19940383 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19940428

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources AYA
Division of Environmental Management James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor '
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary E H N F=?k
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
May 2, 1994
Mr. Craig F. Hamm
City of Gastonia
P.O. Box 1748
Gastonia, N.C. 28053-1748
Dear Mr. Hamm:
Subject: Proposed fill in Wetlands or Waters
Sanitary sewer outfall
Gaston County
DEM Project #94383
We have reviewed your request for 401 Water Quality Certification to
place fill material in 1.1 acres of wetlands or waters which are tributary to
Long Creek for sanitary sewer outfall located at Long Creek WWTP in Gaston
County as described in your submittal dated 20 April 1994. Based on this
review, we have determined that the proposed fill is covered by General Water
Quality Certification No. 2664. A copy of the General Certification is
attached. This Certification is necessary for coverage under Corps of
Engineers' Nationwide Permit No. 12. This action completes DEM's review under
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right to an
adjudicatory hearing upon written request within thirty (30) days following
receipt of this Certification. This request must be in the form of a written
petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes and
filed with the office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh,
N.C. 27611-7447. Unless such demands are made, this Certification shall be
final and binding.
If you have any questions, please contact John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
OP eston >o- rd, J . P. E.
94383.1tr
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Mooresville DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
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
i

Tilt) of (bast llia
P. O. BOX 1748
O')astn1iiit, Nil
til
Qlarnlill, '/_8053-1718
DEPARTMENTOF
PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES
April 20, 1994
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Res.
P.O. Box 29626-0535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
RE: Long creek sanitary Sewer Outfall
Dear Mr. Dorney,
Enclosed please find seven copies of the following on the above
referenced project:
Joint Application (401 certification & COE NWP-12)
NCDEM EA/FONSI (Appropriate excerpts)
Land Quality Section NCDEHNR erosion control approval
EA Maps from Goldstein and Assoc. Report (proj. highlighted)
The environmental assessment (EA) was submitted for the City of
Gastonia's 2010 Master Wastewater System Plan and has been
reviewed by NCDEM with a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
being issued September 5, 1991. Please find appropriate excerpts
from the EA and the resulting FONSI enclosed.
Please contact me at (704)
information.
Sincerely,
CRAIG F. HAMM, E.I.T.
Civil Engineer II
854-6636 if you need further
CC: Felix Pruitt, Civil Engineer III (City of Gastonia)
Mr. Steve Lund (Ashville Field Office)
Mr G. Wayne Wright (Chief, Regulatory Branch, Wilmington, NC)
I

e:\word\long\401let
DEM ID: ACTION M:
Nationwide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit #): 12
JOINT FORM FOR
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER WATER QUALITY PLANNING
CORPS OF ENGINEERS DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
P.O. Box 1890 AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 P.O. Box 29535
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E Raleiggh, NC 27626-0535
Telephone (919) 25 1 ?S I1 ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNEY
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.
PLEASE PRINT.
1. Owners Name: - City of Gastonia
2. Owners Address: P.O. Boa 1748. Gastonia. N.C. 28053-1748
3. Owners Phone Number (Home): [phone] (Work): [phone]
4. If Applicable: Agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number.
Danny 0. Crew. Citv Manager
[phone]
S. Location of work (MUST ATTACH MAP). County: _ Gaston
Nearest Town or City: Gastonia
Specific Location (Include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Along Long Creek from Long Creek
Treatment Plant crossing New Hoge Road (SR 279)_ Marietta Street (SR 2278) U.S Hwy.
U.S. Hwy. 321, and ending nee Rankin Lake-
6. Name of Closest Stream/River. Lone Creek
7. River Basin: South Fork Catawba River
8. Is this project located in a watershed classified as Trout, SA, HQW, ORW, WS I, or WS I? YES [ J NO K]
9. Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for use on this property? YES [ ] NO [XI
If yes, explain.
10. Estimated total number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located on project site: 11.1 Acre
11. Number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, impacted by the proposed project:
FiUed: 0
Drained: 0
Flooded: 0
Excavated: 1.1
Total Impacted: 1.1 Acres
12. Description of proposed work (Attach PLANS-8 1/2"X I I" drawings only): Sanitary Sewer
Line Construction
13. Purpose of proposed work: To carry wastewater to Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
14. State reasons why the applicant believes that this activity must be carried out in wetlands. Also, note measures
taken to minimize wetland impacts. See "Goldstein 1991 E.A. with finding of no significant .
t issued 9-5-91 by N.C.D.E.M. (The E.A. recommends that proposed
15. You are require to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (US S) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) regarding the presence or any Federally listed or proposed for listing endangered or threatened species or critical
habitat in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project. Have you done so? YES [ ) NO [ ] N/A
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
16. You are required to contact the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the presence of historic
properties in the permit area which may be affected by the proposed project? Have you done so? YES [ ] NO [ ] N/A
RESPONSE FROM THE SHPO SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
17. Additional information required by DEM:
A. Wetland delineation map showing all wetlands, streams, and lakes on the property.
B. If available, representative photograph of wetlands to be impacted by project.
C. If delineation was performed by a consultant, include all data sheets relevant to the placement of the
delineation line.
D. If a stormwater management plan is required for this project, attach'a ?
E. What is land use of surrounding property? Residential, Ind ial
F. If applicable, what is proposed method of sewage disposal? Tra s r to
Creek
4-20--9,o-1
Owner'
Date
NOTIFICATION FORM
INFORMATION SHEET
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
A. NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS DISTRICT ENGINEER. (REFER TO
ITEM B. BELOW FOR DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT APPLICATION RE-
QUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICALLY NOTE NWP 26 DIFFERENCE.)
Certain nationwide permits require notification to the Corps of Engineers before work can proceed. They are as follows:
NWP S (only for discharges of 10 to 25 cubic yards)
NWP 7
NWP 13 (only for stabilization activities in excess of 500 feet in length or greater than an average of one cubic yard
per running foot)
NWP 14 (only for fills in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, and must include a delineation of affected special
aquatic sites)
NWP 17
NWP 18 (required when discharge exceeds 10 cubic yards or the discharge is in a special aquatic site and must include
a delineation of the affected special aquatic site, including wetlands)
NWP 21 (must include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands)
NWP 26 (only for greater than l acre total impacts and must include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites,
including wetlands)
NWP 33 (must include a restoration plan of reasonable measures to avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic resources)
NWP 37
NWP 38 (must include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands)
For activities that may be authorized by the above listed nationwide permits that require notification, the
applicant shall not begin work
a. Until notified that the work may proceed under the nationwide permit with any special conditions imposed by
the District Engineer, or
b. If notified that an individual permit may be required, or
c. Unless 30 days (calendar) have passed from the time a complete notification is received by the District Engineer
and no notice has been received from the District Engineer, and required state approvals have been obtained.
Required state approvals include: 1) a Section 401 water quality certification if authorization is requested for a
discharge of dredged or fill material, and 2) an approved coastal zone management consistency determination if
the activity will affect the coastal area.
Use of NWP 12 also requires notification to the District Engineer, but work may not begin until written
concurrence is received from the District Engineer. The time periods described above do not apply.
Furthermore, requirements to notify the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), as indicated below and on the
notification form, do not apply.
B. APPLICATION TO DEM FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION.
Certain nationwide permits require an application to DEM in order to obtain Section 401 water quality certification.
They are NWP 6, NWP 12, NWP 15, NNW 16, NWP 17, NWP 21, NWP 33, NWP 34, NWP 38, and NWP 40.
Certain nationwide permits were issued general certifications and require no application. They are NWP 3, NWP 4,
NWP S, NWP 7, NWP 20, NWP 22, NWP 23 (requires notification to DEM), NWP 25, NWP 27, NWP 32, NWP 36,
and NWP 37.
The following nationwide permits were issued general certifications for only limited activities: NWT 13 (for projects
less than 500 feet in length), NWP 14 (for projects that impact waters only), NWP 18 (for projects with less than 10
cubic yards of fill in waters only), and NWP 26 (for projects with less than or equal to one-third acre fill of waters or
wetlands). Projects that do not meet these criteria require application for Section 401 water quality certifications.
C. NOTIFICATION/APPLICATION PROCEDURES.
The attached four, should be used to obtain approval from the Corps of Engineers and/or the N.C. Division of
Environmental Management as specified above. The permittee should make sure that all necessary information is
provided in order to avoid delays. One copy of the completed form is required by the Corps of Engineers and seven
copies are required by DEM. Plans and maps must be on 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper.
Endangered species requirement For Corps of Engineers notifications only, applicants must notify the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service regarding the presence of endangered species that may
be affected by the proposed project.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
RALEIGH FIELD OFFICE
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Telephone [phone]
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
HABITAT CONSERVATION DIVISION
Pivers Island
Beaufort, NC 28516
Telephone [phone]
Historic resources requirement: For Corps of Engineers notifications only, applicants must notify the State Historic
Preservation Office regarding the presence of historic properties that may be affected by the proposed project.
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
N.C. DIVISION OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone [phone]
Information obtained from these agencies should be forwarded to the Corps.

C
C.
c
CITY OF GASTONIA
LONG CREEK - DUHARTS CREEK SEVERLINE
AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
JANUARY 30, 1991
Robert J. Goldstein 6 Associates
8480 Garvey Drive, Suite A
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
c c
3.0. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT.
3.1. Project location.
The proposed Gastonia sewerline and wastewater treatment plant expansion
project lies in the lower end of the Long Creek basin emptying into the South
Fork Catawba River, in the Piedmont physiographic province of North Carolina.
The Piedmont province is characterized by gently rolling hills underlain by
complex igneous and metamorphic rocks, and elevations from 200 to 1400 feet
above sea level (Martof et al., 1980). The U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute topographic
quads of Gastonia North, Mount Holly, and Belmont illustrate the topography and
land use of the area.
3.2. Geology and soils.
The project area is underlain by intrusive rocks of the Kings Mountain
Belt, primarily foliated to massive granitic rocks (NRCD, 1985). The soils are
vell-drained to poorly-drained. Upland areas are dominated by the Cecil, Tatum,
and Pacolet soil series. Stream floodplains and lowland areas are dominated by
Congaree and Chevacla soil series with inclusions of hydric Wehadkee soils
(Woody, 1989). The Congaree soils could be of value for timber production.
Hydric soils are those which are saturated for sufficiently long and
frequent periods that they become at least seasonally anaerobic, promoting
growth of hydrophytic vegetation. Hydric soils cannot support populations of
plants that lack structural or physiological adaptations to lov oxygen around
their roots. Chevacla, a non-hydric soil, typically has unmapped hydric
inclusions (Willie Spruill, U.S. SCS, pers. comm.) and was considered as a
potentially hydric soil for identifying locations of probable wetlands.
Prime farmland is recognized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as
important for the nation's short- and long- range needs for food and fiber.
Crop production on prime farmlands requires minimal soil alteration, and
therefore results in the least damage to the environment (Woody, 1989).
In Gaston County, 94,100 acres are designated prime farmlands, and are
comprised of the following soils:
AmB
APB Alamance gravelly loam
Appling sandy loam 2 to 8 1 slopes

CeB2
Co
Cecil sandy clay loam 1
2 to
to 6
8 %
t slopes
slopes
Congaree loam, occasionally flooded
GaB2
LeB Gaston sandy clay loam
Helena sandy loam 2 to 8 % slopes

9
MaB2
Lignum silt loam 1
1 to
to 6
6
6 t
t slopes
slopes

TaB Madison sandy clay loam
Tatum gravelly loam 2 to t slopes

VaB
N
B
Vance sandy loam 2
1 to
to 8
8 t
t slopes
slopes
n Winnsboro loam 2 to 8 % slopes
C C
Congaree loam comprises nearly half of the project study corridor, but
most of it is frequently flooded and none is currently farmed. A few small
areas of Appling B, Helena B, and Tatum B soils are also found along the
corridor.
3.3. Land use.
The project area is mostly urban, with small areas of field and upland
forest, and corridors of bottomland forest along streams. Growth projections
for the City of Gastonia indicate that urban usage is increasing (Pease, 1986;
1990). Census data and projections for Gaston County are summarized from the
Office of State Budget and Management (OSBM, 1988):
Population Year Percent growth
148,415 1970 census
162,568 1980 census 8.7
176,505 1990 projected 7.9
188,089 2000 projected 6.1
195,517 2010 projected 3.8
Currently, none of the project area is in active forest management.
Bottomland hardwood resources in the project corridor are economically valuable
in those segments dominated by green ash and yellow poplar averaging sixteen to
twenty inches diameter at breast height. These valuable trees are predominantly
in levee forests. Forest resources in disturbed areas and areas dominated by
river birch along the project route are less economically valuable, but are
important for soil enrichment and stabilization, and watershed protection.
The project corridor does not intercept any active farmland, other than
small backyard gardens along the creek bank.
3.4. Archaeological and historical resources.
The state historic preservation office (SHPO) commented on the proposed
project and recommended an archaeological survey be prepared. A survey was
conducted and four sites found. One large site (31GS223), potentially
significant, occurs on the north bank of Long Creek between State Road 2003 and
the South Fork of the Catawba River. It extends approximately sixty yards from
the creek bank and runs about 200 yards along the creek.
Two much smaller sites (31CS224 and 31GS226) occur along the project
route, of which one may be significant. Another nearby site (31GS225) is not
significant and outside the project corridor.
The complete study is provided in a separate document, in accordance with
SHPO procedure.
10
C t
Ponds and lakes in the region are man-made. Fishery resources in these
impoundments are dominated by mosquitofish, largemouth bass, and several sunfish
and catfish species.
Vernal pools occur naturally in bottomland forests, and provide essential
amphibian habitat. Forested vernal pools supporting breeding amphibians were
found along the floodplains of Long Creek.
3.11. Jurisdictional wetlands.
The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) enforces water and vetland protection
as legislated under Section 909 of the federal Clean Water Act, in cooperation
vith the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),-
and state and local resource agencies. Jurisdictional wetlands are protected
by the Clean Water Act and are defined by three parameters: hydrology, hydric
soils, and hydrophytic vegetation. The Federal Interagency Committee for
Wetland Delineation has developed methods for recognizing each of these
parameters (FICWD, 1989). Areas that are saturated with sufficient frequency
and duration (generally for a week or more during the growing season) to produce
anaerobic (hydric) soil conditions will normally support vetland plants tolerant
of low oxygen around their roots. Guidelines in the federal manual also define
atypical wetlands that do not meet all three criteria, such as wetlands altered
or created by man.
Wetlands provide habitat for plant and animal species, storage for
floodwaters, and filter sediments, contaminants, and_ excess nutrients from
runoff, which protects municipal water supplies. Wetlands may be filledlyfor
public purposes'onlyunder limited circumstances, of which the most important
is the absence of non-wetland alternatives! _siat
Ecologists used the project development map, Gaston County soil map
(Woody, 1989) and the USGS topographic quads to determine potential areas of
wetlands for field investigation. The entire project corridor vas examined on
foot, and jurisdictional wetlands were delineated by the Federal Interagency
method. Reed (1986), and U.S. Soil Conservation Service (1989) provided vetland
plant and hydric soil classifications, respectively.
Sampling stations were chosen at intervals of 50 to 200 feet along each
potential wetland edge, according to visible topographic, hydrologic, and
vegetational indicators. Soil cores were taken with an 18-inch soil auger, and
soil color (hue, value, and chroma) determined using Hunsell soil color charts.
Predominant tree, shrub, woody vine, and ground cover vegetation were
identified, and percent cover recorded on the vetland and non-wetland sides of
each station. Hydrologic indicators (e.g., water marks, surface saturation,
oxidized root channels, vater-stained leaves) were recorded. The wetland edg4f
at'each station vas marked vith a numbered"flad and distance and direction to
each wetland flag'was measured from a previous wetland flag, basepoint flag, or
recognizable landmark. Red survey tape.-yas ti & near each flag to facilita"
location by surveyors and agency personnel.
17

The area surveyed for wetlands was 50 feet on either side of existing
severline corridors, or 100 feet from creek banks where no severlines were in
place. Wetlands were measured as linear distances along the project corridor.
Most wetland areas were found in floodplains on the back side of levees along
Long Creek in association with Chewacla soils. The Congaree soils found in most
of the project area did not support wetlands. Numerous intermittent tributaries
join the major creeks throughout the project area. Narrow vetland corridors,
generally bank-to-bank, exist along these tributary streams. Wetlands in the
project corridor are mapped on nine topographic sheets appended to this report.
Wetlands adjacent to, but not in the project corridor, are also indicated on
these sheets.
3.12. Terrestrial plant and animal habitats.
The amphibian, reptile, bird, and mammal species of the area, with habitat
associations, are presented in Tables 9 through 7, and are based on Lee et al.,
1982; Martof et al., 1980; Potter et al., 1980; and Webster et al., 1985. The
project area is a mixture of urban areas, mesic hardwood forests, bottomland
forests, and acid cliffs.
Urban and residential areas contain large expanses of cultivated grass,
widely spaced trees, patches of brush, and abundant domestic predators and
introduced species. Reptile and amphibian species are limited to a few small,
secretive snakes, ground skinks, toads, and treefrogs. Predominant urban birds
include the house sparrow, starling, rock dove (pigeon), cardinal, robin, chimney
swift, white throated sparrow, and mockingbird. Gray squirrel, house mouse,
Norway rat, raccoon, opossum, and bats are typical urban mammals in this area.
Two types of upland hardwood forests, basic mesic hardwood forest (Piedmont
subtype) and mixed mesic hardwood forests (Piedmont subtype) were found on small
creek bottoms of Burton Branch and Kaglor branch and at the toes of steep moist
slopes adjacent creeks over much of the project area. The plant community types
are described in Schafale and Weakley (1990). Basic mesic forests are dominated
by red oak, yellow poplar, and beech, with carpinus, ostrya, redbud, and dogwood
in the understory. Mixed mesic hardwood forests are also dominated by yellow
poplar, red oak, and beech, but occur on more acidic slopes. Common understory
trees include dogwood, hop hornbeam, red maple, and American holly.
Upland hardwood forests support diverse animal communities. The reptiles
and amphibians of upland hardwood forests include terrestrial salamanders,
arboreal frogs, toads, box turtle, and all of the Piedmont's lizard and non-
aquatic snake species. Upland hardwood birds and mammals include virtually all
of the Piedmont species except those requiring aquatic habitats. Some common
mammal species are opossum, short-tailed shrew, eastern mole, eastern cottontail,
and gray squirrel (Lee et al., 1982). Many reptiles, birds, and mammals require
edge habitats (ecotones), the borders of forests with adjacent fields.
18

4

3.13. Protected species and natural areas.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and N.C. Natural Heritage Program
(NHP) have no records of species federally endangered, threatened, or proposed
for federal listing within the project area. One plant species occurring in
Gaston County, nestronia (Nest- r__ umbellula), is under federal status reviev
and is state-listed as threatened (L. a Gantt, FNS, letter 27 November
1989; Sutter, 1990). Nestronia is an upland shrub associated with hardwood
forests. Its presence has not been documented in the project area. NHP has
records of two state-protected species of millipedes from Gaston County:
Croatania catavba is threatened, and Pachydesmus crassicutus incursus is
endangered. Neither has been collected in the immediate
project area.
Natural areas are localities of unusual geology or areas supporting
unusually diverse plant and animal communities, often Including
disjunct populations. Five sites of mixed mesic hardwood (Piedmont subtype)
containing a rare tree, bigleaf magnolia (Ma nolia macroDhvlla), were located
in or near the project area and reported to NHP. This tree is state-listed by
NHP as rare in North Carolina but is not protected -A One bigleaf magnolia site
had been partially destroyed by an existing sever line.
20

4.0. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.
4.1. Introduction.
Eight alternative sewer system expansion plans were considered by J.N.
Pease for economic feasibility. These alternatives are briefly described in
section 2.0. This section compares impacts of the no-build alternative vith
alternative No. 2, vith mitigation.
4.2. Land use.
Land use impacts of the project are secondary and cumulative, except for
the very small area occupied by pipes and buildings. The no-build alternative
vill have little impact on land use in the project area. Urban growth vill be
sloved, while agriculture should continue. No woodland acres along the project
route are now in timber production and thus timber production will be unaffected.
Impacts of the build alternative will result from increased urbanization.
High-density residential, commercial, and industrial development may displace
rural, residential, agricultural, and forest uses.
Pressure on remaining undeveloped land for recreation, watershed
protection, and other uses will increase, and zoning will play an important role
in limiting and directing impacts. Recreational use of Crovder's Mountain State
Park may increase.
4.3. Archaeological and historical resources.
Large site 31GS223 on the North Bank of Long Creek between State Road 2003
and the South Fork of the 'Catawba River is potentially significant. Mitigation
goals can be attained by avoidance of the site, which can be accomplished by
moving the line vestvard (thereby extending and enhancing the buffer zone between
severline and creek) or moving the line across Long Creek to fifty or more feet
east of the eastern bank.
Small site 31GS224 occurs on the north side of Long Creek, is probably not
eligible for nomination to the national register of historic places, and is
small enough to be readily avoided.
Small site 31GS225 occurs on a ridge, and vill not be disturbed by
construction.
Small site 31GS226-btcurs on the south bank of Long Creek, is potentially
significant, and can be avoided by locating the severline on the north side of
the stream.
Details of these sites appear in a separate document, as required by the
SHPO.
21
? C
9.9. Air quality.
There are no direct negative impacts on air quality associated with the
operation of wastewater treatment plants. During construction, short term
impacts on air quality, primarily an increase in dust, will result from clearing
and grading activities at facility sites, but effects along force main and
gravity lines will be insignificant. Wind-blown dust from the small acreage of
cleared land can be reduced by rapid grassing. Short-term effects on air quality
from carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds emitted
by engine exhausts of construction equipment will be negligible.
Impacts on air quality from electric pumps are non-existent; impacts from
back-up diesel-driven pumps will be intermittent during testing or emergency use
and in all cases negligible.
Long term secondary impacts can be a consequence of socioeconomic changes.
Wastewater treatment plant construction, expansion, and nev severline service
to previously unserved areas will have both positive and negative impacts. 11
principal secondary positive socioeconomic impact of sewer systems is the
attraction of industrial and commercial parks and facilities and planned
residential developments to sites not amenable to other types of wastewater
disposal systems, increasing land values and the tax base. Positive cumulative
socioeconomic impacts may also accrue when officials and planning staffs exercise
careful zoning toward more intensive localized use provided by wastewater
treatment facilities. These activities improve regional groundwater quality
protection by elimination of septic systems and promote better land use,
increased population growth and tax revenues, and an enhanced quality of life
for all citizens in the region, and should be weighed against negative effects
of growth.
Negative secondary impacts on air quality may result when increased
population results in more emissions of pollutants from industrial users and
transportation. Nationwide, lead emissions as a percentage of total by
automobiles have decreased. The contribution to lead emissions from
transportation was 80.3% in 1970, 84.1% in 1980, and estimated as only 34.21 in
1988, the last year for which estimates are available, and due to the phasing
out of leaded gasolines. On the other hand, nitrogen oxide and volatile organic
compound emissions from motor vehicles have changed little from 1970 through
1988, as benefits from fuel efficiency and pollution control technology were
offset by the increase in vehicles. No such benefits are seen with respect to
carbon monoxide emissions from motor vehicles, which remain a major contributor
to the total. These secondary and cumulative negative impacts on air quality
may be reduced in the future by improved fuel efficiency and engine design.
Cumulative impacts of wastewater treatment facility improvements will be
complicated by induced growth that leads to demand for improved highways and
other infrastructures that increase vehicular traffic and residential growth,
with their associated negative and positive impacts on the human environment.

f r
Although fossil-fueled power plants are major sources of sulpher and
nitrogen oxides, the siting of such plants is not related to local growth, but
dependent on availability of hydroelectric, nuclear, and remote sources on the
national grid system, community considerations, and wildlife resources. These
plants have life spans of thirty years or more, and a single state-of-the-art
nuclear power plant is capable of supplying power to twenty counties or more,
further indicating their non-relevance as cumulative impacts of locally induced
growth.
Proposed wastewater treatment plants are sometimes perceived as potential
generators of noxious odors, but this is an aesthetic concern rather than one
of air quality. State-of-the-art technology assures virtually odor-free
operation of wastewater treatment plants. Odors associated with sewage are
generally related to improper operation or siting of lift (pump) stations.-
Siting of lift stations away from residences and minimizing the number of
stations can reduce potential impacts of objectionable odors.
4.5. Noise levels.
Short-term negative impacts of noise will be associated with construction
activity, but will be mitigated by distances from residences and restriction of
construction to daylight hours. There is no evidence of negative health effects
from noise due to operation of wastewater treatment plants and pump stations;
thus, long-term direct negative impacts are insignificant.
Secondary and cumulative negative impacts may accrue from induced growth
requiring expanded and additional transportation corridors. Highway design away
from residences, the inclusion of buffers of earth mounds or forest stands where
impacts are unavoidable, and other methods of the N.C. Department of
Transportation under the direction of the Federal Highway Administration are
available for mitigating noise impacts, and may be required in state and federal
EA and EIS studies of those projects.
4.6. Water resources.
The no-build alternative has no direct impact on water resources, but may
have important secondary and cumulative effects unless local governments enforce
stringent water protection controls. If sever demands increase at projected
rates (Pease, 1990), current sever capacities will be exceeded and septic systems
or package wastewater treatment plants installed on new residential developments.
Package wastewater treatment plants and septic systems are less reliable than
municipal wastewater treatment plants, and may adversely impact groundwater and
surface water resources if they fail.
Direct inpacfs of the build alternative during construction will include
soil disturbance- and vegetation removat in the 90-foot construction corrido=..=
Erosion and sedimentation can be minimized using best management practices during
construction, and revegetating disturbed areas promptly. Direct impacts during
operations will occur mainly below the outfall on the South Fork Catawba River,
23
c ?
and depend on characteristics of the effluent. Impacts to other streams along
the project route may include changes in thermal and nutrient regimes resulting
from loss of canopy cover and replacement of forest litter with herbaceous ground
cover.
The build alternative will promote development at greater density than the
no-build alternative, with environmental consequences. Increased impervious
surfaces from urbanization decreases rainwater infiltration to the soil, leading
to increased peak stormflow in streams. Flood damage, soil erosion, streambank
destabilization, and stormwater contamination of water supplies may result. The
reduced soil water capacity creates lover lov-floe conditions, and perennial
streams may become intermittent (Hewlett, 1982).
Flow in the South Fork and Catawba River main stem may be reduced by
additional water withdrawals to accommodate growth. The 7-day duration, 10-year
frequency low flow (7010) at Gastonia's raw water supply intake on the South
Fork is 67 MGD, and flows as low as 17 NGD have been recorded (Pease, 1986).
Although moving the Long Creek WWTP discharge to the South Fork Catawba
River will improve water quality in the last mile of Long Creek, the waste
assimilation capacity now provided by Long Creek will be lost, and the burden
of assimilation shifted to the South Fork. Whether water quality in the South
Fork improves or degrades will depend on effluent volume and quality from the
new wastewater treatment plant.
Lake Wylie will be affected by urban growth under either the build or no-
build alternative. The no-build alternative, resulting in less induced
development, will have less impact if septic systems and package wastewater
treatment plants are properly operated and monitored. Impacts resulting from the
build alternative will depend on quality of the effluent discharged into South
Fork Catawba River.
4.7. Groundwater.
Retirement of existing septic systems and reduced demand for new
installations will reduce a major source of potential groundwater contamination.
Local governments can enforce groundwater protection strategies through careful
planning and adherence to guidelines established by DEH (1990).
24
IL 4.8. Aquatic habitats.

Impacts of the build alternative on stream habitats, and strategies for
minimizing impacts, are the same as described for water resources (Section 4.6).
Streams in the project area have been altered by urban and agricultural land
uses, and additional urbanization in this area will have less biological impact
than it would on streams in undeveloped areas. Siltation, substrate disturbance,
and changes in flow, thermal, and nutrient regimes may alter the biological
community. No ponds will be affected by the project. Vernal pools may be
inadvertently created by the severline if topographic depressions exist and the
compacted soil slows soil water percolation toward the streams. These created
vernal pools may become high-quality amphibian habitat if a forested canopy
remains.
4.9. Jurisdictional wetlands.
Wetland dimensions were approximated as shown in the topographic sheets
appended, and acreages estimated within 50 foot corridors. The no-build
alternative impacts less wetland acreage than the build alternative. The build
alternative impacts approximately 6.3 acres of wetlands.
All wetlands in the project area, except bank-to-bank wetlands along
tributaries, occur along existing severlines and severline rights-of-way.,.
on bank-to bank wetlands can be minimized by crossing streams at right angles.,
Impacts on undisturbed wetlands adjacent to the project area and impact on
stream water quality and undisturbed upland berms will be east if new seveiR nel
are placed next to existing severlines;in altered vetlan s.
4.10. Terrestrial habitats.
Bottomland hardwood wetlands have the highest ecological habitat value,
followed by non-wetland bottomland hardwoods, mixed mesic forest on lover slopes,
and acid cliffs on steep slopes, and urban areas. Terrestrial habitats (forests,
slopes, fields, and urban areas) were mapped as distances along the centerline
where severline expansion is proposed.
The no-build alternative has the least impact on terrestrial habitats.
The build alternative has the most impact on levee forests. Where sewerlines
exist, construction will have less impact on terrestrial habitats than
construction in new areas where forests must be cleared.
In some areas marked as fields, poverline or subdivision maintenance has
reduced habitat quality, and impacts from severline expansion will be minimal.
While bottomland hardwoods are important habitat and wildlife corridors,
new severline rights-of-vay cut in these forests will increase edge effect and
species diversity along the margins. The right-of-way is not large enough to,
cause habitat fragmentation for deer or raccoon, but salamanders may be adversely
impacted by the removal of forest cover.
25
C k
Higher density development induced by the build alternative vill impact
upland communities and increased runoff from developed uplands vill impact
bottomland communities. Because slopes are typically avoided, slope communities
vill be minimally impacted by the build alternative.
4.11. Protected species and natural areas.
No impacts upon protected species are expected from this project based on
FWS and NHP records, and on our field survey.
Several populations of bigleaf sagnolia (Magnolia macrophylla), a non-
protected rare species, were found near the project site (topographic sheet
number 574/1368). One population had already been disturbed by contamination
of the existing sever line. Further disturbance to this site should be avoided.
No other bigleaf magnolia sites in the corridor are subject to direct impacts,
but the sites are close enough to varrant caution during severline construction.
Machinery and borrov and fill materials should avoid thse important sites.
26

C C
5.0. MITIGATION.
5.1. Legal and regulatory framework.
The public perception of mitigation is compensation. In the legal sense,
mitigation has two meanings, viz., avoidance and compensation, with avoidance
having supremacy. Mitigation (avoidance followed by compensation) of adverse
impacts of construction projects may take various forms under federal and state
laws, and local (county, etc.) decisions cannot preempt the requirement for
compliance.
N.C. Gen. Statute 113A, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA),
established standards for environmental documents (EA, EA/FONSI, EIS) when
projects meet minimum criteria, based on disturbed acreage and cost in public
dollars. These environmental documents must include mitigation measures proposed
to minimize adverse impacts. The measures recommended by most state agencies
closely follow good management practices and federal guidelines.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act and amendments (Clean Water Act)
contains sections pertinent to environmental document preparation. Section 401,
administered by the state in North Carolina, requires certification that
discharges of fill material will not unacceptably degrade water quality.1
Mitigation for potential water quality impacts during construction is normally
met by good management practices such as rapid grassing of disturbed slopes,
silt fences, and temporary detention ponds; and 401 certification should not be
difficult to obtain. However, 401 certification is required before a 404 permit
can be obtained (see below).
,,- -0.
Section 404 of ?he Clean Water Act is administered by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (COE), which issues individual and general dredge and fill permits
for projects affecting waters, including wetlands, of the United States under
its jurisdiction. It coordinates jurisdiction and permit issuance with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service, among
other agencies. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has ultimate
authority for interpretation of the Act, and may overrule both COE and FWS in
deciding contested jurisdictional decisions.
Because wastewater lines typically require placement in wetlands or equally
low locations, and because these lines are public utilities, sewer projects may
qualify for COE General Permit SAWC081-N-000-0049 under the 404 program. The
version of General Permit 49 new in effect expires December 31, 1993,: and
contains general and special conditions. These include, in part, prior
certification by the state for 401 compliance; compliance with other statutes
and acts including the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1631) and National
Historic Preservation Act and amendments; avoidance of channels in navigable
waters and of submerged beds of aquatic vegetation; restriction of temporary
roadway spans to half or less of the waters or wetlands at any one time;,
construction of temporary roadways, by non-erodible materials; a maximust
construction corridor width of 20 feet; avoidance of anadromous fish streams
between November 15 and March l of the following year; avoidance of public water
27

supply intakes; minimization of adverse impacts on fish, wildlife, and natural
environment values; and minimization of degradation of water quality, including
no increase in turbidity beyond 50 NTUs. Other conditions of General Permit 49
are pertinent to coastal projects, or to other types of utilities.
5.2. Recommendations to mitigate impacts of the build alternative, and to comply
with General Permit 49.
Mitigation for impacts to waters of the United States may include stream
reconstruction by creation of a new channel; placement of velocity reducing
structures such as rip-rap on the slopes and bottom of streams and use of ribbed
culverts; avoidance by use of arched culverts or bridging; habitat enhancement
using chained felled trees for benthic invertebrate colonization and placement-
of boulders; and the establishment, replacement or maintenance of riparian
buffers; and other management and construction practices.
Design measures to protect water quality include avoiding public water
supplies and high quality aquatic habitats, minimizing the number of stream
crossings, and maximizing the distance between stream and severline, generally
fifty feet or more, to allow for stormwater infiltration and deposition of
pollutants associated with construction. This distance will avoid upland levees
and berms associated with streams, but may force it into old stream beds,
wetlands, and high quality terrestrial habitats associated with floodplains.
However, 401 certification is required before 404 certification can be
considered. Additionally, the highest quality trees are typically associated
with stream banks and berms.
Construction practices should include protection of stream bottom habitat
from siltation by sedimentation control measures such as silt fences and seeding,
and retention of riparian vegetation. Compensatory mitigation measures should
include restoration of linear feet of stream bottom habitat taken by
construction, and replacement of riparian vegetation.
Stream crossings should be sited at low quality segments (sandy or silty{
bottoms vs. vegetated and riffle bottoms} to the extent practicable.
Wetlands are a special class of waters of the United States. Section
404(b)(1) guidelines promulgated under the Act require a sequential approach to
mitigating impacts of dredge and fill activities. The initial stage in the
sequence is avoidance of impacts by considering to what extent the project can
be moved to a practicable, available, upland (non-vetland) alternative. Only
after avoidance has been satisfactorily addressed may compensatory forms of
mitigation be considered. These may take the form of restoration of degraded
wetlands, enhancement of extant wetlands, or creation of replacement wetlands
(last resort), on or as close to the adversely affected project site as feasible.
28
fee
oil
Wetlands should be avoided to the extent practicable. Construction
corridors in vetlands should not exceed 20 feeta Disturbed areas should be
graded to restore contours after construction. Disturbed areas on slopes should
be promptly grassed for temporary erosion control. The utility maintenance
corridor should not be sprayed or moved, but alloved to develop a shrub layer,
and subsequently maintained by bush-hogging at tvo- or three-year intervals..
The project vill have no effects on protected species, and no sitigatioi
measures are requiredi 1 single rare species, bigleaf magnolia; occurs along
or near the project route. These areas (topographic sheet number 574/1365}.4
should be avoided $y construction crews and their equipment, f
i'
29
07

,f AN
IN-
• ? ?" Z a;...' J' ?`?- ''? ?' '? .4ni%"' ':t"i? ? 'ti .? ` //rte ?t• '• . _ ' ? 1
A-V
'? iii!/ c.? _ ?• ,1 +' ? ;j?'? ??r,\,iY•?_.'`nr? ? ,-?'ti. r ? ? !? ? - <?./ ._ •?/?Vr2,??._ \ ? ? _
CIO
C: 0
%n Lo
co 0
-a ir
`? %'/ ? .""- ? :? •'/_'? i? '!. ? i'r'k 1 _ ? ? ? ? „?
t H
r' r- M
In r _
r
I
?fl I
a
I
? N
}
H
u
I? ? ??11! ! 11?
d
11? Iltl
?I I? ? I I) 1
I?t:lll?li
INCH
.i Y1 V hl z a
a
aw •wws+
smigNpMa
7N •s2ivioossv v va37nm
N 07Y1II1W
S.A zIM/VYOOYO?

aHO HO1N3W
SH33MON3 71813W.WdDOIOHd
:)NI 'S3IVIOOSSV 'Q V830n)4
AB 03HVd3Hd
SdVW 7HId VHS L
10
taaa 2 2 1991
ENGINEERING DEPT.
ENG
An Archaeological Survey of
Proposed Improvements on the
Gastonia Sewer System,
Gastonia, Ranlo, and Spencer Mountain,
Gaston County, North Carolina.
Thomas Hargrove
February 1990
A Report Submitted to J.N. Pease, Engineers,
by
Robert J. Goldstein and Associates
Management Summary
The archeological survey of the proposed Gastonia sewer improvements covered about 74,000
linear feet in central Gaston County, North Carolina. The proposed sewer lines and other
improvements are almost all within the bottomlands and stream valleys of Long Creek and two of
its small tributaries, Burton Branch and Kaglor Branch, and the upper reaches of Duharts Creek.
In areas where the new corridor has not yet been designed, the survey covered both sides of the
stream valley. Assuming a 20 foot wide construction corridor, the surveyed area amounts to 50
acres. The purpose of the survey was to examine the project area for prehistoric or historical
archaeological sites with significant remains that might be eligible for nomination to the National
Register of Historic Places.
A review of the site files in the Office of State Archmolo shows that several
have been recorded in the project vicinity, although (to judge from the survey results) these sites do
not fall within the proposed construction corridor. In addition to the review of the state's site
records, we also consulted with Dr. Alan May, the resident archeologist at the Schiele Museum of
Natural History in Gastonia, and with the staff of the Gaston County Museum of Art and History
in Dallas, the county seat of Gaston County. Background research on the project area's history
included a review of maps and secondary historical sources in the North Carolina State Archives,
in the North Carolina Collection at UNC Chapel Hill, and in the Gaston County Museum of Art
and History. No previously recorded historic sites were within the proposed construction areas.
Since most of the project area is in forest or pasture, the survey relied heavily on screened
shovel tests at intervals of 30 meters (100 feet) along the proposed sewer route. In areas
with exposed ground surfaces (fannroads, utility corridors, treefalls, etc.), the surveyors
closely examined the areas for prehistoric and historic artifacts
.
Th
h
l
i
l
e arc
eo
og
ca
survey of the proposed lines recorded four
prehistoric sites, all on or near
the new alignment and all near the mouth of Long Creek. All of the sites were initially found
with screened shovel tests at intervals of 30 meters/100 feet.
31GS223 Is a large prehistoric site (probably a Catawba Indian village), dating mostly to the
Late Woodland period (A.D. 1200 - A.D. 1700), with some evidence of earlier occupation
during the Middle Woodland period (A.D. 500 - A.D. 1200). The site is on the nosh bank of
Long Creek, between Dallas-Spencer Mountain Road (SR 2003) on the southwest and the
South Fork of the Catawba River on the northeast. In length, it measures about 200 yards
along the creek. The site extends about 60 meters or yards from the creek bank
which fors
,
the site's southeastern side. Because of the high density of artifacts, its stratified deposits,
and the sealed cultural level, the site is potentially significant, and it may be eligible for
nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
31 GS224 is a very small site (about 10 meters/30 feet in diameter), probably a campsite
dating to the Middle Woodland period (A.D. 500 - A.D. 1200). It is on the north bank of Long
Creek, west of Dallas-Spencer Mountain Road (SR 2003). Because of the low density of
remains and the apparent lack of stratification, the research potential is low, and it does not
seem eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
31GS225 is a Middle Archaic (Morrow Mountain) lithic scatter on a low ridge overlooking
Long Creek. It appears to fall outside of the project area, and will probably not be disturbed
by construction. Earlier utility construction has already had an impact on the site. It does not

appear to be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
31GS226 is a small site dating to the Late Woodland period (A.D. 1200 - A.D. 1700), with
evidence of a much earlier occupation during the Middle Archaic Guilford phase (4,500 - 4,000
B.C.). The site is on the south bank of Long Creek, southwest of Dallas-Spencer Mountain
Road (SR 2003). This site has a high density of artifacts, stratified soil deposits, and
evidence of a sealed cultural level in the form of a midden. The site parallels the south bank
of Long Creek for about 80 meters and extends about 30 meters/100 feet back from the creek
bank. Because of its high artifact density, the stratified deposits and the sealed cultural level,
the site is potentially significant, and it may be eligible for nomination to the National
Register of Historic Places.
We do not recommend additional archeological work on 31GS224 or on 31GS225. We
recommend preservation of the two prehistoric sites, 31GS223 and 31GS226, which appear to
contain stratified remains of prehistoric settlements. Avoidance of the sites might be
possible through design of the sewerline route. If sewerline construction affects 31GS223 or
31GS226, excavations will be needed to determine the extent and condition of remains within
the construction corridors.

Introduction
5
Eroie,_cc ntk: An Archaeological Survey of Proposed Improvements on the Gastonia Sewer
System, Gastonia, Ranlo, and Spencer Mountain, Gaston County, North
Carolina.
I-Ocation of the-,_„iec;: The archaeological survey of the proposed Gastonia sewer
improvements coveted about 74,000 linear feet in and near Gastonia, Ranlo, and Spencer
Mountain in central Gaston County, North Carolina (see Figures 1, 2, and 3). The proposed
sewer lines and other improvements are almost all within the bottomlands and stream
valleys of Long Creek and two of its small tributaries, Burton Branch and Kaglor Branch, and
the upper reaches of Duharts Creek. The survey covered both sides of the stream valley in
areas where the new corridor has not yet been designed (the Burton Branch section and the
section of Long Creek from the existing treatment plant southeast of Dallas, eastward to the
confluence with the South Fork of the Catawba River). Assuming a 20 foot wide construction
corridor, the surveyed area amounts to 50 acres.
Contracting organization: J.N. Pease Associates, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Principal InvestiEator and Field D'r?rrnr Thomas H. Hargrove.
Field &: Jacqueline Fehon, Marilyn Barrier, Chris Murphy, Marc Brodsky.
Dates of u=: September - November 1990.
Scone of L^Zical work: The purpose of the survey was to examine the project area for
prehistoric or historical archaeological sites with significant remains that might be eligible for
nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. Following a phase of background
research, the survey crew examined the project area by digging and screening shovel tests at
30 meter/100 foot intervals in a transect along the proposed construction zones. The
fieldwork was intended to examine likely construction areas for prehistoric or historical
archaeological sites that might have significant remains eligible for nomination to the National
Register of Historic Places.
The following chapters follow the format of the Guidelines for Preparation of Archaological
Survey Reports Reviewed by the Archaology Branch, Division of Archives and History,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources. The report includes a description of the
project's physical environment and its probable influences on past settlement choices and site
preservation; an outline of the area's prehistoric and historic background; a description of field
techniques; an inventory of sites recorded during the survey; a discussion of the archaeological
significance of the four sites recorded, recommendations for archaeological management; and a
list of sources consulted for the background research, survey, and evaluation.
a Maiden ,
NenryT - - '? ' Killian
'+ - --.,Gossroads,
C. ovals 1 1.
14 a! Mulls ` t } ' U e ' NOf'I
rossroads Reapsvflle I oPumpkin Of 'I
0 5 ?`- ?' u ( Center
?u o.erCi ` N ' J ?
oFiay \Trf ndl4
Johnstown I Lincoln
:On , I O Iron Cw 1
0 1 ? JJ? t0 k Station `i l }
Crouse. Lon. ? i
- - - Shoals _ oWf
le ; % Mariposio 0
ils uDallwo? 0 It h Shoals Alexis
\ 11 ,
Waco Nordin&
Cherryvill:' Duke Po
Z, SLn(ay 'l
Stubbs)'
o$unnyside Dallas L ~4
• `~ ^-?
?G A NN mt
Kinds esseme Mild, e
Fountain City
I ??ae, l - I M de i t
Patterson DMtn Vit? Dia
Springs ?
o ?l• lOif?+.
VA ? % 1
Cr.mert Be
rl,' dJ1 fa9n I Boo.ertown
f^ -
Mt Rtourga L
? 1 aaf) - ?-- _
A 0, Davfdsnh•?"'
• I ktwall ?
0
? Cry ?
d M ntew rsvill.
`\\
u
t''?hla;un:ein ?
Island
Lake
a
x„ O
^E, vita Uf

• ?? yr ?c• i 1 r
Grover
Cfowde rs
t?f •t r I ? ` ? : A
' L1• ? If i , A
•
h?
%

7Nowall
H
a,
?Ml lnt Mill,
t G ""0'0
/, r ONo 4
n
•a
1
f ? ,Indlaw r+
Figure 2: Gaston County and the project area (arrow).
/ J
``
?'1L• '`,,,yam,
Base map: U.S.G.S. State of North Carolina,
Scale: one inch : eight miles.
4
it
' ?}? '??-•., 1 ?, • '? ??,' ,' ` 1 t .,rte l?'•.+}:r' ?V
C4 C14
.. N tl! ? ? :. -? ; J ? {.,?'? ?. ,• is i } ? ::' - • ?Ni-`
to
ter- ` ,? N ,+, • , ) . ..:1 !s ?? ?i
' r ? :r• •.; a ?"_ IL !7 CV) 4• ? S ?.,
G s + r•• ???I'? < `R3
L U
..... 1, _?• •z r Q
`Y H
IL ? r 1 • tm
N '

The archwological survey of the proposed lines recorded four prehistoric sites, all
on or near the new alignment and all near the mouth of Long Creek. All of the sites
were initially found with screened shovel tests at intervals of 30 meters/ 100 feet.
31GS223 is a large prehistoric site (probably a Catawba Indian village), datin g mostly
to the Late Woodland period (A.D. 1200 - A.D. 1700), with some evidence of earlier
occupation durin the Middle Woodland period (A.D. 300 - A.D. 1200). The site is on
the north bank of Long Creek, between Dallas-Spencer Mountain Road (SR 2003) on
the southwest and the South Fork of the Catawba River on the northeast. In length, it
measures about 200 yards along the creek. The site extends about 60 yards from the
creek bank, which forms the site's southeastern side. Because of its stratified
deposits and the sealed cultural level, the site is potentially significant.
31GS224 is a very small site (about 10 meters/30 feet in diameter), probably a
campsite datin to the Middle Woodland period (A.D. 300 - A.D. 1200). It is on the
north bank of Long Creek, west of Dallas-Spencer Mountain Road (SR 2003). Because
of the low density of remains and the apparent lack of stratification, the research
potential is low, and it does not seem eligible for nomination to the National Register
of Historic Places.
31GS223 is a small lithic scatter on a low ridge overlooking Long Creek. It appears to
fall outside of the project area, and will probably not be disturbed by construction.
Earlier utility construction has already had an impact on the site.
31S'?S226 Is a small site dating to the Late Woodland period (A.D. 1200 - A.D. 1700), with
evidence of a much earlier occupation during the Middle Archaic Guilford phase
(4,300 - 4,000 B.C.). The site is on the south bank of Long Creek, southwest of Dallas
-Spencer Mountain Road (SR 2003). This site has a high density of artifacts, stratified
soil deposits, signs of bone preservation, and evidence of a sealed cultural level in the
form of a midden. The site parallels the south bank of Long Creek for about 80 meters
and extends about 30 meters/ 100 feet back from the creek bank. Because of its high
artifact density, the stratified deposits and the sealed cultural level, the site is
potentially significant.
P E A S
Architecture Engineering Planning I n t e r i o
TO: Mr. J. Philip Bombardier, P.E. SEP 17 1991
Assistant City Engineer
City of Gastonia CITY OF GASTONIA
Post Office Box 1748 ENGINEERING DEPT.
Gastonia, North Carolina 28053-1748
PROJECT: Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
Gastonia, North Carolina
COMM. NO: 90087-00
DATE: September 13, 1991
SUBJECT: EA/FONSI
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
We are sending you [x] Enclosed [ ] Under Separate Cover
[ ] Prints [ ] Tracings
[ ] [ ] Specifications
NO. OF
COPIES DRAWING NO. DATED DESCRIPTION
1 --- 09/05/91 FONSI Letter
J. N. PEASE ASS CIATES
l ohn W. McLau n, E.
JWM/lw
cc: Mr. John Shuler - w/enclosure
Mr. Sam Wilkins - w/enclosure
Dr. Robert Goldstein - w/enclosure
Mr. Don Garbrick - w/enclosure
Mr. Keith West - w/enclosure
J.N. Pease Associates PO. Box 18725 2925 East Independence Blvd Charlotte, NC 28218 704 376

,. wn
3
State ,of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
September 5, 1991
TO: Chrys Baggett
FROM: Alan Clark
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
SUBJECT: EA/FONSI for Proposed Long Creek Wastewater Treatment
Plant Expansion, Duharts Creek Pump Station
Enlargement, and Sewerline Construction in Gastonia,
Gaston--County
Enclosed are ten copies of the subject EA/FONSI for State
Clearinghouse review. No objections to the project were received
during an internal EHNR review. Responses to EHNR comments (also
enclosed) are provided in a cover letter from Mr. John W.
McLaughlin, a consulting engineer for Gastonia.
Please advise if you need any additional information.

Enclosures
GastEA.Mem/SEPA4
cc: John W. McLaughlin
Don Safrit
Rex Gleason (w/ McLaughlin letter)
Melba McGee •(w/ McLaughlin letter)
Regional Offices
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/2516208 919/4861541 704/663-1699 919/733-2314 919N46-6481 919/395-3900 919/761.2351
Pbilution Prevention Pays
P.O Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27616.0535 Telcoxxe 919.733-7015
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Proposed Long Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
Duharts Creek Pump Station Enlargement and
Sewerline Construction
City of Gastonia
Gaston County
An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared for the
subject activities in accordance with the policy guidelines
set forth in the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S.
113A-1) and with the implementation procedures contained in
Chapter 25 and Subchapter 1C of the North Carolina Administrative
Code. This EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) are
prerequisites for issuance of NP.DES and nondischarge permits by
the Division of Environmental Management for construction of the
subject works.
The subject activities constitute Phase I (1990-1995) of a
twenty-year wastewater management plan for Gastonia that was
completed in 199 The preferred alternative for this project
includes a) expansion of the Long Creek wastewater treatment
plant from S to 16 million gallons per day (MGD), b) expansion of
the Duharts Creek pump station from 6.5 to'10 MGD and c)
construction of 17.6 miles of new sewerlines along Long Creek,
Kaglor Branch, Burtons Branch, and Duharts Creek.
The EA addresses a wide array of potential primary,
secondary, and-cumulative impacts associated with the project's
construction and operation. It is concluded that the proposed
project will not result in significant adverse impacts to the
environment provided it is carried out in accordance with the
impact avoidance/mitigation measures contained in the EA and in
the response to agency comments from the project consultant, J.N.
Pease Associates, dated August 30, 1991 (attached).
This FONSI concludes the environmental review. An
environmental impact statement will not be prepared for this
project.
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
September 5, 1991
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Mooresville Regional Office
James B. Hunt, Jr„ Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Vivian H. Burke, Regional Manager
DEHNR
DIVISION OF LAND R OriWFm I M ED
LAND QUALITY SECTI vv
G Aril 11, 1994 ' 3 13?
CITY OF Qp "XIA
Mr. Danny o. Crew, City Manager PUBLIC WORKS DEPT,
City of Gastonia
Post Office Box 1748
Gastonia, North Carolina 28053
RE: LETTER OF APPROVAL WITH MODIFICATIONS
(For Sites with Disturbed Area Exceeding Five (5) Acres)
Project Name: Long Creek Outfall
Location: US 321 - Gaston County
Submitted By: City of Gastonia
Date Received: March 16, 1994
New Submittal: X Revision
Dear Mr. Crew:
This office has reviewed the subject erosion and
sedimentation control plan and hereby issues this letter of
approval with modifications. A list of the modifications
required is attached. This approval is conditioned upon the
incorporation or addition of these modifications to the plan. If
these modifications are not included in the plan and implemented
on the construction site, the site will be in violation of the
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973. (G.S. 113A-61(d).
Please be advised that Title 15 NCAC 4B .0017(a) requires
that a copy of the approved erosion control plan be on file at
the job site. Also, you should consider this letter to give the
Notice required by G.S. 113A-61(d) of our right of periodic
inspection to insure compliance with the approved plan.
North Carolina's Sedimentation Pollution Control Program is
performance oriented, requiring protection of the natural
resources and adjoining properties. If following the
commencement of this project it is determined that the erosion
and sedimentation control plan is inadequate to meet the
requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973
(North Carolina General Statute 113A-51 thru 66), this office may
require revisions to the plan and implementation of the revisions
to insure compliance with the Act.
919 North Main Street, Mooresville, North Carolina 28115 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
TWO
"The land-disturbing activity described in this
plan may be subject to the approval of other Local,
State or Federal agencies. This could include the
Division of Environmental Management under storm
water or water quality regulations, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers under Article 404 jurisdiction,
county, city or town agencies under other local
ordinances, or other approvals that may be required.
This approval cannot supersede any other permit or
approval."
"Because the site disturbance will exceed five acres,
you may need to file a Notice of Intent for coverage
under the State's General NPDES Permit Requirements;
per the Federal Clean Water Act, NPDES permit
regulations".
Please note that this approval is based in part on the
accuracy of the information provided in the Financial
Responsibility Form which you have provided. You are requested
to file an amended form if there is any change in the information
included on the form. In addition, it would be helpful if you
notify this office of the proposed starting date for this
project.
Your cooperation is appreciated, and we look forward to
working with you on this project.
Sincerely,
Jerry W. Cook
Regional Engineer
cc: DEM - Water Quality
Enclosure: Notice of Intent
NODIFICATIONS
1. A temporary check dam must be provided at station 143+50.
BKN/kr