20000979 Ver 1_Complete File_20000626

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
July 13, 1998
MEMORANDUM
To: Mary Kiesau
Through: John Dorn
From: Cyndi Bell C
F1.5WA
IT
A&4 Ro
- - - ?J
D E N R
Subject: Finding of No Significant Impact for NC 279 (Ozark Avenue) to SR 2278
(Gaston Street) in Gastonia and Dallas
Gaston County
State Project No. 8.1811301, T.I.P. No. U-2523
DWQ # 12131, DENR # 98-0852
The referenced document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands. The proposed work will involve
up to 0.5 acre of fill in jurisdictional wetlands. DOT has sufficiently addressed the comments
DWQ made on the EA.
Based upon the project description provided in the EA and FONSI, a General
Certification will likely be applicable to this project. Final permit authorization will require
formal application by NCDOT and written concurrence from DWQ. Please be aware that this
approval will be contingent upon evidence of avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream
impacts to the extent practical, and provision of wetland and stream mitigation where necessary.
DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the FONSI. DOT is
reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfaction of water quality
concerns, to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification Program should be directed to Cyndi Bell at
CCyndi Bell @h2o.enr.state.nc.us or [phone] in DWQ's Water Quality Environmental
Sciences Branch.
Cc: Steve Lund, COE, Asheville
Mark Cantrell, FWS
David Cox, WRC
Mike Parker, MRO
U2523FONSI
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Environmental Review Tracking
DWQ - Water Quality Section
Date:
ShdW_
2 5 ,,, ,g
'I
TO. Env. Sciences Branch (VV?O iab)
O Trish MacPherson (end. spO
?'
Kathy Herrin (forest/ORWWQWI
O Larry Ausley (ecosystems)
O Matt Mathews (toxicology)
O Jay Sauber (intensive survey)
Non-Discharge Branch (Archdale 9th)
O Kim Colson (Permitting)
Wetlands (WQ Lab)
John Dorney (Corps, 401)
Cyndi Bell (DOI)
Eric Fleek (dredging)
O Eric Galamb (other)

DENR # '70' (_O'? Z
DWQ # / Z / 3 /
Re / Pre. Mgmt Coordination Branch
'q_ rF.diBuchen (Archdale 9th)
p Brent McDonald (Archdale 12th)
Regional Water Quality Supervisors
O Asheville O Mooresville O Washington
O Fayetteville O Raleigh O Wilmington
0. Winston - Salem
Planninn Branch (Archdale 6th)
O Alan Clark (basinwide planning)
O Boyd DeVane (classifications & standards)
O Beth McGee (management planning)
O Steve Zoufaly (reclassifications)
O Ruth Swanek (modeling) (Archdale 9th)
Point Source Branch (Archdale 9th)
O Dave Goodrich (NPDES) O
O Bradley Bennett (Stormwater) O
O Tom Poe (Pretreatment) (Archdale 7th) O
PROM: - , Regional / Program Management Coordination Branch, 12th Floor, Archdale
PROJECT: n?L ,? 7-ci LL'/ deg,n 7r %
Attached is a copy of the above document. Subject to the requirements of the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts to the environment,
especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority. Please check the appropriate
box below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if any, by the date indicated.
Pr: 1• JFEEE?? •"? Cff.+M S .0 SE ADLINE _ ? 7 -? ?2 ' p = +!
? NOWAMMMENT r. COMMENTS rATTACIIED ,
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining this process are greatly appreciated!
Notes:
I can be reached at:
phone: [phone], ext. 565
fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
misAcircmemo - mac version
NC 279
From NC 7 (Ozark Avenue)
to SR 2278 (Gaston Street)
Gastonia and Dallas, Gaston County
Federal Aid Number STPNHF-279(1)
State Project Number 8.1811301
T.I.P. No. U-2523
Administrative Action
Finding of No Significant Impact
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U. S. C. 4332(2)(C)
APPROVED:
5- 2 8-98 C? `Y
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Date Nicho. raf, E., Division Administrator
)*K Feder Highway Administration
NC 279
From NC 7 (Ozark Avenue)
to SR 2278 (Gaston Street)
Gastonia and Dallas, Gaston County
Federal Aid Number STPNHF-279(1)
State Project Number 8.1811301
T.I.P. No. U-2523
Administrative Action
Finding of No Significant Impact
May 1998
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
? 4- / ?'l s 27 98
Craig M. Yo g
Project Planning ngineer
,,??p?Htnrrrryr
•'FES?i' `???'.
ilson Strou :.??D.Qep plgl •q'?+
Project Planning Unit Head ;
SEAL
6976
v!?
' ,5"-Z 8=98 = ?
Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
%,G??'•?NCINEE?•'
Planning and Environmental Branch
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. TYPE OF ACTION .................................................................................... 1
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ................................................ 1
. A. TIP PROJECT U-2523A ........................................................................ 2
B. TIP PROJECT U-2523B ........................................................................ 3
III. SUMMARY OF SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS .......................... 4
A. PERMITS ........................................................................................ 4
B. NC 279 BYPASS TRAFFIC MODEL ........................................... 4
C. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS ..................................... 4
D. SIDEWALKS .................................................................................. 4
E. BICYCLE ACCOMMODATIONS ................................................. 5
F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ......................................................... 5
G. FLOODWAY MODIFICATION .................................................... 6
H. RAILROAD COORDINATION ..................................................... 6
I. HISTORIC RESOURCES .............................................................. 6
J. GEODETIC MARKERS ................................................................. 6
IV. SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
IM PACTS .................................................................................................. 6
V. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS ..................................................... 8
A. CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT .............................................................................. 8
B. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................................ 8
C. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING AND FOLLOWING
THE PUBLIC HEARING ............................................................... 11
D. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING AND FOLLOWING
THE PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING ............................ 13
VI. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .................... 16
A. RECOMMENDED WIDENING ALTERNATIVE ........................ 16
B. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCOMMODATIONS ............. 16
C. RELOCATION OF HOMES AND BUSINESSES ........................ 17
D. LONG CREEK BRIDGE ................................................................. .17
• VII. ONLY PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE WETLAND FINDING ............. 17
VIII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ......................... 18
Table 1 - Main Line Capacity Analysis .................................................................... 2
Table 2 - Signalized Intersection Analysis ............................................................... 3
Table 3 - Predicted Noise Levels for U-2523A ........................................................ 7
Table 4 - Predicted Noise Levels for U-2523B ......................................................... 7
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Aerial Photograph Showing the Proposed Improvements
Figure 3 - Gaston Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 4 - Wetland Sites
Figure 5A - Proposed Typical Section (NC 7 to Carolina Northwestern Railroad)
Figure 5B - Proposed Typical Section (Carolina Northwestern Railroad to Gaston Street)
Figure 6 - Gaston Urban Area Bike Map
Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment .......................................... A-1
Public Hearing Notice and Handout ......................................................................... A-22
Public Informational Meeting Notice and Handout .................................................. A-34
N.C. 279
From NC 7 (Ozark Avenue)
to SR 2278 (Gaston Street)
Gastonia and Dallas, Gaston County
Federal Aid Number STPNHF-279(1)
State Project Number 8.1811301
T.I.P. No. U-2523
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Prepared by the Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in Consultation with
the Federal Highway Administration
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative action,
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined this project will not have any significant impact on
the human environment. This FONSI is based on the Environmental Assessment, which
has been independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and
accurately discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. The
Environmental Assessment provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that
an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility
for the accuracy, scope, and content of the Environmental Assessment.
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTIO
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen NC
279 (New Hope Road) from NC 7 (Ozark Avenue) in Gastonia to SR 2278 (Gaston Street)
in Dallas, Gaston County (see Figure 1). The project has been divided into two sections,
U-2523A and U-2523B. TIP Project U-2523A begins at NC 7 (Ozark Avenue) and
continues along NC 279 (New Hope Road) to SR 2275 (Robinson-Clemmer Road). The
future NC 279 Bypass is anticipated to intersect NC 279 at this location. TIP Project U-
2523B begins at SR 2275 (Robinson-Clemmer Road) and proceeds north along NC 279 to
SR 2278 (Gaston Street) in Dallas. The recommended improvements are shown in Figure
2.
NC 279 is a north-south route, although it runs in an east-west direction in part of
the project area. Travel directions on NC 279 and intersecting roadways are referred to
assuming NC 279 runs north-south throughout the entire project.
A. TIP Project U-2523A
This section of the project begins at NC 7 (Ozark Avenue) and ends just north of
Robinson-Clemmer Road (SR 2275), a distance of 3.0 km (1.9 miles). The proposed
typical section is a five-lane, 19.2-meter (68-foot) face to face curb and gutter facility with
sidewalk (see Figure 5A). It will provide four through lanes (two in each direction) and a
continuous center left-turn lane with 4.2-meter (14-foot) outside lanes to accommodate
bicycle traffic. Symmetrical widening is proposed, except for west side widening from
Leroy Street (SR 2260) to Auten Road (SR 2265) and from Pinehaven Drive to Pinetop
Drive (see Figure 2).
The completed project will provide a design speed of approximately 80 km/h (50
mph) for an anticipated posted speed limit of 70 km/hr (45 mph). It will require 30 meters
(100 feet) of right of way, plus easements.
The estimated cost for part A is $8,346,000, including $3,446,000 for right of way
and $4,900,000 for construction. The funding included in the 1998-2004 T.I.P. is
$6,000,000, including $2,600,000 for right of way and $3,400,000 for construction. Right
of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1998 with construction scheduled to
follow in fiscal year 2000.
Due to comments received at the public hearing, NCDOT investigated the
feasibility of constructing a three-lane undivided typical section for U-2523A in order to
reduce overall right of way impacts. Because a three-lane undivided facility operates
similar to a two-lane facility, except that it allows for left turns along the route to be made
without affecting traffic flow, capacity analysis software models a three-lane undivided
typical section the same way as a two-lane facility. Using current highway capacity
analysis software, NCDOT modeled both the three-lane undivided typical section and the
proposed five-lane undivided typical section along with two signalized intersections
along NC 279. The results are listed in Tables 1 and 2 below:
TABLE 1
MAIN LINE CAPACITY ANALYSIS
NC 279 (three-lane)
1999 ADT
(LOS) NC 279 (three-lane)
2019 ADT
(LOS) NC 279 (five-lane)
2019 ADT
Northbound
(LOS) Southbound
(LOS)
Leroy St. to Auten Rd. E E C B
Baltic St. to Hollandale Dr. E E B B
Pinetop Dr. to Long Creek D E B B
Robinson-Clemmer Rd. to
Ganett Rd. D E B B
East Main St. to May Rd. D E B A
NC 275 to Spargo St. D E B B
Carolina and Northwestern
Railroad to Gaston St. D E B B
TABLE 2
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
NC 279 (three-lane)
1999 ADT
(LOS) NC 279 (five-lane)
2019 ADT
(LOS)

NC 279 & Auten Road F B
NC 279 & NC 275 F D
The concept of levels of service (LOS) uses qualitative measures that characterize
operational conditions within a traffic stream and their perception by motorists and
passengers. The descriptions of individual levels of service characterize these conditions
in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic
interruptions, and comfort and convenience.
Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility for which analysis
procedures are available. They are given letter designations, from A to F, with level of
service (LOS) A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. Each
level of service represents a range of operating conditions.
After conducting this capacity analysis, NCDOT determined that NC 279, as a
three-lane facility, would have an unacceptable LOS E in the design year for the entire
project. The two intersections analyzed would also have failing levels of service (LOS F)
in the design year if the three-lane typical section were constructed. Under the five-lane
widening alternative, NC 279 has acceptable levels of service, ranging from LOS A to
LOS D, for the entire length of the project, including the two intersections analyzed.
Based on these findings, NC 279 would not provide safe and efficient travel as a three-
lane facility. It was also determined that the intersections along NC 279 would not be
capable of servicing the projected levels of traffic in the design year, which would result
in unsafe conditions and unacceptable delays along the project. For these reasons,
NCDOT is proposing to construct the five-lane undivided typical section.
B. TIP Protect U-2523B
This section of the project begins just north of Robinson-Clemmer Road (SR 2275)
and ends at Gaston Street (SR 2278) in Dallas, a distance of 2.7 km (1.7 miles). The
proposed typical section (see Figure 5A) from Robinson-Clemmer Road to the Carolina
and Northwestern Railroad is a five-lane, 19.2-meter (68-foot) face to face curb and gutter
section. It will provide four through lanes (two 3.6-meter (I Moot) lanes in each direction)
and a continuous center left-turn lane with 4.2-meter (14-foot) outside lanes to
accommodate bicycle traffic. From the Carolina and Northwestern Railroad to Gaston
Street (SR 2278), the proposed typical section is a four-lane, 14.3-meter (47-foot) face to
face curb and gutter section. It will provide four through lanes (3.3-meter (11-foot) inside
lanes and 3.2-meter (10.5-foot) outside lanes), but will not include provisions for bicycle
traffic due to the restricted right of way in this section. Widening will be symmetrical from
Robinson-Clemmer Road to Yates Street (SR 2335). From Yates Street to south of the
Carolina and Northwestern Railroad, widening will be done on the west side. South of the
Carolina and Northwestern Railroad, west side widening will transition to symmetrical
widening to tie into the existing section north of the railroad. No widening is proposed
north of the railroad. This section will be resurfaced and restriped for four lanes (see
Figure 5B). On-street parking will be eliminated in this area.
The completed project south of the Carolina and Northwestern Railroad will
provide a design speed of approximately 80 km/h (50 mph) for an anticipated posted speed
limit of 70 km/hr (45 mph). North of the railroad the design speed will be 65 km/hr (40
mph). The project will require 30 meters (100 feet) of right of way plus easements south of
the Carolina and Northwestern Railroad. No additional right of way or easements will be
acquired north of the Carolina and Northwestern Railroad.
The estimated cost for part B is $8,612,500, including $5,212,500 for right of way
and $3,400,000 for construction. The funding included in the 1998-2004 T.I.P. is
$7,800,000, including $4,400,000 for right of way and $3,400,000 for construction.
TIP Project U-2523B has been delayed pending the completion of traffic models
analyzing the effects of the future NC 279 Bypass on NC 279 traffic projections. Once the
NC 279 Bypass model is completed, NCDOT will reevaluate the need for widening NC
279 north of Robinson-Clemmer Road. Right of way acquisition and construction for TIP
Project U-2523B are scheduled to begin post year (after 2004).
III. SUMMARY OF SPECIAL P
A.
Conditions for a Nationwide Permit No. 14 (for minor road crossings) from the
Corps of Engineers apply to the project. If the project requires a permit No. 14, a 401
Water Quality Certification will be required from the N.C. Division of Water Quality.
B. NC 279 BYPASS TRAFFIC MODEL
Once the updated traffic models analyzing the effects of the future NC 279
Bypass on NC 279 traffic projections are completed, NCDOT will reassess the need for
the widening of NC 279 from north of SR 2275 (Robinson-Clemmer Road) to SR 2278
(Gaston Street), TIP Project U-2523B.
C. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
A design exception may be required for the width of the travel lanes (two 3.2 in
(11 feet) outside lanes and two 3.0 in (10.5 feet) inside lanes) on NC 279 north of the
Carolina and Northwestern Railway.
D. SIDEW
Sidewalks have been requested by the City of Gastonia for both the east and west
sides of NC 279 from NC 7 to Long Creek (city limits) as part of Project U-2523A.
NCDOT will participate in the construction of sidewalks up to 2% of the total
construction cost of the project as stated in the NCDOT Pedestrian Policy Guidelines.
Additional sidewalk above of this 2% cap will be included in the project if the City of
Gastonia covers 100% of the cost. The existing sidewalk along the west side of NC 279
from NC 7 to Ballard Street will be replaced at NCDOT's expense. NCDOT will also
construct sidewalk along one side of the bridge over Long Creek at no cost to the city in
order to avoid creating a hazard to pedestrians.
The City of Gastonia will be responsible for maintenance and liability of the
sidewalk proposed for Project U-2523A. The City of Gastonia will be contacted by
NCDOT so that a municipal agreement can be prepared.
Sidewalk also exists along both sides of NC 279 from NC 275 to Gaston Street.
Under Project U-2523B, NCDOT will replace this existing sidewalk at no cost to the City
of Gastonia or the Town of Dallas. Existing sidewalk from the Carolina and
Northwestern Railroad to Gaston Street will not be disturbed during construction of U-
2523B. No request for additional sidewalk for Project U-2523B has been made;
therefore, no additional sidewalk is proposed. A 2.4 meter (8 foot) berm will be
constructed along both sides of NC 279 which will accommodate future construction of
sidewalk if the need arises.
E. BICYCLE ACCOMMODATIONS
Bicycle accommodations have been requested by the Gaston Urban Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) (see page A-21). In response to the MPO's
request, 4.2-meter (14-foot) outside lanes will be constructed from NC 7 to the Carolina
Northwestern Railroad to allow for bicycle traffic along NC 279. To accommodate these
wider outside lanes without additional right of way being acquired, NCDOT will reduce
the berm width from the standard 3-meter (10-foot) width to 2.4 meters (8 feet), thereby
retaining the right of way width of 30 meters ( 100 feet) proposed for this project. No
bicycle provisions will be provided north of the Carolina and Northwestern Railroad due
to the limited right of way width for this section of NC 279. This segment will remain a
14.3-meter (47-foot) face-to-face curb and gutter section and will not accommodate
additional width on the outside lanes for bicycle travel (see Figure 513). The Gaston
Urban Area Bike Route Map (see Figure 6), once adopted, will include Main Street, from
Gaston Street to S. Ryhne Street, as part of the NC 279 bike route. Bicycle traffic will be
routed off of NC 279 one block east onto S. Ryhne Street, then north onto Main Street,
which runs parallel to NC 279, in order to avoid the four-lane section of NC 279 between
the railroad and Gaston Street. This route will provide safer travel for bicyclists and
provide access to local historic points of interest in downtown Dallas.
F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
A field reconnaissance survey identified one operational and four non-operational
facilities with the possibility for underground storage tanks (UST) within the project limits.
NCDOT will conduct a site assessment of underground storage facilities located within the
project area prior to right of way acquisition. If leaks and contamination have occurred,
NCDOT will notify the N.C. Division of Water Quality. Also, an appropriate amount will
be withheld from the property owner during right of way acquisition for clean up.
G. FLOODWAY MODIFICATION
NCDOT may need a floodway revision for the widening of Bridge No. 12 over
Long Creek; if so, appropriate coordination with the Federal Emergency Management
Agency and local officials will be carried out.
H. RAILROAD COORDINATION
NCDOT will acquire a Railroad Agreement for the proposed improvements at the
Carolina and Northwestern Railway.
1. HISTORIC RESOURCES
NCDOT will perform additional Section 106 coordination with the State Historic
Preservation Office along with additional 4(f) evaluations if right of way or easements are
required from the Flint Grove Elementary School or the Dallas Historic District.
J. GEODETIC MARKERS
This project will impact seven geodetic survey markers. NCDOT will notify the
N.C. Geodetic Survey prior to construction.
IV. SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVEME ENVI
The proposed improvements will allow more efficient vehicle operation and
reduced travel times. This will result in road user cost savings. Automobile traffic safety
will be enhanced. Access to homes, businesses, and public facilities will be improved.
Increased channelization and sedimentation are the major anticipated impacts to
water quality expected to result from the project. Scouring of the stream bed, soil
compaction, and loss of shading due to vegetation removal are also potential impacts.
Erosive runoff is a major concern due to the substantial development of the area. No
federally-protected species, archaeological sites, or historic architectural resources will be
affected.
Approximately 3.2 hectares (7.9 acres) of additional right of way will be required
for Project U-2523A, resulting in an estimated 20 residential relocations and no business
relocations. No wetlands will be impacted by Project U-2523A.
Approximately 2.9 hectares (7.1 acres) of additional right of way will be required
for Project U-2523B resulting in an estimated 26 residential relocations and 5 business
relocations. Two wetlands will be impacted by Project U-2523B (see Figure 4). Wetland
#I is located on the west side of NC 279, approximately 0.2 km (0.1 mi) east of the Dallas
City Limits. Wetland #2 is located on the east side of NC 279, about 0.5 km (0.3 mi) east
of SR 2327 (Coleman Street). Each wetland area potentially impacted by the proposed
project is approximately 0.1 hectare (0.25 acre) in size. Less than 0.2 hectare (0.5 acre) of
wetland will be filled by this project.
As explained in Section III.B of the Environmental Assesment, avoiding impacts to
these wetlands would increase the number of relocations along the project, especially in the
vicinity of Wetland Site #1. Also, because the wetlands are relatively close and on
opposite sides of NC 279, shifting to avoid wetland sites is not feasible. Impacts to
6
Wetland Site # 2 are minimized by widening symmetrically rather than on the east side in
that vicinity. Westside widening to avoid Wetland Site #2 would result in more relocatees
than symmetrical widening. If the proposed widening were performed symmetrically in
the vicinity of Wetland Site # 1 to minimize or avoid, respectively, impacts to that site, the
number of houses relocated would increase.
It is predicted that approximately 93 receptors within part A (from NC 7 to
Robinson-Clemmer Road) will experience traffic noise impacts. However, no receptors
are anticipated to be impacted by a substantial increase in future noise levels. The
following table shows the predicted noise levels at 15, 30, and 60 meters from the center
of the nearest travel lane and the predicted maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise
level contours:
Table 3 - Predicted Noise Levels for U-2523A
MaximumPredicted Contour
Leq Noise Levels Distances
dBA Max'
Description ` <15 m 30m 60 m 72 > 67
>.dBA dBA
From Beginning of Project to
Auten Road 71 67 61 18 m 36m
From Auten Road to Robinson-
Clemmer Road 70 66 60 16 m 32 m
Notes: 1. The 15 m, 30 m, and 60 m distances are measured from the
center of the nearest travel lane.
2. The 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from
the center of the proposed roadway.
It is predicted that approximately 65 receptors within part B (from Robinson-Clemmer
Road to Gaston Street) will experience traffic noise impacts. However, no receptors are
anticipated to be impacted by a substantial increase in future noise levels. No noise
abatement measures are recommended for this project. The following table shows the
predicted noise levels at 15, 30, and 60 meters from the center of the nearest travel lane
and the predicted maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours:
Table 4 - Predicted Noise Levels for U-2523B
Maximum Predicted Contour
Lee{ Noise Levels Distances
dBA Maximum
Description »>15 rn 30'm 60 rn 72 67
dBA dBA
From Robinson-Clemmer Road
to End of Project 69 65 60 <14 m 29 m
Notes: 1. The 15 m, 30 m, and 60 m distances are measured from the
center of the nearest travel lane.
2. The 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from
the center of the proposed roadway.
This information was included in Table N5 on page A2-11 of the Appendix to the
Environmental Assessment and is shown here to assist local authorities in exercising land
use control over the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local
jurisdictions.
In accordance with the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the
Federal/State governments are no longer responsible for providing noise abatement
measures for new development for which building permits are issued within the noise
impact area of a proposed highway after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of
Public Knowledge of the location of the proposed highway project will be the approval
date of CE's, FONSI's, ROD's, or the Design Public Hearing, whichever comes later.
For development occurring after this public knowledge date, local governing bodies are
responsible for insuring that noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed
facility.
V. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
A. CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Environmental Assessment was approved by the NC Division of Highways and
the FHWA on October 4, 1996. The approved Environmental Assessment was circulated
to the following federal, state and local agencies for review and comments. An asterisk (*)
indicates a written response was received from the agency. Copies of the correspondence
received are included in the Appendix (pages Al through A21) of this document.
U.S. Department of the Army--Wilmington District Corps of Engineers*
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service--Asheville
N.C. Department of Administration--State Clearinghouse*
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources:
Division of Water Quality*, Division of Environmental Health, Division of
Land Resources, Division of Soil and Water Conservation, Wildlife
Resources Commission*, Mooresville Regional Office*
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources--State Historic Preservation Officer
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
Region F Council of Governments (City of Gastonia, Town of Dallas)*
Gaston County Commissioners
City of Gastonia*
Town of Dallas
B. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Comment: "The only additional comment we wish to make is that the proposed
widening near the crossing of Long Creek may also involve the flood plain
of Trib L-4, another detailed study stream."
Response: During final design, NCDOT's Hydraulic Design Unit will coordinate
with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and local officials
regarding the need for a floodway revision.
N.C. Division of Water Quali
Comment: "Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be
employed."
Response: NCDOT proposes to widen NC 279 to a five-lane curb and gutter facility.
Permanent stormwater controls included in this project will consist of a
curb and gutter system with sub-surface drainage located along each side
of the proposed roadway. NCDOT will use the Best Management
Practices to ensure that erosion and siltation due to stormwater runoff is
controlled during the construction process.
Comment: "Please ensure that the sediment and erosion control measures are not
placed in wetlands. This commitment should be incorporated into the
construction contract awarded for this project."
Response: NCDOT will ensure that sediment and erosion control devices will not be
placed in wetland areas, except for devices such as silt fences and rock
dams in drainage areas which limit sediment getting into the wetland area.
Comment: "Please provide qualitative information on the wetlands to be impacted.
Data sheets for DWQ's Wetland Rating System for the two wetland sites
involved will be sufficient.
Response: Data sheets for DWQ's Wetland Rating System for the two wetlands
involved will be provided once the delineation of the wetlands is
complete.
Comment: "Will borrow locations be situated in wetlands? We ask that you stipulate
that borrow material will be taken from upland sources in the construction
contract awarded for this project.
Response: All borrow for this project will be taken from suitable sites, none of which
will be wetlands.
Comment: "The EA provides a very good narrative of minimization measures which
may be applicable to this project in order to decrease wetland impacts
from the anticipated maximum 0.2 hectare (0.5 acre) fill area. DWQ
would like to reiterate that these measures be implemented throughout the
detailed design and construction phases of the project."
Response: Comment noted.
Comment: "The EA states that there will be no stream modification involved with
this project. If this detail changes during the design phase of this project,
stream mitigation may be required in accordance with current DWQ
Wetland Rules which were not in effect at the time the EA was prepared."
Response: No stream modification is anticipated. Any change in this status will be
forwarded to DWQ for compliance with the DWQ Wetland Rules.
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: "We are satisfied with attempts by the NCDOT to minimize potential
adverse impacts to fisheries and wildlife resources resulting from this
project. We concur with the findings of the EA and would concur with a
Finding of No Significant Impact."
Response: Comments noted.
Region F Council of Governments (Town of Dallas)
Comment: "Recommend the project, but need to let citizens know date of hearing."
Reese: Comment noted. The public hearing and public informational meeting
were advertised in local publications well in advance. Large citizen
turnouts were received for both the public hearing and the public
informational meeting (see Sections IV.C and IV.D of this report).
City of Gastonia
Comment: "...the City of Gastonia is in agreement with participating in the
installation of sidewalks as part of project U-2523A. The scope of the
sidewalk improvements involve installation on both sides of New Hope
Road from Ozark Avenue to the Long Creek bridge. The City cannot
participate in the sidewalk construction north of said bridge since this
section of the widening project is outside our corporate limits."
Response: NCDOT will participate in the construction of sidewalks along both the
west and east sides of NC 279 from NC 7 to Long Creek (city limits) up
to 2% of the total construction cost of the project, as requested by the City
of Gastonia. Participation will be in accordance with the NCDOT
Pedestrian Policy Guidelines. The NCDOT Program Development Branch
will contact the City in preparing a municipal agreement for the proposed
sidewalk (see Section III.D for additional information).
Comment: "NCDOT to conform to all City and FEMA requirements for placement of
fill material in the Flood Hazard Area and Floodway as may be required
for the widening of Bridge No. 12 over Long Creek. The City of Gastonia
Ordinance allows ug increase in flood elevations for permitted
encroachments."
Response: Comment noted and forwarded to NCDOT's Hydraulic Design Unit.
Comment: "Extend traffic signal communication cable from the intersection of New
Hope Road and Auten Road to the intersection of new Hope Road and
Modena Street as part of the traffic signal improvements/revisions of this
project. This extension will allow the Modena Street signal to be
controlled by the computerized closed loop traffic signal system."
10
Response: The Traffic Engineering Unit of NCDOT has reviewed the project and
does not recommend extending the signal communication cable from
Auten Road to Modena Street. Existing signals will function at an
acceptable level of service once the proposed improvements to New Hope
Road are completed.
C. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING AND FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC
HEARING
Following the circulation of the Environmental Assessment, an open forum public
hearing was held at the North Gaston High School in Dallas on February 18, 1997.
Copies of the public hearing notice and a copy of the handout presented at the public
hearing are included in the Appendix of this report (pages A22 through A33).
Approximately 150 citizens attended the public hearing. Several issues were raised by
local residents. Overall, the comments made by the attendees indicated support for
improvements along NC 279; however, a three lane curb and gutter facility was favored
strongly over the proposed five lane cross section by most of the citizens who attended
the hearing. Some of the comments received during the public hearing which reflect the
various questions asked and comments made are listed below:
Comment: "...I serve on the Gastonia Mayor's Committee on Bikeways, Greenways,
and Sidewalks. Our committee was formed to try to take a look at what
things could be done when it comes to building highways that take into
consideration more than just cars, and of course, that is bikeways. So in
this case, we're going to ask you to take a look at a Standard. What a
Standard State Bike lane would be like or just a wide-paved berm that
would run on either side of this wider road. ...we'd like you to consider
the bridge as a cross to the creek. I don't know if there's provisions there
for a future sidewalk in that area, but on either side of the road along the
bridge, there's room for a sidewalk. And also there's room for a bikeway
along that area."
"Also removing [on-street parking] in Dallas, I think is wrong. I think we
need to keep as much on-street parking in Dallas. I think it is important
for the businesses that are there and I think that is something that you
should reconsider."
Response: NCDOT will replace the existing sidewalk which extends from NC 7 to
Ballard Street along the west side of NC 279 and from NC 275 to Gaston
Street along both sides of NC 279. Along with this, NCDOT will
participate with the City of Gastonia in constructing sidewalks along both
the west side of NC 279, from Ballard Street to Long Creek, and along the
east side, from NC 7 to Long Creek, as part of Project U-2523A up to two
percent of the total construction cost within the city limits. NCDOT will
also construct sidewalk on one side of the bridge over Long Creek.
Accommodations for bicycle traffic will be provided by constructing 4.2
meter(14 foot) outside lanes along NC 279 from NC 7 to the Carolina and
Northwestern Railroad.
NCDOT has coordinated with the Town of Dallas concerning the removal
of on-street parking between the Carolina and Northwestern Railroad and
Gaston Street (0.23 km, or 0.14 mile). This parking must be removed in
order to resurface and restripe NC 279 to a four-lane curb and gutter
facility. The existing pavement along this section of NC 279 is wide
enough (14.3 meter (47 foot) face to face curb and gutter) to accommodate
only four lanes of traffic. North of the project, from Gaston Street to US
321 (0.89 km, or 0.55 mile), NC 279 is an existing multi-lane section. If
the section of NC 279 between the railroad and Gaston Street were to
remain two lanes in order to retain the existing on-street parking, an unsafe
bottleneck situation along with increased traffic congestion on NC 279
would result. NCDOT's Municipal Assistance and Intermodal
Management section (M.A.I.N.), at the Town's request, could conduct a
parking study which would assist the Town of Dallas in finding alternate
and/or additional parking in the area to replace the on-street parking which
is removed. The study would also help the Town ensure that they are
making the best use of available land for parking.
"What's going to be the speed limit?"
Response: The proposed design speed of the project south of the Dallas City Limits is
80 km/hr (50 mph). The proposed posted speed limit is 70 km/hr (45
mph).North of the Dallas City Limits the proposed design speed is 65
km/hr (40 mph). The proposed posted speed limit is 60 km/hr (35 mph).
Comment: "And as far as I'm concerned, you either take mine, or take the other
people, and give me some room and give them some room ...I can't live in
my house once you take what's there now."
Response: Several similar comments were made during the public hearing.
Following the hearing, additional design studies were performed to further
evaluate the possibility of asymmetrical widening. Based on those studies,
NCDOT has adjusted the proposed alignment in two areas which were
determined to have high impacts along both sides of NC 279 if
symmetrical widening were performed: from Leroy Street to Auten Road
and from Pinehaven Drive to Pinetop Drive. In these two areas west-side
widening is now recommended to reduce the overall impacts to adjacent
homes and businesses. The west side widening alternate was determined
to have less overall impact to adjacent properties than the east side
widening alternate in these areas. The revised design was presented to the
public at the October 15, 1997 public informational meeting (see
Section V.D).
Comments: "...from the looks of the map, you're going to pretty much take the
highway on top of my house. And you've got a driveway... getting me out
of there, but it's going to be straight up and I'm concerned."
"The easement's coming all the way to my front door and I'm about 15
foot below the road now."
Response: As noted in the above response, NCDOT has adjusted the proposed
alignment to reflect west side widening from Pinehaven Drive to Pinetop
Drive in order to minimize impacts to adjacent properties. This will
minimize impacts to houses on the east side of NC 279 between Modena
Street and Pinetop Drive which are located below the existing roadway
grade. If widening were done symmetrically or on the east side in this
area, the fill slopes would extend to the structures, thereby requiring
relocation of these residences due to the inability to access the house.
12
Comment: "I think that, if it's relooked at with an open mind, that a well designed
three-lane road that may include other right-hand dedicated turning lanes
should be done."
Response: A five-lane curb and gutter facility is recommended for the improvements
to NC 279. After a comprehensive traffic study was conducted following
the public hearing, it was determined that a three-lane section would not
safely and efficiently accommodate the projected volumes of traffic along
NC 279. For more information concerning the analysis performed to
reevaluate the proposed typical section, see Section ILA of this report.
At the close of the hearing, NCDOT representatives stated that another meeting
would be held after NCDOT reviewed the questions and comments received. It was
explained that at the follow-up meeting, NCDOT representatives would present any
recommended changes and receive additional questions and comments.
D. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING AND FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC
INFORMATIONAL. MEETING
An open forum public informational meeting was held at the Brookside
Elementary School in Gastonia on October 15, 1997 to discuss changes in the
recommended improvements that had been made following the public hearing. The
informational meeting only addressed the section of the project from NC 7 to Robinson-
Clemmer Road, TIP Project U-2523A, since the section to the north (U-2523B) had been
delayed pending traffic studies for the future NC 279 Bypass. Copies of the meeting
notice and a copy of the handout presented at the meeting are included in the Appendix of
this report (pages A34 through A44).
The proposed changes consisted of west side rather than symmetrical widening
from Leroy Street to Auten Road and from Pinehaven Drive to Pinetop Drive. These
changes were made in order to minimize overall impacts to adjacent properties.
Additional width, 0.6 meter (2 feet), was also added to the outside lanes from NC 7 to the
Carolina and Northwestern Railroad to accomodate bicycle traffic along NC 279.
Approximately 150 citizens attended the meeting. Several issues, including many
that had been voiced at the public hearing, were raised by local residents. Comments
made by the meeting attendees continued to strongly favor a three lane curb and gutter
section versus the proposed five lane curb and gutter section. Some of the comments
received during the meeting which reflect the various questions asked and comments
made are listed below:
Comment: "Why is it necessary to take [the NC 279 widening] from Ozark to
Robinson-Clemmer Road, stop there, not knowing where it's going, and
go back into a two lane road?"
Response: The decision to end part A of this project at Robinson-Clemmer Road was
made because the future NC 279 Bypass, as shown in the Gaston Urban
Area Thoroughfare Plan (see Figure 3), will tie into NC 279 near
Robinson-Clemmer Road. Further studies are being done to assess the
effect of the Bypass on traffic volumes along NC 279. Once these studies
13
are done, a final determination will be made on how to proceed with the B
part of the project. Current and projected traffic volumes for part A
warrant the need for the proposed improvements within that section with
or without the NC 279 Bypass in place.
Comment: "And we were told and promised that you would come back with a three-
lane proposal. A three-lane proposal I haven't seen."
Response: NCDOT reevaluated the need for a five lane curb and gutter facility after
citizens who attended the public hearing indicated that a three-lane facility
was more desirable than the proposed five lane section. After extensive
traffic studies, it was determined that a three-lane curb and gutter section
would not safely and efficiently accommodate the projected traffic
volumes on NC 279 (see Section ILA of this report). Because the project
has a design horizon of twenty years, it would not be cost-effective to
construct a project that would require additional major improvements
within this time frame, which would be the case if NC 279 were widened
to only three lanes. The same property owners would be impacted again to
solve a problem that should have been corrected the first time. The
decision to construct a five lane curb and gutter facility was based on
safety, level of service in the design year, impacts to homes and
businesses, impacts to the natural environment, and overall cost.
Comment: "To me, it would be simpler to take half and half of our yards."
Response: NCDOT presented a design that called for symmetrical widening along
most of the project at the public hearing. Due to negative comments
received at the public hearing, NCDOT reexamined that widening plan.
Based on comments from the public hearing that many people would
rather have one side or the other widened rather than widening
symmetrically, NCDOT performed additional design studies to further
evaluate the possibility of asymmetrical widening. As a result of those
studies, the public hearing map was revised to show west side widening in
two areas where right of way impacts would be reduced if asymmetrical
widening were done. These revisions were incorporated into the project
design and were presented at the public informational meeting. This
revision represents a union of the dominant public opinion and sound, safe
roadway design.
Comment: "I ask at least if New Hope is to be widened that you go back to the
original plan of shifting the roadway evenly between the homes on either
side. I ask that it only be done in the section between Modena and Ferris
and leave off the widened lanes for bicycle traffic. Who in their right
mind would ride a bicycle on a 45-55 mph road?"
Response: The proposed west side widening in the two areas was developed based on
comments received at the public hearing. Overall right of way impacts
were reduced by shifting the widening to the west in those areas. At the
hearing NCDOT received numerous requests to shift the widening to one
side of New Hope Road or the other to reduce overall right of way impacts
to existing structures and yards.
Additional width to the outside lanes was added along the majority of the
project following the public hearing in order to accommodate bicycle
14
traffic. Due to restricted right of way, no additional width will be added to
the outside lanes in the section of NC 279 from the Carolina and
Northwestern Railroad to Gaston Street. Instead, bicycle traffic will be
routed one block east onto S. Rhyne Street, then north on Main Street, and
then to Gaston Street. This route will provide safer travel and will pass
several historic sites in downtown Dallas. These accommodations were
done at the request of the Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization (see page A-21) and with the support of the NCDOT Office
of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation. NC 279 is proposed as a major
bicycle thoroughfare on the Gaston Urban Area Bike Route Map (see
Figure 6) which is yet to be adopted.
Comment: "My request is that you consider taking less of my property by
straightening Modena 3 to 4 feet on the southwest side."
Response: NCDOT has evaluated this request and has determined that it is feasible to
shift the alignment as requested. Modena Street has been shifted to reduce
the impacts to this property.
Comment: "Is it possible to start [part A]...early or at least first?"
Response: Right of way acquisition for part A is scheduled to begin in fiscal year
1998, with construction to follow in fiscal year 2000. These schedules are
set based on the normal right of way acquisition and construction time for
an average project and upon the availability of sufficient highway funds.
Comment: "The run-off comes through our back yard. I propose you put drain pipe
in to handle the increased run-off."
Response: NCDOT proposes to construct a five lane curb and gutter facility. Curb
and gutter will be provided on each side of the roadway to collect run-off
from the roadway. A series of stormwater pipes will be designed to carry
the run-off away from the road and should reduce the amount of run-off on
adjacent properties.
Comment: "The proposed sidewalks are a very good idea."
Comment noted.
Comment: "I live in the third home to the north of the Long Creek bridge on the east
side of the road. I would like to ask that the NCDOT consider making the
expansion to the Long Creek bridge and related highway lanes on the
eastern side of the existing road. By using this alternative at that point in
the project fewer homes would be impacted. Personally, I am prepared to
lose my home. I have talked to the owners of the two properties between
me and Long Creek and they are agreeable to relocation as well."
Response: NCDOT's Roadway Design Unit investigated this request and determined
that widening NC 279 to the east in this area would flatten the curve,
resulting in a better alignment. However, east-side widening would
increase the amount of right of way required from these homes, but would
not require their relocation. In addition, transitioning to east side widening
in this area would require a horizontal curve and superelevation (banking)
on the bridge over Long Creek, which is an undesirable characteristic for
15
bridge structures. For these reasons, symmetrical widening is
recommended in this area, as shown at the public hearing and public
informational meeting.
VI. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Recommended Wi
The Environmental Assessment described the Recommended Alternative between
NC 7 and the Carolina and Northwestern Railway as a proposed five-lane, 19.5-meter
(64-foot) (from face to face of curbs) curb and gutter section. Widening from NC 7 to
approximately 160 meters (525 feet) northward was recommended to be done on the east
side of NC 279 to avoid impacts to Flint Grove Elementary School located on the west
side. From that point to Yates Street, symmetrical widening was recommended. West
side widening was recommended from Yates Street to the Carolina Northwestern
Railroad to reduce impacts to existing wetlands and properties located on the east side of
NC 279. No widening, only resurfacing, restriping, and removal of on-street parking,
was recommended from the Carolina Northwestern Railroad to Gaston Street.
At the public hearing, many local residents suggested asymmetrical widening to
minimize overall right of way impacts. Based on these suggestions, asymmetrical
widening was evaluated, and west side widening from Leroy Street to Auten Road and
from Pinehaven Drive to Pine Top Drive was found to reduce the impacts to adjacent
residential and business properties. Although the right of way cost for Project U-2523A
increased from $2,386,000 for symmetrical widening to $3,446,000 for the currently
proposed widening alternative, the overall impact to residences and businesses was
significantly reduced by the west side widening alternative. Therefore, west side
widening is recommended in those two areas (see Figure 2), as shown at the public
informational meeting.
In addition, symmetrical rather than east side widening is recommended within
the 160-meter (525-foot) section north of NC 7. Symmetrical widening was shown at the
public hearing and at the public informational meeting. This widening will not require
that right of way or easements be acquired from the National Register-eligible Flint
Grove Elementary School, and the existing location of the western pavement edge of NC
279 will be retained. Otherwise, the recommended widening is as described in the
Environmental Assessment. The recommended improvements are discussed in more
detail in Section II of this report.
B. Bi
Following completion of the Environmental Assessment, the City of Gastonia
requested that the existing sidewalk along the west side of NC 279 be extended from
Ballard Street to Modena Street (seepage A-13). The City of Gastonia later requested
that the sidewalk be extended from Ballard Street to the bridge over Long Creek (see
pages A-14). At the Public Informational Meeting, the City of Gastonia expressed an
interest in extending the sidewalk along the west side of NC 279 to Robinson-Clemmer
Road and constructing sidewalk along the east side of NC 279 from NC 7 to Robinson-
Clemmer Road. A formal request based on NCDOT's Pedestrian Policy was submitted
by the City of Gastonia for sidewalk on both sides of NC 279 (see pages A-15 through A-
17). After further review, the City of Gastonia stated that the city could only participate
in the construction of sidewalk within the city limits and that the sidewalk should only be
extended to Long Creek (city limits). After reviewing these requests, NCDOT
16
determined that sidewalks are warranted. NCDOT will participate in the construction of
sidewalk along both sides of NC 279 up to the maximum 2% of the total construction
cost of the portion of the project which falls within the city limits for TIP Project U-
2523A.
The Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) designates
NC 279 as a major bicycle thoroughfare on the Gaston Urban Area Bike Route Map (see
Figure 6). The Bike Map is still in the planning phase and has not been adopted by either
NCDOT or the Gaston Urban Area MPO. A request to provide bicycle accommodations
along NC 279 was received from the MPO following the public hearing (see page A-21).
Based upon this request and coordination with the NCDOT Office of Bicycle and
Pedestrian Transportation, 4.2-meter (14-foot) outside lanes will be provided to
accommodate bicycle traffic along the project (see Figure 5A). This additional width will
be provided for both Part A and Part B of this project, except for the section of NC 279
north of the Carolina Northwestern Railroad. This segment will remain a 14.3-meter (47-
foot) face-to-face curb and gutter section and will not accommodate additional width on
the outside lanes for bicycle travel (see Figure 513). The Gaston Urban Area Bike Route
Map, once adopted, will include Main Street, from Gaston Street to S. Ryhne Street, as
part of the NC 279 bike route. Bicycle traffic will be routed off of NC 279 one block east
onto S. Ryhne Street, then north onto Main Street, which runs parallel to NC 279, in
order to avoid the four-lane section of NC 279. This route will provide safer travel for
bicyclists and provide access to local historic points of interest in downtown Dallas.
C. Relocation of Houses and Businesses
In the Environmental Assessment, it was stated that there would be a total of eight
residential and no business relocatees for the section of NC 279 from NC 7 to Long
Creek. As explained in Section VI.A. of this report, after the public hearing, NCDOT
shifted the widening to the west side of NC 279 in two areas to reduce right of way
impacts to existing properties. The updated relocation report (see page A-45) shows
twenty residential and no business relocatees for the section of NC 279 from NC 7 to
Robinson-Clemmer Road (U-2523A).
The Environmental Assessment stated that twenty-seven residential and five
business relocatees are expected for the section of NC 279 from Long Creek to Gaston
Street. The updated relocation report (see pages A-46 and A-47) shows twenty-six
residential and five business relocatees for the section of NC 279 from Robinson-
Clemmer Road to Gaston Street (U-2523B).
D. Long Creek Bridge
The Environmental Assessment stated that Bridge No. 12 over Long Creek will be
replaced with a five-lane bridge with a 19.5 meter (64 feet) clear roadway width. Due to
the City of Gastonia's ordinance which prohibits any increase in the floodway elevation,
the bridge over Long Creek will be replaced and raised approximately 1.0 meter (3.3
feet). Sidewalk will also be provided along both sides of the bridge.
VII. ONLY PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE WETLAND FINDING
Executive Order 11990 established as a national policy to avoid, to the extent
possible, adverse impacts on wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new
construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative.
17
NCDOT will not be able to totally avoid wetlands because of wetland occurrences
on both sides of NC 279 (see wetland sites 1 and 2 in Figure 4). Impacts to wetlands will
be minimized because the project does not require construction on new location. it will
use a curb and gutter section which will minimize the amount of cut and fill, and Best
Management Practices will be implemented throughout construction.
It has been determined there is no practicable alternative to the proposed
construction in wetlands and that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to
minimize harm to wetlands which may result from such use.
VIII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the proposed project documented in the Environmental
Assessment and upon comments received from federal, state and local agencies and the
public, it is the finding of the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the
Federal Highway Administration that this project will not have a significant adverse
impact upon the human or natural environment. The project is not controversial from an
environmental standpoint. No significant impacts to natural, ecological, cultural. or
scenic resources are expected. The proposed project is consistent with local plans and
will not disrupt any communities. In view of the above evaluation, it has been
determined a Finding of No Significant Impact is applicable for this project. Therefore,
neither an Environmental Impact Statement nor further environmental analysis will be
required.
CMY/
18
FIGURES
OOP

NORTH CAROLINA DEPAR'FI11F:N'F
OFTRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF IIIGII1VAVS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONNIENTAI
BRANCH NC 279 (New Hope Road)
From NC 7 Bark Ave.) in Gastonia to
SR 2278 (Gaston St.) in Dallas
Gaston County
F.A. Project No. STPNHF-279(1)
State Project No. 8.1811301
P.No.U-2523
FIGURE 1
0 KILOMETERS 0.t IIIII
0 MILES 0.5
'.pow, ? ,?Wm

i 1
i

Y
r
f+

r N
N
?

I ?

e ?.
404- ?j ?EYr

I
d
1
I

i

` 1U) ICI)
M 'ilU ?,•
s A ..
-T jib

gift
r
;,

n 4!p

Alk.

-,

A011' rr
e

s' y "Y2.
?L°f A14 W.
kk,

caw ,'
b rAh

?I
¢ I
d ;' e
y? ?i IV11 \NV1 lltll l
y -t-s.-:- a--?-
_ ?1? ? ?". ?t ? r * t Rt?.l\??1,1`illrt.??.
z ?
LL
t atiie+ r Ja Q Fr z
??1? r _ - s+ - IaL m V Q r°o
• I C•a ,_` ti, I_ _ - ' `? I it '/ "..' II III j,J,1Mv (7 Z
0 :r
0 z (f) r
ic l
¦ it N'lbµY /. r.. \ _. ,.. 'I ` It I.?S ,-14 ' k .. ' f; O O Z
' 1. I^J? ?r t -lf , 67 'I Ali ?
¦ 3 alV U>! 11'111?VA all
bC 711
.. ¦ 1? M'nNINYx .r(l '•?`' ` ' _.,?? J f \. -i ? ° i? 1! ? 'I
• L , ,1 ; JM (-' t 1 - \,?s { , r + ?I / tf • .yd? I \? `, N\ ilk
}
Y r ?'^ 1 ,, ;cP F '" ?¦ 1 101 i
is"
GIA
••• Sri ,''/lN yV 1 7. ????0 f ) '?1' T i h?/k..,V?AC 1. ?
•' L a °,/J/ •, r ?y I' j N -_' ? / Sri ;1 1 r ? ??-'
? ?i ?,••? ? ,! s i ', i, ? ? 1 , ? Its I 7 ? i r_ >.. ( /? } ! ?I 1. ' ?y ?!?` ? •I ? ?v ? IS
•1 ' ,I - 'A••b°rar rr?rrrrrrrrrrrrIII oll 1?? "1 i s .d i •\ W 1 3 ?.??? t I t•:( °
14
"o a 19
%
\ `SGMi VR"' ., .' 1 v • - / t / + / I S n ? 1WPF
1' • fI/ ,7I i a
' f y $• M\N.. f :: 4/S ? a 1 Wig t. ' -
' ?+ q•-
• I
6.6
??y/, : i?? z 4 i 1y $ • sa '1s y' Ii is
`J,•v. 51 JI // J 7 p/ ??SJN! ]B / * . 1 1 i
d /
F II I \N Nt?111A5 ,77 jYn) \1 - , -? 5 ??
I i'' i '' Oa •.'? /- ? .- ?' 1 ` -/ 1--Z ?_ ? .?. a. ,' ; . ? yr v ?' I
' :. [ , •• - 1 ? 1_v ? ?`?'" ? ` ' ? 1 ?s I of
•1•• r S c ? •• ' I ? Y? ? ? / . t ° t •_. __ _ vv ? y/"'y? Ii ? ? ? cf
t C a
'n<??' s i 1 ?' ?1 ?• J . ? I \ • ? r 1 - No 979 ? k ? ?.,at ?d' i vv??- /"o ' ^(
ty/y dA?: ?? r• 'lIB W7x al lull' •rr^???.,
a? <' ?? .1?' nn ?'` I•• I 1-.. s:,.? ••• ?, ? •\?. ? '' ?? v?*• f rn a „ ? o ? a?
e / ? _.U to • ? r ! • ', F _ 1 , ? ? ;?. ?w w
I c$? - W '?' t- -• z ° so i\ I ?? '. ?? Q ° i o Wzu io
Y ,F - ?a '? - °rrrrr f• baa] Ar 1 ( r ,, F ?,f o o N , c m a °
' f - i i ?V y c xs
`s /?) ?r?? iii .;:r0 N s s .1 I _ .r t .?r1°•io '"? p9?rrror .i zz
o . d,y , a ,,, 1 ' '?.
1101 0
\ ?.. • IY'Awij aar¦
a Ja1:GA lg NVY •m i. ry ??'. _i '??II
S? 11011-? s ¦rrl?. r?r ?IJrrra? 't (, y Q f
r rAl
/, U of i / 1 i i m
t • W of
I er ? ? + U : ` 1 WfA ? pa r ?I I ! .. ?? -? 1 \ 9 .'r ? %¦f ! ? o ? ?I
W_ 0 to Qt 3 1 F FI ' 1?'? dl ,' Ih` 1 :. t\ ?F J I t i y ?1? j •? o f a o n
C4 C-1 i
¦. C`4 11, _ (_ I ?, 3 ,` -I, r ei;i - ;t?1?';; [I : ;
° ?? z I ¦ C.1. C?1 I - t (' i _., 1 ..? 1 I' .. p ?; ?? _a o o ° o o ° o °-
,7 ¦ 1/a I - I ? !', t t Y1 F F i a 3
? ?' (? ¦ [? ? NugV Z7'• !'t I \ // f t -_, a ,, \ I 1 \ ' 1? r-i ? C, ° ? ? ° u ..
i Cq w W _ pa01411, t a'
Air
? ?......r4 w? _ I G i vN I.
?y ? Jl?y? ;? 5• - ?' ' ( .d I? v'?? °b 1 I 1¦' - a• ?Is
ugg
z U ? ? ? 'IS VN Wru'° 1 ¦ _vy w ? m
1 0 N t. ? _ I l- _ Utl xplxn-; ? ? ? na a i ;. .
` ...-R?i C?`4 Is ` '? I II , _ r? I • nsa(pna
?f W (VI ;'v IIVa alu 1 ''l' ?' Sb 1 ' ¦ ,, . • '. ?i??,'^ ° [./. u
1 r
I. ? Y ? (c• (? ;, • VII V ?. G? JI It : ??., lkl ? ? " '
1 NIl1 i': IIL € i ,??L Sfl f .I It I'', t + 11851W1Y1r aS "ray°:i.
-.._ a
1 I F ? t
511 :1s a CW;I+- , -bJJ b, ' ¦ -.,i_ t.f[? 9
i-
??
o O ' . I i R " }•? J'` t • f 1''' r?? a.1 to r 6'
v o0 1 1 ' ?® /\l5 An U
'It
1p, [}°°ra4 Cn , 1 1 I 1 r f `?.'• l '? I, *., at ae? ,, 1 I ,i. I 1 .,,a .C., ` f 1 W
J? ry
- f ¢ W I' `>.t. ?a?? k? J, >`• , f II _ i I-? a ,, ?1N.?\ 1 I L ./- _f ,- ---
s+? .r I f (? ? ? '(b!y°? L:?. I ?s? \t I I -•} ?} 1 :'t??? ? O ^®0?1? ? .... J,
a .. ? m ua a I I f-... ? 'r ?_ - hISM OJa}?0 ® I , -?.
????' ?? ? N ? -/s :? ? !? ::f Y ?.pU In br7S`j ?r? ?0? .V. 1 \\ I '? 11 ? ©®?? ¦Y,11 I Yo' i
/?tOY \• ?/ Yl µO ! 1 I 1 I I (I ?. r`Q©®©©?®?® W¦ ti
LEE
?1 4 r1 tt W
9?'d ? } V 1 ? - I 01eeSe++yyWL c1 ?? , 71 8 1 ' ! . I ? •
?0>, F+ s f a`` mlLlvsp' l/1,) *y?rr ¦ I I: w
°y L/ r?+?s?Q9 ?dsacl ? ?•= _ w?avrjs` Sl??? ¦ ?' I :era
C?r•v?,1mp, •? _ V_ , ?? ©?r 1 ,<I ny•l. nNn 11,101 "'soJ `'??3a00?L?000? ` 0000' oI - .. DV:' e ? air¦r' oa Yoprgs tAOU!) tJama w C
?_,_ . ?C090600?0?. CDDD?DDDDD , ? O ?' i ? ? ? ' L ? ?
•, L'r flj , k?? 1 7
' i 1( _ ???• -. o. ??? -_ ?.?, ? ? ?. ? ? s/y, fin, ? 4
???
t .N. • . ?? J 0 ? ,
?ala 17JV10 (15JtG.? mot' ? i ???? ( ?' ( (I 1 I ? t ? r 1 ?
j - ? 1 , s et
1 a °rrr? it ti'rr r Z~ \\ ! I i b
e'?? f .a/f • is r • ?'I \'+ /• \ t i a e : ?
1 ? ???? _? I` I?.j •`?. /\ `' ?' ,J k? to
VdN • 1 ?H •F 'r? I ? \ •? <i I4 1 ??\ CI ?/
• I
f 1 \'' t I'
' f Y •? I 111 'LI!1 .
M- I
'ON NIIA 111V 1111111N t .. 1
yd xJNr^TU 4? v' 1 II'
1 N 1 I
J. - i f ?1 I•I+ i
1
Nt;
?t s
y g5
' ?'s'?d ? ? r-? '• " . ?fj9 ?-r :,?'?? t-__? wnatny, } w ? H "E'It?? ? I 1
f? ? iu >A• d _ _. tte •_ _ ?;1?• • ? -???i"? 13A31yV3S NV3W SI WE11Vt) o ?h r y r_
r t '?_ 'c?I i. swal)L+ I+,? 1333 OZ -IVAa31Nl un01N03
( \? `••,? .I •`Z 313WOIN 1 0 S l y "A r,
'~ 1
?Lr I
>' _ ?•• 1 133! OOOt 0009 OOOS 000? 000E OOOL 0001 0 0001 • 1
- b ?2Il1JI:I SaLIS QI\1W 7 LAM 1 augop 7 311w 1 0 1 / 1
N OOObZ 13lVOS
OF
sa ezsz ! < d P 11
cklNnO0 NOISVJ
\ A-LlllOV3 3NVl Illf1W \! OI N301M c ?.¦ \?%??S? /7[VJ1 a ~ I (' r ly y tf
f _ SVIIVO NI OLZZ HS Ol ??'' • '+laj 9 3Ar
1 1 n It - ts r ti P
VINOISVJ NI L ON WOli3 ? • ??,? O ? ?• 4.4t
6LZ ON
\ S9 IIONVtIl1 du••' '° ow M i '? ' ? r ? ? 7 _ .,?
a tii)
1VLN31VN0211AN3 QNV JNINNV'Id ,lpeae// - A °•. •.j l Oal s d
O 1-- SAVAU19111 30 NOISIAIO F / 10 io /? 1 m a !
NOILVJ210dSNV1LI• // ! tC., r / L ? ? ICS I ?' jpr $ 1
30 LN31q.LH%,j3a VNI'i02IVD IEl.11oN /' ' , ° ./ la?¢ < I H
H ZV8A S3183S-ms I t6Lt swv °
A Mai
Mai
! 016I wp < I I
7' (L
, ',!'j•••? 5'L/5'LOI8M-BiSEN ?' ""- _ '/ _
I 3lONVL,pVOO •SI VINOISVD t/MS •'.? ` _ ./' f ?,? = I. i ,i • I ?( I? ,._ ?I?1 ._ \ 1 H '
`H.L2i O Nv VI N O.LS tI ? ''? ? •/ % -? " /? il;l?`'._' :):wa ,?•{{,1:'"'`,'!`"• '?) ^-? _ _r J ? ? ? ? ?r,,, 1, ??•?7r
a ?j, _ t ? -,. ;tMj •• ? _ _-"?? I(,?-!' a =o / .? Opt ?,
? N i ?? •1
? ??'/•./?1 ^' ? 1 \ -n H ?? ~ c N ' 1 t {"? ( ?) I ? ?. 1114P°0
suils
'n. tJ ?. _ r•,. ),i t(0?11? _ y? $ •e t ,l ? •/ ? e ? ? ? I ` S?? o I '? __ '• 1,}' -?t / ? .
I ?;`1,J' - •h`. 1?1 \•`\.? r _ \? ( rP°•`? 11 1 I.
r`r?_ t •? .? /!?//_ 1 _ +ra'? r) '; ?? ??,I\ J''I I` , `, `??r[ip?\'3 ?'?\ ?- ?\ / S9,/ 11 ,•`? _ ? ?? '?
/ f I d£zSz-fl tp,?-? ' r1
1 66? ° .LDIIf O?Id MI JIIII \ tl'g? \ n ' j 1 l i / ,
It u L.
..uN L, ??n? ..< - )- :?..?•'igLi //? I ate; - ?(aat r
fN1.r '\•- •--?; ?f " - %?r i ? - ? _ `} ,
I,? 9 Y? ' 3 `'??eIL •?i-. "' - .dVWg ? ?>.?.'':\•?.:.... ?fl• ?\???? `--?' ./•'•• ' II ? ?`'?_??1 \ •\ , Fs.
19/ , J<7 ?/ f - ?s ???? . o f ?' ? •I? ?? ?'\_' . ?/" ? I ??\•' .t ? 1• X01' \ ? Wl Ji/- 1'•.?;.r _ / ? .•\ ! ' ? %.r ?I •r1 C66'. iJ
tT.AFry:: a. -1 t ! ? ' h D (\?\\- \ ' ,'• r '??'? i J ` v J '• r '\ l '~? / ?:? ?'?, I
..?,? HIV _? r?/ ?.% ?• - 1 ? I l / 'II `•?I ??'"'' Iii ? ?••
Bill'
i '???` ?c-? I l/ ? %`1 ' it as +p? ;`':j?? / `/? I? \ I i ?, _,'ll? ?!'? ?/" .?^ 1 ? 1'^; \ !I ;?r? ?"?? -?\?.'?,?'ti'' •,\\
R ?,?ttl ( a `t )\c-`? ?r V r?) (/ ~ '? ?I. " /1 ?? r• ???`1 I Z1?a • ?R} VI Ir? ) ed -gjr, u!yuei
>i IN• ??'?I, 16 ?'? a lu0 Q l ?: - I \? ???????r• i' r r?,-_
.,, ic
VEZ
? p J •?:
t
t /
,1?, qpl
J r?
1(1??
d CINg " ;L[s - ?" rte`
/
???? r • Q£ZSZ-fl
\D ' .L08fO21d PI IDRfl
-SISIId l \ r ' 1 `?\ ° I ? r'
- ;? ?--- ?' \.-%?`- - \ '-"'?;r1'.. • f R `/ l' aJ %,?' '(I' , ?- ? `J 1 1 , ?,??' f, ?•s?'< v' i % ?.
_? 1 • I s ll .
?6 11?-'JH¢ b?? '•? "b?? pP1IIF7 •• l VT ,,' /" .1 ,) ? VYUIJ '`'
` \ LZLZ ?fi•?r;f ' ?+?e ??,??;• ?? l oA ;? ? V ' 1}??0??? ? j., ..
.'11 ry
iwa.
11?'/ j ??\1 oo[ (?I i• q)q (??\ .?\?H- ( I
?u `?-` ?? - \ \ y.. 'l T+' )?. ?'' I er • d ?q! • M • " ooe ?•\'• ;..1 ... _? III
Fir
' 0 \ _? 1 • '•• •\ N //?? p Z# CINV 113wi\ Od• 96l j ip I r'p • •p • `? \, /'
1 ` u• ^ ?//' •'\ . 9 p? ??? N l u \??? ? , ? ? . ? 1 .? l ? ? 7 I u , ?\ I 1
IHUIdw 11 !:?' ?. t ?? p
! I I# QI\It1'IIII -. II£ZSZ-fl
nun - - ?: \ 1 ??, / I q
'?r `' ??'\?.?.•(r ?? V - U ?-;;. 10IIf02Id Qma • l \ ... ) /
l q Q l f ?'?? •? ?? (` ° `.i Jisuvn ??r - f ??• ?.? • - ?. `.
'???? ,-\ ? v?1?/I C./? ??\?,•'`? ? ?? >°, ?)?/:? 1 ? •o l,l ? 1 -?c' • til\. ??? ?, ? iii `?t ?-? .. (j br f
?c•Y ?. s ate) \ I E g ?JC? I?•• `? a?1 q? ??\'1l? r L?/" 1
?]IUMUwo
'. (? II • \ i??. ?? ??`Y i, .w? ??' lj ? % u /' v \ '? (/ ? Y ?" ' - v ILVe; -' /'? V ? ' I 1 / ^??'
' - ???q n • 999' ? (. ? } ?._ ? C: / . ° 1` 1 \\J , ? I '00? 1 ?C``?
vr,
I+.?..\,N t ??) `' ?1-?C?\? - ? ( O I,' ? ,-'j_? ? I,?? l.'LO ? ' V ? ! /` ( l? I ? C/)) = ?? ??li ??, Y ? '•?
,cam i- .? ??*_ . ? `?? ? ?,?,: (? ? ^?•; ?: ?/' ?'!? 9¢t / °\\ , `? ?I n
i,.i`j%.?? \?• J '?, '. ?, a, t` ?. •I16 II L
I , ? .? ? ? 1'I(?/I(/fir 1? , ; , -: - ?-• ? ?_`;, I • ,?:?,-?.?v? 1 ---> . ? %1 % 1 ?1 l{ I ? ' ; I ?' ? T / .. [ ?
/ v ??'??n '-' ^ _ / ,Iri i. _ \:: / t?_ i' . r-?? K / 1 tip'" i ?` •.1??; ( ,. ` ?I •` C-?`-.
ROF
I /?? ..ir ?-j'? ,1-'? tiiji%! % ?: , -'lr i ? ( !n •h 1?:h:'?,i r?? ???•.' %^ 1 l%/'`•Cr???l\1ll" _. ..i') ?- , J .?V
Ce)
V
N
I
D
z
O
U
LU
(/
Q
U
LLJ)
O
IL
O
m
a.
A
cc
U)
O
O
c -?
U- °o
O ?--
E"' E
-j co
u
a
I\
^c
a
a
E-
st oo
N
n?
O N
v
M
N ?
L N
iV
? v
E N
? v
E
L
d
m
r
N v
r
E_
E E
N v d
Q1
I'
a

a

z
LILI o cc
O
M
cr.

z W
LLI
CL LLJ ?

a
O
??
? t?
O
z
I.i.i ? ?
Z
X
M
U z Cn

O O
Cr)

' `

C
O
0

v
z
Q N ?
O

Z CL
L
U
z

O
cc

kf)
C7
W
U
m
U
U
0
C
cu
m
Q
c
0
0
w
12
N
N
a
U
C
W
I-
Z
W
a
c?
w
z
O c

LU
cn
W a
cn O
CL ,-.

M a

V ?o

O
CV
LO .. tn E
CV
r" F? co
_
D _
zi N

W
Cn X
o cc
a
O a

CL
.2?
Q O U.
Q A v! L
>4r
H 0 m
E
to ZD
N I
O
C') v
Ln T
ci v
T
T
'r- ommmmomi
N 0 I
V) V
E
?Z
~ CV
O v
Q 4 1L E
W L
> f M Q?
C4 0 m
O-1
co
ti
N
N
Y /
cc O
W p ?.
O?
a
W °C
p L z
Z O w
a?
CO Cf)
W
= W ?.
2
() O
W ? o
Z N z
a ? a
I z z
t J
O
a
U
OM
cn
0
U
0
L.
t
0
V-
0
c
Aa
cr
U
(d
.a
f0
3
0
m
C
0
r-+
m
0
Z
LW
r
O
Z

-- PRELIMINARY PLAN
,C NOT ADOPTED BY NCDOT G
=-

;:?_ - -tosl
4s

I .. END PROJECT
U-2523B
?-
-?I rl & History Museum

Gnsfon CdUBge
•
?
I
I'? ? ??"•

L TT
INT. i BEGIN PROJECT
U-2523B Mbun a
END PROJECT
%l /? 4.L I ?.'e'i. ? I I In IenE Bndle ° 'CemvX
U-2523A
v ? I ` I
1 ? r
Fnndn

a
?
U. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
'
J a PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
?
\ a Phr a
/ BRANCH
lugs T ais a
C NC 279 (New Hope Road)
1
From NC 7 (Ozark Ave.) in Gastonia to
"
IyC?e'?ity
'?af0
Hsu
? SR 2278 (Gaston St.) in Dallas

Gaston County
F
P
A
N
STPNHF
279
1
LEGEND _ .
.
roject
-
o.
(
)
State Project No. 8.1811301

BIKE ROUTE 0 KILOMETERS 0.68
T.I.P. No. U-2523
}
I _ ! o MILES 0.42 GASTON URBAN AREA
FIGURE 6
?_ BIKE ROUTE MAP

APPENDIX
r
V

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
January 22, 1997
IN REPLY REFER TO
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Hof, I VET
r?pN 2 7 1991
N ??r
p1V1E1G . J 4
This is in response to your letter of November 4, 1996, requesting our comments
on the "Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 279, From NC 7 (Ozark Avenue) to
SR 2278 (Gaston Street), Gastonia and Dallas, Gaston County, Federal Aid Number
STPNHF-279(1), State Project Number 8.1811301, T.I.P. No. U-2523" (Regulatory
Branch Action I.D. No. 199702159).
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,
Enclosure

C. E. Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering
and Planning Division
A-I
January 21, 1997
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 279, From NC 7 (Ozark Avenue) to SR
2278 (Gaston Street), Gastonia and Dallas, Gaston County, Federal Aid Number
STPNHF-279(1), State Project Number 8.1811301, T.I.P. No. U-2523" (Regulatory
Branch Action I.D. Nos. 199702159)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
Please reference our May 8, 1995, comments on this project, a copy of which is
contained in the Federal Environmental Assessment (FEA). We note that the project
currently envisions extending beyond the formerly-considered terminus at Carolina and
Northwestern Railway to Gaston Street. However, this portion does not appear to
involve any identified flood hazard area, based on a review of the pertinent United
States Geological Survey topo map. The only additional comment we wish to make is
that the proposed widening near the crossing of Long Creek may also involve the flood
plain of Trib L4, another detailed study stream. We wish to commend your office for
the discussion contained in the flood hazard evaluation on page 29 of the FEA, which
addresses the intent to coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency
and local officials regarding the need for a floodway revision.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Steve Chapin, Asheville Field Offices
Regulatory Branch, at [phone]
We do not have any additional comments beyond those provided to you in our
May 8, 1995, letter response. Questions or comments pertaining to permits may be
directed to Mr. Chapin.
A-2
01-17-97
r! T
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARIMGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT 9c ADMINISTRATION
115 WEST JONES STREET
RALEISH NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003
INTERSOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
FRO%,:
TaANSp^?TATIO4
WYIT to=qo
T7ANSD1?TATl0N BL0 ./I4T=R-O"c
PRCJ=CT n_SCRT0 T TQNj:
Cc Ct?1.
MRS. CHRYS BAGS:TT a
nT.RrCT7o
N C STAT_ CLEARINGHOUSE
_`!V. ,SS?SS. - PR!?OOSE'l TMPQO%/=MEETS TO NC 279, r-ROPi MC 7 IN GASTONIA
TO T4= NC?TH'W STERN RAIL'4AY IN DALLAS, ,ASTOM COUNTY (TIP '=U-2523)
SAI N"' 07=4210'241) PP?;?Ay TZTL- - =NV. ASS=-S'.
-H= A1.71/7 P?'1,3=CT HAS BE=N SLI?'.ITTEJ TO TH_ NORTH CAROLINA
T'JT=ooZ^ly_vb,'ArNTAL R=%/I=,W PROC=SS• AS A DcC!I1 T r1c TH= R_VIcW
i S Sljrl.MTT
? IT ^; ( ) NO COMM NTS WSR= R=CEIV_n
( X ) C7ML'=NTS ATTACHED
T4F FOLLOWIMG
S'!"!.11__) Y^',' ;aA%f= ANY ^'J=cTTO"1S, PLEAS= CALL TRTS ^c=TC_ [phone].

PROJECT FILE.
Ad_MIC HEARNG
() FILE t'7TM ESTR RTES
I
21
PROJECT MAN
s
?' -3
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Richard E. Rogers, Jr., Acting Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee'-
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 97-0340 EA for NC 279, Gaston County
DATE: January 15, 1997
INK
T -W;IFA
dam
DEHNR
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has reviewed
the proposed project.
The attached comments reflect specific concerns that should be addressed in
the FONSI. The Department of Transportation is encouraged to continue to work
with our commenting divisions throughout the planning of this project.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
attachments
A-4
P.O. Box 27687. C7`ye
r'
Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 N
RECEIVED
JAN 1 71997
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSP
FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
State .of North:.Carolina
•,! Department; of.Environment,
: Health*-'a atural Resources 1 • ?':.
- Division o .:Water Quality
t
10
Ja m es B, Hint, Jr:,t G ove mor
: Jona:tFian B.' Ho i'4 Secretary
A. Preston.'F?ovvard, Jr- P.E., Director
J
? ? ?;?
F.
January 15,1997
..
TG: ` :Melba McGee '
Through. John Dome:
From: Cvndi Bell
Lb
Subject . ?Envir hmental Assessment for NC: 279 Widening Ruin NC 7 (Ozark Avenue) to SR 2278
,(Gaston. Street), Gastonia and Dallas
State Protect DOT No. 8.18113171, T.I.P. No. IT -2523
;..- 'EHNR.# 97.0340. DWQ # 11429
The s"sbject docume' nt has been ievitrved by this office. The Divisio6 of Water Quality (DWQ) is
responsiole.for tiie`issuani: 'of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities wy lch impact
a aters of the state including wetlands. The subject project will impact up to 0.2 hectare (0.30 acre) of
a ed--Ands snd waters..'DWQ oilers the following comments based on'the document review:
A) DWQ commends NCMUT for the thorough discussion on alternsttive% and their potential impacts
to the,environment This document provides sufficient information to justify selection of DOT's
pref. enr
d alternative.
B) In correspondence dazed April 17,1995, DWQ provided a list of topics to be discussed in the EA.
The document provides -a thorouglily-demiled review or most of the issues raised. In order to
camplete• the data collection needed for our processing of the subject project, we ask that
D()T provide the following information, as requested in the referenced letter:
?..
Iden ' the stotmwatercontrols .
?y (p:rm:ineat and temporary) to be ., employed
- j 2) Please ensure that the sediment and ero ion control meastuts are not placed in
wetlands. This commitment should be incorporated into the construction
ctmtract awarded for this project
3) Please provide qualitative information on the wetlands to be impacted. Data
..Sheets fur DWQ's Wetland Rating System for the two wetland sites involv.d
will be sufficient
4) Will borrow locations be situated in wetlands? We ask that you stipul to coat
` borrow material will be taken from upland sources in the construction contract
awarded for this project
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626.0535 Telephone [phone] FAX s 733-9919
An EVW opgonunhy AHinngis Ac+on Ern;.loyer sc,% rw_'ydw.G% post consumer paper
A-5
Ms. Me1ba'Ma-Tm Memo)
• • lantisry 15?1997. ? •- -•'
Page ? '
C) "The `EAP covides a'vert' good narrative of minimization measures which inay be a pliable to this
. , ?'
p ojii t in order:t6 decrease wetland impacts from the anticipated maximum 02 hectare (OS aeie)
fill area -DWQ would like to reiterate that these measures be implemented throughout the
detailed design and construction phases of the project
D) : The EA states that there will be no stream modificaticns in' olved with this project If this detail
.changes dig the design phase of this project, stream mitigation may be? required in accordance:
with ctirrentDWQ Wctlantl Rules which were not in effeci at the time the EA wa's prcparai.
Based upon the wetland impacts described in the EA, Granual Certification 2732 willlikely be applicable
to ibis projeci- ?tinaI permit authorization will require formal application by NCDOT and written
concurrence from DWQ. Please be aware that this approval will be contingent upon evidence of
avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the extent practicable.
DWQ appreciates the ijiiality of the L-A prepared for this project, and the opportunity to provide
conirttents: DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification'rtquires satisfaction of
watei quality concerns; to ensure that water quality starstL?rds are met and no uses are lost Qucstio: s
regarding the 401 Certification. should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone]'in DWQ's Water
Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Steve Limd DOA, Asheville
Jatnes Bridges; PR, NCDOT, ME
Michelle Siiverlavbbe: DWQ
U2523EAMOt
i .
A-6
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Eastern Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program 0 . X
DATE: December 2, 1996
SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 97-0340, Environmental Assessment for NC 279,
(',-ctnn f niinty, TIP :ET T_') -311
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments regarding
the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the widening of NC 279. These comments are provided
in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401; as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d.) and the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen a 3.5-
mile section of NC 279 from NC 7 (Ozark Avenue) to SR 2278 (Gaston Street) to a multi-lane
facility. The alternative preferred by the NCDOT includes a combination of symmetrical; east-
side, and west-side widening. A total of 43.6 acres will be impacted by the project, including
36.0 acres of disturbed areas, 2.5 acres of mixed pine/hardwood forest, 2.1 acres of bottomland
hardwood forest, 1.6 acres of pine forest, 1.2 acres of upland hardwood forest, and 0.2 acres of
alluvial forest. Approximately 0.5 acre of forested palustrine wetlands will be filled as a result of
this project. An existing two-lane bridge over Long Creek will be replaced with a new, five-lane
bridge. No stream relocation is proposed. Land use includes residential, commercial, and
institutional areas along with some undeveloped areas.
We are satisfied with attempts by the NCDOT to minimize potential adverse impacts to
fisheries and wildlife resources resulting from this project. We concur with the findings of the
EA and would concur with a Finding of No Significant Impact. `
Thant: you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any
questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 7041652-4257.
cc: USFWS, Asheville Office
A-7
State of North Carolina Feviewing Office:
Craparineent of Envirnne+ent, Hesaittl, and Natural Rasiouress f
ptiTERGOYERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Pm' t Number. Oise
Alter. v*ew of this proiect it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) sndlor approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Ouisstions f egarding these permits should be addressed to the Re9ionai Office indicated on the femme of the torn.
All applications. infonssation and puicleffnes, relative to these plans and permits one available from the 1111111110 . Normal Process'
Regional Office. Time
PERMITS
ParrtW 10 Construe: t operate wasawater tieudy"nt
tadlltiN, sewer system extensions. t Aeerer
sywtenss not discharging into state suriaee eaters.
NPDES. permit to discharge into surface water AndlOr
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
discharging into Mate surface waters.
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOWREMENTS
1 ,
Applicmion 9o days before begin construction or awran7 of
cor stwction contracts on-aae inspection. Post•aWication
technical conference usual
Application 1!0 Clays before begin actMty. On-site InsOeeticn. _
Pee.appiication conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPOES Reply
two. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPOES
permit•whichwer is later.
tatatutory time
iimtq
30 days I
(90 days)
90.120 days
(NIA)

water Use Permit I
pte.spplirstion Technical conference usually necessary 30 Clays
(NIA)
T Clays

D welt Construction Pend Complete application must be recsived and permit Issued
prior to tree Installation at a well.
(1: days)
Application copy must be served on a=!' adlscent riparian progeny 15 days
Oredge and Fill Permit owner. on-site inspection. Pre-appfication conference usual. Filling
D may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of f9o days)
Azsministrathon and Fsoeral Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to eonstru: t operate Air Pollution Abatement
NIA 60 days
(90 caysl
01 facilities andlor Emission Sources as per 1SA NCAC 21N.
Any open bumirm;, assoc:ated w! tit subject proposal
D must be in compliance with 1SA NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
6o days
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A
J NCAC 20.E wind, recuires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition. Cons.. Asbestos Control Group
914.733-0E20 . (9o days)

n Complez Source Iatt-nt required under 1SA NCAC 2DIM).
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1913 must be property adoressed for any land disturping activity. An erosion Z sedtmentauor ?
20 days
D control plan will be required It one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan tiled with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Seel.1 at least 3o I
y
)
30
days before be mnin- activity A fee of Z.30 for the first acre and 520.00 for each additional acre at can must accompany the clam da
s
(
n The Sedinrnution Pollution Control Act of 1977 rust be addressed with respect to the referrencsd Ldoaf Ordinance: L30 Gays)
On-sits inspection usual. Surety bond filed with ENNA. Bond amount
D Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any aria 30 days
60 Ga
s)
mined greater than she acre must be permited. The appropriate bond 4
y
nwst be received before the permit can be issued.
D Norm Carolina Sur trig permit On-she Inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources If pemut 1 Gay
(WA)
atceeds 4 Days
Special Ground C:aarwca Burning Pw tt .22 On-rile inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources squired -tf more 1 Day
A
D cauffll es is Cocain N.C. with erVWdC soils Chan five acres of ground clearing setivities are Invoked. Inspections
- (NI
)
should be requested n least tan days before actual bum Is Planned.
90-120 Days
D ON Refining Fatalnies
WA
(NIAI
D I dam Safety Permit
i^ W.
If permit required, applicston m days before taiga" tsrstnrelion•
Applicant must here N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare PIANO. >D Gays
Inspect consttuc:ron. gently construction is a>_-ardmg to EMNR aovrov
ed plans.•May also require permit under mosquito control program. And 00 days)
a AGA permit from Wr;,s of Engineers. An Inspection of she is "rces-
soy to verity Hazard C:assifieuion. A minimum tee of tO'00.00 must ace
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percent or the total project cost will be required upon comotellan
Continued on reverse
AS
NO.-ma: P:; eras
L
L
L
-
L
1_^.I
;t
a
"me
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutr,ry time
limit) .

Permit to drill exploratory oil or gel well File surely bond of 95.000 with EMHR running to Stele of N.C.
coedltional that any well opened by drill operator Shall
upon 10 Cays
.
abandonment, be plugged ae-co-eding to EMNR rules and *ulations. (NU)
Geophysical E:pions ion Permit Application flied with EMNR•at Nast 10 days prior to laaw of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard aCplioation form. (NIA)
State Latin Construction Permit Application fee based on structure sue is charged: Must hoolude u•zo days
deceptions i drawings of structure L proof of ownership (NIA)
- of riiNtriar+ property.
401 Wain 0iWlty Certification - NIA 60 days
(130 days)

CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
=0M fee must accompany application !-5 days
(150 days)
CAMA Permit for MINOR development
950.00 fee must accompany application 22 nays
tZ` Days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or now the project area. It any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify.
H.C. Geodetic Survey. Box 27607, Raleigh. N.C. 27511
Abandonment of any wells. if regwred, must be in aCCOn3ance with Title 15A, Supch, ter 2C.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested If -orphan- underground Sims" tanks (USTSI are discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2M.1000 (Coastal Starmwater Rules) is required. I 4b cays
(NIA)
Other comments tattacn aoostionai pages as necessary. tieing certain to cite comment sumomyl. r
? r
/

REGIONAL OFFICES
Ouestions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below

? Asheville Regional Office
S9 .
? Fayetteville Regional Office
Woodfin Place
Asheville. NC 25801 Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Fayetteville
NC 25301
14206 ,
[phone]
l Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950 ? Raleigph Regional Office
3800 =11 Drive
it
S
101
Mooresville. NC 28115
(104) 5631699 .
u
e
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington. NC 27589
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington. NC 28405
[phone]
? WinstonSalem Regional Office
8= Nor h Point Blvd. A-
5 9
Winston Salen NC 771nc
CHAIRMAN: CLAYTON LOFLIN
VICE CHAIRMAN: ROBERT RANDALL
SECRETARY! JOYCE GOITER
TREASURER: GEORGE HIGGINS
CENTRALINA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
POST OFFICE BOX 35008 MIDTOWN PLAZA
CHARLOTTE, N.C. 28235 1300 BAXTER STREET
704/372-2416 FAX [phone]
Gastonia City Manager
alias Town Clerk
Gaston County Manager
NC Intergovernmental Review Process
Review and Comment Form
This office has received the attached information about a proposal which could affect
your jurisdiction.
If you need more information, contact the applicant directly. If you need an extension of
time for re`iew, contact Cynthia ``'infield immediately.
If you wish to comment on this proposal action, complete this form with comments and
return to this office by 12/9/96
If no comment is received by the above date, it will be assumed you have no comments
regarding this proposal.
State Application Identifier Number 97-0340
Commenter's Name /1 t hcl?S . t/La s ?? r < <1? Title
Representing T0a/,j %.? )O-Il -
(jurisdiction)
Address 131 N, 6 A-5 40h 5/
'2- ?K23 f_
/
Phone l
D
13 ate i 4k& 2A/ i"
tc'ec?. bJ /I tz d 4tf ((-e ct?; 7.E,i e CC17, CA C. (in L')
CABARRUS COUNTY concord harcisburg kannapolis mount pleasant GASTON COUNTY belmont bessemer city cherryville cramerton dallas
gastonia high shoals lowell mcadenville mount holly ranlo spencer mountain staniey IREDELL COUNTY harmony mooresville statesville
troutman LINCOLN COUNTY lincolnton MECKLENBURG COUNTY charlotte cornelius davidson huntersville matthews mint hill pineville
ROWAN COUNTY china grove Cleveland faith granite quarry Iandis rockwell salisbury spencer STANLY COUNTY albemarle badin locust
new london norwood oakboro richlield stanfield UNION COUNTY Indian trail lake park marshville monroe stallings waxhaw wingate
A10
CHAIRMAN: CLAYTON LOFLIN
VICE CHAIRMAN: ROBERT RANDALL
SECRETARY JOYCE BOITER
TREASURER. GEORGE HIGGINS
CENTRALINA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
POST OFFICE BOX 35008 MIDTOWN PLAZA
CHARLOTTE, N.C. 28235 1300 BAXTER STREET
704/372-2416 FAX [phone]
City Manager
Dallas Town Clerk
Gaston County Manager '.."
NC Intergovernmental Review Process CI-Y

keview and Comment Form
This office has received the attached information about a proposal which could affect
your jurisdiction. %
If you need more information, contact the applicant directly. If you need an extension of
time for review, contact Cynthia Winfield immediately.
If you wish to comment on this proposal action, complete this form with comments and
return to this office by 12/9/96
If no comment is received by the above date, it will be assumed you have no comments
regarding this proposal.
State Application Identifier Number 97-0340
Commenter's Name_ Donald K. Love Title_ City Traffic E-nc,4-nPP-r
Representing city of cnnynni
(Jurisdiction)
Address PO Boa 1748
Phone [phone]
Date January 6. 1997
CABARRQS COUNTY concord harrisburg kannapolis mount pleasant GASTON COUNTY belmont bessemer city cherryvills cramerton dallas
Gastonia high shoals lowell mcadenville mount holly ranlo spencer mountain Stanley IREDELL COUNTY harmony mooresville Statesville
troutman LINCOLN COUNTY lincolnton 'MECKLENBURG COUNTY charlotte Cornelius davidson huntersville manhews mint hill pineville
ROWAN COUNTY china grove Cleveland faith granite quarry landis rockwell Salisbury spencer STANLY COUNTY albemarle badin locust
new london norwood oakboro richlield Stanfield UNION OUNTY indian trail lake park marshville monme stallings waxhaw wingate
All
NOMW
W
C HU of (6asio liH
,,,,PP.?. (0.8OZ 17A6
Snstauia, ?K ` Carnlinn ZSII33-1748
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS / ENGINEERING
January 6, 1997
Mr. Clayton Loftin
Chairman
Centralina Council of Governments
PO Box 35008
Charlotte, NC 28235
Dear Mr. Loftin:
In regard to the attached NC Intergovernmental Review and Comment Form, please refer
to the response of the City of Gastonia to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation concerning the proposed widening of New Hope Road (U-2523).
We apologize for returning this information at this late date; however, the City of
Gastonia appreciates the opportunity to comment on the subject project.
If you have any questions or need additional information concerning this matter, please
do not hesitate to contact me at 866-6765.
Yours very truly,
DONALD K. LOWE
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
A12

(Gt#ll 111f 5fitltiii
P. o. nox 1740
(hi;,stnrtin, ?Iurtll (llarulitt;t 2tilla3-171;1
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS/ ENGINEERING
January 6, 1997
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
NCDOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27.611
Dear Mr. Vick:
The City of Gastonia has reviewed the environmental assessment for the New Hope Road
Widening Project (U-2523) recommend the following:
Extend the sidewalk on the west side of New Hope Road (NC 279) from Ballard
Street to Modena Street.
NCDOT to conform to all City and FEMA requirements for placement of fill
material in the Flood Hazard Area and Floodway as may be required for the
widening of Bridge No. 12 over Long Creek. The City of Gastonia Ordinance
allows r-Q increase in flood elevations for permitted encroachments.
Extend the traffic signal communication cable from the intersection of New Hope
Road and Auten Road to the intersection of New Hope Road and Modena Street
as part of the traffic signal improvements/revisions of the project. This extension
will allow the Modena Street signal to be controlled by the computerized closed-
loop traffic signal system.
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 K. LOWE
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/Ficld Operations
-A13
r
C?i#u o 1G asimlin
P. O. NOX 1748
QDnstmcia,,lartll Qlmaliiin 231153-1743
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS i ENGINEERING
Mr. L. L. Hendricks
Public Hearing Officer
NCDOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Hendricks:
February 27, 1997
PUBLIC lU?iL,? r.
R?CE???? ?FNT
Ace 28 ??
J.
a?
w
Attached please find the comment sheet from the City of Gastonia concerning the New
Hope Road (NC 279) widening project (U-2523).
The City had previously requested th?+ ±h° ^^ +h° side of New Hope Road
be extended from Ballard Street to Modena Street. We would like to revise that request
by recommending that the sidewalk continue northward to the bridge over Long Creek.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this much-needed transportation
improvement.
If you have any questions or need additional information concerning this matter, please
do not hesitate to contact me at [phone].
DONALD K. LOWE
City Traffic Engineer
cc: Danny 0. Crew, City Manager
Donald E. Carmichael Director of Public Works & Utilities
J. Philip Bombardier, Asst. Director of Public Works/City Engineer

A14

Tifu1 of Cf nstonin
P. O. Box 1748
Gastonia, X=th Taralirta 2SIT53-1748
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS t ENGINEERING
October 2, 1997
Mr. Craig Young
Plannins and Environmental Section
NC'DOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh. NC 26711-5201
Dear Mr. Youns:
The City of Gastonia has requested the construction of a sidewalk on New Hope Road
from Ballard Street to Long Creek in conjunction with the proposed widening of New
Hope Road (U-2523). The criteria for pedestrian facilities are addressed as shown below:
1. Local Pedestrian Policy
* The Mayor has appointed a Greenway, Bikeway, and Sidewalk Committee that
is currently in the process of inventorying all existing sidewalks and
developing a sidewalk needs list.
* The City's Subdivision Ordinance requires construction of sidewalks by the
developer on both sides of thoroughfares that traverse a subdivision and/or on
the side that abuts a subdivision. Sidewalks are also required on one side of
any collector street that traverses or abuts a subdivision.
* The City's Zoning Ordinance encourages mixed-use developments which are
accessible to pedestrians.
2. Local Government Commitment
* There are no current capital improvement projects planned by the City to
connect any sidewalks to the sidewalk provided by this project.
* There are existing sidewalks along New Hope Road (NC 279) from Ballard
Street to Ozark Avenue (NC 7). There are also sidewalks on Ozark/Long
Avenue from Chester Street (US 321 S) to Cox Road (SR 2200).

415
2
* Currently there are three (3) subdivisions that have sidewalks that will connect
to the sidewalk provided by this project.
* The City of Gastonia agrees to maintain the sidewalk constructed in this
project.
3. Continuity and Integration
* This project is a critical link to an existing network, in that, it provides a
continuation of the existing sidewalk on New Hope Road to complete the
segment from the city limits to Ozark Avenue (NC 7).
* This project is not a critical link to a network proposed by the City.
4. Location
* This area is located in a Census defined urban area.
* This area is not located in a Urbanized Boundary Area.
* The majority of the properties within walking distance of the project are
developed.
5. Generators
* The project will serve as primary access to an elementary school, a
neighborhood shopping center, an assisted-living facility, and various
residential areas.
6. Safety
* The posted speed limit of New Hope Road is forty-five (45) miles per hour.
* The facility will be utilized by children and the elderly.
* The facility will reduce potential pedestrian-vehicle conflicts.
* The facility will help address the safety needs of the area.
7. Existing or Projected Traffic
* There is some evidence of pedestrian traffic; however, the majority of this part
of New Hope Road has a two (2) to four (4) foot shoulder with a ditch section
which discourages current pedestrian use.

A16
3
* Additional use is anticipated with the construction of the sidewalk for
recreational purposes.
* The City of Gastonia has no current pedestrian counts along this section of the
project.
If you have any questions or need additional information concerning this matter, please
do not hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Yours very truly,
City Traffic Engineer
cc: Donald E. Carmichael, Director of Public Works & Utilities
J. Philip Bombardier, Asst. Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Edward C. Munn, Executive Director of Administration
Jack L. Kiser, Director of Planning

A17

Clu Jaf (Sastoxttit
P. O. sox 1740
(EDastmciU, Xartll ezrallirta 28853-1748
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS i ENGINEERING
October 16,1997
Mr. L. L. Hendricks
Public Hearing Officer
NCDOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Hendricks:
PUdLh.. . . ". • ?L 3
RECEIVED
OCT 20 W

Attached please find the public information meeting (10/15/97) comment sheet from the
City of Gastonia concerning the proposed New Hope Road (NC 279) widening project
(U2523A).
The City hereby requests that sidewalk be installed on the east s:ae cf =".° °^'- t'- '--t` i^
addition to the proposed sidewalk on the west side.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this much-needed 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,
L Lq1_F'_
DONALD K. LOWE
City Traffic Engineer
Attachment
cc: Danny 0. Crew, City Manager
Donald E. Carmichael, Director of Public Works & Utilities
J. Philip Bombardier, Asst. Director of Public Works/City Engineer
_.-A 18
PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING
COMMENT SHEET
Widening/Improvements of New Hope Road
From Ozark Avenue to North of Robinson-Clemmer Road
October 15, 1997
U -2523A Gaston County Project 8.1370601
NAME:
CITY OF GASTONIA
ADDRESS: PO BOX 1748, GASTONIA, NC 28053
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS:
The City of Gastonia requests that sidewalk be installed on the-east side"of the---- -
project limits, in addition to the proposed sidewalk on the west side.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT '
RECEIVED
OCt `201991 ..:

Comments may be mailed to;

1. L. L Hendricks, Public Hearing Officer "
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways ' 'j - = - -- '
,
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Telephone: [phone] A 19
FAX, [phone].-'
sk-c -4'I '°", ?
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS /ENGINEERING
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, PE
Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
NCDOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
March 18, 1998
?O
5. "IR 2
7 1998 z
DIVISION
G??, HlGHWAYSF
Dear Mr. Vick:
In response to your letter dated December 29, 1997, concerning the installation of
_ sidewalks in conjunction with the widening of New Hope Road (NC 279) from Ozark
Avenue (NC 7) to Robinson-Clemmer Road (SR 2275), TIP Project Number U-2523A,
the City of Gastonia is in agreement with participating in their installation as part of said
project.
The scope of the sidewalk improvements involve installation on both sides of New Hope
Road from Ozark Avenue to the Long Creek bridge. The City cannot participate in the
sidewalk construction north of said bridge since this section of the widening project is
outside our corporate limits.
Please prepare the necessary municipal agreement for the construction of the sidewalks as
outlined above and forward it to me for execution by the City.
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 K. LOWE • .? ,
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
'co
Ltft? II? ?r?5?II1tt?S
7

?T P. O. BOX 1748
GasfmTi3, Cdartlj (=v1i = 28053-174$
pQ? ?
March 25, 1997
NCDOT
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
-96
The Gaston Urban Area, Metropolitan Planning Organization is requesting, as a
minimum, that bicycle accommodations be included as an incidental feature in the New
Hope Road (NC279) Widening Project (U-2523).
The citizens bikeway working group has identified this road as an integral part of the
urban area bikeway corridor and it is already being used by cyclists on a daily basis for
both pleasure and as an alternative means of transportation.
In addition to linking the City of Gastonia with the Town of Dallas, these bicycle lanes
will dove tail xvith the on-goins bikeway route map, signage, and stationery bicycle rack
projects. If a three lane facilit% is constructed, minimum 4' bicycle lanes are preferred:
however, where a 5 lane facility is constructed, and space is limited, wide (14' minimum)
outside lanes (and possibly l 1' inside lanes) would be acceptable.
If you have any questions or need any further documentation, please feel free to contact
me. Ph. [phone]. I am looking forward to your response.
Sincerely,
1 0" J Ap - -
4Myo?r Gail Brotherton, TAG Chairperson
I lastorc\wordtacgailnhroadbikcltr
A21
W*e.CL 6P SO L 4 L3
Qa't?
My a/YlvW4.3>i AN 03r±i911 L11-58
H. F. VICK, P.E.
TRANSPORTATION BLDG.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201 GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
Gc1VERNUR SECRETARY
January 24, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: Secretary Garland Garrett
FROM: L. L. Hendricks
Public Hearing Officer
Citizens Participation Unit
RE: Notice of a Public Hearing on Proposed Widening/Improvements of
NC 279 from NC 7 (Ozark Avenue) to Gaston Street
The following Notice is furnished for your information:
U-2523: This project proposes to widen New Hope Road to a five-lane roadway
with curb and gutter.
cc: Mr. Ann Gaither, Board of Transportation Member
Mr. Larry R. Goode, P.E., Ph.D.
Mr. J. D. Goins, P.E.
Mr. B. G. Jenkins, Jr., P.E.
Mr. J. B. Williamson, Jr.
Mr. D. R. Morton, P.E.
Mr. C. W. Leggett, P.E.
Mr. L. K. Barger, P.E.
Mr. D. E. Burwell, Jr., P.E.
Mr. H. F. Vick, P.E.
Mr. G. T. Shearin, P.E.
Mr. W. R. Brown, P.E.
Mr. J. M. Lynch, P.E.
Mr. C. H. Casey, P.E.
Mr. Robert Mathes
Mr. Danny Rogers
Ms. Rosy Goode
Mr. Everett Ward
Mr. Ron Poole, P.E., Ph.D.
Mr. Dean Bridges, Right of Way Agent
FHWA
X22
E F
Q` O
'JAN 2 7 1007.
e
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
ON PROPOSED WIDENING/IMPROVEMENTS OF NC 279
FROM NC 7 (OZARK AVENUE) TO GASTON STREET
Project 8.1811301 U-2523 Gaston County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will
hold the above Public Hearing on Tuesday, February 18, 1997
at 7:00 p.m. in the North Gaston High'School Auditorium
located at 1133 Ratchford Road in Dallas.
The hearing will' consist of an explanation of the
proposed location and design, right of way requirements and
procedures, and relocation advisory assistance. * The hearing
will be open to those present for statements, questions,
comments and/or submittal of material pertaining to the
proposed project. Additional material 'nay-be submitted for a
period of 10 days from the date of the hearing to: NCDOT,
L. L. Hendricks, Citizens Participation Unit, P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611.
This project proposes to widen New Hope Road (NC 279) to
a five-lane roadway with curb and gutter from Ozark Avenue
(NC 7) in Gastonia to the Carolina and Northwestern Railroad
in Dallas. A f our-lane roadway is proposed from the* railroad
to Gaston Street (SR 2278). The project length is
approximately 3.4 miles. Additional right of way and. the
relocation of homes and businesses will be required for this
project.
A map setting forth the location and design and a copy
of the environmental document - Environmental Assessment -
are available for public review in the Gastonia City Hall,
located at 181 South Street in Gastonia and in the Dallas
Town Hall located at 131 North Gaston Street in *Dallas.
Representatives of the Department of Transportation will
be available to discuss the proposed project with those
attending the public hearing. Anyone desiring additional
information concerning the Public Hearing may contact
Mr. Hendricks at the above mailing address, by•FAX at
[phone], or by telephone at [phone].
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for
disabled persons who wish to participate in the hearing. To
receive special services, please call Mr. 'Hendricks at the
above number to give adequate notice prior to the- date of the
hearing.
A23
C.•?(? ir:CIT
NC 279
NEW HOPE ROAD
w`
""h' .attiR•"•. .y
,FRO M OZARK AVENUE
-
C ASTC N STREET
TO

a
w
v
r
??
?
j.
Y Sn?
, - Y y ! J
- f - - - = A 81.13 01
P ROJ ECS. .
,.
-..;,NO
TIP,. U 2523
-
.
-.GAST
ON COU NTY
:
emu-
.
`•?. t. :fem... . - ?'•..
COMBINED PUBLI

C HEARING
NORTH GASTON HIGH SCHOOL
FEBRUARY 18, 1997
A24
PURPOSE OF PROJECT
The proposed project will relieve existing and future capacity
deficiencies on NC 279 and complete a continuous multi-lane facility from
I-85 in Gastonia to US 321 in Dallas. The improved roadway will be a
safer, more efficient facility for all users: Traffic congestion will be
decreased making it easier for all travelers to reach their destinations.
PURPOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Tonight's hearing is one step in the Department of Transportation's
procedure for making you, the public, a part of the planning process.
The Department of Transportation is soliciting your views on the proposed
widening/improvements of NC 279 from NC 7 to west of NC 275 in Dallas.
The Department of Transportation's views on the above project are set
forth in the environmental document - Environmental Assessment. A copy
of this report is available for review in the Gastonia City Hall located
at 181 South Street in Gastonia and in the Dallas Town Hall located at
131 North Gaston Street in Dallas.
YOUR PARTICIPATION
Now that the opportunity is here, you
your comments and/or questions a part
Transcript. This may be done by havi
them on the comment sheet and leaving
submitting them in writing during the
Hearing.
are urged to participate by making
of the official Public Hearing
ag them recorded tonight, writing
it in the designated location or by
10 days following the Public
Those wishing to submit written material may do so to:
Kr. L. L. Hendricks
Public Hearing Officer
Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Everyone present is urged to participate in the proceedings. It is
important, however, that THE OPINIONS OF ALL INDIVIDUALS BE RESPECTED
REGARDLESS OF HOW DIVERGENT THEY MAY BE FROM YOUR OWN. Accordingly,
debates, as such, are out of place at public hearings. Also, the public
hearing is not to be used as a POPULAR REFERENDUM to determine the
alignment and design by a majority vote of those present.
WHAT TS ONE WITH THE INPUT?
All input received through the public involvement process will be
reviewed and considered by the Administrative and Engineering staffs of
the Division of Highways for recommendations prior to final decisions
being made.
A25
8,0
' t.?' • ' 1, r • •! j,•,-.v ,•-??• . '•1 >t L , ?.
i r.. _7•`?.i .G j 1^•, '?. • 171 y • `' ,rn a
) Is
• :•• , ' ' :, 'ir!' .??? •: lyr',1 ; ',. ,?tY: a t• ;1 ?? •i is
S I' I 1 1
' • I
: •?.,, Il•• M,+! ' 1,?, i. atij I1?'? • r {' 11 r `
Is I
fit' L 1••i 1• i >,i. A: Wit. ; i fit'
1 • q p
• i 1 ? 1 1 i
%
Is.
is.
j tt:'? ?•
1 , !/• ,,, •1.11„?? '•y '.?`+, 1 - t ! A,, I •?,•!•J ^ i? (l
Ii,"ti,,?,'r " r to .. ,,.., . . ,. ?? ( ,1t?' ?y , ; '.?lrl.? : 'r' ' • • _ I C:? 1?
: ) . .. ?? ;i 'i, •: '• I!wi ????t?•. ' (? ?•?:. ( ill }.. ?i?` t' :{'• ,,? • I • ' 1?
' i 1 ii.. ?. ; •.?; I? j ° { tl / Y . 11 %• J,'+( .•.41 I' ' . .:1•„' YI'' •/ ????
r"A
Nip '1
l Ir ?.? rr... ?`[] jet {l
'AV.
.{ (t??? ?t ?.1 ` ?•.'k .'? ii•Y 1' ?'t ?f aa1J? 1 1 ??i.1 S,; •'b?I:k.
' /1 •:? •. ?' .. '•r1.I Y A;;.?w?'??,• ; { .I/?, it •S ?.?
+ai h','1' 1• 1 ?I .:i I.1. 1. R 11 r,(t-' ?r l/, !•,?: ?? fl .
Is Is
• .' 1 .' . ,??• 1•: is "V -• ' ' 1'..i?'1'a. ;. •.^.•,,,?? " •. ??
It
1• '' •?' ? 1 '•1/'? a -?i11 ,1l ? • 7' ? ?(?1?'•fi<'4" 1 `'/• •. • , 1 ' * ' _ ' .
J-sl
I?
6 IL
0000
f •" . ,?.
• '; ? war ti , ? ,l2 '1 ? \ ? rv -.:+ , , ? l I.
i
IV.
• 'I' i ' r 'F may' i' '
?•• ?_• 1, ? `? a ?? 11.4 .....• (
1 ? L{ ?? " ?114c, :
? + ?S ?I .J f"• 1 1 • ` Iii' ,,,
/Y/-
T. r?jsi
A26
PROJECT INFORMATION
Length
- - Typical-Section
Right of Way
Relocatees
Estimated Cost
5.503 Kilometers (3.420 Miles)
5 Lanes - Curb & Gutter - Berm
(See Diagram)
4 Lanes - Curb &•Gutter - Berm
(See Diagram)
30 Meters + Easements
(100 Feet + Easements)
(A)
FROM NC 7
TO NORTH OF
LONG CREEK
(B)
FROM NORTH OF
LONG CREEK TO
WEST OF NC 275

TOTAL
2.430 Kilometers 3.073 Kilometers
[1.510 Miles] [1.910 Miles)
Residences: 7 + Residences: 28
Businesses: 0 + Businesses: 4
H
35
4

Right of Way: (A) +
$ 2.56,24 (B)
$ 4.36M TOTAL
$ 6.92M
Construction: 3.40M
------- 3.40M 6.80M

Total
$ 5.96M -------
$ 7.76M - --------
$ 13.72M
Right of Way: April(A) 1998 November, 2000
Construction: September, 1999 September, 2003
Tentative Schedule :

STATE-FEDERAL RELATIONSHIP
This proposed project is a Federal-Aid Highway Project and thus will be
constructed under the State-Federal Aid Highway Program.
this project will be 80% Federal Funds and 20% State Funds. The1Board of
Transportation is responsible for the selection and scheduling of
projects on the Federal Aid System, their location, design, and
construction. The Board is responsible for 100% of the project's
maintenance cost after construction. The Federal Highway Administration
is responsible for the review and approval of the previously mentioned
activities to ensure that each Federal Aid Project is designed,
constructed, and maintaiped to Federal Aid Standards.
A27
- N.
• •. • •? l <• .•Sl• L • J ??? IM KS, + ? j 1 I 1•? 1 \ ? ??`'. O L.
o 'Xif t r 1T` ,_' PROJECT
LIMITS •'?J l- ?- •,`
6, J.
I ??% `?i•',a` ' END SEGMENT B
r ? :J
' o ?? 1 SR 22 / A
`?.1?1?= 78 I ate
-? •. 1
til Y..• •l yN e , - 1 vJ ?? ?•r:l JI/?l'? IDDl
Id.
?:. -.,r J •,•? __ . am • WI jiL? iM Y r•• ?. •I ?--• Trad«
'? i•., ,/luw J l ;.\ `' J I( 1 ^^ '•a r ?`r= «rrr 1 . )? ?v?? _- uV.
J . nil
w ! J, '
' •' -j/Lj .~ `t\ J • 1111 ? /l) ? wA.??h ::,• :?r ?;,?)1??• r1 ?/V/? ,`,^l
. • ? Tom" ? ??\`? • - • , • ="?• ? ?'""''? 1 . • ? ,'l \./ ? ? ?
?. ,
63 A
o
?I' BEGIN SEGMENT B • r:?) `;;°f? ?,•" ?'
?' : ?;.r i .- ; '`? ?•"I' END SEGMENT A LONG CREEK
• .:i/?((? Tom" :? ,, ..: ;-i '; ?' • ? . ..• , ? ^? -- i ? S I ?• ?" r/ ll.
I a '`'? /-/r/?.• - ?s r Ilwo.•.1 ewei*:•? t /sue i r q'
f\?/ •l •` . 1 . ` :IwAA:i ' ?g^?Ti ` 1'' ,? "?•f _ ?? ?(` ' ?I?.
1 •? e :?• •???-?: ?: i 's1yF1/(/ V ??? ???? D Wlt\irey
hankie Lake /a,` Q?` ., Ct1' .. i(o?•?l» ?Y" JJ .. / ' ?, ,? • 1.??a\•1 _ Pl?ll 1 .? ?rl ?'? `i
..-•??, ) l?=? ' ?1•.:( J?• , ,- `• Jai' . ;1, ?!?<? ??`;,?,;? -L •', : _// _ ?`,•! ? C. •? (,,?? ' J ).
ll ' v 71it) J .•,.i ?• /! \ -? • 11 •? U' } ?l-?,?? ^•-- i
' ' ,•'s? • ?-' ^ ? ??i?L \,?' : 1 ! •' :? F` { `, • 1 ,tv V w'= l' I I . ?:.? :- } .,...,
- ?. i? / I? - ??-= ? \ ? rt ? -- • .. ?1 - 1+ ? .gym t. ?'!
', •• ?? - //!,i / : I \ ' j /• \ :?+i.iusr?Y cw. l ' + ._ ??• / % KII•'•:• y 1 /- ?l
•?? ` yr r . /?, l // ?..= ?I,. ?. 1 _ •i'f a, r? '?? J ?? a'1+1•? ??- vV4-T'? =\;•y,? 1
t• of a lam: ?' i J?
••i • J r? _ ! `I= l ? ?O??I. ? o _? ?., •- 'frlT•wJ1ri;L??T•? 1, ?'/.//j•^. • ?/"1?•?-., r `I ` V'/ •J/,? ? ?JJ ? ?•
.11ui:?'?s' ?'_? ?;' ,.r :71I1:? \' I l: t•-.'\_ •?_ l ?' i i' tm •I V?;, r
?i5.w,.:o• ??l _.:;_' ,r'; ,_ , : ? ; ,1} It . J???m,Ill 1
=??' •-' • ° ?rtr :4 n r1 \ ?' " ???-- 1-85 I ??? ?, 1• p { ?.,? 1
pious
rgo.r•MIII^ =? \ O c Sc 4 . 1 ••? 1 I %Fe ?. I?' •? CJ J .?'
•I s„ a t,:?•• I • ?.. ••, i; 1 a' I? GASTONIA NORTH N. C.
.?S?l.. % • ?? •` I r SWO 0AST01"A Ir IWAOIIAHOLC
PROJECT LIMITS N3515-we107.5n.5
BEGIN SEGMENT A I970 91
!' I'•( !1' AMS 4754 1 SW-SERIES V.42 .
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
6 ?L- ^ N ??? DIVISION OF IIIt.111VAYS
«? « 1" ??! J? ??_ ? 1'I.A14NING AND F:NVIRONMF.NTAL
tANCII
ur• i i J v? l? al p 1 NC 279
FROM NC 7 IN GASTONIA
TO SR 2278 IN DALLAS
tt 111 l WIDEN TO A MULTI-LANE FACILITY
]\-„? wr `•?L _ ?iJ 'FI' ???r:.l. ;.• .G.? ,,.. ?1 I
Tr `ylnr ,? ..i??V ?F , ' ?f 1A( 1• _? +' f , ... GASTON COUNTY
cw U•2523
- ?? • , SCALE 1.24 000
A28
Z
O
U
W
C1?
J
to a
N U
LO CL
1
L
vn
O
CL
O
m
a
w
O
0
LL
LL 0
o°
0E
J c°
W
a
X
Q
LL
a
E o E
" m
E^
m
N
O
E^
?p N
V -
V3 v
E^
W N
? r

?p N
r
?C r
? v
E^
? r

04
P3 v
E^
C; cv
E^
0
o r E
m

a
J
a
ac z
W u
?-- O z cn
cc .._ W
Z
? W W?
Z a
O §io
a= z
m?: oa
mWLU?
Cn -j
U W0) a?
Z N C\j OU
?vX0
JzO.h-
h
LO U
z
O
m
L
?.,.
A29
z >
O

U U)
W O
Cn o
J M.
--
M
I a

? U

O O
O
r
N _
Q' cl)
F- E
N ?
J
? a
L1J ?
X
O O
CL a
O a
m
a

' E
E
ti
0
I
E U!
N ?
V
T
E
V
E^
T
r
? v
N I
E^
? m
~ N
O ...+
E
« ? m
co
N
C l)
cc 0
W
7
= O J
? a
p Q. z
z Q w
i cn
m W
x ?: 3::
= W
vz
O
LU ti z
Z N z
Q U Q
Q
z z
a
U
O
CC
IL
A30

nwk"WO OPW"wrcs are esu?Jd d u an 4 WGV'•ue k.&4 Jon OWh Protect JkUrJ on ib C-W4'A4X
(rJW is a tYpiy eatrrpk for a abW PrWa the atYU+t pars: am pupa[
- idcares ypidpeWcP PLonopporwties Wams &Wndng upe Wcdc Pro Rct
o
r
adnWwryaacmawewih kdenl adstae kO egL&kvnrmsl

Local Area ????
D
b - Transportation Board members work with NCDOT
es+e
P
1. staff to update TIP
Study Initiation - Release draft Transportation Improvement Program
- Conduct initial field trip to the pry, public and governments for review.
- Meet with local policy boards and technical staff _ Finalize TIP following-comments
o - Conduct goals and objectives survey - Board of Transportation adopts state TIP
o - Establish local steering committee (upon local request) e _ Metropolitan Planning Organizations receive public
Data Collection comment and approve local TIP
- Collect socio-economic data (and use, population. _ Secretary of Transportation approves local TIPs
traffic volumes and employment data) Ill. Develop Environnun ital Documents
- Collect transportation network data
Notify Public and Government Agencies of Project Study
- Research environmental and cultural concerns ? - Hold citizen information workshops
* - Receive input from various local area sources (needs, _ Evaluate comments received at workshops
problems, concerns, etc.)
- Form citizen's advisory group to get local citizens
o - Local area develops future year socio-economic involved (upon local request)
forecasts Select corridors to be studied
Data Analysis - Identify feasible corridors and evaluate costs and
- Model existing transportation network environmental impacts
- Generate design year transportation information
• - Hold information workshop on selected corridors
- Conduct deficiency analysis NCDOT staff uses recommendations from local citizens,
-
Discuss Findings with Local Area Policy Boardsr Technical governments and state agencies to prepare a draft
Staff, and Public Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental
• - Discuss deficiencies with local area Assessment (EA)
o - Discuss possible alternative solutions Prepare Draft Environmental Document
Plan Development e - Make draft EIS or EA, which addresses the impacts of
i
- Develop alternative plans ew
each corridor, available to public and send to rev
- Review project impacts agencies and local officials for comment
e- Hold public hearing on location of corridor (14-day
- Conduct cost-benefit analyses comment period follows public hearing)
- Discuss alternatives with local area staff and policy boards _ NCDOT holds post hearing meeting and a corridor is
e - Conduct public information workshop(s) recommended using technical data and information
- Discuss and resolve public comments with local staff received in conjuration with the public hearing
-Select recommended plan in cooperation with local _ Notify public of selected corridor
staff and policy boards Prepare Final Environmental Document
Plan Adoption -Begin preliminary design of highway in selected
? - Local government conducts public hearing(s) corridor {1}
- Present plan for adoption by kcal government and the _ B final EISIFrldng of No Significant Impact (FONSq
North Carolina Board of Transportation required, send to State Clearinghouse (N.C. Dept
Plan Implementation of Administration) and federal•agencies for 30-day
- Local government enforces land use controls comment period
.
• - Present project requests through TIP process - Send notification of Final EIS to Review Agencies and
.Il. Develop Transportation Improvement Federal Register
- Publish record of decision on preliminary design using
Pram MP)
' ro9 comments from public, review agencies and the FHWA
. • - Local governments select priorities to include in TIP ? _ Hold public hearing on project design (10-day public
• - Board of Transportation holds annual public meetings comment period follows public hearing) {1}
statewide to update the previous years TIP _ Hold post hearing meeting where any changes in
-Transcribe comments and material received at public design are made if necessary.
meetings, and submit to Transportation Board
(1) Ume steps are mnbiw WM mnao? t atim for rrnc smatter pr*m
Questions? Of Otimn participation Wdr [phone]
North Carolina Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 25201 Raleigh. N.C. 27611 711196
A31
fftified in Local Area
Thoroughfare Plan
Included in Local Area's
TIP Request
Feasibility Study is Conducted
v
[`¢Rdin9 Established in TIP
Project Plans and Environmental
Documents-are Prepared
Right of Way plans are prepared
Right of Way Acquisition;
Final Design Plans are Prepared
' Construction
A32
COMMENT SHEET
NC 279 - New Hope Road
From Ozark Avenue to Gaston Street
February 18, 1997
U-2523 Gaston County Project 8.1811301
NAME:
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS:
Comments may be mailed to:.
L. L. Hendricks, Public Hearing Officer
N. C. Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Telephone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
A33
CC , ??Ll?l i C?L?`
JAMES B. HUNT JIB
GO VIAN H:
MEMORANDUM
aT' r ( 3?
n. r. VILA, P.E.
TRANSPORTATION BLDG.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CU. 10X'25'301. RAITIGl I. N.C:. 27611.5101
October 2, 1997
GARIAND Q. GARRFIT )R.
Sou rmn.
TO: Secretary Garland Garrett, Jr.
FROM: L. L. Hendricks 11
Public Hearing Officer
Citizens Participation Unit
RE: Notice of a Public Informational Meting on Proposed
Widening/Improvements of New Hope Road from Ozark
Avenue to north of Robinson-Clemmer Road
The followina Notice is furnished for your information:
U-2523A: This informational meeting is beina conducted to hiahliaht the chances
made to the oriainal desion presented at the February 18, 1997 public
hearing.
LLH:dnh
cc: Ms. Ann Gaither, Board of Transportation Member
Mr. Larry R. Goode, P.E., Ph.D.
Mr. J. D. Goins, P.E.
Mr. D. R. Morton, P.E.
Mr. J. B. Williamson, Jr.
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E.
Mr. C. W. Leggett, P.E.
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E.
Mr. D. E. Burwell, Jr., P.E.
Mr. H. F. Vick, P.E.
Mr. G. T. Shearin, P.E.
Mr. W. R. Brown, P.E.
Mr. J. M. Lynch, P.E.
Mr. C. H. Casey, P.E.
Mr. Robert Mathes
Mr. Danny Rogers
Ms. Rosy Goode
Mr. Everett Ward
Mr. Ron Poole, P.E.
Mr. Dean Bridges, Right of Way Agent
FHWA
Q/GE'V O
C C- 2 1991
Dr:•,?rDr? OF

NOTICE OF A PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING
ON PROPOSED WIDENING/IMPROVEMENTS OF NEW HOPE ROAD
FROM OZARK AVENUE TO NORTH OF ROBINSON-CLEMMER ROAD
Project 8.1811301 U-2523A Gaston County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold the above
informational meeting on Wednesday, October 15, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. in the Brookside
Elementary School Gymnasium located at 1950 Rhyne Carter Road in Gastonia.
A formal public hearing regarding this project was conducted on February 18,-
1997 at North Gaston High School in Dallas. Changes to the original design have been
made based on the verbal and written comments received from the public hearing
process. The'segment from north of Robinson-Clemmer Road to'Gaston Street in
Dallas has been delayed and will not be discussed at this meeting.
This informational meeting is being conducted to highlight the changes made to
the original design. A formal presentation will be made to show these chances. At the
completion of the formal seament, those attending may meet informally with
representatives of the North Carolina Department of Transportation to further discuss
the project. .
A map setting forth the location and design is available for public review in the
Gastonia City Hall located at 181 South Street in Gastonia and in the Dallas Town Hall
located at 131 North Gaston Street in Dallas. Anyone desiring additional information
concerning this meeting may contact L. L. Hendricks, NCDOT, Citizens Participation
Unit, P. 0. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611; by FAX at [phone]; or by telephone
at [phone].
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will provide auxiliary aids and
services for disabled persons who wish to participate in the meeting. To receive
special services, please contact Mr. Hendricks at the above telephone number.
. .2 Q7.7 A C-n U A..1 .Z
A:S
NC 279
NEW HOPE ROAD
FROM OZARK AVENUE
TO NORTH OF. ROBINSON-CLEMMER ROAD
' .irk. .? • ?'"`:, ? f
PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING
BROOKSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
OCTOBER 15,1997
? A36
AGENDA
1. WELCOME
II. INTRODUCTIONS
III. HANDOUT
IV. MAP
V. RIGHT OF WAY PROCEDURES
VI. END FORMAL PRESENTATION/
BEGIN INFORMAL MEETINGS
A37
PURPOSE OF PROJECT
The proposed project will relieve existing and future capacity deficincies on New Hope
Road from Ozark Avenue to north of Robinson-Clemmer Road. The roadway
improvements will provide a safer, more efficient facility for all users. Traffic congestion
will be decreased making it easier for travelers to reach their destinations.
PURPOSE OF PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING
A formal public hearing regarding this project was conducted on February 18, 1997 at
North Gaston High School in Dallas. Tonight's meeting is being conducted to highlight
changes made to the origina: design based on the verbal and written comments
received from the public hearing process.
YOUR PARTICIPATION
Several large maps of the project have been placed in the room. Following the formal
presentation, you are encouraged to meet with North Carolina Department of
Transportation representatives - stationed at each map - to ask questions or to make
statements. A comment sheet is attached to this handout that can be completed tonight
and given to the moderator or mailed to the address shown within the next 10 days.
Each comment received will be reviewed and considered by the Administrative and
Engineering staffs of the Division of Highways.
A38
ISSUES
NC 279 BYPASS
The Department of Transportation is currently evaluating the feasibility of a bypass east
of Dallas crossing New Hope Road in the vicinity of Robinson-Clemmer Road. Existing
data indicates that the predominant travel flow in the region is north/south; however,
until the computer model for the bypass is completed, the section of the project from
- north of Robinson-Clemmer Road to Gaston Street in Dallas has been delayed.
NUMBER OF LANES
New Hope Road is proposed to be a five-lane facility with curb and gutter from Ozark
Avenue to north of Robinson-Clemmer Road. The existing traffic volume is 18,000
vehicles per day with a future projection of 26,000 vehicles per day. Fewer lanes will
not provide an adequate level of service for this traffic. New highway designs have a
life expectancy of twenty years. It would not be cost-effective or cost-efficient to
construct a project that would require additional major improvements within this
timeframe. The same property owners would be impacted again to solve a problem
that should have been corrected the first time.
SHIFTING THE ALIGNMENT
The original public hearing map proposed symmetrical widening from Auten Road to
Robinson-Clemmer Road. Properties along each side of the roadway would have been
impacted equally. Many concerns were expressed at the public hearing regarding
(1) the short distance between the proposed road and existing homes causing
extensive damage to front yards and (2) the steep driveways the new road would
create for many homes causing dangerous conditions entering/exiting. Several
requests were made for the Department of Transportation to widen the road to one side
or the other even though more homes would have to be acquired to do so.
After reviewing the comments received and further investigating the existing
conditions along New Hope Road, a decision was made to shift the alignment to the
west in two locations to minimize property damages and to avoid steep driveways. The
widening near Auten Road and the segment fmm•Hollandale Drive to Pinetop Drive has
been shifted to the west to minimize impacts to residences on the east side. The
decision to widen west rather than east was based primarily on the number of homes
impacted - the west side had a smaller number.
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
New Hope Road will be constructed to accommodate "share the road" bicycle traffic
from Ozark Avenue to north of Robinson-Clemmer Road. Each of the two outside
lanes will be 14 feet wide while each of the three inside lanes will be 12 feet wide. In
addition, a sidewalk will be constructed along the west side of the road from Ozark
Avenue to Long Creek.
A39
U-2523A RELOCATEES
1. James and Thelma Holland
2. Broadus and Macie Cox
3. Robert and Donna Breest
4. Harold Thomas and Patricia Davis
5. J.W. Slaton
6. Ermon Teague
7. Josephine Emmett
8. Junius and Beverly Chapman
9. Danny Swanner
10. Jonathan and Marie Jordan
11. William and Tonya Carson
12. Jack R. Caldwell
13. Jackie D.Schronce
14. William H. And Lessie B. Huffman
15. Catherine L. McLamb
16. Roy C. And Elizabeth H. Trammell
17. Evelyn H. Evans
18. Everette D. And Brenda N. Walker
19. Ray H. And Ruth M. Walker
20. Glenn H. And Faye Clemmer
- A4; -
ISSUES
NC 279 BYPASS
The Department of Transportation is currently evaluating the feasibility of a bypass east
of Dallas crossing New Hope Road in the vicinity of Robinson-Clemmer Road. Existing
data indicates that the predominant travel flow in the region is north/south; however,
until the computer model for the bypass is completed, the section of the project from
" north of Robinson-Clemmer Road to Gaston Street in Dallas has been delayed.
NUMBER OF LANES
New Hope Road is proposed to be a five-lane facility with curb and gutter from Ozark
Avenue to north of Robinson-Clemmer Road. The existing traffic volume is 18,000
vehicles per day with a future projection of 26,000 vehicles per day. Fewer lanes will
not provide an adequate level of service for this traffic. New highway designs have a
life expectancy of twenty years. It would not be cost-effective or cost-efficient to
construct a project that would require additional major improvements within this
timeframe. The same property owners would be impacted again to solve a problem
that should have been corrected the first time.
SHIFTING THE ALIGNMENT
The original public hearing map proposed symmetrical widening,from Auten Road to
Robinson-Clemmer Road. Properties along each side of the roadway would have been
impacted equally. Many concerns were expressed at the public hearing regarding
(1) the short distance between the proposed road and existing homes causing
extensive damage to front yards and (2) the steep driveways the new road would
create for many homes causing dangerous conditions entering/exiting. Several
requests were made for the Department of Transportation to widen the road to one side
or the other even though more homes would have to be acquired to do so.
After reviewing the comments received and further investigating the existing
conditions along New Hope Road, a decision was made to shift the alignment to the
west in two locations to minimize property damages and to avoid steep driveways. The
widening near Auten Road and the segment from -Hollandale Drive to Pinetop Drive has
been shifted to the west to minimize impacts to residences on the east side. The
decision to widen west rather than east was based primarily on the number of homes
impacted - the west side had a smaller number.
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
New Hope Road will be constructed to accommodate "share the road" bicycle traffic
from Ozark Avenue to north of Robinson-Clemmer Road. Each of the two outside
lanes will be 14 feet wide while each of the three inside lanes will be 12 feet wide. In
addition, a sidewalk will be constructed along the west side of the road from Ozark
Avenue to Long Creek.
A39
PROJECT INFORMATION
U-2523A - From Ozark Avenue to North of Robinson-Clemmer Road
U-2523B - DELAYED UNTIL BYPASS STUDIES ARE COMPLETED
Length:
U-2523A
1.880 Miles
3.030 Km
Typical Section: U-2523A: Five Lanes - Curb & Gutter - Berm
Outside Lanes 14 Feet Wide to Accommodate Bicycle Traffic
Inside Lanes 12 Feet Wide
Side%klalk on I'Vest Side From Ozark Avenue to Long Creek
NC 279-
Right of Way: 5-Lane Curb & Gutter
100 Feet + Easements
Relocatees: U-2523A
Residences: 19
Businesses: 1
Estimated Cost: U-2523A
Right of Way: $3,800,000
Construction: 4,700,000
Total $8,500,000
Tentative Schedule: U-2523A*spr.
Right of Way: -AxVcst, 1998
Construction: August, 2000
STATE-FEDERAL RELATIONSHIP
This proposed project is a Federal Aid Highway Project and thus will be constructed under the
State-Federal Aid Highway Program. Financing of this project will be 80% Federal Funds and
20% State Funds. The Board of Transportation is responsible for the selection and
scheduling of projects on the Federal Aid System, their location, design, and maintenance
cost after construction. The Federal Highway Administration is responsible for the review and
approval of the previously mentioned activities to ensure that each Federal Aid Project is
designed, constructed, and maintained to Federal Aid Standards.
A40
Z
O
H
w
Cl)
J
cQ U
N IL
N
? Q
w
Cf)
O
CL
O
a
N
V
L44-

Q
0
w
w
J
U
r
Do
Oz
01 cr- m
`ti rrr
N a V
UO0
Z = 0
w
w =)
Z Z
w
Q
Y
n?
O
2
O
LL
` A41
U-2523A RELOCATEES
1. James and Thelma Holland
2. Broadus and Macie Cox
3. Robert and Donna Breest
4. Harold Thomas and Patricia Davis
5. J.W. Slaton
6. Ermon Teague
7. Josephine Emmett
8. Junius and Beverly Chapman
9. Danny Swanner
10. Jonathan and Marie Jordan
11. William and Tonya Carson
12. Jack R. Caldwell
13. Jackie D.Schronce
14. William H. And Lessie B. Huffman
15. Catherine L. McLamb
16. Roy C. And Elizabeth H. Trammell
17. Evelyn H. Evans
18. Everette D. And Brenda N. Walker
19. Ray H. And Ruth M. Walker
20. Glenn H. And Faye Clemmer
A42
RIGHT OF WAY PROCEDURES
After the route is selected and the final design is completed, the proposed right of way
limits will be staked on the ground. Affected owners of property will be contacted by a
Right of Way Agent and a meeting will be arranged. The agent will explain the plans
and the property owner will be advised as to how the project will affect him. The agent
will inform you of your rights as a property owner. Professionals who are familiar with
real estate values will evaluate or appraise your property. The evaluations or
appraisals will be reviewed for completeness and accuracy and then a written offer will
be made to you by the Right of Way Agent. The current market value of the property at
its highest and best use when it is appraised will be offered as compensation. The
Department of Transportation must:
1. Treat all owners and tenants equally.
2. Fully explain the owner's rights.
3. Pay just compensation in exchange for property rights.
4. Furnish relocation advisory assistance.
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
If you are a relocatee, that is, if your residence or business is to be acquired as a part
of the project, additional assistance in the form of advice and compensation is
avaiiaoie. in aaanion to oeing contacted by a Right of 'vv'ay Agent, you will also be
contacted by a Relocation Agent. This agent can provide you with assistance on
locations of comparable housing and/or commercial establishments, moving
procedures, and moving aid. Moving expenses may be paid for you. Additional
monetary compensation is available to help homeowners cope with mortgage
increases, increased value of comparable homes, closing costs, etc. A similar program
is available to assist business owners. Your Relocation Agent can explain this
assistance in greater detail.
NOTE: PAMPHLETS SUMMARIZING RIGHT OF WAY AND RELOCATION
PROCEDURES ARE AVAILABLE AT THE MODERATOR'S TABLE.
! A43
PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING
COMMENT SHEET
Widening/improvements of New Hope Road
From Ozark Avenue to North of Robinson-Clemmer Road
October 15, 1997
U-2523A Gaston County Project 8.1370601
NAME:
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS:
Comments may be mailed to:
L. L. Hendricks, Public Hearing Officer
N. C. Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Telephone: [phone]
FAX: [phone] AY1
RELOCATION REPORT
?X E.I.S. [:] CORRIDOR F-1 DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
't/ IiLOCATION OFFICE

PROJECT: 8.1811301 COUNTY Gaston Altemate A
I.D. NO.: U-2523 A F.A. PROJECT STPNHF-279 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: C In Gastonia to S R 2775-Robinson Clemmer Road
ESTIMAT ED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 17 3 20 0 3 0 6 7 4
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For R ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M $ 0-150 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0
ANSWE R ALL QUESTIONS 20-M 0 150-260 3 20-40M 46 160-260 0
yes No Explain all 'YES' answers. 40400. 10 . 250-400 0 40-70M 17 250-400 29
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessart? 160w 6 400600 0 70-100M 156- 400-600 19
x 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 0 UP' 1 600 up 0 100 UP 320 600 up 2
displacement? TAL 17 3 696 50
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond b Number)-
F
project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3.
Businesses will not be disrupted after project
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. 6. MLS., newsaper, local rental agencies.
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list). 8. Last resort housing will be administered in
x 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? accordance with State law.
X B. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 11. Section 8 housing is available.
families?
x 10. Will public housing be needed for. project? .12. Qven current housing trends, comparable
housing
x 11. Is public housing available? should be available during the relocation -period.
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period? 14. Refer to item No. 6
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
MOCAMON? 18 months

Monica S. Long, Relocation Agent Date Approved by Date
Unglnal a 7 c:0py&W5tate Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
.i
A-45
RELOCATION REPORT
ED E.I.S. F] CORRIDOR F_? DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.1811301 COUNTY Gaston Alternate B
I.D. NO.: U-2523 B F.A. PROJECT STPNHF-279 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: SR 2275--Robinson-C lemmer Road to SR 2278 Gaston Street in Dallas
ESTIMAT ED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Dis lacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M - 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 14 12 26 2 9 10 5 1 1
Businesses 2 3 5 0 VALUE OF DWELLING OSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms • 0 0 0 0 owners Tenants For Sale For R ent
Non-Pro fit 0 0 0 0 0-20M - 1 $ 0-160 0 0-20M 0 :0-150 0
ANSWE R ALL QUESTIONS 2040M 6 160-260 7 204" 46 1WM 0
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70a.. . 6. . 250.400 5 40-70M 174 250400 29
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M- 1 400.600 0 70-100M 156 400.500 19
x 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100W.1 D' 500 up 0 100 UP- 320 600 uP 2
displacement? TOTAL 141 - - 12 696 5o
x 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond Number
project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Businesses will not be disrupted after project
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. 4. See attached page.
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list). 6. MLS, local newspaper, local rental agencies.
x 7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? 8. Last resort will be administered in accordance with
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. State law.
families?
x 10. Will public housing be needed for. project? 11. Section 8 housing is available.
x 11. Is public housing available?
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 12. Given current housing trends, comparable housing
housing available during relocation period?
1 should be available during the relocation period.
13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means? 14. Refer to item No. 6.
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 18 months -

onice S. Long, Rekmtion'AgeM 4111 Date I Approved by Date
r-wim 'a^ ROY uz= av vngmai a i c;opy-. Slate KEIocavon Agent
V ` 2 Copy Area Relocation Office
A-46
RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
71 E.I.S. F--j CORRIDOR a DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.1811301 COUNTY Gaston Altemate B
I.D. NO.: U-2523 F.A. PROJECT STPNHF-279(1)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: SR 2275--Robinson-Clemmer Road to SR 2218 Gaston Street in Dallas
REMARKS: (RESPOND BY NUMBER QUESTION NO. 4 FROM SHEET NO. ONE
NO. OR
LTR.
TYPE OF BUSINESS SQUARE NUMBER OF
FEET EMPLOYEES MINORITIES
A. STEWART'S MINI-MART - CONVENIENCE STORE 1000 2 0
B. C & S AUTO REPAIR 2500 4 0
C. DALLAS COUNTRY INTERIOR 2000 2 0
D. SUNSHINE CENTER LAUNDRY 2500 4 1
E. JENKINS BARBER SHOP 1000 2 0

Page 2 for U-2523 B
A-47
4
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., G ovemor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
January 15, 1997
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dome yI?.W
From: Cyndi Bell V 00
141,0
[D FE P1
Subject: Environmental Assessment for NC 279 Widening from NC 7 (Ozark Avenue) to SR 2278
(Gaston Street), Gastonia and Dallas
Gaston County
State Project DOT No. 8.1811301, T.I.P. No. U-2523
EHNR # 97-0340, DWQ # 11429
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is
responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities which impact
waters of the state including wetlands. The subject project will impact up to 0.2 hectare (0.50 acre) of
wetlands and waters. DWQ offers the following comments based on the document review:
A) DWQ commends NCDOT for the thorough discussion on alternatives and their potential impacts
to the environment. This document provides sufficient information to justify selection of DOT's
preferred alternative.
B) In correspondence dated April 17, 1995, DWQ provided a list of topics to be discussed in the EA.
The document provides a thoroughly detailed review of most of the issues raised. In order to
complete the data collection needed for our processing of the subject project, we ask that
DOT provide the following information, as requested in the referenced letter:
1) Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be employed.
2) Please ensure that the sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in
wetlands. This commitment should be incorporated into the construction
contract awarded for this project.
3) Please provide qualitative information on the wetlands to be impacted. Data
sheets for DWQ's Wetland Rating System for the two wetland sites involved
will be sufficient.
4) Will borrow locations be situated in wetlands? We ask that you stipulate that
borrow material will be taken from upland sources in the construction contract
awarded for this project.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
Ms. Melba McGee Memo
January 15, 1997
Page 2
C) The EA provides a very good narrative of minimization measures which may be applicable to this
project in order to decrease wetland impacts from the anticipated maximum 0.2 hectare (0.5 acre)
fill area. DWQ would like to reiterate that these measures be implemented throughout the
detailed design and construction phases of the project.
D) The EA states that there will be no stream modifications involved with this project. If this detail
changes during the design phase of this project, stream mitigation may be required in accordance
with current DWQ Wetland Rules which were not in effect at the time the EA was prepared.
Based upon the wetland impacts described in the EA, General Certification 2732 will likely be applicable
to this project. Final permit authorization will require formal application by NCDOT and written
concurrence from DWQ. Please be aware that this approval will be contingent upon evidence of
avoidance and minimization of wetland and strewn impacts to the extent practicable.
DWQ appreciates the quality of the EA prepared for this project, and the opportunity to provide
comments. DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfaction of
water quality concerns, to ensure that water quality standards are met and no uses are lost. Questions
regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Cyndi Bell at [phone] in DWQ's Water
Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Steve Lund, DOA, Asheville
James Bridges, P.E., NCDOT, P&E
Michelle Suverkrubbe, DWQ
U2523EA.DOC
FAXED
JAN 15:19911
,SAN 15 1997]
rtiL? N? s
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING ?0Iyyj
T
ON PROPOSED WIDENING IMPROVEMENTS OF NC 279 ql
FROM NC 7 (OZARK AVENUE) TO GASTON STREET
Project 8.1811301 U-2523 Gaston County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will
hold the above Public Hearing on Tuesday, February 18, 1997
at 7:00 p.m. in the North Gaston High School Auditorium
located at 1133 Ratchford Road in Dallas.
The hearing will consist of an explanation of the
proposed location and design, right of way requirements and
procedures, and relocation advisory assistance. The hearing
will be open to those present for statements, questions,
comments and/or submittal of material pertaining to the
proposed project. Additional material may be submitted for a
period of 10 days from the date of the hearing to: NCDOT,
L. L. Hendricks, Citizens Participation Unit, P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611.
This project proposes to widen New Hope Road (NC 279) to
a five-lane roadway with curb and gutter from Ozark Avenue
(NC 7) in Gastonia to the Carolina and Northwestern Railroad
in Dallas. A four-lane roadway is proposed from the railroad
to Gaston Street (SR 2278). The project length is
approximately 3.4 miles. Additional right of way and the
relocation of homes and businesses will be required for this
project.
A map setting forth the location and design and a copy
of the environmental document - Environmental Assessment -
are available for public review in the Gastonia City Hall,
located at 181 South Street in Gastonia and in the Dallas
Town Hall located at 131 North Gaston Street in Dallas.
Representatives of the Department of Transportation will
be available to discuss the proposed project with those
attending the public hearing. Anyone desiring additional
information concerning the Public Hearing may contact
Mr. Hendricks at the above mailing address, by FAX at
[phone], or by telephone at [phone].
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for
disabled persons who wish to participate in the hearing. To
receive special services, please call Mr. Hendricks at the
above number to give adequate notice prior to the date of the
hearing.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management h
74,1tr)
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Soft R'k
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary ® F
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 17, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Monica SwiharJj;lwater Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0646; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to NC 279 from NC 7 in Gastonia
to the Carolina and Northwestern Railway in Dallas
Gaston County, TIP #U-2523
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks
be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
?3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected,.
*5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
)?-7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.
P.0. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity At irmativo Action Employer 5( Y recyclod/ 1('Y, post-cony imn,
Melba McGee
April 17, 1995
Page 2
A7- H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
(( should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor s-hall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
10886.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
MEMORANDUM
Environmental Review Tracking Sheet
DWQ - Water Quality Section
TQ Env. Sciences Branch
* Wetlands
? XJohn Dorney
Eric Galamb (DOT)
? Greg Price (airports, COE)
? Steve Kroeger (utilities)
* Bio. Resources, Habitat, End. Species
? Trish MacPherson
? Kathy Herring (forest/ORw/xQw)
* Toxicology
? Larry Ausley
13

Planning Branch
4
A
,4/"_ 0
Technical Support Branch F'?'iRoN.. `s I
? Coleen Sullins, P&EN
? Dave Goodrich, P&E, NPDES `sc/FH?Fs
? Carolyn McCaskill, P&E, State
? Bradley Bennett, P&E, Stormwater
? Ruth Swanek, Instream Assess. (modeling)
? Carla Sanderson, Rapid Assess.
?
Operations Branch
? Dianne Wilburn, Facility Assessment
? Tom Poe, Pretreatment
? Lisa Martin, Water Supply Watershed
Regional Water Quality Supervisors
? Asheville ? Mooresville ? Washington
? Fayetteville ? Raleigh ? Wilmington
? Winston-Salem
FR M: Michelle Suverkrubbe, Planning Branch
RE: qq:--- 9 40 ? NI (-
Attached is a copy of the above document. Subject to the requirements of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts
to the environment, especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority.
Please check the appropriate box below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if
--_. L_..L- A a..:-. ,]:.... r,..7 I n• 11A.1 -4i n a.i
Notes:
You can reach me at:
phone: [phone], ext. 567
fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
ml0circmemo.doc
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining and expediting this process are
greatly appreciated!

February 16, 1995
RECEIVED
FEB 2 41995
MEMORANDUM TO: File
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
BRANCH
?e
FROM: James Bridges
Project Plann,??ngEngineer
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting Minutes for the Widening of NC
279, from NC 7 in Gastonia to the Northwestern
Railway in Dallas, Gaston County, Federal Aid
Project No. STPNHF-279(1), State Project No.
8.1811301, TIP No. U-2523
On January 26, 1995 a scoping meeting was held on the
above referenced project. The following attended the
meeting:
Vince Barone
Debbi Bevin
Jay W. King
Jerry Snead
Jack Matthews
Darin Wilder
Tim Williams
Cynthia Joyner
LeRoy Smith
Peter Slipp
Ray Moore
Kent Taylor
Rob Hanson
James Bridges
Federal Highway Administration
State Historic Preservation Office
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Photogrammetry
Program Development
Railroad Safety
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Statewide Planning
Structure Design
Traffic Forecasting
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
The findings and recommendations from this meeting and
other scoping comments are outlined below:
1. The proposed project has been broken into A and B
sections. Section A will extend from NC 7 in
Gastonia, north to Long Creek. The bridge over Long
Creek will be included in section A. Section B has
been extended from the original project limits. The
new limits for Section B begin north of the bridge
over Long Creek and terminate at the Northwestern
Railway in Dallas. The original terminus for
Section B (NC 275) would have left approximately
1500 ft. of two-lane section between NC 275 and the
Northwestern Railway. The pavement west of the
Northwestern Railway is wide enough (48') for a
multi-lane section. Without the extension of

Section B the purpose of the project (to provide a
continuous multi-lane operation from Gastonia to US
321), would not be achieved. The planning study
will cover both A and B sections of the project.
Cost estimates for the new section of the project
(from NC 275 to the Northwestern Railway) will be
"broken-out" from the remainder of the B section.
2. The proposed cross-section will be a 64' face to
face curb and gutter section throughout section A
and B.
3. Section B will may require railroad signalization at
the Northwestern Railway crossing.
4. Roadway Design will provide a functional design for
the project by Mid-April 1995.
5. A workshop for this project is tentatively scheduled
for June.
6. In certain places, it may be possible for the design
to retain the gutter on one side of the street to
reduce construction costs.
7. There is approximately 100' between the
intersections of East Main St./NC 279 and old
Spencer Mountain Road/NC 279. Northbound left turns
from NC 279 onto East Main Street overlap with
southbound lefts onto Old Spencer Mountain Road. A
suggested alternative is to realign Old Spencer
Mountain Road north to East Main Street. May Road
would also be realigned to intersect Old Spencer
Mountain Road. The intersection of May Road and NC
279 would be removed.
East Mal
SR 22
iy Road East Mal.
SR 221
Road
Old Spenes
Moun la in Ra
SR 2227
Old Spenesr
Mountain Road
SR 2327
NC 279

8. A utility conflict rating of high is recommended
because of the railroad involvement.
9. The Federal Aid Project No. listed on the Agenda is
incorrect. The correct No. is STPNHF-279(1).
10. The present elevation for the Long Creek bridge is
hydraulically adequate. It was recommended the
bridge widening be stage constructed to maintain
traffic.
11. There are two stream crossings involved in this
project. Long Creek and an unnamed tributary north
of Long Creek. Both streams have a Water Quality C
rating. Standard erosion control measures will be
implemented.
The project schedule is:
Functional Design April 1995
Citizens Workshop June 1995
Environmental Assessment March 1996
Finding of No Significant Impact Dec. 1996
Right of Way - Section A FY 1998
Section B FY 1999
Construction - Section A FY 1999
Section B Post Year
Revised Cost Estimates
Section A (From NC 7 to north of Long Creek Bridge)
Construction - $3,300,000
Right of Way - $2,000,000`
* TIP Estimate
Section B (From north of Long Creek Bridge to
Northwestern Railway)
Construction - $2,500,000

Right of Way - $1,350,000`(1)
* TIP Estimate
(i) Right of Way cost for Section B likely to
increase.
Any questions regarding this project should be directed
to me at 733-3141.
JB
cc: Scoping Participants

s..?A o RECEIVED
r= 'JAN C 4 1995
ENV'RONMENTAI
9CJEMrF.c
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. 11UN L. ]R. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALP.IGI-I, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRI?FARY
December 29, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager ?/ v2p
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for widening of NC 279 from NC 7
to NC 275 in Dallas, Gaston County, Federal Aid Project
No. STPNHF(1), State Project No. 8.1811301, TIP No.
U-2523
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (see attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting of
the minds„ as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for January 26, 1995 at 9:00 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If
there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call
James Bridges, Projec Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
e?3o?3 ?
JB/rfm
Attachments J Lo-K Z_
9
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date: December 14, 1994
Revision Date:
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning X
Design
TIP # U-2523
Project # 8.1811301
F.A. Project # STPNHF-279(1)
Division 12
County Gaston
Route NC 279
Functional Classification Urban Principal Arterial
Length 1.9 km (3.1 mi.)
Purpose of Project: To relieve existing and future capacity
deficiencies on NC 279. This Project will provide for a continuous
multi-lane operation from southeast Gastonia to US 321 at Dallas.
Description of project (including specific limits) and major elements
of work: The existing two-lane section of NC 279 will be widened to a
multi-lane facility from NC 7 in Gastonia to NC 275 in Dallas. The
bridge over Long Creek will be replaced.
Type of environmental document to be prepared: Environmental Assessment
followed by a Finding of No Significant Impact.
Environmental Study Schedule: Environmental Assessment is scheduled for
completion in March 1996. Finding of No Significant Impact is
scheduled for completion in December 1996.
Type of funding: Federal-Aid
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No X
If yes, by whom and amount: ($) , or M
How and when will this be paid?

U-2523
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Type of Facility: Major Thoroughfare
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None ?X_
Number of: Interchanges 0 Grade Separations 0 Stream Crossings 2
Typical Section of Roadway: Existing: 2-lane 7.3 meter (24 foot)
section with 1.8-2.4 meter
(6-8 foot) unpaved shoulders
Proposed': South of Long Creek: 5-lane
18 meter (59 foot) curb and
gutter section
North of Long Creek: 4-lane
15.9 meter (52 foot) curb and
gutter section
*This proposed typical section is one alternate. The typical section
will be discussed in detail at the scoping meeting.
Traffic Projections:
Construction Year (1998) 22,580 vpd Design Year (2018) 31,500 vpd
% TTST 3 % DUAL 1 % DHV 10
Design Speed: 80 km/hr (50 mph)
Project Breakdown:
Part A - Extends from NC 7 in Gastonia to Long Creek.
Right of Way - FY 1998 Construction - FY 1999
Part B - Extends from Long Creek to NC 275. Replacement of the
bridge over Long Creek will be included in Part B.
Right of Way - FY 2001 Construction - Post Year
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4,950,000'
(including engineering and contingencies)
Right of Way Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,350,000"
(including rel., util., and acquisition)
Force Account Items . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Preliminary Engineering . . . . . . . . . . $
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 8,300,000
*Total Cost (Part A & B)
**TIP Estimate
I
U-2523
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,150,000
Post Year Construction (Part B) $ 3, 000,000
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3, 350,000
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 8, 500,000
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which could
affect cost or schedule of project:

COST
Construction: (Part A and B)
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
Pavement:
Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,054,855
Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
'Milling & Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Shoulders:
Paved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 621 , 984
Subsurface Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subgrade and Stabilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 235,515
Drainage (List any special items) . . . . . . . . . $ 496,000
Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Structures: Width x Length Bridge
Rehabilitation x . . . $ 596,091
New Bridge 21 m (69') x 49.6 m (163' ). $
x •
Widen Bridge • $
_
Remove Bridge 8.56 m (28.1') x 49.6 m ( 163' )$ 32,060
New Culvert: Size Length . . . . $
Fill Ht.
Culvert Extension . . . . . . $
Retaining Walls: Type Ave. Ht. ft $
Skew
Noise Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Any Other Misc. Structures . . . . . . . . . $
Concrete Curb & Gutter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 261,888
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. . . . . . . . . $
Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 50,100
Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . $
$
93,000
Signing.
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Upgrading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Signals:
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 45.000

U-2523
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
RR Signals:
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
With or Without Arms . . . . . . . . . . . . $
If 3R:
Drainage Safety Enhancement . . . . . . . . $
Roadside Safety Enhancement . . . . . . . . $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade . . . . . . . $
Pavement Markings:
Paint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Thermo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 68,200
Markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Delineators . . . . . . . . . . $
Other clearing,grubbing,mobilization,misc. . . . . . $ 730,307
Contract Cost: $ 4,285,000
Contingencies & Engineering . . . . . ... . . . . . . . $ 665,000
Preliminary Engineering Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
CONSTRUCTION Subtotal: $ 4,950,000
Right of Way:
Existing Right of Way Width: 14.6 m (48 ft)
Will Exist Right of Way contain Improvements?
Yes No X
New Right of Way Needed: Width . . . . . . . $
Easements: Type Width . . . . . . . $
Utilities: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
RIGHT OF WAY Subtotal:*$ 3.350,000**
*Total Cost (Part A & B)
**TIP Estimate
Total Estimated Project Cost: $ 8,300,000*

Luc,$

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
J?z TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NC 279
FROM NC 7 IN GASTONIA
TO NC 2751N DALLAS
WIDEN TO A MULTI - LANE FACILITY
GASTON COUNTY
U - 2523
iysi0me,
' - - - - ?Crordrr r Mln
- ?1 i' S1 Ik

STATF OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMrs B. HUNL J R. DIVISION OF HIGFIWAYS GARLAND B. GARREFF JR.
GOVIANOR P.O. RA 2,5201, RAIT161I, N.C. 27611 5201 SICRI 1ARY
November 4, 1996
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEHNR - Div. of Environmental Management
Water Quality Lab
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Mr. Galamb:
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for NC 279, From NC 7 (Ozark Avenue) to
SR 2278 (Gaston Street), Gastonia and Dallas, Gaston County, Federal Aid
Number STPNHF-279(1), State Project Number 8.1811301, T.I.P. No. U-2523
Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment and the Natural Resources Technical
Report for the subject proposed highway improvement. It is anticipated this project will be
processed with a "Finding of No Significant Impact"; however, should comments received on the
Environmental Assessment or at the public hearing demonstrate a need for preparing a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement you will be contacted as part of our scoping process.
Copies of this Assessment are being submitted to the State Clearinghouse, areawide
planning agencies, and the counties, towns, and cities involved.
Permit review agencies should note it is anticipated Federal Permits will be required as
discussed in the report.
Any comment you have concerning the Environmental Assessment should be forwarded
to:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Division of Highways
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
0
_14 ..
2
Your comments should be received by December 23, 1996. If no comments are received
by that date we will assume you have none. If you desire a copy of the "Finding of No Significant
Impact," please so indicate.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr

Widening NC 279 to a 5-lane facility from NC 7 in Gastonia to
the Carolina and Northwestern Railway in Dallas.
Gaston County RECEIVED
NOV 0719961
TIP No. U-2523 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
.. ,,-I
Federal Aid Project No. STPNHF-279(1)
State Project No. 8.1811301
Natural Resources Technical Report
U-2523
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA'T'ION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
GERARD NIETEkS, ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
17 AUGUST 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction .........................................1
1.1 Project Description .............................1
1.2 Purpose .........................................1
1.3 Methodology .....................................1
1.4 Qualifications of Investigator ..................2
2.0 Physical Resources ...................................2
2.1 Soils and Topography ............................2
2.2 Water Resources .................................3
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics .... 3
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification ..............3
2.2.3 Water Quality ..........................4
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ......... 5
3.0 Biotic Resources .....................................5
3.1 Terrestrial Communities .........................5
3.1.1 Man-Dominated Community .................6
3.1.2 Alluvial Forest .........................6
3.1.3 Upland Hardwood Forest ..................7
3.1.4 Pine Forest .............................8
3.1.5 Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest ..............8
3.1.6 Bottomland Hardwood Forest ..............9
3.2 Aquatic Community ...............................9
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .................10
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics ...............................11
4.1 Waters of the United States ....................11
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and
Surface Waters .......................12
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
to Wetlands ..........................12
4.1.3 Permits ................................12
4.1.4 Mitigation .............................13
Avoidance ............................14
Minimization .........................14
Compensatory Mitigation ..............14
4.2 Rare and Protected Species .....................15
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species .............15
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and
State Listed Species ...............15
5.0 References ..........................................16
Figure 1. Vicinity Map ................................. la
Figure 2. Wetland Map ................................... 1S
Table 1. Stream Characteristics ........................ .3
Table 2. Long Creek Permitted Dischargers .............. .4
Table 3. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities ..... 11
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is
submitted to assist in preparation of an Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the proposed project. This report
describes the natural resources occurring within the project
area. This report also addresses additional environmental
concerns such as water quality, endangered species, wetlands,
permit applicability and impact minimization.
The project extends from north Gastonia into west Dallas, in
Gaston County. The project begins approximately, 1.3 km (0.8
mi) north of I-85 in Gastonia (Figure 1).
1.1 Project Description
This project extends from north Gastonia into west
Dallas, in Gaston County. The project begins approximately,
1.3 km (0.8 mi) north of I-85 in Gastonia (Figure 1). One
alternative is being proposed that involves the widening of
NC 279 from a two-lane 7.3 m (24 ft) section with 2.0 m (6.4
ft) unpaved shoulders to a five-lane 19.5 m (64 ft) curb and
gutter facility. The proposed project will extend 5.4 km
(3.4 mi) north from NC 7 in Gastonia to the Carolina and
Northwestern Railway in Dallas. This project has been
divided into two sections. Segment A extends from NC 7 to
Long Creek and Segment B encompasses the widening between
Long Creek and the Carolina and Northwestern Railway in
Dallas as well as the relocation of SR 2327 (May Rd.). The
May- Rd. relocation extends for about 0.2 km (0.1 mi) with a
proposed width of 19.5 m (64.0 ft).
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory,
catalog and describe the various natural resources likely to
be impacted by the proposed action. This report also
attempts to identify and estimate the probable consequences
of the anticipated impacts to these resources.
Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize
resource impacts. These descriptions and estimates are
relevant only in the context of existing preliminary design
concepts. If.design parameters and criteria change,
additional field investigation may need to be conducted.
1.3 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations.
Information sources used in this pre-field investigation of
the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Gastonia North), NCDOT aerial photomosaic of
the project area (1:2000) and Natural Resources Conservation
Service (MRCS) soil maps of Gaston County. Water resource
information was obtained from publications of the Department
of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993)
7,

Figure 1
B
A DEPARTMENT OF
)N
iHWAYS
ENVIRONMENTAL
FROM NC 7 IN GASTONIA
TO CAROLINA AND NORTHWESTERN RAILROAD
IN DALLAS. WIDEN TO A MULTI - LANE FACILITY
GASTON COUNTY
U - 2523

1)
and from the NC Center for Geographic Information and
Analysis publication of the Environmental Sensitivity Base
Map of Gaston County (1992). Information concerning the
occurrence of federal and state protected species in the
study area was gathered from the Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) list of protected and candidate species and the N.C.
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and
unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
alignment by NCDOT biologist Gerard Nieters on 25-26 July
1995. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were
identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved
using a variety of observation techniques: active searching
and capture, visual observations (binoculars), identifying
characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and
burrows). Cursory studies for aquatic organisms were
conducted using tactile searches. Organisms captured during
these searches were identified and then released.
Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed
utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental
Laboratory, 1937).
1.4 Qualifications of Investigator
Investigator: Gerard J. Nieters, Biologist, NCDOT
Education: BS Degree Natural Resources:
Ecosystem Assessment
NC State University, College of Forestry
Employment: NCDOT Biologist, May 1994-Present
Expertise: Wetland delineations, NEPA investigations and
Section 7 field investigations
2.0 Physical Resources
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area,
are discussed below. Soil types and water availability
directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
2.1 Soils and Topography
Gaston County lies in the piedmont physiographic
province. The topography of Gaston County is characterized
by rolling terrain with moderate, bottomland floodplains.
The dominant land use in the area is residential development
with forest stands interspersed. The dominant soil found in
the project area is Cecil-Urban Land Complex (CfB). This
mapping Unit consists of intermingled Cecil Series and Urban
Land with Cecil soil composing 50-650 of the soil. Cecil
soil's color ranges from yellowish-red to red, it is also
well drained and frequently found on broad upland ridges.
3
Although no hydric soils are mapped by the soil survey
in the project area, two small areas exhibiting wetland
characteristics are located within project limits. One
wetland is located on the south side of NC 279, approximately
0.2 km (0.1 mi) east of the Dallas City Limits. The other
wetland pocket is located on the north side of NC 279, about
0.5 km (0.3 mi) east of Coleman St. (SR 2327).
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water
resources likely to be impacted by the project. Water
resource information encompasses physical aspects of the
resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage
Standards and water quality of the resources. Probable
impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are
means to minimize impacts.
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
The proposed project is located in the Catawba River
Basin. It traverses two stream channels (1 perennial, 1
intermittent). The perennial stream is Long Creek and the
intermittent stream is an unnamed tributary of Little Long
Creek. Long Creek eventually flows into South Fork Catawba
River. Evidence of scour and deposition are present at both
stream crossings, likely due to the high amount of
development in and upstream of the project area. Physical
characteristics of these streams are described in Table 1.
TABLE 1 STREAM CHARACTERISTICS
CHARACTERISTICS STREAM
LONG CREEK UT LITTLE LONG CREEK
Substrate Sand/Cobble Sand
Flow Rate Moderate Slow
Channel Width 7.8 m (25.0 ft) 1.0 m (3.2 ft)
Channel Depth 0.6 m (2.0 ft) 0.3 m (1.0 ft)
Water Color Clear Stained
Aquatic Vegetation None None
NOTES: UT=Unnamed Tributary
See attached map for stream locations.
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification
by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). The
unnamed tributary of Little Long Creek and Long Creek have
both been given a classification of "C" in the project area.
This classification denotes that the primary use of the water
resource is that of aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
4
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or
WS-II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6
km (1.0 mi) downstream of project study area.
2.2.3 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
is managed by DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water
quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends
in water quality. The program assesses water quality by
sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at
fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to
very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species
richness and overall biomass are reflections of water
quality.
BMAN data was gathered approximately 0.2 km (0.1 mi)
downstream of the confluence of Little Long Creek and Long
Creek at SR 2003, 3.7 km (2.3 mi) east of the proposed
project. The bioclassification at this monitoring point is
fair.
Point source dischargers located throughout North
Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger
is required to register for a permit. Carolina Water Service
is permitted to release subdivision wastewater into Little
Long Creek at a rate of 0.022 million gallons per day.
Table 2 describes the numerous permitted dischargers
currently utilizing the Long Creek Watershed.
TABLE 2. LONG CREEK--PERMITTED WASTEWATER DISCHARGERS
Discharger Amount (MGD Wastewater Type
Gastonia WWTP 8.0000 Textile and Laundry Waste
Wright Residence 0.0009 Single Family
Dallas WWTP 0.7500 Municipal
Martin Marietta 0.0000 Mine Dewatering
Stevcoknit Fabrics 0.0000 1) Non-Contact Cooling Water
and Condensate
2) Cooling Tower Blowdown
Lithium Corp. of 0.0000 1) Mining and Material
America Processing
2) Mine Dewatering
Gastonia WWTP 1.2000 Water Plants
(Surface Water)
NOTES: WWTP=Wastewater Treatment Plant
MGD=Million Gallons Per Day
J
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Potential impacts to the project area water resources,
resulting from construction-related sedimentation, include:
decreases of dissolved oxygen in the water and changes in
temperature, as a result of vegetation loss and reduction of
water clarity. Alterations of water level, due to
interruptions in surface and groundwater flow, as well as
increased concentrations of toxic compounds from highway
runoff are other possible impacts that may affect the waters
in the project area as well as the water quality of Long
Creek, Little Long Creek and South Fork Catawba River
downstream. Erosive runoff is a major concern due to the
substantial development of the area. The silt floodplain
associated with Long Creek currently displays substantial
sedimentation. Strict adherence to NCDOT's Sedimentation
Control Guidelines is necessary in order to minimize impacts
to the project area. Best management practices (BMP's) are
also critical in minimizing potential impacts to the project
area and downstream as a result of the project construction.
3.0 Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems. This section describes ecosystems encountered in
the study area, as well as, the relationships between fauna
and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and
distribution of biotic communities throughout the project
area are reflective of topography, hydrologic influences and
past and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions
of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of
plant community classifications. Dominant flora and fauna
observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described
and discussed. Faunal species observed during site visit,
either directly or indirectly through spoor evidence, are
highlighted by an asterisk (*).
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
applicable) are provided for each animal and plant species
described. Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Six terrestrial communities are identified in the
project study area: man-dominated, alluvial forest, upland
hardwood forest, pine forest, mixed pine/hardwood forest, and
bottomland hardwood forest. Transition zones that display
characteristics of adjacent communities are frequently seen
between habitat types. These transitional zones are referred
to as ecotones. Due to these gradual variations between
habitats, community boundaries are commonly ill-defined.
Many faunal species are highly- adaptive and may populate the
entire range of terrestrial communities discussed.
6
3.1.1 Man-Dominated Community
These regions of perpetual disturbance have various land
uses, including residential yards, and maintained grass
lots/roadsides. The dominant herbaceous species found in
this habitat are fescue (Festuca sp.), dallis grass (Paspalum
dilatatum), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), plantain
(Plantago sp.) and clover (Trifolium sp.). Trees that have
been planted in this community are willow oak (Ouercus
phellos), white oak (Q_ alba), southern red oak (Q_
falcata), Bradford pear (Pyrus calleryana), flowering dogwood
(Cornus florida), crepe myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica) and
assorted junipers (Juniperus spp.). In areas of less
frequent maintenance the previously stated herbaceous layer
is present with the addition of blackberry (Rubus sp.) and
Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota). Tree of heaven (Ailanthus
altissima) and smooth sumac (Rhus glabra) are saplings that
are also found in areas of sparse maintenance.
The composition of the faunal community found in this
habitat is largely influenced by the successional development
of the vegetative community. Many species forage in this
habitat while remaining close to adjacent areas that provide
greater protective cover. An assortment of animals are
frequently found throughout disturbed habitats such as this.
Several organisms, like the white footed mouse (Peromvscus
leucopus), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomy humulis),
eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), eastern
cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) and mourning dove*
(Zenaida macroura) may subsist on the vegetative forage, as
well as insects and smaller organisms. The previously
mentioned species may expose themselves to predators like the
black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), black racer (Coluber
constrictor), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), barred
owl (Stria varia), red-tailed hawk (Buteo iamaicensis), and
gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus). These organisms are
known to stalk prey in this habitat.
In addition to the avian representatives previously
mentioned, several other bird species may utilize this
community. The eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), eastern
bluebird (Sialia sialis), northern mockingbird* (Mimus
poly.glottos), American robin* (Turdus migratorius), blue
grosbeak (Guiraca caerul,ea) and the American goldfinch
(Cardeulis tristis) can likely be found in this system.
3.1.2 Alluvial Forest
Alluvial forest habitat is found in association with
Long Creek. A well dev'eloped vegetative community is
established throughout the floodplain of this stream system.
The canopy is comprised of green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), black willow (Salix nigra), river birch
(Betula nigra) and boxelder (Acer negundo). A well developed
7
subcanopy is also present in this community that consists of
red maple (Acer rubrum), boxelder, green ash, and elderberry
(Sambucus canadensis). Smooth sumac, tree of heaven and
blackberry are found along the open edges of this habitat as
well. The herbaceous layer is represented by false nettle
(Boehmeria cylindrica), barnyard grass (Echinochloa
crusgalli), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), Pokeberry
(Phytolacca americana), giant cane (Arundinaria Rigantea) and
winged verbesina (Verbesina occidentalis). Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and wild grape (Vitis sp.)
are common vines in this habitat.
Animal species known to utilize this vegetative
community are the ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus),
American toad (Bufo americanus), raccoon* (Procyon lotor) and
white-tailed deer* (Odocoileus virginianus). Other animal
species that are associated with this forest are the eastern
box turtle (Terrapene carolina), woodland vole (Microtus
pinetorum), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), eastern
chipmunk (Tamias striatus), eastern cottontail, and the
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana).
The belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon) could potentially
utilize this habitat by nesting in the steep embankments of
the alluvial floodplain. The belted kingfisher forages from
a perch by diving into water after minnows and small fish.
This bird needs to eat about 28 fish a day in order to meet
its nutritional requirements. The great blue heron (Ardea
herodias) survives in this habitat also by foraging on fish
as well, however it hunts by silently wading in the stream in
search of prey. Barn swallows* (Hirundo rustica) are found
in this habitat foraging on flying insects while finding
refuge beneath existing structures like the current bridge
over Long Creek. The abundant streamside mast producing
trees and shrubs provide a good forage base for wood ducks
(Aix sponsa), moreover the concealed stream provides a good
landing area for these birds. Other avians that commonly
utilize the vegetative component of this habitat are the
brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), red-bellied woodpecker
(Nielanerpes carolinus), downy woodpecker (Picoides
pubescens), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis),
Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), red-eyed vireo
(vireo olivaceus) and summer tanager (Piranga rubra).
3.1.3 Upland Hardwood Forest
The upland hardwood forest dominates the vegetative
cover in areas of little or no disturbance. This habitat is
characterized by moderate to steep slopes with well drained
soils. Vegetative species established in the canopy layer of
this environment are southern red oak (guercus falcata),
white oak (Q_ alba), pignut hickory (Car a glabra), tulip
tree (Liriodendron tulipifera) and interspersed short-leaf
pine (Pinus echinata). The subcanopy consists of flowering
8
dogwood, pignut hickory, red maple, winged elm (Ulmus alata)
and blueberry (Vaccinium sp.). The herbaceous/vine layer is
poorly developed in this community and consists primarily of
opportunistic vines like poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera Japonica), Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus guinguefolia) and trumpet creeper (Campsis
radicans).
Animal species commonly found in these surroundings
include the white-tailed deer*, eastern cottontail, raccoon*,
gray squirrel* and eastern chipmunk. Although the animal
community is comprised largely of species also found in
disturbed areas, the bird community occupying this habitat
type varies appreciably. Some representative species
indigenous to this type of natural system are: northern
flicker (Colaptes auratus), ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus
calendula), northern cardinal*, blue jay* (Cvanocitta
cristata), red-tailed hawk* (Buteo iamaicensis), Carolina
chickadee*, and Carolina wren* (Thryothorus ludovicianus).
3.1.4 Pine Forest
This ecotype is located at the higher elevations in the
project area and it exists in various stages of succession.
It is characterized by moderate to steeply sloping, well
drained soils. These soils usually have poor fertility with
shallow soil depth to parent material. Virginia pine (Pinus
virginiana) and short-leaf pine are the most prominent
canopy species. Representatives of eastern redbud (Cercis
canadensis), winged elm, red maple, blackgum (Nyssa
svlvatica) and black cherry (Prunus serotina.) are most
evident in the understory. Due to the young age of much of
this habitat the herbaceous layer is well developed.
Barnyard grass, broomstraw (Andropogon sp.), lespedeza
(Lespedeza sp.), asters (Aster spp.), heal all (Prunella
vulgaris), and golden rod (Solidago sp.) predominate the herb
layer.
The young pine trees commonly found in this community
provide dense cover and forage opportunities for many of the
previously mentioned animal species, especially white-tailed
deer and eastern cottontail. These two species are primarily
nocturnal and commonly utilize these dense pine stands to
conceal flight after feeding in adjacent maintained habitats.
3.1.5 Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
This community is present on the rolling topography of
the study area. The canopy species present are Virginia
pine, short leaf pine,-rock chestnut oak (Quercus prinus) and
tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera). An understory is
present and consists of flowering dogwood, red maple, water
oak (Q_ nigra), willow oak (Q_ phellos), sassafras (Sassafras
albidum), black cherry, sweetgum (Liquidambar stvraciflua),
9
blueberry, and green ash. The herb/vine layer is poorly
developed and consists of English ivy (Hedera helix),
greenbrier (Smilax sp.), wild grape (Vitis sp.) and poison
ivy.
Animal species found in the upland hardwood and pine
forests may also be found in this mixed pine hardwood
habitat. In addition to the previously stated fauna the gray.
catbird (Dumetella carolinensis) and brown thrasher could
utilize the dense vegetation for both foraging and nesting.
The white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis) could also
inhabit this community by taking advantage of a well
stratified canopy which provides a wide variety of seeds and
fruit. The short-leaf pines found in this community also
provide winter cover in which many additional bird species
could inhabit during the winter months.
3.1.6 Bottomland Hardwood Forest
This community is present at the bottom of some rolling
hills found in the project area. In these low areas the
canopy consists of sweetgum, sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), tulip tree and red maple. The understory
consisted of dense thickets of Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense) with interspersed ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana),
red maple, sweetgum, blueberry and swamp rose (Rosa
palustris). Little herbaceous vegetation is present beneath
the dense privet growth, however representatives of
elderberry and false nettle are found in more open areas.
Vine species present in this habitat are Japanese honeysuckle
and poison ivy.
The fauna which inhabit this community are very similar
to those of the upland community with the addition some
species that prefer wetter environments like the marbled and
northern dusky salamanders (Ambystoma opacum and Desmognathus
fuscus, respectively). In addition to terrestrial animals,
there are many avian species that are known to inhabit this
community. The red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), ovenbird
(Seiurus aurocapillus), wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina),
red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), rufous-sided towhee
(Pipilo erythrophthalmus), blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila
caerulea), and barred owl characteristically utilize this
habitat for either foraging or nesting purposes.
3.2 Aquatic Community
One piedmont perennial stream is found in the project
area, along with one intermittent stream system. Physical
characteristics of the water bodv and condition of the water
resource reflect faunal composition of the aquatic
communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water
resource also greatly influence aquatic communities.
10
Long Creek had a sufficient water level and cover to
support a number of aquatic/semi-aquatic organisms. It
remains unknown however, whether this stream is clean enough
to sustain this aquatic life. The water appeared unpolluted
with only a few articles of garbage present in the substrate
at the proposed crossing. There was a significant amount of
erosion beneath the existing bridge and during storm events
this area would give rise to appreciable sedimentation due to
the fine textured alluvial soil. No aquatic organisms were
observed during the site visit, but smaller fish species
likely to occur in this habitat are the greenhead shiner
(Notropis chlorocephalus), creek chub (Semotilus
atromaculatus) and rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides).
These small fish may be preyed upon by those that are larger
like the pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus) and redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus). The
pickerel frog (Rana palustris) and green frog (Rana
clamitans) are amphibians frequently found in this habitat,
also. In addition to the previously mentioned bird species,
the northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon) is a common fish
and amphibian predator.
The ephemeral stream crossed by the proposed project has
a low water level with some shallow stagnant pools. This
stream was not observed to support a fish population, but if
one exists it would likely be comprised of the smaller fish
species mentioned previously. The stagnant pools however,
provide ideal habitat for amphibian reproduction, foraging
and cover. Some of the amphibians earlier discussed are
likely to occur here.
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various
impacts on the biotic resources described. Any construction
related activities in or near these resources have the
potential to impact biological functions. This section
quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in
terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary
and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Impacts to the biotic communities of the proposed
project area can be divided into two primary categories. The
first being impacts of currently maintained habitats that are
already quite disturbed and feature relatively low diversity.
In this case there will be an initial stress placed upon the
species that inhabit this community, however long term
negative impacts should be minimal due to the large influence
man has exercised already upon this habitat type. The second
category of impacts cari be classified as the new alignment
portion of the project, where substantial manipulations of
the indigenous vegetation and area landscape will have to
occur. In so doing many species will be displaced from
nesting/denning sites and likely suffer from physiological
11
stresses associated with their forced migration.
Furthermore, the widened corridor will further decrease the
diminishing amount of faunal habitat found in the project
area. With this larger roadway comes an increased potential
for inadvertent faunal deaths associated with increased
traffic volumes. However, the majority of the species that
compose this area's animal community are edge adapted species
which proliferate in disturbed edge habitats. This region is
already largely manipulated, thus implying that the
detrimental affects posed by the road widening in question
will be minimal.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the
relative abundance of each community present in the study
area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 3
summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic
communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts are derived using the entire construction limit width
of 40.6 m (130.0 ft) along the length of the project except
at the crossing of an unnamed ephemeral tributary of Little
Long Creek where the construction limits are 51.6 m (165 ft)
in width (pers. comm. James Bridges). Biotic impact
calculations are based upon these construction limits, actual
impacts may be reduced through design modifications.
Table 3 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
COMMUNITY
Man-Dominated Community
Alluvial Forest
Upland Hardwood Forest
Pine Forest
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
TOTAL IMPACTS
IMPACTED AREA
14.6 (36.0)
0.1 (0.2)
0.5 (1.2)
0.7 (1.6)
1.0 (2.5)
0.9 (2.1)
17.8 (43.6)
Note: Areas are cited in hectares (acres).
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and
impact analysis pertinent to two important issues--rare and
protected species, and Waters of the United States.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States," as defined in
Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3.
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under
12
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any
action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include
evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and
hydrology. Two bottomland regions were found to meet the
above wetland criteria (see Figure 2 for locations).
No National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map exists for this
area, however the Cowardin classification for these wetlands
would be PF01C. This classification is interpreted as
palustrine (P), forested (FO) habitat with broad-leaved,
deciduous vegetation (1). The water regime is seasonally
flooded (C).
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts To Wetlands
Each wetland area (2) potentially impacted by the
proposed project is approximately 0.1 ha (0.2 ac) in size,
and with stringent construction guidelines could be further
minimized. A primary concern is the large amount of fill
material that will be necessary to widen these crossings and
bring them up to the roadway grade. Due to the substantial
elevation difference between the current roadway and the
subject wetlands the fill line may extend significantly into
these wetlands, unless precautions are taken. These
precautions must be taken in order to minimize disturbance in
this habitat in an attempt to maintain the current
conditions.
4.1.3 Permits
impacts to jurisdictional
are anticipated. This project
Quality General Certification
Environmental Management (DEM)
Section 404 authorization. In
section 404 of the Clean Water
will be required from the COE
fill material into "Waters of
wetlands and surface waters
will then require a 401 Water
from the Division of
prior to the approval of
accordance with provisions of
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit
for the discharge of dredged or
the United States."
The wetlands present fall under the jurisdiction of the
U.S. COE and may require a Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)
(14) which is applicable at most ditch and stream crossings
found in the project study area. If the criteria for
Nationwide Permit 14 are not met then an Individual Permit
may be necessary. Nationwide Permit 14 authorizes
construction provided the following conditions are met:
13
(1) the width of the fill is limited to the minimum
necessary for the actual crossing;
(2) the fill placed in Water of the United States is limited
to a filled area of no more than 0.1 hectares (1 /3
acre);
(3) no more than a total of 61 m (200 linear ft) of the fill
for the roadway can occur i n special aquatic sit es,
including wetlands;
(4) the crossing is culverted, bridged or otherwise designed
to prevent the restriction of, and to withstand,
expected high flows and tid al flows and movement of
aquatic organisms, and;
(5) the crossing, including all attendant features, both
temporary and permanent, is part of a single and
complete project for crossi ng of a Water of the United
States.
4.1.4 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 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" 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.
Wetland impacts could potentially be avoided if NC 279
was widened on the north side of NC 279 at Wetland #1 and on
the south side of NC 279 at Wetland #2 (see Figure 2). These
modifications could potentially eliminate wetland impacts.
14
Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and
practicable steps to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of
the United States. Implementation of these steps will be
required through project modifications and permit conditions.
Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of
the proposed project through the reduction of median widths,
ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. If
impacts to the wetland community cannot be avoided, then
impacts to these sites should be minimized to the fullest
extent possible. This objective could be achieved by
minimizing the amount of fill utilized in the bottomland
systems. Other practical alternatives to minimize impacts to
the waters crossed by the proposed project are listed below.
- Strict enforcement of sedimentation control Best
Management Practices (BMP's) for the protection of
surface waters during the entire life of the project
- Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity, particularly
in riparian areas
- Reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams
- Reduction of runoff velocity
- Reestablishment of vegetation on exposed areas, with
judicious pesticide and herbicide management
- Minimization of "in-stream" activity
- Litter/debris control.
The use of any number of these methods will be effective
in reducing water quality degradation resulting from project
construction.
Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until
anticipated impacts to waters of the U.S. have been avoided
and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and
values may not be achieved in each and every permit action.
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is
required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after
all avoidance and minimization options have been explored.
Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and
enhancement of waters of the U.S., specifically wetlands.
Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to, or
contiguous to the impacted site.
Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do
not require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989
Memorandum Agreement between the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Department of the Army. If the demands called
for by Nationwide 14 are not met, compensatory mitigation
will need to be addressed in order to compensate for those
15
wetlands taken by the proposed project. Final decisions
regarding this matter lie with the COE.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been, or are
currently in, the process of decline either due to natural
forces or their inability to coexist with man. Federal law
(under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely a
species classified as federally-protected, be subject to
review by the Fish and Wildlife (FWS). Other species may
receive additional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. As of 28 March 1995, the FWS lists no
federally-protected species for Gaston County.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate Species and State Listed Species
The bog turtle (Clemmvs muhlenbergii) and Georgia aster
(Aster georgianus) are the only federal candidate species
(C2) listed for Gaston County. The bog turtle is classified
by the state as Threatened (T) and is afforded state
protection, however its habitat is not found within the
project area. Suitable habitat for the Georgia aster is
present within the project area, but this species is not
protected by the state.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the
site visit, nor was this species observed. A review of the
data base of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program rare species
and unique habitats revealed the presence of bigleaf magnolia
(Magnolia macrophYlla) approximately 0.6 km (0.4 mi)
downstream of the existing Long Creek bridge, which is to be
replaced. The bigleaf magnolia is not granted state
protection, however the presence of this rare species should
be noted. The habitat of bigleaf magnolia is rich deciduous
forests and in this instance it appears that it is growing in
close relation to Long Creek, therefore making it sensitive
to high water levels and/or toxins introduced to the stream
system. Precautions must be taken in the replacement of Long
Creek Bridge in order to insure the safety of this species as
well as environmental quality downstream. Further
investigation revealed no records of additional rare and/or
protected species in or near [1.6 km (1.0 mi) radius] the
project study area.
16
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-list of North
American Birds (6th ed.). Lawrence, Kansas, Allen
Press, Inc.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical report Y-87-1,
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Miss.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A
Distributional Survey of North Carolina Mammals.
Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Natural History.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program List of
the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina". North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III.
1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and
Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University- of North Carolina
Press.
NIenhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North
Carolina. N.C. WRC., Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1988. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1986.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality
in North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Data Base and Long Tern Changes in Water Quality, 1983-
1990.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. "Classifications and Water Quality
Standards for North Carolina River Basins." Raleigh,
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
NCWRC. 1990. "Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina".
Raleigh, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
Plant Conservation Program. 1991. "List of North Carolina's
Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Plant Species".
Raleigh, North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds
of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of
the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
17
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of
The Natural Communities of North Carolina. Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service. Gaston County Soil Survey. North
Carolina Agriculture Experiment Station. Published
May 1989.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Classifications of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States.,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife service. 28 March 1995. Listed and
Candidate Species of North Carolina., Asheville Field
Office.
Weakley, A.S. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Plant Species of North Carolina". North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals
of the Carolinas, Virginia and Maryland. Chapel Hill,
The University of North Carolina Press.
ORrIC
I X?,
• " ? i ?/.1D01 'L• 1 /7 ? ? '' .t •' rr ' ? / ?\,1 (??g • , 1. 7e7cf:
1 i l„ I Y I /? ? ? ,
PROJECT LIMITS
END SEGMENT
JJ
?1 - - / ?'? 1 ?l ?l It?? Wetland

po vi
?, or Isar z y• 1 ?) i Wetland #2
zq/
rai
Il:i.ll (? ibr• Y T? Bd '?U %? *-T
ler En
')Or p„/I h ` ^b \?? 1 ;z-767, 1• 1 \'r ?J \ ?? ??
1 - 1Cem i
1 r ./' I ?/) I 1: ?' ;inlo11 1Y0`0 - Sq"88C"409s?x'
?N)
\r? ,• \? :. ?'''1w '? q'• ! ;r : I •'_-)x:11\\
,:?? '~ -- -'- - , ' -- .? `•?1 ?' / '.? 1` ', sue,:" C o o , h a
:???• BEGIN SEGMENT B
;I !\ J9:END SEGMENT A CY_ eek , - - - ??, ''\J.. .I-
f \ r' Rao o?TOHe,tJ' If(()) I; .100 A ) f
I'- k
iT32 ,r \\` n.'.i ?i ?/ i \? / ?^ I»l\. ! f? ` 1 \?? C? )? •I\ f? p MI f ?` Ifl'.
,
Ie? ,?,.?•' ,;: ` _??`'` ,?; ? ??? r ?'?/lam-=?- ?'' ??? ????`
< 1100
Creelc./?? 0 ?iker
"1 .? ? r\ 1, ? •, V•-'/ ? 1) ( I ? (1• c: m•?•(..U/l ? 1 ?? '.T n ILA . i
?I ? I /?y\7; y.. _ 'C., `/ ? ''.?'\ r • • ,1111?11 7/ / ', ? ,. I' ??.•• I / ?~ ?• ? ''• ?. •t'1
?Frt?ndlyfih:l a• (.1" /? ( ,. I, ) ?`? _,',
(Z) j
\ O(1 tE Tea"o r 1 t) j1' 0 ?cb
. (J )'• <
or ° PROJECT LIMITS t`;
iBEGIN SEGMENT A?
??• Tr`h. GASTONIA NORTH, N. C. '
SW/4 CASTONIA IS' DUADRANOLE , , ?•' '
L.1 •('?i)j' i;, /? _ `g ! N3515-W8107.5/7.5
\?+ i , otf} aod, \ i 1970 i
C 1\ 0 r'r'ARKI 'e AMS 4754 1 SW-SERIES V04I
ater o
/ L, / %Radio' T
1 0 1 0. ?' ?].W T
or ' (1
11 y 0 IAA
20
vow
SCALE 1:24000
0 1 MILE • t Johns
Ch \? .\ I
0
'ft?

1000 2000 30W 4000 5000 6000 7000 BEET //L/// /1 t t ./
0 1 KILOMETE?I /?
K'' /f
N.C. 279
From N.C. 7 (Ozark Avenue)
to SR 2278 (Gaston Street)
Gastonia and Dallas, Gaston County
Federal Aid Number STPNHF-279(1)
State Project Number 8.1811301
T.I.P. No. U-2523
Administrative Action
Environmental Assessment
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U. S. C. 4332(2)(C)
APPROVED:
/0.3-Y1 CV, J- -
Date,?,H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
/o- y- pG w?-? ?t-?--
Date Nicholas L. Graf, P.E., Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
N.C. 279
From N.C. 7 (Ozark Avenue)
to SR 2278 (Gaston Street)
Gastonia and Dallas, Gaston County
Federal Aid Number STPNI-IF-279(1)
State Project Number 8.1811301
T.I.P. No. U-2523
Environmental Assessment
October 1996
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
?dmes F. Bridges
Project Planning Engineer
CAROB
S S9 W' on Stroud _ SEAL _
Project Planning Unit Head = C.- 022109
Q:
FNGINE??' , •?
Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Summary
Environmental Assessment
Prepared by
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in Consultation with
Federal Highway Administration
Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration Action, Environmental Assessment.
Additional Information
The following people can be contacted for additional information concerning this
project:
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, F14WA
Suite 410, 310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
[phone]
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone]
Summary _of Special Project Commitments
NCDOT may need a floodway revision for the widening of Bridge No. 12 over
Long Creek; if so, appropriate coordination with the Federal Emergency Management
Agency and local officials will be carried out.
NCDOT will implement Best Management Practices throughout construction.
NCDOT will notify the N.C. Geodetic Survey prior to construction with regards to
seven geodetic survey markers located along the proposed project.
NCDOT will acquire a Railroad Agreement for the proposed widening at the
Carolina and Northwestern Railway.
NCDOT will conduct a site inspection of underground storage facilities located
within the project area prior to right of way acquisition. If leaks or contamination have
occurred, NCDOT will notify the Division of Environmental Management.
NCDOT will perform additional Section 106 coordination with the State Historic
Preservation Office if right of way or easements are required from the Flint Grove
Elementary School or the Dallas Historic District.
4. Anticipated Design Exceptions
A design exception may be required for the width of the travel lanes (two 3.2 m
(1 l feet) outside lanes and two 3.0 m (10.5 feet) inside lanes) on NC 279 north of the
Carolina and Northwestern Railway.
Actions Required by Other Agencies
A United States Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(14)
is anticipated to be applicable to the proposed project.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management Section 401 Water
Quality General Certification is also required. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
requires that the state issue or deny water quality certification for any federally permitted
or licensed activity that may result in a discharge into waters of the United States.
6. Descriation of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen
NC 279 (New Hope Road) from NC 7 (Ozark Ave.) in Gastonia to SR 2278 (Gaston St.) in
Dallas, Gaston County. NCDOT includes this project in the 1997-2003 Transportation
Improvement Program (T.I.P.).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will widen NC 279 to a multi-
lane curb and gutter facility. Between NC 7 and the Carolina and Northwestern Railway,
NC 279 will be widened to a five-lane curb and gutter facility with a continuous left turn
lane. A four-lane curb and gutter facility is proposed from the Carolina and Northwestern
Railway to SR 2278. The project's location is shown on the vicinity map included as
Figure 1. The proposed improvements to New Hope Road are described in more detail in
Section II of this report.
7. Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Impacts
The proposed improvements to NC 279 will benefit the region and local community
by providing safer and more efficient travel through the area. This will result in road user
cost savings. Also, automobile traffic safety will be enhanced. The improved facility will
benefit the area by completing a continuous multi-lane facility from I-85 in Gastonia to
US 321 in Dallas (see Figure 3).
The proposed project will require the acquisition of approximately 4.4 hectares
(10.9 acres) of additional right of way. An estimated 35 residential relocations and 5
business relocations will occur as a result of the project. Less than 0.2 hectare (0.5 acre) of
wetlands will be impacted by the project. No federally protected species, archaeological
sites, or historic architectural resources are anticipated to be impacted by the proposed
project. The proposed project is not anticipated to have a significant detrimental effect on
the quality of the human environment.
It is predicted that 158 residences and businesses will approach or exceed the
FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria in the year 2018; however, no receptors were found to
be impacted by a substantial increase in future exterior noise levels. The following table
show the predicted maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours.
This information should assist local authorities in exercising land use control over
the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local jurisdiction. For
example, with the proper information on noise, local authorities can prevent further
development of incompatible activities and land uses with the predicted noise levels of an
adjacent highway.
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State
governments are no longer responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new
development which building permits are issued within the noise impact area of a proposed
highway after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the
location of a proposed highway project will be the approval date of the Categorical
Exclusion, Finding of No Significant Impact, Record of Decision, or the Design Public
Hearing, whichever comes later. For development occurring after this public knowledge
date, local governing bodies are responsible to insure that noise compatible designs are
utilized along the proposed facility.
Alternatives Considered
Four alternatives to widen NC 279 to a multi-lane curb and gutter facility were
studied: symmetrical widening, east-side widening, west-side widening and a combination
of these three alternatives. The recommended improvement, a combination of
symmetrical, east-side, and west-side widening, was selected based upon the estimated
number of residential and business relocations, wetland impacts, impacts to historic
properties, and other environmental factors, in addition to project costs.
East-side widening is recommended from NC 7 to approximately 160 meters
(525 feet) north of NC 7. Symmetrical widening is recommended from this location to
Yates Street. From Yates Street to the Carolina and Northwestern Railway west-side
widening is recommended. At the Carolina and Northwestern Railway the west-side
widening will transition to symmetrical widening to tie in with the existing section of
NC 279 north of the railway. The existing typical section will be maintained from the
railway to Gaston Street.
Alternatives eliminated would provide the same typical section and require
approximately the same amount of new right of way as the recommended alternative. The
recommended alternative had less environmental impact than the other studied alternative,
therefore, NCDOT rejected these alternatives.
In addition to the above design alternatives, postponement of the proposed action,
a "Do Nothing" alternative, and alternative modes of transportation were considered, but
are not recommended. Additional information on the alternatives studied is included in
Section III of this report.
9. Federal State and Local Agencies Contacted at the Beginning of this Study
The following municipalities and agencies were contacted for information relating to
the widening of New Hope Road. Asterisks denote agencies which submitted written
comments.
U. S. Department of the Army--Wilmington District Corps of Engineers*
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service--Asheville
N.C. Department of Administration--State Clearinghouse*
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources:
Division of Environmental Management*, Division of Environmental
Health*, Division of Land Resources*, Division of Soil and Water
Conservation*, and Wildlife Resources Commission*
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources--State Historic Preservation Officer*
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
Region F Council of Governments
Gaston County Commissioners
City of Gastonia
Town of Dallas
10. Basis for Environmental Assessment
On the basis of planning and environmental studies, NCDOT and FHWA anticipate
this project will have no significant detrimental effect on the quality of the human
environment.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
PROJECT SUMMARY ....................................................................................i
1. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description ................................................. .............................1
B. Purpose of the Project ............................................. .............................1
C. Characteristics of the Existing Facility ..................... .............................1
1. Length of Roadway Section Studied ............ .............................1
2. Existing Cross Sections ................................ ............................. l
3. Right of Way ............................................... .............................2
4. Access Control ............................................ .............................2
5. Vertical and Horizontal Alignment ............... .............................2
6. Speed Limit ................................................. .............................2
7. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control ....... .............................2
8. Interchanges ................................................ .............................3
9. Bridges and Drainage Structures .................. .............................3
10. Railroads ..................................................... .............................3
11. Sidewalks .................................................... .............................3
12. Bicycle Accommodations ............................. .............................3
13. Parking ........................................................ .............................3
14. Utilities ........................................................ .............................4
15. School Bus Data .......................................... .............................3
16. Degree of Roadside Interference ................. ..............................4
17. Airports .......................:.............................. ..............................4
18. Geodetic Markers ....................................... ..............................4
D. Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis ................... ..............................4
1. Mainline Analysis ........................................ ..............................5
2. Intersection Analysis ................................... .............................. 5
E. Thoroughfare Plan .................................................. ..............................5
F. Accident Data and Analysis .................................... ..............................6
G. Other Proposed Highway Improvements in the Proj ect Area .................6
H. Benefits to State, Region, and Community .............. ..............................7
II. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ....................................... ..............................7
A. Length of Project .................................................... ..............................7
B. Project Termini ....................................................... ..............................7
C. Typical Section Description .................................... ..............................7
D. Right of Way .......................................................... ..............................8
E. Access Control ...................................................... ...............................8
F. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control .......... ...............................8
G. Interchanges .......................................................... ...............................8
9
H. Bridges and Drainage Structures ............................ ...............................
1. Design Speed ........................................................ ...............................9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
III
IV
J. Sidewalks ................................................................... ..........................9
K. Bicycle Accommodations ........................................... ..........................9
L. Greenways ................................................................. ..........................9
M. Parking ....................................................................... ..........................9
N. Landscaping ............................................................... ..........................9
0. Noise Barriers ............................................................ ..........................9
P. Multiple Use of Space ................................................ ..........................9
Q. Changes in the State Highway System ........................ ........................10
R. Railroads .................................................................... ........................10
S. Degree of Utility Conflicts .......................................... ........................10
T. Design Exceptions ...................................................... ........................10
U. Cost Estimates ........................................................... ........................10
V. Special Permits Required ............................................ ........................10
W. Geodetic Survey Markers ........................................... ........................10
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ................................................................1 l
A. Recommended Alternatives ................................................................11
B. Design Alternatives ............................................................................11
C. Alternate Modes of Transportation .....................................................12
D. Do Nothing Alternative ......................................................................12
E. Postponement Alternative ...................................................................13
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ....................13
A. Social Effects ..................................................................................... 13
1. Land Use ................................................................................ 13
a. Status of Planning ....................................................... 13
b. Existing Land Use ....................................................... 13
C. Existing Zoning ........................................................... 14
d. Future Land Use .......................................................... 14
e. Project Consistency with Local Plans ........................... 14
2. Neighborhood Characteristics ................................................. 14
3. Relocations ............................................................................. 15
4. Environmental Justice ............................................................. 15
5. Public Facilities ....................................................................... 15
6. Social Impacts ........................................................................ 15
7. Historic and Cultural Resources .............................................. 16
a. Historic Architectural Resources .................................16
b. Archaeological Resources ............................................17
8. Section 4(f) Resources ............................................................17
B. Economic Effects ...............................................................................17

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
C. Environmental Effects .................................................................... ....17
1. Biological Resources ........................................................... ....17
a. Terrestrial Communities ......................................... .....18
b. Aquatic Communities ............................................. .....21
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ............................ .....21
2. Threatened and Endangered Species .................................. .....22
a. Rare and Protected Species .................................... .....22
b. Federally Protected Species .................................... .....23
C. Federal Candidate Species and State Listed Species ..... 23
3. Water Resources ................................................................ .....23
a. Waters Impacted and Characteristics ...................... .....23
b. Best Usage Classification ........................................ .....24
C. Water Quality ......................................................... .....24
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts ............................ .....25
4. Jurisdictional Wetlands ...................................................... .....25
a. Waters of the United States .................................... .....25
b. Characteristics of Wetland and Surface Waters ....... ..... 26
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Wetlands ......... .....26
d. Mitigation .............................................................. .....26
e. Avoidance .............................................................. .....27
f. Minimization .......................................................... .....27
g. Compensatory Mitigation ....................................... .....27
5. Permits .............................................................................. .....28
6. Soils .................................................................................. .....28
7. Flood Hazard Evaluation ................................................... .....29
8. Stream Modification .......................................................... .....29
9. Farmland ............................................................................ .....29
10. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis .......... .....30
a. Characteristics of Noise .......................................... .....30
b. Noise Abatement Criteria ....................................... .....31
C. Ambient Noise Levels ............................................. .....32
d. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels ......... .....32
' e. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis ................................. .....33
f. "Do Nothing Alternative" ....................................... ..... 35
9. Construction Noise ................................................. .....35
h. Summary ............................................................... ......35
11. Air Quality Analysis .......................................................... ......36
12. Hazardous Materials And Underground Storage Tanks .... ......39
13. Construction Impacts ........................................................ ......39
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION .........................................................41
A. Comments Received ...........................................................................41
B. Citizens Informational Workshop .......................................................41
C. Public Hearing ....................................................................................42
FIGURES
Figure I - Vicinity Map
Figure 2- Aerial Mosaic-Proposed Improvements
Figure 3- Topographic Map
Figure 4- Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 5A-5B- Typical Sections
Figure 6A-6J- Traffic Projections
Figure 7- Wetland Map
Figure 8- 100-Year Floodplain Map
Figure 9- Properties Surveyed for National Register Eligibility
Figure 10- Other Proposed Highway Improvements in the Area
TABLES
Table 1- Levels of Service on New Hope Road Mainline ..... .............................5
Table 2- Levels of Service for Major Intersections .............. .............................5
Table 3- Accident Rates ...................................................... .............................6
Table 4- Project Costs ......................................................... ...........................10
Table 5- Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities ........... ...........................22
Table 6- Stream Characteristics ........................................... ...........................24
Table 7- Long Creek- Permitted Wastewater Dischargers .... ...........................25
Table 8- l Hour CO Concentration (PPM) .......................... ...........................38
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 - NCDOT Relocation Programs and Relocatee Reports
Appendix 2 - Traffic Noise Analysis Tables and Figures
Appendix 3 - Air Quality Analysis Tables
Appendix 4 - Comments Received from Federal, State, and
Local Agencies
Appendix 5 - Citizens Informational Workshop News Release
and Information Handout
Environmental Assessment
Prepared by
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in Consultation with
Federal Highway Administration
1. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen
NC 279 (New Hope Road) to a multi-lane curb and gutter section from NC 7 (Ozark
Ave.) in Gastonia to SR 2278 (Gaston Street) in Dallas. The project vicinity is shown in
Figure 1. This project has been divided into two sections (A&B/ see Figure 3). The A
section extends from NC 7 to just north of Long Creek (2.5 km/1.5 miles). The B section
extends from just north of Long Creek to SR 2278 (Gaston Street/3.2 km/2.0 miles). The
project is included in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.). Right
of way acquisition for section A is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1998, and construction
is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1999. Section B right of way acquisition is scheduled
to begin in fiscal year 2001, and construction is scheduled to begin after fiscal year 2003.
Section A has an estimated right of way cost of $2,560,000 and a estimated
construction cost of $3,400,000 for a total cost of $5,960,000. Section B has an
estimated right of way cost of $4,363,500 and a estimated construction cost of $3,400,000
for a total cost of $7,763,500. The total project (A&B) cost for right of way and
construction is $13,723,500. The funding shown in the 1997-2003 T.I.P. is $10,900,000.
The cost estimate exceeds the T.I.P. funding by $2,823,500.
NC 279 is a north-south route, although it runs in a east-west direction in part of
the project area. Travel directions on NC 279 and intersecting roadways are referred to
assuming NC 279 runs north-south throughout the entire project.
B. Purpose Of The Project
NC 279 has existing capacity problems that will become more severe as traffic
volumes increase in the future. The purpose of the proposed project is to relieve existing
and future capacity deficiencies on NC 279 and complete a continuous multi-lane facility
from I-85 in Gastonia to US 321 in Dallas.
C. Characteristics Of The Existing Facility
1. Length of Roadway Section Studied
The length of the studied section of NC 279 from NC 7 to SR 2278 is 5.7
kilometers (3.5 miles).
2. Existing Cross Sections
The existing cross section on NC 279 varies along the project. At the
beginning of the project, NC 279 is a 21 meter (68 ft.) face-to-face five lane curb
and gutter section with a sidewalk on the east side. Approximately 100 meters
(328 ft.) north of NC 7, NC 279 tapers to a 11 meter (36 ft.) face-to-face three
lane curb and gutter section. The three lane cross section continues to Auten
Road, where an exclusive right turn lane is dropped. NC 279, from north of Auten
Road to Ballard Street, is a two lane 7.3 meter (24 ft.) roadway with curb and
gutter on the east side. From north of Ballard Street to the Carolina and
Northwestern Railroad, NC 279 is primarily a two lane 7.3 meter (24 ft.) roadway
with 1.8 meter (6 ft.) grassed shoulders on both sides. From the Carolina and
Northwestern Railroad to Gaston Street, NC 279 is a 14.3 meter (47 ft.) face-to-
face two lane curb and gutter section with parallel parking on both sides. The total
roadway width in this area is 13 meters (43 feet). Between the Carolina and
Northwestern Railroad and College Street there is a 2.4 meter (8 ft.) berm on both
sides which includes a 1.2 meter (4 ft.) sidewalk. The east side of NC 279
between College Street and Gaston Street has a berm width that varies from 4
meters (13 ft.) to 4.2 meters (14 ft.) and includes a 1.2 meter (4 ft.) sidewalk. On
the westside there is a berm which varies from 3.3 meters (11 ft.) to 3.8 meters
(12.5 ft.) and includes a 1.5 meter (5 ft.) sidewalk. North of Gaston Street is a five
lane section. In the southbound direction there are two 3 meter (ft.) travel lanes
and a 3 meter ( 10 ft.) left turn lane. In the northbound direction there are two
travel lanes which are 3.2 meters (10.5 ft.) and 3.3 meters 11 ft. in width. Parking
exists on both sides of NC 279 north of Gaston Street.
Right of Way
The existing right of way width along NC 279 tapers from 23 meters
(75 ft.) along the 5 lane section at the beginning of the project to 18.3 meters
(60 ft.) at the beginning of the three lane section (Auten Road). From the three
lane section to the Carolina and Northwestern Railway, the existing right of way
width is 18.3 meters (60 ft.). From the railway to the end of the project, the
existing right of way is 21.3 m (70 ft.).
4. Access Control
There is no control of access along the project.
Vertical and Horizontal Curvature
NC 279 (New Hope Road) traverses rolling terrain. For the most part,
sight distance is not substandard due to horizontal and vertical curves. Horizontal
curves within the project area range from 3.5 degrees to 13.5 degrees. Vertical
curves range from 3% to 6.5 %.
6. Speed Limit
The posted speed limit along the project from NC 7 to the Dallas City
Limits is 70 km/h (45 mph). From the Dallas City Limits to SR 2278 the posted
speed limit is 60 km/h (35 mph).
Intersecting Roads and Type of Control
All the intersections along NC 279 are at grade. There are four signalized
intersections within the project limits: NC 279/NC 7, NC 279/ Auten Road,
NC 279/NC 275, and NC 279/ Gaston Street.
8. Interchanges
There are no interchanges along NC 279 within the project limits.
9. Bridges and Drainage Structures
There are two structures located on NC 279 within the project limits.
Bridge No. 270 is located approximately 15 meters north of the
NC 279/NC 7 intersection. This is a five lane bridge with 18.9 meters (62 feet) of
clear roadway width. It has a length of 28.3 meters (93 feet) and crosses over the
CSX Railroad. It was built in 1940 and widened in 1968. It has a sufficiency
rating of 83.3 out of 100.
Bridge No. 12 is located approximately .32 km (.2 mile) south of the
intersection of NC 279 and SR 2275 (Robinson-Clemmer Road). This is a two
lane bridge with 8.5 meters (28 feet) of clear roadway width. It has a length of
49.7 meters (163 feet) and crosses over Long Creek. It was built in 1961 and has
a sufficiency rating of 39.6 out of 100.
10. Railroads
The CSX Railway crosses under NC 279 approximately 15 meters (49 feet)
north of the NC 2791NC 7 intersection.
The Carolina and Northwestern Railway crosses NC 279 at-grade near the
north project terminus between College Street and Terry Street. The existing
traffic controls include signs and warning flashers. Three trains cross here once
weekly. The speed of these trains is 48 km/hr (30 mph). The exposure index for
the year 2019 will be 24,570 (based upon one train per day and 24,570 vehicles on
NC 279 per day. This is under the exposure index threshold of 30,000 for an
urban area and does not warrant consideration of a grade separation. During the
period of l November 1991 to 31 September 1994 there were no reported
accidents at the railroad crossing.
11. Sidewalks
There is an existing sidewalk on the west side of NC 279 from NC 7 to
Ballard Drive. No sidewalk exists along the project from Ballard Drive to
NC 275. On the east side of NC 279 there is a sidewalk from NC 275 to Gaston
Street. On the west side sidewalk extends from NC 275 to Terry Street. Sidewalk
continues on both sides from the Carolina and Northwestern Railway to Gaston
Street.
12. Bicycle Accommodations
There are no special bicycle accommodations on NC 279 within the project
limits.
13. Parking
on-street parking exists on both sides of NC 279 in Dallas from the
Carolina and Northwestern Railroad to Gaston Street.
14. Utilities
Utilities along Section A of this project consist of aerial telephone and
power lines and underground water lines. Also there are underground sewer and
gas lines located throughout this section.
In addition to the utilities noted in Section A, there is a high tension power
line crossing NC 279 along Section B. There are also underground telephone lines
paralleling NC 279 along Section B.
15. School Bus Data
The Gaston County Schools Transportation Director indicated three to
four school buses use NC 279 within the projects limits twice daily.
16. Degree of Roadside Interference
There is a moderate to high degree of roadside interference along NC 279
due to numerous driveways, adjacent businesses, and a railroad crossing along the
project.
17. Airports
The Gastonia Municipal Airport is located approximately 4 miles south of
the NC 279/NC 7 intersection. The proposed project is not anticipated to affect
the airport.
18. Geodetic Markers
Seven geodetic survey markers will be impacted by this project. NCDOT
will notify the N.C. Geodetic Survey prior to construction.
D. Traffic Volumes And Capacity Analysis
In the construction year (1999) the average daily traffic along the proposed project
is anticipated to vary from 23,120 vehicles per day (just north of the NC 279/NC 7
intersection) to 13,440 vehicles per day (just south of May Road). In 2019 the average
daily traffic along this section of NC 279 is anticipated to vary from 32,400 vehicles per
day (just north of the NC 279/NC 7 intersection) to 18,810 vehicles per day (just south of
May Road). Projected traffic volumes for the years 1999 and 2019 are shown in Figures
6A through 6J. Truck percentages, directional distribution, and the design hour factor for
each segment of the project are also shown.
The traffic carrying capacity of a roadway is described with a level of service
rating, a qualitative measure of the roadway's operational conditions and how these
conditions are perceived by motorists. Level of service is determined using conditions
such as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, convenience, and
safety. Six levels of service are defined and are assigned letter designations from A to F.
Level of service A represents the best operating conditions, and level of service F
represents the worst operating conditions.
Using the traffic data described above and included in Figures 6A through 6J,
capacity analyses for the years 1999 and 2019 were performed for NC 279 (New Hope
Road) with and without the proposed improvements.
Mainline Capacity Analysis
Mainline capacity analyses were performed for New Hope Road. The
results of these analyses are summarized in Table 1.
TABLE 1. LEVELS OF SERVICE ON NEW HOPE ROAD MAINLINE
SEGMENT EXISTING
CONDITIONS
1999 2019 PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS
1999 2019
NC 7 to Auten Rd. F F C D
Auten Rd. to East Main Street F F B C
East Main Street to Gaston Street E F B B
These results illustrate that the proposed project will improve the level of
service on New Hope Road. New Hope Road will operate at level of service F by
the design year 2019 without the proposed improvements. With the proposed
improvements, the facility will operate between levels of service B and D in the
design year.
2. Intersection Analyses
Capacity analyses were also performed for the major intersections along
the project. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 2. All
intersections listed are presently signalized.
TABLE 2. LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR MAJOR INTERSECTIONS
INTERSECTING ROAD EXISTING
CONDITIONS
1999 2019 WITH PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS
2019
NC 7 D F D
AUTEN ROAD D F B
MODENA STREET B F B
NC 275 C F C
GASTON ST. B F D
Table 2 shows the level of service increase with the proposed project.
Without the proposed improvements the level of service at the major intersections
along the project is F in the design year. With the proposed improvements the
levels of service vary from B to D in the design year.
E. Thoroughfare Plan
NC 279 (New Hope Road) is shown as a major thoroughfare on the Gastonia
Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan, which was approved by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation on February 7, 1992. A copy of the thoroughfare plan is included as
Figure 4.
6
The Gastonia Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan includes the proposed NC 279
Bypass from SR 2275 (Robinson-Clemmer Rd.) to the proposed US 321 Bypass (TIP
Project R-2608; see Figure 4). Although the NC 279 bypass would reduce traffic on
NC 279 within the limits of TIP Project U-2523, the subject project would still be
warranted due to traffic that would continue to travel on existing NC 279. The NC 279
Bypass is not included in the 1997-2003 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program,
therefore, the traffic projections presented in this document are based upon the NC 279
Bypass not being in operation.
F. Accident Data And Anal
An accident study for NC 279 was conducted by the Accident Studies Section of
the Traffic Engineering Branch of the North Carolina Department of Transportation for
the time period from 1 November, 1991 to 31 September, 1994. A summary of the
accident rates (in accidents per 100 million vehicle kilometers) along with the statewide
rates for urban two-lane "N.C." routes is shown in Table 3. The statewide averages were
generated from data for the years 1992-1994.
TABLE 3. ACCIDENT RATES (PER 100 MILLION VEHICLE KILOMETERS)
ACCIDENT TYPE RATES ALONG
NC 279 AVERAGE STATEWIDE
RATES FOR URBAN
TWO-LANE N.C.
ROUTES
All Accidents 296.24 167.06
Fatal 0.0 .44
Non-Fatal 146.36 68.68
Nighttime 67.91 31.26
Wet Conditions 69.09 36.42
Two hundred and fifty three accidents occurred along the project during the period
from I November 1991 to 31 September 1994. The overall accident rate during this
period was 296.24 accidents per 100 million vehicle kilometers (acc/100MVK). This
exceeds the statewide average of 167.06 acc/100MVK for urban two-lane N.C. routes
during this period.
One hundred and twenty five of the accidents (49.4%) were rearend collisions.
This is indicative of a two-lane roadway, like NC 279, operating near or beyond its
capacity. Because there is only a single lane in each direction throughout the majority of
the project, vehicles making turning movements slow or stop traffic. This creates a
situation where rearend accidents are more likely to occur.
G. Other Proposed Highway Improvements In The Area
TIP Project I-302 calls for the widening of I-85 to six lanes from north of
US 29-74 to NC 273. Right of way acquisition is underway and construction is scheduled
to begin in fiscal year 1998.
TIP project U-2408 proposes to widen NC 274 to a multi-lane facility. Right of
way acquisition is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1998 and construction in fiscal year
2000.
These projects are shown in Figure 10.
H. Benefits To The State Region, And Community
The proposed improvements to NC 279 (New Hope Road) will benefit the region
and local community by providing safer and more efficient travel through the area. Traffic
congestion will be decreased, thereby making it easier for travelers to reach their
destinations. Also, goods and services will be transported in the area more efficiently.
The improved facility will also complete a continuous multi-lane facility from 1-85 and
Gastonia to US 321 in Dallas.
II. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Length Of Project
NC 279 (New Hope Road) will be widened from NC 7 (Ozark Ave.) to SR 2278
(Gaston Street), a length of 5.7 km (3.5 miles). The project is shown in Figure 2.
B. Project Termini
The southern project terminal is located in Gastonia at the intersection of NC 279
and NC 7. At this location, existing NC 279 and NC 7 are both five lane curb and gutter
sections.
The northern project terminal is in Dallas at the intersection of NC 279 and
SR 2278 (Gaston Street). At this location NC 279 is a two-lane 14.3 meter (47 feet) face
to face curb and gutter section with parking on both sides. SR 2278 is a two-lane 16.5
meter (54 feet) face to face curb and gutter section with parking on both sides.
C. Typical Section Description
The proposed typical section is five lanes plus curb and gutter from the southern
project terminal to the Carolina and Northwestern Railroad in Dallas (5.5 km or 3.4
miles). From the Carolina and Northwestern Railroad to Gaston Street (.2 km or .13
mile) the proposed cross section is four lanes plus curb and gutter (see Figures 5A & 5B).
The five lane curb and gutter section will provide four through lanes and a
continuous center left-turn lane. It will be 19.5 meters (64 feet) wide from face to face of
curbs. The curb and gutter will be 750 millimeters (2.5 feet) in width. There will be a 3.0
meter (10.0-foot) wide grass berm on each side.
The four lane curb and gutter section will provide two through lanes in each
direction. It will be 14.3 meters (47 feet) wide from face to face of curbs. The total
roadway width will be 13 meters (43 feet), which will include two 3.3 meter (1 l feet)
outside lanes and two 3.2 meter (10.5 feet) inside lanes. The curb and gutter will be 750
millimeters (2.5 feet) in width.
The existing berm widths which vary from 2.4 to 3.8 meters (8 to 12.5 ft.) will be
maintained. Also, the existing 14.3 meter (47 feet) wide section will be maintained due to
businesses, residences, and the Dallas Historic District located along this section of the
project (see section III.B. for further discussion).
Eastside widening is proposed from NC 7 to approximately 160 meters (525 feet)
northward. From this location to Yates Street symmetrical widening is proposed.
Westside widening is proposed for the section of NC 279 from Yates Street to the
Carolina and Northwestern Railway. At the railway NC 279 will transition from a five
lane section to a four lane section to tie into the existing typical section.
North of the Carolina and Northwestern Railway NC 279 will not be widened.
This section will be resurfaced and restriped for 4 lanes. No on-street parking will be
allowed in this area.
D. Right Of Way
From the south project terminal to the Carolina and Northwestern Railway, the
proposed widening will require 30 meters (100 feet) of right of way. Temporary
construction easements will be required throughout most of the project. No additional
right of way or easements will be acquired north of the Carolina and Northwestern
Railway.
E. Access Control
Currently there is no control of access along NC 279 or the intersecting roads.
The proposed improvements will not require any changes in access control.
F. Intersection Treatment And Type Of Control
Montrose Drive will be realigned to intersect NC 279 opposite Modena Street
(SR 2279) to form a four-leg intersection (see Figure 2). This will be a signalized
intersection. Also, SR 2327 (Old Spencer Mountain Road) will be realigned to intersect
NC 279 opposite SR 2269 (East Main Street) to form a four-leg intersection. This
intersection will be stop sign controlled.
The May Road/NC 279 intersection (just north of Old Spencer Mountain Road)
will be removed. May Road will be realigned to intersect with Old Spencer Mountain
Road east of NC 279. This intersection will be stop sign controlled.
The Davis Street/NC 275 intersection on the east side of NC 279 will be moved
farther away (north) from the NC 279/NC 275 intersection to provide improved spacing.
This intersection will be stop sign controlled.
The NC 279 intersections with NC 7, Auten Road, Modena Street, NC 275, and
Gaston Street are all signalized intersections. These intersections will remain signalized
under the subject project. All other intersections with NC 279 along the project are stop
sign controlled and will remain stop sign controlled.
In addition to the proposed five-lane improvements, additional turn lanes will be
included along the project at the following locations: a northbound right turn lane onto
Auten Road, a southbound right turn lane onto Modena Street, a northbound right turn
onto NC 275, a southbound left on to NC 275, and a left turn lane onto NC 279 from
NC 275.
G. Interchanges
There are no interchanges proposed as a part of this project.
H. Bridges And Drainage Structure
Bridge No. 12, which crosses Long Creek, is a two lane bridge with 8.5 meters
(28 feet) of clear roadway width. This bridge has a sufficiency rating of 39.6 out of 100.
As a part of this project, it will be replaced with a five lane bridge with a 19.5 meter (64
feet) clear roadway width.
Bridge No. 270, which crosses over the CSX Railway, is a five lane bridge with
18.9 meters (62 feet) of clear roadway width. This bridge is structurally adequate and has
a sufficiency rating of 83.3 out of 100. It will be retained under the subject project.
1. Design Speed
The proposed design speed of the project south of the Dallas City Limits is 80
km/hr (50 mph). The proposed posted speed limit is 70 km/hr (45 mph).
North of the Dallas City Limits the proposed design speed is 65 km/hr (40 mph).
The proposed posted speed limit is 60 km/hr (35 mph).
J. Sidewalks
There are no new sidewalks proposed as a part of this project. NCDOT will
replace existing sidewalks that are removed due to the widening of NC 279.
K. Bicycle Accommodations
The NCDOT office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation reviewed the project
and indicated that there does not appear to be any special need for bicycle
accommodations.
L. Greenways
There is no greenway proposed as a part of this project.
M. Parking
There will be no on-street parking on NC 279 within the project limits. Existing
on-street parking on NC 279 from the Carolina and Northwestern Railway to SR 2278
(Gaston Street) will be eliminated to provide for two through lanes in each direction.
Approximately 20-25 parking spaces will be eliminated within this segment of the project.
N. Landscaping
Landscaping and erosion control plans will be developed by the Roadside
Environmental Unit of the North Carolina Department of Transportation during final
design of the proposed project.
0. Noise Barriers
There are no noise barriers recommended for the project.
P. Multiple Use Of Space
There are no plans to use the right of way for any other purposes except public
utilities. Public utilities will be allowed within the right of way within certain limitations.
10
Q. Chan .gees In The State Highway System
No changes to the state highway system are proposed as a part of the project.
R. Railroads
Two railways cross the project within the project limits. The CSX Railway crosses
the project just north of NC 7 at a grade separated crossing. The existing bridge that
carries NC 279 over the railway will be retained. The Carolina and Northwestern Railway
crosses NC 279 at-grade near the north project terminus between College Street and
Terry Street. A crossing gate and signs and warning flashers are proposed as a part of this
project. A Railroad Agreement will be required for this crossing.
S. Degree Of Utility Conflicts
The proposed project is anticipated to have a moderate to high impact on utilities.
Communication, power, water, and sewer lines will be affected by the proposed project.
T. Design Exceptions
A design exception may be required for the proposed widths of the travel lanes (two
3.2 m (l l feet) inside lanes and two 3.0 m (10.5 feet) outside lanes) on NC 279 north of the
Carolina and Northwestern Railway.
U. Cost Estimates
Current right of way and construction cost estimates for the proposed project are
presented in Table 4.
TABLE 4. PROJECT COSTS
Section A-NC 279 from
NC 7 to Long Creek Section B-NC 279
from Long Creek to
SR 2278 Gaston St. TOTAL
COST
CONSTRUCTION 3,400,000 3,400,00 0 6,800,000
RIGHT OF WAY 2,560,000 4,363,500 63923,500
TOTAL COST 5,960,500 7,763,500 _13,723,500
V. Special Permits Required
Conditions for a Nationwide Permit No. 14 (minor road crossings) from the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers apply to the project. If the project requires a permit No. 14, a
401 Water Quality Certification will be required from the N.C. Division of Environmental
Management.
W. Geodetic Survey Markers
Seven geodetic survey markers will be impacted by the proposed project. NCDOT
will notify N.C. Geodetic Survey prior to construction with regard to the survey markers
III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. Recommended Alternative
NCDOT will widen NC 279 to a multi-lane section with curb and gutter from
NC 7 (Ozark Avenue) in Gastonia to SR 2278 (Gaston Street) in Dallas. The proposed
typical section from NC 7 to the Carolina and Northwestern Railway will be 19.2 meters
(64 feet) wide from face to face of curbs. It will provide four through lanes (two in each
direction) and a continuous left-turn lane. The proposed typical section from the Carolina
and Northwestern Railway to SR 2278 will be 14.3 meters (47 feet) wide from face to
face of curbs. It will provide four through lanes (two in each direction). From NC 7 to
approximately 160 meters (525 feet) northward, the proposed widening will be performed
on the east side. From that location to Yates Street the widening will be symmetrical.
From Yates Street to the Carolina and Northwestern Railway, widening will be on the
west side. At the Carolina and Northwestern Railway, west-side widening will transition
to symmetrical widening to tie into the existing section north of the railway.
The completed project will provide a design speed of approximately 80 km/hr
(50 mph) south of the Carolina and Northwestern Railway. North of the railway the
design speed will be 65 km/hr (40 mph). It will require 30 meters (100 feet) of right of
way. Temporary construction easements will also be required throughout most of the
project. The total cost of this alternative is $13,723,500. The estimated right of way cost
is $6,923,500. The estimated construction cost is $6,800,000. There will be 35
residential relocations and 5 business relocations as a result of this project. The
recommended improvement will impact both Wetland # 1 and Wetland #2 (see Figure 7
and Section MCA). The recommended improvement avoids impacts to the Flint Grove
Elementary School, which is located on the west side of NC 279 near the south project
terminal and which has been determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places. It also avoids impacts to the Dallas Historic District, which is located
near the northern project terminus and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
The proposed improvements are shown in Figure 2.
B. Design Alternatives
Four alternatives to widen NC 279 to a multi-lane curb and gutter facility were
studied for different segments of the roadway. These alternatives are symmetrical
widening, east-side widening, west-side widening, and a combination of these three. The
recommended improvement was selected based upon the estimated number of residential
and business relocations, wetland impacts, impacts to historic properties, and other
environmental factors, in addition to project costs. Alternatives eliminated would provide
the same typical section and require approximately the same new right of way as the
recommended alternative. None of the other studied alternatives had less overall
environmental impact than the Recommended Alternative; therefore, NCDOT rejected
these alternatives.
From NC 7 to approximately 160 meters (525 feet) northward the proposed
widening will be performed on the east side of NC 279. This alternative will avoid
impacts to the Flint Grove Elementary School, a property eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places. Consideration was given to symmetrical widening, but was rejected,
since this alternate would impact Flint Grove Elementary School.
Symmetrical widening was chosen for the segment of NC 279 from 160 meters
(525 feet) north of NC 7 to Bridge # 12. Symmetrical widening was chosen for this
segment because of the even distribution of homes on both sides of NC 279. East-side
12
(19 residential and 0 business relocations) or west-side (21 residential and 0 business
relocations) widening would increase the number of residences and businesses relocated
and is not recommended. It is anticipated that 8 residential relocations and 0 business
relocations will result from symmetrical widening within this section of the project.
From Bridge # 12 (Long Creek) to SR 2335 (Yates Street) symmetrical widening
was chosen. Wetland # 2 is located on the east side of NC 279 within this segment. It is
anticipated that there will be 11 residential and 0 business relocation as a result of
symmetrical widening. While west-side widening would not impact Wetland # 2, it would
require more relocatees (12 residential and 1 business) than symmetrical widening. East-
side widening would impact more of Wetland #2 and is anticipated to require 12
residential and 2 business relocations. Symmetrical widening was chosen because of the
fewer number of relocatees and the even distribution of homes on both sides of NC 279.
West-side widening was chosen for the segment of NC 279 from SR 2335 (Yates
Street) to the Carolina and Northwestern Railway. Wetland # 1 is located on the west
side of NC 279 and will be impacted by the Recommended Alternative. While
symmetrical and east-side widening would minimize and avoid, respectively, impacts to
Wetland # 1, both these alternatives would result in more relocatees than west-side
widening and are not recommenced. It is anticipated that symmetrical widening would
require 21 residential and 4 business relocations. Eastside widening would require 16
residential and 7 business relocations. West-side widening (recommended) will require 16
residential and 5 business relocations.
The segment of NC 279 from the Carolina and Northwestern Railway to Gaston
Street is a two lane 14.3 meter (47 feet) face to face curb and gutter section. This section
is wide enough to accommodate four lanes of traffic. Widening this section to five lanes is
not recommended because of the resulting impacts to residences and businesses on both
sides of the roadway. Also, widening this segment to five lanes would impact the Dallas
Historic District (a National Register property) located at the northern terminus of the
project. The section of NC 279 north of Gaston Street consists of two travel lanes in each
direction and a left turn lane in the southbound direction. The southbound lanes are 3
meters (10 ft.) wide and the two northbound lanes are 3.2 meters (10.5 ft.) and 3.3 meters
(11 ft.) wide. The section of NC 279 between the Carolina and Northwestern Railway
and Gaston Street will provide a transition between the 3.6 meter (12 ft.) lanes south of
the railway and the 3 to 3.3 meter (10-11 ft.) lanes north of Gaston Street. For these
reasons, it is recommended that the section of NC 279 between the Carolina and
Northwestern Railway and Gaston Street be restriped to accommodate four lanes of traffic
(two in each direction).
C. Alternate Modes Of Transportation
No alternative mode of transportation such as mass transit, HOV lanes, van
pooling, or car pooling is a practical alternative. Highway transportation is the dominant
transportation mode in the project area, and the project involves widening an existing
road.
D. "Do Nothing" Alternative
Although this alternative would avoid the limited adverse environmental impacts
that are anticipated to result from the project, there would be no positive effect on the
traffic capacity and safety of the highway. Therefore, this alternative is not recommended.
13
E. Postponement Alternative
Currently, NC 279 is operating at capacity during peak traffic hours. Also, the
accident rate along NC 279 is substantially higher than the statewide average for similar
routes. Based on traffic projections, NC 279 will operate at level of service F in the
design year. Postponement of the project would result in continuing traffic service
deterioration as traffic volumes increase. Therefore, NCDOT does not recommend this
alternative.
IV. SOCIAL ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Social Effects
Land Use
The proposed improvement is located in the northwestern portion of
Gastonia and is primarily within the City's planning and zoning jurisdiction. A
small section of the project is located in Gaston County and the Town of Dallas's
planning and zoning jurisdictions.
a. Status of Planning
Gastonia is currently preparing its first comprehensive plan.
Currently, the City's zoning ordinance serves as its primary land
development policy.
Gaston County has an adopted land use plan and enforces zoning
regulations.
The Town of Dallas has a zoning ordinance in effect, adopted in
1969 and updated regularly.
b. Existing Land Use
The project area is a mix of practically every type of land use.
From the beginning of the project at NC 7 (Ozark Avenue) to Auten Road,
the land uses are primarily residential with some institutional and
undeveloped areas. The R. K. Hancock School is located on the west side
of the project at the NC 7 intersection. From Auten Road to Modena
Street, the area is heavily populated with residential uses and scattered
commercial uses on both sides of NC 279. Single-family is the primary
residential use. From Modena Street to Long Creek (Bridge No. 12),
residential uses and scattered commercial uses exist along both sides of
NC 279. New Hope Square, a strip mall, is located south of the Long
Creek Bridge on the west side of the highway. There is a convenient store
and service station across NC 279 from New Hope Square. From the
Long Creek Bridge to SR 2269, the area is less developed with mostly
residential and some commercial uses along the highway and wooded/
undeveloped areas beyond the residential uses. There is a cemetery
approximately .4 km (.25 mile) southwest of the SR 2269 intersection.
The City of Gastonia's planning and zoning jurisdiction ends at the
SR 2269 intersection, where Gaston County's jurisdiction encompasses the
project area to the town limits of Dallas.
14
The section of the project from SR 2269 to the Dallas town limits is
partially wooded and undeveloped with several industrial uses and a few
scattered residential uses. There is a small textile mill, the Alert Textiles
plant, and several small business uses located in this section of the project.
The remainder of the project corridor from the Dallas town limits to
SR 2278 (Gaston Street) is primarily residential with scattered commercial
uses.
C. Existing Zoning
According to the Gastonia Zoning Map, the project area within the
City jurisdiction is zoned residential. From NC 7 to Auten Road, the
project is zoned multi-family residential, and from Auten Road to Long
Creek, the project is zoned single family residential. The area from Long
Creek to the city limits a mix of multi-family and single-family residential
zones.
The section of the project corridor between the Gastonia and Dallas
municipal limits is zoned for industrial and commercial uses.
The remainder of the project within the Town of Dallas is zoned
single-family and multi-family residential with commercial possibilities.
d. Future Land Use
As previously mentioned, a comprehensive plan is underway for the
City of Gastonia. Until it is adopted, the primary land use guidance tool is
the City's zoning ordinance. The existing development throughout the
project area is consistent with the zoning districts it occupies. The City
indicates that the general area has supported a strong residential and
commercial rate of growth with some industrial uses between the Gastonia
and Dallas municipal limits. Residential and commercial growth is
expected to continue along the project corridor from NC 7 to SR 2269
(within Gastonia's city limits). Industrial growth is expected to continue
along the area from SR 2269 to the Dallas town limits. The section of the
project area in the City of Dallas town limits is expected to remain
primarily residential with small commercial and industrial uses.
e. Project Consistency with Local Plans
The widening of NC 279 will alleviate traffic congestion and
complete a continuous multi-lane facility from I-85 in Gastonia to US 321
in Dallas. No existing or planned parks or greenways will be affected by
the proposed improvements to NC 279.
2. Neighborhood Characteristics
Gaston County is located in the southwestern section of the state and is
bounded by the State of South Carolina and Cleveland, Lincoln, and Mecklenburg
Counties. Gaston County, according to the 1990 Census Data, has a population of
175,093. Gaston County had a population density (persons per square mile) in
1990 of 491.10.
15
The proposed project is within an urbanized neighborhood. The
neighborhood is characterized by residential and commercial development, as well
as scattered undeveloped areas.
Relocations
Additional right of way will be needed to construct the project. Temporary
construction easements will also be required. NCDOT anticipates the project will
require relocating 35 residences and 5 businesses. Relocation reports for the
project are included in Appendix 1 of this report (see pages Al-3 through Al-7).
For all relocations, it is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that
comparable replacement housing will be available prior to construction of State
and Federally assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of
Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the inconvenience of
relocation:
*Relocation Assistance
*Relocation Moving Payments, and
*Relocation replacement housing payments or rent supplement.
Appendix 1 contains information on the Division of Highways Relocation
Programs (see pages A 1-1 and A 1-2).
4. Environmental Justice
Of the 35 residential relocatees anticipated to result from the proposed
widening, none are minorities. Twelve low-income relocatees are anticipated as a
result of the proposed widening. The proposed widening is not anticipated to
disproportionately impact any minority or low-income communities.
Public Facilities
The Flint Grove Elementary School is situated just north of the
NC 279/NC 7 intersection on the west side of NC 279 and is no longer in
operation as a school. The proposed action will not adversely impact any public
facilities. Public facilities, like businesses, are generally enhanced by the widening
of highways because the widening has a tendency to improve accessibility.
6. Social Impacts
The proposed action will not disrupt community cohesion, and it will not
interfere with the accessibility of facilities and services.
The proposed widening of NC 279 to a multi-lane facility from NC 7 in
Gastonia to SR 2278 in Dallas will have a positive social impact. It will provide an
improved and safer highway facility for all users. Also, traffic congestion will be
decreased, thereby making it easier for travelers to reach their destinations.
Gaston County has a population of 175,093. The minority population is
24,005, or 13.71 percent of the total population. The percent of the population
with wages below the poverty level is 10.59. None of the 35 residential or 5
business relocatees on this project are minorities. Twelve relocatees along the
project are low income. The proposed widening is not anticipated to
disproportionately impact any minority or low-income communities.
16
7. Historic and Cultural Resources
Historic Architectural Resources
On 1 May 1995 a field survey was conducted by NCDOT staff
architectural historians. Thirty one properties were identified as possibly
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (see Figure 9). At the
time of this survey the northern project terminus was the Carolina and
Northwestern Railway.
The State Historic Preservation Office concurred with NCDOT on
8 June 1995 that properties 1-10 (shown on Figure 9) are not eligible for
the National Register. This concurrence form is included on page A4-15.
The State Historic Preservation Office concurred with NCDOT that
the Flint Grove Elementary School (Property # 24) is eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places in his letter dated 31 August 1995.
This concurrence letter is included on pages A4-16 and A4-17. At the
same time, SHPO requested additional information on Properties # 11-23
and 25-31 to allow them to comment on NCDOT's and FHWA's
determination of eligibility for those properties. After receiving the
additional information, SHPO concurred with NCDOT that Properties
#11-23 and 25-31 are not eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places individually or as a historic district (see Figure 9). This concurrence
form is included on page A4-20.
On 23 May 1996, SHPO, FHWA and NCDOT representatives meet
to discuss properties possibly eligible for the National Register within the
section of the project between the Carolina and Northwestern Railway and
Gaston Street. This section of the project was added after the Citizens
Informational Workshop. All parties were in agreement that the properties
within this extended segment of the project identified as Buildings 1-5
(within the Dallas Historic District) are not eligible for the National
Register (note: buildings 1-5 within the Dallas Historic District are not
shown on Figure 9). The concurrence form is included on page A4-19.
In a meeting on June 13, 1996 S14PO concurred with NCDOT that
the project will have no effect on the Dallas Historic District (listed on the
National Register), which begins midway between College and Gaston
Street (see Figure 2) and extends northward. This concurrence form is
included on pages A4-20 and A4-21. This determination of "no effect" is
based upon resurfacing and restriping work and not widening on the
segment of NC 279 from the railway to Gaston Street. No additional right
of way or easements will be purchased in this area.
In a meeting on June 27, 1996 SHPO concurred with NCDOT that
the recommended improvement will have no effect on the National
Register-eligible Flint Grove Elementary School. The concurrence form is
included on pages A4-23 and A4-24 in the Appendix. This determination
of "no effect" is based upon eastside widening of NC 279 from NC 7 to
approximately 160 meters (525 feet) northward. At this location widening
will transition from eastside to symmetrical widening. The transition to
17
symmetrical widening is north of the National Register eligible boundary
for the Flint Grove Elementary School (see Figure 2). No right of way or
easement will be purchased from the National Register-eligible portion of
the school property.
b. Archaeoloizical Resources
According to SHPO, there are no known archaeological sites within
the project area, and it is unlikely any archaeological resources eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the
project. SHPO recommended no survey for archaeological resources.
Based on this recommendation, no surveys were conducted. See page A4-
14 of Appendix 4 for a copy of correspondence from the SHPO.
8. Section 4(f) Resources
Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966
specifies that publicly owned land from a park, recreation area, or wildlife or
waterfowl refuge and land from historic resources of national, state, or local
significance may be used for Federal-Aid projects only if
(1) There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and
(2) Such highway program or project includes all possible planning to minimize
harm to 4(f) lands resulting from such use.
The project will not use property from any resource protected by Section 4(f).
B. Economic Effects
North Carolina Preliminary Civilian Labor Force Estimates (Preliminary Data for
May 1995) indicates that Gaston County has a labor force of 99,090. Out of this total,
95,660 persons are gainfully employed. This left an unemployment total of 3,430, or
3.5 percent.
In order to improve existing NC 279 by widening to a multi-lane highway facility,
it will be necessary to relocate approximately five businesses. However, the improved
highway facility will be a safer facility to transport goods and services. Increased
efficiency in getting goods and services to their destinations will result. In summary, the
proposed project will be beneficial for the majority of businesses in the project area.
C. Environmental Effects
1. Biological Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section
describes ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as the relationships
between fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of
biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography,
hydrologic influences, and past and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions
of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications. Dominant flora and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each
community are described and discussed. Faunal species observed during the site
visit, either directly or indirectly through spoor evidence, are highlighted by an
asterisk (*).
18
a. Terrestrial Communities
Six terrestrial communities were identified in the project study area:
man-dominated, alluvial forest, upland hardwood forest, pine forest, mixed
pine/hardwood forest, and bottomland hardwood forest. Transition zones
that display characteristics of adjacent communities are frequently seen
between habitat types. These transitional zones are referred to as ecotones.
Due to these gradual variations between habitats, community boundaries are
commonly ill-defined. Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may
populate the entire range of terrestrial communities discussed.
Man-Dominated Community. These regions of perpetual disturbance have
various land uses, including residential yards and maintained grass
lots/roadsides. The dominant herbaceous species found in this habitat are
fescue, dallis grass, Bermuda grass (C ny odon dactylon, plantain (Plantago
sp.), and clover (Trifolium sp.). Trees that have been planted in this
community are willow oak (Quercus phellos), white oak (Q. alba), southern
red oak (0. falcata), Bradford pear (Pyres callerxana), flowering dogwood
(Cornus florida), crepe myrtle (La,gerstroemia indica), and assorted junipers
(Juniperus spp.). In areas of less frequent maintenance, the previously stated
herbaceous layer is present with the addition of blackberry (Ru us sp:) and
Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota). Tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima)
and smooth sumac (Rhus lg abra) are saplings that are also found in areas of
sparse maintenance.
The composition of the faunal community found in this habitat is
largely influenced by the successional development of the vegetative
community. Many species forage in this habitat while remaining close to
adjacent areas that provide greater protective cover. An assortment of
animals are frequently found throughout disturbed habitats such as this.
Several organisms, like the white footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus),
eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomvs humulis), eastern fence lizard
(Scelogorus undulatus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilaaus floridanus), and
mourning dove* (Zenaida macroura) may subsist on the vegetative forage,
as well as insects and smaller organisms. The previously mentioned species
may expose themselves to predators like the black rat snake ( lE aphe
obsoleta), black racer (Coluber constrictor), American kestrel (Falco
saarverius), barred owl (Strix ygia), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis),
and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoar eg nteus). These organisms are known to
stalk prey in this habitat.
In addition to the avian representatives previously mentioned, several
other bird species may utilize this community. The eastern meadowlark
(Sturnella ma na), eastern bluebird (Sialia s?), northern mockingbird*
(Mimus poly l?r ottos), American robin* (Turdus migratorius), blue grosbeak
(Guiraca caerulea), and the American goldfinch ( ardeulis tristis) can likely
be found in this system.
Alluvial Forest. Alluvial forest habitat is found in association with Long
Creek. A well developed vegetative community is established throughout
the floodplain of this stream system. The canopy is comprised of green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black willow (S& niM), river birch (Betula
niara), and boxelder (Acer negundo). A well developed subcanopy is also
19
present in this community that consists of red maple (Acer rubrum),
boxelder, green ash, and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis). Smooth sumac,
tree of heaven, and blackberry are found along the open edges of this habitat
as well. The herbaceous layer is represented by false nettle (Boehmeria
cylindric a), barnyard grass (Echinochloa crusgalli), jewelweed (Impatiens
capensis), Pokeberry (Ph3golacca americana), giant cane (Arundinaria
ig_gantea), and winged verbesina (Verbesina occidentalis). Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera 'al ponica) and wild grape (Vitis sp.) are common
vines in this habitat.
Animal species known to utilize this vegetative community are the
ringneck snake (Diadolhis punctatus), American toad (Bufo americanus),
raccoon* (Procyon lotor), and white-tailed deer* (Odocoileus vir ing ianus).
Other animal species that are associated with this forest are the eastern box
turtle (Terrapene caroling), woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum), gray
squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), eastern
cottontail, and the Virginia opossum (Didelphis vir ing? iana).
The belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon) could potentially utilize this
habitat by nesting in the steep embankments of the alluvial floodplain. The
belted kingfisher forages from a perch by diving into water after minnows
and small fish. This bird needs to eat about 28 fish a day in order to meet its
nutritional requirements. The great blue heron (Ardea herodias) survives in
this habitat also by foraging on fish as well; however, it hunts by silently
a)
wading in the stream in search of prey. Barn swallows* (Hirundo rustic
are found in this habitat foraging on flying insects while finding refuge
beneath existing structures like the current bridge over Long Creek. The
abundant streamside mast producing trees and shrubs provide a good forage
base for wood ducks (Aix sponsa); moreover, the concealed stream provides
a good landing area for these birds. Other avians that commonly utilize the
vegetative component of this habitat are the brown thrasher (Toxostoma
rufum), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), downy woodpecker
(Picoides pubescens), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), Carolina
chickadee (Parus carolinensis), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), and
summer tanager (Piransza rubra).
Upland Hardwood Forest. The upland hardwood forest dominates the
vegetative cover in areas of little or no disturbance. This habitat is
characterized by moderate to steep slopes with well drained soils.
Vegetative species established in the canopy layer of this environment are
southern red oak ( uercus falcata), white oak Q. alba), pignut hickory
(Carva g b), tulip tree (Liriodendron), and interspersed short-leaf pine
(Pinus echinata). The subcanopy consists of flowering dogwood, pignut
hickory, red maple, winged elm (Ulmus alata), and blueberry (Vaccinium
sp.). The herbaceous/vine layer is poorly developed in this community and
consists primarily of opportunistic vines like poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera 'aaponica), Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus guinq-uefolia), and trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans).
Animal species commonly found in these surroundings include the
white-tailed deer*, eastern cottontail, raccoon*, gray squirrel*, and eastern
chipmunk. Although the animal community is comprised largely of species
also found in disturbed areas, the bird community occupying this habitat type
20
varies appreciably. Some representative species indigenous to this type of
natural system are: northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), ruby-crowned kinglet
(Regulus calendula), northern cardinal*, blue jay* (Cyanocitta cristata), red-
tailed hawk* (Buteo jamaicensis), Carolina chickadee*, and Carolina wren*
(Thryothorus ludovicianus).
Pine Forest. This ecotype is located at the higher elevations in the project
area and it exists in various stages of succession. It is characterized by
moderate to steeply sloping, well drained soils. These soils usually have
poor fertility with shallow soil depth to parent material. Virginia pine
(Pinus virgimana) and short-leaf pine are the most prominent canopy species.
Representatives of eastern redbud Cercis canadensis), winged elm, red
maple, blackgum (Nyssa s lvy atica), and black cherry (Prunus s rotina are
most evident in the understory. Due to the young age of much of this
habitat, the herbaceous layer is well developed. Barnyard grass, broomstraw
(Andropogon sp.), lespedeza (Lespedeza sp.), asters Aster spp.), heal all
(Prunella vulgaris), and golden rod (Solida o sp.) predominate the herb
layer.
The young pine trees commonly found in this community provide
dense cover and forage opportunities for many of the previously mentioned
animal species, especially white-tailed deer and eastern cottontail. These
two species are primarily nocturnal and commonly utilize these dense pine
stands to conceal flight after feeding in adjacent maintained habitats.
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest. This community is present on the rolling
topography of the study area. The canopy species present are Virginia pine,
short leaf pine, rock chestnut oak ( uercus prinus), and tulip tree
(Liriodendron tulipifera). An understory is present and consists of flowering
dogwood, red maple, water oak (Q_ nigra), willow oak (Q. h llos),
sassafras Sassafras albidum), black cherry, sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), blueberry, and green ash. The herb/vine layer is poorly
developed and consists of English ivy (Hedera helix), greenbner (Smilax
sp.), wild grape (Vitis sp.), and poison ivy.
Animal species found in the upland hardwood and pine forests may
also be found in this mixed pine hardwood habitat. In addition to the
previously stated fauna, the gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis) and brown
thrasher could utilize the dense vegetation for both foraging and nesting. The
white-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis) could also inhabit this
community by taking advantage of a well stratified canopy, which provides a
wide variety of seeds and fruit. The short-leaf pines found in this community
also provide winter cover in which many additional bird species could inhabit
during the winter months.
Bottomland Hardwood Forest. This community is present at the bottom of
some rolling hills found in the project area. In these low areas the canopy
consists of sweetgum, sycamore Platanus occidentalis), tulip tree, and red
maple. The understory consisted of dense thickets of Chinese privet
(Liuustrum sinense) with interspersed ironwood (Carpinus carolinianal red
maple, sweetgum, blueberry, and swamp rose (Rosa alp ustris). Little
herbaceous vegetation is present beneath the dense privet growth, however,
representatives of elderberry and false nettle are found in more open areas.
Vine species present in this habitat are Japanese honeysuckle and poison ivy.
21
The fauna which inhabit this community are very similar to those of
the upland community, with the addition of some species that prefer wetter
environments like the marbled and northern dusky salamanders (Ambystoma
ooacum and Desmognathus scus, respectively). In addition to terrestrial
animals, there are many avian species that are known to inhabit this
community. The red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus ovenbird Seiurus
aurocapillus), wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina). red-shouldered hawk
Buteo lineatus rufous-sided towhee Pi ilo e0ghrophthalmus), blue-gray
gnatcatcher Polio tila caerulea), and barred owl characteristically utilize this
habitat for either foraging or nesting purposes.
b. Aauatic Communities
One piedmont perennial stream is found in the project area, along
with one intermittent stream system. Physical characteristics of the water
body and condition of the water resource reflect faunal composition of the
aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water resource
also greatly influence aquatic communities. Long Creek had a sufficient
water level and cover to support a number of aquatic/semi-aquatic
organisms. It remains unknown, however, whether this stream is clean
enough to sustain this aquatic life. The water appeared unpolluted with only
a few articles of garbage present in the substrate at the proposed crossing.
There was a significant amount of erosion beneath the existing bridge and
during storm events this area would give rise to appreciable sedimentation
due to the fine textured alluvial soil. No aquatic organisms were observed
during the site visit, but smaller fish species likely to occur in this habitat are
the greenhead shiner (Notropis chlorocephalus), creek chub
(Semotilus atromaculatus), and rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides).
These small fish may be preyed upon by those that are larger like the
pumpkinseed Le omis ibgbosun), bluegill Le orris macrochirus). and
redbreast sunfish Le omis auritus). The pickerel frog (Rana alustris and
green frog Rana clamitans are amphibians frequently found in this habitat,
also. In addition to the previously mentioned bird species, the northern
water snake (Nerodia si edon is a common fish and amphibian predator.
The ephemeral stream crossed by the proposed project has a low
water level with some shallow stagnant pools. This stream was not observed
to support a fish population, but if one exists, it would likely be comprised of
the smaller fish species mentioned previously. The stagnant pools, however,
provide ideal habitat for amphibian reproduction, foraging, and cover. Some
of the amphibians earlier discussed are likely to occur here.
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the
biotic resources described. Any construction related activities in or near
these resources have the potential to impact biological functions. This
section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms of
area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts
are considered here, as well.
Impacts to the biotic communities of the proposed project area can
be divided into two primary categories. The first category of impacts
consists of currently maintained habitats that are already quite disturbed and
feature relatively low diversity. In this case there will be an initial stress
22
placed upon the species that inhabit this community; however, long term
negative impacts should be minimal due to the large influence man has
exercised already upon this habitat type. The second category of impacts
can be classified as the new alignment portion of the project, where
substantial manipulations of the indigenous vegetation and area landscape
will have to occur. In so doing, many species will be displaced from
nesting/denning sites and will likely suffer from physiological stresses
associated with their forced migration. Furthermore, the widened corridor
will further decrease the diminishing amount of faunal habitat found in the
project area. With this larger roadway comes an increased potential for
inadvertent faunal deaths associated with increased traffic volumes.
However, the majority of the species that compose this area's animal
community are edge adapted species which proliferate in disturbed edge
habitats. This region is already largely manipulated, thus implying that the
detrimental affects posed by the proposed road widening will be minimal.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative
abundance of each community present in the study area. Project
construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of these
communities. Table 5 summarizes potential quantitative losses to these
biotic communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts
are derived using the entire environmental study area width of 40.6 meters
(130.0 R) along the length of the project, except at the crossing of an
unnamed ephemeral tributary of Little Long Creek, where the study area is
51.6 meters (165 ft) in width. Biotic impact calculations are based upon
these study area widths; actual impacts will be less than the reported
acreages.
TABLE 5 ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
COMMUNITY
IMPACTED AREA
Man-Dominated Community 14.6 (36.0)
Alluvial Forest 0.1 (0.2)
Upland Hardwood Forest 0.5 (1.2)
Pine Forest 0.7 (1.6)
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 1.0 (2.5)
Bottomland Hardwood Forest 0.9 (2.1)
TOTAL IMPACTS 17.8 (43.6)
Note: Areas are cited in hectares (acres).
2. Threatened and Endangered Species
a. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been, or are currently in,
the process of decline, either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist
with man. Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act
23
of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely impact a
species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the Fish and
Wildlife (FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under
separate state laws.
b. Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT)
are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 1 April 1996, the FWS lists no
federally-protected species for Gaston County.
C. Federal Candidate Species and State Listed Species
The bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) and Georgia aster (Aster
georgianus) are the only federal candidate species (C2) listed for Gaston
County. The bog turtle is classified by the state as Threatened (T) and is
afforded state protection; however, its habitat is not found within the
project area. Suitable habitat for the Georgia aster is present within the
project area, but this species is not protected by the state. Surveys for
these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were these
species observed.
A review of the data base of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program
rare species and unique habitats revealed the presence of bigleaf magnolia
(Magnolia macrophylla) approximately 0.6 km (0.4 mi) downstream of the
existing Long Creek bridge, which is to be replaced as part of the subject
project. The bigleaf magnolia is not granted state protection; however, the
presence of this rare species should be noted. The habitat of bigleaf
magnolia is rich deciduous forests, and in this instance it appears that it is
growing in close relation to Long Creek, therefore making it sensitive to
high water levels and/or toxins introduced to the stream system. Best
Management Practices will be implemented in the replacement of Long
Creek Bridge in order to insure the safety of this species as well as
environmental quality downstream. Further investigation revealed no
records of additional rare and/or protected species in or near [1.6 km (1.0
mi) radius] the project study area.
3. Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to
be impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses physical
aspects of the resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage
Standards, and water quality of the resources. Probable impacts to these water
bodies are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
a. Waters Impacted and Characteristics
The proposed project is located in the Catawba River Basin. It
traverses two stream channels (1 perennial, 1 intermittent). The perennial
stream is Long Creek and the intermittent stream is an unnamed tributary of
Little Long Creek. Long Creek eventually flows into South Fork Catawba
River. Evidence of scour and deposition are present at both stream
24
crossings, likely due to the high amount of development in and upstream of
the project area. Physical characteristics of these streams are described in
Table 6.
TABLE 6 STREAM CHARACTERISTICS
CHARACTERISTICS
LONG CREEK
STREAM
UT LITTLE LONG CREEK
Substrate
Flow Rate
Channel Width
Channel Depth
Water Color
Aquatic Vegetation
Sand/Cobble
Moderate
7.8 in (25.0 ft)
0.6 in (2.0 ft)
Clear
None
Sand
Slow
1.0 in (3.2 ft)
0.3 in (1.0 ft)
Stained
None
NOTES: UT=Unnamed Tributary
b. Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). The unnamed tributary of
Little Long Creek and Long Creek have both been given a classification of
"C" in the project area. This classification denotes that the primary use of the
water resource is that of aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Neither High Quality Waters
(HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS-II), nor Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) downstream of project study
area.
C. Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
managed by DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality
monitoring program which addresses long term trends in water quality. The
program assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates
are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species
richness and overall biomass are reflections of water quality.
BMAN data was gathered approximately 0.2 km (0.1 mi)
downstream of the confluence of Little Long Creek and Long Creek at
SR 2003, 3.7 km (2.3 mi) east of the proposed project. The bioclassification
at this monitoring point is fair. Point source dischargers located throughout
North Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to
register for a permit. Carolina Water Service is permitted to release
subdivision wastewater into Little Long Creek at a rate of 0.022 million
gallons per day. Table 7 describes the numerous permitted dischargers
currently utilizing the Long Creek Watershed.
25
TABLE 7. LONG CREEK--PERMITTED WASTEWATER DISCHARGERS
Discharger Amount (MGD) Wastewater Type
Gastonia WWTP 8.0000 Textile and Laundry Waste
Wright Residence 0.0009 Single Family
Dallas WWTP 0.7500 Municipal
Martin Marietta 0.0000 Mine Dewatering
Stevcoknit Fabrics 0.0000 1) Non-Contact Cooling Water and
Condensate
2) Cooling Tower Blowdown
Lithium Corp. of 0.0000 1) Mining and Material
America Processing
2) Mine Dewatering
Gastonia WWTP 1.2000 Water Plants (Surface Water)
NOTES: WWTP=Wastewater Treatment Plant
MGD=Million Gallons Per Day
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Potential impacts to the project area water resources, resulting from
construction-related sedimentation, include decreases of dissolved oxygen in
the water and changes in temperature, as a result of vegetation loss and
reduction of water clarity. Alterations of water level, due to interruptions in
surface and groundwater flow, as well as increased concentrations of toxic
compounds from highway runoff are other possible impacts that may affect
the waters in the project area as well as the water quality of Long Creek,
Little Long Creek, and South Fork Catawba River downstream. Erosive
runoff is a major concern due to the substantial development of the area.
The silt floodplain associated with Long Creek currently displays substantial
sedimentation. Strict adherence to NCDOT's Sedimentation Control
Guidelines will be required in order to minimize impacts to the project area.
Best management practices (BMP's) will also be followed in order to
minimize potential impacts to the project area and downstream as a result of
the project construction.
4. Jurisdictional Wetlands
This section provides descriptions, inventories, and impact analysis pertinent
to Waters of the United States.
a. Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of
Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are
those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life
26
in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into these
areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
b. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric
soils, hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. Two bottomland regions were
found to meet the above wetland criteria (see Figure 7 for locations).
Wetland site # 1 is located on the west side of NC 279, approximately 0.2
km (0.1 mi) east of the Dallas City Limits. Wetland site # 2 is located on the
east side of NC 279, about 0.5 km (0.3 mi) east of Coleman St. (SR 2327).
No National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map exists for this area;
however, the Cowardin classification for these wetlands would be PFO1 C.
This classification is interpreted as palustrine (P), forested (FO) habitat with
broad-leaved, deciduous vegetation. The water regime is seasonally flooded
(C).
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts To Wetlands
Both wetland areas identified within the project limits are
approximately 0.1 ha (0.25 ac) in size. Less than 0.2 hectare (0.5 acre) of
wetlands will be filled by the project. A primary concern is the large amount
of fill material that will be necessary to widen these crossings and bring them
up to the roadway grade. Due to the substantial elevation difference
between the current roadway and the subject wetlands, the fill line is
expected to extend into these wetlands. Minimization of impacts to
wetlands will be studied during final design.
As explained in Section III.B of this report, avoiding impacts to these
wetlands would increase the number of relocations along the project,
especially in the vicinity of Wetland Site #l. Also, because the wetlands are
relatively close and on opposite sides of NC 279, shifting the proposed
widening to avoid both wetland sites is not feasible. Impacts to Wetland Site
# 2 are minimized by widening symmetrically rather than on the east side in
that vicinity. Westside widening to avoid Wetland Site # 2 would result in
more relocatees than symmetrical widening. If the proposed widening were
performed symmetrically or on the east side in the vicinity of Wetland Site #
I to minimize or avoid, respectively, impacts to that site, the number of
houses relocated would increase.
d. 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 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.
27
Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable
possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According
to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE, in determining "appropriate and
practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should
be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in
terms of cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project
purposes.
f. Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable
steps to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States.
Implementation of these steps will be required through project modifications
and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the
footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths,
ROW widths, fill slopes, and/or road shoulder widths. If impacts to the
wetland community cannot be avoided, then impacts to these sites should be
minimized to the fullest extent possible. This objective could be achieved by
minimizing the amount of fill utilized in the bottomland systems. Other
practical alternatives to minimize impacts to the waters crossed by the
proposed project are listed below.
- Strict enforcement of sedimentation control Best Management
Practices (BMP's) for the protection of surface waters during the
entire life of the project
- Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity, particularly in riparian
areas
- Reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams
- Reduction of runoff velocity
- Re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas, with judicious
pesticide and herbicide management
- Minimization of "in-stream" activity
- Litter/debris control.
The use of any number of these methods will be effective in reducing
water quality degradation resulting from project construction.
g. Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated
impacts to Waters of the U.S. have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands"
functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit action.
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for
unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all avoidance and
minimization options have been explored. Compensatory actions often
include restoration, creation, and enhancement of waters of the U. S.,
specifically wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent
to, or contiguous to, the impacted site.
28
Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do not require
compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum Agreement
between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the
Army. If the demands called for by Nationwide 14 are not met,
compensatory mitigation will need to be addressed in order to compensate
for those wetlands taken by the proposed project. Final decisions regarding
this matter lie with the COE.
Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters are anticipated. Such
impacts require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) prior to the approval of Section 404
authorization. In accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the COE for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
The wetlands present fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. COE and may
require a Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (14) which is applicable at most ditch
and stream crossings found in the project study area. If the criteria for Nationwide
Permit 14 are not met then an Individual Permit may be necessary. Nationwide
Permit 14 authorizes construction provided the following conditions are met:
(1) the width of the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for the actual
crossing;
(2) the fill placed in Water of the United States is limited to a filled area of no
more than 0.1 hectares (1 /3 acre);
(3) no more than a total of 61 m (200 linear ft) of the fill for the roadway can
occur in special aquatic sites, including wetlands;
(4) the crossing is culverted, bridged or otherwise designed to prevent the
restriction of, and to withstand, expected high flows and tidal flows and
movement of aquatic organisms, and;
(5) the crossing, including all attendant features, both temporary and
permanent, is part of a single and complete project for crossing Water of
the United States.
6. Soils
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area, are discussed
below. Soil types and water availability directly influence composition and
distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community.
Gaston County lies in the piedmont physiographic province. The
topography of Gaston County is characterized by rolling terrain with moderate,
bottomiand floodplains. The dominant land use in the area is residential development
with forest stands interspersed. The dominant soil found in the project area is Cecil-
Urban Land Complex (CfB). This mapping Unit consists of intermingled Cecil
Series and Urban Land with Cecil soil composing 50-65% of the soil. Cecil soil's
color ranges from yellowish-red to red, and it is well drained and frequently found
29
on broad upland ridges. Although no hydric soils are mapped by the soil survey in
the project area, two small areas exhibiting wetland characteristics are located within
project limits. One wetland is located on the south side of NC 279, approximately
0.2 km (0.1 mi) east of the Dallas City Limits. The other wetland pocket is located
on the north side of NC 279, about 0.5 km (0.3 mi) east of Coleman St. (SR 2327).
7. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Gaston County and the City of Gastonia both are participants in the
National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The Long Creek stream crossing is
included in the detailed Flood Insurance Study for Gastonia. Copies of the Flood
boundary and Floodway Map, on which are delineated the established limits of the
100-year floodplain and floodway in the vicinity of this crossing, are attached (see
Figure 8). The floodplain in the vicinity of the Long Creek crossing is residentially
and commercially developed; however there were no buildings observed to have
floor elevations below the 100-year flood level. Due to superelevation of the
pavement in the vicinity of this crossing, the proposed widening will slightly lower
the bottom of bridge, thereby slightly reducing the waterway opening under the
bridge. Therefore, a floodway revision may be required for this bridge widening.
During final design, Hydraulics Design Unit will coordinate with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency and local officials regarding the need for a
floodway revision.
The stream crossing at Long Creek is below headwaters. The existing
structure is proposed to be retained and widened, and it is not anticipated that an
individual environmental permit will be required. This project is not in a water
supply watershed, nor in a high quality water zone; therefore, erosion and
sedimentation will be controlled through the appropriate specification, installation,
and maintenance of standard erosion and sedimentation control measures. Existing
drainage patterns will be maintained to the extent practicable. Groundwater
resources will be assessed during final hydraulic design to ensure that appropriate
measures are taken, if necessary, to prevent groundwater contamination.
8. Stream Modification
There will be no stream modifications on this project.
9. 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. The project area is characterized by industrial and residential development.
The undeveloped land likely to be affected by the project is in an area experiencing
30
industrial and commercial growth and is itself zoned for industrial and commercial
uses. Therefore, no further consideration of potential impacts to prime and
important farmland soils is required.
10. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed
widening of NC 279 from NC 7 in Gastonia to SR 2278 in Dallas in Gaston
County on noise levels in the immediate project area. This investigation includes
an inventory of existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient
(existing) noise levels in the study area. It also includes a comparison of the
predicted noise levels and the ambient noise levels to determine if traffic noise
impacts can be expected resulting from the proposed project. Traffic noise
impacts are determined from the current procedures for the abatement of highway
traffic noise and construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code
of Federal Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and
evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the
noise impacts must be considered.
Characteristics of Noise
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from
many sources, including airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation
plants, and highway vehicles. Highway noise, or traffic noise, is usually a
composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive train, and tire-roadway
interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure.
Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used
to relate sound pressures to some common reference level, usually the
decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in decibels are called sound
pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency weighted scales
(A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle
noise measurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency
range to which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz).
Sound levels measured using a weighted-A decibel scale are often
expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, all noise levels will be
expressed in dBA's. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are
listed in Appendix 2, Table N1 (see page A2-2).
Review of Table N1 indicates that most individuals in urbanized
areas are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources as they go
about their daily activities. The degree of disturbance or annoyance of
unwanted sound depends essentially on three things:
31
1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) The relationship between the background noise and the intruding
noise.
3) The type of activity occurring when the noise is heard.
In considering the first of these three factors, it is important to note
that individuals have different sensitivity to noise. Loud noises bother
some more than others and some individuals become upset if an unwanted
noise persists. The time patterns of noise also enter into an individual's
judgment of whether or not a noise is offensive. For example, noises
occurring during sleeping hours are usually considered to be more
offensive than the same noises in the daytime.
With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge the
annoyance of an unwanted noise in terms of its relationship to noise from
other sources (background noise). The blowing of a car horn at night
when background noise levels are approximately 45 dBA would generally
be more objectionable than the blowing of a car horn in the afternoon when
background noises might be 55 dBA.
The third factor is related to the interference of noise with activities
of individuals. In a 60 dBA environment, normal conversation would be
possible, while sleep might be difficult. Work activities requiring high levels
of concentration may be interrupted by loud noises, while activities
requiring manual effort may not be interrupted to the same degree.
Over time, particularly if the noises occur at predicted intervals and
are expected, individuals tend to accept the noises which intrude into their
lives. Attempts have been made to regulate many of these types of noises
including airplane noise, factory noise, railroad noise, and highway traffic
noise. In relation to highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and control
have developed rapidly over the past few years.
b. Noise Abatement Criteria
in order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not
compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria (NAC) and procedures to
be used in the planning and design of highways. These abatement criteria
and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned Federal reference (Title
23 CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various
land uses is presented in Appendix 2, Table N2 (See page A2-3). The Leq,
or equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound which, in a given
situation and time period, has the same energy as does time varying sound.
In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are represented
in terms of a steady noise level with the same energy content.
32
Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were determined for the project by
utilizing the most current traffic noise prediction model with the existing
roadway and traffic conditions (see Table N3 and Figure N1 on pages A24
and A2-1, respectively). Based on past project history, this computer
model has been a reliable tool for determining highway traffic noise levels.
The purpose of this noise level information was to quantify the existing
acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact of
noise level increases. The existing Leq noise level along NC 279 as
measured at 7.5 meters from the center of the near lane of traffic ranged
from 69.9 to 66.6 dBA.
d. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large number of
variables which describe different cars driving at different speeds through a
continual changing highway configuration and surrounding terrain. Due to
the complexity of the problem, certain assumptions and simplifications
must be made to predict highway traffic noise.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was
the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA
(revised March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is
based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-
RD-77-108). The BCR traffic noise prediction model uses the number and
type of vehicles on the planned roadway, their speeds, the physical
characteristics of the road (curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.), receptor
location and height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier ground
elevation, and barrier top elevation.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary alignment was
available for use in this noise analysis. The project proposes to widen the
existing two lanes of NC 279 to a five-lane curb and gutter section. Only
those existing natural or man-made barriers were included in setting up the
model. The roadway sections and proposed intersections were assumed to
be flat and at-grade. Thus, this analysis represents the "worst- case"
topographical conditions. The noise predictions made in this report are
highway-related noise predictions for the traffic conditions during the year
being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were
compared, and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used
with the proposed posted speed limits. Hence, during all other time
periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those indicated in this
report.
33
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to
determine the number of land uses (by type) which would be impacted
during the peak hour of the design year 2018. A land use is considered to
be impacted when exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the
FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or predicted to sustain a substantial
noise increase. The basic approach was to select receptor locations such as
7.5, 15, 30, 60, 120, 240, and 480 meters from the center of the near traffic
lane (adaptable to both sides of the roadway). The location of these
receptors were determined by the changes in projected traffic volumes
and/or the posted speed limits along the proposed project. The result of
this procedure was a grid of receptor points along the project. Using this
grid, noise levels were calculated for each identified receptor.
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are
listed in Appendix 2, Table N4 (see page A2-5 through A2-10).
Information included in these tables consist of listings of all receptors in
close proximity to the project, their ambient and predicted noise levels, and
the estimated noise level increase for each.
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category that
are predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is shown in
Appendix 2, Table N5 (see page A2-11). These are noted in terms of those
receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts by approaching or
exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise
levels. One hundred and fifty eight receptors will be impacted by future
traffic noise. Of these receptors none will experience a substantial increase
in exterior noise levels. Other information included in Table N5 is the
maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours. This
information should assist local authorities in exercising land use control
over the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local
jurisdiction. For example, with the proper information on noise, the local
authorities can prevent further development of incompatible activities and
land uses with the predicted noise levels of an adjacent highway.
Table N6 (see Appendix 2, page A2-1 l) indicates the exterior
traffic noise level increases for the identified receptors in each roadway
section. Predicted noise level increases for this project range from +2 to
+5 dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is possible to barely detect
noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily
noticeable. A 10 dBA change is judged by most people as a doubling or a
halving of the loudness of the sound.
e. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic noise levels
either: [a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with
34
"approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the Table N2 value), or [b]
substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The NCDOT definition of
substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Table N2.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors
which fall in either category. Possible methods of traffic noise abatement
are addressed below.
Highway Alignment
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or vertical
orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize
impacts and costs. The selection of alternative alignments for noise
abatement purposes must consider the balance between noise impacts and
other engineering and environmental parameters. For noise abatement,
horizontal alignment selection is primarily a matter of siting the roadway at
a sufficient distance from noise sensitive areas. Changing the highway
alignment is not a viable alternative for noise abatement for this project and
is not recommended.
Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type, speed,
volume, and time of operations are often effective noise abatement
measures. For this project, traffic management measures are not
considered appropriate for noise abatement due to their effect on the
capacity and level-of-service on the proposed roadway and are not
recommended.
Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can often
be applied with a measurable degree of success by the application of solid
mass, attenuable measures to effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect
highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass, attenuable measures may
include earth berms or artificial abatement walls.
The project will maintain only limited control of access, meaning
most commercial establishments and residences will have direct access
connections to the proposed roadway, and all intersections will adjoin the
project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be
high enough and long enough to shield the receptor from significant
sections of the highway. Access openings in the barrier severely reduce the
noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then becomes economically
unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at
35
access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight
distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a
barrier's length would normally be 8 times the distance from the barrier to
the receptor. For example, a receptor located 15 meters from the barrier
would normally require a barrier 120 meters long. An access opening of 12
meters (10 percent of the area) would limit its noise reduction to
approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND ABATEMENT OF
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No. FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-
1, USDOT, chapter 5, section 3.2, page 5-27).
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments
located along a particular highway normally require accessibility and high
visibility. Solid mass, attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement
would tend to disallow these two qualities, and thus, would not be
acceptable abatement measures in this case. For these reasons, noise
barriers are not recommended.
"Do Nothing Alternative"
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" or "no-build"
alternative were also considered. If the widening did not occur, 96
residences are predicted to experience traffic noise impact in the year 2018.
Also, the receptors could anticipate experiencing an increase in exterior
noise levels in the range of 0 to +2 dBA. As previously noted, it is barely
possible to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change in
noise levels is more readily noticed. This small increase would be barely
noticeable to the people living and working in the area.
g. Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be
earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise
impacts, such as temporary speech interference for passers-by and those
individuals living or working near the project, can be expected, particularly
from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment during
grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term nature
of construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours,
these impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss
characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-made structures are
believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction
noise.
h. Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not
recommended, and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This
36
evaluation completes the highway traffic noise requirements of Title 23
CFR Part 772, and unless a major project change develops, no additional
noise reports will be submitted for this project.
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the
Federal/State governments are no longer responsible for providing noise
abatement measures for new development which building permits are
issued within the noise impact area of a proposed highway after the Date of
Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the location of a
proposed highway project will be the approval date of the Categorical
Exclusion, Finding of No Significant Impact, Record of Decision, or the
Design Public Hearing, whichever comes later. For development occurring
after this public knowledge date, local governing bodies are responsible to
insure that noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility.
11. Air Quality Anal
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industrial
and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. Other origins of
common outdoor air pollution are solid waste disposal and any form of fire. The
impact resulting from highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air
pollution problems to improving the ambient air conditions. The traffic is the
center of concern when determining the impact of a new highway facility or the
improvement of an old highway facility. Motor vehicles emit carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide
(SO2), and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing emission rate). Automobiles are
considered to be the major source of CO in the project area. For this reason, most
of the analysis presented below is concerned with determining expected carbon
monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor
closest to the highway project, two concentration components must be used: local
and background. The local concentration is defined as the CO emissions from cars
operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances within 100 meters) of the
receptor location. The background concentration is defined by the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources as "the concentration
of a pollutant at a point that is the result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that
is, the concentration at the upwind edge of the local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the NCDOT
Traffic Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer modeling, and the
background concentration was obtained from the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). Once the two
concentration components were resolved, they were added together to determine
the ambient CO concentration for the receptor in question and to compare to the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
37
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.
Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried into the
atmosphere, where they react with sunlight to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide.
Automotive emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future due to
the continued installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new
cars. However, regarding area-wide emissions, these technological improvements
maybe offset by the increasing number of cars on the transportation facilities of the
area.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require
several hours to occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur
10 to 20 kilometers downwind of the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban
areas as a whole are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets
and highways. The emissions of all sources in an urban area mix together in the
atmosphere, and in the presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to form ozone,
nitrogen dioxide, and other photochemical oxidants. The best example of this type
of air pollution is the smog which forms in Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter
and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources account for less than 7 percent
of particulate matter emissions and less than 2 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions.
Particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of
non-highway sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural). Because
emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from automobiles are very low,
there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the project will cause air quality
standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline. The
burning of regular gasoline emits lead as a result of regular gasoline containing
tetraethyl lead, which is added by refineries to increase the octane rating of the
fuel. Newer cars with catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline eliminating lead
emissions. Also, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
required the reduction in the lead content of leaded gasolines. The overall average
lead content of gasoline in 1974 was 0.53 grams per liter. By 1989, this composite
average had dropped to 0.003 grams per liter. In the future, lead emissions are
expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead content of
leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 make the
sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful after
December 31, 1995. Because of these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the
proposed project will cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO
concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CAL3QHC -
A Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway
Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration at the nearest sensitive
receptor to the project.
38
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO concentrations
consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic
volumes, vehicle emission factors, and worst-case meteorological parameters. The
traffic volumes are based on the annual average daily traffic projections. The traffic
volume used for the CAUQHC model was the highest volume within any
alternative. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for the
completion year of 1998 and the design year of 2018 using the EPA publication
"Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the MOBILE 5A mobile source emissions
computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be
1.8 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division of
Environmental Management, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is
suitable for most suburban/rural areas.
The worst-case air quality receptor was determined to be receptor #31 at a
distance of 23 meters from the proposed centerline of the roadway. The one-hour
CO concentrations for the nearest sensitive receptor for the years of 1998 and
2018 are shown in the following table.
TABLE 8 - 1-Hour CO Concentrations PPM
Nearest Build No-Build
Sensitive
Receptor
1998 2018
1998 2018
R-31 2.8 2.6 2.9 2.7
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS
maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging
period = 9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the
worst-case 1-hour CO analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-
hour CO level does not exceed the standard. See Appendix 3, Tables Although A4
(Pages A3-1 and A34), for input data and output.
The project is located in Gaston County, which is within the Charlotte-
Gastonia nonattainment area for ozone (03) as defined by the EPA. The 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated these areas as "moderate"
nonattainment area for 03. However, due to improved monitoring data, these
areas were redesignated as "maintenance" for 03 on July 5, 1995. Section 176 of
the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to
the intent of the state air quality implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does
not contain any transportation control measures for Gaston County. The Gaston
39
Urban Area MPO 1995 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) has been
determined to conform to the intent of the SIP. The MPO approval date for the
TIP is July 31, 1995. The USDOT approval date of the TIP is September 20,
1995. The current conformity determination is consistent with the final conformity
rule found in 40 CFR Part 51. There have been no significant changes in the
project's design concept or scope, as used in the conformity analyses.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from
clearing and grubbing, demolition, or other operations will be removed from the
project, burned, or otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning will be
done in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of
the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
Care will be taken to insure that burning will be done at the greatest practical
distance from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create
a hazard to the public. Burning will only be utilized under constant surveillance.
Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort
of motorists or area residents. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA
process, and no additional reports are necessary.
12. Hazardous Materials and Underground Storage Tanks
A field reconnaissance survey identified one operational facility and four
non-operational facilities with the possibility for underground storage tanks within
the project corridor. NCDOT will conduct a site assessment of underground
storage facilities located within the project area prior to right of way acquisition.
If leaks and contamination has occurred, NCDOT will notify DEM. Also, an
appropriate amount will be withheld from the property owner during right of way
acquisition for clean up.
The Geographical Information Service (GIS) was consulted for the project
corridor. The research showed that no regulated or unregulated landfills or
dumpsites occur within the project limits. Based on the field reconnaissance and
records search, there should be no further environmental conflicts which should
impact this project.
13. Construction Impacts
To minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction, the following
measures, along with those already mentioned, will be implemented during the
construction phase:
a. Waste and debris shall be disposed of in areas that are outside of
the right-of-way and provided by the Contractor, unless otherwise required
by the plans or special provision by the Engineer. Disposal of waste and
40
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.
b. Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible to
alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes.
Care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
d. An extensive rodent control program will be established if
structures are to be removed or demolished
e. Telephone, water, sewer, and electric utilities exist along the
project. The Department of Transportation will hold a preconstruction
conference between the Department, the Contractor, representatives of the
involved utility companies, and pertinent local officials. Methods to
coordinate utility adjustments will be discussed at this conference. The
contractor will prepare a work schedule that minimizes possible damage to
these utilities and interruption of service.
f. During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting
from clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed
from the project and burned or otherwise disposed of by the Contractor.
Any burning done will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation
Plan for air quality. 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.
g. An erosion control schedule will be developed by the contractor
before starting work. The schedule will show the time relationship
between phases of the work that must be coordinated to reduce erosion
and describe construction practices and temporary erosion control
measures that will be used to minimize erosion. In conjunction with this
schedule, the contractor will be required to follow those provisions of the
plans and specifications pertaining to erosion and siltation. Temporary
erosion control measures such as berms, dikes, dams, silt basin, and others
will be used as needed.
h. Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for the use
on this project, the contractor shall obtain a certification from the State
Historic Preservation Officer of the State Department of Cultural
Resources certifying that the removal of the material from the borrow
source will have no effect on any known district, site, building, structure,
41
or object that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. A copy
of this certification shall be furnished to the Engineer prior to performing
any work on the proposed borrow source.
i. Measures will be taken in allaying the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and
comfort of motorists or area residents.
j. Traffic service in the immediate project area may be briefly
disrupted during construction. Efforts will be made to ensure the
transportation needs of the public will be met during and after construction.
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Received
The project has been coordinated with appropriate federal, state, and local
agencies listed below. An asterisk ("*") denotes agencies from which written comments
were received.
U. S. Department of the Army--Wilmington District Corps of Engineers*
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service--Asheville
N.C. Department of Administration--State Clearinghouse*
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources:
Division of Environmental Management*, Division of Environmental
Health*, Division of Land Resources*, Division of Soil and Water
Conservation*, Wildlife Resources , and Mooresville Regional
Office*
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources--State Historic Preservation
Officer*
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
Region F Council of Governments
Gaston County Commissioners
City of Gastonia
Town of Dallas
Appendix 4 includes copies of the comments received (see pages A4-1 through
A4-22).
B. Citizens Informational Workshop
The Division of Highways held an informal, Citizens Informational Workshop for
the project on August 30, 1995. This workshop was held at North Gaston High School in
Dallas. Representatives of the NCDOT Division 12 Office, Right of Way Branch,
Planning and Environmental Branch, and Roadway Design Unit were available to explain
42
the project, answer questions, and receive comments. Approximately 70 citizens attended
the meeting. Appendix 5 contains a copy of the news release advertising the workshop
(see page A5-1).
During the workshop, the Division of Highways displayed an aerial photograph of
the project area, vicinity maps, and a thoroughfare plan map showing the proposed
project. In addition, the Division of Highways supplied each participant with an
information packet containing general project information, a vicinity map, and a comment
sheet. A copy of this packet is included in Appendix 5 (See pages A5-2 through A5-6).
Each participant had the opportunity to review the aerial photograph and maps and ask
questions or give comments.
Almost all of the citizens acknowledged a need to improve NC 279. Some citizens
favored lesser improvements, such as widening NC 279 to three lanes. There were also
questions concerning the impact of the proposed NC 279 Bypass shown on the Gastonia
Thoroughfare Plan on traffic volumes on existing NC 279. Although many citizens had
concerns regarding individual properties, overall, most citizens were in favor of the
project.
At the citizens informational workshop NCDOT proposed to widen from NC 7 to
the Carolina and Northwestern Railway. However, after further study it determined that a
two lane section of highway would exist between two multi-lane sections of highway
creating a two block traffic bottleneck. As explained in Sections II and III of this report,
it is recommended that the section of NC 279 between the railroad and Gaston Street be
resurfaced and restriped to accommodate a four-lane typical section. The extension of the
project to Gaston Street has been coordinated with the Town of Dallas.
C. Public Hearinu
A Public Hearing will be held following circulation of this report to provide more
detailed project information to local citizens and receive additional comments on the
project.
JFB/plr
FIGURES

5 H,en $AO•li \r. Lua to
• ••.. •..•..•... •..••? ryllle ,7 S1•n ulel?
? 7 u
\1 e fl 6 i+
1 c'
A
` un1
emery G o ; ?? anrodP4
oo , r.
IC
• • 1 p
•• •
Zh of tonBtl 00
?Gastonia.(?y
¦.......? ?.... f r, Mrn 1 1a 0 17 7 ,
:.............`14 , -INSION
'? Z rl ?? 1]3Z 017773
Q "cl •••• - \ 236 74
° •••• ?°F • __
p •
Trod* J5 ?• /?
.40 1 FAU
DALLAS = '"' •
POP. 3,340 END PROJECT
.79 7727 4 .4p 2327
0
2778
PART B :r
s? -
i:l 7,j91
t; q 7171
.fi ?t:t:i, ry '? k
• 1 7 •J
} :... /
............. ? ....... ??;?.1 7777 2771
„1t:iif: :.. 4 i::?•' h 2361 •
7771 777.,, .? SPRI
3 (UN
:::•. .
o .:::: .rp5 01 37? a POP.
47 13
?? `w7 • '? o 1770
1397 05
7148 i]73 ' p 229A 0.. 29 iii;'':... 2326
5 7 ..... :::.1
94. f\
Z! 7 ... li4J-
.1 w. T.::
?u il
72 3 iiiii"5iii". iiii IZ•? .U
Lefd
.. `'?• :::::/ d ID • ?' 311
'70.1• X_49
2370 •00.1
_•i::;:' •it !in • 1374
fr - UD
PART A RANLO
•: ?.
r::::• l? ?.1 c 22 2
1,774
• .:::::? ,? ? _ a POP.
!riir' 7 r '`'±
r::E::• G :i:::a ? 439600 7]•i?:::
04
17..111 01 •:;<:, '1'
7767 O5 .•::.. r

ii 7261
4
0
I$
a•
.1
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
g DIVISION OF HIGIMAYS
PLANNING: AND ENVIRONMENTAL.
„ .nF BRANCH
NC 279
FROM NC 7 IN GASTONIA
TO SR 2278 IN DALLAS
WIDEN TO A MULTI-LANE FACILITY
GASTON COUNTY
U-2523
0 SCALE a WLE
FIG. 1

F r K.
_.?:::,
?.
P
i

y.i
? t
/ .. . r
07
« xP u? ?i? $ ,'
??` I w J Ja
top
. k
rp,
81
n
i
1 ?t

a

3 "r
?. 1r- i r.{?GRI f 7??1 •Ir .T' v i'Yi ,. I
'lops 1??\?J_ / I\ /??'. .I, ?C,?. •??-?.. ?. •l?' ? ,I. ?? /V
^/?/1?\\? \ ?` ?, ?1?? ?I l '?? I' ?f I ?• - ?l ( 763 Il\'v/', j \.•.\ ^• r_..J_ _
O'l
ulce •? a r ?/ J ?f 1I 1 s ?? ?\ ?\?_ ,? "n O -u
1, r)I a,;?; 1, PROJECT LIMITS. _ r I?\tti
-
I END SEGMENT ,
IL SR 2278! )? lr?? 1??? ) ?- ?II r'r h lpl IIIL ,•
\ .? / "• . ? I I ae >? "1I 7ss 'r ? _ S rr?l+f oe j s r ? ?l ??? ^1iJ ° ? l?-??? ???? ?/ ? v `? ??;
y=®sf='S:. I f '+i 11.;ti? 72611 °I / /? N
? i •? ? IN IN I I?:a. ?rnn of 1 r.,?> >eN // I,_
' %' * f rs,ler 1 1 (1 ????
-, I; 'au GN_???'\?? ' I ieD ?" •f ?)I_J ?.J ?? 700
?I ?_?_ srl ?.. • ? art' ? ??
r 1 U ZI ? I 1? I ? ??? sl `=.
a U-4
'1``\TanG 11 1 .?y= I S<h - 1? (\ ! ,n M o f• :i :?,,,c.1 r-?j \,1I? ?? rj??•
?LWII r'.
lIy 767?j`
.•_??,''I / '?': •• __(r\ .'/ I 1 ( Y? ? \?.u•"y'/:,cr Jd?m.l?;. `cl?l? .?I. :I?•`,'??J [\;V1 ~??Jvv.
i` n Y I 1-` I0
0 C :ryr,i 11:? t
;' .? ;?I(:?1?? IQ41 `? \_,.: •l;?
.'?;' ? ?' ?(? ..l ? ?? _ ?) •? ? ,x.
% Ir .J? :?;10?' •• \ ItIl1c?G 1Y00c1S •?? V 51-al
?
?' i f, I I 1 a \---- 7??-??` ,_ :/•;7 ./ a I\? (?U' o g ?.r O
BEGIN SEGMENT B
CF' 1i `[? "
9e r I I .R./? .i? i?• • - -_ '._
DM
END SEGMENT A T I,p-NG !
7J9
?a I/J' I ?% 'i •? ' 1 Radio. Tone
I r?•? I?? r /i, JI r /
vel:ay ?i/p .?'?Jr• '- ?x7' - -(LYAAKII } • g :%: I:?• (/]` //I'11` i? ( •/ (?
GrW .t ?j I•ni) ?/ ?.1 \ ?i x1,51 I
(1 •..1?)? - I cal
?,??=-I t /L 1 nl'I \ (?? t. >/ // ??1,? ' J" - •? ?l?\ \ A _Dnlley? 1') k i?`/?\\
Iankln 1 " ?`? ` uG? - •`/- /?' J ?'1 \(?, \\ I Pdrl Wa
1 Lake Park ` ' ??•/ a ??\ `?/ IIO ?•` \/? ?? ?/ ?. Ir ,M la?
- ? •L?'..._'!1 '? _ ;_ I -' ;.-r-'n ,\ `a CCU. ? i~\ ? ? ,/1 ?` •1s\y? _ (?1';
.O' I! CJv _ i?l .`\ 2128) G
v' si? -/' i?~?`?\ i C 7no?• ? Yc?'I•?'?( ;.?c?: ? ,?• ???i' \f VY I \ ?I 1 ,? 7' "?`` ".l I
\? - 'lam '? ???' .l -?• , \' ?'? l I 1?tti?a?'• Hr ?\ l A4?. / 0 ?.? '?•• Sb
I ?.. 1 Q I I . / II' 1 / '? 0?. \ \ l• 41 Il.q ` ?r?" `? ' S 1' / i i -J.,?t'?It.
1?\ • \?, ? _ - /• ? ? ?? \ ?I??.? thaid CC // ??'• ? _' 1jI'1 ? 1 ^ ? \\ jl
1 .? 11,1\ '?d?. ?l i "2NJ11\lUUll
Cree 11c_
?' }j JSti? l' /? - 1 ?i 8I I ?? 1? ( I ` - \•• ?, (?•1 I?\A I?-Jil `I\ ` T,
l• I •i 6 •' l ; to o I,?)?_-1 I'' •1 ,w ?? \ CJ J -?• r?? .\? I 1•_ ..,<°.}:I'??? -
x• ?.? (I ( / . ?11J _I ` _? . Frl?q`r?L ?? V/' `%? ,! 7`J ..? L ?. L I • 1/JL. 1 ,...
. J,'/ -1=-r• I ? 1 -- 85 J.'11/ ..?._ •I/ 1 1? -1 '1\?sli:'' lr ? ?? ( ? ?n(/ _,Y ? ?? 1? l 1'? `'_? ??'l
,J' (Illal ?Y J r l? ,':11 \' I (. \C `??? \ •?'7?? V• Y 'e 1 e? ??II, r - b y
.? ?TN???s?h-_• _ (_, '_.. 11% '. ? 11C ? ?nm;.? ? ?'..1 I 1r ) 1 I \
1 ??"1( cl II $rms .o. \? C• ` 'd;. 1 l? / 2 I / :?I? Lf l l' e11 ',...1y] pI?CIUfI Tµ1 1 /Ap,?)8 /
1 ;,1 ?7 l •-y ` ? ? ?i I SFb T?-1R \U 111 !? !
a: , NC 7 ---,J ?-
liy,
?p 906
1•?h
`?QbsrHlll`?-?' i? :? ? (•'.? e 7n d?rg .? I III 45 /PO S!a' •j'7 II??.-? ??'? .'1 r
R,r J? o fJ,`'. ) 1 '? oP iv \ IIGASTONIA NORTH, N. C.
1 i ' 1 - ), s 1! I1ag1 o x oO\`-• - ?r • _ SW/41 GASTONIA IS QUADRANGLE
PROJECT LIMITS N3515-W8107.5/7.5
-n/,IS } _ I ?. 7c I ? =V"Y' '?' `•' ti ?err.:.?'lll , I I? BEGIN SEGMENT A 1970
i 1 e?„?.. `• f?'?'i!rL.... '?I CI, 1,1.
11 ?I arll? ?11 ?
:II _,6-. °t'•? / I"?? '!'?. ?,•?? ,, ??Il?,J -1 ?I-),)? (%,, ??f ;? %yf?!? '..4 l
RJii Jl ?l? ? r/ - i)I? c +'?.?,> @?I (`I 1` I/?li.y y 1 `/yyy11 ?'?'°'? •% ti V'I AMS 475 I SW-SERIES V842
jcollv'?'Iod;11 ?':'?(` "lt v ? •? NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
Gen TRANSPORTATION
I? r I 1 rT' ?i?b i; 1` I ) ?i T 4 ?t
??? o nirY 11 c R o - K ?eo-i G " 8 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
v ??• ? I : ?' : / e .° 1111ANCII
Ji? R? ll _ •??? _??_ , . 1 )t ater ? ?' ?
J"' NC 279
LQ ?,., S`iil??w s g 2 Q(FROM NC 7 IN GASTONIA
TO SR 2274 IN DALLAS
I,I?Ih ?;7a o_ tjr# WIDEN TO A MULTI-LANE FACILITY
?I' aII t` Nu? 9 79 ??W T •?-.-r4i I p? /
\u N??rN ?e.1 ?? J121 ?lI r=??r- ?-?1( ?l.? IrN ?? R...r.N GASTON COUNTY
a to nr
? I; ti - l j U-2523
?r?'O
y ;v ? I 4AI
MAI `,?°??-'N„,?;??? FIGURE 3
` (1 7 , SCALE 1:24000
LLJ
iPi??ie a Q z
r
1., ?? \
W Z
?I+ it ? - - ? - O J
?? _ ¢
r v •?1 .I IJ _ - f'-? \ _ti? - ?r16 i ".'1r _ = Z V
i • , t. I i i C - r ? II : .: ''! I T ?!? --, `__/--? ? ?`' rl i ? 11 ,I v O Z N ¢ -,
' • i r °j b 7 . "'\ ` _ ?? '_ ' ?` P 1 11i \ _LC l . f l d cc ? a O
= ~ O Z
¦ NIv uar3??3svrxu `. rr? u i I ^c??' i I Jr!I>al NC s r Q
¦ + `. %/d.-'y 1.
7r
m I
M Ui
%
• II '1 ' y > 1 ?.K"? J rl? i•: r rtl.???dJ- ?(,1 ?4? p
. _ ( _ t J ?,.,, ?s\i poi t. f°
• M1VI 11 1 ?
.. • <? a ? ' r I t\i l f (L 7?. ti 1 ? 7 ' ? g, j i J? p'ti :..\ °w ¦ 1
i ?? ? s1= - ?--- - ?;r j7.i I ` ?? V'?.., i?ir ill f',: .. so €. F?°. ra ? o ? j 1 (Q)? ?l
? Y .' ?? i c 1 .P4 >P di„ r ,i' tJ•?S? •'? s\% • f Ytti,I ' ii to ¦
II ? ??^ r N•y ?P ? I -1?' ? r )? >V r-'-v?, 3V I ° ? -
j 1
Ilff /` f>1?'R, '•I •1 ?., ??"°i ( , u r-.
? € ^? / ty///> 4 71 '` 'r •.
?? y /tny J ,' `J I e ?ro \' ?\? ,. f .• i f? ir\ ?`+°' +i?)- I ? ? I ( ©( _)
- . • ? / 1 1 d]° S Nhy V? r - ? ? J /?/ l •, y? 1 1` E? A
.?? rt ?.A/ ? fl ?lj r _ ?:'yv vulx•o('•,'?L'? II U?' J,?,/7 1+Y f , ' 1? ,j° ?!
1 - 2? I',.I Y ?s / , ' I ft+. i.•rt`y rl I p
} •`.I > Ir° 1 t.? ??. LL i o
°C,M1 -?? `/,l k . €/ ;` ,.I I:Lt 13 / / 1 q I '?Y? ??','• ; '??: l I I _?^' ur u w
?1. ?i??? -1 _,.1_ l fl _l11 ly Tv+l i J ?i r? f 7 a ?t. .:?,._- ( If {i ^?' i
a 3 a a° i a
i"1?!•?¦¦i ¦?¦¦¦r¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦? -r? ???*, t i'1 W l?l 3 '????? ?? ?' ?i: u
-
ruy ??¦Il
¦ I ... t 1 I :r• ??"" Ems' i?? ? € U/ ? \ rny!? y, / I ?? ?/ri I
'f ?' 0Y 1: ? ?e •(dvi ?? c3v .? t ?-??( ??I) I J? ?:( .. h r
??` ?? 1 . r ; _?/ ? ? ? ? Vii- `ff 7. ?_ ?? 1 s4i
I ?,' ??? .: j.. - ? I-?ri_ Pia, J1?';_ ? i• ,?l , \rJ I
? `- h,' r,??` =! ?? - ( I ?(; `? ? ? 1,.{S? 5,f,s off, !, .ir ?? ?1. r ? :
! I i NltipP? °RPVE' 80? 1 ?? .•7 l!. 1' 11 ?F? .', f Y' y. IJ 'J :a IIOPE_Nn'
it JC j ? ?;r / 1 ? r?'I (1 •, e? I • 4 '?.? ! r R?3• o r
' , • .' ' o? 1? ? v i 1 ? 1 ca
)Ci '1 a s? rfR- I'?? rf i (\I: '4r," ?: ,. '' ?{i 5.-'- -C. z u mu,
f i? r tp,lpc ? e? ?Y? .? ,r? ?;?? l? 14 1/ 1 ,it.' I I ? ? 9-
7 6.6
-20
?,?, ?I. a""Inns i/"0 3? ? 1 h ` ( { tS i d
Il is 11 7 p° a ( ?/ ,; ?? , . ??v'' I ??? ,• 7 1 t s . i l `s i `3
?yz
?.'-. ??IC L , t.1? ???? t''` ) r € ' 1. {,?I?'?--? ? tl?7Y I: 1dCii? i i, ie, r4 \Ja, ?• 1 `1?.--.?-1 `?st?- ?ti?,"'I
i ti?1 _i I ?? (-ir.il( ?? Iy?L 3 , \ + .. `rte Ci ,. l 1I ?r< °, ¦
1 p j ( i? i, . f ?¦• s 7 z?
3 b!??. ?1 J . r? 'PU MONIN ¦
/ ., I.-,. ?$? ;_li t 4,i ?1__ • a I I •r '?r? t 1 i f i I ', ?? ' /- i? Q o 0 o w?= io
\s ?• I r { I C i 1 9 1 ,. .1 r aft1 N! G ', J s? O o 0 7 i i< $ o
I /) „ °??? I I Ili \ i:,ii i IN_ iilr I ?. g i'9 •? ; -,,? ?.¦.
1p ¦¦ :.1 O u r, a=m
M I?b/ ,1 t ! r- A, 1 rU , ? ? j111 11 ?3 1 iJ f ? 1-?
%?_ .%?p s 3 I ` e1??1 " ?4a li i t .1 1 (?ll __? ??( J? , .1 qq y + i oS Ial cMnx ????> v V t ca a
,r a?f i r° N ! Ip uiJ tr .I _lYl;flnM xvwUal ", `__'?? 1.. •? -?? f, '• ' ?i?? €. ti '?
INION
'?: ? F? • 1 f .I ?/ - /r ? / 4 K,? •Q? I , \? ',•1 I? _? E,1 °i u ? ml m
?¦ a f y,,,:f ya. €? n t ? it
?JI? ( I / i? Yr < ?YI Z i i? ?i' tea;
_ • i 1 ; ?. f ?? , I 1 1 { I ' '' f ? I J? a' I,,,, a , / ? ? •a? 1 / 1:. \ ? \1 ,`-' J I i '><, ??? f o w ? o ? w o -
3 ?' 1L' ¦ 1 9 f V' (.. ( 1 J 1 (-?_a" ID y .f,^ ?a r S` a --I? 41 r' ?1?(r?'.I u? a 3 s i o
?. E" ? ¦i .. , , -. i . , ?. I,C ( i ? , ?? g 1 ' i - "• ?'(. . ? I € ., ?? i /,,, r?' m m ° v ° s s
q °b 644y. f 'G"tw.'°. .. I, 1. ?.? rt J a (, ,I + \ ?? ti 1; i E'! _ o o o
• f I PN ?,l;
?? '`? I J , L 1 r PPPNgP N J 9 ?1 r 1
•p?uv??? a S "?/?, .ill i L1G??/ I" {I,e
1? N r? I ? tr??i?a?'? .r .. ': ?' 1 < I? 1 a "i `?1???? 1 ry7°•?b 1 r€ 1 t N tY ? o z
r ?. h
' Q 'IS vx Vvd 1 °rS f L ; I ,.:I j ?.. 1 • _14
ItA
?I Sim r w ,' uy NPl xni :? ;' + - •'°x IJ 1.
r' ?i I I Y: ?, \ ..'t :? 11 I I .,?? l-9 NOCxIPP
€s 11V,HVP d ° { i. .I l I J
, 1 F rrol'vnvP ? ? f y? '. ?t ', Ci 1 ? / f : ^a.?? f i ,." ?^^_^? ii t I 3
',/I ( t't7 '; _T !In J ?I ,i (" Imo. ( 1 .l Y ,? I ¦i ? 1.?., -??? nb iA. l'
I . j:: r ' 1'' ? , .7 ? i vim vl ? ?/? o{ 1 ? 1 iri 'ue sn?N^ f'OO •' n i °
II IS IIII. ?. ._ 1 i. ..•0 - it.i' i 1 •/ .I I .. t 1 'y ¦ ul 'y9 f! ?i
\ ;J 1 ,?,. ( w/ sI ?": IV 1.-.,'Y. i'vNn? I +1? ?',? I - ¦' I; 1 >•1.'}' e? ?N$
v t r•
? q
1 -_ 1_ - ?..^??
f I v f.: i i$ I J I .I? I+ it -` II.-1 rr '11'Ar `/?Vn ?• i.ii i i , i..? A• ?'r?
• .i: ?, X11 1 \e,? .. { ? ? tl'.'i r Is,, r . m ? e ? ?/•' ? ?Jy? y ?,? J r •(?t? 15 _ 1 i y.i:?.t• o, • s, i ? - -
,1 >-1 .? ' 1i?t? J i I ; ? '1 1 ? + I ?` 1 )1 if :>I ,i i?? 1' r ?•? W a
i il/ m9 :r i L. .•?I '? 5 ?I,?. 1 ??:? f >• ' r, ??? 1r > f [I ©?f o
@
--
I. L? ? .I t 11.; .r ` ti _ ?t ? 1 ?I =i 1 /-r, f 0 €{la / O
r
1 ? 1 1 •.
I_r _ ( •• i ??._. i f , ,: t 1 \ 1.. ? 1 1 ._ ' I , l l -??M-?, a? ", ? !11? i, E/ ? t?. S 5? . ? ? y '7
! I l L 1/` ?" 1v yii ?S 1t ii?y J 4E, NG! L'`L m o?
!°d ?¦??
?? 1 ? ? ? / is i u I f ? 1'f 1 S , . . , ? e ? ? 7 ? ... ? ,?
p
tt??? , " f h ? i ? „b rd . " I s ? l ! y 1 1 ', i t ??? t? i ' ? I ?•' .. ? l l ,' p
?° r 1 .I ? ? !rOS 2. ( ? _ I t I; - s ? ? 1 "f? f ? •141 y ¦ ®AA? u S
N
II? J <i? qv, ! ?r P ?ati roNnsf,'(?µG?? 1? l? AAA®?i¦?' A ° i
?.9 A 1 t;
P• 1 _. i y V t ';6o?v9 :.I ;-? i i ?, : ` npOp4AA A 4: -
:-V t
y Itr °. - r ?, i I
I® I 1.?I 14?` € ', p,.®A®AO ?- _q 1 . Q l i .7?ro? 5
A?F4
' OO{r?9 i "d ml A i?? pc l ¦ J f `:,'' (, u
' 'vy Jfr??s®SMIAN€f IIIILY •??f • avrnm nvknrr. ? 090 .Ir?,? ?..,, ¦' (- ?''., y.f ? ?
/??J, ti, , Wy r®e?`IM4$ . ^ . , - ?? ?' \ I J ,.?',. ?? i,O?1, h rtN 1+A 17 11.IVIr, 1 o ) I o - -
i¦u oa' "100 31.049 uemu rt!5,
, u
re®rcrncrnu, sue?ioai?!e
• f i ? ? E(
l i''! 1 : ?IT Ir ? NI}??. J?• 1 ?''_" ? Y? i Cl ?i =???'?1 ?° ? ? t, ? !' I°ds/y? ? 8 p
'PU lldn 'Nd \C -j . ? . ?pdscix ???p????3 - / \.),_. ????? ?/` ?'_f y . ''_ _ ((? 6 6
l I u _ ? ,??? i '?, r ¦•• ?-'¦ra?? ?, l ?' ) I1I I + % io ` I r', ? " .. -? 1 's I a $
1 ? ? ??1?1 '.'fin. tlQ?/7 i ???? - ?N- f?l / t /?L}?SJ??' hi
i / ? ? \ 1 b.IP `!I ?o _ •'7? t ./ ? II o \\,' .) ..1 \ 3 ? i e ? P
ai,
? € p0
alvw ' I 1
` • r r lr'? n??? ? If ff t?PVV I ilil I,11?,1 tI1?••.
utli ? ? ?? t it ,i v. ''n pflx . f i : 1 ? li .
• N l ,; f?I
uY uuu .. " .
1 i€
I I :?? i ?,? € r? _Ir-? , l- _ r j? I?ilti!!?!;I!!ill,,?i1?;
l G 7 U
I
1 ? 1
I r ,

z
O

V VI
W
?
V? a
O
J a ?
cl)
CM a O o
r
a- C/) E
CM
fJ M
o a
W
X
O o
O. a
O Q

IL
?
a a

.?
0 o E
a
?'' m a
E_
so cr.
n
C N
...
z

w
W Q
04 T
-- ~ a
O
z w
? Z
W
W =
E

E N a C
?-'

Q O
? O
= z
CR
N
r
W z

V z 0 0

W ? a Q
??
" ..
--?
z N O
X V

?
v
(L O

?
Z
_ LO C
)
N f
z

E^
6D
O
CC
0 4
.
UL
E o
O
? v
z
O -
W
V C/)
W a
cn o
J a ..
,
? a U

p
o
T
Lf) CL cn E
CM _ 'IT
o
J M

? W
a
W
Cl) X
o m
0. a
O a
X
a
.-.
O LL

>?N
E
a
N
N
«o m
E cn
U?
o
1
W p
H a a
N

V a
W °C
o a Z
¦ W
?-- a = Cl)

W
=
Z ?
O
tr) r
My
W O) Z
? N z

V a

z a
z
N in
O mm? J
O

a
U
Lo
r?
oN O
cc - L. E °?
«a m
to
LO
¦
6
LL
NC 279
From NC 7 in Gastonia to NC 275 in Dallas
Estimated 1999 Average Daily Traffic
Auten Rd.
Q. SR 2265
6200 yy
0 18520 Ffl
o\ `gj0
o
5230
N
22790
W
O
1110
r670 10 P, 60
(2.1)
23,010
Propst 330 110
Street 60 P, 10
(2,1) 200
0
17625 Hollandale
\ Drive
0 330
3
220 9 9 1
110
Leroy Ave. \17520
SR 2260
10?
A-l"11, Pinehaven
70 ? 60 Drive
17560
Baltic St. 0 580 ea
,1
"
X2
360 ?o
3120 470) 120 June
2
1700 1130
rno 17990
10 yo
10
3. ?
? 9
0
y 220 Ward Ave. Oak ye l
`'?
' o `1
2
12 Pm? es SR 2342 Hollow J o
110 (2,f) Road 140 ?5
N j?
°p 670 18520
a1? 23120
0
0 700
QF ??
eery.
16630 40CV 5680 16120 Ozark Ave. ?y P
53 fP' 10 4420 i r22570 58 ?P-' 10 NC 7 Ballard Dr.
(3, 1) (3, 1)
EE ` 20430
0
NC 279
Legend FIG. 6A
DHV p y D
(X,Y)
DHV = Design Hourly Volume Percentage
D = Directional Split Percentage
Pm = Peak Hour & Direction of Peak Flow
x = Dual Truck Percentage
Y = TTST Percentage
Note. If DHV and D are not shown, they
are the same as the opposing leg.
NC 279
From NC 7 in Gastonia to NC 275 in Dallas
Estimated 1999 Average Daily Traffic
C M=="mmon C
D
Or
18830
110}
Pinetop 220
Drive 60 gypm 10
(2.0) 110
18830
Cmmii
?111
18820 Robin son-Clem mer 2990 240
`13 Road
Womble SR 2275 ss t m 9 2750 t
Lane (s" ?)
N\?? 50 18320
0
LOn9
16520
11
2290
Modena St. 3640 1340 32
SR 2278 9 P(n sa
(3,1)
v'
17900
?g Montrose 19140
4,40 Drive
330 p,? 57
?10 13
17670
60?
70 Pill 10 10
Ferris St. 60 (2,01
17630
V
Gantt Rd.
SR 2274 24 12
10 Am
so
12?
15800
8
15800
Creek
I,,
h
4I ?
Q
Hollandale Dr.
440 560 SR 2360
o. Pm
120 11 -v 62
(2,1)
C'
Legend FIG. 6B
OHV P-? D
(x•Y)
DHV = Design Hourly Volume Percentage
D = Directional Solit Percentage
Aim = Peak Hour 8 Direction of Peak Flow
x = Dual Truck Percentage
Y = TTST Percentage
Note If DHV and D are not shown. they
are the same as the opposing leg.
NC 279
From NC 7 in Gastonia to NC 275 in Dallas
Estimated 1999 Average Daily Traffic

13890
o
560 680 May Road
East Main St. 10 P`n? 60
110 (41 t)
SR 2268
13440
2970
s,
262)

2710 i
15940
610
840
f 230 9 pm Old Spencer
?? 68 Mountain Road
SR 2327
15500
20
340
220 y om Eastway Dr.
?z~ 8s SR 2321
15600
340
`? 890
'?'550
' /?? a Vinton Dr.
s SR 2369
h
15810
Ff
Q
c,
D
01
Legend FIG. 6C
DHV Pm? D
(x.Y)
DHV = Design Hourly Volume Percentage
0 = Directional Split Percentage
P = Peak Hour & Direction of Peak Flow
x = Dual Truck Percentage
Y = TTST Percentage
Note If DHV and D are not shown. they
are the same as the opposing leg.
NC 279
From NC 7 in Gastonia to NC 275 in Dallas
Estimated 1999 Average Daily Traffic
NC 275
b
n
11580 E Cq
0
LL
1 6780 3600
17320 14900
I64 ?m 10 50' 110 58 (311) PM
(3,i) 10
U.
North Smith
Street
0
440 al
In
330} X??? 110 14680 14,120
670' ' 110 ?+ 14,110
110 , 440
110 Se ?? R
Is.1? 1
Oak Grove
Park Road
by
860
o ?+
220
a
o
700 nI ` 780 nl ` 220 Ew
°? 13890
NC 275
NC 279
b h
b
Davis Summey St. Yates St

Street
SR 2268 .
SR 2335
Legend FIG. 6D
OHV Pm- D
(x.Y)
DHV = Design Hourly Volume Percentage
D = Directional Split Percentage
Pm- = Peak Hour & Direction of Peak Flow
x = Dual Truck Percentage
y = TTST Percentage
Note. If DHV and D are not shown, they
are the same as the opposing leg.
NC 275-279
From NC 275 to Gaston Street in Dallas
Estimated 1999 Average Daily Traffic
1340 1
1
16420
52 .Pm 10 1530
(3,1)
e
al ?; 760
?8.0 0 17230 40!j
i 1630 400 i
_o
3100
N
W)
Gaston
Street
Terry
Street
o
o
b ?
v to
+ 3 340 ai N
a `
o .c o
O
z
t.220 22D ty10 17430
i900 17550
tp 54 m ?--- 70
(3, J)
0
1270 nl ` %
Q
0
b
College V
Street
Spargo
Street
500 E N
0
LL
1
80?
17420 31.2/ t90 17320
54 m f- f^
(3,1)
U.
Legend FIG. 6E
DHV Pm? D
(x,Y)
DHV = Design Hourly Volume Percentage
D = Directional Split Percentage
Pm = Peak Hour 8 Direction of Peak Fiow
x = Dual Truck Percentage
Y = TTST Percentage
Note. If DHV and D are not shown, they
are the same as the opposing leg.
680
Ie
140 `al
O
O
Rhyne
Street
NC 279
From NC 7 in Gastonia to NC 275 in Dallas
Estimated 2019 Average Daily Traffic
Auten Rd.
Q' SR 2265
8,
gh 8
s 25790 9400
?
1630 24,690
7770 460
k 310 9 p T3
o (2.
-? 31,930 160
3
10
Q20
1560
rw 10 P, 60
(2,1)
32250
160
Propet 460
Street 60 fP, 10
(2,Y) 310
Leroy Ave. \24540
SR 2260
20?
110 90
90
Pfn 5Q
Hollandale
Drive
Pinehaven
Drive
o ?Ol
6 24,600
Baltic St.
890 e°
590
9
0
? ?2
400
32 U
750
, r 200
June
2520 1670
z

0 pin ?o m 25,140 20 x
ho
300
v Ward Ave. Oak
5 "
p
og
m
12 L? e3
SR 2342
Hollow
J 10
?o h
150
(2,1)
Road

290 ?10
'Zi
to
6ti
32,400 950 25790 Q-
a
rn` o
1230
5700 } ? 7990 ?ry
23,150 ??? 23050 Ozark Ave. ,oy Q,
53 rPm 9 ?6200 i i 3650 58 pm s NC 7
(3,1) Ballard Dr.
(3, 1)
b
It ` 28,550
C!)
NC 279
Legend FIG. 6F
DHV PM p
(X.Y)
DHV = Design Hourly Volume Percentage
D = Directional Split Percentage
PM = Peak Hour 8 Direction of Peak Flow
x = Dual Truck Percentage
Y = TTST Percentage
Note. If DHV and D are not shown they
are the same as the opposing leg,
NC 279
From NC 7 in Gastonia to NC 275 in Dallas
Estimated 2019 Average Daily Traffic
C C'
D
26,125
0 }
Pinetop 320 1 6?
Drive so fpm 10
(2,0) 160
21,860
Gantt Rd.
SR 2274 40 20 /
10 Am
50
20?
21860
c+?v 26,110
3
Womble Robin son-Clemmer 4560 390
Lane Road
SR 2275 55 f m 9
70 4170)
J\?? (3, 1)
v`
° 151, 25630
•J
3350 2240 40 22700 LOn9
Modena St. 5800 15
SR 2278 9 pM 54 h
(3t)
? C
25,030
Montrose
610 Drive
?0 Pj? 5? 26,520
13 (2,1)
r70
Creelr
D?
t 810 830 Hollandale Dr.
???? SR 2360
24,760 f 220 11 pmW 62
(2,1)
90
110
20
-j ?p
Ferris St. 60 X2,0)
24690
V
e
26,130
C CO
Legend FIG. 6G
DHV pm? D
(x.Y)
DHV = Design Hourly Volume Percentage
D = Directional Split Percentage
Pm = Peat Hour & Direction of Peak Flow
x = Duel Truck Percentage
Y = TTST Percentage
Note It DHV and D are not shown, they
are the same as the opposing leg.
NC 279
From NC 7 in Gastonia to NC 275 in Dallas
Estimated 2019 Average Daily Traffic

--1
19460
980 May Road
East Main St. t 0 Pm- 60
SR 2269 ' 170 (4,f)
s, 4430
11o
21640
18810
49V)
3940)
21540
22260
Q1 050
?+- 1370
330 s Pm Old Spencer
?3 ?? 6e Mountain Road
SR 2327
y00
490
300 y Pm Eaatway Dr.
(? ?? 85 SR 2321
Q5 10
?. w1240
730 10 ??n'•, 6 Vinton Dr.
5 SR 2369
h
21860 t
FI
Q ?.
0 ?
Legend FIG, 6H
DHVm_ D
(x,Y)
DHV = Design Hourly Volume Percentage
D = Directional Split Percentage
Pm? = Peak Hour & Direction of Peak Flow
x = Dual Truck Percentage
Y = TTST Percentage
Note. If DHV and D are not shown, they
are the same as the opposing leg.
1),
NC 279
From NC 7 in Gastonia to NC 275 in Dallas
Estimated 2019 Average Daily Traffic

North Smith
NC 275 Street
ro
Ln 0
16,000 n1 610 nl
c';
`
a kn
LL
24,270 946V t
6010
. 20890 470 t50
•/ 20,580 19800
5 4. m 9 1001
(3
1) t
40
' 1 5 7 9
(3
1) ??
940 i 1 160 ? 19760
, , 18
'0
140
57 ?M
U.
0 (3. 1) 9
m
0
1040 E ` 1090 n? ` 320 FI
°?
o
.. m h

Da vis Summey St.

Str
eet
SR 2269 Yates St.
at
2335
Oak Grove
Park Road
6h
900
o ?
590
300
19,460
NC 275
NC 279
t,
Legend FIG. 61
DHV pm? D
(x,Y)
DHV = Design Hourly Volume Percentage
O = Directional Split Percentage
P = Peak Hour 8 Direction of Peak Flow
x = Dual Truck Percentage
y = TTST Percentage
Note If DHV and D are not shown, they
are the same as the opposing leg.
NC 275-279
From NC 275 to Gaston Street in Dallas
Estimated 2019 Average Daily Traffic
2010
23040
52 ?P"1 10 2450),
(3, i)
P
al 1070
n/
?180 24130 56?
i 2550 590 i
0
3100 %
N
in
Gaston
Street
Terry
Street
o o
b O to
a1 ` m 470 E t o
I 3 all N
o t o
o ^

2
320 320 160 24400
i 1280 24570
5 54 Pm 10
(311)
0
1270
C
o
b O
College U
Street
Spargo
Street
0
b
690 a1 N
0
EL
11? 1 110
410 280
24350 24270
54 pm 10
(3, 1)
U.
Legend FIG. W
DHV Pm? D
(x,Y)
DHV = Design Hourly Volume Percentage
D = Directional Split Percentage
Pm = Peak Hour & Direction of Peak Flow
x = Dual Truck Percentage
Y = TTST Percentage
Note: It DHV and D are not shown. they
are the same as the opposing leg
P
220 a?
/O
0
Rhyne
Street
JDOI) \? l f \ '.TOO ,. q\•?.E` ninunia27" ?9 '' \ ((/' ????..il 1V V ??<`<-' ? ( ? ? ?'? i?l ? _ / /r''? ( t3M (\- ? ?•-\?• :.\ ^ /? ? % ' ? ? J „'I?VVJ _ b
valls,
.0I
T] ? 11
ROJECT LIMITS
END SEGMENT
HMO >r' AI nuln VIC
WETLAND #
196 I --t 'PO 4, WETLAND # 2 LISLE LOST G
\' i `' H Y H II I'(?.M ` • ,noj 1; i .
°11?`, i eoo wl Y r.? 'B' I ??H? ?N i railer ?? >LIff (1 l?'? /?1...1VL.•'?+K r\,_ ..
721 n goo U1Ktw'
lar \11Se1,¦' 1\
1u1 ? ? ?\ 1? o ?a
`?'};. er y ?Ab1 _ t?? 1 ' ?•,6i •J_(' 2721
,V\1 j'•Clrjl? 1. Its' ? I \\ y,r p /`\ ?L _ j l"
\y I ?/!) lid !,? ' '? ; • '-?' i1 ?\ r \,?.=?:.J'` _ ?1 1u`B?c? i '
sci`I j ?Oou aa?l+`yj
BEGIN SEGMENT B '?? / ?) ?'?• 2r1 IC _? ate,
?l .• f K _,, ?J ?c
91 END SEGMENT A LONG CREE f\ = -- _ ?.__.. _ ?_•
??? `'•„/ /'??i '_ ..' •?? _ \ I?RaJiaaoner '?) ???/'/ •d i /J/( ji J[??^? \O?\U q??7
% } LNI) I"\\l i / ?- ?). \ ?IWAAKII -/;\?a :y'?.._ 17IY ,-,-?.?,?(( I? •\ °Q7 Jo 1;\?s ) ?:f 1?'?` \ / I _
4v j ,?Mz onb e
b 1 ? } Iu'• ?`? 'Igo ` ?,
• • e L??I r ?, X10 ? ?\ f ? \ ? ??{•? ? _ P
76
qa; J`J ?6 ---
J y• b`' "--? Q 2216 J
LOS-\-??`1'';?t Ir1 ulaid• .`??'1 -? `I\ V oS CL?II/ - i i i '_. I• ?IL?t`
11 y +1 t 1.1 v
'Y. -11II / /• / _ :.w' i` :?,, (_??1 1? ???'j '•? ? / ---'?1j WI ?,?\\ \1 \?. _ Ia:? Ali
f?'; ., 1 f..- ?-I •`Il r ,1 1 ? A ^ ?1 ,.J 00DD 1 l` ?'• / `1 ? ?\6??yr1 \•??\ ?b_ ??
7610
^ `I1 /? f/ °' -1 \? -? 'srlCrlalr ul;l+? 1 /, % r
?7 1 I'' l.'I ?j'1 ( o-i
•, 1, a 1'
0 11j I\ Jill
(SITa lI °e Irtoi7 ?, I;
1' Par ! .. v II ( -4;, I' / I SF_ .. / \u?
(7 j
.t ; ." J. a_ I t;:.?` "• , l '? off' ' '?, ; sq, I L.
I I /
?I m I .? 1. ?L = PROJECT LIMITS -7
1 1 BEGIN SEGMENT A
7?1'
•r
I ?/? 1 )'?? I i(. •,i I L NUIt'1'll CAROLINA URI'AICI'AlliN'1' OF
PRAN81 0IL'TAT10N
' •Q .,. ,?. ti -"^m-. ? ;?,: v .I e DIVISION 01 III1:111VAVS
Ij r• I ,Ll ?rl „x l? olGl ood? 1 PLANNING AND NNVIRONMEN'I:I,
IarIn10 1'. I ? Il? 1??'?' IIIIIANCII
Ii? VC R? 0 ', RM
S V f • V - ??II NC 279
h II ; SCALE I
0124000 I ?iA5 I _ FROM NC 7 IN GASTONIA
s I MILE TO SR 2278 IN DALLAS
-? .! ..
?pHH' loco o 1000 2000 3000 40 00 soon sooo 2000 FEET l•.?// WIDEN TO A MULTI-LANE FACILITY
ja --
1 vUl 1 S 0 1 KILOMETER .Raldi6 Tr GASTON COUNTY
- r.
II (' HV s U:2523
CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET
d nATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL '
FIGURE 7
YO
\' O
` O
682 ?I
680 i ?
67,
\P? RM87
ROBINSON-
'CLEMMER_
ROAD
A
ZONE X
? GREEN
CIRCLE
\ORIVE
:VIEW _\\ la
IVE BS v,? w
IO
V` 10
X
h
Tributary
L-4.1 °
P
S' r
DIRT
1ROAD
//ZONE X

a
N
ZONE X
_ WIC
¢II
I p,
I ?I
-? ZONE X - -xl
67 ¢' ?
RM Z(n nIF Y LONG CREEK
ZO N Ex S A 6 BRIDGE # 12
P ?E LANDSDOWNE ??-
Q?' - DRIVE C
/ a7 ; Q!
? B
IYpP HOLLANDALE ?J \ i=
D
c 682 R
Tributar U LCO
677 y 6?6 p -
L.3
697 p _
B 679 710 RM86
\\ 681 a NC 279J^ 726 LIMIT OF
683 DETAILED -- I I
o? RM89 STUDY
68 D MONTROSE \
DRIVE 2
6-- -
lw 695 F
¢ F
697
q I
700 0 _
i(
0)70
LIMIT OF
DETAILED
STUDY %
GG
1? \_
RM72
ZONE A
H
H
`tr 715
Limits of 100 Year Floodphin
[N f:f
721
LEGEND
,'I W 71 S
A/ce
"I?j I J - ?,?1 I, \:'
ROJEC 16wIITS
END SL 4
,./ - j' J ?• I ` `I? / / `Alnuatnin Vie. It,
.7961 'PO -sl " _ _ _ ) ;•, r
7? 111 oc j- r
NI f y It'll j t~?`?"L ye.
1 I 1 Jlr? /V' I L
'7 U411
rafle, I,,
J f 1 a;? c 1 l
o
?ILJI /
C . 1,'t 1 v ?_T - ',? ?.
J ?'` ; ?'y) `i' 1 •? ?' > j 1 \? .: L 17371)
it I rrec'.1.Iam J' : ! IL 1 •?) l ,V t ?,?
C
r\'?
R r •' I' ( 61
Sch I? I 11% '? l I, at o' 11 tj
g_ ?5cwa8P`
?_? ?' ? \ ?,' ?' ? J '?? ??? % ? '?,I •••711',' `, ?\\? ? O / / ??= 'ice
IN SEGMENT B
BM
?' - END SEGMEN ?-
I` I o? f D ?-'??1`? ' 1 I J
(WAAk
r 732 ?? ` \ '-• .. -^ •' 'I•? .•?. .?/ (', \. ? ? ? \,
erey ,111-
I?i-J I.:-.CrAce
181 r. '?'? .? •' , ? (? ??' ? / `y. I >li: L•/) `?:? ?? b ' I ?- -
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMEN '? ?\ • ;; • // /? _ ?J ?'J^
TRANSPORTATION T OF
I I
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS ?L
PLANNING AND FNVIRONMF.NTAI• J/lam '
ii
' BRANCH 4 %
•? / ' _
<1 600
PROPERTIES SURVEYED ?CI'ntl,e„I --` 1 1
FOR NATI ^ J ? r ??rl < <? ``
ONAL REGISTER
ELIGIBILITY
? If
I 1 ?

K o,

FIG. 9 )1)

/i

-1- 1'KUJLC T LIMIT,
BEGIN SEGMENT
13 ?1C? ?, `1, \ l
?' •? ? JI 1 . fit,,

A p ?1
J NC 7
1

1457
1s !JQl °
1!ffi- 16vs Ia i
14sv
3 0° 1456 ?'iiv Iev4. .14 ' .•l_ '4 ;L,i ll99- !o2
17_ 1.40
A77 Ilio - y'
7A 179 8
, , ' , I I_o91 -9
14
41 _ .I9 e. a T'.deg OIS ? . ? 'Q7 'kf
17 /A 20 179 FAU ¦ ¦ •4g xv • •
4 1? 140 1494 1464
~ 1.71 R .¦t X7.7. DALLAS A, •'b
144 1 4. I 7 J Lf!! 1371 9 POP. 3.340 ° X57
• I_?93 .37 h \ al 2n4 .7D ]227 ,??
I f « p4 nn
1!47 toy 1 I. r:: ?7UO ? ?T 77ev
276
7111
773 n ~':.. yF? i 17vi
l1 M1 2371 _
15vo `
]772
NI f 777
!474 tp 114c 41 7,7t 11?e - Z7i ]174 ?'279v
721 "b'01 4 B
1444 Wo ? it _ 1717
^ I 9T
1477 7744 ?6$ I7c7 o ?770 _-
y° toy I 1047 2777 21"
479..p y9
B 17v40.i .L 231,
17 I 7715 n
7165 O
I X46 ? a4k I `J`
' Gs
11!2 171o ®pt-
a d'
144
' -
3i$ U-2523
?y 377 'r".ti''` j _ • 'Y't `
'1J I I • 0 71.
a41aJa a 1173 al + 7 A
• 1113 ?. 'f ? ?:?77e3
.,...,,1. 1.04
3!7 V? X14
1341 ?_ •s '7a ?I
o- JENKINS HE HTS
13.2
4 J 137 (UNINC1.) 9?s ?r
1334 ss 1" POP. 1,56 u69•'
je
* 21 of
In
o 1 ?3 - ?j I-302 72
] * 11\t 'g
© 3L 24 \O SO
tv1 1 L?L o° ?1» ! ?'Q 7Y1 ?
t?? I r __ !IJ 779
•3 t I 00 = r•?? •? I?
c
774 GASTONIA 17
ti
' 7 T-2008 POP. 47,333 i . 0+
lJ V t
•N \13 M \? -]I' ; ?„ IAU?/ yM1
f / 0 W 1719
III 1
I ?
kln=il4 =='. 41 1.4 FranYl- 1y
IAU A'- .30
•yy 79
,' ..:.. n 74 4 N .74
5
.103 .::..::..: ' ?,?j < • ? ?
777
140 iu 7`
1295 13 SOS di 1
1177 .04..•. B .? M 1yN
244 \
T 4•
io
a
IIL 11? '
?^ 1 7
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
113 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMF,NTAI.
V I '' BRANCH
IIW ,' - 17 PROPOSED HIGHWAY
j .0 1 nvl .- Ii le I s ti
Hudwn SJ •Ivd. ] 775 ?•
"°° IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AREA
?? G 17
1 9_ _ 1497 i.03
e 1M c+
1171 \ .0 1171 7405 \y 1
137 1147 -174
1194 1170( Q\• _ 13Ir37''C 1499 1490 /?
1 114V ?a3YdL2 p41 Ilse FIG.1O
47
114! "r ° 119 I sA'I• 6?
s a7! 07 ..1p. ?vna 1!4 \ ,:. c' I .?I
t 114! 4- 12
u
APPENDIX 1
NCDOT
RELOCATION
PROGRAMS
AND
RELOCATEE REPORTS
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement
housing will be available prior to construction -of state and
federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of
Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation:
* Relocation Assistance,
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and
prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing
or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Program, in
general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in
relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase
or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrange-
ment (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments
or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are
eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and
qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the
North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in reloca-
ting to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one
relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families,
individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for
relocation assistance advisory services without regard to race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to
allow ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations and possession
of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards.
The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT pur-
chases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in
areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and
commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will
be within the financial means of the families and individuals displaced
and will be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The
relocation officer will also assist owners of -displaced businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving
to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will
receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as (1)
purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either
AM
private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to
another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply
information concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance
to displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in
order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new
location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the dis-
placee for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway
project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate
in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings such
as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs and, if
applicable, make a payment for any increased interest expenses for
replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement
housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental purchase
expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the Last
Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed
$5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, includ-
ing incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The
down payment is based upon what the state determines is required when the
rent supplement exceeds $5250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the
NCDOT's state or federally-assisted construction projects unless and until
comparable replacement housing has been offered or provided for each
displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No
relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purposes
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance
under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing
is not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's finan-
cial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal
limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in
methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary
replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt that this program
will be necessary on the project, since there appear to be adequate
opportunities for relocation within the area.
Al-2
RELOCATION REPORT
1 X 1 E.I.S. F7 CORRIDOR n DESIGN
North Carolina
V
DepartMent of Tra1?t?p?rlt° sition
AI EA RELORI OFFICE
CJ?

PROJECT: 1811301
8 COUNTY Gaston 96 ,
05
Alternate 1 of 5 s 09
. 0
E
I.D. NO.: U-2523 F.A. PROJECT STPNHF-279 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 7 to 525 feet North o f NC 279

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Di lacees
Owners
Tenants Total Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20nt 0 $0-150 0 0-20at 3 so-ISO 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 2040tvt 0 150-250 0 zoaont 40 150-250 3
Yes N. Ex lain all "YES" answers. 40-70rt 0 250400 0 40-7mt 80 250400 23
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-10oNt p 400-600 0 70-Ioox 77 400-600 17
x 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 yr 0 600 UP 0 100 Lrn 62 600 LT 5
- displacement? TOTAL 0 0 263 48
x 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number
project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Businesses will not be disrupted after project
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. 6. Local RealtorsO, and newspaper advertising
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
- 6. Source for available housing (list). 11. Section 8 Housing is available.
x 7. Will additional housing programs needed?
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? 12. Given current housing trends, comparable housing should
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. be available during the relocation period.
families?
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 14. Refer to Item No. 6.
x 11. Is public housing available?
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
x 13 Will there be a problem of housing within MANAGER OF
. financial means? 0041 T OF WAY BRANCH
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
- source). SEP 1 2 1996
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 0 tP'.
N.C.DEET.OFTRANSFULIMUN
^r
-
'Monica 4tAL
S. Lon ; ocot op Agent Date
A roved by Date
li me RA-itim Aeent
F06 15.4 Revised Y90 I , (, r VngUlal R t Copy:
V V ?`? ? 2 Copy Area Relocation Office

Al-3
RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
1 ^ 1 E.I.S. n CORRIDOR n DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.1811301 COUNTY Gaston Alternate 2 of 5 Revised 09 05 96
I.D. NO.: U-2523 F.A. PROJECT STPNHF-279 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 525 Feet North of 279 to Lon Creek Bridge
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Di lacees
Owners
Tenants Total Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential 8 0 8 0 0 2 5 1 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING = DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20NI 0 $0-150 0 0-20m 3 so-ISO p
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20400, 0 150-250 0 2040M 40 150.250 3
Yes No
x Explain all "YES" answers.
Will special relocation services be necessary?
1 40-7034
70-100m, 4 250400
4 400-600
11 0
0 40.70m
70-100ri 80 250400
77 400-600 23
17
x .
Will schools or churches be affect by
2 100 LIP 0 600 UP 0 too ur 62 600 up 5
.
displacement? TOTAL 8 0 263 48
x Will business services still be available after
3 "REMARKS (Respond by Number)
.
project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Businesses will not be disrupted after project.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
6. Local RealtorsO, and newspaper advertising
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
- -:- 6. Source for available housing (list). 8. Last resort housing will be administered in accordance
x 7. Will additional housing programs needed? with State Law.
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 11. Section 8 Housing is available.
families?
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 12. Given current housing trends, comparable housing should
x 11. Is public housing available? be available during the relocation period.
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period? 14. Refer to Item No. 6. ,
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 12 months
n

`"
'' ( f ( ` G r
r r^
1 i
1
Monica S. Long, 1 ? / agent Date Approved by Date
C....n na1,., sfi- Aowd
Form 15.4 Revised 5M Original do 1 Copy: _" - - --- -
u / 2 Copy Area Relocation Office
Al-4
11 RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
1 ^ 1 E.I.S. F-1 CORRIDOR F71 DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.1811301 COUNTY Gaston Alternate 3 of 5 (Revised 09 05 96
I.D. NO.: U-2523 F.A. PROJECT STPNI-IF-279 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Lon Creek Bridge to SR 2335 Yates Street
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Di lacees
Owners
Tenants Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential 8 3 11 0 5 5 1 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING = DSS MILLING AVAn.ABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 1 SO-1501 0 0-20M 3 s 0-150 0
ANSIVER ALL QUESTIONS = 20.400 S 150-250 0 2040NI 40 150-250 3
Yes No
X Explain all "YES" answers.
Will special relocation services be necessary?
1 40-70m
70-1000 2 250-400
0 400-600 3
0 40-70,M
70-100m 80 250-400
77 400 600 23
17
x .
Will schools or churches be affect by
2 100 UP 0 600 up 0 100 cue 62 600 ur 5
.
displacement? TOTAL 8 3 263 48
x 3. Will business services still be available after REItiIARKs (Respond by Number
project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Businesses will not be disrupted after project.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
6. Local RealtorsO, and newspaper advertising
x S. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list). 8. Last resort housing will be administered in accordance
x 7. Will additional housing programs needed? with State Law.
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 11. Section 8 Housing is available.
families?
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 12. Given current housing trends, comparable housing should
x 11. Is public housing available? be available during the relocation period.
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period? 14. Refer to Item No. 6. ,
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within '
financial means?
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
- source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 12 months

r ' 17
onica S. Lon lle ion Agent Date = - Approved by Date
Fomn KA Rewad 5190 Original & 1 Copy: • •` °,?
2 Copy - Area Relocation Office
Al-5
RELOCATION REPORT 11

F 7x E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR F7 DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.1811301 coUNrY Gaston Alternate 4 of 5
I.D. No.: U-2523 F.A. PROJECT STPNHF-279 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT; Yates Street to Carolina and Northwestern Railroad
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Di lacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential 12 4 16 0 7 9 0 0 0
Businesses 3 2 5 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 2 s O-150 0 0-20-a 3 SO-150 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 7 150-250 0 2040Nt 40 150-250 3
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 3 250400 4 40-70NI 80 250400 23
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100m 0 400-600 0 70-10mt 77 400400 17
x 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 UP 0 600 UP 0 100 LT 62 11 600 UP 5
displacement? TOTAL 12 4 - :. :-
1 11
263
48
x 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Businesses will not be disrupted after project.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. 4.
a. Sunshine Center Laundrv
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 2500 square feet, four employees, one minority
6. Source for available housing (list). b. Jenkins Barber Shop
x 7. Will additional housing programs needed? 1000 square feet, two employees, no minorities
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? c. Dallas Countrv Interiors
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 2000 square feet, two employees, no minorities
families? d. C&S Auto Repair
x 10 . Will public housing be needed for project? 2500 square feet, four employees no minorities
x 11 . Is public housing available? e. Elements in Dance
x 12 . Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 3500 square feet, three employees, no minorities
housing available during relocation period? 6. Local RealtorsO, and newspaper advertising
x 13 . Will there be a problem of housing within 8. Last resort housing will be administered in accordance
financial means? with State Law.
x 14 . Are suitable business sites available (list 11. Section 8 Housing is available.
source). 12. Given current housing trends comparable housing should
15 . Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 12 be available during relocation period.
14. Refer to item No. 6.

_2
pica S. Lone, eldcVa ' n Agent Date - Approved by Date
F. 13.4 Revuad Y90 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copv Area Relocation Office
Al-6
RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
X I E.I.S. n CORRIDOR n DESIGN
PROJECT: 8.1811301 COUNTY Gaston Alternate 5 of 5 Revised 09 05 96
I.D. NO.: U-2523 F.A. PROJECT STPNHF-279 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Carolina and Northwestern Railroad to Gaston Street

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Dis lacees
Owners
Tenants Total Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20H 0 so-150 0 0-20,1 3 $0-150 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40Nt 0 150-250 0 20-t0st 40 150-250 3
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70Nt 0 250400 0 40-70at 80 250-400 23
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-10oat 0 400-600 0 70-100Nt 77 400-600 17
x 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 Ur 0 600 Ur 0 100 up 62 600 UP 5
- displacement? TOTAL 0 0 263 48
x 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS (Respond by Number)
project?
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Businesses will not be disrupted after project.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. 6. Local Realtors®, and newspaper advertising
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list). 11. Section 8 Housing is available.
x 7. Will additional housing programs needed?
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? 12. Given current housing trends, comparable housing should
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. be available during the relocation period.
families?
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 14. Refer to Item No. 6.
X 11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within '
- financial means?
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? FO

onica S. Lon del cuf u Agent Date Approved by Date
A-f
F.mn 6.4 Revirad Y90 v u lwa ' Original & I Copy:
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
Al-7
APPENDIX 2
TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS
TABLES AND FIGURES
PCiECT L0 (_A7 C\ J a l'3ir?:'I S?i ? 1_V S.7FS
I r iGL'c.? \'_ I
_ I,
? I
i Gaston (2--uritY
TIP= ?-- -'_ State Project= S.-IS1_301
ear/ 2.124
I NC,
r
D
tfl?
-r 77: 77; -:1 7:.7
?.... ; 27 1' 11, ''a A?': 777
773
.14
DALIi - I m 1 P ?.RT B \
E\D'; ?3
7327 •?J 17:7
POP... 41
O -
;78
?M 10
f 77„
o
k
7:77, 1 227, s.'°
7211 11 Es
'SPRI.
7v r v 7 0 5. lI
POP.
rLiy_. .87 !7 J e:'y r +?• IA 37'7.7i:•
2. ? \ ?e j770 `i2^ Ei n. y? . s o 091
v
c775 IZ! {7ZT 7376
I7?1
76
7.73 -.
i 7715
1110 .19 r
27
.20
7719
a?
i?:is ` ? r€6 2220 °B .a .I.•
7 7
:? 7.277a 7220 .......
2
= .
PART^ y
----} RAN_O
7.
rt::::• ??? _ _ X76: POP. 1.774
92 o
::::::• ?:..... 2212 .CS ••:::. `
. 17 M2
10
ZLAJ :]M
77
7254
>. i 7
mot,
.....
At _X:

A2-1
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30 m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
Power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
90
D Diesel truck 65 kmph 15 m away
E 90 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmph 15 m away MODERATELY LOUD
B 70
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 1.5 m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10
0 THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
A2-2
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities 1s essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Existing Noise Level increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
<50 > 15
> 50 > 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
A2-3
TABLE N3
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Leq)
SITE
NC 279, From NC 7 to NC 275, Gaston County,
State Project 0 8.1811301, TIP N U-2523
NOISE
LEVEL
LOCATION DESCRIPTION (dBA)
1. NC 279, 0.20 km North of NC 7 Modeled 69.9
2. NC 279, 0.21 km N. of Hollandale Dr. Modeled 66.9
3. NC 279, 0.04 km West of NC 275 Modeled 66.6
Note: The ambient noise level sites were measured at 15 meters
from the center of the nearest lane of traffic.
A2-4
TABLE N4
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 279, From NC 7 to NC 275, Gaston County,
State project N 8.1811301, TIP M U-2523
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
ID# LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(m)
From Beginning of Project to Auten Road
1 Business C NC 279 45.0 L 62 NC 279 45.0 L
2 Residence B 50.0 R 61 " 50.0 R
3 Residence B " 52.0 R 61 " 52.0 R
4 School E " 21.0 L 68/43 " 21.0 L
5 Residence B " 26.0 R 66 26.0 R
6 Residence B " 35.0 R 64 " 35.0 R
7 Residence B " 27.0 R 66 " 27.0 R
8 Residence B " 25.0 R 67 " 25.0 R
9 Residence B " 24.0 R 67 " 24.0 A
10 Residence B " 27.0 L 66 " 27.0 L
11 Residence B " 37.0 L 64 " 37.0 L
12 Residence B " 20.0 L 68 " 20.0 L
13 Residence B " 21.0 L 68 " 21.0 L
14 Residence B " 21.0 L 68 " 21.0 L
15 Residence B " 25.0 R 67 " 25.0 R
16 Residence B " 27.0 R 66 " 27.0 R
17 Residence B " 24.0 L 67 " 24.0 L
18 Residence B 18.0 L 69 " 18.0 L
19 Residence B " 18.0 L 69 " 18.0 L
20 Residence B " 20.0 L 68 20.0 L
21 Residence B " 25.0 R 67 " 25.0 R
22 Residence B 24.0 R 67 " 24.0 R
23 Residence B " 22.0 R 68 " 22.0 R
24 Residence B " 33.0 L 65 " 33.0 L
25 Residence B " 21.0 L 66 " 21.0 L
26 Residence B " 20.0 L 68 " 20.0 L
27 Residence B 20.0 A 68 " 20.0 R
28 Residence B " 21.0 R 68 " 21.0 R
29 Residence B " 22.0 R 68 22.0 R
30 Residence B " 30.0 R 65 " 30.0 R
31 Residence B 23.0 L 67 23.0 L
32 Residence H
21.0
L
68
" 21.0
L
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM
........................
1/6
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
_ - 64 + 2
_ - 63 + 2
_ - 63 + 2
_ - 71/46 + 3/3
" 69 + 3
" 67 + 3
" 69 + 3
" 69 + 2
70 + 3
69 + 3
_ - " 66 + 2
71 + 3
_ _ • 71 + 3
- - " 71 + 3
- - " 69 + 2
_ _ • 69 + 3
_ _ • 70 + 3
- - " 72 + 3
- - " 72 + 3
- - ' 71 + 3
_ _ • 69 + 2
- - " 70 + 3
71 + 3
_ _ • 67 + 2
- - " 71 + 3
It 71 + 3
- - It 71 + 3
- - " 71 + 3
- - " 71 + 3
- - " 68 + 3
- - It 70 + 3
- - " 71 + 3
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A2-5
TABLE N4
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 279, From NC 7 to NC 275, Gaston County,
State Project N 8.1811301, TIP N U-2523
AMBIENT
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE
IDM LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(m) LEVEL
From Auten Road to Robinson-Clemmer Road
33 Residence B NC 279 30.0 L 62
34 Residence B " 32.0 L 62
35 Residence B " 31.0 R 62
36 Residence B " 30.0 R 62
37 Residence B " 28.0 R 63
38 Residence B " 27.0 R 63
39 Residence B " 26.0 R 63
40 Residence B " 30.0 L 62
41 Residence B •' 30.0 L 62
42 Residence B " 27.0 L 6?
43 Residence B " 33.0 R 6:
44 Residence B 26.0 R 6:
45 Residence B " 28.0 R 6:
46 Residence B 27.0 L 6:
47 Residence B " 31.0 L 6:
48 Residence B " 40.0 L 61
49 Residence B " 37.0 L 6:
50 Residence B 38.0 L 6'.
51 Residence B " 22.0 R 6'.
52 Residence B " 23.0 R 6
53 Residence B " 30.0 R 6
54 Residence B 35.0 R 6
55 Residence B " 22.0 R 6
56 Residence B " 32.0 R 6
57 Residence B " 34.0 L 6
58 Residence B 38.0 L 6
59 Residence B •' 30.0 R 6
60 Residence B " 25.0 R 6
61 Residence B " 23.0 R 6
62 Residence B " 27.0 L 6
63 Residence B 26.0 L E
64 Residence B 25.0 L E
65 Residence B " 25.0 L E
NEAREST
PROPOSED ROADWAY
NAME DISTANCE(m)
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM
2/6
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
NC 279 30.0 L - - " 67 + 5
32.0 L - - It 67 + 5
" 31.0 R - - " 67 + 5
30.0 R - - " 67 + 5
28.0 R - - * 68 + 5
" 27.0 R - - * 68 + 5
" 26.0 R - - " 68 + 5
" 30.0 L - - " 67 + 5
30.0 L - - " 67 + 5
" 27.0 L - - " 68 + 5
33.0 R - - " 66 + 4
26.0 R - - " 66 + 5
28.0 R - - * 68 + 5
27.0 L - - " 68 + 5
31.0 L - - * 67 + 5
" 40.0 L - - 65 + 5
" 37.0 L - - * 66 + 5
" 38.0 L - - 65 + 4
22.0 R - - It 70 + 5
r? 23.0 R - - It 69 + 5
30.0 R - - " 67 + 5
35.0 R - - " 66 + 5
" 22.0 R - - It 70 + 5
" 32.0 R - - It 67 + 5
34.0 L - - " 66 + 4
38.0 L - - 65 + 4
30.0 R - - " 67 + 5
25.0 R - - " 69 + 5
23.0 R - - " 69 + 5
27.0 L - - It 68 + 5
•' 26.0 L - - It 68 + 5
25.0 L - - It 69 + 5
25.0 L - - " 69 + 5
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-,>. Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). It _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFA Part 772).
A2-6
TABLE N4
FRWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 279, From NC 7 to NC 275, Gaston County,
State Project M 8.1811301, TIP M U-2523
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWA Y NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
IDM LAND USE CATEGORY
..................... NAME DISTANCE(m
................ )
. LEVEL
..... NAME DISTANCE(m
................ )
.
From Auten Road to Robinson-Clemmer Road (Cont.d)
66 Residence B NC 279 20.0 R 65 NC 279 20.0 R
67 Residence B 21.0 R 65 " 21.0 R

68
Residence
B "
15.0
R
67
" 15.0
R
69 Residence B
" 20.0
R
65
" 20.0
R

70
Residence
B
30.0
"
L
62
" 30.0
L
71 Residence B " 25.0 L 64 " 25.0 L
72 Residence B 33.0 L 62 " 33.0 L
72A Church E " 57.0 L 57/<40 " 57.0 L
73 Residence B " 20.0 R 65 " 20.0 R
74 Residence B 21.0 R 65 " 21.0 R
75 Residence B 21.0 R 65 " 21.0 R
76 Residence B " 23.0 R 64 " 23.0 R
77 Residence B " 20.0 R 65 " 20.0 R
78 Residence B 25.0 R 64 " 25.0 R
79 Residence B " 27.0 R 63 " 27.0 R
80 Residence B " 41.0 L 60 " 41.0 L

81
Residence
B
35.0
"
R
61
" 35.0
R
82 Residence H
30.0
L
62
" 30.0
L
83 Residence B " 25.0 L 64 " 25.0 L
84 Residence H 27.0 L 63 " 27.0 L
85 Residence B
" 32.0
L
62
" 32.0
L
86 Residence B 23.0 R 64 " 23.0 R
87 Residence B
12.0
R
68
" 12.0
R

88
Residence
B
17.0
"
R
66
" 17.0
R
89 Residence B " 31.0 R 62 31.0 R
90 Residence B " 23.0 L 64 " 23.0 L
91 Residence B 32.0 L 62 " 32.0 L
92 Residence B
22.0
R
65
" 22.0
R
93 Business C " 82.0 L 53 82.0 L
94 Business C 32.0 R 62 " 32.0 R

95
Business
C
27.0
"
A
63
" 27.0
R
96 Residence B
13.0
R
68
" 13.0
A
97 Residence B 27.0 R 63 27.0 R
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM
3/7
NOISE
LEVEL.
INCREASE
* 70 + 5
_ _ * 70 + 5
- - * 72 + 5
_ _ * 70 + 5
_ _ * 67 + 5
- _ * 69 + 5
_ - * 66 + 4
_ - 61/<40 + 4/0
_ - * 70 + 5
_ - * 70 + 5
70 + 5
69 + 5
70 + 5
69 + 5
68 + 5
65 + 5
_ - * 66 + 5
67 + 5
69 + 5
_ - * 68 + 5
67 + 5
69 + 5
72 + 4
71 + 5
67 + 5
- - * 69 + 5
67 + 5
70 + 5
- - 58 + 5
67 + 5
- - 68 + 5
72 + 4
68 + 5
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
- -
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A2-7
TABLE N4 4/6
FBWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 279, From NC 7 to NC 275, Gaston County,
State Project N 8.1811301, TIP N U-2523
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
IDN
.... LAND USE CATEGORY
................. NAME DISTANCE(m)
................. LEVEL
..... NAME DISTANCE(m)
................. -L- -Y- MAXIMUM
........................ INCREASE
........
From Auten Road to Robinson-Clemmer Road (Cont.d)
98 Residence B NC 279 20.0 R 65 NC 279 20.0 R - - * 70 + 5
99 Business C " 18.0 L 66 " 18.0 L - - * 71 + 5
100 Residence B " 13.0 L 68 " 13.0 L - - * 72 + 4
101 Business C " 16.0 L 67 " 16.0 L - - * 72 + 5
102 Residence B " 20.0 R 65 " 20.0 R - - * 70 + 5
103 Residence B " 15.0 L 67 " 15.0 L - - * 72 + 5
104 Residence B " 20.0 L 65 " 20.0 L - - * 70 + 5
From Robinson-Clemmer Road to End of Project
105 Residence B NC 279 19.0 L 65 NC 279 19.0 L - - * 70 + 5
106 Residence B " 20.0 L 65 " 20.0 L - - * 69 + 4
107 Residence B " 23.0 L 64 " 23.0 L - - * 69 + 5
108 Residence B " 15.0 R 67 " 15.0 R - - " 71 + 4
109 Residence B " 26.0 R 63 " 26.0 R - - * 67 + 4
110 Residence B " 24.0 R 64 " 24.0 R - - " 68 + 4
111 Residence B " 23.0 L 64 " 23.0 L - - * 69 + 5
112 Residence B 19.0 L 65 " 19.0 L - - * 70 + 5
113 Residence B •' 18.0 L 66 " 18.0 L - - * 70 + 4
114 Residence B " 32.0 L 62 " 32.0 L - - " 66 + 4
115 Residence B " 22.0 R 64 " 22.0 R - - " 69 + 5
116 Residence B " 20.0 R 65 " 20.0 R - - * 69 + 4
117 Residence B " 35.0 R 61 35.0 R - - 65 + 4
118 Residence B " 35.0 R 61 35.0 R - - 65 + 4
119 Residence B •' 18.0 L 66 " 18.0 L - - It 70 + 4
120 Residence B " 17.0 L 66 " 17.0 L - - * 70 + 4
121 Residence B " 17.0 L 66 " 17.0 L - - * 70 + 4
122 Residence B " 17.0 L 66 •' 17.0 L - - It 70 + 4
123 Residence B " 17.0 L 66 " 17.0 L - - It 70 + 4
124 Residence B " 17.0 L 66 " 17.0 L - - It 70 + 4
125 Residence B " 50.0 R 58 " 50.0 R - - 62 + 4
126 Residence B " 28.0 R 63 " 26.0 R - - * 67 + 4
127 Residence B " 15.0 R 67 " 15.0 R - - * 71 + 4
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A24
TABLE N4
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 279, From NC 7 to NC 275, Gaston County,
State Project N 8.1811301, TIP # U-2523
AMBIENT NEAREST
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY
IDM LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(m)
From Robinson-Clemmer Road to End of Project (Cont.d)
128 Residence B " 20.0 L 65 " 20.0 L
129 Residence B " 15.0 L 67 " 15.0 L
130 Residence B " 15.0 L 67 " 15.0 L
131 Residence B " 11.0 L 68 " 11.0 L
132 Residence B " 20.0 L 65 " 20.0 L
133 Residence B " 18.0 R 66 " 18.0 R
134 Residence B " 20.0 R 65 " 20.0 R
135 Residence B " 28.0 R 63 " 28.0 R
136 Residence B " 22.0 R 64 22.0 R
137 Residence B " 28.0 R 63 " 28.0 R
136 Residence B " 20.0 R 65 " 20.0 R
139 Residence B " 20.0 R 65 " 20.0 R
140 Residence B •' 20.0 L 65 " 20.0 L
141 Residence B " 20.0 L 65 " 20.0 L
142 Residence B " 21.0 L 65 " 21.0 L
143 Residence B " 22.0 L 64 " 22.0 L
144 Residence B •' 21.0 L 65 " 21.0 L
145 Residence B " 23.0 R 64 " 23.0 R
146 Residence B 20.0 R 65 " 20.0 R
147 Residence B " 21.0 R 65 " 21.0 R
148 Residence B " 23.0 R 64 " 23.0 R
149 Residence B " 30.0 L 62 " 30.0 L
150 Residence B " 18.0 L 66 " 18.0 L
151 Residence B " 30.0 R 62 " 30.0 R
152 Residence B " 30.0 R 62 " 30.0 R
153 Residence B " 28.0 R 63 " 28.0 R
154 Residence B " 23.0 L 64 " 23.0 L
155 Business C " 50.0 L 58 " 50.0 L
156 Business C " 25.0 L 63 " 25.0 L
157 Church E " 56.0 R 57/<40 " 56.0 R
158 Residence B " 20.0 L 65 " 20.0 L
159 Business C " 30.0 L 62 " 30.0 L
160 Residence B 32.0 L 62 " 32.0 L
PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
-L- -Y- MAXIMUM
5/6
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
- - * 69 + 4
- " 71 + 4
* 71 + 4
- - * 71 + 3
- - * 69 + 4
- - * 70 + 4
- - * 69 + 4
- - * 67 + 4
- - " 69 + 5
- - * 67 + 4
- - " 69 + 4
- - * 69 + 4
- - * 69 + 4
- - It 69 + 4
- - * 69 + 4
- - * 69 + 5
- - * 69 + 4
- - * 69 + 5
- - * 69 + 4
- - It 69 + 4
- - * 69 + 5
- - It 66 + 4
- - * 70 + 4
- - * 66 + 4
- - It 66 + 4
- - * 67 + 4
- - * 69 + 5
- - 62 + 4
- - 68 + 5
- - 61/<40 + 4/0
- - It 69 + 4
- - 66 + 4
- - It 66 + 4
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A2-9
TABLE N4 6/6
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 279, From NC 7 to NC 275, Gaston County,
State Project N 8.1811301, TIP 0 U-2523
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID8 LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
From Robinson-Clemmer Road to End of Project (Cont.d)
161 Residence B NC 279 37.0 L 60 NC 279 37.0 L - - 65 + 5
162 Business C " 20.0 R 65 " 20.0 R - - 69 + 4
163 Business C " 20.0 R 65 " 20.0 R - - 69 + 4
164 Residence B " 26.0 L 63 " 26.0 L - - * 67 + 4
165 Business C " 25.0 L 63 " 25.0 L - - 68 + 5
166 Business C " 35.0 R 61 " 35.0 R - - 65 + 4
167 Business C " 45.0 R 59 " 45.0 R - - 63 + 4
168 Residence B " 35.0 R 61 " 35.0 R - - 65 + 4
169 Residence B " 30.0 R 62 " 30.0 R - - * 66 + 4
170 Residence B " 17.0 R 66 " 17.0 R - - * 70 + 4
171 Residence B " 17.0 R 66 " 17.0 R - - * 70 + 4
172 Residence B 21.0 R 65 " 21.0 R - - * 69 + 4
173 Residence B " 20.0 R 65 " 20.0 R - - * 69 + 4
174 Business C " 25.0 L 63 " 25.0 L - - 68 + 5
175 Business C •' 25.0 L 63 " 25.0 L - - 68 + 5
176 Residence B 19.0 L 65 " 19.0 L - - " 70 + 5
177 Residence B " 17.0 L 66 " 17.0 L - - It 70 + 4
178 Residence B 16.0 L 66 16.0 L - - It 71 + 5
179 Business C " 35.0 R 61 " 35.0 R - - 65 + 4
180 Residence B 36.0 R 61 36.0 R - - 65 + 4
161 Business C " 12.0 R 68 " 12.0 R - - * 71 + 3
162 Business C " 15.0 L 67 " 15.0 L - - * 71 + 4
183 Residence B " 18.0 L 66 " 18.0 L - - * 70 + 4
184 Residence B " 25.0 L 63 " 25.0 L - - * 68 + 5
185 Business C " 21.0 R 65 " 21.0 R - - 69 + 4
186 Residence B " 35.0 R 61 " 35.0 R - - 65 + 4
187 Residence B •' 15.0 R 67 " 15.0 R - - * 71 + 4
188 Residence B " 16.0 R 66 " 16.0 R - - * 71 + 5
189 Residence B " 20.0 L 65 20.0 L - - It 69 + 4
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A2-1
TABLE N5
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
• NC 279, From NC 7 to NC 275, Gaston County,
State Project N 8.1811301, TIP N U-2523
Maximum Predicted Contour Approximate N umber of Impac ted
Leq Noise Levels Distances Receptors According to
dBA (Maximum) Title 23 CFA Part 772
Description 15 m 30 m 60 m 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E

1. From Beginning of Project to Auten Rd. 71 67 61 18 m 36 m 0 28 0 0 0
2. From Auten Road to Robinson-Clemmer Rd. 70 66 60 16 m 32 m 0 63 2 0 0
3. From Robinson-Clemmer Road End of Project 69 65 60 <14 m 29 m 0 63 2 0 0

TOTALS
0 154 4 0 0
NOTES - 1. 15m, 30m, and 60m distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
TABLE N6
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
NC 279, From NC 7 to NC 275, Gaston County,
State Project N 8.1811301, TIP k U-2523
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
Section <.0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >- 25 Increases(1) Criteria(2)
1. From Beginning to Auten Rd. 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2. From Auten Rd. to Robinson- 0 9 64 0 0 0 0 0 0
Clemmer Rd.
3. From Robinson-Cleaner Rd. 0 66 19
0
0
0 0
0
0
to End of Project
TOTALS 0 107 83 0 0 0 0 0 0
1) As defined by only a substantial increase (See bottom of Table N2).
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2
A2-11
TABLE N5
FNWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
NC 279, From NC 7 to NC 275, Gaston County,
State Project N 8.1811301, TIP 8 U-2523
Maximum Predicted Contour Approximate Number of Impacted
Leq Noise Levels Distances Receptors According to
dBA (Maximum) Title 23 CFR Part 772
d 67 . A B C D E
Description 15 m 30 m 60 m 72 BA

1. From Beginning of Project to Auten Rd. 71 67 61 18 m 36 m 0 28 0 0 0
2. From Auten Road to Robinson-Clemmer Rd. 70 66 60 16 m 32 m 0 63 2 0 0
3. From Robinson-Clemmer Road End of Project 69 65 60 <14 m 29 m 0 63 2 0 0

TOTALS
0 154 4 0 0
NOTES - 1. 15m, 30m, and 60m distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
TABLE N6
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
NC 279, From NC 7 to NC 275, Gaston County,
State Project K 8.1811301, TIP M U-2523
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
Section <.0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >- 25 Increases(1) Criteria(2)
1. From Beginning to Auten Rd. 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2. From Auten Rd. to Robinson- 0 9 64 0 0 0 0 0
0
Clamor Rd.
3. From Robinson-Clemmer Rd. 0 66 19
0
0
0 0
0
0
to End of Project
TOTALS 0 107 83 0 0 0 0 0 0
1) As defined by only a substantial increase (See bottom of Table N2).
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2
A2-1
APPENDIX 3
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS
TABLES
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: R-2523: NC 279, Gaston County
DATE: 09/29/95 TIME: 15:33
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E)
LINK VARIABLES
RUN: NC 279, Year 1998, Build
ZO - 108. CM
ATIM - 60. MINUTES
LINK DESCRIPTION I LINK COORDINATES (M)
W)
MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
(M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1. Far Lane Link 3.7 -805.0
2. Near Lane Link 0.0 805.0
JOB: R-2523: NC 279, Gaston County
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
RUN: NC 279, Year 1998, Build
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R31,23m Lt. CL, RES -21.1 0.0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REC1
MAX 2.8
DEGR. 8
3.7 805.0 I 1610. 360. AG 939. 15.7 0.0 13.4
0.0 -805.0 1610. 180. AG 939. 15.7 0.0 13.4
A3-1
TABLE A2
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: R-2523: NC 279, Gaston County
DATE: 09/29/95 TIME: 15:34
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E)
LINK VARIABLES
RUN: NC 279, Year 2018, Build
20 - 108. CM
ATIM - 60. MINUTES
MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
(M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1610. 360. AG 1155. 10.7 0.0 13.4
1610. 180. AG 1155. 10.7 0.0 13.4
LINK DESCRIPTION LINK COORDINATES (M)
X1 Y1 X2 Y2
1. Far Lane Link 3.7 -805.0 3.7 805.0
2. Near Lane Link 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0
JOB: R-2523: NC 279, Gaston County
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
RUN: NC 279, Year 2018, Build
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R31,23m Lt. CL, RES -21.1 0.0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REC1
MAX 2.6
DEGR. 5
A3-2
TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: R-2523: NC 279, Gaston County RUN: NC 279, Year 1998, No-Build
DATE: 10/05/95 TIME: 14:30
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S 20 - 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.6 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1. Far Lane Link 3.7 -805.0 3.7 805.0 1610. 360. AG 939. 15.7 0.0 26.5
2. Near Lane Link 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0 1610. 180. AG 939. 15.7 0.0 26.5
JOB: R-2523: NC 279, Gaston County RUN: NC 279, Year 1998, No-Build
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y 2
1. R31,23m Lt. CL, RES -21.1 0.0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REC1
MAX 2.9
DEGR. 5
A3-3
TABLE A4
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: R-2523: NC 279, Gaston County
DATE: 10/05/95 TIME: 14:31
SITE 6 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E)
LINK VARIABLES
RUN: NC 279, Year 2018, No-Build
ZO - 108. CM
ATIM - 60. MINUTES
MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
(M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
LINK DESCRIPTION I LINK COORDINATES (M)
X1 Y1 X2 Y2
1. Far Lane Link 3.7 -805.0 3.7 805.0
2. Near Lane Link 0.0 805.0 0.0 -805.0
JOB: R-2523: NC 279, Gaston County
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
1610. 360. AG 1155. 10.7 0.0 22.7
1610. 180. AG 1155. 10.7 0.0 22.7
RUN: NC 279, Year 2018, No-Build
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R31,23m Lt. CL, RES -21.1 0.0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REC1
MAX 2.7
DEGR. 5
A3-4
APPENDIX 4
COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM
FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL
AGENCIES
r DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
P.O. BOX 1890
eArrENTIONOF WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO
May 8, 1995
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
50'
/c GE/Lcc
'MAY 1 1 1995
2 J
DIVISION OF Q=
NIGHWAYS
This is in response to your letter of March 10, 1995, requesting our
comments on "NC 279, from NC 7 in Gastonia to the Carolina and Northwestern
Railway in Dallas, Gaston County, Federal-Aid Project No. STPNHF-279(1), State
Project No. 8.1811301, U-2523" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199502459).
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,
__Q'`L_ William R. Dawson, .E:.
Chief, Engineering and
Planning Division
Enclosure
Pnnled on ® Recycled Paper
A4-1
May 8, 1995
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
'INC 279, from NC 7 in Gastonia to the Carolina and Northwestern Railway in
Dallas, Gaston County, Federal-Aid Project No. STPNHF-279(1), State Project
No. 8.1811301, U-2523" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199502459)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
The portion of roadway in the proposed project is located in Gaston County
and partially within the jurisdictional limits of the city of Gastonia and the
town of Dallas, all which participate in the National Flood Insurance Program.
From a review of the February 1994 City of Gastonia Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM), the roadway crosses Long Creek, a detail study stream with 100-year
flood elevations determined and a floodway defined. We suggest that you
coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency regarding the need for
a no-rise certification and with the city for compliance with their flood
plain ordinance and any modifications to their flood insurance map and report.
From a review of the May 1980 Gaston County FIRM and the pertinent United
States Geological Survey (USGS) topo map of the area, the roadway within-the
county's jurisdiction does not appear to be in an identified flood hazard
area. Likewise, indications are, from examination of the USGS topo map, that
there is no involvement with any identified flood hazard area for the portion
within the jurisdiction of the town of Dallas.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Steven Lund, Asheville Field Office,
Regulatory Branch, at [phone]
A comprehensive survey should be conducted for waters and wetlands along
the proposed alignment. Wetlands should be identified and delineated using
the Corps 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. Wetland delineations must be
supported by Data Forms. At the minimum, Department of the Army (DA) permits
would be required for the discharge of fill associated with the crossing of
Long Creek. Asymmetrical widening should be considered to allow maximum
flexibility to avoid or minimize any wetland resources that are identified.
Mr. Lund may be contacted for any questions related to DA permits.
A4-2
FM208 ,
05-02-95
NORTH CAROLINA SIAIE LLtAKINbHUUSt
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
MAILED TO FROM
N-C- DEPT- OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
FRANKLIN VICK DIRECTOR
PLANN. C ENV- BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
TRANSPORTATION BLDG./INTER-OFF
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SCOPING - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO NC 2791 FROM NC 7 IN GASTONIA
TO THE NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY IN DALLASr GASTON COUNTY (TIP #U-2523)
SAI NO 95E42200646 PROGRAM TITLE - SCOPING
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGPOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
(X ) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS9 PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone]•
bEl v o
.MAY 0 4 1995
C-C- REGION F
DIVISION OF
HIGHWAYS
RONMPi
A4-3
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
MEMORANDUM
DEHNR
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGeel;?/
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 95-0646 Scoping Improvements to NC 279, Gaston County
DATE: April 26, 1995
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed project. The attached comments are a
result of this review. More specific comments will be provided
during the environmental review process.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If during the
preparation of the environmental document, additional information
is needed, the applicant is encouraged to notify our respective
divisions.
attachments RECEIVED
APR 2 7 1995
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper A4_L
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources / • •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
p E H N R
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 17, 1995
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihar4, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0646; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to NC 279 from NC 7 in Gastonia
to the Carolina and Northwestern Railway in Dallas
Gaston County, TIP #U-2523
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks
be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
crossings. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
A4-5
Melba McGee
April 17, 1995
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may
be required for this project. Applications requesting coverage
under our General Certification 14 or General Permit 31 will
require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401
Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have not been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
10886.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
A4-i
ANl) NATURAL Rl"SO"CES =t?y
DIVISIO\ O HEAL H CoInter-Agency Project Review Response /UC -7

Type of Project ?„d•???n. ?•? ?.???'
Project Name --
The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system
the Division of Environmental Health prior to,the award
oved b
b
L-1 y
e appr
8C •0300 et. seq.).
improvements must
required by 15A CAC 73
h
initit
s
e
of a contract or t
3-2460
Wate>°S
the Public
information, contact
This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply with
information the applicant
F
or more
state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements.
Water Supply Section, [phone].
bl
ic
should contact the Pu
If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of adjacent
arding the shellfisT sanitation progra
tion re
f
i
g
orma
n
waters to the harvest of shellfish. For
licant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Branch at [phone].
h
e app
m, t
• The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this m
acontorol cmeasu? esul breeding
applicantrsho should.
i
??
L_J to
oscu
For information concerning appropriate .
contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
the r b
The applicant should be advised that Pro r
necesosaryein orders to preaeatathe
e
structures, an extensive rodent control p g y inz
control,
ram
ration of the rodents to adjacent aree
ement Section 2r- (919)
mi
Mana
h P
g
g
est
Healt
contact the local health department or the Public
733-6407.
The applicant should be advised to contact
retd under 15AdNCACe1S.? regard1900ing their
et. seq.)
uire
s (as
ll
q
ation
requirements for septic tank insta
tic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods, contact the
i
ng sep
For information concern
On-Site Wastewater Section at. [phone].
t should be advised to contract the local health department regarding the sanitary
li
r can
The app
facilities required for this project.

11ns for the water line
If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, pp
ei Environmental Heal,Public
i
Di
e
}1
v
sion
relocation must be submitted to the
9)
(9
33460.
Review Branch, 1330 St. Marys Street, Raleigh, North Car
Pl
an
Section,
?? CSC
Revievver
orl-iNit 3198 (Rc•,,scd J/93)
Division of Eimmi nnwnc-.1l HCA6
D
Se%:ica/Branc'n ate
A4-7
State of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Project Number: Due Date:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW -PROJECT COMMENTS 0 /' - /) j v/ 4
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law. M__,. i nor; indicated on the reverse of the form.
Ouestions regarding these permits should be adoresaeu to the „?w?.,,?-• ?•••-- - -- -- -- - -
vailable from the same
it
'
s are a
information and guidelines relative to these plans and perm
All applications Normal Process
,
Regional Office. Time

SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOWREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
PERMITS
Permit to construct 6 operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
? facilities, sower system extensions, 9 sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
(90 days)
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water andlor Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90120 days
? permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre•application conference usual Additionally, obtain permit to
construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES Reply
(NIA)
discharging into state surface waters fire. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
30 days
? Water Use Permit Pro-application technical conference usually necessary (NIA)
7 days

? Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well. (15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian properly 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
? may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Depanment of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct d operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
(90 days)
? facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 211-106 NIA
Amy open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
60 days
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A
D NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition Contact Asbestos Control Group
(90 days)
919733.0820

? Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1U73 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion b seoimentatio
30
s
20 da
? control plan will be required it one or more acres to be disturbed Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Ouahty Sect ) at least y
30 da
s)
days before be innin activity A fee of S30 for the first acre and 520.00 for each additional acre or art must accompany the plan y
? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: 130 days)
On-site inspection usual Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
? Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any area
d 30 days
160 days)
mined greater than one acre must be permited The appropriate bon
must be received before the permit can be issued
? North Carolina Burning permit On-silo inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
(NIA)
exceeds 4 days
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required 'If more t day
(NIA)
? counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections
"
should be requested at least ten days before actual bum is planned
90120 days
? iliti
F NIA (NIA)
ac
es
Oil Refining

II permit required. application 80 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prep+re plans. 30 days
? Permit
f
t
S inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv
0
y
Dam
a
e ad plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (6
drYS)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces•
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of 11200.00 must ac-
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion
Continued on reverse
h 10, A4-?
Normal Process
Time
(statutory time
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUIREMENTS limit)
PERMITS
0
File surety bond of ss,o00 with EHNR running to State of N.C. days
1

uPon
shall,
lE
conditional Itt any will opened do
(NIA)
D Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well NR rules and regulations.
l
abandonment. , be plugged according
ermit
of 10 days
p
Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days pnor to team
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application by letter. No standard application form.
Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include
hi 15.20 days
(NIA)
D Slate Lakes Construction Permit p
descriptions t drawings of structure fl proof of owners
t
y.
of riparian proper
60 days

D
rtification
C NIA 1130 days)
e
401 Water Quality 55 days
D
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
6250.00 fee must accompany application (150 days)
22 days
650.00 fee must accompany application
12S days)
D GAMA Permit for MINOR development

be moved or destroyed, please notify
monuments
am&. If any
c monuments are located in or near the project
t
d
1
D i
e
Several geo N 2761
Raleigh. C
urvey Box 27687.
S
Abandonment of any wells. if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A, Subchapter 2C.0100
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if -orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
45 days
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is squired. (NIA)
• Other comments (attach additional pages as neeceesssary. being conarn 10 cote comment authority).
LAJ Q rLA?, ?f rf
`r
(
?
te
/??' O? S^??vtl•/-?p"?"? ° t Ti`t?1
V ?/Lo?Jti'D l SCI i r T
l? (¢ - A J 0 l<rJo ?y,J C? L,o •.?,? ?P L i Ty, W - Ce ,217 /YID?
REGIONAL OFFICES
arding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
tions re
Q
g
ues ? Fayetteville Regional Office
? Asheville Regional Office
Place
fi Suite 714 WWachovia 2 Budding
C
24301
ill
n
Wood
59 e,
Fayettev
6801
NC 2
Asheville, 1
(919) 4661541
(704) 25/4208
ooresville Regional Office ? Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950
28115 Raleigh- NC 27609
4
Mooresville, NC (919) 733.231
[phone]
D Wilmington Regional Office
? Washington Regional office 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
1424 Carolina Avenue Wilmington, NC 26405
W 91 in ton, NC 27889 [phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
6025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100 A4-9
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
Iola, aaa.>•rp

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS Charles H. Gardner
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary C? f_ Director
Project Number: l J l'C6?16 County:
Project Name:
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 Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment

2.._GGY J`-
Date
This projeclt 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 [phone].
f? Gval? 31Z z/9 S
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer A4-1(
State of North Carolina IT
Department of Environment, YI9VTA
Health and Natural Resources 4 • 0
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor E H N
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary C. Dewey Botts, Director
March 30, 1995
TO: Melba McGee ?a
FROM: David Harrison ?Z
SUBJECT: Widening NC 279 from NC 7 in Gastonia to Northwestern
Railway in Dallas, Gaston County. Project No. 95-0646.
The proposed project involves widening NC 279 to five lanes
with curb and gutter. The Environmental Assessment should
include an estimate of the amount of prime, unique, and statewide
important farmland that will be impacted.
DH/ t 1
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone] A4-11
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188,919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program cue
DATE: April 17, 1995
SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 95-0646, Scoping
comments for improvements to NC 279, Gaston County, TIP
#U-2523.
This correspondence is in response to a request by-you for
our preliminary comments regarding proposed improvements to NC
279 in Gaston County. The NCDOT plans to widen existing NC 279
from NC 7 in Gastonia to the Carolina and Northwestern Railway in
Dallas to five lanes and curb and gutter.
At this point, we have not identified any special concerns
with this project. The following information should be included
in the Environmental Assessment:
1) Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the
project area, including a listing of federally or state
designated threatened, endangered, or special concern
species. The Natural Heritage Program (919/733-7795) should
be contacted for locations of listed fish and wildlife
species.
2) Description of waters and/or wetlands affected by the
project.
3) Project map identifying wetland areas. Identification of
wetlands may be accomplished through coordination with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). If the Corps is not
consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be
identified and criteria listed.
4) Description of project activities that will occur within
waters or wetlands, such as fill or channel alteration.
Acreages of wetlands impacted by alternative project designs
A4-1
95-0646 Page 2 April 17, 1995
should be listed. Project sponsors should indicate whether
the Corps has been contacted to determine the need for a 404
Permit under the Clean Water Act. Contact is Mr. Steve Lund
at 704/271-4857.
5) Description of project site and non-wetland vegetative
communities.
6) The extent to which the project will result in loss,
degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat.
7) Any measures proposed to avoid or reduce impacts of the
project or to mitigate for unavoidable habitat losses.
8) A list of document preparers which shows each individual's
professional background and qualifications.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
project. If you have any questions regarding these comments,
please contact me at 704/652-4257.
cc: Mr. Chris Goudreau, District 8 Fisheries Biologist
Mr. Jack Mason, District 8 Wildlife Biologist
Ms. Janice Nicholls, USFWS, Asheville
A4-13
n ,. SVJE °
y r "•
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 19, 1995
MEMORANDUM
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportati /-,
FROM. David Brook l ?`i)
State Historic Preservation Officer
Deputy
SUBJECT: Improvements to NC 279 from NC 7 to Northwestern
Railroad, Gaston County, U-2523, Federal Aid Project
STPNHF-279(1), State Project 8.1811301, 95-E-4220-
0646
We have received information concerning the above project from the State Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or
architectural importance located within the planning area. However, because the survey of
historic architectural resources in Gaston County is over a decade old, we recommend that
an architectural historian with the North Carolina Department of Transportation survey the
area of potential effect and report the findings to us.
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
800Preservation's Regulations
with 1966 and the Advisory Council
Section a06, codified at 36 CFR on Part Historic
for Compliance Act of
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
DB:slw??
cc: "State Clearinghouse
B. Church
N. Graf
T. Padgett
A4-14
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
l 1?Q(i1 CJUi t;r'I"I I
TIP Federal Aid R
CONCUP,RE\CE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
L
On? , representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Admiuustration (FHwA)
Nor--h Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scooing meeting
Historic architecnural resources photograph review session/consultation
Ot:ier
All oa Zies present agreed
_ there are no properties over fury years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over 'tftY vears old (list attached) within the preiect's area of potential effect.
but based on the historical informa"tion available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as
considered not eligible for the ational Register and nor further evaluation cf th?r? is n?cz a
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:'
Date
Representanve, NCDO
Date
FH-,vA, `or . e ivis on Adtriaistrator, or other Federal Agency
Representative, Si17i'O
Dare
? c
- / Y Yl
. L)alc
Stag Historic Preservation OYftcer
y
r; a survey report is prepared. a anal cccy of .his t rni and C` z amc;,zd list u ill be i :=luce?.
A4-15

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
August 31, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Historic Structures Survey Reports for:
NC 8 from SR 2412 to 1-85, Davidson County,
R-2300B, Federal Aid Project STP-3531(9),
State Project 8.1600701, ER 96-7202;
NC 279 from NC 7 to Carolina and Northwestern
Railway, Gaston County, U-2523, Federal Aid
Project STPNHF-279(1), State Project
8.1811301, ER 96-7275
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
C) V E ?
? r
51995
;_? EtvVl??'J`a
Thank you for your letters of August 1 and 11, 1995, transmitting the historic
structures survey reports by Ed Davis for the above projects. We would like to
address the two reports in one letter since we have general comments about both
reports' format in addition to specific comments about the properties evaluated
therein.
GENERAL COMMENTS
The two reports include eligibility requirements based upon the historic contexts
developed by the author. This format is a departure from that described in the
North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) "Historic Architectural
Resources Survey Procedures and Report Guidelines" dated April 15, 1994, and our
"Guidelines for the Preparation of Reports of Historic Structures Surveys and
Evaluations Submitted to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office"
dated 1989.
Eligibility requirements are ordinarily developed following a comprehensive survey of
a property type within a defined geographic area. The use of eligibility
requirements in these reports is problematic because they are based on general
overviews of the counties' history and architecture rather than comprehensive
county-wide surveys of property types. For example, the eligibility requirements for
residential design in the Gaston County report only addresses properties associated
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 gP
A4-1 E
alas Graf
August 31, 1995, Page 2
r
with the textile industry. Clearly there may be residential buildings not associated
with the textile industry in Gaston County that are eligible for the National Register.
For these reasons, we do not believe that eligibility requirements, other than the
National Register criteria, are appropriate for survey reports. We are, however,
willing to discuss this matter with you and NCDOT.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following property is eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under the criteria cited:
Flint Grove Elementary School. The school is eligible under Criterion C as an
intact example of an early twentieth century school building and under
Criterion A for education as one of the first permanent public schools to be
constructed in Gaston County.
i
/xo
Until additional information is provided for Properties #11-23 and 25-31, we are
unable to make a determination of their eligibility for the National Register. The
architectural context and eligibility requirements focus on mill housing and high-
style, architect-designed residences. Please evaluate this neighborhood within the
context of trends in middle class housing in the early-to-mid twentieth century.
The following property is listed in the National Register under the criteria cited:
Junior Order United American Mechanics National Orphans Home. This
complex of Colonial Revival buildings is significant under Criterion C for
architecture and Criterion A for social/humanitarian history.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following properties are eligible for the National Register
under the criteria cited:
Miller-Everhart Farm. This property is eligible under Criterion C as an unusual
and important example of a high-style antebellum farmhouse in Davidson
County.
Captain John H. Miller House. This property is eligible under Criterion C as
the earliest example of the Italianate style found in the county.
The following properties were determined not eligible for listing in the National
Register:
Southmont General Store (#1). This property has undergone numerous
character-altering changes.
Cotton Grove General Store (#6). This building is in an advanced state of
deterioration.
A4-17
(Nicholas Graf
August 31, 1995, Page 3
Owen Taylor House (#13)• This house was moved to its current location and
lacks integrity due to numerous alterations.
Until additional information for the Sink House (#8) is provided, we are unable to
make a determination of its eligibility for the National Register. This house appears
to be a relatively unaltered example of a Queen Anne cottage. Please provide more
specific information about the prevalence of this type throughout the county.
Please note that we did not review photographs of Property #9 at the June 8, 1995
meeting, as the report states. However, we do not believe that the property
appears to be eligible.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slcc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
A4-18
Federal Aid # S i ?? N H F - ?250TIP it County ,.}
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description 2r-, •; }S e,?;c???d rrt r5 ?„ -rcrs C?oti rl + c
GPsta r St T.r] e.v.eSlrs oJ?? 1c?Jcl? r sv:?c r: Ja feSM:off ?a e Ln,,nkt?rNQ
eX?S? ?? ?^r?,rvca J
On S -?3 representatives of the J
_ North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
X Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
rcvic%vcd the subject project at
A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
there arc no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
there arc no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential cffccts.
there arc properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the projects area of potential cffccts,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as - arc considered not eligible
for National Register td no further evaluation of them is nccessarv.
there arc no National Register-listed properties within the projects area of potential cffccts.
Signed:
-1 5-33-- Q(-
Representative, NCDOT Date
FHwA. for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
ve, 9HPO
Z
???
State Historic Preservation Officer
Date
Date
if a survey report is prepared, a Final copy oCthis Conn and the auached list %%ill be included.
A4-19
fp I Z _'3?.
'tip'- ?_,•
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 6, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Historic Structures Survey Report Addendum for
NC 279 from NC 7 to C & W Railroad, Gaston
County, U-2523, Federal Aid Project STPNHF-
279(1), State Project 8.181 1301, ER 96-8907
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of May 8, 1996, transmitting the historic structures
survey report addendum by Ed Davis concerning the above project.
We concur that Houses #11-23 and 25-31 are not eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places, individually or as a historic district, because they are average
examples of common early twentieth-century house types and have no special
historical significance.
The report in general meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the
Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
CDavid Brook
Deputy State Historic
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
-1?. Church
Gaston County
Preservation Officer
Historic Preservation Commission
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
A4-20
Federal Aid T 5 u P t iIP- TIP ` U --ovo-23 County (,as?r,?
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Brief Project Description
r V0.S-h?N O(Q 14 rNGtiJC?
aCt l T'k N ?-
d o k \\ n -I
-?
Q ?C J
T r ` S?v
On 1 v r 1 , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
?" North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project and agreed
? there are no effects on the National Register-listed property within the project's
area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there are no effects on the National Register-eligible properties located within the
project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties within the
project's area of potential effect. The property-properties and the effect(s) are
listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed
on the reverse.
Sinned:
Representative, N
Historic Architectural Kesources or.%ou ,
-? 1-,:) V-1
Date
r_ Date
for the Divi ' n Administrator, or other Federal Agency

Representative, 5tirv
State Historic Preservation Officer
I if
/
7-7
Wei)
e
?l;oe/
i Date
A4-21
Federal Aid ;r 1 p l?,' f I- - 2??1 CI)TIP TM U, "252 ?j County
C?S?Ct 1
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
?Ci- i I G5 ?4i54'CYIC JiS IC? CI?R)-
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status (NR
or DE) and describe effect.
Reason(s) why effect is not adverse (if applicable).
Initialed: NCDOT { - FHWA SHPO I \-,'V
U
A4-22
Federal P.id m TIP rr 2,5 2.3
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Brief Project Description L
1... AIt7Lo ,..,? TD G 2
•Iounty ek!?O'v
L 1 -1Z G wCie-
On representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
/ North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
}r•, "Other
reviewed the subject project and agreed
there are no effects on the National Register-listed property within the project's
area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there are no effects on the National Register-eligible properties located within the
project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties within the
project's area of potential effect. The property-properties and the effect(s) are
listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed
on the reverse.
Signed:
4 ?AAJP S-7
Representative, NCDOT, Historic Architectural Resources Section Date /
71-Y &.
Oiv:i2s-i?Amnistrator, F"tNV r the or other Federal Agency Date
z-1 q (10
Representative, O ate
- 7 Y6
D to
State Historic Preservation Officer
A4-23
Federal Aid # -?;rMf - 1?1(1) TIP # U1523 County CV dA)-
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
Fling &ymto- Ele?lncv v? ?r.Qnool CO??
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status (NR
or DE) and describe effect.
Reason(s) why effect is not adverse (if applicable).
Initialed: NCDO FHWA SHPO "
A4-24
APPENDIX 5
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL
WORKSHOP NEWS RELEASE
AND INFORMATION HANDOUT
NOTICE OF A CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
FOR THE WIDENING OF NC 279 FROM NC 7 IN GASTONIA TO NC 275 IN DALLAS
Project 8.1811301 U-2523 Gaston County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold the above Citizens
Informational Workshop on August 30, 1995 between the hours of 4:00 PM and
7:00 PM at the North Gaston High School Commons Room, 1133 Ratchford Road,
Dallas.
Interested individuals may attend this informal drop-in meeting at their
convenience during the above stated hours. Department of Transportation
representatives will be present to answer questions and receive comments relative to
the proposed project. There will be no formal session held.
Under this project, it is proposed to widen NC 279 to a five lane curb and gutter
facility. The purpose of this workshop is to gather public comments regarding this
project to aid in the planning process.
Anyone desiring additional information may contact Mr. James Bridges at
P. 0. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611 or phone [phone] Ext. 246.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for disabled persons who wish to
participate in the meeting to comply with the American Disabilities Act. To receive
special services, please contact Mr. Bridges at the above address or phone number or
fax [phone] to provide adequate notice prior to the date of the hearing so that
arrangements can be made.
A5-1
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
WIDENING OF NC 279 (NEW HOPE ROAD)
FROM NC 7 TO CAROLINA AND NORTHWESTERN RAILROAD
GASTONIA AND DALLAS
GASTON COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U - 2523

A5-2
WIDENING OF NC 279 (NEW HOPE ROAD)
FROM NC 7 TO CAROLINA AND NORTHWESTERN RAILROAD
GASTONIA AND DALLAS
GASTON COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-2523
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation's 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) proposes to widen NC 279 (New Hope Road) to a five lane curb and gutter section from
NC 7 in Gastonia to the Carolina and Northwestern Railroad in Dallas. This project has been divided
into two sections (A&B). The A section extends from NC 7 to just north of Long Creek (1.54 miles). The
existing bridge at Long Creek will be widened as a part of section A. The B section extends from just
north of Long Creek to the Carolina and Northwestern Railway (1.9 miles). The project area is shown on
the attached map.
PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT
The purpose of this project is to relieve existing and future traffic congestion and to provide a
continuous multi-lane route from I-85 in Gastonia to US 321 in Dallas.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Currently, planning and environmental studies for the proposed project are being conducted. The
Citizens Informational Workshop is a part of this process. A public hearing is anticipated for the project
in the spring of 1996. Section A right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1998, and
construction is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1999. Section B right of way acquisition is scheduled to
begin in fiscal year 2001, and construction is scheduled to begin after fiscal year 2002.
PROJECT COST
SECTION A
SECTION B
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
Right of way Acquisition $ 2,487,500
Construction S 3,300,000
Total Estimated Cost $5,787,500
Right of Way Acquisition $ 2,325,000
Construction $ 3,200,000
Total Estimated Cost $5,525,000
Total Estimated Project Cost 511,312,500
NC 279 will be widened to a five-lane curb and gutter facility from NC 7 in Gastonia to the
Carolina and Northwestern Railroad in Dallas. The need for additional turning lanes at intersections with
heavy traffic will also be investigated throughout the project. The proposed typical section is shown on
the attached figure.
A5-3
widening, east-side widening, and west-side widening. It is likely that a combination of these alternatives
will be selected as the recommended alternative.
As a part of the B section of this project, the intersection of NC 279 and SR 2327 (Old Spencer
Mountain Road) will be moved to just north of its present location in order to line up with SR 2269 (East
Main Street). This will provide a four-leg intersection and will eliminate the existing offset between the
two intersections. Also the intersection of NC 279 and May Road will be closed. May Road will be
extended to tie in with SR 2327 (Old Spencer Mountain Road).
ANTICIPATED RIGHT OF WAY IMPACTS
The existing right of way width along the project is 60 feet. The proposed widening will require
additional right of way and will likely require the relocation of residences and businesses. However, until
both environmental studies and preliminary design are completed, specific right of way impacts to
individual properties cannot be determined. Anticipated impacts to individual properties will be presented
at the public hearing to be held in the spring of 1996.
JFB
A5-4

O
r
W
m
J
a
C.)
0
LU
U)
O
CL
O
m
a.

fi
W
O
O
ate.
U- 0
O T.
C.0 E
j M
W
CL
CL
E
CO
N m
Ln to
? N 1
N
? v
(V

E e--
r
C', v
N
, r
? v

L
f

O

E ^
co d

N
wm
z
a
m?
Cl)
w
z
a
J
Lf)
D
Q
O
W
CL
z
z
ti
c?
z
?1
C)
Z
E
tU
0
ui
Cl)
0
IOL
O
t=
CL
A5-5

....... ....?........
I
A DEPARTMENT OF
)N
;HWAYS
ENVIRONMENTAL
FROM NC 7 IN GASTONIA
TO CAROLINA AND NORTHWESTERN RAILROAD
IN DALLAS. WIDEN TO A MULTI . LANE FACILITY
GASTON COUNTY
U - 2523
SCALE MILE
0
A5-6
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
1 • •
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
August 2, 2000
Gaston County
DWQ Project # 000979
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
NC Department of Transportation
c/o Bill Gilmore
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Sirs:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to impact 39 linear feet of
stream channel in Gaston County for the purpose of road widening on NC 276, as you described in your application received
by the Division of Water Quality on July 26, 2000. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this action is
covered by General Water Quality Certification Numbers 3288 and 3114. This certification allows you to use Nationwide
Permit Numbers 12 and 33 when issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or
local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal
Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Water shed regulations. This approval will expire when the accompanying
404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must
be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total
wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in
15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions below and those listed in
the attached certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act
within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter
150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N,C. 27611-
7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you
have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-9646.
Attachment
cc: Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Mooresville DWQ Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Sinc rely,
Stevens
'/wt
4
000979
Division of Water Quality • Non-Discharge Branch
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Aff irmative Action Employer • 50%.recycled/l0% post consumer paper
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wetlandc.html
r
STATE o
STATE OF NORTI I CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JANH:s B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
June 23, 2000
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
ATTN: Mr. Steven Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
L LJUN 6 2000
WETI-Al"OS < ,
WATEtt QUALITY SECT ?iily
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Nationwide Permits 12 and 33 Applications for the Widening of NC 279
(New Hope Road) from NC 7 (Ozark Avenue) in Gastonia to SR 2275
(Robinson-Clemmer Road) in Dallas, Gaston County,. Federal Aid Project
No. STPNHF-279(1). State Project No. 8.1811301. TIP No. U-2523A.
Attached is the application packet for the subject project. NCDOT proposes to
widen NC 279 to a multi-lane curb and gutter facility with a continous left turn lane. The
project is approximately 1.9 miles in length. The proposed right-of-way is 100 ft for the
project. The analysis of alternatives and the environmental impacts are discussed in an
Environmental Assessment and Finding Of No Significant Impact signed, October 4,
1996 and May 28, 1998, respectively.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Jurisdictional Wetlands. Wetland determinations were conducted by NCDOT
biologists using the criteria specified in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual. No jurisdictional wetlands are located within the project area
Jurisdictional Surface Waters The proposed project crosses, one surface water,
Long Creek. The new bridge at this crossing will be approximately 197.2 ft in length and
77.4 ft wide and will span Long Creek [DWQ Index No.I 1-129-16-(4)] with no piers in
the channel. Long Creek lies in the Catawba river basin (sub-basin 30836) and carries a
NCDWQ Best Usage Classification of Class C. Class C refers to waters suitable for
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE [phone] LOCATION:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH, NC

agriculture. The 5 span structure totals 163 feet in length. The superstructure consists of
a reinforced concrete deck and railings on I-beam joists. The substructure is composed of
reinforced concrete posts and beams.
The bridge rails will be removed without dropping them into Waters of the United States
The following note will be placed on the plans for the removal of the existing bridge over
Long Creek: The exiting bridge shall be removed by sawing and/or non-shattering
methods such that debris will not fall into the water. While very unlikely, there is a
potential for components of the deck and substructure to be dropped into Waters of the
United States during removal. The resulting temporary fill that could potentially fall into
Long Creek associated with the superstructure and substructure is approximately 74.97
yds;. Traffic will be detoured on existing roads during construction.
A water line at the Long Creek crossing will have to be moved as a result of project
construction. This line will require 119 ft' of temporary fill in surface waters. The length
of pipe beneath Long Creek will be 39.4 ft. Cofferdams will be constructed by using a
median barrier protected with sandbags or Class I and II rip rap with sandbags.
Threatened And Endangered Species. The following species are listed as
threatened or endangered in the respective counties: A Biological Conclusion of No
Effect has been reached for each of the following species. Concurrence from the US Fish
and Wildlife Service with these Biological Conclusions was issued April 27, 1999.
• Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii). Threatened (Similarity of Appearance).
• Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). Threatened.
• Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). Endangered.
Cultural Resources. There is one historic site, the Dallas Historic District, on the
National Register of Historic Places. Another historic site, the Flint Grove Elementary
School, that was found to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The
project, as proposed, will cause no adverse effect on either of these historic properties.
This determination was issued by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on June
27, 1996. There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project. This
determination was issued by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on April 19,
1995
It is anticipated that these activities will be authorized via Nationwide, Permits 33 and 12.
By copy of this application, request is made to the Division of Water Quality, for the
appropriate 401 Water Quality Certifications.

If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Chris
Rivenbark at [phone].
SinSg?ely,
William Gilmore, P.E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
WDG/mcr
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E.. Program Design
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Tim Roundtree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Randy Wise, P.E., Roadside Environmental
Mr. R.W. Spangler, P.E., Division 12 Engineer
Mr. Craig Young, P.E., PD & EA
It / 321 k
15,
TIP U-2523A, Gaston County
r
\L Sto 37+08 ± Y (49.21,
? c?8>rT"
v? -L- +80.000
oP N o- 32.0000 (LT) 0 ALBE
R \ r (104.9869 k( ry oe L Y
\ .ti"?? M v c o ?? SET x. A g? 3s m IIC
i r -1.• +60.000 3?1 w a sb
A1.0000 (LT)- +050 " 43A,
R 0 P .-? `5108.8976 ft) RUY s.tARiIpIECC
"' ` = SET / `DB.1398-0745
T ER I rN ETk s G. r ROY RAMMED
s •?
DB. 064 035EE9LL -0296, -
qb A- X13.6219 2 Q / '
s
+? 0Q00 (LT) N` \i S r i
?p It ft)
`GR 1
69_ y ew ... -? N z r
'?'• ? ? I ? ? OATH NEW I ?
?s; 'P X02 LIMIT INE I 51l ??
PE O 6?T t5 ID'q _ RE QY
0
W H ?• -
NORT NE 1 / n
? m •?+? \ x.23 X09 N 9 ° E
-^ \ 6.93• j 4 f iE I 1 +
V • '?, f s \SET
y J 5 COPE ER , 1 I 15.f?
7 / , i sF o \ (494
O g mm I , W %J5. (RT) GF i J JGR
a fA9.2 A)-- cf.
colic
o m
N . Is o f
SF Q -lr `' o f
-1C 0 17.E N (Im i Y E '-
(55.7 43 f?)ISFD °,11Io
CLASS ' -lr 0 18100 -
m I RIP RAP 5 +19 CH O,
EST. M 6.0000 (RT)
stn k `SS 1? '- Z 5.3018 ft)
SET
d
w y b
LIN K RONAL
1.83m BASE DI L RONALD L. BARNES
fy N SEE DETAIL F DB. 1779-0947
t \ \RICHARD L. BROOME m
DB. 1980-0864

j,aS-23 A
Coo.Stvv^ Co) -4,
-L - POC Sto. 35 +92.626
-DRIVE- POT Sto.10+00.000
K. MARTIN WATERS. JR.
EDWARD E. CRUTCHFIELD. JR. -L- +23.914 ET
DB.1938-0234 op
W o mm2 (L
.
35+18J42 117
R L (8 ' ft)
INE
-L- PC Sta. 3
/ 26.0000 (LT)
8.142 -Lr +93.660 5.3018 ft)
0 P) 19.0875 (LT)
71 ft) / (56230 fl) -L- + .516
' I V
19.14 (L
?
-lr +93.540 (62.81
ft
13.2000 (LT)
BST 4- +82.287 W/LT (43.3071 ft)
13.2000 (LT)

0 I I
(43.3071 ft) -?
"
450mm CONC. CHANNELIZATION e
75
REMVE
T
/
3
EX S
. CB'

RD 857
CONC Q
0
+18.1
15. 1
(49 212661
BST I
CONC
3A
CONC 1 '
450
BST -L- +80.079 BS c
SET ]50000-(RT)3Ef,
(49.2126 fl)
CONC
150 mm BST CURB
3
20.0000 (RT)
(65.58 ft)
ISBKBUS
TRAFFIC BEARING DIJ
MIN. DEPTH
rr . rn n. -
CONC
N
BEGIN BRI GE
A- Sto 36 +,5 +
L- 28.969
9.0 (L _, ? e I
62.3 60 ft1 -L- + ?l 9
a
a
A I N
el
0
I?
+86.1 2 BST 1 15.0000 (ttY o
rtnrv 1 tn_ CON? _ 41 ET GR
I I
+86.093
2 . M (R
T) 20? (65.6168n_

( -
-
I
?
x (6 5 68 tt) ,? S
P T 6,984

X ? / J 1 S
D DECK 26.5000 (R7)
(86.9423 ft) CL SS '1'
RI RAP
ES MTONS
FIL ER FABJIC
+
/ 'l'
O 15.0000 (RT)
2126 ft)
(49 ES SM
-6 I
.
SET o I

-?Sa:3A
oas?i'or• C°?^?

W
tJ'?
W
W
XIII N
0
M
FQ-
T to
J
W
J
V
i
I
i
DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): 33,12
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION 11
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: N.C. Dept of Transportation, PD&EA
2. MAILING ADDF:ESS: P.O. Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME':
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE:
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFFf.ENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE!:
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (H:-ME): (WORK): 919-i33 3111
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
Bill Gilmore, P.E. Manaqer
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Gaston NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Gastonia
1
I
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
NC 279 (New Hope Road) from NC 7 (Ozark Avenue) to SR2275(Robinson-
Clemmer Road)
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Long Creek
RIVER BASIN: Catawba
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ] NO[X]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
Ba. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOI USE 01"
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ J NO [X] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION L.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTO-OP`i' (`F 101
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPER'T'Y TN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [XI IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: 23.0 ac
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
0.0 acres
2
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: n/a EXCAVATION: n/a
FLOODING: n/a OTHER: n/a
DRAINAGE: n/a TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: n/a
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: n/a FT AFTER: n/a FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): n/a FT
WIDTH AFTER: n/a FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: n/a FT AFTER: n/a FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCAT I ON: PLACEMEI:'I' OF PI: PE 11\1 CHANNEL: ? .4 FT
CHA:;IIEL EXCA".`. '1COI,:STF,U--'TION OE' A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: --
II. I F CONSTRU.-'TtON ?i-' A P_+ND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OE' 'IHE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE P)ND?
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED ;I]PFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPO`'f-;D WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT T,- 9E, USED (ATTACH PLANS: S 1/2" X I1" DRAWINGS
ONLY):
Crane, bull dozers, heavv duty trucks
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK:
Public transportation
3
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS):
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR
PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL
HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: see EA (ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: see EA
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE U"F
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [XI NO [I (IF NO, ';Cl TO 1 ?i
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF' AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUT?11T TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [X] NO H see EA
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE"?
YES [XI NO [I see EA
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY?
Residential/commercial
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
N/A
q. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AOTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLI(7P.}'I,E.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL, MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
OWNER'S/AGENT'S SIGNATURE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
?o /? G0
DATE
5
t
STA
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA I !
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAT IO
JAMES 13. HIJN'I JR. DAVID MCCOY'
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
June 23, 2000
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
ATTN: Mr. Steven Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Nationwide Permits 12 and 33 Applications for the Widening of NC 279
(New Hope Road) from NC 7 (Ozark Avenue) in Gastonia to SR 2275
(Robinson-Clemmer Road) in Dallas, Gaston County,. Federal Aid Project
No. STPNHF-279(1). State Project No. 8.1811301. TIP No. U-2523A.
Attached is the application packet for the subject project. NCDOT proposes to
widen NC 279 to a multi-lane curb and gutter facility with a continous left turn lane. The
project is approximately 1.9 miles in length. The proposed right-of=way is 100 ft for the
project. The analysis of alternatives and the environmental impacts are discussed in an
Environmental Assessment and Finding Of No Significant Impact signed, October 4,
1996 and May 28, 1998, respectively.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Jurisdictional Wetlands. Wetland determinations were conducted by NCDOT
biologists using the criteria specified in the 1987 Corps of Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Wetland Delineation
Manual. No jurisdictional wetlands are located within the project area
Jurisdictional Surface Waters The proposed project crosses, one surface water,
Long Creek. The new bridge at this crossing will be approximately 197.2 ft in length and
77.4 f wide and will span Long Creek [DWQ Index No.l 1-129-16-(4)] with no piers in
the channel. Long Creek lies in the Catawba river basin (sub-basin 30836) and carries a
NCDWQ Best Usage Classification of Class C. Class C refers to waters suitable for
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 WEBSITE. WWWDOH. DOT. STATE.NC. US RALEIGH, NC
I
agriculture. The 5 span structure totals 163 feet in length. The superstructure consists of
a reinforced concrete deck and railings on I-beam joists. The substructure is composed of
reinforced concrete posts and beams.
The bridge rails will be removed without dropping them into Waters of the United States
The following note will be placed on the plans for the removal of the existing bridge over
Long Creek: The exiting bridge shall be removed by sawing and/or non-shattering
methods such that debris will not full into the water. While very unlikely, there is a
potential for components of the deck and substructure to be dropped into Waters of the
United States during removal. The resulting temporary fill that could potentially fall into
Long Creek associated with the superstructure and substructure is approximately 74.97
yds'. Traffic will be detoured on existing roads during construction.
A water line at the Long Creek crossing will have to be moved as a result of project
construction. This line will require 119 ft' of temporary fill in surface waters. The length
of pipe beneath Long Creek will be 39.4 ft. Cofferdams will be constructed by using a
median barrier protected with sandbags or Class I and II rip rap with sandbags.
Threatened And Endangered Species. The following species are listed as
threatened or endangered in the respective counties: A Biological Conclusion of No
Effect has been reached for each of the following species. Concurrence from the US Fish
and Wildlife Service with these Biological Conclusions was issued April 27, 1999.
• Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii). Threatened (Similarity of Appearance).
• Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). Threatened.
• Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). Endangered.
Cultural Resources. There is one historic site, the Dallas Historic District, on the
National Register of Historic Places. Another historic site, the Flint Grove Elementary
School, that was found to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The
project, as proposed, will cause no adverse effect on either of these historic properties.
This determination was issued by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on June
27, 1996. There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project. This
determination was issued by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on April 19,
1995
It is anticipated that these activities will be authorized via Nationwide Permits 33 and 12.
By copy of this application, request is made to the Division of Water Quality, for the
appropriate 401 Water Quality Certifications.
I
Ifyou have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Chris
Rivenbark at [phone].
Sincerely,
William Gilmore, P.E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
WDG/mcr
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.G., Design Services
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Design
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Tim Roundtree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Randy Wise, P.E., Roadside Environmental
Mr. R.W. Spangler, P.E., Division 12 Engineer
Mr. Craig Young, P.E., PD & EA
321 k
TIP U-2523A Gaston County
J
L Sta 37 + OS ti (49.212
/ CJ-, !r +80.000
fw• ?.
oP CV o i 32.0000 (LT)
(104.9869 ft) r , = oP ?, LY
a al, M w °m o+ SET t. ?oA s m •^IIC
t F r k- coR . 3
gin-L- +60.000 ^ z m c 22 n ??'w ???d
t A1.0000 (LT) ?'L -?- oyo m No 4
R 0 P ?0 ? rs ?bB.ss7?6 ft) ,, F= RQl s.' tAtaI1G1EC1_
r I NOT SET) n,?.?e+k' -DB. 13928-0745
TER
IN BLDG. 'd
C r
9LL TRAMMED
\ E DB.O'164 015
x'06 -L- 113.6219 / / 2 '
2 ,
+f lu (LT)
\ b
Ef ft) N y '
bbl`
I ?t ? Q - ' ?' ` !GR n 1 M----
C 2
s 9
15.
oRTM NEW NDrF
Q s, X04 I LIMIT INE t RE O1< \
a HOPE D . "? 1-
W ._
J?,J \ NORT NE 115
a ? ? e 13 ;05 ? N ? E I ti 3,
a / \SET
E 13 -.t)r
y / 5 COPIjER / I I \I15.?
/ E J 4 ISFD ` I ?(49?
's?= ?s 19ti5eL i P
Fm I ?° W 5. (I GR / n J \ \ \ GH
n • fA9.2 ft)- coNC o
m
x n ; o
NSF Q o -dr- E ?
0 17. (RT) i E T
(SS. 43 ff)IsF0 1?0
1 ,
CLASS ' S ° 800
Q, m \ RIP RAP -L- +19 mm
Y' CHL
k , J EST. M 6.0000 (RT)
to y I ' ES IG, ,_a 111),-05.3018 ft)
W V o ' " \ Y'? UND S EIMUCIC RONAL
\ 1.83m BASE DI RONALD L. BARNES
fy 0 SEE DETAIL F 08. 1779-0947
N O \\ r RICHARD L. BROOME %
I ^ I I \ \ DB. 1980-0864

-aS.23 A
C?aSta^ coo
-L - POC Sto. 35 +92.626
-DRIVE- POT Sta.10+00.000
K. MARTIN WATERS, JR.
II
EDWARD E. CRUTCHFIELD, JR. SET
-L- +23.914
DB.193B-0234 PROP 3 8 (L
)0 mm2
35+18J42 117 R L (
INE
-L - PC St
3
o.
26.0000 (LT)
8.142 -L- +93.660 5.3018 ft)
0 (LT) 19.0875 (LT)
71 ft) ' (62..6230 ft) -L- + .516

i 19.14 (L
4,- +93.540 (62.81 ft
13.2000 (LT)
-
BST 4- + 82.287 WILT (43.3071 ft)
13.2000 (LT)
3

0 I
1
(43.3071 ft) p
450mm CONC. CHANNELIZATION 75 B
.EMOV
ST. CB' 3

RD BST
?I Lam.' r_
CONC
"

BEGIN BRI

GE
i
-L- Sto 36 +,5 +

28.969
E
Io (L ?

3.20 (
(43.3 Il ft
S '
I I ]
a
s ETAIN
a e
a •b E ? I
I
o I
1 I
?
T

W
W
XIII N
d
M
Q
-T- 1 51 E CONC 3 mm 2- 2 7l RB CS? --L- ST 44
I?i1I mm It 610 O . TION N 2' 52' Q2.5? L-4 41 SET
I
------ 450 _L- +86.12 esr 15.0000 ( +
00 9. 12 (T) esr -L- +80.079 BS II (49.2126 ft °°
CoNC N .2126 )SET ]5.0000 _(RT)Sf} I C0N(49.2126 ft) + X22 W/ °
LEEI &(49.2126 ft) 11 PT Sto• 10 W
LAtSTER?41 ET GR O CONIC +18 150 mm BST CURB +86.093 (65 (65.6168 _ - J
oNC 33 (( WILT) - _ I
15. 20.0000 (RT) I (6 .60068 $1nISF 56.984 V
(49 212K (ft (65.6168 ft) SET Lo P T CL SS 'I' I
SET o
IS13KBUS ¢ o DECK 26.5000 (RT) RI RAP I ~
ES . x s / + 6 (86.9423 ft) FIL ER F BJIC
+ 15.0000 (RT) ES SM
BST coNC I TRAFFIC BEARING DI N / Q (49.2126 ft)
MIN. DEPTH - F O SET I I?

i-lsa3A

DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): 33,12
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: N.C. Dept of Transportation, PD&EA
2. MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 2761:
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRI,,SS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFEPENT :?ROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE:
3. TELEPHONE NUMBED (HJME) (WORK) 519-%33-3111
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
Bill Gilmore, P.E. Manaqer
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Gaston NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Gastonia
1
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
NC 279 (New Hope Road) from NC 7 (Ozark Avenue) to SR2275(Robinson-
Clemmer Road)
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Long Creek
RIVER BASIN: Catawba
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ] NO[X]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY AP11TTIONAL INFORMATIOIJ (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF` 401
CERTIFICATION):
8h. ARE ADDITIONAL, PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THI
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: 23.0 ac
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
0.0 acres
2
c
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: n/a EXCAVATION: n/a
FLOODING: n/a OTHER: n/a
DRAINAGE: n/a TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: n/a
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: n/a FT AFTER: n/a FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): n/a FT
WIDTH AFTER: n/a
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE
n/a FT AFTER: n/a FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY
OPEN CHANNEL RELOC't''.T 1 `.)N : PLACEMENT OI` PIPE IN CHANNEL: S 9 4 t„1'
CHAIIIIEL EXCAVP.*. iJ'L:: ONS'I'P,UCTIOIi C)F' A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER:
11. [L' CONSTRUCTION :;F POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT TS THE SIZE OI' THE
WATERSHED DRAINING Tr) THE POND?
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED PIINP` SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PPOP(::JI;I) WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION (?F TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TC ME USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 I/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONL'I) :
Crane, bull dozers, heavv dutv trucks
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK:
Public transportation
FT
3
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS):
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR
PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL
HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: see EA (ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: see EA
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUND', OR THE U`'F
OF' PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO [ J (IF NO, GO To Is)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUA11T TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [X] NO [] See EA
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOfiUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [X] NO [] see EA
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY?
Residential/commercial
t. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
N/A
g. SIGNED ANT, L),-,TED A(-,ENJT AUTHORIZATION LETTEI , IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
i
OWNER'S/AGENT'S SIGNATURE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
?o /zod
DATE
5