20120285 Ver 1_Email_20110811

Wrenn, Brian
From Militscher Chns @epamail epa gov
Sent Thursday August 11 2011 3 13 PM
To Monte K Matthews @usace army and
Cc Wrenn Brian Lespinasse Polly sarah a hair @usace army mil
Subject Re FW NCTA Gaston E W Connector (U 3321) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Monte Thanks for the info I did not concur on CP 3 I did concur with CP 4A, as conditioned by EPA s
managements comments on the FEIS
I honestly don t recall signing a new purpose and need statement that says the team was okay with them
building a 4 lane toll facility for half the length that chokes down to a 2 -lane toll road for the other half
This 4 -lane to 2 -lane on 4 lane of ROW is not phasing NCDOT tried something similar on Burgaw Bypass
years ago That one never did get past CP 3 Again, it gets into that independent utility question Did
they provide the Justification in the FEIS (other than when /if we get more money someday we will build
the other 2 lanes)? The interchange and traffic on US 321 will end up LOS F minus, minus, minus
For the DEIS (rated EO 2), EPA had environmental objections because of both the unresolved air quality
issues AND the impacts to 303(d) listed streams with no conceptual mitigation plan After the air quality
issues on the NCSIP were kicked down the road (an extension to the previously violated 2004 ozone
standard by our air program folks), EPA still had unresolved 404 & 401 issues
From checking my a mails this afternoon, I was not invited to the July 15th field meeting (not to say that
I would have been able to make a Friday field meeting in Gaston') I will try to make the next one, if
invited, and at a date /time that I can reasonably achieve)
From today s CP 4C meeting, I do not see how they are going to fully demonstrate non erosive velocities
at some of these outfalls (Q10 of 31 cfs after it leaves an energy dissipator ?) I am going back in the DEIS
& FEIS to also see if they identified estimated cut and fill quantities Mountains of fill at 2 1 with Piedmont
soils I don t envy Polly in the slightest
From a NEPA process standpoint, how are they going to issue a ROD almost concurrently with the water
quality ICI? Is not an ICE study part of the decision making and administrative record of the EIS, subject
to agency and public review?
A proper EJ analysis is still an unresolved issue Providing one in a ROD (sort of post - decisional ?) is not
what we recommended in our FEIS letter Thanks

Wrenn, Brian
From Matthews Monte K SAW [Monte K Matthews @usace army mil]
Sent Thursday August 11 2011 3 26 PM
To Wrenn Brian Lespinasse Polly
Subject FW NCTA Gaston E W Connector (U 3321) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments EEP Letter _071111 pdf USCG emails_June2011 pdf USCG_email_Sept2008 pdf USACE_
062911_Minutes_draft docx
Classification UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats NONE
Brian /Polly
I meant to send this to you much earlier than this but forgot all about it until this morning The Draft minutes simply reflect
a meeting I had with Christy to get up to speed on this project After speaking with Chris M on the phone this morning I
realized that I forgot and managed to get him a copy before today s meeting None of this is probably new to you but feel
free add any thoughts
Thnaks
Monte Matthews
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive Suite 105
Wake Forest NC 27587
919 554 4884 x 30
The Wilmington District is commited to providing the highest level of support to the public To help us ensure we continue to
do so please complete the Customer Satisifaction Survey located at our website at
http //pert nwp usace army mil /survey html to complete the survey online
Original Message
From Matthews Monte K SAW
Sent Thursday August 11 20118 20 AM
To Militscher Chris
Subject FW NCTA Gaston E W Connector (U 3321) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats NONE
fyi
Monte Matthews
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive Suite 105
Wake Forest NC 27587
919 554 4884 x 30
1

The Wilmington District is commited to providing the highest level of support to the public To help us ensure we continue to
do so please complete the Customer Satisifaction Survey located at our website at
http //per2 nwp usace army mil /survey html to complete the survey online
Original Message
From Shumate Christy [mailto croshumate @ncdot gov]
Sent Thursday July 14 201110 33 AM
To Matthews Monte K SAW
Cc Harris Jennifer Bass Kiersten R Hair Sarah E SAW McLendon Scott C SAW
Subject RE NCTA Gaston E W Connector (U 3321) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Monte
Attached is a summary of the meeting we had on June 29 Please let me know if my interpretation of your comments is
consistent with what you had intended
In addition we received this week a letter from EEP indicating that they will be dedicating all stream credits at the Beaverdam
Creek site to the Gaston project (13 014 restoration credits and 520 6 restoration equivalent credits) They also note that they
will provide additional credits as necessary to offset remaining impacts of the project A copy of their letter is attached
With regards to the 4C meeting we would prefer to proceed with having the meeting in August to review the hydraulic plans
and permit drawings with agencies since your comments are not specific to the hydraulic design and to determine if there are
other agency comments that need to be incorporated into the permit application
Please let us know if you are able to get any additional information on the issues of the STIP project numbering phased two
lane construction and the Section 10 compliance I have attached for your reference our previous and recent correspondence
with USCG indicating that they do not consider Lake Wylie to be navigable under Section 9 and do not require a bridge permit
Finally I wanted to remind you that there is a field visit tomorrow to review the Linwood Springs Golf Course site that NCDOT
recently purchased as well as a couple of other sites requested by the agencies at the 4B meeting in June The site visit will
begin at 10AM tomorrow Friday July 15 at the Linwood Springs Golf Course (2900 Linwood Road) From there they will
review
4 culvert crossings on Plan Sheets 10 11 30 and 41
Thanks for your help Please call or email at any time if you have questions or comments about the project We look forward
to continuing to work with you on the permitting
Thanks
Christy
Please note my email and phone number have changed
croshumate @ncdot gov
Phone [phone]
Original Message
From Shumate Christy
Sent Monday July 11 20112 50 PM
To Matthews Monte K SAW
Cc Harris Jennifer Bass Kiersten R Hair Sarah E SAW McLendon Scott C SAW
Subject RE NCTA Gaston E W Connector (U 3321) (UNCLASSIFIED)
2

Monte
Thanks 111 get something over to you to look at in the next day or so to make sure we captured your comments
We will discuss your concerns about the 4C meeting schedule and get back with you
Thanksi
Christy
Please note my email and phone number have changed
croshumate @ncdot gov
Phone [phone]
Original Message
From Matthews Monte K SAW [mailto Monte K Matthews @usace army mil]
Sent Monday July 11 20112 20 PM
To Shumate Christy
Cc Harris Jennifer Bass Kiersten R Hair Sarah E SAW McLendon Scott C SAW
Subject RE NCTA Gaston E W Connector (U 3321) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats NONE
Christy
I did type up a summary but it was intended as an internal summary for Liz and Scott (it contained my
ideas /recommendations /thoughts on the project as it moves forward) It would probably be better if you could come up with
something brief I would be happy to confirm your summary
Along those lines I know that the TA was anticipating a 4C meeting in August I m concerned that we may not have all the
issues satisfied to the point that finalized permit drawings would be prepared What type of flexibility do you have in your
timeline if a delay of the 4C is needed?
Monte
Original Message
From Shumate Christy [mailto croshumate @ncdot gov]
Sent Monday July 11 2011106 PM
To Matthews Monte K SAW
Cc Harris Jennifer Bass Kiersten R Hair Sarah E SAW
Subject NCTA Gaston E W Connector (U 3321)
Monte
Thanks again for meeting with us to discuss the Gaston E W Connector project
I think it was good for everyone You mentioned that you were planning to type up a summary of your comments and the
discussion Have you had a chance to do that and could we get a copy? I want to make sure that we are properly addressing
the comments and questions you have as we prepare the ROD and permit application Or I d be happy to type something
else and forward to you for review to confirm that I capture everything we discussed
3

If you have any additional questions about the project please let us know)
Thanks
Christy
Please note my email and phone number have changed
croshumate @ncdot gov <mailto croshumate @ncdot gov>
Phone [phone]
Christy Shumate AICP
Senior Transportation Planner
NCTA General Engineering Consultant
1578 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699 1578
Tel [phone]
Dir [phone]
croshumate @ncdot gov <mailto croshumate @ncdot gov>
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N C Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties
Classification UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats NONE
Classification UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats NONE
Classification UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats NONE
4

Mr Steve DeWitt P E
Chief Engineer
North Carolina Turnpike Authority
1578 Mail Service Center
Raleigh North Carolina 27699 1578
Dear Mr DeWitt
Y
o stem
E a ement
PROGRAM
July 11 2011
Subject EEP Letter of Commitment
U 3321, Gaston East West Connector Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will
provide compensatory stream and riparian wetland mitigation for the subject project as needed by the North
Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) The total amount of stream and wetland mitigation needed from the
EEP has not yet been determined EEP s Beaverdam Creek mitigation project is located adjacent to the project
corridor and has been identified as a potential mitigation site for TIP U 3321 EEP commits all stream
mitigation assets associated with this mitigation site toward offsetting stream impacts associated with this
project The Beaverdam Creek mitigation site is located in Mecklenburg County on the eastern end of the
proposed roadway project in HUC 03050101 170040 of the Catawba River basin Currently the project has an
estimated 13 534 60 stream mitigation credits (13 014 restoration credits and 520 60 restoration equivalent
credits) and is in the fifth year of monitoring
EEP commits to implementing sufficient compensatory stream and wetland mitigation credits to offset
the impacts associated with this project in accordance with the N C Department of Environment and Natural
Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program In Lieu Fee Instrument dated July 28 2010 as needed by the
NCTA To this effect EEP also has available 17 500 stream restoration equivalent High Quality Preservation
credits located in the Southern Piedmont Eco region and over 4 000 000 Riparian buffer restoration credits
available in Catawba 03050101 for potential use to offset impacts associated with the roadway project
If you have any questions or need additional information please contact Ms Beth Harmon at 919
715 1929
Sincerely n
11-�
Mich a Ilison U
EEP eputy Director
cc Ms Liz Hair USACE — Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Mr Brian Wrenn Division of Water Quality Wetlands /401 Unit
Mr Jerry McCram PhD CEP PWS Atkins
Mr Michael Gloden PWS Atkins
Ms Linda Fitzpatrick NCDOT — PDEA
File U 3321
T-WA
Ratoraltg EKA44tcutg PYOte& 0" Stu tf'i OR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program 1652 Mad Service Center Raleigh NC 27699 1652 / 919 715 0476 / www nceep net

Shumate, Christy
From Harris Jennifer
Sent Wednesday February 23 2011 11 17 AM
To jsgurak Shumate Christy Hair Sarah E SAW McLendon Scott C SAW
Subject FW Gaston East West Connector (Catawba River)
FYI
Jennifer
Jennifer Harris P E
Director of Planning and Environmental Studies NC Turnpike Authority an entity of the NC
Department of Transportation
Mailing Address Physical Address
1578 Mail Service Center 5400 Glenwood Avenue Suite 400
Raleigh NC 27699 1578 Raleigh NC 27612
PLEASE NOTE MY EMAIL ADDRESS HAS CHANGED jhharrisl @ncdot gov
office [phone]
fax [phone]
www ncturnpike org
- Original Message
From Gurak Jill S [mailto JSGurak @pbs] com]
Sent Friday September 12 2008 9 41 AM
To Dayton Jeff
Subject FW Gaston East -West Connector (Catawba River)
Original Message
From Giugno Kiersten R
Sent Friday September 12 2008 9 29 AM
To Gurak Jill S
Subject FW Gaston East West Connector (Catawba River)
For your records
Kiersten R Giugno I PBS &J I Senior Planner
Original Message -
From Bill H Brazier @uscg mil [mailto Bill H Brazier @uscg mil]
Sent Friday September 12 2008 9 21 AM
To Giugno Kiersten R
Cc Gregory Waverly
Subject RE Gaston East West Connector (Catawba River)
Ms Giugno
Following a review of the project area and checking with our legal staff this project is
beyond our area of responsibility and will not require a Coast Guard Bridge Permit If
you should have further questions please contact me at [phone]
Bill H Brazier
From Giugno Kiersten R
Sent Friday September 05 2008 10 04 AM

To bill h brazier@uscg mil
Cc Gurak Jill S Noonkester Jennifer R
Subject Gaston East -West Connector (Catawba River)
Bill - The North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) proposes to improve east west travel
through Gaston County by constructing a new toll facility between I 85 west of Gastonia
and I 485/NC 160 in western Mecklenburg County PBS &J is currently preparing the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement which includes an evaluation of the impacts of 12 Detailed
Study Alternatives on the human and natural environment This analysis includes the
evaluation of potential impacts to navigable waters under the jurisdiction of the USCG
As you can see on the attached map the Catawba River is located in the eastern portion of
the project area Although this river is dammed in several locations we have not been
able to obtain clarification as to whether or not it is a navigable water
Per our conversation could you please identify whether or not the Catawba River qualifies
as a Navigable Water and whether or not crossing this river would require a permit from
the USCG
Should you need additional information please feel free to contact me
Thank you for your assistance with this matter
Sincerely
Kiersten R Gi.ugno I PBS &J I Senior Planner
1616 E Millbrook Road Ste 310 1 Raleigh NC 27609 1919 431 5290
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N C Public Records Law and
may be disclosed to third parties
0�

Shumate, Christy
From Bill H Brazier @uscg mil on behalf of Brazier Bill <Bill H Brazier @uscg mil>
Sent Friday June 24 2011 9 02 AM
To Shumate Christy
Subject RE Gaston E W Connector (NCDOT STIP #U 3321) Catawba River crossings
Christy
Neither of these rivers are listed in our Bridges over Navigable Waterways handbook Bill Brazier
Original Message
From croshumate @ncdot gov [mailto croshumate @ncdot gov]
Sent Friday June 24 20118 43 AM
To Brazier Bill
Cc Harris Jennifer Jill Gurak
Subject RE Gaston E W Connector (NCDOT STIP #U 3321) Catawba River crossings
Bill
Any luck getting a ruling on the navigability of the Catawba and South Fork Rivers at Lake Wylie North Carolina? We
have a meeting with USACE next week on Wednesday and would like to be able to give them an update on the issue
Thanks for your help
Christy
Please note my email and phone number have changed
croshumate @ncdot gov <mailto croshumate @ncdot gov>
Phone [phone]
From Shumate Christy
Sent Thursday June 02 20119 33 AM
To bill h brazier @uscg mil
Cc Harris Jennifer Jill Gurak Liz Hair
Subject RE Gaston E W Connector (NCDOTSTIP #U 3321) Catawba River crossings
Bill

Have you had a chance to look into the issue of navigability for the Catawba and South Fork Rivers? Please let us know if
you need any additional information
Thanks
Christy
Please note my email and phone number have changed
croshumate @ncdot gov <mailto croshumate @ncdot gov>
Phone [phone]
From Shumate Christy
Sent Tuesday May 17 20114 08 PM
To bill h brazier @uscg mil
Cc Harris Jennifer Gurak Jill S Liz Hair
Subject Gaston E W Connector (NCDOT STIP #U 3321) Catawba River crossings
Bill
Thanks so much for talking with us this morning about the Gaston E W Connector project The project is located in
Gaston & Mecklenburg Counties NC and includes bridge crossings of the Catawba River and South Fork Catawba River
above the Lake Wylie Dam You had previously indicated via email that the project was beyond USCG s area of
responsibility since the project is upstream of several dams and rapids and would not be considered navigable We
appreciate your willingness to get a legal opinion on the navigability that we can include in our records
Attached for your use are
* a map of the project s preferred alternative alignment
* a map showing the Catawba River watershed including dam locations
* recent correspondence with the USACE regarding permit requirements
2

* email from September 2008 indicating a USCG bridge permit would not be required
Below is some information about the proposed bridges based on our preliminary design We expect that a design build
team will reduce the number of bents (and increase the spacing between bents) as part of their value engineering
process
Catawba River Crossing
Bridge Information
Westbound Bridge
Eastbound Bridge
Total Length (ft)
2 466 5
2 445 4
Length over Lake Wylie (ft)
21534
2 063 9
Average Spacing Between Bents* (ft)
914
906
Total # of Bents
26
26
# of Bents with Drilled Shafts in Lake Wylie
23
23
Total Area of Drilled Shafts in Lake Wylie (sq ft)
3

2 656
2 656
Proposed Easement Area over Lake Wylie (ac)
7 80 (permanent) / 4 80 (temporary)
Shoreline Mgmt Plan Shoreline Classification
Public Infrastructure (west) / Impact Minimization Zone and Future Residential (east)
Minimum Vertical Clearance
29 ft
* A bent is comprised of a row of columns that support a section of the bridge Each bent in the Catawba River has three
columns coming down from the bridge deck Each column connects to a 16 ft by 16 ft square footing positioned above
the normal water mark From each footing slab four 3 5 ft diameter drilled shafts extend into the ground

South Fork Catawba River Crossing
Bridge Information
Westbound Bridge
Eastbound Bridge
Total Length (ft)
16139
1 652 1
Length over Lake Wylie (ft)
8576
8249
Average Spacing Between Bents* (ft)
897
870
Total # of Bents
17
18
# of Bents with Drilled Shafts in Lake Wylie
Total Area of Drilled Shafts in Lake Wylie (sq ft)
693

693
Proposed Easement Area over Lake Wylie (ac)
2 78 (permanent) / 2 01 (temporary)
Shoreline Mgmt Plan Shoreline Classification
Residential (west and east)
Minimum Vertical Clearance
62 ft
*Each bent in the South Fork Catawba River has two columns coming down from the bridge deck Each column
connects to a 16 ft by 16 ft square footing positioned above the normal water mark From each footing slab four 3 5 ft
diameter drilled shafts extend into the ground

Also we checked with NCDOT and a USCG bridge permit was NOT required for construction of the NC 49 bridge over
the Catawba River in 2003 This bridge is about 7 miles downstream of the proposed crossings
If you need any additional information or have any questions about this project please feel free to contact Jennifer
Harris or me
Thanks
Christy
Christy Shumate AICP
Senior Transportation Planner
NCTA General Engineering Consultant
5400 Glenwood Ave Suite 400
Raleigh NC 27612
1578 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699 1578
Tel [phone]
Dir [phone]
Fax [phone]
PLEASE NOTE MY EMAIL ADDRESS HAS CHANGED
croshumate @ncdot gov
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N C Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties

NORTH +
Turnpike Authority
MEETING MINUTES
(Draft)
Date June 29 2011
1 30 pm
Location NCTA Offices
Project STIP U 3321 Gaston E W Connector — STP 1213(6)
Attendees
Monte Matthews — USACE
Steve DeWitt — NCTA
Jennifer Harris — NCTA
Christy Shumate — HNTB
Purpose
Discuss USACE comments on Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and schedule and plan for
upcoming permit application submittal
Minutes
Mr Matthews reviewed his comments and questions on the Final EIS
Purpose and Need — The Final EIS references a 2008 updated statement of purpose and need report
The purpose and need was revised after the project became a toll candidate project and to reflect
updated traffic forecasts Agencies had previously concurred on the purpose and need in 2002
agencies re concurred with the revised purpose and need in October 2008 Signed concurrence
forms can be found in the appendices of the Draft EIS (Concurrence Points 1 2 and 2A) and Final
EIS (3 and 4A)
o Mr Matthews asked about a comment made by the Southern Environmental Law Center on
the purpose and need that references improving congestion on 1 85 as part of the purpose for
the project Ms Harris explained that improving congestion on 1 85 is listed as a need for the
project but is not part of the stated purpose of the project She referred to Section 1 of the
Draft EIS which includes the purpose statement for the project to improve east west
transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan
area and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing area of southeast
Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County No changes to the purpose statement
were made between the Draft and Final EIS
Alternatives — Mr Matthews noted that USEPA did not sign the concurrence form for CPs 3 or 4A but
instead provided a memo stating that they were unable to concur until issues regarding regional air
quality conformity were resolved Ms Harris confirmed that the air quality issue had been resolved
USEPA had also noted concerns regarding compliance with the Clean Water Act related to mitigation
and impacts to Section 303(d) listed waters
Meeting - 06/29/11

Page 2 of 3
• Mr Matthews commented that service roads and additional y line improvements were only
completed for the Preferred Alternative and presented in the Final EIS He asked NCTA to
confirm that the addition of these items to the other Detailed Study Alternatives would not
have changed the selection of the Preferred Alternative He recommended including a
statement in the Record of Decision (ROD) and permit application
• Mr Matthews asked that a table of all impacts be included in the permit application The table
should include impacts of each of the Detailed Study Alternatives as presented in the Draft
EIS with an additional column for the Preferred Alternative The table should include a note
that designs for the Preferred Alternative were refined and that impacts would have changed
similarly on other DSAs had similar refinements been made
Level of Design — Mr Matthews asked about the levels of design used in the Draft and Final EISs and
the permit application The Draft EIS used preliminary level design to compare Detailed Study
Alternatives Impacts were calculated based on slope stake limits plus a 25 foot buffer on both sides
For the Final EIS the overall level of design did not change however the Preferred Alternative was
refined based on public comments to avoid and minimize impacts and to add service roads A
portion of the Preferred Alternative (NC 279 to 1-485) is being developed to a higher level of design for
the permit application This design will incorporate additional changes to the preliminary design
resulting from environmental commitments (including reduced number of mainline lanes and reduced
median width) as well as hydraulic design for the permit section Impacts will be calculated on slope
stake limits for this portion of the project The remainder of the project will be based on the same
design presented in the Final EIS — preliminary design with impacts based on slope stake limits plus a
25 foot buffer on both sides A Concurrence Point 4B meeting to review schematic hydraulic design
was held on June 9 2011 and a follow up field visit to review some sites is scheduled for July 15
2011 Permit drawings will be reviewed with agencies at a Concurrence Point 4C meeting in August
2011
STIP Proiects — Mr Matthews asked about the STIP project number designations and construction
segments for the project and how that compares to the permit section The permit section was
selected in fall 2010 based on a review of impacts to jurisdictional resources projected traffic
volumes and likely construction phases It was determined that a 6 mile section of the project from
NC 279 east to 1-485 would be an appropriate section to include in the initial permit application
Later the project was divided into multiple STIP project segments for purposes of design build
contracting and construction The permit section is a portion of one of those STIP projects — U
3321 C However the U 3321 C project also includes an additional 3 +/ miles of the project between
Patrick Road and NC 279 Mr Matthews will discuss this inconsistency in project sections for
purposes of permitting compared to contracting with USACE attorneys and let NCTA know if it will be
an issue during permitting It may be necessary to add an additional project segment that includes
only the permit section
Typical Section — The proposed typical section for the project in the Draft EIS included a 70 foot
median For the Preferred Alternative a commitment was made to reduce the median width to 46 feet
during final design The Final EIS notes that this would allow for widening into the median if needed in
the future Mr Matthews asked for clarification on this and further explanation of not reducing the
median to 23 feet given that it has been determined that the proposed number of lanes would meet
the purpose and need of the project through the design year without the need for widening He
recommended including an explanation of the decision not to reduce the median width further in the
permit application
• No Build Alternative — Mr Matthews noted that in addition to a No Build Alternative the permit
application should include a discussion of a No Permit Alternative i e a Build Alternative that avoids
all jurisdictional impacts by bridging resources and why such an alternative would not be viable
Mitigation — Mr Matthews asked about the status of mitigation for the project NCDOT has recently
purchased the Linwood Springs Golf Course property through which Crowders Creek runs This site
will be used as on site mitigation for the project for stream impacts The site includes approximately
5 500 If of stream and there are adjacent parcels that will be landlocked by the project that include an
additional 5 000 If of stream NCTA anticipates approximately 10 500 If of stream restoration can be
accommodated at this site A conceptual plan for the site will be included in the permit application
Meeting - 06/29/11

Page 3 of 3
Additional mitigation requirements will be fulfilled through EEP which has sufficient available credits
for the projected impacts
• Environmental Justice — Mr Matthews asked about potential environmental justice issues associated
with the project Ms Shumate noted that there are some EJ communities along the corridor along
with many non EJ communities The projects impacts are not disproportionate Mr Matthews
requested any additional documentation that may have been prepared related to this topic
• Permit Modifications — Mr Matthews noted that NCTA is currently proposing phased construction of
the section of the project from 1 85 to US 321 as a two lane facility He questioned what design would
be submitted in a permit modification for this section — the two lane design or the ultimate four lane
design Ms Shumate did not know but stated that the initial permit application would include
preliminary design for a four lane facility in this section with impacts based on slope stake limits plus a
25 foot buffer on both sides Mr Matthews will look into the issue further to determine any guidelines
USACE may have on such phased construction
• Navigability of Lake Wylie — Ms Shumate noted that in comments provided by USACE during agency
coordination for the FERC license revision required for the crossings of Lake Wylie USACE noted that
the Catawba River South Fork Catawba River and Lake Wylie are navigable waters and subject to
Sections 9 and 10 of the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act They also stated that a US Coast Guard
bridge permit would be required Ms Shumate noted that NCTA had coordinated with USCG and
they are not considering Lake Wylie navigable for Section 9 purposes and no bridge permit would be
required Mr Matthews noted that the USACE may still have jurisdiction under Section 10 and said he
would look into that and any additional requirements for permitting
Action Items
• NCTA will provide any additional documentation related to environmental justice issues
• Mr Matthews will look into the issues of the STIP project numbering permitting for phased construction of
the project from 1 85 to US 321 and Section 10 jurisdiction and requirements
Meeting - 06/29/11

Lj �V�b,►n.(.�.o � J� -���l —� �D�� �j In�l�tta —� �2G�
wit � ya�rQMO► �� 1 � _ � -1 V�� Z GBNyr aU S
J
v a«ew 6— bid
A"7
c— A-4- cZ
des
N. (cr
— MCI
— NcT A �_ook d Av , I'\ 4-s — Y►to_c� e

9
7
1 ,
ti
•i T 3 !
t
a
a
1
1 ,
ti
•i T 3 !

I E stw tc a
STIP Pml d U 3321
nc P t4 M t g
A g st 11 201
STREAM IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON OF DESIGN PHASES
SEGMENT FROM NC 279 (SOUTH NEW HOPE ROAD) TO 14485
STIP P) ct U 3321 G t E t W t C t
P f red Al ma F ID g st m mp i b sad im t I m t
P f d Alt R f d D g d S , Rd t m mp t I I t d b sed ght f w y 1 m t pl buff 12 5 f t f m h I p st k I
S f St m A but d DEIS DSA Imp N I R Tech I R p / h G E W C E rth T h nc F m ry 2
d the T mp k E m m 1 1 Ag y C d net M t g h Id Ap IS 2008
St m ID
C Id
S gm t
St m N m
Hyd I g
U it
I t mdt M/
P i I
B k
H( „)ht
A g
Width 011)
D pth
(1 )
S b t t
W t
D Iffy
CI ti tl
USAGE
S
NCDWD
S
0 E 0 A
PD ry
Aft
R f d
D g
f d
SAtt R d
F-11)
Pimp n
286
K3
UTt S F C t b R
3050102
1 1 nn It t
1
1 2
1
S tt sad g. I
WSV
54
21 275
286
K3
UTt S F C t b R
3050102
P 1
1 4
2 7
46
S It sa d g I bbl
W S V
62
31
2 A
K
UT S F C b R
5 2
1 1 "It t
1
12
1
S It se d
WS V
NA
NA
287
K3
UT t S F C f b R
3050102
1 t rm tl 1
1
23
4
S It sa d
WSV
1 36
2
287
K3
UTt S F C b R
3050102
P 1
4-6
4
S d g I
WSV
36
NA
293A
K3
UTt S F C I wb R
3050102
1 1 rm8t t
1
1 2
1
SIt sa d
WSV
54
2275
293A
K3
UTt S F C t b R
3050102
P 1
1
23
34
Sit S d gm l
WSV
54
NA
295
K3
UT I S F C t b R
3050102
P 1
24
3 5
1 4
S It sad g. I bbl
WS V
68
32 3225
296
K
UT I S F C I b R
05 1 2
P 1
4
6
2
S It S d gm I
INS V
655
34
578
557
634
297
K3
UT t S F C t b R
3050102
P re 1
4
36
1 4
S It t bbl b Id
INS V
83
315
9 7
52
68
298
K3
UTt S F C t b R
3050102
1 t nn 11 1
2
3
1 1
S It sa d g. I
WSV
1 45
1
298
K3
UT t S F C t wb R
30501 2
1 P 1
1 2
3
1
S It se d gm I
WSV
45
19
299
K3
UT I S F C t b R
3050102
1 t _ft t
1 2
3
1 2
Sit S d g I
WSV
67
265
299
K3
UT t S F C t b R
3050102
P 1
23
34
1 4
S tt S nd g I
Ws V
67
265
300
K3
UTt S F C t b R
3050102
1 1 rm It t
3
3
1 3
S It sa d gm I bbl
Ws V
79
2 5
1 9
405
1245
300
K3
UT t S F C t b R
3050102
P 1
3
35
1 3
Sit sa d. I bbl
WS V
79
93
2
232
300A
K3
UTt S F C I b R
3050102
1 t mt ft t
6
3
1 3
Sit S d gre I
WS V
42
21
301
K3
UTt S F C t wb R
3050102
1 t nn It 1
4
36
1 2
S It S d g I
WSV
1 79
23
301
K3
UT I: S F C l b R
3050102
1 P 1
34
47
1 6
S It se d g I bbl
WSV
1 79
285
301 A
K
UT I: S F C 1 b R
305 102
1 1 _,tt t
5
3
1 3
S d g I
WSV
51
195
3018
K3
UT i S F C t wb R
3050102
1 1 nn tt t
5
1 3
S tt S d gm I
W S V
51
195
302
K31,
UT t C t wb R
3050 0
1 1- It
2
3
1 2
S tt se d
INS V B
5
5
303
K3b
UTt C 1 wb R
3050101
I t nn ft 1
1
2
1
S d gm I
WS V B
42
23
K b
UTt C b R
05 101
P 1
23
24
1 3
S It se d gm 1 bbl
WS V B
42
31
30
K3b
UT t C t wb R
3050101
1 t _dt t
1
3
1 2
S It sa d
WSV B
85
22
260
260
123
304
K3b
UT I C I wb R
3050101
1 P 1
3
1 35
1 1 4
S it sa d 9 1 bbl
WSV B
85
31
484
568
511
305
K3b
UT I C I b R
3050101
P nn 1
34
46
3 10
S It sand g I bbl
WSV B
82
31 5
135
310
K3
UT t C t wb R
3050101
1 1 nn it t
1 2
1 3
1 2
S It sa d gra I
WSV B
NA
NA
311
K3
UTt C t b R
3050101
1 1 nn It t
1
1 2
1
S I sa d gra I
WSV B
46
19
311
K3
UTt C t wb R
3050101
P re 1
1 4
3 10
2 12
9ra
b Id
WS V B
57 77
35 39
311A
K3
UT I C I wb R
3050101
1 1 -it 1
1
1 2
1 2
Sit sa d
WS V B
49
235
312
K3
UT t C t wb R
3050101
1 l nn tt I
1
23
1
Sit sa d
WSV B
53
235
52
26
3 2A
K3
8 rd m C k
3050101
P 1
35
8 10
2 12
S It t bbl b Id
C
66
50
973
742
770
3 2B
K3
UTt C 1 b R
3050101
11 mt It t
1
2
2
S It sa d
WSV B
47
19
5313
K3c
UTt C I b R
050101
1 1 -ft I
4
2
2
S It S d gm I
WSV B
63
22
313A
K3
UT t B d m Cm k
3050101
1 t nn It t
1 3
35
2
Sit S all gre I
C
42
314A
K3
UTt B d m C k
3050101
1 t mt It t
1 3
45
1 3
Sit sa d gre I bbl
C
50
21 75
226
314A
K3
UTt B rd m C k
3050101
P 1
2
24
1 2
S It se d gm 1 bbl
C
63
33
969
5315
K3
UTt C t b R
3050101
1 t nm t
1
1 2
1 3
Slt sa d g I
WS V B
50
27
rd m
S I nerd g.
C
5
317
K3
UT t B rd m C k
3050101
1 t rrn tt 1
1
23
12
S It sa d gre I
C
5
5
318
K3
UT t B d m C k
3050101
1 I nn It t
1 3
25
1 3
S It t bbl b Id
C
47
25
464
466
455
318
K3
UTt B rd m C k
3050101
P I
NA
NA
NA
NA
C
47
25
318A
K3
UT 1 B rd m C k
3050101
P 1
24
35
26
S It S d g I
C
68
2575
318A
K3
UTt B rd m C eak
3050101
Int nnrtt t
3
1
Sit S d g I
C
8
21
131
131
10
B
K
UTt B rd m C. k
3050101 1
1 1 nn tt I
1 3
35
3
S it S d It I
C
4
5
90
87
318C
K
UT B rd m C k
I nn tt t
24
2
ft sand
C
54
25
3 D
K
UTt B rd m C. k
3050101
P 1
1 2
1 2
_S
2 ISH
sa d gm I
C
56
19
319
K3
UT t B d m Cm k
3050101
1 t nn tt 1
1
3
25
S It w d
C
53
19
321
K3
L g L k St m
3050101
I t nn It 1
1 3
36
1 6
S It S d gm I
C
83
24
321
K3
L g L k St m
3050101
P 1
24
58
1 12
S It t bbl b Id
C 1
83
33
1610
830
485
323
K3
UT t B rd m C k
3050101
P 1
1
1 2
1
S it se d
C
66
195
99
25
15
323A
K3
UTt B rd m C. k
3050101
1 t emit t
1 2
5
2
Sit sand g I bbl
C
42
255
324
K3
UT t B tl m C k
3050101
1 t -fit t
1
1 2
1 3
S it sand
C
48
23
325
K3
UTt 8 rd m C k
3050101
1 1 mt tt I
1 2
1 4
1 5 ISR
sa d g I bbl
C
48
21 25
326
K3
UTt B d m C k
3050101
1 1 mt it t
1 2
1 2
1 4
S It sa d gre I
C
41
21 25
239
336
200
326
K3
UT t B rd m C k
3050101
P
4
3
24
S It se d g I bbl
C
52
305
132
328
K3
UT t L g L k St m
3050101
1 t -ft t
34
4
14
S tt sa d g I bbl
C
69
235
328
K3
UTt L g L k St m
3050101
P m I
NA
NA
NA
NA
C
69
NA
329
K3
UTt L g L k St m
3050101
1 t -it 1
34
35
13
S Itt bbl b Id
C
67
24
330
K3
UT I L L k St m
3050101
I t -ft t
3-4
3 5
1 3
S ft t bbl b Id
C
77
26
33
K3C
UT I L L k St m
3050101
P I
4
3 41
3 5
3
Sfl sand g
C
77
26
74
9
35
330A
K3
UT t L L k St m
3050101
1 nn tt t
34
2
1 2
S tt sand ra
C
60
20 5

G t E MW t C t
STIP P ) ct U 2
C P t4 M i g
Aug 111 2011
STREAM IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON OF DESIGN PHASES
SEGMENT FROM NC 7 (SOUTH NEW HOPE ROAD) TO F
STIP P) t U 3321 G t E t W t C t
P 1 d Alt mat F I D g st m mp i b sed trod 1 m t
P 1 d Alt R I d D g nd S , Rd sire m mp t I I t d b sed ght i w y l m t pl buff 1 251 t tram h sI p st k 1 ne
S m t St m Alt but nd DEIS OSA 9 Imp t N I I R T h I R p rt / th G t E t IV t C t E rth T h I F bru ry 2008
nd th T mp k E m t I Ag y C tl net M i g h Id Ap 18 2008
St m ID
C Id
S gm t
St m N m
Hyd I gi
U t
I t mitt /
P it
R k
H fight
(N)
A g
W dth (it)
D pth
()
S b t t
W t
Ouallty
CI Ill it
USACE
S
NCDWO
5
D ftE
P I m ry
D
P f d
R tx
D 9
P ed
R
-10
m m
m
331
K3
UT i L g L k SI m
3 so 01
1 1 "tl 1
1 3
23
1 2
S It sad g I
C
765
27
331
K3
UT i Lg L k Sire m
3050101
P 1
36
26
1 4
S It sa d g I bbl
C
765
34
332
K3
UT t L g L k Sire m
3050101
P m 1
24
23
1 3
S h sand g I
C
82
41
317
58
89
333
K
UT t L g L k St m
3050101
1 1 nn It 1
1 1 2
1 2
1 2
ISI se d g I
C
7
1 245
334
K3
UT 1 L g L k St. m
3050101
1 t nn It 1
24
35
2 5
S dg I bold
b drock
C
68
21
335
K3
UT t L g L k Sire m
3050101
P re 1
23
23
24
S It sa d g I
C
63
34
i 80
19
73
336
K3
UT 1 L g L k St. m
3050101
1 t nn h t
1 2
13
1 3
S It se d gm I
C
43
205
337
K3
UT t L g L k St m
3050101
1 I nn It 1
1 4
24
1 4
S It sad gm l
C
56
26
337
K3
UT i L g L k St. m
3050101
P 1
23
3
1 2
S It sa d gm I
C
57
235
337A
K3
UT i L g L k Sire m
3050101
1 t nn It 1
1 4
24
1 4
S It sa d gm I
C
74
1 235
338
K3
UT I: L g L k Sire m
3050101
1 I nn It 1
1
2
1 2
S It sa d
C
44
245
338A
K3
UT t L g L k St m
3050101
1 t nn It 1
1
2
1 2
S It sa d
C
44
19
34
34
338B
K3c
UT t L g L k St m
501 1
1 t rtn It 1
1 2
23
4
S It sad g I
C
575
205
68
339
K3c
UT t L g L k St m
3050101
1 t nn ti 1
1
2
1 2
S It sa d
C
50
235
735
238
90
339A
K3
UT t L g L k St m
3050101
1 t nn It t
24
3 5
26
S n sa d gm I bbl
C
53
19
63
340
K3
UT t L g L k Sire m
3050101
1 t nn It 1
24
46
26
ISK sad g I bbl
C
1 82
285
1082
1
4
K3
UT I L g L k St m
3050101
P m 1
1 2
3
1 1 3
S It S d gm I
C
82
34
1244
340A
K3
UT t L g L k Sire m
3050101
1 t nn It t
1 2
2
2
S It sad I bbl
C
70
25
359
1 2
226
341
K3
UT t L g L k Sire m
3050101
1 t nn It 1
1 2
2
1 3
S It sad g I
C
5
21
282
342
K3
UT t L g L k Sire m
3050101
1 Inn It 1
1 2
2
1 2
S It sad g I
C
53
195
343
K3
UT l C If C k
3050103
1 t mt It 1
St m ul d t and dd dl m USGS m
C
73
205
346
J2
re
UT t C tl rs Cek
3050101
1 t mt It 1
1 23
1 2
S h sand
C
39
205
347
K3
UT t B m m C k
3050101
P
34 5
23
S h sa d
C
48
264
St m mb rs rwt se ut b se ly th se t m wdh th P I d Alt mat C and I t d
NCDWO

G t E tW IC t
STIP P I I U 3321
C P t4cM I g
A g t11 2011
WETLAND IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON OF DESIGN PHASES
SEGMENT FROM NC 279 (SOUTH NEW HOPE ROAD) TO 1 485
STIP P 1 t U 3321 G I E t W t C t
F ID g wtl dmp t I Itdb d t t Imt
P I d Alt R f tl P Im y D g d S, R d w It d I I I I d b d ght f w y l m t pl In If 125 f I I m h I p t k I
S f Att b I d D It EIS DSA 9 Imp t N t I R T h I R p rt t th G t E t W t C t E th T h I F b y 2008
d th T p k E m t I Ag y C d t M t g h Id Ap 18 2008
So f P f d Alt t Imp t PBS &J
W ti d N mb
C d S gm I
WStI d
( )
C ,�,� tl
CI f t
DWO R t g
W tl d 0 I ty
R t g
D ft EIS DSA 9
P Im ry O g
Alt f t d
R f d g
Alt P t1 Sdry
R d
P f d
Alt t F I
D g P m t
Im t
278
K3b
018
P 1 1
23
L w
283A
K3
001
P I I e
70
H gh
284
K3
047
P I t
70
High
285
K3
005
P I t
44
M d m
004
286
K3
033
P I t
68
H gh
287
K3
002
P 1 t
42
M d m
288
K3
0 004
P I I
46
M d m
001
001
001
289
K3b
023
P I t
43
M d m
023
023
023
290
K3b
005
P I t
64
M d m
291
K3b
007
P I t
9
L w
292
K3b
001
P I t
32
L w
293
K3b
002
P I t
23
L w
293A
K3b
000
P I 1
23
L w
294
K31b
018
P 1 1
38
M d m
295
K3b
001
P I t
22
L w
296
K3
001
P I t
NA
NA
297
K3
030
P I t
58
M d m
317
K3
478
P 1 1
62
M d m
037
037
027
317A
K3
003
P I t
31
L w
318
K3
009
P 1 1
24
L w
319
K3
030
P 1 t
23
L w
320
K3
001
P I t
23
L w
001
321
K3
002
P I st e
14
Low
002
002
002
323
K3
002
P I t
17
L w
002
002
324
K3
002
P I 1
22
L w
002
002
002
325
K3
003
P I I
15
L w
003
002
001
326
K3
008
P I t
41
M d m
327
K3
012
Pal st
60
M d m
328
K3
003
P I t
53
M d m
329
K3
056
P I t
43
M d m
0421
329A
K3
000
P I t
27
L w
330
K3
005
P I t
19
L w
331
K3
005
P I 1
17
L w
331 A
K3
001
P 1 t
38
M d m
332
K3
010
P I f
38
M d m
010
011
333
K3
005
P I st
17
L w
002
002
333A
K3
001
P I t
16
L w
001
334
K3
014
P I t
42
M d m
002
003
335
K3
043
P I t
33
M d m
336
K3
007
P I t
11
L w
337
K3
023
P I 1
68
H h
337A
K3
003
P I t
27
L w
337B
K3
002
P I t
35
M d m
1
338
H3
035
PEM1
16
L w
340
H3
002
PF01 B
36
H gh
TOTAL
1 871
1 49
000
067
W 11 ❑ m0 I 1 0 ly Ih wth Ih H t Cl Alt t u ❑ I I a

Gasto East West Co ecto
STIP P olect U 3321
C a ceP t4 M t g
A g t 11 2011
POND IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON OF DESIGN PHASES
SEGMENT FROM NC 279 (SOUTH NEW HOPE ROAD) TO 1 485
STIP P I t U 3321 G t E It West C It
F I des g mpacts based o co st t I m t
R f d D g d S ry Rd p d mpact I let d based o ght of way I m is pl s a b Ile f 25 f If m h I p t k I
So ce f P d Att b t d DSA 9 Impact Nat I Resou ces Tech cal Report to the Gasto East West Co nect Earth Tech Inc Feb ary 2008
So ce fo Ref ed Des g Impacts PBS &J
Th I m cl des me I a a d Y l as
P d mbe s of co sec t o beca ly th e w th th P f d Alt t St dy C d I sled
P If d
D It EIS DSA 9
P efe ed
P efe ed
Alt It F al
E rth Tech
Co do
Ge a at Locat o At g
T t IA
C w rd
P d ID
Segm t
C d
W th C d
Cl f t
P el m ry
Alt t R f d
Alt It
D g
D g
D g
S ry R ds
Pe me e It
Imp t
East of So th New H pe
45
K3B
Rd SR 279
1 00
PUBHh
East of So th New Hope
46
K3B
Rd SR 279
1 04
PUBHh
52
K3B
East of Boat Cl b Rd
020
PUBHh
020
020
020
56
K3C
We t f 1 485
1 06
PUBHh
57
K3C
West of 1 485
006
PUBHh
006
006
006
58
K3C
Ea t f 1 485
1 063
PUBHh
Tot 1
026
026
000
026
Th I m cl des me I a a d Y l as
P d mbe s of co sec t o beca ly th e w th th P f d Alt t St dy C d I sled