The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20120285_FEIS_20120518N 0 Ill I I CAROI N A Turnpike Authority Gasto mistra 'Ile "I'l"-",�'ll"�",�,�,�11.11-./f/� g as e s t ".Co''' n ne' 'd to'' 17re ai tmironmentai IMDactmatemen N 0 Ill I I CAROI N A Turnpike Authority Gasto mistra ll� a 111"It" IM -111,1Ill I,West s "'ll Connecto lire ai tnvironmentai imDact.**)tatemen Gaston East -West Connector Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties STIP Project U -3321 ABSTRACT The proposed action is the construction of a controlled- access toll facility extending from 1 -85 west of Gastonia in Gaston Mecklenburg County to 1 -485 near the Charlotte - Douglas International Airport in Mecklenburg County, a distance of approximately 22 miles. This Condensed Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) documents the need for proposed action, identifies the Preferred Alternative, and assesses potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the Preferred Alternative, including socioeconomics, community resources, cultural resources, natural resources, environmental quality, and costs. Public and government agency comments on the Draft EIS are also addressed in this document. FHWA-NC-EIS-09-02-F NORTH CAROLINA Turnpulke Authority Gaston East-West Connector 1-85 to 1-485 and NC 160 Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Federal Aid Project Number STP-1213(6) State Project Number 8.2812501 WBS Element 34922.1.TA.1 STIP Project Number U-3321 Administrative Action Final Environmental Impact Statement Submitted Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 42 USC 4332(2)(c) US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and North Carolina Turnpike Authority Cooperating Agency: US Army Corps of Engineers 1-11-1 ' `2 . 2 k . '-.t5 'I c> /, L Date Steven D. DeAtt, PE' Chief Engineer morth Carolina Turnpike Authority i.2_—,2_I- 2-o it) Date J,dhn F. Sullivan, III, PE ivision Administrator Federal Highway Administration NORTH CAROUNA Turnpike Author"Ity Gaston East-West Connector 1-85 to 1-485 and NC 160 Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Federal Aid Project Number STP-1213(6) State Project Number 8.2812501 WBS Element 34922.1.TA.1 STIP Project Number U-3321 Administrative Action Final Environmental Impact Statement Submitted Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 42 USC 4332(2)(c) US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and North Carolina Turnpike Authority Cooperating Agency: US Army Corps of Engineers Document Prepared By: PBS&J /,2 _// C) e. Date e_4, Date ill G,urak, PE, AICP,", NEPA Project Marri4 , ge Fu [oil Date David W. Bass, PE Design Project Manager Document Prepared For: North Carolina Turnpike Authority lz.fl. 2OIQ Date Jennifer Farris, PE Staff Engineer Noth Carolina Turnpike Authority G TABLE OF CONTENTS � �-io Note: This Final EIS has been published in two volumes: VOLUME 1 - Table of Contents and Text and Figures VOLUME 2 - Table of Contents and Appendices PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................... ............................... i LIST OF TABLES .................................................... ............................... v LIST OF EXHIBITS ................................................ ............................... vi LIST OF FIGURES ................................................. ............................... vi APPENDICES ....................................................... ............................... vii P PREFACE ................................................. ............................... P -1 P.1 LEAD AGENCIES, COOPERATING AGENCIES, AND PARTICIPATING AGENCIES.......................................................... ............................... P -1 P.2 HOW THIS FINAL EIS WILL BE USED ..................... ............................... P -2 P.3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS FINAL EIS ...................... ............................... P -2 P.4 HISTORY OF THE PROJECT ................................... ............................... P -4 P.5 ACTIVITIES SINCE THE DRAFT EIS ........................ ............................... P -4 PC SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS ........ ............................... PC -1 1 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY AND UPDATES ...... ............................... 1 -1 1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION .......................... ............................... 1 -1 1.1.1 PROPOSED ACTION ...................................................... ............................1 -1 1.1.2 SUMMARY OF NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION ...................... ............................... 1 -2 1.1.3 PROJECT PURPOSE .................................................... ............................... 1 -3 1.1.4 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ........................................... ............................1 -3 1.1.5 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM .............................. ............................... 1 -4 1.1.6 PERFORMANCE OF THE EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM ............ ............................... 1 -5 1.1.7 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ............................. ............................... 1 -5 1.1.8 TRANSPORTATION PLANS AND LAND USE PLANS .................... ............................1 -6 1.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ................................. ............................... 1 -6 1.2.1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING .................. ............................... 1 -6 1.2.2 FIRST SCREENING — PROJECT CONCEPTS ......................... ............................... 1 -8 1.2.3 SECOND SCREENING — PROJECT CORRIDORS .................. ............................... 1 -11 1.2.4 DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES ................................. ............................... 1 -13 1.2.5 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ..................................... ............................... 1 -13 1.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.......... 1 -16 1.3.1 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT ............................................. ............................... 1 -16 1.3.1.1 Land Use and Planning 1 -16 -if = z I GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.3.1.2 Existing Social and Economic Resources and Community Characteristics1 -17 1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION ............................ 1.3.1.3 Relocations and Displacements 1 -19 1.4.1.1 Citizens Informational Workshops 1.3.1.4 Impacts to Neighborhoods 1 -20 1.4.1.3 Small Group Meetings 1.3.1.5 Environmental Justice 1 -20 1.4.2 AGENCY COORDINATION ........................................... ............................... 1.3.1.6 Impacts to Community Resources and Services 1 -21 1.4.2.2 Notice of Intent 1.3.1.7 Community Safety 1 -24 1.3.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT .......................................... ............................... 1 -24 1.3.2.1 Noise 1 -24 1.3.2.2 Air Quality 1 -25 1.3.2.3 Farmland 1 -29 1.3.2.4 Utilities and Infrastructure 1 -32 1.3.2.5 Visual Resources 1 -33 1.3.2.6 Hazardous Materials 1 -34 1.3.2.7 Floodplains and Floodways 1 -34 1.3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................ ............................... 1 -36 1.3.3.1 Historic Architectural Resources 1 -36 1.3.3.2 Archaeological Resources 1 -36 1.3.3.3 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 1 -37 1.3.4 NATURAL RESOURCES .............................................. ............................... 1 -38 1.3.4.1 Geology, Mineral Resources, and Soils 1 -38 1.3.4.2 Water Resources 1 -39 1.3.4.3 Natural Communities and Wildlife 1 -42 1.3.4.4 Jurisdictional Issues 1 -43 1.3.4.5 Protected Species 1 -45 1.3.5 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ............................ ............................... 1 -46 1.3.5.1 Analysis Methodology 1 -46 1.3.5.2 Study Areas 1 -47 1.3.5.3 Study Area Directions and Goals and Notable Features 1 -48 1.3.5.4 Summary of Findings 1 -48 1.3.6 OTHER IMPACTS .................................................... ............................... 1 -51 1.3.6.1 Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitment of Resources 1 -51 1.3.6.2 Relationship between Short -Term Impacts and Long -Term Impacts 1 -51 1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION ............................ 1 -52 1.4.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .............................................. ............................... 1 -52 1.4.1.1 Citizens Informational Workshops 1 -52 1.4.1.2 Local Officials Meetings 1 -52 1.4.1.3 Small Group Meetings 1 -53 1.4.1.4 Other Outreach Efforts 1 -53 1.4.2 AGENCY COORDINATION ........................................... ............................... 1 -53 1.4.2.1 Scoping Letter 1 -53 1.4.2.2 Notice of Intent 1 -53 1.4.2.3 Section 6002 Project Coordination Plan 1 -54 1.4.2.4 Agency Coordination Meetings 1 -54 1.5 UNRESOLVED ISSUES AND ISSUES RESOLVED SINCE DRAFT EIS.......... 1 -54 2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ..................... ............................... 2 -1 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ..... ............................... 2 -1 2.1.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION ................................................. ............................2 -1 2.1.2 DESIGN CRITERIA ....................................................... ............................2 -1 2.1.3 TOLLING INFORMATION .............................................. ............................... 2 -2 GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.2 REASONS FOR SELECTING DSA 9 AS THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ........ 2 -3 2.3 DESIGN REFINEMENTS TO THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ........................ 2 -7 2.3.1 DESIGN REFINEMENTS ............................................... ............................... 2 -7 2.3.1.1 Reduce Median by 20 Feet and Revise Typical Section 2 -8 2.3.1.2 Modify Access to Matthews Acres Subdivision 2 -8 2.3.1.3 Retain the US 29 -74 Interchange 2 -9 2.3.1.4 Modify the Forbes Road Grade Separation 2 -9 2.3.1.5 Compress the Robinson Road Interchange 2 -10 2.3.1.6 Eliminate the Bud Wilson Road Interchange 2 -10 2.3.1.7 Compress the US 274 (Union Road) Interchange 2 -11 2.3.1.8 Relocate Tucker Road Connection to Canal Road 2 -12 2.3.1.9 Realign Mainline to Avoid Recreation Fields and Provide Access Road to NC 273 (Southpoint Road) 2 -12 2.3.1.10 Reconfigure the NC 273 (Southpoint Road) Interchange to Avoid Historic Boundary of Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church Cemetery 2 -13 2.3.1.11 Relocate Boat Club Road Connection North of Mainline to NC 273 (Southpoint Road) 2 -13 2.3.1.12 Reconfigure the I -485 and Dixie River Road Interchanges 2 -14 2.3.2 SERVICE ROADS .................................................... ............................... 2 -15 2.3.2.1 Service Road Evaluation Methodology and Design Assumptions 2 -15 2.3.2.2 Proposed Service Roads 2 -16 2.3.3 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION OF IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE US ..................... 2 -16 2.3.4 COST ESTIMATES FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ......... ............................... 2 -17 2.3.5 UPDATED TRAFFIC FORECASTS AND OPERATIONS ANALYSIS . ............................... 2 -18 2.3.5.1 Year 2035 Traffic Forecasts 2 -18 2.3.5.2 Traffic Operations 2 -19 2.4 ADDITIONAL STUDIES OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ..................... 2 -20 2.5 IMPACTS OF THE PREFFERED ALTERNATIVE ......... ............................... 2 -21 2.5.1 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT ............................................. ............................... 2 -21 2.5.1.1 Land Use and Transportation Planning 2 -21 2.5.1.2 Right -of -Way Acquisition and Relocations 2 -22 2.5.1.3 Neighborhoods 2 -23 2.5.1.4 Environmental Justice 2 -25 2.5.1.5 Community Resources and Services 2 -25 2.5.1.6 Community Safety 2 -28 2.5.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT .......................................... ............................... 2 -29 2.5.2.1 Noise 2 -29 2.5.2.2 Air Quality 2 -33 2.5.2.3 Farmland 2 -36 2.5.2.4 Utilities and Infrastructure 2 -37 2.5.2.5 Visual Resources 2 -39 2.5.2.6 Hazardous Materials 2 -40 2.5.2.7 Floodplains and Floodways 2 -43 2.5.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES AND SECTION 4(F) AND SECTION 6(F) RESOURCES .............. 2 -45 2.5.3.1 Historic Architectural Resources 2 -45 2.5.3.2 Archaeological Resources 2 -47 2.5.3.3 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 2 -49 2.5.4 NATURAL RESOURCES .............................................. ............................... 2 -50 2.5.4.1 Soils and Mineral Resources 2 -50 2.5.4.2 Water Resources 2 -51 2.5.4.3 Natural Communities and Wildlife 2 -52 -if r Z GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS iii TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.5.4.4 Water Resources in Federal Jurisdiction 2 -54 2.5.4.5 Protected Species 2 -57 2.5.5 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ............................ ............................... 2 -59 2.5.5.1 Introduction and Background 2 -59 2.5.5.2 Study Area and Analysis Year 2 -61 2.5.5.3 Future No -Build Scenario Projects 2 -62 2.5.5.4 Land Use Forecasting Methodology 2 -63 2.5.5.5 Methods for Assessing Notable Features /Resources 2 -66 2.5.5.6 Potential Indirect and Cumulative Effects to Land Use 2 -68 2.5.5.7 Potential Indirect and Cumulative Effects to Water Resources 2 -72 2.5.5.8 Potential Indirect and Cumulative Effects to Wildlife Habitat 2 -75 2.5.5.9 Mitigation 2 -77 2.5.5.10 Conclusion 2 -78 3 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION AFTER THE DRAFT EIS ...... 3 -1 3.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ......................................... ............................... 3 -1 3.1.1 AVAILABILITY OF DRAFT EIS FOR REVIEW ........................... ............................3 -1 3.1.2 PRE - HEARING OPEN HOUSES AND PUBLIC HEARINGS .............. ............................3 -1 3.1.2.1 Advertisement of Pre - Hearing Open Houses and Public Hearings 3 -1 3.1.2.2 Pre - Hearing Open Houses and Local Officials Meeting 3 -1 3.1.2.3 Public Hearings 3 -2 3.1.2.4 Public Comment Period 3 -3 3.1.3 SMALL GROUP MEETINGS .............................................. ............................3 -3 3.2 AGENCY COORDINATION ..................................... ............................... 3 -5 3.2.1 TEAC MEETINGS ........................................................ ............................3 -5 3.2.2 OTHER AGENCY MEETINGS ............................................. ............................3 -6 3.2.3 SELECTION OF DSA 9 AS THE LEDPA ............................... ............................3 -6 3.3 SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND RESPONSES ............. 3 -7 3.3.1 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC ............. ............................3 -7 3.3.2 RESPONSES TO GENERALIZED COMMENTS ...................... ............................... 3 -10 3.3.2.1 Responses to Generalized Comments on Purpose and Need 3 -10 3.3.2.2 Responses to Generalized Comments on Traffic and Travel Times 3 -12 3.3.2.3 Responses to Generalized Comments on Range of Alternatives 3 -16 3.3.2.4 Responses to Generalized Comments on Air Quality 3 -19 3.3.2.5 Responses to Generalized Comments on Water Quality and Jurisdictional Resources 3 -21 3.3.2.6 Responses to Generalized Comments on Indirect and Cumulative Effects and Wildlife 3 -22 3.3.2.7 Responses to Generalized Comments on Cultural Resources, Community Characteristics, and Farmland 3 -24 4 LIST OF PREPARERS ............................... ............................... 4 -1 4.1 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION .................. ............................... 4 -1 4.2 NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY (A DIVISION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION) ..... ............................... 4 -1 4.3 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION .......................... 4 -1 GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS IV TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.4 PRIVATE CONSULTING FIRMS .................................. ............................4 -2 5 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO -9 1 -2 Twelve Final Detailed Study Alternatives ......................... ............................... WHOM COPIES OF THE STATEMENT ARE SENT ...................... 5 -1 5.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS ... ............................... 5 -1 5.2 REGIONAL OFFICES OF FEDERAL AGENCIES .......... ............................... 5 -1 5.3 STATE AGENCIES ................................................ ............................... 5 -1 5.4 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND AGENCIES .................. ............................... 5 -2 5.5 PUBLIC REVIEW LOCATIONS ................................ ............................... 5 -2 6 REFERENCES .............................................. ............................6 -1 6.1 REFERENCES ...................................................... ............................... 6 -1 6.2 SUPPORTING PROJECT DOCUMENTATION .............. ............................... 6 -4 6.2.1 SUPPORTING PROJECT DOCUMENTATION PRIOR TO PUBLICATION OF THE DRAFT EIS .....6 -4 6.2.2 SUPPORTING PROJECT DOCUMENTATION AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE DRAFT EIS ......... 6 -6 6.3 ACRONYMS USED IN THE FINAL EIS ...................... ............................... 6 -7 LIST OF TABLES Special Project Commitments PC -1 Special Commitments ................................................... ............................... PC -1 Chapter 1 1 -1 Summary of Results for First Screening - Project Concepts .... ............................1 -9 1 -2 Twelve Final Detailed Study Alternatives ......................... ............................... 1 -13 1 -3 Summary of Impacts to Named Neighborhoods and Rural Communities............ 1 -20 1 -4 Prime and Important Farmland Soils in the Detailed Study Alternative Corridors 1 -30 1 -5 Impacts to Prime and Important Farmland Soils .............. ............................... 1 -31 1 -6 Ranking of DSAs by Potential to Impact Archaeological Resources .................... 1 -37 1 -7 Summary of Effects on Federally Protected Species .......... ............................... 1 -46 1 -8 Summary of Potential for Indirect and Cumulative Effects by County ................. 1 -49 Chapter 2 2 -1 Recommended Preliminary Service Roads ........................... ...........................2 -16 2 -2 Summary of Changes in Jurisdictional Resource Impacts Due to Design Refinements and Service Roads for Preferred Alternative .. ............................... 2 -17 2 -3 Cost Estimates for the Preferred Alternative .................... ............................... 2 -18 2 -4 Year 2035 Traffic Volumes Along the Preferred Alternative ............................... 2 -19 2 -5 Potential Neighborhood Impacts ......................................... ...........................2 -24 2 -6 Church and Cemetery Impacts from Preferred Alternative . ............................... 2 -26 2 -7 2035 Noise Contours and Impact Summary - Preferred Alternative ................... 2 -30 2 -8 Preliminary Feasible and Reasonable Noise Barriers for the Preferred Alternative 2 -32 2 -9 Impacts to Prime and Important Farmland Soils ............... ............................... 2 -36 2 -10 Hazardous Materials Sites in the Preferred Alternative Corridor .........................2 -41 2 -11 Effects to Historic Architectural Resources from Preferred Alternative ................ 2 -46 -1 r = Z I GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS v TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 -12 Impacts to Terrestrial Communities .................................... ...........................2 -52 2 -13 Impacts to Waters of the US .......................................... ............................... 2 -54 2 -14 Transportation Projects Included in the No -Build Scenario . ............................... 2 -63 2 -15 Gravity Model Estimated Change in Households and Employment by Watershed - No -Build Scenario and Build Scenario ............................. ............................... 2 -69 2 -16 Estimated Land Conversion by Watershed - No -Build Scenario and Build LIST OF EXHIBITS Chapter 1 1 -1 National MSAT Emission Trends 1999 - 2050 For Vehicles Operating On Roadways Using USEPA MOBILE6.2 Model ...................................... ............................... 1 -28 LIST OF FIGURES (Figures located at the end of each chapter) Chapter 1 1 -1 Project Location in Region 1 -2 2035 Long Range Transportation Plans 1 -3 Mecklenburg County Southwest District Future Land Use Map 1 -4 (a -b) Detailed Study Alternatives 1 -5 (a -b) Neighborhoods and Communities 1 -6 (a -b) Draft EIS Noise Impact Assessment Information Chapter 2 2 -1 Preferred Alternative DSA 9 2 -2 Preferred Alternative Typical Section 2 -3 (a -r) Preferred Alternative Refined Design 2 -4 (a -b) Preferred Alternative Noise Impact Assessment 2 -5 Hazardous Materials Sites 2 -6 Comparison of Qualitative and Quantitative ICE Study Areas 2 -7 No Build Transportation Projects 2 -8 Absolute Change in Households 2005 -2035 No Build Comparison 2 -9 Absolute Change in Employment 2005 -2035 No Build Comparison 2 -10 Absolute Change in Households 2005 -2035 Build Comparison 2 -11 Absolute Change in Employment 2005 -2035 Build Comparison 2 -12 Absolute Change in Households 2035 No Build to Build GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS V1 Scenario..................................................................... ............................... 2 -70 2 -17 Estimated Change in Impervious Cover by Watershed ....... ............................... 2 -73 2 -18 Forest Interior Habitat Patches in ICE Study Area ............. ............................... 2 -75 2 -19 Estimated Change in Forest Cover by Watershed .............. ............................... 2 -76 2 -20 Summary of Estimated Indirect and Cumulative Effects in the ICE Study Area .... 2 -78 Chapter 3 3 -1 Small Group Meeting Summaries ........................................ ............................3 -3 3 -2 TEAC Meeting Summaries .................................................. ............................3 -5 Chapter 6 6 -1 Acronyms Used in the Final EIS ........................................... ............................6 -7 LIST OF EXHIBITS Chapter 1 1 -1 National MSAT Emission Trends 1999 - 2050 For Vehicles Operating On Roadways Using USEPA MOBILE6.2 Model ...................................... ............................... 1 -28 LIST OF FIGURES (Figures located at the end of each chapter) Chapter 1 1 -1 Project Location in Region 1 -2 2035 Long Range Transportation Plans 1 -3 Mecklenburg County Southwest District Future Land Use Map 1 -4 (a -b) Detailed Study Alternatives 1 -5 (a -b) Neighborhoods and Communities 1 -6 (a -b) Draft EIS Noise Impact Assessment Information Chapter 2 2 -1 Preferred Alternative DSA 9 2 -2 Preferred Alternative Typical Section 2 -3 (a -r) Preferred Alternative Refined Design 2 -4 (a -b) Preferred Alternative Noise Impact Assessment 2 -5 Hazardous Materials Sites 2 -6 Comparison of Qualitative and Quantitative ICE Study Areas 2 -7 No Build Transportation Projects 2 -8 Absolute Change in Households 2005 -2035 No Build Comparison 2 -9 Absolute Change in Employment 2005 -2035 No Build Comparison 2 -10 Absolute Change in Households 2005 -2035 Build Comparison 2 -11 Absolute Change in Employment 2005 -2035 Build Comparison 2 -12 Absolute Change in Households 2035 No Build to Build GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS V1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 -13 Absolute Change in Employment 2035 No Build to Build 2 -14 Tree Cover and Forest Interior Habitat Patches APPENDICES A. Draft EIS Errata B. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIS 131. Agency Comment Letters 132. Local Government Comment Letters 133. Interest Group Letters and Letters Responding to the USACE Public Notice 134. Public Comment Letters 135. E- Mailed Public Comments 136. Public Comment Forms 137. Public Hearing Transcripts C. Draft EIS Impact Summary Table D. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Discussion of Impacts E. Soils Information F. NPDES Dischargers G. Concurrence Forms H. Preliminary Design Refinements for the Preferred Alternative I. Jurisdictional Resources Information J. 2035 Noise Contour Maps K. Intensive Archaeological Survey Information and Agency Correspondence GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS V11 A PREFACE f� This Preface lists the lead agencies and their contact information, provides background on the National Environmental Policy Act explains how the Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) will be used, and describes the organization of this Final EIS. A brief history of the project is included along with an update on activities since the Draft EIS was prepared. P.1 LEAD AGENCIES, COOPERATING AGENCIES, AND PARTICIPATING AGENCIES The lead agencies for this project are the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA). In the Draft EIS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) also was listed as a lead agency. On July 27, 2009, Session Law 2009 -343 was signed, transferring the functions and funds of the NCTA to the NCDOT, and the NCTA became a division of the NCDOT. The following individuals may be contacted for additional information concerning this Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS). Comments and questions may also be sent to the project's email address: gaston@ncturnpil<e.org. Federal Highway Administration Mr. John F. Sullivan, III, PE Federal Highway Administration 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410 Raleigh, NC 27601 -1418 Telephone: (919) 856 -4346 North Carolina Turnpike Authority la Division of NCDOT) Ms. Jennifer Harris, PE North Carolina Turnpike Authority 5400 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 400 Raleigh, NC 27612 Telephone: (919) 571 -3000 The US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) is a cooperating agency. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) was invited to be a cooperating agency; however, the FERC provided no response, so they automatically are a participating agency. The following agencies are participating agencies: • US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) • US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) • Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rU GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS P -1 PREFACE e. r. i• • NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) • NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) • NC Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) • Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO) • Mecklenburg -Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO) The cooperating and participating agencies are identified in the Gaston East -West Connector Section 6002 Coordination Plan (NCTA, October 2008), prepared in accordance with Section 6002 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act — A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA -LU). The Section 6002 Coordination Plan, included in Appendix A -7 of the Draft EIS, describes agency roles and public and agency participation in the planning process. SAFETEA -LU promotes more efficient and effective Federal surface transportation programs by focusing on transportation issues of national significance, while giving State and local transportation decision makers more flexibility for solving transportation problems in their communities (FHWA Web site: www. fhwa. dot.gov /safetealu /summary.htm). Section 6002 of SAFETEA -LU provides provisions affecting the timely delivery of the environmental review process and the completion of environmental impact statements (FHWA Web site: http: / /environment.fhwa.dot.gov /wizard /wiz_provisions.asp). P.2 HOW THIS FINAL EIS WILL BE USED The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential environmental consequences of their proposals, document their analyses, and make this information available to the public for comment prior to project or program implementation (FHWA Web site: http:Henviranment.fhwa.dot.gov /projdev /index. asp). This document will be used by FHWA as the basis for the Record of Decision (ROD), which is the final document prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. The Record of Decision (ROD) identifies the Selected Alternative corridor and presents the basis for the decision. It should be noted that the ROD identifies a corridor, not a specific design. The preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative presented in this Final EIS may change during final design activities occurring after the ROD, provided the modifications are within the Selected Alternative corridor. The FHWA NEPA process allows transportation officials to make project decisions that balance engineering and transportation needs with social, economic, and natural environmental factors. During the process, a wide range of partners (including the public, businesses, interest groups, and agencies at all levels of government) provides input into project and environmental decisions (FHWA Web site: http: / /environment.fhwa.dot.gov /projdev /pd3tdm. asp). P.3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS FINAL EIS This Final EIS uses a "condensed" format, as described in the FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents (FHWA Web site: http: / /environment.fhwa.dot.gov /projdev /impTA6640.asp). This approach avoids repetition of material from the Draft EIS by incorporating by reference the Draft EIS, and instead allows the focus of the Final EIS to be on important changes that have occurred since the V77;7171.777 M_ GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS P -2 PREFACE VIM Draft EIS, comments received on the Draft EIS and responses to those comments, and new information that has been considered. As described in the Technical Advisory, the "crux of this approach is to briefly reference and summarize information from the draft EIS which has not changed and to focus the final EIS discussion on changes in the project, its setting, impacts, technical analyses, and mitigation that have occurred since the draft EIS was circulated." The Draft EIS, incorporated by reference, is available for download on the NCTA Web site (www.ncturnpil<e.org /projects /gaston) and is included as a CD with all hard copies of the Final EIS. This Final EIS is divided into eight sections, as described briefly below • Chapter P is this Preface. • Chapter PC lists the special project commitments that NCTA has agreed to implement for the Preferred Alternative. Chapter 1 provides a summary of information presented in the Gaston East -West Connector Administrative Action Draft Environmental Impact Statement (April, 2009), including the purpose and need and the alternatives considered. This section also contains minor corrections (errata) (a list of all errata is included in Appendix A), clarifications, and updates to information in the Draft EIS not specific to the Preferred Alternative. These include, but are not limited to, updates to the existing environment and an update to background information on mobile source air toxics. • Chapter 2 describes the Preferred Alternative and the reasons it was selected. This chapter also describes additional design work, other studies conducted for the Preferred Alternative, and updates to impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative that have been prepared since the Draft EIS. • Chapter 3 details continued coordination efforts with the public, as well as federal, state, and local agencies, since the Draft EIS was issued for public review. Substantive comments on the Draft EIS and responses to those comments are also included. All comments and responses are included in Appendix B. • Chapter 4 lists the principal participants in the preparation of this Final EIS. • Chapter 5 contains the distribution list for this Final EIS. • Chapter 6 includes the references and supporting documentation used in the preparation of this Final EIS. Chapter 6 also includes a list of acronyms found throughout this Final EIS. The Final EIS also includes appendices that are referenced throughout the document. The Final EIS, including figures and appendices, is available for download on the NCTA Web site (www.ncturnpil<e.org /projects /gaston). The supporting documentation listed in Chapter 6 is comprised of technical memoranda and reports incorporated by reference into the Final EIS. This reference material is available for review upon request, with most documents also available on the NCTA Web site. Note that throughout the Final EIS, references to sections, tables, figures, and appendices included in the Final EIS are in bold text, while references to these elements from the Draft EIS are not in bold text. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS P -3 PREFACE e. r. i• P.4 HISTORY OF THE PROJECT Plans to improve east -west mobility in southern Gaston County through construction of a new location roadway have been discussed by the GUAMPO since the late 1980s. The NCDOT began planning for the Gaston East -West Connector in 2001. NCTA's involvement began in 2005, with the adoption of the project by the NCTA Board as a candidate toll facility. P.5 ACTIVITIES SINCE THE DRAFT EIS The Gaston East -West Connector Administrative Action Draft Environmental Impact Statement was signed on April 24, 2009 and made available for public and agency review on May 1, 2009 on the NCTA Web site. Copies of the document were distributed to public review locations and agencies May 11 -13, 2009. The public comment period for the Draft EIS ended on July 21, 2009. Public and Agency Coordination. Coordination efforts with the public and federal, state, and local agencies since the Draft EIS are summarized in Chapter 3. Four Pre - Hearing Open Houses and two Corridor Design Public Hearings were held June 22 -25, 2009. The NCTA conducted regularly scheduled agency coordination meetings throughout the project development process. These Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAL) meetings were held to review the status of the current NCTA projects, to discuss and agree upon study methodologies, and to discuss and resolve environmental concerns and adherence to permitting requirements. For the Gaston East -West Connector, these meetings also included discussion of NEPA/404 Merger Process Concurrence Points (Section 3.2). Concurrence Points 1 (Purpose and Need), 2 (Detailed Study Alternatives), and 2a (Bridging and Alignment) were achieved prior to the Draft EIS. Concurrence Point 3 (Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative) and Concurrence Point 4a (Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources) were achieved after the Draft EIS and prior to publication of the Final EIS. Updates and Refinements to the Preferred Alternative. Refinements were made to the design of the Preferred Alternative based on input received from state and federal agencies and the public. Refinements include a 20 -foot reduction in the median, the elimination of the Bud Wilson Road interchange, reconfiguration of five other project interchanges (Robinson Road, NC 274 (Union Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road), Dixie River Road, and I -485), and further consideration of potential service road locations. These are described in Section 2.3. Additional Studies. Several additional studies were prepared for the Preferred Alternative, including the following: • Service Road Study (Section 2.3.2) • Year 2035 Traffic Forecasts (Section 2.3.5) • Traffic Operations Analysis based on 2035 Forecasts (Section 2.3.5) • Traffic Noise Study Addendum (Section 2.5.2.1) • Updated Hazardous Materials Study (Section 2.5.2.6) • Phase II Intensive Archaeology Survey (Section 2.5.3.2) • Conceptual Mitigation Plan (Section 2.5.4.4) • Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis (Section 2.5.5) GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS P -4 f� I • . . This "GREEN SHEET" identifies the special project commitments made to avoid, minimize, or mitigate project impacts beyond those required to comply with applicable federal and state requirements and regulations. During the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, commitments are made to avoid, minimize, or mitigate project impacts. Commitments result from public comment or through the requirements of, or agreements with, environmental resource and regulatory agencies. In addition to compliance with applicable federal and state requirements and regulations, such as Section 404 Individual Permit Conditions, Nationwide Permit Conditions, Regional Conditions, and State Consistency Conditions; North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Guidelines for Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters; General Certification Conditions and Section 401 Conditions of Certification, and the Endangered Species Act, Table PC -1 lists special project commitments that have been agreed to by the North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA). TABLE PC -1: Special Project Commitments Item Final EIS Section Project Commitment Project Stage Final Design Community NCTA will coordinate with Gaston County Public Schools and through 1 Resources 2.5.1.5 Mecklenburg County Public Schools to share information. Construction and Services Management NCTA will coordinate with the Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Catawba Lands Conservancy to Community identify needed accommodations for any existing and funded 2 Resources 2.5.1.5 greenways that cross the Preferred Alternative. NCTA will Final Design and Services incorporate into the final design accommodations for existing and funded greenways, subject to applicable cost sharing. Implementation of the Preferred Alternative may require re- routing Final Design Community of existing service routes during construction. NCTA will through 3 Resources 2.5.1.5 coordinate with the Gaston County Fire Marshal to ensure Construction and Services continuation of services during construction. Management The refined preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative results in the direct taking of the Dixie Community Center on Garrison Road. If final design results in a direct taking, NCTA will conduct additional coordination with the Garrison Road Community Center Community non - profit organization and provide mitigation for the loss of this Final Design, 4 Resources 2.5.1.5 facility. The organization would be eligible for all the benefits for ROW Acquisition and Services non - residential relocatees under the NCDOT's relocation assistance program described in Section 2.5.1.2. Benefits would include, but not be limited to, advisory services to identify replacement sites, moving costs, and reestablishment expenses. NCTA will ensure the bridge over the Catawba River will be designed so as not to preclude future accommodation of a Community pedestrian /bicycle facility funded by others, such as local 5 Safety 2.5.1.6 jurisdictions. For established and planned bicycle routes, NCTA will Final Design coordinate with MUMPO and GUAMPO to accommodate these facilities where appropriate. A Design Noise Study will be prepared to update the noise analysis 6 Noise 2.5.2.1 based upon the most recent FHWA regulations and NCDOT noise Final Design policies, traffic forecasts, and the final design. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS PC -1 SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS TABLE PC-1: Special Project Commitments Item Final EIS Section Project Commitment Project Stage The NCTA will comply with the VAD ordinance (Gaston County Voluntary Agricultural District Ordinance, Gaston County Web site: www.co.gaston.nc.us/ordinances/VADordinance2004-07-22.pdf) Final Design, 7 Farmland 2.5.2.3 and will work with Gaston County regarding public hearings related ROW Acquisition to land condemnation proceedings against the VAD parcels prior to right-of-way acquisition. Utilities and NCTA will coordinate with local utilities to avoid and minimize Final Design, 8 Infrastructure 2.5.2.4 disruptions in service. Construction - Electrical NCTA will coordinate with the NCDOT Rail Division and Norfolk Utilities and Southern during final design for the project's interchange at 1-85, 9 Infrastructure 2.5.2.4 which would affect the east-west rail mainline through Gaston Final Design Railroads County. Utilities and NCTA will coordinate with the NCDOT Rail Division and Norfolk 10 Infrastructure 2.5.2.4 Southern during final design of the crossing of the rail spur that Final Design - Railroads serves Duke Energy Corporation's Allen Steam Station. Utilities and NCTA will coordinate with the NCDOT Rail Division and Norfolk Southern during final design for the project's interchange at US 321, 11 Infrastructure 2.5.2.4 Final Design which would affect the Norfolk Southern branch line that runs - Railroads north-south parallel to the east side of US 321. NCTA will investigate the feasibility and reasonableness of Visual incorporating cost-effective treatments for the bridge sides, piers, 12 2.5.2.5 Final Design Resources and railings on the bridges over the South Fork Catawba River and Catawba River as part of an aesthetic plan for the project. When the final proposed alignment is established and right of way limits are determined, a hazardous materials site assessment will be Hazardous performed to the degree necessary to determine levels of Final Design, 13 Materials 2.5.2.6 contamination at any potential hazardous materials sites along the ROW Acquisition Preferred Alternative. The assessment will be made prior to right- of-way acquisition. Historic NCTA will ensure that there is no taking of property, either by fee 14 Architectural 2.5.3.1 Final Design simple or permanent easement, from the JBF Riddle House. Resources Historic NCTA will ensure that full access is maintained to the Harrison 15 Architectural 2.5.3.1 Final Design Family Dairy Farm. Resources Final Design Archaeological Geotechnical studies and surveys conducted by NCTA will identify through 16 Resources 2.5.3.2 abandoned mines in the area. Construction Management NCTA will coordinate with Duke Energy Corporation to obtain the necessary FERC permit. The process is expected to result in a FERC 17 Water 2.5.4.2 license revision to allow the granting of an easement within the Final Design Resources FERC project boundary to NCTA to construct the Gaston East-West Connector, including the bridges over Lake Wylie. An erosion and sedimentation plan will be developed for the Preferred Alternative prior to construction in accordance with all Water applicable regulations and guidance. The FHWA, NCTA, and NCDOT 18 2.5.4.2 Final Design Resources will work with the permitting agencies to determine the appropriate best management practices to implement for the project. Small Group NCTA will review the refined preliminary design to evaluate ways to 19 3.2.2 Final Design Meetings 1 1 minimize costs and impacts on the Bruce's Iron & Metal site. GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR FEIS PC-2 i i ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............................... Chapter 1 provides a summary of information presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Gaston East -West Connector (April 2009). The information in this chapter is presented in the some order as in the Draft EIS. This chapter also contains, where indicated, clarification and updates such as changes in the existing environment or changes in guidance documents. Errata related to the Draft EIS is included in Appendix A. ' I 1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION The purpose and need for the project are documented in detail in the Final Updated Statement of Purpose and Need for the Gaston East -West Connector (PBS &J, October 2008), incorporated by reference and available on the North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) Web site (www.ncturnpil<e.org/projects/gaston). 1.1.1 PROPOSED ACTION The NCTAI, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), proposes to construct a project known as the Gaston East -West Connector, which would be a controlled - access toll road extending from I -85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I -485 near the Charlotte - Douglas International Airport in Mecklenburg County. The purpose of the project is to improve east -west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia and other municipalities in southern Gaston County (between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area), with special emphasis on establishing direct access between the rapidly growing areas of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. The project is included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2009 -2015 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) as STIP Project U -3321. The project is known as the "Gaston East -West Connector" and locally as the "Garden Parkway." This study refers to the project as the Gaston East -West Connector. North Carolina roads traditionally have been built with taxpayer funds, either through the state transportation budget or federal -aid highway funds allocated to the state. There are many other priority projects statewide and, due to funding constraints, there is not enough funding available from traditional resources in the foreseeable future to construct all priority projects. The current NCDOT 2009 -2015 STIP includes the project as a toll facility, and traditional (non -toll) transportation funding for this project is not likely in the foreseeable future. The 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) for the Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO) and the 2035 LRTP for the Mecklenburg -Union MPO (MUMPO) both include the project as a toll facility. A series of Citizens Informational Workshops (CIWs) took place in August 2008 to give the public an opportunity to comment on the purpose and need for the project. Agency comments on the purpose and need for the project were solicited; beginning with the initial project scoping letter on April 9, 2003. Additional information on public involvement and agency coordination related to the purpose and need is presented in Section 1.4. 1 On July 27, 2009, NCTA became a division of NCDOT (NC Session Law 2009 -343). Where applicable, references to NCDOT as a separate agency have been removed. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -1 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• 1.1.2 SUMMARY OF NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION The primary needs for the proposed action are summarized below, and have not changed since the Draft EIS was published. Detailed discussions of existing and projected conditions within the Project Study Area are presented in Sections 1.5 through 1.8 of the Draft EIS. Poor Transportation Connectivitv Between Gaston Countv and Mecklenbura County and Within Southern Gaston County • Limited crossings of the Catawba River are constraining travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties. The Catawba River separates Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties. Presently, there are only four crossings of the river between the two counties, with none of them located in the southern half of Gaston County (Section 1.5.1.3 of the Draft EIS). • Projected growth in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County will continue to increase demands for accessibility and connectivity between the two counties. A review of tax parcel data shows that from 2000 to 2008, the number of residences in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County has increased approximately 24 percent (Sections 1.6.1 and 1.7.1 of the Draft EIS). • South of I -85 in Gaston County, a lack of connecting east -west roadways makes travel circuitous and limits mobility for travel in southern Gaston County. Currently, there are no continuous east -west routes in southern Gaston County. The roads in southern Gaston County generally run north -south (Section 1.6.1 of the Draft EIS). • Planned growth in southern Gaston County will result in an increased need for east -west mobility. Between 1990 and 2000, southeastern Gaston County was the fastest growing part of the county. This part of the county is expected to continue to experience high residential growth through 2020 (Gaston County Comprehensive Plan, Gaston County, adopted November 2002) (Sections 1.6.1, 1.7.1, and 1.8.3.1 of the Draft EIS). • The GUAMPO and the MUMPO show in their plans a new location roadway running through southern Gaston County and connecting over the Catawba River to Mecklenburg County (Section 1.8.2 of the Draft EIS). • The Gaston East -West Connector is a Strategic Highway Corridor (SHC). The Gaston East -West Connector is designated as a new freeway facility within the Strategic Highway Corridors Vision Plan (SHCVP) (Section 1.8.1.2 of the Draft EIS). Existing and Projected Poor Levels of Service on the Project Area's Major Roadways • Traffic volumes are projected to increase on 1-85,1-485, US 29 -74, and US 321 in the Project Study Area through 2030. On I -85, traffic volumes are projected to increase 29- 50 percent between 2006 and 2030, to 105,000- 198,400 vehicles per day (Section 1.6.2 of the Draft EIS). • There are existing poor levels of service (LOS) on segments of I -85 in the Project Study Area. Based on 2006 traffic volumes, I -85 is operating at an LOS E or F from Exit 19 (NC 7 [Ozark Avenue] through Exit 27 (NC 273 [Park Street]) in Gaston County (Section 1.6.2.3 of the Draft EIS). • Levels of service on I -85, US 29 -74, and US 321 are projected to worsen in the future (Section 1.6.2 of the Draft EIS). GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -2 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• Congestion and frequent incidents on I -85 inhibit regional travel and diminish the ability of I -85 to function as a Strategic Highway Corridor and Intrastate Corridor (Section 1.6.2.3 of the Draft EIS). 1.1.3 PROJECT PURPOSE The purpose of the proposed action has not changed since the Draft EIS was circulated. The purpose of the proposed action is to improve east -west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between 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. To meet the purpose and need, an alternative must provide more than a minor improvement. An improvement would be considered minor it if is localized, temporary, and /or largely unnoticeable to the typical user of the transportation system. Alternatives that provide only a minor improvement do not meet the purpose and need, and therefore are not reasonable alternatives. 1.1.4 BACKGROUND INFORMATION Project setting, the existing road network, and public and agency involvement in the development of the purpose and need are discussed in more detail in Section 1.4 of the Draft EIS. These sections are briefly summarized below. Proiect Setting. The Project Study Area is located in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County, consisting of the following general boundaries: I -85 to the north, the South Carolina state line to the south, Charlotte - Douglas International Airport to the east, and the I -85 and US 29 -74 junction and Crowders Mountain State Park to the west. Figure 1 -1 shows the Project Study Area. Local Proiect Planning Efforts. Plans to improve east -west mobility in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg NCTA selected the Gaston County through construction of a new location roadway have been East -West Connector as a discussed by GUAMPO since the late 1980's, and MUMPO since candidate toll facility in the early 1990's. In 1991, the project concept was included in 2005. GUAMPO's Thoroughfare Plan. In 1994, MUMPO adopts a Thoroughfare Plan that includes the project. Planning by NCDOT and NCTA. The NCDOT began planning for the Gaston East -West Connector in 2001, and NCTA's involvement began in 2005. Public and Agency Involvement in Development of the Purpose and Need. The purpose and need for the project was first developed in 2002 when the project was being planned by NCDOT. In 2008, the purpose and need for the project was updated by NCTA to include the 2030 travel demand forecasts and recent updates to transportation and land use plans. The environmental resource and regulatory agencies concurred on the updated purpose and need in October 2008. Public comment was solicited at the first series of Citizens Informational Workshops, held in September and December 2003. A majority of the citizens providing written comments supported a new location roadway and the purpose of the project. In January and February of 2006, a second series of workshops presented the recommended Detailed Study Alternatives (DSA) for input and comment. Most attendees were in support of the new location roadway. The updated purpose and need for the project was presented to the public at a third series of GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -3 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• workshops, held in August 2008. Written comments were submitted both supporting and disagreeing with the need for the project. Traffic Forecasting for Purpose and Need. When the purpose and need for the project was initially developed in 2002, the planning horizon year was 2025. The 2002 version of the project's purpose and need was based on traffic forecasts for 2025. The travel demand model used for the 2008 update to the project's purpose and need (Metrolina regional model) has a planning horizon of 2030. Both the 2025 and 2030 forecasts predict increasing traffic volumes on the Project Study Area's major roadway network over existing conditions. 1.1.5 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Section 1.5 of the Draft EIS discusses the existing transportation system within the Project Study Area. There have been no changes to the information in this section since the Draft EIS was published, which is briefly summarized below, with an update to the status of projects at the Charlotte - Douglas International Airport (CDIA). Existing Road Network and Connections. I -85 and US 29 -74 are the primary east -west routes through Gaston County, including the Project Study Area. US 321 is the primary north -south route through Gaston County and intersects the I -85 /US 29 -74 corridor in the center of Gastonia. I -485 provides north -south travel in the Mecklenburg County portion of the Project Study Area. Roadway Connections 1 -85 is the only controlled access east - west highway through Gaston County. There are only four bridges over the Catawba River between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties. None are in southern Gaston County. Gaston County is separated from Mecklenburg County, the region's largest employment and destination generator, by the Catawba River. There are only four roadway connections between the two counties; NC 16 and NC 27 in the northern half of Gaston County, and I -85 and US 29 -74 in the middle of Gaston County. Based on 2006 annual average daily traffic (AADT), the I -85 /US 29 -74 corridor carries approximately 82 percent of the traffic volume traveling between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties. Types Of Travel On Existing Roadways. The predominant transportation type for the region is car, van, or truck (92.6 percent), followed by school bus (3.8 percent), and walking (2.2 percent). Transit bus, bicycle, and motorcycle are used for only 1 percent of the trips in the region, according to the Greater Charlotte Region Household Travel Survey (NCDOT, SCDOT, City of Charlotte DOT, September 2002). Based on 2000 Census data, Mecklenburg County attracts the majority of commuters in the region. Altogether, there are more than 27,000 workers community between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties, demonstrating a need for connectivity. Other Transportation Modes. The Project Study Area includes a broad system of available transportation modes, including rail service, air service, and public transportation. These various transportation modes are described in Section 1.5.2 of the Draft EIS. The CDIA is located at the eastern end of the project, just east of I -485. The Draft EIS noted that the CDIA was constructing a third parallel runway, with a scheduled completion date of January 2010. The new runway opened January 11, 2010. The Draft EIS also stated that the CDIA has plans for an intermodal facility that would combine direct rail and truck access with incoming air cargo. The intermodal facility would be located between the new runway and the existing runways and is expected to have a 10 -track rail yard and approximately 2,500 trailer parking GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -4 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• spaces. The intermodal facility is scheduled to open in late 2011 (Meeting with CDIA, November 4, 2009). 1.1.6 PERFORMANCE OF THE EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM Section 1.6 of the Draft EIS describes the performance of the existing roadway system within the Project Study Area. There have been no changes to the information in this section since the Draft EIS was published, which is briefly summarized below. Mobility and Connectivity Issues. Within southern Gaston County (south of the I -85 and US 29/74 corridor), a lack of connecting east -west roadways makes travel circuitous and limits mobility. In addition, mobility is inhibited between southern Gaston County and Mecklenburg County by the limited number of bridges over the Catawba River, which acts as a natural barrier between the two counties. Traffic Volumes and Operations on Existing Roadways. The traffic forecasts prepared for the project using the Metrolina Regional Model project a substantial increase in traffic volumes from 2006 to 2030 on the Project Study Area's major roadways (Gaston East -West Connector (U -3321) Traffic Forecast for Toll Alternatives [Martin /Alexiou /Bryson, August 2008]). By 2030, the level of service (LOS) on I -85 is projected to degrade to LOS E or F, indicating congestion on I -85 throughout the Project Study Area. In addition to high traffic volumes creating congestion, incidents such as vehicle breakdowns or accidents occur frequently on I- 85. These incidents affect travel on I -85 by causing traffic slowdowns and occasional lane closures and temporary detours onto US 29 -74. Congestion on 1 -85 By 2030, the level of service (LOS) on 1 -85 is projected to degrade to LOS E or F, indicating congestion on 1 -85 throughout the Project Study Area. Along US 29 -74, year 2030 levels of service are projected to be LOS F east of McAdenville. US 321 is projected to operate at LOS D or better through 2030 in the Project Study Area. 1.1.7 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS Section 1.7 of the Draft EIS discusses population characteristics, economic data, and major attractions in southern Gaston County. There are no changes or updates to these sections, which are briefly summarized below. Population Characteristics. The populations of both Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties are expected to increase through 2030. According to the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management, Gaston County is projected to grow 12.8 percent from 2006 to 2030, while Mecklenburg County is projected to have a much higher growth rate at 68.2 percent during the same period (NC State Demographics Web site: wwwedernog.stete.nc.us). Economic Data. The manufacturing sector currently employs the most workers in Gaston County, while the government sector employs the most workers in Mecklenburg County. Maior Attractions in Southern Gaston County. Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden is located in southeast Gaston County. In 2006, the 450 -acre botanical garden attracted approximately 84,000 visitors (DSBG, Annual Report, 2006). Crowders Mountain State Park is on the western boundary of the Project Study Area. The 5,096 -acre park attracted more than 400,000 visitors in 2007 (Telephone interview, Crowders Mountain State Park staff, April 11, 2008). GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -5 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• 1.1.8 TRANSPORTATION PLANS AND LAND USE PLANS Section 1.8 of the Draft EIS summarizes state and local transportation plans and local land use plans as they apply to the project. Several plans, as described below, have been updated since the Draft EIS was published. State Transportation Plans. The project is included in, and consistent with, the following state transportation plans: NCDOT 2009 -2015 STIP (Project U- 3321), NCDOT Strategic Highway Corridors Vision Plan, and the North Carolina Intrastate System. Local Transportation Plans. The project is included in, and t t 'th th G t U b A Th h f Pl th Transportation and Land Use Plans The project is consistent with state and local transportation and land use plans. consis en - , e as on r an rea oroug are an, e GUAMPO 2030 LRTP, the Mecklenburg -Union Thoroughfare Plan, and the MUMPO 2030 LRTP. Both the GUAMPO 2030 LRTP and the MUMPO 2030 LRTP have been updated to 2035 since the Draft EIS was published. Figure 1 -2 shows the projects included in the 2035 LRTPs. The Gaston East -West Connector project is included in the G UAMPO 2035 LRTP and MUMPO 2035 LRTP as a regionally significant project and a toll facility. However, there were two inconsistencies between the Preferred Alternative and the project included in the GUAMPO 2035 LRTP. The GUAMPO 2035 LRTP included an interchange at Bud Wilson Road, and there were different assumptions for the year 2015 configuration (Section 2.5.2.2). The Bud Wilson Road interchange has been eliminated from the Preferred Alternative (Section 2.3.1.6). Current plans are for the Preferred Alternative in 2015 to be constructed as a four -lane facility from I -485 to US 321 and as an interim two -lane facility from US 321 to I -85. The remaining two lanes for the segment from US 321 to I -85 would be constructed by 2035. The GUAMPO prepared an amendment to the LRTP and air quality conformity determination (Section 2.5.2.2) to resolve these inconsistencies and the USDOT issued a conformity determination on October 5, 2010 (see letter in Appendix K). Local Land Use Plans. The project is consistent with the various local land use planning documents covering the Project Study Area. These include the Gaston County Comprehensive Plan (July 2002), Mecklenburg County Southwest District Future Land Use Map (July 9, 2007 in Draft EIS, updated December 29, 2009), and the Mecklenburg County Dixie-Berry/till Strategic Plan (April 2003). Figure 1 -11 in the Draft EIS shows the Gaston County Comprehensive Plan Composite Initiatives Map (Gaston County Web site: www.co.gaston. nevus /CompPlan /maps.htm). Figure 1 -13 in the Draft EIS shows the Dixie-Berry/till Strategic Plan Proposed Land Use Map. Figure 1 -3 in this Final EIS shows the updated Southwest District Future Land Use Map adopted December 29, 2009. There are no substantial changes on the map in the vicinity of the Gaston East -West Connector. 1.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1.2.1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING The development and evaluation of alternatives to determine the DSAs is described in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS and documented in detail in the Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report for the Gaston East -West Connector (PBS &J, October 2008), incorporated by reference, and available on the NCTA Web site (www.ncturnpil<e.org/projects/gaston). GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -6 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• The Alternatives Screening Process flowchart presented below shows the alternatives evaluation process and general timeframes for when the different screenings occurred. The first screening evaluated general project concepts. The second screening refined the concepts retained from the first screening. Gaston East -West Connector Alternatives Screening Process List Alternative Project Concepts. First Screening - Project Concepts Determine if Alternative Concepts are reasonable and practicable. Only New Location Alternative Concept passes first screening. Develop Preliminary Corridors. Second Screening - Project Corridors Step 1 Compare Preliminary Corridors and consider agency /public input. Eliminate those with higher impacts. Those retained are the Functional Design Corridors. Develop functional roadway designs in Functional Design Corridors. Second Screening - Project Corridors Step 2 Estimate impacts to the human and natural environments. Identify 16 Detailed Study Alternatives (DSAs) based on design considerations, estimated impacts, and agency /public input. Develop preliminary engineering designs for the 16 Detailed Study Alternatives. New Information Becomes Available • Non -Toll New Location Alternatives determined to be not financially feasible (May 07). • New information provided by Duke Energy Corp. regarding Allen Steam Station operations (Aug. 07). • Traffic forecasts for various year 2030 scenarios completed (May 08). cfi-inafinn of nlhc Based on the new information provided by Duke Energy Corp., four DSAs eliminated due to unavoidable interference with critical operations at the Allen Steam Station. Reevaluation of First Screening - Project Concepts Consider tolling options for the Project Concepts and determine if they are reasonable and practicable. Reevaluation of Traffic Operations for the DSAs 2030 Toll Scenario traffic forecasts used to verify the DSAs preliminary engineering designs would provide adequate capacity for implementing the project as a toll facility. As summarized in Section 2.1.2 of the Draft EIS, the general public, in addition to local, state, and federal environmental resource and regulatory agencies, were provided opportunities for input and comment regarding the alternatives and the alternatives development and analysis process. The first and second screenings of alternatives were originally discussed with the environmental resource and regulatory agencies through the NEPA /404 Merger 01 Process under the administration of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). A series of eight meetings regarding project alternatives were held from February 2004 through September 2005, resulting in concurrence on the DSAs on September 20, 2005. At that time, three agencies (US GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -7 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES O • Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA], US Fish and Wildlife Service [ USFWS], and NC Wildlife Resources Commission [NCWRC]) elected to abstain, rather than expressing concurrence or non - concurrence in the DSAs. Within the context of the NEPA /404 Merger process, "abstain" means that an agency representative participating in the merger process does not actively object to a concurrence point, but the agency representative does not sign the concurrence point form. The process may continue and the agency representative agrees not to revisit the concurrence point. After the initial concurrence was achieved on the DSAs in September 2005, the FHWA and NCTA reevaluated the alternatives screening process in light of the project being determined a candidate toll facility and the receipt of updated travel demand forecasts. The FHWA and NCTA coordinated with the environmental resource and regulatory agencies on this reevaluation at several Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAL) meetings held in January, June, and September 2007, and February, July, September and October 2008 (Draft EIS Section 9.2.3.3). The environmental resource and regulatory agencies confirmed concurrence on the DSAs at the October 2008 TEAL meeting. The three agencies that previously had abstained, the USEPA, USFWS and NCWRC, concurred at this stage along with all the other cooperating and participating agencies. Public comment regarding alternatives was solicited at all three Citizens Informational Workshop series. Public comment on project concepts and preliminary alternatives was solicited at the first series of Citizens Informational Workshops held in September and December, 2003. The Detailed Study Alternatives were presented for public comment and input at the second series of Citizens Informational Workshops held in January and February 2006. The third series of Citizens Informational Workshops, held in August 2008 (Section 9.1.1.3), provided the public an opportunity to comment on the elimination of Corridor Segment KID from detailed study (due to interference with critical operations at Duke Energy Corporation's Allen Steam Station), presented the remaining DSAs, announced the availability of the Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report for the Gaston East -West Connector (PBS &J, October 2008) on the project web site, and showed the right -of -way limits for the preliminary engineering designs within the DSA corridors. None of the comments received resulted in the addition, elimination, or substantial modification of the DSAs. 1.2.2 FIRST SCREENING — PROJECT CONCEPTS In the First Screening — Project Concepts, six alternative concepts (discussed in Section 2.2 of the Draft EIS) were evaluated in an iterative process to determine if they were reasonable and practicable, based upon their ability to meet the project's purpose and need, potential impacts, and their financial feasibility. The six alternative concepts include: • No -Build Alternative • Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternatives • Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Alternatives • Mass Transit Alternatives and Multi -Modal Alternatives • Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives • New Location Alternatives Qualitative and quantitative performance measures were used to the level of detail necessary to evaluate the ability of the various project concepts to meet the project's purpose and need, including mobility and direct access components. To meet the purpose and need, an alternative must provide more than a minor improvement. Those concepts that could not be developed to GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -8 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• meet the defined purpose and need were removed from further consideration. Each alternative concept was evaluated to determine whether they would: • Reduce travel distances and /or travel times between representative origin /destination points within southern Gaston County and between southern Gaston County and Mecklenburg County. • Provide a transportation facility that would operate at acceptable levels of service (generally Level of Service [LOS] D or better on the mainline) in the design year (2030) for travel between Gaston County and Mecklenburg County. • Reduce congested vehicle miles traveled and /or congested vehicle hours traveled in Gaston County compared to the No -Build Alternative in 2030. In some instances, financial feasibility also was addressed. The iterative first screening resulted in some alternatives being developed to a higher level of detail than others in order to determine whether they should be retained for the Second Screening or eliminated. Table 1 -1 summarizes the results of the First Screening — Project Concepts process. TABLE 1 -1: Summary of Results for First Screening — Project Concepts GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -9 Ability to Meet Purpose and Need* Reduces Provides a Congested Decision to Transportation Vehicle Miles Eliminate/ Reason for Project Concept Reduces Travel Facility with and /or Retain for Times / Congested Second Decision Acceptable Levels Distances of Service in the Vehicle Hours Screening Traveled Design Year Compared to No- Build Alternative Does not meet the TSM Alternative X X X Eliminated project's purpose and need. Does not meet the TDM Alternative X X X Eliminated project's purpose and need. Mass Transit Does not meet the Alternative- X X X Eliminated project's purpose Transit on Existing and need. Alignment Mass Transit Does not meet the Alternative- ✓ ✓ project's purpose X Eliminated Transit on New (for transit users only) (for transit users only) and need. Not Alignment financially feasible. Multi -Modal Does not meet the Alternative- X X X Eliminated project's purpose Transit on Existing and need. Alignment Multi -Modal Does not meet the Alternative- ✓ ✓ X project's purpose Transit on New (for transit users only) (for transit users only) Eliminated and need. Not Alignment financially feasible. Improve Existing Roadways Does not meet the Alternative- X X X Eliminated project's purpose Scenario 4 -Toll or and need. Non -Toll on 1 -85 GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -9 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• TABLE 1 -1: Summary of Results for First Screening - Project Concepts * See Sections 1.2 and 1.3 of the Draft EIS for details on the purpose and need for the project. The column headings are abbreviations for the evaluation measures listed in Section 1.3. X - means the alternative concept cannot meet this evaluation factor. ✓ - means the alternative concept does meet, or could be designed to meet, this evaluation factor. NO -Build Alternative. The No -Build Alternative is the baseline alternative for the design year (2030). The No -Build Alternative assumes that the transportation systems for Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would evolve as planned, but without the proposed project. Although the No -Build Alternative would not improve mobility, access or connectivity and thereby would not meet the project's purpose and need, the No -Build Alternative was retained for additional screening so as to provide a baseline for comparison with the DSAs. Transportation System Manaaement Alternative. The TSM Alternative includes modest physical and operational enhancements to improve performance, safety, and management of traffic operations without major construction. TSM improvements on I -85 ramps and ramp termini, US 29 -74, and US 321 would not noticeably improve mobility, access or connectivity. Travel distances would remain the same and travel times would not be noticeably reduced. Similarly, signal coordination and intersection improvements would not be expected to noticeably improve congested vehicle hours traveled or congested vehicle miles traveled in Gaston County when compared to the No -Build Alternative. Transportation Demand Manaaement Alternative. The TDM Alternative includes measures and activities that change traveler behavior. The TDM Alternative includes demand management strategies currently being implemented in Gaston and /or Mecklenburg County — GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -10 Ability to Meet Purpose and Need* Reduces Provides a Congested Decision to Transportation Vehicle Miles Eliminate/ i Reason for Project Concept Reduces Travel Facility with and /or Retain for Times / Congested Second Decision Acceptable Levels Distances of Service in the Vehicle Hours Screening Traveled Design Year Compared to No- Build Alternative Minimal Improve Existing improvements do Roadways Alternative— X X X Eliminated not meet project's purpose and need. Scenario 8 —Toll or High levels of Non -Toll on 1 -85 impacts. Meets the project's New Location purpose and need. Alternative — Non- ✓ ✓ ✓ Eliminated Not financially Toll Scenario feasible. Meets the project's New Location purpose and need. Alternative —Toll ✓ ✓ ✓ Retained Is financially Scenario feasible. Retained for detailed study. Retained for No -Build X X X Retained comparison Alternative purposes. * See Sections 1.2 and 1.3 of the Draft EIS for details on the purpose and need for the project. The column headings are abbreviations for the evaluation measures listed in Section 1.3. X - means the alternative concept cannot meet this evaluation factor. ✓ - means the alternative concept does meet, or could be designed to meet, this evaluation factor. NO -Build Alternative. The No -Build Alternative is the baseline alternative for the design year (2030). The No -Build Alternative assumes that the transportation systems for Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would evolve as planned, but without the proposed project. Although the No -Build Alternative would not improve mobility, access or connectivity and thereby would not meet the project's purpose and need, the No -Build Alternative was retained for additional screening so as to provide a baseline for comparison with the DSAs. Transportation System Manaaement Alternative. The TSM Alternative includes modest physical and operational enhancements to improve performance, safety, and management of traffic operations without major construction. TSM improvements on I -85 ramps and ramp termini, US 29 -74, and US 321 would not noticeably improve mobility, access or connectivity. Travel distances would remain the same and travel times would not be noticeably reduced. Similarly, signal coordination and intersection improvements would not be expected to noticeably improve congested vehicle hours traveled or congested vehicle miles traveled in Gaston County when compared to the No -Build Alternative. Transportation Demand Manaaement Alternative. The TDM Alternative includes measures and activities that change traveler behavior. The TDM Alternative includes demand management strategies currently being implemented in Gaston and /or Mecklenburg County — GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -10 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES O • such as a freeway management system, staggered work hours, and flex -time; and the conversion of existing lanes to high- occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes or high- occupancy toll (HOT) lanes. Although TDM measures such dynamic message boards, ramp meters, incident management systems, etc. would help optimize the efficiency of traffic flow on existing roadways, these roadways would remain congested due to the projected high volumes of traffic. Similarly, HOV or HOT lanes would improve traffic flow for travelers using those lanes, but general purpose lanes would remain congested. The use of the TDM Alternative would not reduce travel distances or travel times, nor would they noticeably improve congested vehicle hours traveled or congested vehicle miles traveled in Gaston County when compared to the No -Build Alternative. As such, the TDM Alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the project and was eliminated from further study. Mass Transit Alternative. The Mass Transit Alternative, using expanded bus or rail service on existing facilities, was eliminated from further study because it would not meet the project's purpose and need. Although new alignments could provide increase connectivity and mobility, it would not meet the project's purpose and need and it would not be financially feasible. None of the Mass Transit Alternative scenarios would noticeably reduce vehicle miles traveled and /or congested vehicle miles traveled in Gaston County compared to the No -Build Alternative. Multi -Modal Alternative. The Multi -Modal Alternative includes a combination of the Mass Transit Alternative and the TSM Alternative. Various combinations were reviewed in Section 2.2.5.2 of the Draft EIS. However, none of the options served to attract enough trips to reduce vehicle miles traveled and /or congested vehicle miles traveled compared to the No -Build Alternative and as such would not meet the project's purpose and need. In addition, the Multi - Modal Alternative was determined to be cost prohibitive. Improve Existing Roadways Alternative. Two alternatives to improve existing roadways, known as Scenario 4 and Scenario 8, were evaluated in the Draft EIS (Section 2.2.6). These scenarios involve variations in widening I -85 to eight and ten lanes as well as various improvements to US 29 -74 and north -south feeder routes. Both non -toll and toll options were evaluated. These alternatives would not improve travel times, mobility, access, or connectivity within southern Gaston County nor between southern Gaston County and Mecklenburg County. As such, the Improve Existing Roadways Alternative would not meet the project's purpose and need. These alternatives also would result in travel delays during construction, long construction duration, and community disruption cause by the required improvements to existing I -85. There are no controlled- access routes between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties that could serve as an alternate route to I -85 during construction. New Location Alternative. The New Location Alternative would extend from I -85 west of Gastonia to I -485 and NC 160 in Mecklenburg County, with various interchanges along the mainline. There would be new bridge crossings of the South Fork Catawba River and the Catawba River. Both toll and non -toll scenarios were assessed. As discussed in Section 2.2.7 of the Draft EIS, the New Location Alternative would meet the project's purpose and need and is consistent with local transportation plans. However, due to the financial infeasibility of the non - toll scenario, only the toll scenario was carried forward for further analysis. 1.2.3 SECOND SCREENING — PROJECT CORRIDORS In the Second Screening — Project Corridors (discussed in Section 2.3 of the Draft EIS), the alternative concept (New Location Alternative) that made it through the First Screening process was further refined and evaluated to determine the DSAs. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -11 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• The process used to develop and evaluate preliminary alternatives to ultimately determine DSAs is summarized in the flowchart in Section 1.2.1 and described in detail below. A Refined Study Area for the New Location Alternatives was identified, relying upon land suitability mapping (Draft EIS Section 2.3.2.1). 2. Numerous 11200- foot -wide Preliminary Corridor Segments were developed within the Refined Study Area using the land suitability mapping and design criteria. These Preliminary Corridor Segments (approximately 116 miles of corridors) were presented to the public at the first series of Citizens Informational Workshops in September and December 2003 (Draft EIS Chapter 9 provides more detail on public involvement). 3. Second Screening Step 1 - Preliminary Corridor Segments were reviewed with local, state, and federal resource and regulatory agencies to determine if any should be eliminated based upon "fatal flaws" or high levels of estimated impacts to the human and /or natural environments, as compared to other segments under consideration. 4. The remaining Preliminary Corridor Segments (approximately 72 miles) were connected to form endpoint -to- endpoint corridors from I -85 to I -485 and the corridor width was extended from 1,200 feet to 1,400 feet in order to allow for more flexibility in establishing alignments. Functional designs were prepared within these corridors, taking into consideration engineering design constraints and the locations of known sensitive human and natural resources. These are referred to as the Functional Design Corridors. The 1,400- foot -wide Functional Design Corridor boundaries then were shifted to be centered around the functional design alignments. 6. Second Screening Step 2 - Impacts to the natural and human environments based on the functional designs within the Functional Design Corridors were estimated and tabulated. The impact evaluation factors are listed in Table 2.2 of the Draft EIS. There were 90 possible endpoint -to- endpoint combinations of Functional Design Corridors evaluated. 7. From the set of Functional Design Corridors, sixteen DSAs were recommended based upon estimated impacts to the natural and human environments, engineering design considerations, and input from local, state, and federal resource and regulatory agencies. These recommendations were presented to the public for comment and input at the second series of Citizens Informational Workshops in January and February 2006. 8. Preliminary engineering designs were developed for the sixteen DSAs, based on 2030 Non -Toll Scenario traffic forecasts. 9. New information became available after the DSAs were identified and preliminary engineering designs completed. The new information included: • New information provided by Duke Energy Corporation regarding Allen Steam Station operations. • New traffic forecasts for various year 2030 scenarios, including the New Location Alternative Toll Scenario. 10. Four DSAs were eliminated due to unavoidable interference with critical operations at Duke Energy Corporation's Allen Steam Station. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -12 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• 11. The 2030 Toll Scenario traffic forecasts were used to verify that the DSAs' preliminary engineering designs would provide adequate capacity for implementing the project as a toll facility. 1.2.4 DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES As noted above, twelve endpoint -to- endpoint new location DSAs were identified for further study based upon the first and second screenings. These DSAs are listed in Table 1 -2 and shown in Figure 1 -4a -b. In addition to the twelve new location DSAs, the No -Build Alternative was retained for comparison purposes throughout the planning process. TABLE 1 -2: Twelve Final Detailed Study Alternatives Detailed Stud Study Alternative West Area — Generally west of US 321 Central Area — Generally east of US 321 and west of NC 279 or the South Fork Catawba River East Area — Generally east of NC 279 or the South Fork Catawba River H Segment J Segment K Segment 4 H2A -H3 J4a - J4b - J2c - J2d - J5a -J5b K2A- KX1- K3B -K3C 5 H2A -H3 J4a - J4b - J2c - J2d - JX4- J1e -J1f K1A- K1B -K1C -K4A 9 H2A -H3 J4a - J4b - J2c - J2d - JX4- J1e -J1f K1A -K3A -K3B -K3C 22 H2A- H2B -H2C J3- J2c - J2d - J5a -J5b K2A- KX1- K3B -K3C 23 H2A -H2B -H2C J3- J2c - J2d - JX4- Jle -J1f K1A- K1B -K1C -K4A 27 H2A- H2B -H2C J3- J2c - J2d - JX4- Jle -J1f K1A -K3A- K3B -K3C 58 H1A- H1B -H1C J1a -JX1- J2d - J5a -J5b K2A -KX1- K3B -K3C 64 H1A- H1B -H1C J1a- J1b- J1c- J1d- J1e -J1f K1A- K1B -K1C -K4A 68 H1A- H1B -H1C J1a- J1b- J1c- J1d- J1e -J1f K1A -K3A- K3B -K3C 76 H1A -HX2 J2a -J2b- J2c - J2d - J5a -J5b K2A- KX1- K3B -K3C 77 H1A -HX2 J2a- J2b - J2c - J2d - JX4- J1e -J1f K1A- K1B -K1C -K4A 81 H1A -HX2 J2a- J2b - J2c - J2d - JX4- J1e -J1f K1A -K3A- K3B -K3C Refer to Figure 1 -4a for a map of the DSAs and their corridor segments. Preliminary designs were developed for each DSA, using the design criteria presented in Appendix D of the Draft EIS. Each DSA was a controlled- access toll facility consisting of six lanes with a 46 -foot grass median. At the time the Draft EIS was prepared, each DSA included 11 to 12 interchanges. The lengths of the DSAs are similar, ranging from 21.4 miles to 23.7 miles. Traffic forecasts and operations analyses for the DSAs are discussed in Section 2.4.4 of the Draft EIS. Preliminary cost estimates for each DSA are presented in Section 2.4.5 of the Draft EIS. The total estimated median costs reported in the Draft EIS ranged from $1,281 million to $1,378 million. DSA 9 is identified as having the second to lowest cost. Updated costs, typical sections, and traffic forecasts for the Preferred Alternative are discussed in Section 2.3. 1.2.5 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE The following information is from Section 2.5 of the Draft EIS, which describes the selection of DSA 9 as the Recommended Alternative. DSA 9 is comprised of Corridor Segments H2A- H3 -J4a- J4b- J2c - J2d - JX4- Jle- Jlf- K1A -K3A- K3B -K3C, as shown in Figure 1 -4a -b. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -13 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• The FHWA, NCTA, and NCDOT identified a Recommended Alternative in the Draft EIS, which provided readers an indication of the agencies' thinking at the time the Draft EIS was published. After the Draft EIS comment period ended, the FHWA and NCTA (now a division of NCDOT, as described in Section P.1), identified a Preferred Alternative based on consultation with local transportation planning agencies, and state and federal environmental resource and regulatory agencies, as well as consideration of agency and public comments received on the Draft EIS and at the public hearings (Chapter 3). The Preferred Alternative is developed further in this Final EIS, as described in Chapter 2. The NEPA process will conclude with a Record of Decision (ROD), which will document the Selected Alternative to be constructed. DSA 9 was identified in the Draft EIS as the Recommended Alternative based on the following considerations. Please note this list is not in order of importance, but is organized by issues as they were presented in the Draft EIS. Also, this list does not represent all benefits or impacts of DSA 9, just those elements that differentiated DSA 9 when compared to the other DSAs. Cost and Desian Considerations DSA 9 is one of the shortest alternatives at 21.9 miles (all alternatives range from 21.4 to 23.7 miles). DSA 9 has the second - lowest median total cost ($1,282 million) (all alternatives range from $1,281 million to $1,378 million). Human Environment Considerations • DSA 9 is one of the four DSAs with the fewest numbers of residential relocations at 348 residential relocations (the range being 326 to 384 residential relocations). Although DSA 9 is higher in the range of business relocations at 37 (the range being 24 to 40 business relocations), it would avoid impacts to Carolina Specialty Transport (provides transportations services to special needs groups) that would occur under DSAs 58, 64, 68, 76, 77 and 81. • DSA 9 is in the middle of the range of total neighborhood impacts at 25 impacted neighborhoods (the range being 21 to 31 impacted neighborhoods). Note: In the Draft EIS, impacts to the White Oak subdivision from Corridor Segment JX4 (DSAs 5, 9, 23, 27, 77, and 81) were inadvertently not included in Table 3 -5 of the Draft EIS). In addition, impacts to the Saddlewood neighborhood were double - counted for DSAs 4, 5, 9, 22, 23, 27, 76, 77, and 81. (Appendix A, Errata). The total number of neighborhood impacts for DSA 9 is still 25 based on the Draft EIS preliminary design, with the range being 21 to 32. • DSA 9 would have no direct impacts to schools (DSAs 5, 23, and 27 also avoid direct impacts to schools). • DSA 9 would not require relocation of known cemeteries (DSAs 27, 68, and 81 also would not require relocation of known cemeteries). • At Linwood Road, DSA 9 is one of three alternatives (DSAs 4, 5, and 9) that would avoid impacting either the Karyae Park YMCA Outdoor Family Center or the Pisgah Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (part of the church property is also an historic site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places). GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -14 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• • DSA 9 is one of the three alternatives (DSAs 4, 5, and 9) farthest from Crowders Mountain State Park. • DSA 9 would avoid right -of -way requirements from Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden (DSAs 4, 22, 27, 58, 68, 76, and 81 also avoid these right -of -way requirements). • DSA 9 would avoid the relocation of Ramoth AME Zion Church and cemetery, which is part of the Garrison Road /Dixie River Road community (DSAs 4, 22, 27, 58, 68, 76, and 81 also avoid this church). • DSA 9 is one of the eight alternatives (DSAs 4, 9, 22, 27, 58, 68, 76, and 81) with the least amount of right of way required from future Berewick Regional Park in Mecklenburg County. Physical Environment Considerations • DSA 9 is in the middle range of estimated numbers of receptors impacted by traffic noise at 245 receptors (the range being 204 to 309 impacted receptors). • DSA 9 is one of the alternatives (DSAs 4, 5, 9, 22, 23, and 27) that would impact the least acreage of land in Voluntary Agricultural Districts (VAD). DSA 9 also is one that is expected to have the least indirect and cumulative effects to farmlands, based on the qualitative indirect and cumulative effects analysis (Draft EIS Chapter 7). • DSA 9 is one of the alternatives with the fewest power transmission line crossings at 14 crossings (the range being 13 to 18). Cultural Resources Considerations • DSA 9 is one of six alternatives (DSAs 4, 5, 9, 22, 23, and 27) that would not require right of way from the Wolfe Family Dairy Farm historic site. Selection of DSA 9 makes it more likely that, if the US 321 Bypass is constructed at some future time, the project would also avoid the Wolfe Family Dairy Farm historic site. DSA 9 is one of four alternatives (DSAs 5, 9, 23, and 27) with low to moderate potential to contain archaeological sites requiring preservation in place or complex /costly mitigation. Natural Resources Considerations • DSA 9 is one of eight alternatives (DSAs 4, 9, 22, 27, 58, 68, 76, and 81) that would cross the South Fork Catawba River and the Catawba River where the rivers have been more affected by siltation and they are less navigable, and water -based recreation would be affected less than with DSAs that cross farther south. • DSA 9 would impact the least amount of Upland Forested Natural Communities at 882 acres (all alternatives range from 882 to 1042 acres). • DSA 9 is one of the alternatives (DSAs 4, 9, 22, and 76) having the lowest potential to indirectly affect upland wildlife species due to habitat fragmentation. • DSA 9 is lower in the range of impacts to ponds at 4.1 acres (all alternatives range from 2.1 to 6.3 acres). • DSA 9 is lower in the range of impacts to wetlands at 7.5 acres (all alternatives range from 6.9 to 13.2 acres). • DSA 9 is lower in the range of impacts to perennial streams at 38,894 linear feet (all alternatives range from 36,771 to 50,739 linear feet). GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -15 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• DSA 9 would have the fewest number of stream crossings at 91 (all alternatives range from 91 to 120 crossings). • DSA 9 is one of eight alternatives (DSAs 5, 9, 23, 27, 64, 68, 77, and 81) that has a biological conclusion of No Effect relating to the federally endangered Schweinitz's sunflower. 1.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section of the Final EIS summarizes the affected environment and environmental consequences described in Chapters 3 through 9 of the Draft EIS, and also includes general updates to the existing environment where indicated. The impact summary table from the Draft EIS, Table S -2, is included in Appendix C for reference. 1.3.1 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 1.3.1.1 Land Use and Planning Land Use and Transportation Plans The information in this section is summarized from Generally, each of the DSAs would Section 3.1 of the Draft EIS and includes updates to local be consistent with area land use and land use plans in the study area and the G UAMPO 2035 transportation plans LRTP and MUMPO 2035 LRTP. More detailed information regarding local land use planning and changes in land use as a result of the Preferred Alternative is provided in the Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis (Louis Berger Group, Inc., August 2010) and Section 2.5.5 of this Final EIS. Existing Land Use. Land use within the Project Study Area is of mixed intensity and density, and includes farmland, estate homes, single - family neighborhoods, rural housing clusters, manufactured /mobile homes, and multi - family housing. Pockets of commercial, office, and industrial uses are concentrated generally in the cities and towns, near Charlotte - Douglas International Airport, and along major transportation routes such as I -85, US 321, US 29 -74, NC 274 (Union Road), NC 279 (South New Hope Road), and NC 273 (Southpoint Road), particularly where water and sewer services are provided. Other land uses include places of worship and public and private recreational areas. Land Use Trends. The population of the Project Study Area is growing, and rural areas have been transitioning to suburban uses. This transition from rural to more of a suburban nature is generally consistent with what Gaston County and municipalities near the DSAs (Bessemer City, Gastonia, Cramerton, Belmont, McAdenville, and City of Charlotte) have envisioned in their land use plans. Consistency with Land Use and Transportation Plans. Section 3.1.3 of the Draft EIS provides a summary of local land use and transportation plans within the Project Study Area. Generally, each of the DSAs would be consistent with area land use and transportation plans, and the No -Build Alternative would not be consistent. Since the Draft EIS was published, Bessemer City and Mecklenburg County updated their land use plans and GUAMPO and MUMPO updated their LRTPs. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -16 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• The Bessemer City Land Use Plan was adopted in July 2009, replacing the 1995 Land Use Plan. The updated plan recommends that land be set aside to accommodate future growth that may be generated by the Gaston East -West Connector. Figure 1 -3 in this Final EIS shows the updated Southwest District Future Land Use Map adopted December 29, 2009. There are no substantial changes on the map in the vicinity of the Gaston East -West Connector. The G UAMPO 2035 LRTP and MUMPO 2035 LRTP both include the proposed Gaston East - West Connector as a toll facility. Land Use Impacts. Since the DSAs are on new location, direct land use changes from any of the DSAs would include converting the land needed for right of way from its existing use to transportation use. Even without construction of the project, southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County are generally planned for continued suburban development, with much of the undeveloped land slated for residential use. It is conceivable that the Gaston East -West Connector could influence a transition to other types /mixes of land uses, as well as the timing of these potential transitions, particularly at proposed interchange locations. As such, the project could play a role in the transition of the overall character within southern Gaston County from rural to suburban, which is consistent with the Gaston County Comprehensive Plan. 1.3.1.2 Existing Social and Economic Resources and Community Characteristics The Draft EIS Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 includes an overview of the Project Study Area's existing social and economic characteristics summarized from the Final Community Impact Assessment for the Gaston East -West Connector (PBS &J, October 2008), available on the NCTA Web site (www.ncturnpil<e.org /projects /gaston), and the Community Characteristics Report for the Gaston East -West Connector (PBS &J, November 2007). The following is a brief summary of the information presented in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 of the Draft EIS. Updates to information about populations with limited English proficiency and updates to cemeteries, schools, and fire departments are noted below. Population Characteristics. The Demographic Study Area consists of 53 Gaston County Block Groups and seven Mecklenburg County Block Groups and was established to identify and analyze population growth, household, and other demographic characteristics. Between 1990 and 2000, the Demographic Study Area grew 13 percent, with the largest percent increases in population generally occurring south of Gastonia, followed by southeast and southwest Gaston County and the southern end of Mecklenburg County. The areas having the most block groups with negative or smaller growth increases are located west of Gastonia and within and around Bessemer City. Whites, African- Americans, and Hispanics are the three largest racial /ethnic groups within the project study area. Based upon the 2000 Census, the median family income for Gaston County ($46,271) was about the same as the state average ($46,335) and the median family income for Mecklenburg County ($60,608) was higher than the state average. Executive Order 13166 — Improving Access to Services for Person with Limited English Proficiency, federal and state agencies are directed to take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to information and services is provided. US Census data for the Demographic Study Area was reviewed to identify Limited English Proficiency (LEP) populations in GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -17 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES O • accordance with NCDOT's current standards and the Department of Justice Safe Harbor Act threshold. This threshold is defined as language groups in a demographic area in which more than 5 percent of the adult population or 1,000 persons speak English less than "Very Well" as reported in the US Census. The 2000 US Census data for the Demographic Study Area indicate the presence of a Spanish language group that exceeds the threshold of 1,000 persons. The Demographic Study Area contains 1,587 adult persons whose primary language group is Spanish and who speak English less than "Very Well ". This is approximately 3 percent of the population of the Demographic Study Area. In accordance with the Safe Harbor Act provisions, written translations of documents have been, and will be, provided for the LEP language group in addition to other measures assuring meaningful access. These other measures include notice of Right of Language Access for future meetings for this project, continued advertisements in, and offer of articles for, publication in Spanish language newspapers, and continued inclusion of community service organizations on the project mailing list. Thus, the requirements of Executive Order 13166 — Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency will be satisfied. Economic Characteristics. In 1990, the Manufacturing sector provided the highest percentage of jobs in Gaston County at 46.8 percent, followed by Trade /Transportation /Utilities at 18.9 percent. In 2006, the Manufacturing sector still provided the highest percentage of jobs in Gaston County, but the percentage fell by over half to 22.9 percent. Education /Health moved to the second highest percentage, followed by Trade /Transportation /Utilities. In 1990 and 2006 the sector that provided the highest number of jobs in Mecklenburg County was Trade /Transportation /Utilities. The Professional /Business sector provided the second highest number of jobs in both 1990 and 2006. Named Neiahborhoods and Other Communities. The Project Study Area contains 59 named neighborhoods within the municipalities and unincorporated areas of Gaston County and Mecklenburg County. A complete list of these neighborhoods is included in the Final Community Impact Assessment for the Gaston East -West Connector (PBS &J, October 2008). Figure 1 -5a -b depicts the general locations of the existing neighborhoods in relation to the DSAs. Also within and near the DSAs are housing clusters that are not identified as named communities in available GIS data. These could represent rural communities in which there are social interconnections. These seventeen areas are shown in Figure 1 -5a -b (labeled with an "N" and a number). One of the rural communities is the Garrison Road /Dixie River Road community. This community is defined roughly by Mt. Olive Church Road (SR 1184) on the north, Dixie River Road (SR 1155) on the west /south, Sadler Road (SR 1150 on the north /west, and I -485 on the east (Telephone interview, Dixie River Community Association president, December 7, 2007). The Dixie Community Center located on Garrison Road essentially serves as the center of the community. Community Resources and Services. Community resources and services within and near the DSAs are described in detail in Section 3.2.2.3 and Figure 3 -7a -b of the Draft EIS. Churches and Cemeteries. There are seventeen churches within and near the DSAs. Most cemeteries are located on church properties, but five are located on separate properties. Additional information about the boundaries of the Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church cemetery, discovered since the Draft EIS was published, is discussed in Section 1.3.1.6. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -18 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES O • Schools. There are four public schools located within or near the DSAs. From west to east, these are: Edward D Sadler Elementary, Forest Heights Elementary, Forestview High School, and WA Bess Elementary. At the time the Draft EIS was published, there were two preliminary sites being considered by Gaston County Schools for a future middle /high school campus. These are located in Corridor Segment K2A (DSAs 4, 22, 58, and 78) and Corridor Segment K3A (DSAs 9, 27, 68, and 81). Since the publication of the Draft EIS, the process to determine the actual location has been dropped, and there will be no new school in either of these locations. (Telephone interview, Executive Director Auxiliary Services for the Gaston School District, January 28, 2010). Fire Departments. There is an update to fire station locations since the Draft EIS was published. The Crowders Mountain South Volunteer Fire Department previously located at 4802 York Highway (US 32 1) in Gastonia (Station F3 on Draft EIS Figure 3 -7a) is no longer in operation (Telephone interview, Gaston County Fire Marshal's office, May 26, 2010). There are still two other volunteer fire departments (VFDs) within or near the DSAs: Crowders Mountain Central VFD (also known as Chapel Grove) and Crowders Mountain #2 VFD and Rescue. Libraries. There is one library located within or near the DSAs. Union Road Branch Library is located just south of Forestview High School. Parks and Recreation Areas. There are two publicly -owned parks and several privately -owned recreation areas within or near the DSAs. Publicly -owned parks, from west to east, include Crowders Mountain State Park, the Park at Forestview High School, and Berewick Regional Park. Privately -owned recreational facilities include, from west to east: Camp Rotary Girl Scout Camp, Karyae Park YMCA facility, Linwood Springs Golf Course, Carolina Speedway, Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden, Allen Fishing Access Area (owned by Duke Energy Corporation), and the Belmont Optimist Club recreation fields (on property leased from Duke Energy Corporation). There are also planned greenways within the Project Study Area. Planned greenways are shown on Figure 3 -8a -b of the Draft EIS and include greenways proposed by GUAMPO and also the Carolina Thread Trail. The Carolina Thread Trail is proposed by the Catawba Lands Conservancy and the Trust for Public Land (Carolina Thread Trail Web site: wwwxarolinathreadtrail.org). Bicycle Routes. There are five bicycle routes in Gaston County (NCDOT Web site: www.ncdot.org /it /gis /Gate[ distribution / il<eMaps /default.htmi). One of these routes, Route 1 — High Shoals - Crowders Mountain, crosses all the DSAs. 1.3.1.3 Relocations and Displacements Residential and business relocation impacts for each of the DSAs are presented in Section 3.2.3 of the Draft EIS. A summary of relocation impacts reported in the Draft EIS is included in the table in Appendix C. All DSAs would require relocation of residences and businesses. The total number of residential relocations for each DSA ranges from 326 residences (DSA 68) to 384 residences (DSA 76). Eight of the DSAs would include one to two farm relocations. The DSAs would relocate between 24 businesses (DSA 77) and 40 businesses (DSA 22). Section 2.5.1.2 of this Final EIS provides updated relocation impacts associated with the refined preliminary design of the Preferred Alternative. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -19 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• The NCTA will follow state and federal regulations and NCDOT policies for right -of -way acquisition and relocation. 1.3.1.4 Impacts to Neighborhoods The information in this section is summarized from Section 3.2.4 of the Draft EIS. The preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative was refined in areas adjacent to several neighborhoods, as discussed in Section 2.3.1. An updated discussion of impacts to neighborhoods associated with the Preferred Alternative is included in Section 2.5.1.3 of this Final EIS. Due to the large project size and number of neighborhoods affected by the preliminary designs for the DSAs, a matrix was developed in order to better organize and describe impacts to neighborhoods. The matrix is presented in Table 3 -5 and Table 3 -6 of the Draft EIS. The impacts from Corridor Segment JX4 (DSAs 5, 9, 23, 27, 77, and 81) to the White Oak subdivision were inadvertently not included in Table 3 -5, and were not counted in the total neighborhood impacts reported for DSAs 5, 9, 23, 27, 77, and 81 (Appendix A). The impacts to the Saddlewood subdivision were inadvertently counted twice in the Draft EIS for DSAs 4, 5, 9, 22, 23, 27, 76, 77, and 81. Because this neighborhood is located at the junction of two Corridor Segments (J2c and J2d), it was erroneously counted as being impacted by both segments (Appendix A). All DSAs would have a negative impact to some existing neighborhoods. Impacts range from minor right -of -way encroachments on neighborhood properties to complete acquisition of a neighborhood. The number of named neighborhoods impacted by the DSAs range from 15 (DSAs 68 and 81) to 24 (DSA 5). The revised total neighborhood impacts for all DSAs are included in Table 1 -3, with the complete corrected matrix (Draft EIS Table 3 -5) reproduced in Appendix A. TABLE 1 -3: Summary of Impacts to Named Neighborhoods and Rural Communities Type of Impact* Detailed Study Alternative 4 5 9 22 23 27 58 64 68 76 77 81 Total Number of Category B Impacts 5 6 4 7 8 6 6 7 5 5 6 4 Total Number of Category C Impacts 13 14 12 13 14 12 9 11 9 10 11 9 Total Number of Category D Impacts 9 9 8 4 4 3 10 9 8 8 8 7 Total Number of Category E Impacts 1 3 1 0 2 0 2 4 2 1 3 1 Total Number of Neighborhood Impacts 28 32 25 24 28 21 27 31 24 24 28 21 Category A— No Impact (so not reported in this table), B —No relocations, C —Relocation of homes on end of road or at edge of neighborhood, D— Relocation of homes in midst of neighborhood, E —Total displacement of a neighborhood 1.3.1.5 Environmental Justice The information in this section is summarized from Section 3.2.5 of the Draft EIS. There have been no updates to this information since the Draft EIS was published. The Gaston East -West Connector project was evaluated for the potential for disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low- income populations in two ways: 1) impacts that GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -20 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES O • result from building and operating any new road (e.g., taking of land, noise impacts, air impacts, etc.) and 2) impacts that result specifically from tolling the proposed facility. The first category of impacts mainly involves people who are living in the immediate vicinity of the project. The general locations of African- American populations, Hispanic populations, and low- income populations are shown in Figures 3 -3, 3 -4, and 3 -5 of the Draft EIS. Based on information presented in Section 3.2.5 of the Draft EIS, the construction of any of the DSAs was determined not to have a disproportionately high or adverse impact on minority and low- income populations. The second category involves people who are potential users of the road — a much broader geographic area. All of the DSAs would provide a new, limited- access, east -west route in the region. A result of the project would be reduced traffic on the existing alternate non -toll route; I -85. Completing the project would benefit all motorists, including low- income motorists who may choose not to use the toll facility or may tend to use it less frequently. All reasonable efforts have been made to include low- income and minority groups in the decision - making process to date. The project will not deny, reduce, or delay receipt of project benefits to low- income and minority groups. Impacts to low- income and /or minority populations resulting from implementing the Gaston East -West Connector as a toll facility are not anticipated to be "disproportionately high and adverse ". 1.3.1.6 Impacts to Community Resources and Services The information in this section is summarized from Section 3.2.6.1 of the Draft EIS. The impact summary table from the Draft EIS included in Appendix C lists the impacts to community resources for each DSA. Additional information regarding the historic boundaries of the Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church cemetery has been discovered since the Draft EIS. In addition, there is a correction noted for impacts to cemeteries. An updated discussion of impacts to community resources associated with the refined preliminary design of the Preferred Alternative is included in Section 2.5.1.5 of this Final EIS. Churches and Cemeteries. Table 3 -8 in the Draft EIS shows the estimated impacts to churches and cemeteries. All DSAs would result in an impact to at least one church and /or cemetery As included in Appendix A, impacts to Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church cemetery were listed for DSA Segment KX1 (DSAs 4, 22, 58, and 76) in Draft EIS Table 3 -8, but these same impacts should also have been listed for DSA Segment K3A (DSAs 9, 27, 68, and 81) since the segments overlap in the area near the cemetery. The impact was stated as taking 2.1 acres (60 percent) of wooded area on the south and east side of parcels owned by the Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church. The area of this property with observed gravestones would not be impacted. The Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church Cemetery is located in the northwest quadrant of the proposed interchange of the Gaston East -West Connector and Southpoint Road (NC 273). During the Phase II Archaeological Survey for the Preferred Alternative (Section 2.5.3.2), additional gravesites were discovered south of the Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church cemetery's present -day parcel boundaries. The historic boundaries of the cemetery were larger, and encompassed approximately an additional one -half acre to the southwest (Gaston East -West Connector Intensive Archaeological Survey, Coastal Carolina Research, February 2010). The preliminary designs shown in the Draft EIS for DSAs 4, 9, 22, 27, 58, 68, 76, and 81 included a ramp and loop in the northwest quadrant of the Southpoint Road (NC 273) interchange. The proposed right of way would impact the gravesites discovered in the historic boundaries of the GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -21 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES O • cemetery. As discussed in Section 2.5.3.2, a redesign of the Preferred Alternative's interchange with Southpoint Road (NC 273) removed the loop, reducing the right of way needed in the northwest quadrant, and therefore avoiding the historic boundaries of the cemetery and the gravesites. This redesign would have been able to be applied to the other DSAs that would impact this site. Schools. DSAs that use Corridor Segment H 1A (DSAs 58, 64, 68, 76, 77, and 81) would require a minor encroachment (0.36 acres) onto Sadler Elementary School property from construction of the US 29 -74 interchange. However, normal use of the school and its access would not be impacted. DSAs that use Corridor Segment J4a (DSAs 4, 22, 58, and 76) would require land from the southeast corner and the front of the Forestview High School property to construct the relocation of NC 264 (Union Road). All existing access to the school would remain. A maximum of 20 parking spaces in the visitor lot and 20 parking spaces in the student lot could be impacted. It is anticipated that no matter which DSA is selected as the Preferred Alternative, the project would temporarily impact school bus routes during construction, as well as result in modifications to existing routes and /or promote new school bus routes. The NCTA will coordinate with Gaston County Schools and Mecklenburg County Schools to minimize impacts to school bus routes. Fire Stations. DSAs that use Corridor Segment H1C (DSAs 58, 64, and 68) could require a maximum of 0.64 acres of right of way from the front of Crowders Mountain #2 VFD and Rescue on Bethany Road. It is unlikely that any impacts to parking or other uses would occur. All DSAs would result in short term impacts to fire and rescue service during construction, including potential re- routing of existing service routes. Maintenance of traffic along these routes will be important during construction, and NCTA will coordinate with the Gaston County Fire Marshal and area fire stations to ensure continuation of services. Libraries and Community Centers. The Union Road Branch Library would not be impacted by any of the DSAs. The preliminary designs shown in the Draft EIS for all DSAs would not displace the Dixie Community Center. However, the presence of the project in this area could affect community cohesion and interaction among persons /groups in the community. The preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative was updated in this area, and its impacts to the Dixie Community Center are discussed in Section 2.5.1.5. Parks and Recreation Areas. None of the DSAs would directly impact Crowders Mountain State Park, Park at Forestview High School, Camp Rotary Girl Scout Camp, or Allen Fishing Area. Berewick ReaiOnai Park. All DSAs would involve a minor encroachment into undeveloped parcels owned by Mecklenburg County that are part of Berewick Regional Park. Based upon the preliminary designs in the Draft EIS, DSAs that use Corridor Segment K3C (DSAs 4, 9, 22, 27, 58, 68, 76, and 81) would acquire approximately 1.6 acres of this public park site west of and adjacent to I -485. DSAs that use Corridor Segment K4A (DSAs 5, 23, 64, and 77) would acquire approximately 3.3 acres (2.1 acres on the west of and adjacent to I -485, 0.6 acres from the northernmost parcel, and 0.6 acres on the southwest side of the property along Dixie River Road). These minor encroachments on the edges of the property owned by Mecklenburg County are not anticipated to impact access or any future uses. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -22 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES O • Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department stated its belief that all DSAs would provide improved access to the future Berewick Regional Park, which would benefit the park. The Department did not believe that the proposed right of way needed from Mecklenburg County property for any of the DSAs would detract from the planned function and use of the site as a park. However, the Department would like to continue coordinating with NCTA to ensure that, for the Preferred Alternative, right of way and construction limits within the property boundaries are minimized as necessary to ensure that significant activities, features, and attributes of the proposed park are not adversely affected (Letters from Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department dated September 25, 2008 and December 5, 2008, Appendix A -5 in the Draft EIS). Additional discussion about the future Berewick Regional Park as a Section 4(f) resource is included in Section 5.4.3.1 of the Draft EIS and Section 1.3.3.3 and Section 2.5.3.3 of this Final EIS. The preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative was updated in this area, and as discussed in Section 2.5.1.5, no right of way is expected to be required from Berewick Regional Park. Karyae Park. The uses and functions of this privately -owned YMCA facility would be adversely impacted by DSAs that include Corridor Segment H1A (DSAs 58, 64, 68, 76, 77, and 81). Linwood Springs Golf Course. Under DSAs that use Corridor Segment H3 (DSAS 4, 5, and 9), access to the golf course entrance on Linwood Road would change slightly with the construction of the Linwood Road interchange, but the functions of the golf course would not be impacted. Carolina Speed wax. Approximately 7.7 acres of the northern and western sides of this privately -owned speedway property would be impacted by DSAs that include Corridor Segment Jlf (DSAs 5, 9, 23, 27, 64, 68, 77, and 81). Impacts would occur to the parking areas. The preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative was updated in this area, as discussed in Section 2.5.1.5. Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden. None of the DSAs are anticipated to negatively impact the privately -owned Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden (DSBG). All the DSAs pass to the north of DSBG. The nearest DSAs are those that use Corridor Segment K1C (DSAs 5, 23, 64, and 77). The mainline of these DSAs passes approximately one - quarter mile north of the northern boundary of DSBG. However, construction of the NC 279 (South New Hope Road) interchange in Corridor Segment K1C (DSAs 5, 23, 65, and 77) would require a minor right -of -way encroachment of approximately 0.6 acres required at the northeastern end of the DSBG property. These minor encroachments would not impact the use and function of the DSBG property. Access to the truck entrance at the northern end of the property would be maintained. Duke Energy Corporation Recreational Fields (Belmont Optimist Club). DSAs that include Corridor Segment K313 (DSAs 4, 9, 22, 27, 58, 68, 76, and 81) would impact the recreational ball fields owned by Duke Energy Corporation and leased by the Belmont Optimist Club. The recreational fields have a total area of approximately 4.9 acres. The preliminary designs for Corridor Segment K313 would impact the edge of the baseball field's outfield and the north corner of the general recreational field. The current right -of -way limits require approximately 0.3 acres, while the construction limits impact approximately 0.1 acres. Minimization measures will be investigated during final design if DSA 4, 9, 22, 27, 58, 76, or 81 is selected as the Preferred Alternative. The preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative was updated in this area to avoid impacts to the recreational fields, as discussed in Section 2.5.1.5. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -23 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• Planned GreenwaVS. There are several planned greenways in the Project Study Area, as shown in Figure 3 -8a -b of the Draft EIS. All DSAs have the potential to cross greenways that have yet to be constructed. During final design of the Preferred Alternative, NCTA will coordinate with the applicable groups to identify needed accommodations for existing and funded greenways that cross the Preferred Alternative. 1.3.1.7 Community Safety The information in this section is summarized from Section 3.2.6.2 of the Draft EIS. There have been no changes to this information since the Draft EIS. Emergency Response. The Gaston East -West Connector would have a long -term positive impact on emergency response times within the Project Study Area. The project is likely to quicken some response times for services by decreasing travel times, and by providing improved east -west connectivity in southern Gaston County. There are not likely to be considerable differences among the DSAs with regard to response times. Pedestrians and Bicycles. The proposed project does not include pedestrian and bicycle provisions since it is a controlled- access freeway. One of Gaston County's bicycle routes (Route 1: High Shoals — Crowders Mountain) runs east - west through the area along Linwood Road, and crosses Corridor Segments H1A, 112C and H3 (i.e., all of the DSAs). As such, the project may impede or block pedestrian and bicycle traffic desiring to travel from one side of the highway to the other, because travel over /under the roadway would only be possible at interchanges and grade- separated crossings. For established and planned bicycle routes and existing and funded greenways, NCTA will coordinate with the entities having jurisdiction over these facilities during the final design of the Preferred Alternative to provide appropriate and safe crossing of these facilities. Maintenance of Traffic During Construction. Maintenance of traffic and sequencing of construction would be planned and scheduled in order to minimize traffic delays throughout the Project Study Area. Access to all businesses and residences would be maintained to the extent possible through controlled construction scheduling. Fes. Dense fog may occur at certain times of the year along the major rivers in the Project Study Area, including the Catawba River and the South Fork Catawba River. NCTA and NCDOT do not have a written policy regarding procedures for designing projects in fog -prone areas. Projects are studied on a case -by -case basis, typically after a project has been constructed. For example, NCDOT evaluated the conditions on the I -95 bridge over the Roanoke River near Roanoke Rapids. In this location, NCDOT installed a weather station to assess weather conditions, such as fog, and to prompt a variable message sign warning travelers of thick fog and limited visibility. Additional devices used to enhance safety in fog -prone areas can include reflective pavement markers and lighting. In accordance with NCDOT normal operating procedures, fog - related safety issues will be evaluated on a case -by -case basis after construction, and measures installed where warranted. 1.3.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1.3.2.1 Noise Section 4.1 of the Draft EIS provides details of the noise analysis conducted for the DSAs. A summary of impacts and mitigation reported in the Draft EIS is presented in the Draft EIS impact summary table included in Appendix C. ' r GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -24 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES O • The noise analysis for the Preferred Alternative (DSA 9) has been updated to incorporate design changes and updated year 2035 traffic forecasts prepared since the Draft EIS was circulated. The updated noise analysis for the Preferred Alternative is discussed in Section 2.5.2.1 of this Final EIS. Traffic noise from the DSAs was evaluated based upon FHWA and NCDOT criteria. The FHWA Traffic Noise Model® (TNM), Version 2.5, was used to predict future traffic noise levels for this project and to evaluate the feasibility and reasonableness of preliminary noise barriers. The table in Appendix C lists the numbers of receptors predicted to be impacted by traffic noise, based upon the 2030 traffic noise contours (Draft EIS Appendix G). Impacted receptors are receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts either by approaching or exceeding the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) based upon the 71 dBA Leq traffic noise contour (for Category C) and 55 dBA Leq noise contours (for Category B), or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels (as defined in NCDOT's Traffic Noise Abatement Policy). Impacted receptors do not include noise - sensitive receptors that would be relocated by the project. The numbers of impacted receptors range from 196 impacted Category B receptors for DSA 68, to 301 impacted Category B receptors for DSA 76. Category B receptors in the vicinity of the DSAs include residences and churches. Relatively few businesses (Category C) would be impacted by noise along the DSAs, with the numbers of impacts ranging from three businesses for DSA 77 to ten businesses for DSA 22. If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must be considered. Types of abatement measures include highway alignment selection, traffic management measures, vegetative buffers, property acquisition, or noise barriers. Due to design restraints, access and space requirements, and cost considerations, noise barriers were found to be the only feasible and reasonable method of abatement. Twenty -two locations were identified where noise barriers were preliminarily determined to be feasible and reasonable. The twenty -two preliminary noise barriers are listed in Table 4 -5 of the Draft EIS and are shown in Figure 1 -6. 1.3.2.2 Air Quality The information in this section is summarized from Section 4.2 of the Draft EIS. Air quality issues addressed include transportation conformity, mobile source air toxics (MSATs), potential air quality impacts from construction activities, and potential for road and bridge icing from the Allen Steam Station air pollution control equipment. As discussed below, there have been updates to transportation conformity and MSATs since the Draft EIS was published. Due to the complexity of air quality issues, background text from the Draft EIS has been included here under "Existing Conditions Related to National Ambient Air Quality Standards" and "Transportation Conformity Background ". Existina Conditions Related to National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS) for six criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. An area that exceeds the NAAQS for one or more criteria pollutants is said to be in "non- attainment" of the NAAQS enforced under the Clean Air Act. As presented in Section 4.2 of the Draft EIS, the Charlotte- Gastonia -Rock Hill air quality region, which includes the project area, is in attainment for nitrogen dioxide, lead, particulate matter, GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -25 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• and sulfur dioxide. Except for Mecklenburg County, all other areas within the Charlotte - Gastonia -Rock Hill air quality region are designated as attainment for carbon monoxide. Mecklenburg County is a maintenance area for carbon monoxide On June 15, 2004, the Charlotte- Gastonia -Rock Hill air quality region was designated as a moderate non - attainment area for the 1997 8 -hour ozone NAAQS ( USEPA Web site: www.epa.gov /oar /oagps /greenbl<). The region includes the following counties in North Carolina: Mecklenburg, Gaston, Lincoln, Cabarrus, Rowan, Union, and the southern portion of Iredell. The urbanized area of eastern York County, South Carolina, also is included. Compliance with the 1997 ozone standard was required by June 15, 2010. The State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone for this region submitted to USEPA by the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Air Quality (DAQ) projected that the 8 -hour ozone standard would be met by this time (State of the Environment Report 2008, Mecklenburg County Land Use & Environmental Services). The SIP in North Carolina is developed by the NCDENR -DAQ. The SIP describes how North Carolina will maintain or achieve compliance with the NAAQS. Transportation Conformity Backaround. Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act Amendments (42 USC 7506(c)) requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the intent of the SIP. Conformity requirements apply to transportation plans, programs, and projects funded or approved by the FHWA or the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in areas that do not meet, or previously have not met, NAAQS for ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, or nitrogen dioxide (Fact Sheets on Highway Provisions, FHWA Web site: www.fhwa. dot. gov/ safetealu /factsheets /conformity.htm). Under the transportation conformity regulations, a transportation conformity determination is required every time a Metropolitan Planning Organization (1VIPO) approves an update or amendment to its LRTP and transportation improvement program (TIP). A regional conformity determination is needed for each update and amendment to an LRTP and TIP. In addition to the regional conformity determination for LRTPs and TIPS, FHWA also must make a project -level conformity determination. For all pollutants, a project -level conformity determination can be made only if the project is included in a conforming LRTP and TIP. In addition, for carbon monoxide and particulate matter, a project -level conformity finding requires a localized conformity analysis, known as a "hot- spot" analysis. For the Gaston East -West Connector project, transportation conformity determinations are required for two pollutants: ozone and carbon monoxide. The conformity requirements apply to these pollutants because the Metrolina region as a whole is designated as a nonattainment area for the 1997 8 -hour ozone standard and Mecklenburg County is designated as a maintenance area for carbon monoxide. Transportation Conformity Update. The Draft Conformity Analysis and Determination Report for the Cabarrus -Rowan MPO, Mecklenburg -Union MPO, and the Gaston Urban Area MPO 2035 Long Range Transportation Plans and the FY 2009 -2015 Transportation Improvement Programs and for Non -MPO Areas of Lincoln County, Iredell County, Gaston County, and Union County areas (8 -Hour Ozone, and CO (Mecklenburg County Only)) was made available for public review on February 5, 2010. Public meetings to solicit comments on these documents as well as the Draft 2035 LRTP and the 2009 — 2015 STIP Amendment were held on February 24, 2010 in the Charlotte Mecklenburg Government Center, on February 17, 2010 in the Gaston County Main Library, and other locations in the region. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -26 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES O • All of the above referenced documents were made available for review until the close of the public review and comment period on March 8, 2010. As of that date, no substantive comments were received and all were endorsed by the MUMPO TCC on March 11, 2010, by MUMPO on March 24, 2010, by GUAMPO TCC on March 10, 2010, and by GUAMPO on March 23, 2010. USDOT made a conformity determination on the LRTP and TIP on May 3, 2010. A copy of the USDOT letter, along with USEPXs April 22, 2010 review, can be found in Appendix K of this Final EIS. After the May 3, 2010 conformity determination made by the USDOT, the GUAMPO prepared an amendment to the 2035 LRTP and 2009 -2015 TIP so that the project design concept and scope included in the LRTP and TIP is consistent with the Preferred Alternative. GUAMPO made a conformity determination on the amended 2035 LRTP and 2009 -2015 TIP on August 24, 2010. USDOT issued a conformity determination on the amendments on October 5, 2010. A copy of the USDOT letter is included in Appendix K of this Final EIS. Mobile Source Air Toxics Update. Subsequent to circulation of the Draft EIS, the FHWA released updated guidance regarding MSATs, titled Interim Guidance Update on MSAT Analysis in NEPA Documents (FHWA, September 2009) (FHWA Web site: www.fhwa. dot.gov/ environment /airtoxic /100109guidmem.htm). The interim guidance update "reflects recent regulatory changes, addresses stakeholder requests to broaden the horizon years of emission trends performed with MOBILE6.2, and updates stakeholders on the status of scientific research on air toxics." The update "does not change any project analysis thresholds, recommendations, or guidelines." The following discussion replaces the text in Section 4.2.3 of the Draft EIS. Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, whereby Congress mandated that the USEPA regulate 188 air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants. The USEPA has assessed this expansive list in their latest rule on the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 37, page 8430, February 26, 2007) and identified a group of 93 compounds emitted from mobile sources that are listed in their Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (www.epa.gov /iris/). In addition, USEPA identified seven compounds with significant contributions from mobile sources that are among the national and regional -scale cancer risk drivers from their 1999 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) (www.epa.gov /ttn /atw /natal999 /). These are acrolein, benzene, 1,3- butidiene, diesel particulate matter plus diesel exhaust organic gases (diesel PM), formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter. While FHWA considers these the priority mobile source air toxics, the list is subject to change and may be adjusted in consideration of future USEPA rules. The 2007 USEPA rule mentioned above requires controls that will dramatically decrease MSAT emissions through cleaner fuels and cleaner engines. According to an FHWA analysis using the USEPA MOBILE6.2 model, even if vehicle activity vehicle -miles traveled (VMT) increases by 145 percent as assumed, a combined reduction of 72 percent in the total annual emission rate for the priority MSAT is projected from 1999 to 2050, as shown in Exhibit 1 -1. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -27 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• EXHIBIT 1 -1: National MSAT Emission Trends 1999 — 2050 for Vehicles Operating on Roadways Using USEPA MOBILE6.2 Model 150000 7 6 / 5 100000 +0 4 c o_ C i N 3 F W 50000 F 2 NAPH I ACR�'Y o 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Calendar Year DPM - Diesel PM ^ ^ ^.^ FORM - Formaldehyde - -- _- NAPH - Naphthalene BENZ - Benzene � ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^BUTA -I,3- Butadiene ACRO - Acrelein - - - -- VMT - Vehicle -Miles Traveled Note. (1) Annual emissions cf pclycyclic organic matter are projected to be 561 tcm,yr for 1999, decreasing to 373 tonsiyr for 3050. (2) Trends for specific locations may be different depending on locally derived information representing vehicle -miles travelled, vehicle speeds, vehicle miv, fuels, emission control programs, meteorology, and other factors Source: Interim Guidance Update on MSATAnalysis in NEPA Documents (FHWA, September 2009). Mobile Source Air Toxics Impact Analysis Update. As mentioned above, the Interim Guidance Update on MSAT Analysis in NEPA Documents (FHWA, September 2009) does not change any project analysis thresholds, recommendations, or guidelines. Therefore, the qualitative impact evaluation conclusions described in Section 4.2.5.2 and Appendix H of the Draft EIS do not change. However, the interim guidance update did recommend updated language for incomplete and unavailable information and provided information on new research. Section 4.2.5.2 of the Draft EIS is updated as described below. Appendix H in the Draft EIS also has been updated and is included as Appendix D in this Final EIS. The following text replaces the text in Section 4.2.5.2 of the Draft EIS. Air toxics analysis is a continuing area of research. While much work has been done to assess the overall health risk of air toxics, many questions remain unanswered. In particular, the tools and techniques for assessing project- specific health outcomes as a result of lifetime MSAT exposure remain limited. These limitations impede the ability to evaluate how the potential health risks posed by MSAT exposure should be factored into project -level decision - making within the context of the NEPA. Nonetheless, air toxics concerns continue to be raised on highway projects during the NEPA process. Even as the science emerges, FHWA is duly expected by the public and other agencies to address MSAT impacts in environmental documents. The FHWA, USEPA, the Health Effects Institute, and others have funded and conducted research studies to try to more clearly define potential risks from MSAT emissions associated with highway projects. The FHWA will continue to monitor the developing research in this emerging field. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -28 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES O • While this research is ongoing, FHWA requires each NEPA document to address MSATs and their relationship to the specific highway project through a tiered approach (Interim Guidance Update on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents, FHWA, September 2009). A qualitative analysis of MSATs for this project appears in its entirety in Appendix D of this Final EIS. Construction Air Quality. Provided that local ordinances for open burning and dust are followed, significant air quality impacts due to construction of the proposed project are not anticipated. The proposed project would be constructed in sections, limiting the overall construction activity occurring at any one location. There would also be emissions related to construction equipment and vehicles. However, these impacts related to construction would be temporary. Road and Bridge Icing Potential from Allen Steam Station Air Pollution Control Equipment. Duke Energy Corporation's Allen Steam Station, a major coal -fired power plant, is located between Southpoint Road and the Catawba River on the Belmont peninsula (Draft EIS Figure 2 -8a). The Allen Steam Station recently installed air pollution control equipment to comply with the North Carolina Clean Smokestacks Act of 2002. The Allen Steam Station air pollution control equipment is located north of the main power plant, just south of Corridor Segments K3B /K3C. The air pollution control equipment includes scrubbers for sulfur dioxide control that will emit steam through a tall stack. In correspondence with NCTA, Duke Energy Corporation raised concerns that the steam emitted from the stack could result in icing on the nearby proposed roadway and the associated bridge crossing of the Catawba River (Telephone interview, Duke Energy Regional Manager, September 14, 2005). In response to the concerns, a study was conducted to evaluate the likelihood and extent of potential icing on the proposed roadways and bridge crossings of the Catawba River for Corridor Segments K3B /K3C (DSAs 4, 9, 22, 27, 58, 68, 76, and 81) and Corridor Segment K4A (DSAs 5, 23, 64, and 77) (Analysis of Potential Icing Impacts Due to Allen Steam Station SOz Scrubber — Gaston East -West Connector, MACTEC, September 2008, incorporated by reference). The model predicted there would be no potential for icing on the proposed Gaston East -West Connector due to exhaust gases released from the air pollution control scrubber stack. 1.3.2.3 Farmland The following information is summarized from Section 4.3 of the Draft EIS, with an update to prime and important farmland soils and an update to agricultural census information. Updated information on impacts to prime and important farmland soils associated with the refined preliminary design of the Preferred Alternative is presented in Section 2.5.2.3 of this Final EIS. Prime and Important Farmland Soils. Section 4.3.2 and Table 4 -8 of the Draft EIS discuss prime and important farmland soils within the DSA corridors. This discussion is based on Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soils surveys for Gaston County (dated May 1989) and Mecklenburg County (dated June 1980) and a list of prime and statewide important farmland soils for North Carolina downloaded from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Web site in April 2005. This data also is presented in Appendix M of the Draft EIS. Updated soils surveys and lists of prime and important farmland soils for Gaston County and Mecklenburg County were published by the NRCS on June 17, 2009 and April 29, 2009, respectively (NRCS Web site: http : / /solldatamart.nres.usda.gov) GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -29 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• Table 1 -4 replaces Table 4 -8 of the Draft EIS with the most recent list of prime and important farmland soils within the DSAs. The updated data is included in Appendix E of this Final EIS. TABLE 1 -4: Prime and Important Farmland Soils in the Detailed Study Alternative Corridors Soil Symbol Soil Name Percent Slope County Prime Farmland Soils AmB Alamance variant gravelly loam 2 -8 Gaston ApB Appling sandy loam 1 -6 Gaston CeB2 Cecil sandy clay loam 2 -8 Gaston & Mecklenburg CoA Congaree loam 0 -2 Gaston HeB Helena sandy loam 1 -6 Gaston LdB2 Lloyd sandy clay loam 2 -8 Gaston Ma132 Madison sandy clay loam 2 -8 Gaston TaB Tatum gravelly loam 2 -8 Gaston VaB Vance sandy loam 2 -8 Gaston WnB Winnsboro loam 2 -8 Gaston *ChA Chewacla loam 0 -2 Gaston EnB Enon sandy loam 2 -8 Mecklenburg HeB Helena sandy loam 2 -8 Mecklenburg MeB Mecklenburg fine sandy loam 8 -15 Mecklenburg *MO Monacan loam n/a Mecklenburg Statewide Important Farmland Soils CeD2 Cecil sandy clay loam 8 -15 Gaston & Mecklenburg LdD2 Lloyd sandy clay loam 8 -15 Gaston LgB Lignum silt loam 1 -6 Gaston MaD2 Madison sandy clay loam 8 -15 Gaston PaD2 Pacolet sandy clay loam 8 -15 Gaston TaD Tatum gravelly loam 8 -15 Gaston VaD Vance sandy loam 8 -15 Gaston & Mecklenburg WeD Wedowee sandy loam 6 -15 Gaston WnD Winnsboro loam 8 -15 Gaston DaD Davidson sandy clay loam 8 -15 Mecklenburg EnD Enon sandy loam 8 -15 Mecklenburg MeD Mecklenburg fine sandy loam 8 -15 Mecklenburg Source: NRCS Web site: http : / /soildatamart.nres.usda.gov; Gaston County data dated June 17, 2009; Mecklenburg County data dated April 29, 2009. *Prime if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during growing season. All proposed DSAs would involve the use of prime and statewide important farmland soils. The No -Build Alternative would not directly impact prime and important farmland soils. Table 1 -5 presents the updated acreages of prime and important farmland soils within the preliminary design right of way for each DSA, based on the 2009 soils surveys. This is an update to the data reported in Table 4 -9 of the Draft EIS. Using the updated soils data, the acreages were recalculated using GIS by overlaying the preliminary design right of way on the soils GIS layer and subtracting out disturbed land already in urban development. See Section 2.5.2.3 of this Final EIS for impacts associated with the refined preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -30 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• TABLE 1 -5: Impacts to Prime and Important Farmland Soils Sources for Soils Information: Soils Survey of Gaston County, North Carolina (NRCS, June 17, 2009); Soils Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (NRCS, April 29, 2009). Available for download on the NRCS Web site: http : / /soildatamart.nres.usda.gov *Acreages are calculated for the preliminary design right of way for each DSA. Areas of prime and statewide important soils already in urban development were not included in the totals. Farmland Conversion Impact Ratings. Section 4.3.4.2 of the Draft EIS discusses farmland conversion impact ratings. There are no updates to this section, which is summarized below. In accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA) and FHWAs Guidelines for Implementing the Final Rule of Farmland Protection Policy Act for Highway Projects, a "Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type Projects" form was prepared. The NRCS forms are included in Appendix I of the Draft EIS. The ratings on the NRCS forms are comprised of two parts. The Land Evaluation Criterion Value represents the relative value of the farmland to be converted on a scale from 0 to 100 points. The Corridor Assessment, which is rated on a scale of 0 to 160 points, evaluates farmland soils based upon its use in relation to the other land uses and resources in the immediate area. The two ratings are added together for a possible total rating of 260 points. Sites receiving a total score of 160 points or more are given increasingly higher levels of consideration for protection (7 CFR 658.4). Table 4 -10 in the Draft EIS lists the total points for each DSA. The total point value for each DSA is less than 160 points. According to the FPPA, lands that receive a combined score of less than 160 points are not covered by the FPPA. Since the soils impacted by the DSAs did not meet the threshold of protection based on the evaluation under the FPPA, the impacts to prime and statewide important farmland were not considered under FPPA. Existing Agricultural Uses. Since publication of the Draft EIS, there has been an update to the 2002 agricultural census information presented in Section 4.3.3.2 of the Draft EIS. According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture (USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, February 2009, USDA Web site: www.agcensus.usda.gov /Publications /2007 /index.asp), the number of farms between 2002 and 2007 increased from 450 to 516 and the average farm size decreased from 93 to 73 acres in Gaston County. For Mecklenburg County, the number of farms between 2002 and 2007 decreased from 300 to 236, while the average farm size decreased from 85 to 81 acres. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -31 Total Acreage Prime Farmland Soils (Acres in Right of Way)* Statewide Important Farmland Soils (Acres in Right of Way)* Total acreage of Prime and DSA in DSA Right of Wa Y Gaston Mecklenburg Total Prime Gaston Mecklenburg Total Important Important Farmland Soils in DSA 4 1,901 621 134 754 260 71 331 1,085 5 1,837 593 83 677 238 65 303 980 9 1,893 628 134 762 252 71 323 1,084 22 1,940 614 134 748 255 71 325 1,073 23 1,872 586 84 670 233 65 298 968 27 1,931 621 134 755 247 71 317 1,072 58 2,009 633 134 767 338 71 408 1,175 64 1,991 578 84 661 344 65 409 1,070 68 2,047 612 134 746 357 71 428 1,174 76 1,901 629 134 763 263 71 334 1,097 77 1,837 602 84 686 242 65 307 992 81 1,893 637 134 770 255 71 326 1,096 Sources for Soils Information: Soils Survey of Gaston County, North Carolina (NRCS, June 17, 2009); Soils Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (NRCS, April 29, 2009). Available for download on the NRCS Web site: http : / /soildatamart.nres.usda.gov *Acreages are calculated for the preliminary design right of way for each DSA. Areas of prime and statewide important soils already in urban development were not included in the totals. Farmland Conversion Impact Ratings. Section 4.3.4.2 of the Draft EIS discusses farmland conversion impact ratings. There are no updates to this section, which is summarized below. In accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA) and FHWAs Guidelines for Implementing the Final Rule of Farmland Protection Policy Act for Highway Projects, a "Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type Projects" form was prepared. The NRCS forms are included in Appendix I of the Draft EIS. The ratings on the NRCS forms are comprised of two parts. The Land Evaluation Criterion Value represents the relative value of the farmland to be converted on a scale from 0 to 100 points. The Corridor Assessment, which is rated on a scale of 0 to 160 points, evaluates farmland soils based upon its use in relation to the other land uses and resources in the immediate area. The two ratings are added together for a possible total rating of 260 points. Sites receiving a total score of 160 points or more are given increasingly higher levels of consideration for protection (7 CFR 658.4). Table 4 -10 in the Draft EIS lists the total points for each DSA. The total point value for each DSA is less than 160 points. According to the FPPA, lands that receive a combined score of less than 160 points are not covered by the FPPA. Since the soils impacted by the DSAs did not meet the threshold of protection based on the evaluation under the FPPA, the impacts to prime and statewide important farmland were not considered under FPPA. Existing Agricultural Uses. Since publication of the Draft EIS, there has been an update to the 2002 agricultural census information presented in Section 4.3.3.2 of the Draft EIS. According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture (USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, February 2009, USDA Web site: www.agcensus.usda.gov /Publications /2007 /index.asp), the number of farms between 2002 and 2007 increased from 450 to 516 and the average farm size decreased from 93 to 73 acres in Gaston County. For Mecklenburg County, the number of farms between 2002 and 2007 decreased from 300 to 236, while the average farm size decreased from 85 to 81 acres. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -31 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• Local Agricultural Programs. In July 2004, Gaston County adopted a Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) ordinance under the authority of the Agricultural Development and Farmland Preservation Enabling Act (NCGS Chapter 106 Sections 735 -743). Mecklenburg County does not have a VAD ordinance. Parcels participating in the VAD program are shown in Draft EIS Figure 4 -3. Gaston County farmers who enroll their farms in the Gaston County VAD program agree to keep their lands dedicated to agricultural uses for 10 years, and they have the right to public hearings in their communities if there are ever land condemnation proceedings against lands within the districts (Gaston County Voluntary Agricultural District Ordinance, Gaston County Web site: www.co.gaston.nc.us/ ordinances /VADordinance2004- 07- 22.pdo. There are 21 parcels currently participating in the VAD program that would be directly impacted by various DSAs. The No -Build Alternative would not directly impact any VAD properties. As shown in Draft EIS Table 4 -11, the number of impacted VAD program properties range from 8 to 11, with impacted acreage ranging from 44.7 to 138.4 acres. DSAs 64 and 68 impact the most number and acreage of VAD properties, as these DSAs are located in more rural areas. DSAs 4 and 22 would impact the least number and acreage of VAD properties. Although all DSAs would impact agricultural lands in Gaston County, the project is consistent with the County's land use plans, which designate southern Gaston County as an area targeted for more suburban development. Discussion with Gaston County staff and reviews of local planning documents indicate that the area surrounding the proposed project is slated for suburban development. Farm Relocations. As reported in Section 4.3.4.3 of the Draft EIS, the Relocation Reports for the Gaston East -West Connector (Carolina Land Acquisitions, Inc., June 2008) note that zero to two farms would be displaced, depending upon the DSA. DSAs 4, 22, 58, and 76 would not displace any farms. DSAs 5, 9, 23, 27, 77 and 81 would displace one farm, and DSAs 64 and 68 would displace two farms. Because much of southern Gaston County is still rural, it is anticipated that there would be suitable replacement property available for farm relocation. 1.3.2.4 Utilities and Infrastructure The following information is summarized from Section 4.4 of the Draft EIS. Utilities addressed include electric power, natural gas, telecommunications, water and sewer facilities, and railroads. Table 4 -12 in the Draft EIS summarizes major utility impacts for each DSA. There has been one update to this information since the Draft EIS was circulated, which is a new rail spur near the Charlotte - Douglas International Airport. Electrical Power Generation and Transmission. None of the DSAs would directly impact the Duke Energy Corporation's Allen Steam Station. The number of crossings of electrical power transmission lines varies from a minimum of 13 (DSA 5 and DSA 23) to a maximum of 18 (DSA 58). The preliminary designs for the DSAs minimized impacts to electrical power transmission lines to the extent feasible, based upon data available at that time. Transmission Lines vs Distribution Lines Electric power transmission lines transmit power between a power plant and a substation near a populated area. Electric power distribution lines deliver the power from the substation to the consumer. This some concept also applies to other utilities, such as natural gas and water. Natural Gas. All DSAs would cross natural gas transmission easements owned by Plantation Pipeline Company and Colonial Pipeline Company. Each easement contains two natural gas transmission pipelines. Although both natural gas transmission and distribution lines would be GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -32 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES O • crossed by the DSAs, the project is not expected to impact consumer gas service. To avoid disruptions in service and delivery, NCTA would coordinate any required relocation or modification of transmission lines with Plantation Pipeline Company and Colonial Pipeline Company in addition to any required relocation or modification of distribution lines with area providers. Telecommunications. No communications towers or cell towers would be impacted by any of the DSAs. Various AT &T and Time Warner Cable telecommunication lines cross the Project Study Area and the DSAs. Water and Sewer Service. The DSAs would cross water and sewer lines, but no negative impacts, or disruptions in service, are anticipated with any of the DSAs. None of the DSAs would impact water or wastewater treatment facilities. Wells within the Preferred Alternative's right of way would be surveyed prior to project construction. NCTA would purchase these wells and cap and abandon them in accordance with State standards (15 NCAC 2C). Railroads. The Norfolk Southern mainline that runs east -west through Gaston County would be impacted by DSAs that use Corridor Segment 112A (DSAs 4, 5, 9, 22, 23, and 27). The track is close to, and parallels, the east side of NC 274 (Bessemer City Road). Modifications to the I -85 /NC 274 (Bessemer City Road) interchange will require the replacement of the existing railroad bridge over I -85. Substantial disruptions in rail service are not anticipated. All DSAs cross the Norfolk Southern branch line that runs north -south parallel to the east side of US 321. The interchange design at US 321 for all DSAs has the ramps located on the west side of US 321 to avoid the rail line. The DSAs that use Corridor Segment K313 (DSAs 4, 9, 22, 27, 58, 68, 76, and 81) would cross the rail spur that serves Duke Energy's Allen Steam Station. All DSAs would cross the new Norfolk Southern rail spur located east of I -485 that will serve the intermodal facility at the Charlotte- Douglas International Airport. Utility coordination would be conducted during final design. All utility providers would be contacted and coordinated with to ensure that the proposed design and construction of the project would not substantially disrupt service 1.3.2.5 Visual Resources The following information is summarized from Section 4.5 of the Draft EIS. There have been no updates to this information since the Draft EIS was circulated. As visual impacts can be subjective, a distinction was not made among alternatives with regard to the most or least visually impacting alternative. However, some general conclusions can be made regarding visual /aesthetic changes. Overall, the DSAs that have a higher number of neighborhoods exposed to the roadway (i.e., impact a greater number of neighborhoods with residential relocations) are expected to have a greater amount of visual impacts. In this case, all of the DSAs have similar numbers and types of relocation impacts to neighborhoods. As such visual impacts to neighborhoods are not expected to vary significantly among the DSAs as a result of this project. During final design of the Preferred Alternative, NCTA will investigate the feasibility and reasonableness of incorporating cost - effective treatments for the proposed major bridges over the Catawba River and South Fork Catawba River to enhance aesthetics. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -33 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• 1.3.2.6 Hazardous Materials The following is summarized from Section 4.6 of the Draft EIS. There are no updates to this section of the Draft EIS. The impact summary table from the Draft EIS included in Appendix C of this Final EIS lists the numbers of potentially contaminated sites with each DSA. Appendix J in the Draft EIS includes more detailed information about potentially contaminated sites. Additional studies to evaluate potentially contaminated sites were conducted for the Preferred Alternative. Updated information on hazardous materials impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative is presented in Section 2.5.2.6 of this Final EIS. As discussed in Section 4.6.1 of the Draft EIS, an assessment of the project area was performed to identify the presence of potentially contaminated sites. Forty -six sites were identified within the immediate vicinity of the DSAs. The 46 sites include 25 Underground Storage Tanks (UST), twelve manufacturing facilities, three junkyards, two hazardous waste sites, one apparent landfill, and three other contaminated sites. Figure 4 -6 of the Draft EIS identifies the locations of these sites. Table 4 -13 of the Draft EIS summarizes the impacts from potentially contaminated sites for each DSA. All potential impacts were rated as low, low to medium, or medium. This means there would be little to no impact to cost or schedule for a site rated low. A medium rating may incur additional costs and time due to the handling of contaminated materials and /or a need for special construction techniques or products. Impacts to Potentially Contaminated Sites All impacts to potentially contaminated sites were rated low, low to medium, or medium in regards to additional costs and time. Based on the assessment presented in Section 4.6.2 of the Draft EIS, the DSAs closest to Gastonia's city limits on the west side had the highest numbers of potentially contaminated sites. DSAs 4, 5, 9, 22, 23, and 27 would impact 21 -24 potentially contaminated sites, while DSAs 58, 64, 68, 76, 77, and 81 would impact 12 to 14 potentially contaminated sites. 1.3.2.7 Floodplains and Floodways The following information is summarized from Section 4.7 of the Draft EIS. Updated Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) for portions of Gaston County and Mecklenburg County have been issued since publication of the Draft EIS, as described below. As discussed in Section 4.7.1 of the Draft EIS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in cooperation with federal, state, and local governments, developed floodplain and floodway boundaries and FIRMS for Gaston County and Mecklenburg County. The Draft EIS referred to September 2007 FIRM for Gaston County and February 2004 FIRM for Mecklenburg County. In the Project Study Area, FIRMS were updated in March and November 2009 for panels in the eastern end of the project (North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program Web site: www.ncfloodmaps .corn /flrm_indexes.htm). A comparison of these new maps with the floodplains and floodways in Draft EIS Figure 4 -7 show no noticeable differences in boundaries at the scale of the figure. Named streams with defined floodplains in the Project Study Area include, from west to east: Abernethy Creek, Oates Branch, Bessemer Branch, Crowders Creek, Blackwood Creek, Ferguson Branch (floodplain only), McGill Branch (floodplain only), South Crowders Creek (floodplain only), Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, Catawba River, Beaverdam Creek, and GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -34 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES O • Legion Lake Stream. Several unnamed tributaries of Crowders Creek and Catawba Creek also have defined floodplains. Defined floodways generally are located within or near municipal limits. As discussed in Section 4.7.3 of the Draft EIS, a preliminary hydraulics analysis (Final Preliminary Hydraulic Technical Memorandum for the Gaston County East -West Connector, PBS &J, December 2007) was performed to identify the preliminary sizes and locations of major drainage structures along the DSAs that would be needed to adequately carry floodwaters. Major drainage structures are bridges, box culverts, or pipe culverts greater than 72 inches in diameter. The major drainage structures and crossings were reviewed by the environmental regulatory and resource agencies at Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAL) Meetings on February 5, March 4, and April 8, 2008. As a result of these meetings, the NCTA agreed to include several bridges in the preliminary designs beyond those required to convey floodwaters. The recommended bridges are listed in Section 4.7.3 of the Draft EIS. Figure 4 -8 and Table 4 -14 of the Draft EIS summarize the major drainage structures associated with each DSA. Details are provided in Appendix K of the Draft EIS. DSAs 22, 23, and 27 would have the most bridges (8 bridges), and DSA 58 the fewest (6 bridges). DSAs 4 and 58 would have the greatest number of major culverts and pipes (47 culverts and pipes), while DSA 77 would have the fewest (39 culverts and pipes). DSAs that are closer to Crowders Creek (DSAs 4, 5, 9, 22, 23, and 27) have the most total combined floodway and floodplain crossings (21 -23 crossings). The preliminary designs for DSAs that use Corridor Segment J4a (DSAs 4, 5, and 9) would involve a longitudinal encroachment on the Crowders Creek floodplain just north of New Haven Drive. This longitudinal encroachment would be approximately 1,400 feet in length and include an area of approximately 5 acres. For all new location crossings on FEMA- regulated streams (streams where a floodway and /or floodplain has been identified), a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) will be submitted to the NC Flood Mapping Program for streams in Gaston County and to Charlotte - Mecklenburg Storm Water Services for streams in Mecklenburg County. In National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) flood hazard areas, the final hydraulic designs for the Preferred Alternative will ensure that the floodway will carry the 100 -year flood without adversely affecting floodplain elevations. The effect of all the DSAs can be mitigated effectively through proper sizing and design of hydraulic structures (culverts, bridges, and channel stabilization). A LOMR is FEMA's modification to an effective FIRM, or Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM), or both. LOMRs are generally based upon the implementation of physical measures affecting the hydrologic or hydraulic characteristics of a flooding source, and thus result in the modification of the existing regulatory floodway, the effective Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), or the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). The LOMR officially revises the FIRM or Flood Boundary and FBFM, and sometimes the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report, and when appropriate, includes a description of the modifications (FEMA Web site: www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/floodplain/nfipl<eywords/lomr.shtm). GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -35 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• 1.3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES 1.3.3.1 Historic Architectural Resources The following information is summarized from Section 5.2 of the Draft EIS. There have been no updates to this information since the Draft EIS was published. Meetings were held with the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) on April 21, 2008 and July 21, 2008 to reach concurrence on properties eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Architectural Sites None of the DSAs would result in an Adverse Effect to a historic property on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Historic Places (NRHP), and to reach concurrence on the assessment of effects to listed and eligible properties from the DSAs. Concurrence forms are included in Appendix A -2 of the Draft EIS. Eighteen properties within the DSAs were determined on or eligible for listing in the NRHP. These are shown in Figure 5 -1 of the Draft EIS. Effects to these properties were determined based on the preliminary design for each DSA. Table 5 -2 in the Draft EIS presents the effects determination for each listed and eligible property, as well as any conditions placed on the DSAs to achieve a No Adverse Effect determination. As listed in Table 5 -2 of the Draft EIS, none of the DSAs would result in an Adverse Effect to a historic property listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP. During final design of the Preferred Alternative, the designs will be reviewed to ensure the applicable conditions listed in Table 5 -2 are met to maintain the No Adverse Effect determinations. Properties with a No Adverse Effect related to one or more DSAs include the Wolfe Family Dairy Farm, William Clarence Wilson House, JBF Riddle House, Harrison Family Dairy Farm, and Thomas Allison House. Each property with a No Adverse Effect determination is discussed briefly in Section 5.2.2 of the Draft EIS. Appendix L of the Draft EIS contains figures showing each historic resource receiving a No Adverse Effect determination in relation to the DSAs' preliminary designs on aerial photography. 1.3.3.2 Archaeological Resources The following information is summarized from Section 5.3 of the Draft EIS. There are no updates to this section of the Draft EIS. Since the Draft EIS was published, an intensive archaeological survey and assessment has been prepared for the Preferred Alternative. Additional information regarding this assessment is provided in Section 2.5.3.2 of this Final EIS. There are 33 previously recorded sites within or immediately adjacent to the DSAs. Most of these sites have limited potential for additional significant information due to low artifact densities and /or loss of integrity though agriculture or erosion. Sites from all the major prehistoric and historic periods are represented in the Project Study Area. Only one known site dates to the time of early European explorations. This Native American habitation site with burials, Site 31 GS55 (Crowders Creek site) is located south of the DSAs. Eighteenth and nineteenth century sites are numerous, and include gold mines. Other types of industrial sites, such as a textile mill, also have been noted within the DSAs. It is unlikely that any of the 33 known archaeological sites within or adjacent to the DSAs warrant preservation in place. However, there is the potential for impacts to archaeological sites that have not been previously identified. The archaeological resource assessment included an GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -36 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• evaluation of the potential for site types that would merit preservation in place or would require costly and complex excavation. Based upon this information, Table 1 -6 presents a ranking of the DSAs. TABLE 1 -6: Ranking of DSAs by Potential to Impact Archaeological Resources Overall Potential for Archaeological Sites Requiring Preservation in Place or Costly and Complex Excavation DSAs High 4, 22, 58, 76 Moderate to High 64,68 Moderate 5, 9, 77, 81 Low 23,27 Source: Archaeological Assessment of Detailed Study Alternatives for the Proposed Gaston East -West Connector (Coastal Carolina Research, Inc., April 2007). 1.3.3.3 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources The following information is summarized from Section 5.4 of the Draft EIS. An update is included below summarizing input received during the Draft EIS public review period regarding Berewick Regional Park. Also, since the Draft EIS was published, the preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative was modified and the refined preliminary design avoids encroachment on Berewick Regional Park. This design refinement is discussed in Section 2.5.3.3. Section 4(f) Resources. There are three publicly -owned parks and eighteen significant historic sites located in or near the DSAs that are protected by Section 4(f) (49 USC Section 303 and 23 CFR Part 774). Parks. Publicly -owned parks include Crowders Mountain State Park, Gaston County's Park at Forestview High School, and Mecklenburg County's Berewick Regional Park. As described in Section 5.4.3 of the Draft EIS, none of the DSA's will directly or indirectly impact Crowders Mountain State Park or Gaston County's Park at Forestview High School. However, all of the DSAs' preliminary designs, as presented in the Draft EIS, would encroach upon Berewick Regional Park. The refined preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative would not encroach on Berewick Regional Park. The information presented below documents public comments received regarding this issue prior to the design modifications. DSAs that use Corridor Segment K3C (DSAs 4, 9, 22, 27, 58, 68, 76, and 81) would impact approximately 1.6 acres on the east end of the park, adjacent to I -485 based on the preliminary designs presented in the Draft EIS. DSAs that use Corridor Segment K4A (DSAs 5, 23, 64, and 77) would impact approximately 3.3 acres. These minor encroachments on the edges of the property owned by Mecklenburg County were not anticipated to impact access or any future planned uses. The Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department concurred that the estimated right of way needed under any of the DSAs (as shown in the Draft EIS) would not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of Berewick Regional Park (Section 5.4.3.1 of the Draft EIS). After the Draft EIS was published, potential Section 4(f) impacts were presented at the Public Hearings for the proposed project held in June 2009, and public comment was solicited on the comment forms regarding the estimated encroachments into the proposed Berewick Regional Park. Of the 153 comment forms received during the public comment period, more than fifty- GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -37 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• eight percent had no comment on potential impacts to the Berewick Regional Park; approximately ten percent felt there were no adverse effects; twenty -one percent felt there would be adverse effects; and eleven percent were unsure, did not know, or just did not want the project to be built at all. Since Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department, and the majority of the public, do not believe Berewick Regional Park would be adversely impacted by the DSAs, there appears to be grounds for a finding of de minimus effect. However, as discussed in Section 2.5.3.3, the Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design avoids taking right of way from Berewick Regional Park, and no further action under Section 4(f) is required. If the refined preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative is modified during final design in such a way as to encroach on Berewick Regional Park, then the Section 4(f) issue will need to be reevaluated. De minimis effects De minimis effects on publicly -owned parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges are defined as those that do not 'adversely affect the activities, features and attributes" of the Section 4(f) resource (FHWA Web site: www. fh wa.gov/hep/gasdeminimis.hm). Historic Architectural Sites. There are eighteen historic architectural resources listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP located in the Area of Potential Effect (APE) (Section 5.2.1.2 and Figure 5 -1 of the Draft EIS). Because they are listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP, they are considered significant historic sites under Section 4(f). Of these eighteen historic architectural resources, there are five historic architectural resources receiving a determination of No Adverse Effect from the HPO and FHWA: 1) Wolfe Family Dairy Farm; 2) William Clarence Wilson House; 3) JBF Riddle House; 4) Harrison Family Dairy Farm; and 5) Thomas Allison House. Approximately 29 acres of the Wolfe Family Dairy Farm site would be needed for the right of way for DSAs 58, 64, 68, 76, 77, and 81). FHWA and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) found that the impacts to the Wolfe Family Dairy Farm would constitute a de minimis effect and the analysis of avoidance alternatives is not required (Appendix A -5 in the Draft EIS). There would be no land required from the William Clarence Wilson House, the JBF Riddle House, the Harrison Family Dairy Farm, or the Thomas Allison House for any of the DSAs. As long as the conditions are met to maintain the No Adverse Effects determinations, there would be no use of these resources and no Section 4(f) evaluation would be required. Section 6(f) Resources. Crowders Mountain State Park is the only Section 6(f) resource located near the DSAs. None of the DSAs would directly impact the park or convert any of the park property to a non - recreational use. 1.3.4 NATURAL RESOURCES 1.3.4.1 Geology, Mineral Resources, and Soils The following information is summarized from Section 6.1 of the Draft EIS, with updates based on the most recent soil surveys for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties. Mineral Resources. According to the NCDENR Department of Land Resources, there are several active and inactive permitted mines in Gaston and Mecklenburg counties (List of Permitted Active and Inactive Mines in North Carolina, Department of Land Resources — Division of Land Resources, May 2008). None of the active or inactive mines would be impacted GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -38 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• by the DSAs. Geotechnical surveys conducted during the final design phase would identify abandoned mine shafts in the area that could affect construction activities. Soils. The USDA NRCS has published soil surveys for all counties within North Carolina. The surveys for the project study area described in the Draft EIS Section 6. 1, Soil Survey of Gaston County, North Carolina (USDA, May 1989) and Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (USDA, June 1980) were updated June 17, 2009 and April 29, 2009, respectively (NRCS Web site: http : / /soildatamart.nres.usda.gov). The updated soils information reflects changes in soil series information and farmland classifications. The soil surveys provide maps showing the soil types within Gaston County and Mecklenburg County and information on soil properties that can affect land use. The 2009 soil surveys identify the soil types within the DSAs. This soil data serves to update the data presented in Appendix M of the Draft EIS and is included in Appendix E of this Final EIS. The entire area underlain by the DSAs is rated "somewhat limited" or "very limited" for road construction. This means the soil properties indicate that special planning, design, or maintenance is needed to overcome soil limitations. The concern cited in the soil surveys is low strength (i.e., the soil is unable to support loads). Some soils also have shrink -swell potential, which is the potential for a soil volume to change with a loss or gain of moisture. Shrinking and swelling can cause damage to structures and roads, if either lack special design (USDA, January 1996). A complete list of soils and soil properties can be found in Appendix E. The expected soil limitations can be overcome through proper engineering design, including the incorporation of techniques such as soil modification, appropriate choice of fill material, use of non - corrosive subgrade materials, and design of drainage structures capable of conveying estimated peak flows. Decisions regarding soil limitations and methods to overcome them would be determined during the final design phase. 1.3.4.2 Water Resources The following information is summarized from Section 6.2 of the Draft EIS. Section 6.2.1 describes existing water resources, Section 6.2.2 describes water quality, and Section 6.2.3 discusses water resources impacts and mitigation. Updates are provided below, as noted. Updated discussions of potential indirect and cumulative effects to water quality associated with the Preferred Alternative are included in Section 2.5.5 of this Final EIS. Water Resource Descriptions. There are no updates to this section of the Draft EIS (Section 6.2. 1) since it was published. A summary of water resources in the Project Study Area is provided below. River Basins, Named Streams, and Lakes. DSAs are located within the Catawba River Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit Codes 03050101 and 03050102; NC Division of Water Quality sub - basins 03- 08 -34, 03- 08 -36, and 03- 08 -37). Named streams within the Project Study Area are shown in Figure 4 -7 of the Draft EIS. The named streams include Abernethy Creek, Oates Creek (Branch), Bessemer Branch, Crowders Creek, McGill Branch, Ferguson Branch, Blackwood Creek, Mill Creek, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, Catawba River, Named Streams There are thirteen named streams crossing or in the immediate vicinity of the DSAs. Ten are in Gaston County, two are in Mecklenburg County, and one (Catawba River /Lake Wylie) forms the county boundary. Beaverdam Creek, and Legion Lake Stream. Numerous unnamed perennial and intermittent tributaries are also present in the Project Study Area. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -39 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• Lake Wylie in the Project Study Area is a dammed portion of the Catawba River and is comprised of segments of the Catawba River, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba Creek. Lake Wylie is part of the Catawba - Wateree Hydro Project operated by Duke Energy. The Catawba - Wateree Hydro Project is licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The FERC licenses and governs all non - federal hydropower projects located on navigable waterways. For Lake Wylie, the FERC project boundary is the "full pond contour", which is 569.4 feet above Mean Sea Level (Duke Energy Corporation Web site: wwwAul(e- energy. corn /catawba- wateree- relicensing /relicensing- terms.asp). Water Supply Resources. Two named water bodies that cross the DSAs are designated as water supply uses. The Catawba River /Lake Wylie downstream of Paw Creek (Stream Index #11- (123.5)) and the South Fork Catawba River (Stream Index #11- 129 - (15.5)) are classified as Water Supply V (WS -V) water supplies by the NCDENR- Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). The Catawba River /Lake Wylie upstream of Paw Creek to I -85 (Stream Index #11- (122)) is designated WS -IV (NCDWQ Web site: http: / /h2o.enr.state.nc.us /bims /reports /reportsWB.htmi). Water supply watershed critical and protected areas associated with Lake Wylie are just north of the DSAs, and are shown in Figure 4 -7 of the Draft EIS. The majority of the area crossed by the DSAs is not currently served by public water (Draft EIS Figure 4 -4), and these areas rely on private wells or community wells for drinking water. Water Ouality. Section 6.2.2 of the Draft EIS describes best usage classifications (Section 6.2.2.1), impaired waters (Section 6.2.2.2), point source dischargers (Section 6.2.2.3), non -point source dischargers (Section 6.2.2.4), and water quality monitoring and basin -wide assessments (Section 6.2.2.5). These sections are summarized below, with updates as noted. Best -Usage Classifications. There have been no updates to the best -usage classifications of the named stream segments in the study area since the Draft EIS was published. Out of the thirteen named streams, eleven are classified as Class C waters, which are designated for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. South Fork Catawba River and Catawba River /Lake Wylie are classified as water supplies, as described above. No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within one mile of the Project Study Area. Impaired Waters. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to develop a list of waters that are not meeting water quality standards or which have impaired uses. The 2006 Final North Carolina 303(d) List (NCDWQ Web site: http: / /h2o.enr.state.nc.us /tmdI /documents /303d_Report.pdf) is the most recent list, as reported in the Draft EIS. Portions of Abernethy Creek, Crowders Creek, and Catawba Creek within the Project Study Area are included on the list. A Draft 2010 303(d) list has been published (NCDWQ Web site: 303(d)- Listed Streams in the Proiect Study Area Abernethy Creek, Crowders Creek, and Catawba Creek, are listed on the Final 2006 303(d) list as having impaired use for aquatic life. http : / /h2o.enr.state.nc.us /tmdI/ documents /draft_2010_Cat_5.pdf). Within the Project Study Area, Crowders Creek, McGill Branch, Catawba Creek, and South Fork Catawba River are listed on the 2010 Draft 303(d) list. Although Abernethy Creek was included on the Final 2006 303(d) list, it is not included on the Draft 2010 list. Point and Non -Point Source Dischargers. Point source dischargers in North Carolina are regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by the NCDWQ. Appendix O in the Draft EIS has been updated in Appendix F of this Final EIS. No new dischargers have been added since the last download of the information GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -40 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES O • on October 7, 2008 from the NCDWQ Web site. However, Plantation Pipe Line is no longer listed as an active permit. In Appendix O of the Draft EIS, Permit Numbers NC0086193, NC0086142, NC0084468, NCO072061, NC0069035, and NCO063860 are listed under "Heater Utilities Inc ". The most recent version of the NPDES list (01/04/10) lists these same permits under "Aqua North Carolina, Inc ". Water Quality Monitoring and Basin -Wide Assessments. The discussions and references to basinwide water quality plans included in Section 6.2.2.5 of the Draft EIS have not changed since the Draft EIS was prepared. Water Resources Impacts and Mitigation. This section is summarized from Sections 6.2.3 and 6.2.4 of the Draft EIS. There have been no changes since the Draft EIS. Water Quality. As discussed in more detail in Section 6.2.3 of the Draft EIS, short -term impacts on water quality within the project study area may result from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction impacts to water quality may not be restricted to the communities in which the construction activity occurs, but may also affect downstream communities. Long -term impacts on water quality also are possible due to particulates, heavy metals, organic matter, pesticides, herbicides, nutrients, and bacteria that are often found in highway runoff. Prior to construction, an erosion and sedimentation plan would be developed for the Preferred Alternative in accordance with applicable rules, regulations and guidance, including the latest versions of the NCDENR publication Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual, the NCDWQ's Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual (July 2007), and NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters. The Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures requires proper handling and use of construction materials (NCDOT, January 2002) (NCDOT Web site: www.ncdot.org/ doh /preconstruct /ps /specifications /dual/). The contractor would be responsible for taking every reasonable precaution throughout the construction of the project to prevent the pollution of any body of water. The contractor also shall be responsible for preventing soil erosion and stream siltation. Water -Based Recreational Activities. Boating, fishing, and waterskiing occur on the Catawba River and South Fork Catawba River, particularly in the areas south of the Allen Station Station on the Catawba River and south of the Allen Steam Station canal on the South Fork Catawba River. The DSAs that cross the Catawba River and South Fork Catawba River south of the Allen Steam Station (DSAs 5, 23, 64, and 77) would cross in areas having more recreational opportunities, and recreation likely would be temporarily affected during project construction. DSAs 4, 9, 22, 27, 58, 68, 76, and 81) would cross the rivers north of the Allen Steam Station, which are areas that are less navigable due to siltation. Therefore, these DSAs would have less impact on recreational uses of the rivers. Catawba- Wateree Hydro Project. Lake Wylie is part of the Catawba - Wateree Hydro Project operated by Duke Energy. Any crossings of the Lake Wylie "full pond contour" (569.4 feet Above Mean Sea Level) require a permit from FERC (Telephone interview, Allen Steam Station FERC Permit Coordinator, March 2, 2006). Portions of the Catawba River, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba Creek are part of Lake Wylie. Since all the proposed DSAs cross Lake Wylie, they will cross the contour line, thus triggering the need for a permit. NCTA has initiated coordination with Duke Energy Corporation regarding the FERC permit process. The process is expected to result in a FERC license revision GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -41 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• to allow an easement within the FERC project boundary for NCTA to construct the Gaston East - West Connector, including the bridges over Lake Wylie. The No -Build Alternative would not require initiation of the FERC permit process. 1.3.4.3 Natural Communities and Wildlife The following information is summarized from Section 6.3 of the Draft EIS. There are no updates to terrestrial communities, terrestrial wildlife, aquatic communities and wildlife, or invasive plant species as documented in Sections 6.3.1 through 6.3.5 of the Draft EIS. Updated direct impacts to natural communities and wildlife as a result of design changes to the Preferred Alternative can be found in Section 2.5.4.3 of this Final EIS. Indirect and cumulative impacts are analyzed and discussed in the Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis (Louis Berger Group, Inc., August 2010) and in Section 2.5.5 of this Final EIS. Terrestrial Communities. Nine terrestrial communities were identified within the DSAs, as described in Section 6.3.1 of the Draft EIS: disturbed /maintained, agricultural land, clearcut, hardwood forest, mesic mixed hardwood forest (piedmont subtype), mixed pine- hardwood forest, pine forest, pine plantation, and successional community. As indicated in Section 6.3.6 of the Draft EIS, terrestrial communities would be impacted permanently by project construction from clearing and paving. Table 6 -4 in the Draft EIS and the Draft EIS Summary of Impacts table included in Appendix C provide the acreage of terrestrial communities by habitat type impacted by DSA. The acreage represents the area within each DSA's proposed right -of -way limits. The predominant community types in all DSAs are disturbed /maintained areas and pine hardwood forest, followed by hardwood forest. These three community types comprise 72 -78 percent of the DSAs' preliminary design rights of way. Terrestrial Wildlife. Both direct and indirect impacts from the DSAs would occur to the terrestrial communities and the animals that inhabit them. Destruction of natural communities along the DSAs' rights of way would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for the various animal species that utilize the area. DSAs using Corridor Segments 111C, Jlc, K1A, and K4A (DSAs 5, 23, 27, 58, 64, 68, 77, and 81) have a greater potential to indirectly affect upland species due to habitat fragmentation in that these corridor segments are located the farthest distance away from previously fragmented forestland. DSAs 4, 9, 22, and 76 would have comparable levels of lesser indirect effects due to existing habitat fragmentation. The impacts of habitat fragmentation can be reduced by providing connections between habitats on either side of the Gaston East -West Connector. In consultation with the NCWRC (NC Wildlife Resources Commission), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and USEPA, at a TEAL Meeting on April 8, 2008, the NCTA identified a location along all DSAs where wildlife passage structures could be provided to maintain habitat connectivity. A wildlife passage structure will be studied at the crossing of Stream 5156 during final design of the Preferred Alternative. Stream 5156 (Figure 2 -9q and 2 -9r in the Draft EIS) is located between Forbes Road to the west and Robinson Road to the east. All DSAs cross this stream. DSAs 64 and 68 cross this stream using Corridor Segment Jlb /Jlc, DSA 58 crosses this stream using Corridor Segment JX1, and DSAs 4, 5, 9, 22, 23, 27, 76, 77, and 81 cross this stream using Corridor Segment J2c. Wildlife passages are often additional culverts placed adjacent to the culverts needed for water passage. During final design, the NCTA will coordinate with the NCWRC, USFWS, and USEPA GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -42 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES O • on the feasibility and design of the wildlife passage at Stream S 156, and on designing bridge crossings to be wildlife friendly when feasible. Aauatic Communities and Wildlife. Aquatic communities in the DSAs include both intermittent and perennial piedmont streams, as well as still -water ponds. Impacts to aquatic communities include fluctuations in water temperature as a result of the loss of riparian (forest) vegetation. Construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which the construction activity occurs, but may also affect downstream communities. Temporary and permanent impacts to aquatic organisms may result from increased sedimentation. Impacts to aquatic communities and wildlife from erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through implementation of a stringent erosion - control schedule and the use of Best Management Practices. Important Natural Areas. None of the DSAs' preliminary designs would encroach on the three important natural areas within or immediately adjacent to the DSAs: NC Natural Heritage Program's (NCNHP) Crowders Mountain State Park and Vicinity, NCNHP's Stagecoach Road Granitic Outcrop, and the Catawba Lands Conservancy conservation easement. Invasive Plant Species. Several known invasive species are present within the DSA corridors, as described in Section 6.3.5 of the Draft EIS. Construction of any of the DSAs has the potential to provide opportunities for introduction or spread of invasive plant species. Known invasive plant species will not be used in construction, revegetation, or landscaping. NCTA will follow the Best Management Practices (BMP) recommended by NCDOT for management of invasive plant species. 1.3.4.4 Jurisdictional Issues The following information is summarized from Section 6.4 of the Draft EIS. Updates related to jurisdictional water resource surveys and impacts for the Preferred Alternative are discussed in more detail in Section 2.5.4.4 of this Final EIS. Waters Of the United States. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act prohibits discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the US, except when executed in accordance with a permit. The term Waters of the US has broad meaning and incorporates both wetlands and surface waters such as streams and ponds. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) is responsible for issuing permits and enforcing permitting requirements under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The NCDWQ has regulatory input through Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (Water Quality Certification). The USEPA also participates in the permitting process. Catawba River Riparian Buffer Rules. Permanent riparian buffer protection rules were enacted by the State for the main stem of the Catawba River and its main stem lakes below Lake James to the south to the North Carolina /South Carolina border (15 NCAC 02B.0243- 0244). Lake Wylie is one of the main stem lakes in which the buffer rules apply. All of the DSAs cross water bodies that are part of Lake Wylie. The buffer protection rules apply within 50 feet of all riparian shorelines along the Catawba River main stem and the seven main stem lakes, including Lake Wylie. Zone 1 of the buffer is the 30 feet nearest the water's edge, and Zone 2 is 20 feet landward of Zone 1. Certain activities (including road crossings) may be allowable with mitigation but must first be reviewed and given written approval by NCDWQ. If it can be shown that there are "no practical alternatives" to the proposed activity, a variance may be allowed with mitigation (NCDWQ Web site: http: / /h2o.enr.state.nc.us /nps/ documents /FactSheet7- 29- 04.pdo. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -43 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES O • Existing Jurisdictional Resources. More than 400 jurisdictional stream segments, 350 jurisdictional wetlands, and 58 ponds were identified within the DSA corridors during surveys conducted in April through May of 2007. Figure 2 -9a -ii in the Draft EIS shows these resources. Appendix N in the Draft EIS lists the attributes of each surveyed pond, wetland, and stream. Streams range from small intermittent channels to large perennial streams and rivers. Four types of wetlands were identified within the DSAs; palustrine emergent (PEM1), palustrine forested (PFO1), palustrine shrub /scrub (PSS1 and PSS3C), and palustrine with unconsolidated bottoms (PUBHh). Approximately seven percent of the wetlands were rated High Quality, approximately 30 percent were rated Medium Quality, and the remainder (approximately 63 percent) were rated Low Quality. Field jurisdictional verifications for streams and wetlands were performed by the USAGE and the NCDWQ on April 12 and 13; May 2, 3, 10 and 11; and June 25 and 26, 2007. Written verification was received from NCDWQ by letter dated August 2, 2007 (Draft EIS Appendix A -5). Written verification from the USAGE on final jurisdictional determinations will be provided for the Preferred Alternative (Telephone interview, USAGE representative, October 15, 2007). Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources. This section is a summary of Section 6.4.4 of the Draft EIS. There have been no changes to this information since the Draft EIS. Impacts to Wet /ands, Ponds, and Streams. Project construction for any of the DSAs cannot be accomplished without infringing on surface waters, including streams, wetlands, and ponds. Streams may be filled, relocated, or placed in a culvert by project construction. Wetlands may be either partially or completely filled. In some instances, larger wetland areas may become hydraulically disconnected from an adjacent stream. Table 6 -5 in the Draft EIS and the Draft EIS summary table in Appendix C present the amounts of streams, wetlands, and ponds estimated to be impacted by each DSA's preliminary design. These impact estimates take into account avoidance and minimization measures that have been incorporated into the project, including the bridging of streams and wetlands (discussed in detail in Draft EIS Section 4.7.3). The impacts were calculated using the preliminary designs' construction limits, with an additional 25 -foot buffer, in accordance with NCDOT procedures. DSA 58 would have the greatest perennial stream impacts (totaling 50,739 linear feet), and DSA 81 would have the greatest intermittent stream impacts (10,417 linear feet). DSA 81 would have the fewest linear feet of perennial stream impacts (36,771 linear feet), and DSA 22 would have the least intermittent stream impacts (8,953 linear feet). Impacts to Catawba River Buffers. Based on the preliminary design within each DSA, impacts to the Catawba River riparian buffers are projected for the crossings of Lake Wylie. Since Lake Wylie spans the Project Study Area, none of the DSAs could avoid crossing Catawba River buffers. Table 6 -6 in the Draft EIS lists the impacts to Catawba River Buffers. Permitting and Mitigation. An Individual Permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be required for roadway encroachment into jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters. The DSAs incorporate measures to avoid and minimize impacts to Waters of the US. The NCTA met with the environmental resource and regulatory agencies at TEAL Meetings on February 5, March 4, and April 8, 2008, to discuss bridging and alignment discussions for the DSAs' preliminary designs. As a result of those meetings, NCTA agreed to include several bridges in GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -44 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES �.r.�. the preliminary designs, beyond those required to convey floodwaters, to avoid or minimize stream and wetland impacts. Design refinements for the Preferred Alternative resulted in additional avoidance and minimization measures. These are discussed in greater detail in Section 2.3 of this Final EIS. Because this project would be permitted under an Individual 404 Permit, mitigation for impacts to surface waters will be. required by the USAGE and the NCDWQ Furthermore, in accordance with its regulations (33 (,FR Part 332), the USACE requires compensatory mitigation to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. It is anticipated that USACE and NCDWQ will require compensatory mitigation for stream impacts. Section 404 Permit Implementation of any of the DSAs will require an Individual Permit from the USACE and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the NCDWQ for wetland and stream impacts. A conceptual mitigation plan for the Preferred Alternative has been prepared, and is described in Section 2.5.4.4 of this Final EIS. As part of this plan, NCTA has received agreement from the NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) to provide compensatory mitigation through the in -lieu fee prop_ ram. All impacts, corresponding mapping, and mitigation information will be included in the 401 W iter (_duality Certification Application submitted by NCTA to NCDWQ and the 404 Dredge and Fill permit package submitted to USACE following_ the completion of the NEP A process. Catawba River Buffers. Implementation of DSA 5, 9, 23, 27, 64, 68, 77, or 81 would be designated as uses that are allowable with mitigation because they would cumulatively impact more than one -third acre of buffer. The NCDWQ will issue a mitigation determination that specifies the required area and location of mitigation (1� A NCA(, 0213.0244). Mitigation may be met by payment of a compensatory mitigation fee to the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund, donation or real property of interest in real property, or restoration or enhancement of a non - forested riparian buffer (15A NCA(, 02B.0244). 1.3.4.5 Protected Species The following information is summarized from Section 6.5 of the Draft EIS. Additional surveys for Schweinitz's sunflower were conducted for the Preferred Alternative after publication of the Draft EIS, as summarized in Section 2.5.4.5. These surveys were conducted for the Preferred Alternative service roads and areas where the refined preliminary design was outside the original study corridor boundary. Federally- Protected Species. Plants and animals with a federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Sections 7 and 9 of the Endaiigerecl .Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended. The USFWS lists three species under federal protection that are considered to have ranges extending into Gaston County, and five species under federal protection that are considered to have ranges extending into Mecklenburg County (USFWS Web site: www.fws.gov /nc- es/es/countyfr.html). These species are listed in Table (i-7 of the Draft EIS and in Table 1 -7, along_ with the bald eagle, which has been delisted but is still federally protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Impacts to Protected Species. Table (i-9 in the Draft EIS summarizes the DSAs' potential effects on protected species and is reproduced here as Table 1 -7. GASTON EAST WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -45 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• TABLE 1 -7: Summary of Effects on Federally Protected Species Source: USFWS Web site: WWWe fws.gov /nc- es /es /countyfr.htmi, Updated 1/31/08 Notes: E- Endangered -A species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. T - Threatened -A species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. T(S /A) -Similarity of Appearance- Threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection. These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation. Endangered plant surveys were conducted in November 2009 for the Preferred Alternative in areas where the refined preliminary design and service roads extended outside of the original study corridor boundaries (Section 2.5.4.5). These surveys did not find any Schweinitz's sunflowers. 1.3.5 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Chapter 7 of the Draft EIS presents information from the qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment for the Gaston East -West Connector (Louis Berger Group, Inc., March 2009). The information presented below is summarized from Chapter 7 of the Draft EIS. A Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis (Louis Berger Group, Inc., August 20 10) has been completed for the Preferred Alternative and the results of that assessment are presented in Section 2.5.5 of this Final EIS. 1.3.5.1 Analysis Methodology The qualitative assessment summarized in Chapter 7 of the Draft EIS was performed in accordance with NCDOT guidance titled, Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Transportation Projects in North Carolina (November, 2001), referred to in the Draft EIS as ICI Guidance. This qualitative analysis was undertaken in five steps based on the NCDOT guidance, including: • Definition of Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICE) Study Areas (Step 1) • Identification of the ICE Study Area's Direction and Goals (Step 2) • Inventory of Notable Features (Step 3) • Identification of Impact- Causing Activities (Step 4) • Identification and Analysis of Potential Indirect and Cumulative Effects (Step 5) GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -46 Potential Habitat Biological Common Name Scientific Name County Status Present in Conclusion DSAs? Vertebrates Bald eagle Haliaeetus Gaston, Delisted Yes None Required leucocephalus Mecklenburg Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii Gaston T(S /A) Yes None Required Invertebrates Carolina Lasmigona decorata Mecklenburg E Yes No Effect heelsplitter Vascular Plants Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Mecklenburg E Yes No Effect May Affect/ Schweinitz's Gaston, Helianthus schweinitzii E Yes Not Likely to sunflower Mecklenburg Adversely Affect Smooth coneflower Echinacea loevigato Mecklenburg E Yes No Effect Source: USFWS Web site: WWWe fws.gov /nc- es /es /countyfr.htmi, Updated 1/31/08 Notes: E- Endangered -A species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. T - Threatened -A species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. T(S /A) -Similarity of Appearance- Threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection. These species are not biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation. Endangered plant surveys were conducted in November 2009 for the Preferred Alternative in areas where the refined preliminary design and service roads extended outside of the original study corridor boundaries (Section 2.5.4.5). These surveys did not find any Schweinitz's sunflowers. 1.3.5 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Chapter 7 of the Draft EIS presents information from the qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment for the Gaston East -West Connector (Louis Berger Group, Inc., March 2009). The information presented below is summarized from Chapter 7 of the Draft EIS. A Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis (Louis Berger Group, Inc., August 20 10) has been completed for the Preferred Alternative and the results of that assessment are presented in Section 2.5.5 of this Final EIS. 1.3.5.1 Analysis Methodology The qualitative assessment summarized in Chapter 7 of the Draft EIS was performed in accordance with NCDOT guidance titled, Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Transportation Projects in North Carolina (November, 2001), referred to in the Draft EIS as ICI Guidance. This qualitative analysis was undertaken in five steps based on the NCDOT guidance, including: • Definition of Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICE) Study Areas (Step 1) • Identification of the ICE Study Area's Direction and Goals (Step 2) • Inventory of Notable Features (Step 3) • Identification of Impact- Causing Activities (Step 4) • Identification and Analysis of Potential Indirect and Cumulative Effects (Step 5) GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -46 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• To aid in defining the scope of the ICE assessment, meetings were offered with the following agencies: FHWA, NCTA, North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), State Historic Preservation Office (HPO), GUAMPO, and MUMPO. The USFWS, NCWRC, and NCDWQ offered assistance. Representatives from the FHWA, NCTA, and NCDOT met with representatives from US Fish and Wildlife Service and NC Wildlife Resources Commission on June 29, 2007 (meeting minutes included in Draft EIS Appendix A -5). The purpose of the meeting was to collaboratively identify the sensitive resources, identify the study methodologies, define the ICE study area boundaries, and confirm the timeframe for the assessment. Based on input from the NCWRC, the ICE assessment included a section addressing potential indirect effects on upland wildlife habitat, including habitat fragmentation. A similar scoping meeting was held with North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) on July 26, 2007 (meeting minutes included in Draft EIS Appendix A -5). NCDWQ agreed with the proposed multi- county qualitative approach of assessing potential ICEs associated with the proposed project, and the boundaries based on local watersheds. Interviews also were held with local agency staff and local experts to gather information on notable features considered in this ICE assessment. 1.3.5.2 Study Areas ICE Study Area. The study area used for analysis is called the ICE Study Area and includes most of Gaston and parts of Cleveland, Mecklenburg, and York (South Carolina) counties as shown in Figure 7 -la of the Draft EIS. The purpose of the ICE Study Area was to provide a basic level of geography that would encompass any reasonably foreseeable, potential indirect effects stemming from the proposed Gaston East -West Connector project. The potential transportation impact activities would fall within a portion for the ICE Study Area, and are more sharply described at the District and Interchange Area levels. ICE Study Areas Three geographic study areas were used. The largest the ICE Study Area includes most of Gaston County and parts of Mecklenburg, Cleveland and York counties. The ICE Study Area was divided into ten Districts to better describe impacts. The smallest study areas were Interchange Areas, used to describe changes that may occur in the immediate vicinity of new access points created by the project. Districts. The ICE Study Area was divided into ten districts (Districts 1 through 10) to facilitate discussions with local experts during interviews, as well as to provide a level of geography that would better describe potential indirect and cumulative effects that were more localized in nature. Interchange Areas. The Interchange Areas are the third (and smallest) study area type used to assess the unique changes that would potentially be produced by increasing accessibility in the immediate vicinity of proposed interchanges with the Gaston East -West Connector (Draft EIS Figure 7-lb). Temporal Boundary. A timeframe for analysis spanning from 1989 to 2030 was established for the ICE analysis. This temporal boundary is intended to encompass other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could incrementally contribute to substantial changes GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -47 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• in land use, in combination with the proposed project. The year 1989 is the year the Gaston East -West Connector concept was first identified on the Gaston Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan. The year 2030 is the horizon year for the G UAMPO 2030 LRTP (May 2005), and the MUMPO 2030 LRTP (Amended September 2005). 1.3.5.3 Study Area Directions and Goals and Notable Features Study Area Directions and Goals. In order to determine study area directions and goals, plans adopted by the local jurisdictions were reviewed. Reviews also were conducted of development policies, guidelines, utility provisions, and other actions that specifically provide information on the approach that local governments take toward managing growth. Meeting minutes from Planning Commissions, Boards of Commissioners, and City and Town Councils were reviewed and considered as well. Jurisdictions in the ICE Study Area include four counties and four municipalities: • Gaston County • Mecklenburg County • City of Gastonia (Gaston County) • City of Charlotte (Mecklenburg County) • City of Bessemer City (Gaston County) • Cleveland County • City of Belmont (Gaston County) • York County, SC The study area directions and goals for these jurisdictions are described in Section 7.3 of the Draft EIS. Notable Features. Notable features is a broad term that describes characteristics of the environment that society would like to protect, emphasizing characteristics such as (1) recovery time from disturbance /destruction, (2) sensitivity to disruption, and (3) vulnerability to changes directly, indirectly, or cumulatively induced by the project (ICI Guidance Volume II, NCDOT, November 2001). The qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment considered and assessed a wide range of notable features, including growth and land use, wildlife habitat, water resources, protected species, farmland, noise, air quality, and cultural resources. Based on the information in the qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment, interviews with representatives from local governments and agencies, and input received from resource and regulatory agencies in the scoping process; FHWA and NCTA decided to highlight three notable features in the Draft EIS. These are: (1) growth and land use, (2) habitat fragmentation, and (3) water quality and aquatic habitat. These are described in Sections 7.4.1 through 7.4.3 of the Draft EIS. Details on all the evaluated notable features and the assessments of indirect and cumulative effects to these features are included in the qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment for the Gaston East -West Connector (Louis Berger Group, Inc., March 2009). 1.3.5.4 Summary of Findings Table 1 -8 presents an overall summary of the potential for indirect and cumulative effects to occur in Gaston County, Mecklenburg County, Cleveland County, and York County, SC as a result of the Gaston East -West Connector. Table S -2 of the Draft EIS (included in Appendix C of this Final EIS) compares the DSAs in relation to direct impacts, indirect, and cumulative effects. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -48 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• In Table 1 -8, the column describing the potential for the project to improve mobility, access, and connectivity relates to travel time savings that would occur as a result of any of the DSAs. The column describing the potential for indirect effects relates to the potential for the project to influence growth rates and types and to affect notable features in the portions of each County that are part of the ICE Study Area. The column describing the potential for cumulative effects relates to how much the project would contribute to the overall factors that would drive land use change. For example, in York County, SC, growth and land use would be more heavily influenced by availability of water and sewer service and by implementation of their land use plans, than it would be by the project. Therefore, the potential for the project to contribute to cumulative effects related to land use change was rated low for the York County, SC portion of the ICE Study Area. There are some minor differences between the DSAs, but overall there are no significant differences between the DSAs in terms of their general potential for indirect and cumulative effects to all the notable features assessed at the ICE Study Area level, District level, and Interchange level (Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties only). The following sections summarize the indirect and cumulative effects on the three notable features that have been highlights in this chapter; growth and land use, habitat fragmentation, and water quality and aquatic habitat. Discussions of the indirect and cumulative effects to all notable features assessed are included in the qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment for the Gaston East -West Connector (Louis Berger Group, Inc., March 2009). TABLE 1 -8: Summary of Potential for Indirect and Cumulative Effects by County Source: Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment for the Gaston East -West Connector, Louis Berger Group, Inc., March 2009 * Low -there would be some change from current or expected future No -Build condition, but the change would be minor and likely not noticeable. Moderate -there would be a noticeable change from current or expected future No -Build conditions. High -there would be a substantial change from current or expected future No -Build conditions. Indirect and Cumulative Effects on Growth and Land Use (ICE Studv Area). As shown in Table 1 -8, the Gaston East -West Connector has a low potential to cause indirect or cumulative effects in Cleveland County. As shown in Draft EIS Figure 7 -2, average travel time savings would be small for areas in Cleveland County. There would be no distinguishable differences in development rates in Cleveland County anticipated between the construction of any one of the proposed DSAs and the No -Build Alternative. There is a low /moderate potential for the project to improve mobility and access in York County, SC. York County's average travel time savings is occasionally greater than 10 minutes with the proposed project in place. However, other data gathered from local sources did not indicate a significant anticipated influence from the Gaston East -West Connector on growth and land use changes. Therefore, the potential for accelerated growth and indirect effects to notable features GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -49 Potential for Potential for Project Potential for Project Portion of Accelerated Growth to Contribute to DSAs which Contribute to to Improve Mobility, County in ICE and Other Indirect Cumulative Effects Indirect and Cumulative Study Area Access and Effects as a Result of Related to Land Use Effects Connectivity the Project* Change* All DSAs (4, 5, 9, 22, 23, Gaston High High Moderate 27, 58, 64, 68, 76, 77, 81) All DSAs (4, 5, 9, 22, 23, Mecklenburg High Moderate Moderate 27, 58, 64, 68, 76, 77, 81) Cleveland Low Low Low None York, SC Low /Moderate Moderate Low All DSAs (4, 5, 9, 22, 23, 27, 58, 64, 68, 76, 77, 81) Source: Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment for the Gaston East -West Connector, Louis Berger Group, Inc., March 2009 * Low -there would be some change from current or expected future No -Build condition, but the change would be minor and likely not noticeable. Moderate -there would be a noticeable change from current or expected future No -Build conditions. High -there would be a substantial change from current or expected future No -Build conditions. Indirect and Cumulative Effects on Growth and Land Use (ICE Studv Area). As shown in Table 1 -8, the Gaston East -West Connector has a low potential to cause indirect or cumulative effects in Cleveland County. As shown in Draft EIS Figure 7 -2, average travel time savings would be small for areas in Cleveland County. There would be no distinguishable differences in development rates in Cleveland County anticipated between the construction of any one of the proposed DSAs and the No -Build Alternative. There is a low /moderate potential for the project to improve mobility and access in York County, SC. York County's average travel time savings is occasionally greater than 10 minutes with the proposed project in place. However, other data gathered from local sources did not indicate a significant anticipated influence from the Gaston East -West Connector on growth and land use changes. Therefore, the potential for accelerated growth and indirect effects to notable features GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -49 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES O • in York County as a result of the project are moderate. The potential for cumulative effects in York County, SC are primarily due to planned provisions for water and sewer service and residential development anticipated with or without the project. Gaston County has a high potential to experience accelerated growth and indirect effects to notable features as a result of the project, and Mecklenburg County has a moderate potential. Both Gaston County and Mecklenburg County have a moderate potential to experience cumulative effects related to land use changes as a result of the project. In addition, Gaston and Mecklenburg counties have a high potential to experience improved mobility, access and connectivity, which is the purpose and need of the project. Growth and land use changes, along with the proposed project, are anticipated in the Gaston County Comprehensive Plan (July 2002) and Mecklenburg County's 2015 Plan: Planning for Our Future (November 1997) and 2008 -2010 Strategic Business Plan. The additional new runway at Charlotte - Douglas International Airport will increase that facility's passenger and freight capacities, as well as increase rail shipping capacity at this location and in the eastern section of the ICE Study Area. Residential development in western Mecklenburg County and throughout southeastern and south - central Gaston County, with some mixed uses, will be the predominant form of future development. Interchanges with the Gaston East -West Connector are physically within both Gaston and Mecklenburg counties, and notable for development potential during the analysis were the interchanges at US 321 and NC 274 (both in Gaston County). The cumulative impact of these activities will depend in part on local planning and policy guidelines, such as the Phase II water quality standards that are being considered in Gaston County. Additionally, cumulative effects from increased residential and retail- oriented development are expected to continue in the attractive areas around the Catawba River (for example, in the River Bend and South Point Townships). Many of these homes are large, single - family detached units on one acre or more of land without public water /sewer connections. Unique descriptions of development activities within each of the small towns in Gaston County are provided in the Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment for the Gaston East -West Connector (Louis Berger Group, Inc., March 2009) The indirect and cumulative effects associated with the DSAs may vary somewhat regarding effects on habitat fragmentation and water quality and aquatic habitat. These potential effects are summarized below. A more detailed table listing specific indirect and cumulative effect factors at the DSA level, and the differences amongst the DSAs, is provided in Draft EIS Appendix P. The table in Draft EIS Appendix P is a summary of a variety of factors used to draw conclusions regarding notable features. Indirect and Cumulative Effects on Habitat Fragmentation (Gaston Count Mecklenburg County). All DSAs would have the potential to add to forest fragmentation and wildlife disturbance in the southwest section of Mecklenburg County. DSAs using Corridor Segments 111C, Jlc, K1A, and K4A (DSAs 5, 23, 27, 58, 64, 68, 77, and 81) have a greater potential to indirectly affect upland species in Gaston County due to habitat fragmentation because these corridor segments are located the farthest distance away from previously fragmented forestland. DSAs 4, 9, 22, and 76, would have comparable levels of lesser indirect effects due to existing habitat fragmentation. Direct impacts to natural communities are discussed in Draft EIS Section 6.3.6. Indirect and Cumulative Effects on Water Quality and Aquatic Habitat (ICE Study Area). Regarding the differentiation of impacts from individual Detailed Study Alternatives, DSAs 58, 64, 68, 76, 77, and 81 would have comparable levels of indirect effects and cumulative GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -50 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES O • effects to water quality and aquatic habitat as a result of induced development. These potential effects would be greater than those associated with the No -Build Alternative, but less than potential effects associated with DSAs 4, 5, 9, 22, 23, and 27. DSAs 4, 5, 9, 22, 23, and 27 are closer to Crowders Creek, and would be expected to have a greater amount of stormwater runoff effects. However, these can be minimized through implementation of local stormwater ordinances and BMPs. Direct and indirect impacts to water quality and water resources would occur in Gaston and Mecklenburg counties and these are discussed in Draft EIS Sections 6.2.2 and 6.2.3. 1.3.6 OTHER IMPACTS 1.3.6.1 Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitment of Resources The following information is reproduced from Section 8.1 of the Draft EIS. There have been no updates to this information. Implementation of any of the DSAs would involve a commitment of a range of natural, physical, human, and fiscal resources. Land used for the construction of the proposed facility is considered an irreversible commitment during the time period that the land is used for a highway facility. However, if a greater need arises for use of the land or if the highway facility is no longer needed, the land can be converted to another use. At present, there is no reason to believe such a conversion will be necessary or desirable. Considerable amounts of fossil fuels, labor, and highway construction materials such as cement, aggregate, and bituminous material would be expended. Additionally, large amounts of labor and natural resources would be used in the fabrication and preparation of construction materials. These materials are generally not retrievable. However, they are not in short supply and their use will not have an adverse effect upon continued availability of these resources. Any construction also would require a substantial one -time expenditure of both state and federal funds, which are not retrievable. The commitment of these resources is based on the concept that residents in the immediate area region, and state will benefit by the improved quality of the transportation system. These benefits will consist of improved accessibility and connectivity, savings in time, and greater availability of quality services which are anticipated to outweigh the commitment of these resources. 1.3.6.2 Relationship between Short -Term Impacts and Long -Term Impacts The following information is reproduced from Section 8.2 of the Draft EIS. As previously noted, the date for the MUMPO and GUAMPO LRTPs has been updated from 2030 to 2035. The most disruptive local short -term impacts associated with the proposed projects would occur during land acquisition and project construction. However, these short -term uses of human, physical, socioeconomic, cultural, and natural resources would contribute to the long -term productivity of the Project Study Area. The local, short -term impacts and use of resources by implementation of any of the DSAs would be consistent with the maintenance and enhancement of long -term productivity. Construction of the proposed Gaston East -West Connector would add a vital link to the long range transportation system for the region. It is anticipated that the proposed project would enhance long -term access and connectivity opportunities in Gaston County and Mecklenburg County, and GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -51 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• would support local and regional commitments to transportation improvement and economic viability. 1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION The following information is summarized from Chapter 9 of the Draft EIS, which discusses public involvement and agency coordination activities prior to preparation of the Draft EIS. Public involvement and agency coordination activities since the Draft EIS was prepared are described in Chapter 3 of this Final EIS. 1.4.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 1.4.1.1 Citizens Informational Workshops Three series of Citizens Informational Workshops (CIWs) were held for the project prior to the Draft EIS. In 2003, the first series of CIWs were held on September 30, (Forestview High School, Gastonia), December 9, (South Point High School, Belmont), and December 10, (Hunter Huss High School, Gastonia). The workshops, held by NCDOT, presented the purpose and need for the project and the preliminary alternatives being considered. Approximately 734 citizens signed in at the first series of workshops, and 192 written comment forms were received at, and following, the workshops. The second series of CIWs took place in 2006 on January 31 (Hunter Huss High School, Gastonia), February 1 (Olympic High School, Charlotte), and February 2 (South Point High School, Belmont). These workshops were held by NCTA with assistance from NCDOT. The purpose of this series of workshops was to present the recommended DSAs for input and comment. Approximately 813 citizens signed in at the second series of workshops and there were 185 written comment forms during and after the workshops. The third series of CIWs, held by NCTA, took place in 2008 on August 6 (Olympic High School, Charlotte), August 7 (South Point High School, Belmont), and August 11 (Gastonia Adult Recreation Center, Gastonia). The purpose of this workshop series was to seek feedback regarding the elimination of Corridor Segment KID from detailed study and to present the following the additional public comment: • Updates to the project's Purpose and Need Statement, June 2008, • The Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report, July 2008, • The DSAs and the preliminary right -of -way limits for the roadway designs within the study corridors, and • The potential elimination of the project's interchange at US 29 -74. A total of 1,026 citizens signed in at the third series of workshops. There were 205 written comments received at and following the workshops. 1.4.1.2 Local Officials Meetings Local Officials Meetings were held September 30, 2003, January 31, 2006, February 1, 2006, and August 6, 2008, prior to each series of CIWs. Their purpose was to provide local officials with opportunities to ask questions and submit comments, as well as an opportunity for NCTA to give a project overview and status report. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -52 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• 1.4.1.3 Small Group Meetings Throughout the study process, the project study team met with a variety of organizations, agencies, and groups to exchange information, collect data, or to make a presentation about the project at the request of community groups. At these meetings, NCTA provided project updates and answered questions from attendees. These groups included the Duke Energy Corporation, Gaston Chamber of Commerce, Friends of Crowders Mountain, Paradise Point Neighborhood Group, Medallist Development Corporation, NC League for Transportation and Logistics, Ramoth AME Zion Church, Brown's Cove Neighborhood Group, Garrison Road /Horton Road Community, Misty Waters Subdivision, River Lakes Subdivision, Karyae Park YMCA, Pisgah ARP Church, and Town of Belmont. 1.4.1.4 Other Outreach Efforts Newsletters distributed in April 2003 and September 2003 announced the upcoming Citizens Informational Workshops and included project information and updates. Brochures and postcards also were used to provide the public with information about the project and project - related events. These items were posted to the project web site and available for download. A project web site (www.ncturnpil<e.org /projects /gaston) provides project information, documents, previous newsletters and postcards, project maps and an online comment form. The online comment form enables users to add their name to the project mailing list and /or provide comments and ask questions. Visitors are also able to e -mail the project study team directly (at gaston@ncturnpil<e.org ). The Web site is periodically updated as new information, documents, maps, and reports become available. A toll -free hotline number was created for the project (1- 800 - 475 - 6402). This provides a resource for citizens to ask questions, provide input, or request a meeting for a particular organization. All calls received are logged and responded to in a timely manner. 1.4.2 AGENCY COORDINATION 1.4.2.1 Scoping Letter A formal scoping letter, as required by NEPA, was sent by NCDOT to local, state, and federal agencies on April 9, 2003. The letter is included in Appendix A -3 of the Draft EIS, along with agency response letters. The purpose of the scoping letter was to solicit comments and collect pertinent project information early in the project development process. The coordination (NEPA scoping) between NCDOT, FHWA, and the agencies assisted with the development of the purpose and need statement, range of alternatives considered, and the determination of the DSAs. Table 9 -1 in the Draft EIS lists the agencies that provided comments in response to the scoping letter, along with a brief summary of the comments. 1.4.2.2 Notice of Intent A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Draft EIS for the project was published by FHWA in the Federal Register on April 27, 2006 (Volume 71, No. 81, pages 24909 - 24910). GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -53 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• 1.4.2.3 Section 6002 Project Coordination Plan In October 2008, in accordance with Section 6002 of SAFETEA -LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users), the NCTA developed a Section 6002 Project Coordination Plan for the proposed Gaston East -West Connector project. The plan establishes a project schedule, sets a monthly schedule for coordination meetings, establishes agency review times, identifies a process for resolving issues of concern, and identifies cooperating and participating agencies. The Section 6002 Project Coordination Plan was developed and finalized in consultation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), as well as the cooperating and participating agencies. The project's final Section 6002 Project Coordination Plan, which provides for a process similar to Merger 01, is included in Appendix A -7 of the Draft EIS, along with copies of invitation letters to Cooperating Agencies and Participating Agencies, and responses to those invitations. 1.4.2.4 Agency Coordination Meetings Agency coordination meetings regarding the Gaston East -West Connector have been held from 2002 through 2009. When the NCTA assumed administration of the project in 2005, the NCTA included the project in regularly scheduled monthly meetings, referred to as TEAL Meetings, tc review the status of the current NCTA projects, environmental concerns, and permitting requirements. Table 9 -3 in the Draft EIS provides summaries of the agency coordination meetings held for the Gaston East -West Connector prior to publication of the Draft EIS. Descriptions of TEAL meetings which occurred after the publication of the Draft EIS are included in Section 3.2 of this Final EIS. 1.5 UNRESOLVED ISSUES AND ISSUES RESOLVED SINCE DRAFT EIS Section S.9 of the Draft EIS lists unresolved issues to be addressed prior to the publication of the Final EIS. These issues are listed below, along with a brief description of the resolution. Selection of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative ( LEDPA) and development of avoidance and minimization efforts within the corridor of the Preferred Alternative in coordination with regulatory agencies. o DSA 9 was selected as the LEDPA in coordination with the environmental resource and regulatory agencies, as detailed in Section 3.2.1.1 of this Final EIS. Avoidance and minimization efforts are described in Section 2.3.3. • Preparation of a conceptual mitigation plan for unavoidable wetland and stream impacts. o A conceptual mitigation plan was prepared for the Preferred Alternative, as described in Section 2.5.4.4 of this Final EIS. Completion of additional archaeological surveys for the Preferred Alternative corridor, as necessary, based on coordination with NCDOT and the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO). o Additional archaeological surveys for the Preferred Alternative were conducted, as described in Section 2.5.3.2 of this Final EIS. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -54 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY & UPDATES e.ri• The next update to the GUAMPO LRTP and MUMPO LRTP and conformity determinations will need to designate the project as a toll facility prior to completion of the ROD. o The 2035 LRTPs for GUAMPO and MUMPO include the proposed project as a toll facility. USDOT made a conformity determination on the LRTPs and TIPS on May 3, 2010. However, there were still two inconsistencies between the Preferred Alternative and the project included in the GUAMPO 2035 LRTP. The GUAMPO 2035 LRTP included an interchange at Bud Wilson Road, and there were different assumptions for the year 2015 configuration (Section 2.5.2.2). The Bud Wilson Road interchange has been eliminated from the Preferred Alternative (Section 2.3.1.6). Current plans are for the Preferred Alternative in 2015 to be constructed as a four -lane facility from I -485 to US 321 and as an interim two -lane facility from US 321 to I -85. The remaining two lanes for the segment from US 321 to I -85 would be constructed by 2035. After the May 3, 2010 conformity determination made by the USDOT, the GUAMPO prepared an amendment to the 2035 LRTP and 2009 -2015 TIP so that the project design concept and scope included in the LRTP and TIP is consistent with the Preferred Alternative. GUAMPO made a conformity determination on the amended 2035 LRTP and 2009 -2015 TIP on August 24, 2010. USDOT issued a conformity determination on the amendments on October 5, 2010. A copy of the USDOT letter is included in Appendix K of this Final EIS. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 1 -55 Turnpike on GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR STIP PROJECT NO. U -3321 Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties 0 4.25 8.5 PROJECT LOCATION Miles IN REGION Source: Gaston, York, and Mecklenburg Counties GIS. Map Printed March 2010. Figure 1-1 Park r� rG, j� rm 51 Municipal `n �v Airport n„ i i 1 I Belml parkWaY a - - -____ Gaston County York County, SC - -- Legend Roadway Projects 1 2010 Projects 2015 Projects ` am 2025 Projects 2035Projects Major Roads — County Lines fl Hydrology 1 �s NOTE: Only fiscally constrained road and bridge projects are shown. LRTP adopted March 2010 shows the Gaston East -West Connector segment from US 321 to 1 -85 as a 2035 project. An amendment to the LRTP is in process to show a two -lane Gaston East -West Connector from US 321 to 1 -85 as a 2015 project.. with the remaining two lanes of this segment constructed by 2035. Source, GUAMPO 2035 LRTP and MUMPO2035 LRTP for Gaston and Mecklenburg couldes, Map Printed July 2010, n cm bnnp k htglority STIP PROJECT NO. U -3321 Gaston County and Mecklenburg County GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR 2035 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANS Figure 1.2 Daj Bot, en hl Legend Roadway Projects 1 2010 Projects 2015 Projects ` am 2025 Projects 2035Projects Major Roads — County Lines fl Hydrology 1 �s NOTE: Only fiscally constrained road and bridge projects are shown. LRTP adopted March 2010 shows the Gaston East -West Connector segment from US 321 to 1 -85 as a 2035 project. An amendment to the LRTP is in process to show a two -lane Gaston East -West Connector from US 321 to 1 -85 as a 2015 project.. with the remaining two lanes of this segment constructed by 2035. Source, GUAMPO 2035 LRTP and MUMPO2035 LRTP for Gaston and Mecklenburg couldes, Map Printed July 2010, n cm bnnp k htglority STIP PROJECT NO. U -3321 Gaston County and Mecklenburg County GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR 2035 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANS Figure 1.2 Legend E]'Mu1,T i1F< -8DEA MResidetau,,>22DEA OWare se /D,s,k, oo Trans;t Onetated -aired Ioso,,,./Rem OSitagleF- 1v—IDLA E]Mu1,F 1v-12DLA ®Research ®Itadu n,,d ©SitagleF ni1y /Nh1u- 17ami1c ®Office /Retail OSitagleF- 1v-3DLA ;,, ]Mt1,F- 1v—FDLA EItas- tiotaal ®Itadu n,,d -Light ®SP /AfF /Office /Retail ®Office /Itad —nal OSitagleF- 1v -4DLA EM' tulu- Pamily -25DLA IMOffice MItad —rial - Heave SP /a1F /I rsumuotaal /Uffce /Retail ©Office /Warehouse OSitagle Family — 5 DLA ORe deta ,,d — 4 DLA DOff /B 't essPark / I whir lhlu -F lls /Green— Office /Retm1/LrI ahstrial OSita�,le Fay <= G Dli1 OResidenual <= 5 Dli1 ®Off /B vtaess Park,/Lt Itadus¢ial ®Park /Upeta Space ®atulu- Famih /Uffice Office /I d s¢ial Wareh use Dismbuuota ®Sltagle Family — 8 DLA ®Resideta ,,d — 8 DLA MOff /B vtaessPad< /I ahstrial Green— �Iulu -Pamlly /Retail Office /R rail /Itad —nal Warehouse Dism'buota aH,Fa -lc WResideta,,d— 22 DLA Retail ®Tratait Onemed - Gmplonnem ,Ih1u- Fmiy /Ofce /Retall ®R -detau1 /Office /Retail rfi0`r ., e Authority t 0 1 2 Tu�� MECKLENBURG COUNTY Turn Miles p SOUTHWEST DISTRICT GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FUTURE LAND USE MAP STIP PROJECT NO. U -3321 I Source: Charlotte - Mecklenburg Planning Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Department. December 29, 2009. Figure 1 -3 i INGiE. PAELIMINA" ALIGNMENTS BUBJECi iG CHANGE f rY t j Legend Refined Stu dyArea Boundary for New Location Alternatives �e V — DesignCenterline I L I — Segment Breaks It d Irl1 l 1n ❑Detailed Study Alternatives r i ' 1 " West Blvd Realignment "T, ' "(Construction byOthers) , I1 v� III Parks - 1 01H, (0 01 ua Private Recreation Facilities and Attractions jJ State Complexes - -- County lines r1 �nJ j IMSLine Mecklenburg County l �Intersfafes US Routes 'I1 " r Streets r Railroad Hydrography Jr ;1 City Limits j Source, Gaston CouN} and Mecklenburg County GIS Map printed July 2010, T ha I L irpo TI e,teipa.,,, 'a �y - 1 01H, (0 01 ua Turnpike Authi y STIP PROJECT NO. U -3321 Gaston County and Mecklenburg County �r GASTON EAST-WEST i CONNECTOR DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES Figure 1.4a Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 23 Alternative 68 Alternative 27 Alternative 76 Alternative 9 Alternative 22 Alternative 58 Alternative 64 Alternative 77 Legend Design Righl -o =Way ��puim�Corruor Segments Comprising nnnnyEach Detailed SfudyAlternal've RecommendedAlternallve f Alternative 81 I STIP PROJECT NO. U -3321 Gaston County and Mecklenburg County GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES Figure 1.4b 29 Legend Vfl Un-Named Neighborhoods and Rural Communities 'irrr ,�c Named Neighborhoods "V' Mobile Home Parks MIR Approved Future Development — Segment Breaks — Design Centerline Detailed Study Alternatives West Blvd Realignment ' (Construction by Others) Parcels Parks Private Recreation Facilities and Attractions -- County lines fWtate line Interstafes — US Routes Streets Railroad Hydrology City limits MEili Seurce, asfonCountyaid °' � � r, laidt nF G fdecklend�rgCounfyGIS 3ia^w. ',.�i2% iTI ;n�l��;t(! Map prl7fed July 2010, hmu i4 i 1n� 14�Ir,rG� �i 0 o IIIIIII10 Swn,�ure.tk�4} am STIP PROJECT NO. U -3321 Gaston County and Mecklenburg County ,ri d ��1 CGNNECTGR GASTONEAST-WEST b KidVI IIP f NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITIES NOTE . PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENTS SUBJECT iOCHANGE Sn 111111111' /� u( „ Iwo Figure 15a Source, Gaston Count} and i Mecklenburg County GIS Mae prl9led July 2010, �i ro Allen III I County, SC dolarw Gnrsu.urA Turnpike Authority STIP PROJECT NO. U -3321 Gaston County and Mecklenburg County GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITIES r \ ! OTE. PAEIMINAVALIGNMEMEEIBE iG CHANGE Figure l•5b w, d "" ,✓>:'s 4 d r , I � .�,' . �, 1 �,r �� ," «, r „p a � a 1 Legend 41, # Note: Noise barriers shown on this Noise Measurement Sites �r ' srt v �. 0� n i map are preliminary. The feasibility ud i `� � I� d d a nd reasonableness a � noise barriers will be reassessed d fr �PreliminaryNoise Barriers 0 Neighborhood Study Area for the Preferred Alternative during 1. 1p i rt N f ° 7" ' � final design. d ® Segment Breaks Design Centerline + Pr West Blvd Realign ment a k � 2 (Construction by Airport) ) ra 1 Schools ,Fx,,; — County Line %4 ' tate Line Q a m s �� u i �;��i - � � � f � � � / .�� , rr /N 'J p � ' ,(�r � '_ ��I �„ oi � f % i'G„� 'h :i ��0 �tu� � ' l i / � �l w G , // 4 l/ �� r� �i � i � � wi% � r%, r lu l/ li/ (lI � � m n` �i 1l yrr Iww � w � r` Wf U � �l Y� � ` � la / Y 4 "E' � � ' � ' n ' ' y I l x wk l ` er �i1 k � r ` p ? I r r n �'F , " , " �' I � M .W , � � y r r ® "r �� 7 I I ` r" tl Ir l 1. �� `� . r 4 ny ` . - k ✓ s u� Q " �b ) f b' " 1 i « I r, I , I p �,1 -. � r , ',7 "° , ®L � m 10 r .1d�`i ` n(, �,� �� Q G'�/u�le�ryu� �� l�S} p�4 � ;�flt �:� 0lJ�I a % � ulo f � � r i d� i f, �,� � , I l i� 4 W �i kw 4 nl � • u� r , ,u � , u a "r u;; i � �.µ ' , u T.s i.J } ;,a � ,, , , vt � � , Gr ryr?, rr � i ��r , n, o 9, ( � „ o r1 «�✓ . s ,! Y r . �r J u r + �r u d' %w' 1 "' 7tti� l„' , '� 1..p ,. „ ? ,. � i ; . , . � s „ �r i, � r � m ! � o— i "�^ r r� 1 , � p; � s M ,a JJ "r � 1 tdI " ❑ �,� ��' �` / ; ��r - 'Al ) l d . ❑r � � � ) w p ' .� s��aW � �L��' �r 1rItY ° ° i �. f' I7 �J ��1,�� 9s :z �a��w. ,0 W r �,m l° l , �` a y , J � ' I ' r ( 1 f r � � r � d J1 ' J ,^.W' d + » � 1 t i+ , m�r7 �p i 11 h , d °I . f yt ' „ 1� '"w, � r Br uvild� ,e i n ,g om t s 41 wk Q,, / ! ! f w W 1 r r .__. Streets J Hydrology Jf{ ! "w - ulr i Parks Private Re cr�eir�I � 4 f a i t i io rn t Facilities l,. ; i r t "ie,. s � � t « I and Attractions F-1 Detailed Study Alternatives .,,. K3ASegmentName ,Vr , .......... d X w� �I ti rq Z" ry ® � source Gaston Count} and JecklenburgCounfy Map prded July 2010 4j � W= f r U fl11111 / O� " W N¢ Jr� 1 Authority � W W M 11 Ill K x. umcp a STIP PROJECT Airport NO. U -3321 Job Gaston County and Mecklenburg County 14 lo, GASTON EAST-WEST aa CONNECTOR 2d v DRAFT EIS NOISE IMPACT ; � , � ASSESSMENT INFORMATION �kk z r psnd „ „y r i "�, ,1` �� ,. . �4 Figure 1.6a Legend � �� .�1 � Note Noise barriers show V ,��,, ✓ �" � "� 1 " °� shown " Noise Measurement Sites map are preliminary. The feasibility 0 y . and reasonableness potential — Preliminar Noise Barriers i noise barriers assessed Neighborhood Stud Area M for Preferred Alternative g y � 1 Y,'° r final design. g Segment Breaks p s3s - �.- �'"' ,� p , . , ',. r ®DesignCenterline � � West Blvd Realignment (Construction byAirpod ) Schools County Line r uo �u � r '^' � 7 � r . „ ✓� �, �� ' Hr �� , A p � � � e �r1 ) #e1f T ww '2�f 9 ^� "fi � ■ fate Li ne �y f 74 � Buildings Streets a i �� Hydrology Parks � q Private Re creation Facilities � „1 and Attractions 1 tl e ) /f J li PO m � Detailed Study Alternatives Q� �7,�G f� tir”, Q F ✓!� " ��i,� K3ASegmentName r, Ili - �+ ` y • J , f� l B L TTE• 6 HA n e r 1 INTER NA�TIONA'L Source Gaston Count} and AIRP�°� f�T� Mecklenburg County Map prliled July 2010, M1 ' i � �Fu�r9y �..,..u, K2A �`.. . �,�,,� t�n1 p, ,r.. "k' ✓, ,l .....��5 �� „.... � „� IJix¢Curcuruuu�' 'tl Td�wp�ie Authority �. nh pp SNe. Min . Y PPROJECT miin<<��, 73 S f TI �A Ain I N0. U-3321 P o Pa i S�� r ��✓ t(5P County an f, � Mecklenburg County K1C ..,. ® MAIN ® C GASTON EAST-WEST 7 , CONNECTOR s 7� DRAFT EIS N, 1� NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT INFORMATION Figure 1-6b ;. s • � v f 1 ��, 2. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Chapter 2 describes the Preferred Alternative and reasons for selecting DSA 9 as the Preferred Alternative. This section also describes additional design work and other studies completed for the Preferred Alternative, and presents updated impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative. i i 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The FHWA and NCTA (a division of NCDOT as of July 27, 2009) have identified Detailed Study Alternative (DSA) 9 as the Preferred Alternative, based on the information in the Draft EIS and input received during the public comment period (Chapter 3). The Preferred Alternative is shown in Figure 2 -1. DSA 9 was identified as the Recommended Alternative in the Draft EIS. DSA 9 in relation to the other eleven DSAs is shown in Figure 1 -2. 2.1.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION The Gaston East -West Connector, also known as the Garden Parkway, would be a controlled - access median - divided toll facility extending from I -85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I -485 near the Charlotte - Douglas International Airport in Mecklenburg County. The typical section for the Preferred Alternative is shown in Figure 2 -2. The eastern terminus of the project also would tie into NC 160 (West Boulevard) just east of I -485. The total length of the Preferred Alternative is approximately 21.9 miles. From west to east, interchanges along the Preferred Alternative would be located at I -85, US 29 -74, Linwood Road (SR 1133), US 321, Robinson Road (SR 2416), NC 274 (Union Road), NC 279 (South New Hope Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road), Dixie River Road (SR 1155), and I -485. An interchange at Bud Wilson Road (SR 2423) was proposed for all DSAs in the Draft EIS, but was eliminated as part of the Preferred Alternative (Section 2.3.1.6). The project would include mainline bridge crossings of Blackwood Creek, an unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek (Stream 5146) located just east of US 321, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba River. Design refinements to the Preferred Alternative incorporated since the Draft EIS was prepared are discussed in Section 2.3.1. They generally include modifications to improve access to neighborhoods, reduce impacts, and maintain local connectivity. The boundaries of the Preferred Alternative study corridor have been expanded from what was shown for DSA 9 in the Draft EIS. The study corridor was expanded to include cross - street improvements that extended beyond the original boundaries, and areas where access roads and service roads are proposed outside the original corridor boundaries. The expanded study corridor areas are shown in Figure 2 -3 in a different color than the original study corridor boundaries. 2.1.2 DESIGN CRITERIA The proposed design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph) for the mainline, which would accommodate a posted speed limit of 65 mph. The general design criteria for the project are presented in Appendix D of the Draft EIS. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -1 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• The Preferred Alternative would have four 12 -foot travel lanes, with a 50 -foot median and 12 -foot paved inside and outside shoulders (Figure 2 -2). The typical right of way would be approximately 280 feet, with additional right of way required for interchanges, service roads, and improvements to intersecting roads. In addition, between NC 273 (Southpoint Road) and I -485, there would be an auxiliary lane in each direction, as there was in the preliminary designs shown in the Draft EIS. This typical section in Figure 2 -2 is different than the one presented in Figure 2 -3 and Section 2.3.1.3 of the Draft EIS. In the Draft EIS, all DSAs were proposed to have six travel lanes with a 46 -foot median, and a typical right of way of approximately 300 feet. Section 2.3.1.3 of the Draft EIS notes that the proposed six lanes were determined to adequately carry projected 2025 non -toll traffic volumes, and that the number of lanes and median width may be changed based on new traffic forecasts prior to the Final EIS. The currently proposed number of through lanes (four) shown in the typical section in Figure 2 -2, with the auxiliary lanes noted above between NC 273 (Southpoint Road) and I -485, would be sufficient to carry projected year 2035 toll traffic at an adequate level of service (LOS D or better). The 2035 forecasts are documented in the Gaston East -West Connector Updated Traffic Forecast and Revised Preliminary Design Traffic Capacity Analysis for the Preferred Alternative (HNTB, May 2010), incorporated by reference and summarized in Section 2.3.5. Change in Typical Section The number of through lanes along the Gaston East -West Connector was reduced from six in the Draft EIS to four. The typical right of way also was reduced 20 feet. The proposed median was reduced from 70 feet (if four lanes were constructed) to 50 feet in the refined typical section. This change also reduced the typical right of way width from 300 feet to 280 feet. Although not part of the ultimate project, if a fifth and sixth lane are needed in the future beyond the horizon year, they would be constructed to the inside, resulting in a 26 -foot paved median (two 10 -foot shoulders and six feet for a barrier, bridge piers, signs, etc.) instead of the original 46 -foot median proposed in the Draft EIS. 2.1.3 TOLLING INFORMATION Planning for Tolls. The NCDOT 2009 -2015 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) includes the project as a toll facility. In 2000, the Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO) Transportation Advisory Committee passed a resolution stating its support of the use of alternative funding methods to accelerate construction of the project, including methods that would require the payment of tolls by motorists. The 2035 Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs) for the Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO) and Mecklenburg -Union MPO (MUMPO) include the project as a toll facility. Toll Collection System. Tolls would be collected by an electronic toll collection (ETC) system. There would be no cash toll booths. The primary means of ETC involves setting up an account with NCTA and using a transponder /receiver system. The transponder is a small device usually mounted on the windshield of a vehicle. The receiver is typically mounted over the roadway, and it electronically collects tolls from a driver's account as the vehicle travels under it at highway speed. P 717117.7 7. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 0 ep. ". The NCTA will work with other toll authorities to enable, where possible, other systems' transponders to work on the Gaston East -West Connector. Toll road users also will have the option of acquiring transponders with prepaid tolls. For travelers who do not have a transponder, a video system will capture license plate information and NCTA will bill the vehicle's registrant. In addition, NCTA would operate a facility in the immediate vicinity of the project that accepts cash payments for prepaid tolls, so establishing an account would not be required. It is anticipated that this storefront -type facility would operate from an existing commercial building or strip shopping center within the project area. The facility is not expected to generate a high volume of traffic. Incorporating Tolls In Preliminary Design. There are minimal differences between a roadway design with and without an ETC system. The ETC equipment, which is primarily mounted on an overhead structure, takes up little space, and would not require additional right of way. While the right -of -way requirements may not differ between a non -toll facility and a toll facility, the alignment of loop ramps that have ETC equipment may slightly differ. At these locations, the loop ramp is modified slightly to provide a tangent section that facilitates accurate video capture of license plates. Financial Feasibility of Tolling and Toll Rates. The financial feasibility of tolling the proposed project is being evaluated in progressively more detail as the project moves forward. The following documents are incorporated by reference into this Final EIS and are available for review and download on the NCTA Web site: www.ncturnpil<e.org /projects /gaston. • Proposed Gaston East -West Connector Preliminary Traffic and Revenue Study (Wilbur Smith Associates, October 2006). This document was incorporated by reference into the Draft EIS and summarized in Section 2.4.3 of the Draft EIS. Update for Gaston East -West Connector Preliminary Traffic and Revenue Study (Wilbur Smith Associates, December 2009). The update was conducted at a preliminary level of study. Updates from the 2006 study included toll collection methods and alignment and interchange configurations. Prior to project construction, an Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study would be prepared for use by bond rating agencies and investors to evaluate financial return on the project. The initial price of the toll would be determined as part of the Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study. The price of the toll likely will vary over time, based upon variables such as managing demand, financing the initial construction of the project, and paying for roadway operations and maintenance. The toll rate will differ for cars and trucks and will also be dependent on the collection method, i.e., transponder, registered license plate, or bill via US Mail. 2.2 REASONS FOR SELECTING DSA 9 AS THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE According to FHWA regulations (23 CFR 771.125) and Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1502.14), the lead agency(ies) should identify a Preferred Alternative in a Final EIS. This is the alternative the lead agency(ies) believes would fulfill its statutory mission and responsibilities, giving consideration to social, economic, environmental, technical and other factors. The FHWA and NCTA (a division of NCDOT since July 27, 2009) have identified DSA 9 as the Preferred Alternative, for the reasons listed below. DSA 9 was identified by the FHWA, NCTA, GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -3 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 0 ep. ". and NCDOT as the Recommended Alternative in the Draft EIS (Section 2.5). Generally, the reasons cited in the Draft EIS for selecting DSA 9 as the Recommended Alternative still apply to its selection as the Preferred Alternative. This decision was made prior to the design refinements described in Section 2.3. The relative comparisons listed below still apply, since it is expected that design refinements for each DSA would be similar to those described in Section 2.3, and therefore the relative values would be similar. Please note this list is not in order of importance and does not represent all benefits or impacts of DSA 9, just those elements that differentiated DSA 9 when compared to the other DSAs. Additional information regarding input received during the Draft EIS public review period is included at the end of this section. Cost and Desian Considerations • DSA 9 is one of the shortest alternatives at 21.9 miles (all alternatives range from 21.4 to 23.7 miles). • DSA 9 had the second - lowest median total cost ($1,282 million) (all alternatives ranged from $1,281 million to 1,378.4 million). Note: Updated costs for the Preferred Alternative are presented in Section 2.3.4. Human Environment Considerations • DSA 9 is one of the four DSAs with the fewest numbers of residential relocations at 348 residential relocations (the range being 326 to 384 residential relocations). Note: Design refinements for the Preferred Alternative resulted in a reduction in residential relocations by four residences. • Although DSA 9 is higher in the range of business relocations at 37 (the range being 24 to 40 business relocations), it would avoid impacts to Carolina Specialty Transport (provides transportations services to special needs groups) that would occur under DSAs 58, 64, 68, 76, 77 and 81. Note: Design refinements for the Preferred Alternative associated with the provision of a service road in the southeast quadrant of US -29 -74 resulted in one additional business relocation. • DSA 9 is in the middle of the range of total neighborhood impacts at 25 impacted neighborhoods (the range being 21 to 32 impacted neighborhoods). Note: In the Draft EIS, impacts to the White Oak subdivision from Corridor Segment JX4 (DSAs 5, 9, 23, 27, 77, and 81) were inadvertently not included in Table 3 -5 of the Draft EIS). In addition, impacts to the Saddlewood neighborhood were double - counted for DSAs 4, 5, 9, 22, 23, 27, 76, 77, and 81. (Appendix A, Errata). The total number of neighborhood impacts for DSA 9 is 25 based on the Draft EIS preliminary design, with the range being 21 to 32. • DSA 9 would have no direct impacts to schools (DSAs 5, 23, and 27 also avoid direct impacts to schools). • DSA 9 is one of eight DSAs (DSAs 5, 9, 23, 27, 64, 68, 77, 81) that would not require relocation of known cemeteries. • At Linwood Road, DSA 9 is one of three alternatives (DSAs 4, 5, and 9) that would avoid impacting either the Karyae Park YMCA Outdoor Family Center or the Pisgah Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (part of the church property is also an historic site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places). GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE •►►r.►• • DSA 9 is one of the three alternatives (DSAs 4, 5, and 9) farthest from Crowders Mountain State Park. • DSA 9 would avoid right -of -way requirements from Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden (DSAs 4, 22, 27, 58, 68, 76, and 81 also avoid these right -of -way requirements). • DSA 9 would avoid the relocation of Ramoth AME Zion Church and cemetery, which is part of the Garrison Road /Dixie River Road community (DSAs 4, 22, 27, 58, 68, 76, and 81 also avoid this church). • DSA 9 is one of the eight alternatives (DSAs 4, 9, 22, 27, 58, 68, 76, and 81) with the least amount of right of way required from future Berewick Regional Park in Mecklenburg County. Note: Design refinements for the Preferred Alternative modified the I -485 interchange design and shifted it northward, resulting in no encroachment on Berewick Regional Park. Physical Environment Considerations • DSA 9 is in the middle range of estimated numbers of receptors impacted by traffic noise at 245 receptors (the range being 204 to 309 impacted receptors). Note: Updated 2035 traffic forecasts and design refinements for the Preferred Alternative resulted in an updated estimate of 283 receptors impacted by traffic noise. • DSA 9 is one of the alternatives (DSAs 4, 5, 9, 22, 23, and 27) that would impact the least acreage of land in Voluntary Agricultural Districts. DSA 9 also is one that is expected to have the least indirect and cumulative effects to farmlands. DSA 9 is one of the alternatives with the fewest power transmission line crossings at fourteen crossings (the range being 13 to 18 crossings). Cultural Resources Considerations • DSA 9 is one of six alternatives (DSAs 4, 5, 9, 22, 23, and 27) that would not require right of way from the Wolfe Family Dairy Farm historic site. Selection of DSA 9 makes it more likely that, if the US 321 Bypass is constructed at some future time, the project would also avoid the Wolfe Family Dairy Farm historic site. • DSA 9 is one of four alternatives (DSAs 5, 9, 23, and 27) with low to moderate potential to contain archaeological sites requiring preservation in place or complex /costly mitigation. Note: Based on the Intensive Archaeological Survey conducted for the Preferred Alternative (Coastal Carolina Research, February 2010), the Office of State Archaeology concurred that there were no archaeological resources within the Area of Potential Effect eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. This study is summarized in Section 2.5.3.2. Natural Resources Considerations • DSA 9 is one of eight alternatives (DSAs 4, 9, 22, 27, 58, 68, 76, and 81) that would cross the South Fork Catawba River and the Catawba River where the rivers have been more affected by siltation and they are less navigable, and water -based recreation would be affected less than with DSAs that cross farther south. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -5 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE •►►r.►• • DSA 9 would impact the least amount of Upland Forested Natural Communities at 882 acres (all alternatives range from 882 to 1,042 acres). Note: Design refinements for the Preferred Alternative resulted in an updated estimate of 792 acres of impact to upland forested natural communities. • DSA 9 is one of the alternatives (DSAs 4, 9, 22, and 76) having the lowest potential to indirectly affect upland wildlife species due to habitat fragmentation. • DSA 9 is lower in the range of impacts to ponds at 4.1 acres (all alternatives range from 2.1 to 6.3 acres). Note: Design refinements for the Preferred Alternative resulted in an updated estimate of 4.5 acres of impacts to ponds. • DSA 9 is lower in the range of impacts to wetlands at 7.5 acres (all alternatives range from 6.9 to 13.2 acres). Note: Design refinements for the Preferred Alternative resulted in an updated estimate of 7.0 acres of impacts to wetlands. • DSA 9 is lower in the range of impacts to perennial streams at 38,894 linear feet (all alternatives range from 36,771 to 50,739 linear feet). Note: Design refinements for the Preferred Alternative resulted in an updated estimate of 29,033 linear feet of impacts to perennial streams. • DSA 9 would have the fewest number of stream crossings at 91 (all alternatives range from 91 to 120 crossings). • DSA 9 is one of eight alternatives (DSAs 5, 9, 23, 27, 64, 68, 77, and 81) that has a biological conclusion of No Effect relating to the federally endangered Schweinitz's sunflower. Public Involvement After the Draft EIS The formal public review period for the Draft EIS was from May 22, 2009 (the day the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register (Volume 74, No. 98, page 24006) to July 21, 2009. The Draft EIS was made available for public review beginning May 13, 2009, at local libraries and government offices. A series of Public Hearings and Open Houses was held the week of June 22, 2009. The purpose of the public review period and the Pre - Hearing Open Houses /Public Hearings was to receive input on the Draft EIS and project corridors and design, as well as the selection of DSA 9 as the Recommended Alternative. These are described in more detail in Section 3.1.2. Approximately 785 people attended the two Public Hearings and 890 people attended the four Pre - Hearing Open Houses. Comments were received via comment forms, emails, letters, and Public Hearing transcripts. Most comments received did not state a DSA preference. There were approximately twice as many public commenters who stated they opposed the project in general compared to those who supported the project. As described in Section 3.3.1, three petitions were received. Two petitions were in general opposition to the project, one with approximately 7,000 signatures and the other with 275 signatures. The third petition, with 109 signatures, opposed DSAs that would impact the Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church Cemetery (DSAs 4, 9, 22, 27, 58, 68, 76, and 81). The NCTA did not verify the signatures on the petitions or check for duplicates. The refined preliminary design ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -6 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE •►►r.►• for the Preferred Alternative would not impact gravesites in the existing or historic boundaries of the cemetery (Section 2.3.1.10). None of the public comments received resulted in changes to any of the reasons listed above for selecting DSA 9 as the Preferred Alternative. Local government agencies, such as GUAMPO and MUMPO, support the project. Detailed information regarding comments received from the public, as well as local, state, and federal agencies, is presented in Chapter 3 of this Final EIS. Common generalized comments, and responses to those comments, are included in Section 3.3.2. All comments received on the Draft EIS, and responses to the comments, are included in Appendix B. 2.3 DESIGN REFINEMENTS TO THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Several design modifications were made to the Preferred Alternative as a result of public involvement activities, coordination with environmental resource and regulatory agencies, and comments received during the Draft EIS public review period. The following sections describe the design refinements (Section 2.3.1), service roads (Section 2.3.2), avoidance and minimization of impacts to Waters of the US (Section 2.3.3), updated cost estimates (Section 2.3.4), and traffic forecasts and operational analyses (Section 2.3.5) for the Preferred Alternative. Figure 2 -3a -r shows the refined preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative that incorporates the design modifications and service roads described in Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2. 2.3.1 DESIGN REFINEMENTS The preliminary design refinements described in this section include mainline design changes (median width and realignment), access road changes, interchange reconfiguration or elimination, and the addition of service roads, as listed below. Appendix H includes graphics that show the "before and after" preliminary designs for all items listed, except "Reduce Median by 20 Feet and Revise Typical Section ", and "Retain the US 29 -74 Interchange ". • Reduce Median by 20 Feet and Revise Typical Section • Modify Access to Matthews Acres Subdivision • Retain the US 29 -74 Interchange • Modify the Forbes Road Grade Separation • Compress the Robinson Road Interchange • Eliminate the Bud Wilson Road Interchange • Compress the NC 274 (Union Road) Interchange • Relocate Tucker Road Connection to Canal Road • Realign Mainline to Avoid Recreation Fields and Provide Access Road to NC 273 (Southpoint Road) • Reconfigure the NC 273 (Southpoint Road) Interchange to Avoid Historic Boundary of Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church Cemetery • Relocate Boat Club Road Connection North of Mainline to NC 273 (Southpoint Road) • Reconfigure the I -485 Interchange and Dixie River Road Interchange ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -7 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 0 ep. ". Many of the design refinements result in reduced impacts to jurisdictional resources. The USEPA, USFWS, NCDWQ, and NCWRC provided comments on the Draft EIS that included general requests for additional consideration of avoidance and minimization measures for jurisdictional resources. In addition, the USEPA specifically requested that the NCTA review the mainline design and interchange configurations for opportunities to reduce the proposed project's footprint. The NCWRC specifically requested consideration of a narrower median. 2.3.1.1 Reduce Median by 20 Feet and Revise Typical Section Preliminary Design in the Draft EIS. The preliminary design typical section for DSA 9 and all DSAs included six through lanes and a 46 -foot median (Draft EIS Figure 2 -3). The preliminary design also included an additional auxiliary lane in each direction between the NC 273 (Southpoint Road) interchange and the I -485 interchange. The Draft EIS acknowledges that the number of through lanes might be reduced to four based upon updated 2035 traffic projections (Draft EIS Section 2.4.1), resulting in a four -lane road with a 70 -foot median. Public Comments Received. Comments were received from environmental resource and regulatory agencies requesting minimization of the construction footprint where possible. Refined Preliminary Desian for the Preferred Alternative. Traffic forecasts were updated for the Preferred Alternative, including updates to the horizon year from 2030 to 2035. The forecasts are documented in the Gaston East -West Connector Updated Traffic Forecast and Revised Preliminary Design Traffic Capacity Analysis for the Preferred Alternative (HNTB, May 2010). Based on a review of year 2035 traffic projections (Toll Scenario) for the Preferred Alternative, two through lanes in each direction are needed, along with an additional auxiliary lane in each direction between the NC 273 (Southpoint Road) interchange and the I -485 interchange. With this configuration, the mainline is projected to operate at LOS D or better through 2035. Design criteria for the Preferred Alternative are discussed in Section 2.1.2. Figure 2 -2 shows the typical section for the Preferred Alternative. 2.3.1.2 Modify Access to Matthews Acres Subdivision Preliminary Design in the Draft EIS. The preliminary design for DSA 9 shown on Figure 2 -9b in the Draft EIS and on the Corridor Design Public Hearing Maps (April 24, 2009) shows existing access to the Matthews Acres Subdivision would be cut off, and new access provided via a westward extension of Belfast Drive to Diane 29 Theater Road. This extension would cross Bessemer Branch, and the crossing type was changed from a triple box culvert to a bridge as a result of Concurrence Point 2a. Existing access to Matthews Acres is via Belfast Drive to Brightington Lane /Northwynn Road to Shannon Bradley Road (SR 1135). Public Comments Received. Several residents of the Matthews Acres subdivision provided verbal comments during the Pre - Hearing Open House held on June 22, 2009 at the Gastonia Adult Recreation Center. In addition, members of the Broomfield Neighborhood Watch (includes neighborhoods surrounding Shannon Bradley Road) provided comments at a small group meeting held July 7, 2009. The residents of the area requested that the proposed access be modified to more directly connect to Shannon Bradley Road. Residents of Matthews Acres are included in the broader neighborhood area that surrounds Shannon Bradley Road north of US 29 -74. 7=12 GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -8 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 0 ep. ". Refined Preliminary Desian for the Preferred Alternative. The preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative was altered by extending Belfast Drive eastward, under the mainline, to tie directly back into Shannon Bradley Road. The mainline would be bridged over the Belfast Drive extension. This new access would be similar to the access that currently exists (i.e., Matthews Acres access is from Shannon Bradley Road) and would provide the shortest route to reconnect Matthews Acres to the rest of the community surrounding Shannon Bradley Road. Figure 2 -3a and Appendix H, Figure H -1, show the Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design in this area. 2.3.1.3 Retain the US 29 -74 Interchange Preliminary Desian in the Draft EIS. The preliminary design for DSA 9 shown on Figure 2 -9e in the Draft EIS and on the Corridor Design Public Hearing Maps (April 24, 2009) includes a half clover -leaf interchange with US 29 -74. Section 2.4.5.1 of the Draft EIS discusses the option of eliminating this interchange, and notes that a final decision on inclusion /elimination would be documented in the Final EIS. Public Comments Received. As discussed in Section 2.4.5.1 of the Draft EIS, environmental resource and regulatory agencies requested that NCTA consider the removal of the US 29 -74 interchange due to estimated impacts to wetlands and streams. The public was asked about the potential elimination of the US 29 -74 interchange at the series of Citizens Informational Workshops held in August 2008 (Series #3). As summarized in Section 9.1.1.3 of the Draft EIS, there were 205 written comments received during this workshop series. Of these, 23 commenters specifically stated they believed the interchange was not needed, while 25 commenters stated they believed the interchange was needed. Decision Not to Revise the Preliminary Desian for the Preferred Alternative. An updated traffic and revenue study prepared for the Preferred Alternative included an evaluation of the effects on toll revenue if the US 29 -74 interchange was eliminated from the project. The study, titled Proposed Gaston East -West Connector December 2009 Update to the 2006 Preliminary Study Interchange Analysis (Wilbur Smith Associates, December 2009), is incorporated by reference. Based on the results of this study, there would be substantial revenue loss from elimination of the US 29 -74 interchange. There would be approximately 12 to 13 percent fewer transactions and approximately 5 percent less revenue. In the vicinity of the Gaston East -West Connector, US 29 -74 is a four -lane divided arterial that provides direct access into downtown Gastonia. Based on the effect of the interchange on revenue forecasts as described in the updated traffic and revenue study, and the importance of US 29 -74 as a direct route to downtown Gastonia, the NCTA has determined that the US 29 -74 interchange would be retained as part of the Preferred Alternative's ultimate design. 2.3.1.4 Modify the Forbes Road Grade Separation Preliminary Design in the Draft EIS. The preliminary design for DSA 9 shown on Figure 2 -90 in the Draft EIS and on the Corridor Design Public Hearing Maps (April 24, 2009) shows a grade separation of Forbes Road over the mainline. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -9 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• Public Comments Received. No specific comments were received regarding this grade separation. The redesigned grade separation avoids impacts to Stream 5148. Refined Preliminary Desian for the Preferred Alternative. The curve radius of the grade separation of Forbes Road over the mainline was reduced, reducing the length of improvements along Forbes Road. Figure 2 -3h and Appendix H, Figure H -2, show the Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design in this area. 2.3.1.5 Compress the Robinson Road Interchange Preliminary Design in the Draft EIS. The preliminary design for DSA 9 shown on Figure 2 -9q in the Draft EIS and on the Corridor Design Public Hearing Maps (April 24, 2009) includes a partial clover -leaf interchange, with standard ramps in the northeast and northwest quadrants and a loop and standard ramp in the southeast quadrant. Pam Drive was proposed to be closed at Robinson Road and subdivision traffic routed to Saddlewood Road to access Robinson Road. Public Comments Received. During the Pre - Hearing Open Houses and public review period, several comments were received from residents in the Pam Drive neighborhood expressing their desire to keep Pam Drive connected to Robinson Road. Also, the property owner in the northwest quadrant requested that design modifications be considered to reduce impacts to their property. The proposed ramp shown in the Draft EIS passed close to their house and access control along Robinson Road would extend past their property. The property owner across Robinson Road, in the northeast quadrant, supported this request. Refined Preliminary Desian for the Preferred Alternative. The preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative was altered by connecting Pam Drive to Robinson Road at the ramp terminus, and by moving the ramps in the northeast and northwest quadrant closer to the mainline. Traffic projections and operations analysis indicate that future loop ramps in the northeast and northwest quadrants (accommodated in the previous interchange design) likely would not be needed. Access control along Robinson Road to the north of the interchange was shortened, so the existing access driveway to the property in the northwest quadrant can be maintained. The refined design also shifts the right of way from approximately 10 feet from the house on the property in the northwest quadrant to approximately 300 feet from the house. Figure 2 -3h and Appendix H, Figure H -3, show the Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design in this area. 2.3.1.6 Eliminate the Bud Wilson Road Interchange Preliminary Desian in the Draft EIS. The preliminary design for DSA 9 shown on Figure 2 -9s in the Draft EIS and on the Corridor Design Public Hearing Maps (April 24, 2009) includes a diamond interchange at Bud Wilson Road. Public Comments Received. No specific comments regarding this interchange were received from the public. The elimination of this interchange was considered in relation to potential cost savings and to the requests from environmental resource and regulatory agencies to minimize the construction footprint or eliminate interchanges where possible. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -10 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 0 ep. ". Refined Preliminary Desian for the Preferred Alternative. The projected traffic volumes at all interchanges were reviewed to identify candidate interchanges for elimination. The Bud Wilson Road interchange was the only one identified for possible elimination. Additional modeling conducted for the Preferred Alternative in the Proposed Gaston East -West Connector December 2009 Update to the 2006 Preliminary Study Interchange Analysis (Wilbur Smith and Associates, December 2009), showed that eliminating this interchange would decrease transactions by approximately 9 percent and revenue by 4 percent. However, unlike US 29 -74, which is a major urban arterial that provides direct access to downtown Gastonia, Bud Wilson Road is a rural collector. The Robinson Road interchange and NC 274 (Union Road) interchange would generally provide access to the same areas as the Bud Wilson Road interchange. Based on the updated traffic and revenue forecasts described above, and the fact that other interchanges would provide similar access, the NCTA eliminated the Bud Wilson Road interchange from the Preferred Alternative's ultimate design. Figure 2 -3i and Appendix H, Figure H -4, show the Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design in this area. During final design, the Bud Wilson Road grade separation shown in the figures likely would be redesigned to shorten the length of the improvements on Bud Wilson Road and reduce costs. 2.3.1.7 Compress the US 274 (Union Road) Interchange Preliminary Desian in the Draft EIS. The preliminary design for DSA 9 shown on Figure 2 -9v and Figure 2 -9x in the Draft EIS and on the Corridor Design Public Hearing Maps (April 24, 2009) includes a half clover -leaf interchange at NC 274 (Union Road). The half- clover- leaf interchange was selected to minimize impacts to the Carolina Speedway, located on the east side of NC 274. The Carolina Speedway is a privately -owned 0.4 -mile clay oval vehicular race track with spectator stands built in 1962. It was determined not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Place (NRHP). Public Comments Received. Operators of the speedway provided input at the Pre - Hearing Open Houses in June 2009 and also at a site visit on October 19, 2009. The operators were concerned about parking and maintaining operations in the "pit area" on the north end of the speedway. The speedway operators stated that on any given race night, approximately 850 people are in the grandstand during the race, along with approximately 400 people in the pit area. The pit area has held up to 110 vehicles during larger race events. The main grassy parking area in front of the grandstand can hold approximately 500 vehicles. Overflow parking across the street can accommodate an additional 300 vehicles. Refined Preliminary Desian for the Preferred Alternative. The preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative was altered by shifting the mainline alignment northward and changing the interchange from a half - clover -leaf to a compressed diamond. These design modifications would minimize impacts to operations at the Carolina Speedway. The pit area, which they stated is important to the operation of their events, would be maintained. Figure 2 -3k and Appendix H, Figure H -5, show the Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design in this area. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -11 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• 2.3.1.8 Relocate Tucker Road Connection to Canal Road Preliminary Design in the Draft EIS. The preliminary design for DSA 9 shown on Figure 2 -9cc in the Draft EIS and on the Corridor Design Public Hearing Maps (April 24, 2009) includes a reconnection of Tucker Road south of the interchange since the proposed project would eliminate Tucker Road's connection with Southpoint Road. This reconnection would extend south to Canal Road, which connects to Southpoint Road (NC 273). Public Comments Received. No specific comments were received regarding this access road. The realigned access road avoids impacting the edge of the South Fork Catawba Creek 100 - year floodplain. Refined Preliminary Design for the Preferred Alternative. The proposed extension connecting Tucker Road to Canal Road was shifted north to be adjacent to the south side of the electric power easement. Figure 2 -3n and Appendix H, Figure H -5, show the Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design in this area. 2.3.1.9 Realign Mainline to Avoid Recreation Fields and Provide Access Road to NC 273 (Southpoint Road) Preliminary Design in the Draft EIS. The preliminary design for DSA 9 shown on Figure 2 -9cc in the Draft EIS and on the Corridor Design Public Hearing Maps (April 24, 2009) encroaches on the Duke Energy Corporation /Belmont Optimist Club's newly expanded football field and the back edge of their baseball field. The Draft EIS preliminary design was created prior to the improvements the Optimist Club made to the site. The site is privately -owned by Duke Energy Corporation and is under a long -term lease to the Belmont Optimist Club (therefore it is not a Section 4(f) resource). No access road was shown to the recreational fields in the Draft EIS preliminary design. Public Comments Received. Project engineers met on -site with the Belmont Optimist Club President on May 11, 2009 to review the Draft EIS preliminary design in relation to the recreational fields and to provide information about the use of the fields. After this meeting, it was determined that minor design modifications could be made that would avoid the newly expanded recreation fields. Refined Preliminary Design for the Preferred Alternative. The refined design shifts the mainline slightly northward. The Duke Energy Corporation /Belmont Optimist Club fields are avoided, as well as two electric transmission towers. Access to the Duke Energy Corporation /Belmont Optimist Club recreational fields and other landlocked properties in the southeast quadrant of the project's interchange with Southpoint Road (NC 273) would be provided by constructing a new access roadway from Southpoint Road north and east to Boat Club Road. Figure 2 -3n and Appendix H, Figure H -6, show the Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design in this area. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -12 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 0 ep. ". 2.3.1.10 Reconfigure the NC 273 (Southpoint Road) Interchange to Avoid Historic Boundary of Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church Cemetery Preliminary Desian in the Draft EIS. The preliminary design for DSA 9 shown on Figure 2 -9cc in the Draft EIS and on the Corridor Design Public Hearing Maps (April 24, 2009) includes a loop and ramp in the northwest quadrant of the NC 273 (Southpoint Road) interchange. As noted in the Draft EIS Section 3.2.6.1, this quadrant would require approximately 2.1 acres of land from the south and east sides of the parcels currently owned by Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church for the Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church Cemetery. Public Comments Received. A petition was received with 109 signatures, which opposed DSAs that would impact the Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church Cemetery (DSAs 4, 9, 22, 27, 58, 68, 76, and 81). Refined Preliminary Desian for the Preferred Alternative. During the Gaston East - West Connector Intensive Archaeological Survey prepared for the project (Coastal Carolina Research, February 2010), gravesites with headstones were discovered south of the parcels currently owned by Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church. Research indicated that the cemetery once extended south of the current property boundaries into the area where the gravesites were found. The refined preliminary design reconfigures this quadrant of the interchange from a loop and ramp to a compressed ramp. This modification would avoid the historic boundary of the cemetery where the gravesites were found. Approximately 0.3 acres of right of way would still be required from the undeveloped wooded parcel adjacent to NC 273, currently owned by Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church, but no gravesites were found in this location. Figure 2 -3n and Appendix H, Figure H -6, show the Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design in this area. 2.3.1.11 Relocate Boat Club Road Connection North of Mainline to NC 273 (Southpoint Road) Preliminary Desian in the Draft EIS. The preliminary design for DSA 9 shown on Figure 2 -9cc in the Draft EIS and on the Corridor Design Public Hearing Maps (April 24, 2009) includes a reconnection of Boat Club Road north of the interchange. This reconnection would extend north to Mary Tate Road. Mary Tate Road connects to Henry Chapel Road, which connects to Southpoint Road (NC 273). Public Comments Received. Comments were received from two citizens on Drennan Horne Drive (a short road off of Boat Club Road) requesting a shorter route back to Southpoint Road (NC 273). Refined Preliminary Desian for the Preferred Alternative. The extension connecting Boat Club Road to Henry's Chapel Road was replaced with a shorter reconnection directly to NC 273 (Southpoint Road). The refined connection would move the existing intersection of Boat Club Road and NC 273 (Southpoint Road) approximately 500 feet north to a location outside the interchange's access control area, resulting in a shorter service road and shorter route to NC 273 (Southpoint Road) compared to the connection originally shown. Figure 2 -3n and Appendix H, Figure H -6, show the Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design in this area. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -13 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE M, 2.3.1.12 Reconfigure the I -485 and Dixie River Road Interchanges Preliminary Design in the Draft EIS. The preliminary design for DSA 9 shown on Figures 2 -9ee, gg, hh, and ii in the Draft EIS and on the Corridor Design Public Hearing Maps (April 24, 2009) includes a half - clover -leaf interchange at Dixie River Road and a system interchange at I -485. The system interchange at I -485 maintains route continuity between the Gaston East -West Connector and I -485, with traffic desiring to continue from eastbound Gaston East -West Connector to West Boulevard exiting to the right. This interchange is near the Charlotte - Douglas International Airport (CDIA). Public Comments Received. The NCTA has been coordinating with CDIA and the Charlotte Department of Transportation (CDOT) throughout the project development process to obtain information on projects in the area. At the time the Draft EIS preliminary designs for the DSAs were created, the CDIA was planning /constructing a third parallel runway (opened in January 2010) and had plans for an intermodal facility on the south side of the airport between the second and third runways. CDIA and CDOT also had plans for realigning West Boulevard south of the airport and for paving the currently graded but unpaved ramps at the I -485 interchange with Garrison Road. With the exception of the runway project, project schedules were uncertain at the time the Draft EIS preliminary designs were completed. The CDIA and CDOT projects have continued to progress, along with the Gaston East -West Connector. Coordination meetings between NCTA, NCDOT, CDIA, and CDOT were held on November 4, 2009, January 6, 2010, and January 19, 2010. The CDIA stated that the intermodal facility is scheduled to be opened in late 2011. Access to I -485 is important for the operations at the facility. To support this project, the Garrison Road interchange ramp paving project (STIP Project R- 2248H) and the West Boulevard extension project (STIP Project U -3411) to connect to the interchange are scheduled to be completed prior to opening the intermodal facility. In order to preserve the investments made in these improvements, CDIA and CDOT requested that NCTA reevaluate the I- 485 /Gaston East -West Connector interchange to determine the feasibility of incorporating the existing Garrison Road bridge over I -485 and a planned bridge over a Norfolk Southern (NS) railroad spur (part of the intermodal facility) and the feasibility of maintaining full access to /from I -485 and West Boulevard during construction of the Gaston East- West Connector Refined Preliminary Design for the Preferred Alternative. Based on the coordination with CDIA, NCDOT, and CDOT described above, the interchange at I -485 was modified for the Preferred Alternative. The modifications at this interchange also required modifications to the Dixie River Road interchange and the access roads reconnecting Garrison Road to Dixie River Road. The interchange at I -485 was shifted north and the configuration of the ramps was modified. An access road is proposed south of the Gaston East -West Connector to connect Garrison Road to Dixie River Road. Due to the interchange shifting north and the change in property impacts, the originally proposed access road on the north side of the Gaston East -West Connector is not needed. These interchange modifications would result in a direct impact to the Dixie Community Center located on Garrison Road just west of I -485. The community center is described in Section 3.2.2.2 P 717117.7 7. I I GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -14 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• of the Draft EIS. The original preliminary design would avoid taking the community center. The NCTA intends to conduct additional coordination with this community and to develop a mitigation plan for this relocation, as listed in the Special Project Commitments (Section PC). Figures 2 -3p -r and Appendix H, Figure H -7, show the Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design in this area. 2.3.2 SERVICE ROADS A Gaston East -West Connector Service Road Study (PBS &J, May 2010) was prepared for the Preferred Alternative, and is incorporated by reference. The objective of this study was to identify parcels whose access would be eliminated by the Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design (i.e., landlocked parcels) and to evaluate the feasibility and reasonableness of providing service roads to restore access to those parcels. The recommendations in the Service Road Study are preliminary. Final decisions on service roads will be made during final design. 2.3.2.1 Service Road Evaluation Methodology and Design Assumptions The refined preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative was reviewed to identify those parcels that would be landlocked with implementation of the refined preliminary design. Once the impacted parcels were identified, they were then evaluated to estimate the cost of constructing a service road to the property from existing roadways near the project. This cost was then compared to an estimate of the total acquisition cost, based on tax values, for the isolated or remnant portions of the parcel. If the cost of constructing the service road to a property (or properties) was estimated to be less than the cost of total acquisition of the property(ies), then the service road was included in the refined preliminary design. Several factors were used in formulating approximate costs to provide service roads. These factors include the cost associated with constructing the service road, any major hydraulic structures that may be necessary, environmental mitigation costs, and additional right of way necessary to develop the service road. In addition, design criteria were developed to guide the design of each service road. These criteria were developed to serve the land - locked parcel with safe and cost - effective access. The intended use and expected traffic volumes, including vehicle mix, were major considerations in developing the following design criteria Design Speed. The design speed selected for the service roads is 30 mph with an anticipated posted speed of 25 mph. These facilities are intended to be low volume roadways providing access only to local, mainly residential, properties. Some of the service roads would provide access to only one parcel, but others could potentially serve two or more adjacent parcels. Design speed adjustments were made for unusual circumstances and unique property use situations, as necessary. Typical Section. The service road typical section consists of two 11 -foot lanes with 2 -foot unpaved shoulders on each side. Depending on the profile, roadside ditches would be provided to convey drainage away from the roadway facility and reduce future maintenance costs. Alignment and Grade. The alignments of the individual service roads vary based on property configurations. Each situation was unique and treated as such to develop the best design solution. The goal was to minimize the loss of adjacent properties by paralleling the control of access portion of the facility as closely as possible. Where following the control of access was not an option or would result in an unusually long service road, the alignment typically paralleled or ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -15 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• straddled the property line to balance the loss of property between the adjacent parcels. The grades of the proposed service roads were dictated by existing topography to reduce earthwork. Hydraulic/ Environmental Feature Crossings. Some of the service roads cross drainage features, as well as streams and wetland areas. In these cases, efforts to avoid impacting these resources were made by adjusting the horizontal alignments and/or reducing "footprint" impacts to these environmental features to the extent possible by tightly controlling the profile and steepening side slopes as necessary through these areas. 2.3.2.2 Proposed Service Roads Based on the analysis conducted as described above, fourteen preliminary service roads are recommended. These fourteen proposed service roads are listed in Table 2 -1 and shown in Figure 2 -3a -r. It should be noted that the layout and design of these service roads may be modified during final design based on potential cost and material savings or to accommodate modifications requested by individual land- locked property owners. TABLE 2 -1: Recommended Preliminary Service Roads Figure Reference Nearest Corridor Segment Location Number of Parcels Served 2 -3b H2A North of 1 -85 16 2 -3c H3 Northwest of US 29 -74 Interchange 8 2 -3c H3 Southeast of US 29 -74 Interchange 11 2 -3c H3 Southwest of US 29 -74 interchange 5 2 -3e H3 Connect Parcel to Stablegate Dr. South of Penny Park Dr 1 2 -3f J4a Connect New Haven Dr to Crowders Creek Rd 19 2 -3j JX4 Reconnect Dorchester Rd 3 2 -3j JX4 Connect Parcel to Scott Dr 1 2 -3k J1f Reconnect Crawford Rd to NC 274 (Union Rd) 11 2 -31 K1A Connect Parcel to Rufus Ratchford Rd 1 2 -3m K3A Reconnect Suzanne Dr to NC 279 (South New Hope Rd) 11 2 -3m K3A Reconnect Teakwood Dr to NC 279 (South New Hope Rd) 13 2 -3p K3C Connect parcel southwest of Dixie River Rd interchange to Lynn Parker Ln 1 2 -3 p K3C Connect parcels on Horton Rd to Garrison Rd southwest of 1 -485 interchange 11 Source: Gaston East -West Connector Service Road Study, PBS &J, May 2010. 2.3.3 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION OF IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE US The refined design for the Preferred Alternative resulted in an approximate 25 percent reduction in stream impacts (2.36 miles), an approximate 6 percent reduction in wetland impacts (0.4 acre), a slight increase in impacts to ponds (0.4 acre), and a slight decrease in Catawba River buffer impacts compared to the preliminary design for DSA 9 documented in the Draft EIS. The changes in jurisdictional resource impacts resulting from the individual refinements are summarized in Table 2 -2. Appendix I includes tables listing impacts by individual resource. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -16 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• TABLE 2 -2: Summary of Changes in Jurisdictional Resource Impacts Due to Design Refinements and Service Roads for the Preferred Alternative * Impacts calculated based on slope stake limits plus a 25 -foot buffer. 2.3.4 COST ESTIMATES FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Cost estimates for the Preferred Alternative are presented in Table 2 -3. Cost estimates are based on the Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design, as described in Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2. The estimates are in year -of- expenditure dollars, as described in the table notes. Cost estimates are provided as a range of probable project costs for construction, right -of -way acquisition, and environmental mitigation (mitigation of impacts to streams and wetlands). The Total Project Cost provided represents the 70 percent confidence level. This means that there is a 70 percent probability that the cost to construct the project will be less than or equal to $943 million. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -17 Change in Impact to Resource Compared to Draft EIS DSA 9 Preliminary Design* Perennial Intermittent Total Design Refinement Catawba River Wetlands Ponds Buffers (scl ft) Streams Streams Streams (acres) (acres) (linear ft) (linear ft) (linear ft) Zone 1 6,758 Reduce Median Width -980 -174 -1,154 -0.32 0 Zone 2 -1,356 Modify Matthews Acres Access 0 0 0 0 0 0 Modify Forbes Rd Grade Separation 0 -71 0 -71 0 0 Compress Robinson Rd Interchange 0 -170 0 -170 0 -0.06 Eliminate Bud Wilson Rd Interchange 0 -3,109 -646 -3,755 0 0 Compress NC 274 (Union Rd) 0 1,823 +398 1,425 +0.02 +0.18 Interchange Relocate Tucker Rd Connection 0 +37 0 +37 0 0 Realign Mainline At Duke Energy /Belmont Optimist Club Fields 0 -181 +6 -175 0 0 Reconfigure NC 273 (Southpoint Rd) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Interchange to Avoid Cemetery Relocate Boat Club Rd North 0 -135 0 -135 0 0 Connection Reconfigure 1 -485 Interchange 0 -3,783 -2,335 -6,118 -0.34 0 Zone 1 -6,758 TOTAL CHANGE - 10,215 -2,751 - 12,966 -0.64 +0.12 Zone 2 -1,356 Impacts Reported in Draft EIS for Zone 1 10,400 38,894 10,101 48,995 7.50 4.1 DSA 9 Zone 2 10,215 Impacts for Preferred Alternative Zone 1 3,642 (no service roads) Zone 2 8,859 28,679 7,350 36,029 6.90 4.2 Add Service Roads 0 +354 +33 +387 +0.12 +0.3 TOTAL IMPACTS FOR PREFERRED Zone 1 3,642 29,033 7,383 36,416 7.02 4.5 ALTERNATIVE Zone 2 8,859 * Impacts calculated based on slope stake limits plus a 25 -foot buffer. 2.3.4 COST ESTIMATES FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Cost estimates for the Preferred Alternative are presented in Table 2 -3. Cost estimates are based on the Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design, as described in Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2. The estimates are in year -of- expenditure dollars, as described in the table notes. Cost estimates are provided as a range of probable project costs for construction, right -of -way acquisition, and environmental mitigation (mitigation of impacts to streams and wetlands). The Total Project Cost provided represents the 70 percent confidence level. This means that there is a 70 percent probability that the cost to construct the project will be less than or equal to $943 million. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -17 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• TABLE 2 -3: Cost Estimates for Preferred Alternative Source: HNTB, June 22, 2010. Notes: * Assumptions and notes regarding costs: 1. Construction cost includes construction, utilities, engineering, and administrative costs. 2. Year of expenditure costs were modeled using a range of possible inflation rates. 3. Future construction costs were modeled to mid -point of construction using inflation rates ranging from 2.5% to 4%, with 3% being most likely. 4. Future right -of -way costs were modeled to anticipated year of acquisition using inflation rates ranging from 0% to 4%, with 2% being most likely. 5. Future administrative costs were modeled to anticipated year of expenditure using inflation rates ranging from 2.5% to 4.5%, with 4% being most likely. 6. Ranges of costs are based on cost projections in which the lowest 10% and highest 10% were discarded. 7. Year of expenditure costs assume and award date of February 2011 and an opening in December 2014. 8. Environmental mitigation costs are based on NCEEP fee schedule dated July 1, 2009 for estimated impacts to streams and wetlands and assume mitigation for impacts to all wetlands, all perennial streams, and intermittent streams with a NCDENR -DWQ stream rating greater than or equal to 26. 9. Right -of -way costs were provided by Carolina Land Acquisitions in July 2008. A cost estimate review was held on June 14 -17, 2010, that included individuals from FHWA, NCTA, and the project study team to review the cost and schedule estimates for the Preferred Alternative. The objective of the review was to verify the accuracy and reasonableness of the total cost estimate and schedule, and to develop a probability range for the cost estimate that represents the project's current stage of development. The costs provided in this table represent those costs. In addition, prior to completing the Preferred Alternative cost estimate, an additional meeting was held to discuss factors that could influence the project's costs and the schedule. As outlined in Section 3.2.2, a workshop was held in August 2009 with FHWA, NCDOT, NCTA, NCWRC, NCDWQ, MUMPO, GUAMPO, the City of Gastonia, and the project study team. The purpose was to identify risks and opportunities, and to identify and evaluate context - sensitive solutions. This information was then utilized as part of the cost estimate review. 2.3.5 UPDATED TRAFFIC FORECASTS AND OPERATIONS ANALYSIS 2.3.5.1 Year 2035 Traffic Forecasts The updated 2035 traffic forecast for the Preferred Alternative is documented in the Gaston East West Connector Updated Traffic Forecast and Preliminary Design Traffic Capacity Analysis for the Preferred Alternative (HNTB, May 2010), incorporated by reference. This report updates the information used in the Draft EIS from the Proposed Gaston East -West Connector Preliminary Traffic and Revenue Forecast Final Report (Wilbur Smith and Associates, October 12, 2006), and the Gaston East -West Connector Traffic Forecasting and System Level Analysis for the Detailed Study Alternatives (Martin /Alexiou /Bryson, April 2007). Table 2 -4 includes the Year 2035 traffic volumes along the Preferred Alternative. The 2035 forecast volumes along the Gaston East -West Connector are projected to be higher than the previously forecasted 2030 Toll scenario volumes based on the use of a different version of the Metrolina Regional Model (Version MRM06v1.1), updated socio- economic data, and the additional five years of traffic growth. Also, as the existing roadway network becomes more congested and ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -18 Approximate Probable Range of Costs Through Year of Expenditure (millions $)* Project Cost (70% chance Length (miles) Construction Environmental ROW & Utility Total Cost costs will be Mitigation less) Preferred 21.9 713 to 743 25 to 28 175 to 189 913 to 960 943 Alternative Source: HNTB, June 22, 2010. Notes: * Assumptions and notes regarding costs: 1. Construction cost includes construction, utilities, engineering, and administrative costs. 2. Year of expenditure costs were modeled using a range of possible inflation rates. 3. Future construction costs were modeled to mid -point of construction using inflation rates ranging from 2.5% to 4%, with 3% being most likely. 4. Future right -of -way costs were modeled to anticipated year of acquisition using inflation rates ranging from 0% to 4%, with 2% being most likely. 5. Future administrative costs were modeled to anticipated year of expenditure using inflation rates ranging from 2.5% to 4.5%, with 4% being most likely. 6. Ranges of costs are based on cost projections in which the lowest 10% and highest 10% were discarded. 7. Year of expenditure costs assume and award date of February 2011 and an opening in December 2014. 8. Environmental mitigation costs are based on NCEEP fee schedule dated July 1, 2009 for estimated impacts to streams and wetlands and assume mitigation for impacts to all wetlands, all perennial streams, and intermittent streams with a NCDENR -DWQ stream rating greater than or equal to 26. 9. Right -of -way costs were provided by Carolina Land Acquisitions in July 2008. A cost estimate review was held on June 14 -17, 2010, that included individuals from FHWA, NCTA, and the project study team to review the cost and schedule estimates for the Preferred Alternative. The objective of the review was to verify the accuracy and reasonableness of the total cost estimate and schedule, and to develop a probability range for the cost estimate that represents the project's current stage of development. The costs provided in this table represent those costs. In addition, prior to completing the Preferred Alternative cost estimate, an additional meeting was held to discuss factors that could influence the project's costs and the schedule. As outlined in Section 3.2.2, a workshop was held in August 2009 with FHWA, NCDOT, NCTA, NCWRC, NCDWQ, MUMPO, GUAMPO, the City of Gastonia, and the project study team. The purpose was to identify risks and opportunities, and to identify and evaluate context - sensitive solutions. This information was then utilized as part of the cost estimate review. 2.3.5 UPDATED TRAFFIC FORECASTS AND OPERATIONS ANALYSIS 2.3.5.1 Year 2035 Traffic Forecasts The updated 2035 traffic forecast for the Preferred Alternative is documented in the Gaston East West Connector Updated Traffic Forecast and Preliminary Design Traffic Capacity Analysis for the Preferred Alternative (HNTB, May 2010), incorporated by reference. This report updates the information used in the Draft EIS from the Proposed Gaston East -West Connector Preliminary Traffic and Revenue Forecast Final Report (Wilbur Smith and Associates, October 12, 2006), and the Gaston East -West Connector Traffic Forecasting and System Level Analysis for the Detailed Study Alternatives (Martin /Alexiou /Bryson, April 2007). Table 2 -4 includes the Year 2035 traffic volumes along the Preferred Alternative. The 2035 forecast volumes along the Gaston East -West Connector are projected to be higher than the previously forecasted 2030 Toll scenario volumes based on the use of a different version of the Metrolina Regional Model (Version MRM06v1.1), updated socio- economic data, and the additional five years of traffic growth. Also, as the existing roadway network becomes more congested and ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -18 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• reaches or exceeds traffic capacity from 2030 to 2035, motorists would be more inclined to access the Gaston East -West Connector because this facility would remain under capacity and should allow for higher travel speeds and lower travel times than alternate routes in 2035. Given the expected increase in future congestion and delays along the I -85 corridor in the Project Study Area, it is anticipated that motorists will be more willing to travel the Gaston East -West Connector. TABLE 2 -4: Year 2035 Traffic Volumes Alonq the Preferred Alternative Segment 2035 Annual Average Daily Traffic Volume 1 -85 to US 29 -74 21,300 US 29 -74 to Linwood Road (SR 1133) 28,400 Linwood Road to US 321 23,500 US 321 to Robinson Road (SR 2416) 33,400 Robinson Road to NC 274 (Union Road) 36,400 NC 274 to NC 279 (South New Hope Road) 37,200 NC 279 to NC 273 (Southpoint Road) 53,800 NC 273 to Dixie River Road (SR 1155) 69,300 Dixie River Road to 1 -485 64,200 East of 1 -485 26,800 Source: Gaston East West Connector Updated Traffic Forecast and Preliminary Design Traffic Capacity Analysis for the Preferred Alternative, Prepared by HNTB, May 2010. 2.3.5.2 Traffic Operations A traffic capacity analysis was prepared for the Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design to verify that the refined preliminary design would provide adequate capacity based on the 2035 forecast toll facility traffic volumes. The updated 2035 traffic capacity analysis is documented in the Gaston East -West Connector (U -3321) Final Traffic Capacity Technical Memorandum 2030 Non - T61112035 Toll (HNTB, February 2010) and the Gaston East West Connector Updated Traffic Forecast and Preliminary Design Traffic Capacity Analysis for the Preferred Alternative (HNTB, May 2010), incorporated by reference. Based on the analysis of the Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design, all individual freeway, ramp merge, and ramp diverge locations are expected to operate at an acceptable peak hour LOS, which is defined as LOS D or better. The ramp terminal intersections analyses for the 2035 Toll forecast traffic scenario shows that all intersections are expected to operate with acceptable LOS, with two exceptions: the intersection of US 321 and the Gaston East -West Connector eastbound off -ramp, and the intersection of Robinson Road with the westbound ramps. Based on 2035 forecasted volumes, it is recommended the laneage at the US 321 /eastbound off -ramp intersection be revised from dual right -turn lanes and an exclusive left -turn lane to dual left -turn lanes with an exclusive right -turn lane. For the Robinson Road /westbound ramp intersection, a second right turn lane should be added on the westbound off ramp. Neither of these modifications would require additional right of way. The final design laneage will be re- evaluated during the design -build process to determine the appropriate interchange and intersection designs with the updated 2035 Toll volumes. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -19 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE M• 2.4 ADDITIONAL STUDIES OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE In addition to the design refinements, service road study, and updated traffic forecasts and operations analysis described in Section 2.3, several other environmental impact studies were prepared for the Preferred Alternative since the Draft EIS was published. The results of these studies, along with the design changes described in Section 2.3, were used in calculating updated impacts for the Preferred Alternative, as presented in Section 2.5. The studies cited below are all incorporated by reference into this Final EIS and are available for review and download on the NCTA Web site: www.ncturnpil<e.org /projects /gaston. Traffic Noise Study Addendum. A noise study was prepared for all DSAs as part of the Draft EIS, and documented in the Final Traffic Noise Technical Memorandum for the Gaston East -West Connector (PBS &J, July 2008). Since that time, design modifications have been made to the DSA 9 (Preferred Alternative), and projected traffic volumes have been updated to 2035 (Section 2.3.5). Therefore, an updated noise study for the Preferred Alternative was prepared, as documented in the Traffic Noise Technical Memorandum Addendum (PBS &J, April 2010). Results of the updated study are presented in Section 2.5.2.1. Hazardous Materials Study Update. An updated hazardous materials evaluation was prepared for the Preferred Alternative to investigate potentially contaminated parcels in the project corridor. The results are reported in a memorandum from the NCDOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit dated October 28, 2009, and are presented in Section 2.5.2.6. Intensive Archaeological Survey. An intensive archaeological survey was conducted for the Preferred Alternative to identify archaeological resources that may be impacted. The Intensive Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of Detailed Study Alternative 9 (Recommended Route) for the Proposed Gaston East -West Connector (Coastal Carolina Resources, July 20 10) (Intensive Archaeological Survey) is incorporated by reference into this Final EIS. The results of the intensive survey are presented in Section 2.5.3.2. Surveys for Jurisdictional Resources and Federally Protected Schweinitz's Sunflower in Service Road and Cross - Street Areas. Some portions of the cross - street improvements shown in the Draft EIS, and some of the service roads proposed for the Preferred Alternative are located outside the original study corridor boundaries defined for the DSAs. These small areas outside the original DSA study corridor boundaries had not been surveyed for jurisdictional resources or protected plant species. Surveys were performed in these areas of the Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design in November 2009. Surveys for jurisdictional resources are documented in the New Jurisdictional Resource Surveys for Service Roads (PBS &J, J 2010), incorporated by reference into this Final EIS. Surveys for protected plant species are documented in a memorandum Endangered Plant Species Surveys — Gaston East -West Connector (PBS &J, February 12, 2010), incorporated by reference into this Final EIS. Conceptual Mitiaation Plan. A conceptual mitigation plan to address potential compensatory mitigation opportunities for impacts to Waters of the US was prepared for the Preferred Alternative. The Conceptual Mitigation Plan for the Gaston East -West Connector (PBS &J, June 2010) is discussed in Section 2.5.4.4. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Ouantitative Assessment. A quantitative indirect and cumulative effects (ICE) study was prepared for the Preferred Alternative to expand on the qualitative analysis previously prepared for the project. The Gaston East -West Connector ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -20 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE W►r.►• Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis (Louis Berger Group, Inc., August 2010) examines potential indirect and cumulative effects in more detail for the Preferred Alternative. The Quantitative ICE study is summarized in Section 2.5.5. 2.5 IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE This section presents updated impacts for the Preferred Alternative based on the studies and design refinements discussed in the previous sections. The sections below follow the same order as presented in the Draft EIS. Existing conditions and background information on regulations and policies are included in Chapter 1 and in the Draft EIS. For some resources, the impacts documented in the Draft EIS have not changed. These are noted where applicable and are included in this section so that all the impacts of the Preferred Alternative can be reviewed in one section. 2.5.1 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 2.5.1.1 Land Use and Transportation Planning The information in this section is summarized from Sections 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 of the Draft EIS, with updates on local land use plans and the GUAMPO 2035 LRTP and the MUMPO 2035 LRTP described in Section 1.3.1.3. Consistency With Land Use and Transportation Plans. As discussed in Section 1.3.1.1, the Preferred Alternative would be generally consistent with local land use plans and regional, state, and local transportation plans. Section 3.1.3 of the Draft EIS discusses the inclusion of the Gaston East -West Connector in the GUAMPO 2030 LRTP and the MUMPO 2030 LRTP. The project was included in both LRTPs as a regionally significant project. The only inconsistency was that the project was not shown as a toll facility. The Gaston East -West Connector is included in the updated GUAMPO 2035 LRTP and MUMPO 2035 LRTP as a toll facility. Consistency with Transportation Plans The local 2035 long range transportation plans include the Gaston East -West Connector as a toll facility. However, there were still two inconsistencies between the Preferred Alternative and the project included in the GUAMPO 2035 LRTP. The GUAMPO 2035 LRTP included an interchange at Bud Wilson Road, and there were different assumptions for the year 2015 configuration (Section 2.5.2.2). The Bud Wilson Road interchange has been eliminated from the Preferred Alternative (Section 2.3.1.6). Current plans are for the Preferred Alternative in 2015 to be constructed as a four -lane facility from I -485 to US 321 and as an interim two -lane facility from US 321 to I -85. The remaining two lanes for the segment from US 321 to I -85 would be constructed by 2035. After the May 3, 2010 conformity determination made by the USDOT, the GUAMPO prepared an amendment to the 2035 LRTP and 2009 -2015 TIP so that the project design concept and scope included in the LRTP and TIP is consistent with the Preferred Alternative. GUAMPO made a conformity determination on the amended 2035 LRTP and 2009 -2015 TIP on August 24, 2010. USDOT issued a conformity determination on the amendments on October 5, 2010. A copy of the USDOT letter is included in Appendix K of this Final EIS. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -21 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• Land Use. Since the DSAs, including the Preferred Alternative, are on new location, direct land use changes associated with any of the DSAs include converting the land needed for right of way from its existing use to a transportation use. The land needed for right of way includes a wide variety of uses, such as industrial, commercial, residential, recreational, agricultural, and undeveloped. In addition to the changes that would occur due to right -of -way acquisition, other land use changes are likely due to the nature of the facility. The project also could play a role in the transition of the overall character of southern Gaston County from rural to suburban, which is consistent with the Gaston County Comprehensive Plan. Since this new roadway would enhance access, it would provide opportunities for increased intensity of development. More detailed information regarding potential changes in land use as a result of the Preferred Alternative is provided in the Indirect and Cumulative Effects Quantitative Assessment (Louis Berger Group, Inc., August 2010), as summarized in Section 2.5.5 of this Final EIS. 2.5.1.2 Right -of -Way Acquisition and Relocations The Preferred Alternative would require relocation of residences and businesses. In Section 3.2.3.1 of the Draft EIS, the number of relocations for DSA 9 was estimated to be 348 residences, 37 businesses, one farm, and three non - profits (two churches and an Elks lodge). The refined preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative would reduce the project's footprint, resulting in four fewer residential relocations. The provision of a service road in the southeast quadrant of US 29 -74 would result in one additional business relocation. Overall, the Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design is estimated to relocate approximately 344 residences, 38 businesses, one farm and four non - profits. Business Relocations The Preferred Alternative would relocate approximately 344 residences, 38 businesses, 1 farm, and 3 non - profits. relocations are concentrated along existing US 321, US 29 -74, and I -85. The additional non -profit relocation is the Dixie Community Center on Garrison Road, as discussed in Section 2.5.1.5. According to the Relocation Reports in Appendix C of the Draft EIS, there is comparable replacement housing and farms within the Project Study Area for displaced homeowners and tenants. As discussed in Section 3.2.3.2 of the Draft EIS, the NCTA will follow the state and federal regulations and NCDOT policies for right -of -way acquisition and relocation. The policies ensure that comparable replacement housing is available for relocatees prior to construction of state and /or federally assisted projects. Furthermore, the NCTA will use three programs NCDOT has to minimize the inconvenience of relocation: Relocation Assistance, Relocation Moving Payments, and Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement. The relocation program for the Preferred Alternative will be conducted in accordance with the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91 -646) and the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (NCGS 133 -5 through 133 -18). More information on right -of -way acquisition and relocation is available in the following two NCDOT brochures: Answers to the Questions Most Often Asked About Right of Way Acquisitions and Relocation Assistance (NCTA Web site: www.ncturnpil<e.org /projects /gaston /documents.asp) ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -22 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 0 ep. ". 2.5.1.3 Neighborhoods Impacts to neighborhoods from the DSAs are discussed in Section Neighborhoods 3.2.4 of the Draft EIS and in Section 1.3.1.4. In the Draft EIS, Twenty -four neighborhoods DSA 9 was reported to impact 18 named subdivisions and seven would be impacted by the rural communities (unnamed neighborhoods), a total of 25 Preferred Alternative. neighborhoods. iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillillillilliillillillillillillillillillilI The refined preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative resulted in changes to neighborhoods impacts, with a total of 24 neighborhoods impacted. These updated impacts to neighborhoods from the Preferred Alternative are listed in the updated matrix in Table 2 -5. As in the Draft EIS, impacts in the matrix are divided into areas where relocations would occur and whether access would be modified. The type of relocation effect is divided into categories "A" through "E," and the type of access effect is divided into qualifiers "1" or "2" for each impact category "A" through "E." For example, when comparing impact categories "Cl" and "C2 ", the "C" indicates the location of impacted homes in a neighborhood, and the number (" 1" or "2 ") following the letter denotes if there is an access change (denoted by "2 ") or if there is not an access change (denoted by "1 "). The footnotes in Table 2 -5 describe the categories in detail. As a result of the design refinements included with the Preferred Alternative, the potential impact category for four neighborhoods changed. In addition, one neighborhood was inadvertently not counted in the Draft EIS Table 3 -5 for DSA 9, White Oak subdivision, and is now included in Table 2 -5. These five neighborhoods are described below, from west to east. Fall Estates. Impacts to Fall Estates changed from Category D1 to D2 because the access road to reconnect the homes in Fall Estates west of the Gaston East -West Connector changed from a bridge over the project mainline to a service road along the west side of the mainline connecting to Crowders Creek Road (Figure 2 -3f). SaddlewOOd /Pam Drive. Impacts to the Saddlewood /Pam Drive neighborhood changed from Category B2 to 131 because the connection of Pam Drive to Robinson Road that was proposed to be severed has been reinstated in the refined preliminary design (Section 2.3.1.4). Also, this neighborhood was counted twice in the Draft EIS for DSAs 4, 5, 9, 22, 23, 27, 76, 77, and 81 because this neighborhood is located at the junction of two Corridor Segments (J2c and J2d) and it was counted as being impacted by both segments (Appendix A, Errata). White Oak. Impacts to the White Oak neighborhood, on Dorchester Road, were inadvertently not counted for Corridor Segment JX4 in the Draft EIS (DSAs 5, 9, 23, 27, 77, and 81) (Appendix A). The Preferred Alternative would impact the homes on the northeast side of Dorchester Road. N17 - Wilmot Trail. Impacts to unnamed neighborhood N17, the cluster of residences on Wilmot Trail west of Bud Wilson Road, changed from Category C2 to Category A (No Impact) because the Bud Wilson Road interchange has been eliminated (Section 2.3.1.5) and the proposed right of way was reduced in this area. In , GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -23 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• TABLE 2 -5: Potential Neighborhood Impacts Affected Neighborhood (from west to east) Preferred Alternative Type of Effect Named Neighborhoods Brookhaven B2 Edgewood Acres A Erskine Woods A Matthews Acres C2 Spring Valley C2 Myrtle Mill A Lakewood Forest C2 Stablegate Farms C2 Fall Estates (was D1 in Draft EIS) D2 Levi's Mobile Home Park E Orion Oaks MHP No. 1 D2 Orion Oaks MHP No. 2 D2 Orion Oaks MHP No. 3 D2 Orion Oaks MHP No. 4 D2 Charleston A Forbes Cove B1 Brittany Woods C1 Wesley Acres C1 Saddlewood /Pam Drive (was 82 in Draft EIS) B1 White Oak (was not counted for DSA 9 in Draft EIS) C1 Forest Pointe A Brook Forest /South Forest C1 Joye Mobile Home Park D2 Unnamed Neighborhoods N2 Located west of Stagecoach Rd south of Linwood Rd C1 N3 located west of Stagecoach Rd south of Linwood Rd C1 N17 located west of Bud Wilson Rd (was C2 in Draft EIS) A N7 located on Union Rd south of Union New Hope Rd C2 N11 located on Dixon Rd east of NC 279 B2 N12 located off of NC 273 (Southpoint Rd) D2 N16 located along Garrison Rd east of Dixie River Rd (was D2 in Draft EIS) C2 Total Number of Category B Impacts 4 Total Number of Category C Impacts 11 Total Number of Category D Impacts 8 Total Number of Category E Impacts 1 Total Number of Neighborhood Impacts 24 Based on refined preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative, February 2010. TYPE OF EFFECT (Letter denotes type of direct impact. Number denotes access change): A— No impact. 81 —No relocations, but right -of -way encroachment and existing access maintained. B2 — No relocations, but change in access (could include ROW encroachment). C1— Relocation of homes on end of road or at edge of neighborhood. C2 — Relocation of homes on end of road or at edge of neighborhood and change in access. D1— Relocation of homes in midst of neighborhood. D2 — Relocation of homes in midst of neighborhood and change in access. E —Total displacement of a neighborhood. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -24 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• N16 — Garrison Road. The impact category for the Garrison Road community (Neighborhood N16) changed from Category D2 to C2. The interchange has been shifted north, as described in Section 2.3.1.12. The new interchange design would relocate homes at the north end of Garrison Road, instead of in the midst of the neighborhood. An extension of Garrison Road west to Dixie River Road would provide access to the remaining homes south of the Gaston East -West Connector. However, the refined preliminary design would displace the Dixie Community Center, also located at the north end of Garrison Road (Section 2.5.1.5). The most impacts to neighborhoods would occur in the area between I -85 and US 321. This area is relatively highly developed, and there are numerous other constraints, such as Crowders Creek and its floodplain and Crowders Mountain State Park. Designing an alternative that would not impact existing development was not possible. A planned future subdivision with a site plan approved by the City of Gastonia also could be impacted by the Preferred Alternative. The Presley development, located north of the intersection of NC 274 (Union Road) and Union New Hope Road near Forestview High School, is partially located within Corridor Segments Jle and Jlf. The preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative may have minor encroachments on the areas of the site plan labeled for a future commercial village. Indirect effects could occur to neighborhoods under the Preferred Alternative (as well as the other DSAs). The project could accelerate land use changes to non - residential uses, causing changes in the character of neighborhoods. 2.5.1.4 Environmental Justice There have been no updates to environmental justice information since the Draft EIS was published. Based on information presented in Section 3.2.5 of the Draft EIS and Section 1.3.1.5, the construction of the Preferred Alternative was determined not to have a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low income populations. 2.5.1.5 Community Resources and Services Community resources and services in the project study area include churches, cemeteries, schools, fire stations, libraries, community centers, parks, and private recreation areas. There are no hospitals within or adjacent to the DSAs. Churches and Cemeteries. There is no change in impacts to churches since the Draft EIS was published, but there is an update to impacts to cemeteries. The Preferred Alternative would impact three church properties and one cemetery, as shown in Table 2 -6. Two churches, St. Titus AME Zion Church and Charity Independent Baptist Church, would need to be relocated. An outbuilding on the third church property, Broomfield Methodist Church, would be impacted. P 717117.7 7. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -25 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• TABLE 2 -6: Church and Cemetery Impacts from Preferred Alternative The Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church Cemetery is located in the northwest quadrant of the proposed interchange of the Gaston East -West Connector and Southpoint Road (NC 273). During the intensive archaeological survey for the Preferred Alternative (Section 2.5.3.2), gravesites with headstones were discovered south of the Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church Cemetery's present -day parcel boundaries. The historic boundaries of the cemetery were larger, and encompassed approximately an additional one -half acre to the southwest (Intensive Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of Detailed Study Alternative 9 (Recommended Route) for the Gaston East -West Connector, Coastal Carolina Research, July 2010). As discussed in Section 2.3.1.10, the refined preliminary design reconfigures this quadrant of the interchange from a loop and ramp to a compressed ramp. This modification would avoid the historic boundary of the cemetery where the gravesites were found and would reduce the right of way needed from the present -day cemetery property. Approximately 0.3 acres of right of way would still be required from the undeveloped wooded parcel adjacent to NC 273 owned by the Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church, but no gravesites were found in this location. All applicable state and local regulations and requirements for relocating or mitigating the impact to cemeteries will be met. Schools. The only school within or adjacent to the Preferred Alternative study corridor is Forest Heights Elementary at 2500 Sedgefield Drive in Gastonia (Corridor Segment H3). This school is just outside the corridor boundaries. The Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design would not require land from this school, nor would it directly impact any school facilities. At the time the Draft EIS was prepared, a potential new middle /high school campus location in Corridor Segment K2A or K3A was being researched by Gaston County Schools. However, since the Draft EIS was published, potential school sites within the study area have been eliminated from consideration by Gaston County Schools (Telephone interview, Executive Director, Auxiliary Services for Gaston County Schools, January 28, 2010). ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -26 Preferred Buildings Parcel Size Name and Location Alternative Taken? in Acres Notes Segment g (% Taken) Construction would not take main church St. Titus AME Zion 1.4 building, but due to amount of right of way 437 Shannon Bradley Rd, Gastonia 112A No (70 %) required, relocation of the church would be necessary. Broomfield Methodist (Carolina Medium -size building in back of property Conf. Christian Meth. Episcopal 112A Yes 17.6 would be impacted. Main church building Church, Inc.) 937 Shannon (46 %) would not be impacted. Relocation of church Bradley Rd, Gastonia not anticipated. Charity Independent Baptist H3 Yes 8.9 Main church building would be impacted and 2425 Hillmont St, Gastonia (60 %) relocation of church would be necessary. Wooded area adjacent to NC 273 (Southpoint Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church Rd) and southeast side of property would be Cemetery. South side of Tucker JX4 NA 2.1 impacted. Approximately 0.3 acres of right of (14 %) way is needed. Area of current cemetery Rd near Southpoint Rd, Belmont with gravestones, and historic boundaries with gravestones would not be impacted. The Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church Cemetery is located in the northwest quadrant of the proposed interchange of the Gaston East -West Connector and Southpoint Road (NC 273). During the intensive archaeological survey for the Preferred Alternative (Section 2.5.3.2), gravesites with headstones were discovered south of the Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church Cemetery's present -day parcel boundaries. The historic boundaries of the cemetery were larger, and encompassed approximately an additional one -half acre to the southwest (Intensive Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of Detailed Study Alternative 9 (Recommended Route) for the Gaston East -West Connector, Coastal Carolina Research, July 2010). As discussed in Section 2.3.1.10, the refined preliminary design reconfigures this quadrant of the interchange from a loop and ramp to a compressed ramp. This modification would avoid the historic boundary of the cemetery where the gravesites were found and would reduce the right of way needed from the present -day cemetery property. Approximately 0.3 acres of right of way would still be required from the undeveloped wooded parcel adjacent to NC 273 owned by the Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church, but no gravesites were found in this location. All applicable state and local regulations and requirements for relocating or mitigating the impact to cemeteries will be met. Schools. The only school within or adjacent to the Preferred Alternative study corridor is Forest Heights Elementary at 2500 Sedgefield Drive in Gastonia (Corridor Segment H3). This school is just outside the corridor boundaries. The Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design would not require land from this school, nor would it directly impact any school facilities. At the time the Draft EIS was prepared, a potential new middle /high school campus location in Corridor Segment K2A or K3A was being researched by Gaston County Schools. However, since the Draft EIS was published, potential school sites within the study area have been eliminated from consideration by Gaston County Schools (Telephone interview, Executive Director, Auxiliary Services for Gaston County Schools, January 28, 2010). ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -26 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• Construction of the Preferred Alternative would temporarily impact school bus routes during construction, as well as result in modifications of existing routes and /or promote new bus routes. Prior to construction, the NCTA will coordinate /initiate discussions with Gaston County Schools and Mecklenburg County Public Schools regarding minimizing impacts to school bus routes. Fire Stations. There is an update to fire station locations since the Draft EIS. The Crowders Mountain South Volunteer Fire Department previously located at 4802 York Highway (US 32 1) in Gastonia (Station F3 on Draft EIS Figure 3 -7a) was just south of the Preferred Alternative study corridor. This station is no longer in operation (Telephone interview, Gaston County Fire Marshal's office, May 26, 2010). However, implementation of the Preferred Alternative may require re- routing of existing service routes during construction. NCTA will coordinate with the Gaston County Fire Marshal's office to ensure continuation of emergency services during construction. Libraries /Community Centers. There is one library and one community center in the vicinity of the Preferred Alternative. The existing Union Road Branch Library would not be impacted by the Preferred Alternative. The Dixie Community Center, a meeting place for the Garrison Road /Dixie River Road community, is located at 9814 Garrison Road in Charlotte, just west of I -485 (Figure 2 -3p), within the Preferred Alternative study corridor. As discussed in Section 3.2.2.2 of the Draft EIS, the community center is an important forum that provides a location and opportunities for interaction among existing and former residents of the Garrison Road /Dixie River Road area. The construction of I -485 and expansion of the Charlotte - Douglas International Airport in this area has split and reduced the extent of this neighborhood. The Preferred Alternative would further impact this community. The preliminary designs for the DSAs shown in the Draft EIS would not displace the Dixie Community Center. However, the Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design would displace the community center. The reasons for modifying the Preferred Alternative design in the I -485 interchange area are discussed in Section 2.3.1.12. The reasons are applicable to all the DSAs. The NCTA recognizes the importance of the Dixie Community Center to the Garrison Road /Dixie River Road community and intends to conduct additional coordination with the community and provide mitigation for the loss of this facility. This is listed as a Special Project Commitment in Chapter PC. The Garrison Road Community Center is a registered non - profit and would be eligible for all the benefits for non - residential relocatees under the NCDOT's relocation assistance program described in Section 2.5.1.2. Benefits would include, but not be limited to, advisory services to identify replacement sites, moving costs, and reestablishment expenses. Parks and Recreation Areas. Publicly and privately - owned facilities /areas are described in Section 3.2.2.3 of the Draft EIS. Those near or within the Preferred Alternative study corridor include the publicly -owned Berewick Regional Park, the privately -owned Carolina Speedway and the privately -owned Duke Energy Corporation /Belmont Optimist Club recreational fields. These are discussed below, along with planned greenways. Parks and Recreation Areas The Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design avoids direct impacts to Berewick Regional Park and the Duke Energy /Belmont Optimist Club Recreation Fields. Impacts to operations at the Carolina Speedway are minimized. In ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -27 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 0 ep. ". Berewick Regional Park. The Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design modified the I -485 interchange and shifted it northward; and the new proposed right of way would not encroach on Berewick Regional Park (Figure 2- 3p -r). Carolina Speed wax. Approximately 7.7 acres of the northern and western sides of this privately -owned speedway property would be impacted by the DSA 9 preliminary design shown in the Draft EIS. As discussed in Section 2.3.1.7, the preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative was altered by shifting the mainline alignment northward and changing the interchange from a half - clover -leaf to a compressed diamond. These design modifications would minimize impacts to operations at the Carolina Speedway. The pit area, which has been identified as important to event operations, would not be impacted (Figure 2 -3k). Duke Energy Corporation /Belmont Optimist Club Recreational Fields. The preliminary design for DSA 9 shown in the Draft EIS would impact the recreational ball fields owned by Duke Energy Corporation and leased by the Belmont Optimist Club. These privately -owned recreational fields encompass approximately 4.9 acres. The Draft EIS preliminary design for DSA 9 would impact the edge of the baseball field's outfield and the north corner of a football field (previously a general recreational field). No access road was shown to these recreational fields in the Draft EIS preliminary designs. As discussed in Section 2.3.1.9, the preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative was altered to shift the mainline slightly northward. The Duke Energy Corporation /Belmont Optimist Club recreational fields would be avoided, as well as two electric transmission towers. Access to the Duke Energy Corporation /Belmont Optimist Club recreational fields and other landlocked properties in the southeast quadrant of the project's interchange with Southpoint Road (NC 273) would be provided by constructing a new access roadway from Southpoint Road north and east to Boat Club Road (Figure 2 -3n). Planned Greenways. Planned greenways are shown in Figure 3 -8a —b in the Draft EIS. Both private groups (Carolina Thread Trail led by the Catawba Lands Conservancy) and public entities (GUAMPO) are planning a system of greenway trails in the area and /or region. Preferred Alternative Corridor Segments H2A, H3, and J4b have the potential to cross greenways that have yet to be constructed. Although both greenway plans are conceptual at this time, there is the potential for several greenway crossings along the Preferred Alternative, particularly west of US 321. During final design of the Preferred Alternative, NCTA will coordinate with these groups to identify needed accommodations for any existing and funded greenways that cross the Preferred Alternative. This is included as a special project commitment in Chapter PC. 2.5.1.6 Community Safety Emergency Response. As stated in Section 3.2.6.2 of the Draft EIS, the Gaston East -West Connector would have a long -term positive impact on emergency response times within the Project Study Area. The project is likely to quicken some response times for services by decreasing travel times, and by providing improved east -west connectivity in southern Gaston County. Pedestrians and Bicycles. The proposed project does not include pedestrian and bicycle provisions since it is a controlled- access freeway. However, the bridge over the Catawba River will be designed so as not to preclude future accommodation of a pedestrian /bicycle facility funded by others, such as local jurisdictions. In , GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -28 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 0 ep. ". As noted in Section 3.2.2.3 of the Draft EIS, one of Gaston County's bicycle routes (Route 1: High Shoals — Crowders Mountain) runs east -west through the area along Linwood Road, and crosses Corridor Segments H1A, 112C and H3 (i.e., all of the DSAs). As such, the Preferred Alternative may impede or block pedestrian and bicycle traffic desiring to travel from one side of the highway to the other, because travel over /under the roadway would only be possible at interchanges and grade- separated crossings. For established and planned bicycle routes, NCTA will coordinate with MUMPO and GUAMPO to accommodate these facilities where appropriate. Maintenance of Traffic During Construction. Maintenance of traffic and sequencing of construction would be planned and scheduled in order to minimize traffic delays throughout the Project Study Area. Signs would be used (as appropriate) to provide notice of road closures and other pertinent information to the traveling public. The local news media would be notified in advance of road closings and other construction - related activities that could excessively inconvenience the public. Access to all businesses and residences would be maintained to the extent possible through controlled construction scheduling. Truck traffic in the Project Study Area would increase during construction. If access to construction staging areas and the construction site requires temporary access roadways, a traffic plan would be developed during the final engineering design phase to define designated truck routes and parking areas for construction vehicles. If there are places where pedestrian travel would be temporarily impeded by the work zone (e.g., in the case of an off -site traffic detour) consideration must be given to whether or not a work zone pedestrian detour is necessary. This would be included as part of the traffic control plan developed during final design of the Preferred Alternative. Fes. Dense fog may occur at certain times of the year along the major rivers in the Project Study Area, including the Catawba River and the South Fork Catawba River. NCTA and NCDOT do not have a written policy regarding procedures for designing projects in fog -prone areas. However, projects are studied on a case -by -case basis, typically after a project has been constructed. For example, NCDOT evaluated the conditions on the I -95 bridge over the Roanoke River near Roanoke Rapids. In this location, NCDOT installed a weather station to assess weather conditions, such as fog, and to prompt a variable message sign warning travelers of thick fog and limited visibility. Additional devices used to enhance safety in fog -prone areas can include reflective pavement markers and lighting. In accordance with NCDOT normal operating procedures, fog - related safety issues would be evaluated on a case -by -case basis after construction, and measures installed where warranted. 2.5.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 2.5.2.1 Noise As a result of the design changes described in Section 2.3 and the new forecast year of 2035, an updated noise analysis was prepared for the Preferred Alternative (Traffic Noise Technical Memorandum Addendum, PBS &J, April 2010), incorporated by reference. Analysis Methodology. The evaluation and modeling methodology used in the Traffic Noise Technical Memorandum Addendum (PBS &J, April 2010) is the same as that used in the Final Traffic Noise Technical Memorandum for the Gaston East -West Connector (PBS &J, July 2008), as summarized in Section 4.1 of the Draft EIS. The FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria and NCDOT policies described in Section 4.1.2 of the Draft EIS are the same. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -29 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• Year 2035 Noise Contours. The FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM), Version 2.5, was used to develop year 2035 noise contours along the mainline of the Preferred Alternative. Appendix J of this Final EIS includes the updated 2035 noise contour maps for the Preferred Alternative. Traffic volumes along the Gaston East -West Connector forecasted for 2035 are greater than the volumes forecasted for 2030 used to create the 2030 noise contours shown in Appendix G of the Draft EIS. However, the median width was reduced, as well as the pavement width, and both these factors act to reduce the noise contour distances. Therefore, changes in the noise contour distances were not as great as might be expected. Table 2 -7 lists the updated year 2035 traffic noise contours and the numbers of receptors predicted to be impacted by noise in each Activity Category (see table footnote for definitions). As listed in the table, there are 38 additional impacted receptors (for a total of 283 impacted receptors) based on the updated analysis compared to the 245 impacted receptors reported for DSA 9 in the Draft EIS (Table 4 -4). TABLE 2 -7: 2035 Noise Contours and Impact Summary — Preferred Alternative Mainline Segment Leq Noise Levels (dBA)1 Maximum Contour Distances (ft)2 Approximate Number of Impacted Receptors By Category Soft 100 ft 200 ft 72 dBA 67 dBA A B C D E 1 -85 to US 29 -74 75 72 67 130 245 0 46 1 0 0 US 29 -74 to Linwood Rd 76 73 69 150 270 0 11 0 0 0 Linwood Rd to US 321 75 72 68 140 260 0 52 0 0 0 US 321 to Robinson Rd 77 74 70 170 290 0 38 2 0 0 Robinson Rd to NC 274 78 75 71 190 305 0 30 0 0 0 NC 274 to NC 279 77 74 70 180 300 0 6 0 0 0 NC 279 to NC 273 78 76 71 215 330 0 52 0 0 0 NC 273 to Dixie River Rd 80 77 73 260 400 0 43 1 0 0 Dixie River Rd to 1 -485 80 77 73 260 390 0 1 0 0 0 East of 1 -485 76 1 73 1 68 1 145 1 260 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 279 4 0 0 1. Distance from center of nearest travel lanes. 2. Distances are from the roadway centerline. 3. Activity categories are defined in the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (23 CFR 772). Activity Category A - lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance. Activity Category B — Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, church, libraries, and hospitals. Activity Category C— Developed lands and properties not included in Categories A and B. Activity Category D— Undeveloped lands. Activity Category E — Interiors of residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals and auditoriums. Barrier Evaluation Areas. As described in Section 4.1.6 of the Draft EIS, the noise sensitive sites predicted to be impacted by traffic noise (i.e., experience noise levels that approach or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria or show a substantial increase over existing levels) that were not considered isolated sites were further reevaluated in terms of the feasibility and reasonableness of providing noise barriers. The Traffic Noise Technical Memorandum Addendum (PBS &J, April 20 10) focused on reevaluating areas where design changes occurred that could affect the noise analysis, and also where additional potentially impacted receptors were added as a result of the changes to the preliminary design or increase in noise contour distances. No areas were identified where increases in noise contours added enough sensitive receptors to warrant a new detailed barrier evaluation. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -30 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE MMMMM Noise barriers recommended in the Draft EIS were reviewed to identify preliminary noise barrier locations where the preliminary design was refined for the Preferred Alternative and the originally recommended noise barrier would no longer be applicable. Figure 1 -6a -b shows the preliminary noise barrier locations for the DSAs included in the Draft EIS. Two areas were identified for updated detailed barrier evaluations. These were the NC 273 (Southpoint Road) interchange area (Barriers 29 -1 and 29 -2) and the I -485 interchange area (Barrier 33 -1). As discussed in Sections 2.3.1.9 and 2.3.1.10, the Preferred Alternative preliminary design was refined in the area of the NC 273 (Southpoint Road) interchange. In the northwest quadrant of the interchange, the design changes results in eight existing residences on Tucker Road being added as sensitive receptors. The barrier proposed for this area, Barrier 29 -1, was updated and found to be preliminarily reasonable and feasible. In the northeast quadrant of the interchange, no additional noise sensitive receptors were identified. The updated preliminary Barrier 29 -2 is longer and would benefit more receptors (22 versus 9) than the preliminary Barrier 29 -2 recommended in the Draft EIS. As discussed in Section 2.3.1.11, the Preferred Alternative preliminary design at I -485 was substantially changed. The mainline was shifted northward and the interchange configuration was modified. Preliminary Barrier 33 -1 was recommended in this area based on the Draft EIS preliminary designs. Twenty -four residences were included in this barrier evaluation area. The refined preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative shifted the project farther away from these residences and only one receptor was identified as being potentially impacted by noise based on the updated evaluation. Because this is an isolated receptor, noise abatement does not need to be considered in this location. Table 2 -8 lists the updated preliminary feasible and reasonable noise barriers for the Preferred Alternative. These preliminary barriers are shown on Figure 2 -4a -b. Eleven barriers have been preliminarily recommended, at a total preliminary cost of $4,527,690. Approximately 175 receptors would be benefited. A Design Noise Study will be prepared for the Preferred Alternative during final design. The Design Noise Study will update the noise analysis and feasibility and reasonableness of noise barriers based on updated design and traffic forecast information and the latest noise abatement regulations and policies. Preliminary Noise Barriers Preliminary noise barriers are recommended at 11 locations along the Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design. These may be changed or eliminated in the Design Noise Study that will be prepared during final design. It should be noted that FHWA published a final rule updating their Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise (23 CFR Part 772) on July 13, 2010 (FHWA Web site: www.fhwa.dot.gov /environment/ noise /regulations_and_guidance). The final rule requires each State DOT to revise its noise policy to be in accordance with this final rule. States must submit their revised noise policy to FHWA for approval by January 13, 2011. The NCDOT is in the process of updating their Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, which may change the criteria by which noise barriers are determined feasible and reasonable. The Design Noise Study will be conducted in accordance with the new regulations and policies in effect at the time the study is conducted. As such, a result of the Design Noise Study could be that some preliminary noise barriers are changed or eliminated. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -31 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• TABLE 2 -8: Preliminary Feasible and Reasonable Noise Barriers for the Preferred Alternative Source: Final Traffic Noise Technical Memorandum for the Gaston East -West Connector (PBS &J, July 2008) and Traffic Noise Technical Memorandum Addendum (PBS &J, April 2010). Notes: 1. The determination of feasibility and reasonableness is preliminary and subject to change based on final design, building permits issued as of the Date of Public Knowledge, and the public involvement process. 2. Barrier height varies as indicated. For example, "18/16/14" means that barrier has an 18 -ft section, 16 -ft section, and 14 -ft section. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -32 Average Barrier Cost Per dBA Number Prelim. Segment Reduction of Receptor Barriers' Description for Benefited Length Height Cost Allowable Benefited Receptors (ft) (ft)2 Cost per Receptor Receptors North of US 29 -74, 1 -1 H2A westbound side of 9 34 2,640 12 $475,200 $13,976 alignment. Brookhaven and $40,824 Spring Valley subdivisions. East of Linwood Springs Golf Course, at Linwood Rd, on $30,094 4 -1 H3 westbound side of 9 16 1,605 20 $481,500 $41,188 alignment. Lakewood Forest subdivision. South of Linwood Rd on the 7 -1 H3 westbound side of 8 11 1,500 16 $360,000 $32,727 alignment. Stablegate Farms $41,909 subdivision. North of Crowders Creek Rd north of New Haven Dr, $22,500 12 -1 J4A westbound side of 5 4 600 10 $90,000 $40,000 alignment. Falls Estates subdivision. North of Crowders Creek Rd, south of New Haven Dr, $41,850 12 -2 J4A westbound side of 8 6 1,395 12 $251,100 $44,000 alignment. Falls Estates subdivision. East of US321, westbound / �088 17-1 J4A side of alignment. 7 8 1,092 14 $224,760 - $38 Charleston subdivision. 10/ East of US321, westbound 17 -2 J2C side of alignment. Forbes 8 11 1,558 16� $316,860 $38 8058 Cove subdivision. 14 12/ East of US321, westbound 17-3 J2C side of alignment. Wesley 7 16 2,306 12� $393,600 - $42 600 Acres subdivision. 10 10/ West of Robinson Rd, 17-4 J2C eastbound side of alignment. 7 16 1,949 14� � $368,280 - $42,969 Pam Dr subdivision. 12 Northwest of NC273 /Gaston 14/16/ 29 1 K3A interchange westbound side 6 31 3,760 18/20/ $893,010 $28,807 of alignment. Brook Forest 18/16/ $39,597 subdivision. 14 Northeast of NC273 /Gaston $30,608 29 -2 K3B interchange westbound side 7 22 2,460 20/18 $673,380 $43,636 of alignment. Source: Final Traffic Noise Technical Memorandum for the Gaston East -West Connector (PBS &J, July 2008) and Traffic Noise Technical Memorandum Addendum (PBS &J, April 2010). Notes: 1. The determination of feasibility and reasonableness is preliminary and subject to change based on final design, building permits issued as of the Date of Public Knowledge, and the public involvement process. 2. Barrier height varies as indicated. For example, "18/16/14" means that barrier has an 18 -ft section, 16 -ft section, and 14 -ft section. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -32 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE M, 2.5.2.2 Air Quality Air quality issues addressed in Section 4.2 of the Draft EIS and Section 1.3.2.2 include transportation conformity, mobile source air toxics (MSATs), potential air quality impacts from construction activities, and potential icing from Allen Steam Station air pollution control equipment. As noted in Section 1.3.2.2 and discussed below, there have been updates to transportation conformity and MSATs since the Draft EIS was published. A discussion of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change also has been added to this section and Section 3.3.2.4. Transportation Conformity Update. The Draft Conformity Analysis and Determination Report for the Cabarrus -Rowan MPO, Mecklenburg -Union MPO, and the Gaston Urban Area MPO 2035 Long Range Transportation Plans and the FY 2009 -2015 Transportation Improvement Programs and for Non -MPO Areas of Lincoln County, Iredell County, Gaston County, and Union County areas (8 -Hour Ozone, and CO (Mecklenburg County Only)) was made available for public review on February 5, 2010. Public meetings to solicit comments on these documents as well as the Draft 2035 LRTP and the 2009 -2015 STIP Amendment were held on February 24, 2010 in the Charlotte Mecklenburg Government Center, on February 17, 2010 in the Gaston County Main Library, and other locations in the region. All of the above referenced documents were made available for review until the close of the public review and comment period on March 8, 2010. As of that date, no substantive comments were received and all were endorsed by the MUMPO TCC on March 11, 2010, by MUMPO on March 24, 2010, by GUAMPO TCC on March 10, 2010, and by GUAMPO on March 23, 2010. USDOT made a conformity determination on the LRTP and TIP on May 3, 2010. A copy of this letter, along with USEPXs April 22, 2010 review, can be found in Appendix K of this Final EIS. However, there were still two inconsistencies between the Preferred Alternative and the project included in the GUAMPO 2035 LRTP. The GUAMPO 2035 LRTP included an interchange at Bud Wilson Road, and there were different assumptions for the year 2015 configuration (Section 2.5.2.2). The Bud Wilson Road interchange has been eliminated from the Preferred Alternative (Section 2.3.1.6). Current plans are for the Preferred Alternative in 2015 to be constructed as a four -lane facility from I -485 to US 321 and as an interim two -lane facility from US 321 to I -85. The remaining two lanes for the segment from US 321 to I -85 would be constructed by 2035. After the May 3, 2010 conformity determination made by the USDOT, the GUAMPO prepared an amendment to the 2035 LRTP and 2009 -2015 TIP so that the project design concept and scope included in the LRTP and TIP is consistent with the Preferred Alternative. GUAMPO made a conformity determination on the amended 2035 LRTP and 2009 -2015 TIP on August 24, 2010. USDOT issued a conformity determination on the amendments on October 5, 2010. Copies of the USDOT letter are included in Appendix K of this Final EIS. Mobile Source Air Toxics Impact Analysis Update. An updated MSAT guidance document was published by FHWA in September 2009, Interim Guidance Update on MSAT Analysis in NEPA Documents. This update does not change any project analysis thresholds, recommendations, or guidelines. Therefore, the qualitative impact evaluation conclusions described in Section 4.2.5.2 of the Draft EIS and Appendix H (Mobile Source Air Toxics — Discussion of Impacts) of the Draft EIS do not change. However, the interim guidance update did recommend updated language for incomplete and unavailable information and provided information on new research. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -33 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 0 ep. ". Air toxics analysis is a continuing area of research. While much work has been done to assess the overall health risk of air toxics, many questions remain unanswered. In particular, the tools and techniques for assessing project- specific health outcomes as a result of lifetime MSAT exposure remain limited. These limitations impede the ability to evaluate how the potential health risks posed by MSAT exposure should be factored into project -level decision - making within the context of NEPA. Nonetheless, air toxics concerns continue to be raised on highway projects during the NEPA process. Even as the science emerges, FHWA is duly expected by the public and other agencies to address MSAT impacts in environmental documents. The FHWA, USEPA, the Health Effects Institute, and others have funded and conducted research studies to try to more clearly define potential risks from MSAT emissions associated with highway projects. The FHWA will continue to monitor the developing research in this emerging field. While this research is ongoing, FHWA requires each NEPA document to address MSATs and their relationship to the specific highway project through a tiered approach (Interim Guidance Update on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents, September 30, 2009). An updated qualitative analysis of MSATs for this project, based on the updated MSAT Guidance from FHWA, appears in its entirety in Appendix D of this Final EIS. The findings of this analysis are summarized below. As discussed in Appendix D, there may be localized areas where VMT would increase, and other areas where VMT would decrease. Therefore, it is possible that localized increases and decreases in MSAT emissions may occur along the Preferred Alternative. The localized increases in MSAT emissions would likely be most pronounced along the new roadway sections that would be built where there are few major roadways and little industry, such as the area west of US 321 and south of Linwood Road, and the area west of Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden. However, even if these increases do occur, they will be substantially reduced in the future as the implementation of EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations improves the region's fleet of motor vehicles. As discussed in Section 2.3.1.4 of the Draft EIS, schools and hospitals were mapped and avoided where possible in the development of all the DSAs. The alignment of the Preferred Alternative is within two miles of Sadler Elementary, Forest Heights Elementary, and Forestview High School /WA Bess Elementary. There are no hospitals nearby. Sadler Elementary (1 mile from the alignment) and WA Bess Elementary (85 mile from the alignment) are the furthest from the Preferred Alternative, and therefore have the least potential to be affected by MSAT emissions. The nearest school to the Preferred Alternative is Forest Heights Elementary School (1,000 feet from roadway centerline). Forestview High School is located one half -mile from the Preferred Alignment centerline In summary, it is expected that there would be higher MSAT emissions in the immediate project area, relative to the No -Build Alternative, due to increased VMT. In comparing the DSAs, MSAT levels could be slightly higher in some locations than others, but current tools and science are not adequate to quantify them or the risks to human health. However, on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover, will over time cause substantial reductions that, in almost all cases, will cause region -wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today. Construction Air Quality. Provided that local ordinances for open burning and dust are followed, significant air quality impacts due to construction of the Preferred Alternative are not anticipated. The proposed project would be constructed in phases, limiting the overall construction activity occurring at any one location. There would also be emissions related to F7717171.777 N. M,- GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -34 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 0 ep. ". construction equipment and vehicles. However, impacts related to construction would be temporary. Road and Bridge Icing Potential from Allen Steam Station Air Pollution Control Equipment. Duke Energy Corporation's Allen Steam Station, a major coal -fired power plant, is located between NC 273 (Southpoint Road) and the Catawba River on the Belmont peninsula (Draft EIS Figure 2 -8a). The Allen Steam Station has installed air pollution control equipment to comply with the North Carolina Clean Smokestacks Act of 2002. The Allen Steam Station air pollution control equipment is located north of the main power plant, just south of Corridor Segments K3B /K3C. The air pollution control equipment includes scrubbers for sulfur dioxide control that will emit steam through a tall stack. In correspondence with NCTA, Duke Energy Corporation raised concerns that the steam emitted from the stack could result in icing on the nearby proposed roadway and the associated bridge crossing of the Catawba River (Telephone Interview, Duke Energy Regional Manager, September 14, 2005). In response to this concern, a study was conducted to evaluate the likelihood and extent of potential icing on the proposed roadways and bridge crossings of the Catawba River for Corridor Segments K3B /K3C (DSAs 4, 9, 22, 27, 58, 68, 76, and 81) and Corridor Segment K4A (DSAs 5, 23, 64, and 77) (Analysis of Potential Icing Impacts Due to Allen Steam Station S02 Scrubber — Gaston East -West Connector, MACTEC, September 2008, incorporated by reference). The model predicted there would be no potential for icing on the proposed Gaston East -West Connector due to exhaust gases released from the air pollution control scrubber stack. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change. The issue of greenhouse gas emissions and their effects on global climate is an important national and global issue, in which FHWA is actively engaged. FHWA has been working with other Federal agencies, including the USEPA and the Department of Energy, to evaluate effective approaches consistent with our national goals. However, no national approach has yet been set in law or regulations, nor has the USEPA established criteria or thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions. Because a national strategy to address greenhouse gas emissions from transportation — and all other sectors — is still being developed, FHWA believes that it is premature to implement policies that attempt to incorporate consideration of greenhouse gas emissions into transportation planning. From a NEPA perspective, it is analytically problematic to conduct a project -level cumulative effects analysis of greenhouse gas emissions on a problem that is global in nature. It is technically unfeasible to accurately model how negligible increases or decreases of CO2 emissions at a project scale would add or subtract to the carbon emissions from around the world. Given the level of uncertainty involved, the results of such an analysis would not be likely to inform decision - making at the project level, while adding considerable administrative burdens to the NEPA process. The scope of any such analysis, with any results being purely speculative, goes far beyond the disclosure of impacts needed to make sound transportation decisions. FHWA believes this approach meets the stated purpose of NEPA, in accord and with CEQ regulations, to concentrate on the analyses of issues that can be truly meaningful to the project decision, rather than simply amassing data. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -35 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• 2.5.2.3 Farmland Prime and Important Farmland Soils and the Farmland Protection Policy Act. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) has updated the lists of prime and other important farmland soils for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties since the Draft EIS was published, as described in Section 1.3.2.3. Soils within the right of way for the Preferred Alternative considered by the NRCS to be prime or of statewide importance are listed in Table 1 -3 and mapped in Appendix E. There are no farmland soils classified as unique or locally important within the right of way for the Preferred Alternative. Construction of the Preferred Alternative would involve the use of prime and statewide important farmland soils. Table 2 -9 presents the acreages of prime and statewide important farmland soils within the refined preliminary design right of way for the Preferred Alternative, including the proposed service roads. The acreages were calculated using GIS by overlaying the refined preliminary design right of way on the soils GIS layer and subtracting disturbed land (land already in urban development). TABLE 2 -9: Impacts to Prime and Important Farmland Soils *Acreages are calculated for the refined preliminary design right of way (January 2010). Areas of prime and statewide important soils already in urban development were not included in the totals. In accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) and FHWA's Guidelines for Implementing the Final Rule of the Farmland Protection Policy Act for Highway Projects, a "Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type Projects" form published by the NRCS was prepared for each DSA and included in Appendix I of the Draft EIS. The ratings on the NRCS forms are comprised of two parts. The Land Evaluation Criterion Value represents the relative value of the farmland to be converted on a scale from 0 to 100 points. The Corridor Assessment, which is rated on a scale of 0 to 150 points, evaluated farmland soils based upon its use in relation to the other land uses and resources in the immediate area. The two ratings are added together for a possible total rating of 260 points. Sites receiving a total score of 160 points or more are given increasingly higher levels of consideration for protection (7 CFR 658.4). The NRCS forms for DSA 9 included in Appendix I of the Draft EIS still apply to the Preferred Alternative. As listed in the forms, total acres of prime and unique farmland were assumed to be 793 acres and total acres of statewide and local important farmland were assumed to be 308 acres. These values are both greater than the values listed in Table 2 -7. Therefore, the Land Evaluation Criterion Value reported on the form for DSA 9 would be the same or higher than what the value would be if the updated acreages were used. The total points for DSA 9 are 124 points for the portion of the project in Gaston County and 122 points for the portion of the project in Mecklenburg County. Since the soils impacted by the Preferred Alternative do not meet the threshold of protection based on the evaluation under the FPPA, the impacts to prime and statewide important farmland are not considered under the FPPA. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -36 Statewide Prime Prime and Important Important Total Acreage in Farmland Soils Farmland Soils Farmland Soils Right of Way Total Acres Acres in Right of Way* y Right of Way Preferred 1,631 588 274 862 53 Alternative *Acreages are calculated for the refined preliminary design right of way (January 2010). Areas of prime and statewide important soils already in urban development were not included in the totals. In accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) and FHWA's Guidelines for Implementing the Final Rule of the Farmland Protection Policy Act for Highway Projects, a "Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type Projects" form published by the NRCS was prepared for each DSA and included in Appendix I of the Draft EIS. The ratings on the NRCS forms are comprised of two parts. The Land Evaluation Criterion Value represents the relative value of the farmland to be converted on a scale from 0 to 100 points. The Corridor Assessment, which is rated on a scale of 0 to 150 points, evaluated farmland soils based upon its use in relation to the other land uses and resources in the immediate area. The two ratings are added together for a possible total rating of 260 points. Sites receiving a total score of 160 points or more are given increasingly higher levels of consideration for protection (7 CFR 658.4). The NRCS forms for DSA 9 included in Appendix I of the Draft EIS still apply to the Preferred Alternative. As listed in the forms, total acres of prime and unique farmland were assumed to be 793 acres and total acres of statewide and local important farmland were assumed to be 308 acres. These values are both greater than the values listed in Table 2 -7. Therefore, the Land Evaluation Criterion Value reported on the form for DSA 9 would be the same or higher than what the value would be if the updated acreages were used. The total points for DSA 9 are 124 points for the portion of the project in Gaston County and 122 points for the portion of the project in Mecklenburg County. Since the soils impacted by the Preferred Alternative do not meet the threshold of protection based on the evaluation under the FPPA, the impacts to prime and statewide important farmland are not considered under the FPPA. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -36 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• Local Agricultural Programs. As discussion in Section 1.3.2.3 and in Section 4.3.3 of the Draft EIS, Gaston County adopted a Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) ordinance in July 2004 under the authority of the Agricultural Development and Farmland Preservation Enabling Act (NCGS Chapter 106 Sections 735 -743). Figure 4 -3 in the Draft EIS shows VAD properties in the Project Study Area. Mecklenburg County does not have a VAD ordinance. The Preferred Alternative would impact ten VAD properties. The VAD properties have a total acreage of approximately 449 acres. The acreage impacted would be approximately 49 acres. Although the Preferred Alternative would impact agricultural lands in Gaston County, the project is consistent with the County's land use plans, which designate southern Gaston County as an area targeted for more suburban development. Discussion with Gaston County staff and reviews of local planning documents indicate that the area surrounding the proposed project is slated for suburban development. Farmland The Preferred Alternative would require relocation of one farm and would impact land from 10 parcels participating in the Gaston County Voluntary Agricultural District program. The NCTA will comply with the VAD ordinance (Gaston County Voluntary Agricultural District Ordinance, Gaston County Web site: www.co.gaston.nc.us/ ordinances /VADordinance2004 -07- 22.pdf) and will work with Gaston County regarding public hearings related to land condemnation proceedings against the VAD parcels prior to right -of -way acquisition. Farm Relocations. Estimated farm relocations have not changed since the Draft EIS was prepared (Section 4.3.4.3). The Preferred Alternative would require relocation of one farm, located on Victory Trail east of Rufus Ratchford Road. Because much of southern Gaston County is still rural, it is anticipated that there would be suitable replacement property available for relocation of this farm. 2.5.2.4 Utilities and Infrastructure Impacts to utilities and infrastructure reported in Section 4.4 of the Draft EIS and Section 1.3.2.4 have not changed for the Preferred Alternative, except for the addition of a Norfolk Southern rail spur at the Charlotte - Douglas International Airport described below. Utility Service NCTA will coordinate with local utilities during final design and construction to avoid and minimize disruptions in service. Utilities addressed include electric power, water and sewer facilities, natural gas, telecommunications, and railroads. The Preferred Alternative has the potential to impact utilities, as summarized below. Electrical Power Generation and Transmission. The Preferred Alternative would not impact operations at the Duke Power Corporation's Allen Steam Station. The Preferred Alternative would cross 14 major electrical power transmission line easements. The preliminary design refinements made to the Preferred Alternative avoided two electric transmission towers (Section 2.3.1.9). However, other transmission towers may be affected. Additional opportunities to minimize conflicts with electric power facilities would be investigated during final design. Any modifications to the high - voltage electric power transmissions lines necessary to accommodate the proposed project are not expected to adversely impact the transmission lines or consumer electrical service in the area. Any impacts and relocations of power transmission lines or towers would be coordinated with Duke Energy Corporation and the Rutherford Electric ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -37 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• Membership Cooperative (EMC) during final design. Impacts to distribution lines would be coordinated with Duke Energy Corporation, Rutherford EMC, and the City of Gastonia prior to construction. Natural Gas. The Preferred Alternative crosses the natural gas transmission easements owned by Plantation Pipeline Company and Colonial Pipeline Company described in Draft EIS Section 4.4.1.2 and Section 1.3.2.4. Each easement contains two natural gas transmission pipelines. The refined preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative does not encroach on the easement owned by the Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corporation. The Preferred Alternative also crosses numerous natural gas distribution lines. Although both natural gas transmission and distribution lines would be crossed by the Preferred Alternative, the project is not expected to impact consumer gas service. To avoid disruptions in service and delivery, the NCTA would coordinate any required relocation or modification of transmission lines with Plantation Pipeline Company and Colonial Pipeline Company and any required relocation or modification of distribution lines with area providers, including PSNC Energy and Piedmont Natural Gas. Telecommunications. Neither the communication tower nor the cell tower described in Section 1.3.2.4 is anticipated to be impacted by the Preferred Alternative. During final design of the Preferred Alternative, all telecommunication utility providers would be consulted to ensure that the proposed design and construction of the project would not substantially disrupt service. Water Service. Most of the land in Gaston and Mecklenburg County crossed by the Preferred Alternative does not have public water service. Those areas that do have service are located between I -85 and Linwood Road and an area east of US 321. In addition, a small area in Belmont crossed by the Preferred Alternative is served by public water (Draft EIS Figure 4 -4), and the Preferred Alternative would cross a public water line along Southpoint Road that extends to the end of the peninsula. The remaining areas crossed by the Preferred Alternative are served by private or community wells. In the areas served by public water, the Preferred Alternative would cross water lines, but water service is not expected to be disrupted. Prior to project construction, the NCTA would coordinate any water line relocation or reconfiguration with the appropriate municipality or county. Wells within the Preferred Alternative right of way would be surveyed prior to project construction. NCTA would purchase these wells and cap and abandon them in accordance with State standards (15A NCAC 2C). Any subsurface contamination would be reported to the regional office of NCDENR. Sewer Service. Most of the areas crossed by the Preferred Alternative do not have public sewer service. Those areas that do are located in the western end of the project, around US 321, and in Mecklenburg County (Draft EIS Figure 4 -4). The remainder of the Preferred Alternative area is served by private septic tanks or community treatment systems. The Preferred Alternative would not impact sewage treatment facilities or public sewer service within the Project Study Area. Any sewer line relocation or reconfiguration required for construction of the Preferred Alternative would be coordinated with the affected municipalities or counties, and is not expected to disrupt service. Railroads. The Preferred Alternative would cross two Norfolk Southern rail lines and two spur lines. All crossings would be grade separated. P 717117.7 7. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -38 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• The Norfolk Southern mainline that runs east -west through Gaston County would be impacted by the Preferred Alternative. As shown in Figure 2 -3b, the track is close to, and parallels, the east side of NC 274 (Bessemer City Road). Because the proposed Gaston East -West Connector /I -85 interchange is close to the I -85 /NC 274 interchange, the I -85 /NC 274 interchange ramps and the mainline of I -85 need to be modified to accommodate the new interchange to the west. Modifications would require the replacement of the existing railroad bridge over I -85. It is expected that the replacement bridge could be built in the existing bridge location, with a temporary detour bridge constructed immediately to the east during the bridge construction. Substantial disruptions in rail service are not anticipated. Additional coordination would be conducted regarding the Norfolk Southern mainline near I -85. The Preferred Alternative would cross the Norfolk Southern branch line that runs north -south parallel to the east side of US 321. The interchange design at US 321 has the ramps located on the west side of US 321 to avoid the rail line. The Preferred Alternative would cross the rail spur that serves Duke Energy Corporation's Allen Steam Station. The Preferred Alternative also would cross the new Norfolk Southern rail spur located east of I -485 that will serve the intermodal facility at the Charlotte - Douglas International Airport. As discussed in Section 2.3.1.12, the refined preliminary design would utilize a planned bridge over the spur. Final design of the Preferred Alternative would be coordinated with the NCDOT Rail Division and the rail line owners to ensure that the grade- separated crossings of rail lines incorporate the appropriate horizontal and vertical clearances, in accordance with current standards. 2.5.2.5 Visual Resources Visual resources and existing overlay districts are described in Draft EIS Section 4.5, and have not changed since publication of the Draft EIS. Travelers Using the Gaston East -West Connector. The Preferred Alternative has the potential to offer users of the proposed project visually pleasing views of the project and its surroundings, such as valleys, hills, wooded areas, farmlands, streams, and cultural features. Gaston County has demonstrated its intention to maintain aesthetic and visually pleasing development immediately surrounding the proposed project through the establishment of the Garden Parkway Interchange (GPX) District and the Garden Parkway (GP) Overlay District in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Landscaping and Aesthetics The NCTA will develop a landscaping plan and aesthetic design plan as part of final design to enhance views of the project. During the final design of the Preferred Alternative, NCTA would incorporate a landscaping and aesthetic plan into the project that would enhance views within the right of way. Users of Surrounding Roadways and Residential Areas. For people in the residential areas and on roadways surrounding the Preferred Alternative, the project's fill slopes and structures have the potential to detract from existing views. However, due to natural changes in elevation, the project's cut slopes in areas outside of floodplains, and tall trees within the area, much of the roadway would not be visible from areas outside the project's immediate vicinity. Overall, visual changes would be intermittent, with some residents subjected to a view of the roadway, and other views shielded by the cut /fill areas, forested areas, and project landscaping. In ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -39 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• The project's landscaping plan and the zoning requirements of the GPX District and GP Overlay District also will enhance and maintain aesthetics for these viewer groups, as well as those using the Gaston East -West Connector. Boaters and Residents along the South Fork Catawba River and Catawba River. The Preferred Alternative would construct bridges over the South Fork Catawba River and Catawba River. Boaters on these rivers, as well as some riverfront and nearby residents, would experience a substantial change in those views found within the vicinity of the bridges. During final design for the Preferred Alternative, NCTA would investigate the feasibility and reasonableness of incorporating cost - effective treatments for the bridge sides, piers, and railings in order to enhance aesthetics as part of an aesthetic plan for the project. This is included as a special project commitment in Chapter PC. Visitors to the Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden. The Preferred Alternative is not anticipated to adversely impact the Botanical Garden, or be close enough to be visible from the areas of the DSBG open to the public. Visitors in Crowders Mountain State Park. The Preferred Alternative is one of the DSAs farthest from Crowders Mountain State Park. The park's appeal includes views of the surrounding region, and there are areas of the park that would experience a change in existing viewsheds. The northeast overlook, Summit Tower, Rock Top Trail, and Tower Trail each have the potential to offer full or limited views of the proposed project from locations along the trails and /or summit where views to the east are possible. Although viewers may notice an immediate change with construction of any of the DSAs, it is anticipated that over time, the proposed project would blend with the suburbanizing landscape that is expected to develop with the project or without (No -Build Alternative). 2.5.2.6 Hazardous Materials An updated hazardous materials evaluation was prepared by the NCDOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit to identify potentially contaminated sites within the project corridor for the Preferred Alternative. The results are presented in a Hazardous Materials Report (NCDOT, October 29, 2009, incorporated by reference). Hazardous Materials Sites Twenty -eight sites were identified within the Preferred Alternative corridor. Two sites received a moderate -high potential impact rating. Hazardous material impacts may include active and abandoned underground storage tank (UST) sites, hazardous waste sites, regulated landfills and unregulated dump sites. The State's GIS database was used to identify known sites of concern within the project corridor. Geotechnical Engineering Unit personnel conducted field investigations along the Preferred Alternative corridor between September 30 and October 1, 2009. A search of appropriate environmental agencies' databases was performed to assist in evaluating identified sites. Twenty -eight sites were identified within the Preferred Alternative corridor. The sites include six UST sites, three hazardous waste sites, seven manufacturing facilities, five junkyards, six automotive repair facilities, and one automobile race track (Carolina Speedway). Figure 2 -5 shows the approximate locations of the sites. Table 2 -10 summarizes the impacts of the potentially contaminated sites on the Preferred Alternative, including the anticipated level of potential impact and the type of contamination ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -40 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• expected to be encountered at each site. There were two sites within the corridor that received a "moderate to high" impact rating. Low, moderate, and high ratings are defined as follows: • Low – Little to no impacts to cost or schedule anticipated. Moderate – Additional costs and time may be incurred due to the handling of contaminated materials, and a need for special construction techniques or products. High - Costs and scheduling could overwhelm smaller projects and cause serious delays in larger projects. Liability may fall upon the NCTA to clean up contamination, which could require decades. These sites should be avoided to the extent possible. TABLE 2 -10: Hazardous Materials Sites in the Preferred Alternative Corridor ".7,77M.2— GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -41 Site Type and Anticipated Anticipated Site DEIS Site UST Facility ID Location Other InformationZ Type of Impact Number Number' Owner Number Impact Severity Acme Petroleum UST 1210 Edgewood Rd, Former Shell gas station 1 1 Petroleum contaminated Low 0- 016633 Bessemer City GWI 27458 and Fuel Co soils Edgewood Mini Mart— Petroleum UST 1205 Edgewood Rd, United Oil 2 2 current gas station contaminated Low 0- 016693 Bessemer City Co GW123944 soils Haz Waste 1260 Shannon Manuf facility — 3 16 Facility /Manuf Bradley Rd, N/A hazardous waste facility Chemicals Low to 000 - 615 -872 Gastonia Former AMP, Inc. Moderate 1520 Shannon Petroleum UST BellSouth 4 6 Bradley Rd, One UST in use contaminated Low 0- 015530 Gastonia Telecomm soils Grab -N -Go— Petroleum UST 1721 Bessemer 5 7 S &S USA, Inc current Citgo gas station contaminated Low 0- 016617 City Rd, Gastonia GWI 27159 soils UST United Oil Stuarts BP— Petroleum 1651 Bessemer 6 10 0- 016709 of the current gas station contaminated Low City Rd, Gastonia 0- 216709 Carolinas GWI 10328 soils Western Currently Advance Auto Petroleum UST 1900 Jenkins Dairy 7 9 Auto Supply Store contaminated Low 0- 016178 Rd, Gastonia Co GWI #16116/27615 soils UST Dana Wix Current filter manufac. Petroleum 8 14 0- 016839/ 2900 Northwest Corp Allen Facility; contaminated Low Blvd, Gastonia Manuf Plant Tank removed 1987 soils Haz Waste 3021 Northwest Chrome plating facility; 9 15 Facility /Manuf N/A Chemicals Low Blvd, Gastonia small - quantity generator 000 - 003 -194 Petroleum UST 3112 Northwest Sands and Currently Park Elevators 10 12 Blvd, Gastonia Co, Inc GWI #18990 contaminated Low soils Petroleum 3124 Northwest GWI #18990 from Site 10 11 12 N/A contaminated Low Blvd, Gastonia extends to this parcel soils 440 Shannon 12 Junkyard Bradley Rd, N/A Auto repair business None Low Gastonia 3301 W Franklin Petroleum 13 20 Junkyard Blvd N/A Patterson Auto Parts— contaminated Low to (US 29 -74), salvage yard Moderate Gastonia soils Mac's Auto Parts— Petroleum 3038 W. Franklin 14 19 Auto salvage N/A possible former gas contaminated Low Blvd, Gastonia station soils Muffler Brake Shop and Petroleum 15 19 Junkyard 3026 W. Franklin N/A junkyard managed by contaminated Low to Blvd, Gastonia Moderate Mac's Auto (site 14) soils ".7,77M.2— GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -41 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• TABLE 2 -10: Hazardous Materials Sites in the Preferred Alternative Corridor Source: Hazardous Materials Report, NCDOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit, October 2009. Notes: 'As presented in Draft EIS Table 4 -13 and Appendix J, Table J -1. 'GWI — groundwater incident. Eight of the sites in Table 2 -10 are additional sites discovered during field investigations for the updated Hazardous Materials Report that were not reported in the Draft EIS. Ten of the potentially contaminated sites shown in Table 4 -13 of the Draft EIS as impacting DSA 9 are not included in Table 2 -10. According to the NCDOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit (Email from Mr. Terry Fox, NCDOT Geotechnical Unit, February 2, 2010), these sites were not included in the 2009 Hazardous Materials Report for one of the following reasons: 1) field inspections revealed that the actual former UST location was well outside of the proposed corridor for the Preferred Alternative, 2) the site is included as part of another site, or 3) the site was remediated. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -42 Site Type and Anticipated Anticipated Site DEIS Site UST Facility ID Location Other InformationZ Type of Impact Number Number' Owner Number Impact Severity Petroleum 16 Equipment repair 3031 W. Franklin N/A Sparks Grading & contaminated Low Blvd, Gastonia Excavating soils Petroleum 3001 W Franklin 17 18 Junkyard Blvd (US 29 -74), N/A Putnam's Auto Parts contaminated Moderate soils; hazardous to High Gastonia waste 2920 W Franklin Petroleum 18 Junkyard Blvd (US 29 -74), N/A Junkyard contaminated Moderate Gastonia soils 2845 W Franklin Petroleum 19 Auto Repair Blvd (US 29 -74), N/A Russell's Paint &Body contaminated Low Shop Gastonia soils Lubrizol Corp. 20 28 UST 0- 003235/ 207 Telegraph Rd, BF Goodrich 12 USTs removed Petroleum contaminated Low Manuf Gastonia between 1991 -1999 soils & chemicals GWI #15733 Former metal foundry 21 32 Manuf 4604 York Hwy, N/A and casting shop; owned Metals Moderate Gastonia by Bruce's Iron & Metal to High 4550 York Hwy, Auto repair /used car Petroleum 22 Auto Repair N/A contaminated Low Gastonia sales soils 23 Manuf 4619 York Hwy, N/A Former metal fabrication None Low Gastonia facility Junkyard; Former auto Petroleum 24 Junkyard Davis Heights N/A repair (Johnny Parker's contaminated Low Dr, Gastonia Dr, Garage) soils Metal recycling /scrap UST 4604 S. York Hwy, Bruce's Iron yard; Petroleum 25 32 contaminated Moderate 0- 001629 Gastonia & Metal Inc 4 tanks removed GWI 16955/20049 soils AB Carter, Inc Soil and ground 26 34 Haz Waste Facility 4801 York Hwy, N/A Inactive hazardous waste water contamin- Low NCD 3154010 Gastonia site ation Petroleum 27 Other 6355 Union Rd, N/A Carolina Speedway - 0.4 contaminated Moderate Gastonia mile dirt track soils Jim's Grocery & South Petroleum 28 41 UST 1901 South Point Petroleum Point Grill contaminated Low 0- 015988 Rd, Belmont World, Inc GWI #05140/20049 soils Source: Hazardous Materials Report, NCDOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit, October 2009. Notes: 'As presented in Draft EIS Table 4 -13 and Appendix J, Table J -1. 'GWI — groundwater incident. Eight of the sites in Table 2 -10 are additional sites discovered during field investigations for the updated Hazardous Materials Report that were not reported in the Draft EIS. Ten of the potentially contaminated sites shown in Table 4 -13 of the Draft EIS as impacting DSA 9 are not included in Table 2 -10. According to the NCDOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit (Email from Mr. Terry Fox, NCDOT Geotechnical Unit, February 2, 2010), these sites were not included in the 2009 Hazardous Materials Report for one of the following reasons: 1) field inspections revealed that the actual former UST location was well outside of the proposed corridor for the Preferred Alternative, 2) the site is included as part of another site, or 3) the site was remediated. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -42 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• The Geotechnical Engineering Unit would provide soil and groundwater assessments on each of the properties listed in Table 2 -10 before right -of -way acquisition. The discovery of additional sites not recorded by regulatory agencies and not reasonably discernable during the field investigations may occur. 2.5.2.7 Floodplains and Floodways Floodplains and floodways in the Project Study Area are described in Section 1.3.2.7. Impacts to Floodplains and Floodways. As discussed in Section 4.7.3 of the Draft EIS, a preliminary hydraulics analysis (Final Preliminary Hydraulic Technical Memorandum for the Gaston County East -West Connector, PBS &J, December 2007) was performed to identify the preliminary sizes and locations of major drainage structures along the DSAs that would be needed to adequately carry floodwaters. Major drainage structures are bridges, box culverts, or pipe culverts greater than 72 inches in diameter. The locations of major drainage structures for the Preferred Alternative are shown on Figure 44 of the Draft EIS. Appendix H of the Draft EIS includes details about the crossing locations such as preliminary drainage structure size and length, floodplain width, and floodway width. The major drainage structures and crossings were reviewed by the environmental regulatory and resource agencies at TEAL Meetings on February 5, March 4, and April 8, 2008. As a result of these meetings, the NCTA agreed to include several bridges in the preliminary design beyond those required to convey floodwaters. For the Preferred Alternative, these included bridging Blackwood Creek (Stream S135) and lengthening the mainline bridge over Catawba Creek (Stream 5259) to span the main body of Wetland W248. This extension would also avoid impacting the Catawba River buffer areas on the east side of the creek. Floodplains and Floodways The Preferred Alternative crosses 10 flood ways and 13 floodplains. There also would be an unavoidable longitudinal encroachment along the Crowders Creek floodplain. The Preferred Alternative will be designed to comply with all applicable State and local floodplain protection standards. The Preferred Alternative includes six bridge crossings over water and 45 major culverts or pipes. There would be ten crossings of floodways and thirteen crossings of floodplains. The preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative in Corridor Segment J4a would involve a longitudinal encroachment on the edge of the Crowders Creek floodplain just north of New Haven Drive. This longitudinal encroachment would be approximately 1,400 feet in length and include an area of approximately five acres. During final design of the Preferred Alternative, a detailed hydrologic and hydraulic analysis would be performed for each crossing location to determine the actual size and configuration of each structure. Also, for all new location crossings on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) - regulated streams (streams where a floodway and/or floodplain has been identified), a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) would be prepared and submitted to the NC Floodplain Mapping Program or Mecklenburg County, as applicable, for approval. In National Flood Insurance Program flood hazard areas, the final hydraulic designs for the Preferred Alternative would be such that the floodway would carry the 100 -year flood without a substantial increase in flood elevation. The effect of the project on floodwaters could be mitigated effectively through proper sizing and design of hydraulic structures. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -43 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE •►►r.►• A LOMR is FEMA's modification to an effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), or Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM), or both. LOMRs generally are based upon the implementation of physical measures affecting the hydrologic or hydraulic characteristics of a flooding source, and thus result in the modification of the existing regulatory floodway, the effective Base Flood Elevations, or the Special Flood Hazard Area. The LOMR officially revises the FIRM or Flood Boundary and FBFM, and sometimes the Flood Insurance Study report, and when appropriate, includes a description of the modifications (FEMA Web site: www.fe m a.gov /plan/ prevent /fIoodpia in /nfipkeywords /lo m r.sht ). FIOOdplain Finding. Executive Order 11988 directs federal agencies to refrain from conducting, supporting, or allowing actions in floodplains unless it is the only practicable alternative. The FHWA requirements for compliance with this Executive Order are included in 23 CFR 650 Subpart A. In accordance with 23 CFR 650.113, "A proposed action which includes a significant encroachment shall not be approved unless the FHWA finds that the proposed significant encroachment is the only practicable alternative. This finding shall be included in the final environmental document (final environmental impact statement or finding of no significant impact) and shall be supported by the following information: (1) The reasons why the proposed action must be located in the flood plain, (2) The alternatives considered and why they were not practicable, and (3) A statement indicating whether the action conforms to applicable State or local flood -plain protection standards. A "Significant encroachment" shall mean a highway encroachment and any direct support of likely base flood -plain development that would involve one or more of the following construction - or flood - related impacts (23 CFR 650.105): • A significant potential for interruption or termination of a transportation facility which is needed for emergency vehicles or provides a community's only evacuation route. • A significant risk, or • A significant adverse impact on natural and beneficial flood -plain values. The Preferred Alternative would cross floodplains associated with Oates Branch, Bessemer Branch, Crowders Creek, Blackwood Creek, Stream 5146 (unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek), Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, Catawba River, Beaverdam Creek, and Legion Lake Stream. With the exception of the longitudinal floodplain encroachment of Crowders Creek, the proposed crossings are as perpendicular as possible, considering other surrounding constraints such as neighborhood, community resources, natural resources, etc. Crossings of Oates Branch and Bessemer Branch would occur at I -85 and would involve extensions of existing culverts under I -85. Blackwood Creek, Stream 5146, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba River would be bridged. Beaverdam Creek would be crossed by the mainline with a double eight - foot by eight -foot reinforced concrete box culvert, and by an access road with a double nine -foot by eight -foot reinforced box culvert. Legion Lake Stream would be crossed via extensions of existing culverts under I -485. The Preferred Alternative would involve a longitudinal encroachment on the fringe of the Crowders Creek floodplain just north of New Haven Drive, as shown in Figure 2 -3f. This ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -44 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• longitudinal encroachment would be approximately 1,400 feet in length and include an area of approximately five acres within the right of way. This longitudinal encroachment is minimized to the extent practicable based on the refined preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative and information available to date. Just south of this encroachment, the Preferred Alternative turns eastward to an interchange with US 321. The curve of the mainline in this area is constrained by the interchange design. Also, moving the mainline eastward, out of the floodplain area, would encroach on a NC Natural Heritage Program Important Natural Area (Stagecoach Road Granitic Outcrop) and would result in a crossing of the Blackwood Creek floodplain in a wider area. In NFIP flood hazard areas, the final hydraulic designs for the Preferred Alternative will ensure that the floodway will carry the 100 -year flood without adversely affecting floodplain elevations. The effect of the Preferred Alternative can be mitigated effectively through proper sizing and design of hydraulic structures (culverts, bridges, and channel stabilization). All the alternatives considered for the project are described in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS and briefly in Section 1.2 of this Final EIS. The Preferred Alternative was selected based on a consideration of impacts to natural resources and the human and physical environments, and on the ability to minimize impacts (Section 2.2). As such, there is no other practicable alternative for the proposed project. The proposed action would comply with all applicable State and local floodplain protection standards. The NCTA would coordinate with the NC Flood Mapping Program for floodplains in Gaston County and with Charlotte - Mecklenburg Storm Water Services for floodplains in Mecklenburg County. 2.5.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES AND SECTION 4(F) AND SECTION G(F) RESOURCES 2.5.3.1 Historic Architectural Resources Section 5.2 of the Draft EIS includes descriptions of the historic architectural resources in the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE). There have been no updates to this information since the Draft EIS was published. As discussed in Section 5.2.1.1 and shown on Figure 5 -1 of the Draft EIS, the APE extends beyond the DSA corridor boundaries and is about 22 miles long and one to three miles wide, with an area of approximately 31,600 acres. It encompasses areas of both direct and indirect effects that may result from the proposed project, including possible takings, alterations to historic view sheds, and the introduction of noise elements. Historic Architectural Resources The Preferred Alternative would not have adverse effects on historic resources on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Meetings were held with the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) on April 21, 2008 and July 21, 2008 to reach concurrence on NRHP - eligible properties and to reach concurrence on the assessment of effects to listed and eligible properties from the DSAs. Concurrence forms are included in Appendix A -2 of the Draft EIS. Effects were determined based on the preliminary designs for each DSA. Table 2 -11, based on Draft EIS Table 5 -1, presents the effects determination for each listed and eligible property in P 717117.7 7. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -45 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• relation to the Preferred Alternative, as well as any conditions placed on the Preferred Alternative to achieve a No Adverse Effect determination. TABLE 2 -11: Effects to Historic Architectural Resources from Preferred Alternative Property Name Site No. Size (Acres) Effects Determination* Additional Notes Wolfe Family Dairy GS 1327 —257 No Effect Farm Pisgah ARP Church GS 00547 —2 No Effect Jake Long Dairy Barn GS 1320 < 1 No Effect William Wilson House GS 00198 — 1 No Effect William Alexander GS 00169 —6 No Effect Falls House Mendenhall- Grissom GS 00173 —13 No Effect House Stowe - Caldwell- GS 00179 —2 No Effect Lowery House William Clarence GS 00341 —1 No Effect Wilson House No Adverse Effect provided the shoulder width and ditch slope do not result in JBF Riddle House GS 00337 —2 No Adverse Effect taking of property either by fee simple or permanent easement. Harrison Family Dairy No Adverse Effect if full access to the GS 1322 —80 No Adverse Effect Farm property is maintained. William N. Craig GS 00320 —19 No Effect Farmstead Thomas Allison House GS 00316 —4 No Effect Dillard -Falls House GS 1323 —3 No Effect Bridge Bridge No. 350022 Pending No Effect footprint Byrum -Croft House MK 2841 —5 No Effect Steele Creek Presbyterian Church MK 01377 —20 No Effect and Cemetery Steele Creek Presbyterian Church MK 1378 —7 No Effect Manse Shopton Rural �16 No Effect Historic District Source: April 21, 2008 Effects Meeting — HPO, FHWA, NCTA, and NCDOT. * Effects determination based upon refined preliminary design. As shown in Table 2 -11, the Preferred Alternative has a No Adverse Effect determination to JBF Riddle House and Harrison Family Dairy Farm. The No Adverse Effect determination is based on the preliminary design shown in the Draft EIS. In the area near JBF Riddle House (Figure 2 -3i), the refined preliminary design is the same as the preliminary design shown in the Draft EIS and the conditions are maintained for the No Adverse Effect determination. The shoulder width and ditch slope would not result in taking of property from the JBD Riddle House. In the area near the Harrison Family Dairy Farm (Figure 2 -3k), the refined preliminary design of the NC 274 (Union Road) interchange changed compared to the Draft EIS preliminary design. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -46 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• However, near the Harrison Family Dairy Farm, the proposed improvements to NC 274 (Union Road) are the same and full access to the property is maintained, which means the conditions are met to maintain the No Adverse Effect determination. As with the Draft EIS preliminary design, the refined preliminary design of the Preferred Alternative would not require land from the Harrison Family Dairy Farm. 2.5.3.2 Archaeological Resources An intensive archaeological survey was conducted for the Preferred Alternative. The survey is documented in the Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of Detailed Study Alternative 9 (Recommended Route) for the Proposed Gaston East -West Connector (Coastal Carolina Research, February 2010), incorporated by reference into this Final EIS. This study is referred to in this section as the Intensive Archaeological Survey. Area Of Potential Effects. The APE for the Intensive Archaeological Survey included the DSA 9 preliminary design right of way, ranging in width from 300 feet on the mainline corridor to more than 1,400 feet in some of the proposed interchange areas. The corridor right of way encompassed approximately 1,865 acres. Three non - contiguous areas of right of way for access roads also were included in the survey. These areas encompassed slightly less than 20 acres. Previously surveyed areas that required no further archaeological survey comprised approximately 164 acres. Survey Methods. The North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) was consulted at a meeting on July 30, 2009, prior to commencement of the surveys, to review the approach and scope of the study. A letter from OSA summarizing the meeting is included in Appendix K. The Intensive Archaeological Survey covered all previously unsurveyed portions of the APE. Areas that were disturbed, extremely sloped, or low and wet were examined on foot but not intensely surveyed. In remaining areas, shovel tests were conducted at appropriate intervals. Recovered artifacts were processed and analyzed, as described in the Intensive Archaeological Survey. Archaeological sites within the APE that appeared to retain significant deposits were investigated to gather data on the sites' dimension and artifact distribution, presence or absence of subsurface features, site integrity, and composition. The testing was limited to the amount necessary to determine a site's significance in terms of NRHP criteria Previously Identified Sites. Background research was conducted as part of the Archaeological Assessment of Detailed Study Alternatives for the Proposed Gaston East -West Connector (Coastal Carolina Research, Inc., April 2007), as reported in the Draft EIS. There were 33 previously recorded sites within or immediately adjacent to the DSAs (Section 5.3.1.1 of the Draft EIS). Of these 33 sites, ten previously recorded sites were identified as lying within or adjacent to the intensive survey APE. Of these ten, one site, 31GS0337 ** - Stowesville Cotton Mill, was recommended for additional evaluation to determine whether the site is eligible for listing on the NRHP. The other nine sites were recommended as not eligible for listing on the NRHP or not requiring further work. These sites are listed in Table K -1 in Appendix K. In addition, two cemeteries (Fall Farm and Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church) and two possible gold mine locations within or near the intensive survey APE were presented in the previous archaeological assessment summarized in the Draft EIS. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -47 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• The Fall Farm Cemetery (Site 01 -06) is noted in local records (Gaston County Historical Society, 1998) as a small, unmarked cemetery. Its general vicinity was recorded as near the Intensive Archaeological Survey APE, but evidence of the cemetery was not encountered during the assessment's cemetery reconnaissance, despite surface inspection and inquiries with area residents. The Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church Cemetery (Site 03 -35) is a small cemetery recorded as an archaeological site during the Intensive Archaeological Survey. It is described below. The two possible gold mine locations were based on notations for mines or quarries in the Gaston County Soil Survey (Woody, 1989). These locations were investigated during the intensive survey, as described below. Intensive Archaeoloaical Survey Results. The Intensive Archaeology Survey identified 32 sites and eleven isolated finds newly recorded within the intensive survey APE. Four sites are potential gold mines. One of the newly recorded sites is the Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church Cemetery, previously identified in local records as Site 03 -35, and is now recorded as Site 31GS0368 * *. Archaeological Resources No archaeological resources identified in the Intensive Archaeological Survey for the Preferred Alternative were determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church cemetery is located near the intersection of Tucker Road and NC 273 (Southpoint Road). This cemetery, which is determined not eligible for the NRHP, consists of 93 marked graves in an unfenced but well- maintained plot of land, with additional depressions noted that could represent unmarked graves. The earliest marked grave is dated 1914, while the most recent burial occurred in 2008. As discussed in Sections 2.3.1.10 and 2.5.1.5, the cemetery's historic boundaries were larger than present -day property boundaries. The Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design avoids the areas of marked and potential unmarked gravesites in both the existing and historic boundaries of the cemetery. The survey also revisited one previously recorded site (31GS0337 * *- the Stowesville Cotton Mill). These sites and isolated finds are listed in Table K -2 of Appendix K. The Intensive Archaeology Survey involved detailed evaluation of four sites in order to determine their eligibility for listing on the NRHP: 31GS0355/355 * *, 31GS0358 * *, 31GS0337/337 * *, and 31GS0365/365 * *. These sites are described below. Site 31GS03551355 * *. This site is an approximately 2.4 -acre site located on a well- defined ridge landform between two unnamed drainages. It consists of brick /stone piles, the partial articulated remnants of a chimney, a depressed area, possible stone piers that may represent an original house location, surface and subsurface historic artifacts, modern debris, and low density Native American lithic scatter. Artifacts recovered during the survey for the April 2007 assessment are consistent with occupation beginning in the late nineteenth century or early twentieth century. Although no additional fieldwork was recommended by OSA as a result of the April 2007 assessment, additional archival research was conducted to provide information on the dating of the site. Results of the archival research are presented in the Intensive Archaeological Survey. Site 31GS0358 * *. This site is a historic domestic scatter site located just south of Craig McKee School Road. The site is located on a broad ridge landform above an unnamed tributary of Catawba Creek. The site includes a historic domestic component appearing to date to the late eighteenth century through the early to mid - nineteenth century. A lack of disturbance noted in the soil profiles during the initial assessment suggested that the site has the potential for intact P 717117.7 7. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -48 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• cultural deposits. However, intensive evaluation of this site did not reveal the potential for intact cultural deposits. Site 31 GS03371337 * *. This site is the location of the Stowe's Cotton Factory /Gaither's Mill complex, which dates to the mid - nineteenth century. The mill itself is under the water of Lake Wylie, but components associated with the mill complex are extant. Water - powered mills were an important part of the historic rise of industrialization. The development of the Piedmont of North Carolina as the industrial leader of the state was tied to the development of water - powered industries. Mills were frequently one of the first industries in an area, and the Stowe's Factory has been identified as the third mill in Gaston County. The only surviving element with intact remains is a stone foundation. Given its distance from the water, this foundation is likely not the foundation of the mill itself, but appears to be a domestic structure. Site 31 GS3651365* *. This site is a Native American and historic artifact scatter located off Gaither Road. This approximately 1.1 -acre site is on a ridge landform and is thought to be part of the Stowe's Factory complex. The artifacts recovered from the site are similar to and date from the same time period as those for the house site at 31GS0337/337 * *. It appears likely that this site is a village or settlement associated with the mill complex at 31GS0337/337 ** Based on intensive survey of site 31GS0365/365 * *, the Native American component of this site consists of an indeterminate lithic scatter intermixed with historic materials. The intermixing of the historic and Native American materials, as well as the lack of intact Native American features or temporally diagnostic artifacts, suggests this site lacks the potential to contain information concerning Native American occupations in the Piedmont of North Carolina. The historic component consists of a relatively high density of historic materials dating to the mid - nineteenth century and an articulated brick feature that appears to represent the remains of a brick road or drive. Section 106 Coordination. In a memorandum dated May 21, 2010 (included in Appendix K), the HPO concurred that no archaeological sites identified within the APE are eligible for the NRHP. The Intensive Archaeological Survey recommended that two sites (31GS337/337 ** and 31GS365/365 * *) were potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP. However, based on an evaluation of the survey results, HPO and FHWA concurred that these sites do not retain the level of integrity nor do they possess the potential to yield significant new information pertaining to the history of North Carolina. Therefore, these sites are not eligible for listing on the NRHP. 2.5.3.3 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources Section 4M Resources. There are three publicly -owned parks and eighteen significant historic sites located in or near the DSAs that are protected by Section 4(f) (49 USC Section 303 and 23 CFR Part 774). Parks. Publicly -owned parks include Crowders Mountain State Park, Gaston County's Park at Forestview High School, and Mecklenburg County's Berewick Regional Park. Section 4(f) Resources The Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design would not directly impact any Section 4(f) resources. As described in Section 5.4.3 of the Draft EIS, none of the DSAs (including the Preferred Alternative) would directly or indirectly impact Crowders Mountain State Park or Gaston ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -49 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• County's Park at Forestview High School. However, all of the DSAs' preliminary designs included in the Draft EIS would encroach upon Berewick Regional Park. Based upon the preliminary design in the Draft EIS, the Preferred Alternative would impact approximately 1.6 acres on the east end of the park, adjacent to I -485. This minor encroachment on the edge of the property owned by Mecklenburg County was not anticipated to impact access or any future planned uses. The Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department concurred that the estimated right of way needed under any of the DSAs would not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of Berewick Regional Park (Section 5.4.3.1 of the Draft EIS). The Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design avoids taking right of way from Berewick Regional Park (Section 2.3.1.12 and Figure 2 -3r), and no further action under Section 4(f) is required. Historic Architectural Sites. There are eighteen historic architectural resources listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP located in the APE (Section 5.2.1.2 and Figure 5 -1 of the Draft EIS). Because they are listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP, they are considered significant historic sites under Section 4(f). Of these eighteen historic architectural resources, there are two historic architectural resources receiving a determination of No Adverse Effect as noted in the Draft EIS: JBF Riddle House and Harrison Family Dairy Farm. There would be no land required from the JBF Riddle House or the Harrison Family Dairy Farm based on the refined preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative. As long as the conditions are met to maintain the No Adverse Effects determinations, there would be no use of these resources and no Section 4(f) evaluation is required. Section 6(f) Resources. There are no Section 6(f) resources in the project study area. 2.5.4 NATURAL RESOURCES 2.5.4.1 Soils and Mineral Resources Soils. As discussed in Section 1.3.4.1, soils surveys for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties were updated since the Draft EIS was published. A complete list of soils and soil properties can be found in Appendix E. The entire area underlain by the DSAs, including the Preferred Alternative, is rated "somewhat limited" or "very limited" for road construction. This means the soil properties indicate that special planning, design, or maintenance is needed to overcome soil limitations. The Soils The soils underlying the Preferred Alternative are rated by the US Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) as "somewhat limited" or "very limited" for road construction. The expected soil limitations can be overcome through proper engineering design. concern cited in the soil surveys is low strength (i.e., the soil is unable to support loads). Some soils also have shrink -swell potential, which is the potential for a soil volume to change with a loss or gain of moisture. Shrinking and swelling can cause damage to structures and roads, if either lack special design (USDA, January 1996). The expected soil limitations can be overcome through proper engineering design, including the incorporation of techniques such as soil modification, appropriate choice of fill material, use of non - corrosive subgrade materials, and design of drainage structures capable of conveying estimated peak flows. Decisions regarding soil limitations and methods to overcome them would be determined during the final design phase. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -50 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• Mineral Resources. None of the active or inactive mines permitted by the NCDENR Division of Land Resources described in Section 6.1.4 of the Draft EIS would be impacted by the DSAs, including the Preferred Alternative. Geotechnical surveys conducted during the final design phase would identify abandoned mine shafts in the area that could affect construction activities. It is expected that abandoned mine shafts can be accommodated in the final design and construction of the Preferred Alternative. 2.5.4.2 Water Resources Existing water resources and water quality are discussed in Section 1.3.4.2 and in Section 6.2.2 of the Draft EIS. The impacts discussion in Section 6.2.3 of the Draft EIS applies to the Preferred Alternative. Water Quality Impacts and Mitiaation. Short -term impacts on water quality within the project study area may result from soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction impacts to water quality may not be restricted to the communities in which the construction activity occurs, but may also affect downstream communities. Long -term impacts on water quality could be possible due to particulates, heavy metals, organic matter, pesticides, herbicides, nutrients, and bacteria often found in highway runoff. Water Quality Mitigation Impacts from erosion and sedimentation will be minimized by implementing control measures in accordance with NC DENR and NCDOT guidance and best management practices. Indirect impacts to water quality also were evaluated in the Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis (Louis Berger Group, Inc., August 2010) prepared for the Preferred Alternative. The results are summarized in Section 2.5.5. Prior to construction, an erosion and sedimentation plan would be developed for the Preferred Alternative in accordance with applicable rules, regulations and guidance, including the latest versions of the NCDENR publication Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual, the NCDWQ's Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual (July 2007), and NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters. Due to construction activities and the increase of impervious surface associated with the construction of a major highway, managing stormwater runoff is an important activity to reduce pollutant loads to adjacent streams. The NCTA would work with regulatory agencies to identify the best management practices (BMP) that would help ensure water quality is protected. The Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures requires proper handling and use of construction materials (NCDOT, January 2002) (NCDOT Web site: www.ncdot.org/ doh /preconstruct /ps /specifications /dual/). The contractor would be responsible for taking every reasonable precaution throughout the construction of the project to prevent the pollution of any body of water. The contractor would also be responsible for preventing soil erosion and stream siltation. Water -Based Recreational Activities. As discussed in Section 1.3.4.2, boating, fishing, and waterskiing occur on the Catawba River and South Fork Catawba River, particularly in the areas south of the Allen Steam Station on the Catawba River and south of the Allen Steam Station canal on the South Fork Catawba River. Boat traffic on the South Fork Catawba River is constrained by the existing NC 273 (Armstrong Road) bridge over the river. This bridge's vertical ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -51 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• clearance over the river allows passage of pontoon boats and ski boats, but no large houseboats or sailboats (Telephone interview, Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation, September 4, 2008). The Preferred Alternative would cross the rivers north of the Allen Steam Station, which are areas that are less navigable due to siltation. However, recreational activities likely would be temporarily affected during construction of the bridges. Based upon the refined preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative, the vertical clearances of the bridges over the South Fork Catawba River and Catawba River would exceed the 12 -foot minimum clearance above full pond elevation (569.4 MSL) required by Duke Energy Corporation in accordance with their Shoreline Management Guidelines (Duke Energy Corporation Web site: www.dul<e- energy.com/ pdfs /shoreline_mgt_guide.pdf). These clearances would allow passage of recreational boats. Catawba - Wateree Hydro Proiect. The NCTA would continue to coordinate with Duke Energy Corporation to obtain the necessary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) permit. The process is expected to result in a FERC license revision to allow the transfer of land within the FERC project boundary to NCTA to construct the Gaston East -West Connector Preferred Alternative's bridges over Lake Wylie. This process must be complete prior to construction within the Lake Wylie boundaries and is included as a special project commitment (Chapter PC). 2.5.4.3 Natural Communities and Wildlife Terrestrial Communities and Wildlife. Terrestrial communities would be impacted permanently by project construction from clearing and paving. Table 2 -12 provides the acreage of terrestrial communities by habitat type that would be impacted by the Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design, which includes proposed service roads. The acreages represent the area within the proposed right -of -way limits. TABLE 2 -12: Impacts to Terrestrial Communities Source: Natural Resources Technical Report for the Gaston East -West Connector (Earth Tech, Inc., February 2008) *Acreage is within the refined preliminary design right of way limits within the area surveyed for natural communities. This does not include some service roads or areas of the design that extend outside the original study corridor boundaries. The majority of these areas are along existing roads or other disturbed areas. As discussed in Section 1.3.4.3, direct impacts from the Preferred Alternative would occur to the terrestrial communities and to the animals that inhabit them. Destruction of natural communities along the Preferred Alternative right of way would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for the various animal species that utilize the area. Indirect impacts would occur from forest fragmentation. Indirect impacts to habitats also are discussed in Section 2.5.5. Forest fragmentation occurs when large, contiguous forests are divided into smaller patches by urbanization, roads, and agriculture. When habitat is fragmented, the amount of edge habitat increases at the expense of interior habitat. Under these circumstances, species dependent upon interior habitat suffer (such as ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -52 Pine Hardwood Pine Open Agricultural Clearcut Disturbed Hardwood Successional Total (acres *) (acres *) (acres *) Forest Forest Forest (acres *) Water (acres *) (acres *) (acres *) (acres *) (acres *) Preferred 152 20 537 195 445 152 111 19 1,631 Alternative Source: Natural Resources Technical Report for the Gaston East -West Connector (Earth Tech, Inc., February 2008) *Acreage is within the refined preliminary design right of way limits within the area surveyed for natural communities. This does not include some service roads or areas of the design that extend outside the original study corridor boundaries. The majority of these areas are along existing roads or other disturbed areas. As discussed in Section 1.3.4.3, direct impacts from the Preferred Alternative would occur to the terrestrial communities and to the animals that inhabit them. Destruction of natural communities along the Preferred Alternative right of way would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for the various animal species that utilize the area. Indirect impacts would occur from forest fragmentation. Indirect impacts to habitats also are discussed in Section 2.5.5. Forest fragmentation occurs when large, contiguous forests are divided into smaller patches by urbanization, roads, and agriculture. When habitat is fragmented, the amount of edge habitat increases at the expense of interior habitat. Under these circumstances, species dependent upon interior habitat suffer (such as ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -52 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• many migratory or neo- tropical birds), while edge dependant species, including invasive species and predators, thrive. Highly fragmented forests do not provide the food, cover, or reproduction needs of interior forest species. The road itself could provide a physical barrier to the movement of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians along wildlife corridors and from one forest patch to another. The impacts of habitat fragmentation could be reduced by providing connections between habitats on either side of the Gaston East -West Connector. In consultation with the NCWRC, USFWS, and USEPA, at a TEAL Meeting on April 8, 2008, the NCTA identified a location along all DSAs where wildlife passage structures could be provided to maintain habitat connectivity. A wildlife passage structure would be studied at the crossing of Stream S156 during final design of the Preferred Alternative. Stream S156 (Figure 2 -3h) is located between Forbes Road to the west and Robinson Road to the east. Wildlife passages often include additional culverts placed adjacent to the culverts needed for water passage. During final design, the NCTA would coordinate with the NCWRC, USFWS, and USEPA on the Wildlife Crossings During final design, the NCTA would coordinate with the NCWRC, USFWS, and USEPA on the feasibility and design of the wildlife passage at Stream S156, and on designing bridge crossings to be wildlife friendly where feasible. feasibility and design of the wildlife passage at Stream S156, and on designing bridge crossings to be wildlife friendly where feasible. This is included as a special project commitment in Chapter PC. Aauatic Communities and Wildlife. Impacts to aquatic communities include fluctuations in water temperature as a result of the loss of riparian (forest) vegetation. Impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly in locations having steep to moderate slopes, could result in the aquatic community receiving heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion. Construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which the construction activity occurs, but could affect downstream communities. The refined preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative reduced the number of streams crossed from 91 to 86, with six of these streams bridged (Crowders Creek, Blackwood Creek, Unnamed Stream 146, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba River). Temporary and permanent impacts to aquatic organisms could result from increased sedimentation. Sediments have the potential to affect fish and other aquatic life in several ways including the clogging and abrading of gills and other respiratory surfaces, affecting the habitat by scouring and filling of pools and riffles, altering water chemistry, and smothering different life stages. Indirect impacts to water bodies are also discussed in Section 2.6. As outlined in Section 6.2.3 (Mitigation of Impacts — Water Quality) of the Draft EIS, impacts to aquatic communities and wildlife from erosion and sedimentation would be minimized through implementation of a stringent erosion - control schedule and the use of BMPs. Important Natural Areas. As described in Section 6.3.4 of the Draft EIS, there are three important natural areas within or near the DSAs: NCNHP Crowders Mountain State Park and Vicinity (Figure 2 -3 Index), NCNHP Stagecoach Road Granitic Outcrop (Figure 2 -3f), and Catawba Lands Conservancy conservation easement (Figure 2 -31). The Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design would not encroach on any of these natural areas. Invasive Plant Species. Construction of the Preferred Alternative has the potential to provide opportunities for invasive plant species. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -53 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE MMMMM The NCTA would comply with Executive Order 13112. Known invasive plant species would not be used in construction, revegetation, or landscaping. During construction of the proposed project, BMPs would be implemented to reduce the potential for spreading invasive species. 2.5.4.4 Water Resources in Federal Jurisdiction Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources. Table 2 -13 presents the impacts to water resources for the Preferred Alternative. The impacts were calculated using the refined preliminary design estimated slope stake limits plus a 25 -foot buffer, in accordance with NCDOT procedures. The values below include the service roads described in Section 2.3.2. Streams and wetlands proposed to be bridged Reductions in Jurisdictional Resource Impacts The Preferred Alternative preliminary design refinements resulted in an approximately 25 percent reduction (2.36 miles) in stream impacts and a 6 percent reduction (0.4 acre) in wetland impacts compared to the DSA 9 preliminary design presented in the Draft EIS. are not counted as impacts. Impacts to streams and wetlands were reduced compared to the Draft EIS preliminary design for DSA 9, as described in Section 2.3.3. TABLE 2 -13: Impacts to Waters of the US Source: Data in table was calculated using the refined preliminary design (January 2010) and GIS data for jurisdictionaI resources from the Natural Resources Technical Report for the Gaston East -West Connector (Earth Tech, Inc., February 2008) and surveys conducted for service roads and y -lines in November 2009. ' Impacts were calculated using the refine preliminary design construction limits, with an additional 25 -foot buffer, in accordance with NCDOT procedures. Appendix I includes tables listing each pond, wetland, and stream within the Preferred Alternative study corridor and the impacts by individual resource. Written verification of jurisdictional determinations for wetlands and streams from the NCDWQ is included in Appendix K. The USAGE will provide written verification during the permitting process. Impacts to Catawba River Buffers. Lake Wylie spans the Project Study Area and could not be avoided for any of the DSAs (including the Preferred Alternative). The refined preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative would impact Catawba River buffers for the crossings of Lake Wylie (Lake Wylie includes segments of Catawba River, South Fork Catawba River and Catawba Creek). These crossings would be subject to the Catawba River Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 02B.0243). Road crossings that impact greater than 40 linear feet (It), but equal to or less than 150 if or one -third acre (14,505 square feet) of riparian buffer are allowable without mitigation. Road crossings that impact greater than 150 if or one -third acre of riparian buffer are allowable with mitigation. These uses require prior written authorization from the NCDWQ. Based on the refined preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative, the Preferred Alternative would impact 3,642 square feet of Zone 1 buffers and 8,859 square feet of Zone 2 buffers. The total impacts to buffers would be 12,501 square feet (0.28 acre). This is less than the threshold of one -third acre that requires mitigation. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -54 Intermittent Perennial Total Total Stream Stream Stream Total Number Wetland Number of Pond Impact Impacts Impacts Impacts of Stream Impact Area 1 Wetlands 1 Area (acres) (linear ft)l (linear ft)l (linear ft)l Crossings (acres) Impacted Preferred 87 Alternative 7 383 29,033 36,416 (6 are bridges) 7.0 48 4.5 Source: Data in table was calculated using the refined preliminary design (January 2010) and GIS data for jurisdictionaI resources from the Natural Resources Technical Report for the Gaston East -West Connector (Earth Tech, Inc., February 2008) and surveys conducted for service roads and y -lines in November 2009. ' Impacts were calculated using the refine preliminary design construction limits, with an additional 25 -foot buffer, in accordance with NCDOT procedures. Appendix I includes tables listing each pond, wetland, and stream within the Preferred Alternative study corridor and the impacts by individual resource. Written verification of jurisdictional determinations for wetlands and streams from the NCDWQ is included in Appendix K. The USAGE will provide written verification during the permitting process. Impacts to Catawba River Buffers. Lake Wylie spans the Project Study Area and could not be avoided for any of the DSAs (including the Preferred Alternative). The refined preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative would impact Catawba River buffers for the crossings of Lake Wylie (Lake Wylie includes segments of Catawba River, South Fork Catawba River and Catawba Creek). These crossings would be subject to the Catawba River Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 02B.0243). Road crossings that impact greater than 40 linear feet (It), but equal to or less than 150 if or one -third acre (14,505 square feet) of riparian buffer are allowable without mitigation. Road crossings that impact greater than 150 if or one -third acre of riparian buffer are allowable with mitigation. These uses require prior written authorization from the NCDWQ. Based on the refined preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative, the Preferred Alternative would impact 3,642 square feet of Zone 1 buffers and 8,859 square feet of Zone 2 buffers. The total impacts to buffers would be 12,501 square feet (0.28 acre). This is less than the threshold of one -third acre that requires mitigation. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -54 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• During final design, the amount of buffer area required would be recalculated. Impacts less than one -third acre would still require, prior to construction, written authorization from the NCDWQ for disturbances to the buffer (15A NCAC 02B.0244). Avoidance and Minimization. As discussed in Section 6.4.5.2 of the Draft EIS, the USEPA and USAGE regulations governing wetlands mitigation embrace a policy of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequential consideration of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation. For the preliminary designs shown in the Draft EIS, minimization efforts are discussed in Section 6.4.5.3 of the Draft EIS. The horizontal alignment of the preliminary designs was adjusted where possible to minimize or avoid impacts to streams, wetlands, and ponds. The presence of wetlands and streams, and the minimization or avoidance of impacts to these resources, were factors in considering interchange configurations Bridge lengths would be extended to maintain roadway and railway access adjacent to the Catawba River and South Fork Catawba River, which would avoid or minimize encroachment into Catawba River buffer areas. To further address avoidance and minimization documented in the Draft EIS, the NCTA met with the environmental resource and regulatory agencies (USAGE, NCDWQ, USFWS, USEPA, NCWRC) at TEAL Meetings on February 5, March 4, and April 8, 2008, to discuss bridging and alignment decisions for the DSAs' preliminary designs. In the NEPA /404 Merger Process (Draft EIS Section 9.2.3), this is Concurrence Point 2a — Bridging /Alignment Decisions. As a result of those meetings, there were no changes to the alignments of any of the DSAs. However, the NCTA agreed to include several bridges in the preliminary designs, beyond those required to convey floodwaters (Draft EIS Section 4.7.3), to avoid or minimize stream and wetland impacts. These bridge locations for the Preferred Alternative include a bridge over Blackwood Creek (Stream 5135) and the lengthening of the mainline bridge over Catawba Creek to span the main body of Wetland W248. Impacts to wetlands and streams were further reduced through the design refinements made to the Preferred Alternative, even with inclusion of service roads, as described in Section 2.3.3. Specifically, the refined preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative resulted in an approximate 25 percent reduction in stream impacts (2.36 miles), an approximate 6 percent reduction in wetland impacts (0.4 acre), a slight increase in impacts to ponds (0.4 acre), and a slight decrease in Catawba River buffer impacts compared to the preliminary design for DSA 9 documented in the Draft EIS. Compensatory Mitiaation. As discussed in Section 6.4.5.4 of the Draft EIS and Section 1.3.4.4, an Individual Permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act would be required from the USAGE for the Preferred Alternative's impacts to Waters of the US, along with an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification. As part of the mitigation strategy for the anticipated impacts to Waters of the US, a Conceptual Mitigation Plan (PBS &J, June 2010) has been prepared for the Preferred Alternative. This plan is incorporated by reference into this Final EIS and is available for review and download on the project Web site (www.ncturnpil<e.org /projects /gaston). The Conceptual Mitigation Plan provides a summary of mitigation requirements and several potential off -site and on -site mitigation components that may ultimately comprise the mitigation package for impacts to Waters of the US, including: ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -55 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE •►►r.►• • Off -Site Mitigation. Assets available in the 8 -digit hydrologic units (HUC) crossed by the Preferred Alternative for off -site mitigation credits to be provided by the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). • Off -Site Mitigation. Potential off -site mitigation sites closer to the Preferred Alternative in Gaston and Mecklenburg identified by EEP for potential future acquisition for mitigation credit. • On -Site Mitigation. Traditional on -site mitigation opportunities identified for the Preferred Alternative (3 potential sites). • On -Site Mitigation. Other on -site mitigation opportunities, including preservation and enhancement opportunities on the following types of parcels: 1) landlocked parcels that may be purchased by NCTA, 2) landlocked parcels that have a preliminary service road identified to provide access, 3) parcels with a portion of their area within the right -of -way but the remainder has existing access, and 4) nearby parcels that would need to be evaluated by EEP. In addition, non - traditional mitigation opportunities near the project were identified; including retrofitting storm water ponds for commercial /industrial areas and runoff collection ponds for residential curb - and - gutter communities that drain into streams without collection systems. With the exception of the EEP mitigation assets already in hand in the 8 -digit HUCs, the other potential mitigation resources listed in the Conceptual Mitigation Plan have not been acquired at this time. These other potential mitigation resources require additional evaluation, including an assessment of feasibility, more detailed determination of the amount of wetland or stream credits present on the potential site, and contact and buy -in with property owners. The total amounts of wetland and stream mitigation potentially available listed in this report should not be construed as the actual amounts that are feasible or that will be implemented for this project. This Conceptual Mitigation Plan serves to document that there are sufficient potential mitigation sites to cover the compensatory mitigation needs of the Gaston East -West Connector. The NCTA and FHWA will work with the environmental resource and regulatory agencies during the permitting phase to further refine the mitigation plan for the project. Wetland Finding. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, and DOT Order 5660.1A, Preservation of the Nation's Wetlands, emphasize the important functions and values inherent in the Nation's wetlands. Federal agencies are directed to avoid new construction in wetlands unless there is no practicable alternative to such construction, and the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may result from such use. As discussed in Section 2.2.2, DSA 9 was selected as the Preferred Alternative because it represented a balanced minimization of all impacts analyzed. From a natural environment standpoint, DSA 9 was in the lower range of impacts to ponds, wetlands, and perennial streams, and had the fewest number of stream crossings. Based on available data, the Preferred Alternative includes all practicable measures to minimized harm to wetlands. As discussed in Section 2.3.3, the refined preliminary design for the Preferred Alternative results in an approximately six percent reduction in wetland impacts (0.4 acre) compared to the preliminary design for DSA 9 documented in the Draft EIS. Similarly, the on Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230.10(a)), requires the evaluation of practicable alternatives to consider impact to Waters of the US that would result from an alternative before compensatory mitigation is considered, and requires the selection of an ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -56 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 0 ep. ". alternative that avoids and minimizes impacts to wetlands and other waters of the US. The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines require that the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) to aquatic resources be chosen for permitting purposes. Based on impact evaluations, DSA 9 has been identified as the LEDPA, as discussed in Section 3.2.3. It is one of the three DSAs with the fewest impacts to jurisdictional resources and the one which provides the best overall balance of impacts when considering both jurisdictional and non - jurisdictional resources. DSA 9 was in the lower range of impacts to ponds, wetlands, and perennial streams, and had the fewest number of stream crossings. 2.5.4.5 Protected Species The federally protected species listed for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties are presented in Table 1 -7 in Section 1.3.4.5. These six species are described below, along with the Biological Conclusions (No Effect) regarding the effects of the Preferred Alternative on these species. There has been an update since the publication of the Draft EIS. Additional surveys for Schweinitz's sunflower were conducted for the Preferred Alternative, and these also are described below. Based on their letter dated June 12, 2009, the USFWS concurs with the biological conclusions listed below. The letter is included in Appendix 131, letter a014. Bald Eaale (Ha/iaeetus /eucocepha/us) BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NONE REQUIRED. As discussed in Section 6.5.4.1 of the Draft EIS, three unoccupied large nests were observed outside of the DSAs during the bald eagle survey conducted December 19, 2006 (Section 6.5.3 of the Draft EIS). Two eagle nests have been documented on Lake Wylie by the NCWRC. There were no bald eagle nests within the DSAs. The closest known nest was approximately 1.6 miles north of the DSAs. Therefore, it is likely that eagles forage for fish within the Project Study Area. Because the bald eagle is no longer listed as a threatened or endangered species, it is no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act, and a Biological Conclusion is not required. However, the eagle is still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The NCTA would continue to coordinate with the USFWS to ensure that applicable provisions within these two Acts are met. Boa Turtle (C/emmvs muh/enburaii) BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NONE REQUIRED As discussed in Section 6.5.4.1 of the Draft EIS, potential habitat exists for this species in the Project Study Area. A search of the NCNHP database did not reveal any occurrences of the bog turtle within the Project Study Area. This species federal status is Threatened (Similarity of Appearance) and a Biological Conclusion is not required. Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasminona decorata) BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT The surveys performed for the Carolina heelsplitter (Section 6.5.3 of the Draft EIS) applied to all DSAs. Freshwater mussels were not found in any of the surveyed streams: tributary to Abernathy Creek, Oates Creek, Bessemer Branch, tributaries to Crowders Creek, Crowders Creek, McGill Branch, Mill Creek, tributaries to Catawba Creek, Catawba Creek, tributaries to South Fork Catawba River, tributaries to Catawba River, and Beaverdam Creek. The NCNHP does not list any known populations up or downstream in any of the surveyed streams. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -57 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE M►r.►• Michaux's Sumac (Rhus michauxii) BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT Potential habitat for Michaux's sumac occurs throughout the DSAs. However, no populations of Michaux's sumac were found during the directed surveys. The NCNHP record for Michaux's sumac is historic, and nearly all of the area has been developed, farmed, and otherwise negatively impacted for suitable habitat. NCNHP records did not document the location of any known populations of the sumac within one mile of the DSAs. Based on the results of the field survey, the project would not directly or indirectly impact any Michaux's sumac populations within the area surveyed. Smooth Coneflower (Echinacea laevinata) BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT Habitat for the smooth coneflower is present in the Project Study Area. Suitable habitat for smooth coneflower within the DSAs was surveyed, but no populations of smooth coneflower were found. NCNHP records did not document the location of any known populations of the smooth coneflower within one mile of the DSAs. Based on the results of the field survey described in Section 6.5.3 of the Draft EIS, the project would not directly or indirectly impact the smooth coneflower within the area surveyed. Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT Previous surveys for Schweinitz's sunflower in the DSA corridors are summarized in Sections 6.5.3 and 6.5.4.1 of the Draft EIS. One population of Schweinitz's sunflower was found within Corridor Segment K2A (DSAs 4, 22, 58, and 76) in Gaston County, and NCNHP documented a known population about 4,900 feet south of the DSAs in Gaston County. Some of the service roads proposed for the Preferred Alternative, and some of the cross streets shown in the Draft EIS, are located outside the original study corridor boundaries for the DSAs. These areas outside the original DSA study corridor boundaries had not been previously surveyed for jurisdictional resources or protected plant species. Surveys were conducted November 13, 17, and 18, 2009, for Schweinitz's sunflower in the portions of the Preferred Alternative preliminary design not previously surveyed (Memo to NCTA — Endangered Species Surveys for Gaston East West Connector, PBS &J, February 12, 2010, incorporated by reference). Prior to the November 2009 surveys, a known population of Schweinitz's sunflower was visited in order to determine if there were enough vegetative indicators available to perform surveys and to become familiar with the species' morphology, phenology, and habitat associations. Approximately five individuals were observed at the site, which was sufficient to continue with the survey. Field surveys were conducted in potential suitable habitat by an intensive plant -by- plant search using overlapping transects. 2009 Survey Results. Three potential populations of Schweinitz's sunflower were located within the newly surveyed areas. These sites were revisited on February 12, 2010, to inspect the plants' roots. Schweinitz's sunflower has distinctive root characteristics. Based on this inspection, these populations were determined to not be Schweinitz's sunflower. Planned Surveys. The Preferred Alternative study corridor is planned to be resurveyed for endangered plant species prior to the issuance of the Record of Decision (ROD) and the results ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -58 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE •►►r.►• will be summarized in the ROD. Potential suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower (Gaston County and Mecklenburg County), Michaux's sumac (Mecklenburg County), and smooth coneflower (Mecklenburg) will be surveyed. 2.5.5 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS The Draft EIS includes a qualitative assessment of potential indirect and cumulative effects for the Detailed Study Alternatives. The qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment for the Gaston East -West Connector (Louis Berger Group, Inc., March 2009) was summarized in Chapter 7 of the Draft EIS. A quantitative indirect and cumulative effects (ICE) study was prepared for the Preferred Alternative to expand on the previously prepared qualitative analysis. The Gaston East -West Connector Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis (Louis Berger Group, Inc., August 2010) examines potential indirect and cumulative effects in more detail for the Preferred Alternative. This study is incorporated by reference and is posted on the NCTA website (www.ncturnpike.org). The study is summarized in the following sections. 2.5.5.1 Introduction and Background Scenarios Evaluated. The No -Build Scenario and Build the Preferred Alternative Scenario (Build Scenario) were evaluated and compared to each other and to existing conditions. The Preferred Alternative used in the analysis is based on the refined preliminary design described in Section 2.1. Definitions. As a guide to the evaluation of indirect effects and cumulative impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations and other relevant sources provide definitions of direct, indirect and cumulative effects: Direct impacts are "caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. (40 CFR Part 1508.8) Indirect effects are those effects that "... are caused by the action and are later in time and farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable." Indirect effects "may include growth- inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems." (40 CFR Part 1508.8(b)). The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) /Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Guidance on Indirect and Cumulative Impact Assessment of Transportation Projects in North Carolina (2001) outlines three types of indirect effects: • Encroachment - Alteration Effects - alteration of the behavior and function of the affected environment caused by project encroachment (physical, chemical, or biological) on the environment. Induced Growth Effects - changes in the intensity of the use to which land is put that are caused by the action /project. These changes would not occur if the action /project does not occur. For transportation projects, induced growth is attributed to changes in accessibility caused by the project. • Induced Growth Related Effects - alteration of the behavior and function of the affected environment attributable to induced growth. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -59 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 0 ep. ". Cumulative effects are "the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non - Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time." (40 CFR Part 1508.7). According to the FHWA's Interim Guidance: Questions and Answers Regarding the Consideration of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts in the NEPA Process (2003), cumulative impacts include the total of all impacts to a particular resource that have occurred, are occurring, and will likely occur as a result of any action or influence, including the direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts of a proposed project. Study Process. The Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis closely follows the 2001 guidance developed by NCDOT and NCDENR entitled Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina, Volume II: Practitioner's Handbook (November 2001), hereinafter referred to as ICE Guidance. The ICE Guidance provides the following eight steps that should be taken to assess indirect and cumulative effects: Step 1: Definition of the Future Land Use Study Area (FLUSA) Step 2: Identification of the FLUSA's Direction and Goals Step 3: Inventory of Notable Features Step 4: Identification of Important Impact- Causing Activities Step 5: Identification and Analysis of Potential Indirect /Cumulative Effects Step 6: Analyze Indirect /Cumulative Effects Step 7: Evaluate Analysis Results Step 8: Assess the Consequences and Develop Appropriate Mitigation and Enhancement Strategies The eight step process is fully consistent with the CEQ's Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act (1997). The previous qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment for the Gaston East -West Connector prepared for the Draft EIS focused on steps one through five of the eight -step process, and noted that the decision of whether or not an additional quantitative study was warranted would be made following the public review of the Draft EIS. The analysis in the Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis builds on the data, research and findings of the qualitative analysis to complete Steps 6 through 8 focused on the Preferred Alternative. The purpose of the Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis is to: 1) provide a detailed analysis of the potential indirect land use, water resources, and wildlife habitat impacts of the Preferred Alternative; 2) provide a detailed analysis of the potential cumulative land use, water resources, and wildlife habitat impacts that could result from the combination of the direct and indirect impacts of the Preferred Alternative with the impacts of other reasonably foreseeable actions; and 3) to disclose mitigation measures that could be used to offset any adverse indirect and /or cumulative effects identified by the assessment. In addition, the land use information developed for this study will be used to provide input to the water quality modeling expected to be conducted during the permitting process. Scope Of Study. The scope of the study and the environmental resources identified for analysis in the Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis were selected based on consultation with and input from the environmental regulatory and resource agencies and review of comments In , GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -60 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE •►►r.►• received on the Draft EIS during the public review period (Appendix B). Based on the input described below, resources /notable features identified for analysis in the quantitative ICE study included land use change, farmland (as a subset of land use change), water resources /water quality (including change in impervious surfaces), and wildlife habitat fragmentation. Agency letters that mention the scope of the indirect and cumulative effects analysis are listed below, and the letters can be found in their entirety in Appendix 131. • US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (letter a014 in Appendix B1), dated June 12, 2009. USFWS requests that water quality, habitat fragmentation, and land use change be addressed in an ICE analysis. • US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (letter a015), dated July 17, 2009. USEPA requests that a quantitative ICE be prepared addressing water quality, habitat fragmentation, land use change, and changes in impervious surfaces. • NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) (letter a004), dated June 30, 2009. NCDWQ states they will require a quantitative ICE analysis. • NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) (letter a005), dated July 7, 2009. NCWRC requests that water quality, wildlife habitat fragmentation, and land use change be addressed in the ICE analysis. • NC Department of Agriculture (letter a013), dated June 8, 2009. The NC Department of Agriculture expresses concern regarding indirect and cumulative loss of farmland. Letters submitted by local governments (Appendix 132) and interest groups (Appendix 133) and comments received from the public (Appendices B4 through 137) also were reviewed for input relating to the scope of the ICE study. No additional topics beyond those cited by the environmental resource and regulatory agencies listed above were identified. Also, as listed in Table 3 -2 in Section 3.2.1, the scope of the quantitative study was discussed at Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAL) meetings held on August 12 and September 8, 2009. One or both of these meetings were attended by the USEPA, US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), USFWS, NCDWQ, and NCWRC. Issues identified at these meetings for analysis in the quantitative ICE assessment included land use change (including farmland as a subset of land use change), water resources /water quality, and habitat fragmentation. 2.5.5.2 Study Area and Analysis Year Study Area. The study area boundaries used in the qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment for the Gaston East -West Connector were refined to encompass the entirety of Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 12 -digit subwatersheds. The study areas used for the qualitative and quantitative studies are shown in Figure 2 -6. The quantitative study area, referred to in this Final EIS as the ICE Study Area, consists of the following HUC 12 -digit subwatersheds: • Upper Crowders Creek (HUC 030501011501) • Lower Crowders Creek (HUC 030501011504) • Catawba Creek (HUC 0305010111502) • Mill Creek — Lake Wylie (HUC 030501011505) • Duharts Creek — South Fork Catawba River (HUC 030501020605) • Lake Wylie — Catawba River (HUC 030501011406) ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -61 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE •►►r.►• • Paw Creek — Lake Wylie (HUC 030501011404) • Beaverdam Creek (HUC 030501011503) Using the Metrolina Travel Demand Model, projected changes in travel times as a result of the project also were considered in refining the ICE Study Area boundaries. Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) are the geographic units used in travel demand models to organize land use data, as measured by households and employment. In order to summarize potential indirect and cumulative effects by watershed, a relationship between TAZ boundaries and watershed boundaries was established. The ICE Study Area contains 124 TAZs in their entirety, plus portions of 138 additional TAZs around the fringes of the ICE Study Area. Most TAZs fell within one subwatershed, but some spanned multiple watersheds. For analysis purposes, the TAZs were split into new zones so that each zone corresponded to exactly one subwatershed and one Metrolina Model TAZ. Household and employment forecasts for the Metrolina Model TAZs were allocated proportionally to the new zones. For example, a new zone consisting of 25 percent of the land area of the original parent Metrolina Model TAZ was assigned 25 percent of the total households and employment of the parent TAZ. The assumption with this methodology is that future growth will be spread relatively evenly within each TAZ. This assumption is appropriate in the absence of information indicating the specific locations of new development and is unlikely to substantially affect the results for the study area as a whole. Analysis Year. The future analysis year for the quantitative study is 2035 to coincide with applicable 2035 LRTPs (MUMPO, GUAMPO, Rock Hill -Fort Mill Area Transportation Study [ RFATS]). The previous analysis year for the qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment for the Gaston East -West Connector was 2030, because the LRTPs current at the time of that study had a horizon year of 2030. 2.5.5.3 Future No -Build Scenario Projects As part of the cumulative impact analysis, impacts of other reasonably foreseeable transportation projects and land development attributable to population and employment growth were considered. For purposes of cumulative environmental impacts, fiscally constrained projects with the potential to have environmental impacts (e.g. new alignment and widening projects) were identified from the 2035 LRTPs for the three MPOs with jurisdiction in the ICE Study Area (GUAMPO, MUMPO and RFATS). In addition, the South Carolina Department of Transportation's 2010 -2015 STIP was reviewed to determine if additional project in York County outside the RFATS area needed to be considered in the assessment. Currently unfunded transportation projects included in the LRTPs were not considered reasonably foreseeable. Projects such as bridge replacement projects without widening, reconstruction of existing roadways without adding additional travel lanes, and the addition of turning lanes at intersections were not included because these types of projects would not affect the result of this study. The projects included in the No -Build Scenario are shown in Figure 2 -7 and listed in Table 2 -14. There were no projects outside the RFATs area in South Carolina listed in the 2010 -2015 STIP that are within the ICE Study Area. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -62 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• TABLE 2 -14: Transportation Projects Included in the No -Build Scenario Source: Gaston East -West Connector Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis, Louis Berger Group, Inc., August 2010. * Distance listed is the total distance cited in the LRTP project descriptions. The portions of these projects outside the ICE Study Area were not included in the cumulative effects assessment. 2.5.5.4 Land Use Forecasting Methodology This section explains the methodology used to analyze future land use change in the ICE Study Area. The assessment of the Build condition is based on the TAZ demographic projections prepared by the MPOs included in the Metrolina travel demand model area. The No -Build condition is estimated using a gravity model approach that reallocates household and employment growth based on relative accessibility changes. Household and employment projections at the TAZ level are converted into changes in land use based on the average density of proposed or existing development in the ICE Study Area. Household and Employment Forecasts. The Metrolina travel demand model includes all of Gaston County, Mecklenburg County, York County (SC), Union County, Cabarrus County, ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -63 Distance Project ID Project Name Description (Miles)* Year GUAM PO Projects Widen existing 2 -lane road to 3 lanes and construct new U -5103 Titman - Cramerton Rd 2.6 2015 3 -lane connector from NC 279 to US 29 -74 Widen existing 2 -lane road to 3 lanes from US 29 -74 to U -3425 Myrtle School Rd 1.8 2015 Hudson Blvd Widen existing 2 -lane road to 3 lanes with some U -2713 Linwood Rd 2.2 2025 relocation from Crowders Creek Rd to US 29 -74. NC 279 (South New Widen existing 2 -lane road to 4 -lane divided facility from 7 Hope Rd) titman Rd to Union New Hope Rd 3.8 2025 Widen existing 2 -lane road to 5 lanes and construct new 8 NC 274 (Union Rd) 2.5 2025 4 -lane divided facility from Robinson Rd to Beaty Rd. US 29 -74 South Fork Widen existing 4 -lane bridge to 6 lanes and widen 14 Catawba River Bridge existing 4 -lane facility to 6 lanes from Market St to 1.2 2025 No. 82 Alberta St. Construct new 4 -lane divided facility from US 29 -74 to Belmont -Mt Holly the Gastonia -Mt Holly Connector, or to the Belmont -Mt 11b 4.3 2035 Central Loop Holly Loop Link if the Gastonia -Mt Holly Connector not built. MUM PO Projects 3311/ West Blvd Ext Construct new 2 -lane road from Steele Creek Rd to 1 -485 0.66 2015 U -3411 3312 West Blvd Ext Widen to 4 lanes from Steele Creek Rd to 1 -485 0.66 2025 3157/ Relocate 4 -lane facility from Flintrock Rd to NC 27 Little Rock Rd 0.55 2015 U -5116 (Freedom Dr) Construct new 4 -lane road from NC 27 (Freedom Dr) to 22 Fred D Alexander Blvd 1.88 2015 NC 16 (Brookshire Blvd) Widen existing 2 -lane road to 4 lanes from Edgewood Rd 3003 NC 27 (Freedom Dr) 1.5 2015 to Toddville Rd Dixie River Rd / 502 Construct new 2 -lane road from NC 160 to Dixie River Rd 1.3 2015 NC 160 Connector RFATS Projects Widen existing 2 -lane road to 3 lanes from SC 274 to the Pole Branch Rd NC /SC Stateline 2.4 2035 Source: Gaston East -West Connector Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis, Louis Berger Group, Inc., August 2010. * Distance listed is the total distance cited in the LRTP project descriptions. The portions of these projects outside the ICE Study Area were not included in the cumulative effects assessment. 2.5.5.4 Land Use Forecasting Methodology This section explains the methodology used to analyze future land use change in the ICE Study Area. The assessment of the Build condition is based on the TAZ demographic projections prepared by the MPOs included in the Metrolina travel demand model area. The No -Build condition is estimated using a gravity model approach that reallocates household and employment growth based on relative accessibility changes. Household and employment projections at the TAZ level are converted into changes in land use based on the average density of proposed or existing development in the ICE Study Area. Household and Employment Forecasts. The Metrolina travel demand model includes all of Gaston County, Mecklenburg County, York County (SC), Union County, Cabarrus County, ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -63 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 0 ep. ". Rowan County, Lincoln County, and Stanly County. It also includes portions of Iredell County, Cleveland County, and Lancaster County (SC). TAZ -level demographic projections in the Metrolina travel demand model for the ICE Study Area were developed by GUAMPO, MUMPO and York County /RFATS. As explained in GUAMPO's 2035 LRTP, a regional socioeconomic development committee was formed to develop the previous 2030 forecasts. This committee, along with the assistance of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte's Urban Land Institute, developed a methodology utilizing economic forecasts, local building permit trends, census data, and local land development knowledge such as current and future land use, utility improvements, economic development potential, and land availability. The 2030 socioeconomic forecasts were compiled through the use of an expert panel; comprised of local planners, real estate representatives, economic developers, and utility providers. For the 2035 LRTPs covering the ICE Study Area, updated forecasts were prepared by GUAMPO, MUMPO, and the York County Department of Planning and Development. A series of interviews was conducted with the MPOs and county planning departments in the ICE Study Area to determine whether the updated 2035 forecasts should serve as the No -Build Scenario or the Build Scenario for this study. Interviews were held with planners from GUAMPO, MUMPO, RFATS, Gaston County, Mecklenburg County, and York County. All three of the MPOs with responsibility for developing the demographic forecasts for the ICE Study Area confirmed that the Gaston East -West Connector was assumed to be completed in the allocation of future growth to specific zones. During the demographic forecasting efforts for the Metrolina travel demand model, additional growth was added in areas that were expected to become more attractive to development with the project, including southern Gaston County and northern York County. This means that the indirect land use effect of the project is already reflected in the demographic forecasts. Therefore, the Metrolina travel demand household and employment forecasts should be used to represent the Build Scenario. All the interviewees concurred that the household and employment forecasts represent the Build Scenario and it was reasonable to use a gravity model approach to redistribute households and employment for the No -Build Scenario. An interchange at Bud Wilson Road was originally proposed, and would have been considered as part of the project when the demographic forecasting was being conducted for the 2035 LRTPs. The Preferred Alternative does not include this interchange. However, this change does not have the potential to substantially alter the results of the quantitative indirect and cumulative effects assessment. The removal of the Bud Wilson Road interchange would not change the estimated basic pattern of the growth forecasts because numerous other interchange remain part of the design of the Preferred Alternative. The land around Bud Wilson Road has the potential to become more attractive to development even without an interchange because Bud Wilson Road can be accessed from other roads that do connect to the Gaston East -West Connector. Gravity Model Methodoloay. The version of the gravity model used for this study was presented by Hirschman and Henderson in the 1990 Transportation Research Record article, Methodology for Assessing Local Land Use Impacts of Highways. One important limitation on the gravity model used is that there is no constraint on the growth a zone can experience. To address this limitation, a separate analysis of developable land was performed for the TAZs comprising the ICE Study Area, and the household and employment allocations for certain TAZs were reduced based on the expectation that build -out conditions would occur. F7717171.777 N. M,- GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -64 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 0 ep. ". Gravity models are often used in transportation and travel modeling. They are based on the observation that the overall attractiveness of an area to potential residents is a function of the capacity of an area for development (i.e., vacant developable land in valued and affordable locations) and accessibility to employment and activity centers, among other things. The model produces quantified results that can serve as a basis for assessing land use change. Accessibility of places can have an impact on land value, and hence the use to which land is put. Holding all other factors constant, the gravity model formulation assumes that areas where accessibility increases as a result of a transportation project will be relatively more attractive for development than if the project had not been built. However, it should be noted that studies have found that the effect of highways on land prices has been diminishing over time since early studies of the first segments of the interstate system in the 1950s. Incremental improvements in areas that already possess highway access have reduced the magnitude of the influence of highway on land development activity and the land use effects of modern highway projects likely operate over a fine geographic scale, close to the project (Do Highways Matter? Evidence and Policy Implications of Highways Influence on Metropolitan Development. Marlon Bournet and Andrew Haughwout of The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, 2000). While accessibility changes are a necessary condition for transportation improvement to influence land development, they are not sufficient to stimulate land use change in the absence of other conditions supportive of such development. Other factors influencing the likelihood of regional development shifts include: land availability and price, state of the regional economy, infrastructure, location attractiveness and amenities, local political /regulatory conditions, and land use controls. Method for Estimating Existing Land Use. Mapping of existing land use in the ICE Study Area was developed based on GIS parcel data for Gaston, Mecklenburg, and York Counties, combined with spot checking against 2009 orthophotography. Three basic categories of land use were delineated: • Residential (development associated with households) • Commercial, industrial, office, schools, and government institutions (development associated with employment) • All other lands (e.g., agriculture, vacant, and transportation right of way) Method for Estimating Future Land Use. In order to assess land use changes and potential impacts on environmental resources resulting from future development, it was necessary to convert the No -Build Scenario and Build Scenario household and employment projections into estimates of land use change. Direct land conversion resulting from the Preferred Alternative was accounted for using the Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design right -of -way boundaries. The acreage of land that would be converted to residential - related uses in the future was projected based on density information from a GIS database of 44 approved developments in Gaston County provided by the Gastonia City Planning Department. The database includes developments in the vicinity of the project. A comparable database of recent commercial and industrial developments was not available for the purpose of making projections about employment density. Therefore, the existing density of P 717117.7 7. I I GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -65 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 0 ep. ". employment was calculated based on the ICE Study Area employment estimates for 2005 and the area of land devoted to commercial, industrial or institutional uses. As mentioned previously, the gravity model formulation used to reallocate households and employment based on changes in accessibility did not include any cap on the amount of development that could occur in any one TAZ. To account for development constraints in the TAZ -level household and employment allocations for the ICE Study Area, an analysis of buildable land by zone was conducted. Development constraints included existing roads, existing developed land, National Wetland Inventory wetlands, surface waters (rivers, streams, and lakes), Catawba River /Lake Wylie buffers, 100 -year floodplains, and conserved lands. The result included a reduction in the amount of household and employment growth in certain zones under both the No Build and Build Scenarios. As such, the total buildable land area for that zone would not be exceeded. 2.5.5.5 Methods for Assessing Notable Features/ Resources Water Resources. Impervious surface cover is an accepted indicator for assessing the potential for water quality impact as a result of future development. Numerous studies have found that first order to third order streams with watersheds exceeding 10 percent impervious surface cover exhibit impacted stream quality. Streams with watersheds exceeding 25 percent impervious surface cover typically exhibit degraded conditions and often do not meet water quality standards (Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems, Center for Watershed Protection, 2003). Existing impervious surface cover in the ICE Study Area was assessed using Feature Analyst, a GIS program. The resulting data was then manually edited based upon review of 2009 aerial photography. To project future growth in impervious surface cover for the No -Build and Build Scenarios, percent impervious surface factors from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) TR -55 Manual were used. A factor of 30 percent was used for residential development and a factor of 70 percent was used for employment - related development. Impervious surface cover associated with the No -Build Scenario transportation projects was estimated based on the length of the project and the number of new travel lanes specified in the LRTPs for the ICE Study Area. Impervious surface cover associated with the Preferred Alternative right of way was estimated to consist of 34.3 percent impervious cover based on the proposed typical section and right -of -way width. Wildlife Habitat. Forest cover and the size and configuration of undisturbed habitat blocks are key indicators for assessing potential upland wildlife habitat impacts. As with the impervious surface cover, existing tree cover was defined using Feature Analyst and reviewed using 2009 aerial photography. No manual post - processing was needed, as the program provided a reasonable representation of tree cover. Also, note that the existing tree cover estimates included street trees in urban area. A range of potential impacts of future development on tree cover was estimated in order to appropriately reflect the uncertainty involved in predicting the exact locations of future development. The low estimate of potential tree cover impacts assumed that development would be prioritized away from forested areas. The high estimate of tree cover impacts assumed that future land conversion would occur in forested area first, and would only affect non - forested area when all the unconstrained forest cover in a zone was developed. In actuality, future GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -66 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 0 ep. ". development of forested areas likely will be closer to the low end of the range than the high end because deforested areas are typically preferred for development. In addition to tree cover impact assessment, an analysis was performed to identify interior forest habitat and assess the direct impacts and indirect edge effects of the Preferred Alternative. When interior forest and /or grassland habitat areas are converted to edges as a result of fragmentation, several types of indirect effects can occur. These may include increased penetration of light and wind into the forest and establishment of invasive plants and other competing and predatory species. As a result of edge effects, fragmentation of larger blocks of forest has been shown to cause a decrease in forest interior dwelling species, but the extent of edge effects varies considerably between different species and across habitat types. For analysis purposes, an edge effect distance of 300 feet was selected for this study to identify potential interior forest habitat areas. An edge effect distance of 300 feet is supported by literature and has been used for other transportation project NEPA evaluations (e.g., Intercounty Connector Final EIS, Maryland DOT). For existing conditions in the ICE Study Area, an edge effect zone of 300 feet was created around existing roadways, development, and other open areas (waterbodies, agricultural fields, etc). The edge effects of the Preferred Alternative were superimposed on the existing conditions mapping to determine the incremental increase in edge effects and habitat fragmentation impacts. The potential impacts of future household and employment growth on forest interior habitat was not assessed quantitatively due to the uncertainty involved in predicting the exact spatial arrangement of development, which is key to determine the size of future edge effects. Fragmentation impacts from future growth were qualitatively considered in light of the range of tree cover impacts. Farmland. As a subset of land use change, indirect and secondary impacts to farmland were considered for analysis. Farmland is important as an industry, as open space and as a wildlife habitat for certain species (e.g. grassland birds). The US Census of Agriculture data for the area of land in farms in 1987 and 2007 are summarized by county below. Gaston County. 37,561 acres in 2007, compared to 40,937 acres in 1987 (a decrease of 3,376 acres or 8.2 percent). • Mecklenburg County. 19,135 acres in 2007, compared to 35,929 acres in 1987 (a decrease of 16,794 acres or 46.7 percent). York County. 124,176 acres in 2007, compared to 128,718 acres in 1987 (a decrease of 4,542 acres or 3.5 percent). Within Gaston County, many of the agricultural areas are located in the northern portions of the county that have not experienced substantial development pressures. Therefore, the existing proportional loss of farmland in southern Gaston County is likely greater than the county -level Census of Agriculture data suggest due to suburban residential development associated with the growth of Charlotte. A Voluntary Agricultural District program began in Gaston County in 2004 with the objective of protecting and conserving the agricultural open space. Farmland was not ultimately selected as a resource for detailed analysis because farmland is not a major land use throughout most of the ICE Study Area, and there are methodological issues with distinguishing active farmland from other types of open undeveloped land based on aerial photography. However, some indication of the potential for impacts to agricultural land in the future can be obtained by review of the projected land conversion associated with household and GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -67 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE MMMMM employment growth. Specific impacts to agricultural lands will depend on the decisions of individual land owners as influenced by land prices and the economics of farming. In addition to Gaston County's existing Voluntary Agricultural District Program, farmland conservation policies that could be considered by local governments include agricultural protection zoning, cluster developments, conservation easements, farmland mitigation requirements, and Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) (Farmland Protection Toolbox, Web site at www.farmiandinfo.org/documents/27761/fp_toolbox_02-2008.pdf). 2.5.5.6 Potential Indirect and Cumulative Effects to Land Use Analysis Limitations. Attempts to forecast future growth or development have inherent limitations on the accuracy and certainty of the results. The land use forecasts described below were developed using recommended methods as described in the NCDOT ICE Guidance, and they rely on the planning organizations in the ICE Study Area. Therefore, the results are only as accurate as those forecasts. The quantities of projected development also rely on assumptions about development density, and these assumptions are another limitation on the accuracy of the analysis. Thus, the process of developing forecasts induces uncertainty. The exact level of uncertainty is not possible to quantify. In addition to assumptions about the quantities of future development, the analysis also requires assumptions about the distribution of future development to individual TAZs. The purpose of producing the quantified scenarios is to gain an understanding of the incremental effects of the proposed action (i.e., indirect effects) as well as the overall cumulative effects to the environment across the ICE study area. Consequently, assumptions made about the distribution of land use follow a logical construct but are not necessarily accurate. In other words, the analysis is a product of assumptions that allow reasonable estimates and comparisons to be made, but in doing so, the actual projected distribution of development is generalized according to those assumptions and does not replicate the unknown individual private land use decisions of the future. All results described below have been rounded to the nearest 100 acres, based on the uncertainty associated with predicting the location and density of future household and employment growth and consideration for the varying resolutions of the input GIS data. Household and Employment Growth. Results of the gravity model assessment of shifts in the locations of household and employment growth for the ICE Study Area are shown in Table 2 -15 and on the following figures: Figures 2 -8 and 2 -9. Household and employment growth by zone from 2005 to 2035 under the No -Build Scenario. Figures 2 -10 and 2 -11. Household and employment growth by zone from 2005 to 2035 under the Build Scenario. Figures 2 -12 and 2 -13. Change in household and employment from the 2035 No -Build Scenario to the 2035 Build Scenario. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -68 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• TABLE 2 -15: Gravity Model Estimated Change in Households and Employment by Watershed - No -Build Scenario and Build Scenario Watershed 2005 2035 No -Build Scenario 2035 Build Scenario No -Build to Build Difference Percent Difference Households Beaverdam Creek - Catawba River 1,800 2,700 3,100 400 14.8% Catawba Creek 15,000 22,000 23,800 1,800 8.2% Duharts Creek -South Fork Catawba River 12,700 22,700 22,700 -100 -0.4% Lake Wylie- Catawba River 2,600 6,600 6,700 200 3.0% Lower Crowders Creek 6,600 11,200 12,500 1,300 11.6% Mill Creek -Lake Wylie 3,100 6,800 7,200 400 5.9% Paw Creek -Lake Wylie 7,300 11,800 11,700 0 0% Upper Crowders Creek 11,300 18,800 18,500 -300 -1.6% Total Households 60,300 102,500 106,200 3,700 3.6% Employment Beaverdam Creek - Catawba River 1,700 2,500 2,900 300 12.0% Catawba Creek 10,700 12,900 13,300 400 3.1% Duharts Creek -South Fork Catawba River 21,400 27,500 27,400 -100 -0.4% Lake Wylie- Catawba River 3,500 8,700 8,300 -400 -4.6% Lower Crowders Creek 2,300 3,200 3,600 300 9.4% Mill Creek -Lake Wylie 1,700 4,000 4,000 100 2.5% Paw Creek -Lake Wylie 10,100 18,400 18,300 0 0% Upper Crowders Creek 7,000 14,300 13,400 -900 -6.3% Total Employment 58,400 j 91,500 j 91,200 j -300 -0.3% Source: Gaston East -West Connector Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis, Louis Berger Group, Inc., August 2010. Note: Results have been rounded to the nearest 100 households and 100 employees. Differences were calculated prior to rounding. Up to 3,700 additional households and 300 fewer jobs are anticipated in the ICE Study Area as a result of the indirect development shifts associated with the project. This is not new growth, but rather represents households and employment that would have located elsewhere in the Metrolina region under the No -Build Scenario. At the regional scale, household and employment totals remain constant between the No -Build and Build conditions. The overall indirect effect of the project for the ICE Study Area as a whole is relatively small in comparison to the growth in households (42,200) and employment (33,100) expected between 2005 and 2035 under the No- Build Scenario. For households, the difference is a 3.6 percent increase from the No -Build Scenario to the Build Scenario. For employment, the projected difference between the No -Build Scenario and Build Scenario is 0.3 percent, or approximately no change. The largest increase in households and employment attributed to the proposed project would be in the Catawba Creek subwatershed, while the largest percentage change from the No -Build Scenario to the Build Scenario is projected for the Beaverdam Creek subwatershed. Note that for the subwatersheds showing a "decrease" from the No -Build Scenario to the Build Scenario, this represents a decrease in future growth, not a decrease relative to existing conditions. For example, the forecasts for the Upper Crowders Creek subwatershed show 2035 employment under the Build Scenario as 900 jobs, or 6.3 percent less than the No -Build Scenario. However, ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -69 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• even under the Build Scenario, the Upper Crowders Creek subwatershed is expected to experience growth in employment of 6,400 (a 90 percent increase) between 2005 and 2035. Several of the zones with the largest household growth expected under the No -Build Scenario are adjacent to Lake Wylie or the South Fork Catawba River, a pattern consistent with recent trends and developments (Figure 2 -8). The same general patterns in household growth would occur under the Build Scenario (Figure 2 -10). Concentrations of substantial employment growth under both the No -Build Scenario and Build Scenario include the general areas around the Bessemer City industrial park and around the Charlotte - Douglas International Airport, which is located northeast of the proposed interchange between the Gaston East -West Connector and I -485 (Figures 2 -9 and 2 -11). Relative to the No -Build Scenario, the Build Scenario would generally increase growth in the zones along the Preferred Alternative alignment in southern Gaston County and also in northern York County (Figures 2 -12 and 2 -13). These areas would experience an increase in relative accessibility that would, all other factors held constant, make these zones more attractive for development as a result of the project. Areas along the I -85 corridor would not experience as large of an accessibility improvement and, as a result, show less growth under the Build Scenario than under the No -Build Scenario. The gravity model formulation shifts households and employment towards those areas with the greatest accessibility (travel time) improvements. Land Use Change. Based on the projected changes in households and employment described previously, the indirect land use effect of the project is an approximately 1.5 percent increase in the total area of residential land and a 0.4 percent decrease in employment - related land in the ICE Study Area. The largest absolute difference in land conversion between the No -Build and Build Scenarios is projected for the Catawba Creek subwatershed. Table 2 -16 present the residential and employment related land use change estimates by watershed based on the gravity model output, as described in Section 2.5.5.4. TABLE 2 -16: Estimated Land Conversion by Watershed - No -Build Scenario and Build Scenario ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -70 Percent 2005 -2035 Existing 2005 -2035 No Build to Build Change in Total No Build Residential Build Land Difference Total Watershed Area Land Land Conversion (Acres Rounded to Residential (Acres) Conversion (Acres) (Acres) Nearest 10) Land, No (Acres) Build to Build Estimated Residential Land Conversion Beaverdam Creek- 12,200 5,200 300 400 100 1.8% Catawba River Catawba Creek 20,700 10,500 2,300 2,900 600 4.7% Duharts Creek -South 25,300 9,700 3,400 3,300 0 -0.8% Fork Catawba River Lake Wylie- Catawba 10,500 3,000 1,300 1,400 100 2.3% River Lower Crowders 36,700 16,700 1,500 2,000 400 2.7% Creek Mill Creek -Lake Wylie 15,000 6,800 1,200 1,400 100 2.5% Paw Creek -Lake Wylie 11,900 4,100 1,500 1,500 0 0% Upper Crowders Creek 26,500 10,800 2,500 2,400 -100 -0.8% Total 158,800 66,900 14,100 15,300 1,200 1.5% ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -70 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• TABLE 2 -16: Estimated Land Conversion by Watershed — No -Build Scenario and Build Scenario Source: Gaston East -West Connector Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis, Louis Berger Group, Inc., August 2010. Note: Results have been rounded to the nearest 100 acres. Differences were calculated prior to rounding. It should be noted that the estimates of existing condition residential and employment related land acreages are based on parcel data. The changes in acreages for these land use types estimated for 2035 under either the No -Build Scenario or Build Scenario did not account for the possibility that some larger parcels already classified as residential or employment related could be subdivided to accommodate some portion of the projected growth, and therefore acreage changes would be less. Consistency with Local Land Use Plans. The substantial growth projected for the southeast portion of Gaston County (including the indirect land use effects of the proposed project) is largely consistent with local plans for Gaston County. Gaston County's 2002 Comprehensive Plan (November 2002) shows the areas surround the Gaston East -West Connector interchanges with US 321 and NC 279 as development target areas where future growth should be directed. In addition, bypass- dependent development target areas shown at several other interchanges along the corridor. Gaston County's Unified Development Ordinance will be essential in ensuring that form of new developments match local planning objectives for compact, mixed -use developments that preserve open space. For Mecklenburg County, the analysis results show that the proposed project does not substantially change the household and employment levels for the portion of Mecklenburg County within the ICE study area. This overall result was consistent with the expectations of Mecklenburg County planners interviewed as part of this study. As a result, the potential for inconsistency with local plans for Mecklenburg County is low. The additional growth expected with the project on the north side of the interchange with Dixie River Road is consistent with the Dixie Berryhtll Strategic Plan for the development of this area (Charlotte - Mecklenburg Planning Department, 2003). ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -71 Percent 2005 -2035 Existing 2005 -2035 No Build to Build Change in Total No Build Residential Build Land Difference Total Watershed Area Land Land Conversion (Acres Rounded to Residential (Acres) Conversion (Acres) (Acres) Nearest 10) Land, No (Acres) Build to Build Estimated Employment - Related Land Conversion Beaverdam Creek- 12,200 700 200 300 100 11.1% Catawba River Catawba Creek 20,700 2,700 600 800 200 6.1% Duharts Creek -South Fork Catawba River 25,300 3,600 1,700 1,700 0 0% Lake Wylie- Catawba 10,500 1,800 1,500 1,400 -100 -3.0% River Lower Crowders 36,700 1,300 300 400 100 6.3% Creek Mill Creek -Lake Wylie 15,000 300 700 700 0 0% Paw Creek -Lake Wylie 11,900 3,300 2,400 2,400 0 0% Upper Crowders 26,500 3,100 2,100 1,800 -300 5.8% Creek Total 158,800 16,700 9,500 9,400 -100 -0.4% Source: Gaston East -West Connector Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis, Louis Berger Group, Inc., August 2010. Note: Results have been rounded to the nearest 100 acres. Differences were calculated prior to rounding. It should be noted that the estimates of existing condition residential and employment related land acreages are based on parcel data. The changes in acreages for these land use types estimated for 2035 under either the No -Build Scenario or Build Scenario did not account for the possibility that some larger parcels already classified as residential or employment related could be subdivided to accommodate some portion of the projected growth, and therefore acreage changes would be less. Consistency with Local Land Use Plans. The substantial growth projected for the southeast portion of Gaston County (including the indirect land use effects of the proposed project) is largely consistent with local plans for Gaston County. Gaston County's 2002 Comprehensive Plan (November 2002) shows the areas surround the Gaston East -West Connector interchanges with US 321 and NC 279 as development target areas where future growth should be directed. In addition, bypass- dependent development target areas shown at several other interchanges along the corridor. Gaston County's Unified Development Ordinance will be essential in ensuring that form of new developments match local planning objectives for compact, mixed -use developments that preserve open space. For Mecklenburg County, the analysis results show that the proposed project does not substantially change the household and employment levels for the portion of Mecklenburg County within the ICE study area. This overall result was consistent with the expectations of Mecklenburg County planners interviewed as part of this study. As a result, the potential for inconsistency with local plans for Mecklenburg County is low. The additional growth expected with the project on the north side of the interchange with Dixie River Road is consistent with the Dixie Berryhtll Strategic Plan for the development of this area (Charlotte - Mecklenburg Planning Department, 2003). ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -71 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• York County's 2025 Comprehensive Plan (April 2004) calls for rural residential and agricultural land use in the northern portions of the county within the ICE study area, with concentrations of commercial and industrial land use along the US 321 corridor. There is potential for the substantial growth pressures without the proposed project (the No -Build Scenario household and employment estimates) to be inconsistent with the objective of maintaining a primarily rural character in this area. The additional growth in this portion of York County with the proposed project would incrementally add to this potential inconsistency. The priority recommendations of the York County 2025 Comprehensive Plan are currently being implemented with an Interim Development Ordinance while a Unified Development Ordinance is developed. In addition to the potential for changes in requirements for new developments under a Unified Development Ordinance, growth in northern York County will also be strongly influenced by the provision of utilities to new developments. In interviews conducted for this study, York County planners indicated that some utility providers would be acquired by the county and it was uncertain whether county ownership would increase or decrease the expansion of water and sewer service areas. 2.5.5.7 Potential Indirect and Cumulative Effects to Water Resources Existing Water Quality. Existing water quality is discussed in Section 6.2.2 of the Draft EIS and in Section 1.3.4.2 of this Final EIS. Several segments of Crowders Creek and Catawba Creek are listed as impaired for aquatic life support, with the impairment likely due to impacts from urban stormwater runoff and waste water treatment systems. A fecal coliform Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) was established for Crowders Creek in 2004 (NCDWQ). Lake Wylie was formerly listed as impaired for nutrients and a TMDL was established in 1991. As of the 2010, the main body of Lake Wylie within the ICE study area is in attainment with water quality standards. However, the South Fork Catawba River arm of the lake is impaired for aquatic life support based on copper concentrations and high temperature. Lake Wylie is also listed as impaired for copper in South Carolina, and the Catawba Creek arm of Lake Wylie is impaired for recreational uses by fecal coliform. In York County, Beaverdam Creek is listed as impaired for aquatic life support based on turbidity and macroinvertebrate community conditions. The primary source of the fecal coliform impairment was identified as runoff from grazed pasture lands. A TMDL for fecal coliform was established in the Beaverdam Creek watershed in 2001. Stormwater Management Policies. Authorized by the Clean Water Act, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permit program regulates pollutant discharges with the goal of protecting water quality. The program is overseen by USEPA, and is generally implemented by the states. The City of Charlotte received a Phase I NPDES stormwater permit in 1993. In 2005, the remainder of Mecklenburg County outside the city limits of Charlotte was issued a Phase II NPDES permit. Gaston County and York County are both designated NPDES Phase II areas an have established local requirements for the stormwater treatment aspects of proposed developments. Riparian Buffer Policies. Riparian buffers are vegetated lands adjacent to streams. The loss of riparian buffers can reduce water quality. Permanent riparian buffer protection rules were enacted by North Carolina for the main stem of the Catawba River and its main stem lakes below P 717117.7 7. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -72 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• Lake James (including Lake Wylie) (15 NCAC 02B.0243- 0244). The buffer protection rules apply within 50 feet of the riparian shorelines. Section 6.4.2 of the Draft EIS provides more information. The City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County have initiated stream buffer ordinances through the Charlotte - Mecklenburg Surface Water Improvement & Management (SWIM) Program. There are three buffer sizes (35 ft, 50 ft, and 100 ft), depending on the size of the drainage. In 2009, York County adopted a riparian buffer policy applicable to the shoreline of Lake Wylie and the Catawba River, as well as perennial streams draining to the Catawba River. A 50 -foot buffer zone is established for Lake Wylie and perennial streams, and a 100 -foot buffer zone is established for the Catawba River. Existing Percent Impervious Cover. Based on 2007 conditions, approximately 12.5 percent of the ICE Study Area consists of impervious surface cover. Beaverdam Creek, Upper Crowders Creek, and Lower Crowders Creek subwatersheds on the western side of the ICE Study Area consist of less than 10 percent impervious surface cover. The Paw Creek and Lake Wylie - Catawba River subwatersheds on the eastern side of the ICE Study Area exhibit the highest percent impervious cover at over 20 percent. The remaining watersheds in the study area have a percent impervious cover within the range of 10 to 20 percent. Impacts from Other Actions (No -Build Scenario). Table 2 -17 lists the change in impervious surface cover by watershed, including the change from 2007 to the 2035 No -Build Scenario. TABLE 2 -17: Estimated Change in Impervious Cover by Watershed Source: Gaston East -West Connector Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis, Louis Berger Group, Inc., August 2010. Note: Results have been rounded to the nearest 100 acres. Differences were calculated prior to rounding. * Includes cumulative effect of past actions (existing conditions), the impacts of reasonably foreseeable actions by others (future household and employment growth and other transportation projects), the indirect effects of the project and the direct increase in impervious surface cover resulting from the project. Future development under the No -Build Scenario is expected to increase impervious surface cover by over 10,000 acres compared to existing conditions for the ICE Study Area as a whole. Approximately 90 acres of the No -Build Scenario increase in impervious cover is attributed to other specific transportation projects, with the majority associated with household and employment growth. Overall, impervious surface cover in the ICE Study Area is projected to ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -73 2035 2035 2035 No 2007 2007 2035 Build Total No Build Build Build Impervious Percent Percent Watershed Watershed Impervious Impervious Percent Cover Impervious Impervious Area (Acres) Cover Cover Impervious (Acres) Cover Cover * (Acres) (Acres)* Cover Beaverdam Creek 12,000 700 1,000 1,100 5.7% 8.2% 9.0% Catawba Creek 20,700 3,700 4,800 5,200 17.9% 23.2% 25.1% Duharts Creek -South 25,300 4,600 6,900 6,900 18.2% 27.3/ ° 27.3/ Fork Catawba River Lake Wylie- Catawba 10,500 2,200 3,600 3,700 21.6% 34.3/ ° 35.2/ River Lower Crowders Creek 36,700 2,100 2,800 3,100 5.7% 7.6% 8.4% Mill Creek -Lake Wylie 15,000 1,600 2,400 2,500 10.7% 16.0% 16.7% Paw Creek -Lake Wylie 11,900 3,300 5,400 5,400 27.7% 45.4% 45.4% Upper Crowders Creek 26,500 1,600 3,800 3,700 6.0% 14.3% 14.0% Study Area Total 158,800 19,800 30,700 31,500 12.5% 19.3% 19.8% Source: Gaston East -West Connector Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis, Louis Berger Group, Inc., August 2010. Note: Results have been rounded to the nearest 100 acres. Differences were calculated prior to rounding. * Includes cumulative effect of past actions (existing conditions), the impacts of reasonably foreseeable actions by others (future household and employment growth and other transportation projects), the indirect effects of the project and the direct increase in impervious surface cover resulting from the project. Future development under the No -Build Scenario is expected to increase impervious surface cover by over 10,000 acres compared to existing conditions for the ICE Study Area as a whole. Approximately 90 acres of the No -Build Scenario increase in impervious cover is attributed to other specific transportation projects, with the majority associated with household and employment growth. Overall, impervious surface cover in the ICE Study Area is projected to ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -73 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE MMMMM increase 6.8 percent, from 12.5 percent under existing (2007) conditions to 19.3 percent under the No -Build Scenario. Several watersheds would exceed thresholds that suggest the potential for stream and water quality impacts as a result of development under the No -Build Scenario. The percent impervious surface cover in the Upper Crowders Creek subwatershed would increase from 6.0 percent to 14.0 percent. Three subwatersheds which currently have less than 25 percent impervious cover would approach or exceed 25 percent impervious cover under the No -Build Scenario: Catawba Creek, Duharts Creek -South Fork Catawba River, and Lake Wylie- Catawba River. The level of development projected for the ICE Study Area suggests some unavoidable degradation of water resource quality is likely in the areas with the greatest growth. However, the impact per acre of new impervious surface is expected to be substantially less than for past development due to new stormwater permitting requirements. The enforcement of riparian buffer policies in the ICE Study Area is also likely to have a beneficial offsetting effect in counteracting some of the stormwater impacts of future growth. Improvements to the management of point source pollutant discharges (including wastewater treatment plants) are also expected to continue in the future. Direct Impacts from the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative would add approximately 500 acres of impervious surface cover to the ICE Study Area, with the largest increase (approximately 200 acres) in the Upper Crowders Creek subwatershed. As discussed in the FEIS Section 2.5.4.2, the final design of the Preferred Alternative would incorporate stormwater treatment measures to reduce the potential for impacts to the affected watersheds. Indirect Effects. The changes in the distribution of households and employment resulting from the Preferred Alternative could add approximately 300 acres of impervious surface cover to the ICE Study Area, or a one percent increase over the No -Build Scenario. The largest indirect increases in impervious surface cover are projected for the Catawba Creek subwatershed and the Lower Crowders Creek subwatershed. Two subwatersheds are projected to have a slight indirect decrease in impervious surface cover compared to the No -Build Scenario as a result of the Preferred Alternative, Lake Wylie- Catawba River and Upper Crowders Creek. As noted in the discussion of the No -Build Scenario, although some impacts would still occur, the incremental water quality impacts of these shifts in growth would be less than past growth due to the stormwater control and riparian buffer policies in the study area. Cumulative Effects. The cumulative effect of past actions (e.g. existing impervious cover), other actions (the No -Build Scenario) and the direct and indirect effects of the Preferred Alternative is predicted to be 31,500 acres of impervious surface cover (19.8 percent of the ICE Study Area compared to 19.3 percent under the No -Build Scenario). The incremental effect of the Preferred Alternative accounts for 800 acres, or about 6.8 percent, of the cumulative increase in impervious surface cover from existing conditions. One subwatershed with impervious surface cover currently less than 10 percent would be at or exceed 10 percent in the Build Scenario - Upper Crowders Creek. As noted in the discussion of the No -Build Scenario, although some unavoidable decreases in water resource quality are expected, the incremental water quality impacts of future growth would be less than past growth due to the stormwater water and riparian buffer policies in the ICE Study Area. While impervious surface cover provides a useful metric for assessing potential cumulative effects, it is not possible to conclude from an analysis of impervious surface cover alone whether or not violations of water quality standards would occur at specific downstream locations. As part ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -74 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• of the application for a Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the proposed project, additional modeling of pollutant loadings in accordance with NCDENR Division of Water Quality's policy document entitled Cumulative Impacts and the 401 Water Quality Certification and Isolated Wetlands Program (NCDWQ, 2004) is anticipated to be required. To issue a Water Quality Certification, NCDWQ is required to determine that a project "does not result in cumulative impacts, based upon past or reasonably anticipated future impacts that cause or will cause a violation of downstream water quality standards." The water quality modeling will account for the effect of stormwater treatment practices and provide the basis for determining whether or not violations of water quality standards would occur. If violations are predicted, mitigation would be proposed to address the issue. 2.5.5.8 Potential Indirect and Cumulative Effects to Wildlife Habitat Existing Habitat Fragmentation. The quantity and quality of upland wildlife habitats in the study area have been impacted by past development. Including urban trees, approximately 59 percent of the ICE Study Area is covered by tree cover as of 2007. At a subwatershed level, the highest percentage of tree cover occurs in the Upper and Lower Crowders Creek subwatersheds (approximately 65 percent), while the lowest percentage occurs in the heavily developed Paw Creek -Lake Wylie subwatershed (38 percent). Figure 2 -14 illustrates the forest interior habitat patches, defined based on the 300 -foot edge effect zone explained in Section 2.5.5.5. Table 2 -18 shows that the majority of the forest interior habitat patches in the ICE Study Area are small, and there are only nine interior habitat patches greater than 500 acres in size. The largest habitat patches are located in and around Crowders Mountain State Park. Some of the large habitat patches in this area actually extend beyond the boundaries of the ICE Study Area. As expected, there are no large interior habitat patches remaining in the most heavily developed portions of the ICE Study Area, such as Gastonia. TABLE 2 -18: Forest Interior Habitat Patches in ICE Study Area Total Acres Forest Interior Habitat Percent Forest Interior Count of Forest Interior Habitats by Patch Size (Acres) Mean Interior Patch Size* 21 to 101 201- Greater Less than 20 (Acres) Habitat 100 200 500 than 500 158,802 26,967 17.0% 12,011 139 41 22 9 37.1 *Excluding interior patches of less than one acre. Impacts from Other Actions (No -Build Scenario). Under the No Build Scenario, approximately 8,500 to 20,500 acres of tree cover could be lost as a result of projected future development, reducing the total percent forest cover in the ICE Study Area to approximately 54 to 46 percent. The loss of tree cover under the No Build Scenario would reduce the quality and quantity of upland wildlife habitat in the ICE Study Area and increase habitat fragmentation, although the degree of fragmentation cannot be reasonably quantified. Planning strategies to minimize potential impacts to wildlife habitat include encouraging higher density development in appropriate locations and preserving contiguous habitat blocks that provide the highest quality habitat. Direct Impacts from the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design would directly impact approximately 1,000 acres of tree cover, 300 acres of which would occur in the Upper Crowders Creek subwatershed. The Preferred Alternative would ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -75 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE R►r.►• directly impact 290 acres of forested interior habitat and result in indirect edge effects, potentially reducing the quality of an additional 480 acres of forest interior habitat within approximately 300 feet of the right of way. The Gaston East -West Connector Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis provides more detailed information, including maps, regarding the impacts of the Preferred Alternative on forest interior habitat patches of 20 or more acres in size. There is a high degree of existing fragmentation in the Gaston East -West Connector corridor, and the project would incrementally increase this fragmentation. The habitat fragmentation impacts of the Preferred Alternative would inhibit the movement of some wildlife species across the roadway and potentially increase wildlife road mortality. As discussed in Section 2.5.4.3, a wildlife passage structure will be studied at the crossing of Stream 5156 (located between Forbes Road to the west and Robinson Road to the east) during final design of the Preferred Alternative. Indirect Effects. Depending on the specific locations chosen for future development, the changes in the development patterns associated with the Preferred Alternative could increase tree cover loss by approximately 100 to 1,400 acres. The greatest potential for indirect effects on forest cover is within the Catawba Creek subwatershed. Cumulative Effects. Table 2 -19 lists the projected change in tree cover by subwatershed under a low impact estimate and a high impact estimate, as described in Section 2.5.5.5. The cumulative effect of past actions (e.g. existing tree cover), other actions (the No -Build Scenario) and the direct and indirect effects of the Preferred Alternative is predicted to result in remaining forest cover in 2035 in the ICE Study Area of approximately 84,800 acres (low estimate of loss) to 71,400 acres ((high estimate of loss). This represents a cumulative loss of forest cover of approximately 22,900 to 9,500 acres over existing conditions, or a percent decrease of 24 to 10 percent. The actual impacts would depend on the specific location of each new development, although the actual number will likely be closer to the low estimate. The incremental effect of the Preferred Alternative accounts for approximately 1,100 to 2,400 acres of the cumulative loss of forest cover over existing conditions. As discussed previously, the planning strategies to minimize potential impacts to wildlife habitat include encouraging higher density development in appropriate locations and preserving contiguous habitat blocks that provide the highest quality habitat. TABLE 2 -19: Estimated Change in Forest Cover by Watershed ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -76 2035 Build Change in 2035 2007 2035 Indirect percent Total Builld d Direct Build Forest No Build Change in Forest Watershed Watershed Change m Forest Area (Acres) Cover Forest Cover Forest Cover Forest Cover Cover No- (Acres) (Acres) Cover Build to (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) Build Low Estimate of Tree Cover Loss Beaverdam Creek 12,000 6,500 6,500 0 0 6,500 0% Catawba Creek 20,700 12,100 11,500 -100 -300 11,000 -2.5% Duharts Creek -South 25,300 15,400 12,800 -100 0 12,700 -0.4% Fork Catawba River Lake Wylie- Catawba 10,500 6,000 4,200 -200 100 4,100 -1.0% River Lower Crowders Creek 36,700 23,800 23,700 -200 -100 23,400 -0.8% Mill Creek -Lake Wylie 15,000 8,800 8,000 -100 0 8,000 0% ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -76 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE •►►r.►• TABLE 2 -19: Estimated Change in Forest Cover by Watershed Source: Gaston East -West Connector Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis, Louis Berger Group, Inc., August 2010. Note: Negative values indicate loss of forest cover, positive values indicate gain. Results have been rounded to the nearest 100 acres. Differences were calculated prior to rounding. 2.5.5.9 Mitigation The basic requirement to consider mitigation measures is established in the CEQ NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1502.16(h)). Compensatory mitigation for the direct impacts of the Preferred Alternative to regulated resources (e.g. wetlands and streams) is discussed in Section 2.5.4.4 of the FEIS. With respect to mitigation for indirect and cumulative effects related to land use change, both the NCDOT ICE Guidance and FHWA Interim Guidance note that it is necessary to identify mitigation actions beyond the control of the transportation agencies. While such mitigation cannot be committed to be implemented as part of the project, the purpose of identifying the mitigation is to inform the affected local jurisdictions and other reviewers of the EIS. Mitigation for the indirect and cumulative effects on land use, water resources and tree cover identified by this study could be reduced in magnitude through implementation and enforcement of the following planning strategies. As noted in the text below, many of these strategies are already beginning to be implemented in the study area. • Zoning /Comprehensive Planning to support higher density development in planned growth areas and to discourage growth in environmentally sensitive areas. Gaston County has adopted a Unified Development Ordinance that provides new flexibility for higher density development, including Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) and a streamlined development process. York County is in the process of developing a Unified Development Ordinance. Open Space Planning is also an important part of protecting key wildlife habitat areas. York County completed an Open Space Plan in 2009. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -77 2035 Build Change in 2035 2035 2007 2035 Indirect Percent Total Build Direct Build Forest No Build Change in Forest Watershed Watershed Change m Forest Area (Acres) Cover Forest Cover Forest Cover Forest Cover Cover No- (Acres) (Acres) Cover Build to (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) Build Paw Creek -Lake Wylie 11,900 4,500 3,100 0 0 3,100 0% Upper Crowders Creek 26,500 17,400 16,000 -300 300 16,000 0% Study Area Total - Low 158,800 94,300 85,800 -1,000 -100 84,800 -0.6% High Estimate of Tree Cover Loss Beaverdam Creek 12,000 6,500 5,900 0 -200 5,700 -1.7% Catawba Creek 20,700 12,100 9,300 -100 -700 8,500 -3.8% Duharts Creek -South 25,300 15,400 10,600 -100 0 10,400 -0.8% Fork Catawba River Lake Wylie- Catawba 10,500 6,000 3,700 -200 0 3,500 -1.9% River Lower Crowders Creek 36,700 23,800 22,000 -200 -400 21,400 -1.6% Mill Creek -Lake Wylie 15,000 8,800 6,900 -100 -200 6,700 -1.3% Paw Creek -Lake Wylie 11,900 4,500 2,200 0 0 2,200 0% Upper Crowders Creek 26,500 17,400 13,300 -300 100 13,100 -0.8% Study Area Total - High 158,800 j 94,300 j 73,800 1 -1,000 -1,400 j 71,400 j -1.5% Source: Gaston East -West Connector Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis, Louis Berger Group, Inc., August 2010. Note: Negative values indicate loss of forest cover, positive values indicate gain. Results have been rounded to the nearest 100 acres. Differences were calculated prior to rounding. 2.5.5.9 Mitigation The basic requirement to consider mitigation measures is established in the CEQ NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1502.16(h)). Compensatory mitigation for the direct impacts of the Preferred Alternative to regulated resources (e.g. wetlands and streams) is discussed in Section 2.5.4.4 of the FEIS. With respect to mitigation for indirect and cumulative effects related to land use change, both the NCDOT ICE Guidance and FHWA Interim Guidance note that it is necessary to identify mitigation actions beyond the control of the transportation agencies. While such mitigation cannot be committed to be implemented as part of the project, the purpose of identifying the mitigation is to inform the affected local jurisdictions and other reviewers of the EIS. Mitigation for the indirect and cumulative effects on land use, water resources and tree cover identified by this study could be reduced in magnitude through implementation and enforcement of the following planning strategies. As noted in the text below, many of these strategies are already beginning to be implemented in the study area. • Zoning /Comprehensive Planning to support higher density development in planned growth areas and to discourage growth in environmentally sensitive areas. Gaston County has adopted a Unified Development Ordinance that provides new flexibility for higher density development, including Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) and a streamlined development process. York County is in the process of developing a Unified Development Ordinance. Open Space Planning is also an important part of protecting key wildlife habitat areas. York County completed an Open Space Plan in 2009. ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -77 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE •►►r.►• Growth Management through restrictions on the expansion of infrastructure. Water and sewer service should be strictly tied to areas designated for growth in local land use plans. There is some evidence of consideration of this type of policy in parts of Gaston County. For example, Gaston County's "Existing Initiatives Map" identifies areas where sewer service should not be extended, including a portion of the South Fork Crowders Creek watershed. • Riparian buffers. Existing riparian buffer policies applicable to the study area are discussed in Section 3.3.1 of the Gaston East -West Connector Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis. These policies are a key aspect of water resources protection. • Stream Restoration. Many urban streams have been straightened, channelized, piped and buried, and /or stripped of native vegetation. Stream restoration policies would improve directly improve habitat and water quality by addressing erosion and sedimentation issues. Land Acquisition /Conservation Easements. Conservation easement programs, such as the Gaston Conservation District Land Preservation Program are another strategy for preserving high quality wildlife habitat that can be implemented by the private or public sector. The mapping of interior forest patches conducted for this study provides information that could be used to prioritize areas for conservation planning and land acquisition investments. 2.5.5.10 Conclusion Table 2 -20 provides a summary of the estimated indirect and cumulative effects in the ICE Study Area for the 2035 No -Build Scenario and 2035 Build Scenario. TABLE 2 -20: Summary of Estimated Indirect and Cumulative Effects in the ICE Study Area Effect Existing Condition 2035 No -Build Scenario 2035 Build Scenario Difference No- Build to Build Households (Number) 60,300 102,500 106,200 3,700 Employment (Number) 58,400 91,500 91,200 -300 Residential Land Conversion (Acres) 66,900 81,000 82,200 1,200 Employment - Related Land Conversion (Acres) 16,700 11,170 11,070 -100 Impervious Surface Cover (Acres) 19,800 30,700 31,500 800 Forest Cover — Low Impact Estimate (Acres) 94,300 85,800 84,800 -1,000 Forest Cover — High Impact Estimate (Acres) 94,300 73,800 71,400 -1,400 Note: Existing conditions are for the year 2005 for Households, Employment, Residential Land Conversion, and Employment - Related Land conversion. Existing conditions are for the year 2007 for Impervious Surface Cover and Forest Cover. The land use forecasting conducted for this quantitative ICE study shows that the potential for indirect land use effects is greatest in southern Gaston County and northern York County. These areas would experience the largest increase in accessibility with the project. Up to 3,700 additional households and 300 fewer jobs are anticipated in the ICE Study Area as a result of the indirect development shifts associated with the project. This is not new growth, but rather represents households and employment that would have located elsewhere in the Metrolina region under the No -Build Scenario. At the regional scale, household and employment totals remain constant between the No -Build and Build conditions. The overall indirect effect of the project for the ICE Study Area as a whole is relatively small in comparison to the growth in households (42,200) and employment (33,100) expected between 2005 and 2035 under the No- Build Scenario. For households, the difference is a 3.6 percent increase from the No -Build Scenario to the Build Scenario. For employment, the projected difference between the No -Build Scenario and Build Scenario is 0.3 percent. Note that for areas showing a "decrease" from the No- ► ► GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -78 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 0 ep. ". Build Scenario to the Build Scenario in households or employment, this represents a decrease in future growth, not a decrease relative to existing conditions. The land use forecasting results are consistent with Gaston County's land use plan, but may be inconsistent with York County's plan for rural residential and agricultural uses in the northern portion of the county. Local land use regulations will be key in shaping the location and form of development in the ICE Study Area. In terms of environmental impacts, over 10,900 acres of impervious surface is expected to be added to the ICE Study Area by 2035 under the No -Build Scenario. Between 8,500 and 20,500 acres of tree cover could be lost under the No -Build condition. The proposed project would directly and indirectly affect the environment. The total incremental effect of the Build Scenario on impervious surface cover (direct and indirect) is an addition of 800 acres to the increase in impervious surface cover projected under the No -Build Scenario. The total incremental effect of the project on tree cover is estimated to be a loss of 1,100 to 2,400 acres over the No -Build Scenario. Numerous planning strategies are available to reduce the impacts of future growth on water resources and wildlife habitat, including zoning /comprehensive planning, growth management, riparian buffers, stream restoration, and land acquisition. P 717117.7 7. I I GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 2 -79 I M11 Gaston Co [Y, NC� —�— York C�uri�' — ounty, SC —_ --- —U-- "'Sy, � Legend Preferred Alternative Right of Way Preferred Alternative Study Corridor Other Detailed Study Corridors Parks and Recreation Areas Municipal Areas Rivers and Streams Source: Gasl:Cc nyana Mecklenburg CounlyGIS Map printed March 2010 P, � N —ru'ouia,n Turnpike Authority STIP PROJECT NO. U -3321 Gaston County and Mecklenburg County GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR PREFERRED ALTERNArIVE� NOiE. PRELIMINARYALIGNMFNiSS�BIECiiO CHANGE DSA 9 Figure2.1 i ^ar3i iii n.r8,�nav, Turnpike Authority GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR NOT TO SCALE STIP PROJECT NO. U -3321 Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE TYPICAL SECTION Figure 2 -2 rt Legend mm Preferred Alternative Right of Way Sheets Segment Breaks —fitain Preferred Alternative DSA Corridor West Blvd Realignment (Construction by Others) Parks Private Recreationracilities and Attractions County Lines fWtate Line q — Interstates u.. 0 — US Routes 0 Streets Railroad S Hydrology City Limits Source: Gaston Couily and If V�j Meckleiburg Couily GIS Map pried July 2010 at 27 MA w: 101P, (001 l�� Tul Authorfty V ............................... _7 STIP , PROJECT k' T"r, c GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PREFERRED eD ALTERNATIVE REFINED DESIGN Figure 2.3 Index P, Jr" i NOTE. PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENTS SUBJECT TO CHANGE w m i, r 0 U Leg^rd uu Relerreo Alrernellm umiiuu Ppllneo Design aelerredAlr �� sen ce ROadD Iqn R 1 tried Alr ih re Rhhn,d Rghr dfWq R 1 tried Alr ih re ' Serviv Rd Right of Wap aelerreaAlrerndln ® Bridges segmxnrB.kl AdtlirlomIDBACordor ag:IDSACOrrdor Panel: SJrnpbinrermlrrentSImm Bormyeo Perennlil slr- _Sr,ereb ells, ■ B r.pdPOds Pool I roa Yr F oodpldn Other Hportlogy C-ledx Churches In DBA III�IIII Schools uu School Pmparty slrudures Historic sites onellgible NRHP Natural Heritage occurrence sires NarHeamgeProgCenAmGLP Suparlwd sites Parks Rwte Rhoreft onFnnllmee andAtlraer — PovrerrransmisuonLims ® subsmrim, Ru ROaus — slreeN seq.N Name e A v Scume'. Gasm and Mecklenburg GDUnoes Map pinOd July 2010. OMNI ��Iroirn °rvr Tr mplike Auffli STIP PROJECT NO. U -3321 Gaston County and Mecklenburg County GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINED DESIGN Figure 2.3 b NOTE. PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENTS SUBJECT TO CHANGE w m i, r 0 U Leg^rd uu Relerreo Alrernellm umiiuu Ppllneo Design aelerredAlr �� sen ce ROadD Iqn R 1 tried Alr ih re Rhhn,d Rghr dfWq R 1 tried Alr ih re ' Serviv Rd Right of Wap aelerreaAlrerndln ® Bridges segmxnrB.kl AdtlirlomIDBACordor ag:IDSACOrrdor Panel: SJrnpbinrermlrrentSImm Bormyeo Perennlil slr- _Sr,ereb ells, ■ B r.pdPOds Pool I roa Yr F oodpldn Other Hportlogy C-ledx Churches In DBA III�IIII Schools uu School Pmparty slrudures Historic sites onellgible NRHP Natural Heritage occurrence sires NarHeamgeProgCenAmGLP Suparlwd sites Parks Rwte Rhoreft onFnnllmee andAtlraer — PovrerrransmisuonLims ® subsmrim, Ru ROaus — slreeN seq.N Name e A v Scume'. Gasm and Mecklenburg GDUnoes Map pinOd July 2010. OMNI ��Iroirn °rvr Tr mplike Auffli STIP PROJECT NO. U -3321 Gaston County and Mecklenburg County GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINED DESIGN Figure 2.3 b 11 M I I I NOTE. PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENTS SUBJECT TO CHANGE I Wtv I „lilmwccd S d I � r r I Leg d Wind eel�q,nallm ..... ........ Relerretl Allernellm K VIII Rllaeegn a- rdAlemini. Perme Right a tTedAlemi e Servic, aaRghmnuy aelerreaAileroai. . •"'� Bridges 117 � � I,��' BegmxnlBmaks 11111111111 AatlllloramsACOdor aglrelosACOrrdor Panel: —... survepeamlermwentSInam -.. — WrmyetlPer- indslr.. srre avlea : ,'y'g� ■ 6ormyetl Ponds t Q p. Floodi 100YrFoodidn r er Hytlrtlogy r �f� t r.,..., pia cnnron. to osA ul�ml �hools `School Property rt, . Historic Et Igbl NRHP �g1.1` Al 1 Ni Iftilfge Cowrrence sae: t � 1 NalHeamg P oqm AeaecuP ti�i rfV /lsoperlwasne: Parks . it �.......,�.,� ..,..,r ,dry.. wtl RhoreolonFfollues 7 .. dAUraofoos Porerrrarlsmssioni -ims and Ito, ............ ............................... — so-eel, seq -m Nome N Map pr n etl July 201es Scume.0as'mn and Meckle g 0 ........ �y CG cCC. `®7 � © cm r ... ,,... f..1..........: Tumplk : e Auffli r INf4.�l ■ r STIP PROJECT NO. U -3321 Gaston County and Mecklenburg County GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR 111 l(Il`IC,, ,mot ” PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINED DESIGN a. T c1 m Figure 2 -3c I .............. . ... .......... I .............. . ...... MGM,; L I HIM NOTE PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENTS SUBJECT TO CHANGE s Gdf 0 A 0i RtitrredAttmihin 1,r"im Ri Deign RtitTedAttminin . ......... R,hm,d Right dfWq R-redAttminin Serviv Rd Rightof W .. . ... ..... . M RtitT, Attminin Bridg-. q S,P.nt Brea k, J Add tiom I DSA Cordor D giml DSA Cdrrddr Plv, oi Sr,,,Id Nvntol SI- SJnpd Pi Sr,Jm alkind, r Sr,,,PdP,Idl Pool I 100 Y� Foodi Other Htdi T" Ch . 11 DSA Schoml School adpnd� 114A ...... . ........ . Er.aua, Historic Siti,t on dgidbe NRHP Ni Hertqp Cowrrenc� ids )RPM V `1` �� ..MIS `• N�rHe Go Ani B 17� Sp,d.dSit,, .......... Park, §,Rwt� RUCrJt onFJolifits d AtlrJotid,, Nmr Tws misg on Lims RuIRdid, Sq—t Nam, .............. . 'Fi 'n, ............ J 7 lt Scume Gasm and Meckletuig Conntes I ' Map phred July 2010 JJ 'Cm 31� 3C� y -cm . . ............... .. .. ...... ... 0 A J , Oiw J J , Tumpl: e Au ray 0 Re im STIP PROJECT NO. U-3321 VEu. Gaston County and Mecklenburg County GASTON EAST-WEST 'N CONNECTOR n PREFERRED 0 ALTERNATIVE REFINED DESIGN '0 *711 Figure 2-3 d it N 'i Alexander 1=al -1 PAELIMINAAYALIGNMENis S�BJECiiGCHANGE ■ .� ✓.'s i VY V, 'y1 4 ...•.....•..tr r ` "f 9 2 e° °w ec I M1 �A I yrw �A Vy V Vy G }1 I V v y ..... y. Relerretl Alt, rnsllm Aellneb Design e Relerred Alyernal,m Sent, ACatl Design ' ! R, tried Alyernalirre Perinea Right dfWq Rl tried Aly aim Servic, Rd Right df Wq ® R I vre Attmatin Bridge S,il -t Bink, Aaaiymn IDSACnnMnr Dyi.IDSACOrrMOr / ] Parcel: —.... S r,,peblmermueNSImm WrmyebPerennial31- s,rreyemeeilana: ■ s r.peaPd d, FIdDdl roaYrFlood in l aher Aytlrtlogy �¢y Cemxledx i; Chnreh.IOOSA Schnnl, Rhnnl Pmplrd� fSrnMnre, r ✓j Mire Sy fybIl NAMP Nal Hetittge awrrencl Stea /)N,tHerlmpPngc AeasCLIP wa Stl RNs RwtlR f on Folllyles anaAUraeroo: " ^•� "'� f — Power Bans miss, on Lill ® S,b,myinn, AailAnab, �...� _ S[reeN WSq —tName e[g y io Scume. Gann and Mecklenburg Cantles Map pi red July2010. ,4 yy r� ' i I III VI ■ �4% li4 it `I VI `I Vi � . r Tumplke Au l STIP PROJECT N0. U -3321 Gaston County and r.• - ��i Mecklenburg County h < GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR .......f.,...r PREFERRED t�f ' ALTERNATIVE jl REFINED DESIGN 3e Jw j Figure a IIIIIIUiu,,� � �h .......... .,��. ti. uuuuu I I NOTE PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENTS SUBJECT TO CHANGE 111 IId Alt, 11 � I Nh,d Dp R-redAttrnUin ItrIm Rud Deign R ed AttmUin SO n1d RIP11 111111 ..... .. . . .... R-redAttmUin �Ilfl Strvic, Rd RRhtdf Wq 8 R Otrr , AttmUin Irdip X" Y Addlfi1vIDSACdrrddr /q 'il Y lop )9I,vIDSACdrrddr PIrte, S, r,,,,Id 11-ittl SI, 11re,111 rA S—pdW11IUtd1 0 Sw.pdP�,N t 111DI I 100 Yr FloodpIdn Ih,r H,H11, .......... . ............... C-1— Ch,rJh. 11 DSA ........... . Y 17 1 Y" Rhddl Plop d� HisloricS 0ndgI it,t btNRHP A M, tv, I Nat,rtl H,tittge a sites &4 NatHertl Occ A-CLIP 171 Spt.dSIt,, 11 Park, Prwt Ncrett on FP111fits 47 m 1. d AtlrJttid,, N-T-misgonLims PoRni, S[r,,I, Sq—t Ntm, II ...... 777 IIIIIIIII p I Scume Gann and Meckletuig CounLes Map pared July 2010. T Iilllollll A Turnpike Autl . . . . . . . . . . v4p whl'2 STIP PROJECT a 1p m NO. U-3321 A Gaston County and lost I Mecklenburg County ',..kl'RDREI: "Rit I" 0 GASTON EAST-WEST air --7�" 7F.1 CONNECTOR A# 4 . 2: . . . ...... .. .... ....... .... PREFERRED . .. a '�� ALTERNATIVE q ..... .... ll� REFINED DESIGN to Figure 2-3 h 112 0 'F I", 0 A, rt vc" dill % ".4 NOTE PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENTS SUBJECT TO CHANGE LJ .......... ®e ftt! � 1, 921 111 9 11 I tv z Serviv Ri Deign Relerrea At,mUi. Rhhn,d Right dfWq I R rdAttmihin Servic, Rd Rightdf Wt Relerrea Attmihin Bridgt, ' `Ed ,d 'm "n yg DS AC d r d d r 1111111 I v I D S D A C drr d dr S, in pd I nte rinittent dream S, in pd Re ren u S Ir,J m Sr.pdPgd, FIddi 100 Y[ Foodi q Other Htdi Ch,rJh. i, DSA Schools Rhddl adpd� u Er.ghi,a, H s to ri J S it,t on 11 gi ble N R HP Nai Hertqp Ogwrrence Bids NNtHertgppPrdqOcJAmsCLP 17) Sp,d.dSit,, Park, Rwte Rhcmt on Fullifits m d AtlrJttid,, N v Tws misi, on Lims ............... Sb,1Utid,, . .............. .. RUIIRI ....... Sq—t Name . Scume Gasm and Meckletuig Conntes Map phred July 2010 N 111111 —cm IN Turnpike Autl T STIP PROJECT NO U-3321 Gaston County and Mecklenburg County GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE W 1 6 REFINED DESIGN Figure 2-3 i l f / �4 1edJA " ae 1 q zzm 1 b% `f ■ t aa Servivlr at e ai tried alr at . e Rud Deign 1 Ri dRgnr dfWq Servid, nuy r,r r�� t ai aalremire W20 "' sa.oreeone (r 1r 1 na � � ' Add r reI osA Coirdor A f + �� a 1relosacorrNOr ah� Y� � l� .,� I J a� els r,r III g ,•'' "Ya� sureyeamrennueorso-«am h �• (rl,l / � C'' sureyeaPereooasve9m pl10, Vrin9 WI 1 ,• rar ` �]suray�emreaanae rr .• .• V C. rhy V 4r`' V (........� W(S21� 5215 (,' 1g1�ll�YIN� •,,��'�IoaDvrioaplao (r2i1 anerRpareogy C-lea. 01111 S( (fG � 8` W2�i!( /I cn n loosa N5217 ,�•>� ".,"'} r,,r' / A 6`288 mlum Scn 1 III III 1 r , V 19 7 ( 0 1 RnoolPmperg sl inures 5 8n 4ri0( (1191 n q ,q r ( HisloricSin,t ndybItNRHP Ni H,tilqP Dgwrdnce sree ip (x7878➢ 1� NrrReamq Poya a oecuP 1� 6Mrr $P18 A i z 8ri7Ddl Illspiwaan PBti r G0� '4 1&I b r (x210 �n q gryrylpw r Re r F rr (ciao l(r)s ,18Ik r9;sh ('Ji6a�� (x781 NbIgNNaauror [x15 ( 1 Po rerrran :m :sioosm: rib � � ®suaemuooe ` " ! 8 p8 RnIRO ae r, so-eee �� ,r+ • y O �B4 nrName T ` r { 11j1 4e19a 274 82 $22 d � . r ,wrr` ry^g ' r r 1 . N•�' All WI 9111 1a ............ � g ttt 4 m 1I AC.r r P 11 Ili I ,u- I ` II II kl + 51111 188 8 f 18 r ` +�. + ti Ippll °111111„ � � , l J I�,� Scume Gasm and Mecklenburg�Ccumes Map gr red July2010. J � V GGIV�V'111i IIr h1 V� � �`� � • ( lr7Ya� � � �. III Omni T all � {e7 ..a i � a'•� 1� � � �� 11111 r ` a 1r2i6. IVY .v.._....,v.; ( ."°" �Y�m "�nulllllllllllllllliiil mm v NOTE PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENTS SUBJECT TO CHANGE I Dui ........... RIIIIIdAtIlliti. 6 Ri Deggn R, 111,dAtIlliti. Ri Deign Re trredAttrlhin I R,hm,d Right dfWq VIII R-redAttminin Servic, Rd Right of Wt Reierrea Attminin U om I D S Co r d d r A J Add S" " B"" D v I D S A Corr id or Plv, liSJ �n p I nte Tuttent S I m in Min N� Cr lig I Us ,r, i( Family Farrn) S, npd Pi SInam rA S, my W, 11 Und, ov ■ suveyeavonae FIddi 100 Y, Foodi Other Htdi Vt2HA, C-let. Ch,rch. 11 DSA I I I I I Ing Schoml School PidpndN 1. V,230 Historic Siti,t on tlgidbe NRHP ! IIIIIIII II VV mpuiVuuVUUUmulluuum Ni H,titJge Cowrrence Bids Nat HeringeProgCoAni 17J SprI.d Sit,, V11 11 PIrk, sL Rwte RCrJt on FJolifits III III d AtlrJotid,, IIIIIIIIIIIIiIIWllllllllllllllllll „iIIIIIIV III Ill - Nmr Tws misg on Lims W23 J8 Sb,[Utim, gpllllllllllllllillllluy�lilllllll�� ml RuIRdid, Td Sir, 1, A. Sq.,t Ndm, "I 'qi Scume Gasm and Meckletuig Gccuntes Map phnOd July 2010 A OMNI —cm Tumplike Au STIP PROJECT ,! 1 NO. U-3321 Gaston County and Mecklenburg County 4, GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR V ..... . ...... ....... ..... ..... . ...... . ..... ®``� J A y Tn J.. ``% PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 0' REFINED DESIGN V, Figure 2-3 k p 1 Lean g De aeie a.e ¢Inea Get IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII A'q Ser"iman atre �� l Illllllllllul serreeAOeao �, t r-.,,� 111111 IIIIIIIIII aeierreaAlr ai�e � y♦ f +},y .,!` ✓r % `r !r � OOOOOOrOi°" uuuuluuuuu u u p �� uulll Aer iaAglnr i m feTl`If?IY, All 1111111101 C, a eaAr a Serviv Aa Right of lay aeierreaA e lrtmilfi t J o00o Braaa sg.nrB.ks Y� 1� w Add tim I osA Coirdor 4,'� �ry � �4 Of gi.1 )SA COrrMOr a ell SJrnpd mrermueorBo-e9m f,—• 1A SJrnpd Per-id dream II11I1I111I reyemteaana S, pdPdd, ( IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII,IIIIIIIIIIIW IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIUIV VVV a" }tK 4 F I' t/ Flontraroodi � '""` IllppuV uIIW 1 �....y Y IIIIIIII IIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII ma yr F i 'V dfVnyl k� �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �uuVVV y c 4 +,` \. % ' I anereyamogy ' V .r '�+'�" �•' I VVVVVUUUUUIiuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuul Y.w IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIV e wIIIIIII�� @III ankh k Gnoron.lo)SA 1,5 }'b �rl Diu IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII , f a 111111 A IIIIIIIIIIIIII�� IIII Schoml ilk I u School Pldprd� 1. } �... °V 1, ■ Blruclures v SO Y t�..�• r +� � y C 4t Hislo ndybItNRHP NarralAe<r G Sit,, �r� NarAerlmgePrognaAm GLIP 17JsanwaBaea -Parka iy' Rwtr Rhcrefti on Faarrea dAtlrJctid,, i "'{`ti iky,�, 1 ♦� ,N IIII''iT, `� yy 7 j,�1 vorerira<IamaaonrrRa ® suasmroos RuRinda fsveeN se r Name V 'f`� , ' e �4l `ty� Y v Sour, Galan and f 9eokleturg G umes 1 � ,L) � '��!'a`rl ` ,G,— '� ♦ � � �,, ��,ri��r.{i� Map gnnVetl July 2010. + t � �k ) n � 1 r 1, l'if ' I ,'.��rao( ,r �,/ Tumplkle Ae�rrVty STIP PROJECT NO U-3321 Gaston County and r a k + l , Mecklenburg County �� GASTON EAST-WEST yr III ` •ry � (,I � (( „f � CONNECTOR l F k 1 �` • -'" (f`'' PREFERRED �a X111Sly allsNlousra E f` SIP ALTERNATIVE �� 'd w ..W_ tj 279 �'� °.•! , ��iY '.s + REFINED DESIGN ,� Figure 2.3 m g 1�',� NOTE PAELIMINAAY ALIGNMENTS SUBJECT iGCHANGE } # •';'�F {y „�`'° � „�•�, f,� ma 0 0 I ... . . ........ ....... . .. 80 , �J NOTE PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENTS SUBJECT TO CHANGE ii GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 00 REFINED DESIGN Figure 2-3 n J ... . . ........ ....... . .. 80 , �J NOTE PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENTS SUBJECT TO CHANGE ii GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 00 REFINED DESIGN Figure 2-3 n .......... r...' r� J� w 0 aegna uuu Reterrea Alternative Relined De sign aet tried Alr at re Serviv RoaaDeign R, edAlr a Rhhn,d Rghr dfWq R t tried Alr at Servic, RdRighr df Way a t rreaAlrernat ve Brag.-, SegmznrBeeN6 IIIIIIIIIII Aaairronalosacondor agimloSACdrrdor Panel: —.... Borveyea mrermluent SImm surveyed Per-id 31- �_.. Surveyed vteuand: ■ Borvepd Pdrds FmoII rod vr, Fmodpldn Dher Hyartlogy C-leax Churohas In DSA III�IIII Schools uu Rhool Pmpddty Structures Historic Sites on d glble NRHP Natural Heritage occurrence sires NarHeamgeProgUcAmsC-lP I� Suparlwd sites Parks ,Rwte ronFaollmea andAtlraer — PovrerrreoamlaNOnurza ® subsmrioos Poland, — SlreeN Seq.N Name a v .� M1 Igak.f_I Scume'. Gann and Mecklenburg Goumes Map phred July 2010. © cm ��Iroitn °rvt Tumplike Au l STIP PROJECT NO. U -3321 Gaston County and Mecklenburg County GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINED DESIGN Fig ure N o r T t e5 rr Ill all f Leg^rd uu Relerrea Alrernallve umiiuu P.ellnea Design Relerrea Alrernalin Bernice Ri Design VIII Relerrea Alremini. Rermea Right dfWq Relerrea Alreminin Bervioe Rd Rlghtof Wt ®ReierreaAireroaive Bridges BegmxnrBeaks AaairmnalDSACOnuor agimIDBACdrrddr Rr"eis —.... survepeamrermwentSInam surveyed Perennial Sir - 5 rveyedWetle as ■ Borveyed Porch Flood r 100 vcFood in Other Hptlrtlogy Camxteax tin Churohas In DBA ji Schools Rhool Pmparry so-ucwres Historic sites onellgibie NRHP '..II NcwraiHerirageoccurreocesires NarHeamgeProgUcAreascuP 17J s p died sites Parks Rwte Rhcmt onFaollmes anaAUruti — vovrerrransmisaonLirzs ® subsmrioos Ru ROaas — BtreeN Sq. m Name N .. v Scume'. Gasm and Mecklenburg GDUnoes Map pinOd July 2010. � "Iro irn° rvr Tl mplike Au l STIP PROJECT NO. U -3321 Gaston County and Mecklenburg County GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINED DESIGN NOTE PRELIMINARYALIGNMENis SUBJECT TO CHANGE "r ///-1,'-'\17'1-11 , II I f, 1IIII rywp' / , I Figure 2.3p 1 C i E m r3 r �V dim } �oIroffn °fvt Trumplike Au w #r STIP PROJECT NO. U -3321 Gaston County and Mecklenburg County GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINED DESIGN I NOTE PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENTS SUBJECT TO CHANGE - ., ,y `tJJ�'1Y" l' � rr t I Figure 2.3q � Lend uuu RelerreaAltc,hstI. ReterreaAltemallve service load oeslon VIII ReterreaAltemalve P.e0nea light cfWq R terrea Alttmisti e Service ltl Sol Way Reterrea Alternative Bruges S11 IB.kl Additional osA Cordor Ctlglr�aI osA Corrdor %�'•t, ❑ Rroels '' --- Borveyea intermittent stream t. ` — survepilPerennlasveam Ch % arlotte / f_l s,rrreyeaWetlands ■survepdPOr�ds j�uglaS'', tr �r r I PloodvI y IIIIIIIIIII toavr�Flooaplao % J Cthsr Hyartlogy ! r' Cemxledx •' .......... ` —•CM1• Churches In eBA �``•. } rr III�IIII Schools School Property slruaures Historic sites on dogs NlHP Ni Hstittge Occurrents sltes ,•` NatHeatiAreasouP 5 171 s pericti ;' t� V Rrws • � 111 kr a. Rwtd leoreafi on Faollltles anaAtlractioos tt — PovrerrmosmisMooLints substations lallloads rc' streets V t segmzm Name 1 11fr 11 r" sr f, ! b SGUme Gasm and f 9eekletutg Cowles r Map FnnOd July 2010. ! 1 i % Ij f >r v n` cCC s m r3 r �V dim } �oIroffn °fvt Trumplike Au w #r STIP PROJECT NO. U -3321 Gaston County and Mecklenburg County GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINED DESIGN I NOTE PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENTS SUBJECT TO CHANGE - ., ,y `tJJ�'1Y" l' � rr t I Figure 2.3q � V P I • IrJ „� Lor Turnpike Autl STIP PROJECT �,•... .• f� °� NO. U -3321 w, ti Jh Gaston County and :• ` Mecklenburg County 'x lt``'f'” ....,... e i i�► GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR �r PREFERRED +I ALTERNATIVE i REFINED DESIGN Elio cyn Rural Hh txiC )c ` ` NOTE . PAELIMINAAY ALIGNMENTS SUBJECT iGCHANGE Figure 2.3 r '* + I J r ,✓u's t,,. r a 1 f / y r i, M �!iw f ,`j °r a j*i w s i.., �' °..I..,b • ", a jr dI, I f C w~-, ,� k 'rCTM d,,,,,, .r s ,n � Legend j f , I r � `� � � � I * Note: Noise barriers shown on this ✓ , �y,Iv Preliminary Noise Barriers /, 0 i 4 "' ma are preliminary. Thefeasbt 0 a ' � ° v r , a, ,r 0,, P P Y Y Preferred Alternative ' � � and reasonableness of potential 1 + I 3 „ t r "" ��, noise barrierswillbereassessed �RefinedCenterline Syr for the Preferred Alternative during L,, SegmentBreaks 1 � k l �/ d� �G//;��,,'�M�/ , i�( l � 'ij � , tl . ,r � i n 1 �/ 4/ +rc�}i ��' 1� j� �r ✓/u� � � ✓r I �Iui I U j'� I' 1I /t �J d / �(I h Y n�� i i' J , r Iu�• I J (Jl yyp y' �� r ° !, 1 il�i" i�, „ W� �, . l l "l "l".r g,�. � l�^.� .�.;.;� .. , ,, � . w ,l � � "l..,f . r yy� 1 i, N r I � ! �i �y, �!lM6 , „ � pJ � ��p � ,'� .eIk� l�. x l �1 � �J 1J1 � 1 �'11� l' 1 ��t , I I1�Y � J�Jr� a � �w� � � � , rI I 1 � " a� / . � .� •Iu.,i�r 1 �f � � �! ).;. ! u.,k N ,r " ;, • r „ � g w r ® p �N) V�n J I �` ;eI ' � ,l 14� N� wL » Yt . 1 .I a N r 1I t a, �r r v ¢�jw .o s �i ' P a V � I 0� .� I � r 1 � I > q ® � t� '” rf r°, r r ; % f ' � i kl �i ^iIt?r py' rri 1 � r�rp �It` t ; J r� a „ `” r �� i li � � � , M r� A e �"� a Y1 1I / � fr � y's "r; r j— !' ! � �rd � � i „1 aNi Iyp ,• .f"� I, h"�.rl .4�'r '�F j,,..` ., r� � � , � . a �r I 11 1 a., I✓,� i y( �� *C � W r r �l r I `' j k " r q, .,�!w "r i 'f � w 1' ' � 0. I v k i ' Y I ■ ��^i a �« �` ,. � �, rG 1 yd, � " �,l"m• �� ! ,."� wM �w � r, ). a � ,"i�� ! ;, . , � 1 l Iif d p �� , t i "� ✓( s�si ,yr' % .r � '+ . . , p / � l � � �vl H I %` 1 /r J d w � / �/ � �/ / "/%a ' l r �"� � ' r w I � 1 I d� � I i C�1Jf ��r�p,I r � . � , , Y � ��a U . j °nw i f� 4 �l' kh r '.�� rY � ,Y , � l � . r • , ; K ^I r i r . � � ^ � f � r , '� �, r" p y 1 < r i � r ,1" tI . I 1 m yi F � , 7 J1� r aI .,u -(r �c z.f r !. , t � k 1 ” r �r 9 ' � �� " r�pI" � r • i� �h � � yI. w I " d ' "f"r °,('.", ; . i�,o rL '. a.l 6N" " !k- '� �w, '".i l .: � i . � � J .. r �l�"wr'� my� 'r lM ��w ur l 'kR � " � fM 1 r 4: ■ l � , "�r Ut1 ➢� % � � ' � r "( ;r 2 ,; uIq wIn ryd,^" i i j _ ", 1f v UI i ri , ' � i � % � r • ,i ��.. 1 at , , , . R,' ✓ .e� . ,„ 0 � ,,r:1`� 4 n ,., "' •°J � "�;' , � � � � '� 1 " " p � , u l t I F ' I � " i r�' I ` ,i 1 '.�•` ., �", � y � 1 M r•�� '�.. l • C� , �� . r �■ �) � �' V1 I VIU� ■ �% I r P1 rev f eJ r o rr e d ! A ` I ly�t I e> r in 1 s Q - a t iv.. e f' al design. trl rr F Refined DSACorridor w% t Y West Blvd Realignment no t (Construction by Others) 29 s ) 29 Schools County Line 1 fp I fate Line Buildings " " Streets Hydrology Parks 1 011 ,�i „ ' qw Private Recreation Facilities jIj,, d and Attractions , K3ASegment Name yi 1� 1 10� � FIE A 6, J f � � Source Gaston Count and 7 Mecklenbur ulGunn Map prnfed July 2010 J/, � �� %t Mes / p q1 �� I, 1uiro Authority Gasto w x r STIP PROJECT Airport N0. U -3321 Gaston County and Mecklenburg County 41 2d GASTON EAST-WEST t0L CONNECTOR PREFERRED , - u ALTERNATIVE ��, a ��p NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT d,ve ulo d y a 3 , u w a I 74,• �,,� Figure 2-4a it ;' " Note Noise barriers show tr�i � ^ Legend n on this , map are preliminary. The feasibility Preliminary Noise Barriers e r g �' 46 r' ' and reasonableness of potential Preferred Alternative 1_l N b wu ��Y "" �� Q �� ^�^ :Ar " / noisebarrierswillbereassessed �RefinedCenterline r �^ �� forthepreferredAlternativedurin �SegmentBreaks rf/ �w� g 1 Y+� r w g Preferred Alternative I� f final design. " w o + rrr s4s _ Refined DSA Corridor i (.� � � � '� �gg�'�" 1 �� /��✓� � h " � � � w � � � West Blvd Realignment �� (Construction by Others) � r l i ,� w ✓em N � / p � n i ,� "� 1 P � rY d �. q,� . �,,,, Schools ink Count Line o i �wY� n''r Y k i iir, Y a ii P r 29 f r. i ii 6. �U� �n,�f ..74 fate Line AA ��Y �I�(w Buildings ya �" Streets ✓ „µ d „ "° / �i �'� r Hydrology ply y✓ �� Parks �� " � ✓'" "� �� Private Recreation Facilities and Attractions n K3ASegment Name t ^ vi �' 1i Q yp f,, I f l oil 1 � 1 Yi Y. .i' ��i d k / � �� iw � /l � rJ < ✓r, � �dI i rl1 �': CHA LOTfS ^ �GL 's D0 A r s `, J � INTE RNIA�TIONA'L ", w °� Source Gaston Count} and AiR�PJm T MecklenburgCounfy ry t4 ^ "Y f Map printed July 2010, 1a,........ 4, El s� © LLB. S u��wew�LUV. Re '. 1w,rr� i �iRN r „, � IJix¢fiiruruuuly' 1 f cute 1 r a y w� �rtro i� � Autfi y m��A<<�� 7g �� S TIP PROJECT d�AAin I a' y� N0. U -3321 Gaston County and Pa o� Mecklenburg County S%ANk ; l ST G �1 ✓, ONEAST-WEST t 7 � CONNECTOR II II/ alrl7ihttl„� , iuu 51u �� r ✓: r I ''f r �s PREFERRED Nilniiiinlf,nideii rt 1p ` 1 ALTERNATIVE NOISE IMPACT �� , ,�Aw� s \ ASSESSMENT 2 f f 1 1 � lli °'� d � :Iw.1�,',�{ Figure 2-4b Legend � ...... .. .... . . ... ... .. 0 Ground Water Incident "'NU, Hazardous Waste Site V 4 Junk Yard `u 0 Manufacturing .... .. ..... u q, Other j Underground Storage Tank ................ X, 0 1 .. ..... .. 1/`1-"";; .. . ....... Site Identification Nuni SP 1P Alternative 9 Centerline 6 ..... . ... . S,�� 'j X Alternative 9 DSACorridor . ... . ..... West Blvd Realignment . . . .... . (Construction by Others) . . . ..... 4' Parks rl . .. . . . .... Private Recreation Facilities and Attractions ib, V, 'X, County Lines "[2] A,/ 6 State Line .. . ..... . . VV Z, x V U _2 Inters(ates "j . . . .. . . . . . . . US Routes M11 Aj A-- Streets cAlii 14 y Railroad V, / to, Hydrology '�K Nd6i, M-1/la I `:Z' G City Limits u);, 6/, 5, 5", ly Y X, See Table in Chapter 2 of the 74 A 16, FEIS /7, /, Source Gaston County and ..... . ... . . Mecklenburg County G IS . ..... .. . . . . . ... . . Map prince February 2010. X.. . ... .. .. / 21 ��;7 'k, . .. ... . tt I ` "�; Douglas q AP/ o 22 Gastonia: z u u, Rd Airport R,ae( . ........... T 711 A tr�,, "V, J Y Q" or4 % Turnpilke Auth 26 Y ............ J 23 STIP PROJECT V 24 "A o -3321 a NO. U '4",/ ...... . . . . . . . ,; . ..... Gaston County and Mecklenburg County 27 A ;� .. . . ... .. . . , V GASTON EAST•WEST A� CONNECTOR . . ...... . I HAZARDOUS u A A MATERIALS SITES Figure I County, Legend Quantitative ICE Study Area Boundary 2009 Qualitative ICE Study Area Preferred Alternative Study Area HUC 12 Subwatersheds ® Beaverdam Creek- Catawba River Catawba Creek Duharts Creek- South Fork Catawba River Lake Wylie - Catawba River Lower Crowders Creek ElMill Creek- Lake Wylie Paw Creek- Lake Wylie ® Upper Crowders Creek E Source: Gaston East -West Connector Charlotte Quantitative Indirect and r Cumulative Effects Analysis y Louis Berger Group, Aug. 2D10 M © NOT TO SCALE l �%"11 STIP PROJECT NO. U -3321 Gaston County and Mecklenburg County GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR COMPARISON OF QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE ICE STUDY AREAS NGT IHIMIWALIGN..SUBJEcrTGCH4NGE I Figure 2.6 rr Mount 42 321 94 72 � 92 orfh Carol. ,- 45 �% 70 r 74 ro NGTE PRELIMINARYALIGNLENiE SUBJECT TG CHANGE RE 0 1 46 County, Charlotte 406 Nba River Source: Gaston Easl -West Connector Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis Louis Berger Group, Aug. 2D10 NOT TO SCALE NnNnN ruNOUla,� Turnpike Authority STIP PROJECT NO. U -3321 Gaston County and Mecklenburg County GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR ABSOLUTE CHANGE IN HOUSEHOLDS 2005.2035 NO BUILD COMPARISON Figure 2.7 i 4 31 , q.2� G t6la r i 23 i 139 28 104 i li it lad, 13 4 62 ,� 89 a 46 62 70 39 i 3 4 2 24 2 3 4 37 54 1 0 19 0 3 16 P 209 CrafOrton 030501011501 0 6� 3a�— 4 0 Upper CrowdersCreek 1 2 44 4 124 21! 1 1 40 79 0 ; 0 0 . 138 09; Ofi 74 4 030501011502 tat Catawba Creek Gaston County, North Carolina 42 179 0305010115U` "--1 0 ! 70 o f99 ;"w'awww 271 �wwnwmow.� 3 ` 0 35 ' 1 Lower Crowders Creek emu. 10 b I York Ckrify, South Carolina .. 171ffloinf 321� 6 MG PREUMWALIGN.. SUBJEcr TG CHANGE R Mount Catawba n 160 9' �i26i 1a 22 141 69 i 94 0 42 l( `'a ` • Paw Creek-Lake Wylie 1 Charlotte B 20 '9 Source: Gaston Easl -West Connector Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis Louis Berger Group, Aug. 2D10 NOT TO SCALE i NpNTIi :NNOLIIdFl Turnpike Authority STIP PROJECT NO. U -3321 Gaston County and Mecklenburg County GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR ABSOLUTE CHANGE IN EMPLOYMENT 2005.2035 NO BUILD COMPARISON Figure 2.8 NGTE PRELIMINARYALIGNLENiE SUBJECT TG CHANGE ru ss' "' G tbnia 71 68 9 5 i 66 121 299 3 aP `//�. 67� 46 94 rE % r a Mount Catawba 90 177 2 2 27 5 65 . 46 91 26 011 3 Paw C,rcet kLap • s1 ,2WW� County, Charlotte 406 Nba River Source: Gaston Easl -West Connector Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis Louis Berger Group, Aug. 2D10 NOT TO SCALE Nn9nN ruNOUla,4 Turnpike Authority STIP PROJECT NO. U -3321 Gaston County and Mecklenburg County GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR ABSOLUTE CHANGE IN HOUSEHOLDS 2005.2035 BUILD COMPARISON Figure 2.9 i 0 )'4 II 35 117 9 %/' 2a2 ' 4 ?; G tonia B64 tt 8 139 I Mcl 4 177 11 552 �� 96 8 44 58 60 43 0 l �. 8 3 3 �1 2 ' S 4 63 r �4 16 X030501011501 ° ,I 8 J 45 6 UpperCiowdersCre'ek 2 17A __ -_ � 187 , p 8 2 24 2 u 8 74 1 52 I 5 234 ` 85 66 I '� 9 � 030501011502 257 atawha Creek ;Gaston County, North Carolina 67 xww'�'u1nMNpu µµ 030501011504 "'m' -, Lower CrowdersCreek -16 56 1 µµMlul York County, South Carolina .w 2 7 ��Illlimm. NGTE PRELIMINARYALIGNLENiE SGBJEcr TG CHANGE Charlotte River Source: Gaston East-West Connector Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis Louis Berger Group, Aug. 2D10 fNOT Mount old 1-`7. /V 1 030501020605 \ Duharts Creek ouch Fork Catawba River µn9ni :uNOUla,4 ' 27 17 VN 12� '2 11 Gaston County and 91 75 89 .91 1s elm in µA96' CONNECTOR 4 "'" 120 oar 0305b1011"4" IN EMPLOYMENT �i 147. Paw Greet -Lake Wylie Charlotte River Source: Gaston East-West Connector Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis Louis Berger Group, Aug. 2D10 fNOT TO SCALE ■ µn9ni :uNOUla,4 Turnpike Authority STIP PROJECT NO. U -3321 Gaston County and Mecklenburg County GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR ABSOLUTE CHANGE IN EMPLOYMENT 2005.2035 BUILD COMPARISON Figure 2.10 2 Mount 'brk Catawba RliVer a �o I I o 47 0` o 12 1 a o 4 ,. 1 a 4 81 20 2 30501011, -19 2 p�u'w i"x V C a PaW rmeekLak 4 a a Charlotte r i 49 ,...,..._...,...... 95 7 J ° ` k'l,'030501011406 s Lal(101 lie-Catawba River �a S 31 �klehbu County, Source: Gaston Easl -West Connector Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis Louis Berger Group, Aug. 2D10 fNOT TO SCALE NpNTIi JINOLINFl Turnpike Authority STIP PROJECT NO. U -3321 Gaston County and Mecklenburg County GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR ABSOLUTE CHANGE IN HOUSEHOLDS 2035 NO BUILD TO BUILD NGT IMMIWALIGNEEN.suaJEcrTGCHANGE I Figure 2.11 NGTEPRELIMINARYALIGNLENiSSGBJECfTGCNANGE I Figure 2.12 a Mr, C 6" iv , Stanley,, M tawba creeks at ' 'x Source Gasen Eas(-Nesl Connector u ite Quantitative noired are Cumulative Elecls; Analysis Lows Berger Group Aug 2010 41 Z' A"�' 6 'i"Y" 1-1)) C �4 D' NOT TO SCALE "050 1406" La ie�ba�wba River '11' :'c 01 "'i Q . ........ . A" A n Turnpike Authority i il 1 Ni aw ieh 16 41 ';a (ha STIP PROJECT NO. U-3321 ✓ V Creek 2a '' ke W YV 7, 1 Gaston County and ...... .. Mecklenbur Count .a g y I�t 7" $ GASTON EAST-WEST vll�n CONNECTOR Y 1;!7�41 0 TREE COVER AND FOREST INTERIOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "'i HABITAT PATCHES ';00 Figure 2.13 Legend F7Quantitative ICE Study Area Boundary Study Area HUC 12 Subwatersheds Preferred Alternative 2007 Tree Cover Forest Interior Habitat (Greater than 300 feet from edges) I to 20 21 to 100 E:1 10 11 o 2 0 0 J 201to5OO 50 1 to 1,000 Greater than 1,000 tawba creeks at ' 'x Source Gasen Eas(-Nesl Connector u ite Quantitative noired are Cumulative Elecls; Analysis Lows Berger Group Aug 2010 41 Z' A"�' 6 'i"Y" 1-1)) C �4 D' NOT TO SCALE "050 1406" La ie�ba�wba River '11' :'c 01 "'i Q . ........ . A" A n Turnpike Authority i il 1 Ni aw ieh 16 41 ';a (ha STIP PROJECT NO. U-3321 ✓ V Creek 2a '' ke W YV 7, 1 Gaston County and ...... .. Mecklenbur Count .a g y I�t 7" $ GASTON EAST-WEST vll�n CONNECTOR Y 1;!7�41 0 TREE COVER AND FOREST INTERIOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "'i HABITAT PATCHES ';00 Figure 2.13 CH. 3 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION AFTER THE DRAFT EIS E,1�1�1 Chapter 3 details coordination efforts with the public, as well as federal, state, and local agencies, that have taken place since the Draft EIS was published ( April 2009). A summary of substantive comments on the Draft EIS and responses to those comments also are included. ' I 3.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Public involvement has been, and continues to be, integral to the planning process for the Gaston East -West Connector. Public involvement activities since the Draft EIS have included Pre - Hearing Open Houses, Public Hearings, and small group meetings. The Pre - Hearing Open Houses and Public Hearings are summarized in Summary - Citizens Informational Workshop Series #4 - Public Hearings for the Gaston East -West Connector (December 2009), incorporated by reference. 3.1.1 AVAILABILITY OF DRAFT EIS FOR REVIEW A Notice of Availability of the Gaston East -West Connector Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2009 (Federal Register Volume 74, No. 98, page 24006). The Draft EIS was made available for public review beginning May 13, 2009, at local libraries and government offices, as listed in Section 11.5 of the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS in its entirety also is available for download at the NCTAs Web site: www.ncturnpil<e.org /projects /gaston. 3.1.2 PRE-HEARING OPEN HOUSES AND PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1.2.1 Advertisement of Pre - Hearing Open Houses and Public Hearings The Pre - Hearing Open Houses and Public Hearings held in June 2009 were announced via a postcard to area property owners and residents (18,776 postcards), newspaper advertisements, website postings, and letters to project study area churches. The public notice was provided by the NCTA and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), and published in local papers. Attendance totaled approximately 887 at the Pre - Hearing Open Houses and approximately 785 at the Public Hearings. Advertisements were published in the Charlotte Observer on June 3, 10, 17, 21, 23, and 26, 2009. Advertisements were published in the Gaston Gazette on June 3, 10, and 17, 2009. 3.1.2.2 Pre - Hearing Open Houses and Local Officials Meeting Four Pre - Hearing Open Houses were held the week of June 22, 2009 to present the Draft EIS and Recommended Alternative. Attendees were encouraged to sign -in, read the handout, view the slideshow and project displays, and to discuss the project one -on -one with project team representatives. There were no formal presentations given at the open houses. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 3 -1 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION #. M= The first Pre - Hearing Open House was held at the Gastonia Adult Recreation Center on June 22, 2009, from 4:00 pm to 8:00 pm. Approximately 287 people attended and 25 comments were placed in the comment box. The second Pre - Hearing Open House was held on June 23, 2009, from 2:30 pm to 6:30 pm at Forestview High School. Approximately 352 people attended and 59 comments were placed in the comment box. I ne Unrca Yre- Hearing Vpen House was tiela Pre- Hearing Open House at Forestview High School on June 24, 2009, from 2:30 pm to 7:30 pm at South Point High School. There were 191 people in attendance, and 28 comments were submitted. The fourth Pre - Hearing Open House was held on June 25, 2009 from 2:30 pm to 6:30 pm at Olympic High School. There were 57 attendees and five comments submitted. A Local Officials Meeting was held from 1:00 pm to 2:30 pm on June 22, 2009 at the Gaston County Police Department. Twenty -seven people attended this meeting. 3.1.2.3 Public Hearings Public Hearings were held on June 23 and June 25, 2009, in conjunction with the Pre - Hearing Open House series. The auditorium at Forestview High School (in Gaston County) was used on June 23, and the auditorium at Olympic High School (in Mecklenburg County) was used on June 25. Public Hearing at Forestview High School The Public Hearings began with a formal presentation by NCTA followed by a comment period. Citizens were provided the opportunity to sign up to speak in advance at the Pre - Hearing Open Houses, through the project website, via email, or by calling the NCTA. Citizens could also sign up to speak immediately prior to each Public Hearing. Attendees who had not pre- registered to speak could do so after the pre- registered speakers. Each speaker was allotted three minutes. Anyone requesting additional time was allowed to return after all others were given an opportunity to speak. Approximately 700 people attended the June 23 Public Hearing at Forestview High School and approximately 85 people attended the June 25 Public Hearing at Olympic High School. There were 53 speakers at the June 23 Public Hearing and 29 speakers at the June 25 Public Hearing. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 3 -2 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION �_.•. #.= 3.1.2.4 Public Comment Period Comments regarding the project have been accepted throughout the planning process. However, the formal public comment period on a Draft EIS is set based on the date a Draft EIS Notice of Availability is posted in the Federal Register, which for this project was May 22, 2009. Sixty days following that date is July 21, 2009. SAFETEA -LU mandates that the Draft EIS comment period not exceed 60 days, unless agreement is reached with the lead agencies, the project sponsor, and all participating agencies. The public review period ended July 21, 2009. As discussed in Section 3.3, numerous comments were received from the public, interest groups, and federal, state, and local agencies via letter, comment form, email, petition, or resolution, or verbally during the Public Hearing. Comments received between April 25, 2009 (the date the Draft EIS was signed) and July 21, 2009 are included in Appendix B, along with responses to comments, as needed. 3.1.3 SMALL GROUP MEETINGS Throughout the study process, project representatives have met with a variety of organizations, agencies, and groups to exchange information, collect data, or to make a presentation about the project at a group's request. Small group meetings prior to publication of the Draft EIS are summarized in Section 9.1.3 of the Draft EIS. Table 3 -1 provides a summary of the small group meetings that have occurred since the Draft EIS was prepared. TABLE 3 -1: Small Group Meeting Summaries Meeting Group /Agency Meeting Purpose and Summary Date Project representatives described the Recommended Alternative (DSA 9), next 5/1/09 Gaston Chamber steps, and project schedule followed by a question and answer period. The questions primarily involved the project limits, schedule, and bridge issues. The formulation of the NCTA and the project background were presented. The 5/5/09 Charlotte Chamber presentation also included a summary of the Draft EIS, stakeholder involvement, Southwest Chapter project milestones, and a description of the Recommended Alternative. Mount Holly Project representatives described the NEPA process and provided a summary of 7/2/09 Development the project followed by a question and answer period. Primary concerns included Foundation stream crossings and growth. Broomfield Project representatives described the Recommended Alternative (DSA 9) 07/07/09 Neighborhood followed by a question and answer period. Primary citizen concerns included Watch direct impacts to property and issues related to right -of -way acquisition. Access to the Matthews Acres subdivision (Belfast Drive area) was discussed. 10/19/09 Carolina Speedway Discussed potential impacts to the Carolina Speedway and possible design modifications. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 3 -3 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION #. M= TABLE 3 -1: Small Group Meeting Summaries Meeting Group /Agency Meeting Purpose and Summary Date Discussed the NCDOT STIP Project R -2248H Garrison Road /1 -485 interchange, the Charlotte Douglas Gaston East -West Connector project, and CDIA projects (intermodal facility, STIP International Airport Project U -3411 West Boulevard project) in the area. It was agreed that attendees 11/04/09 (CDIA) and Charlotte would continue to coordinate potential phasing and design solutions. Key points Department of included constructability, minimizing impacts to the intermodal facility, and Transportation minimizing "throwaway" work. (CDOT) Based on the input received at the November 4, 2009 meeting described above, two new design concepts for the Gaston East -West Connector interchange with 01/06/10 NCDOT, CDOT, and 1 -485 were developed by NCTA and presented at this meeting. It was agreed that Norfolk Southern NCTA, NCDOT, CDOT, and Norfolk Southern would continue to coordinate potential phasing and solutions. Attendees agreed that both concepts would work, but preferred Concept 1. Discussed the two new design concepts for the Gaston East -West Connector interchange at 1 -485 that were discussed at the January 6, 2010 meeting with 01/19/10 CDIA and CDOT NCDOT, CDOT, and Norfolk Southern. CDIA and CDOT preferred Concept 1, the concept incorporated into the Preferred Alternative Refined Preliminary Design described in this Final EIS. Discussed the requirements for the application for a FERC (Federal Energy 01/19/10 Duke Energy Regulatory Commission) permit revision to allow for a roadway crossing of Lake Wylie. NCTA was invited to give a presentation to the two chambers. NCTA provided an 02/25/10 Charlotte & Gastonia update on the Preferred Alternative selection and changes to the preliminary Chambers design, the status of the project in the planning process, the project schedule, and the financial program. NCTA was invited to present at a regular Wednesday meeting. NCTA provided an update on the Preferred Alternative selection and changes to the preliminary 03/03/10 Pisgah ARP Church design, the status of the project in the planning process, the project schedule, and the financial program. The Preferred Alternative would not directly impact the Pisgah ARP Church. Discussed potential impacts on Bruce's Iron & Metal, a scrap metal recycling company, based on the refined preliminary design for Preferred Alternative. Bruce's Iron & Metal has special operational requirements that were not readily 4/21/10 Bruce's Iron & Meta l apparent via a review of mapping and GIS data. Due to their specialized operational requirements, relocation to a new site likely would not be possible. Relocation on -site of the impacted facilities would have substantial costs. NCTA has included a Project Commitment to review the refined preliminary design during final design to evaluate ways to minimize costs and impacts. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 3 -4 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION #. M= 3.2 AGENCY COORDINATION Agency coordination regarding the project is discussed in Section 9.2.3 of the Draft EIS. Agency coordination meetings have been held throughout the project development process (since 200 1) to receive comments on project studies, achieve concurrence points, and solicit issues and concerns from the agencies. 3.2.1 TEAC MEETINGS When the NCTA assumed administration of the project in 2005, the NCTA continued to initiate agency coordination at regularly scheduled monthly meetings, referred to as Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAL) meetings. Agencies participating in these meetings include FHWA, NCDOT, USAGE, US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), US Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA), NC Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC), NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), NC Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office (HPO), Mecklenburg -Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO), and Gaston Urban Area MPO (GUAMPO). Table 3 -2 provides summaries of the TEAL meetings held for the Gaston East -West Connector since the Draft EIS was prepared. The TEAL meetings were held to discuss the NEPA /404 Merger process Concurrence Point 3 (Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative [LEDPA]) and Concurrence Point 4a (Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources). Appendix G includes the forms for Concurrence Points 3 and 4a, and an email update from USEPA dated July 1, 2010 (discussed in Section 3.2.3). The forms for Concurrence Points 1, 2, and 2a are included in the Draft EIS in Appendix A -1. TABLE 3 -2: TEAC Meeting Summaries Meeting Meeting Purpose and Summary Date Concurrence Point 3 meeting. Discussed comments received from the agencies and the public on the Draft EIS. Introduced information in order to achieve agreement on the LEDPA. USEPA stated that it 08/12/09 would not be able to concur on a LEDPA until issues associated with the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the 303(d) streams are satisfactorily addressed. USACE indicated they have no issues of concern related to the project. Agreement was reached on the plan to achieve the LEDPA. Concurrence Point 3 meeting. Reviewed responses to substantive comments received on the Draft EIS 09/08/09 relative to selection of the LEDPA and Preferred Alternative and discussed scope of work for the Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICE) Study. Agreement was reached that the LEDPA selection would take place at the October 2009 TEAC meeting. Concurrence Point 3 meeting. Discussed method for identifying the LEDPA. Meeting attendees concurred 10/13/09 that DSA 9 is the LEDPA. FHWA, NCTA, NCDOT, GUAMPO, MUMPO, USACE, NCDWQ, and NCWRC signed Concurrence Point 3. USEPA cannot officially concur on a LEDPA until air quality issues and water quality are resolved. Appendix G includes the Concurrence Point 3 form. Concurrence Point 4a meeting. This meeting was held to present the Preferred Alternative design refinements, proposed preliminary service roads, and reductions achieved in impacts to jurisdictional 02/16/10 resources. FHWA, NCTA, NCDOT, USACE, USFWS, NCDWQ, and NCWRC signed Concurrence Point 4a at the meeting. USEPA conditionally concurred, but stated they cannot officially concur on Concurrence Point 4a until air quality and water quality issues are resolved. GUAMPO, MUMPO, and SHPO did not attend the meeting. They signed the Concurrence Point 4a form on later dates (Appendix G). GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 3 -5 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION #. M= 3.2.2 OTHER AGENCY MEETINGS Two additional noteworthy meetings took place since the Draft EIS was prepared. The first meeting was a Practical Design Workshop, which took place on August 26, 2009. Representatives from FHWA, NCDOT, NCTA, NCWRC, NCDWQ, MUMPO, GUAMPO, the City of Gastonia, and other project consultants participated in the day -long workshop. The purpose of the workshop was to identify ideas and potential measures for constructing a cost effective project within the context of the project environment that meets the transportation needs with a reasonable application of design and construction standards. The ideas developed during the workshop will be provided to potential design -build teams prior to the bidding process. The ideas are intended to springboard the innovation possibilities of the design -build teams as they develop a cost effective and context sensitive final design for the project. The second meeting took place on March 16, 2010. Representatives from FHWA, USAGE, USEPA, NCTA, NCDOT, and NCDENR (DWQ, EEP), and the project consulting team met to discuss and agree upon the mitigation approach for project impacts to jurisdictional resources. It was agreed that a Conceptual Mitigation Plan would be prepared and summarized in this Final EIS. The Gaston East -West Connector Conceptual Mitigation Plan (PBS &J, June 2010) is discussed in Section 2.5.4.4. 3.2.3 SELECTION OF DSA 9 AS THE LEDPA Based on Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230.10(a)), the LEDPA is the alternative that is the least damaging to aquatic resources (e.g. wetlands, streams, and other Waters of the US), so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences. The regulations define practicable as "available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes." The evaluation of practicable alternatives must consider the impact to Waters of the US that would result from an alternative before compensatory mitigation is considered, and requires the selection of an alternative that avoids and minimizes impacts to wetlands and other waters of the US. The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines require that the LEDPA to aquatic resources be chosen by the USAGE for permitting purposes. Based on impact evaluations, DSA 9 has been selected as the Preferred Alternative as well as the LEDPA. It is one of the three DSAs with the fewest impacts to jurisdictional resources and the one which provides the best overall balance of impacts when considering both jurisdictional and non - jurisdictional resources. DSA 9 was in the lower range of impacts to ponds, wetlands, and perennial streams, and had the fewest number of stream crossings. Selection of the LEDPA and Preferred Alternative was discussed at TEAL meetings on August 12, September 8, and October 13, 2009. A concurrence form for Concurrence Point 3 (LEDPA), included in Appendix G, was signed by the FHWA, NCTA, NCDOT, USAGE, USFWS, NCDWQ, NCWRC, NCDCR SHPO, GUAMPO, and MUMPO. The USEPA provided a memo (included in Appendix G) stating "EPA does not believe that the LEDPA is `ripe for concurrence' until the Metrolina area air quality ozone issues are resolved first and avoidance and minimization can be demonstrated for Section 303(d) listed impaired waters." GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 3 -6 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION �_.•. #.= As listed in Table 3 -2, Concurrence Point 4a (Avoidance and Minimization) also was achieved on February 16, 2010, with all parties concurring except USEPA, who officially abstained due to concerns relating to the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. In an email update from USEPA dated July 1, 2010 (Appendix G), USEPA acknowledged that their concerns related to the Clean Air Act and air conformity have been resolved. However, they still had concerns regarding the ability to provide adequate compensatory mitigation for jurisdictional impacts to Waters of the US and they had not yet received a conceptual mitigation plan as requested. The Conceptual Mitigation Plan (Section 2.5.4.4) was made available to USEPA on July 6, 2010. The plan demonstrates there is adequate potential compensatory mitigation available for the project. 3.3 SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND RESPONSES This section discusses comments received relative to the Draft EIS and selection of the Preferred Alternative. Appendix B includes all comments received from state and federal agencies, local governments, interest groups and organizations, and the public during the comment period for the Draft EIS ending July 21, 2009, along with individual responses to comments. An introduction included in Appendix B explains the organization of the appendix, and there is a table of contents for each section of the appendix. Generally, there were approximately twice as many public comments received opposing the project compared to those supporting the project. Comments from the general public are discussed in more detail in Section 3.3.1. Local governments and local groups such as Gaston Regional Chamber, Montcross Area Chamber of Commerce, Gaston County Travel and Tourism Advisory Board, Gaston 2012, Gaston Together, Gaston Southeast Connector Coalition (citizen group) and the South New Hope Road Committee (citizen group), provided letters and /or adopted resolutions supporting the project and /or DSA 9 (Appendices B2 and 133). Interest groups submitting letters in opposition to the project (Appendix 133) included Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation and the Southern Environmental Law Center. Also included in Appendix B3 are letters from four citizens opposing the project. These letters were included in Appendix B3 (rather than with other public comment letters in Appendix 134) because they were in response to the USAGE public notice regarding the project (Section 3.1.2.1)). 3.3.1 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC Comments from the general public were received via comment forms, emails, and letters, and through the verbal comment period provided at each Public Hearing (Section 3.1.2). Comments from the general public, and responses to each comment, are found in the following subsections of Appendix B: Appendix B4 — Public Comment Letters (17 letters (15 people)) Appendix B5 — E- Mailed Public Comments (62 e- mails) Appendix B6 — Public Comment Forms (156 comment forms) Appendix B7 — Public Hearing Transcripts (84 speakers) In addition to letters, emails, and comment forms, three petitions were received, as summarized below. The petitions were not reviewed for duplicate signatures or for the validity of signatures. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 3 -7 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION #. M= Due to size, the petitions are incorporated by reference into this Final EIS, and copies are available upon request by contacting the NCTA (via email to gaston @ncturnpike.org or telephone (919) 571 - 3000). • Over 7,000 signatures (approximate) — Opposed to the Garden Parkway — submitted by Willham Toole, a representative of stopthetollroad.com • 275 signatures — Opposed to the Garden Parkway — submitted by the Harrison Family. 109 signatures — Opposed to Segment KX1 due to potential impact to Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church Cemetery— submitted by Barbara Hart. (Segment KX1 is not apart of DSA 9, the Recommended Alternative. However, Segment K3A, which is apart of DSA 9 has the same preliminary design footprint in the area of the Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church cemetery based on the Draft EIS preliminary design. Note: As discussed in Section 2.3.1.10, the Preferred Alternative refined preliminary design would not impact gravesites in the existing or historic boundaries of the cemetery). Of the public comment letters received from the fifteen senders, fourteen letters are in opposition to the project and one is neutral. Of the e- mailed comments and public comment forms, approximately 29 percent expressed support for the project, approximately 50 percent expressed opposition, and approximately 21 percent did not indicate a clear position. Listed below, in no specific order, are general issues frequently stated in the public comments received, along with a response. The Summary — Citizens Informational Workshop Series #4 — Public Hearings for the Gaston East -West Connector (December 2009) includes additional summaries of comments received. • A new connection across the river is needed. o The project's purpose (Section 1.1.3) includes establishing direct access between the rapidly growing area of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. • DSA 9 is a reasonable choice. o DSA 9 was identified as the Preferred Alternative because it has lower overall impacts to the natural, physical, cultural and human environments than the other alternatives considered (Section 2.2). • The road will encourage needed economic development. o The indirect and cumulative effects of the project, including effects on land use, were evaluated quantitatively for the Preferred Alternative, as discussed in Section 2.5.5. • The project should provide sidewalks at cross streets. o During final design, the NCTA will work with local jurisdictions to provide sidewalks and other crossings where appropriate and that can be funded. • Ending the project at US 321 will adversely impact traffic on this overcrowded roadway and will bring trucks through the historic York - Chester neighborhood. The ultimate project would extend from I -85 west of Gastonia to I -485 in Mecklenburg County. At this time, based on available information, the NCTA is planning on initially constructing the entire length of the project, with four lanes GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 3 -8 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION #. M= from I -485 to US 321, and two lanes from US 321 to I -85. The section from US 321 to I -85 would be upgraded to four lanes by 2035. • The Garden Parkway will only benefit developers and land owners. o The purpose of the project is to improve east -west mobility and connectivity within southern Gaston County and between southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. The mobility and travel time benefits provided by the project would benefit all types of travelers traveling within and through the project area. • The Garden Parkway costs too much, and this money should be spent on education. • The Garden Parkway is not the best use of taxpayer dollars. Funding to construct the project will be from multiple sources over the course of several years. The majority of this project will be funded through the sale of revenue bonds, which will be repaid with the tolls collected along this roadway. A final investment grade traffic and revenue study, needed to sell bonds, will be prepared during the final design phase of the project. In addition to toll revenue bonds, the $35 million per year appropriation from the NC General Assembly will back the sale of additional bonds. This $35 million per year of "gap" funding is fixed unless the NC General Assembly changes the amount. Any additional needed funds will come from other sources. • Air quality is bad in the region and this project will not help. o The Charlotte- Gastonia -Rock Hill air quality region is a non - attainment area for ozone, meaning the area is exceeding the National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS) for this pollutant. The North Carolina Division of Air Quality develops the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to describe how North Carolina will maintain or achieve compliance with the NAAQS in non - attainment and maintenance areas. For transportation resources, the region is evaluated as a whole for conformity with the SIP through the region's long range transportation plans and transportation improvement programs. At this time, the Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization's (1VIPO's) Long Range Transportation Plan and the Mecklenburg Union MPO's Long Range Transportation Plan have been determined to be in conformity with the State's plans to comply with the NAAQS. USDOT made a conformity determination on the MUMPO and GUAMPO 2035 LRTPs and TIPS on May 3, 2010 and the amended 2035 LRPT and 2009 -2015 TIP on October 5, 2010. The Gaston East -West Connector is included in these long range transportation plans designed to conform to the SIP. This topic is addressed in more detail in Section 2.5.2.2. The Garden Parkway will spur more development and urban sprawl. There will not be enough money to build schools and other facilities associated with development. o Gaston County and Mecklenburg County each prepare comprehensive land use plans to aid in determining projected population and land uses. These plans are used by local governments to help determine capital improvements needed to accommodate anticipated growth, and it is the responsibility of local government to provide services such as water, sewer, and schools to their populations. The comprehensive land use plans of both Gaston County and Mecklenburg County GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 3 -9 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION #. M= include the Gaston East -West Connector. Since the Gaston East -West Connector is included in the comprehensive plans for the area, it is assumed that the project is being taken into account when planning is conducted for other services. It is not the responsibility of NCTA or FHWA to ensure that these facilities are being provided. • This project will change the rural character of Gaston County that the residents have chosen. In accordance with NCDOT procedures, a qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment for the Gaston East -West Connector was prepared and is summarized in Chapter 7 of the Draft EIS. The qualitative analysis concludes that all Detailed Study Alternatives (DSAs) have a "High" potential for accelerated growth and indirect land use effects in Gaston County. A more detailed quantitative indirect and cumulative effects assessment was prepared for the Preferred Alternatives and is summarized in Section 2.5.5 of the Final EIS. The quantitative assessment provides more detail regarding potential land use changes and indirect and cumulative impacts to water quality and other notable resources with and without the proposed project. This road will be another Greenville, South Carolina, Toll Road. o Preliminary traffic and revenue studies prepared for the Gaston East -West Connector showed that the project would be viable as a toll road. Final investment grade traffic and revenue studies will be prepared prior project construction. In order to obtain the funding needed, the final investment grade study will need to demonstrate that the project would generate sufficient revenue 3.3.2 RESPONSES TO GENERALIZED COMMENTS Substantive comments received relative to the Preferred Alternative selection can generally be divided into the following categories: purpose and need; travel times and traffic forecasts; range of alternatives; air quality; water quality and jurisdictional resources; indirect and cumulative effects and wildlife; cultural resources, community characteristics, and farmland. Generalized comments and their responses, by category, are found below. These comments were received from a number of sources, including environmental resource and regulatory agencies, interest groups and organizations, and citizens. 3.3.2.1 Responses to Generalized Comments on Purpose and Need Comment: The project will not improve traffic flow on I -85, US 321, US 29 and US 74, and it may increase congestion in the future. Response: Traffic forecasts and operations and regional travel demand statistics are described in detail in the Draft EIS in Appendix C, Section 2.2.6.3 (Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives), and Section 2.2.7.2 (New Location Alternatives). Draft EIS Appendix C includes 2030 forecasts and operations analyses for I -85, US 321, and US 29 -74. As discussed in these sections, the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives that include widening I -85 would achieve only minimal improvements to traffic flow on I -85. A widened I -85 (widened to 8 -10 lanes) would continue to operate at LOS E and F in 2030. Most improvements to ' = GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 3 -10 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION �.r. • traffic flow achieved by increasing capacity would be offset by the increase in traffic volumes attracted to the facility. On the other hand, a New Location Alternative would reduce traffic volumes on I -85 primarily from NC 279 eastward compared to the No -Build Alternative, although levels of service would remain at LOS E or F in 2030. More importantly, however, the New Location Alternative provides an additional east -west route between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties that would operate at LOS D or better, which is a traffic flow benefit that cannot be achieved under either the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives or the No -Build Alternative. Levels of service along US 29 -74 west of McAdenville would primarily be a LOS D or better and fall to LOS F east of McAdenville. This would be true for both the No -Build and New Location Alternatives. Along US 321, levels of service would be similar for all options; however, the New Location Alternative may result in higher traffic volumes along US 321, south of the proposed alignment, as vehicles use US 321 to access the New Location Alternative. In considering regional statistics, comparisons of congested vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and congested vehicle hours traveled (VHT) between the No -Build Alternative, Improve Existing Roadway Scenario 4, and New Location Alternative (Toll Scenario) are made in Table C -1 of Draft EIS Appendix C. The year 2030 congested VMT and congested VHT are highest for the Improve Existing Roadways Alternative. The New Location Alternative (Toll Scenario) and the No -Build Alternative result in about the same congested VMT and VHT, with the New Location Alternative Toll Scenario performing slightly better, even with the expanded mobility and additional roadway capacity provided by the project. In conclusion, while existing and future deficiencies of I -85 and US 29 -74 are acknowledged in the Draft EIS, improving these specific roadways are not identified as purposes for this project. The project purpose is to improve east -west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between 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. The Draft EIS adequately demonstrates that improving I -85 or other area roadways cannot effectively meet this project purpose. Comment: The stated need to connect southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County is not supported by quantifiable data. The Draft EIS fails to show that an additional bridge over the Catawba River would respond to any existing mobility need south of the existing bridges. Response: The need to connect southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County is supported by the local land use plans and long range transportation plans and demonstrated by travel demand modeling. Appendix B of the Draft EIS shows the Gaston Urban Area MPO's (GUAMPO's) population projections for 2010, 2020 and 2030 from the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). These indicate substantial increases in population in the southern half of Gaston County will occur. Mecklenburg County is projected to continue to be the economic and employment center of the region. Residential growth projected in southern Gaston County and residential and employment growth in western Mecklenburg County will continue to increase demand for improved connectivity and east -west mobility since there is a lack of east -west routes in southern Gaston County and a lack of connections to Mecklenburg County. Comment: NCTA cannot reconcile its mandate to build specific toll road projects with federal law. Rather than identifying an underlying purpose that the project might fulfill, the Draft EIS restates the specific project design that meets the NCTA's mandate to build the Garden Parkway GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 3 -11 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION #. M= toll road. The resulting project purpose is too narrow to support consideration of the reasonable range of alternatives required by NEPA. Response: The project purpose is stated in Section 1.3 of the Draft EIS: "The purpose of the proposed action is to improve east -west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between 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." Criteria used in the alternatives evaluation to determine whether a particular alternative concept would meet the project purpose are listed in Section 2.2.1 of the Draft EIS: • Reduce travel distance and /or travel times between representative origin /destination points within southern Gaston County and between southern Gaston County and Mecklenburg County. • Provide a transportation facility that would operate at acceptable levels of service (generally LOS D or better on the mainline) in the design year 2030 for travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg County. • Reduce congested vehicle miles traveled and /or congested vehicle hours traveled in Gaston County compared to the No -Build Alternative in 2030. This project purpose does not include any statements that the purpose of the project is to construct a toll facility. A variety of alternatives could meet the criteria stated above. In accordance with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1502.14) and FHWA guidance and regulations (FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, 1987 and 23 CFR 771.123), a reasonable range of alternatives, including non -toll alternatives, were evaluated in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS as well as the Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development and Analysis Report (October 2008) and eliminated for a variety of reasons, as documented in that chapter. 3.3.2.2 Responses to Generalized Comments on Traffic and Travel Times Comment: The Draft EIS traffic projections predict that the new toll highway would cause further traffic congestion on much of I -85 and US 29174. The Draft EIS presents inflated estimates of traffic volumes in the project area which make the need for the connector seem greater than it is. There appears to be little to no change in travel time savings from most of Gaston County and the project study area. Response: This response is divided into three sections: traffic congestion, traffic volumes, and travel times. Traffic Congestion. In response to the first comment, please refer to the first comment /response under Responses to Generalized Comments on Purpose and Need. Traffic Volumes. The comment regarding inflated traffic volumes in the project area refers to volumes reported for the existing year 2006 in the Draft EIS as compared to traffic counts prepared by the North Carolina Department Travel time savings in 2030 realized by constructing the proposed project compared to the No -Build Alternative would be substantial for many specific origin /destination pairs, and the project also would have a positive effect on overall average travel times for trips throughout the project study area. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 3 -12 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION �.r. • of Transportation Planning Branch's Traffic Survey Group. The commenters state that the traffic volumes reported for I -85, US 321, and US 29 -74 in the Draft EIS are greater than actual counts for the years 2006 and 2007. The traffic forecast methodologies and results used in developing the purpose and need and alternatives as summarized in the Draft EIS are documented in the Traffic Forecasting for Toll Alternatives Report (August 2008). The project forecasts were prepared using a travel demand model, and in accordance with all FHWA and NCDOT standards (NCDOT Project Level Traffic Forecasting Administrative Procedures Handbook, 2007). Generally, travel demand models are used for simulating current travel conditions and forecasting future travel patterns and conditions. Travel demand modeling is a function of socioeconomic conditions such as residential densities, locations of jobs and services, and trip lengths and distributions for the various types of trip purposes. All scenarios discussed in the Draft EIS were forecasted from the same base model. The NCTA consultants who conducted the traffic forecasts did so utilizing the official Metrolina Regional Travel Demand Model (1VIRM), version 6.0, current at the time the traffic forecasts began. The MRM is used for all traffic forecasts for projects within the 13- county region surrounding Charlotte. The base year of this version of the MRM is 2000, with horizon years of 2010, 2020, and 2030. The MRM was calibrated based on observed traffic counts from 2000. It was adopted by MUMPO, GUAMPO, Cabarrus -Rowan MPO (CRMPO), NCDOT, and FHWA after results showed that it met all FHWA calibration and validation standards. The MRM was used to forecast traffic for the project's base year of 2006 and the 2030 design year. The traffic operations analysis used these values. The traffic operations analysis levels of service for existing (2006) and 2030 no -build conditions reported in Section 1.6.2 of the Draft EIS are documented in the Final Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum for I -85, I -485, US 29 -74, and US 321 Under Various Scenarios — Gaston East -West Connector (PBS &J, September 2008). These levels of service were calculated using methodologies and models consistent with NCDOT standards (NCDOT Congestion Management Capacity Analysis Guidelines). The MRM, the traffic forecasts developed based on the MRM, and the traffic operations analysis are consistent with NCDOT and FHWA standards and are the best available tools and methods for evaluating and comparing traffic conditions for the project area. Additional details are provided below. Traffic forecasts for the Preferred Alternative were updated to 2035 for the Final EIS. As discussed in Section 2.3.5.1, the updated 2035 traffic forecast for the Preferred Alternative is documented in the Gaston East West Connector Updated Traffic Forecast and Preliminary Design Traffic Capacity Analysis for the Preferred Alternative (HNTB, May 2010). The 2035 forecasts used a more recent version of the MRM (Version 6.1.1), which incorporated updated socio- economic data and a base year of 2005. The 2035 forecast volumes along the Gaston East -West Connector are projected to be higher than the previously forecasted 2030 Toll scenario volumes. Generally, traffic volumes on the modeled network are higher in the 2035 forecast year compared to the 2030 forecast year. Updating the existing conditions information and 2030 no -build traffic operations analysis reported in Chapter 1 of the Draft EIS was not necessary for making decisions regarding the proposed project. Forecasts and levels of service for individual roadway segments for 2006 and 2030 might be different when estimated using the later version of the MRM. But overall, the important conclusion that traffic growth is expected to continue in the region and GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 3 -13 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION #. M= congestion would occur on area roadways in the future, especially I -85, did not change with updates to the MRM. Regarding the 2006 forecast traffic volumes presented in the Draft EIS, these volumes were interpolated from the 2000 base year MRM model and the 2030 no -build MRM model. A large amount of growth is projected to occur in Gaston County, particularly in the later horizon years of the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Since the travel demand model was calibrated to year 2000 traffic volumes, it can be expected that actual counts for any given subsequent year will vary at some locations. A comparison of the model's 2006 results (Existing Conditions scenario) with actual 2006 annualized average daily traffic counts along I -85 show that there is reasonably good correlation between the modeled and measured 2006 values for most of the study area. In areas where there are notable differences, measured volumes are lower by about 7 percent or less west of Exit 26 (Belmont Mount Holly Road), and lower by about 10 -11 percent east of Exit 26. A review of multiple years of NCDOT traffic counts along I -85 show that between 2000 and 2006, traffic counts along segments can increase or decrease from year to year and can change at non - constant rates. For example, traffic counts along I -85 from Exit 27 to Exit 29 were 104,000 AADT in 2003, 103,000 AADT in 2004 (a change of -0.9 percent), and 120,000 AADT in 2005 (a change of 16.5 percent). The model may have projected more robust growth rates for the period 2000 -2010 than what had actually occurred up to 2006, resulting in lower actual traffic counts for that particular year compared to forecasted values Keeping in mind that the regional approved MRM was calibrated based on known traffic volumes in the year 2000 none of the differences in 2006 modeled volumes compared to 2006 counted volumes would invalidate the project studies or year 2030 forecasts. It could be expected that variations in economic and other conditions and swings in growth rates would normalize over the course of the 30 -year forecast. The majority of the analyses reported in the Draft EIS, in particular those used to compare alternatives, were based on the 2030 forecasts (based on approved forecasts of socioeconomic data), not the 2006 forecasts, and are reasonable values to use in the planning process. Year 2006 traffic information was included in the Draft EIS to document existing conditions and the changes predicted to occur by the horizon year. It is noted that in the case of the Gaston East -West Connector, the roadway that would experience the most influence from the presence of the toll facility is I -85, and the year 2006 forecasts and 2006 counts correlate well along I -85 throughout the study area. The measure of congestion used in the Draft EIS is level of service. The level of service (LOS) is a "qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream" (Transportation Research Board 2000:2 -2). The analysis was performed in accordance with NCDOT Congestion Management Capacity Analysis Guidelines using the North Carolina Level of Service (NCLOS) software, Version 1.3. The NCLOS software provides an overall level of service, representative of general peak hour conditions. The LOS thresholds (density /speed) for each facility type are based on Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (Transportation Research Board Special Report 209) methodology, the accepted national standard. The software and method were appropriate for the type of analysis and information needed for making decisions regarding the proposed project. The analysis is documented in Final Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum for I -85, I -485, US 29 -74, and US 321 Under Various Scenarios — Gaston East -West Connector (PBS &J, September 2008). The traffic operations analysis uses a number of assumptions and estimates, including the traffic forecasts and estimates of directional distribution, peak hour percentage of daily traffic, and GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 3 -14 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION #. M= percentages of trucks. An individual driver's experience on any particular day at any particular peak hour will vary depending on the day and hour. These individual events and experiences may or may not appear to correlate with the predicted measures of general congestion along a route calculated using the accepted methods described above. Also, it should be noted that even if a roadway segment such as the segment of I -85 from Exit 26 to Exit 27 is already calculated to be operating at LOS F during the peak period, it is still possible for that roadway to carry more vehicles, the likely result being that congestion may worsen during the peak periods and /or the peak periods get longer. Travel Times. Regarding travel times, two types of travel times are reported in the Draft EIS. One is the origin and destination travel time estimate, reported in the Draft EIS in Section C.2 of Appendix C. The other type is an average change in travel time, and this is discussed in Section 7.5.1 of the Draft EIS. Both are different outputs from the approved Metrolina Regional Travel Demand Model that were used to forecast traffic for the proposed project. The origin /destination travel time savings estimates are comparisons between the No -Build Alternative for the year 2030 and the New Location Alternative (Toll Scenario) for the year 2030. These travel times would not necessarily correlate to travel times experienced today. As shown in Table C -4 in Appendix C of the Draft EIS, travel time savings under the New Location Alternative for trips within Gaston County are greatest (8 -9 minutes) for trips starting and ending in southern Gaston County, reflecting the increased mobility the proposed project would provide within southern Gaston County. For trips between southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County, the travel time savings would be greater, ranging from 9 -28 minutes depending on origin and destination (Table C -5 in Appendix C of the Draft EIS). These time savings are representative of these specific trips. Travel times of other trips within the project study area may vary. The second type of travel time reported is described in Section 7.5.1 of the Draft EIS. This travel time (an output from the Metrolina Regional Travel Demand Model) is an overall travel savings experienced by ALL trips in a particular traffic analysis zone (TAZ), whether those trips actually use the proposed project or not. Since this reported value includes many types of trips (through trips, local trips, trips that use the proposed project, trips that do not use the project, home -to -work trips, home -to- shopping trips, etc.), it would not be expected to show What is a Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ)? A TAZ is a delineated area used for tabulating traffic - related data often corresponding to US Census tract and block group boundaries. The boundaries typically follow physical features such as streets, rivers, or canals and are updated as part of the such dramatic savings as specific origin /destination pairs. These calculations of average travel time savings provide a basis for assessing the overall effect of the project on travel times in each TAZ and help to show locations that would experience increase mobility. They do not represent travel time savings for specific origin /destination pairs and would be expected to be smaller values. Results from this type of analysis show that average travel time savings would be greatest for areas immediately surrounding the project in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties. In conclusion, the travel time savings in 2030 realized by constructing the proposed project compared to the No -Build Alternative would be substantial for many specific origin /destination pairs, and the project also would have a positive effect on overall average travel times for trips throughout the project study area. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 3 -15 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION #. M= 3.3.2.3 Responses to Generalized Comments on Range of Alternatives Comment: The Draft EIS disregards the TSM and Mass Transit Alternatives and did not provide a full range of reasonable alternatives. Objectives could be reached by improvements to I -85 (including widening and HOT lanes), interim TSM approaches to US 29 and US 74, and other combinations of transportation improvements. The Draft EIS does not address how a combination of alternatives might be able to meet purpose and need. The Draft EIS did not consider improvements to the area's transit and freight rail facilities as an alternative. Response: In accordance with 40 CFR 1502.14(a), agencies are required to: "Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated ". The Draft EIS (Section 2.2) evaluated the full range of reasonable alternatives as required by 40 CFR 1502.14(a) and 23 CFR 771.123(c), and as suggested by FHWA Technical Advisory T66430.8.A (October 1987) when considering improvements to the transportation system. The Draft EIS discusses TSM and Mass Transit Alternatives in Draft EIS Sections 2.2.3 and 2.2.5, respectively. Combination alternatives also are addressed in Section 2.2.5. The Draft EIS (Section 2.2) evaluated a range of reasonable alternatives as required by 23 CFR 771.123(c) and as suggested by FHWA Technical Advisory T66430.8.A (October 1987) when considering improvements to the transportation system. None of these alternatives were determined to meet the project's purpose and need. TSM and TDM alternatives were eliminated because they would not noticeably improve mobility, access, or connectivity within southern Gaston County, nor between southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. The Mass Transit Alternative, using expanded bus service on existing roadways or expanded rail service on the existing rail line near I -85, was eliminated from further study because it would not establish direct connectivity within southern Gaston County or between southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. The Mass Transit Alternative, including bus rapid transit or light rail on new alignment, could provide connectivity within southern Gaston County and between southern Gaston County and west Mecklenburg County and provide shorter travel times or distances for the transit users. However, the Mass Transit Alternative on new alignment would carry a much lower volume of trips than a new highway facility and would be ill- suited to the dispersed low- density land uses in southern Gaston County (resulting in even less trips). The resulting lower volume of trips accommodated would not noticeably reduce vehicle miles traveled and /or congested vehicle hours traveled in Gaston County compared to the No -Build Alternative. The ability of Improve Existing Roadway Alternatives to meet the project purpose and need are addressed in the Draft EIS Section 2.2.6. See also the first comment under Responses to Generalized Comments on Purpose and Need in Section 3.3.2.1 of this Final EIS. The environmental resource and regulatory agencies and the public were afforded opportunities to review and provide input throughout the alternatives development and screening analysis process. All environmental resource and regulatory agencies participating in the Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAL) meetings signed a concurrence form in October 2008 concurring on three points: the Purpose and Need (Concurrence Point 1), the Detailed Study Alternatives to be carried forward in the Draft EIS (Concurrence Point 2), and the Bridging and GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 3 -16 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION �.r. • Alignment Decisions (Concurrence Point 2a). This concurrence form is included in Appendix A -1 in the Draft EIS. Recent work by NCDOT on the Piedmont and Northern Railway corridor, which is a rail corridor north of I -85, was mentioned in a comment. The Piedmont and Northern Railway corridor is located in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties. At this time, the corridor in Gaston County is inactive. Portions of the corridor in Mecklenburg County are active, except for the Cedar Yard terminus near uptown Charlotte, which is inactive. The corridor is approximately 16 miles long. It begins in downtown Gastonia and runs north of I -85 through Ranlo, Lowell, and Mount Holly. It crosses the Catawba River just south of the NC 27 crossing of the river. The corridor then swings south to end at South Cedar Street, just east of I -77. There is a spur that runs south from the corridor and ties into downtown Belmont. The NCDOT acquired the inactive Piedmont and Northern mainline corridor in 1991. There has been some interest in reactivating this line for short line freight service. Section 26.1 of Session Law 2008 -191 (House Bill 2431) directed NCDOT to study the Piedmont and Northern Railway line in Gaston County to determine the cost to bring the full line into operation. The resulting report to the Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee: Cost to Reactivate Piedmont and Northern Rail Line (January 15, 2009) (available for download at www.bytrain.org /quicl<linl<s/ reports /P &N_Report_15JanO8.pdf) describes the improvements that would need to be made to the rail line and corridor in order to provide freight service and also possible future passenger rail service. At this time, "freight service is anticipated only on the 11.6 mile segments from Mount Holly to Gastonia and the northernmost 1.5 miles of the Belmont Spur" as documented in Cost to Reactivate Piedmont and Northern Rail Line (January 15, 2009). Following the report to the legislature, a federal Categorical Exclusion (CE) for reactivation of the Piedmont and Northern Railroad Corridor for freight service was signed by FHWA on July 9, 2009. The proposed action identified in the CE is reactivation of freight rail service between Mount Holly and Gastonia and along the Belmont Spur to the north of Belmont/Mount Holly Road (SR 2093). The CE states: "At the time of this document, there are no plans in the foreseeable future to implement passenger rail service on any portion of the corridor. Passenger service would be covered under a separate document process if determined feasible." Future passenger service on the Piedmont and Northern Rail corridor could provide additional transportation options between Gaston County and Mecklenburg County and could benefit the region's transportation network, but it would not meet the Gaston East -West Connector purpose and need for the reasons listed for the Mass Transit Alternative in Section 2.2.5.1 of the Draft EIS. It would not improve mobility within southern Gaston County because it is located north of I -85. It would not improve connectivity between southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County because the Piedmont and Northern Rail corridor crosses the Catawba River in the north half of Gaston County, in Mount Holly, just south of NC 27. It also would not reduce congested vehicle miles or congested vehicle hours traveled in Gaston County because it is not anticipated to attract enough trips to make a noticeable difference in traffic volumes on area roadways. Comment: The Draft EIS should have studied ending the project at US 321 if that is an interim phase. Response: The proposed project is included in the 2030 LRTP for the GUAMPO area as starting at I -85 and continuing eastward to the Mecklenburg County line. The GUAMPO GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 3 -17 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION #. M= includes this entire proposed project as a toll facility in its 2035 LRTP. US 321 was announced by the NCTA as a potential interim western project terminus during discussions with the public and local officials about funding. Like many large roadway projects in North Carolina, the Gaston East -West Connector would need to be constructed and funded in phases. US 321 was identified as a potential interim terminus based on information available at the time The ultimate project extends from 1 -485 in Mecklenburg County to 1 -85 west of Gastonia, and this is the project NCTA intends to eventually construct as soon as financing can be obtained. regarding project costs, potential available funding, and traffic forecasts. The highest travel demand is projected along the eastern segments of the proposed project. The ultimate project extends from I -485 in Mecklenburg County to I -85 west of Gastonia, and this is the project NCTA intends to construct as soon as financing can be obtained. Based on currently available information, NCTA is planning on initially constructing the entire length of the project in the first phase, with four lanes from I -485 to US 321 and two lanes from US 321 to I -85. The section from US 321 to I -85 would be upgraded to four lanes by 2035 Comment: The decision to study only toll alternatives in the EIS is not consistent with the CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1502.14(a) and (c). The EIS might have also considered a comparison with a freeway. Response: The regulations at 40 CFR 1502.14(a) and (c) are: In this section agencies shall: (a) Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated. (c) Include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency. Alternatives for the project were rigorously explored and evaluated, as documented in the Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report for the Gaston East -West Connector (October 2008) and summarized in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS. A Mass Transit Alternative, which would not be within the jurisdiction of the FHWA, NCDOT, nor NCTA, was included in the evaluation. Environmental resource and regulatory agencies signed a concurrence form in October 2008 concurring with the Detailed Study Alternatives identified for the project. The current NCDOT 2009 — 2015 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) includes the project as a toll facility, and traditional (non -toll) transportation funding for this project is not likely in the foreseeable future. GUAMPO, as part of the metropolitan planning process, has decided to allocate the limited available federal and state funds to other projects. In September of 2000, the GUAMPO TAC passed a resolution stating that it supports the use of alternative funding methods, including payment by toll. Based on preliminary traffic and revenue forecasts, the NCTA determined that the Gaston East - West Connector is financially feasible with the collection of tolls. Using tolls, the NCTA can provide the funding and construct the project many years earlier than with traditional funding sources. Using tolls as the funding mechanism for construction and maintenance allows needed capacity to be added when budget shortfalls would otherwise prevent or delay completion of critical projects. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 3 -18 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION 1 �.�.• 3.3.2.4 Responses to Generalized Comments on Air Quality Comment: Prior to issuance of the Final EIS and ROD, NCTA should demonstrate that the new location project will be included in an approved SIP and will be in conformity. Response: The 2035 LRTPs for GUAMPO and MUMPO include the proposed project as a toll facility. USDOT made a conformity determination on the LRTPs and TIPS on May 3, 2010. A copy of this letter, along with USEPXs April 22, 2010 review, can be found in Appendix K of this Final EIS. However, there were still two inconsistencies between the Preferred Alternative and the project included in the GUAMPO 2035 LRTP. The GUAMPO 2035 LRTP included an interchange at Bud Wilson Road, and there were different assumptions for the year 2015 configuration (Section 2.5.2.2). The Bud Wilson Road interchange has been eliminated from the Preferred Alternative (Section 2.3.1.6). Current plans are for the Preferred Alternative in 2015 to be constructed as a four -lane facility from I -485 to US 321 and as an interim two -lane facility from US 321 to I -85. The remaining two lanes for the segment from US 321 to I -85 would be constructed by 2035. After the May 3, 2010 conformity determination made by the USDOT, the GUAMPO prepared an amendment to the 2035 LRTP and 2009 -2015 TIP so that the project design concept and scope included in the LRTP and TIP is consistent with the Preferred Alternative. GUAMPO made a conformity determination on the amended 2035 LRTP and 2009 -2015 TIP on August 24, 2010. USDOT issued a conformity determination on the amendments on October 5, 2010. A copy of the USDOT letter is included in Appendix K of this Final EIS. Comment: The Draft EIS does not address quantitative air quality impacts as they relate to Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs). The Draft EIS does not offer any mitigation measures to address the project's impact on air quality, specifically concerning MSAT emissions exposures at schools, hospitals, parks, etc. Response: The MSAT analysis was conducted in accordance with the Federal Highway Administration Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents (February 3, 2006). The interim guidance establishes three levels of review: • No analysis for projects with no potential for meaningful MSAT effects; • Qualitative analysis for projects with low potential MSAT effects; or • Quantitative analysis to differentiate alternatives for projects with higher potential MSAT effects. Projects requiring a quantitative analysis include projects that have the potential for meaningful differences among project alternatives. To fall into this category, projects must: • Create or significantly alter a major intermodal freight facility that has the potential to concentrate high levels of diesel particulate matter in a single location; or • Create new or add significant capacity to urban highways such as interstates, urban arterials, or urban collector- distributor routes with traffic volumes where the annual average daily traffic volumes (AADT) are projected to be in the range of 140,000 to 150,000, or greater, by the design year; and also GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 3 -19 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION #. M= • Be proposed to be located in proximity to populated areas, or in rural areas in proximity to concentrations of vulnerable populations (i.e., schools, nursing homes, hospitals). The project would not qualify as requiring a quantitative analysis because it would not significantly alter a major intermodal facility, nor would the AADT be in the range of 140,000 to 150, 000. Updated guidance was published by the FHWA on September 30, 2009. This updated guidance is summarized in Section 1.3.2.2 and Appendix D of this Final EIS. The updated guidance did not change the criteria used to determine the level of MSAT analysis needed. The overall approach applied in the MSAT guidance characterizes the trend in MSAT emissions and the difference in MSAT emissions between alternatives, but does not attempt to characterize health risks or microscale impacts, due to the uncertainty associated with available analysis tools. In late 2007, the US District Court in the Southern District of Maryland upheld this approach in ruling on a challenge to the Inter - County Connector project, stating that "the Defendants' methodology was reasonable and should be upheld... Defendant's failure to consider Plaintiffs' approach to the health effects analysis, which could be ascertained, if at all, only through uncertain modeling techniques, did not preclude informed decision - making under NEPA." Comment: The EIS should address greenhouse gas emissions. Response: On December 7, 2009, the Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act ( www. epa. gov/ climatechange /endangerment.htmi): • Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well -mixed greenhouse gases -- carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) - -in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well -mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare. These findings do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However, this action is a prerequisite to finalizing the EPA's proposed greenhouse gas emission standards for light -duty vehicles (www.epa.gov/ ores /climate /regulations.htm), which were jointly proposed by EPA and the Department of Transportation's National Highway Safety Administration on September 15, 2009. FHWA does not believe it is informative at this point to consider greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in a Draft EIS for an individual road construction project, such as the Gaston East -West Connector. The climate impacts of greenhouse gas emissions are global in nature. Analyzing how alternatives evaluated in a project -level Draft EIS might vary in their relatively small contribution to a global The climate impacts of greenhouse gas emissions are global in nature. Analyzing how alternatives evaluated in a project -level Draft EIS might vary in their relatively small contribution to a global problem will not better inform decisions. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 3 -20 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION �.r. • problem will not better inform decisions. Further, due to the interactions between elements of the transportation system as a whole, emissions analyses would be less informative than ones conducted at regional, state, or national levels. Because of these concerns, FHWA concludes that greenhouse gas emissions cannot usefully be evaluated in this Draft EIS in the same way that other vehicle emissions are addressed. FHWA is actively engaged in many other activities with the DOT Center for Climate Change to develop strategies to reduce transportation's contribution to GHGs— particularly CO2 emissions — and to assess the risks to transportation systems and services from climate change. FHWA will continue to pursue these efforts as productive steps to address this important issue. FHWA will review and update its approach to climate change at both the project and policy level as more information emerges and as policies and legal requirements evolve. Lastly, it is important to note that while the Gaston East -West Connector project will provide new road capacity, the new capacity will be priced (tolled), which serves as a demand management tool in addition to providing needed project financing. The traffic forecasting for this project shows that the Gaston East -West Connector project would result in some increases in both vehicle -miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle -hours traveled (VHT) within the project study area. NEPA does not require analyses that will not provide useful information to the decision maker (See Pub. Citizen, 541 US at 767 (agencies are to "determine whether and to what extent to prepare an EIS based on the usefulness of any new potential information to the decision - making process "). FHWA concludes that carbon dioxide emissions cannot usefully be evaluated in this EIS in the same way that other vehicle emissions are addressed. The proposed project's increase in VMT does not necessarily correlate with an increase in GHG emissions because many factors will affect the amount of GHG emissions that may result from the project, such as increased speeds, improved vehicle fuel economy, and the use of cleaner fuels. Moreover, many of the factors affecting the amount of GHG emission potentially attributable to the project are outside the control of FHWA, thereby making an analysis of global climate change speculative at the project level. NEPA does not require analysis of impacts that are highly speculative. (Deukmejian v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 751 F.2d 1287, 1300 & n.63 (DC Cir 1984), vacated on other grounds, 760 F.2d 1320 (DC Cir. 1985) (EIS need not address "remote and highly speculative consequences "); see MooreFORCE, Inc. v. US Dept of Transportation, 243 F. Supp. 2d 425, 439 (1VIDNC 2003) (stating that an EIS need not "consider potential effects that are highly speculative or indefinite "). 3.3.2.5 Responses to Generalized Comments on Water Quality and Jurisdictional Resources Comment: Concerns were expressed about sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. Erosion control measures should adhere to the Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds. The possible effects of storm water runoff associated with this project could negatively affect the project area. Response: As discussed in Draft EIS Section 6.2.4, an erosion and sedimentation plan will be developed for the Preferred Alternative prior to construction in accordance with all applicable regulations and guidance. The FHWA and NCTA will work with the permitting agencies to determine the appropriate best management practices to implement for the project. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 3 -21 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION �.r. • A quantitative indirect and cumulative effects (ICE) analysis also was prepared for the Preferred Alternative, and the land use analysis results are reported in Final EIS Section 2.5.5. The quantitative ICE analysis also addresses water quality issues. Comment: Concerns about the amount of mitigation needed and that it will not be available in the area; every effort should be made to further avoid and minimize impacts to streams and wetlands and to provide on -site mitigation. Mitigation should focus on improving degraded streams in the area. A conceptual mitigation plan should be provided in the Final EIS, with information about on -site mitigation opportunities. Response: The FHWA and NCTA intend to use the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) for most project mitigation needs. Over the past several years, NCTA has been coordinating with EEP regarding this project and projected mitigation needs. A conceptual mitigation plan is summarized in the Final EIS in Section 2.5.4.4. The Gaston East -West Connector Conceptual Mitigation Plan (PBS &J, June 20 10) addresses both off -site mitigation through EEP and potential on -site mitigation. Comment: Direct impacts to existing 303(d) listed impaired streams and other waters at risk from further degradation have not been fully addressed from the standpoint of avoidance and minimization (e.g. right of way and median widths, shoulder widths, etc.). Response: As stated in the Section 6002 Coordination Plan for the Gaston East -West Connector Project, this study, to the extent possible, will follow the environmental review process consistent with the requirements for "Projects on New Location" as described in the Section 404 /NEPA Merger 01 Process Information. The Merger process requires Concurrence Point 4a (avoidance and minimization) be achieved after Concurrence Point 3 (identification of LEDPA). As discussed in Final EIS Section 2.3.3, a number of design refinements were made to the Preferred Alternative. These refinements include reducing the median width, compressing and eliminating interchanges, and realignments. The refined design result in an approximately 25 percent reduction in stream impacts (2.36 miles), an approximately 6 percent reduction in wetland impacts (0.4 acre), a slight increase in impacts to ponds (0.4 acre), and a slight decrease in Catawba River buffer impacts. Agreement on Concurrence Point 4a was achieved at the February 16, 2010 Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAL) Meeting. Appendix G includes the Concurrence Point 4a form. 3.3.2.6 Responses to Generalized Comments on Indirect and Cumulative Effects and Wildlife Comment: The Draft EIS has no specific discussion of mitigation for indirect and cumulative impacts. There are no quantitative data presented in the Draft EIS concerning potential ICE to wetlands, streams, water quality and wildlife habitat. A quantitative ICE analysis should be prepared for the Preferred Alternative. The Guidance Memorandum to Address and Mitigate Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife Resources and Water Quality should be consulted when developing mitigation measures. Response: In accordance with NCDOT procedure, a qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment (Louis Berger Group, Inc., March 2009) was completed and included in the Draft EIS. Several comments on the Draft EIS requested that a quantitative indirect and cumulative effects assessment be performed. ' = GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 3 -22 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION #. M= The Gaston East -West Connector Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis (Louis Berger Group, Inc., August 20 10) was prepared for the Preferred Alternative, and is summarized in Section 2.5.5 of this Final EIS. Prior to commencement of this study, scoping with the environmental resource and regulatory agencies was conducted to ensure the study approach and scope met the expectations of the agencies. The quantitative analysis discusses mitigation measures. It should be noted that FHWA and NCTA would not have any authority over most types of mitigation measures that could be effective at minimizing indirect /cumulative impacts, such as local land use controls and ordinances. However, as stated in NEPA's Forty Most Asked Questions, prepared by CEQ: Question 19b. How should an EIS treat the subject of available mitigation measures that are (1) outside the jurisdiction of the lead or cooperating agencies, or (2) unlikely to be adopted or enforced by the responsible agency? A. All relevant, reasonable mitigation measures that could improve the project are to be identified, even if they are outside the jurisdiction of the lead agency or the cooperating agencies, and thus would not be committed as part of the RODs of these agencies. Sections 1502.16(h), 1505.2(c). This will serve to [46 FR 18032] alert agencies or officials who can implement these extra measures, and will encourage them to do so. Because the EIS is the most comprehensive environmental document, it is an ideal vehicle in which to lay out not only the full range of environmental impacts but also the full spectrum of appropriate mitigation. However, to ensure that environmental effects of a proposed action are fairly assessed, the probability of the mitigation measures being implemented must also be discussed. Thus the EIS and the Record of Decision should indicate the likelihood that such measures will be adopted or enforced by the responsible agencies. Sections 1502.16(h), 1505.2. If there is a history of nonenforcement or opposition to such measures, the EIS and Record of Decision should acknowledge such opposition or nonenforcement. If the necessary mitigation measures will not be ready for a long period of time, this fact, of course, should also be recognized. NCTA can encourage local governments to adopt regulations and land use plans that would help protect significant natural resources, but FHWA and NCTA lack any enforcement authority to ensure their adoption or adherence. Provisions regarding FHWA's legal responsibility and authority for mitigating project impacts are found in FHWA's Environmental Impact and Related Procedures 23 CFR 771.105(d): Measures necessary to mitigate adverse impacts will be incorporated into the action and are eligible for Federal funding when the Administration determines that: 1. The impacts for which the mitigation is proposed actually result from the Administrative action; and 2. The proposed mitigation represents a reasonable public expenditure after considering the impacts of the action and the benefits of the proposed mitigation measures. In making this determination, the Administration will consider, among other factors, the extent to which the proposed measures would assist in complying with a Federal statute, Executive Order, or Administration regulation or policy. Furthermore, as stated in the FHWA Position Paper: Secondary and Cumulative Impact Assessment in the Highway Project Development Process: GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 3 -23 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION #. M= After the analysis is complete a valid question will remain: If a proposed highway improvement is determined to cause potential secondary and cumulative effects, what can and should be done to mitigate the adverse impacts? This is a difficult question for which there are no simple solutions. Consistent with existing FHWA regulations mitigation proposals must be both reasonable and related to project impacts. However, the opportunities for environmental enhancement that are now available under the highway program may greatly expand our traditional view of mitigation. Changing a proposed transportation improvement to lessen its contribution of indirect impacts may likely result from a combination of mitigation and enhancement measures that address area -wide concerns, not just the immediate influence of the project. Unfortunately, measures that would be appropriate to offset most future developmental impacts in the area of a project often will be beyond the control and funding authority of the highway program. In these situations, the best approach would be to work with local agencies that can influence future growth and promote the benefits of controls that incorporate environmental protection into all planned development. Comment: Negative impacts to terrestrial resources and wildlife, including fragmentation of terrestrial habitat, are a significant concern. Response: The Gaston East -West Connector Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis (Louis Berger Group, Inc., August 2010) summarized in Section 2.5.5 of this Final EIS discusses wildlife habitat fragmentation. 3.3.2.7 Responses to Generalized Comments on Cultural Resources, Community Characteristics, and Farmland Comment: The Draft EIS missed the subject of historic Stowesville, Stowes Factory, Gaither Mill, Stowesville Cemetery, and the old Methodist church. Response: Draft EIS Section 5.3.1.2 discusses the Stowesville site. Additional archaeological research was conducted for this site and related sites as part of the Gaston East -West Connector Intensive Archaeological Survey prepared for the Preferred Alternative (Coastal Carolina Research, February 2010). The results of this intensive survey are summarized in Final EIS Section 2.5.3.2. Site 31GS0377/377 ** is the location of the Stowe's Cotton Factory /Gaither's Mill complex, which dates to the mid - nineteenth century. Site 31GS0365/365 ** appears to be the community of mill workers which grew up around the cotton factory (Site 31GS0337/337 * *). Neither site was determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Comment: Environmental justice (EJ) populations would receive a higher percent of impact from the new facility in terms of air quality and noise impacts, but would not necessarily receive a proportionate benefit from the project due to potential toll costs. Response: Environmental justice issues are discussed in Section 3.2.5 of the Draft EIS. As stated in Section 3.2.5 of the Draft EIS, any of the Gaston East -West Connector DSAs would provide a new, limited- access, east -west route in the region. Completing the project would benefit all motorists, including low- income motorists who may choose not to use the toll facility or may tend to use it less frequently. All travelers would still have the same access to the major existing roadways in the study area, including I -85, US 29 -74, and US 321. If travelers choose to use existing routes, their travel distance would remain the same as it is today. Travel times may be slightly better on existing GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 3 -24 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION �.r. • roadways with the Preferred Alternative since overall, as discussed in Appendix C of the Draft EIS, congested vehicle hours traveled and congested vehicle miles traveled in Gaston County are expected to be less in 2030 with the proposed project in place compared to the No -Build Alternative. Minorities comprise approximately 21 percent of the Demographic Study Area. Although the Preferred Alternative has one of the highest percentages of minority relocations (approximately 28 percent of the 344 relocations) it has neither the highest nor lowest total number of relocations (all DSAs ranged from 326 to 384 residences). DSA 9 was selected as the Preferred Alternative based upon the balance of impacts to human, natural, cultural, and environmental resources, as discussed in detail in Section 2.2. The difference in percent minorities relocated compared to the Demographic Study Area minority population as a whole is not disproportionate. As discussed in Section 3.2.5.2 of the Draft EIS, many of the estimated minority relocations occur where the Preferred Alternative passes through an area of single family subdivisions along Shannon Bradley Road that have predominantly African - American residents (Matthews Acres and Spring Valley). The Preferred Alternative preliminary design, and the design of other DSAs that use the same corridor in this area (DSAs 4 and 5), was developed to minimize relocation impacts to the extent practicable. Minority and low- income populations would not receive a disproportionate level of noise impacts. As discussed below, the percentages of residential receptors predicted to be impacted by project - related traffic noise that are estimated to be minority or low- income are approximately the same as the percentages of minority populations and low- income populations within the Demographic Study Area as a whole. Therefore, there would be no disproportionately high and adverse noise effects to these populations. The following method was used to estimate the approximate percentage of minority populations and low- income populations that could be impacted by increases in traffic noise levels with implementation of the Preferred Alternative. The total numbers of noise - impacted receptors along each Preferred Alternative corridor segment (based on the 2035 noise contours shown in Appendix J) was multiplied by the percent of minority population or percent population in poverty of the segment's corresponding census block group. For example: Segment H2A (I -85 to US 29 -74) has 46 noise - impacted receptors, and its corresponding Census Tract 318 Block Group 1 is approximately 70 percent minority. Therefore, it was estimated that approximately 32 of the 46 noise - impacted receptors in this area are minority. Applying this method to the entire length of the Preferred Alternative, it is estimated that approximately 55 noise - impacted receptors may be minority. Total numbers of potentially noise - impacted residences are estimated to be approximately 279 (Table 2 -7). Therefore, approximately 20 percent of the residences predicted to be impacted by noise are minority. The Demographic Study Area as a whole (Figure 3 -1 in Draft EIS) is approximately 21 percent minority (Section 3.2.1 in the Draft EIS). The same method was used to estimate the numbers of low- income residences predicted to be impacted by noise. Low - income was defined as persons living in poverty. Approximately 27 noise - impacted receptors along the Preferred Alternative are estimated to be living in poverty, which is approximately 10 percent of the total number of noise - impacted receptors. The Demographic Study Area as a whole includes approximately 10 percent of the population living in poverty (Table 7 in the Gaston East -West Connector Community Characteristics Report, PBS &J, November 2007). GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 3 -25 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION �.r. • Many of the noise - impacted receptors would experience lower predicted noise levels through construction of noise barriers. Preliminary analyses shows noise barriers may be reasonable at eleven locations along the Preferred Alternative, as described in Section 2.5.2.1 and shown in Figure 2 -4a -b. These noise barriers include Noise Barrier 1 -1, located along the east side of the Preferred Alternative at Spring Valley. Air quality impacts from the Preferred Alternative are discussed in Section 2.5.2.2. On a regional basis, the Preferred Alternative is included in long range transportation plans found to be in conformity with the State Implementation Plan, which is the document that describes how North Carolina will maintain or achieve compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards in non - attainment and maintenance areas. On a local basis, similar to potential traffic noise impacts, populations nearest the Preferred Alternative would have the highest potential to be affected by localized air quality impacts such as mobile source air toxics; and the same conclusions can be reached regarding general consideration of air quality effects. Which are, there would not be disproportionate air quality effects to minority populations or low- income populations because these populations do not comprise a disproportionate number of residents located in proximity to the Preferred Alternative. Comment: The Draft EIS does not offer any potential avoidance and minimization measures to potentially reduce impacts to farmlands. Concerns about the availability of replacement property for farms that need to be relocated Response: The locations of farms and voluntary agricultural districts (VADs) were incorporated into the development of the preliminary new location corridors, and these areas were avoided where possible, taking into consideration other resources in the area. No other mitigation is required. The relocation reports prepared for the proposed project indicate replacement property for farms is available and can be found in Appendix F of the Draft EIS. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 3 -26 CH. 4 LIST OF PREPARERS Chapter 4 includes a list of the principal participants in the preparation of this Final EIS and associated supporting documentation. For principal participants in the preparation of the Draft EIS, see Chapter 10 of the Draft EIS. i 4. 1 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION George Hoops, PE MS in Transportation Engineering, BS in Civil Engineering Major Projects Engineer with 19 years of experience in NEPA documentation, design, and construction. 4. 2 NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY (A DIVISION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION) Steve DeWitt, PE BS in Civil Engineering with 26 years of experience in Chief Engineer project development, environmental evaluations and processes, design -build program and project development, contract procurement and administration, and construction processes. Jennifer Harris, PE BS in Civil Engineering with 10 years experience in Director of Planning and transportation, project development, impact analysis, public Environmental Studies involvement, and NEPA analysis. 4. 3 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Geotechnical Engineering Unit / GeoEnvironmental Section Terry W. Fox, LG Prepared the GeoEnvironmental Impact Evaluation Memo — GeoEnvironmental Project 10/28/09. Manager Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch Kristina L. Solberg, PE BS in Biological Sciences, BS in Civil Engineering, Masters Project Development of International Studies - Environmental Law and Policy & Engineer Sustainable Development. 15 years experience in project management of NEPA studies for transportation projects. Responsible for NCDOT review of the EIS. ME GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 4 -1 LIST OF PREPARERS e.ri• 4. 4 PRIVATE CONSULTING FIRMS HNTB (NCTA General Engineering Consultant, 2035 Traffic Forecast and Operations Analysis) Jeffrey Dayton, PE Transportation Engineer Spencer Franklin, PE Traffic Engineering Project Manager Donna Keener, PE Senior Design Engineer Tracy Roberts, AICP Senior Transportation Planner Christy Shumate, AICP Senior Transportation Planner BS in Civil Engineering with 8 years of experience in NEPA studies, transportation planning, and traffic engineering. Responsible for project oversight. BS in Civil Engineering with 14 years of experience in signal design, ITS design, traffic analysis, access management and traffic control design. BS in Civil Engineering with 22 years of experience in transportation engineering, including roadway and drainage design, highway capacity analysis, and traffic control design. MS in Public Administration, BS in Urban and Regional Planning with 15 years experience in NEPA studies and municipal planning, and air quality and noise analysis. MS in Environmental Management and BS in Natural Sciences and Mathematics with 9 years of experience in NEPA studies and documentation. PBSW (EIS Preparation, Roadway Design, Technical Analysis) David W. Bass, PE BS in Civil Engineering with 21 years of roadway design Senior Project Manager experience. Responsible for the preliminary designs and the construction quantities for cost estimates. Adam Efird BS in Biology with 4 years experience in jurisdictional area Project Scientist delineations, plant and wildlife identification, and protected species surveys. Kiersten R. Giugno BA in Environmental Studies with 17 years of experience in Senior Planner environmental planning and analyses. Responsible for preparation of various EIS sections. Michael Gloden BS in Natural Resources and Ecosystem Assessment with 10 Senior Scientist years experience in stream and wetland delineations, mitigation implementation and monitoring, stream buffer determinations, and T/E species surveys. Jill S. Gurak, PE, AICP BS in Mechanical Engineering with 21 years of experience in Senior Project Manager NEPA studies. Responsible for overall management and development of the EIS and quality control for air quality and noise impact assessments. William B. Kerr, Jr. AICP MUP in Urban and Regional Planning with 21 years of Senior Planner experience in NEPA studies, environmental planning and analysis. Responsible for noise modeling, impact analysis, and development of mitigation measures. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 4 -2 LIST OF PREPARERS e.ri• James N. Lawson BA in Psychology, AA in Civil Engineering with 22 years of Technical Coordinator II experience. Responsible for graphics coordination, preparation of graphics and exhibits, and impact calculations. Clinton J. Morgan BS in Civil Engineering with 17 years of roadway design Senior Engineer II experience. Responsible for the preliminary designs and the Archaeologist construction cost preparation. Elizabeth Scherrer MS in Forestry with 13 years experience in wetland and Senior Scientist jurisdictional area delineations, stream characterization, plant Bill Hall and wildlife identification and community mapping, and Historian protected species surveys. Jeremy Schmid BS in Environmental Technology with 4 years experience in Project Scientist plant and wildlife identification, protected species surveys, Loretta Lautzenheiser, RPA mitigation implementation and monitoring, and jurisdictional Project Manager area delineations. COASTAL CAROLINA RESEARCH, INC. (Archaeological Resources) Susan E. Bamann, RPA PhD in Anthropology with 23 years of experience in Principal Investigator archaeological research and 15 years of experience in cultural resource management. Responsible for field work, Leo Tidd archaeological resources and overall analysis. Dawn M. Bradley, RPA MA in Geology, BA in Anthropology with 6 years of experience Archaeologist as an archaeological supervisor. Responsible for geomorphological reconnaissance of floodplains to assess potential for buried archaeological sites. Bill Hall BA in History with 12 years of experience in development of Historian historic contexts for cultural resources management. Project historian responsible for background research and compilation of information on previously recorded sites. Loretta Lautzenheiser, RPA MA in Anthropology with 33 years of experience in archaeology. Project Manager Responsible for development of project scope and coordination of work. LOUIS BERGER GROUP, INC. (Indirect and Cumulative Effects) Lawrence Pesesky, AICP MSC in Geography with 25 years of experience in the Senior Vice President preparation of NEPA documents. Responsible for the quality assurance review of the indirect and cumulative effects assessment. Leo Tidd MPA in Environmental Science and Policy with 4 years of Senior Environmental experience in the preparation of indirect and cumulative effects Planner assessments for NEPA documents. Responsible for the quantitative indirect and cumulative effects assessment GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 4 -3 S. 1 FEDERAL AGENCIES AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS • US Department of Transportation • US Environmental Protection Agency • US Department of the Interior • US Department of Commerce • US Department of Agriculture • US Department of Energy • US Department of Health and Human Service, Office of Environmental Affairs • Federal Rail Administration • Federal Emergency Management Agency • Federal Energy Regulatory Commission • Office of Management and Budget • Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Tribal Historic Preservation Office S. 2 REGIONAL OFFICES OF FEDERAL AGENCIES • Regional Representative of the Secretary of Transportation (USDOT) • US Environmental Protection Agency • Department of Housing and Urban Development • US Army Corps of Engineers • US Fish and Wildlife Service • Federal Emergency Management Agency • General Services Administration S. 3 STATE AGENCIES • North Carolina Department of Human Resources • North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources • North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission • North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources • North Carolina Department of Public Instruction • North Carolina Department of Commerce — Travel and Tourism Division • North Carolina Department of Economic and Community Development • State Clearinghouse • Attorney General GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 5 -1 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, e.ri• AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE STATEMENT ARE SENT S. 4 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND AGENCIES • Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization • Gaston County Schools • Gaston County — Board of County Commissioners • Gaston County Planning Department • Gaston County Natural Resources Department • Gaston Chamber of Commerce • Mecklenburg County — Board of County Commissioners • Mecklenburg -Union Metropolitan Planning Organization • Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department • Mecklenburg City Schools • Charlotte - Mecklenburg Planning Department • Charlotte- Douglas International Airport • Charlotte Department of Transportation • Charlotte Chamber of Commerce • York County, SC — Board of County Commissioners • City of Gastonia — City Council • City of Charlotte — City Council • City of Belmont — City Council • City of Bessemer City — City Council • Town of Cramerton — City Council • Town of Dallas — City Council • Town of Lowell — City Council • Town of McAdenville — City Council • Gastonia Municipal Airport • Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation • Crowders Mountain State Park • Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden • The Schiele Museum of Natural History • Duke Energy Corporation S. 5 PUBLIC REVIEW LOCATIONS • NC Turnpike Authority office • NCDOT Division 10 office • NCDOT Division 12 office • Gaston County Planning Department • Charlotte - Mecklenburg Planning Department • Belmont Branch Library • Bessemer City Branch Library • Gaston County Library (Main Branch) • Lowell Branch Library • Steele Creek Branch Library • Union Road Branch Library The complete Draft EIS and Final EIS are available for download at the NCTA Web site: www.ncturnpil<e.org/projects/gaston. F7717171.m.y M.. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 5 -2 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............................... Chapter 6lists the various references and supporting documentation cited throughout the Final EIS. In addition, Chapter 6 includes a list of acronyms found throughout the Final EIS. 6.1 REFERENCES Bournet, Marlon and Andrew Haughwaut Do Highways Matter? Evidence and Policy Implications of Highways Influence on Metropolitan Development. The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, 2000. Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation Telephone interview, September 4, 2008 City of Bessemer City Bessemer City Land Use Plan, July 2009 Land Use Plan, 1995 City of Gastonia Gaston Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan, January 2006 www.cityofgastonia.com/ dept / planning/_ pdf% 20files /Official_TFare_Plan.pdf Crowders Mountain State Park Telephone interview, Crowders Mountain State Park Superintendent, April 11, 2008 Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden Annual Report, 2006 www.dsbg.org Duke Energy Corporation Telephone interview, Duke Energy Regional Manager, September 14, 2005 Farmland Information Center Farmland Protection Toolbox www.farmiandinfo.org /documents /27761 /fp_toolbox_02- 2008.pdf Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Telephone interview, Allen Steam Station FERC Permit Coordinator, March 2, 2006 Federal Highway Administration Clarification of Transportation Conformity Requirements for FHWA /FTA Projects Requiring Environmental Impact Statements, May 20, 2003 Guidelines for Implementing the Final Rule of the Farmland Protection Policy Act for Highway Projects, May 1989 Interim Guidance on MSAT Analysis in NEPA Documents, September 2009 GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 6 -1 REFERENCES e." Secondary and Cumulative Impact Assessment in the Highway Project Development Process, April, 1992 wwwe environment .fhwa.dot.gov /guidebool</ content / Secondary _Cumulative_lmpact_Assessmt.asp Technical Advisory T66430.8.A, October 1987 www.fhwa. dot. gov/ safetealu /factsheets /conformity.htm Fox, Terry, NCDOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit Personal communication via email, February 2, 2010 Gaston County Gaston County Voluntary Agricultural District Ordinance, Adopted July 2004 www.co.gaston.nc.us/ ordinances /VADordinance2004- 07- 22.pdf Gaston County Planning Department Gaston County Comprehensive Plan, July 2002 (Adopted November 2002) wwwe co. gaston. nc. us /CompPlan /ComprehensivePlan.htm Gaston County Comprehensive Plan Composite Initiatives Map wwwe co .gaston.nc.us /CompPlan /maps.htm Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Gaston Area Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan, 2030 Long -Range Transportation Plan, May 24, 2005 2035 Long -Range Transportation Plan, March 2010 www.gastonmpo.org/ documents /DraftLRTPupdate_all.pdf Hirschman and Henderson Methodology for Assessing Local land Use Impacts of Highways. Article in Transportation Research Record, 1990. Mecklenburg County Dixie - Berryhill Strategic Plan, April 2003 Protecting Our Lake Watersheds, Mecklenburg County Land Use and Environmental Services Agency, January 2004 Southwest District Future Land Use Map, December 2009 ww.charmecl<.org /Planning/ Land ° /`20Use ° /`20PIanning/ District° / ®20PIan ° /`2OMaps /southwest.pdf State of the Environment Report, Prepared by the Land Use and Environmental Services Agency (LUESA) — Department of Air Quality, 2008 Mecklenburg -Union Metropolitan Planning Organization 2004 Mecklenburg -Union Metropolitan Planning Organization Thoroughfare Plan, November 2004 2009 -2015 Transportation Improvement Program, May 2008 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, Amended September 2005 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, March 2010 www.mumpo.org /2035_LRTP.htm GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 6 -2 2009 -2015 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program Answers to the Questions Most Often Asked About Right of Way Acquisitions and Relocation Assistance Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Transportation Projects in North Carolina, November 2001 Cost to Reactivate Piedmont and Northern Rail Line, Report to Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee, January 15, 2009 www.bytrain.org /quicl<linl<s /reports /P &N_Report_15JanO8.pdf Greater Charlotte Region Household Travel Survey, September 2002 Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures, January 2002, wwwencdoteorg/ doh / preconstruct /ps /specifications /dual/ Strategic Highway Corridors: wwwencdoteorg /doh /preconstruct /tpb /SHC Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, 2004 NCDOT Bicycle Maps www.ncdot.org/it/gis/DataDistribution/Bil<eMaps/default.htmi NC Turnpike Authority www.ncturnpil<e.org/projects/gaston Parks, Jim, Executive Director Auxiliary Services, Gaston School District Personal communication, January 28, 2010 US Department of Agriculture 2007 Census of Agriculture — North Carolina State and County Data (Volume 1, Geographic Area Series, Part 33, Report No. AC- 07- A -33), September, 2009, USDA Web site: www.agcensus.usda.gov /Publications /2007 /index.asp. US Department of Agriculture- Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Survey of Gaston County, North Carolina, April 2009 GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 6 -3 REFERENCES e." Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, June 2009 US Environmental Protection Agency EMERIMEMEM • • US Fish and Wildlife Service Lists of Federally Protected Species for Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties, 2008: www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.htmi York County 2025 Comprehensive Plan, April 2004 6. 2 SUPPORTING PROJECT DOCUMENTATION The supporting project documentation listed below is technical memoranda and reports incorporated by reference into the Draft EIS and Final EIS. These are available for review upon request by contacting the NCTA via email at gaston@ncturnpil<e.org or via telephone at (919) 571- 3000. Documents also available on the NCTA Web site (www.ncturnpil<e.org /projects /gaston) are marked with an asterisk ( *). 6.2.1 SUPPORTING PROJECT DOCUMENTATION PRIOR TO PUBLICATION OF THE DRAFT EIS The supporting project documentation listed below is technical memoranda and reports created prior to publication of the Draft EIS in April 2009, and incorporated by reference into the Draft EIS. 2003, September Phase I (Reconnaissance Level) Historic Architectural Survey for the Gaston East -West Connector. Prepared by Mattson, Alexander and Associates 2004, February Phase II Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum — Gaston County East - West Corridor Study. Prepared by PBS &J 2004, March Citizens Informational Workshop Series #1 Summary — Gaston East -West Connector. Prepared by PBS &J 2005, February Gaston East -West Connector Study — Transportation Demand Modeling Technical Memorandum. Prepared by Martin /Alexiou /Bryson 2005, May Draft Traffic Technical Memorandum — Gaston County East -West Connector Study. Prepared by PBS &J 2006, April Citizens Informational Workshop Series #2 Summary — Gaston East -West Connector. Prepared by PBS &J *2006, October Proposed Gaston East -West Connector Preliminary Traffic and Revenue Study Final Report. Prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates 2006, October Gaston East -West Connector Traffic Forecasting and System Level Analysis for Detailed Study Alternatives. Prepared by Martin /Alexiou /Bryson GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 6 -4 REFERENCES e." 2007, April Archaeological Assessment of Detailed Study Alternatives for the Proposed Gaston East -West Connector. Prepared by Coastal Carolina Research, Inc. 2007, April Gaston East -West Connector Traffic Forecasting and System Level Analysis for the Detailed Study Alternatives — Revised. Prepared by Martin /Alexio a /Bry so n 2007, November Community Characteristics Report for the Gaston East -West Connector. Prepared by PBS &J *2007, December Final Preliminary Hydraulic Technical Memorandum for the Gaston County East -West Connector. Prepared by PBS &J 2007, December Final Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum for the Gaston East -West Connector. Prepared by PBS &J *2008, January Preliminary Engineering Designs for the Gaston East -West Connector Detailed Study Alternatives. Prepared by PBS &J and Gibson Engineers. (See Public Hearing Maps available on the NCTA Web site) *2008, February Natural Resources Technical Report for the Gaston East -West Connector, Prepared by Earth Tech, Inc. *2008, February Phase II Architectural Resources Survey Report for the Gaston East -West Connector. Prepared by Mattson, Alexander and Associates, Inc. 2008, May Memorandum — Gaston County East -West Connector — TIP Project U -3321 — Logical Termini. Prepared by PBS &J *2008, June Relocation Reports for the Gaston East -West Connector. Prepared by Carolina Land Acquisitions, Inc. (Draft EIS Appendix F) *2008, July Final Traffic Noise Technical Memorandum for the Gaston East -West Connector. Prepared by PBS &J *2008, August Gaston East -West Connector (U -3321) Traffic Forecasts for Toll Alternatives. Prepared by Martin /Alexiou /Bryson *2008, August Utility Impact Report for the Gaston East -West Connector. Prepared by TBE Group, Inc. 2008, September Analysis of Potential Icing Impacts due to Allen Steam Station S02 Scrubber for the Gaston East -West Connector. Prepared by Mactec 2008, September Citizens Informational Workshop Series #3 Summary — Gaston East -West Connector. Prepared by PBS &J *2008, September Final Air Quality Technical Memorandum for the Gaston East -West Connector. Prepared by PBS &J *2008, September Final Toll Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum - Gaston East -West Connector. Prepared by PBS &J *2008, September Final Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum for 1-85,1-485, US 29 -74, and US 321 Under Various Scenarios — Gaston East -West Connector. Prepared by PBS &J 2008, September Memorandum — Gaston County East -West Connector — TIP Project U -3321 — Effects on Impacts if the US 29 -74 Interchange is Removed from DSAs. Prepared by PBS &J GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 6 -5 REFERENCES e." *2008, October Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report for the Gaston East -West Connector. Prepared by PBS &J *2008, October Final Community Impact Assessment for the Gaston East -West Connector. Prepared by PBS &J *2008, October Final Updated Purpose and Need Statement for the Gaston East -West Connector. Prepared by PBS &J 2008, October Section 6002 Project Coordination Plan. Prepared by PBS &J 2008, December Gaston Cost Estimate Support Memorandum. Prepared by HNTB *2009, March Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment for the Gaston East -West Connector. Prepared by Louis Berger Group, Inc. 6.2.2 SUPPORTING PROJECT DOCUMENTATION AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE DRAFT EIS The supporting project documentation listed below are technical memoranda and reports created after publication of the Draft EIS in April 2009 for the Final EIS, and incorporated by reference into the Final EIS. *2009, September Gaston East -West Connector Preferred Alternative Report. Prepared by PBS &J 2009, October Gaston East -West Connector (U- 3321), Hazardous Materials Report. Prepared by NCDOT Geotechnical Engineering Unit GeoEnvironmental Section 2009, November Gaston East -West Connector (U -3321) Traffic Forecast Memorandum 2009 and 2035 No Build /Build. Prepared by HNTB 2009, December Proposed Gaston East -West Connector December 2009 Update to the 2006 Preliminary Study Interchange Analysis. Prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates 2009, December Summary -- Citizens Informational Workshop Series #4 — Public Hearings for the Gaston East -West Connector. Prepared by PBS &J 2010, March Gaston East -West Connector (U -3321) Final Traffic Capacity Technical Memorandum 2030 Non- Toll/2035 Toll. Prepared by HNTB. *2010, April Traffic Noise Technical Memorandum Addendum. Prepared by PBS &J 2010, May Gaston East -West Connector Service Road Study. Prepared by PBS &J *2010, May Gaston East West Connector Updated Traffic Forecast and Preliminary Design Traffic Capacity Analysis for the Preferred Alternative. Prepared by HNTB *2010, June Gaston East -West Connector Conceptual Mitigation Plan. Prepared by PBS &J 2010, July Intensive Archaeological Survey and Evaluation of Detailed Study Alternative 9 (Recommended Route) for the Proposed Gaston East -West Connector. Prepared by Coastal Carolina Research. *2010, August Gaston East -West Connector Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis. Prepared by Louis Berger Group, Inc. GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 6 -6 REFERENCES e." 6. 3 ACRONYMS USED IN THE FINAL EIS The following is a list of commonly -used acronyms found throughout this Final EIS and associated appendices. AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic ADA Americans with Disabilities Act BFE Base Flood Elevation CAA Clean Air Act CDOT Charlotte Department of Transportation CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CH, Methane CLGP Conformity Lapse Grace Period CO, Carbon Dioxide DSA Detailed Study Alternative E Endangered EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMC Electric Membership Cooperative ETC Electronic Toll Collection FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FIS Flood Insurance Study FTA Federal Transit Administration GP Garden Parkway GUAMPO Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization HEI Health Effects Institute HNTB Howard, Needles, Tammen, and Bergendoff HOV High Occupancy Vehicles HQW High Quality Waters IMR Interchange Modification Report LEDPA Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative LOS Level of Service MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MSL Mean Sea Level NZO Nitrous Oxide NAC Noise Abatement Criteria NCAC North Carolina Administrative Code NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials APE Area of Potential Effect BMP Best Management Practices CDIA Charlotte Douglas International Airport CE Categorical Exclusion CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIW Citizens Informational Workshop CLOMR Conditional Letter of Map Revision DAQ Division of Air Quality DSBG Daniel Stowe Botanical Gardens EEP Ecosystem Enhancement Program EJ Environmental Justice ESA Endangered Species Act FBFM Flood Boundary and Floodway Map FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act GHG Greenhouse Gas Emissions GPX Garden Parkway Interchange HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons HOT High Occupancy Toll HPO Historic Preservation Office ICE Indirect and Cumulative Effects IRIS Integrated Risk Information System LOMR Letter of Map Revision LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan MSAT Mobile Source Air Toxics MUMPO Mecklenburg -Union Metropolitan Planning Organization NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NATA National -scale Air Toxics Assessment NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources NCDWQ North Carolina Division of Water Quality GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 6 -7 REFERENCES e." NCGS North Carolina General Statues NCTA North Carolina Turnpike Authority NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NOI Notice of Intent NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Services NS Norfolk Southern OSA Office of State Archaeology PE Proposed Endangered PM Particulate Matter ROD Record of Decision SCDOT South Carolina Department of Transportation SF, Sulfur hexafluoride SHC Strategic Highway Corridor SIP State Implementation Plan STIP State Transportation Improvement Project TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone TEAC Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination TIP Transportation Improvement Program TSM Transportation System Management UDO Unified Development Ordinance USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFWS United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service UST Underground Storage Tanks VFD Volunteer Fire Department VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled NCNHP North Carolina Natural Heritage Program NCWRC North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRHP National Register of Historic Places ORW Outstanding Resource Waters PBS &J Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. PFCs Perfluorocarbons PT Proposed Threatened SAFETEA- LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act — A Legacy for Users SECC Southeast Corridor Coalition SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SR State Road T Threatened TDM Transportation Demand Management TIFIA Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act TNM Traffic Noise Model TTST Multi -unit Trucks with Single and Twin Trailers USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USGS United States Geological Survey VAD Voluntary Agricultural Districts VHT Vehicle Hours Traveled GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR FEIS 6 -8