The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20120285_Gaston East-West Corridor Email_20120503FW Gaston East West Connector point application for 404 permit and 410 certification Page 1 of 1 FW Gaston East -West Connector- joint application for 404 permit and 410 certification Lespinasse, Polly Sent Tuesday May 08 2012 3 26 PM To Carrillo Sonia Attachments May 3 2012 comments —to—Co -1 pdf (241 KB) From Toole, William [mallto WToole @rbh com] Sent Thursday May 03, 2012 9 52 PM To Sarah E Hair @usace army mil, Wrenn, Brian Cc Lespinasse, Polly Subject Gaston East West Connector joint application for 404 permit and 410 certification Dear Ms Hair and Mr Wrenn Attached please find comments to the point application of the North Carolina Turnpike Authority for a § 404 permit and § 401 water quality certification A hard copy with attachments will follow by overnight mail As outlined in the attached comments, NCTA's application for a § 404 permit and § 401 certification should be denied Bill Toole 704/377 8373 (direct office) 704/461 8506 (home) I https / /mail nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &id= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJH14 %2bm 5/17/2012 FW Gaston East West Connector point application for 404 permit and 410 certification Page 1 of 1 FW Gaston East -West Connector- joint application for 404 permit and 410 certification Lespinasse, Polly Sent Tuesday May 08 2012 3 26 PM To Carrillo Sonia Importance High From Toole, William [mailto WToole @rbh com] Sent Friday, May 04 2012 3 30 PM To Sarah E Hair @usace army mil, Wrenn, Brian Cc Lespinasse, Polly Subject RE Gaston East West Connector point application for 404 permit and 410 certification Importance High Ms Hair and Mr Wrenn Please consider this email a timely request for a public hearing on the joint application of the NC Turnpike Authority for a § 404 permit and § 401 water quality certification As documented in my comments of May 3 2012 there is intense public interest in the Project and substantial questions regarding the Applicant s joint application particularly in light of yesterdays unanimous Fourth Circuit ruling that the NC Turnpike Authority failed to disclose critical assumptions and instead provided the public with incorrect information in connection with the NCTPA Monroe Bypass analysis that supported § 404 and § 401 approvals Bill Toole 704/377 8373 (direct office) 704/461 8506 (home) From Toole, William Sent Thursday, May 03, 2012 9 52 PM To Sarah E Hair @usace army mil, brian wrenn @ncdenr gov Cc polly lespinasse @ncdenr gov Subject Gaston East West Connector point application for 404 permit and 410 certification Dear Ms Hair and Mr Wrenn Attached please find comments to the point application of the North Carolina Turnpike Authority for a § 404 permit and § 401 water quality certification A hard copy with attachments will follow by overnight mail As outlined in the attached comments NCTA's application for a § 404 permit and § 401 certification should be denied Bill Toole 704/377 8373 (direct office) 704/461 8506 (home) https / /mail nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &id= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJHI4 %2bm 5/17/2012 Comments to Joint Application STIP No U 3321 AA U 3321 B U 32121 21321 CA and U 3321 CB Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Page 1 of 21 William W Toole 714 Ann Street Belmont, NC 28012 May 3 2012 Via Federal Express Ms Liz Hair US Army Corps of Engineers Asheville Regulatory Field Office 151 Patton Avenue Room 208 Asheville NC 28801 5006 828 271 7980 Mr Brian Wrenn NCDWQ — Wetlands and Stormwater Branch Transportation Permitting Unit 1650 Mail Services Center Raleigh NC 27699 1650 Re Gaston East West Connector ( Garden Parkway ) STIP No U 3321 AA U 3321B U 3321 CA and U 3321 CB Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Corps Action ID 9 SAW 2009 0909 ( Project ) Comments upon Application of North Carolina Turnpike Authority ( NCTPA ) for Section 404 Permit and Section 401 Water Quality Certification ( Joint Application ) Dear Ms Hair and Mr Wrenn I am a resident of Belmont Gaston County and a member of the Belmont City Council I write to provide comments upon the Joint Application now pending before your respective agencies These comments supplement the comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ( DEIS ) submitted to you on July 17 2009 As set out below given the material inconsistencies surrounding the development and conclusions of the quantitative indirect and cumulative effects analysis the Joint Application is fatally flawed A least environmentally damaging practicable alternative exists in the form of widening I 85 but for unknown reasons was not evaluated despite substantial documentation of its economic viability and ability to meet the Purpose and Need of relieving traffic congestion on I 85 Given deep public opposition to this Comments to Joint Application STIP No U 3321 AA U 3321 B U 3212121321 CA and U 3321 CB Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Page 2 of 21 Project and clear indications of material discrepancies in its implementation issuance of a Permit and Certification for the Project is not in the public interest Specific comments follow I PROJECT FACTS A The Project is $930 million toll road that includes S 9 miles of undivided two -lane road The Project is a proposed 219 mile toll road with the bulk of the Project traversing southern Gaston County The Project will cost an estimated $930 million For the first 5 9 miles located between I 85 and US 321 in Gaston County the Project will be two lanes divided by a painted yellow line The remainder of the Project from US 321 south of Gastonia to a point on I 485 located well south of the Charlotte Douglas Airport is four lane highway with a median strip The November 2011 Comprehensive Traffic and Revenue Study prepared by W►lburSmith ( Revenue Study ) for the NCTPA concluded the initial optimal toll for a single trip by car across the Project would range between $3 79 (electronic toll) and $5 79 (video collection) The initial toll for a truck to cross the Project including along the six mile two lane undivided portion of the Project would range between $15 16 and $23 34 (electronic vs video collection) Truck drivers and those in logistics state a two lane toll facility provides no value to shippers B With published opinion surveys finding over 64% of Gaston County opposed to the Project, the Project lacks community support In 2009 over 7000 people signed a petition opposing the Project' A Gaston County survey conducted in May 2010 found 64% of county residents were opposed to the Project 2 Private surveys conducted since then have found citizen opposition as high as 77% and never less than the initial finding of 64% in opposition In 2010 a candidate for state Senate beat her ideologically identical opponent in a 2 1 landslide — the only difference between them being the winner s opposition to the Project 3 Approximately 200 people protested against the Project on April 2 2012 4 i See Attachment 1 2 See Attachment 2 Survey USA Poll (May 2010) 3 See Attachment 3 Opponents hope to turn election into Parkway referendum Gaston Gazette (April 27 2012) 4 See Attachment 4 Hundreds Gather to Protest Road to Nowhere Belmont Banner News (April 4 2012) Comments to Joint Application STIP No U 3321 AA U 3321 B U 3212121321 CA and U 3321 CB Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Page 3 of 21 C Project funding is in jeopardy due to lack of federal support, state budgetary challenges, and insufficient local demand for the Project Substantial additional funds are needed to build the Project because tolls are not adequate to pay the capital costs In 2012 the NCTPA sought a $287 million direct federal TIFIA loan representing 32% of the estimated project cost 5 The federal government rejected this loan request for the third year in a row Given the funding gap the North Carolina legislature tentatively committed $17 5 million in the coming FY 2012 and $35 million annually for 39 years thereafter fill the gap in toll revenues There is a heated state House primary campaign now underway with the principal campaign issue being whether to withdraw this North Carolina gap funding This state house primary race may be decided May 8 2012 6 It is probable that substantially greater amounts of North Carolina gap funding will be required than have been currently budgeted W►1burSmith concluded in its Revenue Study that the Project relies very heavily on future development and travel demand growth [from 2010] through the [2016] opening year 7 To generate sufficient toll revenue WilburSm►th forecasts Gaston County must see 2 1% average annual population growth from 2010 through the 2016 Project start date 8 This is substantially higher than the 1 9% average annual growth forecast for the Charlotte region over the same six year period In seven of the past ten years average annual growth in Gaston County has not exceeded 0 98 % much less the 2 1% that is forecasted by WilburSmith Growth for the 5 http / /www fhwa dot gov /ipd/tifia/letters interest applications /letters submitted 2012 htm 6 See Attachment 3 Opponents hope to turn election into Parkway referendum Gaston Gazette (April 27 2012) Attachment 5 Comprehensive Traffic and Revenue Study by WilburSmrth (November 2011) p 7 7 8 Attachment 5 Id Table 5 3 ` Comments to Joint Application STIP No U 3321 AA U 3321 B U 3212121321 CA and U 3321 CB Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Page 4 of 21 2009 and 2010 was 0 70% and 0 16% respectively and has remained flat for the two years since then 9 Should that [2 1% annual] development not materialize or be delayed there would be substantial impacts [45 6% decrease] on revenues 10 D An outsized portion of proposed mitigation will occur outside the hydraulic units where impacts to jurisdictional waters occur, and the Applicant has no farm plans to mitigate 34 5% of the estimated impacts to jurisdictional streams and 70 8% of jurisdictional wetlands Over one quarter mile of the Catawba River separates Gaston County (on the west) from Mecklenburg County (on the east) Consequently these two counties are hydraulically distinct from one another The Project is estimated to impact jurisdictional wetlands and streams as follows 11 The impacts to Jurisdictional waters are estimates only because the Applicant has not yet designed 15 61 miles or 71 3% of the Project The Applicant proposes to mitigate impacts to Jurisdictional waters in Gaston County at the Linwood Springs Restoration Site and in Mecklenburg at the Beaverdam Creek mitigation sites as follows Gaston Meckl nburg Total Streams linear ft) 33 748 937% 2 265 63% 36 013 Wetlands acres 671 933% 048 67% 719 The impacts to Jurisdictional waters are estimates only because the Applicant has not yet designed 15 61 miles or 71 3% of the Project The Applicant proposes to mitigate impacts to Jurisdictional waters in Gaston County at the Linwood Springs Restoration Site and in Mecklenburg at the Beaverdam Creek mitigation sites as follows These tables show that 57% of the identified stream mitigation will occur in Mecklenburg County even though 94% of stream impacts will occur on the Gaston County side of the 1400 foot wide Catawba River 9 See Attachment 6 Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population for Counties of North Carolina April 1 2000 to July 1 2010 (CO ESTOOINT O1 37) 10Attachment 5 Comprehensive Revenue Study p 7 6 7 7 11 Section 404 Permit Application (March 7 2012) Attachment 8 Block 23 Tables 13A B and Figures 4 19 through 4 22 Gaston Linwood Springs Mecklenburg Beaverdam Total Streams linear ft 10 055 426% 13 5346 574% 23 5896 Wetlands (acres) 21 00 00% 21 These tables show that 57% of the identified stream mitigation will occur in Mecklenburg County even though 94% of stream impacts will occur on the Gaston County side of the 1400 foot wide Catawba River 9 See Attachment 6 Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population for Counties of North Carolina April 1 2000 to July 1 2010 (CO ESTOOINT O1 37) 10Attachment 5 Comprehensive Revenue Study p 7 6 7 7 11 Section 404 Permit Application (March 7 2012) Attachment 8 Block 23 Tables 13A B and Figures 4 19 through 4 22 Comments to Joint Application STIP No U 3321 AA U 3321 B U 3212121321 CA and U 3321 CB Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Page 5 of 21 Clearly short mitigation credits the Applicant proposes a conceptual mitigation plan consisting of preservation that might yield an additional 8 013 stream mitigation units and 1 7 wetland mitigation units 12 See table Assuming the conceptual plan yields the full mitigation potential — an assumption it is not safe to make as by the Applicant s own admission more detailed evaluation is necessary and property owners have not been contacted or agreed to any preservation proposal 13 — the Project still has a mitigation unit deficit of 4 410 4 linear feet of streams and 3 39 acres of wetlands E The Applicant states the indirect and cumulative effects of the Project will be minimal, but its Board Member says the effects of development at Project intersections were not evaluated and cites a separate study to declare the Project will induce 11,000 new households It is now well established that substantial tracts of choice land at proposed intersections were purchased by powerful politicians and well connected speculators Landowners now include two former state senators a sitting county commissioner who is the chairman of the Transportation Advisory Council, and the son of a sitting state house representative 14 Promoters hope the Project will stimulate the sprawling development of expensive housing projects high end retail and office parks 5 in what is now largely agricultural " Id pp 13 15 13 Id p 15 14 Attachment 7 Garden Parkway s Power Players Gaston Gazette (May 1 2011) 15 A traffic scenario presented by the North Carolina Turnpike Authority at public meetings and located on its website shows roughly 90% of the traffic will be commuter Local Officials Meeting Gaston East West Connector (Garden Parkway) Forecasted Daily Traffic Volumes and Truck Percentages (slide 10) (June 22 2009) found on the North Carolina Turnpike Authority website http / /www ncturnpike or Streams Wetlands 1 acre Total Impacts 36 013 0 7 19 Identified 23 589 6 21 Mitigation Conceptual 8 013 0 1 7 Preservation Deficit 4 410 4 3 39 Pct Conceptual and 345% 708% Deficit Assuming the conceptual plan yields the full mitigation potential — an assumption it is not safe to make as by the Applicant s own admission more detailed evaluation is necessary and property owners have not been contacted or agreed to any preservation proposal 13 — the Project still has a mitigation unit deficit of 4 410 4 linear feet of streams and 3 39 acres of wetlands E The Applicant states the indirect and cumulative effects of the Project will be minimal, but its Board Member says the effects of development at Project intersections were not evaluated and cites a separate study to declare the Project will induce 11,000 new households It is now well established that substantial tracts of choice land at proposed intersections were purchased by powerful politicians and well connected speculators Landowners now include two former state senators a sitting county commissioner who is the chairman of the Transportation Advisory Council, and the son of a sitting state house representative 14 Promoters hope the Project will stimulate the sprawling development of expensive housing projects high end retail and office parks 5 in what is now largely agricultural " Id pp 13 15 13 Id p 15 14 Attachment 7 Garden Parkway s Power Players Gaston Gazette (May 1 2011) 15 A traffic scenario presented by the North Carolina Turnpike Authority at public meetings and located on its website shows roughly 90% of the traffic will be commuter Local Officials Meeting Gaston East West Connector (Garden Parkway) Forecasted Daily Traffic Volumes and Truck Percentages (slide 10) (June 22 2009) found on the North Carolina Turnpike Authority website http / /www ncturnpike or Comments to Joint Application STIP No U 3321AA U 3321B U 3212121321 CA and U 3321 CB Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Page 6 of 21 and pasture land 16 Local economic development officials have warned that the Project poses the real risk of relocating business activity out of the established I 85 corridor and municipal downtowns The FEIS and the Gaston East West Connector Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis prepared by the Louis Berger Group Inc dated August 3 2010 ( Gaston ICE ) conclude that building the Project will in fact shift roughly 2 % of a total 91 000 fobs out of the I 85 corridor and to the Project corridor by 2035 The FEIS states [u]p to 3 700 additional households and 300 fewer fobs are anticipated in the ICE Study Area as a result of the indirect development shifts associated with the project 17 )According to the FEIS /Gaston ICE building the Project will shift 950 fobs out of Gaston County and move 650 those fobs into South Carolina by 2035 precisely as warned by local economic development officials 18 Source Charlotte Observer The Gaston ICE household and fobs figures however, are not reliable Before the Gaston ICE became final in August 2010 essential data in the Gaston ICE may have been Though the document is not found in the DEIS the North Carolina Turnpike Authority maintains the information is part of the public record supporting the Project 16 When first conceived in the late 1990 s the Project was intended to support the logistical needs of the planned mtermodal facility at the Charlotte Douglas Airport and to stimulate manufacturing and industrial development along the Project A combination of factors including tolls the six miles of two lane undivided highway the price of land and a structural economic change away from manufacturing and industrial activity means the Protect will not provide the manufacturing stimulus promoters had originally hoped 17 FEIS p 2 69 See also Gaston ICE p 30 18 FEIS Table 2 15 FEIS Fig 2 12 Gaston ICE Table 4 Gaston ICE Fig 9 Comments to Joint Application STIP No U 3321 AA U 3321 B U 3212121321 CA and U 3321 CB Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Page 7 of 21 substantially altered at the specific request of the Applicant s NEPA Project Manager Jill Gurak The biggest concern we have is what seems to be quite large decreases in growth /employment in the urbanized areas of Gaston County that are being transferred to the project area and particularly to SC I don t think there would be much support for a project in NC that appears to benefit SC the most and takes away growth from the 185 corridor on the order of 10 15 percent Should some more outside of model smoothing of the travel demand model results by done919 This internal email from Ms Gurak which has never been adequately explained by the NCTPA suggests the unmodified Gaston ICE predicted between 9 000 and 13 500 jobs would shift from the urbanized I 85 corridor to the Project corridor prior to outside of model smoothing A competing household and jobs study endorsed by NCTPA Board Member Robert Clay ( Conaughton Study ) concludes the number of households will actually increase between 6 000 and 11 328 by 2035 if the Project is built 20 This is substantially greater than the 3 700 household increase predicted in the Gaston ICE The Connaughton Study also predicts the Project will stimulate up to 17 828 new jobs 21 as compared to the loss of 300 jobs predicted in the Gaston ICE NCTPA Board Member Clay states the difference between the FEIS /Gaston ICE analysis and the Connaughton Study arises because the Federal Highway Administration is not allowed to include any potential real estate development adjacent to or at the proposed intersections of the thoroughfare The ICE does not forecast development 2 19 Attachment 8 email dated May 13 2010 to Louis Berger authors Lawrence Pesesky and Leo Tidd with copies to NCTPA senior transportation planner Christy Shumate and Turnpike employee Jeff Dayton (italics added) 2° Attachment 9 Economic Impact of the Garden Parkway John E Connaughton Ph D (April 28 2011) p 37 21 Id p 38 22 Attachment 10 email from Bob Clay to William Toole (April 27 2012) re Garden Parkway — FHWA and Turnpike Authority review of Connaughton study Gaston ICE Connaughton Stud Change in Households 3 700 6 000 to H 328 Change in Jobs 300 13 828 to 17 828 NCTPA Board Member Clay states the difference between the FEIS /Gaston ICE analysis and the Connaughton Study arises because the Federal Highway Administration is not allowed to include any potential real estate development adjacent to or at the proposed intersections of the thoroughfare The ICE does not forecast development 2 19 Attachment 8 email dated May 13 2010 to Louis Berger authors Lawrence Pesesky and Leo Tidd with copies to NCTPA senior transportation planner Christy Shumate and Turnpike employee Jeff Dayton (italics added) 2° Attachment 9 Economic Impact of the Garden Parkway John E Connaughton Ph D (April 28 2011) p 37 21 Id p 38 22 Attachment 10 email from Bob Clay to William Toole (April 27 2012) re Garden Parkway — FHWA and Turnpike Authority review of Connaughton study Comments to Joint Application STIP No U 332 IAA U 3321 B U 3212121321 CA and U 3321 CB Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Page 8 of 21 Federal law requires an evaluation of the indirect and cumulative impacts the construction of a road would have nearby 23 and the impacts of spinoff development deriving from the Project 24 If the NCTPA Board Member is correct about the scope of the FEIS /Gaston ICE evaluation then the FEIS is fatally flawed This would not be the first time that the Applicant' failed to disclose critical assumptions and instead provided the public with incorrect information The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled on May 3 2012 that the Applicant had fundamental flaws and was not forthcoming with regulators and the public when it evaluated indirect and cumulative effects induced by the Monroe Bypass project 25 Source Charlotte Observer F The declared Purpose and Need is to improve traffic flow on I -85, US 29174 and US 321, but Project engineers state "its purpose is not to alleviate congestion on I -85, and I -85 traffic counts actually increase by building the Project The stated purpose of the Project is to (1) improve traffic flow and safe travel on I 85 US 29/74 and US 321 in the Project Study Area and (2) improve east west connectivity within Gaston County and between Gaston County and Mecklenburg County 26 Yet 23 Pye v United States 269 F 3d 459 (4'h Cir 2001) (rejecting argument that only impacts within the footprint of the road project need be considered) 24 Regulatory Guidance Letter No 88 11 Mall Properties Inc v Marsh (Aug 22 1988) 25 N C Wildlife Fed n v N C Dep t of Transp No 11 2210 slip op at (4th Cir May 3 2012) 26 DEIS p 1 3 Comments to Joint Application STIP No U 3321 AA U 3321 B U 3212121321 CA and U 3321 CB Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Page 9 of 21 Jennifer Harris project engineer for the North Carolina Turnpike Authority stated that the purpose of the toll road is not to alleviate congestion on I 85 27 Daily traffic counts on I 85 actually increase in 2030 by constructing the Project 185 Daily Traffic 185 Daily Traffic East of West of US 321 US 321 No Toll Connected No Toll Connected Road to 185 Road to 185 119 200 124 400 134 600 137 600 NCTPA documents show building the Project actually increases traffic on I 85 28 contrary to the stated purpose of the Project II Because the Project promotes sprawl, it increases traffic on targeted thoroughfares and fails to meet the Purpose and Need of improving traffic flow and east west connectivity The Corps must deny § 404 permit applications if the discharge that would be authorized does not comply with EPA 404(b)(1) Guidelines 29 The Applicant has a duty to demonstrate conformity with the Guidelines and the Corps has a duty to verify compliance 30 [T]he Corps will in all cases exercise independent judgment in defining the purpose and need from the project from both the applicants and the publics perspective 31 An alternative must provide more than a minor improvement Alternatives that provide only a minor improvement do not meet the purpose and need and therefore are not reasonable alternatives 32 The stated purpose of the Project is to (1) improve traffic flow and safe travel on 185 US 29/74 and US 321 in the Project Study Area and (2) improve east west connectivity within Gaston County and between Gaston and Mecklenburg 27 Attachment 1 I Belmont Banner News p 1 (July 1 2009) 28 See Attachment 12 Gaston East West Connector (Garden Parkway) Preliminary Daily Traffic Volumes (June 2 2009) 29 33 C F R § 320 4(a) " Utahns v United States DOT 305 F 3d 1152 1189 (10`h Clr 2002) 3' 33 C F R § 325 App B 9(c)(4) 32 /d Comments to Joint Application STIP No U 3321 AA U 3321 B U 3212121321 CA and U 3321 CB Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Page 10 of 21 Counties 33 The Project fails to meet the stated purposes of decreasing congestion and improving east west connectivity and therefore the agencies must deny the Permit and Certification A The Project actually increases congestion on 1 -85, US 29174, and US 321, rather than providing the required substantial improvement A primary purpose of the Project is to improve traffic flow and safe travel on I 85 US 29/74 and US 321 in the Project Study Area 34 The June 2 2009 study prepared by the North Carolina Turnpike Authority demonstrates that constructing the Project increases traffic on I 85 at US 321 and thus fails the primary purpose of the Project 35 I -85 Daily Traffic 185 Daily Traffic East of West of US 321 US 321 No Toll Connected No Toll Connected Road to 185 Road to 185 119 200 124 400 134 600 137 600 The Applicant s analysis of the Project clearly shows traffic on I 85 actually increases as a result of constructing the Project Table C 3 of the DEIS shows that traffic would operate at the same or worse level of service on US 29/74 compared to the No Build Scenario 36 With one exception there is 33 DEIS p 1 3 34 DEIS p 1 3 See also DEIS p 2 4 (one of purposes is to [r]educe congested vehicle miles travelled and/or congesting vehicle hours traveled in Gaston County compared to the No Build Alternative in 2030 ) Since the conceptual stage of the Project relieving congestion on I 85 has been a primary purpose of the East West connector The 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan by the Gaston Urban Area MPO for example states that the purpose of the toll road is to serve as a bypass to Interstate 85 US 29/74 and US 321 and a reliever to 1 85 and US 29/74 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization p 71 (May 24 2005) The Updated Final Purpose and Need Statement is equally clear that relieving traffic congestion on 185 US 29/74 and US 321 is a fundamental purpose of the Project Final Updated Purpose and Need Statement p 5 (Oct 15 2008) ( Need to improve traffic flow on the sections of I 85 US 29 74 and US 321 in the project study area ) See also Final Purpose and Need Statement p 4 (Aug 5 2002) ( Need to improve traffic flow on the sections of I 85 US 29 74 and US 321 in the project study area ) 35 Attachment 12 Gaston East West Connector (Garden Parkway) Preliminary Daily Traffic Volumes (June 2 2009) 36 DEIS App C pp C 7 though C 8 Comments to Joint Application STIP No U 3321 AA U 3321 B U 3212121321 CA and U 3321 CB Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Page 11 of 21 no improvement to the level of service on I 85 if the Project is built 37 The levels of service on US 321 are reported to be similar for all scenarios 38 There is no substantial improvement to traffic flow on I 85 US 29/74 or US 321 as is required to meet the stated Project purpose 39 and in fact it increases traffic on I 85 In an effort to explain why the Project should be built despite its failure to meet the statement of purpose and need in the DEIS numerous supporting documents and widespread community expectations regarding the Project Jennifer Harris project engineer for the North Carolina Turnpike Authority told the community that the purpose of the Project is not to alleviate congestion on I 85 40 This determined refusal to embrace a basic Project purpose means the Applicant has not conducted a proper evaluation determining whether the Project meets the stated purpose and in fact reflects demonstrated bias in favor of constructing the Project Because the Project does not meet the basic purpose of relieving traffic congestion on I 85 US 29/74 or US 321 the Project has no merit and denial of the Permit and Certification applications is required B The Project does not improve connectivity within Gaston County or between Gaston and Mecklenburg counties, and because traffic projections an the DEIS overstate the actual traffic, forecasted time savings are also overstated A secondary purpose of the Project is to improve connectivity within Gaston County and between Gaston County and Mecklenburg County Much of the travel model data used to support the connectivity claims is suspect In many cases the estimated time savings described in the DEIS appears highly inflated when compared to actual ground truthed travel times The bulk of the travel scenarios show only marginal improvements in travel time The Project is estimated to decrease travel between downtown Gastonia and south Belmont by 1 to 3 minutes in 20304 1 Travel from downtown Gastonia to the South Point 37 DEiS App C p C 6 38 DEIS App C p C 9 39 Notwithstanding the data in Tables C 2 and C 3 and the June 2 2009 analysis by the North Carolina Turnpike Authority the DEIS states [t]raffic operations would improve on I 85 and on segments of US 29 74 with the New Location Alternative (Toll or Non Toll Scenario) compared to the No Build Alternative DEIS p 2 21 This statement is demonstrably wrong yet it formed the basis for the decision to recommend a second screening of the Project at the expense of various other alternatives including the No Build alternative DEIS p 2 22 40 Attachment 11 Belmont Banner News (July 1 2009) 41 Gaston East West Connector Citizens Summary Draft Environmental Impact Statement p 5 (April 2009) Comments to Joint Application STIP No U 3321AA U 3321B U 3212121321CA and U 3321 CB Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Page 12 of 21 Road interchange would save 2 minutes in 2030 42 These savings are minimal are not sufficient to warrant the impacts to 7 acres of wetlands and 7 miles of /Jurisdictional streams caused by the Project and Gaston County residents will not pay tolls for such minimal time savings The DEIS estimates residents on the Belmont Peninsula will save 23 minutes travelling to the Charlotte Douglas Airport by taking the toll bridge in 2030 because the No Build Alternative will take 57 minutes 43 Currently MapQuest shows the trip taking 17 minutes 44 For the proposed travel savings to be correct traffic on South Point Road and Wilkinson Boulevard must become so congested that the trip increases by 40 minutes a two hundred percent increase in 20 years This is not credible The DEIS describes traffic volumes for the base year 2006 as existing 45 yet comparison of these figures to traffic volumes observed by the NCDOT Traffic Survey Group 46 in 2007 shows the 2006 figures to be inflated estimates The following tables compare a few of the DEIS existing traffic estimates with data from the NCDOT s Traffic Survey Group 42 DEIS App C Table C 4 p C11 43 DEIS App C Table C 5 p C 12 44 Ground truthed during morning rush hour the trip actually takes 12 minutes 45 DEIS Tables 1 1 1 2 1 3 and 1 4 pp 1 14 though 1 17 46 NCDOT Traffic Survey Group AADT Traffic Volume Maps (2007 Spreadsheet) available at http //www ncdot ore/doh/PRECONSTRUCT /tpb /traffic survey/ 47 See NCDOT Traffic Survey Group AADT Traffic Volume Maps (2007 Spreadsheet) available at http //www ncdot org/doh/PRECONSTRUCT /tpb /traffic survey/ For interstate highways such as I 85 the Traffic Survey Group collects volumes on an annual basis and 2007 volumes were included in the spreadsheet available on the NCDOT website It should be noted that between 2006 and 2007 overall traffic volumes increased in North Carolina and so one would expect greater discrepancies between observed traffic volumes on 1 85 for 2006 and the DEIS projections More recently high gasoline prices and the economic slowdown have caused traffic volume to decrease See Federal Highway Administration Traffic Volume Trends available at http / /www fhwa dot gov /ohim /tvtw /tvtpaa,ge cfm US 29 -74 Se ment Actual Observed DEIS 2006 Volume From To Pro ection 2007 47 Discrepancy NC 273 (Park Lakewood Rd Street) 33 600 17 000 16 600 47 6% 42 DEIS App C Table C 4 p C11 43 DEIS App C Table C 5 p C 12 44 Ground truthed during morning rush hour the trip actually takes 12 minutes 45 DEIS Tables 1 1 1 2 1 3 and 1 4 pp 1 14 though 1 17 46 NCDOT Traffic Survey Group AADT Traffic Volume Maps (2007 Spreadsheet) available at http //www ncdot ore/doh/PRECONSTRUCT /tpb /traffic survey/ 47 See NCDOT Traffic Survey Group AADT Traffic Volume Maps (2007 Spreadsheet) available at http //www ncdot org/doh/PRECONSTRUCT /tpb /traffic survey/ For interstate highways such as I 85 the Traffic Survey Group collects volumes on an annual basis and 2007 volumes were included in the spreadsheet available on the NCDOT website It should be noted that between 2006 and 2007 overall traffic volumes increased in North Carolina and so one would expect greater discrepancies between observed traffic volumes on 1 85 for 2006 and the DEIS projections More recently high gasoline prices and the economic slowdown have caused traffic volume to decrease See Federal Highway Administration Traffic Volume Trends available at http / /www fhwa dot gov /ohim /tvtw /tvtpaa,ge cfm Comments to Joint Application STIP No U 3321 AA U 3321B U 3212121321 CA and U 3321 CB Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties ` Page 13 of 21 NC 273 (Park NC 7 (Catawba Actual St) St) 43 700 20 000 23 700 US 321 Se ment Actual Observed DEIS 2006 Volume From To Projection 2007 48 Discre anc W Airline W Rankin Ave Ave 21 400 8 300 13 100 612% Crowders Forbes Rd Creek Rd 1 13 500 1 11 000 1 2 500 85% The DEIS consistently overstates the existing traffic volume along each of the major roadways in the Project Area This leads to inflated traffic congestion projections which results in overstated estimates of east west travel savings The Project provides no meaningful credible improvement in east west connectivity The sole effect of the Project is to induce development of new destinations in a part of Gaston County that is currently rural The Project does not provide connectivity between existing destinations Opening south Gaston County for development is not a recognized Project purpose III No Permit or Certification may issue because widening 185 from 1485 to Exit 10 is a more economical, practicable alternative that meets the Purpose and Need, is the Least Environmentally Damaging Alternative, and was not a properly evaluated alternative Widening I 85 for the 20 miles from 1 485 to Exit 10 is a cheaper practicable alternative that will actually relieve congestion on I 85 according to a 2009 study prepared for NC DOT and other transportation agencies in the Charlotte region 49 In fact tolling the new 48 See NCDOT Traffic Survey Group AADT Traffic Volume Maps (2007 Spreadsheet) available at http //www ncdot orgJdoh/PRECONSTRUCT /tpb /traffic survey For interstate highways such as 185 the Traffic Survey Group collects volumes on an annual basis and 2007 volumes were included in the spreadsheet available on the NCDOT website It should be noted that between 2006 and 2007 overall traffic volumes increased in North Carolina and so one would expect greater discrepancies between observed traffic volumes on I 85 for 2006 and the DEIS projections More recently high gasoline prices and the economic slowdown have caused traffic volume to decrease See Federal Highway Administration Traffic Volume Trends available at http / /www fhwa dot gov /ohim/tvtw /tvtpage cfm 49 Attachment 13 Charlotte Region Fast Lanes Study (July 2009) Full report available at http / /ww charmeck org /fastlanes /PDFs /FinalReport(2009 July) pd f The Regional Technical Team included representatives from North Carolina Department of Transportation the North Carolina Turnpike Authority Charlotte Department of Transportation Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization and other transportation organizations Comments to Joint Application STIP,No U 3321 AA U 3321B U 3212121321 CA and U 3321 CB Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Page 14 of 21 lanes would be fully self supporting 50 unlike the proposed Project Because widening I 85 would take place in the existing thoroughfare footprint is economically practical and would serve the Project Purpose and Need of reducing congestion on I 85 widening 20 miles of 185 is a less damaging practicable alternative to the Project The NCDWQ may not issue the Certification until it determines there is no practical alternative to the Project A lack of practical alternatives requires a showing that the basic project purpose cannot be accomplished in a manner which avoids or results in less adverse impacts to surface waters or wetlands 51 Similarly under the 404(b) Guidelines the Corps may not issue a Permit unless it is clearly demonstrated the Project is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative 52 There is a presumption against issuing a § 404 permit since the Project is not water dependent and widening I 85 is a practicable alternative having less impacts on waters of the United States 53 [T]he applicant and the [Corps] are obligated to determine the feasibility of the least environmentally damaging alternatives that serve the basic project purpose If such an alternative exists the CWA compels that the alternative be considered and selected unless proven impracticable 54 An alternative is practicable if it is available and feasible 55 The level of alternatives analysis must be commensurate with the 7 1 acres of wetlands and 48 995 linear feet of streams estimated to be directly impacted by the Project 56 and the estimated $930 million cost of the Project 57 Generally as the scope /cost of the project increases the level of analysis should also increase 58 '0 Id Table 4 18 51 15A N C Admm Code 02H 0506(b)(1) (c)(1) (d)(1) sz 40 C F R § 230 10(a)(3) 53 40 C F R § 230 10(a)(3) 54 Utahns v United States DOT 305 F 3d 1188 89 " 40 C F R § 230 10(a)(2) 56 DEIS p 6 25 and Table 6 5 5' Regulatory Guidance Letter No 93 2 Guidance on Flexibility of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines and Mitigation Banking 11 at § 3 (Aug 23 1993) 58 Id Comments to Joint Application STIP No U 3321 AA U 3321 B U 3212121321 CA and U 3321 CB Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Page 15 of 21 Alternatives analysis under the Clean Water Act is more demanding than that pursuant to the NEPA process The CWA mandates that [n]o discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have a less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem 59 An alternative is practicable if it is available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purpose 60 A The Applicant failed to evaluate widening I -85 as a practicable alternative despite the fact that NC DOT and other area transportation agencies have concluded doing so could be done economically and would relieve congestion on 1 -85 The DEIS and FEIS failed to review and consider the Charlotte Region Fast Lanes Study which concluded that a High Occupancy Toll lane option was feasible could be constructed in existing I 85 right of way would save commuters 19 minutes between Gastonia and center city Charlotte and unlike the Project would be fullly self supporting (construction and O &M) through toll revenues on the new lanes only 6 The DEIS and FEIS rejected the Improve Existing Roadways Alternative without detailed study and with the summary conclusions that travel times would not improve compared to the No Build alternative failure to provide east west connectivity and failure to improve level of service 62 Widening I 85 in Gaston County is not currently on the Long Range Transportation Plan of the Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization even though it is widely recognized 1 85 not the [Project] is the region s future lifeline tying it to jobs in Charlotte and points east The possibility of widening 185 has not been seriously reviewed 63 One reason for this glaring oversight may be the fact that the chairman of the Gaston County Transportation Advisor Council ( TAC ) Gaston County Commissioner Joe Carpenter owns 21 53 acres at the I 85 interchange of the Project and is an unabashed supporter of the Project The FEIS fails to adequately evaluate reasonably available less environmentally damaging alternatives to the Project including the widening of I 85 When pressed at its s9 40 C F R § 230 12(a)(3) 60 40 C F R § 230 10(a)(2) 61 Attachment 13 Charlotte Region Fast Lanes Study (July 2009) pp 3 8 4 17 5 6 5 7 & 8 Construction cost estimates for implementing Fast Lanes along 185 were based on NCDOT s planning level methodology which uses costs per mile Id p 4 12 62 See e g DEIS pp 2 18 through 2 20 63 Traffic Congestion in North Carolina Status Prospects Solutions David T Hartgen Ph D P E (March 2007) p 9 available at http / /www iohnlocke org /site docs /traffic /TrafficCon estg ion pdf Comments to Joint Application STIPNo U 3321AA U 3321B U 3212121321CA and U 3321CB Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Page 16 of 21 open January 25 2011 meeting the TAC stated it plans to add widening I 85 to its Long Range Transportation Plan since the Project fails to meet the stated purposes of reducing congestion on 1 85 and US 29/74 Clearly if the TAC believes widening I 85 is a viable solution to traffic congestion on I 85 then widening I 85 should have been evaluated as a viable alternative to meet the stated project purpose of improving traffic flow and safe travel on I 85 US 29/74 and US 321 Because widening I 85 would take place in the existing thoroughfare footprint is economically practical and would serve the Project Purpose and Need of reducing congestion on I 85 widening 20 miles of 1 85 is a less damaging practicable alternative to the Project and no Permit or Certification may issue IV Because the Gaston ICE study is impermissibly flawed and the FEIS therefore lacks integrity, the Agencies must deny the Joint Application Mr Clay a Member of the Board of the Applicant reports the quantitative indirect and cumulative effects analysis in the Gaston ICE did not include any potential real estate development adjacent to or at the Froposed intersections of the thoroughfare The ICE does not forecast development a The Applicant s Board Member concludes that as a result the Connaughton Study more accurately 6 projects the Project will induce 11 328 new households and 17 828 new fobs by 2035 This is substantially greater than the 3 700 household increase and 300 Project Area fobs loss predicted in the Applicant s Gaston ICE There is wide recognition in the courts that [h]ighways create demand for travel and expansion by their very existence 66 Failure to evaluate the Project potential to induce indirect and cumulative impacts adjacent to or at proposed intersections is a fatal failure of analysis The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides guidance on conducting an assessment of the indirect and cumulative effects of transportation projects That guidance refers to the need to discuss secondary impacts induced development and adverse effects and specifically discusses the evaluation of growth induced by changes in the pattern of land use such as increased accessibility at intersections 67 "Indirect effects 64 Attachment 10 email from Bob Clay to William Toole (April 27 2012) re Garden Parkway — FHWA an Turnpike Authority review of Connaughton study 65 Attachment 9 Economic Impact of the Garden Parkway John E Connaughton Ph D (April 28 2011) pp 37 38 66 Sierra Club v US Dept of Transp 962 F Supp 1031 1043 (N D 111 1997) citing Swain v Brinegar 517 F 2d 766 777 (5`h Cir 1975) See also Conservation Law Found V FHA 2007 DNH 106 (D N H 2007) ( [I]f highway improvement significantly reduces the cost of travel by making it more efficient and the demand for travel is elastic the improvement can be expected to produce more traffic 67 See e g A Guidebook for Evaluating the Indirect Land Use and Growth Impacts of Highway Improvements (April 2001) pp 17 57 and 65 available at Comments to Joint Application STIP No U 3321 AA U 3321 B U 3212121321 CA and U 3321 CB Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Page 17 of 21 may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use 68 and cumulative impacts are those impacts which result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past present and reasonably foreseeable future actions 69 Like the FHWA the Corps is required to consider the impacts the construction of the Project would have nearby 70 The Corps is also required to evaluate the impacts of spinoff development induced by the Project 71 When determining the weight of the impacts of the Project the Corps must consider widening I 85 along the 20 mile corridor between 1485 and Exit 10 as a project that meets the Project Purpose and Need is more economical and would have less impacts to jurisdictional waters than the Project 72 It is possible that the Applicant s Board Member failed to understand the scope of the Gaston ICE analysis If that is the case then the Corps and NCDWQ must determine the extent to which the outside of model smoothing requested in May 2010 by the Applicants NEPA Project Manager Jill Gurak altered the final finding in the August 2010 Gaston ICE that the Project induced only 2% household growth and caused the loss of 950 jobs from Gaston County with 650 of those being redirected to South Carolina 73 The email from the Applicant s NEPA Project Manager suggests the unmodified Gaston ICE predicted between 9 000 and 13 500 jobs would be shifted from the urbanized 185 corridor to the Project corridor The NEPA Project Manager was entirely correct that revealing such a large shift would have a poisonous effect on community support for the Project Local economic development officials have consistently warned that the Project poses the real risk of drawing retail activity from established retail corridors along I 85 and the municipal downtowns Local leaders have been particularly wary of these risks and have expressed their concerns on numerous occasions The Corps NCDWQ and the public must have reliable unbiased data upon which to base their decisions hM / /nepa fhwa dot gov/ReNEPA /ReNepa nsf/AII+ Documents /AAFEFCBI DF47143985256C490068F I C 1 /$ FILE/ odot %20sec %20and %20md►r%20gu►debook pdf 68 40 C F R § 1508(b) 6'40CFR § 15087 70 Pye v United States 269 F 3d 459 (4`h Cir 2001) (rejecting argument that only impacts within the footprint of the road project need be considered) 71 Regulatory Guidance Letter No 88 11 Mall Properties Inc v Marsh (Aug 22 1988) 72 Regulatory Guidance Letter No 88 13 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Scope of Analysis and Alternative p 3 para 7 (Nov 3 1988) 73 Attachment 8 email dated May 13 2010 to Louis Berger authors Lawrence Pesesky and Leo Tidd with copies to NCTPA senior transportation planner Christy Shumate and Turnpike employee Jeff Dayton Comments to Joint Application STIP No U 3321AA U 3321B U 3212121321 CA and U 3321 CB Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Page 18 of 21 Because the Gaston ICE study is impermissibly flawed and the FEIS therefore lacks integrity the Agencies must deny the Joint Application V Because over 70% of Project has not been designed, the bulk of the proposed mitigation is outside the watershed units actually being impaired, and a substantial portion of the estimated mitigation requirements have yet to be arranged, the Corps and NCDWQ must deny the Applicant's Joint Application for a Permit and Certification A The Joint Application lacks specific design information for 713% of the Project, rendering the Joint Application fundamentally incomplete The Joint Application lacks specific design information for 15 61 miles of the 21 9 mile Project Because final project drawings stormwater management plans and a complete description of impacts to Jurisdictional waters are missing for 71 3% of the Project the Joint Application must be deemed incomplete State regulations clearly do not anticipate modifications being made on a piecemeal basis and certainly not to simply to accommodate the Applicant s design build financing strategem North Carolina regulation permits certification modifications only where there is a violation of water quality standards information contained in the Joint Application is incorrect or conditions under which the Certification was issued have changed 74 Similarly nowhere do federal regulations allow the Applicant to limit the Joint Application to 28 7% of the Project to suit its convenience Applicant will not be appropriate for the agencies to issue a Certification or Permit on the basis of this incomplete Joint Application There is a good reason for these regulatory limitations without information about the full impacts of the Project neither NCDWQ the Corps nor the public can make the informed judgments and necessary determinations that the Project provides protection for downstream water quality standards through the use of mechanisms such as on site stormwater control measures 76 and regarding the "potential short term or long term effects of a proposed discharge of dredged or fill material on the physical chemical and biological components of the aquatic environment 77 The Applicant may not limit its Joint Application to just a portion of the Project solely to suit its convenience 74 15A N C Admm Code 02H 0507(d) 7' See e g 33 C F R § 325 7 (Corps may modify § 404 permit only to reevaluate the circumstances and conditions of any permit not to preemptively segment the permitting process as an accommodation to an applicant) 76 See e g 15A N C Admm Code 02H 0506(b)(4) 7740CFR § 230 11 Comments to Joint Application STIP No U 3321 AA U 3321 B U 3212121321 CA and U 3321 CB Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Page 19 of 21 B The Applicant's proposal to conduct 57% of its stream mitigation in Mecklenburg County even though only 6 3% of the stream impacts occur in that hydraulically distinct watershed unit does not satisfy its obligation to compensate for the aquatic resources lost across the quarter -mile wide Catawba River in the Gaston County watershed units Gaston County where 94% of the stream impacts and 93% of the wetland impacts are located is hydraulically disconnected from Mecklenburg County where the Applicant proposes to conduct the majority of its stream mitigation The fact that the bulk of the impaired streams on the § 303(d) list are located in Gaston County emphasizes the importance of having the Applicant conduct the 94% of its stream mitigation in Gaston County The Applicants proposed mitigation effort in a hydraulically unrelated watershed unit cannot satisfy the Applicant s obligation to provide for replacement of existing uses through mitigation 78 and does not compensat[e] for the aquatic functions that will be lost 79 if the Project is permitted The agencies should not issue a Permit or Certification based upon the Applicant s plan to mitigate streams outside the watershed units where the bulk of the dredge and fill activity will occur C The Applicant's proposed conceptual mitigation plan to compensate for 35% of estimated stream impacts and 71 % of estimated wetland impacts fails to provide a realistic, detailed plan capable of regulatory evaluation for success The Applicant has submitted a conceptual mitigation plan in which it proposes to find 8 013 linear feet of stream mitigation preservation units and 1 7 acres of wetland preservation units The Applicant concedes it has not conducted the necessary evaluations much less made the necessary arrangements with property owners to confirm it can in fact obtain rights to appropriate mitigation areas Securing suitable compensatory wetland mitigation sites within the lower Catawba River watershed is a well recognized roblem80 and the compensatory stream mitigation failure rate is highest in the Piedmont 1 where the Project is located 78 15A N C Admm Code 02H 0506(b)(6)( (c)(6) 79 40 C F R § 230 93(a) 80 Program Assessment and Consistency Group (PACG) Memorandum re Expanded service area for mitigating impacts within the Lower Catawba River Basin Oct 8 2008 (recognizing that securing suitable mitigation in the Catawba 03 sub basin continues to be problematic ) 81 Compensatory stream and wetland mitigation in North Carolina An evaluation of regulatory success Hill Kulz et al (March 25 2011) p 24 ( Success rates for stream mitigation were lowest in the Piedmont ) Comments to Joint Application STIP No U 3321 AA U 3321 B U 3212121321 CA and U 3321 CB Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Page 20 of 21 Furthermore assuming the Applicant is able to preserve all the mitigation units proposed in its conceptual mitigation plan the Applicant produces no viable plan to address the deficit of 4 410 linear feet of impacted stream and 3 39 acres of impacted wetlands Before any permit or certification can be issued a determination must be made that the proposed mitigation will be sufficient to replace the unavoidable loss of existing uses NCDWQ cannot make that determination without additional specific information regarding the proposed mitigation and the Corps may not issue the Permit until NCDWQ issues the Certification The Corps NCDWQ and the public have a need to understand how the Applicant proposes to address this issue before a Permit and Certification are issued VI The Corps cannot issue a Permit because the community most directly affected by the Project, Gaston County, is solidly opposed to it as against public interest The § 404 Permit is subject to public interest review by the Corps The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity and its intended use on the public interest 82 Economics general environmental concerns water supply and conservation wter quality considerations of property ownership relative public need and the needs and welfare of the people generally are all factors that the Corps must evaluate 83 In this case 64% of the county where the Project will be located has consistently and loudly expressed its opposition to it That opposition comes in the form of letters to regulatory officials rallies 7 000 petition signatures and voting at the polling booth The Project will cost more than $900 million but will increase congestion on 1 85 the life line of the community The Project will not provide any meaningful east west connectivity With the exception of letters of support from local officials who rely exclusively upon the promise of 18 000 fobs made in the Connaughton Study the Applicant has not found any public support much less need for the Project VII The Joint Application fails to evaluate the Project's cumulative impacts that may additional impacts to ,jurisdictional waters on the § 303(d) list NCDWQ may not issue a Certification because the serious discrepancies with the Gaston ICE means the Applicant has failed to properly evaluate the cumulative impacts that cause or will cause a violation of downstream water quality standards 84 " 33 C F R § 320 4(a)(1) 83 33 C F R § 320 4(a)(1) (2) 84 15A N C Admm Code 2H 0506(b)(4) 2H 0506(c)(4) Comments to Joint Application STI P No U 3321 AA U 3321B U 32 l 2 l 2l 321 CA and U 3321 CB Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Page 21 of 21 The DEIS did not adequately evaluate the indirect effects and cumulative effects of the Project upon the impaired streams described on the draft § 303(d) list The Project is a transportation facility designed to promote accelerated suburban sprawl in what is principally agricultural land and pastures The area to be served by the Project does not have municipal water and sewer and none is planned for much of the area Based upon the flawed Gaston ICE NCDWQ has already determined that the Project will increase discharges by 5 3% to 7% of total phosphorus and nitrogen As also made clear by NCDWQ many of the impacted streams are on the 303(d) list or have established total maximum daily loads including Catawba Creek Lower Crowders Creek Lake Wylie and Beaverdam Creek I thank the Corps and NCDWQ for its review of the Project and these comments The Project is extraordinarily controversial for many of the reasons identified above The Project fails to meet the stated purposes of reducing congestion and substantially improving east west connectivity and therefore has no merit Because the Applicant has summarily rejected without meaningful analysis practicable alternatives such as widening I 85 no § 404 permit or § 401 certification may be issued Moreover the expected adverse effects of uncontrolled suburban sprawl through agricultural lands that lack municipal water and sewer outweigh the marginal benefits of the Project For these and other reasons the Corps and NCDWQ must conclude that the Joint Application and Project cannot be approved under the Clean Water Act For the reasons stated above I ask that the Corps and NCDWQ conclude the Project fails to meet the stated purpose and need and has practicable alternatives I ask further that the Corps require a proper evaluation of the indirect effects and cumulative impacts of the Project Finally I request that the Corps require that the Applicant develop and submit for public comment a comprehensive compensatory wetland mitigation plan Sincerely f William W Toole