U-215

c ±srni,"
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor George T. Everett, Ph.D.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
November 25, 1991
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: Alan Clark
From: Ron Ferrell
Subject: EA for Hudson Blvd. Extension, US 321 to NC 279
State Project No. 9.8121390, TIP #U-215
Gaston County
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The
Division of Environmental Management is responsible for the
issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities which may impact waters of the state including
wetlands. The following comments are offered in response to the
EA prepared for this project which will impact 0.9 acres of
wetlands.
1. NCDOT should require that the contractor not impact
additional wetland areas due to the disposal of excavated
spoil material, as a source of borrow material or other
construction related activities.
2. As stated above, a 401 Water Quality Certification will
be required for this project.
3. The stormwater collection system should be designed so
that there is no direct discharge of stormwater into
surface waters.
6. Endorsement of the EA by DEM does not preclude the denial
of the 401 Certification upon application if wetland
impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed
to Ron Ferrell in DEM's Water Oualitv Plannina Branch.
NC18.EA/REF1
cc: Ron Ferrell REGIONAL 01-TICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Ralcieh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 9 19/486-154 1 704/663-1699 919/733-231-1 9 19/946 -6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution 1're%endon Pais
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opporumily Affirmative Action Employer
t
Y?(5?
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Planning and Assessment I 1 Project located in nn floor library
Project Review Form
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
q
//?C l?l y s o..? '? v n tL?T . U 5 3 2 l -'-0 tit L 2 I
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All RIO Areas
oil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville ? Air Coastal Management Water Planning
El Mooresville El Water ? Water Resources Environmental Health
?Groundwater ,Wildlife Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh ? Land Quality Engineer orest Resources ? Radiation Protection
? Washington ? Recreational Consultant and Resources avid Foster

?
Wilmington ?
Coastal Management Consultant
arks and Recreation ther (specify)
?Others ]Environmental Management
? Winston-Salem
Q{V ?r
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-Hou a Reviewer/Agency:
G
14
Response (check all applicable)
r
`
.
7
Regional Office response to be compil ?(f.'4nd com-01 i4 ( Regi6r4 Manager. In-House Reviewer complete Individual response.
? No objection to project as proposed
f`
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
? No Comment ?- ?Applicant has been contacted
? Insufficient information to complete review ' ? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Approve ? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked) ? Consistency Statement not needed
H Recommended for further development with recommendations for ? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
strengthening (comments attached) NEPA and SEPA
Recommended for further development if specific & substantive ??
1 /her (specify and attach comments)
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
PS o<
Division of Planning and Assessment by Due Date shown.
L
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E„ Director
June 16, 1993
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorne
Monica Swihart
F= F=1
From: Eric Galamb 0y
Subject: FONSI for the Proposed Hudson Blvd.
Gaston County
State Project DOT No. 9.8121390, TIP #U-215
EHNR # 93-0946, DEM WQ # 9462
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which may impact waters of the state including
wetlands. This project as described will impact 0.9 acres of wetlands. A 401 Water
Quality Certification will be needed. There are no additional comments.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's
Water Quality Planning Branch.
Hudson.fon
cc: Eric Galamb
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
MANAGER I G N .. 01 1 ;' RI: G I i. N D AIL
AS A RESULT 01 !HIS REVIEW, THE FOLLOWING IS UBM:L T ..I.E.: D
NO 0r:;...!I:::C; i .ION 10 PROjECY AS PROPOSED
NO COi iME: N I
INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION
CONSISTENCY SIATEMENI NEEDED NOT NEEDED
OTHER (SPECIFY AND ATTACH COMMENTS)
ENVIRONMENTAL DOT::.i.!i°iENT REQUIRED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF NEPA AND SEPO
RETURN TO f°11:::1...BA MC.:G;E::E::, O:E`1?.ISIOr''1. OF PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT

I i
s
Hudson Boulevard Extension
From US 321 (York Road)
To NC 279 (New Hope Road) in Gastonia
Gaston County
State Project No. 9.8121390
T.I.P. Project No. U-215
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In Compliance with the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act
For further information contact:
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
APPROVED:
41141? 3
Da e
L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch,
NCDOT

Hudson Boulevard Extension
From US 321 (York Road)
To NC 279 (New Hope Road) in Gastonia
Gaston County
State Project No. 9.8121390
T.I.P. Project No. U-215
STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
April, 1993
Documentation Prepared in Planning & Environmental Branch By:
??P,f ,
Richard L. Brewer
Project Planning Engineer
',I11t I. f1,1.
``?H CARP
••
??•• °: ?FESSIpN .:
:ate 9r:
SE AL
• 6944
:, ??:'•• ?Cf h•?EQ'? Jam`',
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
State Finding of No Significant Impact
Prepared by
The Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1. Type of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
has determined that this project will not have any
significant impact on the human or natural environment. This
Finding of No Significant Impact is based on the State
Environmental Assessment that has been independently
evaluated and determined to discuss adequately and accurately
the environmental issues and affects of the proposed project.
Copies of the Environmental Assessment are on file in the
Planning and Environmental Branch of NCDOT. The
Environmental Assessment provides sufficient evidence and
analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact
Statement is not required. The NCDOT will take full
responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the
Environmental Assessment.
2. Description of Recommended Action
The NCDOT proposes to extend Hudson Boulevard from US
321 (York Road) to NC 279 (New Hope Road) in Gastonia. The
proposed extension is approximately 4.5 miles long and
located primarily on new location. The extension will
require the construction of an additional bridge (32 feet x
200 feet) over Catawba Creek. The completed Hudson Boulevard
project will incorporate this bridge and the portion of
roadway [between NC 274 (Union Road) and SR 2457 (Robinwood
Road)] previously constructed by the City. Two alternative
cross sections are presented for the proposed project:
Alternative I (recommended); a 4-lane, median divided, curb
and gutter section with a 16-foot median, and Alternative II;
a 5-lane, 64-foot face-to-face curb and gutter section. Both
alternatives will follow the alignment developed by the City
of Gastonia and be contained within an 80-foot wide right-of-
way, plus construction easements.
The NCDOT plans to build Hudson Boulevard Extension to a
future point of intersection with two city projects, known as
the Titman Road extension and the South Leg (see Figure 1).
From this future point of intersection, NCDOT plans to build
the project northward to terminate at New Hope Road.
Further, the city plans a Hoffman Road Relocation that will
bisect the NCDOT's Hudson Boulevard project west of existing
-2-
Hoffman Road. A municipal agreement has been executed
between NCDOT and the City of Gastonia that requires the
simultaneous construction of the NCDOT project and the city's
projects.
The estimated total cost of the project is $9.834
million, including $1.734 million for right-of-way and $8.1
million for construction. By comparison, the Transportation
Improvement Program (T.I.P.) appropriates a total funding of
$11.14 million for the project, including $1.735 million for
right-of-way and $9.2 million for construction. Accordingly,
the estimated cost is within the T.I.P. appropriation by
$1.306 million. This action is being wholly supported with
state funds.
3. Recommended Alternative
The recommended cross section is a 4-lane, median
divided curb and gutter section with a 16-foot grassed
median. The median area will permit construction of left-
turn lanes and deceleration tapers at principal intersections
along the Hudson Boulevard corridor. Further, these median
openings are to be provided at all street crossings.
4. Permits Required
The project will require permit authorization for the
impact of five (5) wetland sites, totaling approximately 0.90
acres along the project corridor. In accordance with
provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344), a permit will be required by the Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) for the discharge of dredged or fill material
into "Waters of the United States". It is anticipated that
the type of permit required will be either a Nationwide
Section 404 permit or a predischarge notification, based upon
the COE's discretionary authority. The COE will be given an
opportunity to review the final design specifications to
decide which permit is required. After the COE review and
determination, the NCDOT will then comply with all permit
requirements.
Due to the small acreage of wetlands being taken, less
than a total of 1.0 acre for five sites, compensatory
mitigation is not likely to be required under the Nationwide
permit according to the Memorandum of Agreement between the
Environmental Protection Agency and the COE. Final
discretionary authority in these matters rests with the COE.
According to the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, a Section 401
Water Quality Certification will be required for this
project.
-3-
The preferred project corridor alignment was developed
and chosen by the City of Gastonia to provide reasonable and
feasible connections with the roadway sections already
constructed. This preferred alignment has horizontal
curvature that meets AASHTO specifications. Moving the
alignment away from this logical path would create
unnecessary circuitous routes and would not lessen the impact
to wetlands. The only alternative to avoid wetlands
completely is the no-build alternative. This would deny the
growing city of Gastonia an important east-west corridor that
not only will relieve current traffic congestion, but also
will provide economic growth expected to accompany the new
route.
Based on the above considerations, it is determined that
there is no practicable alternative to the proposed new
construction in wetlands and that the proposed action
includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to
wetlands that may result from such use.
5. Circulation of the State Environmental Assessment
The approved State Environmental Assessment was
circulated to the following Federal, State and local
agencies:
U. S. Department of the Army - Wilmington District Corps
of Engineers
U. S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation
Service, Raleigh
U. S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service,
Asheville
U. S. Department of Commerce - National Marine Fisheries
Services
U. S. Department of Health & Human Services - Atlanta
U. S. Department of the Interior
U. S. Department of the Interior - Fish & Wildlife
Service, Asheville
U. S. Department of the Interior - Geological Survey,
Raleigh
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency -Region IV,
Atlanta
N. C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
City of Gastonia
Gaston County Board of Commissioners
Mayor of Gastonia
The State Environmental Assessment was also made
available to the public.
6. Comments Received on the State Environmental Assessment
-4-
Written comments on the State Environmental Assessment
were received from several agencies. Copies of the letters
received are included in the Appendix. The following is a
summary of the comments that require responses:
(a) U. S. Department of the Army - Wilmington District Corps
of Engineers
(1) Comment :
"The City of Gastonia participates in the National
Flood Insurance Program and has had a detailed flood
insurance study performed. Several streams in the
project area have 100-year flood profiles and
regulatory floodways computed. The roadway and
structures within the flood plains should be designed
so as not to cause a significant increase in the
upstream flooding or cause greater than a 1.0-foot
floodway surcharge."
Response:
Standard procedure of the NCDOT requires the
construction of highways and structures within flood
plains so that upstream surcharge is kept below 1.0
foot. NCDOT's Hydraulics Unit will complete all
necessary analysis and will prepare plans, forwarding
the latter to local agencies. After approval by these
agencies, the plans will be forwarded to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for review.
(2) Comment :
"A Department of the Army permit authorization,
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977,
as amended, will be required for the discharge of
excavated or fill material in waters of the United
States or any adjacent and/or isolated wetlands
associated with this project, including disposal of
construction debris. ...When final plans are
completed, including the extent and location of any
work within waters of the United States and wetlands,
our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity
to review these plans for a project-specific
determination of Department of the Army permit
requirements."
Response:
The proposed action includes all reasonable and
feasible measures to minimize harm to wetlands. It is
-5-
anticipated that the proposed project alignment, while
crossing approximately 15 streams, can be constructed
with issuance of a Department of Army Nationwide permit
or a predischarge notification. The COE will be given
an opportunity to review the final design
specifications so that a determination of the
appropriate permit or notification can be made. The
NCDOT will comply with all requirements of the COE
permit or notification.
(3) Comment :
"Pursuant to guidance from the Chief of Engineers,
Directorate of Civil Works, wetland delineations made
subsequent to August 17, 1991, must be made utilizing
the 1987 'Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual' and those made prior to August 17, 1991, must
be reviewed. Since this action has not been finalized,
any areas delineated using the 1989 manual should be
redelineated using the 1987 manual."
Response:
With a potential Nationwide permit or predischarge
notification pending, mitigation will not likely be
required. During the design phase of this project, the
COE will redelineate all impacted wetlands using the
1987 manual. This redelineation would most likely
reduce the wetland acreage from the initial finding,
thereby indicating less impact.
(b) North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(1) Comment :
"The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) is concerned about losses of important wetland
and associated riparian zone along the 15 stream
crossings within the project area. We feel that
estimated acreage losses of these habitat types are low
and request that these projected losses be
reevaluated."
Response:
NCDOT biologists visited the study area to ascertain
jurisdictional wetland locations and boundaries.
Approximately 0.90 acres of jurisdictional wetlands,
from 5 sites, will be impacted by the proposed project.
At the time of the field survey, wetland impacts were
-6-
assessed using the 111989 Federal Manual for Identifying
and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands." Wetlands
were identified on the presence of hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology.
(2) Comment :
"The NCWRC requests that upon reevaluation that in-kind
mitigation be made for wetland and riparian losses
sufficient to offset losses of in-kind value."
Response:
As previously stated, the reevaluation by NCDOT's
Environmental Unit determined that the wetland losses
are accurately noted in the approved Environmental
Assessment. Therefore, for such a small acreage of
wetlands being taken, a Nationwide permit does appear
in order for this project and compensatory wetland
mitigation is not likely to be required, based on the
Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental
Protection Agency and the COE. Final discretionary
authority in these matters rests with the COE.
(3) Comment :
"The NCWRC prefers that relocation and channelization
of streams be avoided to prevent fish and wildlife
habitat degradation. The project should be designed to
avoid the necessity of these actions. If stream
relocation cannot be avoided new channels must be
designed and constructed based upon 'State-of-Art'
information and techniques."
Response:
The NCDOT attempts to avoid the necessity of altering
or relocating streams when designing and building
highways. Nonetheless, this becomes a necessity when
no other reasonable or feasible alternative exists.
When stream relocation is necessary, the NCDOT has as
its standard practice to design and construct culverts
and other hydraulic structures to avoid fish blockage,
wildlife habitat degradation, and upstream water
elevation increases. On this project, two streams will
require relocation. One is a 2-foot wide lateral base
ditch that will run for about 270' at the toe of a fill
section, and the other is a 50' long section of a
stream as it emerges from a box culvert (12-foot wide
at the tailwall, narrowing to a 5-foot wide stream).
-7-
(4) Comment :
"We prefer that spanning structures be used as
crossings over streams rather than steel pipe culverts
or concrete box culverts. Culverts may result in
blocking fish movement and habitat degradation."
Response:
Where pipes and/or culverts can adequately handle the
quantity of flow while, at the same time, not disrupt
fish movement and degrade habitat, building bridges is
not a reasonable or cost-effective measure. The
bridge construction at Catawba Creek, where a 2-lane
bridge exists, represents the only new spanning
structure on the project. All other stream crossings
and/or relocations can be adequately handled by pipes
and culverts.
(5) Comment :
"Project plans must contain detailed erosion control
plans to protect streams and wetlands from
sedimentation. Erosion control measures need to be
maintained throughout the life of the project and
protective ground cover established as soon as any
phase of the project is completed."
Response:
Project plans and specifications will contain detailed
erosion control measures. These measures will be
monitored and maintained throughout the construction of
the project. Annually, the North Carolina
Sedimentation Control Commission approves the program
of erosion and sedimentation control associated with
highway construction submitted by the NCDOT.
(6) Comment :
"The NCWRC does not consider the fifteen stream
crossings and proposed rechannelization as
insignificant loss to wildlife resources. Therefore,
based on the information as presented, we disagree with
the statement that this project will not have
significant impacts to wildlife resources."
-8-
Response:
Although fifteen stream crossings may constitute a
large number for a project 4.5 miles long, the total
impacted area of wetlands amounts to less than 1.0
acre. Each impacted wetland site is to be administered
by Nationwide authorization prior to construction.
(c) North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources - Division of Environmental Management
(1) Comment :
"NCDOT should require that the contractor not impact
additional wetland areas due to the disposal of
excavated spoil material, as a source of borrow
material or other construction related activities."
Response:
As stated in Section 802.3 of the NCDOT Standard
Specifications, disposal of waste and debris in any
area under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' regulatory
jurisdiction will require a permit for such disposal
from the Corp's District Engineer.
(2) Comment :
"...a 401 Water Quality Certification will be required
for this project."
Response:
State Certification will be obtained prior to
construction.
(3) Comment :
"The stormwater collection system should be designed so
that there is no direct discharge of stormwater into
surface waters."
Response:
NCDOT will follow the guidelines set forth in the "Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters".
The stormwater drainage system will be designed to
comply with these practices and will be completed
during the roadway design phase of the project.
-9-
(d) North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources - Division of Land Resources
(1) Comment :
"This project will impact 2 geodetic survey markers.
N. C. Geodetic Survey should be contacted prior to
construction. . . . Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N. C. General
Statute 102-4."
Response:
Before commencing construction, NCDOT will advise.
(2) Comment :
"If any portion of the project is located with a High
Quality Water Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division
of Environmental Management, increased design standards
for sediment and erosion control will apply."
Response:
The project area is in the Catawba River system. The
streams that cross the project are class C streams,
which are not part of HQW zones.
(3) Comment :
"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."
Response:
The North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission
approves the program of erosion and sedimentation
control associated with highway construction used by
the NCDOT. The erosion control plan for this project
will be prepared under this program.
(e) North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public
Safety - Division of Emergency Management
(1) Comment :
-10-
"Gaston County is a participating community in the NFIP
and would have available their respective County
Ordinances. Structures within the 100-year floodplain
must be elevated to the required level or
floodproofed."
Response:
A standard design policy of NCDOT requires that
highways and structures constructed within flood plains
to be elevated to the required level. NCDOT's
Hydraulics Unit will complete all necessary analysis
and will prepare plans, forwarding the latter to local
agencies. After approval by these agencies, the plans
will be forwarded to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) for review.
7. Comments Received During and Subsequent to the Public
Hearing
Following circulation of the State Environmental
Assessment, a combined public hearing on the project was held
on March 12, 1992 at Ashbrook High School. Some 150 to 200
people attended the hearing. Five people spoke concerning
the project. Most comments were related to the project
terminus at New Hope Road, directly across from Redbud Drive.
Most were concerned that traffic volumes would increase
significantly on Redbud Drive when Hudson Boulevard is
completed. NCDOT contends that the major traffic movement
will be on Redbud Drive, since this road provides a direct
route to an interchange at I-85. The City of Gastonia plans
to widen Redbud Drive to a 3-lane curb-and-gutter facility.
NCDOT's Statewide Planning Branch shows a long range need to
5-lane Redbud Road. All comments brought up at the public
hearing were adequately addressed at the hearing.
8. Revisions of and Additions to the State Environmental
Assessment
(a) Horizontal Alignment Modification
Originally, Hudson Boulevard was planned to curve
northward just east of Bradford Street and intersect
with New Hope Road opposite Redbud Drive. However,
to coordinate with City thoroughfare plans, a change
in this alignment is required (see Figure 1). The
NCDOT now plans to build Hudson Boulevard to a
future point of intersection with two city projects,
known as the Titman Road extension and the South
-11-
Leg. From this future point of intersection, NCDOT
plans to build the project northward to the original
terminus at New Hope Road. Further, the city plans
a Hoffman Road Relocation that will bisect the
NCDOT's Hudson Boulevard project west of existing
Hoffman Road. A municipal agreement has been
executed between NCDOT and the City of Gastonia that
requires the simultaneous construction of the NCDOT
project and the city's projects.
9. Basis for Finding of No Significant Impact
Based upon environmental studies and comments received
from Federal, State, and local agencies, it has been
concluded that the proposed action will have no significant
adverse affect upon the quality of the environment. The
following is the basis for this conclusion:
(a) The project is not controversial on environmental
grounds.
(b) No significant adverse impacts on natural,
ecological, cultural, or scenic resources of
national, state, or local significance are expected.
(c) While the proposed project is anticipated to
displace twelve single family and farming structures
and one business, the project is not expected to
disrupt community cohesion. Most of the existing
neighborhoods are fairly new and have been built
so that right-of-way reserved for the future
extension does not divide them.
(d) No significant detrimental impact on air quality,
water quality, or by increased noise levels is
anticipated in the project area.
In view of the above, it has been determined that a
Finding of No Significant Impact is applicable to this
project.
RLB/
?1 ! Jill
?" E m
PIC"
_ r 'xe
ASHHROOK HIGH SGHOOL• - ?N) a rt;, 4 g
a? ,? i? • t
..sue; _.r J '' • I -_ N1 W flnl'!.
I,itl' i.'?---•••- - ejj?l?i•? "?; ?? a ""?. ,.
.f1,'';•:
`t r '
t4l
1 "0
? ? l4? cr .F
9 1 , lv A• ?, ? i r d ?I - q F•o•'°
V. iw ,.
A'? ?,_ _ v" •? s "E 1 n
I. I 1 B,Vj 1 1 f R
e o'
.? I '• - r ,+? 1' tY?S l
? v ? s - ?,` d . ? 'a 1 n » it .1 `A` f ? ??•••? ,y 4 ? Y? 11? a ? ? 1 {? ? i.
???? f ?? "???o ? i+].,?'I? ,??t>n..?if??'x. Fii` ???r ??.• 1 7.? 1' ?71,11?!?. ?r ?.
.
M
? h Iryt v1icK11Wnl'4
? f•.11 Y`, •IIIU\l 11 "\ '1.Illllh'Mh. \'1 ai
'•+/j ,, ` ?"` ?'? + 'F 1st i r ? -.r',,y t i HUDSON BOULEVARD EXTENSION
ti , f 4". Y }? .pt r/! 1r-' , FROM US 721 TO NC 279 (NEW NODE flD.)
Rl t ;;y Vk 3 ,. /' OASTON COUNTY
`' EEEYYY +? d U 21,
JIA
ry p
lot, t
Sn:n¢? ?, .... ..? h1AN NUS .. ? -._ - -. - ? . \\{{•
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
November 20, 1991`y
IN REPLY REFER TO
'??? S1 ?•;?
Planning Division
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
^:L

As requested in your letter of October 24, 1991, we have
reviewed the "State Environmental Assessment for Hudson Boulevard
Extension, From US 321 (York Road) to NC 279 (New Hope Road) in
Gastonia, Gaston County, State Project No. 9.8121390, T.I.P.
Project No. U-215" and offer the following comments.
The city of Gastonia participates in the National Flood
Insurance Program and has had a detailed flood insurance study
performed. Several of the streams in the project area have
100-year flood profiles and regulatory floodways computed. The
roadway and structures within the flood plains should be designed
so as not to cause a significant increase in the upstream flooding
or cause greater than a 1.0-foot floodway surcharge.
A Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be
required for the discharge of excavated or fill material in waters
of the United States or any adjacent and/or isolated wetlands in
conjunction with this project, including disposal of construction
debris. Also, pursuant to Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act
of 1899, permits will be required for structures or work in or
affecting navigable waters of the United States. Under our miti-
gation policy, impacts to wetlands should first be avoided or
minimized. We will than consider compensation or mitigation for
unavoidable impacts. When final plans are completed, including
the extent and location of any work within waters of the United
States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch would appreciate
the opportunity to review these plans for a project-specific
determination of Department of the Army permit requirements.
Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Steve Lund
of our Regulatory Branch, Asheville, North Carolina, at
[phone].
00! u ial
r
-2-
On August 17, 1991, the 1992 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act became law and invalidated jurisdictional
determinations made pursuant to the January 1989 "Federal
Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands."
Pursuant to guidance from the Chief of Engineers, Directorate of
Civil Works, wetland delineations made subsequent to August 17,
1991, must be made utilizing the 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual" and those made prior to August 17, 1991, must
be reviewed. Since this action has not been finalized, any areas
delineated using the 1989 manual should be redelineated using the
1987 manual.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If
we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
Lawrence W. Saunder
Chief, Planning Division
I- -

North Carolina
Department of Administration
James G. Martin, Governor
December 12, 1991
Mr. Calvin Leggett
N.C. Department of Transportation
Program Development Branch
Highway Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Leggett:
DEC 1 ;
Ll
James S. Lofton, Secretary
RE: SCH File #92-E-4220-0318; Environmental Assessment for the
Proposed Hudson Boulevard Extension from York Road to New
Hope Road in Gaston County (TIP# U-215)
The above referenced environmental information has been reviewed
through the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by state/local
agencies in the course of this review. Because of the nature of
the comment(s), it has been determined that you may submit a
Finding of No Significant Impact to the State Clearinghouse for
compliance with the Act. The attached comments should be taken
into consideration in project development.
Best regards.
ly,
JSL:jt
Attachment
cc: Region F
James/ S. Lofton
116 West Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 • Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01.00
An Equal Opportunity I Affirmative Action Employer
ITArt
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • .Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Douglas G. Lewis
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
?? 0 19 ? ? Planning and Assessment
?
l
M i
- J1
MEMORANDUM `?
TO: Chrys Haggett
State Clearinghouse '
FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 92-0318 - Hudson Boulevard Extension, from US 321 to NC
279, Gaston County
DATE: December 6, 1991
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed project. The attached comments are a
result of this review. Particular attention should be given to
the comments made by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission.
They have identified information that needs to be considered and
addressed.
The Department of Transportation is encouraged to notify the
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission on the issues raised. They
should also incorporate features such as those recommended to
minimize the impacts in the area. Concurrence with the Finding
of No Significant Impact will be conditional upon the
Commission's comments being satisfactorily addressed.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
MM: bb
Attachments
P.O. 11ox 27687, RUetgh. North Carolina 271611 7087 Zclephrnic 919733-6376
An Foual Opp<>rrttinirv Affirmative Action Fmplover
I,

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Com -p.ission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-7133-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: Dennis Stewart, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program U1'r(JG
DATE: November 27, 1991
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment, Hudson Boulevard Extension, from
US 321 (York Road) to NC 279 (New Hope Road), Gaston County,
State Project # 9.8121390, T.I.P. # U-.2,15
This correspondence responds to a request from Mr. L. 7. Ward of
the N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for cur concerns
regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from
proposed construction of the Hudson Boulevard extension in the City of
Gastonia. The NCDOT proposes to construct approximately 4.5 miles of
multi-lane highway within an 80 foot plus right-of-way and primarily
along new location. According to the Assessment, approximately 38
acres of land will be impacted by the proposed construction. Habitat
types impacted include 17 acres of mixed forester: upland, 17 acres of
open field area, 3 acres of resdential/urban area and 1 acre of
wetland. These areas provide important urban wi•i=ife habitat for
great variety of game and nongame wildlife and aG.:atic species. The
proposed project would also cross fifteen streams any rii?qul_:st.s =rea;ri
rechannelization of approximately 1400 feet. The North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) is concern- about potential
impacts to wildlife, fisheries and wetland resou-:::-,s and
adjacent to the construction corridor.
Biological field staff of the NCWRC have re,.,_'e ed the
Environmental Assessment, and have conducted a preliminary site viz..''
We have the following comments:
1) The NCWRC is concerned about IU?L;FrS of _s.po: tangy 1.:?-plan.'
associated riparian zone alor;r :.Iie it
within the project area. We t.'.hat. _s -; cc c reay?:
losses of these habitat types i -•:- 1 ow ? , •.?c_c' t*v t.
projected losses be reevaluat..'.
2) The NCWRC requests that upon revaluation that in-kind
mitigation be made for wetland and riparian losses
sufficient to offset losses of in-kind value.
3) The NCWRC prefers that relocation and channeliztion of
streams be avoided to prevent fish and wildlife habitat
degradation. The project should be designed to avoid the
necessity of these actions. If stream relocation cannot be
avoided new channels must be designed and constructed based
upon "State-of-Art" information and techniques.
4) We prefer that spanning structures be used as crossings over
streams rather than steel pipe culverts or concrete box
culverts. Culverts may result in blocking fish movement and
habitat degredation.
5) Project plans must contain detailed erosion control plans to
protect streams and-wetlands from sedimentation. Erosion
control measures need to maintained throughout the life of
the project and protective ground cover established as soon
as any phase of the project is completed.
6) The NCWRC does not consider the fifteen stream crossings and
proposed rechannelization as insignificant loss to wildlife
resources. Therefore, based on the information as
presented, we disagree with the statement that this project
will not have significant impacts to wildlife resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on
this proposed project. If we can provide further assistance please
call on us.
DLS/lp
cc: Mr.Chris Goudreau, District 8 Fisheries Biologist
Mr A.E. Ammons, Supervising Wildlife Biologist

/" 1 (, .l 111 I I T
,. L `C` -',/J,
Ai-
1
t,3 L'r?1199
1 j
D
OFF
ICE
State of North Carolina Cd?
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resouf b2 Z'
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
November 25, 1991
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee -
Through: Alan Clark
From: Ron Ferrell
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
C'
sF-r
C C_
Subject: EA for Hudson Blvd. Extension, US 321 to NC 279
State Project No. 9.8121390, TIP #U-215
Gaston County
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The
Division of Environmental Management is responsible for the
issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities which may impact waters of the state including
wetlands. The following comments are offered in response to the
EA prepared for this project which will impact 0.9 acres of
wetlands.
1. NCDOT should require that the contractor not impact
additional wetland areas due to the disposal of excavated
spoil material, as a source of borrow material or other
construction related activities.
2. As stated above, a 401 Water Quality Certification will
be required for this project.
3. The stormwater collection system should be designed so
that there is no direct discharge of stormwater into
surface waters.
6. Endorsement of the EA by DEM does not preclude the denial
of the 401 Certification upon application if wetland
impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed
to Ron Ferrell in DEM's Water Quality Planning Branch.
NC18.EA/REF1
cc: Ron Ferrell RRIIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Favetteville Nloores\ ills RA,-i-h Washui_lon Wilmin_wn Winston-Salem
704/251 -6208 919/-186. 15-11 70-1,663- 1 6k)') 1) 19. 19111910 64S 1 919/??) 19,'\96.7007
Pollulion Pre%ention Pais
P.O. Roy 21)535. ka1ei_h. Noid) 17620-W;35 'Ielehhonc 919.7::.,01;
An Equal l)I,I ,lumil? :\Ilitm;ui\c Aoion E111111o\ct

? f??? r AAit e ?
•? Y.. Ate.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural R
Division of Forest Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Garner Road
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
November 13, 1991
MEMORANDUM
J
991
V
J
L, L
StanforM. Adams
Director
TO: Melba McGee, Planning & Assessment
FROM: Don H. Robbins, Staff Forester bsl??
SUBJECT: NC DOT EA for Hudson Boulevard Extension from US 321 (York Road) to
NC 279 in Gastonia in Gaston County, North Carolina
PROJECT: 4192-0318
DUE DATE: 12-2-91
We have reviewed the above subject document and have the following comments:
1. We have no objections to the project. It appears that the City has
already acquired most of the ROW needed for the project.
2. Approximately 17 acres of woodland will be lost as a result of
construction.
3. It is hoped that the ROW contractor will make all efforts possible
to salvage pulpwood and saw timber whenever possible.
DHR/la
pc: Warren Boyette - CO ?-
File
t
P.O. Boa 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Emplover
er. 7"C
DE41991 ?
r\J
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natur our
Division of Land Resou ces17?'
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW STS Charles H. Gardner
Miam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: g a - 0-31 g County: -1 (1
ICb\'4 d ?.??. --re m LtS Via) ? c]t.k t1L o???l rlQ? 1 r?cf.?
Project Name:
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact Z geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 (919)-733-3836. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a 'violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on ceodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
(? 4-,// / yam - // -,/ 3 _1?/
Revi er Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval o' 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 con-rol 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 contro_ plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation tc the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
other (comments attached)
For ire information contact the Land Qu=?ity Section at [phone].
Rev wer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh. N.C. 27611-7687 • i!tephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmadve Aeon Employer
u• a :r:®P '? RSV
0,0
i ?••- C
:? FCC +?. ;.t U^
Q :••1 N
t7 \\ N /
y"? cY Q Q FAIL ryi E p V-
21 N
?+ ` sbd O d
® J {? ¢
U.j
LLJ
W ^-l ?.'a W o f
cr CL NJ ?•,.•.•.r -
a CL
Q a r'
w cz)
,r cr
m Q)
.•. .. O ' jl V ndj OQ ^ a w ?Q •?i?;i•!>,
.?Gf;ti<t<tf:;2:•i;IjQfi::i!?:1lil: ?:
ac a.)
C4 CI- as CD a Q u
„ C, r Sy
Q c a j d
o \ Q ° N cc
< C3
Y a Q'? f Q Z y;;i I?C7b I / W f CD
Z Noo o
• ?a a O O 4'•?.._ ?/p Q `cam l
/ f? ?Ir.'•. cn INC
C.? CD
LL) Z 101
ra w 1 M: -4 0\ C4
Z
I JtHERN 1 d .W Z
S? Q ® QQ .??a S O m
V) LK
fl- A
t Q "'J 7 1 7 CD N 1 J '/ a
2: cr) 04
Q = a /? / Y
h:' g ay. ?` Ct 1. 4-1C:f? ®. /N q .5 Rp?l`//A
O ry •, W O W •: J _ Y. w C) -i
J' T l` ?« ? ?O ONZo `O
N k•.• .y? as Q ??.
1
w In
0
M
1 ?

/ ,.. Sb17F o
North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
James G. Martin, Governor
Joseph W. Dean, Secretary
Division of Emergency Management
116 W. Jones St., Raleigh, N. C. 27603-1335
(919) 73 3-3 867
December 2, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
North Carolina State Clearinghouse
Department of Administration
DEC 1997
R?DE?VED
SECRETARY'S OFFICE
DOA
Janie S. Archer
National Flood Insurance Program
North Carolina Division of Emergency Managment
Intergovernmental Review
State # 92-E-4220-0318
Hudson Blvd. Ext/Gaston County
Comments: Gaston County is a participating community in the NFIP
and would have available their respective County
Ordinances.
Structure within the 100-year floodplain must be
elevated to the required level or floodproofed.
For information purposes the Commission is advised that
on July 24, 1990, Governor Martin signed Executive Order
123, a Uniform Floodplain Mangement Policy, which must
be followed for development on any site.
An Equal C?pmuniry I Aft nnxi 'C Amon Emj,lo er
SrA7r
7 cd*
?r .
North Carolina Department of Cu

James G. Martin, Governor \Qi41'sicS?
Patric Dorsey, Secretary IQ ?? ?ill0m
c
December 11, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
????=?U ?-
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Hi tbric Preservation Officer
Archives and History
. Price, Jr., Director
SUBJECT: Hudson Boulevard Extension from US 321 (York Road)
to NC 279 (New Hope Road), Gastonia, Gaston County
U-215, CH 92-E-4220-0318, 9.8121390
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have reviewed the Environmental Assessment for this project and feel
that it adequately addresses our concerns regarding historic resources.
These comments are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Executive
Order XVI. If- you have any questions regarding them, please contact Renee
Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church

109 EastJones Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

? h
Since ely yours, Q
M ndreas Mager, Jr.
Assistant Regional Director
Habitat Conservation Division
XrL'"' tM'1-ft"4
• so af,
"Al Ore
316
O
?? ?0 +?
01
1A
iz)
Mr. L. J. P. , Manger
Planning and n ronmental Branch
N. C. Division of Highways
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Ward:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
9450 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
November 15, 1991 F/SE021/RSS
919/728-5090
Ir
Please reference your October 24, 1991, letter requesting our
comments concerning the Environmental Assessment for Hudson
Boulevard Extension, From US 321 (York Road) to NC 279 (New Hope
Road) in Gastonia, Gaston County, North Carolina, State Project No.
9.8121390, T.I.P. Project No. U-215.
No resources for which the National Marine Fisheries Service is
responsible are located in the project area. Therefore, we have no
comments on the project.

t
Hudson Boulevard Extension
From US 321 (York Road)
To NC 219 (New Hope Road) in Gastonia
Gaston County
State Project No. 9.8121390
T.I.P. Project No. U-215
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
State Environmental Assessment
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
In Compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
For further indormation contact:
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 21611
• APPROVED:
Da e , J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Hudson Boulevard Extension
From US 321 (York Road)
To NC 279 (New Hope Road) in Gastonia
Gaston County
State Project No. 9.8121390
T.I.P. Project No. U-215
Administration Action
State Environmental Assessment
September 1991
Documentation Prepared-in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Ange H. Smith
Project Planning Engineer
?•?`Ztl CARP
•.
r' ,,•? ESSIp'• ra ''?
R. B. Davis E. _ SEAL
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A
SUMMARY ...................................................
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT .....................................
A. General Description ... ......... .... ..............
B. Historical Background and Status (T.I.P.) ............
C. Proposed Improvements for Recommended
Alternative .....................................
1. General Location ................................
2. Length of Proposed Project ......................
3. Traffic Volumes .... :..... .......................
4. Truck Data ....................................
5. Design Speed......... .........................
6. Cross Section Description .......................
7. Right-of-Hay ....................................
8. Access Control .......................
9. Intersection Treatment and Type
of Control .................................
10. Median Openings .................................
11. Bikeways ... ............................
12. Bridge Work Required ... ... ..............
13. Special Permits Required of Division
of Highways ................................
14. Staging .........................................
15. Estimate of Cost ................................
II. NEED FOR PROJECT .......................................... 4
Page
i
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
A. Characteristics of the Existing Facility ............. 4
1. General Description ............................. 4
2. Existing Roadway Inventory ...................... 4
a. Length of Roadway Section Studied .......... 4
b. Pavement Width and Shoulders ............... 4
C. Right-of-Nay ............................... 5
d. Structures ..... ... . ................. 5
e. Intersecting Roads and Type
of Control .. 5
.......... 5
f. Speed Zones ......................
g. School Bus Data ............................ 5
B. Accident Investigation ............................... 5
C. Benefits to State, Region, and Community ............. 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
. III. ALTERNAT IVES CONSIDERED ................................... 5
A.• "Do -Nothing" Alternative .... ...................... 5
B. Alt ernate Modes of Transportation .................... 5
C. Bui ld Alternatives ................................... 6
a. Alternative I ................................... 6
6
b. Alternative II ..................................
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ............... 6
A. Soc ial Effects ....................................... 6
1. Land Use .. ............................. 6
2. Neighborhood Analysis ........................... 7
3. Relocation of Families and Businesses ........... 7
4. Public Facilities .. . ............_............ 9
5. Historic and Cultural Resources ................. 9
a. Historical - Architectural Resources ....... 9
b. Archaeological Resources ................... 10
B. Economic Effects .................................... 10
C. Environmental Effects ................................ 10
1. Natural, Ecological, and Scenic Resources ....... 10
a. Man Dominated Systems ...................... 10
b. Plant Communities .......................... 11
C. Geotechnical Findings ...................... 12
2. Threatened and Endangered Species ............... 13
a. Federally Protected Species ................ 13
b. State Protected Species .................... 14
3. Wildlife Habitat ................................ 14
a. Terrestrial Communities .................... 14
b. Aquatic Communities ........................ 15
4. Wetlands ........................................ 16
a. Permits .................................... 17
• b. Wetland Mitigation ......................... 18
5. Farmland ....................................... 18
6. Water Quality ................................... 19
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Y 7.
8.
9.
10.
V. CCMMENTS
Page
Air Quality ................................... 19
Noise Analysis .................................. 20
Hazardous Haste ................................. 21
Construction Impacts ............................ 22
AND COORDINATICN ................................. 23
A. Agency Coordination .................................. 23
B. Public Involvement ................................... 24
FIGURES
APPENDIX
.
SUMMARY
1. Type of Action
This is an Administrative Action, State Environmental Assessment.
2.. Description of Action
The N. C. Department of Transportation, Division of Highways proposes
to extend Hudson Boulevard from US 321 (York Road) to NC 279 (New Hope
Road) in.Gastonia.
Hudson Boulevard Extension is 4.5 miles long and is located primarily
on new location. It will require the construction of an additional bridge
(32 feet x 200 feet) over Catawba Creek, and will utilize the bridge and
the portion of roadway constructed by the City, between NC 274 (Union
Road) and SR 2457 (Robinwood Road).
The project will follow the alignment developed by the City of
Gastonia and be contained within a right-of-way width of 80 feet plus
construction easements. The location of the proposed project is shown in
Figures 1 and 2.
The total estimated cost of the project is S9,834,000.
3. Alternatives Considered
Two alternative cross sections were considered for the proposed
project: Alternative I (recommended); a four-lane, median divided, curb
and gutter section with a 16-foot median, and Alternative II; a five-lane,
64-foot face to face curb and gutter section.
In addition the "Do-Nothing" alternative and alternate modes of
transportation were considered.
4. Environmental Impacts
The proposed project will require 80 feet of right-of- way, most of
which has been donated by the City of Gastonia. Any adverse impact is
expected to be minimal. Approximately twelve residential.dwellings and
one business will be relocated by the project. There are no structures in
the project area that are listed on the National Register of Historic
Places. No significant impacts to plant or animal life are expected.
There will be an increase in noise levels due to the proposed extension
but this increase will not exceed acceptable levels. Less than 1 acre of
wetlands will be impacted by the project. The Above Headwaters Nationwide
Section 404 Permit will apply to this wetland taking.
5. Action Required ?y other Federal Agencies
Based upon the estimated impacts to wetlands, it is anticipated that
a Nationwide Section 404 Permit will be applicable.
i
6. Coordination - The following agencies were consulted during the
preparation of the environmental assessment (an asterisk denotes
agencies that submitted ccrrnents). Copies of the letters received
are included in the Appendix. Each of these agencies will also be
sent copies of this Environmental Assessment.
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers - Wilmington District
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
*U.S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Soil Conservation Service - Raleigh
*State Clearinghouse *N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Human Resources
*N.C. Department of Public Instruction
*Gaston County Schools
*N.C. Department of Environmental, Health, and Natural
Resources - Mooresville Regiona•1'Office
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*N.C. Aviation Department
*Centralina Council of Governments
Gaston County Commissioners
*City of Gastonia
Mayor of Gastonia
7. Additional Information - Additional information
concerning the proposal and assessment can be obtained by contacting
the following:
L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
ii
Hudson Boulevard Extension
From US 321 (York Road)
To NC 279 (New Hope Road) in Gastonia
Gaston County
State Project No. 9.8121390
T.I.P. Project No. U-215
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
A. General Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to extend
Hudson Boulevard from US 321 (York Road) to NC 279 (New Hope Road) in the
City of Gastonia (see Figure 1). Two alternative cross sections are
presented for the proposed 4.5'mile proposed-project: Alternative I
(recorn:nended); a 4-lane, median divided, curb and gutter section witfi a
16-foot median, and Alternative II; a 5-lane, 64-foot face to face curb
and gutter section, both predominantly on new location. Both alternatives
are to follow the alignment developed by the City of Gastonia and have a
right-of-way width of 80 feet plus construction easements. The location
of the proposed project is shown in Figures 1 and 2.
The proposed Hudson Boulevard extension is designated as a major
thoroughfare on the Gaston Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan adopted in.1977.
B. Historical Background and Status T.I.P.
The southern portion of the Gastonia planning area, in the vicinity
of the proposed Hudson Boulevard extension, has experienced a significant
amount of growth in residential development, compared to other portions of
the City. It is expected this grovith will continue, particularly in the
form of multi-family development. Commercial development is also expected
in the project area, to provide services to the present and expected
future residences in the area.
Alternative I (4-lane divided) is favored by the City of Gastonia,
and the City has offered to maintain the median. Both alternatives are to
utilize an 80-foot right-of-way with partial control of access. The City
has already obtained a major portion of the proposed right-of-way. From
US 321 to NC 274, the City has acquired approximately 50% of the needed
right-of-way and all the needed right-of-way from NC 274 to SR 2457
(Robinwood Road). From Robinwood Road to New Hope Road, the City has
obtained approximately 30% of the required right-of-way.
The portion of the project from NC 274 (Union Road) to SR 2457
(Robinwood Road) was recently constructed by the City and is open to
traffic. A 4-lane divided curb and gutter section (two 24-foot
pavements) with a 16-foot median extends from NC 274 eastward
approximately 1300 feet. The remaining portion is a two-lane 24-foot
section with one 2-lane bridge constructed over Catawba Creek and widens
to a 4-lane median divided section (two 19-foot pavements with a 22-foot
median) from approximately 1300 feet west of and extending to Robinwood
Road. A 2-lane section was also constructed from Robinwood Road for 1900
feet eastward.
2
This project is included in the 1991-1997 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) with right of way acquisition scheduled to begin in FFY 1992
and construction scheduled to begin in FFY 1994. The estimated total
project cost in the 1991-1997 TIP is $16,164,000. The amount of
expenditure for the previous years was $9,030,000. The project is
currently estimated to cost approximately $9,834,000.
Additional costs were incurred with the inclusion of the section from
NC 274 (Union Road) to SR 2457 (Robinwood Road), which includes a two-lane
bridge over Catawba Creek and upgrading the roadway to the reconanended
cross section.
C. Proposed Improvements for Recommended Alternative
1. General Location
The proposed project is located in southern Gastonia. The west
terminal of the project is at the intersection of US 321 (York Road)
with SR 1255 (Hudson Boulevard) and SR 2400 (Neal Hawkins Road). The
east terminal of the project is at the intersection of NC 279 (New
Hope Road) and SR 2329 (Redbud Drive).
2. Length of Proposed Project
The length of the proposed project is 4.5 miles.
3. Traffic Volumes
Estimated 1991 Average Daily Traffic
low: 14,400 vpd between US 321 and NC 274
high: 16,700 vpd between NC 274 and SR 2457
Estimated 2011 Average Daily Traffic
low: 25,400 vpd between US 321 and NC 274
high: 29,600 vpd between NC 274 and SR 2457
The estimated 1991 and 2011 traffic volumes and major turning
movements are shown in Figure 3A.
4. Truck Data
The truck traffic estimate along the proposed route is 14% (9%
dual, 5% TTST). Figure 3B shows the estimated truck percentages for
Hudson Boulevard, as well as, major intersecting roads.
5. Design Speed
The recommended design speed for the proposed project is 50 mph.
The anticipated posted speed limit is 45 mph.
3
6. Cross Section Description
The recommended cross section is a 4-lane, median divided
facility with curb & gutter (two 24-foot pavements with a 16-foot
median). The total section width is 68 feet face to face of curbs.
7. Right-of-Nay
The proposed right-of-way width is 80 feet with construction
easements to contain construction. Much of the needed right-of-way
has previously been acquired by the City.
8. Access Control
The proposed facility will have partial control of access (at
least one access point per parcel along t-he alignment).
9. Intersection Treatment and Type of Control
All existing intersections along the project are stop sign
controlled with the exception of the intersection of US 321 (York
Road) and SR 1255 (Hudson Boulevard) and the intersection of NC 279
(New Hope Road) and SR 2329 (Redbud Drive). These exceptions are
signalized intersections.
Additional intersections which are recommended to be signalized
are NC 274 (Union Road) and SR 2457 (Robinwood Road).
10. Median Openings
Median openings will be located at the following intersections:
NC 274 (Union Road), SR 2457 (Robinwood Road), and SR 2446 (Hoffman
Road) as well as at all intersecting neighborhood streets. Left-turn
lanes with deceleration tapers are recommended at each median
opening.
11. Bikeways
There does not appear to be any need for special accommodations
for bicycles on this project.
12. Bridge Work Required
The construction of Hudson Boulevard Extension will require a
bridge (32 feet x 200 feet) over Catawba Creek. This bridge will be
located just south of the existing bridge which was recently
constructed by the City. The existing bridge will carry the
westbound lanes and the new bridge will carry the eastbound lanes.
13. Special Permits Required of Division of Highways
The Nationwide Permit provisions of 33 CFR 330.5(a) are likely
to be applicable since the acreage impacted for each site is less
than 1 acre.
4
14. Staging
No staging of construction is recommended.
15. Estimate of Cost
Right-of-Nay S 1,734,000
Construction S 8,100,000
Total: S 9,834,000
Right-of-Nay estimate includes relocation, utility, and
acquisition costs and the construction estimate includes engineering
and contingencies.
II. NEED FOR PROJECT
A. Characteristics of Existing Facility
1. General Description
The proposed alignment will be mainly on new location, but will
utilize existing portions of Hudson Boulevard recently completed by
the City from NC 274 (Union Road) to SR 2457 (Robinwood Road) see
Figure 2, sheet 4. A 1900-foot section was also constructed from
Robinwood Road eastward, but this section is recommended to be
upgraded.
2. Existing Roadway Inventory
a. Length of Roadway Section Studied
The existing section constructed by the City is
approximately 1.2 miles in length.
b. Pavement Width and Shoulders
From. NC 274 (Union Road) and extending, approximately 1300
feet east, the cross section is a 4-lane divided facility which
consists of two 24-foot lanes with a 16-foot median. The
pavement width is reduced to 24 feet with curb and gutter
through the 1.2-mile central section of roadway where two of the
four lanes have been built in the vicinity of Catawba Creek.
The cross section of the 1200-foot section extending to Robin-
wood Road consists of a 4-lane divided section with two 19-foot
pavements and a 22-foot median. This section is recommended for
upgrading since this cross section fails to meet the minimum
standards for a major thoroughfare. The section extending 1900
feet eastward from Robinwood Road is a 2-lane 22-foot section
and widens to 32 feet with curbing on the northern side of the
roadway at the Robin Nest Court development. This section is
also recommended to be upgraded.
5
C. Right-of-Way
The existing right-of-Hay on this already constructed
segment is 80 feet.

d. Structures
The only existing structure is one newly constructed bridge
(32 feet x 200 feet) over Catawba Creek.
e. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control
The existing intersecting roads are all stop sign
controlled.
f. Speed Zones
The speed limit on the newly constructed portion of the
extension is posted as 45 mph.
g. School Bus Data
The proposed extension is expected to have a positive
effect on the Gaston County school system by improving traffic
flow in this region of the county to area schools.
B. Accident Investigation
The accident rate for this already constructed section of Hudson
Boulevard Extension over a recent 3 year period (1/01/86 - 1/31/89) was 2
accidents. Both accidents occurred just west of Robinwood Lane and
involved impact with fixed objects.
C. Benefits to State, Region, and Community
The proposed improvements will provide a much needed east-west
thoroughfare to relieve congestion in the central business district and
improve east-west traffic flow. -
III. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. "Do-Nothing" Alternative
Due to the great amount of growth in this area, the "do-nothing"
alternative would not be feasible. Many of the new developments in this
area were built with right-of-way reserved for the proposed roadway in
anticipation of its construction.
B. Alternate Modes of Transportation
No alternate mode of transportation is considered to be a practical
alternative due to the density of housing and the distribution of
employment centers.
6
C. Build Alternatives
Both alternatives will follow the
Gastonia, and have a right-of-way width
both alternatives are shown in Figure 4.
alignment developed by the City of
of 80 feet. Typical sections for
a. Alternative I (Preferred)
Alternative I is proposed to be
pavements), median divided, curb and g
median. Median openings are to be proN
This alternative is preferred because i
continuous corridor through the project
opposing traffic. This alternative is
b. Alternative II
a 4-lane (two 24- foot
utter section with a 16-foot
,ided at all street crossings.
t would provide a safer more
area due to the separation of
the least costly.
Alternative II is proposed to be a 5-lane, 64-foot face to face
curb and gutter section. This alternative would require less actual
construction area, but gives even more liberal use of the partial
access control due to lack of a median barrier. This alternative is
estimated to cost $800,000 more than the recommended alternative.
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Social Effects
1. Land Use
The proposed project lies within the planning and zoning
jurisdiction of the City of Gastonia. The City has a zoning
ordinance in effect, but currently has no land use plan. The City is
now in the process of developing its first comprehensive plan,
informally referred to as the 2010 Plan. Individual neighborhoods
plans, based on the comprehensive plan will be prepared after its
completion. The most recent Thoroughfare Plan for the City was
adopted in 1911. A revised Thoroughfare Plan is presently under
review and is expected to be adopted by late 1991.
Most of the land intersected by the proposed project is zoned
for residential development with varying levels of density.
Commercial and office zoning districts are designated at the
intersection of the proposed route and SR 2446 (Hoffman Road): The
City of Gastonia School Board operates its audio-video center in this
area.
The proposed alignment occurs in an area undergoing rapid
suburban development. Most new development is in the form of single
family subdivisions, although some multi- family development has also
occurred near SR 2457 (Robinwood Road).
7
2. Neighborhood Analysis
The proposed action begins at US 321 (York Road) and runs in an
easterly direction along existing SR 2400 (Neal Hawkins Road) for a
short distance prior to going on new location. Development in this
area consists of commercial, institutional, and residential. The
proposed project, after passing through a densely populated area
continues its eastward route on new location through a wooded area.
Prior to reaching NC 274 (Union Road) it passes south of a new
subdivision and a few residential homes. Residential homes are near
the location where the proposed project crosses NC 274. It connects
with the proposed New Hudson Boulevard east of NC 274 and aligns with
it extending in an easterly direction. There are residential
neighborhoods that are set back on both sides of and out of the path
of the proposed facility. The proposed project crosses over SR 2457
(Robinwood Road) following Hudson Boulevard to the east going on new
location through a new subdivision, but missing the dwellings. Prior
to reaching SR 2446 (Hoffman Road), it passes on the north side of a
new subdivision, and on the south side of Hoffman Elementary School.
Residential homes and Temple Holiness Church are near the vicinity
where the proposed project crosses SR 2446. The proposed project
continues on new location through woodlands until it reaches NC 279
(New Hope Road).
The southern portion of the Gastonia planning area in the
vicinity of the proposed Hudson Boulevard extension has experienced a
significant amount of growth in residential development, compared to
other portions of the City. The City officials expect that growth to
continue, particularly in the form of multi-family development.
Commercial development is also expected to occur, providing services
to the residences in the area.
The proposed project is not expected to disrupt community
cohesion, as most of the existing neighborhoods are fairly new and
built with the right-of-way reserved for the future extension.
3. Relocation of Families and Businesses
The proposed action is anticipated to displace twelve single
family and farming structures and one business.
The involuntary relocation of families and businesses causes
disruptions and inconveniences which cannot be avoided. The Division
of Highways has a relocation assistance program to eliminate any
undue hardships on those having to relocate.
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.
8
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 arrangement (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 55,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted
in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and
the North Carolina Relocation Assistance- Act (GS 133-5 through
133-18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced
persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do
business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to each
highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced
families, individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm
operations for relocation assistance advisory services without regard
to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCOOT 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 NCOOT purchases 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 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 displacee for the costs of moving personal property from homes,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired
for a highway project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners,
NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for
9
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
522,500 (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, including 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 $5,250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by
the NCOOT's state or federally-assisted construction projects unless
and until comparable or adequate 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 financial means, and the replacement payment
exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the
program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by
the state 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.
4. Public Facilities
Public facilities along the proposed project consist of the
Pentecostal Freewill Baptist Church on SR 2400 (Neal Hawkins Road)
near US 321, and the National Guard Armory south of the proposed
project site on SR 2457 (Robinwood Road). Hoffman Elementary School
is located just south of the proposed highway project and east of SR
2446 (Hoffman Road). Temple Holiness Church is south of the proposed'
project site and on the east side of SR 2446. These public
facilities are located far enough from the proposed action so as not
to be adversely impacted.
5. Historic and Cultural Resources
a. Historical - Architectural Resources
This project is subject to review pursuant to North
Carolina General Statute 121-12(a) which requires compliance
with the provisions of that statute when there are properties
listed in the National Register of Historic Places located
within the area of potential effect of the undertaking.
10
The Office of the State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO) was consulted and it was determined that no properties
are listed in the National Register. These results complete
compliance with GS 121-12(a).
b. Archaeological Resources
This project was coordinated with the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) in accordance with the procedures for
compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Act (GS 113)
and the North Carolina Historical Ccmmission (GS 121.12). The
SHPO has reviewed the project plans and discussed the level of
effort required in order to evaluate any archaeological sites
that are eligible for or are listed on the National Register of
Historic Places.
During a survey of the project by the staff archaeologist,
it was determined there are no archaeological sites listed on
the National Register of Historic Places or on the State Study
List. During the intensive survey, six previously unrecorded
prehistoric and historic period archaeological sites (31Gs227 to
31Gs232) were found. None of these sites appears to be eligible
for the National Register.
B. Economic Effects
Hudson Boulevard Extension will probably enhance the economic growth
of the surrounding area. With the influx of new homes and commercial
establishments the Hudson Boulevard Extension is expected to generate, the
tax base for the County and the City of Gastonia will be positively
impacted.
C. Environmental Effects
1. Natural, Ecoloqical, and Scenic Resources
a. Man Dominated Systems
The types of man dominated systems most commonly
encountered were residential/urban areas. Maintained vegetation
zones such as grassy shoulders were located along existing
portions of Hudson Boulevard that are considered for project
construction. Man dominated areas such as these comprise a
large portion of the project.
Residential areas are scattered along the project corridor
and are typically dominated by Bermuda grass. Older, established
neighborhoods are located in and near the project corridor and
other new areas are now under construction.
11
b. Plant Communities
Forested areas along the new location sections of the
project corridor are dominated by upland communities. Small
wetland communities are also present. The upland communities
include pine-dominated stands, hardwood-dominated stands and
mixed stands of pines and hardwoods. Wetland sites along the
project corridor are disturbed for various reasons and ranged
from grass/shrub dominance to disturbed hardwood stands.
Much of the proposed corridor was impacted by Hurricane
Hugo in September, 1989. Many parcels of land still have not
been cleared of debris and fallen trees since that time. A few
areas have been cleared of debris.
Uplands
Dr -Mesic Oak Hickory Forest: The most common forested stands
a Tong the project corridor are mixed hardwood-pine stands. Most
of these stands were damaged from the hurricane and many trees
are down. These stands have little understory or ground cover.
They occur on slightly sloping upland areas at some of the
highest local elevations in the project area and are dominated
by oak and hickory. This community is best classified as a
Dry-Mesic Oak Hickory (Schafale, 1990) forest. Canopy dominants
include American beech Fa us randifolia , southern red oak
uercus falcata , white oak uercus a ba , black oak uercus
ve ut?na , willow oak uercus he os , water oak uercus
ni ra , post oak uercus stellata , sweetgum (Liquidam ar
st raciflua , tulip poplar Liriodendron tuli ifera , red maple
and moc ernut hickory Car a tomentosa . Virginia or scrub pine
(Pinus virginiana) an short ea pine Pinus echinata were
also present. Understory dominants include muse ewood Car inus
caroliniana , red maple and red cedar Juni erus virginiana).
T e ground cover was sparse and include spotty occurrences of
ebony spleenwort As lenium lat neuron , pipsissewa (Chimaphila
maculata and running cedar L co odium flabelliforme . Other
species may occur but are absent due to seasonality. Mixed
hardwood stands similar in composition to the Dry-Mesic Oak
forest but exclude pines were located in the project corridor.
These stands were relatively undisturbed and located on
moderately sloping upland areas.
Pine Dominated Community: Pine-dominated communities are also
common a ong the project corridor. This community supports a
canopy of only Virginia or scrub pine and short leaf pine. Scrub
pine was the most prevalent in the area, appearing often and in
higher density than short leaf pine. Immature stands often had
canopy trees with a Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) of only 2 to
3 inches. Pine-dominated stands were located in moderately
sloping upland areas similar to the Dry-Mesic Oak Hickory
community mentioned above. Hurricane damage was very heavy in
this community. Trees had fallen or were bent to the ground.
12
Mesic Community: Another upland community was encountered along
streams or depressions. Plant species present were indicative
of both wetlands and uplands but soils were not hydric. The
canopy is dominated by river birch Betula ni ra , tulip poplar,
water oak, southern red oak, sweetgum, American elm Ulmus
americana), American beech and mockernut hickory. The
understory contains red cedar, musclewood, flowering dogwood,
privet and red maple. Privet reaches a high density in some
areas and forms impenetrable thickets. The ground cover at this
time of the year was seasonally absent, but remnant vegetation
included Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides).
Disturbed Areas: Cleared areas and disturbed areas are dominated
y various herbs, grasses and shrubby growth of woody species.
Several utility corridors are crossed by the proposed project.
These areas are common in the projclct corridor. Some are
returning to native tree cover, while other sites are without
woody vegetation. These open areas are often dominated by kudzu
Pueraria lobata , broomsedge Andro 0 on vir inicus ,
panic-grass Panicum sp.), dog fennel Eu atorium
ca illifolium , blackberry- Rubus sp.), foxtai Setaria sp.),
Muh y Mu en ergia sp.) an honeysuckle Lonicera japonica).
Woody species that inhabit cleared sites tend to have shrubby
growth habits, due to the removal of the apical meristem.
American holly (Ilex o aca , red cedar (juniperus vir inana ,
short leaf pine, willow oak uercus hellos), red maple Acer
rubrum , sweetgum Li uidambar st raciflua , privet Li ustrum
sinense , dogwood Cornus orida and blackberry Rubus sp.
were common.
C. Geotechnical Findings
Ph sio ra h Relief and Drainage:_ The proposed project is
topographically wwit n the Piedmont physiographic region of
North Carolina. The region is characterized primarily by gently
rolling hills and adjacent stream valleys. The topography of
the region is however, occasionally broken by some more
prominent ridges. The prevailing slope of the region is to the
south and tends to follow natural drainageways. Upland slopes
within the study corridor attain an elevation of approximately
800 feet above median sea level, descending to approximately 700
feet above median sea level near stream crossings. On a
regional scale, the Catawba River and its related tributaries
form the principal drainage system for the region.
Geolo and Soils: The study area is located within a geologic
e t known as the Kings Mountain Belt. The Kings Mountain belt,
which is located between the Inner-Piedmont belt and the
Charlotte belt, consists primarily of low-grade metasedimentary
and metavolcanic rocks. According to the Geologic Map of North
Carolina (1985), the principal rock units within the study
corridor are Permian/Pennsylvanian granitic rock and late
Proterozoic Battleground Formation. Upland slopes generally
13
consist of soil and deeply weathered felsic rock, while deposits
along the floodplain typically consist of recently eroded
alluvium. According to the soil survey for Gaston county, soils
are classified as well drained A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7 soils in
the AASHTO system. Poorly drained soils with a high seasonal
water table could be encountered near the Catawba Creek
crossing. The following soils are located within the project
corridor:
CeB2 Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Ce02 Cecil sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
PaE Pacolet sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
HeB Helena sandy loam, -1 to 6 percent slopes
CH Chewacla loam, frequently flooded
CfB Cecil-Urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes
VaB Vance sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
ApB Appling sandy loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes
Chewacla and Helena soils are classified as having hydric
inclusions. Chewacla soils occur on nearly level areas along
rivers or creeks and are somewhat poorly drained. They are
subject to frequent flooding for brief periods during the winter
and spring. Helena soils are moderately well drained and occur
on smooth ridges, toe slopes, and along drainageways. The
seasonal water table is high, but flooding is not prevalent.
Erosion is moderate in unprotected areas.
Cecil soils are well drained and occur on side slopes or
broad ridges throughout the project area. The water table does
not come within six feet from the surface. The hazard of
erosion is severe in unprotected areas. Cecil-Urban complex
soils are intermingled units of Cecil soil and Urban land. The
water table is similar to the Cecil soils.
Pacolet soils are well drained located on side slopes and
narrow ridges. Appling soils well drained on broad, smooth
ridges. All three are primarily forested or croplands.
Mineral Resources: A number of significant economic deposits
occur within the Gaston county region. Lithium bearing
pegmatites containing the minerals spodumene and lepidolite are
by far the most important mineral resources currently being
mined. Historically, other economic minerals have been mined
including barite, sulfer, gold, kyanite and sillmanite. However,
based on the USGS Mineral Resources Map of the Charlotte 1 x 2
quadrangle, a low resource potential is anticipated within the
proposed corridor.
2. Threatened and Endangered Species
a. Federally Protected Species
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) does not report
any federally listed species within the proposed project area.
14
b. State Protected Soecies
One plant, Nestronia (Nestronia umbellate) is currently
under status review by the USFWS, may occur in.the project area.
It is a colonial shrub found in piedmont woodlands.
3. Wildlife Habitat
Both terrestrial and aquatic communities will be impacted. More
terrestrial habitat will be impacted than aquatic habitat from
proposed construction. Terrestrial communities can be divided into,
three types; the upland forests, open fields/disturbed uplands and
wetlands and urban areas. The majority of impacts fall into the
upland forest category.
a. Terrestrial Communities
Upland Forests: The Dry-Mesic Oak Forest, Pine and Mesic
Communities, are included in the Upland Forest category. Upland
forests will be fragmented upon construction of the proposed
project. Animals likely to inhabit these areas are numerous and
include opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray squirrel Sciurius
carolinensis , Eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus , Eastern
cottontail- (Sylvilagus floridanus , Raccoon (Procyon lotor ,
gray fox Uroc on cinereoargenteuus and white-tailed deer
Odocoileus virginianus). The following avian species are
though to occur in the area: whip-poorpwill (Caprimulgus
vociferus , red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus ,
common flicker Cola tes au?ratuus B ue Jay C anocitta
critata , red-eyed vireo Vir eo olivaceus , scar et tanager
Piran a olivacea , rose-breasted grosbeak (Pheucticus
udovicianus and wild turkey Melee ris gallopavo). One is
i e y to find a variety of reptiles and amphibians in these
upland habitats including slimy salamander Plethodon
lutinosus , American toad Bufo americanus , gray tree frogs
H a c rysoscelis and H. versico or , spring peeper H la
crucifer), Eastern ox turtle Terra ene Carolina , slender
glass lizard 0 hisauris attenuatus , worm snake (Carphophis
amoenus , scarlet snake Cemo hors coccinea , black racer
Co u er constrictor), ringneck snake (Diadophis unctatus ,
corn snake E a he uttata , eastern hognose snake Heterdon
lat rhinos , mole kingsnake Lam ro eltis calli aster eastern
ingsna a Lam ro eltis etu us , eastern mi ksnake
Lam ro eltis trian u um , brown snake Storeria deka i ,
re e y snake Storeria occi itomaculata , southeastern crowned
snake Tantilla coronata , eastern garter snake (Thamnophis
sirtalis , roug earth snake (Virginia striatula , smooth earth
snag Vir inia valeriae and timber rattlesnake Crotalus
horridus .
Open - Field/Disturbed Uplands and Wetlands: Open fields/disturbed
uplands are ike y to support the following species: woodchuck
Marmota monax , Eastern cottontail, white-tailed deer, killdeer
15
Charadrius vociferous), mourning dove Zenaida macroura ,
bobwhite Co inus vir inianus , Eastern b uebird Sia is
sialis , corrnon yel owthroat warbler Dendroica dcnaninica ,
bobo ink 0olic_ honyx oryzivorus meadowlark SSturnel a magna)-'
American goldfinch &arduelis tristis and rufous-sided towhee
Pi ilo er thro tha s . Other coanon species in the amphibian
and repo e groups that may inhabit disturbed areas include the
eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus , southeastern
five-lined skink Eumeces inexpectatus), ground skink Scincella
lateralis and six- fined racerunner (Cnemidophorus sexlineatus).
Urban Areas: Urban areas are likely to support such species as
opossum, evening bat (Nycticeius humeralis , big brown bat
(Eptesicus carolinensis), gray squirrel, Noreiay rat Rattus
norvegicus), house mouse Mus musculus and raccoon.
b. Aquatic Communities
Aquatic communities impacted are small streams which
support a variety of wildlife such as insects salamanders and
fish species. Fish species that are most likely to occur in the
project area include red breast sunfish Le omis auritus , white
sucker Catostomus commersoni), creek chub (Semotilus
atromacu atus , b uehead chub Nocomis leptocephalus), rosyside
ace C inostomus funuloides and fantail darter (Etheostoma
flabe are Species that may inhibit streams in the project
area include greenhead shiner Notro is chlorocephalus), striped
jumprock Moxostcma ru iscartes bluegill Le orris
macrochirus , largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides , white
catfish Ictalurus catus , margined madtom Noturus ins nis ,
spottail shiner Notro us hudsonius and at bu head
(Ictalurus platyiceph? ales).
Amphibians and reptiles that are likely to occur in moist
habitats near streams and ponds include Eastern newt
Noto hthalmus viridescens , spotted salamander (Ambystoma
macu atum marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum , northern
usky sa amander (Desmognanthus fuscus , two lined salamander
Eur cea bislineata), three lined salamander Eur cea
utto ineata , four toed salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum ,
mu salamander Pseudotriton montanus , red salamander
Pseudotriton ruber , Fow er s toad Bufo woodhousii northern
cricket rog Acris cre tinus , upland chorus rog Pseudacris
triseriata u rog Rana catesbeiana , green frog, pickerel
'frog Rana pal ustris Bout ern eopard frog Rana
s henoce ala , snapping turtle Chel dra ser entina , Eastern
mu turtle Kinosternon subrubrum , Eastern musk turtle
Sternotherus odoratus , panted turtle Chr sem s icta ,
five-lined skink Eumeces fasciatus , broad fined skink Eumeces
laticeps) rat snake LLI he obso eta , northern watersnake
Nero is si edon , rough green snake 0 eodr s aestivus , queen
sna a Re ina septemvittata), redbelly snake Storeria deka i ,
Eastern ribbon snake Thamno his sauritus and copperhead
(Agkistrodon contortrix .
16
Fill material placement and road construction in upland
areas will create barriers to mobile species. Ianobile plant
and animal'species are more likely to be impacted from the
proposed construction. Road construction and placement of fill
in aquatic habitats will likely impact streams at the source of
construction and downstream. Efforts should be made to control
erosion and to practice best management practices (BMP) during
construction.
4. Wetlands
Wetland communities are associated with streams, or, in one
case, a pond crossed by the project corridor (see Figure 2,
sheet 5). These areas are level to gently sloping. All wetland
sites are disturbed from previous human activities.
Approximately 0.9 acres of disturbed wetlands will be
impacted from the proposed project. These impacts are spread
across five sites. Locations of these sites are indicated in
Figure 5. Each of the wetland sites is less than 1 acre in
size. One site, the bridge construction at Catawba Creek will
impact approximately 0.6 acres of wetlands. This is the largest
area impacted. The remaining sites are less than 0.2 acres in
size. The amount of acreage impacted by site is presented in
Table 1. Impacts are estimated from an 80 feet right-of-way
limit.
Table 1. Summary of Wetland Acreage by Site
Site 4 Acres
4 0.17
9 0.06
10 0.55
12 0.10
15 0.02
Total 5 sites 0.90 acres
A total of five sites are impacted, all are less than one
acre. There are 15 streams that are crossed by the proposed
project. the streams with associated wetlands are listed above.
The project corridor follows one stream for approximately 1400
feet near the eastern terminus of the project. Rechannelization
of these streams is necessary, and therefore necessitates
consultation with the appropriate agencies is required by the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 stat. 401, as amended; 16
USC et seq).
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest: An existing section of
Nu son Boulevard between SR 2457 and NC 274 crossed 5 streams.
Much of this area has been cleared and is dominated by grasses.
Community descriptions of these areas were extrapolated from
remaining adjacent wetland communities. The closest community
17
classification is the Piedmont/Mountain Bottcmland Forest
(Schafale, 1990). Dominants include river birch, tulip poplar,
sycamore Platanus occidentalis , box elder Acer ne undo , and
sweetgum. The understory shrub layer was dense in spots and
included tag alder (Al,nnus serrulata , red maple, and privet.
The ground cover included cane (Arundinaria i antes , Christmas
fern, running cedar, Arthraxon Arthraxon hisoidus , pokeweed
Ph tolacca americans), dog fennel Eu atorium caoillifolium ,
rush Juncus sp. , Ludwigia Ludwi is a terni o ia) and beggar
ticks (BBidens sp.). Beggar ticks were numerous at the wetland
site north of the lake between SR 2446 and SR 2451. See Site 44
in Figure 5. Honeysuckle and poison ivy Toxicodendron
radicans vines were present in many wetland locations,
sometimes in tangled masses. All wetland sites were disturbed.
Sur.nar of Impacts: Approximately 37-acres of land area will be
impacted by proposed construction. These impacts are listed for
the entire length of the project and includes existing segments
of Hudson Boulevard and other proposed portions on new location.
Impact of existing segments of Hudson Boulevard were estimated
(on the high side) to be approximately 40 feet wide. Impacts,
by habitat type, are presented in Table 2.
Table 2 Summary of Plant Community Impacts
Plant Community
Acres Impacted
Residential/Urban
Dry-Mesic Oak Hickory Forest
Upland Pine Forest
Mesic Uplands
Disturbed/Open Field
Disturbed Wetlands
Total
3.6
12.9
1.3
2.9
16.8
0.9
38.4 acres
Forested communities (a total of Dry-Mesic Oak Hickory
Forest, Upland Pine Forest, Disturbed Wetlands and Mesic
Uplands) comprise over 50% of the impacted acreage. Upland
forests will be fragmented upon construction of the proposed
project. Large, undeveloped areas will be broken and disturbed
when project corridors on new location are constructed.
a. Permits
The Nationwide permit provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (a)
are likely to be applicable since the acreage impacted for
each site is less than 1 acre. More specifically,
Nationwide permits 414 and 426 may be applicable.
Nationwide Permit 114, the minor road crossing permit,
involves placement of less than 200 cubic yards fill in
18
nontidal waters. Nationwide Permit 426, the above
headwaters permit, considers the discharge of fill in
nontidal waters and wetlands that are above headwaters.
Headwaters are nontidal rivers, streams, lakes and
impoundments including adjacent wetlands that have a flow
of less than 5 cubic feet per second. Nationwide permit 426
is likely to be applicable to all crossings other than
Catawba Creek. Catawba Creek is likely to be a Nationwide
Permit #14.
b. Wetland Mitigation
Mitigation is typically not required for wetlands less
than one acre in size. At this time no mitigation plans
are proposed.
5. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) requires all federal
agencies and their representatives to consider the impact of con-
struction projects on Prime, Unique, and Important farmland soils.
The North Carolina Governor's Executive Order Number 96 also requires
state agencies to consider the impacts on farmland of state-funded
construction projects by following the guidelines provided in the
FPPA.
Over 41,10 of Gaston County, about 94,101 acres, is Prime
farmland. Most of the Prime farmland occurs in the northwestern and
south-central portions of the County. According to the Soil
Conservation Service, approximately 20 acres of Prime farmland soils
will be impacted by the proposed project. However, the land in the
project area has already either been converted to urban uses or is
committed to urban uses, as indicated by the City's zoning ordinance.
Therefore, consideration of Prime farmland soils is not required
under the FPPA.
The potential impact on soils which meet the criteria for
Important farmland must still be considered. Approximately 4.5 acres
of Important farmland soils, which has not yet been converted to
urban uses will be impacted by construction of the project. The Soil
Conservation Service identified 12 acres of State Important farmland
soils, but most occur on land -that has already been converted to
highway right-of-way.
The Farmland Conversion Impact Rating (Form AD 1006) was
completed for the proposed project. The rating system indicated that
the farmland which will be required for the project does not have a
high relative value, due primarily to its urban setting. Therefore,
mitigation is not necessary.
19
6. Hater ualit
The project area is located in the Catawba River system. Catawba
Creek, Shoal Branch and several unnamed tributaries of Catawba Creek
are crossed by the proposed project. Catawba Creek and Shoal Branch
are class C streams. Class C waters are best used for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and
agriculture. The unnamed tributaries are unclassified.
According to the soil survey for Gaston County, the south-
easterly flowing Catawba River and its major tributary the South Fork
Catawba River provide the most reliable sources of water in the
region. Potable wells are considered a less reliable source and
typically have yields on the order of 20 gallons per minute or less.
7. Air Quality.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine
future CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway
improvements. "CALINE3 - A Versatile Dispersion Model For Predicting
Air Pollutant Levels Near Highways and Arterial Streets was used to
predict the CO concentration at the nearest sensitive receptor to the
project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions
with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and
meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the
annual average daily traffic projections. The modeling analysis was
performed for a "worst-case" condition using winds blowing parallel
to the roadway. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were
calculated for the years 2000 and 2010 using the EPA publication
"Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the MOBILE4 mobile source
emissions computer model.
The background CO concentrations for the project area was
estimated to be 2.4 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the
Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental Management (OEM),
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources (NCDEHNR) indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 2.4
ppm is suitable for most suburban environs.
The project is located within the Metropolitan-Charlotte
Interstate Air Quality Control Region. The ambient air quality for
Gaston County has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient'Air Quality Standards. Since this project is located
in an area where the State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain
any transportation control measures, the conformity procedures of 23
CFR 110 do not apply to this project.
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
20
the contractor. Any burning done 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 burning will be done at the greatest
distance practicable from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will
be performed under constant surveillance.
Measures will be taken in allaying the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection
and comfort of motorists or area residents.
8. Noise Analysis
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the
Hudson Boulevard Extension in Gaston County on noise levels in the
immediate project area between US 321 and NC 279. 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.
Peak hour design and Level of Service (LOS) C volumes were
compared, and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were
used with proposed posted speed limits. Thus, during all other time
periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those indicated in
this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized to enable the
determination of the number of land uses (by type) which, during the
peak hour in the design year 2010, would be exposed to noise levels
approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and those
land uses predicted to expect a substantial noise increase. The
basic approach was to select receptor locations such as 25, 50, 100,
2009 400, 800, and 1600 feet from the center of the near traffic lane
(adaptable to both sides of the roadway). The location of these
receptors were determined by the change in projected traffic volumes
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 traffic noise impacts of this project in terms of increased
noise levels is predicted to range between +0 and +30 dBA. Large
variations and substantial increases are common on a new location
project due to the new road traversing areas that currently have
little or no highway traffic noise in their acoustic environment.
21
When real-life noises are heard, level changes of 2-3 dBA are
barely perceptible. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable, and a
10 dBA change is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving of
the loudness of the sound.
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
defract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid
mass, attenuable measures may include earth berms or artificial
abatement walls.
The traffic noise impacts for the "do nothing" alternative were-
also considered. If the traffic currently using the network of roads
in the project area should double within the next twenty years, the
future traffic noise levels would only jncrease approximately 2-3
dBA. This small increase to the present noise level would be barely
noticeable to people working and living in the area.
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is
not feasible or reasonable and no noise abatement measures are
proposed. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise
requirements of Title 23 CFR, Part 772, and unless a major project
change develops, no additional reports are required for this project.
9. Hazardous Waste
A reconnaissance survey of the project corridor identified 3
sites with the potential for underground storage tank (UST)
involvement. A subsequent records search of the OEM/Groundwater
Section was conducted to determine the status of these tanks. Based
on this investigation, the following information was obtained:
Site No. 1
Handy Pantry/Shell convenience store located at 2434 South New Hope
Road (NC 279) is an active site with 3 USTs. The USTs, which are
registered with the DEM/Groundwater Section (I0 number 0-016649), are
constructed of steel and were installed May 7, 1978. The respective
capacities and contents of these tanks are: two 10,000 gallon and one
8,000 gallon gasoline. The tanks are located approximately 30 feet
from the existing centerline of NC 279.
Site No. 2
Starvin Marvin/Speedway Convenience located near the intersection of
SR 2402 (Hilltop Circle) and US 321 is an active site with 5 USTs.
The USTs, which are registered with the DEM/Groundwater Section (ID
number 0-016875), are constructed of steel and were installed March
2, 1970. The respective tank capacities and contents are: two 10,000
gallon gasoline, one 8,000 gallon gasoline, one 3,000 gallon kerosene
and one 2,000 gallon diesel fuel. Temporary containment of petroleum
contaminated soil was noted in a visual inspection of the property.
22
The facility, which is located just outside the western project
to ,sinus, should be unaffected by the proposed alignment.
Site No. 3
Clemmers Stop and Save/Country Corner store located at 121 Neal
Hawkins Road (SR 2400) is an active site with 3 USTs. The USTs, which
are registered with the OEM/Groundwater Section (ID number 0-026079),
are constructed of steel with an unknown installation date. The
respective tank capacities and contents are: two 3,000 gallon, one
4,000 gallon, and one 10,000 gallon gasoline. The tanks are located
approximately 30 feet from the existing centerline of SR 2400.
The files of the Division of Solid Haste Management were
consulted to ascertain whether any unregulated dumps or other
potentially contaminated properties were within the proposed
corridor. In this search, 9 sites on the State Priority Listing were
identified in Gastonia. Based on the available information, none of
these sites were identified within the proposed project limits.
10. Construction Impacts
Borrow Potential: It is anticipated that the project will be
prri ily a orrow project, with some shallow cuts and appropriate
drainage improvements. Borrow potential from sandpits and gravel
quarries in the area should provide adequate road building material.
Erosion Control: Soils within the study area present a slight to
mo erate erosion hazard. As a result, Robinwood Lake and a number of
small ponds located adjacent to the project could be impacted.
Erosion control measures should be utilized to avoid possible
siltation problems.
To minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction,
the following measures, along with those already mentioned, will be
enforced during the construction phase.
a. Haste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of
the right of way and provided by the contractor, unless
otherwise required by the plans or Special Provisions or
unless disposal within the right of way is permitted by the
Engineer. Disposal of waste and debris in active public
waste or disposal areas will not be permitted without prior
approval by the Engineer. Such approval will not be
permitted when, in the opinion of the Engineer, it will
result in excessive siltation or pollution.
b. Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as
possible to alleviate breeding areas for mosquitoes.
C. An extensive rodent control program will be established if
structures are to be removed or demolished.
23
d. Care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
e. Several water and gas lines are located in the vicinity of
the proposed project. The contractor will prepare a work
schedule.which minimizes possible damage to or rupture of
these lines and interruption of these services. The
contractor will consult appropriate officials in preparing
this schedule.
f. 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
Implementation Plan for Air Quality. Care will be taken to
insure burning will be done ar 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. 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 and area residents.
h. An erosion control schedule will be devised by the
contractor before work is started. The schedule will show
the time relationship between phases of the work which must
be coordinated to reduce erosion and shall describe
construction practices and temporary erosion control
measures which will be used to minimize erosion. In
conjunction with the erosion control schedule the
contractor will be required to follow those provisions of
the plans and specifications which pertain to erosion and
siltation. Temporary erosion control measures such as the
use of berms, dikes, dams, silt basins, etc. will be used
as needed.
i. The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources has determined that 5 geodetic survey markers
will be impacted. The N. C. Geodetic Survey will be
contacted prior to construction so that these monuments can
be relocated if necessary.
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Agency Coordination
During the planning study, contact was maintained with local, state,
and federal agencies. Memorandums and letters requesting environmental
input were sent to the following agencies and replies were received from
those marked with an asterisk (*):
24
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
*U. S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Soil Conservation Service
*State Clearinghouse *N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N. C. Department of Human Resources
*N. C. Department of Public Instruction
*Gaston County Schools
*N. C. Department of Environmental, Health, and Natural
Resources - Moorseville Regional Office
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*N. C. Aviation Department
Centralina Council of Governments
Gaston County Commissioners
*City of Gastonia
Mayor of Gastonia
B. Public Involvement
A public meeting was held on August 9, 1990 in Gastonia, North
Carolina to inform the citizens about the project and receive any input.
The public meeting generated positive public support for the proposed
project.
AS/wp
FIGURES
rY/
I

u
SV/ / r
71
4
N ti
v 0
O c
? C =
?z0 ?
p Z N
O
z?
D
F
A.
?? •? ? 4 I r l? -
II-
1
LL A? _ j Q
'r - 31
,
°y? IN
CC V Sp
o? -
?I? - Iv1L r _
1
° 0
?07 ? ? Rd.77
_ ! T ? FAU
to = r ? ,
AND
04
\v '_1kp ?° >t 'n•'rr •?sM tB' Qy.t.r
a C
C
n
R
? C
\
u
Ao•

1
r
Alp
:
c? 4- •? - __ -
r or m d1
q4 11 CO\
/ , ti ly ? 4`
p? y \
V .°
1
J
_I-_
i?
S
C
Z? r.Jz
o OQ .?Z O
zz nza
N S W n Z Q x
pzoa zon
C Zm_ N :10
3 n`z-n8 3- :y0
OOOZ z??..
:?Oz
Z u k 5
M zy
y o
i
14.

ro u 18 ?

y fAU J
`Z
i

N
",

of GL i
?C
b ?, t
o
0
?.J "i s. f/ `o?r did ? •.1c e?l?. ° _. N ---? 1-_.IS `` ?-ter u \• ?? y ?'`\ \
• OM tii 4 e` Y„ :o m r t. - r1 a

_ r c
N _
iL p
t
?
O> I J
s.
? 1
m ?
P O N ? 10
a1 F

1 0
}
Ai-

10
N
0
°
0y
N
V
'O
u Z
u
D Ch..r°r 5r. f,V
LA /
Mon°no

A`CCC\t/'I

0
y N
>i
1
' V
v Gi
I .I
W ?N
i?CB NW ?i
^ C

IN
? o\
o

Ti I
5
rv r .1? 1= ? t° / SSW In ?'1 .ti7 07
a? ?..
.? .so Io .I7 o p fi ,01u °8<oero7 ,
or q W~ 1 I cf.l? ?mL7 - 2' r a' u
/. £ l?J --fig IF I? V, 71 g.to .il. - Low ti 7, ;
m (1 g 4 i rc `E .? ?p ,
,I
4 D
c
00,
V ? 1 1 ?? O ? t4c•,Mn, ; ? CA
! ?? ? e ZZ
g 1+ ro I. 1 0 ?' » Z C)
. :r._
T rn
/c4 ?'1 i 1 V bM t.
T r ! 'fi'r ~ y ?/ `,
>i
'V ?\SD e ycj (\?? ?? fJ// l
r m
\ c
I
r
a x ,
r
t
} y p
-VT r KFA
lil ?I? M '
?r
Jkl!
E- b t r, 1 r.
? ? ? 4 11 ???• 1 ?? ?1r r¢?j??fr ??jr?? 1 1 ? 1,
* Wm
*1 6 low,
,; i . F J7s?t
' ? J 3 4? 'f ?,? 1 l
1. 11
r F, Yr! r 'FYI ?; r* c
maw-

:.. r ? 'Ph? '. .t •^'? y - ? ,?`? '?^' 4 ? -#•r. .?'??'{s?? `?M1ir M p? [ I I,.. LN ` .. •f?? x `?
4&ig
,
-
a/v
`• ?,', , 4' ? ' ?„ ,? ,.? . h"? a •; P i ` ?,, .
AWL
' AA t_v
1, 4z, ?4 I IF
f 4.1
t
4
. - k
•
left
% -,?- 'I - I V!L.,T- - , ?11
4?`'T`..?.
lliw?
Iff
? ? .,4 . `• tt 6• r. . , ,•,t r A ^'
J4 I
e
F j Y m
yP
r? ? T' ? r d ?',y?',? J.•- .. A 1?9iR'f 'fl!`?.. .?. yiY r ,. '?? ., ? ?, } e.
;; x• .,... ? ? xt ,?"'' a ? " Y +,?,, '?j ? 1 ? .•o.. INWUc ?I? UAU'
-Its
14 V
f K ?. 1 X 0 i
cn ,4
f :j_ _ -. ?,?,.4 wi'' ?` ?? >?,??r+. 1 -1 ,? ??4M,??.7?'•'f?F ''e ,tia w:'
et6jt
'R fli
r *? `? _.' ;., ? } i? ?atr, ?y? ? f "`? ???"?" '\ ?? Al a _,??, ?'? `....
v Wt
y . '+ _ 'M? sue' ? ?# - 1 'r?) '?(" _. .r ?.?Y?' ??r ?? G .t,?
_ + ,? ^•? ,
45
? 4yA
If ft,
w. •.+?sF x ?+i t i •FZ i "`., "„?e 1 Y * >±`??i??5??,?
s oh
ail
4p'.'V,,.A'i1ffi4
1TV
,.?(y'?y. yF ?'.??L.- ?5.1 ??' t'?1ti 1r,•.., ? 4?1 ?s?. fast. ?:.ro ?..
y T s t k `S: y, c l= >! [' :. Nn. , ?j'°7`s•?ff1 y4 f? is"i.' „ {:: K ?.,. ' ?.. ,c
k"- ik?.. i?} -: .; tf'? ? 1 ?_:,: ? }?? •,'yp t? Yk a .-C ? ;''. i)
r
o m ,
A f r
Xl-

-' v ?'' 1?' - - 2 kq p`: r a e Y.. a?YF trps ti I 1
?,? ? . ' d r r • Y µ its #{?i ? ,i»L?tdA •"?. YM+?II ? ,?.g?.. h n, :-?y F 17.
' •? w +` :?,. ?'?+5... ???r?!?S. b'? 2°•e ray-'? ?: ?'S.i :?.
4uf
Aa,
III
`Li j` ,6 ?'yS ?94'? S Il ? ? A4 ly+?.- '':.,?? kra ? ?, t: ? ?.'E?' R .,p^ • ? -+Ff
rp4 dy, f"'S 4 x ?tN c? °,r kn a r g ,W ; ;
a??. ?j ,?k; afr lYyi vw ,M. ?' t?,?'?,.'.°?' ? 'r ? -?? r?'?b •5? ; "tL'? R rt h'?,y n., ,,?a,,,,•q,
*i.-- - ?r,`, - $. t alb'.-T•,Y'. .rpS1'A t',fi<-lt•`hl,? rt
41
Ail.
,
?* >?d-.. ?4tyk ?? fAl'?li ..+t:-.? ??-; !?"?' w-. ?yt ?r :',? ? '1, "? +k °• ??p,?.,?, '-1 - `v'?'.f,.. ,t.
??II 1
,. ,I a 7TH ' - r ?.
Ir,
a ? at ? - MYta', ? !Ii! r? r ? i •Y 1 'r4 !'yr '
ljv
4. ° ? x +r ;a- d; .?,R y°..F s* •. r - y, rt 'Rr eiY?l? _ \ s
A +,. _'?h p ? ?r ?In f4 s ?444 f ?`;y " 4 4 s` rI 6 Noe
,t,fayp'',d
4%g4'j, W7
qgj
S
A4
1 ?' y i is •,.i,
! raFy t w e .?. ,
0, V
- •`? + ? w?, +W'li ' .? ~ ' L^? ? `4yq,." r.+ ,11? •a Z
I w -t. i. 4
Illmaw
.?r i _,.y... + F ?_ ? ?? ? .?? ?*?- ,. a!S j?'M?y • ? P ?''¢,d'r 1 ? ? *?'' a ` a. ,,, r
474
.w .? `? i sry . ,. r "C' Y .- ? al '1` K k? :n } ?,'?' I 1 - _ C] • ?,t
to r ,:? • Ai ;+ ?,? O
A NV I PA
Nei I
4-4
AL t ,? * Y BRADF()RD 'z + ,Y ?? ,.? ' t P 4
.y }p• .Q l? .-1 ?'? a 1/'@. ..y; fr':. 1 _ t ,' r r4••?w ,,. r ',,}. Yl ? s
Tt?l?.?y\` '\ ;1, cn .?,r'
mod'+?r , .. ?. ?• ? 1• goo
1 .? 5 At4 ?ey
gla?
1
.44
42, 4,
?r "' , ',r 4}+, i.t t1. t Mkt 1
0-
Div, trw y? 1R t,
v
• ^lF
,? • ?•' ,a '?" ' if - -, ? ? °NR" (1 ,, F ,
•,
1 f ¢ , +r
_
.4 qW. • 1 ? 4? . y.? •_}µ,y Nil
ly '
,jr a y 111trr??' .,?i h,
410.
t IwA
+f?y ? ?y t _ X 1 r 5• ? S? ? • m . ? r r? }S?` f +y j;,?; ?' '?IN'h'
..,,1 r fe ?'•?. "` y t_r?Il?,4 'C, ?, .•` rk ?•p. *'J f .1 ,1 .#,r}• t .-'f ? ? .? ,i.
c _.
Tr f 7- ,,.? * i.r ; yy_ 7,7,,E p , -'%
117"v
Figure 3A
GASTON CO.
FEB. 27, 1991 U-215
I,UpSON BLVD_ EXTENSION Eno US 32 1 TQ RQ:-
EST_ 1901/2011 LM M WRU=
US 321
H1 ? 1?3
165 8 246

254
1a aa
NC 274 38 56
11Q 2? 1Q
221 51 85
In
296
C. 2A
SR-2457 11 48

K 1 R
L
178 13 6
LIZ
286
SR-2446 13 23
Z1 Aa 2$
128 75 50
iaa
295
NC-279 75 23
In 11 2$
216 25 50
15-Q
272
22Q
403
1u
273
121
258
Ga
113
14A
189
Figure 3B
GASTON CO.
FEB. 27. 1991 U-215
ROUTE 1991
ADT IN 2011
100"S %
TTST %
DUAL %.
DIIV %
DIR
US 321 S. OF
HUDSON BLVD.
91
165
2
3
10
60
US 321 N. OF
HUDSON BLVD.
225
403
5
9
10
60
NC 274 150 273 3 4 10 60
SR-2457 121 238 1 2 10 60
SR-2446 71 128 1 2 10 60
NC-279 120 216 3 4 10 60
HUDSON BLVD. 162 265 5 9 10 60

J
?Lill
O

? I
C)
S
ia)
4-
C
L
Q

L
c
\
Q
0
co
Figure 4

?o
,I
1.
o'

,
(.'j - ,

C
L
Q
?II
?? I j
?\ ,v ? I '{• U ?!- , ? I ?; v :•j ? ll j? •??_?J,??%??\,?J?//\ (jam\?,-\'/,/ ??\ ?•s-?l%/fir///?l?'?- ? ?;:'? ? •'_\/ ,[
?. ?j
\,??'".'•/ 1? ?•??? -? 0 ;?- - -? -. .' _ ? rr, it ,- r ??x\?' ? '' „1 _? _
J fu
IT,
n J- I I?=t x
N-z
At-
... ,' ? - \•?`` '? lip \ ?? ` / //?? -ype ? , ? / '''
(-
1
-4 t:
n mat )
,.?. 1.,•'?. ,\ . ?. ?? / Imo. ,?? I qp? ? ',2 •r. •\?_ vLt i ?? \ '.? ?ke
.. • ?' B fY' T ' • • ??. 1:? ?`?? Ali" \) -?C; 14A ^ 4t
N r4'
!? n y //°? • / ' ??? 0' ? / \???L.?J? ?'(//?/r ? C+.I? • ? ? ? ??II,,'? ?- tom, ^ ?`'. r
e?V
(D d I ( / 'jo
of , _e \ • \ \ ; \ (D .•% '?/a•° f `• l'•
'jo
In (D 'jo
Np JG?, co O (7 O Y 1 \` ?( `r ??. \ •. / ???.._ ` ?? ,•i; i ?j <-.:- 11. r
-Zzon
J
o? 3 Fl- -1
0) m
(D O
N ro L??/j?? ?, ?? ,' 1 `\ •A ?!-?i ?? _?,?r' ??/ M -_\ ?.. .???z /- -?'y :-: 4... yam'
\ r. C+J .7. \_ c? \ • Y? ?_'-? ? '` /: \` - = ?'.?' -+* Tom--• / r ?
1 I lip ? 1. G _ ?
V Z p g (WJ, O
aS ? ,o n
APPENDIX
-.. -n`? 45R`>?

A V
x
AIJG 1990
?`CC1"ED

a North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commis '=7 j
712 N. Salisbury Street, Rnleinh, Forth Carolina 27611, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
FROM: Richard B. Hamilton ry,.
Assistant Director
DATE: July 19,1990
SUBJECT: Gastonia, Hudson Boulevard Extension, from US 321 (York
Road) to NC 279 (New Hope Road, Gaston County, State Project
9.8121390, U-215
This correspondence responds to a request from Mr. L. J. Ward of
the N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for our concerns
regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from
proposed construction of the Hudson Boulevard extension in the City of
Gastonia. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) is
concerned about potential impacts to wildlife, fisheries and wetland
.resources within and adjacent to the construction corridor.
Biological field staff of the NCIgRC have reviewed the scoping
letter, and have conducted a preliminary site visit. Due to limited
information included with Mr. Ward's memorandum, we can express our
concerns and requests for information only in general terms. Also
during our field investigation, personnel observed construction and
excavation taking place at the proposed site between NC 274 and the
Robinwood Road. Construction completed at this point includes a
graded road bed with some gravel in place and a bridge near completion
over Catawba Creek. There has been extensive excavation along Catawba
Creek and its tributaries in this same area. The area where
construction is taking place would have provided important upland,
riparian and possibly wetland wildlife habitat. Although located
within primarily low density residential areas of Gastonia, the
proposed project would pass through substantial acreage of available
upland habitat for small game, mature woodlands composed of mixed pine
and hardwood stands, several creeks with associated riparian and
wetland areas and increasingly important urban wildlife habitat for
nongame species.
Memo Page 2 July 19, 1990
Our ability to completely evaluate project impacts and provide
beneficial recommendations when reviewing the project Environmental
Assessment will be enhanced by inclusion of the following information:
1) A complete assessment of damages which have already occurred
to wildlife and wetland resources at the site where
construction is presently taking place.
2) Complete maps of road alignments and alternatives, showing
areas to be cut and filled, and location of erosion control
measures.
3) Complete inventories of wildlife and aquatic resources
within, adjacent to or utilizing the study corridors. These
inventories should include any species on State or Federal
lists of threatened, endangered or special concern species.
4) Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the
project along Catawba Creek and its tributaries. Wetland
acreages should include all projected related areas that may
undergo hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other
drainage, or filling for project construction.
Approximately 5 acres of Resource Category 2 area occurs at
the wet and riparian areas along Catawba Creek.
5) Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat
impacted by the proposed project, including potential borrow
sites. Substantial acreage of Resource Categories 3 and 4
is found within all of the proposed extension area.
6) Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for
direct and indirect impacts to habitat quantity and quality.
A No Build Alternate would of course be best for protection of
wildlife habitat. The 5-lane, 64-foot width alternative would be
least detrimental to wildlife habitat.
Project plans must contain detailed erosion control plans to
'protect streams and wetlands from sedimentation. Erosion control
measures need to be maintained throughout the life of the project and
protective ground cover established as soon as any phase of the
project is completed.
We request that the current construction at the site be stopped
until the draft Environmental Assessment and all supporting documents
can be provided to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
for review and comment. These comments are provided in accordance
with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48
Stat. 401, as ammended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide input in the
early stages of this project. If we can provide further assistance
please call on us.
RBH/lp
cc: Mr.Chris Goudreau, District 8 Fisheries Biologist
Mr A.E. Ammons, Supervising Wildlife Biologist

Of
,
1 K -
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
ASHEVILLE FIELD OFFICE
100 OTIS STREET, ROOM 224
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801
July 5, 1990
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Research Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
p
A
ME 74
©
o ? J
4
-? r UL 0 9 1990
DIVISION OF V
?;,C HIGH;;'AYS
RFSE,ar
Subject: Hudson Bloulevard Extension, from US 321 (York Road) to NC 279
(New Hope Road), in Gastonia, Gaston County, North Carolina
(State Project No. 9.8121390, TIP No. U-215)
This responds to your letter of June 25, 1990 (received July 2, 1990),
requesting our comments on the subject proposal. These comments are
provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is particularly concerned about the
potential impacts the proposed action may have on stream and wetland
ecosystems within the project impact area. Preference should be given to
alternative alignments, stream crossing structures, and construction
techniques that avoid and/or minimize encroachment and impacts to these
resources.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if the document contained the following information:
(1) A complete analysis and comparison of all available
alternatives including the no action alternative.
(2) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within
existing and required additional rights-of-way and any
areas, such as borrow areas, which may be affected directly
or indirectly by the proposed improvements.
(3) Acreage and descriptions of branches, creeks, streams,
rivers, or wetlands which will be filled as a consequence of
proposed highway improvements. Wetlands affected by the
proposed project should be mapped in accordance with the
Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating
Jurisdictional Wetlands.
(4) Linear feet of any water courses which will be relocated as
a consequence of the proposed improvements.
(5) Acreage of upland habitats, by cover type, which will be
eliminated as a consequence of proposed highway
improvements.
(6) Techniques which will be employed for designing and
constructing any relocated stream channels or for creating
replacement wetlands.
(7) Description of all expected secondary and cumulative
environmental impacts associated with this proposed-work.
(8) Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid,
eliminate, reduce, or compensate for habitat value losses
associated with any of the proposed improvements.
Based on our records there are no federally listed or proposed endangered
or threatened species within the impact area of the proposed action. In
view of this, we believe that requirements of Section 1(c) of the
Endangered Species Act, as amended (Act), are fulfilled. However,
obligations under Section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new
information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
endangered or threatened species or critical habitat in manner not
previously considered; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner
not considered in this review; or (3) a new species-is listed or critical
habitat determined that may be affected by the action.
Although our records indicate there are no federally listed or proposed
species within the project vicinity, there is one plant species, Nestronia
umbellula (nestronia), that is currently under status review by the Service
which may occur in the project impact area. Status review species are not
legally protected under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to
any any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as endangered/threatened. We are including this species
in our response for the purpose of giving you advance notification. This
species may be listed in the future, at which time it will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime we would appreciate anything you might do
to avoid affecting this species.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and request that
you continue to keep us apprised on the progress of this project. In any
future correspondence concerning this project, please reference our log
number 4-2-90-073.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Section Manager, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Archdale
Building, 512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Charles Roe, Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Rob Sutter, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Plant
Conservation Program, P.O. Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611
Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, Box 26806,
Raleigh, NC 27611
Field Supervisor, FWS, P.O. Box 33726, Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
~ ?• NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
=M208 08/C2/90 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27611

INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
MAILED TO FROM
N.C. DEPT. CF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS 8AGGETT
L.J. WARD DIRECTOR
PLANNING E ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
HIGHiiAY BLDG./INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SCOPING FOR CCMMENTS ON IMPACT OF PROPOSED HUDSON BLVD.
EXTENSION, FROM US 321 (YCRK RD.) TO NC 279 (NEW HOPE RD.)
IN GASTON COUNTY (STATE PROJ. 9.81213901 U-215)
SAI NO 90E42201053 PROGRAM TITLE - SCOPING
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
M
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS* PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone].
C.C. REGION F
t?, O
4G ? 1 v
p?G 8 199 r
Q'
pIV1S?p 4 OF
HIGHWAYG ?
G? RESSPA
0; T
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street Y Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. IIAartin, Governor Douglas G. Lewis
William W, Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
A 5 6 7,9 Planning and Assessment 19 1-1
MEMORANDUM AUG 1990
REC D
Cl- SECsc E
r,i E`S OFFICE
TO: Chrys Baggett S ??A
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee V
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 90-1053 Scoping Notice - Propose Hudson Blvd.
Extension, Gaston County
DATE: August 3, 1990
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources has reviewed the proposed scoping notice for the
construction of Hudson Boulevard extension. The information
that was circulated for review was not sufficient to
evaluate potential environmental impacts of this project.
Therefore, comments are being provided in general terms for
the preparation of the Environmental Assessment.
In reviewing comments from the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission, they stated construction was being done within
the project area. This concern was discussed with the
Department of Transportation and we were informed that
construction was being done by the City.
attachments
PO !L- )7t,1,' ti!,-,Ai North Ciro!:na 2701 -t,s7 lc!erhone 919733-637o
DEPARTNZNT OF Era I RON VZUT, HEALTH
Ar:O NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Pro ect number
X10- IoS3
County
4 t'??"---
(Inter-Agency Project Review Response
ro ject Name l iiSo!^ B l1M, &1- 6 tJC :1Type of Project
7
The following are our comments on the above referenced subject.
The applicant should be advised that.pians and specifications for all water system improvements must be
approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the award of a contract or the initiation of
construction (as required by 10 NCAC 10D .0900 et. seq.). For information, contact the Public Water
Supply Section, (919) 733-24606
Several water lines possibly are located in the path of an adjacent to the proposed project. Due to a
possible rupture during construction, the contractor should contact the appropriate water system
officials to specify a work schedule.
The proposed project will be constructed near water resources which are used for drinking. Precautions
should be taken to prevent contamination of the watershed and strewn by oil or other harmful
substances. Additional information 1s available by contacting the Public Eater Supply Section at (919)
733-2321.
Back flow preventors should be installed on all incoming potable water lines. Additional information
is available by contacting the Public Water Supply Section at [phone].
This project will be classified as a community public water supply and must cc,-.)Ply with state and
federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more Information the applicant should contact the
Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of adjacent waters
to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfish sanitation procram, the applicant
should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Branch [phone].
The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department recarc!nc -',eir require•.,ents for
septic tank installations (as required under 10 NCAC IOA .19CD et. seq. and/a sanitary facilities
requirements for this project if applicable. For information concerning septic tank and other on-site
waste disposal methods, contact the On-site Sewage Branch at [phone].
The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated structures, an
extensive rodent control project may be necessary in order to prevent the migration of the rodents to
adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control, contact the local health department or the
Public Health Pest Management Section [phone].
• The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding problem. For
informaiton concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the applicant should contact the Public
Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
Yr f
Reviewer cranch/Unit^at
State of fJorth Cunni`ina -
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Hesaurces i ?'rr g Office:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS I Project Number. I Due Date:
9/n , /,Fl r
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) indicated must be obtained in order for this project to
• comply with North Carolina Law.
Ouestions reaardina these oermits should be addressed to the Reaional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Process
Regional Office. Time
(statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
? Permit to construct S operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions, b sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into stale surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES • permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days
? permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to
discharging Into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply (N/A
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever Is later.
?
Water Use Permit
Pre-application technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(NIA)
7 days
? Well Construction Permit NIA 15
(
days)
Application copy must be served on each riparian property o.vner. 55 days
? Dredge and Fill Permit On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.

? Pennit to construct S operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources NIA (90 days)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be ir. compliance with 15 NCAC 20.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing

E] asbestos material must be in compliance with 60 days
NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition.
(90 days)

? Complex Source Permit required under 15 NCAC 2D.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be property addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion L sedimentation control plan
? will be required if ene or more a_res to be disturbed. Plan t t•:•? ,.,:r. ,.- -.c, o-.a:(La-,: C.a:!ly Sect.) at least 30 mays L -f ,re :e^, r actif ty.
? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance:
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR as shown:
Any area mined greater than one acre must be permited.

? AFFECTED LAND AREA AMOUNT OF BOND 30 days
Mining Permit Less than 5 acres S 2,500
5 but less than 10 acres 5,000
10 but less than 25 acres 12,500 (60 days)
25 or more acres 5,000
? North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds s days (NIA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required -it more 1 day
? counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (NIA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."
O
Oil Refinin
Facilities
N/A 90.120 days
(N/A)
g
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, 30 days
? Dam Safety Permit inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv.
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. An a (NIA)
404 perrrnt !rom Corps of Engineers.
Ps•105 Continued on reverse
I Normal Process
Time
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
(statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
File surely bond of 55,000 with EHNR running to Slate of N.C. 10 days
Permit to drill exploratory eel or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (NIA)
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 15.20 days
descriptions & drawings of structure b proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
60 days
401 Water Quality Certification NIA (130 days)
55 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development 510.00 fee must accompany application (180 days)
22 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development F$l0.00 fee must accompany application (60 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located In or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed, please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells, if required, must be In accordance with Title 15, Subchapter 2C.0100.
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):

reviewer signature agency date
? Asheville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place ?
A
U
?
Asheville, NC 28801 Ig

[phone] g
frloorseville Regional Office :,•
19 North Main Street `
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office '
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
[phone]
EGIONAL OFFICES
?
i ? Fayetteville Regional Office
.5. Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Fayetteville, NC 28301
o [phone]
?" ? Raleigh Regional Office
Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611.7687
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
7225 Wrightsville Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8003 Silas Creek Parkway Extension
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
;? !1 zar
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
V0111am W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Charles H. Gardner
Director
I56
1?6 ,619
MEMORANDUM BUG 19,90
?'? `err
Date : July 3, 1990 ?;- p OFFS
To: Melba McGee
From: Randy Cotten ;RC/
Thru : Gary Thompson -?
Subject: 90-1053, Gaston County, Gastonia, N.C.,
Hudson Boulevard Extension. from US 321 (York Rd.)
to NC 279 (New Hope Rd.)
State Project No. 9.8121390, TIP No. U-215
We have reviewed the above referenced project and find
that 5 geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
The N.C. Geodetic Survey should be contacted at P.O.
Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611, [phone] prior to
construction. Intentional destruction of a geodetic
monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
GWT/ajs
cc: Joe Creech, NCDOT
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
q ?iM's1
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources
512 North Salisbury Street e Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. ?"Aartin, Governor Griffiths Forestry Center Ham F. Layman
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary 2411 Garner Road Director
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
July 6, 1990
6 190,
J
MEMORANDUM _ L/
LE C
-i
TO: Melba McGee C-
Environmental Assessment Unit
FROM: Don H. Robbins
Staff Forester
SUBJECT: EA Scoping for Gastonia, Hudson Boulevard Extension from US 321
(York Road) to NC 279 in Gaston County, North Carolina
PROJECT ii90-1053
DUE DATE 7/20/90
To better determine the impact, if any, to forestry and greenways in the area
of the proposed project, the Environmental Assessment should contain the
following information concerning the proposed extension for the possible
right-of-way purchases for the project:
1. The number of total woodland acres that would be taken out of timber
production or greenways as a result of new right-of-way purchases.
2. The acres breakdown of this woodland. concerning present conditions
such as clear-cut areas, young growing timber, and fully stocked
stands of very productive timber within the new right-of-way
purchases for disturbed and undisturbed portions.
3. The site indexes of the forest soils that would be involved within
the proposed right-of-way, so as to be able to determine the
productivity of these forest soils in the area.
4. The number of woodland acres that would affect any watersheds in the
area, if the woodland was removed.
P.O. Bux 27637• RWcigh. North Carolina 27611-76k7 Tdcrhon, -10.733 2102
A G ,,,I n rt, ?c?„ AFii ,ri.•. F 1,,...
Melba McGee
PROJECT090-1053
Page 2
5. If woodland is involved, it is hoped that the timber could be
merchandised and sold to lessen the need for piling and burning of
debris during right-of-way construction.
Provisions should be indicated in the EA that the contractor will
make all efforts to salvage any merchantable timber to permit
construction, once the contractor takes charge of the right-of-way.
6. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction
phase to prevent erosion, sedimentation and construction damage to
the remaining standing trees outside of the right-of-way boundary
and construction limits.
We would hope that the extension would have the least impact to forest
and related resources in that area.
DHR:gm
PC: Warren Bovette
File

loooN - Ado?

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
February 6, 1991
Dr. William Price, Jr.
State Historic Preservation Officer
Department of Cultural Resources
109 East Jone Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Dear Dr. Price:
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY. JR.. P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: Hudson Boulevard Extension from US 321 (York Road) to
NC 279 (New Hope Road), U-215
The Department of Transportation is conducting planning studies
associated with the construction of the subject roadway. Construction will
take place on new location. This project will be funded with state monies
and will require compliance with GS 121-12(a).
Present plans call for constructing either a five-lane curb-and-gutter
section of a four-lane divided road with a sixteen foot median on 80 feet
of right of way.
The architectural historian on the staff of the Department checked the
maps at the SHPO office and reviewed photographs of buildings along the
proposed corridor and found no properties listed in the National Register
of Historic Places.
Will you please give us a letter of concurrence with these findings.
Sincerely,
V. Charles Bruton, Head
Environmental Unit
BHC/rml
An Equal Opportunity/AtIirmatUve Action Employer
May 16 1991
MEMORANDUM

TO: Charles V. Bruton, Head
Environmental Unit
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook, Deputy State
Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Hudson Boulevard extension fr= US 321 to NC 279,
Gastonia,. U-215, GS 91-0094 `-, , • - - -.
Thank you for your letter of April 24, 1991, concerning the above project.
We hava conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures
of historical or architectural importance located within the planning
area.
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.
These ca=tents are made in accord with G.S. 121-12(a) and Eaecutiva
Order XVI. If you have any questions regarding them, please contact Ms.
Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 733-4763.
DB:olw
cc: B. Church
b c : S
County
RF
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
FM206 06/29/40 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA, 27,611
r
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT
MAILED TO FROM
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION MS. JEANETTE TOMCZAK
L.J. WARD CLEARINGHOUSE STAFF
PLANNING E ENVIRONMENTAL BRANC
HIGHWAY BLDG./INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SCOPING FOR COMMENTS ON IMPACT OF PROPOSED HUDSON BLVD.
EXTENSION, FROM US 321 (YORK RD.) TO NC 279 (NEW HOPE RD.)
IN GASTON COUNTY (STATE PROJ. 9.8121390, U-215)
TYPE - SCOPI NG
THE N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE HAS RECEIVED THE ABOVE PROJECT FOR
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW. THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED STATE
APPLICATION NUMBER 90E42201053. PLEASE USE THIS NUMBER KITH ALL
INQUIRIES OR CORRESPONDENCE KITH THIS CFFICE.
REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 07/27/90.
SHOULD YCU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL [phone].

9 1990
yOF 2
p1VIS102,j HIGHWAYS
0Q?
.,?' $ RES?P?G

? r. Stnt? „•
r 33
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM
July 2, 1990
DIVISION OF AVIATION
AVIATION PARKWAY
RALEIGH-DURHAM AIRPORT
[phone]
T0: Mohammed Mustafa, Planning and Environmental Branch
? %A.--
FROM: Bruce Matthews, Manager of Aviation Development
SUBJECT: U-215, Hudson Boulevard Extension, Gaston County
We have reviewed the potential aeronautical impacts of the referenced
project currently under study by the Division of Highways. We are not
aware of any airports or other aviation facilities which would be
impacted by highway construction along the corridor for this project.
If we can provide any further assistance on this project, please do not
hesitate to let us know.
BEM/sap

jut 0 S 1990
,.•i OF
n

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
An Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer
E. at ,,1
(L?i#u of 6astallin
P.O.OOX 174a
Q5asi ma, Zarill (L:zralultt 281353-17-13
DEPARTMENT OF
PU13LIC WORKS AND UTILITIES
June 6, 1990
Mohammed B. Mustafa
Project Engineer
Hural Project Planning
Planning and Research Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Subject: Comments of City of Gastonia regarding Scoping Meeting of May 31,
1990 for Improvements to SR 1255 (Hudson Boulevard) from US 321 to NC
279 (New Hope Road), Gaston County, State Project 9.8121390, U-215
Dear Mr. Mustafa:
As we have discussed by telephone since the Scoping ,Meeting held in Raleigh on
May 31, concerning the U-215 project, I have discussed the results of that
meeting with the City Traffic Engineer and the Director of Public Works and
Utilities. As a result of these further discussions, the City of Gastonia
recommends that the design of the U-215 project maintain the four-lane divided
typical section, in accordance with NCDOT standards, similar to which currently
exists on portions of Hudson Boulevard that have been previously constructed.
As I recall from the May 31 meeting, it was the original intent of NCDOT to
utilize the four-lane divided design for the remaining portion of U-217. NCDOT
did express concern. whether or not the 80 fee*_ of right of ::ay that hn:? tecn
acquired on the existing portion of Hudson Boulevard would be adequate. The
discussion then centered around the construction of a 64 foot face to face,
five-lane undivided section. NCDOT stated that they felt that this section
could be constructed within the 80 feet of right of way already acquired. At
that point it was the consensus of those in attendance that the remaining
portion of U-215 utilize the 64 foot five-lane undivided section.
The City of Gastonia, after further consideration of this matter, recommends
the original concept of a four-lane divided, median design for the following
reasons. First, the partial control of access proposed for this facility
allows for street and driveway connections at specified locations along the
proposed alignment. These access points have been negotiated with the property
owners as a part of the negotiated settlement for the dedication of right of
ways and easements. Subsequently with these designated access locations, co,:es
the reality of crossing and turning vehicles at these driveway and street
intersection locations. Medians provide a safe and efficient means of operation

Page 2
of these crossing and turning movements. Without medians, vehicles would tend
to attempt to negotiate the entire five lane roadway for these movements, which
would tend to encourage these unsafe movements. In more general terms, medians
provide a means of separation and insulation area for opposing traffic streams
and in many cases is an essential feature in multi-lane highway design.
At the Scoping Meeting there was discussion by NCDOT that the existing median
constructed on the existing sections of Hudson Boulevard was not of sufficient
width to facilitate maintenance of the median. The City of Gastonia would
recommend that the median design and right of way be of a width acceptable
to the NCDOT. Any additional right of way needed could be acquired in addition
to that already obtained by the City of Gastonia.
Another alternative which would be agreeable to the City, if the NCDOT concurs,
would be to construct the remaining portion of u-215 to the same typical
section as the portions previously constructed with the City of Gastonia
agreeing to maintain the median in accordance with our existing Municipal
Agreement for Maintenance of NCDOT roadways.
The City of Gastonia is fully aware of the additional costs which have been
added to the U-215 project with the bridge and the additional two lanes to be
constructed on the portion from Union Road (INC 274) to Robinwood Road (SR
2457). However, the City of Gastonia has also worked very hard and made a
substantial financial commitment to the U-215 project for several years through
the acquisition of advanced right of way and easements along this corridor and
has provided for or facilitated the advanced construction of a substantial
portion of this roadway.
The City of Gastonia respectfully requests that NCDOT incorporate these
recommendations in the design of U-215.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us at
[phone].
Sinc rely,
DONALD E. CARNICHAEL, P.E.
Asst. Dir. Public Works/City Engineer
SAMUEL L. WILKINS, P.E.
Director of Public Works and Utilities
DEC/wcf/dec_u215
:> rr?a

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
116%Vest Edenton Street • Education Building
1.Ucigh, \C 27603-1712
MEMORANDUM
T0: L. J. Ward, P.E.
Manager of Planning and Research
NC Division of Highways
Highway Building
G
199p
y°F
FROM: Charles H. Weave __ll
Assistant State ?1ttendent for Auxiliary Services
NC Department o P- is Instruction
217 W. Jones St., Ed. Annex I
Bob Etheridge
Superintendent
July 11, 1990
RE: Gastonia, Hudson Boulevard Extension, from US 321 (York Road) to NC 279
(f4ew Hope Road), Gaston County, State Project 9.8123190, U-215
Please find attached communication from George S. McSwain, Superintendent of
Gaston County Schools, relative to subject project.
mrl
Attachment
,in vi it ?w)tx)r1wji1v. ifllinnalirr dClirul rntp/uI tr

GASTON COUNTY SCHOOLS
943 OSCEOLA STREET • P. O. BOX 1397 • GASTONIA. NORTH CAROLINA 28053
Jul". 9, 1990
RECEIVED
Dr. Charles H. Weaver
Assistant State Superintendent JUL 11 1520
Auxiliary Services
116 Vest Edenton Street Dec40'4 of
Raleigh, AC 27603-1713 SCHOOL rvMNI"G
Dear Mr. Weaver:
Subject: Hudson Blvd. Ext-US321fto INC 279;1 Relocation of
KC Hwy. 16
Thank you for your letters (copies attached) of June 29,
1990 regarding the above subject. We have evaluated the proposals
and have determined that there should not be any negative impact
on the Gaston County School System. They should be very positive
projects that will improve traffic flow in two areas of our county.
We appreciate the opportunity to have input into these very
important projects.
Yours truly,
Dr. George S. McSwain
Superintendent
Gaston County Schools
GSM/jp
Attachment
"Gaston County Schools is an equal opportunity employer and dots not discriminate on the basis of sex, ethnic origin, or religion in its employment
prnclices'
A ?
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
16 West Edenton Street • Education Building
.Ralelgh. \C 27603-1712
Bob Etheridge
Superintendent
June 29, 1990
Dr. George S. McSwain
Superintendent
Gaston County Schools
Gastonia 06-56-31
Subject: Gastonia, Hudson Boulevard Extension, from US 321 (York Road) to NC
279 (New Hope Road), Gaston County, State Project 9.8123190, U-215
Dear Dr. McSwain:
Please find enclosed information from the North Carolina Department of Trans-
portation and Highway Safety relative to subject proposal. Since we are
assisting with these studies, we are asking that you review the proposal and
let us have your reactions both pro and con at an early date.
Thank you for your consideration to this matter.
Sincerely, ''.. `
Charles H. Weaver
Assistant State Superintendent
Auxiliary Services
/mrl
Enclosures

an n pad ???wmntif)iujfrrnuui?vat-tinrt iyuph)err