20120285_Appendix A_Notice of Intent and Agency Correspondence_20101222

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS

APPENDICES

A. Notice of Intent and Agency Correspondence
B. GUAMPO Population Projections
C. Supporting Traffic Information for Chapter 2 - Alternatives
Considered
D. Design Criteria for the Preliminary Engineering Designs
E. Year 2030 Toll-Scenario Traffic Forecasts for the Detailed Study
Alternatives
F. Relocation Reports
G. Existing Noise Measurements and 2030 Noise Contour Maps
H. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) – Discussion of Impacts
I. Farmland Conversion Impact Ratings Forms
J. Hazardous Materials Sites
K. Major Drainage Structures NPDES Permits in the Project Study
Area
L. Section 4(f) Resources
M. Soils Information
N. Jurisdictional Stream and Wetland Information
O. NPDES Dischargers
P. Matrix of Indirect and Cumulative Effects by DSA

APPENDIX A APPENDICES

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS

APPENDIX A
NOTICE OF INTENT AND AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE

A-1. NEPA/404 Merger Process Concurrence Forms
A-2. Correspondence with the State Historic Preservation Office
A-3. Scoping Letter and Responses
A-4. Notice of Intent
A-5. Other Agency Correspondence
A-6. Local Government Resolutions
A-7. Section 6002 Project Coordination Plan
A-8. Correspondence Related to Air Quality Conformity

APPENDIX A APPENDICES

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS

APPENDIX A-1
NEPA/404 MERGER PROCESS CONCURRENCE FORMS

• Concurrence Point 1 - Purpose and Need 07/24/02
• Partial Concurrence Point 2 – Non-New Location Alternatives
Carried Forward for Further Study 08/28/02
• Concurrence Point 2 – Detailed Study Alternatives 09/20/05
• Concurrence Point 2a – Bridging and Alignment Decision
TEAC Meeting Minutes 04/08/08
• Concurrence Point 1, 2 and 2a – Purpose and Need, Detailed Study
Alternatives, and Bridging and Alignment Decision 10/07/08

Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No.1 - Purpose and Need.
Project No. TIP o: ame/De cliftion:
Federal Project Number: STP-1213{6j: State Project Number 8,2812501;
TIP Number: U-3 3 1
Description: Gaston East-West Corridor Study in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties
Purpose and Need of Frog xsedProject•
The purpose of the proposed action i; to improve east -west transportation mobility in the
area around the City of Gastonia,. between Crastoriia and the Charlotte metropolitan area
in genera], and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing area of
southeast Gaston County and west Mecklenburg County_ This project purpose is based
on the following:
■ Need to improve mobility, access and connectivity within southern Gaston
County and between southern Gaston County and Mecklenburg County.
n
▪ Need to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow ttlzag the sections of 1-R5, US
29-74 and US 321 in the project study area; improve high-speed, safe regional
travel Service along the US 29-74 intrastate corridor: and generally improve safety
and reduce above average accident rates in the study area.
The project study area consists of the following general boundaries: 1-85 to the north, the
South Carolina State line to the south, the Charlotte -Douglas Internationrl Airport to the
east_ and the 1-85 and US 29-74 junction to the west
The Project Team concurred on this date of -71 6 Z with the purpose of
and need for the proposed project as stated above.
USACE
USE
4TL
NCrOT '1,11, VI
(J S W 1
5 at4t- C kLid 7
C CR .. — 04_
FHWA

Section 404/NEPA Merger Team Review Board Agreement
Partial Concurrence Point No. 2 —
Non -New Location Alternatives Carried Forward For Further
Study
Project No./TIP No./Name/Description:
Federal Project Number: STP-1213(6); State Project Number 8.2812501;
TIP Number: U-3321
WBS Number: 34922.1.1
Description: Gaston County East-West Connector Study, Gaston and Mecklenburg
Counties
Non -New Location Alternatives Carried Forward:
None of the following alternatives will be carried forward for detailed study since the
data shows that none of these non -new location alternatives meet the project Purpose and
Need as agreed to by the merger team July 2002:
1. Transportation System Management (TSM) Altemative(s)
2. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Alternative(s)
3. The Mass Transit Altemative(s)
4. Multi -Modal Altemative(s)
5. Improve Existing Roadways Altemative(s):
• Scenario 2 — Improve 1-85 to 8 lanes
• Scenario 3 — Improve US 29-74 to 6 lanes
• Scenario 4 — Improve 1-85 to 8 lanes and US 29-74 to 6 lanes
• Scenario 4+ - Improve 1-85 to 8 lanes and US 29-74 to 6 lanes with TSM-
type measures
• Scenario 4a — Scenario 4+, but improve existing 1-85 to 8-10 lanes. Also,
provide capacity increases on several road segments that connect 1-85
and US 29-74.
• Scenario 8 - Scenario 4a plus capacity improvements to north/south
feeder roads
The Merger Team Review Board concurred on this date of with
not carrying forward non -new location alternatives for the proposed project
as listed above.
USACE NCD
NCDENR FHWA

Section 404/NEPA Merger Team Review Board Agreement
Partial Concurrence Point No. 2 —
Non -New Location Alternatives Carried Forward For Further
Study
Project No./TIP No./Name/Description:
Federal Project Number: STP-1213(6); State Project Number 8.2812501;
TIP Number: U-3321
WBS Number: 34922.1.1
Description: Gaston County East-West Connector Study, Gaston and Mecklenburg
Counties
Non -New Location Alternatives Carried Forward:
None of the following alternatives will be carried forward for detailed study since the
data shows that none of these non -new location alternatives meet the project Purpose and
Need as agreed to by the merger team July 2002:
I. Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative(s)
2. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Altemative(s)
3. The Mass Transit Alternative(s)
4. Multi -Modal Altemative(s)
5. Improve Existing Roadways Alternative(s):
• Scenario 2 — Improve 1-85 to 8 lanes
• Scenario 3 — improve US 29-74 to 6 lanes
• Scenario 4 — Improve 1-85 to 8 lanes and US 29-74 to 6 lanes
• Scenario 4+ - Improve i-85 to 8 lanes and US 29-74 to 6 lanes with TSM-
type measures
• Scenario 4a — Scenario 4+, but improve existing 1-85 to 8-10 lanes. Also,
provide capacity increases on several road segments that connect 1-85
and US 29-74.
• Scenario 8 - Scenario 4a plus capacity improvements to north/south
feeder roads
The Merger Team Review Board concurred on this date of with
not carrying forward non -new location alternatives for the proposed project
as listed above.
USACE
NCDENR

Section 404/NEPA Merger Team Review Board Agreement
Partial Concurrence Point No. 2 —
Non -New Location Alternatives Carried Forward For Further
Study
Project No./TIP No./Name/Description:
Federal Project Number: STP-1213(6); State Project Number 8.2812501;
TIP Number: U-3321
WBS Number: 34922.1.1
Description: Gaston County East-West Connector Study, Gaston and Mecklenburg
Counties
Non -New Location Alternatives Carried Forward:
None of the following alternatives will be carried forward for detailed study since the
data shows that none of these non -new location alternatives meet the project Purpose and
Need as agreed to by the merger team July 2002:
I. Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative(s)
2. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Altemative(s)
3. The Mass Transit Alternative(s)
4. Multi -Modal Alternative(s)
5. Improve Existing Roadways Alternative(s):
• Scenario 2 — Improve 1-85 to 8 lanes
• Scenario 3 — Improve US 29-74 to 6 lanes
• Scenario 4 — Improve 1-85 to 8 lanes and US 29-74 to 6 lanes
• Scenario 4+ - Improve 1-85 to 8 lanes and US 29-74 to 6 lanes with TSM-
type measures
• Scenario 4a — Scenario 4+, but improve existing 1-85 to 8-10 lanes. Also,
provide capacity increases on several road segments that connect 1-85
and US 29-74.
• Scenario 8 - Scenario 4a plus capacity improvements to north/south
feeder roads
The Merger Team Review Board concurred on this date of with
not carrying forward non -new location alternatives for the proposed project
as listed above.
USACE NCDOT
NCDENR ,�,d/4�,f FHWA

Section 404/NEPA Merger Team Review Board Agreement
Partial Concurrence Point No. 2 —
Non -New Location Alternatives Carried Forward For Further
Study
Project No./TIP No./Name/Description:
Federal Project Number: STP-1213(6); State Project Number 8.2812501;
TIP Number: U-3321
WBS Number: 34922.1.1
Description: Gaston County East-West Connector Study, Gaston and Mecklenburg
Counties
Non -New Location Alternatives Carried Forward:
None of the following alternatives will be carried forward for detailed study since the
Need as agreed to by the merger team July 2002:
I. Transportation System Management (TSM) Altemative(s)
2. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Altemative(s)
3. The Mass Transit Alternative(s)
4. Multi -Modal Altemative(s)
5. Improve Existing Roadways Altemative(s):
• Scenario 2 — Improve 1-85 to 8 lanes
• Scenario 3 — Improve US 29-74 to 6 lanes
• Scenario 4 — Improve 1-85 to 8 lanes and US 29-74 to 6 lanes
• Scenario 4+ - Improve 1-85 to 8 lanes and US 29-74 to 6 lanes with TSM-
type measures
• Scenario 4a — Scenario 4+, but improve existing 1-85 to 8-10 lanes. Also,
provide capacity increases on several road segments that connect 1-85
and US 29-74.
• Scenario 8 - Scenario 4a plus capacity improvements to north/south
feeder roads
The Merger Team Review Board concurred on this date of with
not carrying forward non -new location alternatives for the proposed project
as listed above.
• USACk4 40-e—g6 NCDOT
NCDENR FHWA
Jt �- (3- _d. rr1-.r0

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PO BOX 1890
WILMINGTON NC 28402-1890
CESAW-RG 28 June 2005
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: Clarification of Partial Concurrence Point 2 for Gaston County East-West
Connector Study
1. As I have stated previously, I do not believe that the "Improve Existing Roadways
Alternative" fails to meet the project purpose and need, specifically improvements to I-85, US
29-74, and various combinations of improvements to these roads. However, based upon
anticipated environmental impacts and engineering issues associated with this alternative,
supported by the "Review Board Summary of the Evaluation of Improve Existing Roadways
Alternatives" dated 10 June 2005, I do agree that the "Improve Existing Roadways
Alternative" is not a reasonable alternative for the project. Accordingly, I concur with
elimination of this alternative from further consideration.
2. Please note that the environmental documentation for the project should include the
"Review Board Summary of the Evaluation of Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives"
dated 10 June 2005, as well as a summary of the elevation decision for Partial Concurrence
Point 2.
S. KENNETH JOLLY
Chief, Regulatory Division

Section 404/NEPA Merger Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 2 — Detailed Study Alternatives
Project No./TIP No./Name/Description:
Federal Project Number: STP-1213(6); State Project Number 8.2812501;
TIP Number: U-3321
Description: Gaston East-West Connector Study in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties
Alternatives Carried Forward for Detailed Study:
Non -New Location Alternatives: None to be carried forward for detailed study in accordance with
NEPA/404 Merger Process Review Board Decision (see separate signed partial Concurrence Point #2
forms for non -new location alternatives from July 2005).
New Location Alternatives:
Alt #
H Segments
J Segments
K Segments
4
H2A-H3
J4a-J4b-J2c-J2d-J5a-J5b
K2A-KX1-K3B-K3C
5
H2A-H3
J4a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-J1e-J1f
K1A-K1B-K1C-K4A
6
H2A-H3
J4a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-J1e-J1f
K1A-K1B-K1C-KID
9
H2A-H3
J4a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-J1e-J1f
K1A-K3A-K3B-K3C
22
H2A-H2B-H2C
J3-J2c-J2d-J5a-J5b
K2A-KX1-K3B-K3C
23
H2A-H2B-H2C
J3-J2c-J2d-JX4-IIe-J1f
K1A-K1B-K1C-K4A
24
H2A-H2B-H2C
J3-J2c-J2d-JX4-JIe-J1f
K1A-K1B-K1C-K1D
27
H2A-H2B-H2C
J3-J2c-J2d-JX4-JIe-J1f
K1A-K3A-K3B-K3C
58
H1A-H1B-H1C
J1a-JX1-J2d-J5a-J5b
K2A-KX1-K3B-K3C
64
H1A-H1B-H1C
Jla-J1b-J1c-J1d-Jle-J1f
K1A-K1B-K1C-K4A
65
H1A-H1B-H1C
Jla-J1b-J1c-J1d-Jle-Jlf
K1A-K1B-K1C-K1D
68
H1A-H1B-H1C
J1a-J1b-J1c-J1d-J1e-J1f
K1A-K3A-K3B-K3C
76
H1A-HX2
J2a-J2b-J2c-J2d-J5a-J5b
K2A-KX1-K3B-K3C
77
H1A-HX2
J2a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-J1e-J1f
K1A-K1B-K1C-K4A
78
H1A-HX2
J2a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-J1e-J1f
K1A-K1B-K1C-K1D
81
H1A-HX2
J2a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-Jle-J1f
K1A-K3A-K3B-K3C
The Project Team concurred on this date of 9/20/05 with the Detailed Study Alternatives listed
above to be carried forward in the Draft EIS for the proposed projec
USAGE /.5. (,✓� '" "�-T
f A ,
USEPA
NCDWQ
NCDOT
USFWS
NCWRC Alykopv*I(60\ito
NCDCR,4rf&FHWA

Section 404/NEPA Merger Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 2 Detailed Study Alternatives
Project No./TIP No./Name/Description:
Federal Project Number: STP-121.3(6); State Project Number 8.2812501;
TIP Number: U-3321
Description: Gaston East-West Connector Study in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties
Alternatives Carried Forward for: Detailed. Study:
Non -New Location Alternatives: None to be carried forward for detailed study in accordance with
NEPA/404 Merger Process Review Board Decision (see separate. signed pa
rtial Concurrence Point #2
forms for non -new location alternatives from July 2005).
New Location Alternatives:
Alt #
H Segments "
J Segments
K Segments
4
H2A-H3
J4a-J4b-J2c-J2d-J5a-J5b
K2A-KX1-I0B-K3C.
5
:H2A-H3 '
J4a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-J1e-J1f
;KiA.K1B-K1C-K4A;
6
',itA-H3
J4a=J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-11e-J1f
'K1A=K1B-KiC-KID
9 -
H2A H3
•J4a-J2b-J2c J2d-JX4-J1e-Jlf
hill-K3A-40B K3C
22
H2A-H2B-H2C
J3-J2c-12d-J5a-J5b .
K2A-K0-K3II-K3C
23
H2A-H2B-I12C
13-J2c-J2d<JX4I-7te-Jaf
K1A-KIB-K1C-K4A
24 .
T2A-1.2B-H2C
J3-J26-J2d-JX4-JJ1f
KIA-K1B-KIC-K1D
27
H2A-H2B-H2C
J3-J2c-J2d-JX4-JIe-J1f
K1A-K3A-TC3B-K3C
58
H1A-HlB-H1C
Jia-JX1-J2d-J5a J5b
1c2A-KX1.-K3B K3C
64- `
H1A-HIB- IIC
J1a-J1b-J1c-J1d-J.le-J1f .
KIA-K1B-K1GK4A :
65
HIA-I-[ $H1C
JJ.a-J1b-Jlc-J1d-J.1e-J1f
K1A-IC1B-KIGK1D
68
NIA-HIB 14C. `
J1a-Jlb-Jlc-JIrl-J1e-J1f -
KIA-K3A-K3B-K3C;
76
HLA.41X2•
J2a-J2b-12c-J2d-J5a-J5b
K2A-KX1-K3B-K3C
77
HIA-HX2- ,
J2a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4 JIe-J1;f
KIA-KIB-K:iC-K4A.
78
HIA-HX2
J2a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-J1e-ill
K1A=K1B-KIC-K1D
81
111A-1-IX2'
J2a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-J1e -II f.
KIA-K3A-K3B-K3C
The Project Team concurred on this date of 9/20/05 with the Detailed Study Alternatives listed
above to be carried forward in the Draft EIS for the proposed project.
USACE NCDOT
USEPA USFWS
NCDWQ NCWRC
NCDCR FHWA
GLMPO - ' MUMPO

Page 1 of 1
From: Derrick Weaver [[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 5:08 PM
To: Anne Redmond; Gurak, Jill S; Raymond, Louis; Gail Grimes
Subject: [Fwd: Gaston CP 2 Abstention]
See attached message from Chris.
Marla and I have not be able to get together yet to get her signature on CP 2, but I will see her on March
21 and will get her signature then.
------- - Original Message
Subject: Gaston CP 2 Abstention
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:20:47 -0500
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail],
[e-mail],[e-mail]
AS REQUESTED: Derrick: Yes, I (EPA) also agrees with the reasons provided by Marella and Marla
on their abstentions. Primarily, EPA abstained because of the announcement prior to identifying
the Detailed Study Alternatives to be Carried Forward (CP 2) that the project was being taken
out of Merger and would be handled by the NCTA. Gail Grimes indicating they were not going to
use the Merger 01 Process but some other type of agency c000rdination process. I heard no
formal objections at the meeting from FHWA, DWQ or the ACE on the removal of the project from
Merger 01. EPA has formally signed as a partnering agency to the Merger 01 MOU (which requires
signed Concurrence forms) and we are unfamiliar with the process that Gail was referring to and
the potential need to provide written concurrence on key decision milestones. The request to
obtain EPA's written concurrence on a 'half Merger processed' project is silly and not consistent
with the spirit and intent of the NEPA/404 MOU. While we agree that of the new location
alternatives narrowed down by the team represent the 'best' of the new location alternatives being
carried forward, we continue to maintain our concern that a full range of reasonable and feasible
alternatives (including a 'improve existing' alternative) are not going to be considered for full
evaluation in the NEPA document and for public comment. As a courtesy to NCDOT and other team
members who have worked very hard on this project, I remained at the CP 2 meeting and worked
with everyone else on developing the best list of new location DSAs available. I feel the Elevation
Review Board did not address all of the issues raised by EPA and other team members in their
written briefs. If the NCTA (and other agencies) decide that the Gaston project is going back into
the Merger 01 Process and will go thru the entire process, EPA will potentially reconsider its
abstention on CP 2. Again, thanks for your patience. Christopher A. Militscher, REM, CHMMUSEPA
Raleigh Office919-856-4206
file://G:\Planning\280199-Gaston Corridor Study\Merger Team Meetings\Conc Pt 2 Mtg 0... 4/25/2006

Page I of 1
From: Derrick Weaver [[e-mail]
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 10:10 AM
To: Anne Redmond; Raymond, Louis; Gurak, Jill S; [e-mail]
Subject: [Fwd: Gaston E-W Connector, TIP U-33211
Original Message --------
Subject: Gaston E-W Connector, TIP U-3321
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:21:57 -0500
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail], [e-mail],[e-mail],
steven.w.lund @ saw02.usace.army.mil,polly.lespinasse @ ncmail.net,
[e-mail]
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail]
On December 8, 2005, the USFWS abstained from signing Concurrence Point 2 for the Gaston East-West
Connector Project, Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties, NC, for the following reasons:
1. According to discussions at the last Merger meeting for this project, U-3321 is being "handed off" to the NC
Turnpike Authority. Since this project is now an NC Turnpike Authority study project, we believe it is no longer in
the Merger Process. Merger is a process for which decisions are made in a building block fashion, each
subsequent step dependent on the previous step. Therefore, we believe it is inappropriate for our Agency to sign
off on alternatives when we will not be involved in selecting a LEDPA (CP 3) or in Avoidance and Minimization
considerations (CP4). We have provided input that a deciding official can use to help determine an appropriate
range of alternatives.
2. Our understanding is that the study of potential turnpike projects will include an analysis of economic
considerations to determine a project's feasibility. Thus far, economic considerations beyond the cost to build a
project have rarely been discussed relative to the feasibility of a project. If economic viability is to be considered a
criterion used to determine feasibility for this particular project, we believe that the current Purpose and Need
should be re -visited to include economic considerations.
If, in the future, the NC Turnpike Authority adopts the Merger Process and current merger team members are
tasked by NCDOT to participate in another, dual, merger process we will revisit our abstention from this
concurrence point decision.
Thank you.
marella buncick
USFWS
160 Zillicoa St.
Asheville, NC 28801
828-258-3939 ext 237
file://G:\Planning\280199-Gaston Corridor Study\Merger Team Mee tings\Cone Pt 2 Mtg 0... 4/25/2006

Page 1 of 1
From: Derrick Weaver [dweaver@ dot.state.nc.us]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1 1:04 AM
To: Anne Redmond; Gurak, Jill S; Raymond, Louis; Gail Grimes
Subject: [Fwd: U-3321, Gaston E-W Connector abstention]
Below is Marla Chambers reason for abstaining, she has not signed the form, but will do so on the 26th.
Original Message
Subject: U-3321, Gaston E-W Connector abstention
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:35:28 -0500
From: "Marla J. Chambers" <chambersmj @ vnet.net>
To: "'Weaver, Derrick"' <[e-mail]>
CC: "'Lund, Steve' <[e-mail]>,"'Lespinasse, Polly"'
<[e-mail]>,"'Buncick, Marella"'
<[e-mail]>,<[e-mail]>,"'McBride, Sarah'
<sarah. mcbride @ nemail.net>
Although I have not yet signed a form stating that NCWRC is abstaining from signing the partial Concurrence
Point 2 that relates to new location alternatives, I will provide the reasons for abstaining below. I will be glad to
sign an abstention form at the next appropriate opportunity. I plan to attend Hydraulics Meetings and the Inter-
agency Meeting on January 251h and 26th in Raleigh, if that would be a convenient time.
The Merger Team was informed at the last Concurrence Meeting that this project, TIP No. U-3321, has become a
NC Turnpike Authority study project and is being removed from the Merger process. Therefore, we believe that it
is not appropriate to sign a Merger Concurrence Point form. Signing a Merger Concurrence Point form advances
a project in the Merger process, a process that has well defined expectations and procedures for the subsequent
steps. At the last Concurrence Meeting, the process and next steps for the project under the NC Turnpike
Authority had not been determined. NCWRC did participate in the meeting, providing input on new location
alternatives.
We are concerned that changing this project to a NC Turnpike Authority project may invalidate much of the
process that the project has gone through in the Merger process to get to point where it is. The project was not
presented or evaluated as a toll road. We expect that traffic projections, economic considerations, and other
details would have been considerably different if evaluated as a toll road. We believe that it would be appropriate
to re-evaluate the project as a toll road from the Purpose and Need stage (Concurrence Point 1).
Although we have abstained from signing this Concurrence Point, NCWRC is willing to participate in future
activities concerning this project.
Sincerely,
Marla J. Chambers
Western NCDOT Permit Coordinator
N.C. Wildlife Resources Comm.
4614 Wilgrove-Mint Hill Rd., Suite M
Charlotte, NC28227
chambersmj@ vnet.. net
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
cell: 704-984-1070
file://G:\Planning\280199-Gaston Corridor Study\Merger Team Meetings\Cone Pt 2 Mtg 0... 4/25/2006

Page 4 of 10
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 4/8/08

MEETING MINUTES

Date: April 8, 2008
1:30 pm to 3:00 pm
NC Turnpike Authority Office Board Room (Suite 400)

Project: STIP U-3321 Gaston E-W Connector – STP-1213(6)

Gaston E-W Connector Spotlight:

Attendees:
George Hoops, FHWA
Donnie Brew, FHWA
Steve Lund, USACE
Kathy Matthews, USEPA
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Dewayne Sykes , NCDOT-Roadway Design
Kristina Solberg, NCDOT - PDEA
Dan Grissom, NCDOT-Division 12
Michael Gloden, EcoScience Corp.
Jennifer Harris, NCTA
Jill Gurak, PBS&J

Via Telephone:
Marella Buncick, USFWS
Polly Lespinasse, NCDENR - DWQ

Presentation Materials: (All materials have been posted on the TEAC website)

• Meeting Agenda
• Memo – Merger Process Concurrence Point 2a Bridging Decision Information – NCTA’s
Response to Agency Requests from the March 4, 2008 Meeting – This memo addresses action
items from the March 4, 2008 TEAC meeting.

Purpose:

Discuss action items from the March 4, 2008 TEAC Meeting (Concurrence Point 2a meeting) in
order to achieve agreement/concurrence on the bridging/alignment decisions for streams and
wetlands crossed by the Detailed Study Alternatives (DSAs)

General Discussion:

Ms. Harris opened the meeting with introductions. The purpose of the meeting was to complete
discussions regarding bridging and alignment decisions for the DSAs (CP2a). She noted that further
discussions regarding bridging and permitting will be held again for the Preferred Alternative at CP4a.

A general discussion took place prior to the discussions of the individual crossings. The questions and
comments are summarized below.

Minutes from the March 4, 2008 Meeting. Ms. Harris asked if anyone had any comments or revisions to
the March 4, 2008 meeting minutes. No one had any comments.

Other Issues. Mr. Militscher stated he could not access the TEAC website, as it was not recognizing his
username and password. Ms. Harris stated she would ask the website administrator to follow up with Mr.
Militscher.

Page 5 of 10
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 4/8/08
Ms. Gurak began the discussion of the action items requested at the March 4, 2008 meeting that were
summarized in the memo distributed for the April 8 TEAC meeting.

Wildlife Passage Structures

The NCTA agrees to study wildlife passage structures at the following crossings of Stream S156 during
final design, if they are part of the Preferred Alternative. This will be included as a commitment in the
DEIS.

• Crossing JD6 – crossing of Stream S156 on Detailed Study Alternative (DSA) Segment J1C
(west of Robinson Road)
• Crossing JD19 – crossing of Stream S156 on DSA Segment JX1
• Crossing JD31 – crossing of Stream S156 on DSA Segment J2C

The resource agencies asked if this wildlife crossing was unique to any of the alternatives. All DSAs
cross Stream 156 once, so all DSAs will include a wildlife passage structure at this stream.

The WRC stated there are numerous resources available to assist in designing wildlife passages. The
WRC noted one method of sizing the crossing uses an “openness factor” that takes into account
length/height/width of the crossing as well as the types of wildlife anticipated to use the crossing. The
equation is metric based. The NCDOT has designed wildlife crossings for bears on the I-26 (A-10)
project in western North Carolina. There have also been some successful crossings on projects in
eastern North Carolina.

The NCDOT noted that Ted Devens (NCDOT) is working with Virginia Tech on wildlife crossing studies.

USFWS noted that the 2007 conference proceedings from ICOET (International Conference on Ecology
and Transportation) would be a good resource for wildlife crossing information.

The WRC stated that during final design for the Preferred Alternative, the bridges at other crossings also
should be designed to be wildlife friendly when feasible.

Bridging Beyond What is Required for Hydraulic Conveyance

At the March 4, 2008 meeting, the NCTA agreed to the following bridges to be included in the DSA
designs.

• Crossing HD27 – DSA Segment H2A over Bessemer Branch. Change from triple box culvert to a
bridge.
• Crossing HD32 – DSA Segment H2C over Stream S70 adjacent to Chapel Grove Road. Extend
mainline bridges over Chapel Grove Road to span Stream S70.
• Crossing HD17 – DSA Segment HX2 over Stream S79 adjacent to Camp Rotary Road. Extend
mainline bridges over Camp Rotary Road to span Stream S79.
• Crossing HD38 – DSA Segment H3 over Stream S135 (Blackwood Creek). Change from a triple
box culvert to a bridge.

The NCTA also agreed to the following bridges to be included in the DSA designs, as requested at the
March 4, 2008 TEAC meeting.

• Crossing JB2 – DSA Segment J3 over Crowders Creek. Extend mainline bridges over Crowders
Creek to span Wetland 103.
• Crossing JD9 – DSA Segment J1C over Stream S178. Change from a triple box culvert to a
bridge.
• Crossing KD3 – DSA Segment K3A over Stream S259 (Catawba Creek). Extend mainline
bridges over Catawba Creek to span main body of Wetland W248.
Page 6 of 10
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 4/8/08
• Crossing KD17 – DSA Segment K1B over Stream S259 (Catawba Creek). Extend mainline
bridges over Catawba Creek to span main body of Wetland W248.

The resource agencies agreed to the additional bridges and had no further comments.

Cost Estimate for Bridge at Crossing HB1

At the March 4, 2008 meeting, the resource agencies requested a cost estimate for additional bridges at
Crossing HB1 (DSA Segment H1A over Crowders Creek near the US 29-74 interchange). The additional
bridges would include extending the mainline bridges over Crowders Creek to span Wetland 12, and
constructing bridges over Wetland 12 for the WB Connector off ramp to US 29-74 and the WB Connector
on ramp (loop) from US 29-74.

In 2007 dollars, the cost of all these additional bridges would be $15.5 million. The original cost for the
shorter mainline bridges was $2.1 million. If the interchange is eliminated, the cost of the extended
mainline bridges (no ramps) would be $11.4 million.

The resource agencies requested information on the costs of the Crowders Creek ramp bridges to be
included in these minutes. The costs were calculated post meeting. These two bridges, off ramp from
WB Connector to US 29-74 over Crowders Creek and on ramp from US 29-74 to EB Connector over
Crowders Creek, would each be about 38 feet wide and 120 feet long. The total cost for the two ramp
bridges would be approximately $1 million.

There was a question about whether the loop ramp could be extended to shift out of the wetland. If it was
extended, it would encroach farther into the floodplain of Crowders Creek and nearer to the creek. It can
not be shortened due to sight distance requirements for the toll collection equipment.

The resource agencies would prefer to eliminate the US 29-74 interchange. As discussed at the March 4,
2008 meeting, the NCTA will be considering eliminating the US 29-74 interchange (for all DSAs). The
Gaston Urban Area MPO (GUAMPO) is also looking at this issue. The potential elimination of this
interchange will be presented to the public for comment at Citizens Informational Workshops planned for
this summer.

The resource and regulatory agencies agreed that extending the mainline bridges over Crowders Creek
to also span Wetland 12 would not be cost effective. The USFWS pointed out that the area of the
wetland crossed by the mainline bridges is forested. This vegetation would be cleared to construct the
low bridges. Regrowth of vegetation under the bridges would not be the same as the existing conditions.
It may be more effective to restore the eastern part of Wetland 12 and fill the western part.

The USEPA stated that since Crowders Creek is a 303d listed stream, BMP (Best Management
Practices) measures such as basins also should be considered to ensure that Crowders Creek would not
be impacted by roadside drainage.

In conclusion, it was decided to show the impacts of filling Wetland 12 in the DEIS, but to also discuss the
potential elimination of the US 29-74 interchange. If this DSA Segment is part of the Preferred
Alternative, mitigation and minimization measures will be revisited at Concurrence Point 4a. The
agencies agreed that it was not cost effective to extend the mainline bridges to span Wetland 12.

Mainline Alignment Shift at Crossing HB3 to Avoid Wetland W51

A full discussion of the alignment shift investigation is included in Section 5a of the memo provided as
part of the April 8, 2008 meeting. Crossing HB3 is located at Crowders Creek for DSA Segments H3 and
H2A near the US 29-74 interchange. At the March 4, 2008 meeting, the resource and regulatory
agencies requested that a shift in the Corridor H3 alignment be investigated to move the H3 alignment to
the east so the US 29-74 interchange ramps would avoid Wetland 51.

Page 7 of 10
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 4/8/08
The alignments in this location were placed to minimize relocations and impacts to the three junkyards in
the vicinity.

DSA Segment H2A can not be shifted to the east within the corridor boundaries due to curve radii
constraints.

The alignment in DSA Segment H3 would need to shift about 240 feet to the east to avoid Wetland 51.
This would encroach directly on the Putnam Auto Body junkyard and would increase impacts to Stream
S54 from 188 lf to about 575 lf.

The same discussion regarding eliminating the US 29-74 interchange was held for this location. The
resource agencies would prefer to eliminate the US 29-74 interchange. As discussed at the March 4,
2008 meeting, the NCTA will be considering eliminating the US 29-74 interchange (for all DSAs). The
GUAMPO is looking at this issue. The potential elimination of this interchange will be presented to the
public for comment at Citizens Informational Workshops planned for this summer. The NCTA
recommended not shifting the alignment at this location, particularly since the elimination of the
interchange is being considered. The resource and regulatory agencies conditionally agreed.

The USEPA requested that a cost estimate be provided for bridging Wetland W51 for Corridor Segments
H3 and H2A (this would involve bridges only on the ramps). The USEPA stated that they would provide
information about potential costs for relocating the Putnam Auto Body junkyard. The costs were
calculated post meeting. For Corridor Segment H3, two bridges are proposed (one for the ramp and one
for the loop ramp). These two bridges would be between 37 feet to 50 feet wide, and 470 feet to 560 feet
long. The total cost for the two bridges would be approximately $4.8 million. For Corridor Segment H2,
three bridges are proposed (one for the loop ramp and two for the ramps). These three bridges would be
between 37 feet to 50 feet wide, and 130 feet to 500 feet long. The total cost for the three bridges on
Segment H2 are approximately $3.3 million.

Mainline Alignment Shift at Crossing JD17 to Avoid Parallel Impacts to Stream S146

A full discussion of the alignment shift investigation is included in Section 5b of the memo provided as
part of the April 8, 2008 meeting.

The NCTA recommends not shifting this alignment. The resource agencies agreed.

Mainline Alignment Shift at Crossing KD17 to Avoid the Easternmost Finger of Wetalnd W248

A full discussion of the alignment shift investigation is included in Section 5c of the memo provided as
part of the April 8, 2008 meeting.

The NCTA recommends not shifting this alignment. The resource agencies agreed.

Y-Line (Cross-Street) Alignment Shift at Crossing KD31 to Avoid Confluence of Beaverdam Creek
and Legion Lake Stream

A full discussion of the alignment shift investigation is included in Section 5d of the memo provided as
part of the April 8, 2008 meeting.

The NCTA recommends not shifting this alignment at this time. If this corridor is selected as the Preferred
Alternative, this crossing will be revisited during final design when more refined mapping is available. The
resource agencies agreed.

Page 8 of 10
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 4/8/08
Conclusions

The resource agencies agreed that discussions for Concurrence Point 2a were complete. Below is an
updated table summarizing the final decisions made as part of CP2a for the major hydraulic crossings.

Crossing Decision Cost Differential
for Crossing
HD26 Revisit this area for minimization measures during CP4a --
HD27 Change recommended structure from a culvert to a bridge Savings of $0.44
million
HB1
The potential elimination of the interchange will be
presented for public comment at the next Citizens
Informational Workshops. Eliminating the interchange will
be evaluated for the Preferred Alternative.
N/A
HB2
The potential elimination of the interchange will be
presented for public comment at the next Citizens
Informational Workshops. Eliminating the interchange will
be evaluated for the Preferred Alternative.
N/A
HB3
The potential elimination of the interchange will be
presented for public comment at the next Citizens
Informational Workshops. Eliminating the interchange will
be evaluated for the Preferred Alternative.
N/A
HD29 No change in the recommended structure – a culvert. --
HD31 No change in the recommended structure – a culvert. --
HD59 No change in the recommended structure – a bridge. --
HD32
Change recommended structure from a culvert to a bridge
since a culvert does not appear feasible from a design
standpoint at this time.
Increase of $0.96
million
HD10 No change in the recommended structure – a culvert. --
HD 17
Change recommended structure from a culvert to a bridge
since a culvert does not appear feasible from a design
standpoint at this time.
Increase of $1.27
million
HD35 No change in the recommended structure – a culvert. --
HD48
Change recommended structure from a culvert to a bridge
due to size of Blackwood Creek, floodplain, and proximity
to Crowders Creek confluence.
Increase of $1.75
million
JB2 Extend recommended bridge structure approximately 365
feet to span Wetland W103 in addition to Crowders Creek.
Increase of $4.1
million
JB1 No change in the recommended structure – a bridge. --
JD29 No change in the recommended structure – a bridge. --
JD4 No change in the recommended structure – a bridge. --
JD17 No change in the recommended structure – a bridge. --
JD6, JD19 and
JD31
No change in the recommended structure – a culvert.
However, an additional culvert or other measure will be
considered for wildlife passage during final design.
Increase for wildlife
passage structures
unknown.
JD21 No change in the recommended structure – a culvert. --
JD9 Change recommended structure from a culvert to a
bridge.
Increase of $0.84
million
JD26 No change in recommended structure – a pipe --
KD54 No change in the recommended structure – a culvert. --
KD25 No change in the recommended structure – a bridge. --
Page 9 of 10
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 4/8/08
Crossing Decision Cost Differential
for Crossing
KD3 Extend recommended bridge structure about 395 ft to
span Wetland W248 in addition to Catawba Creek.
Increase of $4.0
million
KD17 Extend recommended bridge structure about 370 ft to
span Wetland W248 in addition to Catawba Creek.
Increase of $4.2
million
KD2 No change in the recommended structure – a culvert. --
KB3, KB5, KB7 No change in the recommended structures – bridges over
the South Fork Catawba River. --
KB4, KB6 No change in the recommended structures – bridges over
the Catawba River. --
KD7, KD29, KD16 No change in the recommended structure – a culvert. --
KD31
No change in the recommended structure – a culvert. If
this crossing is part of the Preferred Alternative, during
final design, NCTA will investigate the feasibility of shifting
the alignment of Dixie River Road at this crossing to avoid
the confluence of Beaverdam Creek and Legion Lake
Stream.
--

Wrap-Up / Next Steps:

• Concurrence Point 2a bridging and alignment decisions are complete. NCTA will incorporate the
conclusions of CP2a into the DEIS.

New Action Items

ƒ The agencies requested information on the costs of the Crowders Creek ramp bridges for
Corridor Segment H1A to be included in these minutes.
The cost for these ramp bridges is approximately $1,000,000 (see detailed information in
these minutes).
ƒ The agencies requested information on the costs of bridging Wetland W51 along Corridor
Segments H3 and H2B.
The cost for the bridges along Segment H3 is approximately $4,800,000, and the
proposed cost for the bridges along Segment H2B is approximately $3,300,000 (see
detailed information in these minutes).
ƒ The USEPA stated they would provide information for a cost estimate for relocating the Putnam
Auto Body junkyard located near the US 29-74 interchange for Corridor Segments H3 and H2C.

Previous Action Items:

ƒ NCTA will prepare a cost estimate for Crossing HB1 for providing bridges over Crowders Creek
for the mainline and WB off ramp to span Wetland 12.
Cost estimates provided as described in the response memo handed out at the April 8,
2008 TEAC meeting.
ƒ NCTA to consider eliminating the Corridor Segment H1A/US 29-74 interchange ramp that
provides access from US 29-74 to WB Connector. This ramp crosses over W12.
NCTA is considering eliminating the US 29-74 interchange for all DSAs. The GUAMPO
is evaluating this option. The option will be presented to the public for comment at
upcoming workshops this summer.
Page 10 of 10
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 4/8/08
ƒ NCTA will consider providing wildlife passage structures at JD6, JD19, and JD31.
NCTA agrees to study wildlife passages at JD6, JD19, or JD 31, whichever is included
as part of the Preferred Alternative.
• NCTA will consider the additional bridging recommendations made during the meeting. These
include changing a culvert to a bridge for Crossing JD9 and extending the bridges at JB2,
KD3/KD17 to span high value/high quality wetlands.
NCTA has included bridges for these crossings, as requested by the resource agencies.
• NCTA will investigate the feasibility of shifting alignments at the following locations:
o Mainline shift at HB3 east to avoid W51
o Mainline shift at JD17 to avoid parallel impacts to S146
o Mainline shift at KD3 to avoid the easternmost finger of W248
o Y-line shift at KD31 to avoid confluence of Beaverdam Creek and Legion Lake Stream

As detailed in the April 8, 2008 memo and these minutes, none of these alignment shifts will
be implemented at this time. The Y-line alignment shift at KD31 will be reviewed during final
design if it is part of the Preferred Alternative.

Resolutions:

• This concludes the discussion on bridging and alignment decisions for the Gaston E-W Connector.
NCTA, NCDOT, FHWA, and the agencies have reached agreement/concurrence on the proposed
crossings.

Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point 1— Purpose and Need
Concurrence Point 2 — Detailed Study Alternatives
Concurrence Point 2a — Bridging and Alignment Decisions
Project No./TIP No./Name/Description:
Federal Project Number: STP-1213(6); State Project Number 8.2812501;
TIP Number: U-3321
Description: Gaston East-West Connector in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties
CP #1 - Purpose and Need
The purpose of the proposed action is to improve east -west transportation mobility in the area
around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area, and
particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing area of southeast Gaston
County and west Mecklenburg County. This project purpose is based on the following:
• Need to improve mobility, access and connectivity within southern Gaston County and
between southern Gaston County and Mecklenburg County.
• Need to improve traffic flow on the sections of I-85, US 29-74 and US 321 in the project
study area and improve high-speed, safe, reliable regional travel service along the I-85
corridor.
CP #2 - Detailed Study Alternatives (DSAs)
Twelve Final Detailed Study Alternatives
Detailed Study321
Alternative #
West Area —
Generallywest of US
Central Area —
Generally east of US 321 and west
of NC 279 or the South Fork
Catawba River
East Area —
Generally east of
NC 279 or the South
Fork Catawba River
H Segments
1 Segments
K Segments
4
H2A-H3
J4a-14b-J2c-J2d-J5a-J5b
K2A-KX1-K3B-K3C
5
H2A-H3
J4a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-J1e-11f
K1A-K1B-K1C-K4A
9
H2A-H3
J4a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-J1e-J1f
K1A-K3A-K3B-K3C
22
H2A-H2B-H2C
13-J2c-J2d-J5a-J5b
K2A-KX1-K3B-K3C
23
H2A-H2B-H2C
13-12c-J2d-JX4-11e-11f
K1A-K1B-K1C-K4A
27
H2A-H2B-H2C
J3-J2c-J2d-JX4-Jle-J1f
K1A-K3A-K3B-K3C
58
H1A-H1B-H1C
Jla-JX1-J2d-J5a-J5b
K2A-KX1-K3B-K3C
64
H1A-H1B-H1C
Jla-11b-11c-J1d-Jle-J1f
K1A-K1B-K1C-K4A
68
H1A-H1B-H1C
J1a-J1b-J1c-J1d-Jle-J1f
K1A-K3A-K3B-K3C
76
H1A-HX2
J2a-J2b-J2c-J2d-J5a-J5b
K2A-KX1-K3B-K3C
77
H1A-HX2
J2a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-Jle-J1f
K1A-K1B-K1C-K4A
81
H1A-HX2
J2a-J2b-J2c-J2d-JX4-11e-J1f
K1A-K3A-K3B-K3C

Gaston East-West Connector (STIP U 3321)
Concurrence Form - CP#1, CP#2, CP#2a
October 7, 2008
CP #2a - Bridging and Alignment Decisions
Wildlife Passage Structures. Wildlife passage structures will be studied at the following
crossings of Stream S156 during final design. The crossing location depends on DSA.
• Crossing JD6 - crossing of Stream S156 on Detailed Study Alternative (DSA) Segment
Jlc (west of Robinson Road) (DSAs 64, 68, and 76).
• Crossing JD19 - crossing of Stream S156 on DSA Segment JX1 (DSA 58)
• Crossing JD31 - crossing of Stream S156 on DSA Segment J2c (DSAs 4, 5, 9, 22, 23,
27, 77, and 81)
Bridging Beyond What is Required for Hydraulic Conveyance. Bridges will be provided at the
following locations, depending on DSA.
• Crossing HD27 - DSA Segment H2A over Bessemer Branch (Stream S25). Change
from triple box culvert to a bridge. (DSAs 4, 5, 9, 22, 23, and 27)
• Crossing HD32 - DSA Segment H2C over Stream S70 adjacent to Chapel Grove Road.
Extend mainline bridges over Chapel Grove Road to span Stream S70. (DSAs 22, 23,
and 27)
• Crossing HD17 - DSA Segment HX2 over Stream S79 adjacent to Camp Rotary Road.
Extend mainline bridges over Camp Rotary Road to span Stream S79. (DSAs 76, 77, and
81
• Crossing HD48 - DSA Segment H3 over Stream S135 (Blackwood Creek). Change from
a triple box culvert to a bridge. (DSAs 4, 5, and 9)
• Crossing JB2 - DSA Segment J3 and DSA Segment J2a over Crowders Creek. Extend
mainline bridges over Crowders Creek to span Wetland 103. (DSAs 22, 23, 27, 76, 77,
and 81)
• Crossing JD9 - DSA Segment Jl c over Stream S 178. Change from a triple box culvert
to a bridge. (DSAs 58 and 68)
• Crossing KD3 - DSA Segment K3A over Stream S259 (Catawba Creek). Extend
mainline bridges over Catawba Creek to span main body of Wetland W248. (DSAs 9,
27, 68, and 81)
• Crossing KD 17 - DSA Segment K 1 B over Stream S259 (Catawba Creek). Extend
mainline bridges over Catawba Creek to span main body of Wetland W248. (DSAs 5,
23, 64, and 77).
Alignments of Preliminary Engineering Designs within the DSAs. The alignments of the
preliminary engineering designs dated January 2008 for the DSAs were reviewed and accepted by
the NEPA/404 Merger Team at the April 8, 2008 Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination
(TEAC) meeting.
2

PLANNING COMMISSION Fax:[phone] Dec 31 '08 11:12 P.02
4
Gaston gam -West Cameo/or (MP (.1-3321.1
Callorrerto Form — cpar, (742, C14102a
• October 7,..1470$
The Projeet Tenn; concurred on this date of 0' 1 O with CP i.i — Purpose and Need,
CP#2 — Detailed Study Altornatives, and CPa — Bridging ,and Alignment Deejsiout.
'MACE 1,1, 4,4

APPENDIX A APPENDICES

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS

APPENDIX A-2
CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE STATE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION OFFICE

• Letter from SHPO Requesting Survey 09/26/05
• Concurrence Form – Properties Not Eligible for the NRHP 06/12/07
• Letter from SHPO Regarding the Archaeological Survey Report 06/26/07
• Letter from SHPO Regarding the Phase II Historic Architectural
Resources Survey Report 04/14/08
• Concurrence Form – Properties Not Eligible for the NRHP 04/21/08
• Concurrence Form – Assessment of Effects 05/16/08
• Concurrence Form Addendum – Assessment of Effects 07/21/08
• Letter from FHWA – de minimus Section 4(f) Impact Finding for
Wolfe Family Dairy Farm 08/07/08
• Concurrence with Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment 10/10/08
• Letter from NCDOT to SHPO – Archaeological Site Form for
31GS337** (Stowe Mill) 12/12/08

10-11-2005 08:15 From-HNTB
5468421
T-195 P.002/002 F-528
Michael F. Bnsky, Governor
lobeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Seervary
September 26, 2005
MEMORANDUM
TO:
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peon B. 5andheek Adrninsrnmr
Gregory Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Peter Sandbeck
01E= of Archives and I-&tory
Division of I-5nwrigl Resources
David Brook Director
SUBJECT: Concurrence Point 2 Merger Meeting, Gastonia Post -West Connector Study, U-3321,
Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties, ER 02-9723
On September 20, 2005, staff from our office attended the above meeting at the North Carolina Departtitent
of Transportation.
At the meeting, the Merger Team selected preliminary alignments to be carried forward. One of the
alignment nodes "Northern Alt. K3A-K3B-K3C," contains a historic property identified in the 2003, Phase I
Reconnaissance Survey Report.
We tin esstand that the Phase II Intensive Survey Report on the project will be completed after the Merger
Team chooses the final alignment At this juncture, however, we would like to request chat the historic
property identified in Northern Alt. K3A-K3B-K3C be intensely surveyed before the next concurrence
meeting.
We cannot move forward in the merger process until the historic property has been fully evaluated.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Derrick Weaver, NCDOT
London
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Otter. Raleigh NC
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Stec; Balogh NC
SURVEY dr PLANNING 515 N. mount Soon, Rakij h. NC
NC 27699-4617
NC 27699.4617
NC21699.4617
Telephone/F.a
(9191737.4763/7.7.3-8653
(91 r,7131547/715-*11
(719)773134S/7151601

Federal Aid # STP-1213(6)
TIP = U-3321 County: Mecklenburg/Gaston
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGII3LE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Descrtnrion- Gaston E-W Connector
On June 12, 2007 rc-prc scntattves of the
X North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
X Federal Highway Administration (F}IWA)
X North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
X Other
Reviewed the subject project at
0
X
0
Scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph resiew sessionConsultation
Other
All parties present nerd
0
x
iltrre are no properties over fifty years old within the projecr's area of potential effects.
1 here are no properties less than filly years old which arc considered to inert Criteria Consideration 0 within the
project's area of potential effects.
There are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
histoncal information available and the photographs of each property, the property tdentiled as (List Attached) is
considered nut eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of it is ©rccsvary,
® There arc no National Register -listed or Study bated properties within the project's area of potential effects_
• All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and OS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
❑ The
Signed:
Represcntativ
are no historic properties affected by this project (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
12 2tL
Date
L . t a. o
FIIWA, for the Divisio ' Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative, IIPO
State historic Preservation Officer
(,)
ate
Date
Ira curve rcpon is prgiamt, a Final copy of Oils form and t e atiachcd Iasi `ill be included
IMF f' r .L t t
z, , � `3'l i�(., 1 , Mel Iff

SECTION 106 ELIGIBILITY MEETING
U-3321 If Gaston East-West Connector
Properties Not Worthy of Further Evaluation
June 12. 2007
The following properties are considered not eligible and not worthy of further evaluation:
it)&20
22-25
27-53
55-81
83-90
92-134
136-139
141-144
146i& 147
149-170
172-180
A survey report will be prepared that will include intensive evaluations for the following
properties:
1-18
21
26
54
82
91
135
140
145
148
171

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B, Sandbcck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey" Crow, Deputy Secretary
June 26, 2007
MEMORANDUM
To: Matt Wilkerson, Archaeology Supervisor
NCDOT - Office of Human Environment
FROM: Peter Sandbeck P'
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
SUBJECT: Archaeological Assessment of Detailed Study Alternatives for the Proposed Gaston East-West
Connector, Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties, ER 02-9723
Thank you for your letter of June 4, 2007, transmitting the report for the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we agree with the
assessments presented regarding the proposed highway corridor alternatives. We look forward to the selection
of a preferred corridor and the opportunity to discuss archaeological field methodology with your office prior
to start of fieldwork.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and considerations. If you have any questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-733-4763, ext. 246.
In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/733.8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street. Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715.4801

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Pezer B. Safacck, :siddrn.:41.tntar
Mich-Ael F„..o4ley, Gov -cm.=
LisbeillC.EVE1116„.cctry
Telfsey j, Grow,. Deputy Secrets:L-1r
April 14, 2008
Jeff Dayton, PE.
NC Turnpike Authority
5400 Glenwood Ave, Ste 400
Raleigh, NC 27612
Office of chives and Hiltory
Division of Ristonica. Rources
David Brook, Dinctor
Re Phase II Architectural Resources Survey Report, Gaston East-West connector,
U-3321, Gaston & Mecklenburg Counties, ER 02-9723
Dear I\Ir, Dayton:
Thank you for your letter of February 20, 200, 12C2nsiniaing two hard copies and an electronic copy of the
above referenced report, which was prepared by Mattson. Alexander and Associates for the North Carolina
Turnpike Authority. We have reviewed the report and concur with its findings, with the following exceptions.
PnpJist&.in thc_National Register
#9 Craig Farmstead (William N. Craig Farm — GS 320): We do not recommend the expansion of this
National Register -listed property_ The acreage on the north side of the road was thoroughly 42valuated dtiring
the niplicabOn process in 2006. Due to the presence of the ranch house and lack of compelling argument for
the significance of the additional acreage on the other side of the road, we do not concur with the expanSion.
Properties Evaluated Intensively & Considered Eligible for the National Register
#1 Jake Long Dairy Barn: A larger boundary to include all the historic buildings as an appropriate setting
is recommended. A photograph of the tenant houseis needed to 2fitiCt-iS its irtteg6ty.
4.5 Stowc-Cakh.vell-1 :Owen,. Hause: A larger boundary to include the agricultural outbuilding is appropriate
fbr the house,
#8 Union Presbyterian Church: There is no information about the interior of this church. If it is intact,
then we concur that the property is eligible for listing,
#13 Rosa McLean 'louse: While a representative house of the rime and area the synthetic siding damages
rhe integrity of this house for which there is a better example, the Craig House, Thus, we do not consider it
eligible for listing in the National Register.
IAN:ono= 109 East Town. &seer, Riklelgh NC 27(.01 Prilatiliolit Address 4417 Mal Streart Croter. kv,Irigh NC 276%1.44517 Telephone /Fax: [phone]SM/ 80-155.99

#17 Griffith-Shoaf House: We believe this property has lost too much of its integrity to be eligible for
listing in the National Register, The 1940s remodeling is not significant.
4171 Neagle House: There is no context for determining if this Ranch house is significant in this area of the
county. Even though its metal windows are interesting, it appears to be a very typical Ranch house and not
eligible for listing
#145 lames Alexander Hoffman There is no context to determine whether this bungalow is one of
the best representative examples of the style in this quadrant of the county,. It appears to be a vra7,, typical
bungalow and not eligible for listing
Properties Evaluated Intensively & Considered _Nat Higible for the National Register
#19 Wolfe Family Dairy Farm: At least two-thirds of the outbuildings at this farm have good integlity.As
such, it should rank higher than the individual dairy farm buildings that were proposed as eligible. Based on the
presence of the two farmhouses and the large group of intact outbuildings, we believe it is eligible for the
National Register. Boundaries for the property should be developed.
To aid in the use of the information contained in the report, we recommend an addendum in the form or a
spreadsheet that lists the 29 properties shown on pages 2 & 3 of the report and includes the following items.
Property Number and Name used in the report
Survey Site Number
Evaluation Status — listed, eligible, or not eligible
Criterion(a) for listing
Number of acres
Concurrence/Non-concurrence
The Survey Site Number is a unique identifier that the consultants should obtain from the. existing records or
from our office. Survey site numbers and any additional assessment of the 153 properties in Appc,-ndiT A are
not required.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 Codified at 36 CFR
Part 80{X
Thank vou for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
ci-muact Renee Gledhill -Earley, envir. onmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579. in all future
communication concerning this proiect„ please cite the above referenced tracking number. We look forward to
evaluating the effects of the proposed undertaking with you on April 21, 2008.
Sincerely,
ae-dal—ECA
ipFv-
eter Saridbeck
cc: Mattson, Alexander & Associates
Mary Pope Flirt, NCDOT
Rob Ayers, l'I 'WA.

Federal al Aid # TIP # U-3321
. Afiaa•I.Th I
Count_: Gaston and Mecklenburg
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Gaston East-West Connector
On April 21, 2008 representatives of the
X North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
X Federal Highway Administration (i -IW'A)
X North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (1 t N0 y
X Other North Carolina Turnpike Authority; PBS&J
Reviewed the subject project at
• Scoping meeting
X Historic architectural resources photograph review session, consultation
® Other
All parties present agreed
There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
[] There arc no properties less than fifty year; old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area of potential effects,
There arc properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
historical information available and the photographs of each property. the properties identified on the attached list
are considered not eligible for the National Register and require no further evaluation. See attached table.
❑ There are no National Register -listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects,
❑ All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
JD
Signed:
There are no historic properties affected by this project_ (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
der
Re t resentative. NCDOT Date
Fl [WA. for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
Date
Representative, IlPO
State I listoric Preservation Officer
Date
Date
If a survey rrpnrt is pm :rest, a t'mat copy of ibis form anti the attached list will be included.

LI-3321, Gaston/Mecklenburg Counties
The eligibility discussion on April 21, 2008 considered the 29 properties
evaluated in Mattson, Alexander & Associates' intensive study of historic
architectural resources in the U-3321 project area. In a letter dated April 14,
2008 (attached), NCHPO expressed particular concerns about the eligibility
recommendations for nine of the studied properties. Determinations reached at
the meeting are summarized in the attached table.
The following properties are not NR-eligible:
13. Rosa McLean House
17, Griffith -Sheaf House
26, Oates House
82. Ferguson -Craig -Falls House
91. Bell -Falls -Ferguson House
135. J. Condor Armstrong House
140, Dixon Dairy Farm
145. James A. Hoffman House
171. Neagle House
182. (former) South Point School
4-21-08
NCDOT, NCTA, and NCHPO agreed to a revised, proposed NR boundary for
the William Clarence Wilson House property (#6). See amended Figure 7A
attached. 6-2-08

Gomm E-rrCatmector - Eligibeffo- .1..kuleth; with NCD0771-1P0
-Iprel 1,
froilvx
GASTON EAST -WEST CONNECTOR
S n P Project U-3321
SUMMAR% OF ELIGIBILITY
FOR TILE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Historic Architectural Resources in the APE
April 21, 2008
Property
No.
Property Name
Site No,
Size
(Acres)
Eligibility Eligibility
Deterrnination Criterion
Additional Notes
1
Jake Long Dairy Earn
2
Wiliiam7Wrlsori House
3
William Alexander FaliS
House
GS 1320 < 1
GS 0001; -1
GS 00169
6
Eligible
t dy
Eligible
A and C
Bcundari to be expanded
to include all tlislorz
buildings and clearing as
an approp. setting. Need
photograph of lei -rant
house to conPrrn boundary
Mendenhall.Grissom Farm GS 00173
5
6
7
Stowe -Caldwell -Lowery
House
Clarence Wilson earn and
Corn Crib ( Vorf4
JBF Riddle seri
8
GS 00179
S 00337
13
Eligible
A and C
-2
EIiibla
Eligible
C
C
Boundaries to include
entire partet,
_Deo tkAgiorwt ufm41
Union Presbyterian Church
9
10
11
Crag Farmstead
GS 00340
GS 00320
i-i2fTI sari Farnily Dairy Farm
GS 1322
Thomas Allison House
12
GS 00316
-3
19
Eligible
On NRHP
C arrd Cr Need to inspect interior of
Oonchurch. If not intact, then
.
eligibility rry_ctiange.
Current NRHP bounLartes
only.
--BO
3.64
Eligible
A
Eligible
C
Dillard -Falls House
GS 1323
13
Ros-a McLean House
14
3 613
Eligible
GS 00332
Byrum-Croit Howe
15
le
17
MK 2841
2.87
5
Not Eligible
Eligible
Steele Creek Presbyterian
Church' and Cemetery
Steele Creek Presbyterian
Church Manse
MK 01377
MK 1378
Griffillt-Shoat House
18
-20
—7
On NRHP
C and Cril.
Con. A*
-
Eligible
MK 2642
Shopton Rural Historic
District
19 V,'olfe Family Dairy Farrn
26 Oates House
54
Pinah Associated
Reformed Presbyterian
Church
GS 1327
GS 00369
24;1
-16
257:37
Not Eligible
Prey. Del.
Eligible
A and C
Elglble A and C
Net Eligible
Boundaries should include
entire tax parcel.
GS 00547
82 1Ferguson-Craig-Fails House
'91
-2
Eligible
C and Cril.
Con. A*
GS 00170
Bell-Falls,Fergusicin House
135
140
GS 00166
Not. EHgible
Not Eligible
J Condor Armstrong Howe
145
Dixon Dairy Farm
James A Hoffman House
17t Noagiki House
GS 1328
Not Eligible
GS 1329
Not Eligible
GS 1325
0.93
Not Eligible
Os 1324
181 Bridge No. 350022
182 (former) South Point School
-2
Not Eligible
Pending
GS 1330
Bridge
foolprint
Prey. Del.
Eligible
Not Eligible
C
Cril Con A - Criteria Considernion A for religious propel-W.
4

Federal Aid #:34422.I1tI TIN: U-3321 County: Gaston/Mecklenburg
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Project Description: Gaston East-West Connector
On April 21, 2008 representatives of the
X North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
X Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
X North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (IWO)
X Other North Carolina Turnpike Authority; PBS&J
Reviewed the subject project and agreed
❑ There are no effects on the National Register -listed property/properties located within
the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
❑ There are no effects on the National Register -eligible property/properties located within
the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
C There is an effect on the National Register -listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on
the reverse.
X There is an effect on the National Register -eligible property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the
reverse.
Sign
Representative, NCDOT Date
Fl-
0
he Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
Date
Representative, HPO
Date
C �. �.-16-DFs'
State Historic Preservation Officer Date

Federal Aid #: TIP#: U-3321 cou» ry: Gastoh/Mecklenburg
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register -listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE). (# = Property Number - see attached table)
Jake Long Dairy Barn (#1- DOE)
William? Wilson House (#2 - DOE)
William Alexander Falls House (#3 - DOE)
Mendenhall -Grissom Farm (#4 - DOE)
Stowe -Caldwell -Lowery House (#5 - DOE)
* CJarence Wilson Barn and Corn Crib (#6 - DOE) - Alts. 4, 5, 9, 22, 23, 27, 58, 76, 77, 81
J. 8. F. Riddle House (#7 - DOE) - Alts. 4, 22, 58, 76
Union Presbyterian Church (#8 - DOE)
Craig Farmstead (#9 - NR)
Harrison Family Dairy Farm 010 - DOE) - Alts 4, 22, 58, 76
Thomas Allison House (#11 - DOE) - Alts 5, 9, 23, 27, 64, 68, 77, 81
Dillard Falls House (#12 - DOE)
Byrum -Crofts House (#14 - DOE)
Steele Creek Presbyterian Church and Cemetery (#15 - NR)
Steele Creek Presbyterian Church Manse (#16 - DOE)
Shopton Rural Historic District (#18 - DOE)
Wolfe Family Dairy Farm (#19 - DOE) - Alts. 4, 5, 9, 22, 23, 27
Pisgah Associated Reformed Presbyterian Church (#54 - DOE)
Bridge No. 22 (#181 - DOE)
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status
(NR or DE) and describe the effect. (# = Property Number - see attached table)
*Clarence Wilson Barn and Corn Crib (#6 - DOE) - No adverse effect (Figure 7A attached)
Alts. 64 and 68 - ROW & construction limits intersect existing driveway
J. B. F. Riddle House (#7 - DOE) - (1) No adverse effect (2) Adverse effect (Figures 8A and 18A attached)
(1) Alts. 64 and 68 - ROW & construction limits abut NE corner of property
(2) Alts. 5, 9, 23, 27, 77, 81 - ROW & slope stakes encroach upon E side of property
Harrison Family Dairy Farm (#10 - DOE) - No adverse effect (Figure 10A attached)
Alts. 5, 9, 23, 27, 64, 68, 77, 81 - ROW & construction limits intersect existing driveway
Thomas Allison House (4-11 - DOE) - No adverse effect (Figure 12A attached)
Alts. 4, 22, 58, 76 - ROW & construction limits encroach on SE corner of property
Wolfe Family Dairy Farm (1119 - DOE) - No adverse effect (Figure 21A attached)
Alts. 58, 64, 68, 76, 77, 81 - ROW & construction limits encroach on property at S and E
Reason(s) why the effect is not adverse (if applicable).
*Clarence Wilson Barn and Corn Crib - commitment: maintain full access to property by reducing
length of controlled access on Bud Wilson Road to driveway
J. B. F. Riddle House - (1) ROW and construction limits do not encroach upon property;
(2) commitment: adverse > no adverse if shoulder reduced and ditch slope increased to pull
construction limits off property
Harrison Family Dairy Farm - commitment: maintain full access to existing driveway
Thomas Allison House - commitment: minimize drainage and construction limits on property with special
ditch
Wolfe Family Dairy Farm - commitment: create steeper slopes for loop ramp; install plantings along ROW
adjacent to fields; fence along ROW
Initialed: NCDO'T
4 W C. c,.'r tnt2 %)i1San t laasc.
tro ferAl irtc\..) crib
I'PO

Project Description: Gaston East-West Connector
On July 21, 2008 representatives of the
X North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
X Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
X North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
X Other North Carolina Turnpike Authority, PBS&J
Reviewed the subject project and agreed
WBS #: 34922.1.TA1 TIP#: U-3321 County: Gaston/Mecklenburg
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
5 1-d8 STM
❑ There are no effects on the National Register -listed property/properties located within
the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
❑ There are no effects on the National Register -eligible property/properties located within
the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
❑ There is an effect on the National Register -listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on
the reverse.
There is an effect on the National Register -eligible property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(S) are listed on the
reverse.
Signed
Representative, NCDOT
t.c R\ o c u e__, Ism 1 3
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
+—PM()
Date
7 z/ -o
Date
Representative, HPO
Date
i .a/• ©g
ate Historic Preservation Officer ( 1 Date

IIBS #: 34922.1.TA1 T!P#: U-3321 County: Gaston/Mecklenburg
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register -listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
tDai a," c
L15 r
- ate o #- allernaintes
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status
(NR or DE) and describe the effect.
W rilia444. deureyfrcoz.
no 17A 6t/
Reason(s) why the effect is not adverse (if applicable).
VI O &frit Gt.c�tnn " C"-
Initialed: NCD

0US
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
l
No
r
t
h
Ca
r
o
l
i
n
a
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
31
0
Ne
w
Be
r
n
Av
e
n
u
e
,
Su
i
t
e
41
0
of
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,
NC
27
6
0
1
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
HI
g
h
w
a
y
Au
g
u
s
t
7,
20
0
8
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
In
Re
p
l
y
Re
f
e
r
To
:
H
D
A
-
N
C
Mr
.
Pe
t
e
r
Sa
n
d
b
e
c
k
,
De
p
u
t
y
St
a
t
e
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Of
f
i
c
e
r
No
r
t
h
Ca
r
o
l
i
n
a
St
a
t
e
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Of
f
i
c
e
46
1
7
Ma
i
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Ce
n
t
e
r
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,
No
r
t
h
Ca
r
o
l
i
n
a
27
6
9
9
-
4
6
1
7
De
a
r
Mr
.
Sa
n
d
b
e
c
k
:
I
re
f
e
r
to
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
ea
s
t
-
w
e
s
t
tr
a
v
e
l
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
be
t
w
e
e
n
1-
8
5
we
s
t
o
f
Ga
s
t
o
n
i
a
in
Ga
s
t
o
n
Co
u
n
t
y
an
d
1-
4
8
5
/
N
C
16
0
in
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
Co
u
n
t
y
.
Th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
le
n
g
t
h
is
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
21
to
24
mi
l
e
s
in
le
n
g
t
h
an
d
th
e
av
e
r
a
g
e
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
wi
d
t
h
is
1,
4
0
0
fe
e
t
.
Th
e
Ga
s
t
o
n
Ea
s
t
-
W
e
s
t
Co
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
is
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
as
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
Ai
d
No
.
ST
P
-
1
2
1
3
(
6
)
,
St
a
t
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
No
.
8.
2
8
1
2
5
0
1
,
TI
P
No
.
U-
3
3
2
1
.
FH
W
A
,
NC
D
O
T
,
NC
T
A
(N
o
r
t
h
Ca
r
o
l
i
n
a
Tu
r
n
p
i
k
e
Ag
e
n
c
y
)
,
an
d
HP
O
me
t
on
Ap
r
i
l
21
,
Ju
n
e
2,
an
d
Ju
l
y
21
,
20
0
8
to
di
s
c
u
s
s
ef
f
e
c
t
s
o
f
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
pr
o
j
e
c
t
to
Na
t
i
o
n
a
l
Re
g
i
s
t
e
r
-
l
i
s
t
e
d
an
d
Na
t
i
o
n
a
l
Re
g
i
s
t
e
r
-
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
.
Th
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ef
f
e
c
t
s
fr
o
m
mu
l
t
i
p
l
e
de
t
a
i
l
e
d
st
u
d
y
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
(D
S
A
s
)
we
r
e
di
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
at
th
e
me
e
t
i
n
g
.
Pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
in
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
on
e
Na
t
i
o
n
a
l
Re
g
i
s
t
e
r
-
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
in
th
e
fo
r
m
o
f
RO
W
or
pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
ea
s
e
m
e
n
t
wa
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
.
Th
e
af
o
r
e
m
e
n
t
i
o
n
e
d
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
is
th
e
Wo
l
f
e
Fa
m
i
l
y
Da
i
r
y
Fa
r
m
.
It
wa
s
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
th
a
t
th
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
ac
t
i
o
n
fo
r
DS
A
s
58
,
64
,
68
,
76
,
77
,
an
d
81
,
wh
i
c
h
wo
u
l
d
re
q
u
i
r
e
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
29
ac
r
e
s
o
f
th
e
Wo
l
f
e
Fa
m
i
l
y
Da
i
r
y
Fa
r
m
wo
u
l
d
no
t
ad
v
e
r
s
e
l
y
im
p
a
c
t
th
e
hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
qu
a
l
i
t
i
e
s
o
f
th
e
fa
r
m
as
a
re
s
u
l
t
o
f
a
co
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
to
in
s
t
a
l
l
pl
a
n
t
i
n
g
s
al
o
n
g
th
e
RO
W
,
re
p
l
a
c
e
fe
n
c
i
n
g
,
an
d
in
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
st
e
e
p
e
n
e
d
sl
o
p
e
s
on
th
e
lo
o
p
ra
m
p
to
mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
fo
o
t
p
r
i
n
t
on
th
e
si
t
e
.
A
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
”
N
o
Ad
v
e
r
s
e
Ef
f
e
c
t
”
wa
s
gr
a
n
t
e
d
.
Th
i
s
le
t
t
e
r
se
r
v
e
s
to
in
f
o
r
m
yo
u
o
f
th
e
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
’
s
in
t
e
n
t
to
ma
k
e
a
de
mi
n
i
m
i
s
im
p
a
c
t
fi
n
d
i
n
g
on
th
i
s
Se
c
t
i
o
n
4(
f
)
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
Th
i
s
is
ba
s
e
d
on
yo
u
r
Ma
y
16
,
20
0
8
co
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
wi
t
h
th
e
“n
o
ad
v
e
r
s
e
ef
f
e
c
t
”
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
on
th
e
Wo
l
f
e
Fa
m
i
l
y
Da
i
r
y
Fa
r
m
.
HP
O
Co
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
:
.
I
-
S
Da
t
e
:
8
i
/
O8
sf
~
e
P
u
t
Y
St
a
t
e
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Of
f
i
c
e
r
4
b
Si
n
c
e
r
e
l
y
yo
u
r
s
,
i~
4
4
Fo
r
Jo
h
n
F.
Su
l
l
i
v
,
I
I
I
,
P.
E
.
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
o
r
M
O
V
I
N
G
T
H
E
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey.). Crow, Deputy Secretary
October 10, 2008
MEMORANDUM
To: Jennifer Harris, Staff Engineer
NC Turnpike Authority
From: Renee Gledhill -Earley
Environmental Review Coordinator
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Re: Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment, Gaston East-West Connector,
U-3321, Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties, ER02-9723
Thank you for your memorandum of September 2, 2008, transmitting the above referenced document for the
proposed undertaking. We have reviewed the assessment and concur with its findings. We would, however,
note that while there is a great deal of information about potential effects on the various resources and
environmental factors, the treatment of cultural resources is so minimal as to be of little value in decision -
making.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
i
DEC 1 9 2008
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA N.C. I :' t i s. r;: ; : : ' i•j HORITY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA HON
December 12, 2008
Mr. Peter Sandbeck
Administrator and Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4617
Dear Mr. Sandbeck:
LYNDO TIPPE I
SECRETARY
Subject: NC Archaeological Site Form for 31Gs337** associated with an alternative associated with the
new location Gaston East-West Connector, •1'iP # U-3321, Gaston County, NC. ER 02-9723.
Thank you for consulting with our staff on November 21st, 2008, following an inspection of structural
remains identified within a possible alternative for the Gaston East-West Connector, TIP # U-3321. The U-
shaped stone foundation remains, measuring approximately 45 feet by 15 feet, fall within one of the
alternatives under consideration for this new location highway. Staff at the Office of State Archaeology
recommended that, if this alternative is selected, additional documentation should be completed. Further
investigation, if this location would be impacted, should emphasis the historic context of 19th century textile
mills, research of Stowe's Mill business records, if available, and GPS-based mapping of remains
supplemented by selective testing. Should the property be determined eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places, preservation in -place is unlikely warranted based on available information.
As a result of our discussion, please find attached a NC Archaeological Site Form for the remnant
foundation, 31Gs337**. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact Brian Overton at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Matt Wilkerson, Archaeology Supervisor
Office of the Human Environment
attachments
cc: Jeff Dayton, NC Turnpike Authority
Jon Babington, property owner
John Mintz, NC Office of State Archaeology
Alan May, PhD, Schiele Museum
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT UNIT
1583 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1583
TELEPHONE: •919-715-1500 LOCATION:
FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING
2728 CAPITAL BOULEVARD, SUITE 168
WEBS/TE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH, NC 27604

NORTH CAROLINA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE FORM VI
Office of State Archaeology/Division of Archives & History
1. STA lb SITE NUMBER:
2. SITE NAME(S):
3. OTHER SITE NUMBER:
4. INSTITUTION ASSIGNING:
5. PROJECT SIIE NUMBER:
6. SI lb COMPONENT:
31Gs337**
reportedly associated with "Stowe's Mill or Factory"
25 -NCDOT
U-3321-1
4 - Historic, w/ Above -Ground Remains
7. QUAD MAP: Belmont (1993) MAP CODE: B-63
8. UTMs: ZONE: 17 NORTHING: 0495766 EASTING: 894590
9. COUNTY: Gaston
RECORDED BY: Brian Overton
PROJECT NAME: Gaston East-West Connector, TIP # U-3321
11. RESULT OF COMPLIANCE PROJECT: 1- Yes
12. ER/CH/GRANT#: ER-02-9723
13. CODING DATE: 10/23/08
10. DA I E RECORDED: 9/29/08
CODED BY: Brian Patrick Overton
14-18. , EPICEOFSTATEA.RCHAEOLOGrVSEVNLY.-
14. Register Status:
1 DETERMINED ELIGIBLE
2 PLACED ON STUDY
3 APPROVED FOR
4 LISTED IN NRHP
14A. Register Criterion
A SIGNIFICANT - CRITERION A
B SIGNIFICANT - CRITERION B
C SIGNIFICANT - CRITERION C
D SIGNIFICANT = CRITERION D
5 REMOVED FROM NRHP
6 NOT ELIGIBLE
7 UNASSESSED
8 NC ARCH REC. PROG
15. Type of Form:
11 SITE FORM VI
16. Recorder Status
1 NCAC MEMBER
2 AMATEUR
3 UNKNOWN
4 OTHER
5 STUDENT
17. Form Reliability:
1 CODING COMPLETE
2 CODING INCOMPLETE
3 CODING UNRELIABLE
18. Locational Reliability:
1 ACCURATE
2 WITHIN 100M RADIUS
3 UNRELIABLE
4 UNKNOWN LOC.
5 W/in 500M RADIUS
6 W/in 1KM RADIUS
DIRECTIONS TO SI1E: From 1-85 near Belmont in Gaston County take Exit 26, take a right onto Gaither
Rd. End at 1408 Gaither Rd.
'„, • H..USGS!
19. RESEARCH POTENTIAL:
20. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ARTIFICIAL:
21. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ENVIRONMENTAL:
JLJ
Determine association with Stowe's Mill. Investigate and explore the
layout of facility, archival research, map comparison, etc.
3 - Moderate
2- Low
22. EXPLANATION OF IMPACTS: One alternative of many for a new location highway that would destroy the
remaining existing landform.
23. RECOMMENDATIONS: 99 - Other
24. EXPLAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: If site will be impacted by highway construction, complete a historic
context and mapping of Stowes Mill remains, if applicable, supplemented
by selective testing. Collect and discuss information from Duke
University's Special Collections and resources at the Schiele Museum.
25. DATE ON REGISTER: 26. EXCAVATION DATE:
27. INSTITUTION EXCAVATING:

Site #: 31
28. EXCAVATION RESULTS:
29. PERCENT DESTROYED:
4 - 51-75%
30. DATE DESTROYED:
31. CAUSES OF DESTRUCTION: 3 - Land Clearing
��t'V`ICI'ONME`NT INFO.RMATE
32. TOPOGRAPHIC SITUATION:
33. ELEVATION: 590 FT. AMSL
34. SLOPE PERCENT: 20 %
36. SOIL COMPOSITION:
37. SCS SOIL TYPE CODE:
ASSOCIATION:
38. MODERN VEGETATION:
39. DISTANCE TO WA I'hR:
21- Toe Slope or Ridge Slope
35. SLOPE FACE DIRECTION: 6 - Southwest
SERIES NAME: Gaston Sandy Clay Loam
6 - Lawn
50 (Meters) 40. 50 (Yards)
41. TYPE OF NEAREST PERMANENT WATER: 2 - River, Creek, Stream NAME: South Fork Catawba
42. STREAM RANK:
43. DRAINAGE BASIN:
3 [Strahler System - 1-6]
3 - Catawba
44. SI1'h CONDITION NATURAL:
45. SITE CONDITION ARTIFICIAL:
46. GROUND VISIBILITY:
47. COLLECTION MADE:
48. COLLECTION STRA I EGY:
49. AREA COVERED SQ. ME 1'hRS:
50. SUBSURFACE 1'hSTING:
51. TESTING METHODS:
52. SUBSURFACE ZEST RESULTS:
53. SI1h SIZE: 4 - 101-600 sq. meters
8 - Streambank/Shoreline Erosion (general)
18 - Light Construction
5%
2-No
2-No
54. - 66. N/A - NO PREHISTORIC COMPONENT
RMA,
67. PERIOD OF OCCUPATION BEGIN:
68. PERIOD OF OCCUPATION END:
69. REFINED DATE FROM: 1850
71. HISTORIC CULTURAL AFFILIATIONS:
72. HISTORIC SI I'h DEFINITION:
73. HISTORIC REMAINS DESCRIPTION:
4 - 19th Century
6 Site Presently Occupied
70. REFINED DATE TO: 1900
11 - None in Particular
11 - Industrial 1 - Domestic
Partial remains of a stone, foundation (-2 ft dressed block foundation up to a
height of 3-4 feet) has been converted into a metal clad shed with the stone
• wall serving as the new foundation. What remains is U-shaped, with one 45
NC Arch. Site Form IV - Page 2

Site #: 31
74. MAIN STRUCTURE FUNCTION:
75. NUMBER OF OUTBUILDINGS:
76. OU I'BUILDING DISTANCE(S):
77. OUTBUILDING FUNCTIONS:
78. OUTBUILDING DESCRIPTION:
wall and two side walls at 15 ft each. Dismantled and relocated stone blocks
are reused to slow erosion around the property, especially at the river.
48 - Industrial - Manufacturing associated w/textile mi
INFOIRMATI9
89. ARTIFACT INVENTORY:
90. CURATION FACILITY:
91. ACCESSION NUMBER(S):
92. ACCESSION DA Hi (S):
93. OTHER CURATION FACILITY:
94. OTHER ACCESSION NUMBER(S):
95. OWNER/1ENANT INFORMATION:
96. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE #'S:
97. COM1VIENTS/NOTES:
Mr. and Mrs. Babington: 1408 Gaither Rd, Belmont NC
NC Arch. Site Form IV — Page 3

APPENDIX A APPENDICES

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS

APPENDIX A-3
SCOPING LETTER AND RESPONSES

Scoping Letter sent by NCDOT 04/09/03
Federal Agencies
• US Army Corps of Engineers 05/22/03
• US Environmental Protection Agency 03/01/07
• NCTA Letter to EPA Responding to the 03/01/07 Comments 05/04/07

State Agencies
• NCDENR Division of Soil and Water Conservation 04/25/03
• NCDENR Division of Environmental Health 05/01/03
• NC State Clearinghouse Department of Administration 05/01/03
• NCDOT Rail Division Engineering & Safety Branch 05/12/03
• NC Department of Cultural Resources State Historic
Preservation Office 05/14/03
• NCDENR Wildlife Resources Commission 05/15/03
• NCDENR Division of Water Quality 05/21/03
• NC Department of Administration 05/28/03
• NCDOT Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch 05/30/03

Local Agencies
• Town of Dallas 04/25/03
• Gaston County Quality of Natural Resources Commission 05/09/03
• Gaston County Department of Community Development and
Technology 05/09/03
• Gaston County Natural Resources Department 05/13/03
• Gaston Urban Area MPO 05/13/03
• Mecklenburg-Union MPO 05/15/03
• Mecklenburg County Land Use and Environmental
Services Agency Division of Air Quality 05/15/03
• Charlotte Department of Transportation 05/15/03
• York County, South Carolina Planning and Development Services 05/15/03
• City of Gastonia Engineering Department 05/16/03
• Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden 05/19/03

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
April 9, 2003
«Prefix» «First» «Mid» «Last», «Title»
«Company»
«Company2»
«Address»
«Address2»
«City», «State» «Zip»
Dear «Prefix» «Last»:
SUBJECT: Request for Comments for Gaston East-West Corridor Study,
TIP Project Number U-3321, Federal Aid Project No. STP-1213 (6),
State Project No. 8.2812501.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve east -west
transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia and other municipalities in
southern Gaston. County and western Mecklenburg County. The Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch has begun studying the proposed improvements to TIP Project
U-3321. The project is included in the 2002-2008 North Carolina Transportation Improvement
Program and is scheduled for right of way and construction post years (after 2008).
As part of this action, the NCDOT also proposes to improve mobility, access and connectivity
between southern Gaston County and Mecklenburg County, including improving access to the
Charlotte/Douglas International Airport, shopping and employment centers, and other
destinations in both counties.
The project study area is shown on the attached map. The area has the following general
boundaries: I-85 to the north, the South Carolina State line to the south, the Charlotte -Douglas
International Airport to the east, and the I-85 and US 29-74 junction to the west.
PBS&J is under contract with the NCDOT to assist in the environmental planning process for
this project. General alternatives that will be considered include the No -Build Alternative,
Transportation Management Alternatives, Multi -Modal Alternatives, Improve Existing
Roadways Alternatives, and New Location Alternatives.
Preliminary alternatives will be evaluated through the preparation of land suitability mapping, a
screening evaluation of existing human and natural environments, and an evaluation of the
ability of each alternative to meet the project's purpose and need.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WNW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

April 9, 2003
TIP Project U-3321
Page 2
Previous alternatives identified through the Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPO) thoroughfare planning process included several new location alternatives
in southern Gaston County. Sensitive environmental issues documented during the development
of these new location alternatives included the Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden and crossings of
the Catawba River and the South Fork of the Catawba River.
The purpose of this letter is to solicit input concerning the potential impacts of the proposed
project upon social, economic, demographic, land use, and environmental conditions in the
project study area. Please note there will be no formal interagency scoping meeting for this
project. This letter constitutes solicitation for scoping comments regarding this project and
notification of start of study.
To allow us to fully evaluate the impacts of the proposed project, please respond in writing by
May 16, 2003, concerning any sensitive resources in the project study area and/or beneficial or
adverse impacts of the proposed projects relating to the interest of your agency. • If applicable,
please identify any permits or approvals that may be required by your agency.
If you have any questions concerning these projects, please contact Ms. Kristina Solberg, P.E. of
the Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch at [phone], extension 310 or
Ms. Jill Gurak, P.E. of PBS&J at [phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Enclosures
cc: Jill Gurak -- PBS&J

Hi
g
h

S
h
o
a
l
s
St
a
n
l
e
y
Be
s
s
e
m
e
r

C
i
t
y
Ra
n
l
o
Cr
a
m
e
r
t
o
n
Lo
w
e
l
l
Be
l
m
o
n
t
Mt
.

H
o
l
l
y
Sp
e
n
c
e
r

M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
Sp
e
n
c
e
r

M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
Mc
A
d
e
n
v
i
l
l
e
Mt
.

H
o
l
l
y
Be
l
m
o
n
t
Lo
w
e
l
l
Cr
a
m
e
r
t
o
n
Ra
n
l
o
Be
s
s
e
m
e
r

C
i
t
y
St
a
n
l
e
y
Da
l
l
a
s
Ch
e
r
r
y
v
i
l
l
e
Ga
s
t
o
n
i
a
Ga
s
t
o
n
i
a

Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Charlotte
Cr
o
w
d
e
r
s
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
St
a
t
e
P
a
r
k
Charlotte-Douglas InternationalAirport
Da
n
i
e
l
S
t
o
w
e
Bo
t
a
n
i
c
a
l
G
a
r
d
e
n
Ga
ston County
York County, SC
Gaston County
Cleveland County
Lincoln County
Ga
ston County
G a s t o n C o u n t y
C l e v e l a n d C o u n t y
(/29 74
PROJECT LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1Mecklenburg County
Gaston County
CatawbaRiver
10
1
2
M
i
l
e
s
Ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
Co
u
n
t
y

B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
US

R
o
u
t
e
Hy
d
r
o
l
o
g
y
NC

R
o
u
t
e
LE
G
E
N
D
In
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
?r
?q
?ú
?s
?s
?t
?t
?ú
?õ
?õ ?è
?ë7
SN
E
W
?f
?r
?t
U-3321 GASTON and MECKLENBURG COUNTIES EAST-WEST CORRIDOR STUDY
?ú
?q
S o u t h F o r k
C a t a w b a R i v e r
.-,85
IN
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
FUTURE %&h(INTERSTATE
?ª12
5
5
?ª24
4
6
?ª24
5
7
?ª24
6
6 ?ª24
4
5
?ª12
5
5
?ª24
2
0
?ª11
3
6 ?ª24
2
0
?ª11
1
2
?ª11
1
2
?ª11
2
6
?ª11
2
6
?ª11
0
6
?ª11
3
3
?ª11
3
1
?ª11
3
6
?ª11
2
2
?ª13
3
4
IÂ
IÂIÂ
(/29 74
.-,85
IN
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
.-,85INTERSTATE .-,85INTERSTATE%&h(INTERSTATEFUTURE
?ª20
9
3
?ª20
4
0
?ª20
0
0
?ª20
5
0
?ª22
0
1
?ª25
6
0
?ì25
1
9
?q
?ª1448Kæ Kæ?k
(/29 74
(/29 74 ?ª1138
?ª23
0
2
?ã
?è16
1
?ª13
0
2
?ª13
0
2
?ª11
3
4
?ª1625
?ë7
?ª24
3
9
?ª24
3
5
?è16
1
C ata w b a C r e e k
Pa
r
k
?ª11
5
3
St
u
d
y

A
r
e
a

B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
C r o w d e r s C r e e k
07, ov
CESAW-RG-A May 22, 003
4
OrtSOS
Memorandum For Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Direct�' 4 p,CT r�
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
Subject: Gaston East-West Corridor Study, Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties, North
Carolina, TIP Project No. U-3321.
1. This memorandum is in response to your scoping letter request of April 9, 2003, for
comments on the subject study.
2. A Department of the Army permit will be required under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the US, including
wetlands, resulting from any new transportation related construction projects created
from the study, Impacts to regulated waters must be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practicable, with compensatory mitigation to be required for of
remaining unavoidable impacts. The location of many minor streams and wetlands in the
study area is unknown. At the earliest possible time, we recommend that a field -verified
determination of jurisdictional streams and wetlands be included in the information
gathering phase of the study to serve as a basis for additional planning and design
activities.
3. A Department of the Army permit will be required under Section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act for the dredging, excavation, discharge of dredged or fill material-, or
construction in navigable waters of the US, including various reaches and pools of the
Catawba River in this region. For example, the Corps' Section 10 regulatory jurisdiction
extends to the mean high pool elevation of +570 ft. MSL of Lake Wylie in the study area.
4. A significant element of the study plan should provide for an evaluation of secondary
and cumulative impacts of each alternative which is evaluated under TIP Project No. U-
3321. A study goal should specify that land use changes and associated urban growth
induced by the various alternatives considered must be demonstrated to be consistent
with, and not conflict with the purpose and need for U-3321. Providing a comprehensive
assessment of secondary and cumulative impacts would be essential to making that
demonstration.
5. If you have any questions, please contact me at telephone [phone], Ext. 7,
John W. Hendrix
Regulatory Project Manager
Asheville Regulatory Field Office

CF:
Scott McLendon, Chief, CESAW-RG-A
David Franklin, Team Leader, NCDOT Team, CESAW-RG

3aciev Srgy
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
`,•. z REGION 4
v ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
�4C PRCI Lrs$
March 1, 2007
Ms. Jennifer Harris, P.E.
North Carolina Turnpike Authority
1578 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1578
RE: USEPA Comments: Agency Scoping Comments
Gaston East-West Connector Toll Project; From 1-85 to Charlotte Outer Loop
Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties; TIP Project Number: U-3321
Dear Ms. Harris:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 Office has reviewed
the infotfnation dated January 25, 2007, from the North Carolina Turnpike Authority
(NCTA) for the proposed Gaston East-West Connector toll project. EPA understands
that the proposed facility is expected to be a 4-lane, divided highway that would be
connected to Interstate 85 west of Gastonia to the 1-485 Charlotte Outer Loop. There are
sixteen (16) detailed study alternatives with an estimated 11 to 12 interchanges proposed
between the two project termini. The total length of the proposed 4-lane, divided
highway is approximately 22.3 miles involving the major crossings at the South Fork of
the Catawba River and the Catawba River.
This project had been in the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), and Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) Section 404/NEPA Merger 01 process. From EPA's viewpoint under NEPA, it
is important to provide a historical perspective on this proposed project, as it was the first
`formal elevation' (Conflict/Dispute Resolution) under the Merger process to go to the 4-
agency Review Board. As you aware, several resource agencies were concerned that the
new locations alternatives by themselves did not meet the primary purpose and need,
including the relief of congestion and poor Level of Service (LOS) along major portions
of 1-85 and US 29/US 74.
EPA potentially has outstanding environmental concerns regarding the proposed
project as it relates to the original purpose and need signed by the Merger. agencies on
May 15, 2002, and the development of reasonable alternatives to meet the purpose and
need. EPA recognizes that the NCTA has developed a new (revised) purpose and need
statement but has retained the 16 new location alternatives that had been developed while
NCDOT was the lead State transportation agency.
Internet Address (UAL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Mlnimum 30% Postconsumer)

EPA's brief to the NCDOT Merger 01 Process Review Board dated September
27, 2004 is an enclosure to this scoping letter. Some of the same issues addressed in the
brief are still applicable to the NCTA's project development. However, EPA
acknowledges that the estimated cost has increased dramatically from earlier NCDOT's
estimates (i.e., between $600-$700 million) to NCTA's estimated cost: $715 million to
$1.525 billion (January 2007 dollars). EPA has not completed its review of the entire
Proposed Gaston East-West Connector Preliminary Traffic and Revenue Study, Final
Report, dated October 12, 2006. Some follow-up scoping comments may be provided to
FHWA and NCTA after the completion of this review. EPA acknowledges that NCTA
recommends phasing (3 phases) of the currently proposed project and that toll/no toll
options will be considered and addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS).
EPA has several primary environmental concerns that were previously identified
from past project scoping activities, Merger process information and NCTA's website
documents, including: potential direct impacts to waters of the U.S. (Jurisdictional
streams and wetlands, water quality), potential air quality impacts including Mobile
Source Air Toxics (MSATs), indirect and cumulative impacts to air and water quality
from the proposed project and other major regional projects, the potential inability to find
compensatory mitigation for jurisdictional impacts, potential impacts to terrestrial forests,
prime farmlands and other human and natural environment resources, and an inability of
the new facility to reduce congestion (and thereby improving air quality) along the 1-85
and US 29/US 74 corridors. Each of these environmental concerns is further discussed
below:
Purpose and Need/Detailed Study Alternatives
EPA has reviewed the purpose (and need) statements provided on NCTA's
website. EPA is concerned that the needs for some of these purposes have not been
clearly established, including the need for improving a high-speed, safe regional travel
'service along the US 29/US 74 intra-state corridor. The Interstate 85 and US 29/ US 74
corridors generally run parallel throughout the project study area. In some locations,
these two major regional facilities are within a % of a mile from each other in Gaston
County. From past land use development and the lack of facility access controls, US
29/US 74 no longer serves as a regional, high-speed facility. One of the primary
purposes of 1-85 multi -lane facility is to serve as the regional, high-speed facility between
western Gaston County and the Charlotte area. Without some improvements to I-85 and
nearby local connectors, EPA is concerned that the proposed new location Gaston East-
West connector will not fully address the congestion and poor LOS along the primary
east -west, high-speed route within Gaston County.
The 16 new locations alternatives carried forward from the NCDOT Merger 01
process are the same alternatives being considered by the NCTA and FHWA. For the
administrative record, EPA abstained from signing the concurrence form (CP 2) on
carrying forward these 16 detailed study alternatives. EPA primarily abstained because
NCDOT and FHWA would not consider a combination of alternatives, including new

location alternatives with `some' (limited) improve existing options along 1-85 and US
29/US 74. EPA is requesting that FHWA in close coordination with NCTA and NCDOT
reconsider some improvements to the existing regional facilities as a part of this overall
regional project.
In the report entitled, `Review Board Summary of the Evaluation of Improve
Existing Roadways Alternatives; Gaston County East-West Connector Study, dated June
10, 2005', there were issues brought forward that are still relevant to the proposed toll
facility. In Section 7.0 of this report, there were issues identified that indicated that
improving existing roadways (i.e., Scenarios 4, 4+, 4a and 8) would not meet the
project's original purposes and needs. However, EPA believes that the report failed to
address a combination of alternatives to address regional travel needs, including a new
location connector component with additional improvements to 1-85, US 29/US 74, and
north -south feeder roads. By itself, the new location connector was not forecasted to
substantially improve congestion along 1-85 and US 29/US 74 in the design year and that
a number of critical locations along these existing highways would continue to operate at
a LOS F+. The fact that the new connector is proposed as a potential toll facility only
reduces the likelihood that regional east -west travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg
Counties will substantially improve in the future.
The comprehensive land use plans of both Gaston and Mecklenburg County show
that southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County as high growth areas
(Section 6.2 of the above referenced report). Nonetheless, the entire area around
Charlotte could be equally described as high growth areas, including all the areas around
1-485, the Charlotte Outer Loop, east of Charlotte towards Mint Hill, southeast of
Charlotte towards Pineville, north of Charlotte towards Lake Norman along the Interstate
77 corridor, etc. The statement that the Catawba River forms a natural barrier between
southeastern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County is true. However, the
report does not address any consideration for improvements to the multi -lane bridges
over the Catawba River for 1-85 or US 29/US 74. EPA's primary concern is that the new
connector facility (toll or otherwise) is going to induce uncontrolled growth and
development south, southwest and west of Gastonia, induce travel demand, and
continue to place unreasonable burdens on local north -south feeder routes. A new east -
west connector will not address the poor LOS on a number of these routes, including NC
279, NC 274, and US 321. EPA believes that there is a potential misconception that all
of the future travel demand in the region will be between southeastern Gaston County and
western Mecklenburg County. While Charlotte is a major employment center, the new
east -west connector facility only addresses `typical commuting travel', and not the
numerous local trips to schools, shopping, religious facilities, etc., that will be in the
Gastonia area. Local 2-lane roadways such as NC 279 and NC 274 are not designed to
handle the future travel demands spurred by the proposed new connector. With a new
east -west connector and potentially induced development in the project study area (which
is predominantly rural in nature), the capacity of other vital services such as wastewater
treatment, water supply, electricity, etc., may also be impacted.

Clean Water Act Sections 401, 402 and 404
EPA requests that FHWA and NCTA fully consider and address in the NEPA
document the detailed study alternatives that avoid and minimize water quality impacts,
including direct and indirect and cumulative impacts to the streams, wetlands and riparian
areas within the project study area. A quantitative ICI analysis would be appropriate for
this project as it is expected to induce substantial vehicle travel as well as increase
development in rural portions of Gaston County. It is important to consider not only the
`typical' 300-foot right-of-way impacts but also the number and documented need for
free -flowing interchanges and toll collection facilities. The NEPA document should also
identify the specific traffic need for each of the 11 to 12 proposed interchanges as these
expanded right of way facilities typically cause the greatest impacts to streams (and
associated wetlands). Alternative design considerations, including Single -point Urban
Interchanges (SPUI) and `compressed clover -leafs' should be identified and discussed in
the EIS in order to reduce the right of way and construction footprint impacts. All
reasonable avoidance and minimization measures planned by the transportation agencies
need to be identified and evaluated in the EIS, including where applicable the reduction
of fill slopes and median widths at stream and wetland crossings. According to one of
the NCTA meetings, NCTA has identified approximately 300 separate jurisdictional
areas within the 16 new location corridors.
According to general file information, EPA understands that there are potential
impacts to Crowders Creek, Blackwood Creek, McGill Branch, Catawba Creek, the
South Fork of the Catawba River, the Catawba River (Lake Wylie) and numerous
unnamed tributaries to these watercourses. NCTA should consider bridging all major
stream systems as part of its efforts to avoid and minimize potential impacts to waters of
the U.S. Proposed bridge locations and lengths should be identified in the DEIS. From
past meeting conversations, EPA understands that the total linear feet of stream impacts
for some of the 16 alternatives may exceed 30,000 linear feet. This potential total impact
far exceeds a baseline average per mile of stream impact for this area of the state. NCTA
should also consider the elimination of interchanges and separate toll collecting plazas (2)
as part of its overall avoidance and minimization strategy. The proposed
interchange/ramp toll plaza proposed at Dixie River Road in Mecklenburg County near I-
485 is an example of an interchange that might be considered for modification or
elimination due to its close proximity to a nearby stream. Similarly, the two
interchanges/ramp toll plazas proposed between the ones proposed at US 321 and NC
274 and that are located at Wilson Road and Jarmian Road are also close to one another
and may need to be considered for elimination (From Figure 1-4, Preliminary Traffic and
Revenue Study; 9/5/06). In this area of Gaston County, US 321 and NC 274 are less than
4 miles apart with 4 proposed interchanges (combined with 3 toll plazas) between the two
existing roadways.
The EIS should also consider detailed compensatory mitigation for direct impacts
to jurisdictional streams and wetlands and provide a `conceptual plan' that includes
opportunities for on -site mitigation. Indirect and cumulative impacts to water quality
resulting from a new location facility need to be quantatively assessed in the DEIS,

including specific provisions and conditions for stormwater control. FHWA regulations
and policy allow for full mitigation of all project impacts, including indirect and
cumulative impacts. EPA requests that NCTA and FHWA fully explore all possible
methods of directly addressing mitigation for indirect and cumulative effects of the
proposed project, including long-term impacts to water quality. It should be noted that
opportunities for on -site mitigation or even off -site compensatory mitigation within this
hydrologic cataloguing unit (HUC) for stream impacts may be very difficult to find.
Considering the width of both the South Fork of the Catawba River and the
Catawba River near the eastern termini of the proposed toll facility, the NCTA and
FHWA should consider the new crossing alternatives that are perpendicular to these
major rivers in order to minimize impacts to the floodplain and associated riparian areas.
NCTA will be required to obtain a CWA Section 402 NPDES (National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System) stormwater permit as well as the CWA Section 401 water
quality certification from NCDWQ.
Clean Air Act
As identified in the NCTA's start of study and soaping meeting notification, the
proposed project study area is within the Charlotte -Gastonia -Rock Hill 8-hour non -
attainment area for ozone. EPA requests that a detailed analysis and disclosure be
conducted regarding air conformity requirements for the combined Gaston East-West
Connector project. As part of this analysis, the NCTA may also need to consider the
potential cumulative effects to air quality from the Monroe Bypass and Connector
projects (R-3329 and R-2559), which is another potentially large NCTA candidate
project, as well as other NCDOT TIP projects proposed in Mecklenburg, Union and
Gaston counties (e.g., R-2248E, R-2248F, R-4902, R-3101, R-2632A, U-2507, U-3603,
U-3633, etc.).
This proposed NCTA project might also be a `pilot' for a full quantitative analysis
for Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) that are required to be analyzed under Section
202 of the Clean Air Act and are more fully addressed in the Final Rule on Controlling
Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (66 Federal Register 17229;
3/29/2001).
FHWA's recently provided NCTA with a presentation on its interim guidance for
MSATs. There are several technical issues that EPA may be in disagreement with
FHWA, including the threshold criteria for performing a quantitative assessment and the
available methods (i.e., Modeling) for performing an analysis.
Because of proposed expansion plans at Charlotte -Douglas International Airport
(CDU), including substantial increased freight capacity, EPA believes that a more
`robust' analysis needs to be conducted, including an MSAT indirect and cumulative
impact analysis. It is clear that the proposed east -west connector would service the
CDU's proposed expansion plans (Page 14 of the Review Board Summary, 6/10/05).
This quantitative MSAT analysis might include the development of an emissions

inventory, obtaining 'near -roadside' baseline monitoring data, an evaluation of the
potential health impacts (including cancer risk estimates based upon published values) for
the different detailed study alternatives, and the increased emissions projected from
additional diesel equipment and aircraft.at CDU. The analysis should include the
identification of existing and potential 'near -roadside' sensitive receptors, such as day
care facilities, nursing homes, hospitals, etc. Please feel free to contact Dr. Kenneth L.
Mitchell or one of his staff within the EPA Region 4's Air Taxies Assessment and
Implementation Section at mitchell.kenaepa.gov or by telephone at 404-562-9065 for
further guidance on performing a technically -sound, project specific analysis for the 21
MSAT compounds that are found for highway projects. Attached to this letter is an
alternative method that NCTA and FHWA may want to consider in performing a
technically defensible MSAT analysis for this project.
Prime Farmlands
EPA notes NCTA's comment in the start of study letter and also recognizes that
the project study area and surrounding areas near Charlotte are going through a land use
change from rural/agricultural to suburban. EPA recommends that NCTA perform a full
analysis on how the different alternatives (with emphasis on the new location
alternatives) will also effect land use changes and conversions of prime agricultural land
to non-agricultural uses. The DEIS should also specifically address the direct impacts to
prime farmland from potentially 22-miles of new right-of-way (e.g., A new 300-foot
ROW facility permanently converts/impacts 36.4 acres per mile of highway, not
including interchanges, toll facilities, rest areas, etc., that are typically expanded beyond
300 feet and the ROW can be as much as 1,000 feet at interchanges). This direct loss of
agricultural crop production can have a long-term and compounded effect on a regional
economy. Furthermore, the 1981 Farmland Protection Policy Act requires that Federal
agencies provide for avoidance and minimization measures to prime farmlands {the term
in this context refers to prime farmlands which includes prime and unique farmlands as
well as farmlands classified as of being of Statewide and locally significant}. FHWA
and NCTA should clearly identify what avoidance and minimization measures were
considered in the development of detailed study alternatives. In performing a prime
farmland analysis, it is also important to consider what prime farmland soils are actually
zoned for development uses versus what is planned for development. Generic land use
plan designations that change current prime farmlands to development uses need to be
considered as part of the prime farmlands impacted by the proposed project.

Historic and Archeological Properties
The DEIS should fully address the eighteen (18) potential historic properties.
identified along the new location alternatives as well as any archeological sites. EPA
understands that the preliminary archeological survey will be competed in the near future
and recommends that it be done in close coordination with the NC Dept. of Cultural
Resources.
Other Potential NEPA `Cross -cutters'
The NCTA should consider some of other potential NEPA `Cross -cutters' in the
DEIS, including Executive Order 13112 on Invasive Species and requirements under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act (MBTRA) of 2004. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) should be consulted regarding an analysis of avian Federal Species of
Concern (FSOC) and potential requirements and considerations under MBTRA.
Similarly, NCTA and FHWA should consult with FWS regarding Bald eagles
(Haltaeetus leucocephalus) concerning requirements under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended. According
to a recent NCTA meeting, Bald eagle nests may be located within the project study area
near the Catawba River.
Should you have any questions concerning specific Clean Water Act
requirements, including stream and wetland mitigation issues, please feel free to contact
Ms. Kathy Matthews at [phone]. Should you have any other questions about
these comments please feel free to contact the EPA Merger Team Representative
Christopher Militscher at [phone].
Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
NEPA Program Office
wiAttachment and Enclosure
Cc: Clarence Coleman, FHWA
Scott McLendon, USACE
John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Brian Cole, USFWS

Attachment
Gaston East-West Connector
Project Scoping Comments
Alternative MSAT Analysis
FHWA and NCTA may wish to consider an alternative approach to performing a
technically defensible MSAT analysis using real baseline air sampling data. FHWA's
interim guidance includes three general levels of analysis, including "No analysis for
projects with no potential for MSAT effects", a "Qualitative analysis for projects with
low potential MSAT effects" and a "Quantitative analysis to differentiate alternatives for
projects with higher potential MSAT effects". Furthermore, FHWA's interim guidance
highlights several possible scenarios whereby a proposed project would require a
quantitative assessment for projects with higher potential MSAT effects. EPA believes
that for a portion of the proposed Gaston East-West Connector facility, there is a higher
potential for MSAT effects in eastern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County,
especially in consideration of the Charlotte -Douglas International Airport proposed
freight expansion facilities. Increased truck traffic, diesel equipment, aircraft flights and
other near road sources of MSATs could present a cumulative impact on air quality
considering that the Gaston East-West Connector would service a substantial portion of
the increased freight capacity and increased truck and commuter traffic.
While air modeling is an essential tool in performing any type of air quality
analysis, air models still require validation and calibration based upon actual
concentrations of pollutants, or in this case, MSATs. There is current uncertainty in the
regulated community (Lead Federal Agencies such as FHWA, FAA, etc.) on which air
models will provide reliable quantitative MSAT results.
EPA has performed reliable and accurate sampling and analysis of MSATs and
other toxic air compounds for more than a decade. FHWA and NCTA possess current
data on Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes as well as potential projected
AADT levels for the design year. FHWA and NCTA can also accurately predict what the
current and future projected truck traffic increases might be for the new connector
facility. By taking baseline air samples for the "primary MSATs" that FHWA has
identified at vulnerable populations (e.g., Schools, nursing homes, hospitals, day care
facilities, etc.; FHWA Intermin Guidance, 2114/07), along several alternatives, a
`proportional analysis' can be reasonably made. The following proportion can be used to
calculate future MSAT concentrations at `vulnerable' or sensitive receptor location at
near roadway (within several hundred feet) conditions:
Current AADT : Baseline Y Concentration for MSAT B = Future AADT* : Future Z
Concentration for MSAT B
where,
Y is expressed in parts per million (ppm) or parts per billion (ppb) or milligrams or
3)r
micrograms per cubic meter of air (mglm3 or uglm.

B is the specific air toxic compound sampled and analyzed for at 'near road conditions'.
Z is the future concentration of the air toxic compound expressed in ppm, ppb, mg/m3 or
ug/m3
* Future AADTs may be adjusted to account for increased projected percentages of truck
traffic.
The future Z concentration (for probable or known cancer -causing MSATs:
Benzene, I,3-butadienne, Acetaldehyde, Formaldehyde, Benzo[a]pyrene) can then be
compared to EPA published slope cancer risk concentrations to determine the
`probability' of increase (or decrease) in potential near road cancers resulting from the
new facility from a particular alternative. Projected increases in cancer exceeding certain
probabilities of risk (e.g., 1 x 103) may require the Lead Federal Agency (e.g., FHWA) to
consider possible project specific avoidance and minimization measures (e.g., Placing a
noise wall near a nursing home — this barrier can potentially carry MSATs above the
`breathing zone') or actual mitigation (e.g., Relocate the nursing home).
Without identifying sensitive (FHWA's vulnerable) receptors and obtaining
accurate baseline air sampling data on `average or worst -case meteorological conditions',
air models by themselves may not be the most reliable method of predicting future
conditions, especially considering the highly varied localized effects of topography, fixed
emissions sources, etc. FHWA has developed sophisticated traffic forecasting models
that should reduce a great deal of the "guess work" on what future AADT volumes will.
be along a given alternative corridor. The proportional calculation as shown above is
possibly the most accurate and reliable means available to develop a technically -sound
MSAT quantitative analysis.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that all project impacts
be identified that are 'reasonably foreseeable'. The direct, indirect and cumulative
impact from the expanded CDU airport freight facility is understood by EPA to be
reasonably foreseeable. FHWA, NCDOT and its consultant identified this expanded
freight facility in conjunction with the purpose and need for the Gaston East-West
Connector facility when NCDOT was the lead state transportation agency. Future EPA
regulations or legally enforceable requirements for cleaner fuels, advanced emission
control technologies, etc., are not believed by EPA to be `reasonably foreseeable as
mitigating factors to reduce or minimize MSAT effects to vulnerable populations.
Future regulations or market -based voluntary emission reductions from mobile sources
may or may not occur within the design life of many proposed highway projects.
Should NCTA have any questions concerning this alternative MSAT quantitative
analysis approach and its technical validity, please feel free to contact EPA's Christopher
Militscher or FHWA's Mr. Eddie Dancausse at [phone] x112.
To covert concentrations in air (at 25°C) from ppm to mg/m3: mg/m3 = (ppm) x
(molecular weight of the compound)/24.45; For example, Acrolein: 1 ppm = 2.29 ing/m3

MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
SPIKE AUTHORITY
1578 Mn.ASERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1578 DAVID W. JOYNER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
May 4, 2007
Mr. Heinz J. Mueller
Chief, NEPA Program Office
US Environmental Protection Agency — Region 4
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303.896o
RE: Gaston East-West Connector — TIP Project U-3321.
Dear Mr. Mueller,
Thank you for your letter dated March 1, 2ao7 regarding the Gaston East-West
Connector project. We have reviewed your comments and offer the following
attached table in response.
Please note that at this time, the North Carolina Turnpike Authority has not decided
to remove the Gaston East-West Connector project from the Section 4o4/NEPA
Merger o1 process.
If you have additional questions, please contact me at 919-571-3004.
Sincerely,
nnifer Harris, P.E.
NC Turnpike Authority
cc: Clarence Coleman -- FHWA
Scott McLendon — USACE
John Hennessy — NCDENR-DWQ
Brian Cole - USFWS
NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY
TELEPHONE: [phone] FAX: [phone]

Gaston East-West Connector (U-3321)
Response to March 1, 2007 Letter From H. Mueller — US EPA
May 4, 2007
Responses to Letter from H. Mueller — US EPA — Dated March 1, 2007
Page 2 of 10
Page -
Paragraph
COMMENT
ACTION/RESPONSE
SECTION 1 OF LETTER (NO HEADING)
1 - 1
EPA understands that the proposed facility is
expected to be a 4-lane, divided highway that
would be connected to Interstate 85 west of
Gastonia to thel-485 Charlotte Outer Loop.
The ultimate basic number of lanes included in the
preliminary roadway designs of the new location
alternatives will be determined based on the design
year 2030 traffic forecasts. The target LOS for the
desns is LOS D or better.
1 _2
As you are aware, several resource agencies
were concerned that the new Iocations
alternatives by themselves did not meet the
primary purpose and need, including the relief
of congestion and poor Level of Service (LOS)
along major portions of I-85 and US 29/US 74.
The primary purposes of the project are to improve
mobility, access and connectivity in southern
Gaston County and between southern Gaston
County and Mecklenburg County. The second
purpose is to reduce congestion and improve traffic
flow on sections of I-85, US 29/US 74 and US 321
in the project study area. Concurrence Point 1
(Purpose and Need) was signed on July 24, 2002.
The new location alternatives best meet the project
purposes and needs,
1 - 3
EPA recognizes that the NCTA has developed
a new (revised) purpose and need statement but
has retained the 16 new location alternatives
that had been developed while NCDOT was the
lead State transportation agency.
The NCTA has not developed a new (revised)
purpose and need statement. However, NCTA may
update some supporting information in the purpose
and need prior to publication in the Draft EIS.
However, it is not expected that the primary
element regarding the need to improve mobility,
access and connectivity in southern Gaston County
and between southern Gaston County and
Mecklenburg County would change.
2 - 1
EPA acknowledges that the estimated cost has
increased dramatically from earlier NCDOT's
estimates (i.e. between $600-$700 million) to
NCTA's estimated cost: $715 million to
$1.525 billion (January 2007 doIlars).
The current estimate of project costs are between
$745 M to $1,595 M (April 2007 dollars). Project
costs are higher than previous NCDOT
estimates due to the inclusion of design costs, toll
facilities, updated ROW estimates, construction cost
increases and construction administration costs.
2 - 1
EPA acknowledges that NCTA recommends
phasing (3 phases) of the currently proposed
project and that toll/no toll options will be
considered and addressed in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).
Phasing relates to construction of the project. The
ultimate project from 1-85 west of Gastonia to 1-485
in Mecklenburg County will be evaluated in the
DEIS. Toll options will be considered and
addressed in the DEIS.
2 - 2
EPA has several primary environmental
concerns....including:
.......
potential direct impacts to waters of the U.S.
Direct impacts to waters of the US will be reported
in the DEIS. They will be based on the preliminary
engineering designs and field -delineated waters of
the US.
potential air quality impacts including
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs)
Air quality impacts will be addressed in accordance
with FHWA guidance.
indirect and cumulative impacts to air and
water quality
An indirect and cumulative effects assessment will
be performed for the project and reported in the
DEIS.

Gaston East-West Connector (U-3321)
Response to March 1„ 2007 Letter From H. Mueller — US EPA
May 4, 2007
Responses to Letter from H. Mueller — US EPA — Dated March 1, 2007
Page 3 of 10
Page -
Paragraph
COMMENT
ACTION/RESPONSE
potential inability to find compensatory
mitigation for jurisdictions impacts
NCTA is coordinating with the Ecosystem
Enhancement Program regarding mitigation needs.
NCTA will obtain all required permits prior to
construction.
potential impacts to terrestrial forests
Direct impacts to biotic communities present
within the preliminary design right of way within
the Detailed Study Alternatives will be calculated
and reported in the DEIS. The indirect and
cumulative effects study will address indirect and
cumulative impacts to natural resources.
prime farmlands
The evaluation of impacts to prime farmlands will
be conducted in accordance with the Farmland
Protection Policy Act (FPPA) and reported in the
DEIS.
inability of the new facility to reduce
congestion (and thereby improving air
quality) along the 1-85 and US 29/US 74
corridors.
A new location facility, designed for LOS D or
better in 2030, will provide a less congested
alternate route for the 1-85 and US 29/US 74
corridors. Improving air quality specifically along
the I-851US 29/US 74 corridor is not a purpose of
the proposed project.
The region's air quality conformity determination
includes the Gaston East-West Connector. The air
quality conformity document is titled: Conformity
Analysis and Determination Report for the
Cabarrus-Rowan MPO, the Gaston Urban Area
MPO, and the Mecklenburg -Union MPO 2030 Long
Range Transportation Plans and the FY 2004-2010
Transportation Improvement Programs and for
Non-MPO Areas of Lincoln County, Iredell County,
Gaston County, and Union County areas (8-Hour
Ozone, and CO (Mecklenburg County Only) (June
2005).
SECTION TITLED - PURPOSE AND NEED/DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES
2-3
EPA is concerned that the needs for some of
these purposes have not been clearly
established, including the need for improving a
high-speed, safe regional travel service along
the US 29/US 74 intra-state corridors...
Without some improvements to I-85 and
nearby local connectors, EPA is concerned that
the proposed new location Gaston East-West
connector will not fully address the congestion
and poor LOS along the primary east -west,
high-speed route within Gaston County.
A new Iocation facility, designed for LOS D or
better in 2030, will provide a less congested
alternate route for the I-85 and US 29/US 74
corridors.
Concurrence Point I on purpose and need was
signed in July 2002. Several different alternatives
that improved existing I-85 and US 29/US 74 were
evaluated (Scenarios 4+, 4a, and 8), but were
eliminated from detailed study. These included
widening 1-85 to 8 to 10 lanes. Scenario 8 also
included improvements to north -south feeder roads
connecting to I-85. These alternatives were
eliminated because they could not meet the primary
need of providing connectivity in southern Gaston

Gaston East-West Connector (U 3321)
Response to March 1, 2007 Letter From N. Mueller — US EPA
May 4, 2007
Responses to Letter from H. Mueller — US EPA — Dated March 1, 2007
Page 4 of 10
Page -
Paragraph
2-4 and 3-2
COMMENT
EPA primarily abstained [from concurrence
point 21 because NCDOT and FHWA would
not consider a combination of alternatives,
including new location alternatives with `some'
(limited) improve existing options along I-85
and US 29/US 74. EPA is requesting that
FHWA in close coordination with NCTA and
NCDOT reconsider some improvements to the
existing regional facilities as a part of this
overall regional project.
EPA believes that the report failed to address a
combination of alternatives to address regional
travel needs, including a new location
connector component with additional
improvements to 1-85, US 29/US 74, and north -
south feeder roads. By itself, the new location
connector was not forecasted to substantially
improve congestion along 1-85 and
US 29/US 74 in the design year and that a
number of critical locations along these
existing highways would continue to operate at
a LOS F+.
ACTIONIRESPONSE
County and between southern Gaston County and
Mecklenburg County. They were also eliminated
because they would have environmental and
engineering issues that would make them not
reasonable for this project and they would not be
consistent with local transportation plans.
A full range of alternatives was considered. Three
Improve Existing Roadway Alternative scenarios
were evaluated, including Scenario 8, which
involved improvements to I-85, US 29/US 74 and
north/south feeder roads. The demand for travel
across the Catawba River between Gaston and
Mecklenburg Counties is high. According to the
travel demand model used during development of
the purpose and need and alternatives, year 2025
average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on I-85 under
the No -Build scenario were up to 164,000 ADT at
the Catawba River crossing. This required
widening to at least 10 lanes to achieve LOS D. A
review of the potential impacts to this widening
concluded it would not be a reasonable alternative
for the proposed project.
Since that time, a new regional travel demand
model, the Metrolina Model, was developed. This
model was used to project year 2030 traffic. Using
this updated and expanded model, year 2030 traffic
volumes on I-85 in the No -Build scenario are
projected to be up to 220,000 ADT. A freeway 12
lanes wide would carry this volume of traffic at
LOS DIE.
3-2
3-3
The fact that the new connector is proposed as
a potential toll facility only reduces the
likelihood that regional east -west travel
between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties
will substantially improve in the future.
The statement that the Catawba River forms a
natural barrier between southeastern Gaston
County and western Mecklenburg county is
true. However, the report [Review Board
Summary of the Evaluation of Improve
Existing Roadways Alternatives, dated June 10,
2005] does not address any consideration for
improvements to the multi -lane bridges over
the Catawba River for I-85 or US 29/US 74,
A new location facility designed to operate at
LOS D or better under 2030 non -toll traffic
forecasts will substantially improve east -west travel
between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties
regardless of whether it is built as a toll or non -toll
facility.
The Review Board Summary addressed specific
issues that the Review Board requested additional
information on. Improve Existing Roadway
Alternative Scenarios 4a and 8 included widening
of I-85 to 10 Ianes from Exit 19 (Ozark Avenue) in
Gaston County to Exit 29 (1-485) in Mecklenburg
County, The 1-85 bridges over the Catawba River
currently accommodate 8 lanes, so widening of
these bridges was included in Scenarios 4a and 8.

Gaston East-West Connector (U-3321)
Response to March 1, 2007 Letter From H. Mueller — US EPA
May 4, 2007
Responses to Letter from H. Mueller — US EPA — Dated March 1, 2007
Page S of 10
Page -
Paragraph
3-3
COMMENT
ACTION/RESPONSE
EPA's primary concern is that the new
connector facility (toll or otherwise) is going to
induce uncontrolled growth and development
south, southwest, and west of Gastonia, induce
travel demand, and continue to place
unreasonable burdens on local north -south
feeder routes.
An indirect and cumulative impact assessment will
be prepared for the project. The assessment will be
summarized in the DEIS.
3-3
3-3
3-3
3-3
A new east -west connector will not address the
poor LOS on a number of these routes,
including NC 279, NC 274, and US 321.
EPA believes that there is a potential
misconception that all of the future travel
demand in the region will be between
southeastern Gaston County and western
Mecklenburg County....the new east -west
connector facility only addresses `typical
commuting travel', and not the numerous local
trips to schools, shopping, religious facilities,
etc., that will be in the Gastonia area.
Local 2-lane roadways such as NC 279 and NC
274 are not designed to handle the future travel
demands spurred by the proposed new
connector.
With a new east -west connector and potentially
induced development the capacity of other
vital services such as wastewater treatment,
water supply, electricity, etc., may also be
impacted.
The construction of the Gaston East-West
Connector will not, nor is it meant to, solve all the
transportation needs, issues and problems present or
anticipated in Gaston County. The Gaston Urban
Area MPO's Long Range Transportation Plan is the
document that identifies and prioritizes
transportation projects in the MPO area over a
25-year period.
See previous response directly above.
The cross streets at interchanges will be widened
through the interchange area to accommodate
projected 2030 peak hour traffic. Beyond this area,
any additional improvements to the cross street
would be performed as separate projects.
An indirect and cumulative impact assessment will
be prepared for the project and summarized in the
DEIS.
SECTION TITLED - CLEAN WATER ACT SECTIONS 401, 402, AND 404
4-1
EPA requests that FHWA and NCTA fully
consider and address in the NEPA document
the detailed study alternatives that avoid and
minimize water quality impacts, including
direct and indirect and cumulative impacts to
the streams, wetland and riparian areas within
the project study area.
In accordance with the NEPA and FHWA guidance,
the FHWA and NCTA will consider all alternatives
that meet the project's purpose and need and are
reasonable and practicable to implement. Direct
impacts to water resources from these detailed study
alternatives will be minimized, as much as
practicable, during preliminary design, and the
impacts will be reported in the DEIS. Indirect and
cumulative impacts to streams, wetlands, and
riparian areas will be evaluated in the indirect and
cumulative effects assessment, and will be reported
in the DEIS. Any studies required to obtain a
Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be
conducted at the appropriate time to obtain the
certification.

Gaston East-West Connector (U-3321)
Response to March 1, 2007 Letter From IL Mueller — US EPA
May 4, 2007
Responses to Letter from H. Mueller — US EPA — Dated March 1, 2007
Page 6of10
Page -
Paragraph
COMMENT
ACTION/RESPONSE
4-1
A quantitative ICI analysis would be
appropriate for this project as it is expected to
induce substantial vehicle travel as well as
increase development in rural portions of
Gaston County.
The indirect and cumulative impact assessment that
wiII be prepared for the project and summarized in
the DEIS will follow NCDOT and FHWA
guidelines for these types of studies. If a
quantitative analysis is warranted based on the
guidelines, it will be conducted at the appropriate
time.
4-1
The NEPA document should also identify the
specific traffic need for each of the 11 to 12
interchanges as these....typically cause the
greatest impacts to streams (and associated
wetlands).
Traffic volumes at each interchange location will be
reported in the DEIS. The currently proposed
interchange locations were identified by the Gaston
Urban Area MPO in their Long Range
Transportation Plan. After a Preferred Alternative
is selected, these interchanges will be reviewed to
determine which, if any, could be eliminated. The
FEIS will document this evaluation.
4-1
Alternative design considerations, including
Single -point Urban Interchanges (SPUI) and
`compressed clover -leafs' should be identified
and discussed in the EIS in order to reduce the
right of way and construction footprint impacts.
During the development of the preliminary
engineering designs for each Detailed Study
Alternative, a preliminary interchange configuration
will be selected to be included in the preliminary
designs that takes into account traffic projections
and traffic operations as well as presence of human
and natural resources.
4-1
All reasonable avoidance and minimization
measures planned by the transportation
agencies need to be identified and evaluated in
the EIS, including where applicable the
reduction of fill slopes and median widths at
stream and wetland crossings.
Avoidance and minimization will be addressed.
4-2
NCTA should consider bridging all major
stream systems as part of its efforts to avoid
and minimize potential impacts to waters of the
U.S.
The NCTA will provide bridges at all stream
crossings that require a bridge for hydraulic
purposes. Additional bridges will be considered on
a case by case basis, with input from the resource
agencies during the Turnpike Environmental
Agency Coordination Meetings.
4-2
Proposed bridge locations should be identified
in the DEIS.
Proposed bridge locations will be identified in the
DEIS.
4-2
From past meeting conversations, EPA
understands that the total linear feet of stream
impacts for some of the 16 alternatives may
exceed 30,000 linear feet. This potential total
impact far exceeds a baseline average per mile
of stream impact for this area of the state.
Previous stream impact calculations were based on
available GIS databases. Wetland and stream field
delineations for all Detailed Study Alternatives
were completed in early March. Those
delineations, together with preliminary designs, will
be used to calculate wetland and stream impacts.
These impact estimates will be reported in the
DEIS.

Gaston East-West Connector (U-3321)
Response to March 1, 2007 Letter From H. Mueller — US EPA
May 4, 2007
Responses to Letter from H. Mueller — US EPA — Dated March 1, 2007
Page 7 of 10
Page -
Paragraph
COMMENT
ACTION/RESPONSE
4-2
NCTA should also consider the elimination of
interchanges and separate toll collecting plazas
(2) as part of its overall avoidance and
minimization strategy.
Interchanges (and their potential elimination) and
the locations of toll collection facilities will be
reviewed in detail for the Preferred Alternative.
Based on this review, the preliminary designs will
be revised, if necessary, and the revised designs
(and revised impacts) will be reported in the Final
EIS.
4-2
The proposed interchange/ramp toll plaza
proposed at Dixie River Road.....is an example
of an interchange that might be considered for
modification or elimination due to its close
proximity to a nearby stream.
The Dixie River Road interchange is the only
service interchange in Mecklenburg County and
likely will not be eliminated. During preliminary
design for the DEIS, the interchange configuration
will be evaluated and impacts minimized where
feasible.
4-2
...the two interchanges/ramp toll plazas
proposed between the ones proposed at US 321
and NC 274.... are also close to one another
and may need to be considered for elimination.
Interchanges (and their potential elimination) and
the locations of toll collection facilities will be
reviewed in detail for the Preferred Alternative.
Based on this review, the preliminary designs will
be revised, if necessary, and the revised designs
(and revised impacts) will be reported in the Final
EIS.
4-3
The EIS should also consider detailed
compensatory mitigation for direct impacts to
jurisdictional streams and wetlands and provide
a `conceptual plan' that includes opportunities
for on -site mitigation.
NCTA is coordinating with the Ecosystem
Enhancement Program regarding mitigation needs.
4-3
Indirect and cumulative impacts to water
quality resulting from a new location facility
need to be quantitatively assessed in the DEIS,
including specific provisions and conditions for
stormwater control.
The indirect and cumulative impact assessment that
will be prepared for the project and summarized in
the DEIS will follow NCDOT and FHWA
guidelines for these types of studies. If a
quantitative analysis is warranted based on the
guidelines, it will be conducted at the appropriate
time.
5-1
FHWA regulations and policy allow for full
mitigation of all project impacts, including
indirect and cumulative impacts. EPA requests
that NCTA and FHWA fully explore all
possible methods of directly addressing
mitigation for indirect and cumulative effects
of the proposed project, including long-term
impacts to water quality.
The indirect and cumulative impact assessment that
will be prepared for the project will follow NCDOT
and FHWA guidelines for these types of studies.
NCTA is following NCDOT's practice on not
mitigating for indirect and cumulative impacts.
5-1
It should be noted that opportunities for on -site
mitigation or even off site compensatory
mitigation within this hydrologic cataloguing
unit (HUC) for stream impacts may be very
difficult to find.
Comment noted. The NCTA is coordinating with
the EEP on mitigation needs.

Gaston East-West Connector (U-3321)
Response to March 1, 2007 Letter From H. Mueller — US EPA
May 4, 2007
Responses to Letter from H. Mueller US EPA — Dated March 1, 2007
Page 8 of 10
Page -
Paragraph
5-2
5-2
COMMENT
....the NCTA and FHWA should consider the
new crossing alternatives that are perpendicular
to these major rivers [Catawba and South Fork
Catawba]. in order to minimize impacts...
NCTA will be required to obtain a CWA
Section 402 NPDES (National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System) stormwater
permit as well as the CWA Section 401 water
quality certification from NCDWQ.
SECTION TITLED — CLEAN AIR ACT
ACTION/RESPONSE
The locations of the major river crossings were a
factor in the development of the study corridors.
With consideration of other factors such as the
presence of tributaries, subdivisions, and other
resources, the major river crossings were located to
cross as close to perpendicular as possible and in
more narrow locations where possible.
NCTA will obtain all required permits at the
appropriate times in the project development and
construction process.
5-3
EPA requests that a detailed analysis and
disclosure be conducted regarding air
conformity requirements for the combined
Gaston East-West Connector project. As part
of this analysis, the NCTA may also need to
consider the potential cumulative effects to air
quality from the Monroe Bypass and Connector
projects...as well as other NCDOT TIP
projects proposed in Mecklenburg, Union, and
Gaston Counties.
The latest air quality conformity determination for
the region (dated June 2005) includes the entire
Metrolina nonattainment area (Conformity Analysis
and Determination Report for the Cabarrus-Rowan
MPO, the Gaston Urban Area MPO, and the
Mecklenburg -Union MPO 2030 Long Range
Transportation Plans and the FY 2004-2010
Transportation Improvement Programs and for
Non-MPO Areas of Lincoln County, Iredell
County, Gaston County, and Union County areas
(8-Hour Ozone, and CO (Mecklenburg County
Only))).
The conformity determination "demonstrates that
the financially constrained Long Range
Transportation Plan and the Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) eliminates or reduces
violations of the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) in the nonattainment area that
includes:
• The Cabarrus-Rowan Metropolitan Planning
Organization (CRMPO);
• The Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization (GUAMPO);
• The Mecklenburg -Union Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MUMPO);
• The portion of the Lake Norman Rural Planning
Organization in Western Gaston County, Lincoln
County, and Southern iredell County; and
• The portion of the Rocky River Rural Planning
Organization in Eastern and Southern Union
County.
The plan accomplishes the intent of the North
Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP). This
conformity determination is based on a regional

Gaston East-West Connector (U-3321)
Response to March 1, 2007 Letter From H. Mueller — US EPA
May 4, 2007
Responses to Letter from H. Mueller — US EPA — Dated March 1, 2007
Page 9of10
Page -
Paragraph
COMMENT
ACTION/RESPONSE
emissions analysis that uses the transportation
network approved by each of the above -named
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and
Rural Planning Organizations (RPOs) for the 2030
long-range transportation plan..."
5-4
5-5
5-6
This proposed NCTA project might also be a
`pilot' for a full quantitative analysis for
MSATs (mobile source air toxics) that are
required to be analyzed under Section 202 of
the Clean Air Act.
There are several technical issues that EPA
may be in disagreement with FHWA, including
the threshold criteria for performing a
quantitative assessment and the available
methods (i.e., Modeling) for performing an
analysis.
Because of proposed expansion plans at
Charlotte -Douglas International Airport
(CDU), including substantial increased freight
capacity, EPA believes that a more `robust'
analysis needs to be conducted, including an
MSAT indirect and cumulative impact analysis.
It is clear the proposed east -west connector
would service the CDU's proposed expansion
plans.
Comment noted. NCTA will follow FHWA
guidelines in determining whether the project
qualifies as one that requires a full quantitative
MSAT analysis.
6-1
Please feel free to contact Dr. Kenneth L.
Mitchell or one of his staff within EPA Region
4's Air Toxics Assessment and Implementation
Section...,for further guidance on performing a
technically -sound, project specific analysis for
the 21 MSAT compounds that are found for
highway projects.
Contact information noted.
SECTION TITLED — PRIME FARMLANDS
6-2
EPA recommends that NCTA perform a full
analysis on how the different alternatives (with
emphasis on the new location alternatives) will
also affect land use changes and conversions of
prime agricultural land to non-agricultural uses.
An indirect and cumulative impact assessment will
be prepared for the project and will assess land use.
6-2
The DEIS should also specifically address the
direct impact to prime farmland.
The DEIS will include an estimate of direct impacts
to prime farmlands in accordance with the Farmland
Protection Policy Act (FPPA), in coordination with
the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS).

Gaston East-West Connector (U-3321}
Response to March I, 2007 Letter From H. Mueller — US EPA
May 4, 2007
Responses to Letter from H. Mueller — US EPA — Dated March 1, 2007
Page 10 of 10
Page -
Paragraph
6-2
COMMENT
FHWA and NCTA should clearly identify what
avoidance and minimization measures were
considered in the development of detailed study
alternatives.
ACTION/RESPONSE
Avoidance and minimization measures used during
the alternatives development and evaluation process
is documented in the alternatives report and this
information will be summarized in the DEIS.
6-2
In performing a prime farmland analysis, it is
also important to consider what prime farmland
soils are actually zoned for development uses
versus what is planned for development.
Generic land use plan designations that change
current prime farmlands to development uses
need to be considered as part of the prime
farmlands impacted by the proposed project.
NCTA would like further clarification regarding
this comment in order to respond.
SECTION TITLED — HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL PROPERTIES
7-1
The DEIS should fully address the eighteen
(18) potential historic properties identified
along the new location alternatives as well as
any archeological sites.
The NCTA and FHWA will coordinate with the
State Historic Preservation Office and will address
historic and archaeological resources in accordance
with Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act
and Section 4(f).
SECTION TITLED — OTHER POTENTIAL NEPA `CROSS -CUTTERS'
7-2
The NCTA should consider.,. in the
DEIS...Executive Order 13112 on Invasive
Species and requirements under the Migratory
Bird Treaty Reform Act (MBTRA) of 2004.
The NCTA will coordinate with the USFWS
regarding the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of
2004. Invasive species will be addressed in the
DEIS in compliance with Executive Order 13112
and FHWA Guidance (available at
www.fhwa.dot.govlenvironmentlem inv.htm)
7-2
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
should be consulted regarding an analysis of
avian Federal Species of Concern (FSOC) and
potential requirements and considerations
under MBTRA.
The NCTA will coordina
issue.
e with the USFWS on this
7-2
NCTA and FHWA should consult with FWS
regarding Bald eagles.
The NCTA has conducted a survey for bald eagles.
No eagle nests were found within one mile of the
Detailed Study Alternatives, The NCTA will
provide the survey report to the USFWS.

. C xc raL L X egartm i t of
707ri i ronmexLt axILd N ttux-a1 R ,you .x-ce
I i icax. of Soail and W tt+er 4Cciorier-lcraiti.gort
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
David S. Vogel, Director
MEMORANDUM: April 25, 2003
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: David Harrison
SUBJECT: Gaston East -west Corridor Study
ern
NCDENR
The NC Department of Transportation is conducting a study to improve east -west
transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia including southern Gaston County
and western Mecklenburg County.
The environmental assessment should include information on adverse impacts to Prime
or Statewide' Important Farmland.
The definition of Prime or Statewide Important Farmland is based on the soil series and
not on its current land use. Areas that are developed or are within municipal boundaries are
exempt from consideration as Prime or Important Farmland.
For additional information, contact the soils specialists with the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, USDA, Raleigh, NC at [phone].
1614 XVL it Se ice Cerxter, l aici x, a+�rax-Yk: 4Cr . -c iixxa►
]r hvrxe: 919--"733-23UZ \ —. .>i: 9/9 -.'71. s5.5,F
Ixiter-net: ' snrcr'siv.erax-.at .t4e.n c.us/1 /%1"11/Ds.'Titsr /
EQUAL_ UI POFiT'C.71V'rine Fi..T7CYE 1i'Crr©N 3eriIp'L.OYm.-kt
SO"iF, R7EC'Y I.EI] / GCi 4 tYMEXi ]F'.ALFs.7ER

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT 4i4b
NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH.
Project Name NC DOT
Inter -Agency Project Review Response
. Gaston East-West Corridor Study
Type of Project
Comments provided by:
O Regional Program Person.
Regional Engineer for Public Water Supply Section
O Central Office program person
Page
:.Project Number
03-0304
County
.Gaston
Name: C77 ceTZ etkL
Telephone number:
_70 4.1, 3 /417
Program within Division of Environmental Health:
Public Water Supply
Date:
riLECIENE0
%3C
APR N 2003
"294111In Supply
SI/
TJ Other, Name of Program:
Response (check all applicable):
O No objection to project as proposed
No comment
0 Insufficient information to complete review
Comments attached
See comments below
,67 .1 • en, a'?
IA/4 7
E. 4_
6.7• s 7 -A-4
S".71z..•
-..37"
7-(A,
) 677LL,•••;— .‘ -
,
A.1Z5•11 —• c
C::: —"+i,
104$ 4 P-ez-• r #*" P-1.... 6, -4.4k-rds„
iv 6-5- 7. RE fek.e/e0-4,_ 4:= 7,e. 14 ".4e, Alt 11/51
-4— 1:a •
4-,
Return to:
Public Water Supply Section
Environmental Review Coordinator
for the
Division of Environmental Health
Jeyse

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
MR TOM ELLIS
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURE BLDG
RALEIG-i NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
CC&PS - DEM, NFIP
CEN T RALINA COG
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
IRS
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT CA, CUL R tuuRuES
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT INFORMAT ION
APPLICANT: N.C. Department of Transportation
TV2 .
€ERD :
DESC:
STATE NUMBER: 03-E-4220-0304
DATE RECEIVED: 04/23/2003
AGENCY RESPONSE: 05/19/2003
REVIEW CLOSED: 05/23/2003
National En.ircnmental Policy Act
:3cop _ ng
Gaston East-West Corridor Study: Improvements
in the area around Gastonia and other towns in southern Gaston
Mecklenburg counties; TIP U-3321
The att. che,-1 p r: e`"t has been submitted to the N. C
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit
indica Lea date to 1302 Mail Service Center, Raleigh
if additional review time is needed, please contact
F02
to•sast-west transportation mobility
and western
. State Clearinghouse for
your response by the above
NC 27699-1302.
this office at [phone].
AS A RESULT O • THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:
NO COMMENT
SIGNED BY:
DATE:
COM •1ENT, --A`I ACSED
o

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
M"CI"AIL F, EASLEY LY'NDO TIPPET"'
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 12, 2003
Memorandum
To: Ms. Kristina Solberg, PE
Project Development & Evironmental Analysis Branch
From:
Subject:
James B. Harris, PE
Engineering Manager
Gaston East — WeS Corridor Study
TIP Project Number U-3321, Fed. Aid Proj. No, STP-1213(6)
State Project No. 8.2812501
The North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) Rail Division is in
receipt of your letter of April 9, 2003 on the above subject corridor study and
would like to provide comments in regard to rail -related matters that need to be
considered in your study.
Of primary rail importance in the study area is Norfolk Southern (NS) Railway's
Washington, DC to Atlanta, GA mainline. The NS mainline enters the eastern
edge of the study area just north of the Charlotte -Douglas International Airport
(Milepost 384.0+1-) and exits the northern edge of the study area between
Gastonia and Bessemer City (Milepost 403.0+1-) passing through the towns of
Belmont and Gastonia. This NS mainline handles up to 40 freight trains and 2
passenger trains per day with maximum train speeds of 79 mph. This track has
also been designated as part of the future Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor
from Washington, DC to Atlanta, GA.
Of lesser importance are the NS north -south branch lines from Crowder, NC
(Milepost HG 38.0) south of Gastonia northward up to Gastonia (Milepost HG
45.0) and Gastonia northward up to Gebo (Milepost HG 52.0) located just north
of Dallas, NC. Maximum train speed on these two lightly used branch lines is 10
mph.
MAILING ADDRESS:
RArL DIVIS!ON
i:NGINEER:NG & SAFETY BRANCH
1556 MSC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1556
TELEPHONE. [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBS)TE: www.bytrain.org
LOCATION:
CAPITAL YARD
862 CAPITAL BOULEVARD
RALEIGH, NC 27603

Also of rail importance in the study area is the 12-mile long inactive rail corridor
owned by the NCDOT Rail Division that extends from Mount Holly to Gastonia
and also consists of a 3-mile long branch line into Belmont. A map is attached
that shows the route and milepost markers of the NCDOT preserved rail corridor.
At Mount Holly the NCDOT's rail corridor provides potential connection to CSX's
mainline track and at Belmont and Gastonia potential connections are provided
to NS' mainline track. The NCDOT rail corridor was formerly owned by CSX and
was purchased by NCDOT in the early 1990's in order to preserve the rail
corridor for future use. CSX still owns the remaining portion of this lightly used
duplicate CSX rail line from Mount Holly to Charlotte. The entire rail corridor may
one day be used for commuter rail service from Gastonia/Mount Holly/Charlotte.
As information, the City of Charlotte is currently planning and designing for
commuter rail service that may be extended to Gastonia at some time in the
future although the mode of transportation to provide that service is unclear at
this time. There are also a number of sites between Mount Holly and Gastonia
along the NCDOT rail corridor that are suitable for industrial development. The
NCDOT rail corridor could be reactivated to provide rail service to those
industries if needed.
Rail traffic nationwide has been on the increase over the past decade. It is
therefore difficult to forecast what the rail needs of the rail lines contained in the
study area will be in the future. In anticipation of future rail needs, railroads
typically require that space be reserved for one future track whenever a highway
overpass is constructed over their tracks.
There are many existing highway/railroad grade crossings contained in the study
area, These range in size from multi -lane highways on the State and Local
roadway system to private unpaved crossings. The protection at these rail
crossings ranges from lights and gates to the simple crossbucks. It is the current
policy of NCDOT not to create any new at -grade highway/railroad crossings,
therefore grade separated highway overpasses or underpasses should be
anticipated for any new highways crossing over the rail corridors in the study
area. Highway/railroad grade separation structures need to provide the required
vertical and horizontal clearances in accordance with current railroad and
highway standards.
It is recommended that Norfolk Southern Railway be contacted in regard to your
study if any additional information regarding their operations is required.
Please contact me at [phone] if you need any additional information in
regard to railroad matters in general and particularly in regard to the NCDOT
owned rail corridor contained in your study area.

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resourc
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F, Easley, Governor
Lisheth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
May 14, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Greg Thorpe, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: David Brook
SUBJECT:
K so16ern
Gaston County East-West Corridor, U-3321, Gaston and Mecklenburg
Counties, ER02-9723
Thank you for your memorandum of April 9, 2003, concerning the above project. We have
reviewed the "Request for Comments" and offer the following comments.
This project has the potential for impacting large portions of Gaston County and
Mecklenburg County. In the Survey and Planning Branch, State Historic Preservation Office,
we have on record 1,076 surveyed sites in Gaston County and 2,657 sites in Mecklenburg
County. There are fourteen Historic Districts in Gastonia. There are fourteen individual
properties listed in the National Register in Gaston County and many more in Mecklenburg
County.
We recommend that our records be thoroughly searched and a comprehensive survey be
conducted to inventory the architectural and historic resources that could potentially be
impacted by this large project.
Two copies of the resulting Historic/Architectural survey report should be forwarded to us
for review and comment as soon as they are available and well in advance of any
construction activities.
In Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties 1,341 archaeological resources are recorded in files at
the Office of State Archaeology in Raleigh. Some archaeological sites have been determined
eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. In the study area
specifically, some eligible archaeological sites are located on the Charlotte Douglas Airport
property. Other as yet undiscovered archaeological sites are likely to be in the region,
especially along drainages, in floodplains and terraces, bluffs, and other areas. Many of the
www. h po.dcr.state.nc.us
ADS11NISTR iT1ON
RESTORATION
SURVEY & PLANNING
Location
507 N. Blount Si. Raleigh NC
515 N. Blount Si, Raleigh NC
515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
Mailing Address
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617
4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613
4618 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4618
TelephoneIFax
[phone] •733-8653
[phone] * 715-4801
[phone] • 715. 4801

May 14, 2003
Page 2
1,341 reported sites have not been assessed for eligibility for listing on the National Register
of Historic Places. Any archaeological resources located within the preferred alternative must
be assessed for National Register of Historic Places eligibility.
We recommend that our records be searched for architectural sites, archaeological sites, and
cemeteries; and the State Archives and county tax or deed office records be searched for
cemeteries reported in the proposed corridor study area. Appointments with the Office of
State Archaeology should be made directly at 919/733-7342. The Schiele Museum of Natural
History and Planetarium in Gastonia has had an active archaeological program since 1985
reporting many sites in the region. Dr. Alan May, who can be reached at 704/866-6900 for
an appointment, is director of that program and is familiar with the regional archaeology.
Many architectural properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places have
archaeological components that have not been assessed. When such properties are
reevaluated during a federally funded undertaking, archaeological components of such
properties must be considered and assessed.
In addition to the records check, we recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted
by an experienced archaeologist to identify and evaluate the significance of archaeological
remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on
unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
Two copies of the resulting archaeological survey report, as well as one copy of the
appropriate site forms, should be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as they
are available and well in advance of any construction activities.
A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract
work in North Carolina is available at www.arch.dcr.state.nc.us/consults. The archaeologists
listed, or any other experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the
recommended survey.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
cc: Jill Gurak, PBSJ
Mary Pope Furr, DOT
Matt Wilkerson, DOT

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: Marla Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program, NCWRC
DATE: May 15, 2003
SUBJECT: Scoping review of proposed Gaston East-West Corridor Study, Gaston and
Mecklenburg counties. TIP No. U-3321.
Staff biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
reviewed the information provided by North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
and have the following preliminary comments regarding impacts to fish and wildlife resources
resulting from the subject project. These comments are provided in accordance with the
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The NCDOT proposes to improve east -west transportation mobility in the area around the
City of Gastonia and other municipalities in southern Gaston and western Mecklenburg counties,
General alternatives they plan to consider include No -Build, Transportation Management, Multi -
Modal, Improve Existing Roadways, and New Location alternatives. We suggest, in order to
fully investigate Multi -Modal alternatives, that the northern study area boundary include the
east -west railroad corridor along 1-85 which lies north of the current boundary in places.
The NCWRC is concerned about adverse impacts to wildlife habitat and water resources
of the area and the public's enjoyment of them. Lake Wylie, including the Catawba River and
South Fork of the Catawba River, as well as Crowders Mountain State Park and Daniel Stowe
Botanical Garden are within the study area boundary. The proposed project is in a rapidly
growing area of the state; cumulative and secondary impacts are major concerns and should be
thoroughly addressed in the environmental document. In addition, to help facilitate document
preparation and the review process, our general information needs are outlined below:
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 • Fax: [phone]

Gaston East-West Corridor
Gaston & Mecklenburg Counties 2 May 15, 2003
Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area, including a listing of
federally or state designated threatened, endangered, or special concern species. Potential
borrow areas to be used for project construction should be included in the inventories. A
listing of designated plant species can be developed through consultation with the following
programs:
and,
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
1615 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-16 1 5
[phone]
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. If applicable, include the
linear feet of stream that will be channelized or relocated.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreage impacted by the project. Wetland acreage
should include all project -related areas that may undergo hydrologic change as a result of
ditching, other drainage, or filling for project construction. Wetland identification may
be accomplished through coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE). If the USACE is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be
identified and criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreage of upland wildlife habitat impacted by the proposed
project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. Show the extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or fragmentation of
wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Include the mitigation plan for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and indirect
degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. Address the overall environmental effects of the project construction and quantify the
contribution of this individual project to environmental degradation.
8. Provide a discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources, which will result from
secondary development, facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal, or private
development projects, a description of these projects should be included in the environmental
document, and all project sponsors should be identified.

Gaston East-West. Corridor
Gaston & Mecklenburg Counties 3 May 15, 2003
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages of this project.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at [phone].
cc: Marella Buncick, USFWS
Cynthia Van Der Wiele, NCDWQ

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
May 21, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
NCDENR Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinator
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for proposed Gaston East-West Corridor Study, Gaston &
Mecklenburg Counties, TIP No. U-3321. State Clearinghouse Project No. 03-0304.
In reply to your correspondence dated April 9, 2003 (received April 14, 2003) in which you requested
comments for the referenced project, preliminary analysis of the project indicates that the following water
resources lie within the study area:
Stream (nciex)
• Crowders Creek and UT's (1 1 -135 )
• South Crowders Creek
• Abernathy Creek
• Blackwood Creek
• Catawba Creek and UT's
• Robin wood Lake
• Anthony Creek
▪ Catawba River and UT's
= South Fork Catawba River
Water °frailty Classification
C; on §303(d) list
C
C
C
C; on §303(d) list
B
B
WS-W & B Critical Area
WS-V
HU
030837
030837
030837
030837
030837
030837
030837
030834
030836
A Preliminary Purpose and Need Statement for this project was published by PBS&J on July 3, 2002.
Among the transportation issues to be solved are the congestion and traffic flow issues on Interstate 85,
US 29-74 and US 321 (TIP Project U-3806), as well as the need to improve mobility, access and
connectivity within southern Gaston County and Mecklenburg County. The 404/401 Merger Team
signed a purpose and need concurrence point on July 24, 2002.
NC Division of Water Quality has the following comments:
Alternatives to Be Evaluated
NCDWQ understands that the following alternatives will be studied: No -Build, Transportation
Management, Multi -Modal, Improve Existing Roadways, and New Location alternatives (known as the
"Garden Parkway"). The Purpose and Need document specifically mentioned that 1-85 will be over
capacity in the near future; US 29-74 will also be at or near capacity in the near future (page 9). Thus, the
Improve Existing Roadways" alternative may not be reasonable or feasible. NCDWQ understands that a
regional study of transit alternatives is being developed and studies as part of a Major Investment Study
(MIS) (page 15). Additionally, DWQ understands that transit -oriented development is being planned
around US 29-74.
A. Traffic problems in this area suggest that a comprehensive solution be developed that would
perhaps combine modalities (e.g., bus and light rail), since continued widening of both US 29-74
and 1-85 may be infeasible.
NC0EN.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit.
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh. NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (tax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands!

B. DWQ recommends that in order to fully investigate the Multi -Modal alternatives as a reasonable
and feasible alternative, that the northern study boundary area include the east -west railroad
corridor along 1-85 (north of the current study boundary).
Environmental Documentation
A. New Location Alternatives must include quantitative analysis of the cumulative and secondary
impacts as several impaired waters and water supply critical areas could be impacted.
B. A detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with
corresponding mapping must be included.
C. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is
required, it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the
environmental documentation.
D. Within the project area, sedimentation and stormwater runoff are major concerns.
Urbanization often has greater hydrologic effects than any other land use, as native watershed
vegetation is replaced with impervious surfaces in the form of paved roads, buildings, parking lots,
and residential homes and yards. Urbanization results in increased surface runoff and
correspondingly earlier and higher peak flows after storms. Flooding frequency is also increased.
Bank scour from these frequent high flow events tends to enlarge urban streams and increase
suspended sediment. Scouring also destroys the variety of habitat in streams leading to degradation
of benthic macroinvertebrate populations.
Urban runoff also carries a wide variety of contaminants to streams including oil and grease from
roads and parking lots, street litter and pollutants from the atmosphere. Generally, there are a larger
number of point source discharges in urban areas. Cumulative impacts from habitat alterations,
point and nonpoint source pollution can cause severe impaikiuent to urban streams.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. If you have any questions or require additional
information, please contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
Attachment
pe:
John Hendrix, USACE Asheville Field Office
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Marella Buncick, USFWS
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
File Copy

North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary
May 28, 2003
Ms. Kristina Solberg
N.C. Department of Transportation
Project Management
Transportation Bldg. - 1548 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Ms. Solberg:
Re: SCH File # 03-E-4220-0304; Scoping; Gaston East-West Corridor Study: Improvements to east -
west transportation mobility in the area around Gastonia and other towns in southern Gaston and
western Mecklenburg counties; TIP U-3321
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G.S. 113A-10, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this
letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this review.
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Si.^cerely
dsa
Ms. Chrys Daggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc: Region F
Mailing Address:
1302 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1302
Telephone: [phone]
Fax [phone]
State Courier #51-01-00
e-mail Chrys.BaggetiCncmail.net
Location Address:
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina
An Equal OpporttrnrtyJA frnrative Action Employer

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPET'
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 30, 2003
TIP Project: U-3321
County: Gaston
Description: Gaston County East-West Corridor Study
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Attention: Kristina Solberg, P.E., Consultant Engineer
FROM: Nathan K. Phillips, P.E., Plan Review Engineer
Congestion Management Section
SUBJECT: Preliminary Review of TIP Project U-3321
The Plan Review Squad of the Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch has completed a
preliminary review of this project for the start of the study phase. We would like to share the
following comments:
• The Regional Traffic Engineer has recommended building a controlled access roadway with
access provided only at interchanges or at widely spaced at -grade intersections. He also
recommends the new facility to tie into I-85 to the southwest of Gastonia at one end and 1-485
in Mecklenburg County at the other end. In the Gastonia area, he recommends the route run
south of SR 2446.
♦ Our Traffic Operations Group has recommended the inclusion of ITS as a transportation
management alternative. There is an existing Freeway Management System in Mecklenburg
County. If improvements were made to 1-85 as part of the project, this would directly connect
to the existing system. If a new location alternative were built, this would be used as an
alternate route during incidents on I-85. Cost of the ITS will be provided by the Traffic
Operations Engineer once alternatives are identified. The system will require approval from
the MPO because it would affect the equity equation.
• Our Signing Section has offered no comments relating to the project at this time. Similarly our
Traffic Control Section and Signals and Geometries Section have no comments concerning the
project at this time.
♦ We have not received any comments from the Division relating to the project at present.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION;
TRAFFIC ENGINi.ERLNG AND SAFETY SYSTEMS BRANCH FAX: [phone] CENTURY CENTER COMPLEX BUILDING B
1592 MAIL SERVICE Cron -ER 1020 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1592 ifElISIm:: WWW.IJOH.DOT STATE.NCUS RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27610

Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Page 2
05/30/03
At this time, we have no additional comments. If you have any questions, please contact Nasir
Siddiqui, Plan Review Project Engineer, or me at 250-4151.
NKPIns
cc: M. L. Holder, P.E. (Attention: Sammy Nichols)
J. A. Bennett, P.E.
D. D. Galloway, P.E.
R. E. Mullinax, P.E.
T. M. Hopkins, P.E. (Attention: J. H. Dunlop, P.E.)
C. L. Evans (Attention: Elizabeth Honeycutt)
J. S. Bourne, P. E.
R. W. King, P.E.

E. ftAY
� . ECATY
GK GO€ V W . CLEMMONS
Via US Mail
Zoom of patIa
EST. 1 ✓ei63
Mayor Sam C. Rhyne
April 25, 2003
Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD.
Environmental Management Director
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1 548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Subject Request for Comments far Gaston East-West Corridor Study,
TIP Project Number U-3321, Federal Aid Project Na STP- 3. 213 (6)
.State Project No. 8 2812501
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDDT) recently sent out a proposal
to improve east -west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia and
other municipalities. The proposal is known locally as the Garden Parkway_ It is our
understanding that the project will only be completed from Charlotte Douglas
International Airport to I-85 just west of thc Hwy 321 inter -change. This proposed study
does not include the section between Hwy. 321 and Dallas.
The Town of Dallas would like to formally ask that the study area be expanded to include
the northern half of the proposed Garden Parkway. We feel that this would not only
make more economical sense but would also glow the municipalities and county to
protect the corridor from erosion do to the expansion in subdivision growth this area is
seeing. In delaying the start dates for the enVirQntnental survey we cannot hope to have a
centerline for the project completed at any foble point in the future. This may not
only delay any future construction. of the r3Ardeiii.Pitikway but may also dramatically
chime the alignment oft the prapo Park y
t hope that you will take this into consideration and allow for the funding of the Northern
leg environmental survey in the near future. As you know the Garden Parkway will be a
major economical en* for,Gaston linty and 411 of the Municipalities as well.
Sincerely,
Sam C. Rhyne
Mayor Town of Dallas
210 North HoIIGand Sheol. DaRoz. North Carcliso 28034-170a. Teleprvorve. 7C141-92:2.317e

May 9, 2003
Gregory J Thorpe, Ph.D
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
The Quality of Natural Resources Commission (QNRC) is a diverse citizen
stakeholder group appointed by the Gaston County Board of Commissioners to
evaluate and make recommendations ❑n natural resource issues that impact
Gaston County.
QNRC appreciates the opportunity to respond to your April 9°' letter soliciting
potential impacts of the proposed east -west corridor of the Garden Parkway (TIP
Project U-3321) through southern Gaston County. Below we have described
factors that QNRC would like NCDOT to consider in developing this
transportation project.
Natural Heritage Sites
According to the Gaston County Natural Heritage Inventory, the natural heritage
sites listed below all lie within the project location area (For detailed information
on any of these sites contact: David Fogarty, Gaston County Extension Director
at 704-922-2130)
Site
A01
A04
A05
A07
A09
B12
B13
B14
B15
B16
B21
Site Location
Crowder Mountain State Park
Stagecoach Road Granitic Outcrop and Wetland
Armstrong Ford
Kenneth Oates Farm Forest (Area B)
Pinnacle Road
Penegar, Gastonia South
Ferguson Ridge
Ferguson's Knob
Unity Church Road
Catawba Cove
Kenneth Oates Farm Forest (Area A)
CITIZENS PARTICIPATION
RECEIVED
MAY _ 1 6 2003

Depending on which route is selected for the thoroughfare, sites A01, A04, A05,
B12, and 816 could potentially be impacted by the project. With the current
alignment plans for the thoroughfare, no natural heritage sites would be directly
impacted. Sites A04 and B12 are both approximately % mile from the current
alignment and could be impacted if the route were adjusted towards them.
The natural heritage site of most concern is (A4) the Stagecoach Road Granitic
Outcrop and Wetland. This site, lying just to the east of the current thoroughfare
alignment is a large granite rock outcrop from the Pennsylvanian to Permian
(270-230 million years old). Vegetation islands separate the granite exposures.
Many of the terraces have shallow pools with thin soils. Noteworthy species
include small sedum. fame flower, pine weed, and various mosses. Since the
completion of the natural heritage survey, this site has been timbered, except for
a 50-foot buffer around the outcrop.
Thoroughfare alignments should be designed to avoid this outcrop and its
surrounding buffer, as well as any other identified natural heritage sites.
Stream Impacts
The construction of the Garden Parkway Thoroughfare in Southern Gaston
County will inevitably have some negative impact on the water quality and the
habitats of creeks and streams throughout the region. QNRC recommends that
several steps be taken to minimize stream impacts.
Of particular concern is the section of the proposed thoroughfare heading south
from 1-85 in the southwestern part of the county. The current alignment takes the
thoroughfare south from 1-85 along a four -mile path that parallels Crowders
Creek. During most of that section, the thoroughfare is within a few hundred feet
of Crowders Creek.
QNRC recommends adjusting the alignment of the proposed thoroughfare so
that there is a sufficient buffer between the road construction and Crowders
Creek to protect the creeks banks and its water quality. A priority of the
thoroughfare design should be for NCDOT to minimize the amount of Crowders
Creek that would have to be relocated. One possible solution could be to
relocate the entire stretch of the thoroughfare to the west side of the creek.
Where any relocation of stream sections are required, the new stream channel
should be designed to have slow stream flow and graded banks resulting in a
stream with less bank erosion and a healthier ecosystem than the current
stream.

Wetland and Stream Mitigation
All disturbed streams and wetlands within the Garden Parkway project are
subject to mitigation laws. Under these laws, disturbed areas must be replaced
with double the acreage. Restored streams and wetlands must be within the
same watershed basin. The Gaston County QNRC encourages NCDOT to work
with QNRC and relevant county and municipal agencies in determining how
mitigation acreages can be located to fit in with the county's water quality,
greenway, and development plans.
Stormwater
Gaston County is a Phase I# Stormwater community. All water from the
thoroughfare and its bridges must be collected by drains or pipes and discharged
into vegetated areas and/or silt basins where pollutants are filtered out naturally
before entering streams.
The Gaston County QNRC encourages NCDOT to work with QNRC and relevant
county and municipal agencies to determine how stormwater best management
practices can be successfully implemented to protect water quality in conjunction
with countywide stormwater programs.
Hazardous Spill Controls
Hazardous catch spill basins should be utilized throughout the Garden Parkway
Project. These basins should be located at the low areas of the construction and
should be manually closed in the event of a hazardous spill to prevent the spill
from reaching nearby streams. QNRC recommends that NCDOT also provide
Local Emergency Management personnel with information and training on how to
operate these basins,
Impacts on Land -Use
In 2002, Gaston County adopted a Comprehensive Plan that includes broad
goals for development, transportation, infrastructure, and greenways. QNRC
recommends that the NCOOT thoroughfare plans are always consistent with the
Gaston County Comprehensive Plan. Copies of the Plan are available on-line at
or through the Gaston County Planning Department at 704-
866-3473.
Design of the thoroughfare near the Daniel Stowe Botanical Gardens should
consider noise impacts on the Garden and development plans associated with
the Garden. All access points on the thoroughfare should be designed with
consideration of the development goals of the County comprehensive plan.

The "Garden Parkway" should be designed as part of an overall countywide plan
that includes economic development, environmental, and quality of life factors.
QNRC and other organizations can play an important role in making sure that
this process occurs.
Greenway Development
The development of the Garden Parkway is an excellent opportunity to move
forward the creation of a connected greenway system in Gaston County and
neighboring counties. Consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan, a
greenway system should be an integrated part of the overall thoroughfare plan
and should include the following features:
❑ Development of a greenway along the Crowders Creek Corridor as part of
the Garden Parkway design
u Allowances for east -west greenway corridors between Gastonia and
Crowders Mountain State Park with connections to the Crowders Creek
Corridor
❑ Assurances that thoroughfare development facilitates the Catawba Creek
greenway, which is part of the current Connect Gaston Plan.
u Consultations with York and Mecklenburg Counties to facilitate future
regional greenway plans as part of the design.
❑ Bridge designs over the South Fork and Catawba Rivers that incorporate
pedestrian and bike transportation.
❑ Widening of the 300-foot corridor in specific locations to accommodate the
inclusion of pedestrian and/or bike transportation routes.
Gaston County QNRC appreciates this opportunity to respond to NCDt3T's
request for comments on the proposed TIP Project U-3321 through southern
Gaston County. We support his project and the transportation and economic
development benefits that it can bring to Gaston County. We also strongly feel
that these benefits will be greatest if the project is designed with input from
citizens and local governments. To this end, QNRC would be willing to sponsor
any of the Citizens' Informational workshops that you are planning to hold during
the Summer/Fall of 2003.
Sincerely,
j'\)
Gary Mims, Chairman
Gaston County Quality of Natural Resources Commission
Cc: Gaston County Manager and Board of Commissioners

Department of Community,
GASTON COUNTY Development and Technology
Community Development Division
Mailing Address: P. O_ Box 1578, Gastonia, NC 28053-1578
Street Address: 212 West Main Avenue, Gastonia, NC 28052
e-mail: dwiliiams eeco.gaston.ne.us
May 9, 2003
Gregory J Thorpe, Ph. D
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Fax:[phone]
Writer's Direct Number
(704)-866-3473
12'0r ,1
04 1 CEVEL "
FN TA L. M 1
Gaston County Community Development is in receipt of your letter dated April 9, 2003
requesting comments concerning impacts of the proposed East-West Corridor Study for the 321/74
by-pass or the Garden Parkway. Community Development appreciates the opportunity to provide
you with comments as it relates to the impacts on the social, economic, demographic, land use,
and environment in the subject project area. Further, Community Development through the
County's coordination process is in agreement with previous comments in letters submitted to from
the Gaston County's Quality of Natural Resources Commission (QNRC), and the Gaston Urban
Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Since these two agencies are very familiar with
the projects and the potential impacts, Community Development would like to incorporate or mesh
their comments with a few additional comments and thoughts as will be listed below. I will attempt
not to duplicate comments, however, there may be the casual occasion or some situations where
it is simply unavoidable yet important and significant to Gaston County. The comments on the
impacts are primarily based from the Gaston County Comprehensive Plan which was adopted in
November, 2002. Since the Community Development Department is principally engaged in Land
Use Planning, and thus, most of what is expressed is centered around that topic. I would also
request that you refer to the respective agencies previously mentioned above pertaining to details
surrounding the environment and transportation.
According to the Gaston Comprehensive Plan, the county is located in the south central Piedmont
of North Carolina, and is the second largest county in the Charlotte -Mecklenburg metropolitan
region. The Catawba River forms the eastern boundary separating Gaston from Mecklenburg
County, with Lincoln County to the north, Cleveland County to the west, and York County, SC to
the south. Somewhat unique to the region are the 15 municipalities located within the County, with
Gastonia as the largest. Most of these towns have their roots in the County's textile history and
each has its own character and outlook toward the future. These municipalities represent a
significant asset to the community but also pose challenges for the future of Gaston County. The
County will also be faced with many external forces that will shape the way the County grows. The
County can manage some of these forces, but others may be beyond the County's control. As
Gaston County and its 15 municipalities enter the new millennium, they will need to coordinate
efforts to guide growth in the direction best suited for the present and future residents of
Gaston County. And as it relates to land, "Gaston is part of the Piedmont Plateau, between the

foothills of the Appalachian and the sandhills of the coastal plain. Creeks of the Catawba system
carve through the gently rolling is characteristic of the Piedmont, while monadnocks, rocky masses
that stand isolated after softer rock surrounding them is eroded away, punctuate the landscape
and form part of the County's visual heritage and sense of identity. Despite long reliance on
manufacturing as economic base, over 40% of the land area remain in woods or forest, the highest
percentage of any neighboring North Carolina Counties. Gaston County soils are mostly
variations of the sandy clay loam soils with varying properties that make them generally suited for
agriculture and development."
i open with these directly from Gaston's plan to illustrate the growth potential and some of the
important features of the natural environment, and the reasons why Community Development
request that protection devices and best management practices be used. Still, for environmental
and transportation impacts please refer to the QNRC and Gaston MPO recommendations.
Gaston County Community Development submits the following recommendations and comments:
As the impacts relates to Land Use, Gaston consists of 15 municipal entities, and one
unified school system. Most of the Local Government have some for Community
Development would suggest that NCDOT be in concert with their plans for physical
development of the all those local governments as well. As for the future construction of
for schools, etc., it would be a consideration to verify with Superintendent of Gaston County
as any potential impacts to the development of future school facilities.
Gaston County Board of Commission adopted a County Wide Comprehensive Plan
(enclosed an adopted copy) in November of 2002, to be used as a tool to guide
development and act as mechanism to provide ways to better coordinate land use around
the County and in the region. Within this plan are goals and object that deal with land use,
and so, Community Development would request to refer to those goals and objectives as
they plan this project.
Gaston Community Development would suggest to protection devices such as access
management or other control devices to coincide with the economic development
opportunities illustrated in the Comprehensive Plan.
As a vast majority of the project is scheduled for the unincorporated area and southern
portion of Gaston County, these areas are primarily undeveloped with the primarily
development pattern being residential and open space. Presently, the area contains no
water and sewer infrastructure. However, this area is projected to see a higher percentage
of Gaston's growth over the next 10 - 20 years, especially with plans for infrastructure to
include water and extensions services showing high interest in this area.
Thus, with consider of the natural and opens space that currently exist which characterizes
this area, Community Development would ask NC DOT to consider the overall implications
of the project on the current and future planning of this area.
As for citizen involvement: Gaston County has a diverse population and therefore,
Community Development would further suggest that NCDOT assert or use creative
methods to involve the general public in the project development process.
As you will note, the Comprehensive Plan calls for the development of an Open Space Plan
to incorporate a greenway system which would link land uses around the County. With the
length and magnitude of the Parkway corridor, it has been suggested and is also

referenced in the Plan, that some of right-of-way include opportunities for the greenway
network. In addition to the regional greenway system and regional ones, provide if
possible, opportunities to interconnect with small internal or local networks. For
information, Voices and Choices and the Urban Institute are looking at ways to implement
a regional greenway system, which may be impacted by the project.
Land use patterns can also be impacted within the urban areas of municipalities to include
retail, restaurant, and commercial in general with the potential for existing urban
commercial development relocate to intersection on Parkway.
With this project relative close to the state line, and York County it has the potential to
create some pressure on the demographics on the southern portion of the Gaston County.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on this project. Should questions arise,
feel free to contact me directly.
Thanks,
David L. Williams, MPA, AICP
Administrator, Community Development
cc: Jan Winters, County Manager
Bill Beasley, Assistant County Manager
Larry Hurlocker, Executive Director, CdaT
David Fogarty, Cooperative Extension
Scot Sibert, Gaston MPO
enclosure

WED
Gaston County Natural Resources Department Gaston Soil and W
1303 Cherryvilie Highway - Dallas, North Carolina 28034
Phone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
May 13, 2003
Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental t1alvsis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe,
CITIZENS PAMPA -NA
BVED
MAY 16 2005
ter CoAl rvatlon DistrQc
4.
s
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the potential impacts of the east -west
corridor of the Garden Parkway in Gaston County. The Gaston Natural Resources
Department would like to support the comments and considerations addressed by the
Gaston County Quality of Natural Resources Commission (QNRC) in their response
letter dated May 9, 2003.
4410
TAt-
16
a3
rA-M
In addition to the items identified by QNRC, we would like to emphasize the importance
of several possible natural resources concerns.
Potential impacts to stream and wetland areas are a primary concern. Mitigation laws
and stormwater regulations are in place to minimize these impacts. Our department
recommends a strong commitment to these rules and regulations. We encourage
communication with our department and other local agencies to maximize the
effectiveness of mitigation strategies and consistency with local programs.
Many streams in the southern portion of Gaston County are impaired by urban runoff.
Culverts and bridges tend to constrict flow and alter floodplain hydraulics; this combined
with increased runoff could potentially cause instability and scour. Roadway fill areas
located too close to a stream can also trigger instability. Minimizing the number of
stream crossings and using natural channel design techniques is suggested to help
maintain stream stability. Bridges and culverts should also be designed in a way that
maintains floodplain functionality. Potential water quality impacts should also be
examined. Erosion and hazardous spills during construction are possible water quality
concerns. Untreated stormwater runoff from the proposed parkway could also have long-
term impacts on water quality. It is recommended that buffer areas be utilized as a
component of the stormwater treatment strategy. Buffers have proven to be an effective
tool at treating strormwater runoff and maintaining streambank stability, maximizing the
width of these buffers could help minimize impacts to the stream.
Mission Statement
Gaston County seeks to be among the finest counties in North Carolina it will provide effective, efficient and
affordable services leading to a safe, secure and healthy community, an environment for economic growth, and
promote a favorable quality of life
x
o
CONSERVATION - DEVELOPMENT - SELF-GOVERNMENT

The Garden Parkway project will likely have a substantial effect on future land use near
the project area. We would strongly encourage that plans for the bypass are consistent
with the Gaston County Comprehensive Plan. Areas surrounding highway interchanges
are especially vulnerable to changes in land use. We recommend that these future
impacts be considered when locating interchanges.
Citizen input is an important part of understanding all of the potential impacts of a project
this size. Our department has received comments and suggestions about this project. Per
your request, in the future these suggestions will be forwarded to Ms. Solberg and Ms.
Jurak. One recent concern by Mr. Robert Biggerstaff, a landowner in the project area, is
noted in the attached correspondence.
We appreciate being involved in this process and would be glad to assist in any way. If
you have any questions, please call our office at [phone].
Sincerely,
f\l
avid R. Freeman
Natural Resources Engineer
cc. Robert Biggerstaff
Mission Statement
Gaston County seeks to be among the finest counties in North Carolina ft will provide effective, efficient and
affordable services leading to a safe, secure and healthy community, an environment for economic growth, and
promote a favorable quality of life.

1 his is to advise, that a cove, on the South Fork River, in the vicinity of Bayshore Drive, l3cjrnora.,
N.C._ may be inhabited by the Carolina Heelspli;ter (lasr•rtigona decorata) which is listed on the
federal and state endangered species list.
This (zove is to only !crown area on the South Fork River and is in the vicinity of the pro pos;:ii
321/14 bypass that does not contain mud and silt and provides the required environment for this
mussel.
sl'ou k the bypass be corf trueted along Canal Road to Lakefront Drive and follow portions of
1)ixon Road to South New Hope Road, the natural water shed from new construction and the
inirrediate area South of the proposed bypass would flow into this cove before reachins the South
Fork River.
Our point of contact concerning the location and details thereof may be obtained by contacting
the undersigned by mail at 200 Bayshore Drive, Belmont, N.C. 28012 or home telephone
704/829.7803 or business number 704/S65-4310.
'The Mussels, at the present time, seem to be doing well in this location wllidi is being scheduled
for new road eonsti uction in the immediate area.
An invesigation. into this matter and response to the undersigned will be greatly appreciated
sincerely,
ROBERT BIG(3isRSTAI'F
200 Bayshore Drive
B el mont, N.C. 28012

GASTON URBAN AREA
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
Post Office Box 1748 • Gastonia, North Carolina 28053-1748
Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]
May 13, 2003
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Thorpe:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the TIP Project U-3321 (Gaston
East-West Corridor Study) in Gaston County. The Gaston MPO and City of Gastonia offer the
following comments regarding said project:
1. Catawba Land Conservancy has expressed exploring the feasibility of a total
conservation scenario for undeveloped property along the South Fork River and other
watersheds. Receiving input for the Catawba Land Conservancy about potential
conservation areas are recommended.
2. Due to the Garden Parkway's close proximity to the Charlotte -Douglas International
Airport, economic growth is anticipated. Businesses and industries related to airport
service and trucking would more than likely develop along the Garden Parkway,
along with other service related businesses. The Garden Parkway will become an
additional economic development tool for Gaston County in order to lure a greater
number of industries and businesses. Since various industrial uses are located along
US 321 South, continued and similar industries are likely to develop.
Economic development however, has its downside. Retail centers typically develop
and/or relocate from the downtown or current suburban locations to the interchanges.
The possibility of shopping centers relocating from their existing locations to new
locations along the Parkway could increase the number of vacant "big boxes." This
would create blight situations in the current urban areas. When these types of
developments locate near the interchanges, indirect impacts on the community and
growth patterns occur through the shift in growth, development and facility
improvements, as well as potential neglect to the previous locations.
3. Residential growth continues to occur in the southeast corner of Gaston County.
Large subdivisions of one -acre or more are being developed; most of these
Serving: Belmont • Bessemer City • Cramerton • Dallas • Gaston County • Gastonia
Lowell • McAdenville • Mount Holly • Ranlo • Spencer Mountain • Stanley

developments do not have public water and sewer service. The need to provide
public services increase in order to reduce the impacts on water and soil quality, but
also to provide the ability to build various lot size developments. Inability to provide
public services creates pressure and stress on the natural environment due to the need
to build wells and septic tanks. Consequently, long-term effects on water and soil
quality occur. In addition, municipalities pay a majority of the costs for constructing
and maintaining public services to low -density developments.
4. Since the majority of the study area south of Gastonia is undeveloped or
underdeveloped, the chance for development shifts and population shifts are high.
Indirect growth effects are likely to occur around the interchanges and along the
thoroughfares feeding into the Garden Parkway.
5. There are a number of existing neighborhoods within the study area. It is important to
prevent isolation within and between neighborhoods to avoid the possibility of
neighborhood neglect and social degradation.
b. Increased development, from residential to commercial to retail to industrial, will
increase the amount of impervious coverage throughout the study area. Impervious
coverage can then drastically increase the impacts on run-off and water quality.
7. Not only will water quality and run-off be impacted by increased development, the
level of service on many of the thoroughfares and feeder routes to the Garden
Parkway will also be susceptible. The function and level of service of the
thoroughfares that feed into the Garden Parkway could decrease, especially if the high
trip generation shopping centers and major retailers relocate near interchanges. In
addition, circulation patterns and travel times may also change along the feeder routes
and thoroughfares within the study area.
8. Daniel Stowe Botanical Gardens is located along the southern portion of New Hope
Road (NC 279). There are potential environmental impacts, development potential
along the vacant land abutting the Gardens and impacts on the traffic volumes for
New Hope Road (a major Thoroughfare). Since an interchange is proposed at New
Hope Road, traffic volumes along this thoroughfare would more than likely increase,
affecting the current capacity of New Hope Road. If the volume of traffic increases
along New Hope Road, traffic congestion would more than likely occur and turning
movement opportunities would be reduced, which in turn creates unsafe movements
without proper traffic safety mechanisms.
9. Throughout the study area, there are large areas of wetlands and floodplains
associated with a number of streams and rivers, such as the: Catawba River, South
Fork River, Catawba Creek, and Crowders Creek. Environmental impacts to these
important watersheds should be kept to a minimum.
10. There is a strong chance for noise pollution along the potential corridor. Ways to

minimize the noise impacts should be considered, especially with the large number of
existing and potential residential neighborhoods within the study area.
11. Transit options have been discussed along the Garden Parkway in order to provide
alternative modes to the residents of Gaston County. Modes such as, Bus Rapid or
Light Rail have been discussed, but there is no definite mode or corridor selected at
this time. The ability to incorporate and provide for an alternative mode of
transportation would greatly improve the accessibility between the Charlotte -Douglas
International Airport and Gaston and Mecklenburg County. The inability or the
unlikely hood of extending transit service within the study area raises concerns on the
traffic volumes that will more than likely occur along the thoroughfares and feeder
routes. Land use changes would also have to occur to provide the type of and density
required to sustain transit.
12. A committee made up of local municipal planning commission members developed a
land use recommendation plan to eventually serve as a guide to developing ordinances
to provide sound and smart growth patterns. The recommendations incorporate
mixed -use developments, limited shopping centers and strip mall locations, farmland
preservation, neighborhood service centers and various other districts. Without strong
local ordinances and plans, ineffective and detrimental uses could occur within the
study area, which in effect could affect the function of the Garden Parkway.
13. Throughout the study area, there are a number of cemeteries and historical sites.
Ensuring that minimal impacts to each of those are vital. Information relating to the
location of the cemeteries and historical sites can be acquired through the Gaston
County Historical Commission.
14. The Gaston County Comprehensive Plan recommends providing a green circuit
(greenway network) along the proposed alignment of the Garden Parkway. Providing
open space improves the quality of life for Gaston County. Without green space,
indirect impacts on the quality of life could trickle down to the neighborhood level
and deter growth.
Should you require any additional information regarding this project, please do not
hesitate to contact me at 704-854-6604 or scotti a`citvorgastonia.com.
Sincerely,
Scot Sibert, MCP
Transportation Planner
Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

M E C K L E N B U R G- U NION
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
CHARLOTTE
CORNELIUS
DAVIDSON
HUNTERSVILLE
INDIAN TRAIL
MA TTHEWS
MECKLENBURG
COUNTY
MINT HILL
NCOOT
PINEVILLE
STALLINGS
UNION
COUNTY
WEDDING TON
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202-2853
[phone]
May 15, 2003
Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Subject: Gaston East/West Conidor Study, t I Proj—t LT-3371
Dear Mr. Thorpe:
The Mecklenburg -Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO) appreciates the
opportunity to comment on the proposed Gaston East-West Corridor Study. The
MUMPO supports a new crossing of the Catawba River connecting southern Gaston
County with western Mecklenburg. The MUMPO Thoroughfare Plan indicates a new
facility at this location. Additionally, our Long Range Transportation Plan calls for this
project to be constructed between 2010 and 2020. This facility is shown as a toll road in
the plan, and requires for funding for the Mecklenburg portion be accomplished through
toll revenues.
In general the MUMPO agrees that this new roadway is important to improve the
connectivity between the two counties. This project will improve access to the Charlotte -
Douglas International Airport. Our primary concern with the proposal is how the facility
will function on the Mecklenburg side of the Catawba River. The area between 1-485 and
the Catawba River is targeted as an economic development area. The plans for this area
will be greatly affected by the type of facility that is constructed for this new roadway.
We are specifically concerned with the connection of the two thoroughfares in the area,
Dixie River Road and Garrison Road (please see attached Thoroughfare Plan map). We
also are concerned about the connection to I-485, Due to the glide slope required for the
airport runways, it is unlikely that flyovers can be constructed here. If a full movement
interchange is constructed, the amount of right-of-way required will severely impair the
implementation of the proposed land -use plan.
We also recall that earlier work in discussing and planning this project indicated a
potential to provide bicycle (and perhaps pedestrian) accommodation on any bridge
structure crossing the Catawba River. West Boulevard has been conceived for a long
time as a facility that would include bicycle lanes, and it would be appropriate for these
lanes to extend across the river on any structure provided for this project. We would also
recommend that any bicycle accommodation should be fully separated from all motor
vehicle traffic.

Our specific request is for the MUMPO to be included in the definition of the alternatives
and the relationship between those alternatives and local land use objectives. Again we
are supportive a new crossing, but we are also very concerned about the effect this project
will have on the development of the area on the Mecklenburg side of the Catawba River.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 704-336-8643.
Sincerely,
Da iy Rogers, P.E.
MUMPO Secretary
Cc: Lee Myers, MUMPO Chair
Jim Humphrey, P.E., TCC Chair

.
g 7 ii
gI4F.
e
Ri
I
41 t
i.
b.
g
Ig
I II
I II
0 01
I
0.I. P. we 4,-.4.14...44 "Wont Pksk011ril
P•rql PAkkok II ro kmrct W4*WW1 PPRI likkr1
,i'l ol Pr.)! PP,41 rk-ki so CkakkAS N4i,
..W.V.4.1..1 sa-1 load Luzj slabs%
4..5.1
,b1•PW S.* A...vibiry
10..6 irnyawr,
...^. ...KR ii OP ....V 1.,...l..1 pun cr.SPN..,E
TA101,94 .41.0-21 IKE 04. ;"40
,r1 uo kW) it!.., ri. ,...111H Jppui p.n....Lot 111 oarollitikOriosi JoiriREI 2 kitrompoi a,L1
AlherosoleReori Retie.. Prod lo L We fermi .old
Pr..*w Wile Pcfrookrod Sorel II I -IS
14,rel Try. Streel Calierood Poo9 la Orr Read
IOU .kiroon11Wdove-d 147 to 1J Ste *sok Mood
Po;rvrer Rood Pork Soak Ilirre or Swipe. ;raft
*ono Poo] 14.24th.1100.1t.w8 la Surma Vine A a d
&ark Wee Prodsrool 14.1 to lisokfor P.m d
wood/two !lord Swa Trixa Strad olvough loorb Iroolrrorki
I MINOR THOROUGHFARES INSIDE ROUT K. -0
......
owl OrolkOn Portvory11 Tyool PAWL, S 3boot
1- II To lath 11316,minpirien Ihrimay
323313021m Souhriedlidhi.iaaSo 4,w la Omrim
ok, T Prod mut 1." to PlUtlad Crick lard
Th I Wm
COMMERCIAL PIT MAO
The fOIRJMIletTFOOT tlIoroughrtres h wry been design L'eli by h
CTititaILLE-Mmklenbute CoramInIrm 32 (.7asa VIC - Com mrrcla I kt ler I al s
CLASS It MMOR rHOHOUGIDAILES
me ru1142.1ng m • jar IhtoroKbra yea 11 a kr! been Ilestgriated as a... It - limited
Airs, Facitfikt

MECKLENBURG COUNTY
Land Use and Environmental Services Agenc
-AIR QUALITY -
May 15, 2003
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Re: Request for Comments for Gaston East-West Corridor Study
TIP Project Number U-3321, Federal Aid Project No. STP-1213(6)
State Project No. 8.2812501
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Mecklenburg County Air Quality (MCAQ) appreciates the opportunity to provide input
concerning the potential environmental impacts in the proposed study area for the Gaston East-
West Corridor. The project area is located within the Charlotte/Gastonia maintenance area for
carbon monoxide (CO).
In accordance with 40 CFR 93.116 an "FHWA,f'I A project must not cause or contribute to any
new localized CO or PM10 violations or increase the frequency or severity of any existing CO or
PM,q violations in CO or PM,o nonattainment and maintenance areas. This criterion is satisfied
if it is demonstrated that no new local violations will be created and the severity or number of
existing violations will not be increased as a result of the project."
We understand this study will be conducted to evaluate preliminary alternatives. Project level
conformity determinations are typically made as part of the NEPA process after final project
design. MCAQ provides comments on NEPA documents prepared for projects in Mecklenburg
County.
Please contact us if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
)
Laura P. Cummings
Air Hygienist II
PEOPLE • PRIDE • PROGRESS • PARTNERSHIPS
700 N, Tryon Street • Suite 205 I Charlotte, NC 28202-2236 • [phone] • FAX [phone]
www.charmeck.org/Departmentsiluesaihome.asp

t
11..t lMI,lw .
May 15, 2003
Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD.
NCDOT Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1548
Subject: Gaston East/West Corridor Study, TIP Project # U3321
Dear Mr. Thorpe:
For many years the City of Charlotte and the Mecklenburg Union MPO have supported a new
crossing of the Catawba River south of US 29/74 (Wilkinson Boulevard) and north of NC/SC
49 (York Road). Currently, there is no crossing in this 10-mile section of the river. The
Mecklenburg Union MPO (MUMPO) Thoroughfare Plan shows a new roadway extending
from the 1-485 interchange with West Boulevard and crossing the Catawba River at the same
point where the Gaston MPO Thoroughfare Plan shows a similar roadway extending from the
Catawba River across the South Fork River and into south Gaston County. Also, we clearly
understand the dilemma for the citizens in southern Gaston County and southern Gastonia as
they attempt to travel northward in order to gain access to 1-85 and thereby cross the river at
that location. We further see benefit to this connection in that it would provide more direct
access to the Charlotte Airport from southern Gaston County and would provide more access to
Stowe Botanical Gardens for the residents of a major portion of Mecklenburg County.
We have two specific concerns about the portion of the proposed project in Mecklenburg
County (as it currently shown on the Thoroughfare Plans). Both of our concerns involve the
portion of Mecklenburg County west of 1-485 and east of the Catawba River. We recently
developed a new Land Use Plan for this are that defines how the area will develop. We are
concerned that the proposed project could both split this area and also cut access to this area.
Our Thoroughfare Plan shows two key features that can help ameliorate these concerns. One is
a proposed interchange with Dixie River Road (a Major Thoroughfare on the MUMPO
Thoroughfare Plan). The other is a simple separation for Garrison Road Extension (a Minor
Department of Transportation
600 East Ft urtStree! Charlotte, NC 28202-2858 704/336-2261 Fax [phone]

Gregory J. Thorpe
Catawba East/West Corridor Study
May 15, 2003
Page 2 of 2
Thoroughfare on the MUMPO Thoroughfare Plan). We feel that the degree of access control
provided by any roadway in this corridor should be reviewed in the planning process.
We also recall that earlier work in discussing and planning this project indicated a potential to
provide bicycle (and perhaps pedestrian) accommodation on any bridge structure crossing the
Catawba River. West Boulevard has been conceived for a long time as a facility that would
include bicycle lanes, and it would be appropriate for these lanes to extend across the river on
any structure provided for this project. , We would also recommend that any bicycle
accommodation should be fully separated from all motor vehicle traffic.
As you know, the existing interchange for West Boulevard at I-485 is only a simple diamond.
A key limiting factor in scoping this project may be the feasible range of alternative
interchange configurations that will work with the runway glide slopes for the Airport.
We hope these comments will be helpful as you move forward into the planning phase of this
project and we look forward to working with you on this project in the future.
Sincerely,
William B. Finger, P.E.
Assistant Director
c: Jim Humphrey
Danny Rogers

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
1070 Heckle Boulevard, A-5, Rock Hill, South Carolina 29732-2863
Toll Free: [phone] • Fat: [phone]
May 15, 2003
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Re: Comments for Gaston East-West Corridor Study
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
uiiding & Codes Division
[phone]
Planning Division
[phone]
Zoning Division
[phone]
Administration
[phone]
I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments for this study. York County is interested in the future
of this project as the New Location Alternative of this project is already identified in the current
Gaston MPO Long Range Transportation Plan and comes within two miles of the York County border.
Due to a transportation improvement of this scale being considered so close to currently undeveloped
land in York County we request the follows comments to be considered as a part of this study. They
are as follows:
1. York County is currently rewriting its comprehensive plan, with particular attention paid to the
land use plan element. This project has the potential of significantly altering residential
development dynamics in the western part of York County where such growth is not desired.
Any information on the status of this study would be appreciated.
2. As a part of this concern, what are the expected impacts on commuting patterns from York
County to Charlotte along SC 49? This is a concern because by locating interchanges along a
new road near where the Gaston MPO Long Range Transportation Plan identifies such a
corridor could cause York County and the local MPO to unnecessarily improve roads feeding
the toll road. By focusing interchanges on US 321, SC 274, and NC 279 the need for additional
road widenings will be reduced.
3. What impact is expected on Gaston County population and employment trends in each of the
alternatives?
4. What impact is expected on York County residential and employment trends in each of the
alternatives?
York County is extremely interested in the results for this study. We would appreciate being involved
wherever possible in this study in order to help select a project that meets the needs of North Carolina
YORK COU1' GOVERfi b..'NT ('CJh'ltt:SPONDeNCK IS PRIIV7 `U ON far PAPAW.

and Gaston County without unduly burdening York County and South Carolina with secondary and
cumulative impacts.
I thank you for your time and am available to answer any additional questions you may have. Feel free
to contact me at [phone].
cerely,
Eric L. Greenway
York County Planning Dire
CC: FHWA- SC Office
Jim Edwards, RFATS
SCOOT Planning Office
YORA COI W 7 Y GOVERNMENT CORRk SPONf.)ES'C'E IS PRINTED ON RECYCLED CLE ID PAPER.

GJy OFGASTON/A
ENgiNEERINq DEpARTMENT
May 16, 2003
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe. Ph.D.
Program Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
In response to your letter dated April 9, 2003, concerning the environmental assessment
for the proposed Gaston East-West Corridor Study (Garden Parkway), State Project
8.2812501, (TIP Project No. U-3321), the following information is provided:
• Construction plans need to conform to all City and FEMA requirements for
placement of fill material in the Flood Hazard Area and Floodway. The City of
Gastonia ordinance allows no rise in the floodplain.
♦ The City may have existing underground utilities in the area that may be affected by
the proposed roadway construction.
Any questions concerning the floodway ordinance of the City should be directed to
Thorne Martin, Assistant City Engineer, at [phone]. Other questions or additional
information can be directed to me at [phone].
Yours very truly,
DONALD K. LOWE
City Traffic Engineer
cc: J. Philip Bombardier PE, Asst. City Manager - Operations
Felix A. Pruitt, PE, PLS, Director of Engineering/City Engineer
Thorne A. Martin, PE, Asst. City Engineer
Debby P. Key, Project Administrator
Joseph E, Bieker, PE, Storm Water Administrator
Matthew W. Jordan, Director of Public Works & Utilities
PO Box 1748 • GasraM • NORM CARCENA • 28053-1748
[phone] • Fax [phone]

L
DANIEL STOVE
BOTANICAL GARDEN
May 19, 2003
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Re: Gaston East-West Corridor Study
TIP Project Number U-3321, Federal Aid Project No. STP-1213 (6),
State Project No. 8.2812501
Attention: Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD,
Environmental Management Director
Dear Mr. Thorpe:
Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden has been in existence for 12 years attracting as
many as 30,000 visitors per year before opening our new gardens in 1999 with
an investment exceeding $20 million. Since that time we have been attracting
50,000 — 75,000 visitors per year. We feature 110 acres of meadows, woodland
and beautiful garden spaces anchored by a grand visitor pavilion.
The Garden has the beauty of a Master Plan and potential to attract as many as
500,000 visitors per year as the Master Plan is completed.
The current road system, NC-279, would never handle that capacity. In fact, our
remote location_ while attractively rural, is sometimes a hindrance to visitors
according to our surveys.
Our Board and staff are firmly behind the completion of this project called "The
Garden Parkway". In its current early design our Garden entrance would be less
than a half -mile from the proposed interchange NC-279, South New Hope Road.
We are satisfied with this projected location and don't want it any closer. We
feel it would adversely impact our visitors experience at the Garden. We are
confident that this completion will be a significant step in the success of Daniel
Stowe Botanical Garden as it will afford the easy access of a half million potential
visitors in central and south Mecklenburg County.
6500 5. New Hope Rd. • Selmonr, NC 28012
PHONE [phone] ' FAX [phone]
r..n

l can assure you that our Board and staff will do our part in working to see this
project complete. I would simply urge that beginning with the early design phase
that this project embrace the highest current standards for environmental issues
as well as greenspace and beauty. After all, this roadway has an opportunity to
set new standards in this part of our state as "The Garden Parkway". Please be
aware that the Garden would be willing to cooperate with the design of the New
Hope Road interchange as well as consult and review the overall roadway.
Please contact me with any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
ki\,(A
Mike Bush, Executive Director
Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden
6500 S. New Hope Rd. • Belmont, NC 28012
PHONE [phone] • FAX [phone]

APPENDIX A APPENDICES

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS

APPENDIX A-4
NOTICE OF INTENT

24909 Federal Register /Vol. 71, No. 81/Thursday, April 27, 2006/Notices
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(Pub. L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice
is hereby given of a meeting of the
Commercial Space Transportation
Advisory Committee (COMSTAC). The
meeting will take place on Wednesday,
May 24, 2006, starting at 8 a.m. at the
Federal Aviation Administration
Headquarters Building, 800
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC, in the Bessie Coleman
Conference Center, located on the 2nd
Floor. This will be the forty-third
meeting of the COMSTAC.
The proposed agenda for the meeting
will feature an update on commercial
space transportation legislative
activities, briefings on national space
and security policies, new RLV
technology developments, and the
Office of Space Commercialization in
the Department of Commerce, and an
activities report from FAA’s Office of
Commercial Space Transportation. The
2006 Commercial Space Transportation
Forecasts on the geosynchronous and
non-geosynchronous markets will also
be released at this meeting. An agenda
will be posted on the FAA Web site at
http://ast.faa.gov/COMSTAC. Meetings
of the COMSTAC Working Groups
(Technology and Innovation, Reusable
Launch Vehicle, Risk Management, and
Launch Operations and Support) will be
held on Tuesday, May 23, 2006. For
specific information concerning the
times and locations of the working
group meetings, contact the Contact
Person listed below.
Individuals who plan to attend and
need special assistance, such as sign
language interpretation or other
reasonable accommodations, should
inform the Contact Person listed below
in advance of the meeting.
FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT:
Brenda Parker (AST–100), Office of the
Commercial Space Transportation, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Room 331,
Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202)
267–3674; E-mail
[e-mail].
Issued in Washington, DC, April 19, 2006.
Patricia Grace Smith,
Associate Administrator for Commercial
Space Transportation.
[FR Doc. E6–6306 Filed 4–26–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Sixth Meeting: RTCA Special
Committee 207/Airport Security
Access Control Systems
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special
Committee 207 Meeting, Airport
Security Access Control Systems.
SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice
to advise the public of a meeting of
RTCA Special Committee 207, Airport
Security Access Control Systems.
DATES: The meeting will be held May
11, 2006, from 10-5 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
RTC A, Inc., Conference Rooms, 1828 L
Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC
20036.
FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT: (1)
RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036;
telephone [phone]; fax (202)
833–9434; web site http://www.rtca.org.
SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION: Pursuant
to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (P.L. 92–463, 5
U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby
given for a Special Committee 207
meeting. The agenda will include:
•May 11:
•Opening Plenary Session (Welcome,
Introductions, and Administrative
Remarks)
•Agenda Overview
•Workgroup Reports
•Workgroup 2: System Performance
Requirements
•Workgroup 3: Subsystem
Functional Performance
Requirements
•Workgroup 4: System Verification
and validation
•Workgroup 5: Biometrics
•Workgroup 6: Credentials
•Workgroup 7: Perimeter
•ICAO Update
•Closing Plenary Session (Other
Business, Establish Agenda, Date
and Place for Seventh and Eighth
Meetings).
Attendance is open to the interested
public but limited to space availability.
With the approval of the chairmen,
members of the public may represent
oral statements at the meeting. Persons
wishing to present statements or obtain
information should contact the person
listed in the FORFURTHERINFORMATION
CONTACT section. Members of the public
may present a written statement to the
committee at any time.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 18,
2006.
Robert L. Bostiga,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 06–3946 Filed 4–26–06; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–M
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
Environmental Impact Statement:
Butler County, PA
AGENCY: Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Cancellation of the notice of
intent.
SUMMARY: This notice rescinds the
previous Notice of Intent (issued
October 3, 2001—Vol. 66, No. 192) to
prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement for a proposed highway
project in Butler County.
FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT:
David W. Cough, P.E., Director of
Operations, Federal Highway
Administration, Pennsylvania Division
Office, 228 Walnut Street, Room 508,
Harrisburg, PA 17101–1720, Telephone
(717) 221–3411–OR–Brian Allen,
Assistant District Engineer for Design,
Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation, District 10–0, 2550
Oakland Avenue, P.O. Box 429, Indiana,
PA, 15701, Telephone [phone].
SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION:
Additional traffic analyses have
indicated that all project alternatives
can be down-scoped with little or no
significant impact to the environment.
An Environmental Assessment will be
pursued, based on a revised project
scoping.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning
and Construction. The regulations
implementing Executive Order 12372
regarding intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to this
program.)
James A. Cheatham,
FHWA Division Administrator, Harrisburg,
PA.
[FR Doc. 06–3988 Filed 4–26–06; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–M
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
Environmental impact statement:
Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties, NC
AGENCY: Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of intent.
VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:41 Apr 26, 2006Jkt 208001PO 00000Frm 00071Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM27APN1
rm
a
j
e
t
t
e

o
n

P
R
O
D
1
P
C
6
7

w
i
t
h

N
O
T
I
C
E
S
24910 Federal Register /Vol. 71, No. 81/Thursday, April 27, 2006/Notices
SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this
notice to advise the public that an
environmental impact statement will be
prepared for a proposed highway project
in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties,
North Carolina.
FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT:
Clarence W. Coleman, P.E., Operations
Engineer, Federal Highway
Administration, 310 New Bern Avenue,
Ste 410, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601–
1418, Telephone: [phone].
SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION: The
FHWA, in cooperation with the North
Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) and the North Carolina
Turnpike Authority (NCTA), will
prepare an environmental impact
statement (EIS) addressing proposed
improvements to east-west
transporation mobility in the area
around the City of Gastonia and other
municipalities in southern Gaston
County. As part of this proposed action,
the NCDOT also proposes to improve
mobility, access and connectivity
between southern Gaston County and
Mecklenburg County. The proposed
project study area consists of the
following general boundaries: I–85 to
the north, the South Carolina State line
to the south, the Charlotte-Douglas
International Airport to the east, and the
I–85 and US 29–74 junction to the west.
The proposed action is consistent with
the thoroughfare plans approved by the
Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) and the
Mecklenburg-Union MPO.
Alternatives to be studied in detail
include:
1. No-Build.
2. Construction of a new location
highway. Sixteen detailed study
alternatives or corridors will be studied
in the Draft EIS.
The proposed project is being
developed as a candidate toll road.
Accordingly, in conjunction with
development of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement and other on-going
project development activities, NCTA is
conducting a study to evaluate the
feasibility of developing the proposed
highway as a toll road and funding it,
in whole or in part, through the
issuance of ‘‘revenue bonds.’’
Letters describing the proposed action
and soliciting comments have been sent
to appropriate Federal, State and local
agencies. Citizens’ informational
workshops, meetings with local
officials, and a public hearing will be
held. Information on the dates, times
and locations of the citizens’
informtional workshops and public
hearings will be advertised in the local
news media, and newsletters will be
mailed to those on the project mailing
list. The Draft EIS will be available for
public and agency review and comment
prior to the public hearing.
To ensure that the full range of issues
related to this proposed action are
addressed and all significant issues
identified, comments and suggestions
are invited from all interested parties.
Comments or questions concerning this
proposed action and the EIS should be
directed to the FHWA at the address
provided above.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning
and Construction. The regulations
implementing Executive order 12372
regarding intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to this
program.)
Issued on: April 20, 2006.
Clarence W. Coleman,
Operations Engineer, Raleigh, North Carolina.
[FR Doc. 06–3949 Filed 4–26–06; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–M
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
Notice of Final Federal Ageny Actions
on Proposed Highway in Alaska
AGENCY: Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of limitation on claims
for judicial review of actions by FHWA
and other Federal Agencies.
SUMMARY: This notice announces actions
taken by the FHWA and other Federal
agencies that are final within the
meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). The
actions relate to a proposed highway
project, the East Lynn Canal Highway,
Alaska Route Number 7, from Echol
Cove to Katz Point in the Haines and
Juneau Boroughs, State of Alaska. Those
actions grant licenses, permits, and
approvals for the project.
DATES: By this notice, the FHWA is
advising the public of final agency
action subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A
claim seeking judicial review of the
Federal agency actions on the highway
project will be barred unless the claim
is filed on or before October 24, 2006.
If the Federal law that authorizes
judicial review of a claim provides a
time period of less than 180 days for
filing such claim, then that shorter time
period still applies.
FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT: Tim
Haugh, Environmental and Right-of-
Way Programs Manager, FHWA Alaska
Division, P.O. Box 21648, Juneau,
Alaska 99802–1648; office hours 7 a.m.–
4:30 p.m. (AST), phone [phone];
e-mail [e-mail]. You
may also contact Reuben Yost, Special
Projects Manager, Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities
DOT&PF), 6860 Glacier Highway, P.O.
Box 112506, Juneau, Alaska 99811–
2506; office hours 8 a.m.–5 p.m. (AST),
phone [phone], e-mail
[e-mail].
SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION: Notice is
hereby given that the FHWA and other
Federal agencies have taken final agency
actions by issuing approvals for the
following highway project in the State
of Alaska: FHWA Alaska Division
Project Number STP–000S(131) titled
the Juneau Access Improvements
Project, involves construction of
approximately 51 miles of two lane
highway from the end of Glacier
Highway at Echo cover in the City and
Borough of Juneau to a point two miles
north of the Katzehin River in the
Haines Borough. A ferry terminal will
be constructed at the north end of the
highway, and new shuttle ferries will be
constructed to run from Haines and
Skagway. Three major rivers will be
bridged as well as several streams. The
actions by the Federal agencies, and the
laws under which such actions were
taken, are described in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
for the project, approved on January 18,
2006, in the FHWA Record of Decision
(ROD) issued on April 3, 2006, and in
other documents in the FHWA
administrative record. The FEIS, ROD,
and other documents in the FHWA
administrative record file are available
by contacting the FHWA or the DOT&PF
at the addresses provided above. The
FHWA FEIS and ROD can be viewed
and downloaded from the project Web
site at http://dot.alaska.gov/
juneauaccess or viewed at public
libraries in the project area.
This notice applies to all Federal
agency decisions as of the issuance date
of this notice and all laws and Executive
Orders under which such actions were
taken, including but not limited to:
1. General: National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321–
4351]; Federal-Aid Highway Act [23
U.S.C. 109].
2. Air: Clean Air Act, [42 U.S.C. 7401–
7671(q)].
3. Land: Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act of
1966 [49 U.S.C. 303].
4. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act
[16 U.S.C. 1531–1544 and section 1536],
Marine Mammal Protection Act [16
U.S.C. 1361], Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act [16 U.S.C. 661–
667(d)], Migratory Bird Treaty Act [16
U.S.C. 703–712]; Magnuson-Stevens
VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:13 Apr 26, 2006Jkt 208001PO 00000Frm 00072Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM27APN1
rm
a
j
e
t
t
e

o
n

P
R
O
D
1
P
C
6
7

w
i
t
h

N
O
T
I
C
E
S

APPENDIX A APPENDICES

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS

APPENDIX A-5
OTHER AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE

• Letter from NCTA to NCDOT 05/21/07
• Minutes – ICE Scoping Meeting with USFWS and NCWRC 06/29/07
• Minutes – ICE Scoping Meeting with NCDWQ 07/26/07
• Letter from NCDENR Division of Water Quality – Jurisdictional
Delineation Verification 08/02/07
• Letter from Duke Energy Corporation regarding
Allen Steam Station 08/07/07
• De Minimis Determination for Wolfe Family Dairy Farm 08/11/08
• Email from US Coast Guard – No Permit Required 09/12/08
• Letter from Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department
regarding Berewick District Park 09/25/08
• Letter from Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden 10/08/08
• Letter to FERC – Invitation to be Participating Agency 02/03/09

MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
TURNPIKE AUTHORITY
1578 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1578 DAVID W. JOYNER
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
May 21, 2007
Deborah M. Barbour, P.E.
Director of Preconstruction
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1541 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1541
RE: North Carolina Turnpike Authority: Gaston East-West Connector
TIP Project U-3321
Dear Ms. Barbour,
Per a conversation between David Joyner of NCTA and Secretary Lyndo Tippett on
February 16, 2007, NCTA is now proceeding with only evaluating toll alternatives in
the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Gaston East-West Connector.
Non -toll alternatives will not be included in the EIS. This decision will streamline the
studies for the EIS and be more cost effective since added studies accounting for the
non -toll alternatives will not be needed. This decision was based on the consideration
that it would be unlikely for NCDOT to implement the project as a non -toll facility.
Should you see this situation differently, please advise. If you have any questions, or
need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone]
or via email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
teven . DeWitt, P.E.
Chief Engineer
Jennifer Harris, P.E., NCTA
NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY
TELEPHONE: [phone] FAX: [phone]

GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR – TIP Project U-3321
GASTON AND MECKLENBURG COUNTIES

MEETING MINUTES

DATE: June 29, 2007

LOCATION: NCTA, 5400 Glenwood Ave. Suite 400, Raleigh, 27612

TIME: 9:30 am -10:30 am

ATTENDEES: Rob Ayers - FHWA
George Hoops – FHWA
Jennifer Harris – NCTA
Bob Deaton – NCDOT
Jeff Dayton- HNTB
Anne Redmond – HNTB
Christy Shumate – HNTB
Ross Andrews - Ecoscience
Jill Gurak – PBS&J
Julie Flesch-Pate – Louis Berger Group

By Phone:
Marella Buncick – US Fish and Wildlife Service
Marla Chambers – NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Susan Fisher - HNTB

Meeting Purpose

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the scope of the indirect and cumulative effects study for the
Gaston East-West Connector, particularly relating to issues of concern to the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC).

Meeting Minutes

The NCTA is planning on conducting a qualitative ICE analysis for the Gaston East-West Connector
Detailed Study Alternatives (DSAs) using the 8-step methodology detailed in the NCDOT’s guidance. A
quantitative study for the LEDPA is anticipated being needed. Input from resource agencies on issues of
concern, identification of critical resources, and study methodologies is needed. In the next several
weeks, additional meetings will be held with other resource agencies (including the NC Division of Water
Quality).

Ms. Buncick stated there are no designated critical habitats or proposed critical habitats in the study area.
There are known bald eagle nests on the Catawba River. Habitat for the Schweinitz’s sunflower is a
concern since populations exist in the area.

Ms. Gurak stated that based on studies conducted by Earth Tech, bald eagle nests are located to the north
and south of the DSAs, greater than one mile from the DSAs.
- 1 -
Gaston East-West Connector
Meeting Minutes - June 29, 2007
Scope for ICE Study

- 2 -

A question was asked regarding the implications of the recent bald eagle delisting. Ms. Buncick did not
know, as there are no internal USFWS policies established yet. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act or the
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act may be applicable.

Mr. Deaton stated that listed plants have been addressed in other projects. For a project in Rutherford
County, a qualitative ICE analysis was completed. As the project progressed through permitting, a few
small populations of an endangered plant were discovered that were not directly impacted by the project.
These populations were planned to potentially be moved. NCDOT typically does not mitigate for indirect
and cumulative effects.

Ms. Buncick noted that the Shelby Bypass project is a good example of what should be done to address
endangered plant issues. That project went through a Section 7 consultation.

Ms. Buncick stated that concerns regarding the Gaston East-West Connector ICE analysis include water
quality (since there are listed aquatic species downstream in South Carolina), wildlife habitat
fragmentation, upland habitat loss, and potential habitat for listed plants.

Ms. Chambers stated her concerns include wildlife habitat fragmentation, water quality, upland habitat
loss, and additional impacts from improvements to north/south roads. Regarding terrestrial species in
general, a road could separate breeding grounds from foraging grounds, having an indirect impact.

Mr. Andrews asked about the Georgia aster. Ms. Buncick stated that there is no legal status for USFWS
to consider the aster or other candidate or state-listed species.

Ms. Flesch-Pate asked if there are any models available for evaluating wildlife habitat fragmentation.
None of the attendees knew of any specific models.

Clarification on what is included in a qualitative analysis versus a quantitative analysis was provided by
Mr. Deaton. A quantitative analysis usually includes water quality modeling for nutrient loading and/or
stormwater runoff. If a quantitative analysis of this nature is needed, it is done at the permitting stage for
the LEDPA only. This type of analysis is done infrequently.

Qualitative analyses do include a substantial amount of data. Data and numerical evaluations of
population, employment, and travel times, among other issues, are included in a qualitative analysis.

Ms. Buncick stated it is helpful to know the directly impacted wildlife resources to be able to comment on
indirect effects to these resources.

Ms. Chambers stated she has concerns with impacts to Lake Wylie, regarding whether the project would
increase lake development or the rate at which it is occurring. Also, research is needed on whether there
are any water quality intakes downstream in South Carolina. Mr. Ayers stated that the ICE study would
address water quality in South Carolina in accordance with SC’s standards.

Ms. Buncick stated that bog turtles have a high potential for being listed and they may occur in the project
area. Therefore, they and their habitat should be addressed on a broad scale in the ICE study. A good
contact for bog turtle information is Mr. Dennis Herman at NCDOT. There is the potential to mitigate for
bog turtle impacts if it is known early where suitable habitat is located.

Gaston East-West Connector
Meeting Minutes - June 29, 2007
Scope for ICE Study

- 3 -
Ms. Redmond stated that at this time, NCTA is planning to start the definition of natural resource ICE
study boundaries based on 14-digit Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC) watershed boundaries. The ICE study
area is typically larger than the direct impact study area boundary.

Ms. Buncick stated that since the regular project study area boundaries contain different geographies
(mountain, foothills, and piedmont), then the ICE study areas for specific plants or other species can be
narrowed down.

Ms. Chambers also requested that previous scoping comments be considered in the ICE study.

ACTION ITEMS

• Louis Berger to draft methodology of upland fragmentation analysis for review.
• NCTA to check on any water supply watersheds downstream of the project area in South
Carolina.
• USFWS & NCWRC to review previously submitted scoping comments and revise if necessary.
• USFWS to check on implications of delisting the bald eagle.
- 1 -

GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR – TIP Project U-3321
GASTON AND MECKLENBURG COUNTIES

MEETING MINUTES

DATE: July 26, 2007

LOCATION: NCTA, 5400 Glenwood Ave. Suite 400, Raleigh, 27612

TIME: 2:00 pm -3:00 pm

ATTENDEES:

VIA TELEPHONE AT THE NCTA OFFICE
Rob Ayers - FHWA Jennifer Harris – NCTA
George Hoops – FHWA Anne Redmond - HNTB
Polly Lespinasse – NC DWQ Jeff Dayton - HNTB
Bob Deaton – NCDOT Ross Andrews - Ecoscience
Susan Fisher - HNTB Mike Gloden - Ecoscience
Carl Gibilaro – PBS&J Jill Gurak – PBS&J
Kim Bereis – PBS&J Julie Flesch-Pate – Louis Berger Group

Meeting Purpose

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the scope of the indirect and cumulative effects study for the
Gaston East-West Connector with NC DWQ.

Meeting Minutes

Tentative project schedule:

Preliminary Design October 2007
Toll Scenario Traffic Forecast August 2007
Preliminary Draft EIS June 2008
Community Characteristics Report is underway

DWQ’s issues of concern:

High Quality Waters;
Outstanding State Resources;
303d Listed Streams;
Higher quality wetlands and streams identified in the jurisdictional surveys;
Water Supplies (Classifications WS-I/WS-II);
Crowders Creek;
Floodplains.
Gaston East-West Connector
Meeting Minutes - July 26, 2007
Scope for ICE Study

- 2 -

Berger will research both NC and SC regulations, laws, and policies equally during its ICE assessment,
but will emphasize coordination and interviewing efforts in NC.

DWQ agreed with the multi-county approach and ICE study area boundaries based on watersheds.

General triggers identified by DWQ that may indicate the need for investigation beyond the proposed
qualitative approach are as follows:

• Stormwater runoff effecting water uses or designations;
• Threatened / Endangered Species and their critical habitat;
• Violations of the Clean Water Act;
• Notable changes in traffic patterns;
• Land use changes; and
• Impacts to impaired waterbodies.

FHWA asked what would trigger analysis of ICE effects beyond the proposed qualitative approach when
applying for a Section 401 Water Quality Certification Permit. DWQ was not able to provide a specific
trigger but would consider the project as a whole when determining effects.

FHWA also asked what issues DWQ will consider in determining if a 401 Water Quality Certification
violation might occur. DWQ responded that stormwater typically is the issue, but also aquatic-related
threatened and endangered species can be issues. Indicators that could be used to determine stormwater
changes could include direct impacts from the project, changes in land use, changes in traffic patterns,
and effects on impaired waters.

Bob Deaton reiterated the need for a tailored qualitative approach that not only leads us to a LEDPA, but
sets up areas to focus on should a quantitative assessment of impacts on resources become necessary for
the Section 401 Water Quality Certification.

Belmont is in the process of finalizing their land use plan. It includes land use scenarios with and without
the Gaston Connector. It is expected to be adopted in August.

GIS layers should be developed in a fashion that is conducive to quantitative modeling in case we need to
conduct such modeling in the future.

FHWA questioned if the 16 Detailed Study Alternatives could be considered the only practical
alternatives left on the table. DWQ agreed since they were identified through the Merger process as a
group effort. She did not know if this would be the case for non-Merger projects.

FHWA asked about how DWQ defines a practical alternative. DWQ was unable to define what it would
consider a practical alternative for this project.

ACTION ITEMS

• DWQ to review previously submitted scoping comments and provide additional comments if
necessary.
• PBS&J to provide Louis Berger information collected as part of the community characteristics
report.
A
Michael F. Easley, Governor
(✓ William G. Ross Jr_, Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
August 2, 2007
Ms. Kimberly D. Bereis
PBS&J
5200 — 77 Center Drive, Suite 500
Charlotte, NC 28217
SUBJECT: On -Site Determination for Applicability to the Mitigation Rules [15A
NCAC 2H .0506(h)], Gaston East-West Connector, Gaston County
Dear Ms. Bereis:
Polly Lespinasse of the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) and Steve Lund of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers met with various representatives from The Catena Group, J.H. Carter & Associates, and
S&ME on April 12-13, 2007, May 2-3, 2007, May 10-11, 2007, and June 25-26, 2007, in order to
provide verification of potential jurisdictional features previously identified by these consulting firms for
the above referenced project. These features were evaluated for applicability to the mitigation rules
set forth in [15A NCAC 2H .0506(h)]. The maps containing the project corridor were provided in the
final jurisdictional verification package received by this office on July 26, 2007 and the jurisdictional
features are approximated on this map.
Due to the size of the project, a selection of sites were identified and visited to represent stream and
wetland determinations conducted by the above referenced firms. Several changes were made to the
stream determinations, wetland boundaries and wetland quality rating sheets based on the field
verifications. These changes were submitted to this agency for review in the jurisdictional
determination package received July 26, 2007, and appear to accurately reflect the changes required
pursuant to the field verifications.
Based on the site reviews of the jurisdictional determinations made by the consulting firms listed
above, DWQ will consider all sites identified in the revised jurisdictional verification package as
accurate (package revised 07/25/07 and received by this office on 07/26/07).
This letter only addresses the applicability to the mitigation rules and does not approve any activity
within buffers, Waters of the United States, or Waters of the State. Any impacts to wetlands, streams
and buffers must comply with 404/401 regulations, water supply regulations (15A NCAC 2B .0216),
applicable buffer rules, and any other required federal, state and local regulations. Please be aware
that even if no direct impacts are proposed to any protected buffers, sheet flow of all new stormwater
runoff as per 15A NCAC 2B .0250 is required.
Landowners or affected parties that dispute a determination made by the DWQ or Delegated Local
Authority that a surface water exists and that it is subject to the mitigation rules may request a
determination by the Director. A request for a determination by the Director shall be referred to the
Director in writing c/o John Hennessy, DWQ 401 Transportation Permitting Unit, 1650 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us
610 East Center Aven
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
,One
rhCarolinu
;Naturally
An Equal OpportunityiAffimtative Action Employer— 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

Ms. Kimberly Bereis
Page Two
Individuals that dispute a determination by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority that "exempts" a
surface water from the mitigation rules may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60
days of the date that you receive this letter. Applicants are hereby notified that the 60-day statutory
appeal time does not start until the affected parties (including downstream and adjacent landowners)
are notified of this decision. DWQ recommends that the applicant conduct this notification in order to be
certain that third party appeals are made in a timely manner.
To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina
General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C.
27699-6714. This determination is final and binding unless you ask for a hearing within 60 days.
If you have any additional questions or require additional information please contact Polly Lespinasse
at [phone].
Sincerely,
Robert B. Krebs
Surface Water Protection Regional Supervisor
cc: Steve Lund, USAGE Asheville Field Office
Sonia Gregory, DWQ Wetlands Unit
File Copy

Duke
Energy®
August 7, 2007
Steve D. DeWitt, P.E.
Chief Engineer
North Carolina Turnpike Authority
1578 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1578
Dear Mr. DeWitt:
526 Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Mailing Address:
EC10C/P0 Box 1006
Charlotte, NC 28202
Subject: North Carolina Turnpike Authority: TIP U-3321 Gaston East-West Connector
Allen Steam Station Future Operations
This letter is in response to your July 6, 2007 letter to Mr. Immel requesting information
on future operations of the inactive ash basin. Upon review of your map of the
proposed alternative segments, it appears that Segment KID does cross over the
retired ash basin. This retired ash basin is bounded by the coal stockpile to the north,
the Catawba River to the east and the active ash basin to the south.
The Allen station will be adding new pollution control equipment, flue gas desulfurization
— or scrubbers, to comply with the North Carolina Clean Smokestacks Act requirements.
See, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.107D. In conjunction with this modernization, the Allen
station is in the process of designing, permitting and constructing a storage area for
Coal Combustion Products over the retired ash basin. Initial site investigations have
been performed and design work is in progress in preparation for discussions with
NCDENR. To obtain the required capacity we are planning to use the entire retired ash
basin footprint and rise approximately 150 feet above the current elevation. The
storage area will most likely be constructed with a double synthetic liner system with a
witness zone between the liners. Construction is currently planned to start in late 2008.
The project team had evaluated several alternatives and sites for the future storage
area, however this was the only viable site that provided the required capacity.
I hope I have addressed you request, however if you have any additional questions
please feel free to contact me at [phone] or e-mail [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Theodore A. Manes
Project Manager
www.duke-energy.com

cc: Steve Immel, Plant Allen Station Manager
Tim Gause, Gaston District Manager

0US
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
l
No
r
t
h
Ca
r
o
l
i
n
a
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
31
0
Ne
w
Be
r
n
Av
e
n
u
e
,
Su
i
t
e
41
0
of
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,
NC
27
6
0
1
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
HI
g
h
w
a
y
Au
g
u
s
t
7,
20
0
8
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
In
Re
p
l
y
Re
f
e
r
To
:
H
D
A
-
N
C
Mr
.
Pe
t
e
r
Sa
n
d
b
e
c
k
,
De
p
u
t
y
St
a
t
e
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Of
f
i
c
e
r
No
r
t
h
Ca
r
o
l
i
n
a
St
a
t
e
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Of
f
i
c
e
46
1
7
Ma
i
l
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Ce
n
t
e
r
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
,
No
r
t
h
Ca
r
o
l
i
n
a
27
6
9
9
-
4
6
1
7
De
a
r
Mr
.
Sa
n
d
b
e
c
k
:
I
re
f
e
r
to
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
ea
s
t
-
w
e
s
t
tr
a
v
e
l
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
be
t
w
e
e
n
1-
8
5
we
s
t
o
f
Ga
s
t
o
n
i
a
in
Ga
s
t
o
n
Co
u
n
t
y
an
d
1-
4
8
5
/
N
C
16
0
in
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
Co
u
n
t
y
.
Th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
le
n
g
t
h
is
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
21
to
24
mi
l
e
s
in
le
n
g
t
h
an
d
th
e
av
e
r
a
g
e
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
wi
d
t
h
is
1,
4
0
0
fe
e
t
.
Th
e
Ga
s
t
o
n
Ea
s
t
-
W
e
s
t
Co
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
is
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
as
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
Ai
d
No
.
ST
P
-
1
2
1
3
(
6
)
,
St
a
t
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
No
.
8.
2
8
1
2
5
0
1
,
TI
P
No
.
U-
3
3
2
1
.
FH
W
A
,
NC
D
O
T
,
NC
T
A
(N
o
r
t
h
Ca
r
o
l
i
n
a
Tu
r
n
p
i
k
e
Ag
e
n
c
y
)
,
an
d
HP
O
me
t
on
Ap
r
i
l
21
,
Ju
n
e
2,
an
d
Ju
l
y
21
,
20
0
8
to
di
s
c
u
s
s
ef
f
e
c
t
s
o
f
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
pr
o
j
e
c
t
to
Na
t
i
o
n
a
l
Re
g
i
s
t
e
r
-
l
i
s
t
e
d
an
d
Na
t
i
o
n
a
l
Re
g
i
s
t
e
r
-
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
.
Th
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ef
f
e
c
t
s
fr
o
m
mu
l
t
i
p
l
e
de
t
a
i
l
e
d
st
u
d
y
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
(D
S
A
s
)
we
r
e
di
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
at
th
e
me
e
t
i
n
g
.
Pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
in
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
on
e
Na
t
i
o
n
a
l
Re
g
i
s
t
e
r
-
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
in
th
e
fo
r
m
o
f
RO
W
or
pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
ea
s
e
m
e
n
t
wa
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
.
Th
e
af
o
r
e
m
e
n
t
i
o
n
e
d
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
is
th
e
Wo
l
f
e
Fa
m
i
l
y
Da
i
r
y
Fa
r
m
.
It
wa
s
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
th
a
t
th
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
ac
t
i
o
n
fo
r
DS
A
s
58
,
64
,
68
,
76
,
77
,
an
d
81
,
wh
i
c
h
wo
u
l
d
re
q
u
i
r
e
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
29
ac
r
e
s
o
f
th
e
Wo
l
f
e
Fa
m
i
l
y
Da
i
r
y
Fa
r
m
wo
u
l
d
no
t
ad
v
e
r
s
e
l
y
im
p
a
c
t
th
e
hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
qu
a
l
i
t
i
e
s
o
f
th
e
fa
r
m
as
a
re
s
u
l
t
o
f
a
co
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
to
in
s
t
a
l
l
pl
a
n
t
i
n
g
s
al
o
n
g
th
e
RO
W
,
re
p
l
a
c
e
fe
n
c
i
n
g
,
an
d
in
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
st
e
e
p
e
n
e
d
sl
o
p
e
s
on
th
e
lo
o
p
ra
m
p
to
mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
th
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
fo
o
t
p
r
i
n
t
on
th
e
si
t
e
.
A
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
”
N
o
Ad
v
e
r
s
e
Ef
f
e
c
t
”
wa
s
gr
a
n
t
e
d
.
Th
i
s
le
t
t
e
r
se
r
v
e
s
to
in
f
o
r
m
yo
u
o
f
th
e
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
’
s
in
t
e
n
t
to
ma
k
e
a
de
mi
n
i
m
i
s
im
p
a
c
t
fi
n
d
i
n
g
on
th
i
s
Se
c
t
i
o
n
4(
f
)
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
Th
i
s
is
ba
s
e
d
on
yo
u
r
Ma
y
16
,
20
0
8
co
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
wi
t
h
th
e
“n
o
ad
v
e
r
s
e
ef
f
e
c
t
”
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
on
th
e
Wo
l
f
e
Fa
m
i
l
y
Da
i
r
y
Fa
r
m
.
HP
O
Co
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
:
.
I
-
S
Da
t
e
:
8
i
/
O8
sf
~
e
P
u
t
Y
St
a
t
e
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Of
f
i
c
e
r
4
b
Si
n
c
e
r
e
l
y
yo
u
r
s
,
i~
4
4
Fo
r
Jo
h
n
F.
Su
l
l
i
v
,
I
I
I
,
P.
E
.
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
o
r
M
O
V
I
N
G
T
H
E
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
E
C
O
N
O
M
Y
-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 9:21 AM
To: Giugno, Kiersten R
Cc: Gregory, Waverly
Subject: RE: Gaston East-West Connector (Catawba River)

Ms. Giugno,

Following a review of the project area and checking with our legal staff,
this project is beyond our area of responsibility and will not require a
Coast Guard Bridge Permit. If you should have further questions, please
contact me at [phone].

Bill H. Brazier

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 9:01 AM
To: Brazier, Bill
Subject: FW: Gaston East-West Connector (Catawba River)

Bill - The North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) proposes to improve
east-west travel through Gaston County by constructing a new toll facility
between I-85 west of Gastonia and I-485/NC 160 in western Mecklenburg
County. PBS&J is currently preparing the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement which includes an evaluation of the impacts of 12 Detailed Study
Alternatives on the human and natural environment. This analysis includes
the evaluation of potential impacts to navigable waters under the
jurisdiction of the USCG. As you can see on the attached map, the Catawba
River is located in the eastern portion of the project area. Although this
river is dammed in several locations, we have not been able to obtain
clarification as to whether or not it is a navigable water.

Per our conversation, could you please identify whether or not the Catawba
River qualifies as a Navigable Water and whether or not crossing this river
would require a permit from the USCG?

Should you need additional information, please feel free to contact me.
Thank you for your assistance with this matter.

Sincerely,

Kiersten R. Giugno | PBS&J | Senior Planner
1616 E. Millbrook Road, Ste. 310 | Raleigh, NC 27609 |919.431.5290

SEP 3 0 2008
N.C. IR:fir L. AUTHORITY
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
Park and Recreation Department
September 25, 2008
Ms. Jennifer Harris, PE
Staff Engineer- NC Turnpike Authority
1578 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1578
Subject: Proposed Gaston E-W Connector (STIP Project U-3321)
Dear Ms. Harris:
I have been requested to write a letter to you concerning the proposed Gaston
E-W Connector as it impacts a tract of land owned by Mecklenburg County.
On November 6, 2002, Mecklenburg County purchased three tracts of land (Mecklenburg
County PINs 14117123, 14117111, and 14117112) totaling 189.44 acres, located north of Dixie
River Road (SR 1155) and east of I-485. This land was designated as a future park.
Mecklenburg County recently added to these tracts with the purchase of 10 contiguous acres on
the northeast side (PIN 14118101) on December 31, 2007.
The current preliminary engineering designs for the project's Detailed Study Alternatives
encroach on the fringes of the park property, requiring about 1.6-3.3 acres for right of way, as
shown in the attached maps. Based on current preliminary engineering designs for the
Detailed Study Alternatives, this toll facility will not have an impact on the use, function, or
development of the proposed park at this location. Furthermore, the impacted acreage is not
identified as active or developable space on the adopted park master plan. As such, the portion(s)
within the current boundary of the park will be available for purchase as right-of-way when the
Gaston E-W Connector project begins the acquisition phase prior to actual roadway construction.
PEOPLE • PRIDE • PROGRESS • PARTNERSHIPS
5841 Brookshire Boulevard • Charlotte, North Carolina 28216-2403 • [phone] • Fax [phone]
www.parkandrec.com
All services are available without regard to origin, sex, or disability

In closing, Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation encourages the North Carolina
Turnpike Authority to minimize the impacted acreage where possible and, as such, notes
preference for alignment K3C, as detailed on the attached map. If you have any questions or
need additional information please feel free to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
W. Lee Jones, AIA
Capital Planning Services Division Director
CC:
James R. Garges, CPRP, Park and Recreation Director
Blaine Gregory, Senior Park Planner
David Nelson, South Region Park Planner
Nancy Brunnemer, Real Estate Manager
Andra Eaves, Southwest District General Manager
Mike Raible, CMS Director of Facilities Planning
PEOPLE ® PRIDE * PROGRESS • PARTNERSHIPS
5841 Brookshire Boulevard • Charlotte, North Carolina 28216-2403 • [phone] • Fax [phone]
www.parkandrec.com
All services are available without regard to origin, sex, or disability

Gaston East-West Connector (STIP ProjectU-3321)
Corridor Segment K3C
Preliminary Engineering Designs
April 28, 2008
PEOPLE • PRIDE • PROGRESS • PARTNERSHIPS
5841 Brookshire Boulevard Charlotte, North Carolina 28216-2403 • [phone] • Fax [phone]
www.parkandrec.com
All services are available without regard to origin, sex, or disability

Gaston East-West Connector (STIP Project U-3321)
Corridor Segment K4A
Preliminary Engineering Designs
April 28, 2008
PEOPLE • PRIDE • PROGRESS • PARTNERSHIPS
5841 Brookshire Boulevard • Charlotte, North Carolina 28216-2403 • [phone] • Fax [phone]
www.parkandrec.com
All services are available without regard to origin, sex, or disability

DANIEL STOWE
BOTANICAL GARDE
October 8, 2008
Mr. Jeff Dayton
North Carolina Turnpike Authority
1578 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699
Dear Mr. Dayton,
On behalf of Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden and its Board of Directors, I am thrilled to
see plans for the Garden Parkway in Gaston County move forward. The proposed
timeline is exciting and offers great insight into what we can expect as the project
develops.
As you are now receiving comments from the public, our Board of Directors would li
to provide input in that, given an alternative, we would prefer the northern route of the
Garden Parkway that crosses over New Hope Road. However, both routes would have
a beneficial impact on the Garden, and we welcome development of the project in
whatever form it may take. We also encourage you to further explore the completion of
the route that would connect Highway 321 and Interstate 85. We understand there is
additional research needed to make a final decision, and we will support your efforts in
any way possible.
We look forward to seeing future development of the Garden Parkway and continue to
pledge our support for this project that will positively impact Gaston County in the
coming years.
DHS:scs
HeBant/sus schweinitzii
Federally Endangered Species Protected at DSBG
6500 S. New Hope Rd. e Belmont, NC 28012
PHONE [phone] • FAX [phone]
www.dsbg.org
Sincerely,
D. Harding Stowe
President Lf.
i I OCT 9 2008 i
ril ()MTV
tis
4kecycled Pap

U.S. Department
of Transportation
FederalHighway
Administration
FEB 4 2009 !
North Carolina Division 310 ew Byrn Avenue, Suite 41.g_ .
Ralei IT, North Carolina 27601
February 3, 2009 _...._
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20426
To Whom It May Concern:
In Reply Refer To:
HDA-NC
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in cooperation with the North Carolina Turnpike
Authority (NCTA) and North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), is initiating an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a new location facility between I-485 in Mecklenburg
County and I-85 in. Gaston & Mecklenburg Counties. This project is included in the 2009-2015
North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program as STIP Project U-3321. The purpose of
the project, as currently defined, is to improve east -west transportation mobility between
southern Gaston County and western Mecldenburg County.
Your agency was identified as an agency that may have an interest in the project. This is based
on our coordination with Duke Energy Corporation and the understanding that they will be
required to obtain a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license revision because all
project alternatives currently under consideration will create changes in hydropower land
ownership, use, or development. With this letter, we are extending to your agency an invitation
to be a participating agency with the FHWA in the development of the EIS for the above project.
This designation does not imply that your agency either supports the proposal or has any special
expertise with respect to evaluation of the project.
Pursuant to Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU, participating agencies are responsible to identify, as
early as practicable, any issues of concern regarding the project's potential environmental or
socioeconomic impacts that could substantially delay or prevent an agency from granting a
peiuiit or other approval that is needed for the project. We suggest that your agency's role in the
development of the above project include the following as they relate to your area of expertise:
1) Provide meaningful and early input on defining the purpose and need, determining the
range of alternatives to be considered, and the methodologies and level of detail required
in the alternatives analysis.
2) Participate in coordination meetings and joint field reviews as appropriate.
3) Timely review and comment on documents provided for your agency's input during the
environmental review process.
G THE
AMERICAN
..
ECONOMY

2
A federal agency who does not respond to this letter will automatically be designated as a
participating agency. If you wish to decline, we ask that your agency submit a separate letter
stating your reason for declining the invitation to Ms. Jennifer Harris, P.E., NCTA Staff
Engineer, at 5400 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 400, Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 by February 27,
2009. Pursuant to SAFETEA-LU Section 6002, any federal agency that chooses to decline the
invitation to be a participating agency must specifically state in its response that it:
• Has no jurisdiction or authority with respect to the project;
• Has no expertise or information relevant to the project; and
• Does not intend to submit comments on the project.
FHWA also requests the participation of the FERC as a cooperating agency in the preparation of
the Draft EIS and Final EIS, in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.6 of the Council on Environmental
Quality's (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provision of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The Draft EIS is scheduled for completion in the 1st Quarter of 2009.
A copy of the Draft EIS will be sent to your offices.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss in more detail the project or our agencies'
respective roles and responsibilities during the preparation of the EIS, please contact Mr. George
Hoops, FHWA Major Projects Engineer, at [phone] or Ms. Harris at [phone].
Thank you for your cooperation and interest in this project.
Sincerely,
livan, III, P.E.
Division Administrator
cc: Mr. George Hoops, P.E., FHWA
Ms. Jennifer Harris, P.E., NCTA

APPENDIX A APPENDICES

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS

APPENDIX A-6
LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESOLUTIONS

• Gaston Urban Area MPO 03/27/07
• Town of Cramerton Board of Commissioners 08/21/08
• City of Belmont 12/17/08

RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GASTON
URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
THOROUGHFARE PLAN MAP TO INCLUDE THE FORMAL
NAME CHANGE OF THE "GASTON EAST -WEST
CONNECTOR" TO "GARDEN PARKWAY"
WHEREAS, the Transportation Advisory Committee of the Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization previously adopted a Thoroughfare Plan in 1991; and
WHEREAS, the Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, in cooperation with
the Statewide Planning Branch of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, began the
process of revising the Thoroughfare Plan in 1997 and worked with all of its member
jurisdictions to ensure the development of a Thoroughfare Plan that accurately reflects the needs
of the community with regard to present and anticipated volumes of vehicular traffic, in
accordance with North Carolina General Statutes 136-66.2; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation Advisory Committee of the Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization adopted the revised Thoroughfare Plan in January 2000 to serve as a
guide in the development of the road and highway system in the Gaston Urban Area; and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Statutes 136-66.2(d) provides that either a municipality,
county or Department of Transportation may propose changes in the adopted plan at any given
notice to the other parties, but no change shall be effective until it is adopted by the Department
of Transportation, the Transportation Advisory Committee and the municipal and/or county
governing boards; and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Turnpike Authority has requested that the Official Thoroughfare
Plan Map be amended to incorporate a formal name change of the Garden Parkway; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment would include the two -segment project formally known as
the "Garden Parkway" to the "Gaston Loop"; and
WHEREAS, the northern section of the Loop from 1-85 to US 321 will be formally named the
US 321 Bypass, and the southern section of the Loop from 1-85 to I-485 will be formally named
the Garden Parkway; and
WHEREAS, the Gaston Urban Area MPO held a public meeting on the proposed modifications
at the regularly scheduled TAC meeting on Tuesday, March 27, 2007; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Transportation Advisory Committee of the
Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization adopts the attached amendment
(Attachment A) to the Gaston Urban Area MPO Thoroughfare Plan Map for the inclusion of the
formal name change of the "Gaston East-West Connector" to "Garden Parkway".
Jim L+ t, Cha
Gas + Urban
Advisory Committee
an Planning Organization

ATTESTED:
James I-. Graham, Jr. AICP, Principal Tr sportation Planner
Gastonfirban Area Metropolitan Plannin Organization
Resolution adopted upon a motion of Joe (arzp err_ , seconded by IR, L x
by a vote of the majority of the Gaston Urban Area Transportation Advisory Committee.
North Carolina
Gaston County
I, Cathleen L. Roberts, a Notary Public for said County and State, do hereby certify that Jim
Long personally appeared before me on this the 27th day of March, 2007, and acknowledge the
due execution of the foregoing instrument.
Witness my hand and official seal, this the 27th day of March, 2007.
Cathleen L. Roberts
Notary Public
0ammission Rol 7/6/2010

ATTACHMENT A
Thoroughfare ran Amendment
Name Change
.rrrr..r 1 oe' jsrclen Lark' tjn
Incorporated Place
"Gaston Loop"
TAG' Appr.•od Curd
Gaston Urban Area .Tray. t.nAa,..orirCost."
Orb. Ar..a Metrori.c, 11,nr.hrgO:eoSaton
Staltey- -
-s
Gaston County
IM Proposed Garde"Parwaay r0-1321i
III proposed OF ar Bypass (Khasi
k .-u ..”-3...,ffi,>2rp.
Ppm
0
har#ofle
GASSST`TOON. . FSANYE,.
■�!

TOWN OF CRAMERTON RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE
MOST NORTHERN PROPOSED ROUTE FOR THE GASTON
EAST -WEST CONNECTOR "GARDEN PARKWAY"
WHEREAS, the Town of Cramerton Board of Commissioners considered at their
August 21, 2008 meeting whether to support the most Northern route for the Gaston
East-West Connector, otherwise known as the "Garden Parkway"; and
VVHEREAS, the most Northern route as it relates to Cramerton's jurisdiction area consists of
the following combination of individual segments listed on the detailed study alternatives, as
shown on the attached map: K3C, K3B, KX1, K2A, J5B, J5A; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Gaston East-West Connector or "Garden Parkway" will
significantly impact the Town of Cramerton and Gaston County by reducing traffic on
Interstate 85 but will also increase traffic on South New Hope Road; and
WHEREAS, by selecting the most Northern route there will be less miles of South New
Hope Road that need to be widened to four lanes; and
WHEREAS, in order to provide necessary physical infrastructure for the South New Hope
Road and Gaston East-West Connector or "Garden Parkway" intersection, the most Northern
route is closer to existing infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the most Northern proposed route appears to be located on more vacant and
available land which should reduce the cost associated with the acquisition of necessary
right-of-way for the project.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Cramerton Board of
Commissioners, in recognition of the benefits of the Gaston East-West Connector or "Garden
Parkway", and hereby formally makes request to the North Carolina Turnpike Authority and
the North Carolina Department of Transportation that the most Northern proposed route be
specified above utilized for this most important transportation project.
Unanimously adopted this 21st day of August 2008
ayor Ronald G. Murphy
ATTEST:
z()/(40 dieieztr
Wilene L. Cunningham, Town Clerk
SEAL
SEP 1 7 2008
N.C. TURNFIKE AUTHORITY

ity
Ms. Jennifer Harris, PE
NCTurnpike Authority
1578Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699'1578
115 N. MAIN STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 481
BELKO00lCW-C. 28812
PHONE (7O4)Q25' 586
Re: Resolution of the City of Belmont Regarding the Proposed Alignment of the Garden Parkway
Dear Ms. Harris:
The Belmont City Council, meeting inregular session onDecember 2,2OO8 unanimously approved the
enclosed Resolution.
Please distribute this toother members ofthe Turnpike Authority.
Sincerely,
MozMleUngafehdt
City Clerk
City of Belmont
Enclosure

WY
0
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BELMONT
REGARDING THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT
OF THE GARDEN PARKWAY
115 N. MAIN STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 431
BELMONT, N.C. 28012
PHONE [phone]
WHEREAS, the NC Turnpike Authority has recently presented information on
the potential alignments for the Gaston East-West Connector, or Garden Parkway, that
remain under consideration at this time; and
WHEREAS, the NC Turnpike Authority has indicated that the preliminary
recommendation of a preferred alignment for the Garden Parkway will be made in
January, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Belmont, following a presentation by
the NC Turnpike Authority on the alternative alignments and discussion of the perceived
impacts, desires to express its opinion on this issue due to the significance of those
impacts on the future of the City and the entire South Point peninsula:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Belmont, North Carolina hereby expresses its opposition to both the northern and
southern alignment study alternatives crossing the South Point peninsula that are still
under consideration for the following reasons:
The proposed Northern Alignment (KZ1, K3B), due to its close proximity
to the center of Belmont would restrict future planned growth to the south
as referenced in the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan and would, in
essence, split the South Point peninsula in an undesirable manner.
The proposed Southern Alignment (K4A) would create numerous and
severe hardships for a significant number of the South Point peninsula
residents and property owners due to the existing developments that fall
within the study corridor for this alignment.
BE IT, THEREFORE, FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City
of Belmont, North Carolina strongly encourages the NC Turnpike Authority to reconsider
its abandonment of the Bonner Middle Alignment (KID) by further researching a route
that, while necessarily avoiding new improvements to Duke Energy's Plant Allen Steam
Station, would more closely adhere to the route formally proposed by the Gaston County
Citizens Bypass Committee, which was endorsed by the Belmont City Council in 1999.

This route, which preferably would parallel the northern bank of the Plant Allen canal as
closely as possible, would provide for one of the narrower crossings of the South Fork
River, would provide greater benefit to the future development of the South Point
peninsula as envisioned in the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and would lead to
less disruption to the existing residents whose homes are presently located in the study
area.
Adopted this the 1st day of December, 2008.
ATTEST:

APPENDIX A APPENDICES

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS

APPENDIX A-7
SECTION 6002 PROJECT COORDINATION PLAN

10/28/08

1

Section 6002 Coordination Plan for the Gaston East-West Connector Project
STIP Project U-3321
______________________________________________________________________________
COORDINATION PLAN

1. Purpose of Plan.
1.1. Section 6002 Compliance. This plan is intended to satisfy the requirement for a
Coordination Plan under Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU (23 U.S.C § 139) for the
Gaston E-W Connector project (STIP No. U-3321).
1.2. Section 404/NEPA Merger 01 Process Information. This study, to the extent possible,
will follow an environmental review process consistent with the requirements for
“Projects on New Location” as described in the Section 404/NEPA Merger 01 Process
Information with the following modifications:
• Agency Meetings. Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAC) meetings
will be held monthly at NCTA. These meetings serve the purpose of “merger
meetings” under Merger 01, but are held more frequently.
• Study Initiation. The Notice of Intent (NOI) for this study was issued on April 27,
2006, after the project had transitioned to NCTA (See Exhibit 1). The NOI described
this project as a candidate toll project.
• Development of the Project Team and Agency Roles. Participating and cooperating
agencies have been identified and engaged in the study through the monthly TEAC
meetings. Agency roles and primary contacts are listed in Table 2. Since agency roles
are resolved, invitation letters to participating and cooperating agencies are not
needed.
• Opportunity for Involvement in Purpose and Need, Range of Alternatives. The
purpose and need (2002) and range of alternatives (2005) were initially developed by
NCDOT, before Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU came into effect and before the
project transitioned to NCTA. The NCTA has updated the Purpose and Need
Statement with current data and has prepared an Addendum to the Alternatives
Development and Analysis Report to address the toll aspect and other updates to the
project. NCTA has made the updated Purpose and Need Statement and Addendum to
the Alternatives Development and Analysis Report available for review and comment
by agencies and the public.
• Concurrence on Purpose and Need and Detailed Study Alternatives Carried Forward
(DSA). NCTA intends to seek concurrence from the participating and cooperating
agencies, consistent with Merger 01 procedures, on the updated Purpose and Need
(Concurrence Point 1) and the Detailed Study Alternatives (Concurrence Point 2).
10/28/08

2
Bridging decisions and alignment review (Concurrence Point 2A) have also been
agreed upon by the project team. Concurrrence will be obtained on these three
concurrence points (1, 2, 2A) in a single concurrence form.
• Signatures: The signed concurrence form confirms that the project team have
participated in the environmental review process and are satisfied with the conclusions
reached at each key project milestone. By signing the concurrence form, the signatures
indicate that the team members comments on reports and information that are used for
achieving a particular concurrence point were adequately addressed and no issues of
concern remain on a particular concurrence point. Once concurrence is reached,
discussion on that particular concurrence point will not be revisited unless there is
significant new information or there are significant changes to the project, the
environment, constructability, or laws and regulations.
1.3. Integration of NEPA and Section 404 Requirements. The process established in this
Coordination Plan is intended to ensure that the requirements of NEPA and Section 404
of the Clean Water Act can be satisfied as part of a single process. Specifically, this plan
is intended ensure that, to the maximum extent practicable,
• there is regular communication and collaborative discussion among all agencies
that have information, experience, and/or expertise relevant to issues considered
in Section 404 permitting;
• NCDENR can issue Section 401, Riparian Buffer Authorizations, Isolated
Wetland Permits, and State Stormwater Permits based on information developed
as part of the NEPA process; and
• the USACE can issue a Section 404 permit for the project promptly following the
end of the NEPA process, without the need for supplemental NEPA studies; and
• any other required permits or approvals can be obtained without unexpected
issues or delays.
1.4. Agency Communication. This plan establishes a framework for regular communication
among all of the agencies involved in the environmental review process. This
communication will include regular agency coordination meetings. These meetings will
provide a forum for open discussion and dialogue among agencies. Meetings with one
or more individual agencies also may occur as part of this process. When possible, all
Participating Agencies will be informed of a smaller meeting to ensure all appropriate
parties are included and will be updated after the meeting.
2. Project Schedule
2.1. Schedule. The NCTA will prepare a project schedule showing projected dates for
completing all environmental studies and permitting. The schedule will conform to
SAFETEA-LU time frames for comment periods and the FHWA “Vital Few Goal” of
10/28/08

3
achieving a median time frame of three years for completing an EIS. A draft schedule
for the Gaston East-West Connector project is shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Draft Project Schedule
Notice of Intent April 27, 2006
Identify Purpose and Need and Concurrence Achieved July 24, 2002
Identify Detailed Study Alternatives and Concurrence
Achieved
September 20, 2005
Bridging Decisions & Alignment Review and Concurrence
Achieved
April 8, 2008
Reconfirm Concurrence on Purpose and Need, Detailed
Study Alternatives, and Bridging Decisions & Alignment
Review
October 7, 2008
DEIS January 2009
Identify Preferred Alternative June 2009
FEIS April 2010
ROD October 2010
Execute Design-Build Contract December 2010

2.2. Agency Consultation. The schedule will be shared with the agencies and discussed at a
TEAC meeting. Agency comments will be considered and the schedule may be revised
as appropriate.
2.3. Updating Schedules. The project schedule may be revised from time to time by the lead
agencies during the environmental review process. Schedule changes will be
communicated to all participating agencies and the public. Under the statute, the
schedule may be extended by the lead agencies for good cause, and may be shortened
only with the consent of Cooperating Agencies.
3. Agency Roles
3.1. Lead Federal Agency. FHWA will be the lead Federal agency. As lead Federal agency
in the Section 6002 process, FHWA is responsible for making certain decisions as
specified in Section 6002. In addition, FHWA has an overall responsibility for
facilitating the expeditious completion of the environmental review process.
3.2. Joint Lead Agencies. NCTA will be a joint lead agency, and thus will share with FHWA
the responsibilities of the “lead agency” under the process defined in Section 6002.
NCDOT also will have the status of a joint lead agency; however, NCDOT will
primarily have a review/support role in the process, consistent with the Preconstruction
Guidelines adopted by NCDOT and NCTA on July 28, 2006.
10/28/08

4
3.3. Project Team-Participating / Cooperating Agencies. The agencies listed in Table 2 will
be participating and/or cooperating agencies in the environmental review process.
Primary contacts have been identified by each agency as shown in the table.
Table 2: Agency Roles and Primary Agency Contacts
Agency Role Primary Contact
Federal Highway Administration Joint Lead Agency George Hoops
NC Department of Transportation Joint Lead Agency Kristina Solberg
NC Turnpike Authority Joint Lead Agency Jennifer Harris
US Army Corps of Engineers Participating/Cooperating Steve Lund
US Environmental Protection Agency Participating Chris Militscher
US Fish and Wildlife Service Participating Marella Buncick
NC Department of Cultural Resources – Historic
Preservation Office
Participating Renee Gledhill-
Earley
NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality Participating Polly Lespinasse
Wildlife Resources Commission Participating Marla Chambers
Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization
Participating Hank Graham
Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning
Organization
Participating Bob Cook

3.4. Identifying Issues of Concern
Pursuant to Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU, participating agencies are responsible for
identifying as early as practicable, any issues of concern regarding the project’s potential
environmental or socioeconomic impacts that could substantially delay to prevent an agency
from granting a permit or other approval that is needed for the project. Each agency’s role in
the development of the Gaston East-West Connector project should include the following as
they relate to your area of expertise:
1) Provide meaningful and early input on defining the purpose and need, determining the
range of alternatives to be considered, and the methodologies and level of detail required
in the alternatives analysis.
2) Participate in TEAC and other coordination meetings and field reviews as appropriate.
3) Timely review and comment on documents provided for your agency’s input during the
environmental review process.

10/28/08

5
4. Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAC) Meetings
4.1. TEAC Meetings. The principal method for agency coordination on turnpike projects
will be Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAC) meetings, which will be
hosted by NCTA. These meetings will be used as a forum for discussing all turnpike
projects. All TEAC meetings will be held at the NCTA office in Raleigh, unless
otherwise specified in the meeting invitation.
4.2. Meeting Dates. The schedule for the TEAC meetings will be determined by FHWA and
NCTA after consultation with NCDOT and the Participating Agencies. This schedule
will be established, to the extent possible, for 12-month periods. The schedule will be
coordinated with NCDOT interagency meetings to avoid or minimize conflicts and
minimize travel. Changes to the schedule will be provided to the Participating Agencies
as far in advance as possible. The schedule for 2008 is attached as Exhibit 2.
4.3. Meeting Agenda and Objectives. The agenda for each TEAC meeting will be circulated
via e-mail to all Participating Agencies. The agenda will identify (a) any specific issues
that NCTA would like to resolve at the meeting and (b) any specific issues on which
NCTA is seeking comments from the Participating Agencies at the meeting.
4.4. Meeting Materials. NCTA will post the agenda and materials for each TEAC meeting on
a secure web site accessible to all TEAC members. Guidelines for circulating meeting
materials are provided below.
4.4.1. Timing of Circulation. To the greatest extent possible, NCTA will post the agenda
and materials at least two weeks in advance of the meeting. In some cases,
materials will be provided less than two weeks in advance, or will be circulated in
the TEAC meeting itself. NCTA will not seek to resolve issues or obtain
Participating Agency comments on materials that the Participating Agencies
received less than two weeks in advance of the meeting.
4.4.2. Availability of Paper Copies. In addition to posting documents on the TEAC web
site, NCTA will make paper copies of TEAC meeting materials available to all
attendees at each TEAC meeting.
4.4.3. Large Documents. Documents that would be difficult or time-consuming for
agencies to reproduce (e.g., large maps, lengthy bound documents with color,
fold-out pages, etc.) will be made available to Participating Agencies in hard-copy
format at a TEAC meeting (or by mail two weeks or more in advance) for
discussion at a subsequent TEAC meeting. NCTA will consult with the
Participating Agencies to determine when this type of distribution is appropriate.
4.5. Meeting Summaries. After each TEAC meeting, the NCTA will prepare a meeting
summary. The summary will list the attendees, topics discussed, unresolved issues, and
action items. The Meeting Summary will be posted in draft form to the NCTA web site
for review and comment two weeks in advance of the next meeting. Meetings may be
recorded on audiotape; the recording will be used in preparing the meeting summaries.
The meeting summaries will be included in the administrative record.
10/28/08

6
4.6. Attendees. Participating agencies (including cooperating agencies) will designate
primary contacts for each turnpike project. These primary contacts will regularly attend
TEAC meetings. Attendance may vary from month to month depending on the issues
being discussed. Primary contacts for the Gaston East-West Connector project listed
above in Table 2.
4.7. Issues of Concern. At any time in the process, a Participating Agency may identify an
“issue of concern” as defined in SAFETEA-LU, which is an issue that in the agency’s
judgment could result in denial of a permit or substantial delay in issuing a permit.
4.7.1. Format. Participating agencies will be strongly encouraged to submit any “issues
of concern” in writing to FHWA and NCTA on agency letterhead. Issues of
concern submitted in other formats (e.g., e-mail) will also be considered.
4.7.2. Timing . Participating Agencies are required by statute to identify any issues of
concern “as early as practicable” in the environmental review process, but this
determination is based on information provided by the lead agencies. In some
cases, it may not be practicable to identify an issue of concern until late in the
process. The statute does not set a specific deadline for raising these issues.
4.7.3. Request for Comment. At any point in the process, the NCTA may ask the
Participating Agencies to state in writing whether there are any issues of concern.
If such a request is made, NCTA will consult with the Participating Agencies
before setting a deadline for a response. If agreed by the Lead and Participating
Agencies, a deadline longer than 30 days could be established.
4.8. Monitoring and Updating. NCTA will maintain a list of both “general project issues”
and “issues of concern” (if any) identified by the participating agencies. Separate
meetings may be scheduled to resolve general project issues and/or any issues of
concern. Additional issues may be added to the list based on new information or
changed circumstances at any point in project development. This list will be posted to
the TEAC web site.
4.9. Resolving General Project Issues. General project issues that are not resolved among the
regular participants in the TEAC meetings can be elevated for consideration by the more
senior officials within the relevant agencies. Any agency – lead or participating – can
invoke the elevation process. The process is intended to be flexible, with specific
procedures determined on a case-by-case basis depending on the nature of the issue. In
general, the elevation process will involve the following steps:
• A TEAC member requests elevation on an issue within the jurisdiction of that
agency. This request can be made in a TEAC meeting or in a letter or e-mail to
the other TEAC members.
• The request for elevation is placed on the agenda for discussion at a subsequent
TEAC meeting.
• If the issue is not resolved at that subsequent TEAC meeting, the issue is elevated
to more senior officials within the TEAC agencies.
10/28/08

7
• Each TEAC member is responsible for identifying the more senior official(s)
within his or her agency who will be directly involved in the elevation.
• The TEAC members will work together to plan the logistics and timing of the
elevation process, including any briefing materials or other documents that need
to be prepared prior to a resolution of the issue.

4.10. Resolving Issues of Concern. Under the statute, NCTA or the Governor may
request a meeting at any time to resolve issues of concern. If such a meeting is
requested, FHWA will convene a meeting in accordance with SAFETEA-LU to resolve
the specified issues of concern. If an issue of concern is not resolved within 30 days
after such a meeting, a report must be submitted to Congress and to the heads of certain
agencies, as provided in SAFETEA-LU. If such a meeting is not requested, FHWA and
NCTA will seek to address and resolve the agencies’ issues of concern as part of normal
agency coordination during the environmental review process. NCTA anticipates that
this process will be invoked rarely.

Exhibit 1
_____________________________________________

NOTICE OF INTENT

24909 Federal Register /Vol. 71, No. 81/Thursday, April 27, 2006/Notices
SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(Pub. L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice
is hereby given of a meeting of the
Commercial Space Transportation
Advisory Committee (COMSTAC). The
meeting will take place on Wednesday,
May 24, 2006, starting at 8 a.m. at the
Federal Aviation Administration
Headquarters Building, 800
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC, in the Bessie Coleman
Conference Center, located on the 2nd
Floor. This will be the forty-third
meeting of the COMSTAC.
The proposed agenda for the meeting
will feature an update on commercial
space transportation legislative
activities, briefings on national space
and security policies, new RLV
technology developments, and the
Office of Space Commercialization in
the Department of Commerce, and an
activities report from FAA’s Office of
Commercial Space Transportation. The
2006 Commercial Space Transportation
Forecasts on the geosynchronous and
non-geosynchronous markets will also
be released at this meeting. An agenda
will be posted on the FAA Web site at
http://ast.faa.gov/COMSTAC. Meetings
of the COMSTAC Working Groups
(Technology and Innovation, Reusable
Launch Vehicle, Risk Management, and
Launch Operations and Support) will be
held on Tuesday, May 23, 2006. For
specific information concerning the
times and locations of the working
group meetings, contact the Contact
Person listed below.
Individuals who plan to attend and
need special assistance, such as sign
language interpretation or other
reasonable accommodations, should
inform the Contact Person listed below
in advance of the meeting.
FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT:
Brenda Parker (AST–100), Office of the
Commercial Space Transportation, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Room 331,
Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202)
267–3674; E-mail
[e-mail].
Issued in Washington, DC, April 19, 2006.
Patricia Grace Smith,
Associate Administrator for Commercial
Space Transportation.
[FR Doc. E6–6306 Filed 4–26–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Sixth Meeting: RTCA Special
Committee 207/Airport Security
Access Control Systems
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special
Committee 207 Meeting, Airport
Security Access Control Systems.
SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice
to advise the public of a meeting of
RTCA Special Committee 207, Airport
Security Access Control Systems.
DATES: The meeting will be held May
11, 2006, from 10-5 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
RTC A, Inc., Conference Rooms, 1828 L
Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC
20036.
FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT: (1)
RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036;
telephone [phone]; fax (202)
833–9434; web site http://www.rtca.org.
SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION: Pursuant
to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (P.L. 92–463, 5
U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby
given for a Special Committee 207
meeting. The agenda will include:
•May 11:
•Opening Plenary Session (Welcome,
Introductions, and Administrative
Remarks)
•Agenda Overview
•Workgroup Reports
•Workgroup 2: System Performance
Requirements
•Workgroup 3: Subsystem
Functional Performance
Requirements
•Workgroup 4: System Verification
and validation
•Workgroup 5: Biometrics
•Workgroup 6: Credentials
•Workgroup 7: Perimeter
•ICAO Update
•Closing Plenary Session (Other
Business, Establish Agenda, Date
and Place for Seventh and Eighth
Meetings).
Attendance is open to the interested
public but limited to space availability.
With the approval of the chairmen,
members of the public may represent
oral statements at the meeting. Persons
wishing to present statements or obtain
information should contact the person
listed in the FORFURTHERINFORMATION
CONTACT section. Members of the public
may present a written statement to the
committee at any time.
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 18,
2006.
Robert L. Bostiga,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 06–3946 Filed 4–26–06; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–M
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
Environmental Impact Statement:
Butler County, PA
AGENCY: Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Cancellation of the notice of
intent.
SUMMARY: This notice rescinds the
previous Notice of Intent (issued
October 3, 2001—Vol. 66, No. 192) to
prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement for a proposed highway
project in Butler County.
FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT:
David W. Cough, P.E., Director of
Operations, Federal Highway
Administration, Pennsylvania Division
Office, 228 Walnut Street, Room 508,
Harrisburg, PA 17101–1720, Telephone
(717) 221–3411–OR–Brian Allen,
Assistant District Engineer for Design,
Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation, District 10–0, 2550
Oakland Avenue, P.O. Box 429, Indiana,
PA, 15701, Telephone [phone].
SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION:
Additional traffic analyses have
indicated that all project alternatives
can be down-scoped with little or no
significant impact to the environment.
An Environmental Assessment will be
pursued, based on a revised project
scoping.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning
and Construction. The regulations
implementing Executive Order 12372
regarding intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to this
program.)
James A. Cheatham,
FHWA Division Administrator, Harrisburg,
PA.
[FR Doc. 06–3988 Filed 4–26–06; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–M
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
Environmental impact statement:
Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties, NC
AGENCY: Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of intent.
VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:41 Apr 26, 2006Jkt 208001PO 00000Frm 00071Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM27APN1
rm
a
j
e
t
t
e

o
n

P
R
O
D
1
P
C
6
7

w
i
t
h

N
O
T
I
C
E
S
Exhibit 1
24910 Federal Register /Vol. 71, No. 81/Thursday, April 27, 2006/Notices
SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this
notice to advise the public that an
environmental impact statement will be
prepared for a proposed highway project
in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties,
North Carolina.
FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT:
Clarence W. Coleman, P.E., Operations
Engineer, Federal Highway
Administration, 310 New Bern Avenue,
Ste 410, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601–
1418, Telephone: [phone].
SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION: The
FHWA, in cooperation with the North
Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) and the North Carolina
Turnpike Authority (NCTA), will
prepare an environmental impact
statement (EIS) addressing proposed
improvements to east-west
transporation mobility in the area
around the City of Gastonia and other
municipalities in southern Gaston
County. As part of this proposed action,
the NCDOT also proposes to improve
mobility, access and connectivity
between southern Gaston County and
Mecklenburg County. The proposed
project study area consists of the
following general boundaries: I–85 to
the north, the South Carolina State line
to the south, the Charlotte-Douglas
International Airport to the east, and the
I–85 and US 29–74 junction to the west.
The proposed action is consistent with
the thoroughfare plans approved by the
Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) and the
Mecklenburg-Union MPO.
Alternatives to be studied in detail
include:
1. No-Build.
2. Construction of a new location
highway. Sixteen detailed study
alternatives or corridors will be studied
in the Draft EIS.
The proposed project is being
developed as a candidate toll road.
Accordingly, in conjunction with
development of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement and other on-going
project development activities, NCTA is
conducting a study to evaluate the
feasibility of developing the proposed
highway as a toll road and funding it,
in whole or in part, through the
issuance of ‘‘revenue bonds.’’
Letters describing the proposed action
and soliciting comments have been sent
to appropriate Federal, State and local
agencies. Citizens’ informational
workshops, meetings with local
officials, and a public hearing will be
held. Information on the dates, times
and locations of the citizens’
informtional workshops and public
hearings will be advertised in the local
news media, and newsletters will be
mailed to those on the project mailing
list. The Draft EIS will be available for
public and agency review and comment
prior to the public hearing.
To ensure that the full range of issues
related to this proposed action are
addressed and all significant issues
identified, comments and suggestions
are invited from all interested parties.
Comments or questions concerning this
proposed action and the EIS should be
directed to the FHWA at the address
provided above.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning
and Construction. The regulations
implementing Executive order 12372
regarding intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to this
program.)
Issued on: April 20, 2006.
Clarence W. Coleman,
Operations Engineer, Raleigh, North Carolina.
[FR Doc. 06–3949 Filed 4–26–06; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–M
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
Notice of Final Federal Ageny Actions
on Proposed Highway in Alaska
AGENCY: Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of limitation on claims
for judicial review of actions by FHWA
and other Federal Agencies.
SUMMARY: This notice announces actions
taken by the FHWA and other Federal
agencies that are final within the
meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). The
actions relate to a proposed highway
project, the East Lynn Canal Highway,
Alaska Route Number 7, from Echol
Cove to Katz Point in the Haines and
Juneau Boroughs, State of Alaska. Those
actions grant licenses, permits, and
approvals for the project.
DATES: By this notice, the FHWA is
advising the public of final agency
action subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A
claim seeking judicial review of the
Federal agency actions on the highway
project will be barred unless the claim
is filed on or before October 24, 2006.
If the Federal law that authorizes
judicial review of a claim provides a
time period of less than 180 days for
filing such claim, then that shorter time
period still applies.
FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT: Tim
Haugh, Environmental and Right-of-
Way Programs Manager, FHWA Alaska
Division, P.O. Box 21648, Juneau,
Alaska 99802–1648; office hours 7 a.m.–
4:30 p.m. (AST), phone [phone];
e-mail [e-mail]. You
may also contact Reuben Yost, Special
Projects Manager, Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities
DOT&PF), 6860 Glacier Highway, P.O.
Box 112506, Juneau, Alaska 99811–
2506; office hours 8 a.m.–5 p.m. (AST),
phone [phone], e-mail
[e-mail].
SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION: Notice is
hereby given that the FHWA and other
Federal agencies have taken final agency
actions by issuing approvals for the
following highway project in the State
of Alaska: FHWA Alaska Division
Project Number STP–000S(131) titled
the Juneau Access Improvements
Project, involves construction of
approximately 51 miles of two lane
highway from the end of Glacier
Highway at Echo cover in the City and
Borough of Juneau to a point two miles
north of the Katzehin River in the
Haines Borough. A ferry terminal will
be constructed at the north end of the
highway, and new shuttle ferries will be
constructed to run from Haines and
Skagway. Three major rivers will be
bridged as well as several streams. The
actions by the Federal agencies, and the
laws under which such actions were
taken, are described in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
for the project, approved on January 18,
2006, in the FHWA Record of Decision
(ROD) issued on April 3, 2006, and in
other documents in the FHWA
administrative record. The FEIS, ROD,
and other documents in the FHWA
administrative record file are available
by contacting the FHWA or the DOT&PF
at the addresses provided above. The
FHWA FEIS and ROD can be viewed
and downloaded from the project Web
site at http://dot.alaska.gov/
juneauaccess or viewed at public
libraries in the project area.
This notice applies to all Federal
agency decisions as of the issuance date
of this notice and all laws and Executive
Orders under which such actions were
taken, including but not limited to:
1. General: National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321–
4351]; Federal-Aid Highway Act [23
U.S.C. 109].
2. Air: Clean Air Act, [42 U.S.C. 7401–
7671(q)].
3. Land: Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act of
1966 [49 U.S.C. 303].
4. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act
[16 U.S.C. 1531–1544 and section 1536],
Marine Mammal Protection Act [16
U.S.C. 1361], Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act [16 U.S.C. 661–
667(d)], Migratory Bird Treaty Act [16
U.S.C. 703–712]; Magnuson-Stevens
VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:13 Apr 26, 2006Jkt 208001PO 00000Frm 00072Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM27APN1
rm
a
j
e
t
t
e

o
n

P
R
O
D
1
P
C
6
7

w
i
t
h

N
O
T
I
C
E
S
Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2
_____________________________________________

APPENDIX A APPENDICES

APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS

APPENDIX A-8
CORRESPONDENCE RELATED TO AIR QUALITY
CONFORMITY

• Letter from USEPA to NCDENR 11/17/08
• Letter from NCDENR to USEPA 12/19/08
• Letter from USEPA to NCDENR 01/09/09

Irik UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
s� YW REGION 4
$ �� ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
—•— 1°= 61 FORSYTH STREET
raos�° ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
NOV 1 7 2008
Mr. William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Dear Secretary Ross:
I am writing to you concerning your State Implementation Plan (SIP) for demonstrating
attainment of the 8-hour national ambient air quality standard for ozone in the bi-state Charlotte
nonattainment area. The bi-state Charlotte nonattainment area is comprised of several counties
in North Carolina and a portion of York County in South Carolina. The York County portion
also includes tribal land for the Catawba Indian Tribe. The plan for the North Carolina portion of
this area was submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for review on
June 15, 2008. Although our staffs have discussed the contents of this plan, we have not taken
formal action to approve or disapprove the SIP.
The Clean Air Act and EPA rules for implementation of the 1997 ozone standard require
that the attainment demonstration SIP for a moderate area such as the bi-state Charlotte area
contain the State's demonstration that the SIP is capable of providing for attainment of the ozone
standard by no later than June 15, 2010. This can only be done by projecting (through modeling
and other analysis) that the area will achieve ozone levels consistent with the ozone standard by
the end of the 2009 ozone season. Such modeling demonstrations are extremely complex and
contain some uncertainty in the predictions.
After areas reach the attainment date, achievement of the standard is determined by
assessing actual monitoring data from the most recent three years. Because we are now so close
to the attainment date, we now believe that attainment will not be achieved by the required
moderate area deadline based on air quality measurements from the summers of 2007 and 2008
that exceed the standard by a sizeable amount. Furthermore, we believe that the area will not
meet the requirements for a one-year extension of the attainment date. Therefore, if we are
required to take rulemaking action on the SIP, we see no alternative to proposing disapproval of
the SIP's attainment demonstration. [Please see Attachment A to this letter, which contains the
air quality data which lead EPA to its conclusion.]
In cases where attainment of the ozone standard cannot be achieved by the required date,
the Clean Air Act allows a State to seek a higher classification for the area. Section 181(b)(3)
provides for States to request EPA to reclassify a nonattainment area to a higher classification
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable ON Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer}

and requires EPA to grant such a request. Such a reclassification will have the effect of allowing
for a new attainment date for the area (based on the new classification), which would be
established in the new attainment demonstration. In conjunction with EPA's action on the
reclassification request, EPA will establish a date for submission of a new attainment
demonstration and any other additional requirements based on the area's new classification. It
should be noted, however, that the Clean Air Act requires States to move forward to adopt and
implement (to the extent measures are not yet in place) all RACT (Reasonably Available Control
Technology) and other control measures needed to attain the 1997 ozone air quality standard as
expeditiously as practicable. In particular, measures planned for the 2009 ozone season should
not be delayed.
Please consider making a request to reclassify the North Carolina portion of the bi-state
Charlotte nonattainment area to a higher classification. I will need a response from you no later
than December 8, 2008, if you are going to make such a request. In the absence of a
reclassification request for the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte nonattainment
area, I intend to sign a proposed disapproval of your existing attainment demonstration by no
later than January 9, 2009. A letter similar to this was sent to South Carolina with this same
request.
As always, please feel free to contact me or Beverly Banister in Region 4 at
[phone], if additional information is needed. I will look forward to hearing from you
regarding your decision.
Sincerely,
OJ. I. Palmer, Jr.
Regional Administrator
Attachment
cc: Bob King, SC DHEC
B. Keith Overcash, NC DENR
Myra Reece, SC DHEC
Don Willard, Mecklenburg County
Marcus Peacock, U.S. EPA
Robert Meyers, U.S. EPA
Beverly Banister, U.S. EPA Region 4

Attachment A
a)
c
0
N
0
U
CO
0
2
I
0
0
0
(0
0
k
0
%
0
S
- (0
Q
0
c
-13
U
0
0
W
Co
-0
@
Q
-J
C
-C
@
7
CI
:
(0
a
Q
0
q
a)
CO
Q
0
N
0
2
O
O
C
a)
-C
0
-o
c
W
m
-C
>
E
0
0
co
0
Nonattainment Area Will Not Achieve the Ozone NAAQS
c 0 ' Co• --a wrer=n
g m E q\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
:r > D- 000000
> \ 2
t E
Co
C'1
>
/ co
0
E
2
k
7%LOCO) p%/2/
a0000000
30000000
7\\2$$\2
a0Rog000
�ooaoaaa
= E
C—(a-=rrco
�._ 00000000
%&>566000o6
CO
meet NAAQS
Above the
\
m
November
r#-tone
co / > k $ $ >
* x *
Car
E
2.0E2$%7$$i
�E�ggog000
coa, 0000000
}csi
a \ \ \ \ CO \ %
aoo00oo0
(_______
=tttt
kkk}k}k
c
o.
QS
Mecklenburg
»
0
0l••����
a
371190041
371191005
371790003
Number of sites
/Oo
�Z
\
j 0 •
Source of Data
/
\ 6
}2 \,
u .» n y
a\ @/
»& k/
a = / E
/( _«
k\ \2
m
/\ \k
c® a2
® Q .FD =
C �0
E \ Co 2
.3 ƒ $ 2
\ 3 % 2
// 0\
/ \ (
a 5 .0
\f >0
t 2 E
E2 3/
\7 N0
k\ 0o
2/ >\ co 0
¥c 7\\
*° =o>
\k �0/
52 J/f
_« '=o%
_ \ >
}\ ozo
/ \ 2 @ \
\\ �(\
n = _
4�\\
o /
c/ \'a
o G E /
'E \ 7 \ 0 «
/2 > 0
0 ] @ O.0
\ \ \ 0 as { \
\ ] - o c0
§ c \ ƒ E ±
w : _ _
\ ■ 5 a $
±] 2±5R
@O R@as
c
li
Condition for a One -Year Extension

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
December 19, 2008
J. I. Palmer, Jr.
Regional Administrator
US EPA Region 4
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
Re: Attainment Demonstration for the North Carolina Portion of the Charlotte -Gastonia -Rock Hill
Eight -Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
Dear Mr. Palmer:
I am in receipt of your letter dated November 17, 2008, which addressed the North Carolina State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for demonstrating attainment of the 1997 8-hour national ambient air
quality standard for ozone in the bi-state Charlotte -Gastonia -Rock Hill (Metrolina) nonattainment
area. The letter stated that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could not approve this SIP
since the area is unlikely to attain the 1997 ozone standard by June 15, 2010 or meet the
requirements for a one-year extension of the attainment date. The EPA offered North Carolina the
option of requesting a reclassification from Moderate to Serious to avoid disapproval of the
Metrolina SIP. I have thoroughly considered both options, the proposed disapproval of the SIP
and the voluntary reclassification to Serious. Both options present rather negative implications for
the State. Therefore, to address EPA's concern over the Metrolina SIP attainment demonstration,
North Carolina requests that EPA return the attainment demonstration originally submitted on June
15, 2007, so that the State may improve the demonstration and submit an updated plan.
It is my understanding that the withdrawal of the attainment demonstration for the Metrolina area
will result in North Carolina receiving a letter of finding of failure to submit a plan under Section
179 of the Clean Air Act, and that an eighteen month sanction clock will begin, along with a
twenty-four month Federal Implementation Plan clock. It is North Carolina's intention to submit a
revised attainment demonstration for the Metrolina region by November 2009, which would stop
both the sanction and the FIP clocks. I request that EPA work with North Carolina to quickly
review and deem adequate the motor vehicle emissions budgets that will be submitted as part of
the revised demonstration in November 2009. These budgets are needed so that transportation
conformity analyses can be conducted and approved by May of 2010. EPA's cooperation is
essential in order for this schedule to be successful.
In arriving at this decision, North Carolina considered the option of reclassification. While EPA
believes it is unlikely that the Metrolina area will attain the 1997 ozone standard by its attainment
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone]/ FAX: [phone]/ Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
NorthCarolina
Naturally

Jimmy Palmer, Jr.
December 19, 2008
Page 2
date, the region may meet the requirements for requesting a one-year extension of the attainment
date. The region will achieve additional nitrogen oxide (NOx) reductions as a result of new
controls on utilities and in motor vehicle fleet turnover. North Carolina is in the process of
adopting an idle reduction rule for heavy-duty vehicles. This new rule is expected to become
effective on May 1, 2009, and will result in additional NOx emission reductions. It should be
noted that in 2004 the region had a 4`h highest value of 0.085 parts per million (ppm) and there
have been significant reductions in NOx emissions since that time. Given that the region may
qualify for a one-year extension of its attainment date, it is believed that disapproval of the SIP
would be premature.
Further, many of the additional control requirements within the Clean Air Act (CAA) of a
reclassification to Serious focus on reducing volatile organic compounds (VOCs). While any
reduction in air pollution may be considered a positive step, much scientific knowledge has been
gained since the 1990 CAA Amendments were promulgated relative to beneficial reductions in the
precursor pollutants that contribute to the formation of ozone. The Metrolina region is NOx
limited, so reductions in VOC emissions will not result in the reduction of ozone needed to meet
the standard. In these hard economic times, it is unreasonable to require business and industry to
go through this resource intensive and burdensome process and implement costly controls when
the needed results will not be achieved.
North Carolina has demonstrated leadership by implementing legislation, regulation and voluntary
measures to address air pollution. We are committed to develop a SIP that will address the air
quality issues for the Metrolina region through partnership with the South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control and the Mecklenburg County Air Quality programs. We will
review the current controls that will be going in place and determine if there are other controls that
could be implemented quickly so that the area can meet the requirements necessary to request a
one-year extension and, if necessary, a second one-year extension in 2010. Our projected timeline
for developing and submitting a revised attainment demonstration is:
January 2, 2009 — DAQ staff begins updating the area, nonroad mobile and point source inventory
so that it reflects a more refined inventory and addresses the CAIR vacatur for other States;
February 27, 2009 — DAQ receives Metrolina transportation partners' data for future year
modeling runs;
March 2, 2009 —DAQ begins emissions and air quality modeling runs;
July 1, 2009 — Modeling and quality assurance reviews are completed;
August 1, 2009 — Draft pre -hearing documentation is made available for review by EPA and.
transportation partners;
September 1, 2009 — Comments on the draft plan are received and addressed by DAQ;
September 21, 2009 — Pre -hearing draft SIP is made available to public;

Jimmy Palmer, Jr.
December 19, 2008
Page 3
November 1, 2009 — The public comment period ends;
November 30, 2009 —DAQ submits the revised plan to EPA.
If at some point during 2009 ozone season the monitoring data shows that the Metrolina area is not
eligible for a one year extension of the attainment date, North Carolina will consider submitting a
request to reclassify to Serious instead of waiting for the mandatory reclassification from EPA.
Please feel free to contact Keith Overcash at [phone] if you have any questions.
Sincerely.
William G. ,Ross, Jr.
cc: B. Keith Overcash, NCDENR
Myra C. Reece, SCDHEC
Don Willard, Mecklenburg County
Marcus Peacock, USEPA
Robert Meyers, USEPA
Beverly Banister, USEPA Region 4

J�\�E6 STA/-
oA ;6 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
.�� ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
z<<,q< 61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
JA N - 9 2009
Mr. William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Dear Secretary Ross:
I am writing to you concerning North Carolina's efforts to comply with Clean Air Act
(the Act) requirements for the 1997 8-hour national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for
ozone. Within three years after the effective date of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) designations, the Act requires a state with areas designated nonattainment for the ozone
NAAQS to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) describing how that state will attain and
maintain the ozone standard. EPA made designations for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard,
effective June 15, 2004; therefore, submissions were due June 15, 2007, for most areas. On June
15, 2007, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
submitted a plan to show how the Charlotte -Gastonia -Rock Hill (Charlotte) nonattainment area
would attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by the statutory attainment date of June 15, 2010,
and how the North Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte nonattainment area would achieve
its portion of emission reductions necessary for the area to attain by that date. EPA has since
reviewed North Carolina's submission to determine approvability.
On November 17, 2008, we sent you a letter noting that our analysis indicates that North
Carolina's attainment demonstration submission is not approvable based on current air quality in
the area. In that letter, we requested that DENR consider a voluntary reclassification to serious.
We also noted that if a voluntary reclassification request was not made by December 8, 2008,
EPA would propose disapproval of North Carolina's attainment demonstration for its portion of
the Charlotte area by January 9, 2009. We sent a similar letter to the South Carolina Department
of Health and Environmental Control regarding its attainment demonstration for the Charlotte
area. On December 19, 2008, we received DENR's letter with a request to withdraw North
Carolina's June 15, 2007, attainment demonstration for its portion of the Charlotte area. As
such, EPA no longer has the required attainment demonstration submission from North Carolina
for the bi-state Charlotte area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
Internet Address (URL) • httpa/www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)

We consider the required SIP elements to be a high priority; therefore, we are notifying
you that, pursuant to section 179(a) of the Act, EPA is making a finding of failure to submit the
1997 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration for North Carolina's portion of the bi-state
Charlotte area. EPA will soon publish a rule in the Federal Register announcing this finding,
which will be effective upon publication. In March 2008, we made similar findings of failure to
submit for states that had not yet submitted attainment demonstrations and/or other required
elements for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard (see enclosure). In general, findings are made in
those cases where a state failed to submit some or all elements of a required SIP, or in this case
where the State has withdrawn a required submission. Please be assured that we will continue to
work closely with your staff to undertake all necessary efforts to ensure that a revised submittal
is made as soon as possible so that we can avoid the implementation of sanctions and the need to
promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP). EPA anticipates ongoing consideration
regarding whether any further actions are necessary to ensure that all states continue to make
progress towards attainment of the ozone standards as expeditiously as practicable, consistent
with the requirements of the Clean Air Act."
If within 18 months of EPA's finding, EPA has not affirmatively determined that North
Carolina has submitted a completed attainment demonstration for the Charlotte area, pursuant to
section 179(a) of the Act and 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 52.31, the new
source offset sanction identified in section 179(b) of the Act will apply in the affected area. If
North Carolina still has not made a submission that EPA has determined complete six months
after the new source offset sanction is imposed, the highway sanctions will apply in the affected
areas in accordance with 40 CFR 52.31. In addition, section 110(c) of the Act requires EPA to
promulgate a FIP no later than two years after a finding under section 179(a), if EPA has not
approved the plan for which the finding was made.
The 18-month clock will stop and the sanctions will not take effect if, within 18 months
after the date of the findings, EPA finds that North Carolina has made a complete submittal. In
addition, EPA would no longer be obligated to promulgate a FIP, if the State makes the required
SIP submittal and EPA takes final action to approve the submittal within two years of the
findings.
As you are aware, there are transportation conformity issues associated with certain
aspects of these findings of failure to submit pursuant to EPA's transportation conformity rule
(40 CFR 93.120 (b)). The conformity status of the transportation plans and transportation
improvement programs in the affected area would lapse on the date that highway sanctions under
section 179 of the Act take effect, unless the State makes the required SIP submittal and EPA
acknowledges this via a letter. During a conformity lapse, only projects that are exempt from
transportation conformity (e.g., road resurfacing, safety projects, reconstruction of bridges
without adding travel lanes, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, etc.), transportation control
measures that are in the approved SIP, and project phases that were approved prior to the start of
the lapse can proceed during the lapse. No new project -level approvals or conformity
determinations can be made and no new transportation plan or transportation improvement
program may be found to conform until another attainment demonstration SIP is submitted and
the motor vehicle emissions budget is found adequate.
2

EPA appreciates North Carolina's efforts towards compliance with the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please
contact me or have a member of your staff contact Beverly Banister at 404-562-9326. We look
forward to working closely with you and your staff to ensure that the Act's requirements are met
in a timely manner without adverse consequences.
Sincerely,
OJ. I. Palmer, Jr.
Enclosure
cc: Bob King, SC DHEC
B. Keith Overcash, NC DENR
Myra Reece, SC DHEC
Don Willard, Mecklenburg County
Marcus Peacock, U.S. EPA
Bob Meyers, U.S. EPA
Beverly Banister, U.S. EPA Region 4
Regional Administrator
3

Ja\�ED St47
$ A ,o UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ra wREGION 4
° " ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
Z2F4,,,44 Paot�°�\° 61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
J4N - 9 2009
Mr. Robert W. King, Jr., P.E.
Deputy Commissioner
South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Dear Mr. King:
I am writing to you concerning South Carolina's efforts to comply with Clean Air Act
(the Act) requirements for the 1997 8-hour national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for
ozone. Within three years after the effective date of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) designations, the Act requires a state with areas designated nonattainment for the ozone
NAAQS to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) describing how that state will attain and
maintain the ozone standard. EPA made designations for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard,
effective June 15, 2004; therefore, submissions were due June 15, 2007, for most areas. On
August 31, 2007, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC)
submitted a plan to show how the Charlotte -Gastonia -Rock Hill (Charlotte) nonattainment area
would attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by the statutory attainment date of June 15, 2010,
and how the York County, South Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte nonattainment area
would achieve its portion of emission reductions necessary for the area to attain by that date.
EPA has since reviewed DHEC's submission to determine approvability.
On November 17, 2008, we sent you a letter noting that our analysis indicates that South
Carolina's attainment demonstration submission is not approvable based on current air quality in
the area. In that letter, we requested that DHEC consider a voluntary reclassification to serious.
We also noted that if a voluntary reclassification request was not made by December 8, 2008,
EPA would propose disapproval of South Carolina's attainment demonstration for its portion of
the Charlotte area by January 9, 2009. We sent a similar letter to the North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources regarding its attainment demonstration for the Charlotte
area. On December 22, 2008, we received DHEC's letter with a request to withdraw South
Carolina's August 31, 2007, attainment demonstration for its portion of the Charlotte area. As
such, EPA no longer has the required attainment demonstration submission from South Carolina
for the bi-state Charlotte area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
Internet Address (URL) • http://www epagov
Recycled/Recyclable • Panted with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumerl

We consider the required SIP elements to be a high priority; therefore, we are notifying
you that, pursuant to section 179(a) of the Act, EPA is making a finding of failure to submit the
1997 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration for South Carolina's portion of the bi-state
Charlotte area. EPA will soon publish a rule in the Federal Register announcing this finding,
which will be effective upon publication. In March 2008, we made similar findings of failure to
submit for states that had not yet submitted attainment demonstrations and/or other required
elements for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard (see enclosure). In general, findings are made in
those cases where a state failed to submit some or all elements of a required SIP, or in this case
where the State has withdrawn a required submission. Please be assured that we will continue to
work closely with your staff to undertake all necessary efforts to ensure that a revised submittal
is made as soon as possible so that we can avoid the implementation of sanctions and the need to
promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP). EPA anticipates ongoing consideration
regarding whether any further actions are necessary to ensure that all states continue to make
progress towards attainment of the ozone standards as expeditiously as practicable, consistent
with the requirements of the Clean Air Act."
If, within 18 months of EPA's finding, EPA has not affirmatively determined that South
Carolina has submitted a completed attainment demonstration for the Charlotte area, pursuant to
section 179(a) of the Act and 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 52.31, the new
source offset sanction identified in section 179(b) of the Act will apply in the affected area. If
South Carolina still has not made a submission that EPA has determined complete six months
after the new source offset sanction is imposed, the highway sanctions will apply in the affected
areas in accordance with 40 CFR 52.31. In addition, section 110(c) of the Act requires EPA to
promulgate a FIP no later than two years after a finding under section 179(a), if EPA has not
approved the plan for which the finding was made.
The 18-month clock will stop and the sanctions will not take effect if, within 18 months
after the date of the findings, EPA finds that South Carolina has made a complete submittal. In
addition, EPA would no longer be obligated to promulgate a FIP, if the State makes the required
SIP submittal and EPA takes final action to approve the submittal within two years of the
findings.
As you are aware, there are transportation conformity issues associated with certain
aspects of these findings of failure to submit pursuant to EPA's transportation conformity rule
(40 CFR 93.120 (b)). The conformity status of the transportation plans and transportation
improvement programs in the affected area would lapse on the date that highway sanctions under
section 179 of the Act take effect, unless the State makes the required SIP submittal and EPA
acknowledges this via a letter. During a conformity lapse, only projects that are exempt from
transportation conformity (e.g., road resurfacing, safety projects, reconstruction of bridges
without adding travel lanes, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, etc.), transportation control
measures that are in the approved SIP, and project phases that were approved prior to the start of
the lapse can proceed during the lapse. No new project -level approvals or conformity
determinations can be made and no new transportation plan or transportation improvement
program may be found to conform until another attainment demonstration SIP is submitted and
the motor vehicle emissions budget is found adequate.
2

EPA appreciates South Carolina's efforts towards compliance with the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please
contact me or have a member of your staff contact Beverly Banister at 404-562-9326. We look
forward to working closely with you and your staff to ensure that the Act's requirements are met
in a timely manner without adverse consequences.
Sincerely,
C)- J. I. Palmer, Jr.
Regional Administrator
Enclosure
cc: Bill Ross, NC DENR
Myra Reece, SC DHEC
B. Keith Overcash, NC DENR
Don Willard, Mecklenburg County
Marcus Peacock, U.S. EPA
Bob Meyers, U.S. EPA
Beverly Banister, U.S. EPA Region 4
3