19980067 Ver 1_Complete File_19980127

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
January 16, 1998
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTN: Mr. Michael Smith
JM 2 ,, me
"RWMWWAL WAN=
.401 ISSUED
GARLAND B. GARRETI J R.
SECRETARY
gsoo V"
Assistant Chief
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: NATIONWIDE PERMIT 23 APPLICATION FOR THE WIDENING OF
I-85 IN GASTON COUNTY, TIP # I-302C.
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for the
subject project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as
a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 7 . 5(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose() eed under a Nationwide
Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A ( sued December 13, 1996,
by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Sectionnd appendix A (C) of these
regulations will be followed in the construction projec.
The project will impact approximately 0.04 acre of wetlands and result in a total
loss of 20 linear feet of streams (135 feet tilled and 115 feet rechannelized). The 115 feet
of steam rechannelization will be designed according to the NC Wildlife Resource
Commission (NCWRC) guidelines, as stated in the Summary of Environmental and
Special Project Commitments.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 3107 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing a copy of the CE document to the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality, for their review.
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P .O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
RD]
7
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact
Mr. Michael Wood at [phone] extension 306.
Sincerel ,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. Steve Lund, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachments
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. R. W. Spangler, Division 12 Engineer
Mr. Mark L. Reep, P.E., Planning & Environmental
w
I-85
From East of US 29/ US 74
to West of SR 1135 (Shannon Bradley Road)
Gaston County
State Project No. 8.1631201
Federal Aid Project No. I-85-1(39)15
TIP No. I-302 C
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
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)
02497 2.7.) -
D to H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
1? 400
Planning and Environmental Branch
Date Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
b
I-85
From East of US 29/ US 74
to West of SR 1135 (Shannon Bradley Road)
Gaston County
State Project No. 8.1631201
Federal Aid Project No. I-85-1(39)15
TIP No. I-302 C
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental by:
// Zo !T
Date Mark L. eep, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
Date Linwood Stone, C.P.M.
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
•.•` N CAP, 0 ••,,
?0.o'ESSipk /°
SEAL l
19818 •
t
• Y
??'••NGINEE?' Q ,=
K `?
Summary of Environmental and Special Project Commitments
A. Best Management Practices (BMP's) and standard erosion and
sedimentation control measures will be strictly enforced during project
construction.
B. Stream relocations will be designed according to the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission's (NCWRC) guidance entitled "N.C. Stream
Protection and Improvement Guidelines." The proposed channel will be
similar in width, depth, gradient, and substrate. Site specific requirements
for re-establishment of bank vegetation with planting regime, meanders,
and habitat structures will be determined through coordination with the
NCWRC field staff during the hydraulic design phase of the project (refer
to discussion in Section IV.D.4).

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
PAGE
i
• I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION 1
A. General Description 1
B. Cross Section 1
C. Right of Way and Access Control 1
D. Intersecting Roadways and Type of Control 2
E. Design Speed 2
F. Structures 2
G. Cost Estimate 2
II. NEED FOR PROPOSED PROJECT 2
A. Existing Roadway Conditions 2
1. Cross Section 2
2. Right of Way and Access Control 3
3. Structures 3
4. Intersecting Roads 4
5. Speed Limit 5
6. Utilities 5
7. Geodetic Markers 5
B. Route Classification and Thoroughfare Plan 5
C. Traffic Volumes and Capacity 5
D. Accident History 6
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 7
A. Highway Construction Alternatives 7
B. "Do Nothing" Alternative 7
C. Public Transportation Alternative 8
D. Major Investment Study (MIS) 8
IV. SOC IAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 8
A. Social Effects 8
1. Neighborhood Characteristics 8
2. Public and Private Facilities 9
• 3. Relocation Impacts 9
4. Cultural Resources 9
B. Economic Effects 9

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
C. Land Use
I . Status of Local Planning Activities
2. Existing Land Use
3. Future Land Use
4. Farmland
D. Environmental Effects
1. Biotic Resources
a. Biotic Communities
b. Aquatic Habitats
C. Wildlife Communities
d. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
e. Rare and Protected Species
2. Physical Resources
a. Topography and Soils
b. Water Resources
3. Wetlands and Surface Waters
4. Stream Rechannelization
5. Permits
6. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation
7. Flood Hazard Evaluation
8. Air Quality and Traffic Noise
9. Hazardous Materials
10. Construction Impacts
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
VI. CONCLUSI ON
FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Proposed Typical Section
Figure 3 Streams Crossings and Wetlands
Figure 4 Projected Traffic Volumes
Figure 5 100-Year Flood Zones
TABLES
Table 1 Bridge Data
Table 2 Stream Crossing Structures
Table 3 Accident Rates Along I-85
Table 4 Estimated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Table 5 Federally-Protected Species for Gaston County
PAGE
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
12
14
15
16
17
20
20
22
27
29
29
30
32
33
34
34
36
36
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Table 6 Specific Soil Mapping Units Found in the Project Area
Table 7 Best Usage Classifications for Streams in the Project Area
Table 8 Anticipated Wetland Impacts
APPENDIX
Appendix A Agency Comments
I-85
From East of US 29/ US 74
to West of SR 1135 (Shannon Bradley Road)
Gaston County
State Project No. 8.1631201
Federal Aid Project No. I-85-1(39)15
TIP No. I-302 C
SUMMARY
Type of Action
This is a Federal Categorical Exclusion.
2. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve
I-85 from east of US 29/ US 74 to west of SR 1135 (Shannon Bradley Road) near
Gastonia, a length of 5.5 kilometers (3.4 miles) (refer to Figure 1 for project location).
The project consists of widening the existing four-lane divided freeway within the median
to provide a six-lane divided facility with a median barrier. The outside shoulders will
also be widened to meet current interstate design standards.
The project is included in the 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP). The estimated project cost in the TIP is $14,000,000, which includes $13,500,000
for construction and $500,000 for right of way. Currently, the project is estimated to cost
$20,000,000, which includes $19,500,000 for construction and $500,000 for right of way.
The project is scheduled for right of way acquisition and construction in fiscal year 1998
(FY 1998).
3. Summary of Environmental Impacts
The project will provide an overall positive benefit for Gaston County. The
proposed widening improvements will increase the capacity, improve the flow of traffic,
and reduce the potential for accidents to occur. In addition, the project will complete a
continuous six-lane or eight-lane facility throughout the Charlotte and Gastonia urban
areas.
The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the human and natural
environment. No additional residences or businesses will be relocated by the project. No
impacts to historic architectural or archaeological resources will occur. No federally-
protected species will be affected by the project. No adverse air quality or traffic noise
impacts are anticipated from projected traffic volumes along the roadway. The project
ii
impacts approximately 0.02 hectare (0.04 acre) of jurisdictional wetlands and requires
35 meters (115 feet) of stream rechannelization, but these impacts are not considered to
be adverse.
4. Alternatives Considered
A. Highway Construction Alternative
B. "Do Nothing" Alternative
C. Public Transportation Alternative
5. Coordination
The following federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the
preparation of this environmental assessment:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
Region F Planning Agency
Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
Gaston County Commissioners
City of Gastonia
Carolina Piedmont Archaeology Project - Schiele Museum of Natural History
6. Permits Required
it is anticipated the proposed improvements can be performed under Department
of the Army Nationwide Permits for Categorical Exclusions in accordance with 33 CFR
330.5(a)(23). Final permit decisions are left to the discretion of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR), is required for the project since a
federal permit is involved.
7. Additionallnformation
Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be obtained
by contacting the following individuals:
iii
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone [phone]
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
I-85
From East of US 29/ US 74
to West of SR 1135 (Shannon Bradley Road)
Gaston County
State Project No. 8.1631201
Federal Aid Project No. I-85-1(39)15
TIP No. I-302 C
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve
I-85 from east of US 29/ US 74 to west of SR 1135 (Shannon Bradley Road) near
Gastonia, a length of 5.5 kilometers (3.4 miles) (refer to Figure 1 for project location).
The project consists of widening the existing four-lane divided freeway within the
median to provide a six-lane divided facility with a median barrier. The outside
shoulders will also be widened to meet current interstate design standards. The proposed
improvements will complete a continuous six-lane or eight-lane facility throughout the
Charlotte and Gastonia urban areas.
The project is included in the 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP). The estimated project cost in the TIP is $14,000,000, which includes $13,500,000
for construction and $500,000 for right of way. Currently, the project is estimated to cost
$20,000,000, which includes $19,500,000 for construction and $500,000 for right of way.
The project is scheduled for right of way acquisition and construction in fiscal year 1998
(FY 1998).
B. Cross Section
The proposed cross section consists of a six-lane divided freeway with a median
barrier (refer to Figure 2 for sketch of proposed typical section). This typical section will
include 3.6-meter (12-foot) travel lanes, a 6.2-meter (20-foot) median, a median barrier,
3.6-meter (12-foot) paved shoulders in cut sections, and 4.2-meter (14-foot) paved
shoulders in fill sections.
C. Right of Way and Access Control
The project will be contained within the existing right of way, with the exception
of drainage easements that are needed near several stream crossing structures. Permanent
drainage easements are required in areas along the project where proposed lateral
drainage ditches cannot be contained within the existing right of way. Full control of
access will be maintained throughout the project area. Woven-wire fencing along the
right of way will be replaced.
2
D. IntersectiU Roadways and Tune of Control
All roadways cross the project with grade separations or interchanges. Grade-
separated crossings at SR 1302 (Maws Road) and SR 1312 (Oates Road) will remain
unchanged with the project. The SR 1307 (Edgewood Road) interchange ramps will be
resurfaced, and stop-sign control will be maintained at the ramp terminals.
E. DesigLri Speed
The proposed design speed is 110 km/h (70 mph).
F. Structures
The project requires improvements to the bridges over SR 1312 (Oates Road)
(refer to Section II.A.3 for a description of existing structures). The dual bridges will be
widened to form a single structure.
The proposed vertical clearances under SR 1302 (Maws Road) and SR 1307
(Edgewood Road) meet the required 4.8-meter (16-foot) minimum height for an existing
bridge on an interstate highway. The proposed horizontal clearances under these two
bridges do not meet the 3.0-meter (10-foot) minimum width required at an existing
interstate bridge. A design exception for horizontal clearances under these bridges was
approved in conjunction with Projects I-302 AA, AB, and BA.
All existing culverts will be retained, and only one stream crossing culvert will be
extended. A 6-meter (20-foot) extension is proposed for the pipe at Unnamed 3 (Ut3) of
Crowders Creek. Steeper slopes will be used near the stream crossings to avoid
extending the remaining culverts.
G. Cost Estimate
Right of Way S 500,000
Construction $19.500.000
Total Cost $20,000,000
II. NEED FOR PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Existing Roadway Conditions
1. Cross Section
The subject portion of I-85 exists as a four-lane divided freeway with a
grass median. The roadway consists of two 7.2-meter (24-foot) travelways, a
13.4-meter (44-foot) median, and 2.4-meter (8-foot) outside paved shoulders.
3
2. Right of Way and Access Control
The existing right of way width along I-85 generally varies from 80 meters
(260 feet) to 140 meters (460 feet). The right of way width increases to 235
meters (770 feet) at the Edgewood Road interchange. Full control of access
exists along the facility.
3. Structures
Four bridges are located within the project area. These are described in
the following table.
Table 1
BRIDGE DATA
in (ft) (0 to 100) (years)
Bridge m (ft) in (ft) Vertical Sufficiency Remaining
Number Location Len h Width Clearance Ratin Life

96 SR 1302 (Maws Rd.) 93(306) 10(32) 4.9 (16.1) 87 16
overpass
101 SR 1307 (Edgewood Rd.) 70(228) 10(32) 5.0 (16.5) 79 14
overpass
103 SR 1312 (Oates Rd.) 43(141) 9(31) 5.2 (17.0) 76 6
underpass, northbound I-85
106 SR 1312 (Oates Rd.) 43(141) 9(31) 4.7 (15.5) 76 12
underpass, southbound I-85
Culverts or pipes exist at ten stream crossings in the project area. These
stream crossing structures are described in the following table and shown on
Figure 3.
4
Table 2
STREAM CROSSING STRUCTURES
Stream Crossing
Number Location Size Len h
1 Abernethy Creek 2@ 2.4mx2.7m 82m (269')
(8'x9') RCBC
2 First Creek 2@ 2.4mx2.4m 53m (174')
(8'x8') RCBC
3 Unnamed Tributary 1 1 @ 2.1 mx2.1 m 68m (223')
(Utl) of Abernethy Creek (7'x7') RCBC
4 Unnamed Tributary 2 600mm (2') 59m (194')
(Ut2) of Abernethy Creek RCP
5 Unnamed Tributary 3 2@ 1.8mx2.4m 84m (275')
(Ut3) of Abernethy Creek (6'x8') RCBC
6 Wolfe Creek 1@ 2.1 mx2.1 m 131 m (430')
(7'x7') RCBC
7 Unnamed Tributary 2 1800mm (6') 76m (249')
(Ut2) of Crowders Creek CMP
8 Unnamed Tributary 3 900mm (3') 110m (361')
(Ut3) of Crowders Creek CMP
9 Bessemer Branch 2@ 1.8mx2.4m 70m (230')
(Oates Creek) (6'x8') RCBC
10 Unnamed Tributary 2 2@ 1.8mx2.Im 82m (269')
(Ut2) of Bessemer Branch (6'x7') RCBC
(Oates Creek)
4. Intersecting Roads
The following roadways cross I-85 in the project area:
a. SR 1302 (Maws Road)
b. SR 1307 (Edgewood Road)
C. SR 1312 (Oates Road)
5
Maws Road and Oates Road are grade-separated crossings which do not have
direct access to I-85. Edgewood Road is the only roadway in the project area with
an interchange for direct access to the freeway.
5. Sneed Limit
The posted speed is 90 km/h (55 mph) within the project area.
6. Utilities
Utilities within the project area consist of aerial power and telephone lines.
Since the proposed improvements will be contained within the existing right of
way, impacts to utilities are expected to be low.
7. Geodetic Markers
The project will impact four geodetic survey markers. The N.C. Geodetic
Survey will be contacted prior to construction regarding the location of survey
markers. Intentional destruction of a geodetic monument is a violation of N.C.
General Statute 102-4.
B. Route Classification and Thoroughfare Plan
I-85 is classified as an Interstate in the Statewide Functional Classification System
and is part of the National Highway System. This facility is the primary route for
interstate travel between Atlanta and Richmond, serving a large percentage of
commercial freight traffic. Locally, this freeway functions as a major thoroughfare in the
Gaston Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan and is an important route for Charlotte and
Gastonia area commuter traffic.
C. Traffic Volumes and Ca aci
The current (1996) average daily traffic (ADT) volumes along I-85 range from
48,700 vehicles per day (vpd) near US 29/ US 74 to 52,900 vpd near Shannon Bradley
Road. Projected design year (2020) volumes in these same locations range from 91,200
vpd to 99,600 vpd. The estimated traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4. These
estimates of average daily traffic include 18 percent truck tractor semi-trailers (TTST)
and 6 percent dual tired (DT) vehicles.
The level of service (LOS) of a roadway is a measure of its ability to carry traffic.
Levels of service range from LOS A to F. Level of service A represents unrestricted
maneuverability and operating speeds. Level of service B represents reduced
maneuverability and normal operating speeds. Level of service C represents restricted
maneuvering and operating speeds close to the speed limit. Level of service D represents
restricted maneuvering and unstable, low operating speeds. This condition is considered
6
acceptable in urban areas. Level of service E represents operating conditions at or near
the capacity level. Breakdown conditions which are characterized by stop and go travel
occur with level of service F.
East of SR 1135 (Shannon Bradley Road), I-85 exists as a six-lane freeway
through the Gastonia urban area. West of SR 1135, the highway narrows to a four lane
divided facility. In the project area, the existing four-lane freeway operates at LOS E
undercurrent (1996) traffic volumes. The existing facility will reach breakdown
conditions (LOS F) by the year 2000. After construction (in the year 2000), the proposed
six-lane freeway will operate at LOS E. The widened facility will reach LOS F by the
year 2006. To achieve an acceptable level of service (LOS D) through the design year,
1-85 would need to be widened to eight lanes. These additional lanes would require a
substantial amount of right of way, major interchange and bridge reconstruction, and
would exceed the funding scope of the current project. The proposed project will meet
an immediate need for increasing the capacity and improving the flow of traffic.
The existing intersections with the I-85 ramp terminals and SR 1307 (Edgewood
Road) are unsignalized. The NCDOT Traffic Engineering Branch recommends that these
intersections remain stop-sign controlled. Exclusive left turn and right turn lanes were
considered along Edgewood Road to improve traffic operations these ramp terminals.
These turn lanes would exceed the funding scope of the current project and are not
recommended. However, these turn lane improvements may be incorporated into a
separate project.
In accordance with the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) deployment plan
for the region, traffic management system components are needed along this corridor to
promote efficient traffic operations. These components include detection, surveillance,
and communications equipment that link with the regional Traffic Operations Center in
Charlotte. These traffic management system components, estimated to cost $391,000,
would exceed the funding scope of the project and are not recommended. However, this
system may be installed as a separate project.
D. Accident History
During the period from December, 1993 to November, 1996, 183 reported
accidents occurred along 1-85 within the project area. Of these, 78 vehicles (43 percent)
were rear-end collisions, 40 (22 percent) involved vehicles running off the road, 23
(13 percent) were sideswipe accidents, and 22 (12 percent) were angle collisions. These
accident patterns accounted for 90 percent of all accidents occurring along the facility.
The following table compares I-85 accident rates to the statewide average rates.
Table 3
ACCIDENT RATES ALONG I-85
(Accidents per 100 million vehicle kilometers)
Rate Along
Accident Tyne I-85 Statewide Average
Fatal 0.0 0.4
Nonfatal Injury 21.5 33.4
Nighttime 7.5 21.1
Wet Conditions 8.0 20.9
Total Rate 54.5 89.3
The total accident rate for I-85 is 54.5 accidents per 100 million vehicle kilometers. This
is less than the statewide average for similar facilities. The proposed improvements
should further reduce the potential for accidents to occur. The additional travel lane in
each direction will increase the capacity and vehicle spacing, thereby, reducing the
potential for rear-end collisions and angle accidents to occur. Wider paved and useable
shoulders will also help to reduce the potential for accidents to occur from sideswipe
collisions and vehicles running off the road.
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
The alternatives considered for the project consist of the highway construction
alternative, the "do nothing" alternative, and the public transportation alternative.
A. Highway Construction Alternative
The recommended alternative consists of widening existing I-85 within the
median to provide a six-lane divided freeway with a median barrier and wider shoulders.
The proposed median widening allows the improvements to be contained within the
existing right of way. To avoid major interchange and bridge reconstruction costs, no
other alignment or cross section alternatives were considered for the project.
B. "Do Nothing" Alternative
The "do nothing" alternative was considered during project development.
The "do nothing" alternative presents negative impacts to future traffic operations in the
area. Enhanced safety and greater traffic carrying capacity are needed along this facility.
For this reason, the "do nothing" alternative was rejected.
C. Public Transportation Alternative
The City of Gastonia maintains a fixed-route bus system and van service for
disabled citizens. The Gastonia Transit System operates five weekday bus routes and
three Saturday routes within the city limits. None of these fixed routes access I-85. The
city uses one van to transport qualifying disabled citizens within the city limits.
Gaston County manages a coordinated van transportation system called Access.
This Access system consists of a fixed-schedule van system and a Dial-a-Ride program.
The fixed-schedule system consists of 24 vans that follow weekday routes for
transporting county residents to appointments and services sponsored by Gaston County
human services agencies. The Dial-a-Ride program uses several vans to transport
residents to appointments, when requested. The fixed-schedule routes do not travel along
1-85, but the Dial-a-Ride vans sometimes use the subject portion of I-85.
These transit and ridesharing programs alone will not fulfill the need of the
proposed project. However, the proposed improvements will enhance the safety and
efficiency for the modes of transportation that rely upon this highway corridor.
D. Maior Investment Study (MIS)
The Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MOO) reviewed the
proposed project regarding the need to conduct a Major Investment Study (MIS). The
MPO concluded that an MIS is not appropriate since no other transportation alternatives
would satisfy the need for widening this portion of I-85. On September 23, 1997, the
Transportation Advisory Committee voted to request that an MIS not be prepared for the
project (refer to correspondence in the Appendix).
IV. SOCIAL ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Social Effects
Neighborhood Characteristics
Gaston County is in the southwestern section of the state and is bounded
by the State of South Carolina and Cleveland, Lincoln, and Mecklenburg
Counties. The 1990 Population Census indicates that Gaston County has a total
population of 175,093. Of these, 150,868 are whites and 24,225 are nonwhites.
In terms of gender, 84,130 are males and 90,963 are females.
A low density of development exists in the immediate project area.
Developed areas are set back from the interstate right of way.
9
2. Public and Private Facilities
Several public and private facilities are located in the vicinity of the
project. Two convenience stores and a hotel are located on the north side of the
SR 1307 (Edgewood Road) interchange. A manufacturing plant is located on the
south side of I-85 along SR 1312 (Oates Road). The project will not interfere
with access to these facilities and services.
3. Relocation Impacts
The project will not relocate any residences or businesses nor disrupt
community cohesion.
4. Cultural Resources
The project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act. Section 106 requires that if a federally-funded,
licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property listed on or eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation must be given an opportunity to comment.
No structures of historical or architectural importance are located within
the project area. Because the project will be contained within the existing right of
way, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) recommended that no historic
architectural survey be conducted. In addition, there are no known archaeological
sites within the project area. Based upon a knowledge of the area, it is unlikely
that any archaeological resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the proposed construction.
For this reason, the SHPO recommended that no archaeological investigation be
conducted for the project (refer to correspondence in Appendix A).
B. Economic Effects
North Carolina Preliminary Civilian Labor Force Estimates (Preliminary Data for
January, 1997) indicate that Gaston County has a total labor force of 100,370. Of this
total, 95,860 people (95.5 percent) are employed and 4,510 people (4.5 percent) are
unemployed.
The proposed improvements will benefit area commerce by reducing congestion,
travel times, and the potential for accidents to occur.
10
C. Land Use
Status of Local Planning Activities
The proposed improvement is located in Gaston County's planning and
zoning jurisdiction. The County adopted the Gaston County Land Use Plan in
1991 and enforces zoning and subdivision regulations.
2. Existing Land Use and Zonin
The project area is composed of primarily large tracts of undeveloped
land. There are scattered light-industrial, highway-commercial and single-family
residential.
According to the Gaston County Zoning Map, the project area is zoned for
a variety of commercial, residential, office/institutional and light-industrial uses.
There are single-family, multi-family and mobile home zoned residential areas.
The residentially zoned areas are set back from the project corridor, beyond the
commercial and light-industrial zoned areas. The commercial zones are primarily
highway business which allow many different types of business uses. There are
scattered light-industrial and office/institutional zones along the project corridor.
3. Future Land Use
According to local officials, the project area is anticipated to experience
growth in light-industrial and commercial land uses. The City of Gastonia will
likely annex the project area into its planning and zoning jurisdiction in the near
future. Available development land is dwindling around the Gastonia area, and
land near the project is expected to be absorbed in Gastonia's growth.
4. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal agencies
to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime and
important farmland soils. The Act exempts from consideration land which has
been developed or is committed to urban development by the local governing
body. As previously discussed, the project area is characterized by commercial
and residential development. The undeveloped land likely to be affected by the
project is void of agricultural uses, and is itself zoned for urbanized land uses.
Therefore, no further consideration of potential impacts to prime and important
farmland soils is required.
11
D. Environmental Effects
Biotic Resources
An ecological evaluation was conducted to inventory and describe the
natural resources which occur within the proposed right of way boundaries and to
determine which resources are likely to be impacted by the proposed action.
Assessments of the nature and severity of probable impacts to these natural
resources are provided along with measures to minimize resource impacts.
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Published resource
information pertaining to the project area was gathered and reviewed. Resources
used in this preliminary investigation of the project area include:
• Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (Kings Mountain, Bessemer City,
Gastonia North).
• NCDOT aerial photographs of the project area (1:3000).
• USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Gaston County,
North Carolina (1989).
• N.C. Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Environmental
Sensitivity Base Maps of Cleveland, Lincoln and Gaston Counties (1995).
Water resource information was obtained from publications of the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993). Information
concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area
was obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected and
candidate species (May 2, 1997) and from the N.C. Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) database of rare species and unique habitats. NCNHP files were
reviewed for documented occurrences of state or federally listed species and
locations of significant natural areas.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by
NCDOT Environmental Biologists on May 28 and 29, 1997. Water resources
were identified and their physical characteristics were recorded. Plant
communities and their associated wildlife were also identified and described.
Terrestrial community classifications generally follow Schafale and Weakley
(1990) where possible, and plant taxonomy follows Radford, et al. (1968).
Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980), Menhenick (1991), Potter, et al.
(1980), and Webster, et al. (1985). Vegetative communities were mapped using
aerial photography of the project site. Predictions regarding wildlife community
composition involved general qualitative habitat assessment based on existing
vegetative communities. Wildlife identification involved using a variety of
observational techniques: qualitative habitat assessment based on vegetative
communities, active searching, identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds,
12
scat, tracks and burrows). Cursory surveys of aquatic organisms were conducted
and tactile searches for benthic organisms were administered as well. Organisms
captured during these searches were identified and released.
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. The biotic
communities encountered in the project area are described as well as the
relationships between fauna and flora within these communities. The composition
and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of
topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land uses. Descriptions of the
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications.
These classifications follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible.
Representative animal species which are likely to occur in these habitats (based on
published range distributions) are also cited.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are
provided for each animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to
the same organism refer to the common name only. Fauna observed during the
site visit are denoted in the text with an asterisk (*).
a. Biotic Communities
Biotic communities include terrestrial and aquatic elements. Much
of the flora and fauna described from biotic communities use resources
from different communities, making boundaries between contiguous
communities difficult to define. Four distinct community types were
identified in the study area: Disturbed, Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial
Forest, Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest, and Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype).
Disturbed
The disturbed community is found throughout the study area and
includes those areas that are regularly maintained in an early successional
state through mowing, grazing, or herbicide application. Habitats found
within this community are generally similar in composition and dominated
by fast growing herbaceous species. Habitats found in this community
include roadside shoulders and medians, utility corridors, pasture land, and
commercial lawns. This community also includes several small young
stands of Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana) that are isolated and uniform in
age. Common species observed in this community are: fescue (Festuca
sp.), winged sumac (Rhos copallina), smooth sumac (R. glabra), tree of
heaven (Ailanthus altissima), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), elderberry
(Sambucus canadensis), blackberry (Rubus argutus), dandelion
13
(Taraxacum ofjicinale), daisy (Coreopsis sp.), Venus' looking glass
(Specularia perfoliata), plantain (Plantago spp.), yellow wood sorrel
(Oxalis stricta), and toad flax (Linaria canadensis).
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
This community is associated with streams in the study area that
do not have a broad, well defined floodplain. This community differs
from the bottomland forest community primarily by being subject to
frequent disturbance by flowing water and alluvial deposition. Species
found in a wide array of moisture regimes can be found in this community.
The dominate canopy species are sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweet
gum (Liriodendron tulipifera), black walnut (Juglans nigra), American
elm (Ulmus americana), and white ash (Fraxinus americana). The
understory and shrub layer is most dense along the stream banks and in
openings in the canopy. Common species include tag alder (Alnus
serrulata), mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana), black willow (Salix nigra), black haw (Viburnum
prunifolium), spice bush (Lindera benzoin), viburnum (V. nudum),
yellowroot (Xanthorhiza simplicissima), privet (Ligustrum sinense), and
elderberry. The herbaceous layer is composed of sensitive fern (Onoclea
sensibilis), rattlesnake fern (Botrychium virginianum), Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea),
heartleaf (Hexastylis minor), and jewel weed (Impatiens capensis).
Piedmont Bottomland Forest
The bottomland forest community occurs in association with
streams that have large, well developed floodplains. This community is
flooded periodically but does not experience disturbance by flowing water
as seen in the alluvial forest community. The canopy in this community is
dominated by sweet gum, red maple (Acer rubrum), and tulip poplar. The
understory and shrub layer of this community is composed of ironwood,
box elder (A. negundo), elderberry, giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea),
autumn olive (Eleagnus umbellata), and tag alder. This community has a
diverse herb and vine layer that includes jack in the pulpit (Arisaema
triphyllum), may-apple (Podophyllum peltatum), grape fern (B. dissectum),
jewel weed, cinnamon fern, poison ivy, green brier (Smilax sp.),
honeysuckle (L. japonica), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), sensitive
fern (Onoclea sensibilis), and southern lady fern (Athryrium asplenioides).
14
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
This community is found throughout the study area along slopes
and ridges. Much of this community has suffered some form of
disturbance in the past creating opportunities for invasive species to
become established. Some portions of this community located near
maintained areas have a canopy dominated by Virginia pine (Pinus
virginiana) and other areas have a more typical assemblage of hardwood
species. The canopy in this community is composed of white oak
(Quercus alba), black cherry (Prunus serotina), sourwood (Oxydendrum
arboreum), red maple, hickory (Carya spp.), and tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera). The understory and shrub layer is composed of
paw paw (Asimina triloba), redbud (Cercis canadensis), dogwood (Corpus
Florida), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), red mulberry (Morus
rubra), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), blueberry (Vaccinium sp.), autumn
olive (Eleagnus umbellata), and hazel-nut (Corylus americana). A high
diversity of species was recorded from the herbaceous layer of this
community and includes running-pine (Lycopodium flabelliforme),
Christmas fern, muscadine, poison ivy, ebony spleenwort (Asplenium
platyneuron), strawberry bush (Euonymus americanus), Solomon's seal
(Polygonatum biflorum), false Solomon's seal (Smilacina racemosa),
rattlesnake plantain (Goodyera pubescens), coral honeysuckle (Lonicera
sempervirens), braken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), spotted wintergreen
(Chimaphila maculata), black cohosh (Cimicifuga racemosa), fire pink
(Silene virginica), and cranefly orchid (Tipularia discolor).
b. Aquatic Habitats
Streams crossed by the proposed project offer a variety of habitats
for aquatic organisms. Available habitats include rocky stream beds,
sandy stream beds, shallow pools, and swift runs. Larger streams are
likely to contain a greater diversity of species than do smaller streams.
Piscine species likely to occur in streams in the study area include: golden
shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), eastern silvery minnow (Hybognathus
regius), bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), greenfin shiner (Notropis
chloristius), greenhead shiner (N. chlorocephalus), sandbar shiner (N.
scepticus), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), redbreast sunfish
(Lepomis auritus), fantail darter (Etheostoma vitreum), and seagreen darter
(E. thalassinum). Birds such as the belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcvon) are
likely to prey upon small fish in shallow pools. Muskrat (Ondatra
zibethicus) and raccoon feed on crayfish (Cambarus sp.) and small fish
along streambanks.
15
C. Wildlife Communities
Communities that are maintained in an early successional state
provide little cover for animals in the study area. These areas do provide a
significant food source for herbivores and also predators found higher up
on the food chain. Butterflies, such as cabbage butterfly (Pieris rapae)
and painted lady (Vanessa cardui) are commonly seen going from flower
to flower feeding on the nectar that these plants produce. Other animals
that frequently forage on roadside shoulders and fill slopes include: black
rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousii), Carolina
chickadee (Parus carolinensis), American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos)*, mourning dove (Zenaida macroura)*, northern
cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis)*, eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis),
loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), song sparrow (Melospiza
melodia), and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus).
The bottomland and alluvial floodplain offers considerably more
opportunities for animals than do roadside habitats. Trees and shrubs that
produce fleshy fruit attract a multitude of insects that are in turn preyed
upon by yellow-throated warbler (Dendroica dominica), blue-gray
gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), white-eyed vireo (Vireo grisceus),
prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea), yellow warbler (D. petechia),
hooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina). Herps such as, spotted salamander
(Ambystoma maculatum), three-lined salamander (Eurycea guttolineata),
northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus)*, upland chorus frog
(Pseudacris triseriata), and southern cricket frog (Acris gryllus) are found
under rocks and streamside vegetation. Predators are also prolific in this
community and include red shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), barred owl
(Strix varia), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), raccoon (Procyon
lotor), and bobcat (Fells ruf is). Gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) and
white-tailed deer (Odocoilus virginiana) feed on seeds and fruits found
throughout this community.
Habitats found in the mesic forest are likely to be used by species
found in disturbed and bottomland communities. This area contains a
variety of food producing plants. Species likely to occur in this
community are: slimy salamander (Plethodon gluttinosus) American toad
(Bufo americanus), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), upland chorus frog, box
turtle (Terrapene carolina), ground skink (Scincella lateralis), corn snake
(Elaphe guttata), scarlet kingsnake (Lampropeltis triangulum), tufted
titmouse (P. bicolor), American robin (Turdus migratorius)*, downy
woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica),
Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), wood thrush (Hylocichla
mustelina), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), gray squirrel (Scuirus
carolinensis), and black rat (Rattus rattus).
16
d. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on
the biotic resources described. Any construction related activities in or
near these resources have the potential to impact biological functions.
This section quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the natural
communities within the project area in terms of the area impacted and the
organisms affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are also
considered, along with recommendations to minimize or eliminate
impacts.
Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project
construction due to the clearing and paving of portions of the project area,
and thus the loss of community area. Table 4 summarizes potential losses
to these communities, resulting from project construction. Calculated
impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of each
community present in the study area. Estimated impacts are derived based
on the project length of 5.5 kilometers (3.3 miles) and an average width of
24 meters (80 feet) between the shoulder and existing right of way
boundary. However, project construction often does not require the entire
right of way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 4
ESTIMATED IMPACTS TO TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
hectares (acres)
Community Impacted Area
Disturbed 16(41)
Piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest 1.4 (3.4)
Piedmont/mountain bottomland forest 1.4 (3.5)
Mesic mixed hardwood forest 7.408)
Total Impacts 27(66)
The projected loss of habitat resulting from construction of the
proposed project will have a minimal impact on populations of native
fauna and flora. Natural communities impacted by project construction
are already disturbed to a greater or lesser extent. Permanent impacts will
be limited to the disturbed community and the edge of the forested
communities. Plants and animals found in these communities are
generally common throughout North Carolina and are well adapted to
17
persisting through disturbance. Animals temporarily displaced by
construction activities should repopulate areas of suitable habitat
following project completion. Impacts to the edges of forested
communities should be avoided to the extent practicable, since, this
reduces the amount of suitable habitat available for interior species and
increases opportunities for edge species. Interior species generally require
large tracts of relatively undisturbed contiguous habitats as a home range.
If forested tracts become too small in area interior species will not
repopulate.
Impacts to Aquatic Communities
Impacts to the aquatic communities of streams crossed by the
proposed project will result from the construction of lateral ditches.
Impacts are likely to result from the physical disturbance of aquatic
habitats (i.e. substrate, water quality, stream banks). Disturbance of
aquatic habitats has a detrimental effect on aquatic community
composition by reducing species diversity and the overall quality of
aquatic habitats. Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the
following impacts to aquatic communities.
• Inhibition of plant growth.
• Clogging of feeding structures of filter-feeding organisms, gills of fish,
and the burial of benthic organisms.
• Algal blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations.
• Mortality among sensitive organisms resulting from introduction of
toxic substances and decreases in dissolved oxygen.
• Destabilization of water temperature resulting from riparian canopy
removal.
• Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through scouring resulting from an
increased sediment load.
Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by reducing
riparian canopy removal, limiting instream construction, revegetating
immediately following the completion of grading activities, and strict
adherence to Best Management Practices (BMP's).
e. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the
process of decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist
with human development. Federal law (under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action,
likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be
18
subject to review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened
(PT) are protected under the provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of May 2, 1997, the
FWS lists two federally-protected species for Gaston County (refer to
Table 5). The characteristics, habitat requirements, and potential project
impacts for these species are discussed below.
Table 5
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES FOR GASTON COUNTY
Common Name Scientific Name Status
bog turtle Clemmys muhlenburgii Proposed T (S/A)
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
Note:
• "Endangered" a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.
• "Proposed T (S/A)" a species proposed for official listing as threatened due to
similarity of appearance.
Clemmys muhlenburgii (bog turtle)
The bog turtle is North Carolina's smallest turtle, measuring 7 to
10 centimeters (3 to 4 inches) in length. It has a dark brown carapace and
black plastron. The orange or yellow blotch on each side of the head and
neck is a readily identifiable characteristic. It inhabits damp grassy fields,
bogs and marshes in the mountains and western piedmont.
The bog turtle is shy and secretive, and will burrow rapidly in mud
or debris when disturbed. The bog turtle forages on insects, worms, snails,
amphibians and seeds. In June or July, three to five eggs are laid in a
shallow nest in moss or loose soil. The eggs hatch in about 55 days.
(Bernard S. Martof, et. al., 1980).
Biological Conclusion: Not Endangered or Threatened and
Not Subject to Section 7 Consultation
19
The bog turtle is listed as Proposed Threatened due to similarity of
Appearance with other rare species that are listed for protection. Species
listed as T (S/A) are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not
subject to Section 7 consultation.
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower)
Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that
grows from 1 to 2 meters (3.3 to 6.6 feet) tall from a cluster of carrot-like
tuberous roots. The stems are deep red, solitary and only branch above
mid-stem. The narrowly lanceolate opposite leaves are 18 centimeters
(7 inches) long and 2.5 centimeters (I inch) wide. The leaves are rough
feeling above and resin-dotted and loosely soft-white-hairy beneath.
Leaves are opposite on the lower part of the stem and usually become
alternate on the upper stem. The 5.5-centimeter (2.2-inch) broad flowers
are borne from September until frost. These flowers are yellow in color
and arranged in an open system of upwardly arching heads. The fruit is a
smooth, gray-black achene approximately 5 millimeters (0.2 inch) long.
Based on its similar morphology to H. laevigatus and H. microcephalus it
is difficult to positively identify this species prior to flowering.
Schweinitz's sunflower grows best in full sunlight or light shade
in clearings and along the edges of open stands of oak-pine-hickory upland
woods. Common soils in which this species is found are moist to dryish
clays, clay-loams, or sandy clay-loams, often with a high gravel content
and always moderately podzolized. Natural fires and large herbivores are
considered to be historically important in maintaining open habitat for
these sunflowers. Today, disturbances such as mowing, controlled
burning, and logging help maintain its open habitat.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The existing roadsides in the study area provide suitable habitat for
this species. On November 13, 1997, NCDOT biologists conducted a
thorough survey of all suitable habitat in the project area. No sunflowers
were observed during this survey. The North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats lists no
known occurrences of this species in the project area. The proposed
construction will not impact the Schweinitz's sunflower.
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There is one Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed by the FWS
for Gaston County. Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal
protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of
20
its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or
listed as Threatened or Endangered. However, since the status of these
species is subject to change, these species should be included for
consideration. A Federal Species of Concern is defined as a species which
is under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing. In addition, organisms which are listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the NHP list
of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the
N.C. State Endangered Species Act and the N.C. Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979.
The Georgia aster (Aster eorgianus) is listed as a "Candidate
Species" (NHP, 1995) for Gaston County. A Candidate Species is defined
as "a species which is rare in North Carolina and if current land use trends
continue is likely to merit listing as Endangered or Threatened." Suitable
habitat for the Georgia aster is found in the study area. A review of the
•NHP data base of rare species and unique habitats shows no occurrences
of Federal Species of Concern in the study area. Surveys for FSC species
were not conducted during the site visit.
2. Physical Resources
Soil and water resources which occur in the project area are
discussed below with respect to possible environmental concerns. Soil
properties and site topography significantly influence the potential for soil
erosion and compaction, along with other possible construction limitations
or management concerns. Water resources within the project area present
important management limitations due to the need to regulate water
movement and the increased potential for water quality degradation.
Excessive soil disturbance resulting from construction activities can
potentially alter both the flow and quality of water resources, limiting
downstream uses. In addition, soil characteristics and the availability of
water directly influence the composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in biotic communities, thus affecting the characteristics of these
resources.
a. Topography, and Soils
The proposed project is located in western Gaston County near the
Cleveland County line. This area is located in the southern Piedmont
Physiographic Province of North Carolina. Topography in the vicinity of
the study area is characterized as gently rolling or hilly with several
prominent ridges and mountains in the region. Elevations range from
220 meters (720 feet) to 262 meters (860 feet) above mean sea level.
21
Soils in the project area are of the Tatum and Chewacla-Congaree
Association. The Tatum Association occurs predominantly on uplands
where soils have formed from sericite phyllite and sericite schist. Soils of
the Chewacla-Congaree Association are found predominantly along the
floodplains of major streams and are formed form recent alluvial deposits.
Information concerning specific soil types occurring in the study area is
shown in Table 6.
Table 6
SPECIFIC SOIL MAPPING UNITS FOUND IN THE STUDY AREA
Map Unit Specific Mapping Unit % Slope Site Erosion
Index' Hazard'
Symbol
CeB2 Cecil sandy clay loam, eroded 2-8 72 moderate
CeD2 Cecil sandy clay loam, eroded 8-15 72 moderate
CfB Cecil-Urban land complex 2-8 UA* UA*
CH Chewacla loam, frequently flooded nearly level 96 slight
PaE Pacolet sandy loam 15-25 78 moderate
TaB Tatum gravelly loam 2-8 78 slight
TaD Tatum gravelly loam 8-15 78 slight
TaE Tatum gravelly loam 15-25 78 moderate
WoA Worsham loam 0-2 88 slight
Note: 1 the expected average height (ft) of dominant trees in an even aged stand at 50
years of age (loblolly pine).
2 describes the potential for future erosion, inherent in the soil itself, in
inadequately protected areas. Based on tons of soil lost/acre/year.
site index information for this soil type is unavailable.
Cecil sandy clay loam is a well drained soil found on broad ridges
throughout the county. The soil permeability is moderate and the water
table is not located within 2 meters (6 feet). The potential for erosion on
this map unit is severe in bare, unprotected areas. The main use of land
included within this soil type is as cropland and pasture. This map unit is
not listed as a hydric soil or as having inclusions of hydric soils.
Cecil-Urban land complex consists of intermingled areas of Cecil
soil and Urban land. The map units well drained and found on broad
ridges in the vicinity of Gastonia. The permeability of this soil is
22
moderate and the shrink swell potential is low. The water table is greater
than 2 meters (6 feet) of the surface. This map unit is not listed as a hydric
soil or as having inclusions of hydric soils.
Chewacla loam is nearly level and somewhat poorly drained. This
map unit occurs on flood plains along creeks and rivers throughout the
county. The seasonal high water table is located within 0.46 meters
(1.5 feet) of the surface and this soil is frequently flooded for brief periods
during the winter and spring. The soil permeability is moderate and shrink
swell potential is low. This map unit is listed as having inclusions of
hydric soils. Hydric inclusions are of the Worsham map unit.
Pacolet sandy loam is a well drained soil that occurs on side slopes
and narrow ridges throughout the county. The water table is not within
2 meters (6 feet) of the surface. Permeability is moderate and shrink swell
potential is low. The major use for land occurring within this map unit is
as woodland. This map unit is not listed as a hydric soil or as a soil having
inclusions of hydric soils.
Tatum gravelly loam is a well drained soil that is found on broad
ridges, narrow ridges and side slopes in the Kings Mountain belt. The
water table is not within 2 meters (6 feet) of the surface. Permeability and
shrink swell potential on this soil is moderate. The primary use of land
occurring within this map unit is as woodland. This map unit is not listed
as a hydric soil or as a soil having inclusions of hydric soils.
Worsham loam is a poorly drained soil that occurs on uplands
around intermittent drainageways throughout the county. The seasonal
high water table is within 0.3 meters (1 foot) of the surface during the
winter and spring. Permeability is very slow and the shrink swell potential
is moderate. The main use for areas located within this map unit is as
woodland. This map unit is listed as a hydric soil.
b. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water
resources likely to be impacted by the proposed project. Water resource
assessments include the physical characteristics, best usage standards, and
water quality aspects of the water resources, along with their relationship
to major regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to surface water
resources are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
23
Best Usage Classification
Water resources within the study area are located in the inner
Piedmont Region (Subbasin # 030837) of the Catawba River Drainage
Basin. I-85 crosses six perennial streams and four intermittent streams
(refer to Figure 3 for locations). The project will require some lateral
ditches to be constructed near stream crossings.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the
Division of Water Quality (DWQ), formerly Division of Environmental
Management (DEM), which reflects water quality conditions and potential
resource usage. Unnamed streams carry the same best usage classification
as the streams to which they are tributary. Information concerning the best
usage classifications of streams in the study area is shown below in
Table 7. Streams are listed as they are crossed traveling from western
terminus of the project to the eastern terminus of the project.
Table 7
BEST USAGE CLASSIFICATIONS FOR STREAMS IN THE PROJECT AREA
Stream Flow DEM Index Classification Date

Abernethy Creek P 11-135-4 C 9/ 1 /74
First Creek P 11-135-4-1 C 9/1/74
Unnamed Tributary 1 (Ut I) P
of Abernethy Creek
Unnamed Tributary 2 (Ut2) I
of Abernethy Creek
Unnamed Tributary 3 (Ut3) P
of Abernethy Creek
Wolfe Creek P 11-135 C 9/1/74
Unnamed Tributary 2 (Ut2) I
of Crowders Creek
Unnamed Tributary 3 (Ut3) I
of Crowders Creek
Unnamed Tributary 1 (Utl) of I
Bessemer Branch (Oates Creek)
Bessemer Branch (Oates Creek) 1 11-135-5 C 9/1/74
Unnamed Tributary 2 (Ut2) of I
Bessemer Branch (Oates Creek)
Note:
• "`P" denotes perennial flow
• "I" denotes intermittent flow.
24
The Best Usage Classification C refers to waters suitable for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and
agriculture. No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water
Supplies (WS-1 or WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur
within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the project study area.
Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
Abernethy Creek and First Creek converge immediately south of
I-85 and flow in a southerly direction to converge with Crowders Creek.
These two streams exhibit similar characteristics of flow, substrate, and
gradient in the study area. These streams are approximately 8 meters
(25 feet) wide and 0.6 meters (2 feet) deep. No riparian canopy is present
in the study area. Substrates were composed primarily of sand and silt,
with bed rock exposed in swift flowing sections. Turbidity was observed
to be low.
Unnamed tributary 1 (Utl) of Abernethy Creek is a small perennial
stream approximately 2 meters (6 feet) wide and 8 centimeters (3 inches)
deep and flows in a southerly direction through a bottomland hardwood
forest community to its converge with Abernethy Creek. The substrate in
the study area is composed of sand, silt and cobble size particles.
Ut2 of Abernethy Creek is an intermittent stream with a channel
approximately 1 meter (4 feet) wide. The banks of this stream are poorly
defined and the stream bed is composed of sand and silt. This stream
occurs in a forested setting.
Ut3 of Abernethy Creek is a perennial flowing stream with a well
established riparian canopy. This stream is approximately 9 meters
(30 feet) wide and 20 centimeters (8 inches) deep. The substrate is
composed of sand, silt, and cobble. Upstream of I-85 culvert the stream is
dammed by the culvert and is considerable deeper and flow velocity is
much slower.
Wolfe Creek is a perennial stream approximately 4.5 meters
(15 feet) wide and 0.3 to 1 meter (1 to 3 feet) in depth. The substrate is
composed of sand, gravel and exposed bedrock. Vegetated sandbars were
observed in the study area and a well established riparian canopy is
present. The existing culvert is restricting the flow upstream of I-85.
Ut2 and Ut3 of Crowders Creek both exhibit intermittent flow.
These streams flow in a southerly direction and converge immediately
south of I-85. These streams are located in a bottomland hardwood forest
25
community. These streams are approximately 2 meters (6 feet) wide and
20 centimeters (8 inches) in depth. The substrate is composed primarily of
silt, sand, and gravel.
Bessemer Branch is an intermittent stream that exhibited high flow
during the field visit. The stream is 3 meters (10 feet) wide and 0.3 meters
(1 feet) in depth. The substrate is composed of sand, gravel and cobble.
This stream has no riparian canopy in the study area.
Ut 1 of Bessemer Branch is a small intermittent stream that flows
parallel to I-85 from its source at a small pond to its convergence with
Bessemer Branch. This stream is bordered by active pastureland on the
south side and has been degraded by sedimentation and runoff from the
pasture. This stream has numerous bends and meanders as it flows
through the study area. The channel is 1 meter (4 feet) wide and 13
centimeters (5 inches) deep.
Ut2 of Bessemer Branch is an intermittent stream. This stream
flows through a powerline right of way in the study area and has no
riparian canopy. The stream banks are densely vegetated with shrubs and
herbs. The stream is approximately 3 meters (10 feet) wide and varies in
depth from 8 to 25 centimeters (3 to 10 inches). The stream banks are
undercut and the water is extremely clear.
Water Ouality
This section describes the water quality of the water resources
within the project area. Potential sediment loads and toxin concentrations
of these waters from both point sources and nonpoint sources are
evaluated. Water quality assessments are made based on published
resource information and existing general watershed characteristics. These
data provide insight into the value of water resources within the project
area to meet human needs and to provide habitat for aquatic organisms.
General Watershed Characteristics
The watershed for this subbasin of the Catawba River Basin is not
highly urbanized. The surrounding landscape is dominated by an
increasing number of suburban communities and a decreasing number of
agricultural and forested areas. Streams in the study area are likely to be
vulnerable to runoff of sediment and nonpoint sources from homes,
businesses and roadways. Nonpoint source pollution includes domestic
waste from septic tanks. fertilizers and pesticides from lawn maintenance,
and animal waste form pasture land.
26
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN),
managed by the DWQ, is part of an ongoing ambient water quality
monitoring program which addresses long term trends in water quality.
The program monitors ambient water quality by sampling at fixed sites for
selected benthic macroinvertebrates organisms, which are sensitive to
water quality conditions. Samples are evaluated on the number of taxa
present of intolerant groups [Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera
(EPT)] and a taxa richness value (EPT S) is calculated. A biotic index
value is also calculated for the sample that summarizes tolerance data for
all species in each collection. The two rankings are given equal weight in
final site bioclassification. The biotic index and taxa richness values
primarily reflect the effects of chemical pollution and are a poor measure
of the effects of such physical pollutants as sediment.
One sampling site is located immediately downstream of the study
area on Abernethy Creek at the SR 1302 crossing. This was sampled in
June, 1987 and September, 1989 and maintained a bioclassification of
"fair". The other sampling site is located 8 kilometers (5 miles)
downstream of the study area on Crowders Creek at the SR 1103 crossing.
This site was sampled in May, 1985 and assigned a bioclassification of
"good-fair". Water quality below the Lithium Corporation discharge
shows significantly lower taxa richness value (NCDEM, 1988).
Point Source Dischargers
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are
permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program administered by the DEM. All dischargers are required
to register for a permit. Two permitted dischargers with discharges greater
than 0.5 MGD are located within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the study area.
The Lithium Corporation is located on First Creek 0.6 kilometer (0.4 mile)
upstream of the study area and is permitted to discharge up to 0.6 MGD.
The Bessemer City Waste Water Treatment Plant is located on Abernethy
Creek 0.7 kilometer (0.4 mile) downstream of the study area and is
permitted to discharge up to 1.5 MGD.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result
from activities associated with project construction. Activities likely to
result in impacts are clearing and grubbing on stream banks, riparian
canopy removal, instream construction, rechannel ization, the use of
27
fertilizers and pesticides in revegetation, and pavement installation. The
following impacts to surface water resources are likely to result from the
above mentioned construction activities.
Increased erosion in the project area and increased sedimentation
and siltation downstream of the crossing.
Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to vegetation
removal and increased sedimentation.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or
additions to surface and ground water flow from construction.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to
vegetation removal.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from
exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds from highway runoff,
construction, and toxic spills.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and
oil from construction equipment and other vehicles.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in
surface and groundwater drainage patterns.
To minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project
area, NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters will be strictly enforced during the construction phase of the
project. Impacts have been reduced by steepening slopes to avoid
extending culverts and limiting instream construction activities.
3. Wetlands and Surface Waters
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of
the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR)
Part 328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface
waters or wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Surface waters include all standing or flowing waters which have commercial or
recreational value to the public. Wetlands are identified based on the presence of
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and saturated or flooded conditions during
all or part of the growing season.
Jurisdictional wetlands were identified and evaluated based on criteria
established in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual"
(Environment Laboratory, 1987) and "Guidance for Rating the Values of
Wetlands in North Carolina" (Division of Environmental Management, 1995).
Wetlands were classified based on the classification scheme of Cowardin, et al.
28
(1979). Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric
soils, hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. Four wetland sites were identified in
the study area. These sites are described in Table 8 and shown on Figure 3.
Table 8
ANTICIPATED WETLAND IMPACTS
Wetland Wetland hectare (acre)
Site Location Classification Impact
Wetland 1 West of UtI of PFO1C 0.0 (0.0)
Abernethy Creek
Wetland 2 Wolfe Creek PFO1 C 0.0 (0.0)
Wetland 3 Bessemer Branch PFOIA 0.01 (0.02)
Wetland 4 Bessemer Branch PFO 1 B 0.01 (0.02)
Total Impacts 0.02 (0.04)
Note: Wetland Classifications
• PFOIA Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Temporarily Flooded
• PFO1B Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Saturated
• PFO1C Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded
Wetland Site 1 is located to the south of I-85 west of Utl of Abernethy
Creek. This wetland occurs in the bottomland hardwood community in the
Abernethy Creek floodplain. The Cowardin classification of this wetland is
Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded (PFO 1 Q.
Hydrological indicators observed were waterstained leaves and soils saturated at
the surface. Soils were observed to have a matrix of 2.5Y 4/2 and a mottle of
7YR 4/4 at a depth of 25 centimeters (10 inches). The project will not impact this
wetland site.
Wetland Site 2 is located to the south of I-85 in the floodplain of Wolfe
Creek. This wetland is located in the alluvial forest community. The Cowardin
classification of this wetland is Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous
Seasonally Flooded (PFO1 C). Hydrological indicators observed are soils
saturated at the surface, sediment deposits, and water-stained leaves. Soils were
observed to have a matrix of 2.5Y 4/2 and a mottle of 7YR 4/4 at a depth of
25 centimeters (10 inches). The project will not impact this wetland site.
Wetland Site 3 is located to the south of I-85 in the floodplain of Bessemer
Branch. This wetland occurs in the alluvial forest community along Ut 1 of
Bessemer Branch. The Cowardin classification of this wetland is Palustrine
Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Temporarily Flooded (PFO 1 A). Hydrological
indicators at this site are soils saturated at the surface. Soils were observed to
29
have a matrix of 2.5Y 4/2 and a mottle of 7YR 4/4 at a depth of 25 centimeters
(10 inches). The project will impact approximately 0.01 hectare (0.02 acre) of
wetlands from this site.
Wetland Site 4 is located in the floodplain of Bessemer Branch to the
north of I-85. This wetland is located in the alluvial floodplain community. The
Cowardin classification of this wetland is Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved
Deciduous Saturated (PFO1 B). Hydrological indicators at this site are drainage
patterns, sediment deposits, water-stained leaves, and water marks. Soils were
observed to have a matrix of 2.5Y 4/2 and a mottle of 7YR 4/4 at a depth of 25
centimeters (10 inches). The project will impact approximately 0.01 hectare
(0.02 acre) of wetlands from this site.
These impact assessments include only those wetland sites within the
immediate project area. Additional wetland areas might be indirectly affected due
to changes in water levels and siltation from construction activities. Impacts to
wetlands have been avoided to the extent practicable (refer to discussion of
avoidance measures in Section IV.D.5).
Eleven jurisdictional surface waters are located in the study area. Impacts
to all but two of these streams have been avoided by using steeper construction
slopes at the stream crossings. Surface water impacts are anticipated at Ut3 of
Crowders Creek and UtI of Bessemer Branch. The culvert at UO of Crowders
Creek will be extended and a portion of Utl of Bessemer Branch will be
rechannelized.
4. Stream Rechannelization
The project will require approximately 35 meters (115 feet) of stream
rechannelization along Utl of Bessemer Branch. The relocated stream will be
designed according to the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission's (NCWRC)
guidelines entitled "N.C. Stream Protection and Improvement Guidelines."
Proposed channel designs will be similar in width, depth, gradient, and substrate.
Site specific requirements for re-establishment of bank vegetation with planting
regime, meanders, and habitat structures will be determined through coordination
with the NCWRC field staff during the hydraulic design phase of the project.
5. Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed
project. As a result, construction activities will require permits and certifications
from various regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of
public water resources.
30
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(23) is likely to be applicable for all
impacts to Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. This
permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or
financed in whole, or part, by another Federal agency or department where that
agency or department has determined that pursuant to the Council on
Environmental Quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of
the National Environmental Policy Act:
• the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from
environmental documentation because it is included within a category of
actions which neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment; and
• the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the
agency's or department's application for the categorical exclusion and
concurs with that determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the
DWQ prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally
permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the
United States. Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily
impacted for the duration of the construction or other land manipulation.
6. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of
wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain
the chemical, biological and physical integrity of Waters of the United States,
specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the
CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying
impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR
1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and
compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable
possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a
1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the COE, in determining "appropriate and practicable"
31
measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to
the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing
technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Impacts to surface waters have been avoided to the extent practicable by
using steeper slopes at stream crossings. Impacts to all but two of these streams
have been avoided since the culverts will not be extended. Surface water impacts
cannot be avoided at Ut3 of Crowders Creek and UtI of Bessemer Branch. The
existing pipe at Ut3 of Crowders Creek requires a 6-meter (20-foot) extension to
accommodate the construction slopes. At Utl of Bessemer Branch, the proposed
construction slope encroaches on a 35-meter (115-foot) portion of this parallel
stream. Shifting the roadway in either direction is not practicable since it would
require some reconstruction to the SR 1307 (Edgewood Road) interchange and
would require culvert extensions at Bessemer Branch and Ut2 of Bessemer
Branch.
Impacts to two jurisdictional wetlands cannot be avoided. Wetlands 3 and
4 are located on each side of the roadway near SR 1312 (Oates Road). Shifting
the roadway in either direction will require some reconstruction to the SR 1307
(Edgewood Road) interchange and would require culvert extensions at Bessemer
Branch and Ut2 of Bessemer Branch. In addition, a southward shift would require
additional rechannelization along UtI of Bessemer Branch. For these reasons, it
is not practicable to avoid Wetlands 3 and 4.
Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable
steps to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States.
Implementation of these steps will be required through project modifications and
permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of
the proposed project through the reduction to median widths, right of way widths,
fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
All practicable measures have been included to minimize impacts to
surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands. The proposed roadway alignment
minimizes wetland impacts by widening within the median. In addition, the
roadway footprint has been reduced to provide a 6.2-meter (20-foot) median and
include 2:1 (or steeper) sideslopes in wetland areas.
Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated
impacts to Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands"
functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit action.
32
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable
adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization
has been required. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation, and
enhancement of Water of the United States, specifically wetlands. Such actions
should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Compensatory mitigation is required for those projects authorized under
Nationwide Permits that result in the fill or alteration of
• More than 0.45 hectare (1 acre) of wetlands.
• And/or more than 45.7 linear meters (150 feet) of streams.
Since the project impacts approximately 0.02 hectare (0.04 acre) of wetlands and
a total of 41 linear meters (135 feet) of streams, compensatory mitigation is not
likely to be required. However, final permit/mitigation decisions rest with the
COE.
Flood Hazard Evaluation
Gaston County and the City of Gastonia are participants in the National
Flood Insurance Regular Program. Abernethy Creek, Wolfe Creek, and Bessemer
Branch (Oates Creek) are located in a designated flood hazard zone, and the
approximate limits of the 100-year floodplains for these streams are shown on
Figure 5. Tributary R-5 (Ut2 of Bessemer Branch) is located in a designated
flood hazard zone and is included in a detailed study having an established
floodplain and floodway. The established limits of the 100-year floodplain and
floodway for this stream are also shown on Figure 5.
All of the major stream crossings are above headwaters. The project site is
not in a water supply watershed; therefore, erosion and sedimentation will be
controlled through the appropriate specification, installation, and maintenance of
standard erosion control measures. Existing drainage patterns will be maintained,
and perhaps improved, to the extent practicable. It is anticipated that groundwater
resources will not be affected because the majority of excavation will be
performed on the existing roadbed. Permanent drainage easements will be
required in areas along the project where proposed lateral drainage ditches cannot
be contained within the existing right of way. Steeper slopes will be used near the
existing culverts to avoid extending the large culverts and filling in the floodplain.
The proposed project will not have any significant adverse impact on the existing
floodplains or floodways.
33
8. Air uali and Traffic Noise
The project is located in Gaston County, which is within the Charlotte-
Gastonia nonattainment area for ozone (03) as defined by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA)
designated these areas as "moderate" nonattainment areas for 03; however, due to
improved monitoring data, Gaston County was redesignated by the EPA as an
attainment area for 03 on July 5, 1995 and entered the maintenance period.
Section 176(c) of the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and
projects conform to the intent of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP)
for the attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). The current SIP does not contain any transportation control
measures for Gaston County. The conformity determination for the Gaston Urban
Area MPO Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) was approved by the
USDOT on May 12, 1997. There have been no significant changes in the
project's design concept or scope, as used in the conformity analyses.
The project proposes to widen I-85 from four to six lanes with the
construction of a travel lane in each direction within the median. Also, planned
improvements will be a median barrier and improved paved shoulders. The
construction activities will be contained within the existing right of way, generally
within the median, with the exception of easements at culverts. An air quality
project level CO analysis was performed using Mobile 5A and CAL3QHC. It
was determined that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (1-hour standard
of 35 ppm or the 8-hour standard of 9 ppm) would not be exceeded for the
evaluation years of 2000 and 2020.
A "worst case" scenario was used to determine traffic noise contours in the
vicinity of the project. The maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise contours
is 78.3 and 120.9 meters, respectively, from the centerline of the proposed project.
Noise levels are expected to increase approximately 2.5 dBA by the year 2020.
When real-life noises are heard, it is barely possible to detect noise level changes
of 2-3 dBA. The land use in the vicinity of the project is scattered and
predominantly commercial. The transmission loss characteristics of the structures
are considered sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive traffic noise.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If
vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air quality
(1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
34
9. Hazardous Materials
A reconnaissance survey was conducted within the project corridor to
identify properties that may contain hazardous materials. Geographical
Information Systems (GIS) databases and environmental agencies' files were also
reviewed. Based upon these investigations, no underground storage tanks
(UST's), regulated or unregulated landfills, or dump sites exist within the project
area.
10. Construction Impacts
There are some environmental impacts normally associated with the
construction of highways. These are generally of short term duration, and
measures will be taken to minimize these impacts.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from
clearing and grubbing, demolition, and other operations will be removed from the
project, burned, or otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning done
will be in accordance with applicable local laws, ordinances, and regulations of
the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Air Quality in compliance
with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at the
greatest distance practicable from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions
are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under
constant surveillance.
Measures will be taken to allay the dust generated by construction when
the control of dust is necessary for protection and comfort of motorists or area
residents.
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. Overall,
construction noise impacts are expected to be minimal, since all alternative
alignments generally traverse through low density areas. However, considering
the relatively short term nature of construction noise, these impacts are not
expected to be substantial. Furthermore, the transmission loss characteristics of
nearby structures and wooded areas are believed to be sufficient to moderate the
effects of intrusive construction noise.
The general requirements concerning erosion and siltation are covered in
Article 107-13 of the Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures, which is
entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution". The N.C. Division of
Highways has also developed an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program
35
which has been approved by the N. C. Sedimentation Control Commission. This
program consists of the rigorous requirements to minimize erosion and
sedimentation contained in the Standard Specifications together with the policies
of the Division of Highways regarding the control of accelerated erosion and
sedimentation on work performed by State Forces.
The Contractor will be required to perform erosion control in accordance
with the project erosion control plans, contract, standards, and/or Standard
Specifications or as requested by the Resident Engineer. These contract
documents are in accordance with the erosion control measures outlined in the
Department of Transportation's FHPM 6-7-3-1. Temporary erosion control
measures will be installed and maintained in accordance with the plans.
Additional measures to control erosion throughout the project will be added as
needed.
Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of the right of way
and provided by the contractor, unless otherwise required by the plans or special
provisions or unless disposal within the right of way is permitted by the Resident
Engineer. Disposal of waste and debris in active public waste or disposal areas
will not be permitted without prior approval by the Engineer. Such approval will
not be permitted when, in the opinion of the Engineer, it will result in excessive
siltation or pollution.
NCDOT's general contract for right of way clearing allows the contractor
to market merchantable timber during construction to minimize the need for piling
and burning. This contract also includes specifications to protect trees outside the
construction limits.
Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained to alleviate breeding areas for
mosquitoes. In addition, care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
The construction of the project is not expected to cause any serious
disruptions in service to any of the utilities serving the area. Prior to construction,
a determination will be made regarding the need to relocate or adjust any existing
utilities in the project area. A determination of whether the NCDOT or the utility
owner will be responsible for this will be made at that time. In all cases, the
contractor is required to notify the owner of the utility in advance as to when this
work will occur. In addition, the contractor is responsible for any damages to
water lines incurred during the construction processes. This procedure will insure
that water lines, as well as other utilities, are relocated with minimal disruption in
service to the community.
Traffic service in the immediate area may be subjected to brief disruption
during construction of the project. Every effort will be made to insure the
transportation needs of the public are met both during and after construction.
36
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Received
The following federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the
preparation of this environmental assessment. Written comments were received from
agencies noted with an asterisk (*).
* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
* State Clearinghouse
* N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
* N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
* N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
Region F Planning Agency
* Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
Gaston County Commissioners
* City of Gastonia
* Carolina Piedmont Archaeology Project - Schiele Museum of Natural History
These comments and related issues, included in Appendix A, have been addressed
in this document.
VI. CONCLUSION
Based upon the above discussion, the Federal Highway Administration and the
I.C. Department of Transportation have concluded that the project will not have a
significant impact on the human or natural environment; therefore, the project can be
processed as a Categorical Exclusion.
MLR/plr
FIGURES
O? I M
w
?w oM
Pro
A?
A?
>?
0.4 Z
w?
zA
w
?x
r? L
0-0
w 3 °?° M
0
?a
W
a
? fV
M
s
en I.
fnI?
MIS
?p N
?I
?p N
M .
,E I v1
M "" c
M 00,
?D
O
M
F.
'b
td ~
b
N
V
1?1
pro
J
e
CF)
p'°a

U
a?
a?
M
d' b

td .^3

3 3

i? '
a4'' Gcee 1
it
?J
l
W
00
N
J

FPO
/i X
II ?
aN 0.
00
V
?aa•?J %apMOjJjo Elf)
\ 4e? `I
S-
?? ¢,'? on

G?
erg
e?
0
cee`?
G
. • • Pipe
?`-' ' Roads
? ?-
w
O
01
y
I?
•? U 1
00
U
r
co
°o z
JN O
GOP-
N
3
cd
0
c?
pwy W
?- Q ; z
??-? O
-' o N
N
r

?lU) O
111 N
r ?-
/(
Q
W
O
N

co
W
Z
O U
w
Z O in
pto
N
JQ
W
_
1 UJ
U.
;oz
?NO
J W
O

b
3
Irr
o
U
Jam,;
w
O
N
N
? o
y
u V ?
a
a
ao
?N
C) U w \\?
W z
0 N ? \?
C,
N
?O
N?
I
1
H
1 crl? ,
1

KINSON BLVD
C,
LIMIT OF
DETAILED
STUDY
n
a
v

.y
:o
Stream
Crossing 10
?i

i
PROJECT
LIMITS
b/
O
v
b`
SHENANDOAH
DRIVE ?
KNOL L IV
(- ?D
DETAILED
r ?r STUDY I
11 // ?? n

r
i
85
tA?
IMIT OF
ETAILEC
M84K A u
!?R
i.
FLOOD AY IN THIS AR
II NARROW TO SHOW TO
REFER TO FLOO?A C!
11 H 11
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
1-85, From East of US 29/ 74
to West of SR 1135 (Shannon Bradley Road)
Near Gastonia, Gaston County
TIP No. 1-302 C
Stream Crossings and Wetlands
0 200 400 (meters)
0 500 1000 1500 (feet) FIGURE 3
/1¦ /,-,N -?5--

00
LA
v v O

? ?
R
N .:. .?.. A 00 ?' 00
e CIA 00 v I W J W
0 0 0

pl 0

N
00

w
c ^'
e
N

I I ?I?

0o IA u? I w
r? oo w
N
?lu
~ N O
o v ?oWOI?++
v N
O
N?1
?'I^ NIA O?
N?
C
J
A
W
N
i
AIW
W
N
H
wlw
a, w

x vc X

„
o c
e w
e
c w
to --
N

p?
L ?00
C oohs
0o o,
ol`^
w rn? l ol?
W
"is
O
OTI
CA < N
o ? e .p
N
r
r+
W
N
N v \ _ ? _
/y CY Ipp ? 1,04
fA
N
NIwJ A ? A

jalN ??
v Iv w l I tn
NJ lA
N i
V1
y
I??
N ?
N d
O
r
V1
r

i 1?11
y
w
Gc? Z
r0?` NO
G
e
1 ^° I/
?GGa? a SG`e? J , . .
a`
r ? cj
n / ? I)
LL
o?
~ D
N
/ °? r
c -j 03
l' ?lp
1\ ?\ so
m
pw>. W
f r--° Z
O
?J 'oN N
?laaa ?/ `;
ap,Hoa?3° £?n
i?-
W
O
N
r
W
Z
O U >
N w j
Z ON
O F O
N
tw
J
J Q
u.
0
/ /• m
owoZ
\ -j
w \\
Z
N

co
LL W
z
JN O
?y? Gtee?
0

oJ

G
b
llll...... ?e
e
jG de i-
Pbe
o?

W
Z
ON
W E--•
gR 1302 lM ?-?`
W 1
z=
p U
U
\. ?-. W
z
Q
W
O
N
Y
?i

G
o /
-
A r
N
LIMIT OF
DETAILED
STUDY
I I
1 h
a
H F
G
?I I
D
^5
I
C,
A
NILKINSON BLVD a C,
_ M66
0
D
PROJECT
LIMITS
Itr
i
/
85

v
ti? b
qf{
AR p
C SHEN
D
E
KNOLLW
00
0
DETAI
ED
L
M
STUDY
I

i
I II
IT OF
AILED
?F /-\ FLOO WAY IN THIS AR
I NARROW TO SHOW TO
REFER TO FLOOOyYAY I
/ w \A I1 0 V
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
I-85, From East of US 29/ 74
to West of SR 1135 (Shannon Bradley Road)
Near Gastonia, Gaston County
TIP No. I-302 C
100-Year Flood Zones
0 200 400 (meters)
0 500 1000 1500 (feet) FIGURE 5
IIN n <Q? I; -- i?
APPENDIX
S+oc\-Q / (2ef-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
• P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1890
IN REPLY REFER TO June 20, 1997
Special Studies and G V E
Flood Plain Services Section ?.
?qq1
CJ
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager 130%2
Planning and Environmental Branch p*i CF
North Carolina Division of Highways ^V5
co!
Post Office Box 25201 HAk
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 K'
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in response to your letter of February 20, 1997, requesting our comments on "1-85,
from East of US 29/74 to West of SR 1135 (Shannon Bradley Road), Near Gastonia, Gaston
County, State Project No. 8.1631201, Federal Aid Project No. 1-85-1(39)15, TIP No. 1-302C"
(Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199707051).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources, which include
waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed roadway
improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood control or navigation project.
Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
VlJ
C. E. Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering
and Planning Division
Enclosure
June 20, 1997
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON:
01-85, from East of US 29x14 to West of SR 1135 (Shannon Bradley Road), Near Gastonia,
Gaston County, State Project No. 8.1631201, Federal Aid Project No. 1-85-1(39)15, TIP
No. 1-302C" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199707051)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC Mr. Bobby L Willis Special Studies and Flood Plain Services
Section, at [phone]
The proposed project is located in Gaston County and partially within the jurisdiction of
the city of Gastonia, both of which participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
From a review of Panel 170 of the May 1960 Gaston County Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM), it appears that the roadway crosses Wolfe Creek (Zone B), Albemethy Creek, and
Oates Creek. For Wolfe Creek, the Zone B designation indicates either a flooded area
between the 100 and 500-year flood, areas of 100-year flooding less than 1 foot depth, or
flooding from a source less than 1 square mile in drainage area. Both Albemethy and Oates
Creeks are mapped approximately without 100-year flood elevations shown.
Based on a review of Panel 5 of the February 1994 City of Gastonia FIRM, the roadway
crosses Tributary R-5, a detailed study stream with 100-year flood elevations determined and a
floodway defined. We reference the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's)
'Procedures for'No Rise' Certification for Proposed Developments in Regulatory Floodways",
copies of which have been provided previously to your office. The project should be designed
to meet the requirements of the NFIP, administered by FEMA, and be in compliance with all
local ordinances.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC Mr. Steve Chapin Asheville Field Office, Reaulato_rY
Branch, at [phone]
Review of the subject project indicates that the proposed work may involve the discharge
of fill material into Albemethy, Wolfe, and Oates Creeks, and an unnamed tributary to
Crowders Creek.
All work restricted to existing high ground areas will not require prior Federal permit
authorization. However, Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge of excavated
or fill material within the crossing of the aforementioned waters and wetlands. Specific permit
requirements will depend on design of the project, extent of fill work within streams and
wetland areas (dimensions, fill amounts, etc.), construction methods, and other factors.
At this point in time, construction plans are not available for review. When final plans are
completed, including the extent and location of development within any waters and wetlands,
the North Carolina Department of Transportation should contact Mr. Chapin for a final
determination of the Federal permit requirements.

PMH FyF
f United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
cm ?sq Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
March 27, 1997
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: Scoping for proposed widening of I-85 from four to six lanes from east of US 29/74
(Shannon Bradley Road) to just west of Maws Road, Gaston County, North Carolina,
Federal Aid Project No. I-85-1(39)15, State Project No. 8.1631201, TIP Project
No. I-302C
In your letter of February 20, 1997, you requested information regarding potential environmental
impacts that could result from the subject project for your use in the preparation of an
environmental assessment. The following comments are provided in accordance with the
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to information provided in your letter, this project will involve the widening of I-85
from four to six lanes. The proposed improvements will provide a travel lane in each direction
within the median, a median barrier, and improved paved shoulders. Improvements will be
contained within the existing right-of-way, with the exception of easements at culverts.
The Service is particularly concerned about the potential impacts this project could have on
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), a federally listed endangered plant species, and
two Federal species of concern-a plant, the Georgia aster (Aster georgianus), and a reptile, the
bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii). Schweinitz's sunflower has recently been located in Gaston
County. We recommend a survey for this endangered species; it is endemic to the upper
piedmont of the Carolinas, with all known occurrences centered around Charlotte, North
Carolina, and Rock Hill, South Carolina. This species occurs in relatively open habitats--early
successional fields, forest ecotonal margins, or forest clearings. It thrives in full sun but also
grows in the light shade of open stands of oak-pine-hickory. Schweinitz's sunflower generally
occurs on soils characterized as moist to dryish clays, clay-loams, or sandy-clay loams that often
have a high gravel content. The Georgia aster is a perennial that occurs in dry open woods along
roadsides, woodland borders, old fields, and pastures. The bog turtle is found in bogs and other
wetland habitat stream borders. Please note that Federal species of concern are not legally
protected under the Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, unless
they are formally proposed or listed as endangered or threatened. We are including these species
in our response to give you advance notification and to request your assistance in protecting
them. When surveys are conducted for Schweinitz's sunflower, we also encourage you to look
for the Georgia aster and the bog turtle.
The Service's review of the environmental document would be greatly facilitated if the document
contained the following information, if applicable:
(1) A complete analysis and comparison of the available alternatives (the build and
no-build alternatives).
(2) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing and required
additional rights-of-way and any areas, such as borrow areas, that may be affected
directly or indirectly by the proposed road improvements.
(3) Acreage and description of wetlands that will be filled as a result of the proposed
road improvements. Wetlands affected by the proposed project should be mapped
in accordance with the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating
Jurisdictional Wetlands. We recommend contacting the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, to determine the need for a Section
404 Clean Water Act permit (704/271-4856).
(4) Linear feet of any water courses that will be relocated as a result of the proposed
project.
(5) Acreage of upland habitat, by cover type, that will be eliminated because of the
proposed project.
(6) A description of all expected secondary and cumulative environmental impacts
associated with this proposed work.
(7) An analysis of the crossing structures considered (i.e., spanning structure, culverts,
etc.) and the rationale for choosing the preferred structure(s).
(8) A discussion about the extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat from direct construction impacts and from
secondary development impacts.
(9) Mitigation measures that will be employed to avoid, eliminate, reduce, or
compensate for habitat value losses associated with any phase of the proposed
project.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and request that you continue
to keep us informed as to the progress of this project. In any future correspondence concerning
the project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-97-084.
Sincerely, /
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
Ms. Linda Pearsall, Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, NC 27611
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 320 S. Garden Street,
Marion, NC 28752

a„L `i? a-qjo
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
February 21, 1997
Mr. Franklin Vick
N.C. Department of Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh NC 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
Subject: Scoping - Proposed Improvements to I-85, from East of US 29/74 to West of SR 1135
(Shannon Bradley Rd.) Near Gastonia; TIP #I-302C
The N. C. State Clearinghouse has received the above project for intergovernmental review. This
project has been assigned State Application Number 97-E4220-0522. Please use this number with
all inquiries or correspondence with this office.
Review of this project should be completed on or before 04/30/1997. Should you have any
questions, please call [phone].
Sincerely,

Ms. Jeanette Fumey
Administrative Assistant
116 West Jones Street' Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 ° Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01-00
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Mr. Franklin Vick
N.C. Department of Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
May 1, 1997

Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
SCH File # 97-E-4220-0522; Scoping Proposed improvements to I-85, from East of US 29/74 to West
of SR 1135 (Shannon Bradley Rd.) Near Gastonia; TIP #I-302C
The above referenced project has been reviewed through the State Clearinghouse Intergovernmental
Review Process. Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at [phone]-
Sincerely,
6?
Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
N. C. State Clearinghouse
Attachments
cc: Region F
Melba McGee, DEHNR
rCEf>'
Vv I
@•
If-4y to??
%L .I..
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Liqual (hpiewity / Affirmative Action Employer
State of North Carolina ILAA
Department of Environment,
IT Health and Natural Resources A s o
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs I IL
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary E5aHNFZ
Richard E. Rogers, Jr., Acting Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee 1_
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: 97-0522 Scoping I-85 Improvements, Gaston County
DATE: April 1, 1997
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed information. The attached comments are for the applicant's
consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
attachments

APR P 1991
N.C. STATE C_r,?.:?
P.O. Box 27687,
N
W ;6
r C
?
==X 715-3060
er
lo
A
ti
E
Affi
ti
t
lino 27611-7687
Raleigh, North Caro mp
y
L.-//
on
rma
ve
c
An Equal Oppor
919-715-4148 '? i?;1!!?,7?7..?? 50°6 recycle: , ' 09/6 post-consumer paper
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natura! Resources
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Eastern Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: March 6, 1997
SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 97-0522, Scoping comments for I-85 improvements, Gaston
County, TIP No. I-302C.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and preliminary comments regarding a
proposal by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to widen a section of I-85 from east of US
29/74 to west of SR 1135. Improvements will include widening the existing roadway from four to six lanes.
At this time, we have not identified any special concerns regarding this project. The following information
should be included in the Categorical Exclusion 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 animal and plant species.
2) Description of waters and wetlands affected by the project.
3) Description of project activities that will occur within wetlands and waters, such as fill or channel
alteration. 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 7042714014.
4) Description of project site and non-wetland vegetative communities.
5) The extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat.
6) Any measures proposed to avoid or reduce impacts of the project or to mitigate for unavoidable habitat
losses.
1 appreciate the opportunity to provide this information to the NCDOT in the earl% plannin° stases of this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/652-3257.
cc: Mr. Mark Cantrell, USFWS, Asheville
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
4d
Health and Natural Resources AT4
ivision of Water Quality
D
James B. Hunt, Howes, G Secretary ovemor
C) E
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director FTL
February 27, 1997
To: H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch
NC Department of Transportation
From: Cyndi Bell G 1,13
DWQ, Water Quality Lab
Subject: I-85 from East of US 29n4 to West of SR 1135 (Shannon Bradley Road) near Gastonia
Gaston County
State Project No. 8.1631201, T.I.P. No. I-0302C
Reference your memorandum dated February 20, 1997, in which you requested comments from DWQ in
order to prepare portions of the Environmental Assessment for the referenced project. The Division of
Water Quality requests that the following topics be discussed in the EA document:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The stream classifications should be
current. Are the streams supporting their uses?
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/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? DWQ requests that these catch basins be placed at
all systems classified as High Quality Waters and/or Water Supply streams. Identify the
responsible parry for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland and Stream Impacts
i) Identifylhe federal manual used for identifying and delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands and streams been avoided as much as possible? NCDOT is reminded
that DWQ will only be able to endorse NCDOT's preferred alternative after the sequencing
process of avoidance, minimization, and minimization has been demonstrated. Studies of
alternative corridors, including mass transit options, must be discussed.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
M E4r owww ty mmme" Acdw Enpbysr 50% mcydedH 0% Post OMMOW P2PW
Mr. H. Franklin Vick Memo
February 27, 1997
Page 2
iii) Have wetland and stream impacts been minimized? This discussion should include both
design and construction features. Reasons for unavoidable impact should be clearly
explained within the text of the document.
iv) Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses if impacts are likely to exceed one
acre or if any given stream crossing/relocation will exceed 150 linear feet of stream
channel.
V) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
vi) Quality of wetlands impacted. We request specific use of DWQ'Wetland Rating System.
vii) Total wetland and stream impacts.
viii) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DWQ.
H. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. We recommend
that NCDOT stipulate that borrow sites will not be located in wetlands when the construction
contract is awarded for this project.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing mad alignments ac much as possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. Please provide a detailed discussion for macs-transit as an option.
K. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques alleviate the traffic problems in the
study area'?
L. Please provide conceptual wetland and/or stream mitigation plans, if necessary, to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the following:
i) Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after wetland and/or stream impacts
have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible.
ii) On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of mitigation. In-kind mitigation
within the stone watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
iii) Mitigation should be in the following order: restoration, creation. enhancement, and
lastly, preservation banking.
N. DWQ requests that weep holes not be installed in the replacement bridges in order to prevent
sediment and other pollutants from entering the body of water. If this is not completely possible,
weep holes should not be installed directly over water.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A:
01C.0402 (Limitations on Actions During NEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents DWQ from
issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of Decision (ROD) has been issued by the
Department requiring the document. It is recommended that if the 401 Certification application is
submitted for review prior to the sign off, the applicant states that the 401 should not be issued until the
applicant informs DWQ that the FONSI or ROD has been signed off by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this project. Applit,-?tions
requesting coverage under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 (with wetland impact) will
require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water
impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Thank you for your attention. If you have any questions, please call me at [phone] in the Division
of Water Quality, Environmental Sciences Branch.
Mr. H. Franklin Vick Memo
February 27, 1997
Page 3
cc: Mark Reep, NCDOT
Michelle Suverkrubbe
Melba McGee
I0302CSC.DOC
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4 9
Division of Land Resources ????
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor ED E'--'-i N
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Charles H. Gardner, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist
PROJECT REVIEW CONXENTS
Project Number: 97-0522 County: GO57VI)
Project Name: I- L35 1 mpmyemenj5 ;(Slal>? Prof. A1d. 6.11,312-01 . ?/PNd, 2-302G\
C Offic.4f of State Planning Geodetic Survey
This project will impact - geodetic survey markers. N.C.
Geodetic Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O.
Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional .
destruction of a geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General
Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the N.C. Office of State
Planning, Geod urvey ffice at 919/733-3836.
q7
;W4
Rev ewe 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 any portion of the project is located within a High Quality
Water Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental
Management, increased design standards for sediment and erosion
control will apply.
? The erosion and sedimentation control plan.required for this
project should be prepared by the Department of Transportation
under the erosion control program delegation to the Division of
Highways from the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at 919/733-4574.
3/4/»
Geological Survey Set?Mewer Land Quality Section Date Geodetic Survey Section
[phone] FAX: [phone] [phone]
FAX: 733-4 07
FAX: [phone]
P.O. Box 27687. Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Aclion Employer 50% recycled/ 10%post-ccrtwmer paper
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, Project Number
AND NATURAL RESOURCES 7
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
County ,
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Name D? LS G'lS ?9/ Type of Project ?L
n 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 shellfisT-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.
t-? For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the applicant should
contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
Q The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or ae:nolition 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.
=7 The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
?--J 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, pplans for the water line
relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental He th, Public Water Supply'
Section, Plan Review Branch, Parker Lincoln Building, Raleigh, North Carolina, (919) 733-
2460.
c
Reviewer Section/Branch Date
DETHM 3198 (Revised 8/93)
Normal OJocess
Time
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
2
C
D

PERMITS
I
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
Fqe surety bond Of UAW with EMNR running to SING of N.C. 10 pays
ftrimiltiodrillexpwratory oil dr oaG weli - Itional that any well opened by drill dpemist srWl,upon ?NIA)
abandonment. be plugged according to EMNR ruins and tequimions.
Casophyarcal Expiormacin Permit Application flied with EMNR at Nast 10 ON" prior to Issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (NIA)
ales Lrlias Construction Penult Application fee bsaed on structure a= is charged. "dust Include 15.20 days
dauriptfons A drawings of structure 6 proof of ownership (NIA)
of npanan property.
60 days
401 Weer Quality Comilication MIA 4170 days)
55 days
CAMA P*tmil lot MAJOR development 111250m Ise "bust W.COmpany application (150 days)
22 days
LAMA Permit for MINOR development "50.00 In must accompany application (25 days)
several geodetic monuments are located in or now the project am& If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed. Base notify.
N.C. Geodetic Survey, box 27667. (Weigh. N.C. 27611
menl of any wells. if required, must be in accordance with Title ISA. SubcnapIw 20.0100.
oiilicstion of the proper regional off" is requested If -orpnan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
I Compliance with 15A NCAC 2M.1000 (Coastal Stormwatat Rules) is required. 45 days
(NIA)
Otnr comments (altacn additional pages as necessary, being certain 10 cue commilml autnonty).

I_ 1 3 - y> l
0o -

REGIONAL OFFICES
Ouestions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regions! Office ? Fayetteville Regional Office
69 Woodbn Place Suite 714 WaChovia Building
Asheville. NC 28801 Fayetteville. NC 28301
S15208
1 X191 486.1541
svilie Regional Office
0700,
0 ? RafeipIt Regional Office
919 North main street. P.O. Box 850 3800 Barrstt Drive. Suite 101
Mooresville. NC 28115 Raleigh. NC 27809
(704) 6631699 (919) 7312314
? Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington. NC 27889
[phone]
D Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Exicrision
Wilmington. NC 28405
[phone]
y7
O WinstonSalem Regonal Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston Salem, NC 27106
(9191 8967007
State of North Carolina
Dekr spent of Eneindnmenti Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Office:
Project Number. Due Date:
After review of this project it has been determined that the EMNR pannit(s) andfor approvals indicated may need to be obtained
order for this project to comply with North Calroiins Law.
C dilation Warding these permits should be loddra"fod to the Regional Office indicated on the rwerse of the forth.
All applications, information and puidNlnes rotative to threes plans and permits are available from the same
,
Regional Office Nomtai Process
. Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUREMENTS atatutory time
_ Ilona)
Poo " to emmwrucl a operate wastewater treatment ApOliwbn NJ daps before boon construction or ward of 30 days
beillttes, ewer sllstam e:lemstor s. a aswer aanstrHetion contracts O"te inspection. llem application
aystsans act discharging into stale suwfecte always. technical conference usual (gp days)
NPDES • its a to idisenarge into surface water anofor Application 1a0 days afore begin activity. 0"1* inspection. 8120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Fre4poication conference usual. Additionally. Detain permit to
J disgnnging into awe surface water. construct wastewater treatment faictutygranted after NPDES Reply MIA)
two. 30 days aloof mmpt of plans or issue of NPDES
pemmiaeMneftevw Is later.
wafer Yee Permit ?re?mpplieation technical conference formally freeassary 30 days
(NIA)
D 11011001, construction Pemnd CArripme spolication must be recourse and ptnmt Ittaued 7 days
prior to in@ insutwion of a well. (15 days)
Application copy roust be served on earn aai egint rtpww company 55 Gays
D Dredge and Fill Permit Owner. On-site inspection. Pro-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of 190 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill i ermit.

D Isernel to construct It operate Air Pollution Abatement
i
t
l
E W Gays
ilies ned
Or
We
mission Sources as per /SA NCAC 21N NIA (90 Gays)
D Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 20Af
20
i
.
Demolition of reno•auons of structures containing
asbestos mnerui must be in MR &&nee with 1SA 60 Gays
D NCAC Zfl.fri2S which requires notification ant removal NIA
error to demroluton Contact Asbestos Control Group
1114-1`33-ovo f90 Gays)
!,-fro fouree Perm required under 15A NCAC 2D.0900.
no Sadirryntauon Pollution Control Ape of 1$73 must be property soaresied for any land disturbing activity. An erosion a sedimentateo
J control plan will be required of one or more acres to to diaturbet. Plan fit" with proper Regional Office (Land Moiety Sect.) at Mast 30 20 ays
do's twoore be inner aet,vet A fee of fL70 for the tint Bert end SM.00 for teaem additional acre or can must aceom an one San day i
D The $Wlff ettalim ?OllullOn COMIM Act of 1977 must be addressed witn respect to the referenced Laval Oroinanee: 130 ays)
On-bile inspection us". Sorely bond filed with EMNR. Bono amour
D Nrntng Pemrul sense with type mires and numbs of acres of affected two Any area 30 days
mined greater than one Mere Must be permitted. The appropriate bond IN days)
meet be received before the permit can be lesued
D North Carolina Burning pmnit On-she Inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if ptem it 1 Gay
miximds A dry" lWA)

D Samoa Grams C"ranee Burring plarnwt • 22 On.wte inspection by N.D. Division Forest Raseemm" fegifired 'M more t ay
counties In cosaw N.C. myth, argn is sofa own five act" of ground clearing wires toy are onvorvted. lna, ttons PNiAI
should be fequeelted at least tan days afore actun bum all planned

D 90.120 Days
ON Rehnrtg Facilities wA 1NIA)
If permit required. BOW44111011 90 days before begin construction.

D AppfiCant rowel hre N.C. Qualified engineer to: pregale owe. 30 days
Oar sorely P,a Inspecl construction. comity construction is -Wding to ENNIt aobror
ad plans, May also require permit unoef mOequtto tionltd program. Ana t)f0 days)
a at>t perm) from Corps of Engineers An Inapec.een of are is races.
My to wterfy Naeard =ape ll"ton. A minimum tee of 1t MJM must ae•
torepany the aophc Lion. An additional procaaseng feet based on a
OerCe11 or the total PrOyeloct CM1 wilt be requ,w upon carnpleion
sell it Continued on feveraa
NFIP REVIEW COMMENTS
DOT should comply with all local land use and floodplain (NFIP) construction
requirements.
i?/ etj?o
A „a SU7( ??
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Division of Archives and History
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary February 5, 1997
MEMORANDUM
,EI vF
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Q?
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State ?sAJ
ton Vreservation Officer
h 0 199
GI` IbiCN OF Q
SUBJECT: 1-85 from east of US 74-29 to west of SR f?eHHIIGHWAYS ?,
1135, Gaston County, I-302C, Federal R?
Aid Project No. 1-85-1(39)15, State
Project 8.1631201, ER 97-8362
Thank you for your letter of January 22, 1997, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area. We
understand that this project involves adding travel lanes within the existing median
and improving the shoulders within existing right-of-way. Because of the limited
scope of the project, we recommend that no historic architectural survey be
conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
CFR Part 800 Preservation's Regulations
Preservation cwith Section v106 codified lat Historic
for Compliance
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: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
Gaston County Historic Preservation Commission
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ?j
GASTON URBAN AREA
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
Post Office Box 1748 - Gastonia, North Carolina 28053-1748
Phone [phone] - Fax [phone]
September 24, 1997
Mr. Nicholas Graf, P.E.
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
SUBJECT: Project I-302C (1-85 Widening in Gaston County)
Dear Mr. Graf:
Pursuant to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the Gaston
Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization has reviewed the widening project for
the remaining section of Interstate -85-fora possible-Major Investment -Study. The ivIPO
has concluded that an MIS is not appropriate for this project, and the Transportation
Advisory Committee voted on September 23, 1997, to request that an MIS not be
undertaken for Project I-302C. If you require any additional Information please contact
Dr. Charles J. Wiles, Senior Transportation Planner, Gaston Urban Area MPO, at (704)
854-6604.
Sincerely,
Gail Bro erton, Chairperson
Transportation Advisory Committee
cc: Dr. M. R. Poole, P.E., NCDOT - Statewide Planning Branch
Mr. H. F. Vick, P.E., NCDOT - Planning & Environmental Branch
H:\store\word\i-85wideningmis 10:38 AM09/19/97
Serving: Belmont - Bessemer City - Cramerton - Dallas - Gaston County - Gastonia
Lowell - McAdenville - Mount Holly - Ranlo - Spencer Mountain 9 Stanley
AQ?
C tv of (bastonia
P. O. BOX 1748
(61cstunin, ?dnri4 Carolina 28053-1748
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS i ENGINEERING
March 20, 1997
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, PE
Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
NCDOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:

M 2 ; ?uy1
p1VISIGN OF
HIGHWAvS
In response to your request for potential environmental impact comments concerning the
widening of a section of I-85 from Shannon-Bradley Road to US 29/74 (1-302C), the City of
Gastonia offers the following information:
1. The six-lane widening is supported by the City of Gastonia.
2. A portion of the project is within the corporate limits and the extra
territorial jurisdiction of the City of Gastonia. Coordination with
municipal ordinances will be required. The City is a participating
community in the National Flood Insurance Program. It should be noted
that local ordinances are more stringent than the Federal. Management
Agency's minimum guidelines for flood protection in that the City's
ordinance allows = increase in flood elevations for permitted
encroachments.
The City looks forward to working with NCDOT on this important transportation improvement.
If you have any questions or need additional information concerning this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Yours very truly,
DONALD 1K. LO
City Traffic Engineer
cc: Danny O. Crew, City Manager
Donald E. Carmichael, Director of Public Works & Utilities
J. Philip Bombardier, Asst. Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Matthew W. Jordan, Asst. Director of Public Works/Field Operations
May 2, 1997
Mark Reep
Project Planning Engineer
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Reep:
This letter is in response to a request for comments concerning the construction project on I-85 from east of US 29!74 to
west of SR 1135, Shannon Bradley Road, near Gastonia, Gaston County, State Project 8.1631201, Federal Aid Project No.
1-85-1 (39)15, TIP No. I-302C.
1 have examined my archaeological survey and site files for that area and have no recorded prehistoric or historic cultural
resources that will be impacted by this project. There are several historic properties in the area but more than .5 miles
distant. If you require further clarification please call.
Sincerely,
a
l
J. Alan May, Ph.D.
Curator of Anthropology
jam
1500 fast G Msolt >a1 rd. ...: ;, .. GaltouiR, +iurtb Caro{ips 4054. 03 O04) 866?b9t7;; Fax:.C704)'OU4677