. •jC.i_)f?; .:??, .?lVll.:C'INN",F .!`-!•!•t`)t..
(racer-Agc:ncy T'raject Review response
7., A 9/1 dt;
l'ypc of Pro)ect'?-, so,t
?jcc:. Nam!
-? The applica,tit should be advised tliac plans and specifications for all water sysccrrl
_-? improvements must be approvcd by the Division of Environmental Health prior to:the•award
of a contract or the Inlclatlon of consu•ilcuoll (as rcqu .ed by 15A NCAC 1SC .0300'et. seq.).
For information, eoncacL the Public. \X/acc:' Supply Se_tion, [phone].
--? This project will be classified as a non-com.municy puclic water' supply and must comp;y with
- -J state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more Informacloln Che applicant
should concaet the Public Water Suppler Seecion, (915*1 733-2321.
-? If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recc:-nmend closure of T feet- of adjaeen't
_J waters to the harvest of shdllfish. For inforr_Zation regarding ch(-. .shellfis i sanitation progra
m, the applicant should contact the Shellfish S 'nicat:_)n Branch ac [phone].
The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for chls project rna:.' produce a mosquito breeding-problem.
--? For information concerning appropriate mosquito :oncrol measures, the applicant, -should:
contact the Public Heatth Pest Maragernent. Section zc [phone].
The applicant should be advised that prior to the rernoval or demolition of dilapidated
structures, an extensive rodenc conu•e; program mv.- be necessary m order- to' prevent. the
The :-formacion.concerning rodent' control
migration of the rodents cc adiacenc
1
contact the local health department. or Lnc Pubiic Heald: Pe-SL Mai gen:en:.Secuarl.:,L (919
7 3 3-6407 .
The applicant should be advised cc czrr ac:: the health departn__en, regarding thei
i i :a:7cC 1..^..°.t3lla?:?^c (3c _•n;??l?rr'i 1i!•1?Gr 1? G 1Vl~.A.l_ 1 'i),, ?•a:.K1 et. SC^"
requirer..enLS for Scr .:
For information corc:rM'r. 3n;' C%It% cC r1" Stl'?. ^/aSCe dlsoosal mt? liods, corakcr tit
On-Size `{faSLL•S''aLtr 'Z"'t:0:? :1: (9119% -2n'
?---1 The. applicant should !)C. advISCcI LO CC:?.rWI'L ! 11C. IOCa! Rea1Ll'l Cle!??.l'CIThGII:: regarding the sanit'Ar
?..- . -a faciliLlc_s 1,Cgm ed tar this projc:ca
r' Ilri,:` )•v!Il !)C l0 Ll?:`. I:JnSI;IUCa'.1i711, I'.l:!S lilt tilt: ?V'.Zla:l' 1:1 1.1"L11,19 W.XLC
rclocaLlon must ?!e si:amlLL.. ,c! CC) thc: of :=.n'.-tronmenLat i-leal.tl) , i':1!?Iic ?K'atcr Ste :h
- .' l .
cetiUn, Man Rrvic;v iar:cil L:130 `, :v'ary' :?crer.t Ralei0h, Narl.h i9?
r0
h

'O
--------------
Dace' ?.

1 '
Coll n cy -
State of North Caronna - Mtriawing off";

r
s /77 ee
M
tieerriea
pepill" rnt of EmUonlrlent, Health, and Natural
Nojeet Nurnber. Clue Date:
•ITERCOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS 3 - -9
f this project it has been deterlttlned that the EMNR permit(s) a dlo? approvals indicated ". need to be obtained in
i
ew o
After rev
ardor for,thls project to oomph with North Carolina Law. _
form.
ddr
ssed to the Mgional Off'" WAlcated on the r
e
Question regarding these permits should be a
"laws from this bill"
AN applications. InfoHnation and oukWines Native to tholes plans and aof Normal Process •
pgionel Office. T"r's
_ lslatt Cory tine
OPEC" APPL,ICATION'ftOCEDURES or REOWREMEfdTi brm)

t Application W also before begin construction Or ware of 30 says
ft" M to "ohatrum a operate wastewater tfeatmen
construction sentraets Owens I"spectoOn, Peat4wwmim
facilities, aver sysism sttenNens. 6 slow
? arsl
system 1101 aiectiorging into stale surface tellers. IaCttnlW Genlerense taswa)
NPH11 • pis W M ilik"harge into surface water ane?M Application trio says belong boo'" aelldly. aware Mlspnion.
onference usual Addnoonatly, OWN" Pam" to
i
fi 80.120 says '
po;mn to ega rate and Construct wastewater facilities Ca
On C
Pre eppl
Construct wastewater Iregimgrtt facility-granted Wlr NPOES May M?At
diathsrgmg into last* surface waters. "M. 20 says after teeetCt of pions er 08" M MPOEfi
parm?t•eAlieMwgr M later.
30 says
Water use F1eerMt Fie afi0i"1en MCherCaf e0e11sre1tCa usually ItaOessanir OWA)
7 aye
P be received and 0~ Issued
?t
n?
l
i
Ot
w
? rE ""I
ermit
WNI Csnatlwctrat a1
s
n@ o
g
t
o
ApOSicalion espy must be "wed on each adjacent no~ properly fib says
owner on-sits impact*". Pre4molocafion sonfelonce wawai. Filling
orwp and FA permit
may roovirs Easement to Fill from N.C. Doper went of ? day1)
AWnonostration and Federal Dredge and FYI Permit.
s0 Gays
6
Permit to construct t operate Air Pollution Abatement MA 0 days)
facilities woof Emission Sources as per 16A NCAC ?1M
Any open burning associated won subject prepesaf
must be in con?atanp with 1!A NCAC 20Atr20.
Demolition or renovatoons of structures Containing all aye
"asic$ material must be in Compliance tern 16A solo
NCAC 20 OM shish MOui?es nottltCatt011 and MMMOi
proof to de"101ttoon Contact Asbestos Control Qrolo so days)
eft)
Complas "um Perrot required wrier 1M NCAC 20AWO.
The S.drrientatten Pollution Control Act of 1973 rust be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity An erosion t sedlonentalro
roper Regional Office (Land ousirty sect.) at Mast 30
ith
P
f
l
20 days
p
i
ed w
lan
' control plan will be regirrred it One a Mors acres to be disturbed
A lee of S30 for tore total sere and 920 d0 for sac% addrtronar acre or an meal aceom sat the ion
no activit
nn o
i
y
de•s afore boije-
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act 01 1e73 must be addressed with respect to the relorrencad Lot:al ord Plaice: aril
Mining Permit
h0rth Carolina wrtmg Minn
on-sits Mspeclial usual .rely bond filed with E14NA. Bond amownt
varies wren type mine and number of acres of affected land Any area
mined greater than One acre "Wilt be perrhtted The 400rill"ll bond
must be received before the permit can be Issued
on-site inspection by 014. Division Forest Rasources M permt
exceeds I Oro
sal "0
dill aril
1 day
4WA)
1 My
4WAI
OD-120 OW
OWAI
x days
plo dnri)
Special Ground C WW 4 wrr+irtg P~ * U
unties M coastal M.C. pith organic Mace
oil Rahir ra pool....
Dam sooty P~
an•slio inspection by 111). OrvkrOn Forest Resources re0wiled "M allele
than live act" of ground cleanng activities we In ol•lld inaoectWM
Would be requested at taut the days before actual bum Is pwwad
WA
11 permit required. application Be cars Wool begin Contatrdcwk
Applicant Must hit$ N.C. elialitiad angrnear to. WIPOrl piano.
&%pact conslfWoon, Certify Consiructoon is according is EHNA MOM,
ad plane May also require permit under mosquito Control p?OgraM• And
a 4p1 permit from Corps of Engineers An inspection of site is fVM-
nary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of S2o0A0 must ec-
Company the spplication. An additional processing tae based at a
emteenlam W the total project Cost will be recurred upon CpmeNlrC'1?
Continued reverse
e? s
i
Normal Process
?` . Twte
• M1MulWy twni
SPECIAL APPUCATION PROCEDURES or REOUIREMENTS wmtl '

File suretp Wilt of fa.000 With ENNIt nrenutg N am@ of Nt. to says
eeneltionai that any well paned by Oil,
nd
?R tN VWA)
IagtlltMiens.
Ms a
Permit M MI Selerlosry awe or r spell
20
aeandenn»nt.1e plugged aroer0+n9
Application IMO With ENNR all least 10 days prior M rare of Penn" 1o rays
OeOPhyMOr 4oierNlert Pertrrl
Ap IANion by letter. No Stahl!" appiimm" lens. 1wA)
AW0ion foe lined on etruclum alto is tl+argad Mgm Noma 16-20 days
Stale Nltee Catstrtreuen P~ awriptiens Il drswings of atnialrre • proof of sonar" OVA)
of now'" ereearty.
e0 ales
wA (12o s.rs?
401 Water Quality Canulesitort
66 ears
sslaoo IM WAM mm *0;, win 0f0 "I
WAA Pertltn fair MAJOR Mwiprttartt
22 Gars

•10.00 lee tttrrst atxognp" it"Aiealion
h'AW Permit Par MINOR dwelprrtent
125 oars)

eto•ed of MatroyW. oiaese notify.
inorwtnents
t
are ismae in M Mr no P)Vm
e d to
m
s
Several gsoONrt rnenUrnen
Raietg
sunray. Noe
N.C. Geodetic Im?. . NZ 11
AbW40nnMnl of any wells. if nHWintd. swat Mt In WAVI anCe With Tait 1SA, srachwer 3=00.
lee M -ArphW- UPA"rornd storage tanks pATS1 are rtaclx.ere0 sung any eaceirattw 0paratron.
kwittt wen N tit Pro" r"i0ha1 01144 is rptAs
46 ales
compllartes WIm 4A NCAe 2M 1000 ICoaael sionhwater Raw) is mwim. MIA)
Other eonMtents (attaCn ,e/00"' W pages a necessary. being certain to ells COntTfnt arrhomy).
/ V -Z Z-Ar
?? µ,AZ u,N,.?-'b'ar-?1' e...? 7/?(r ?J?'`' 4;.J • ? z ??
REGIONAL OFFICES
its should be addressed to the Regional Office marked, below.
Questions regarding these perm
i once
msAtis Regional
? s+y
de
? ASheville Re;lonM W 1
u
Asheville. see 2Y0
1 Fayetteville. NC 2"1
019) 486.1801
((m) 2514206
/041
6m'oo-resvills Regional Office Raleigh Re io" Office
3600 Warred Drew. Wile 101
•!9 North Main Street. P.O. Son 00
NC 29118 27m
Raleigh.
Mooresville. 1141
(70416113-11611111111

Regional Otfb
? ? Witmington Regional 01f lice
127 Cardinal Dnve Extension
1424 Carolina
Avenue Was na 2?
191 ?On. No Z78p
W Wilmington. NC 284W
(919) 3W3900
C9
8029'No n:oin l,? office
guru 100
Winsion Salem. NC 27106
(919) &W?007
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, AILV:KWA
Health and Natural Resources •
W
Policy Development A[4i0*)J
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor E H N R
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary John Humphrey, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee 11-?
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 94-0321 - Scoping Tate Boulevard Extension from SR 1476
to I-40, Catawba County
DATE: December 6, 1993
The Department of Environment, Health, and
has reviewed the proposed scoping notice. The
list and describe information that.is necessary
to evaluate the potential environmental impacts
More specific comments will be provided during
review.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
encouraged to notify our commenting divisic
assistance is needed.
attachments
Natural Resources
attached comments
for our divisions
of the project.
the environmental
The applicant is
ns if additional
L-I
1993
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director

TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program /-
DATE: November 22, 1993
SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 94-0321, Scoping
comments for Tate Boulevard Extension from SR 1476 to
I-40, Catawba County, TIP ,OU-2414.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our
preliminary comments regarding the proposed Tate Boulevard
Extension in Catawba County. The North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to construct a two-lane roadway
on multi-lane right of way to connect SR 1692 (Tate Boulevard) to
SR 1007 (Highland Avenue). This connection will complete a
continuous east-west route through Hickory into Burke County.
Also included in the project is the widening of existing SR 1007
to five lanes from the new location connector to I-40.
I conducted a site visit on September 8, 1993 to assess
fisheries and wildlife resources of the project area. Land use
of the project area is mostly commercial, industrial, and
residential. The project parallels railroad tracks along SR
1007. Wildlife habitat consists of old fields, mixed hardwoods,
and NCDOT right of way. A tributary to Cline Creek, too small to
support fish, and possibly adjacent wetlands are present near
Royale Furniture. This area has been disturbed, but may provide
habitat for various amphibians, reptiles, birds, and small
mammals. We have not identified any special concerns regarding
this project due to the urban nature of the area and the low
quality of fisheries and wildlife habitat.
The following information should be included in the
Environmental Assessment (EA) that will be prepared for this
project:
Tate Boulevard Extension Page 2 November 22, 1993
1) Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the
project area, including a listing of federally or state
designated threatened, endangered, or special concern
species. The NCWRC's Nongame and Endangered Species Section
maintains databases for locations of fish and wildlife
species.-. While there is no charge for the list, a service
charge for computer time is involved, Contact is:
Mr. Randy Wilson, Manager
Nongame & Endangered Species Section
Division of Wildlife Management
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
5i2 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
919/733-7291
A listing of designated plant species can be developed
through consultation with the following agency:
Natural Heritage Program
N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
919/733-7795
2) Description of waters and/or wetlands affected by the
project.
3) Project map identifying wetland areas. Identification of
wetlands may be accomplished through coordination with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). If the Corps is not
consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be
identified and criteria listed.
4) Description of project activities that will occur within
wetlands, such as fill or channel alteration. Acreages of
wetlands impacted by alternative project designs should be
listed. Project sponsors should indicate whether the Corps
has been contacted to determine the need for a'404 Permit
under the Clean Water Act. Contact is Mr. Steve Chapin at
704/271-4014.
5) Description of project site and non-wetland vegetative
communities.
6) The extent to which the project will result in loss,
degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat.
7) Any measures proposed to avoid or reduce impacts of the
project or to mitigate for unavoidable habitat losses.
I V E D
State of North Carolina NO7 / 1 6 1993
Department of Environment, Health, and Nah Bes YWL E0TI0!`.i
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMMIUMS Charles H. Gardner
W111lam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: q?-D 32. / County:
Project Name : 01 3 Z? /
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. -N.C. Geodetic
Survey should-be contacted prior* to construction at P.O. Box*27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
1- This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
ilia,
Reviee r Date ,1?
Erosion and Sedimentation Control 1 NOV 153
D
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and zed entation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activi` Lmorz ??
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy -Environmental
,.Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water.
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
6? Glla. 11-16-93
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Melgh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
State of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
004rtment of Emrlromnenl. Health, and Natural Resources )-9-7 zn
_ Project Number. Due Date:
WTEROIOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS j
After review of this project It hull been determined that the EMNR permit(s) and/or &PPrOvOls indicated rruy need to be obtained in
order for this project to Comply with North Carolina Law. 1wAtpJr.d en tns rovarsa of tfle form.
Ouestions regarding these permits shouto a aooross.o sw ,- I my vl. permits are atrsiilable from the tiante
All applications, information and guldellnes relative to these plans and to
Norn+al Process'
Mglonal office. Time

?ERMfl•S SPECIAL APPUCATION PROCEDURES or REOLYREMENTS Outcry lime Set
limit)
Perin to Gonstruel a operate wastewater treatment
a Apptleatim 90 days before begin construction or award of
construction contracts on.ans inspection. POe1 application 30 Gays
t
raeilitiN, newer system extensions, a 0
systems rat discrWging into state surface Watem. technical conference usual M Gars)
NPOES • permdt to discharge into We@@ water sndror
i Application ISO Sara before begin activity. oft-site inspection.
Pro-application conference usual Additionally. obtain permit to 90-1200 rs '
es
pohall to operate and construct wastewater facilit Construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPOES 1111eply INIA)
discharging into state surface Willem. twis. 30 days aflat rOWPt Of plans of issue of NPOES
per il•whichaver is tarot.
30 Gars
1 Water use Permit PnHkppiicstion tacmnicai cents a we usually Mpssery INfa)
7 Oars
Wall Construction Permit
J Complete application mutt be received and permit issued
prior to the installation 0 a well.
(15 Gays)
Application Copy must be served on each ad)scent nparen property be days
On-line inspection. Pro4opiication conference usual. Filling
owner
pledge and pin permit .
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of M days)
Administration and Federal Droage and Pal Permit.
Permit to construct l operate Air Pollution Abatement
NIA 60 Gays
too days)
(acilitet andior Emission sources r per 1tiA NCAC 21M
Any open burning associated with subpct proposal
must be in Compliance with 16A NCAC 20.05M.
Demolition or renovations of structures COhtaining 110 Gays
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A

NCAC 2D 0525 which requires notification and removal N,A
'ran to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
190 aye)
',; t 20
3 Compile Source Permit required under 1N NCAC 20.01100.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act 01 1973 must be property addressed for any land disturbing activity An erosion t sedimentati0
rbed Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Ouslity sect./ at Nast 30
t
d
20 days
is
u
control plan will be required if one Or more Beres to be
days before beginning setivit A lee of $30 for the first acre line $20 00 for eaen sedili nap acre or an must accorn an hie tan 30 •
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 11173 must be addressed with respect to the referenead Local Ordinance: NO Gays)
On-sits inspection usual. Surety bond tiled with EMNR. Bond amount

7
Musing Permit
verses with type mine and number 01 acres of affected land Any area
mined greater then one acre must be permiled. The appropriate bond days
30
00 Gars)
must be received before the permit can be Issued

North Daf011ns Surnifq permit On-site Inspection by N.C. Division Forest Rsswroes it permt
ds a da
s 1 say
NuA)
y
excee
Special Ground Clearance wrminp Pe IM • 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required -0 more
ctions t day
(NIA)
J
Counties in Coastal N.C. with OrWft soft
then live acres of ground clearing activities are Involiied. inspe
should be requested at least ten days before actual bum is planned."
90.120 days

J WA (NIA)
Oil ftah" PWWWB

If permit required. application e0 days before begin C"nallon. ars
Applicant must Nis N.C. qualified engineer to. prepare plans.
i inspect construction. certify construction is according to EMN amov )
J t
Dam safety perm ad plant. May also require permit under mosquito control prop
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers An Inspection of site Is .%oco .
sary to verily Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of It200.00 muss ac•
Company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
perCent or the total project cost Will be required upon eomplelic.
continued : reverie
w in

Normal protest
WAS

PERMITS •
SPECIAL APPUCATION PROCEDURE'S or REOUIREMENTS fatat,litty time
writ)

Foe surety bond M "X0 whh ENNR nNMMmp to atate of Nt. 10 days
permit to drill expioretory all or on "a o"Itional dial any well Opened by Mal operator shail.vw
abandonment. be plugged at:eording to ENNR rules and regulations. INIA)
e-op aisd E;pioratlon flenW Application Illed with ENNR at least 10 Maya Orbr 10 Matsu Of "MR 10 days
- Application by letter. No Standard application then. (NIA)
tithe iaitas ConetnKfion Pl r" Application lea based on structure site to charged. Must Include
descriptions l drawings of structure 4 proof of ownership 15=20 ars
(NIA)
of nparim pow Y.
ao days
401 Water Cluslity Carlilisailon WA (120 aysl
55 days
CAMA PenrMl for MAJOR aevMOprient =200.00 in wow aceortpany a0iieatlen 1150 days)
22 days
CAMA Pen if for MINOR develegoinanl lI50A0 fee thirst atcomitliany apliftstion 05 days)
several geodetic monuments we (oe/1ed in at new the project area. if any wdinuments need to be moved or destroyed. piesse notify.
N.C. Geodetic survey. Box 276117. Relelgh. NZ 27=11
Adore onm ent of any oe115. if fMWirOd. swat be in accordance with Title 15A. WOchopte, 2CA100.
Notification of the proper regional office is reeueated if °orpnan" underground store" tanks (USTSI are discovered dung any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2N 1000 (Coastal Stomwater RYlesl is wlwired. 4 days
(NIA)
Other comments (attach aodiltonal pages as necessary. bung certain to cite comment authority).

9) h1 , Cam- ?? ? 43

REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office ? Fayetteville Regional Office
i
i
il
50 Woodfin ace
Asheville. NC 28801 ng
te 714 Wachovia Bu
d
Su
Fayetteville. NC 2601
' (7a) 2514= (010) 4x6.1541
D'a-0,0resville Regional Ollie. ? Ralelph Regional Office
101
918 North Main Street. P.O. Sox 950 2800 Barreti Drive. Suite
' Mooresville. NC 28115 Raleigh. NC 27600
[phone]
[phone]
shlnpon Regional OHke ? Wilmington Regional Office
? WI' t
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
1424 Carolina Avenue
W'Cs' in ton NC 27880 Wilmington. NC 25405
1 [phone]
? Winston.Saism Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem. NC 271013
[phone]
r
i
k
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, Project Number
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Name Type of Project
ti
P
The -applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system
• improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the award
of a contract or the initiation of construction. (as. required by 15A NCAC 18C .0300 et. seq.).
For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply with
0 state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the applicant
should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
If this project is constructed as proposed; we will recommend closure of s s feet ofn adjacentt
waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding
m, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Branch at [phone].
The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito Pbreeding rsho ld.
0 . For informati= concerning appropriate mosquito control PP
contact'the Public Health Pest Management.•Section.at [phone].
to dilapidate •
The applicant should be advised that prior to the ,,removal or d ? o den o
0 structures,. an extensive. rodent .control program may b necessary prevent.
migration of the-rodents to adjacent areas. The- information. concerning rodent control,'---.-
contact: the-.local health.-.department or the Public Health Pest Management._ Section at (919)
.733-6407.
The applicant should be advised to contact the local health dNCACent e? 0 etg. see)
requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 1
For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods,. contact t e
On-Site Wastewater Section at • [phone].
The applicant should be advised to contract the local health department regarding the sanitary
facilities required for this project.
line
If existing water lines will.be relocated during the construHealth, Public Water Supply
. ... relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Carolina, [phone].
Section, Plan Review Branch, 1330 St. Marys Street, Raleigh, North
Reviewer Section/Branch Date
-??
'_J OMAN
.State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
December 1, 1993
AR
[D F= FR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Policy and Development
FROM: Monica Swihart?i- Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #94-0321; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Tate Boulevard Extension, from SR 1476 to I-40,
Conover, Catawba County, TIP #U-2414
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current. Based on the
information provided, the project appears in close proximity
to several creeks (Lyle Creek, Cline Creek) classified C by
the State of North Carolina.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/ relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for-maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
V
i
i
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Melba McGee
December 1, 1993
Page 2
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
10441er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb

Tate Boulevard Extension Page 3 November 22, 1993
8) A list of document preparers which shows each individual's
professional background and qualifications.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide this information to
you in the early planning stages of this project. If you have
any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at
704/652-4257.
cc: Mr. Chris Goudreau, District 8 Fisheries Biologist
Mr. Jack Mason, District 8 Wildlife Biologist ,
V?
NORTH CAROLINA
•.?• DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
301 North Wilmington Street, Education Building
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825
November 17, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
FROM: Charles H. We v?
Assistant State ntendent
Auxiliary Services
BOB ETHERIDGE
State Superintendent
f-?EI
NOV 2 2 1994,
CIVISICRILOF
Q
HIGHWA'i?o 00
00
RE: Tate Boulevard Extension, from SR 1468 to I-40, Hickory-Conover,
Catawba County, Federal-Aid Project NHF-1216(5), State Project
8.1792301, TIP Project U-2414
Please find attached communication from Dr. Stuart Thompson, Superintendent of
Hickory City Schools, relative to subject project.
mrl
Enclosure
An Equal Opportunity .' Affirmative Action Employer
-• r
NORTH CAROLINA
•?:.?• DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
301 North Wilmington Street, Education Building BOB ETHERIDGE
State Superintendent
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825
Nh November 9, 1994
y
rte.-._- --
r ..
Nov Z X94
Dr. D. Stuart Thompson, Superintendent
Hickory City Sc hauls
Hickory 15-35-21
i1ly,5
RE: Tate Boulevard Extension, from SR 1468 to I-40, Hickory-Conover, Catawba
County, Federal-Aid Project NHF-1216(5), State Project 8.1792301, TIP
Project U-2414
Dear Dr. Thompson:
Please find enclosed information from the North Carolina Department of
Transportation and Highway Safety relative to subject proposal. Since we are
assisting with these studies, we ask that you review these proposals and provide us
with your response which will be transferred to the Highway Department.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very sincerely yours,
/fXAJ
Charles H. Weaver
Assistant State Superintendent
Auxiliary Services
mrl
Enclosure(s)
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
HICKORY-NEWTON-CONOVER
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
317 First Avenue, NW, Hickory, N.C. 28601
April 13, 1995
Mr. Jay McInnis
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. McInnis:
I am writing in reference to your request for an update on the
status of the Hickory-Newton-Conover Urban Area Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan, especially as it relates to the Tate Blvd.
Extension project (TIP #U-2414).
Our urban area's plan is well underway and should be completed in
June or July of this year. I understand that you are working on
the Environmental Assessment for the Tate Blvd. project and the
recommended cross sections will depend upon our Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan's recommendations.
Preliminary discussions with Conover and Hickory officials indicate
that the Tate Blvd.(SR 1692)/Highland Ave.(SR 1007) corridor will
be designated as a bicycle route on the final plan. Currently the
only continuous routes linking Hickory with the Conover and Newton
areas are I-40 and US 70. I-40 cannot be used for pedestrian or
bicycle use and US 70 is a heavily congested commercial corridor
with hundreds of access points which would create safety concerns
with a bicycle route designation. The Tate Blvd. corridor is the
logical route for bicyclists and pedestrians especially since it is
the shortest distance between the downtown areas.
I understand that the four lane divided portion of the project west
of Fairgrove Church Road will be constructed with four foot paved
shoulders. This should accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians.
The portion east of Fairgrove Church Road will be a five lane curb
and gutter section. The outside lanes will need to be of
sufficient width to create a margin of safety for bicycle and
pedestrian traffic.
Please keep in mind that the final recommendations are still a few
months away. I will keep you informed of our progress. Please
call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
C-
ohn C. Tippett, AICP
Transportation Planner
Serving the transportation needs of Hickory, Newton, Conover, Long View, Claremont, Hildebran, Brookford,
and the Hickory urbanized areas of Alexander, Burke, Caldwell, and Catawba Counties
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
tEVIEW DISTRIBUTION STATE NUMBER 94-E-4220-0321
IT OF AGRICULTURE
IT OF CUL RESOURCES
"T OF EHNR
IT OF TRANSPORTATION
IT OF CCEPS - NFP
t•TE PLANNING REGION E
DATE RECEIVED
F02
11 08 93
STATE AGENCY RESPONSE DUE 01 26 94
LOCAL RESPONSE DUE
01 25 94
REVIEW CLOSED
:OJECT
'PL: N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
:DA#: 00002 12001
:SC: SCOPING - PROPOSED TATE BOULEVARD EXTENSION, FROM SR 1476
(FAIRGROVE CHURCH RD.) TO I-409 CONOVER, NC
TIP #U-2414
:OSS-REFERENCE NUMBER:
01 28 94
:EVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT. SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE BY THE ABOVE INDICATED
iATE. IF ADDITIONAL REVIEW TIME IS NEEDED CONTACT THIS OFFICE.
5 A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED tL
N COMMENT OMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY: DATE:
??• (.,?.cl 3? ?a?
Q
CATAWBA` VALLEY
SECTION V
r
(the ¢hmiottembserm
The small town of Conover suffers big-city traffic woes
due to a bottleneck at Fairgrove Church Road.
But a proposed protect may put the area on the ...
Road to Relief
•, fly NOIIft1AN ooMlafc , ....
awn Mnaar
CONOVER - From the front,
door of Carroll's Diner, Anita
Parker can watch traffic back up
for bloclu from the Intersection of
Highland Avenue and Fairgrove
Church Road.
"Between 3 and S p.m. on,
Fairgrove Church Road, It can take
45 minutes to get Iron one end to
another, " said Parker, a waitress
Parker and others who live and
work. near the intersection are
more than an hour away from
Charlotte. But they experlerce the,
frustration of bloty traffic every
brae the shifts end at nearby plant
r and worker pour onto roads.' ' :
.-Reducing traffic jams on these
roads is the Alm of a $9.1 million
i state plan to extend Tale (Joule- '
lion to 110 and U.S. 70.
. "You'll be able to drive from
Conover to Burke County" without
turning, said Jay McInnis, project
manager for the N.C. Department
of,, Transportation.
N.C. officials will present two
alternative routes for the expan-
alon.to the public at a workshop
Thursday at Conover City Hell, 101
E. First Street, starting at 4 p.m.
Some nearby property owners
who've = -notice of the
meeting are worried that the state
will take their land for the road.
"I want to live here the rest of
my life," said Ted Hawn, 65, who
lives with his wile, Opal, In a house
near the proposed extension. "I
PINK ale 1 WwM/pap 3V
Road plan has some neighbors nervous
vard to the north and east. link the
new roadway to Highland Avenue
and widen Hlghtnd to live lanes
between the extension and 140.
The project Is In the planning
stages, and officials say It won't be
Iintlred until 1999. But they said
Tate Boulevard could eventually
serve as the third major east-west
,route in Catawba County, in addl-
Highway
Contkesed from page 1V
don't mind losing some land back
here it my house stays
There are several reasons the
extension is needed. officals say.
One Is that the area - home to a
major General Electric Co. plant,
modest homes and several small
retell businesses - has grown in
recent years. In 1988, 8,700 vehi-
cles per day used Highland Avenue
1tut west of Fairgrove Church
Road; In 1992, the. number had
climbed to 12,400 - a 42% jump.
Another reason, officials $ay, Is
that there's no route that provides
a straight shot out of the area for
plant employees whose shifts end
early In the morning or at midafter-
noon.
Highland Avenue (also known
as Old U.S. 70) and Tale Boulevard
are both east-west routes, but the
only way to get from one to the
other is Fairgrove Church Road,
which has a train cr0aaing.
"Any lime a train comes
through, It backs it up," said Joe
jolly, a sawmill operator in Hick-
ory. He says he can take a nap In
the time it takes for a train to pass.
Both routes envisioned by slate
and city officials would extend
Tate Boulevard to the east, then
north toward Highland Avenue.
The extension would cross over or
under railroad tracks before book-
ing Inlo Highland, McInnis said.
cInnis said the main difference '
between the two alternatives is
(het one would connect with High-
land Avenue about s hall-mile east
of Fairgrove Church Road, while
the other would connect another
two-tenths of a mile further east.
Each plan would require the state
to buy as many as 9 to 12 horses
and businesses.
News of the meeting concerned
Ted and Opal Hawn, who say
they've lived in their house for
more than 40 years.
The couple acid much of their
backyard was taken in the 19808 so
a road could be built into the
ad)acent Industrial park.
t don't think people should
keep on taking and taking and
taking," Opal Hawn said. "1 don't
think that's lair."
McInnis said he didn't want to
discuss specific properties but
added that he thought stale o111-
cials could spare the Hawns'
home.
Several people who use the
intersection of Highland Avenue
and Fairgrove Church Road regu-
larly said they'd welcome any
Improvements "t would shorten
traffic delays.
Danny Milam, a pipe layer, said
the project should significantly
Improve traffic on Fairgrove
Church Road, which he said is
"one of the wont roads to com-
mute on In Catawba County."
Ronald Ramsey, owner of Ron-
ald's Superette on Highland, said
the improvements are "long over-
due." He said he worries about
what would happen if an ambu-
lance was unable to break through
traffic and get to nearby Catawba
Memorial Hospital.
"I guarantee you this road here
carries as much traffic as some of
the Charlotte street," Ramsey
said.
. .'9 _ ; errwaisntagetae
Traffic from manufacturing plants clogs Fairgrove Church
Rood between Tate Boulevard and Highland Avenue. A new
connector extending Tate Boulevard may provide relief.
APPENDIX B
NCDOT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM/RELOCATION REPORTS
APPENDIX B
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement
housing will be available prior to construction of state and
federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of
Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation:
* Relocation Assistance,
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will
be available to assist displacees with information such as availability
and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and
financing or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payments
Program, in general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses
encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or
tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable
financing arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement
Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500
to owners who are eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are
eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1910 (Public Law 91-646), and the
North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in reloca-
ting to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one
relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced fami-
lies, individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm opera-
tions for relocation assistance advisory services without regard to race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its
work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations and
possession of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and sanitary
standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice
after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will
be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public
utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement
property will be within the financial means of the families and
individuals displaced and will be reasonably accessible to their places of
employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for
and moving to replacement property.
B-1
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, business-
es, non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway
project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate
in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings such
as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs and, if
applicable, make a payment for any increased interest expenses for
replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement
housing payments, increased payments, and incidental purchase expenses may
not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the Last Resort Housing
provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to
exceed $5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment,
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 state or federally-assisted construction projects unless and until
comparable replacement housing has been offered or provided for each
displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No
relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purposes
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social Security Act or
any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement
housing is not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's
financial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state
legal limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes
in methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and
sanitary replacement housing can be provided. It is anticipated adequate
replacement housing will be available for all relocatees. However, last
Resort Housing will be considered if the financial situation of tenants or
owners warrant such action.
B-2
RELOCATION REPORT
1 x 1 E•I•S• n CORRIDOR n DESIGN
?GEt vF
North Carolina De ent of Transpdf'a 'on
AREA RELOCATION OFFI E
I4 by 1 A 1995
PROJECT: 8.1792301 COUNTY Catawba Alternate 1
I.D. NO.: U-2414

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: F.A. PROJECT NBF-1216 5 " `
?D ., .
Tate Boulevard Extension, from SR 1468 to Interstate 40,
NWn
ON
%S 1 XMA X'EA.DI&PLr11`C>£s .:
Type of
Displacees
Individuals
Families
Owners
0
5
Tenants
0
0
Total
0
5
Minorities
0
0
0-15M
0
0
15-25M
0
0
25-35M
0
1
35-50M
0
4
50 UP

0
0
Businesses
Farms
Non-Profit
<
;:.. ...
Yes No 2 0 2 0
0 0 0 n/a
0 0 0 0
._ ..
::: 0-r svv>pte: ta1YS' .
Explain au "YES" answers.

ecial relocation services be necessary?
Will s
1 trAl>tJE t?F
Owners
0-203M4 0
2woM 0

40-70M 2

70-IOCM 3 mnj. n40 ::
Tenants
s 0-150 0
150-250 0

250400 0

400-600 0 x156.3D?Di i?t?[1!f
For Sale
0-20M 0
20-40M 3

40-70M 1S

70-1o0M 25 VniIA1SI.
For Rent
$ 0-150
150-250

250-400

400
-600

0
0

4

3
X p
.
Will schools or churches be affect by
2 100 UP 0 600 UP 0 100 UP 30 6000 0 UP p
X .
lacement?
dis
TOTAL
5
0 7G 7
p
Will business services still be available after
3 o. A b
X
:;:...... .
Project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. No permanent displacement of business.
l
A
ti
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. c
an
t
4. There are two business in Right of Way; (1) Mid-
Drainage, 1200 sf, ten employees, no minorities. (2) Metal
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? Building (no company name shown), 600 sf, two employees, no
6. Source for available housing (list). minorities.
x 7. Will additional housing programs needed? 6. RealtorsO, MLS, Rental Companies, and on ground
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? investigation. ,
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. S. Will be administered according to State law.
families?
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 11. Available in Catawba.
X 11. Is public housing available? 12. There are no government program competing for housing
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing and housing overlooks are good.
.
• housing available during relocation period? 14. Same as No. 6.
v
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
-
?h
E`"
financial means? R?GI-l i O"
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RRI.OCATION? 8 months i?E?110N

0.
r
Date
Relocation Agent Date cued b
State Relocation Meat
4' Form 15.4 Retied V" %MSUA' M 1 '
2 Area Relocation Office
APPENDIX C
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
APPENDIX C
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
CHARACTERISTICS OF NOISE
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from
many sources, including airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation
plants, and highway vehicles. Highway noise, or traffic noise, is usually
a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drivetrain and tire-roadway
interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure.
Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is
used to relate sound pressures to some common reference level, usually the
decibel (0). Sound pressures described in decibels are called sound
pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency weighted
scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle
noise measurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency
range to which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound
levels measured using a weighted-A decibel scale are often expressed as
dBA. Throughout this report, all noise levels will be expressed in dBA.
Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are listed in Table N1.
Review of Table N1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized areas
are exposed to fairly high noise levels daily. The degree of disturbance
or annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on three things: (1)
the amount and nature of the intruding noise, (2) the relationship between
background noise and the intruding noise, and (3) the type of activity
occurring where the noise is heard.
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important to
note that individuals have different sensitivity to noise. Different
types of noises bother some more than others. For example, loud music
might not be as offensive to some as the sound of construction equipment.
With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge the
annoyance of noise in terms of its relationship to background noise. The
blowing of a car horn at night when background noise levels are
approximately 45 dBA would generally be more objectionable than the
blowing of a car horn in the afternoon when background noises might be 55
dBA.
The third factor is related to the interference of noise with
activities of individuals. In a 60 dBA environment, normal conversation
would be possible while sleep might be difficult. Work activities
requiring high levels of concentration may be interrupted by loud noises
while activities requiring manual effort may not be interrupted to the
same degree.
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
In order to determine whether or not highway noise levels are
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria (NAC) and procedures to be
used in the planning and design of highways. These abatement criteria and
procedures are set forth in Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 772. A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various land uses
is presented in Table N2. The Leq, or equivalent sound level, is the
level of constant sound which in a given situation and time period has the
same energy as does time varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating
sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady noise
level with the same energy content.
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project
to determine the existing background noise levels. The purpose of this
noise level information was to quantify the existing acoustic environment
and to provide a base for assessing the impact of noise level increases.
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most
current traffic noise prediction model to calculate existing noise levels
for comparison with noise levels actually measured. Differences in dBA
levels can be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low traffic volumes,
and actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles
and single vehicular speed.
PROCEDURE FOR PREDICTING FUTURE NOISE LEVELS
The prediction of highway traffic noise is a complicated
procedure. In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large
number of variables which describe different cars traveling at different
speeds through a continually changing highway configuration and
surrounding terrain. Due to the complexity of the problem, certain
assumptions and simplifications must be made to predict highway traffic
noise.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was
the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA
(revised March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is
based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model
(FHWA-RD-77-108). The BCR traffic noise prediction model uses the number
and type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the physical
characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.),
receptor location and height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier
ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
Only preliminary alignment was available for use in this noise
analysis. Only those existing natural or man-made barriers were included
in setting up the model. The roadway sections and proposed intersections
were assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus, this analysis represents the
"worst-case" topographical conditions.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were compared,
and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the
proposed posted speed limits. Hence, during all other time periods, the
noise levels will be no greater than those indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to determine the
number of land uses (by type) which would be impacted during the peak hour
of the design year. A land use is considered to be impacted when exposed
to noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria
and/or predicted to sustain a substantial noise increase. The basic
approach was to select receptor locations such as 25, 50, 100, 200, 400,
800, and 1600 feet from the center of the near traffic lane (adaptable to
both sides of the roadway). The locations of these receptors were
determined by changes in projected traffic volumes and/or the posted speed
limits along the proposed project. The result of this procedure was a
grid of receptor points along the project. Using this grid, noise levels
were calculated for each identified receptor.
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are
listed in Table N3. This table shows the ambient noise levels, predicted
noise levels, and the estimated noise level increase for each receptor
near the project.
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category that are
predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in Table N4.
Other information included in Table N4 is the maximum extent of the 72 and
67 dBA noise level contours. This information should assist local
authorities in exercising land use control over the remaining undeveloped
lands adjacent to the roadway. With the proper information on noise,
local authorities can prevent further development of activities and land
uses which are incompatible with the predicted noise levels of an adjacent
highway.
Table N5 indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases for the
identified receptors in each roadway section. When real-life noises are
heard, it is possible to barely detect level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA
change is more readily noticeable. A 10 dBA change is judged by most
people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness of the sound.

FIGURE N1
pvWECT LOCATIONMOISE PlEASURII ENT SITES
SR 1692 (Tate 8oulrward Extension)
From SA 1469 (Sweetwater Road) to I-40,
Catawba County, Project 1 9.1792301 (U-2414)
TABLE N1
HEARING; SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
ti
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30 m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
130
Firecrackers
120 Swore thunder, pneumatic jackhammer' .
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
90
D Diesel truck 65 kmph 15 m away
E So Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 60 kmph 15 m away MODERATELY LOUD

H 70
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET

SO
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET

40
Average hams
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 1.3 m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF BEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10 _-
0 I THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. H. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heins.)
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lando on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C ` 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dHA)
I.
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
is Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10 ,
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
a
TABLE N3
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Leq)
SR 1692 (Tate Boulevard Extension),
From SR 1468 (Sweetwater Road) to I-40, Catawba County,
state Project / 8.1792301, TIP 1 U-2414
NOISE
LEVEL
SITE LOCATION DESCRIPTION (dBA)

1. SR 1692 (Tate Blvd), 339 Maters West Grassy 68
of SR 1476 (Fairyrove Church Road)
2. SR 1007 (Old US 70), 90 Motors East Grassy 66
of SR 1476 (Fairgrovo Church Road)
2A. SR 1476 (Fairgrove Church Road) 66
(Use Site / 2)
3. SR 1007 (Old US 70), SO Meters East Grassy 69
of SR 1622 (Workman Street)
4. SR 1007 (Old US 70), 167 Meters West Paved 70
of SR 1490 (Berman Sipe Road)
5. SR 1007 (Old US 70),333 Meters East Paved 70
of SR 1490 (Berman Sipe Road)
r
Notes The ambient noise level sites were measured at iS motors from the
center of the nearest lane of traffic.
TABLE N4
Laq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
BR 1692 (Tate Boulevard Extension),
From SR 1468 (Sweetwater Road) to I-40, Catawba County,
State project / 8.1792301, TIP / U-2414
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM
From SR 1468 (Sweetwater Road) to SR 1476 (Fairgrove Church Road)
1 Bu"ess C SR 1692 39.6 R 62 - L - 30.4 R
2 Residence a " 99.1 R 53 " 88.4 R
3 Business C 39.6 L 62 " 50.3 L
4 Business C " 45.7 L 61 " 55.4 L
5 Business C " 57.9 R 59 '• 47.2 R
6 Business C " 45.7 L 61 " 56.3 L
7 Business C " 36.6 L 63 " 47.2 L
8 Business C " 82.3 L 55 " 93.0 L
9 Business C " 57.9 R 59 " 47.2 R
10 Residence B " 67.7 R 57 '• 76.2 R
11 Residence B '• 38.1 L 62 " 33.5 L
From SR 1476 (Fairgrove Church Road) to SR 1479 (G.E. Plant Road)
12 Residence B SR 1476 27.4 R 63 - L - 57.9 L
13 Residence B •' 21.3 R 64 " 1.5 L
14 Residence B '• 19.6 R 65 " 40.2 R .
15 Residence B " 16.8 R 66 " 68.6 R
16 Residence B " 16.8 R 66 " 96.0 R
17 Residence B " 15.2 R 67 " 128.0 R
18 Residence B " 18.3 R 66 " 155.4 R
19 Residence B " 62.5 R 56 '• 164.6 R
21 Business C SR 1692 .30.5 R 45 " 118.9 R
22 Business C SR.1007 82.3 R 53 " 160.0 L
23 Residence B " 53.3 R 57 •' 85.3 L
24 Residence B ^ 51.8 R 58 •' 64.0 L
25 Residence B " 83.8 R 53 30.5 L
26 Business C " 189.0 R 45 " 18.9 R
From SR SR 1479 (G.E. Plant Road) to SR 16 22 (Workman Street)
28 Business C SR 1007 265.2 R 45 - L - 158.5 R
29 Business C '. 253.0 R 45 " 143.3 R
30 Business C " 222.5 R 45 " 112.8 R
1/3
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
..N..Y
- - 69 + 7
- - 58 + 5
- - 64 + 2
- - 63 + 2
- - 65 + 6
- - 63 + 2
- - 65 + 2
- - 57 + 2
- - 65 + 6
- - 60 + 3
- - * 68 + 6
62.1 63.3 65 + 2
--------------------- R/W--- -----------
65.6 65.5 ' 68 + 3
60.6 66.6 " 67 + 1
56.8 66.6 • 67 + 1
53.6 67.0 * 67 0
51.0 66.0 • 66 0
50.2 56.5 57 + 1
54.4 45.0 54 + 9
50.6 57.3 56 + 5
58.1 61.5 63 + 6
61.2 61.7 64 + 5
67.9 , 57.1 ' 68 " + 15
71.4 47.5 • 71 " + 26
50.7 45.0 51 + 6
52.1 45.0 52 + 7
55.0 45.4 55 + 10
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category 2 noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). • -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
M
TABLE N4 2/3
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
SR 1692 (Tate Boulevard Extension),
' From OR 1468 (Sweetwater Road) to I-40, Catawba County,
- State Project # 8.1792301 , TIP / U-2414
AMBIENT NEA REST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID f LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL HAMS DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
From SR OR 1479 (G.E. Plant Road) to SR 1622 (Workman Street) CONT'D
31 C
Bus oess. SR 1007 54.9 R 57 - L - 15.2 L 72.8 61.3 to 73 " + 16
32 ,
Business C " 30.5 L 62 to 144.8 L 52.0 57.3 58 - 4
33 Business C " 33.5 L 61 " 121.4 L 54.0 61.5 62 + 1
34 Business C " 27.4 L 63 " 105.2 L 55.8 61.7 62 - 1
R 54 of
to 7 R
10 --------------------- R/W--------------
35 Residence B 73.2 .
36 Residence B to 30.5 L 62 to 38.1 L --------------------- R/W--------------
37 Residence B It 45.7 L 59 " 41.1 L --------------------- R/W--------------
38 Residence B of 54.9 L 57 " 44.2 L --------------------- R/W--------------
39 Residence e to 45.7 L 59 to 30.0 L 68.0 63.6 to 69 " + 10
40 Business C to 29.0 L 62 '. 13.7 L --------------------- R/W--------------
SR 1692 From OR 1622 (Workman Street) to OR 1491 (Section House Road)
Al Business C SR 1007 73.2 R 56 - L - 71.6 L - - 61 + 5
42 Residence B to 24.4 L 66 " 24.4 L - - " 70 + 4
43 Residence B to 32.0 L 64 " 32.0 L - - " 68 + 4
44 Business C " 24.4 L 66 " 24.4 L - - 70 + 4
45 Church E " 64.0 R 58 " 64.0 R - - 62 + 4
46 Business C " 21.3 L 67 " 21.3 L - - " 71 + 4
47 Residence B " 22.9 L 66 " 22.9 L - - " 71 + 5
48 Business C " 16.8 L 68 " 16.8 L - - " 73 + 5
49 Business C " 16.8 L 68 " 16.8 L - - " 73 + 5
50 Residence B " 19.8 L 67 " 19.8 L - - ' 72 + 5
51 Residence B 27.4 L 65 27.4 L - - • 69 + 4
52 Residence B " 18.3 L 58 18.3 L - - " 72 + 4
53 Residence B " 30.5 L 64 " 30.5 L - - " 69 + 5
54 Residence B " 24.4 L 66 " 24.4 L - - " 70 + 4
From OR 1491 (Section House Road) to SR 1490 (Herman Sips Road)
55 Business C OR 1007 39.6 L 64 - L - 39.6 L - - 67 + 3
56 Residence B " 39.6 L 64 " 39.6 L - - " 67 + 3
57 Business C " 36.6 L 64 " 36.6 L - - 68 + 4
S8 Business C " 24.4 R 67 " 16.3 R - - " 73 + 6
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-ot> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/ interior (58148). " -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
TABLE N4 3/3
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
SR 1692 (Tate Boulevard Extension),
From SR 1468 (Sweetwater Road) to I-40, Catawba County,
State Project / 8.1792301, TIP i U-2414
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL.
ID t LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE Fm) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
tl?/tltl??gtltlYMY ?tltltlY?t??tl?f? ?qtl ......tl.tl... q ...q. ...f..ggq?. qf -
From SR 1491 (Section House Road) to OR 1490 (Borman Sipe Road) CONT'D
59 Business,: C SR 1007 27.4 R 67 - L - 27.4 R
60 Business C " 21.3 R 68 '• 21.3 R
61 Business C " 27.4 L 67 " 27.4 L
62 Business C " 30.5 R 66 " 24.4 R
63 Business C " 27.4 L 67 " 33.5 L
64 Business C " 19.8 R 69 3.0 R
65 Business C " 15.2 R 70 " 0.0 R
66 Business C " 42.7 R 63 " 3.0 R
67 Residence B " 9.1 R 73 " 27.4 L
68 Residence B " 12.2 R 71 " 33.5 L
From SR 1490 (Herman Sipe Road) to I-40
70 + 3
R/W----------'°-
70 + 3
• 71 + 5
68 + 1
--------------------- R/W--------------
--------------------- R/W--------------
--------------------- R/W--------------
• 70 - 3
--------------------- R/W -------- ------
69 Business C SR 1007 114.3 R 53 - L - 38.1 R - - 68 • + 15
70 Business C " 39.5 L 63 " 118.9 L - - 57 - 6
" 66 " 0.0 L --------------------- R/W--------------
71 Business C 27.4 R
72 Business C " 71.6 R 58 " 33.5 R _ - - 69 • + 11
73 Business C " 54.9 R 61 " 45.7 R - - 67 + 6
74 Business C " 21.3 R 68 " 27.4 R - - • 71 + 3
75 Business C " 71.6 L 58 " 64.0 L - - 63 + 5
76 Residence B " 15.2 R 70 " 32.0 R - - • 70 0
77 Business C " 21.3 R 68 " 33.5 R - - 69 + 1
78 Residence B " .21.3 R 68 " 30.5 R - - 70 + 2
79 Business C ."? 19.6 R 69 " 25.0 R - - + 72 + 3
NOTE= Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/ interior (58/48). • -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).

TABLE NS
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
SR 1692 (Tate Boulevard Extension),
From SR 1466 (Sweetwater Road) to I-40, Catawba County,
State Project 8 8.1792301, TIP 1 U-2414
Maximum Predicted Contour
Leq Noise Levels -Distances
dBA (Maximum)
Description 15m 30m 60m 72 dBA 67 dBA
1. SR 14681( "twater Rd) to SR 1476 70 66 61 22.9m 39.9m
2. SR 1476 (Fairgrove Ch Rd) to SR 1479 70 66 61 17.4m 34.7m
3. SR 1479 (G.E. Plant Rd) to SR 1622 70 66 61 17.4m 34.7m
4. 8R 1622 (workman St) to SR 1491 72 68 62 21.3m 39.9m
1491 Section House Rd) to SR 1490 72 68 63 23.5m 42.7m
S. SR
%
6. SR 1490 (Herman Snipe Rd) to I-40
73 69 64
31.1m 51.8m
Approximate Number of Impacted
Receptors According to
Title 23 CFR Part 772
A B C D E
0 1 0 0 0
0 6 1 0 0
0 1 1 0 0
0 8 3 0 0
0 2 2 0 0
0 2 4 0 0
Total 0 20 11 0 0
NOTES - 1. 15m, 30m, and 60m distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
TABLE N6
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
SR 1692 (Tate Boulevard Extension),
From SR 1466 (Sweetwater Road) to I-40, Catawba County,
State Project i 6.1792301, TIP I U-2414
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
section <.0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >- 25 Increases(1) Criteria(2)

1. From ER 1465 to SR 1476 0 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

2. From SR 1476 to SR 1479 2 5 4 0 1 0 1 2 2
3. From SR 1479 to SR 1622 2 1 2 2 1 0 0 2 2
4. From SR 1622 to SR 1491 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0
5. From SR 1491 to SR SR 1490 1 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. From SR 1490 to 1-40 2 4 2 1 1 0 0 2 0
TOTALS 7 30 21 3 3 0 1 6 4

(1) As defined by only a substantial Increase (See bottom of Table N2).
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2.
APPENDIX D
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
APPENDIX D
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS PROCEDURE
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from
industrial and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources.
Other origins of air pollution are solid waste disposal and any form of
fire.
The effect on air quality of highway improvements range from
intensifying existing air pollution problems to improving the ambient air
conditions. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide
(NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO ), and
lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing emission rate). Automobiles are
considered to be the major source of CO in the project area. For this
reason, most of the analysis presented is concerned with determining
expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to
traffic flow.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor
closest to the highway project, two concentration components must be used:
local and background. The local concentration is defined as the CO
emissions from cars operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e.,
distances within 100 meters) of the receptor location. The background
concentration is defined by the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources as "the concentration of a pollutant at a
point that is the result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that is,
the concentration at the upwind edge of the local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the NCDOT
Traffic Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer modeling and
the background concentration was obtained from the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). Once
the two concentration components were resolved, they were added together
to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor in question and
to compare to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried into
the atmosphere where they react with sunlight to form ozone and nitrogen
dioxide. Area-wide automotive emissions of HC and NO are expected to
decrease in the future due to the continued installation and maintenance
of pollution control devices on new cars. Hence, the ambient ozone and
nitrogen dioxide levels in the atmosphere should continue to decrease as a
result of these improvements in automobile emissions.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide
require several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone
generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the source of hydrocarbon
emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as sources of
hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The emissions of all
sources in an urban area mix together in the atmosphere. In the presence
of sunlight this mixture reacts to form ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and other
photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type of air pollution is
the smog which forms in Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less
than 7 percent of particulate matter emissions and less than 2 percent of
sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions
are predominantly the result of non-highway sources (e.g., industrial,
commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of particulate matter
and sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low, there is no reason to
suspect that traffic on the project will cause air quality standards for
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline.
The burning of regular gasoline emits lead as a result of regular gasoline
containing tetraethyl lead which is added by refineries to increase the
octane rating of the fuel. Newer cars with catalytic converters burn
unleaded gasoline, eliminating lead emissions. Also, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction in the
lead content of leaded gasolines. The overall average lead content of
gasoline in 1974 was 2 grams per gallon. By 1989, this composite average
had dropped to 0.01 grams per gallon. In the future, lead emissions are
expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead
content of leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 make the sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead
additives unlawful after December 31, 1995. Because of these reasons, it
is not expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause the NAAQS
for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future
CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements.
"CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations
Near Roadway Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration at
the nearest sensitive receptor to the project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with
predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and worst-case
meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the annual
average daily traffic projections. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission
factors were calculated for the project completion year and the design
year using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the
MOBILESA mobile source emissions computer model.
TABLE Al
CAL3QBC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
x
JOB: U-2414: Tate Blvd. Ext, Catawba RUN: Tate Blvd. YR-1999, Build
DATE: 05/31/95 TIME: 11:21
SITE a METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 4 (D)
LIME VARIABLES
---------t--' .,
20 - 108. CM
ATIM - 60. MINUTES
MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
PAGE 1
LINX DESCRIPTION • LINK COORDINATES (M) • LENGTH ERG TYPE VPH EF B w V/C QUEUE
• X1 Y1 X2 Y2 • (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
---------------------- --"------------------------------ ----------•-- --------------------------------- ---------------------'
1. Far Lane Link " 10.8 -805.0 10.8 805.0 " 1610. 360. AG 1060. 14.8 0.0 13.2
2. Near Lane Link • 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 • 1610. 180. AG 1060. 14.8 0.0 13.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
-
-
----------------
• COORDINATES (M)
•
RECEPTOR • X Y Z "
----------------------- -- "------------------------------ -------'
1. R49, 16.8 m LCL BUS • -11.4 0.0 1.8 "
JOB: U-2414: Tate Blvd . Ext, Catawba RUN: Tate Blvd. YR-1999, Build
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicatf!O as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEOR)* REC1
MAX * 2.9
DECK. • 11
I
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.90 PPM AT 11 DEGREES FROM REC1
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-2414: Tate Blvd. Ext, Catawba RUN: Tat. Blvd. YR-2019, Build
DATE: 05/31/95 TIME: 11:21
SITE a METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
-------------------------------
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 4 (D)
LINK VARIABLES
ED 108. CM
ATIM 60. MINUTES
MIB - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
PAGE 2
k
LINK DESCRIPTION
" LINK COORDINATES (M)
• LENGTH
SRO TYPE
VPH EF
H
W V/C QUEUE
* X1 Y1 X2 Y2 " (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
.-----------------------"------------------------------- --------- •-°------------------ -------------- -----------------------
1. Far Lan. Link " 10.8 -805.0 10.8 805.0 • 1610. 360. AG 1910. 10.7 0.0 13.2
2. Near Lan. Link " 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 • 1610. 180. AG 1910. 10.7 0.0 13.2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
------------------
* COORDINATES (M) '
RECEPTOR • X Y Z '
-------------------------"-------------------------------------•
1. R49, 16.6 m LCL BUS * -11.4 0.0 1.8 *
JOB: U-2414: Tat. Blvd. Ext, Catawba RUN: Tat. Blvd. YR-2019, Build
MODEL RESULTS
-------------
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.-360.
WIND * CONCENTRATION
ANGLE * (PPM)
(DEGR)* REC1
MAX • 3.2
DEGR. * 12
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION 13 3.20 PPM AT 12 DEGREES FROM REC1 .

. qw.
4 tlw'
G
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
10 M a v 1995 RECEIVED
MEMORANDUM TO: Robert P. Hanson. P.E.. Unit Head JUL 26 1995
P r o j e c t P l a n n i n g 1:NV"0t MENTAL ScIENCE.,
FROM: Hal Bain. Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for
Proposed Extension of Tate Boulevard. in
Hickory-Conover. Catawba County: TIP No. U-
2414; State Project No. 8.1792301; Federal
Aid No. NHF-1216(5).
ATTENTION: James A. McInnis, Jr.. P.E., Project Manager
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides
inventories and descriptions of•natural resources within the
project area, and estimations of impacts likely to occur to
these resources as a result of project construction.
Pertinent information on wetlands and federally-protected
species is also provided. Please contact me if you have any
questions, or need this report copied onto disc format.
c: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
M. Randall Turner, Environmental Supervisor
File: U-2414
K

SF 1=165 ,o I-I0 Hic'K orn-ConoNer
Catawba County
TIP No. U-2414
Federal Aid Project No. NHF-1216(5)
State Project No. 8.1792301
Natural Resources Technical Report
U-2414
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
HAL BAIN. ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
10 May 1995
TABLE' OI CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ........................................1
1.1 Project Description ...........................1
1.2 Purpose .......................................1
1.3 Study Area ....................................1
1.4 Methodology ...................................1
1.5 Investigator Credentials ......................2
2.0 Physical Resources ..................................2
2.1 Soils ..........................................2
2.2 Water Resources ................................3
2.2.1 Characteristics of Waters .............3
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification .............4
2.2.3 Water Quality .........................4
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ........ 5
3.0 Biotic Resources ....................................5
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ........................5
3.1.1 Mixed Hardwood Forest ...................5
3.1.2 Mixed Hardwood/Pine Forest ..............6
3.1.3 Pine Forest .............................7
3.1.4 Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest ..............7
3.1.5 Maintained .............................. ''
3.2 Aquatic Communities ............................8
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .................8
3.3.1 Terrestrial Community Impacts ........... 9
3.3.2 Aquatic Community Impacts ...............9
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics .................. ..........10
4.1 Waters of the United States ..................10
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and
Surface Waters ........................ 10
4.1.2 Anticipated Permit Requirements ....... 10
4.1.3 Mitigation ............................11
4.1.3.1 Avoidance ....................12
4.1.3.2 Minimization .................12
4.1.3.3 Compensatory Mitigation ...... 12
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ....................13
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ............ 13
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and
State Listed Species ..............14
5.0 References .........................................16
I . 0 1 NT1:ODUC'T 1 Oh'
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is
submitted to assist in preparation of an Environmental
Assessment (EA).
1.1 Project Description
The project calls for widening the existing two-lane
section of SR 1692 between SR 1468 and SR 1476 approximately
3.2 Ism (2.0 mi) to either a four-lane divided section with a
13.9 m (46.0 ft) median or a five-lane undivided section.
The proposed new location connector will be constructed with
five lanes and curb and gutter. SR 1007, from the connector
to I-40, is proposed to be widened to five lanes (Figure 1).
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory,
catalog and describe the various natural resources likely to
be impacted by the proposed action. This report also
attempts to identify and estimate the probable consequences
of anticipated impacts to these resources. Recommendations
are made for measures which will minimize resource impacts.
These descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the
context of existing preliminary design concepts. If design
parameters and criteria change, additional field
investigations may need to be conducted.
1.3 Study Area
The proposed project is located in the Hickory-Conover
area of Catawba County. Catawba County is situated within
the west-central portion of the Piedmont Physiographic
Province. The study area is dominated by industrial sites,
railroad tracks, existing roadways and other development.
Forested patches are scattered throughout the project area.
1.4 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations.
Information sources used in this pre-field investigation of
the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Bethlehem), NCDOT aerial mosaics of project
area (1:2400) and Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps
of Catawba County. Water resource information was obtained
from publications of the Department of Environment. Health
and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993) and from the NC Center
for Geographic Information and Analysis publication of the
Environmental Sensitivity Base Nlap of Catawba County
(December 1992)• Information concerning the occurrence of
federal and state protected species in the study area was
gathered from the
x?u
HICKORY AND NEWTON QUADRANGLES
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
j DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
.. BRANCH
HICKORY -CONOVER
TATE BOULEVARD EXTENSION
FROM SR 1468 TO I - 40
CATAWBA COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT U - 2414
FIG. 1
F_sh e.nc Wi'6'Ife -erv;ce () iii: 0f 1)F0 L',t "r, C.
candidate species and Ihc' N.L. Xcc. t ur L-ll 17er itu_'e F'roL1-a il: iN;1P)
database of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
alignment by NCDOT biologists (Hal Bain and Tim Savidge) on
13 December 1994 and 21/22 !March 1995. Plant communities and
their associated wildlife were identified and recorded.
Wildlife identification involved using a variety of
observation techniques including one or more of the
following: active searching and capture. visual observations
(binoculars) and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife
(sounds, scat, tracks and burrows). Cursory studies for
aquatic organisms were conducted; tactile searches for
benthic organisms were administered as well. Organisms
captured during these searches were identified and then
released. Jurisdictional wetland determinations were
performed utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the
"Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environment
Laboratory, 1987).
1.5 Principal Investigator Credentials
Harold C. Bain, Jr. (Hal), Environmental Biologist III, NCDOT
Bachelor of Science (Biology): Campbell University
Masters of Marine Biology (Coastal Ecology Tract) UNC-W
Experience: Biology Teacher, Environmental Biologist: G Years
Expertise: Protected Species Surveys (plants and animals);
Wetland Delineation; NEPA Investigations
Specialties: Ornithology
Coastal Ecosystems
Local Flora
2.0 Physical Resources
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area.
are discussed below. Soils and availability of water
directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in anv biotic community.
The topography of Catawba County is characterized by
rolling foot hills with associated steep banks located along
drainages of rivers and their tributaries. Elevation of the
project area ranges from 272-303 m (900-1000 ft) above sea
level.
2.1 Soils
Table 1 provides an inventory of specific soil types
which occur in the project area. Three soil associations
i(_E'C1 Bill"?i' ee -C CC il11d Ci t'?_ L1vuC
the proposed prc,ject cons ', ruc 'Lion
Cecil association is characterized by gently sloping to
moderately steep soils that have a subsoil that is dominantly
red. firm clay. This association is found on broad ridgetops
and short side slopes.
Hiwassee-Cecil association is characterized by gently
sloping to moderately steep soils that have a subsoil that is
dominantly dark-red or red. firm clay. This association is
found on fairly broad ridgetops and short side slopes.
Pacolet-Cecil association is characterized by gently
sloping to steep, mainly gravelly soils that have a subsoil
that is dominantly red, friable clay loam or firm clay. This
association is found on long, narrow. winding ridgetops and
long side slopes.
Table 1. Catawba County Soils in the Project Area
Map Unit Specific Percent Hydric
Symbol Mapping Unit Slope Classification
CmB2 Cecil sandy loam 2-6 -
CmC2 Cecil sandy loam 6-10 -
CnC2 Cecil clay loam 6-10 -
CnE3 Cecil clay loam 10-25 -
CW Chewacla loam - B
HsB2 Hiwassee loam 2-6 -
PeE Pacolet soils 10-25 -
Note: "B" denotes soils with inclusions of hvdric soils or
which have wet spots.
denotes soils not included in the listing of
hvdric soils.
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water
resources likely to be impacted by the project. Water
resource information encompasses physical aspects of the
resource, its relationship to major water systems. Best Usage
Standards and water quality of the resources. Probable
impacts to these water bodies are also discussed. as are
means to minimize impacts.
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Water resources located within the project area lie
within the Catawba River Drainage Basin. Six creek/stream
?t,ter It,o.:ICc \t ?e CI'oe:. i11C 1It,-,...(-C. 1)-CjeC:
111L'Ure ?). %Vatt2 r resource Character t-C l' i;e?cr1Jed In
Table 2.
Table 2. Water Resources Characteristics
WATER Dimensions Flow
RESOURCE Width Depth Substrate Rate
Miller Br. 0.9 m (3.0 ft) 0.3 m (1.0 ft) si.sa,co slow
Un. Tr. #1 0.9 m (3.0 ft) 0.3 m (1.0 ft) sa,pe,co slow
Un. Tr. #2 1.8 m (6.0 ft) 0.5 m (1.5 ft) si,sa.co mod
Un. Tr. #3 2.4 m (8.0 ft) 0.6 m (2.0 ft) si.pe,co mod
Un. Tr. #4 2.4 m (8.0 ft) 0.6 m (2.0 ft) sa,pe.co mod
Un. Tr. to
Cline Creek 0.6 m (2.0 ft) 0.2 m (0.6 ft) si,sa slow
Note: mod=moderate, si=silt, sa=sand, pe=pebble, co=cobble
Un. Tr.=Unnamed Tributary
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification
by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). The best
usage classification for all water resources likely to be
impacted by the proposed project is Class C. Class C refers
to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or
WS-II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6
km (1.0 mi) of project study area.
2.2.3 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
managed by DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water
quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends
in water quality. The program assesses water quality by
sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at
fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to
very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species
richness and overall biomass are reflections of water
quality. No BMAN information exists for the project study
area.
Point source dischargers located throughout North
Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any
dischargers are required to register for a permit. No
liscenseddischargers are known for the project study area.
?.i S.?nun?:r;- of Ant cipated imn:c:
Impacts to water resources in the project area 16 11
result from sedimentation and turbidity. as well as. non-
point discharge of toxic substances from increased roadway
surface area (engine fluids and particulate rubber).
Increased sediment loads and suspended particulates can lead
to reduced depth of light penetration in the water column,
reduction in the water's oxygen carrying capacity, and
changes in water temperature. Sedimentation and erosion
control measures (Best Management Practices and Sediment
control guidelines) should be strictly enforced during the
construction stage of this project. Grass berms along
construction areas help decrease erosion and allow toxic
substances to be absorbed into the soil before these
substances reach waterways. Poorly managed application of
sedimentation control policies will result in serious damage
to the aquatic environment.
3.0 Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems. This section describes those ecosystems
encountered in the study area, as well as, the relationships
between fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition
and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project
area are reflective of topography, hydrologic influences and
past and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions
of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of
plant community classifications. Dominant flora and fauna
observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described
and discussed. A complete listing of fauna known to occur in
the study area can be found in Appendix A.
Scientific nomenclature and common
applicable) are provided for each animal
described. Subsequent references to the
include the common name only. Asterisks
faunal species identified during natural
investigations.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
names (when
and plant species
same organism will
(*) denote those
resource
Five distinct terrestrial communities were identified in
the project study area: Mixed Hardwood Forest, Mixed
Hardwood/Pine Forest, Mixed Pine Forest, Mixed Pine/Hardwood
Forest and Maintained Communities. Many faunal species are
highly adaptive and may populate the entire range of
terrestrial communities discussed.
3.1.1 Mixed Hardwood Forest Community
The mixed hardwood forest community is found on steep
slopes associated with stream bottoms. The canopy is
d?!• i ) ?; ??r \ I ,, \` (( rI'?177 \1\;I'(` Lill °•
/ It
_ ," ? ??,1?/ ? -?_ _? \? 1 ) ' ` II. hl?? ? (' ? \\ I ? ???+?. /r _ 'rl•' ?/?,1;`(L, ', (i`s` ,/'?-I a?L?;; p
85
_ o
????• • \ s •" ("' ? ?r ?-?l,( ? ! i, \ (i, • 4y ?'?' I?-(?_?',"•?_ 1:,' ? o ? I?z •?•rV?• p°, o.vL U p j ? F rl
r I i - ,•;.• _ S I \\?`',,, it asd =wu?U
CL Q ~ r
'Lu
?Ic '.? -?? \?, _' -`.. I',I ( •) ? a<I=:.,,cam 1 '??,.,:? ,^„'- .. .??` ?% •s, a'('? u ? 1 \ ,? `J? - \???,'I ?. 1?`
UkT' ? •I•\. - ... ) `_?- ...?' ,? ? •? ? ? ..,''I
?n-
1b -?' 1-7
171
(Ij
' I , H I
(n ,•I ? -• m ,' ?' ;"V'im' •?•.-----{r.•-?sr,?• ? . ,,?' I? I ,, W O i I ? •r ,'1??
000
12
01
1: ??i (// /? V 4 ?? J•?? ?1 r?•aJ- .?? .. _;, ( a •), i 1 .I? , r _ - :??'. ;i '/?_ `?J r /?-
cA ? ?;i''?1 ??.?•`K: •????•/,.'('- _?? ? -0. I _.? ?? ?•"' ??1\ .y p, , ?•?, L??.?aC.?t• U??J(:,I ? (?\ r 11
I!,1 • ; .ar '1 J ??l 1. >? // ?? I? ?Y , i !SI ' 'l,f. ,
11; w, I / `•?? I i •y??( /' , ? ).. ? ; J a Y; `? -?• ,.. ?,'1.l ,I• \ ? _ .?? iD..? - ii-•\ t?' 6?/ r.
, I 1? ?r? ? / ) ••)..- / ` \'` -? ?? '•®ry •? 'v/(?t, r- II l ? ,h;?, ; ?,'' , - ?.- J'• ? %''-'?- -C?• •u' , •PP?', i7 ? a .
Y"
r
,?J \_ ? ' ' 1. '.f ??1 1 (` ? ?` .`• s . \. ?_ , ?•'I \I :. I ,;i!` ? I ?. ?? _ _.l ~ ..
' '?• ? ?) / ?1?\ ClV 1 • ?.j'i.•_..,??;,, .. I I j j ..? •,1 .. ',,.• :1?•... ? i w E I ` ; h s' ??_• 1 i' t _ \ `n
° ?tl''i/v' / ? \?• ! 1.?/\ ?!-_ -.r%.:':-• ' \ ?J' ??._J •f I \ ~Vi ? ,? ( .1? 1\ I (?' ?`t:° .\`? \ I `` .%/.../ 1 1-
s,•a / - -,? .,.... ? -? ?• •' I ) x,11 .. ? ? •:\! :??L.?, ? , _ 1 ?•,` ? 1~ ?- .. 1 ?-.
u/'"If:??('? `..;?,,'? f,..I?H,I ?Iv,•1.. ' ?'I ?'??! ?. o'',?::?
,,?. ', ? r? (• <- -=?;)?_ _?i'- /%? •? . ? ';?'? •I' I ,' j??, ? jr-:mil,. (?`' 1 °?6' ^a , ,/-/?x '??t ? (i'?? ?%//?\`??//• I ?? E ,
?i - 1{, •'? ?' L?t? __ ? - ? r ' •1 J , 'n ? 1 / , .Y ,. ?,Ir ? p I ! ??y i?/ / ? ), .VV ? `_ .
_J (: I ?' .d? ) ^ rs / i r6' ) `? 1? ('? . ,'J .. ?' ?- _.?(( • Y, , Jo =- ?? 4 ll?? ?`. l i'
/'1 L',1..? ) .? 1 ? •/: ??;_ --// ?_ - I_- ? ,'•? A) ?. I '. I?, .\ ?J 1 .•`.? [ •\\ _[v'._• 1:^-.•i: ?- H i ? r', ? a I ..
?? -??, ?? -? ? j? Irk ? ? ?• ..?,,? , cl II? .? I I ? ?, ,? o .C,,.,`o'??. ? ?" ??;'
?1.; ?/ /??-.•r F'1• a? ro? :?'? ?• ? ,??•s:,?.r•.,v?, ? .J _?` lam, .?•- ?? J 1?(?/' ¢ ',.\?? ??-I / , O H U •.
.? _ _ _ I? ? / . •??' •„ ?,. I ? , )? ? , - ? 1. •?, ;
r 11 f L' =? '" r' '"•' F:r{..?::.:-? ,?'a; ?} ?•?- ?'-'J I' f?? II?t:??? r?• 1?1..c I t ,c?l?? f? 1 _
/`l\h'^ ... ?\ ?-l ?;_. ..- ..•? ?. rll r ?f .. ). ? ?`? ) ?, I'Fr 1 .. ?, s is?r ??,Illf 11('- '?.• i!?'.?L'I W ¢ ., u I
Cyr S ( • ?- ?`Z%%/
;I n
°..,,- ? III _?? 1 , , ?°' ,(._ I°K ?I ? )`+J/il' ?,$' gl?l1 ? _. •l.? •I?
? .? ? \ , , i ) '? ?' C' It? 11 ,.' -1 .o 'a?_ ;?? 1}1, ? J' •a °?'KU ,. .., .?oP1 I ? ? , /.
Gom nat ed by white JFtt; Iouercus c.:!-'i ? .. ) C h e t llt cap.
pr inns) . northern red oak ( rubra ?-a;-. bc.real to l 11) t ree
(Liriodendron tulipifera). and hickory (Carva sp.).
Understory representatives include saplings of canopy
species, as well as sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum) and red
maple (Acer rubrum). Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
Japonica), Christmas fern (Polvstichum acrostichoides).
crane-flv orchid (Tipularia discolor) and pipsissewa
(Chimaphila maculata) are scattered throughout the vine/herb
strata.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastvlis naniflora),
federally-listed as Threatened by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service for Catawba County was located in the mixed hardwood
forest and mixed hardwood/pine forest communities by NCDOT
biologists. Dwarf-flowered heartleaf is discussed in more
detail in Section 4.2.1 of this report.
Gray squirrel * (Sciurus carolinensis). downy woodpecker
* (Picoides pubescens), Carolina chickadee * (Parus
carolinensis), rufous-sided towhee * (Pipilo
erythrophthalmus), eastern box turtle * (Terrapene carolina),
marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum) and slimv salamander
(Plethodon Alutinosus) are common members of faunal component
of the mixed hardwood forest community. Predatory animals
such as copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix) and barred owl
(Strix varia) are likely to be found in this community.
3.1.2 Mixed Hardwood/Pine Forest Community
The mixed hardwood/pine forest community is found on
sloping to nearly level terrain upslope of the hardwood
forest community. The canopy is dominated by white oak,
northern red oak, Virginia pine (Pinus virAiniana) and
shortleaf pine (P. echinata). Understory and shrub/vine/herb
layer representatives include saplings of canopy species as
well as American beach (FaRus Arandifolia). mountain laural
(Kalmia sp.), greenbrier (Smilax sp.) and dwarf-flowered
heartleaf.
Red-bellied woodpecker * (Melanerpes carolinus). red-
breasted nuthatch (Sitta canadensis), and red-eyed vireo
(Vireo olivaceus) are common. Gray treefrogs (Hula
chrysoscelis. H. versicolor) and gray squirrel also nest and
or forage in the canopy. Another canopy species which
forages on the forest floor is the eastern screech-owl (Otus
asio).
The vegetative cover in shrub/vine/herb layer forms many
refuges for a variety of smaller animals. Passerine birds
such as tufted titmouse * (Parus bicolor). Carolina wren
(Thrvothorus ludovicianus) and northern cardinal *
(Cardinalis cardinalis) may be present throughout this
habitat. Other animals likely to be found in or beneath the
shruh/vine/herh layer 1nc:Lt desii111 saiaiilclnder (Piett:on(Io:I
slutinosus) and southeastern shrew iSc, r e x l?n2irostris!
3.1.3 Pine Forest Community
The pine forest community is typically in an early to
moderate stage of succession found in areas which were
historically cleared/disturbed by man's activities. Canopy
species are few and include Virginia pine (Pinus virQiniana)
and red cedar (Juniperus virQiniana). Saplings of red maple
and black cherry (Prunus serotina) grow just above a ground
cover including Japanese honeysuckle, downy rattlesnake
plantain (Goodvera pubescens) and ground cedar (Lvcopodium
sp.).
The limited size, mesic moisture regime and low
vegetative diversity of this community results in low
diversity of animal species found here. Many animals found
in the other communities along the proposed project alignment
are transient through the pine forest community and do not
utilize this habitat primarily for foraging or residence
purposes.
3.1.4 Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest Community
The mixed pine/hardwood forest community is found in
areas which have been recently logged. The canopy is
dominated by Virginia pine, shortleaf pine, red cedar, red
maple, sweetgum (Liauidambar styraciflua) and white oak.
Understory and shrub/vine/herb layer representatives include
saplings of canopy species as well as sourwood, flowering
dogwood (Corpus florida), greenbrier, Japanese honeysuckle
and ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron).
Avian numbers were abundant in this habitat during the
site visit and included northern flicker * (Colaptes
auratus), white throated sparrow * (Zonotrichia albicollis),
bluejay * (Cyanocitta cristata) and yellow-rumped warbler
(Dendroica coronata).
Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) prefer the
tangle undergrowth found in the lower strata of this
community. Other reptilian species likely to be common here
are the eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus) and rat
snake (Elaphe obsoleta).
3.1.5 Maintained Community
Maintained community includes road shoulders, lawns.
pasture, industrial grounds and parking lots. Tall fescue
(Festuca sp.), Bermuda grass (Cvnodon dactylon), plantain
(Plantago lanceolata and P. rugelii). and various other
herbaceous species dominate the roadside and other more
intensively mowed portions of the maintained community. A
V'aIiety of OI'na m Ptai Si?eClt'ti i. t' UIIi! '10 Ili
and offices.
Less frequently manipulated portions of the maintained
community found along cut slopes exhibit scrub/shrub habitat.
Virginia pine. red maple, black cherry. water oak (Quercus
nigra), willow oak phellos). Japanese honeysuckle,
saxifrage (Saxifraga virginiensis) and ebony spleenwort
comprise the vegetative component of these slope habitats.
Animal species diversity here is low and is limited to
those species which are commonly found in areas saturated by
development. Mortality of animals living in and migrating
through roadside habitats provides forage for opportunistic
species such as Virginia opossum * (Didelphis virginiana),
which may in turn become fatalities and subsequently forage
items for turkey vultures * (Cathartes aura). The grey
squirrel is a common inhabitant of lawn and park-like
settings in the project vicinity. Birds including broad-
winged hawk (Buteo platypterus), red-tailed hawk * (B.
_iamaicensis), European starling * (Sturnus vulgaris), house
sparrow * (Passer domesticus), northern mockingbird * (Mimus
polyAlottus), and American robin * (Turdus migratorius) can
be found nesting and\or foraging in this community.
3.2 Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type, Piedmont Stream, will be
impacted by the proposed project. Physical characteristics
of the water body and condition of the water resource reflect
faunal composition of the aquatic communities. Terrestrial
communities adjacent to a water resource also greatly
influence aquatic communities. Physical descriptions of the
six streams located in the project area are listed in section
2.2.1 of this report.
These piedmont streams are typically located in steep-
sided narrow valleys. Mixed hardwood and mixed hardwood/pine
forests are found adjacent to stream beds. The relatively
small size of the streams found in the project area suggests
that the level of fish diversity will be low but may include
bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), shiners (Notropis spp.) and
darters (Etheostoma spp.). Other animal species known to
exist in these streams include northern dusky salamander
(Desmognathus fuscus), two-lined salamander (Eurvicea
bislineata) and a variety of invertebrates such as crayfish
(Cambarus sp.).
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various
impacts on the biotic resources described. Any construction
related activities in or near these resources have the
potential to impact biological functions. This section
C1uantifie, and ciua11f1E'ti 1mT)Itcts tc, t[ri! -t Li :"e, L1 1' CL'
terms of area impacted anc, ecosystem,, arfec'(2d TL[i11)orar
and permanent impacts are consic.erec tlere cell «e! 1 .
3.3.1 Terrestrial Community Impacts
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the
relative abundance of each community present in the study
area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 3
summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic
communities. resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts are derived using the entire proposed right of way
width of 30.3 m (100.0 ft) for the east portion on existing
SR 1007; and 56.1 m (185 ft) in the middle portion between SR
1007 and SR 1476; and 37.9 m (125.0 ft) for the west portion
on existing SR 1692. Usually. project construction does not
require the entire right of way; therefore, actual impacts
may be considerably less.
Destruction of terrestrial communities along the project
alignment will result in the loss of foraging and breeding
habitats for many of the terrestrial species which utilize
these areas. Much of the roadside habitat loss will be
temporary since new road shoulders will be part of the
proposed construction. Impacts to the other communities will
likely result in permanent reduction of habitat and
displacement of species found in the subject project study
zone. Species displacement is likely to result in an
increased level of competition among resident animals and
newly displaced individuals searching for food and cover.
Table 3. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
COMMUNITY AREA IMPACTED
Mixed Hardwood Forest 0.5 (1.3)
Mixed Hardwood/Pine Forest 3.3 (8.1)
Pine Forest 2.7 (6.7)
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 3.8 (9.3)
Maint ained 14.1 (34.9)
TOTAL IMPACTS
24.4 (60.3)
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
3.3.2 Aquatic Community Impacts
As mentioned previously. the aquatic component of the
project area has already been altered by siltation from
erosion due to development in the project area. Project
construction is likely to temporarily increase sediment loads
to Miller Branch, its unnamed tributaries and the unnamed
tributary of Cline Creek. Construction-related sedimentation

can be harmfu 1 to ioca 1 1) opuiat lon , of i?11 ei' ie2hrateS 111:` ?: h
are important parts of the aquatic food chain. Less mobile
organisms such as mane of the filter feeders may be covered
and smothered by sedimentation resulting from construction
related erosion. Local fish populations can also be harmed
by construction-related sedimentation. Increased sediment
loads and suspended particulates can lead to the smothering
of fish eggs. Sedimentation and erosion control measures
(Best Management Practices and Sediment control guidelines)
should be strictly enforced during the construction stage of
this project.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and
impact analysis pertinent to two important issues--rare and
protected species, and Waters of the United States.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States," as defined in
Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3.
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any
action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include
evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and
hydrology. No jurisdictional wetlands were found in the
project study area. Therefore, no wetland impacts will result
from project construction.
Six surface waters (streams) are crossed by the proposed
project. Surface water dimenisions have been documented in
Section 2.2.1 of this report. Impacts resulting from project
construction will be in the form of culvert and or pipe
extensions. Exact impacts to each surface water were not
available at the time this report was completed due to
limited design information.
4.1.2 Permits
Impacts to surface waters are anticipated. In
accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the COE
for the discharge of dredged or fi l riaterial int,- "Watt• ?, cif
the united States." All crossings an6 subsequent fill into
"Waters of the United States" (Surface Waters) will likely be
permitted under Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (14) or
(26).
A Nationwide Permit (14) is likely to be applicable at
most ditch and stream crossings found in the project study
area. This permit authorizes construction provided the
following conditions are met:
(1) the width of the fill is limited to the minimum
necessary for the actual crossing;
(2) the fill placed in Water of the United States is limited
to a filled area of no more than 0.1 hectares (1/3
acre);
(3) no more than a total of 61 m (200 linear ft) of the fill
for the roadway can occur in special aquatic sites,
including wetlands;
(4) the crossing is culverted, bridged or otherwise designed
to prevent the restriction of, and to withstand,
expected high flows and tidal flows and movement of
aquatic organisms, and;
(5) the crossing, including all attendant features, both
temporary and permanent, is part of a single and
complete project for crossing of a Water of the United
States.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
(DEM) Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is also
required. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that
the state issue or deny water certification for any federally
permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge
into waters of the United States. The issuance of a 401
permit from DEM is a prerequisite to issuance of a CAMA or
Section 404 Permit.
This project will require a 401 Water Quality General
Certification from the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM) prior to the issuance of the Nationwide permit.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state
issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted
or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to the
Waters of the United States.
4.1.3 Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the
concept of "no net loss of «et;ands" an(' tiequencinu. T h t
purpose of this police is to restore and maintain the
chemical. biological and physical integrity of Caters of he
United States. specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland
impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding
impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying
impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for
impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects
(avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be
considered sequentially.
4.1.3.1 Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and
practicable possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of
the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the COE, in determining "appropriate and
practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such
measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of
those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing
technology and logistics in light of overall project
purposes. Surface waters cannot be avoided by project
construction due to the project being designed primarily as a
widening. One surface water is crossed in a perpendicullar
fasion on the new location section between SR 1476 and SR
1007.
4.1.3.2 Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and
practicable steps to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of
the United States. Implementation of these steps will be
required through project modifications and permit conditions.
Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of
the proposed project through the reduction to median widths.
ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
Unavoidable impacts to Waters of the United States should be
minimized by modifications in design such as, steepening of
side slopes, perpendicullar crossings, use of structural
retaining walls, etc.
4.1.3.3 Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation in not normally considered until
anticipated impacts to Waters of the United States have been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and
values may not be achieved in each and every permit action.
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is
required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after
all appropriate and practicable minimization has been
required. Compensatory actions often include restoration.
creation and enhancement of Water of the United States.
,. Ptclflcal'Iy wet ands. Such a;:tlon-1 shook" '-,e ur1r<<ir? 1P,
areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge Slat.
Projects issued under Nationwide permits usually do not
require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE. However, final
permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in. or are
in, the process of decline either due to natural forces or
their inability to coexist with man. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 19713, as amended)
requires that any action, likely to adversely a species
classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by
the Fish and Wildlife (FWS). Other species may receive
additional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. As of March 28. 1995. the FWS lists one
federally-protected (Threatened) species for Catawba County;
dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora). A brief
description of this species characteristics and habitat
follows.
Hexastylis naniflora (dwarf-flowered heartleaf) T
Plant Family: Aristolochiaceae
Federally Listed: April 14, 1989
Flowers Present: mid March - mid May
Distribution in N.C.: Burke, Catawba, Cleveland,
Lincoln. Rutherford.
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf is found only in five
northern piedmont counties in North Carolina and adjacent
portions of South Carolina.
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf has heart-shaped leaves,
supported by long thin petioles that grow from a subsurface
rhizome. The leaves are dark green in color, evergreen, and
leathery. Flowers are small, inconspicuous, jugshaped. and
dark brown in color. They are found near the base of the
petioles. Fruits mature from mid-May to early July.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations are found along
bluffs and their adjacent slopes. in boggy areas next to
streams and creekheads, and along the slopes of nearbl
hillsides and ravines. It grows in acidic soils in regions
W,tn _i cool moist ciimat. e on a' veut!t?ion is descr
as upper piedmont oak-pine sorest anti as part of the
southeastern mixed forest.
Biological Conclusion: UNRESOLVED
Habitat for dwarf-flowered heartleaf exists in the
project study area. Two populations of dwarf-flowered
heartleaf have been located by NCDOT biologists approximately
0.4 km (0.25 mi) west of the intersection of Fairgrove Church
Road (SR 1476) and Tate Boulevard (SR 1692). Population # 1
is located approximately 27.3 m (90.0 ft) north of edge of
pavement of SR 1692 while Population # 2 is located
approximately 13.6 m (45.0 ft) south of SR 1692. Both
populations extend beyond existing proposed project
boundaries. At this time NCDOT staff is investigating
highway designs which will avoid/minimize impacts to these
populations. Consultation with the USFWS is ongoing.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
There are two federal candidate (C2) species listed for
Catawba County. Federal Candidate species are not afforded
federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are
not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as
organisms which are vulnerable to extinction although no
sufficient data currently exist to warrant a listing of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered or Proposed
Threatened. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina
Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal species are
afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species
Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation
Act of 1979.
Table 4 lists federal candidate species, the species
state status (if afforded state protection) and the existence
of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This
species list is provided for information purposes as the
status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the
site visit, nor were any of these species observed. A review
of the data base of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program rare
species and unique habitats revealed no records of North
Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the project
study area.
T a h i e Y. Federal C'andi1,7a /N.C. P - c,tectL? c'. Snec ?
for Catawba County
NC
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS HABITAT
Dactvlothere isabelae Catawba crayfish - NO
ostracod
Monotropsis odorata * sweet pinesap - YES
NOTE: "*" Population documented as extant in Catawba County
in the past ten years (1983-1993).
"-" Species not afforded state protection but listed
as Federal Candidate.
(.
.C REFERENCES
American Ornitholo-ists' Union. 1953. Check-list of North
American Birds (6th ed.). Lawrence. Kansas, Allen
Press. Inc.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical report Y-87-1.
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg. Miss.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1952. A
Distributional Survey of North Carolina Mammals.
Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Natural History.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program List of
the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina". North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III.
1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and
Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University- of North Carolina
Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North
Carolina. N.C. WRC., Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1988. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1986.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality
in North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Data Base and Long Tern Changes in Water Quality, 1983-
1990.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. "Classifications and Water Quality
Standards for North Carolina River Basins." Raleigh.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
NCWRC. 1990. "Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina".
Raleigh, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
Plant Conservation Program. 1991. "List of North Carolina's
Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Plant Species".
Raleigh. North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
Potter. E.F., J.F. Parnell and F.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds
of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press.
Radford. A.E.. H.E. Ahles and G.F. Bell. 1968. Manual of
the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill. The
University of North Carolina Press.
C)?;li
The NatLIra1 Communltles of .NoI- th a 1-o ?11a
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Her :talc Pr aL'ram
Division of Parks and Recreation. NCDEH NR.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service.
1975. Soil Survey of Catawba County, North Carolina.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Classifications of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States..
U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington D.C.
Weakley, A.S. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Plant Species of North Carolina". North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals
of the Carolinas, Virginia and Maryland. Chapel Hill.
The University of North Carolina Press.
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
11-7-64
TOI REF. NO. OR ROOM. SLDG.
U- r 'Cl G a tie anle OEM- DrMAIR
FROMI REP. No. OR ROOM. IILDG.
k V
F
k
' P-1 E
f*n
t
-i
ACTION.
_
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ASOUT-THIS - ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTSI
N di,a STATEo
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES H. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GowRNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGI 1, N.C. 27611-5201
November 7, 1994
R£cEllito
Noy
?vy,?NM?r 9
R. SAMUEL HUNT I
SGCRI' FARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Tate Boulevard Extension, from SR 1468 to I-40,
Hickory-Conover, Catawba County, Federal-Aid Project
NHF-1216(5), State Project 8.1792301, TIP Project U-2414
The scoping process for the proposed project was begun approximately one
year ago. Since that time, the scope of the project has changed. The
project, as originally proposed, involved the construction of a two-lane
roadway on multi-lane right of way to connect SR 1692 (Tate Boulevard) with
SR 1007 (Old US 70), and the widening of SR 1107 from the connector to I-40.
The total length of the project as o n inally proposed was 2.6 miles. The
cost for the project was estimated at ?2,700,000 for right of way and
$6,400,000 for construction.
The project has been extended westward along SR 1692 approximately two
miles. The project will now begin just east of the intersection of SR 1692
with SR 1468. The project will involve the widening of SR 1692 to four lanes
with a 46-foot median from east of SR 1468 to SR 1476. Sufficient right of
way exists along SR 1692 between SR 1468 and SR 1476 for the proposed
widening. The proposed connector between SR 1692 and SR 1007 will be
constructed as a five-lane undivided roadway with curb and gutter. SR 1007
will be widened to five lanes from the connector to I-40 as originally
proposed. Additional right of way will be required for the proposed
connector and the widening of SR 1007. The total length of the project is
4.6 miles. The cost for the project as presently proposed is estimated at
$2,700,000 for right of way and $9,850,000 for construction.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared for the project. The
EA was originally scheduled to be completed in December, 1994, and the
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was scheduled to be completed in
July, 1995. However, because of the project extension, the EA and FONSI are
now scheduled to be completed in April, 1995 and November, 1995,
respectively.
Not
November 7, 1994
Page 2
Your comments on the project were requested earlier during initial
project scoping. We would appreciate receiving any additional comments you
may have as a result of this change in project scope. It is desirable that
you respond by December 16, 1994 so that any comments can be used in the
preparation of the environmental assessment for the proposed project.
HFV/plr
Attachment
----? PROJECT EXTENSSION
sc?u

HICKORY AND NEWTON QUADRANGLES
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
HICKORY - CONOVER
TATE BOULEVARD EXTENSION
FROM SR 1468 TO 1 - 40
CATAWBA COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT U - 2414
I FIG. 1 1

December 1, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Policy and Development
FROM: Monica Swihart, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #94-0321; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Tate Boulevard Extension, from SR 1476 to I-40,
Conover, Catawba County, TIP #U-2414
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current. Based on the
information provided, the project appears in close proximity
to several creeks (Lyle Creek, Cline Creek) classified C by
the State of North Carolina.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
Melba McGee
December 1, 1993
Page 2
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will require
written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to
the maximum extent practicable.
1044ler.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
w
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE Lzq q3
TO:
C
6 REP. NO. OR ROOM. SLOG.
Arc-
4t AUS PM- DCHL , &
FROM: REP. NO. Or ROOM. SLOG.
NlG ??J5 P f
ACTION
? NOTE AND PILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
Q

JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
September 27, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Jay McInnis
Project Plan 1n7 Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch
Q l? Il Fe.
SEP 3 U 193
i
l
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Tate Boulevard Extension, from SR 1476 to I-40, Hickory,
Catawba County, Federal-Aid Project NHF-1216(5), State
Project 8.1792301, TIP Project U-2414
The scoping meeting for the subject project was held on Tuesday,
September 14th in room 434 of the Highway Building. The following people
were in attendance:
Eric Galamb
Robin Stancil
James Rand
Wanda James
Harry Thompson
Sue Flowers
Herman Lancaster
Betty Yancey
Danny Rogers
Ray Moore
Jack Matthews
Paul Worley
Rob Hanson
James Bridges
Ron Lucas, Jr.
Jay McInnis
a wsrnTt
4 ?
Division of Environmental Management
State Historic Preservation Office
Division 12
Traffic Control
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Right of Way
Program Development
Structures
Photogrammetry
Rail Section
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
The proposed project involves the construction of a two-lane roadway on
multi-lane right of way to connect SR 1692 (Tate Boulevard) to SR 1007
(Highland Avenue). This connection will complete a continuous east-west
route through Hickory into Burke County. Also included in the project is the
widening of existing SR 1007 to five-lanes from the new location connector to
I-40.
0

I
.September 28, 1993
Page 2
Right of way is scheduled for fiscal year 1997 and construction is
scheduled for fiscal year 1999. The Environmental Assessment for the
proposed project is scheduled to be completed in November, 1994. A date of
February, 1994 was quoted at the scoping meeting. However, due to the right
of way and construction schedules moving back in the new TIP, the EA
completion date has been changed to November. The Finding of No Significant
Impact is now scheduled to be completed in June, 1995. This new schedule is
consistent with the 1997 right of way date.
Paul Worley asked if the existing railroad crossing at SR 1476
(Fairgrove Church Road) could be removed following construction of the
subject project. Between eight to ten trains use this rail line a day. The
railroad might participate in the cost of constructing the proposed grade
separation if this project resulted in the removal of three at-grade
crossings. Removal of this crossing does not seem practical, however.
Several options for the railroad grade separation for the new alignment
portion of the project were discussed. The alignment shown on the aerial
mosaic has an undesirable skew angle, which will require a longer bridge than
a crossing with less skew would. Constructing an at-grade crossing does not
appear feasible due to the high traffic volumes and the number of trains
using this section of track.
The railroad is approximately five to ten feet higher than SR 1007 at
the possible location for the grade separation. The feasibility study
recommended locating the new road underneath the tracks. To do this, a
railroad detour will be required. Another option would be to take the road
over the railroad. This will require an extremely high fill, in order to
provide the necessary vertical clearance. Further study will be necessary
before a decision can be made regarding whether to place the proposed roadway
over or under the tracks.
It was suggested to make the proposed new roadway intersection with
SR 1007 at a "tee" intersection. This would allow Tate Boulevard Extension
to cross the railroad at ninety degrees. Tate Boulevard would not be the
through route with this arrangement, however, so this does not appear to be a
feasible alternative.
The Division is working on a "W" Project (W-2862) at SR 1491, to be
constructed when funds are available. This project would involve realigning
SR 1491 and constructing a new crossing of the railroad. This proposed
crossing would replace an existing crossing which has been closed. There
have been a number of accidents at the existing crossing.
James Rand asked for consideration of a service road in order to improve
access to the factories located south of the railroad. The Division also
requested the proposed new location portion of the project be constructed as
five lanes, rather than two lanes on multi-lane right of way, as is currently
proposed.
Right of way has been acquired on the north side of SR 1007 from SR 1490
to I-40 as part of a project on I-40. Using this right of way may allow the
substandard curve on SR 1007 near SR 1490 to be straightened without taking
any of the S & W Chemical Company property.
September 28, 1993
Page 3
Robin Stancil stated no known archaeological sites are located within
the project area. She said no archaeological survey is necessary. However,
a historic architectural survey should be performed.
A tributary of Cline Creek located near the project has a water quality
classification of "C". Normal erosion and sedimentation control measures
will be required.
JAM/sdt
cc: Scoping participants

Say31' d ? nuF a,
J
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
August 16. 1993

AM 18 W
WETLAi, ,1:
WATER 0M\HiY SkCiIG
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for Tate Boulevard Extension from
SR 1476 to I-40, Hickory, Catawba County, Federal-Aid
Project NHF-1216(5), State Project 8.1792301, TIP Project
U-2414
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting of
the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for September 14, 1993 at 10:00 A.M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date (Please
reference page 4 of the scoping sheets).
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If
there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call
Jay McInnis, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
JAM/plr j 1
Attachment 1? l? II f 7? ( J
y

9
7
I ?

?
?
.?..
4ureNI - i

?
16 ?
?
3 Hickory ??rr
y I over
n
b?`
or -_- Claremo
9 ?N wt0 10 ?
Cauw
a?
1
' 27
ow 3
k R - Start
?L-i-" I_? 12
For I T l
.Sherrilli?
} .. Ford
B A
,
10 - - - - ? t Maiden 16 Terre

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL,
!aL??N? BRANCH
CONOVER
TATE BOULEVARD EXTENSION
FROM SR 1476 TO I - 40
CATAWBA COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT U - 2414
0 miles 1 t /2 FIG.1
HICKORY AND NEWTON QUADRANGLES
PROJECT SLOPING SIIEET
DATE: August 13, 1993
REVISION DATE:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING:
PLANNING: X
DESIGN:
TIP _-: U-2414
PROJECT »: 8.1792301
F.A. PROJECT-: NHF-1216(5)
DIVISION: 12
COUNTY: Catawba
ROUTE: SR 1692/100" FUNCTIONAL CLASS.: Principal Urban Arterial
LENGTH: 2.6 miles
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: Project will complete a continous east-west route
between Hickory and Conover and relieve conlgestion along SR 1476
(Fairgrove Church Road) between the SR 1692 (Tate Boulevard) and
SR 1007 (Hi.ghland Avenue N.E.)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT (INCLUDING SPECIFIC LIMITS) AND 1MAJOR
ELEMENTS OF WORE: Section A of project will be constructed on new location
from the intersection of SR 1692 with SR 1476 to SR 100" (approx.
0.3 mi.). A two-lane roadway on multi-lane right of way is proposed for
this section. Section B extends along SR 100?from approx. 1,300 ft.
east of SR 1479 to I-40 (approx. 1.8 mi.). SR 1007 will be widened to
a five-lane curb and gutter cross-section. A grade separation will be
required for the Carolina and Northwestern Railway crossing.
TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT TO BE PREPARED: Environmental ASSesment
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY SCHEDULE: EA Due: Feb. 94 FONSI Due: July 94
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHER? YES: NO: 1
IF YES, BY WHOM: / I
IF YES, BY WHAT AMOUNT:
HOW AND WHEN WILL THIS BE PAID:
PAGE 1
PROJECT -)COPING SHEET
TYPE OF FACILITY: (esistino) two-way, two-lane roadway
TYPE OF ACCESS CONTROL ( FULL,\PART l AI.\N0NE) : NONE
TYPE OF ROADWAY: (SR 100-) Two-lanes. 22-foot pavement, 3-foot grassed
shoulders
INTERCHANGES: none GRADE SEPARATIONS: one STREAM CROSSINGS: one
TYPICAL SECTION OF ROADWAY: (proposed-new location) two-lane roadway with 24
feet of travelway with 3-foot shoulders (4-foot paved) on one side and curb
and gutter on other side. (proposed-SR 1007) five-lane with curb and gutter.
CURRENT TRAFFIC: 11,900 DESIGN YEAR TRAFFIC: 21,420* ')TRUCKS:
*Preliminary estimate. Design year projections
have been requested for the year 2013.
DESIGN STANDARDS APPLICABLE (AASHTO\3R): AASHTO
DESIGN SPEED (mph): 50
PRELIIINARY RESURFACING DESIGN:
PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN:
CURRENT COST ESTIMATE
CONSTRUCTION COST (including erilgineering
and contingencies) ...................................... 6.350 000
RIGHT OF WAY COST (including rel., util..
and acquisition) ........................................ 2,725,000
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .............................................
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING .......................................... 300,000
TOTAL COST ............................................... 9,375,000
TIP COST ESTIMATE
CONSTRUCTION ..................................................... 6,400,000
RIGHT OF WAY ..................................................... 2,725,000
TOTAL COST ....................................................... 9,125,000
PAGE 2
PROJECT SCOPING SAFET
L i ,S F ANY SPECIAL FEATURES, SUCH AS RAILROAD INVOLVEMENT. WH I(CI1 COULD
AFFECT COST OR SCHEDULE OF PROJEC'T'S: R/R GRADE SEPARATION STRUCTURE
ITEMS REQUIRED: COMMENTS COST
ESTIMATE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS ...............................
PAVEMENT ..................................................... 964.300
SURFACE ................................................
BASE ...................................................
MILLING & RECYCLING ....................................
TURNOUTS ...............................................
SHOULDERS: PAVED .......................................
EARTH .......................................
EARTHWORK .................................................... 1.233,200
SUBSURFACE ITEMS ............................................
SUBGRADE AND STABILIZATION ................................... 205,700
DRAINAGE (List any special items) ............................ 471,200
SUB-DRAINAGE ................................................
STRUCTURES WIDTH x LENGTH
BRIDGE REHABILITATION ...........:
NEW BRIDGE, .20 :219 ,01,400
WIDEN BRIDGE x ...........
REMOVE BRIDGE x ...........
NEW CULVERTS SIZE:6 x 3 LENGTH: 104'FILL HT.: :i' 30,500
CULVERT EXTENSION ......................................
RETAINING WALLS: TYPE: AVE. HT.: SKEW:
NOISE WALLS ............................................
AND OTHER MISC. STRUCTURES .............................
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTED. ....................................... 171,100
CONCRETE SIDEWALK ...........................................
GUARDRAIL ...................................................
FENCING: W.W.. and/or C.L.. ...................
EROSION CONTROL .............................................. 66,600
LANDSCAPE ...................................................
LIGHTING ....................................................
TRAFFIC CONTROL .............................................. 52,000
SIGNING. NEW ...........................................
UPGRADING .....................................
TRAFFIC SIGNALS. NEW ...................................
REVISED ...............................
RR SIGNALS: NEW .........................................
REVISED .....................................
WITH OR WITHOUT ARMS ........................
IF 3R: DRAINAGE SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ......................
ROADSIDE SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ......................
REALIGNMENT FOR SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ...............
PAVEMENT MARKINGS: PAINT: THERMO: Z MARKERS: Y ..... 38,800
DELINEATORS .................................................
OTHER ........................................................ 1,465,900
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal) ...................... 5,500,000
PAGE 3
['RUJ i (',r SC'OP I NG SHE.E",?
COV"i'INGL- NCIES A ND ENGINEERIN(` ........... ........................ S50,000
PE COSTS ......... ....................... .......................
FORCE ACCOUNT .... ....................... .......................
- - -SUBTOTAL 6.350.000
RIGHT OF WAY :
WILL CONT AIN WITHIN EXIST RIGHT OF WAY: YES: NO: 1
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH: 60 feet
NEW RIGHT OF WAY NEEDED WIDTH: 40 EST. COST......: 2,725,000
EASEMENTS TYPE: WIDTH: EST. COST......:
UTILITIES :
RIGHT OF WAY SUBTOTAL . 2,725,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST 9.075,000
INC'L'UDES R/W
PREPARED BY: Jay McInnis DATE: 8-13-93
THE ABOVE SLOPING HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED* BY:
INIT. DATE INIT. DATE
HIGHWAY DESIGN BOARD OF TRANS. MEMBER
ROADWAY DESIGN SECONDARY ROADS OFF. _
STRUCTURES _ MGR., PROGRAM & POLICY
DESIGN SERVICES PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT _
GEOTECHNICAL _ CONSTRUCTION BRANCH
HYDRAULICS ROADSIDE ENVIRONMENTAL _
LOC. &. SURVEYS _ MAINTENANCE BRANCH
PHOTOGRAMMETRY BRIDGE MAINTENANCE
PREL. EST. ENGR. CHIEF ENGINEER-OPER.
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT CHIEF ENGINEER-PRECONS.
RIGHT OF WAY _ DIVISION ENGINEER
R/W UTILITIES STATEWIDE PLANNING
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING BICYCLE COORDINATOR
PROJECT MANAGEMENT FHWA
COUNTY MANAGER DEPT. OF CULT. RES.
CITY/MUNICIPALITY DEPT. OF EH & NR
OTHERS:
SCOPE SHEET FOR LOCAL OFFICIALS WILL BE SENT TO DIVISION ENGINEER FOR
HANDLING.
*IF YOU ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH PR OPOSED PROJECT OR SLOPING, NOTE YOUR
PROPOSED REVISIONS IN COMMENTS OR RE MARKS SECTION AND INITIAL AND DATE AFTER
COMMENTS.
PAGE 4
OV RQG
T
\ot,
>_ y
O ?
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
November 16, 2001
Catawba County
DWQ Project No. 011669
SR 1692 (Tate Blvd.) Widening
F.A. Project STP-1216(7), State Project 8.1792302
TIP Project No. U-2414A
APPROVAL of §401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to incur
130 linear feet of stream impacts to unnamed tributaries of Miller Branch in order to construct the
widening of SR 1692 (Tate Blvd.) from 200 feet east of SR 1468 (Sweetwater Road) to 1400 feet
west of SR 1476 (Fairgrove Church Road) in Catawba County. The project shall be constructed in
accordance with your application dated 22 October 2001 (received 14 November 2001). After
reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality
Certification No. 3289 corresponding to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit
Number 14. In addition, you should acquire any other federal, state or local permits before you
proceed with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-
Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire with the
accompanying §404 permit unless otherwise specified in the Water Quality Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application except as
modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us in writing, and you may be required
to send us a new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this
Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total
wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, or if stream impacts exceed 150
linear feet, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 21-1.0506 (h) (6)
and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached
certification.
Upon completion of the project, the NCDOT shall complete and return the enclosed "Certificate of
Completion" form to notify NCDWQ when all work included in the §401 Certification has been
completed. The responsible party shall complete the attached form and return it to the 401/Wetlands
Unit of the NC Division of Water Quality upon completion of the project.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699.1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), httpJ/h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory
hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing,
send a written petition that conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the
Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This
certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele at 919-733-9646
or Mr. Pete Colwell of the Mooresville Regional Office at 704.663.1699 x228.
Attachment
Pc
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
NCDWQ Mooresville Regional Office
Central Files
File Copy
Sincerely,

STATE
rI.I r COPY
401 JSSUEL)
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAFI. F. EASLFY LYNDO TIPPE'fT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
October 22, 2001
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 01 1669
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue
Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
ATTENTION: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
SUBJECT: PERMIT RENEWAL for the widening of SR 1692 (Tate
Boulevard) to four lanes with a 46 feet wide median from
approximately 200 feet east of SR 1468 (Sweetwater Road) to
approximately 1400 feet west of SR 1476 (Fairgrove Church
Road), a distance of approximately 1.4 miles. Federal Project No.
STP-1216(7); State Project No. 8.1792302; TIP U-2414A.
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) distributed an
Environmental Assessment (EA) and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on
18 December 1998 for the above referenced project proposing to proceed under a
Nationwide Permit 14. On 26 January 1999, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
verified the issue of a Nationwide 14 permit (Action ID Nos. 199930349, 350, 351, 352,
353). This permit will expire on 31 December 2001. The proposed widening is not
scheduled to be let to construction until March 2002. Consequently, the NCDOT would
like to renew permit authorization for this work.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Jurisdictional Wetlands
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". The three-parameter approach is used where r'.
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all be
present for an area to be considered a wetland. Wetlands are not present within the ! ` ?
project area. Therefore, project construction will have no impact on jurisdictional ` - i
wetlands.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Jurisidictional Surface Waters
Section A will impact two jurisdictional surface waters, (see Sites 2 & 3 on the attached
project map) each of which are unnamed tributaries to Miller Branch (see Sites 2 & 3 on
the attached project map). Current proposed impacts are less than those originally
permitted. The decrease in proposed impacts is contributed to a more precise estimate
not a change in design.
Proposed impacts to these two surface waters total 130 feet, which includes 70 feet of fill
in channel at Site 2 and 60 feet of fill in channel at Site 3. There will be no surface water
impacts at Sites 1 or 4. (See Table 1 for a Summary of U-2414A Impacts).
TahlP 1 Qummarv of 11-2414& imnacts
Site
No. Station
(From/To) Structure
Size Wetland
Impacts (ac) Surface Water
Impacts (ft)
1 26+60 48" rcp 0 0
2 31+20 66" rcp 0 To
3 35+40 8'x 8' RCBC 0 60
4 41+30 66" rcp 0 0
TOTALS None 130
Threatened and Endangered Species
There is one Federally-Protected Species for Catawba County, dwarf-flowered heart leaf
(Hexastylis naniflora). A population of dwarf-flowered heartleaf does exist in the project
area. This population is located to the south of Tate Boulevard approximately 0.25 mile
(0.4 km) west of Fairgrove Church Road (in the proximity of Station No. 41 + 20.00).
After consultation with the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), a biological
conclusion of Not Likely to Adversely Affect was rendered provided the following
conditions are implemented:
1. The plant population will be shown on project construction plans with a note that areas
containing the plants are not to be disturbed during construction.
2. Exclusion fencing will be erected around the perimeter of the population to prevent
entry.
3. No trees, saplings, shrubs, etc. will be cut or injured within the limits outlined by the
exclusion fencing.
4. NCDOT construction staff will provide written notification of the date of the
pre-construction conference for the project to the USFWS and to Jay McInnis, the
NCDOT Project Planning Engineer. Following this notification, USFWS and NCDOT
Environmental personnel may perform unannounced onsite inspections during project
construction.
On 9 October 2001, NCDOT biologists Matt Haney and Heather Montague revisited the
known population to verify the mapped boundaries presented on the preliminary plans for
U-2414 A. Subsequently, a plant by plant survey was conducted in all other areas along
the project alignment that contain potential habitat for dwarf-flowered heartleaf. No
additional specimens of the genus Hexastylis were found. Additionally, a review of the
Natural Heritage Program database on 15 October 2001 revealed that there are no
l
additional occurrences of dwarf-flowered heartleaf within the project study area.
Therefore, the biological conclusion that project construction will not likely adversely
affect the dwarf-flowered heartleaf remains valid.
Cultural Resources
There are no historic or archaeological sites within the area of potential effect of this
project. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has concurred that the project
will have no effect upon National Register properties or National Register-eligible
archaeological resources.
SUMMARY
The NCDOT requests that the USACE reauthorize this project under a Section 404
Nationwide Permit 14. By copy of this letter, we are also requesting a reissuance of the
401 Water Quality Certification (DWQ Project # 981272) by the Division of Water
Quality. Enclosed for your information is a copy of the original project permit.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Mrs. Heather Montague at [phone].
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/hwm
cc: w/attachments
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. Tim Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachments
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. D.R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Michael L. Holder, P.E., 12 Division Engineer
Mr. Jay McInnis, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
Mr. Bryon Moore, P.E., Roadside and Environmental Unit
`r ` ' 1 .?/?? ., 1 I„l ? 11 • .i._Y,^• ? ?, v
lob,
114 ? ? '/ I' .!• , ('.' ?• ,• 1„-, ? t
ILI
. r ? l ') %.'/ ?,t? /----? I j / ?I ? _. -?I i l l ? ?'`' 1 ?} - , /?i???• \\ it ' ..v-? OQ •? \ '+ o ?? . ,' .
I
ell
7. ? 'I•r'??? ',\?\)s 'I?1 (??` , +.• ll? r f I' ;;? t??a1' '. ? 1 `I I I { `(?,'-(' L.,?• /
?? .
h IY' i
AI C
I' II ?.'' •? ?'`,` W' 1 .Ir'; ?.?? '1 ,'•?,' :.....-..-.?--
' :?;. ?1 ( ul`r ?.••? •.:? ??.=V to
??"?(? -
V 177
l r' ?i i i s , , _ 1111 1 (? III U' ' +)1?
WK.
tJY
.III%•_'. •1 ^/lr_ . } 1 1 +"(? /?, I 1 I ?,?t?'. ??/ ?r f. ?? J •? iid /I ?? ?^ I 1 ,?; n
ft,
CLI
?ti y..i= - -?-? ?' C~7w ?? i 1, ?•+ '?' .;?ji? ?r...;,? _?? t 1? ?I ;'S o°4 ??' ?_1
?^ I) II ?1'!11J.(IoJ _ '1 y\ J''.1? Ir( _fIy r? .
`? J {,e' -- .' _ ? .i.??r' \?3?1`?O: ?? ,? )?I II `?? Gf??k ,l_ - ?,r,_S?l :?• v l t,;,
?'`` ! .1 (i 11? t _ ; / ll ? ?' ??--?';1 ; ?I •I: (?; , `' .• '?-' 'I? ( ?I ` .?'?'t? w ? , t )II ? ''
LO;
,? -•s f >J. ? '\11 .,\ = 1 ??-> , 14w1 s,(/?:, { } . 11' ? i.'l. ,,?', ??? :? ( o. ?JI (:? i
\999
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
County Catawba
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property owner North Carolina Department of Transportation
Address Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch Attn: William D Gilmore Manager. Post Office
Box 25201, Raleigh. North Carolina 2761-5201
Telephone No. [phone]
Size and Location of project (water body, road name/number, town, etc.) Widening and relocation of Tate Boulevard
(RR 16921 from Sweetwater Road (SR 1468) to Interstate 40 crossing four unnamed tributaries to Miller Branch and
Description of Activity Extend four existing culverts on crossings of unnamed tributaries to Miller Branch ranging
in length from 30 to 80 feet and construct a new 120-foot long culverted crossing of an unnamed tributary to Cline
Creek.
Applicable Law: X_Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344).
(check all that apply) Section 10 (River and Harbor Act of 1899).
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number.
14 Nationwide Permit Number.
Your work is authorized by this Regional General (RGP) or Nationwide Permit (NWP) provided it is
accomplished in strict accordance with the attached conditions and your submitted plans. If your activity
is subject to Section 404 (if Section 404 block above is checked), before beginning work you must also
receive a Section 401 water quality certification from the N.C. Division of Environmental Management,
telephone [phone]. For any activity within the twenty coastal counties, before beginning work you
must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management, telephone [phone].
Please read and carefully comply with the attached conditions of the RGP or NWP. Any violation of the
conditions of the RGP or the NWP referenced above may subject the permittee to a stop work order, a
restoration order, and/or appropriate legal action.
This Department of the Army RGP or NWP verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility
to obtain any other required Federal, State, or local approvals/permits. The permittee may need to contact
appropriate State and local agencies before beginning work.
If there are any questions regarding this authorization or any of the conditions of the General Permit or
Nationwide Permit, please contact the Corps Regulatory Official specified below.
Date 1-26-99
Corps Regulatory Official Steven Lund Telephone No. [phone]
Expiration Date of Verification 12-31-01
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORMS, PROJECT PLANS, ETC.,
MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE YELLOW (FILE) COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR
AVAILABLE.

CESAW Form 591
Revised July 1995
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A 1 ?
?ANW
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
December 31, 1998
Catawba County
DWQ Project # 981272
U-2414AIB
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC, 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those
listed below, to construct the Tate Boulevard Extension in Catawba County, as you
described in your application dated 18 December 1998 (received 22 December 1998).
After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General
Water Quality Certification Number 3103. This certification allows you to use
Nationwide Permit Number 14 when the Corps of Engineers issues it. In addition,
you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your
project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge
and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire when the
accompanying 404 permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General
Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your
application. If you change your project, you must notify us and to send us a new
application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this
Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all
conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one
acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506
(h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in E c' 4"
the attached certification. a f
4999
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
December 31, 1998
Catawba County
DWQ Project # 981272
U-2414A/B
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an
adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this
letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of
the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O.
Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final
and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section
401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney
or Cyndi Bell at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
A. Preston Howard, Jr. P.E.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Mooresville DWQ Regional Office
Central Files
981272