20030894 Ver 1_Complete File_20030717

D
44W
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
RECEIPT
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
January 9, 2004
Beth Harmon
PD and EA Branch
Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Re: Project: Dixon School Road
DOT TIP#: R-2625 A
DWQ#: 03-0894
COE#: 200331082
County: Cleveland
"ErLAAIasr4,9 p f ;r
JAN J 4 2004
WATER ,u xa
gi?
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) has received a check in the amount of
$164,400.00 check number 1546742, as payment for the compensatory mitigation requirements of the 401
Water Quality Certification/Section 404 permit issued for the subject project. This receipt serves as notification
that the compensatory mitigation requirements for this project have been satisfied. Please note that you must
also comply with all other conditions of this certification and any other state, federal or local government
permits or authorization associated with this activity.
The NCEEP, by acceptance of this payment, acknowledges that the NCEEP is responsible for the
compensatory mitigation requirements associated with the subject permit and agrees to provide the
compensatory mitigation as specified in the permit. The NCEEP will restore 822 linear feet of stream in
Cataloging Unit 03050105 in the Board River basin.
Payments to the Ecosystem Enhancement Program are NOT reimbursable unless a request for
reimbursement is received within 12 months of the date of the receipt. A letter must accompany requests for
reimbursement from the permitting agencies stating that the permit and/or authorization has been rescinded.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Carol Shaw at [phone].
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Ferrell,
Program Manager
cc: Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit
Steve Lund, USACOE-Asheville
Mike Parker, DENR Regional Office-Mooresville
NC DENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program One
1619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-16119 NOrthCarofina
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrpl )Vaturallb,
;i
wArF?
?G
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
October 2, 2003
Mr. Gregory I Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Director
NCDOT Planning and Environmental Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC, 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Re: Water Quality Certification Pursuant to §401 of the Federal Clean Water Act,
New Route from north of I-85 on SR 2283 (Dixon School Road) to south of SR 2256 (Phifer Road).
F.A. Project No. STP-2283(1); State Project No. 8.2800801
TIP No. R-2625A
DWQ Project No. 030894
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 3433 issued to The North Carolina Department of
Transportation dated October 2, 2003.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Attachments
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Steve Lund, USACE Asheville Field Office
NCDWQ Mooresville Regional Office
Christopher Militscher, US Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
Ron Ferrell, NC Wetlands Restoration Program
Central Files
File Copy
FIC Aft
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), hftp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/
;f,
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-
500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, §.0500. This certification authorizes the NCDOT to incur the following
permanent impacts:
¦ 410 linear feet of stream channels in Hydrologic Unit 03050105.
These impacts occur in Cleveland County, as described in the Application dated 24 June 2003. The
project shall be constructed pursuant to the application dated June 24, 2003 to construct the new two-lane
route from north of I-85 on SR 2283 (Dixon School Road) to south of SR 2256 (Phifer Road) in
Cleveland County.
The application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of fill material into the waters of the state
with the proposed development will not result in a violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and
discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate the
applicable portions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in
accordance with the application and conditions hereinafter set forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you submitted in your application. Should
your project change, you are required to notify the DWQ in writing, and you may be required to submit a
new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and
approval letter, and is thereby responsible for complying with all the conditions. If additional wetland
impacts or stream impacts for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre or 150 linear feet,
respectively, additional compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506
(h) (6) and (7). For this approval to remain valid, you are required to comply with all the conditions listed
below. In addition, you should obtain all other federal, state or local permits before proceeding with your
project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-discharge and Water Supply
watershed regulations. This Certification shall expire three (3) years from the date of the cover letter
from DWQ or on the same day as the expiration date of the corresponding Corps of Engineers Permit,
whichever is later.
Condition(s) of Certification:
1. Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications governing
the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management Practices in
order to assure compliance with the appropriate turbidity water quality standard (50 NTUs in all fresh
water streams and rivers not designated as trout waters; 25 NTUs in all lakes and reservoirs, and all
saltwater classes; and 10 NTUs in trout waters).
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the R-2625A project must equal or exceed the
proper design, installation, operation and maintenance outlined in the most recent version of the
North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual. These devices
shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects,
including contractor-owned or leased borrow pits associated with the R-2625A project.
b. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must equal or exceed the proper
design, installation, operation and maintenance outlined in the most recent version of the North
Carolina Surface Mining Manual. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply
with the reclamation in accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control
Act.
2. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum
extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is
unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade restored within 30 days after the Division of
Land Resources has released the project.
3. There shall be no excavation from or waste disposal into jurisdictional wetlands or waters associated
with this permit without appropriate modification of this Certification. If this occurs, compensatory
mitigation will be required since it is a direct impact from road construction activities.
4. Stormwater shall be transported by vegetated conveyance before being discharged into the streams.
5. Live or fresh concrete shall not come into contact with waters of the state until the concrete has
hardened.
6. Discharging hydroseeding mixtures and washing out hydroseeders and other equipment in or adjacent
to surface waters is strictly prohibited.
7. The natural dimension, pattern and profile of the stream above and below the crossing should not be
modified by widening the stream channel or changing the depth of the stream.
8. The removal of vegetation in riparian areas should be minimized. NCDOT is encouraged to use
existing on-site vegetation and materials for stream bank stabilization and to minimize the use of rip
rap. Riprap shall not be placed in the stream bottom.
9. Riparian vegetation, using native trees and shrubs, must be re-established within the construction
limits of the project by the end of the growing season following completion of construction to
reestablish the riparian zone and to provide long-term erosion control.
10. Excavation of stream crossings should be conducted in the dry unless demonstrated by the applicant
or its authorized agent to be unfeasible. Sandbags, cofferdams, flexible pipe, or other diversion
structures should be used to minimize excavation in flowing water.
11. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be placed below the
elevation of the streambed to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic life unless it can be shown
to DWQ that providing passage would be impractical. Design and placement of culverts and other
structures including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may
result in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or stream beds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down
stream of the above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium shall
be maintained if requested in writing by DWQ.
12. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in the stream channel unless
demonstrated by the applicant or its authorized agent to be unfeasible. All mechanized equipment
operated near surface waters should be inspected and maintained regularly to prevent contamination
of stream waters from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids or other toxic substances.
13. Mitigation: Compensatory mitigation shall be the same as that approved by the US Army Corps of
Engineers as long as the mitigation required equals a ratio of 1:1 restoration or creation of lost
wetland acres as described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(6).
¦ Compensatory mitigation in HU 03050105 of 822 linear feet of stream mitigation shall be
provided via in-lieu payments to Wetlands Restoration Program, which has accepted your
payment, for impacts associated with the above referenced projects.
¦ In accordance with 15A NCAC 2R.0500, this contribution will satisfy NC Division of Water
Quality's compensatory mitigation requirements under 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h).
14. Upon completion of the project, the NCDOT shall complete and return the enclosed "Certification of
Completion Form" to notify DWQ when all work included in the 401 Certification has been
completed. The responsible party shall complete the attached form and return it to the 401/Wetlands
Unit of the Division of Water Quality upon completion of the project.
The Applicant shall require its contractors (and/or agents) to comply with all of the terms of this
Certification, and shall provide each of its contractors (and/or agents) a copy of this Certification.
Violations of any condition herein set forth may result in revocation of this Certification and may result
in criminal and/or civil penalties. This Certification shall become null and void unless the above
conditions are made conditions of the Federal Permit. This Certification shall expire upon the expiration
of the 404 Permit.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written
petition that conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its
conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This the 2nd day of October 2003
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
WQC No. 3433
0.
W A TF Michael F. Easley, Governor
C7 ?' William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
G) Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
.? Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
September 23, 2003
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Director
NCDOT Planning and Environmental Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC, 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Re: Water Quality Certification Pursuant to §401 of the Federal Clean Water Act,
New Route from north of I-85 on SR 2283 (Dixon School Road) to south of SR 2256 (Phifer Road).
F.A. Project No. STP-2283(1); State Project No. 8.2800801
TIP No. R-2625A
DWQ Project No. 030894
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 3433 issued to The North Carolina Department of
Transportation dated September 23, 2003.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
I
1
imek, P.E.
Attachments 7
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Steve Lund, USACE Asheville Field Office
NCDWQ Mooresville Regional Office
Christopher Militscher, US Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
Ron Ferrell, NC Wetlands Restoration Program
Central Files
File Copy
A AN
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), hftp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/

NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-
500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, §.0500. This certification authorizes the NCDOT to incur the following
permanent impacts:
¦ 410 linear feet of stream channels in Hydrologic Unit 03050105.
These impacts occur in Cleveland County, as described in the Application dated 24 June 2003. The
project shall be constructed pursuant to the application dated June 24, 2003 to construct the new two-lane
route from north of I-85 on SR 2283 (Dixon School Road) to south of SR 2256 (Phifer Road) in
Cleveland County.
The application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of fill material into the waters of the state
with the proposed development will not result in a violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and
discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate the
applicable portions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in
accordance with the application and conditions hereinafter set forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you submitted in your application. Should
your project change, you are required to notify the DWQ in writing, and you may be required to submit a
new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and
approval letter, and is thereby responsible for complying with all the conditions. If additional wetland
impacts or stream impacts for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre or 150 linear feet,
respectively, additional compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506
(h) (6) and (7). For this approval to remain valid, you are required to comply with all the conditions listed
below. In addition, you should obtain all other federal, state or local permits before proceeding with your
project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-discharge and Water Supply
watershed regulations. This Certification shall expire three (3) years from the date of the cover letter
from DWQ or on the same day as the expiration date of the corresponding Corps of Engineers Permit,
whichever is later.
Condition(s) of Certification:
1. Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications governing
the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management Practices in
order to assure compliance with the appropriate turbidity water quality standard (50 NTUs in all fresh
water streams and rivers not designated as trout waters; 25 NTUs in all lakes and reservoirs, and all
saltwater classes; and 10 NTUs in trout waters).
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the R-2625A project must equal or exceed the
proper design, installation, operation and maintenance outlined in the most recent version of the
North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual. These devices
shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects,
including contractor-owned or leased borrow pits associated with the R-2625A project.
b. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must equal or exceed the proper
design, installation, operation and maintenance outlined in the most recent version of the North
Carolina Surface Mining Manual. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply
with the reclamation in accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control
Act.
V,
P
2. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum
extent practicable. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is
unavoidable, they shall be removed and the natural grade restored within 30 days after the Division of
Land Resources has released the project.
3. There shall be no excavation from or waste disposal into jurisdictional wetlands or waters associated
with this permit without appropriate modification of this Certification. If this occurs, compensatory
mitigation will be required since it is a direct impact from road construction activities.
4. Stormwater shall be transported by vegetated conveyance before being discharged into the streams.
5. Live or fresh concrete shall not come into contact with waters of the state until the concrete has
hardened.
6. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be placed below the
elevation of the streambed to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic life unless it can be shown
to DWQ that providing passage would be impractical. Design and placement of culverts and other
structures including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may
result in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or stream beds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down
stream of the above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium shall
be maintained if requested in writing by DWQ.
7. Mitigation: Compensatory mitigation shall be the same as that approved by the US Army Corps of
Engineers as long as the mitigation required equals a ratio of 1:1 restoration or creation of lost
wetland acres as described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(6).
¦ Compensatory mitigation in HU 03050105 of 822 linear feet of stream mitigation shall be
provided via in-lieu payments to Wetlands Restoration Program, which has accepted your
payment, for impacts associated with the above referenced projects.
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2R.0500, this contribution will satisfy NC Division of Water
Quality's compensatory mitigation requirements under 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h). Until plans are
received and approved for the proposed mitigation sites, wetland or stream fill shall not occur.
8. Upon completion of the project, the NCDOT shall complete and return the enclosed "Certification of
Completion Form to notify DWQ when all work included in the 401 Certification has been
completed. The responsible party shall complete the attached form and return it to the 401/Wetlands
Unit of the Division of Water Quality upon completion of the project.
The Applicant shall require its contractors (and/or agents) to comply with all of the terms of this
Certification, and shall provide each of its contractors (and/or agents) a copy of this Certification.
Violations of any condition herein set forth may result in revocation of this Certification and may result
in criminal and/or civil penalties. This Certification shall become null and void unless the above
conditions are made conditions of the Federal Permit. This Certification shall expire upon the expiration
of the 404 Permit.

N
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written
petition that conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its
conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This the 23rd day of September 2003
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
WQC No. 3433
??ETasi?o? c?ou?
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890 XTER QUALITY SECTION
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Action ID No. 200331082
August 29, 2003
PUBLIC NOTICE
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, ATTN: Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Director,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, 1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1548 has applied for a Department of the Army (DA) permit TO DISCHARGE
DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL INTO 410 LINEAR FEET OF STREAM CHANNEL IN THE
WATERS O F AN UNNAMED T RIBUTARY T O D IXON B RANCH T O CONSTRUCT AN
EXTENSION OF SR 2283 (DIXON SCHOOL ROAD) APPROXIMATELY 1.8 MILES IN
LENGTH FROM NORTH OF THE EXISTING INTERCHANGE WITH INTERSTATE
HIGHWAY 85 TO SR 2256 (PHIFER ROAD) WEST OF KINGS MOUNTAIN, CLEVELAND
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA (TIP NO. R-2625 A, STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2800801,
FEDERAL PROJECT NO. STP-2283(1)).
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the applicant and from
observations made during an onsite visit by a representative of the Corps of Engineers. Plans
submitted with the application show the proposed construction of a two-lane facility with 11-foot
lanes and 8-foot shoulders from just north of the I-85 interchange at Exit 5, across NC Highway 216
(Battleground Avenue) and the Norfolk Southern Railway to SR 2256 (Phifer Road) at the northern
end. The proposed right-of-way width for the project is approximately 175 feet. Between SR 2305
(Compact School Road) and NC 216 the proposed new road crosses an unnamed tributary of Dixon
Branch. A 6 0-inch d iameter, 2 72-foot 1 ong c oncrete p ipe w ould c arry t he flow of this upper
perennial channel through the roadway fill. Approximately 410 linear feet of channel would be
impacted by pipe installation. There are no wetlands adjacent to the channel or at any other location
in the project area. The applicant is proposing to mitigate for stream losses at. a 2:1 ratio by
contributing to the North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program (WRP). All proposed mitigation
would occur in the Broad River Basin, Hydrologic Unit 03050105. An Environmental Assessment
(EA) for the proposed work was completed on February 28, 1996. A Finding of No Significant
Impact was approved on August 27, 1996. An Indirect and Cumulative Effects report was completed
for this project on November 5, 2002. The purpose of the proposed work is to provide a more direct
north-south transportation corridor between Interstate Highway 85 and US Highway 74 Business on
the west side of Kings Mountain. The northern section of this project, TIP R-2625 B has been
completed. Plans showing the proposed work are included with this public notice.
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice do determine the need for the
applicant to obtain any required State authorization. No Department of the Army (DA) permit will
be issued until the coordinated State viewpoint on the proposal has been received and reviewed by
this agency, nor will a DA permit be issued until the North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (NCDENR) has determined the applicability of a Water Quality Certificate as

required by PL 92-500.
This application'is being considered pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within the comment period specified in this
notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this application. Requests for public hearing shall
state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the National Register of
Historic Places for the presence or absence of registered properties, or properties listed as being
eligible for inclusion therein, and this worksite is not registered property or property listed as being
eligible for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register constitutes the extent of
cultural resource investigations by the District Engineer, and he is otherwise unaware ofthe presence
of such resources. Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or historical data may
be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer, based on available information, is not aware that the proposed activity
will affect species, or their critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable
impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity and its intended use on the public
interest. Evaluation of the probable impacts which the proposed activity may have on the public
interest requires a careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each particular
case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced
against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The decision whether to authorize a proposal, and if so
the conditions under which it will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome of.
the general balancing process. That decision should reflect the national concern for both protection
and utilization of important resources. All factors which may be relevant to the proposal must be
considered including the cumulative effects thereof. Among those are conservation, economics,
aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood
hazards and flood plain values (in accordance with Executive Order 11988), land use, navigation,
shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs,
safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in
general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving the placement of dredged or fill
materials in waters of the United States, a permit will be denied if the discharge that would be
authorized by such permit would not comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's 404(b)(1)
guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any other applicable guidelines or criteria, a permit
will be granted unless the District Engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public
interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local
agencies and officials; Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the
impacts, including secondary and cumulative impacts, of this proposed activity. Any comments
received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers to determine whether to issue, modify,
condition or deny a permit for this proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to assess
impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects and
the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are used in the preparation of an

Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Comments are also used to determine the need for a
public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of the Army (DA) permit will not be
made until the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) issues, denies, or waives State
certification required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The NCDWQ considers whether or
not the proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302, 306 and 307 of the Clean Water Act.
The application and this public notice for the DA permit serves as application to the NCDWQ for
certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be reviewed at the
offices of the 401 Wetlands Certification Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ),
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604. Copies of such materials will be furnished to
any person requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean Water Act
certification should do so in writing delivered to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Wetlands Section, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0621, on or before
September 22, 2003, Attention: Mr. John Dorney.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received in this
office, Attention: Mr. Steven Lund, until 4:15 p.m., September 29, 2003, or telephone (828) 271-
7980.
3
T
LEGEND
---WLB---- WETLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND
WLBI
DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
I DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE WATER
DENOTES MECHANIZED
CLEARING
-E FLOW DIRECTION
TB
?_ TOP OF BANK
- WE
- EDGE OF WATER
-- C- . PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
F-- PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-?-PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
-- NG--- NATURAL GROUND
- - PL - PROPERTY LINE
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
--EAB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
--EPB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - - - - WATER SURFACE
DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
VANE
RIP RAP
RIP RAP ENERGY
DISSIPATOR BASIN
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CLEVELAND COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2800801 (R-2625A)
NEW ROUTE FROM NORTH OF I-85
ON SR 2283 (DIXON SCHOOL RD.) TO
SOUTH OF SR 2256 (PHIFER RD.)
SHEET 2 OF _5? 4 / 25 / 00
x x x x x
LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
--- COIR FIBER ROLLS
O/ ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
(DASHED LINES DENOTE
EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE
¦
boo, °
/c
0
oa ? I I y?I ?O °
.? J? W I ? © E.y ((? ?/ .O Ib? w R
l50 I m tl: 3 Z E+ 0
I *e O tL' a'?x
O
/ o _ 161 tap U ( z (U a.
z
O 0 C4
N r©00
/// m ? I ? ? E• a ti FM0 O
z0?
// I I
LyL'BG ?OOOhZ
O I O V O
ooosa -n- JI Q I
/ LO
\\ M N\
Sod
Z V1
NOI1V1lV W
a 1SNI ,g, OH 3 `? r
-._.._.? B! ?a
( l dJa OOS( m 3
//.• 3bd 1 .?/ vi W
N \ zm
Cl (n
o ?: O
? W
1 / CV.
/ 3
? a
._ 1 U
O "' ' + a 14
0
I ~ ° it ?• •? " o

~ I

h I
I

) ; I

I

i
U c C' I I I I t o

Q
a
N I I°

W
LL
LL (D
C ti

I
O
:)
m G L
v
I p
O
L y
y c
O ti v
U O rn
N
co
w
'0
a m
v c E I °
o cc o
U
H
U

c
C 02 '?
N cn
,
x

N
cc w U
cc
F-
Q

i
v c I C.
Q
v °
LL N
~ O
cc
V)
2i
cl) a o
m
o L I °
°
-?
iL

U ;= d ? v
_
= I I ? I t o
? Z o

C L
cn ?°
L
I
O
U? I
E'- 2 I I
U I I
?,

d cn .0 -0
C O
I
I
I

c
G ?ti
tL I
I i
I ID
°
0 31 O.

to

N m I i I
O
I'
U C
-
Q
d C y
O

o ti I o
Q x O
FJ-
W W c

LL ti O

d
N L I
p
O

~ C
N
C C
=?
I O
p
L
LL N

N
3 N
p
U N C>

C O
_O ~
\
^
ry ? I
(n l1 ° I F-

_
n I W
?
_ ( i I I I
LL
d
3
.a
do
..yin
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
030894
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
iNULMDS / a fiwoUp
JUL !
wac # 353 TERQUALITY SECTION
ATTN.: Mr. John Hendrix
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Application for Individual Section 404 and 401 permits for R-2625A. New
route from North of I-85 on SR 2283 (Dixon School Road) to south of SR 2256
(Phifer Road). State Project No. 8.2800801, Federal Project No. STP-2283(1),
TIP No. R-2625A.
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to construct a two- lane new
highway from north of I-85/SR 2283 (Dixon School Road) Interchange to south of SR 2256
(Phifer Road) southwest of Kings Mountain on new location. The project is approximately 1.8
miles in length. This application package consists of the cover letter, ENG Form 4345, 81/2x11
inch permit drawings, and half size plan sheets.
Purpose and Need: As identified in the EA, the main purpose of the proposed project is to
provide motorists a more direct north- south route between Interstate 85 and US 74 Business on
the western side of Kings Mountain.
Summarof Impacts: Impacts on jurisdictional areas of the proposed project consist of a total of
410.76 linear feet of stream impacts.
Summary of Mitigation: The project has been designed to avoid and minimize impacts to
jurisdictional areas throughout the NEPA and design processes. Compensatory mitigation for
jurisdictional streams will be handled by using 821.6 linear feet from the North Carolina
Wetlands Restoration Program.
June 24, 2003
;Y
NEPA DOCUMENT STATUS
A North Carolina State Environmental Assessment (SEA) was submitted by the NCDOT
on February 28, 1996 in compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. The
document addressed R-2625 A. a new route from north of I-85 on SR 2283 (Dixon School Road)
to south of SR 2256 (Phifer Road), as well as R-2625B which is already constructed. The SEA
explains the purpose and need for the project; provides a description of the alternatives
considered; and characterizes the social, economic, and environmental effects. After the SEA
was approved it was circulated to federal state and local agencies. On August 27, 1996 a FONSI
was approved for R-2625. Copies of the EA and FONSI have been provided to regulatory
review agencies involved in the approval process. Additional copies will be provided upon
request.
INDEPENDENT UTILITY
The subject project is in compliance with 23 CFR Part 771.111(f) which lists the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) characteristics of independent utility of a project:
(1) The project connects logical termini and is of sufficient length to address
environmental matters on a broad scope,
(2) The project is usable and a reasonable expenditure, even if no additional
transportation improvements are made in the area;
(3) The project does not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably
foreseeable transportation improvements.
RESOURCE STATUS
Delineations:
Stream delineations were conducted in May 2003 by Environmental Services Incorporated using
the criteria specified on both the NCDWQ Stream Classification Form and the USACE
Intermittent Channel Evaluation Form. R-2625A has 410.76 feet of jurisdictional streams.
Wetlands: There are no permanent or temporary impacts to jurisdictional or isolated wetlands for
this project.
Streams: The project corridor is located within the boundary of the Broad River Drainage Basin.
Drainage from the project corridor flows into an unnamed tributary to Dixon Branch and is
classified as Class C. This perennial unnamed system (DWQ index No. 9-54-3) is located at
Station number 14+00 to 15+00.
PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with. Federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are
protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. As of January 29, 2003, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists one federally
protected species for Cleveland County (Table 2).
Table 2. Federally Protected Species for Cleveland County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Hexastylis naniora Dwarf-flowered heartleaf T
"T" denotes Threatened "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range."
A biological conclusion of "No Effect" was reached for the Dwarf-flowered heartleaf based on
on-site surveys made in May 2003. The results of the surveys indicate that there is no habitat for
the species. Therefore, there will be no effect on the species.
INDIRECT CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
Existing rules for the 401 Water Quality Certification Program (15A NCAC 2H .0506(b)(4)
require that the DWQ determine that a project "does not result in cumulative impacts, based on
past or reasonably anticipated future impacts, that cause or will cause a violation of downstream
water quality standards."
A Indirect and Cumulative Impact Assessment was conducted for this project on November 5,
2002. The document states that since this project will be a new road through undeveloped land
and will not be access controlled, there will be new development that occurs. However, because
of the requirements instituted by the Division of Land Resources and the studies required by the
City of Kings Mountain, this development should not have any impact on water quality in the
area. The evaluation of local regulations and water quality management plans indicate that new
development induced as a result of TIP R2625A will not substantially deteriorate water quality in
Beason Creek, Dixon Branch, or the Broad River Basin.
The Unnamed tributary to Dixon Branch is not an impaired stream and therefore is not on the
state 303d list.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Archaeology: An archaeological survey report for the proposed project was completed and
transmitted to the SHPO on February 23-24 and March 1-2, 1993. On December 8, 1995 the
SHPO concurred that no additional archaeological investigation is warranted in connection with
the project.
Historic: On December 8, 1995, the SHPO concurred that there are no properties considered
eligible for the National Register and that no further evaluations are required.
FEMA COMPLIANCE
There are no regulated floodways on this project; therefore compliance with FEMA regulations
is not applicable
WILD AND SCENIC RIVER SYSTEM
The project will not impact any designated Wild and Scenic Rivers or any rivers included in the
list of study rivers (Public Law 90-542, as amended).
MITIGATION OPTIONS
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features
to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts, and to provide full compensatory mitigation of all
remaining jurisdictional impacts. Avoidance measures were taken during the planning and
NEPA compliance stages; minimization measures were incorporated as part of the project
design.
MINIMIZATION
Sta. 14+00-15+00 (UT to Dixon Branch) The existing stream will be directed through a 5'
reinforced concrete pipe. This design was minimized to the fullest extent possible by increasing
the slopes to reduce the impacts to the unnamed tributary to Dixon Branch.
COMPENSATION
The project has been designed to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional areas throughout
the NEPA and design processes. Compensatory mitigation for jurisdictional streams will beat a
2:1 ratio and will be handled by using 821.6 linear feet from the North Carolina Wetlands
Restoration Program as indicated on the attached letter.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Application is hereby made for a Department of the Army Individual 404 Permit as
required for the above-described activities. We are also hereby requesting a 401 Water Quality
Certification from the Division of Water Quality. In compliance with Section 143-215.3D(e) of
the NCAC we have enclosed a check for $475.00 to act as payment for processing the Section
401 permit application. We are providing seven copies of this application to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional information please contact Michael Turchy at
maturchY(@dot.state.nc.us or 919 715-1468.
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Cc:
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ (7 copies)
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Ms. Kathy Matthews, USEPA
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Mr. John F. Sullivan, III, P.E., FHWA
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. M. L. Holder, P.E. (Div. 12), Division Engineer
Ms. Trish Simon (Div. 12), DEO
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington (Cover Letter only)
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-003
(33 CFR 325) Expires December 31, 2004
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 hours per response, although the majority of applications should
require 5 hours or less. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed,
and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information
Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget,
Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403: Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act, 33 USC 1413, Section 103. Principal Purpose: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Routine
Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local government agencies. Submission of
requested information is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot.be evaluated nor can a permit be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this
application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed
activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
I (ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE MLLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO. I 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 13. DATE RECEIVED
4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BYAPPLICAN7)
5. APPLICANTS NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENTS NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
6. APPLICANTS ADDRESS
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
9. AGENTS ADDRESS
7. APPLICANTS PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENTS PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence a. Residence
b. Business 919-733-3141 b. Business
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to fumish, upon
request, supplemental information in support of this permit application.
APPLICANTS SIGNATURE
DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OR PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions
New Route, from North of the 1-851SR2283 (Dixon School Rd) Interchange to US 74 Business (Shelby Road) I
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (W applicable)
Unnamed tributary to Dixon Branch
15. LOCATION OF
Cleveland NC
COUNTY STATE
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions) Section, Township, Range, LatrLon, andforAccessors's Parcel Number, for example.
North of 1-85/SR2283 (Dixon School Rd) Interchange to US 74 Business (Shelby Road)
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
Please see attached vicinity map and cover letter.
14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
rth of 1-85/SR2283 (Dixon School Rd) Interchange to US 74 Business (Shelby Road)
ENG FORM 4345, Jul 97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent: CECW-OR)
18. - Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
New Road location, realigning, extension, grade separations.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
Public transportation; to improve traffic flow and increase safety.
USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
New Road Location North of 1-85/SR2283 (Dixon School Rd) Interchange to US 74 Business (Shelby Road)
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Earthen fill material,'
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
410.76 linear feet of streams
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes No X IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here, please attach a supplemental list).
Please see the attached sheet in the permit drawing package.
25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application.
Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this application is
complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent
of the applicant.
r'
SIGNATURE O APPL AN k? DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized
agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly
and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or
representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall
be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORM 4345, Jul 97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent CECW-OR)
DWQ NCWRP 919 733 5321 06/23 103 12:33 N0.400 02/02
North Catalina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
AAn!?
Mchasl F. Easley, Governor ? RM
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary NCDENR
November 2t), 2007-
Mr. Gregory Thorpe
NC Department of Transportation
P D and E A Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Thorpe:
Subject: TIP *- R - 2625A.
County: Cleveland
The purpose of this letter its to notify you that the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) will accept payment for stream impacts associated with the subject project.
Wetland impacts will be mitigated in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Enginems dated
November 4,1998.,
Based on the information supplied by you in a letter dated November 5. 2002, the stream
restoration that is necessary to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements for this project is
summarised in the following table. The maximum amount of mitigation that the NCWRP will accept
for this project is also indicated in this table.
Stream
linear feet Wetlands
ri "an wetlands
non-ri arian
Lm pact 822
Miq ion Max. 1644
As requested, the NCWRP will provide stream mitigation as specified in the.401 Water Quality
Certification and/or Section 404 Permit for impacts associated with the subject project in Cataloging
Unit 03050105 of the Broad: River Basin.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Valerie Mitchemcr at
[phone].
S70ly,
Ronald E. Ferrell,
Program Manwr
CC,. Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit
Steve Lund, USACOE-Asheville
Mike Parker, DFN,R, Regional Office-Mooresville
6.10
Wetlands Restoration Program 1619 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1613
[phone] Fax: [phone]
LEGEND
---WLB---- WETLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND
??- WLB'
FITIM DENOTES F1 IN
WETLAND D
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
DENOTES TEMPORARY
WI-AFILL IN SURFACE WATER
D DENOTES MECHANIZED
CLEARING
E < FLOW DIRECTION
TB
-i- TOP OF BANK
-.V!E.- - EDGE OF WATER
C-- PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
-- F-- PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
ANK- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
-- NG- -- NATURAL GROUND
-- PL - PROPERTY LINE
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
--EPB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - • - •- - WATER SURFACE
DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAO
VANE
RIP RAP
RIP RAP ENERGY
DISSIPATOR BASIN
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CLEVELAND COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2800801 (R-2625A)
NEW ROUTE FROM NORTH OF I-85
ON SR 2283 (DIXON SCHOOL RD.) TO
SOUTH OF SR 2256 (PHIFER RD.)
SHEET 2 OF 4/25/00
XXXXX
LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
--- COIR FIBER ROLLS
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER

PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
(DASHED LINES DENOTE
EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE
¦
?o°w a
0
pv Am ?_
?V rN W // I O ?Q~
150 RC j $ q 0.? 3 z c? E O
Z C)
.E \ ,o I ?; O z 0ZO-
C4 x 1,3
?/ \ q 0 0 w F ?ca?
w w H?o0 0
O C, m
I wW/ C?
Z0
/
' O I O
O (.
oorrsa ooo g WQ -n- II-
UA
y
Sod
\ Z N
Jel ? .
NOI1Vl1V ?? w
a 1SNI ,8. OH 3 -j r
a
81 j Imml
?dJl1 0051
LI
90d V) uj
z a:
c? v)
?? N \ m I
g co
l
U
?. A
a? 1 4,
0
I I `:
- I
?? f i\ °
a o ?
I?.. NN J; o
I

I ? I
I
I I
I

v
o???
I I
I
??
< N o

w
o v °

?]
N

I
I o
O
L y
N r O
_
O C
U ti

W
O
N
c U
W m
O

C6 C
U
E

I O
o?c o
? U
!n
H
U
O °
L m
U N
N
N ti m C N
N
.
x L ry ?..
¢ wU=
u
i
F
Q

W LL
O
U v I °o
Q c o
LL

N

U) O O
C cc I O
C O L
?
O
W

fn ? ? I I i v
} = f _ IO
cr
Z
o
0
2

2 m
'
? r I I I
y
_ I O

U z I I I
I
Q O
a_
?
o

`
cn ??? I i o
?- c
U
Q -

U
Q ?
x O
J
?
W W c

LL ti 0

I O
E a) o
m o
? c
C C O
=? L I Cl
FL j O
N
7 N
O
(J N

2 ?

C ? I
I
\ J I
cc
-`? ^
J cn Q
&5
H

Project No. 8.2800801 (R-2625A)
Property Owner List
For
Each Wetland S ite
Site Station Parcel Name Address
NO. NO. DB and Pg
-L1- 14+37 Rt. to John Cole Hatcher 1318 F Cenrtal Ave.
1 -L1- 14+68 Lt. O DB 1114 Pg 341 Charlotte, N.C. 28205
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CLEVELAND COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2800801 (R-2625A)
NEW ROUTE FROM NORTH OF I-85
ON SR 2283 (DIXON SCHOOL RD.) TO
SOUTH OF SR 2256 (PHIFER RD.)
SHEET 5 OF 4/25/00
E PRQ L8.2800803 R-2625A
b a z D D
+ NQ g $ co ?e
p y (? +
o Y V V ° i a V1 V+j
N 68 ro)
ppp I it n
71
-Sw
n;? y y ? Z? m A j r \ - ? • ?
,Olt
(d!
C y b c,t g ?? I? W Z O i ? ._
a .<
pig
?? w w
y ? y? ado' `v O
l=7 .? y
0
A. tft4
is
w ? ? titi P ? 0,,?3 ?
5
? m ;0SS --
,Q vav7a s `A 6 /???"?VVVI
N a N ? ? ? ? a .end 9`Z?* ?O?F? ??
9 SS Y?
o
2 to
CO)
cz C5 km
IR V4
?? ??? 9OF J ? "1 1?
SGT '?1yO
b ?t
anm
l
z w H °N ?- ?°? y p9?9y N'1
01 + -I' $
n r mZ IM
Z y?
s? v C
n n
? / ? oy aaao-+a y D
?O N N
N
d ti ? a
o
e a
e
W O O F

E
n
x

x ? ? fl?
b .
r
J
y
??
0 31
p cl C Q D to n p '. C Q O O O y O N O O O y N to < C O v? O O O O O O !p
3 cl tp 3 a M p M + a rt -o a -• m o a •O -o -o 'O p Q'
O A y H o
> m e r) A
m z? 3 70 ::E w o = -ft
C 3 eD N
Q' a m p 7 3 3 p m p 3 -Si 'a A C C
7o a. a. W C g -0 W p
f,o m -i ?- to 0 v A? O O 0 -Oi,S? rt m a a S O. 3 N A
A pr C05
pr a N
022 r C .g `pG `< c? -p ^I G m
= 0 C O 3 in to m m' 'o r r` O m y
-n "n
n n (? a Q Q 'o O '9, H W' m g ' 3$ 3 C
C' C yy v i r y p 3 r r fp O i m
f C O W m W m A m': O
° ?' ? mSm ? M i @ ? ? Q '• ? S p •? I?i?
N ,7,F 3 C r... G
m ? " tOii tOn n+
W a CL VV
H
? I I I I
0 1 I I I t
o; r I D ?. I?n h 1 I
31 ? n *? i I ( m° °m m m n 1?C?I ? I, I I I
I I ?? - I I I I I
L-J
vl C -1 N N -i fi) _ ?L C --I -o N N = A -i -o -o -o p 'n _0 2
` O O m Q O ?'. C O
a Q p 60000 C 00
. 5. W =r -Op y y O ' Sr A •O 10 -o- ID gyp. a 'G p M 'Op rt A C Z
r: 'v p' O N -1 Q -1 O
a ' m eo C .. r 3 O 3C 9 O A m O O ?. fD 1P VoO O O 0 1p O. C fp 70
7 0 7 m p p N ? S 7 O 0 O O ' 3 3 1p N f 0 =, a m <
ai A 3 ON 7 O O O .0 3 tp 3 O O O '+ O V ® a A W O 171
O S W S 7 '? w 9 C C S S S p a
A ?- a ce O Q ° o a ° 0 0 y W O 0 0 -o G1 m
C3 G Q 3 3 f W g O ?' W G y
rt p O. tD S `n 3 C O ' S .? O O p m fp O O p
° ; c c `D `° `° (1C??
O
A
rn
I ;? 1 f
I
T I II Z
®O ?Q O o O ®O o® I Q B Q Q+ ® lY D o- I It O
r I °' II
97 I mo A -1 A O M X91 mp G ? C O 70 G ?o p ? to 0 ? p ? N C7 70
y ,Oa ' Qs O O O iz O -0 -0 O 1 O p p,• m y n;lc a n O q n H n y n O H n N n ? N n
7 7 O m W W '' O r 3 O O 1Q O f0 n m• 0 m (Q (G C t0 0
to 4 4 C O S .? ft C. -1 3 C. O a O 3 C- 7 IZ 7 C. 7 CL 3 C. 3 C.
O W ` p O c p C O fG C fp C <D C /p C. fD
to fC Ip IC r Z `? p S O .0 r 3 > > p -• Q -• d 'a '* J. ,a 0 N -« O. + C_ d
m m g° 70 C Z A 3 r r 0 7 <9 W 0 m O Q. r O. -1 Q. O a Q' N Q
C a W a 3 O W r ' O 0 a O;-n c O = S O O 0 C C N
3 7 p c o o p D 1p t0 O v9 S 4477 !P A O rn p 7 <D
8' C C
N 7 A N 8' -? 41 'a N p m
A W O O y 0 S. v'• O m' y 3 ?" C n r
O_ -? O' O N -1 r r C
CL a. W O 3 O 7 'O G' C /9 3 W r tD' m O
'O O U3 0= ' N '
G p_ C S O A W N O !p
OO m S p Z N: C O O N
y 3 Q ?. ?r A S S Ov*
C T_ m 0 O C Fn T O C
Oo G7 m !n O O e? in
y in O a in n O .?
' c 3' O
C. in C rt rn
D 3
y m v r
y O V m C
b .* it
Vn
I I I ?X ( I 1 I I j ; ( i j
' I ? m m ? 1 t 1 I I s i c I ( " I I v N I ? H N ? i :
A w l O w' ?0 [=q
I I I i y p 8 0 l I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I ' ' 1 I O O < < C A A i ti V U1 i O N N N I
N N
C
m
II
N
C
N
c
29
A
m
C?-1
r
z
A
Z
m
m
70
00
?®
b

i 1
c-
_i
n
a
r
N
m
Z n
N O
Z
0
N
2, 2
=oT
pp•
ooo
00? N
*mao0
NOO O
X00
O?
1 =z?l
0
m
v
0
M
S
T
w
0
M
M
m
z
< co
x
x
I
co
M
O O O W N j W N N 9

x myyy

D

-D-IC WiC 2C ?r1v-a?

DDm
O 9

°

?? ?

O ?a9

O

077
?y
? ?

7
?
a ?

? ? ?

0 a?

5-IS
< O
1-1 N O W •-10 m? ZO 'O <9 0
<? D
?
' t
z• m 9 MY 0D'0 y?
D

r
P"
z .,
m m m1
-i v
M m< 1^
?oD
b
m
D m
D
t <
zTD?
m s
D
'
D o m
m rn
DD
<v
m a 77T 0?1m mm
T
O O?p
-
9za
a rods v
T I
m? o
Hy•
z C
0
6"o
m F,
oa
m 1-i D
zp7o M-0
m a M slo
mmo
mo sm0 ?x X 0 lQlym X x ??o mX
C
x > _nm -Timm om zs°Il-ii
W mo M? mm 5mm -Di -. 1m
vt ym= mbo m
Dw z +

1 -4 aw-4 xa
m9
-+9 0a N=
m
?
Z• D o°
?g 0
O 0
'719 mm
co z0 ?z
3
2 o11D -?
ma
jC
?
4n
O fpm -q1 m? -4
SOitAllp ND m_3 Way CTT. g
<3 6D 1N=
. T3 m
-1 NO Ova DO

o rtp??

? 7c'?
U2 m
W7A A 7/J
'O
o -4 N r
1
rA m D
?W m w
O ?a .4
00r> N•0

r z
D
m ff 0 m o m
mi w -oam? m mi nm0
-4sZ mi m
v-4 a
m? ymtn?
M?z mD
r
? mr
1 xmo
n o
z M
m?
Z -1 m1 x
?n
9 co x8
W scf =8
m ?

T
-18 '?
mm mmc
i
vm• mno
Mz Cn
^
z M; m
z Dz
T < m W m
Dzz I V W
as
Dy iz
C CO),
00
.. Dn a2

m m Z

n 0

T AWW
o c

?a n

co
0' `!
:c
g
,n8 mo-I o-4
O z ~ a9mMm ;mW
iD
Rm
a sm
mD mys
? I N t+ `"

Z
W 9 71
33D W
C
-
m
1o +D NDO coo
s zGf 0 c?
r.28
zoc 1^W
9m -T4v
i
mm mm
7o s m
sMo Vz
om ,il
2
co 0
zmT m9
-4D
C7
TO T9D •-ID
Om mm m Ty
0 02 f7

z 9
n OVD
s, 7C2
m s
an m
° WO
o 0 mo.
9m C
m1 nom om
02 -4V my
{ Mml.T
i c
?y 0
s
co c=
m ym
svA m
mlvi p1
1
TD
m T oc
1mm
IM "
z
c r

m
coo Ti
i 23? cam
x` m 1119C 70_> m
q ?11111
x
D

-C 71 -D40 z0

m on
z0
s°vm

?

?
m
So
ST

pT
a

On
C

3-{
3< W

C)m
2?
D
00 z
za ?o coo m
?o-4N
?SW
m <
m T
m

° ?c
-Tito ss
Mm om
m

0 o

m-0
v
M ma s
s a M.-
xo. N
vt cc
m N m'
9m mm
M. m -
4m
:6 ?m
co

mD
m m
m
m
o.2j w
-4` co
to
Az ya D -Di 3om m? m
1
r

w < _ _
V
d Opp O O
? p O O
O O O
O O O O
- N -
* * Oo p
OGp Op '?
O b O °
O
1
ww??
z
C

u+++ c
n
0000
° z
g
r? ooo
0000 =
+ N 07
O m 0 0 _ ?
y
O r O p
O w O p
Vf
0
z
0
r oz

?i
z D
ti
D
C
a
r ?
Z
n
m z_
c z
9'~
O -i
a ?
e
0
39 y
ti
O
Z
O
r"
z z,
r
z ?
?rr
C
z
L
O
1 1
1 I
_ = o m a
,'o0 0 oU°,oo
o p o o .0 0 0
0 0 0.00 °
o n o o_ o y
r° r? m A o
O O ? p LO,? p 0-
•o°o m gmo°°
p ° to p C O
S ? O r• O
0 0 0 0 0 0
m°o + 00
O y O %O ?
O N p ?
O `. to •D ..
m m
----<AprpJN2625p typse0t.typ 01/06/03 01:20:03 PH
Q? 0
l_
ali
N
19q ~
G 9
b? ?
PLOTTED: 1/06/03
FILE: TYPSECT.TYP

k zz?

9
f
n
n
p

Q,
;a
o
3
0
HINGE PT. FOR FILL
m 1
m
1 °?mp 3 4la
? °?
S

1

H

N 1

1
G
A
N

?
< 3 w 3 a
3 1 N 3 S

z r 1 w 3 n
n

m
I N 1
Z
1 O
z ca 1 ?' < W z
p o 1 g .z! 6,
. m m ?n ? z
CSl
0 i
1 0 0 ? o
--1 N
N ? 1
o~
3 N ?
1
1
1

= a

o ~

.? ? v = n
c O

m ? N
? N N K C
0o xv +y .9
-a+

°o°
° c
n-o
oo bo a
O
O
-y --1
° °
- Q
O-O
+ O+
W --1 - -- Z
++
p
O
I 0O0 z
000 a
O O p°
3
a- _
3
ay
22
z z ? ° r
°r
-C
C-7
n
r
cn
M
ti ?#
N
O
z
z
0

i C co j ??
?y
9
N
X
?l
9 O
p fV71 (N71 O
m
m
LD 0
<
-1

r

N
p
m

?
m :
m
m
? g
m

O

1
a
m
?
Z
-i
w.
+
I ?
o?

c? o

On.
1 1
O?
C Z
2? K
W t
w O
A O
o ?
O
Q1 + -C
O W ?
°o w
z
z
a a
+ o
w -
0 0o z
° O s
} N ?
O m -
°O cn -
0
m
0
z
°cz
o r
9

9 a

3 N

n
r

z N
Nm

Z
A
0
s m
°m
W y o
N z
O ?
can

z
m o
a

? m
N
N N -
O H

N ?
O
n
0
°
o
>
° -J
°pO
-? i
0 -
3
-NO z a
T N O z
C m o
O O •
HINGE PT.
FOR CUT
S SE
Z
r
v
rr,
Z c-
c
z
0
cr
t

w °
0 C
o g
0
yo
oNo
0
o° °o
o +
'o
_o
o ?
°o
I z
o?
3
3
III bi,
is
y
po N
S
? y
m -
< m
moNm
mm -+
zNnz
c, o
Z
r;
Icy\bd??
22 /
n
r/
d?
N '
-a ;
o,
w ,
o'
o?
N '
N '
i
,
i
i
i
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
i
,
,
,
,
,
,
i
,
,
z
0
r-T-1
m
D

o
z

zz: °,

°oI°o

y mo

?
o
rn ?
m 09
H ?
I rTl ®? n
rA C1

z
o ?
z
? ?
`?
T ~
.'D
• m

W: DSp c0a12De ails\er-ard\stds\02' Std. to Special Details\engltsh\42210\0422d10.dgn
ericward AT OS188660
v z
~ • z Outlet Pads 11 11, Z a
N O Outlet Pad Std. Dw. 815.03 VI 11 Z
o-- = - Std. DWg. 815.03 g
r- 0,n lu1 ?..??.0
Hz.1=D oo°-=z
-n>>m Wingwall w °G 0 LL -
?=zoo a?0
;.
O0? 1 m yF-?yOJ
CI?Z ° OOcnQ
D Asphalt Paving Asphalt Paving Z ?
N Z ?/ '/ W 0
Curb •? Bridge
Rail Drain
M End Bent
` J
Z
.n AApproach Slabs •• fi
'?? Bridge Deck
r.:
W m
z V-. DC Z
i
M r Limits of U- a
Q H v. ?: Reinforced Fill O Q
CD -•-•- -•-•-•-•-•- - - - -•-•-•- ._._._._._.- _
Bridge d
to ' ; ' Skew
. Q
N M I Limits of Angle: Q Q
p y Reinforced Fill
m Bridge Dec \;.: N Q
Approach Slab9 s A L U
N
D ' ?? ::: ?/ D Qr
'O Drain'
W Z •4 I m
Q O End Bent ;? !: r-1 G
Bridge Curb W
n 0 z 0
w
L Q
e ?ASphalt Pavin Asphalt Paving Z
H
r y .. ........ ........ W
N Wingwall
Plan View
1
v
m z

2
G;1 4'-0" C

? B Bridge Rail

?
I.-
<
??00
YIN.
se Approach
A
Sl
b 2'_B" Curb Asphalt
O
l Q<
Z
y
O'T110

m
= a .. ... .... ... .... .... .
_...
.......... ... ....... ver
ay Roadwa
y
LL"00
L
,
,Z-1
D oo
?x
T
m p?
a
=
? cr Max. B4` F?
jOQCOt='3
= CD
11
Z
O
F?
04 F- Z ri
J
?
M
n D
• R End Bent Girder 1 fA1-LL0
C O co Q
a2
DD
N 5 _ Slope
" Protection slope
Protect ion z "
N
0 4 Dia. Impermeable CL G
W
Z C L---B Corrugated Geomembrane
Perforated Pipe (See Inset 'A')
One Layer Each (See Inset 'A')
Select Material of Woven Fabric
(See Insets A' and 'B')
W N
m J
SECTION A-A w
= Z M
m
0) C'3
O
q'_0?? Bridge Rail _ ca
M Z
m G) -(T--.T Approach Slab ABC Base Curb 0 O Q
t? +
D W y11 SLcPe
Outlet Pad 12" Max. "4.12
Slope d IC a
CC
0 16 M 4
Std. Dwg. 15.03

Wingwall
8
owg

ingwall

pL O
Q

-p >
(Typ•) W
0

r J W Q
o
M
m O
>D
a 4" Die. One Layer Each Select Material End Bent 4"
Pe Dia. Corrugated
rforated Pi
e (See Inset
Pi Impermeable
A'
) c
H Q 0.
W H O

M ¢
Corrugated of Woven Fabric
Solid Pipe (See Insets A' and
'8')
p Geomembrane
(See Inset 'A')
O Q: Z

= -p N SECTION B-B
= m Q
M O O Curb Approach Slab Curb H G W
a, m With Asphalt Overlay ABC Base W
W C> 0 y Z V W
H = ?. Ff1 W
-
v e
Sloe
?y1 1
820
a F
O ?
w
mN 4 c
Za
0r MCL
r
N One Layer

One Each
Select Material Limits of Select
Material W
N'
Woven Fabric
(See Insets 'A' and '8')
SECTION C-C
HEET 2 OF 4 SHEET 2 OF 4
422D10 422D10

e
12-DEC-2002D16:03
W:\ pedal etails\ericward\st.ds\02'Stds to Special Details\english\42210\0422d10.dgn
.ericward AT DS188660

v
vm
C?
4'-0"
H Z MIN.
D H O x ABC Base
r0tn
Hz -I=D
=,0 D 1 j Select Material p
zoo 9F
zH"00r-?
f+)OH H
C7 y One Layer Each
yZ of Woven Fabric
D (See Insets A' and
can o C
z
M
M
Z
O
Z Wingwall----
M r
O v Outlet Pad
0 = Std. Dwg.
W 815.03 Drain
M O v
M
CA v D 111 Syb a 4" Dia.
D H F Corrugated
Do m r Solid Pipe
? O v
no
x Fi11 S1oPe
M
r
r
ca
422D10
B Asphalt
Overlay
Bridge Rail
Curb
:-:-- End Bent Cored Slab-'*' -
\ Slope Slope -
Protection Protection 4" Dia.
?B Corrugated Impermeable
Perforated Pipe Geomembrane
(See Inset 'A') (see Inset 'A')
SECTION A-A
Bridge Rail Approach Slab With
Asphalt Overlay i--ABC Base
oil
One Layer Each Select Material End Bent 4" Dia• (Typ•)
of Woven Fabric Corrugated- Impermeable
(See Insets 'A' and '8') Perforated Pipe Geomembrane
SECTION B-B (See Inset A') (See Inset 'A')
Curb Approach Slab With
Asphalt Overlay
One Layer Each
of Woven Fabric
(See Insets 'A' and 'B')
z
O Cl)
F- Q
Q Q
H U
LL. 5
0055
QU=0CM
H
CO F=- U_ OJ
00<nQ
z ;
H H
ao
w
G
CO)
J
J
M
LL
o v
" 4
CD co
H C'3
d
d
O a m
Q ? J
D
0 O w
=mcr CO Q U
W
W
O
iL
z
M
W
Q:
HEET 3 OF 4
422D10
v
vm
H ?
H' z
O
rpm-im
mz =-i
x0Dzym
xWov
zHorm
D?
? H
O
z
O
M
M
Z
0
Z
v
m r
Cl) O x
0 ^^N m
M' H
v M r
v
C.)
>
0 O v
x?
N
r
r
CO)
Select Material -? Limits of Select-
Material
SECTION C-C
End Bent
Weep Hole
Select Materiel ............
S" -------------- - End Bent
Fabric
ono°e
/ Type 2 Impermeable
Engineering Fabric, Geomembrane
4% Slope-? °
Impermeable M78 Stone
Geomembrane
4" Dia. Corrugated
Perforated Pipe; Sloped
to Drain
Cored Slab Bridge
Showing First Lift and Drains
End Bent
Weep Hole
/Select Material 1,_B„? _._--..
Fabric m s"? ++ ------------- End Bent
Type 2 S__ g - Impermeable
Engineering Fabric, Geomembrane
-e e
4+& Slope-•?
Impermeable H78 stone
4" Dia.Corrugated -J
Perforated Pipe; Sloped
to Drain
Girder Bridae
Showing First Lift and Drains
Inset 'A'
Base
z
oco
N r
QQ
Q
CDU
O O 0 = z
FW-UZG=
d °C N
OOLL.?J
O
Z j
l11
O
N
J
J
N
LL
V
LL
C4!)
3CC ,-
d =
CC ? U
_j W0
H Q
Q
W M
= m Z
CO)
H H
Q
J
z C7
W?
a
Z
M
W
Height of Number of
Backwall Fabric Layers
4#-611 51-911 3
5'-10" 71-2" 4
71-3" - 81-8" 5
8'-9" - 10'-1" 6
10'-2" - 111-8" 7
Note: Cored Slah Structures
Require 2 Fabric Layer;
Length of Bridge End Bent Inside Wingwalls
If Bridge Skew is Less Than or Equal to 90°:
(Roadway Width + 71-0") = Dis. Between Wingwalls
Sin (Bridge Skew Angle)
If Bridge Skew is Greater Than 90°:
(Roadway Width + 7'-0") = Dis. Between Wingwalls
Cos (Bridge Skew Angle - 90°)
Typical Fabric Lift and Wrap
Showing Second and Above Lifts
Inset 'B'
6SiEUSERNAM $$$t NSSSESSSSSSSBSSSS

N STATION

LOCATION (LT,RT, OR CL)
m FROM
R
TU

TO ST
UC
RE NO.
TOP ELEVATION

0 INVERT ELEVATION

N
N
INVERT ELEVATION
u
o
?

n
.. m
2.77
3.51
4.27
2.77
3.51 S
N
O
s
SHOP
EI iED
2.77
3.51
? y
D
O
Fn K
A
? x
b

z

4.27 y
n
2.77
3.51
0

4.27 0
i?
2.77 m
3.51
4.27

W N
O
A A
W
N
WITH R.C. C.M.

?Z
WITH C.S. CM Z
n
0

REINF. CONC. FLARED END SECTION
NO. & SIZE
CORR. STEEL FLARED END SECTIONS
NO. & SIZE
REWF. CONC. ELBOWS NO. & SIZE
CORR. STEEL ELBOWS NO. & SIZE

CONC. COLLARS, CL. B' C.M.
STD.840.72
PIPE REMOVAL METERS
L
X F 0 0 6 E P
O
v
of
z
O
Z
Z 3
z
3
Z
S
p ? tl
++pT
j l C O O? N
_ .gy.pp, ?.pp •.Nt??t ?
® ftpp + ++ + 8
tT IJ }.. y
Y
23 ci ri Ell
p $ O !Q o 0
1m1 y y
P Oo b; O O O
? r
v ?? r
V O
+ o
V Z
t7 C
w www p?Z?O
N N
?p ZO, SSS
2 v h
C
0 0
y

• a

p O
+ - /11
+ N
+ ?
+ W
+ N
+ V
+
8 8 0 0 8 8 + 5
?n {p
y
F
A
N
A
N
I
=i
1
m
1
O
Z
p +
Np +
C +
? +
C +
8 +
tp71 p

Al
g
ci
!:i
1
C a
p
~
A ? ? J
O ? N
N A
N o
0
? O ? V V
;p Q
mp
W W m ?

N N
.0 N
? pWp
t?
p W
pO 1/1
O A ? i
o N y-i
ZO
<
mg
C
y
p
s
M 4
C

1 0
4?1
C C a Sil f +
a t?N 15 11
? m _ p y
C N
t +}
?$ .n +8$
$ . .+
-- +
g + ..
S ? fO O g
a ? ? { o ? ? a s o o? °o
° o ? ? o s

to .a..11
NI Z
B
r
?.
O
CA +
+
+
+

Ny
+
= W y j
+ O 8 8
N p
,0
g
g
O
B INA Z F O O N pp
0
11 1 S
O QQ
" oQ
V
A
A O ?
O 8 O
V
8

p?
O A
00• ?
m VV
O ?
m ??
V ?11 CAII
V A
4f
4t W
P N
V N
V O O
N
N
CA P
u ?
=
0Z
q
m
N ca
t?.f

4 A
p
0Si V

a
V

P
V
{{??11
O

'

N RA
tll

J?I 0,
V
pp..
A C .
N
u
N dp V
.p W
p
p

N
q

V
W

O

N
p N

'G
.?p
W /
.
p
.
+
to
W

+
+ W
N

V
+
+

N W

A
m

W
VI p

W pN.

O m

P V

W ,Sy

7p
.pp

Cj

P

N S I
.
N

?.

`p0

d
pp
CD

t
p
Wi?

twit
p
N

?.

O N

V P

? O

?

r

r

N

P
N
mV W

tgt
pl
061298
o m
0
m
L
m
PI
b
I?
I?
? Q
I?
O
? IryNYIe
7
11
0. n
i,
T. I m
SSS U RNaM Eiff igGNSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
N
=
D1
+
p
A
t
A
+
A
+

A
A
t
A
+
W
t
W
t
N
t
V
N
+ r
'-'
+

?' _

+
O _
O
t
'O
t
p,
m
+
m
t
V
t
V
t
P
t
G
+
{
Ail
t
N
+
W
+

t_
W
t_
N
t
O
t
to
t 1
?
A
t
fJ
+
r..

t
O
t
O
t
O
Qt

+ A
(p

+

t
'a
+

$
m
+
+
+
A
m
+
A
V
+
N
V
+
t?
$
V
+
o
g
P
t
o
Q
P
t
O
O

A
A

y
-1
...I 8 N P O
' O O O O V O N O A>, w ?i d O p O O O O O j O O O u N S m W P P N
P a O u N O i W S
C INS D 7
O < C < < ? << < < ? '< < j { !'
r i 1 I 1? I 1 I y? < < yj 1 - .1?
f 1-
I
S I
1 ?-
1 Ir
1 r
1
I
1
1
I
I
I ?jZA In 0
z C
a
1 a y
1 y
/ a 1 a
1 y
I y
1 1 1 1 I I j I I T N a
1 1 l
r r r ri i r r r
t A
!I A
r A
r rA A
i A
r r
i A
r
y A
r
=1 r
i A
r r
i A
r A
r r
i f? -ri y lrl
LOCATION (LT,RT, OR CL)
r

D #
O W
p W

W W

V W

P W

N N #

W N ?, A

V N

V N

P N

N N

# N

W N

N N

- N

CD W

O N

O W

-

W
N

N
O 'O P # W N 'J" V N O

O

m

P

V

N

#

W

N FROM
STRUCTURE NO.
o O v V V U. 4? TO
N N N m
a j N
P u $ TOP ELEVATION
a m a

° W W
°m
°m
u W
m N
:9
;1 W
8 N

?° N

P N

o .NU

0 N

v

W N

v
$ $ y o $ TIr c ae m a I
u v g 3 INVERT ELEVATION

m # D
p p
o pp
P
W pp
O. yp
? ee
b
P
L, p 00
Y .p
O .p
O
b o
O _
R
?+ i
° V V a pp N V Tv L
L. m Af W w o INVERT ELEVATION
0 e
o pa° o 3 ?' o uo
SLOPE CRITICAL
n
?
S

m
lu
° N
+
0
Z

b np?
N
W N
m
p
#
b, 0-
Z + o
iVa P
g z
'

m
?
m
N r
?i
° P
A
0 0

0
o ^J
N

P
O. Ap
O A
Z
P aa
m O. O
O 2?
?
?ZA
O
O N
A
?
p

O, W
P 8 1?
1.63 W
#
Be
?
1.63 y
1.63 c O
$ $ 1.63

Z
c Z 1b

Z
2.01 O

O •+?
2.01 A
8 ?? V

237 ?f

~Z
2.77 yy

8

-4 CC ?4
O P ° P P ° P P P P P IJ P 375mm SIDE DRAIN PIPE

450mm SIDE DRAIN PIPE

co N m a 600mm SIDE DRAIN PIPE
N
N
N N
'b. N
a R.C.P. g
?
Z2 z
y
y

C.S.P. IL-
g

v PER EACH (0 TFiRU 1.50( QUANTRIES: STRUM M
?J
1.50 THRU 3.00 D TOTAL Ai M FOR HRt PAY

3.00 AND AROVE
O
QW + PJ X LCOL Rte) ?
Q
S O
C.B.
TD. 840.01 OR 840.02
T
O cp /L
0
000
O Og
W
v

D.I. STD. 840.14 OR STD. 840.15 ry
?
0.1. FRAME & GRATE STD. 840.16 i?
C,}
M.D.L TYPE 'A' STD. 840.17 OR 840.26
V M.D.I. TYPE 'B' STD. 840.18 OR 840 27 1
M.D.I. TYPE 'D" STD. 840.19 OR 840.28
M.D.I. FRAME WITH GRATE STD. 840.22
M.D.I. FRAME WITH TWO GRATES STD. 840.22
MD.L (N.S.) FRAME WITH GRATE STD. 840.24
V kDA (N.S.) FRAME WITH TWO GRA7T5 STD. 84024
J.B. STD. 840.31 OR 840.32

CORR.STEEL ELBOW NO. & SIZE
° CONC. COLLARS, CIL'B' C.M. STD.840.72

o p
e
CONC. & BRICK PIPE PLUG CA STD.840.71
N
W
a
v
N
v
L,
H
.0
'goo
`I
FPi
o
o :0
Z
is
J
v
a
PIPE REMOVAL METERS
A o N
3 O O o 0 1. 1 o Iii 3
g g s ? ? 9 ?
3 ao 3 A A a{ ? -Z m is X s eyye 1 o
A r?{i IA m r? Z OT Iii
N °
a

... W2626A prof r2625a-rev.SUH 01/06/03 04:46:26 PM
SSSff M SE RNAM E6SS LOGNOSSS............ -

-1 O
'? =
mmm N
+
+
2 O
t O
t N N Co N
t m
't m
t Nm
t V
t V
t P
t
t
t 4N/
t w
t j

t -N+

t O

7e -

O
?.
y

u
u
u
m
O
m
O
+
G
t
w

u

8
V
O
.p
O _

A _

,`
N
u
N
O o

41
a
o
u
O
V
N
N
00
A
.A
u

?C
,
L L L L ? 1- C Z p

S 24 P =i =i 1 1 P P !1 23 .O m 23 rii P LOCATION (LT, RT, OR CL)
u ?. ?.i N 0 8 v am. u ?' W N g .AO Zi'e FROM

f.1 0`". ut
TO STRUCTURE NO.

`
m m g o ? ? ?
S 4
7 a + y
a TOP ELEVATION

Q o 0
$ S
t 1
01 INVERT ELEVATION
8 a c S ? 1
w v 11 a S f: g o O
g
V
O p(o?
p u(vp
p iv
O m
O 4
1v
8 0
o
b
O a
O
N
O
p INVERT ELEVATION
SLOPE CRITICAL N
N
b
8
Id co N 94 N N !. J. N IN$
N
C
N
J. OOpp
W
Mail
V Y + Z
V P a 0.
a
p
j A
N r p
8 P m Z
n
O
N m 8 W N v?
? O. a O OA
o a o M
s

O
8
y
ym
O O +
m m a m O
N

a r
oP A
O A
Z

a Z A
y
p m
m
p e. 8
1.63 g
00
i A
eo Y
b. o
c
1.63 A
a
ly
1.63 c O

a m
io.
0
A
1.63
a
8 Zo b
P?

2.01
m
O
8 O
o

2.01 H
8 m?
alyy
al
l
2.77 l
?1

2.77 ?.?
N
8

SIDE DRAIN PIPE
375 4c:
o c mm ;

a
a 450mm SIDE DRAIN PIPE
e=

0° _ 600mm SIDE DRAIN PIPE o
/17
1n Iv lair °' a 'oN• R.C.P. r Q y v?
3 2 d d g .

C
S
P ph
.
.
. g
m
?i
V Pat FACH (0 TNRU 12" QUAHMES: SMUC1URE5
1.50 1HRU 3.00 D FOR I)PRAM
40UL U FOR MY
3.00 AND ABOVE
m
11
11
Wkwa ?LQp •n
W+
O
O
C.B. SID. 840.01 OR 840.02
m y

O
? o0O
0 1
tog
D.1. STD. 840.14 OR STD. 840.15
D.I. FRAME & GRATE STD. 840.16
M.D.I.TYPE %? STD. 840.17 OR 84026
+ 11 V M.D.I. TYPE "B" STD. 840.18 OR 840.27
M.D.I. TYPE 'D' STD. 840.19 OR 840.28
M.D.I. FRAME WITH GRATE STD. 840.22
M D.L FRAME WMi TWO GRATES STD. 840.22
M.D.I. (N.S.) FRAME WIM GRATE STD. 840.24
a v v M.D.I. (HS.) FRAME WITH TWO GRATES STD. 84024
J.B. STD. 840.31 OR 840.32

N N
CORR STEEL ELBOW NO. & SIZE /?
1 d ca m o CONC. COLLARS, CL 'B' C.M. STD.840.72
o a o CONC. & BRICK PIPE PLUG C.M. SM.840.71
N
(a N
PIPE REMOVAL METERS
N

r 3

6
?
s $
PLOTTED: 10/26/99
FILE: R2625A_rowl.sum
0
mi m m
`t.SI' ?jI O
K z
Q v
it O
m
' m Z
S g a
m m
m
16
1 V
f? Q
-E :0 > rQ
b?
M C= =i m -4 z 1^ ®
5 (Wi, ? ? pl m A A ? ? O
A
all
N
70
D
O
?rn
?m
Ill ? lf1 ?n y y
m
y ; z
n`I O Utz
?rrn
r.,m o
m! .
?, m vl
? x
m
y O n
z
0
N N N O ? O V a V4 ? (j N ?+ Q O
10 O
OD O
14
0%.
tA
co
0
r
z

0
@ z

0
m c.

o
x o
m
r x
m
? m

o
@ z

o
co n

x
a ?+

z
m n

a
-4 ?

m
x z

o
-4

'6
-+ °o

m c

1 r

c `n

s r°.1

m i

s o
0

m
0
?
'n

70

m
?
'i
f
m
S
"'1
?
z

S
ff
o
?
a
=
;
a
Z
7C
w
-1c

D
m
m
--1
!E
x
r
N
o

!E

O
x
m
T

m
x
-<

D
c
N I

R O
c
I N R

O
r
r

• r 1
c
?

f*1 O
m
r.

y
m
to

?
z
s

D
z
r
m

N
c

p
VI

p

>
c
ua
m
o
z O

m
O
N O
N ?
z A
0 S m O
N N
9 m
N O
C n
;K m N D
N /m/1 H
-1m n
S C
n x
b PR
0
N
l rn
1 O
@
@ 2
p
N to
Z m m C
-4
x '
0
x
m ? ? z
O fA ?
Z N N
a m
?p
i/1
fZ'!
m
W ? N pj O N l
D ? ? `V ? Iv ? 2? O ? N ? 2 2 y? ? ?{ d; V' tail a 2 z
? .? ? R x
? m O
y y Z.C n a tp yy y p
p p QQ n Q Q Q
i i
_
7i
?
b
?
? r
? w
a
a
m
o
0
0
?
?
0
0
1
0 w
0
o
m
o w
0
?i
w j; cn ? y gi $ ? s ? u 6 y
fi 65
a
! i ? i = !
A L 'A ? b ? t w a ? ?l O N IV ? 1 1 tb a N ? w }
n ? I 1 1 1 1 I ?

A l
?
p O
a
p j
VI t
y
? {
S o O
? ?
?
?
?
A
4„
?
a.
? ?
y q
p
c
•1
6 ?
6 a
l
Tn Z
? Z
i = i

1
1
0
0
0
0
?
1
I
0
0
?
Q
$' ro
?
'?
g
?+'
?
1
1
1
1
0
0
?
?
0
0
0
o
I
1
?„
?{',
1
I
r
g Z
In
? p?pol
1
I
?
? ?
ilf w
o tan
? +`
? ?li
? ?'
? ?1
N ?
?
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1 ua'1
? 1'
?
1
1
I
1 ?p{
?+ s?
S?
1
I
1
I ? A
?1 Z
y ? S-q m
?

1
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
i
1
i 555)))111
o
?
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
g
?
I
'1
1
I
1
1
A
?
1
I
4
I p m

?y to
i N ti ? to
y

1 I 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 N ? 1 1 1 1 I 1 t 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ? a I 1

i
25

jt
A
t

?

W

N ?

?

? A

O

• W O

co co

V W

O W ?

N W W

A W

W W

N W W

O
N
?O
N
GD
N
V
N
O?
N
tit
N
A
?

n
O p
m

n
O
? ?
1'1
a r
n
c n
o
; ?
m
o r
O
c? z
n
z ?
@
a x
m
A n
O
r x
m
S z
C
-+ - o
m
2 n
o
r <
?
O n
o
z C-
b
z n
S

b z
O

;o
0 z
t'1 @
m

2

r

m

0
@

m z

z

m
x

a @

m O

-<
s

z

a
n

<

o

a

z

m

a

z

?
z

?I

"
m

?

a
z

r

x

m
z

m
o

m

@
z+

-

a
<

r
o

?`

m

?

a

y
03

m

r
r

a

3:

-

0

o

O

'O

m
o f s x c ? x z co
? c m 0 m
rn
m

x

a

n

m

x

n

<

to

n

°

@ @

n

n

n

°@

@

m

?

?

?

o

z

o

'<

a

? In

N z

O

m -+

m

A
z

) x a

m m

x

'o
?
?

g
Al
i
r
r ?
?
z
m
n
m
1^ Z

a
?
N w
O A
b
O x
m

A a ? a ? a j s a n ? 6 s 4/1 a x x ? a ?-
; ? ? a = ?" i
a t O W ?i ll t0 1
?
b? V ? ?
i„ o ? ty g >? 1 1 lD V V fib

w w
!.n
a o
? a
?
?
I
1 '?-?
? ? a?
a ?
I
1 LO1,1
llf ? ?'..
N ? (?
bf ?w
t [?
C)f 7Ii v
a ?'
a b
to {(pvpl
V1
1
1
1
1 a
? ?` v
? i?
a }{?a?=l
?( ?' G1
Z D

ta„
b w
?a? ? 1 1 u
O1 (j I I 1 1 1 1 o
? !??Glj
O a
ft] w
? a
? ? o o I I o
u w
? o
° $
? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I ? Z
?
A
p ? ? I 1 1 ? ? ? ? I 1 N U 1 1 N ? V ? ? y l Z
b
i 1 1 1 1 1 1 ? 11 1 1 1 A y? yay l?i ? p A 1
1) l
0 (fl a ?

1
1'
v

c N ? N ? A

i O O O O O Z 5y?p
mo
...N2625A rah r2625afalli.suot 01/06103 04:47:37 PH
I
PLOTTED DATE: II/21/02
FILE: R2625A_04.PSH
a
m
w
I ? ? O
cN
rw?, w
LJ
g
1-
V
+
O
V
0

II of 0 nnnn(,
.
tcL
I °m 0
o°
°

m
04
1 ?
??rn
£ 0 NNE
f 1
I Z-n
IMD

+ I i y -3
-4
i 0m? ";:z cu
nnannI
o I o R _n ob?oN?a
7O \ m ? V)
I
.f
, o
IF) I \ O41?U7?
? a? p q Q
IIe
S
Ilz°
Rol, i 11 i
z
z esr
L_
x ?? T
£ '
x ? s
8 ? BK WAL
y
m
£? r ?o
r\
ti
/
/n/
O
T?l
G
\ ommVlr`
°InlnmD
m-A-Am-4
?
D
\ c
i °m
N
oNrDm
c??-Iro
\
T n
x
Wwa

rr? O mmc
n
47 C7= i
v
i
__0
d

?ZA.
i T I >.

I
I I
I
\ i I =? I
Q a
l I Iz? I
g NO
;. I
N

l ?m \
N / I ? 2 n y

?I ? ? aol C I

\ .
IW
nIN D
00 I
N I 1" 6fpp
o 3

so I I
G I rn
3
a
?W I r
j , 18 88 r
?? I I I In
? I ?
? i 3 I
I o
?
1 I 1"
nl ? I
I I
I I
I
I I I
I
,
I I -L J- S? 6,70253
?, rn, Itil: .
l
I y ?
.r , N ? •. In °?, C f

1 I r
g I
I . w O
a
s Q.
+ +
;I 0 ., I mm

I
i
W°m?
.0,00
00
I ?I m ? 7,00 oo

I
I q c
m
I D? N
OL7n

'' V
I

I I W i D{

?

rm°?
F
a-4 -0

o0
I
I =
i
n
^ 0
N 0
r
I' I oz
o O
z
,

3
I
J
+
25

+ N `+ ?
n
? I W00?
O N
OON
m CC
.ISm Min. / + w ny r
g ° .3m Max. Nr m? `Cb ?0~I`D_ 9 D /
nnnnnn j /
n a°>>o o'A
ooo
IovNOa,g vau??l q W
cI ?V ?`U?7 N I ? Ci
13L (A rn m r)
D - .A - tp "N c,
W
mDN °InO ? ' 9
orn?a
zD0 O
O% am r 3ro y?
A
01 c)
Wo m nom/ ll/:
a + a
0 o a? oa+?
ati?`i
3 3
i??3
tuo
o ?/ ' ?Iayyd
= n /
o
oz W / / 0 1 u+ N p?INn wl
_ ? // // / / a'y = 03 w l mm - I
c. D?
N + /? as / / / ?w w 7 Do vI ?30+2?
+ ~ a t?a ?/m I o 2z C) i
.pp mm + C
V dB (°n (7 X t$? o O A
I
O
Z /
o mmcno m J ? ?
c) :=mzo
vii r mm
m I
?mzro I ,Z
°n m °.
/? \ ? = o m
fi cn
3 W \ r o 1
V (D
-I a
z°np
/^oo?o ?e / / Agri ° n \ I + n p? m
yA / >> SX ? D O ITI \ to n N (-
?/ / . 006 mGO? \e9 to a m
ix62 ?vcci N ssm°? a' a 3 m p
VI .re \y_r x n
0
A o I! -o °
°D w
t N
W
a

r-
FI
I 1
T i 1
O I 1
35;3.6
I
I
I
i
I
I
h r O
I ?N
?lt O W .u
I
0
I O
1 ?
I
n
1
I
I
1
1
rl
Ic.)
I
I
I
I
I?
I
1

w?
n L
O
_
8+00 m
0
L?
O
? c?i0 1.
aA ODV
-: ++
? 'inn o

I
?
IC-)
I
I
1
I ?
I
1
1
In
1
1
r
n0
no
'O
_nm
om
0 r_ M
° 0 C') 1>
D
c-
iy m-°D
OX O? C')
X =
0
o Ino
W Dp ? Ol
3 m??

N I -Ip
O
~
7 ~ Q
m

9 I ?o
E7
m
I
?

..,n p

? m
=
I o
?
I
orn
N
I N (A r
10
oCTl
I S-0 V)
1
?
O I
m
a + 3
.15m Min.
o °
rt .3m Max.
y„o0^0 F
-n- °
<m
61L0g+s so o _
I °A ?w
I§y' C A
3? m y 3
?$ < A
9+00 °
• m
3
rA ca
o
. E
y
z
IH71 00 m
_ = c?D
IJ ? ??. « n Z < z
Wes` sv ^_' w .c my oNim
Mm IN
?- \ hw J z z
f R
(
y? ?•C] 2 Z
0 ? ? Q.._..PNp9 o a
3 ? a"? ? . 9?':Z rnn

c

?I
,
,
's
's
3 ma i
Fn "a -C, 2E
i
ca r
tOj1 ? z
1
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
1
1
\
1
1
1
1
/
4Zp6

CA)
+
O
O
+
O
O
7

\

\
' 0.
O
" c7 0
o?? W 0
+
aCD

\

\ IJ Ol
N ?
i
T \?

3 \; 0 N
-F
M (D

n
'1\9 (A=F
j
O
n 1
,
\
f1 e?
aw (D
N N \?
? q
? f
a zr /
??'d3N0w
13+00
0
//bpp

+
01
0
O
r
CTI
+
O)

+
V
O
0
0
MATCHLINE -Ll- STA. 12+50 SEE SHEET NO. 5
00 /
a
?1 3i b ?? O b / /
23m R/W 23m R/W I tbtiVON J33HS 33S 00+9L

/ \16+00
V=Z
o-A
°2
_" N
?oC
PC r-
o ?
A
C-S
~
t m o
D
r
m ?
3
Z W. 23-
,
0 =O n. ?.? Z
m

, o
mm
4 :DN
0
ao =
'? ?Ooa
H0
9 mn
^
p
z c
•
b G
> _ y
o 'r .ur=n n
PLOTTED: 1/06/03
m
N
C
m
N ?
U
1
C
iS
1
0?
+
OOD
O
O
O
wl Zi /?
/ mo
23 1
// Drn-1 x3 41

.4.6, m
o
/
-i I
MMCAO
O ??m?

<
cr 3
R), 0
00-In

O NCI"-'
?z?n
0 7 m
m
i
O
a' 3
=
+
1 100 O
a
fl
fl

V
+
O
O
14
+
V
V

q
.r •
JE 41- STA. 16+
g
1
0
W
W
g
I 1 °
i
29M R/W
I
I o--i
l m°
11 P
On
1 m r
oM
nm
p ?? 3 D
Il, r

o ? I

g
I o

a
I
I
rn ? I
o I?'
m t x
I
? I I
?
I

I
I
o

mZ, I
I? a °o
m3
0
Mr-
4
_
ro fl I m
"N

m b
I
o Ip
?
n
x I

I
? I
(A(Ar I,,fl
-1? In I

EA ? to
I 6 _
fl
i
Z
3_U
Z
n fl

I fl I
1 I
r ?Sz

l m anr-z

c'

rN '

I
-ni I ??-
I m ±p? I

I CO
I =y

I m? Y? ?O
m '0 Z?
' I t?
id ?C ?tJ
1, O 2m z

? 00
+ Q

m om
w 7O V

%0
I {
o
O c
? Z
I ? o? O
a0
, -rl
I . 4 S0/C ________________
-------------------
n
0
0
a
V1
Z
zap
0 Co >
o
>
o
a motel
7 S
?z
00 0 o
c
00 0

`? 211H 6855/95539 w .? r ?l. I c c
I I ?? 68
?6?'39•
3
? I .I I I
CL 0
D
i .
2
l6•
o0R'fP? ?o Oo pp z m p
++++ +arrl
1 ?$ dfti N14'4 I_
o f 0rD
?
I
I a?--°m
?r?
?
p4O0 f
o
m°
'
W 1 r
I
I xV)F ?I
± +
I cc
VI `0'?
3
1 +
p I ++++ 3 I t
I I 17+00 V o a; Q o
oow

e 00

I
m
????
w I

m
I 070
3 ?t

'
2 I I m3
Na N 0._
m
O
I I C)o ?
i _ \
m
{' I
?I m
I Ln
No I \
CD;
4 E I I ;
_
? I I ? s?
I ? •O
?O
C y
aN
sm=

?I
1 ,0n
p v
.4 g
3
c
+ (?j
f
b its
? I m 1 + p? O
? \l _
Zj ---, a
`
I I ?
A aiH
I E E E-- E-E E E Eli E->a

a
«?0 -I)-p:?
nnnnnn?q
Ob('???m;b- I?t3
0
n r ?
„'ll fl
m 5 0 \-
N0 X
om
n=
mw
M_
mo
z
D z
o rr*m
O -1
CIo
o 0
m f1'
z?
0
m
ao
m
3i fl 3
a
/ 3 '--?? o
o I 1 15m STO
I 0
3 ?I, e
3 a
?fl 3/??? a 12m PS , F

kA
L2 Fe-o _61

°p '?
?"
fl 1
°Om?mSww Sd W
u 0 , - I ?wow I 1
e? I og I a ?1 ?
1 ° mg ®? a
1 /0
-- --- x 1
m .
r& t --- x RF _ 1 TYP. 1
?,? _____ ---- - wzl -nnd 1 ¦ ?? ? ? 10 -AIL-? -,?
x x "-- N SNV8.L y3dV1 wOr' w o r m 1 I II'' D 80m UNIFORM! T 1 S1T/A _ i
T ti ?Yao?INO ------'' ----- N
/ -'- ----i"Y -+++ I•' I n 3 1 O? it 1
Q + FL°w-? 3.6 3 36 I I - a is D ' 1 i
m
301 ' . PROP I O •? N I 1 Nmr P- o -----I IA
1 301 1 301 I N 1 i -IAN ?6_- -----',1
?
row 50 `de `•'° I I ?^ t F 1 odrn En
'20 161
* 1 Owr nK ESN
Qoma 1 T I 5. *-f o ow? © ? mm? t 2i? 3 * a G b I Orn> 'A 1 _nz? E -? ?,"'---
v o 1 4
a
m
:Tfw?o t ?* I nO< %. 1 ?_-_ M/a11x3 Wwoos c? _-
O p' U 4 I m La --I o O>q
F C-)
ae az - _\/zooms ?1?= nTsx3 4 RC Cl
t ?I } k _ - • i „- M/a Ls x3- jigo"
-y? __-- -- _ ??
1M ssovi
-js
_ - Y t
_ - - I J fll _
u 31

l + O fl _
e
?
? 3;° jY
?o?
C
- - ,51x3
.M ?ae4o ?
M
_
a Ix fl ?
j
m+
a
+
a.
1 I
rn n m
? x
0 1 N
to
m
- s
aR
N?
t
ssoW
ZZ •a5 + I'
' -pp I o z y o w? o
^ i
Ijs
M/a©a X
1 11 I ?< ? n 66 1 19+00 (
tln 3 e
H =l•sml
p
4
Z' o? mz' mm?3 + ? n o ?I C Q
St4 N? S°'G o
w
O
1
awn 1 3
?
° o< I wo
m -1
t I
•

n
to p ?U,0 I
n
-min O -4Co"
-
? ) I ID

LO + 'yo
C
m • ?
:
al a

2.4? 3 3
I

2.4m CO F
0 T N

E V1O t- -+ ±
ypo
.
n? DcA n
-
q
rm 0ro
M2 Kr
I c
i, +
I o
oLn a T
.
cn
m 2

CO

I
I
I I ?
I Z
p -t
? co
w
N m
?
?
+
D $

I
tl
I I I
I i I
M/a?151?3- _ --'_
4
- 5. .4
r
0
+
_
5
_
C _
6
O
M/ 15X3 --
.. -

oz
A ??.
I
?
m
009
'
W I rn ?I
l0 BL-15 1
?
tl??tl1- 4 NC 19+68.69
INOil , I I- 19+66.082
8 *ON 133HS 33S OL+6l'V1S -ll- 3NnH?1V1
-+- o w o
I OM
m"'3 fl
1
„o
3 4>
f7r m
-
w? ,la wpq
W
K
7
m
Z-o
w
O
m v
f
DA
C1

0
1 N
7
D
LAC C
w
Rt) 3

m
N
m Z
c Cf
.n

Z
N
y 3
m m o
n
r
m
0
B
-o
o 0
?
I
?I? z ? cmi
p
e
~
ce mo Ol m

F
? mm "I
T
? ?N
C) n ?
..m Z
I z
r?
B
?fl ?na
N ???
• s
j`
PLOTTED: 11/21/02
FILE: R2625A_08.PSH
C
n
z
A?
1
N
O
N
+
N

0
7 r
a
rn
2mo
0 M

0DD
om?
mCfJ
°w 1
U 2

I
Q m O
it Ir Ir
_ o 0
01
(P
W
3 3 3
Vr0 T=
m
L
Oz
c c
no
-
? r
a

.p zmv
+ +sm
°r
D
-? o r
a
O 0 Z
1

+ v 3
O II II
_ o
N W
3 3
N?
o-
o-

1ST. - j ---- __ •- --
ww ww OOZ - ----------
?-
ww DOL -
G
ON 30VH £9ZZ F15 w
w -
159 f9 --
- pp p ? - -ITtt?k
y jN0 \ Pz wNS1f ww SL 4 - ??a
ww SLE
I 1- a
? CP o
Exir?iW n
--
F? C' - w n E a
b F E ° x1
l E -E
l p I I i-?
1-j + - +
3 $ X951
Ox951 9
axes)
ppb 1 t
ON 1
Cf+ 3 3 +
? O 7wob
CDC
w 7
c?i =
_O
m
1
w?
+ +
V
D O
? N
At
io
,0
no
r
a
-'
u p?
aM
o ? o r -I
G
r
O
o

b mgt

-t
?b
CT 4 3
ll 11
_ o
VI D
3 3
N?
10
0
N N
++
V W

n- ? 1? INa ?
\

C o
m
n
Y \
1
\
\
.
3 v \ aC !
\ ?+ 1
11

ta^ 1 1
\
333
O
? \
b
0
)m>

m?

\
-o \ g

a
m
L
u O
N ? p ? \

a
o
\
@

CD
A 1

\\

rv7 1 -A \
+ °m
wN W
O 3
\
?
\
?n

N ? \
1
k
004--
00
m@
3
IV 7
c?10 O
O
wj
?@
1
r
mr
a _ \ ` g?
W +-Z
Z?
V \
NnN

v ?oxbo \
c>
\
ID ? 0,0 LO ` a rn rn n
I
1 LA v) r
\
? C \ e ?N I
? -j (A
a,
111 II 1 \
\ 1
?r ?a N?.Z/
-a _

Q
6 ? \
10
\

A
a

I
d'
B:I
-- P-
EXIST
' 1 1 r
Ex15T R/W -..?
- _l>i?ww.9pZ1-
?- M95L ww ,y _
?j?rp EXIST R/N
1
11 ; '\ Izl\' VIC: ---'-TDE TDE T E 1
11??
isl
ZZI
? `
tb v 9 L I\ 1\\ 1
eI O
l
a ?? 1 1 .01 k
N CD 2mm?
y o
"1 t Q $
-07 mm Io
1noa=
q GE
?b ??nr=
C'
0a
.
iGao 1 a__
%LZ
? Lz.9£-Z9 x

bbC6_____--
x
UV

lylb ? ? ° W
3

?Crt o\a ? O'
n -
y 0
pp V1
vl \O ? ? $
3

I D 1 N
1 ) 3
_
?
y 1 tt?

1'?}
I 1 3bZAb..Z9N __ ---?
ND di3-dl3 S65'9£ v
\

4
\
C
1 \
H W
N ?
N ?
O
_ oo w
c-
1 (N,1
F F
(A ul
mm
21 O O
N M
J
,o
?'pe
I ?
Q 1

N
N
O
O

N
o ?
1
a I
O
m
FO
v
a
O
oo
n
2
i
N 1 \ a W
1 lao
(no
m ? 0 11 ??
3 T9
ocu
I
a Lnn 1
Oo
_ ?x 1
`0 1
n, rD
?g
m O 22+00
o;v
CDC
rn ?
Q6
N
N m
1
1
1
1
u1
WW
"wl N
1
;
,
, m
m
?
1
1

1
\

l

•. 1
1
1
ti0 1
1

I ?N
00

TO
\
1

I
1 04

>E ?
1
1
I 1

I
I OZ >
oT 1

N
D
a
I
"
C `-

i *7
o
m?tn
1
1 ? I ? \
.15m Mtn.
.3m Max.
23+00
r r'
{
{
I
{
{
I
n{
{
I
I
I
? I
?I
I
i
I
I
I
I
c,
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
('yI
1
I
I
I
I
I
A
nl
I
I
I
T L_--
i I
11 (n OI1 fT1 f
' mil vlc
1 m
11 ' 031:'1=
m>
'W -
Dr N<
1 ?Fm I?-
v im,
1
1 0
1 n
` 1 x
o I
I N
' t0 W V1
T? tow(
1
' I 3 + K -i a)
1
I O ?Z2?
g a I
y Z I?
g I
I
I
3 I ?$ oC
I -}
s I O? ca7
p lc? g0 DSO
°OLn
g I 2 g
1 r"i\ o
iI
.6 b I .
?C-) o^ 0 >o?
I ao T c7 -
N r Z m
HS + (nN NT
H{N i -
a
w
N N - I Nc `wm
f ?w •o?
y I? N -?> ;u C, I
y
11 M
i
I N
? cn
Imo. 3
I In O ?
I D
I m M
I
I 3
IV
1 t ?..w
m
n ?
?3m a r.. N
R/1y 4 ? 8? n f,1
r
I m
05 `
I ? a
1 ?p0?.., Np c °
PLOTTED: 11/21/02
FILE: R2625A-09.PSH

N
A
+
N
0
0
N
Lb
1
\
\
N? \?Y 1 N
V \O
0) C
L" 7 -n
I f
n s? k67C
\ '{
--w3 ip -0
-0
C)3:
p(?f mNi Nimbi \ W
1-
N { r0
; o

i
Qv O
n -F
_

%41 II II

[n W
j 3 3 -"M
v -?
o<n
a?T
i?

V
}
W

Io A

t
N
+
W
0
N
O•
+

o i
7
CL
N
'O
0*m
?m
C].? 00
D
c_
0 ?r
0
.c?D 'gN
OX a ?
? X =
7 B^
O
11
? NOT
W 00
3 m7+
4 1
m E%ISr Riw - _ I I / /o? / 02?
?
F ) ? / 1
- v U3 { /,\

N
w
+
N
A
10
;i
C? ?(n "INNNO \ mm
?.nzA m (\ n?
{ r
M.SEAV-68N --- -- y00-d13 96£'£2 n cb yrm?yr()? f \\
M.9£.9b..68R tlp0_a00 860'0£
aw-aoo 966'0£ n n n n n n y /
I 1 1 b?+ w 1
a1
K) AZ
I 1 ?olv M / i
I
Im o ?? o ? I° Nm /
r
19. Q/a In tv( ?i 00
81 NZ O .1 ? alo p A? o/ ID I
O1? O? E ?Ig W 'O ti 10 !
O L 1
Fl -0m ?a! v-6 I + A, v y 013 ,
Io A 00 ?A 1 p I'D )1:)3G
rM. 1? G'17C
/}}c,-' i
Ire' COS
9 1 m
NZ
I r? O
v
z

0 c C
n-
-h
E n
: a - r
m o0 Zmv
0
-?
v r
o D
W
n a
00
N
N
_ -?
m°?
W $ ?
1] 3 I
3 A
S
X j
ar a v

II 11 II II
O O
N W W

I
3 3 3 4 r
e
m
I Ts
I
I ,
i NZ
?a
, r. 1?

Iw NI9
cell. OD_ n

A ? • 'pia/?I
\
{
1
1
I I
I !! !

?} , 0
o
o ? -1
c°
c
pQ6
i n o
„ a
r-O i a
jNW F
m 33 ° m
II v -1
g
n
n o??

oF
a o
m ?I
v o
w =
3

1 /
I
{ Sao'
?AI
{ d'
k'/

'- o
o (t,

o
Z
z
°
s
v
0
4,m
m
N ° Nsm
N r
0
n
W
3 % OOC
X 7 C'1
m L v _
°
0 0 g
Ol W ?
N
3 3 3
ALL
VAW
+ + +
Co.
Op` O
1?3?3
N
0

.o
J I ?W
N
,

V

m
no
0)
1
E0
I
m
0),
{r-
?
I
I _
0m D
a
NN F

I C
m ? (A

r?1
?
- I
I
0
0
O
a m
a rtc
3

15m Min.
o a -
0
7 .3m Max.
CORR-COR
'29'52'E _ - - - - -
yr
C
1
a?
W
v0
NC
N?
-4m
1
r
m
(no
z
Nn
a
4Z
n
M9Sb
I v ?x
I a°-
ol o?
n
I A
O
9CH
?wl.
i` _ 61
1 .
v
\

Uja \
24+00
(mi1(Amm
-tmM

T
?
?D'L. C3 DE / (nr

6 M --I
(nM D
9: -4 F::;
io
-nz1= TOE' D=1

?c.l C }}3QQ? 6 ?
O U7
23
S
-4
°m°

Ln °

o -
on
NNm /
'mI>
(nm L> (A
r- Z, m
/
-n <o /
n
x
I
1
r
1
I
1
?r
(A cma
I E b
RX "o
v? r NO
m< t\ f
Dp r r 9
?n 0
-1= I NJ
( C-3I
?n
I
I
f
f
f
f
f
I
r
1
r I
/ I
f W I
I
N I
I
I?
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
°0 1
?A9 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I?
I
?I
I
f
I
f
i
f'c
fr '
I
f
?114?m
nn nn
mmt') v
LA
N T
•
-I
D ?
(n
W N m O

N
LA- m ? nn nnnn
-n > m o O(?y, tnN?\a
OVV?
?
hL-16 24+42.
3 oo .a
IN
4+4 75
(-0- Sto 2
0.455 Rt)
c2m
CDC }}..??1
as
n ? tW
0
m
25+00
V1 ' SC
O
o
7 i.W
m
° i E0
0 /
M
T -4
I o

I
o
I L
N
a ?

1 V1
r
0

a
?
a
_1L

m
? rtn 3
ISm min.
v 0 -
rt• .3m Max.
I r
i
C N
w
GI
0

i
0
-
c
7
m
01
?k +
+
O?Otl /? \\ W l? m .fir
5a \ 7
\ 5
X
\ a, ° o
\
\ o b a
mm? O,w? W \ ?M
(nNr
Wr?r
l \ 3
3

cc ?oz

-n M uNi cn+
D mOa) \ss
? NON
_
^I 00
O
LA So ?q
h\C°
O \P
Z \
g \

000 \
W

CS 25+76
-
(AO
rnz,
3
vmmc? 26+QQ v
M-4
.v?
N -?
-min
ncn
_
W-J In ?` ??m
?W
I o v? w_ i
C _
zv
?T > 3?p =
n '0
N
C
? DC)
f
A ?Z
N,Q O
`" c 0
??
1 ti
A.+ ?
aN ?-
0
-20
P)NC
6+61.512 .
0.950 L t) 26+61091
mmC)
(n (n r-
>
N
ONN
N W
K z2?
T 3>
27*QQ m

--------212.109 COR-COR
S8q^29'S2'E - O
G
W( N
? O
W
N®
O
? A

Q
m
0
M8S6
'o
0
trn
0o
'o
i 0 r
•e•A
v
+ m
O ° b

.. 4
N ib
D• 7 i
p"
) 1y
N
u a
N W
3 3
N?

...\R2625A prof r2625a99.0h 11/2V02 12 00:38 pM
PLOTTED: 11/21/02
r!Lr: RLOC7H_IV.r Jn
•
MATCHLINE 41- STA. 27+35 SEE SHEET NO.9
' 1
02 I 1
4 1c:
M b 1
L 1 N .0+ 1 00 I
o I z
V in w -m 3 5p m? o~ 1 I 1 00
1
m i E? W 3 3 °+?m S^" m I RAJ
1 W °? a
0?n 1 1 o r
I o I 1 N D
rl 1 m o
r In 0D O o \ co zMo
=ic
N - I Cri>• D N m C ? ? I ¦ I 1 _ i C '+ D rn
m 1 0 F V to w I 1 O v I-- ° r D
rr 3 I I 1 0
O 1 amN o• ?Z °m? w I ?e I \ mor
I o < "I I 1
7? n o X
tin I b° N TT (7
In I ?? r? I a\ j 3 1 4. S
0 I C= I n \ C- Q o 3 II_11L'
I 1 \ N
n co a 15m Min. 1 F1-NC 1 0
27+92.75 w:) in w
o ? - .3m Max. I _ I (-LI- Sto 27+ .282 N(D 3 3
0 I I 0.016 Lt) -0? oT
1 -
nI ?" 28+00 m m a
r i 1
I 1N
o
a°o C 0
-I o to O I ' wk' n (A
to C) . $ CSI 1 mm o 1A° tI- r _ Z
r o a 1 b I 1 to Cnr i zD
Isc a p
-1 4 1 NN
m z ,°Im I 1 $ Q,N? r 1 0rn
MA ro Co OD
° ?D
o z? , °mm-nill ?x zv °°°c 1 ++
?^
N +v m ° 4? \ oo ° ?AD-
00 + -i I ?m< 1 mZu 50 1 WaD orn
p+ n ° NnD I v,AO?) m a? ,p, \ Tor ? mpN
o o1N*Ir I `;rx I DSO
mom I " I Nc \ 7 s
X 7 -1 ?'W f I I afA
1 wO o
wao _.+ I ~? 1 00 '
0 Q+
?i Vi
I
0 0 0
in w Z. ?N23 ni I ; 3 3
3 3 3 ? I N I? 1 n
mmc-
1 z
1 C) V1Nr-
>
y y? T I mo? 1 1 \ '?
CA (A.X To -D
° I ?-IV O 1 v X J o+
-C { Zz y r m17ao cr.
z TOEa 1 --n n 1 n 1
-
r' ° o vmmCno I ° \ ' .. n 1.
CD c OCACAm' - 0 0
m?1m3 1 $ I 4 + 1 pNp L,U D]
1, ?? - r II?Omw w?C ''1 ?i' I 1 .1.. m 3 3 3 \ ;;M
%1D 0 j m
^? m ? 1 t I iv \ +3:
+ zrnC3 o'k" Irn--m + mmn _ cr 1 " o<D
o n +n rri K Tz -< 0 -11"43 1 V r? n r-
?? . m?D
O ° o+ D 0 3$? mwCn 29+00 ?? 1 O (A
<r- _ ew K I ` w ?m =n
?- m°m ,Z? '' I 1 +
..+ w 3 vn + D _ _ A
1 ? s = a v - O
+ ?a°
1
_ o o
??pp in L+ w
9 9 3 g a I Ix MY Pi
1 ro-r
N? N
27+00 I ° r
__ --'aoo-?o I I? I i I + Woo 1 I
1 a$ I a$ 1: 1 1
M 10
+
I I I a,0o
+ ;?r I
m
a I IT i o W L4 I
=ow%%
N?, co
a
I I y A 1...
1 1 I I ;` ti ??
1 1 I I A
rnmCAr 1
WCAmD 1 I I n 1
?.'Z -4;-, m:1
( I I °
o + _ 'n -
-C)<
1 co CD
a°?o >t I'C I mo
V'o 3 3'°1 I. I I N0
-4f 3
;Em= I 1 I I n0O A /.
AA 'n O +s rn I I I "0
° ?-- -i °v o 1 I I
o<D mn I 2 I I o(D
hp) Nr I? I" I ,A .
m=D wn I I I "
I I
m I
+ CAO3 gD I I I ; %' IN
o m? i t I I I W1w
O O o
°I z
2j 31 3 0 wD1 I rn °mmN
W\p m
Mob
rm.I I I m-1 \ 0
,y I I I n tAf pN? r p
NQ „ ??T , ,, 1 =
C')I ? I I N? 3b ; ;?' ? 1
Cnw 0 Cn 1 m -? +A
w? m X IR AT 1 0 0 gig
g
n K rod J E ?, I 28+00 - z 6
I ?y _np / I \ N M$
CD ° z A rR
0 1 oa °L r?,zj /A? i \ pop =?
D VR we n= a' V If , ,
0 1 0+ 0 n / I <
1 -n? mn mCn rI n I i% °oczi y
2 rTl I l rv I I r
I +rD- - L,I CAw I I 4 711,1 I 1: " I z = n
m
;` p may.
+ ' InNr M? I 1 MK-403 I I w0 ; 3
I o c: "r7 n o I I 1 I ? VC rn W o
CoN r' I I n 1 r
i o. 7U n 0 I I ° I I M
I? I n= I I - N
1 I m °
e ? h I ? 3
°I .15m Min. 45.0 m 150 W) `, pnnp
o .3m Max.
I
¦? I l i - ^ Z N M
i I j¦ I I I N°oGF.? S mm N
I i I I / N a c zC
o i I I I I ??' c) m
3b $ IC, I i a ?uunW`? Z M
I I f i
1 02 o I i ;; 1 Qw, p09 o
I I •.
LL 'ON 133HS 33S 08+8Z 'V1S -l- 3NI'1H?1VW ?0 O 2: Cn
mo O y
m
-A F143•? d M? o
g Fn-
PLOTTED: 11/21/02
MATCHLINE
mm I
mm
11
° II
Do II
I
I• I?
- L

? 10
acc
I Qo n1
-
N
C o
-
3 co
-m
w
lb. 3 o o

nor
N mAW

+

K

w_
+
O

n
N
.i
_ A
zom
C) ?- o0D_
o <r
mom
°
0
3
?
o
I
:F
d
a
S ?((
m 1 ?m
p ?
.
1
1
I E?
v
Z ?+ m

I AA D
I am.

I m?Ln

? I
I
m
10

3
o. m
+ c? .15m Min.
.3m Max.
ii"
it
O
i-
w
0
0

M rC
N
0
N
m -h
m
I
-+
Q
m t

IO

v
I o
m
a
r -I
I 'm>
t
N
o
I. ? c:
o?-n
I m-u V)
1
o ?.
m 3
a,
.ISm Min.
o a .3m Max.
-L- STA. 28+80 SEE
N
A
0 a
o u,
m o
n
0
'z
0
A
s
a
C) C-
MO
C"W A
?, pO
-o r
En
00 1
oW
e
i I r'
III
mlI
II I
II
II I
I I
? I I
I I
I
nl
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I CA
I I
Ix I
I; I
la I
I?
I I
I I
I j
I I
I I
I ? N
Q .
fl
f?
? I
? I
I
I
Q 3? I
I
o mm'n
o vnv+m.N W R I I
y m -#-im3
? oo?a i
£? U, a i ti
N C.) X;rm I
+ -n (A I
C3
/ 1 f3 Q Q ?\\ \
v mil ° a\
III ? ? I
xV m
I A
1
I

I
1
(
III
l?
1
4 ?I ja n"'im \I\\\
I 10
Z
N p/ / `cmv Ix
o• / /c? ?rnb I 1
Q/ 7?
'a
0
n
0-
0 I T
0

X z
Q m 2 ?
z I
Q °
m ' Or_

°
T
m
Q /' ll
4 Ilo

b /' ,' III
Ih

I
/ ? / / / III \

ET NO. 10
I" 1
I I
I I
I i
x I 2:
I
I;
I?
I II 3
1 Im
Ili
II
Ilm
II
II
CI
II
I I
I I
I I
II
II
it
11
11
I?
II
i ?
I?
II
I I Cl) I
I I
I I
I I
b
? Q
Q

1 I y"
I?
I I
? I
I I
I I

N
I I a?N
I I ?
ON 1 I z m ?7`•.
T I i " ? r ,???,•
O ,
? I I o L
mQ
3 6 I n?

_
F
I
'n t7
?
r
1 I
I
! I
3/+00

r
S ,
I D 'A?

m

I

/
/
/ S
'
r, N3>
JW? yy JJ ? ??4 ?//

V C-
? ?C Ii \
?
\ ~3 S
% /
j I ? ,
\\ v ? '? to

\ m
II
\ o m
r
' \ \t
I

I \

?
a i
C c
a
zmv
o m
0
Cf .Ln
? (7

r - °
3 3 wT
g=

~v
g r
E
+ -n
Z
? S
Q
mo
-o
-N?

N
9
e?
.a?
ap0.
R1 ~
< rrnn m O
? D
r
m
3
Cl)
r
. - •
1
? i
i?
10
„. m
---------- ----- --
----------
--- -------------------------------- -- 1 J
30+00
PLOTTED: it

N ti
CARPORT I? I E

\ ? i? :? =
w
O I °o g
I o I I

?s
I 3
O? 13
I ?i
I

d
\ 60)R W I
I o'
o Q? I I I raj Xz
3

-\
?
1
\ ?'
N
`
c9
?C \\ aI I lj h? i brn w
_
ocD \ IIATI 3
I' 311 ?II 'O?
I C"b ?n r cn
=c ++
` \ Z I
O l
m ^ a \` ,ox
135.21] R/ Z? ?i ? ? 71
W'EIP --?_ 3
_ Ip n
Q d ? --- ---R/-
-- 9 bqq
-- R _-------- 1
0 7_D ? "'"'11-r.? I
?A i ' i - BLK WALL D
In7? / ; f N41 y n I
mn
cn
1 j ISFD --i C
0
C-
CID
i C) ,n, ?.A m I ?ml ,T+3
` ?? (71 W ? B I I iNl
_ I
v r"--,-N" d I Q I
ISFD I Q I
0
a °
3I I POOL 13I II
' "^:;"*^t- ?A1.42•T7 Q ? i ?? I CARPORTa
t -? - 9 / Am i
?--_ =3L- ? --- 8B CONC ' rn I
).
W-COR
#Z ppp...... Hg2'e'3TW I Jt CONC b I
40 56.131 R/W-EIP-'T f-r
.11 I
r i
?' 1' -? ? En I I
OCARPORT rsFD
• Q, 583
d via; Q t -
©? w+D
539 p2,3 ,,nn,, Q9-? ACT i
j C6.114 £1P?E _ 2:J iw m / K I?Mz?.
ISFD/ ?
CA I
QQ ? 4 / I 152
-R/w_ a a ?/

-
-
----- __
- -----
} -- ------___-39 GR °i?+ / \7

t I lI / l ..' ? N [..l
r ;

L
0
-A
,
b
,

IMMO OR
s .--
Q1
.. _
m
-
r
/ ;

.
Nam Q ?_
'3
'
., ' ,
te
'i 4A I C'm ?Gq /?
•
a 3
?Z
I ?
a
f

` $1 ??R
i. !V p
l H00
I B
ST
m =' Q CLAr/o _?s39
10
N t
o
I
! 6 S C2
0
_
Q
------ -_ ='-
- - -?
-
------ ?
------ ___
--------- ___- N? .
-
.. .. .. r --------_--
-
GR

?
HT
wW (D
•??
B
f
1 r ?y? 1 HTR/

-
a
n p
i
1
1
l
?N AL l
?? ?
o
1?
3
HS 3
7S
?
Ol+r. ° m /
i
I
I
Im
IA
iF
N
I
II 1 1-1,
II I d{ N-4

<n? 0;'

00
±o
Im m
II fl ?I? ?
? .
II Id+l
II I? ?$
'
I
I
??
1
©
mm

Lo
? I 1
mE
I
I m
-Y3-
//+00
II I
I ? j'pl
I
II I
II I
I I / ?
I I
l
/
I?>; Q
If
(I
1
lI j Q
III I
I I?JI I
?I I
I Q
?I I
I ?I
? I gI
?I I
I I
I I
I I ?
I I
m?
11 1114*?
03-0
f-F -i
co -
Ii
I?
I ?
L '
R:r
Q ...1
V I
/ N I
o ITn
3
3
/ om?o
I
31 I
I
I
?o I I
ocnr 9? i II
mm?
> ?_
0o
0> -4
?rn I
I I
iOrryry1Q
PDpl to
4+m? rn
'? o I
?I
I I I
I I
I 11
H,
1 r
I I
I I
I 1
?C
Fff-ol\
a
(-Y3- Sto 11+3 524
5.480 Lt)
BCD rD?
n? X41
i-110I
V
m
NN
OWUI
??' 414
`a
.N
m
?400rrp:?
I'M
1. r.
c ..
iI
? /2x
9
2
BY3-8
PINC 7+87.228
(-Y3- Sto 12+94.51 1
44.092 Lt) C

V
3
/310

O

' M/8 (,002) , 096'09
Yx
r S
W?
O O
00
J J
,o
cc°c
no
N
a
_m
0
OC'1>
cD
? 4F
9 sac-
pAO AL
+ i_ j m^ x
$g o
I "
I 3 m?? i
I ?
I
I
I
I
EI
I O
C
I n -1 '
n
z
zap
o Avm
I +
I V
I ? s n
1 ? x
mo 0
I o0 0
I 3 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
I \ \ ?tP
I 'OOS??o?
I a?R?
i
I
I
I
I
1
i

I N
I
I
i ?
i O
i
}
1

a
ym
off- orb

I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
i
I
I
1

t
I °: n
I a°»

ml ? n
I m
4
?
3
1
1 ?

' \111114
,
P
' Z
ko O € .?
'^ sl
=
i ?I
I. A L? w
O
I j \
N
I ??IUw
?,
Q i 0 ?_..?Npg
?

+0 .0001 Z
?-1 I ? r o, ?
o???.C
AS•
I N ?.
w
11/21/02
P ly Y
d
ccl
O
Q
Q
o*
CD O
7
?
O O
0
l
HN
O
U
l
L
•? ? X176.967 R/W-EIP
A ?t
O n'
a rn
00
co
r
0
Ln
N 40
7
O
(D
i
1
?11 mrmc)
NNr 1
1 IO;N _
Nom- N
1 ?Z? 3
I -n A N
-n D
-o
I 1 /_\

^ 151,378 R/W V
f •? F

1401
j
EET
t CD
SEE SM ,?a ?, .l it

R
7

1
rnm
(AV) rr `?R -'03 W I
o
of
I
?3
mmm0
_I
C o
O%4 -31
I I
I m ?
vNmD
?z? f mO?
Om o
? I - rZ?m
r
T w
7 -- pd T
°
.x n' x 9 mm WA & ISBVkm I
r'-R- I
1 N
\
I
O
I
_
1
w ? z I
1 I I I to
I to

\ ? ? ?? ? a
?
I 29.r91
I I I ??
.? a9
1
\\ W MO
?0

\ a?
op
W3
mo +
C?l

lot
F N
W ? O m 9 0 i
u
Q' ow
40
`` 190.906 R/M-CO
--1
8
COW

w34
7a3z
'
vc c•> I /
gt
orp
3 c 7 i
??`` wfpy m O
rnm mn? a
vA(Arr-- m--)

D - N J
M-1m
Z
l
ii
T 70
M
1 + T.
Mmo
0
?k, a°, jp O QN W
? m a © 11
nn
1 ---- 110 1 m
^^-- N4I ISBKD -j? m'
p6.8ai9 COR _
1n ? _ - _ (? ? 111 nnn
P
U?1
T (S
\$ N cl ? 1
1 mm?
t - U
01 • L ISBKD II°
1 ?3?1 ^9117R'-C O/i^?`^^? , a 1131
ll 1 ?
I ^
1 ? 1
?0 + 0
a
Imo I
Po 9*00
I.
I I m Im
?I o I
? I
I ?? I
I
`I
a l
\ NI I ``
I INS;
`
I `
``

\ ,
?
Iga^' ? l

_ 'al I \IT ? ?

II I ? )

II )> 1
0
I \ 100 M

w?
1
10 R
I I GI1 Na
1m?
im ro l
/_

-f
I?
? I CN
I?
?d ?? ?? I II II ?i.
a
+ ?IttE Al
a IA4sdI?,M cryl Z
?I C-1
no
of I ? II?
1 fl ?? I
1 d0© II II y
1 v c??- i?X I A
0 r- 3>
wCar- 1= 0• 00 p 0 ??/ 0?? / X11 s
SIR
C A In 2
T 1 ., " 1 n I
or ED 0 a 13D
1 ISBKD o I ^?
°'0? 3 3
i\j
1 I ?
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1.11 °
I 111 >?
I I??
1
I N? 1
id T
104 1
IT
w 3
1 1
1 +
I 1m
I ILI
1 IE
I I BY3-10
I POT 13+8C
(-Y3- Sta
I 1 4.259 Lt)
I +I
I 1
I
i
e4

al
BY4-16 ?I ??
(POT 7+18.755 I `4 0.
3- St- 16+31,148 + -1-
113.392 Ltd 1 as"
140
I 00
I
I ++
I ??pp O
I
I
i
I
z
O
fi
0
x
(A
{ O
m ?
7
A
O
E
0
NN
m m
o" «
nc-) \?•` nnnnnnv?
u-'
J ON?atOn
18+00 y? !
?+V
«?yr?a I
cfl AAn n n ny
OcTipp"'?o?NA
ED
a
O
p
0o
?
O
r
a
?rn
0
m
A
0

o ?- *'- _D
o
0 < r
mgZ
-4 z
3 3 _
U O
n 3
u
_ o
III w
3 3
?T
m
1 I
?.
D
,
C I
0
L m
LA
r
7
0 o
'
1 n v
?m

? m
o
opoD

ti
N o EA
mmg
v

?
o

-Og

x
m a v

0
O n
=
11 u U
0 0 0
?
w S
O
W
3 3 3

2
{
Im

1 CEO.

OD
k =
O
W
W
-3
rt
I Z;

OO y?l

1

< °
C-)

I
I
3
I?
I?
I
I z
10 *o 'y Z
^ n C)

I

i
M . I f
l
OTTED: II/
E: R2625F
f
O
'F
0
N
-Ei
Abe
1
c
w
c
C
c
w

a
\
\
\
\
\
\

a
y
i.

1
i
a

a
1

1
p 10
o co
O 1
tT*• O
7
r
+ 0
. 4,t. K.
z
0
n
o ?pp
A
'U - r)
? a
Z
{ s m
o ? o r >
°
D
A
oar

j m

10 < N
7 m^ -?
o A

(N
s O+1
g ,O
1

m

N
N
O+
W
/Y
wm%
titi? m
?p/a0n
00
/
/
/
/
/
\9pS
. J
2
O49 /3 /y\C
... 2625A raj 2625a,5.psa 11121/02 12:02:57 PM _ 06/12/2003

MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR.
?)) >
LEG - 2 20
November 21, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT: Final ICE Report for TIP No. R-2625A, Project No. 82800801, New
Route from N of I-85/SR 2283 (Dixon School Rd) Interchange to S of SR 2256 (Phifer Rd)
SW of Kings Mountain, FA Project No. STP-2283 (1)
MESSAGE:
Attached is the final Indirect and Cumulative Effects report for TIP No. R-2625A, Project No.
82800801, New Route from N of I-85/SR 2283 (Dixon School Rd) Interchange to S of SR
2256 (Phifer Rd) SW of Kings Mountain, FA Project No. STP-2283 (1).
Please let me know if we may be of further assistance.
Attachment
AS/sg
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
John Dorney, Supervisor
Wetlands/401 Certification Unit, DWQ
Ann Steedly, P.E., Public Involvement and Community Studies
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
lam' .
cc: Jeff Burleson, Natural Systems Permit Specialist, PDEA
Alice Gordon, Regulatory Affairs Coordinator, PDEA (no report)
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UNIT
1583 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1583
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
CENTURY CENTER COMPLEX
BUILDING A
1000 BIRCH RIDGE DPIVE
RALEIGH NC
=I001=
Via' ?a? {?????t:-????? ?? 1 e..e ?r ??ik.r?,? •???.
:?., 'k r C y ,+'§ '+? .f' ??? :.,, • ? i= } ad, f,_ '?" it u..,_
1 41
It"A1?Q'
" 't 1 u ? Z jp, Uys -? 1? rwf ntr? f.
"'ESN,.
wi? F `tir?,dr- .•= ?,`iL ?3yy: `w 'h` k .e FK•::
.h r:$? ."sk ?r!!J t,?, 'kr'4 X.?F zYF..-i+}., C S;?a„ 'y, ??.? ..
" ;? =, ? `t ? i?*• is r ? s '4?. ? Nw '?' o.?e.;k (0 ap?
'!- S..}_ ?axMy.,a ?r4' ?7t•, Tr, `a wY. `+?. ?.i
w'r .ar dNr ern *'M
v r?,ay'~l B?' `I f??,n` n ..1xi4?44Tt f? "I M ?Y YAK
l r i. ?? ?'Yk ° y.Sr ?n 2'yf4 d 'A ... 7 y
Je y? '?.? vatk
'?3",,++?? ?? •'?-• ?l ,}??.y ? ? Y w 1 sit ?s?Yt
`a'66 for.i
`'=man r?vtronrn
x IT ?'P ?, ^ ? y' ' ._ k, -r`ty?vvi, 4.?"`. w.t. ti ? ,. ?.:Y •? ? ari y ,F .
t..* .agar d by>?"? -?«
?Y1! .'.r-a r ? .i'?.{ "eL`? .. Xp ?"'? ?nx? ti ? ?'' ?I ?.,. ?.-? r-?.? .? ti ? _ <'r
? r outh 8oule'vard
Y +XvS err
r.^
-41
k??, t??t6rwk .tip...
v +.`'< r 4 .. '4 .„+, y, i h „R,.? t lA?\a.'7B T t? +'? * t?L 'l M?'rh
7kK i K ?4EY'y
! { r '`, 3? ? 3vwavr •t?y `#• hi ; +?r.?;?v k, yp ? ' ?++Ity??
`? r
Ee"v w 5` f
14
- 4r
4h yC ?4r. r _. `F 7I
job
• 2 { p ?k` =?k ?T` f, s <` n: `Jl?,+ i `til '?-' ?<
Af,
4 {L.? a.,.. < ? r I .? ?` ,t ? ? ?'Kk n, ??h 4 .-?It` ? ? `...w•+-„ ?Y ?.. ? `°{ w.
- ti ` 1 e?? r + s h n d d . ''fit 4r ?. +?? 4 • .
qS''C ` ??'•?,?'. -'i?' '..' k ?i a'C r? . ..7`.i- w V' ?'? -" Q-" ? n . ? ; ti?aw `. ° ` _.?.
Al.
r t? 9 S ? ?.n,v •,,; ?[' q ? • u?l? ' . J r,? 4;_ ? ??? t'}`?`r•?':
'A 5;:. ,? yx? t „„ r• .? F ) 4, st ? ??l '? ? TM -1. a Y =r. ? 1 due .re? ^?.,.
??.- •Y„?r t4 Qom.: .It] ??. ? ,'3 ? ;?_k v ??°n? ?.?.?,1 r"„p ?,'? ,. a.?.. y $1 'a ,: ? ?? ?!"?
a?, w M ? *F . r - ?? ,,, s yam,,, ? r. ? _+. ? a° s 'ef ?
p 4 1 1 4 +:::., +t, ?
'? •??e ?? ?..,? .' T `? i "''?. sf ;' ^s'k 2 +. ? .. , ? } ??.,+ t ?~ T ? ,.: l ?_ ?'" ti .TC ,"A.
a 't ? r r
' "? t w ' ?? a ?f if l
N:
.F ?) R awl >:, "?y A Fi s s .t 4?
'mss ' f + ,4 "? I 1 h, i _ w i D H!3,?Y+' "'?C l r'#,`o'. y? ,r
' per a '?'• .- ?, +?' a- t ., r 4 ?.. a
Lill, +
' ?±? 7?"?--?..? r jili?? .• t _ ? f S ? _:' r ?? ?A? > ??Y c 'K??. R.?. .:-t ?...r?-,y: A ??r ?' ?+4T"? $ • • ?F
?'';,,' 4? "4,`??}!µ???r???'?? ??;`i,? ?:_}'' t??' 'fit ??, ?y??tas _ ? ,?ar`3? .?:?5 ?»-t rr .j ?.?_4 ?• -*'#?'+, "?,, 5 ?Y` }a^. 2M
-?`a??+ +•• 't
?db
al
Ink a?`, ?, ?. ifti'r, ?- JV ?i??? c `S '? F£i -?'. r 4 . ys4* ?r 'ai / 'g`'1??t?-_:'??F?• .? r ?r•.. ??•
3? yY S
?i;:?ra ?'N? r]` 'r ?`;??C'- ?.?ti •. ,? ..* x ? k L ?.4'4?°k?.7 'kh k,?„?? r ws `.:. v? .? ?a's-'?,,???° ??} °'?.P ? ? t.M1
1,t° t `b i'F -
'1: ?xF # 'n? r x r ti: sa ?? N 3 .H.r ?. l'.S*f, r. 'W. 54
y t • , rw 4` irA? y ,f, ,+ - ;?, du1 '4'+,Kt k J r
E "fit _
e r '_ S{t of tM,?. .'(y? "a s 4 ?? # y'#J T
t ?. `l ?.' r J,? ? l?'k r. } .. ?r?4r?t `Y ?.jF ?•9 tiy`fT?ii? ? r .'+. Fir°??', '? f?.v g t
r v r 7 T t Y.,, .r s. t rF rt. . $ +ipV f -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................1
Growth and Development ..................................................................................................................... 1
' Existing Water Quality ....................................................................................................................... .. 1
Environmental Regulations ................................................................................................................. .. 2
Potential for Induced Development and Impacts to Water Quality ....................................................... .. 2
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................. ..2
'
M. STUDY AREA AND AREA OF POTENTIAL IMPACT ................................... ..3
Identification of Study Area ................................................................................................................ .. 3
Identification of Area of Potential Impact ..... . 3
'
.......................................................................................
Demographics and Community Description . .
. 3
Growth and Development ................................................................................................................... .. 4
IV. EXISTING PLANS AND REGULATIONS ........................................................ .. 5
' Current Transportation Plans ...................................................................................
.................... 5
..
NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program ............................................................................... .. 5
1996 Thoroughfare Plan for Kings Mountain ................................................................................... .. 5
Local Land Use and Zoning Plans ....................................................................................................... .. 5
' 1995 Land Development Plan: The City of Kings Mountain ............................................................ .. 5
2002 Zoning Ordinance for the City of Kings Mountain .................................................................. .. 6
Environmental Regulations ................................................................................................................. .. 7
' V. EXISTING REPORTS ......................................................................................... .. 9
Previous Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 9
Environmental Assessment ............................................................................................................. .. 9
Finding of No Significant Impact .................................................................................................... .. 9
' Project Environmental Consultation Form ....................................................................................... .. 9
VI. POTENTIAL FOR INDUCED DEVELOPMENT ............................................. 10

7

1

7
7

R-2625A, Cleveland County
Indirect and Cumulative Impact Assessment
'49P November 5, 2002
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Office of Human Environment
Preliminary Indirect and Cumulative Impact Assessment
Attention: Karen Capps, PDEA Engineer, NCDOT
From: Susan Fisher, Planner, HNTB
and Robert Deaton, Community Planner, NCDOT
Through: Carl Goode, Office of Human Environment, NCDOT
Contract: A303954
RE: TIP R-2625A, New Route, Cleveland County
L EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A two-lane highway on new alignment is proposed in Cleveland County from north of I-
85 and SR 2283 (Dixon School Road) to US 74 Business at SR 2031 (Elam Road), a
proposed length of approximately 2.9 miles. Part A is the portion of the new route that is
proposed from north of I-85 and Dixon School Road to SR 2256 (Phifer Road). Part B is
the portion of the new route that was already constructed from Phifer Road to US 74
Business. This report is intended to provide a preliminary analysis of the indirect and
cumulative impacts associated with TIP R-2625A, and to provide information requested
by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR),
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). The information requested relates to downstream
water quality impacts that may occur as a result of indirect and cumulative effects of the
proposed TIP project and Section 401 Water Quality certification.
,/Growth and Develollment
Kings Mountain, like the remainder of Cleveland County, typically has low population
growth rates when compared to North Carolina as a whole. This trend is expected to
remain consistent over the next two decades. Local planners predict that the majority of
future development in Kings Mountain (and its extraterritorial jurisdiction) will be
concentrated north of US 74 Business and south of Interstate 85. Much of the vacant
land in this area is in these two locations and already has good access to I-85.
, Axistine Water Ouality
According to the Project Environmental Consultation Form, there are no High Quality
Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) within one mile of the TIP R-2625A. In addition, there are no 303(d) streams in
the area of potential impact.

- R2625A, Cleveland County
O*P Indirect and Cumulative Impact Assessment
November 5, 2002

7
Environmental Regulations
The Sedimentation and Erosion Control Act requires that any person planning to disturb
more than one acre of land must submit a Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan to the
North Carolina Division of Land Resources. Local governments may enforce the
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan within their jurisdiction. Additionally, the City
of Kings Mountain prohibits development in the floodway and limits it in the flood
fringe. Each person developing a lot must complete a flood study before obtaining a
permit for development. The construction of TIP R-2625A would comply with these
rules and regulations.
There are no water supply watersheds in the southeastern portion of Cleveland County,
and no regulations regarding the protection of any water supply watersheds will apply to
land within the impact area.
Potential for Induced Development and Impacts to Water Ouality
Development induced by TIP R-2625A will be concentrated primarily along the southern
portion of existing Kings Mountain Boulevard, Phifer Road near the intersection with the
proposed highway, and the area between Phifer Road and the southern terminus of the
project (Dixon School Road). The evaluation of potential development that could be
induced by the new road, local regulations and water quality management plans indicate
that new development induced as a result of TIP R-2625A will not substantially
deteriorate water quality in Beason Creek, Dixon Branch or the Broad River Basin.
H. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) plans to construct a two-
lane highway in Cleveland County from north of I-85 and SR 2283 (Dixon School Road)
to US 74 Business at SR 2031 (Elam Road). Construction of the new facility has been
divided into two phases. Part A, or TIP R-2625A, is the portion of the new route that is
proposed from north of I-85 and Dixon School Road to SR 2256 (Phifer Road) and is
scheduled for construction in Fiscal Year 2002 (see Figure I). Part A will include a grade
separated crossing of the Norfolk-Southern Railroad and a crossing of Dixon Branch
Creek. It will also incorporate the realignment or extension of intersecting roads
including Dixon School Road, SR 2305 (Brown Road) and NC 216 (Battleground Road).
Part B has been constructed and is the portion of the new route from Phifer Road to US
74 Business. This portion of the new road, named Kings Mountain Boulevard, was built
in 1998 (approximately) and included the construction of a box culvert at Beason Creek.
The total length of this TIP R-2625 project (Parts A and B) is estimated to be 2.9 miles.
TIP R-2625A completes the north-south connection between I-85 and US 74 Business
just west of Kings Mountain, North Carolina. According to the Finding of No Significant
Impact report prepared by the Federal Highway Administration and the NCDOT, the
2

H

J F-
z U)
W ?- W ?

v

z Q
?
Z Z u
0 ?

Z Z Q

Z) ::) Q

(
O Q

(/)
CO)
N F-
W
w
u)
U 0 w w W W
z z a > Y

Y ?1 H U)
Z
W ¦
¦

J

m

c

o
U 3

ca o
? U

m c

>
m

= Z U

a>
Cf

z+
N
4 ?
8
z
L7
09
Q
E-
c Ln
_ • C/
i Y r
?? O a
C ?
W a .Od
Z m e C
A A
z CO)
?•
0 ?? d 13
Crocker-Rd. °
? s?bA m
n V `°Y
0
m II
1
U
C C
? O
7 ?
Q
N
z o-
.0 ?
m O
QD
4V
N
Z m :
d
W
> -` -0 -
W o to ?U m o
E
.2 U
V m E 2
N
0 U L
N 2 C O
U' mOwz

R -2625A, Cleveland County
Indirect and Cumulative Impact Assessment
' November 5, 2002
project will result in the relocation of approximately two businesses and nine residences,
' and approximately 61 acres will be acquired to construct the entire TIP project.
' M. STUDY AREA AND AREA OF POTENTIAL E"ACT
Identification of Study Area
' The majority of TIP R-2625 and all of Part A is located in the extraterritorial jurisdiction of
Kings Mountain in Cleveland County. The extreme northern portion of Part B is located
' within the Kings Mountain City Limits. Cleveland County is situated in the western Piedmont
Region of North Carolina.
' The initial study area was established as a three-mile radius around Part A of R-2625 (see
Figure II). Portions of Potts Creek, Beason Creek, Long Branch, Dixon Branch and Kings
Creek are within this three-mile radius. The study area includes much of incorporated Kings
' Mountain and is located primarily within Cleveland County. However, small portions of the
study area are located in Gaston County, North Carolina and Cherokee and York Counties in
South Carolina. The methodology used to conceive the three-mile radius was based on
' professional judgement. The study area will not be used for specific analysis, but to determine
the area of potential impact.
' Identification of Area of Potential Impact
' The area of potential impact was created by removing the undevelopable lands from the
stud area and identifying those areas that would benefit from the time-savings of a direct
connection between I-85 and US 74 Business. The undevelopable lands inc ude
' urbanized or previously built-up areas of Kings Mountain and the 100-year floodplains as
shown in Figure H. I-85 also serves as a boundary, as induced development from TIP R-
2625A is not expected to occur south of the interstate. The field study and discussions
' with local planners revealed that there are no protected farmlands or water supply
watersheds in the area of potential impact.
Demographics and Community Description

I
7
The demographic area, as shown in Figure III, includes 1990 Census Tracts 9504 (Block
Groups 6 and 7) and Census Tract 9505 (Block Groups 4 and 5). It appears that Census Tract
9505, Block Groups 4 and 5 are equivalent to the 2000 Census Tract 9505, Block Group 3.
Tract 9504 Block Groups 6 and 7 appear to be the same in 1990 and 2000. Portions of these
Block Groups fall within the area of potential impact and serves to illustrate the demographic
characteristics of the local population. As evidenced by the data in Table I, Kings Mountain
and Cleveland County typically have low population growth rates as compared to North
Carolina. This trend is expected to remain consistent over the next two decades. Between 1990
and 2000, the demographic area experienced a rate of growth even less than that of Kings
Mountain. However, the local planners feel that growth will be concentrated in the northern
portion of the Kings Mountain ETJ and in the southwestern portion of the ETJ near I-85.

m m w m m m m ? ? ¦¦r ? ¦w ? m ? ? . ? ¦..
E L
CCT co
n
x
C C C
? m
o G?
m
-? i
tn
n m m z z
cfl m X m c?i? tin
fA N
CO) Z D O O
ao CO) ° y z z
W ; D D
? 0 m Z Z z
n m
m
0 C/)
-tea z
r_
rn G)
O
C
CO)

¦ r
' m
7
GMori
z
o D
c m
a) o
O
Z
0
>
;u m
Dr
D
C7

m
00
0

Z

C/)
<
c

y

zz

m
9
Cj)

m

to
-n

N
N

D
D

z

m
z
z
ai

K
O
Z
D
z
z

l
Cl)
K
O
Z
D
z

- o
3

' R-2625A, Cleveland County
Air 1.10ki Indirect and Cumulative Impact Assessment
' November 5, 2002
Therefore, the growth rate in the demographic area may be more than 5.2% as experienced
' between 1990 and 2000, but it will most likely not exceed the projected growth rate of
Cleveland County. Cleveland County is expected to grow at a rate of 10.6% between 2000 and
2010 and 9.9% between 2010 and 2020.
' Table I. Population Estimates and Projections, 1980-2020

E

Demographic Area Kings Mountain Cleveland County North Carolina
Population:
1980 N/A 9,080 83,435 5,880,095
1990 3,335 8,763 84,714 6,632,448
Percentage growth 1980-1990 N/A -3.5% 1.5% 12.8%
2000 3,507 9,693 96,287 8,049,313
Percentage growth 1990-2000 5.2% 10.6% 13.7% 21.4%
Population Projections:
2010 N/A N/A 106,530 9,491,374
Percentage growth 2000-2010 N/A N/A 10.6% 17.9%
2020 N/A N/A 117,092 10,966,138
Percentage growth 2010-2020 N/A N/A 9.9% 15.5%
Sources: The City of Kings Mountain Land Development Plan, US Census Bureau, NC Office of State Planning
Growth and Development
Cleveland County and Kings Mountain have been experiencing relatively slow rates of
growth (population) in the last decade. It appears that the majority of growth in and
around Kings Mountain would be concentrated in the northern parts of the extraterritorial
jurisdiction (north of US 74 Business) and in the extraterritorial jurisdiction south of I-85.
Most of the vacant land in this area is in these two locations, and already has good access
to I-85. Kings Mountain is located approximately 30 miles from the City of Charlotte,
which is experiencing rapid population growth and development. Over time, some of this
development may filter into parts of Kings Mountain and Cleveland County.
There are a number of development proposals at the time of this study. Streets and public
facilities are shown in Figure IV.
• The Life Enrichment Center, an adult care center which has been approved for
construction on the West Side of Kings Mountain Boulevard across from the new
Intermediate School
• A 58-unit apartment complex, which has been proposed for construction across
from the Intermediate School
• Crocker Ridge, which has been proposed for construction along Crocker Road
and would consist of approximately 100 single-family homes
• A 99-unit single-family development, which has been proposed for construction
near the high school on Phifer Road
• A hotel, which is proposed for construction at the interchange of I-85 and Dixon
School Road

zm0 w GI
?1<o ca
v
0-0 3 m
3 aw w
o 0 -
,. o
N N
d m
3 N
m
N
o N
CD
w 3
N ?
-o
o
?_
0- m
' J to
A `J
n
N
9` P
a
Kings af
??1 fff?
v
lI,
m
3
ci
w
f
a
m
N

?I
A°
_Z
G
_y
3
-O
-c
=Z77

r
!D
to
CD
=
0 z CL
O
3

C
L
O
0
O
C
3 n
K C

a

m
N

¦ rn

i rn
Z
-? D
m m m
fn X m co cn
O O
z
v
D
c
c Cl)
to z Z
X D D

m G)
z
z
z
D C? m

CO) m
z
r_

R -2625A, Cleveland County
Indirect and Cumulative Impact Assessment
,.Jet November 5, 2002
IV. EXISTING PLANS AND REGULATIONS
Current Transportation Plans
' NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program
At the time of adoption of The City of Kings Mountain Land Development Plan in 1995,
the existing NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program included only two projects in
' Kings Mountain. One of these projects was R-2625, and the other was the installation of
an automatic railroad warning device at Hawthorne Road and the Southern Railroad
Crossing'. The 2004-2010 TIP (Draft) includes two projects that are located within
' several miles of R-2625A. One is the proposed replacement of the bridge and
interchange improvements at NC 216 and I-85/US 29. The other is a proposed four-lane
divided highway (iJS 74 Bypassl inlhy, North Carolina. Neither of these projects are
' located in the area of potential impact and neither will impact this ro'ect or be im acted
by the comp etion of TIP R-2625.
' 1996 Thoroughfare Plan for Kings Mountain
TIP R-2625 was also included in the Thoroughfare Plan for Kings Mountain. It was
recommended that the proposed new two-lane highway be widened to four lanes from I-
85 to US 74 Business at a later point in the planning period. The amount of right-of-way
acquired for initial construction should be enough to allow for a multi-lane facility in the
' future. A two-lane extension to NC 216 and SR 2013 (Goforth Road), north of US 74
Business and Bypass is also recommended. The Plan also included a recommendation to
widen Phifer Road east of the proposed new highway in order to alleviate congestion
' turning into the schools.
Based on anticipated population changes, development trends, regulations and
ordinances, availability of infrastructure and environmental features, the Statewide
' Planning Branch of the DOT in cooperation with the City of Kings Mountain forecasted
housing and employment growth for the year 2020. The planning area was divided into
traffic zones, and Figure 7 of the Thoroughfare Plan for Kings Mountain showed those
' zones for which high growth was anticipated. Only one zone near the area of potential
impact indicated a high level of housing or employment growth. This zone made up the
area between Battleground Avenue and I-85, and more than 150 new jobs were expected
' between 1990 and 2020.
' Local Land Use and Zoning Plans
1995 Land Development Plan: The City of Kings Mountain
' Because TIP R-2625A is located entirely within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the
City or within the City Limits of Kings Mountain, the 1995 Land Development Plan
serves as a decision-making guide for future growth in and around the City. This plan
' recommends that development be directed to those areas that are readily serviced by
public water and sewer. Furthermore, the "Kings Mountain Community Plan" or Future
Land Plan map shows the vast majority of the project corridor as residential. There are
The City of Kings Mountain, Land Development Plan (Kings Mountain, 1995).
5
1
- R-2625A, Cleveland County
Indirect and Cumulative Impact Assessment
November 5, 2002
some institutional uses (schools) on Phifer Road and adjacent to the existing part of
Kings Mountain Boulevard. In addition, a Community Mixed Use Center is proposed for
the intersection of US 74 Business and Kings Mountain Boulevard, while a
Neighborhood Mixed Use Center is proposed for the intersection of Battleground
Avenue.
The residential uses as designated on the map recommend 0-4 dwelling units per acre.
' Higher density residential development (4-8 du/acre) is also allowed in this category, but
this type of development is typically only appropriate in the following situations :
' • within approximately 1/2-mile of a commercial and/or employment center,
• within approximately 1/2-mile of a public park,
' • where development clustering preserves environmental features,
• adjacent to a major or minor thoroughfare, or
• where public utilities are available
' The Community Mixed Use Center consists of up to one million square feet of retail and
office space and can include such things as general merchandise stores, grocery stores,
' and restaurants. The Neighborhood Mixed Use Center may have up to 700,000 square
feet of retail uses for the purpose of selling convenience goods or services3.
' A Thoroughfare Protection Overlay exists for Kings Mountain Boulevard, and was
completed as an amendment to the 1995 Land Development Plan. The overlay covers an
approximate 125-foot corridor along the proposed route from Dixon School Road to US
' 74 Business. Most of the corridor is proposed for mixed-density residential. An
additional Community Mixed Use Center was recommended at the I-85 interchange, and
an additional Neighborhood Mixed Use Center was recommended at the intersection of
' the new highway and Phifer Road.
2002 Zoning Ordinance for the City of Kings Mountain
' According to the Kings Mountain Zoning Map, dated July 15, 2002, there are seven
different zoning districts along the proposed new highway from Dixon School Road to
US 74 Business. Heavy Industrial (H-I) uses are concentrated along Dixon School Road.
' Light Industrial (L-I) uses are concentrated near the I-85 interchange, between the
Norfolk Southern Railroad and Margrace Avenue, and also along the eastern side of
Crocker Road. The L-I district has industrial related uses that are relatively compatible
' with other land uses, while the H-I or heavy industrial district contains those industrial
uses that are less compatible with other land uses. The General Business (G-B) districts
are located near the major intersections or interchanges. The G-B district offers a place
' for those businesses that typically serve a broader area than neighborhood businesses.
Residential uses dominate the portion of the northern portion of the corridor. Most of the
' residential land is zoned R-10, and is primarily made up of single-family residential uses.
The minimum lot area is 10,000 sq.ft. for lots services by water and sewer, 15,000 sq.ft.
' 2 The City of Kings Mountain, Land Development Plan (Kings Mountain, 1995).
3 Ibid.
6
1
'
R-2625A, Cleveland County
+ = Indirect and Cumulative Impact Assessment
jot
'
"
November 5, 2002
for lots serviced by one of these public utilities, and 20,000 sq.ft. for lots serviced by
' neither utility. A small R-06 or R-6 (Conditional Use) district is located on the West Side
of the newly constructed Kings Mountain Boulevard. This district serves single-family,
two-family and multi-family residential uses. Lots must be at least 6,000 sq.ft. for single-
family uses, 9,000 sq.ft. for two-family units and progressively larger for multi-family
uses. An R-20 district is located near Dixon School Road, and an R-20 (Conditional
Use) district is located on the West Side of existing Kings Mountain Boulevard. The R-
20 district requires a minimum lot area of 20,000 sq.ft. for single-family units and 30,000
sq.ft. for two-family units. This district permits low-density residential development
when public water and sewer services are not presently available. The Conditional Use
' districts are identical to the regular R-6 or R-20 districts, however a conditional use
permit is required prior to any development. These zones are shown in Figure V.
n

0

F
L
H

n
The City of Kings Mountain provides water service to the area between I-85 and
Battleground Avenue, as well as near Phifer Road and US 74 Business. The Upper
Cleveland County Sanitary District provides water service to some areas between
Battleground Avenue and Phifer Road. Water lines could be extended to any parcels
within the area of potential impact. Sewer service is provided along US 74 and Phifer
Road, and there is a pump station at Tin Mine Road. The existing sewer lines could be
tapped to provide service south of Compact Road. Existing lines can also be tapped
along Crocker Road as development occurs. The area between Phifer Road and Compact
School Road does not have sewer service, and service is not proposed in the near future.
Septic tanks would be required in lieu of sewer service in these areas.
Environmental Regulations
The Broad River flows from Rutherford County, through the western portion of
Cleveland County, to South Carolina. Its watershed encompasses the whole of Cleveland
County. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality prepared a Broad River
Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan in 1998 in an effort to create long-term
water quality management strategies for local and state officials. This Plan, like the Plans
for the other major rivers in the state, will be updated every five years. The purpose of
these Plans is threefold. The DWQ wishes to identify and restore full use to impaired
waters, identify and protect high value resource waters, and manage pollutants in the
basin while accommodating a reasonable amount of economic growth.
The area of potential impact is located entirely within the Broad River basin. The Broad
River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan states that use support ratings were
determined for 96% of over 1,400 miles of streams and rivers, of which only 3% (four
waters) were determined to be partially supporting and impaired. Walnut Creek, Catheys
Creek, Beaverdam Creek and Lick Branch were monitored from 1992 to 1996 and
deemed impaired waters of the Broad River Basin 4. Lick Branch, a tributary of Buffalo
4 North Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality on-line, Broad River
Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan (July 1998); Available from
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/Broad/broad basinwide water quality ma.htm, Internet, accessed 16
September 2002.
0

0 Z,
6 CD
cn
<. <
- o
n m
3 m 3 Z
M Q? c O
v c c
CD Z
m m - - Z
CD / v
0 en
Z
?0
70
70
0
r. ; pp
-_ `° -
_-
o o
m \
e
oel. aq ? l
1
/i
'PAIS -UIW s6ul){
o'
y
A
r

cG
CD

C' Z

m O
C 3

? N
Q 0
O

O
?

? O

(D

A A A -?o A A A O Z r S O O
- m m TI > M
Z
m OOi O O W O N O A m CA z D v
0 g o o °
o
z z
D z z z
z
Z ym
z r

N n
IF I
Air _ R-2625A, Cleveland County
Indirect and Cumulative Impact Assessment
November 5, 2002
Creek, is the only one of these impaired creeks that is located within approximately five
miles of the project site. It is located outside of the area of potential impact however.
Six water bodies were included on North Carolina's most recent 303(d) list (2000). This
list is a product of the Clean Water Act, which requires states to identify those waters that
do not meet water quality standards or which have impaired uses. If control strategies for
point and nonpoint source pollution exist for impaired waters, they may be excluded from
the 303(d) list. Again, of the water bodies listed in the Broad River Basin, only Lick
Branch (from its source to Buffalo Creek) is located in close proximity to the project.
The cause of impairment is sedimentation based on biological impairment from industrial
point sources or agricultural uses5. As mentioned before, Lick Branch is located outside
of the area of potential impact. There appear to be no impaired waters in the area of _
potential impact.
Land disturbing activities such as agricultural uses and land development (including
highway construction, residential subdivisions and commercial centers) often cause
degradation of water quality due to increased sedimentation. Numerous government
agencies have implemented programs to limit soil loss and protect water quality related to
sedimentation. The Sedimentation and Erosion Control Act, administered by the North
Carolina Division of Land Resources, requires that any person planning to disturb more
than one acre of land must submit a Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan to the
Division. Local governments may review and enforce the program within their
jurisdiction, but the program has to be as strict as the Division of Land Resources
program6. The construction of the proposed improvements would comply with these
rules and regulations.
In 1998, the Division of Water Quality and the Department of Transportation were in the
process of finalizing a stormwater management permitting system. The permits would
address pollution from stormwater runoff caused by roadway construction, maintenance
and other DOT activities. Requirements would include the creation of a comprehensive
stormwater management program, monitoring programs and an annual report that details
the effectiveness of the program. At the time of the study (1998), no municipalities in the
Broad River Basin required permits for stormwater runoff caused by urban development.
' No water supply watersheds are located in the southeastern portion of Cleveland County.
Therefore, no regulations regarding the protection of any water supply watersheds will
' apply to land within the impact area.
Regulations do exist that protect both Beason Creek and Dixon Branch. The local
' governmental agencies could provide only very limited information related to the
floodplains, floodways and the flood fringe. The existing floodplain ordinances are in the
' 5 North Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality on-line, Broad Basinwide
Water Quality Management Plan (July 1998); Available from
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/Broad/broad basinwide water quality ma.htm; Internet, accessed 16
September 2002.
' 6 Ibid.
Ibid.
- R -2625A, Cleveland County
Indirect and Cumulative Impact Assessment
'JV November 5, 2002

I
I
process of being updated, and accurate maps are unavailable. Development is prohibited
in the floodway, and limited in the flood fringe. At this point in time, the City of Kings
Mountain requires each person developing a lot to complete a flood study before
obtaining a permit for development.
V. EXISTING REPORTS
Previous Conclusions
Environmental Assessment
The Environmental Assessment (EA) dated February 28, 1996 described the proposed
project as having two design alternatives for a new, two-lane highway from Dixon School
Road near I-85 to US 74 Business west of Kings Mountain. The project was also
described as including a grade-separated crossing of the Norfolk Southern Railroad and
construction of a box culvert at Beason Creek. The completed facility will provide a
more direct north-south connection between the Interstate and US 74 Business, which
should result in reduced travel times, user cost savings and more efficient vehicle
operations. Indirect and cumulative impacts do not appear to have been addressed in
detail. However, a statement was made in the EA that suggests an economic benefit from
secondary development resulting from the proposed improvements. The evaluation
presented in the final section of this report, "Potential for Induced Development", will
augment the indirect and cumulative impacts referred to in the EA.
' Finding of No Significant Impact
This document was prepared and signed on August 27, 1996. Based on the EA for the
same project, and upon comments from other governmental agencies, the NCDOT and
' the Federal Highway Administration determined that the project "would have no
significant impacts to natural, ecological, cultural, or scenic resources are expected. No
known Section 4(f) properties are involved, no wetlands are impacted, no significant
' impact on air or water quality is expected, and no effects on federally listed threatened
and endangered species are anticipated." It was therefore resolved that no
Environmental Impact Statement or other environmental analysis would be necessary.
' Project Environmental Consultation Form
The environmental documents were reevaluated by NCDOT on September 8, 2000, and it
' was determined that the expected impacts were accurately described with one exception.
The NCDOT discovered an intermittent tributary of Dixon Branch crosses the proposed
alignment and will be impacted by construction of the new highway. Nonpoint source
' pollution and stormwater runoff will be minimized through management programs. The
memo also stated that neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or
WS-II), nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within one mile of the TIP R-
' 2625A.
9

- R-2625A, Cleveland County
Indirect and Cumulative Impact Assessment
'Jr November 5, 2002
VL POTENTIAL FOR INDUCED DEVELOPMENT
¦ The development induced by TIP R-2625A will be concentrated primarily along the
southern portion of existing Kings Mountain Boulevard, Phifer Road near the intersection
' with the proposed highway, and the area between Phifer Road and the southern terminus
of the project (Dixon School Road). According to local planners, the major benefit of TIP
R-2625A is more efficient access to existing institutional and residential uses around the
' project site. While this road will provide a more direct route between I-85 and US 74
Business, it is not necessarily being constructed to serve future growth. The growth rates
in Cleveland County are expected to be lower than the State average, and based on
' historical trends, it is reasonable to assume that the growth rate in the demographic area
will be more similar to that of Cleveland County.
' The area of potential impact should be relatively small because there are a number of
factors that hinder any development induced by the construction of TIP R-2625A. The
urbanized or previously developed areas of Kings Mountain serve as a barrier to
' development that occurs because of this TIP project. US 74 Business is already an
established residential and commercial corridor. There are several institutional uses
' along the newly constructed Kings Mountain Boulevard, and residential uses currently
exist along much of Dixon School Road, Battleground Avenue, Margrace Avenue, Phifer
Road and Crocker Road. It also appears that quarries are located along the East Side of
' Tin Mine Road (near I-85) and the West Side of Dixon School Road. Any development
that occurs in the urbanized areas of Kings Mountain will most likely be a result of
existing development trends and existing infrastructure. It is also unlikely that induced
' development from this project will occur south of the interstate, as no travel timesavings
will result in that area from the proposed project. Furthermore, induced development will
be regulated along Beason Creek and Dixon Branch Creek.
' Most of the vacant land within the area of potential impact is zoned R-10 for single-
family residential uses. It appears that much of the R-10 district (within the area of
' potential impact) has water service or access to waterlines while sewer service is limited.
The minimum lot area for a lot serviced by water only is 15,000 sq.ft. The minimum lot
area is 20,000 sq.ft. if neither water nor sewer is available. Therefore, the potential
' residential densities of any induced development would be approximately 2-3 units per
acre. There also be some vacant land near Compact Road and the I-85/Dixon School
Road that is zoned for industrial uses. Because the project will be built to relieve
' congestion near existing institutional and residential uses as well as providing a more
direct route between I-85 and US 74 Business, a large population and development boom
is unlikely. The growth rates in Cleveland County are expected to be lower than the State
' average, and The North Carolina Division of Land Resources requires that any person
planning to disturb more than one acre of land must submit a Sedimentation and Erosion
Control Plan. In addition, each person developing a lot in Kings Mountain is required to
' complete a flood study to obtain a permit for development.
Since this will be a new road through undeveloped land and will not be access controlled,
' there will be new development that occurs. However, because of the requirements
10
' R-2625A, Cleveland County
Air Indirect and Cumulative Impact Assessment
' November 5, 2002
instituted by the Division of Land Resources and the studies required by the City of
' Kings Mountain, this development should not have any ?'mpact on water quality in the
area. The evaluation of local regulations and water qua ty management plans indicate
that new development induced as a result of TIP 2625A will not substantially
' deteriorate water quality in Beason Creek, Dixon Branch r the Broad River Basin.

11
North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
November 20, 2
Mr. Gregory Thorpe
NC Department of Transportation
PD and EA Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Thorpe:
Subject: 1,,'1IP #: R - 2625A
County: Cleveland
_e0n
ENR
022M
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) will accept payment for stream impacts associated with the subject project.
Wetland impacts will be mitigated in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between the
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dated
November 4, 1998.
Based on the information supplied by you in a letter dated November 5, 2002, the stream
restoration that is necessary to satisfy the compensatory mitigation requirements for this project is
summarized in the following table. The maximum amount of mitigation that the NCWRP will accept
for this project is also indicated in this table.
Stream
linear feet Wetlands
(riparian) Wetlands
(non-riparian)
Impact 822
Mitigation Max. 1644
As requested, the NCWRP will provide stream mitigation as specified in the 401 Water Quality
Certification and/or Section 404 Permit for impacts associated with the subject project in Cataloging
Unit 03050105 of the Broad River Basin.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Valerie Mitchener at
[phone].
cc: Cyndi Karoly, Wetlands/401 Unit
Steve Lund, USACOE-Asheville
Mike Parker, DENR Regional Office-Mooresville
file
Sinc ely,
o'? ?
Ronald E. Ferrell,
Program Manager
Wetlands Restoration Program 1619 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
[phone] Fax: [phone]
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
? Project located in 7th floor library
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
?-i -n :h 1 10.,, 1 10) ca L0 f 3 I / <
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
? Asheville ? All R/O Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries
ill
? F
tt kAir ? Coastal Management ? Water Planning
ev
aye
e NWater ? Water Resources Wnvironmental Health
Mooresville roundwater ??Vildlife ?Solid Waste Management
Raleigh Quality Engineer
7Land Forest Resources ? Radiation Protection
hi
? W ? Recreational Consultant )?land Resources ? David Foster
ngton
as ? Coastal Management Consultant Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
? Wilmington ? Others [environmental Management
? Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date:
O
t
Lf * In-House Reviewer/Agency:
1
?
?'
7
c _14
?
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Reegional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed 6O
? No Comment w\ ,? ;r;, 1996
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attachedlauthority(ies) cited) 10lu
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
I'VI
Other (specify and attach comments) ' rI
rAf J C A b C cfiro ?r?
RETURN TO: ]?(j? (/V? I ?QCI 1 /Vl0 AA,(,- e-?C-t' ?)rp?C f l C ?
Melba McGee Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
PS 104
[?-
Environmental Review Tracking Sheet I 13
DWQ - Water Quality Section
'b It
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Env. Sciences Branch
* Wetlands
? ohn Domey
P Eric Galamb (DoT)
? Greg Price (airports, coE)
? Steve Kroeger (utilities)
* Bio. Resources, Habitat, End. Species
? Trish MacPherson
? Kathy Herring (forest/oRw/xQw)
* Toxicology
? Larry Ausley
Planning Branch
11
Technical Support Branch
? Coleen Sullins, P&E
? Dave Goodrich, P&E, NPDES
? Carolyn McCaskill, P&E, State
? Bradley Bennett, P&E, Stormwater
? Ruth Swanek, Instream Assess. (modeling)
? Carla Sanderson, Rapid Assess.
Operations Branch
? Dianne Wilburn, Facility Assessment
? Tom Poe, Pretreatment
? Lisa Martin, Water Supply Watershed
Regional Water Quality Supervisors
? Asheville ? Mooresville ? Washington
? Fayetteville ? Raleigh ? Wilmington
? Winston-Salem
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, Planning Branch
RE.
F- - 9!5- /,rte sc41.9-W
4
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining and expediting this process are
greatly appreciated!
Notes:
You can reach me at:
phone: [phone], ext. 567 fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
misAr.ircmemo.&c
Attached is a copy of the above document. Subject to the requirements of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts
to the environment, especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority.
Please check the appropriate box below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if
. _ i i _ If ? W.
.' '
Cleveland County
New Route, from North of the I-85 / SR 2283 (Dixon School Road) Interchange
To US 74 Business (Shelby Road)
Federal Aid Project No. STP-2283(1)
State Project No. 8.2800801
T T.I.P. No. R-2625
Administrative Action
Finding of No Significant Impact
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Submitted pursuant to 42 U. S. C. 4332(2)(C)
S-27- 9e/. ?.? ...' )- A-La-?
Date -.f;r H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Date Nich L. Graf, P. E., Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration, FHWA
Cleveland County
New Route, from North of the I-85 / SR 2283 (Dixon School Road) Interchange
To US 74 Business (Shelby Road)
Federal Aid Project No. STP-2283(1)
State Project No. 8.2800801
T.I.P. No. R-2625
Administrative Action
Finding of No Significant Impact
August, 1996
Documentation prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch by:
'f ?5;- ( eleu-T?
Ed Lewis
Project Planning Engineer
W' son Stroud
Project Planning Unit Head
, t q/ P,,--,7 8-2 7- 9,?-
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager,
Planning and Environmental Branch
?•o??N C A RO-'",
SEAL
6976
.?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. TYPE OF ACTION ......................................................................................... 1
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ......................................................... 1
III. SUMMARY OF SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS ................................... 2
A. PERMITS ......................................................................................... 2
B. RAILROAD COORDINATION .............................................................. 2
C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .................................................................. 3
D. UTILITIES ......................................................................................... 3
E. SECTION 4(f) PROPERTIES .................................................................. 3
F. WATER QUALITY ................................................................................. 3
G. DESIGN EXCEPTIONS .......................................................................... 3
H. FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES ISSUES ..................................... 4
1. CULVERT DESIGN ................................................................................ 4
IV. SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS .........................................................................................4
V. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS ............................................................... 5
A. CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............ 5
B. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT ............................................................................ 5
C. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING AND FOLLOWING THE
PUBLIC HEARING ................................................................................. 8
VI. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ........................... 10
VII. ONLY PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE WETLAND FINDING .................... 10
VIII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................. 11
TABLES
Table 1 - 72 dBA and 67 dBA Noise Contour Levels ....................................................... 5
FIGURES
Figure 1 -Vicinity Map
Figure 2 -Proposed Improvements
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX
PAGE
Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment ............................................... A-1
Public Hearing Notice and Handout ........................................................................... A-14
Cleveland County
New Route, from North of the I-85 / SR 2283 (Dixon School Road) Interchange
To US 74 Business (Shelby Road)
Federal Aid Project No. STP-2283 (1)
State Project No. 8.2800801
T.I.P. No. R-2625
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Prepared by the Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in Consultation with
the Federal Highway Administration
1. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative action, Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined this project will not have any significant impact on the
human environment. This FONSI is based on the Environmental Assessment, which has
been independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately and accurately
discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the proposed project. The Environmental
Assessment provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an
Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility for
the accuracy, scope, and content of the Environmental Assessment.
H. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to construct a new
two-lane highway on multi-lane right of way on new location from 0.3 mile (0.5 km) north
of the Interstate 85/SR 2283 (Dixon School Road) interchange to US 74 Business at
SR 2031 (Elam Road) west of Kings Mountain. The project also calls for realigning
and/or extending SR 2283, SR 2305, NC 216, SR 2256, and SR 2315 where the proposed
facility will intersect with these roads. Also, a grade separation will be constructed to
carry the proposed facility over the Norfolk-Southern Railroad, and a box culvert will be
constructed at the Beason Creek crossing.
The project lies west of Kings Mountain in the southeastern part of Cleveland
County and is approximately three miles from the South Carolina border. The project
vicinity is shown in Figure 1, and the proposed improvements are shown in Figure 2.
2
The subject project is included in the NCDOT 1997-2003 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). In the TIP, the total funding for the project is $7,710,000
which includes $860,000 for right of way and $6,850,000 for construction. The estimated
project cost is $9,067,500 including $6,850,000 for construction and $2,217,500 for right
of way. There is a funding shortfall of $1,357,500 in the TIP for this project. The project
is divided into two parts for programming purposes. Part A starts just north of the
Interstate 85 interchange and ends at Phifer Road (SR 2256). Part B starts at Phifer Road
and ends at US 74 Business. Part A is scheduled for right of way in Fiscal Year 2000 and
construction in Fiscal Year 2002. Part B is scheduled for right of way in Fiscal Year 1997
and construction in Fiscal Year 1998.
The recommended right of way width in order to construct the project is 150 feet
(46 m). This width will accommodate widening the proposed new route to a multi-lane
facility if such widening becomes necessary in the future. The approximate proposed right
of way limits are shown in Figure 2.
III. SUMMARY OF SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS
A. PERMITS
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U. S.C.,
1344), a permit will be required from the COE for the discharge of dredged of fill material
into "Waters of the United States". Based upon site location and estimated acreage
involved, it is anticipated that for recommended improvements the crossing of Beason
Creek will be authorized by Nationwide Permit [(33 CFR 330.5) (a) (14)]. Nationwide
#14 allows for road crossing fills of non-tidal "Waters of the United States", provided that
no more than a total of 200 linear ft (61 linear meters) of the fill for the roadway can occur
in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, and that the fill is limited to a filled area of no
more than 0.3 acre (0.1 ha).
A 401 Water Quality Certification administered through the N.C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality will be required.
This certificate is issued for any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for
which a federal permit is required.
B. RAILROAD COORDINATION
The subject project crosses Norfolk-Southern Railroad just north of NC 216. A
railroad agreement will be obtained for this crossing.
3
C. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Based on a reconnaissance survey, no operational or non-operational facilities with
the potential for underground storage tank (UST) involvement exist within the project
study corridors. The files of the Solid Waste Section, Division of Solid Waste
Management and the Hazardous Waste Section, Division of Solid Waste Management
were consulted. There are no landfills located in this section of Cleveland County that will
affect the project. In addition, no unregulated dump sites or other potentially
contaminated properties exist within the proposed project limits. Based on these records
and the EPA's Superfund list, there are no potential hazardous material sites that should
affect this project.
D. UTILITIES
NCDOT expects the degree of utility involvement to be low. Any relocation of
public utilities along the project will be coordinated with the appropriate utility or local
government.
E. SECTION 4(f) PROPERTIES
No impacts to Section 4(f) properties will result from the subject project.
Two abandoned historic period farmsteads (31CL20** and 31CL21**),
determined by FHWA and NCDOT to be potentially eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places, are located outside the area of potential effect of the project.
However, in the event that the alignment is shifted, these sites will be evaluated to
determine if they will be affected by the construction of the subject project and if they are
eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
F. WATER QUALITY
Beason Creek will likely receive impacts from the subject project. The proposed
culvert installation will reduce the linear feet of natural stream channel. Other potential
impacts are increased sedimentation from construction and/or erosion; increased
concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff and/or toxic spills; scouring of
stream beds due to the channelization of streams; alterations of water level due to
interruptions or additions to surface water and/or groundwater flow; and changes in light
incidence due to the removal of vegetative cover. Best Management Practices will be
stringently employed during the construction phase of this project to lessen impacts to
aquatic systems.
G. DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
There are no anticipated design exceptions.
4
H. FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES ISSUES
In case of an alignment shift, the new right of way will be investigated for the
possible presence of the federally protected species, the dwarf-flowered heartleaf.
CULVERT DESIGN
During the design phase of the project, NCDOT will investigate the feasibility of
placing the box culvert one foot (0.3 m) below the natural stream bed.
IV. SUMMARY OF BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
The primary benefits of the project are economic in nature. The proposed new
route will provide a more direct north-south corridor and reduce travel time between
US 74 Business in Kings Mountain and Interstate 85 to the south. This will reduce road
user costs for motorists. Currently, the travel distance from US 74 Business at SR 2031
(Elam Road) to Interstate 85 at Dixon School Road using the existing road network is 5.2
miles (8.3 km). The proposed improvement will decrease this travel distance to
approximately 2.9 miles (4.7 km). In addition, traffic on SR 2352 currently using a one-
lane, substandard underpass of the Norfolk-Southern Railroad between NC 216 and
Margrace Road (SR 2263) will be provided with an alternate grade-separated crossing.
This will improve access between Interstate 85 and US 74 Business, benefiting the
community and the region. Also, the Kings Mountain Schools located on Phifer Road will
have more direct access to US 74, NC 216 and Interstate 85.
The project area is zoned; therefore, consideration of farmland impacts are not
required based on guidelines in the Farmland Protection Policy Act. No federally
protected threatened or endangered species will be impacted. No recreational facilities or
sites eligible for the National Register of Historic Places will be involved. No
jurisdictional wetlands will be filled as a result of the project. The proposed improvements
will not cause significant negative impacts to air quality.
The project will relocate approximately 9 residences and 2 businesses. A total of
approximately 61 acres (24.7 ha) of right of way will be acquired in order to construct the
proposed improvements.
It is predicted that approximately 39 receptors will experience traffic noise
impacts. Based on traffic noise analysis, one receptor is anticipated to be impacted by a
substantial increase in future noise levels and one receptor is anticipated to approach the
FHWA noise abatement criteria. The following table shows the predicted maximum
extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours:
5
TABLE 1 72 dBA and 67 dBA Noise Contour Levels
Project Segment
Beginning of Project to NC 216
NC 216 to SR 2256
SR 2256 to US 74 Business
Maximum Predicted
Leq Noise Levels
dBA
15m 30m 60m
Maximum
Contour
Distances (meters)
72 dBA 67 dBA
<10 14
<10 14
<10 11
66 61 56
66 61 56
64 60 54
Notes: 1. 15 m, 30 m, and 60 m distances are measured from the center of the nearest
travel lane.
2. The. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from the center of the
proposed roadway.
This information was included in Table N5 on page A13 of the Appendix to the
Environmental Assessment and is shown here to assist local authorities in exercising land
use control over the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent to the roadway within local
jurisdictions.
In accordance with the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State
governments are no longer responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new
development for which building permits are issued within the noise impact area of a
proposed highway after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of
the location of a proposed highway project will be the approval date of CE's, FONSI's,
ROD'S, or the Design Public Hearing, whichever comes later. For development occurring
after this public knowledge date, local governing bodies are responsible to insure that
noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility.
V. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
A. CIRCULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Environmental Assessment was approved by the NC Division of Highways
and the FHWA on February 28, 1996. The approved Environmental Assessment was
circulated to the following federal, state, and local agencies for review and comments. An
asterisk (*) indicates a written response was received from the agency. Copies of the
correspondence received are included in the Appendix (pages A-1 through A-13) of this
document.
6
Federal Emergency Management Administration
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
*U.S. Department of the Interior-Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Geological Survey
*N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources -
*Division of Forest Resources
*Division of Land Resources
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*Division of Environmental Management
*Mooresville Regional Office
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation - Natural Heritage Program
Isothermal Planning and Economic Development Commission
Cleveland County
City of Kings Mountain
Kings Mountain District Schools
B. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Comment: "From a review of Panel 300 of the July 1991 Cleveland County
Flood Insurance Map, the new roadway would cross Beason Creek, an
approximate study stream. We suggest that the crossing be designed so as not to
increase the upstream 100-year flood elevation by more than one foot."
Response: NCDOT will design the proposed crossing of Beason Creek so as
not to increase the upstream 100-year flood elevation by more than one foot.
Comment: "When final plans are complete, 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 those plans for a project-specific
determination of Department of the Army permit requirements."
Response: During the permit phase of the project, NCDOT will formally apply
to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for permit authorization pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended. Detailed plans and drawings
will be included in the permit application package.
United States De artment of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
Comment: "The Service has no objection to this project and believes the
project will not result in significant environmental impacts. However, we
encourage the implementation of the following measures in order to minimize
7
impacts to aquatic resources in Beason Creek associated with culvert construction:
(1) riparian vegetation should be maintained wherever possible (i.e., reduce canopy
removal in or near streams); (2) stringent erosion control measures should be
implemented during all construction activities to minimize downstream effects;
(3) construction of the culvert should allow for continuous flow in the creek and
should be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact water entering or
flowing in the stream to reduce the likelihood of fish kills. Finally, the culvert
length should be minimized and should be placed below the grade of stream
channel to allow for re-establishment of natural substrate in the culvert."
Response: As noted on page 23 of the Environmental Assessment, Beason
Creek has been modified by channelization resulting in steep and vertical banks.
These banks have little natural vegetation due to the presence of a power line
crossing with its associated right of way clearing practices. However, NCDOT,
where feasible, will limit canopy removal at the proposed crossing. Best
Management Practices will be stringently employed during the construction phase
of this project to lessen impacts to aquatic systems. During the design phase of the
project, the culvert dimensions will be determined and the feasibility of placing the
culvert one foot (0.3 m) below the natural stream channel will be investigated.
Division of Forest Resources
Comment: "Standing remaining trees outside of construction limits should be
protected from any construction damage."
Response: All construction activities will take place inside the project's
construction limits.
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: "No wetlands will be impacted by this project. Our site visit
indicated that land use in the project area consists of agricultural, residential, and
industrial areas. This project should have minimal impacts on fisheries and wildlife
resources; therefore, we concur with the findings of the EA and would concur with
a Finding of No Significant Impact."
Response: Comments noted.
Division of Environmental Management
Comment: "The subject project will not impact wetlands and did not quantify
impacts to waters."
8
Response: As noted on page 22 of the Environmental Assessment, the
crossing of Beason Creek will be authorized by Nationwide Permit [(33 CFR
330.5) (a) (14)]. In addition, a 401 Water Quality Certification will requested
during the permit application phase of the project.
C. COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING AND FOLLOWING THE PUBLIC
HEARING
Following the circulation of the Environmental Assessment, a formal public
hearing was held at the Kings Mountain High School in Kings Mountain on May 21, 1996.
Both alternatives studied in the Environmental Assessment were presented at the hearing,
with Alternative 1 shown as the preferred alternative. A copy of the public hearing notice
and a copy of the handout presented at the public hearing are shown in the Appendix of
this report (pages A-14 through A-23). Interested citizens were given a formal
presentation of the project and then given the opportunity to ask questions and make
comments. Approximately 70 people attended the public hearing. Preferences by the
public were evenly split between Alternatives 1 and 2. The following is a list of comments
received during and following the public hearing, along with NCDOT's responses:
Comment: What is the proposed right of way width, what type of access will
be provided to adjacent properties, and is the location of the road fixed?
Response: The proposed right of way width is 150 feet and no control of
access is proposed. Final design of the project will be performed on more detailed
mapping, but any revisions to the proposed alignment are expected to be minor.
Comment: Are there any future plans to extend the proposed facility
northward from US 74 Business to the US 74 Bypass? Can the alignment be
shifted further west to tie into US 74 Bypass at an existing interchange?
Response: The Kings Mountain Thoroughfare Plan shows the proposed
facility being extended to the US 74 Bypass. As shown on the thoroughfare plan,
the extended facility would intersect SR 2034 just east of its interchange with the
US 74 Bypass..
Comment: . How will Compact School Road be affected?
Response: Under Alternative 1 (Recommended), Compact School Road will
be relocated to intersect with the proposed Dixon School Road Extension. Under
Alternative 2, Compact School Road would be extended to intersect with the
proposed facility east of the Compact School Road / Dixon School Road
intersection.
9
Comment: Will the project cross the irrigation pond at the proposed
intersection of Phifer Road (SR 2256) and proposed Dixon School Road? If so,
the alignment should be shifted away from the pond because the soil conditions in
the pond area will not support truck traffic.
Response: The proposed facility crosses the irrigation pond; therefore, the
pond will be drained in order to accommodate the proposed construction. During
final design, the soil conditions around the pond, as well as along the entire
project, will be investigated. Any soil found to be unsuitable for roadway
construction purposes will be removed and replaced with suitable borrow material.
Comment: Will a traffic signal be provided at the Phifer Road / Proposed
Dixon School Road intersection?
Response: During final design of the project, studies will be performed to
determine if traffic signals are warranted at each intersection location.
Comment: Will outdoor advertising be allowed along the project.
Response: NCDOT has in effect the Outdoor Advertising Control Program
which controls outdoor advertising along federal aid primary routes designated as
such prior to June 1, 1991 and along roads which are part of the National Highway
System (NHS). The proposed facility does not meet either of these criteria, so the
Outdoor Advertising Control program will not be in effect for this proposed
facility. However, no outdoor advertising will be allowed to encroach onto
NCDOT right of way.
Comment: Can the proposed intersection of Phifer Road and the proposed
facility be shifted to the west?
Response: Phifer Road is to be realigned in the vicinity of the proposed facility
to provide a more desirable intersection angle and, therefore, to provide better
sight distance. Shifting either road may result in the relocation of additional homes
and is not recommended.
Comment: Will there be detailed mapping showing the exact location of the
proposed alignment in relation to my property?
ReMonse: Detailed design mapping will be available for review once right of
way plans have been prepared. The NCDOT Right of Way Branch will contact
affected property owners once the right of way plans are complete.
Comment: Can the proposed alignment be shifted west in the Compact School
Road area in order to avoid two residences?
10
Response: Realignment of Dixon School Road in this area was investigated.
This realignment would require the relocation of 4 residences in the vicinity of the
proposed crossing at NC 216 and is therefore not recommended.
Comment: With a two year time period between parts A and B of the project
being constructed, how will that affect traffic on Phifer Road, especially during
drop off and pick up times at the schools on Phifer Road? Will traffic increase?
Instead of building the proposed facility, why not widen Phifer Road?
Response: Phifer Road will operate at LOS C when the project is opened to
traffic, and it will operate at LOS D in the design year (2015). The two year time
period for construction between parts A and B will not cause the traffic on Phifer
Road to be more than what is estimated for Phifer Road if parts A and B were
constructed and completed at the same time. Phifer Road is a two-lane road with
a left turn lane provided at each school. NCDOT has recommended the
construction of a right turn only lane for school traffic as part of the thoroughfare
plan planning process, and that proposal will be included in the updated plan.
Widening Phifer Road does not meet the purpose and need of providing a good
north-south connector between US 74 Business and Interstate 85. The purpose
and need for widening Phifer Road would have to be identified and addressed
under another project study.
Comment: It appears a driveway connection to the relocated Battleground
Avenue may be located too close to the proposed railroad bridge.
Response: Based on preliminary design, the driveway access currently shown
allows for adequate sight distance. During final design, NCDOT will review the
relocated driveway connections to insure there is adequate sight distance.
VI. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
There are no revisions to the Environmental Assessment.
VII. ONLY PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE WETLAND FINDING
There are no impacts to wetlands as a result of the project. It is anticipated that a
Nationwide Permit number 14 (minor road crossings) will be applicable at the proposed
crossing of Beason Creek.
-maw (2)

r 00000
/ m
eo l
000000
000000
/ u v
000*0
• m a, w '"
o?
? Oda ?
zJ `
o ( }
Z
W:)
0
?U
U
I.
w
p
a
c
w z _

xLLI a)
Q

d
as
F x F- O w
LLMZ u.

° J
m ?
a
Z x
m
Q
?
?
zpriW
aF?
Q O U f,<
00¢
ZNja:
z
F0 O } W
u o0M? ¢ O WwgCC

z
Nyz?
OAM
a
w?zco>
SN..wa
zF.12 ON= UI-
a: a:
4 a:
CO UJ
ZODZ
a?
? ? ??,
?.- °`?
bwf,s
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
mid P.O. BOX 1890
•' / WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO May 14, 1996
ATTENTION OF
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section ,
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
G
MAY 2 C 1996
50° !,
This is in response to your letter of March 8, 1996, requesting our comments
on the "Federal Environmental Assessment for Cleveland County, New Route, from
North of the 1-85/SR 2283 (Dixon School Road) Interchange to US 74 Business (Shelby
Road), Federal Aid Project Number STP-2283(1), State Project Number 8.2800801,
TIP Project R-2625" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199600976).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources, which
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. There are no
Corps projects which would be impacted by the proposed improvements. Enclosed are
our comments on the other issues.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
t t'-
y- C. Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering
and Planning Division
A-1
-2-
Copies Furnished (with enclosure
and incoming correspondence):
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
Mr. David Cox
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Post Office Box 118
Northside, North Carolina 27564-0118
A-2
May 14, 1996
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment for Cleveland County, New Route, from North of
the 1-85/SR 2283 (Dixon School Road) Interchange to US 74 Business (Shelby Road),
Federal Aid Project Number STP-2283(1), State Project Number 8.2800801, TIP
Project R-2625" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199600976)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis. Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section. at (9101251-4728
As noted on page 23 of the Environmental Assessment, Cleveland County does not
participate in the National Flood Insurance Program, but has Flood Insurance Rate
Maps and Study prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in
anticipation of future participation. From a review of Panel 300 of the July 1991
Cleveland County Flood Insurance Rate Map, the new roadway would cross Beason
Creek, an approximate study stream. We suggest that the crossing be designed so as
not to increase the upstream 100-year flood elevation by more than one foot.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Steve Chapin. Asheville Field Office,
Reaulatory Branch, at (704) 271- 4014
All work restricted to existing high ground will not require prior Federal permit
authorization. However, Department of the Army (DA) 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 your proposed project, including disposal
of construction debris. Specific permit requirements will depend on design of. the
project, extent of fill work within streams and wetlands areas (dimensions, fill amounts,
etc.), construction methods, and other factors.
It has been verified by a site visit that no wetlands appear to be involved, but the
crossing of Beason Creek will involve waters of the United States. At this point in time,
construction plans are not available for review. When final plans are complete,
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 those
plans for a project-specific determination of DA permit requirements. Any questions
concerning DA permits should be directed to Mr. Chapin.
A-3
?MEHT OF T
United States Department of the Interior
y O
7 S
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
?ggCH +8'9 Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
April 5, 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager of 1 G 1996
Planninq and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways DiViSl
WFC S
North Carolina Department of Transportation 010"
P.O. Box 25201 FNyR?
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
Subject: Federal Environmental Assessment for the proposed construction
of a new two-lane highway from north of the I-85/SR 2283 (Dixon
School Road) Interchange to US 74 Business (Shelby Road),
Cleveland County, North Carolina, TIP No. R-2625
In your letter of March 8, 1996, you requested our comments on the
subject document. The following comments are provided in accordance with
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e),
and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543) (Act).
According to the environmental assessment, this project will involve
constructing a new two-lane highway from north of the I-85/SR 2283
interchange to US 74 Business at SR 2031 west of Kings Mountain for a
distance of 2.9 miles. Two construction alternatives are evaluated--the
eastern and western alternatives. The western alternative is preferred
by the North Carolina Department of Transportation since it will displace
fewer residences and cost less than the eastern alternative. Neither
alternative will involve impacts to jurisdictional wetlands; however,
both alternatives involve impacts to jurisdictional waters of the United
States associated with the construction of a reinforced box culvert over
Beacon Creek. Neither alternative will involve stream modifications or
channel changes. The western alternative will result in the loss of
approximately 26.6 acres of upland habitat; the eastern alternative will
result in the loss of approximately 22.0 acres of upland habitat. The
purpose of the project is to improve safety, accommodate current and
projected traffic volumes, and provide a .more direct north-south route
between I-85 and US 74 Business on the western side of Kings Mountain.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) conducted a site visit on
April 2, 1996.
A-4
The Service has no objection to this project and believes the project
will not result in significant environmental impacts. However, we
encourage the implementation of the following measures in order to
minimize impacts to aquatic resources in Beacon Creek associated with
culvert construction: (1) riparian vegetation should be maintained
wherever possible (i.e., reduce canopy removal in or near streams); (2)
stringent erosion control measures should be implemented during all
construction activities to minimize downstream effects; (3) construction
of the culvert should allow for continuous flow in the creek and should
be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact water entering or
flowing in the stream to reduce.the likelihood of fish kills. Finally,
the culvert length should be minimized and should be placed below the
grade of stream channel to allow for the reestablishment of natural
substrate in the culvert.
The Service appreciates the fact that a survey was conducted for
federally listed species along the preferred alignment and concurs with
the "no effect" determination made regarding this project and-potential
impacts to the federally threatened dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastvlis
naniflora). In view of this, we believe the requirements of Section 7(c)
of the Act are fulfilled. However, obligations under Section 7 of the
Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this
identified action that may affect endangered or threatened species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action
is subsequently modified in a manner not considered in this review, or
(3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be
affected by the action.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any
questions regarding our comments, please contact Ms. Janice Nicholls of
our staff at 704/258-3939, Ext. 227. In any future correspondence
concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-93-055.
Sincerely,
/lam 0,
Nora A. Murdock
Acting Field Supervisor
CC:
Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
320 S. Garden Street, Marion, NC 28752
A-5
NORTH CARCLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
FM208 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
di ,C7 ;
APR s, RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003
04-16-96 ,
, PROJECT M.ANAG EM EN-,
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS '
MAILEO TO: FROM:
M.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION "qS. CHRYS BAGG=TT
WHIT W=98 fDIRcCTOR
PROGRAM )EV. ?RANCH N C STATc CL=ARINGHC US=
TRANSPORTATION 9L^G./I%lTFR-0-FF
PROJECT OESCRIPTT^N:
E`!V. ASSESS. - PROPOSED NEW RCUTEj FROM NORTH CF TIP I-85/SR 2293
(DIXON SCHOOL R0.) INTERCHANGE TO US 14 BUSINESS (SHELBY R^•)
TTP OR-2625
SAT MC 96E42200595 PROGRAM TITLE - ENV. ASSESS.
THE ASOVE PROJECT HAS 1EFN SUBMITTED TO THE KCRTH CAROLINA
INTFRGOVERNME!ITAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT CF THE PEVIEW THE FCLLCWING
IS SUBMITTED: ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVEC
(X ) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS9 PLEASE CALL IRIS OFFICE [phone].
Ep
C.C. REGION C
/G -
t? `? ?qqb
PQ? aoF
A-6
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
MEMORANDUM
?EHNFR
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: 96-0 New Route From I-85 and Dixon School Road to US 74 Near Kings
Mountain, Cleveland County
DATE: April 10, 1996
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has reviewed
the proposed information. The attached comments are for your consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
attachments
RECEIVED
APR I 0 10196
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
A-7
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Clayton, N.C.
DIVISION OF FOREST RESOURCES March 27, 1996
D)vi51vN of 1=oRe5TRy
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee - Office of Leg. Affairs
FROM: Don H. Robbins - Staff Forester 00)1/
SUBJECT: DOT EA for New Route From I-85 and Dixon School Road to US 74 Near Kings
Mountain in Cleveland County, N.C.
PROJECT: #96-0595 and TIP # R-2625
DUE DATE: 4-4-96
We have reviewed the above subject document dated February 1996 and have the following
comments:
1. Their recommended Alternative #1 will impact 26.7 acres of mixed pine/hardwoods.
2. It is hoped that the ROW Contractor will attempt salvaging of all wood products to
include pulpwood, chips, sawtimber and mulch.
3. Standing remaining trees outside of construction limits should be protected from any
construction damage.
PC: Warren Boyette - CO
Howard Williams - D 12
File
A-8
•„?? yr'
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resour
Division of Land Resources B
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT P"IEW 00KRENTS
WUllam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Project Number: County: C•v .

Project Name:
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.?C. Geodetic
Survey should be•contacted prior'to construction at P.O.- Box. 27687,
,Role' ; N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
etic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
• No comment
r
This projeclt will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality section at [phone].
4L "toe ..3/z 219 4"
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh. N.C. 27611-7687 a Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
A-9
5,1 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: April 1, 1996
SUBJECT: State Clearinghouse Project No. 96-0595, Environmental Assessment for New
Route from I-85/SR 2283 Interchange to US 74 Business, Cleveland County, TIP
#-2625.
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments on the
Environmental Assessment (EA) regarding the proposed new route from north of the I-85/SR
2283 (Dixon School Road) interchange to US 74 Business (Shelby Road). Biological field staff
of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission conducted a site visit on 11 February 1993.
These comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d.) and the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)).
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to construct a new two-lane,
2.9-mile highway to provide a more direct north-south route between I-85 and US 74 Business on
the western side of Kings Mountain. Approximately 26.6 acres of mixed pine and hardwood
forest, 19.1 acres of man-dominated lands, and 0.1 acre of riparian forest will be impacted by this
project. A double barrel reinforced concrete box culvert is proposed for the crossing at Beason
Creek. No wetlands will be impacted by this project.
Our site visit indicated that land use in the project area consists of agricultural, residential,
and industrial areas. This project should have minimal impacts on fisheries and wildlife resources;
therefore, we concur with the findings of the EA and would concur with a Finding of No
Significant Impact.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any
questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 704/6524257.
cc: Ms. Janice Nicholls, USFWS, Asheville
A-10
.State of:'North Carolina
.Department of fhVir6hment,
Hearth and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt-, Jr.,; Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Directo
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
From: :Eric Galam?
Subject: .;EA for Dixon. School Roal
Clevelarid County
State ;Project DOT No. 8.;
iEHNR # 96=0595, DEM #
The subject,docum6nt has been. reviewe
Managem6nt. (DE'M) :ts`responsible for 0
Certificattion for activitie$ which impact w
project will not impact ;wetlands and did
DOT is reminded that the -401 Certificati(
satisfied. Questions *arding the 401 C
1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environrm
cc: Asheville COE
Monica; Swihart
dixon.ea
1 8, 1996
Y T7T
C)E:HNR
, TIP # R-2625
1209
by this office. The Division of Environmental
issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality
5rs of the state including wetlands. The subject
rt quantify impacts to waters.
could be denied unless water ,quality concerns are
tification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-
al Sciences Branch.
A-11
P.O. Box 29535. Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Actlon Employer
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
50% recycled/ 10% post-conwmer paper
i
I
Mate of norm i 1J N .
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Project Number. Due Date:
IEW . PROJECT COMMENTS p S 4 5 4-44
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REV royals indicated may need to be obtained in
der d that the EHNR permit(s) andlor app
n determine
ter review of this project it hawit North Carolina Law.
for this project to Comply
stiona regarding these permits should be addressed the Regional Orin is ale lavai able from the same he form. Normal Process
lative to these plans and p
Je guidelines re Time
it applications, information and (statutory time
_ SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
egional Office.
30 tlays
PERMITS
permit to construct 3 operate wastewater treatment
discharging into AppllcaUOn 90 days before begin construction or award of
facilities. sewer system extensions, sate surface waters.
systems not discharging into NPDES • permit to discharge into surface water andlor
permit to Operas sand construct wastewater facilities waters'
construction contracts On-site inspection. Post•application
technical conference usual
Application 160 days before begin activity. On-site inspection.
Pre•aPPlication conference usual. Additionally.
after NPDES tRePIY
construct wastewater treatment facility-granted
time. 30 days alter receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
(90 days)
W-120 days
(NIA)
30 days
INIA)
7 days
(15 days)
55 days
(90 days)
Pre•aPplication technical conference usually necessary
Water Use Permit
Complete application must be received and permit issued
Well Construction Permit prior to the installation of a well.
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property
owner. On•siI in50eclion. Pre•apPliCatiOn conference usual. Filling
require. asement to Fill from N.C. Department of
Dredge and Fill Permit may ederal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Administration and F
NIA
Permit to construct Il operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities andlor Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 2tH.06
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in Compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing NIA
e
asbestos material must be in compliance with rI SA
20.0525 which requires notification and removal
NGAC l Group
prior tO demolition. Contact Asbestos Contro
919.733•VOXV.
Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800.
matron pollution Contre! Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion d sedrmentauc
ional Office (Land O;nCe Sect.) at least 30
art must accom an the Ian
The Sedrme
will be required it one or more acres to tDedBere and turbed. 520 Plan .00 for filed with each proper Re additional g acre or
control plan
da s before rnnrn do t . A tee of for the ti
n The Sedimentation t ation Pollution Control Act t of of 1973 must be addressed wilt' respect to the referrence^d Local d with EHNR. Bond arm area
t'on usual. Surety Do land Any
Mining Permit
North Carolina Burning Permit
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22
counties in Coastal N.C. with organic soils
all Refining Facilities
01 Dam Safety Permit
60 days
(90 days)
60 days
(90 days)
20 days
130.E days
t30 days)
30 astlY
(60 days)
1 day
(NIA)
1 day
(NIA)
90.120 days
(NIA)
On•stte inspec r ne number varies with tyre r^n o and re must of rmited)The appropriate bond
mined greater than one acre mu'bee pe? issued.
must be received before the Pe
On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources it permit
exceeds 4 days .
On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more
than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. inspections"
should be requested at least ten days before actual bum is planned.
NIA
It days before begin Construction. $0 days
application 60
permit required, 9 ra' .
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified en inser to: preps plans rov
o ram. And (60 days)
ruction is nder mosquitodco trd OrH g aP
inspect construction, certily c m tturu on is
ion of site is nece
ed plans. May also require Pe . must ac
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspectfee I
sary to verity Hazard Class1fiCatiOn. A mi'om ess rig u fee based on 8
the application. An additional p letion
company
percents a Or the total pro ect Cost will be required OO^?n '^ued on reverse

"'°' A-12
PERMITS
El Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well
D Geophysical Exploration Permit
State Lakes Construction Permit -
D 401 Water Quality Certification
D CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
Normal Process
Time
'
Istatutory time
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUIREMENTS limit)
File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C.
conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall upon
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit
Application by letter. No standard application forth.
Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include
descriptions 3 drawings of structure d proof of ownership
of riparian property.
NIA
$250.00 fee must accompany application
CAMA Permit for MINOR development I $50.00 fee must accompany application
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 15A, Subchapter 2C.0100.
10 days
(NIA)
10 days
(NIA)
15.20 days
(NIA)
60 days
(130 days)
55 days
(150 days)
22 days
(25 days)
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if -orphan- underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
45 day,
--I Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. (NIA)
* Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):
L 6L
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office
Place
dfi ? Fayetteville Regional Office
suite 714 Wachovia Building
28301
n
59 Woo
Asheville, NC 28801
- Fayetteville, NC
[phone]
[phone]
Mooresville Regional Office ? Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950
Mooresville, NC 28115 h, NC 27609
Rale Rarei
g/33NC 2
[phone]

? Washington Regional Office ? Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Exicnsion
1424 Washington, Carolina NC Avenue 27889
W Wilmington, NC 28405

[phone]
'
• [phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
A-13
[phone]
_vs
? r ANC.•
STATE OF NORTIi CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT) R. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGI I. N.C 27611-5201 GARLAND B. GARRETT JIL
GUVERNOR SECRrEARY
Apri123,1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: Secretary Garland B. Garrett, Jr.
FROM: L. L. Hendricks •?
Public Hearing Officer
Citizens Participation Unit
SUBJECT: Notice of a Public Hearing on Proposed New Route West of Kings Mountain
From North Of The 1-85/Dixon School Road Interchange To US 74 Business
(Shelby Road)
The following Notice is furnished for your information:
R-2625: It is proposed to construct a two-lane highway on multi-lane right of way
on new location.
LLH: jp
cc: Mrs. Ann H. Gaither, Board of Transportation Member
Mr. Larry R. Goode, P.E., Ph.D.
Mr. J. D. Goins, P.E.
Mr. B. G. Jenkins, Jr., P.E.
Mr. J. B. Williamson, Jr.
Mr. D. R. Morton, P.E.
Mr. C. W. Leggett, P.E.
Mr. L. K. Barger, P.E.
Mr. D. E. Burwell, Jr., P.E.
Mr. H. F: Vick, P.E.
Mr. G. T. Shearin, P.E.
Mr. W. R. Brown, P.E.
Mr. J. M. Lynch, P.E.
Mr. Bob Pearson, P.E.
Mr. Robert Mathes
Mr. Danny Rogers
Ms. Pauline Wright
Mr. Everett Ward
Mr. Ron Poole, P.E., Ph.D.
Mr. Dean Bridges, Right of Way Agent
FHWA
A-14
C

APR 2 4 1995
0iI?;zjC*,
s?
G1 i! ?.

0
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
ON PROPOSED NEW ROUTE WEST OF KINGS MOUNTAIN
FROM NORTH FHINSCHOOL ROAD INTERCHANGE
TO US 74 BUSINESS (SHELBY ROAD)
Project 8.2600801 R-2625 Cleveland County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will
hold the above public hearing on Tuesday, May 21, 1996 at
7:00 p.m. in the Kings Mountain High School Auditorium
located at 500 Phifer Road in Kings Mountain.
The hearing will consist of an explanation of the
proposed corridor alternatives, design, and right of way
requirements/procedures. The hearing will be open to those
present for statements, questions, comments, and/or submittal
of material pertaining to the proposed project. Additional
material may be submitted for a period of 10 days from the
date of the hearing to: L. L. Hendricks, NCDOT, Citizens
Participation Unit, P. O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611.
It is proposed to construct a two-lane highway on multi-
lane right of way on new location from north of the
I-85/Dixon School Road interchange to US 74 Business (Shelby
Road) - a distance of approximately 2.8 miles. The project
includes the realigning and/or extending several intersecting
roads with the proposed facility. A bridge will be
constructed over the Norfolk-Southern Railroad. Additional
right of way and the relocation of homes and businesses will
be required for this project.
Representatives of the Department of Transportation will
be available to discuss the proposed project with those
attending the public hearing. Anyone desiring additional
information may contact Mr. Hendricks at the above mailing
address, by FAX at [phone], or by telephone at
[phone].
Maps setting forth Alternate 1 - the preferred location
and design - and Alternate 2 are available for public review
in the Kings Mountain City Hall Lobby located at 101 West
Gold Street in Kings Mountain. A copy of the environmental
document - Environmental Assessment - is also available.
NCDOT will provide auxiliary aids and services for
disabled persons who wish to participate in the hearing. To
receive special services, please call Mr. Hendricks at the
above number to give adequate notice prior to the date of the
hearing.
A-15
DIXON
SCHOOL ROAD
EXTENSION
FROM NORTH OF. I-85/
DIXON SCHOOL ROAD INTERCHANGE
TO US 74 BUSINESS (SHELBY ROAD)
PROJECT. 8.2800801
TIP NO. R-2625
CLEVELAND COUNTY
COMBINED PUBLIC HEARING
KINGS MOUNTAIN HIGH SCHOOL
MAY 21, 1996
A-16
PURPOSE OF PROJECT
The proposed project will provide motorists a more direct north-
south route between I-85 and US 74 Business on the west side of Kings
Mountain. This will allow more efficient vehicle operation and reduced
travel times, resulting in road user cost savings. In addition, a grade
separated crossing will be provided over the Norfolk-Southern Railroad
as a safety feature.
PURPOSE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Tonight's hearing is one step in the Department of Transportation's
procedure for making you, the public, a part of the planning process.
The Department of Transportation is soliciting your views on the
two alternate locations and designs of the Dixon School Road Extension
project being presented this evening.
The Department of Transportation's views on the above project are set
forth in the environmental document - Environmental Assessment. A copy
of this report is available for review in the Kings Mountain City Hall,
City Clerk's Office, located at 101 West Gold Street in Kings.Mountain.
YOUR PARTICIPATION
Now that the opportunity is here, you
your comments and/or questions a part
Transcript. This may be done by havii
them on the comment sheet and leaving
submitting them in writing during the
Hearing.
are urged to participate by making
of the official Public Hearing
zg them recorded tonight, writing'
it in the designated location or by
10 days following the Public
Those wishing to submit written material may do so to:
Mr. L. L. Hendricks
Public Hearing Officer
Division of Highways
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Everyone. present is urged to participate in the proceedings. It is
important, however,,that THE OPINIONS OF ALL INDIVIDUALS BE RESPECTED
REGARDLESS OF HOW DIVERGENT THEY MAY BE FROM YOUR OWN. Accordingly,
debates, as such, are out of place at public hearings. Also, the public
hearing is not to be used as a POPULAR REFERENDUM to determine the
alignment and design by a majority vote of those present.
WHAT IS DONE WITH THE INPUT?
All input received through the public involvement process will be
reviewed and considered by the Administrative and Engineering staffs of
the Division of Highways for recommendations prior to final decisions
being made.
A-17
?O
0
w
i

I v
C
o
SOW
¢

V tY N
Q
J
m
oll
zOfa as ZW0OV¢
Ot?<
? oQQy
OZW
QL=m
V
e `
IQi.OWW`¢
Q
S >J
=
N L
03-3 W?
?
6
=FGV? ONS Qt-
cc
f WIN
W
0
_
=
2
PROJECT INFORMATION
Length 2.8 Miles
Typical Section Two Lanes; Each 12 Feet Wide;
Shoulders - 8 Feet Wide - 4 Feet Paved
Right of Way Minimum 150 Feet
Relocatees ALTERNATE 1 ALTERNATE 2
Residences'- 10 Residences - 20
Businesses - 1 Businesses - 2
Estimated Cost ALTERNATE 1 ALTERNATE 2
Right"of Way: $ 860,000 Right of Way: $ 1,076,000
Construction: 6,850,000 Construction: 6,700,000
------------ ------------
TOTAL $ 7,710,000 $ 7,776,000
Tentative Schedule B A
FROM US 74 BUSINESS FROM PHIFER ROAD
WEST OF KINGS MOUNTAIN TO 0.3 MILE NORTH
TO PHIFER ROAD OF I-85 INTERCHANGE
Right of Way: June, 1997 Right of Way: October, 1998
Construction: June, 1998 Construction: October, 2000
STATE-FEDERAL RELATIONSHIP
This proposed project is a Federal-Aid Highway Project and thus will be
constructed under the State-Federal Aid Highway Program. Financing of
this project will be 80% Federal Funds and 20% State Funds. The Board of
Transportation is responsible for the selection and scheduling of
projects on the Federal Aid System, their location, design, and
construction. The Board is responsible for 100% of the project's
maintenance cost after construction. The Federal Highway Administration
is responsible for the review and approval of the previously mentioned
activities to ensure that each Federal Aid Project is designed,
constructed, and maintained to Federal Aid Standards.
A-19
E o
o ch
Ol
E
v ?a
N ?

cc z 10 N

0

O O

Q

W
U
w
c)
.J
Q p

?
Q
C

O¢ a:

W
v ,
U p

a

w ?
C6 '
2
H
E -
v io
N .-
E_
?. a
Co
E
m
v

a
nCO
W
Cts
Q
N
0

Not to scale
A-20
M is a rypicw eaam* for a majorpro a The actual poces and public iWA&r nt AoPoAfflW are esrabfahed at an appropiate level for each project based on its complodry.
and may vary in accordance with federal and stare legal reQW&I nts) -indicates typical public participation opportunities (varies depending upon toKd c projec0

!L Develop Local Area 7boroughfaire 1Phn - Transportation Board members work with NCDOT
Study Initiation staff to update TIP
- Conduct initial field trip • - Release draft Transportation Improvement Program
- Meet with local policy boards and technical staff to the press, public and governments for review.
• - Conduct goals and objectives survey -Finalize TIP following comments
• - Establish local steering committee (upon local request) -'Board of Transportation adopts state TIP
• - Metropolitan Planning Organizations receive public
Data Collection comment and approve local TIP
- Collect socio-economic data {land use, population,.
traffic volumes andemployment data) ' _
Secretary of Transportation approves local TIPS

- Collect.transportation network data
M. Develop Doaueents
EnvinlainlienW
- Research environmental and cultural concerns Notify Public and Government Agencies of Project Study
- Receive input from various local area sources (needs, - Hold dozen infomnation workshops
.problems, concerns, etc.) ; • - Evaluate comments received at workshops
- local area develops future year socio-economic • - Form citizen's advisory group to get local citizens
forecasts involved (upon local request)
Data Analysis, Select corridors to be studied
- Model existing transportation network - Identify feasible corridors and evaluate costs and
- Generate design year transportation information environmental impacts
- Conduct deficiency analysis • - Hold information workshop on selected corridors
Discuss Findings with Local Area Policy Boards, Technical - NCDOT staff uses recommendations from local citizens,
governments and state agencies to prepare a draft
Public ,
Staff, and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental
- Discuss deficiencies with local area Assessment (EA)
- Discuss possible ahernative solutions Prepare Draft Environmental Document
Plan Development - Make draft EIS or EA, which addresses the impacts of
- Develop altemative plans each corridor, available to public and send to review
_ Review project impacts -agencies and local officials for comment
-Conduct cost-benefit analyses • - Hold public hearing on location of corridor (1 O-day
- Discuss altematives with local area staff and policy boards comment period follows public hearing)
• - Conduct public information workshop(s) - NCDOT holds post hearing meeting and a corridor is
recommended using technical data and information
- Discus and resolve public comments with local staff
received in conjunction with the public hearing
- Select recommended plan in cooperation with local _ Notify public of selected corridor
staff and policy boards prepare final Environmental Document
Plan Adoption - Begin preliminary design of highway in selected
- Local government conducts' public hearing(s) corridor {7}
?- Present plan for adoption by local government and the : If final /Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
North Carolina Board of Transportation required, send to State Clearinghouse (N.C. Dept
Plan Implementation of Administration) and federal'agencies for 30-day
- Local government. enforces land use controls. comment period
- Present project requests through TIP process - Send notification of Final EIS to Review 4gencies and
r U. Develop Transportation Improvement Federal Register -
Program ?7P? - Publish record of decision on preliminary design using
comments from public, review agencies and the FHWA
?- Local governments select priorities to include in.TIP . ,.
9' Hold public hearing on project design (10-day public
- Board of Transportation holds annual public meetings comment period follows public hearing) {1}
statewide to update the previous year's TIP - Hold post hearing meeting where any changes in
- Transcribe comments and material received at public design are made if necessary.
meetings, and submit to Transportation Board.
{1} Ttmestgzwecntnb+mdwithc=dori=wnformwsrnabrpr*m
? G311 Gt W ftet / sdlon !)wt [phone]
® QttPS't w North Carolina Departrnent of Transportation, P.O. Box 25201 Raleigh, N.C. 27611 211)96
-
_
A=21
COMMENT SHEET
Dixon School Road Extension
From North of I-85/Dixon School Road Interchange
To US 74 Business West of Kings Mountain
May 21, 1996
R-2625 Cleveland County Project 8.2800801
NAME:
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS:
Comments may be mailed to:
L. L. Hendricks, Public Hearing Officer
N. C. Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Telephone: [phone]
FAX: [phone] A-23
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4Y •
Division of Environmental Management
"'A
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor C
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary ? H N F=?k
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 8, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
From: Eric Galamb47
Subject: EA for Dixon School Road Extension
Cleveland County
State Project DOT No. 8.2800801, TIP # R-2625
EHNR # 96-0595, DEM # 11209
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of Environmental
Management (DEM) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality
Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands. The subject
project will not impact wetlands and did not quantify impacts to waters.
DOT is reminded that the 401 Certification could be denied unless water quality concerns are
satisfied. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-
1786) in DEM's Water Quality Environmental Sciences Branch.
cc: Asheville COE
Monica Swihart
dixon.ea
F W
APROa1996
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

D f Ei t H Ith A N t 1 R epartment onvronmen , rces
ea an a ura e
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affai
Project Review Form IL
Project Number: County: uate:
te -e- 0
Nuv Rw;t? -(Yw -74
AT, a4,,,e. Gy,
This project is being reviewed as indic ted below:
sou
? Project located in 7th floor library
rs r?
??aa
Date Response Due (firm deadline):
TIP *- R-

Regional Office/Phone It
Regional Office Area f
In-House Review
? Asheville ? All RIO Areas ? Soil and Water -? Marine Fisheries
ill
? F
t LP.ir ? Coastal Management ? Water Planning
ev
ayet
e kJ Water ? Water Resources ? Environmental Health
Mooresville IN?Groundwater Wildlife ? Solid Waste Management
? Raleigh Land Quality Engineer Forest Resources L I Radiation Protection
l
u Washington ?Recreationa! Consultant Land Resources ?David Foster
Coastal Management Consultant Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
? Wilmington ? Others ironmental ManagemenREC
,??? ENED
? Winston-Salem PWS Monica Swihart
RN
2 3 1996
1WVIR0NMFN
TAI SC,'E
?RAtd IFS
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager. -in-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? No objection to project as proposed ? 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 QConsistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked) ? Consistency Statement not needed
? 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 S substantive ? Other (specify and attach comments)
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attached/authority(ies) cited)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
FS 104
Cleveland County
New Route, from North of the I-85/3R 2283 (Dixon School Road) Interchange
To US 74 Business (Shelby Road)
Federal Aid Project Number STP-2283(1)
State Project Number 8.2800801
TIP Project R-2625
Administrative Action
Environmental Assessment
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Submitted pursuant to 42 U. S. C. 4332(2)(C)
2-28-9.1
Date mot H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager,
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
?i/Z ?fv
Date Ni hol . Graf
p%LIZDivis n Administrator, FHWA
Cleveland County
New Route, from North of the I-85/SR 2283 (Dixon School Road) Interchange
To US 74 Business (Shelby Road)
Federal Aid Project Number STP-2283(1)
State Project Number 8.2800801
TIP Project R-2625
Environmental Assessment
February, 1996
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
GGC c?E%?'?t?l/.L
Ed Lewis
Project Planning Engineer
?H CARp''•.,
6J?? 2t;;?l
J. Wi 1 on Stroud SSioq;'y9•.;
Pro' t Planning Unit Head
SEAL -
6916
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager ,,?''•;y •V.!NPRE?o`'?,,,
Planning and Environmental Branch •``'''?al+???•???
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
PAGE
I. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT .................................. 1
A. General Description of Project ............................ 1
B. Project Status and Historical Resume ...................... 1
C. Existing Conditions ....................................... 2
1. General Description .................................. 2
2. Existing Roads Connecting Interstate 85andUS74
Business .. ...................................... 2
3. Railroad Crossings ................................... 3
4. Route Classification ................................. 3
5. School Bus Data ....................................... 3.
D. Traffic Data .......................................... 4
E. Capacity Analysis ......................................... 4
F. Accident Analysis ......................................... 4
G. Project Terminals ......................................... 4
H. Thoroughfare Plan ... ..... . ... ................ 6
1. Benefits to the State, Region, and Community .............. 6
II. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS .......................................... 7
A. General Description ....................... 7
B. ................
Length of Project ............................ 7
C. .............
Cross Section .. 7
D. ...........................................
Design Speed ............................ 7
E. ..................
Right of Way

F. ............................................
Access Control ... 7
7
G. .........................................
Intersection/Interchange Treatment ........................ 7
H. Bridges and Drainage Structures ................... 8
I. ........
Railroad and Airport Involvement .................... 8
J. ......
Project Terminals ......................... 8
K. .........
Special Permits Required .... .................. 9
L. ........
Changes in the State Highway System ....................... 9
M. Multiple Use of Space ....................... 9
N. ..............
Bikeways .................................. 9
0 ................
Sidewalks
.
P ...............................................
Noise Barriers 9
.
Q. ... ... ................................
Anticipated Design Exceptions ..................... 9
9
R. ........
Degree of Utility Conflicts ...................... 9
S. .........
Cost Estimates 10
T. ... ............ .....................
Other Proposed Highway Improvements in the Area ........... 10
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................ 10
A. Recommended Improvements (Alternative 1) .................. 10
B. Design Alternative (Alternative 2) ........................ 11
C. Postponement of Proposed Action ........................... 12
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
PAGE
D. "Do Nothing" Alternative .... ........................... 12
E. Alternate Modes of Transportation ......................... 12
F. Thoroughfare Plan Alignment ............................... 12
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .................... 12
A. Social Effects ............................................ 12
1. Land Use ............................................. 12
a. Existing Land Use ............................... 12
b. Existing Zoning ................................. 13
C. Proposed Land Use .... ..... .. ........... 13.
d. Relation of Project and Proposed Land Use ....... 13
2. Neighborhood Characteristics ......................... 13
3. Relocatees ........................................... 14
4. Effects on Social Groups ............................. 14
5. Public Facilities .................................... 15
6. Social Impacts .. . .............................. 15
7. Historic and Cultural Resources ...................... 15
a. Architectural/Historical Resources 15
b. Archaeological Resources ........................ 16
8. Section 4(f) Resources ............................... 17
B. Economic Effects .......................................... 17
C. Environmental Effects ..................................... 17
1. Biological Resources ................................. 17
a. Terrestrial Communities ......................... 17
b. Aquatic Communities ....................... 19
C. Federally Protected Species ..................... 20
d. Federal Candidate Species ....................... 21
e. State Protected Species ......................... 21
2. Soils .............................................. 22
3. Wetlands ............................................
22
a. Permits ........................................ 22
b. Mitigation ...................................... 23
4. Flood Hazard Evaluation 23
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
PAGE

5. Water Quality ........................................ 23
6. Farmland ........... ............ ........ ........... 24
7. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis .... 24
a. Characteristics of Noise ........................ 25
b. Noise Abatement Criteria ........................ 26
C. Ambient Noise Levels .......... ..... ..... 26
d. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels .... 27
e. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis ................... 28
f. "Do Nothing" Alternative ........................ 30
g. Construction Noise ............................ 30
h. Summary ......................................... 30
8. Air Quality Analysis ................................. 30
9. Stream Modifications ................................. 33
10. Hazardous Materials .................................. 33
11. Geotechnical Impacts ................................. 34
12. Construction Impacts ................................. 34
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ...................................... 36
A. Comments Received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies.. 36
B. Citizen Informational Workshop ............................. 36
C. Public Hearing ............................................ 37
TABLES
Table 1 - Intersection Capacity Analysis ....................... 5
Table 2 - Anticipated Biotic Community Impacts ................. 20
Table 3 - One Hour CO Concentrations ........................... 32
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figures
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
- Vicinity Map
- Aerial Mosaic Showing Project
3A, 3B, 3C - Photos of Existing Conditions
- Thoroughfare Plan
- Projected Traffic Volumes
- Limits of 100-Year Flood
- Proposed Typical Section
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
PAGE
APPENDIX
Relocation Report .............................................. A-1
Discussion of Division of Highways Relocation Programs ......... A-3
Table N1 - Hearing: Sounds Bombarding Us Daily ................ A-5
Table N2 - Noise Abatement Criteria ............................ A-6
Figure N1 - Noise Measurement Sites ............................ A-7
Table N3 - Ambient Noise Levels ................................ A-8
Table N4 - Leq Traffic Noise Exposures ......................... A-9
Table N5 - FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria Summary ............... A-13
Table N6 - Traffic Noise Level Increase Summary ................ A-14
Table Al - CAL3QHC: Line Source Dispersion Model .............. A-15
Table A2 - CAL3QHC: Line Source Dispersion Model .............. A-16
Comments Received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies ...... A-17
Citizens Informational Workshop News Release .................... A-33
Citizens Informational Workshop Newspaper Article .............. A-40
Citizens Informational Workshop Handout ........................ A-34
Cleveland County
New Route, from North of the I-85/SR 2283 (Dixon School Road) Interchange
To US 74 Business (Shelby Road)
Federal Aid Project Number STP-2283(1)
State Project Number 8.2800801
TIP Project R-2625
SUMMARY
Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration Action, Environmental
Assessment.
Description of Action
The proposed project involves constructing a new, two-lane highway
from north of the Interstate 85/SR 2283 (Dixon School Road) interchange to
US 74 Business at SR 2031 (Elam Road) west of Kings Mountain, a distance
of approximately 2.9 miles (4.6 km) (see Figure 1).
The project is included in the North Carolina Department of
Transportation's 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and is
scheduled for right of way acquisition to begin in fiscal year 1997 and
construction to begin in fiscal year 1998.
The proposed action will provide a 24-foot (7.2 m) roadway on new
location with 8-foot (2.4 m) shoulders (4 feet (1.2 m) paved) and minor
realignments of intersecting roads. A grade separation will be
constructed for the proposed crossing of the Norfolk-Southern Railroad. A
double-barrel 10-foot (3.0 m) by 7-foot (2.1 m) reinforced concrete box
culvert is proposed for the crossing of Beason Creek. The proposed right
of way width is 150 feet (46 m), which will accommodate future widening to
multilanes if such widening becomes necessary.
The total cost of the improvements recommended in this document is
$7,710,000, which includes $6,850,000 for construction and $860,000 for
right of way acquisition. The TIP includes a total funding for this
project of $5,860,000 which includes $5,000,000 for construction and
$860,000 for right of way acquisition.
Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Environmental Impacts
The new facility will provide motorists a more direct north-south
route between Interstate 85 and US 74 Business on the western side of
Kings Mountain. This will allow more efficient vehicle operation and
reduced travel times, resulting in road user cost savings. In addition,
grade separated crossing will be provided over the Norfolk-Southern
Railroad which will physically separate vehicles and trains.
The project area is zoned; therefore, consideration of farmland
impacts are not required based on guidelines in the Farmland Protection
Policy Act. i?r °ct *0 ._-W8_]faC ,11 =be> f i l I ed as a res.ul t of the ,
The project will relocate approximately 10 residences and one
business. See page A-1.,through A-4 in the Appendix for a description of
the NCDOT's Relocation Policy and the relocation report. A total of
approximately 61 acres (24.7 ha) of right of way will be acquired in order
to construct the proposed improvements.
Alternatives Considered
The nature of this action, the construction of a new two-lane highway
approximately 2.9 miles (4.6 km) in length, limits viable build
alternatives to a narrow corridor. Alternatives considered for this action
included:
Alternative 1 (Recommended) - This is the westernmost alternative
considered. Starting approximately 0.3 mile (0.5 km) north of the
Interstate 85/Dixon School Road interchange, the proposed new route
will follow Dixon School Road for 0.1 mile (0.2 km) before proceeding
to the northwest on new location. The new route will cross SR 2305
(Compact School Road), NC 216 (Battleground Road), the
Norfolk-Southern Railway, SR 2263 (Margrace Road), SR 2256 (Phifer
Road), and Beason Creek before terminating at US 74 Business (Shelby
Road) at SR 2031 (Elam Road). See Figure 2.
Alternative 2 - This is the easternmost alternative considered.
Starting at the same point as Alternative 1, the proposed new route
would follow Dixon School Road for 0.7 mile (1.1 km) and would
include improving the poor horizontal alignment. The proposed new
route would then proceed on new location to the northwest just south
of the Dixon School Road/Goodall Drive (SR 2346) intersection. The
proposed new route would then cross NC 216, the Norfolk-Southern
Railway, SR 2263, SR 2256, and Beason Creek before terminating at
US 74 Business at SR 2031 (see Figure 2).
Postponement of Proposed Action - Construction of the proposed route
will provide a more direct north-south corridor and reduce travel
time between Interstate 85 and US 74 Business just west of Kings
Mountain. Postponement of the project would not achieve these goals.
Therefore, this alternative is not recommended.
Alternate Modes of Transportation - No alternate mode of
transportation is considered to be a practical alternative. Highway
transportation is the dominant mode of transportation in the project
area, and the project involves constructing a new road. Thus, this
alternative is not recommended.
Thoroughfare Plan Alignment - The alignment shown in the Proposed
Revised Thoroughfare Plan was eliminated from serious study due to
the higher right of way impacts and costs associated with improving
existing Dixon School Road from I-85 to NC 216. Such improvements
ii
would be necessary due to the poor horizontal alignment along Dixon
School Road (see Figure 4). For these reasons, this alternative is
not recommended.
Do-Nothing Alternative - Although this alternative would avoid the
limited adverse environmental impacts that are anticipated to result
from the project, It would not provide a more direct north-south
route between Interstate 85 and US 74 Business on the western side of
Kings Mountain. There would be no positive effect on the traffic
capacity of roadways in the area or improvements in traffic safety.
For these reasons, this alternative is not recommended.
Coordination
The following federal, state and local agencies and officials were
consulted regarding this project:
U.S. Department of the Army (Corps of Engineers)
U.S. Department of Agriculture (Soil Conservation Service)
U.S. Department of the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Emergency Management Administration
N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
Isothermal Planning and Economic Development Commission
Cleveland County Board of Commissioners
The Cleveland County Planner
The Mayor of Kings Mountain
Actions Required By Other Agencies
It is anticipated the proposed improvements can be performed under a
Department of the Army Nationwide Permit for Minor Road Crossing Fills.
Anticipated Design Exceptions
There are no anticipated design exceptions.
Summary of Environmental Commitments
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts. No jurisdictional wetlands are located in
the project area. A Nationwide Permit (33 CFR 330.5)(a)(14) will be
required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the crossing of Beason
Creek in accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). A 401 Water Quality Certification administered
through the N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
will also be required.
iii
Two abandoned historic period farmsteads (31CL20** and 31CL21**) were
found near the project area. These sites were determined to be
potentially eligible for listing on the National Register. The Phifer
Homestead (31CL20**) lies 700 feet (213 m) south of the APE (Area of
Potential Effect), and the Black Homestead (31CL21**) is located 300 feet
(91 m) north of the APE. Neither of these sites will be impacted by the
construction of the subject project; therefore, no further investigation
of the sites is recommended. However, if the proposed alignment is
shifted, additional studies will be required to determine whether these
sites will be affected by the project and whether they are eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
Also, in case of an alignment shift, the new right of way will be
surveyed for the presence of the protected species, the dwarf-flowered
heartleaf.
Further Information
The following persons can be contacted for additional information:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Telephone [phone]
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
Suite 410
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N. C. 27601-1442
Telephone [phone]
NOTE: "**" is a SHPO designation which identifies archaeological sites as
historic rather than prehistoric in nature.
iv
Cleveland County
New Route, from North of the I-85/SR 2283 (Dixon School Road) Interchange
To US 74 Business (Shelby Road)
Federal Aid Project Number STP-2283(1)
State Project Number 8.2800801
TIP Project R-2625
I. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
A. General Description of Project
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to construct
a new two-lane highway on multi-lane right of way on new location from
0.3 mile (0.5 km) north of the Interstate 85/SR 2283 (Dixon School Road)
interchange to US 74 Business at SR 2031 (Elam Road) west of Kings
Mountain. The project also calls for realigning and/or extending SR 2283,
SR 2305, NC 216, SR 2256, and SR 2315 where the proposed facility will
intersect with these roads. Also, a grade separation will be constructed
to carry the proposed facility over the Norfolk-Southern Railroad, and a
box culvert will be constructed at the Beason Creek crossing.
The project lies west of Kings Mountain in the southeastern part of
Cleveland County and is approximately three miles from the South Carolina
Border. The project vicinity is shown in Figure 1, and the proposed
improvements are shown in Figure 2.
B. 'Project Status and Historical Resume
The proposed relocation and extension of Dixon School Road is
included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation's
1996-2002 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and is scheduled for
right of way acquisition to begin in fiscal year 1997 and construction to
begin in fiscal year 1998.
The total cost of the improvements recommended in this document is
$7,710,000, which includes $6,850,000 for construction and $860,000 for
right of way acquisition. The TIP includes a total funding for this
project of $5,860,000, which includes $5,000,000 for construction and
$860,000 for right of way acquisition.
The purpose of this project is to provide motorists a more direct
north-south route between Interstate 85 and US 74 Business on the western
side of Kings Mountain. Currently, motorists must travel approximately
5 miles (8.1 km) along mostly secondary roads and through a 9-foot (2.7 m)
high by 18-foot (5.4 m) wide, one-lane, two way railroad underpass (via
SR 2352) in order to get from US 74 business to Interstate 85. The
proposed improvements will reduce the travel distance to approximately
2.9 miles (4.7 km), and the proposed grade separation will provide a
better crossing of the railroad. See also Section I. H., Benefits to the
State, Region, and Community.
2
C. Existing Conditions
1. General Description
Currently, the most direct route between Interstate 85 and US 74
Business in the project area consists mainly of a network of
secondary roads. From Interstate 85, motorists travel north along
Dixon School Road to NC 216, turn east and then north onto SR 2352
under the railroad. Motorists then turn to the west on SR 2263 and
travel for less than a mile before turning north onto SR 2258 (Ware
Road). Motorists travel for about one mile (1.6 km) before either
continuing on SR 2252 (Ware Road) or taking SR 2256 (Phifer Road) to
get to US 74 Business. This gives a total travel distance of
approximately 4.5 to 5.5 miles (7.2 to 8.9 km) between Interstate 85
and US 74 Business. These roads are two-lane facilities with poor
horizontal alignment with posted speeds of 35 to 55 mph (60 to
90 km/h) (see Figures 1 and 4).
The length of the proposed new route, which is described in
detail in Sections II and III, is 2.9 miles (4.7 km). Photographs of
existing conditions along the studied corridors are shown in Figures
3A, 3B, and 3C.
2. Existing Roads Connecting Interstate 85 and US 74 Business
Dixon School Road (SR 2283) between Interstate 85 and NC 216
(Battleground Road) is a two-lane road consisting of a 22-foot
(6.6 m) roadway and 6-foot (1.8 m) grassed shoulders. The existing
right of way width along Dixon School Road is 40 feet (12.0 m) and it
is symmetrical about the roadway centerline. From Interstate 85 to
Tin Mine Road (SR 2294), Dixon School Road has a posted speed of
45 miles per hour (mph) (70 km/h), while the rest of Dixon School
Road up to NC 216 is posted 35 mph (60 km/h). Dixon School Road has
four substandard horizontal curves located between Interstate 85 and
NC 216. Development along Dixon School Road is mainly residential in
nature.
10

NC 216 (Battleground Road) is an east-west route. It is a
two-lane road with a 22-foot (6.6 m) pavement and 6-foot (1.8 m)
grassed shoulders. NC 216 has good horizontal and vertical alignment
and a 55 mph (90 km/h) speed limit. Development along this section
of NC 216 is a mixture of small business and residential. •
SR 2352 is a short, north-south route which connects NC 216 with
SR 2283 (Margrace Road). It crosses under the Norfolk-Southern
Railroad and is basically a one-lane, two-way road.
SR 2263 (Margrace Road) roughly parallels NC 216 on the north
side of the Norfolk-Southern Railway in the project area. It has a
two-lane, 21-foot (6.3 m) pavement with 8- to 10-foot (2.4 to 3.0 m)
grassed shoulders and good alignment. The speed limit along this
road is an unposted 55 mph (90 km/h). Development along this route
is primarily small residential.
3
SR 2256 (Phifer Road) roughly bisects the project in an
east/west direction. The Kings Mountain Middle and Senior High
Schools are located on Phifer Road just east of the proposed highway
crossing. These schools have a combined enrollment of 2100 students.
The remaining development along this route is primarily commercial
near US 74, residential near the schools, and sparse residential to
the west. Phifer. Road has an existing 2-lane pavement (18 feet
(5.5 m) wide) in the project area and has 8-foot (2.4 m) grassed
_ shoulders. Phifer Road has a speed limit of 35 mph (60 km/h) inside
and 55 mph (90 km/h) outside the city limits.
SR 2258 and SR 2252 together are Ware Road. Ware Road is a
two-lane road which runs north-south and connects US 74 Business to
Margrace Road (SR 2263). It is rural in nature with some residences
located along it. The posted speed is 55 miles per hour (90 km/h).
It crosses Phifer Road approximately midway between US 74 Business
and Margrace Road.
3. Railroad Crossings
The subject project crosses Norfolk-Southern Railroad just north
of NC 216. This section of the Norfolk-Southern Railroad is part of
a rail line which was constructed between 1873 and 1877 to connect
Atlanta, Georgia to Richmond, Virginia. In the vicinity of the
project, this line consists of two tracks which parallel NC 216 and
SR 2263. The Hudson Switch Station is located in the vicinity of the
proposed crossing, along with two railroad signal structures. This
rail line carries 17 trains per day, including two Amtrak passenger
trains traveling at speeds in excess of 75 mph (120 km/h).
The grade separated railroad crossing of SR 2352 is located
approximately 400 feet (122 m) east of the existing intersection of
Dixon School Road and NC 216. Bridge Number 406 is the
Norfolk-Southern Railroad structure built in 1917 to carry the
railroad over SR 2352. This bridge has an estimated remaining life
of 5 years, and it is not scheduled for improvements in the NCDOT
Transportation Improvement Program. SR 2352 crosses under the
railroad and connects NC 216 with SR 2263. The vertical clearance is
9 feet (2.7 m), and the horizontal clearance is 18 feet (5.5 m).
This crossing is shown in Figures 3B and 3C. It is the only grade
separated crossing within two miles in both directions for the
4 Norfolk-Southern Railroad. This crossing will remain open under the
subject project.
4. Route Classification
Dixon School Road (SR 2283) is a Federal Aid Secondary Route.
It is designated as a Major Thoroughfare in the Kings Mountain
Thoroughfare Plan adopted by the City in 1980.
5. School Bus Data
The proposed highway crosses Phifer Road (SR 2256). The Kings
Mountain Middle and Senior High Schools are located on Phifer Road
just east of the proposed highway crossing. Phifer Road is the
primary route to and from the middle and high schools. School
4
buses from these schools are expected to use the proposed Dixon
School Road extension. Completion of the project will provide an
additional route for students, teachers, and parents coming from the
western and southern sections of Kings Mountain.
D. Traffic Data
Projected traffic volumes along the project for the year 1995 range
from 2600 vehicles per day (vpd) at the northern project terminal to 5600
vpd between NC 216 and SR 2263. Year 2015 volumes at these locations are
5,000 vpd and 8,600 vpd, respectively. Truck traffic will comprise 6
percent of the volumes. The design hour volume (DHV) is 10 percent of the
shown average daily volumes. Traffic volumes and turning movements are
shown in Figure 5.
E. Capacity Analysis
Mainline capacity analyses were not performed for the existing
two-lane roads that connect Interstate 85 with US 74 Business or the
entire two-lane highway proposed in this report. The capacity of the
proposed highway is a function of the level of service provided at each
intersection associated with this proposed route due to the proximity of
the intersections to each other. A mainline capacity analysis was
performed only for the estimated highest traffic section of the proposed
new route (between NC 216 and SR 2263). This section will operate at LOS
"C" in 2015.
The construction of the proposed route will create six new
intersections. Capacity analyses were performed for each new
intersection, except for SR 2305, which has nominal traffic. The analyses
were performed with proposed improvements in place for year 2015. The
proposed new route is assumed to be the north-south route and the
intersecting routes are assumed to run east-west. All intersections are
assumed to be under stop sign control, except for US 74 Business, which
will be signalized. The results of these studies are shown in Table 1
(see page 5). Each intersection is projected to operate at LOS C or
better in the year 2015.
F. Accident Analysis
An accident analysis was not performed on this yet to be built
facility. However, the proposed new route will provide better alignment
and wider lanes which will provide greater safety. An improved
grade-separated crossing will be provided at the Norfolk-Southern
Railroad.
G. Project Terminals
The southern project terminal is located approximately 0.3 mile
(0.5 km) north of Interstate 85 along Dixon School Road. The section of
Dixon School Road from Interstate 85 to the beginning of the project has a
24-foot (7.2 m) pavement with 8- to 10-foot (2.4 to 3.0 m) grassed
shoulders.
5
TABLE 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS (2015)
INTERSECTIONS WITH THE 2015 LOS
PROPOSED HIGHWAY
LANE INTERSECTION
LANE GROUP LOS
DIR GROUP* LOS
1. SR 2283 SB LT A
(Dixon School Road) WB LT B A
RT A
2. NC 216 NB LT A
(Battleground Road) SB LT A
EB LT F D
WB LT C
3. SR 2263 NB LT A
(Margrace Road) SB LT A
EB LT C
TH C C
RT A
WB LT D
TH C
RT A
4. SR 2256 NB LT-TH-RT A
(Phifer Road) SB LT-TH-RT A
EB LT C
TH C C
RT A
WB LT D
TH B
RT A
5. US 74 Business (Shelby Road)/ NB LT C
SR 2031 (Elam Road) TH D
RT B
SB LT-TH-RT D
EB LT D C
TH B
RT B
WB LT D
TH-RT B
* LT - Left turn, RT - Right turn, TH - through.
6
The proposed northern project terminal is located on US 74 Business
west of Kings Mountain at SR 2031 (Elam Road). At its intersection with
the proposed facility, US 74 Business (Shelby Road) is a four-lane divided
facility surrounded by a mixture of commercial, residential, and
industrial development. The speed limit on this road is 55 mph (90 km/h).
US 74 Business consists of two 24-foot (7.2 m) pavements, 10-foot (3.0 m)
grassed shoulders, and a 30-foot (9.0 m) grassed median.
Based on this analysis, the new route will operate at LOS D or better
through the design year.
H. Thoroughfare Plan
The most recent thoroughfare plan for Kings Mountain was approved by
the town on August 26, 1966. Since then, the thoroughfare plan study area
has been extended to include the proposed extension of Dixon School Road
from NC 216 to US 74 Bypass. At this time, no formal adoption by state or
local officials of an updated version of the thoroughfare plan has
occurred. The Proposed Revised Thoroughfare Plan for Kings Mountain,
prepared in October 1979, is shown in Figure 4. This plan shows the
proposed Dixon School Road extension located east of Alternatives 1 and 2
as presented in this document. It is anticipated that the thoroughfare
plan will be updated to show the new facility recommended in this document
rather than the proposed Dixon School Road extension from NC 216 to US 74.
The proposed Dixon School Road extension reflected in the Proposed
Revised Thoroughfare Plan does not include construction of a new highway
between I-85 and NC 216. Based on that proposal, existing Dixon School
Road would carry traffic between I-85 and the proposed Dixon School Road
extension. Under that proposal, it would be desirable to improve existing
Dixon School Road between I-85 and NC 216, which would result in greater
impacts to existing development and higher right of way costs. For this
reason, improving existing Dixon School Road between I-85 and NC 216 and
extending Dixon School Road from that point to US 74 Business is not
recommended.
I. Benefits to the State, Region, and Community
WAYMMary be # t hp p jeCt are economic ;n naGurae. The
proposed new route will provide a more direct north-south corridor and
reduce travel time between US 74 Business in Kings Mountain and
Interstate 85 to the south. This will reduce road user costs for
motorists. Currently, the travel distance from US 74 Business at' SR 2031
to Interstate 85 at Dixon School Road using the existing road network is
5.2 miles (8.3 km). The proposed improvement will decrease this travel
distance to approximately 2.9 miles (4.7 km). In addition, traffic on SR
2352 currently using a one-lane, substandard underpass of the
Norfolk-Southern Railroad between NC 216 and Margrace Road (SR 2263) will
be provided with an alternate grade separated crossing. This will improve
access between Interstate 85 and US 74 Business, benefitting the community
and the region. Also, the Kings Mountain Schools located on Phifer Road
will have more direct access to US 74, NC 216, and Interstate 85.
7
II. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. General Description
It is recommended that a new two-lane facility with a grade
separation over the Norfolk-Southern Railroad be constructed from north of
the Interstate 85 interchange with SR 2283 (Dixon School Road) to US 74
Business at SR 2031 (Elam Road) west of Kings Mountain. The proposed
improvements (Recommended Alternative 1) are shown in Figure 2.
B. Length of Project
The length of, the project is approximately 2.9 miles (4.7 km). This
length includes approximately 0.1 mile (0.2 km) of existing Dixon School
Road to be widened just north of Interstate 85 and 2.8 miles (4.5 km) of
construction on new location from north of Interstate 85 to US 74
Business.
C. Cross Section
It is recommended a two-lane, 24-foot
(2.4 m) shoulders (4 feet (1.2 m) paved) be
segment of the project, as well as for the
School Road to be widened (see Figure 7).
Norfolk-Southern Railroad will have a clear
(9.6 m), which will provide two 12-foot (3.6
shoulders.
D. Design Speed
(7.2 m) pavement with 8-foot
provided for the new location
segment of existing Dixon
The bridge over the
roadway width of 32 feet
6 m) lanes and 4-foot (1.2 m)
A design speed of 60 mph (100 km) is recommended.
E. Right of Way
The recommended right of way width in order to construct the project
is 150 feet (46 m). This width will accommodate widening the proposed new
route to a multi-lane facility if such widening becomes necessary in the
future. The approximate proposed right of way limits are shown in Figure
2.
F. Access Control
? <. ` .ko of access is proposed.
G. Intersection/Interchange Treatment
All roadway intersections will be at-grade. The intersection at
US 74 Business will be the only intersection with signal control. Left
and right turn lanes will be provided at intersections where necessary.
As shown in Figure 2, a half-mile long realignment of NC 216 (Battleground
Road) is recommended in the vicinity of the new route to allow an at-grade
intersection to be constructed at the junction of these roads. A grade
separation will be provided at the Norfolk-Southern Railroad crossing. A
1500-foot (457 m) section of Phifer Road (SR 2256) will also be relocated
to provide a better crossing with the proposed new route. SR 2283,
SR 2305, and SR 2315 will be extended and/or realigned to tie into the
proposed highway.
8
The project begins north of the Interstate 85/Dixon School Road
Interchange and will not include improvements to that interchange.
The project ends at US 74 Business across from SR 2031 (Elam Road).
SR 2315, located southwest of this proposed intersection, will be
relocated south to tie into the proposed new route away from the proposed
intersection (see Figure 2).
H. Bridges and Drainage Structures
There is one major stream crossing along the recommended alignment,
which occurs at Beason Creek, just south of US 74 Business. Based on
preliminary hydraulic analysis, the recommended structure is a double
barrel 10 foot (3.0 m) by 7 foot (2.1 m) reinforced concrete box culvert.
The recommended structure size may be increased or decreased to
accommodate peak design discharges as determined by detailed hydrologic
analysis during final design.
A grade separation will be constructed where proposed Dixon School
Road crosses the railroad. A bridge 150 feet (46 m) long, 32 feet (9.6 m)
wide (clear roadway width), and with a vertical clearance of 23.5 feet
(7.1 m) from the railroad bed to the bottom of the bridge structure is
proposed.
I. Railroad and Airport Involvement
The section of the Norfolk-Southern Railroad that crosses the project
is the southern extension of a proposed high speed rail corridor. This
extension, the Piedmont Crescent Subcorridor, is part of the Mid-Atlantic
High Speed Rail Corridor.
Based on the design year average daily traffic volumes on the
proposed new route (8600 vpd) multiplied by the 17 train crossings per
day, there is a calculated exposure index of 146,200. This exceeds the
minimum exposure index of 15,000 needed to justify providing a grade
separated facility.
For the reasons stated above, a grade separation is recommended at
the Norfolk-Southern Railroad crossing.
There are no airports in the vicinity of the project.
J. Project Terminals
The proposed improvements begin 0.3 mile (0.5 km) north of Interstate
85. In this area, existing Dixon School Road will be relocated to
intersect with the proposed new route in a "T" - type intersection. It
will be a stop sign-controlled intersection, with the proposed facility
having preferred right of way.
The proposed improvements will end at US 74 Business across from
SR 2031 on the west side of Kings Mountain. The "four-legged"
intersection will be controlled by a signal light.
9
K. Special Permits Required
A permit will be required from the US Army Corps of Engineers in
accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344). Based upon site location and the estimated acreage of
wetland involvement, it is anticipated the crossing of Beason Creek will
be authorized by Nationwide Permit (33 CFR 330.5) (a) mss)::.' A 401 Water
Quality Certification administered through the N.C.' Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources will also be required.
L. Changes in the State Highway System
A change in the state highway system will result due to the
construction of the proposed new highway.
M. Multiple Use of Space
There are no plans to utilize the right of way for any other purposes
except public utilities, which will be allowed use of the right of way
within certain limitations.
N. Bikeways
The need for special accommodations for bicycles along the project
has not been identified.
0. Sidewalks
The need for sidewalks along the project has not been identified.
P. Noise Barriers
Noise barriers are not recommended for this project (see Section
IV.7. of this report).
Q. Anticipated Design Exceptions
There are no anticipated design exceptions.
R. Degree of Utility Conflicts
The degree of utility conflicts for the proposed project is expected
to be low.
10
S. Cost Estimates
Estimated costs of the studied alternatives are as follows:
Alternative 1
(Recommended)
Structures
Roadway
$ 568,100
$ 5,386,900
Alternative 2
878,600
$ 4,951,400
Engineering & Contingencies $ 895,000 $ 870,000
Total Construction $ 6,850,000 $ 6,700,000
Right of Way, Utilities $ 860,000 $ 1,076,000
Total $ 7,710,000 $ 7,776,000
The difference in costs can be attributed to the longer bridge needed
and the greater number of relocatees displaced under Alternative 2. Under
Alternative 1 (Recommended), roadway costs are higher, as expected, due to
more of the proposed facility being on new location.
T. Other Proposed Highway Improvements in the Area
Currently, there is one other TIP project in the area, abridge
replacement project (TIP Project B-2817), which is located 1.Z miles
(2.7 km) south of the Interstate 85/Dixon School Road interchange on SR
2245 over Kings Creek. TIP Project B-2817 is scheduled for right of way
acquisition and construction to begin in fiscal year 1996 and 1997,
respectively, and will have no effect on the subject project.
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Recommended Improvements (Alternative 1)
The proposed project involves constructing a two-lane highway on new
location from north of the Interstate 85/SR 2283 (Dixon School Road)
Interchange to US 74 Business at SR 2031 (Elam Road) west of Kings
Mountain, a distance of approximately 2.9 miles (4.7 km) (see Figures 1
and 2).
Starting on Dixon School Road approximately 0.3 mile (0.5 km) north
of Interstate 85, NCDOT proposes to widen 0.1 mile of existing Dixon
School Road to a two-lane, 24-foot (7.2 m) wide roadway with 8-foot
(2.4 m) shoulders (4 feet (1.2 m) paved) within a 150 foot (46 m) right of
way (this will allow for future multilane widening). The proposed route
will veer to the west and north on new location for 2.8 miles (4.5 km)
until it terminates at US 74 Business west of Kings Mountain. This
proposed route will intersect with SR 2305 (Compact School Road), NC 216
(Battleground Road), SR 2263 (Margrace Road), SR 2256 (Phifer Road), and
SR 2315. The project also calls for realigning and/or extending SR 2283,
NC 216, SR 2256, and SR 2315 where those roads intersect the proposed
facility.
11
A bridge 150 feet (46 m) long and 32 feet (9.6 m) wide (clear roadway
width) is planned to carry the proposed route over the Norfolk-Southern
Railroad, and a double barrel 10 foot (3.0 m) by 7 foot (2.1 m) reinforced
concrete box culvert will carry the proposed route over Beason Creek.
?,=.N9 wetlands will -beimpacted by this. alternat:i' e. Approximately 61
acres of right of way will be acquired under this alternative. One
business and 10 residential relocatees are anticipated under this
alternative. The total cost of this alternative is $7,710,000, which
includes $6,850,000 for construction and $860,000 for right of way.
Consideration was given to shifting the alignment in the area of
SR 2305 to the west to avoid impacts to a nearby residential neighborhood.
Currently, it is anticipated that two residences in this area will be
relocated as a result of the subject project. This shift in alignment
would utilize less of existing Dixon School Road at the beginning of the
project and would shift the project terminal to the south. This would .
increase costs, as well as introducing a sharper curve at the beginning of
the project than what is proposed. The shift in alignment would also
introduce a more skewed crossing of the Norfolk-Southern Railroad which
would require a slightly longer bridge. This alignment would also
relocate four residences in the Battleground Road (NC 216) area. Shifting
the alignment to avoid the neighborhood in the area of SR 2305 would
introduce more impacts to other areas of the project and increase costs;
therefore, no further consideration was given to shifting the alignment.
B. Design Alternative (Alternative 2)
Alternative 2 is generally located east of Alternative 1. Starting on
Dixon School Road approximately 0.3 mile (0.5 km) north of Interstate 85,
this alternative would widen Dixon School Road to a two-lane, 24-foot
(7.2 m) wide roadway with 8-foot (2.4 m) shoulders (4 feet (1.2 m) paved)
within a 150 foot right of way (this would allow for future multilane
widening). This alternative would follow Dixon School Road for
approximately 0.7 mile (1.1 km) to SR 2294 (Tin Mine Road) and would
include improving the existing poor horizontal alignment. At SR 2294,
this alternative would veer to the northeast, cross existing Dixon School
Road south of SR 2346 then veer to the northwest on new location for
2.1 miles (3.4 km) until it terminates at US 74 Business west of Kings
Mountain to give a total project length of 2.8 miles (4.5 km). This
alternative would intersect NC 216 (Battleground Road), SR 2263 (Margrace
Road), and SR 2256 (Phifer Road) on new location. SR 2294 (Tin Mine
Road), NC 216 (Battleground Road), SR 2256 (Phifer Road) and SR 2315 would
be realigned, and Compact School Road and Mt. Olive Church Road would be
extended, to intersect this facility. The proposed route would cross over
the Norfolk-Southern Railroad and SR 2263 by means of a grade separated
structure 250 feet (76.2 m) long and 32 feet (9.6 m) wide (clear roadway
width). A two-lane, two-way road would be constructed for access between
the new highway and SR 2263. Under this alternative, a double barrel 10
foot (3.0 m) by 7 foot (2.1 m) reinforced concrete box culvert would carry
the proposed route over Beason Creek. See Figure 2 for a map of the
proposed improvements under Alternative 2.
12
Q
S"WaJfd be 'impacted b r -thi's 'alternative. Approximately 57
acres WgWhtof,w"ay would be acquired under this alternative. There are
2 business relocatees and 20 residential relocatees under this
alternative. The total cost of this alternative is $7,776,000, which
includes $6,700,000 for construction and $1,076,000 for right of way.
Alternative 2 is not recommended because it would displace more
residents, cost more to build, and affect a more disproportionate number
of minorities (see relocatee reports for Alternatives 1 and 2 on pages A-1
and A-2).
C. Postponement of Proposed Action
Construction of the proposed route will provide a more direct
north-south corridor and reduce travel time between Interstate 85 and
US 74 Business just west of Kings Mountain. Postponement of the project
would not achieve these goals. Therefore, this alternative is not
recommended.
D. "Do Nothing" Alternative
Although this alternative would avoid the limited adverse
environmental impacts that are anticipated to result from the project, it
would not provide a more direct north-south route between I-85 and US 74
Business on the western side of Kings Mountain. There would be no
positive effect on the traffic capacity of the area or improvements in
traffic safety. For these reasons, this alternative is not recommended.
E. Alternate Modes of Transportation
No alternate mode of transportation is considered to be a practical
alternative. Highway transportation is the dominant mode of
transportation in the project area, and the project involves constructing
a new road. Thus, this alternative is not recommended.
F. Thoroughfare Plan Alignment
The alignment shown in the Proposed Revised Thoroughfare Plan was
eliminated from serious study due to the higher right of way impacts and
costs associated with improving existing Dixon School Road from I-85 to
NC 216. Such improvements would be necessary due to the poor horizontal
alignment along Dixon School Road (see Figure 4). For these reasons, this
alternative is not recommended.
IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Social Effects
1. Land Use
a. Existing Land Use
The proposed roadway extension is located in an area in
slow transition from rural to suburban development. Pockets of
residential subdivisions are scattered throughout agricultural
13
fields and forested areas. A middle school and senior high
school are located just east of the project area on Phifer Road
(SR 2256). At the southern end of the project is a residential
community centered around Mt. Olive Church and accessed from SR
2283. Land use along NC 216 in the vicinity of the two design
alternatives includes low density residential uses fronting the
roadway. Other developed areas include a small residential
development along SR 2259, just west of Alternative 2.
Both alternatives will impact large fruit tree orchards
located along SR 2256.
b. Existing Zoning
The proposed extension is located within the planning and
zoning jurisdiction of the City of Kings Mountain. The City
adopted the Kings Mountain Land Use Plan in May 1995. The City.
worked with the Centralina Council of Governments to update
their original plan, which was adopted in 1974. The City also
enforces a zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations, which
were also revised after adoption of the new land use plan.
Virtually the entire project area, including both
alternatives, is zoned R-20, a low density residential district.
The only exception is a General Business district at the
project's northern terminus at US 74 Business.
C. Proposed Land Use
The section of the project north of Phifer Road is
designated for future residential development in the 1995 land
use plan. Otherwise, according to local planning officials, the
project area is expected to remain primarily rural residential
and agricultural uses.
d. Relation of Project and Proposed Land Use
Although the proposed project may adversely affect some
individual businesses and undeveloped properties in the project
vicinity, it is anticipated the project will not have a
detrimental effect on the existing land use, in general.
Development may be encouraged by improved accessibility.
2. Neighborhood Characteristics
The proposed project is in Cleveland County. Cleveland County is
in the southwestern section of the state and is bounded by the State
of South Carolina and Rutherford, Burke, Lincoln, and Gaston
Counties. It has a population of 84,714 (taken from 1990 US Census).
The racial composition of Cleveland County consists of 66,362 whites
compared to 18,352 nonwhites. It has a population density (persons
per square mile) of 182.44.
The proposed project is near the town of Kings Mountain. The
1990 US Census indicates that Kings Mountain has a population of
8,763.
14
Alternative 1 begins on the north side of Interstate 85 on Dixon
School Road. Alternative 1 follows Dixon School Road for 0.1 mile
(0.2 km), then heads northwesterly on new location. In the area of
SR 2305, Alternative 1 crosses the western edge of a minority
neighborhood. An old farm exists on NC 216 in the vicinity of
Alternative 1. Alternative 1 bridges over the Norfolk-Southern
Railroad as it makes its way to the north while curving gently to the
east, running in a'northeasterly direction on new location through
woodlands until it comes to the end of the proposed action at US 74
Business.
Alternative 2 begins at the same place as Alternative 1 on Dixon
School Road. It follows Dixon School Road until Dixon School Road
intersects with SR 2294. Alternative 2 then goes on new location,
curving to the north and crossing through and impacting a minority
neighborhood as it crosses Dixon School Road just south of SR 2346.
Alternative 2 bridges over the Norfolk-Southern Railroad and
continues to go in a northerly direction across woodlands until it
reaches the northern project terminal at US 74 Business.
3. Relocatees
Alternative 1 (Recommended) is anticipated to displace 10
residences and 1 business. Nine of the relocatees are owners; three
are minorities. Alternative 2 is anticipated to displace 20
residences and 2 businesses. Thirteen of the relocatees are owners;
nine are minorities.
Neither Alternative 1 (Recommended) nor Alternative 2 will
displace any farm or farm operation, schools, churches, public
buildings, or other institutional structures.
It is anticipated adequate replacement housing will be available
for homeowners, and the proposed improvements will not cause a
shortage of rental property in the area. No special relocation
services are expected to be necessary for the displacees as no large
families, elderly or disabled persons, or low income groups will be
affected. Based on the local real estate market, multiple listing
service, and the area newspaper listings, sufficient replacement
housing is anticipated to be available for all displacees in the
project area. The opportunity exists for rentals to become available
and for tenants to become owners. Compensation will be made available
to qualified tenants who wish to purchase instead of rent property.
Relocation reports for Alternatives 1 and 2 are included in the
Appendix (see pages A-1 and A-2) .
For a review of the NCDOT Relocation Assistance Programs, refer
to the Appendix, pages A-3 and A-4.
4. Effects on Social Groups
In compliance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income
Populations), a review was conducted to determine whether minority or
low-income populations will receive disproportionately high and
15
adverse human health or environmental impacts as a result of this
project. The investigation found the project will not
disproportionately, impact any minority populations. Reliable income
levels for persons affected by the proposed improvements were not
available.
The 1990 Census data reflects Cleveland County's population as
predominately white (78.3%), with 21.7% being of minority descent.
Alternative 2 would require the relocation of nine minorities, or 41%
of the total relocatees, which is a disproportionate number.
Alternative 1 (Recommended) will require the relocation of three
minorities, or 27% of the total relocatees. Alternative 1
(Recommended) displaces fewer minorities than Alternative 2 and is
more proportionate based on the existing population make-up of
Cleveland County.
The 1990 Census data also reflected that 11% of persons in
Cleveland County were living at or below the poverty level. Based on
U. S. Government figures, a family of three whose yearly income is
$12,072 or less is considered to be at the poverty level. Although
the relocation reports included in the Appendix show estimated
relocatee income levels, no yearly income figures are available for
those residents affected by the proposed project. Alternative 1
(Recommended) impacts fewer persons than Alternative 2.
5. Public Facilities
Public facilities in the project area include several schools,
several churches, and a county-operated recycling center located on
Margrace Road. They will not be adversely impacted by the proposed
action.
6. Social Impacts
The proposed project will have a positive overall impact in that
it will provide a more direct route between I-85 and US 74 Business.
The economy could grow because of secondary development that could
result from this new highway facility. In addition, existing
businesses in the area will benefit from improved access.
The subject project also will provide a more direct and safer
route for school buses and emergency vehicles.
7. Historic and Cultural Resources
a. Architectural/Historical Resources
Numerous brick and frame bungalows and cottages, dating
from the 1920s and 1930s, are located on the south side of
Battleground Road (NC 216) and the north and south sides of
Shelby Road (US 74 Business). Only one structure, the McSwain
House, predates the bungalows. Located at 1708 Shelby Road, the
McSwain House is an early twentieth century, two-story, frame,
gable-roofed dwelling with weatherboard siding, two exterior
chimneys, and six-over-six windows. The house and two
outbuildings are located on the north side of Shelby Road.
16
The McSwain House and the bungalows are not eligible for
the National Register because they are not significant examples
of the forms that they represent.- The McSwain House has
numerous additions to the rear and an integrity-reducing
attached front porch. The bungalows are lackluster
representatives of the Craftsman style which was popular in the
1920s, or they are Recovery era houses which have less stylistic
elements than the 1920s houses such as the reduced roof eaves,
ornamentation, and paucity of materials.
The NCDOT and the FHWA have determined that there are
several structures older than fifty years of age within the Area
of Potential Effect (APE) of the project, but that they are not
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places. The State Historic Preservation Office reviewed the
project and concurred with this finding (see Appendix,
page A-25). No further compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act or Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act is required.
b. Archaeological Resources
An archaeological survey of the proposed construction areas
was completed by an NCDOT archaeologist on February 23-24 and
March 1-2, 1993. Survey work consisted of surface reconnaissance
and shovel testing at 50-75 ft (15-23 m) intervals within the
project corridor. This inspection resulted in the location of
one twentieth century site (31CL19**) located within the APE.
An archaeological assessment of this site determined that
information potential of this site is limited and that this site
is not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places; therefore, no further work is required.
Two abandoned historic period farmsteads (31CL20** and
31CL21**) were also found near the project area. The Phifer
Homestead (31CL20**) lies 700 ft (213 m) south of the APE, and
the Black Homestead (31CL21**) is located 300 ft (91 m) north of
the APE. Both sites were determined by FHWA and NCDOT to be
potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places; however, both are outside the area of potential
effect of the project. Therefore, no further investigation of
the sites is recommended. Sites 31CL20** and 31CL21** are
associated with early settlement in Kings Mountain and may have
the potential to contain significant information about this
period of time in the western Piedmont Region of North Carolina.
If the alignment of the proposed alternative changes, these
sites will need to be evaluated to determine if they will be
affected by construction of the subject project and if they are
eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic
Places.
No further compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act or Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act is required for the archaeological resources.
The State Historic Preservation Office reviewed the findings and
concurred (see Appendix, page A-24).
17
8. Section 4(f) Resources
No impacts to Section 4(f) properties will result from the
subject project.
B. Economic Effects
According to the NC State Employment Security Commission, in the
month of August 1994, Cleveland County had a total labor force of 45,320.
Out of that total, 42,910 persons were gainfully employed. This left an
unemployment total of 2,410, or 5.3 percent.
The proposed new highway will have positive impacts on the economy:
it will provide a direct route from I-85 to US 74 Business. This means
that service and goods can be transported between the two major highway
facilities with improved safety and efficiency. The subject project could
encourage economic growth for the general area.
The proposed new highway will probably have a positive economic
impact on employment and the construction and trade industries during its
construction. There is a possibility that some of the construction workers
will be hired from Kings Mountain and Cleveland County. In addition, it
can also be surmised that some of the materials to be used in the
construction process will come from Cleveland County. These factors will
help to boost the economy of Cleveland County.
C. Environmental Effects
1. Biological Resources
Major vegetative associations and land-use patterns are defined
in an integrated ecosystem approach which includes floral, mammalian,
avian, reptilian, fish, and amphibian components. Distribution and
composition of three biotic communities throughout the project area
reflect the topographic positioning, hydrologic influences, and past
and present land use practices.
a. Terrestrial Communities
Three biotic communities were identified in the project
area: Man-dominated, Mixed Pine/Hardwood, and Riparian Fringe.
The following profile descriptions, where applicable, have been
adopted and modified from the NCNHP classification scheme
(Schafale and Weakley 1990). Fauna sighted in the study area is
denoted by an asterisk.
Man-Dominated
Man-dominated lands are intensively managed where man's
structures or activities preclude natural plant succession.
Peach orchards, fallow fields, and residential and commercial
development comprise this community type.
18
Roadside shoulders, maintained by mowing, give rise to a
rich assemblage of herbaceous plants. Lawn grass (Festuca spp.)
is prevalent with some encroachment of Queen Anne's lace (Daucus
carota), chickory (Cichorium int_ybus), and dandelion (Taraxacum
officinale). These same herbaceous plants may be found in
fallow fields and along the edges of peach orchards.
Man-dominated communities adjacent to forested tracts
provide rich ecotones for foraging, while the forests provide
forage and cover. Common mammals tied to ecotones are the
woodchuck Marmota monax) least shrew (Cr ototis parvvaa)
southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina caro inensis hispid
cotton rat (Sigmodon his idus), and eastern cottontails
(Sylvilagus floridanus).
Rural, open areas and adjacent forested areas support a
myriad of bird life. Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus),
robin (Turdus migratorious), wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina),
northern cardinal (Cardinal cardinalis), common grackle
( uiscula quiscula), turkey vulture Cathartes aura), and
red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) are birds sighted in the
study area. Although red-tailed hawks prefer to feed in upland
habitats, they frequently nest in flood plains. Other common
inhabitants are the mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), common
flicker (Colaptes auratus), Carolina chickadee
(P. carolinensis), tufted titmouse (P. bicolor), and American
goldfinch (Carduelis tristis).
The eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus) inhabits
open, sunny situations, such as building sites, and fence rows.
American toad (Bufo americanus) and box turtle (Terrapene
caroline) are very common reptiles that may inhabit
man-dominated areas, while the slimy salamander (Plethodon
glutinosus) is the most likely amphibian to be found under logs,
stones, and leaf litter.
Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest
Large tracts of Mixed Pine-Hardwood forest make up the
study area, interspersed with hardwood pockets. Virginia pine
(Pinus virginiana), loblolly pine (P. serotina), and some
scattered white pine (Pinus strobus) share the canopy with tulip
tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), white oak ( uercus alba), red
oak (L rubra), scarlet oak (L coccinea), and black oak (g
velutina). The understory consists of dogwood (Cornus florida),
blueberry (Vaccinium sp.), sourwood (Oxydendron arboreum),
bladdernut (Staphylea trifolia), and red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana). The herbaceous layer supports pipsissewa
(Chimaphila maculata), ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron),
braken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans). Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera Japonica) and
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) are the most
common vines present.
19
Upland forests of the area are fragmented and are adjacent
to man-dominated areas; thus, the faunal component is similar to
what occurs in man-dominated areas. Species more frequently
associated with upland forests are the white-tail deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis
pennsylvanicus), white-footed mouse (Perom_yscus leucopus), and
eastern chipmunks (Tamias striatus). Numerous eastern box
turtles were noted.
Riparian Fringe
Narrow strips of riparian forest border the banks of many
of the small creeks in the study area. Dominant canopy species
found here include box elder (Acer ne undo), sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), hickory (Carya sp.), and black locust (Robi nia
pseudo-acacia). The mid-story and shrub layer are composed
primarily of saplings of the canopy species. Blackberry (Rubus.
sp.) is also prevalent. The herb layer is sparse due to season,
but the following weedy species were noted: poison ivy,
bittercress (Cardamine sp.), pokeweed (Phytollaca americana),
and chickweed (Stellaria media).
Riparian communities provide a variety of opportunities for
wildlife. Such mammals as beaver (Castor canadensis), mink
(Mustela vison), and raccoons (Procyon lotor) inhabit these
sites, as well as mammals forced from upland sites due to
development pressures. Commonly occurring reptiles. and
amphibians are the spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), green frog
(Rana clamitans), pickerel frog (R. palustris), northern dusky
salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), two-lined salamander (Eur_ycea
bislineata), and rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta).
b. Aquatic Communities
The primary waterbody in the project area is Beason Creek.
Fish likely to be found in these cool waters and tributaries are
the rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), bluehead chub
(Nocomis leptocephalusfieryblack shiner (Notropis
pyrrhomelas), yellowfin shiner .(N. lutipinnis), creek chub
(Semotilus atromaculatus), white sucker (Catostomus commersoni),
redbreast sunfish (Le omis auritus), and bluegill (L.
macrochirus) (pers. comm. Chris Goudreau, NCWRC Fisheries
Biologist).
Amphibians, in particular, are highly water-dependent for
completion of larval stages in their life cycle. Some species
are totally aquatic. Some water dependant salamanders likely to
occur in the project area are the northern dusky salamander
(Desmognathus opacum), two-lined salamander (Eurycea
bislineata), and the three-lined salamander (Eur_ycea
guttolineata). Tadpoles and adult bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana),
greenfrogs, and spring peepers are common in and along streams,
as are snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina) and painted
turtles (Chrysemys pitta).
20
Calculated impacts to natural communities reflect the
relative abundance of each system present in the study
corridors. Table 1 summarizes potential losses which could
result from the two alternatives studied. Calculations are
based on a right of way width of 150 feet (46 m). Values are
reported in hectares (acres).
Table 2. ANTICIPATED BIOTIC COMMUNITY IMPACTS
BIOTIC COMMUNITY
Man-dominated
Mixed Pine/Hardwood
Riparian Fringe
Total
ALTERNATIVE
1 2
ha / (ac)
7.7 (19.1)
10.8 (26.6)
<0.1 (0.1)
18.6 (45.8)
ha / (ac)
4.9 (12.3)
8.9 (22.0)
<0.1 (0.1)
13.9 (34.4)
Impacts due to the proposed widening will result in the
creation of new habitat and in the alteration and elimination of
previously existing habitat. Subterranean, burrowing,-and slow
moving organisms will be eliminated. Larger, faster animals are
vulnerable to displacement. Creation of a "highway barrier" can
affect both short-term migrations (diurnal, nocturnal) and long
term migrations (seasonal) of animal populations, depending on
individual species' requirements for food, water, and cover.
Animal migrations may also be interrupted due to vehicular
noise. Road-kills will decrease numbers of individuals of
certain species.
Dredging, filling, pile-driving operations, slope
stabilization, and land clearing are construction activities
which can result in the direct loss of benthic organisms due to
an increase in silt load. The removal of benthic organisms
reduces the potential food supply for fish and other
vertebrates. Siltation has many adverse impacts on fish and
benthos in that it: decreases the depth of light penetration;
inhibits plant and algal growth (food sources); clogs the
filtration apparatus of filter-feeding benthos and the gills of
fish; buries benthic organisms on the bottom, cutting them off
from a food source; adversely effects preferred benthic
substrate; and spoils downstream spawning beds for fish.
Stringent employment of Best Management Practices is highly
advocated during the construction phase of this project to
lessen impacts to aquatic organisms.
C. Federally Protected Species
Federal law requires that any species federally classified
as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT), is protected from any action which has
21
the potential to have a detrimental impact to the survival and
well being of said species under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The
FWS lists the federally Threatened dwarf-flowered heartleaf
(Hexastylis naniflora) for Cleveland County as of March 28,
1995.
Hexastylis naniflora (dwarf-flowered heartleaf) T Plant
Family: Aristolochiaceae
Federally Listed: April 14, 1989
Flowers Present: mid-March - mid-May
Distribution in N.C.: Burke, Catawba, Cleveland,
Lincoln, and Rutherford Counties.
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf is found only in eight
southern piedmont counties in North Carolina and the adjacent
portions of South Carolina.
This plant has heart-shaped leaves, supported by long thin
petioles that grow from a subsurface rhizome. It rarely exceeds
15 cm in height. The leaves are dark green in color, evergreen,
and leathery. Flowers are small, inconspicuous, jugshaped, and
dark brown in color. They are found near the base of the
petioles. Fruits mature from mid-May to early July.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations are found along bluffs
and their adjacent slopes, in boggy areas next to streams and
creekheads, and along slopes of nearby hillsides and ravines.
It grows in acidic soils in regions with a cool moist climate.
Regional vegetation is described as upper piedmont oak-pine
forest and as part of the southeastern mixed forest.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect. Suitable habitat is present
along much of Alternatives 1 and 2. Two parallel line
transects, spaced approximately 50 feet (15 m) apart, were
conducted within the proposed right of way limits (150 feet
(46 m) in width) for each studied alternative. No Hexastylis
species were encountered. The subject project will not impact
this species.
If the alignment of the proposed alternative changes, the
proposed right of way will need to be surveyed again to
determine if the species is present.
d. Federal Candidate Species
No federal Candidate species are listed by the FWS for
Cleveland County.
e. State Protected Species
In North Carolina, protection of plant species falls under
N.C. General statutes (G.S.) 106-202.12 to 106-202.19 of 1979.
These species may or may not be federally protected.
22
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis
federally Threatened species which has a state
of Endangered. A search of the NCNHP files
occurrences of this or other state protected
project area. As noted above, because of this
status, scientific surveys were conducted.
found.
2. Soils
naniflora) is a
protected status
reveal no known
species in the
species' federal
No plants were
Cleveland County occurs in the Piedmont Physiographic province
located in the Felsic Crystalline Soil System. The topography in
this system is extremely variable. Broad, gently sloping uplands are
common, as are moderately to steeply sloping areas. The bedrock is
granite, granite gneiss, mica gneiss, and mica schist.
Generally, the subject project occurs in the Tatum-Nason
Association. An association consists of one or more major soils and
at least one minor soil that occur together in a characteristic and
repeating pattern. The Tatum-Nason Association consists of well
drained soils with mostly silt loam surfaces and moderately permeable
silty clay loam subsoils on gently sloping ridge tops with strongly
sloping and moderately steep sides. This association is formed from
the weathering of schist and is underlain by hard rock at depths of
40 to 60 inches (1 to 2 m). Minor soils make up 20 percent of this
association. The micaceous clayey Madison soils make up most of the
minor soils in this association.
3. Wetlands
Surface waters and their associated wetlands fall under the
broad category of "Waters of the United States" as defined in 33 CFR
328.3. The US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) takes jurisdiction over
the discharge of dredged or fill material into these waters as
authorized by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Potential wetland communities were assessed in the project
corridor on the basis of low soil chroma values (hydric soils),
hydrophytic vegetation, and the presence of hydrology or hydrological
indicators, such as stained, matted vegetation, high w r marks on
trees, buttressed tree bases, and surface roots. national
wetlands are located in the project area.
a. Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C 1344), a permit wi'll` be requi-red from the
COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters
of the United States". Based upon site location and estimated
acreage involved, it is anticipated that for Alternatives 1 and
2, the crossing of Beason Creek will be authorized by Nationwide
Permit (33 CFR 330.5) (a) (14)]. Nationwide #14 allows for road
crossing fills of non-tidal "Waters of the United States",
provided that no more than a total of 200 linear ft (61 linear
meters) of the fill for the roadway can occur in special
23
aquatic sites, including wetlands, and that the fill is limited
to a filled area of no more than 0.3 acre (0.1 ha).
A 401 Water Quality Certification administered through the
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
will be required. This certificate is issued for any activity
which may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal
permit is required.
b. Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is
permits or General permits are
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
Protection Agency (EPA) and the
authority in these matters rests
not required where Nationwide
authorized, according to the
between the Environmental
COE. Final discretionary
with the COE.
4. Flood Hazard Evaluation
Cleveland County does not participate in the National Flood
Insurance Regular Program. However, a Flood Insurance Map and study
have been prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
in the anticipation that Cleveland County may participate in the
future. Beason Creek is not included in the detailed flood study. The
floodplain in the vicinity of this crossing is rural and wooded and
does not include any buildings. Construction of this project will not
adversely affect the existing floodplain. Figure 6 shows the
approximate limits of the 100-year floodplain.
5. Water Quality
The subject project traverses Beason Creek (EHNR index
no. 9-53-8), which lies within the Broad River Basin. This creek is
tributary to Buffalo Creek, which joins the Broad River in South
Carolina. Beason Creek is located at the northern end of the project
area. It parallels both alternatives approximately 1200 feet (366 m)
to the west, before crossing the alignments at a right angle. Beason
Creek measures approximately 10 to 12 feet (3 to 4 m) across with a
water depth of approximately 1 foot (0.3 m) deep at the time of field
visit. The creek bottom is characterized by a sand/cobble substrate,
and the flow rate was moderate. This creek has been modified by
channelization, resulting in steep, vertical banks. Little natural
vegetation is left along the banks, due to a power line crossing.
"Best usage" classifications are assigned to the waters of North
Carolina by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM). A "best
usage" ?ss?fiicatian: of._ C has been assigned to eels.:
Class C designates waters suitable for secondary recreation, aquatic'
life propagation, and survival, fishing, wildlife, and agriculture.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) (NC-DEHNR,
Division of Environmental Management) addresses long term trends in
water quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling for selected
benthic macroinvertebrates. These organisms are sensitive to very
subtle changes in water quality. Biological data.has been collected
from Buffalo Creek and its tributaries, including Beason Creek. A
biological sampling site is located within one kilometer of the
24
project area on Beason Creek at SR 2252 and within two kilometers at
SR 2246. Bioclassification data collected in 3/86 and 6/87 indicates
good/fair conditions at both sampling sites.
Neither High Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource Waters, nor
waters classified as WS-I and WS-II are located in the study area, or
within one mile downstream. No National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permits have been issued for the immediate project
area.
Beason Creek will likely receive impacts from the subject
project. Both Alternatives I and 2 cross this waterbody. The
proposed culvert installation will reduce the linear feet of natural
stream channel. Other potential impacts are increased sedimentation
from construction and/or erosion; increased concentration of toxic
compounds from highway runoff and/or toxic spills; scouring of stream
beds due to the channelization of streams; alterations of water level
due to interruptions or additions to surficial and/or groundwater
flow; and changes in light incidence due to the removal of vegetative
cover. Best Management Practices will be stringently employed during
the construction phase of this project to lessen impacts to aquatic
systems.
6. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies
or their representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition
and construction projects on prime and important farmland soils.
These soils are designated by the US Soil Conservation Service, based
on crop yield and other factors. Land that is developed, or planned
for development through the planning and zoning authority of the
local government jurisdiction, is exempt from consideration under the
Act. The project area is planned for development, as shown in the
Kings Mountain zoning ordinance and Land Use Plan. Therefore, no
further consideration of farmland impacts is required.
7. Highway Traffic Noise/Construction Noise Analysis
This analysis was performed to determine the effect of the
proposed building of Dixon School Road Extension on noise levels in
the immediate project area. This investigation includes an inventory
of existing noise sensitive land uses and a field survey of ambient
(existing) noise levels in the study area. It also includes a
comparison of the predicted noise levels and the ambient noise levels
to determine if traffic noise impacts can be expected resulting from
the proposed project. Traffic noise impacts are determined from the
current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and
construction noise, appearing as Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted,
examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures
for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered.
25
a. Characteristics of Noise
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is
emitted from many sources including airplanes, factories,
railroads, power generation plants, and highway vehicles.
Highway noise, or traffic noise, is usually a composite of
noises from engine exhaust, drive train, and tire-roadway
interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound
pressure. Since the range of sound pressure varies greatly, a
logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to some
common reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound
pressures described in decibels are called sound pressure levels
and are often defined in terms of frequency weighted scales (A,
B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in
vehicle noise measurements because it places the most emphasis
on the frequency range to which the human ear is most sensitive
(1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels measured using a weighted-A
decibel scale are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this
report, all noise levels will be expressed in dBA's. Several
examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are listed in Table N1
(see Appendix, page A-5).
Review of Table N1 indicates that most individuals in
urbanized areas are exposed to fairly high noise levels from
many sources as they go about their daily activities. The
degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound depends
essentially on three things:
1) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) The relationship between the background noise and the
intruding noise.
3) The type of activity occurring where the noise is
heard.
In considering the first of these three factors, it is
important to note that individuals have different sensitivity to
noise. Loud noises bother some more than others, and some
individuals become riled if an unwanted noise persists. The
time patterns of noise also enter into an individual's judgement
of whether or not a noise is offensive. For example, noises
occurring during sleeping hours are usually considered to be
more repugnant than the same noises in the daytime.
With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge
the annoyance of an unwanted noise in terms of its relationship
to noise from other sources (background noise). The blowing of
a car horn at night when background noise levels are
approximately 45 dBA would generally be more objectionable than
the blowing of a car horn in the afternoon when background
noises might be 55 dBA.
26
The third factor is related to the interference of noise
with activities of individuals. In a 60 dBA environment, normal
conversation would be possible, while sleep might be difficult.
Work activities requiring high levels of concentration may be
interrupted by loud noises, while activities requiring manual
effort may not be interrupted to the same degree.
Over time, particularly if the noises occur at,predicted
intervals and are expected, individuals tend to accept the
noises which intrude into their lives. Attempts have been made
to regulate many of these types of noises, including airplane
noise, factory noise, railroad noise, and highway traffic noise.
In relation to highway traffic noise, methods of analysis and
control have developed rapidly over the past few years.
b. Noise Abatement Criteria
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or
are not compatible with various land uses, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria
(NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of
highways. These abatement criteria and procedures are set forth
in the aforementioned Federal reference (Title 23 CFR Part 772).
A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various land uses
is presented in Table N2 (see Appendix, page A-6). The Leq, or
equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound which, in
a given situation and time period, has the same energy. as does
time varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound
levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady
noise level with the same energy content.
C. Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of
the project to determine the existing background noise levels.
The purpose of this noise level information was to quantify the
existing acoustic environment and to provide a base for
assessing the impact of noise level increases. The existing Leq
noise level along the corridors for the two alternatives as
measured at 50 feet (15 m) from the roadway ranged from 53.4 to
67.7 dBA. The ambient measurement sites and measured exterior
Leq noise levels are presented in Figure N1 and Table N3,
respectively (see Appendix, pages A-7 and A-8).
The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with
the most current traffic noise prediction model in order to
calculate existing noise levels for comparison with noise levels
actually measured. The calculated existing noise levels were
within 0.1 to 3.5 dBA of the measured noise levels for the
locations where noise measurements were obtained. Differences
in dBA levels can be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low
traffic volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's
"evenly-spaced" vehicles and single vehicular speed.
27
d. Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
In general, the traffic situation is composed of a large
number of variables which describe different cars driving at
different speeds through a continually changing highway
configuration and surrounding terrain. Due to the complexity of
the problem, pertain assumptions and simplifications must be
made to predict highway traffic noise.
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this
study was the Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA
2.0 and OPTIMA (revised March, 1983). The BCR (Barrier Cost
Reduction) procedure is based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic
Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The BCR traffic noise
prediction model uses the number and type of vehicles on the
planned roadway, their speeds, the physical characteristics of
the road (curves, hills, depressed, elevated, etc.), receptor.
location and height, and, if applicable, barrier type, barrier
ground elevation, and barrier top elevation.
In this regard, it is to be noted that only preliminary
alignment was available for use in this noise analysis. Only
those existing natural or man-made barriers were included in
setting up the model. The roadway sections and proposed
intersections were assumed to be flat and at-grade. Thus, this
analysis represents the "worst-case" topographical conditions.
The noise predictions made in this report are highway.-related
noise predictions for the traffic conditions during the year
being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were
compared, and the volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions
were used with the proposed posted speed limits. Hence, during
all other time periods, the noise levels will be no greater than
those indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to
determine the number of land uses (by type) which would be
impacted during the peak hour of the design year 2015. A land
use is considered to be impacted when exposed to noise levels
approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria
and/or predicted to sustain a substantial noise increase. The
basic approach was to select receptor locations such as 25, 50,
100, 200, 400, 800, and 1600 feet (7.6, 15.2, 30.4, 60.8, 121.6,
243.6, and 487.2 meters) from the center of the near traffic
lane (adaptable to both sides of the roadway). The location of
these receptors were determined by the changes in projected
traffic volumes and/or the posted speed limits along the
proposed project. The result of this procedure was a grid of
receptor points along the project. Using this grid, noise levels
were calculated for each identified receptor.
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this
project for Alternatives 1 and 2 are listed in Table N4 (see
Appendix, pages A-9 through ,A-12). Information included in
these tables consist of listings of all receptors in close
28
proximity to the project, their ambient and predicted noise
levels, and the estimated noise level increase for each.
The maximum number of receptors in each activity category
that are predicted to become impacted by future traffic noise is
shown in Table N5 (see Appendix, page A-13). These are noted in
terms of those receptors expected to experience traffic noise
impacts by approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC or by a
substantial increase in exterior noise levels. Under Title 23
CFR Part 772, Alternative 1 was determined to impact two
residences by highway traffic noise; Alternative 2 is expected
to impact six residences. However, it should be noted that five
of the impacted receptors under Alternative 2 were caused by
greater noise contribution of traffic on US 74 Business (see
Appendix, page A-12). Other information included in Table N5 is
the maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours.
This information should assist local authorities in exercising.
land use control over the remaining undeveloped lands adjacent
to the roadway within local jurisdiction. For example, with the
proper information on noise, the local authorities can prevent
further development of incompatible activities and land uses
with the predicted noise levels of an adjacent highway.
Table N6 indicates the exterior traffic noise level
increases for the identified receptors in each roadway section
(see Appendix, page A-14). Predicted noise level increases for
this project range from +2 to +15 dBA for Alternative l and +0
to +18 for Alternative 2. When real-life noises are heard, it
is possible to barely detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A
5 dBA change is more readily noticeable. A 10 dBA change is
judged by most people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness
of the sound.
e. Traffic Noise Impact Analysis
Traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted traffic
noise levels either: [a] approach or exceed the FHWA noise
abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning within 1 dBA of the
Table N2 value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise
levels. The NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown
in the lower portion of Table N2. Consideration for noise
abatement measures must be given to receptors which fall in
either category. Such measures are described below.
Highway Alignment
Highway alignment selection involves the horizontal or
vertical orientation of the proposed improvements in such a way
as to minimize impacts and costs. The selection of alternative
alignments for noise abatement purposes must consider the
balance between noise impacts and other engineering and
environmental parameters. For noise abatement, horizontal
alignment selection is primarily a matter of siting the roadway
at a sufficient distance from noise sensitive areas. The
proposed alignment (Alternative 1) discussed in Section II of
29
this report has been selected to minimize costs and
environmental impacts, while considering the engineering
parameters and the scope and purpose of the project.
Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic management measures which limit vehicle type,
speed, volume, and time of operations are often effective noise
abatement measures. For this project, traffic management
measures are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due
to their effect on the capacity and level-of-service on the
proposed roadway.
Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels
can often be applied with a measurable degree of success by the
application of solid mass, attenuable measures to effectively
diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions.
Solid mass, attenuable measures may include earth berms or
artificial abatement walls.
The project will require no control of access, meaning most
commercial establishments and residences will have direct access
connections to the proposed roadway, and all intersections will
adjoin the project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction,
it must be high enough and long enough to shield the receptor
from significant sections of the highway. Access openings in
the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the
barrier. It then becomes economically unreasonable to construct
a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at access
openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted
sight distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a
sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would normally be 8
times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For
example, a receptor located 50 feet (15 m) from the barrier
would normally require a barrier 400 feet (122 m) long. An
access opening of 40 feet (10 percent of the area) would limit
its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA (FUNDAMENTAL AND
ABATEMENT OF HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, Report No.
FHWA-HHI-HEV-73-7976-1, USDOT, chapter 5, section 3.2, page
5-27).
i
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related
establishments located along a particular highway normally
require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass,
attenuable measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to
disallow these two qualities and, thus, would not be acceptable
abatement measures in their case.
rnnrlucinnc
Based on the above factors, no physical abatement measures
are feasible, and none are recommended for this project.
30
f. "Do Nothing" Alternative
If the proposed project were not constructed, the acoustic
environment for the project corridor would experience only a
small change by the design year of the project (2015). Only
those receptors that are adjacent to existing roadways would be
affected by noise level increases due to increased traffic.
These receptors could anticipate experiencing an increase in
exterior noise levels in the range of 0 to 3 dBA. As previous
noted, it is barely possible to detect noise level changes of
2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change in noise levels is more readily
noticed.
g. Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are
expected to be earth removal, hauling, grading, and paving.
General construction noise impacts, such as temporary speech
interference for passers-by and those individuals living or
working near the project, can be expected, particularly from
paving operations and from the earth moving equipment during
grading operations. However, considering the relatively
short-term nature of construction noise and the limitation of
construction to daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to
be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby
natural elements and man-made structures are believed to be
sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction
noise.
h. Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement
is not recommended, and no noise abatement measures are
proposed. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise
requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772, and unless a major
project change develops, no additional noise studies will be
performed for this project.
8. Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from
industrial and internal combustion engines are the most prevalent
sources. Other origins of common outdoor air pollution are solid
waste disposal and any form of fire. The impact resulting from
highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution
problems to improving the ambient air conditions. The traffic is the
center of concern when determining the impact of a new highway
facility or the improvement of an existing highway facility. Motor
vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons
(HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO ), and lead (Pb) (listed
in order of decreasing emission rate). Automobiles are considered to
be the major source of CO in the project area. For this reason, most
of the analysis presented is concerned with determining expected
carbon monoxide levels in the vicinity of the project due to traffic
flow.
31
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration for the
receptor closest to the highway project, two concentration components
must be used: local and background. The local concentration is
defined as the CO emissions from cars operating on highways in the
near vicinity (i.e., distances within 328 feet (100 m)) of the
receptor location. The background concentration is defined by the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources as "the concentration of a pollutant at a point that is the
result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that is, the
concentration at the upwind edge of the local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the
NCDOT Traffic Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer
modeling, and the background concentration was obtained from the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources (NCDEHNR). Once the two concentration components were
resolved, they were added together to determine the ambient CO
concentration for the receptor in question and to compare to the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen
oxides. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are
carried into the atmosphere, where they react with sunlight to form
ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Area-wide automotive emissions of HC and
NO are expected to decrease in the future due to the continued
installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new
cars. Hence, the ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels. in the
atmosphere should continue to decrease as a result of the
improvements on automobile emissions.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide
require several hours to.occur. For this reason, the peak levels of
ozone generally occur 6 to 12 miles (10 to 20 km) downwind of the
source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded
as sources of hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The
emissions of all sources in an urban area mix together in the
atmosphere, and in the presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to
form ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and other photochemical oxidants. The
best example of this type of air pollution is the smog which forms in
Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of
particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources
account for less than 7 percent of particulate matter emissions and
less than 2 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter
and sulfur dioxide emissions are predominantly the result of
non-highway sources (e.g., industrial, commercial, and agricultural).
Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from
automobiles are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic
on the project will cause air quality standards for particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular
gasoline. The burning of regular gasoline emits lead as a result of
regular gasoline containing tetraethyl lead, which is added by
refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel. Newer cars
32
with catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline eliminating lead
emissions. Also, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has required the reduction in the lead content of leaded
gasolines. The overall average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was
2 grams per gallon. By 1989, this composite average had dropped to
0.01 grams per gallon. In the future, lead emissions are expected to
decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead content of
leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 make
the sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead additives
unlawful after December 31, 1995. Because of these reasons, it is
not expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause the
NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine
future CO concentrations resulting from the proposed highway
improvements. "CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology For Predicting
Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections" was used to
predict the CO concentration at the nearest sensitive receptor to the
project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO
concentrations consisted of a level roadway under normal conditions
with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and
worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based
on the annual average daily traffic projections. The traffic volume
used for the CAL3QHC model was the highest volume within any
alternative. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were
calculated for the year 1995 and the design year (2015) using the EPA
publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the MOBILE 5A mobile
source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was
estimated to be 1.9 parts per million (ppm). Consultation with the
Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental Management, North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.9 ppm is suitable for
most suburban/rural areas.
The worst-case air quality receptor was determined to be
receptor #5 at a distance of 80 feet (24 m) from the centerline of
the proposed highway. The "build" one-hour CO concentrations for the
nearest sensitive receptor for the years 1995 and 2015 are shown in
Table 3.
Table 3 - One Hour CO Concentrations (PPM)*
Nearest Build No-Build
Sensitive
Receptor 1995 2015 1995 2015
R-5 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8
* Parts Per Million
33
Comparison of these predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS
maximum permitted (1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm and 8-hour
averaging period = 9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards.
Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO analysis is less than 9
ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the
standard. See pages A-15 and A-16 in the Appendix (Tables Al and A2)
for output.
The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality
of the Mooresville Regional Office of the N.C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. The ambient air quality
for Cleveland County has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This project is not
anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this
attainment area.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials
resulting from clearing and grubbing, demolition, or other operations
will be removed from the project, burned, or otherwise disposed of by
the contractor. Any burning will be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North
Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
Care will be taken to insure that burning will be done at the
greatest practical distance from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning
will only be utilized under constant surveillance. Also during
construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection
and comfort of motorists or area residents. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for air quality of the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process, and no additional
reports are required.
9. Stream Modifications
No stream modifications or channel changes will be required for
this project.
10. Hazardous Materials
>, ?_ 1"U, t -
i W__t4
A_V`P ?6"T
Based on a reconnaissance survey, no operational or
non-operational facilities with the potential for underground storage -------
tank (UST) involvement exist within the project study corridors. The
files of the Solid Waste Section, Division of Solid Waste Management
and the Hazardous Waste Section, Division of Solid Waste Management
were consulted. There are no landfills located in this section of
Cleveland County that will affect the project. In addition, no
unregulated dump sites or other potentially contaminated properties
exist within the proposed project limits. Based on these records and
the EPA's Superfund list, there are no potential hazardous material
sites that should affect this project.
34
11. Geotechnical Impacts
The study corridor is located in the Inner Piedmont
Physiographic Province. Moderate hills rolling through urbanized
land make up the project area. The relief along the project corridor
is moderately sloping. Elevations range from a low of slightly less
than 900 feet (275 m) at Beason Creek to a high of 1000 feet (305 m)
near the southern end of the project. Beason Creek is located at the
northern end of the project and flows west-southwesterly into the
Broad River and on into South Carolina. Erosion has somewhat altered
the topography of the area. Thick mats of residual clays cap the
hills.
Mississippian intrusive rock of the Kings Mountain Belt and
metamorphic rock of the Inner Piedmont Belt underlie the project.
Cherryville granite, which is massive to weakly foliated and contains
pegmatites, is the dominant bedrock. There is also a large band of
mica schist, which includes garnet and quartz lenses, and there are
layers with biotite gneiss, amphibolite, and phyllite. Exposures are
common in past road cuts and excavations along the project corridor.
Deep residual clays underlain by.clayey silts and sandy silts are
expected to be found on upland portions of the project. The corridor
mainly consists of Cecil sandy loam with 2 to 10 percent slopes that
are eroded. Alluvial soils encountered along the corridor are
typically 100 to 300 feet (30 to 91 m) wide and 5 to 20 feet (1 to
6 m) deep and consist of variable layers of sands, silts, clays, and
gravel. Hard rock is expected in cuts deeper than 25 feet. (7.6 m)
throughout the area, with shallow rock in areas of granite bedrock.
Engineering properties of this soil for use in fill sections is fair
with moderate shrink-swell potential. The soil profile for this
project is shown in the Soil Conservation Service county soils manual
to be well drained and to include A-4, A-5, and A-7 soils of the
AASHTO soils classification system.
There are no known mineral resources in the vicinity of this
proposed construction.
12. Construction Impacts
To minimize potential adverse effects caused by construction,
the following measures, along with those already mentioned, will be
enforced during the construction phase:
a. Waste and debris will be disposed of in areas outside of
the right of way and provided by the contractor, unless
otherwise required by plans or Special Provision 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 mosquitos.
35
C. An extensive rodent control program will be established if
structures are to be removed or demolished.
d. Care will be taken not to block existing drainage ditches.
e. Several water 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
the water lines and interruption of water service. The
contractor will consult appropriate water system 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
ordinances and regulations of North Carolina State
Implementation Plan for Air Quality. Care will be taken to
insure burning will be done at the greatest distance
practicable from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public.
Burning will be performed under constant surveillance.
g. An erosion control schedule will be 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.
h. Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for
use on this project, the Contractor shall obtain a
certification from the State Department of Cultural
Resources certifying the removal of material from the
borrow source will have no effect on any known district,
site, building, structure, or object that is included or
eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic
Places. A copy of this certification shall be furnished to
the Engineer prior to performing any work on the proposed
borrow source.
i. Traffic service in the immediate project area may be
subjected to brief disruption during construction of the
project. Every effort will be made to insure that the
transportation needs of the public will be met both during
and after construction.
36
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Comments Received from Federal, State, and Local Agencies
Comments were received from the following Federal, State and local
agencies. These comments have been taken into consideration in the
planning of this project and the preparation of this document.
U.S. Department of the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service)
State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Division of Land Resources
Mooresville Regional Office
Wildlife Resources Commission
Copies of the comments received are included in the Appendix (see
pages A-17 through A-32).
B. Citizens Informational Workshop
A Citizens Informational Workshop was held on Monday, May 3, 1993,
from 4:00 pm to 8:00 pm in the Kings Mountain City Hall. Officials from
the City were present. Representatives from the Division Office, the
Roadway Design Unit, and the Planning and Environmental Branch-.of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation were present to explain the
project, receive comments, and answer questions. A copy of the news
release advertising the workshop is included in the Appendix (see
page A-33).
An aerial photograph showing the proposed extension of Dixon School
Road was displayed at the meeting. A handout containing general project
information, a vicinity map, and a comment sheet was available for each
participant (see pages A-34 through A-39 in the Appendix). Each
participant was given the opportunity to review the aerial photograph and
ask questions or comment on the project.
Approximately 50 to 60 people attended the workshop and reviewed the
aerial mapping of the two alternatives for the proposed highway. Most
people preferred Alternative 1 over Alternative 2. Many expressed concern
over how the project would affect homes and when the project would be
constructed. Many participants recognized the need for the road.
Other concerns were raised at the workshop. The parking problem and
congestion problem (just before and after school hours) along Phifer Road
(SR 2256) were mentioned. Concern over the increase in traffic and noise
was also brought up. Questions were asked regarding the amount of right of
way needed and the right of way acquisition process. Other citizens asked
whether there are any future plans to extend Dixon School Road northward
to US 74 Bypass (not currently included in the TIP). A newspaper article
covering the workshop is in the Appendix (seepages A-40 and A-41).
37
C. Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held following circulation of this report to
provide more detailed information on the project to local citizens and to
receive additional comments on the project.
EFL/tp

i ?o
;a
n ? a
m
O
C
G
Z5:
Bit-,
z do
n Qo m
m
? o
e? ? r
Nd o /?
C
r ?
//

z
?c`0°i,m
mN*
MM
,
:j A = O
r > C oorod?3x
??
_UCClf?wm nxrA zy
O>rm--,Rm axon
po>
0o?oZC
o
?o
z'°
"100caC'oz
0>-400
en0Ox
x>
?ZO?o? ?
(N71? CO
CD r0 y b
x
z:1) -n
0 0)i D Z x Con
co am y x
y
• r
O
O
F-

?
? €Vtr

r
O
A O
ZT.
O -? z
vi m G}
z<m
^ Z
O O
D-< Z
r- O ?
m
z m
m;u
GO0D
Nov
-A NN
90 m;u
N°N
U1
r-
0
0-
;u N=Z
uimm
Z
< >
OnN
nZ
;0.<Z
O T
m
;u X ;u
> ?O
i°v
NON
-A U)
Qo M
N ? N
w
m
Z = orox
M O O xz?c,
o
O Oxy°r
Z U)
p o t2j Z >
-i T 9 c?
O z?
T N ? ?
w r o
Z
O
T_
m
z
c
O
Om
?1 O
ZL.
Om
mD
1O
Z
c
N
V
A
C
N_
Z
m
Cl)
N
r
O
O
A
Z
O
Cl)
C
-n 2
0O
C
U) D
?v
o) N
C -0
Cl) z
mG
N Cl)
v
0
m
m
v
O
m
r
S
Z
zm
0
>
Nj N r
N
n O
W Z
?O
Z
a
N ? O
?O-n
O
> X
6
Z;u O
DC)2
v?m
C Z
CA?
r
;o
O
b
v
m
x to 10 t:? o
)
x
x°zoa?
70 C to
N yc?.y
a) O O ?xy170
?ZU) ?xza
v -n d
O ?? ro
z?
U) z
? a
w t" o
m
x
F5
vz
i
? D
mr
z O
Za
0v
N Z
.1
Q?
v
z m
vD
U) N
mN
rn z
W N
m
N
W
w
N
?r
X8
mT.
?Q
O*
°
o m
m
vF
0
00
?N
ZM
GA N
N
C W
v?
My
r0
r
m0
zm
?o
?v
r
8
X
-D-i Q
X-i m
0mU)
For,
vNQ
ova
a n N
N
mew
M CA
>ZD
-a 0 M
?CQ
z?
?v
m 0
M
70
M
a
v
z
v
X O
m = z
nmZ
3?0
ZOtn
vor-
r n z
'i o O
Z N n
N
ZOo)
m
Looking South near the
Southern Project Terminus
Looking East along Railroad Tracks
near Proposed Crossing under
Alternative 2
SR 2263 is to the Left
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
PHOTOS OF
EXISTING CONDITIONS
R - 2625
FIG. 3C
m
m
: I
?r
C
11
0
ib
it
I,
aiNAIN W)h OIN -I-
2
m
nz
-I
Tr
?
WIN AIN WI-
\ IN 'o III
TI' i\

\
r I
N - N - O a -IW
<n v_
;u
X
N Z
W U)
O
r --5Im
m
D NIa __
1 ?1 1O i;l-
o
nommmumomm
1
O
1
N I- ?
_ W
-i.• 0
N I-
?b z
+ 06
..?+.. NO
rn
717 40
lm+
o
1.4
Ir ? \

o
t
WIN \ AIN
w -n
?0
D 7c

00
mX
x
=
o
-i m
z =\ z

Z \? -oly

NIU Holm AIO OIy ON ?- AIw alp ?

N
N
AI- WIW

Af- \
\ mICA
-1 \ t
? ? AIa
4
?W f `AIN
NIm ?Olm ? \ n?•IN.> I? Ar la'. ?U (G W

NIN

0 0
t0b

?? NIN
4.I IU
tpl,D AIO AIw NIN `1"-41 IN

Ito 0
Holm Alo \ ml- A Iro 01-
-411--N
,MICA,
UIW? r cx 0
U

ICA
\ O

m m km
aim IT c 1` TIT C:
elm cn
y-- ^1
co

10I?
r
J
U?
ai
WIm

i Ii?
N
m
z
mo
N`
ON
_`
NI \ 1 NI;
M
m

4 V
00
m
o
r- 3
rn ic co)
On
o m v -40

co O
0
Z
v VI
N In 0

m
0
? ?>
a

m
Z Ch
o m
0-xi
z
--? ?
,. _4
_ cm
to z
b Z -4 0

m
;a
h
Ch
iz z

Co CO)
-ai m mN
CO)
CO)
?I
ZONE X per''' C??d ZONE X ZO*X,
NCRCAROLINA DEPARTMENT \ ?a`I TRANSPORTATION
\ x991 Z DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PL ANNNIN AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IRR
•%y,,\\
9 0 950 44 END LI c?LEV?EUN? C?ouN YID
° PROJECT
ZONE A R-2625
/ - 9 as as sad Westov Chf
FIG. 6
• ZONE A-
BM a •? 1
• 9 ` Q
t2s9 • "?3ethel ?.
7
`` \\ ZONE X
F22501 ?r °a• =;t O
I
N E A =?=9sa M 1
Ir a
9,le 7,
ALTERNATIVE 2 I
C
\? ALTERNATIVE 1
/ - K (RECOMMENDED)
I °?a?=aa==Qas '? ZONE t I
•?/ X ..? WTs `
955 I•? •'\ . f Y 11n•
WT
\ II , Gethsemane r
e?`toi NORFOLK
SOUTHERN
ri'? ! I RAILWAY `, . ,.`.
q ??• r \ !a••s?°^ -Sandpit / 11'Iidpine •
Hidvievrt?
%-. • Ch
:.??t?C?.•\; ?? BEGIN
X961 X, • 'r'• PROJECT I
RoaySiue
Park
15
971 ?\• Y L/ iJl -
\.. B. .`.?\( •°,?/??` _ 1 ?? ZONE A
\ `. ?? • • \\? -_/yN4 a ?:on, Imo/
r
\? -Quarryr??• \v? `Q i
??.

X
O
LL
O
U
w
U)
Q
U
a.
W
Z
O
w
CO
iL
O
Cr
W
I

0
Q
E o
o co
of
E
v io
N -
E
?p N
T r
w
z
J
Q
w
z
LU
U
E Zv
(O r
E -
v co
N
T
CV

E
N
r
Co
E
to
V
O
-rz
CO
V
Q
N
0
FIGURE 7
Not to scale
I- RELOCATION REPORT
a E.I.S. F-1 CORRIDOR DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
_R.EGOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
PROJECT: 8.2800801 COUNTY Cleveland Alternate 1 of 2 Alternate
I.D. NO.: R-2625 F.A. PROJECT STP-2283 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: New route from 1-85 interchange with SR 2283 (Dixon School Road) to US 74
Business
:ESTIMATED`DISPLACEES' INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 8 2 10 3 5 4 1 0 0
BUsineSSBS 1 0 1 0 VALUEOF:DWELLING > DS&DWELLINGAVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20m 3 $ 0-160 0 0-20m 3 $ 0.160 0
ANSWE R ALL CtUESTIONS 20.40m 2 160-250 2 20-40m 35 160-250 2
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70m 3 260-400 0 40-70m 60 250-400 12
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100m 0 400-500 0 70400m 70
400-600 2
x 2. Will schools or churches be affect by ,
100 UP 0 Soo UP 0 100 LIP 69 600 UP 1
displacement? TOTAL 8 2 237 17
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS: (Respond $ Number)
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Yes, no permanent displacement of businesses.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. 4. Jean's Antiques
x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 2200 square feet, two employees, no minorities.
6. Source for available housing (list). Setzer's Discount Auto Parts
x 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 1800 square feet, two employees, no minorities.
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 6. Home & Land Publications, newspapers, MLS,
families? Realtors®.
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
x 11. Is public housing available? 8. Last resort housing will be administered in accordance
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing with the State law.
housing available during relocation period?
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within 11. Section 8 is available.
financial means?
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list 12. Given current housing trends comparable housing
source). should be available during relocation period.
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? F12 months 14. Same as number six.
ydl /
odur-6- 4)v -i 57
Relo tion ent Date Ap roved by Date
4
unginai a i uopy: state Relocation Agent
2 Copy 'Area Relocation Office
A-1
or
• .RELOCpT10N REPORT
E.I.S. [-] CORRIDOR F'? DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
PROJECT: 8.2800801 COUNTY Cleveland Alternate 2 of 2 Alternate
I.D. NO.: R-2625 F.A. PROJECT STP-2283 1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: New route from 1-85 interchange with SR 2283 (Dixon School Road) to US 74
.:. Business
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 12 8 20 9 8 6 5 1 0
Businesses 1 1 2 0 VALt1EOFDWELLING'. DSS`DWELLINGAVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 1 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 3 $ 0-160 0
ANSWE R ALL:QUESTIONS -' 20-40M 5 150-250 0 20.40M 35 160-250 2
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 5 250.400 8 40-70m 60 250-400 12
x 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 1 400-500 0 70-100M 70 400-600 2
x 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 0 500 up 0 100 up 69 500 uP 1
1
displacement? TOTAL 12
1 8 237 17
X 3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS Res `Ond'b Number)
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Yes, no permanent displacement of businesses.
indicate size, type, estimated number of .
employees, minorities, etc. 4. Jean's Antiques
x 5.. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 2200 square feet, two employees, no minorities.
6. Source for available housing (list). Setzer's Discount Auto Parts
x 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 1800 square feet, two employees, no minorities.
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 6. Home & Land Publications, newspapers, MLS,
families? Realtors&
x 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
x 11. Is public housing available? 8. Last resort housing will be administered in accordance
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing with the State law.
housing available during relocation period?
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within 11. Section 8 is available.
financial means?
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list 12. Given current housing trends comparable housing
source). should be available during relocation period.
15. Number months estimated to complete
I r--
RELOCATION? 12 months 14. Same as number six.
. r

R to on Agent .? Date Approved b Date
orm 15.4 Revised 02/55 d
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
A-2
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement
housing will be available prior to construction of state and
federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of
Transportation has the ;following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation:
* Relocation Assistance,
* Relocation Moving Payments, and
* Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and
prices of homes, apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing
or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payments Program, in
general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in
relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase
or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrange-
ment (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments
or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are
eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and
qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in
accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the
North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The
program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in reloca-
ting to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one
relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families,
individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for
relocation assistance advisory services without regard to race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its work to
allow ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations and possession
of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards.
The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT pur-
chases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in
areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and
commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will
be within the financial means of the families and individuals displaced
and will be reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The
relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving
to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will
receive an explanation regarding all available options, such as (1)
purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either
A-3
private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant housing to
another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply
information concerning other state or federal programs offering assistance
to displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in
order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new
location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the dis-
placee for the costs-of moving personal property from homes, businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway
project. Under the Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate
in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings such
as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs and, if
applicable, make a payment for any increased interest expenses for
replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement
housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental purchase
expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the Last
Resort Housing provision.
A'displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed
$5,250, to rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, includ-
ing incidental expenses, on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The
down payment is based upon what the state determines is required when the
rent supplement exceeds $5250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the
NCDOT's state or federally-assisted construction projects unless and until
comparable replacement housing has been offered or provided for each
displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No
relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purposes
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance
under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing
is not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's finan-
cial means, and the replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal
limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in
methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary
replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt that this program
will be necessary on the project, since there appear to be adequate
opportunities for relocation within the area.
A-4
TABLE N1
HEARING: SOUNDS BCMBARDING US DAILY
4
140 Shotgun blast, jet 100 ft away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
90
D Diesel truck 40 mph 50 ft. away
E SO Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 50 mph 50 ft. away MODERATELY LOUD
B 70
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office -VERY QUIET
40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 5 feet away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10
1
0
Sources: world Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE BEARING
A-5
TABLE N2
NOISE ABAMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A -Weighted Sound Level - decibels NBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
R
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
t
Existing Noise Level increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
A-6
FIGURE Ni - NOISE MEASUREMENT SITES
It
Dixon School Road Extension
Cleveland County
South of NC 216 to US 74
TIP ; R-2625 State Project * 8.2800801
?1 NOISE MEASUREMENT SITE

A-7
TABLE N3
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Le4)
Dixon School Road Extension
South of NC 216 to US 74
Cleveland County
TIP# R-2625 State Project# 8.2800801
NOISE
c LEVEL
SITE LOCATION DESCRIPTION (MA)
1. SR 2283, .46 Mile South of NC 216 Grassy 56
2. NC 216, .58 Mile South East of SR 2283 Grassy 64
3. SR 2263, 300 Feet East of SR 2256 Grassy 60
4. SR 2256, .50 Mile North West of SR 2258 Grassy 53
5. US 74 Business, Across from SR 2031 Grassy 67
Note:
The ambient noise level sites were measured at 50 feet from the center
of the nearest lane of traffic.
R
A-8
TABLE N4 1/4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
Dixon School Road Extension
South of NC 216 to US 74, Cleveland County
TIPI R-2625 State Project# 8.2600801
ALTERNATIVE 1
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID I LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
AAAAAAAA- AA -AAAAAAAAS AAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAA A??AA
From Beginning of Project to NC 216
1 Residence B SR 2283 220 R 47 -L- LINE 220 R - - 55 + 8
2 Business C " 250 R 46 " 250 R - 53 + 7
3 Residence B SR 2305 165 L 50 " 150 R - - 56 + 8
4 Business C R 60 L 57 " 55 R -------- ------------ R/W---- ----------
5 Residence B to 80 R 55 " 100 R - - 62 + 7
From NC 216 to SR 2256
6 Residence B NC 216 835 L 45 -L- LINE 155 L 58.4 45.0 58 + 13
?
7 Residence B " 660 L 45 " 120 L 60.6 45.9 60 * + 15
8 Residence B " 430 L 46 to 250 L 53.9 49.1 55 + 9
9 Residence B " 365 L 48 " 255 L 53.7 52.9 56 + 8
10 Residence B " 320 L 49 to 270 L 53.1 53.8 56 + 7
11 Residence B " 225 L 53 to 280 L 52.7 56.1 57 + 4
12 Residence B to 175 L 55 " 370 L 49.7 59.5 59 + 4
13 Residence B of 70 L 63 " 365 L 49.8 65.7 65 + 2
14 Residence B to 190 L 55 " 100 L 62.1 59.0 63 + 8
15 Residence B " 85 L 61 ^ 350 R 50.3 64.8 64 + 3
16 Residence B It 390 L 47 It 485 L 46.4 52.5 53 + 6
From SR 2256 to US 74 Business
32 Residence B US 74 BUS 755 L 43 -L- LINE 510 L 44.6 49.9 51 + 8
33 Residence B " 600 L 46 It 350 L 49.2 51.5 53 + 7
34 Residence B If 350 L 52 " 260 L 51.6 58.0 58 + 6
35 Business C ^ 100 L 63 " 300 L 50.8 68.5 68 + 5
36 Business C .. 140 L 61 " 140 L 58.2 65.3 66 + 5
4
37 Residence B " 160 L 60 " 45 R -------------------- R/W--------------
38 Residence B " 150 L 60 " 250 R 52.8 64.9 65 + 5
39 Residence B " 120 L 62 " 400 R 47.7 66.2 * 66 + 4
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). to -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-9
TABLE N4 2/4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE WWOSURES
Dixon School Road Extension
South of NC 216 to US 74, Cleveland County
TIPS R-2625 State Projects 8.2800801
ALTERNATIVE 2
• AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED RDADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID s LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE(ft) -L- -y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
vavvavvvv a????aaasvavva vv??a
vvavvaavvvv svvvva?s??aa aaa
Beginning of Project to NC 216
1 Residence B SR 2283 220 R 47 -L- LINE 220 R - - 55 + e
2 Residence B " 250 R 46 of 250 R - - 53 + 7
3 Residence B " 150 L 51 to 150 L - - 58 + 7
4 Residence B to 130 L 52 to 130 L - - 59 + 7
" 75 L --------------------R/W--------------
5 Residence B " 75 L 56
6 Residence B 135 L 51 It 135 L - - 59 + a
7 Residence B " 300 L 45 of 300 L - - 51 + 6
8 Residence B to 390' L 45 to 390 L - - 69 + 4
9 Residence B to 475 L 45 to 475 L - - 46• + 1
10 Residence B " 260 L 45 to 260 L - - 53 + 8
11 Residence B " 85 L 55 to 85 L - - 63 + 8
12 Residence B " 115 L 53 to 180 L - - 57 + 4
13 Business C " 310 L 45 " 435 L - - 47 + 2
16 Residence B " 60 R 57 " 65 L --------------------R/W--------------
17 Residence B " 330 R 45 of 330 R - - 50 + 5
18 Residence B to 350 R 45 " 350 R - - 50 + 5
19 Church E to 250 L 46/00 to 330 L - - 50/00 + 4
20 Residence B to 210 R 48 to 55 R --------------------R/W--------------
21 Residence B to 370 R 45 " 260 R - - 53 + 8
22 Residence B O 360 R 45 " 380 R - - 69 + 4
23 Residence B to 225 R 47 " 175 R - - 57 + 10
24 Residence B to 50 R 56 to 40 R -------------------R/W--------------
25 Residence B to 300 L 45 " 315 L - - 51 + 6
• 26 Residence B to 310 L 45 to 260 L - - 53 + a
27 Residence B to 85 R 55 to 130 R - - 59 + 4
28 Residence B " 60 R 57 w 155 R - - 58 + 1
29 Residence B to 305 L 45 if 215 L - - 55 + 10
30 Residence B to 105 L 54 It 15 R --------------------R/W--------------
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/ interior (58/48). to -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-10
TABLE N4 3/4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
Dixon School Road Extension
South of NC 216 to US 74, Cleveland County
TIP# R-2625 State Project# 8.2800801
ALTERNATIVE 2
AMBIENT NEAR EST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID f LAND USE CATEGORY
...................... NAME DISTANCE(ft)
.......e......... LEVEL
..... NAME DISTANCE(ft)
............... -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
From NC 216 to SR 2263
33 Residence B NC 216 595 L 45 -L- LINE 80 R 63.6 46.7 63 • + 18
34 Residence B " 630 L 45 " 290 R 52.3 46.3 53 + 8
35 Residence B '• 105 L 60 " 440 L 47.6 63.8 63 + 3
36 Residence B " 90 L 61 " 185 L 56.9 64.5 65 + 4 .
37 Residence B " 125 L 58 '• 115 L 61.0 61.5 64 + 6
38 Residence B " 120 L 59 •' 105 R 61.7 61.7 64 + 5
39 Residence B '• 120 L 59 " 210 R 55.8 61.7 62 + 3
40 Residence B " 80 L 62 " 365 R 49.8 65.1 65 + 3
From SR 2263 to SR 2256
40A Residence S SR 2263 105 R 56 -L- LINE 365 L 48.7 59.1 59 + 3
41 Residence B .. 160 R 52 " 160 L 57.0 55.3 59 + 7
42 Residence B " 185 R 51 •' 185 L 55.8 54.4 58 + 7
43 Residence B •' 360 R 45 " 380 L 48.3 48.0 51 + 6
44 Residence B " 410 R 45 " 410 L 47.5 45.0 49 + 4
45 Residence B " 510 R 45 •' 510 L 44.6 45.0 47 + 2 `
46 Residence B " 660 R 45 •' 660 L 41.3 45.0 46 + 1
47 Residence B " 740 R 45 " 740 L 39.8 45.0 46 + 1
48 Residence B " 560 R 45 " 560 L 43.4 45.0 47 + 2
49 Residence B ^ 785 R 45 •' 785 L 39.0 45.0 45 + 0
50 Residence B " 850 R 45 ^ 650 L 38.2 45.0 45 + 0
51 Residence B " 125 R 54 " 125 R 59.2 56.8 61 + 7
From SR 2256 to US 74 Business
52 Residence B SR 2256 100 L 49 -L- LINE 85 R - - 62 + 13
53 Residence B '• 100 R 49 ° 30 R -------------------R/W--- -----------
56 Residence B US 74 BUS 760 L 45 -L- LINE 515 L 44.5 50.1 51 + 6
57 Residence B ° 600 L 46 it 615 L 42.2 51.9 52 + 6
58 Residence B " 560 L 47 it 355 L 49.0 52.4 54 + 7
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L--> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/ interior (58/48). t -> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-11
TABLE N4 4/4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
Dixon school Road Extension
South of NC 216 to US 74, Cleveland County
TIP# R-2625 State Project# 6.2800801
ALTERNATIVE 2
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE(ft) LEVEL PAM DISTANCE(ft) .-L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
??NPtt????ii tv?PP?sOO? ?Oi? pv??f?Of?eOO w....- Y..?s----
From SR 2256 to US 74 Business (Cont'd
59 Residence B US 74 BUS 335 L
60 Residence B " 85 L
61 Residence B " 50 L
62 Residence B •' 105 L
63 Residence B " 145 L
64 Residence B " 130 L
65 Residence B •' 90 L
53 -L- LINE 275 L
64 " 425 L
68 " 375 L
63 " 145 L
61 •' 40 L
61 " 245 L
64 " 400 L
51.8 58.8 59 + 6
47.0 70.9 * 70 + 6
48.4 74.9 * 74 + 6
57.9 69.6 * 69 + 6
-------------------- R/W----------- ---
53.0 68.3 * 68 + 7
47.7 70.6 * 70 + 6

Ak
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L- Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y--> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-12
Description
TABLE N5
FBWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA 'SUMMARY
Dixon School Road Extension
South of NC 216 to US 74, Cleveland County
TIPS R-2625 State Projects 8.2800801
Maximum Predicted Contour Approximate Number of Impacted
Leq Noise Levels Distances Receptors According to
dBA (Maximum) Title 23 CFR Part 772
50' 100' 200' 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E
ALTERNATIVE 1
1. Dixon School Road Extension, 66 61 56
Beginning of Project to NC 216
2. Dixon School Road Extension, NC 216 to 66 61 56
SR 2256
3. Dixon School Road Extension, SR 2256 to 64 60 54
US 74 Business
<31' 45' 0 0 0 0 0
<31' 45' 0 1 0 0 0
<31' 35' 0 1 0 0 0
TOTALS 0 2 0 0 0
ALTERNATIVE 2
1. Dixon School Road Extension, 66 61 56 <31' 45' 0 0 0 0 0
Beginning of Project to NC 216
2. Dixon School Road Extension, NC 216 to 66 61 56 <31' 45' 0 1 0 0 0
SR 2256
3. Dixon School Road Extension, SR 2256 to 64 60 54 <31' 35' 0 5 0 0 0
US 74 Business
TOTALS 0 6 0 0 0
A
NOTES - 1. 501, 1001, and 200' distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
A-13
TABLE R6
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE 8Umay
Dixon School Road Extension
south of NC-216 to US-74, Cleveland County
TIP/ R-2625 State Project/ 8.2600801
' section
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
<.0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >- 25 Increases(1) Criteria(2)
ALTERNATIVE 1
1. Begin Project to NC 216 0 0 4 0
2. NC 216 to SR 2256 0 4 5 1
3. SR 2256 to US 74 Business 0 1 6 0
TOTALS 0 5 15 1
ALTERNATIVE 2
1. Begin Project to NC 216 10 8 13 2
2. NC 216 to SR 2263 0 4 3 0
3. SR 2263 to SR 2256 2 6 4 0
4. SR 2256 to US 74 Business 0 0 9 1
TOTALS 12 18 29 3
(1) As defined in Table N2.
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2.
0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 1 0
A-14
TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: R-2625: Dixon Bch. Rd. Cleveland Co.
• DATE: 03/31/1994 TIME: 09:43:52.79
it SITE Q METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
RUN: Dixon Bch. Rd. 1995 Build 45 MPH
VS = .0 CM/S VD = .0 CM/S ZO 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 6 (F) ATIM 60. MINUTES MIXH . 400. M AMB a 1.9 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W WC QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEC) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1. Far Lane Link 3.7 -804.7 3.7 804.7 1609. 360. AG 1610. 16.0 .0 9.8
2. Near Lane Link .0 804.7 .0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 1610. 18.0 .0 9.8
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M) i
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R-5, 80- Rt. CL RES -22.6 .0 1.8
JOB: R-2625: Dixon Bch. Rd. Cleveland Co. RUN: Dixon Sch. Rd. 1995 Build 45 MPH
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.

WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REC1
MAX 4.8
DEGR. 6
A-15
TABLE A2
CAL3Q8C: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - MARCH, 1990 VERSION
JOB: R-2625: Dixon Sch. Rd. Cleveland Co.
DATE: 03/31/1994 TIM: 09:44:05.04
RUN: Dixon Sch. Rd. 2015 Build 45 MPH
It SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS . .0 CM/S VD - .0 CM/S ZO 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 6 (F) ATIM 60. MINUTES MINE - 400. M AMB - 1.9 PPM
LINK DESCRIPTION LINK COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
I X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VER)
1. Far Lane Link 3.7 -804.7 3.7 804.7
2. Near Lane Link .0 804.7 .0 -804.7
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R-5, 801 Rt. CL RES -22.6 .0 1.6
JOB: R-2625: Dixon Sch. Rd. Cleveland Co.
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REC1
MAX 4.8
DEGR. 5
1609. 360. AG 2840. 10.4 .0 9.8
1609. 180. AG 2840. 10.4 .0 9.8
RUN: Dixon Sch. Rd. 2015 Build 45 MPH
x
A-16
?PQ?aENT OF Ty?'y t .
p United States Department of the Interior
a
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
MAR "s 330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
March 24, 1993
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
Subject: Scoping for proposed extension of Dixon
from south of NC 216 to US 74 Business,
Carolina, T.I.P. No. R-2625
PRIDE IN ?
AMERICA ??

O
z MAR 2 9 1993
2? DIVi, Cv ?r
OF
School Road (SR 2283)
Cleveland County, North
In your letter of January 19, 1993 (received January 25, 1993), you
requested information that would be pertinent for your use in the
preparation of a document evaluating the environmental impacts that could
result from the subject project. The following comments are provided in
accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to information provided in your letter, this project will
involve the realignment and extension of Dixon School Road from just
north of Interstate 85 and terminating at US 74 Business near SR 2031.
The extension will be constructed primarily on a new alignment and will
consist of a two-lane 24-foot paved road with 8-foot shoulders. Two
alternatives--a western and eastern route--are presently under
consideration.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is particularly concerned
about the potential impacts the proposed project could have on stream and
wetland ecosystems within the project impact area and on the
dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora), a federally threatened
plant species known to occur in Cleveland County. 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 dwarf-flowered heartleaf grows in acidic, sandy loam soils along
bluffs and nearby slopes, in boggy areas adjacent to creek heads and
streams, and along the slopes of hillsides and ravines. Soil type is the
A-17

most important habitat requirement, with Pacolet and Madison gravelly
sandy loam or Musella fine sandy loam soils recognized as necessary for
the growth and survival of this species. The presence or absence of this
species in the project impact area should be addressed in the
environmental document.
The Service will provide comments on the two alternatives under'
consideration once the draft environmental document is released. The
Service's review of the subject document would be greatly facilitated if
the document contained the following information:
` (1) A complete analysis and comparison of the available
alternatives (the build and no-build alternatives)..
(2) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within
the required rights-of-way and any areas, such as borrow
areas, that may be affected directly or indirectly by the
proposed road extension.
(3) Acreage and description of the creeks, streams, or
wetlands that will be filled as a consequence of the
proposed road extension. Wetlands affected by the
proposed project should be mapped in accordance with the
Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating
Jurisdictional Wetlands. We recommend contacting the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field
Office (704/259-0855), to determine the need for a Section
404 Clean Water Act permit.
(4) Linear feet of any water courses that will be relocated as
a consequence of the proposed project.
(5) Acreage of upland habitat, by cover type, that will be
eliminated because of the proposed project.
(6) Description of all expected secondary and cumulative
environmental impacts associated with this proposed work.
(7) An analysis of any crossing structures considered (i.e.,
spanning structure, culverts, etc.) and the rationale for
choosing the preferred structure(s) for any new crossings.
• (8) Mitigation measures that will be employed to avoid,
eliminate, reduce, or compensate for habitat value losses
associated with any of the proposed project.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and
request that you continue to keep us informed as to the progress of this
A-18

project. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please
reference our Log Number 4-2-93-052.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Mr. Randall C. Wilson, Nongame Section Manager, Division of Wildlife
Management, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Cecil Frost, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Plant
Conservation Program, P.O. Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Dennis Stewart, Division of Boating and Inland Fisheries, North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 512 N. Salisbury Street,
Raleigh, NC 27604-1188

A-19
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
FM208 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003
03-25-93
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
MAILED TO: FROM:
N.C. DEPT- OF TRANSPORTATION MRS. CHRYS BAGGETT
L.J. WARD DIRECTOR
PLANN. C ENV. BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
•. HIGHWAY BLDG./INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SCOPING - PROPOSED DIXON SCHOOL ROAD EXTENSION FROM DIXON SCHOOL
ROAD (SR 2283) FROM SOUTH OF NC 216 TO US 74 BUSINESSi CLEVELAND
COUNTY TIP #R-2625
SAI NO 93E42200613 PROGRAM TITLE.- SCOPING
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS. AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED: ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONST PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone]•
v
,4z-
MAR 2 q 1993 =
z
C.C. REGION C 2.L IS1GN?F ?Q
xf&
Fi??;;appl?
A-20
d ;,a STATE u
nt
o, SA
`' cQp
.?Y auw ?N.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
t
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee Y-1
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 93-0613 Scoping Dixon School Road Extension, Cleveland
County
DATE: February 23, 1993
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed project. The attached comments are a
result of this review. More specific comments will be provided
during the environmental review process.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If during the
preparation of the environmental document, additional information
is needed, the applicant is encouraged to notify our respective
divisions.
attachments
David Foster
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
D
? 2 5
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Empioya
A-21
N
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, secretary
March 23, 1993
MEMORANDUM
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook ? ?
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Dixon School Road Extension (SR 2283) from south
of NC 216 to US 74 Business, Cleveland County, R-
2625, 8.2800801, STP-2283(1), CH 93-E-4220-0613
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area. However,
since a comprehensive historical architectural inventory of Cleveland County has
never been conducted, there may be structures of which we are unaware located
within the planning area.
We recommend that an architectural historian for the North Carolina Department of
Transportation survey the area of potential effect and report the findings to us.
Please send photographs, keyed to a map, of all structures over fifty years of age.
Also include a brief statement about each straucture's hsitory and explain which
National Register criteria it does or does not meet.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries.
However, the project area has never been systematically surveyed to determine
the location of significance of archaeological resources.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains
that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on
unknown resources should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
activities.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
??
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601.2807 1&9
A-22
L. J. Ward
March 23, 1993, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 9191733-4763.
DB:siw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett
Nicholas Graf

A-23
z
..swco
4 qur ??
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain. Secretary
January 6, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Dixon School Road extension (SR 2283), Federal-Aid
Project STP-2283(1), from north of 1-85 to US 74
Business west of Kings Mountain, R-2625, Cleveland
County, ER 93-7555, ER 94-7975
Dear Mr. Graf:
C
101?
AN111994
kQ* D"SlON OF All -
HIGHW.4yS .
Thank you for your letter of December 7, 1993, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Deborah Joy concerning the above project.
Three archaeological sites were recorded during the survey. Two of the sites, 31 CL20 * *
and 31 CL21 * *, were judged to be potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places. We concur with this assessment. Because both sites are located outside
of the area of potential effect, neither will be affected by the project as proposed.
Provided the project plans do not change, we concur with the recommendation for no
further work at either site. Should any changes be made in the alignment, please notify us
so we can reevaluate the potential effect on 31.CL20* * and 31 CL21 * *. The third site,
31 CL 19 * *, is considered insignificant. We concur.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: ?H. F. Vick
T. Padgett
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
A-24
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
TIP # 12- Zip Z 5 Federal Aid # 8 _21306901 County C1 e-vela.*-.a
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Descnpption
?mn5chgbl U. e x+Lnvm Prom US 1I Bus ? T- BS r u -4 of K,'nas fYlt
On Q Dec representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
.North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
/ there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
/Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as " ouseb 3 '5o;1c "s I - 3-+ are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
?? there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:'

8 Dec- 1gg5
Date
. FHwA,-36r the •Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Dace
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
A-25
d ?,a $TAT( o
cLT I ??n
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Division of Soil & Water Conservation ,?•, ? 3 -4.56
January 27, 1993
%
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee ((??
FROM: David Harrison ?G

SUBJECT: Dixon School Road Extension, Cleveland County, N.C.
Project No. 93-0613.
The proposal is to extend SR 2283 from NC 216 to US 74 Business.
The Environmental Assessment should identify any unique, prime,
or important farmlands that would be impacted by the project. A
wetlands evaluation should be included.
DH/tl
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
A-26

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS Charles H. Gardner
Wllllam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: cr .3= c E /3 County: C Ll f-ZA.ti/?
Project Name: ?..( ,tv 111,70A i? (? %r,
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
/ geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
L" This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
l? If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
` increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
z
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
1104e'?l lrr'? 01Z29/93
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
A-27
Department of Envlronment, Health, and Natural Resources Reviewing Office:
O
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number. Due Date:
2,3
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals Indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Ouestions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications. Information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Normal Process'
Regional Office.

L
L
. L
L
L
L
w rr
L
L
L
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOWREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct i operate wastewater treatment. Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions, a sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post.applicallon
systems not discharging Into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES • permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 100 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
(NtA) i

Well Construction Permit
Complete application must be received and permit issued
7 day.,
.,
prior to the installation of a well. (15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of 190 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct d operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
facilities andlor Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H. NIA (90 days)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 days
NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733.0820. (90'days)

Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0000.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion t sedrmentauo
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Ouallty Sect.) at least 30 20 days
days before beginning activity. A fee of S30 for the first acre and 52000 for each additional acre or art must accompany the plan 30 days)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referranced Local Ordinance: (30 days)
On-site inspection usual. Surely bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond 160 days)
must be received before the permit can be Issued.
North Carolina Burning permit On-site Inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources It permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (N/A)
1 Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22 On•aile inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required **if more / day
J counties in coastal N.C. with organic "is than five acres of ground clearing activities are Involved. Inspections (N/A)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned.-
90.120 days
Oil Relining Facilities NIA (NIA)
It permit required. application W days before begin construction.

J Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 days
Dm Safely Permit Inspect construction. certify construction Is according to EHNR aporov
ad plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An Inspection of site is neces-
sary to verity Huard Classification. A minimum fee of 11200.00 must ac-
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
r7 US
Continued on reverse
A-28
Nor;s- process
L
L
. L
s _rr
. L
, r
'
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
File surety bond of 95,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 day's
Permit to drill exploratory all 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 Nast 10 days prior to lium 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 i drawings of structure t proof of ownership (NIA)
- of riparian property.
I 401 Water Ouality Certification NIA 60 days
(t30 days)
I LAMA Permit for MAJOR dmiopmenl 050.00 fee must accompany application 35 days
(150 tlays)

LAMA Permit for MINOR development

=50.00 fee must accompany appfication 220
sys
(25 days!
II 5evwal 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. Bo: 27667. Raleigh. N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells, if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested If **orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2N.1000 {Coastal Stortnwster pules) it required. 45 days
(NIA)
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being censin to cite comment authority).
A- 12

'I `-9
z x/0
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Re9tonal Office
_ 59 Woodfin Place ? Fayetteville Regional Otfice
Suite 714 Wachovis Building
Asheville, NC 28801
704
) 25145208 Fayetteville. NC 28301
[phone]
r-(7
4)
M -Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
P
O
Box 950 Q Raleigh Regional Office
.
.
.
Mooresville. NC 28115 3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone] [phone] .
? Washington Regional Office ? Wilmington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Washington, NC 27889 Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone] [phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
(919) 8967007
A-29
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: David Yow, Highway Project Coordinator x % 090"?
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: February 18, 1993
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and
wildlife concerns for Dixon School Road Extension from
Dixon School Road (SR 2283) south of NC 216 to US 74
Business, Cleveland County, North Carolina, TIP No. R
-2625, SCH Project No. 93-0613.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. L. J. Ward of
the NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife
resources resulting from the subject project. The N. C. Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) has reviewed the proposed
improvements, and a site inspection was conducted on February 11,
1993. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of
the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended;
16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed work involves re-alignment and extension of
Dixon School Road, a two-lane roadway in Cleveland County. Land
use in the project area consists of agricultural, residential,
and industrial areas. One small stream is crossed by both
proposed alternative alignments. Based on preliminary
examination of project scope, the NCWRC has no preference between
the two alternative corridors.
Recent NCDOT environmental documents have typically
addressed most environmental concerns for projects of this scope.
For purposes of reference, our informational needs are listed
below:
A-30
Memo Page 2 February 18, 1993
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within
the project area, including a listing of federally or
state designated threatened, endangered, or special
concern species. When practicable, potential borrow
areas to be used for project construction should be
included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation
with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
Cecil C. Frost, Coordinator
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
In addition, the NCWRC's Nongame and Endangered Species
Program maintains databases for locations of vertebrate
wildlife species. While there is no charge for the
list, a service charge for computer time is involved.
Additional information may be obtained from:
Randy Wilson, Manager
Nongame and Endangered Species Program
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N. C. 27604-1188
[phone].
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the
project. The need for channelizing or relocating
portions of streams crossed and the extent of such
activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by
the project. Wetland acreages should include all
project-related areas that may undergo hydrologic
change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or
filling for project construction. Wetland
identification may be accomplished through coordination
with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the
COE is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands'
should be identified and criteria listed.
A-31
Memo Page 3 February 18, 1993
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife
habitat impacted by the proposed project: Potential
borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss,
degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat
(wetlands or-uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for
direct and indirect degradation in habitat quality as
well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes
the environmental effects of highway construction and
quantifies the contribution of this individual project
to environmental degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural
resources which will result from secondary development
facilitated by the new road construction. These
indirect impacts have often been ignored in NCDOT
documents, although the possible economic benefits of
subsequent development are frequently cited as
justification for highway construction. The NCWRC
recommends that this and future documents provide a
balanced treatment of secondary development impacts,
particularly when construction on new alignment is
proposed.
. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early
planning stages for this project. If I can further assist your
office, please contact me at [phone].
cc Jack Mason, District 8 Wildlife Biologist
Chris Goudreau, District 8 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Program Mgr.

l
A-32
' . swEr?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
JR. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
J ? B Hurry s+ Hurry
GovERNOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS DIVISION SEcxer RY
P.O. BOX 2520L RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
Release: Immediate Date: April 1, 1993
Contact: Lara E. Ellington, [phone] Distribution: 23
Release No: 100
PUBLIC WORKSHOP SET FOR PROPOSED EXTENSION OF DIXON SCHOOL ROAD IN KINGS
MOUNTAIN
RALEIGH -- The N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) will hold a
public workshop on Monday, May 3 on the proposed extension of Dixon
School Road, south of N.C. 216 to U.S. 74 - U.S. 74 Business in Kings
Mountain, Cleveland County.
The public workshop will be held between the hours of 4 p.m. and 8 p.m.
in the Town Hall Council Chambers, 101 West Gold Street, Kings Mountain.
The proposed project consists of extending Dixon School Road, south of
N.C. 216, to U.S. 74 Business west of Kings Mountain. The proposal will
include constructing a two-lane road on a new location..
I.
All interested persons.are invited to attend this workshop at their
convenience during the above stated hours. NCDOT representatives will be
available to discuss the proposed project and answer any questions.
Anyone desiring additional information on the workshop may contact Mr. Ed
Lewis, N.C. Department of Transportation, Planning and Environmental
Branch, P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, N.C. 27611 or at [phone].
NCDOT will provide reasonable accommodations, auxiliary aids and service:
for any qualified disabled person interested in attending the public
workshop. To request the above services you may call Mr. Lewis at the
above number no later than seven days prior to the date of the meeting.
-end-

A-33 i0'9'
PHONE (919)ij3-2520 FAX[phone]
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
DIXON SCHOOL ROAD (SR 2283) EXTENSION
FROM NORTH OF 1- 85
TO US 74 BUSINESS
CLEVELAND COUNTY
T. I. P. NUMBER R - 2625

MAY 3, 1993
Citizens Informational Workshop
A-34
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
Dixon School Road (SR 2283) Extension
From North of interstate 85
To US 74 Business
Cleveland County
Federal Aid Project STP-2283(1)
State Project 8.2800801
Transportation Improvement Program I-2201
PURPOSE OF THE WORKSHOP
This workshop is being held to review the proposed extension of Dixon
School Road (SR 2283) from north of Interstate 85 to US 74 Business west of
Kings Mountain. Any comments or questions you may have concerning the
proposed improvements will be appreciated.
All comments and suggestions received will be considered in the project
study. It is realized that persons who are near the project want to know
exact information about the effect on their home or place of business. Exact
information is not available at this stage of the project's development.
Additional design work is necessary before the actual right-of-way limits can
be established. Therefore, it is not possible for representatives of the N.
C. Division of Highways to provide exact information about the effect of the
project on individual properties at this time. More definite information
will be available at a future Public Hearing.
A comment sheet is attached at the back of this information packet for
your use. Written comments or requests for additional information should be
addressed to:
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 1993-1999 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) calls for
extending Dixon School Road from north of Interstate 85 to US 74 Business
west of Kings Mountain. The proposed improvements will require the
acquisition of right-of-way. The attached map shows the location of the
project.
A-35
DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS
The proposed project involves re-aligning and extending the existing
Dixon School Road (SR 2283) from just north of Interstate 85 to US 74
Business west of Kings Mountain, a distance of approximately 2.3 miles (see
Figure 1).
The proposed improvements call for a 24-foot roadway on new location
with 8-foot useable shoulders and minor re-alignments of intersecting roads.
A grade separation will be constructed for the proposed crossing with the
Norfolk-Southern Railroad. A 12' X 12' box culvert is proposed for the
crossing of Beason Creek. Realignment of NC 216 and some of the secondary
roads may be required where the proposed roadway intersects with them.
CURRENT SCHEDULE
A Public Hearing is tentatively scheduled for December of this year.
Right-of-way acquisition for the southern part of the project (Interstate 85
to Phifer Road) is scheduled for October, 1999. Construction for the
southern part of the project is scheduled for the year 2000.
Right-of-way acquisition for the northern part of the project (Phifer
Road to US 74 Business) is scheduled for October, 1994. Construction for the
northern part of the project is scheduled for September, 1995.
The above schedules are subject to the availability of funds.
EXISTING FACILITIES
Dixon School Road (SR 2283) is a two-lane road 18 feet wide with minimal
unpaved shoulders constructed on poor horizontal alignment through rolling
terrain. It connects Interstate 85 to NC 216, and it serves the southwest
side of Kings Mountain. Current average daily traffic is 5,300 vehicles per
day (vpd), and estimated traffic volume for the design year 2015 is 8,700
vpd.
NC 216 is a two-lane road 22 feet wide with very good horizontal
alignment. It connects traffic from Interstate 85 directly into Kings
Mountain. Current average daily traffic is 6,300 vehicles per day, and
the estimated traffic volume for the design year 2015 is 10,000 vpd.
Margrace Road (SR 2263) parallels NC 216 in the project area on the
opposite side of the Norfolk-Southern Railroad. It is a two-lane road 18
feet wide with very good horizontal alignment. Current average daily traffic
is 4,600 vpd, and the estimated traffic volume for the design year 2015 is
5,400 vpd.
Running between Margrace Road and NC 216, is the Norfolk-Southern
Railroad. This railroad carries 18 trains per day including an Amtrak train.
There is a one-lane, substandard underpass of the railroad (located within
approximately 500 feet of Dixon School Road) which connects NC 216 and
Margrace Road.
A-36
Phifer Road (SR 2256) runs east-west in the vicinity of the project. It
is a two-lane road 18 feet wide with poor horizontal and vertical curvature.
The Kings Mountain Middle, Junior and Senior Schools are located east of the
proposed crossing with Dixon School Road. Current average daily traffic is
4,100 vpd, and the estimated traffic volume for the design year 2015 is 8,300
vpd.
US 74 Business is a four-lane divided road which connects US 74 Bypass
• to central Kings Mountain. Current average daily traffic is 21,000 vpd, and
the estimated traffic volume for the design year 2015 is 35,000 vpd.
ESTIMATED COSTS
Construction - $5,000,000
Right-of-Way - $1,000,000
TOTAL - $6,000,000
These costs should be regarded as preliminary only and are subject to
revision in the later stages of planning.
The TIP includes a total funding for this project of $4,100,000 which
includes $3,300,000 for construction and $800,000 for right of way
acquisition.
A-37
CLEVELAND
COUNTY

END i
PROJECT /.Is

. 2131 .r. w rws A]
¦ ?1j1 233.4 ]I7=
'? .?.• a.,3,,. r
'
;
.?•
Y;i;. "i ' ;r%+ 7212
7313 v:^+? .`!•? {;s::? 1..?,
2222 q.4kl: f# 'rs?c:.

Z Y:.:
I I ,. a,
'
W •
'

yf 4V <j

7231. ¦ • °^'t ao

220 :::

?
• .w
?
2w
2334 . 23!!

2 V " rasp OS
322

Ch,
2242 ? 7212
41 i 2m jatl
n
231
lilS ?`
° A?ow.. a.
.
7244. ?? . • ,

*k
um ?O 72? um
szv ,?

BEGIN
am
v PROJECT
7212
23l
]10 im

-/ rr
KINGS MOUNTAIN
POP 9,080
Cl1VEUN0 CO. 3.130
GASiON CO. 630
3D FAS -
?a .
J
1
23L4 " Ch.
a
tIo` II
u
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
A TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
r PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
DIXON SCHOOL ROAD EXTENSION
CLEVELAND COUNTY
R-2625
1 V92 FIG. 1
A-38
*** 14, XZ / /
CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOP
DIXON SCHOOL ROAD (SR 2283) EXTENSION
FROM NORTH OF I - 85
TO US 74 BUSINESS
CLEVELAND COUNTY
MAY 3, 1993
COMMENT SHEET
NAME:
ADDRESS:
COMMENTS AND / OR QUESTIONS:
STATEMENTS RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS MAYALSO BE
MAILED TO: MR. L. J. WARD, P. E., MANAGER OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
P. O. BOX 25201 RALEIGH, N. C. 27611
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

3 A-39

c1tizens Support road plan,
Local support for one of the :wo
phases of the proposed Dixon
School Road (SR 2'?83) extension
was indicated by residents attend-
ing a four-hour citizens' informa-
tional workshop Monday.
Ed Lewis and John Alford of the
State Department of Transportation
took comments from 30 citizens
livine in the area and found some
opposed to the second part of the
project (Alternate !I which would
run through property behind
Mount Olive Baptist Church in the
Compact Communit•r.
Maps of Alternate I and
Alt=ate >I routes are to be posted
at City all and interested citizens
can ain-coint the 1ceatiens and g°t
more information `rem city'piarner
Gene White in his second floor or-
fice.
Rig: t-of ua act sidor. for
norrn pa:, of :`.e roiec.. Phifer
Road :o ; S Business. is soh e?
uled for Cic:ober. t CC_,
Construction is scheduled for
September, 1995.
Lewis said that right-of-way ac-
quisition for the southern part of
the f.roiect. I-85 to Phifer Road, is
scheduled for October, 1999.
Construction is scheduled for the
year 2000.
Local school officials supported
the northern route which would
help alleviate traific at aireacy con-
gested Kings Mountain Middle
School on Phifer Road.
Judy Ross, whose grandparents
live in the Mount Olive Church
community, wanted to' snow more
about the southeriy route. She said
that route ceulc <e some of her
family's proper:'..
Local realtor Hai Plonk was also
interesteu in hew the new road
would affect •t roper:;, he owns in
the area.
Bill -.=ton, whose !tome is on
Grover Road, said if :he stale cians
to redo High,,vay -_ie it will in
he _ : on `=1
,hoe
tar-nJand DtI-e.- 30mes in ?na::m-
mediate area located behind the
Mount Olive church proper.
Alford said additional dcsicr.
work is necessary before the actua
right- of-way limit; can be estab-
lished and exact information about
the effect of the project on individ-
ual properties wont be available
until public hearing tentative)
scaeduiea fur ?c' cuwct Vi i-i
V ear.
The 1993-99 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) call,
for extending Dixon School Rcad
from north of Interstate 85 TO 1. S
= Business west of Kin,-
Mountain.
The proposed project involve-,
realigning, and c:,acndinz the
in? Di`,Cn SC` COI Road (SR
from ust north o . 3. to s
Business west of K"I?s Mcu=:a.
a distarc., of 2.3 ?M.. s.
The proposed roveme ;ts .al.
fcr a `pot road-;-ay on new cca-
:;on wit;, S-`cot shculcer.
See Road. 3
A-40
Hal Plonk, Judy Ross, State DOT official Ed Lewis, and school oniciais i)r. Larry Y1„C1, 31,u
McRae look over maps of two alternate proposals for extension of Dixon School Road from north of I-8
to US 74 Business. Public hearing is tentatively set for December.
(? ',
Age 1-A
wn? ?tjtnor realignments of inter
.-s g roads. A grade separation
wil be constructed for the pro-
1 scd crossing with. the Norfolk-
outhcrn Railroad. A 12x12 box
.culvert is proposed for the crossing
of Beason Creek. Realignment of
NC 216 and some of the secondary
roads may be required where the
proposed roadway intersects with
them.
Officials pointed out that the
schedules are subject to the avail-
ability of funds as they pointed out
the proposed routes on large maps
in the Council Chambers at City
Hall.
Current average daily traffic on
two-lane 22 feet wide NC 216 is
6,300 vehicles per day and the esti-
mated traffic volume for the design
year 2015 is 10.000.
Current average daily traffic on
two-lane 18 feet wide Margrace
Road, which runs parallel to NC
216, is 4,600 and the estimated
traffic volume by the design year
2015 is 5,400.
The railroad running between
Margracc Road and NC 216 curies
18 trains per day including an
Amtrak train. There is a one lane
sub-standard underpass of the rail-
road 500 feet from Dixon School
Road which connects NC 216 and
Margrace Road.
Phifer Road runs east-west in the
vicinity of the project. It is a two
lane road 18 feet wide with poor
horizontal and vertical curvature.
The KM Middle School and Ktif
High School are east of the pro-
posed crossing with Dixon School
Road. Current average daily traffic
is 4,100 vehicles and the estimated
traffic volume by 2015 is 8,300.
US 74 Business is a four-lane di-
vided road which connects US 74
Bypass to central Kings Mountain.
Current average daily traffic is
321,000 vehicles and the estimat-
ed traffic volume for the design
year 2015 is 35,000 vehicles per
day.
Preliminary construction costs
are estimated at S5 million with
right- of-way costs estimated at S l
million.
The TIP includes a total funding
for this project of S•1.1 million
which includes 53.3 million for
construction and S800,000 for
right-of-way acquisition.
:?4
A-41
i Y
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
I -Do
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
Mr. -Eric Lei lamb Wm-- VR
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
M
P3-
?`
r.
1. Y
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER 9UR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
rs. STATE 4
ECFIVFn
,"AM 2 2 1993
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA TRAINING & CERT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR January 15, 1993
THOMAS J. HARRELSON WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
Department of Environmental Management
FROM: Ed Lewis
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting Minutes
Dixon School Road Extension from Dixon School Road
(SR 2283) south of NC 216 to US 74 Business, Cleveland
County, Federal Aid Project STP-2283(1), State Project
8.2800801, TIP Project R-2625
A meeting was held on Tuesday, October 27, 1992 in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 471) to determine the scope of
work of the subject project. The following people were in attendance:
DeWayne Sykes
Don Bruns
Jack Matthews
Paul Worley
Jerry Snead
Eric Galamb
Danny Rogers
Bill Waller
Don Wilson
Ray Moore
Joe Springer
Schenck Cline
Ed Lewis
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Photogrammetry
Rail
Hydraulics
DEHNR-Water Quality
Program Development
Right of Way
Location and Surveys
Structure Design
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Mr. Lewis briefly presented the project, and informed those present that
parts A and B would be developed as one project in the planning phase with
an EA/FONSI.
It was determined to begin the re-alignment and extension of Dixon School
Road approximately 0.3 mile north of Interstate 85. The proposed route
will cross NC 216, the Norfolk-Southern Railroad, SR 2263, SR 2256, and
will terminate at US 74 Business near SR 2031 (see attached Figure 1). The
proposed route will consist of a two-lane, 24-foot paved travelway with
8-foot usable shoulders constructed on 150 feet of right-of-way.
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
• January 15, 1993
Page 2
Jerry Snead noted that the one stream crossing would require a single
barrel, 12' x 12' box culvert. He said he was not aware of any
environmental concerns associated with the stream.
Paul Worley noted that Norfolk-Southern operates 17 trains per day on the
dual tracks which includes two Amtrak passenger trains traveling in excess
of 75 miles per hour. It was determined that with this number of trains,
it would take only Design Year traffic numbering 1000 vehicles per day to
exceed the minimum exposure index of 15,000 to justify providing a grade
separated facility.
NC 216, the Norfolk-Southern Railroad, and SR 2263 run parallel for
approximately 1.1 miles in the vicinity of the proposed crossing. Due to
their close proximity, there was much discussion regarding how the proposed
facility would cross and/or provide access to the rails and roads. As a
result of this discussion, two alternatives were developed and are
discussed below.
Alternative 1 is the westernmost alternative. Under this alternative,
Dixon School Road south of NC 216 will be relocated. NC 216 will be
relocated south of its present location to allow for an at-grade crossing
with the proposed route. The proposed route will pass over the railroad by
means of a grade separation. Intersections will be constructed where the
proposed route crosses SR 2263 and SR 2256. The tentative location of the
proposed route under this alternative is shown on the attached Figure 1.
The estimated construction cost of this Alternative is $5,000,000.
Alternative 2 is the easternmost alternative. Under this alternative,
Dixon School Road south of NC 216 will be relocated. NC 216 will be
relocated south of its present location to allow for an at-grade crossing
with the proposed route. The proposed route will pass over the railroad
and SR 2263 by means of a single bridge. A road will be constructed to
provide access between SR 2263 and the proposed route. An intersection
will be constructed where the proposed route crosses SR 2256. The
tentative location of the proposed route under this alternative is shown on
the attached Figure 1. The estimated construction cost of this Alternative
is $4,950,000.
DeWayne will produce preliminary designs and cost estimates for both
alternatives and forward the information to Mr. Lewis to distribute with
the scoping minutes memorandum.
Joe Springer said he would try to have traffic estimates by the first week
in December (traffic forecast information is still unavailable at this
time).
There was no further discussion, so the meeting adjourned. If there are
any questions regarding this project, please contact Ed Lewis at (919)
733-3141.
EFL/wp
Attachments
CLEVELAND
COUNTY

2381

Elbethel
f?Ir::
w
2250, t+: .
'
) N- n;..?'••%

r
t;ya., y Ell H Lob::.
r Ctn;J ...
r

2252

::::;•:;
T]sb
. a

22 1 14S
2258 29
'
0 2.01 ' ,
2.00 .03
241
` 235 •.
.07
9b 2295
O
2256 239 2302
2295 .05 I
2257

2263 J
Ie3
Gefhsemone Ch. ;
•O i 2258 ,
Q 1
2346
3v
-
.06
2420
2261 2\ ?
'
o Olive Ch
,-
? l
2307
?' ^ I BEGIN
2211
PROJECT
2283
22,5
2313
7]Os
85 Q
5
2263
I 9
Casar Toluca
` 10 4
1 •p 7 Belwood \
' 4\
'Wile allston
awnda a 182
s 4 18
?herr)
' 22 D ble Wac
13 S oats 2
?-\E 2 A N I
attimore 1
? tubbs 61
ettaoresborro III tZ Kings*
1150 2 2 3 74 Mount
B oo Boiling 4 4 Pat. erson S
1 8
ZdR. SDri g
\ 22
6 arl
•--- 218 rov 31
?N
4-0
KINGS MOUNTAIN
POP 9,080
CLEVELAND CO, 8,430
GASTON CO. 650
415 W EAS
i
END
PROJECT ?•15
?j

M-edonfo
u9e w Ch.
2 J
D
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
DIXON SCHOOL ROAD EXTENSION
CLEVELAND COUNTY
R-2625
11/92 FIG. 1
I
PROJEC'T' SCOP I NG SHEET
Date JANOARY 2O, P7133
Revision Date
Project Development Stage
Programming _ J
P l a n n i n g
.-___--
Desi.gn _
TIP # R-2625
Project # 8.2500501
F.A. Project # .__STP-228 i
Division 12
County CLr_?%EL.AND
Route NEW ROUE
Functional Classification TO BE 'YETr-;',
T. e n g t h ---' _ 2 MILES
------- --
Purpose of Project: TO PROVIDE ?. FORTH-SOL:T ROUTE ON THE WEST
SIDE OF KING'S MOUNTAiN CONNECTING US 74 BUS
TO DIXON SCHOOL ROAD CO, 3 /J0iZ714 OF L-05-
Description of project (including s pecific limits) and major
elements of work: TWO-LANE, FACILITY FROM US 74 BUSINESS TO DJY,6/J
R ROAD WITH A GRADE SEPARATED CROSSING OF THE CSX RR WHICH
PARALLELS ,NC 2 1 6 . rz-e- 8 f 8 h .4 EP -u 5 r? - t c MlfjoZ E_L06A-n0iV
OP NL Zi6, AA)7) 5e6:0AJDAP-J ZoAD'>
Type of environmental document to be preparcd: EA/FONSI
Environmental study schedule. T41 :'.. `_.:.:.&' =I-11
IMPLE T E -- S 6w? l 93
?N5 r Cowl /PLC 7c DEC '73
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No
If yes, by whom and amount: (S)- or (1)
!-low and when will this be paid?
Page 2
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ea tures__-_cf _ Proposed Facility
Type of F a c i l i t y : -- -rAy O- L A N F: --
Type of Access Control: Full ___- Partial None
Type of Roadway:
Interchanges & Grade Separations .01- Stream Crossings
Typical Section of Roadway: 24 FEET WITH S-FOOT SHOULDERS
Traffic: Current - &)A___ vpd. Design Year IVA _ vpd
?? Trucks _._N?----- % DHV -- - - Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO Sit -_-__--
Design Speed.: _LJ MPH
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies) UQ_C_
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util., r
and acquisition) . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Force Account Items. . . . . . . . . . . S
Preliminary Engineering . . . . . . . . . . S
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ? D0? Op0
5 ----0 - -----
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . .
Right of Way . . . . . . .
Total Cost .
S 700.000
S _,00.000
. . . 5:.000.0000
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which
could affect cost or schedule of
G? & S'j?ar?. I??,-N at x 1d ? C uLU ?Z'T fkT UG l? Ci2?5Si?C -
Page 3
PROJECT SLOPING SHEET
ITEMS REQUIRED ( } COMMENTS COST
_ Estimated Costs of improvements:
_ Pavement
Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
--- S
------
Base . . 5
--- Milling Yu Recycling S
--

_ Turnouts. . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . --
_
S
- ---
Shoulders: Paved. . . . . . . S

_ Earthwork . . . . . . . . $
- ---
Subsurface Items: . . . . . . . . . . S
--
-- Subgr.ade and Stabilization. . . . . . . . .
--
$
-- Drainage (List any special items) . . . . S _-----_--
-... Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . S - -- -- ..
_ Structures: Width x Length
-- Bridge R e h a b i 14 t a t i o n _... -- S -____----
-- New Bridge 40 -
--- Widen Bridge --------- ._--- x
---- Remove Bridge t S __--_-...--
New Culverts: Size iZiZ Le ngthQ S.
Fill Ht.
--
Culvert Extension . . .
. . . . $
Retaining Walls: Type Ave. Ht. 5
Skew
-
--
Noise W a l l s . . . . . . . .
.
. 5 _
--
------- Any Other Misc. Structures. . . . . . . S
-
Concrete Curb & Guttei.. . . . . . .
- S
----
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . .. . . . . . . $
--- ---
_ Guardrail .. . . . . . . . . . _ . . . S
--
_ Fencing: W.W. --- - arld/ar C. I,. --... . . . $
Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
- Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . 5 _... ----
-- Lighting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. S
Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
- Signing -- New . . . . . . . . . . . . . S ------ -- -
Upgrading . . . . . . . . . . . S
- Traffic Signals: New . . . . . . . . . S ------___-_-
Revised. . . . . . . . S
RR Signals: New c
Rev i sed
With or Without Arms. . . . S
- I P 3R: Drai rlage Safety Enhancement. S -
Roadside Safety Enhancement. $
_
Real i.gni-Hent for Safety Upgrade S _--
- Pavement Markings: Paint Thermo
--
$
Markers
_ Delineators . . S _
Other .
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal): S
Page 4
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Contingencies & Engineering . . . . . . . . . . S
PE Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Subtotal: S
Right of Way:
Will Contain within Exist Right of Way: Yes
Existing Right of Way Width: A
New Right of Way Needed: Width Est. Cost S
Easements: Type Width _ Est. Cost ,t
Utilities: ;
No Y
Right of Way Subtotal: S
Total Estimated Cost (Includes R/W): S
Prepared By: Date:
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* 17y:
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
INIT. DATE
Board of Tran. Member.
Mgr. Program &: Policy
Chief Engineer-Precons
Chief Engineer-Oper'
Secondary Roads Off.
Construction Branch
Roadside Environmental
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
---- F'HWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
Dept. of EH & NR
INIT. DATE
Scope Sheet for local officials will be serit Io Division
Engineer for handling.
Comments or Remarks: PROJECT HAS IF:.F;N UPSCOPED RONI US ?4
BUSINESS TO DINON SCHOOL. ROAD. FEDERAL IF NDi\G SOURCE SO
I U, EA/FONS1 W I[..L F'..EQC:IRED uT rv crvr?*• Tn nr 11L'TL
vz-rrrn
If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping,
note your proposed revisions in Comments or Remarks Section and
initial and date after comments.

*'-C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
lb
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.

FROM: RE W. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG)
ERA
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? 'TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
P-1 DID
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
October 2, 1992
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. Eric Galamb
Department of Environmental Management
FROM:
L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: _ Review of Scoping Sheets for Improvements to Dixon
School Road Extension from Dixon School Road (SR 2283)
south of NC 216 to US 74 Business, Cleveland County,
Federal Aid Project STP-2283(1), State Project
8.2800801, TIP Project R-2625
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (see attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for October 27, 1992 at 9:00 A.M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470 . You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date (please
reference page 4 of the scoping sheet).
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If
there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Ed Lewis, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-3141.
EFL/wp
Attachment
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
i
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date OCTOBER 1992 _
Revision Date
< Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning X
Design
TIP # R-2625
Project # 8.2300801
F.A. Project # STP-2233(1)
Division 12
County CLEVELAND
Route NEW ROUTE
Functional Classification TO BE DETERMINED _
Length MILES
Purpose of Project: TO PROVIDE A NORTH-SOUTH ROUTE ON THE WEST
SIDE OF KING'S MOUNTAIN CONNECTING US 74 BUS
TO D I XOv' SCHOOL ROAD
Description of project (including specific limits) and major
elements of work: TWO-LANE FACILITY FROM US 74 BUSINESS TO
PHIFER ROAD WITH A GRADE SEPARATED CROSSING OF THE CSX RR WHICH
PARALLELS NC 216. POSSIBLE INTERCHANGE FOR NC 216.
Type of environmental document to be prepared: EA/FONSI
Environmental study schedule: TO BE DETERMINED
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No X
If yes, by whom and amount: O , or O

How and when will this be paid?

Page 2
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Featurea-of Proposed Facility
Type of Facility: _TWO-LANE
Type of Access Control: Full Partial. _ None
Type of Roadway:
Interchanges 1 Grade Separations 0 Stream Crossings ?
Typical Section of Roadway: 24 FEET WITH S-FOOT SHOULDERS
Traffic: Current vpd Design Year
% Trucks % DHV
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO N
Design Speed: MPH
Preliminary Resurfacing Design:
Preliminary Pavement Design:
3R
vpd
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost (including engineering
and contingencies). . . . . . . . . . S
Right of Way Cost (including rel., util.,
and acquisition). . . . . . . . . . . . $ -
Force Account Items. . . . . . . . . . . . $
Preliminary Engineering. . . . . . . . . . $
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 700,000
Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 300.000
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . $1,000,0000
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which
could affect cost or schedule of project: GRADE SEPARATION AND
INTERCHANGE IN VICINITY OF RR AND NC 216
L
Page 3
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ITEMS REQUIRED ( } COMMENTS COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
Pavement
Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Base. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S -
Milling & Recycling . . . . . . . . . . S
Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S ---
Shoulders: Paved. . . . . . . . . . . . $ -
_ Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . $ ---- -
Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ -
Subsurface Items: . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Subgrade and Stabilization. . . . . . . . . $
Drainage (List any special items) . . . . . S
_ Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation _ s S
New Bridge X $
Widen Bridge 1 $
Remove Bridge X $
New Culverts: Size Length S
Fill Fit .
Culvert Extension . . . . . $
Retaining Walls: Type -___ Ave. Ht. S -
Skew
Noise Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
Any Other Misc. Structures. . . . . . . . S
Concrete Curb & Gutter. . . . . . . . . . . S _
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Guardrail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. . . . $
Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ _
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Signing: New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Upgrading. . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Signals: New $
Revised . . . . . . . $
RR Signals: New . . . . . . . . . . . . S _ -
Revised
With or Without Arms. $
If 3R: Drainage Safety Enhancement. . . S
Roadside Safety Enhancement: . . $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade . S
Pavement Markings: Paint Thermo
Markers
Delineators . . $
Other . $
CONTRACT COST (Subtotal): $
Page 4
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Contingencies & Engineering . . . . . . . . . . $
PE Costs'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Subtotal: $
Right of Way:
Will Contain within Exist Right of Way: Yes
Existing Right of Way Width:
New Right of Way Needed: Width 80' Est. Cost $
Easements: Type Width Est. Cost $
Utilities: $
No Y
Right of Way Subtotal: $
Total Estimated Cost (Includes R/W): $
Prepared By:
Date:
The above scoping has been reviewed and approved* 'by:
INIT. DATE
Highway Design
Roadway
Structure
Design Services
Geotechnical
Hydraulics
Loc. & Surveys
Photogrammetry
Prel. Est. Engr.
Planning & Environ.
Right of Way
R/W Utilities
Traffic Engineering
Project Management
County Manager
City/Municipality
Others
Board of Tran. Member
Mgr. Program & Policy
Chief Engineer-Precons
Chief Engineer-Oper
Secondary Roads Off.
Construction Branch
Roadside Environmental
Maintenance Branch
Bridge Maintenance
Statewide Planning
Division Engineer
Bicycle Coordinator
Program Development
FHWA
Dept. of Cult. Res.
Dept. of EH & NR
INIT. DATE
Scope Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division
Engineer for handling.
Comments or Remarks: PROJECT HAS BEEN UPSCOPED FROM US 74
BUSINESS TO DIXON SCHOOL ROAD. FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCE SO
EA/FONSI WILL REQUIRED WITH SCHEDULE TO BE DETERMINED.
*If you are, not in agreement with proposed project or scoping,
note your proposed revisions in Comments or Remarks Section and
initial and date after comments.

9
Casar Toluca
10 4I
7 B-eFlwood
kvilleallst
? _ res CLEVELAND
COUNTY
Cherr)
WaCADk,
A N [
ubbs BI
191
Kings*
?y Moun
rl erson 5
rinds
i
I
•3
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE

TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
_?i 11'.?r;P
w ?
i,M-bu?HQlZ
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
my-. -Gd
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER 9UR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
p- 2?025
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
? 'wC 4
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
January 19, 1993
RECEIVEr)
UN 2 1 1993
TRAININ% & CrDT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Dixon School Road Extension from Dixon School Road (SR 2283)
from south of NC 216 to US 74 Business, Cleveland County,
Federal-Aid Project STP-2283(1), State Project 8.2800801,
TIP Project R-2625
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has begun
studying the proposed improvements to Dixon School Road (SR 2283). The project
is included in the 1993-1999 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program
and is scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 1995 and construction in fiscal
year 1995.
It was determined to begin the re-alignment and extension of Dixon School
Road approximately 0.3 mile north of Interstate 85. The proposed route will
cross NC 216, the Norfolk-Southern Railroad, SR 2263, SR 2256, and will
terminate at US 74 Business near SR 2031 (see Attached). The proposed route
will consist of a two-lane, 24-foot paved travelway with 8-foot usable shoulders
constructed on 150 feet of right-of-way.
Alternative 1 is the westernmost alternative. Under this alternative,
Dixon School Road south of NC 216 will be relocated. NC 216 will be relocated
south of its present location to allow for an at-grade crossing with the
proposed route. The proposed route will pass over the railroad by means of a
grade separation. Intersections will be constructed where the proposed route
crosses SR 2263 and SR 2256. The tentative location of the proposed route under
this alternative is shown on the attached Figure 1.
Alternative 2 is the easternmost alternative. Under this alternative,
Dixon School Road south of NC 216 will be relocated. NC 216 will be relocated
south of its present location to allow for an at-grade crossing with the
proposed route. The proposed route will pass over the railroad and SR 2263 by
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
January 19, 1993
Page 2
means of a single bridge. A road will be constructed to provide access between
SR 2263 and the proposed route. An intersection will be constructed where the
proposed route crosses SR 2256. The tentative location of the proposed route
under this alternative is shown on the attached Figure 1.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in
evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable,
please identify any permits or approvals which may be required by your agency.
Your comments will be used in the preparation of a document evaluating
environmental impacts of the project. It is desirable that your agency respond
by March 26, 1993 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this
document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Ed Lewis,
Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
LJW/plr
Attachment
CLEVELAND
COUNTY
Elbethel Ch.
I I I I I I I I i I\-
I 9
Casar Toluca
?c 10 4
! ?p 7 Belwood
kville ?allston
U.awnda a 182
5 ? ? ]8
Cherr3
J 22 Double Wac
13 Shoals J `
L\E Z A N I
attimore 1
tubbs BE
oores-oro I1? I
etta ++Sh s1If 2 3 274 Mount Kins*
z
Boiling 1 4 a. Sa`h?erson5
? R. Springs I 2P g 6
• - -- _ _ 2 18 3 arov 9 31.,
?N.

PROJECT

2o
5
2.
2196

2
20z9
2028
.' ?'i•:

.
'
'?
:;
:
2031
o liStovef
:
" :
:
.
.:::
.
.
? L V' :':':..
2197 6 ?2 ;
. ii ?
uY.j : :
:`
'
2131

75 75 .07 FAS .061 .02
1.17

2254

^P'Pf

?,;':':j:%:`;:'.
225 .:

?381 ¦ 2253 _
2255

Q

w ...:

2252
56 ' V0
KINGS MOUNTAIN
POP 9,080
CLEVELAND CO, 8,430
GASTON CO. 650
6U5 .89 FAS
74
1

1258 .19 m.ced-ip
a 2A01 2298 Ch.
1100 .03 ¦
1 _ , 0.e 2
2352 ?791 2197
¦ .07
.v 2295
2198
?t259 ,? B 2302 1319 36
2]95 U5 OB 2363
2263 ? 2283 I 6
1263
Gethsemane Ch. ,
j 2258
?? . ? 2316
a o
26+ sT Olive Ch.- ?
2266 \0 , 2267 ,
\0 A
°o Midvie
,y5 `o ' vo Ch. 2
2272 ?O 2265 2307 229+
2269 270
t 2305
2 . 230+ '60
2222T 2167 BEGIN
PROJECT
0 0
2293
22.5
Er5 2313
716 2305
85
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
DIXON SCHOOL ROAD EXTENSION
CLEVELAND COUNTY
R-2625
11/92 FIG. 1
CLEVELAND
COUNTY

9
1 Casar Toluca
P
10 4 `
-p 7 Belwood
? 4
kville -nd"f allston
tel
aa a
.
182
5 1 8
Cherr)
22 Double
+ 13 S4'oals Wac
7
+ J-\E Z A N 1?
attimore ?I tubbs Best

A-.
+ 0oresbo
ro -3
+
N
I2 Kings* 21t
ett
+ + +*150 2 2
3 74 Mount
+ g Boiling'/ 4 a. Paterson 5 - •
Sp
rings? t. Springs B.
v
art 9 4 5
2 18 rov 3!85 161.

THANSI'UHTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
DIXON SCHOOL ROAD EXTENSION
CLEVELAND COUNTY
R-2625
i i t7 V LS 1:1 i
L/ tl ? i
MAR 01994
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC WORKSHOP ON THE
PROPOSED EXTENSION OF SR 2283 (DIXON SCHOOL ROAD)
SOUTH OF NC 216 TO US 74-US 74 BUSINESS
Project 8.2800801 R-2625 Cleveland County
The above Public Workshop will be held on Monday, May 3, 1993
between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Council
Chambers, 101 West Gold Street, Kings Mountain.
The proposed project consists of extending SR 2283
(Dixon School Road) south of NC 216 to US 74 Business west of Kings
Mountain. The proposal will include constructing a two-lane road on
new location.
Representatives from the Department of Transportation will be
available to discuss the proposed project with those attending. All
interested persons are urged to attend at their convenience during the
scheduled hours. Anyone desiring additional information on the
Workshop may contact Mr. Ed Lewis, N. C. Department of Transportation,
Planning and Environmental Branch, P. 0. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611
or telephone [phone].
NCDOT will provide reasonable accommodations, auxiliary aids, and
services for any qualified disabled person interested in attending the
public workshop. To request the above services you may call Mr. Lewis
at the above number no later than seven days prior to the date of the
meeting.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1I?ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARtETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
March 8, 1996
Mr. Eric Galamb RECEIVED
DEHNR - Div. of Environmental Management
Water Quality Lab MAR 1 5 1996'
4401 Reedy Creek Road ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607 ^p^??^U
Dear Mr. Galamb:
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for Cleveland County, New Route,
from North of the I-85/SR 2283 (Dixon School Road) Interchange to
US 74 Business (Shelby Road), Federal Aid Project Number
STP-2283(1), State Project Number 8.2800801, TIP Project R-2625
Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment and a Natural
Resources Technical Report for the subject proposed highway improvement. It
is anticipated this project will be processed with a "Finding of No
Significant Impact"; however, should comments received on the Environmental
Assessment or at the public hearing demonstrate a need for preparing a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement you will be contacted as part of our scoping
process.
Copies of this Assessment are being submitted to the State
Clearinghouse, areawide planning agencies, and the counties, towns, and
cities involved.
Permit review agencies should note it is anticipated Federal Permits
will be required as discussed in the report.
Any comment you have concerning the Environmental Assessment should be
forwarded to:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Your comments should be received by April 26, 1996. If no comments are
received by that date we will assume you have none. If you desire a copy of
the "Finding of No Significant Impact," please so indicate.
Sincerely,
H. 0kl lc , E . , Manager
HFV/plr Planning and Environmental Branch
-
SrATE
a
.? AG
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
RE-CEIVM
MAR 1 5' 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
a}?a%r-y
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
GARLAN D B. GARRETC J R.
SECRETARY
4 October 1995
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
J. Wilson Stroud, Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
James W. Hauser, Environmental Biologist ?WA
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Water resources and protected species update for the
Dixon School Road Extension, from Dixon School Road,
South of NC 216 to US 74 Business; Cleveland County;
TIP No. R-2625; State Project No. 8.2800801; Federal
Aid No. STP-2283(1).
ATTENTION: Ed P. Lewis, Project Planning Engineer
REFERENCE(S): (1) Shipley, August 1993. Natural Resources
Technical Report R-2625
This construction consultation addresses water resources and
federally-protected species potentially impacted by the proposed
project. It serves to update the previously submitted Natural
Resources Technical Report with respect to these two issues
(Reference 1).
Water Resources. Three water bodies, Beason Creek, an unnamed
intermittent tributary and an unnamed pond along the tributary, will
be impacted by the proposed project. Hydrologic characteristics and
existing aquatic communities of Beason Creek have been described in
the referenced Natural Resources Technical Report for this project.
Streams have been assigned a Best Usage Classification by the
Division of Environmental Management (DEM) which denotes water
quality conditions and potential resource usage. The Best Usage
Classification of Beason Creek remains unchanged. This stream has
been classified as "C" by the DEM (September 1974). Class C
designated waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture.
The unnamed pond and tributary which flow into Beason Creek are
assigned the same water classification of Class C.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-
II), nor outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0
mi) of the project area.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN), managed by
the DEM, monitors ambient water quality by sampling at fixed sites
for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms, which are sensitive

to water quality conditions. A BMAN survey was conducted in March
1986 and June 1987 on Beason Creek at two locations, SR 2252 and SR
2246, within two kilometers of the project area. These surveys
indicated a water quality rating of "good/fair" for Beason Creek. No
new data regarding BMAN water quality assessment have been published.
Impacts to "Waters of the U.S." will occur at the proposed road
crossing at Beason Creek. No jurisdictional wetlands occur within
the project area.
Protected Species. Plants and animals with federal
classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under
provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended.
Only one federally protected species, the dwarf-flowered
heartleaf (Hexastvlis naniflora), is listed for Cleveland County by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as of March 28, 1995. This
species was surveyed for during the preparation of the original
Natural Resources Technical Report and no individuals were found
within the project area. The Technical Report provides detailed
descriptions and a "No Effect" biological conclusion for the dwarf-
flowered heartleaf. According to the N.C. Natural Heritage Program
protocols, this biological conclusion remains valid.
No additional species have been listed for federal protection
for Cleveland County since the original Natural Resources Technical
Report.
cc. V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
File: R-2625
I
a??a
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT I II
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
August 9, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Schenck Cline, Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
FROM: Janet L. Shipley, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resource Technical Report for
Dixon School Road Extension, from Dixon
School Road, South of NC 216 to US 74
Business; Cleveland County; TIP No. R-2625;
State Project No. 8.2800801; Federal Aid No.
STP-2283(1).
ATTENTION: Ed Lewis, Project Planning Engineer
The following Natural Resources Technical Report and
Executive Summary have been prepared following a field survey
conducted by Environmental Unit Staff on May 13, 1993. If I
may be of additional assistance, please call me at 9770.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D
M. Randall Turner
Dennis Pipkin, P.E

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Dixon School Road Extension,
from Dixon School Road, South of NC 216
to US 74 Business
Cleveland County
TIP No. R-2625
State Project No. 8.2800801
Federal Aid No. STP-2283(1)
The following summary of R-2625 is prepared for
inclusion in a federal EA/FONSI document. It is requested
that the Natural Resources Technical Report be submitted in
its entirety along with the EA document to reviewing natural
resource agencies.
OVERVIEW
No jurisdictional wetlands, nor federally protected
species will be impacted by project construction.
BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Three biotic communities were identified in the project
area: Man-dominated, Mixed Pine/Hardwood, and Riparian
Fringe. Mixed Pine/Hardwood forest predominates, and
comprises between 8 and 10 h of the project area. Large
tracts of Mixed Pine-Hardwood forest make up the study area,
interspersed with hardwood pockets. Virginia pine, loblolly
pine, and some scattered white pine, share the canopy with
tulip tree, white oak, red oak, scarlet oak, and black oak.
The understory consists of dogwood, blueberry, sourwood,
bladdernut, and red cedar. The herbaceous layer supports
pipsissewa, ebony spleenwort, braken fern, and poison ivy.
Japanese honeysuckle, and Virginia creeper are the most
common vines present.
Upland forests of the area are fragmented and are
adjacent to man-dominated areas, thus the faunal component is
similar to what occurs in man-dominated areas. Species more
frequently associated with upland forests are the white-tail
deer, gray squirrel, white-footed mouse, and eastern
chipmunk. Numerous *eastern box turtles were noted.
AQUATIC COMMUNITY
The primary waterbody in the project area is Beason
Creek. Likely fish to be found in these cool waters and
tributaries are the rosyside dace, bluehead chub, fieryblack
shiner, yellowfin shiner, creek chub, white sucker, redbreast
sunfish, and bluegill (pers. comm. Chris Goudreau, NCWRC
Fisheries Biologist).
Amphibians, in particular, are highly water-dependent
for completion of larval stages in their life cycle. Some
species are totally aquatic. Some water dependant
salamanders likely to occur in the project area are the
northern dusky salamander, two-lined salamander, and the
three-lined salamander.
Tadpoles and adult bullfrogs, greenfrogs, and spring
peepers are common in and along streams, as are snapping
turtles, and painted turtles.
BIOTIC COMMUNITY IMPACTS
Impacts to natural communities reflect of the relative
abundance of each system present in the study corridor.
Table 1 summarizes potential losses which could result from
roadway development. Calculations are based on a right of
way width of 46 m (150 feet). Values are reported in
hectares and acres.
Table 1. ANTICIPATED BIOTIC COMMUNITY IMPACTS
BIOTIC COMMUNITY
ALTERNATE
1
ha / (ac)
Man-dominated
Mixed Pine/Hardwood
Riparian Fringe
7.7 (19.1)
10.8 (26.6)
<0.1 (0.1)
2
ha / (ac)
4.9 (12.3)
8.9 (22.0)
<0.1 (0.1)
Total Hectares 18.6 (45.8) 13.9 (34.4)
For all proposed alternatives, impacts will occur to
forested communities. Impacts due to the proposed widening
will be reflected in the creation of new habitat and in the
alteration and elimination of previously existing habitat.
Subterranean, burrowing and slow moving organisms are
particularly vulnerable to construction related habitat
destruction. Larger, faster animals will simply be
displaced. Creation of a "highway barrier" can affect both
short-term migrations (diurnal, nocturnal) and long term
migrations (seasonal) of animal populations, depending on
individual species requirements for food, water and cover.
Also, animal migration may be interrupted due to vehicular
noise. Road-kills will decrease numbers of individuals of
certain species.
WATER RESOURCES
Subject project traverses Beason Creek, which lies
within the Broad River Basin. Beason Creek measures
approximately 3 to 4 m (10 to 121) across with a water depth
of approximately 0.3 m (11) deep at the time of field visit.
The creek bottom is characterized by a sand/cobble substrate
and flow rate was moderate. This creek has been modified by
channelization, resulting in steep, vertical banks. Little
natural vegetation is left along the banks, due to a power
line crossing.
"Best usage" classifications are assigned to the waters
of North Carolina by the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM). A "best usage" water classification of C has been
assigned to Beason Creek. Class C designates waters suitable
for secondary recreation, aquatic life propagation, and
survival, fishing, wildlife and agriculture.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
(NC-DEHNR, Division of Environmental Management) addresses
long term trends in water quality at fixed monitoring sites
by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates. A
biological sampling site is located within one kilometer of
the project area on Beason Creek at SR 2252, and within two
kilometers at SR 2246. Bioclassification data collected on
3/86 and 6/87 indicates good/fair conditions at both sampling
sites.
Neither.High Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource
Waters, nor waters classified as WS-I and WS-II are located
in the study area, or within one mile downstream. No
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits have
been issued for the immediate project area.
WATER RESOURCE IMPACTS
Surface waters of Beason Creek will likely receive
impacts from subject project. Both alternatives, 1 and 2
cross this waterbody. Culvert installation will reduce the
linear feet of natural stream channel. Other potential
impacts are increased sedimentation from construction and/or
erosion; increased concentration of toxic compounds from
highway runoff and/or toxic spills; scouring of stream beds
due to the channelization of streams; alterations of water
level due to interruptions or additions to surficial and/or
groundwater flow; changes in light incidence due to the
removal of vegetative cover. Strict adherence to Best
Management Practices and Sedimentation Control guidelines are
advocated during the construction phase of this project.
JURISDICTIONAL WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
No jurisdictional wetlands are located in the project
area. Surface water impacts to Beason Creek are anticipated.
PERMITS
It is anticipated that the crossing of Beason Creek will
be authorized by Nationwide Permit (33 CFR 330.5) (a) (14)).
Nationwide #14 allows for road crossing fills of non-tidal
"Waters of the United States", provided that no more than a
total of 200 linear feet of the fill for the roadway can
occur in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, and that
the fill is limited to a filled area of no more than 0.7 ha
(0.3 acre).
A 401 Water Quality Certification administered through
the N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources will be required. This certificate is issued for
any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for
which a federal permit is required.
MITIGATION
Compensatory mitigation is not required where Nationwide
permits or General permits are authorized, according to the
memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE. Final discretionary
authority in these matters rests with the COE.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered
(E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed
Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The
FWS lists the federally Threatened dwarf-flowered heartleaf
(Hexastvlis naniflora) for Cleveland County as of July 9, 1993.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations are found along bluffs
and their adjacent slopes, in boggy areas next to streams and
creekheads, and along slopes of nearby hillsides and ravines. It
grows in acidic soils in regions with a cool moist climate.
Regional vegetation is described as upper piedmont oak-pine forest
and as part of the southeastern mixed forest.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect. Suitable habitat is present
along much of the alignment. Two parallel line transects, spaced
approximately 50 feet apart were conducted within the 150' right-
of-way. No Hexastvlis species were encountered. Subject project
will not impact the species.
Dixon School Road Extension,
from Dixon School Road, South of NC 216
to US 74 Business
Cleveland County
TIP No. R-2625
State Project No. 8.2800801
Federal Aid No. STP-2283(1)
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
R-2625
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
JANET L. SHIPLEY
August 1993
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ..........................................1
1.1 Project Description ...............................1
1.2 Purpose ...........................................1
1.3 Study Area ........................................1
1.4 Methodology .......................................1
2.0 Biotic Resources .....................................2
2.1 Terrestrial Communities ..........................2
2.2 Aquatic Communities ..............................4
2.3 Biotic Community Impacts .........................4
3.0 Physical Resources ....................................5
3.1 Soils and Topography .............................5
3.2 Water Resources .......... 6
3.2.1 Water Resource Impacts .....................7
4.0 Special Topics ........................................7
4.1 Jurisidictional Waters of the United States ...... 7
4.1.1 Permits ....................................7
4.1.2 Mitigation .................................8
4.2 Rare and Protected Species .......................8
4.2.2 Federally Protected Species ................8
4.2.3 Federal Candidate Species ..................9
4.2.4 State Protected species ....................9
5.0 References ...........................................10
Appendix A - Natural Resource Agency Comments
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical report is
prepared to assist in the preparation of a Federal
Environmental Assessment.
1.1 Proiect Description
The proposed project is the extension of Dixon School
Road, from Dixon School Road south of NC 216 to US 74
business. Two alignments on new location have been studied
for the proposed 3.7 km (2.3 mile) project (Figure 1). All
alternatives consist of a 2-lane, 7.4 m (24 ft) pavement
roadway and 2.4 m (8 ft) paved shoulders occurring within 46
m (150 ft) right-of-way. Parallel alignments being studied
are a western alternative (Alt 1) and an eastern alternative
(Alt 2).
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to describe the
natural systems found within the project area and to document
probable impacts to these systems.
1.3 Study Area
Subject project is located near the City of Kings Mountain,
Cleveland County. Cleveland County lies in the southern
Piedmont Physiographic province, and the topography is
generally characterized as gently rolling or hilly with
several prominent ridges, and small mountain ranges. The
immediate project area is gently rolling.
1.4 Methodology
The study area is defined by right-of-way limits of 46 m
(150 feet). An ecological survey was conducted May 13, 1993
to identify vegetative communities and wildlife species
contained within the project area. Vegetative communities
and wildlife species were inventoried and mapped during on-
site surveys using aerial photography (1:2400). Wetlands
were identified, using methods in the Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987).
In-house preparatory work was completed prior to the
field visit. Soils information was obtained from the
Cleveland County Soil Conservation Service (SCS). The Kings
Mountain and Grover NC quadrangle maps, and the hydric soils
list for Cleveland County were studied to identify potential
wetland sites. The Environmental Sensitivity Base Map for
Cleveland County (GIS) was utilized to determine if any
sensitive resources are present in the project area.
"Classifications and Water Quality Standards assigned to the
2
Waters of the Catawba River Basin" (NC Dept. of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources) was consulted to determine the
"best usage classification for area streams. NC Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) and Fish and wildlife service (FWS)
files were consulted to determine if any protected flora or
fauna occurs in the project area.
2.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Major vegetative associations and land-use patterns are
defined in an integrated ecosystem approach which includes
floral, mammalian, avian, reptilian, fish, and amphibian
components. Distribution and composition of three biotic
communities throughout the project area reflect the
topographic positioning, hydrologic influences, and past and
present land use practices.
2.1 Terrestrial Communities
Three biotic communities were identified in the project
area: Man-dominated, Mixed Pine/Hardwood, and Riparian
Fringe. The following profile descriptions, where
applicable, have been adopted and modified from the NCNHP
classification scheme (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Fauna
sighted in the study area is denoted by an asterisk.
Man-Dominated
Man-dominated lands are intensively managed where man's
structures or activities preclude natural plant succession.
Peach orchards, fallow fields, residential, and commercial
development comprise this community type.
Roadside shoulders, maintained by mowing, give rise to a
rich assemblage of herbaceous plants. Lawn grass (Festuca
spp.) is prevalent with some encroachment of Queen Anne's
lace (Daucus carota), chickory (Cichorium intvbus), and
dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). These same herbaceous
plants may be found in fallow fields and along the edges of
peach orchards.
Man-dominated communities adjacent to forested tracts
provide rich ecotones for foraging, while the forests provide
forage and cover. Common mammals tied to ecotones are the
*woodchuck (Marmota monax), least shrew (Crvpototis parva),
southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis), hispid
cotton rat (Siamodon hispidus), and *eastern cottontails
(Svlvilagus floridanus).
Rural, open areas and adjacent forested areas support a
myriad of bird life. *Carolina wren (Thrvothorus
ludovicianus), *robin (Turdus miaratorious), *wood thrush
(Hvlocichla mustelina), *northern cardinal (Cardinal
cardinalis), *common grackle (Ouiscula auiscula), *turkey
CLEVELAND
COUNTY

Cherr)
wac
_teb- BS
oi f
ORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
N
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
.. BRANCH
I
Will
V
jl?s
_ resb r
etta
771 st

1 ?
t casar Toluca
DIXON SCHOOL ROAD EXTENSION
CLEVELAND COUNTY
R-2625
3
vulture (Cathartes aura), and *red-tailed hawk (Buteo
iamaicensis) are birds sighted in the study area. Although
red-tailed hawks prefer to feed in upland habitats, they
frequently nest in flood plains. Other common inhabitants
are the *mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), common flicker
(Colaptes auratus), black-capped chickadee (Parus
atricapillus), Carolina chickadee (P. carolinensis), tufted
titmouse (P. bicolor), and American goldfinch (Carduelis
tristis).
The eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus) inhabits
open, sunny situations, such as building sites; and fence
rows. American toad (Bufo americanus), and *box turtle
(Terrapene caroline) are very common reptiles that may
inhabit man-dominated areas, while the slimy salamander
(Plethodon crlutinosus) is the most likley amphibian to be
found under logs, stones, and leaf litter.
Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest
Large tracts of Mixed Pine-Hardwood forest make up the
study area, interspersed with hardwood pockets. Virginia
pine (Pinus vircriniana), loblolly pine (P. serotina), and
some scattered white pine (Pinus strobus) share the canopy
with tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), white oak (Ouercus
alba), red oak (0. rubra), scarlet oak (_Q._ coccinea) and
black oak (Q_ velutina). The understory consists of dogwood
(Cornus florida), blueberry (Vaccinium sp.), sourwood
(Oxvdendron arboreum), bladdernut (Staphvlea trifolia), and
red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). The herbaceous layer
supports pipsissewa (Chimaphila maculata), ebony spleenwort
(Asplenium platyneuron), braken fern (Pteridium aauilinum),
and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera Japonica), and Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus cruincruefolia) are the most common vines
present.
Upland forests of the area are fragmented and are
adjacent to man-dominated areas, thus the faunal component is
similar to what occurs in man-dominated areas. Species more
frequently associated with upland forests are the white-tail
deer (Odocoileus virQinianus), gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis pennsvlvanicus), white-footed mouse (Peromvscus
leucopus), and eastern chipmunks (Tamias striatus). Numerous
*eastern box turtles were noted.
Riparian Fringe
Narrow strips of riparian forest border the banks of
many of the small creeks in the study area. Dominant canopy
species found here include box elder (Acer neQundo), sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), hickory (Carva sp.), and black
locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia). The mid-story and shrub
layer are composed primarily of saplings of the canopy
4
species. Blackberry (Rebus sp.) is also prevalent. The herb
layer is sparse due to season, but the following weedy
species were noted: poison ivy, bittercress (Cardamine.sp.),
pokeweed (Phytollaca americana), and chickweed (Stellaria
media).
Riparian communities provide a variety of opportunities
for wildlife. Such mammals as beaver (Castor canadensis),
mink (Mustela vison), and raccoons (Procyon lotor) inhabit
these sites, as well as mammals forced from upland sites due
to development pressures. Commonly occurring reptiles and
amphibians are the spring peeper (HVla crucifer), green frog
(Rana clamitans), pickerel frog (.R. galustris), northern
dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), two-lined salamander
(Eurvicea bislineata), and rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta).
2.2 Aquatic Communities
The primary waterbody in the project area is Beason
Creek. Fish likely to be found in these cool waters and
tributaries are the rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides),
bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), fieryblack shiner
(Notropis pyrrhomelas), yellowfin shiner (R. lutipinnis),
creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), white sucker
(Catostomus commersoni), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus)
and bluegill (L. macrochirus) (pers. comm. Chris Goudreau,
NCWRC Fisheries Biologist).
Amphibians, in particular, are highly water-dependent
for completion of larval stages in their life cycle. Some
species are totally aquatic. Some water dependant
salamanders likely to occur in the project area, are the
northern dusky salamander (Desmoanathus opacum), two-lined
salamander (Eurvicea bislineata), and the three-lined
salamander (Eurvicea auttolineata). Tadpoles and adult
bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana), greenfrogs, and spring peepers
are common in and along streams, as are snapping turtles
(Chelydra serpentina), and painted turtles (Chrysemys picta)
2.3 Biotic Community Impacts
Calculated impacts to natural communities reflect the
relative abundance of each system present in the study
corridor. Table 1 summarizes potential losses which could
result from roadway development. Calculations are based on a
right of way width of 110 m (150 feet). Values are reported
in hectares (acres).
5
Table 1. ANTICIPATED BIOTIC COMMUNITY IMPACTS
BIOTIC COMMUNITY ALTERNATE
1 2
ha / (ac) ha / (ac)
Man-dominated 7.7 (19.1) 4.9 (12.3)
Mixed Pine/Hardwood 10.8 (26.6) 8.9 (22.0)
Riparian Fringe <0.1 (0.1) <0.1 (0.1)
Total Hectares ' 18.6 (45.8) 13.9 (34.4)
Either of the alternatives will impact more land than
other communities. Impacts due to the proposed widening will
result in the creation of new habitat and in the alteration
and elimination of previously existing habitat.
Subterranean, burrowing and slow moving organisms will be
eliminated. Larger, faster animals are vulnerable to
displacement. Creation of a "highway barrier" can affect
both short-term migrations (diurnal, nocturnal) and long term
migrations (seasonal) of animal populations, depending on
individual species' requirements for food, water and cover.
Animal migrations may also be interrupted due to vehicular
noise. Road-kills will decrease numbers of individuals of
certain species.
Dredging, filling, pile-driving operations, slope
stabilization and land clearing are construction activities,
which can result in the direct loss of benthic organisms due
to an increase in silt load. The removal of benthic
organisms reduces the potential food supply for fish and
other vertebrates. Siltation has many adverse impacts on
fish and benthos: decreases the depth of light penetration;
inhibiting plant and algal growth, (food sources); clogs the
filtration apparatus of filter-feeding benthos and the gills
of fish; buries benthic organisms on the bottom, cutting them
off from a food source; adversely effects preferred benthic
substrate; and spoils downstream spawning beds for fish.
Stringent employment of Best Management Practices is highly
advocated during the construction phase of this project to
lessen impacts to aquatic organisms.
3.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
3.1 Soils and Topography
Cleveland County occurs in the Piedmont Physiographic
province located in the Felsic Crystalline Soil System. The
topography in this system is extremely variable. Broad,
gently sloping uplands are common, as are moderately to
6
steeply sloping areas. The bedrock is granite, granite
gneiss, mica gneiss and mica schist.
Generally, subject project occurs in the Tatum-Nason
Association. An association consists of one or more major
soils and at least one minor soil that occur together in a
characteristic and repeating pattern. The Tatum-Nason
Association consists of well drained soils with mostly silt
loam surfaces and moderately permeable silty clay loam
subsoils on gently sloping ridge tops with strongly sloping
and moderately steep sides. They are formed from the
weathering of schist and are underlain by hard rock at depths
of 1 to 2 m (40 to 60 inches). Minor soils make up 20
percent of this association. The micaceous clayey Madison
soils make up most of the minor soils in this association.
3.2 Water Resources
Subject project traverses Beason Creek, which lies
within the Broad River Basin. This creek is tributary to
Buffalo Creek which joins the Broad River in-South Carolina.
Beason Creek is located at the northern end of the project
area. It parallels both alternatives approximately 366 m
(12001) to the east, before crossing the alignments at a
right angle. Beason Creek measures approximately 3 to 4 m
(10 to 121) across with a water depth of approximately 0.3 m
(1') deep at the time of field visit. The creek bottom is
characterized by a sand/cobble substrate and flow rate was
moderate. This creek has been modified by channelization,
resulting in steep, vertical banks. Little natural
vegetation is left along the banks, due to a power line
crossing.
"Best usage" classifications are assigned to the waters
of North Carolina by the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM). A "best usage" water classification of C has been
assigned to Beason Creek. Class C designates waters suitable
for secondary recreation, aquatic life propagation, and
survival, fishing, wildlife and agriculture.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
(NC-DEHNR, Division of Environmental Management) addresses
long term trends in water quality at fixed monitoring sites
by the sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates.
These organisms are sensitive to very subtle changes in water
quality. Biological data has been collected from Buffalo
Creek and its tributaries, including Beason Creek. A
biological sampling site is located within one kilometer of
the project area on Beason Creek at SR 2252, and within two
kilometers at SR 2246. Bioclassification data collected in
3/86 and 6/87 indicates good/fair conditions at both sampling
sites.
7
Neither High Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource
Waters, nor waters classified as WS-I and WS-II are located
in the study area, or within one mile downstream. No
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits have
been issued for the immediate project area.
3.2.1 Water Resource Impacts
Beason Creek will likely receive impacts from subject
project. Both alternatives, 1 and 2 cross this waterbody.
Culvert installation will reduce the linear feet of natural
stream channel. other potential impacts are increased
sedimentation from construction and/or erosion; increased
concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff and/or
toxic spills; scouring of stream beds due to the
channelization of streams; alterations of water level due to
interruptions or additions to surficial and/or groundwater
flow; changes in light incidence due to the removal of
vegetative cover. Stringent employment of Best Management
Practices is highly advocated during the construction phase
of this project to lessen impacts to aquatic systems.
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
4.1 Jurisdictional Waters of the United States
Surface waters and their associated wetlands fall under
the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as
defined in 33 CFR 328.3. The US Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) takes jurisdiction over the discharge of dredged or
fill material into these waters as..authorized_by section 404
of the Clean Water Act.
Potential wetland communities were assessed in the
project corridor on the basis of low soil chroma values,
hydrophytic vegetation and the presence of hydrology or
hydrological indicators, such as stained, matted vegetation,
high watermarks on trees, buttressed.tree bases, and surface
roots. No jurisdictional wetlands are located in the project
area.
4.1.1 Permits
In accordance with provisions of section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C 1344), a permit will be required
from the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material
into "Waters of the United States". Based upon site location
and estimated acreage involved, it is anticipated that for
alternatives 1 and 2, the crossing of Beason Creek.will be
authorized by Nationwide Permit (33 CFR 330.5) (a) (14)].
Nationwide #14:allows for.road.crossing fills of.non-tidal
"Waters of the United States", provided that no more than a
total of 61 linear meters (200 ft) of the fill for the
roadway can occur.-in_special.aquatic sites, including
8
wetlands, and that the fill is limited to a filled area of no
more than 0.7 ha (0.3 acre).
A 401 Water Quality Certification administered through
the N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources will be required. This certificate is issued for
any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for
which a federal permit is required.
4.1.2 Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not required where Nationwide
permits or General permits are authorized, according to the
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE. Final discretionary
authority in these matters rests with the COE.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Federal law requires that any action, which has the
potential to have a detrimental impact to the survival and
well being of any species classified as federally protected,
is subject to review by the FWS and/or the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
In North Carolina, protection of plant species falls under
N.C. General statutes (G.S.) 106-202.12 to 106-202.19 of 1979.
These species may or may not be federally protected.
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered
(E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed
Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The
FWS lists the federally Threatened dwarf-flowered heartleaf
(Hexastvlis naniflora) for Cleveland County as of July 9, 1993.
Hexastvlis naniflora (dwarf-flowered heartleaf) T
Plant Family: Aristolochiaceae
Federally Listed: April 14, 1989
Flowers Present: mid-March - mid-May
Distribution in N.C.: Burke, Catawba, Cleveland, Lincoln,
Rutherford.
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf is found only in eight southern
piedmont counties in North Carolina and the adjacent portions of
South Carolina.
This plant has heart-shaped leaves, supported by long thin
petioles that grow from a subsurface rhizome. It rarely exceeds
15 cm in height. The leaves are dark green in color, evergreen,
and leathery. Flowers are small, inconspicuous, jugshaped, and
9
dark brown in color. They are found near the base of the petioles.
Fruits mature from mid-May to early July. .
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations are found along bluffs
and their adjacent slopes, in boggy areas next to streams and
creekheads, and along slopes of nearby hillsides and ravines. It
grows in acidic soils in regions with a cool moist-climate.
Regional vegetation is described as upper piedmont oak-pine forest
and as part of the southeastern mixed forest.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect. Suitable habitat is present
along much of the alignment. Two parallel line transects, spaced
approximately 50 feet apart were conducted within the 150' right-
of-way. No Hexastvlis species were encountered. Subject project
will not impact the species.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate Species
No federal Candidate species are listed by the FWS for
Cleveland County.
4.2.3 State Protected Species
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastvlis naniflora) is a
federally Threatened species which has a state protected status of
Endangered. A search of the NCNHP files reveal no known
occurrences of this or other state protected species in the
project area. Because of it's federal status, scientific surveys
were conducted. No plants were found.
.
10
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Checklist of North
American Birds. (6th ed.) Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence,
Kansas. 877p.
Ehrlich, P.E., D.S. Dobkin and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birders
Handbook. A Field Guide to the Natural History of North
American Birds. Simon and Schuster, N.Y., N.Y. 785 p.
Depoe, C.E., J.B. Funderburg, and T.L. Quay. 1961. The
reptiles and amphibians of North Carolina: a preliminary
check-list and bibliography. J. Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc.
77:125-136
Godfrey, R.K., J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and Wetland Plants
of Southeastern United States, Dicotyledons. The University
of Georgia Press, Athens. 933p.
Lee, D.S., Funderburg, J.B. Jr., and M.K. Clark. 1982. A
Distributional Survey of North American Mammals. North
Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, N.C. 70 p.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison 111.
1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 264p.
North Carolina Wildlife Resourses Commission. 1974. North
Carolina mammalian species with keys to the orders and
families. N.C. Wildl. Resour. Comm.,Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DER. 1992. Classifications and water quality
standards assigned to the waters of the Catawba River basin.
Division of Environmental Management, Raleigh, N.C. 34p.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings 1980. Birds of
the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill. 408 p.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the
Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 1183 p.
Scott, S.L. (ed.). 1987. Field Guide to the Birds of North
America. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. 464
Smith, R.R., J.B. Funderburg and T.L. Quay. 1960. A
checklist of North Carolina mammals. N.C. Wildl. Resour.
Comm., Raleigh.
The Scientific Council on Freshwater and Terrestrial
Mollusks. May 1990. A Report on the Conservation Status of
North Carolina's Freshwater and Terrestrial Molluscan Fauna.
246 p.
11
USDA-SCS Unpublished. Soil survey of Cleveland County,
North Carolina. U.S. Government Printing office, Wahington,
D.C.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. 'Mammals of
the Carolinas. Virginia and Maryland. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 255 p.
FM208
I y x
03-25-93
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
116 WEST JONES STREET
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
MAILED TO: FROM:
N-C- DEPT- OF TRANSPORTATION MRS- CHRYS BAGGETT
L.J. WARD DIRECTOR
PLANN- C ENV. BRANCH N C STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
HIGHWAY BLDG-/INTER-OFFICE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SCOPING - PROPOSED DIXON SCHOOL ROAD EXTENSION FROM DIXON SCHOOL
ROAD (SR 2283) FROM SOUTH OF NC 216 TO US 74 BUSINESS? CLEVELAND
COUNTY TIP #R-2625
SAI NO 93E42200613 PROGRAM TITLE - SCOPING
THE ABOVE PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS- AS A RESULT OF THE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED: ( ) NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
( X) COMMENTS ATTACHED
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONSt PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE [phone]-
40
Q%
C-C- REGION C
SAAR 2 g 1993 z
F
'L,L p??11S?GN vQ?
. Y
?a STATE a
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee ,, ??/ _
Project Review Coordinator
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
RE: 93-0613 Scoping Dixon School Road Extension, Cleveland
County
DATE: February 23, 1993
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed project. The attached comments are a
result of this review. More specific comments will be provided
during the environmental review process.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If during the
preparation of the environmental document, additional information
is needed, the applicant is encouraged to notify our respective
divisions.
attachments
David Foster
Uj
^4 t!
j
2 5 ;9,.3
?w
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] Fax # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
RN North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: David Yow, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: February 18, 1993
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and
wildlife concerns for Dixon School Road Extension from
Dixon School Road (SR 2283) south of NC 216 to US 74
Business, Cleveland County, North Carolina, TIP No. R
-2625, SCH Project No. 93-0613.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. L. J. Ward of
the NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife
resources resulting from the subject project. The N. C. Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) has reviewed the proposed
improvements, and a site inspection was conducted on February 11,
1993. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of
the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended;
16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed work involves re-alignment and extension of
Dixon School Road, a two-lane roadway in Cleveland County. Land
use in the project area consists of agricultural, residential,
and industrial areas. One small stream is crossed by both
proposed alternative alignments. Based on preliminary
examination of project scope, the NCWRC has no preference between
the two alternative corridors.
Recent NCDOT environmental documents have typically
addressed most environmental concerns for projects of this scope.
For purposes of reference, our informational needs are listed
below:
• i
Memo
Page 2
February 18, 1993
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within
the project area, including a listing of federally or
state designated threatened, endangered, or special
concern species. When practicable, potential borrow
areas to be used for project construction should be
included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation
with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
Cecil C. Frost, Coordinator
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. 0. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
In addition, the NCWRC's Nongame and Endangered Species
Program maintains databases for locations of vertebrate
wildlife species. While there is no charge for the
list, a service charge for computer time is involved.
Additional information may be obtained from:
Randy Wilson, Manager
Nongame and Endangered Species Program
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N. C. 27604-1188
[phone].
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the
project. The need for channelizing or relocating
portions of streams crossed and the extent of such
activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by
the project. Wetland acreages should include all
project-related areas that may undergo hydrologic
change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or
filling for project construction. Wetland
identification may be accomplished through coordination
with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the
COE is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands
should be identified and criteria listed.
Memo Page 3 February 18, 1993
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife
habitat impacted by the proposed project. Potential
borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss,
degradation, or fragmentation of wildlife habitat
(wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for
direct and indirect degradation in habitat quality as
well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes
the environmental effects of highway construction and
quantifies the contribution of this individual project
to environmental degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural
resources which will result from secondary development
facilitated by the new road construction. These
indirect impacts have often been ignored in NCDOT
documents, although the possible economic benefits of
subsequent development are frequently cited as
justification for highway construction. The NCWRC
recommends that this and future documents provide a
balanced treatment of secondary development impacts,
particularly when construction on new alignment is
proposed.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early
planning stages for this project. If I can further assist your
office, please contact me at [phone].
cc Jack Mason, District 8 Wildlife Biologist
Chris Goudreau, District 8 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Program Mgr.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan R Howes, Secretary
Division of Soil &27Water Conservation
January MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: David Harrison ???ll
r?
?j.
SUBJECT: Dixon School Road Extension, Cleveland County, N.C.
Project No. 93-0613.
The proposal is to extend SR 2283 from NC 216 to US 74 Business.
The Environmental Assessment should identify any unique, prime,
or important farmlands that would be impacted by the project. A
wetlands evaluation should be included.
DH/tl
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] Fax # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
0 4
~t Q
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW CommENTS Charles H. Gardner
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: ci 3-6, ?'l 3 County: C L
Project Name:
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
l? If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
_ The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
4prero W1 ?- Reviewing uruce:
be artment of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project Number.
?_ , / /
D
Due Date:
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
rdt-n these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
11.21.11115t wile reg. W
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Normal process'
Regional Office. Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or RECLUREMENTS (statutory time
limit)
Permit to construct i operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
? facilities, sewer system •:tensions, i sewer construction contracts on-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES • permit to discharge into surface water andlor Application te0 days before begin activity. On-sits inspection. 90.120 days '
pohnit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
D discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES Reply (NIA)
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
30 days
? Water use Permit Pre-tppiit:ation technical conference usually necessary (NIA)
7 days
? Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a well.
(15 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application Conference usual. Filling
90
D may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of days)
(
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct i operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
? facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21M. NIA (90 days)
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in Compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
60 days
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A
? NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919733.0820 (90 days)
Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion i sedlmentatio
? Control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Ouslity Sect.) at least 30 20 days
days before be morn activity. A fee of 330 for the first acre and $2000 for each additional acre or art must accompany the plan (30 da s)
? The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: (30 days)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EMNR. Bond amount
? Mining permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any area 30 days
s)
60 da
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond y
(
must be received before the permit can be Issued.
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
(NIA)
exceeds 4 days
Special Ground C3earance Burning Permit • 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required " H more 1 day
(NIA)
? counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are Involved. Inspections
"
should be requested at least ten days before actual bum Is planned.
9+0.120 days
D Oil Raining Facilities
WA
(NIA)
If permit required. application W 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.
ad plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces-
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of ti200.00 must ac-
Company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
Continued on reverse
ti +aa
Normal arocess .
Time
` (statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
D Permit to drill exploratory oil or pas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall,upon (NIA)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
D Geophya;_-w Exploration t'ermit Application filed with EHNR at Nast 10 days prior to Issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application forth. (NIA)

D State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include
roof of ownership
in
cture t
scri
tions t dra
s of str
d 15.20 days
w
p
p
g
u
e (NIA)
Of riparian property
W days
401 water Ouality Certification NIA (130 days)
D 55 days
(;AMA Permit for MAJOR development VW.00 fee must accompany application (150 days)

D
I LAMA Permit for MINOR development
LW.00 fee must accompany application 22 days
925 days)

So-wai 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
D Abandonment of any wells. if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A, Subchapter 2C.0100. I
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if "orphan" underground storage tanks (USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
T7 Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stornwater Rules) is required. 4 ys
Ma
• Other comments (attach adaitional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority).
A- 12

REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office
dfin Place
59 W ? Fayetteville Regional Office
ite 714 W
hovia B
ildin
S
oo
Asheville, NC 26801 g
u
u
ac
Fayetteville, NC 28301
70
4) 2515208 [phone]
(7
4)
DMOoresville Regional Office
i
P
950
919 N
h M
St
t
O
B ? Raleigh Regional Office
101
3800 B
it
i
D
S
ox
n
ree
.
ort
a
,
. arrett
ve,
r
u
e
Mooresville, NC 28115 Raleigh, NC 27609
(704) 6631699 [phone]
? Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington. NC 27889
[phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone]
STA7Z
r
J? Mai. ?.w
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
March 23, 1993
MEMORANDUM
TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Tram rtation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
i
Officer
SUBJECT: Dixon School Road Extension (SR 2283) from south
of NC 216 to US 74 Business, Cleveland County, R-
2625, 8.2800801, STP-2283(1), CH 93-E-4220-0613
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of
historical or architectural importance located within the planning area. However,
since a comprehensive historical architectural inventory of Cleveland County has
never been conducted, there may be structures of which we are unaware located
within the planning area.
We recommend that an architectural historian for the North Carolina Department of
Transportation survey the area of potential effect and report the findings to us.
Please send photographs, keyed to a map, of all structures over fifty years of age.
Also include a brief statement about each straucture's hsitory and explain which
National Register criteria it does or does not meet.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries.
However, the project area has never been systematically surveyed to determine
the location of significance of archaeological resources.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains
that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on
unknown resources should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
activities.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
L
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 C?

L. J. Ward
March 23, 1993, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
w-_--
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett
Nicholas Graf
? t Y
PRIDE IN
United States Department of the Interior TAKE
AMERICA
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office T? %
330 Ridgefield Court
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
March 24, 1993
O`
MAR 2 9 1993
Z
2
Di VI Ur,
,.
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager Gi-It"
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
Subject: Scoping for proposed extension of Dixon School Road (SR 2283)
from south of NC 216 to US 74 Business, Cleveland County, North
Carolina, T.I.P. No. R-2625
In your letter of January 19, 1993 (received January 25, 1993), you
requested information that would be pertinent for your use in the
preparation of a document evaluating the environmental impacts that could
result from the subject project. The following comments are provided in
accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to information provided in your letter, this project will
involve the realignment and extension of Dixon School Road from just
north of Interstate 85 and terminating at US 74 Business near SR 2031.
The extension will be constructed primarily on a new alignment and will
consist of a two-lane 24-foot paved road with 8-foot shoulders. Two
alternatives--a western and eastern route--are presently under
consideration.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is particularly concerned
about the potential impacts the proposed project could have on stream and
wetland ecosystems within the project impact area and on the
dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastvlis naniflora), a federally threatened
plant species known to occur in Cleveland County. 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 dwarf-flowered heartleaf grows in acidic, sandy loam soils along
bluffs and nearby slopes, in boggy areas adjacent to creek heads and
streams, and along the slopes of hillsides and ravines. Soil type is the
V - 4
most important habitat requirement, with Pacolet and Madison gravelly
sandy loam or Musella fine sandy loam soils recognized as necessary for
the growth and survival of this species. The presence or absence of this
species in the project impact area should be addressed in the
environmental document.
The Service will provide comments on the two alternatives under
consideration once the draft environmental document is released. The
Service's review of the subject document would be greatly facilitated if
the document contained the following information:
(l) A complete analysis and comparison of the available
alternatives (the build and no-build alternatives).
(2) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within
the required rights-of-way and any areas, such as borrow
areas, that may be affected directly or indirectly by the
proposed road extension.
(3) Acreage and description of the creeks, streams, or
wetlands that will be filled as a consequence of the
proposed road extension. Wetlands affected by the
proposed project should be mapped in accordance with the
Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating
Jurisdictional Wetlands. We recommend contacting the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field
Office (704/259-0855), to determine the need for a Section
404 Clean Water Act permit.
(4) Linear feet of any water courses that will be relocated as
a consequence of the proposed project.
(5) Acreage of upland habitat, by cover type, that will be
eliminated because of the proposed project.
(6) Description of all expected secondary and cumulative
environmental impacts associated with this proposed work.
(7) An analysis of any crossing structures considered (i.e.,
spanning structure, culverts, etc.) and the rationale for
choosing the preferred structure(s) for any new crossings.
(8) Mitigation measures that will be employed to avoid,
eliminate, reduce, or compensate for habitat value losses
associated with any of the proposed project.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and
request that you continue to keep us informed as to the progress of this
project. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please
reference our Log Number 4-2-93-052.
Sincerely,
4?
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Mr. Randall C. Wilson, Nongame Section Manager, Division of Wildlife
Management, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
Director, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Cecil Frost, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Plant
Conservation Program, P.O. Box 27647, Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Dennis Stewart, Division of Boating and Inland Fisheries, North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 512 N. Salisbury Street,
Raleigh, NC 27604-1188
'I !
LLI
I
I I
t
I
I I
I
'r I
, I
L.L
_ I
I
I
I
I
c i
I
f: c •: I I
- I
? i
? i
i
I I
i I
I
CL I I n ^? ? n n ? I
1 I
I
I
I ..
I
I W
CA:
I I 1 I I' ? I

I
I - f I ` { ? I

l
a I
?
w
I
It =
` i

I

I ? i
I ir!
!
f
!
I
I I ? I
I l
I? I
i I I I I (
I I I t
I I
'-'
_`
I
I I I I

I
-? ? i
i
I I I
I I I I I
! I
r r=
I 1 I I
I I I
I I i ( j
I I
i
I n I I I I !
? I

I I I I'
( i I I I I
I I
I
'? ? f I I I ? ? i I I
? I j I I
?? i 1
I
1
i i
? I
! I
I I I I ? I I
I I I

i' II I I ! ? I I I I I I I I ' I I I I
' I I

_ I I I
I ? f I ! I I ? j ? i
I
ii 1? ( i 1 ? I 1 i I I ' I:
i I
I I I I

I1 ? I
?
! I I 1 I I i 1 I I j.
, I I I I I I f i I !
I I
+I i
li _
li ? ? I I I j I ? 1 I I I j I i I ? I ? I
t i` I j ? I ! I I I I i I I 1 I i ?:
j I I ? I I ! ! I I I I 1 I I i I
I ? ' ? ! I ! I I i I I I i I i j I
I I ( i ! , I
Ii ? i I I I i f I ( I
I? C C I
li ? i I I ! i I I I '
I ? ! ? I I ? I ? ? I i t I:
I I f I I

I
I
?
I
I I
I=?,
?I?`
i
?!? I
I i
I
fii ? I ? (
I ?
I ? I I

i H- G
F-
C
I

I
IiI
I

I
?
••
t
I
I
( I.

I.
Io:.
a

!
n I r
C.

! n
a l

I_n
?
a
. n
I
?
C-
¢
! n
=L
l
Ln
J I
l
a
U
to
?'

I

?I ?? _ ! w I I i
1 P ? r
,,. SUTE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
23 February 1996
&1EMORANDUlv1 TO: Ed Lewis, Planning and Environmental Branch
FROM: Logan Williams, Environmental Biologist
SUBJECT: Draft EA Review
New Route, from North of the I-85/SR 2283 (Dixon School
Road) Interchange to US 74 Business (Shelby Road); Cleveland
County; TIP No. R-2625; State Project No. 8.2800801; Federal
Aid Project STP-2283(1).
I have reviewed the natural resources section of the EA, and have very few
comments. Overall the natural resources section is adequate. On page 23 the EHNTR index
no. 9-53-8 should be added. On page 17, it is unlikely that black capped chickadee would
be found at this elevation and should be omitted from the list of common bird inhabitants.
I took the liberty to verify the Best Usage Classifications and Bman information.
Please contact me if you have any concerns regarding these comments.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Environmental Unit Head
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
File: R-2625