20120285_Scoping Comments_20090612

C412
RCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
February 17 2011
MEMORANDUM
To Melba McGee Environmental Coordinator Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
From Polly Lespinasse Division of Water Quality Mooresville Regional Office
Subject Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement Related to the Proposed Gaston East
West Connector from near 185 to 1-485 and NC 160 in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Federal
Aid Project No STP 1213(6) WBS Element 34922 1 TA 1 STIP Project Number U 3321 DENR
Project No 11 0166 Due Date 02/09/2011
This office has reviewed the referenced document dated December 2010 The NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) is
responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the U S
including wetlands It is our understanding that the project as presented will result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands
streams and other surface waters NCDWQ offers the following comments based on review of the aforementioned
document
Project Specific Comments
Chapter 1 Page 39 of the document references the streams located within the project study area Many of the
streams are on the Draft 2010 303(d) list What about South Fork and turbidity ? ?? Even though bridging activities
will impact water quality
Abernethy Creek Crowders Creek and Catawba Creek are Class C 303(d) Waters of the State Abernethy
Creek Crowders Creek and Catawba Creek are on the 303(d) list for impaired use for aquatic life due to
impaired biological integrity Crowders Creek is also on the 303(d) list for impaired use for aquatic life due
to fecal coliform NCDWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this
project NCDWQ recommends that the most protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented
in accordance wit implemented in accordance with Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds to reduce the
risk of nutrient runoff to Abernethy Creek, Crowders Creek and Catawba Creek NCDWQ requests that
Mooresville Regional Office
Location 610 East Center Ave Suite 301 Mooresville NC 28115
Phone [phone] Fax [phone] Customer Service 1877-623 6748
Internet htto //portal ncdenr org /web /wq
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer— 50 / Recycled /10 / Post Consumer paper
NorthCarolina
Naturall'y

road design plans provide treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as
detailed in the most recent version of NCDWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices
2 This project is within the Catawba River Basin Riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and minimized
to the greatest extent possible pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B 0243 New development activities located in the
protected 50 foot wide riparian areas within the basin shall be limited to uses identified within and
constructed in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B 0243 Buffer mitigation may be required for buffer impacts
resulting from activities classified as allowable with mitigation within the Table of Uses section of the
Buffer Rules or require a variance under the Buffer Rules A buffer mitigation plan including use of the NC
Ecosystem Enhancement Program must be provided to NCDWQ prior to approval of the Water Quality
i
Certification
3 The recommended alternative (DSA 9) will impact approximately 7 5 acres of wetlands and 38 894 linear
feet of perennial streams In addition, an additional 10 101 linear feet of intermittent streams will be
impacted by this project NCDWQ is concerned that the required amount of mitigation will not be available
in the Hydrologic Cataloguing Unit adjacent Hydrologic Cataloguing Unit and /or Ecoregion All efforts to
avoid and minimize wetland and stream impacts should be considered during the alternative selection and
development process In addition efforts should be made to identify on site mitigation opportunities
4 The document indicates that stormwater runoff effects can be minimized through implementation of local
stormwater ordinances NCDWQ remains concerned regarding the effects of stormwater runoff associated
with the construction of this project Stormwater discharges which are located within the riparian buffer
associated with the Catawba River Basin will require the implementation of the appropriate stormwater

management facility in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B 0243 NCDWQ would recommend that the North
Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) consider additional stormwater facilities in other areas of the project
where the Catawba River Basin buffer regulations are not applicable, specifically in areas draining to those
jurisdictional resources which occur on the 303(d) list (indicated in Item #1 above)
General Comments
2 The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping If mitigation is necessary as required by 15A NCAC
2H 0506(h) it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification
3 Environmental impact statement alternatives shall consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to streams and
wetlands from storm water runoff These alternatives shall include road designs that allow for treatment of the storm
water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of NCDWQ s Stormwater
Best Management Practices Manual July 2007 such as grassed swales buffer areas preformed scour holes
retention basins etc
4 After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification the
NCTA is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of impacts to
wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical In accordance with the Environmental Management
Commission s Rules {15A NCAC 2H 0506(h)) mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to
wetlands In the event that mitigation is required the mitigation plan shall be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as wetland mitigation
5 In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission s Rules {15A NCAC 2H 0506(h)) mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single stream In the event that mitigation is required the
mitigation plan shall be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values The NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program may be available for use as stream mitigation
6 Future documentation including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application shall continue to include an
itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding mapping
7 NCDWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project NCTA shall
address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the aquatic environments and any
mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts
10 An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this project is required The type and
detail of analysis shall conform to the NC Division of Water Quality Policy on the assessment of secondary and
cumulative impacts dated April 10 2004 NCTA is respectfully reminded that all impacts including but not limited to
bridging fill excavation and clearing and rip rap to jurisdictional wetlands streams and riparian buffers need to be
included in the final impact calculations These impacts in addition to any construction impacts temporary or
otherwise also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application
11 Where streams must be crossed NCDWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts However we realize that
economic considerations often require the use of culverts Please be advised that culverts should be countersunk
to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms Moreover in areas where high quality wetlands
or streams are impacted a bridge may prove preferable When applicable NCTA should not install the bridge bents
in the creek to the maximum extent practicable
Page Three
12 Whenever possible NCDWQ prefers spanning structures Spanning structures usually do not require work within
the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require stream channel realignment The horizontal and
vertical clearances provided by bridges shall allow for human and wildlife passage beneath the structure Fish

passage and navigation by canoeists and boaters shall not be blocked Bridge supports (bents) should not be
placed in the stream when possible 1
13 Bridge deck drains shall not discharge directly into the stream Stormwater shall be directed across the bridge and
pre treated through site appropriate means (grassed swales pre formed scour holes vegetated buffers etc ) before
entering the stream Please refer to the most current version of NCDWQ s Stormwater Best Management
Practices
14 Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands or streams
15 Borrow /waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical Impacts to wetlands in borrow /waste
areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification and could precipitate compensatory mitigation
16 The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed methods for
stormwater management More specifically stormwater shall not be permitted to discharge directly into streams or
surface waters
17 Based on the information presented in the document the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and streams may
require an Individual Permit (IP) application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding 401 Water Quality
Certification Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfactory protection of water
quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost Final permit
authorization will require the submittal of a formal application by the NCTA and written concurrence from NCDWQ
Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and
stream impacts to the maximum extent practical the development of an acceptable stormwater management plan
and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate
18 If concrete is used during construction a dry work area shall be maintained to prevent direct contact between curing
concrete and stream water Water that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete shall not be discharged to surface
waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and fish kills
19 If temporary access roads or detours are constructed the site shall be graded to its preconstruction contours and
elevations Disturbed areas shall be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and appropriate native woody species
shall be planted When using temporary structures the area shall be cleared but not grubbed Clearing the area
with chain saws mowers bush hogs or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact
allows the area to re vegetate naturally and minimizes soil disturbance
20 Placement of culverts and other structures in waters streams and wetlands shall be placed below the elevation of
the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches and 20 percent of the culvert
diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic life
Design and placement of culverts and other structures including temporary erosion control measures shall not be
conducted in a manner that may result in dis equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks adjacent to or
upstream and down stream of the above structures The applicant is required to provide evidence that the
equilibrium is being maintained if requested in writing by NCDWQ If this condition is unable to be met due to
bedrock or other limiting features encountered during construction please contact NCDWQ for guidance on how to
proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be required
21 If multiple pipes or barrels are required they shall be designed to mimic natural stream cross section as closely as
possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation floodplain benches and /or sills may be required where
appropriate Widening the stream channel should be avoided Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of
structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and
disrupts aquatic life passage
22 If foundation test borings are necessary it shall be noted in the document Geotechnical work is approved under
General 401 Certification Number 3687 /Nationwide Permit No 6 for Survey Activities
Page Four
23 Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented and maintained
in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design
Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250

24 All work in or adjacent to stream waters shall be conducted in a dry work area Approved BMP measures from the
most current version of NCDOT Construction and Maintenance Activities manual such as sandbags rock berms
cofferdams and other diversion structures shall be used to prevent excavation in flowing water
25 While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps NC Coastal Region Evaluation of Wetland Significance
(NC CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified
personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit approval
26 Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams This equipment shall be
inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels lubricants hydraulic
fluids or other toxic materials
27 Riprap shall not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner that precludes
aquatic life passage Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly designed sized and installed
28 Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible Riparian
vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of the growing season
following completion of construction
NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project Should you have any questions or require any
additional information please contact Polly Lespinasse at [phone]
Cc Liz Hair US Army Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office (electronic copy only)
Chris Militscher Environmental Protection Agency (electronic copy only)
Marla Chambers NC Wildlife Resources Commission (electronic copy only)
Marella Buncick US Fish and Wildlife Service (electronic copy only)
Brian Wrenn NCDWQ Central Office (electronic copy only)
Sonia Carrillo NCDWQ Central Office (electronic copy only)
File Copy

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H Sullins Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
February 21 2011
MEMORANDUM
To Melba McGee Environmental Coordinator Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
From Polly Lespinasse Division of Water Quality Mooresville Regional Office
Subject Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement Related to the Proposed Gaston East
West Connector from near 185 to 1-485 and NC 160 in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties Federal
Aid Project No STP 1213(6), WBS Element 34922 1 TA 1 STIP Project Number U 3321, DENR
Project No 11 0166 Due Date 02/09/2011
This office has reviewed the referenced document dated December 2010 The NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) is
responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the U S
including wetlands It is our understanding that the project as presented will result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands
streams and other surface waters NCDWQ offers the following comments based on review of the aforementioned
document
Project Specific Comments
Many of the streams within the project study area are on the Final 2010 303(d) list (impaired waters) Included in
the Final 2010 303(d) list is the South Fork Catawba River which Is listed for turbidity (Note Chapter 2 Page 72
indicates that the South Fork Catawba River is impaired for copper and high temperatures) This project proposes a
bridge over the South Fork Catawba River which may impact water quality during construction NCDWQ is very
concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project NCDWQ will require the most
protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented in accordance with Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds to reduce the risk of sediment runoff to the South Fork Catawba River NCDWQ requests that road
design plans provide treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most
recent version of NCDWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices
2 This project is located within the Catawba River Basin Riparian buffer impacts shall be avoided and minimized to
the greatest extent possible pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B 0243 New development activities located in the protected
50 foot wide riparian areas within the basin shall be limited to uses identified within and constructed in accordance
with 15A NCAC 2B 0243 The FEIS does not contain an impact table for buffer impacts but referenced a table
included in the DEIS Based on the DEIS impacts to protected riparian buffers are proposed on the east side of the
Catawba River and potentially to both sides of the South Fork Catawba River No impacts to the riparian buffer are
identified for Catawba Creek per the DEIS The table in the DEIS does not provide specific locations (or mapping
information) for impacts associated with the preferred alternative (DSA 9) The NCTA is advised that while the
construction of bridges through riparian buffers does not require mitigation impacts for the roadway approaches to
the bridge will require mitigation if the impact amounts exceed the allowable without mitigation threshold (per
DWQ Buffer Clarification memo dated 09/27/10) As part of the permit application NCTA must provide mapping and
tables clearly depicting buffer impacts
Mooresville Regional Office
Location 610 East Center Ave Suite 301 Mooresville NC 28115
Phone [phone] Fax [phone] Customer Service 1877-623 6748
Internet http /!portal ncdenr orglweb /wq
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer 50 / Recycled /10 / Post Consumer paper
NorthCarohna
Naturally

Page Two
Buffer mitigation may be required for buffer impacts resulting from activities classified as allowable with mitigation
within the Table of Uses section of the Buffer Rules or require a variance under the Buffer Rules A buffer
mitigation plan including use of the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program must be provided to NCDWQ prior to
approval of the Water Quality Certification
While NCDWQ appreciates the continued reduction in proposed stream and wetland impacts for this project (25%
reduction in stream impacts and 6% reduction in wetland impacts) based on design refinements we remain
concerned about the proposed mitigation for these impacts The Conceptual Mitigation Plan provided on the
website provides a summary of mitigation requirements and potential on and off site mitigation opportunities As
stated in previous meetings NCDWQ would prefer that mitigation be provided within close proximity to the preferred
alternative to replace the functions lost as a result of direct impacts from the project This includes providing on site
mitigation and limiting to the greatest extent possible off site mitigation to areas located within close proximity to the
preferred alternative Due to the difficulty in providing stream mitigation in urban areas NCDWQ is willing to
consider non traditional mitigation opportunities Section 6 5 and Table 8 of the Conceptual Mitigation Plan identify
non traditional mitigation opportunities that appear to include the maintenance of existing stormwater BMPs Please
be aware that NCDWQ will not provide mitigation credit for any stormwater improvements related to maintenance of
existing stormwater BMPs Additionally any proposed non traditional mitigation will need to compare the benefits of
providing stormwater BMPs with the benefits of stream restoration (i a providing BMPs which result in a reduction of
sediment and nutrient loads comparable to streambank stabilization and riparian buffer establishment)
4 Chapter 2 Page 64 of the FEIS states that interviews were conducted with the MPOs and County Planning
Departments to determine whether the updated 2035 forecasts should serve as the No Build Scenario or the Build
Scenario for ICE Study Area Based on these interviews the Gaston East West Connector was assumed to be
completed in the allocation of future growth to specific zones NCDWQ is unclear whether this means the road was
considered to be completed in the No Build Scenario Table 2 17 provides the Estimated Change in Impervious
Cover by Watershed using baseline data from 2007 and the 2035 No Build and 2035 Build Scenarios Very little
change in impervious cover is realized between the 2035 No Build and Build Scenarios The total increase in
impervious cover from No Build to Build is 0 5% with some watersheds showing no increase in impervious cover
and some showing a decrease in impervious cover This information may support the fact that the Gaston East
West Connector was included in the No Build Scenario If the Gaston East West Connector was included in the
No Build Scenario NCDWQ is concerned that this does not provide an accurate evaluation of the indirect and
cumulative impacts associated with this project If the Gaston East West Connector was included in the models
used to generate data for the No Build Scenario the NCTA will be required to provide modeling data that does not
include the completion of the Gaston East West Connector as part of the No Build Scenario
As stated in Chapter 2 Page 75 NCDWQ will require additional modeling of pollutant loadings in for this project As
indicated above the NCTA will be required to provide modeling data that clearly identifies whether the completion of
the Gaston East West Connector is included in any No Build Scenarios Additionally the ICE study shows that the
potential for indirect land use effects is greatest in southern Gaston County and York County (in South Carolina) In
NCDWQ s comments on the DEIS we expressed concerns regarding the effects of stormwater runoff associated
with the construction of this project Local ordinances may not be adequate to address the water quality impacts
resulting from this project
6 Chapter 2 Page 79 states that 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 While NCDWQ has no jurisdiction over development activities in York County we are concerned that
the project may result in increased impacts which will effect water quality in both North and South Carolina The
FEIS also states that 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 the 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 the Build
Scenario is 0 3 percent As stated above if the completion of the Gaston East West Connector was included in the
No Build Scenario this could present a skewed interpretation of the data
7 Stormwater discharges which are located within the riparian buffer associated with the Catawba River Basin will
require the implementation of the appropriate stormwater management facility in accordance with 15A NCAC
2B 0243

Page Three
NCDWQ recommends that the NCTA consider additional stormwater facilities in other areas of the project where the
Catawba River Basin buffer regulations are not applicable specifically in areas draining to those jurisdictional
resources which occur on the 303(d) impaired waters list Additionally based on the results of the water quality
modeling stormwater measures may be required to prevent further degradation of impaired streams
General Comments
8 The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping If mitigation is necessary as required by 15A NCAC
2H 0506(h) it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification
9 Environmental impact statement alternatives shall consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to streams and
wetlands from storm water runoff These alternatives shall include road designs that allow for treatment of the storm
water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of NCDWQ s Stormwater
Best Management Practices Manual July 2007 such as grassed swales buffer areas preformed scour holes
retention basins etc
10 After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification the
NCTA is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of impacts to
wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical In accordance with the Environmental Management
Commission s Rules {15A NCAC 2H 0506(h)} mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to
wetlands In the event that mitigation is required the mitigation plan shall be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as wetland mitigation
11 In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission s Rules {15A NCAC 2H 0506(h)) mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single stream In the event that mitigation is required the
mitigation plan shall be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values The NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program may be available for use as stream mitigation
12 Future documentation including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application shall continue to include an
itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding mapping
13 NCDWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project NCTA shall
address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the aquatic environments and any
mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts
10 An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this project is required The type and
detail of analysis shall conform to the NC Division of Water Quality Policy on the assessment of secondary and
cumulative impacts dated April 10 2004 NCTA is respectfully reminded that all impacts including but not limited to
bridging fill excavation and clearing and rip rap to jurisdictional wetlands streams and riparian buffers need to be
included in the final impact calculations These impacts in addition to any construction impacts temporary or
otherwise also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application
11 Where streams must be crossed NCDWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts However we realize that
economic considerations often require the use of culverts Please be advised that culverts should be countersunk
to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms Moreover in areas where high quality wetlands
or streams are impacted a bridge may prove preferable When applicable NCTA should not install the bridge bents
in the creek to the maximum extent practicable
12 Whenever possible NCDWQ prefers spanning structures Spanning structures usually do not require work within
the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require stream channel realignment The horizontal and
vertical clearances provided by bridges shall allow for human and wildlife passage beneath the structure Fish
passage and navigation by canoeists and boaters shall not be blocked Bridge supports (bents) should not be
placed in the stream when possible

Page Four
13 Bridge deck drains shall not discharge directly into the stream Stormwater shall be directed across the bridge and
pre treated through site appropriate means (grassed swales pre formed scour holes vegetated buffers etc ) before
entering the stream Please refer to the most current version of NCDWQ s Stormwater Best Management
Practices
14 Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands or streams
15 Borrow /waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical Impacts to wetlands in borrow /waste
areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification and could precipitate compensatory mitigation
16 The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed methods for
stormwater management More specifically stormwater shall not be permitted to discharge directly into streams or
surface waters
17 Based on the information presented in the document the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and streams may
require an Individual Permit (IP) application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding 401 Water Quality
Certification Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfactory protection of water
quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost Final permit
authorization will require the submittal of a formal application by the NCTA and written concurrence from NCDWQ
Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and
stream impacts to the maximum extent practical the development of an acceptable stormwater management plan
and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate
18 If concrete is used during construction a dry work area shall be maintained to prevent direct contact between curing
concrete and stream water Water that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete shall not be discharged to surface
waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and fish kills
19 If temporary access roads or detours are constructed the site shall be graded to its preconstruction contours and
elevations Disturbed areas shall be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and appropriate native woody species
shall be planted When using temporary structures the area shall be cleared but not grubbed Clearing the area
with chain saws mowers bush hogs or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact
allows the area to re vegetate naturally and minimizes soil disturbance
20 Placement of culverts and other structures in waters streams and wetlands shall be placed below the elevation of
the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches and 20 percent of the culvert
diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic life
Design and placement of culverts and other structures including temporary erosion control measures shall not be
conducted in a manner that may result in dis equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks adjacent to or
upstream and down stream of the above structures The applicant is required to provide evidence that the
equilibrium is being maintained if requested in writing by NCDWQ If this condition is unable to be met due to
bedrock or other limiting features encountered during construction please contact NCDWQ for guidance on how to
proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be required
21 If multiple pipes or barrels are required they shall be designed to mimic natural stream cross section as closely as
possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation floodplain benches and /or sills may be required where
appropriate Widening the stream channel should be avoided Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of
structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and
disrupts aquatic life passage
22 If foundation test borings are necessary it shall be noted in the document Geotechnical work is approved under
General 401 Certification Number 3687 /Nationwide Permit No 6 for Survey Activities
23 Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented and maintained
in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design
Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250

Page Five
24 All work in or adjacent to stream waters shall be conducted in a dry work area Approved BMP measures from the
most current version of NCDOT Construction and Maintenance Activities manual such as sandbags rock berms
cofferdams and other diversion structures shall be used to prevent excavation in flowing water
25 While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps NC Coastal Region Evaluation of Wetland Significance
(NC CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified
personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit approval
26 Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams This equipment shall be
inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels lubricants hydraulic
fluids or other toxic materials
27 Riprap shall not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner that precludes
aquatic life passage Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly designed sized and installed
28 Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible Riparian
vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of the growing season
following completion of construction
NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project Should you have any questions or require any
additional information please contact Polly Lespinasse at [phone]
Cc Liz Hair US Army Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office (electronic copy only)
Chris Militscher Environmental Protection Agency (electronic copy only)
Marla Chambers NC Wildlife Resources Commission (electronic copy only)
Marella Buncick US Fish and Wildlife Service (electronic copy only)
Brian Wrenn NCDWQ Central Office (electronic copy only)
Sonia Carrillo NCDWQ Central Office (electronic copy only)
File Copy

-IEO sr�l�s UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
Z3 or 61 FORSYTH STREET
X1'11, F pelb ATLANTA GEORGIA 30303 8960
February 22 201 1
Ms Jennifei Hal r is P E
North Carolni i Turnpike Authority
North Carolina Dcpaitment of Transportation
5400 Glenwood Avenue Suite 400
Raleigh North Carolina 27612
SUBJECT Gaston East West Connectoi 185 to 1 485 and NC 160 Gaston and
Mecklenburg Counties Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
TIP No U 3321 FHW E40827 NC CEQ No 20110011
Dear Ms Hairis
The U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 NEPA Program
Office has reviewed the subject document for in accordance with Section 309 of the
Clean Au Act and Section 102(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) and the Federal highway Administration
(FHWA) are proposing to construct an approximate 22 mile multi lane median divided
toll facility fiom I 85 west of Gastonia to I 485/NC 160 in Gaston and Mecklenburg
Counties North Caiolina
EPA provided detailed comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) on July 17 2009 EPA rated the twelve (12) detailed study alternatives (DSAs)
as EO 2 EnN tionmental Objections with additional information being iequested in the
final document Subsequent to this letter EPA staff has continued NN ith work with the
transport,ition agencies and other NEPA/Section 404 Merger process agencies on
environmental issues including air quality and transportation conformity avoidance and
minimization nicasules to jurisdictional waters of the U S and conceptual mitigation
plans
NCTA and FHWA provided responses to EPA s DEIS comment letter in Volume
2 of the FEIS pages B1 39 to B1 63 NCTA and FHWA provided a Conceptual
Mitigation Plan by ieference to a project webpage and a general summ-iry of the plan in
the FEIS EPA s detailed technical comments on the FEIS and the iefeiencLd reports are
Included in Alt- ichment A (See attached)
EPA recognizes that additional avoidance and minimization me rsures are
currently being proposed by the transportation agencies However the initial prelrmrnaiy
designs were atypical for most new location multi lane median divided highway
projects in Noith Carolina that resulted in much greater DEIS impacts to jurisdictional
waters of the United States than other similarly scoped ptojects Furthermore EPA
understands th it tht, transportation agencies are now proposing to phase the project and
Internet Address (URL) http llwww epa gov
Recycled/RecycIable Pnnled with Ve9e1able Oil Based Inks on Recyded Paper (Minimum 30 / Poslconsumer)

change the typical section The section in western Gaston County from I 85 to US 321 or
approximately half the project length will be initially constructed as a two lane facility
Although nminy of the DEIS comments were addressed EPA has remaining
em.nonmcntal concerns Iegarding direct impacts to jurisdictional streams and wetlands
including 303(d) listed impaired waters indirect and cumulative impacts tojurisdictional
II esources potential Environmental Justice impacts to minority and low income
populations long term impacts from Mobile Source Air Toxics to nearby neighborhoods
and comnnu sties impacts to Voluntary Agricultural Districts and imp acts to terrestrial
forests and wildlife habitat EPA also maintains its concerns regarding the ability of the
transportation agencies to provide reasonable and functionally equivalent mitigation for
water resouices impacts within the project study area
To address these remaining issues EPA recommends that the transportation
agencies pioN ide additional information to the review agencies and the public prior to the
issuance of a Record of Decision (ROD) The supplemental information should further
I the key Issues in the attachment including compensatory mitigation to direct
impacts to Jul isdictional streams and wetlands including 303(d) listed impaired 'A aters
potential em ironmmental enhancements to address indirect and cumulative Impacts to
jurisdictional resouices potential Environmental Justice impacts to minority and low
income populations and provide for a thorough analysis and long term Impacts from
Mobile Source An Toxics to nearby neighborhoods and communities and a site specific
quantitative analysis The supplemental information might also include specific project
commitments concerning impacts to Voluntary Agricultural Districts and opportunities
Ifor safe wildlife passage to minimize fragmentation effects from the new multi lane
'facility
Should you have any questions concerning these comments of recommendations
lease contact Mr Chi istophei Militscher of my staff at 919 856 4206
Si rely 1
Heinz J Mueller Chief
NEPA Program Office
c G Conti NCDOT
J Sullivan ) HWA
S Mclendon USACE
C Sullins NCDWC

Attachment A
FEIS Detailed Review Comments
G ,iston East -West Connector Toll Facility
Mecklenburg and Gaston Counties
U -3321
ments
Ch rptel 1 of the FEIS includes the Draft EIS Summary and Updates from pages
1 to 1 �5 Based upon EPA s review there is no mention of the petition signed by
)re than 7 000 citizens opposed to the project in this summary chapter One of the main
rposes of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement is to potentially address public
ntroversy Considering this petition and the hundreds of written responses following
public hc,itings the NCTA and FHWA have chosen not to fully address the
ntroversial Issues identified during the NEPA process The exclusion of specifically
dressing this citizens petition and other letters of opposition in the sunimaiy chapter of
FEIS appeals to be Inconsistent with other large scope toll projects currently being
vanced by the ti anspoi tation agencies (e g Raleigh Southern Outei Loop or Triangle
,utheast Extension Connector and the Red Alternative and the To \\ n of Garner)
Ch iptei 3 Section 3 3 Includes more information regarding the comments fiom
e genera] public In addition to the approximate 7 000 person petition NCTA and
4WA also Ieceived 275 signatures submitted by the Harrison family opposed to the
oject and 109 signatures submitted by Barbara Hart opposed to one segment of the
oject Of the other 15 public comment letters received 14 are opposed to the project
,d one Is neutr -1I
The generalized concerns expressed by the public and other agencies are Included
>n pages 3 8 to 3 10 EPA does not believe that the generalized responses that NCTA
irovided to most of these key concerns from the public help to address the controversial
ssues associated with this proposed toll project
As a -,ciicial comment regarding the format of the DEIS and now the FEIS EPA
trongly ericour iges consistency FHWA and NCDOT have produced dozens of EISs in
ae last ten ye u s Based upon the professional judgment of the principle NEPA reviewer
cost all of them are very readable and information is easy to locate within the standard
ormat spccrtred in the CEQ regulations NCTA and FHWA have developed their
pecific foiniat that is less readable and more difficult to find information For example
.nder Farmland impacts Section 1 3 2 3 the discussion does not specitically identify
✓hat the direct Impacts to agricultural lands are from the Preferred Altern itive DSA 9
7urthcrmorc the comments concerning land use plans which dcugrnutc southern
laston C aunt l as an cu ea targeted for ma e suburban development ind the ar ea
urroundurg the pl oposed 121 olect is slated for suburban development appear to be

provided as a iat Iona Iization for sprawl and justification for ►mpactin; fai mlands
including designated Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) properties These
piojections do not appear to be consistent with the finding and fittute development trends
identified m the indirect and Cumulative Effects section All NCDOT EISs reviewed by
EPA to the last ten years of more contain a summary table of key imp acts at the end of
Chaptei I The Gaston East West Connectoi FEIS does not contain a summary table but
gives much g►eatei nairative discussions that often reiterate what was already addiessed
in the DEiS of fi equently refer the reader back to the DEIS Direct impacts to key human
and natural resource impacts for DSA 9 need to be gleaned from nunne►ous pages of
written text in the FEIS See also http / /ceq less doe P .,ov /nepa /rc s /ceq /1500 him #1500 4
The NC I A is now part of the NCDOT which utilizes the NEPA /Section 404
Merger piotess Fiom EPA s understanding NCTA has been requested by both FHWA
and the USACE to utilize the Merger process for turnpike projects The NCTA with the
exception of the Gaston East West Connector utilizes the Section 6002 TEAC process
for its proposed turnpike projects NCDOT and other participating igenc►es iefer to
interagency cooidmation meetings as Merger concurrence meetings The FEIS on page
1 42 undei Tei iesti ial Wildlife refers to a TEAC meeting held on Api it 8 2008
Similarly the FEIS on page 1 35 refers to I EAC meetings conducted on February 5
March 4 and igam April 8 2008 From EPA s understanding these wei e Merger team
meetings EPA is unaware of a TEAC plan that was provided by NCTA foi this
NEPA /Section 404 Meigei project More importantly the tentative commitment with
NCWRC USI WS and EPA foi providing wildlife passages to addiess habitat
fragment ition issues during final design is not included on Table PC 1 Special Project
Commitments The cost of additional wildlife passages can be subst intial The comment
on page 1 43 concerning the NCTA commitment for bridge design to be wildlife
fiiendly when feasible, is left technically undefined
FEIS Responses to EPA DEIS Comments
Comment #2 Regaiding EPA s past concurrences durum the NEPA /Section 404
Mergei pioc.ess EPA refers NCTA and FHWA to the 2005 Memorandum of
Undeistandmg (MOU) under Applicability Section B and Concept of Concurrence EPA
is both a regtilatoiy or iesouice agency depending upon the specific statute Pilot to the
issuance of the DEIS the i egulatory issues associated with the rep oe, ttion of the N C
State lmplc.nient Itlon Plan (SIP) were generally unknown to NCTA FHWA Ind the EPA
Mergei plop-ct team member Regarding Clean Water Act requirements Ind the
substanti it imp icts to jurisdictions waters of the U S EPA requested infoi oration on a
conceptual mitig ition plan piior to the issuance of the DEIS The DEIS did not contain a
conceptual mitigation plan foi the unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional stieanns and
wetlands Including potentially 48 995 linear feet of streams Miles of tht,se impacted
streams wei L Included on the Section 303(d) list of impaired wateis
EPA bLlicves that these is a significant difference between the. Mergei team
process and the Section 6002 TEAC process The Merger team pi ocess includes a
defined MOU distinct agency roles and responsibilities a dispute ►esolution and

elevation process a glossal y of terms and environmental statutes and . er } detailed steps
and milestones to I ich concurrence points More importantly the Met get process was
developed is a coil lboiative problem solving team process with the permitting and
participating agencies The Section 6002 TEAC process is primarily based on the
coordm-ition plan and the concept of agencies raising objections within 30 days of a
NCTA piopos it This difference is evident for the Gaston East West Connector project
as most of the meetings were not truly conducted and held as typic it Mergei concurrence
point meetings but as Section 6002 TEAC meetings Under the Section 6002 TEAC
process wiitten concurrence from other agencies except the USACE lot the selection of
the LEDPA is not iequested nor required
An crumple of the difference is evidenced by the changed n ituie of the proposed
project I his ricw toll facility was initially advanced in 2001 by the NCDOT 'is a
freewa} under the Merger process In 2005 it was then promoted as r c -indidate toll
facility Howuvet it was still being described as a multi lane Strategic Highway
Corridoi (SHC) fi eeway meant to divert traffic off of Interstate 85 And to f-tcrlrt rte buck
traffic from /to the Charlotte Douglas Airport following the issuance of the DEIS the
transportation agencies are now describing this regional connector fi eew i� in the HIS
as a phased pi oject with approximately half of the length build as two lvu s w ith right of
way for possibly more lanes in the future EPA refers the transport'ition i- tricies to page
2 of the MOU (Concept of concurrence Examples of a i eevaluation on concur rence
nught include a change in the assumptions on which the protect purpose and need was
based) The need to construct a multi lane freeway facility west of US 321 to 185 is a
potential change to the original assumptions on the purpose and need foi the project
EPA was not contacted by NCTA or FHWA between the DEIS and FEIS for a discussion
as to whethei i reevaluation of concurrence was potentially needed by proposing to build
just two lanes initially for approximately half the project length
Reg iichn, Responses to EPA s comments on the DEIS some of the NCTA and
FHWA responses rincliidcd from pages B1 46 to B1 63 are not fully it-sponsive or defer
to the DEiS inioinnation The responses to EPA s comments #27 # 28 and #29 on
Mobile Source Au Toxics (MSATs) are not considered by EPA to b- fully responsive
NCTA and FHWA continue to iely on interim guidance and updated interim guidance
The statement on page BI 58 Monitoring of MSAT enussions remain's problematic foi
federally funded highway projects and FHWA has only agreed to monitor tng in a i ei y
limited vi co on past projects does not disclose the technical ration-ile foi nnonitoi ing on
past selected projects The MSA I information contained in Appendix D does provide a
furthei ration tie why FHWA does not conduct quantitative MSAT nn -Ilyses Tine closing
statement in this ippendix states Consequently the results of such ttssessments would
not be usefitl to decision inalcets who would need to weigh this tr for matron against
project benefits such cis reducing traffic congestion accident Cates and fatalities plats
improved access foi emergency response that are better suited for quanatatwe analysis
The project s purpose and need does not include documentation of pioblenns with
accident i it,-s s ifcty or the need for improved access foi emergency response on
existing 01 p tialiel routes between Gastonia and Charlotte FuithLiniore based upon
the Travel Denn and Model foi the design year the level of service (LOS) is actually

worse on 1 8,) with the proposed Gaston East West Connector than ',N Ittlout Budding
21 9 mile nLw multi lane facility will not provide the benefits identified in this
statement C onsidc,rmg the location of this project and its rural and subuiban setting and
that oNei ill in qu thty is already compromised from ozone and 2 5 1i110011s ofpaiticulate
matter (PM2 -)) EPA s iequest to perform a more robust analysis of MSATs especially
"ith i espect to nev t oad�N ay sensitive receptors is not inconsistent with cut i ent FHWA
inteiim guidance
FEIS En�itonnnental Commitments
Undei Spccial Picject Commitments ( Green Sheets ) EPA does not undeist Ind
items 1 5 Ind 7 including Community Resources and Services (sh iting infoinnatlon
with Re--ion II public schools) Community Safety (bridge over the Cat ivy b I River and
future design accommodations for pedestrian/bicycle) and Farml Ind (NCTA will work
with Gaston County iegardnig public hearings related to land condemnation procegdw
against the VAD parcels prior to right of way acquisition) The environmental
commitment nn ide to FWS NCWRC and EPA concerning adequate wildlife passage
where their IS substantial habitat fragmentation is not included in Tlble PC 1 Theie is
no iefeiencL to an enviionnnental commitment to continue to work -,N ith Imp Icted
En%iionnncnt it Justice neighborhoods and communities There is no tcicrclIc,e to continue
coordination eflorts with the EEP and permitting agencies to obtain acceptable
compensatoiy mitigation for direct impacts to jurisdictional streams Ind wetlainds Item
#18 Watei Resources developing a soil erosion and sedimentation plan and working
with pernintiin., agencies on BMPs does not include an specific envnonment it
commitments
Duect romp Icts to Siteanns and Wetlands
EPA continu-s to h'IVe environmental concerns for them i mitlid(, of r Ill pacts to
jurisdi0ion II site inns Ind wetlands resulting from the preferred alter n itive (and Least
Envuonmcnt illy Damaging Piefeired Alternative— LEDPA) EPA s tepiescntative to
the Meigu to tin abstained fiom concurrence on the LEDPA Reco;nizni., the efforts to
provide design iefinements to the Preferred Alternative DSA 9 the diect impacts to
jurisdiction iI strc.anns foi a 21 9 mile facility are one of the highest ni the past ten years
of the NEPA'Section 404 Merger process DSA 9 currently includt s 36 416 linear feet of
total imp ict to stteanns (approximately 6 9 miles) 7 02 acres of imp Ict to wetlands 4 5
acres of imp icts to ponds and 91 individual stream crossings
Thc, I CIS states on page 1 43 that EPA also participates in the permitting process
concerning w atc.t s of the U S and jurisdictional issues Under Section 404(h)(1) of tine
Clean Water Act the U S Fish and Wildlife Service also directly p nticipates in the
permitting process through its direct authorities under the Fish and \Vildltfe Cootdirnanon
Act of 1934 The NEPA /Section 404 Merger 01 Guidance manual uncludc,s a glossar} of
laws lei Itcd to the process that could be helpful to the NCTA and 1 1 I WA ui identifying
the agerulcs th It h I\ e i participating role in the permitting; processes (Sec ilso
http PkVIIA I LL� I _,o\ I IwsicUs /7uidance /wetlands /sec404 cfm

EPA r c.cogrirzes that avoidance and minimization measures %N ci c addressed by
NCTA and FH \\ A dui ing Merger Concurrence Point 4A Even 1,N ith a\ oidance and
mmImization ni (,asuies accepted by the Merger team agencies the 36 416 lineal feet of
total stieam imp let is the single largest project impact since the inception of the
NEPA1Section 404 Melgei process For this reason and the general I ick of mitigation
opportunities in the watersheds around Charlotte for Piedmont streams EPA staft began
requesting a Conceptual Mitigation Plan several years before the issu nice of the DEIS
Conceptiril Mitigition Plan
111(- 1 -\ s Conceptual Mitigation Plan dated June 29 2010 \v is included -is a
iefeienced document in the FEIS A generalized suminaiy is included m Section 2 5 4 4
and page 1 43 of the FEIS Sections 1 0 to 6 0 contain background inloiniation and the
general infoiniation th it was piesented at the multi agency meeting on Match 16 2010
Appendix A of the iepoit includes impacts to jurisdictional resources ind Appendix C
piovides i project itl is foi potential on site adjacent and nearby mitig ition
oppoitunitirr5
B ts(A upon the assessment provided in the report EPA concuis th-it the three (3)
potential miti-uion sites (Sites 1 2 and 3) comprising seven (7) paicels aie viable
Opportunities foi compensatory mitigation EPA also generrilly concuis th-it theie is
potential opportunity for some stream mitigation credit at the existing Bcaveidam Creek
Mitigation site %\ hich is located in Mecklenburg County southwest of the future
interchange connection at I 485 However of the 14 0 Wetland Mrtrg ition Units
(WMUs) ind -)8 066 Stieam Mitigation Units (SMUs) of perenni'il stie uiis 4 039 SMUs
foi intemiittLnt impoit int stieams and 1 672 SMUs for intermittent unimportant stieams
required for DSA 9 a majority of the impacts are located in southein Gaston County and
Catawba 01 (HUC 03050101) All of the Environmental Enhancement Program (EEP)
assets shox\ n in Exhibit I Page 8 of the report with the exception of the f3,., iveidam
Creek mitigition site are located substantially far from the Catawb'i 01 ind in other
counties ALcoiding to NCDWQ iepresentatives these EEP assets m iN ilso be
functiowilk difleient kinds of streams than those being impacted in the project study
aiea Based upon EPA s estimation some of these EEP asset sites uc 10L ited mole than
torty (40) miles fiom the picject study area
Rem uding the potential stoim water control locations and oppoiunities foi
mitigation ci edits EPA does not concur that these locations and possible ictivities shown
in Table 8 p toe 20 of the report should be for direct Section 404 mitig itiorr credits Due
to the existing degi aded conditions of several main water courses in the pioject study
area mcludrn, Abein -ithy Creek Crowder s Creek and Catawba Ctc,cl. (per the Fin'il
2006 301(d) list) ind the piojected Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICE) from
development resulting from the project these protective melsuies Boni uicieased
stormvatei should be investigated and made regardless of potential nirti- ition ciedits Of
the 6 BMP sitLs listed on page 20 of the report no existing stoim" atei contiols are
present at t\\o of the sites (I e #1 and #6) Regarding BMP site #3 EPA L innot identify

fiom the desci iption provided what the existing stormwatei control is The stormwatei
no-,N off the tool and p irl<mg lot is directed into an outflow pipe aloe; the pioperty line
ending at r hcadw stet sti earn Mitigation credit (SMUs) for stonnw itei controls and
BMPS should be considered as additional protective measures and ens iionmental
enhancements to prevent futthei degiadation to impatied waters been, dncctly and
umdriectly II leered by the proposed pioject As stated in the March 16 2010 meeting
minutes it is NCTA and FHWA policy not to mitigate for indirect and c,umul itive effects
fiom their proposed piojects EPA believes that these stonnwatei nittiatiN es rnd BMPs
should be instituted as enhancements under Section 401 tequrrements
Of the. 43 sites %kheie there is potential on site adjacent and nearby mitigation
oppoitunitt.s umeluded in Appendix C of the report only three (3) stic till sites have been
Identified Is h Iviiig potential for more than preservation credits (i e Rcstoiation
potential) L PA prefers restoration and enhancement activities to sti let pieservatron foi
compensatory ill tI -at Ion credit Preservation (43 out of 43 identited sites) of these
stream sites could very possibly end up being a patchwork of mitigation sites that do
little to protect of enhance the watershed s overall quality
'1 rill the exception of the Beaverdam Creek mitigation site and the 3 on site
mitigation oppoituniUes pie\ iously identified (Dockery Harrison and halls plopeltles
shown ui F ible 5 p ige 13) EPA does not concur w ith the report conclusions that there
has been idcgLldtely identified compensatory mitigation for jurisdict loll al impacts to
streams EPA \\ ill continue to address this outstanding Issue of the lacl, of idequate
compensatoiv mrtigzhon of the project s impacts through the USAGE s Section 404
pennitting process
Direct lip rots to the Human Environment
The I'teletred Alternative DSA 9 includes 344 residential ieloc. icons 38
businesses i I it in and 3 non profit facilities The proposed Monroe Byp Iss /Connector
toll facility loc ited on the other side of Charlotte which is also appioxinm itely 20 miles m
length with numerous intelchanges has 107 residential relocations Fhe Gaston East
West Conncctol has a magnitude (3 times) or more residential relocations than a srinilamly
designed toll facility Table l 3 of the FEIS indicates that 25 neighborhoods and ruial
communities will be impacted by DSA 9
Re, udin� Envuonmerital Justice issues EPA s comments on the DE1S remaln
unaddressed in the. FEIS EPA considers that the construction of i toll facility in areas
where there lie many block groups characterized as minority and low income is a
potential ens iionment it justice issue that could be expected to have I disproportionately
high and ick else impact the FEIS did not provide further analysts to this Issue but
defers to its continents and determination in Section 3 2 5 of the DE1S I he discussion
included in this section of the DEIS was and remains inadequate foi the purposes of
identifying of qu intifymg the actual direct impacts of the new toll io id to minority of
low income I)opul rttons

Tabl. , 7 of the DEIS is titled General Environmental 1UStIce EN iluation foi
Toll F icilit\ I his table contains mostly unsupported opinions and 1 rocks I quantifiable
analysis 1 he comment that All commuters including low income commilic is r, ould
have the option to use a non toll alternative route such as 185 is conti it to the
clmunmed bt-nelits that the public will obtain as a result ofthe new uncon�ested route to
Chai lotte f uI tlm�-r statements in this section of the DEIS are also b-ised upon opinions and
not f ictu it slat I Ind analysis (e g Page 3 27 Neighborhoods in the Pi olc cl Strtdy Ai ca
could conlam special gi oups pat ticulat ly low income and nunoriti poprrlatlons and
All DSAs i+ould also dircctll mobile home parks which could represenl loin Income
populations) Of the 344 residential relocations for DSA 9 Table 3 2 Indic rtes th it 97
,ire nmlllol itiLs Of the ,44 residential relocations for DSA 9 Table ; Indic ties is many
as 88 housC I101dS tic below the poverty level and represent low mconn The evalu itiori
of this d it I \\ Ith I expect to the project study area the County of other dehIlLd popul ition
areas is not ni Ide in a comp-uatiNe fashion The raw demographic d it t provided in
these tables is not explored of fully discussed in Section 3 2 5 under Fn\ a onnnental
Justice Thy FEIS (or DEIS) did not include the potential thresholds lot determining if
the Impacts ss ei e disproportionately high compared to area demographic d it a EPA notes
the iesponsc on p igL BI 59 of the FEIS concerning 21% of the Denno�I iphic Study Ate I
being comps i5cd of minorities and th-it DSA 9 has 28% of the 344 i estdumtt tl iclocations
There is no �,p�-cihc ieteience to low income population relocations in tills response and
how combined with minority populations this compares to demogi -iphic study d-ita
Of the 245 noise impacted receptors identified in Table 4 4 for DSA 9 there is no
discussion is to how many of these impacted receptors ate minority of lo\\ Income
Flighw -iy noise is also potentially a direct impact to low income and nimoi itl
popul moons
EPA continues to maintain its concerns for the lack of a compiehensi\,e
objective, Ind cict tiled Em iionmental Justice analysis for the proposed project EPA
requests th it I mote comprehensive and detailed Environmental JUStice, in ilysis be
performed u�ul., updated U S Census data for the proposed project ind th it it be
included ni the supplement it information
Other ProlLct Duect Impacts and ICE
EPA continues to have environmental concerns regarding the, impacts to
farmlands including 146 act es of conversion from active agricultur 11 l Inds Ind 1 084
acres of pi Inie, ind important farnmland soils (Table 1 5 of the FEIS) EPA is concerned
about the loss of teiiestiial foiests (882 acres) and other greenspice (681 icics)
EPA c.ontnmues to hive environmental concerns regarding IC1 F ible 1 8 of the
FEIS includes the sunini uy of potential foi ICE by county For DSA 9 the potential for
accelerated ,iomh ind other indirect effects as a result of the pioJect arc. ch a -ictei ized by
NCI A and I II WA is high The proposed Gaston East West Connector is c\peeted to
increase spa i\\ I in the project study at ea and beyond including p tits of Yoik County

S C (P ige 1 49) CPA i equests a copy of the ICE Qu mtitative Ain ivsis i epoi t when it
becomes av ul able