U-2530

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
' LTI.WMAI
[D F= F1
October 3, 1997
I3V3I
To: Michelle S//u??v,,,e__rkrubbe
Through: John Dorne*)
From: Cyndi Bell C'i\\4` 13
Subject: Final Section 4(f) Evaluation for Revision to NC 127 from US 321 to
SR 1184 in Hickory, Brookford Mill Village
Catawba County
State Project DOT No. 8.1792201, T.I.P. No. U-2530B, EHNR # 98-0232
The referenced document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including
wetlands. The Section 4(f) evaluation addresses impacts to Brookford Mill
Village by NCDOT's Preferred Alternative. The impacts to this historic
neighborhood will not include fill in wetlands or surface waters; therefore,
DWQ has no comment on this document.
DWQ appreciates the opportunity to review the
regarding the 401 Water Quality Certification
Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water
Branch.

cc: Steve Lund, COE, Asheville
David Cox, WRC
Howard Hall, FWS
U2530B4f.DOC
4(f) Evaluation. Questions
program should be directed to
Quality Environmental Sciences
Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
(t?16?
Environmental Review Tracking Sheet
DWO - Water Oualitv Section
MEMORANDUM
TO: Env. Sciences Branch (WQ Lab)
O Trish MacPherson (end. sps)
O Kathy Herring (forest/ORW/HQW
O Larry Ausley (ecosystems)
O Matt Mathews (toxicology)
O Jay Sauber (intensive survey)
Non-Discharge Branch (Archdale 9th)
O Kim Colson (Permitting)
* Wetlands (WQ Lab)
O John Dorney (Corps, 401)
Cyndi Bell (Dom
O Eric Galamb
?r
199>
Nrg?sc/Fy?,
s
Reg./ Prg. Mgmt Coordination Branch
O Farrell Keough (Archdale 9th)
p Brent McDonald (Archdale 12th)
* Regional Water Quality Supervisors
O Asheville O Mooresville O Washington
O Fayetteville O Raleigh O Wilmington
O Winston - Salem
Planning Branch (Archdale 6th)
O Alan Clark (basinwide planning)
O Boyd DeVane (classifications & standards)
O Beth McGee (management planning)
O Ruth Swanek (modeling) (Archdale 9th)
Point Source Branch (Archdale 9th)
O Dave Goodrich (NPDES) O
O Bradley Bennett (Stormwater) O
O Tom Poe (Pretreatment) (Archdale 7th) O
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, Regional / Program Management Coordination Branch
RE. `dun
/6
Attached is a copy of the above document. Sdbject to the requirements of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts
to the environment, especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority. Please
check the appropriate box below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if any, by
the date indicated.
RESPONSE DEADLINE: O 0
NO COMMENT F-] COMMENTS ATTACHED
N,uiie:
Date:
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining this process are greatly appreciated!
Notes:
I can be reached at:
phone: [phone], ext. 567
fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
misMircmemo - mac version
rt
Hickory-Brookford
Revision to NC 127
from US 321 to SR 1184
Catawba County
Federal Aid Project NHF-127(1)
State Project No. 8.1792201
T.I.P. Project No. U-2530B
ADMMSTRATIVE ACTION
FINAL SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
U.S. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2) (c)
and 49 U.S.C. 303
Date Leon Larson, P.E.
Regional Administrator, FHWA
4P
IF
I. Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Brookford Mill Village
A. Proposed Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
proposes to revise NC 127 from the US 321/NC 127 interchange to SR 1184 in Catawba
County. The 2.26 km (1.4 mile) project will involve both widening of an existing
roadway and construction on new location. A five lane facility with curb and gutter is
proposed. Existing SR 1213 (2nd Street SW) is classified as a rural major collector and
NC 127 is classified as an urban principal arterial. The proposed improvements are
needed to provide a more continuous route for NC 127 through southwest Hickory.
The recommended alignment runs through the center of the Brookford Mill
Village, a property that is considered eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places. This property is documented in the Historic Architecture Resources
Survey Report Phase II (Abridged), prepared for this project by the Historic Architecture
Resources Section of the North Carolina Department of Transportation.
The proposed project will provide a more continuous route for NC 127 through
southern Hickory and Brookford. The widened road will provide a high level of service
for users by increasing the capacity of the roadway and better accommodate future traffic.
Currently, NC 127 is directed along South Center Street, a two-lane roadway
which includes an at-grade intersection with US 64\70\321. The project will direct traffic
to a bridge over US 64/70/321, improving the level of service for both NC 127 and
US 64/70/321.
NC 127 traffic currently must take a 90 degree turn north of US 64/70/321. The
proposed project will eliminate this 90 degree turn and make NC 127 a more continuous
north/south corridor.
Under TIP Project R-85B a new interchange is under construction which will
realign NC 127 in the project area. For it to function effectively as a north-south corridor,
NC 127 must be revised to tie into project R-85B. Without the project no direct access to
the new US 321/NC 127 interchange will be possible. This will eliminate a major
component of the Hickory-Newton-Conover Thoroughfare Plan.
This major thoroughfare will function as a radial serving NC 127 southern travel
desires into the Hickory area. Growth in areas south of Brookford (particularly in the
Mountain View area) is projected to greatly increase traffic volumes along NC 127. The
proposed improvements will allow NC 127 to handle these increasing traffic volumes.
This project is very important to the entire network of the project area. Through
the planning processes of the local government this project has been established as one of
their top transportation priorities.
2
Figure 11 sows how the project will improve the continuity of the NC 127
corridor.
As the proposed improvements are federally-funded and will involve a taking of
National Register eligible property, compliance is required with Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (80 Stat., PL 89-670). Section 4(f) is designed
to insure that special efforts are made "to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside
and public park and recreation lands, wildlife refuges, and historic sites".
B. Description of Section 4(f) Resources
Name: Brookford Mill Village
Location: North side of the Henry Fork River, approximately 3.2 km (2 miles) south of
Hickory at the intersection of Second Street SW (SR 1213) and NC 127 (South Center
Street).
Summary of Physical Description: At the heart of the present town of Brookford,
located just south of the city of Hickory, is the mill village associated with the former
Brookford Mills. The mill village at Brookford, situated on the north bank of the Henry
Fork River, retains all the elements of a typical North Carolina textile mill village or
"mill hill," including worker housing, a manager's house, churches, and a company store.
All structures are adjacent to the mill plant and dam.
The mill village centers around the intersection of Second Street SW (SR 1213)
and Twentieth Avenue SW, where the company store building is located. A low, open,
grassy space roughly triangular in shape - extends to South Center Street in front of the
mill buildings. Two knolls rising to the east and west flank the triangular common which
once served as a recreational community. The company store building which also housed
the post office, the two-story Hotel Brookford, two churches, the mill manager's house,
and the employees' housing all make up the village.
Date of Construction: c. 1900-1930
Style: Various framed, one-story, side gable form with an attached hipped-roof porch
houses, one-story side gabled duplexes, churches, manufacturing plant, and company
store.
Setting and Landscaping: The mill village at Brookford is centered on the intersection
of SR 1213 and Twentieth Avenue SW around the community ground and former
company store. Employee homes extend up the knolls which flank - the low lying
common, and the orderly arrangement of the housing give a uniform character to the
village. The curving streets and the topography, however, provide a less formal quality to
the plan of the village. The trees, planted by the original mill village are a luxury
common to mill village housing.
Integrity: Very few, if any of the employee homes in Brookford remain unaltered.
The extent of the alterations varies from structure to structure. Most houses have
replacement porch elements and vinyl or aluminum siding. Only a small number retain
their weatherboard siding and a smaller number retain original porches. Other common
alterations include replacement doors and windows, enclosed porches and various
additions to the main block of the house. A group of houses east of the mill remain the
least altered cluster of the mill housing at Brookford. While the individual structures
have been altered substantially, the basic forms and similarities of the houses and their
disposition throughout the village remain readily apparent. The area as a whole retains
much character of an early twentieth century textile mill village.
Historical Background: Edward L. Shuford (1863-1930), the eldest son of
pioneering Hickory businessman Adolphus L. Shuford, successfully operated large
wholesale and retail stores before joining Henry J. Holbrook in forming the E. L. Shuford
Manufacturing Company which began the cotton manufacturing plant in what is now
Brookford. The town of Hickory and its surroundings developed from an important
trading center along Western North Carolina Railroad (WNCRR) in the late nineteenth
century in a twentieth century manufacturing city.
The village, incorporated in 1907, derives its name from the last syllables of its
founders surnames, Hol-BROOK and Shu-FORD. Around this same time the name of
the mill company changed from E. L. Shuford Manufacturing to Brookford Mills under
the same ownership. By 1908 Brookford Mills operated the largest cotton manufacturing
plant in Catawba County with 500 looms and 21,000 spindles, nearly double the number
at Union Mills in Maiden. In 1917 the local owners sold the mill buildings and village to
A.D. Julliard & Co. of New York City, who operated the Brookford mill until 1953 when
it was purchased by United Merchants & Manufacturers. The mill at Brookford
continued to operate as the largest plant in the country through 1940 with 650 employees,
18,368 spindles and 712 looms producing 90,000 to 100,000 pounds weekly of fancy
cottons and rayon goods.
Houses constructed for employees of Brookford Mills resemble mill housing
typical of the early twentieth century. A resident of Brookford remembers the rent for a
four-room house to be $2 or 50 cents per room. Legislation passed in 1938 establishing a
minimum wage and abolishing child labor helped to bring the demise of the mill village.
Evaluation: Under Criterion A, the Brookford Mill Village, associated with the former
Brookford Mills, is eligible for the National Register for its role in the manufacture of
textiles in Catawba County and Criterion C for its design as a mill village.
Boundaries: See Figure 7.
4
C. Impacts on the Section 4(f) Property
Two alternatives studied for the proposed revisions to NC 127 will have a direct
impact on the Brookford Mill Village. Alternate 1 also involves improvements to
SR 1213 and routing NC 127 through the center of the mill village. Alternate 1
improvements along SR 1213 through the center of the mill village has been determined
to be the only feasible and prudent alternative.
The recommended alternate involves the extension and widening to a five-lane
curb and gutter section through a 0.3 mile section of the mill village (see Figure 2). This
improvement will involve the construction of three new lanes on the sides of the existing
roadway and will require a minimum of 18 m (60 feet) of additional right of way width.
The required right of way involves portions of the frontal property along SR 1213.
This area contributes to the historical significance of the mill village and encroach on
some of the structures in the village.
Construction of Alternate 1 will relocate 18 residents and 1 business. Eight of
these relocatees are located within the historic district. Relocatees include the company
store and residential dwellings associated with the mill. The relocated residents under
Alternate 1 involve homes that have been significantly altered and are not good
representations of old mill village homes.
D. Avoidance Alternatives
Four avoidance alternatives were evaluated for the 4(f) property.
Alternate 3 begins at the new US 321/NC 127 interchange and continues on new
location, proceeding to South Center Street east of the Brookford Community Building
through the US 64/70/321 intersection on new location ending at SR 1213.
Alternate 3 would eliminate the signalized intersection just north of US 64/70/321
by extending NC 127 on new location. The level of service at US 64/70/321 intersection
would be D with major improvements. The improvements needed to reach a level of
service D includes one additional through lane in all directions and one additional left
turn in the east and southbound directions. In addition, large businesses in the vicinity of
US 64/70/321 would require relocation because of the new location extension.
Alternate 4 begins at the US 321/NC 127 interchange, following Alternate 3
through US 64/70/321 intersection. Traffic would be required to turn at the existing
intersection north of US 64/70/321.
Alternate 4 would avoid the relocation of large businesses by directing NC 127 to
the existing intersection north of US 64/70/321. While Alternate 4 would avoid the
extensive relocation of businesses, it would have worse operational characteristics than
5
Alternate 3. NC 127 traffic would be require to make a turn at the intersection just north
of US 64/70/321. The close proximity of these two intersections would further
complicate traffic operations.
Alternate 4 would direct NC 127 on new location north of US 64/70/321, but
avoid the extensive relocation of business relocation of Alternate 3. Alternate 4A would
have the same operational problems as Alternate 3 and would severely impact a
residential neighborhood north of US 64/70/321.
Because of the operational problems and impact of Alternate 3, 4, and 4A, these
alternatives were eliminated from detailed study and no cost estimates were prepared. By
utilizing a grade separation over US 64/70/321, Alternates 1, 2 and 5 have significant
advantages for traffic operations.
Alternates 3, 4, and 4A would impact Carolina Solvents Company described on
page 36 of the Environmental Assessment.
Realigning Alternate 3, 4, 4A to the east of Carolina Solvents is not feasible due
to the rough terrain and major impacts that would result from construction. Due to the
extremely difficult topography of the area, it was determined that the alignment through
Carolina solvents is more practical than an alignment to the east.
Alternate 5
Alternate 5 completely avoids the Brookford Mill Village. Because of the width
of the historic boundaries, Alternate 5 involves extensive new location.
Alternate 5 begins at the US 321/NC 127 interchange following alternates 3 and 4
east of the Brookford Community Building, then veers west tying into SR 1213. A new
structure over I-40 is required. Alternate 5 then continues north following alternates 1
and 2. The recommended structure length and width over I-40 is 19.5 meters by 91.4
meters (64 feet by 300 feet). A structure would also be required over the Henry Fork
River with this alternate. The recommended width and length for this structure is 19.5
meters by 158.5 meters (64 feet by 520 feet).
Alternate 5 would impact the Carolina Solvents Company which is described on
page 36 of the Environmental Assessment.
Realigning Alternate 5 to the east of Carolina Solvents is not feasible due to the
rough terrain and major impacts that would result from construction. Due to the
extremely difficult topography of the area, it was determined that the alignment through
Carolina solvents is more practical than an alignment to the east.
Because of the terrain of the project area and the extensive new location required
by Alternate 5, this alternate costs $12,759,000. This is $5,335,360 more than
Alternate 1. Approximately 24 residences and 1 business will be relocated if Alternate 5
is constructed.
II. Measures to Minimize Harm
Measures for minimizing harm to the Brookford Mill Village under the build
condition of Alternate 1 have been included in the project scope. These measures were
developed in coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office and are listed
below:
(1) NCDOT will offer for relocation, rehabilitation or reuse any houses in the mill
village that will be taken for the project at no cost. To allow for the maximum
time possible for relocation, NCDOT shall early in the right of way phase, focus
on acquisition of the houses in the Mill Village. The new owner(s) shall be
encouraged to move the houses in a manner that minimizes harm to the historic
fabric.
(2) Existing conditions of the mill village will be recorded.
(3) Landscape plantings will be placed in the vicinity of the mill village.
(4) Slopes in certain areas along the project have been designed to minimize right of
way requirements in the mill village.
(5) NCDOT shall provide the North Carolina SHPO an opportunity to review and
comment upon preliminary and fmal plans. The plans shall include, at a
minimum the following items:
A. bridge design,
B. retaining wall design,
C. use and treatment of uneconomical remnants owned by NCDOT,
D. landscaping.
These efforts to minimize harm to the Brookford Mill Village are also discussed
in the attached Memorandum of Agreement, which was developed jointly between the
NCDOT, FHWA, and SHPO.

Based upon the considerations discussed in the October 31, 1996 Section 4(f)
Alternatives Evaluation and the considerations discussed in this document, there is no
feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land from the Brookford Mill Village and
the proposed action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the Brookford
Mill Village resulting from such use.
BG/plr

t i
l

t !ij'
vt
? 'Ly 36 •'!
?
?i
V
y 1
.S ? ?
5
?
,

f ' lG

1 1 10-

t-

?fi
1 I t
k ?{
1
( y, c {
?
a'
l F
j
J??
F
f' fiJAlf{WMF?.r i 'Y
F? t'1
@_. r t a ?,?,e F ea w•?\.?, a 4v +?{i '% .`"rEk?;Y.Y: { /,.??A II:
. 74 T
..r...-:..a<s•.. . rk,t :. s. _? ;:. ,. Ie ri .

kAMTY `?g V.
??? ? 5 W+.T I C I?, 4F V ISy? 11 1
?Ftp ? 1 f t I

r`. ?fi4 4L"
ry ?1`
I 4 a r., T ice, ????1.t?fq.

,? {?
I11T11f 1l-1
,', \It\I
-.i Nj ;•g{° :FCP'LrF
r-flj { :-{
I ? f F5 1 r } 1IT,
.
I
N.t 91 S' fq } I
?al fl T' YI4 f alt ,, t fir f i 1?ll f- -
9 f
1k,
iz,

T 3`. `"R?r ,;q? t
t y bk l??' t -_ v? ?y? '? ?r f pF F r }nl R t {[ ,1,r t.? ?. 1 ? f'
} ?B7a` rr?.
t r??re d
i 4% ? 6 Y, ?
?
?
'
?
` x
?1` ? t..17 t f 1 4 =3t }
?
''
b
n
??` F r ?? ? 1
j
?
1
?
• ?
?
C' a
:. - ?'
, j
j ? i.:
?
k
1 ; ? ->y? ¢
Pi3? ?a? -?.
!? F r'?
?
l 1 , ,
I,,
4h
'
?
1 3 sr ,pereR.t $, s'?, c , R 1 wz
1 f., 3, 2
?!h '
??
? !
i
?t fi? ?
-?
-
? 1r
? ? ?
a I
?,
y.'R ar. 1
:
?
, 1
d
A? I
r
F
'?t ;
?i I >,td t V,t, t r S
?'??` Z?
? IP? t , r
,.
?
rq
lt ?
e $ \
1 }, ° R} fr k.7 l. # l,ffj.! d"' V y- 3 V ?` r fi
l
?
'? tl a' r, .: 4 /S
F
?
? \ ,•. I ?, \4! ? r, ? ?FF?1
,
yF'??.??,,f,,?'? a
??. `?i ?'?''' .` ? } F,J t x2
£t'
? ?
x
•
(??
:'. ,l?,.k I '#
7l 'r t
t 'nd
ir,< 1 ? ?'e
fib 1 1 '!? .: . 'i

?
H :.I l?: ??? +L tr ?:?: ?fi? >• i
Y?`
rt
? 1 I r-.. 'h IlY4 Aili tii F'NT OF I jiT'
,
\Y\ i f 1'
I'cy' }L? 1 p ?
?
r (
?
? 1?
? TIIAh 9i`OfiIATI()4 ? I

? _ '? ?pt
? } ,
t)
f - -- --' ?/;
? j
?
DIV L910N OF UICIIWAY9 ?, )f?- f ,rt ? ,
! q
II?1 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
DRANCII
n1.I F-Rhlnl F I BROOKFORD REVSION 10 NC 127
"dMt N nCrnal?InlC FROM US J2/MC 121 INTERCHANGE F 7777
t'ij '
.. 7 ..
t g? .nrn nnnl r_ s
ADN I1(lHA1_ ?I(f) PROI'I 11111:5' CATAWBA COUNTY FJ
T. I. P. PROJECT NO. U-257DB
1
>I?J
' tll"
{?
??r r DISIri1C1 110UHI1n11Y 290
so FIG.2
A?
-,I
Y(y• ? o
10 11!!1101 mmrr

O
° O p O
O O
pp o
II ?,I ,I n l ?? „ O O
,lll lin ull, I o
IIIiI11lIl1,l1j 111111111 O
1 J!uyii1J 11111111
ru lll? l l o

--- c:
2 CC
Q

? [Ll
m LO
ro F
az' U ~
z j
z?on ` ?O a

..
?ozz? M
O °::? O

z
`-z UQ d
0
?
oc=JS?
o ¢
w
co

O
e ry
o
°
?
Ct .
o
, I
° o o C3' --
?
o ,
r?l ° ? ° /Ii
?
?•} ° ?
®=,> ?1
?,.?i°?° °I°
_ lr a
0
? 1 e
I?1° _ 'n
~J
a
3
v
a a'•r o, ?
O
?
e ?
o n., o ?
?
o °? o o
o
d °\
o ?0 ?
-y?
?1
O
I
nl
,II
I
II
00
O
O
I) M®

z < W
z
Z W
_C y c m
C

I .. 'J -M9
,- t-- in
?

CZCZ
OC?U _
ZN
Z
Z Z
0
O<CZ
C OOU1--
Q

I `JCZZ?
n
Z C) 0
¢
?
U Cn~F
-a
F- r21 WwUd
z
0 W }"
/
RN m

z
?mi a
cr "I LSD

J
0
z
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
Between the Federal Highway Administration and the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Officer
Submitted to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6(a)
for Extension and Widening of SR 1213 from 18th Avenue SW to south of the Henry Fork River
Catawba County, North Carolina
TIP 4U-2530B, State Project #8.1792201, Federal Aid #NHF-127(1)
WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) has determined that the
extension and widening of SR 1213 from 18th Avenue SW to south of the Henry Fork River will
have an, effect upon the Brookford Mill Village (Mill Village), a property eligible for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places; and has consulted with the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to 36 CFR Section 800, regulations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (Council) implementing Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (16 USC 470f); and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the
Hickory Landmarks Society (HLS) have participated in the consultation and have been invited to
concur in this Memorandum of Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, FHwA and the North Carolina SHPO agree that the undertaking
shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order to take into account
the effect of the undertaking on historic properties.
STIPULATIONS
FHwA shall ensure that the following measures are carried out:
1. Recordation: To document the Mill Village and its setting before any construction is initiated,
NCDOT shall complete the Historic Buildings and Landscape Recordation Plan attached hereto
as Appendix A. The recordation plan shall be carried out and copies of the recordation materials
sent to the North Carolina SHPO and the HLS prior to the start of the marketing period specified
in Stipulation II.A below.
II. Relocation of StructLres:
A. NCDOT shall offer for relocation, rehabilitation and reuse any houses within the Mill
Village that will be taken for the project. The houses shall be offered at no cost. The houses shall
first be made available to the current owners or occupants. If the current owners or occupants are
not interested in relocating the houses, HLS shall market the houses on behalf of NCDOT for a
period not exceeding ninety days after NCDOT purchases all of the contributing houses in the
Mill Village which require relocation.
Page 2
To allow the maximum time possible for relocation, NCDOT shall, early in the right-of-
way phase, focus on acquisition of houses in the Mill Village. NCDOT shall notify the HLS as
each house is purchased. Prior to acquisition of the houses by NCDOT, the HLS may publish
general information about the availability of the houses for relocation. Marketing efforts by the
HLS shall include advertisements or articles in the HLS newsletter or other local news media,
providing information about the houset to housing advocacy organizations, and showing houses
to prospective buyers with the assistance of NCDOT.
B. Relocation of the houses shall not begin before the vacate date for the current occupant
and shall be completed within sixty days following the vacate date or one month prior to the
construction letting date, whichever is later.
C. The new owner(s) shall be responsible for all permits necessary to move the house(s),
and shall be encouraged to move the house(s) in a manner that minimizes harm to the historic
fabric. The HLS shall provide the new owner(s) a copy of Moving Historic Buildings by John
Obed Curtis.
D. If new owners willing to relocate the houses are not identified within the period
specified in Stipulation ILA above, NCDOT shall notify the North Carolina SHPO and may
demolish the houses.
III. PrQiect Design: NCDOT shall provide the North Carolina SHPO an opportunity to review
and comment upon preliminary and final plans for the extension and widening of SR 1213 from
18th Avenue SW to south of the Henry Fork River. The plans shall include, at a minimum, the
following items:
A. bridge design,
B. retaining wall design,
C. use and treatment of uneconomical remnants owned by NCDOT,
D. landscaping.
IV. Dispute Resolution: Should the North Carolina SHPO object within thirty (30) days to any
plans or documentation provided for review pursuant to this Memorandum of Agreement, FHwA
shall consult with the North Carolina SHPO to resolve the objection. If FHwA or the SHPO
determines that the objection can not be resolved, FHwA shall forward all documentation
relevant to the dispute to the Council. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of all pertinent
documentation, the Council will either:
A. Provide FHwA with recommendations which FHwA will take into account in reaching
a final decision regarding the dispute, or
B. Notify FHwA that it will comment pursuant to 36 CFR Section 800.6(b) and proceed
to comment. Any Council comment provided in response to such a request will be taken into
Page 3
account by FHwA in accordance with 36 CFR Section 800.6(c)(2) with reference to the subject
of the dispute.
Any recommendation or comment provided by the Council will be understood to pertain
only to the subject of the dispute; FHwA's responsibility to carry out all the actions under the
Memorandum of Agreement that are not the subject of the dispute will remain unchanged.
Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement by FHwA and the North Carolina SHPO,
its subsequent acceptance by the Council, and implementation of its terms, evidence that FHwA
has afforded the Council an opportunity to comment on the extension and widening of SR 1213
from 18th Avenue SW to south of the Henry Fork River in Catawba County and its effects on
historic properties, and that FHwA has taken into account the effects of the undertaking on
historic properties.
Federal Highway Administration
or t
By:
Date: ? /77 !7-1/ 9>1
North C -=a State Hist ric Preservation Officer
By: 1AI Date:?IIJZ? 7
Accepted By:
Advisory C ci on Historic ese ation
By: ou Date:
Concur:
North Caroli a ep e ;tof T tion
By: Date:
Concur:
Hickory Landmarks Society
By: Date:9 7
Page 4
Appendix A
Historic Buildings and Landscape Recordation Plan
for Extension and Widening of SR 1213 from 18th Avenue SW to south of the Henry Fork River
Catawba County, North Carolina
1. Historical Background and Physical Description: A brief historical narrative and physical
description, including site plan, of Brookford Mill Village.
II. Photographic Requirements:
*Overall views of major buildings within the historic district, including houses to
be demolished or moved
*Each visible elevation of major buildings within the historic district, including
buildings to be demolished
*Streetscape views showing the relationships of buildings within the historic
district
*Aerial photograph of the mill village
III. Format:
*35mm or larger black and white negatives (all views except aerial)
*4" x 5" or larger black and white prints (all views except aerial)
*Color slides (all views except aerial)
*All processing to be done to archival standards. Fiber-based paper is the
traditional archival standard. According to Kodak, however, their resin-coated
paper meets archival standards if it is stored in total darkness (in an envelope)
and at low humidity.
*All photographs, negatives and slides to be labeled according to Division of
Archives and History Standards.
IV. Copies and Curation:
*One (1) set of all negatives, prints and slides will be deposited with the North
Carolina Division of Archives and History/State Historic Preservation Office to
be made a permanent part of the statewide survey and iconographic collection.
*One (1) set of prints will be deposited with the Hickory Landmarks Society.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
/
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A14; ty-gon
%ftwooft ?J
ID F= F1
December 1, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
From: Eric Galamb?
Subject: EA for NC 1`277
Catawba County
State Project DOT No. 8.1792201, TIP # U-2530B
EHNR # 96-0346, DEM # 11114
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands.
The subject project may impact 0.1 hectares of waters including wetlands. The
following comments are based on the review of the document:
A) DEM requests that no weep holes be installed in the bridge over Henry Fork
River. If this is not possible, then runoff from the bridge deck should not drain
directly into the water.
B) Stream relocations should be in accordance with DOT's guidelines. Stream
relocation should be coordinated with the Wildlife Resources Commission.
DOT is reminded that endorsement of an EA or FONSI by DEM would not preclude
the-denial of a 401 Certification upon application if wetland and water impacts have
not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Questions
regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's
Environmental Sciences Branch at 733-1786.
cc: Asheville COE
Beverely Grate, P&E
Monica Swihart
John Dorney
nc127.ea
FAXED
DEC 0 1 1995
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 1096 past-consumer paper
N. C. DEPARTMENT. OF TRANSPORTATION
' II DATE
' - TRANSMITTAL SLIP -1 r
j \ Y
!MS. CINDI BELL NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT.
WATER QUALITY LAB
ARCHDALE BLDG. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
? NOTE AND. FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION_
?NOTE AND-RETURN .TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR :APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS FOR YOUR INFORMATION.
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR> YOUR.COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE? SIGNATURE,
El TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ;? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
RECEIVEQ
JAN 2 1 ivy/
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
?' :?
,..

NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
ON PROPOSED REVISION TO NC 127
FROM US 321 TO SR 1184
Project 8.1792201 U-2530B Catawba County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will
hold the above Public Hearing on Tuesday, February 11, 1997
at 7:00 p.m. in the Brookford Community Building Dining Hall
located at 1700 South Center Street in Brookford.
The hearing will consist of an explanation of the
proposed location and design, right of way requirements and
procedures, and relocation advisory assistance. The hearing
will be open to those present for statements, questions,
comments and/or submittal of material pertaining to the
proposed project. Additional material may be submitted for a
period of 10 days from the date of the hearing to: NCDOT,
L. L. Hendricks, Citizens Participation Unit, P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611.
This project proposes to construct a five-lane roadway
with curb and gutter approximately 1.4 miles in length. The
project will include constructing a connector between the
US 321 interchange and South Center Street on new location.
A segment of existing SR 1213 (Second Street S.W.) will be
widened/improved and become part of the revised NC 127
corridor. Additional right of way and the relocation of
homes and businesses will'be required for this project.
A map setting forth the location and design and a copy
of the environmental document - Finding of No Significant
Impact - are available for public review at the Brookford
Town Hall, Town Clerk's Office, located at 1700 South Center
Street in Brookford.
Representatives of the Department of Transportation will
be available to discuss the proposed project with those
attending the public hearing. Anyone desiring additional
information concerning the Public Hearing may contact
Mr. Hendricks at the above mailing address, by FAX at
[phone], or by telephone at [phone].
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for
disabled persons who wish to participate in the hearing. To
receive special services, please call Mr. Hendricks at the
above number to give adequate notice prior to the date of the
hearing.

NOTICE OF A PRE-HEARING OPEN HOUSE AND A PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE PROPOSED NEWTON-CONOVER EASTERN LOOP
FROM NC 16 SOUTH OF NEWTON TO NC 16 NORTH OF CONOVER
Project 8.1792401 U-2404 Catawba County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold
the above pre-hearing open house on Monday, February 10, 1997
from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in the Catawba Valley Community
College Auditorium - MAIN CAMPUS - located at 2550 Highway
US 70 in Hickory. Interested individuals may attend the open
house at their convenience between the above stated hours to
become familiar with the proposed design. A FORMAL PUBLIC
HEARING FOR THIS PROJECT WILL BE CONDUCTED IN THE AUDITORIUM
BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M.
The hearing will consist of an explanation of the proposed
location and design, right of way requirements and procedures,
and relocation advisory assistance. The hearing will be open
to those present for statements, questions, comments and/or
submittal of material pertaining to the proposed project.
Additional material may be submitted for a period of 10 days
from the date of the hearing to: L. L. Hendricks,
P. 0. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611.
The project proposes to develop the Newton-Conover Eastern
Loop using a combination of four-lane median divided roadway
with curb and gutter on new location and reconstructing the
existing Thornburg Drive (SR 2642) from two lanes to four lanes
with a median and curb and gutter along its current alignment -
a distance of approximately 5.8 miles. The new roadway will
cross under an existing Norfolk-Southern Railroad track. The
existing NC 16 interchange with I-40 will be relocated to the
new route and the ramps for the existing interchange in Conover
will be removed. Additional right of way and the relocation of
homes and businesses will be required for this project.
A map setting forth the location and design and a copy of
the environmental document - Environmental Assessment - are
available for public review in the Newton City Hall located at
401 North Main Avenue in Newton and in the Conover City Hall
located at 101 1st Street East in Conover.
Anyone desiring additional information concerning the
Public Hearing may contact Mr. Hendricks at the above address
or by telephone at [phone].
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for
disabled persons who wish to participate in the hearing. To
receive special services, please call Mr. Hendricks at the
above number to give adequate notice prior to the date of the
hearing.
M Sr . i ^-?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR SECRETARY <
January 15, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: Secretary Garland Garrett
FROM: L. L. Hendricks 1 • 1
Public Hearing Officer
Citizens Participation Unit
RE: Notice of a Pre-Hearing Open House and a Public Hearing on the
Proposed Newton-Conover Eastern Loop from NC 16 South of
Newton to NC 16 North of Conover
The following Notice is furnished for your information:
U-2404: The project proposes to provide a four-lane median divided curb and
gutter urban highway--some on new location.
cc: Ms. Ann Gaither, Board of Transportation Member
Mr. Larry R. Goode, P.E., Ph.D.
Mr. J. D. Goins, P.E.
Mr. B. G. Jenkins, Jr., P.E.
Mr. J. B. Williamson, Jr.
Mr. D. R. Morton, P.E.
Mr. C. W. Leggett, P.E.
Mr. L. K. Barger, P.E.
Mr. D. E. Burwell, Jr., P.E.
Mr. H. F. Vick, P.E.
Mr. G. T. Shearin, P.E.
Mr. W. R. Brown, P.E.
Mr. J. M. Lynch, P.E.
Mr. C. H. Casey, P.E.
Mr. Robert Mathes
Mr. Danny Rogers
Ms. Rosy Goode
Mr. Everett Ward
Mr. Ron Poole, P.E., Ph.D.
Mr. Dean Bridges, Right of Way Agent
FHWA

0,
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
JamesB. Hunt, Jr., Govemor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A '01
.Vrn?
[D EHNFl
January 14, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: FONSI for NC 127
Catawba County
State Project DOT No. 8.1792201, TIP # U-2530B
EHNR # 97-0388, DEM # 11454
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is
responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities which
impact waters of the state including wetlands. The subject project may impact 0.1 hectares of
waters including wetlands. The following comments are based on the review of the document:
A) DWQ had a few concerns from the review of the EA. DOT has responded such that we
can concur with the FONSI.
DOT is reminded that endorsement of the FONSI by DWQ would not preclude the denial of a
401 Certification upon application if wetland and water impacts have not been avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should
be directed to Eric Galamb or Cyndi Bell in DWQ's Environmental Sciences Branch at 733-1786.
cc: Asheville COE
Beverely Grate, P&E
Michelle Suverkrubbe
nc 127.fon
FAXED
JAN 1 4 1991
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 501% recycled/10% post consumer paper
Hickory-Brookford
Revision to NC 127
from US 321 to SR 1184
Catawba County
Federal Aid Project NHF-127(1)
State Project No. 8.1792201
T.I.P. Project U-2530B
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
and
SECTION 4(f) ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N.C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2) (c)
and 49 U.S.C. 303
Date -kr H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
d/z? G
rz-? e- 2LAnew
Date ?Nich s Gra , P.E.
f Division Administrator, FHWA
/izl
Date F eon Larson, P. E.
Regional Administrator, FHWA
Hickory-Brookford
Revision to NC 127
from US 321 to SR 1184
Catawba County
Federal Aid Project NHF-127(1)
State Project No. 8.1792201
T.I.P. Project U-2530B
f
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
and
SECTION 4(f) ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
Document Prepared in the Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Beverly J. Grat
Project Planning Engineer
Robert P. Hanson, P.E.
Project Planning Unit Head
Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
,pt*71 ??AR4?iy
? .•'cf SSIn: ti 9
ff- SEAL
17282
FAT P. N
Ci
Planning and Environmental Branch
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECOMMENDED ACTION ..................................1
II. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS ........................................................ .1
III. NEED FOR ACTION ......................:.............................................................. .2
IV. CIRCULATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................3
V. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............ 3
VI. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING .....................5
VII. REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................. ..6
VIII. SECTION 4(f) ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION ....................................... ..9
A. Description of Proposed Action .......................................................... ..9
B. Description of Section 4(f) Resources ................................................. 10
C. Impacts to Section Property ............................................................... 12
D. Avoidance Alternatives ....................................................................... 13
E. Measures to Minimize Harm ............................................................... 15
F. Coordination ...................................................................................... 15
G. Department of Interior Coordination .................................................. 16
H. Basis for No Feasible and Prudent Alternative to the Mill Village ........ 16
1. Conclusion ......................................................................................... 16
IX. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ............................. 17
FIGURES
APPENDIX
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Aerial Mosaic
Figure 3 Alternate 1, 2, and 5
Figure 4 Alternates Eliminated From Study
Figure 5 Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 6A 1997/2017 No Build ADT Volumes
Figure 6B 1997/2017 Alternate 1 ADT Volumes
Figure 6C 1997/2017 Alternate 2 and 5 ADT Volumes
Figure 6D 1997/2017 Alternate 3 ADT Volumes
Figure 6E 1997/2017 Alternate 4 ADT Volumes
Figure 7 Historic District Boundary
Figure 8 Alternates 1 and 2 Impacts to Historic District
Figure 9 Wetland Pockets Along Alternate I
Figure 10 100-year Floodplain Map
Figure 11 Problems with No-Build Alternate
APPENDIX A - Comments on Environmental Assessment
Hickory-Brookford
Revision to NC 127
from US 321 to SR 1184
Catawba County
Federal Aid Project NHF-127(1)
State Project No. 8.1792201
T.I.P. Project U-2530B
DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways,
proposes to revise NC 127 from the US 321/NC 127 interchange to SR 1184 in Catawba
County. The 2.26 km (1.4 mile) project will involve both the widening of an existing
roadway and construction on new location. A five lane facility with curb and gutter is
proposed.
The total estimated cost of the proposed project is $7,771,640 including
$2,271,000 for right-of-way acquisition and $5,500,000 for construction.
The proposed project is included in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year
(FFY) 1997 and construction is scheduled to begin in FFY 1999. The estimated cost
included in the 1997-2003 TIP is $6,200,000.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will implement practical
measures to minimize and avoid impacts to the natural and human environment.
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344), a permit will be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to
discharge and place fill materials into any wetlands affected by construction.
A 401 Water Quality Certification from the Water Quality Section of the Division
of Environmental Management in the North Carolina Department of Environmental Health
and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR) will be required for fill activity in wetlands and
surface waters where federal permits are required.
Stream relocations will be in accordance with NCDOT guidelines and coordinated with
the Wildlife Resources Commission.
2
A floodway modification may be required to accommodate the proposed crossing
of the Henry Fork River. The Hydraulic Design Unit will coordinate with the Federal
Emergency Management agency and local authorities during final hydraulic design for
approval of the floodway modification (if needed).
To the extent practicable, NCDOT will minimize impacts to the Brookford Mill
Historic District. NCDOT and FHWA will develop a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
with the State Historic Preservation Office regarding measures to minimize harm to the
Historic District and obtain concurrence from the Advisory Council for Historic
Preservation. The MOA will be completed before the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation is
approved and prior to right of way acquisition. '
III. NEED FOR ACTION
The proposed project will provide a more continuous route for NC 127 through
southern Hickory and Brookford. The widened road will provide a high level of service
for the users by increasing the capacity of the roadway and will better accommodate future
traffic.
Currently, NC 127 is directed along South Center Street, a two lane roadway that
includes an at-grade intersection with US 64/70/321. The project will direct traffic to a
bridge over US 64/70/321, improving the level of service for both NC 127 and
US 64/70/321.
NC 127 traffic must make a 90 degree turn north of US 64/70/321. The proposed
project will eliminate this 90 degree turn and make NC 127 a more continuous north/south
corridor.
Under TIP Project R-85B a new interchange is under construction which will
realign NC 127 in the project area. For it to function effectively as a north/south corridor,
NC 127 must be revised to tie into project R-85B. Without the project no direct access to
the new US 321/NC 127 interchange will be possible. This will eliminate a major
component of the Hickory-Newton-Conover Thoroughfare Plan.
This major thoroughfare will function as a radial serving NC 127 south travel
desires into the Hickory area. Growth in areas south of Brookford (particularly in the
Mountain View area) is projected to greatly increase traffic volumes along NC 127. The
proposed improvements will allow NC 127 to handle these increasing traffic volumes.
The project is very important to the entire transportation network of the project
area. Through the planning processes of the local government this project has been
established as one of their top transportation priorities.
IV. CIRCULATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The September 29, 1995 Environmental Assessment (EA) and Draft Section 4(f)
Evaluation was circulated among the following federal, state, and local agencies and
officials for review and comments.
*U. S. Department of Interior
U. S. Geological Survey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District
*U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Asheville
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Department of Environment Health and Natural Resources -
Division of Parks and Recreation
*Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources -
Division of Environmental Management
Mayor of Brookford
Catawba County Commissioners
Hickory-Newton-Conover Metropolitan Planning Organization
Written comments were received from the agencies denoted with an asterisk (*).
Copies of the comments received are included in the Appendix of this document.
Substantive comments are discussed in Section V.
V. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Department of Environment. Health and Natural Resources
Comment: DEM requests that no weep holes be installed in the bridge over the Henry
Fork River. If this is not possible, then runoff from the bridge deck should not drain
directly into the water.
Response: Every effort will be made during final hydraulic design to minimize weep
holes on the bridge and runoff directly into the Henry Fork River.
Comment: Stream relocations 'should be in accordance with DOT's guidelines.
Stream relocations should be coordinated with the Wildlife Resources Commission.
Response: Stream relocations will be in accordance with NCDOT guidelines and
coordinated with the Wildlife Resources Commission.
4
United States Department of Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
Comment: The Service found that the assessment properly highlights the.likely
environmental impacts associated with the various alternatives. However, it was not clear
what measures would be taken to mitigate or minimize impacts to the area. For example,
the following statements indicate that measures for minimizing impacts are possible:
"Because of the generally acute sensitivity of aquatic organisms to discharges and inputs
deriving from construction, appropriate measures must be taken to avoid spillage and
control runoff' (Page 23) and "Each studied alignment except for Alternate 4, potentially
impact at least one of these wetlands.... It may be easy to avoid them in construction
design and siting" (Page 24). However, the assessment did not outline any commitments.
Finally, the following statement on page 23 and 24-- "Alternate 1 could have a major
impact on one small stream which parallels the roadway within the right-of-way for 91 in
(300 feet) or more east of 18th Ave. SW."--suggests that it may be necessary to relocate a
portion of this stream. The Service believes that any environmental impacts, such as
stream relocations, should be clearly identified in the assessment and that mitigation
measures should be outlined.
Response: Wetland pockets #3 and #4 may be impacted by Alternate 1. A more
detailed design has been done since the completion of the Environmental Assessment. It
was determined that approximately 700 feet of a tributary to the Henry Fork River will
need to be relocated for construction. Final design plans will be coordinated with resource
agencies. NCDOT Stream Relocation Guidelines will be used in designing the channel
relocation and enforced during the construction stage of this project. Best Management
Practices applicable for these areas will be implemented to minimize impacts.
Comment: The Service encourages the implementation of the following measures to
minimize impacts to aquatic resources in the two small tributaries that will be crossed and
in the Henry Fork River associated with new bridge construction: (1)stringent erosion
control measures should be implemented during all bridge construction activities to
minimize downstream effects: (2) the extension of culverts should allow for continuous
flow in tributaries crossed by the alignment: and (3) the construction should be
accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact water entering or flowing in the
stream. This will reduce the likelihood of fish kills associated with culvert/bridge
construction.
Response:. Best Management Practices will be implemented to reduce impact to
aquatic resources in the two small tributaries crossed and to the Henry Fork River. The
three measures mentioned above are standard construction practices.
5
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: Biological staff of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission are
pleased that Alternative 1 is the alternative preferred by the NCDOT, as this alternative
should have the least impact on fisheries and wildlife resources in the project area. We
concur with a Finding of No Significant Impact.
Response: None Required
United States Department of Interior - Office of the Secretary
Comment: We concur that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed
project. We also concur with the proposed measures to minimize harm to the Brookford
Mill Village Historic District . Notwithstanding, we recommend continued cooperation
and coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office, in order to complete the
proposed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which should include measures to avoid or
minimize harm to historic and archaeological resources affected by the proposed project,
in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended. A signed copy of the MOA should be included in the Final Section 4(f)
Evaluation
The Department of Interior has no objection to Section 4(f) approval of this
project by the Department of Transportation.
Response: A Memorandum of Agreement is being prepared and will be included in the
Final Section 4(f) Evaluation.
VI. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING PUBLIC HEARING
Following completion of the Environmental Assessment, a corridor public hearing
was held on May 28, 1996 in the Brookford Community Building in Brookford.
Interested citizens were given the opportunity to, review preliminary corridors for the
project, talk to NCDOT engineers and right of way agents, and make comments
concerning the proposed improvements. Approximately 150 people attended the public
hearing. The following is a summary of comments received during and following the
public hearing.
• Why has the construction been delayed?
Concern over utility installation being delayed because of delays relating to the road
project.
9 Questions about the historic designation of the Brookford Mill Village.
6
• Why were alternatives along South Center Street eliminated.
• Support Alternate 1 (3 comments).
• What type access control?
• Relocation specifics.
• Details of construction limits of Alternate 1.
• Bypass Brookford completely (one comment).
• Recommend project be advanced as soon as possible.
The public hearing moderator and NCDOT planning and design engineers
answered each question during the public hearing. In addition, a post-hearing meeting
was conducted involving NCDOT professional staff and management. All public hearing
comments were reviewed at this meeting to ensure full consideration of these comments.
Details regarding these comments received during the corridor public hearing are
addressed in this document or were addressed in the Environmental Assessment.
Therefore, responses have not been repeated in this section.
VII. REVISIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT
Summary 2nd page, Section 3. Summary of Environmental Commitments, MOA
completion
The EA commits that the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) will be completed
before the Finding of No Significant Impact is completed. After coordinating with the
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concerning the MOA, it was determined that
the MOA will be signed prior to completion of the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation (See
Appendix Page A-10). The Section 4(f) Alternatives Evaluation included with this
document addresses why there is no feasible and prudent alternative to use of property of.
the Brookford Mill Village. The Final Section 4(f) Evaluation (to be completed after the
design public hearing) will address measures to minimize harm to this historic resource.
r
Page 1, Section I. Description of the Proposed Action, 2nd paragraph, Estimated cost
estimate change
The estimated cost for Alternate 1 has changed due to change in length of the
bridge over the Henry Fork River. The estimated cost is $7,771,0000.
7
Page 2, Section U. B. Traffic Volumes and Capacity, a definition and discussion of
LOS needed in the text.
Level of Service (LOS) is an engineering term used to describe the operating
conditions of vehicles in a traffic stream. Operating conditions are based on such factors
as speed, travel time, freedom. to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience,
and safety. Six levels of service are defined and are designated with letters from A to F.
Level A represents the best operating conditions with free flow and virtually no delay at
signalized intersections. Level of service F represents the worst operating conditions and
occurs when traffic volumes exceed the capacity of the roadway. At level of service F,
long lines of traffic tend to form, and delays at intersections tend to exceed 60 seconds.
Page 6, Section V. A. - Alternate 1 (Recommended), structure length
The Environmental Assessment states "This alternate would require a new
structure over the Henry Fork River." The recommended structure width and length are
19.5 meters by 76.2 meters (64 feet by 250 feet)." The length of the bridge has been
changed to 140 meters (460 feet).
Page 7, Section V. A. Alignment Alternatives, Alternate 5, Reasons Alternate 5 is not
a reasonable and prudent alternate
The following problems are associated with Alternate 5:
(1) Extensive new location required
Alternate 5 would require sixty-five percent of the project be built on new
location; versus Alternate 1 which requires 36 percent.
(2) New structure required over I-40
A new structure would be required over I-40 east of the existing SR 1213
structure over I40. The structure dimensions would be 19.5 meters by 91.4 meters (64
feet by 300 feet). This adds significantly to the project cost because the existing bridge
carrying SR 1213 over I-40 has been designed to accommodate the proposed project.
Alternate 5 will not allow the existing bridge to be utilized.
(3) Increase in project cost due to terrain
The terrain for Alternate 5 is extremely rough. Earthwork would involve 75-foot
high fill and 50-foot cut. An extremely long 158.5 meters (520 feet) bridge over the
Henry Fork River will also add to the project cost. The project construction cost will be
$12,759,000, which is $4,988,000 more than the recommended alternate.
8
(4) Increase in relocations
Approximately 24 residences and 1 business would be relocated under Alternate 5.
The recommended alternate is estimated to cause 20 relocatees.
(5) Potential for hazardous material involvement
In evaluating the alignment for Alternate 5, the decision was made to go through
the Carolina Solvent Company rather than fill the ravine located directly east of this
property. Although this might cause involvement with hazardous materials it was felt that
any cleanup would be less costly than the added bridging or filling the ravine.
With a cost increase of $4,988,000 for only 2.26 km (1.4 miles), Alternate 5 is not
a reasonable and feasible alternate for the proposed project.
Page 28-29, Section VI. E. 5. Floodplain Involvement and Hydraulic Concern,
floodway modification
A floodway modification may be required to accommodate the proposed crossing
of the Henry Fork River. Preliminary coordination was done to alert FEMA of this. (see
Appendix, page A-11). Additional coordination with FEMA and the local municipality
will be done during final hydraulic design if necessary.
Page 36, Section VI. 4., Hazardous Materials Involvement, Site No. 2, hazardous
material involvement for Site No. 2
Site No. 2 is outside the construction limits of the proposed project. This site will
not be impacted by construction of the proposed project.
The EA mentioned only Alternate 5 impacting Carolina Solvent Company.
Alternates 3, 4, 4a, and 5 would also impact property of the Carolina Solvent Company.
Page 39, Section VII. B. Draft Section 4(f) Resources - Integrity, structure eligibility
The homes in the mill village required by Alternate 1 are considered to be eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places as contributing resources to the historic
district.
Page 42, Section VIII. E. Measures to Minimize Harm, 20th Avenue extension
The EA mention with the selection of Alternate 1, the feasibility of extending 20th
Avenue S.W. would be determined. This has since been determined infeasible due to the
proximity of other intersections.
9
Figures, revisions
Figures 6A, 6B, 6C, 6D, and 6E have been revised. A legend describing the traffic
information and the LOS at pertinent routes was added.
VIII. SECTION 4(f) ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
This Section 4(f) Alternatives Evaluation contains all information relevant to this
project's involvement with the Brookford Mill Village Historic District. The exact
measures to minimize harm to this resource will be determined through a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) to be reached between the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, the North Carolina Department of
Cultural Resources, and the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation. Final measures
to minimize harm to the resources and the MOA will be documented in a Final Section
4(f) Evaluation to be prepared after the design public hearing.
A. Description of Proposed Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways proposes
to revise NC 127 from the US 32I NC 127 interchange to SR 1184 in Catawba County.
The 2.26 km (1.4 mile) project will involve both widening of an existing roadway and
construction on new location. A five lane facility with curb and gutter is proposed.
Existing SR 1213 (2nd Street SW) is classified as a rural major collector and NC 127 is
classified as an urban principal arterial. The proposed improvements are needed to
provide a more continuous route for NC 127 through southwest Hickory.
The recommended alignment runs through the center of the Brookford Mill
Village, a property that is considered eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places. This property is documented in the Historic Architecture Resources
Survey Report Phase II (Abridged), prepared for this project by the Historic Architecture
Resources Section of the North Carolina Department of Transportation.
The proposed project will provide a more continuous route for NC 127 through
southern Hickory and Brookford. The widened road will provide a high level of service
for the users by increasing the capacity of the roadway and better accommodate future
traffic.
Currently, NC 127 is directed along South Center Street, a two-lane roadway
which includes an at-grade intersection with US 64/70/321. The project will direct traffic
to a bridge over US 64/70/321, improving the level of service for both NC 127 and
US 64/70/321.
10
NC 127 traffic currently must take a 90 degree turn north of US 64/70/321. The
proposed project will eliminate this 90 degree turn and make NC 127 a more continuous
north/south corridor.
Under TIP Project R-85B a new interchange is under construction which will
realign NC 127 in the project area. For it to function effectively as a north-south corridor,
NC 127 must be revised to tie into project R-85B. Without the project no direct access to
the new US 321/NC 127 interchange will be possible. This will eliminate a major
component of the Hickory-Newton-Conover Thoroughfare Plan.
This major thoroughfare will function as a radial serving NC 127 south travel
desires into the Hickory area. Growth in areas south of Brookford (particularly in the
Mountain View area) is projected to greatly increase traffic volumes along NC 127. The
proposed improvements will allow NC 127 to handle these increasing traffic volumes.
This project is very important to the entire network of the project area (see
Figure 11). Through the planning processes of the local government this project has been
established as one of their top transportation priorities.
Figure 11 shows how the project will improve the continuity of the NC 127
corridor.
As the proposed improvements are federally-funded and will involve a taking of
National Register eligible property, compliance is required with Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (80 Stat., PL 89-670). Section 4(f) is designed
to insure that special efforts are made "to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside
and public park and recreation lands, wildlife refuges, and historic sites."
B. Description of Section 4(f) Resources
Name: Brookford Mill Village
Location: North side of Henry Fork River, approximately 3.2 km (2 miles) south of
Hickory at the intersection of Second Street SW (SR 1213) and NC 127 (South Center
Street).
Summary of Physical Description: At the heart of the present town of Brookford,
located just south of the city of Hickory, is the mill village associated with the former
Brookford Mills. The mill village at Brookford, situated on the north bank of Henry Fork
River, retains all the elements of a typical North Carolina textile mill village or "mill hill, "
including worker housing, a manager's house, churches, and company store. All
structures are adjacent to the mill plant and dam.
11
The mill village centers around the intersection of Second Street SW (SR 1213)
and Twentieth Avenue SW, where the company store building is located. A low, open,
grassy space roughly triangular in shape - extends South Center Street in front of the mill
buildings. Two knolls rising to the east and west flank the triangular common which once
served as a recreational community. The company store building which also housed the
post office, the two-story Hotel Brookford, two churches, the mill manager's house, and
the employees housing all make up the village.
Date of Construction: c. 1900-1930
Style: Various framed, one-story, side gable form with an attached hipped-roof porch
houses, one-story side gabled duplexes, churches, manufacturing plant, and company
store.
Setting and Landscaping: The mill village at Brookford is centered on the intersection
of SR 1213 and Twentieth Ave SW around the community ground and former company
store. Employee homes extend up the two knolls which flank - the low lying common,
and the orderly arrangement of the housing give a uniform character to the village. The
curving streets and the topography, however, provide a less formal quality to the plan of
the village. The trees, planted by the original mill village throughout the village are a
luxury uncommon to mill village housing.
Integrity: Very few, if any, of the employee homes in Brookford remain unaltered.
The extent -of the alterations varies from structure to structure. Most houses have
replacement porch elements and vinyl or aluminum siding. Only a small number retain
their weatherboard siding and a smaller number retain original porches. Other common
alterations include replacement doors and windows, enclosed porches and various
additions to the main block of the house. A group of houses east of the mill remain the
least altered cluster of mill housing at Brookford. While the individual structures have
been altered substantially, the basic forms and similarities of the houses and their
disposition throughout the village remain readily apparent. The area as a whole retains
much of character of an early twentieth century textile mill village.
Historical Background: Edward L. Shuford (1863-1930), the eldest son of
pioneering Hickory businessman Adolphus L. Shuford, successfully operated large
wholesale and retail stores before joining Henry J. Holbrook in forming the E. L. Shuford
Manufacturing Company which began the cotton manufacturing plant in what is now
Brookford. The town of Hickory and its surroundings developed from an important
trading center along Western North Carolina Railroad (WNCRR) in the late nineteenth
century in a twentieth century manufacturing city.
The village, incorporated in 1907, derives its name from the last syllables of its
founders surnames, Hol-BROOK and Shu-FORD. Around this same time the name of the
mill company changed from E. L. Shuford Manufacturing to Brookford Mills under the:
same ownership. By 1908 Brookford Mills operated the largest cotton manufacturing
12
plant in Catawba County with 500 looms and 21,000 spindles, nearly double the number at
Union Mills in Maiden. In 1917 the local owners sold the mill buildings and village to A.
D. Julliard & Co. of New York City, who operated the Brookford mill until 1953 when it
was purchased by United Merchants & Manufacturers. The mill at Brookford continued
to operate as the largest plant in the country through 1940 with 650 employees, 18,368
spindles and 712 looms producing 90,000 to 100,000 pounds weekly of fancy cottons and
rayon goods.
Houses constructed for employees of Brookford Mills resemble mill housing
typical of the early twentieth century. A resident of Brookford remembers the rent for a
four-room house to be'$2 or 50 cents per room. Legislation passed in 1938 establishing a
minimum wage and abolishing child labor helped to bring the demise of the mill village.
Evaluation: Under Criterion A, the Brookford Mill Village, associated with the former
Brookford Mills, is eligible for the National Register for its role in the manufacture of
textiles in Catawba County and Criterion C for its design as a mill village.
Boundaries: See Figure 7
C. Impacts on the Section 4( Propert
X
Two alternatives for the proposed revisions to NC 127 will have a direct impact on
the Brookford Mill Village. Alternate 1 also involves making improvements to SR 1213
and going through the center of the mill village. Alternate 2 involves making
improvements to SR 1213 along the edge of the mill village. Improvements along
SR 1213 through the center of the mill village have been determined to be the only feasible
and prudent alternative.
The recommended alternate involves the extension and widening to a five-lane
curb and gutter section through a 0.3 mile section of the mill village (see Figure 2). This
improvement will involve the construction of three new lanes on the sides of the existing
roadway and will require a minimum of 18 m (60 feet) of additional right of way width.
The required right of way involves portions of the frontal property along SR 1213.
This area contributes to the historical significance of the mill village and encroach on some
of the structures in the village.
Construction of Alternate 1 will relocate 18 residents and 1 business. Eight of
these relocatees are located within the historic district. Relocatees include the company
store and residential dwellings associated with the mill. The relocated residents under
Alternate 1 involve homes that have been significantly altered and are not good
representations of old mill village homes. Alternate 2 would relocate 12 residences and 1
business (a farm). Seven of these homes are less altered than some of the others in the
13
district and are good representations of old mill village homes. (See figure 8 for impacts
to historic district as a result of Alternates 1 and 2). The estimated costs for Alternates 1
and 2 are $7,423,640 and $9,018,000 respectively.
D. Avoidance Alternatives
Four avoidance alternatives were evaluated for the 4(f) property.
Alternate 3 begins at the new US 321/NC 127 interchange and continues on new
location, proceeding to South Center Street east of the Brookford Community Building
through the US 64/70/321 intersection on new location ending at SR 1213.
Alternate 3 would eliminate the signalized intersection just north of US 64/70/321
by extending NC 127 on new location. The level of service at US 64/70/321 intersection
would be D with major improvements. The improvements needed to reach a level of
service D includes one additional through lane in all directions and one additional left turn
in the east and southbound directions. In addition, large businesses in the vicinity of
US 64/70/321 would require relocation because of the new location extension.
Alternate 4 begins at the US 321/NC 127 interchange, following Alternate 3
through US 64/70/321 intersection. Traffic would be required to turn at the existing
intersection north of US 64/70/321.
Alternate 4 would avoid the relocation of large businesses by directing NC 127 to
the existing intersection north of US 64/70/321. While Alternate 4 would avoid the
extensive relocation of businesses, it would have worse operational characteristics than
Alternate 3. NC 127 traffic would be required to make a turn at the intersection just north
of US 64/70/321. The close proximity of these two intersections would further
complicate traffic operations.
Alternate 4 would direct NC 127 on new location north of US 64/70/321, but
avoid the extensive business relocation of Alternate 3. Alternate 4A would have the same
operational problems as Alternate 3 and would severely impact a residential neighborhood
north of US 64/70/321.
Because of the operational problems and impact of Alternate 3, 4, and 4A, these
alternatives were eliminated from detailed study and no cost estimates were prepared. By
utilizing a grade separation over US 64/70/321, Alternates 1, 2 and 5 have significant
advantages for traffic operations.
Alternates 3, 4, and 4A would impact Carolina Solvents Company. Carolina
Solvents, Inc. is listed as a Large Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator by the North
Carolina Division of Solid Waste Management, Superfund Section. Recent soil and
groundwater sampling has indicated that elevated concentrations of metals regulated by
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) are present in soils at this location.
14
If the NCDOT purchases any portion of the Carolina Solvents property and
additional testing indicates contamination is present above the State action levels, then
NCDOT may become liable for a share of the very costly remediation expenses.
Additional information regarding this site is found in the Appendix page A-14.
Realigning Alternate 3, 4, 4A to the east of Carolina Solvents is not feasible due to
the rough terrain and major impacts that would result from construction. Due to the
extremely difficult topography of the area, it was determined that the alignment through
Carolina solvents is more practical than an alignment to the east.
Alternate 5
Alternate 5 completely avoids the Brookford Mill Village. Because of the width of
the historic boundaries, Alternate 5 involves extensive new location.
Alternate 5 begins at the US 321/NC 127 interchange following alternates 3 and 4
east of the Brookford Community Building, then veers west tying into SR 1213. A new
structure over I-40 is required. Alternate 5 then continues north following alternates 1
and 2. The recommended structure length and width over 1-40 is 19.5 meters by 91.4
meters (64 feet by 300 feet). A structure would also be required over the Henry Fork
River with this alternate. The recommended width and length for this structure is 19.5
meters by 158.5 meters (64 feet by 520 feet).
Alternate 5 would impact the Carolina Solvents Company which is described
above. See Appendix Page A-14 for additional information.
Realigning Alternate 5 to the east of Carolina Solvents is not feasible due to the
rough terrain and major impacts that would result from construction. Due to the
extremely difficult topography of the area, it was determined that the alignment through
Carolina solvents is more practical than an alignment to the east.
Because of the terrain of the project area and the extensive new location required
by Alternate 5, this alternate costs $12,759,000. This is $5,335,360 more than Alternate
1. Approximately 24 residences and 1 business will be relocated if Alternate 5 is
constructed.
15
E. Measures to Minimize Harm
Several measures for minimizing harm to the Brookford Mill Village under the
build condition of Alternates 1 and 2 are being considered. These measures were
developed in coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office and are listed below.
(1) Relocating structures to site of comparable setting within the mill village.
(2) Existing conditions of the mill village will be recorded.
(3) Opportunities for enhancing the historic district will be examined. One
possibility for enhancement would involve improvement to a vacant parcel
of land located on the corner of SR 1213 and 20th Avenue S.W.
(4) Slopes in certain areas along the project may be changed to minimize right
of way requirements in the mill village.
F. Coordination
The proposed project has been coordinated with the Town of Brookford and the
City of Hickory. A public workshop was conducted and comments concerning the
proposed project were considered in reaching a decision regarding the preferred alternate
discussed in the Environmental Assessment. In addition, a corridor public hearing was
held on May 28, 1996 showing the preferred alternative, the avoidance alternative, and
Alternate 2. The majority of the public comments favored Alternate 1.
Copies of the Environmental Assessment were sent to State and Federal resource
agencies to solicit comments on the proposal. The EA was also sent to the city, county
and made available to the public. Comments on the EA are included in the Appendix of
this document.
The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was contacted
early in the study process. A survey of historic architectural resources was conducted in
the area of potential effect of the project, in accordance with Section 106 of the Historic
Preservation Act. The letter documenting SHPO concurrence with the eligibility of the
Brookford Mill Village is included as page A-23 through A-25 in the Appendix of the
Environmental Assessment.
A finding of adverse effect has been determined for the Brookford Mill Village.
The SHPO concurs with this finding. The SHPO letter of concurrence is included on page
A-27 of the Environmental Assessment.
In accordance with Section 106 of the National Preservation Act, any alternative
which has an adverse effect on the Brookford Mill Village District will require NCDOT to
enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the State Historic Preservation
16
Office. This MOA will detail how the effects to the historic property will be taken into
account. The SHPO requested additional information to complete the MOA. It was
determined the MOA will be completed following the design public hearing so that more
detailed information can be obtained regarding possible measures to minimize harm. The
Final Section 4(f) Evaluation will be completed after the MOA is developed (see Appendix
page A-10).
G. Department of Interior Coordination
A copy of the Environmental Assessment and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation was
provided to the U. S. Department of Interior (USDOI). The USDOI's response to the
document is included in the Appendix.
The USDOI concurs that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to alternate 1
(see letter in Appendix page A-9).
H. Basis for No Feasible and Prudent Alternative to Alternate 1
Six alternates (1, 2, 3, 4, 4A, and 5) were studied as part of this project. A
comparison of the six alternates shows there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to
Alternate 1. Problems associated with Alternates 2 through 5 are as follows:
Alternate 2 would require construction on a terrain not desirable for construction,
and increase construction cost by approximately $2,847,000. Alternate 2 would also
require the use of property of the Brookford Mill Village Historic District.
Alternates 3, 4, and 4A would require the relocation of large businesses, extensive
improvements to US 64/70/321 and cause operational problems for US 64/70/321 and
NC 127. These alternatives also have potential for hazardous material involvement.
Alternate 5 would require a new structure over I-40, extensive new location,
increase in cost by approximately $6,588,000 due to rough terrain, increase in relocations,
and potential for hazardous material involvement.
Alternate 1 has been determined the only feasible and prudent alternative for this
project. An engineering and environmental analysis, public comments and resource
agency comments all indicate the cost, social, economic, and environmental impacts
resulting from alternates 2 through 5 reach extraordinary magnitudes.
I. Conclusion
Based upon the above considerations, there is no feasible and prudent alternative
to the use of land from the Brookford Mill Village Historic District.
17
IX. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the proposed project documented in the Environmental
Assessment and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, and upon comments received from federal,
state, and local agencies and the public, this project will not have a significant adverse
impact upon the human or natural environment. Therefore, an Environmental Impact
Statement will not be required.
BG/plr
FIGURES
..I¦???v?? :s Itckory
- u??
° over
rlsremon
3 I 10 !,
? ?? o: , Newton
A*For \Slartowno
A o E
ti +f V
?• 0 ?-?? ?@ p Marden
00
US 321
v
\
„rt w ?: ;.a h :; 7
gro
21 t ?::? o oI
01
o
j3 •"K'1?r :•. i f is - ?.)'
1 ^A
10 G :: y
19
;: v o
i' :::::::. g v :.;
? ::::x ::::::} s :::.
v ?i•:i N
4kL
US 321 / NC 127
INTERCHANGE
PROJECT R - 85 B

..? UNDER
?I r .
' CONSTRUCTION

\ \ N

.
•O
\ dry
/
O \ ` h
l

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BROOKFORD
REVISION TO NC 127
FROM US 321 TO SR 1184
CATAWBA COUNTY
T.I.P. PROJECT U-2530B
FIG. 1

Now .
t

y
1
I
I
i
1 SCH
_k r
GSA,/
rte.,
M.
1
704
321
\
• eel / 16TH
!'ER
cEH BAR
J =
?• ?..........?,' ry, BROOKFOR
D
VT %
i 1186 C IOTH AVE. S.W. <H pVE, \
/ ATAWBA ?S j
1304 p`` Svl.?e \
END ay
PROJECT Q i 1213
r 146
- v
IIMIj 1184 ?yo H i
i
I_14T? AVE. S.W ?SA 118 ii
z 3 r o r7 WHO' • '? a v
a- HICKORY
?" e y •y m V1..Q,`? MENNONITE C\\
s w ,,? a; oi',w; i \
1 s,? / .40 r
r--, SOUTH-'
`CEMI SIDE
CEM. /14TH DR. s
' ISTH ON 3O
AVE. S.W.
H r?r
1244 g RpNC
X1213 SRO KFORDY3ET;`,'? ?\
FAITH UNITED m ; • `
C UOF CHRIS. ••.
• .•• A. SRe0e?KFOI?U•?Qts}?'t?•
•:? .?` Q 19TH AVE. ? • •?e • ee ? /
AVE
iG 20?H • ` ` /
/
??° lgT ST . /HILLSI
®.URIjI ?j BA PT..
2529 1173
/ Il
t
CITY L a?
514 i 12E

I1i?I
I /
L SOUTH WEST HICKORY
1 DISPOSAL PLANT
179 I ,
17 1
BEGIN ;T
PROJECT y
FORK
1008 1175 -
11
J
LEGEND
ALTERNATE1
ALTERNATE2
ALTERNATE5
°° 4(f) PROPERTIES
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TR I
H
DIVISION YON OF F HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
REVISION TO NC 127
ALTERNATES 1, 2, AND 5
CATAWBA COUNTY
T.I.P. PROJECT U-2530 B
0 1000 f..t 2000
FIG. 3
.. Y
ve 'W,
• m ?? ,? ..w d \ I I
1?1 N , '•• { m C D¦ ?' ? I ()NN .y d X19 pb£
.. ^" y? ?JC_, -'? ? e • '"••2cHp m -1• ?T ? 3m= y ? 3R0 S7. ?. M( IW W •TH'F;q
Oyy IAa ° C ,• • ?•s!n ?? f w ' Z m / 4 .F 2N0 97. 1O C I Q! NTH
?I rn= ' •#.-• w 4 • " O \ yea-F A? 'D N'
.w ,.
}?.a ? nm ?t , ^ /r n= aww' o l' ~ ? : 'r: ? ?? .•;SO ``N3??>
R2, E
zx +wC?j+Y+..??yy ?'°y6 on` ,e
tea
I r N ? ? '•a DNZ
O \ ?, 3 W 2N0 ?' $ mxmm
' ' r te 2 2 n ? O ri f 37 ?, o
'? T tTl ^ !! ? f t y < ? ? 137
0 i-7 'A
s 3 s
Z ? '3s ref V ?? m ? >
V ? 3 ? N1 IN , .? IL `?
n - ,
m W 3 IO J
1 1 ? - O , ?4 ZNO
W A ??? A pad .o
T Y? O N w
?t i a i .. =L .4 i /
' • 2ND "•'x-+ r ?Q
I? J i .••yno 4rN sr. S.w, r 4 IW I / `\ /GV{?J/
IN h h ... : ????" s.W. ` . 1 7TH T _ _ _ \ I ,
N •O m S J
N N r ? 4x l s
47N S7. ? -7 ' O \
3
p"? ? ? • "? a of IW PO ;? •M•g f x
Yr d pN
y l?? N ..•••' F m c Di •N' ? I my0
V • z<Np ~ m m ~? T I 3mS 6 !'a 3RD Sr. ' m mil( IW (L •TH
41+1 ?I ? ? ?, °c '?, ?,..?• LPG/?w, N w r o r ? ` _ ?4???_ E ?? 3n O Ny
[xJ ??..11 y = s r + IJ, nD a
yF ?+ / / m\ ?1w? A I • f ??
, t w1w.w• 1 ',1.M
r. S 0 2
®A zi ?? `??Y ciiy•-b .y5 \ om •?s On?a
10
1hr?yi 9 co ,41,* •tl0 m t N 'O ..?4?vcOi
IN IW ? 2MD ? G a O
?Z0? ? IpW p srr
D ? '^ \ ? ? f ? y K ? ca 137
0.0 CA i-7 I%
N ? J
Z m r4 jrA
D r ,g'B ' J , A w
J N 1r
"? - ?•, 3n H?q1 • ILn 1 ?O I m e r
d -, 'gyp
m W 3.5
o ,
.?, m -
0
Y

la ti' a
?•
?? -
00
a
40r
4f 4f
- -- -
:??r L .5
4f 8
??? f? , `42/'frJ?l
ITV/ \?? ?. - ?- _ I? ,} I• \ t m11® r? ??? ? ?
FP?
jd?
A fh m a
O
m
m
.c m;
I
I now mmo
5 rBz
x
C'?'
v
M
D
m -4 j g A
o *mmmm
DF?
c
am 5 <Z?°
m
v a g "
'
o ? ?
?
? ? g
o r r r r r r
a < p r r r p r

' mr
m ao r r r r fp r
a ?V ? $
O?

L-L
? Z _? •r. ? ? ? ? ?I?. ? \ R ,v 'i?,. ----'-? it--? I ?_` ? -/ % ^?---- ,?!
v ?o m O _A I? rI 14 ?I?
m ? ?pm?
m9mm
S S ; CO li Ir? Iw b ! ' r' .IL p u_ '??
01 70
r- m
OOF
0 -4 m ! J // IU l ' ? L
00 IN
/rte -? / ?== I(L_----L"r__,'• ,
J 0111 if
0
100
c
z?
o
a,br, z
E

Z EN
2
•" co

a
mm m o
o

C) o
m Z
o o
"n m

. to ? ? ?? ? ?? Ig ??? ?? ?? ®? ---?.?•?.
_'I
v ; rw?,
O I%I
/ "-
Rut
rl n I r ?
?? _------------
¦ ?v/? / ?u ?a ?I?a ?? ?'`
mom
REVISION TO NC 127
ESTIMATED 1997 / 2017 ADT TRAFFIC
VOLUMES IN TENS
U-2530B
NO BUILD ALTERNATE
0
I
US 70/US 321
SR 1213 LOS = C 2017
3
y
co M
?N
N ?
h
A:
U N
U
777
1302
113
203
665 \
1100 \
\O
60 l2 ?\
NC 127 2264
3495
S.CENTER ST.
429 NC 127
655
819
4 11 83

80 691
1024
\0
??\1
38
60 ?\? 68
237
561 1183
1921
2077
3187 633
936) 299
10- J ?r 18 30
?
60 2983
57 )
71 145
278
453
810
1-40
733
Q6-0- 1200 6
/^ 15
122 1396 / ;44
151 26
Q? \l
60
6 667
10 1171
116
141 J.
'..'?SOUTH CENTER STREET LOS E 20 IT
777
1302
3150
5089
1529
2245
183
353
1794
2601
1804
3197
US 321
FIGURE 6A
LEGEND
000 = VPD
FM !
D DHV
(2.1)
DHV = DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%)
D = DIRECTIONAL FLOW (%)
AM/PM = AM OR PM PEAK
- DIRECTION OF D
(2. 1) = DUALS. TTST'S (%)
REVISION TO NC 127
ESTIMATED 1997 / 2017 ADT TRAFFIC
VOLUMES IN TENS
U-2530B
ALTERNATEI
A
t
US 70/ US 321
NC 127 LOS = A 1997
NC 127 LOS =.B 2017
S. CENTER ST.
467 NC 127
684
973
1400
AL
148 ) `0
247 J 540
733
659
1193 288
\0
QZ ?l
938
r 0 lase
2015
3077 616
862 296
519
19TH
19 2967
21 143
z7a
186
342
562
3 924,
N
N (V Q? \\
o 00 `Z.
N N 526
6 878
10
6
1
10 514
IB 859
26
6
10
1071
a 1774
W
O
0
a
.
3042 0 co
z
4939 a
w
A W
N
W N_
w v 2214
v Z 3409
tri
1939
3419
US 321
NC 127
FIGURE 6B
1-40
-781 t
\ 69
135
5
63
547 126
904
LEGEND
000 = VPD
D PM > DHV
(2.1)
DHV = DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%)
D = DIRECTIONAL FLOW (%)
AM/PM = AM OR PM PEAK
->= DIRECTION OF D
(2. 1) = DUALS. TTST'S (%)
REVISION TO NC 127
ESTIMATED 1997 / 2017 ADT TRAFFIC
VOLUMES IN TENS
U-2530B
ALTERNATES 2 AND 5
S. CENTER ST.
462
671
1
t
US 70/US 321
NC 127
978
6 1452
13
145
243 J 41
\? < 742
P 1
60 85
287
660 937
'1230
2012 1447
3071
616
882 296
p 518 1811
/O-?sO 2949
(3,l 15
i7 133
259
174
323
1-40

615
981
\
22 \
29
8
10
O
O
O 14

3 1
6 `5
1
10
97
127
100
131
A.
co
4?
?tin
1
?i' 3042
_ 4946
6
to
s ?
io? aso
12, 776
19
?O
o`'
Q 1062
,e 1740
LEGEND
000 = VPD
D PM DHV
(2.1)
DHV = DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%)
D = DIRECTIONAL FLOW (%)
AM/PM = AM OR PM PEAK
- DIRECTION OF D
(2. 1) = DUALS. TTST'S (%)
29-
0
131
9
??F o
2194 y? F
3353 G 1935
N 3412
?a
NC 127
FIGURE6C
REVISION TO NC 127
ESTIMATED 1997 / 2017 ADT TRAFFIC
VOLUMES IN TENS
U-2530B
ALTERNATE3
v
Y
US 70/US 321
3
.jj '
ti N
y ?
a co
c
N
1-40
US 321
144
188
6
10
136 1
179 J
0174
227
q
?
o
C2•
1501
2204
174
2 27
19 39
3396

2255
3481
NC 127
N 127
S. CENTER ST. 988
1458
0 476 121
0 702 163 1
? J 663

0 112
1112

1
.9 452 542
l 621 949
24
81

c
235
`
572 1408 t0
2063 2245
3171 625

PM
927 298
524
10
- 1822
(3 60
59
( 2973
7 3 ' 145
278
689
114 3
1-40
`O

Q ry 974

?O 1555
11 f 10
)
` SR 1173
115
(/?
9? ' 4 2
10 98
131
148
906 -
1537
LEGEND
000 = VPD
D P M DHV
(2.1)
DHV = DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME t%)
D = DIRECTIONAL FLOW (%)
AM/PM = AM OR PM PEAK
-o= DIRECTION OF D
(2. 1) = DUALS. TTST'S (%)
US 321 FREEWAY
FIGURE 6D
a
REVISION TO NC 127
ESTIMATED 1997 / 2017 ADT TRAFFIC
VOLUMES IN TENS
U-2530B
ALTERNATE4
S 70/US 321
C
/co
144
I88
10
138
17 9 Jl
42
58
174
227
2975
4816
174
zz7
N I-
N_
U u
w z
z
W
U
N
1501
2204
NC 127
S. CENTER ST.
476
702
M
13
23
81 > 866
( 1296
00 e? 6
341
235 1408
572 2245
2063
3171 625
927 ? 4 298
/0 pm
(3-60 59
73 ( 145
278
?O
974
1555
00
IBL
11 3 I <70
( - 42
6 ` 98
r00 \\ ` 10
130
148
0= 906
h? 1537
°
o?
OQ
a?
1939
3396
US 321
NC 127
0.1
988
1468
1822
2973
62
131
LEGEND
000 = VPD
DPM DHV
(2.1)
DHV = DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%)
D = DIRECTIONAL FLOW (%)
AM/PM = AM OR PM PEAK
->= DIRECTION OF D
(2. 1) = DUALS. TTST'S (%)
FIGURE 6E

0
0 0
? ° 0 0
p ° o
?p O
o °
?IIIl illl l11?1 O
il??lil??iillllllfllf 111 O
? ?ILUi+IJlil; fLllllll IL O
y \ ?v

Y*
DIID
O a? O v
O
o ?Q pp
L))bLC `
e
1 °
?
x
i
IN
O r
F
Z
u
`
cc:

F
z p
z
a ?p
a ^ o
m?
A >
z
U N
~
,
W
Z ?
UU
92 z
Ls 0 ??-U U
(n
W a
°
. <
g Ew
,<g00
c) o z ¢
3 n
3 O
160 = z z
u
2 -
S2 v
CL
CC
E?ZEZ
Z

e
>

w
Q

a
U

°
zEE"I= a y~i
?1 =
,n
.. _t ?Lgg 3? °\
? O 9 BSI
p D ? -
0
?.j ? D O
?
?rv?1 ? ? p D
D ?
- I ?
1
° ap ? I
O ?
D ? D ?
_ p ? o
? ® u
za? p O n ?
0
1 ? \
--'`` O `\
O O

I '- \ Ammlmw?
O
o
'lilllliilli , ° ° o
1??L1I,11,,ji?111'11111
?, I I I
L1 III 111111111
r' , Ll; rL J-I L, I I_ ° o
Y
--i N----7 / di O
-I /
- 1

°
L
°

1
f '
o
n
0
fo
Iz c
w z
W
z m
o ea N0 EE >-m

z 0 T Z O Z N
I.- I
Q
r
.4 z C/)
Z
0
0
? woM<w
Q?
p
c,ozz Z
z
0 cl)
Nznzz
?z o
O Wo as
?w
C4 94 w Q?
Ir
zFOc6m ¢5
C 1;
1 '
1 I
J ? 1
LL
z

?O
U
as W
tiNrA

z 4

19 1
- j to 1 8TH ILvv .-*/rar nlr 11 r
l
r
e •,
IR R ?rE BM
it II"'?Wc??IK? yl?s`h
5 >:: v
es
1 '• `
s AVE

' A+.vN n
E
o' Park p?
?If
i R
di
T '`? o C\r/ i
a
a
o
er I
AVE p-
?
?
•
? AVE?t7Old- o irLSen ?? ?
r? -,
`

h

?. / / ? ? tyv$'
i
Ali 1 ? . r
/190
1
'_ ??\ \1 '' •,l { ,...., ? . .
J n }pie %"? ?re? m / / / f•\ I •?--? \.? ???? ?r-i e,-r ? r? \ \
N,,
??I goo ?-- ? ? ( ? ? •? ?? ? ?' ` ,? ? ?' ? ???' \ 1Y ?
321
lafiz ??'• J`•• i
l ` a f
ad'
to
. a( \ \?? ?'1,•I I,m\\?' `??=-r 'l'r4i C---?. ? ( .: ( ! ? i ? e I ? ? 1( c; ?. j "? I ? \ IIII ? \.i • ?R
(°• \.. ?` r'/JI •i Stlst` x•'13.1
_? •I:}'1 \'.?????._JI? ?I `S ?__ 1Li1? _ _ - 1?,:,- S,l?• // L _ _- ?, ?? _?.?;1 ??°?iiv ?`?-, ?
7771 a '? ' I ? I ? •,?
?? 111
J 11) `, ` 1 T ?J ower f I -
?)``\ ?(-?,? ? / 3 r•...? t• ? .-_ ,' ,,?,/?i cam--:. .?
eWCh
A RY fookfo?
61• n •? - iY // // I ? e - - ? ?/? 170 l ?II
'? ? \\??\ \ i l •5 Crlls?d 1 ??`? 93 ??` Cem,, ? .i,. /) ?? II
.?L ? li C? /' j _--? „ , ? :? );? ?`?\'r1 ? ? __ ?I ? / ? •? ? / ? ? ? J l I, • 111' ? ?\ ?-\- I
V - \11 O ?I;?1 % i ?J i )? ??,°-•? oo?? ? ! c?t ? ?? /i 1, v ?/? J i /r ; ? I ?I' ? < <?- I t• l_
\? / ? I I ' >•• ."I ??\ \(?? `bo Sew e " .__ ? = /?? i ??? `///?? ??' - _ ?j , . ?
,
)- •1l • ??\- / I ?'?C Vu,? /.
1 j//?I ?,.1? / lill I (? }L'1 I. 11 \? l 1?• .
( •- ?>?'?`c' i`fr V_ ?/ J'? )ii I' I ?; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
. \ r ?, ; ? ?? \?I' (?,( • ???( ?/ ? i ? f DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
??• ? .??-. \ \` . ??1\`,iR it
? LOCATION OF FIVE
j ?•+19s6•Mouqtale view 11//z. •\ WETLAND POCKETS IN
II Sch./?„? 0.,1??//1,1 / PROJECT VICINITY
• ?r__?`_. T.I.P. PROJECT U-2530B
meters /FIG. 9
I,. t

0

rn
M
r
n D m

r ? rn
0 0 Z
o 0 0
o v
-o -v
? D
z z

ol r?- o
m -
o o ''z?Zzy
O o nx???q
-0o a ?zxpA
mm? .
-4Z o
moo
Co > 2<
>
rv ?m Dy to
o Zw Ovi y
x 7e
00 .3
0
o ?

qqqwr? ® ==
x
LU
a
ir
w
H
J
Q
O
J_
m
1
O
Z
0
f• a
z Co
a z
z w
x z
C y ?
i ? 3>
ez?z
p; q Z
C??c
U Q Z Z =
=,n-ZU
?z4
z
o< >?a
ZFA:.a
x
N 3_
f1 O? <
<wO
u
F
w .
<Z?
w
H 0
x L
\ xzn 1-
w i-
u ?u¢
z? W
c?
0
000 Oy
zuc
\?n
0z "?wa iL,
wo ?0
?z
r "
N Q
mx /
¢w
U
z Q
?w
V)
_ O
.v W4 s
' O
? /y
0 ^/?
J a.
tr?
0
l
s?
a
w
z
w
J [0
r.Q? o
r Q?-LO
U J z N
zm0?
oV
OU
Q
zzm?
CA Q
za
wa) 0a
¢.
W F
J
CO
O
a
c?
I*
APPEND- IX
FM208 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8043
12-13-95 -
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
MAILED TO FROM
N.C• DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
WHIT WEBB DIRECTOR
PROGRAM DEV. BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
TRANSPORTATION BLDG./INTER-OFF
10
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ENV. ASSESS. - PROPOSED REVISION OF NC 127 FROM THE US-3Z1/NC 1Z7
INTERCHANGE TO SR 1184 IN CATAWBA COUNTY TIP #U-2530B
S:,I NO 96E4ZZ00346 PROGRAM TITLE - ENV. ASSESS.
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
?NTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
1S SUBMITTED t ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
(X ) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY CUESTICNS, PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone]-
C.C. REGION E

A-1
.-State of North:.Cdrolina
`D'epartrnent Of- En0onment,
AT. AA?
Health and Natural Resources 4
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor ID F
Jonathan S. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
December 1, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee 41
From: Eric Galambr`
Subject: EA for NC 12777
Catawba County
State Project DOT No. 8.1792201, TIP # U-25308
EHNR # 96.0346, DEM # 1.1114
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for-activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands.
The subject project may impact 0.1 hectares of waters including. wetlands. The
following comments are based on the: review of the document:
A) DEM requests that no weep holes be installed in the bridge over Henry Fork
River. If this is not.possible, then runoff from the bridge deck should not drain
directly into the water.
B) Stream relocations should be i' accordance with DOT's guidelines. Stream
relocation should. be coordinated with the Wildlife Resources Commission.
DOT Is reminded that. endorsement of an EA or FONSi by DEM would not preclude
the denial of a 40-1 Certification upon 'application if wetland and water impacts have
not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Questions
regarding the 401 Certification shouldibe directed to Eric Galamb in OEM's
Environmental Sciences Branch at 733*1786.
cc: Asheville COE
Beverely Grate, P&E
Monica Swihart
John Dorney
nc127.ea
Ro. Box 29535, Ralelgh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Actlon Enplover 50% recycled/ 10%Post-consumer pacer
A-2
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
A
December 12, 1995
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Subject: Federal environmental assessment for improvements to NC 127
from US 321 to SR 1184, Hickory-Brookford, Catawba County,
North Carolina, T.I.P. No. U-2530B
In your letter of November 3, 1995 (received November 9, 1995), you
informed us of the subject project. The following comments are provided
in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to the environmental assessment, this project will involve the
construction of a 5-lane highway partially on a new location from the
US 321 interchange and SR 1213 and on a portion of existing SR 1213 for a
total distance of 1.4 miles. This project will require a new structure
(250 feet long) over the Henry Fork River. The project will result in
the loss of approximately 2.0 acres of forested areas, will cross two
small tributaries of the Henry Fork R-1ver, and will impact 0.1 acre of
palustrine forested wetlands. The purpose of the project is to provide a
more continuous route for NC 127 through southern Hickory and Brookford.
The Service found that the assessment properly highlights the likely
environmental impacts associated with the various alternatives. However,
it was not clear what measures would be taken to mitigate and/or minimize
impacts to the area. For example, the following statements indicate that
measures for minimizing impacts are possible: "Because of the generally
acute sensitivity of aquatic organisms to discharges and inputs deriving
from construction, appropriate measures must be taken to avoid spillage
and control runoff". (Page 23) and "Each studied alignment except for
Alternate 4, potentially impacts at least one of these wetlands.... It
may be easy to avoid them in construction design._and sit.i.ng" (Page 24).
However, the assessmen -dTd---n-ot eutli'ne any commitments. Finally, the
following statement on Pages 23 and 24--"Alternate 1 could have a major
i?VE

A-3
impact on one small stream which parallels the roadway within the
right-of-way for 91 m (300 feet or more east of 18th Ave. SW."--suggests
that it may be necessary to relocate a portion of this stream. The
Service believes that any environmental impacts, such as stream
relocations, should be clearly identified in the assessment and that
mitigation measures should be outlined.
The.Service encourages the implementation of the following measures to
minimize impacts to aquatic resources in the two small tributaries that
will be crossed and in the Henry Fork River associated with new bridge
construction: (1) stringent erosion control measures should be
implemented during all bridge construction activities to minimize
downstream effects; (2) the extension of culverts should allow for
continuous flow in tributaries crossed by the alignment; and (3) the
construction should be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact
water entering or flowing in the stream. This will reduce the likelihood
of fish kills associated with culvert/bridge construction.
The Service concurs with the "no effect" determination made regarding
this project and its potential impacts to the federally listed endangered
dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora). In view of this, we
believe the requirements of Section 7(c) of the Act are fulfilled.
However, obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if:
(1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may
affect endangered or threatened species or critical habitat in a manner
not previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a
manner not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the action.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any
questions regarding our comments, please contact Ms. Janice Nicholls, of
our staff at 704/258-3939, Ext. 227. In any future correspondence
concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-93-115.
VceSi ely;
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Mr. Bob Johnson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Field Office,
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143, Asheville, NC 28801-5006
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
320 S. Garden Street, Marion, NC 28752
A-4
State of North Carolina
71-
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 1 • •
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary EDF=HNF;Z
Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
40
MEMO
TO: Chrys Baggett
FROM: Melba McGee 1P-11,
RE: 996-0346 EA Revision to NC 127 Catawba County.
DATE: December 5, 1995
The Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed project. The attached comments are for your file.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
Attachments
tt ".
DEC 6 W9
' N.C. STATE CLEAP.1NCHCLISE
A
A-5
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%10 recycled/ 10% post ccnsumer Doper
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program.
DATE: November 22, 1995
SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 96-0346, Environmental Assessment for Revision
to NC 127, Catawba County, TIP #U-2530B.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments regarding
the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the revision of NC 127 in Catawba County. I conducted
a site visit on 13 August 1993. These comments are provided in accordance with the provisions
of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d.) and
the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to revise NC 127
from the US 321/NC 127 interchange to SR 1184. The 1.4-mile project will involve both the
widening of an existing roadway and construction on new location. The recommended alternative
(Alternative 1) involves extending and widening SR 1213 to a 5-1ane curb and gutter section and
designating this section as NC 127.
Alternative 1 will impact a total of 6.9 acres, including 2.9 acres of developed land, 1.6
acres of pasture and early successional areas, and 2.4 acres of forested land. Less than 0.1 acre of
wetlands will be impacted by the project. A new bridge will be constructed over the Henry Fork
River, and two unnamed tributaries are also crossed by the project.
Biological staff of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission are pleased that
Alternative 1 is the alternative preferred by the NCDOT, as this alternative should have the least
impact on fisheries and wildlife resources in the project area. We concur with the findings of the
EA and would concur with a Finding of No Significant Impact.
Thank you, for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any
questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/652-4257.
cc: Ms. Janice Nicholls, USFWS, Asheville

A-6
State of worth Carolina L;
Natural Resources
Department of Environment, Health, and Project Number Due Date:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS ^ 3! /,2. /- c
rrnit(s} e?dfor approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
'er review of this project it has been determined that he EHNR Pe
Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
jer for this project to comply with North Carolina Law .the
lestions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Reg rtnits are available from the same Norma) Process
applications. information and guidelines relative to these plans and Pe
(statutory time
:gional Office. Time
r
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOWREMENT limit)
nstruction or award of 30 days
permit to construct U operate wastewater treatment
21ciiiiiaa. Sewer system extensions. & sewer
.ysterns not discharging into state surface waters.
-------------
WPDES - permit to discharge into surface water aridlor
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
discnarginq into state surface waters.
Application 90 days before begin co
construction contracts On•site inspection- Post application
technical conference usual
to activity. On•sile inspection.
Application 1(!0 (lays before Deg rmtt to
Pre•appiieation conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit
construct wastewater treatment facility-granted -gissue of ramme after FOES Reply
time. 30 days after race pt of plans
permit-whichever is later.
Water Use Permit
Well Construction Permit
i Dredge and Fill Permit
Permit to construct b operate Air poitutiot5 NCAC 21M-06C
facilities Wolof Emission Sources as per
1
Any open burning associate
wdhl wi NCAC 2D 0520 sal
must be in compliance
1 Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A
NCAC 20.0525 which requires notification and removal
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
Prs.application technical conferonce usually necessary
Complete appfication must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a visit.
must to served on each adl&cent nparlan property
Application copy
owner. On-site inspection. Pre-UPlication conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
NIA
NIA
J? Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 20.0600. Iand disturbing activity. An erosion 3 secimentauc
Probe addressed for any toast 30
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1573 must be p y Plan tiled with proper Regional Office (Land Oualrty Sect.) at
I control plan will be raquire0 it one or coon acres to be disturbed.
davs before to innin activity A tee of S30 for the first acre and 520.00 for each additional
referrenced Local uOrd nance*. the o an
The seoimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect t ltd with EMNR Bond amount.
-71 Mninq Permit
-{+ North Carotins Burning permd
St»ctai Ground Ctearancs Burning Permit • 22
N.C. with organic soils
w.j
countess in coarttsl Oil pAtming Faalttiss

Dam safety Permit
ti r0.
on-site inspection usual. Surety fiord i w
vanes with type mine and number Of acressioaffected l d Any
bond
mined greater than one acre must be per
must be received before the permit can be issued.
on-sits inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resoufces if permit
eaceeds A days
on-sate inspection by N.D. Division Forest ResOurcet required "It more
clearing activities are involved. Inspections
than five acres of ground
actual
should be requested at Nast ten days before bum is -..
NIA
(90 days)
90.120 days
(NIA)
30 days
(NIA)
7 days
(15 days)
55 days
(90 days)
60 days
(90 days)
6o days
(90 days)
I 20 days
(30 days)
(30 days)
30 davs
f60 days)
1 day
(NIA)
1 day
(NIA)
go•12o days
(NIA)
If permit required. Applcation 60 days betore begin construction-
Apoticant must hire N.C. Qualified engineer to: prepen Of"-
inspect construction. ciurttly eonstructlon is according to EMNR approv-
sd plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And
a AOt permit from COrpa of Engtneem. An inspection of site is neces'
&my to verify Hazard Classification. A Minimum iN Of 5200.00 must V
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
-eantaoe or the total protect Cost will be required upon completion
30 days
(g d;tysl
Continuso on reverse
A-7
rNOrmal Process 1
I
'
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
File surety bond of 15,000 with EMNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shell, upon (NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EI•INR rules and regulations.
CaeophysiW Exploration Permit Application filed with EMNR at Nast 10 days prior to issue of pan, it 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application forth. (NIA)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must faclude 15.20 days
descriptions 3 drawings of structure i proof of ownership (NIA)
. of riparian property.
60 days
401 Water Quality Certification NIA (130 days)
55 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development 1250.00 fee must accompany application
- (150 days)
22 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development $50.00 fee must accompany application (25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed. please notify.
N.C. Geodetic Survey. Box 27667, Raleigh. N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells. if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A, Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested it "orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 211.1000 (Coastal Stor mwater Rules) is required. 45 days
(NIA)
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority).
I ?J - .11.c- ?t..Lh.?r Gcrnmt-^?? SE,? 11'Z?/?iS
D/t 6 - I X20 0 -?o? ,s , C-P6-- 7g2
g
r 2? 1

'
7 ?
•
r)•,.• a
?? NO fy?J f L?7? a? c /?r0 tr/h. Gp?y.? E3w1 ?. I-' • /'? IL

J
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office ? Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville, NC 2BB01 Fayetteville, NC 28301
(7w) X514 = [phone]
y
!.Q Mooresville e Regional Office ? Raleigh Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950 3800 Barrett Drive. Suite 101
Mooresville. NC 28115 Raleigh, NC 27609
(704) 6631699 [phone]
? Washington Regional Office ? Wilmington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Washington, NC 27889 Wilmington, NC 28405
(919) 9466481 [phone]
? Winston-Salem Re
ional Office
g
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 2710E
(919) 8967007
A-8
IN
a
A
A
ER-95/856
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
Dear Mr. Graf :
FEB 2 3 1996
This is in response to the request for the Department of the Interior's comments
on the Draft Environmental Assessment/Section 4(f) Evaluation for the Hickory-
Brookford Revision to NC 127, from US 331 to SR 1184, Catawba County, North
Carolina.
We concur that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed
project. We also concur with the proposed measures to minimize harm to the
Brookford Mill Village Historic District. Notwithstanding, we recommend
continued cooperation and coordination with the State Historic Preservation
officer, in order to complete the proposed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which
should include measures to avoid or minimize harm to historic and archeological
resources affected by the proposed project, in compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. A signed copy of the MOA
should be included in the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation.
The Department of the Interior has no objection to Section 4(f) approval of this
project by the Department of Transportation.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comme
Sin e_rely, FWJA
CO. cL ??, nn
Willie R. Taylor ASS -- ----
Director, Office of Env' _ --•-
Policy and Compliance
cc: Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E. i.._...
Manager, Planning and
Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department
of Transportation -'
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Washington, D.C. 20240
A-9
I i
?YRtwa..s•V a??
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 16, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: NC 127 from proposed US 321 /NC 127
intersection to SR 1184, Catawba County, U-
2530B, Federal Aid Project NHF-127(1), State
Project 8.1792201
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
On July 3, 1996, Renee Gledhill-Earley and Debbie Bevin of our staff met with
representatives of the North Carolina Department of Transportation regarding the
above project. This meeting initiated consultation to mitigate the project's adverse
effect on the Brookford Mill Village Historic District, a property eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places. Following the design public hearing on the
preferred alternative, we will begin developing a Memorandum of Agreement for the
project. We believe the hearing will provide needed input from interested and
affected parties.
We would like a member of our staff to attend the design public hearing, and would
appreciate it if you would notify us of its time and location.
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.
Sincerely,
6avid Brook
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources

Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: "H. F. Vick
B. Church
A-10
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
g?3
16.
R
?SIA7v
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
July 22, 1996
a Ms. Bel Marquez
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Natural and Technological Division
1371 Peach Tree Street NE - Suite 700
Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3108
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
Re: Hickory-Brookford, Revision to NC 127 from US 321 to SR 1184, Catawba
County, Federal Aid Project NHF-127(1), State Project No. 8.179220 1,
T.I.P. Project U-2530B
Dear Ms. Marquez:
The subject project is currently in the planning stage. An Environmental
Assessment has been prepared and is enclosed for your information. As stated in the
Environmental Assessment, a floodway modification may be required for the subject
project. Appropriate coordination will be conducted with FEMA and local authorities
during final hydraulic design regarding any necessary floodway revisions.
Detailed hydraulic design has not yet been completed; therefore, effects to the
regulatory floodway are currently not known. This is provided for your information.
If you have any questions regarding this matter please feel free to call me at
[phone], Extension 247.
Sincerely, ^
lr ?
Wei verly J. Grate
Project Planning Engineer
?. Planning and Environmental Branch
BJG/mlt
Enclosure
cc: Dan Hinton, P. E., Federal Highway Administration
Abdul Rahmani, Hydraulic Design Unit

A-11
G?tyGY Mqn,
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Region IV
1371 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 700
o
Atlanta, GA 30309
September 5, 1996
Mr. Robert Hanson, Director
Project Planning Unit
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Re: Hickory-Brookford Revision to State Route 127
Dear Mr. Hanson:
This is in response to your letter of July 22, 1996, and in
confirmation of your telephone conversation with Steven Randolph on
September 3, 1996.
We understand that the State is currently in the planning stages
for widening and possible realignment of State Route 127 from
southwest Hickory through Brookford. Included in this project will
be a new or reconstructed crossing of Henry Fork River, for which a
regulatory floodway has been designated. Unless a proposed bridge
entirely spans the floodway, without piers or other encroachment in
the floodway, preparation of a "no-impact" evaluation, and
submittal of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) will be
necessary for proper engineering review by our Agency, and for
eventual revision of the Flood Insurance Study and Flood Insurance
Rate Maps.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation has consistently
prepared no-impact evaluations, and submitted CLOMR requests for
proposed bridges and other stream crossings over the past few
years. We greatly appreciate such cooperation and diligence.

A-12
2
For further assistance, please contact Mark Vieira, Staff Engineer,
at [phone], or Steven Randolph, staff Floodplain Management
Specialist for North Carolina, at [phone].
Sincerely,

o Heard, Jr., Chief
itigation Programs Branch
Mitigation Division
A-13
06-7Rr-'-.'q
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. R. SAMUEL HUNT II I
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
April 21, 1995
C, E I y
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager F?
Planning and Environmental Branch
ATTENTION: Ms. Beverly Grate OR 2 6 1995
? Z2 DIVISION OF.
2
FROM: Gregory"MmithPGeoEnvironmental Superviso (i4 NIGHWAYS
Geotechnical Unit ???RONI?IIE?P
Subject: State Project: 8.1702201 (U-2530B)
F.A. Project: NHF-127(1)
County: Catawba
Description: NC 127, From the US 321/NC 127 Interchange to SR 1184 in Hickory
Re: Environmental Conflicts at Carolina Solvents, Inc.
This memorandum is an addendum to the Hazardous Materials Evaluation sent to your office on April
5, 1995. According to your request for a Geotechnical Evaluation of the five alternatives on this
project, portions of Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 will impact Carolina Solvents, Inc. Carolina Solvents, Inc.
is listed as a Large Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator by the North Carolina Division of Solid
Waste Management, Superfund Section. Recent soil and groundwater sampling has indicated that a
number of potential environmental hazards are associated with this property. Elevated concentrations
of metals regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) are present in soils at this
location. Specifically, aluminum, barium, beryllium, cobalt, manganese and mercury have been
identified in concentrations significantly above normal background levels. Barger Brook, immediately.
adjacent to. the parcel, has elevated concentrations of trichloroethene and tetrachloroethene.
Although no further remedial action is currently planned at this Superfund site, we strongly
recommend the selection of either Alternative 1 or 2 for this roadway. If the NCDOT purchases any
portion of the Carolina Solvents property and additional testing indicates that contamination is present
above the State action levels, then the Department may become liable for a share of the very costly
remediation expenses.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Steve Burris or myself at
[phone].
GAS/SBB

a,
A14
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources Ar!4*A
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor AdgftdgbU?
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretacreta
ry ? E H N F1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
December 1, 1995
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
From: Eric Galamb4
Subject: EA for NC 127
Catawba County
State Project DOT No. 8.1792201, TIP # U-2530B
EHNR # 96-0346, DEM # 11114
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands.
The subject project may impact 0.1 hectares of waters including wetlands. The
following comments are based on the review of the document:
A) DEM requests that no weep holes be installed in the bridge over Henry Fork
River. If this is not possible, then runoff from the bridge deck should not drain
directly into the water.
B) Stream relocations should be in accordance with DOT's guidelines. Stream
relocation should be coordinated with the Wildlife Resources Commission.
DOT is reminded that endorsement of an EA or FONSI by DEM would not preclude
the denial of a 401 Certification upon application if wetland and water impacts have
not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Questions
regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's
Environmental Sciences Branch at 733-1786.
cc: Asheville COE
Beverely Grate, P&E
Monica Swihart
John Dorney
nc127.ea
FAXED
DEC 0 11995
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
? Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (J firm deadline):
c<?6 , Qt__ 1 I I 1 C ? I /' 9 ,S-
. ? 3o t! W s ao
oo
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
~?????? ?vtJ ?•??
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
El Asheville El All RIO Areas *oil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
ill
? Air ?Coastal Management UWater Planning
Fayettev
e Water Water Resources Environmental Health
ooresville
KM Groundwater Wildlife ?Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh Land Quality Engineer -Forest Resources ?Radiation Protection
t
? W
hi ? Recreational Consultant ? Land Resources ? David Foster
on
as
ng ?Coastal Management Consultant Parks and Recreation ?Other (specify)
El Wilmington El Others environmental Management
? Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached) '
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attachedlauthority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
?Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
PS-104
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
cp
Hickory-Brookford
Revision to NC 127
from US 321 to SR 1184
Catawba County
Federal Aid Project Number NHF-127(1)
State Project No. 8.1792201
T. I. P. Project No. U-2530B
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Environmental Assessment
and
Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2) (c)
and 49 U.S.C. 303
APPROVED:
9-Z9-7S ?.
r.. Date rr H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
ti
??? Aw- Z- G ' 0499&oi
Date / C 4 NW olas Graf, P. E.
Federal Highway Administration
Hickory-Brookford,
Revision to NC 127
from US 321 to SR 1184
Catawba County
Federal-Aid Project Number NI-IF-127(l)
State Project No. 8,1792201
T. I. P. Project No. U-2530B
Environmental Assessment
and
Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation
Document Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
/L
ALLtm& 0-
Beverly I Grate
Project Planning Engineer
Robert P. Hanson, P. E.
Project Planning Unit Head

Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Asst. Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
,?.•???H CAROB ?''•.
S •.9AL
n17282
P. HP Sp`••?.
9
Hickory-Brookford,
Revision to NC 127
from US 321 to SR 1184
Catawba County,
Federal Aid Project NI-IF- 12 7(1
State Project No. 8.1792201
T. I. P. Project U-2530B
SUMMARY
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways,
proposes to revise NC 127 from the US 321/NC 127 interchange to SR 1184 in Catawba
County. The 2.26 km (1.4 mile) project will involve both the widening of an existing
roadway and construction on new location. A five lane facility with curb and gutter is
proposed.
The total estimated cost of the proposed project is $6,171,000 including
$2,271,000 for right-of-way acquisition and $3,900,000 for construction.
The proposed project is included in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year
(FFY) 1997 and construction is scheduled to begin in FFY 1998. The estimated cost
included in the 1996-2002 TIP is $5,750,000.
2. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The proposed project will have a positive impact on the Hickory-Brookford area
by providing a more continuous route for NC 127 through southwest Hickory and
Brookford.
The project will cross the Brookford Mill Historic District. During project
planning, this District was designated eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
Therefore, the project will have an adverse effect on the Historic District as defined by
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. It will also involve Section 4(f)
property as defined by the Department of Transportation Act.
It is estimated that eighteen residences, one business and one non-profit
organization will require relocation. Eight of these relocatees are located within the
historic district boundaries.
An analysis of water quality indicates that streams in the project area are presently
rated as either not supporting their designated uses or are support-threatened.
Construction impacts could further degrade these waters, with sediment loads and other
pollutants affecting water quality from a biological and chemical standpoint.
Several small pockets of wetlands (each less than 0.1 ha (<O.1 acre)) are located
along the project area. Total wetland impacts are estimated at <0.1 ha (<O.1 acre).
Construction of this project will have no effect on any federally protected animal
or plant species.
Twenty three residences will be impacted by noise increase in the project area.
3. Summary of Environmental Commitments
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will implement practical
measures to minimize and avoid impacts to natural and human environment.
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344), a permit will be required from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) to
discharge and place fill materials into any wetlands affected by construction.
A 401 Water Quality Certification from the Water Quality Section of the Division
of Environmental Management in NCDEHNR will be required for fill activity in wetlands
and surface waters where federal permits are required.
A floodway modification will be required to accommodate the proposed crossing
of the Henry Fork River. The Hydraulics Design Unit will coordinate with the Federal
Emergency Management agency and local authorities during final hydraulic design for
approval of the necessary floodway modification.
To the extent practicable, NCDOT will minimize impacts to the Brookford Mill
Historic District. NCDOT and FHWA will develop a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) with the State Historic Preservation Office regarding measures to minimize harm
to the Historic District and obtain concurrence from the Advisory Council for Historic
Preservation. The MOA will be completed before the Finding of No Significant Impact is
signed.
4. Alternatives Considered
The following alternatives were considered in the development of the project:
Typical Section
(a) Improving the existing facility to a five-lane curb and gutter section was chosen
because it provides the number of lanes required for projected traffic volumes and
removes conflicting left-turn movements from through-traffic.
(b) Construction of a four lane undivided facility
This alternative was considered but rejected because conflicting left-turn
movements would reduce capacity and increase potential for accidents.
Alignment
(a) Preferred Alternate
The preferred alternate for this project (Alternate 1) involves a new location connector
between the US 321 interchange and South Center Street. Alternate l then follows
Second Street S.W.
(b) Avoidance Alternatives
Because the Brookford Mill was determined to be eligible for the register, several
alternative alignments were analyzed. Two of these (Alternates 3 and 4) would have
utilized South Center Street rather than SR 1213 (Second Street S.W.). Alternates 3 and
4 were rejected because they would direct an unmanageable volume of traffic to the US 70
intersection north of I-40.
Two other alternates (Alternates 2 and 5) were developed to avoid or minimize
impacts to the Historic District. Functional designs and cost estimates were prepared to
evaluate these alternatives.
"No Build"
The "No Build" Alternative was rejected as existing facilities will not effectively
serve traffic generated by the new US 321 interchange. Existing facilities would direct
NC 127 along a very discontinuous routing. This would create very poor traffic
operations.
5. Coordination
The following federal, state, and local agencies and officials were consulted
regarding this project:
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Geological Survey
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
State Clearinghouse
Hickory-Conover-Newton Metropolitan Planning Organization
Catawba County Commissioners
City of Hickory
Town of Brookford
A citizen's informational workshop was held on March 24, 1994 to obtain public
comments on this project. A newsletter was also sent to citizens in January, 1995
updating them on the project status.
6. Additional Information
Additional Information concerning the proposal and assessment can be obtained by
contacting the following:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone]
Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
[phone]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Summary ....................................................................................... ....i
1. DES CRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ....................... ...1
II. PURPOSE OF PROJECT .......................................................... ... I
A. Need for the Proposed Improvements ............................. ... I
B. Traffic Volumes and Capacity ............................................2
C. Thoroughfare Plan .............................................................3
III. EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS ...........................3
A. Existing Cross Section ..................................................... ..3
B. Right of Way .....................................................................3
C. Access Control ................................................................ ..3
D. Speed Limit .......................................................................4
E. Functional Classification ....................................................4
F. Utilities ..............................................................................4
G. Structures ..........................................................................4
H. School Buses ................................................................... ..4
IV. PROPOSED UAPROVEMENTS ..................................................4
A. Project Length ..................................................................4
B. Proposed Cross Section ....................................................4
C. Structures .......................................................................... 5
D. Right of Way .....................................................................5
E. Design Speed .....................................................................5
F. Type of Intersection Control ..............................................5
G. Access Control ..................................................................5
H. Bicycles .............................................................................5
I. Cost Estimates ...................................................................5
V. Al
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
,TERNATIVES CONSIDERED ...............................................6
Alignment Alternatives ......................................................6
Alignments Eliminated From Detailed Study ......................7
Typical Section Alternatives ...............................................9
Public Transportation Alternative .......................................9
"No Build" Alternatives .....................................................9
VI. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...................9
A. Social and Economic Environment .....................................9
1. Neighborhood Characteristics .................................9
2. Economic Factors .......................................... .......10
3. Public Facilities and Services Impacts ............ ....... 10
4. Relocation Impacts ........................................ .......10
B. Land Use Planning .................................................... .......12
1. Status of Local Planning Activities ................ .......12
2. Existing Land Use ......................................... .......12
3. Future Land Use ............................................ .......13
C. Cultural Resources .................................................... .......13
1. Architectural Resources ................................. .......13
2. Archaeological Resources .............................. .......15
D. Farmland ................................................................... .......15
E. Natural Resources ..................................................... .......15
1. Biotic Resources ........................................... .......15
a. Terrestrial Fauna ............................... .......17
b. Aquatic Life ....................................... .......19
C. Anticipated Biotic Resources Impacts .......19
2. Waters Resources .......................................... .......21
a. Waters Impacted ................................ .......21
b. Stream Characteristics ....................... .......21
C. Best Usage Classification ................... ....... 22
d. Water Quality ................................... .......22
e. Anticipated Water Resources Impacts ....... 23
3. Special Topics ............................................... .......24
a. Jurisdictional Issues ........................... .......24
b. Permits .............................................. .......25
" c. Mitigation .......................................... .......25
d. Rare and Protected Species ................ ....... 26
4. Physiography and Soils .........................................27
5. Floodplain Involvement and Hydraulic Concerns..28
F.
G.
H.
1.
VII. C(
Highway Traffic Noise Analysis .......................................29
Air Quality Analysis .........................................................33
Hazardous Materials Involvement ....................................35
Geodetic Markers ............................................................36
)MMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT ............................................................ 36
VIII. DRAFT SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION .....................................37
A. Proposed Action ..............................................................37
B. Description of 4(f) Resources ...........................................38
C. Impacts on the Section 4(f) Property ...............................40
D. Avoidance Alternatives ...................................................41
E. Measures to Minimize Harm ............................................42
F. Coordination ....................................................................42
FIGURES and APPENDIX
List of Tables .................................................................................... Paae
Table 1 Comparison of Alternates 1, 2 and 5 ........................................................7
Table 2 Terrestrial System Impacted Areas ......................................................... 20
Table 3 Water Resources Potential Impacts ........................................................23
Table 4 Federal Candidate and State Listed Species ............................................ 27
List of Figures
Figure I Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Aerial Mosaic
Figure 3 Alternates 1, 2, and 5
Figure 4 Alternates Eliminated From Study
Figure 5 Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 6A 1997/2017 No Build ADT Volumes
Figure 6B 1997/2017 Alternate 1 ADT Volumes
Figure 6C 1997/2017 Alternates 2 and 5 Volumes
Figure 6D 1997/2017 Alternate 3 ADT Volumes
Figure 6E 1997/2017 Alternate 4 ADT Volumes
Figure 7 Historic District Boundary
Figure 8 Alternates 1 and 2 Impacts to Historic District
Figure 9 Wetland Pockets Along Alternate 1
Figure 10 100-year Floodplain Map
Figure I 1 Problems with No-Build Alternate
Hickory-Brookford
Revision to NC 127
from US 321 to SR 1184
Catawba County
Federal-Aid Project NET-127(l)
State Project No. 8.1792201
T. I. P. Project U-2530B
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways,
proposes to revise NC 127 from the US 321/NC 127 interchange to SR 1184 in Catawba
County. The 2.26 km (1.4 mile) project will involve both widening of an existing roadway
and construction on new location. A five lane facility with curb and gutter is proposed.
The total estimated cost of the proposed project is $6,171,000 including
$2,271,000 for right-of-way acquisition and $3,900,000 for construction.
The proposed project is included in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP). Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year
(FFY) 1997 and construction is scheduled to begin in FFY 1998. The estimated cost
included in the 1996-2002 TIP is $5,750,000.
H. PURPOSE OF PROJECT
A. Need for the Proposed Improvements
The proposed project will provide a more continuous route for NC 127 through
southern Hickory and Brookford. The widened road will provide a high level of service
for the users by increasing the capacity of the roadway and will better accommodate future
traffic.
Currently, NC 127 is directed along South Center Street, a two lane roadway
which includes an at-grade intersection with US 64/70/321. The project will direct traffic
to a bridge over US 64/70/321, improving the level of service for both NC 127 and
US 64/70/321.
NC 127 traffic must make a 90 degree turn north of US 64/70/321. The proposed
project will eliminate this 90 degree turn and make NC 127 a more continuous north/south
corridor.
Under the TIP Project R-85B a new interchange is under construction which will
realign NC 127 in the project area. For it to function effectively as a north-south corridor,
NC 127 must be revised to tie into project R-85B. Without the project no direct access to
the new US 321/NC 127 interchange will be possible. This will eliminate a major
component of the Hickory-Newton-Conover Thoroughfare Plan.
This major thoroughfare will function as a radial serving NC 127 south travel
desires into the Hickory area. Growth in areas south of Brookford (particularly in the
Mountain View area) is projected to greatly increase traffic volumes along NC 127. The
proposed improvements will allow NC 127 to handle these increasing traffic volumes.
This project is very important to the entire transportation network of the project
area. Through the planning processes of the local government this project has been
established as on of their top transportation priorities.
Figure 1 l shows how the project will improve the continuity of the NC 127
corridor.
B. Traffic Volumes and Capacity
Projected traffic volumes anticipated for the revised NC 127 are as follows:
1997 Average Daily Traffic = 6600-10710 vpd
2017 Average Daily Traffic = 12000-17740 vpd
See Figure 6A through 6E for additional traffic information
A capacity analysis was performed for the recommended alternate (Alternate 1) to
predict the level of service for the project. This analysis indicated the proposed five-lane
facility will operate at a level of service A with 1997 traffic. In the design year (2017), the
facility will operate at a level of service B.
No-Build Alternative
It is difficult to estimate the level of service of the no-build alternative because of
the resulting discontinuous routing of traffic. However, a two-lane analysis was -
performed for both SR 1213 (Second Street S.W.) and existing NC 127 (South Center
Street) as one measure of the no-build level of service. This analysis indicated a level of
service C for SR 1213 and a level of service E for South Center Street in the design year.
The No-Build Alternative forces NC 127 traffic an at-grade intersection with
US 70. The build alternative will improve both the NC 127 north/south corridor and the
US 70 east/west corridor. The US 70 corridor currently has operational problems due to
its high traffic volumes. By carrying NC 127 on a bridge over US 70.
C. Thoroughfare Plan
NC 127 is designated as a major thoroughfare on the mutually adopted Hickory-
Newton-Conover Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan. The thoroughfare plan recommends
that NC 127 be directed along SR 1213 (see Figure 5).
Without implementation of the project, NC 127 will no longer have direct access
to the new US 321 freeway interchange. Direct interchange access is an important part of
the thoroughfare plan.
The project will greatly improve operations for both NC 127 (a north/south
corridor) and US 70 (an east/west corridor) by carrying NC 127 on a bridge over US 70.
Thus, delay caused by having an at-grade intersection is avoided.
III. EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
A. Existing Cross-Section
The studied section of SR 1213 is currently a two-lane facility. The cross-section
varies throughout the project length as follows:
From NC 127(South Center Street) to 16th Avenue SW -
Shoulder cross-section with a pavement width of 5.5 meters (18 feet).
From 16th Street SW to 14th Avenue Drive SW -
Shoulder cross-section with a pavement width of 15 meters (48 feet). The
structure over 1-40 has a width of 21 meters (68 feet).
From 14th Avenue Drive SW to SR 1184 -
Shoulder cross-section with a pavement width of 5.5 meters (18 feet).
South Center Street -
Shoulder cross-section with a pavement width of 7.3 meters (24 feet).
B. Right of Way
Existing right of way along SR 1213 is 9.8 meters (32 feet), symmetrical about the
existing centerline.
C. Access Control
No access control exists along the studied section.
D. Speed Limit
Current posted speed limit along SR 1213 is 60 km/h (35 mph). The speed limit
along the existing NC 127 (Center Street) is 70 km/h (45 mph).
E. Functional Classification
SR 1213 is currently classified as a rural major collector on the Statewide
Functional Classification System, and is on the Federal Aid National Highway system.
NC 127 is classified as an urban principal arterial.
F. Utilities
Several high tension power lines are located within the project limits. Power lines
are located at the intersection of SR 1213 with SR 1183. Overhead power lines are also
located along NC 127 and SR 1213. A utility substation is in the project vicinity on the
north side of SR 1182.
G. Structures
Bridge No. 123 on SR 1213 over I-40 was built in 1976 and has a sufficiency
rating of 99 out of 100. The structure has a 20.7 m (68 foot) wide, 101.8 m (334 feet)
long cross-section and will accommodate the widened roadway
H. School Buses
A total of 2 school buses (4 trips per day) use SR 1213.
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Project Len tgth
The project length is approximately 2.26 km (1.4 miles).
B. Proposed Cross-Section
The proposed typical section consists of two through lanes in each direction with
a continuous center turn lane. Pavement width will be 18.0 m (60 feet). 2.4 meter (8-
foot) berms will be provided behind the curbs.
C. Structures
Existing Bridge No. 123 over I-40 will require restriping to accommodate a five-
lane section. The width of the existing structure is adequate to accommodate the
proposed improvements. The railing on Bridge No. 123 does not meet current standards
and will be replaced.
An existing 2.4 m by 1.5 m (8 ft. by 5 ft.) bottomless concrete box culvert located
on SR 1213 is recommended to be retained and extended, maintaining the existing
roadway grade.
A new structure is proposed over the Henry Fork River with a length of 76 m (250
feet) and a width of 19.5 m (64 feet).
D. Right-of-Wax
Recommended right-of-way for the improvements to NC 127 symmetrical to the
roadway centerline will range from 36.6 to 91.4 meters (120-300 feet) throughout the
project. Additional construction easements will also be required.
E. Design Speed
A 80 km/h (50 mph) design speed is recommended for the project. The posted
speed limit is expected to be 70 km/h (45 mph). Recommendations for the posted speed
limit will be made later in the design phase of the project.
F. Type of Intersection Control
The intersection of South Center Street and NC 127 will be signalized . All other
intersections along the project are proposed to be stop sign controlled.
G. Access Control
No control of access is proposed for the improvements to NC 127.
H. Bicycles
No special bicycle accommodations are recommended for the project.
I. Cost Estimates
The proposed improvements are estimated to cost a total of $6,171,000. This cost
includes $3,900,000 for construction and $2,171,000 for right-of-way acquisition.
6
V. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. Alignment Alternatives
Alternates 1, 2, and 5 are shown on Figures 2 and 3. Alternates 3, 4, and 4A are
shown on Figure 4.
Alternate 1 (Recommended)
This alternative involves extending and widening SR 1213 to a five-lane curb and
gutter section and designating this section as NC 127. Alternate 1 begins at the
US 321/NC 127 interchange on new location, joins the existing SR 1213, and ends at
SR 1184. This alternate would require a new structure over the Henry Fork River. The
recommended structure width and length are 19.5 meters by 76.2 meters (64 feet by 250
feet). This alternative would involve 18 residential, one business and one non-profit
organization relocatees and would impact approximately <0.1 ha (0.1 acres) of wetlands.
Construction of this alternate will require the taking of land from historic property
of the Brookford Mill Village. Therefore, Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act applies to this Alternate.
Alternate 1 is the alignment recommended in the Hickory-Newton-Conover
Thoroughfare Plan. At $6,171,000 Alternate 1 is the least expensive build alternative
considered. Alternate I provides the best alignment for crossing the steep terrain of the
project area.
Alternate 2
Because Alternate 1 involves taking property of the historic Brookford Mill
Village, several alternative alignments were analyzed. Alternate 2 also involved property
of the Brookford Mill Village, however, Alternate 2 has less impact to the historic
property.
Alternate 2 begins at the US 32I NC 127 interchange, proceeds along the east
boundaries of the mill village, and ties into existing SR 1213 following Alternate 1. .
Alternate 2 also involves extending and widening SR 1213 to a five-lane curb and gutter
section and designating this section as NC 127. A new structure is required over the
HenryFork River. The recommended length for this structure is 155.4 meters (510 feet),
_ with a clear roadway width of 19.5m (64 feet).
Alternate 2 would cause the relocation of 12 residences and 1 business.
Approximately <0.1 ha (0.1 acre) of wetlands would be affected. Construction of this
alternate would take property on the east side of the Brookford Mill Village.
While the alignment of Alternate 2 lessens impacts to the Brookford Mill Village,
Alternate 2 is directed to much less desirable terrain than Alternate 1. Because of the
problems with topography in the area, Alternate 2 is estimated to cost $9,018,00. This is
$2,847,000 more than Alternate 1.
Alternate 5
Alternate 5 completely avoids the Brookford Mill Village. Because of the width of
the historic boundaries, Alternate 5 involves extensive new location construction.
Alternate 5 begins at the US 321/NC 127 interchange following alternates 3 and 4
east of the Brookford Community Building, then veers west tying into SR 1213. A new
structure over I-40 is required. Alternate 5 then continues north following alternates 1
and 2. The recommended structure length and width over I-40 is 19.5 meters by 91.4
meters (64 feet by 300 feet). A structure would also be required over the Henry Fork
River with this alternate. The recommended width and length for this structure is 19.5
meters by 158.5 meters (64 feet by 520 feet).
Because of the terrain of the project area and the extensive new location required
by alternate 5, this alternate costs $12,759,000. This is $6,588,000 more than Alternate 1.
Approximately 24 residences and 1 business will be relocated if Alternate 5 is constructed.
Table 1 Comparison of Alternates 1, 2, and 5
Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 5
Construction Cost $3,900,000 $7,100,000 $10,100,000
Right of Way Cost $2,271,000 $1,918,000 $2,659,000
Total $6,171,000 $9,018,000 $12,759,000
Relocatees 18 residents
1 business 12 residents
1 business 24 residents
1 business
Relocatees within
historic district 8 10 0
B. Alignment Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study
Three alternates were developed to determine if South Center Street could be
utilized rather than SR 1213. Alternates 3, 4, and 4A would avoid the historic Brookford
Mill Village.
Utilizing South Center Street would require an intersection with US 64/70/321.
US 64/70/321 is a four lane median divided facility. This major arterial currently carries a
very high volume of traffic. A corridor study of US 70 was undertaken in 1990 which
recommended widening the facility to six lanes. However, no improvements to this
section of the facility are currently programmed in the 1996-2002 Transportation
Improvement Program. Even if the US 70 corridor were widened to six lanes in the
future, directing NC 127 along South Center Street would cause operational problems for
both the US 70 and NC 127 corridors. The at-grade intersection with US 64/70/321
would degrade the level of service for both US 64/70/321 and NC 127. Another
intersection lies just north of US 64/70/321 which complicates traffic operations in the
area because of the short spacing of the two intersections.
All three of these alternatives were eliminated from further study because of
operational problems in the vicinity of US 64/70/321.
Alternates 3 and 4 and 4A
Alternate 3 begins at the new US 321/NC 127 interchange and continues on new
location, proceeding to South Center Street east of the Brookford Community Building
through the US 64/70/321 intersection on new location ending at SR 1213.
Alternate 3 would eliminate the signalized intersection just north of US 64/70/321
by extending NC 127 on new location. Extensive additional improvements would be
required for the US 64/70/321 intersection to operate at a level of service D under
Alternate 3. These additional improvements would have to include additional through
lanes on US 64/70/321 and additional left turn lanes in the east and southbound directions.
In addition, large businesses in the vicinity of US 64/70/321 would require relocation
because of the new location extension.
Alternate 4 begins at the US 321/NC 127 interchange, following Alternate 3
through the US 64/70/321 intersection. Traffic would be required to turn at the existing
intersection north of US 64/70/321.
Alternate 4 would avoid the relocation of large businesses by directing NC 127 to
the existing intersection north of US 64/70/321. While Alternate 4 would avoid the
extensive relocation of businesses, it would have worse operational characteristics than
Alternate 3. NC 127 traffic would be required to make a turn at the intersection just north
of US 64/70/321. The close proximity of these two intersections would further
complicate traffic operations.
Alternate 4A would direct NC 127 on new location north of US 64/70/321.
Alternate 4A would have the same operational problems as Alternate 3 and would
severely impact a residential neighborhood north of US 64/70/321.
Because of the operational problems and impacts of Alternates 3, 4, and 4A, these
_ alternatives were eliminated from detailed study and no cost estimates were prepared. By
utilizing a grade separation over US 64/70/321, Alternates 1, 2 and 5 have significant
advantages for traffic operations.
C. Typical Section Alternates
Two typical section alternates were studied for this project. 1.) A five lane curb
and gutter section for the portion of the project on existing location and a four lane
shoulder section for the new location portion or 2.) a five lane curb and gutter section
throughout the entire length of the project.
The recommended five lane curb and gutter section consists of four 3.7 m (12-
foot) through lanes and one 3.7 m (12-foot) continuous left center turn lane. This typical
section was chosen for the entire length of the project because of the benefits the center
turn lane provides for traffic capacity an safety.
A four lane undivided curb and gutter section was considered early in the project
study. This typical section was rejected because of the potential for conflicts between left
turning vehicles and through traffic. These conflicts would reduce capacity and increase
the facility's accident potential.
D. Public Transportation Alternative
Public transportation is not considered a feasible alternative to create a more
continuous route along NC 127.
E. "No Build" Alternative
The "No-Build" alternative is the least expensive alternative from construction and
right of way standpoint. The "no-build" alternative also avoids the anticipated effects on
the natural environment of the proposed project. However, if the "no-build" alternative
were chosen, none of the project's benefits would be realized. Because of the need for a
more continuous routing of NC 127, the "no-build" alternative is not recommended.
VI. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Social and Economic Environment
Neighborhood Characteristics
Catawba County is located in the west central section of the State and is
bounded by Iredell, Lincoln, Burke, Caldwell, and Alexander Counties. According _
to the 1990 Census Data, Catawba County has a population of 118,412.
The vicinity of the proposed project and proposed action is within a
densely residential section. Most of the homes in the community are very similar in
style, giving the appearance of an era when factory bosses constructed dwellings
for their employees.
10
2. Economic Factors
During the month of November 1994 the NC Employment Security
Commission indicated that Catawba County had a labor force of 75,060. Out of
this total, 72,610 persons were gainfully employed. This left an unemployment
total of 2,450 or 3.3 percent.
3. Public Facilities and Services Impacts
Southside Recreation Park is located on the north side of I-40 and on the
east side of the proposed action. No impacts to Southside Recreation Park are
anticipated. The Brookford Community Building borders alternates 2 through 5,
no impacts are anticipated to this property (see Figure 2).
4. Relocation Impacts
It is anticipated that 18 residents, 1 business and 1 non-profit organization
in the vicinity of the project will require relocation as part of this project (see
appendix page A-36).
To help minimize the impact of relocation NCDOT has a policy to ensure
that comparable replacement housing will be available prior to construction of the
state and federally assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of
Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the inconvenience of
relocation:
* Relocation Assistance
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and prices of
homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing of other housing
programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for
payment of actual moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where
displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher
cost or to lose a favorable financing agreement (in case of ownership), the
Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program will
compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and qualify and up to $5,250
to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and the North Carolina
it
Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The program is designed
to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a replacement site in
which to live or do business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each
highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families,
individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for
relocation assistance advisory services without regard to race, color, religion, sex,
or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to allow ample time, prior
to displacement, for negotiations, and possession of replacement housing which
meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The displacees are given at a least a
90-day written notice after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of
displaced persons will be offered in areas generally less desirable in regard to
public utilities and commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement
property will be within the financial means of the families and individuals displaced
and will be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The relocation .
officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses, non-profit organizations,
and farm operations in searching for and moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will
receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of
replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either private or public,
(3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to another site (if possible). The
relocation officer will also supply information concerning other state or federal
programs offering assistance to displaced persons and will provide other advisory
services as needed in order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting
to a new location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the
displacee for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-
profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway project. Under
the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate in reasonable
incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees,
surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for
any increased interest expenses for dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants
for replacement housing payments, increase interest payments, and incidental
purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the
Last Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed
$5,250, to rent a replaced dwelling or to make a down payment, including
incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down
payment is based upon what is required when the rent supplement exceeds $5,250.
12
It is a policy of the State that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's
state or federally-assisted construction projects unless or until comparable
replacement housing has been offered or provided for each displacee within a
reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No relocation payment received
will be considered as income for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code 1954
or for the purposes of determining eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any
person for assistance under the Social Security Act or any federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement
housing is not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial
means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The
purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation
by the State sc that decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be
provided. It is not felt that this program will be necessary on the project, since
there appears to be adequate opportunities for relocation within the area.
B. Land Use Planning
Sttus of Local Planning Activities
''he proposed improvement is located within the municipal limits of the
Town d Brookford and the City of Hickory. The town of Brookford has not
exercis,d its planning authority and has no long-range plan or zoning ordinance in
effect. The City of Hickory, however, has a very active planning program, based
on its, 986 Land Development Plan. The City also enforces a zoning ordinance
and sibdivision ordinance.
2. Existing Land Use
In the vicinity of the US 321/NC 127 interchange existing land uses include
a nix of agricultural and residential uses. All five alternates for this project cross
theHenry Fork River with Alternate 1 being near the Shuford Furniture Factory,
an( proceeds through a residential area typical of North Carolina "mill villages".
Tle roadway continues through a small mobile home park, parallel to a forested
ara.
North of I- 40, the land use is predominantly residential, with small
lusinesses fronting the roadway. The Southside Recreation Park, operated by the
City of Hickory, is located on SR 1213. The facility includes a playground,
lallfields, and other recreational amenities. Land uses are much more intensive
ind urbanized near the alternative's northern termini at SR 1184. A shopping
- center and other commercial enterprises are located along US 70 at SR 1213 and
South Center Street. Some industrial land uses exist within the Alternate 3
corridor north of US 70 (see Figure 2).
13
3. Future Land Use
As previously stated, the Town of Brookford has not exercised its
authority to guide or control land use through long range planning or zoning
regulations. Although most of the project is located within Brookford, the land
immediately south of I-40 and the entire area north of the interstate is within the
jurisdiction of the City of Hickory.
As noted in the City of Hickory's Land Development Plan, the
US 64/70/321 corridor is the major commercial strip for the entire Hickory
planning area. The plan's discussion on this corridor focuses on improving the
visual clutter, poor traffic management, and other problems typical of commercial
strips. The City plans to enforce more stringent development standards for the
area, which is not expected to experience a significant change in existing land uses.
C. Cultural Resources
Architectural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106,
codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally funded,
licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property listed in or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given an opportunity to comment.
Historic architectural resources in the project area are identified and
described in the Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report which reports the
results of the architectural survey conducted for this project. All structures within
the area of potential effect of the project were investigated and evaluated to
determine their eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
This survey was conducted and report compiled by NCDOT in accordance
with the provisions of FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A (Guidance for
Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents); the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological and
Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716); 36 CFR Part 800; 36 CFR Part 60; and
Phase II (Abridged) Survey Procedures for Historic Architectural Resources by ,
NCDOT.
Catawba County was comprehensively surveyed for historic architectural
resources in 1979 and the survey site files Raleigh. A NCDOT staff architectural
historian surveyed the project area on February 1-2, 1994, with additional
14
investigation on May 12-13 1994. The survey was conducted on foot, and several
property owners and area residents were interviewed.
The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO)
concurred with the opinion of the FHWA that seventeen (17) of the identified
properties were not considered eligible for the National Register. One property,
the Brookford Mill Village, was evaluated in depth in the survey report. The
Brookford Mill Village, associated with the former Brookford Mills, was evaluated
and considered eligible for the National Register for its role in the manufacture of
textiles in Catawba County and its design as a mill village. See Appendix pages A-
23 through A-25 for concurrence letter.
The former Brookford School (currently the Brookford Community
Building) located northeast of the Brookford Mill Village is also eligible for listing
on the National Register.
The Historic Architecture Survey Report is a Technical Addendum to this
Environmental Assessment and is on file at NCDOT and available for public
inspection.
Alternates 1 and 2 for the revision to NC 127 will involve the use of land
from the Mill Village. The proposed use of land from this historic architectural
resource requires evaluation and approval under Section 4(f) of the DOT Act. The
Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, included in this document as section VIII, provides
details of the ongoing coordination with the SHPO. The SHPO concurs with a
finding of adverse effect for Alternates 1 and 2 and no effect for Alternate 5 on the
mill village. The SHPO concurs with no effect for Alternate 1, 2, and 5 for the
former Brookford School (see Appendix pages A-26 through A-29).
In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,
any alternative which has an adverse effect on the Brookford Mill Village Historic
District will require NCDOT and FHWA to enter into a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) with the State Historic Preservation Officer. This MOA will
detail how the effects to the historic property will be taken into account.
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966
specifies that publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife and
waterfowl refuge and all historic sites of national, state or local significance may be
used for Federal Aid projects only if
(1) There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land and
(2) Such project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to 4(f) lands
resulting from such use.
15
The recommended alternate for this project requires the use of
approximately 0.8 hectares (2 acres)of the Brookford Mill Village property.
Because the Brookford Mill Village is eligible for listing on the National Register
of Historic Places, Section 4(f) applies to this property. Since the recommended
alternate, and the project requires the removal or alteration of historic buildings a
full 4(f) Evaluation is needed to satisfy the requirements of Section 4(f). This
Section 4(f) evaluation is included in Section VIII of this document.
2. Archaeological Resources
An archaeological survey of Alternates 1, 2, and 5 was conducted between
April 25-27, 1995. A pedestrian survey of portions of area of potential effect for
each alternate was undertaken to locate and assess any significant archaeological
remains that could be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. The survey
concentrated on areas of new location in an effort to avoid more disturbed area of
the existing right of way, urbanization, and highway construction. Although two
of the alternates cross property that is potentially eligible for the National Register
District, the district has no archaeological sites or components listed as
contributing properties. In the remainder of the project area, no significant
archaeological sites eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places
were recorded. No further archaeological work is recommended. See Appendix
page A-34 for the SHPO concurrence letter.
D. Farmland
The project was coordinated with the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
pursuant to the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981. The Act requires all federal
agencies or their representatives to consider the impact of farmland acquisition and
construction projects on prime and important farmland soils. Land which has been
urbanized or is planned for non-agricultural development is exempt from consideration
under the Act. The SCS indicates the project area density to be urban in character and
additional development is likely. Therefore, the proposed improvement is exempt from
the requirement of the Act.
E. Natural Resources
Biotic Resources
The biota, natural and secondary communities are all typical of the western
Piedmont region. No unusual or especially significant elements were located
during the field investigation. Three forest classifications occur in the project area:
16
Dry-Mesic Oak --Hickory Forest
This is probably the typical natural forest community for most of the area,
but it transitions broadly to Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest and Basic Mesic
Forest. Dominant or abundant canopy trees are white oak and mockernut hickory.
Tulip tree is frequently common. Beech saplings and small trees are often
common. Other usual lesser components of the canopy are post oak, southern red
oak, black oak, red maple, black gum, hackberry, black cherry, black walnut , and
shortleaf pine. Other trees occasionally present include persimmon, pignut
hickory, sand hickory, Virginia pine, northern red oak, water oak, and willow oak.
The most important subcanopy tree is usually dogwood, but hornbeam,
serviceberry, sassafras, American holly, and red mulberry also occur. Typical
shrubs are black haw, and blueberry, with an occasional privet. Muscadine grape,
Virginia creeper, common greenbrier, Japanese honeysuckle are common vines,
but poison ivy is the most abundant. Common herbs include Catesby's trillium and
false Solomon's seal, but other typical species include wild licorice, common blue
violet, skullcap, avens, tick-trefoil, bellwort, meadow parsnip, crownbeard,
rattlesnake-root, rosinweed, elephant foot, St. John's-wort, panic grass, grape
fern, Christmas fern, ebony spleenwort, and ground pine. Japanese grass is locally
abundant on lower sides of the slopes.
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
Dominant or abundant canopy trees are white oak, northern red oak, tulip
tree, and mockernut hickory. Beech is common but large trees are rare. The
canopy may also include white ash, black walnut, hackberry, and occasional large
shortleaf pine. Silverbell, ironwood, serviceberry, American holly, sassafras, and
redbud are common small trees. Locally important shrubs are rosebay
rhododendron, pink azalea, mountain laurel, doghobble, sweetshrub, and privet.
Japanese honeysuckle and saw greenbrier are locally important. The herb layer is
dense and includes wild comfrey, agrimony, lopseed rue anemone, Solomon's seal,
false Solomon's seal bugbane, Jack-in-the pulpit, jewelweed, foamflower, bluet,
thimbleweed, Indian cucumber-root, pipsissewa, rattlesnake plantain, bellwort,
wild yam, dittany, Christmas fern, lady fern, and shining club moss.
The best developed, large, mature, and high quality example of this
community lies just to the south of Alternates 2, 3, 4 and 5 on a long steep east-
facing slope extending about 30m (100 ft) in height above the Henry Fork River
floodplain on the CSI farm property (see Figure 2). This community includes
dense shrub layers of rosebay rhododendron and doghobble which were not found
elsewhere. The stand would not be impacted by construction.
Other examples of this community type are small and fragmentary,
frequently occurring on the short steep cliffs and bluffs above the river and on a
few lower slopes elsewhere.
17
Basic Mesic Forest
This community appears to be expressed in ravines and on slopes above
floodplains with broad intergradations to Piedmont Alluvial Forest, Dry-Mesic
Oak--Hickory Forest, and Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest.
The dominant trees are the tulip and walnut. Other species occurring in the
canopy include silver maple, boxelder, red maple, honey locust, and hackberry.
Ironwood and red mulberry may be in the subcanopy. Frequently occurring shrubs
are multiflora rose, black haw, privet, and swamp dogwood. Herb development is
usually lush, particularly including jewelweed, pokeweed, and Japanese grass.
Roadside Community
Typical occasionally mowed roadside communities consist of sericea,
plantain, wild lettuce, orchard grass, fescus, foxtail, broomsedge, and Japanese
honeysuckle.
Scrub Thickets and Borders
Scrub thicket or tree border communities commonly occur along fence
rows, over ditches, edges of forests, and in disturbed areas. 'They are frequently
virtually impenetrable, especially those in low areas such as next to a floodplain.
Trash was frequently encountered in these places. Upland thickets were often
composed of mixes of blackberry, Japanese honeysuckle, poison ivy, smooth
sumac, golden-rod, fleabane, wingstem, and ox-eye daisy. Thickets in low areas
commonly include mixtures of blackberry, multiflora rose, privet, Japanese
honeysuckle, grape, pokeweed, golden-rod, sunflower, and ironweed. In several
areas, kudzu and knotweed comprised 100% of the coverage.
a. Terrestrial Fauna
Wildlife and other fauna are less easily observed than the flora of an
area without special efforts being expended. Evidence of the typical fauna
is sought through habitat evaluation, causing sightings, and observation of
sounds, tracks, scats, dens, and other indirect evidence. Study of range
distributions are also important in estimating the fauna of a given area.
Descriptions of the expected fauna of the project area, given the ,
evidence available and the human population density and development, are
given below.
The mix of habitat types and cotonal areas is beneficial for many
species, but the fragmented distribution and size of the habitats is
detrimental for others. The landscape diversity in the area is judged to be
18
generally good for bird diversity, except those requiring interiors of large
unbroken tracts of forest. Large mammals, notably white-tailed deer,
appear to be absent from the area. There are no ponds, lakes or marshes
that would usually harbor a distinct array of reptiles, birds and mammals.
Based on available habitat, local animals are divided into four
general groups, three mostly expected in a specific habitat type, and fourth
being somewhat ubiquitous. These are more open areas, consisting of
fields, pastures, roadsides, successional meadows, and many residential
landscapes; intermediate habitats, consisting of thickets, hedgerows, most
ecotones, and the earlier woody stages of succession; and forest.
Those generally ubiquitous amphibians are American toad, Fowler's
toad, upland chorus frog, and spring peeper. The slimy salamander is
expected in moister forests. Treefrogs should be common, particularly in
the alluvial forest areas. Most ambystomid salamanders are probably
uncommon because of the general lack of suitable breeding pools in the
area.
Among the widely distributed reptiles, those occurring probably
include the five-lined skink, rat snake, black racer, rough green snake, and
the earth hognosed snake in open areas. In the intermediate habitats, likely
occurrences include eastern fence lizard, eastern gartersnake, and eastern
milk snake. Reptiles in the forested habitats are eastern box turtle, ground
skink, brown snake, redbelly snake, ringneck snake, and worm snake.
The avifauna of open areas include mourning dove, field sparrow,
common grackle, robin, starling, eastern meadowlark, grasshopper
sparrow, and eastern bluebird. Birds in the intermediate areas include
brown thrasher, mockingbird, goldfinch, indigo bunting, kingbird, common
yellowthroat and bobwhite. Forest species include various woodwarblers,
wood thrush, tufted titmouse, summer tanager, eastern phoebe, red-eyed
vireo, American redstart, and blue-gray gnatcatcher. Species ranging
through many habitats include red-tailed hawk, screech owl, blue jay,
rufous-sided towhee, and Carolina chickadee. A wood duck hen and brood
were noted in the Henry Fork River, where green-backed heron and belted
kingfisher are also expected. The dead and dying large pines in the area are
presenting abundant good habitat for a variety of woodpeckers and several
winter resident species such as nuthatches.
Mammals of open and intermediate habitats include southeastern
shrew, least shrew, long-tailed weasel, meadow vole, hispid cotton rat, and
groundhog. Those ranging into forests as well as open intermediate
habitats are northern short-tailed shrew, eastern mole, striped skunk, gray
fox, red fox, white-footed mouse, and eastern cottontail. Several species
19
shunning open areas, but in the intermediate and forested areas, including
opossum, pine vole, golden mouse, southern flying squirrel, and usually
several kinds of bats. Exclusively forest species include raccoons and gray
squirrel.
b. Aquatic Life
Predominant fish of the Henry Fork River are likely smallmouth
bass, redbreast sunfish, and possibly rock bass. Small fish seen in the larger
unnamed perennial tributary are putatively identified as royside dace and
creek chub. The small stream should also be appropriate habitat for darters
and sculpins.
No aquatic amphibians were observed, but the small stream appears
suitable for northern dusky salamander, two-lined salamander, possibly
marbled salamander, and pickerel frog. Green frogs might be expected
along the Henry Fork River.
Several crayfish and a fair number of caddisfly larval cases were
observed in the small stream.
Snapping turtles might be expected in large pools and still water
areas of the Henry Fork River. Northern water snake and queen snake are
likely water snakes of the area.
C. Anticipated Biotic Resources Impacts
Terrestrial System
Estimated direct impacts due to project construction are shown in
Table 2. Calculations are best approximations given the design
specifications available and the precision possible with this study. Alternate
1 was calculated using the right-of-way presented on the photomosaic map
often less than 30 m (100 ft) in width. Alternates 2 through 4 were
calculated using a standard 30 m (100 ft) right-of-way projected from a
center tapeline given on the map. Alternate 5 was calculated using the
right-of-way presented on the photomosaic ranging from 37 m to 91 m
(120 ft to 300 ft). The actual impacts may be less than those indicated in
Table 2.
It is noted that not all of the right-of-way will be utilized during
construction. Typical grade-out dimensions for curb and gutter
constructions is 24m (80 ft) for a five-lane highway.
20
No alternate appears to cause significantly fewer direct takings.
Alternate 1 utilizes mostly existing right-of-way. Other alternates require
approximately the same amount of new location, about 0.4 km (0.3 mi.).
Alternate 2 introduces the greatest impact due to fragmentation of
remaining large habitat available in the area. All alternates present
comparable impacts to the Henry Fork River riverine system.
Table 2 Imnacted Terrestrial Svstem Areas in hectares (acres)
Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3 Alternate 4 Alternate 5
Bu 1.1( 2.9) 1.2 3.0 3.2 7.9 3.1 7.8 2.7 6.7
Pa 0.4 (l.0) 0.4 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.4 1.0
Su 0.3 (0.6) 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.8 0.9 2.2
U 0.4 (1.0) 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.9
Al 0.2 (0.4) <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.1
Pi 0.1 (0.2) 0.2 0.5 <0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.2
PH 0.3 (0.7) 0.4 1.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 1.7 4.2
Cu <0.1 <0.1 2.3 5.7
Ri <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.1
Total 2.7 6.9 <3.0 <7.1 <4.6 11.0 <4.6 11.0 8.1 20.0
Bu = built-up, including roadway; Pa = pastureland; Su = early successional and
thickets; Up = upland hardwood forest; A1= alluvial hardwood forest; Pi = pine
forest; PH = mixed pine and hardwood forest; Cu = cut-over forest; Ri = Henry
Fork River
The data in Table 2 suggest only the direct impacts on land and
community type due to construction. However, other indirect effects on
wildlife population levels and habitat value may occur, regardless of which
alignment is chosen. Little or no net loss of habitat is expected for small
animal species and predators and scavengers that utilize open areas such as
roadsides. A reduction in the available habitat for animals that require
forest habitats may result. Mortality rates for all species due to road kills
would may increase overall because of the additional number of travel lanes
that would have to be negotiated by animals in their movement patterns,
i.e., from two to four or five lanes for existing road and for some road on
new location. The most severe impact may occur as a result of
fragmentation of habitat for the larger species and for those smaller species
that require large tracts of unbroken forested land (such as neotropical
migrant birds). Roads on new location may introduce another obstacle and
barrier zone for many species and shrink the suitable habitat for others. All
alternates consist of new location, but 2 and 5 have the greatest amount.
21
Aquatic Systems
Minimal impacts on fishes are anticipated if construction proceeds
carefully to reduce sedimentation and channel alteration and if no barriers
to fish movement are introduced. If small pipe culverts are installed on
small streams, behavioral inhibition of movement for some species may
occur.
Removal of streamside vegetation may increase stream temperature
and irradiance and may cause a reduction of allochthonous food sources.
These effects may negatively alter the stream characteristics for some
aquatic organisms. Substrate alteration may have negative effects on
sessile benthic organisms.
Increased sediment and pollution from highway construction
activity and runoff pollution after construction are widely recognized as
factors that can seriously reduce water quality. Aquatic organisms are
generally acutely sensitive to these inputs.
2. Water Resources
a. Waters Impacted
All drainage is into the lower middle reaches of the Henry Fork
River. The Henry Fork is a tributary of the South Fork of the Catawba
River. It is approximately 92 km (57 mi.) long from mouth to origin,
joining the Jacob Fork to make the South Fork. Unnamed, small, short
perennial and intermittent streams feed directly into the Henry Fork River
and, potentially, two of its tributaries will be impacted by this project. One
tributary parallels and eventually crosses under SR 1213. Another smaller
tributary is at the southern terminus of the project near SR 1262 (see
Figure 9).
b. Stream Characteristics
The Henry Fork River is a typical western Piedmont medium to low
gradient sandy stream. The Henry Fork River is described as an average
width of 7.6 m (25 ft). In the project area, the channel width is
approximately 23 to 30 m (75-100 ft), with wide pools occurring above
and below a 76 m (250 ft) wide concrete dam adjacent to the Shuford
Furniture Factory. The dam has been in place for many years. Narrow
floodplains varying form approximately 15 m (50 ft) to 46 m (150 ft) occur
on each side of the channel, confined between steep slopes and bluffs. The
substrate in the channel varies from unconsolidated sand, silt and gravel to
areas of rubble and bedrock. Floodplain substrates are noticeably different
22
above and below the dam due to different water flow characteristics. The
time of site investigation, the river had an attractive appearance with a
good flow of fairly clear shallow water over the riffles.
The intermittent and small perennial streams in the project area
have unconsolidated bottoms of rubble and gravel, but large portions are
heavily sedimented from upstream erosion. The soils of the project area
are susceptible to heavy erosion when disturbed. Stream channel widths
are generally 1-1.5 m (3-5 ft).
The Henry Fork River is classified as a smallmouth bass stream,
such streams having moderately abundant pools, normally clear waters,
cool summer temperatures, bottoms of boulders, rubble and gravel, and
minimum flows of 1.5 cros (5 cfs). The Division of Environmental
Management recognizes the middle segment of the Henry Fork River as a
"cool water" fishery.
C. Best Usage Classification
Portions of the uppermost section of the Henry Fork River are
classified WS-1. This section is montane, supports trout and parts have
been designated Outstanding Resources Waters (ORW). This is outside
the project area.
The largest portion of the Henry Fork River (73.4 km (45.6 mi.))
has a C classification. Areas of crossings resulting from the proposed
project also has a C classification. These are "fresh waters protected for
secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life including propagation and
survival, and wildlife." This is the minimum level of classification given to
all freshwaters. All tributaries carry the same classification as the streams
to which they are tributary. Two tributaries, Geitner Branch and Barger
Branch, just west and east, respectively of the project area, are specifically
in class C.
d. Water Quality
The recent biological classification for the Henry Fork River is
Good-Fair, with a Support Threatened (ST) overall rating. The chemical
rating is Supporting (S). Sampling in 1985 of an unnamed tributary above
and below SR 1213 in the project area yielded a Poor classification. Non-
point discharges are the major sources of pollution.
23
Anticipated Water Resources Impacts
Water quality data indicated that streams in the project area are
presently rated either not supporting their designated uses or support-
threatened. The designated uses are in the lowest classification.
Construction impacts could further degrade these waters, with sediment
loads and other pollutants affecting water quality from a biological and
chemical standpoint.
Because of the generally acute sensitivity of aquatic organisms to
discharges and inputs deriving from construction, appropriate measures
must be taken to avoid spillage and control runoff. These measures must
include storm water management measures, and appropriate road
maintenance measures. Best Management Practices should be employed
consistently.
Table 3 summarizes potential surface water resource impacts. All
alternates will involve a major bridge crossing of the Henry Fork River and
its floodplain (see sites 4 and 5 on Figure 9). Construction of this bridge
may have the greatest potential for pollution discharge.
Table 3. Water Resources Potential Impacts - number of encroachments.
See Figure 9 for location of encroachments
Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 5
River and flood lain 1 #4 1 #5 1 #5
Small Stream
Crossing 2 3 1
Length of stream
arallel in R/W m 91 (300 ft) 0 0
Pocket wetlands <0.1
ha <0.1 acre) 1 (0)
I 1 (#2) 0
(#)-Resources Location, reference Figure 9
All alternates have one potential for stream crossing at the southern
end of the project at the junction with the proposed US 32I NC 127
interchange. Alternate 2 involves two other small stream crossings, and
Alternate 1 involve one stream crossing. It is noted that Alternates 2 and 5
has the greatest amount of right-of-way on new location.
Construction of any selected alternate will not modify the flow of
any stream. Streams can be crossed effectively with the use of
appropriately designed pipe and box culverts. Alternate 1 could have a
major impact on one small stream which parallels the roadway within the
24
right-of-way for 91 in (300 ft) or more east of 18th Ave. SW. Careful
design and erosion control will be necessary to protect this stream and
avoid any stream relocation. All instream activities should be scheduled
during low flow periods.
There will be unavoidable negative impacts on the vegetative cover
that protects streams. Increased light levels, higher stream temperatures,
and changes in species composition will modify affected stream reaches.
No High Quality Waters (HQW's), Outstanding Resources Waters
(ORWs), nor WS-I, WS-II Water Supply Watersheds are located within
1.6 km (1.0 mi.) of the proposed action.
3. Special Topics
a. Jurisdictional Issues
Wetlands and surface waters receive specific protection under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376) and other
federal and state statutes and regulations. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) has jurisdiction over the discharge of dredged or fill
materials into these waters and wetlands. Determination of jurisdictional
wetlands are made pursuant to 33 CFR 328.3 (b) based on best judgment
of required criteria (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
Alluvial forested wetlands are the only type of wetland naturally
present in the project area, and they are not widespread. Any selected
alternate will involve crossing the riverine system of the Henry Fork River.
Alternate 1 will affect the largest area, crossing through a wider floodplain.
However, the river floodplain presents some false wetlands; i.e., there is
predominantly hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology, but field
indicators of hydric soils are generally absent in these sandy soils except for
"wet" spots.
Several small pocket wetlands less than 0.1 ha (<O.1 acre) are-
located sporadically through the pocket area. These small wetlands occur
in upper drainages, in depressions, against slopes, and along streams. At
least three of these (Alternates 1 through 5 in Fig 6) are located along
studied alignments. Each studied alignment except for Alternate 4,
potentially impacts at least one of these wetlands (Table 3). These
wetlands could be destroyed or adversely affected, depending on how
alignments are sited. It may be easy to avoid them in construction design
and siting.
25
These wetlands would all be classified as type PFO1 (Palustrine,
Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous), except that site #3 (see Figure 4)
might be considered PSSIA (Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Broad-leaved
Deciduous) because it is an abandoned formerly cleared bottom (Cowardin
et al. 1979).
b. Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) to discharge and place fill materials into any wetlands
affected by construction. Because of location above stream headwaters
and small wetland size, impacts to the pocket wetlands can be authorized
by Nationwide Permit [33 CFR 330.5 (a) (26)]. Depending on the selected
alternate and design, it is possible that impacts to the Henry River
floodplain and riverine system can be authorized under General Permit,
otherwise an Individual Permit will be required. Nationwide and General
Permits authorize actions that have no significant environmental effect.
A 401 Water Quality Certification administered by the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(NCDEHNR) will be required for fill activity in wetlands and surface
waters where a federal permit is required.
C. Miti ag tion
The project may cause unavoidable losses of small amount of
palustrine wetlands. However, compensatory mitigation is generally not
required where Nationwide Permits or General Permits are authorized,
pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between the Environmental
Protection Agency and the COE. Final discretionary authority in these
matters rests with the COE.
Nonetheless, utmost care must be taken in designing and placing
the bridge over the Henry Fork River in order to minimize impact.
Properly installed and appropriate kinds of drainage culverts will help
minimize impacts to pocket wetlands. Appropriate erosion control devices
will have to be installed to prevent avoidable storm water discharges into
streams and wetlands, and soil stabilization measures must be taken as ,
quickly as possible during and after construction of banks, fills, graded
areas, culverts, bridges, and other areas where the soil will be distributed.
26
d. Rare and Protected Species
Federally Protected Species
Species classified as Threatened (T), Endangered (E), Proposed
Threatened (PT), and Proposed Endangered (PE) receive federal
protection under Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. As of August 31, 1995, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service reports only one species with one of these classifications for
Catawba County.
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) is classified as
Threatened status. This status means that the taxon is likely to become
Endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
part of its range. The dwarf-flowered heartleaf occurs in rich deciduous
forests, bluffs and ravines. It is a small evergreen herb, very similar to
several other Hexastylis species, therefore, it is easily overlooked. It has
been found in only five southwestern Piedmont counties of North Carolina,
including Catawba County.
No Hexastylis were found in the project area during field work,
though potential habitat does exist in the project area. On May 4, 1994,
the NCDOT Environmental Unit conducted a walking plant by plant survey
for this species in the project area. No populations of the plant were
found.
Biological Conclusion: No effect
Construction of this project will have no adverse effect on any
federally protected animal or plant species.
Federal Candidate and State Protected Species
Candidate 2 taxa (C2) are not legally protected under the
Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions until
formally proposed or listed as E or T. C2 species show some evidence of
vulnerability, but there are not enough data to support listing proposals at
this time.
North Carolina affords protection to Endangered, Threatened and
Special Concern (SC) species in the state. Plants are legally protected
under the Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, and animals are
legally protected under the N.C. Endangered Species Act of 1987.
27
The data base of Rare Species at the N. C. Natural Heritage
Program was consulted to determine the possible occurrence(s) of
protected and sensitive species.
Only two taxa are listed as federal candidate species for Catawba
County (Table 4). The species are mentioned here for information
purposes in the event they become federally listed in the future. The state
listing is also given.
Table 4. Federal Candidate and State Listed Species for Catawba County
Common Name Scientific Name Federal State
Status Status
Catawba Crayfish Dactylothere C2
ostracod isabelae
Sweet Pinesan Monotronsis C2 C
odorata
C = candidate, very rare in N.C., generally with 1-20 populations
The ostracod (seed shrimp) is a tiny crustacean less than 0.5 mm
long known only from its type locality along a tributary of Lyle Creek 4.0
km (2.5 mi.) north of Conover, east of the project area. Its presence in the
project area cannot be excluded.
The sweet pinesap is a non-chlorophyllous, probably saprophytic
small herb that occurs in dry forests and on bluffs. It occurs in 21 N.C.
counties, essentially in the north-central Piedmont and southern mountains.
Potential habitat for this species occurs in the project area, but none or any
similar species were observed during the field work.
4. Physiography and Soils .
The project area in Catawba County is located on the Upper Piedmont
physiographic region in west-central North Carolina. The general landscape is one
of fairly low broad ridges with short steep slopes. Very steep slopes and bluffs to
vertical 5 m (16 ft) high cliffs mostly confine a narrow floodplain of the Henry
Fork River in the southern part of the project area. Elevations range from about
335 m (1100 ft) in Hickory in the north part to about 256 m (840 ft) at the Henry
Fork River in the south part.
28
The ridgetops and upper slopes are primarily Pacolet gravelly fine sandy
loams (2-20% slopes), but some Cecil sandy loams (2-6% slopes) and Madison
gravelly sandy loams (2-6% slopes) also occur. These are all well-drained acidic
soils formed in residuum. Existing roads are built on these soils.
The mid and lower slopes are mostly Pacelot soils (10-25% slopes), but
some similarly steep Madison soils also occur in the northern section.
Chewacla loams occur in small areas in the lower reaches of perennial or
intermittent streams and against the steep slopes. Chewacla soils are somewhat
poorly drained on nearly level land and have formed in alluvium. Congaree
complex soils occur in the Henry Fork River floodplain. These soils are well-
drained on nearly level land and formed on recent alluvium.
The only listed hydric soil in the project vicinity is the Wedhadkee series.
This poorly drained soil occurs as an inclusion in wet spots and depressions on the
Chewacla series. Small occurrences of the soil were noted during field work.
5. Floodplain Involvement and Hydraulic Concerns
The south portion of the project is on a ridge and contains no major
drainage structures; however, the proposed curb and gutter facility will require
frequent outfalls. From recent field investigation, numerous outfalls were
observed along this section; however, it is anticipated that some acquisition of
drainage easements may be necessary to provide adequate outfalls for the storm
sewer system.
The project involves two major drainage crossings. The first is a new
location crossing of the Henry Fork River. On the basis of a preliminary hydraulic
analysis, this crossing will require, as a minimum, a bridge (76.2 meters) 250 feet
in length. The length specified may be increased or decreased to accommodate
peak design discharges as determined by detailed hydrologic analysis during final
hydraulic design. The second major drainage crossing involved by the project is an
existing single-barrel 2.4 m by 1.5 m (8 ft. by 5 ft.) bottomless concrete box
culvert, located on SR 1213 approximately 30.5 meters (100 feet) north of the
existing NC 127. It is recommended that the existing structure be retained and
extended, maintaining the existing roadway grade; however, if the proposed
roadway requires greater than one meter (four feet) of vertical change in grade,
• then the existing structure may need to be replaced due to the increased structural
loading.
Catawba County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular
Program. Henry Fork River is included in the detailed flood study and has an
established regulatory floodway in the vicinity of the proposed crossing. Figure 10
is the Flood Insurance Rate Map, on which are delineated the established limits of
29
the 100-year floodplain and floodway in the vicinity of the proposed crossing of
the Henry Fork River. A floodway modification will be required to accommodate
the proposed crossing, and the Hydraulics Design Unit will coordinate with the
Federal Emergency Management agency and local authorities during final
hydraulic design for approval of the necessary floodway modification. The
tributary under SR 1213 is not included in the detailed flood study. The
floodplains in the vicinity of the Henry Fork River and the smaller culvert crossing
are narrow with very steep, heavily wooded overbanks. All development in the
vicinity of these crossings is well above the 100-year flood level. It is anticipated
that the proposed project will not have any adverse impacts on the existing
floodplain.
Existing drainage patterns and ground water resources will not be affected
by the proposed project.
F. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis
An analysis was performed to determine the effect of the revisions to NC 127 on
noise levels in the immediate project area. This investigation included an inventory of
existing noise levels in the study area. It also included a comparison of the predicted noise
levels and the ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise impacts can be expected
resulting from the proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are determined from the
current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise,
appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If traffic noise
impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures
for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
Characteristics of Noise
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure. Since the range
of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to
some common reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in
decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency
weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency range to which the
human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels measured using a
weighted-A decibel scale are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, all noise .-
levels will be expressed in dBA's. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are
listed in Table NI (Appendix, page A-39).
30
Review of Table N1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized areas are exposed
to fairly high noise levels from many sources as they go about their daily activities. The
degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on three
things:
1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) The relationship between the background noise and the intruding noise.
3) The type of activity occurring when the noise is heard.
Noise Abatement Criteria
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not compatible with
various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed noise
abatement criteria (NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of
highways. These abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned
Federal reference (Title 23 CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for
various land uses is presented in Table N2 (see Appendix, page A-40). The Leq, or
equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound which in a given situation and time
period has the same energy as does time varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating
sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same
energy content.
Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to determine
the existing background noise levels. The purpose of this noise level information was to
quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact
of noise level increases. The existing Leq noise levels along SR 1213 as measured at 50
feet from the roadway, range from 58.8 to 63.8 dBA. Measured exterior Leq noise levels
are presented in Table N3 (Appendix page A-41).
Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was the Noise
Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA (revised March, 1983).
The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic
Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108).
Only preliminary alignment was available for use in this noise analysis. Alternates
1, 2, and 5 were evaluated. Existing natural or man-made barriers were included in setting
up the model. The roadway sections and proposed intersections were assumed to be flat
and at-grade. Thus, this analysis represents the "worst-case" topographical conditions.
The noise predictions made in this report are highway-related noise predictions for the
traffic conditions during the year being analyzed.
31
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were compared, and the
volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the proposed posted speed
limits. Hence, during all other time periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those
indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to determine the number
of land uses (by type) which would be impacted during the peak hour of the design year
2017 would be exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise
abatement criteria and those land uses predicted to sustain a substantial noise increase.
The Ley traffic noise exposures associated with this project are listed for
Alternates 1, 2, and 5 in Table N4.1, N4.2, and N4.5, respectively (page A-42 through A-
48). Information included in these tables consist of listings of all receptors in close
proximity to the project, their ambient and predicted noise levels, and the estimated noise
level increase for each.
Table N6 ( Appendix, page A49) indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases
for the identified receptors for Alternative 1, 2, and 5. Predicted noise level increases for
this project range from 0 to +31 dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is possible to
barely detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable.
A 10 dBA change is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness of
the sound.
Traffic Noise Impact Analysis
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels either:
[a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning
within 1 dBA of the Table N2 value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels.
The NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Table N2.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors in the project area.
As shown in Table N5 (page A49), 23 receptors for Alternate 1 and Alternate 2 and 17
receptors for Alternate 5 are predicted to experience noise impacts.
Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can often be applied with
a measurable degree of success by the application of solid mass, attenuable measures to
effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass,
attenuable measures may include earth berms or artificial abatement walls.
The project will maintain no control of access, meaning most commercial
establishments and residences will have direct access connections to the proposed '
roadway, and all intersections will adjoin the project at grade.
32
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high enough and
long enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the highway. Access
openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then
becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction.
Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight
distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's
length would normally be 8 times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For
example, a receptor located 15.1 m (50 feet) from the barrier would normally require a
barrier 121 in (400 feet) long. An access opening of 12.1 in (40 feet) (10 percent of the
area) would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA.
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along a
particular highway normally require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass, attenuable
measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two qualities, and thus,
would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case.
"No Build" Alternate
Traffic noise impacts for the "no build" alternative were also considered. If the
traffic currently using the network of roads in the project area should double, the future
traffic noise levels would only increase approximately 3 dBA. As previously noted, it is
barely possible to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change in noise levels
is more readily noticed
Construction Noise
The major construction elements.of this project are expected to be earth removal,
hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary
speech interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the project,
can be expected particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment
during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term nature of
construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours, these impacts are
not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural
elements and man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of
intrusive construction noise.
Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not recommended,
and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation completes the highway
traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772, and unless a major project change
develops, no additional noise reports will be submitted for this project.
33
G. Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industrial and
internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. Other origins of common
outdoor air pollution are solid waste disposal and any form of fire. The impact resulting
from highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to
improving the ambient air conditions. The traffic is the center of concern when
determining the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an old highway
facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons
(HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SOD, and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing
emission rate). Automobiles are considered to be the major source of CO in the project
area. For this reason, most of the analysis presented is concerned with determining
expected carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
CO Analysis
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor closest to the
highway project, two concentration components must be used: local and background. The
local concentration is defined as the CO emissions from cars operating on highways in the
near vicinity (i.e., distances within 100 meters (328 feet)) of the receptor location. The
background concentration is defined by the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (NCDENHR) as "the concentration of a pollutant at a point
that is the result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that is, the concentration at the
upwind edge of the local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the NCDOT Traffic
Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer modeling and the background
concentration was obtained from NCDEHNR. Once the two concentration components
were resolved, they were added together to determine the ambient CO concentration for
the receptor in question and to compare to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS)•
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO
concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CAL3QHC - A
Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway
Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration at the nearest sensitive receptor
to the project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO concentrations ,
consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic volumes,
vehicle emission factors, and worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes
are based on the annual average daily traffic projections. The traffic volume used for the
CAL3QHC model was the highest volume within any alternative. Carbon monoxide
34
vehicle emission factors were calculated for the construction year of 1997 and the design
year of 2017 using the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the
MOBILE 5A mobile source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be 1.8
parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division of
Environmental Management, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable for
most suburban and rural areas.
The worst-case air quality receptor was determined to be receptor #47 at a
distance of 15.2 m (50 feet) from the proposed centerline. The "build" 1-hour CO
concentrations for the nearest sensitive receptor for the years of 1997 and 2017 are shown
in the following table.
1-Hour CO Concentrations PPM
Nearest Sensitive Receptor Build
1997 2017
R-47 3.4 3.5
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period is 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period is 9 ppm)
indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO
analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed
the standard. See Tables Al and A2, pages A-50 through A-51, for details of the
computer modeling used for this.
Other Pollutants
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.
Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried into the atmosphere
where they react with sunlight to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Area-wide automotive
emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future due to the continued
installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars. Hence, the ambient
ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels in the atmosphere should continue to decrease as a
result of the improvements on automobile emissions.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide. Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from
automobiles are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the project will
cause air quality standards for particulate matters and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
35
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline. Newer cars
with catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline eliminating lead emissions. In the future,
lead emissions are expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead
content of leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 make the
sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful after December 3 1,
1995. Because of these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the proposed project will
cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
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.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing
and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or
otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning will be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air
quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure that burning
will be done at the greatest practical distance from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will only be utilized under
constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust
generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and
comfort of motorists or area residents.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for air quality of the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional reports are
necessary.
H. Hazardous Materials Involvement
A reconnaissance survey of the project corridor identified two (2) facilities which
contain underground storage tanks (USTs).
Site No. 1
This active service station is located in the southwest quadrant of the
US 64/70/321-SR 1213 overpass. There are four USTs registered with the NCDEM at
this site. Three are used to store gasoline and one to store new/used oil mixture. The
tanks have capacities from 550 to 6,000 gallons. The tank bed is located on the west side
of the station, approximately 36.5 m (120 feet).from the centerline of SR 1213. This
station is situated very close to the toe of the embankment which carries SR 1213 over
US 64/70/321. It is not anticipated project construction will involve this site.
36
Site No. 2
This active convenience store is located in the southwest quadrant of the existing
SR 1213/NC 127 intersection. There are four USTs registered with NCDEM at this site,
each used to store gasoline. Tank capacities range from 4,000 to 10,000 gallons. The
tank bed is located approximately 16.7 m (55 feet) from the centerline of the 5-lane, curb
and gutter section on SR 1213.
Other potential Environmental Hazards
Carolina Solvents is located at the end of 1 st Street SE in Brookford, immediately
north of Barger Brook. Spent solvent, both halogenated and non-halogenated, are treated
and stored at this facility. The Division of Solid Waste Management's Superfund Section
has assigned Low priority for inspection of this site. This implies that Carolina Solvents is
in compliance with Federal and State regulations and properly maintains their facility.
Even though Carolina Solvents appears to be in compliance with the regulations, if the
NCDOT purchases any portion of their property, it may become jointly responsible for any
associated liability. Alternate 5 would involve property from Carolina Solvents.
No landfills or dumpsites were identified within the project limits during the
reconnaissance or NCDEM file search.
Geodetic Markers
No geodetic survey markers will be affected along the proposed alignment.
VII COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
On August 2, 1993 a letter was mailed to the following federal, state, and local
agencies to solicit suggestions and receive environmental input concerning the proposed
project (Note: an asterisk indicates those agencies who responded to this letter):
*U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
U. S. Geological Survey
*State Clearinghouse
*N.C. Dept. of Cultural Resources
*N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
N.C. Dept. of Public Instruction
Hickory-Newton-Conover Metropolitan Planning Organization
Catawba County Commissioners
*City of Hickory
37
On March 24, 1994, a Citizens Information Workshop was held in Brookford in
order to obtain comments and suggestions about the project from the public.
Approximately 75 people attended this meeting. Most of the comments received involved
the effect of the project on individual's property and right of way acquisition procedures.
During January, 1995, a newsletter was distributed to citizens on the project
mailing list. This newsletter updated citizens on the project status and informed them of
the Brookford Mill Village's historic designation.
VIII. Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation Brookford Mills Village
A. Proposed Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways proposes
to revise NC 127 from the US 321/NC 127 interchange to SR 1184 in Catawba County.
The 2.26 km (1.4 mile) project will involve both widening of an existing roadway and
construction on new location. A five lane facility with curb and gutter is proposed.
Existing SR 1213 (2nd Street SW) is classified as a rural major collector and NC 127 is
classified as an urban principal arterial and the proposed improvements are needed to
provide a more continuous route for NC 127 through southwest Hickory.
The recommended alignment runs through the center of the Brookford Mill
Village, a property that is considered eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places. This property is documented in the Historic Architecture Resources
Survey Report Phase II (Abridged), prepared for this project by the Historic Architecture
Resources Section of the North Carolina Department of Transportation.
The proposed project will provide a more continuous route for NC 127 through
southern Hickory and Brookford. The widened road will provide a high level of service
for the users by increasing the capacity of the roadway and better accommodate future
traffic.
Currently, NC 127 is directed along South Center Street, a two-lane roadway
which includes a at-grade intersection with US 64/70/321. The project will direct traffic
to a bridge over US 64/70/321, improving the level o service for both NC 127 and
US 64/70/321.
NC 127 traffic currently must make a 90 degree turn north of US 64/70/321. The
proposed project will eliminate this 90 degree turn and make NC 127 a more continuous
north/south corridor.
38
Under TIP Project R-85B a new interchange is under construction which will
realign NC 127 in the project area. For it to function effectively as a north-south corridor,
NC 127 must be revised to tie into project R-8513. Without the project no direct access to
the new US 321/NC 127 interchange will be possible. This will eliminate a major
component of the Hickory-Newton-Conover Thoroughfare Plan.
This major thoroughfare will function as a radial serving NC 127 south travel
desires into the Hickory area. Growth in areas south of Brookford (particularly in the
Mountain View area) is projected to greatly increase traffic volumes along NC 127. The
proposed improvements will allow N 127 to handle these increasing traffic volumes.
This project is very important to the entire transportation network of the project
area (see Figure 11). Through the planning processes of the local government this project
has been established as one of their top transportation priorities.
Figure 11 shows how the project will improve the continuity of the NC 127
corridor.
As the proposed improvements are federally-funded and will involve a taking of
National Register eligible property, compliance is required with Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (80 Stat., PL 89-670). Section 4(f) is designed
to insure that special efforts are made "to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside
and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites."
B. Description of Section 4(f) Resources
Name: Brookford Mill Village
Location: North side of Henry Fork River, approximately 3.2 km (2 miles) south of
Hickory at the intersection of Second Street SW (SR 1213) and NC 127 (South Center
Street).
Summary of Physical description: At the heart of the present town of Brookford,
located just south of the city of Hickory, is the mill village associated with the former
Brookford Mills. The mill village at Brookford, situated on the north bank of Henry Fork
River, retains all the elements of a typical North Carolina textile mill village, or "mill hill,"
including worker housing, a manager's house, churches, and company store. All
structures are adjacent to the mill plant and dam.
The mill village centers around the intersection of Second Street SW (SR 1213)
and Twentieth Avenue SW, where the company store building is located. A low, open,
grassy space roughly triangular in shape - extends to South Center Street in front of the
mill buildings. Two knolls rising to the east and west flank the triangular common which
39
once served as a recreational community. The company store building, which also housed
the post office, the two-story Hotel Brookford, two churches, the mill manager's house,
and the employees housing all make up the village.
Date of Construction: c. 1900-1930
Style: Various framed, one-story, side-gable form with an attached hipped-roof porch
houses, one-story side gabled duplexes, churches, manufacturing plant, company store.
Setting and Landscaping: The mill village at Brookford is centered on the intersection
of SR 1213 and Twentieth Ave SW around the community ground and former company
store. Employee homes extend up the two knolls which flank - the low lying common,
and the orderly arrangement of the housing give a uniform character to the village. The
curving streets and topography, however, provide a less formal quality to the plan of the
village. The trees, planted by the original mill village owners throughout the village are a
luxury uncommon to mill village housing.
Integrity: Very few, if any, of the employee homes in Brookford remain unaltered. The
extent of alterations varies from structure to structure. Most houses have replacement
porch elements and vinyl or aluminum siding. Only a small number retain their
weatherboard siding and a smaller number retain original porches. Other common
alterations include replacement doors and windows, enclosed porches and various
additions to the main block of the house. A group of houses east of the mill remain the
least altered cluster of mill housing at Brookford. While the individual structures have
been altered substantially, the basic forms and similarities of the houses and their
disposition throughout the village remain readily apparent. The area as a whole retains
much of the character of an early twentieth century textile mill village.
Historical Background: Edward L. Shuford (1863-1930), the eldest son of
pioneering Hickory businessman Adolphus L. Shuford, successfully operated large
wholesale and retail stores before joining Henry J. Holbrook in forming the E. L. Shuford
Manufacturing Company which began the cotton manufacturing plant in what is now
Brookford. The town of Hickory and its surroundings developed from an important
trading center along Western North Carolina Railroad (WNCRR) in the late nineteenth
century in a twentieth century manufacturing city.
The village, incorporated in 1907, derives its name from the last syllables of its
founders surnames, Hol-BROOK and Shu-FORD. Around this same time the name of the
mill company changed from E. L. Shuford Manufacturing to Brookford Mills under the
same ownership. By 1908 Brookford Mills operated the largest cotton manufacturing
plant in Catawba County with 500 looms and 21,000 spindles, nearly double the number at
Union Mills in Maiden. In 1917 the local owners sold the mill buildings and village to A.
D. Julliard & Co. of New York City, who operated the Brookford mill until 1953 when it
was purchased by United Merchants & Manufacturers. The mill at Brookford continued
40
to operate as the largest plant in the county through 1940 with 650 employees, 18,368
spindles and 712 looms producing 90,000 to 100,000 pounds weekly of fancy cottons and
rayon goods.
Houses constructed for employees of Brookford Mills resemble mill housing
typical of the early twentieth century. A resident of Brookford remembers the rent for a
four-room house to be $2 or 50 cents per room. Legislation passed in 1938 establishing a
minimum wage and abolishing child labor helped to bring the demise of the mill village.
Evaluation: Under Criterion A, the Brookford Mill Village, associated with the former
Brookford Mills, is eligible for the National Register for its role in the manufacture of
textiles in Catawba County and Criterion C for its design as a mill village.
Boundaries: See Figure 7.
C. Impacts on the Section 4( Property
Two alternates for the proposed revisions to NC 127 will have a direct impact on
the Brookford Mill Village. Alternate 1 also involves making improvements to SR 1213
and going through the center of the mill village. Alternate 2 involves making
improvements to SR 1213 along the edge of the mill village. Improvements along
SR 1214 through the center of the mill village is the preferred alternate because of the
constraints of the extreme topography in the area.
The recommended alternate involves the extension and widening of a five-lane
curb and gutter section through 0.3 mile section of the mill village (see Figure 2). This
improvement will involve the construction of three new lanes on the sides of the existing
roadway and will require a minimum of 18 m (60 feet) of additional right-of-way width.
The required right-of-way involves portions of the frontal property along SR 1213.
This area contributes to the historical significance of the mill village and will encroach on
some of the structures in the village.
Construction of Alternate 1 will relocate 18 residents and 1 business. Eight of
these relocatees are located within the historic district. Relocatees include the company
store and residential dwellings associated with the mill. The relocated residents under
Alternate 1 involve homes that have been significantly altered and are not good
representations of old mill village homes. Alternate 2 would relocate 12 residences and 1
business (a farm). These relocatees include residents and a farm. Seven of these homes
are less altered than some of the others in the district and are good representations of old
mill village homes. (See Figure 8 for impacts to historic district as a result of Alternates
and 2). The estimated costs for Alternates 1 and 2 are $6,171,000 and $9,018,000
respectively.
41
D. Avoidance Alternatives
Four avoidance alternatives were evaluated for the 4(f) property.
Alternate 3 begins at the new US 321/NC 127 interchange and continues on new
location, proceeding to South Center Street east of the Brookford Community Building
through the US 64/70/321 intersection on new location ending at SR 1213.
Alternate 3 would eliminate the signalized intersection just north of US 64/70/321
by extending NC 127 on new location. The level of service at the US 64/70/321
intersection would be D with major improvements. The improvements needed to reach a
level of service D includes one additional through lane in all directions and one additional
left turn lane in the east and southbound directions. In addition, large businesses in the
vicinity of US 64/70/321 would require relocation because of the new location extension.
Alternate 4 begins at the US 321/NC 127 interchange, following Alternate 3
through the US 64/70/321 intersection. Traffic would be required to turn at the existing
intersection north of US 64/70/321.
Alternate 4 would avoid the relocation of large businesses by directing NC 127 to
the existing intersection north of US 64/70/321. While Alternate 4 would avoid the
extensive relocation of businesses, it would have worse operational characteristics than
Alternate 3. NC 127 traffic would be required to make a turn at the intersection just north
of US 64/70/321. The close proximity of these two intersections would further
complicate traffic operations.
Alternate 4A would direct NC 127 on new location north of US 64/70/321, but
avoid the extensive business relocations of Alternate 3. Alternate 4A would have the
same operational problems as Alternate 3 and would severely impact a residential
neighborhood north of US 64/70/321.
Because of the operational problems and impacts of Alternates 3, 4, and 4A, these
alternatives were eliminated from detailed study and no cost estimates were prepared. By
utilizing a grade separation over US 64/70/321, Alternates 1, 2 and 5 have significant
advantages for traffic operations.
Alternate 5
Alternate 5 completely avoids the Brookford Mill Village. Because of the width of
the historic boundaries, Alternate 5 involves extensive new location construction.
Alternate 5 begins at the US 321/NC 127 interchange following alternates 3 and 4
east of the Brookford Community Building, then veers west tying into SR 1213. A new
structure over I-40 is required. Alternate 5 then continues north following alternates 1
42
and 2. The recommended structure length and width over I-40 is 19.5 meters by 91.4
meters (64 feet by 300 feet). A structure would also be required over the Henry Fork
River with this alternate. The recommended width and length for this structure is 19.5
meters by 158.5 meters (64 feet by 520 feet).
Alternate 5 would impact the Carolina Solvents Company which is described o
page 36 of this document.
Realigning Alternate 5 to the east of Carolina Solvents is not feasible due to the
rough terrain and major impacts that would result from construction. Due to the
extremely difficult topography of the area, it was determined that the alignment through
Carolina Solvents is more practical than an alignment to the east.
Because of the terrain of the project area and the extensive new location required
by alternate 5, this alternate costs $12,759,000. This is $6,588,000 more than Alternate 1.
Approximately 24 residences and 1 business will be relocated if Alternate 5 is constructed.
E. Measures to Minimize Harm
Several measures for minimizing harm to the Brookford Mill Village under the
build condition of Alternates 1 and 2 are being considered. These measures were
developed in coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office and are listed
below.
(1) Relocating structures to sites of comparable setting within the mill village.
(2) Existing conditions of the mill village will be recorded.
(3) If Alternate 1 is selected, the feasibility of extending 20th Avenue S.W. will
be determined. Extending 20th Avenue may allow more opportunities for
relocating impacted structures.
(4) Opportunities for enhancing the historic district will be examined. One
possibility for enhancements would involve improvement to a vacant parcel
of land located on the corner of SR 1213 and 20th Avenue S.W.
(5) Slopes in certain areas along the project may be changed to minimize right-
of-way requirements in the mill village.
F. COORDINATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the Town of Brookford and the
City of Hickory. A public workshop was conducted and comments concerning the
proposed project were considered in reaching a decision regarding the preferred alternate.
43
The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was contacted
early in the study process. A survey of historic architectural resources was conducted in
the area of potential effect of the project, in accordance with Section 106 of the Historic
Preservation Act. The letter documenting SHPO concurrence with the eligibility of the
Brookford Mill Village is included as page A-23 through A-25 in the Appendix of this
document.
A finding of adverse effect has been determined for the Brookford Mill Village.
The SHPO concurs with this finding. The SHPO letter of concurrence is included on page
A-27.
In accordance with Section 106 of the National Preservation Act, any alternative
which has an adverse effect on the Brookford Mill Village Historic District will require
NCDOT.to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the State Historic
Preservation Office. This MOA will detail how the effects to the historic property will be
taken into account.
BG/plr
FIGURES
v
.. ;s Hickory . ?.
t?f r'r" F nover?ti-?-?
• t ;P ?- • Guremo^ GuwDa10
' ???? ` • Newton
• ? t a ?Snunu:
T Startoo rCen B A Te<a
???? ? r ?? Ms 6
[1)""-
us 321

MV,
Mro
:•:1 I:::r:: ::
? ?.
a u::•• .1J' IAQ max.
r.+•
-X -F
10
? ; ::::: go rlh Y
4:? ``?i:l:?''•'??.' rr,: •.US 321 /
t !i NC 127
INTERCHANGE
PROJECT R - 85 B
UNDER
4 CONSTRUCTION
l
el
m"
\ 1
,5\3
4
UN
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BROOKFORD
REVISION TO NC 127
FROM US 321 TO SR 1184
CATAWBA COUNTY
T.I.P. PROJECT U-2530B
FIG. 1
t
I 4

11111TH CAROLINA DF-PARTMENT OF' _p
t +_ .'? F TRANSPORTATION
1
DIW910NOF11IGHWAYS .;
PINNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL K
' RRANOH
T
o AI:IEHIJAII= 1
BROOI(FORO REVS ON TO NC 127
(
..fit ?j
l
a AITERNAIE 2 FR OM US 121IN I271NTERCNANGE 4.:
v

?fj
V
4LTFRf lI I F' T SA 1184

-?
riDll? l l,)f lnl
I?r?orER?lES ? A"ll COI
_OJE A NG.U-
7.L P.. PROJECT:53M

.
. 111`11(11 I LSII I I i1U1111(IAHY
` 4._?
-
'f 1
- - -
. 0 FIG. 2
0
_..
Y J
?
`a
yy
'`Si
Rs
i \\ / I ItS f) MA ?A WBA ??in tNE. S.W. SN'PVE?S
G 'I 13_04 p??TS?' \ /-?
? I ASE 1/ \
?y
. , _ END °
PROJECT 1213
`? ® s
I -
1464
g\ LIMIT "'11843 ?yO ++
\? £ L1V
14T AVE, S. W • Ism 1182
..? 1183 / y W!p`.. o \ "? 70
Q
iNM r/ ° y c !r x 1114 HICKORY 321
/_ Le
/1 1 \L.?
MENNONITE
CH.
L SW ,? "'7'V P ?U?
a o
i s,y . 1 ??O r •
r--l SOUTH-' '
ICEMI SIDE
?--? CEM. / /14 H A`
L OR 9
'ISTH AVE. _ O S.W. 0
erg g \?I/ 5~IS?q ?/ ?
1244? ?~ RpN?
% g
-1213 BRO KFOR0y3
FAITH : `.
CJ?' CH. TH CHR"TE S0
• ".' f••h` 8R0.??CFOt?b•Y?QIS • ?-?? 1
•,? ?? ?i Q 19TH 4VE.
• 20TH ? / ? /
AVf. / /
:?IQf BnO IST _ST • /HILLSI /
A?=®KFO
\\=1_u?', BA PT.. / 2529 1173 ISTH
'/?ccLg R G E Ft
VIIILAGE
^... • •..' N.
a;= f- ?_ - -\ 1 BROOKFORD
/ g L1M
G•
fol Ili 9 1
? / 1 ly -LAM S
_ I SOUTH WEST HICKORY /
DISPOSAL PLANT LEGEND
127 _ 1179 1 ,
CITY L 17
C 1 -- ALTERNATE 1
2514 ' 1262 1262 ALTERNATE 2
/ ALTERNATE 5
BEGIN iT // •••°• 40) PROPERTIES
PROJECT Y
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
? A RANS PORTATION
'
19,0 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
1262 BRANCH
1008 1175 REVISION TO NC 127
1178 ALTERNATES 1; 2, AND 5
CATAWBA COUNTY
EW SCH,
T.LP. PROJECT U-2530B
2538 0 1000 foot 2000
99 0 1;@ \1 ?_ - 11 FIG. 3

r
m
z
m
w
I •
Sr,,T
y?b ? ? ? IW ?Rp ; S I=
-ld
b d W , J••• ? ? m" 'H: ? ( ?wrn .? a 'ts put
?d yrl N _ r 2cHp ~ T m .-?i? I ; n°I y a JHD Si. I m yI W
ST.
`1 AV7J •ya1 V = I 'rJ ?L ;F s I ?. ?" 1, ` A y L
FA ?4 Am 7?, D= -, O Y " ? m O
Y.M jay] r -1 A? \ '? •yi r ` r"•? L? O? ," : / D _
zs / ?•,? ??. ?C`tY ••Cijy •'+? .y5 , ci My6
y •?i a •tlD\p/???{/??J
IN N tJC J y ?rf
A D ! ,? I m IW \\VA 2HD
/ la OL.
\ a
_._. Q G7 I i 1 0.0
m \ 1 maw F y< / F 1ST
-t- J
-71 ONN
m m V and J
Nyb? 3 6IN 1 ' ` .diym I n
IW

O m
T °
-?? • =z .p
1 9 2ND '•r ,. r'Dy
I? , i ? ?° .TN Sr• S. W. r• ? 1 IW I / \
to N IN w ?? m I A?• ~ m ? ? \ I
IN N r ??? \/?.y,? 4rN sT. 1 O \
_ I • _ Fni \\?/j i m i _n S.W.. 'a 1 I l -
1? ((? ,• H ?1 • SJ - I
V I a DN
000
yy" x Mao
yy A • 2?H T m y. F I 3m, 7pp ST. I n ~I W w •T1
x C'
?, \ G • , • S• _ T
N N,
H? 0
bCI I l ? a? ?oy ?' ??? lTY 'r••• •••? .5 ? ?•?'6pro.
Z A ? ? ?. art ? _ •y .,d
2 s «.
y< r /?, • G
`^ S •tlD _ ?4?0
Tf ? I ? IN N ? •' ¦ ? ?i K m
^ mil! ! / A 2 I 2HD '• 9 ?O
O \\ ftw JI a I I i Z M ' F
m ?sr
D T m r ? / $a
Ny 'f
nd J ® a
z Q m m V .36_3 i f^J ? A e`
D N ?
?` ? Ico e
m IW .3.5 and W p?a I ?•

9 .1 -
h?
1
- -- ?'r -- , 1 \ M?oGT '
LiNiT _ ® - 1
I U.
i _ W € ITY 1 Od Uo
10 Oi C
r ?.0
z ?>
1 1 ° i z ?
i j .?. z ca w va Y
? •?'? ? ? ?? •,, \ fir' 7 7 „'
°
-? \ loo
iI
I a LU o
':jq IL
130
J,, .. _ O•? ?• t ?i/?', ? ? IFS ii: I --- /~ ? , ? LL O ?, N
Q ' y?rr- ,t ^I mi \ ;_ ,:?I _? n x?r? 1 i. n'• W
t ? III _ ? GE,TME? ? 4
© - is >W
eeAaCM _
' ?• ?i r ? ? O r .J m ?
cc,
/C5? OPh HI S Z I?L V W IL
® Q of 49
--? i ?' i'? -s® ?? ? ?I •? '? ? - Hi iii ? ;Y
cs'
r???? ??_ ?_ _? ° i m?.•J ??I, Q 4f
??fr. Y NI? •Ni •.., \; I \ , NI
?r X31!i._ ...'
a ,.
111 a\ \\ /; /J,
-fir "•1?\ , ..? ?i ?\ ? ? E? ? ? ?- _?---
s °\
°
O
REVISION TO NC 127
ESTIMATED 1997 / 2017 ADT TRAFFIC
VOLUMES IN TENS
U-2530B
NO BUILD ALTERNATE
S.CENTER ST.
429
655
US 70/US 321
3
co,
ti•
co M
c ?N
ti
122
151
NC 127
11,01
619
1183
18 30
2983
1-40
6
10
II6
141 J'
777
1302
ti•
co
/u
ti
3150
Ci N V 5089
C"'
1529
77 2245
02
183
11
3
353
203 1794
2601

l2
NC 127
34 95
4
so 691
80 1024
Q? \0 `
38
60 ?\ 68
237
II
561 1923
2077
3167 633
10- 936 225
(3,_•) 60
57
71 145
278
453
To
733
6 1 U
10
790
1316 64
\O
Q? \1
60 \2,
667
1171
\3'1 04
97
US 321
FIGURE 6A
S&
135
REVISION TO NC 127
ESTIMATED 1997 / 2017 ADT TRAFFIC
VOLUMES IN TENS
U-2530B
ALTERNATEI
FIGURE 6B
S. CENTER ST.
REVISION TO NC 127
ESTIMATED 1997 / 2017 ADT TRAFFIC
VOLUMES IN TENS
U-2530B
ALTERNATES 2 AND 5
S. CENTER ST.
FIGU"6C
REVISION TO NC 127
ESTIMATED 1997 / 2017 ADT TRAFFIC
VOLUMES IN TENS
U-2530B
ALTERNATE3
US 70/US 321
3
y M
N
y Q.
a y
N
1-40
US 321
144
188
6
10
138 1
179 J
174
227
N 127
S. CENTER ST. 988
1458
0 476 121
\0 702 163 J
?\ J 663
\\\
019 452 1112
,
542
l 621 949
24
81
0
M ? >Z

235 N

`
572 1408 O
10
2063 2245
3171

l0 PM 625

927

298
/
l 52a
\\

822
(3 60
59
( 2973
T3 145
278
689
1143
1-40
`O
?
Q 974
ti
O 1555
?
114 C?
) 10 SR 1173
1
15
^
11
9 1 (2
10 98
131
148
906
1537
Q
1501
2204
174
227
1939
3396
2255
3481 US 321 FREEWAY
NC 127
FIGURE 6D
REVISION TO NC 127
ESTIMATED 1997 / 2017 ADT TRAFFIC
VOLUMES IN TENS
U-2530B
ALTERNATE 4 S. CENTER ST.
NC 127
FIGURE 6E
=o-
0
o °
o ° 0 0
o
o ?
nlllllinlll , o
l??Iil??iilt1111111111i
I ?1iui?ll dil fLIALIJ ?
0

° hI ° /°
o ,
°W
o,a O O
O O - O O
ti.p p ° O ? O o
Oi
O O
< O °I Q
O °? p el W
O 1?1 O
O O 0 O
C3 C3
4
1 > ^
0
i 1
0
a
® u
0 1
In 1

1
N
} 6.
c LL
°
Z m
cm mZCM
ZUZ)=
O F-U U o
F- co Q w r
z°mo
V¢a
w o<a
cc V)
1 I
o•.
° O O 013 00 ro
> a 1
0 0 0 °°° c n
O a? r f
1 y ,
I p \
rI ?
w
°
? a
w
F ?
a z
y '? O
w e?
<z?z
zQow
aF^z
CFd"k+Q
uozo
z
FZ?zaZ
OW Ja
z E. ;w 1
14)

I o
o
0 0
0 0 0 0
o o
00 °
1111111 o °
IIIII I °
ll?l 1111111 ilj IIIIIIII?
O
I j-I ui?l? li1i fL111V ?_ °
F-_--F--Jf--..-
- r----1

0
a 0
z L LL

? U
a
oQ. " p
r` N U o
w
A
? r 0 m ? ?
Z0 Zcv
o
z
F? ?
z F-
CQx? p=Ur)U
F-
M o
c
cc
t? O W0
<w
Z F- F- C-M ?
Q c
E
Z
Ua ..x O
Z?o?O
o
?z?zz
z C/) av g
w
v°'
zFaam Ir<
F=
`goo •r?
0
0
a
o
a
® n
n ?
i

r Z
? F
?
Paz ?N
v z? a ?

97,4
4f 41t%
?``• it rE?iQIR RH I?E ?- J_r- av
13 11 z
O fiete d ,U \W v \. ^?,.\ \ CG\
?'` •t b?? 1 ^ ?Sth. - ? \ Claremo?tCentral F\\ ^'? /O ){ ???.??/ i?,S^b?" to. ?it+ ary\ ?Sch n? WT
f 0s it Irl
/ST AVE •.. P \•., Y 0 ?1 1?' ;?
MAI/J RadioT er J J {iY
AVE ' 8
1ST 11 "? ? `- ? =\ •? I
1 ,,,? I? Av?tOld- o ilLSOn ? _ 'll?? /- ?'?:? •v '
m r'-. 1. •i?• /..
r. \ ^,}190 ' / . '/
q. \
> (? j -' loci •/? fI, ? d E'r- e . ? 1? ?J? ? I '?" ;`? _. 1 - `?? e
III 1 , ;. ; z \ ?-7 111(-' ??, y sa\
4 -1
PC. p_-) 2 0 _ `?•
ft" t l l\ ( ?`, 1462 - \ '
I Ii 1, `.` _ 1':' / ?! ?'? ?' B '1 ?__ ?_ ii I i ?I \1• *RadigTo
l ? of ?C
I aJ\\? \\ ' `?? -S? i r?.- ? -s pst?: t ' i ?? , ? - ? --- - , l? I ?r '? ??,?.I '1 f' { ??,1
_ • ? ? ..'11 ; ? 1. r,. ?• 'f' -? - I `-`?- ,
S 0 1'i i ,, . I v . o°° Vii' • r 1 O? ? ? 1 .I
I
- ?J`-"._fl -.,' } l\ _ = 137 I' •' ; ?' ?__-_ ??-? >beo,
/? I? r _ 111\l \
- H RY r6okfok
/
Q A C__ -1 Ch i ' /
o ?? \?\ \ \ I I aisia I / 111 - ` Cem / Ir d
O ? \ l - Ct?,\r ' .%/ _ ^ 'n - ? - \•. , , I (/ /' III ?II \-
II \-
II
i ?. ?, . fir; ?i cd li i? - -?n ,_%"%' -? , , 1 '?; ;. ??_ I • '; u
.' ''t ° a ?'? • '? -1 .- ?'ry' `l ?.?ll, ?,r? ? ?, ???I --' , ? '., __ - j?` ? ? ;.° .o•y l `??
\I ( J I / .:O\ (1 ?, 1i o seew
?,\ .\`?• / •-?• =-??I ??? 1--/,???" ?_II J //(/ ?: 1171 I C- ..a?`,;1 ?'ill\ 10? 1 ? --
?
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
t (? /•1??j??l,_, ? 'ORic., \\ / PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
LOCATION OF FIVE
1086• Mouritain View WETLAND POCKETS IN
-sen PROJECT VICINITY
_ J ?? °j I \0'1\1) ?: T.I.P. PROJECT U-25308 ?I
N\ it i !/ 1
\ r •?° /?
meters 7313 FIG. 9
)?%- ' - - '--?? \\'•.,f ; Vii'' %- _ `=?""?? ?- J;? : i ' ; ll,l 11 t_ ? .\ w? - _ - _ ?, ? ? ; _
o
z LL
w
z
?C m mQZ CO
Q 33 04 W W N
dzW } amp
o ° ZF F
aFR7Q ,n W U
?Fo V a0?
Igo = o
0.o~? o °aa
azM ° 0 _
zFaaaao ?
z ~FF-
s?
o-
z z
_
Q J
J
?
CL
0
p O O
0 0
W UL LL
cr it
W W
W

O
O
O
T O
?I
4011orm (9 M?
z t Q
z
F z
W
i W z
ad J m

ezOz
O
M C'J C4)
c -JzN
Z
O
.4 1- M C. zmOm
m
C... W -C
e
o
UOZZ
96
W
R; z=mom

-C cc
W
Q
oa=gym 3Q
z ccmco
w
r w
J
T
h
m
z
?& a
fr_
W
J
Q
O
J_
m
I
O
Z
N ? O
Y ? V
1
a o?w -
a
u$?
F
a?$
w
/ ZO
U
W
Vol O
.z ry
h0`
N cx i
t.1 s
2 0
W
O
O
a
ry ?tES
h O
b
fr.
a
b
J
,Z4
O
APPENDIX

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Soil & Water Conservation r
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor 1
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary p E H N F=1
August 11, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee ?v
FROM: David Harrison 0`l/
SUBJECT: Proposed Improvements To NC 127 at Hickory, N.C..
Project No. 94-0112.
The proposed improvements to NC 127 include widening to a
five-lane, curb and gutter facility; an interchange at SR 1184,
and a new bridge over the Henry Fork River. The Environmental
Assessment should identify,any unique, prime, or important
farmlands that would be impacted by the project. A wetlands
evaluation should be included.
DH/tl
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
ti-1
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
FAIII
AAIV
?EHNF=1
Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Old US 70 West
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
August 16, 1993

MEMORANDUM
'9
yFy
IF
Z9
y
r
w

TO: Melba McGee; Policy & - Development
FROM: Don R. Robbins, Staff Forester Q?oe
SUBJECT: DOT EA/Scoping for Imp rovements to NC 127 from SR 1132 to SR 1008'
and From US 321/NC 127 Interchange to SR 1184 in Catawba County (TIP
U-2530)
PROJECT #94-0112
DUE DATE: 8-26-93
To better determine the impact to forestry in the area of the proposed
project, the Environmental Assessment should contain the following
information -
1. The total forest land acreage-.by types that would be taken out of forest
production as a result of this project.
2. The productivity of the forest soils as indicated by the soil series,
that would be involved within the proposed project.
K
3. The impact upon existing greenways within the area of the proposed
project.
4. The provisions that the contractor will take to sell any merchantable
timber that is to be removed. This practice is encouraged to minimize
the need for piling and burning during construction. If any burning is
needed, the contractor should comply with all laws and regulations
pertaining to debris burning.

W

P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
A-2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Page 2
August 16, 1993
5. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction
phase to prevent erosion, sedimentation and construction damage to forest
land outside the right-of-way and construction limits. Trees outside the
construction limits should be protected from construction activities to
avoid:
a. Skinning of tree trunks by machinery.
b. Soil compaction and root exposure or injury by heavy equipment.
C. Adding layers of fill dirt over the root systems of trees, a
practice that impairs root aeration.
d. Accidental spilling of petroleum products or other damaging
substances over the root systems of trees.
We would hope that the project would have the least impact to forest and
related resources in that area.
DHR:gm
pc: Warren Boyette -CO
File
A-3
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, AT:R;WA,
Health and Natural Resources X 4 • V•
Division of Environmental Management A-#
James B. Hunt, ,Secrta p E H N F?
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
August 25, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Policy and Development
OAO
FROM: Monica Swihart,
Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #94-0112; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to NC 127 from SR 1132 to SR 1008
and SR 1213 from the Proposed US 321/NC 127 Interchange
to SR 1184, TIP #U-2530
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. It appears from the
information provided that the southern portion of the project
falls within the Jacob Fork Water Supply Watershed which is
classified as WS-III by the State of North Carolina. The
proposed improvements also include a new bridge over the Henry
Fork River which is classified as Class C in the project area.
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.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
4
J^
`r
A-4
Melba McGee
August 25, 1993
Page 2
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from
DEM.
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. Please provide a detailed discussion for mass-transit as an
option.
K. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
L. 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.
10097er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
A-5
:'`?` -DEP;ARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, Project Number
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DMSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
-.
County
Inter-A en Project Review Response
Project Name A Type of Project L o ??1e
The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system
improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the award
of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C .0300 et. seq.).
For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone]..
This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply with
state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the applicant
should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of adjacent
waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfis- sanitation progra
m, the applicant should contact the. Shellfish Sanitation Branch at [phone].
The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding problem.
For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the applicant should
contact the Public Health Pest Management. Section at [phone].
The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated
structures, an extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. The information concerning rodent control,
contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management Section at (919)
733-6407.
The applicant should be advised to contact the local. health department regarding their
requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A .1900 et. seq.).
For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods, contact the
On-Site Wastewater Section at. [phone].
The applicant should be advised to contract the local health department regarding the sanitary
facilities required for *this project.
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line
LLB relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water Supply
Section, Plan Review Branch, 1330 St. Mary's Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, [phone].
Agi
Reviewer Section/Branch Date
R
DEHNR 3198 (Revised 8/93)
Division of Environmental Health b
ov'11-4
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COl4MNTS Charles H. Gardner
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: Z County: Project Name: ( 2
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact _ geodetic survey markers. N.' Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior*to coristruction at P.O. Box'27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
c
Reviewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
?- If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If an portion of the
any project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
? The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmatfve AcVn Employer
A4
State of North Carolina
Reviewing Office: w
Qtpartmant of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Project Number. Due Date:
IKT.'RGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS 9 y Q /
After review of this project it has been determined that the ENNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated M. need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Ouestions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications. Information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Normal Process,
Regional Office. '
_ r rmt
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOWREMENTS (statutory amt
limit)
1 Permit to Construct a Operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
I facilities. sewer system extensions, a sower Construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (gp daYS1
NPDES . Permit to discharge into surfact water onwor Application 190 drys afore begin activity. On•sitt Inspection. 90.120 days
peemlt to Operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters. Construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPOES Reply (NIA)
time. 30 days after receipt of Plans or issue of NPOES
ptrmibwhichevei is later.
Water Lose Permit Pn•application technical conference usually neeesaary 30 days
(NIA)
I
Wolf Construction Permit
Complete application must be received and permit issued
7 days
prior to the installation of a wall. (15 days)
Application Copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property SS days
Dredge and Fin Permit owner. On-sits inspection. Pro-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal DrWpe and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct t operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
facilities and%or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21M. NIA Igo days)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be on Compliance with tSA NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 Gays
NCAC 20.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919-733-0820 (90 da
s)
y
Compies Source Permit required under 1SA NCAC 20.0600.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion 1 stamentatio
control plan will be required if one or Mort acres to be disturbed Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Ouslity Sec1.1 at Nast 30 20 days
days before be mnm activity A fee of S30 for the first acre and S20 00 for each additional acre or an must accompany the plan 30 days)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the reftrranced Local Ordinance: - (30 days)
On•alle inspection usual. Surety bond tiled with ENNA. Bond amount
Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any area 30 Gays
mined greater than one acre must be ptrmited. The appropriate bond 160 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning permit On-sits Inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources M permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
Special Ground Clearance Bunting Perm -22 On-Sits Inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required -N mare 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic voila than five acres of ground clearing activities are Involved. Inspections (MIA)
Should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned.-
90.120 days
Oil Refining Facemiss WA (NIA)
It permit required. application W days before begin tpjrrstructitm.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 days
Dam softly PerrNt inspect construction. comity construction Is according to ENNA appiov
ad plans. May also require permit under mosqulto control program. And 160 days)
a 401 permit from Corps of Engineers. -An inspection of allt Is neees•
sary to verily Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of 5200.00 must ac•
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percant or the total project Cost will be required upon completion.
L
C
C
C
C
C
Q
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
A res
Continued on rerarst

A-S
Normal Process
Time
fstetutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL. APPLICATION PROCEDURES Or REOUIREMENTS limit)
lim

71
i File surety bond of Ii6.000 with ENNR to sate of N.C.
a"
'10 dajis`'..
ll
Permit to OR, expiorstory oil or on w Conditional that any veil
opened by dnil operator ",,upon (NM)
abandonment, be plugged according to ENNR ruin and reputations.
? Geophysreal E:ploretion "a" Applloation filed with ENNR at Nast 10 days prior to Issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No stand" application torn. (NIA)
? state Lakes Conatrucllon Permit Application fee based on structure size Is Charged. Must Mefuda
d
f 15.20 days
ownership
escriptions i drawings of structure a proof o (NIA) i
- - of riparian pro" y.
i

401 WOW Ousllty CertHication
WA 60 days ..
(130 days)
?
LAMA Perrnit for MAJOR development
MOM fee rust accompany application 96 days
(150 days)

CAMA Permit for MINOR develop w I
s50.00 fee must accompany application 22 days
425 days)
? Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be mow" or destroyed. plaase notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, b: 27687, Raleigh. N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells. N required, must be in accordance with Title 15A, Subchapter 2C.0100.
-Notification of the proper regional office is requested if orphan" underground store" tanks (USTS) are discovered dunng any excavation operation.

J Compliance with 16A NCAC 20,41000 (Coastal Stornwater RUNS) is required. 45 days
(NIA)
• Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to ate comment authority).

L - /Vo l?.?,? fi?Yi??aJ.c.,oc C,?-`?°?.?7r cfJ7'.?1 i ?li?.:1 S ??.c,- ?o??,wlrn..?

REGIONAL OFFICES
Ouestions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office
fi
P
9 ? Fayetteville Regional Office
n
Wood
lace
5 Suite 714 Wachovis Building
Asheville. NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 2001
(704) 25145208 [phone]
' Mooresville Regional Office
919 N
h M
i
t
P
O
S
B
0
9 ? RaleiOh Regional Office
n
ort
a
tree
.
.
.
ox
5 3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Mooresville, NC 211115 Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone] [phone]
? Washington Regional Office ? Wilmington Regional office
1424 Carolina Avenue 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Washington, NO 27889 Wilmington, NC 28405
(919) 94"41 [phone]
? Winston4slem Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
(919) 89-7007
A-9
SMENTOFT
United States Department of the Interior
O 9
N O
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
CH 3 330 Ridgefield Court
?.?
v -
Asheville, North Carolina 28806 CI E t f
August 27, 1993
rr.
Mr. L. 0...Ward; ' .E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
TAKES
PRIDE IN
AMERICA ® i

a' C)Alb.
AUG 3 Q 1993
kDC
Q3
Subject: Scoping for proposed improvements to NC 127 from SR 1132 to
SR 1008 and from the proposed US 321/NC 127 interchange to
SR 1184, Catawba County, North Carolina, T.I.P. No. U-2530
In your letter of August 2, 1993, you requested any environmental
information that would be useful in the preparation of a federally funded
environmental assessment for the subject project. The following comments
are provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to the information provided in your letter, this project will
involve the widening of NC 127 for approximately 3.0 miles from SR 1132
(Huffman Farm Road) to SR 1008 (Zion Church Road)(Section A) and will
involve the extension of SR 1213 on new location from the proposed US 321
interchange to SR 1184 (Section B). NC 127 will be widened to a
five-lane road, and SR 1213 will be constructed as a multi-lane facility.
This project will also involve the construction of a new bridge over the
Henry Fork River. The purpose of this project is to provide a more direct
route for NC 127 through Hickory and to handle the pr,ojecied traFiic flow
in this area.
A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) biologist conducted a field
inspection on August 17, 1993, and we offer the following comments and
observations. The Service believes that Section A--the widening of
existing NC 127--will not result in significant environmental impacts.
Land use within the proposed corridor is primarily residential, with some
scattered agricultural fields and woodlots. However, we are particularly
concerned about the potential impacts Section B--the extension of SR 1213
and the proposed US 321/NC 127 interchange--could have on listed species
and on the Henry Fork River. The North Carolina Department of
Transportation is presently preparing a biological assessment under
Section 7 of the Act regarding impacts to a federally threatened plant
A-10
species--the dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastvlis naniflora)--resulting
from the proposed relocation of US 321 (R-085). The Service is concerned
about the potential impacts of this section of the project on this
species and strongly encourages thorough surveys for Hexastvlis
naniflora. Information pertaining to the surveys (the time of year when
surveys are conducted, survey coverage, etc.) should be included in the
environmental assessment. The Service also recommends addressing
mitigative measures to reduce impacts to the Henry Fork River resulting
from bridge construction.
% Finally, the Service would like to make you aware of the possible
presence of a federal candidate species--sweet pinesap (Monotroosis
odorata)--that may occur within the project area. Candidate species are
not legally protected under the Act and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or
listed as endangered or threatened. We are including this species in our
response to give you advance notification. Please keep in mind that
Hexastvlis naniflora was a Federal candidate species at the time the
environmental document was prepared for R-085, and surveys were not
conducted at that time (or for the reevaluation prepared in 1989). Thus,
the Service recommends that the presence or absence of Monotropsis
odorata be addressed in the environmental assessment in order to avoid a
similar conflict.
The Service's review of the environmental assessment would be greatly
facilitated if the document contained the following information:
(1) A complete analysis and comparison of the available
alternatives (the build and no-build alternatives).
(2) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources
within existing and required additional rights-of-way
and any areas, such as borrow areas, that may be
affected directly or indirectly by the proposed
project.
(3) Acreage and description of wetlands that will be
filled as a consequence of the proposed road
improvements. Wetlands affected by the proposed
project should be mapped in accordance with the
Federal Manual for Identifvinq and Delineatina
Jurisdictional Wetlands. We recommend contacting the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory
Field Office (704/271-4854), to determine the need
for a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit
(704/271-4854).
(4) Acreage of upland habitat, by cover type, that will
be eliminated because of the proposed project.
(5) Description of all expected secondary and cumulative
environmental impacts associated with this proposed work.
A-11
(6) Mitigation measures that will be employed to avoid,
eliminate, reduce, or compensate for habitat value
losses associated with any of the proposed project.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and
request that you send us a copy of the environmental assessment for this
project when it has been prepared. In any future correspondence
concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-93-115.
Since ly, f
Richard G. Biggins
Acting Field Supervisor
cc:
Mr. Dennis L. Stewart, Program Manager, Division of Boating and Inland
Fisheries, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Archdale
Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
Ms. Linda Pearsall, Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Cecil Frost, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Plant
Conservation Program, P.O. Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Bob Johnson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Field Office,
Room 75, Grove Arcade Building, 37 Battery Park Avenue,
Asheville, NC 28801
A-12
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Division of Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: David Yow, Acting Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: September 8, 1993
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife
concerns for improvements to NC 127 from SR 1132 to SR
1008 and SR 1213 from the proposed US 321/NC127
interchange to SR 1184, Catawba County, North Carolina,
TIP No. U-2530, SCH Project No. 94-0112.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. L. J. Ward of
the NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife
resources resulting from the subject project. The N. C. Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) has reviewed the proposed highway
construction, and our comments are provided in accordance with
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat.
401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed work involves widening of existing facilities
and extension of a secondary road in a relatively urbanized
environment. Impacts to fish and wildlife resources include
direct loss of aquatic and wetland habitat from roadway fill,
loss of upland wildlife habitat from right-of-way clearing, and
possible impacts to state- and federally protected species.
The environmental documentation process described in Mr.
• Ward's letter should provide satisfactory information on project
impacts. For purposes of reference, our informational needs are
listed below:
A-13
Memo Page 2 September 8, 1993
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within
the project area, including a listing of federally or
state designated threatened, endangered, or special
concern species. When practicable, potential borrow
areas to be used for project construction should be
included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation
with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
Cecil C. Frost, Coordinator
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N..C. 27611
[phone]
In addition, the NCWRC's Nongame and Endangered Species
Program maintains databases for locations of vertebrate
wildlife species. While there is no charge for the
list, a service charge for computer time is involved.
Additional information may be obtained from:
Randy Wilson, Manager
Nongame and Endangered Species Section
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N. C. 27604-1188
[phone].
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the
project. The need for channelizing or relocating
portions of streams crossed and the extent of such
activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by
the project. Wetland acreages should include all
project-related areas that may undergo hydrologic .'
change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or
filling for project construction. Wetland
identification may be accomplished through coordination
with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the
COE is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands
should be identified and criteria listed.
A_14
Memo Page 3 September 8, 1993
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife
habitat impacted by the proposed project. Potential
borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss,
degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat
(wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for
direct and indirect degradation in habitat quality as
well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes
the environmental effects of highway construction and
quantifies the contribution of this individual project
to environmental degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural
resources which will result from secondary development
facilitated by the improved road access on the segment
of extended roadway.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early
planning stages for this project. If I can further assist your
office, please contact me at [phone].
CC: Jack Mason, District 8 Wildlife Biologist
Chris Goudreau, District 8 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Section Mgr.
Stephanie Goudreau, Mtn. Region Coordinator, Habitat Cons.
A-15
CE 117N
3EP I 1 1993
`:"?• ?'?'?;«+`?? j?.?? DIVISION .:,
:-?. ? '. ? ??HlGHWA
??RONNIIE?"'
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: September 10, 1993
SUBJECT: Scoping comments for improvements to NC 127 and SR
1213, Catawba County, TIP #U-2530
This correspondence responds to a request by you to Mr.
David Yow of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) for our scoping comments regarding proposed improvements
to NC 127 and SR 1213 in Catawba County. The North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen NC 127 to
a five-lane, curb and gutter facility from SR 1132 to SR 1008
(Section A). State Road 1213 will be extended and widened to a
multi-lane curb and gutter facility from the proposed US 321/NC
127 interchange to SR 1184 (Section B) and will be redesignated
as NC 127. In addition, the NCDOT will construct a new bridge
over the Henry Fork River. The purpose of this project is to
provide a more direct route through southwest Hickory.
I conducted a site visit on August 13, 1993. Land within
Section A area is mostly residential and agricultural fields. No
obvious streams were observed. Widening along this area should
have minimal impacts on fisheries and wildlife resources. The
widening of Section B has the potential to adversely affect
fisheries and wildlife resources through sedimentation into the
Henry Fork River and habitat fragmentation This area contains
stands of hardwoods, old fields, and pasture, providing habitat
for many species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
The Henry Fork River provides good habitat for gamefish such as
smallmouth bass and redbreast sunfish along with various species
of nongame fish.
We have the following comments regarding this project:
A-16
Memorandum
Page 2 September 10, 1993
1) The alignment chosen by the NCDOT for the extension of SR
1213 should minimize impacts to wildlife through avoidance
of woodlots. The NCWRC would most likely concur with the
alignment having the least affect on forested lands.
2) Construction of the bridge must be accomplished so that wet
concrete does not contact river water. This will lessen the
chance of altering the river's water chemistry and causing a
fish kill.
The following information should be included in the
Environmental Assessment (EA) that will be prepared for this
project:
1) Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the
project area, including a listing of federally or state
designated threatened, endangered, or special concern
species. The NCWRC's Nongame and Endangered Species Section
maintains databases for locations of fish and wildlife
species. While there is no charge for the list, a service
charge for computer time is involved. Contact is:
Mr. Randy Wilson, Manager
Nongame & Endangered Species Section
Division of Wildlife Management
North Carolina Wildlife Resources commission
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
919/733-7291
A listing of designated plant species can be developed
through consultation with the following agency:
Natural Heritage Program
N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
919/733-7795
2) Description of waters and/or wetlands affected by the
project.
3) Project map identifying wetland areas. Identification of
wetlands may be accomplished through coordination with the
• Corps. If the Corps is not consulted, the person
delineating wetlands should be identified and criteria
listed.
4) Description of project activities that will occur within
wetlands, such as fill or channel alteration. Acreages of
wetlands impacted by alternative project designs should be
A-17
Memorandum Page 3 September 10, 1993
listed. Project sponsors should indicate whether the Corps
has been contacted to determine the need for a 404 Permit
under the Clean Water Act. Contact is Mr. Steve Chapin at
704/271-4014.
5) Description of project site and non-wetland vegetative
communities.
6) The extent to which the project will result in loss,
degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat.
7) Any measures proposed to avoid or reduce impacts of the
project or to mitigate for unavoidable habitat losses.
8) A list of document preparers which shows each individual's
professional background and qualifications.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide this information to
you in the early planning stages of this project. If you have
any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at
704/652-4257.
cc: Mr. Chris Goudreau, District 8 Fisheries Biologist
Mr. Jack Mason, District 8 Wildlife Biologist
Ms. Janice Nicholls, USFWS, Asheville
Ms. Melba McGee, DEHNR-DPA
A-18
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
r WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGII
P.O. BOX 1890
•#,` ?,li WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO September 29, 1993
Planning Division
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
S
?O
Z OCT 0
OIVISI-
d' HAG r'"
1-111 ,, - 4J
.4 YS ? T
?7h'OlV'VIEN"? P?-
This is in response to your letter of August 2, 1993,
requesting our comments on "Catawba County, Improvements to NC 127
from SR 1132 to SR 1008 and SR 1213 from the proposed US 321/NC
127 Interchange to SR 1184, Federal Aid Project No. NHF-127(1),
State Project No. 8..1792201, TIP Project No. U-2530" (Action ID
No. 199303681.)
Our comments, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
perspective, involve impacts to COE projects, flood plains, and
other environmental aspects, primarily waters and wetlands. The
proposed project would not involve any COE-constructed flood
control or navigation projects.
The proposed project is sited in Catawba County, the city of
Hickory, and t"e town of Brookford, all of which participate in the
National Flood Insurance Program. From a review of the September
1980 Catawba County Flood Insurance Rate Map, the roadway does not
appear to be in an identified flood plain within the County's
jurisdiction. However, the roadway does cross Henry Fork, which is
located within the jurisdiction of both Hickory and Brookford.
This stream has been studied by detailed methods with the 100-year
flood elevations determined and a floodway defined. The hydraulic
effects on the 100-year flood level and floodway should be
addressed in the environmental document. The final project's
hydraulic effects should be coordinated with Hickory and Brookford
for compliance with their flood plain ordinances and possible
revision to their flood insurance maps and reports.
A-19
-2-
Our Regulatory Branch has also reviewed your letter and
has the following comments.
This project is divided into Section A and Section B.
Section A, along NC 127 from SR 1132 to SR 1008, consists mostly
of upland residential and commercial land. Scattered throughout
this section are wooded uplands dominated by oaks and Virginia
pine. There are a few minor creek crossings and no wetlands were
noted. In summary, this section should pose no permitting
problems.
Section B starts at SR 1213 from the proposed US 321/NC 127
interchange and goes to SR 1184. Most of this section consists of
upland residential land. However, a major concern would be the
new crossing and approaches in the Henry Fork area, south of I-40,
near the town of Brookford. The area consists mostly of mature
wooded, well-drained flood plain with some wetlands behind the
high sandy natural berm. Extreme caution and careful planning
should be used in this area. Disturbance of this natural flood
plain should be kept to a minimum and good erosion control should
be given a high priority to minimize sedimentation into the river.
This flood plain is providing many important environmental
functions, including higher water quality in the river, fish and
wildlife habitat, shading, and bank stabilization. We would
appreciate being notified when the North Carolina Department of
Transportation chooses the exact. alignment in the river.area so
that we can provide input. When final construction plans are
completed, including the extent and location of development within
waters and wetlands, your office should contact Mr. Steve Chapin
at our Asheville Field Office, telephune.k70+j 271-4014. for a
final determination of Federal permit requirements.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If
we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincere
Lawren W. Saunders
Chief, ning Division
L
A-20
„' STA7£ o?
Pw

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
September 8, 1993
MEMORANDUM
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price; 7r., Director
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Tra s rtation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Hi toric Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Improvements to NC 127 from SR 1132 to SR 1008
and SR 1213 from proposed US 321/NC127
Interchange to SR 1184, Catawba County, U-2530,
8.1792201, NHF-127(1), CH 94-E-4220-0112
4z, F E i v?
0
gp 1 01993 r
U
2Z2 DIVISION OF
HIGHWAYS
CrFNV`RON,
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
Kirk Mohney conducted a survey of Catawba County's historic architectural
resources in the early 1980s. We have conducted a search of our maps and files
and have located the following structures of historical or architectural importance
within the general area of the project:
House (currently the Mountain View BBQ Restaurant). West side of NC
127, just north of the junction with SR 1176.
House with outbuilding. West side of NC 127, about 0.5 mile north of the
junction with SR 1149.
We are aware of no properties included in the National Register of Historic Places
or our state study list within the area of potential effect.
During the July 13, 1993, scoping meeting for the project, we discovered
additional properties over fifty years of age in the area of potential effect, including
Brookfield Mill and, possibly, a mill historic district. Thus, we recommend that an
architectural historian survey and evaluate any properties over fifty years of age in
the area of potential effect which were not recorded during the 1980s survey, as
well as evaluate the National Register-eligibility of the previously recorded
properties. Survey site files for Catawba County are available for use and located
in the Survey and Planning Branch at 515 North Blount Street, Raleigh.
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
A-21
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
01
13

L. J. Ward
September 8, 1993, Page 2
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 of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, :
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: Nicholas Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
;J ;:
A-22
y ?SUTEv
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
September 16, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report
(Phase II, Abridged) for extension and widening of
SR 1213 from proposed US 321 /NC 127
Interchange to SR 1184, Catawba County, U-
2530B, 8.1792201, NHF-127(1), ER 95-7167
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of July 22, 1994, transmitting the historic architectural
resources survey report by Clay Griffith for the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) concerning the above project.
As noted in the report, representatives from NCDOT and the Historic Preservation
Office met on March 9, 1994, Wreview the photographs of the eighteen
properties over fifty years of age in the area of potential effect. At the meeting
we agreed that Properties No. 1-17 did not require.further evaluation in a report
since they do not appear potentially eligible for the National Register. A list of
Properties No. 1-17 and a photograph of each are included in the report provided
to us. Also, we agreed that Property No. 18--Brookford Mill Village--should be
further evaluated in a report.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following property is eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under the criterion cited:
Brookford Mill Village. Criterion A--The property is significant for its role in
the manufacture of textiles in Catawba County. Criterion C--The property
remains one of the most complete and coherent examples of a mill village in
Catawba County. (Please see our comments regarding the historic
boundaries in the attachment.)
In general the report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of
the Interior. Specific concerns and/or corrections which need to be addressed are
attached for the author's use.
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
A-23
Nicholas L. Graf
September 16, 1994, Page 2
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
/David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Enclosures
cc: vl?. F. Vick
B. Church
Sidney Halma, Catawba County
Historic Society
A-24
ATTACHMENT
Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report
(Phase II, Abridged) for extension and widening of
SR 1213 from proposed US 321 /NC 127 Interchange to
SR 1184, Catawba County,
U-2530B, 8.1792201, NHF-127(1), ER 95-7167
Specific Comments
Brookford Mill Village. We concur this property is eligible for the National Register,
but we do not agree that the boundaries proposed in the report are appropriate.
Instead, we believe the mill with its detached warehouse and office buildlings, plus
the dam and a portion of the Henry Fork River, should be included in the
boundaries of the district. Along with the mill housing, these structures are united
historically and aesthetically by plan and still contribute to the setting, feeling, and
association of the district.
The report states that "due to a lack of integrity, the mill plant is located outside
the proposed boundaries for the Brookford Mill Village." While the mill's window
openings have been bricked, the building retains its overall form, materials, and
relationship to the mill housing, the dam, and the river. Since we are not
evaluating the individual eligibility of the mill, its degree of integrity need not be as
great. Also, the period of significance for the district is 1898-1944. Thus, any
additions to the mill itself or changes to a portion of the street patterns in the
district prior to 1945 are a part of the history of the district. The linkage between
the mill and the other elements of the district--the mill housing, the dam, and the
river--is still recognizable and a "visual sense of the overall historic environment" is
still conveyed. [National Register Bulletin 151. Enclosed is a map showing
boundaries for the district encompassing the mill housing, the mill, the dam, and a
portion of the Henry Fork River.
A-25
TIP # U - 243o 6
CONCURRENCE FORiIM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
IHrRevGrtEtJTS T'a tki 12'1 1=Rew1 ?ePe+r=o LK11tt 1?44, 127 II,ITECGtN?NGC
T• SR IIQi4
On 44ies?- Am L± M q , representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
?- Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
? there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as Fr-vre4erlES 4,1 - 24 are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation o them is necessary.
? there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
the

Federal Aid # N HF _ 121 L ) County
cAr??.IaA,
inistrator, or other Federal Agency
we istoric Preservation Officer
*;I (, M s
Date '
Da
Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
A-26
TIP #i LI - L;3o b
Federal Aid n NFlF - 127 (1 )
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Counry "TxWv k
Brief Project Description
We, 12"1 isRaM US 321 I AI_ 12-7 IwrevLLJo4&E ro sR 1104
On AML 1.1.; 1115 , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
V_ North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project and agrc.ed
there are no effects on the National Register-listed property within the project's area of potential
effect and listed on the reverse.
there are no effects on the National Register-eligible properties located within the project's area
of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties within the project's area of
potential effect. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on the reverse.
? there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties within the project's area of
potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the reverse.
Signed:
Repres tat , NCDOT at
04 17- -795
FHwA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency ate
(over)
A-27
TIP # U 2530 ?, Federal Aid # ?44F • m-t County c arAwFt A.
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is National
Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
':operdes within area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status (NR or DE)
ad describe effect.
r t??. At.Tew.u+,?
i ??n!e !Z, T-4FER-E. I? ?l0 ZFFre-r oQ T4'- Pp'?a.Ty p.R ?l?-rtcR??ATeg
3,4/*.NDS.
A ialed: NCDOT FHwA ?? SHPO
TIP !# U • 1A 30 6
Federal Aid # WiF • i2-7 ,
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
IJG 11-11 Gory U47 321 NG 127 1aFwek*b4! e, 6 4F-11+4
M I 1'1°IS
On , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review'session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
? there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each propeM, properties
identified as prorwhu * fq *M are
considered not elidible•for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
? there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
the
, or other Federal Agency
S/1/117'
S
tale Historic Preservation Officer
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
County C A.TA h16A
A-28
TI." r U-?.C; Federal Aid .. N:+F - IZZ Coue-ArawNA
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Brief Project Description
9& 127 1'4M ut;, %xm 10e, t2-1 iurRz.a #A-,r_ -ro 1912 IIe4
On ;-:JuaF_ 0 t11ti , representatives of the
./ North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the -subject project and agreed
there are no effects on the National Register-listed property within the project's area of potential
effect and listed on the reverse.
there are no effects on the National Register-eligible properties located within the project's area
of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties within the project's area of
potential effect. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-eligible properly/properties within the project's area of
potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the reverse.
S igned..

NCDOT
. v .i -
Date
-1 s
Date
FHwA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
Representativ SHPO. Dace
State-Historic Preservation Officer Date I
(over)
A-29
'rjp 1'r t -------- S Federal Aid c rJEtP m-1 Cc?snty a.?rAt,?A
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is National
Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
?.??+? ? 6g.oc?oRp sL?oo ? ??E) - A?re?Ar« t - s
?roperties within area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status (NR or DE)
Md. describe effect.
Zitialed: NCDOT ?FHwA SHPO
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission`'
512 N. Salisbqry Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
NCDOT Planning and Environmental Branch
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: May 3, 1995
SUBJECT: Scoping comments on additional alternatives for improvements to NC 127 from
US 321 to SR 1184, Catawba County, TIP No. U-253-0.B.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments regarding
additional alternatives for improvements to NC 127 from the US 321/NC 127 interchange to SR
1184 in Brookford, Catawba County. The NCDOT proposes to upgrade NC 127 to a five lane
curb and gutter facility partially on, new location.
We previously provided Scoping comments in a memorandum dated 10 September 1993
to Ms. Melba McGee in which we discussed Alternative 1. Because of conflicts with historic
resources, four additional alternatives were added to the original study. Alternatives 3 and 4 were
subsequently eliminated because of highway capacity problems. The NCDOT is now requesting
additional scoping comments on Alternatives 2 and 5.
Cursory examination of Alternatives 2 and 5 indicates that Alternative 2 may impact a
more developed area than Alternative 5, which takes a wide loop around Brookford. We prefer
that new roads be constructed close to existing development rather than constructing outer loops
that fragment wildlife habitat. We have the following comments regarding this project:
I) Alternative 1 and 2 appear to be preferable over Alternative 5 with regard to impacts to
wildlife habitat. However, we will provide additional comments when we receive more
information for the three alternatives, including a comparison of forested habitat,
wetlands, and streams impacted by each alternative.
2) The preferred alternative should minimize impacts to the Henry Fork River, which
provides good habitat for gamefish such as smallmouth bass and redbreast sunfish along
with various species of nongame fish.
A-30
TIP No. U-2530B Page 2 May 3, 1995
3) The Environmental Assessment should include the informational needs outlined in our
previous memorandum.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any
questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/652-4257.
cc: Mr. Chris Goudreau, District 8 Fisheries Biologist
Mr. Jack Mason, District 8 Wildlife Biologist
Ms. Janice Nicholl;, USFWS, Asheville
A-31
qtr--'
.1 ft
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 21, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Historic Structures Survey Report for NC 127
from proposed US 321 /NC 127 Intersection to
SR 1184, Catawba County, U-253013, Federal
Aid Project NHF-127(1), State Project
8.1792201, ER 95-9084
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of May 23, 1995, transmitting the historic structures
survey report by Clay Griffith concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following property is eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under the criterion cited:
(former) Brookford School., The school is eligible under Criterion A for its role
in the community life of Brookford and under Criterion C as a'good example
of a school building dating from the period of consolidation and school
building in Catawba County. While the proposed boundaries are appropriate
for the school as an individually eligible building, we believe the-school might
also be considered a contributing element within an expanded Brookford Mill
Village Historic District.
The report in general meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the
Interior.
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.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
A-32
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
A-33
*` SCN[ o
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 18, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
` Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: NC 127 from US 321 /NC 127 Interchange to SR
1184, Federal Aid Project NHF-127(1), State
Project 8.1700201, TIP U-25306, ER 95-9283
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
PAC E I yew
JUl 2 1199s
DIVISION
? '?'IGHW,•.
Thank you for your letter of June 27, 1995, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Gerold Glover concerning the above project.
The archaeological survey did not record significant remains within the area of
potential effect. Although two of the alternate routes cross a proposed National
Register historic district, the Brookford Mill Historic District, we agree that
archaeological elements should not be considered as contributing factors to the
district. Based upon the absence of archaeological remains, we recommend no
further archaeological investigations be conducted in connection with this
undertaking.
The report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior.
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.
Sincerely,
?1 J r` 4A,?
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw,
cc: H. F. Vick
G. Glover
109 East Jones Street - MeielLNwh Carolina 27601-2807
A-34
°",°r` U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
• REGION FOUR
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
n$w00' Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
May 23, 1995
Mr. David Brook
Deputy State Historic
Department of Cultural
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Dear Mr. Brook:
Preservation Officer
Resources
Subject: Section 106 Consultation - Historic Architectural
Resources, NC 127 from Proposed US 321/NC 127 Interchange
to SR 1184, Catawba Co., N.C., Federal Aid No.
NHF-127(1), State Project No. 8.1792201, TIP No. U-2530B
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has
developed additional alignment alternatives on the subject project.
Pro ernes near the new alternatives were reviewed for eligibility
in the National Register of Historic Places. The review revealed
that one additional property, the former Brookford School, is
considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
Enclosed are two copies of a vicinit map, an aerial ma photos,
and the NCDOT letter concerning the ormer Brookford School. The
NCDOT letter gives details about the former Brookford School and
concludes that the former school is eligible for the National
Register under Criterion A and Criterion C.
Based uppon the survey report, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has determined that the former Brookford School is the only
historic property alon the additional alternatives that is
considered eligible for he National Register of Historic places.
Your concurrence in FHWA's determination is requested. If you have
any questions, please contact Mr. Vince Barone of this office at
85b-4350 or Ms. Barbara Church, with the North Carolina Department
of Transportation at 733-3141.
Sincerely yours,
Rod C. sheet r,
For Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Enclosure
cc: Frank Vick, P.E., NCDOT
CE?G-
yAY 2 S 1995
Z ?p/Ott, FOF
AY
In E41t?. Tie.?
HO-NC
i
A-35
RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
M E-I.S. F-? CORRIDOR [7 DESIGN
AREA RELOCATION OFFICEV
PROJECT: 8.17142201 COUNTY Catawba Alternate 1
I.D. NO.: U-2530 B F.A. PROJECT NHF-127 l
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Revision to NC 127 from US 321 & NC 127 interchange to SR 1184
Hickory
,
., : ` .
.. .-EST .:....•
IMA T ...:
hI3 .I3..

............................................
...............................

...
Type of
Oisplacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Families 15 3 18 8 10 0 0 0
Businesses 1 0 1 0 . < :..?:vAUp1Ea 18. t2W:>F:tl'fG.'??: `?: :::..IIss:#?t;tt G:XVA1v??BI .:
Fauns 0 0 0 0 Owners 'Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 1 0 1 0 0-20M 2 $0-150 3 0-20ec 0 S O-150 0
................ .
.':'itl!fSW
j€ At:1<i: TJE51
IoN$:: ': ; .''".<
20-40M
9
150-250
0
20-49M
6
150-250
0
Yes No E ?n all "YES" answers 40-70M 4 250-400 0 40-70M 23 250-400 2
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 40"00 0 70-10OM 21 400-600 1
x 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 UP 0 600 up 0 100 UP 14 600 uP 0
displacement? TOTAL 15 3

............
64

3
x 3. Will business services still be available after ::..: i S: Res '.: < <: ?; =.... .. .
- project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 'Three are mobile homes.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
.>> employees, minorities, etc. 3. No permanent displacement of businesses.
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 4. a. One business (Vacant) 17,000 sgare feet.
3 stories
6. Source for available housing (list). ,
b. One non-profit organization, 2600 square feet
x 7. Will additional housing programs needed? 6. Realtors, MLS, real estate publications, City and County
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? rental agents, and on-ground investigation.
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 8. Will be administered according to State law.
?es? 9. The area of Brookford has a high percentage of senior
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project? citizens.
x 11. Is public housing available? 11. Section 8 housing in Hickory and County
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 12. There are no government program competing for housing
housing available during relocation period? and housing outlooks are good.
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within 14. Realtors, MLS, real estate pu blicati and County
financial means? rental agent!:; an?oQ-g'roun f lavesligation.
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
..
,
source). . „ . ,
' t :..... v s
15. Number months estimated to complete
'
=
RE,OCAnOW. 14 months E
TWA; i
?y
f t

Relocation Agent Date Approved b Date
Form 15.4 Rowed 5190 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
A-36
RELOCATION REPORT
X? E.I.S. F? CORRIDOR F? DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.17 2201 COUNTY Catawba Alternate 2
I.D. NO.: U-2530 B F.A. PROJECT NHF-127 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Revision to NC 127 from US 321 & NC 127 interchange to SR 1184, Hickory
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Families 12 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses 0 Q 0 0 ::waI:UE: o1? ri?VJri G ? ........ .... >riSS 3? ;?t G C ?Att;ABL31;: ?:::.
Farms 1 0 1 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 s o-iso 0 0-20M 0 SO-150 0
............. ....
::::A Sw
R ?t?Ei.. UF»
I4NS` :::::::::: : : :
2040M
9
150 -250
p
2a4
6
IW250
p
Yes No E vldn all "YES" answers. 40-70M 3 250-400 0 40-70M 23 250-400 2
x I. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-IOOM 0 400 boo p 70-IOOM 21 4e0-600 1
x 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 0 600 up 0 100 up 14 60011p . 0
displacement? TOTAL 12 0
64

3
x 3. Will business services still be available after «;:v::..:::.:;..;>.::: ;>.....:.,, ......:................ , ...........:... ,......:. . ,. .
project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 4. a. One business (Vacant) 17,000 sqare feet
3 stories
r, indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. ,
b. One non-profit organization, 2600 square feet.
6. Realtors®, MLS, real estate publications, City and County
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? rental agents, and on-ground investigation.
MM MM 6. Source for available housing (list). S. Will be administered according to State law
x 7. Will additional housing programs needed? 9. The area of Brookford has a high percentage of senior
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? citizens.
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 11. Section 8 housing in Hickory and County
families? 12. There are no government program competing for housing
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project? and housing outlooks are good.
x 11. Is public housing available? 14. Realtors, MLS, real estate publications, City and County
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing rental agents, and on-ground investigation.
housing available during relocation period?
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
..:`; source).
15. Number months estim' ated to comvlete
a°
Form 15.4 Rzwmd 5/90

[l.;-:rst i r ....• State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office

A-37
'.RE-LOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
M E.I.S. FICORRIDOR FIDESIGN
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.17,0'2201 COUNTY Catawba Alternate 5
I.D. NO.. U-2530 B F.A. PROJECT NHF-127 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Revision to NC 127 from US 321 & NC 127 interchange to SR 1184, Hickory

................: ...
TIM?kTD

F1aA

:::::::;:::
QA4 ...L??EG ::::::::::::::::::::::::::

:::::::
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Individuals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Families 21 3 24 0 6 11 7 0 0
Businesses 1 0 1 0 <: >: : vii:UE t ?8: W1Gi: Ji?fG :: >:':' ' ` : I1SS 0 RRBXiDT G ak1+AIEA$I E?: ?:
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners 'Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 3 $0-150 3 0-20M 0 $0-150 0
..............

.............. ...

.... .............
...........
.
.. ...............

..............,..

3 ................................

................................

TQNS?:':'::'::::::....`.`.....:

2040M

8

IW25e

0

20-40M

6

150-250

0
Yes No E Adn oll "YES" answers. 40-79M 10 250-400 p 40-70M 23 250-400 2
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 00-600 0 70-100M 21 400-600 1
x 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 ur 0 600 ur 0 100 ur 14 600 ur 0
MOM Placement? TOTAL 21 3 64 3
X 3. Will business services still be available after :.<:«<::>`?:: >:`. ttiEli ARZiS: ik 06iid
..:...................
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 'Mobile Homes: three tenants and one owner.
F>s > indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. 3. No permanent displacement of businesses.
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 4. Carolina Solvents, Inc.; Chemicals; Approx. 57,000 square
6. Source for available housing (list). feet of office, warehouse, and workshop; approx.
x 7. Will additional housing programs needed? 75 employees; 15 minorities.
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? 6. Realtors, MLS, real estate publications, City and County
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. rental agents, and on-ground investigation.
families? 8. Will be administered according to State law
x 10 . Will public housing be needed for project? 9. The area of Brookford has a high percentage of senior
x 11 . Is public housing available? citizens.
X 12 . Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 11. Section 8 housing in Hickory and County
housing available during relocation period? 12. There are no government program competing for housing
x 13 . Will there be a problem of housing within and housing outlooks are good.
financial means? 14. Realtors, MLS, real estate publications, City and County
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list rental agents, and on-ground investigation.
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RZWCATION? 18 months
oF?A
Relocation Agent 1-99 Date Approved Date
Form 15A tteTmd SM Original & i Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
A-38
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 100 ft away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD

130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD

110
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD

90
D Diesel truck 40 mph 50 ft. away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 50 mph 50 ft. away MODERATELY LOUD
B 70

E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50

Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40

Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 5 feet away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
0
1
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
r
at
•
A-39
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Existing Noise Level Increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10

Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
A-40
TABLE N3
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Leq)
NC 127
From US 321/NC 127 Interchange to SR 1184
Catawba County
TIP N U-2530B State Project # 8.1792201
SITE
NOISE
LEVEL
LOCATION DESCRIPTION (dBA)
1. NC 127, .03 Mile East of SR 1213 Gravel 64
2. NC 127, .04 Mile East of 17th Avenue Gravel 63
3. NC 127, .01 Mile South of NC 127 Computer 59
r
Note: The ambient noise level sites were measured at 50 feet from the
center of the nearest lane of traffic.
A-41
TABLE N4.1
FBWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 127
From US 321/NC 127 Interchange to SR 1184
Catawba County
TIP # U-25308 State Project # 8.1792201
y= AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
ID# LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE LEVEL NAME DISTANCE -L- -Y- MAXIMUM
1/3
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
Alternate #1 - From Beginning of Project to NC 127
1 Residence B SR 2517 80 R 45
2 Residence B " 100 R 45
3 Residence B " 80 R 45
4 Residence B •' 70 R 45
5 Residence B " 50 R 45
6 Residence B ° 80 R 45
7 Residence B " 80 R 45
7A Residence B " 80 R 45
8 Residence B " 50 R 45
9 Residence B " 120 R 45
10 Residence B " 70 R 45
11 Residence B " 80 R 45
12 Residence B NC 127 130 R 52
13 Residence B SR 2517 60 R 45
14 Residence B " 100 R 45
15 Residence B " 80 R 45,
16 Business C NC 127 110 R 54
16A Business C " 230 R 47
Alternate #1 - From NC 127 to I-40
41 Residence B NC 127 80 L 59
42 Residence B " 60 L 62
43 Residence B " 60 L 62
44 Residence B " 120 L 56
45 Residence B " 130 L 55
46 Residence B " 110 L 57
47 Residence B " 170 L 53
48 Residence B " 240 L 50
49 lesidence B " 300 L 47
50 Residence B " 240 L 50
51 Residence B " 290 L 48
52 Aesidence B 360 L 45
53 Residence B " 200 L 51
54 Residence B " 350 L 46
NC 127 150 L - - 65 * + 20
300 L - - 58 + 13
420 L - - 54 + 9
400 L - - 55 + 10
130 L - - * 67 * + 22
0 L -------------------- R/W-------------'
200 L - - 62 * + 17
540 L - - 51 + 6
120 L - - * 67 * + 22
" 560 L - - 51 + 6
530 L - - 51 + 6
330 L - - 57 + 12
80 L - - * 70 * + 18
110 R - - * 68 * + 23
210 R - - 62 * + 17
360 R - - 56 + 11
300 R - - 58 + 4
350 R - - 56 + 9
NC 127 710 R - - 45 - 14
410 R - - 52 - 10
310 R - - 55 - 7
250 R - - 57 + 1
20 R --------------------R/W--------------
60 L - - * 69 * + 12
50 L - - * 71 * + 18
" 60 L - - * 69 * + 19
60 L - - * 69 * + 22
200 L - - 60 + 10
200 L - - 60 + 12
200 L - - 60 * + 15
260 L - - 57 + 6
290 L - - 56 + 10
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * => Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-42
TABLE N4.1
FRWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 127
From US 321/NC 127 Interchange to SR 1184
Catawba County
TIP # U-25308 State Project N 8.1792201
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
IDN LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE LEVEL NAME DISTANCE -L- -Y- MAXIMUM
Alternate N1 - From NC 127 to I-40 (Cont'd)
55 Residence B 20th AVE. 50 L 51 NC 127 300 L -
56 Residence B of 80 L 51 " 380 L -
57 Residence B " 50 L 51 " 250 L -
58 Residence B NC 127 120 L 51 " 310 L -
59 Residence B 19th AVE. 50 L 51 " 110 L -
60 Business C " 80 L 51 " 150 L -
61 Residence B " 70 L 51 " 100 L -
62 Residence B " 200 L 51 " 200 R -
63 Residence B NC 127 190 L 52 " 260 R -
64 Residence B " 200 L 51 " 350 R -
65 Residence B " 150 L 54 420 R -
66 Residence B " 230 L 50 " 500 R -
67 Residence B " 270 L 48 " 540 R -
68 Business C 20th AVE. 50 L 63 " 60 R -
69 Residence B " 70 L 60 " 150 R -
70 Business C " 90 L 58' " 220 R -
71 Residence B " 60 L 62 " 70 R -
72 Residence B " 50 L 63 " 160 R -
73 Residence B 20th AVE. 40 L 51 NC 127 300 R -
74 Residence B " 60 L 51 200 R -
15 Residence B " 60 L 51 " 280 R -
76 Residence B " 50 L 51 " 370 R -
77 Residence B " 50 L 51 " 440 R -
90 Residence B " 40 L 51 " 520 R -
91 Residence B " 40 L 51 " 600 R -
92 Residence B " 50 L 51 " 390 R -
93 Residence B " 60 L 51 " 370 R -
126 Residence B 16th AVE. 270 R 48 " 270 R -
127 Residence B " 150 R 54 " 150 L -
128 Residence B " 90 R 58 " 90 L -
129 Residence B " 90 R 58 " 80 L -
130 Residence B " 100 R 57 " 100 L -
131 Residence B " 120 R 56 " 150 L -
135 Church E " 100 R 57/<40 " 250 L -
136 Residence B " 70 R 60 " 70 L -
2/3
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
- 55 +4
- 53 + 2
- 57 + 6
- 55 + 4
- 65 * + 14
- 62 *+11
- * 66 * + 15
- 60 + 9
- 57 + 5
- 54 + 3
- 52 - 2
- 49 - 1
- 48 0
- 69 + 6
- 62 + 2
- 59 + 1
- * 69 + 7
- 62 - 1
- 55 + 4
- 60 + 9
- 56 + 5
- 53 + 2
- 51 0
- 49 - 2
- 47 - 4
- 52 + 1
- 53 + 2
- 56 + 8
- 62 + 8
- * 67 + 9
- * 68 * + 10
- * 66 + 9
- 62 + 6
- 57/<40 0
- * 69 + 9
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
i'
V
°a
A-43
TABLE N4.1
FRWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 127
From US 321/NC 127 Interchange to SR 1184
Catawba County
TIP N U-2530B State Project 1 8.1792201
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
ID# LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE LEVEL NAME DISTANCE -L- -Y- MAXIMUM
a
Alternate it - From I-40 to End of Project
137 Residence B SR 1213 260 R
137 Park B " 200 R
138 Residence B " 250 L
139 Residence B " 280 L
140 Residence B " 350 L
141 Residence B " 320 L
142 Residence B " 230 L
143 Residence B " 230 L
144 Residence B " 250 L
145 Residence B " 250 L
146 Residence B " 260 L
147 Residence B " 70 L
148 Residence B " 50 R
149 Residence B ^ 90 R
150 Residence B " 50 L
151 Residence B " 90 R
152 Residence B " 90 R
153 Residence B " 140 R
154 Business C " 260 L
155 Business C " 150 L
156 Business C " 100 L
157 Business C " 120 L
158 Business C " 110 R
159 Business C " 80 R
160 Business C " 90 R
161 Business C " 70 L
162 Business C " 130 L
163 Business C " 130 R
164 Apartments B " 90 R
C
3/3
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
51 NC 127 260 R - - 55 + 4
53 " 200 R - - 58 + 5
51 •' 250 L - - 55 + 4
50 " 280 L - - 54 + 4
48 " 350 L - - 52 + 4
48 " 320 L - - 53 + 5
52 " 230 L - - 56 + 4
52 " 230 L - - 56 + 4
51 '• 250 L - - 55 + 4
51 " 250 L - - 55 + 4
51 " 260 L - - 55 + 4
62 " 70 L - - * 67 + 5
64 " 50 R - - * 69 + 5
60 " 90 R - - 65 + 5
64 " 50 L - - * 69 + 5
60 " 90 R - - 65 + 5
60 " 90 R - - 65 + 5
57 '• 140 R - - 61 + 4
51 " 260 L - - 55 + 4
56 " 150 L - - 60 + 4
59 " 100 L - - 64 + 5
58 " 120 L - - 63 + 5
59 110 R - - 63 + 4
61 " 80 R - - 66 + 5
60 " 90 R - - 65 + 5
62 " 70 L - - 67 + 5
57 " 130 L - - 62 + 5
57 " 130 R - - 62 + 5
60 " 90 R - - 65 + 5
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-44
TABLE N4.2
FBWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 127
From US 321/NC 127 Interchange to SR 1184
Catawba County
TIP # U-2530B State Project # 8.1792201
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
ID# LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE LEVEL NAME DISTANCE -L- -Y- MAXIMUM
Alternate #2 - From SR 2517 to NC 127
1 Residence B SR 2517 80 R
2 Residence B " 100 R
5 Residence B " 50 R
6 Residence B •' 80 R
13 Residence B SR 2517 60 R
14 Residence B •• 100 R
15 Residence B of 80 R
16A Business C NC 127 230 R
17 Business C " 550 R
18 Residence B " 470 R
19 Residence B " 410 R
20 Residence B " 480 R
21 Residence B " 420 R
22 Residence B " 470 R
23 Residence B of 370 R
24 Residence B " 280 R
25 Residence B 250 R
26 Residence B 240 R
27 Residence B " 220 R
28 Residence B " 110 R
29 Residence B " 270 R
30 Residence B " 490 R
31 Residence B 500 R
32 Residence B " 470 R
33 Church E " 40 R
34 Business C " 120 R
35 Residence B to 140 R
Alternate #2 - From NC 127 to I -40
81 Residence B 20th AVE. 100 L
82 Residence B " 50 L
83 Residence B " 50 L
107 Residence B NC 127 100 L
126 Residence B " 200 R
1/2
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
56 NC 127 150 L - - 65 + 9
54 '• 300 L - - Be + 4
59 " 130 R - - * 66 + 7
56 ° 0 R --------------------R/W--------------
58 " 100 R - - * 69 * + 11
54 " 90 L - - * 69 * + 15
56 •' 230 L - - 61 + 5
47 " 420 L - - 54 + 7
37 " 150 R - - 65 * + 28
39 " 30 R --------------------R/W--------------
41 " 20 R --------------------R/W--------------
39 " 110 R - - * 68 * + 29
41 '• 60 R - - * 72 * + 31
39 '• 150 R - - 65 * + 26
42 " 80 R - - * 70 * + 28
45' " 70 L - - * 71 * + 26
46 " 50 L - - * 73 * + 27
47 " 10 L --------------------R/W--------------
48 " 50 R - - * 73 * + 25
54 " 10 L --------------------R/W--------------
45 to 150 R - - 65 * + 20
39 •' 350 R - - 56 to + 17
38 " 390 R - - 55 * + 17
39 to 400 R - - 55 * + 16
60/40 n 10 R --------------------R/W--------------
53 to 250 R - - 60 + 7
52 it 330 L - - 57 + 5
59 NC 127 50 L - - *70 + 11
59 " 30 R --------------------R/W--------------
59 ^ 10 R --------------------R/W--------------
57 " 110 R - - 65 + 8
51 " 270 R - - 56 + 5
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * => Traffic noise impact (per 23 CPR Part 772).
i

a
A-45
TABLE N4.2 2/2
FBWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 127
From US 321/NC 127 Interchange to SR 1184
Catawba County
TIP N U-2530B State Project M 8.1792201
` AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
IDM LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE LEVEL NAME DISTANCE -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
t
Alternate B2 - From I-40 to End of Project (Cont'd)
127 Residence B NC 127 150 R 54 NC 127 150 L - - 62 + 8
137 Residence B " 260 R 51 '• 260 R - - 56 + 5
137A Park B " 200 R 53 " 200 R - - 59 + 6
138 Residence B to 250 L 51 " 250 L - - 56 + 5
139 Residence B " 280 L 50 '. 280 L - - 55 + 5
140 Residence B to 350 L 48 " 350 L - - 53 + 5
141 Residence B " 320 L 48 " 320 L - - 54 + 6
142 Residence B " 230 L 52 '• 230 L - - 57 + 5
143 Residence B " 230 L 52 " 230 L - - 57 + 5
144 Residence B '• 250 L 51 to 250 L - - 56 + 5
145 Residence B " 250 L 51 " 250 L - - 56 + 5
146 Residence B to 260 L 51 " 260 L - - 56 + 5
147 Residence B " 70 L 62 " 70 L - - * 68 + 6
148 Residence B " 50 R 64 " 50 R - - to 70 + 6
149 Residence B " 90 R 60 '• 90 R - - * 66 + 6
150 Residence B " 50 L 64 50 L - - * 70 + 6
151 Residence B " 90 R 60 " 90 R - - * 66 + 6
152 Residence B •' 90 R 60 to 90 R - - * 66 + 6
153 Residence B " 140 R 57 " 140 R - - 62 + 5
154 Business C " 260 L 51 " 260 L - - 56 + 5
155 Business C " 150 L 56 " 150 L - - 61 + 5
156 Business C " 100 L 59 " 100 L - - 65 + 6
157 Business C " 120 L 58 to 120 L - - 63 + 5
158 Business C " 110 R 59 " 110 R - - 64 + 5
159 Business C •' 80 R 61 " 80 R - - 67 + 6
160 Business C " 90 R 60 " 90 R - - 66 + 6
161 Business C •' 70 L 62 " 70 L - - 68 + 6
162 Business C •• 130 L 57 •' 130 L - - 63 + 6
163 Business C " 130 R 57 " 130 R - - 63 + 6
164 Residence B " 90 R 60 " 90 R - - * 66 + 6

NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-46
TABLE N4.5 1/2
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 127
From US 321/NC 127 Interchange to SR 1184
Catawba County
TIP # U-2530B State Project # 8.1792201
AMBIENT NEAREST NO ISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID# LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE LEVEL NAME DISTANCE -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
Alternate #5 - From Beginning of Project to NC 127
13 Residence B NC 127 1850 R 45 NC 127 110 R - - * 69 * + 24
17 Business C " 610 R 41 " 120 R - - 69 * + 28
108 Residence B •' 80 R 60 " 630 R - - 50 - 10
109 Residence B " 190 L 54 " 580 L - - 51 - 3
110 Residence B •' 160 L 55 " 540 L - - 52 - 3
111 Residence B " 100 L 59 " 540 L - - 52 - 7
112 Residence B " 60 L 61 " 450 L - - 55 - 6
117 Residence B " 110 L 59 " 190 R - - 64 + 5
Alternate #5 - From NC 127 to I-40
113 Business C NC 127 170 L 53 NC 127 360 L - - 54 + 1
114 Residence B " 80 L 59 " 40 L ---------- ---------- R/W--------___.__
115 Residence B " 100 L 57 " 140 R - -
64
+
7
116 Residence B " 190 L 52 " 150 R - - 63 ¦ + 11
118 Residence B •' 80 L 59 " 380 R - - 54 - 5
119 Residence B •' 70 L 60 " 480 R - - 51 - 9
120 Residence B " 100 L 57 " 630 R - - 47 - 10
121 Residence B " 200 L 51 " 550 R - - 49 - 2
122 Residence B " 280 L 48 '• 530 R - - 50 + 2
123 Residence B " 280 L 48 " 500 R - - 50 + 2
124 Residence B " 200 L 51 " 300 R - - 56 + 5
125 Residence B " 200 R 51 " 550 R - - 49 - 2
126 Residence B " 200 R 51 " 270 R - -
57
+
6
Alternate #5 - From I-40 to End of Project
137 Residence B NC 127 260 R 46 NC 127 260 R - - 55 + 9
137A Park B " 200 R 49 " 200 R - - 58 + 9
138 Residence B " 250 L 46 " 250 L - - 55 + 9
139 Residence B " 280 L 45 " 280 L - - 54 + 9
140 Residence B " 350 L 43 " 350 L - - 52 + 9
141 Residence B " 320 L 44 " 320 L - - 53 + 9
142 Residence B " 230 L 47 " 230 L - - 56 + 9
143 Residence B " 230 L 47 " 230 L - - 56 + 9
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * => Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
s
•
A-0
TABLE N4.5 2/2
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 127
From US 321/NC 127 Interchange to SR 1184
Catawba County
TIP # U-2530B State Project # 8.1792201
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID# LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE LEVEL NAME DISTANCE -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE

Alternate #5 - From I-40 to End of Project (COnt'd)
144 Residence B NC 127 250 L 46 NC 127 250 L - - 55 + 9
145 Residence B " 250 L 46 '• 250 L - - 55 + 9
146 Residence B " 260 L 46 " 260 L - - 55 + 9
147 Residence B " 70 L 57 •' 70 L - - * 67 * + 10
148 Residence B " 50 R 59 " 50 R - - * 69 * + 10
149 Residence B " 90 R 55 " 90 R - - 65 * + 10
150 Residence B •• 50 L 59 '• 50 L - - * 69 * + 10
151 Residence B " 90 R 55 ^ 90 R - - 65 * + 10
152 Residence B " 90 R 55 •' 90 R - - 65 * + 10
153 Residence B •• 140 R 52 •' 140 R - - 61 + 9
154 Business C " 260 L 46 '• 260 L - - 55 + 9
155 Business C '• 150 L 51 " 150 L - - 60 + 9
156 Business C " 100 L 54 " 100 L - - 64 * + 10
157 Business C " 120 L 53 " 120 L - - 63 * + 10
158 Business C •• 110 R 54 " 110 R - - 63 + 9
159 Business C " 80 R 56 " 80 R - - 66 * + 30
160 Business C '• 90 R 55 " 90 R - - 65 * + 10
161 Business C " 70 L 57 " 70 L - - 67 * + 10
162 Business C " 130 L 52 " 130 L - - 62 * + 10
163 Business C 130 R 52 " 130 R - - 62 * + 10
164 Residence B •• 90 R 55 " 90 R - - 65 * + 10
a
c
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-48
TABLE N5
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 127
From US 321/NC 127 Interchange to SR 1184
Catawba County
TIP N U-25308 State Project N 8.1792201
Maximum Predicted Contour
Leq Noise Levels Distances
dBA (Maximum)
Description 50' 100, 200' 72 dBA 67 dBA
Alternative ?1 1 71 67 61 69' 1301
Alternative N 2 71 67 61 69' 130'
Alternative i 5 71 67 62 70' 131'
NOTES - 1. 501, 1001, and 200' distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
TABLE N6
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
NC 127
From US 321/NC 127 Interchange to SR 1184
Catawba County
TIP N U-25308 State Project p 8.1792201
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
Approximate Number of Impacted
Receptors According to
Title 23 CFR Part 772
A B C D E
0 22 1 0 0
0 22 1 0 0
0 9 8 0 0
Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
section <=0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >= 25 Increases(1) Criteria(2)

Alternative A 1 11 25 35 11 7 5 0 16 10
Alternative N 2 0 1 38 2 4 1 8 15 9
Alternative N 3 10 3 19 15 0 1 1 17 4
(1) As defined by only a substantial increase (See bottom of Table N2).
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2
•
F
i
s
A-49
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-2530: NC 127 Catawba Co. RUN: NC 127 1998, BUILD 45 MPH
DATE: 05/09/95 TIME: 14:08
a
SITE & METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES ,
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD = 0.0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W WC QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1. Far Lane Link 11.0 -804.7 11.0 804.7 1609. 360. AG 1110. 14.0 0.0 13.4
2. Near Lane Link 0.0 804.7 0.0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 1110. 14.0 0.0 13.4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R47, 50' LT. CL RES -9.8 0.0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REC1
MAX 3.4
DEGR. 10
i+
'HE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.40 PPM AT 10 DEGREES FROM REC1 .

A-50
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-2530: NC 127 Catawba Co. RUN: NC 127 2018, BUILD 45 MPH
DATE: 05/09/95 TIME: 14:09
x
SITE S METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS = 0.0 CM/S VD = 0.0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E)
LINK VARIABLES
ZO - 108. CM
ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH = 1000. M AMB = 1.8 PPM
LINK DESCRIPTION I LINK COORDINATES (M) I LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
X1 Yl X2 Y2 (M) (DEC) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1. Far Lane Link 11.0 -804.7 11.0 804.7 1609. 360. AG 1710. 10.7 0.0 13.4
2. Near Lane Link 0.0 804.7 0.0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 1710. 10.7 0.0 13.4
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R47, 50' LT. CL RES -9.8 0.0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND
ANGLE
(DEGR)
MAX
DEGR.
CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
REC1
3.5
4
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.50 PPM AT 4 DEGREES FROM REC1

U
A-51
d.w S7ATp ?,?
D
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
..W%[
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
November 3, 1995
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEHNR - Div. of Environmental Management
Water Quality Lab
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Mr. Galamb:
RECEIVED
NOV 13 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
,I
GARLAND B. GARRETr JR.
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation
for Hickory-Brookford, Revision to NC 127, from US 321 to SR 1184,
Catawba County, Federal Aid Project Number NHF-127(1), State
Project No. 8.1792201, T.I.P. Project U-2530B
Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment and Draft Section
4(f) Evaluation and the Natural Resources Technical Report for the subject
proposed highway improvement. It is anticipated this project will be
processed with a "Finding of No Significant Impact"; however, should comments
received on the Environmental Assessment or at the public hearing demonstrate
a need for preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement you will be
contacted as part of our scoping process.
Copies of this Assessment are being submitted to the State
Clearinghouse, areawide planning agencies, and the counties, towns, and
cities involved.
Permit review agencies should note it is anticipated Federal Permits
will be required as discussed in the report.
Any comment you have concerning the Environmental Assessment should be
forwarded to:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
r Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Your comments should be received by January 5, 1996. If no comments are
received by that date we will assume you have none. If you desire a copy of
the "Finding of No Significant Impact," please so indicate.
Sincerely,
H. Fin E. Manager
>
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr 9
Revisions to NC 127 from the Proposed
US 321/NC 127 Interchange to SR 1184
Catawba County
TIP No.: U-2530B
F.A. Project No.: NB F-127(1)
State Project No.: 8.1792201
Natural Resources Technical Report
U-2530 (Part B)
Michael J. Baranski
Consulting Biologist
(for the NCDOT Environmental Unit)
Department of Biology
Catawba College
Salisbury, NC 28144
June 30, 1994
TABLE OF COIvMN'TS
1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................... I
1.1 Project Description ..............................................................................1
1.2 Purpose ...............................................................................................2
1.3 Project Area ........................................................................................2
1.4 Methodology .......................................................................................2
2.0 Physical Resources ..........................................................................................3
2.1 Geology ..............................................................................................3
2.2 Physiography and Soils ........................................................................3
2.3 Water Resources .................................................................................3
2.3.1 Waters Impacted ......................................................................3
2.3.1.1 Stream Characteristics ...................................................4
2.3.1.2 Best Usage Classification ...............................................4
2.3.1.3 Water Quality ...............................................................5
2.3.2 Anticipated Water Resource Impacts .........................................5
3.0 Biotic Resources ............................................................................................6
3.1 Plant Communities ..............................................................................6
3.1.1 Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest ......................... .....................7
3.1.2 Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest .................................................8
3.1.3 Basic Mesic Forest .............................................. .....................8
3.1.4 Piedmont Alluvial Forest ..................................... ......................9
3.1.5 Mixed Pine and Hardwood Forest .............................................9
3.1.6 Pine Forest ......................................................... ....................10
3.1.7 Early Woody Successional Community ................. ....................10
3.1.8 Early Herbaceous Successional Community ...............................10
3.1.9 Roadside Community ................................................................11
3.1.10 Scrub Thickets and Borders ................................. .....................11
3.1.11 Maintained Pastureland and Residential Landscape .....................11
3.2 Terrestrial Fauna ............................................................. .....................11
3.3 Aquatic Life ........................................................................................13
3.4 Anticipated Biotic Resource Impacts .....................................................14
3.4.1 Terrestrial Systems ............................................... ......................14
3.4.2 Aquatic Systems ................................................... ......................15
4.0 Special Topics .................................................................................................15
4.1 Jurisdictional Waters of the United States ...............................................15
4. 1.1 Permits .....................................................................................16
4.1.2 Mitigation .................................................................................16
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ...................................................................17
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species .......................................................17
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Protected Species ...........................17
5.0 References ......................................................................................................18
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Natural Resources Technical Report is produced to provide environmental
input on natural systems to assist in the preparation of a state and federally funded
Environmental Assessment (EA).
1.1 Project Description
This project is designed to improve traffic flow through the Brookford community
on the south side of Hickory from the vicinity of SR 1184 and US 641US 70/US 321 to
the proposed US 321/NC 127 interchange (Figs. 1 and 2). Total project length is
approximately 2.2 km (1.4 mi), but it varies according to alternate. The proposed facility
will be a four- or five- lane curb and gutter section with a 30.5 m (100 ft) right-of- way
(R/W) and a design speed of 72 kph (45 mph). Seven alternates are under consideration.
The major portion of all alternates utilize existing R/W, the smaller portion of all alternates
is on new location. Existing R/W sections are approximately 18.3 m (60 ft) and consist of
mostly two- lane shoulder sections.
Alternate 1 consist of the extension and widening of SR 1213 (2°a Street SW) from
SR 1184 to the proposed US 321/NC 127 interchange. These alternates consider both
symmetrical and/or asymmetrical widening to a four- or five-lane section.
Accommodations for bicycles will be provided. These alternates have a 4(f) involvement
with the Shuford Furniture Factory and surrounding structures which have historical
significance as a mill village. About 458 m (1500 ft) would be on new location.
Alternate 2 begins near SR 1184 and follows existing SR 1213 to 16'' Ave. SW,
where it continues on new location east of the mill village crossing existing NC 127 and
tying into the proposed US 321/NC 127 interchange. About 700 m (2300 ft) would be on
new location.
Alternate 3 begins approximately 183 m (600 ft) north of SR 1213 and proceeds
on new location to the existing US 64/US 70/US 321 intersection, where it joins existing
NC 127, following it to south of the Brookford Community Building, where it continues
on new location to the tie-in with the proposed US 321/NC 127 interchange. About 549
m (1800 ft) would be on new location.
Alternate 4 begins approximately 183 m (600 ft) north of SR 1213, with left turn
movements onto existing NC 127 (South Center Street), through the existing US 641US
70/US 321 intersection, following existing NC 127 to just south of the Brookford
Community Building, then continuing on new location to tie into the proposed US
321/NC 127 interchange. About 396 m (1300 ft) would be on new location.
All alternates would involve a bridge crossing of the Henry Fork River.
1.2 Purp se
The purpose of this technical report is to describe the natural systems occurring
within the project area and to evaluate probable impacts to these systems.
1.3 Project Area
The project area is located in urban and suburban Catawba County, North
Carolina, on the southern edge of Hickory (population 28,300) in the general area of the
Brookford community (population 446) (Figs. 1 and 2). The northern part of the project
area is in a dense commercial zone. The middle part crosses I-40 and traverses a suburban
moderately built-up landscape. The southern section is somewhat rural- residential in
character in the vicinity of the Henry Fork River. Agriculture is not important, and there
are no croplands.
1.4 Methodology
Project planning information and photomosaic maps were provided by the
NCDOT Planning Unit. Background research was undertaken prior to site visits.
Relevant sources of site information included the Soil Survey Manual for Catawba
County (Brewer 1975), hydric soils lists (Soil Conservation Service 1991), USGS 7.5
minute topographic map (Hickory quadrangle, 1970), geologic map of N.C. (N.C.
Geological Survey 1985), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and N.C. Natural Heritage
Program data for rare and protected species. Stream classification and water quality data
were obtained from various reports of the Division of Environmental Management of the
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR).
The project area was investigated on June 15 and 20, 1994. Field methodology
involved reconnaissance survey and evaluation of the biota, natural communities and
physical resources present in the area. All alternative alignments were walked and
inspected (as well as many adjacent areas), and probable impacts due to construction were
assessed.
Plant communities were identified and classified following Schafale and Weakley
(1990). Floristic and faunistic lists were developed, and communities were mapped.
Wetlands were determined following standard procedures (Cowardin et al. 1979,
Environmental Laboratory 1987, Reed 1988). With a few exceptions, plant names follow
Radford, Ahles and Bell (1968). Animal names follow treatments in Martof et al. (1980),
Potter, Parnell and Teulings (1980), Rohde et al. (1994), and Webster, Parnell and Biggs
(1994). Godfrey (1980) provided useful information on expected animal occurrences.
2
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
2.1 Geology
The project area lies within the Inner Piedmont Belt. The southern portion of the
area is located over intrusive metamorphosed granitic rock. The northern portion is
located over metamorphic biotite gneiss and schist.
2.2 Physiography and Soils
The project area in Catawba County is located on the Upper Piedmont
physiographic region in west-central North Carolina. The general landscape is one of
fairly low broad ridges with short steep slopes. Very steep slopes and bluffs to vertical
five m (16 ft) high cliffs mostly confine a narrow floodplain of the Henry Fork River in the
southern part of the project area. Elevations range from about 335 m (1100 ft) in Hickory
in the north part to about 256 m (840 ft) at the Henry Fork River in the south part.
The ridgetops and upper slopes are primarily Pacolet gravelly fine sandy loams (2-
20% slopes), but some Cecil sandy loams (2-6% slopes) and Madison gravelly sandy
loams (2-6% slopes) also occur. These are all well-drained acidic soils formed in
residuum Existing roads are virtually all on these soils.
The mid and lower slopes are mostly Pacolet soils (10-25% slopes), but some
similarly steep Madison soils also occur in the northern section.
Chewacla loams occur in small areas in the lower reaches of perennial or
intermittent streams and against the steep slopes. Chewacla soils are somewhat poorly
drained on nearly level land and have formed in alluvium Congaree complex soils occur
in the Henry Fork River floodplain. These soils are well-drained on nearly level land and
formed on recent alluvium
The only listed hydric soil in the project vicinity is the Wedhadkee series. This
poorly drained soil occurs as an inclusion in wet spots and depressions on the Chewacla
series. Small occurrences of the soil were noted in the field work.
2.3 Water Resources
2.3.1 Waters Impacted
All drainage is into the lower middle reaches of the Henry Fork River (subbasin
03-08-35). The Henry Fork is a tributary of the South Fork of the Catawba River. It is
approximately 92 km (57 mi) long from mouth to origin (Fish 1968), joining the Jacob
Fork to make the South Fork. Unnamed, small, short perennial and intermittent streams
feed directly into the Henry Fork in the project area. The Henry Fork River and,
potentially, two of its tributaries will be impacted by this project. One tributary parallels,
3
and eventually crosses under, SR 1213. Another smaller tributary is at the southern
terminus of the project near SR 1262.
2.3.1.1 Stream Characteristics
The Henry Fork River is a typical western Piedmont medium to low gradient sandy
stream. Fish (1968) describes an average width of 7.6 m (25 ft). In the project area, the
channel width is approximately 23 to 30 m (75- 100 ft), but even wider pools occur above
and below a 76 m (250 ft) wide concrete dam adjacent to the Shuford Furniture Factory.
The dam has been in place for many years. Narrow floodplains varying from
approximately 15 m (50 ft) to 46 m (150 ft) occur on each side of the channel, confined
between steep slopes and bluffs. The substrate in the channel varies from unconsolidated
sand, silt and gravel to areas of rubble and bedrock. Floodplain substrates are noticeably
different above and below the dam due to different water flow characteristics. At the time
of site investigation, the river had an attractive appearance with a good flow of fairly clear
shallow water over the riffles.
The intermittent and small perennial streams in the project area have
unconsolidated bottoms of rubble and gravel, but large portions are heavily sedimented
from upstream erosion. The soils of the project area are susceptible to heavy erosion
when disturbed (NCDEHNR 1989). Stream channel widths are generally 1-1.5 m (3-5 ft).
The water was clear during the site visit. Some nice riffle areas were noted in the larger
perennial stream that parallels SR 1213 on the east side, but the channel was deeply
eroded.
Fish (1968) classifies the Henry Fork River as a smallmouth bass stream, such
streams having moderately abundant pools, normally clear waters, cool summer
temperatures, bottoms of boulders, rubble and gravel, and minimum flows of 1.5 cros (5
cfs). The Division of Environmental Management (NCDEHNR 1989) recognizes the
middle segment of the Henry Fork River as a "cool water" (i.e., smallmouth bass) fishery.
2.3.1.2 Best Usage Classification
Portions of the uppermost section of the Henry Fork River are classified WS-1
(NCDEHNR 1993). This section is montane, supports trout, and parts have been
designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW). This section is far outside the project
area.
The major portion of 73.4 km (45.6 mi) of the Henry Fork River is given a C
classification (NCDEHNR 1993). These are "freshwaters protected for secondary
recreation, fishing, aquatic life including propagation and survival, and wildlife." This is
the minimum level of classification given to all freshwaters. All tributaries carry the same
classification as the streams to which they are tributary. Two tributaries, Geitner Branch
and Barger Branch, just west and east, respectively, of the project area, are specifically in
class C.
4
2.3.1.3 Water gWky
The recent biological classifications for the Henry Fork River (1985, 1986 and
1989 benthic macroinvertebrate (BMAN) samplings near the community of Henry River
about 10 km (6.2 mi) west of the project area) is Good-Fair, with a Support Threatened
(ST) overall rating (NCDEHNR 1988, 1989, 1991). The chemical rating is Supporting
(S). Sampling in 1985 of an unnamed tributary above and below SR 1213 in the project
area yielded a Poor classification (degraded). Non-point discharges are the major sources
of pollution.
2.3.2 Anticipated Water Resource Impacts
Water quality data indicate that streams in the project area are presently rated
either not supporting their designated uses or are support- threatened. The designated
uses are in the lowest classification. Construction impacts could further degrade these
waters, with sediment loads and other pollutants affecting water quality from a biological
and chemical standpoint.
Because of the generally acute sensitivity of aquatic organisms to discharges and
inputs deriving from construction, appropriate measures must be taken to avoid spillage
and control runoff. These measures must include an erosion and sediment control plan,
provisions for waste materials and storage, storm water management measures, and
appropriate road maintenance measures. Best Management Practices should be employed
consistently.
Table 1 summarizes potential surface water resource impacts. All alternates will
involve a major bridge crossing of the Henry Fork River and its floodplain (see also #s 4
and 5 on Fig. 3). It appears that the span would be at least 45.7 m (150 ft) in length.
Construction of this bridge will have the greatest potential for pollution discharge.
Table 1. Water resources potential impacts - number of encroachments. See Figure 3 for
location of encroachment (#).
Ahs.l Alt.2 Alt.3 Alt. 4
River and flood lain 1 #4 1 #5 1 #5 1 #5
Small stream
crossings 2 3 1 1
Length of stream
parallel in R/W (m) 91 (300 ft) 0 0 0
Pocket wetlands
<0.1 ha <O.1 acre 1 (0) 1 (#2) 1 (#1) 0
All alternates have one potential small stream crossing at the southern end of the
project at the junction with the proposed US 321/NC 127 interchange. Alternate 2
5
involves two other small stream crossings, and Alternates 1 involve one stream crossing.
It is noted that Alternate 2 has the greatest amount of R/W on new location.
Construction of any selected alternate should not modify the flow of any stream.
Streams can be crossed effectively with the use of appropriately designed pipe and box
culverts. Alternates 1 could have a major impact on one small (appears to be perennial)
stream which parallels the roadway within the R/W for 91 in (300 ft) or more east of 18th
Ave. SW. Careful design and erosion control will be necessary to protect this stream and
avoid any stream relocation. All instream activities should be scheduled during low flow
periods.
There will be unavoidable negative impacts on the vegetative cover that protects
streams. Increased light levels, higher stream temperatures, and changes in species
composition will modify affected stream reaches.
No High Quality Waters (HQWs), Outstanding Resources Waters (ORWs), nor
WS-I, WS-H Water Supply Watersheds are located within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the
proposed action
Wetlands are treated in Section 4.1.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
The biota and natural and secondary communities are all typical of the western
Piedmont region. No unusual or especially significant elements were located during the
field investigation Only common names are used in the discussion below after the
scientific name is first introduced.
3.1 Plant Communities
The natural communities of the project area appear to be predominantly Dry-Mesic
Oak-Hickory Forest on ridgetops, mid-slopes and upper slopes. Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest and Basic Mesic Forest form on some lower short slopes, in ravines,
and on long steep slopes and bluffs (regardless of aspect) adjacent to the Henry Fork
River. Piedmont Alluvial Forest is found on the river floodplain and along the flatter small
stream segments.
Good, well-developed or mature examples of these communities exist as remnants
in the project area. Much of the landscape is built-up or consists of road and associated
maintained R/W. A small part of the project area in the southern end is predominantly
pastureland. The largest unbroken tract of forested land lies between SR 1213 and NC
127, encompassing a small stream drainage system. A narrow linear riverine forest system
follows the Henry Fork River. Only very small isolated forest stands remain elsewhere.
The extensive human development has resulted in a diverse array of successional,
immature and maintained communities, most of which are fragmented in distribution.
These are recognized as follows: roadside community, residential landscape, pastureland,
scrub thickets and borders, herbaceous successional community, early woody successional
community, pine forest, and mixed pine and hardwood forest.
Occasional large hardwood trees over 79 cm (30 in) dbh occur throughout in
forests and borders. Most of the woodlands are disturbed. Trash and junk are widely
distributed. The Mixed Pine and Hardwood Forest has suffered a recent bark beetle
outbreak, killing most of the largest pines. Salvage cutting has occurred in much of this
forest.
3. 1.1 Dry--Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest
This is probably the typical natural forest community for most of the area, but it
transitions broadly to Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest and Basic Mesic Forest. Dominant
or abundant canopy trees are white oak (Quercus alba) and mockemut hickory (Carya
tomentosa). Tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera) is frequently common. Beech (Faeus
andifolia saplings and small trees are often common. Other usual lesser components of
the canopy are post oak (Quercus stellata), southern red oak &. falcata), black oak (Q_
velutina , scarlet oak (Q coccinea), red maple (Acer rubrum), black gum (Nyssa
is vy atica), hackberry Celtis sp.), black cherry runus serotina), black walnut Ju lans
ni a , and shortleaf pine inus echinata). Other trees occasionally present include
persimmon (Diospyros virg• iuiiana), pignut hickory (Cara ovalis), sand hickory pallida), Virginia pine inus virginiana), northern red oak uercus bra), water CC.
oak (Q
Wg a), and willow oak . hellos). The most important subcanopy tree is usually
dogwood Comus florida), but hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), serviceberry
(Amelanchier sp.), sassafras S( as safras albidum), American holly Ilex Waaca), and red
mulberry ores rubra) also occur. Typical shrubs are black haw ibumum prunifolium)
and blueberry (Vaccinium vacillansl, but occasional privet (Ligustrum sinense also occur.
Muscadine grape (Nibs rotundifolia), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus gWMuefolia),
common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicerai@ponica)
are common vines, but poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) is the most abundant.
Common herbs include Catesby's trillium (Trillium catesbaei) and false Solomon's seal
(Smilacina racemosa), but other typical species include wild licorice (Galium circaezans),
common blue violet (Violapapilionacea), skullcap (Scutellaria sp.), avers (Geum sp.), tick-
trefoil (Desmodium spp.), bellwort (Uvularig pudica), meadow parsnip (Thaspium sp.),
crownbeard (Verbesina sp.), rattlesnake-root renanthes sp.), rosinweed (Silphium sp.),
elephant foot (Elephantopus sp.), St. John's-wort (Hvnericum hypericoides), panic grass
(Panicum spp.), grape fern (Botrychium virginianum), Christmas fem (Polystichum
acrostichoides), ebony spleenwort ( lenium platyneuron), and ground pine
(Loco on dium flabelliforme). Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineum) maybe locally
abundant on the lower sides of slopes.
7
3.1.2 Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
Dominant or abundant canopy trees are white oak, northern red oak, tulip tree, and
mockernut hickory. Beech is common, but large trees are rare. The canopy may also
include white ash (Fraxinus americana), black walnut, hackberry, and occasional large
shortleaf pine. Silverbell (Halesia caroling), ironwood, serviceberry, American holly,
sassafras, and redbud (Cercis canadensis) are common small trees. Locally important
shrubs are rosebay rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum), pink azalea a.
nudiflorum), mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), doghobble (Leucothoe axMaris var.
editorum), sweetshrub (Calycanthus floridus), and privet. Japanese honeysuckle and saw
greenbrier (Smilax bona-nox) are locally important. The herb layer is dense and includes
wild comfrey (Cynoglossum virginianum), agrimony (Agimonia sp.), lopseed ftngna
le top stachya), rue anemone (Thalictrum thalictroides), Solomon's seal (Poky og_ nattum
biflorum), false Solomon's seal, bugbane (Cimicifuga racemosa), Jack-in-the-pulpit
(Arisaema triphyllum), jewelweed I atiens sp.), foamflower (Tiarella cordifolia), bluet
(Houstonia purpurea), thimbleweed (Anemone virginiana), Indian cucumber-root
(Medeola virg.. ), pipsissewa (Chimaphila maculata), rattlesnake plantain (Goodyera
pubescens). bellwort (Uvularia perfoliata), wild yam (Dioscorea villosa), dittany (Cunila
origanoides), Christmas fern, lady fern (Athyrium asnlenioides), and shining club moss
a copodium lucidulum).
The best developed, large, mature, and high quality example of this community lies
just to the south of Alternates 2-4 on a long steep east-facing slope extending about 30 m
(100 ft) in height above the Henry Fork River floodplain on the CSI farm property. This
community includes dense shrub layers of rosebay rhododendron and doghobble which
were not found elsewhere. The stand would not be impacted by construction.
Other examples of this community type are small and fragmentary, frequently
occurring on the short steep cliffs and bluffs above the river and on a few lower slopes
elsewhere.
3.1.3 Basic Mesic Forest
This community was the most difficult to define, but it appears to be expressed in
ravines and on slopes above floodplains with broad intergradations to Piedmont Alluvial
Forest, Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, and Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest. It may be
only a mesic successional phase.
The dominant trees are tulip tree and walnut. Other species that may occur in the
canopy are silver maple (Acer saccharinum), boxelder (A. negundo), red maple,
honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos), and hackberry. Ironwood and red mulberry may be in
the subcanopy. Frequently occurring shrubs are multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), black
haw, privet, and swamp dogwood (Comus stricta). Herb development is usually lush,
particularly including jewelweed, pokeweed (Ph olacca americana), and Japanese grass.
8
3.1.4 Piedmont Alluvial Forest
There are essentially two variations of this community, one occurring on the
floodplain of the Henry Fork River, the other found along small streams.
On the floodplain, the canopy is dominated by river birch (Betula nig a) and
sycamore latanus occidentalis). Common species include bitternut hickory (Carva
cordiformis), silver maple, boxelder, and tulip tree. Other species that are occasionally
present include black walnut, red maple, white ash (Fraxinus americana var. biltmoreana),
hackberry (Celtis laevigata), sweetgum (Liu uidambar aciflua), and black willow (Salix
W.gra). The subcanopy may include ironwood, silverbell and red mulberry. Shrubs of the
floodplain are commonly spicebush (Lindera benzoin), raspberry and blackberry (R bus
spp.), multiflora rose, and swamp dogwood. Vines are often dense and include poison ivy,
grapes (Vitis spp.), common greenbrier, and Japanese honeysuckle. The canopy is
frequently rather open, and a vine/shrub/subcanopy layer forms dense thickets. Common
herbs are jewelweed, Japanese grass, and false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica). Other herbs
that occur include marsh dewflower (Aneilema keisak), beggar-ticks (Bidens sp.),
common blue violet, cut-leaf coneflower (Rudbeckia laciniata), pokeweed, ironweed
(Vernonia sp.), wingstem (Verbesina sp.), Joe-pye weed (Eupatorium sp.), spikegrass
(Uniola sp.), and sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis). Water willow (Justicia amencana is
occasional in the river shallows, and a narrow fringe of overhanging black willow occurs
in spots on the riverbank.
Along some of the small stream reaches, the canopy is variously composed of red
maple, sycamore, black walnut, persimmon, black willow, and ironwood. Common shrubs
are tag alder (Alms serrulata ,elderberry Sambucus canadensis privet, swamp
dogwood, giant cane (Arundinaria gib), and yellow-root (Xanthorhiza n cissima).
Grapes may be present. The common herbs are Virginia knotweed (Tovara vir),
grape fern, hog peanut (Amphicazpa bracteata), common blue violet, cinnamon vine
(Dioscorea batatas), dayf lower (Commelina sp.), foamflower, bugleweed (L cL opus sp.),
buttercup (Ranunculus recurvatus), Joe-pye weed, Japanese grass, spikegrass, panic grass,
grape fern, and lady fern.
3.1.5 Mixed Pine and Hardwood Forest
This widely occurring community is probably a late successional phase of the Dry-
Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest. The primary difference is the predominance of large
shortleaf pine and Virginia pine, averaging 40-46 cm (16-18 in) dbh. These lands may
have been formerly cleared or selectively cut. Tulip tree is usually the dominant
hardwood, but any of the other hardwoods of the previously discussed Dry-Mesic Oak-
Hickory Forest may be present as canopy trees or transgressives. Shrubs and subcanopy
trees are similar. Three species not previously noted are strawberry-bush (Euonymus
americanus), beaked hazelnut (Corgi cornuta), and a different bluet (H stoma
longifolia).
9
Much of this forest has suffered a massive pine bark beetle infestation. Most of
the larger pines are dead. There are a lot of fallen pines and thickets, often with dense
Japanese honeysuckle. Much of the large tract northwest of the Brookford Community
Center has been cut over recently, probably to salvage the dead pines, but the hardwoods
also were cut. The forest just to the east of SR 1213 is intact, but with mostly standing
dead pines.
3.1.6 Pine Forest
These are old fields and clearings, now dominated by one of either or both
shortleaf and Virginia pine. Some stands are rather young in a sapling stage, others are
mature pines. The expected hardwood transgressives are present. Occasional red cedar
(Jp)erus virginiana) may occur. An occasional silver maple was noted. Shrubs and
vines typically included blackberry, Japanese honeysuckle, poison ivy, cat greenbrier
(Smilax g_lauca), common greenbrier, and muscadine grape. Herbs of the mature forests
are not present. The common herbs here include sericea (Lespedeza cuneata), other
lespedezas (LeWedeza spp.), asters (Aster spp.), yarrow (Achillea millifolium), bluegrass
(Poa sp.), oatgrass (Danthonia sericea), and other grasses oaceae).
3.1.7 Ear , Woody Successional Community
These communities occur in a few old fields and under a power line R/W north of
the mill village. Typical saplings include red maple, tulip tree, boxelder, honey locust, red
cedar, and pines. Silver maple was noted in several upland sites. In a wet area, ash
(Fraxinus sp.) and black willow were predominant. Under the R/W, there was mostly
coppice of white oak, tulip tree, red maple, sassafras, and sourwood (Oxydendrum
arboreum). Blackberry, grape, multiflora rose, Japanese honeysuckle, trumpet creeper
(Campsis radicans), common greenbrier, winged sumac (Rhus copallina), and smooth
sumac (R. glabra) are common. Typical herbs included sericea, aster, wingstem
(Verbesina alternifolia , morning- glory (IIpomoea sp.), passion flower (Passiflora
incarnate), dwarf dandelion (Krigia sp.), dogbane (Antic, mum ium sp.), thorough-wort
(Eupatorium hyssopifolium), plantain (Plantaao aristata), black- eyed Susan (Rudbeckia
hirta), phlox (Phlox carolina), tickseed (Coreopsis major), sensitive-brier (Schrankia
microphylla), wild strawberry (Fragaria vir?), golden-rod (Soli o sp.), Queen
Anne's lace (Daucus carota), butterfly weed (Asclepias tuberosa), sunflower (Helianthus
sp.), bluestem (Andropogon sp.), panic grass, and other legumes (Fabaceae) and
composites (Asteraceae).
3.1.8 Early Herbaceous Successional Community
These communities varied by site, depending on the disturbance history. The
difference between this and the previous community is only a matter of degree. They are
not widespread in the project area. A typical upland community included sericea, Queen
Anne's lace, chicory (Cichorium in , bus), orchard grass (Dec lis glomerata), fescue
10
(Festuca spp.), and melic grass (Melica mutica), with an occasional shrub, vine or sapling
present. In a low area, the dominant species were golden-rod, cinnamon vine, fleabane
(Eri eg ron sp.), and rush (Juncus goriaceus), with some sporadically occurring cut-leaf
coneflower and wingstem.
3.1.9 Roadside Community
Typical occasionally mowed roadside communities consisted of sericea, plantain,
wild lettuce (Lactuca sp.), orchard grass, fescues, foxtail (Setaria sp.), broomsedge
(Andropo gon virginicus), and Japanese honeysuckle.
There is not much difference between this community and the preceding Early
Herbaceous Successional Community on well-drained sites.
3.1.10 Scrub Thickets and Borders
Scrub thicket or tree border communities commonly occur along fence rows, over
ditches, edges of forests, and in disturbed areas. They are frequently virtually
impenetrable, especially those in low areas such as next to a floodplain. Trash was
frequently encountered in these places. Upland thickets were often composed of mixes of
blackberry, Japanese honeysuckle, poison ivy, smooth sumac, golden-rod, fleabane,
wingstem, and ox-eye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum). Thickets in low areas
commonly included mixtures of blackberry, multiflora rose, privet, Japanese honeysuckle,
grape, pokeweed, golden-rod, sunflower, and ironweed. Various saplings and trees are
sometimes part of this community. In a couple of areas, kudzu (Pueraria lobata) and
knotweed (Po ovum cuspidatuml each alone had almost 100% of the coverage.
3. 1.11 Maintained Pastureland and Residential Landscapes
These communities dominated by grasses, landscape ornamentals, and residual
native plants make up large parts of the project area.
3.2 Terrestrial Fauna
The wildlife and other fauna are less easily observed than the flora of an area
without special efforts being expended. Evidence of the typical fauna is sought through
habitat evaluation, casual sightings, and observation of sounds, tracks, scats, dens, and
other indirect evidence. Study of range distributions are also important in estimating the
expected fauna of a given area.
Descriptions of the expected fauna of the project area, given the evidence available
and the human population density and development, are given below. Those taxa actually
observed in the field are noted with an asterisk (*) in the text.
11
The mix of habitat types and ecotonal areas is beneficial for many species, but the
fragmented distribution and size of the habitats is detrimental for others. The landscape
diversity in the area is judged to be generally good for bird diversity, except those
requiring interiors of large unbroken tracts of forest. Large mammals, notably white-tailed
deer (Odocoileus virginianus), appear to be absent from the area. There are no ponds,
lakes or marshes that would usually harbor a distinct array of reptiles, birds and mammals.
Based on available habitat, animals are here divided into four general groups, three
mostly expected in a specific habitat type, and the fourth being somewhat ubiquitous.
These are more open areas, consisting of fields, pastures, roadsides, successional
meadows, and many residential landscapes; intermediate habitats, consisting of thickets,
hedgerows, most ecotones, and the earlier woody stages of succession; and forest.
Those generally ubiquitous amphibians are American toad (Bufo americanus),
Fowler's toad (B. woodhousei), upland chorus frog seudacris triseriata , and spring
peeper (Hyla crucifer). The slimy salamander (Plethodon lutinosus is expected in
moister forests. Treefrogs (H? sp.) should be common, particularly in the alluvial forest
areas. Most ambystomid salamanders (Ambystoma spp.) are probably uncommon because
of the general lack of suitable breeding pools in the area.
Among the widely distributed reptiles, those occurring here probably include the
five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), black racer (Coluber
constrictor), rough green snake (O heo s aestivus), earth snake (Virgrinica sp.), and
copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix). The eastern hognosed snake is expected in open
areas. In intermediate habitats, likely occurrences include
eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), eastern garter snake (Thamnonhis sirtalis),
and eastern milk snake (Lampropeltis trian ulum). Reptiles in the forested habitats are
*eastern box turtle (Terrapene Carolina), ground skink (Scincella lateralis), brown snake
(Storeria dekavi), redbelly snake (S. occipitomaculata), ringneck snake (D his
punctatus), and worm snake (Carnhophis amoenus).
The avifauna of open areas include *mourning dove (Zenaidea macroura), Meld
sparrow (Spizella pusilla), *common grackle ( uiscalus u), *robin (Turdus
migLatorius), *starling (Stumus vul aris), eastern meadowlark (Sturnella mama),
grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), and eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis).
Birds in intermediate areas include *brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufiun), *mockingbird
(Mimus o lottos), *goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), indigo bunting (PMsenna cyanea),
kingbird (T
yannus 1yrannus), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), and bobwhite
(Colinus viWLmianus). Forest species include various *wood warblers (Parulidael, *wood
thrush (Hvlocichla mustelina), *tufted titmouse (Pares bicolor), *summer tanager (Piranga
rubra), eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), American
redstart (Seto a ruticilla), and blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea). Species
ranging through many habitats include red- tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), screech owl
(Otus asio), *common crow (Corvus brachprhynchos), *cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis),
*Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), *yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus
12
americanus), *blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), *rufous-sided towhee (Pinilo
ervthrophthalmus), and *Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis). A *wood duck (Aix
Wonsa) hen and brood were noted in the Henry Fork River, and green-backed heron
(Butorides striatus) and belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) are expected there also.
The dead and dying large pines in the area are presenting abundant good habitat for a
variety of woodpeckers (Picidae) and several winter resident species such as nuthatches
(Sitta spp.).
Mammals of open and intermediate habitats include southeastern shrew (Sorex
lon irg ogfis), least shrew (Cryptotis pa a), long-tailed weasel (M stela frenata , meadow
vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), hispid cotton rat (Siamodon hispidus), and *groundhog
(Marmota monax). Those ranging into forests as well as open and intermediate habitats
are northern short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda), eastern mole (Scalopus aauatcus),
striped skunk a hitis mephitis), gray fox (U on cinereoaz eng teas), red fox (Vulpes
vul es , white-footed mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), and *eastern cottontail
(Sylvilagus floridanus). Several species shunning open areas, but in the intermediate and
forested areas, include opossum (Didelphis virginiana), pine vole (Microtus inetorum ,
golden mouse (Ochrotomvs nuttalli), southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans), and
usually several kinds of bats (Chiroptera). Exclusively forest species include racoons
(Prod lotor) and *gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis).
3.3 Aquatic Life
Predominant fish of the Henry Fork River are likely smallmouth bass (Micro tp erus
dolomieu), redbreast sunfish a mis auritus), and possibly rock bass (Ambloplites
ru_ eD ris) (Fish 1968). Small fish seen in the larger unnamed perennial tributary are
putatively identified as *rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides) and *creek chub
(Semotilus atromaculatus). The small stream should also be appropriate habitat for
darters (Percidae) and sculpins (Cottidae).
No aquatic amphibians were observed, but the small stream appears suitable for
northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus fimus), two-lined salamander (Er cea
bislineata), possibly marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), and pickerel frog (Rana
palustris). Green frogs (Rana clamitans) might be expected along the Henry Fork River.
Several crayfish (Cambaridae) and a fair number of *caddisfly (Trichoptera) larval
cases were observed in the small stream.
Snapping turtles (Chelydra se entina might be expected in large pools and still
water areas of the Henry Fork River. Northern water snake (Ngrodia siuedon) and queen
snake (Regina seotemvittata) are likely water snakes of the area.
13
3.4 Anticipated Biotic Resource Impacts
3.4.1 Terrestrial Systems
Projected direct impacts due to project construction are given in Table 2.
Calculations are best approximations given the design specifications available and the
precision possible with this study. Alternates 1 were calculated using the R/W presented
on a photomosaic map, often less than 30 m (100 ft) in width. Alternates 2-4 were
calculated using a standard 30 m (100 ft) R/W projected from a center tapeline given on a
map. The actual impacts may be less than those indicated in Table 2.
It is noted that not all of the R/W will be utilized in construction. Typical grade-
out dimensions for curb and gutter constructions are 21 m (68 ft) for a four-lane highway
and 24 m (80 ft) for a five-lane highway.
No alternate emerges as being clearly better in direct takings. All alternates except
Alternate 2 utilize mostly existing R/W. Alternate 2 is on new location for about one- half
its length. The other alternates are about equal in the amount of new location, about 0.4
km (0.3 mi). Alternate 2 would introduce the greatest impact due to fragmentation of
remaining large habitat available in the area. All alternates are about equal with respect to
impact on the Henry Fork River riverine system
Table 2. Impacted area under alternates in hectares (acres).
Alts. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4
Bu 1.1( 2.9) 1.2( 3.0) 3.2( 7.9) 3.1( 7.8)
Pa 0.4( l.0) 0.4 1.0 0.4( l.0) 0.4 1.0
Su 0.3( 0.6) 0.2( 0.5) 0.2( 0.6) 0.3( 0.8)
U 0.4( l.0) 0.3( 0.7) 0.4( 0.9) 0.4( 0.9)
Al 0.2( 0.4) <0.1 .
0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.1
Pi 0.1( 0.2) 0.2( 0.5) <0.1 0.2 0.1( 0.2)
PH 0.3( 0.7) 0.4( l.1) 0.1( 0.2) 0.1( 0.2)
Cu <0.1 <O.1
Ri <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.1
Total 2.7( 6.9) <3.0 7.1 <4.6 11.0 <4.6 <11.0
Bu = built-up, including roadway; Pa = pastureland; Su = early successional and thickets;
Up = upland hardwood forest; A1= alluvial hardwood forest; Pi = pine forest; PH = mixed
pine and hardwood forest; Cu = cut-over forest; Ri = Henry Fork River.
The data in Table 2 suggest only the direct impacts on land and community type
due to construction. However, there are other indirect effects on wildlife population
levels and habitat value, regardless of which alignment is chosen. There will be little or no
net loss of habitat for small animal species and predators and scavengers that utilize open
areas such as roadsides. There will be a reduction in the available habitat for animals that
14

require forest habitats. Mortality rates for all species due to road kills would increase
overall because of the additional R/W that would have to be negotiated by animals in their
movement patterns, i.e., from two to four or five lanes for existing road and for some road
on new location. The most important impact will occur as a result of fragmentation of
habitat for the larger species and for those smaller species that require large tracts of
unbroken forested land (such as many neotropical migrant birds). Road on new location
will introduce another obstacle and barrier zone for many species and shrink the suitable
habitat for others. All alternates have some new location, but Alternate 2 has the greatest
amount.
3.4.2 Aquatic Systems
Impacts on fishes should be minimal if construction is done carefully to reduce
sedimentation and channel alternation and if no barriers to fish movement are introduced.
If small pipe culverts are installed on small streams, there could be behavioral inhibition of
movement for some species.
Removal of streamside vegetation will increase stream temperature and irradiance
and will cause a reduction of allochthonous food sources. These effects will negatively
alter the stream characteristics for some aquatic organisms. Substrate alternation will have
negative effects on sessile benthic organisms.
Increased sediment and pollution from highway construction activity and runoff
pollution after construction are widely recognized as factors that can seriously reduce
water quality. Aquatic organisms are generally acutely sensitive to these inputs.
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
4.1 Jurisdictional Waters of the United States
Highway construction affects wetlands by direct taking and by alteration of
characteristics and functions in adjacent areas. Freshwater wetlands are important because
of their habitat value for fish, wildlife and endangered species; maintenance of biological
diversity; food chain support; nutrient retention and removal; sediment trapping; shoreline
anchoring; regulation of flooding and groundwater hydrology; recreation; their uniqueness
in their own right; and their aesthetic value in some case. Highway construction in
wetlands has major impacts on their value for these functions.
Wetlands and surface waters receive specific protection under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251- 1376) and other federal and state statutes and
regulations. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has jurisdiction over the discharge
of dredged or fill materials into these waters and wetlands. Determination of jurisdictional
wetlands were made pursuant to 33 CFR 328.3 (b) based on best judgement of required
criteria (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
15
Alluvial forested wetlands are the only kind naturally present in the project area,
and they are not widespread. Any selected alternate will involve crossing the riverine
system of the Henry Fork River. Alternates 1 will affect the largest area, crossing in a
wider floodplain. The river floodplain may present some problem wetlands; i.e., there is
predominantly hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology, but field indicators of
hydric soils are generally absent in these sandy soils except for "wet" spots.
Several small pocket wetlands less than 0.1 ha (<O.1 acre) are located sporadically
through the project area. These small wetlands occur in upper drainages, in depressions,
against slopes, and along streams. At least three of these (#s 1-3 in Fig. 3) are located
along proposed alignments. Each proposed alignment, except for Alternate 4, potentially
impacts at least one of these wetlands (Table 1). The wetlands could be destroyed or
adversely affected, depending on how alignments are sited. It may be easy to avoid them
in construction design and siting.
These wetlands would all be classified as type PF01 (Palustrine, Forested, Broad-
leaved Deciduous), except that #3 might be considered PSS1A (Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub,
Broad- leaved Deciduous) because it is an abandoned formerly cleared bottom (Cowardin
et al. 1979). (see Section 2.3.2 for fiuther discussion)
4. 1.1 Permits
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 to discharge and place fill materials into
any wetlands affected by construction. Because of their location above stream headwaters
(1.5 cros = 5 cfs) and their small size, impacts to the pocket wetlands can be authorized by
Nationwide Permit [33 CFR 330.5 (a) (26)]. Depending on the selected alternate and
design, it may be that impacts to the Henry River floodplain and riverine system can be
authorized under General Permit, otherwise an Individual Permit will be required.
Nationwide and General Permits authorize actions that have no significant environmental
effect.
A 401 Water Quality Certification from the Water Quality Section of the Division
of Environmental Management in NCDEHNR will be required for fill activity in wetlands
and surface waters where a federal permit is required.
4.1.2 Miti ag tion
The project may still potentially cause unavoidable losses of a small amount of
palustrine wetlands. However, compensatory mitigation is generally not required where
Nationwide Permits or General Permits are authorized, pursuant to a Memorandum of
Understanding between the Environmental Protection Agency and the COE. Final
discretionary authority in these matters rests with the COE.
16
Nonetheless, utmost care must be taken in designing and placing the bridge over
the Henry Fork River in order to minimize impact. Properly installed and appropriate
kinds of drainage culverts will help minimize impacts to pocket wetlands. Appropriate
erosion control devices will have to be installed to prevent avoidable storm water
discharges into streams and wetlands, and soil stabilization measures must be taken as
quickly as possible during and after construction of banks, fills, graded areas, culverts,
bridges, and other areas where the -soil will be disturbed.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Species classified as Threatened (T), Endangered (E), Proposed Threatened (PT),
and Proposed Endangered (PE) receive federal protection under Section 7 and Section 9
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of March 30, 1994, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service reports only one species with one of these classifications for Catawba
County.
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) is classified as Threatened
status. This status means that the taxon is likely to become Endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant part of its range. The dwarf-flowered
heartleaf occurs in rich deciduous forests, bluffs and ravines. It is a small evergreen herb,
very similar to several other Hexastylis species, therefore, it is easily overlooked. It has
been found in only five southwestern Piedmont counties of North Carolina, including
Catawba County (Weakley 1993).
No Hexastylis were noted in the project area during the field work, though
potential habitat does exist in the project area. On May 4, 1994, the NCDOT
Environmental Unit conducted a walking plant by plant survey for this species in the
project area (NCDOT memorandum, May 9, 1994). No populations of the plant were
found.
Biological Conclusion: No effect
Construction of this project will have no adverse effect on any federally protected
animal or plant species.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Protected Species
Candidate 2 taxa (C2) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions until formally proposed or listed as E or T. C2
species show some evidence of vulnerability, but there are not enough data to support
listing proposals at this time.
17
North Carolina affords protection to Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern
(SC) species in the state. Plants are legally protected under the Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979, and animals are legally protected under the N.C. Endangered
Species Act of 1987.
The data base of the Rare Species at the Natural Heritage Program was consulted
to determine the possible occurrence(s) of the protected and sensitive species.
Only two taxa were listed as federal candidate species for Catawba County (Table
3). They are mentioned here for information purposes in the event they become federally
listed in the future. The state listing is also given.
Table 3. Federal Candidate and State Listed species for Catawba County.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FED. CAT. STATE CAT.
Catawba crayfish ostracod Dag lothere isabelae C2
Sweet inesa Monotro sis odorata C2 C
C = candidate, very rare in N.C., generally with 1-20 populations
The ostracod (seed shrimp) is a tiny crustacean less than 0.5 nun long known only
from its type locality along a tributary of Lyle Creek 4.0 km (2.5 mi) north of Conover,
east of the project area. Nothing is known about this obligate external symbiont of a
burrowing cambarid crayfish (Scientific Council 1992). Its presence in the project area
cannot be excluded. This crustacean is not listed in LeGrand (1990).
The sweet pinesap is a non-chlorophyllous, probably saprophytic small
inconspicuous herb that occurs in dry forests and on bluffs. It occurs in 21 N.C. counties,
essentially in the north-central Piedmont and southern mountains (Weakley 1993).
Potential habitat for this species occurs in the project area, but none or any similar species
were observed during the field work.
5.0 REFERENCES
Adams, W. F. (compiler). 1992. A report on the conservation status of North Carolina's
freshwater and terrestrial crustacean fauna. Scientific Council on Freshwater and
Terrestrial Crustaceans. Report to North Carolina Nongame Wildlife Advisory
Committee, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
Brewer, E. O. 1975. Soil survey of Catawba County, North Carolina. U.S.D.A., Soil
Conservation Service, Washington, DC.
18
I
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Biological Services Program, Washington, DC. Publ. No. FWS/OBS-79/31.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Tech. Report
Y-87-1.
Fish, F. F. 1968. A catalog of the inland fishing waters in North Carolina. North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries, Raleigh, NC. Final
Report, Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Project, F-14- R.
Godfrey, M. A. 1980. A Sierra Club Naturalist's Guide to the Piedmont. Sierra Club
Books, San Francisco.
LeGrand, H. E., Jr. 1990. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare animal species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Martof, B. S., W. M. Palmer, J. R. Bailey, and J. R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. Univ. of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management. 1988 and 1989. Benthic macroinvertebrate ambient network
(BMAN) water quality review. 1983-1986, Report No. 88-03. 1983-1988, Report No.
89-08. Water Quality Section. Raleigh, NC.
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. 1991. Biological
assessment of water quality in North Carolina streams: benthic macroinvertebrate data
base and long-term change in water quality, 1983-1990. Water Quality Section. Raleigh,
NC.
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. 1993. Classification
and water quality standards assigned to the waters of the Catawba River basin. Division
of Environmental Management, Raleigh, NC. (Reprint from NCAC: 15A NCAC
2B.0308)
North Carolina Geological Survey. 1985. Geologic map of North Carolina. North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of
Land Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Potter, E. F., J. F. Parnell, and R. P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Univ. of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
19
Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the
Carolinas. Univ. of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Reed, P. B., Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Southeast
(Region 2). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Biological Report 88(26.2).
Rohde, F. C., R. G. Arndt, D. G. Lindquist, and J. F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater fishes of
the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. Univ. of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill, NC.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of
North Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
NC.
Soil Conservation Service. 1991. Hydric soils of Catawba County, NC. Technical Guide,
Section II-A-2. U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service, Raleigh, NC.
Weakley, A. S. 1993. Natural Heritage Program List of the rare plants of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Webster, W. D., J. F. Parnell, and W. C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. Univ. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
20
HOUSE OF
9ZN `a\\ / II I
PRAYER q Y
4 b ti' d C ?
m C) ?? ? ?? f N9<N S„, ? 10TH
'=1 L N O •!L Q?• y
1297 y ?d CH. OF GOD 2i END
1358 N I vE PROJECT
CL. -1
I T Y ` 1186 CATAWBA 107H AvE. S.W. •CN P
MALL
` ! ?E•5.
1304
S
1464 '
LIMIT
1184, !"g22
64
14TH AVE. S. W. 32O ,
v w °? ?* HICKORY %: 4 ?-•?
1183 3 o y : MENNONITE
r/ of m ?? h CH. $? T
12 95
L ? S•w• Ty
1 ?
?- - SOUTH- r
pvE.
`GEM' SIDE / /14TH
_-? CEM. L DR• S.E.
s 11SO
' /15TH AVE. S.W. [. F
Uf t3 ?_
br v// eo g S.W.
a 1244
z ?
1213 BR00 ORD jaZf?-'..
FAITH UNITED w T
r.rr.r rsr+?? •.,? /
Cm.QF CHRIST r•.•rrs r.
C
V ..¦ RQ?skFORD RAPT. H. .? O
19TH AVE. : •r I \ /
e /
\ i ? 20TH qyE ?
6TH
1sT ST • '/ HILLSI 2529 1173
BA PT.
y? E
BAR
1 ? DER : ® :.tom'
BROOKFORD
a f ? ?
/ eo L `M>,T
1179,
S•
BEGIN
SOUTH WEST HICKORY /
` PROJECT DISPOSAL PLANT
127 y _ / 25i7 1 11 CITY L J
1262 1262
--? 2$14
FORK

1262
LEGEND
ALTERNATE 1
ALTERNATE 2
ALTERNATE 3
ALTERNATE 4
ALTERNATE 5
............ 4( RRORERTIEB
%??N I
J ,

1
t tao CATAwnA
1 MALL \??? I! ??
1 1304 p/y e
1213 1464
T M 1184
N
I 14 y Sp £1 ? ? ?
4vE• S. W. 1 2
) \ ^ i
1183 _? > \ 321 '
D I D 1111' 11;;KC RV
2 I} NNONITE ?\ \\
it
-?
` I \w
1 0 I \, / 1 -1
r r VAO 1
- -, SOUTH- I r ` r
rGEMr SIDE AVE.
- CE M• / TM 1
IJ f,- _
- ? c s 1180
T
'STS ]?-c 5. A•. IL
ri
? r
\ (- /
1244 n
;?, 1• y BRUOKFO RO SCH, AII,
FAITH UN E0 C7
'. OF ':HRI;T
R a'ORO RAPT. r,H,
?. ry
01
S; c
2529
.
A
_ BROOKFORC
r tA
1179,
y
;(. l; T'~ NE=T y•
?'-ANT
:.y ( 1179 + / `\
25
?I III
T L J I
2514 X62 - / 1262 /
LEGEND
¦ m s In 4-LANE (NEW LOCATIONI
?www? 4-LANE (WIDENING EXISTLNG)
. ¦ ¦? ¦ s 'S-LANE (NEW LOCATION)
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT CF
1
TRANSPORTATION
FORK DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
i / ??_ - ---- PLANNING AND RESEARCH BRANC'
1262 CATAWBA COUNTY, HICKORY
SR 1213 (2nd ST. S.W.) FROM
PROPOSED INTERCHANGE US 70,1321 TO PROPOSED US 321
??rdA AND NC 127 FROM PROPOSED US 321 TO SR '132
U-2530
Figure 2. _
n. ' e0e
C:7
Z? •r? ? ? o.< ?\v? ,?; .?. 11\, , 11 i ?.?_?, I. _? e' ? ?'?f?" TM l ? ..?i - / y
[ t c.. II
f_ y .i-1 - ?,?, ??. R9 ??'\ I L '• I ?? I ?-. '?p11 /? - ` 21 Claremeat Centel O ...
f ` )
U Li
* ? ? , 2 ? Atl ?? ? ?• ''? ?'Iti _ II? \ ~ Hosp?iala6l? \ r ,? [
Park ?
AMM
?J? A?r£ A{? r?i x- --"1 113 i\ AVE
4 ? ,iwvt?=QId r
?? ?,? it 1,;avc '? ? ?I % •?? I?/ ? ?? (? ,! m I ?' l?jl ', ?
ers
T? 61
?! Jr t SQ}? I ?i U i ?p
_ y\
6
it E`--3;, / -%'??'? j I Ip3,i, .:. ;.i©,?;' /:;\ v?\ t
IOU
All
1/ 0/7
?,? `. ` a/'?? III ? \ ''"' j? ? .?(i• ? l?? /ij ? `?:? \\ ? ?J, ? 1 ?•?; ??• ?.
-T 'A
...i\_,n 1??? ?, r.i%? ? `? \\ it ?`? „?%??> ? ? /? ? ._ ? '??,?? ??,\.? --?._H • ?"
_ ?., ? ',Ili ?~`i ?r ?? ??i? ji Mj / ?? ? , I•?? ?j?i? ? ?? ja'?`,\ ?\"'?? .??-';`? M i? ? ? ??! I? i,
?? BE;V R Y f = ` 1,, t p "
ZVI -1
" :?i Off`' :.? .? ' •l ? ? y•. .-\ •.w 'n ??- ??/'/ '---'??? ?`.. '' • ? t -,? ,\'
? v r ?~.?~ ! ??\\? 11??` /??' I r ?./? ??? ?? .\\????//i?/??I?3? ?'/! ?' :;?' ICI ? I '/
? ?. ?;,' ? _ ;e???,. /tom ? \?-/ J)r ? ?, t 1•
?•;?I I I i f Tt . I ? . ' 1 % 1r`-,._/ 6? k. / /? - __ F--?J lt?? ??// ?/?'?II tl \ I?j/ '• ? i `1? •: ? ???? /. ?:
? ^,? Q \\ I \ /? r _? , ////^_ ? ??I(In ^ \ .. mo ?L? /, li\f?_`.??_? ??? j ?t,:1. ?' ? ['/ , / /i/ / ,^ ? /? ? i /)) `. , ?/? ///
XMI
• .\ /: os5- ? 900 ? ' ,? 1 / ,_
i
Figure 3. Wetland sites.
%/--
?? (HICKORY, NC quadrangle 1970)
?t `? • 1121. __°es--

?a y ?s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
9 June 1995
'MEMORANDUM TO: Robert P. Hanson, P.E. Unit Head
Project Planning Unit Head
FROM: Christopher A. Murray, Environmental Biologist
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Natural resources evaluation for Alternate 5 associated with
revisions to N TC 127 from the proposed US 321/NC127
interchange in Catawba County. TIP No.: U-2530B; State
Project No. 8.1792201; Federal Aid No. NHF-127(1).
ATTEN -nON: Beverly Grate, Project Manager
REFERENCE: Natural Resources Technical Report completed by Michael J.
Baranski (June 1994).
Alternate 5 has been added to the proposed alternatives for the subject project.
This alternate, proposed on new location, originates to the south of NC 127 and terminates
south of the SR 1183 (14th Avenue SW) and SR 1213 intersection. The length of this
alternate is approximately 1.0 km (0.6 mi). The proposed right of way width for this
alternate is from 37 to 91 m (120 to 300 ft). General field surveys were conducted along
the proposed alignment by NCDOT Biologist Hal C. Bain on 21 March 1995.
WATER RESOURCES
Water resources located within the project area lie within the Catawba River
Drainage Basin. An unnamed tributary of Henry Fork is located in the project area (Figure
1). The unnamed tributary, which originates approximately 610 m (2,000 ft) northeast of
Alternate 5, flows southwesterly approximately 2.0 km (1.3 mi) to its confluence with
Henry Fork. This tributary is approximately 1.2 to 1.8 m wide (4.0 to 6.0 ft) wide and 15
to 30 cm (6 to 12 in) deep. The substrate is comprised of sand, silt, gravel, and cobble.
Siltation is prevalent throughout the unnamed tributary and the flow rate of the water body
is slow.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of
Em,7ronmental Management (DEM). The best usage classification of unnamed tributaries
F. ? i
-'
NORTH CAJZOUNA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
Approximate Locations of
Wetland and Stream Resources
U-2530B
Catawba County
1:24000 Fig. 1
?I III
!
LM -
_t1,
t ^ L
f ~r
sx Wood`
I2
-? Cemete
?- Sch
Libiary?I ?R` R1 1
\\yij-? Hosp+tai+?'?
P,bfiee- I
_P0
?`-
I Grandview (
Jr High Sch.

Sch
I
Lam= ? " I ? ?? j( ??
?Ri rVe
% COLLEGE -:'
lentral1
Radio T er O

_ ? ?95? ? ? :f??l \ \.- 7j'? ?? X03 r • II • ' r. / u? f? (L._I 1 `?\ ,?I ;? ? \. ?t?
? r%i t ? r I: _ /• ?,i. _t1 _ •? 1 V? •?S .-? ' CE ^I 21 - ? Y
V?j
17
A-Al
Substa -- ?\ _ j
S;??t S t
' • `? __?/i :? ?-, ?\ `? ^U .fix ?? •?- •,? ? "' 'a ?•-'. \?••.'^-11 ?N' ! d '?/?'. /f
- <-UT of Henry Fork
Rad•Io?To^w,e9ro 1 11 ) ?°°' t \ `Jl'
IF
.i .911_ ? ?. 0 -• _ % ''?' '?, .. ` , = +1171
%? ,o f lnate1?5
7?? ? 7 1 '?`F
II' R\? _1/\? ??- - =
NRY _ •?r rookford --:1'
.-Set:
66
Sew e
W. 00sa
•A1
it;
r t, i1 ,ti's, ,M_, ?:• ?/\ PORK
l~?- ` \st ?!? i
• •' \ •a 1086• Mountain View
Sch, i.\J/- ,'? •?? _ ter- '?% `,
980
I
is the same as the water body to which they are a tributary. The best usage classification
for Henry Fork is C. Class C waters are defined as suitable for aquatic life propagation
and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Neither high quality
waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS-2) nor Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of Alternate 5. Benthic Macroinvertebrate (BMAN)
sampling in 1985 of an unnamed tributary above and below SR 1213 in the vicinity of
Alternate 5 yielded a "poor" classification.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Five distinct terrestrial communities are identified in the project study area and
include cutover forest, mixed pine-hardwood forest, built-up community, early successional
and thicket, and pine forest. Community boundaries are frequently ill-defined in some
habitats; contiguous communities often merge without any transition zone between them.
Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate the entire range of terrestrial
communities discussed.
Cut Over
. This community, which is prevalent throughout Alternate 5, has been disturbed in
the recent past by land clearing activities. This habitat is dominated by tulip tree
(Liriodendron tulipifera), sour`vood (Oxydendrum arboreum), black cherry (Prunus
serotina), red maple (Acer rubrum), American dogwood (Cornus florida) and American
holly (Ilex opaca). Herbs and vines occupying this portion of the project area include
broomsedge (Andropogon sp.), catbrier (Smilax sp.), club moss (Lycopodium sp.) and
strawberry (Fragaria virginiana). The flora observed in a power line clearing included
Japanese honeysuckle, privet (Ligustrum sinense), sassafras (Sassafras albidum),
blackberry (Rubus sp.), tulip tree, and Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium maculatum).
Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest
The mixed pine hardwood community exhibits a diverse canopy dominated by tulip
tree, red maple, sourwood, beech (Fagus grandifolia), shortleaf pine (Pins echinata),
scrub pine (P. strobus), and several species of oaks including white oak (Quercus alba),
post oak (Q. stellata), southern red oak (Q. falcata), and black oak (Q. velutina). The
subcanopy is comprised of American holly, privet, mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia),
sourwood, beech, blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), hickory (Carya sp.), dogwood, and
hazlenut (Corylus americana). Crane-fly orchid (Tipularia discolor), christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), heardeaf
(Hexastylis heterophylla), and catbrier are located in the herbaceous and vine layer.
I
Built-up Community
This habitat, which includes residential lawn community and roadshide shoulder, is
typically dominated by violet (Viola sp.), plantain (Plantago sp.), henbit (Lamium
amplericaule), Carolina geranium (Geranium carolinianum), wild onion (Allium sp.), and
bluets (Houstonia sp.). Several species of ornamental trees are located in this community
and include shortleaf pine, scrub pine, white pine (Pinus strobus), beech, and red maple.
Early Successional and Thicket
Shrub-scrub habitat commonly occur along previously disturbed habitats including
fence rows and over ditches. This community is dominated by scrub pine, shortleaf pine,
tulip tree, black cherry, red maple, red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), Japanese
honeysuckle, and blackberry (Rubus sp.).
Pine Forest
This habitat is dominated by shortleaf pine and scrub pine; however, pipsissewa
(Chimaphila maculata), Japanese honeysuckle, catbrier, and wild chervil (Chaerophyllum
tainturieri) are commonly observed herbs and vines located in this community.
Terrestrial Fauna
Wildlife observed during this site visit included American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), northern cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), common flicker (Colaptes auratus), blue
jay (Cyanocitta cristata), Carolina chickadee (Pares carolinensis), yellow-rumped warbler
(Dendroica coronata), roufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), brown thrasher
(Toxostoma rufum), American robin (Turdus migratorius), Carolina wren (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), and northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos). These species may be
found throughout communities associated with project alignment. Crayfish (Family
Procambus), dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), sunfish (Lepomis spp.), and
shiner (Notropis spp,) are located in the unnamed tributary located in the project area.
SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Construction of Alternate 5 will have various impacts on the biotic resources
described above. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have the
potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies impacts to the natural
resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected. Calculated impacts to
terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each community present in the study
area. Table 1 summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic communities resulting
from project construction. The proposed right of way width for this alternate is from 37 to
91 m (120 to 300 $). Estimated impacts are calculated using maximum reported right-of-
I
way width. Project construction often does not require the entire right of way; therefore,
actual impacts may be less.
Table 1. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Community
Alternate 5
Built-up Community 2.7 ha (6.7 ac)
Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest 1.7 ha (4.2 ac)
Cutover 2.3 ha (5.7 ac)
Early Successional and Thicket 0.9 ha (2.2 ac)
Pine Forest 0.5 ha (1.2 ac)
Total Impacts 8.1 ha (20.0 ac)
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
There are no wetlands located on this portion of the project; however, surface
waters (specifically an unnamed tributary to Henry Fork) bisect Alternate 5. The
construction of Alternate 5 will impact these water bodies. In accordance with provisions
of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for the discharge of dredged or fill material into
"Waters of the United States". Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (14) or Nationwide
Permit 330.5(a) (26) are likely applicable for impacts to surface waters of the United
States from the proposed project. A North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (DEM) Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is also required for
any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge into waters of the
United States. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DEM is a prerequisite to issuance of
a Section 404 permit.
RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline
either due to natural forces or their inability to cope with man. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action,
likely to affect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under
separate state laws.
Federaft Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of
I
March 28, 1995, the FWS lists the dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora), a
threatened species, for Catawba County.
Hexastylis naniflora (dwarf-flowered heartleaf)
Plant Family: Aristolochiaceae
Federally Listed: April 14, 1989
Distribution in North Carolina: Burke, Catawba, Cleveland, Lincoln, Rutherford
The dwarf-flowered heardeaf is found only in five northern piedmont counties in
North Carolina and adjacent portions of South Carolina. The dwarf-flowered heartleaf has
heart-shaped leaves, supported by long thin petioles that grow from a subsurface rhizome.
The leaves are dark green in color, evergreen, and leathery. Flowers are small,
inconspicuous, jugshaped, and dark brown in color. They are found near the base of the
petioles. Fruits mature from mid-May to early July.
This species of heartleaf can be located along bluffs and their adjacent slopes, in
boggy areas next to streams and creekheads and along the slopes of nearby hillsides and
ravines. It grows in acidic soils in regions with a cool moist climate. Regional vegetation is
described as upper piedmont oak-pine forest and as part of the southeastern mixed forest.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Habitat for dwarf-flowered heartlef occurs in the proposed location of Alternate 5,
specifically in the mixed pine-hardwood forest. A plant-by-plant survey for this species
was conducted during this site visit (which occurred during the flowering season);
however, no individuals of this protected plant are located in the project area. Therefore,
this project will not impact dwarf-flowered heartleaf. An additional species of heardeaf
(Hexastylis heterophylla), that is not protected, is located in the mixed pine hardwood
forest.
Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
There are two federal candidate (C2) species listed for Catawba County. Federal
candidate species are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. C2 species are defined as organisms
which are vulnerable to extinction although no sufficient data currently exist to warrant a
listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened.
Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC)
by the North Carolina Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded
state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
The Catawba crayfish ostracod (Dachdothere isabelae), listed as SR (Significantly
Rare) in North Carolina, is a crustacean known only from its type locality along a tributary
of Lyle Creek. Sweet pinesap (Afonotropsis odorata), listed as C (Candidate) in North
Carolina, is a non-chlorophyllous herb that is known to occur in dry bluffs. Suitable
habitat for this plant is located in Alternate 5; however, this species was not observed
during the site visit.
IMPORTANT
To C
Date 6 Time
HILE Y U WERE T
M
of
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
Messaae a ' Z'530
'21
i/c?J Gt.?,1 /rv?
B
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources

??? c? C?,
r
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
J DATE
uly 20, 1993
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
Mr, Eric 3alamb DEM-DEHNR
FROM: Maria Osborne P RfFE . NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS FOR YOUR INFORMATION
(
3
? PLEASE ANSWER -
,y3
9 FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
0-2530 - Catawba County
Scoping meeting minutes
R _

W JUL 2210
WETLANDS GROUP
ATER QUALITY SECTION

??-
-"?'
,?
-> ??f

Q aw„ ?`
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
July 20, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Maria Osborne
Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Meeting for the widening of NC 127
from SR 1132 to SR 1008 and the extension and widening
of SR 1213 from the proposed US 321/NC 127 Interchange
to SR 1184, Catawba County, Federal Aid Project
No. NHF-127(1), State Project No. 8.1792201,
TIP Project No. U-2530
On July 13, 1993 a scoping meeting was held for the subject project in
the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room. The following were in
attendance:
Chuck Hansen City Engineer - Hickory
Tom Carr Planning Director - Hickory
Robin Stancil Dept. of Cultural Resources
Don Wilson Location and Surveys
Danny Rogers Program Development
Betty Yancey Right of Way
Nabil Hasan Traffic Control
Linh Ngyen Statewide Planning
Keith Johnston Photogrammetry
Jack Matthews Photogrammetry
Herman Lancaster Roadway Design
Jerry Page Roadway Design
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
Brian Williford Hydraulics
Ray Moore Structure Design
Merrie Salvo Structure Design
Rob Hanson Planning and Environmental
Bill Goodwin Planning and Environmental
Maria Osborne Planning and Environmental
0
July 20, 1993
Page 2
The following topics were discussed:
1. The project description will be changed to the following:
Part A: Widening of NC 127 from SR 1132 to SR 1008
Part B: Extension and widening of SR 1213 from the
proposed US 321/NC 127 interchange to SR 1184
2. The project schedule is:
Environmental Assessment: Completion: 5/94
Finding of No Significant Impact: Begin: 7/94
Completion: 11/94
Public Hearing:
Right of Way:
Construction:
Summer 1994
Section A: Post Year
*Section B: 8/96
Section A: Post Year
*Section B: 11/97
*The schedule may be changed in the upcoming T.I.P.
3. There are two structures within the project limits which are
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
Two other structures and a mill village in the project limits may
also be eligible for listing. NCDOT will conduct an architectural
survey for this project. No archaeological survey will be
required.
4. SR 1213 will be designated as NC 127 after completion of the
project and the existing section of NC 127 will be renamed.
5. Several high tension power lines are located within the project
limits. Critical areas in which the se are located include the
intersection of NC 127 and SR 1176, and north of the intersection
of SR 1213 with SR 1183. Overhead p owerlines are also located
along NC 127 and SR 1213. A utility inventory survey for U-2530
has been requested from the Location and Surveys Unit.
6. The existing bridge on SR 1213 over I-40 will not be replaced as
part of this project. The bridge wa s replaced in 1976 and has
sufficient deck width for a four or five lane section. The bridge
has a sufficiency rating of 96.8.
7. A Citizen Information Workshop will be held for this project in
February, 1994.

July 20, 1993
Page 3
8. The new bridge over the Henry Fork River was estimated to be
50.0' x 68.0' on the initial scoping sheets. These dimensions
should have read 64.0' x 200.0' at a cost of $665,600. The City of
Hickory wishes to attach a water line to this new bridge. This
section of the Henry Fork River has a regulatory floodway. A
floodway modification will be required as part of this project.
9. The City of Hickory and Catawba County have contour mapping
available for preparation of preliminary design. Mapping will be
obtained by Location and Surveys Unit by November, 1993.
10. The amount of funding for right of way on each section of the
project is considerably less than estimated in the Feasibility
- Study. New right of way estimates will be prepared after
preparation of preliminary design.
11. The following alternatives will be studied for this project:
Section A:
Alternate 1A: Symmetrical and/or asymmetrical
widening of existing two- and three-lane sections
of NC 127 to a five-lane curb and gutter section
Section B:
Alternate 1B: Build a four-lane curb and gutter
section on new location and widen the existing two-lane
section to a four-lane curb and gutter section.
Alternate 2B: Build a five-lane curb and gutter
section on new location and widen the existing two-lane
section to a five-lane curb and gutter section.
Alternate 3B: Build a five-lane curb and gutter
section on new location and widen the existing two-lane
section to a four-lane curb and gutter section.
Alternate 4B: Build a five-lane curb and gutter
section on new location and widen the existing two-lane
section to a five-lane curb and gutter section tapering
to a four-lane curb and gutter section at the bridge
over I-40.
13. The Roadway Design Unit should prepare a preliminary design on 5.0'
contour mapping showing centerline alignment, construction
easements, and right of way limits. Roadway Design should complete
preliminary design by January 10, 1994 and forward this to the
Planning and Environmental Branch.
July 20, 1993
Page 4
Attached are revised scoping sheets that reflect changes made during
project scoping. Any questions regarding the project should be directed to
me at 733-3141.
MO/sdt
Attachments
cc: Scoping Participants
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date: June 3, 1993 Project Development Stage
Revision Date: July 20, 1993 Programming
Planning X
Design
TIP # U-2530
Project # 8.1792201
F.A. Project # NHF-127(1)
Division: 12
County: Catawba
Route: Section A: NC 127
Section B: SR 1213
Functional Classification: NC 127- Urban Principal Arterial
SR 1213-Rural Major Collector
Length: Total: 4.5 miles, Section A: 3.1 miles, Section B: 1.4 miles
Purpose of Project: The proposed project will provide a more
continuous route for NC 127 through southwest Hickory. The widened
road will also better accomodate future traffic.
Jnder TIP Project R-85B an interchange will be constructed between
sections A and B at the intersection of NC 127 and proposed US 321.
This interchange is expected to greatly increase the traffic on NC 127.
Description of project (including specific limits) and major elements
of work: Section A consists of the widening of NC 127 to a five-lane
curb Etnd gutter section from SR 1132 to SR 1008. Section B consists of
the extension and widening of SR 1213 to a four-lane curb and gutter
section from the proposed US 321/NC 127 interchange to SR 1154.
Type of environmental document to be prepared: Federal Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
Environmental Study Schedule: Environmental Assessment scheduled for
completion in May 1994 and the Finding of No Significant Impact is
scheduled for completion in November 1994.
Type of funding: State and Federal
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No X
If yes, by whom and amount: ($) , or W
How and when will this be paid?
1
U-2,530
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Thoroughfare Plan Designation: Major Thoroughfare
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None X
Number of: Interchanges Grade Separations Stream Crossings 1
Typical Section of Roadway: Section A: Five-lane curb and gutter
Section B: Four-lane curb and gutter
Traffic Projections:
Section A:
Current Year: (1993) 958.1-14,524 vpd (2013) 27,905-28,619 vpd
Section B:
Current Year: (1993) 4809 vpd (2013) 21,548 vpd
% TTST % DUAL % DHV
Design Speed: 50 MPH
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 7 ,442 ,600
(including engineering and contingencies)
Right of Way Cost . . . . . , . , . , $ 2 ,500 ,000
(including rel., util., and acquisition)
Force Account Items . . . . . . . . . . . . $

Preliminary Engineering . . . . . . . . . . $ 1 ,291 ,000

Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 11 ,233 ,600

TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 9, 700, 000

Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 855 , 000

Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 10, 555, 000
2
, Ua-2530
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which could
affect cost or schedule of project:
Construction: COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
Pavement:
Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,449 ,900
Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Milling & Recycling (Resurfacing) . . . . . $ 240 ,700
Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Shoulders:
Paved . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . $
Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earthwork. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,445 ,450
Subsurface Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subgrade and Stabilization . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 355 ,565
Drainage (List any special items) . . . . . . . . . $ 967 ,500
Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation X $
New Bridge 64' x 200' $ 665, 600
Widen Bridge x . . . $
Remove Bridge x . . . $
New Culvert: Size Length . . . . $
Fill Ht.
Culvert Extension . . . . . . $
Retaining Walls: Type Ave. Ht. ft $
Skew
Noise Walls . . . . $
Any Other Misc. Structures . . . . . $
Concrete Curb & Gutter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 449, 800
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. . . . . . . . $
Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 72, 000
Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 64, 500
Signing:
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Upgrading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Signals:
X New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 25 , 000
Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
RR Signals:
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
With or Without Arms . . . . . . . . . . . . $
If 3R:
Drainage Safety Enhancement . . . . . . . . $
Roadside Safety Enhancement . . . . . . . . $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade . . . . . . . $
3
U-2530
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Pavement Markings:
Paint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Thermo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
X Markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 77 , 400
Delineators . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Other clearing,grubbing,mobilization,misc. . . . . . $ 1,629,185
Contract Cost: $ 7,442,600
Contingencies & Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,291,000
Preliminary Engineering Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
CONSTRUCTION Subtotal: $ 8,733,600
Right of Way:
Existing Right of Way Width:
Will Existing Right of Way contain Improvements?
Yes No
New Right of Way Needed: Width . . . $
Easements: Type Width . . . . $
Utilities: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
RIGHT OF WAY Subtotal: $ 2,500,000
(From Feasibility Study Estimate)
Total Estimated Project Cost: $ 11,233,600
The above scoping information has been reviewed and approved by:
Highway Design
INIT. DATE
Board of Tran. Member
INIT. DATE
Roadway X 7/93 Board of Tran. Member
Structure X 7/93 Mgr. Program & Policy
Design Services Chief Engineer-Precon X 6/93
Geotechnical Chief Engineer-Oper.
Hydraulics X 7/93 Secondary Roads Off.
Loc. & Surveys X 7/93 Construction Branch
Photogrammetry X 7/93 Roadside Environmental
Prel. Est. Engr. X 6/93 Maintenance Branch
Planning & Environ. X 7/93 Bridge Maintenance
Right of Way X 7/93 Statewide Planning X 7/93
R/W Utilities Division Engineer
Traffic Engineering X 7/93 Bicycle Coordinator
Project Management Program Development X 7/93
County Manager FHWA
City/Municipality X 7/93 Dept. of Cult. Res. X 7/93
Others Dept. of EH & NR
Others Others
Prepared By: M. Osborne Date: July 14, 1993
4
.0. s
s ?
(9
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 127 FROM SR 1132 TO SR 1008
AND SR 1213 FROM THE PROPOSED
US 321 / NC 127 INTERCHANGE TO SR 1184
CATAWBA COUNTY
T. I. P. NO. U - 2530
FIG. 1
1
? 1

August 25, 1993
TO: Melba McGee, Policy and Development
FROM: Monica Swiharr-, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #94-0112; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to NC 127 from SR 1132 to SR 1008
and SR 1213 from the Proposed US 321/NC 127 Interchange
to SR 1184, TIP #U-2530
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. It appears from the
information provided that the southern portion of the project
falls within the Jacob Fork Water Supply Watershed which is
classified as WS-III by the State of North Carolina. The
proposed improvements also include a new bridge over the Henry
Fork River which is classified as Class C in the project area.
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.
L). Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to
be employed.
F'. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.

Melba McGee
lkugust 25, 1993
?age 2
(i. 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.
Fl. 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. Please provide a detailed discussion for mass-transit as an
option.
K. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
L. 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
o-lr 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.
10097er.mem
cr_ : E<ric GalamV
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
une 3, 1993
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
Mr. Eric Galamb DEM - DERR, 6th Floor
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
Mr. L.J. Ward, P.E. P & E
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN VUTH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER X3 FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE.
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
U-2530 - Catawba County
Initial Scoping Sheets
N b al' m ?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA `"
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
IAN Es B. HUNT. JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
June 3, 1993
Al VI
JUN - 91993
E OU Dt SECTION
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for the widening of SR 1213 from
SR 1184 to proposed US 321-NC 127 Interchange and NC 127
from SR 1178 to SR 1132, Hickory, Catawba County, Federal
Aid Project No. NHF-127(1), State Project No. 8.1792201,
TIP No. U-2530
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. An Environmental Assessment will
be prepared for project U-2530 under NEPA regulations. A scoping meeting for
this project is scheduled for July 13, 1993 at 9:00 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470) 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
Maria Lapomarda, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
Ml./pl r
Attachments

Date: June 3, 1993
Revision Date:

PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP # U- 2530
Project # 8.1792201
F.A. Project # NHF-127(1)
Division: 12
County: Catawba
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning X
Design
Route: Section A: SR 1213
Section B: NC 127
Functional Classification: NC 127- Urban Principal Arterial
SR 1214-Rural Major Collector
Length: Total: 4.5 miles, Section A: 1.4 miles, Section B: 3.1 miles
Purpose of Project: The proposed project will provide a more
continuous route for NC 127 through southwest Hickory. The widened
road will also better accomodate future traffic.
Under TIP Project R-85B an interchange will be constructed between
sections A and B at the intersection of NC 127 and proposed US 321.
This interchange is expected to greatly increase the traffic on NC 127.
Description of project (including specific limits) and major elements
of work: Section A consists of widening SR 1213 to a four-lane curb and
gutter section from SR 1184 to the proposed US 321. Section B involves
the widening of NC 127 to a five-lane curb and gutter section from
SR 1132 to SR 1178.
Type of environmental document to be prepared: Federal Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
Environmental Study Schedule: Environmental Assessment scheduled for
completion in May 1994 and the Finding of No Significant Impact is
scheduled for completion in November 1994.
Type of funding: State and Federal
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No X
If yes, by whom and amount: ($) , or M
How and when will this be paid?
1
U-2530
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which could
affect cost or schedule of project:
Construction: COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
Pavement:
Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,449, 900
Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Milling & Recycling (Resurfacing) . . . . . $ 240, 700
Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Shoulders:
Paved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,445, 450
Subsurface Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subgrade and Stabilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 355, 565
Drainage (List any special items) . . . . . . . . . $ 967, 500
Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation X $
New Bridge 50' x 68' . . . $ 1,632, 000
Widen Bridge x . . . $
Remove Bridge x . . . $
New Culvert: Size Length . . . . $
Fill Ht.
Culvert Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Retaining Walls: Type Ave. Ht. ft $
Skew
Noise Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Any Other Misc. Structures . . . . . . . . . $
Concrete Curb & Gutter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 449, 800
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. . . . . . . . . $
Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 7 2 , 000
Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 64 ,500
Signing:
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Upgrading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Signals:
X New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 25 , 000
Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . $
RR Signals:
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
With or Without Arms . . . . . . . . . . . . $
If 3R:
Drainage Safety Enhancement . . . . . . . . $
Roadside Safety Enhancement . . . . . . . . $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade . . . . . . . $

U-2530
The above scoping information 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
Others
INIT. DATE
Board of Tran. Member
Board of Tran. Member
Mgr. Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precon
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
Others
INIT. DATE
Scope Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division Engineer for
handling.
If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping, note your
proposed revisions below.
Prepared By: M. Lapomarda Date: June 3, 1993
5

.--Wow
e 1

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMLN'I' Oh'
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OP HIGHWAYS
~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMEN'I'A,,
.N IIIiANC11
HICKORY, CATAWBA COUNTY
SR 1213 FROM SR 1184 TO
PROPOSED US 321 AND NC 127
FROM SR 1132 TO SR 1178
U - 2530
6/93
FIG. 1
1
? 1