20010812 Ver 1_Complete File_20010531

o~oF W~ATF9oG
r?ll ^1^ Jlr
> (6,jWV\ ~
O 'F
CERTIFIIED MAIL -RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
M. Randall Tumer
NCDOT-PDEA
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Deaz Mr. Tumer:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan Klimek, P.E., Director Division of Water Quality
May 8, 2003
DWQ # 010812
TIP # U-2528AA
Catawba County
On April 9, 2003 the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) was notified by receipt of your letter regarding
your need modification of a certification for U-2528AA in Catawba County. However there were no
Pre-Constmction Application (PCN) forms or supporting maps or drawings included with this package.
Seven copies of the PCN and supporting materials aze required for processing of modifications of
General Certifications, as well as new ones. Also, proof of WRP acceptance of new mitigation is
needed.
Please telephone Cynthia Van Der Wiele or Rob Ridings at 919-733-1786 if you have any questions.
This project modification will remain on hold as incomplete in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H
.0505(c). The processing time for this application will begin when this information, including is
received.
?-I<<~~
t R. Domey
Water Quality C 'fication Program
cc: Mooresville DWQ Regional Office
US Corps of Engineers, Asheville
Central Files
File Copy
Gregory Thorpe
N. C. Division of Water duality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
(Bt R1 73a-170.8 Inhnnol 010-777-0.0.0'i linvl 16M..d0.9.. ve, e.eh. .... , ~.. r,,,......«~..a..
NGOENR
' •;A

,.RA~o,~
~ _ .~
•.~:..•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ATTN. Mr. John Hendrix
NCDOT Coordinator
WETLANDS/401 GROUP
MAY I 4 2003
W~~RQUALITYSECTION
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
WETLANDS/401 GROUP
APR 9 2003
WATERQUALITySECTION
SUBJECT: Modification to Department of the Army Nationwide Permit No. 200030912.
Catawba County, Interstate 40 and SR 1124 interchange, TIP No. U 2528AA,
USACE Action ID No: 200030912.
Deaz Sir:
As you aze awaze, the NCDOT was issued a Notice of Violation on January 21, 2003.
The Department provided a response letter on February 21, 2003. The violation was.the result
of the failure of an on-site stream relocation after the channel suffered extreme erosion damage
from heavy rains. The on-site mitigation is 266.0 feet long. In the February 21, 2003 letter, the
NCDOT proposed to stabilize the channel with rip-rap and to mitigate for the loss of on-site -
stream relocation by utilizing the North Cazolina Wetland Restoration Program. This letter
serves to formally request a modification to Nationwide Permit 14, Actiori ID No. 20030912, in
order to stabilize the channel with rip-rap.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to repair and stabilize the
eroded channel banks and install the appropriate size rip-rap to stabilize the channel. A sediment
dam will be iristalled at the outlet of the channel to prevent the loss of sediment duririg
construction. Areas that aze disturbed during the stabilization of the channel will be seeded and
stabilized to comply with the Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act. The NCDOT realizes
that utilizing rip-rap to stabilize the channel will negate the on-site stream mitigation credit
provided by the previous design. Stabilization with rip-rap will not compromise any additional
permit conditions outside of the requirement for on-site stream mitigation.
The original on-site stream design was intended to carry flow from a spring that
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Apri19, 2003
originated at the top of the channel. However, when the roadway project was actually built, it
MAILING ADDRESS: ~ TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ~ 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1648 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWYU.N000LOft(i. RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27689-1548

~'
was discovered that the grading from the project had changed the hydrology sufficiently enough
that the spring no longer flows in the direction of the channel. What is left is a storm water
channel that only functions during precipitation events. During one such event, the natural
channel design failed and severe erosion occurred.
The NCDOT, in conjunction with the USACE and the NCWRC has determined that
stabilization with rip-rap is the most appropriate option. It should be noted that there was never
a formal interagency field meeting held to discuss the problems occurring on the project.
Representatives ofthe USACE and the NCWRC were consulted at different times during the
effort to figure out the extent of the problem and develop a solution. The NCDOT acknowledges
this mistake and is taking steps to ensure the proper coordination is done on all future projects.
The NCDOT proposes to stabilize the stream utilizing the measures described above.
The NCDOT will construct and maintain the appropriate sedimentation and erosion control
measures. The Department proposes to mitigate for the loss of 2661ineaz feet of on-site stream
mitigation by utilizing the North Cazolina Wetland Restoration Program's in-lieu fee program.
The NCDOT proposes to purchase 532.0 lineaz feet of stream mitigation in hydrologic unit
03050102 to compensate for the 266.0 feet of lost on-site mitigation.
The NCDOT requests that the USACE and the NCDWQ modify the NW Permit 14 and
the 401 Water Quality Certification to authorize the changes described above. The NCDOT is in
the process of changing accounting systems and is currently not able to issue checks to cover.
permitting fees. This has been coordinated with Mr. John Domey. The NCDOT will issue the
payment in the amount if $475.00 as soon as the new system is in place. If you have any
questions or would like additional information, please don't hesitate to contact Mr. Lindsey
Riddick of my staff at [phone].
Sincerely,
~• Li""
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
co: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Domey, Division of Water Quality
Ms. Mazla Chambers, NCWRC
Ms. Trish Simon, DEO-Division 12
Mr. Michael Holder, PE, Division Engineer-Division 12
Mr. David Harris, NCDOT
Mr. Galen Cail, PE, NCDOT
Mr. M..Randall Turner, NCDOT

7~/(-

1217
11~
1204
.. ,
--
~, ~'
-- ~~
SITE 1 ~
<''--- ~~---------Rp~P.
_ -Y ;
TO MORGANTON ~ RAMP
`~ SITE 2 21 67
~ \1238
1124
fit,. Southwest
Elem. Sch.
',\ 2552
-Y- _
TO STATESVILLE
1294
OQ~~B 40
SCALE
125 0 .25 KM
N.C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
r~Te,wRa CnriT+TY .
PROJECT: 8.2791201 (U-2528.~A)
HICKORY-LONGVQIEW-NORTHWEST LOO'.
SHEET I OF v 1/2/01

~ ~~wr..mcv n~ou ~ Hn i
- TO HENRY FORK RIVER j
I CL 'B' RIP RAP QOEi
EST.2 TONS
ES T.6 S.IA. iIL TER iABRIC
J~, T~ YW
/ / i
/ /
/ ' / i
fER FABRIC ~ - Q
Q
~\ O
- - ~,~ _ F
~~ 4.~~FCVS~"" ~-f--________
~ w
~ C _ s _
~.
WESTBOOND LANES ~I~I y ~ 0 + 0~
~~
18+60 19+00
I
~,~ N.C.DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
~~~~ 9
10 0 20
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATERS /S /S
PROJECT: 8.2791201 (U-2528AA>
[CKORY-LONGVIEW-NORTHWEST LOOI
c
SHEET ~ OF v 1/2/01

. . - .,

e
5
0w...m
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 'I~ANSPORTATION
]AM ES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
GOVERNOR p,0. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
October 8, 1993
MEMORANDUM T0: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager {F•~~~°KC/N v~,r
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for Hickory Northwest Loop, 33rd
Street at I-40 to Airport Road at US 321, Catawba County,
U-2528
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 November 3, 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.
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
Joe Foutz, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
JF/Plr ~'~~ l,lL
Attachment
~~ ~~~k~
~S j
v~S % 3
i1 .. Oj~'~
~ 11 ~53~

F'k~~~_~ECT ~•COPING SHEET
Date 10/8/93
kevision Data
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning X
Gesign
TIP # U-2528
Project # 8.2791201
F.A. Project # STP-OOOS(61)
Division TWELVE
County CATAW6A
F.oute HICKORY P~GkTHWEST LOOP
Functional Classification Urban Afinor Arterial and
Length 6.1_km
Purpose of Project: To relieve congestion on the northwest
side__ofi._the city of_Hickorv.
Description of project (including specific limits) and major
elements of work: Multilane existing roadways and_provide
a connector on new location.
Type ofi environmental document to be prepared:
Environmental Assessment ; Finding of Pao Significant Tmpact
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No X
If yes, by whom and amount: (j) or, (~)
How and when will this be paid?

F'R~~~JECT SCQPING SHEET
Features of Proposed Facili±v
Type of Facility: Proposed five lane shoulder section
Type of Access Control: Full Partial PJone X
Type of Roadway:{existin~a): Two lane shoulder section
Interchanges Grade Separations Stream Crossings
Typical Section of Roadway: !proposed) Five lane shoulder
curb and nutter section
Traffic: Current 3.700 vpd Gesign Year 6.700* vpd
% Trucks % GHV
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO X 3R
Design Speed:
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies). $
Right of way Cost (including rel., util
„
and acquisition).
~
Force Account Items. $
Preliminary Engineering. ~:
Total ~~ost. $
TIF Cost Estimate:
Construction $ 1,800,000
F.'iglit of WaS' $ 800 000
Prior Year Cost $ 200,000
Post Year $ 9,600,000
Total Cost $ 12,400,000
* estimate made by project planning engineer

ITEMS REQUIRED ( )
PROJECT SLOPING SHEET
COMMENTS
_ Estimated Costs of Improvements:
Pavement
Surface
- Base.
_ Milling & Recycling .
_ Turnouts. .
Shoulders: Paved. .
_ Earth. .
Earthwork
_ Subsurface Items: .
Subgrade and Stabilization. .
_ Grainage (List any special items) .
_ Sub-Drainage. .
Structures: Width x Length
bridge Rehabilitation x.
_ New bridge x
_ Widen Bridge x
Remove bridge x
New Culverts: Size Length
Fill Ht.
Culvert Extension .
Retaining Walls: Type Ave. Ht. _
. $
. $
. $
. $
. $
. $
. $
. $
. $
. $
. $
$
$
$
$
$
$
COST
Skew
_ Noise Wall s $
Any Other Misc. Structures. $
Concrete Curb & Gutter. $
_ Concrete Sidewalk $

_ Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. $
_ Erosion Control $
Landscape $
- Lighting.. $
Traffic Control $
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 Upgrade $
Pavement Markings: Paint Thermo $
Markers Delineators .

$ Other
.
$
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal): $

.:

PRQJECT SLOPING SHEET
Contingenci2s & Engineering $
PE Costs. $
Force Account $
Ii
Subtotal: $
Right of Way:
Will Contain within Exist Right of Way: Yes No X
Existing Right of Way Width: 60 feet
New Right of Way Needed: Width 120' Est. Cost $
Easements: Type Width Est. Cost $
Utilities: $
Right of Way Subtotal: $
Total Estimated Cost (Includes R/W): $
Prepared 6y: Joe Foutz Date: 10/8193
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
6esign Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Fhotogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities.
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
INIT. DATE INIT. DATE
Board of Tran. Member
Mgr. Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precons
Chief Engineer-Oyer
Secondary Roads Off.
Construction Branch
Roadside Environmental
Maintenance branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
Division Engineer
bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
Dept. of EH & NR
Scope Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division
Engineer for handling. .
Comments or Remarks:
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping,
note your proposed revisions in Comments or Remarks Section and
initial and date after comments.

AA
~J°~ 1
Linril:e
Pallx
x`
I:i aCl
i' ~?
Ij~~
11
Spa CaM Rx /y ~ .1 I
$ ° ,{
"~IgaOtOn ° le w'=e~F.,°, ,..., 9~1~,wNO. ' • I + s ,
E , 1' New er., ~narrl~ ,.
B R ''IB ~"f,~'ek -~~i 1 Sarmwn. tz •.~A ~°, ,.'
Plea3am Gro.< ,r•° T\~~A"1~g B Ct~ .~I
Co. ~ ~~ ~~
!%~
lorue m-.l
$i fo. e,r r(x,x t
10 - 1 G
~ ,G a" N. '~ ~ 1~~
aA NI )Pt J "
I l~<x<IVaa<x< vn<e<a vi<« , 0 Uf !.~%"I~
O
..I t~, 10 a :~ O • i V¢I
t<i I Clsmmo~ Cau«o
~, _ -.x5,^ M~~.,, L I to
- - ; --
C.AT.AWBA-BURKE COUNTIES

END
PROJECT
~, r.a y M cipnl Rir POtl
Ve
t
°°:;
D
®L_
X~I T \/
/ ~ ~ `t
rn I j 7,~~pr o ~ ~~~ ~ ' _~-~ --
1.
Il li ~'~o91iR~~I~II~~Yii?~III nn411111 ^yirll !t~ C~z. ~ .- ~ ~ ..
b / urxnx Aj. S.WJ~ ~ i.lo ~ n...
1 '
~` r{ lnA NV ..
~ ~)
~:
a! n l
lu '
Ar•'-, °a ~' ~ I'
.i>' - ~~. 1 z '_II LONGVfEW '..
PENELOPE /. J~a ~'` $ ~~ .I n m ~. °a .° .. ~,
SSr n '
n r ~ ' I'
h . ~ S~ `~ ~ I `...
i rA3 /, P' Ao o ~
~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ,:.. ,Ir „~ Noa'IH ca12o1.INA o1:P"~Irrnu?N~r or
° i %\ I _ 8 oia ut o0 o,.oa ~..IS _ ,
~6 'I'12ANS1'OH'1'A"PION
of t s ~ot~ ~ M°e°s r t of DIVISION OF HIGH WAI'S
'~' G r~~-"~I~ ~ ~ ~ ^I~~ PI,ANNfNG AVD IsNVIRON611:N'I'AL
BEGIN ', ,u. '`~ "~ "I~ Yo al '~ c.u.a+'~ isi2ANCF1
~~ - PROJECT ~ ~ ° `~°I„
HICKORY NORTHWEST LOOP
"' ` '-' 33 RD STREET AT I - 40 TO
`~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~'i~,~, cf ~ ~' ~ AIRPORT ROAD AT US 321
' ~ ~ ~'~= CATAWBA -BURKE COUNTIES i
I
~ -~~ __ U-2528
i , /~ 7.v ~m - ---------- sm
i a .~~
~ i ~ \ FIG. 1

~o~
LONGVIEbV C~UADRP.NGLE
"' NORTH CAROLINA
7.5 MINUTE SEP.IES (TOPOGRAPHTG)
~ ~~
.~ z<'~
yer~E
E~
~e
~ ~~~.~
>•~~~
S~~
~ q~
l./

~~
~ .....,a.y?
~ ~®~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
M ICtIAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Februar}' 6, 2001
Mr. Ron Ferrell
Wetland Restoration Program
Division of Water Quality
Mail Service Center 1619
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1619
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Catawba County; Town of Long View, proposed interchange for SR 1124 (33rd
Street) at Interstate 40; Federal Aid No. STP-OOOS(61); State Project No.
8.2791201; TIP No. U-2528AA.
Dear Mr. Ferrell:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) respectfully requests that
the North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program (WRP) provide stream mitigation for the
construction of TIP Project U-2528AA in Catawba County. The new interchange behveen SR
2552 and Interstate 40 south of Long View, NC will necessitate 636 linear feet of stream impacts
or 1,272 linear feet of offsite stream mitigation. This project falls on the northeastern perimeter
of Hydrologic Unit (HU) 03050102, 1.4 miles southwest of the WRP HU 03050101 boundary.
According to USACE Representative Steve Lund, the USACE will accept WRP mitigation in an
adjacent HU, if the WRP agrees to accept payment. Table I is a project break down of stream
impacts requiring mitigation.
Upon receipt of the 401 Water Quality Certification from the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ), NCDO"f will transfer funds to WRP for $159,000 for stream mitigation performed to
cover the costs of planning and implementation.,
Tablc 1. Breakdown of U-2528AA Stream Impacts Kequiring Mitigation.
~ tJ YC G
x ~ 1 ~ h<-~~' ~ x~ ~ " ~~r ~ ~ '"~:* ~~ '~ ~ ~DEM ~' Stream Impacts NCDOT,Paymeut~i
Srte, Noy '~ ' $tatlOn No a ,, Stream,Name°t ~~~; ~ regwnng offsrte ~ ~ '~u~w
t t~ ~ ~ a k 5 yt A~s1 s J ,..4"', 4'r iaa^* CIaSS ~i 1r h rq J, ;x p t i y m
1 '~,~ t 6 3 ' t . ~ rl~i ~~,~~ wr ' a & :Sp y~ro ~ ~` ..x L°~ mltlgatlOn (ft)~~'1 z tc*t0 WKP ~4'ti
' 1 ., ~ ,t r Ht1 ~` aT t y •~, it +. s.a Y~ a~ 9~ s^t i xe.. ~1,y'~~.r e ti'K. `a4 4$F aT r .a ~' e':.
l s..C„d rN A4 aa,, ,~. a.....3~.~1 ~~_..-1 aa.'x,~-~8 ~+,: t~. d:~-44:a .. ..-.-z~4.~t31 -r .a ._i Y.».F ~
I -LPB- 1+00 LT to UT Henry Fork River C 344 $86,000
-LPB- 2+30 LT
2 -RPC- 3+20 RT to UT Henry Fork River C 292 $73,000
-RPC- 3+63 RT
TOTAL PAYMENT TO WRP 636 @ 2:1 $159,000
* Mitigation required was calculated at a 2:1 ratio.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHGNE: 919-733-3141 - LOCATION:
ND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOLSTATE.NC. US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 '

r
~~.
In order to satisfy regulatory assurances [fiat mitigation will be performed; the DWQ
requires a formal letter from the WRP indicating their willingness and ability to provide the
mitigation work requested by NCDOT. This letter should be addressed to Mr. John Dorsey of
DWQ, with copies submitted to NCDOT and Mr. Steve Lund of the USACE. If you have any
questions or need additional information, please contact Elizabeth L. Lusk at [phone];
extension 335.
Respectfully,
~~~
.µ William .Gilmore, P.E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: David Franklin, USACE
Steve Lund, USACE
John Dorsey, DWQ
Garland Pardue, USFWS, Raleigh
N. L. Graf, P.E., FHWA
Mary Alice Dickens, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
Michael L. Holder, P.E., Division 12 Engineer
Dan Grissom, P.E., Division 12 Construction Engineer

snn
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1~tANSPORTAT[ON
JAnnes B. HUNT. JR D[VISION OF HIGHWAYS
GoveRNOR p.0. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
January 20, 1995
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
$FCRETARV
MEMORANDUM T0: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor /'
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Man ~ ~~~ ~ / •~
Planning and Environmental ~f'Ra,.~-'-% _ ..
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for I-40, Proposed Interchange
at SR 1124 (33rd Street), Catawba County, Federal Aid
Project No. STP-OOOS(61), State Project No. 8.2791201,
TIP Project No. U-2528AA
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 February 23, 1995 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 note that TIP Project U-2528 was originally scoped (Scoping
meeting was held November 3, 1993) as the Hickory Northwest Loop. The
project has since been reevaluated, and it was decided that the
I-40/SR 1124 interchange was a greater priority. Accordingly, the
interchange has been programmed as U-2528AA, and it is to be rescoped
separately. The need for the Hickory Northwest Loop will be addressed in
the future.
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 Missy Dickens, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
MAD/plr
a3~~35
Attachment ~ ~ ^` ~ ~ T ~ fL~N
Iv , I~ I
~~,~ ~, ~~1 ``~~fir~
~~~ too 4 r Pa }' ~~ ~ ~ Sf
~~~~ ~.~s ~ ~~.~.
"~
~\
,~~
\~ ~~
U
~~~~
ti
F~ ck -~~ t~ ~Zy~_,~~,Z.~
_ C Cass C ~~
`~ 5 Lonc ~I~ Ck
- ~I~s s ~ r~ - ~z9 - t - l ~
s; r~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~

PROJECT SLOPING SHEET
Date 1-18-95
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning X
Design
TIP # U-2528AA
Project # 8.2791201
F.A. Project #
Division 12
STP-OOOS(61)
County Catawba
Route I-40/SR 112
Functional Classification
Length
Interstate / Rural Minor Collector
Purpose of Project: To provide access to I-10 at SR 112<_ (33rd
Street) for the Town of Loncview
Description of project (including specific limits} and major
elements of work: To construct interchanae at the existing
arad2 separation of I-40 and SR 112?
Type of environmental document to be prepared: EA
Environmental study schedule:
EA - End June, i99~
Rfy y~sT _ 3e_in Saptem;,er 1CG: .,nd i'ZCVe:TtAer 199 ~.
'~NGT .. 'i hi3 SC:!e Ci.9~ %O be' i3V1a2d-. ... ..
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, cr other? Yes No X
If yes, by whom and amount: (S)
How and when will this be paid?
Page 2
or (~)

PROJECT SLOPING SHEET
Features of Existing Facility
I-40:
Cross-section: 4-lane, 48-ft pavement, with 84-ft
grassed median
Control of Access: Full Design Speed: 70
SR 1124:
Cross-section: 2-lane, 48-ft pavement (includes 2-4
ft paved shoulders) and 8-10 ft grassed shoulders
Control of Access: None Design Speed: 50-60
Bridge:
Cross-section: 63-ft clear roadway width (48-ft ~
travelway wi`~h 10-ft lateral clearance each side)
Traffic: See Attached Sketch
Design Standards Applicable:
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies). $
Right of Way Cost (including rel., utii.,
and acquisition). ~
Force Account Items. $
Preliminary Engineering. $
Prior Years Cost ~
Total Cost. $
TIP Cost Estimata:
Construction ;~
Right of 'Way ~
Prior Years Cost 3
Total Cost

List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which
could affect cost or schedule of proiect:
Page 3

ITEMS REQUIRED ( )
PROJECT SCOPZNG SHEET
COMMENTS
COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
Pavement
_ Surface $
_ Base. $
Milling & Recycling $
Turnouts (actually resurfacing) $
_ Shoulders: Paved. $
Sarth. $
_
Earthwork $
Subsurface Items: $
_ Subgrade and Stabilization. $
_ Drainage (List any special items)' $
Sub-Drainage. $
Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation x $
New Bridge x $
Widen Bridge x $
Remove Bridge x $
New Culverts: Size Length $
Fill Ht.
_ Culvert Extension $
Retaining Walls: Type Ave. Ht. $
Skew
Noise Walls $
Any Other Misc. Structures. $
Concrete Curb & Gutter. 5
_ Concrete Sidewalk $
_ Guardrail $
_ Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. $
Erosion Control $
Landscape $
Lighting. .. . $
_ T__*affic Control $
Signing: New. $
Upgrading. $
Traffic Signals: New $
_ Revised $
_ RR Signals: New $
Revises S
With or Without Arms. $
Zf 3R: Drainage~Safety Enhancement. $
Roadside Safety Enhancement.. $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade $
Pavement ~Sarkings: Paint Thermo $
Mar'~ers
Delineators $
Other (`?_sc. & mob, c=_ar and grub) $
CONTRACT CCST (Subtotal
Page 4

° PROJECT SLOPING SHEET
Contingencies & Engineering $
PE Costs. $
Force Account $
Subtotal: $
Right of Way:
Will Contain within Exist Right of Way: Yes
Existing Right of Way Width:
New Right of Way Needed: Width Est. Cost $
Easements: Type Width Est. Cost $
Utilities: $ _
Right ,of Way Subtotal: $
Total Estimated Cost (Includes R/W): $
Prepared By:
Date:
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* by:
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
INIT. DATE
No
INiT. DATE
Board of Tran. Member
Mgr. Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precons
Chief Engineer-Oper
Secondary Roads Off.
Construction Branch
Roadside Environmental
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
Dept. of EH & NR
Scope Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division
Engineer for handling.
Comments or Remar'.~s:
*If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping,
note your proposed revisions in Comments or Remarks Section and
initial and date after comments.

Z -4-v
DAR
17LIV
T1ZU c
~~ ADT s
Zoi7 Sz IIZa- ~

,:~
~;
:'
n~
~~~
.~.a
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. )R
GOVERNOR
DIV[SION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
February 27, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
File
Missy Dick
R. SAMUEL HUNT I II
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Scoping Minutes for I-40, Proposed Interchange at
SR 1124 (33rd Street), Longview, Catawba County,
Federal Project No. STP-OOOS(61), State Project
No. 8.2791201, TIP ID No. U-2528AA
A Scoping meeting was held for the subject project on February 23, 1995 at
10:00 a. m. in the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room (434). The
following people attended:
Debbie Bevin
Sue Flowers
Lee McCrory
David Modlin
Darin Wilder
Nidal Albodawi
Frank Cooper
Ray Moore
Betty Yancey
Jerry Snead
Jack Matthews
Julie Hunkins
Missy Dickens
State Historic Preservation Office
- Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Program Development
Program Development
Traffic Control
Traffic Control
Structure Design
Right of Way
Hydraulics
Photogrammetry
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Following is a summary of what was discussed at the meeting.
Project History and Scope Change
I opened the meeting by explaining the project scope change. When the project
was originally scoped in November, 1993, TIP Project U-2528 called for the construction
of the Hickory Northwest Loop, which was to consist of improvements to existing roads

(including 33rd Street), a portion on new location, and a study of a possible interchange at
the existing I-40/SR 1124 grade separation. However, NCDOT was concerned about the
prudence and feasibility of the proposed alignment, and the Town of Longview was
concerned about potential impacts along 33rd Street. The Town also communicated that
access to I-40 at SR 1124 (33rd Street) was a higher priority than the loop. Subsequently,
NCDOT has broken out the interchange portion of the project to scope separately as U-
2528AA. The Northwest Loop portion of the project will be identified as a future need
and will be addressed as such later.
Environmental Document unrl Schedule
The subject project is currently being processed as an Environmental Assessment;
however, a Categorical Exclusion may be sufficient for documentation requirements. The
environmental document will include an Interchange Justification Study. The current
schedule calls for the completion of the EA in June, 1995; however, this schedule will be
revised. Sue Flowers indicated that the CE or FONSI needed to be approved by
December, 1995 in order for Roadway Design to have adequate time (8 months) to
prepare right of way plans in time to meet the July, 1996 right of way date.
Proposed /mprovenrents
Roadway Design has prepared preliminary design for adiamond-type configuration
at the subject location. It appears this design would involve 5 relocations.
It was stated that we should consider the anticipated cross-section of the
Northwest Loop in the design of this project to insure project compatibility. The clear
roadway width on the existing bridge is 68 feet (58-foot travelway with 10-foot lateral
clearance on each side). This width is sufficient to accommodate a 60-foot (5-lane)
travelway with 4-foot lateral clearance each side in the future. This cross-section would
tie in sufficiently to a 5-lane curb and gutter cross-section, which was originally the
anticipated cross-section for the Loop.
For Project U-2528AA, however, the pavement over the bridge will be striped for
four lanes: one through lane and one left turn lane in each direction. This will tie in with
the existing 2-lane approaches at each end of the bridge.
The existing bridge is at a steep vertical grade (the north end is the high end). The
grade will not be changed as a part of this project, but the proposed left turn lanes will
help provide for safe movements given the bridge's grade.
The existing speed limit is 45 mph north of the bridge and 55 mph south of the
bridge. It was agreed that after the project is constructed, the speed limit should be 45
mph through the interchange vicinity. SR 1124 will be 50 mph design speed.

:I'
3
Resource Agency Con:n:ents
Debbie Bevin stated that no archaeological survey is needed. The architectural
report prepared for the Northwest Loop project may be sufficient for this project; I am to
check on this. If not, photographs of structures over 50 years old in the project vicinity
need to be taken.
Representatives from the Division of Environmental Management and the Wildlife
Resources Commission were not at the meeting.
Subsequent Action
Photogrammetry is to provide updated mapping to Roadway Design within
approximately one week: At that time, Roadway will request right of way and
construction estimates.
Julie and I will meet with FHWA to discuss the interchange justification and the
applicability of a Categorical Exclusion.
MAD/plr
cc:
Scoping Participants
John Tippett, Transportation Planner; Western Piedmont Council of Governments

rr~~
ya..d
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPAfZT'MENT' OF TRANSPOEZTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR N.O. 6OX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
January 27, 1994
R. SAMUEL HUNT II I
S[CRETARY
MEMORANDUM T0: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor .~
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch lll~~~
SUBJECT: Hickory Northwest Loop, 33rd Street at I-40 to Airport
Road at US 321, Catawba County, Federal-Aid Project No.
STP-OOOS(61), State Project No. 8.2791201, TIP No. U-2528
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to the highway segment described
above. The project is included in the 1994-2000 North Carolina Trans-
portation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal
year 1996 and construction in fiscal year 1997.
The Transportation Improvement Program calls for widening the existing
two lane section to a multi-lane facility. Two alternate cross sections will
be studied: a four lane undivided facility and a five lane undivided
facility.
This project also includes the study of a proposed interchange at I-40
and SR 1124.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful
in evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable,
please identify any permits or approvals which may be required by your
agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation of a federally funded
Environmental Assessment. This document will be prepared in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency
respond by March 31, 1994 so that your comments can be used in the
preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Joe
Foutz, P. E., Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
HFV/plr
Attachment

\ ova ~~ -' -- _.~ ~~ ~~
~de<~ . ~ _
N .m` a. - - .
Wua " -- ~~
I i .e~yll a /A~. _
Iord~~p,S 1U^'
w,r.. m.,
taEle RadM:¢ s~ Fa,.n ~
2 I° e> ~ )
~~`}r/ K
~\ st^,Y n.\ Mil ~H. XM. \ _.~ ~ ~.. ~~, I~
_..R. E `,,..
B B
~ Plossnl 6.ov< ,h
/, r . eei i I 10
.. :•
B
CATAWBA-BURKE~:~000NTIES
,, h ~~ END
- ~~' 11^ci PROJECT
~~,~,~

. yea,
s„

~ n
!A?4.oa ~r I.I'
PENELOPE~~
~` BEGIN
~~~' I"° PROJECT

.o
LONGVIEW i
I
,~
I
I~

p NORTH CAI20LINA DGPARTMF.NT OR<
TRANSPOI2TA7'ION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND 1?NV II?OIVMCNTAL
9 131?ANCH
HICKORY NORTHWEST LOOP
33 RD STREET AT I - 40 TO
AIRPORT ROAD AT US 321
CATAWBA- BURKE COUNTIES
U - 2528
FIG. 1

' ~.
~.
x'62 25' _ x'63 ~,~

i ~
°s~ VI 1'~I//~~1 BEGIN f
>~~~~~i.~~ PP.OJECT,'~
.vv.1 ~,
9 \ ~~l `r-~ ~ \ o,
E'
LONGVIEW QUADRANGLE ,~~~ `~
NORTH CAROLINA „~~~`'
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) 0E
1290000 FE T .'65 "~__ ~ 81~ 2.2'30"
1tt,.,~ END ~ 35°as
~~~1. I,, PROJECT . ~~~~ >:\ ~;~,I '956
h
v
l
3955
~30 000
FEET
39~
O
~~
Ew
rn~
pj
W..
>W
Oti
2Q
O ~-
UN
3953
3952
42'30"
~~~~~ ~r'~J~\~:\\\~~ ~~I ~.. ~ ~,:: 3951
III ~~p ~y f rUt~~ ~~~ ~ ~^ ~;:
q, ~- ~
;~ 1.. \ 9 ~~ o0
' I I C~! _~' ~~
~.

'' State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 9 ®~ ,.
Division of Environmental Management ~~"~~„'
Isar
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary ~ ~ ~--~
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
March 2, 1994
MEMORANDIIM
T0: Melba McGee, Office of Policy Development
FROM: Monica Swihar~~Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #94-0555; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Hickory Northwest Loop, TIP No. U-2528
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The
stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated, it
is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks be
revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1.) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted:
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative AcTion Employer 50%recycled/ 1096 post-consumer paper

..
Melba McGee
March 2, 1994
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands. to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same watershed
is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
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.
10528er.mem
cc: ric Galamb

tL ~.. :,
~3
~~ ~ Ui~ S
~~
STAFG OF NORTI-i CAROLWA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
]AM ES B. HUNT. JR DIVIS1pN OF HIGI-IWAYS
GOVERNOR P.p. gpX 2520E RALEIG hI. N.C. 27611-5201
November 8, 1993
MEMORANDUM T0: File
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SECRETARY
FROM: Joe Foutz
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Scoping meeting for Hickory Northwest Loop, 33rd St. at
I-40 to Airport Rd. at, US 321, Catawba-Burke Counties,
Federal Aid No. STP-OOOS(61), State Project No.
8.2791201, TIP No. U-2528.
A Scoping meeting was held on November 3, 1993 in the Planning and
Environmental conference room for the subject project. The following were in
attendance:
Robin Stancil
Danny Rogers
Bruce Klappenbach
Paul Kelly
Doumit Ishak
Don Wilson
Jack Matthews
John Maddox
Bill Bunting
Steve Arrington
Joe Foutz.
State,Historic Preservation Office
Program Development
Structure Design
Structure Design
Traffic Engineering
Location and Surveys
Photogrammetry
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
The 1994-2000 Transportation Improvement. Program calls for multilane
improvements and a connector on new location. The present schedule for the
project is as follows:
Complete EA 10/94
Complete FONSI 4/95
Begin R-O-W acquisition FY/96
Begin Construction FY/97
It was noted by Roadway Design and Program Development that this project
is to include a new interchange at SR 1124 and I-40. The proposed
interchange is not included in the project description in the current T.I.P.;.
however, funds have been allocated for its construction.

November 8, 1993
Page 2
Traffic volumes for the project are not available at this time. Once _
that information is available, a decision will .be made on the proposed
roadway cross section.
Potent ial problems may be encountered in the area of 1st Ave. because of
railroad .tracks running perpendicular to the project. This railroad track is
a vital link to the Asheville area and carries 8 to 10 trains per day.
Because of the importance of this track, it may be necessary to provide a
grade separated crossing. This type of crossing could cause substantial
right-of-way damage and be cost prohibitive. Cost estimates will be done for
providing a grade separated crossing and an at-grade crossing.
Two structures were identified along the studied route; Bridge Nos. 30
and 32. Bridge No. 30 has a sufficiency rating of 38.5 and is recommended to
be replaced. Bridge No. 32 should be retained since it has a sufficiency
rating of 98.0 and is wide enough to handle a five lane section.
Robin Stancil stated an architectural survey needs to be conducted for
the project, however, there is no need for an archaeological survey.
Roadway design will develop cost estimates for the following:
1) A proposed interchange at SR 1124 and I-40.
2) Widen existing route to a three, four, or five lane section
depending on traffic estimates when they become available.
Planning and Environmental will continue with planning studies.
Environmental input will be requested.
JF/plr

1
END
PROJECT
~.~ ~.
_.~_
n, ~a,~
/~~ ~sf 1-I~ LONGVIEW' i'
ss ii^
/ A
~ ~ 9i °
PENELOPE / O 2 ~`~ ~ ~ \ ~ e `
~ry~ry~I 5,~ Q> V O ' -
a
~ ° ~~`_' c' ~=I - „ ~ o, NORTH CAROLINA DI;1 ARTMGNT OF
~~ - ~~ "I -~ I ~ ?~e 8 ° ° a ~~oe ~ ~ _¢9~ TRANSPOR'I'AT ION
a `~o) °~' 3_•oa~ oe p6 t o 1j DIVISION OF'HICHWAYS
'~ ~ ~e. ~~ i ~ : I J ~ - ~ `~ PLANNING AND I?NViRONMGNTAL
~ _ BEGIN ai , . a~ ~ ' ` ° o .i '„ 0~„N`d P,RANCH
PROJECT ~ ~~° HICKORY NORTHWEST LOOP
a,
,° ~ ~ 33 RD STREET AT I - 40 TO.
-, .. a
- ~ ~~' / a. ~ ~°. 5i ~ -~ ~ .AIRPORT ROAD AT US 321
° ~'~= CATAWBA-BURKE COUNTIES
/~ ~---------- ----- U - 2528
i ~ o sw
no v .°~
i FIG. 1'
CATAWBA-BURKE COUNTIES

[Fwd: U-2528]
Subject: [Fwd: U-2528]
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 16:19:44 -0400
From: Cynthia Van Der Wiele <[e-mail]>
To: John Hendrix <[e-mail]>
John, In addition to the issues below, there's a bit of a "clerical"
error. The original permit request was processed as a NW 23 (WQC No.
3107) because it was a Cat. Exclusion. Due to the impacts, written
concurrence was required by DWQ because mitigation was required. When
DOT requested a Mod. to this on July 26, 2002, they incorrectly referred
to a MOD of NW 14...NOw, they are requesting anew Mod (the April 9,
2003 letter). Should we revert back to the NW 23 (with mitigation)?
Thanks. Cynthia
Subject: Re: U-2528
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 16:15:17 -0400
From: Cynthia Van Der Wiele <cynthia.vanderwiele@ncmaiLnet> ~
To: "T. Lindsey Riddick" <[e-mail]>
CC: Randy Tumer <[e-mail]>
Lindsey,
1. WQC's other than Individual WQC's use the PCN form as SOP. Your modification letter was
inadequate because it didn't address the project history and previous impacts, mitigation, etc. It only
addressed your current situation.
2. The Modification request dated April 9, 2003 stated that NCDOT would seek 5321inear feet of
mitigation thru WRP. The 266' of on-site "stream" work was done at NCDOT's request (first permit
application dated May 11, 2001). There were 902 linear feet of impacts; Shepherd's Tree was being used
for 636 linear feet of those impacts (at a 2:1 ratio) and the 266-foot deal was the remaining part of the
stream mitigation. So, yes, when you lose that on-site channel (regardless of the fact that it never
functioned-- it shouldn't have been proposed in the first place), it will have to be made up somewhere,
because that stream work was being used as mitigation. Yes, I did my homework and reviewed the entire
file on this project.
3. Todd St. John is reviewing the proposed riser scheme. If NCDOT is going to do something other than
what the April 9, 2003 Modification request letter stated, then this plan should be written down and
submitted (7 copies, etc.).
Contact me if you have any questions.
Cynthia
"T. Lindsey Riddick" wrote:
Cynthia,
I just received the fax of a letter from you (John Dorney)
regarding our April 9, 2003 letter requesting a permit
modification. I believe this is just a copy of the Certified
letter you sent to Randy Tumer. Randy Turner passed the letter
1 of 3 5!29/03 4:38 PM

[Fwd: U-2528]
on to me. The letter states that the application doesn't include
a PCN, or supporting maps and documents. It also states that we
need to provide proof of WRP acceptance of new mitigation. I'm a
little puzzled by the letter because I believed we had worked
most, if not all, of that out at our field meeting.
Of the identified deficiencies, the only one I can understand is
the PCN form. I will provide you with a PCN form in the very
near future.
When we met on site we discussed a new plan to eliminate the
rip-rap and create a backwater retention area. We asked our
Hydraulics Unit about the potential to install a riser system to
back up water. Hydraulics is very concerned about the potential
to cause flooding on I-40. The concern is that if for any
reason the area between the riser and the pipe under I-40 were to
become blocked, the water would back up until it finally spilled
over Interstate 40. Therefore, the NCDOT would like to propose
to stabilize the channel with tip-rap and to install several
large rock check-dams along the channel instead of a riser
system. The rip-rap will control the erosion and the check dams
will accomplish the goal of backing up water during rain events
and will not pose the threat of putting excess water on an
interstate highway. Please let me know what you think of this
idea.
We also agreed at the meeting that no mitigation would be
required. Both you and Todd St. John, as well as everyone in
attendance, agreed that the channel was at best an intermittent
channel and would not require mitigation. Todd asked about
installing a riser to back up water and we agreed to pursue that
option. As I mentioned, we are pursuing an option to produce the
backwater area you and Todd requested. Therefore, we do not
intend to pursue mitigation any further with the WRP. Anew
letter with the design for the mechanism for backing up water
(and a new PCN) will be sent to you as soon as possible. I would
prefer that you and Todd give us your blessing on an idea before
we have the hydraulics folks create a design and permit drawings
for something that will not be approved. Please let me know what
you think of the rock check-dam idea.
LR
Cynthia Van Der Wiele, doctoral candidate <[e-mail]>
Environmental Specialist ~,
NCDWQ 401 Wetlands Certification Uni[ ',
2 of 3 5/29/03 4:38 PM

.~-:.
.~
~~
.~..~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
DEPARTMENT OR TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR -
Apn19, 2003
ATTN. Mr. John Hendrix
NCDOT Coordinator
WETLANDS/4p1GA0UP
MAY 1 4 2003
WAtERQUALITYSECTION
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
WEIIANDS/401 GROUP
APR 9 2003
wATERQUALITrSECTION
SUBJECT:. Modification to Department of the Army Nationwide Permit No. 200030912.
Catawba County,'Interstate 40 and SR 1124 interchange, TIP No. U 2528AA,
USACE Action ID No: 200030912.
Dear Sir:
As you are awaze, the NCDOT was issued a Notice of Violation on January 21, 2003.
The Department provided a response letter on Febniary 21, 2003. The violation was the result
of the failure of an on-site stream relocation after the channel suffered extreme erosion damage
from heavy rains. The on-site mitigation is 266.0 feet long. In the February 21, 2003 letter, the
NCDOT.proposed to stabilize the channel with rip-rap and to mitigate for the toss ofon-site -
stream relocation by utilizing the North Cazolina Wetland Restoration Program. This letter
serves to formally request a modification to Nationwide Permit 14, Action ID No. 20030912, in
order to stabilize the channel with rip-rap.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to t'epair and stabilize the
eroded channel banks and install the appropriate size rip-rap to stabilize the channel. A sediment
dam will be installed at the outlet of the channel to prevent the loss of sediment during
construction. Areas that aze disturbed during the stabilization of the channel will be seeded and
stabilized to comply with the Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act. The NCDOT realizes
that utilizing rip-rap toatabilize the channel will negate-the on-site stream mitigaflon credit
provided by the previous design. Stabilization with rip-rap will not compromise any additional
permit conditions outside of the requirement for on-site stream mitigation.
The original on-site stream design was, intended to carry flow from a spring that
originated at the top of the channel. However, when the roadway project was actually built, it
MAILING ADDRESS: - TELEPHONE: [phone] ~ LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OFTMNSPORTATION - FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH NhLMINGTON STREET
1546 MAIL SERVICE CENTER ~ ~ WEBSITE: WWIN NCOOLORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27 6 99-1 54 6

was discovered that the grading from the project had changed the hydrology sufficiently enough
that the spring no longer flows in the direction of the channel. What is left is a storm water
channel that only functions during precipitation events. During one such event, the natural
channel design failed and severe erosion occurred.
The NCDOT, in conjunction with the USACE and the NCWRC has determined that
stabilization with rip-rap is the most appropriate option. It should be noted that there was never
a formal interagency field meeting held to discuss the problems occurring on the project.
Representatives ofthe USACE and the NCWRC were consulted at different times during the
effort to figure out the extent of the problem and develop a solution. The NCDOT acknowledges
this mistake and is taking steps to ensure the proper coordination is done on all future projects.
The NCDOT proposes to stabilize the stream utilizing the measures described above.
The NCDOT will construct and maintain the appropriate sedimentation and erosion control
measures. The Department proposes to mitigate for the loss of 266 lineaz feet of on-site stream
mitigation by utilizing the North Cazolina Wetland Restoration Program's in-lieu fee program.
The NCDOT proposes to purchase 532.0 lineaz feet of stream mitigation in hydrologic unit
03050102 to compensate for the 266.0 feet of lost on-site mitigation.
The NCDOT requests that the USACE and the NCDWQ modify the NW Permit 14 and
the 401 Water Quality Certification to authorize the changes described above. The NCDOT is in
the process of changing accounting systems and is currently not able to issue checks to cover.
permitting fees. This has been coordinated with Mr. John Domey. The NCDOT will issue the
payment in the amount if $475.00 as soon as the new system is in place. If you have any
questions or would like additional information, please don't hesitate to contact Mr. Lindsey
Riddick of my staff at [phone].
Sincerely,
~• (~_
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Ms. Trish Simon, DEO-Division 12
Mr. Michael Holder, PE, Division Engineer-Division 12
Mr. David Harris, NCDOT
Mr. Galen Cail, PE, NCDOT
Mr. M. Randall Turner, NCDOT

~.
..
1217
1196
1204
1205 .'
.~~
,-
~, ~-
-~ ~
SITE 1-~
_-~ ~~_ ~ $
=-----~--------- Rp~P.
-Y ;
TO M~ ORGANTON `~ RAMP C
` ~ SITE 2 1~
\1238
1124
~ ~, Southwest
Elem. Sch.
',\ 2552
40
B -Y- _
TO STATESVILLE
1294
SCALE
125, ~ .2.5 KM
N.C.DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
~n~ra„wRe C^,Ir;TY
PROJECT: 8.2791201 (U-2528AA)
HICKORY-LONGVRIEW-NORTHWEST LOO
SHEET I OF Q 1/2/0)

~:v~nmc~ : nio~ i nn ~ -
~: TO HENRY FORK RIVER j ''~ _--------- c-
'~ ~ ~ CL.'B' RIP RAP pOF1 ~ ~
EST.2 TONS i
EST. 6 S.M. iIL TER iABRIC ~O C /
~~ Q
FABRIC ~- Q
Q
l\ O
~O
1
4
Qo
I Q
o Op
[3 T s-i corac H.~~ "'.Ll,-., j`am' ~ 6~., Q
OFMPIPE 12m--{ ~O ~~ ~ ~ ~ .. 400..CSP ~ ~ ~'
. ~ '/F~~'~, I~g ~ -~ CB ~ w/ 2 ELBQWS
--~_-___~ .. 3 CI-A .. 400 ~F ~LL11-
-- ~ ~. .. ..1 „2.61:99 j~a___f ___.__. f _
~~ w
- - 1 -
I-no -~ 0 + 00
WESTBOUND LANES- ~~ y '
18+60 19+00
~, N.C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION

~. .. .. . ...r .. .: it ti YJ

OFFICES OF _ ._ _ _ _ _ . .
NORTH CAROLINA ABPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FACSIMILE
To: Gin ~,; ~. ll., Del. ~/~ eCt From: L,odsty /Z `d~r~l4
t~-
D 3a
~ Z
~ ~
~ O
N ~
O
(a?
t~
C
-v
Fax #: 7 3 3 ~ 4 B' q 3 Main ~:: Rice Phone#:[phone]
Phone #• Date• ,
Pages• (Including Cover Sheet)
Subiect• CC:
^ Urgent ^ For Review ^ Please Cammen[ i Please Reply ^ Please Recycle
Comments
~uP1~id+nJ c1e~p~ ~•,~~ '
NC Dept of Transportation-
Office of Human Environment
1583 Mail Service Center
2728 Capital boulevard
Raleigh, NC 27699-1583
NC Dept of Transportation-
Office of Natural Environment
1598 Mail Service Center
2728 Capital Boulevard
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Fax Number: 919-715-1522/15D1
LL'd t©S1 S1G 616 3H0-3N0 lOQ SN ^O~bL ~00Z-SS-adtl

r
Z0'd ~tl101
,.
,~
r
~.
ti
tzt~
--- ~. ;,~
.~
.-' SITE 1~-.
To >a"" oacAN7oN `•. RA P ~
`.~ SITE 2-r'~x,--,:
~.._..,
~.
1266 •.
8<8_ 66s- G~~~
NF. DgpT.OF -I'gAN6FppTA'CTON
DIVISION OP IIIaHWAY9
pATAIYBA COt7NTY
SCALE
-xs~~~~s icn~

` ~, Southwest
~ ~ ~ Elem. Sch.
18'

70 STATg$V~LLE
1294

ZB'd LEST STG 6T6
Op~
11lIW
3HD-AND 1DQ DN F0:7T ~BaZ-SL-bdtl

U-2528AA
i
Subject: U-2528AA
Date: Tue, O1 Apr 2003 14:06:09 -0500
From: "T. Lindsey Riddick" <[e-mail]>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: [e-mail], Cynthia Van Der Wiele <[e-mail]>
John,

This is the project in Catawba County that we spoke about i \ ~;,^~/
recently. There is approximately 266 linear feet of on-site ~ ~' \l//`Jt (J'~ "v
stream mitigation=natural channel design that has failed. The
channel is a UT to Henry Fork Creek and is in the HUcode8 ~1 /J
03050102 of the Catawba River Basin. The erosion problem is ~C11 `„ ~~5~
severe. Engineers from the NCDOT and personnel from the USACE (((///_~ `-C\U
and the WRC have viewed the site at various times. Joe Mickey
viewed the site after the failure was discovered. The NCDOT 1
Division Environemental Offices requested that Mr. Mickey provide
his opinion on the possibility of re-establishing the natural [
channel design. It is the combined opinion of the NCDOT and the /~
USACE and the WRC that additional natural channel design work is
not practical at this location. The recommendation is to
stabilize immediately with rip-rap. The stabilization is crucial
as erosion remains a serious problem. It is the intent of the d
NCDOT to request a modification to allow the stabilization and to JC
propose mitigation through the WRP in-lieu fee program. John J
Hendrix with the USACE has declined the opportunity to meet on ~ ~ V
site. However, I will be glad to meet with you at the site to ll _
discuss the proposal. The NCDOT is interested in expediting this / ~' IM
process as much as possible. Your help with this project is l /,~/~~(.~/ DSO
greatly appreciated. "/~~ / I D_
1 V" J `~ f/
,,S/J1/ ~ ~" ~ tv~ ~,vr~f
~ ,~
~~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~~
~ ~~ ~- ~ ~ ~
~~ c ~ ~ ~
~ ~~
~~~
~~ ~
5,~~
J©
I of I 4/1/03 439 PM

U-2528AA catawba county
Subject: U-2528AA catawba county
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 13:45:59 -0400
From: Elizabeth Lee Lusk <[e-mail]>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: Agency DWQ -Cynthia Van der Wiele <[e-mail]>
Cynthia,
Thanks for sending the 401 mod. so quickly for this project.
I've only just now been in the office long enough to review it.
I only have one question regarding mitigation specified in Item
1. Impacts of 947', 45' are recent, 266' onsite mitigation, 636'
offsite mitigation. From reading Mike Parker's email and
speaking with him, I was under the impression that the additional
45' of low quality seep being impacted would not require
mitigation. Mike indicated that the channel was "at best a
seep...with little base flow and no evidence of aquatic
activity." The original 902' of impacts are being mitigated
onsite and at Shepherd's Tree. John Hendrix also waived the
mitigation requirement in his 404 modification.
Please advise.
Thanks,
Elizabeth
Elizabeth Lee Lusk <[e-mail]>
Environmental Biologist II
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
I of I ~ 10/14/02 2:14 PM

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
October 14, 2002
Catawba County
DWQ Project No. 010812
Interchange for SR 1124 (33`' Street) at I-40
TIP Project No. U-2528AA
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions: MODIFICATION
Mr. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Manager
Office of the Natura] Environment
NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Bruton:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed -below, to incur an
additional impact of 45 linear feet to an unnamed tributary to Henry Fork River, in addition to the
previous impacts of 0.2 acres of fill in surface waters and 902 linear feet of fill in jurisdictional streams in
order to construct the above-referenced project in Catawba County. The project should be constructed in
accordance with your new application dated July 26, 2002 (received September 30, 2002). After
reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality
Certification No. 3375 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 1501inear
feet, 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 the attached certification and any
additional conditions listed below.
1. The modification to the permit application proposes 902 linear feet of impacts to
jurisdictional streams. 266 linear feet of relocated stream; using natural stream design, will
be considered as acceptable onsite mitigation. The relocated streams shall be constructed
according to [he information presented in your application. Based on the aforementioned
information, the remaining 636 linear feet will be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio. We have agreed
to allow the use of the Shephard's Tree Mitigation Site in Iredell County. This will satisfy
the DWQ's compensatory mitigation requirements under 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h). For
accounting purposes, this Certification authorizes the impact of 947 linear feet of stream in
the Catawba River Basin in Cataloging Unit 030835, of which 45 linear feet are
determined to be non jurisdictional (not requiring mitigation).
WATF9
~~\0
~~i J r
LwwA y
.~ ~
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), http://h2o.enr.state:nc.us/ncwetlands/

2. Stormwater should be diverted through grass-lined ditches or vegetated buffers prior to entering
streams. Mowing of existing vegetated buffers is strongly discouraged, so that they may be utilized
for storm water sheet flow.
3. Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of
the growing season following completion of construction.
4. NCDOT must submit a plan for written DWQ approval to address any headcutting that will occur as a
result of this project.
5. Use of rip-rap for bank stabilization is to be minimized; rather, native vegetation is to be planted
when practical. If rip-rap is necessary, it must be limited to the stream bank below [he high water
mark, and vegetation must be used for stabilization above high water. Rip rap shall not be placed in
the stream bottom.
6. 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.
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 919.733.5715 or Mr.
Mike Parker of the Mooresville Regional Office at 704.663.1699.
Sincerely,
Attachment
. K imek, P.E.
Pc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
John Hendrix, USACE Asheville Field Office
NCDWQ Mooresville Regional Office
Central Files
File Copy

>_
O
wArE„
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
October 1, 2002
Catawba County
DWQ Project No. 010812
Interchange for SR 1124 (33'~ Street) at I-40
TIP Project No. U-2528AA
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions: MODIFICATION
Mr. Charles Bmton, Ph.D., Manager
Office of the Natural Environment
NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Bruton:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to incur an
additional impact of 45 linear feet to an unnamed tributary to Henry Fork River, in addition to [he
previous impacts of 0.2 acres of fill in surface waters and 902 linear feet of fill in jurisdictional streams in
order to construct the above-referenced project in Catawba County. The project should be constructed in
accordance with your new application dated July 26, 2002 (received September 30, 2002). After
reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality
Certification No. 3375 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 [he purpoee 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 1501inear
feet, 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 [he attached certification and any
additional conditions listed below.
1. The modification to the permit application proposes 947 lineaz feet of impacts to perennial
streams. 266 linear feet of relocated stream, using natural stream design, will be
considered as acceptable onsite mitigation. The relocated streams shall be constructed
according to [he information presented in your application. Based on the aforementioned
information, the remaining 681 linear feet will be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio. We have agreed
to allow the use of the Shephard's Tree Mitigation Site in Iredell County. This will satisfy
the DWQ's compensatory mitigation requirements under 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h). For
accounting purposes, this Certification authorizes the impact of 947 linear feet of stream in
the Catawba River Basin in Cataloging Unit 030835.
North Carolina Division of Water DualiTy, 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), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/

2. Stormwater should be diverted through grass lined ditches or vegetated buffers prior to entering
streams. Mowing of existing vegetated buffers is strongly discouraged, so that they may be utilized
for storm water sheet flow.
3. Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of
the growing season following completion of construction.
4. NCDOT must submit a plan for written DWQ approval to address any headcutting that will occur as a
result of this project.
5. Use of rip-rap for bank stabilization is [o be minimized; rather, native vegetation is to be planted
when practical. If rip-rap is necessary, it must be limited to the stream bank below the high water
mark, and vegetation must be used for stabilization above high water. Rip rap shall not be placed in
the stream bottom.
6. 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.
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 [hat 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 aze 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 919.733.5715 or Mr.
'Mike Parker of the Mooresville Regional Office at 704.663.1699.
Sincerely,
~~;~-'~
. Klimek, P.E.
Attachment
Pc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers v
John Hendrix, USACE Asheville Field Office
NCDWQ Mooresville Regional Office
Central Files-~
File Copy

i.
#~~
~~.~
STAl E OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
COVER.\OR
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
~fil`. ~I,' ~~~~~
Attention: Mr. John Hendrix
NCDOT Project Coordinator
LYNDO TIPP
SECRETARY
~~~ ~ ~~~
Subject:.. Permit Modification Request for TIP No. U-2528AA, Catawba Coun[y,
Town of Long View, interchange for SR 1124 (33rd Street) at Interstate 40;
Federal Aid No. STP-OOOS(61); State Project No. 8.2791201; USACE
Action ID 200030912 and DWQ Project No.~9ffi~'
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to modify
the construction plans for the abovementioned project. The purpose of this letter is to
request a modification to the Department of the Armes ionw,d 14 permit, as well as
to the 401 Water Quality Certification from the NC Division of Water Quality. The
revised sheets of the original permit drawings are attached.
During construction of the interchange it has become evident that the amount of
excavated spoil material is much greater than originally calculated. Under the existing
plans, the waste area is located in the northwestern quadrant of the project, on the eastern
side of an unnamed tributary to Hemy Fork River (see revised sheet 3 of 5). However,
due to the size and slope of the proposed spoil pile this unnamed tributary would be
threatened by erosion.
According to the existing plans, the seep and 4~ feet of the tributary downstream
of the seep would not be impacted. However, in order to avoid potential siltation of this
stream, and also of the relocated channel within thl: project limits, the contractor,
Tennoca Construction Company, has requested permission to alter the existing plans.
Thev propose to construct a Median Drop Inlet, install a French Drain or spring bos over
the seep, and culvert 4~ additional feet of the tributary with 6-inch CSP (see revised sheet
4 of ~). This would serve to protect the sh•eam from this and futw~e construction activities.
Further details are depicted in the plans from Tennocn attached to this request. Currently,
~ -D
cm's -~<
m ~
m z
o -i
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT DF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGN NC 27699-1546
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.00T.STATE.NC. US
LocnnoN:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTN WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

:~
"stream impacts total 902 feet. With this design change, stream impacts would total 947
feet (see summary, sheet 5 of 5).
Representatives from the USACE (John Hendrix) and the NCDWQ (Mike Parker)
have reviewed the proposal on site and concur with NCDOT's proposal of enclosing the
seep and channel. The NCDOT respectfully requests that the referenced 404 permit and
401 Certificate be modified to reflect the revisions outlined in this letter and requests that
the changes be made as soon as possible. We are enclosing a check for $200 to process
do rn~
andtissuesihe permrt;modification. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this
matfe~,'pl"ease contact Elizabeth L. Lusk at [phone], Extension 335.
• ~ Sincerely,
V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Manager
Office of the Natural Environmental
VDB/ell ~~~
Attachments:
Revised sheets of original permit drawings
Tennoca Construction Co. proposed plans

Cc: Mc David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mc John Domey, NCDWQ
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Ms. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Ms. Trish Simon, Division 12 DEO
Mr. M.L. Holder, P.E., Division 12 Engineer
Mr. Brad Goodson• Tennoca Construction Co.
File: U-2528AA

`r
7NP%-14-3L~62 694? NCD6T
519 25a 4166 P.62i6?
`,,
1217
1196
1204
,.\
~ ' SztE 1B
:'
`-~'~_~
'~ SITE 1R-. ~
TO M~ ORCANTON -`~ RAMP C
`.~ SITE 2 6 ,
1266!
238
1124
•„ SOUth'w9ST
Elem. Scf1.
2552
40
1294 70 STATESVILLE
szs- ~~s- ~~~s
SCALE
.125, 0 .2.5 KM
N.C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OP HI()HwAY9
CATAWBA COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.9%91401 <U-tblBAA)
ORY-LONOVI$W-NORTHWEST LOOP
;ET! OF~ 1/7/01

.i~~N-14-~c~c~+ 0~: a9 NcDOr
---~WLB ---"'WETI.A ND BOUNDARY
TN~S `
~ ~ ~.• WETLAND
GN~~._..WLS--`
LLl1LGLlJ DENOTES FILL (N
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL iN
SURFACE WATER
~,~T/JJ.Za DENOTES FILL IN
~'7~//'~/,I SURFACE WATER
(POND)
®OENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
DENU~iES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
DENOTES MECHRNIIED
CLEARING
-E- FLOW DIRECTION
T"" B•--_- TCP OF BANK
-„_ NE._.._ EDGE OF WATER
-- ~,- PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
-- F-- PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
~~- PROP, RIGHT OF NAY
---•NG---- NATURAL GROUND
---P'I-- PROPERTY LINE
- TDE -- TEMP, DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-~ EAB -- ExIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-~EPB --.- EXIS T. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
-~~-~~--~~-•~- WATER SURFACE
XXXxx LIVE STAKES
- - BOULDER
- - - CORE FIBER ROLLS
{ ~ ) ACJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
\,,:,f OR PARCEL NUMBER
L_EG-END
`Jl`J 2Jb 41N0 N.tll/FJ`J
PRUPOSEU BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED FIPE CULVERT
(DASHED LINES DENU7E
EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
SINGLE TREE
.`"`-;!'t-`""r'L,"'-L WOCOS LINE
® DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
ODD YORTEX ROCK WEIR
RIP RAP
RIP RAP ENERGY
01SSIPATOR BASIN
YANE
N.C. D&PT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVI5IQN OP HIOHWAY9
CATAWBA COUNTY
PROJBCT~ l3791SU1 (V-16t8AA)
CRY^I.ONOVIBW-NORTHWR9T LOOF
:T 2- OP ~ 9/B/9~

r ~ JViV-14-Gt~ll.L vJ'J• i7 PJIW I ,
.I
~i~ coei vi~JO r.ewin7
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY 1 RIB P1~P _
i6 NENRY FORK RNER j Esy .fir. ~~__-- --~ c'
- ~(1 ~El£~ lam'
c,~ ~
t~ /~ ~,,
~~
~ ~
l' /
/ SEE pETA; FSL
~ t~ r~K
~xl
0 1
.~~ ~e ~ ED Lfi7 pp _
sEquEtu, t QO
0 "~'ws 11 ~~~~ o
`~ / 'r 0.N R~AP~~~-_~
CST, 3 5.11ii. 1 / p Q
S ~ EST. K rS.FIJ.i. ~.' `- - Q
1 ry00/ ~ ~ op
SPEC. CUI OITCN ~ / SERE U[T,EUEL~SwEET~ G~
a !
~ O I `s~ r~~li ~ix'IfT r-d .. ~.~r'<'.. p
~ ~ ~~..
/*~ ~ ~ 4
e ' ~~.~~ .. 0 2 0o v
1 R ~ ~ ~ G~
I
•\ ~, ~~1x / ~ Q ~ Q Q(1
\\ Imo" t_i 1 X Pi Q
i~
`~*~~ ~.-• f .1+-~ 0 Y ~ ?f~Y ~ .VGA ~~
/~ ~ r
~~ r'-1 l oo ~~
~G (, •,S)~;, py ~ ~ i.i ^ac yE ~ ~ pOp 5p L
~• QESf 7 SYi.i. ~ ~ AK ~i~/ ~ -.. '~ ~~•O2 EL60k3 p O T OU
\`//J ~~~
- ~ .. '
1~f "" J r
I
IrtsreouNO ~ar~ES rt
-------- ----------
18+60 191±,U0
_~._ ~ N.C.DBPT.OP TRANSPORTATION
7~p - DIVISION OF H[OHWAYS
y-~,~j~ ~I~~ CATAWBA COUNTY
~I~~ g A PROJBCT: 8.S791t41 (U-S6t8AA3
1D 0 20 HICICORY•IANOViBWNORTHWBBT LOOT
DENOTES F;1 IN
_ SURFACE WATERS 5 s 6H88T ~ OA ~ 1/06/01

J U~V-14-'GNt~ %J9~49 NCLOT

~ enp~-n ~5 ~~~
Y 2E.a+l.'
919 25p 4109 ...'~`"'~.:..:..:
P:0809''J
LAT Lam] S...a,:nt,~ R.,.N~s :>T
Tae v~ StoPE
f
i
OPiJV taa(Wa.Z
~(taf 3N VC[
p~
P7d.L.klIa~. - -_ ZtiP O. Sa.~Pt
pL PRiM-\nR• ~ ~ Zy'~ - TJ - -- --
c5P - -
~ TAP Jr Sy)<<

i - 1\
~~Y~i r ~ f
3 c< i
4
i
f uNNAAIEO ~ TRIBUTARY
/ TO HENRY FORK R7VfR.~ ~'
~YrP
0
~~
r .~°22 "77oYRS~~~
CST, i IaIFF.
i
I ~
,,
sFEG. Nl VITCN
47
4
FSYI
uyuttx.
~~oo
1 ®/L.~
ry~~
ED LNI
"r!~'~
t QD
1~ti 0
Iy~y'r RmppR~A9P~~+~~ ~
5#. tf YS.AIiF. ~. ~ ~ - _. 0 ~
O
o
o
EE OCTUA45wEE.(i 7tG N ~~ /~' ',~'..,,~ff
l ~' ~'
~I.~r~ vll,:w
5I'1'~ fl I3
10 0 20 _
DENOTES Fdl M 5 5
SURF'OCE W6TER`
N.C.U6PT.OF TAANBPOATATION
DIV1S10N OF H[Ot1WAY8
CATAWBA COUNTY
PRO]BCT: 82791201 eU-tLSeAA3
OP
06/ O1

i
i
s
Y
K
7~
D
Z
L
Fu
Y
S_
D
i

s*+rt,
~, ~-'~~
r_ . ~
~~~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHEAL F. EASLEY P.O. DOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 2761 I-1201 W. LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
June 7, 2002
PROJECT:
F. A. No.:
COUNTY:
CONTRACT:
8.1792901 U-2528AA
MA-STP-127(3)
Catawba
C200208
~~~ ~ ~®~
DESCRIPTION
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Hickory-Longview NWLoop -Proposed Interchange On I-40 & SR-1124
(33rd Street)
Proposed Drainage Revision
M. W. Clawson, P.E.
E. A. Burwell, P. E.
Enclosed are the drawings Tennoca Construction Co. prepared per your request. Please let me
know ifyou need any further information.
CC: Elizabeth Lusk
Post Office Box 2105, Hickory, North Carolina 28603

rNNc
TENNOCA CONSTRUCTION CO.
June 5, 2002
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Attn: Ann Burwell
PO Box 2105
Hickory, NC 28603
Project: 8~~.1,~~792901, Catawba County
Re: Spcmg Left of Sta. 6+00 RPB
Dear Ann,
RECEI!~ ;:; _._.~
JUN g 2002
RESIDENT ENGIT~;: 3
DIVISION TWEL`vl=
Per your request attached are drawings for the spring located adjacent to
Ramp B. A vicinity map and a plan sheet showing the location of the work
are also provided.
The first drawing is a description of the existing conditions showing the
spring, spring head location, location of the right of way and permanent
drainage easements in the area. The length of impact from the end of the
36" RCP is 45 linear feet. About half of this length is in the PDE and ROW.
The second drawing is the proposed construction in the area. It consists of
removing 40 linear feet of 36" RCP, constructing Median Drop Inlet and
placing a French drain or spring box with 6" CSP for a distance of 85 linear
feet. The drain or pipe shall be attached to the new drainage structure at an
opening in the bottom of the structure. Fill will then be placed over the
entire area.
Please let me know it any additional information is necessary (828-665-
8331).
Sincerely,
/~ti~y'~~
Brad Goodson
Vice President
1575 Smoky Park Hwy. P.O. Box 2379 Candler, NC 28715 [phone] FAX [phone]

!~ ~ 5
.r ~ ~~ I ~~ C
ea
i ~- ad °~ 1 ~~~ 3
R~ i~ ~ ~ Y r~ i j5~ dal
f v1 fe OVN U ^. e d
N ~~ F 4A 3~n 5
1F
~~IPff °oKW _-
e : ° ~ ~i 4'1
Ci t I I ~ n O
s~ hyR ~ q ~ ii gg ~~,..+~
Fem.- ~3 y ~ ~ °aO ~ 4 q y o
a~ Q ~~yti~
0
n jV C9$
~ ~R I I~- ~ ~ ~ y i
tl I „3 e pp
tll c~ Za((~~~~ ~ w~ 9
O XZe a C7 p
C z xx IFYi - O
F't.' v y x 2 y ~ II INI \ ~ ~ O g$ 3 ~
`~ y' I ~ ~ O ` . II tl q\ ~n R ~ a
cG ~ ~ o ~ ~ 9 < I q ` 0 3
U ~ O w ~ ~ ~ a ~ 19 ~ ~ ~
~. ~ u ~ " ci 9 I I~ U • ~ ~
~ ~ ~ N ~ QagC' ; m ~Y II ~ ~ ~
w ~ ~~
A ~ V ~ ° a. Itl ~~ ~~~
w
II aee
a _<c
a
}~
~"
' la ~ 3
~ - y\ ~ C
r ,; G
~ ~~~ F.
' q '~4 yg U~7 0 4 [''..
p ~ i ~ ~ ~ 'X „ ~ a ° n n ~ n
N ~ F
i o4~ c
4 ~ ~
~~- a~iy~~~ `q ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ o
C
1 o E
r~r~Q~sT-n I06Z6LI' ~s~~ O?I~
-,

..
a
r
J 0

I ~

..~

`Y _.___~_~o is ~J
..-,4~ n ~.o-.'- ~ ~4
,i'~ ~ .Q 3
O O O ~ O xa
_ '~'~'£w
.., ~ H O ___. ..F
p

O O ' tl

'~ . O
i~
~ ° O ~ ~ O O
O• S O
00
p
3 !~
]b ~ ~ 0'
~• O O S=:
°$e O
~
~~ Q 1 ~ o° oO 'S
p ~ •$
~a. ~ O~.Q
O 1
v~'

a i O
~
o 0.
o ° ~
o
a
~ i i ~ J
C
rr urn . I -%r Q o
~~~ ~ ~o
it €~ ~~~

i
- o

o

n ~
~~~

I I'
1
I I
i
i
I
O '
F
o;{
~y I 3
$' I
~\t "- %~ ~
E
~a II
~~ ~ y II
E-
\, ~ II
""" ~ I
rae I
,. I
s o ~ II
~~,
I ',
p° ~I I I
/ o. ~ I I
~i
I I
~~ I III
Ilyl ~
~_
I ~ ~ \I Ilf
II
~ ~"s"~ I
~ ' •~, I I
!~ ~ ~,~ i
!~~ ~ ;~~
~~ I
«~
I ,• .
1~! I ~ r
~~~
,1~
€x~ ~ o. .
1
I
~~
'~~
o f ~ II~
~ ~y?
~~~!
~1\:
I I ~ ;1
I I! ~.
;~
III ~
I I.
el~'
' -~//
" iBi 1 I
P Alf`

P~.~ JTtrI -x~u~~
~'(l.~sEt.~ : (..P-rr~..,F3i~ Wv.~JT "1 '~.~1~Z°~l7
. ~ S-~+~.. 6 ~ ~ Lr 0.P ~
~~ ~ .
- I - - -~
i

G
~.
-C~.(' 1~-25ZgFA
~~z
J
Z ~ ~
~~ ~
~/_-
~~ L
~~
N

Z
y
~ G a
D
a ~,

Y
~ ,

A
3
,]
~,
A ~
.•
, ~
l- iv
C
II
J ~
f
1 i
~ t/
~~ ~ ~
~
~ n

y ~.
A
i .i
(~
u
1+ t
~ ~
~ 3
S
ra u
n

~
N
; :-
C
,
~. ~ ~ ~ ~

(y
~' u
v;

~
~ ~~
~
P~ ~
G ~ .
L
-1
a
J
~,
'\ f: ~ I-
N G
~~
~ ( ~ ~ G~

P:~:~- Vst,~ CPc~P~St~~
1~ES~zP-c=o.~l' SPtL~A~. I.~ua~`O
@Sza, 6+~7J L-c RPg
5 uaw •: \ ~ \O
r_
-----1--
~ poE
- -1- -
z~~.
R~~f-
Iii QEMAJc •= 40 36 P.~
FR[a~\> Q¢aua DEZf~11..~
FY~TCiC hAq tSL
r, ~~
Z u•6 ` 4 _
~ ~ v .
f -Z,-~
TZ(' 'iSZ~AA
~;' a~ ~
\~.xE Zd Pi07
T
u 39~TU EF
RPE3
~85~ r4g,+v~ Dani~
- oQ.-
SP~uav R~rx ~!I 6~~ CSP
`Jrlltlli.-LT Z~72
~_ P'\RZ. 'ftiPc g 5~n. 4~tv.~~ 02
~6vo.Z'1

lrr
Modifications to DWQ project No. 010136 TIP Project No. U-3528AA
b10012-
Subject: Modit7cations to DWQ project No. 'TIi' Project No. U-2528AA
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:24:32 -0400
From: Michael Parker <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR -Mooresville Regional Office
To: Cynthia vanderwiele <cyn[[e-mail]
CC: John Domey <[e-mail]>, Trish Simon <[e-mail]>
Cynthia,
On April 19, 2002 I met with Trish Simon with the NCDOT to evaluate the
removal of a section of stream channel that was originally proposed to
remain intact when the subject 401 was issued. During my visit, Ms.
Simon indicated that DOT's need to remove (pipe) the channel stemmed
from site conditions that would have resulted in a deeply incised
channel with steep banks if the channel is left undisturbed.
Upon my visit to the site, and in discussion with Ms. Simon and other
DOT representatives, it became apparent that there would be very little
gained if the channel is left intact. The channel is, at best a seep
~ that originates in a deep ravine. There is little base flow and no
evidence of aquatic activity. If the channel is protected in its
current location, it could be expected that the steep banks surrounding
this channel would eventually experience some degree of erosion, which
may impact downstream restoration activities currently underway on the
remaining portions of the channel as well as overall WQ.
For this reason, it is recommended that DOT be allowed to pipe this
roughly 100 feet of channel that is in addtion to the 902 linear feet
that has already been approved in the subject 401. It is also my
understanding that a modification request will be forthcoming from the
NCDOT concerning this request.
Michael Parker - MRO
Michael Parker - Michae L [e-mail]
Environmental Engineer II
North Carolina Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
919 N. Main Street
Mooresville, NC 28115
Ph: 704.663.1699 Fax: [phone]
Michael Parker <[e-mail]>
Environmental Engineer II
NC DENR -Mooresville
Division of Water Quality
I of 2 9/24/02 3:1 I PM

>_
O
rF9
~pG
((,„,r
~A ~
r

Michael F. Easley _
Governor
- William G. Ross, Jc, Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
,....
_ ~ Kerr T. Stevens
- Division of Water Quality
.. • ., June 6, 2001
_ ~ ;' ~ 'Catawba County
... _-_ DWQ Project No. 010136
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Mr. William Gilmore, P.E., Manager -
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation , - . _
1548 Mail Service Center -•. :.. _. ,. _ .
Raleigh NC 27699-1548
Re: Catawba County, Town of Long View, proposed interchange for SR 1124 (33rd Street)
at I-40, F.A. No. STP-OOOS(61), State Project No. 8.2791201, TIP Project U-2528AA.
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, [o
construct the above referenced project. The proposed interchange should be constructed as described
in your application dated May 11, 2001 (received May 31, 2001). ....
~...
We understand the impacts to be the following:
. ,~- , .,
• -902 linear feet (275 m) of existing stream`channels. ""
• 0.2 acres (0.08 ha) of surface water filled. -
After reviewing your application, it is our determination that your proposed activities are covered by
General Water Quality Certification Number 3107 which corresponds to Nationwide Permit Number
23 issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Prior to initiating any work in jurisdictional areas you
should obtain [he necessary permit(s) from the Corps of Engineers as well as any other federal, state
or local pernlits, including (but not necessarily 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 valid solely for the purpose and design described in your application (unless
_ modified below). Should your project change; you must notify the_DWQ and submit a new ~• ~ _ _ _ _
application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and -
.approval letter, and is thereby responsible for complying with all the conditions. Since [he proposed - ,~ , '
fill is in excess of 1501inear feet of stream length,'compensa[ory mitigation'is iequired as described ' ". '• .'
in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). ).'For this.approval to be valid, you must follow the . = ' -
conditions listed in the attached certification and any additional conditions listed below. -" ~ ;.;:., ,
:^1 ; ,...
Y
,L
t ~ ,..'ae
North Carolina Division of Water Cuality, 401 Wellands Certification Unit,
1650 Mal Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location) -
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwettands/

Page 2 of 2
The permit application proposes 902 linear feet of impacts to perennial streams. 266 linear
feet (81 m) of relocated cream, using natural stream design, will be considered as
acceptable onsite mitigation. The relocated sveams shall be constructed according to the
information presented in your application. Based on [he aforementioned information, the
remaining 636 linear feet (194 m) will be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio. We have agreed to allow
the use of the Shephard's Tree Mitigation Site in Iredell County. This will satisfy the
DWQ's compensatory mitigation requirements under 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h). For
accounting purposes, this Certification authorizes the impact of 902 linear feet (275 m) of
stream in the Catawba River Basin in Cataloging Unit 030835.
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 [ha[ conforms to Chapter 150B of the North
Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Adminisvative 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.
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele at 919.733.9646 or Mr. Pete
Colwell of the Mooresville Regional Office a[ 704.663.1699.
ti
Attachment
cc: .Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
.Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
NCDWQ Mooresville Regional Office
Central Files
File.Copy
Sincerely,

~ ~ ~~
~.®.~~ ~ 401 ISSUED
STA"CE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 'TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEI. F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 11,2001
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers ~~ O ~ ~-
Asheville Regulatory Field Office ~4 = -- - - __..
] 51 Patton Avenue, Room 208 3 ~ , ,
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006 = , ~''~ °~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ II
' i- ~ - ~
ATTN: Mr. Steve Lund ~ uf,;~~'~ ~' r'.;'P
NCDOT Coordinator p - ~~ ~ cL;,_ , ,t,.i ~'~V =j
Dear Sir: o~ 0 8 ~ 2
Subject: Catawba County, Town of Long View, proposed interchange for SR 1124
(33`° Street) at Interstate 40; Federal Aid No. STP-OOOS(61); State Project
No. 8.2791201; TIP No. U-2528AA.
Please find attached the Categorical Exclusion (CE) and the Addendum to the CE for the
referenced project. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes
to construct a modified diamond-type interchange on I-40 at SR 1124 (33`d Street) in
Long View, Catawba County. Cun•ently, there is no vehicular access from SR 1124 to I-
40. A grade separation exists at this location. Therefore, the subject project would
require the construction of ramps in the northwest, southwest, and southeast quadrants; a
loop in the northwest quadrant; and the relocation of a service road (SR 1294) in the
southeast quadrant. The intent of this interchange construction is to provide access to the
Town of Long View and its industrial and busiriess employment areas, to provide a link
from I-40 to the Hickory Regional Airport, as well as to accommodate future growth in
the area. There is one jurisdictional stream, an unnamed tributary to the Henry Fork
River, in the project construction limits, which will be impacted.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a CE in
accordance with 23 CFR 77L115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an
individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with
61 Federal Register 65874, 65916, issued December 13, 1996 by the Corps of Engineers.
This letter serves as an application for a Department of the Army Section 404 Nationwide
23 Permit and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Tl:e project l:as a let date of
August 2001.
n
C"7 -G
rn ~
m z
O --~
MAILING ADDRESS -TELEPHDNE: 919-733-3141 ~ocn nun:
NC DEPARTMENT DF TRANSPORTATION FAx: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS i SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAR SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: W1MN.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC. US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

' Shmmai'v of Impacts: "fhere will be a total of 902 feet (275 meters) of existing channel
impacted, 0.2 acres (0.08 ha) of surface water filled, and 266 feet (81 meters) of
naturalized relocated channel (Sheet 7 of 8). There are no wetlands in the project area.
Summarv of Mitigation: The original design of the project has been revised to avoid and
minimize stream impacts to the greatest extent possible. The NCDOT will provide 266
feet (81 meters) of onsite stream restoration via naturalized relocated channels. .The
remaining 636 feet (194 meters) of stream impacts will be mitigated for at the required
2:1 ratio utilizing the NCDOT Shephard's Tree Mitigation Site in eastern Iredell County.
Please note that several avenues for mitigation were pursued without success before the
Shephard's Tree site was agreed upon by DWQ Representative Cynthia Van der Wiele on
March 12, 2001 and COE Representative Steve Lund on March 19, 2001.
NEPA DOCUMENT STATUS
A Categorical Exclusion (CE) was approved by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) on August 31, 1998. The CE explains the purpose and need for the project,
provides a description of the original plans for the project and characterizes the social,
economic, and environmental effects of the project. Afrer the CE was approved, it
became evident that project redesign was needed in order to minimize impacts by
avoiding a jurisdictional stream in the northeast quadrant. The resulting Addendum to
Categorical Exclusion was approved by the FHWA on April 12, 1999. Revised highway
capacity analyses are contained in this Addendum. Copies of the CE and Addendum to
CE are being provided to the regulatory review agencies involved in the approval process.
Additional copies are available upon request.
- Environmental Commitments: NCDOT has made several environmental commitments
for the proposed project outlined in the CE. The commitments pertaining to
environmental permits required for Section AA of this project:
Permits: Impacts to Waters of the U.S. will be in the form of surface water impacts at
stream crossings. It is anticipated that these impacts will meet the criteria for Department
of the Army Section 404 Individual Permit. Also, a Section 401 Water Quality General
Certification No. 3289 will be required from the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
Stream Relocation: Required stream re-channelization will be coordinated with the
DWQ and the Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) . Site specific requirements for
re-establishment of bank vegetation with planting regime, meanders, and habitat
structures will be determined through coordination with the WRC field staff and with
DWQ. These items will follow the established guidelines and will incorporate any
highway specific guidance jointly developed between the WRC, DWQ, NCDOT's
Hydraulic Unit, and NCDOT's Roadside Environmental Unit.
2

Endangered Plants: In cooperation with the USFWS request regarding Section 7
consultation for the dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexasrylis nanijloz•a) populations in the
project area, NCDOT commits to the following:
• Measures to further minimize impacts to the plant populations such as keeping
the fill section as narrow as possible .and clearing and grubbing to the
construction limits will be considered during [he final design stage of the
project.
• A (pre-bid and) pre-construction conference will be held by-the NCDOT to
notify contractors of the need to abide by any special provisions to protect the
Hexasrylis populations as identified in the preceding commitment. These
conferences will be attended by at least one representative from NCDOT's
Planning and Environmental Branch and from the Roadside Environmental
Unit. The USFWS Asheville Field office will be invited to attend.
Note: There will be a staging location restriction in the bid request package in
order to protect the dwarf-flowered henrtleaf population in the
northeastern gzzadrant. Therefore, a pre-bid conference will not be
conducted
• The USFWS's Asheville Field office will be notified at least one month in
advance of the start of construction of this project to allow an opportunity to
transplant specimens from the project impact area. The NCDOT, if resources
allow, will provide staff to assist with any transplant efforts.
Schedule: The schedule currently calls for an August 21, 2001 Let date with an
availability date of October 2, 2001. It is expected the contractor will choose to start the
construction at that time. All materials will be removed by the contractor and disposed of
off-site.
Best Management Practices: NCDOT's Best Management for the Protection of Surface
Water and Sedimentation Control Gz~idelines will be adhered to during the life of the
project. The streamside embankment will be re-vegetated immediately after construction.
The primary objective of these guidelines shall be to protect the water quality and aquatic
life of the affected environment in the vicinity of the project.
RESOURCE STATUS
Impacts to Waters of the US: Construction of the proposed project will necessitate
impacts to Waters of the United States. Surface waters of an unnamed tributary to the
Henry Fork will be affected by pipes at stream crossings and stream relocation necessary
during the construction of the northwest and southwest quadrants of this project. This
perennial stream flows north to south, paralleling SR 1124. A jurisdictional stream
determination was conducted on November 27, 2000 by NCDOT biologists Tim Savidge
and Elizabeth L. Lusk. No wetlands are located within Section AA of this project. The
attached permit drawings depict jurisdictional impacts. As previously mentioned, there
3

will be a total of 902 feet of existing channel impacted, 0.2 acres of surface water filled,
and 266 feet of relocated channel naturalized at two separate sites (Sheet 7 of 8). Table 1
summarizes impacts and mitigation required by site and station number.
Table 1. Stream impacts and mitigation required for TIP project U-2528AA.
-LPB-1+00
1 LT to 0.14 610.1 265.7 344.4
-LPB-2+30
_. LT
-RPC- 3+20
2 RT to 0.07 291.6 0.00 291.6
-RPC-3+63
RT
Totals 0.21 901.7 265.7 636.0
1. Site I ,(Sheet 3 of 8) -This unnamed tributary to the Henry Fork River [DEM #11-
129-1-(12.5), 3/1/62] is a perennial stream with Class C waters flowing southward
through the western side of the project. The site is located in the northwest quadrant
of the proposed interchange. The mature oak-hickory forest in this quadrant has been
harvested down to the edge of the stream within the last 6 months. The stream at top-
of-bank is 5 to 8 feet wide and the bed width is about 3 feet. During the site visit,
flow was slow and water clarity was fair. The substrate of the stream consists of sand
and silt. A reinforced concrete pipe and a corrugated steel pipe will enclose 308 feet
of the tributary underneath the proposed Ramp B and Loop B (see Sheet 5 of 8). Area
of surface water filled totals 0.1 acres. Within Loop B, a total of 266 feet of relocated
stream will be naturalized (see Sheet 5 of 8).
2. Site 2 (Sheet 4 of 8) consists of additional impacts to the same stream as in Site 1. The
hardwood forest around this portion of the tributary is still intact. Stream
characteristics of the tributary flowing through this southwest quadrant of the project
area are the same as for Site 1. This section of the stream has been used as a trash
dump (tires, chairs, etc.) One corrugated steel pipe will enclose 259 feet of the
tributary as it flows underneath Ramp C. Surface water filled totals 0.1 acres.
Endan erg ed Species:
4

Plants and animals with Federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are
protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. 'As of February 26, 2001, the USFWS lists one federally protected
species for Catawba County: dwarf-flowered heartleaf.
The federally protected plant dwarf-flowered heartleaf has been located in the
northwestern; southwestern, and southeastern quadrants of the project. A Section 7
consultation was conducted with the USFWS for this threatened species. The resulting
Biological Opinion dated August 1995 concluded that the proposed project is Not Likely
to Jeopardize the species. Because the original design vas revised and additional
populations of dwarf-flowered heartleaf were located, the Section 7 consultation was re-
initiated in March 2001. A Biological Opinion of Not Likely to Jeopardize the species
was issued. The resulting memo; dated May 10, 2001 is attached. In cooperation with
the USFWS's request regarding the Section 7 consultation for the dwarf-flowered
heartleaf populations in the project area, the NCDOT has committed to several
conservation efforts for this species. These are listed in the Environmental Commitment
Section of this application.
MITIGATION OPTIONS
The Corps of Engineers has adopted, through the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ), a wetland mitigation policy that embraces the concept of "no net loss of
wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the
chemical, biological, and physical integrity of the Waters of the . United States.
Mitigation of wetland and surface water impacts has beemdefined by the CEQ to include:
avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time
and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). New construction in Waters of the US
will be avoided as much as possible and that all practicable measures are taken to
minimize or mitigate impacts.
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design
features to avoid and minimize impacts to Waters of the US, and to provide full
compensatory mitigation of all remaining impacts. Avoidance measures were taken
during the planning and CE/CE Amendment phases; minimization measures were
incorporated as part of the project design.
AVOIDANCE: All Waters of the US not affected by the project will be protected from
unnecessary encroachment. No staging of construction equipment or storage of
construction supplies will be allowed in or near surface .waters. Significant stream
impacts were avoided by redesigning the standard diamond design to a modified diamond
interchange with a ramp and loop in the northwest quadrant. This design change allowed
avoidance of impacts to a higher quality jurisdictional stream in the northeastern quadrant
of the project area
5

MINIM[LA"PION: Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable
steps to reduce the adverse impacts. Minimization techniques will be implemented as
follows:
1. Onsite mitigation will be implemented via naturalization of a relocated stream
channel in the northwest quadrant. Total stream impacts will be reduced from 902
feeLto 636 feet by naturalizing 266 feet of relocated stream channel inside Loop B.
2. Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control Best Management Practices
(BMP) for the protection of surface waters and wetlands will be enforced.
COMPENSATION: The 636 feet of stream impacts will be mitigated for at a ratio of 2:1
by debiting 1,272 feet from the Shephazd's Tree Mitigation Site in Hydrologic Unit (HU)
03040102 of the Yadkin River Basin. As previously mentioned several avenues for
t~iitigation were pursued before this site was chosen to provide stream mitigation. The
sequence of mitigation investigation is as follows:
1. Onsite mitigation has been maximized via a naturalized relocated channel in the
northwestern quadrant. Unfortunately, the slopes necessary to support the entrance
ramp in the southwestern comer prohibit channel relocation.
2. Two Mitigation Banking Instruments (MBIs) are being finalized in the Catawba River
Basin. The Pott Creek Site and the Leonard's Fork Site are expected to provide 3,000
feet and 4,000 feet of stream restoration, respectively. So that, upon signing of the
MBIs, a total of 1,050 feet would be available as mitigation (15% of the total
expected). Unfortunately, this total falls 222 feet short of 1,272 feet required. Also,
the earliest signing of the MBIs would be June and August, respectively, which would
have delayed the Let date of this project.
3. This project is located only 1.4 miles southwest of HU 03050101, which is covered
by the Wetland Restoration Program (WRP). Per Steve Lund's suggestion, the
NCDOT submitted a request to WRP to provide mitigation in this adjacent HU and
indicated to WRP that the COE would accept this as suitable stream mitigation.
Unfortunately, in the February 26, 2001 reply (attached), WRP denied NCDOT's
request.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Application is hereby made for a Department of the Army Nationwide 23 Permit
as required for the above-described activities. We are also hereby requesting a 401 Water
Quality General Certification No. 3289 from the Division of Water Quality. In
compliance with Section 143-215.3D(e) 'of the NCAA we have enclosed a check for
$475.00 to act as payment for processing the Section 401permit application. We are
6

providing seven copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional information please contact Elizabeth
L. Lusk at [phone], extension 335.
Sincerely,
~J ~~
~~t William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
ca;: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
w/o attachment
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E. Program Development Branch
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. D. R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Michael L. Holder, P.E., Division 12 Engineer
Ms. Missy Dickens, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
Mr. Byron Moore, P.E., Roadside Environmental Unit

1217
1196
1204
1205 '
n i
~` ~,
-' ~_~
SITE 1
..~~~ ~
_.., ~ RA-~P-
-----
_ -Y-,
TO MORGANTON `~ RAMP ~
`~ SI'N'E `Z 1267
...__. ,
~ \1238
1124
~!, Southwest
' Elem. Sch.
i
i
i
i
'~ 2552
_0 B ~ 40 -Y- _
~ TO STATESVILLE
1294
SCALE
125 0 .25 KIv1
N.C.DEP1':OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
C.\.T i WR4 Cn1t~:~ry
PROJECT: 8.2791201. (U-2528A.~)
HICKORY-LONGVIEW-NORTHI4'EST LOOP
SHEET I OF ~ 1/2/01

LEGEND
I -~~-~ WLB-~~-~~~ WETLAND BOUNDARY
rWLe '"
~. ~ ~ \~i WETLAND
`.._..WLB-~
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL iN
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
D DENOTES MECHANIZED
CLEARING
f FLOW DIRECTION
T~_ TOP OF BANK
- -.W E.--- EDGE OF WATER
_- ~-- PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
-- F-- PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-~ PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
----NG-- -- NATURAL GROUND
- - P~ - PROPERTY LINE
-TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EA9 -- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMRL BOUNDARY
-. EP9 -- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - ~ - - - WATER SURFACE
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
~~ PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
(DASHED LINES DENOTE
EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
SINGLE TREE
!'."t-~`.'.i-~'~'-`'~'"~_ WOODS LINE
® DRAINAGEINLET
~Iy ~ ROOTWAD
000p0 VORTEX ROCK WEIR
RIP RAP
RIP RAP ENERGY
DISSIPATOR BASIN
~-~ VANE
XXXXX --LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
- - - CORE FIBER ROLLS
O ADJN'
0
N.C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT: 8.9791.''.Oi (U-2528AA)
HICKORY-LO:Vu`>'1F,W-NOATHti~'i;ST LOCI
SHEET ? OF `~ 9/8/99

~~i
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY
TO HENRY FORK RIVER
CL.'B' RIP RAP p(
E5T.2 TONS
E5T.6 S.M. FIL TER FABRIC
~ ~ {Q
FABRIC Q
Q
/1 O
V _ F
----.---~ 3 GI-AI 400 C S ~ ~---F
_ _---_-
\ C _ 1- r-
I-40 y 0 + 0~
WESTBOUND LANES .IiI --
-------------------r~-
18+60 19+00
,J I . N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION .
- - _ ..
~ll~~ 1L PROJECT: 8.2791201 (U-2528AA)
10 G 20 HICKORY-LONGVIEW-NORTHWEST LOOI
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATERS /S /S ~~ o
SHEET '~ OF v 1/2/01
~~. _-
i ~
_~/~~~

III I
19i~00 -Y- 2~+00
it
I-50 o~~m - y
I EASTBOUND LANES „I y --
--..-
z - _ - -
F JL- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-.--_-~ __~==-_r=~~=. -rte
T Mil
r -~ -: _ r ~.~ ~ .. .. .. .. .. ._
. .. .. .. _ .' ~I
I~
III, -
. II TOE PROTECTION
~~ SEE DETAIL C
" EST. IS TONS
3 G1 EST. 9T S.M. FILTER FABRIC
E.D. 6.870
~oo
__\\ _ 2 D.
~ ~ DETAIL FSR
\\ ~
o ~ o
-RPC- +qJ\ f~B~ \ m ~
25m (RTI ~ ~ 9S \\ N s
o~ \\
x ~~ ~
\ ~~~ ~
\ H
-RFC- +10~ nr~~Tn,-
i9m (RTJ \
Cl.'I'RIP RAP ~~
EST. IB TONS
EST. 33 S.M. FILTER
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY !
TO HENRY FORK RIVER ~i
\pC
O
~i
~~
TOES rOf ~v~-e
-RPC- +80
38357m fRrl
Mm lRrl
y
\ i-j ~']
tO ..
\ ~
\. ;~s~o .
N.C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
10 0 20
1Z. rv 1 "t \Y ll 1L~' Y'Y
~~~lli
DENOTES FILL IN / I,
SURFACE WATERS /S ,S-~ ~ p;
SHEET - OF _
CATAWBA COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2791201 <U-252BAA)
HICKORY-LONG V I E W -NORTHWEST
~ p O L
eQ s a ~ _~
~ ~ Q\\ \
o ~ + ` ~e+ \
E PROT ~ \m~ \ \
zz5 S„N F ~~~~ C b~~ \
Ri~ \
400 \~
car-r
~~
~~
~~
LAT. 'V' DITCH ~
SEE DETAIL E
EST.6 TONS CL'B'
EST. IB S.M. FIL TER

I
1/2/01

4
ti
(~
~!
O
J
W
2
V
Q
Z

~
aP1~ 9 ~
Z $a'
~
~ 'u
JNW
~
-
a
w¢aa
~
o
„ ~ ~
Ys
e
-~ °o

S Nm ~~ E
ego x.
y ~
~ s=
a ss
m 9a
o
N 9~
J
F J
w < a °~
sae o ~b
~F~
Z O ~ v
2 Vl~~o
~n jag
o ~
a ~ gg
a
M
d
as
~~
'
~
°
o
ZU
/.
Z
~_

U
w >

'~ C N
Z
y o -'
_
Q° a ~
JN v
0 w
0
~o o c ~
~
p w
Q w
z

O a z
a
pz x
J_ u
iy ~
~ w
w
J N
Q h'
U
a
~
r a ~
~ ~c
io

of
ZU
~=
~ ~ 8 ~'
h o.
y s".
a _~
? u =_c
CM4
b h g
8 8kw
_.
E
~ ^ o
C d~ ~~^ 03
y of ja
U- it a~ 11
w a I\ v I
~-_
~_~ 1 ~;~
Vl aL'( ~. au _
O \F ,5
x~
iec _-
d3+
3,
a ~'
9 ~.
SE
4
O
a
z ° a
~
F <F 'a
~
F <
~" y
r3
ox z
7 ~x
y ~ . ~a
zx $ g°z
~ °' < a 3
m z 3 ~> ciJ~
O p F
°
~
c
z
i
~' ° ~° ~I
A A p;,
U 0.C F
z p
U x
Vf
t~'---
z
i~7
r~

STREAM DESCRIPTION AND

CLASSIFICATION DATA

Loop a rRT~ ~

~ I~T:C. DEPT. L7F TR.~NSPORI'.aTIDN
DIVISION DF HIGH\V.~YS

C.~T.~WBA COUNTY

PROJECT: 8."791201
~~-2528A.9>
LdJOP R (RT>
SHEET ~' DF F 9/8/99
ITEM EXISTING
STREAM REFERENCE
STREAM PROPOSED
RELOCATION
STREAM -NAME UNNAMED UNNAMED UNNAMED
DRAINAGE AREA (HA) g,q g,q g,q
WATER SURSACE SLOPE 7 90% 7.90% 8.0%
BANKFUL WIDTH (Wbkr) 2.50 m 2.50 m 2.50 m
MEAN DEPTH (d bkf) 0.50 m 0.50 m 0.50 m
BANKFUL X-SECTION AREA
(A bk() 0.80 m2 0.80 m2 .0.80 m2
WIDTH/DEPTH RATIO
(W bkf /d bkf) 5.0 5.0 5.0
Maximum DEPTH (d mbkf) 0.5 m 0.5 m 0.5 m
IDTH Flood-Prone Area
(Wf a) 6.78 6.78 5.78
ENTRENCH(EENT RATIO
RR 2,61 2.61 2.22
CHANNEL MA
TERIALS: D50 Sands / Gravels Sands / Grovels Sands / Gravels
SINUOSITY (K) 1.08 1.08 1.04
MEANDERS:
AVG. LENGTH 26 m 26 m 30 m
AVG. AMPLITUDE 4.8 m 4.8 m 4.5 m
AVG. RADIUS 8.5 m 8.5 m 10 m
DISCHARGES:
0 BANKFULL L50 cros L50 cros L50 cros
D2 0.48 cros 0.48 cros 0.48 cros
OIO 0.88 cros 0.88 cros 0.88 cros
VELOCITY:
V BANKFULL 1.86 m/s 1.86 m/s 1.87 m/s
V2 1.39 m/s 1.39 m/s 1.39 m/s
VIO 1.62 m/s 1.62 m/s 1.62 m/s
CLASSIFICATION AS A5 A5.

a
=
~
Ica o
n m5!-° I I o0
m U U ~ O
H
U
a
a
~ m
P1
I °o
¢
W o
L
N O
O
LL
LL

m
y
c ~ m
O L
I
I O
o
N O
a w
y C
O
V N E O
~ O
N O
~ l~
°U
w
v m
C O O
o
E I
L m m
F ¢ U
U
Q
n
°a'

~ cc
~ o o m O1
~ o n E ,o ui si ~
w wcLi E ~ N m N
r
a
3 ~
- o
w a y '°
L I I g
Q y C O
~
¢
7
w
Noc I I o
- a
v o
LL
}

Q y m
m n m
C A L
~ O O O
C
L
tL ? O O O

~ a
a m-
U o"
< I I g

Q _
tm
dU~
o
a ~

a a
m c
o
~° = I I o
m
~ 0
U-^ 3
Q
a
~ ~ c
_
~ >~`°
I
I

o
mL
O
J [
i 3 O
F W C
W ~n
3 =a
~- q
O
°~= I I
a ~ O
F C'
c D
" O
=
L I I o
LL3 0
~ ~ a a
~ °~ U U U
O ~
N ~ O O

(n
O
O
T O
O O
O
O
O r
2 1- r
¢ ¢
Li
J
O ~o ~ a
f7 LL ii ^
n H
4 U O
¢¢ F
U
w
O N O
N Z 2
a
N n
Q 1 N
= Z ~
~ O O
2 U N
w Q m
m N
O < m
_m ¢r
~ U w
O
a

r

Project No. 8.2791201 (U-2528AA)
Property Owner List
Site Stotion Parcel Name Address
NO. N0. DB and Pg
P.O.Box 25201
I+00 -LPB- O/ NCDOT Raleigh, NC 27611
I+00 -LPB- TO GEORGE RALPH ROBBINS Rural Route 15
2 P.O. Box 666
I+32 -LPB- AND WIFE, ATTA L. ROBBINS Hickory, NC 28602
I DB 889 PG 43

I+32
-LPB-
TO MARK IRA LARKINS & WIFE,
1750 33rd Street
2+30 -LPB- O BRENDA MAE LARKINS Hickory, NC 28602
DB 1615 PG 647
BRIGHT
BILL A RuralRoute IS
5+90 -RPB- O . P.O. Box 670
DB II55 PG 213 Hickory, NC 28602
2 3+20 -RPC- TO PAUL WISE & WIFE,
O VIRGINA
LEE WISE NOT AVAILABLE
3+63 -RPC- .
DB 453 PG 126
N:C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CATAWBA COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2791201 (U-2528AA)
HICKORY-LONGVIEW-NORTHWEST LOOP
SHEET `% OF ~~ 1/2/00

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WII,DLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
May 10, 2001
Mr. Nicholas L. Gra.~ P.E.
Hivision Administrator
U.S. Deparhnent of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bem Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Deaz Mr. Graf:
The following is an amendment to our August 3, 1995, biological opinion (Opinion) regazding
the federally threatened dwazf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniJZora) and impacts from the
North Cazolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) project U-2528AA in Catawba
County. Although the original Opinion included two other projects, this amendment addresses
project modifications to U-2528AA. This amendment is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act), and responds to a
Mazch 23, ZOOI, request to reinitiate formal consultation. This amendment does not address the
requirements of any environmental laws other than the Act. A complete record of this
consultation is maintained and available for your review at our office.
Project Description
The purpose of the proposed project is to provide an interchange on Interstate 40 (I-40) that
would create a direct link (SR 1124) from I-40 to the airport in Hickory. Currently, there is no
access to I-40 at this intersection. The proposed project, as originally designed (a basic diamond
configuration), would have impacted all four quadrants azound the proposed intersection. Since
the original proposal, the NCDOT has changed the design to avoid stream impacts and
H. naniflora in the northeast quadrant of the project. The exit ramp originally proposed for this
azea was changed to a loop and nested inside the northwest ramp, thereby eliminating the need
for construction impacts in an entire quadrant of the project area.

On Mazch 21, 1995, NCDOT biologists conducted surveys for federally listed endangered and
threatened species on Project U-2528AA. H. naniflora was discovered within the right-of--way
of the proposed project in both of the eastern quadrants. At that time there were two other
projects proposed in Catawba County which had populations ofH. naniJlora that would be
directly impacted by NCDOT construction activities.
ARer several field reviews and interagency meetings, it was agreed that a combined Section 7
.consultation for Projects U-2307, U-2528AA, and B-2119 would not only increase consultation
efficiency and predictability but also would likely enhance species conservation options.
Specifically, to minimize impacts to dwarf-flowered heartleaf, the proposal was to establish a
lazger and more functional preserve at the proposed Muaay's Mill site versus severai small
preserves at each project location.
On July 20, 1995, the Federal Highway Administration provided a biological assessment which
documented that the proposed three projects may adversely affect H. naniflora and requested
initiation of formal consultation with us. The assessment included the purchase of the Mun-ay's
Mill site to offset project impacts.
On August 3, 1995, we issued the Opinion, stating that the proposed action was not likely to
jeopazdize the continued existence of H. naniflora and providing a list of conservation
recommendations that included:
(1) The agreement (or deed restriction) will include a provision that any
management recommendations we make will be implemented, ifresources are
available, and that access into the preserve will be granted for our
representatives and representatives from State resource agencies with prior
notif cation to the owner.
(2) The deed for the acquired site will identify that this azea was purchased for
conservation purposes.
(3) Measures to fiu-ther minimize impacts to the plant populations, such as
keeping the fill section as narrow as possible and clearing and grubbing to the
construction limits, will be considered during the final design stage of the
projects.
(4) A prebid and preconstructioneonference will be held by the NCDOT to
notify contractors of the need to abide by any special provisions to protect the
Herastylis populations as identified in Number 3 above. These conferences
will be attended by at least one representative from the Planning and

Environmental Branch and Roadside Environmental Unit. Personnel from
our staff will be invited to attend.
(5) Our office will be notified at least 1 month in advance of oe~an lant
constructioh for all three projects to allow an opportunity sP
specimens from the project impact azea. The NCDOT, if resources allow,
will provide staff to assist with any transplantation efforts.
SoeeT„?s status
Hexastylis naniJlora is a raze, low-growing herbaceous plant species in the birthwort family
(Aristolochiaceae).. The species is currently known from a small portion of the upper Piedmont
of North Cazolina and South Cazolina (nine counties). i ne species was officially listed as
threatened on April 14, 1989, due to imminent threats and long-term vulnerability. At the time
of listing, only 24 populations were known to exist (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1989) in
eight counties.
In the past few yeazs, at least 28 additional populations have been found in South Cazolina, and
at least 30 new populations have been located in North Cazolina. While seemingly more secure
due to the boost in known populations, most of the populations exist on private land, and only a
few aze afforded long-term protection. Presently, only five to six populations in North Cazolina
are protected, either through verbal agreement, Natural Heritage registry, or as part of a previous
Section 7 consultation (including the subject project). In South Carolina, at least five
populations aze afforded some degree of protection. Several of the existing sites in North
Cazolina and South Cazolina have been degraded due to residential and industrial development,
conversion of habitat to pasture or ponds, timber-harvesting, and cattle-grazing.
Hexastylis naniflora grows in acidic soils along bluffs and adjacent slopes, in boggy areas next to
streams and creek heads, and along the slopes of nearby hillsides and ravines (Gaddy 1980,
1981). It often occurs in stands of mixed hardwoods with an understory of mountain laurel
(Kalmia latifo[ia) or rhododendron (Rhododendron sp.) and other acidiophiles. Hexastylis
naniflora grows in Pacolet sandy loams (not on heavy clays typical of the Piedmont), Madison
gravelly sandy loam, and Musella fine sandy loam. Soil type is believed to be important, as is
moisture and acidity. This species appeazs to be self-maintaining where shrubs aze raze and light
gaps aze present.
Effects of the Desien hanees
With the current design, the proposed project will directly impact, in terms of the number of
plants, fewer plants than described in the 1995 Opinion for U-2528AA. Originally, we
considered the project likely to result in the complete or partial destruction of portions of two
H. naniflora populations (one in each of the two eastern quadrants). These populations aze
sepazated by I-40 and occtu on a total of 1.9 hectazes (3.5 acres). By eliminating the northeast

quadrant from the pTOject design, 250 plants will be spared from direct impacts. However, an
additional 130 newly discovered plants in the two western quadrants will be impacted, resulting
in direct impacts to only 120 fewer plants than in the original design_(see Table 1).
Table 1.
Northeast Comparison of Project Design Direct Impacts to Hexastylis xaniflora.
250 0 .
Southeast 489 489
-Northwest none discovered 100
Southwest none discovered 30 ~
Totals 739 619
Although direct project impacts to the northeast quadrant have been eliminated, these 250 plants
likely will be lost to secondary development at the new interchange. As stated in the previous
Opinion, we believe that all populations at the proposed interchange eventually will be
eliminated due to secondary development. Therefore, we believe there will an increase of
approximately 19 percent in the number of individual plants directly or indirectly affected by the
proposed project.
In addition to likely secondary impacts from development, other direct -and indirect impacts from
this project that may degrade H. naniflora habitat include disturbance from construction
activities that may lead to subtle changes in moisture/shading regimes favoring invasive exotic
species, such as Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). Also, the effects ofpopulation
fragmentation on genetic interchange, while poorly understood, may be another indirect impact
to the remaining plants. It should also be noted that a partial cleaz-cut of the northwest quadrant
has severely degraded the population in that portion of the project area.
Cumulative effects are those effects of future non-Federal (State, local government, private, or
any other non-Federal entity) activities on endangered or threatened species that aze reasonably
certain to occur in the action area. Future actions in the project azea of U-2528AA likely include
increased private residential and commercial development, which will lead to further losses of
the remaining Hexastylis naniflora populations.
To offset impacts from the original three projects, in 1997 the NCDOT purchased land and
established the 11.9-hectaze (29.4-acre) Murray's Mill preserve. The preserve includes a lazge
dwarf-flowered heartleaf population that will be protected in perpetuity. Plant numbers aze
4

estimated at 20,000 over approximately 15.6 acres. Given the large number of plants protected
by this preserve, we believe the increased impact from this project's proposed design change are
still offset by the protection afforded to dwarf-flowered heartleaf by the Murray's Mill preserve.
The discovery of about 60 additional occurrences of Hexasrylis naniflora since the species was
listed is an important consideration in assessing the species' status and the impacts of losing an
additional 130 plants. These plants represent far less than 1 percent of the total population.
While many of the existing populations aze degraded and/or declining for various known and
unlatown reasons and only a few of the populations aze assured long-term protection, the species
does not appeaz to be nearing endangerment (i.e., moving from threatened to endangered status).
kt view of this, it is our biological opinion that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of Hexastylis naniflora.
Sections 7(b)(4) and 7(0)(2) of the Act do not apply to the incidental take of listed plant species.
However, the protection of listed plants is provided to the extent that Section 9 of the Act
requires a Federal permit for the removal or reduction to possession of endangered plants fron~
azeas under Federal jurisdiction or any act that would remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy
any such species on any other area in knowing violation of any regulation_ of any State or in the
course of any violation of a State criminal trespass law.
Conservation Recommendations
Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the
purposes of [he Act by carrying out conservation programs far the benefit of endangered and
threatened species. Conservation recommendations aze discretionary agency activities that
minimize or avoid the adverse effects of a proposed action on any listed species or critical
habitat, help implement recovery plans, or develop information.
Since this project has not been implemented, we request that the following conservation
recommendations, as outlined in our 1995 Opinion, continue to be included by the NCDOT as
part of the project plans:
(1) Measures to fiu-ther minimize impacts to the plant populations, such as
keeping the fill section as narrow as possible and clearing and grubbing to the
construction limits, will be considered during the final design stage of the
. project.
(2) A prebid and preconstruction conference will be held by the NCDOT to
notify contractors of the need to abide by any special provisions to protect the

Hexasrylis populations as identified in Number 1 above. Personnel from our
staff will be invited to attend.
In order to be kept informed of actions that either minimize or avoid adverse effects or that
benefit listed species or their habitats, we request notification of the implementation of any
conservation recommendations.
This concludes formal consultation under Section 7 of the Act. As required in 50 CFR 402.16,
reinitiation of formal consultation is required if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this
identified action that may affect listed species in a manner not previously considered; (2) this
action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or (3) a new
species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the identified action.
Please keep us informed as to the progress of this project. In any future correspondence
pertaining to this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-95-102.
Sincerely,
L
/ _` ,~/'
~~ L.,i
i ~'
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Branch, North Cazolina Department of Transportation, 1548 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Ms. Missy Dickens, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, North Cazolina
Department of Transportation, 1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Ms. Maryellen Haggazd, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, P.O. Box 387,
Ellcin, NC 28621

References
Federal Highway Administration. 1992.. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Hickory
East Side Thoroughfaze, Catawba County. 34 pp.
Gaddy, L. L. 1980. Status report on Hexosrylis naniflora. Prepazed for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Unpublished report. 25 pp.
------. 1981. The Status of Hexasrylis naniJlora Blomquist in North Carolina. Unpublished
report. 58 pp.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 1993. Replacement of Bridge Number 152 on
SR 1003 over Balls Creek. Natural Resources Technical Report. 20 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Determination of Threatened Status for Hexasrylis naniflora. Federal Register
54(71):14964-14967.
7

v T
O~ pG
~
~ ~

> ~
_
4 ~c
Februazy 26, 2001
Subject: Payment to Wetlands Restoration Fund
U-2528AA
Catawba County
Dear Mr. Hazris:
- The North Cazolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) received an February 16,
2001 letter requesting concurrence that the NCWRP accept payment for the compensatory
mitigation requirements for U-2528AA in Catawba County. Based on information provided by
you, approximately 636 feet of stream will be impacted in cataloging unit 03050102 of the
Catawba River basin and will need mitigation.
The long-term goal of the NCWRP is to be able to accept payments to satisfy
compensatory mitigation requirements throughout North Cazolina. However, at this time the
NCWRP is unable to provide this service throughout the state. The Memorandum of
Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which allows payments to the Wetlands
Restoration Fund, requires that the compensatory mitigation performed by the NCWRP be
within the same cataloging unit as the impact. At this time, the NCWRP has not accepted any
payments nor do we have any perspective stream restoration projects in this cataloging unit.
Also, due to current workloads in adjacent cataloging units, NCWRP could not meet time
requirements in taking this new impact. Therefore the NCWRP is unable to accept payment
for this project.
We appreciate your interest in the Wetlands Restoration Program and regret that the
NCWRP cannot accommodate your request at this time. If you have any questions concerning
this matter please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
~~Q~~~
Ronald E. Ferrell
Program Manager
...._..__... ___ _,. _.,. ou iur
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Division of W ater puality
Mr. Phil Harris
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Cc: John Hennessy, DWQ-40l/Wetlands Unit
Steve Lund, USACOE-Asheville
Pete Colwell, DWQ, MRO
.~R°n
_~
NLDEMR
Customer Service Wetlands Resroration Program 1619 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1619 Fax: (919) 733a92e.
1 800 -023-7748

I-40
Proposed Interchange at SR 1124 (33`' Street)
Long View
Catawba County
Federal-Aid Project STP-OOOS(61)
State Project No. 8.2791201
TIP Project U-2528AA
Addendum To
Categorical Exclusion
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Approved:
4-6-99 a~/4; ~~
Date ~r William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
~/ L ~~~~~
'Date ~-Nicholas Graf, PE
Division Administrator, FHWA

I-ao
Proposed Interchange at SR 1124 (33'd Street)
Long View
Catawba County
Federal Aid Project STP-OOOS(61)
State Project No. 8.2791201
TIP Project U-2528AA
Addendum To
Categorical Exclusion
April 1999
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch by:
~~ SJ9 ~ c~a,,.U 2~~-e.,~-
Date Mary iceAl Dickens, PE
Project Development Engineer
4~5~99 ~ ~~,~
Date Eric Midkiff, PE
Project Development Unit Head
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, PE
Assistant Branch Manager
~„~u~~uu,~,~~
~~~ gNCA?c~ ~'~.
~°,.~~FESS;~;~;ry
;'Q~ r : =
- 6~AL =
21L:3 -
9.; •e, E~; chi i''~ ; G,~~4~~',
;'i
''~,~'~CICE.~~ ~•

I-40
PROPOSED INTERCHANGE AT SR 1124 (33RD STREET)
LONG VIEW
CATAI4BA COUNTY
FEDERAL AfDPROJECT STP-OOOS(61)
STATE PROJECT NO. $.2791201
TIP PROJECT U-2>28AA
ADDENDUM TO THE CATEGORICAL E\CLUSION
A Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed interchange on I-40 at 33rd Street
(SR 1124) in Long View, Catawba County (see Figure 1), was approved on August 31,
1998. At that time, NCDOT proposed to construct a standard diamond interchange. At
the public hearing map review meeting, NCDOT staff noted that approximately 400
linear meters (1300 linear feeQ of stream impacts were occurring in the northeast
quadrant. The project's stream impact total could be reduced by 400 meters (li00 feet) if
no construction were proposed in the northeast quadrant.
Consequently, it was decided to alter the standard diamond design in order to
minimi2e stream impacts. It is now proposed to construct a modified diamond
- interchange that will have a ramp and loop in the northwest quadrant and no ramp in the
northeast quadrant. The two southern quadrants will remain as previously proposed.
The proposed interchange configuration is shown in Figure 2.
Since the re-design, a jurisdictibnal stream in the northwest quadrant of the
proposed interchange was discovered. This stream was not addressed in the Natural
Resources Technical Report, nor in the.CE, but it has been found and determined to be
jurisdictional since the public heazing map review meeting. Both the previously
proposed standard diamond and the currently proposed modified diamond would impact
approximately 300 meters (1000 feet) of this stream. (Because the CE did not account
for this streani, the stream impact quantity given in the CE was off by 300 meters [1000
feet]. The standard diamond configuration would have resulted in approximately 700
meters [2300 feet] of stream impacts; rather than 400 meters [1300 feet], as the CE
stated.)
The newly proposed three-quadrant modified diamond interchange will result in
approximately 350 linear meters (I 140 linear feet) of stream impacts. This is 300 meters
(1000 feet) less that what would have been impacted by the statdard four-quadrant
diamond interchange proposed previously. Any required su~eani mitigation will be
negotiated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the N.C. Division of Water
Quality (DWQ).
It is the purpose of this document to describe that design change and to address its
associated environmental ramifications. This document is not meant to be a stand-alone

document; it n?ust be considered in conjunction with the Categorical Exclusion for the
subject project.
RtcnroFWnv
Additional right of way (beyond what was described in the CE) wilt be required in
the northwest quadrant of the intercha~tge; however, no additional parcels will be
involved, nor will any additional relocations be required. In the northeast quadrant, no
right of way wilt be required, since no northeast ramp is going to be constructed. Ti1is is
a change from the CE, which described sufficient right oY ~e'ay in the northeast quadrant
to contain the previously proposed northeast ramp.
PER,Y1ITS
it is now afuicipated that a Section. 404 Individual Permit from the COE will be
required for impacts to "Waters of the United States" resulting from the proposed project.
In addition, this project will require a Section 401 Water Quality General Certification
from D«'Q prior to the issuaf?ce of the COG permit. Any required stream or wetland
mitigation will be negotiated between NCDOT, DWQ, and COE.
D\YARF-FLOWERED HEA RTLEAF
Section 7 consultation beuveen the NCDOT and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USPWS) regarding this project's effect on the dwarf-flowered heartleaf
(Hesas~} lis nm7iJ7ora) ~a~as completed August 3, 199. A follow-up memorandum from
Tim Savidge, dated April 27, ] 995, addresses the effect of an earlier desi~~n change, the
addition of the service road relocation, on the species. Both the Section 7 consultation
and the follow-up memorandum addressed known populations in the northeast and
southeast quadrants. Since that time, additional plants have been found in the northwest
quadrant. However, since construction in the northeast quadrant has been eliminated and
plants in that quadrant will no longer be impacted, it is expected that the total nun56er of,
-~ -- ..
plants impacted bythis project will-remain approximatel}':tliesame. Consequently, it is
expected that ieinitiation of Section 7 co~isultation-will-not be necessary. ;Tim Savidge is ~j
coordinating with the USPWS on this issue. ,
COST ESTt111ATES
The current estimated right of way cost for the proposed interchange is
51342.500. The current estimated construction cost is 5,100,000, for a total estimated
project cost of 56,442,500.
HIGH\VAY CAPAGtT\'
Because the proposed reconfiguration of the interchange will result in some
intersection geometry and traffic flow patterns that differ from what was described in the
CE, additional rw?s of Highway Capacity Analyses were necessary at hvo locations;

described below. These Higlnvay Capacity results supersede that which was reflected it
the CE for these two locations. For all other locations, Highway Capacity results shown
in the CE still apply.
SR 1124/WES"r¢OUND RnMrs (UNSIGNALIZED AN,\LYSIS)
The proposed configuration of this intersection is shown in Figure 3. ]t
will function like a T-intersection. Unsignalized Highway Capacity Analyses
were run for this T-intersection for the base year (1997) and the design year
(2020) with the interchange in place. The results are shown below.
Year Movement Average Total
Delay Level of
Service Intersection
Delay
EB L ~.4 sec/veh B
1997 EB R 4.0 sec/veh A 2.0 sec/veh
NB L
EB L 2S sec/veh
32.9 sec/veh A
E
2020 EB R 12.7 seclveh C 5.6 sec/veh
NB L 4.7 sec/veh A
W EST¢OUND I-4O DIVERGE AT SR 1124 (RAMP ANALYSIS)
The 1-40 westbound diverging movement at SR ] 124 will now occur
approximately 500 meters (1600 feet) west of where ehe CE described it.
Furthermore, rather than diverging onto a ramp, the traffic will now diverge onto
a loop with a lower design speed. The ramp analysis at this location was
reevaluated for both the base yeaz (1997) and the design year (2020) with the
interchange in place. Tlie results aze shown below.
Year Computed
Speed Computed
Density Level of
Service
1997 54 mph 20 pc/mi/In * B
2020''' S3 mph 26 pc/mi/In * C
* passenger cars per mr(e per lane
''' Fa• the 2020 scenario, 3 lanes rn each direction here considered to be in
place on 1--10. See the CE, Section II E, page d, jor more on This.
CONCLUSION
The environmental impacts associated with this modified diamond interchange
described herein will actually be less than the impacts associated with the standard
diamond described in the CE. It is concluded that the project as re-designed will not
result in substantial adverse social, economic, or environmental impacts, and that the
categorical exclusion classification, as defined in 40 CFR 1505.4 acid 23 CFR 771.1 17, is
appropriate.

SU3IMARY OF PROJECT COMb1ITM1IENTS
It is estimated that approximately 3~0 linear meters (1 140 linear feet) of stream
impacts will occur based on current design. A Section 404 Individual Permit is likely to
be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for impacts to "Waters of the
United States." In addition, this project will also require a Section 401 Water Quality
General Certification from the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) prior to the
issuance of the COE permit. Stream mitigation is likely to be required; NCDOT will
coordinate with the COE regarding compensatory mitigation.
Required stream rechannelization will be coordinated with the Division of Water
Quality (DW'Q) and the Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). Site specific
requirements for re-establishment of bank vegetation with planting regime, meanders,
and habitat structures (root gads, wing deflectors, etc.) will be determined through
coordination with the WRC field staff and with DV/Q. These items will follow the
established guidelines and will incorporate any highway specific guidance jointly
developed between the WRC, DWQ, NCDOT's I-Iydraulics Unit, and NCDOT's
Roadside Environmental Unit.
The estimated 350 meters (1 140 feet) of stream impacts should be a relatively
- accurate estimate based on final hydraulic design. Coordination with the COE and DWQ
will insure that those agencies are aware of any refinements to that quantity.
NCDOT Best Management Practices (BMPs) and sedimentation control
guidelines will be administered throughoutproject construction. The streamside
embankment will be re-vegetated immediately after construction.
In cooperation with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service's requests regarding
Section 7 consultation for the dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hemstylis ~~nniJlora) populations
in the project area, NCDOT commits to the following:
• Measures to further minimize impacts to the plant populations such as keeping
the fill section as narrow as possible and clearing and grubbin, to the
construction limits will be considered during the final design stage of the
project.
• A pre-bid and pre-construction conference will be held by the NCDOT to
notify contractors of the need to abide by any special provisions to protect the
Hexasq~(is populations as identified in the preceding bullet. These
conferences will be attended by at least one representative from the Plaltning
and Enviromnental Branch and from the Roadside Environmental Unit. The
USFWS Asheville Field Office will be invited to attend.
• ~ The USFWS's Asheville Field Office will be notified at least one month in
adva~lce of the start of construction of this project to allow an opportunity to
4

transplant specimens from project impact area. The NCDOT, if resources
allow, will provide staff to assist with any transplantation efforts.

. ,
____
..,,.: _
Lao: 1~ ~
>~ u:~L...u 1
1• 'ar\I
,r~~.~ ,T``+J
.. in `^~t..~,
^I
`'
~/
~ ~OR'fI i G\ROLIS:\ DGP,\RT.v,EST OF
~.. lR:\~SPORT:\TIO>~
~~~ DI VISIOS Of- FIIGH\\'AYS
PL,\>~SISG A\D ESVIRO\)7E\TAL
~'tvn~ IIR:\~CII
I-40
PROPOSED INTERCHANGE
AT SR 1124 (33RD STREEn
CATAWBA COUNTY
T. I. P. PROJECT NO. U - 2528 AA
p miles 0.5 miles 1.0'
1 T~
0 meters 805 meters 1610
•1-,
~~ AS
r
l
~
ia
5ner
rwa
B
I' -
~
•

h i
~
FIGURE 1

..~
..;
. ~
pp ~' 4Il a • IEGGIWL WWN
M ~ SAG, ~r ~~~ ~IYVI
Y• Y
'Lti•
4+ ~ ~ ~ wan ~ :'b(' ~ ~
R • •~ ~ ~~ i
~,,
.~
~~~_ .
~r~ ~--. i
,,,
~. LJ
-~-
_~
~ ~~
I °~
ra rEOrn[e on .vE., ~e erm. to e '.
e Wi. L'
~•K~: Y Yrtf. l 1 ' '
.WO~, ve n]e. ]E i e
.vrr. ev exrE. ] e ]
.L., dE wLe. ]o e m
M5p
49riw] 4.~urr
.. r.
_=
YI
r-
°1 / ` L
i ..t r.~ .........,, ..~ ., _ _ - - -
o i ____-_--_-
~ _
~ ry
w _ _.____-_.____oo-
__~
-
'
]n i -....
.- .. ...__ _._~. - n
.. .. N•LO r
Im I
-- ~
F \ ~
i

N _
~ ~
6 __ -
~ .n
^ ~.
x u
.i
T ..ww
yww
y
~
~Z •` \ . ~~ u ~w~ ~ eF V
~~ .-~ ^ ~ /" wJ ~\ ` ~ _}I u L11EilW E-~VFaNI~E
~;
\ ~
G
'
=V
x-E~(
ti ~~l
SIRIM IVV[W
!
~:~
i
F ~J`r ~\~~`A' V
- - ~~~~ ~ W
~
i~~L
/~ ~\~
~• ~ ~
-~sk~=' ~i~ ,~;~ i w=;;~,
~ / O~ M] M• M. un N•
• Y 001•i. Y•.
}„~ ~ M] I[MY~~LaYV1EE.Ml•]M4e1 LWr
F ' i ~~~j~{{, ^ I_IY I \ - ~L LLLI IOx 0~ I~~Y INU W
Y p2/•
•~~~~M~ R iR. ylr
N.d M•
~ ~ ,~ ,~U+ U-2528AA
CE Addendum
Figure 2

Z

. ~_
~ ~
r N~
r +--'
r
(n M
M
~l~t~

o
m
m

o

0

~ »~
~
n
~ ~
.m
m
~ w
o
~
~ U Q
Q ~ c~

O
~
N c
~
~
N
~
~ U
~ ~
N
' -~
Q .~

N N

L

~
LL
~ U
~ -
~ ~
~
~
.~
m

~~ 9SStJED
I-40
PROPOSED INTERCHANGE AT SR 1 124 (33RD STREET)
LONG VIEW
CATAWBA COUNTY
Y~ FEDERAL AID PROJECT STP-OOOS(61)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2791201
TIP PRaecT U-2528AA
-~~i
~~~!~'3'~ 2oct

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED: ®~ 08
Date korWilliam D. Gilmore. P.E.. Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
f' 3l f;
Date ,~rNicholas L. Gra . P.E.
Di~•ision Administrator. FHWA

I-40
PROPOSED INTERCHANGE AT SR 1124 (33RD STREET)
LONG VIEW
CATAWBA COUNTY
FEDERAL AID PROJECT STP-OOOS(61)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2791201
TIP PROJECT U-2528AA
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August, 1998
Documentation Prepared in the Planning and Environmental Branch By:
I ~{~f GuM ~- ~-~- ~I31 I ~ Fl
Marv Alic Dickens, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
Jul e A. Hunkins. .E.
Pr : ect Planning Unit Head
Lubin V. Prevatt. P.E.
Assistant Manager
,`~~~~unnn~pq
~.`` ~N CARP ~~,,
?~~'oFESS~~liy9,,
e- '~`; -
- ~ ¢ SEAL =
-_ 21E49 =
''~,;ACJCE 0~~,.~',

.~

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS .........................................................................1
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT .......................................................................2
A. General Description ......................................................................... ........2
B. Purpose of the Proposed Project ...................................................... ........2
C. Existing Conditions .......................................................................... ........3
D. Traffic Volumes ............................................................................... ........4
E. Capacity Analysis ............................................................................ ........4
l . Freeway Analysis ................................................................. .....:..5
2. Ramp Terminals: Unsignalized Intersection Analysis ........ ........5
3. Ramp Terminals: Signalized Intersection Analysis ............ ........6
4. Weaving Area Analysis ....................................................... ........6
~. Ramp Analysis ..................................................................... ........7
6. Two-Lane Highway Analysis .............................................. ........9
7. Intersections Along SR 1124:
Unsignalized Intersection Analysis ...................................... ........9
F. Accident Study
1. I-40, From West of SR 1002 to East of US 32] ..........................11
2. US 321 Through the 1-40 Interchange Area ................................. ] 1
3. SR 1124, From South of 1-40 to North of US 70 .........................11
4. Intersection of 1-40 Westbound Ramps at SR 1002 .....................12
~. Intersection of 1-40 Eastbound Ramps at SR 1002 ......................12
G. Thoroughfare Plan ...................................................................................12
III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ..................................................................... 12
A. Proposed Improvements ...........................................................................12
] . Proposed Ramps ...........................................................................12
~ Proposed Service Road Relocation ..............................................13
3. Proposed Structure Improvements ...............................................13
4. Proposed Control of Access .........................................................13
5. Proposed Drainage Structures ......................................................13
B. Estimated Costs ........................................................................................13
C. Design Exceptions ...................................................................................13
D. Utility Involvement ..................................................................................14

E. Independent Utility and Logical Project Termini .................... ................14
IV. ALT ERNATIVES CONSIDERED ................................................................ ................14
' A. "Do Nothing>, Alternative ........................................................ ................14
' B. Postponement of Proposed Action ........................................... ................14
C. Recommended Alternative .....................................................:. ................14
V. EFFECTS TO THE MAN-MADE AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ............... ................15
A. Effects to the Man-Made Environment .................................... ................15
1. Land Use ...................................................................... ................ I S
a. Scope of Local Planning Activities .................. ................15
b. Existing Land Use ............................................ ................15
c. Future Land Use ............................................... ................15
d. Prime and Important Farmland ........................ ................15
2. Socioeconomic Impacts ............................................... ................16
a. Neighborhood Chazacteristics .......................... ................16
b. Social and Economic Impacts .......................... ................16
c. Public Facilities ................................................ ................16
d. Relocations ....................................................... ................16
e. Environmental Justice ...................................... ................16
3. Historic and Cultural Resources .................................. ................17
a. Archaeological Resources ................................ ................17
b. Architectural/Historic Resources ..................... ................17
4. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources ...................... ................17
a. Section 4(f) Properties ..................................... ................17
b. Section 6(f) Properties ..................................... ................18
B. Effects to the Natural Environment ......................................... ................ ] 8
• 1. Biotic Communities ..................................................... ................18
c a. Terrestrial Communities .................................. ................18
i. Oal:/Hickory Forest .............................. ................ ] 9
ii. Disturbed Community .......................... ................20

iii. Pine Forest ...........................................................21
b. Aquatic Communities ...::..:..............................................~~
c. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ....................................23
i. Impacts to Terrestrial Communities .....................23
ii. Impacts to Aquatic Communities .........................2=F
2. Jurisdictional Issues .....................................................................25
a. "Waters of the United States" ..........................................26
i. Chazacteristics of Jurisdictional Wetlands
ii. Summary of Anticipated Impacts .............
...
tit. Permits ...............................:......................
iv. Wetland Mitigation ...................................
a. Avoidance .....................................
b. Minimization .................................
c. Compensatory Mitigation .............
..26
..26
..26
..28
..28
..28
..29
v. Stream Mitigation ................................................29
b. Rare and Protected Species ..............................................30
i. Federally-Protected Species ................................30
ii. Federal Candidate and State Listed Species ........31
3. Physical Resources ......................................................................32
a. Soils .................................................................................32
b. Water Resources ..............................................................33
i. Waters Impacted and Chazacteristics ...................33
ii. Best Usage Classification ....................................33
iii. Water Qualit}~ .......................................................34
iv. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ........................34
c. Impacts to Floodplain ......................................................3~
4. Traffic Noise and Air Quality ......................................................35
Vl. CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................36

TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3

Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8.
Table 9a
Table 96
Table 9c
Table 9d
Table 10
FIGURES
Existing Drainage Structures ................................................... ....4
Freeway Levels of Service: I-40 ............................................. ....5
Unsignalized Intersection Levels of Service:
I-40 Eastbound Ramps at SR 1002 .......................................... ....6
Signalized Intersection Levels of Service: I-40 Westbound
Ramps/SR 1890/SR 1002 ........................................................ ....6
Weave Area Levels of Service: 1-40/US 321 Inteichange...... ....7
Ramp Levels of Service: I-40/US 321 Interchange ................ ....8
Ramp Levels of Service: I-40/SR 1124 Interchange .............. ....9
Two-Lane Highway Levels of Service:
SR 1124, North and South of I-40 ........................................... ....9
Unsignalized Intersection Analysis: SR 1124/SR 1348 .......... ....]0
Unsignalized Intersection Analysis: SR 1 124/SR 2515 .......... ....10
Unsignalized Intersection Analysis: SR 1124/SR 1196 .......... ....10
Unsignalized Intersection Analysis: SR 1124/SR 1206 .......... ....10
Summary of Impacts to Terrestrial Communities ..................... ...23
Figure I Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Photographs of Existing Conditions
Figure 3A Average Daily Traffic - 1997 No Interchange
Figure 3B Average Daily Traffic - 1997 With Interchange
Figure 3C Average Daily Traffic - 2020 No Interchange
Figure 3D Average Dail} Traffic - 2020 With Interchange
Figure 3E Detail of US 70/SR 1124 Junction
Figure 4 1-40/US 321 lnterchange Layout and Highway Capacity
Analysis Location Reference
Figure 5 Comparison of Levels of Service With and ~1%ithout Project
in Place
Figure 6 Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 7 Aerial Photograph Showing Proposed Improvements
Figure 8 100-Yeaz Floodplain
APPENDIX Additional Highway Capacity Tables
Relocation Report
Conc urrence from State Historic Preservation Office
Biological Opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Adde ndum to Natural Resources Technical Memorandum

I-40
PROPOSED INTERCHANGE AT SR 1 124 (33RD STREET)
LONG VIEW
CATAWBACOUNTY ,
FEDERAL AID PROJECT STP-OOOS(61)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2791201
TIP PROJECT U-2528AA
I. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) for Categorical
Exclusions is likely to be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for all
impacts to "Waters of the United States" resulting from the proposed project. In addition,
this project will also require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from the N.C.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) prior to the issuance of a Nationwide Permit.
Authorizations 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. Final decisions concerning compensatory
mitigation rest with the COE.
It is estimated that at least 4001ineaz meters (1300 lineaz feet) of stream impacts
will occur based on preliminary design. The estimate will be refined based on a stream
delineation that will be conducted once better design is available. Required stream
rechannelization will be coordinated with the Division of Water Quality and the Wildlife
Resources Commission. Site specific requirements for re-establishment of bank
vegetation with planting regime, meanders, and habitat structures (root wads, wing
deflectors, etc.) will be determined through coordination with the WRC field staff and
with DWQ. These items will follow the established guidelines and will incorporate any
highway specific guidance jointly developed between the WRC, DWQ, NCDOT's
Hydraulics Unit, and NCDOT's Roadside Environmental Unit.
As design decisions regarding culvert extensions are finalized, it may be
determined that the project will have additional stream impacts. NCDOT will inform
Division of Water Quality of final impact estimates and initiate coordination regarding
required stream mitigation.
NCDOT Best Management Practices (BMPs) and sedimentation control
guidelines will be administered throughout project construction. The streamside
embankment will be re-vegetated immediately after construction.
In cooperation with the U.S Fish and Wildlife's requests regarding Section 7
consultation for the dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexasrylrs naniJlora) populations in the
project area, NCDOT commits to the following:

Measures to further minimize impacts to the plant populations such as
keeping the fill section as narrow as possible and cleazing and grubbing to the
construction limits will be considered during the final design stage of the project.
A pre-bid and pre-construction conference will be held by the NCDOT to
notify contractors of the need to abide by any special provisions to protect the
Hexasrylis populations as identified in preceding commitment. These conferences
will be attended by at least one representative from the Planning and
Environmental Branch and from the Roadside Environmental Unit. The USFWS
Asheville Field Office will be invited to attend.
The USFWS's Asheville Field Office will be notified at least one month in
advance of the start of construction of this project to allow an opportunity to
transplant specimens from project impact azea. The NCDOT, if resources allow,
will provide staff to assist with any transplantation efforts.
II. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The North Cazolina Department of Transportation proposes to construct a
diamond-type interchange on I-40 at SR 1124 (33rd Street) in Long View, Catawba
County (see Figure 1). The subject project is included in the 1998-2004 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP calls for right of way acquisition to begin in
Federal Fiscal Year 1998 and for construction to begin in Federal Fiscal Year 2000. The
TIP includes $2,700,000 for right of way and $2,800,000 for construction.
On the basis of planning and environmental studies, it is not anticipated that this
project will have a substantial detrimental effect on the human environment. The
proposed project will cause no substantial changes in route classification or land use and
is not controversial in nature. Therefore, it is concluded that a Categorical Exclusion is
applicable.
B. PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
It is the purpose of this project to provide access to the Town of Long View and
its industrial and business employment areas. To meet this purpose, full access (that is,
provision for all movements) to and from 1-40 at SR 1124 is needed. The interchange,
together with possible future improvements along 33rd Street, would provide a link from
I-40 to the Hickory Regional Airport, and it would accommodate future growth in the
area. Anticipated growth in the area includes a new industrial park, for which planning
has begun, to be located in the area of the northwest quadrant of the I-40/33rd Street
overpass. Additionally, the Long View Land Development Plan (October 1993) has
identified the areas south of the tov<~n along 1-40 as the most viable grov<2h areas for Long

View. Furthermore, a major southem annexation for the Town of Long View aligned the
town's southem boundary with the southern I-40 right of way boundary effective June 30,
1996. In fact, more than $3,000,000 has already been invested in the last two yeazs for
the extension of sewer services to the I-40/33rd Street azea.

C. EXISTING CONDITIONS
In the vicinity of the proposed interchange, I-40 is a four-lane freeway with a
14.4-meter (48-foot) travelway (four 3.6-meter [12-foot] lanes) with 3.0-meter (10-foot)
paved outside shoulders and 0.9-meter (3-foot) paved inside shoulders. The median is 5
meters (84 feet) wide. The existing right of way width is 340 feet. The posted speed is
6~ mph (105 km/h). In the Functional Classification System, I-40 is classified as an
interstate.
In the vicinity of the proposed interchange, SR 1124 is a two-lane roadway with a
14.4-meter (48-foot) pavement with 3.6-meter (12-foot) useable shoulders, 1.2 meters
(4 feet) of which are paved. The posted speed limit is 70 km/h (45 mph) north of the
bridge over I-40 and 90 km/h (55 mph) south of the bridge. In the Functional
Classification System, SR 1124 is classified as a minor arterial north of I-40 and as a
minor collector south of I-40.
Bridge No. 32, which carves SR 1124 over I-40, has a 20.4-meter (68-foot) clear
roadway width. which includes a 14.4-meter (48-foot) travelway with a 3.0-meter (10-
foot) lateral clearance on each side. The bridge was constructed in 1975, and it has a
sufficiency rating of 93.7 out of a possible 100. The bridge is on a vertical grade of
approximately 6.4%.
The adjacent 1-40 interchanges are at US 321, located 3.4 kilometers (2.1 miles) to
the east of SR 1124, and at SR 1002 in Burke County, located 2.9 kilometers (1.8 miles)
to the west of SR 1124.
There are no major drainage swctures existing in the project azea. There are
three large pipes conveying streams under 1-40. Table 1 shows information regarding
existing drainage swctures.
Photographs of existing conditions are shoum in Figure 2.

Table 1. EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURES
(A!! Under 7-40)
Structure Location
(measured from centerline of bridge) Size Type
1 172 m (564 fr) west of bridge 1050 mm (42 in) RCP*
2 466 m (1529 ft) east of bridge 1050 mm (42 in) CMP**
3 266 m (873 ft) east of bridge 1500 mm (60 in) CMP**
* RCP: Reinforced concrete pipe
** CMP: Corrugated metal prpe
D. TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Currently, it is estimated that 36,300 vehicles per day (vpd) (1997 volume) aze
using 1-40 in the vicinity if the proposed project. This number is expected to increase to
55,500 vpd in the yeaz 2017 without the interchange in place. With the interchange in
place, volumes on I-40 aze estimated to be 39,400 vpd and 61,100 vpd in 1997 and 2017,
respectively.
On SRI ]24, without the project in place, estimated volumes aze 3000 vpd and
15.900 vpd for 1997 and 2017, respectively. With the interchange in place, volumes aze
estimated at 4800 vpd in ]997 and 16,200 vpd in 2017.
Traffic volumes and turning movements for the yeazs 1997 and 2017 both with
and without the proposed project in place aze shown in Figures 3A through 3D.
The junction of US 70 and SR 1124 is in ajughandle configuration of sorts, such
that two secondan roads. SR 2515 and SR 1348, function as ramps. Figure 3E shows a
detail of this configuration and the flow of vazious traffic movements through that
junction.
E. CAPACIT\' ANALI'SIS
The existing and future levels of service (LOB's) on I-40 and on its interchanges
(including ramps. weaving areas, and ramp terminals, where applicable, for the proposed
interchange and for the adjacent interchanges at US 321 and SR 1002 [Burke County]).
both with and without the proposed interchange in place, were analyzed using Highway
Capacity Software. All 1997 analyses used four lanes on I-40, and all 2020 analyses used
six lanes on 1-40 unless otherwise stated. Six lanes were used on I-40 in the vear 2020
because the Highwa}~ Capacity Analysis showed the unimproved interstate was failing in
the design year even without the proposed access. Consequently', the operation of the
proposed interchange was evaluated assuming six lanes to be in place on I-40. Doing so
allows the interchange's operation to be evaluated in light of the future needs of the

interstate. NCDOT will continue to monitor I-40 in this azea in order to plan the six-lane
widening before the interstate reaches capacity'.
_ Furthermore, capacity along SR 1124 was evaluated, using the two-lane highway'
~ analysis, for the yeazs 1997 and 2020, both with and without the proposed project in
place.
The results aze summarized below and also in Figure 5. While the subsequent text
focuses on summazizing the Highway Capacity results for the design year, existing yeaz
(1997) results, along with the design year results, are shown in Tables 1 through 7.
The Highway Capacity Results not presented and discussed here in the body of this
document are included in the Appendix, pages A-1 through A-4.
1. Freeway Analysis
Without the proposed access, I-40 between US 321 and SR 1002 operates
at LOS C with 1997 volumes (under current conditions with four lanes on I-40),
and it will operate at LOS C in 2020 if I-40 carries six lanes. With the proposed
access in place, I-40 between US 321 and SR 1002 would operate at LOS C in
1997 (with four lanes on I-40), and it will operate at LOS C in 2020 if I-40 carries
six lanes. Table 2 displays these results.
Table 1. FReewAl' LEVELS OF SERVICE: I-4O
1997
Without Project 1997
With Project 2020
Without Project 2020
With Project
C C C' C'
2. Ramp Terminals: Unsignalized Intersection Analysis
In 1997, without the proposed access in place, the unsignalized
intersection of eastbound I-40 ramps and SR 1002 is experiencing 2.1 seconds of
delay per vehicle during the AM peak (LOS A for all moves) and 2.6 seconds of
delay per vehicle during the PM peak (LOS A for all moves). ]n 1997 with the
proposed access in place, this intersection would experience 2.2 seconds of delay'
per vehicle during the AM peak (LOS A for all moves) and 2.6 seconds of delay
per vehicle during the PM peak (LOS A for all moves). In 2020, without the
proposed access in place, this intersection is expected to experience 7.6 seconds of
delay per vehicle during the AM peak (LOS B, D, and A for eastbound
throughlrights. westbound rights, and southbound lefrs, respectively) and 14.1
seconds of delay per vehicle during the PM peak (LOS B, E, and A for eastbound
throughlrights, westbound rights, and southbound lefrs, respectively). In 2020,
with the proposed access in place, this intersection is expected to experience 5.1
All 2020 analyses consider 6 lanes on I-40

seconds of delay per vehicle during the AM peak (LOS A, C, and A for eastbound
through/rights, westbound rights, and southbound lefts, respectively) and 7.2
seconds of delay per vehicle during the PM peak (LOS A, C, and A for eastbound
through/rights, westbound rights, and southbound lefts, respectively). Table 3
displays these results.
Table .3. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
I-40 EASTBOUND RAMPS AT SR 1002
1997 1997 2020 2020
Without Project With Project Without Project With Project
Movement: AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
EB TR A A A A B B A A
WBR A A A A D E C C
SBL A A A A A A A A
Intersection 2.1 2.6 2.2 2.6 7.6 14.1 5.1 7.2
Delay (sec)
3. Ramp Terminals: Signalized Intersection Analysis
In 1997, without the proposed access in place, the signalized intersection
of westbound I-40 ramps/SR 1890 and SR 1002 is operating at LOS B in both the
AM and PM peaks. In 1997 with the proposed access in place, this intersection
would operate at LOS B in both the AM and PM peaks. In 2020, without the
proposed access in place, this intersection would be expected to operate at LOS F
in the AM peak and at LOS B in the PM peak. In 2020, with the proposed access
in place. this intersection is expected to operate at LOS D in the AM peak and at
LOS B in the PM peak. Table 4 displays these results.
Table 4. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
I-40 WESTBOUND RAMPS/SR 1890/SR 1002
1997
Without Project 1997
With Project 2020
Vl~ithout Project 2020
ll'ith Project
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
B B B B F B D B
4. Weaving Area Analysis
The 1-40/US 321 interchange has four weaving azeas. each occurring on a
collector-distributor (C-D). The locations of these four weaving azeas aze shown
on Figure 4. In the yeaz ] 997, with and without the interchange at SR 1124 in
place, the LOS's for these weaving azeas vary from B to D (see Table 5 for
specific results). In the year 2020 without the interchange at SR 1 124 in place,
Unable to ea/ndate de/m' using the Nighxm~ Capacm~ Sojn+'ore.

the LOS's for these weaving azeas vary from C to D (see Table 5). In the year
2020 with the interchange at SR 1124 in place, each of these weaving azeas had a
LOS D (see Table 5).
_,
Table S. WEAVE AREA LEVELS OF SERVICE
I-40/~1S 321 INTERCHANGE
1997
Without Project 1997
With Project 2020
Without Project 2020
With Project
Weave Section* AM PM AM PM AM PM Aivi PM
North Weave C B C B D D D D
South Weave C C C D C D D D
West Weave C D C C D D D D
East Weave B B B B C C D D
* Locations of these weave areas are shown on Figure 4.
5. Ramp Analysis
The I-40/US 321 interchange has C-Ds for all movements. Accordingly,
there are sixteen ramp locations, four per quadrant, which need analysis. They
aze, in each quadrant: freeway to C-D (diverge), C-D to the first ramp (diverge),
the second (loop) ramp to the C-D (merge), and C-D to freeway (merge).. These
locations are illustrated in Figure 4, and each is assigned a reference (e.g., A1,
B2). In the year 1997 with and without the interchange at SR 1124 in place, the
LOS's for these ramps vary from A to D (see Table 6 for specific results). In the
yeaz 2020 with and without the interchange at SR 1124 in place, the LOS's for
these ramps vary from A to D (see Table 6).

TablC 6. RAMP LEVELS OF SERVICE
I-4O/US 321 INTERCHANGE
1997
Without Project 1997
With Project 2020
Without Project 2020
With Project
Ramp* AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
Al D C D C D` D D C
A2 B B B B B B B B
A3 B B B B B B B B
A4 C B C B D C D C
B1 B C B C C D C D
B2 A B A B B B B B
B3 A A A A B B B B
B4 C C C C C C C C
C1 C C C C_ C D C D
C2 A A A A A B B B
C3 A A A A B B B B
C4 B B B B C D C D
D1 B B B B D C D C
D2 A A A A B B B B
D3 A A A A A A A A
D4 C C C C C D C D
* The locations of these merge/diverge points aze shown on Figure 4.
Ramp analyses were also performed for the proposed interchange at
SR 1 ]24 for the years 1997 and 2020. With four lanes in place on 1-40 in 1997,
the SR 1124 ramps would operate at LOS C (see Table 7). With six lanes in place
on 1-40 in 2020. the LOS's of the SR 1124 ramps range from C to D (see
Table 7). Analyses were also run in other years to determine when six-lane
widening of 1-40 will be necessary. The results (see Table 7) show that the six-
lane widening of I-40 is expected to be necessary by 2009 to keep all ramps at the
SR 1 124 interchange operating at LOS D or better.
All 2020 anal~~ses consider 6 lanes on I-30
` Westbound I-40 C-D exit ramp requires two lanes in order to maintain LOS D.

8

Table 7. RAMP LEVELS OF SERVICE
I-4U/SR 1124 INTERCHANGE
1997 2020 2020 Year that 6-lane
With 4 Lanes With 4 Lanes With 6 Lanes widening is needed
on I-40 on ]-40 on I-40 to maintain
AM PM AM PM AM PM LOS D or better
WB Off C C F E D C 2009
Ramp
WB On C C F D C C 2013
Ramp
EB Off C C D F C C 2011
Ramp
EB On C C D F C D 2012
Ramp
6. Two-Lane Highway Analysis
SR 1124 was evaluated as a two-lane highway both with and without the
proposed interchange in place for the yeazs 1997 and 2020. In the current year
(1997 traffic data) north of I-40. the proposed interchange is expected to improve
the level of service on SR 1124. South of I-40 in the cutrent.year and both north
and south of I-40 in the design year (2020), the proposed interchange is no[
expected to have an effect on the level of service on SR 1 124. These results aze
shown in Table 8.
Table 8. TWO-LANE HIGHR'AY LEVELS OF SERVICE
SR 1124, NORTH AND SOUTH OF I-4O
]997 1997 ~ 2020 2020
Without Project With Project Without Project With Project
SR 1124 C C E E
South of I-40
SR 1124 D C E E
North of I-40
Intersections Along SR 1124: Unsignalized Intersection Analysis
The intersections of SR 1124 with SR 1348. SR 2515. SR 1196, and
SR 1206 (all unsignalized) were evaluated using unsignalized intersection
analysis for the years 1997 and 2020 both with and without the proposed
interchange in place. The results show that the proposed interchange will not
lower the level of service at any of these intersections. In many cases, the
~ This determination used a straight line interpolation of 1997-2020 traffic volumes.

interchange is expected to significantl}' improve the level of service. These
results aze shown below in Tables 9a through 9d.
Table 9A. UNSICNALii ED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
SR 1124/SR 1348
1997 1997 2020 2020
Without Project With Project Without Project With Project
Movement: AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
WB LR C C B B P F F D
SBL A A A A A A A A
Intersection 6.0 4.2 2.3 1.9 722 381 16.3 6.9
Delay (sec)
Table 96. 1NSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
SR 1124/SR 2515
1997 1997 2020 2020
Without Project With Project Without Project With
Project
Movement: AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
EB LR C C B B F F C D
NB L A A A A C C B A
Intersection 2.4 3.0 1.3 1.6 542 >999sec 2.7 3.6
Delay (sec)
Table 9C. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
SR 1124/SR 1196
1997 1997 2020 2020
Without Project With Project Without Projec[ With Project
Movement: AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
WB LR B C B B F F E F
SBL A A A A B B A A
Intersection 1.4 1.7 1.6 1.9 16.1 24.7 ~.7 11.4
Delay (sec)
Table 9d. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALISIS
SR 1124/SR 1206
1997 1997 2020 2020
Without Project With Project Without Project With Project
Movement: AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
EB LR A A A A B B B B
NBL A A A A A A A A
Intersection 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.2 0.3
Delay (sec)
10

ACCIDENT STUDY
An accident analysis was conducted for the time period between September 9,
1994 and August 31, 1997 at the following locations: I-40 from 0.4 km (0.25 mile) west
of SR 1002 to 0.5 km (0.3 mile) east of US 321; US 321 through the I-40 interchange
area (from south of the southern collector-distributors at I-40 to north of the northern
collector-distributors at I-40); SR 1124 from 0.5 km (0.3 mile) south of I-40 to US 70; the
intersection of the I-40 westbound ramps at SR 1002; and the intersection of the I-40
eastbound ramps at SR 1002. The results found at each studied location aze discussed
below.
1-40, FROM WEST OF SR 1002 TO EAST OF US 321
On I-40, 96 accidents, none of which were fatal, occurred during the
studied time period. This yields an accident rate of 57.98 accidents per 100
million vehicle miles (acc/100mvm). This is slightly lower than the statewide
accident rate for rural interstates, which is 62.32 acc/100mvm.
Of these accidents, 23 (24%) aze classified as rearend slow or stop
accidents. The next most frequently occurring type of accident along this segment
is the sideswipe; 17 of the 96 accidents (18%) were sideswipes. Other frequently
occumng types of accidents were ran off road - lej~ (13 accidents or 13%), ran off
road -right (12 accidents or 13%), and angle (12 accidents or 13 %).
There was not a large number of accidents concentrated at one particulaz
point along this segment of I-40.
2. US 321 THROUGH THE 1-40 INTERCHANGE AREA
On the analyzed portion of US 321, seven accidents, none of which were
fatal, occurred over the three-year study-period. This }'fields an accident rate of
44.79 acc/100mvm. This is comparably lower than the statewide rates for similar
US routes: 102.29 acc/100mvm (urban) and 55.36 acc/100mvm (rural). Of these
accidents, four (57%) were classified as rearend slow or srop. There was not a
notable percentage of another type of accident along this section of US 321, nor
w-as there an}' notable geographic concentration of accidents.
3. SR 1124, FROM SOUTH OF 1-40 TO NORTH OF US 70
On the analyzed portion of SR 1124, 15 accidents, two of which were
fatal, occurred over the studied time period. This yields a total accident rate of
288.46 acc/100mvm and a fatal accident rate of 38.46 acc/100mvm. These rates
are higher than the statewide averages for similar urban secondan• roads, which
are 247.40 acc/100mvm (total rate) and 0.69 acc/100mvm (fatal rate). Of these

accidents, nine (60%) were classified as ran off road-right. There was not a
notable percentage of another type of accident along this section of SR1124, nor
was there any notable geographic .;oncentration of accidents.
4. INTERSECTION OF I-4O WESTBOUND RAMPS AT SR lOO2
At the intersection of SR 1002 and the I-40 westbound ramps, 22
accidents, none of which were fatal, occurred during the study period. This yields
an accident rate of 193. ] 5 accidents per ] 00 million entering vehicles
(acc/] OOmev). Of these accidents, 12 (55%) were left turn-same road.
INTERSECTION OF THE I-4O EASTBOUND RAMPS AT SR lOO2
At the intersection of SR 1002 and the ]-40 eastbound ramps, one
accident, anon-fatal angle accident, occurred over the study period. This yields
an accident rate of 14.04 acc/100mev.
G. THOROUGHFARE PLAN
The proposed interchange is included on the Hickory-Newton-Conover
Thoroughfaze Plan (see Figure 6) which was adopted by the Town of Long View on
February 6, 1996 and by the North Cazolina Department of Transportation on April 12,
1996.
III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
The North Cazolina Department of Transportation proposes to construct a
diamond configuration interchange on I-40 at 33rd Street (SR 1 1241 in Long
View. Catawba County. Figure 7 shows the proposed improvements on an aerial
photograph. A grade sepazation currently exists at this location: the subject
project would require the construction of four ramps. one in each quadrant, and
the relocation of a service road (SR 1294) in the southeast quadrant.
PROPOSED RAMPS
The proposed ramps will have a design speed of 100 km/hr (60
mph) at their junction with I-40; the design speed will decrease to 80
km/hr (50 mph) further from the gore areas. Each of the four ramps will
carry one lane of traffic, and the interchange, as proposed, would provide
for all movements.
The ramp terminals would not be signalized as part of this project:
however, signalization may occur in the future as the need azises. It is
1'_

likely that the each ramp will have one shared right-through-lefr lane at its
intersection with SR 1124.
2. PROPOSED SERVICE ROAD RELOCATION
The service road (SR 1294 [Sweet Bay Lane]) that is located in the
southeast quadrant of the existing grade separation will be relocated to the
south in order to make room for the eastbound on-ramp. It is currently
proposed to construct the new service road approximately 350 meters
(1150 feet) south of its current location. It is anticipated that the service
road will have a 6-meter (20-foot) pavement, 1.2-meter (4-foot) grassed
shoulders, and a posted speed of 60 to 70 km/Itr (35 to 45 mph).
PROPOSED STRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
The existing structure will be utilized as part of the proposed
interchange. After the interchange is in place, the bridge will carry four
lanes of traffic: one through lane and one exclusive left-turn lane in each
direction. The existing clear roadway width of 20.4 meters (68 feet) is
sufficient to carry four lanes with adequate lateral cleazance; therefore, no
bridge widening will be necessary.
4. PROPOSED CONTROL OF ACCESS
As part of this project, access will be controlled along SR 1124
from approximately 90 meters (300 feet) south of the eastbound ramp
terminal to approximately 90 meters (300 feet) north of the westbound
ramp terminal.
PROPOSED DRAINAGE STRUCTURES
No major drainage structures aze proposed as part of this project.
The existing pipes (as described in Section II.C) may need to be extended.
If further design dictates any pipe extensions, they will be coordinated
with the Wildlife Resources Commission and DWQ as necessary.
B. ESTIMATED COSTS
It is estimated that the proposed project will cost $3,537,000, which includes
$737.000 for right of way and $2.800.000 for construction. This is $1,963,000 less than
the TIP cost of $5,500,000 ($2,700,000 for right of way and $2,800,000 for construction).
C. DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
No design exceptions aze anticipated.
13

D. ~ UTILITI' INVOLVEMENT
Medium utility impacts aze anticipated.
E. INDEPENDENT UTILITY AND LOGICAL PROJECT TERMINI
According to 232 CFR 771.111 (f), "...in order to ensure meaningful evaluation of
alternatives and to avoid commitments to transportation improvements before they are
fully evaluated, this action...shall:
(1) Connect logical termini and be of sufficient length to address
environmental matters on a broad scope;
(2) Have an independent utility or independent significance, i.e., be usable and
be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation
improvements in the azea aze made; and
(3) Not restrict consideration of altematives for other reasonable foreseeable
transportation improvement."
The proposed project will provide access from I-40 to SR 1124. The project
proposed a complete interchange that provides for all movements. The construction of
the interchange will not increase the need for improvements along I-40 or along SR 11.24
by negatively affecting their levels of service (see Tables 1 and 7). As such. this project
meets independent utility and logical project termini criteria.
IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. "DO NOTHING" ALTERNATIVE
The do-nothing altemative is not recommended because it would not provide any
of the benefits that the recommended altemative will.
B. POSTPONEMENT OF PROPOSED ACTION
Postponement of the proposed improvements would not provide the needed
access to the Town of Long View. Therefore, postponement of this project is not
recommended.
C. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
The recommended altemative is to construct a diamond configuration interchange
at the existing grade sepazated crossing of 1-40 and SR 1124.
13

V. EFFECTS TO THE MAR-MADE AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
A. EFFECTS TO THE MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT
LAND Use
a. SCOPE OF LOCAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES
The proposed improvements are located within the municipal
limits of the Town of Long View. The Town has an active land use
planning program, centered on its Land Development Plan, which was
adopted in 1993. The City also enforces a zoning ordinance and
subdivision regulations.
b. EXISTING LAND USE
The project site is located in an urbanized area containing a variety
of land uses. The azea is primazily residential and industrial.
c. FUTURE LAND USE
According to the Land Development Plan, only twenty percent of
the land within the Hickory Regional Planning Area remains undeveloped.
Therefore, the focus of the plan is on improving existing conditions, such
as traffic circulation, particularly within the central business district;
creating buffers between incompatible land uses; and preventing the
deteriorating effects of commercial and industrial encroachment on
residential neighborhoods. The project azea is presently occupied with
heavy commercial uses, and no changes in land use are expected.
d. PRIME AND IMPORTANT FARMLAND
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or
their representatives to consider the impact on important fatTnland of all
construction and land acquisition projects. To comply, National Resource
Conservation Service (NCRS) (formerly, the U.S. Soil Conservation
Service [SCSj) was asked to determine the location of all important sails
which may be impacted by the proposed project. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture determines which soil types meet the criteria for important
farmland soils, based on a variety of factors which contribute to a
sustained high yield of crops. The project azea, composed of urbanized
land uses, has no agricultural land uses. Therefore, further consideration
on this subject is not necessar}~.
1?

2. SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
a. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed project is located in Catawba County. The County is
located in the southwestern section of the State and is bounded by Lincoln,
Burke, Caldwell, Alexander, and Iredell Counties.
Catawba County has a total population of 118,412. There aze
57,587 males in the county and 60,825 females. Racial composition
consists of the following: 106,382 Caucasians; 10,673 African
Americans; 238 American Indians, Eskimos, or Aleuts; 854 Asians or
Pacific Islanders; and 265 in a category classified as Other Race (data
taken from the 1990 Population and Census Report).
b. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Catawba County has a labor force of 68,975. Out of this total,
66,902 persons aze employed. This leaves an unemployment total of
2073, or 3.01 %.
The positive economic factors include the fact that motorists
conducting business at the various facilities located along SR 1124 will
have improved access to them from I-40. Also, the proposed interchange
will improve access to the Hickory Regional Airport from the interstate.
C. PUBLIC FACILITIES
There are no public facilities along the project. Therefore, this
project will not adversely affect any public facilities.
RELOCATIONS
It is anticipated that the subject project will result in five residential
relocations (see Relocation Report, page A-5 of the Appendix).
e. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Executive Order 12898 requires that each federal agency, to the
greatest extent allowed by law, administer and implement its programs,
policies, and activities that affect human health or the environment so as to
identify and avoid "disproportionatel}~ high and adverse" effects on
minority and low-income populations.
16

The proposed project will not segment any existing minority
community or separate residential azeas from nearby services, such as
schools, businesses, or parks.
None of the potential relocatees are minorities, and none are
considered low-income families.
Based on project studies, this project has been implemented in
accordance with Executive Order 12898.
HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
There are no azchaeological sites listed on the National Register of
Historic Places located in the project area. The State Historic Preservation
Office has stated that no azchaeological survey is needed since it is
unlikely that any archaeological resources that aze eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the proposed
construction (see Appendix, page A-6); therefore, no archaeological
survey was conducted. No further compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act is required.
b. ARCHITECTURAL/HISTORIC RESOURCES
There are no properties listed on or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places located inside the Area of Potential Effect of
the subject project. The SHPO has concurred with this determination (see
concurrence form on page A-7 in the Appendix). No further compliance
with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is required.
4. SECTION' 4(F) AND SECTION 6(F) RESOURCES
a. SECTION 4(F) PROPERTIES
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966
specifies that publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area,
historic site, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local
significance may be used for afederal-aid project only if:
There is no feasible and ptvdent alternative to the use of
such land, and
17

2. Such a highway program or project includes all possible
planning to minimize harm to Section 4(f) lands resulting
from such use.
No properties subject to protection under Section 4(f) of the
USDOT Act of 1966 will be used or directly impacted by the subject
project.
b. SECTION 6(F) PROPERTIES
Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965
states that "no property acquired or developed with assistance under this
section shall, without the approval of the Secretary [of the Department of
the Interior], be converted to other than public dutdoor recreation uses."
No right of way for this project will be required from any
properties which have been acquired or developed with assistance of
Section 6(f)funds.
B. EFFECTS TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
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. Descriptions
of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications. Dominant flora and fauna likely to occur in each community are
described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are
provided for each animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to
the same organism will include the common name only.
a. TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Three distinct terrestrial communities have been identified in the
project study azea: oak/hickory forest. disturbed community. and pine
community. Many faunal species are highly adaptive and ma} populate
the entire range of terrestrial communities discussed.
18

OAK/I-IICKORY FOREST
Oak hickory forests lie in each of the four quadrants. The
least disturbed forest is found in the southwest quadrant, south of
Sweetbay Lane (SR 1294). Oak/hickory forests once
predominated the community types of the Piedmont. These forests
occur along upper/mid slopes, steep south-facing slopes, and other
dry to moist upland azeas in acidic soils. Under natural conditions,
these forests are uneven-aged and many old trees are present.
Regeneration occurs primarily in canopy gaps caused by severe
natural disturbances such as high winds or fires.
The dominant canopy constituents include mockemut
hickory (Carya tomentosa), white oak (Quercus alba), southern
red oak (Q. falcata), and black oak (Q. velutina). Other trees found
scattered in the canopy are tulip poplar (Leriodendron tulipifera)
and white pine (Pinus strobus). Representatives of the shrub layer
aze mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), flowering dogwood (Corpus
Florida), sourwood (Osydendrum arboreum), blueberry (Vaccinium
sp.), and black cherry (Prunus serotina). The herb layer of these
forests is usually sparse. Spotted wintergreen (Chimaphila
maculata), lion's paw (Prenanthes serpentaria), downy rattlesnake
plaintain (Goodyera pubescens), and yellow violet (Viola hastata)
grow here. Dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexasrylis noniJlora), a
federally-Threatened species, grows prodigiously along the slopes
throughout the oak hickory forest and surrounding the unnamed
stream.
A small streamside sub-community approximately' 3.0-
4.5 m (10-15 fr) in width exists within the oak/hickory community.
American beech (Fagus grandifolia), red maple (Ater rubrum),
musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana). New York fem (Thelypteris
noveborocensis), dwarf-flowered heartleaf, and Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides) are found here.
Many mammals, including long-tailed weasel (Musrela
frenata), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), eastern chipmunk (Tomias
striatus), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis), and southem flying squirrel (Glaucomys
volans), find shelter and forage opportunities in these forests.
Raccoons* (Procyon lotor) are adaptable, omnivorous mammals
that shelter in dens of hollow trees or in burrows. Gray squirrels
prefer tracts of oak/hickory forests in which they feed primarily
upon nuts and seeds. southem fl}'ing squirrels are nocturnal
creatures which also forage heavih upon the nut crop of oaks and
19

hickories. The red fox, owls, such as the great homed owl (Bubo
virginianus), and hawks, such as the sharp-shinned hawk
(Accipiter striatus), are frequent predators of this community.
These creatures prey upon the long-tailed weasel, white-footed
mouse, and other small animals.
Red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), white-
breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), black-and-white wazbler
(Mniotilta varia), yellow-throated vireo (Vireo Jlavifrons), and
ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus) may be found in oak hickory
forests. Carolina chickadee* (Parus carolinensis) occurs here and
all of these birds, except the red-bellied woodpecker, aze
insectivores. This woodpecker's diet includes insects as well as
vegetative matter. Red-bellied woodpeckers frequent a variety of
habitats, including dry woods like oak hickory forest.
Other creatures potentially found here are Fowler's toad
(Bufo woodhousei), upland chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), and
slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus). Worm snake*
(Carphophis amoenus) and ringneck snake* (Diadophis punctatus)
are found here, most often beneath a stone and in or under
decaying logs and stumps. Earthworms constitute the major food
staple of these animals, although ringneck snakes also forage on
salamanders like the slimy salamander.
ll. DISTURBED COMMUNITY
Habitats which are frequently disrupted by human activities
are referred to as the disturbed community. This community type
includes roadside habitats; some residences, and an abandoned
plum orchard.
The roadside habitats consist of areas regularly and
irregulazly maintained. Fescue (Festuca sp.) predominates the
vegetation found in the maintained areas. Irregularly maintained
areas found on slope embankments and ditches have vegetation
such as fescue, clover (Trifolium sp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), dog fennel (Anthemis sp.).
asters (Aster spp.), lespedeza (Lespedeza spp.), blackbem~ (Rubus
sp.), and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolio).
The residential neighborhood lies in the southeast quadrant
of the interchange. Houses and mobile homes have been built
here. This area has remnants of the oak/hickory forest which once
20

dominated the landscape. Other areas of this habitat have
opportunistic tree species such as white pine and red maple.
An abandoned plum (Pr•unus sp.) orchazd lies in the
northeast quadrant. The ground cover of this orchard is
predominantly fescue.
Woodchuck (Marmota monax), eastern cottontail
(Sylvilagus~loridanus), hispid cotton mouse (Sigmodon hispidus),
eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodonyomys humulis), and woodland
vole (Microtus pinetorum) may be found in these habitats.
Woodland vole are ofren attracted to orchards where they burrow
extensive tunnels just below the surface of the ground. The
Virginia opossum* (Didelphis virginiana) prefers to forage on
animal matter although vegetative matter may also be consumed.
This mammal is very adaptive to living near humans.
Avian species likely occurring here include red-headed
woodpecker (Melanerpes eruthrocephalus), American robin
(Turdus migratorius), eastem bluebird (Sia/ia sialis), downy
woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), and yellow-romped warbler
(Dendroica coronata). All of these birds, except the red-headed
woodpecker, are insectivores. The red-headed woodpecker feeds
primarily upon vegetative matter. Downy woodpeckers and
eastem bluebirds are frequently found in orchards and suburbs.
Other wildlife commonly found in disturbed habitats
include the black rat snake (Elophe obsoleta), black racer (Coluber
constrictor), and American toad (Bujo americanus). Black racers
are frequently encountered hiding under surface cover such as
boards. pieces of tin, and thick vegetation.
iii. PINE FOREST
White pine and scrub pine (Pinus virginiona) forest prevail
in areas of the project. These forest areas were once part of the
oak hickory forest. Disturbance (logging, development) to the
canopy of these forests has enabled these opportunistic pines to
become dominant. Red cedar (Juniperus virginiona) and red
maple grow in the sub-canopy. Clubmoss (Lycopodium sp.)
predominates the spazsely vegetated herb layer of these forests.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf becomes dominant as the pine forest
transitions into an oak/hickory forest.
~I

Birds commonly found in pine forest include screech owl
(Otus asio), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), and brown-headed
nuthatch (Sitta pusi//a). Screech owls aze common throughout
North Cazolina and nest in most woodlands but appear to prefer
conifers. Owls have rather long necks which enable these creatures
to twist their heads a full 180 degrees left or right.
Other organisms likely to occur here are white-tailed deer
(Odocoi/eus virginianus), American toad, gray squirrel, and
copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix). Eastern box turtles`
(Terrapene Carolina) are omnivorous consuming small animals
and a wide vaziety of plants. White-tailed deer are browsers,
feeding on the leaves and twigs of trees, and occasionally they
forage on herbaceous plants as well. Previously mentioned
wildlife may also frequent this forest type for forage and sheltering
opportunities.
b. AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
One aquatic community type, piedmont perennial stream, will be
impacted by the proposed project. Physical chazacteristics of the water
bodies and conditions of the water resources reflect faunal composition of
the aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water
resource also greatly influence aquatic communities.
This piedmont perennial stream appears to be relatively
undisturbed. The waters of the stream are clear and shaded by the forest.
This stream has habitat for northern dusky salamander' (Desmognothus
(uscus) and three-lined salamander (Eurycea guttolineato). Salamanders
eagerly consume insects and may also become forage items for other
organisms.
The rock and sand substrate of the unnamed stream provides cover
for several minnow fish species. Fish species were observed in the
perennial stream although none were captured nor identified. Minnows
found in riffles and pools of this stream may include spottail shiner
(N'otropis hudsonius), fieryblack shiner (N. pyrrhomelas), greenhead
shiner (N. chlorocephalus), and greenfin shiner (N. chloristius). These
minnows are carnivores that feed upon small crustaceans and insects.
Based on preliminary design, it is estimated that the project will
impact at least 400 linear meters (1300 linear feet) of stream. NCDOT
will inform Division of Water Quality of final impact estimates (which
will be determined by a steam delineation that will be conducted once

better design is available) and initiate coordination regarding required
stream mitigation.
C. SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on
the biotic resources described. Any construction related activities in or
neaz these resources have the potential to impact biological functions.
This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in
terms of azea impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary and
permanent impacts are considered here as well.
i. IMPACTS TO TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
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 8 summazizes the potential
quantitative losses to these biotic communities, resulting from
project construction. Estimated impacts are derived using the
entire proposed right of way width as depicted on the aerial
photomosaic. Usually, project construction does not require the
entire right of way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably
less.
Table 10. SUMMARY' OF IMPACTS TO TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Communiq~ Type Area Impacted
hectares (acres)
Oak/Hickory Forest 3.2 (7.7)
Disturbed Community 4.7 (11.R)
Pine Forest 5.5 (13.7)
Total Impacts 13.4 (33.2)
The terrestrial communities found within the project study
area will be modified by project construction. Plant communities
found within the study area, which serve as foraging, nesting, and
sheltering habitat for various wildlife, will be cleared and replaced
with fill material. The landscape surrounding the project ma}' also
become altered over time with industrial and residential areas.
Terrain modified by construction (but not paved) will become road
shoulders and early successional habitat. Post-construction
vegetation may also include ornamental plants as well. These post-
construction habitats will attract wildlife adapted to these areas.
~~

Impacts will also result to faunal species living in these
terrestrial communities. Mobile fauna will be dispersed from the
project study azea, and less mobile species may be lost as a result
of the proposed project. Animals permanently displaced by
construction activities will repopulate azeas suitable for the species.
Fauna adapted to disturbed communities will utilize the study azea
for foraging and sheltering purposes in the post-construction
period. The permanent displacement of animals and loss of habitat
will result in an increase of competition for the resources found
outside of the study azea.
ii. IMPACTS TO AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
Aquatic communities aze sensitive to even small changes in
their environment. Siltation, scouring, sedimentation, and erosion
from construction-related work will affect water quality and
biological constituents. Although direct impacts may be
temporary, environmental impacts from these construction
processes may result in long term or irreversible effects.
Alterations in the aquatic communities will result from the
culvert extension and stream rechannelization. Construction
practices may remove streamside vegetation along the unnamed
stream and result in siltation of the stream. Culvert extension
disturbs the stream substrate and produces siltation which clogs the
gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms (sessile
filter-feeders and deposit-feeders), fish, and amphibian species.
Benthic organisms at the site and downstream from the site may
also be covered by excessive amotmts of sediment. These
organisms are slow to recover or repopulate a stream. Turbidity,
another effect of siltation, reduces light penetration thus decreasing
the growth of aquatic vegetation.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill
material at the construction site will modify the landscape.
Alterations of the streamside enhance the likelihood of erosion and
sedimentation. Re-vegetation stabilizes and holds the soil thus
reducing these processes. Erosion and sedimentation carry soils,
toxic compounds, and other materials into aquatic communities at
the construction site. Streamside alterations also lead to more
direct sunlight penetration and to alterations of water temperatures
which may impact many species.
24

Once further design detail is available, NCD07 will
coordinate with the Wildlife Resources Commission and the
Division of Water Quality regazding any required stream
rechannelization. Mitigation is likely to be required since it is
estimated that at least 4001inear meters (1300 lineaz feet) of stream
may be impacted by the project. The relocation of a stream can
adversely affect the stream. Effects from stream relocation not
only alter the aquatic community at the construction site, but the
communities downstream from the project will be changed as well.
Problems often associated with stream relocation aze turbidity, loss
of bank vegetation, disruption of habitat for aquatic organisms, and
increased stream current flow. The following "general" guidelines
will be administered for any stream relocation:
(]) minimizing "in stream" activities during peak fish
spawning periods (April to June);
(2) scheduling, when applicable, "in stream" activities
during periods of low flow;
(3) alternate methods of bank stabilization (i.e., using
native vegetation) instead of riprap to the maximum
extent practicable;
(4) minimizing/eliminating use of fertilizer adjacent to
stream;
(5) using native woody/shrub-like species with small
basal width within 7.5 to 15.0 m (25.0 to 50.0 fr) of
the structure to reduce clogging and beyond this
distance using native tree species, and;
(6) re-establishing bank vegetation prior to introducing
flow into the channel.
From a natural resources perspective, in-stream
construction should occur during low flow seasons in order to
reduce impacts to aquatic communities. BMP~s and sedimentation
control guidelines are to be administered before, during, and after
construction. It is also recommended that the riparian landscape be
vegetated very soon after construction. These measures will help
in reducing the wash of sediment and toxic compounds into water
resources.
2. JURI$DICTIONAt.ISSUES
This section provides descriptions, inventories. and impact analysis
pertinent to two important issues-"Waters of the United States ~ and rare and
protected species.
~j

a. "WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES"
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of
Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3,
are those azeas that aze 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 azeas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33
U.S.C. 1344).
CHARACTERISTICS OF JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
Criteria to determine the presence of jurisdictional
wetlands, as described in the COE Wetland Delineation Manual,
include evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation. and
hydrology. No jurisdictional wetlands are located within the
project study area.
ii. SUMMARI' OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
The proposed project will not impact an}' jurisdictional
wetlands. although surface waters will be impacted. Based on
preliminary design, it is likely that the proposed project will impact
at least 400 linear meters (1300 linear feet) of stream channel. A
stream delineation will be conducted once better design plans are
available. NCDOT will coordinate ti'ith the Division of Vvater
Quality regarding any required stream mitigation.
iii. 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 fill material into "Waters of the United
States.'
A Section 40.3 Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.~(a) (23) for
Categorical Exclusions is likeh~ to be applicable for all impacts to
"Waters of the United States' resulting from the proposed project.
This permit authorizes discharges of dredged or fill material into
'_'6

headwaters and isolated jurisdictional wetlands provided the
following conditions are met:
(1) the dischazge does not cause the loss of more than
4.0 hectares (10.0 acres) of "Waters of the United
States;"
(2) the permittee notifies the District Engineer if the
discharge would cause the loss of Waters of the
United States greater than 0.4 hectares (1.0 acre) in
accordance with the "Notification" general
conditions (for dischazges in special aquatic sites,
including jurisdictional wetlands, the notification
must also include a delineation of affected special
aquatic sites, including jurisdictional wetlands),
and;
(3) the dischazge, including all attendant features, both
temporary and permanent, is part of a single and
complete project.
In addition, this project will also require a 401 Water
Quality General Certification from the DWQ prior to the issuance
of a Section 404 Permit. Section 40I of the Clean Water Act
requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any
federall}~ permitted or licensed activity that may result in a
dischazge to "Waters of the United States."
Any required stream rechannelization will be coordinated
with the Division of Water Quality and the Wildlife Resources
Commission. Site specific requirements for re-establishment of
ban}: vegetation with planting regime, meanders, and habitat
structures (root wads, wing deflectors, etc.) will be determined
through coordination with the WRC field staff and with DWQ.
These items will follow the established guidelines and will
incorporate any highway specific guidance jointh~ developed
between the WRC, DWQ, NCDOT's Hydraulics Unit, and
NCDOT's Roadside Environmental Unit.
Coordination with WRC and DWQ will continue during
further design regarding stream location and mitigation. Final
decisions concerning applicable permits for the subject project
rests with the COE.
~~

iv. WETLAND MITIGATION
The COE has adopted through the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland mitigation polic}~ which
embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing.
The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical,
biological, and physical integrity of "Waters of the 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 ] 508.20). Each of
these three aspects (avoidance, minimization ,and compensatory
mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
a. AVOIDANCE
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and
practicable possibilities of averting impacts to "Waters of
the United States." According to a 1990 MOA between the
EPA and the COE, "appropriate and practicable" measures
to offset unavoidable impacts 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.
It is pan of the project's purpose and need to
provide full access between I-40 and SR 1 ] 24. Since the
streams a]ready traverse underneath the interstate, the
construction of ramps that provide for all movements will
inevitably have some impacts. Therefore, encroachment
into surface waters as a result of project construction is
inevitable in order to achieve the purpose and need of this
project.
b. 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 of median widths.
right of way widths. fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
Other practical mechanisms to minimize impacts to
28

"Waters of the United States" crossed b}' the proposed
project include: strict enforcement of sedimentation control
BMP's for the protection of surface waters during the entire
life of the project; reduction of cleazing and grubbing
activity; reduction/elimination of direct discharge into
streams; reduction of runoff velocity; re-establishment of
vegetation on exposed areas with judicious pesticide and
herbicide usage; minimization of "in-stream" activity; and
litter/debris control.
Impacts to surface waters will be minimized by
utilizing the guidelines listed above in Section B.l.c.ii.
NCDOT's BMPs and sedimentation control guidelines will
be strictly administered to reduce potential of sediment
wash into surface waters.
c. COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
Compensatory mitigation is not normally
considered until anticipated impacts to "Waters ofthe
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 afrer all appropriate and
practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory
actions ofren include restoration, creation, and enhancement
of "Waters of the United States." Such actions should be
undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous [o the
discharge site.
Authorizations under Nationwide Permits usually
do not require compensatory mitigation according to the
1989 MOA between the EPA and the COE. Final decisions
concerning compensatory mitigation rest with the COE.
v. STREAM MITIGATION
It is estimated that the project will impact at least 4001inear
meters (1300 linear feet) of stream channel. As design decisions
regarding culvert extensions are finalized, this quantity may
change; a stream delineation will be performed to refine this
estimate. NCDOT will inform Division of Water Quality and
initiate coordination regarding required stream mitigation.
29

b. RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES
Some population of fauna and flora have been in, or aze 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 (ESA) of 1973, as amended) requires that any action likely to
adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected be subject to
review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Other species
may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and
Proposed Threatened (PTj are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the ESA of 1973, as amended. As of
May 14, 1998, the USFWS lists only dwarf-flowered heartleaf
(Hexasrylrs nani~lora) as afederally-protected species for Catawba
County. The USFWS classifies dwarf-flowered heartleaf as a
Threatened species (a species that is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range). A brief description of dwarf-
flowered heartleaf's habitat and characteristics follows.
Hexasrvfis nani/lora (dwarf-flowered heartleaf) T
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf is found only in eight
northern piedmont counties in North Carolina and the adjacent
portions of South Cazolina.
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 eazly Jul}.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations are found along
bluffs and their adjacent slopes, in boggy azeas next to streams and
creekheads, and along the slopes of~ nearb}~ 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.
30

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: MAV EFFECT
Surveys of the project study area revealed populations of
dwarf-flowered heartleaf. Positive identification of these
specimens was perforated by Dr. Gillian Newberry of the
University of South Carolina at Spartanburg. FHWA and NCDOT
have completed section 7 formal consultation with the USFWS. A
conclusion of MAV EFFECT and no jeopazdy has been received
from the USFWS (see letter page A-8 in the Appendix). Since that
letter was received, impacts to the plant were re-calculated based
on the proposed service road relocation (the service relocation road
was not considered in the original quantification). The NCDOT
will notify the USFWS by letter of the change in the number of
anticipated plants. However, since the number of anticipated
plants has decreased, it is not expected that re-initiation of Section
7 consultation is necessary based on this new quantification of
impacts (see memorandum from Tim Savidge, NCDOT
Environmental Biologist, on page. A-17 in the Appendix).
As mitigation for the impacts to the dwarf-flowered
heartleaf caused by this project as well as two other TIP projects in
Catawba County, NCDOT is to acquire land at Murray's Mill in
Catawba County to serve as a preservation site for the species.
More on the proposed Munay's Mill mitigation plans is found in
the USFWS letter beginning on page 8 in the Appendix of this
document. Currently, NCDOT has acquired the land at Murray~s
Mill, and the site is considered established. The USFWS is in the
process of developing a preserve agreement for the site.
FEDERAL CANDIDATE AND STATE LISTED SPECIES
There are two. federal species of concern (FSC) listed for
Catawba County. FSC aze 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. FSC are defined as organisms
which are vulnerable to extinction although no sufficient data
currently exist to warrant a listing as Endangered, Threatened.
Proposed Endangered, or Proposed Threatened. Organisms which
are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern
(SC) by the Natural Heritage Program (NHP) list of Rare Plant and
Animal species are afforded state protection under the State ESA
and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of
1979.
31

The two federal candidate species listed for Catawba
County aze the Catawba crayfish ostracod (Dacryloctythere
isabelae) and sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata). Neither of
these species are afforded state protection. These species are
mentioned for information purposes as their status may be
upgraded in the future.
No habitat for the Catawba crayfish ostracod occurs in the
study area although habitat for sweet pinesap does exist. Surveys
for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were
any of these species observed. A review of the database of the
NHP rare species and unique habitats revealed no records of North
Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the project study
azea.
3. PHYSICAL. RESOURCES
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study azea, are discussed
below. Soil types and availability of water directly influence composition and
distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community.
Catawba County lies in the western Piedmont physiographic province.
The landscape of Catawba County is chazacterized by fairly broad ridges and
short, steep slopes. The mean sea level (msl) elevation of the project study area is
303.3 m (1000 ft.).
a. Soll.s
Two specific soil types, Pacolet gravelly fine sandy loam (PcC)
and Madison gravelly sandy loam (MgC2), are found within the project
area. Pacolet gravelly fine sandy loam soils consist ofwell-drained soils
found in long narrow bands on upper slopes of uplands. These soils have
a percent slope of 6 to ] 0 percent. are moderately permeable, and are
strongly acidic. Pacolet gravelly fine sandy loam is anon-hydric soil. The
site index for potential productivity of loblolly pine (at age 50) is 80. This
index indicates the estimated average height of dominant trees at ~0 years
of age. Based on general productivity of loblolly pine in North Carolina,
this site is rated FAIR.
Madison gravelly sand}' loam soils are well-drained soils found on
the higher slopes of uplands. These soils have a percent slope of 6 to ] 0,
have moderate permeabilit}~, and aze strongly acidic as well. Madison
gravelly sandy loam has a hydric classification ofnon-hydric. Slope is the
main limitation of this soil type; hence control of erosion and runoff is
needed. The site index for potential productivity of loblolly pine (at age
3~

50) is 80. This index indicates the estimated average height of dominant
trees at 50 yeazs of age. Based on general productivity of loblolly pine in
North Cazolina, this site is rated FAIR.
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 Standazds, and water quality of the resources.
Probable impacts to these water bodies aze also discussed, as are means to
minimize impacts.
WATERS IMPACTED AND CHARACTERISTICS
The water resource, an unnamed intermittent stream, found
in the project study azea lies in the Catawba River Drainage Basin.
This intermittent stream originates north of the study azea and
flows southeasterly through the eastern quadrants of the proposed
intersection. This water resource is currently culverted under I-40.
The stream empties into Henry Fork, approximately 0.6 km (0.4
mi) downstream of the project.
Dimensions of this unnamed tributary aze 0.9 m (3.0 fr) in
width and 15.2 cm (6.0 in) in depth. Pools as deep as 0.6 m (2.0 ft)
aze also found within the stream. The stream has a moderate flow
rate, and its substrate is composed of cobble and sand..Some
scouring exists at the culvert under I-40.
BEST USAGE CLASSIFICATION
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by
the Division of Water Quality (DWQ, formerly Division of
Environmental Management). An unnamed stream carries the
same classification as that assigned to the stream segment to which
it is a tributary. The unnamed intermittent tributary to Henry Fork
has a best usage classification of C. "C" refers to Class C waters
which aze suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Neither Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High
Quality Waters (HQW) nor Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS-II) occur
within l.b km (1.0 mi) of the project stud}' azea.
33

iii. WATER QUALITY
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
is managed by DWQ 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 aze sensitive to very subtle changes in
water quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass aze
reflections of water quality. No BMAN information is available
for this tmnamed intermittent stream.
Point source dischazgers located throughout Nonh Cazolina
aze permitted through the National Pollutant Dischazge Elimination
System (NPDES) program. Any dischazger is required to register
for a permit. No permitted discharges aze listed for the unnamed
intermittent stream.
Iv. SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
The water quality and chazacteristics of the unnamed
stream will be affected by stream relocation and the culvert
extension. Stream relocation will alter the dynamics of a stream
(flow rate, substrate, bank shoreline stabilizaton, etc.). The
Wildlife Resource Commission (WRC) document, "NC Stream
Protection and Improvement Guidelines" will be administered in
order to minimize alterations of the unnamed stream
characteristics. Coordination with WRC will be necessary if a
"major" stream relocation is required.
Culvert extension due to ramp construction and service
road relocation will disrupt the water flow of the water resource as
well as increasing channelization of water and scouring of the
stream channel. Disruption of water flow reduces stream flow.
When construction occurs during periods of high flow, temporary
diversions of flow can raise the water level upstream of the project
and lower the water level downstream. Water movement through a
culvert becomes focused thereby increasing the velocity of the
water. Scouring regions at the culven outflow will likely result
from water channelization because water exits the culvert with a
velocity that Scotus the existing stream ban}:. However, outlet
protection (rip-rap or other sort of liner) will be installed to
minimize scouring effects.
34

A concern throughout project construction is the likel}'
increase of toxic compounds (gas, oil, etc.) being washed into the
unnamed intermittent tributary to Henry Fork. The use of
_ construction machinery near this stream may result in temporary
increases of these compounds in this water resource. These
compounds are carried into water resources via precipitation.
• Increased amounts of these toxic compounds can adversely alter
the water quality of any water resource, thus impacting its
biological and chemical functions.
NCDOT Best Management Practices (BMPs) and
sedimentation control guidelines will be administered throughout
project construction. The streamside embankment will also be re-
vegetated irrunediately afrer construction. These measures will
help control erosion, as well as reduce the wash of sediment and
toxic compounds into the receiving water resource.
C. IMPACTS TO FLOODPLAIN
Catawba County and the Town of Long View participate in the
National Flood Insurance Regulaz Program. However, this project will not
cross any designated flood hazard azeas. Existing drainage patterns will be
maintained to the extent practicable. The 100-Year Floodplain boundary
in the project vicinity is shown in Figure 8.
4. TRAFFIC NOISE AND AlR QUALITY'
The project is located in Catawba County, which has been determined to
be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR,
Part 51 is not applicable because the proposed project is located in an attainment
area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality
of this attainment area.
The project proposes to construct ramps for the existing overpass. The
closest receptor to the centerline of I-40 is approximately 228 meters (750 feet)
away from the centerline. The project will not substantially change travel
volumes in the vicinity of the project, and no additional travel lanes aze planned
for I-40 in conjunction with the proposed project. Based on past project
experience, the project's impact on noise and air quality will be insignificant.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If
vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Cazolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment
35

requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air quality
(1990 CAAA and NEPA), and no additional reports are necessan .
VI. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the studies performed for the proposed project, it is concluded that the
project will not result in substantial adverse social, economic, or environmental impacts,
and that the categorical exclusion classification, as defined in 40 CFR 1508.4 and 23 CFR
771.117, is appropriate.
36

FIGURES

a

j ,, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DI~~ISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNNG AND ENVII2ONMENTAL
~aa`p9 BRANCH
.-40
PRO?OSED INTERCHANGE
AT SR i i24 (33RD STREEn
CATAWBA COUNTY
T. I. 'r. ?RGJECT NG. U - 2528 AA
0 miles 0.5 miles 1.0"
~_ ~ i
i i
0 meters 805 meters 1610

On Bridee No. 32
Facing Northward on SR 1 ]24
North of Bridee No. 32
Facing Southward on SR L t24
On Bridge No. 32
Facing Easrivard along I-40
Photographs of Existing Conditions
LJ-2~28.~:A
Figure 2

ERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
97 - NO INTERCHANGE

a~
o~
8300 10500 6200
J. US 70
US 70 zao~ azoo 29400
N
6200
rv
6 ~`~
2500 ,~ o
SR I ti~ ~~
9200_ 800 ~ ~o
i-40 660 400 p I-40
43500
40400 170 ~Op 00
N
° 5100 ~ 10000
~ nn
1 1000 1 100 Il J700
a ~~ ~
1 `.. ~OO
15800
4200 • ~o ~~
(~,1

U-2528AA
FIGURE 3A

C
U
O
O
D
fJ
/;
J
U
O
U
u.
U
j
s
N
O ~
U
¢J :~
V
U
_ U•
U '-~
ti
J
c0 n
u, -
h
~_
_ U
L ~-
U
v J
~- VJ
U ~
r ~
= V
'J
U
_ ~
lJ
J_ i
CJ ~'
U
O =
~_ ~
=-0
v
n O
N
v.
j U
C U

i ~
.~
rr^l
I ~ ~~
~' `~ ~,
I
~~_
u? ~~
I.~' ~~
!~ d-
~;

I-40/US 321 Interchange Layout
and Highway Capacity Analysis Location Reference
B1 ~ ~ A4
N N
M
B2 A3
Collector-Distributors ~ „Collector-Distributors
B3

B4
No
>
th W
ave
~ A2

Al

I-40 ~
3 y
~
I-40
~ ~

C1 3 ; D4
C2 So h W ave D3
Col lector-Distributors M
v~ Collector-Distributors

C3
D2
C4~ ~D1 U-2528AA
Figure 4

' ~ f
~~ Lon( r+r ~~ C'.rr4
b iiu i
Loq¢
C•rrt
RM72 ~~
Approximate Location of Proposed Ramps
~.~
--~
.`
-`-~.
ZONEB
ZONE
i' ~ ~~
' `,
i' ~ ~~
.~- , ~.
~-
~~
~,~ Approximate Location of
Proposed Service Road Relocation
RM73
EXTRATERR
LIMITS
/ZONE C
100-Year Floodplain Map
U-2528AA
Figure 8

APPENDIX

U-2528AA HCM SUMMARY
FREEWAYS
Freewa 1997 1997 2020 2020
Se ment Direction without with without with
us az1 1 C C D D
)1o co us 70 2 B B C C
(3M thm 3fra)
us azt 1 8 B D D
NC 127 to SR 1124 2 B B C C
(2fr1 thru 2fr4)
t1o
US 321 to SR 1002 1
2 C
B C'
C~ __
- ~{ -~
`~~~~
(fr1 and f2)
110 y
s•<-yG~
C' -
~'
C•
US ]21 to 9R 1124 <<. C - C~

110 1 -• " C -"+4~~=-,
~°' C~

SR 1124 to SR 1002
_ 2
~ ~
B kS
:~a C.

(h5 and fni)
-
--~.~"` -"~ ,.
~'.:`t~':•

All 110 analyses in 2020 were run with 3lanes in each direction.
Multilane Highway Analysis
Highway Segmen[ 1997 wlo ~ 1997 wl ~ 2020 wlo ~ 2020 wl
US 70
frcm SR 1002 to SR 1890 A I A I A A
US 70
frcm SP. 1890 to SR 1124 I A I A I B I E
US 70
frcm SR 1124 to SR 1196 I A I A I 6 I 6
US 70
frcm SR 1196 to 17th St I A I A I C I B
US 70

from 17th St to 13th St _
I A
I A
I 6
6
US 70
frcm 13th to US 321 I A I A f3 A
A-1

Ramp Analysis for I~0 and SR 1002 Interchange
1997
AM W/O PM W/O AM WI PM W/
WB on ramp C C C C
WB off ramp C C C C
EB off ramp 1 C C C C
EB off ramp 2 C C C C
EB on ramp C C C C
2020
AM WIO PM WIO AM WI PM W/
D C D C
C C C C
C D C D
E F E F
C C C C
Ramp Anaiysis for US 70 and US 321 Interchange
1oa7
AM W/O PM WIO AM WI PM WI
NB off ramp I C 8 C I B
NB on ramp I C I B I C I B
SB off ramp 8 I C I B I C
SB on ramp 8 B I B I B
2020
AM WIO PM W1O AM WI PM WI
D C I D C
D I C D C
D I D D I D
C C I C I C
A-2

U-2528AA HCM SUMMARY
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
US 701 SR 1002 1997 2020
Approach Movement w/o AM w/o PM w/ AM w/ PM w/o AM tit
w/ C M w/ tit
w/
EB TR A A A A 0 fi
E I fi
D
WB L 6 B B B I I F E
A A A
T A A A A I A
N6 L B B B B I I C I C C C
R C C B B I C I D C C
OVERALL INTERSECTION E B B B F C C E

US 70 1 13th St 1997 2020
Approach Movement w/o AM w/o PM w/ AM w/ PM w/o
AM PM w/C M
w/o w/E M
EB L 6 B B A I I
C
I I
D
T I A A A

W6 T
B I
A B g 1 6 ( 6 B 6

R
g I
A A I
A I
.I. B A I
B A I
S6 L C C C I C I I C I C I C I D I
I R ~ C I C 6 E C I 0 I C I C I
OVERALL INTERSECTION I B B B 0 I E B B B

US 70/US 321 NB RAMPS 1997 2020
Approach Movement w/o AM w/o PM w/ AM w! PM AM
w/o w/F M
w/ FPM w/F M
E3 L E D E D 1 I I
F I I
T 8 I B B 6 II 0 I B I B I E
WB I T B I B C E I I C C I C C
R F I E I F I E F I F F F I
NB L B I 6 B 6 I I F i

R
I F
F F
F
I I F ,, F F
OVERALL INTERSECTION I F D F F I F F F F
US 70/US321 SB RAMPS 1997 2020
Approach Movement w/o >M wlo PM w/ AM w/ PM AM
w/o PM w/
w/o
M ~d
w/
EB T I D I C D D I F
I F
F
I F

I R
E
E E
I E
I F I F I F I
F
Wfi L D I E E E I F I F I F F
T 6 B 8 8 I I B C I 6 0
50 L I E F E F I I F F F I F
R I 6 B C 6 C I 6 C 0
OVERALL INTERSECTION I D D D E I F F F F

SR 100211.40 W8 RAMPS 1997
I 2020
Approach Movement w/o AM w/o PM w! AM w/ PM wlo AM w/o PM w! AM w/ FM
EB LTR A A A A F 6 F 6
6
WB LT A A A A I C B 6 A
R A A A A I A A A
NB LT B 0 B 6 I I F C E C
B
SB L B B B B 1 6 B B 6
TR B 6 B B I fi B B
_ .. ~ o f1 B
OVERALL INTERSECTION e e
A-3

U-2528AA HCM SUMMARY
U NSIGNALIZEO INTERS ECTIONS
SR 10071 U5 70
SR 18901 US 70
SR 13481 US 70
SR 25151 US 70
SR 112415R 1348
SR 1124! SR 2515
SR 11241SR 1196
SR 1196 / US 70
17TN ST I US 70
SR 1124 / SR 1206
SR 1002 / SR 1760
SR 1002 / 1-40 E
1991 wlo
AM PM 1997 with
AM ~ PM
SEI LR I B B l fi l fi
EB' L I A A I A A
Intersection Oelay I ].0 2.fi ].0 I 2.6
NB LR B B I B I 6 I
WB L I A I A I A A
Intersection Delay I 2.9 I 3.] 25 I 29
se I R I B I A I A I A I
Intersection Delay 1 0.8 1 0.9 I 0.5 0.5
NB I R 1 6 1 6 A A 1
Intersecton Delay I 21 2] 1] ~ 1 2
WB I LR I C I C I 6 1 8
sa I L I A I A I A I A I
Intersection Delay I 6.0 I 4.2 2 J 1 9
E3 ( LR I C C I E I E I
NB L A A I A A
Intersection Delay I 2.4 ~ 3.0 1 3 1 6
WB I LR I B C I 6 1 E 1
SB I L A I A I A I A
Intersecton Delay 11 4 I 1 7 1 1 6 1°
NB I LR I C C 6 E 1
WB I L I E C B I B I
InterseC.ion Oelay 13 8 I 7 1 I 2. 2 2
SB I LR I F I F I F I F
E3 I L I D I E 1 6 1 E 1
Intersection Delay 115 126 d (1° d l a 3
E3 I LR I P I A F A
NB I L I A A P P
Intersection Delay 0.6 I O 7 I 0 4 1 0
WE LR I A A P I A
58 I L I A I A I A I A I
Interserion Delay 0.8 I 0.6 ~ 0.9 0.8
E6 R I A I A A I A
WB R A A A F
se I L I A I A I A I A I
2020 wlo
AM PM 2020 wiN
AM ~ PM
F D D C
B B 0 1 8
24.1 6.9 7.5 I 4.2
F F F I F
D C C C
339 474 66.71 1°r
C C 8 1 6 1
21 2.0 I 0.7 I 0.6
E F 8 1 C
1Z5 1 70.5 I 2.5 2 °
F F F I D I
A A A I A I
722 381 16.3 6.9
F I F I C I D I
C C B A
542 I Z.7 3.6
F F E I F
B I B I A I A
156 255 I 5.7 171.4
F I F F F
F F F F

F F F, r l F I
F I F I F I F I

B I B I e I B l
A I A I A I A I
0.6 0.7 I 0.2 0.J
E I E I E I ~ I
A A A h
Z.0 1.5 1.6 t.J
E I B A I A I
D I E C I C
A A A A
Intersection Oelay Z.7 2.5 2.2 2.6 7.5 14.1 5.7 7.2
SR 112d / l-00 W W8 L NIA N/A B B N/A N!A I F F
R N/A N/P I A A I NIA N/A A A I
NEI L NIA I N/A A A N/A N/A B A
Intersection Delay 7.1 2.6 990 '
SR 11241I~0 E E9 L N!A N/A I B B N/A- N/A F F
R NIA NIA I A A N/A N/A B A '
SB L N/F N/A A A NIA N/A e 8
Intersection Delay 1.0 1.Z 44,J 20.1
' The calculale'J value was greas er tnan 999 Imersecaon Delay in seUveh ,
A-4

RELOCATION REPORT
~X E.I.S. ~ CORRIDOR ~ DESIGN
~nr
r - - .. . ~ .- ~ „lti+C~r
North Carolina Departme14E'of~Trart~]rtation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
'~'v. Ji.i''~. L'(' iiiril~~.t'Qi~TF~IjQi'N
PROJECT: 8.2791201 COUNTY Catawba Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate
I.D. NO.: U-2528 AA F.A. PROJECT STP-ODDS
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: I-40, Proposed Interchange at SR 1124 (33rd Street), Long View

r ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-SOM
50 UP
Residential 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 4 1
Businesses 0 ~ 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING OSS OWEWNG AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20N p 5 0-750 p 0-20N p S 0-150 p
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20~ON 0 150.250 0 Yl)~IIM 0 150-25a 0
ves No Explain all 'YES' answers. 10-70N 2 250J00 p 40-70N 4 25000 p
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-t00ra 2 400b00 p 70.100N 6 ~400E00 p
x 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 ur 1 600 ur p 10o uv 2 60o uv p
displacement? TO7AL 5 0 12 0
x 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project?
x a. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Will not be disrupted due to the project
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
6. Anderson Family Homes, 704-324-9315, L. A.
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? Properties, Inc., Century 21, Mickey Craft, Agent,
6. Source for available housing (list). 704-465-0777, the Real Estate Book.
x 7. Will additional housing prog2ms be needed?
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? 8. As necessary in accordance with State law.
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. ,
families? 11. Hickory Public Housing, 704-328-5373
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project? -
x 11. Is public housing available? 12. Yes, from information received from the above real
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing estate companies and the Real Estate Book.
available during relocation period?
x 13 will there be a problem of housing within L. A. Properties, Inc. has 5 lots for sale in Long View area
financial means? priced from $70,900 to 521,000.
Na 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATON? 12 months

K. R. Roberts ~ ~ 12-8-97 - -~~/~ ~a ~~ S
Reloca ion A ent Date A proved b Date
ongmai 8 1 Gopy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
A-5

r isurz.
+~'7~r,,f.st~~ i
~r`:
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
lames B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Bctty Ray McCain, Secretary
November 21, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook ~a7'iZU~LCiy~~~""/W
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: I-40 interchange at SR 1124, 33rd Street,
Catawba County, U-2528AA, ER 95-8425
Division of Archives and History
kffrey 1. Ctow, Director
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
/c Missy Dickens, NCDOT
109 Fir Jones Sacet • Ralei;Ji, North Caroliu'_7601-'_SOi
~~
A-6

IP ;: U 2tiz4 Ap Federal Aid ~ SrP - mmm~i (r,l ~~ CJLL:IC}' ~~ pti16A
CONCL72RENCE FORA
FOR
PROPL• RTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATION'~I. REGISTER OF HISTORIC PL.~CES
3rief Project Description
Tr ~4o Pr-aponEO WrEZ~uanIFE, kr stt it24 (33 a-0 SrF.~.r~. 1,o~1G~iEtil
~fi I7FkM6ett8 1196 ,representatives of the

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Fede:al Hishwav Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
-eviewed the subject project at
A scoping mee:ino
Historic architectural
Other
All parties presen[ agreed
these are no prope:pies over fairy years old within the project's area of potential effect.
/ the:e are no propeaies less than fifty years old which are considered [o meet Crate:ion
Conside:anon G within the project's area of potential effect.
the:e are properties over fairy years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the pho[ographs of each grope--rv, prope:Lies
identified as Pr.rx..~N.f. # e4 - 4a ,~ ,C A - (r are
considered not elSgible for the Nauonal Re_1SLer ana no turtne: e'ialuauon OI [hem is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed propeaies within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
~/ ~ iz ~ q ~
F.~orese ' ti 'C/~O~T Dat
/i /iii /~ ~I .Y~ r7 yir`,/ri / ~. ~ l Z ~ (1 ~
rHw?~~for the-Dtvision Admirustra[or, or other Federal Asency Date
Dot, ~ IG~t,;n,~ ial~IaS
resources photosraph review sessioniconsulta[ion
A-7
?; a survey repon is prepared, a final copy of this form and the aa_ched list will be irduded.

,MCr=-0~~,. TAKE ® . _
-:==, United States Department of the Interior u~i~a,ic"n®
•-
o
~ FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ~ ~s
~ - Asheville Pield Office ~ ~ 2 '® p
~`"c"'''a~~ 330 Ridgefield Court l
L(v'~ ~`~~~~~~ Asheville, North Carolina 28506
~~C:~ul~~,l August 3. 1995
c`VED
~ ~ X995
c
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P.E. ~~ ~
Division Administrator a ,~^~c'
U.S. Department of Transportation ~Cy p~~v`"';;P~`"~~;~ °
Federal Highway Administration 1~i~1. ,,~Gr ~ti;
310 New Bern Avenue. Suite 410 G3 =NVI~O
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
02ar Mr. Graf
This letter represents the Biological Opinion of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) concerning the effects of construction of
three North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) projects in
Catawba County on the federally threatened dwarf-flowered heartleaf
(Hexastvlis naniflora). It is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
and is in response to your July 20, 1995, request to initiate formal
consultation. This Opinion does not address requirements of
environmental laws other than the Act. A complete record of this
consultation is maintained and available for your review at this office.
Proiect Descriotions
The NCDOT is proposing the following three construction projects in
Catawba County, all of which involve populations of Hexastvlls naniflora:
(1) Replacement of Bridge Number 152 on SR 1003 over Balls Creek in
the village of Murray's Mill, a historic district (B-2119).
The purpose of the project is to replace a one-lane bridge to
improve safety and facilitate traffic flow. The NCDDT
o~(a` evaluated three alternatives, each of which involved replacing
Q o- the existing 24 meter (m) long, 6.1 m wide bridge with a 73 m
long. 8.5 m wide bridge. The proposed right-of-way width is
24 m and the project length is 152 m. The preferred
alternative involves replacing the existing bridge with a new
structure approximately 200 feet. downstream. The proposed
project will result in the loss of 0.4 hectare (ha) of mes~c
oak-hickory and 0.1 ha of alluvial forest communities. In
addition, construction activities will result in partial
removal of the streamside canopy, and may contribute to
increased sedimentation into gall's Creek with concurrent local
A-8

changes in temperature and decreases in dissolved oxygen,
respectively. The project will not impact any jurisdictional
wetland communities. Environmental impacts for the proposed
project were evaluated in a November 16. 1993, Natural
Resources Technical Report prepared by NCDOT (NCDOT 1993). A
Categorical Exclusion document was completed on July 26, 1995.
The project is scheduled for construction in 1997.
(2) Construction of the Hickory East Side Thoroughfare, a
~ multi-lane facility (U-2307). The Thoroughfare would extend
,`~ NS° approximately 7 miles, primarily on new location, and would -
{T^` connect NC 127 north of Hickory to US 70 in the vicinity of
Startown Road. The project will involve construction of a new
interchange at I-40. The purpose of this project is to reduce
traffic congestion on existing roadways and to improve roadway
safety on the east side of Hickory. Ten Build Alternatives
were examined and the preferred alternative was believed to be
the least environmentally damaging with_regards.td.wetlands. .-
forest lands,. and important farmlands. Construction of the-
preferred~alternative will result in impacts to 0.72 acres of
wetlands and 2.57 acres of surface waters (associated with
stream crossings). The project will involve the relocation ofr
a portion. of Olarks Creek. Environmental impacts associated '.'
with this project were .evaluated in a January 10, 1992, draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the December 3, 1992 , ,
final, EIS (Federal Highway Administration 1992). This project
is scheduled to be let for construction in September 1995.
(3) Construction of a new interchange at SR 1124 and I-40 near. the
Airport Road/Longview area (U-2528AA). This project is in the
~e,~S conceptual stage, but is proposed to involve the construction
of a new interchange at I-40 at the existing grade separation
~ at SR 1124.. A basic diamond configuration is presently
proposed, and the project length is approximately 4,200 feet
long with a 68 foot roadway width. The purpose of this project
is to provide a direct link from I-40 to the airport in Hickory
tcheck with Wayne?)
Consultation History
Surveys for federally listed endangered and threatened species were
conducted by NCDOT biologists on April 4. 1994, for Project B-2119
(Bridge Replacement at Murray's Mill); on May 4, 1995, for Project U-2307
(Hickory East Side Thoroughfare); and on March 21. 1995, for Project
U-2528AA (new interchange at I-40) which resulted in the discovery of
populations of Hexastvlis naniflora within the right-of-way of the
proposed projects. An earlier rare species inventory was conducted for
Project U-2307 by a consulting firm but no specimens of Hexastvlis
naniflora were located.
Proiect 8-2119: Representatives from the NCDOT held an on site meeting
;~ to notify the Service's Asheville Field Office of the discovery of a
A-9

Conservation Recommendations
Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencie"s to utilize their
authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out
conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened
species. The term conservation recommendations refers to discretionary ,
agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed '
action on listed species or critical habitat, help implement recovery
plans, or develop information.
The Service requests that the following conservation recommendations be
implemented by the NCDOT as part of the project plans:
(1) the agreement (or deed restriction) to protect plants on the
preserve in perpetuity will include a provision that any
management recommendations made by the Service will be
implemented if resources are available, and that access into
the preserve will be granted for Service representatives and -_ _
representatives from state resource agencies with prior
notification to the owner. ,
(2) the deed for the acquired site will identify that this area was
purchased for conservation purposes.
(3) measures to further minimize impacts to the plant populations
such as keeping the fill section as narrow as possible and
clearing and grubbing to the construction limits will be
considered during the final design stage of the projects.
(4) a pre-bid and pre-construction conference will be held by the
NCDOT to notify contractors of the need to abide by any special
provisions to protect the Hexastvlis populations as identified
in Number 3 above. These conferences will be attended by at
least one representative from the Planning and Environmental
Branch and Roadside Environmental Unit. The Service's
Asheville Field Office will be invited to attend.
(5) the Service's Asheville Field Office will be notified at least
one month in advance of the start of construction for all three
projects to allow an opportunity to transplant specimens from
project impact area. The NCDOT, if resources allow, will
provide staff to assist with any transplantation efforts.
In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions that either
minimize or avoid adverse effects or that benefit listed species or their
habitats, the Service requests notification of the implementation of any
conservation recommendations. • y
This concludes formal consultation under Section 7 of the Act. As
required in 50 CFR 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is
required if: (1) ne`~ information reveals impacts of this identified
action that may affect listed species in a manner not previously
considered: (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner which
was not considered in this review: or (3) a new species is listed or
A-14

critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified
action.
The Fish and Wildlife Service appreciates the assistance and cooperation
of the NCDOT and FHWA, particularly staff members, Mr. Tim Savidge.
Mr. Hal Bain, Dr. Charles Bruton, Mr. Wzyne Fedora, and Mr. Dan Hinton.
Please keep us informed as to the progress of this project. In any
future correspondence pertaining to this project, please reference our
~._. Log Number 4-2-95-102.
S' erely,
~~ ~~~~
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
- - _ cc: _.
Mr. Frank Vick, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Planning and
Environmental Branch, P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
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
Mr. Bob Johnson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Regulatory Field Office,
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143. Asheville, NC 28806
Mr. Roy Shelton. Federal Highways Administration, P.O. Box 26806.
Raleigh, NC 27611

A- ] 5

The referenced Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) describes three
Terrestrial community types within the project area: Oak/Hickory Forest, Pine Forest and
Disturbed Community (Section 3.1). The federally Threatened dwarf-flowered heartleaf
(Herasnlis nani~lora) occurs within the Oak/FIickory Forest community within the
project azea. Impacts to this species were addressed in the referenced Procrammatic
Section 7 Consultation (Ref. 2), that addressed impacts to dwarf-flowered heartleaf (dfh)
for three different projects in Catawba County.
Although the impacts associated with the service road relocation were not covered
in the NRTR. the areas that will be impacted were visited durine dfh studies. therefore an
additional field visit was not necessary. Original estimated impacts to the Oak Hickor}
Forest community were 2.2 hectares (~.4 acres). The service road relocation will add an
additional 0.9~ hectares (2.3 acres) impact to this community R'pe.
There are no additional water resources, impacted b}' the new desien. One water
body classified as an Intermittent stream is described in the NRTR. Although this stream
appeazs on the USGS quad map as an intermittent water bod}'. based on field
examinations. it appeazs that this stream may be perennial.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf occurs in the northeast and southeast quadrants of the
project interchange. These population boundaries were mapped usine GPS technology
(Ref. 2). Projected impacts to dfh for the original design were 250 plants in [he northeast
quadrant and 2066 plants in the southeast quadrant. The referenced BA explains that
these estimates are based on [he ROW limits and could chance. with final desien. With
the current design, impacts to the northeast quadrant will not chance (all 2~0 plants will
be impacted). A total of 2427 plants are estimated to occur in the project ROW for the
service road relocation. Based on current design. 739 plants are anticipated to be
impacted. The attached map prepared by Chris Rivenbark (NCDOT biologist) shows
locations of dfh in relationship to current design. These figures. along with the
accompanying map should be supplied to the USFWS for their information.
A-18