20120285_Gaston_Preferred_Alternative_Report_082509_20101222

Gaston East-West Connector
Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties
STIP No. U-3321

Preferred Alternative Report

September 8, 2009
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
1.0 Project Description ............................................................................................ 1
1.1 Proposed Action ........................................................................................ 1
1.2 Project Purpose and Need .......................................................................... 1
1.3 Project Status .......................................................................................... 2
1.4 Detailed Study Alternatives ........................................................................ 2
1.5 Summary of Impacts ................................................................................. 3
1.6 Recommended Alternative ......................................................................... 3
2.0 Overview of Open Houses and Public Hearings ...................................................... 5
3.0 Summary of Previous Agency Coordination Meetings .............................................. 7
4.0 Minimization Efforts and Impact Reductions ........................................................ 11
5.0 Summary of Comments Received Related to the Draft EIS and Selection of the
Preferred Alternative ........................................................................................ 12
5.1 Responses to Generalized Comments on Purpose and Need ......................... 14
5.2 Responses to Generalized Comments on Travel Times and Traffic Forecasts ... 16
5.3 Responses to Generalized Comments on Range of Alternatives ..................... 17
5.4 Responses to Generalized Comments on Air Quality .................................... 20
5.5 Responses to Generalized Comments on Water Quality and Jurisdictional
Resources .............................................................................................. 22
5.6 Responses to Generalized Comments on Indirect and Cumulative Effects and
Wildlife .................................................................................................. 23
5.7 Responses to Generalized Comments on Cultural Resources, Community
Characteristics, and Farmland .................................................................. 25
6.0 Summary of Design Comments ......................................................................... 26
6.1 Design Comments Received from the Public and Interest Groups .................. 26
Matthews Acres Access Road .................................................................. 27
Pam Drive and Saddlewood Drive ........................................................... 27
Land North of Interchange at Robinson Road ............................................ 27
Wilson Farm Road just South of Union Road ............................................. 27
Carolina Speedway on NC 274 ................................................................ 28
Interchange at NC 273 .......................................................................... 28
Sunderland Road/Allison Street at NC 273 ............................................... 28
Boat Club Road and Access to Optimist Club Fields ................................... 28
I-485 Interchange Area ......................................................................... 29
General Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Comments ..................................... 29
Access to South End of Bay Shore Drive .................................................. 29

GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
6.2 Design Comments Received from Agencies and Local Governments .............. 30
US 29-74 Interchange ........................................................................... 30
Interchanges at Robinson Rd, Bud Wilson Rd, NC 274, NC 273, and I-485 ... 30
Interchange at Bud Wilson Road ............................................................. 30
Future Belmont-Mt. Holly Loop ............................................................... 30
Access to Charlotte-Douglas International Airport Area .............................. 30
Mainline Typical Section ......................................................................... 31
7.0 Traffic Forecasts ..................................................................................... 31

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Public Participation Summary for Pre-Hearing Open Houses and Public Hearings ... 6
Table 2. Summary of Agency Coordination Meetings ...................................................... 8
Table 3. Impact Reductions Associated with Bridge Crossings ....................................... 11
Table 4. Summary of Comments Received Related to the Draft EIS and Selection of the
Preferred Alternative .................................................................................... 12
Table 5. Year 2030 Traffic Volumes Along the Detailed Study ....................................... 31

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Figures S-1a and S-1b from Draft EIS - Map of Detailed Study Alternatives
Appendix B. Summary of Environmental Impacts
Appendix C. Comments from State and Federal Agencies
Appendix D. Comments from Local Governments
Appendix E. Comments from Interest Groups and Organizations
Appendix F. Comments Responding to USACE Public Notice

GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
1
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1 Proposed Action
The North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) proposes to construct a project known as the Gaston
East-West Connector, which would be a controlled-access toll road extending from I-85 west of
Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485 near the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport in
Mecklenburg County.
The project is included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2009-2015
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) as STIP Project U-3321. The project is known as
the “Gaston East-West Connector” and as the “Garden Parkway.” This study refers to the project as
the Gaston East-West Connector.
1.2 Project 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 areas of southeast Gaston County
and western Mecklenburg County. The primary needs for the project are summarized below:
• There is poor transportation connectivity between Gaston County and
Mecklenburg County and within southern Gaston County.
• Limited crossings of the Catawba River constrain travel between Gaston and
Mecklenburg Counties. No crossings are located in southern Gaston County.
• Projected growth in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County will
continue to increase demands for accessibility and connectivity between the two
counties.
• Within southern Gaston County, south of I-85, a lack of connecting east-west
roadways makes travel circuitous and limits mobility.
• The GUAMPO and the MUMPO include a new location roadway running through
southern Gaston County and connecting over the Catawba River to Mecklenburg
County in their long range transportation plans.
• The Gaston East-West Connector is a state-designated Strategic Highway Corridor,
envisioned as a new freeway facility on the Strategic Highway Corridors Vision Plan.
• There are existing and projected poor levels of service on the Project Study Area’s
major roadways.
• Traffic volumes are projected to increase on I-85, I-485, US 29-74 and US 321 in the
Project Study Area through 2030.
• There are existing poor levels of service on segments of I-85 in Gaston County; from
Exit 19 (NC 7 [Ozark Avenue]) through Exit 27 (NC 273 [Park Street]).
• Levels of service on I-85, US 29-74 and US 321 are projected to worsen in the future.
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
2

• Congestion and frequent incidents on I-85 inhibit regional travel and diminish the
ability of I-85 to function as a Strategic Highway Corridor and Intrastate Corridor.
Several performance measures were used in the first screening of various alternative concepts to
evaluate their ability to meet the project’s purpose, including the east-west mobility and direct
access components as stated above. To evaluate their ability to meet the purpose and need,
alternative concepts were evaluated to determine whether they would:
• Reduce travel distances and/or travel times between representative origin/destination
points within southern Gaston County and between southern Gaston County and
Mecklenburg County.
• Provide a transportation facility with a mainline that would operate at acceptable levels
of service (generally LOS D or better on the mainline) in the design year (2030) for
travel between Gaston County and Mecklenburg County.
• Reduce congested vehicle miles traveled and/or congested vehicle hours traveled in
Gaston County compared to the No-Build Alternative in 2030.
1.3 Project Status
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Gaston East-West Connector (STIP Project U-
3321) was signed on April 24, 2009 and made available for public and agency review on NCTA’s
website on May 1, 2009. A notice of availability was published in the Federal Register on May 22,
2009 (Vol. 74, No. 98, pg. 24006). The public comment period for the project ended on July 21, 2009.
The remainder of the project schedule is as follows:
4th Quarter 2009 Selection of Preferred Alternative
2nd Quarter 2010 Final EIS published
4th Quarter 2010 Record of Decision (ROD) published
1st Quarter 2011 Construction begins
4th Quarter 2014 Project open to traffic
The Gaston East-West Connector project is located in the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill air quality
region (Metrolina region). The Metrolina region continues to face challenges in meeting the
requirements of federal air quality laws. These requirements do not prevent ongoing studies from
continuing, but they have the potential to delay federal approval of transportation projects in the
region, including the Gaston East-West Connector. To prevent such delays, federal and state air
quality and transportation agencies are continuing to work together to resolve the air quality issues
so that planned transportation projects can move forward. FHWA and NCTA will provide an
updated summary of the region’s conformity status in the Final EIS (See also May 20, 2003 FHWA
memorandum regarding clarification of conformity requirements).
1.4 Detailed Study Alternatives
There are twelve Detailed Study Alternatives (DSAs) considered in the Draft EIS: DSAs 4, 5, 9, 22,
23, 27, 58, 64, 68, 76, 77, and 81. These DSAs are controlled-access toll facilities on new location.
Figure S-1a and S-1b from the Draft EIS shows the DSAs in detail, and are included in
Appendix A.
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
3

The mainline design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph), with a planned posted speed limit of 65 mph.
Each DSA currently is proposed to have 11 to 12 interchanges (depending upon the DSA), as listed
below from west to east.
• I-85 • Bud Wilson Rd (SR 2423)
• US 29-74 • NC 274 (Union Rd)
• Linwood Rd (SR 1133) • NC 279 (South New Hope Rd)
• Lewis Rd (SR 1126) (DSAs
58, 64, and 68 only)
• NC 273 (Southpoint Rd)
• Dixie River Rd (SR 1155)
• US 321 • I-485
• Robinson Rd (SR 2416)
In addition to the twelve new location build DSAs, the No-Build Alternative was retained to provide
a baseline for comparison with the DSAs, in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) regulations (40 CFR Part 1502.14(d)) and FHWA guidelines (Technical Advisory T 6640.8A;
Section V.E.1). The No-Build Alternative assumes that the transportation systems for Gaston and
Mecklenburg counties would evolve as currently planned in their respective Long Range
Transportation Plans, but without the Gaston East-West Connector or major capacity improvements
to I-85 or to US 29-74. However, the No-Build Alternative would not meet the project’s purpose and
need.
Each of the build DSAs are toll alternatives and tolls would be collected by an electronic toll
collection (ETC) system. There would be no cash toll booths.
1.5 Summary of Impacts
The Draft EIS provides detailed discussions of the project’s anticipated impacts to the human,
physical, cultural, and natural environments. The comprehensive impact summary table from the
Draft EIS is included in Appendix B.
1.6 Recommended Alternative
Based on the information available to date, including the Draft EIS, the FHWA, NCTA, and NCDOT
have identified DSA 9 as the Recommended Alternative in the Draft EIS. This alternative is
comprised of Corridor Segments H2A-H3-J4a-J4b-J2c-J2d-JX4-J1e-J1f-K1A-K3A-K3B-K3C, as
shown in Figure S-1a-b in Appendix A.
DSA 9 has been identified as the Recommended Alternative based on the following considerations.
Please note this list is not in order of importance, but is organized by issues as they are presented in
the Draft EIS. Also, this list does not represent all benefits or impacts of DSA 9, just those elements
that differentiated DSA 9 when compared to the other DSAs.
Cost and Design Considerations
• DSA 9 is one of the shortest alternatives at 21.9 miles (all alternatives range from 21.4 to 23.7
miles).
• DSA 9 has the second-lowest median total cost ($1,282 million) (all alternatives range from
$1,281 million to $1,378.4 million).
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
4

Human Environment Considerations
• DSA 9 is one of the four DSAs with the fewest numbers of residential relocations at 348
residential relocations (the range being 326 to 384 residential relocations).
• Although DSA 9 is higher in the range of business relocations at 37 (the range being 24 to 40
business relocations), it would avoid impacts to Carolina Specialty Transport (provides
transportations services to special needs groups) that would occur under DSAs 58, 64, 68, 76,
77 and 81.
• DSA 9 is in the middle of the range of total neighborhood impacts at 25 impacted
neighborhoods (the range being 21 to 31 impacted neighborhoods).
• DSA 9 would have no direct impacts to schools. (DSAs 5, 23, and 27 also avoid direct impacts
to schools.)
• DSA 9 would not require relocation of known cemeteries. (DSAs 27, 68, and 81 also would not
require relocation of known cemeteries.)
• At Linwood Road, DSA 9 is one of three alternatives (DSAs 4, 5, and 9) that would avoid
impacting either the Karyae Park YMCA Outdoor Family Center or the Pisgah Associate
Reformed Presbyterian Church (part of the church property is also an historic site eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places).
• DSA 9 is one of the three alternatives (DSAs 4, 5, and 9) farthest from Crowders Mountain
State Park.
• DSA 9 would avoid right-of-way requirements from Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden. (DSAs 4,
22, 27, 58, 68, 76, and 81 also avoid these right-of-way requirements.)
• DSA 9 would avoid the relocation of Ramoth AME Zion Church and cemetery, which is part of
the Garrison Road/Dixie River Road community. (DSAs 4, 22, 27, 58, 68, 76, and 81 also
avoid this church.)
• DSA 9 is one of the eight alternatives (DSAs 4, 9, 22, 27, 58, 68, 76, and 81) with the least
amount of right of way required from future Berewick District Park in Mecklenburg County.
Physical Environment Considerations
• DSA 9 is in the middle range of estimated numbers of receptors impacted by traffic noise at
245 receptors (the range being 204 to 309 impacted receptors).
• DSA 9 is one of the alternatives (DSAs 4, 5, 9, 22, 23, and 27) that would impact the least
acreage of land in Voluntary Agricultural Districts. DSA 9 also is one that is expected to
have the least indirect and cumulative effects to farmlands.
• DSA 9 is one of the alternatives with the fewest power transmission line crossings at 14
crossings (the range being 13 to 18).
Cultural Resources Considerations
• DSA 9 is one of six alternatives (DSAs 4, 5, 9, 22, 23, and 27) that would not require right of
way from the Wolfe Family Dairy Farm historic site. Selection of DSA 9 makes it more likely
that, if the US 321 Bypass is constructed at some future time, the project would also avoid
the Wolfe Family Dairy Farm historic site.
• DSA 9 is one of four alternatives (DSAs 5, 9, 23, and 27) with low to moderate potential to
contain archaeological sites requiring preservation in place or complex/costly mitigation.
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
5

Natural Resources Considerations
• DSA 9 is one of eight alternatives (DSAs 4, 9, 22, 27, 58, 68, 76, and 81) that would cross the
South Fork Catawba River and the Catawba River where the rivers have been more affected
by siltation and they are less navigable, and water-based recreation would be affected less
than with DSAs that cross farther south.
• DSA 9 would impact the least amount of upland forested natural communities at 882 acres
(all alternatives range from 882 to 1042 acres).
• DSA 9 is one of the alternatives (DSAs 4, 9, 22, and 76) having the lowest potential to
indirectly affect upland wildlife species due to habitat fragmentation.
• DSA 9 is lower in the range of impacts to ponds at 4.1 acres (all alternatives range from 2.1 to
6.3 acres).
• DSA 9 is lower in the range of impacts to wetlands at 7.5 acres (all alternatives range from
6.9 to 13.2 acres).
• DSA 9 is lower in the range of impacts to perennial streams at 38,894 linear feet (all
alternatives range from 36,771 to 50,739 linear feet).
• DSA 9 would have the fewest number of stream crossings at 91 (all alternatives range from 91
to 120 crossings).
• DSA 9 is one of eight alternatives (DSAs 5, 9, 23, 27, 64, 68, 77, and 81) that have a biological
conclusion of No Effect relating to the federally endangered Schweinitz’s sunflower.
2.0 Overview of Open Houses and Public Hearings
Four Pre-Hearing Open Houses and two Corridor Design Public Hearings were held in June 2009.
Formal presentations were made at the two Public Hearings by Steve DeWitt of the NCTA (June 23
and June 25) and David Bass of PBS&J (June 23) and Clint Morgan of PBS&J (June 25). Comment
sheets were made available at all Pre-Hearing Open Houses and Public Hearings and through the
project website. Table 1 summarizes the public participation for each meeting.
In addition to the activities above, a Local Officials Meeting was held from 1:00 PM to 2:30 PM on
June 22, 2009, at the Gaston County Police Department. All Pre-Hearing Open House materials
were available for their review and a presentation was made by Steve DeWitt. This meeting was
attended by 27 local officials.

GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
6

Table 1. Public Participation Summary for Pre-Hearing Open Houses and Public Hearings
Date June 22, 2009 June 23, 2009 June 24,
2009 June 25, 2009
Type of Meeting Pre-Hearing
Open House
Pre-Hearing
Open House
Public
Hearing
Pre-Hearing
Open House
Pre-Hearing
Open House
Public
Hearing
Components
Workshop
and slide
presentation
Workshop
and slide
presentation
Presentation
and formal
comment
period
Workshop
and slide
presentation
Workshop and
slide
presentation
Presentation
and formal
comment
period
Location
Gastonia
Adult
Recreation
Center,
Gastonia
Forestview
High School,
Gastonia
Forestview
High School,
Gastonia
Southpoint
High
School,
Belmont
Olympic High
School,
Charlotte
Olympic
High School,
Charlotte
Time 2:30 –
6:30 PM
2:30 –
6:30 PM
7:00 –
10:15 PM
2:30 –
7:30 PM
2:30 –
6:30 PM
7:00 –
8:30 PM
Number of
Attendees** 287 352 ~700 191 57 85
Number of speakers
(verbal comments) N/A N/A 53 N/A N/A 29
Number of written
comments received at
workshop/hearing
25 59
Included
with open
house total
28 5
Included
with open
house total
** Not including NCTA, NCDOT, FHWA and Consulting Staff in attendance. Number of attendees estimated based on those who regist ered on
attendance sheets for the Pre-Hearing Open House and an approximate head count for the Public Hearings.
The Draft EIS comment period was from May 1, 2009 to July 21, 2009. As of midnight, July 22,
2009, a total of 256 written comment forms/letters/emails have been received, along with 7
resolutions and 3 petitions. There were 82 speakers at the Public Hearings (please note that there
were seven people who spoke at both Public Hearings). They were counted as individual speakers at
each meeting because they provided different comments at each Hearing). Comments are
categorized as follows:
• 153 comment forms
• 63 emails
• 14 letters from citizens
• 7 comment letters from interest groups/organizations
o Catawba Riverkeeper
o Connect Gaston
o Gaston Together
o Ed Eason (citizen with strong interest in air quality)
o Southeast Connector Coalition
o Stopthetollroad.com (Mr. Bill Toole)
o Southern Environmental Law Center
• 19 comment letters from federal, state, and local agencies
• 82 speakers from the two formal Public Hearings.
• 7 resolutions (all supporting the Garden Parkway)

GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
7

• 3 petitions (note: the petitions were not reviewed for duplicates or validity of signatures)
o Over 7,000 Signatures (Approximate) – Opposed to the Garden Parkway – submitted
by Bill Toole of stopthetollroad.com
o 275 Signatures – Opposed to the Garden Parkway – submitted by the Harrison
Family.
o 109 Signatures – Oppose Segment KX1 due to potential impact to Mt. Pleasant
Baptist Church Cemetery– submitted by Barbara Hart. (Segment KX1 not a part of
DSA 9, the Recommended Alternative. However, Segment K3A, which is a part of
DSA 9 has the same preliminary design footprint in the area of the Mt. Pleasant
Baptist Church cemetery. A memo dated August 15, 2008, was sent to Ms. Hart
describing impacts to the Mt. Pleasant Church property. The preliminary engineering
designs would not impact the area of the cemetery where there are existing marked
gravesites.)

While selection of a Preferred Alternative is not by popular vote, it is noted that of the 153 comment
forms and 63 emails received, 58 were specifically in favor of the project and/or selection of Detailed
Study Alternative (DSA) 9, and 129 were specifically opposed to the project overall and/or selection of
DSA 9. Please note that most comments received did not state a DSA preference, but the majority
was against the project. Generally, of the public comments received, there were twice as many
commenters who stated they opposed the project compared to those who supported the project.
Based on a review of the comments, listed below, in no specific order, are general issues that were
found to be frequently stated in the comments received.
• A new connection across the river is needed.
• DSA 9 is a reasonable choice.
• The road will encourage needed economic development.
• The project should provide sidewalks at cross streets.
• Ending the project at US 321 will adversely impact traffic on this overcrowded roadway and
will bring trucks through the historic York-Chester neighborhood.
• The Garden Parkway will only benefit developers and land owners, especially David Hoyle
and Robert Pittenger.
• The Garden Parkway costs too much, and this money should be spent on education.
• The Garden Parkway is not the best use of taxpayer dollars.
• Air quality is bad in the region and this project will not help.
• The Garden Parkway will spur more development and urban sprawl. There will not be
enough money to build schools and other facilities associated with development.
• This project will change the rural character of Gaston County that the residents have chosen.
• This road will be another Greenville, South Carolina, Toll Road.
3.0 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS AGENCY COORDINATION MEETINGS
Agency coordination meetings have been held throughout the project development process to receive
comments on project studies, achieve concurrence points, and solicit issues and concerns from the
Agency Coordination Team. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) held
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
8

meetings with the NEPA/404 Merger Team from 2002 through 2005 to achieve Concurrence Points 1
and 2.
The NCTA initiated regularly scheduled monthly meetings, referred to as Turnpike Environmental
Agency Coordination (TEAC) meetings, to review the status of the current NCTA projects,
environmental concerns, and permitting requirements. TEAC meetings regarding the Gaston East-
West Connector have been held from 2006 through 2008. In addition, NCTA held two meetings to
discuss the scope of the indirect and cumulative effects analysis (June 29, 2007, with US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), and July 26, 2007,
with NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)).
The first and second screenings of alternatives were originally discussed with the environmental
resource and regulatory agencies through the NEPA/404 Merger 01 Process under the
administration of the NCDOT. A series of eight meetings regarding project alternatives were held
from February 2004 through September 2005, resulting in concurrence on the DSAs on September
20, 2005. At that time, three agencies (US Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA], [USFWS],
and [NCWRC]) elected to abstain, rather than expressing concurrence or non-concurrence in the
DSAs.
After the initial concurrence was achieved on the DSAs in September 2005, the FHWA and NCTA
reevaluated the alternatives screening process in light of the project being determined a candidate
toll facility and the receipt of updated travel demand forecasts. The FHWA and NCTA coordinated
with the environmental resource and regulatory agencies on this reevaluation at several TEAC
meetings held in January, June, and September 2007, and February, July, September and October
2008. The environmental resource and regulatory agencies confirmed concurrence on the DSAs at
the October 2008 TEAC meeting, and the concurrence form is included in Appendix A-1 of the Draft
EIS. The three agencies that previously had abstained, the USEPA, USFWS and NCWRC,
concurred at this stage along with all the other cooperating and participating agencies.
Table 2 is from Section 9.2 of the Draft EIS and provides summaries of the TEAC meetings held for
the Gaston East-West Connector project.
Table 2: Summary of Agency Coordination Meetings
Meeting
Date Main Topic Summary of Meeting
NEPA/404 Merger Team Meetings held by NCDOT
05/15/02 CP 1 Purpose
and Need
The preliminary Purpose and Need Statement was presented for discussion.
Additional information was requested.
07/24/02 CP 1 Purpose and Need The revised Purpose and Need Statement was presented and concurrence was
achieved.
02/17/04 Pre-CP 2 Identified new location alternatives for which NCDOT should prepare
functional designs prior to the new location CP 2 meeting.
08/17/04 Partial CP 2
The purpose of this meeting was to achieve concurrence on the non-new
location alternatives to be carried forward for detailed study. Agreement on
eliminating the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives could not be reached,
and the decision was made to follow the process outlined in the NEPA/404
Merger 01 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for elevating the decision.
09/14/04 Elevation Meeting #1 The Merger Team members attended. Concurrence was not achieved.
09/29/04 Elevation Meeting #2 The supervisors of the Merger Team members attended. Concurrence was not
achieved.
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
9

Table 2: Summary of Agency Coordination Meetings
Meeting
Date Main Topic Summary of Meeting
10/27/04 Elevation Meeting #3
(Review Board)
In accordance with the MOA, the Review Board met to discuss the project and
the issues that the Merger Team had not reached consensus on. The Review
Board consists of designated senior management from FHWA, NCDOT, USACE,
and NCDENR.
02/08/05 Elevation Meeting #4
(Review Board) The Review Board met to continue discussion of project issues.
Late
June/Early
July 2005
Elevation Meeting #5
(Review Board)
The Review Board met and signed the Partial CP 2 form eliminating all non-new
location alternatives from further study.
09/20/05 CP 2 Meeting
The purpose of the meeting was to decide which of the 90 preliminary new
location alternatives should be carried forward for further study. The
preliminary new location corridors were narrowed to 16 DSAs (later reduced to
12 DSAs). The FHWA, NCDOT, USACE, NCDWQ, SHPO, GUAMPO, and MUMPO
signed the CP 2 form. The USEPA, USFWS, and NCWRC chose to abstain from
signing. An abstention in the NEPA/404 01 Merger process means an agency
does not actively object to a concurrence milestone, but does not wish to sign
the concurrence form. The agency agrees not to revisit the concurrence point
subject to guidance on revisiting concurrence points contained in the
NEPA/404 Merger 01 Memorandum of Agreement. Representatives of these
agencies provided emails with their reasons for abstaining. These are included
in Appendix A-1.
TEAC Meetings and Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICE) Scoping Meetings held by NCTA
12/15/06 TEAC - Project Status Update
Meeting
This meeting was held to discuss Section 6002 Coordination Plans and to
provide an update on the status of project-related studies.
01/25/07 TEAC - Project Status Update
Meeting
The following topics were discussed: Section 6002 Coordination Plans, historic
architecture resources, archaeological resources, bald eagle surveys, mussel
surveys, wetland and stream surveys and mitigation, preliminary engineering
designs, hydraulic studies, traffic operations analysis, geotechnical studies of
the Allen Steam Station fly ash basin, schedule for design tasks, status of the
project in the NEPA process, DSAs, traffic and revenue study, Charlotte-Douglas
International Airport expansion, and mobile source air toxics (MSATs).
03/22/07 TEAC - Project Status Update
Meeting
The purpose of this meeting was to provide updates on recently
completed/ongoing environmental and technical studies, field verification
meetings, and next steps toward Draft EIS. Completed surveys discussed were:
bald eagles, wetlands and streams, biotic communities, historic architectural
resources, and archaeological resources. The NCTA requested comments,
issues, and concerns from the agencies regarding environmental issues related
to the recently completed studies and ongoing studies.
06/20/07 TEAC - Project Status
Meeting
Issues covered in this meeting included the decision to study toll-only
alternatives in the Draft EIS, the completed Phase II historic resource surveys
and the archaeological resource surveys, field verification meetings for
wetlands, streams, and ponds, and other updates on special technical studies,
indirect and cumulative effects assessment, engineering designs, community
characteristics, and toll traffic forecasts. NCTA reviewed the GUAMPO’s
resolution to change the name of STIP Project U-3321 to the Garden Parkway.
06/29/07 Indirect and Cumulative
Effects Scoping Meeting
This meeting was held with the USFWS and NCWRC to discuss the scope of the
indirect and cumulative effects study.
07/26/07 Indirect and Cumulative
Effects Scoping Meeting
This meeting was held with the NCDWQ todiscuss the scope of the indirect
and cumulative effects study.
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
10

Table 2: Summary of Agency Coordination Meetings
Meeting
Date Main Topic Summary of Meeting
09/27/07 TEAC - Project Status Update
This meeting provided updates on recently completed and ongoing
environmental technical studies, recent correspondence with Duke Energy
Corporation supporting elimination of detailed study corridor segment K1D,
and next steps toward the Draft EIS. The NCTA requested comments, issues
and concerns from the agencies. Topics covered in the meeting included a
summary of draft versions of the Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR), a
summary of findings from the Draft Community Characteristics Report (CCR),
toll traffic forecasting studies, and information related to the Duke Power Allen
Steam Station fly ash basin. The attendees agreed that DSAs containing
Corridor Segment K1D (DSAs 6, 24, 65, and 78) should be eliminated from
further study due to interference with critical operations at Allen Steam
Station. Attendees included representatives from FHWA, USACE, USEPA,
NCDWQ, NCWRC, USFWS, NCDOT, and NCTA.
12/17/07
12/18/07 TEAC - Project Site Visit
The purpose of the site visit was to review the various natural communities
represented in the study area at locations requested by the resource agencies.
Representatives from FHWA, NCDOT, USACE, USEPA, NCDWQ, and NCWRC
attended the field tour over the two-day period.
02/05/08 TEAC - Approach to
Discussing CP 2a
The primary purpose of this meeting was to discuss the approach to be taken
to discuss CP 2a. The attendees agreed that it was acceptable to move forward
with bridging decision discussions. Other items discussed were the Section
6002 Project Coordination Plan, updates to the draft versions of the Purpose
and Need Statement and the Alternatives Development and Analysis Report
Addendum, and planned Citizens Informational Workshops.
03/04/08 TEAC - CP 2a Discussion
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss information to achieve
agreement/concurrence on the bridging decisions for streams and wetlands
crossed by the DSAs (CP 2a).
04/08/08 TEAC - CP 2a Agreement
Agreement on bridging and alignment decisions for the DSAs was reached at
this meeting. Attendees included representatives from FHWA, USACE, USEPA,
USFWS, NCWRC, NCDOT, and NCTA.
07/07/08
TEAC - Indirect and
Cumulative Effect
Assessment and Other Issues
This meeting covered the analysis and results in the Draft Indirect and
Cumulative Effects Assessment (ICE), July 2008. Also presented were the
Updated Purpose and Need Statement, June 2008 a discussion of items
updated and added in the Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development
and Evaluation Report, July 2008, an update on the status of the Section 6002
Coordination Plan for the project, and an announcement of upcoming Citizens
Informational Workshops scheduled for August 2008.
09/23/08
TEAC - Section 6002
Coordination Plan,
Comments on Reports, and
Summary of Workshop
Series #3 Comments
This meeting was held to provide the attendees a summary of the August 2008
Citizens Informational Workshop Series #3 and to discuss the updated Purpose
and Need Statement, June 2008, the Addendum to the Final Alternatives
Development and Evaluation Report, July 2008 and the Indirect and Cumulative
Effects Assessment, July 2008.
10/07/08
TEAC - Section 6002
Coordination Plan,
Comments on Reports, and
Signatures for CP 1, 2, and
2a
The Agency Coordination Team agreed to sign (or resign) CPs 1, 2, and 2a.
There were no abstentions. The Section 6002 Coordination Plan was approved.
There were no substantive comments on the Purpose and Need Statement,
June 2008, or the Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development and
Evaluation Report, July 2008 The Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis, July
2008 was discussed, with additional review time requested by the team.
Notes: CP – Concurrence Point

GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
11

4.0 MINIMIZATION EFFORTS AND IMPACT REDUCTIONS
The DSAs incorporate measures to avoid and minimize impacts to Waters of the United States and
the Catawba River buffers. The horizontal alignment of the preliminary engineering designs was
adjusted where possible to minimize or avoid impacts to streams, wetlands, and ponds.
The presence of wetlands and streams, and minimizing or avoiding impacts to these resources, was a
factor in considering interchange configurations. Bridge lengths that were extended to maintain
roadway and railway access adjacent to the Catawba River and South Fork Catawba River also
avoided or minimized encroachment into Catawba River buffer areas.
To further address avoidance and minimization, the NCTA met with the environmental resource and
regulatory agencies at TEAC Meetings on February 5, March 4, and April 8, 2008, to discuss
bridging and alignment decisions for the DSAs’ preliminary engineering designs (Concurrence
Point 2a).
As a result of those meetings, there were no changes to the alignments of any of the DSAs. However,
the NCTA agreed to include several bridges in the preliminary engineering designs, beyond those
required to convey floodwaters, to avoid or minimize stream and wetland impacts. Table 3 shows
locations where bridges are recommended to avoid or minimize stream and wetland impacts, along
with the estimated impact reduction associated with each bridge.
Based on the information in the table, the additional bridging along DSA 9 (Recommended
Alternative) reduced stream impacts by 940 linear feet and wetland impacts by 1.5 acres.
Table 3: Impact Reductions Associated with Bridge Crossings
Crossing DSA Segment and
DSAs
Previously
Proposed
Structure
Proposed Structure
Impact Acreage (ac)/
Linear Feet (lf) as
Previously Proposed
HD27 –Bessemer
Branch
H2A
DSAs 4, 5, 9, 22, 23, 27
Triple 7x10 ft
Box Culvert Bridge 340 lf
HD32
Stream S70
H2C
DSAs 22, 23, 27
Bridge over
Chapel Grove Rd
Lengthen Bridge to span
stream 374 lf
HD17
Stream S79
HX2
DSAs 76, 77, 81
Bridge over
Camp Rotary Rd
LengthenBridge to span
stream 350 lf
HD48
Blackwood Creek
(S135)
H3
DSAs 4, 5, 9
Triple 11x10 ft
Box Culvert Bridge 304 lf – S135
296 lf – S134
JB2
Crowders Creek (S14)
and Wetland 103
J3 and J2a
DSAs 22, 23, 27, 76,
77, 81
Bridge Lengthen Bridge to span
Wetland 103
1.7 ac (DSAs 22,23, 27)
1.9 ac (DSAs 76, 77, 81)
JD9
Stream S178
J1c
DSAs 64, 68
Triple 7x10 Box
Culvert Bridge 478 lf
KD3
Catawba Creek
(S259) and its buffers
and Wetland W248
K3A
9, 27, 68, 81 Bridge
Lengthen Bridge to span
wetland W248 (also avoids
buffers on east side of
creek)
1.5 ac
KD17
Catawba Creek
(S259) and its buffers
and Wetland W248
K1B
5, 23, 64, 77 Bridge
Lengthen Bridge to span
wetland W248 (also avoids
buffers on east side of
creek)
1.2 ac

GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
12

5.0 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED RELATED TO THE DRAFT EIS AND
SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
This section discusses substantial as well as other comments relative to the Draft EIS and/or
selection of the Preferred Alternative. Comments received from state and federal agencies, local
governments, and interest groups and organizations during the comment period for the Draft EIS
are included in Appendices C, D, and E, respectively. Substantive comments received are grouped
under ten categories as listed in Table 4.
As of August 5, 2009, no written comments were received from the USACE, a cooperating agency.
USACE received four comment letters in response to their Section 404 public notice. Letters were
received by the USACE from Mr. John Medlin, Ms. Heather Pierce, Mr. Bill Toole, and the Southern
Environmental Law Center (SELC). Comments from these letters are summarized in Appendix F.
These four commenters also sent letters to the NCTA. The letter from SELC was the same as the
letter sent to the NCTA. The letters from Mr. Medlin, Ms. Pierce, and Mr. Toole were slightly
different. All relevant comments from these letters are included in Table 4 below.

Table 4. Summary of Comments Related to the Draft EIS and Selection of the Preferred
Alternative
Topic Comments
Purpose and Need
(comments received
only from the public
on this topic)
• The project will not improve traffic flow on I-85, US 321, US 29 and US 74, and it may increase
congestion in the future.
• The stated need to connect southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County is not
supported by quantifiable data.
• The Draft EIS fails to show that an additional bridge over the Catawba River would respond to any
existing mobility need south of the existing bridges.
• NCTA cannot reconcile its mandate to build specific toll road projects with federal law.
• Rather than identifying an underlying purpose that the project might fulfill, the Draft EIS restates
the specific project design that meets the NCTA’s mandate to build the Garden Parkway toll road.
The resulting project purpose is too narrow to support consideration of the reasonable range of
alternatives required by NEPA.
Travel Times and
Traffic Forecasts
• The Draft EIS traffic projections predict that the new toll highway would cause further traffic
congestion on much of I-85 and US 29/74.
• The Draft EIS presents inflated estimates of traffic volumes in the project area which make the
need for the connector seem greater than it is.
• There appears to be little to no change in travel time savings from most of Gaston County and the
project study area.
Range of
Alternatives
• The Draft EIS disregards the TSM and Mass Transit Alternatives and did not provide a full range of
reasonable alternatives.
• Objectives could be reached by improvements to I-85 (including widening and HOT lanes), interim
TSM approaches to US 29 and US 74, and other combinations of transportation improvements.
• The Draft EIS did not consider improvements to the area’s transit and freight rail facilities as an
alternative.
• The Draft EIS does not address how a combination of alternatives might be able to meet purpose
and need.
• The Draft EIS should have studied ending the project at US 321 if that is an interim phase.
• The decision to study only toll alternatives in the EIS is not consistent with the CEQ regulations at
40 CFR 1502.14(a) and (c). The EIS might have also considered a comparison with a freeway.

GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
13

Table 4. Summary of Comments Related to the Draft EIS and Selection of the Preferred
Alternative
Topic Comments
Air Quality • Prior to issuance of the FEIS and ROD, NCTA should demonstrate that the new location project will
be included in an approved SIP and will be in conformity.
• The Draft EIS does not address quantitative air quality impacts as they relate to Mobile Source Air
Toxics.
• The Draft EIS does not offer any mitigation measures to address the project’s impact on air quality,
specifically concerning MSAT emissions exposure at schools, hospitals, parks, etc.
• The EIS should address greenhouse gas emissions.
Water Quality and
Jurisdictional
Resources
• Concerns about sediment and erosion impactsthat could result from this project. Erosion control
measures should adhere to the Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds.
• The possible effects of storm water runoff associated with this project could negatively affect the
project area.
• Concerns about the amount of mitigation needed and that it will not be available in the area; every
effort should be made to further avoid and minimize impacts to streams and wetlands and to
provide on-site mitigation. Mitigation should focus on improving degraded streams in the area.
• Direct impacts to existing 303(d) listed impaired streams and other waters at risk from further
degradation have not been fully addressed from the standpoint of avoidance and minimization
(e.g. right of way and median widths, shoulder widths, etc.).
• A conceptual mitigation plan should be provided in the Final EIS, with information about on-site
mitigation opportunities.
Indirect and
Cumulative Effects
• The Draft EIS has no specific discussion of mitigation for indirect and cumulative impacts.
• There are no quantitative data presented in the Draft EIS concerning potential ICE to wetlands,
streams, water quality and wildlife habitat.
• A quantitative ICE analysis should be prepared for the Preferred Alternative.
• The Guidance Memorandum to Address and Mitigate Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to
Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife Resources and Water Quality should be consulted when developing
mitigation measures.
Wildlife • Negative impacts to terrestrial resources and wildlife, including fragmentation of terrestrial habitat,
are a significant concern.
Cultural Resources • The Draft EIS missed the subject of historic Stowesville, Stowes Factory, Gaither Mill, Stowesville
Cemetery, and the old Methodist church.
Community
Characteristics
• EJ populations would receive a higher percent of impact from the new facility in terms of air quality
and noise impacts, but would not necessarily receive a proportionate benefit from the project due
to potential toll costs.
Farmland • The Draft EIS does not offer any potential avoidance and minimization measures to potentially
reduce impacts to farmlands.
• Concerns about the availability of replacement property for farms that need to be relocated.

The following additional studies will be completed and discussed with agencies prior to completing
the Final EIS:
• Updated traffic forecasts.
• Findings of detailed archaeological field surveys.
• Mainline and crossroad design refinements and associated changes in right of way and
impacts in response to comments on the Draft EIS, as well as addition and modification of
service roads.
• Additional indirect and cumulative effects analysis, including quantitative land use study for
the Preferred Alternative.
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
14

• Conceptual mitigation plan, including options for onsite mitigation.
• Update on GUAMPO LRTP and MUMPO LRTP updates and Metrolina region air quality
conformity.
5.1 Responses to Generalized Comments on Purpose and Need
Comment: The project will not improve traffic flow on I-85, US 321, US 29 and US 74, and it may
increase congestion in the future.
Response: Traffic forecasts and operations and regional travel demand statistics are described in
detail in Appendix C of the Draft EIS and in Section 2.2.6.3 (Improve Existing Roadways
Alternatives) and Section 2.2.7.2 (New Location Alternatives) of the Draft EIS. Appendix C includes
forecasts and operations analyses for I-85, US 321, and US 29-74.
As discussed in these sections, the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives that include widening
I-85 would achieve only minimal improvements to traffic flow on I-85. A widened I-85 (widened to 8-
10 lanes) would continue to operate at LOS E and F in 2030. Most improvements to traffic flow
achieved by increasing capacity would be offset by the increase in traffic volumes attracted to the
facility. As shown in Table C-2 of Appendix C of the Draft EIS, an improved I-85 would attract an
additional 17 percent more vehicles per hour than the No-Build scenario. On the other hand, a New
Location Alternative would reduce traffic volumes on I-85 primarily from NC 279 eastward
compared to the No-Build Alternative, although levels of service would remain at LOS E or F in
2030. More importantly, however, the New Location Alternative provides an additional east-west
route between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties that would operate at LOS C or better, which is a
traffic flow benefit that cannot be achieved under either the Improve Existing Roadways
Alternatives or the No-Build Alternative.
Levels of service along US 29-74 west of McAdenville would primarily be a LOS D or better and fall
to LOS F east of McAdenville. This would be true for both the No-Build and New Location
Alternatives. Along US 321, levels of service will be similar for all options; however, the New
Location Alternative may result in higher traffic volumes along US 321, south of the proposed
alignment, as vehicles use US 321 to access the New Location Alternative.
In considering regional statistics, comparisons of congested vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and
congested vehicle hours traveled (VHT) between the No-Build Alternative, Improve Existing
Roadway Scenario 4, and New Location Alternative (Toll Scenario) are made in Table C-1 of
Appendix C of the Draft EIS. The year 2030 congested VMT and congested VHT are highest for the
Improve Existing Roadways Alternative. The New Location Alternative (Toll Scenario) and the No-
Build Alternative result in about the same congested VMT and VHT, with the New Location
Alternative Toll Scenario performing slightly better, even with the expanded mobility and additional
roadway capacity provided by the project.
In conclusion, while existing and future deficiencies of I-85 and US 29-74 are acknowledged in the
Draft EIS, improving these specific roadways are not identified as purposes for this project. The
project purpose is to improve east-west transportation mobility in the area around the City of
Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct
access between the rapidly growing area of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg
County. The Draft EIS adequately demonstrates that improving I-85 or other area roadways cannot
effectively meet this project purpose.
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
15

Comments: 1) The stated need to connect southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County
is not supported by quantifiable data. 2) The Draft EIS fails to show that an additional bridge over
the Catawba River would respond to any existing mobility need south of the existing bridges.
Response: The need to connect southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County is
supported by the local land use plans and long range transportation plans and demonstrated by
travel demand modeling. Appendix B of the Draft EIS shows the Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization’s (GUAMPO’s) population projections for 2010, 2020 and 2030 from the 2030
Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). These indicate substantial increases in population in the
southern half of Gaston County will occur. Mecklenburg County is projected to continue to be the
economic and employment center of the region. Residential growth projected in southern Gaston
County and residential and employment growth in western Mecklenburg County will continue to
increase demand for improved connectivity and east-west mobility since there is a lack of east-west
routes in southern Gaston County and a lack of connections to Mecklenburg County.
Comments: 1) NCTA cannot reconcile its mandate to build specific toll road projects with federal
law. 2) Rather than identifying an underlying purpose that the project might fulfill, the Draft EIS
restates the specific project design that meets the NCTA’s mandate to build the Garden Parkway toll
road. The resulting project purpose is too narrow to support consideration of the reasonable range of
alternatives required by NEPA.
Response: The project purpose is stated in Section 1.3 of the Draft EIS: “The purpose of the
proposed action is to improve east-west transportation mobility in the area around the City of
Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct
access between the rapidly growing area of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg
County.”
Criteria used in the alternatives evaluation to determine whether a particular alternative concept
would meet the project purpose are listed in Section 2.2.1 of the Draft EIS:
• Reduce travel distance and/or travel times between representative origin/destination
points within southern Gaston County and between southern Gaston County and
Mecklenburg County.
• Provide a transportation facility that would operate at acceptable levels of service
(generally LOS D or better on the mainline) in the design year 2030 for travel between
Gaston and Mecklenburg County.
• Reduce congested vehicle miles traveled and/or congested vehicle hours traveled in
Gaston County compared to the No-Build Alternative in 2030.
This project purpose does not include any statements that the purpose of the project is to construct a
toll facility.
A variety of alternatives could meet the criteria stated above. In accordance with Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1502.14) and FHWA guidance and regulations
(FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, 1987 and 23 CFR 771.123), a reasonable range of alternatives,
including non-toll alternatives, were evaluated in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS as well as the
Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development and Analysis Report (October 2008) and eliminated
for a variety of reasons, as documented in that chapter.

GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
16

5.2 Responses to Generalized Comments on Travel Times and Traffic
Forecasts
Comments: 1) The Draft EIS traffic projections predict that the new toll highway would cause
further traffic congestion on much of I-85 and US 29/74, 2) The Draft EIS presents inflated estimates
of traffic volumes in the project area which make the need for the connector seem greater than it is,
and 3) There appears to be little to no change in travel time savings from most of Gaston County and
the project study area.
Response: In response to the first comment, please refer to the first comment/response under
Responses to Generalized Comments on Purpose and Need.
The comment regarding inflated traffic volumes in the project area refers to volumes reported for the
existing year 2006 in the Draft EIS as compared to traffic counts prepared by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation Transportation Planning Branch’s Traffic Survey Group. The
commenters point out that the traffic volumes reported for I-85, US 321, and US 29-74 in the Draft
EIS are sometimes different, usually greater, than actual counts for the years 2006 and 2007.
At the time traffic forecast efforts began, NCTA’s consultants obtained the approved Metrolina
Travel Demand Model for the13-county region surrounding Charlotte which was used to develop the
traffic forecasts for the project. Traffic forecasting methodologies and results are documented in the
Traffic Forecasting for Toll Alternatives (MAB – August 2008). The version of the model used to
perform the project forecasts was calibrated based on known traffic volumes for the base year 2000,
with the model providing forecasts for years 2010, 2020, and 2030. Volumes for the project’s base
year of 2006 were obtained by interpolating between the calibrated base year 2000 and the forecast
year 2010. Since the travel demand model was calibrated to 2000 traffic volumes, it can be expected
that actual counts for any given subsequent year could vary at some locations. A comparison of the
model’s 2006 results (Existing Conditions scenario) with actual 2006 traffic counts along I-85 show
that there is reasonably good correlation between the modeled and measured values for most of the
study area. Measured volumes are lower by about 7 percent or less west of Exit 26 (Belmont Mount
Holly Road), and lower by about 10-11 percent east of Exit 26. The model may have projected more
robust growth rates for the period 2000-2010 than what has actually occurred up to 2006, resulting
in lower actual traffic counts compared to forecasted values.
In conclusion, it could be expected that variations in economic and other conditions and swings in
growth rates would normalize over the course of the 30-year forecast. The majority of the analyses
reported in the Draft EIS, in particular those used to compare alternatives, were based on the 2030
forecasts, not the 2006 forecasts, and are reasonable values to use in the planning process.
Regarding travel times, two types of travel times are reported in the Draft EIS. One is the origin
and destination travel time estimate, reported in the Draft EIS in Section C.2 of Appendix C. The
other type is an average change in travel time and this is discussed in Section 7.5.1 of the Draft EIS.
Both are different outputs from the approved Metrolina Regional Travel Demand Model that were
used to forecast traffic for the proposed project.
The origin/destination travel time savings estimates are comparisons between the No-Build
Alternative for the year 2030 and the New Location Alternative (Toll Scenario) for the year 2030.
These travel times would not necessarily correlate to travel times experienced today. As shown in
Table C-4 in Appendix C of the Draft EIS, travel time savings under the New Location Alternative
for trips within Gaston County are greatest (8-9 minutes) for trips starting and ending in southern
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
17

Gaston County, reflecting the increased mobility the proposed project would provide within southern
Gaston County. For trips between southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County, the
travel time savings would be greater, ranging from 9-28 minutes depending on origin and
destination (Table C-5 in Appendix C of the Draft EIS). These time savings are representative of
these specific trips. Travel times of other trips within the project study area may vary.
The second type of travel time reported is described in Section 7.5.1 of the Draft EIS. This travel
time (an output from the Metrolina Regional Travel Demand Model) is an overall travel savings
experienced by ALL trips in a particular traffic analysis zone (TAZ), whether those trips actually use
the proposed project or not. (Note: A TAZ is a delineated area used for tabulating traffic-related
data often corresponding to US Census tract and block group boundaries. The boundaries typically
follow physical features such as streets, rivers, or canals and are updated as part of the decennial
census.) Since this reported value includes many types of trips (through trips, local trips, trips that
use the proposed project, trips that do not use the project, home-to-work trips, home-to-shopping
trips, etc.), it would not be expected to show such dramatic savings as specific origin/destination
pairs. These calculations of average travel time savings provide a basis for assessing the overall
effect of the project on travel times in each TAZ and help to show locations that would experience
increase mobility. They do not represent travel time savings for specific origin/destination pairs and
would be expected to be smaller values. Results from this type of analysis show that average travel
time savings would be greatest for areas immediately surrounding the project in Gaston and
Mecklenburg Counties, then areas extending south into York County, South Carolina.
In conclusion, the travel time savings in 2030 realized by constructing the proposed project compared
to the No-Build Alternative would be substantial for many specific origin/destination pairs, and the
project also would have an effect on overall average travel times for trips throughout the project
study area.
5.3 Responses to Generalized Comments on Range of Alternatives
Comments: 1) The Draft EIS disregards the TSM and Mass Transit Alternatives and did not
provide a full range of reasonable alternatives, 2) Objectives could be reached by improvements to
I-85 (including widening and HOT lanes), interim TSM approaches to US 29 and US 74, and other
combinations of transportation improvements, 3) The Draft EIS does not address how a combination
of alternatives might be able to meet purpose and need, and 4) The Draft EIS did not consider
improvements to the area’s transit and freight rail facilities as an alternative.
Response: In accordance with 40 CFR 1502.14(a), agencies are required to: “Rigorously explore and
objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives which were eliminated from
detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated”. The Draft EIS (Section
2.2) evaluated the full range of alternatives as required by 23 CFR 771.123(c) and as suggested by
FHWA Technical Advisory T66430.8.A (October 1987) when considering improvements to the
transportation system. The Draft EIS discusses TSM and Mass Transit Alternatives in Draft EIS
Sections 2.2.3 and 2.2.5, respectively. Combination alternatives also are addressed in Section 2.2.5.
None of these alternatives were determined to meet the project’s purpose and need. TSM and TDM
alternatives were eliminated because they would not noticeably improve mobility, access, or
connectivity within southern Gaston County, nor between southern Gaston County and western
Mecklenburg County. The Mass Transit Alternative, using expanded bus service on existing
roadways or expanded rail service on the existing rail line near I-85, was eliminated from further
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
18

study because it would not establish direct connectivity within southern Gaston County or between
southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. The Mass Transit Alternative including
bus rapid transit or light rail on new alignment could provide connectivity within southern Gaston
County and between southern Gaston County and west Mecklenburg County and provide shorter
travel times or distances for the transit users. However, the Mass Transit Alternative on new
alignment would carry a much lower volume of trips than a new highway facility and would be ill-
suited to the dispersed low-density land uses in southern Gaston County (resulting in even less
trips). The resulting lower volume of trips accommodated would not noticeably reduce vehicle miles
traveled and/or congested vehicle hours traveled in Gaston County compared to the No-Build
Alternative.
The ability of Improve Existing Roadway Alternatives to meet the project purpose and need are
addressed in the Draft EIS Section 2.2.6. See also the first comment under Responses to Generalized
Comments on Purpose and Need.
The environmental resource and regulatory agencies and the public were afforded opportunities to
review and provide input throughout the alternatives development and screening analysis process.
All environmental resource and regulatory agencies participating in the Turnpike Environmental
Agency Coordination (TEAC) meetings signed a concurrence form in October 2008 concurring on
three points: the Purpose and Need (Concurrence Point 1), Bridging and Alignment Decisions
(Concurrence Point 2a) and the Detailed Study Alternatives to be carried forward in the Draft EIS
(Concurrence Point 2). This concurrence form is included in Appendix A-1 in the Draft EIS.
Recent work by NCDOT on the Piedmont and Northern Railway corridor, which is a rail corridor
north of I-85, was mentioned in a comment. The Piedmont and Northern Railway corridor is located
in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties. At this time, the corridor in Gaston County is inactive.
Portions of the corridor in Mecklenburg County are active, except for the Cedar Yard terminus near
uptown Charlotte, which is inactive. The corridor is approximately 16 miles long. It begins in
downtown Gastonia and runs north of I-85 through Ranlo, Lowell, and Mount Holly. It crosses the
Catawba River just south of the NC 27 crossing of the river. The corridor then swings south to end
at South Cedar Street, just east of I-77. There is a spur that runs south from the corridor and ties
into downtown Belmont. The NCDOT acquired the inactive Piedmont and Northern mainline
corridor in 1991.
There has been some interest in reactivating this line for short line freight service. Section 26.1 of
Session Law 2008-191 (House Bill 2431) directed NCDOT to study the Piedmont and Northern
Railway line in Gaston County to determine the cost to bring the full line into operation. The
resulting report to the Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee: Cost to Reactivate
Piedmont and Northern Rail Line (January 15, 2009) (available for download at
www.bytrain.org/quicklinks/reports/P&N_Report_15Jan08.pdf) describes the improvements that
would need to be made to the rail line and corridor in order to provide freight service and also
possible future passenger rail service. At this time, “freight service is anticipated only on the 11.6
mile segments from Mount Holly to Gastonia and the northernmost 1.5 miles of the Belmont Spur”
as documented in Cost to Reactivate Piedmont and Northern Rail Line (January 15, 2009).
Following the report to the legislature, a federal Categorical Exclusion (CE) for reactivation of the
Piedmont and Northern Railroad Corridor for freight service was signed by FHWA on July 9, 2009.
The proposed action identified in the CE is reactivation of freight rail service between Mount Holly
and Gastonia and along the Belmont Spur to the north of Belmont/Mount Holly Road (SR 2093). The
CE states: “At the time of this document, there are no plans in the foreseeable future to implement
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
19

passenger rail service on any portion of the corridor. Passenger service would be covered under a
separate document process if determine feasible.”
Future passenger service on the Piedmont and Northern Rail corridor could provide additional
transportation options between Gaston County and Mecklenburg County and could benefit the
region’s transportation network, but it would not meet the Gaston East-West Connector purpose and
need for the reasons listed for the Mass Transit Alternative in Section 2.2.5.1 of the Draft EIS. It
would not improve mobility within southern Gaston County because it is located north of I-85. It
would not improve connectivity between southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County
because the Piedmont and Northern Rail corridor crosses the Catawba River in Mount Holly, just
south of NC 27. It also would not reduce congested vehicle miles or congested vehicle hours traveled
in Gaston County because it is not anticipated to attract enough trips to make a noticeable difference
in traffic volumes on area roadways.
The Final EIS will include an update on the Mass Transit Alternative discussion as it relates to the
current status of the Piedmont and Northern Rail corridor studies.
Comment: The Draft EIS should have studied ending the project at US 321 if that is an interim
phase.
Response: The proposed project is included in the 2030 LRTP for the GUAMPO area as starting at
I-85 and continuing eastward to the Mecklenburg County line. The GUAMPO plans to include the
entire proposed project as a toll facility in its next update to the LRTP. US 321 was announced by
the NCTA as a potential interim western project terminus during discussions with the public and
local officials about funding. Like many large roadway projects in North Carolina, the Gaston East-
West Connector would need to be constructed and funded in phases. US 321 was identified as a
potential terminus based on information available at the time regarding project costs, potential
available funding, and traffic forecasts. The highest travel demand is projected along the eastern
segments of the proposed project. The ultimate project extends from I-485 in Mecklenburg County to
I-85 west of Gastonia, and this is the project NCTA intends to eventually construct as soon as
financing can be obtained. This will be clarified in responses to comments included in the Final EIS.
Comment: The decision to study only toll alternatives in the EIS is not consistent with the CEQ
regulations at 40 CFR 1502.14(a) and (c). The EIS might have also considered a comparison with a
freeway.
Response: The regulations at 40 CFR 1502.14(a) and (c) are:
In this section agencies shall:
(a) Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for
alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for
their having been eliminated.
(c) Include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.
Alternatives for the project were rigorously explored and evaluated, as documented in the Addendum
to the Final Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report for the Gaston East-West Connector
(October 2008) and summarized in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS. A Mass Transit Alternative, which
would not be within the jurisdiction of the FHWA, NCDOT, nor NCTA, was included in the
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
20

evaluation. Environmental resource and regulatory agencies signed a concurrence form in October
2008 concurring with the Detailed Study Alternatives identified for the project.
The current NCDOT 2009 – 2015 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) includes the
project as a toll facility, and traditional (non-toll) transportation funding for this project is not likely
in the foreseeable future. GUAMPO, as part of the metropolitan planning process, has decided to
allocate the limited available federal and state funds to other projects. In September of 2000, the
GUAMPO TAC passed a resolution stating that it supports the use of alternative funding methods,
including payment by toll.
Based on preliminary traffic and revenue forecasts, the NCTA determined that the Gaston East-
West Connector is financially feasible with the collection of tolls. Using tolls, the NCTA can provide
the funding and construct the project many years earlier than with traditional funding sources.
Using tolls as the funding mechanism for construction and maintenance allows needed capacity to be
added when budget shortfalls would otherwise prevent or delay completion of critical projects.
5.4 Responses to Generalized Comments on Air Quality
Comment: Prior to issuance of the Final EIS and ROD, NCTA should demonstrate that the new
location project will be included in an approved SIP and will be in conformity.
Response: On May 8, 2009, USEPA published a Finding of Failure to Submit State
Implementation Plans (SIP) for the Charlotte area in the Federal Register. The state has 24 months
from this finding to make a SIP submittal and obtain USEPA approval. The NC Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Division of Air Quality (NCDENR-DAQ) intends to submit a
SIP in November 2009.
Because the Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO) and the Gaston
Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO) did not complete an update to their
respective Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTPs) and conformity determinations by May 3, 2009,
and June 30, 2009, respectively, and because the region does not have an approved SIP, the
Metrolina region is currently in a Conformity Lapse Grace Period (CLGP). In discussions with
MUMPO and GUAMPO, it is anticipated that the Metrolina region will be able to avoid moving into
a conformity lapse status, which would begin one year after the start of the CLGP.
As explained in the FHWA/FTA memorandum – Clarification of Transportation Conformity
Requirements for FHWA/FTA Projects Requiring Environmental Impact Statements (May 20, 2003),
an approved SIP and a modified LRTP and conformity determination that is consistent with the
project as proposed must be in place prior to the issuance of the Record of Decision (ROD) for this
project.
FHWA cannot issue a ROD for this project until the LRTPs are updated and there is an approved
SIP for the Metrolina region. The absence of either of these events will result in a project delay until
these approvals are obtained.
Comment: The Draft EIS does not address quantitative air quality impacts as they relate to Mobile
Source Air Toxics (MSATs). The Draft EIS does not offer any mitigation measures to address the
project’s impact on air quality, specifically concerning MSAT emissions exposures at schools,
hospitals, parks, etc.
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
21

Response: The MSAT analysis was conducted in accordance with the Federal Highway
Administration Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents dated February 3,
2006. The interim guidance establishes three levels of review:
• No analysis for projects with no potential for meaningful MSAT effects;
• Qualitative analysis for projects with low potential MSAT effects; or
• Quantitative analysis to differentiate alternatives for projects with higher potential
MSAT effects.
Projects requiring a quantitative analysis include projects that have the potential for meaningful
differences among project alternatives. To fall into this category, projects must:
• Create or significantly alter a major intermodal freight facility that has the potential to
concentrate high levels of diesel particulate matter in a single location; or
• Create new or add significant capacity to urban highways such as interstates, urban
arterials, or urban collector-distributor routes with traffic volumes where the annual
average daily traffic volumes (AADT) are projected to be in the range of 140,000 to
150,000, or greater, by the design year; and also
• Be proposed to be located in proximity to populated areas, or in rural areas in proximity
to concentrations of vulnerable populations (i.e., schools, nursing homes, hospitals).
The project would not qualify as requiring a quantitative analysis because it would not significantly
alter a major intermodal facility, nor would the AADT be in the range of 140,000 to 150,000.
The overall approach applied in the MSAT guidance characterizes the trend in MSAT emissions and
the difference in MSAT emissions between alternatives, but does not attempt to characterize health
risks or microscale impacts, due to the uncertainty associated with available analysis tools. In late
2007, the US District Court in the Southern District of Maryland upheld this approach in ruling on a
challenge to the Inter-County Connector project, stating that “the Defendants’ methodology was
reasonable and should be upheld . . . Defendant’s failure to consider Plaintiffs’ approach to the health
effects analysis, which could be ascertained, if at all, only through uncertain modeling techniques,
did not preclude informed decision-making under NEPA.”
Comment: The EIS should address greenhouse gas emissions.
Response: From a policy standpoint, FHWA’s current approach on the issue of global warming is as
follows. On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Massachusetts et al v. USEPA
that the USEPA does have authority under the Clean Air Act to establish motor vehicle emissions
standards for CO2 emissions. However, the Court’s decision did not have any direct implications on
requirements for developing transportation projects.
On April 24, 2009, in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts et al v. USEPA, the
USEPA issued a proposed finding in the Federal Register (Volume 74, No. 78, page 18886) that
“atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare within the
meaning of Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.” This finding is proposed specifically for six
greenhouse gases that “together constitute the root of the climate change problem: carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.” The USEPA
also proposed to find that the “combined emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and
hydrofluorcarbons from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines are contributing to this
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
22

mix of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” However, this finding, if finalized, would not include
standard-setting rulemaking to establish standards, criteria, or thresholds regarding greenhouse gas
emissions. As of August 25, 2009, the USEPA continues to accept public comment on this proposed
finding, even though the public comment period ended June 23, 2009.
FHWA does not believe it is informative at this point to consider greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in
a Draft EIS for an individual road construction project, such as the Gaston East-West Connector.
The climate impacts of CO2 emissions are global in nature. Analyzing how alternatives evaluated in
a Draft EIS might vary in their relatively small contribution to a global problem will not better
inform decisions. Further, due to the interactions between elements of the transportation system as
a whole, emissions analyses would be less informative than ones conducted at regional, state, or
national levels. Because of these concerns, FHWA concludes that CO2 emissions cannot usefully be
evaluated in this Draft EIS in the same way that other vehicle emissions are addressed.
FHWA is actively engaged in many other activities with the DOT Center for Climate Change to
develop strategies to reduce transportation’s contribution to GHGs—particularly CO2 emissions—
and to assess the risks to transportation systems and services from climate change. FHWA will
continue to pursue these efforts as productive steps to address this important issue. FHWA will
review and update its approach to climate change at both the project and policy level as more
information emerges and as policies and legal requirements evolve.
Lastly, it is important to note that while the Gaston East-West Connector project will provide new
road capacity, the new capacity will be priced (tolled), which serves as a demand management tool in
addition to providing needed project financing. The traffic forecasting for this project shows that the
Gaston East-West Connector project would result in some increases in both vehicle-miles traveled
(VMT) and vehicle-hours traveled (VHT) within the project study area. Because VMT and VHT are
correlated with GHG emissions, this data suggests that the Gaston East-West Connector project may
marginally increase GHG emissions in the project study area. This potential increase in GHG
emissions would be insignificant on a global scale, but is noted here for informational purposes in
connection with the comments concerning GHG emissions and climate change.
5.5 Responses to Generalized Comments on Water Quality and
Jurisdictional Resources
Comments: 1) Concerns about sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project.
Erosion control measures should adhere to the Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds, 2) The
possible effects of storm water runoff associated with this project could negatively affect the project
area.
Response: As discussed in Draft EIS Section 6.2.4, an erosion and sedimentation plan will be
developed for the Preferred Alternative prior to construction in accordance with all applicable
regulations and guidance. The FHWA, NCTA, and NCDOT will work with the permitting agencies
to determine the appropriate best management practices to implement for the project.
A quantitative indirect and cumulative effects (ICE) analysis also will be prepared for the Preferred
Alternative and the land use analysis results will be reported in the Final EIS. The ICE analysis
also will address water quality issues for purposes of the required Section 401 Water Quality
Certification.
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
23

Comments: 1) Concerns about the amount of mitigation needed and that it will not be available in
the area; every effort should be made to further avoid and minimize impacts to streams and wetlands
and to provide on-site mitigation. Mitigation should focus on improving degraded streams in the
area, 2) A conceptual mitigation plan should be provided in the Final EIS, with information about
on-site mitigation opportunities.
Response: The FHWA, NCTA, and NCDOT intend to use the NC Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP) for most project mitigation needs. Over the past several years, NCTA has been
coordinating with EEP regarding this project and projected mitigation needs. A conceptual
mitigation plan will be prepared and described in the Final EIS. The conceptual mitigation plan will
include an evaluation of on-site mitigation opportunities.
Comment: Direct impacts to existing 303(d) listed impaired streams and other waters at risk from
further degradation have not been fully addressed from the standpoint of avoidance and
minimization (e.g. right of way and median widths, shoulder widths, etc.).
Response: As stated in the Section 6002 Coordination Plan for the Gaston East-West Connector
Project, this study, to the extent possible, will follow the environmental review process consistent
with the requirements for “Projects on New Location” as described in the Section 404/NEPA Merger
01 Process Information. The Merger process requires Concurrence Point 4a (avoidance and
minimization) must be achieved after Concurrence Point 3 (identification of LEDPA). The FHWA,
NCTA, and NCDOT will continue working with the environmental resource and regulatory agencies
to achieve these concurrence points. The NCTA held a design workshop on August 26, 2009, to
consider design changes that would reduce impacts and costs. The environmental resource and
regulatory agencies were invited to this meeting.
5.6 Responses to Generalized Comments on Indirect and Cumulative
Effects and Wildlife
Comments: 1) The Draft EIS has no specific discussion of mitigation for indirect and cumulative
impacts, 2) There are no quantitative data presented in the Draft EIS concerning potential ICE to
wetlands, streams, water quality and wildlife habitat, 3) A quantitative ICE analysis should be
prepared for the Preferred Alternative, 4) The Guidance Memorandum to Address and Mitigate
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife Resources and Water Quality
should be consulted when developing mitigation measures.
Response: In accordance with NCDOT procedure, a Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects
(ICE) report was completed and included in the Draft EIS. Several comments on the Draft EIS
requested that a Quantitative ICE analysis be performed. NCTA intends to prepare a Quantitative
ICE report, consisting of two parts. The first will analyze potential changes in land use and the
second will analyze potential changes in water quality. The Quantitative ICE report currently is
planned to include analysis of two scenarios: no-build (for a baseline of comparison), and the
Preferred Alternative. Prior to commencement of this study, scoping with the agencies will be
conducted to ensure the study approach and scope will meet the expectations of the agencies. The
land use component of the Quantitative ICE will be included in the Final EIS. The water quality
component will be completed as part of the permitting phase of the project.
If the results of the quantitative ICE indicate mitigation measures for indirect and/or cumulative
effects should be evaluated, the FHWA, NCTA, and NCDOT will coordinate with the environmental
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
24

resource and regulatory agencies on this issue. It should be noted that FHWA, NCTA, and NCDOT
would not have any authority over most types of mitigation measures that could be effective at
minimizing indirect/cumulative impacts, such as local land use controls and ordinances. However,
as stated in NEPA’s Forty Most Asked Questions, prepared by CEQ:
Question 19b. How should an EIS treat the subject of available mitigation measures that are
(1) outside the jurisdiction of the lead or cooperating agencies, or (2) unlikely to be
adopted or enforced by the responsible agency?
A. All relevant, reasonable mitigation measures that could improve the project are to be
identified, even if they are outside the jurisdiction of the lead agency or the cooperating
agencies, and thus would not be committed as part of the RODs of these agencies. Sections
1502.16(h), 1505.2(c). This will serve to [46 FR 18032] alert agencies or officials who can
implement these extra measures, and will encourage them to do so. Because the EIS is the
most comprehensive environmental document, it is an ideal vehicle in which to lay out not
only the full range of environmental impacts but also the full spectrum of appropriate
mitigation.
However, to ensure that environmental effects of a proposed action are fairly assessed, the
probability of the mitigation measures being implemented must also be discussed. Thus the
EIS and the Record of Decision should indicate the likelihood that such measures will be
adopted or enforced by the responsible agencies. Sections 1502.16(h), 1505.2. If there is a
history of nonenforcement or opposition to such measures, the EIS and Record of Decision
should acknowledge such opposition or nonenforcement. If the necessary mitigation measures
will not be ready for a long period of time, this fact, of course, should also be recognized.
NCTA can encourage local governments to adopt regulations and land use plans that would help
protect significant natural resources, but FHWA, NCTA, and NCDOT lack any enforcement
authority to ensure their adoption or adherence.
Provisions regarding FHWA's legal responsibility and authority for mitigating project impacts are
found in FHWA's Environmental Impact and Related Procedures 23 CFR 771.105(d):
"Measures necessary to mitigate adverse impacts will be incorporated into the action and are
eligible for Federal funding when the Administration determines that:
1. The impacts for which the mitigation is proposed actually result from the Administrative
action; and
2. The proposed mitigation represents a reasonable public expenditure after considering the
impacts of the action and the benefits of the proposed mitigation measures. In making this
determination, the Administration will consider, among other factors, the extent to which
the proposed measures would assist in complying with a Federal statute, Executive Order,
or Administration regulation or policy."
Furthermore, as stated in the FHWA Position Paper: Secondary and Cumulative Impact Assessment
in the Highway Project Development Process:
"After the analysis is complete a valid question will remain: If a proposed highway
improvement is determined to cause potential secondary and cumulative effects, what can and
should be done to mitigate the adverse impacts? This is a difficult question for which there
are no simple solutions. Consistent with existing FHWA regulations mitigation proposals
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
25

must be both reasonable and related to project impacts. However, the opportunities for
environmental enhancement that are now available under the highway program may greatly
expand our traditional view of mitigation. Changing a proposed transportation improvement
to lessen its contribution of indirect impacts may likely result from a combination of
mitigation and enhancement measures that address area-wide concerns, not just the
immediate influence of the project. Unfortunately, measures that would be appropriate to
offset most future developmental impacts in the area of a project often will be beyond the
control and funding authority of the highway program. In these situations, the best approach
would be to work with local agencies that can influence future growth and promote the
benefits of controls that incorporate environmental protection into all planned development."
Comment: Negative impacts to terrestrial resources and wildlife, including fragmentation of
terrestrial habitat, are a significant concern.
Response: The FHWA, NCTA, and NCDOT will include habitat fragmentation in the quantitative
ICE study to be prepared for the Preferred Alternative.
5.7 Responses to Generalized Comments on Cultural Resources,
Community Characteristics, and Farmland
Comment: The Draft EIS missed the subject of historic Stowesville, Stowes Factory, Gaither Mill,
Stowesville Cemetery, and the old Methodist church.
Response: Draft EIS Section 5.3.1.2 discusses the Stowesville site. Additional archaeological
research will be conducted for this site and related sites as part of the Phase II archaeological
surveys for the Preferred Alternative. The results will be reported in the Final EIS.
Comment: EJ populations would receive a higher percent of impact from the new facility in terms of
air quality and noise impacts, but would not necessarily receive a proportionate benefit from the
project due to potential toll costs.
Response: Environmental justice issues are discussed in Section 3,2,5 of the Draft EIS. As stated
in Section 3.2.5 of the Draft EIS, any of the Gaston East-West Connector DSAs would provide a new,
limited-access, east-west route in the region. A result of the project would be reduced traffic on the
existing non-toll route, I-85. Completing the project would benefit all motorists, including low-
income motorists who may choose not to use the toll facility or may tend to use it less frequently.
Neighborhoods with predominantly minority populations (Matthews Acres/Spring Valley and
Garrison Road) are located near I-85 and I-485 within Segments H2A and K3C of DSA 9 (see Figure
3-3 and 3-4 in the Draft EIS). In these areas, there are approximately 40 residences (all assumed to
be minority) that are predicted to experience noise impacts under DSA 9 based on FHWA noise
abatement criteria.
With respect to low income populations, the specific areas where these populations occur within DSA
9 are not readily known. As such, the following method was used to estimate the approximate
percentage of low income populations that could be impacted by increases in noise levels with
implementation of DSA 9. The total numbers of noise-impacted receptors along all the DSA 9
corridor segments was multiplied by the percent of population in poverty of the area’s corresponding
census block. For example: Segment H2A has 32 noise-impacted receptors and its corresponding
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
26

Census Tract 318 Block Group 3 has approximately 42.8 percent living below the poverty level.
Applying this method to the entire length of DSA 9, it can be estimated that approximately 35-40
impacted receptors may be low income. Total numbers of potentially impacted residences are
estimated to be approximately 245. The estimated values for impacted minority and low-income
residences represent approximately 15 percent of the impacted receptors.
Preliminary analyses shows noise barriers would be reasonable at twelve locations along DSA 9,
including noise barriers for the Spring Valley and Garrison Road neighborhoods (see Figure 4-1 in
the Draft EIS). Both of these areas are predominantly minority and also have higher percentages of
their populations considered low-income than other areas along the project. Based on these values,
it is not expected that minority or low-income populations would have disproportionate high and
adverse noise impacts.
Similar to potential noise impacts, populations nearest to DSA 9 have the highest potential to be
affected by air quality impacts, and the above method for estimating potential noise impacts on
minority and low income populations can also be used in a general consideration of air quality
effects. Therefore, it is assumed that the percentage of minority and low income populations that
could be potentially impacted by decreased air quality would be similar to those populations
potentially impacted by noise. Therefore, it is not expected that minority or low-income populations
would have disproportionate high and adverse air quality impacts.
Comments: 1) The Draft EIS does not offer any potential avoidance and minimization measures to
potentially reduce impacts to farmlands, 2) Concerns about the availability of replacement property
for farms that need to be relocated
Response: The locations of farms and voluntary agricultural districts (VADs) were incorporated
into the development of the preliminary new location corridors, and these areas were avoided where
possible, taking into consideration other resources in the area. No other mitigation is required.
The relocation reports prepared for the proposed project indicate replacement property for farms is
available and can be found in Appendix F of the Draft EIS.
At the request of USEPA, farmlands will be a resource evaluated in the quantitative ICE report to be
prepared for the Preferred Alternative.
6.0 SUMMARY OF DESIGN COMMENTS
As a result of the public involvement activities associated with the project, several issues were raised
regarding the preliminary designs for the DSAs. These issues, described below, were raised by
public, local municipalities, interest groups, and agencies. Unless otherwise noted, the comments
apply to DSA 9 (Recommended Alternative).
6.1 Design Comments Received from the Public and Interest Groups
These comments and proposed actions were discussed at the Gaston East-West Connector Post-
Hearing Meeting held August 4, 2009.

GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
27

Matthews Acres Access Road
Matthews Acres residents appear to prefer different access to US 29-74 instead of the access to Oates
Road shown on the Public Hearing Maps. Some Pre-Hearing Open House attendees suggested
connecting to US 29-74 directly south.
NCTA will investigate alternative means of access to the Matthews Acres neighborhood and will
coordinate with residents.
Pam Drive and Saddlewood Drive (south of Robinson Road interchange)
Residents were concerned about closing Pam Drive and rerouting their access to Robinson Road via
the Saddlewood neighborhood. Concerns included additional driving distance and sight distance at
the Saddlewood Road/Robinson Road intersection. Some suggested keeping Pam Drive open and
connecting it directly across from the interchange ramp. Residents also were concerned about the
visual impacts of an access control fence in front of their neighborhood.
NCTA will review sight distances at the Saddlewood Road/Robinson Road intersection under the
proposed designs. Design changes will be made if necessary.
Land North of Interchange at Robinson Road
Property owners on either side of Robinson Road directly north of the interchange commented on the
preliminary designs. The property owner on the west (D’Amore family) would have their horse farm
facilities impacted. The property owner on the east stated they would agree to moving the ramps to
their side of the road. The on-ramp north of the interchange and the proposed access control along
Robinson Road would directly impact the D’Amore horse farm riding ring and security entrance gate
as well as approaching close to their home.
NCTA will investigate interchange design changes to miminize impacts to the horse farm. These
include moving the ramp to a loop on the east side of Robinson Road or shifting the interchange
ramps closer to the mainline. Compressing the ramps would allow full movement at the D’Amore
driveway approximately 700 feet away.
As a separate issue, the railroad bridge over Robinson Road near US 321 was discussed at the Post-
Hearing Meeting (August 4, 2009). This bridge narrows Robinson Road to one lane, and it constrains
traffic movements along Robinson Road. The previous traffic forecasts did not account for this
condition, but new forecasts being prepared will. Mr. Grissom stated Division 12 would like to
replace this bridge, but it is owned by the railroad and costs are prohibitive at this time.
Wilson Farm Road just south of Union Road (NC 274)
Property owners (Margaret and Bob Ferguson) own 140 acres (162 Wilson Farm Rd, Parcel ID
193024). Preliminary designs would result in a narrow strip of land on the north end of the parcel
being divided from the rest of the parcel. Owners wanted to know if mainline could be shifted north.
No action is proposed regarding this request. If the mainline is shifted north, it would impact a large
wetland area (Wetland 189, shown on Figure 2-9v of the Draft EIS).

GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
28

Carolina Speedway on NC 274 just south of Union-New Hope Road
The property owners (Charles Harrison and Harriet Harrison Armstrong) asked if DSA 9 could be
moved north to avoid the Carolina Speedway and homes. They are concerned with impacts to
racetrack parking and pit area.
The mainline alignment for DSA 9 cannot be moved north due to intersection spacing concerns with
Union New Hope Road. However, NCTA will investigate measures to minimize impacts to the
Carolina Speedway. Mr. Harrison and Ms. Armstrong own a 63-acre parcel to the east of the
Speedway. There is a possibility that this additional property could be used to relocate some of the
functions/uses that would be encroached on by the proposed designs for DSA 9.
Interchange at NC 273
The property at 2030 Southpoint Road (NC 273) (Rhonda Harmon) is adjacent to the eastbound off
ramp. The property owner was concerned about being landlocked. Another property owner in
Graystone Estates concerned about providing sidewalks on Southpoint Road for high school students
traveling to Southpoint High School.
The NCTA will be conducting a service road study for the Preferred Alternative which will review
land-locked properties. Sidewalks will be added to cross streets where appropriate and can be
funded. The traffic signals proposed at the interchange ramp termini will provide for gaps in traffic
to allow for turning movements onto Southpoint Road.
Sunderland Road/Allison Street off of NC 273 south of the proposed interchange
A resident of Sunderland Road asked if the new access point for Sunderland Road onto NC 273 could
be moved north approximately 800 feet. Another resident was concerned that school buses traveling
into the neighborhood will not be able to turn around. Currently, school buses do not need to turn
around to exit the neighborhood.
The NCTA will investigate modifying the Sunderland Road access to NC 273 and will review the
designs to ensure school bus access is provided.
Boat Club Road and Access to the Optimist Club/Duke Energy Recreational Fields
The Optimist Club leases land on Boat Club Road from Duke Power for youth recreational fields.
The Optimist Club recently made improvements and expanded the fields. The preliminary
engineering designs shown on the Public Hearing Map encroach on the expanded fields. The
Optimist Club is concerned about impacts to the fields and provision of access to the fields.
The NCTA has modified the preliminary engineering designs to avoid direct encroachment on the
expanded recreational fields. These modified designs also avoided two electric power towers. A
letter dated June 18, 2009 was sent from NCTA to Mr. Kelvin Reagan, Optimist Club President,
describing the design changes. This memorandum also included a map of the new design. These
modifications will be included in the Final EIS. Access to the fields will be investigated as part of
the service road study and will include coordination with Duke Power. Duke Power owns the
recreational field land and adjacent land to the south. Issues to be explored with Duke Power
include moving a gate to allow the recreational field users to use Duke Power’s access road that
GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
29

extends from Boat Club Road to NC 273. This road currently provides access to Duke Power’s air
pollution control equipment area.
I-485 Interchange Area
Piedmont Natural Gas recently purchased a 50-foot easement along the west side of I-485.
A utility study will be performed prior to construction and utilities will be accommodated in the
design of the project.
General Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Comments
Connect Gaston and Gaston Together submitted comments regarding sidewalks and greenways
throughout the project.
• Bridges over streams should be constructed in a manner that allows future walking and
bike paths to pass beneath them.
• All bridges over roads, and interchanges with roads, be constructed with sidewalks
(north-south) that allow access from one side of the thoroughfare to the other.
• All sidewalks should be constructed sufficient in width to allow foot, bike, wheelchair,
and stroller traffic to travel in both directions simultaneously.
• Bridges over the South Fork and Catawba Rivers should be constructed with provisions
for pedestrians to cross the rivers.
• Bridges at Blackwood Creek, Brandon Creek, Catawba Creek, and an unnamed
perennial branch just south of the US 29/74 interchange should be designed to allow
greenway construction.
• There is a greenway planned to follow a section of Crowders Creek south of Linwood
Road that should be taken into consideration.
During final design, the NCTA will work with local jurisdictions to provide sidewalks and other
crossings where appropriate and can be funded.
Access to South End of Bay Shore Drive (Corridor Segment K4A – not in the
Recommended Alternative DSA 9)
The access road proposed to provide access to remaining homes on the south end of Bayshore Drive
would connect Bayshore Drive to Magnolia Way Lane in Woodland Bay, which would then allow
drivers to access South New Hope Road via Woodland Bay Drive. Woodland Bay is a gated
community, whose roads are privately owned. This proposed access to join Bayshore Drive to a
development that is not part of the Woodland Bay Homeowners Association.
If a Preferred Alternative is identified that includes Segment K4A (DSAs 5, 23, 64, or 77), the service
road study would consider this issue.

GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
30

6.2 Design Comments Received from Agencies and Local Governments
US 29-74 Interchange
The US 29-74 Interchange should be eliminated to reduce impacts to wetlands and Crowders Creek
(a 303(d)-listed stream) and its tributaries.
The NCTA, NCDOT, and FHWA will make a decision regarding this interchange prior to the Final
EIS, after completing new traffic forecasts. Previous coordination with the GUAMPO had indicated
they could agree to the elimination of the US 29-74 interchange.
Interchanges at Robinson Road, Bud Wilson Road, NC 274 (Union Rd), NC 273 (Southpoint
Road), and I-485
Single Point Urban Interchanges (SPUIs) or other compressed interchange designs should be
considered at Robinson Road, Bud Wilson Road, NC 274 (Union Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road).,
and I-485.
As part of final design, the NCTA will review updated traffic forecasts and work with the GUAMPO
and MUMPO to determine if any interchanges can be eliminated or deferred. Also during final
design, the NCTA will review the listed interchanges to determine if the interchange footprints can
be reduced.
Bud Wilson Road Interchange
The GUAMPO has requested that the Bud Wilson Road interchange be removed or relocated to an
extension of Beaty Road.
The NCTA, NCDOT and FHWA will make a decision regarding deleting or relocating this
interchange prior to publication of the Final EIS
Future Belmont-Mt. Holly Loop
The GUAMPO requests that a grade-separation be provided for the future proposed Belmont-Mt.
Holly Loop Road to be located west of Southpoint Road (NC 273).
Since the Belmont-Mt. Holly Loop is a proposed Road, its exact location is not known and its
construction would be a separate project. The NCTA would allow grade-separated crossings of the
mainline to be funded and constructed by others in the future.
Access to Charlotte-Douglas International Airport Area
The MUMPO and the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport have requested that access be
provided east of I-485 to the roadways north of relocated NC 160 (West Boulevard) to accommodate
the Airport’s runway expansion project and future intermodal facility.
The NCTA will work with the Airport, Charlotte DOT, and MUMPO during final design to ensure
access is provided.

GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR
September 8, 2009 TEAC Meeting
31

Mainline Typical Section
Agency commenters suggested reviewing the proposed typical sections for ways to reduce the
construction footprint. A recommendation was made to maintain the median width, but narrow the
footprint for a 4-lane facility to minimize impacts to area resources. A wider right of way could be
preserved for possible future widening, but additional impacts to streams and wetland should be
avoided until such widening occurs.
The NCTA will review the typical sections during final design. A workshop to discuss potential ways
to reduce the costs and impacts of the project is scheduled for August 26, 2009.
7.0 TRAFFIC FORECASTS
The April 13, 2006 version of the 2030 Metrolina travel demand model was used for all year 2030
project-related traffic forecasts because this was the current version when the updated forecasting
activities began. The 2030 Metrolina travel demand model covers a thirteen-county region
(including Gaston County and Mecklenburg County) within a single model. The 2030 Metrolina
travel demand model also uses population and land use forecasts that extend out to 2030. The
Metrolina travel demand model is updated on a continual basis.
Year 2030 Toll Scenario traffic volumes were developed by modeling three representative DSAs:
DSA 4 (the northernmost DSA), DSA 64 (the southernmost), and DSA 77 (a crossover DSA). A
review of the Non-Toll Scenario forecasts showed that these three representative alternatives would
provide the full range of volumes forecasted along the DSAs, and all DSAs are represented by
various portions of these three DSAs. Table 5 shows the forecasted 2030 Toll Scenario traffic
volumes along the mainline for DSAs 4, 64, and 77. The Recommended Alternative, DSA 9, is most
closely represented by DSA 4 in the table below.
Table 5: Year 2030 Traffic Volumes Along the Detailed Study Alternatives
Segment
Modeled Detailed Study Alternative
4* 64 77*
I-85 to US 29-74 12,800 10,000 12,200
US 29-74 to Linwood Rd (SR 1133) 20,800 11,400 18,000
Linwood Rd to Lewis Rd (SR 1126) 15,400 9,600 17,400
Lewis Rd to US 321 15,400 14,200 17,400
US 321 to Robinson Rd (SR 2416) 20,000 18,800 21,400
Robinson Rd to Bud Wilson Rd (SR 2423) 29,200 29,400 30,400
Bud Wilson Rd to NC 274 (Union Rd) 28,000 28,600 28,200
NC 274 to NC 279 (S New Hope Rd) 31,600 35,000 34,800
NC 279 to NC 273 (Southpoint Rd) 42,200 44,200 43,400
NC 273 to Dixie River Rd (SR 1155) 58,400 61,800 60,600
Dixie River Rd to I-485 55,400 54,400 53,000
Source: Gaston East-West Connector - (U-3321) Traffic Forecast for Toll Alternatives (Martin/Alexiou/Bryson,
August 2008)
* Alternatives 4 and 64 do not have an interchange at Lewis Rd, and therefore the volumes in the 3rd and 4th
rows are repeated. DSA 9 is most similar to DSA 4.

APPENDIX A

Figure S-1a and S-1b
Sp
e
n
c
e
r

M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
Mc
A
d
e
n
v
i
l
l
e
Belmont
Cr
a
m
e
r
t
o
n
Ra
n
l
o
Be
s
s
e
m
e
r

C
i
t
y
Da
l
l
a
s
Ga
s
t
o
n
i
a
Mt
.

H
o
l
l
y
Charlotte
Lo
w
e
l
l
Gas
to
n

C
ou
n
ty
Yor
k C
ou
n
t
y
, S
C
Gaston County Mecklenburg County Charlotte -Douglas Int'l Airport
Ga
s
t
o
n
i
a
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
tu2974
tu32
1
Cr
o
w
d
e
r
s

M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
St
a
t
e

P
a
r
k
tu2974§¨¦ 85
§¨¦ 8
5

§¨¦485
Linwood Rd
Chapel Grove Rd
Lewis Rd
Crowders
C
r
e
e
k Rd
Robinson Rd
B
u
d
W
ils
o
n R
d
Union Rd
U
n
i
o
n

N
e
w

H
o
p
e

R
d
S N e w H o p e R d
Southpoint Rd Allen Steam Station Dixie River Rd Catawba River
South Fork
Catawba River
C ata w b a C re e k
Crowders Creek
¯
¯
27
9
W a l l a c e N e e l R dWest Blvd
Rufus Ratchford Rd
U n i o n R d
F
orbes R
d
F r e e d o m M ill R dOates Rd
¯
¯
27
3
¯
¯
27
4
¯
¯
27
4
Da
n
i
e
l

S
t
o
w
e
Bo
t
a
n
i
c
a
l

G
a
r
d
e
n
Berewick District ParkBerryhillPark
Ma
r
t
h
a

R
i
v
e
r
s
Pa
r
k
T
J
e
f
f
e
r
s
Pa
r
k
Da
v
i
s
Pa
r
k
Li
n
w
o
o
d
Pa
r
k
Ga
s
t
o
n
i
a

M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
Go
l
f

C
o
u
r
s
e
Cr
o
w
d
e
r
s

M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
Go
l
f

C
o
u
r
s
e
Fo
r
e
s
t
v
i
e
w
Pa
r
k
Fe
r
g
u
s
o
n
Pa
r
k
W.
A
.

B
e
s
s
Pa
r
k
Ch
a
p
e
l

G
r
o
v
e
Pa
r
k
H 1 A
H2A H 3
H2B
H2C
H 1 B
H X 2
J4A
J 3
J 2 A
J1A
J3J2B
J4B
J
X
1
J1BJ2C
J2D
J 1 C
J5A J X 4
J1E
J
5
B
J
1
F
K
2
A
K
1
A
K
3
A
K1B
K1C
K4A
KX
1
K3B K3C
H1C
J1D
FigS-1a_RecDetStudyAlts.mxd AKH 04.17.09
Legend Refined Study Area Boundary for New Location Alternatives Design Centerline Segment Breaks Detailed Study Alternatives West Blvd Realignment (Construction by Airport)Parks Private Recreation Facilities and Attractions State Complexes County Lines State Line Interstates US Routes Streets Railroad Hydrography City Limits WSource: Gaston County and Mecklenburg County GIS Map printed April 2009.01.50.75 Miles Figure S-1aSTIP PROJECT NO. U-3321 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTORGaston County and Mecklenburg County DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES
NO
T
E
:

P
R
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y

A
L
I
G
N
M
E
N
T
S

S
U
B
J
E
C
T

T
O

C
H
A
N
G
E
CI
A
_
R
e
c
o
m
m
_
S
eg
.
m
xd
5/
1
3/0
8

r
e
v

i
n

I
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
o
r

A
K
H

4
.
0
8
.
0
9
Legend
DesignRight-of-Way
CorridorSegmentsComprising
EachDetailedStudyAlternative
Recommended Alternative
Source:GastonCountyand
MecklenburgCountiesGIS.
MapPrinted April 2009.
FigureS-1b
STIPPROJECT
NO.U-3321
GASTONEAST-WEST
CONNECTOR
Gaston Countyand
Mecklenburg County
DETAILEDSTUDY
ALTERNATIVES
000,0105,000
Feet
Alternative4 Alternative5 Alternative9 Alternative22
Alternative23 Alternative27 Alternative58 Alternative64
Alternative68 Alternative76 Alternative77 Alternative81
RECOMMENDED

APPENDIX B

Summary of Environmental Impacts

T
A
B
L
E

S
-
2
:

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

–

G
a
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r

D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

S
t
u
d
y

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

IS
S
U
E

DE
T
A
I
L
E
D

S
T
U
D
Y

A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E

4
5

9
2
2
2
3
2
7
5
8

6
4
6
8
7
6
7
7
8
1
Le
n
g
t
h

(
m
i
l
e
s
)

2
1
.
4

2
1
.
5

2
1
.
9

2
1
.
9

2
2
.
0

2
2
.
4

2
3
.
1

2
3
.
3

2
3
.
7

2
1
.
8

2
1
.
9

2
2
.
2

Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
s
t
s

(m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s

$
)
1
95
5
.
0
-
1,
1
4
0
.
8

98
0
.
2
-
1,
1
7
3
.
2

97
4
.
5
-
1,
1
6
8
.
4

99
9
.
5
-
1,
1
9
5
.
0

1,
0
2
2
.
6
-
1,
2
2
8
.
2

1,
0
1
9
.
7
-
1,
2
2
1
.
7

97
8
.
2
-
1,
1
7
1
.
3

99
2
.
4
-
1,
1
8
8
.
6

98
6
.
2
-
1,
1
8
0
.
9

98
2
.
1
-
1,
1
7
4
.
0

1,007.4-1,209.6 1,000.5-1,199.7
Ri
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
W
a
y

C
o
s
t

(m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s

$
)
1
18
6
.
7
-
22
8
.
5

19
9
.
1
-
24
3
.
0

17
3
.
9
-
21
3
.
0

19
7
.
0
-
24
1
.
1

20
8
.
8
-
25
5
.
5

18
3
.
5
-
22
4
.
5

19
7
.
3
-

24
1
.
3

21
5
.
7
-
26
3
.
2

19
0
.
8
-
23
3
.
2

18
2
.
4
-
22
3
.
2

194.6-237.6 169.6-207.3
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

Co
s
t
s
(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s

$
)
1
38
.
9
-
4
1
.
1

3
4
.
8
-
3
6
.
7

3
2
.
2
-
3
4
.
0

4
0
.
4
-
4
2
.
6

3
6
.
4
-
3
8
.
4

3
3
.
8
-
3
5
.
7

4
1
.
5
-
4
3
.
7

3
4
.
3
-
3
6
.
1

3
1
.
8
-
3
3
.
5

3
7
.
7
-
3
9
.
8

3
3
.
2
-
3
5
.
0

3
1
.
1
-
3
2
.
8

To
t
a
l

C
o
s
t
s

(m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s

$
)
1
1,
1
8
0
.
6
-
1,
4
1
0
.
4

1,
2
1
4
.
1
-
1,
4
5
2
.
9

1,
1
8
0
.
6
-
1,
4
1
5
.
4

1,
2
3
6
.
9
-
1,
4
7
8
.
7

1,
2
6
7
.
9
-
1,
5
2
2
.
0

1,
2
3
7
.
1
-
1,
4
8
1
.
9

1,
2
1
7
.
0
-
1,
4
5
6
.
3

1,
2
4
2
.
4
-
1,
4
8
8
.
0

1,
2
0
8
.
7
-
1,
4
4
7
.
6

1,
2
0
2
.
1
-
1,
4
3
6
.
9

1,235.2-1,482.3 1,201.2-1,439.8
Me
d
i
a
n

T
o
t
a
l

Pr
o
j
e
c
t

C
o
s
t

(m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s

$
)
1
1,
2
8
0
.
5

1
,
3
1
6
.
9

1
,
2
8
2
.
0

1
,
3
4
2
.
2

1
,
3
7
8
.
4

1
,
3
4
2
.
9

1
,
3
2
1
.
2

1
,
3
4
8
.
2

1
,
3
1
2
.
6

1
,
3
0
4
.
3

1
,
3
4
1
.
9

1
3
0
5
.
0

LA
N
D

U
S
E

Co
m
p
a
t
i
b
l
e

w
i
t
h

La
n
d

U
s
e

P
l
a
n
s

Ye
s

Y
e
s

Y
e
s

Y
e
s

Y
e
s

Y
e
s

Y
e
s

Y
e
s

Y
e
s

Y
e
s

Y
e
s

Y
e
s

IC
E
2:
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

f
o
r

Ac
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
e
d

G
r
o
w
t
h

an
d

I
n
d
i
r
e
c
t

E
f
f
e
c
t
s

in

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

Hi
g
h

H
i
g
h

H
i
g
h

H
i
g
h

H
i
g
h

H
i
g
h

H
i
g
h

H
i
g
h

H
i
g
h

H
i
g
h

H
i
g
h

H
i
g
h

RE
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
S

A
N
D

N
E
I
G
H
B
O
R
H
O
O
D

I
M
P
A
C
T
S

Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

Re
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

37
7

3
5
8

3
4
8

3
7
3

3
5
4

3
4
4

3
5
9

3
3
6

3
2
6

3
8
4

3
6
5

3
5
5

Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s

Re
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

38

3
3

3
7

4
0

3
5

3
9

3
0

2
6

3
0

2
9

2
4

2
8

Na
m
e
d

Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s

21

2
4

1
8

1
9

2
2

1
6

1
7

2
1

1
5

1
8

2
1

1
5

Ru
r
a
l

Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
3
8
8

7

6

6

5

1
0

1
0

9

7

7

6

IC
E
2:
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

f
o
r

in
d
i
r
e
c
t

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

d
u
e

to

p
r
o
x
i
m
i
t
y

t
o

ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s

Mo
s
t

M
o
s
t

M
o
s
t

M
o
s
t

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

M
o
s
t

M
o
s
t

L
e
a
s
t

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

M
o
s
t

L
e
a
s
t

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

Co
n
f
o
r
m

t
o

U
n
i
f
o
r
m

R
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

A
c
t
;
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

o
u
t
r
e
a
c
h

e
f
f
o
r
t
s
;

m
e
e
t

w
i
t
h

n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

representatives; continue to
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e

d
e
s
i
g
n

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s

t
o

l
e
s
s
e
n

i
m
p
a
c
t
s
.

T
A
B
L
E

S
-
2
:

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

–

G
a
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r

D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

S
t
u
d
y

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

IS
S
U
E

DE
T
A
I
L
E
D

S
T
U
D
Y

A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E

4
5

9
2
2
2
3
2
7
5
8

6
4
6
8
7
6
7
7
8
1
CO
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y

S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S

A
N
D

F
A
C
I
L
I
T
I
E
S

I
M
P
A
C
T
S

Pu
b
l
i
c

P
a
r
k
s
4
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
Pr
i
v
a
t
e

R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

Fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
5
2b,
d

3b,
c
,
e

3b,
c
,
d

1d
2c,
e

2c,
d

2a,
d

3a,
c
,
e

3a,
c
,
d

2a,d 3a,c,e 3a,c,d
Sc
h
o
o
l
s
6
1
0

0

1

0

0

2

1

1

2

1

1

Ch
u
r
c
h
e
s

w
i
t
h

Im
p
a
c
t
s

t
o

M
a
i
n

Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s

2
3

2

1

2

1

1

2

1

0

1

0

Ch
u
r
c
h
e
s

w
i
t
h

Im
p
a
c
t
s

t
o

Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y

a
n
d
/
o
r

Ou
t
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s

O
n
l
y

3
3

1

4

4

2

2

2

0

2

2

0

Ce
m
e
t
e
r
i
e
s

Re
q
u
i
r
i
n
g

Re
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

1
1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

Co
n
f
o
r
m

t
o

U
n
i
f
o
r
m

R
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

A
c
t
;

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

o
u
t
r
e
a
c
h

e
f
f
o
r
t
s
;

m
e
e
t

w
i
t
h

s
c
h
o
o
l

d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
s

r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g

s
i
t
e
p
l
an
n
i
n
g
,

b
u
s

r
o
u
t
e
s

a
n
d

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
en
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
;

c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e

w
i
t
h

c
h
u
r
c
h

l
e
a
d
er
s

o
n

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

e
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

r
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
;

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e

t
o

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e

d
e
s
i
g
n

improvements to lessen impacts.
NO
I
S
E

I
M
P
A
C
T
S

To
t
a
l

#

o
f

Im
p
a
c
t
e
d

Re
c
e
p
t
o
r
s

30
2

2
7
1

2
4
5

2
9
8

2
6
7

2
4
1

2
7
2

2
3
1

2
0
4

3
0
9

2
7
8

2
7
6

IC
E
2:
O
v
e
r
a
l
l

am
b
i
e
n
t

n
o
i
s
e

in
c
r
e
a
s
e

We
a
k

t
o

mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

ef
f
e
c
t
s

We
a
k

t
o

mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

ef
f
e
c
t
s

We
a
k

t
o

mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

ef
f
e
c
t
s

We
a
k

t
o

mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

ef
f
e
c
t
s

We
a
k

t
o

mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

ef
f
e
c
t
s

We
a
k

t
o

mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

ef
f
e
c
t
s

We
a
k

t
o

mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

ef
f
e
c
t
s

We
a
k

t
o

mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

ef
f
e
c
t
s

We
a
k

t
o

mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

ef
f
e
c
t
s

We
a
k

t
o

mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

ef
f
e
c
t
s

Weak to moderate effects Weak to moderate effects
NO
I
S
E

M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

To
t
a
l

L
e
n
g
t
h

o
f

No
i
s
e

B
a
r
r
i
e
r
s

(
f
t
)

22
,
1
6
2

1
9
,
2
2
0

2
0
,
5
6
2

1
9
,
9
2
2

1
6
,
9
8
0

1
8
,
3
2
2

1
3
,
9
2
6

1
0
,
3
3
5

1
1
,
6
7
7

1
7
,
9
6
7

1
5
,
0
2
5

1
6
,
3
6
7

To
t
a
l

#

o
f

N
o
i
s
e

Ba
r
r
i
e
r
s
7
13

1
1

1
2

1
1

9

1
0

8

6

7

1
0

8

9

Nu
m
b
e
r

o
f

Be
n
e
f
i
t
t
e
d

Re
c
e
p
t
o
r
s

19
1

1
5
7

1
6
9

1
7
1

1
4
4

1
4
9

1
3
2

9
8

1
1
0

1
6
1

1
2
8

1
3
9

AI
R

Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y

I
M
P
A
C
T
S

T
A
B
L
E

S
-
2
:

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

–

G
a
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r

D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

S
t
u
d
y

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

IS
S
U
E

DE
T
A
I
L
E
D

S
T
U
D
Y

A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E

4
5

9
2
2
2
3
2
7
5
8

6
4
6
8
7
6
7
7
8
1
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Co
n
f
o
r
m
i
t
y

Th
e

L
R
T
P
s

a
n
d

a
i
r

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

c
o
n
f
o
r
m
i
t
y

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

M
U
M
P
O

a
n
d

G
U
A
M
P
O

r
e
g
i
o
n
s

w
i
l
l

n
e
e
d

t
o

b
e

u
p
d
a
t
e
d

p
r
i
o
r

t
o

t
h
e

c
o
m
p
l
etion of the Record of Decision
so

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

d
e
s
i
g
n

c
o
n
c
e
p
t

a
n
d

s
c
o
p
e

a
r
e

c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
.

Mo
b
i
l
e

S
o
u
r
c
e

A
i
r

To
x
i
c
s

(
M
S
A
T
s
)

Qu
a
l
i
t
a
t
i
v
e

a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
.

C
u
r
r
e
n
t

t
o
o
l
s

a
n
d

s
c
i
e
n
c
e

n
o
t

a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e

t
o

q
u
a
n
t
i
f
y

t
h
e

h
e
a
l
t
h

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

f
r
o
m

M
S
A
T
s
.

FA
R
M
L
A
N
D

I
M
P
A
C
T
S

VA
D
8 A
c
r
e
a
g
e

Im
p
a
c
t
e
d

b
y

r
i
g
h
t

of

w
a
y

44
.
7

4
9
.
2

4
9
.
2

4
4
.
7

4
9
.
2

4
9
.
2

6
8
.
8

1
3
8
.
4

1
3
8
.
4

6
4
.
0

6
8
.
5

6
8
.
5

Fa
r
m

R
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

2

2

0

1

1

IC
E
2:
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

f
o
r

in
d
i
r
e
c
t

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

o
n

ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e

a
n
d

fa
r
m
l
a
n
d

Le
a
s
t

L
e
a
s
t

L
e
a
s
t

L
e
a
s
t

L
e
a
s
t

L
e
a
s
t

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

M
o
s
t

M
o
s
t

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
N
o
n
e

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
.

UT
I
L
I
T
I
E
S

I
M
P
A
C
T
S

Po
w
e
r

Tr
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

L
i
n
e

Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
10

14

1
3

1
4

1
4

1
3

1
4

1
8

1
7

1
7

1
7

1
5

1
7

Ga
s

T
r
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

Pi
p
e
l
i
n
e

Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
11

4
4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Ra
i
l
r
o
a
d

C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s

2

1

2

2

1

2

2

1

2

2

1

2

MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

Co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e

t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y

a
n
d

p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t

c
h
a
n
g
e
s

i
n

u
t
i
l
i
t
y

l
i
n
e
s

w
i
t
h

e
a
c
h

o
f

t
h
e

u
t
i
l
i
t
y

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
.

VI
S
U
A
L

I
M
P
A
C
T
S

Ch
a
n
g
e
s

i
n

t
h
e

Vi
s
u
a
l

L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e

Mo
s
t

v
i
s
u
a
l

im
p
a
c
t
s

Mo
s
t

vi
s
u
a
l

im
p
a
c
t
s

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

vi
s
u
a
l

im
p
a
c
t
s

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

vi
s
u
a
l

im
p
a
c
t
s

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

vi
s
u
a
l

im
p
a
c
t
s

Le
a
s
t

vi
s
u
a
l

im
p
a
c
t
s

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

vi
s
u
a
l

im
p
a
c
t
s

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

vi
s
u
a
l

im
p
a
c
t
s

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

vi
s
u
a
l

im
p
a
c
t
s

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

vi
s
u
a
l

im
p
a
c
t
s

Moderate visual impacts Least visual impacts
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a

l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g

p
l
a
n

f
o
r

t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.

I
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
e

t
h
e

f
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

a
n
d

r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
n
e
s
s

o
f

c
o
s
t
-
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s

f
o
r

t
he

b
r
i
d
g
e

s
i
d
e
s
,

p
i
e
r
s
,

a
n
d

r
a
i
l
i
n
g
s

t
o

en
h
a
n
c
e

a
e
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
s
.

HA
Z
A
R
D
O
U
S

M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
S

I
M
P
A
C
T
S

T
A
B
L
E

S
-
2
:

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

–

G
a
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r

D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

S
t
u
d
y

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

IS
S
U
E

DE
T
A
I
L
E
D

S
T
U
D
Y

A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E

4
5

9
2
2
2
3
2
7
5
8

6
4
6
8
7
6
7
7
8
1
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s

Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s

S
i
t
e
s

wi
t
h
i
n

D
S
A

Co
r
r
i
d
o
r

24

2
3

2
4

2
2

2
1

2
2

1
4

1
2

1
3

1
4

1
3

1
4

MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

A
m
o
r
e

d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

f
i
e
l
d

r
e
c
o
n
n
a
i
s
s
a
n
c
e

w
i
l
l

b
e

c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d

f
o
r

t
h
e

P
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
.
FL
O
O
D
P
L
A
I
N
S
/
F
L
O
O
D
W
A
Y
S

I
M
P
A
C
T
S

Fl
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n

Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
s

12

1
3

1
3

1
2

1
3

1
3

1
1

1
2

1
2

1
0

1
1

1
1

Lo
n
g
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l

Fl
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n

En
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

1
1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Fl
o
o
d
w
a
y

C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s

1
0

1
0

1
0

9

9

9

7

7

7

7

7

7

Nu
m
b
e
r

o
f

M
a
j
o
r

Cu
l
v
e
r
t
s
/
P
i
p
e
s

(>
7
2
”

d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
)
12

47

4
3

4
5

4
5

4
1

4
3

4
7

4
2

4
4

4
2

3
9

4
0

MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

Th
e

e
f
f
e
c
t

o
f

a
l
l

t
h
e

D
S
A
s

c
a
n

b
e

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

p
r
o
p
e
r

s
i
z
i
n
g

a
n
d

d
e
s
i
g
n

o
f

h
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

(
c
u
l
v
e
r
t
s
,

b
r
i
d
g
e
s
,

a
n
d

c
h
an
n
e
l

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
)
.

A

d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

hy
d
r
o
l
o
g
i
c

a
n
d

h
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

w
i
l
l

b
e

c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d

f
o
r

t
h
e

P
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
.

CU
L
T
U
R
A
L

R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S

I
M
P
A
C
T
S

Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

wi
t
h

N
o

A
d
v
e
r
s
e

Ef
f
e
c
t
13

1a
2b,

c

2b,

c

1a
2b,
c

2b,
c

2a,
e

3b,
d
,
e

3b,
d
,
e

2a,e 3b,c,e 3b,c,e
Ov
e
r
a
l
l

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

fo
r

A
r
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

Si
t
e
s

Hi
g
h

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

H
i
g
h

L
o
w

L
o
w

H
i
g
h

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

to

H
i
g
h

Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

to

H
i
g
h

High Moderate Moderate
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

Du
r
i
n
g

f
i
n
a
l

d
e
s
i
g
n

o
f

t
h
e

P
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
,

t
h
e

d
e
s
i
g
n
s

w
i
l
l
b
e

r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d

t
o

e
n
s
u
r
e

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
ic
a
b
l
e

c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

m
e
t

t
o

m
ai
n
t
a
i
n

t
h
e

N
o

A
d
v
e
r
s
e

E
f
f
e
c
t

de
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
.

T
h
e

P
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
,

o
n
c
e

d
e
f
i
n
e
d
,

w
i
l
l

b
e

s
u
r
v
e
y
e
d

t
o

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

i
f

a
r
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

s
i
t
e
s

e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e

f
o
r

l
i
s
ti
n
g

o
n

t
h
e

N
R
H
P

a
r
e

p
r
e
s
e
n
t
.

T
A
B
L
E

S
-
2
:

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

–

G
a
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r

D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

S
t
u
d
y

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

IS
S
U
E

DE
T
A
I
L
E
D

S
T
U
D
Y

A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E

4
5

9
2
2
2
3
2
7
5
8

6
4
6
8
7
6
7
7
8
1
S
E
C
T
I
O
N

4
(
F
)
/
6
(
F
)

R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S

I
M
P
A
C
T
S

Se
c
t
i
o
n

4
(
f
)

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

w
i
t
h

de

mi
m
i
n
i
s
I
m
p
a
c
t
14

1
1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

Se
c
t
i
o
n

6
(
f
)

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

0
0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

A
l
l

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e

c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s

m
u
s
t

b
e

m
e
t

i
n

o
r
d
e
r

t
o

m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n

t
h
e

N
o

A
d
v
e
r
s
e

E
f
f
e
c
t
s

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

t
o

c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.

T
h
e

N
C
T
A
w
i
l
l

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e

c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

w
i
t
h

lo
c
a
l

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

w
i
t
h

j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n

o
v
e
r

p
a
r
k

a
n
d

r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

t
o

e
n
s
u
r
e

t
h
a
t

r
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y

a
n
d

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

l
i
m
i
t
s

w
i
t
h
i
n

th
e

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

b
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s

a
r
e

m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
d

to

t
h
e

e
x
t
e
n
t

f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
.

N
A
T
U
R
A
L

C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
I
E
S

I
M
P
A
C
T
S
15

Di
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
/
C
l
e
a
r
c
u
t

(a
c
r
e
s
)

55
2

5
6
1

5
6
7

5
4
4

5
5
3

5
6
0

5
1
3

5
3
5

5
4
2

5
1
4

5
2
3

5
2
9

Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

(
a
c
r
e
s
)

1
2
1

1
4
2

1
7
7

1
2
1

1
4
2

1
7
7

1
5
3

2
2
0

2
5
6

1
2
8

1
4
8

1
8
4

Up
l
a
n
d

F
o
r
e
s
t
e
d

(a
c
r
e
s
)

91
3

9
0
2

8
8
2

9
8
2

9
7
2

9
5
1

1
0
4
2

1
0
0
8

9
8
7

9
6
5

9
5
5

9
3
5

Su
c
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l

(a
c
r
e
s
)

15
5

1
2
8

1
1
4

1
2
5

9
9

8
5

1
4
9

1
1
7

1
0
2

1
5
6

1
3
0

1
1
5

Op
e
n

W
a
t
e
r

(a
c
r
e
s
)

22

2
6

2
1

2
2

2
6

2
1

2
2

2
6

2
1

2
2

2
6

2
1

IC
E
2:

E
f
f
e
c
t
s

o
n

wi
l
d
l
i
f
e

a
n
d

ha
b
i
t
a
t

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

ha
b
i
t
a
t

fr
a
g
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

We
a
k

t
o

mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

ef
f
e
c
t
s

St
r
o
n
g

ef
f
e
c
t
s

We
a
k

t
o

mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

ef
f
e
c
t
s

We
a
k

t
o

mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

ef
f
e
c
t
s

St
r
o
n
g

ef
f
e
c
t
s

St
r
o
n
g

ef
f
e
c
t
s

St
r
o
n
g

ef
f
e
c
t
s

St
r
o
n
g

ef
f
e
c
t
s

St
r
o
n
g

ef
f
e
c
t
s

We
a
k

t
o

mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

ef
f
e
c
t
s

Strong effects Strong effects
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

An

e
r
o
s
i
o
n

a
n
d

s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

p
l
a
n

w
i
l
l

b
e

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d

f
o
r

t
h
e

P
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

t
o

p
r
e
v
e
n
t

r
u
n
o
f
f
,

e
r
o
s
i
o
n

a
n
d

s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

im
p
a
c
t
s

a
n
d

t
o

m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

t
o

aq
u
a
t
i
c

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s

a
n
d

w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e

i
n

a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

N
C
D
E
N
R

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s

a
n
d

B
e
s
t

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
.

Th
e

N
C
T
A

w
i
l
l

c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

U
S
F
W
S
,

U
S
E
P
A
,

a
n
d

th
e

N
C
W
R
C

o
n

t
h
e

f
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

a
n
d

d
e
s
i
g
n

o
f

a

w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e

p
a
s
s
a
g
e

a
t

S
t
r
e
a
m

S
1
5
6

f
o
r

a
l
l

D
S
A
s
,

a
n
d

o
n

d
e
s
i
g
n
i
n
g

b
r
i
d
g
e

c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s

t
o
b
e

w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e

f
r
i
e
n
d
l
y

w
h
e
n

f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e

f
o
r

al
l

D
S
A
s
.

C
o
n
t
r
o
l

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

w
i
l
l

b
e

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d

t
o

r
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

f
o
r

s
p
r
e
a
d
i
n
g

n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e

p
l
a
n
t

s
p
e
c
i
e
s
.

T
A
B
L
E

S
-
2
:

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

–

G
a
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r

D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

S
t
u
d
y

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

IS
S
U
E

DE
T
A
I
L
E
D

S
T
U
D
Y

A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E

4
5

9
2
2
2
3
2
7
5
8

6
4
6
8
7
6
7
7
8
1
JU
R
I
S
D
I
C
T
I
O
N
A
L

R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S

I
M
P
A
C
T
S
16

Po
n
d

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

(a
c
r
e
s
)

6.
3

5
.
1

4
.
1

5
.
1

3
.
9

2
.
9

5
.
5

3
.
1

2
.
1

5
.
5

6
.
1

3
.
3

We
t
l
a
n
d

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

(a
c
r
e
s
)

7.
4

6
.
9

7
.
5

8
.
8

8
.
2

8
.
9

1
2
.
1

1
2
.
5

1
3
.
2

9
.
7

9
.
1

9
.
8

Pe
r
e
n
n
i
a
l

S
t
r
e
a
m

Im
p
a
c
t
s

(
l
i
n
e
a
r

f
t
.
)

48
,
2
9
6

4
2
,
7
3
3

3
8
,
8
9
4

5
0
,
1
0
0

4
4
,
6
0
9

4
0
,
7
6
6

5
0
,
7
3
9

4
0
,
9
1
5

3
7
,
2
2
3

4
6
,
1
0
5

4
0
,
0
3
3

3
6
,
7
7
1

In
t
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
n
t

St
r
e
a
m

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

(l
i
n
e
a
r

f
t
.
)

9,
0
4
8

9
,
5
0
1

1
0
,
1
0
1

8
,
9
5
3

9
,
4
0
6

1
0
,
0
0
6

9
,
5
0
5

9
,
5
3
7

9
,
9
8
6

9
,
3
6
4

9
,
6
7
8

1
0
,
4
1
7

To
t
a
l

S
t
r
e
a
m

Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
s

10
6

9
9

9
1

1
1
1

1
0
5

9
7

1
2
0

1
1
2

1
0
3

1
1
1

1
0
5

9
7

To
t
a
l

S
t
r
e
a
m

Im
p
a
c
t
s

(
l
i
n
e
a
r

f
t
.
)

57
,
3
4
4

5
2
,
2
3
4

4
8
,
9
9
5

5
9
,
0
5
3

5
4
,
0
1
5

5
0
,
7
7
2

6
0
,
2
4
4

5
0
,
4
5
2

4
7
,
2
0
9

5
5
,
4
6
9

4
9
,
7
1
1

4
7
,
1
8
8

To
t
a
l

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

t
o

Ca
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r

Bu
f
f
e
r
s

(
s
q

f
t
)
17

4,
1
4
5

2
2
,
5
9
0

2
0
,
6
1
5

4
,
1
4
5

2
2
,
5
9
0

2
0
,
6
1
5

4
,
1
4
5

2
2
,
5
9
0

2
0
,
6
1
5

4
,
1
4
5

2
2
,
5
9
0

2
0
,
6
1
5

IC
E
2:
E
f
f
e
c
t
s

o
n

wa
t
e
r

q
u
a
l
i
t
y
,

we
t
l
a
n
d
s
,

im
p
a
i
r
e
d

wa
t
e
r
w
a
y
s
,

a
n
d

wa
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
s

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

ef
f
e
c
t
s

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

ef
f
e
c
t
s

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

ef
f
e
c
t
s

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

ef
f
e
c
t
s

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

ef
f
e
c
t
s

Ve
r
y

St
r
o
n
g

ef
f
e
c
t
s

St
r
o
n
g

ef
f
e
c
t
s

St
r
o
n
g

ef
f
e
c
t
s

St
r
o
n
g

ef
f
e
c
t
s

St
r
o
n
g

ef
f
e
c
t
s

Strong effects Strong effects
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

Th
e

D
S
A
s

i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

t
o

a
v
o
i
d

a
n
d

m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

t
o

W
a
t
e
r
s

o
f

t
h
e

U
S

a
n
d

t
h
e

C
a
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r

b
u
f
f
e
r
s
.

T
h
e

N
C
T
A

a
g
r
e
e
d
to include several bridges in the
pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y

e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

d
e
s
i
g
n
s
,

b
e
y
o
n
d

t
h
o
s
e

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

t
o

c
o
n
v
e
y

f
l
o
o
d
w
a
t
e
r
s
.

I
n

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,

f
i
n
a
l

d
e
s
i
g
n

e
f
f
o
r
t
s

w
i
l
l

e
x
a
m
i
n
e

a
ll

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e

a
n
d

p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l

p
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s

of

a
v
o
i
d
i
n
g

a
n
d

m
i
n
i
m
i
z
i
n
g

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

t
o

W
a
t
e
r
s

o
f

t
h
e

U
S

a
n
d

C
a
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r

r
i
p
a
r
i
a
n

b
u
f
f
e
r
s
.

S
t
r
i
c
t

a
d
h
e
r
e
n
c
e

t
o

B
e
s
t

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Practices will assist in minimizing
pr
o
j
e
c
t

i
m
p
a
c
t
s
.

T
A
B
L
E

S
-
2
:

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

–

G
a
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r

D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

S
t
u
d
y

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

IS
S
U
E

DE
T
A
I
L
E
D

S
T
U
D
Y

A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E

4
5

9
2
2
2
3
2
7
5
8

6
4
6
8
7
6
7
7
8
1
PR
O
T
E
C
T
E
D

S
P
E
C
I
E
S

I
M
P
A
C
T
S

Sc
h
w
e
i
n
i
t
z
’
s

Su
n
f
l
o
w
e
r
18

Ma
y

Af
f
e
c
t
/
N
o
t

Li
k
e
l
y

t
o

Ad
v
e
r
s
e
l
y

Af
f
e
c
t

No

E
f
f
e
c
t

N
o

E
f
f
e
c
t

Ma
y

Af
f
e
c
t
/
N
o
t

Li
k
e
l
y

t
o

Ad
v
e
r
s
e
l
y

Af
f
e
c
t

No

E
f
f
e
c
t

N
o

E
f
f
e
c
t

Ma
y

Af
f
e
c
t
/
N
o
t

Li
k
e
l
y

t
o

Ad
v
e
r
s
e
l
y

Af
f
e
c
t

No

E
f
f
e
c
t

N
o

E
f
f
e
c
t

May
Af
f
e
c
t
/
N
o
t

Li
k
e
l
y

t
o

Ad
v
e
r
s
e
l
y

Af
f
e
c
t

No Effect No Effect
Mi
c
h
a
u
x
’
s

S
u
m
a
c

N
o

E
f
f
e
c
t

No

E
f
f
e
c
t

No

E
f
f
e
c
t
No

E
f
f
e
c
t
No

E
f
f
e
c
t
No

E
f
f
e
c
t
No

E
f
f
e
c
t

No

E
f
f
e
c
t
No

E
f
f
e
c
t
No

E
f
f
e
c
t
No EffectNo Effect
Sm
o
o
t
h

C
o
n
e
f
l
o
w
e
r

N
o

E
f
f
e
c
t

No

E
f
f
e
c
t

No

E
f
f
e
c
t
No

E
f
f
e
c
t
No

E
f
f
e
c
t
No

E
f
f
e
c
t
No

E
f
f
e
c
t

No

E
f
f
e
c
t
No

E
f
f
e
c
t
No

E
f
f
e
c
t
No EffectNo Effect
Ca
r
o
l
i
n
a

He
e
l
s
p
l
i
t
t
e
r

No

E
f
f
e
c
t

No

E
f
f
e
c
t

No

E
f
f
e
c
t

No

E
f
f
e
c
t

No

E
f
f
e
c
t

No

E
f
f
e
c
t

No

E
f
f
e
c
t

No

E
f
f
e
c
t

No

E
f
f
e
c
t

No

E
f
f
e
c
t
No Effect No Effect
MI
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N

Co
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e

n
e
e
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

U
S

F
i
s
h

a
n
d

W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

o
n

t
h
e

b
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

c
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n

o
f

M
a
y

A
f
f
e
c
t
/
N
o
t

L
i
k
e
l
y

t
o

A
d
v
e
r
s
e
l
y

E
f
f
e
c
t
.

O
n
c
e

t
h
e

P
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

i
s

se
l
e
c
t
e
d
,

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

s
u
r
v
e
y
s

w
i
l
l

b
e

c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d

a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
.

No
t
e
s
:

1.

So
u
r
c
e
:

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
s
t

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

S
u
p
p
o
r
t

M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
,

H
N
T
B
,

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
0
8

2.

IC
E

=

I
n
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d
/
o
r

c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

e
f
f
e
c
t

3.

Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s

n
o
t

n
a
m
e
d
/
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d

i
n

a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

G
I
S

m
a
p
p
i
n
g
,

b
u
t

a
r
e
a
s

c
o
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g

c
l
u
s
t
e
r
s

o
f

h
o
m
e
s

a
n
d

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d

r
u
r
a
l

c
o
m
m
u
n
it
i
e
s

4.

Be
r
e
w
i
c
k

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

P
a
r
k

(
o
w
n
e
d

b
y

M
e
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g

C
o
u
n
t
y
)

5.

a)

K
a
r
y
a
e

Y
M
C
A

F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y

–

i
m
p
a
c
t

t
o

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
,

e
n
t
r
a
n
c
e
,

a
n
d

p
a
r
k
i
n
g
;

b
)

L
i
n
w
o
o
d

S
p
r
i
n
g
s

G
o
l
f

C
o
u
r
s
e

-

a
c
c
e
s
s

c
h
a
n
g
e

o
n
l
y
;

c
)

Ca
r
o
l
i
n
a

S
p
e
e
d
w
a
y

–

r
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y

e
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

i
m
p
a
c
t

t
o

p
a
r
k
i
n
g

;

d
)

Du
k
e

E
n
e
r
g
y

r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

f
i
e
l
d
s

–

r
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y

e
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
,

e
)

D
a
n
i
e
l

S
t
o
w
e

B
o
t
a
n
i
c
a
l

G
a
r
d
e
n

–

m
i
n
o
r

r
i
g
h
t
-
o
f

-
w
a
y

e
n
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
6.

DS
A
s

4
,

2
2
,

5
8

a
n
d

7
6

e
n
c
r
o
a
c
h

o
n

F
o
r
e
s
t
v
i
e
w

H
i
g
h

S
c
h
o
o
l
’
s

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

e
d
g
e

a
n
d

s
o
m
e

p
a
r
k
i
n
g

a
r
e
a
s
.

D
S
A
s

5
8
,

6
4
,

6
8
,

7
6
,

7
7
,

a
n
d

81

e
n
c
r
o
a
c
h

o
n

S
a
d
l
e
r

E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y

S
c
h
o
o
l

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

w
i
t
h

n
o

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

t
o

sc
h
o
o
l

u
s
e

o
r

a
c
c
e
s
s
.

7.

Un
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d

l
o
t
s

b
e
h
i
n
d

t
h
e

b
a
r
r
i
e
r

m
u
s
t

h
a
v
e

a

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

p
e
r
m
i
t

i
s
s
u
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

D
a
t
e

o
f

P
u
b
l
i
c

K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

b
a
r
r
i
e
r

t
o

b
e

c
os
t

e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
.

8.

VA
D

–

V
o
l
u
n
t
a
r
y

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

9.

Ac
r
e
a
g
e
s

a
r
e

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y

e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

d
e
s
i
g
n

r
i
g
h
t

o
f

w
a
y

f
o
r

e
a
c
h

D
S
A
.

A
r
e
a
s

o
f

p
r
i
m
e

a
n
d

s
t
a
t
e
w
i
d
e

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
nt

s
o
i
l
s

a
l
r
e
a
d
y

i
n

u
r
b
a
n

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

w
e
r
e

n
o
t

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

t
o
t
a
l
s
.

10
.
Th
e
r
e

m
a
y

b
e

o
n
e

t
o

t
h
r
e
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

l
i
n
e
s

i
n

a

p
o
w
e
r

t
r
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
.

T
h
i
s

t
a
b
l
e

r
e
p
o
r
t
s

t
h
e

n
u
m
b
e
r
s

o
f

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

t
r
a
n
sm
i
s
s
i
o
n

l
i
n
e

c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
.

11
.
Th
e

f
o
u
r

g
a
s

t
r
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

p
i
p
e
l
i
n
e

c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s

a
r
e

l
o
c
a
t
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

t
w
o

e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
s

t
h
a
t

c
r
o
s
s

U
S

3
2
1

n
e
a
r

C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s

C
r
e
e
k

R
o
a
d
.

12
.
In
c
l
u
d
e
s

a
l
l

o
f

t
h
e

m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e

p
i
p
e
s
/
c
u
l
v
e
r
t
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

a
t

i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
.

13
.
a)

T
h
o
m
a
s

A
l
l
i
s
o
n

H
o
u
s
e
;

b
)

H
a
r
r
i
s
o
n

F
a
m
i
l
y

D
a
i
r
y

F
a
r
m
;

c
)

J
B
F

R
i
d
d
l
e

H
o
u
s
e
;

d
)

W
i
l
l
i
a
m

C
l
a
r
e
n
c
e

W
i
l
s
o
n

H
o
u
s
e
;

e
)

W
o
l
f
e

F
a
m
i
l
y

Da
i
r
y

F
a
r
m

14
.
De

m
i
n
i
m
i
s
i
m
p
a
c
t
s

o
n

p
u
b
l
i
c
l
y
-
o
w
n
e
d

p
a
r
k
s

a
r
e

d
e
f
i
n
e
d

a
s

t
h
o
s
e

t
h
a
t

d
o

n
o
t

a
d
v
e
r
s
e
l
y

a
f
f
e
c
t

t
h
e

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
,

f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s

a
n
d

a
t
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
s

o
f

t
he

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

4
(
f
)

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
.

B
e
r
e
w
i
c
k

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

P
a
r
k

w
o
u
l
d

b
e

m
i
n
i
m
a
l
l
y

im
p
a
c
t
e
d

b
y

a
l
l

D
S
A
s

a
n
d

i
t

a
p
p
e
a
r
s

t
h
e
r
e

a
r
e

g
r
o
u
n
d
s

f
o
r

a

de

m
i
n
i
m
i
s
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
.

De

m
i
n
i
m
i
s
i
m
p
a
c
t
s

r
e
l
a
t
e
d

t
o

h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c

s
i
t
e
s

a
r
e

d
e
f
i
n
e
d

a
s

t
h
e

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

e
i
t
h
e
r

"
N
o

A
d
v
e
r
s
e

E
f
f
e
c
t
"

o
r

"
N
o

H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c

Pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s

A
f
f
e
c
t
e
d
"

i
n

c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e

w
i
t
h

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
0
6

o
f

t
h
e

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c

P
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

A
c
t

(
N
H
P
A
)
.

T
h
e

W
o
l
f
e

F
a
m
i
l
y

D
a
i
r
y

F
ar
m

w
o
u
l
d

b
e

i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d

b
y

D
S
A
s

5
8
,

6
4
,

6
8
,

7
6
,

7
7
,

a
n
d

8
1
.

T
h
e

S
t
a
t
e

Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c

P
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

O
f
f
i
c
e

h
a
s

c
o
n
c
u
r
r
e
d

t
h
a
t

t
h
e
s
e

i
m
p
a
c
t

w
o
u
l
d

c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

a

de

m
i
n
i
m
i
s
e
f
f
e
c
t

,

a
n
d

F
H
W
A

i
n
t
e
n
d
s

t
o

u
s
e

S
H
P
O
’
s

c
o
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e

a
s

a

b
a
s
i
s

o
f

a

de

m
i
n
i
m
i
s
finding for this property if DSA
58
,

6
4
,

6
8
,

7
6
,

7
7
,

o
r

8
1

i
s

s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d

a
s

t
h
e

P
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
.

15
.
Ac
r
e
a
g
e
s

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
i
n

t
h
e

D
S
A

r
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y

l
i
m
i
t
s
.

16
.
Th
e
s
e

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

w
e
r
e

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

u
s
i
n
g

t
h
e

p
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y

e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

d
e
s
i
g
n
s
’

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

l
i
m
i
t
s
,

w
i
t
h

a
n

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

2
5
-
f
o
o
t

b
u
f
f
e
r
.
17
.
Th
i
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

t
o

b
u
f
f
e
r

z
o
n
e
s

1

a
n
d

2

f
o
r

t
h
e

C
a
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r
,

S
o
u
t
h

F
o
r
k

C
a
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r
,

a
n
d

C
a
t
a
w
b
a

C
r
e
e
k
.

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

i
s
n
o
t

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

f
o
r

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

o
f

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

o
n
e
-
t
h
i
r
d

a
c
r
e

(
1
4
,
5
0
5

s
q
u
a
r
e

f
e
e
t
)
.

18
.
Du
e

t
o

i
t
s

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
n

t
h
e

n
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

e
d
g
e

o
f

t
h
e

D
S
A

c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
,

i
t

i
s

a
s
s
u
m
e
d

a
l
l

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

t
o

t
h
e

o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d

S
c
h
w
e
i
n
i
t
z
'
s

s
u
n
f
l
o
w
e
r

po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

w
i
l
l

b
e

a
v
o
i
d
e
d
.

APPENDIX C

Comments from State and Federal Agencies

DEIS - Public Release Comments Federal and State Agencies
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

N
o
.
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Comments or questions about the DEIS
a0
0
1
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
5
/
1
4
/
2
0
0
9
NR
C
S
Na
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

Co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Hi
n
t
o
n
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

No
t
e
d
Th
e

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

S
e
r
v
i
c
e

d
o
e
s

n
o
t
have any comments at this time.
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
Co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
No
t
e
d
a0
0
2
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
NC

D
e
p
t
.

o
f

A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
St
a
t
e

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

R
e
v
i
e
w

Cl
e
a
r
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
Mc
M
i
l
l
a
n
V
a
l
e
r
i
e
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

No
t
e
d
Th
e

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

m
e
e
t
s

t
h
e

p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s

o
f

the State Environmental Policy Act.
a0
0
3
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
3
/
2
0
0
9
NC

D
e
p
t
.

o
f

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

Na
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
(N
C
D
E
N
R
)
Mc
G
e
e
M
e
l
b
a
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

Ef
f
e
c
t
s
Th
e
r
e

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e

t
o

b
e

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s

i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d

b
y

o
u
r

c
o
m
menting agencies in relation to significant secondary and cumulative impacts. The department
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
s

t
h
e

D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t

o
f

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

t
o

c
o
n
t
inue to work with our agencies in order to adequately address project concerns prior to finalizing the
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
.

A
d
d
r
e
s
s
i
n
g

t
h
e
s
e

c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

d
uring the review process and/or during the NEPA Merger Process will avoid delays.
a0
0
4
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
NC
D
E
N
R
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

W
a
t
e
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
(N
C
D
W
Q
)
Le
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
P
o
l
l
y
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Ab
e
r
n
e
t
h
y

C
r
e
e
k
,

C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s

C
r
e
e
k

a
n
d

C
a
t
a
w
b
a

C
r
e
e
k

a
re Class C, 303(d) Waters of the State. Abernethy Creek, Crowders Creek and Catawba Creek are
on

t
h
e

3
0
3
(
d
)

l
i
s
t

f
o
r

i
m
p
a
i
r
e
d

u
s
e

f
o
r

a
q
u
a
t
i
c

l
i
f
e
d
u
e

t
o

i
m
p
a
i
r
e
d

b
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

i
n
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
.

C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s

C
r
eek is also on the 303(d) list for impaired use for aquatic
li
f
e

d
u
e

t
o

f
e
c
a
l

c
o
l
i
f
o
r
m
.

a0
0
4
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
D
W
Q
L
e
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
P
o
l
l
y
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
rc
e
s
NC
D
W
Q

i
s

v
e
r
y

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
e
d

w
i
t
h

s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

e
r
o
s
i
o
n

i
mpacts that could result from this project. NCDWQ recommends that the most protective sediment
an
d

e
r
o
s
i
o
n

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

B
M
P
s

b
e

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d

i
n

a
c
c
o
r
d
a
nce with Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to Abernethy
Cr
e
e
k
,

C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s

C
r
e
e
k

a
n
d

C
a
t
a
w
b
a

C
r
e
e
k
.
a0
0
4
3
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
D
W
Q
L
e
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
P
o
l
l
y
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
rc
e
s
NC
D
W
Q

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
s

t
h
a
t

r
o
a
d

d
e
s
i
g
n

p
l
a
n
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

t
r
e
a
t
ment of the stormwater runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most recent
ve
r
s
i
o
n

o
f

N
C
D
W
Q

S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r

B
e
s
t

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

P
r
a
c
t
i
c
es.
a0
0
4
4
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
D
W
Q
L
e
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
P
o
l
l
y
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
rc
e
s
Th
i
s

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

i
s

w
i
t
h
i
n

t
h
e

C
a
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r

B
a
s
i
n
.

R
i
p
arian buffer impacts should be avoided and minimized to the greatest extent possible pursuant to 15A
NC
A
C

2
B
.
0
2
4
3
.

N
e
w

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

l
o
c
a
t
e
d

i
n
the protected 50-foot wide riparian areas within the basin shall be limited to "uses" identified within
an
d

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d

i
n

a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e

w
i
t
h

1
5
A

N
C
A
C

2
B
.
0
2
4
3
. Buffer mitigation may be required for buffer impacts resulting from activities classified as
"a
l
l
o
w
a
b
l
e

w
i
t
h

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
"

w
i
t
h
i
n

t
h
e

"
T
a
b
l
e

o
f

U
s
es
"

s
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

B
u
f
f
e
r

R
u
l
e
s

o
r

r
e
q
u
i
r
e

a

v
a
r
i
a
n
ce under the Buffer Rules. A buffer mitigation plan,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

N
C

E
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m

E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t

P
r
o
g
r
am, must be provided to NCDWQ prior to approval of the Water Quality Certification.
a0
0
4
5
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
D
W
Q
L
e
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
P
o
l
l
y
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
rc
e
s
Th
e

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

(
D
S
A

9
)

w
i
l
l

i
m
p
a
c
t

a
p
p
roximately 7.5 acres of wetlands and 38,894 linear feet of perennial streams. In addition, an additional
10
,
1
0
1

l
i
n
e
a
r

f
e
e
t

o
f

i
n
t
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
n
t

s
t
r
e
a
m
s

w
i
l
l

b
e

im
p
a
c
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
i
s

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.

N
C
D
W
Q

i
s

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
e
d

t
h
a
t

t
he required amount of mitigation will not be available
in

t
h
e

H
y
d
r
o
l
o
g
i
c

C
a
t
a
l
o
g
u
i
n
g

U
n
i
t
,

a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t

H
y
d
r
o
l
ogic Cataloguing Unit and/or Ecoregion. All efforts to avoid and minimize wetland and stream impacts
sh
o
u
l
d

b
e

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

s
e
l
e
c
t
i
on and development process. In addition, efforts should be made to identify on-site mitigation
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
.
a0
0
4
6
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
D
W
Q
L
e
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
P
o
l
l
y
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
rc
e
s
Th
e

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s

t
h
a
t

s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r

r
u
n
o
f
f

e
f
f
e
c
ts can be minimized through implementation of local stormwater ordinances. NCDWQ remains
co
n
c
e
r
n
e
d

r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g

t
h
e

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

o
f

s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r

r
u
n
o
f
f associated with the construction of this project. Stormwater discharges which are located within the
ri
p
a
r
i
a
n

b
u
f
f
e
r

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

C
a
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r

B
asin will require the implementation of the appropriate stormwater management facility in accordance
wi
t
h

1
5
A

N
C
A
C

2
8
.
0
2
4
3
.

N
C
D
W
Q

w
o
u
l
d

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d

t
h
a
t

t
he North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) consider additional stormwater facilities in other
ar
e
a
s

o
f

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

w
h
e
r
e

t
h
e

C
a
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r

B
a
s
i
n

buffer regulations are not applicable, specifically in areas draining to those jurisdictional resources
wh
i
c
h

o
c
c
u
r

o
n

t
h
e

3
0
3
(
d
)

l
i
s
t

(
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
d

i
n

I
t
e
m

#
I

a
b
o
v
e
)
.
a0
0
4
7
le
t
t
e
r
6/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
NC
D
W
Q
Le
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
Po
l
l
y
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

Wa
t
e
r

Th
e

N
C
T
A

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

a
w
a
r
e

t
h
a
t

N
C
D
W
Q

w
i
l
l

r
e
q
u
i
r
e

a

quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Impacts (lCI) analysis once the preferred alternative is selected.
a0
0
4
7
le
t
t
e
r
6/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
NC
D
W
Q
Le
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
Po
l
l
y
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

Ef
f
e
c
t
s
Wa
t
e
r

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
a0
0
4
8
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
D
W
Q
L
e
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
P
o
l
l
y
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
rc
e
s
Th
e

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

s
h
o
u
l
d

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

a

d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding
ma
p
p
i
n
g
.

I
f

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

i
s

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

a
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

b
y

15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
.

A
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.Gaston Connector DEIS Agency Comment Database 1
DEIS - Public Release Comments Federal and State Agencies
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

N
o
.
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Comments or questions about the DEIS
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
a0
0
4
9
le
t
t
e
r
6/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
NC
D
W
Q
Le
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
Po
l
l
y
Wa
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

i
m
p
a
c
t

s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

s
h
a
l
l

c
onsider design criteria that reduce the impacts to streams and wetlands from stormwater runoff. These
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

s
h
a
l
l

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

r
o
a
d

d
e
s
i
g
n
s

t
h
a
t

a
l
l
o
w

fo
r

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e

s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r

r
u
n
o
f
f

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

b
e
s
t
management practices as detailed in the most recent
ve
r
s
i
o
n

o
f

N
C
D
W
Q
'
s

S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r

B
e
s
t

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

P
r
a
c
t
ices Manual, July 2007, such as grassed swales, buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention
a0
0
4
9
le
t
t
e
r
6/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
NC
D
W
Q
Le
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
Po
l
l
y
Wa
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
ve
r
s
i
o
n

o
f

N
C
D
W
Q
'
s

S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r

B
e
s
t

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

P
r
a
c
t
ices Manual, July 2007, such as grassed swales, buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention
ba
s
i
n
s
,

e
t
c
.
a0
0
4
1
0
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
D
W
Q
L
e
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
P
o
l
l
y
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
ur
c
e
s
Af
t
e
r

t
h
e

s
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

p
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

a
n
d
p
r
i
o
r

t
o

a
n

i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e

o
f

t
h
e

4
0
1

W
a
t
e
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y

C
e
r
tification, the NCTA is respectfully reminded that they
wi
l
l

n
e
e
d

t
o

d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e

t
h
e

a
v
o
i
d
a
n
c
e

a
n
d

m
i
n
i
m
i
z
a
tion of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. In accordance with the
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
'
s

R
u
l
e
s

{
1
5
A

N
C
AC 2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than one acre to wetlands. In
th
e

e
v
e
n
t

t
h
a
t

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

i
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
,

t
h
e

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
on

p
l
a
n

s
h
a
l
l

b
e

d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d

t
o

r
e
p
l
a
c
e

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e

l
o
st functions and values. The NC Ecosystem
En
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

m
a
y

b
e

a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

f
o
r

u
s
e

a
s

w
e
t
land mitigation.
a0
0
4
1
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
D
W
Q
L
e
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
P
o
l
l
y
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
ur
c
e
s
In

a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

C
o
m
mission's Rules {15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150
li
n
e
a
r

f
e
e
t

t
o

a
n
y

s
i
n
g
l
e

p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l

s
t
r
e
a
m
.

I
n

t
h
e

ev
e
n
t

t
h
a
t

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

i
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
,

t
h
e

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

p
lan shall be designed to replace appropriate lost functions
an
d

v
a
l
u
e
s
.

T
h
e

N
C

E
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m

E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

m
a
y be available for use as stream mitigation.
a0
0
4
1
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
D
W
Q
L
e
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
P
o
l
l
y
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
ur
c
e
s
Fu
t
u
r
e

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

t
h
e

4
0
1

W
a
t
e
r

Q
u
a
l
i
ty Certification Application, shall continue to include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and
st
r
e
a
m

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

w
i
t
h

c
o
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g

m
a
p
p
i
n
g
.
a0
0
4
1
3
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
D
W
Q
L
e
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
P
o
l
l
y
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
ur
c
e
s
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

Ef
f
e
c
t
s
NC
D
W
Q

i
s

v
e
r
y

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
e
d

w
i
t
h

s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

e
r
o
s
i
o
n

i
mpacts that could result from this project. The NCTA shall address these concerns by describing the
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

t
h
a
t

m
a
y

o
c
c
u
r

t
o

t
h
e

a
q
u
a
t
i
c

e
n
v
ironments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
a0
0
4
1
4
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
D
W
Q
L
e
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
P
o
l
l
y
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

Ef
f
e
c
t
s
Wa
t
e
r

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
An

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

o
f

c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

a
n
d

s
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

a
n
t
icipated as a result of this project is required. The type and detail of analysis shall conform to the NC
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

W
a
t
e
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y

P
o
l
i
c
y

o
n

t
h
e

a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t

of secondary and cumulative impacts dated April 10, 2004.
Ef
f
e
c
t
s
a0
0
4
1
5
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
D
W
Q
L
e
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
P
o
l
l
y
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
ur
c
e
s
Th
e

N
C
T
A

i
s

r
e
s
p
e
c
t
f
u
l
l
y

r
e
m
i
n
d
e
d

t
h
a
t

a
l
l

i
m
p
a
c
t
s
,
including but not limited to, bridging, fill, excavation and clearing, and rip rap to jurisdictional wetlands,
st
r
e
a
m
s
,

a
n
d

r
i
p
a
r
i
a
n

b
u
f
f
e
r
s

n
e
e
d

t
o

b
e

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

i
n the final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary or
ot
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
,

a
l
s
o

n
e
e
d

t
o

b
e

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

a
s

p
a
r
t

o
f

t
h
e

401 Water Quality Certification Application.
a0
0
4
1
6
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
D
W
Q
L
e
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
P
o
l
l
y
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
ur
c
e
s
Wh
e
r
e

s
t
r
e
a
m
s

m
u
s
t

b
e

c
r
o
s
s
e
d
,

N
C
D
W
Q

p
r
e
f
e
r
s

b
r
i
d
g
e
s be used in lieu of culverts. However, we realize that economic considerations often require the
us
e

o
f

c
u
l
v
e
r
t
s
.

P
l
e
a
s
e

b
e

a
d
v
i
s
e
d

t
h
a
t

c
u
l
v
e
r
t
s

s
h
ould be countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms. Moreover, in
ar
e
a
s

w
h
e
r
e

h
i
g
h

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s

o
r

s
t
r
e
a
m
s

a
r
e

i
m
pacted, a bridge may prove preferable. When applicable, the NCTA should not install the bridge bents
in

t
h
e

c
r
e
e
k
,

t
o

t
h
e

m
a
x
i
m
u
m

e
x
t
e
n
t

p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
b
l
e
.
a0
0
4
1
7
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
D
W
Q
L
e
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
P
o
l
l
y
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
ur
c
e
s
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

Ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

an
d

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Wh
e
n
e
v
e
r

p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
,

N
C
D
W
Q

p
r
e
f
e
r
s

s
p
a
n
n
i
n
g

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s. Spanning structures usually do not require work within the stream or grubbing of the stream
ba
n
k
s

a
n
d

d
o

n
o
t

r
e
q
u
i
r
e

s
t
r
e
a
m

c
h
a
n
n
e
l

r
e
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
. The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges shall allow for human and wildlife passage
be
n
e
a
t
h

t
h
e

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
.

F
i
s
h

p
a
s
s
a
g
e

a
n
d

n
a
v
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

by canoeists and boaters shall not be blocked. Bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the
st
r
e
a
m

w
h
e
n

p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
.
a0
0
4
1
8
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
D
W
Q
L
e
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
P
o
l
l
y
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
ur
c
e
s
Br
i
d
g
e

d
e
c
k

d
r
a
i
n
s

s
h
a
l
l

n
o
t

d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

i
n
t
o
t
h
e

s
t
r
e
a
m
.

S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r

s
h
a
l
l

b
e

d
i
r
e
c
t
e
d

a
c
r
o
s
s

t
he bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate
me
a
n
s

(
g
r
a
s
s
e
d

s
w
a
l
e
s
,

p
r
e
-
f
o
r
m
e
d

s
c
o
u
r

h
o
l
e
s
,

v
e
g
e
tated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to the most current version of NCDWQ's
St
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r

B
e
s
t

M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
.
a0
0
4
1
9
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
D
W
Q
L
e
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
P
o
l
l
y
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
ur
c
e
s
Se
d
i
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

e
r
o
s
i
o
n

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

s
h
o
u
l
d

n
o
t

b
e
placed in wetlands or streams.
a0
0
4
20
le
t
t
e
r
6/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
NC
D
W
Q
Le
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
Po
l
l
y
Wa
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Bo
r
r
o
w
/
w
a
s
t
e

a
r
e
a
s

s
h
o
u
l
d

a
v
o
i
d

w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s

t
o

t
h
e

m
a
x
imum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401
Wa
t
e
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y

C
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

c
o
u
l
d

p
r
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
e

c
ompensatory mitigation.
a0
0
4
20
le
t
t
e
r
6/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
NC
D
W
Q
Le
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
Po
l
l
y
Wa
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Wa
t
e
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y

C
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

c
o
u
l
d

p
r
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
e

c
ompensatory mitigation.
a0
0
4
2
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
D
W
Q
L
e
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
P
o
l
l
y
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
ur
c
e
s
Th
e

4
0
1

W
a
t
e
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y

C
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

w
i
l
l
n
e
e
d

t
o

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y

a
d
d
r
e
s
s

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

m
e
t
h
o
d
s
for stormwater management. More specifically,
st
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r

s
h
a
l
l

n
o
t

b
e

p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d

t
o

d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

d
i
r
e
ctly into streams or surface waters.Gaston Connector DEIS Agency Comment Database 2
DEIS - Public Release Comments Federal and State Agencies
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

N
o
.
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Comments or questions about the DEIS
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
Ba
s
e
d

o
n

t
h
e

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
,
the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and streams will require an Individual Permit (IP) application to
th
e

C
o
r
p
s

o
f

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s

a
n
d

c
o
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g

4
0
1

W
a
t
e
r

Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfactory
pr
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
r

w
a
t
e
r

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

t
o

e
n
s
u
r
e

t
h
a
t

w
a
t
e
r

q
u
al
i
t
y

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

a
r
e

m
e
t

a
n
d

n
o

w
e
t
l
a
n
d

o
r

s
t
r
e
a
m

u
s
es are lost. Final permit authorization will require the
a0
0
4
2
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
D
W
Q
L
e
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
P
o
l
l
y
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
ur
c
e
s
pr
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
r

w
a
t
e
r

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

t
o

e
n
s
u
r
e

t
h
a
t

w
a
t
e
r

q
u
al
i
t
y

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

a
r
e

m
e
t

a
n
d

n
o

w
e
t
l
a
n
d

o
r

s
t
r
e
a
m

u
s
es are lost. Final permit authorization will require the
su
b
m
i
t
t
a
l

o
f

a

f
o
r
m
a
l

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

b
y

t
h
e

N
C
T
A

a
n
d

w
ritten concurrence from NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate
av
o
i
d
a
n
c
e

a
n
d

m
i
n
i
m
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

w
e
t
l
a
n
d

a
n
d

s
t
r
e
a
m

i
m
pacts to the maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater management
pl
a
n
,

a
n
d

t
h
e

i
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n

o
f

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

p
la
n
s

w
h
e
r
e

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
.
a0
0
4
2
3
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
D
W
Q
L
e
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
P
o
l
l
y
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
ur
c
e
s
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s

Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
If

c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e

i
s

u
s
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,

a

d
r
y

w
o
r
k
a
r
e
a

s
h
a
l
l

b
e

m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d

t
o

p
r
e
v
e
n
t

d
i
r
e
c
t

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
between curing concrete and stream water. Water that
in
a
d
v
e
r
t
e
n
t
l
y

c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s

u
n
c
u
r
e
d

c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e

s
h
a
l
l

n
o
t

b
e discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and fish kills.
a0
0
4
2
4
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
D
W
Q
L
e
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
P
o
l
l
y
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
ur
c
e
s
If

t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y

a
c
c
e
s
s

r
o
a
d
s

o
r

d
e
t
o
u
r
s

a
r
e

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction contours and elevations. Disturbed areas shall be
se
e
d
e
d

o
r

m
u
l
c
h
e
d

t
o

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
e

t
h
e

s
o
i
l

a
n
d

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
iate native woody species shall be planted. When using temporary structures the area shall be cleared
bu
t

n
o
t

g
r
u
b
b
e
d
.

C
l
e
a
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

a
r
e
a

w
i
t
h

c
h
a
i
n
s
a
w
s
,

mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows
th
e

a
r
e
a

t
o

r
e
-
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
e

n
a
t
u
r
a
l
l
y

a
n
d

m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
s

s
o
i
l disturbance.
a0
0
4
2
5
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
D
W
Q
L
e
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
P
o
l
l
y
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
ur
c
e
s
Pl
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

c
u
l
v
e
r
t
s

a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

i
n

w
a
t
e
r
s, streams, and wetlands shall be placed below the elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts
wi
t
h

a

d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r

g
r
e
a
t
e
r

t
h
a
n

4
8

i
n
c
h
e
s
,

a
n
d

2
0

p
e
r
c
ent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low flow passage
of

w
a
t
e
r

a
n
d

a
q
u
a
t
i
c

l
i
f
e
.

D
e
s
i
g
n

a
n
d

p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

culverts and other structures including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a
ma
n
n
e
r

t
h
a
t

m
a
y

r
e
s
u
l
t

i
n

d
i
s
-
e
q
u
i
l
i
b
r
i
u
m

o
f

w
e
t
l
a
n
ds or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the above structures. The
ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

i
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

t
o

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

eq
u
i
l
i
b
r
i
u
m

i
s

b
e
i
n
g

m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d

i
f

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d

i
n

w
r
i
ting by NCDWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due
to

b
e
d
r
o
c
k

o
r

o
t
h
e
r

l
i
m
i
t
i
n
g

f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s

e
n
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
e
d

d
uring construction, please contact NCDWQ for guidance on how to proceed and to determine whether or
no
t

a

p
e
r
m
i
t

m
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

w
i
l
l

b
e

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
no
t

a

p
e
r
m
i
t

m
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

w
i
l
l

b
e

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
a0
0
4
2
6
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
D
W
Q
L
e
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
P
o
l
l
y
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
ur
c
e
s
If

m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e

p
i
p
e
s

o
r

b
a
r
r
e
l
s

a
r
e

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
,

t
h
e
y

s
h
a
ll

b
e

d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d

t
o

m
i
m
i
c

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

s
t
r
e
a
m

c
r
o
s
s

s
e
c
t
i
o
n as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at
fl
o
o
d

p
l
a
i
n

e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,

f
l
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n

b
e
n
c
h
e
s
,

a
n
d
/
o
r

s
il
l
s

m
a
y

b
e

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

w
h
e
r
e

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
.

W
i
d
e
n
i
n
g

t
h
e stream channel should be avoided. Stream channel
wi
d
e
n
i
n
g

a
t

t
h
e

i
n
l
e
t

o
r

o
u
t
l
e
t

e
n
d

o
f

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

t
yp
i
c
a
l
l
y

d
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
s

w
a
t
e
r

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

c
a
u
s
i
n
g

s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t

deposition that requires increased maintenance and
di
s
r
u
p
t
s

a
q
u
a
t
i
c

l
i
f
e

p
a
s
s
a
g
e
.
a0
0
4
2
7
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
D
W
Q
L
e
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
P
o
l
l
y
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
ur
c
e
s
If

f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

t
e
s
t

b
o
r
i
n
g
s

a
r
e

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
,

i
t

s
h
a
l
l

be

n
o
t
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
.

G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

w
o
r
k

i
s

a
p
p
r
oved under General 401 Certification Number
36
8
7
/
N
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
d
e

P
e
r
m
i
t

N
o
.
6

f
o
r

S
u
r
v
e
y

A
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
a0
0
4
2
8
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
D
W
Q
L
e
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
P
o
l
l
y
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
ur
c
e
s
Se
d
i
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

e
r
o
s
i
o
n

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

t
o
protect water resources must be implemented and maintained in accordance with the most recent
ve
r
s
i
o
n

o
f

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

S
e
d
i
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

E
r
o
s
i
o
n

C
o
n
t
rol Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250.
a0
0
4
2
9
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
D
W
Q
L
e
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
P
o
l
l
y
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
ur
c
e
s
Al
l

w
o
r
k

i
n

o
r

a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t

t
o

s
t
r
e
a
m

w
a
t
e
r
s

s
h
a
l
l

b
e

c
onducted in a dry work area. Approved BMP measures from the most current version of NCDOT
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e

A
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

m
a
n
u
a
l

s
u
c
h
as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and other diversion structures shall be used to prevent
ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

f
l
o
w
i
n
g

w
a
t
e
r
.
a0
0
4
3
0
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
D
W
Q
L
e
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
P
o
l
l
y
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
ur
c
e
s
Wh
i
l
e

t
h
e

u
s
e

o
f

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y

(
N
W
I
)

m
aps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel
pe
r
f
o
r
m

o
n
s
i
t
e

w
e
t
l
a
n
d

d
e
l
i
n
e
a
t
i
o
n
s

p
r
i
o
r

t
o

p
e
r
m
i
t
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
.
a0
0
4
3
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
D
W
Q
L
e
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
P
o
l
l
y
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
ur
c
e
s
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s

Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
He
a
v
y

e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

o
p
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

b
a
n
k

r
a
ther than in stream channels in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of
in
t
r
o
d
u
c
i
n
g

o
t
h
e
r

p
o
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
s

i
n
t
o

s
t
r
e
a
m
s
.

T
h
i
s

e
q
u
ip
m
e
n
t

s
h
a
l
l

b
e

i
n
s
p
e
c
t
e
d

d
a
i
l
y

a
n
d

m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d

t
o

p
revent contamination of surface waters from leaking
fu
e
l
s
,

l
u
b
r
i
c
a
n
t
s
,

h
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c

f
l
u
i
d
s
,

o
r

o
t
h
e
r

t
o
x
i
c
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
.
a0
0
4
31
le
t
t
e
r
6/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
NC
D
W
Q
Le
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
Po
l
l
y
Wa
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
fu
e
l
s
,

l
u
b
r
i
c
a
n
t
s
,

h
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c

f
l
u
i
d
s
,

o
r

o
t
h
e
r

t
o
x
i
c
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
.
a0
0
4
3
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
D
W
Q
L
e
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
P
o
l
l
y
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
ur
c
e
s
Ri
p
r
a
p

s
h
a
l
l

n
o
t

b
e

p
l
a
c
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

a
c
t
i
v
e

t
h
a
l
w
e
g

c
h
annel or placed in the streambed in a manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering
bo
u
l
d
e
r
s

o
r

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

p
r
o
p
e
r
l
y

d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
,
sized and installed.
a0
0
4
3
3
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
D
W
Q
L
e
s
p
i
n
a
s
s
e
P
o
l
l
y
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
ur
c
e
s
Ri
p
a
r
i
a
n

v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
n
a
t
i
v
e

t
r
e
e
s

a
n
d

s
h
r
u
b
s
)

s
h
a
l
l
be preserved to the maximum extent possible. Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

l
i
m
i
t
s

o
f

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

b
y

t
h
e

e
n
d

o
f

t
h
e
g
r
o
w
i
n
g

s
e
a
s
o
n

f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
on.Gaston Connector DEIS Agency Comment Database 3
DEIS - Public Release Comments Federal and State Agencies
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

N
o
.
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Comments or questions about the DEIS
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
NC

W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

Ri
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y

Th
e

p
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y

e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

d
e
s
i
g
n
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

D
S
A
s

a
r
e for six lanes with a 46-foot median, based on traffic projections from the non-toll scenario. The
do
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
d

t
h
a
t

i
f

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

th
e

t
o
l
l

s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o

s
h
o
w

f
o
u
r

l
a
n
e
s

t
o

b
e

s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
,
the footprint of the project would not change, but instead,
th
e

m
e
d
i
a
n

w
i
d
t
h

w
o
u
l
d

b
e

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
.

W
e

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d

t
hat the median remain the same width and the footprint be narrowed for a four-lane facility in order
a0
0
5
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
7
/
2
0
0
9
NC

W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
(N
C
W
R
C
)
Ch
a
m
b
e
r
s
M
a
r
l
a
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Ri
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y

Ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

Re
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
th
e

m
e
d
i
a
n

w
i
d
t
h

w
o
u
l
d

b
e

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
.

W
e

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d

t
hat the median remain the same width and the footprint be narrowed for a four-lane facility in order
to

m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

t
o

a
r
e
a

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.

A

w
i
d
e
r

r
i
g
h
t-of-way could be preserved for possible future widening, but additional impacts to streams and wetlands
sh
o
u
l
d

b
e

a
v
o
i
d
e
d

u
n
t
i
l

s
u
c
h

w
i
d
e
n
i
n
g

o
c
c
u
r
s
.
a0
0
5
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
7
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
W
R
C
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
s
M
a
r
l
a
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

Ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

an
d

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Th
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

c
r
o
s
s
e
s

b
o
t
h

m
a
i
n

a
r
m
s

o
f

L
a
k
e

W
y
l
i
e
,

t
he Catawba River and South Fork Catawba River arms. Section S.8.5.2 in the Summary does not
cl
a
r
i
f
y

t
h
a
t

t
h
e
s
e

r
i
v
e
r
s

a
n
d

L
a
k
e

W
y
l
i
e

a
r
e

t
h
e

s
a
me bodies of water, which could cause some confusion, however clarification does occur in later chapters.
La
k
e

W
y
l
i
e

i
s

a

p
o
p
u
l
a
r

r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

a
r
e
a

f
o
r

b
o
a
t
i
ng. fishing and waterskiing. The internationally renowned Bass Masters Classic fishing tournament was
he
l
d

a
t

L
a
k
e

W
y
l
i
e

i
n

2
0
0
4
.

T
h
e

m
o
s
t

r
a
p
i
d
l
y

g
r
o
w
i
n
g area of Gaston County is area closest to the lake.
a0
0
5
3
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
7
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
W
R
C
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
s
M
a
r
l
a
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Wa
t
e
r

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

i
n

m
a
n
y

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

a
r
e
a

w
a
t
e
r
w
a
y
s

i
s

d
e
g
raded, as evidenced by the number of streams on the Final 2006 303(d) list or Draft 2008 303(d) list:
So
u
t
h

F
o
r
k

C
a
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r
,

C
a
t
a
w
b
a

C
r
e
e
k
,

M
c
G
i
l
l

B
r
a
nch, Crowders Creek, and Abernathy Creek. Two additional water resources are on the Final 2006
30
5
(
b
)

l
i
s
t

d
u
e

t
o

n
o
t

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

o
n
e

o
r

m
o
r
e

o
f

t
h
eir designated uses, but not sufficiently degraded to be placed on the 303(d) list: Catawba River/Lake
Wy
l
i
e

a
n
d

B
l
a
c
k
w
o
o
d

C
r
e
e
k
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

d
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n

i
s

l
ikely to occur from direct and indirect impacts to area waterways. Sediment and erosion control
me
a
s
u
r
e
s

s
h
o
u
l
d

a
d
h
e
r
e

t
o

t
h
e

D
e
s
i
g
n

S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

i
n

S
ensitive Watersheds and additional measures to manage growth and development will be needed to
mi
n
i
m
i
z
e

n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

t
o

w
a
t
e
r

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

a
n
d

t
h
e

area's natural resources. Mitigation efforts should focus on improving degraded streams in the project
ar
e
a
.
Fl
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n
s

a
n
d

Pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d

Ne
g
a
t
i
v
e

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

t
o

t
e
r
r
e
s
t
r
i
a
l

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

a
n
d

w
i
l
d
l
if
e

a
r
e

a
n
o
t
h
e
r

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
,

a
s

t
h
e

r
o
a
d

c
o
nstruction and additional development will reduce
wi
l
d
l
i
f
e

h
a
b
i
t
a
t

a
n
d

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

h
a
b
i
t
a
t

f
r
a
g
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
i
n

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

a
r
e
a
.

C
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n
s

w
i
t
h

w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e

a
r
e

a serious safety concern for the traveling public, as well.
Wh
e
r
e

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

f
l
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n

f
i
l
l
s

a
r
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
,

w
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d

i
n
s
t
a
l
l
i
n
g

f
l
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n

c
u
l
v
e
r
t
s

i
n

t
h
e

r
o
ad fill to provide wildlife crossings, reduce flooding and
fl
o
o
d

d
a
m
a
g
e
,

r
e
s
t
o
r
e

s
o
m
e

h
y
d
r
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s

o
f the floodplain, and reduce flood velocities at the stream crossings. We commend NCTA for
a0
0
5
4
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
7
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
W
R
C
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
s
M
a
r
l
a
Fl
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n
s

a
n
d

Fl
o
o
d
w
a
y
s
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d

Sp
e
c
i
e
s

a
n
d

Wi
l
d
l
i
f
e
fl
o
o
d

d
a
m
a
g
e
,

r
e
s
t
o
r
e

s
o
m
e

h
y
d
r
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s

o
f the floodplain, and reduce flood velocities at the stream crossings. We commend NCTA for
co
m
m
i
t
t
i
n
g

t
o

c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
n
g

w
i
t
h

N
C
W
R
C
,

U
.
S
.

F
i
s
h

a
n
d Wildlife Service (USFWS), and US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) on the feasibility and
de
s
i
g
n

o
f

a

w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e

p
a
s
s
a
g
e

a
t

s
t
r
e
a
m

S
l
5
6

a
n
d

f
o
r
agreeing to provide several bridges at crossings that were not required to convey floodwaters in order to
mi
n
i
m
i
z
e

s
t
r
e
a
m

a
n
d

w
e
t
l
a
n
d

i
m
p
a
c
t
s
,

w
h
i
c
h

w
i
l
l

a
l
s
o enhance wildlife passage.
a0
0
5
5
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
7
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
W
R
C
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
s
M
a
r
l
a
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d

Sp
e
c
i
e
s

a
n
d

Wi
l
d
l
i
f
e
Ba
l
d

e
a
g
l
e
s

(
H
a
l
i
a
e
e
t
u
s

l
e
u
c
o
c
e
p
h
a
l
u
s
)
,

w
h
i
c
h

h
a
v
e

been removed from the Endangered Species list, but are still protected under the Bald and Golden
Ea
g
l
e

P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n

A
c
t
,

o
c
c
u
r

a
r
o
u
n
d

L
a
k
e

W
y
l
i
e
.

P
r
o
t
ective measure should be provided. We disagree with the statement in the North Carolina Endangered
Sp
e
c
i
e
s

A
c
t

p
a
r
a
g
r
a
p
h

i
n

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

6
.
5
.
1

.
2
:

t
h
a
t

i
n
d
icated state protection of state-listed species does not apply to transportation projects. We believe it is
NC
D
O
T
'
s

a
n
d

N
C
T
A
'
s

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

a
s

s
t
a
t
e

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
to protect state-listed species in the construction of transportation facilities throughout the state and
we

r
e
q
u
e
s
t

t
h
e
i
r

a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

i
n

p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
n
g

t
h
e
s
e

a
n
i
mals. We see nothing in the Article (NCGS Chapter 113, Article 25) that would exempt transportation
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

A
c
t
.
a0
0
5
6
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
7
/
2
0
0
9
N
C
W
R
C
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
s
M
a
r
l
a
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

Ef
f
e
c
t
s
Wa
t
e
r

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

a
r
e

a

m
a
j
o
r

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
and have the potential to be even more significant than the direct impacts. According to the DEIS,
Ga
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

h
a
s

a

h
i
g
h

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

f
o
r

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
e
d

growth and indirect effects to notable features as a result of the project and Mecklenburg County has a
mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
.

B
o
t
h

c
o
u
n
t
i
e
s

h
a
v
e

a

m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

p
otential to experience cumulative effects related to land use changes. The rural nature of the project
ar
e
a

i
s

l
i
k
e
l
y

t
o

b
e

l
o
s
t

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

s
i
g
n
i
f
ic
a
n
t

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

i
n

p
l
a
c
e

t
o

m
a
n
a
g
e

g
r
o
w
t
h
.

U
r
b
a
n

a
n
d
suburban sprawl are occurring in portions of the
pr
o
j
e
c
t

v
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
.

W
h
i
l
e

s
o
m
e

s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

controls exist to provide some protection of water quality, measures such as placing limits on
im
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s

s
u
r
f
a
c
e
s

a
n
d

p
r
e
s
e
r
v
i
n
g

r
i
p
a
r
i
a
n

b
u
f
f
e
r
s
to streams and wetlands are lacking. Numerous studies have shown that when 10--15% of a watershed
is

c
o
n
v
e
r
t
e
d

t
o

i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s

s
u
r
f
a
c
e
s
,

t
h
e
r
e

i
s

a

s
e
r
io
u
s

d
e
c
l
i
n
e

i
n

t
h
e

h
e
a
l
t
h

o
f

r
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g

w
a
t
e
r
s

(
S
c
h
ueler 1994) and the quality of fish habitat and wetlands
ar
e

n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
l
y

i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d

(
B
o
o
t
h

1
9
9
1
,

T
a
y
l
o
r

1
9
9
3
)
.

Measures to mitigate secondary and cumulative impacts can be found in the Guidance Memorandum to
ar
e

n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
l
y

i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d

(
B
o
o
t
h

1
9
9
1
,

T
a
y
l
o
r

1
9
9
3
)
.

Measures to mitigate secondary and cumulative impacts can be found in the Guidance Memorandum to
Ad
d
r
e
s
s

a
n
d

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
e

S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

a
n
d

C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

I
m
p
a
c
ts to Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife Resources and Water Quality (NCWRC 2002). We also
st
r
o
n
g
l
y

e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e

t
h
e

u
s
e

o
f

L
o
w

I
m
p
a
c
t

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t (LID) practices. Information on these measures can be found at www.lowimpactdevelopment.org,
ht
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
e
p
a
.
g
o
v
/
o
w
o
w
/
n
o
s
l
l
i
d
l
l
i
d
n
a
t
l
.
p
d
f

a
n
d

h
t
t
p://www.stormwatercenter.net.Gaston Connector DEIS Agency Comment Database 4
DEIS - Public Release Comments Federal and State Agencies
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

N
o
.
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Comments or questions about the DEIS
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
Th
e

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

P
a
r
k
s

a
n
d

R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
(DPR) has reviewed the above -referenced project information provided by your office. DPR
un
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
s

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

f
o
r

t
h
is project has been identified as DSA 9, which is comprised of segments H2A-H3-J 4a-J4b-J2c-J2d-
JX
4
-
J
1
e
-
J
l
f
-
K
I
A
-
K
3
A
-
J
O
B
-
K
3
C

a
s

s
h
o
w
n

i
n

D
E
I
S

F
i
g
u
r
e
2-8a-b. DPR supports alignment DSA 9 as the Recommended Alternative for this project to avoid
a0
0
6
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
2
3
/
2
0
0
9
NC
D
E
N
R
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

P
a
r
k
s

a
n
d

Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
Da
v
i
s
A
m
i
n
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d

Sp
e
c
i
e
s

a
n
d

Wi
l
d
l
i
f
e
JX
4
-
J
1
e
-
J
l
f
-
K
I
A
-
K
3
A
-
J
O
B
-
K
3
C

a
s

s
h
o
w
n

i
n

D
E
I
S

F
i
g
u
r
e
2-8a-b. DPR supports alignment DSA 9 as the Recommended Alternative for this project to avoid
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

t
o

C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s

M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n

S
t
a
t
e

P
a
r
k
,

which is owned by the State of North Carolina and managed by DPR. Portions of the Park are classified
as

"
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

A
r
e
a
s
"

(
D
N
A
'
s
)
.

T
h
e
s
e

a
r
e
a
s

a
re set aside for the permanent conservation of a natural area, with the primary purpose of the property
be
i
n
g

t
h
e

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

h
a
b
i
t
a
t
.

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
s

t
o

D
N
A
'
s

w
o
u
l
d

r
e
q
u
i
r
e

f
u
r
t
h
e
r

c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
on with DPR, the NC Natural Heritage Program, and
ma
y

r
e
q
u
i
r
e

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

o
f

S
t
a
t
e

a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
.

P
l
e
a
s
e

l
e
t

m
e know if I can provide further information. DPR appreciates the opportunity to comment on this
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.

I
f

w
e

c
a
n

b
e

o
f

f
u
r
t
h
e
r

a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e, please do not hesitate to contact me at 919·715·7584 or [e-mail].
a0
0
7
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
5
/
1
4
/
2
0
0
9
NC
D
E
N
R
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

He
a
l
t
h
Mc
R
i
g
h
t
J
i
m
U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Wa
t
e
r

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
If

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

w
a
t
e
r

l
i
n
e
s

w
i
l
l

b
e

r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,

p
l
a
n
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

w
a
t
e
r

l
i
n
e

r
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health,
Pu
b
l
i
c

W
a
t
e
r

S
u
p
p
l
y

S
e
c
t
i
o
n
,

T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s

B
r
a
nch, 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699·1634, [phone].
a0
0
8
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
5
/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
NC
D
E
N
R
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

He
a
l
t
h
/
Pu
b
l
i
c

W
a
t
e
r

S
u
p
p
l
y

S
e
c
t
i
o
n
Se
t
z
e
r
B
r
i
t
t
U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Wa
t
e
r

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Th
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

a
r
e
a

w
i
l
l

d
i
s
s
e
c
t

p
o
r
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

Gaston County that are served predominately by community water supply wells. There are setbacks
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

t
h
e
s
e

w
e
l
l
s

t
h
a
t

m
u
s
t

b
e

m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
. Roads and associated right-of-way can't encroach within 100 feet of a public water supply well. There
ar
e

a
l
s
o

N
T
N
C

a
n
d

T
N
C

w
e
l
l
s

l
o
c
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
i
n

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
ect area that may have encroachment limitations. A thorough evaluation of the area needs to be
co
n
d
u
c
t
e
d

b
y

T
u
r
n
p
i
k
e

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y

t
o

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

a
n
y

p
o
tential impacts to the PWS well systems that may be located in these proposed construction corridors.
a0
0
8
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
5
/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
NC
D
E
N
R
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

He
a
l
t
h
/
Pu
b
l
i
c

W
a
t
e
r

S
u
p
p
l
y

S
e
c
t
i
o
n
Se
t
z
e
r
B
r
i
t
t
U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Wa
t
e
r

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Th
e
r
e

a
r
e

m
a
n
y

w
a
t
e
r

l
i
n
e
s

l
o
c
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
i
n

t
h
i
s

a
r
e
a
also. Existing water lines that require relocation will require approval from the PWS Section prior to
re
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
Pu
b
l
i
c

W
a
t
e
r

S
u
p
p
l
y

S
e
c
t
i
o
n
a0
0
9
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
3
/
2
0
0
9
NC
D
E
N
R
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

He
a
l
t
h
/
La
n
d

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y

S
e
c
t
i
o
n
Wa
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Er
o
s
i
o
n

a
n
d

S
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

C
o
n
t
r
o
l

P
e
r
m
i
t

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
a0
1
0
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
3
/
2
0
0
9
NC
D
E
N
R
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

He
a
l
t
h
/
M
o
o
r
e
s
v
i
l
l
e

R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l

Of
f
i
c
e
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Wa
t
e
r

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Ma
y

n
e
e
d

t
o

a
b
a
n
d
o
n

w
a
t
e
r

s
u
p
p
l
y

w
e
l
l
s

i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d

b
y

project.
a0
1
1
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
3
/
2
0
0
9
NC
D
E
N
R
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

He
a
l
t
h
/
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Sl
a
c
k
R
o
n
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Op
e
n

b
u
r
n
i
n
g

t
h
a
t

m
e
e
t
s

r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
s

a
l
l
o
w
e
d

i
n

G
aston County. Air permit for temporary concrete plants may be needed.
a0
1
2
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
1
9
/
2
0
0
9
NC

D
e
p
t
.

o
f

C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
/
St
a
t
e

H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c

P
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

Of
f
i
c
e
Sa
n
d
b
e
c
k
P
e
t
e
r
Cu
l
t
u
r
a
l

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
We

a
r
e

i
n

a
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
s

c
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
d

w
ithin the Draft Environmental Impact Statement pertaining to archaeological resources. Notably, that
on
c
e

t
h
e

p
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

i
s

c
h
o
s
e
n
,

a

c
o
m
p
r
e
h
ensive archaeological investigation will be undertaken prior to any earth moving activities. As always,
ou
r

o
f
f
i
c
e

w
i
l
l

b
e

h
a
p
p
y

t
o

a
s
s
i
s
t

y
o
u
r

s
t
a
f
f

i
n

p
r
ep
a
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

a
r
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

s
u
r
v
e
y

m
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y

s
h
o
u
l
d you require our assistance.
NC

D
e
p
t
.

o
f

C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

Th
e

D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

E
l
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

a
n
d

F
i
n
d
i
n
g
s

o
f

E
f
fe
c
t
s

f
o
r

h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c

a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

m
a
t
c
h

t
h
ose in our files.
Th
e

a
b
o
v
e

c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

a
r
e

m
a
d
e

p
u
r
s
u
a
n
t

t
o

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
0
6
of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
a0
1
2
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
1
9
/
2
0
0
9
NC

D
e
p
t
.

o
f

C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
/
St
a
t
e

H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c

P
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

Of
f
i
c
e
Sa
n
d
b
e
c
k
P
e
t
e
r
Cu
l
t
u
r
a
l

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Th
e

a
b
o
v
e

c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

a
r
e

m
a
d
e

p
u
r
s
u
a
n
t

t
o

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
0
6
of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e

w
i
t
h

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
0
6

c
o
d
i
f
i
e
d at 36CFR Part 800.
Th
a
n
k

y
o
u

f
o
r

y
o
u
r

c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
.

If you have any questions concerning the above comments, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

R
e
v
i
e
w

C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r

a
t

9
1
9
.
8
0
7
-
6
5
7
9
.

I
n all future communications concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number
(E
R

0
2
-
9
7
2
3
)
.
a0
1
3
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
8
/
2
0
0
9
NC

D
e
p
t
.

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e

a
n
d

Co
n
s
u
m
e
r

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
/
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Me
r
r
i
l
l
M
a
x
i
m
i
l
i
a
n
F
a
r
m
l
a
n
d
Th
e

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

T
u
r
n
p
i
k
e

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y

h
a
s

c
r
e
a
t
e
d

a
nother thorough Environmental Impact Statement. This DRAFT EIS adequately states the effects each
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

w
o
u
l
d

h
a
v
e

o
n

t
h
e

i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

a
n
d

a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t farmland of the study area. However, there are a few concerns with this study and project.Gaston Connector DEIS Agency Comment Database 5
DEIS - Public Release Comments Federal and State Agencies
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

N
o
.
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Comments or questions about the DEIS
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
a0
1
3
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
8
/
2
0
0
9
NC

D
e
p
t
.

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e

a
n
d

Co
n
s
u
m
e
r

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
/
M
e
r
r
i
l
l
M
a
x
i
m
i
l
i
a
n
F
a
r
m
l
a
n
d
Th
e

f
a
r
m
l
a
n
d

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

m
a
y

b
e

m
o
r
e

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
l
y

l
o
c
ated in the section labeled Natural Resources rather than Physical Environment. Farm and forestland
is

a

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

a
n
d

c
a
n
n
o
t

b
e

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d

f
o
r
,

nor replaced once converted to other uses. This highlights my second point that farms and farm
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s

c
a
n
n
o
t

b
e

r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d

n
o
r

r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
.

a0
1
3
2
le
t
t
e
r
6/
8
/
2
0
0
9
Co
n
s
u
m
e
r

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
/
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Me
r
r
i
l
l
Ma
x
i
m
i
l
i
a
n
Fa
r
m
l
a
n
d
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s

c
a
n
n
o
t

b
e

r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d

n
o
r

r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
.

a0
1
3
3
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
8
/
2
0
0
9
NC

D
e
p
t
.

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e

a
n
d

Co
n
s
u
m
e
r

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
/
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Me
r
r
i
l
l
M
a
x
i
m
i
l
i
a
n
F
a
r
m
l
a
n
d
Th
i
s

E
I
S

s
t
a
t
e
s

t
h
a
t

a
l
l

D
S
A
s

w
o
u
l
d

r
e
q
u
i
r
e

t
h
e

r
e
l
ocation of farms and convert farms currently in the Voluntary Agricultural District program. Many agencies
an
d

o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s

h
a
v
e

f
o
c
u
s
e
d

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
b
l
e

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
es and man power establishing VADs in each county in order to locate, map and support landowners
wh
o

w
a
n
t

t
o

k
e
e
p

t
h
e
i
r

l
a
n
d
s

i
n

a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e

a
n
d

p
r
o
tect their resource for future generations and economy. Transportation authorities should take extreme
ef
f
o
r
t
s

n
o
t

t
o

e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e

n
e
w

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

i
n

t
h
e

a
r
e
a
s

of VADs and help combat incompatible land uses rising up around our agricultural resources.
a0
1
3
4
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
8
/
2
0
0
9
NC

D
e
p
t
.

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e

a
n
d

Co
n
s
u
m
e
r

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
/
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Me
r
r
i
l
l
M
a
x
i
m
i
l
i
a
n
F
a
r
m
l
a
n
d
As

s
t
a
t
e
d

e
a
r
l
i
e
r
,

o
n
c
e

a

f
a
r
m

i
s

c
o
n
v
e
r
t
e
d

i
t

i
s

l
os
t

f
o
r
e
v
e
r
.

T
h
e

a
m
o
u
n
t
s

o
f

a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

p
roduced from those farms are no longer produced and no
lo
n
g
e
r

c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e

t
o

t
h
e

s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e

e
c
o
n
o
m
y

o
f

a
g
r
iculture. It is estimated that with each 40 acres lost one farm job is lost forever. The most current
ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

c
e
n
s
u
s

d
a
t
a

s
h
o
w
s

t
h
a
t

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

2
0
0
2

a
n
d 2006 NC lost about 600,000 acres of farmland. Much of this was due to the direct, indirect, and
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

o
f

r
o
a
d

t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
W
e

n
e
e
d

t
o

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

o
n

t
h
e

b
a
s
i
s

o
f

a
ll the factors but it may now be important to give the
lo
s
s

o
f

f
a
r
m

a
n
d

f
o
r
e
s
t
l
a
n
d

a
c
r
e
s

m
o
r
e

w
e
i
g
h
t

i
n

t
h
ese decisions. Each Alternative, other than the No Build or Update Alternative, converts over 1,900 acres
of

f
a
r
m
l
a
n
d

(
m
o
s
t

p
a
r
t

o
f

t
h
e

V
A
D

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
)

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
and may indirectly convert farmland many miles outside the corridors which would be thousands more
ac
r
e
s
.

T
h
e

c
u
r
r
e
n
t

F
a
r
m
l
a
n
d

I
m
p
a
c
t

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

s
h
o
w
s

scores of 115·122, which is below the threshold to shift any of the Alternatives. Since this project will
ha
v
e

s
u
c
h

s
e
v
e
r
e

a
f
f
e
c
t
s

o
n

f
a
r
m
l
a
n
d

h
o
w

t
h
e
s
e

F
I
A

numbers be so low? It is understood that federal regulations require the Farmland Impact Analysis,
ho
w
e
v
e
r

w
e

n
e
e
d

t
o

l
o
o
k

a
t

o
u
r

f
a
r
m
l
a
n
d

a
n
d

f
a
r
m

b
u
siness losses with more scrutiny than this subjective analysis and weigh farm and forestland loss more
he
a
v
i
l
y

i
n

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

.

B
a
s
e
d

o
n

t
h
e

s
e
c
ondary, cumulative, and direct impacts, this project will have adverse impacts on the agricultural
ec
o
n
o
m
y

a
n
d

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

o
f

t
h
e

s
t
u
d
y

a
r
e
a
.
Th
i
s

l
e
t
t
e
r

r
e
s
p
o
n
d
s

t
o

a

r
e
q
u
e
s
t

f
o
r

o
u
r

r
e
v
i
e
w

a
n
d comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the subject project. Our comments
a0
1
4
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
1
2
/
2
0
0
9
Un
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t

o
f

th
e

I
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
Fi
s
h

a
n
d

W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
/
As
h
e
v
i
l
l
e

F
i
e
l
d

O
f
f
i
c
e
Co
l
e
B
r
i
a
n
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

N
o
t
e
d
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d

Sp
e
c
i
e
s

a
n
d

W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
Th
i
s

l
e
t
t
e
r

r
e
s
p
o
n
d
s

t
o

a

r
e
q
u
e
s
t

f
o
r

o
u
r

r
e
v
i
e
w

a
n
d comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the subject project. Our comments
ar
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

i
n

a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

F
i
s
h

a
n
d

W
i
l
d
l
i
fe Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661 -667 e ), and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
of

1
9
7
3
,

a
s

a
m
e
n
d
e
d

(
1
6

U
.
S
.
C
.

1
5
3
1
-
1
5
4
3
)
.

T
h
e

N
o
r
t
h Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) proposes to provide a new location freeway from 1-85 west of
Ga
s
t
o
n
i
a

t
o

1
-
4
8
5

n
e
a
r

t
h
e

C
h
a
r
l
o
t
t
e
-
D
o
u
g
l
a
s

I
n
t
e
r
n
ational Airport. As part of the North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) merger process,
we

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d

a
s

a

m
e
r
g
e
r

t
e
a
m

m
e
m
b
e
r

a
n
d

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d comments and recommendations to the NCDOT regarding the project through concurrence point
(C
P
)

2
-
-
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

t
o

b
e

c
a
r
r
i
e
d

f
o
r
w
a
r
d
.

W
e

a
b
s
t
ained from signing at CP 2. A copy of our abstention is included in the DEIS, Appendix A. Subsequently,
th
e

N
C
T
A

c
h
o
s
e

t
o

f
o
l
l
o
w

t
h
e

m
e
r
g
e
r

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

f
o
r

t
h
i
s project, and in 2008 we signed a combined CP 1, 2, and 2a form and have attended agency
co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

m
e
e
t
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

r
e
c
ommendations at those meetings.
a0
1
4
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
1
2
/
2
0
0
9
Un
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t

o
f

th
e

I
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
Fi
s
h

a
n
d

W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
/
As
h
e
v
i
l
l
e

F
i
e
l
d

O
f
f
i
c
e
Co
l
e
B
r
i
a
n
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Th
e

m
a
j
o
r
i
t
y

o
f

o
u
r

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

impacts of this project are the extent of impacts to streams and wetlands and the fragmentation of
te
r
r
e
s
t
r
i
a
l

h
a
b
i
t
a
t
.

T
h
e

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

w
i
ll impact a total of 9.3 miles of streams, including 7.4 miles of perennial streams and almost 2 miles of
in
t
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
n
t

s
t
r
e
a
m
s
.

W
e
t
l
a
n
d

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

a
r
e

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
at 7.5 acres. Conservatively, this project will require about 20 miles of stream and 15 acres of wetland
co
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
o
r
y

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
.

W
e

a
r
e

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
e
d

t
h
a
t

t
h
i
s
amount of mitigation will not be available, particularly in this area. Every effort should be made to
fu
r
t
h
e
r

a
v
o
i
d

a
n
d

m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

t
o

s
t
r
e
a
m
s

a
n
d

w
etlands and to provide on-site mitigation.
a0
1
4
3
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
1
2
/
2
0
0
9
Un
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t

o
f

th
e

I
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
Fi
s
h

a
n
d

W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
/
As
h
e
v
i
l
l
e

F
i
e
l
d

O
f
f
i
c
e
Co
l
e
B
r
i
a
n
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

Ef
f
e
c
t
s
In

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n

t
o

d
i
r
e
c
t

e
f
f
e
c
t
s
,

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

c
u
m
ul
a
t
i
v
e

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

o
n

s
t
r
e
a
m
s

a
n
d

w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s

f
r
o
m

t
h
i
s

p
roject and the development that it has the potential to
in
d
u
c
e

w
i
l
l

p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
l
y

a
l
t
e
r

t
h
e

s
t
r
e
a
m
s

i
n

t
h
e

a
r
ea and further degrade water quality and habitat. Although the municipalities in the study area are under
th
e

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

P
o
l
l
u
t
a
n
t

D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e

E
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

S
y
s
t
e
m
's Phase II storm-water rules, these rules do not address the preservation of intact riparian buffers;
li
m
i
t
s

o
n

i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

a
m
o
u
n
t
s

i
n

a

g
i
v
e
n

w
a
t
ershed; or other factors critical to maintaining stable, properly functioning streams and aquatic habitat.
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s

t
o

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e

s
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

a
n
d

c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

i
m
p
a
c
ts can be found in the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission's Guidance Memorandum to
Ad
d
r
e
s
s

a
n
d

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
e

S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

a
n
d

C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

I
m
p
a
c
ts to Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife Resources and Water Quality. We strongly encourage the
As
h
e
v
i
l
l
e

F
i
e
l
d

O
f
f
i
c
e
Ef
f
e
c
t
s
Ad
d
r
e
s
s

a
n
d

M
i
t
i
g
a
t
e

S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

a
n
d

C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

I
m
p
a
c
ts to Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife Resources and Water Quality. We strongly encourage the
NC
T
A

t
o

w
o
r
k

w
i
t
h

l
o
c
a
l

g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
s

t
o

a
d
o
p
t

p
r
o
t
e
c
tive measures for streams and wetlands in the study area to reduce these impacts.Gaston Connector DEIS Agency Comment Database 6
DEIS - Public Release Comments Federal and State Agencies
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

N
o
.
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Comments or questions about the DEIS
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
Un
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t

o
f

Th
e

f
r
a
g
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
e
r
r
e
s
t
r
i
a
l

h
a
b
i
t
a
t

i
s

a
l
s
o

a

co
n
c
e
r
n

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.

T
h
i
s

n
e
w

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

f
r
e
e
w
a
y
will bisect a number of farms and other working land and
fo
r
e
s
t
s

t
h
a
t

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

h
a
b
i
t
a
t

a
n
d

m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
s
for wildlife and migratory birds. There is a brief discussion on page 6-18 regarding impacts to terrestrial
wi
l
d
l
i
f
e
,

b
u
t

t
h
e
r
e

i
s

n
o

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

t
o

t
h
e

al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

o
r

t
h
e

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e. This discussion also states that the NCTA will
a0
1
4
4
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
1
2
/
2
0
0
9
Un
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t

o
f

th
e

I
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
Fi
s
h

a
n
d

W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
/
As
h
e
v
i
l
l
e

F
i
e
l
d

O
f
f
i
c
e
Co
l
e
B
r
i
a
n
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d

Sp
e
c
i
e
s

a
n
d

Wi
l
d
l
i
f
e
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

Ef
f
e
c
t
s
wi
l
d
l
i
f
e
,

b
u
t

t
h
e
r
e

i
s

n
o

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

t
o

t
h
e

al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

o
r

t
h
e

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e. This discussion also states that the NCTA will
co
n
s
i
d
e
r

w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e

p
a
s
s
a
g
e

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

a
l
o
n
g

t
h
e

c
o
r
r
id
o
r
,

b
u
t

t
h
e
r
e

i
s

n
o

m
a
p

t
o

d
i
s
p
l
a
y

w
h
e
r
e

t
h
e
s
e

s
t
ructures may be located or in what habitats. Page 7-9
of

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s

a

m
a
p

s
h
o
w
i
n
g

t
h
e

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
on of habitat in the study area and possible indirect and cumulative impacts to terrestrial wildlife, but this
ma
p

i
s

i
n

a
n
o
t
h
e
r

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

t
h
a
t

i
s

n
o
t

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

i
n

the DEIS or its appendices. If large patches of habitat are being fragmented by the various alternatives,
me
a
s
u
r
e
s

t
o

a
v
o
i
d

o
r

m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e

t
h
o
s
e

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

s
h
o
u
l
d

be investigated, particularly if habitat or travel corridors for large mammals or migratory birds will be
af
f
e
c
t
e
d
.
a0
1
4
5
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
1
2
/
2
0
0
9
Un
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t

o
f

th
e

I
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
Fi
s
h

a
n
d

W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e

S
e
r
v
i
c
e
/
As
h
e
v
i
l
l
e

F
i
e
l
d

O
f
f
i
c
e
Co
l
e
B
r
i
a
n
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d

Sp
e
c
i
e
s

a
n
d

Wi
l
d
l
i
f
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
Th
e

o
n
l
y

f
e
d
e
r
a
l
l
y

l
i
s
t
e
d

s
p
e
c
i
e
s

k
n
o
w
n

t
o

o
c
c
u
r

i
n
the project study area is the Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). According to the DEIS,
th
e
r
e

i
s

a

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
i
s

s
u
n
f
l
o
w
e
r

a
l
o
n
g

t
h
e

w
es
t
e
r
n

s
i
d
e

o
f

U
n
i
o
n

N
e
w

H
o
p
e

R
o
a
d
,

a
n
d

t
h
e

m
a
j
o
r
i
t
y of the alternatives (including the recommended
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
)

w
o
u
l
d

h
a
v
e

n
o

i
m
p
a
c
t

o
n

t
h
i
s

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n. The DEIS further states that four of the proposed alternatives (Alternatives 4, 22,58, and 76) are near
th
i
s

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

b
u
t

w
o
u
l
d

h
a
v
e

n
o

d
i
r
e
c
t

i
m
p
a
c
t
s
.

I
f
o
n
e

o
f

t
h
e
s
e

l
a
t
t
e
r

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

i
s

c
h
o
s
e
n
,

f
u
r
t
h
er consultation will be required to determine whether this
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

w
i
l
l

b
e

i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
.

W
e

a
p
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
e

t
h
e

o
p
p
o
rtunity to provide these comments and will continue to participate in the planning process for this
pr
o
j
e
c
t
.

I
f

y
o
u

h
a
v
e

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

o
u
r

c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
,

please contact Ms. Marella Buncick of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 237. In any future
co
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
c
e

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
i
n
g

t
h
i
s

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,

p
l
e
a
s
e

r
e
f
e
rence our Log Number 4-2-02-444.
a0
1
5
1
le
t
t
e
r
7/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
Un
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

Pr
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n

A
g
e
n
c
y
Re
g
i
o
n

4
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
He
i
n
z
Wa
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Ai
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Th
e

U
.
S
.

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n

A
g
e
n
c
y

R
e
g
i
o
n

4

(
EPA) has reviewed the subject document and is commenting in accordance with Section 309 of the
Cl
e
a
n

A
i
r

A
c
t

a
n
d

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
0
2
(
2
)
(
C
)

o
f

t
h
e

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) and the Federal
Hi
g
h
w
a
y

A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
F
H
W

A
)

a
r
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
i
n
g

t
o

c
o
n
struct an approximate 22-mile, multi-lane, median-divided toll facility from 1-85 west of Gastonia to 1-
48
5
/
N
C

1
6
0

n
e
a
r

C
h
a
r
l
o
t
t
e
-
D
o
u
g
l
a
s

A
i
r
p
o
r
t

i
n

M
e
c
k
l
e
nburg and Gaston Counties. The proposed project has been in the NEPA/Section 404 Merger 01
pr
o
c
e
s
s

s
i
n
c
e

2
0
0
2

w
h
e
n

i
t

w
a
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
ina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) as a freeway. The NCTA reaffirmed several concurrence
po
i
n
t
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

N
E
P
A
/
S
e
c
t
i
o
n

4
0
4

M
e
r
g
e
r

0
1

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

team on October 7, 2008, including Purpose and Need (Concurrence Point - CP 1), Detailed Study
a0
1
5
1
le
t
t
e
r
7/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
Re
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
He
i
n
z
Wa
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Ai
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
po
i
n
t
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

N
E
P
A
/
S
e
c
t
i
o
n

4
0
4

M
e
r
g
e
r

0
1

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

team on October 7, 2008, including Purpose and Need (Concurrence Point - CP 1), Detailed Study
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

(
D
S
A
s
)

C
a
r
r
i
e
d

F
o
r
w
a
r
d

(
C
P

2
)

a
n
d

B
r
i
d
ging and Alignment Review (CP2A). EPA provided detailed scoping comments in a letter dated March
1,
2
0
0
7
.

N
C
T
A
'
s

M
a
y

4
,

2
0
0
7
,

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s

t
o

E
P
A
'
s

s
c
o
p
ing comments are included in Appendix A to the DEIS. EPA has attached detailed technical review
co
m
m
e
n
t
s

(
S
e
e

A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t

A
)
.

E
P
A
'
s

p
r
i
m
a
r
y

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
ental concerns regarding Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act provisions remain unresolved.
a0
1
5
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
EP
A

h
a
s

r
a
t
e
d

t
h
e

t
w
e
l
v
e

(
1
2
)

D
S
A
s

a
s

'
E
O
-
2
'
,

E
n
v
i
r
onmental Objections with additional information being requested for the final document. EPA's review
ha
s

i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

t
h
at should be avoided in order to adequately protect the environment. The basis for our environmental
ob
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

a
c
t
i
o
n

m
i
g
h
t

v
iolate or be inconsistent with achievement or maintenance of a national environmental standard under
th
e

C
l
e
a
n

A
i
r

A
c
t
'
s

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

A
m
b
i
e
n
t

A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y

S
t
andards (NAAQS), and where applicable standards may not be violated but there is a potential for
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

d
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n

u
n
d
e
r

t
h
e

C
l
e
an Water Act and Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. NCTA and FHWA should consider substantial changes
to

t
h
e

p
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

o
r

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

s
o
me

o
t
h
e
r

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
ts to existing I-85, interim Transportation System
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

(
T
S
M
)

a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s

f
o
r

U
S

2
9
-
7
4

a
n
d

c
o
n
n
e
c
ting roadways and other combinations of transportation improvements. Due to the significance of
th
e

u
n
r
e
s
o
l
v
e
d

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

i
s
s
u
e
s
,

E
P
A

w
i
l
l

b
e

u
n
able to concur on the selection of DSA 9 as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

(
"
L
E
D
P
A
"
)

a
t

t
h
e

c
o
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e

p
o
i
n
t

M
e
r
g
er 01 meeting.
a0
1
5
3
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
W
a
t
e
r

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Pr
i
o
r

t
o

t
h
e

i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e

o
f

a

F
i
n
a
l

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

I
m
p
a
ct Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD), NCTA and FHWA should demonstrate that the new
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

w
i
l
l

b
e

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

i
n

a
n

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

S
t
at
e

I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

P
l
a
n

(
S
I
P
)

a
n
d

w
i
l
l

b
e

i
n

c
o
n
f
o
r
mity with Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

8
-
h
o
u
r

o
z
o
n
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
.

A
l
s
o
,

N
C
T
A and FHWA need to further demonstrate avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation for
th
e

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

t
o

j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l

w
a
t
e
r
s

of the U.S. and demonstrate that water quality of Section 303(d) impaired streams is not further degraded
as

a

d
i
r
e
c
t

r
e
s
u
l
t

o
f

t
h
i
s

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

a
n
d

i
t
s

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
ed

i
n
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

i
m
p
a
c
t
s
.

S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

e
n
v
i
r
o
nmental commitments to protect air quality and water
as

a

d
i
r
e
c
t

r
e
s
u
l
t

o
f

t
h
i
s

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

a
n
d

i
t
s

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
ed

i
n
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

i
m
p
a
c
t
s
.

S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

e
n
v
i
r
o
nmental commitments to protect air quality and water
qu
a
l
i
t
y

n
e
e
d

t
o

b
e

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

F
E
I
S

a
n
d

R
O
D
.
a0
1
5
4
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

No
t
e
d
EP
A

s
t
a
f
f
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

M
r
.

C
h
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r

M
i
l
i
t
s
c
h
e
r

a
n
d
Ms. Kathy Matthews of EPAs Wetlands Section will continue to work with you and FHWA and other
ag
e
n
c
i
e
s

o
n

t
h
e

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n and Merger 01 process activities for this project. Please feel free to contact Mr. Militscher of my staff
at

(
9
1
9
)

8
5
6
-
4
2
0
6

o
r

M
s
.

M
a
t
t
h
e
w
s

a
t

(
9
1
9
)

5
4
1
-
3
0
6
2
should you have specific questions concerning EPA's comments.Gaston Connector DEIS Agency Comment Database 7
DEIS - Public Release Comments Federal and State Agencies
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

N
o
.
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Comments or questions about the DEIS
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
EP
A

h
a
s

r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
'
s

p
u
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d
need as summarized in Sections 1.2 and 1.3 of the DEIS. The primary needs for the proposed
pr
o
j
e
c
t

a
r
e
:

t
h
e
r
e

i
s

p
o
o
r

t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
it
y

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

a
n
d

M
e
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g

c
o
u
n
t
y

a
n
d within southern Gaston County; and there are
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

a
n
d

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d

p
o
o
r

l
e
v
e
l
s

o
f

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

(
L
O
S
)
on the project study area major roadways. The proposed Gaston East-West Connector is also included
a0
1
5
5
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

Ne
e
d

f
o
r

A
c
t
i
o
n
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

a
n
d

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d

p
o
o
r

l
e
v
e
l
s

o
f

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

(
L
O
S
)
on the project study area major roadways. The proposed Gaston East-West Connector is also included
as

a

S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c

H
i
g
h
w
a
y

C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r

(
S
H
C
)
.

T
h
e

t
y
p
i
c
a
l

section is identified as a 4-lane, 70-foot medium divided facility with 300 feet of right of way and 12-foot
pa
v
e
d

o
u
t
s
i
d
e

s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
.

T
h
e

D
E
I
S

r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s

a
n
d

i
n
cludes the May 21, 2007, letter between NCTA and NCDOT regarding the decision by the State
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

t
o

s
t
u
d
y

o
n
l
y

t
o
l
l

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
iv
e
s

i
n

t
h
e

E
I
S
.

E
P
A

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

b
e
l
i
e
v
e

t
h
a
t

t
h
i
s

i
s

consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality
(C
E
Q
)

r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
t

4
0

C
P
R

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
5
0
2
.

1
4
(
a
)

a
n
d
(c). The Gaston East-West Connector's new location corridors and preliminary study alternatives
(u
t
i
l
i
z
e
d

b
y

N
C
T
A

a
n
d

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
)

w
e
r
e

d
e
veloped by the NCDOT when it was proposed as a freeway. FHWA, as the Lead Federal Agency (LFA)
un
d
e
r

N
E
P
A
,

m
i
g
h
t

h
a
v
e

a
l
s
o

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d

a

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
of a toll facility with a 'freeway' and their resultant environmental impacts.
a0
1
5
6
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

Ne
e
d

f
o
r

A
c
t
i
o
n
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
EP
A

n
o
t
e
s

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

M
e
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
U
n
i
o
n

M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
lanning Organization (MUMPO) has identified sections east of the Catawba River for the Gaston East-
We
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r

i
n

i
t
s

D
r
a
f
t

2
0
3
5

L
o
n
g
-
R
a
n
g
e

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
rtation Plan (LRTP). MUMPO on its Draft 2035 LRTP Roadway Ranking Priority List assigned
ra
n
k
i
n
g
s

o
f

8
5
,
3
2
7
,
3
2
9

a
n
d

3
3
0

(
o
u
t

o
f

a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y 340 total projects) for the sections where the Gaston East-West Connector is located in Mecklenburg
Co
u
n
t
y
.

E
P
A

n
o
t
e
s

t
h
e

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

F
u
t
u
r
e

L
a
n
d

U
s
e
Map at Figure 1-11. A description of the 'Green Necklace' is not provided and it is noted that there
ar
e

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y

s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l

l
a
n
d

u
s
e

c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
s

a
s
s
o
ci
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

t
h
i
s

p
l
a
n

(
e
.
g
.
,

P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
/
B
usiness Park north of Crowder Mountain State Park).
Th
e

D
E
I
S

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g

t
r
affic volumes and operations for the project study area's major roadways, including 1-85, US 29-74, and
US

3
2
1
.

E
P
A

n
o
t
e
s

t
h
a
t

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

l
e
v
e
l

o
f

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

(
L
OS) using 2006 data for 1-85 in Table 1-2 shows 4 exits with LOS F, 2 exits with LOS E and 6 exits with
LO
S

D
.

F
o
r

U
S

2
9
-
7
4
,

u
n
d
e
r

T
a
b
l
e

1
-
3
,

2
0
0
6

L
O
S

i
n
c
l
udes 2 intersections with LOS F, 3 intersections with LOS E, 7 intersections with LOS D, 8
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

w
i
t
h

L
O
S

C
,

a
n
d

2

i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

w
i
t
h

LOS B. For US 321, under Table 1-4,2006 LOS includes 1 intersection at LOS F, 1 intersection at LOS E,
2
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

a
t

L
O
S

D
,

6

i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

a
t

L
O
S

C
,
2 intersections at LOS B, and 1 intersection at LOS A. Table 1-5 also includes 2006 and 2030 existing
an
d

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

v
o
l
u
m
e
s

a
n
d

L
O
S

f
o
r

1
-
4
8
5

i
n

Mecklenburg County. The 2006 LOS is C at Exit 4 and the 2006 LOS is LOS A at Exit 9. The DEIS
a0
1
5
7
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

Ne
e
d

f
o
r

A
c
t
i
o
n
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
2
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

a
t

L
O
S

D
,

6

i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

a
t

L
O
S

C
,
2 intersections at LOS B, and 1 intersection at LOS A. Table 1-5 also includes 2006 and 2030 existing
an
d

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

v
o
l
u
m
e
s

a
n
d

L
O
S

f
o
r

1
-
4
8
5

i
n

Mecklenburg County. The 2006 LOS is C at Exit 4 and the 2006 LOS is LOS A at Exit 9. The DEIS
ta
b
l
e
s

a
l
s
o

i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

2
0
0
6

a
n
d

2
0
3
0

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

v
o
l
u
m
e
s

(in Annual Average Daily Traffic- AADT) along the various major roadways as well as their corresponding
se
g
m
e
n
t
s
.

I
n

n
e
a
r
l
y

a
l
l

c
a
s
e
s
,

N
C
T
A

a
n
d

F
H
W
A

a
r
e

p
r
ojecting significant traffic volume increases along 1-85, US 29-74, and US 321 in the design year.
Fo
r

e
x
a
m
p
l
e
,

1
-
8
5

a
n
d

U
S

2
9
-
7
4

a
r
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d

t
o

h
a
v
e between approximately 30-50% increases in AADT by 2030. It is unclear from Section 1.6.2 of the
DE
I
S

w
h
a
t

a
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s

a
r
e

b
e
i
n
g

m
a
d
e

b
y

t
h
e

p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g organizations (GUAMPO and MUMPO) and transportation agencies in estimating future travel
de
m
a
n
d

f
o
r

t
h
e
s
e

r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s

a
n
d

w
h
a
t

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

p
r
e
s
sure and induced traffic will be added as a result of the new facility. The DEIS cites in several
pl
a
c
e
s
,

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

s
t
u
d
y

a
r
e
a

i
s

m
o
s
t
l
y

s
u
b
u
r
ban and rural in character. EPA notes the estimated population change by U.S. Census block groups from
19
9
0

t
o

2
0
0
0

i
n

F
i
g
u
r
e

3
-
2
.

a0
1
5
8
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

Ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

an
d

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Th
e

D
E
I
S

a
l
s
o

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

o
n

m
i
n
o
r
i
t
y

a
n
d

low-income demographic information which is depicted in Figures 3-3, 3-4 and 3-5. One of EPA's past
an
d

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

t
h
e

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f
a toll facility in an area where there are many block groups characterized as minority and low-income
(S
e
e

c
o
m
m
e
n
t

s
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
n

"
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

J
u
s
t
i
c
e
"

b
e
l
ow).
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Th
e

D
E
I
S

a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
s

t
h
e

f
i
r
s
t

a
n
d

s
e
c
o
n
d

s
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g

m
ethods utilized to develop preliminary study alternatives and further identify DSAs. The DEIS
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d

t
h
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

i
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

a
g
e
n
c
y

c
o
o
r
d
i
nation involved with the alternatives screening process. Page 2-4 of the DEIS states: "Initially, the First
Sc
r
e
e
n
i
n
g

f
o
c
u
s
e
d

o
n

t
h
e

a
b
i
l
i
t
y

t
o

m
e
e
t

P
u
r
p
o
s
e

a
nd Need. Several alternatives were eliminated largely or entirely based on their inability to meet the
Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

N
e
e
d

(
T
S
M
,

T
D
M
,

M
a
s
s

t
r
a
n
s
i
t
,

M
u
l
t
i
-
m
o
d
al)." EPA was a concurring agency to carry forward the twelve (12) DSAs. However, the DEIS does
no
t

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y

a
d
d
r
e
s
s

h
o
w

a

c
o
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

a
l
t
e
r
natives as referenced above with other transportation improvements to existing major roadways might be
ab
l
e

t
o

m
e
e
t

t
h
e

P
u
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

N
e
e
d
.

E
P
A

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

a
g
r
ee with the conclusions regarding the mass transit alternative on pages 2-8 and 2-9. NCTA's and
FH
W
A
'
s

p
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

D
S
A

9

h
a
s

a
n

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
median cost of $1.282 billion. A primary rationale provided in the DEIS for eliminating the mass
tr
a
n
s
i
t

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

(
e
.
g
.
,

L
i
g
h
t

r
a
i
l
)
,

i
s

t
h
e

e
s
t
i
ma
t
e
d

c
o
s
t

o
f

'
a
t

l
e
a
s
t

$
1
.
0
6

b
i
l
l
i
o
n
'

f
o
r

a

2
2
-
m
i
l
e new location rail system. EPA notes the following key
a0
1
5
9
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
tr
a
n
s
i
t

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

(
e
.
g
.
,

L
i
g
h
t

r
a
i
l
)
,

i
s

t
h
e

e
s
t
i
ma
t
e
d

c
o
s
t

o
f

'
a
t

l
e
a
s
t

$
1
.
0
6

b
i
l
l
i
o
n
'

f
o
r

a

2
2
-
m
i
l
e new location rail system. EPA notes the following key
st
a
t
e
m
e
n
t

r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g

m
a
s
s

t
r
a
n
s
i
t

o
n

n
e
w

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
:

"
In addition, there is no program currently in place within North Carolina or in Gaston County to fund such
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
"

T
h
e

D
E
I
S

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
s

t
o

s
t
a
t
e

t
h
a
t

t
h
e
lack of financial feasibility is an additional reason for finding that this alternative is not a reasonable
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
.

E
P
A

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d

i
n

i
t
s

M
a
r
c
h

1
,

2
0
0
7
,

l
e
tter that combinations of alternatives also be further studied and analyzed in the DEIS. Referring to CEQ
re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

4
0

C
P
R

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
5
0
2
.

1
4
(
c
)
,

F
H
W

A

a
n
d

N
CTA might have considered partnering with the Federal Transit Authority (FTA) to evaluate a
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

t
h
a
t

c
o
u
l
d

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y

me
e
t

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

p
u
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

n
e
e
d
.

F
r
o
m

a

p
u
b
l
i
c

d
i
sclosure and analysis standpoint EPA believes that for
th
e

e
a
s
t
e
r
n

p
o
r
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

s
t
u
d
y

a
r
e
a

a

m
a
ss transit alternative is still potentially a 'reasonable' alternative under NEPA in combination with other
ne
w

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

i
m
p
r
o
v
e

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

o
p
t
i
o
n
s
.
Gaston Connector DEIS Agency Comment Database 8
DEIS - Public Release Comments Federal and State Agencies
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

N
o
.
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Comments or questions about the DEIS
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
a0
1
5
10
le
t
t
e
r
7/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
He
i
n
z
Co
m
m
e
n
t

N
o
t
e
d
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

Th
e

D
E
I
S

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

t
w
e
l
v
e

(
1
2
)

D
S
A
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

a
l
t
e
r
n
atives 4,5,9,22,23,27,58,64,68,76, 77, and 81. For all of the DSAs, the indirect and cumulative effects
an
d

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

f
o
r

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
e
d

g
r
o
w
t
h

a
n
d

i
n
d
i
r
e
c
t

e
ff
e
c
t
s

i
n

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

a
r
e

r
a
t
e
d

'
H
i
g
h
'

i
n

T
a
b
l
e

S
-2. The NCTA and FHWA have identified DSA 9 as
th
e
i
r

p
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
.
a0
1
5
10
le
t
t
e
r
7/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
He
i
n
z
Co
m
m
e
n
t

N
o
t
e
d
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

Ef
f
e
c
t
s
th
e
i
r

p
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
.
a0
1
5
1
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
EP
A

a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
s

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

F
H
W
A

a
n
d

N
C
T
A
'
s

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
ed (preferred) alternative is DSA 9 and that it has lower wetland and stream impacts than many
of

t
h
e

o
t
h
e
r

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d

(
w
i
t
h

t
h
e

e
x
c
e
ption of DSA 68 and 81 for stream impacts). DSA 9 has 48,995 linear feet of total stream impact with
38
,
8
9
4

l
i
n
e
a
r

f
e
e
t

o
f

i
m
p
a
c
t

t
o

p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l

s
t
r
e
a
m
s
.

There is an estimated 20,615 square feet of impact to Catawba River riparian buffers. Jurisdictional
we
t
l
a
n
d

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

a
r
e

7
.
5

a
c
r
e
s

f
o
r

D
S
A

9
.

B
a
s
e
d

u
p
o
n
tracking records that EPA began in 2002, the proposed project would have 2,237.2 linear feet of
st
r
e
a
m

i
m
p
a
c
t

p
e
r

m
i
l
e

o
f

m
u
l
t
i

l
a
n
e

n
e
w

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

f
acility. This is more than double the State-wide average of approximately 1,000 linear feet for a Piedmont
or

w
e
s
t
e
r
n

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

a
n
d

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y

t
he

h
i
g
h
e
s
t

i
m
p
a
c
t

p
e
r

m
i
l
e

o
f

a
n
y

M
e
r
g
e
r

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

s
i
nce 2002. DSA 9 also includes 91 total stream
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
.

E
P
A

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
s

t
h
e

d
i
r
e
c
t

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

t
o

w
a
t
e
rs of the U.S. to be very significant.
a0
1
5
1
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Th
e

D
E
I
S

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

f
u
l
l
y

a
d
d
r
e
s
s

E
P
A
'
s

c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

f
r
o
m
the March 1, 2007, scoping letter concerning the need to fully consider and address the number
an
d

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

f
o
r

f
r
e
e

f
l
o
w
i
n
g

i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s and toll collection facilities. EPA requested that full consideration be given to using single point urban
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s

(
S
P
U
I
)

a
n
d

c
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
e
d

c
l
o
v
e
r
l
e
a
f

d
e
s
i
g
ns at grade separated locations. The DEIS on page 2-50 discusses the option of removing the
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

a
t

t
h
e

U
S

2
9
-
7
4

i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e

(
d
e
p
i
c
t
e
d

on Figures 2-9 d & e) from the project design, but there is no formal conclusion reached on the issue.
EP
A

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

p
a
s
t

M
e
r
g
e
r

m
e
e
t
i
n
g
s

t
h
a
t

d
u
e

to the traffic volumes and resources in the area, serious consideration be given to eliminating this
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
.

A

S
P
U
I

o
r

o
t
h
e
r

c
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
e
d

i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
design might have also reduced stream and wetland impacts at the Robinson Road interchange
(F
i
g
u
r
e

2
-
9
q
)
,

B
u
d

W
i
l
s
o
n

R
o
a
d

i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e

(
F
i
g
u
r
e

2-9s), Bradley Trail interchange (Figure 2-9u), NC 273 interchange (Figure 2-9cc) and the 1-485
In
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e

(
F
i
g
u
r
e
s

2
-
9
g
g
,

h
h

a
n
d

i
i
)
.

E
P
A

r
e
c
o
g
n
izes the different interchange designs shown in the aforementioned figures. However, the DEIS does not
co
n
t
a
i
n

a

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n

o
r

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

a
s

t
o

t
h
e
t
y
p
e
s

o
f

i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s

e
x
a
m
i
n
e
d
.

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

6
.
4
.
5
.
3

u
n
der 'Avoidance and Minimization' states that the
'p
r
e
s
e
n
c
e

o
f

w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s

a
n
d

s
t
r
e
a
m
s

a
n
d

m
i
n
i
m
i
z
i
n
g

o
r
avoiding impacts to these resources was a factor in considering interchange configurations'. However,
'p
r
e
s
e
n
c
e

o
f

w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s

a
n
d

s
t
r
e
a
m
s

a
n
d

m
i
n
i
m
i
z
i
n
g

o
r
avoiding impacts to these resources was a factor in considering interchange configurations'. However,
th
e
r
e

i
s

n
o

d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n

a
s

t
o

h
o
w

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
these resources were considered and if SPUIs or other compressed cloverleaf designs were given full
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
.

F
r
o
m

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s

M
e
r
g
e
r

m
e
e
t
i
n
g

d
i
s
c
u
s
s
ions, EPA staff commented that 'high-speed' to 'high-speed' interchange and ramp designs were not
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
i
l
y

n
e
e
d
e
d

a
t

a
l
l

t
h
e

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
locations and that 'low-speed' connections at secondary roads should be considered.
a0
1
5
1
3
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Th
e

D
E
I
S

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

d
e
t
a
i
l
s

a
s

t
o

h
o
w

a
n
d

t
o

what degree the DSAs incorporate measures to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional waters.
EP
A

d
o
e
s

r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e

t
h
e

C
P

2
A

b
r
i
d
g
e

f
i
e
l
d

r
e
v
i
e
w

m
e
eting on avoidance and minimization efforts conducted in December of 2007. EPA technical staff were
di
r
e
c
t
l
y

i
n
v
o
l
v
e
d

i
n

t
h
e
s
e

f
i
e
l
d

i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
.

H
o
we
v
e
r
,

d
i
r
e
c
t

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

t
o

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

3
0
3
(
d
)

l
i
s
t
e
d

i
m
p
aired streams and other waters at risk from further
de
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n

h
a
v
e

n
o
t

b
e
e
n

f
u
l
l
y

a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
d

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

standpoint of avoidance and minimization (e.g., proposed median width of 70 feet, 300-foot minimum
ri
g
h
t

o
f

w
a
y
,

1
2
-
f
o
o
t

p
a
v
e
d

o
u
t
s
i
d
e

s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
,

e
t
c
.
).
a0
1
5
1
4
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Th
e

D
E
I
S

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

a
d
d
r
e
s
s

o
u
r

c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

o
n

p
a
g
e
s

4

a
nd 5 of our March 1, 2007, scoping letter, recommending that NCTA and FHWA provide a
co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l

p
l
a
n

i
n

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

w
h
i
c
h

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
ities for on-site mitigation. The preferred alternative has approximately 7.5 acres of jurisdictional
we
t
l
a
n
d

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

a
n
d

4
8
,
9
9
5

l
i
n
e
a
r

f
e
e
t

o
f

t
o
t
a
l

s
t
r
ea
m

i
m
p
a
c
t
.

T
h
e
r
e

i
s

n
o

d
e
t
a
i
l

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
if there is adequate on-site or off-site mitigation
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

i
n

t
h
e

H
U
C
.

A
l
t
h
o
u
g
h

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

i
s

d
i
s
c
u
s
sed in Section 6.4.5.4, no details are provided. Also in this section, the DEIS includes a short statement
ab
o
u
t

o
f
f
-
s
i
t
e

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
.

T
h
e

p
a
r
a
g
r
a
p
h

m
e
n
t
i
o
n
s

t
he Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between NC Department of Transportation (DOT) and the
Ec
o
s
y
s
t
e
m

E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t

P
r
o
g
r
a
m

(
E
E
P
)
.

I
t

i
s

u
n
c
l
e
a
r

whether NCTA is subject to the DOT/EEP MOA (in which case, it is likely that mitigation plans are
al
r
e
a
d
y

u
n
d
e
r
w
a
y

f
o
r

t
h
e
s
e

i
m
p
a
c
t
s
)
,

o
r

i
f

N
C
T
A

w
i
l
l pay into the traditional in-lieu fee program run by EEP under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
wi
t
h

N
C

D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t

o
f

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

a
n
d

t
h
e

C
o
r
ps. Under the MOU program, EEP may not have any mitigation planned until after NCTA provides
pa
y
m
e
n
t
,

t
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
y

a
f
t
e
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
m
i
t

i
s

i
s
s
u
e
d
.

T
h
e

FE
l
S

s
h
o
u
l
d

c
l
e
a
r
l
y

s
t
a
t
e

w
h
i
c
h

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

N
C
T
A

w
i
l
l

u
tilize for wetland and stream mitigation. EPA
pa
y
m
e
n
t
,

t
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
y

a
f
t
e
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
m
i
t

i
s

i
s
s
u
e
d
.

T
h
e

FE
l
S

s
h
o
u
l
d

c
l
e
a
r
l
y

s
t
a
t
e

w
h
i
c
h

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

N
C
T
A

w
i
l
l

u
tilize for wetland and stream mitigation. EPA
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
s

t
h
a
t

N
C
T
A

i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

c
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l

o
n
-
s
i
t
e

m
i
tigation opportunities in the FElS. The Corps and NCDWQ may require mitigation for all intermittent
as

w
e
l
l

a
s

p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l

s
t
r
e
a
m
s
.

E
P
A

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
s

t
h
a
t

N
CTA propose compensatory-mitigation for all impacts to jurisdictional-resources. The lack of a
co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

p
l
a
n

f
o
r

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

t
o

j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
io
n
a
l

w
a
t
e
r
s

o
f

t
h
e

U
.
S
.

i
s

a

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y in this DEIS.Gaston Connector DEIS Agency Comment Database 9
DEIS - Public Release Comments Federal and State Agencies
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

N
o
.
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Comments or questions about the DEIS
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
In

t
h
e

M
a
r
c
h

1
,

2
0
0
7

l
e
t
t
e
r
,

E
P
A

a
l
s
o

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d

t
h
a
t FHWA and NCTA explore methods to directly address mitigation for indirect and cumulative effects of
th
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

t
o water quality. The DEIS has no specific discussion of mitigation for indirect and cumulative effects.
EP
A

i
s

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
e
d

t
h
a
t

a
l
t
h
o
u
g
h

w
e

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y

i
d
e
n
tified significant issues with the use of the North Carolina Wetlands Ratings System (WRS) on this
a0
1
5
1
5
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

Ef
f
e
c
t
s
Wa
t
e
r

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
EP
A

i
s

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
e
d

t
h
a
t

a
l
t
h
o
u
g
h

w
e

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y

i
d
e
n
tified significant issues with the use of the North Carolina Wetlands Ratings System (WRS) on this
pr
o
j
e
c
t

(
f
o
r
e
s
t
e
d

w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s

l
a
b
e
l
e
d

a
s

e
m
e
r
g
e
n
t

w
e
t
l
ands, forested wetlands adjacent to streams receiving a rating of zero from at least one of the consultant
te
a
m
s
)
,

N
C
T
A

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
s

t
o

r
e
l
y

o
n

t
h
e

W
R
S

s
c
o
r
e
s

t
o
describe the wetlands that may be impacted. NCTA should complete a North Carolina Wetland
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t

M
e
t
h
o
d

(
N
C
W
A
M
)

a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t

o
n

a
l
l

w
e
t
l
a
n
d
impact sites for the recommended alternative and present the information in the FElS. EPA does
no
t

b
e
l
i
e
v
e

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

W
R
S

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s

m
e
a
n
i
n
g
f
u
l

i
n
f
o
r
m
ation for wetlands permitting decisions.
a0
1
5
1
6
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
W
a
t
e
r

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
In

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

6

o
f

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
,

t
h
e
r
e

i
s

a

d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n

c
o
n
cerning the soils within the project area and states that the entire area underlain by the project is rated
mo
d
e
r
a
t
e

o
r

s
e
v
e
r
e

f
o
r

r
o
a
d

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,

a
n
d

m
a
y

r
equire "special planning, design or maintenance to overcome soil limitations." However, EPA could find
no

d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n

r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g

t
h
e

n
e
e
d

f
o
r

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

b
o
r
r
ow sites, and the potential impacts to uplands, wetlands, and streams from these borrow pits. If borrow
si
t
e
s

w
i
l
l

b
e

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
,

t
h
e

F
E
l
S

s
h
o
u
l
d

f
u
l
l
y

e
x
p
l
or
e

t
h
e

a
m
o
u
n
t

o
f

b
o
r
r
o
w

n
e
e
d
e
d

a
n
d

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

i
m
p
a
c
ts (quantitative) to natural areas, including terrestrial
ar
e
a
s
,

w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
,

a
n
d

s
t
r
e
a
m
s
.
a0
1
5
1
7
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Po
r
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

A
b
e
r
n
e
t
h
y

C
r
e
e
k
,

C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s

C
r
e
e
k
,

M
c
G
i
l
l
Branch, Catawba Creek, and South Fork Catawba River within the project area are on the 303(d) list
of

i
m
p
a
i
r
e
d

w
a
t
e
r
s
,

d
u
e

t
o

a
q
u
a
t
i
c

l
i
f
e

i
m
p
a
i
r
m
e
n
t
s
resulting from urban runoff, and storm sewers. Some of the possible causes include non-point sources of
po
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
s

s
u
c
h

a
s

s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t

f
r
o
m

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

s
i
t
e
s
, stormwater runoff from farms and residential areas, faulty septic tanks, etc. Section 6.2.2.4 of the
DE
I
S

l
i
s
t
s

o
t
h
e
r

p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e

s
o
u
r
c
e
s

o
f

p
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
.

N
C
T
A's proposed road construction is a type of activity that is shown to be causing or contributing to the
im
p
a
i
r
m
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e
s
e

r
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g

w
a
t
e
r
s
.

C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
i
n
g

t
he magnitude of the direct impacts, there is the potential that NCTA's activities will cause or contribute to
th
e

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d

d
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e
s
e

w
a
t
e
r

b
o
d
i
e
s
,

o
r
prevent them from being restored, contrary to the Clean Water Act. The DEIS provides no information
on

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

a
c
t
i
o
n
s

t
h
a
t

N
C
T
A

w
i
l
l

t
a
k
e

t
o

a
v
o
i
d

a
n
d minimize impacts (direct and indirect) to 303( d) listed impaired streams. Local ordinances, riparian
bu
f
f
e
r

r
u
l
e
s

a
n
d

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

p
a
s
t

s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r

control initiatives have not proven to be successful in addressing these continued developmental
bu
f
f
e
r

r
u
l
e
s

a
n
d

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

p
a
s
t

s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r

control initiatives have not proven to be successful in addressing these continued developmental
im
p
a
c
t
s
.

M
o
r
e
o
v
e
r
,

t
h
e

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

w
i
l
l
directly impact approximately 7.5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 48,995 linear feet (approximately
9.
3

m
i
l
e
s
)

o
f

s
t
r
e
a
m
s
.

R
i
p
a
r
i
a
n

b
u
f
f
e
r
s

a
r
e

n
o
t

s
p
e
cifically protected in many parts of the project study area. NCTA should commit to provide adequate
me
t
h
o
d
s

o
f

s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

t
o

r
e
m
o
v
e

p
o
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
s and sediment, during construction and afterward.
a0
1
5
1
8
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s

Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y
,

N
C
T
A

a
n
d

F
H
W
A

s
h
o
u
l
d

a
t

a

m
i
n
i
m
u
m

m
a
k
e environmental commitments to provide methods such as wet ponds, created stormwater
we
t
l
a
n
d
s
,

i
n
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

t
r
e
n
c
h
e
s

a
n
d

w
e
l
l
s
,

s
a
n
d

f
i
l
te
r
s
,

t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y

a
n
d

p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t

r
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n

p
o
n
d
s
,

l
e
v
e
l spreaders, retaining walls to reduce fill impacts from
st
e
e
p

s
l
o
p
e
s
,

a
n
d

r
e
i
n
f
o
r
c
e
d

g
r
a
s
s
e
d
-
s
w
a
l
e
s
.

D
u
r
i
n
g
construction, NCTA and FHWA should also restrict clearing and grubbing to the maximum extent
po
s
s
i
b
l
e
.

M
o
r
e

e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

s
o
i
l

e
r
o
s
i
o
n

a
n
d

t
u
r
b
i
d
i
t
y
c
o
n
t
r
o
l

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
e
d

b
y

N
C
D
O
T

a
n
d

N
C
S
U

i
n
c
l
uding Polyacrylamide (PAM), coconut fiber logs,
an
d

a
b
s
o
r
b
e
n
t

w
a
t
t
l
e
s

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d

i
n
t
o

t
he soil and erosion control plan and included as an environmental commitment (Note: these more costly
me
a
s
u
r
e
s

h
a
v
e

b
e
e
n

s
h
o
w
n

t
o

d
r
a
s
t
i
c
a
l
l
y

r
e
d
u
c
e

t
u
r
b
idity and sedimentation during construction). Permanent stormwater measures (including detention
ba
s
i
n
s
/
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s

s
p
i
l
l

c
a
t
c
h

b
a
s
i
n
s
)

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

p
l
a
n
ned and designed within the proposed facility's right of way to address future development runoff and
hy
d
r
o
l
o
g
i
c

t
r
e
s
p
a
s
s

f
r
o
m

o
f
f
-
s
i
t
e

s
o
u
r
c
e
s

s
u
c
h

a
s

r
esidential and commercial developments, toll collection facilities, and parking lots. NCTA and FHWA
sh
o
u
l
d

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r

t
h
e

u
s
e

o
f

h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s

s
p
i
l
l

c
a
t
c
h

b
a
sins/stormwater basins at key locations, including 303(d) listed streams that are already impaired from
ur
b
a
n

r
u
n
o
f
f

a
n
d

p
o
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
s
.
a0
1
5
1
9
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

Ef
f
e
c
t
s
Wa
t
e
r

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
EP
A
,

a
s

w
e
l
l

a
s

o
t
h
e
r

a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
,

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d that FHWA and NCTA explore methods to directly address mitigation for indirect and cumulative
ef
f
e
c
t
s

o
f

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
i
m
p
a
c
t
s

t
o

w
a
t
e
r

q
u
a
l
i
t
y
.

F
H
W
A

a
n
d

N
C
T
A

a
r
e

n
o
t

p
roposing any mitigation for indirect and cumulative
im
p
a
c
t
s

t
o

w
a
t
e
r

q
u
a
l
i
t
y
.

A
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g

t
o

t
h
e

S
u
m
m
a
r
y

of Potential Indirect Impacts (Table S-2), Gaston County is expected to have "High" potential for
ac
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
e
d

g
r
o
w
t
h

a
s

a

r
e
s
u
l
t

o
f

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.

F
u
r
t
he
r
m
o
r
e
,

t
h
i
s

t
a
b
l
e

a
l
s
o

c
i
t
e
s

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

e
ffects on water quality, wetlands, impaired waterways, and
wa
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
s

a
s

a

r
e
s
u
l
t

o
f

t
h
e

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
e
d

g
r
o
w
t
h

a
r
e "Strong" to "Very Strong."
Ef
f
e
c
t
s
wa
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
s

a
s

a

r
e
s
u
l
t

o
f

t
h
e

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
e
d

g
r
o
w
t
h

a
r
e "Strong" to "Very Strong."Gaston Connector DEIS Agency Comment Database 10
DEIS - Public Release Comments Federal and State Agencies
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

N
o
.
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Comments or questions about the DEIS
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
In

t
h
e

M
a
r
c
h

1
,

2
0
0
7
,

s
c
o
p
i
n
g

l
e
t
t
e
r
,

E
P
A

a
l
s
o

r
e
q
u
ested that FHWA and NCTA perform a quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Impacts (ICI) analysis for
th
i
s

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.

T
h
e

D
E
I
S

d
o
e
s

s
t
a
t
e

(
i
.
e
.
,

p
age 7-2) that a quantitative assessment would be conducted on the preferred alternative following the
DE
I
S
,

i
f

F
H
W
A

a
n
d

N
C
T
A

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

t
h
a
t

a

q
u
a
n
t
i
t
a
t
i
v
e analysis is needed. However, the ICI in the DEIS is only qualitative, and does not provide
DE
I
S
,

i
f

F
H
W
A

a
n
d

N
C
T
A

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

t
h
a
t

a

q
u
a
n
t
i
t
a
t
i
v
e analysis is needed. However, the ICI in the DEIS is only qualitative, and does not provide
me
a
n
i
n
g
f
u
l

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
i
n
g

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

i
m
p
a
c
t
s
to wetlands, streams, water quality, air quality, and endangered species. The Indirect and Cumulative
Ef
f
e
c
t
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
S
e
c
t
i
o
n

7
)

o
f

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

i
s

n
o
t

s
p
e
c
ific, and provides no quantitative data to characterize the existing conditions in the project area (such as
pe
r
c
e
n
t

l
a
n
d

u
s
e

b
y

c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
,

a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
,

e
t
c
.
)
.
T
h
e
r
e

a
r
e

n
o

q
u
a
n
t
i
t
a
t
i
v
e

d
a
t
a

p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

D
E
IS concerning potential indirect and cumulative
im
p
a
c
t
s

t
o

w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
,

s
t
r
e
a
m
s
,

w
a
t
e
r

q
u
a
l
i
t
y
,

a
n
d

w
i
ldlife habitat. In general, the indirect and cumulative effects to water quality are not adequately
ad
d
r
e
s
s
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
.

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

6
.
2
.
4

(
p
a
g
e

6
.
9
)

s
t
a
tes that indirect and cumulative effects to water quality are discussed in Section 7.5. However, Section
7.
5

(
p
a
g
e

7
-
1
3
)

s
t
a
t
e
s

t
h
a
t

i
n
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
effects are discussed in Section 6.2.4. Neither section fully or adequately addresses the issue. The ICI
si
m
p
l
y

s
t
a
t
e
s

t
h
a
t

c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

c
a
n

b
e

m
i
n
i
m
i
zed through implementation of local stormwater ordinances and BMPs. However, local ordinances and
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
v
e
s

i
n
t
h
e

p
a
s
t

h
a
v
e

n
o
t

p
r
o
v
e
n

t
o

b
e

s
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l

i
n

a
d
d
r
e
ssing these continued development conditions. EPA
co
n
t
i
n
u
e
s

t
o

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

N
C
T
A

d
e
v
e
l
o
p

a

q
u
a
n
titative analysis of the indirect and cumulative impacts from the proposed project and recommend
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e

a
v
o
i
d
a
n
c
e
,

m
i
n
i
m
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

measures for the anticipated impacts.
Th
e

F
E
I
S

s
h
o
u
l
d

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

m
o
r
e

q
u
a
n
t
i
t
a
t
i
v
e

d
a
t
a

o
n

e
xisting conditions and potential impacts to wetlands, streams, water quality, and wildlife habitat from
th
e

'
N
o

B
u
i
l
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
'

a
n
d

t
h
e

P
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
at
i
v
e
.

E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

l
a
n
d

u
s
e

m
a
y

b
e

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

u
s
i
n
g

t
h
e
NWI data or other GIS wetland data and the USGS's
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

G
A
P

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
'
s

l
a
n
d

u
s
e

c
o
v
e
rage map. There are also many useful GIS data layers at NC One Map. The FEIS should calculate the
ac
r
e
a
g
e

o
f

i
n
d
u
c
e
d

g
r
o
w
t
h

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

P
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
ative, using the No Build as a baseline. The FEIS should also calculate the cumulative amount of
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s

s
u
r
f
a
c
e
s

a
d
d
e
d

a
n
d

c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

increase in percent impervious surface for each watershed resulting from the project and other
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y

f
o
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.

F
o
r

i
n
s
t
a
n
c
e
,

t
h
e FEIS developed for the I-73 project (TIP 1-4923) utilized NRCS's Urban Hydrology for Small Watershed
Ba
s
i
n
s
:

1
9
7
5

t
o

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

t
h
e

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
surfaces for land use type. This FEIS then multiplied the predicted acreage of a type of development
(r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,

c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
,

e
t
c
.
)

b
y

t
h
e

c
o
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g percentage (e.g. 85% for commercial development, 72% for industrial development, etc.). Likewise,
20
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
a0
1
5
He
i
n
z
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

Ef
f
e
c
t
s
(r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,

c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
,

e
t
c
.
)

b
y

t
h
e

c
o
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g percentage (e.g. 85% for commercial development, 72% for industrial development, etc.). Likewise,
la
n
d

u
s
e

m
o
d
e
l
s

a
n
d

a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

G
I
S

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

o
n

w
e
tlands and streams in the project area could be used to develop predictions of indirect and cumulative
im
p
a
c
t
s

t
o

w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s

a
n
d

s
t
r
e
a
m
s

i
n

t
h
e

w
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
.

At

a

m
i
n
i
m
u
m
,

t
h
e

F
E
I
S

s
h
o
u
l
d

l
i
s
t

k
n
o
w
n

a
r
e
a
s

o
f

i
mpacts (recent and future TIP projects with projected impacts and other permitted or planned activities)
al
o
n
g

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

a
m
o
u
n
t
s

a
n
d

a

t
o
t
a
l

e
s
t
i
m
a
ted impact for each watershed. Further, the water quality impacts could also be estimated using the
FH
W
A
'
s

"
C
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
s

o
f

H
i
g
h
w
a
y

R
u
n
o
f
f
"

t
o

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
the amount of pollutant that would enter streams after a twenty-day buildup period, assuming there
we
r
e

n
o

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

s
u
c
h

a
s

r
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n

b
a
s
i
n
s

o
r

d
i
t
c
hes to filter sediment. It is understood that stormwater requirements must be met, and that avoidance
an
d

m
i
n
i
m
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

e
f
f
o
r
t
s

m
a
y

r
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

a
m
o
u
n
t

o
f

e
stimated wetland and stream impacts. It is also understood that the quantitative information is an
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
,

a
n
d

m
a
y

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

a

w
o
r
s
t
-
c
a
s
e

s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
.

H
o
wever, the FEIS should provide as much quantitative information as possible.
a0
1
5
2
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
EP
A

n
o
t
e
s

t
h
e

s
p
e
c
i
a
l

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t

(
"
G
r
e
e
n

S
h
eet") regarding air quality and that NCTA will coordinate with GAUMPO and MUMPO to ensure that
th
e

a
i
r

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

c
o
n
f
o
r
m
i
t
y

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

t
h
e

r
e
gi
o
n

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
'
s

d
e
s
i
g
n

c
o
n
c
e
p
t

a
n
d

s
c
o
p
e consistent with the 'preferred alternative' prior to the
Re
c
o
r
d

o
f

D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n

(
R
O
D
)
.
a0
1
5
2
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

Ef
f
e
c
t
s
EP
A

b
e
l
i
e
v
e
s

t
h
a
t

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

m
i
l
e
s

t
r
a
v
e
l
e
d

(
V
M
T
s
)

w
i
l
l substantially increase from the proposed action, particularly in the Gaston County area. EPA further
co
n
c
u
r
s

w
i
t
h

N
C
T
A

a
n
d

F
H
W
A

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

a
c
t
i
o
n
will significantly induce {"accelerate"} development within the project study area. Increased
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

f
u
r
t
h
e
r

f
r
o
m

C
h
a
r
l
o
t
t
e

a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r

m
o
r
e

u
rbanized areas will invariably increase vehicle commutation distances and result in increased air
po
l
l
u
t
i
o
n

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
.

A
n
y

c
o
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

r
e
l
i
ef along I-85 and other east-west routes will be potentially offset by increased 'development sprawl',
gr
e
a
t
e
r

V
M
T
s

i
n

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

s
t
u
d
y

a
r
e
a

a
n
d
,

u
l
t
i
m
a
t
ely, increased air pollution emissions.Gaston Connector DEIS Agency Comment Database 11
DEIS - Public Release Comments Federal and State Agencies
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

N
o
.
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Comments or questions about the DEIS
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
Pl
e
a
s
e

r
e
f
e
r

t
o

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

A
-
8

o
f

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
,

w
h
i
c
h

i
n
c
ludes EPA's letters of November 17, 2008, and January 9, 2009, on the State Implementation Plan
(S
I
P
)
.

W
e

w
i
s
h

t
o

e
m
p
h
a
s
i
z
e

t
h
a
t

E
P
A

i
s
s
u
e
d

a

F
i
n
a
l
Rule in the Federal Register on May 8, 2009, for the 'Finding of Failure to Submit State
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

P
l
a
n
s

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

f
o
r

t
h
e

1
9
9
7

8
-
H
o
u
r

O
zone National Ambient Air Quality Standard: North Carolina and South Carolina.
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

P
l
a
n
s

R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

f
o
r

t
h
e

1
9
9
7

8
-
H
o
u
r

O
zone National Ambient Air Quality Standard: North Carolina and South Carolina.
Th
e

D
E
I
S

s
t
a
t
e
s

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

C
h
a
r
l
o
t
t
e
-
G
a
s
t
o
n
i
a
-
R
o
c
k

H
i
ll air quality region was designated as a 'moderate non-attainment' area on June 15, 2004, for the 1997
8-
h
o
u
r

o
z
o
n
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
.

B
a
s
e
d

u
p
o
n

r
e
c
e
n
t

m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
data, 2007 and 2008 8-hour ozone concentrations averaged approximately 84 micrograms per cubic
me
t
e
r

(
u
g
/
m
3).

I
n

o
r
d
e
r

t
o

r
e
t
a
i
n

t
h
e

m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

n
o
n
-
a
t
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t

s
tatus and not be reclassified by EPA as 'serious non-attainment', 2009 monitoring data for
th
e

8
-
h
o
u
r

o
z
o
n
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

w
o
u
l
d

h
a
v
e

t
o

b
e

6
5

u
g
/
m
3. While still early in the '2009 ozone season', the North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ) has
al
r
e
a
d
y

i
s
s
u
e
d

s
e
v
e
r
a
l

C
o
d
e

O
r
a
n
g
e

o
z
o
n
e

a
l
e
r
t
s

f
o
r
the Charlotte and Piedmont areas as of June 4, 2009. From a CAA perspective, a 'maintenance area
fo
r

a
t
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t
'

m
e
a
n
s

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

u
r
b
a
n

a
r
e
a

h
a
s

e
x
c
e
e
ded NAAQS levels for one or more pollutants in the past. The 1997 8-hour average ozone standard and
th
e

2
0
0
8

8
-
h
o
u
r

a
v
e
r
a
g
e

o
z
o
n
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

a
r
e

0
.
0
8

a
n
d
0.075 parts per million, respectively.
Se
c
t
i
o
n

4
.
4
.
4

o
f

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

o
u
t
l
i
n
e
s

s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l

i
n
f
o
rm
a
t
i
o
n

o
n

t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

c
o
n
f
o
r
m
i
t
y
,

r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l

c
o
n
f
ormity analysis, project-level ("hot-spot") conformity
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
,

c
o
n
f
o
r
m
i
t
y

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

L
R
T
P
s

a
n
d

T
IPs, potential for conformity lapse grace period, potential for a conformity lapse, implications for the
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,

s
t
a
t
u
s

o
f

t
h
e

S
IP for the 'Metrolina' Region, and the status of the SIP. EPA concurs with most of the information and
an
a
l
y
s
i
s

i
n

t
h
i
s

s
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
.

T
h
e

n
e
x
t

u
p
d
a
te for the GUAMPO LRTP is June 30, 2009 and for the MUMPO LRTP it must be approved by May 3,
20
0
9
.
Re
f
e
r
r
i
n
g

t
o

E
P
A
'
s

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

o
n

t
h
e

S
I
P

a
n
d

transportation conformity, EPA believes that it is highly improbable that the Charlotte area will be able to
re
t
a
i
n

i
t
s

m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

n
o
n
-
a
t
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t

s
t
a
t
u
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

8
-hour ozone that is required by June 15, 2010. One of the primary reasons for the 'Environmental
Ob
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
'

r
a
t
i
n
g

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

D
S
A

D

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
iv
e

i
s

w
h
e
r
e

a
n

a
c
t
i
o
n

m
i
g
h
t

v
i
o
l
a
t
e

o
r

b
e

i
n
c
o
n
s
i
s
tent with achievement or maintenance of a national
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
.
U
n
d
e
r

E
P
A
'
s

p
o
l
i
c
y

a
n
d

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s

u
n
d
e
r

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

3
09 of the CAA and NEPA, the threshold for rating the environmental impact of
th
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

a
c
t
i
o
n

i
s

b
a
s
e
d

n
o
t

o
n
l
y

o
n

t
h
e

p
o
t
e
n
t
ial or likelihood to violate a national environmental standard, but also on the proposed mitigation for the
pr
o
j
e
c
t

a
n
d

i
f

t
h
a
t

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

i
s

a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e

t
o

a
d
d
r
e
ss

t
h
e

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

a
n
d

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

i
m
p
a
cts. NCTA and FHWA did not propose any air quality
23
l
e
t
t
e
r
Ai
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
7/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
pr
o
j
e
c
t

a
n
d

i
f

t
h
a
t

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

i
s

a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e

t
o

a
d
d
r
e
ss

t
h
e

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

a
n
d

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

i
m
p
a
cts. NCTA and FHWA did not propose any air quality
re
l
a
t
e
d

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

t
o

a
d
d
r
e
s
s

t
h
e

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

d
i
r
e
c
t

im
p
a
c
t

f
r
o
m

t
h
i
s

2
2
-
m
i
l
e
,

n
e
w

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

t
o
l
l

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y or its indirect and cumulative effects. Until the issues
in
v
o
l
v
i
n
g

t
h
e

S
I
P
,

L
R
T
P

u
p
d
a
t
e
,

T
I
P

a
n
d

c
o
n
f
o
r
m
i
t
y

demonstration are fully resolved, EPA believes that this new location project will continue the pattern of
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

s
p
r
a
w
l

i
n

t
h
e

C
h
a
r
l
o
t
t
e
/
M
e
t
r
o
l
i
n
a

a
r
e
a

and further result in air quality degradation and future potential violations of the CAA's 8-hour ozone
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
.

E
P
A

c
o
n
c
u
r
s

w
i
t
h

N
C
T
A

a
n
d

F
H
W
A

t
h
a
t

t
h
i
s

new location facility will most likely induce development in the project study area. However, EPA
do
e
s

n
o
t

a
g
r
e
e

w
i
t
h

N
C
T
A

a
n
d

F
H
W
A

c
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n

t
h
a
t

t
his induced development will not ultimately result in an increase of the VMTs due to the construction
of

t
h
e

n
e
w

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

r
o
a
d
w
a
y
.

O
u
r

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

o
b
j
e
ction rating includes other new location alternatives (DSAs) as well.
a0
1
5
2
4
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
EP
A

h
a
s

r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d

t
h
e

M
o
b
i
l
e

S
o
u
r
c
e

A
i
r

T
o
x
i
c
s

(
M
S
A
T
s) sections contained at 4.2.3, and Appendix H. EPA acknowledges that a more detailed qualitative
an
a
l
y
s
i
s

w
a
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
.

T
h
e

D
E
I
S

s
t
a
t
e
s

that there is an approximate 12% increase (for Gaston County) in VMTs for the new location
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

v
e
r
s
u
s

t
h
e

'
N
o

B
u
i
l
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
'
.

H
o
w
ever, EPA does not concur with the general regional assessment provided in Section 4.2.3 or Appendix H.
EP
A

d
o
e
s

c
o
n
c
u
r

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

o
n

P
a
g
e
H-8 of the DEIS: "In summary, under all DSAs in the design year, it is expected that there will be
hi
g
h
e
r

M
S
A
T

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

i
n

t
h
e

i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

a
r
e
a
, relative to the No Build Alternative, due to increased VMT." EPA's recent technical comments
co
n
c
e
r
n
i
n
g

M
S
A
T
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

M
o
n
r
o
e

B
y
p
a
s
s
/
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r

p
r
oject apply to this project as well. The qualitative analysis provided in the DEIS considers MSATs to
be

a

r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l

a
i
r

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

i
s
s
u
e

a
n
d

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

a
d
d
r
e
s
s the specific environmental concerns for potential near-roadway exposures to increases in MSATs.
a0
1
5
2
5
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Th
e

D
E
I
S

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

a
n
y

'
l
o
c
a
l

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

m
e
a
s
u
res' for MSATs in the project study area. FHWA has asserted that MSATs cannot be accurately
mo
d
e
l
e
d

a
n
d

t
h
e

h
e
a
l
t
h

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
l
y

p
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
. EPA requests that FHWA provide the identification of 'local control measures' and how these
me
a
s
u
r
e
s

c
o
u
l
d

b
e

a
s
s
e
s
s
e
d

a
g
a
i
n
s
t

'
u
n
c
e
r
t
a
i
n

h
e
a
l
t
h effects'. Again, please refer to EPA's letter dated June 15, 2009, concerning MSATs and the specific
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
me
a
s
u
r
e
s

c
o
u
l
d

b
e

a
s
s
e
s
s
e
d

a
g
a
i
n
s
t

'
u
n
c
e
r
t
a
i
n

h
e
a
l
t
h effects'. Again, please refer to EPA's letter dated June 15, 2009, concerning MSATs and the specific
me
a
s
u
r
e
s

t
o

r
e
d
u
c
e

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d for the final project design.
a0
1
5
2
6
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Th
e

D
E
I
S

d
o
e
s

i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

4

p
u
b
l
i
c

s
c
h
o
o
l
s

(
S
e
c
t
i
o
n

2
.
3.1.4 and Figure 3-7a-b) located near the boundaries of the DSA corridors and no other potential
se
n
s
i
t
i
v
e

r
e
c
e
p
t
o
r
s
.

C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

1
0
,
0
0
0

t
o

6
1
,
8
00 AADTs on the new facility and that this is potentially a 'new emission source', the development of a
fi
n
i
t
e

p
e
r
i
o
d

m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

w
o
u
l
d

n
o
t

b
e

i
n
c
o
n
sistent with other past FHWA actions regarding MSATs. Furthermore, direct data collection by FHWA
wo
u
l
d

a
d
d
r
e
s
s

s
o
m
e

o
f

t
h
e

'
u
n
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
t
y
'

t
h
a
t

i
t

h
a
s
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

m
o
d
e
l
i
n
g

a
n
d

b
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s

f
or MSATs. There are numerous more recent, peer-
re
v
i
e
w
e
d

a
n
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

h
e
a
l
t
h

s
t
u
d
i
e
s

a
n
d

t
h
e

c
o
r
r
e
lation with near roadway exposures to MSATs that have not been considered or cited in the DEIS. EPA
re
c
e
n
t
l
y

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

e
x
a
m
p
l
e
s

o
f

s
e
v
e
r
a
l

l
o
c
a
l

c
o
n
t
r
o
l
measures for the Monroe Bypass/Connector project that are applicable for this proposed project as well.Gaston Connector DEIS Agency Comment Database 12
DEIS - Public Release Comments Federal and State Agencies
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

N
o
.
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Comments or questions about the DEIS
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
Se
c
t
i
o
n

3
.
2
.
5
.
1

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

t
h
e

p
r
i
m
a
r
y

i
s
s
u
e
s

o
f

E
J

u
nder Executive Order 12898. Section 3.2.5.2 of the DEIS includes a discussion on EJ as it relates to the
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

p
u
b
l
i
c

i
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

outreach conducted by NCTA and FHWA. Table 3-7 provides a general evaluation for the proposed toll
fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
.

E
P
A

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

f
u
l
l
y

c
o
n
c
u
r

w
i
t
h

t
h
i
s

a
s
s
e
s
sm
e
n
t

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

o
n

P
a
g
e
s

3
-
2
5

t
o

3
-
2
8
.

T
h
e

m
i
n
o
r
i
t
y

and low-income communities in the project study area
a0
1
5
2
7
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

Ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

an
d

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
.

E
P
A

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

f
u
l
l
y

c
o
n
c
u
r

w
i
t
h

t
h
i
s

a
s
s
e
s
sm
e
n
t

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

o
n

P
a
g
e
s

3
-
2
5

t
o

3
-
2
8
.

T
h
e

m
i
n
o
r
i
t
y

and low-income communities in the project study area
wo
u
l
d

r
e
c
e
i
v
e

t
h
e

'
h
i
g
h
e
r

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
'

o
f

i
m
p
a
c
t

f
r
o
m

t
he new facility in terms of air quality and noise impacts, but would not necessarily receive a proportionate
be
n
e
f
i
t

o
f

a
c
c
e
s
s

d
u
e

t
o

t
h
e

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

t
o
l
l

c
o
s
t
s
.

Th
i
s

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
y

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d

d
i
r
e
c
t

r
e
l
o
c
a
t
ion impacts to minority and low-income neighborhoods
an
d

d
i
d

n
o
t

f
u
l
l
y

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r

t
h
e

l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m

a
i
r

q
u
a
l
i
t
y
a
n
d

n
o
i
s
e

i
m
p
a
c
t
s
.

U
s
i
n
g

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

1
-
8
5

a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r

routes does not address the issue that minority and low-
in
c
o
m
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
s

w
o
u
l
d

h
a
v
e

t
o

d
r
i
v
e

f
u
r
t
h
e
r

a
n
d

a
t

g
reater cost than persons who would have access to the new toll facility. DSA 9, the preferred alternative,
al
s
o

h
a
s

o
n
e

o
f

t
h
e

h
i
g
h
e
s
t

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s

o
f

m
i
n
o
r
i
t
y
relocations of all of the DSAs (26-28 % of the total number of residential relocations).
a0
1
5
2
8
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
N
o
i
s
e
Se
c
t
i
o
n

4
.
1

o
f

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

c
o
n
t
a
i
n
s

d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
on regarding potential noise receptor impacts. For DSA 9, there are an estimated 245 total number of
im
p
a
c
t
e
d

r
e
c
e
p
t
o
r
s

u
s
i
n
g

F
H
W
A

N
o
i
s
e

A
b
a
t
e
m
e
n
t

C
r
i
t
e
ria. FHWA and NCTA are proposing 12 'feasible and reasonable' noise barriers that are 20,562
li
n
e
a
r

f
e
e
t

i
n

t
o
t
a
l

l
e
n
g
t
h

t
h
a
t

b
e
n
e
f
i
t

a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
el
y

1
6
9

i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d

r
e
c
e
p
t
o
r
s

f
o
r

D
S
A

9
.

N
C
T
A

a
n
d

F
H
W
A
are not proposing any other forms of potential
no
i
s
e

a
b
a
t
e
m
e
n
t

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

w
i
t
h
i
n

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

s
t
u
d
y

a
rea such as different pavement types, reduced speed limits, earthen berms, or vegetative screens.
Se
c
t
i
o
n

4
.
3
.
4

o
f

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
s

F
a
r
m
l
a
n
d

I
m
p
a
c
t
s. It should be noted that North Carolina lost more than 600,000 acres of farmland from 2002-2007
ac
c
o
r
d
i
n
g

t
o

a

r
e
c
e
n
t

c
e
n
s
u
s

b
y

t
h
e

U
.
S
.

C
e
n
s
u
s

o
f

Agriculture. Also in this period, North Carolina lost approximately 1,000 individual farms. A more recent
U.
S
.

D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t

o
f

A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e

r
e
p
o
r
t

i
n

2
0
0
7

s
h
o
w
e
d that North Carolina lost 1,000 farms in 2006 alone, making it the state with the largest loss of farms in
th
e

U
.
S
.
T
h
e
s
e

t
r
e
n
d
s

a
r
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

t
o

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e

a
s

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
olina continues to promote roadway infrastructure, development and urbanization further from
me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

c
e
n
t
e
r

d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
.

P
a
s
t

S
t
a
t
e

a
n
d

F
e
d
e
r
al initiatives to minimize farmland losses appear to be having little effect on these alarming trends.
No
n
e

o
f

t
h
e

f
a
r
m
l
a
n
d
s

i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d

f
o
r

t
h
e

D
S
A
s

a
r
e

c
o
n
sidered to meet the Land Evaluation Site Assessment (LESA) criteria under Title 7, CFR Part 658 as
be
i
n
g

P
r
i
m
e
,

U
n
i
q
u
e

o
r

o
f

S
t
a
t
e
w
i
d
e

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
.

H
o
w
ever, there are approximately 1,109 acres comprising 21 parcels in Gaston County and within the DSA
a0
1
5
2
9
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
F
a
r
m
l
a
n
d
be
i
n
g

P
r
i
m
e
,

U
n
i
q
u
e

o
r

o
f

S
t
a
t
e
w
i
d
e

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
.

H
o
w
ever, there are approximately 1,109 acres comprising 21 parcels in Gaston County and within the DSA
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
s

c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
n
g

i
n

l
o
c
a
l

V
o
l
u
n
t
a
r
y
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

(
V
A
D
)

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
.

T
h
i
s

p
r
o
g
r
a
m (NCGS Chapter 106, Sections 735-743) authorizes
co
u
n
t
i
e
s

t
o

u
n
d
e
r
t
a
k
e

a

s
e
r
i
e
s

o
f

p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s

t
o

e
n
c
o
u
rage the preservation of qualifying farmland and to foster growth, development and sustainability of
fa
m
i
l
y

f
a
r
m
s
.

F
i
g
u
r
e

4
-
3

d
e
p
i
c
t
s

t
h
e

p
a
r
c
e
l
s

p
a
r
t
i
c
ip
a
t
i
n
g

i
n

t
h
i
s

f
a
r
m
l
a
n
d

p
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

a
n
d

t
he corresponding locations within the DSAs. Table 4-11
pr
o
v
i
d
e
s

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

t
o

V
A
D

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s

a
n
d

D
S
A

9

w
o
u
l
d

potentially impact 449.1 acres and 10 properties that are participating in the farmland preservation
pr
o
g
r
a
m
.

T
h
e

s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
i
n
g

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

p
l
a
nning staff and future land use (i.e., greater suburban development) appears to be inconsistent with
th
e

i
n
t
e
n
t

o
f

N
C

G
e
n
e
r
a
l

S
t
a
t
u
t
e

f
o
r

V
A
D
s
.

E
P
A

a
l
s
o
does not concur with the 'relocation assessment' for active farms that will need to be relocated and
th
a
t

t
h
e
r
e

i
s

'
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e

r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
'

a
v
a
i
l
ab
l
e
.

T
h
e

D
E
I
S

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

o
f
f
e
r

a
n
y

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

a
v
o
i
d
a
n
ce and minimization measures (e.g., reduced right of
wa
y
,

k
e
e
p
i
n
g

t
o

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

b
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
,

p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g

a
c
c
e
ss to dissected fields, etc.) to potentially reduce impacts to farmlands.
a0
1
5
3
0
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

N
o
t
e
d
Th
e

D
E
I
S

i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
s

o
t
h
e
r

h
u
m
a
n

a
n
d

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
ment impacts for the DSA 9 preferred alternative as well as other DSAs in Table S-2, including 348
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

r
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,

3
7

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

r
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,

1
8
n
a
m
e
d

n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s

i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
,

3

c
h
u
r
c
h
e
s

i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
, 1 public park, 24 hazardous material sites, 13
fl
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n

c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
,

2

h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

w
i
t
h

N
o

Adverse Effects, 177 acres in agricultural lands, and 882 acres of terrestrial forests. Potential impacts to
ar
c
h
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

s
i
t
e
s

a
r
e

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d

t
o

b
e

'
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
'
, but final surveys have not been conducted.
a0
1
5
3
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d

Sp
e
c
i
e
s

a
n
d

Wi
l
d
l
i
f
e
Du
e

t
o

t
h
e

r
u
r
a
l

n
a
t
u
r
e

o
f

a

s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l

p
o
r
t
i
o
n

o
f
t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

s
t
u
d
y

a
r
e
a

a
n
d

t
h
e

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

i
m
p
a
c
t
s
to terrestrial forests, the EPA believes that wildlife habitat
fr
a
g
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

i
s

a

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

i
s
s
u
e
,

i
nc
l
u
d
i
n
g

s
a
f
e
t
y

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
.

E
P
A

b
e
l
i
e
v
e
s

t
h
a
t

f
u
r
t
h
e
r
consultation with FWS and WRC is needed to identify
wi
l
d
l
i
f
e

c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r

m
i
n
i
m
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

involving large mammals such as deer, and a new, high-speed, multi-lane facility. EPA notes the
co
m
m
e
n
t
s

o
n

p
a
g
e

6
-
1
8

o
f

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
i
n
g

t
h
e

f
e
asibility and design of the wildlife passage at Stream S156.
a0
1
5
3
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

Ef
f
e
c
t
s
In

g
e
n
e
r
a
l
,

t
h
e

I
n
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

E
f
f
e
c
t
s

(
I
C
E - Section 7) is not specific, and provides no quantitative data to characterize the existing conditions in
th
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

a
r
e
a

(
s
u
c
h

a
s

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

l
a
n
d

u
s
e

b
y

c
o
m
m
e
rcial, agriculture, etc.). There are no quantitative data concerning potential impacts to wetlands,
st
r
e
a
m
s
,

w
a
t
e
r

q
u
a
l
i
t
y
,

a
n
d

h
a
b
i
t
a
t
.

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

7

o
f

t
he

D
E
I
S

o
n
l
y

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s

q
u
a
l
i
t
a
t
i
v
e

s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
s
,

a
n
d

i
n some cases, subjective conclusions. The DEIS
as
s
u
m
e
s

t
h
a
t

g
r
o
w
t
h

w
i
l
l

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e

i
n

t
h
e

c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r

r
egardless of the construction new location roadway, and that the existing local and state requirements will
mi
n
i
m
i
z
e

i
m
p
a
c
t
s
.

H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,

n
o

d
a
t
a

i
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

t
o

s
upport these conclusions. For this proposed toll facility, the ICE is broken up into 'Districts'. EPA does
no
t

c
o
n
c
u
r

w
i
t
h

n
u
m
e
r
o
u
s

s
u
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e

s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
s

c
o
n
c
erning future development and growth 'without' the proposed project. Interchange locations as
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d

o
n

p
a
g
e
s

7
-
1
4

a
n
d

7
-
1
5

a
r
e

v
e
r
y

l
i
k
e
l
y

t
o
d
e
v
e
l
o
p

i
n

t
h
e

f
u
t
u
r
e

-

b
u
t

o
n
l
y

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

n
e
w

r
o
a
dway.Gaston Connector DEIS Agency Comment Database 13
DEIS - Public Release Comments Federal and State Agencies
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

N
o
.
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Comments or questions about the DEIS
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

DE
I
S

F
i
g
u
r
e

7
-
2

a
n
d

p
a
g
e

7
-
1
2

o
f

t
h
e

I
C
I

d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
es the expected travel 'time savings' from the project. More than half of the project area shows little if
an
y

(
0
-
5

m
i
n
u
t
e
s
)

'
t
i
m
e

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
'

i
n

t
r
a
v
e
l

f
r
o
m

t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.

T
h
e

g
r
e
a
t
e
s
t

a
r
e
a

o
f

t
r
a
v
e
l

t
i
m
e
improvement is along the project in the southeast
co
m
e
r

o
f

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

a
n
d

s
o
u
t
h

t
o

Y
o
r
k

C
o
u
n
t
y
.

T
here appears to be little to no change for most of Gaston County and project study area. However,
a0
1
5
3
3
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

Ef
f
e
c
t
s
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
co
m
e
r

o
f

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

a
n
d

s
o
u
t
h

t
o

Y
o
r
k

C
o
u
n
t
y
.

T
here appears to be little to no change for most of Gaston County and project study area. However,
Ta
b
l
e

7
-
2

o
n

p
a
g
e

7
-
2
0
,

w
h
i
c
h

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s

a

"
H
i
g
h

P
o
t
ential for Project to Improve Mobility, Access, and Connectivity" in both Gaston and Mecklenburg
po
r
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

t
h
e

I
C
E

s
t
u
d
y

a
r
e
a
,

w
h
i
c
h

i
s

i
n
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
nt with the fact that more than half of Gaston County's portion of the study area is shown with little to no
't
i
m
e

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
'
,

a
n
d

a
l
l

o
f

M
e
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g

C
o
u
n
t
y
'
s

p
o
r
tion of the study area is shown with little to no time savings (Figure 7-2).
a0
1
5
3
4
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

Ef
f
e
c
t
s
Th
e

F
E
l
S

s
h
o
u
l
d

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

m
o
r
e

q
u
a
n
t
i
t
a
t
i
v
e

d
a
t
a

o
n

e
xisting conditions and potential impacts to wetlands, streams, water quality, and habitat from the No
Bu
i
l
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

a
n
d

t
h
e

P
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
.

F
o
r
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
,

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

l
a
n
d

u
s
e

m
a
y

b
e

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

u
s
i
n
g
the NWI data or other GIS wetland data and the
US
G
S
'
s

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

G
A
P

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
'
s

l
a
n
d

u
se coverage map. There are also many useful GIS data layers at NC One Map. The FElS should
ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
e

t
h
e

a
c
r
e
a
g
e

o
f

i
n
d
u
c
e
d

g
r
o
w
t
h

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

P
r
eferred Alternative, using the No Build as a baseline. The FElS should also calculate the cumulative
am
o
u
n
t

o
f

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s

s
u
r
f
a
c
e
s

a
d
d
e
d

a
n
d

c
umulative increases in percent impervious surface for each watershed from the proposed project and
ot
h
e
r

r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y

f
o
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.

F
o
r

i
n
s
t
a
n
ce, the FElS developed for the 1-73 project (TIP 1-4923) utilized NRCS' s Urban Hydrology for Small
Wa
t
e
r
s
h
e
d

B
a
s
i
n
s
:

1
9
7
5

t
o

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

t
h
e

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

impervious surfaces for land use type. This FElS then multiplied the predicted acreage of a type of
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

(
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,

c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
,

e
t
c
.
)

b
y

t
h
e

corresponding percentage (e.g. 85% for commercial development, 72% for industrial development, etc.).
Li
k
e
w
i
s
e
,

l
a
n
d

u
s
e

m
o
d
e
l
s

a
n
d

a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

G
I
S

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
tion on wetlands and streams in the project area could be used to develop predictions of indirect and
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

t
o

w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s

a
n
d

s
t
r
e
a
m
s

i
n

t
h
e

w
atershed.
At

a

m
i
n
i
m
u
m
,

t
h
e

F
E
l
S

s
h
o
u
l
d

l
i
s
t

k
n
o
w
n

a
r
e
a
s

o
f

i
mpacts (recent and future TIP projects with projected impacts and other permitted or planned activities)
al
o
n
g

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

a
m
o
u
n
t
s

a
n
d

a

t
o
t
a
l

e
s
t
i
m
a
ted impact for each watershed. Further, the water quality impacts could be estimated using the FHWA's
"C
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
s

o
f

H
i
g
h
w
a
y

R
u
n
o
f
f
'

t
o

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

t
h
e

a
m
ount of pollutant that would enter streams after a twenty-day buildup period, assuming there were no
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

s
u
c
h

a
s

r
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n

b
a
s
i
n
s

o
r

d
i
t
c
h
e
s

t
o

f
il
t
e
r

s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
.

I
t

i
s

u
n
d
e
r
s
t
o
o
d

t
h
a
t

s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r

r
e
quirements must be met, and that avoidance and
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s

s
u
c
h

a
s

r
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n

b
a
s
i
n
s

o
r

d
i
t
c
h
e
s

t
o

f
il
t
e
r

s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
.

I
t

i
s

u
n
d
e
r
s
t
o
o
d

t
h
a
t

s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r

r
e
quirements must be met, and that avoidance and
mi
n
i
m
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

e
f
f
o
r
t
s

m
a
y

r
e
d
u
c
e

t
h
e

a
m
o
u
n
t

o
f

e
s
t
i
m
ated wetland and stream impacts. It is also understood that the quantitative information is an estimate,
an
d

m
a
y

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

a

w
o
r
s
t
-
c
a
s
e

s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
.

H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,

t
h
e
FEIS should provide as much quantitative information as possible and EPA is requesting a more
'q
u
a
n
t
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
'

i
n
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

i
m
p
a
c
t

a
s
s
e
s
sment for the preferred DSA 9 alignment for all the 'Districts' .
a0
1
5
3
5
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
US

E
P
A

R
e
g
i
o
n

4
At
l
a
n
t
a

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r
Mu
e
l
l
e
r
H
e
i
n
z
E
d
i
t
o
r
i
a
l
EP
A

n
o
t
e
s

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

i
s

d
i
v
i
d
e
d

i
n
t
o

t
w
e
l
v
e

(
1
2
)
sections. There is a recommended format for environmental impact statements specified at Title 40 of
th
e

C
o
d
e

o
f

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
5
0
2
.
1
0
.

E
P
A recommends that the FElS for this proposed toll facility be presented in the recommended format
co
n
t
a
i
n
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

C
E
Q

r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.

S
u
b
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

u
n
d
e
r
the basic chapter headings might be used as appropriate.Gaston Connector DEIS Agency Comment Database 14

APPENDIX D

Comments from Local Governments

Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
DE
I
S

-

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
l
e
a
s
e

C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
Lo
c
a
l

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
s
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

N
o
.
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

o
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
g0
0
4
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
U
n
i
o
n

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Co
o
k
R
o
b
e
r
t
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Ai
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Pa
g
e

S
-
1
6
,

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

S
.
9
,

4
t
h

b
u
l
l
e
t
:

T
h
e

s
e
n
t
e
n
c
e

s
h
ould read: Local LRTPs should be developed to ensure consistency of design concept and scope with
th
e

P
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

(
i
f

t
h
e

p
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
ti
v
e

i
s

a

t
o
l
l

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
)
.
Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
g0
0
4
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
U
n
i
o
n

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Co
o
k
R
o
b
e
r
t
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Pa
g
e

1
-
5
,

S
e
c
.

1
.
4
.
2
.
1
:

A
d
d

t
h
e

f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g

n
o
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
•2
0
0
5
:

T
h
e

M
U
M
P
O

2
0
3
0

L
R
T
P

f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

a
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s

n
o
te that Urban Loop funds will be made available for construction of the Garden Parkway.
•2
0
0
9
:

F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l

a
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

2
0
3
5

L
R
T
P

s
t
a
t
e that the project will be built as a toll facility.
g0
0
4
3
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
U
n
i
o
n

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Co
o
k
R
o
b
e
r
t
E
d
i
t
o
r
i
a
l
Pa
g
e

1
-
7
,

S
e
c
.

1
.
5
.
1
.
1
:

I
-
8
5

b
e
g
i
n
s

i
n

P
e
t
e
r
s
b
u
r
g
,

Virginia, not Richmond, Virginia. I-485 now extends beyond NC 16 to NC 115 in northeast Mecklenburg
Co
u
n
t
y
.
g0
0
4
4
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
U
n
i
o
n

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Co
o
k
R
o
b
e
r
t
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Pa
g
e

1
-
8
,

S
e
c
.

1
.
5
.
1
.
1
:

T
h
e
r
e

i
s

a

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

d
i
a
m
o
n
d
interchange for I-485 at the West Boulevard Ext. for which the ramps have been graded.
g0
0
4
5
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
U
n
i
o
n

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Co
o
k
R
o
b
e
r
t
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Pa
g
e

1
-
9
,

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
.
5
.
1
.
3
:

T
h
e

2
n
d

p
a
r
a
g
r
a
p
h

n
o
t
e
s

19,000 vpd on US 29-74 in 2006 at the Catawba River while Table 1-3 notes the same location with
45
,
1
0
0

v
p
d
.
g0
0
4
6
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
U
n
i
o
n

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Co
o
k
R
o
b
e
r
t
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Pa
g
e

1
-
1
0
,

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
.
5
.
2
.
1
:

T
h
e
r
e

i
s

n
o

C
S
X

l
i
n
e

w
i
thin the study area.
g0
0
4
7
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
U
n
i
o
n

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Co
o
k
R
o
b
e
r
t
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Pa
g
e

1
-
2
1
,

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
.
8
.
2
.
1
:

T
h
e

a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t

f
o
r

t
h
e

G
aston East-West Connector referred to in Figure 1-9 is also misaligned in Figure 1-10. The intent is for
th
e

a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
s

t
o

m
a
t
c
h
.

T
h
e
r
e

m
a
y

b
e

a
n

e
r
r
o
r

i
n

o
ne of the MPO GIS files that caused this mismatch. If this alignment is corrected on figures 1-9 and 1-
10
,

p
l
e
a
s
e

r
e
m
o
v
e

t
h
e

s
e
n
t
e
n
c
e

r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
i
n
g

t
h
e

m
i
s
m
atch.
Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
10
,

p
l
e
a
s
e

r
e
m
o
v
e

t
h
e

s
e
n
t
e
n
c
e

r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
i
n
g

t
h
e

m
i
s
m
atch.
g0
0
4
8
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
U
n
i
o
n

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Co
o
k
R
o
b
e
r
t
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Pa
g
e

1
-
2
3
,

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
.
8
.
2
.
4
:

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

U
-
3
4
1
1

w
a
s

n
o
t

ranked in the 2030 LRTP because it was funded and considered as an Existing & Committed (Funded)
pr
o
j
e
c
t
.

D
e
l
e
t
e

t
h
e

s
e
n
t
e
n
c
e

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

n
o
t

being ranked.
g0
0
4
9
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
U
n
i
o
n

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Co
o
k
R
o
b
e
r
t
E
d
i
t
o
r
i
a
l
Fi
g
u
r
e

1
-
1
:

T
h
e

m
a
p

s
h
o
u
l
d

s
h
o
w

I
-
4
8
5

b
e
i
n
g

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e north of I-85 to just east of I-77.
g0
0
4
1
0
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
U
n
i
o
n

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Co
o
k
R
o
b
e
r
t
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Fi
g
u
r
e
s

1
-
9

a
n
d

1
-
1
0
:

B
o
t
h

m
a
p
s

s
h
o
w

t
h
e

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r

being offset at the Catawba River (See comments above referencing Page 1-21).
g0
0
4
1
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
U
n
i
o
n

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Co
o
k
R
o
b
e
r
t
E
d
i
t
o
r
i
a
l
Pa
g
e

2
-
3
5
,

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

2
.
3
.
2
.
2
,

E
x
h
i
b
i
t

2
-
1
:

I
n
c
l
u
d
e

a

la
r
g
e
r
,

c
o
l
o
r

v
e
r
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

F
u
t
u
r
e

A
i
r
p
o
r
t

L
a
y
o
u
t

map, either as a Figure in Chapter 2 or in the
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
.
g0
0
4
1
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
U
n
i
o
n

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Co
o
k
R
o
b
e
r
t
E
d
i
t
o
r
i
a
l
Fi
g
u
r
e
s

2
-
9

g
g
,

2
-
9
h
h
:

C
h
a
r
l
o
t
t
e
-
D
u
r
h
a
m

I
n
t
’
l

A
i
r
p
o
rt should be Charlotte-Douglas International Airport.
g0
0
4
1
3
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
U
n
i
o
n

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Co
o
k
R
o
b
e
r
t
E
d
i
t
o
r
i
a
l
Fi
g
u
r
e
s

2
-
9

g
g
,

2
-
9
h
h
,

2
-
9
i
i
:

S
h
o
w

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e

with I-485 for each alternative on separate maps.
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
U
n
i
o
n

Fi
g
u
r
e
s

2
-
9
i
i
:

T
h
e

n
o
t
e

b
y

t
h
e

W
e
s
t

B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d

R
e
a
l
i
gnment should either be removed or state “Construction by Others” instead of “Construction by Airport.”
g0
0
4
1
4
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
U
n
i
o
n

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Co
o
k
R
o
b
e
r
t
E
d
i
t
o
r
i
a
l
Fi
g
u
r
e
s

2
-
9
i
i
:

T
h
e

n
o
t
e

b
y

t
h
e

W
e
s
t

B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d

R
e
a
l
i
gnment should either be removed or state “Construction by Others” instead of “Construction by Airport.”
g0
0
4
1
5
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
U
n
i
o
n

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Co
o
k
R
o
b
e
r
t
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

G
a
r
r
i
s
o
n

R
o
a
d
,

a

n
o
r
t
h
-
s
o
u
t
h
,

m
i
n
o
r
thoroughfare, is shown on the MUMPO Thoroughfare Plan. The Connector’s design should not preclude
a
f
u
t
u
r
e

g
r
a
d
e

s
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

i
t

a
n
d

G
a
r
r
i
s
o
n

R
oad.Appendix D Local Government Comments Gaston Connector DEIS 1
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
DE
I
S

-

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
l
e
a
s
e

C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
Lo
c
a
l

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
s
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

N
o
.
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

o
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
g0
0
4
1
6
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
U
n
i
o
n

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Co
o
k
R
o
b
e
r
t
E
d
i
t
o
r
i
a
l
Th
e

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

s
h
o
u
l
d

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

u
p
d
a
t
e
d

m
a
p
s

o
f

n
e
w

r
o
a
dways in the vicinity of the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, including the Wallace Neel Road
Re
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
g0
0
4
1
7
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
U
n
i
o
n

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Co
o
k
R
o
b
e
r
t
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Ho
w

w
i
l
l

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d

W
a
l
l
a
c
e

N
e
e
l

R
o
ad get to Steele Creek Road once the East-West Connector is open to traffic?
g0
0
4
1
8
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
U
n
i
o
n

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Co
o
k
R
o
b
e
r
t
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Ac
c
e
s
s

w
i
l
l

n
e
e
d

t
o

b
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

C
h
a
r
l
o
t
t
e
-
D
o
uglas International Airport’s intermodal facility which will have its primary entrance near the current
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

S
t
e
e
l
e

C
r
e
e
k

R
o
a
d

a
n
d

B
y
r
u
m

D
r
.
g0
0
4
1
9
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
U
n
i
o
n

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Co
o
k
R
o
b
e
r
t
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
n
s
u
l
t

C
h
a
r
l
o
t
t
e
-
D
o
u
g
l
a
s

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

A
i
r
p
o
r
t

s
t
a
ff to determine if there are conflicts between the proposed design of the Connector east of the I-485
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e

t
o
w
a
r
d

S
t
e
e
l
e

C
r
e
e
k

R
o
a
d
.
g0
0
4
2
0
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
U
n
i
o
n

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Co
o
k
R
o
b
e
r
t
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

Ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

an
d

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Th
e
r
e

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

b
i
c
y
c
l
e

l
a
n
e
s

a
n
d sidewalks on Dixie River Road and the relocated Garrison Road where they cross the Connector.
g0
0
4
2
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
U
n
i
o
n

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Co
o
k
R
o
b
e
r
t
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
W
e
r
e

t
h
e

r
u
n
w
a
y

a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s

f
r
o
m

C
h
a
r
l
o
t
t
e

D
o
u
g
l
a
s

I
nternational Airport taken into consideration with the I-485/Gaston East –West Connector
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e

d
e
s
i
g
n
?
g0
0
4
2
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
U
n
i
o
n

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Co
o
k
R
o
b
e
r
t
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

Ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

an
d

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Wi
l
l

t
h
e
r
e

b
e

p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s

a
n
d
/
o
r

b
i
c
yclists on the bridge over the Catawba River?
Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
an
d

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
g0
0
4
2
3
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
U
n
i
o
n

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Co
o
k
R
o
b
e
r
t
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Th
e

C
h
a
r
l
o
t
t
e
-
D
o
u
g
l
a
s

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

A
i
r
p
o
r
t

w
i
l
l

b
e
paving the ramps for the West Boulevard Extension interchange with I-485. This interchange will have a
si
m
p
l
e

d
i
a
m
o
n
d

c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
.

T
h
e

G
a
s
t
o
n
-
E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

Connector should utilize this interchange as much as possible to preserve the existing infrastructure
to

m
a
x
i
m
i
z
e

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
s
t

s
a
v
i
n
g
s
.
g0
0
4
2
4
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
U
n
i
o
n

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Co
o
k
R
o
b
e
r
t
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Pa
g
e

S
-
1
1
,

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

S
.
8
.
3
.
2
,

2
n
d

p
a
r
a
g
r
a
p
h
:

I
t

i
s

i
m
portant to note that this project is part of a conforming transportation plan. However, compliance with the
oz
o
n
e

a
n
d
/
o
r

C
O

N
A
A
Q
S

i
s

n
o
t

d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
d

i
f

t
h
e

p
r
oject is included in a conforming transportation plan. Conformity is not equivalent to meeting the
NA
A
Q
S
.
g0
0
4
2
5
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
U
n
i
o
n

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Co
o
k
R
o
b
e
r
t
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Pa
g
e

4
-
1
6

&

4
-
1
7
,

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

4
.
2
.
2
:

S
t
a
r
t
i
n
g

i
n

t
h
e

6
t
h paragraph on page 4-16, an “interim emissions test” in a moderate nonattainment area requires a
fi
n
d
i
n
g

t
h
a
t

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

w
i
l
l

b
e

l
e
s
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
ed improvements in the LRTP/TIP than they would be without the improvements.
g0
0
4
2
6
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
U
n
i
o
n

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Co
o
k
R
o
b
e
r
t
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Pa
g
e

4
-
1
8
,

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

4
.
2
.
2
:

I
n

t
h
e

1
s
t

p
a
r
a
g
r
a
p
h
,

a
n

“interim emissions test” in a moderate nonattainment area requires a finding that emissions will be less
wi
t
h

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s

i
n

t
h
e

L
R
T
P
/
T
I
P

t
h
a
n
they would be without the improvements. In marginal nonattainment areas, the interim emissions test
is

a

“
n
o

g
r
e
a
t
e
r

t
h
a
n
”

t
e
s
t
.
g0
0
4
2
7
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
U
n
i
o
n

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Co
o
k
R
o
b
e
r
t
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Pa
g
e

4
-
2
2
,

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

4
.
2
.
5
.
1
:

I
n

t
h
e

t
o
p

p
a
r
a
g
r
a
p
h
,

t
he sentence beginning with “Therefore, compliance of a project with the ozone NAAQS…” is not correct.
Co
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

o
z
o
n
e

N
A
A
Q
S

i
s

n
o
t

d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
d
if the project is included in a conforming plan. In marginal nonattainment areas, the interim
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

t
e
s
t

i
s

a

“
n
o

g
r
e
a
t
e
r

t
h
a
n
”

t
e
s
t
.
g0
0
4
2
8
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
U
n
i
o
n

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Co
o
k
R
o
b
e
r
t
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Pa
g
e

4
-
2
4
,

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

4
.
2
.
5
.
3
:

A
i
r

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

d
u
e
to construction can be reduced significantly by following the recommendations in the EPA document,
Cl
e
a
n
e
r

D
i
e
s
e
l
s
:

L
o
w

C
o
s
t

W
a
y
s

t
o

R
e
d
u
c
e

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

from Construction Equipment (March, 2007). Construction equipment using diesel or gasoline fuel
sh
o
u
l
d

b
e

n
o

e
a
r
l
i
e
r

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

2
0
0
7

m
o
d
e
l

y
e
a
r
,

o
r

i
f older, should be retrofitted with pollution control devices to be equivalent to a 2007 model year. This can
re
s
u
l
t

i
n

a

9
0

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

i
n

N
O
x

a
n
d

P
M

e
m
i
s
sions.
Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
re
s
u
l
t

i
n

a

9
0

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

i
n

N
O
x

a
n
d

P
M

e
m
i
s
sions.Appendix D Local Government Comments Gaston Connector DEIS 2
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
DE
I
S

-

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
l
e
a
s
e

C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
Lo
c
a
l

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
s
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

N
o
.
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

o
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
g0
0
4
29
le
t
t
e
r
7/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
-
U
n
i
o
n

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Co
o
k
Ro
b
e
r
t
Ai
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Th
e

r
e
p
o
r
t

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

a
n

a
i
r

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
nt of the Connector. There is no estimate of daily NOx emissions for any of the alternatives for any
pr
o
j
e
c
t

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n

y
e
a
r
.

T
h
e
r
e

i
s

a
l
s
o

n
o

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

of what the daily NOx emissions for the no-build scenario. The VMT projections provided in Appendix H
do

s
h
o
w

a

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

t
h
e

b
y
p
a
s
s
,

a
nd not building the bypass. While the emissions of NOx do not directly indicate how much ozone may
g0
0
4
29
le
t
t
e
r
7/
2
0
/
2
0
0
9
Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Co
o
k
Ro
b
e
r
t
Ai
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
do

s
h
o
w

a

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

t
h
e

b
y
p
a
s
s
,

a
nd not building the bypass. While the emissions of NOx do not directly indicate how much ozone may
be

f
o
r
m
e
d
,

N
O
x

i
s

e
s
s
e
n
t
i
a
l

t
o

t
h
e

f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

o
z
o
ne.
g0
0
8
1
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
C
i
t
y

o
f

B
e
l
m
o
n
t
W
e
b
b
B
a
r
r
y
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
WH
E
R
E
A
S
,

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

o
f

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

o
f

B
e
l
m
o
n
t

h
a
s on two prior occasions (February 1, 1999 and December 1, 2008) adopted resolutions endorsing the
se
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

w
h
a
t

h
a
d

b
e
e
n

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y

r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

t
o

a
s the Middle Alignment (KID): NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City
of

B
e
l
m
o
n
t
,

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

h
e
r
e
b
y

r
e
a
f
f
i
r
m
s

i
t
s

p
o
s
ition requesting that the NC Turnpike Authority reconsider its abandonment of the former Middle
Al
i
g
n
m
e
n
t

(
K
I
D
)

b
y

f
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
i
n
g

a

r
o
u
t
e

t
h
a
t
, while necessarily avoiding new improvements to Duke Energy's Plant Allen Steam Station, would more
cl
o
s
e
l
y

a
d
h
e
r
e

t
o

t
h
e

r
o
u
t
e

f
o
r
m
a
l
l
y

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

b
y

t
h
e original Gaston County Citizens Bypass Committee, preferably paralleling the northern bank of the
Pl
a
n
t

A
l
l
e
n

c
a
n
a
l

a
s

c
l
o
s
e
l
y

a
s

p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
.

g0
0
8
2
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
C
i
t
y

o
f

B
e
l
m
o
n
t
W
e
b
b
B
a
r
r
y
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
BE

I
T
,

T
H
E
R
E
F
O
R
E
,

F
U
R
T
H
E
R

R
E
S
O
L
V
E
D
,

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

C
ouncil of the City of Belmont, North Carolina also affirms its support of another bridge crossing
of

t
h
e

C
a
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r

o
n

t
h
e

S
o
u
t
h

P
o
i
n
t

p
e
n
i
n
s
u
l
a

t
o alleviate future traffic in this area.
g0
1
2
1
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
6
/
3
/
2
0
0
9
Ga
s
t
o
n

U
r
b
a
n

A
r
e
a

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Gr
a
h
a
m
,

J
r
.
J
a
m
e
s
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Th
e

T
A
C

h
a
s

d
e
e
m
e
d

t
h
e

G
a
r
d
e
n

P
a
r
k
w
a
y

t
o

b
e

t
h
e

t
o
p
priority roadway project for the Gaston Urban Area MPO region as the number of residences in
so
u
t
h
e
r
n

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

a
n
d

w
e
s
t
e
r
n

M
e
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g

C
o
u
n
ty has increased by 24% over the last eight years and the limited
nu
m
b
e
r

o
f

c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s

o
f

t
h
e

C
a
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r

c
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
s
travel between the two counties.
g0
1
2
2
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
6
/
3
/
2
0
0
9
Ga
s
t
o
n

U
r
b
a
n

A
r
e
a

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Gr
a
h
a
m
,

J
r
.
J
a
m
e
s
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Th
e
r
e

i
s

a

l
a
c
k

o
f

c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g

e
a
s
t
-
w
e
s
t

r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s

i
n
southern Gaston County, despite the extant and predicted high rates of growth in this area. This rapid
gr
o
w
t
h
,

c
o
u
p
l
e
d

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

a
l
r
e
a
d
y

c
r
o
w
d
e
d

I
n
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
85, necessitates a new roadway to help ameliorate traffic congestion and improve regional mobility. The
Ga
r
d
e
n

P
a
r
k
w
a
y

i
s

a

S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c

H
i
g
h
w
a
y

C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r

a
n
d

is designated as a new freeway facility within the Strategic Highway Corridors Vision Plan.
g0
1
2
3
re
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
6/
3
/
2
0
0
9
Ga
s
t
o
n

U
r
b
a
n

A
r
e
a

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Gr
a
h
a
m
,

J
r
.
Ja
m
e
s
Ai
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
,

t
h
e

G
a
r
d
e
n

P
a
r
k
w
a
y

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

w
i
l
l

i
m
p
r
o
ve air quality monitoring and emission conditions for the Charlotte Metropolitan region, of which the
Ga
s
t
o
n

U
r
b
a
n

A
r
e
a

M
P
O

i
s

a

p
a
r
t
.

T
h
i
s

i
s

p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
ly necessary as this region was designated an 8-hour ozone non-attainment area in 2005, meaning that
g0
1
2
3
re
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
6/
3
/
2
0
0
9
Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Gr
a
h
a
m
,

J
r
.
Ja
m
e
s
Ai
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Ga
s
t
o
n

U
r
b
a
n

A
r
e
a

M
P
O

i
s

a

p
a
r
t
.

T
h
i
s

i
s

p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
ly necessary as this region was designated an 8-hour ozone non-attainment area in 2005, meaning that
an
y

r
o
a
d

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

t
h
a
t

c
a
n

l
e
s
s
e
n

c
o
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n

a
r
e

e
x
tremely important.
g0
1
2
4
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
6
/
3
/
2
0
0
9
Ga
s
t
o
n

U
r
b
a
n

A
r
e
a

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Gr
a
h
a
m
,

J
r
.
J
a
m
e
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
NO
W

T
H
E
R
E
F
O
R
E

B
E

I
T

R
E
S
O
L
V
E
D
,

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
on Advisory Committee of the
Ga
s
t
o
n

U
r
b
a
n

A
r
e
a

M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n endorses the Draft Environmental
Im
p
a
c
t

S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t

c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

T
u
rnpike Authority.
g0
1
6
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
7
/
2
0
0
9
Ga
s
t
o
n

U
r
b
a
n

A
r
e
a

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Gr
a
h
a
m
,

J
r
.
J
a
m
e
s
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
El
i
m
i
n
a
t
e

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
r

m
o
v
e

i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e

#
7

B
u
d

W
ilson Road to Beaty Road. Rationale: a) Beaty Rd. will serve new residential and commercial
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s

(
S
p
r
i
n
g
h
a
v
e
n

&

P
r
e
s
s
l
e
y
)
.

b
)

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
traffic counts between Bud Wilson and Union Rd. is ~28,000. There are current plans to straighten
Un
i
o
n

R
d
.

t
o

l
e
s
s
e
n

t
h
e

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
r
e
a
s

a
n
d

t
h
e

c
u
r
r
e
n
t

B
u
d

W
i
l
s
o
n

i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e

w
o
u
l
d
actually increase traffic. c) Extending and relocating
th
e

i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e

t
o

B
e
a
t
y

R
o
a
d

w
o
u
l
d

b
e

m
o
r
e

f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e from a cost effective and functional standpoint. (See attached functional design for Union/Beaty Rd.)
g0
1
6
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
7
/
2
0
0
9
Ga
s
t
o
n

U
r
b
a
n

A
r
e
a

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Gr
a
h
a
m
,

J
r
.
J
a
m
e
s
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
L
e
a
v
e

b
o
t
h

t
h
e

E
d
g
e
w
o
o
d

R
o
a
d
/
I
-
8
5

a
n
d

t
h
e

G
a
s
t
o
n
i
a
/Bessemer City Hwy/I-85 interchanges open.
g0
1
6
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
7
/
2
0
0
9
Ga
s
t
o
n

U
r
b
a
n

A
r
e
a

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Gr
a
h
a
m
,

J
r
.
J
a
m
e
s
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Pr
o
v
i
d
e

a

m
o
r
e

d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

w
h
y

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d traffic counts along 1-85 continue to remain high even in light of Garden Parkway construction. The
pr
o
j
e
c
t
'
s

p
u
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

n
e
e
d

s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
,

s
t
a
t
e
s

t
h
a
t

t
he Garden Parkway is to provide an alternative Catawba River crossing between Gaston County and
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g

C
o
u
n
t
y
.
g0
1
6
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
7
/
2
0
0
9
Ga
s
t
o
n

U
r
b
a
n

A
r
e
a

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Gr
a
h
a
m
,

J
r
.
J
a
m
e
s
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

Ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

a
n
d

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Pl
e
a
s
e

a
d
j
u
s
t

a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t

a
s

t
o

n
o
t

d
e
t
r
i
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y

i
m
p
act the Belmont Optimist Athletic Park.
Ga
s
t
o
n

U
r
b
a
n

A
r
e
a

La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Th
e

c
u
r
r
e
n
t

G
a
s
t
o
n

M
P
O

t
h
o
r
o
u
g
h
f
a
r
e

p
l
a
n

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

t
he proposed Belmont/Mt. Holly loop which intersects the Garden Parkway. Please incorporate a grade
g0
1
6
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
7
/
2
0
0
9
Ga
s
t
o
n

U
r
b
a
n

A
r
e
a

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Gr
a
h
a
m
,

J
r
.
J
a
m
e
s
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Th
e

c
u
r
r
e
n
t

G
a
s
t
o
n

M
P
O

t
h
o
r
o
u
g
h
f
a
r
e

p
l
a
n

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

t
he proposed Belmont/Mt. Holly loop which intersects the Garden Parkway. Please incorporate a grade
se
p
a
r
a
t
e
d

c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g

(
o
v
e
r

o
r

u
n
d
e
r
p
a
s
s
)

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

f
u
n
ctional design segment.
g0
1
6
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
7
/
2
0
0
9
Ga
s
t
o
n

U
r
b
a
n

A
r
e
a

Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
Gr
a
h
a
m
,

J
r
.
J
a
m
e
s
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Th
e

G
a
s
t
o
n

M
P
O

s
t
r
o
n
g
l
y

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
s

t
h
e

n
e
w

i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
on location of Hudson Blvd and the Garden Parkway.Appendix D Local Government Comments Gaston Connector DEIS 3
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
DE
I
S

-

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
l
e
a
s
e

C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
Lo
c
a
l

G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
s
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

N
o
.
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

o
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
g0
1
7
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
6
/
2
0
0
9
Ga
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Pr
i
c
e
M
i
c
k
e
y
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
It

i
s

m
y

o
p
i
n
i
o
n

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

P
a
r
k
w
a
y

n
e
e
d
s

t
o

r
u
n

f
r
o
m
I-485 to I-85 near Edgewood Road and NOT terminate at US 321 south of Gastonia. Termination of the
Ga
r
d
e
n

P
a
r
k
w
a
y

a
t

3
2
1
s
o
u
t
h

o
f

G
a
s
t
o
n
i
a

w
i
l
l

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e traffic on I85 rather than decrease it. It also could impact toll road use and therefore reduce toll fee
in
t
a
k
e

w
h
i
c
h

i
s

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

f
o

r
G
a
r
d
e
n

P
a
r
k
w
a
y

r
o
a
d

p
a
yments.
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
i
n
t
a
k
e

w
h
i
c
h

i
s

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

f
o

r
G
a
r
d
e
n

P
a
r
k
w
a
y
r
o
a
d

p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
.

g0
1
7
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
6
/
2
0
0
9
Ga
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Pr
i
c
e
M
i
c
k
e
y
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Th
e

G
a
r
d
e
n

P
a
r
k
w
a
y

w
a
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

t
o

b
e

t
h
e

m
a
j
o
r

b
a
c
kbone of Gaston county's highway network to enable quicker access to Charlotte Douglas Airpoirt,
re
l
i
e
v
e

c
o
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n

o
n

t
h
e

c
u
r
r
e
n
t

U
S
2
9
/
7
4

B
y
p
a
s
s
,

a
nd perform a similar role for I-85 upon its completion.
g0
1
8
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
7
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g

C
o
u
n
t
y

P
a
r
k

an
d

R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n

D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Jo
n
e
s
W
.

L
e
e
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

N
o
t
e
d
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

Ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

an
d

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
As

s
t
a
t
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

r
e
p
o
r
t
,

M
e
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g

C
o
u
n
t
y

P
a
r
k

a
n
d Recreation (MCPR) recognizes the necessity the Turnpike Authority pursuing minor right-of-way
ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n

a
l
o
n
g

t
h
e

e
d
g
e
s

o
f

p
u
b
l
i
c
l
y
-
o
w
n
e
d

p
r
o
p
e
rty designated as future Berewick Park. MCPR requests only continued diligence in minimizing this
im
p
a
c
t

t
o

p
u
b
l
i
c

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.

A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
,

f
o
r

t
h
e

s
a
ke

o
f

c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y

i
n

p
u
b
l
i
c

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
,

p
l
e
a
s
e

n
o
t
e

that the future park has been reclassified and should
he
n
c
e
f
o
r
t
h

b
e

r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

t
o

a
s

B
e
r
e
w
i
c
k

R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l

P
a
r
k
.
g0
1
8
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
7
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g

C
o
u
n
t
y

P
a
r
k

an
d

R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n

D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Jo
n
e
s
W
.

L
e
e
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

Ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

a
n
d

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
In

c
h
a
p
t
e
r

3
,

T
a
b
l
e

3
-
9

l
i
s
t
s

t
h
e

p
a
r
k
s

a
n
d

r
e
c
r
e
a
t
io
n
a
l

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s

i
m
p
a
c
t
s
.

T
h
e

c
o
l
u
m
n

t
i
t
l
e
d

"
A
c
r
e
s
"
lists the acreage of the public land and a percentage of
th
a
t

l
a
n
d

t
h
a
t

w
i
l
l

n
e
e
d

t
o

b
e

t
a
k
e
n
.

T
h
e

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
es of land to be taken associated with Berewick Regional Park are incorrect and should read as follows:
fo
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t

K
3
C
,

0
.
8
1
%
;

f
o
r

s
e
g
m
e
n
t

K
4
A
,

1
.
6
%
.
g0
1
8
3
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
7
/
2
0
0
9
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g

C
o
u
n
t
y

P
a
r
k

an
d

R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n

D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Jo
n
e
s
W
.

L
e
e
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

N
o
t
e
d
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

Ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

an
d

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
MC
P
R

a
l
s
o

r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
s

t
h
e

T
u
r
n
p
i
k
e

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
'
s

p
o
s
s
i
ble pursuit of a finding of de minimis effect with regard to Berewick Regional Park, as stated in Chapter
5
(

C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
)
.

M
C
P
R

c
o
n
c
u
r
s

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

i
d
e
n
tified impacts stemming from the various detailed study alternatives will not adversely affect the use,
fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
,

o
r

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

a
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d.Appendix D Local Government Comments Gaston Connector DEIS 4

APPENDIX E

Comments from the Public and Interest Groups and Organizations
DEIS - Public Release Comments Interest Groups
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

o
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
Th
e

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y

s
t
a
t
e
s

t
h
e

f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g

t
w
o
-
f
o
l
d

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
ment purpose for the Gaston East-West Connector: (1) “improve mobility, access, and connectivity within
so
u
t
h
e
r
n

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

a
n
d

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

s
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

G
a
s
t
o
n

County and western Mecklenburg County” and (2) “improve traffic flow on the sections of I-85, US
29
-
7
4

a
n
d

U
S

3
2
1

i
n

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

S
t
u
d
y

A
r
e
a

a
n
d

i
m
p
r
ove high-speed, safe, reliable regional travel service along the I-85 corridor.” The Authority also states
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
Co
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
NA
M
E
i0
0
1
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
Ca
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r
k
e
e
p
e
r

Fo
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
,

I
n
c
.
Me
r
r
y
m
a
n
C
.

D
a
v
i
d
Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

N
e
e
d

fo
r

A
c
t
i
o
n
29
-
7
4

a
n
d

U
S

3
2
1

i
n

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

S
t
u
d
y

A
r
e
a

a
n
d

i
m
p
r
ove high-speed, safe, reliable regional travel service along the I-85 corridor.” The Authority also states
th
a
t

a

r
o
u
t
e

m
u
s
t

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

m
o
r
e

t
h
a
n

a

m
i
n
o
r

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
ment to the typical transportation system user. If an alternative only provides minor improvements, the
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

m
u
s
t

b
e

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d

n
o
t

r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
.
Th
e

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
’
s

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

G
a
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
does not meet its own project purpose and need guidelines. Specifically, the project will not meet
th
e

n
e
e
d

t
o

i
m
p
r
o
v
e

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

f
l
o
w

o
n

I
-
8
5

a
s

r
e
f
e
r
e
n
ce
d

i
n

T
h
e

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
’
s

o
w
n

p
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

v
o
l
u
me analysis. Furthermore, if this Connector is partially
bu
i
l
t

a
s

c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
,

i
t

w
i
l
l

n
o
t

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
,

b
ut

i
m
p
e
d
e
,

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

f
l
o
w

o
n

U
S

3
2
1
.
i0
0
1
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
Ca
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r
k
e
e
p
e
r

Fo
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
,

I
n
c
.
Me
r
r
y
m
a
n
C
.

D
a
v
i
d
Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

N
e
e
d

fo
r

A
c
t
i
o
n
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
,

t
h
e

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d

D
S
A

9

r
o
u
t
e

t
r
a
v
e
r
s
e
s
21.9 miles. If one travels along current roadway infrastructure from the recommended I-85
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e

o
f

t
h
e

G
a
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r

t
o

t
h
e southeastern corner of Charlotte-Douglas International Airport at West Blvd in Mecklenburg County,
th
e

d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

t
r
a
v
e
l
e
d

i
s

s
i
m
i
l
a
r
,

i
f

n
o
t

e
q
u
a
l
,

t
o

th
e

d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

o
f

t
h
e

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d

G
a
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
nnector. This fact directly opposes the performance
me
a
s
u
r
e

e
m
p
h
a
s
i
z
i
n
g

t
h
e

n
e
e
d

t
o

“
r
e
d
u
c
e

t
r
a
v
e
l

d
i
s
t
ances and/or travel times…” as stated in the Draft EIS.
i0
0
1
3
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
Ca
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r
k
e
e
p
e
r

Fo
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
,

I
n
c
.
Me
r
r
y
m
a
n
C
.

D
a
v
i
d
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

Ef
f
e
c
t
s
Th
e

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d

D
S
A

9

r
o
u
t
e

t
r
a
v
e
l
s

2
1
.
9

m
i
l
e
s

w
i
t
h
a corridor width of 1,400 feet. This calculates to a corridor footprint area of approximately
16
1
,
8
8
4
,
8
0
0

f
t

o
r

3
,
7
1
6

a
c
r
e
s
.

I
n

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,

D
S
A

9

c
rosses 91 streams and directly impacts 48,995 feet of Catawba River Basin waterways. A conservative
es
t
i
m
a
t
e

o
f

p
a
v
e
d

a
r
e
a

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d

r
o
u
t
e

e
quals approximately 143,746,900 ft or 3,300 acres. Construction and post-construction of the East-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r

w
i
l
l

r
e
s
u
l
t

i
n

a
l
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s

t
o

t
h
e

t
o
po
g
r
a
p
h
y

i
n

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

w
h
i
c
h

d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y

a
f
f
e
c
t
s

l
o
cal water interactions, such as surface water flow
re
g
i
m
e
s

a
n
d

s
u
r
f
a
c
e
-
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
.

F
o
r

e
xample, soil compaction during construction processes inhibits groundwater and stream recharge in a
hy
d
r
o
l
o
g
i
c

r
e
g
i
o
n

t
h
a
t

h
a
s

e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
d

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g

d
rought conditions over the past decade.
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r

w
i
l
l

r
e
p
l
a
c
e natural vegetation with impervious materials that will negatively impact water quality in Lake Wylie.
Ac
c
o
r
d
i
n
g

t
o

o
n
e

s
t
u
d
y
,

t
o
t
a
l

r
u
n
o
f
f

v
o
l
u
m
e

f
o
r

a

o
ne
-
a
c
r
e

p
a
r
k
i
n
g

l
o
t

i
s

a
b
o
u
t

1
6

t
i
m
e
s

h
i
g
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

t
he volume of runoff from a meadow. In constructing the
Ef
f
e
c
t
s
Ac
c
o
r
d
i
n
g

t
o

o
n
e

s
t
u
d
y
,

t
o
t
a
l

r
u
n
o
f
f

v
o
l
u
m
e

f
o
r

a

o
ne
-
a
c
r
e

p
a
r
k
i
n
g

l
o
t

i
s

a
b
o
u
t

1
6

t
i
m
e
s

h
i
g
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

t
he volume of runoff from a meadow. In constructing the
Ea
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
.

T
h
e

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y

w
i
l
l

b
e

r
e
p
l
a
c
i
n
g hundreds, possibly thousands, of acres of natural vegetation and farmland with impervious surfaces
su
c
h

a
s

a

p
a
r
k
i
n
g

l
o
t
.

A
s

s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r

r
u
n
o
f
f

v
o
l
u
m
e

increases, stormwater velocities are likely also to increase. More impervious road surface will only
ne
g
a
t
i
v
e
l
y

c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e

t
o

s
t
r
e
a
m

d
e
h
y
d
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

i
n
u
ndation anomalies, also known as “flashy” urban runoff systems, encapsulated in NC Department of
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n

o
f

W
a
t
e
r

Quality’s 2006 303(d) list for Catawba Creek and Crowders Creek.
i0
0
1
4
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
Ca
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r
k
e
e
p
e
r

Fo
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
,

I
n
c
.
Me
r
r
y
m
a
n
C
.

D
a
v
i
d
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

Ef
f
e
c
t
s
Be
y
o
n
d

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

t
o

s
t
r
e
a
m

i
n
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
,

s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r

r
u
n
o
ff contributes to acidification, salinization and thermal warming in local streams. Attenuated releases of
st
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r

v
o
l
u
m
e
s

a
r
e

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

t
o

c
o
u
n
t
e
r
a
c
t

t
h
e
s
e degrading impacts. With the South Fork Catawba River, Catawba Creek, Crowders Creek already
fe
d
e
r
a
l
l
y

l
i
s
t
e
d

a
t

i
m
p
a
i
r
e
d

w
a
t
e
r

b
o
d
i
e
s
,

a
n
y

a
d
d
i
ti
o
n
a
l

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

f
r
o
m

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
u
l
d

b
e

i
m
m
i
n
e
n
t
l
y deleterious to wildlife and stream functioning.
Ru
n
o
f
f

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

c
o
n
t
r
o
l
s

t
h
a
t

m
i
m
i
c

t
h
e

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

r
e
l
ea
s
e

o
f

s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r

d
u
r
i
n
g

a
n
d

a
f
t
e
r

a
l
l

t
y
p
e
s

o
f

p
r
ecipitation events are necessary. If not implemented,
st
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r

r
u
n
o
f
f

w
i
l
l

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

b
a
n
k

i
n
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

b
an
k

e
r
o
s
i
o
n
,

s
t
r
e
a
m

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
s
,

s
a
l
i
n
i
t
y

a
n
d

a
c
i
d
ity throughout the Project Area and downstream
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.

T
h
i
s

w
i
l
l

f
u
r
t
h
e
r

d
e
g
r
a
d
e

C
l
e
a
n

W
a
t
e
r

A
c
t Section 303(d) listed impaired streams in Gaston County, such as Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba
Ri
v
e
r

a
t

L
a
k
e

W
y
l
i
e
,

a
n
d

C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s

C
r
e
e
k
.

S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
runoff from road surfaces will transport further degrading impacts to stream reaches that may not
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y

b
e

i
m
p
a
i
r
e
d

i
n

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y
.

T
h
i
s

c
o
n
v
e
y
ance of materials potentially impacts healthy and degraded waterways in York County, SC as well.Appendix E Interest Groups Comments Gaston Connector DEIS 1
DEIS - Public Release Comments Interest Groups
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

o
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
Co
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
NA
M
E
Th
e

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
’
s

D
r
a
f
t

E
I
S

r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
s

t
h
a
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
io
n

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s

u
n
d
e
r
t
a
k
e
n

f
o
r

t
h
e

i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
he Gaston East-West Connector introduces the potential
fo
r

s
o
i
l

e
r
o
s
i
o
n
.

H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,

t
h
e

D
r
a
f
t

E
I
S

s
t
a
t
e
s

t
h
a
t
s
o
i
l

e
r
o
s
i
o
n

a
n
d

s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
s
u
l
t

i
n

s
h
o
r
t
-
t
e
rm impacts on water quality. CRF disagrees that soil
er
o
s
i
o
n

a
n
d

s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

i
s

a

s
h
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m

i
m
p
a
c
t
.

T
he NC Division of Water Quality recognizes sediment as the #1 pollutant in state waterways; and for this
i0
0
1
5
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
Ca
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r
k
e
e
p
e
r

Fo
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
,

I
n
c
.
Me
r
r
y
m
a
n
C
.

D
a
v
i
d
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
er
o
s
i
o
n

a
n
d

s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

i
s

a

s
h
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m

i
m
p
a
c
t
.

T
he NC Division of Water Quality recognizes sediment as the #1 pollutant in state waterways; and for this
re
a
s
o
n
,

T
h
e

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y

c
a
n
n
o
t

a
n
d

s
h
o
u
l
d

n
o
t

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r sediment, a short-term consequence.
Wh
i
l
e

T
h
e

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y

m
e
n
t
i
o
n
s

t
h
e

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

o
f

a
n

erosion and sedimentation plan according to NC guidelines, there are no indications that this plan will
pr
o
t
e
c
t

o
u
r

w
a
t
e
r
w
a
y
s

w
i
t
h
i
n

t
h
e

C
a
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r

B
a
s
i
n from increased sedimentation, some of which are already impaired by sedimentation and turbidity.
Th
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

E
n
e
r
g
y

R
e
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y

C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

r
e
c
e
n
t
l
y

s
ubmitted their Draft EIS for the Duke Energy Hydroelectric Project 2232 which identifies road projects
as

a

c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r

t
o

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

i
n
t
o

a
r
ea reservoirs, including Lake Wylie. The Gaston East-West Connector continues this already
ac
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

m
a
l
i
g
n
a
n
t

p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
.
To

e
n
s
u
r
e

n
o

d
e
g
r
a
d
a
t
i
o
n

t
o

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

w
a
t
e
r
w
a
y
s
,

t
he Authority should guarantee adherence to measures above those approved under the NC
Se
d
i
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

P
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n

C
o
n
t
r
o
l

A
c
t
,

1
5
A

N
C

A
d
m
i
n
i
s
trative Code 4A.0101 et seq. 2007. The Authority should publish their “stringent erosion-control
sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
”

a
s

w
e
l
l

a
s

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n

B
M
P
s

t
h
at are designed for the intense (25 year) rainfall events that are ever more frequent in this region. To
he
l
p

p
r
e
v
e
n
t

o
f
f
s
i
t
e

s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e

e
r
o
sion potential, the clearing of more than 50 acres at any given time should not occur. This type of
co
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t

t
o

w
a
t
e
r

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
u
l
d

e
n
s
u
r
e
no impacts to waters of the State.
i0
0
1
6
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
Ca
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r
k
e
e
p
e
r

Fo
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
,

I
n
c
.
Me
r
r
y
m
a
n
C
.

D
a
v
i
d
Fl
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n
s

a
n
d

Fl
o
o
d
w
a
y
s
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d

r
o
u
t
e
,

D
S
A

9
,

i
s

a
m
o
n
g

t
h
e

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

routes with the most floodway and floodplain crossings. The Authority notes that the effects on these
hy
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
a
l
l
y

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t

a
r
e
a
s

“
c
a
n

b
e

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d

e
f
f
ec
t
i
v
e
l
y

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

p
r
o
p
e
r

s
i
z
i
n
g

a
n
d

d
e
s
i
g
n

o
f

h
y
d
r
a
u
lic structures (culverts, bridges, and channel
st
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
)
.
”

D
e
f
i
n
e
d

a
s

“
t
o

m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e

i
n

f
o
r
c
e

o
r
i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
;

a
l
l
e
v
i
a
t
e
”

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

H
e
r
i
t
a
g
e

D
i
ctionary, The Authority’s stated “mitigation” is for the road
it
s
e
l
f

a
n
d

n
o
t

t
o

a
l
l
e
v
i
a
t
e

d
a
m
a
g
e

o
r

o
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

to

t
h
e

f
l
o
o
d
w
a
y
,

f
l
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n

a
n
d
/
o
r

c
r
e
e
k
.

T
h
e

A
u
t
h
o
rity must establish and publicize the locations of local
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

e
f
f
o
r
t
s

t
o

o
f
f
s
e
t

t
h
e

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

w
i
t
h
i
n
a
n
y

c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

a
r
e
a
s
.
i0
0
1
7
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
Ca
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r
k
e
e
p
e
r

Fo
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
,

I
n
c
.
Me
r
r
y
m
a
n
C
.

D
a
v
i
d
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

E
f
f
e
c
t
s
Vi
s
u
a
l

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Un
d
e
r

4
0

C
.
F
.
R
.

§

1
5
0
8
.
8

o
f

t
h
e

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

o
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
ental Quality NEPA Regulations, The Authority must identify all direct, indirect and cumulative effects
in

t
h
e

D
r
a
f
t

E
I
S
.

T
h
e

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
’
s

D
r
a
f
t

E
I
S

f
o
r

t
h
e
G
a
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t

s
k
i
m
s

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

c
u
mulative effects to the surface waters in the Project
Ar
e
a
.

T
h
e

1
5
0
-
p
a
g
e

I
n
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

Report does not even mention the impacts of increased light pollution in the vicinity of the Gaston East-
We
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
.
i0
0
1
8
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
Ca
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r
k
e
e
p
e
r

Fo
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
,

I
n
c
.
Me
r
r
y
m
a
n
C
.

D
a
v
i
d
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

E
f
f
e
c
t
s
Wa
t
e
r

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Ov
e
r

t
i
m
e
,

t
h
e
r
e

c
o
u
l
d

b
e

s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
v
e

a
c
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

and/or deposition of the common pollutants contained in runoff from the Connector area and the
su
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
l
y

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d

a
r
e
a

s
u
c
h

a
s
,

b
u
t

n
o
t

l
i
m
i
t
e
d to, sediment, nutrients, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (petroleum by-products), heavy metals, fecal
co
l
i
f
o
r
m
,

p
e
s
t
i
c
i
d
e
s
,

a
n
d

h
e
r
b
i
c
i
d
e
s
.

I
n

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n

t
o
g
r
e
a
t
e
r

s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r

v
o
l
u
m
e
,

s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r

r
u
n
o
f
f

f
r
o
m
a residential land-use basin has higher concentrations
of

n
u
t
r
i
e
n
t
s
,

f
e
c
a
l

c
o
l
i
f
o
r
m

b
a
c
t
e
r
i
a
,

o
r
g
a
n
i
c

c
o
m
p
ou
n
d
s
,

a
n
d

h
e
a
v
y

m
e
t
a
l
s
,

s
u
c
h

a
s

c
o
p
p
e
r
,

c
h
r
o
m
i
u
m
,

and lead, than do other land use types. Impervious
su
r
f
a
c
e
s

p
r
e
v
e
n
t

t
h
e

c
a
p
t
u
r
e

o
f

p
o
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
s

b
y

n
a
t
u
r
al vegetation, causing them to be washed into streams and lakes during periods of medium and heavy
ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
.

T
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r

h
a
s

a
d
m
i
tted that it will spur residential developments. These developments will cause large quantities of
un
f
i
l
t
e
r
e
d

p
o
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
s

t
o

d
r
a
i
n

i
n
t
o

L
a
k
e

W
y
l
i
e
,

a

3
03
(
d
)

F
e
d
e
r
a
l
l
y

I
m
p
a
i
r
e
d

W
a
t
e
r

B
o
d
y
,

c
a
u
s
i
n
g

i
t
s

f
u
rther impairment. Elevated nutrient levels are already a
ma
j
o
r

c
o
n
c
e
r
n

f
o
r

L
a
k
e

W
y
l
i
e
.

T
h
e

2
0
0
4

C
a
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r Basin wide Water Quality Plan states, “Because of chlorophyll a standard violations, algal blooms
an
d

d
i
s
s
o
l
v
e
d

o
x
y
g
e
n

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

s
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

v
a
l
u
e
s

g
r
e
a
ter than 120 percent, Lake Wylie (4,200 acres, NC portion) is impaired by eutrophication.” High nutrient
le
v
e
l
s

c
a
u
s
e

s
u
c
h

e
u
t
r
o
p
h
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s

w
i
l
l

f
u
r
t
h
er

d
i
m
i
n
i
s
h

t
h
i
s

a
l
r
e
a
d
y

d
e
g
r
a
d
e
d

l
a
k
e
.

N
u
t
r
i
e
n
t

l
e
vels found in areas burdened by impervious cover as
co
m
p
a
r
e
d

t
o

t
h
o
s
e

a
r
e
a
s

p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d

t
o

r
e
m
a
i
n

n
a
t
u
r
a
l
are alarming. Phosphorus in runoff was found to be three times higher from a parking lot than a
me
a
d
o
w
.

S
i
m
i
l
a
r

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

w
e
r
e

o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d

f
r
o
m

a

r
e
c
e
n
t
study comparing baseline nitrogen and phosphorus levels with nutrient levels collected after
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

b
e
g
a
n

i
n

T
h
e

P
a
l
i
s
a
d
e
s

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,

a
l
so located along Lake Wylie. After construction commenced, spring nutrient levels increased
i0
0
1
9
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
Ca
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r
k
e
e
p
e
r

Fo
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
,

I
n
c
.
Me
r
r
y
m
a
n
C
.

D
a
v
i
d
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

E
f
f
e
c
t
s
Wa
t
e
r

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

b
e
g
a
n

i
n

T
h
e

P
a
l
i
s
a
d
e
s

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,

a
l
so located along Lake Wylie. After construction commenced, spring nutrient levels increased
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y

o
v
e
r

b
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
.

I
n

t
h
e

s
u
m
m
e
r
,

p
h
o
s
p
h
o
rus levels more than doubled. Winter phosphorus levels increased nearly ten-fold after construction
be
g
a
n
.

I
n

t
h
i
s

s
t
u
d
y
,

n
u
t
r
i
e
n
t
s

e
x
c
e
e
d
e
d

w
a
t
e
r

q
u
a
l
ity criteria more than twice as often during construction.
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
,

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

h
i
g
h
-
d
e
n
s
i
t
y

r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
ia
l

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s

c
a
t
a
l
y
z
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

G
a
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

Connector will inevitably increase nutrient levels in
th
e

l
a
k
e
.

T
h
i
s

i
s

i
n

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e

c
o
n
t
r
a
s
t

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

p
u
r
po
s
e

o
f

L
a
k
e

W
y
l
i
e
’
s

p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

o
n

t
h
e

3
0
3
(
d
)

l
i
s
t
.

Furthermore, urban renewal and enhancement
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s

f
o
r

m
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
i
e
s

a
l
o
n
g

t
h
e

G
a
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
est Connector would be influenced negatively due to the satellite thoroughfare with sprawled
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
Appendix E Interest Groups Comments Gaston Connector DEIS 2
DEIS - Public Release Comments Interest Groups
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

o
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
Co
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
NA
M
E
i0
0
1
10
le
t
t
e
r
7/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
Ca
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r
k
e
e
p
e
r

Me
r
r
y
m
a
n
C.

D
a
v
i
d
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d

S
p
e
c
i
e
s

Ha
b
i
t
a
t

f
r
a
g
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

i
n
d
u
c
e
s

t
h
e

“
e
d
g
e
-
e
f
f
e
c
t
.
”

E
d
ge species such as Chinese privet, Japanese honeysuckle, and kudzu are not native and can choke
na
t
i
v
e

p
l
a
n
t

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
.

F
r
a
g
m
e
n
t
i
n
g

3
,
7
1
6

a
c
r
e
s

a
r
ound this project could increase mortality and morbidity of edge species such as deer. Known as
cr
e
p
u
s
c
u
l
a
r

o
r
g
a
n
i
s
m
s
,

d
e
e
r

a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r

l
i
k
e

s
p
e
c
i
e
s

(i.e. bats, opossums, cats, and dogs) are most active during dawn and dusk periods. This activity
i0
0
1
10
le
t
t
e
r
7/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
Ca
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r
k
e
e
p
e
r

Fo
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
,

I
n
c
.
Me
r
r
y
m
a
n
C.

D
a
v
i
d
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d

S
p
e
c
i
e
s

an
d

W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
cr
e
p
u
s
c
u
l
a
r

o
r
g
a
n
i
s
m
s
,

d
e
e
r

a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r

l
i
k
e

s
p
e
c
i
e
s

(i.e. bats, opossums, cats, and dogs) are most active during dawn and dusk periods. This activity
sc
h
e
d
u
l
e

m
a
k
e
s

d
e
e
r

a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r

l
i
k
e

o
r
g
a
n
i
s
m
s

n
o
n
-
c
o
mmuter-friendly, as travel peaks during dawn “to-work” and dusk “to-home.”
i0
0
1
1
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
Ca
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r
k
e
e
p
e
r

Fo
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
,

I
n
c
.
Me
r
r
y
m
a
n
C
.

D
a
v
i
d
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

N
o
t
e
d
In

A
p
r
i
l

1
9
9
4
,

t
h
e

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

E
.
P
.
A
.

p
u
t

f
o
r
t
h

g
ui
d
e
l
i
n
e
s

t
o

f
o
l
l
o
w

f
o
r

r
o
a
d
w
a
y

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.

T
h
e
s
e

guidelines follow:

T
a
k
e

a

“
b
i
g

p
i
c
t
u
r
e
”

o
r

e
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m

v
i
e
w

P
r
o
t
e
c
t

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s

a
n
d

e
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m
s

M
i
n
i
m
i
z
e

f
r
a
g
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-

p
r
o
m
o
t
e

t
h
e

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

p
a
t
t
e
rn and connectivity of

h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s

P
r
o
m
o
t
e

n
a
t
i
v
e

s
p
e
c
i
e
s
-

a
v
o
i
d

i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
i
n
g

n
o
n
-
n
a
t
ive species

P
r
o
t
e
c
t

r
a
r
e

a
n
d

e
c
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
l
y

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t

s
p
e
c
i
e
s

M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n

o
r

m
i
m
i
c

n
a
t
u
r
a
l

e
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s

M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n

o
r

m
i
m
i
c

n
a
t
u
r
a
l
l
y

o
c
c
u
r
r
i
n
g

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

di
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

P
r
o
t
e
c
t

g
e
n
e
t
i
c

d
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

R
e
s
t
o
r
e

e
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
,

c
o
m
m
u
n
i

t
i
e
s
,

a
n
d

s
p
e
c
i
e
s

M
o
n
i
t
o
r

f
o
r

b
i
o
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

i
m
p
a
c
t
s
,

k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

u
n
c
e
r
tainty, be flexible.
i0
0
1
1
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
Ca
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r
k
e
e
p
e
r

Fo
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
,

I
n
c
.
Me
r
r
y
m
a
n
C
.

D
a
v
i
d
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

Ne
e
d

f
o
r

A
c
t
i
o
n
Be
c
a
u
s
e

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

G
a
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r

d
o
e
s not meet its own Purpose and Needs as stipulated by The Authority, the recommended DSA 9
sh
o
u
l
d

b
e

d
i
s
c
a
r
d
e
d

a
l
o
n
g

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

D
S
A
s

d
i
s
c
a
r
d
e
d

b
y the Draft EIS.
Wh
i
l
e

t
h
e

D
r
a
f
t

E
I
S

d
i
s
r
e
g
a
r
d
s

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

S
y
s
t
e
m Management and Mass Transit Alternatives to the Gaston East-West Connector, CRF believes these
i0
0
1
1
3
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
Ca
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r
k
e
e
p
e
r

Fo
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
,

I
n
c
.
Me
r
r
y
m
a
n
C
.

D
a
v
i
d
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Wh
i
l
e

t
h
e

D
r
a
f
t

E
I
S

d
i
s
r
e
g
a
r
d
s

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

S
y
s
t
e
m Management and Mass Transit Alternatives to the Gaston East-West Connector, CRF believes these
op
t
i
o
n
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

m
o
r
e

l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m

b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s

t
o

t
h
e

p
e
o
p
le of Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties as well as the Catawba River Basin. Thus, for the purpose of
th
e

G
a
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
,

C
R
F

b
e
l
i
e
v
e
s

a

L
i
g
h
t/Heavy Rail commuter line along the existing railway connections or other transit corridors (i.e. I-85
or

H
w
y
.

2
9
-
7
4
)

i
s

m
o
s
t

s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e

t
o

s
u
s
t
a
i
n

t
h
e

g
r
o
w
th

n
e
e
d
s

o
f

t
h
i
s

r
e
g
i
o
n
.

A
l
t
h
o
u
g
h

t
h
e

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y

s
t
a
tes that monies are not available currently for such a
tr
a
n
s
i
t

s
y
s
t
e
m
,

t
h
e

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y

h
a
s

a
l
s
o

s
t
a
t
e
d

t
h
a
t

mo
n
i
e
s

d
o

n
o
t

e
x
i
s
t

t
o

p
a
y

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d

$
1
.
2

b
i
l
l
i
on in costs for the proposed Gaston East-West Connector
–
t
h
u
s

h
a
v
i
n
g

p
a
y
m
e
n
t

f
o
r

a

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

h
a
s

n
o
t

p
r
o
v
e
n

to be a deciding factor.
i0
0
2
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
E
a
s
o
n
E
d
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Wh
y

a
r
e

t
h
e

c
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
’

o
f

C
h
a
r
l
o
t
t
e

&

R
a
l
e
i
g
h

m
e
t
r
o

areas required to pay an additional “toll/tax” to fund their road projects when tax dollars will likely fund the
Sh
e
l
b
y
,

W
i
n
s
t
o
n
-
S
a
l
e
m
,

a
n
d

t
h
e

F
a
y
e
t
t
e
v
i
l
l
e

b
y
p
a
s
s
e
s? The selection of projects that the NCTA is currently pursuing does not specify that an entire
co
r
r
i
d
o
r

b
e

t
o
l
l
e
d
,

o
n
l
y

i
n

s
e
l
e
c
t

a
r
e
a
s
.

T
o

o
n
l
y

ch
o
o
s
e

a

f
e
w

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

w
i
t
h
i
n

a

c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r

i
s

a
r
b
i
t
r
a
r
y and capricious.
i0
0
2
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
E
a
s
o
n
E
d
Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

N
e
e
d

fo
r

A
c
t
i
o
n
Th
e

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

n
u
m
b
e
r
s

h
a
r
d
l
y

j
u
s
t
i
f
y

t
h
e

m
o
n
e
y

a
n
d

r
e
sources to build this facility, not to mention, the devastating effect it will have to the physical and natural
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
s
.

i0
0
2
3
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
E
a
s
o
n
E
d
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Th
e

N
C
T
A

&

F
H
W
A
’
s

a
r
g
u
m
e
n
t
s

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

n
e
w

b
u
i
l
d

D
S
A

“Alternative 9” has no direct or indirect air quality impacts to Sadler, Forest Heights, and WA Bess
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y

a
n
d

F
o
r
e
s
t
v
i
e
w

H
i
g
h

S
c
h
o
o
l
(
s
)

a
n
d

r
e
s
i
d
e
ntial areas are spurious. Appendix E Interest Groups Comments Gaston Connector DEIS 3
DEIS - Public Release Comments Interest Groups
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

o
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
Co
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
NA
M
E
Al
t
h
o
u
g
h

l
e
n
g
t
h
y
,

t
h
e

f
i
n
a
l

t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

a
i
r

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

m
em
o
r
a
n
d
u
m

a
p
p
e
a
r
s

t
o

p
r
i
m
a
r
i
l
y

f
o
c
u
s

o
n

e
n
o
u
g
h

i
n
f
o
rmation necessary to cross any regulatory hurdle it
ma
y

e
n
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
,

b
u
t

i
t

l
a
c
k
s

s
u
b
s
t
a
n
c
e
.

T
h
e

F
H
W
A

I
n
terim Guidance on MSAT Research Data is not current, as the latest cited research is in 2005 (FHWA
In
t
e
r
i
m

G
u
i
d
a
n
c
e

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
,

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
6
)
.

E
P
A

w
ill release the official Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model at the end of 2009, and this
i0
0
2
4
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
E
a
s
o
n
E
d
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
In
t
e
r
i
m

G
u
i
d
a
n
c
e

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

C
,

F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
6
)
.

E
P
A

w
ill release the official Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model at the end of 2009, and this
mo
d
e
l

a
l
s
o

e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
s

p
o
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
s

a
t

t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t

l
e
v
e
l
.

F
H
W
A

i
s

f
a
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

a

l
a
c
k

o
f

m
o
n
i
t
oring data in most areas for use in establishing project-
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c

M
S
A
T

b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

a
i
r
quality agencies avoid lacing air monitors near roadways that are used to ascertain the regional air
qu
a
l
i
t
y

f
o
r

N
A
A
Q
S
.

M
o
b
i
l
e

s
o
u
r
c
e
s

c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e

a

s
i
g
nificant amount of air emissions for the Charlotte area. According to NCDENR/DAQ, “automobiles are
th
e

l
a
r
g
e
s
t

c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
o
r

t
o

N
C
'
s

a
i
r

p
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
.

A
l
t
h
ou
g
h

a
u
t
o
m
o
b
i
l
e

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

h
a
s

g
r
e
a
t
l
y

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d

o
v
e
r the years, the total pollution from vehicles is rising.
Mo
r
e

p
e
o
p
l
e

a
r
e

d
r
i
v
i
n
g
,

a
n
d

t
r
a
v
e
l
i
n
g

l
o
n
g
e
r

d
i
s
t
an
c
e
s

t
h
a
n

e
v
e
r
.

A
s

a

r
e
s
u
l
t
,

o
u
r

a
i
r

p
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n

w
o
r
sens and roads become more congested”
(h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
a
q
.
s
t
a
t
e
.
n
c
.
u
s
/
m
o
t
o
r
/
t
r
a
n
s
/
)
.

B
a
s
e
d

o
n

w
h
a
t is contained in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, I would say that the FHWA/NCTA is not
ca
p
a
b
l
e

o
f

o
r

i
s

u
n
w
i
l
l
i
n
g

t
o

c
o
n
d
u
c
t

a

c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
ve evaluation of any health impacts at all.
Ca
n

t
h
e

F
W
H
A

p
l
e
a
s
e

e
x
p
l
a
i
n

w
h
y

t
h
e
y

v
i
e
w

E
P
A
’
s

v
e
h
icle and fuel regulations with such certainty while they ignore all health impact studies as
in
c
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
v
e

t
o

m
a
k
e

d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s

w
h
e
r
e

a

h
i
g
h
w
a
y

s
h
o
u
ld be located? The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee had this to say about uncertainties in a
20
0
6

l
e
t
t
e
r
:

“
W
h
i
l
e

t
h
e
r
e

i
s

u
n
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
t
y

a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h

t
h
e

r
i
s
k

a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t

f
o
r

t
h
e

P
M
2
.
5

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
,

t
his very uncertainty suggests a need for a prudent
ap
p
r
o
a
c
h

t
o

p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g

a
n

a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e

m
a
r
g
i
n

o
f

s
a
f
e
t
y
.
” The FWHA/NCTA approach of denial to this complex problem is far from prudent. There have been
hu
n
d
r
e
d
s

o
f

p
e
e
r

r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d

r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s

l
i
n
k
i
n
g
proximity to roadways with harmful health effects from the late 1990’s to the present.
i0
0
2
5
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
E
a
s
o
n
E
d
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
I
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d

t
h
a
t

G
a
s
t
o
n

a
n
d

M
e
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g

C
o
u
n
t
i
e
s

a
re currently in attainment for PM2.5, but to my knowledge, Gaston has no monitor for PM2.5 while
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g
’
s

a
n
n
u
a
l

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

i
s

1
4
.
9
µ
g
/
m
3
.

T
h
e

a
n
nual (NAAQS) is currently 15 µg/m3. The FHWA projects that the trucking industry will be
re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e

f
o
r

a

7
5

%

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

i
n

f
r
e
i
g
h
t

t
o
n
n
a
g
e

by 2020, and the proposed intermodal facility at the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport and
ex
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
s

a
t

t
h
e

p
o
r
t
s

w
i
l
l

s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
l
y

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
r
u
c
k

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

o
n

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

f
r
e
e
w
a
y
.

A
s

a

r
e
s
u
lt, the diesel particulate matter and exhaust organic
ga
s
e
s
,

f
r
o
m

t
r
u
c
k

e
x
h
a
u
s
t
,

w
i
l
l

b
e

c
l
o
s
e
r

t
o

e
x
i
s
t
i
ng

h
o
m
e
s

a
n
d

s
c
h
o
o
l
s
,

e
t
c
.
Th
i
s

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

f
e
d
e
r
a
l

a
c
t
i
o
n

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

a
p
p
e
a
r

t
o

p
r
o
vide protection to children from environmental health and safety risks under Executive order 13045. As
i0
0
2
5
le
t
t
e
r
7/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
Ea
s
o
n
Ed
Ai
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Th
i
s

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

f
e
d
e
r
a
l

a
c
t
i
o
n

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

a
p
p
e
a
r

t
o

p
r
o
vide protection to children from environmental health and safety risks under Executive order 13045. As
Dr
.

S
a
m
e
t

s
t
a
t
e
d
;

“
W
h
i
l
e

w
e

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e

t
o

o
b
t
a
i
n

f
u
r
t
her evidence, prudent, “no-regret” strategies to reduce exposures merit consideration.” The NCTA &
FH
W
A

n
e
e
d
s

t
o

s
h
i
f
t

t
h
e

a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e

p
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

alternative away from homes and other sensitive receptors to minimize elevated air pollution levels
re
s
u
l
t
i
n
g

i
n

a
d
v
e
r
s
e

h
e
a
l
t
h

e
f
f
e
c
t
s
.

i0
0
2
6
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
E
a
s
o
n
E
d
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
I
h
a
v
e

t
o

a
s
k

i
f

t
h
e

F
H
W
A

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d

a

p
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n

c
o
n
trol technology preventing ozone formation along individual streets and highways, or is there a proposal
to

p
r
e
v
e
n
t

a
u
t
o
m
o
b
i
l
e
s

a
n
d

t
r
u
c
k
s

o
n

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

s
t
r
eets and highways? Is the FHWA just overly optimistic about EPA’s vehicle and fuel regulations?
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
,

t
h
e

C
h
a
r
l
o
t
t
e

M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

a
r
e
a

c
a
n
n
o
t

m
eet the 1997 ozone standard at 0.085ppm. Mobile sources contribute a significant amount of pollution
fo
r

t
h
e

C
h
a
r
l
o
t
t
e

M
e
t
r
o

a
r
e
a
,

a
n
d

t
h
e

d
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

c
o
n
trol to this source, will determine if the (NAAQS) will be met. Will a new conformity determination be
ma
d
e

u
s
i
n
g

t
h
e

o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l

M
O
V
E
S

m
o
d
e
l

p
r
i
o
r

t
o

a

r
e
c
o
rd of decision?
I
w
o
u
l
d

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
:
1.

N
o

o
n
-
s
i
t
e

b
u
r
n
i
n
g

o
f

d
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n

o
r

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
w
a
s
t
e

a
n
d

s
t
r
i
n
g
e
n
t

d
u
s
t

s
u
p
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

d
u
r
i
n
g

a
l
l

p
h
ases of construction. Maintain strict clearing limits and
tr
e
e

p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n

t
o

p
r
e
v
e
n
t

a
l
l

i
n
c
u
r
s
i
o
n
s

b
e
y
o
n
d

t
h
e
d
e
f
i
n
e
d

c
l
e
a
r
i
n
g

l
i
m
i
t
s
.
2.

N
C
T
A

d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e

a

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

m
a
n
a
g
e
r

w
i
t
h

s
p
e
c
i
fic quality assurance and oversight responsibility over the design build contractor and the design build
co
n
t
r
a
c
t

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

p
e
n
a
l
t
i
e
s
,

i
n

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
t
o

a
n
y

S
t
a
t
e

o
r

l
o
c
a
l

r
e
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y

p
e
n
a
l
t
i
e
s
,

t
o

d
e
t
er violations.
3.

N
o

i
d
l
i
n
g
,

s
t
a
g
i
n
g
,

o
r

r
e
f
u
e
l
i
n
g

o
f

m
o
b
i
l
e

c
o
n
s
t
ru
c
t
i
o
n

e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t

w
i
t
h
i
n

c
l
o
s
e

p
r
o
x
i
m
i
t
y

t
o

h
o
m
e
s

o
r sensitive receptors should be allowed.
4.

C
o
n
f
i
n
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r

s
t
a
g
i
n
g

a
r
e
a
s

a
n
d

h
a
u
l
routes to the permanent work limits.
I
w
o
u
l
d

l
i
k
e

t
o

a
s
k

t
h
a
t

b
e
f
o
r
e

a

R
e
c
o
r
d

o
f

D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n,

w
i
l
l

a

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
-
l
e
v
e
l

a
n
d

c
o
n
f
o
r
m
i
t
y

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n be made for the anticipated (annual) particulate matter
an
d

o
z
o
n
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
?

I
n

d
r
a
f
t
i
n
g

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
7
6
(
c
)

o
f
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Congress clearly sought to ensure that the federal government
i0
0
2
7
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
E
a
s
o
n
E
d
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
an
d

o
z
o
n
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
?

I
n

d
r
a
f
t
i
n
g

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
7
6
(
c
)

o
f
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Congress clearly sought to ensure that the federal government
be

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

a
n
d

c
o
m
p
l
y

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

f
e
d
e
r
a
l
,

s
t
a
te, interstate and local requirements, administrative authority and sanctions with respect to the control
an
d

a
b
a
t
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

a
i
r

p
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
,

i
n

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

m
a
n
n
e
r

and to the same extent, as any nongovernmental entity. Federal agencies are to be afforded no special
pr
i
v
i
l
e
g
e
s

a
n
d

m
a
y

d
o

n
o

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

n
o
n
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

entities.Appendix E Interest Groups Comments Gaston Connector DEIS 4
DEIS - Public Release Comments Interest Groups
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

o
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
Co
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
NA
M
E
Wh
y

i
s

t
h
e

F
H
W
A

s
t
i
l
l

u
s
i
n
g

t
h
e

2
0
0
6

I
n
t
e
r
i
m

g
u
i
d
a
n
ce for MSAT’s? Why does the FHWA use 150,000 Annual Average Daily Traffic count to conduct a
qu
a
n
t
i
t
a
t
i
v
e

M
S
A
T

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
?

W
h
a
t

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
o
n

w
a
s

u
s
e
d to come up with that number? Is the FHWA or NCTA going to identify all sensitive receptors?
If

k
n
o
w
n

h
u
m
a
n

h
e
a
l
t
h

h
a
z
a
r
d

p
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n

w
e
r
e

a

p
r
i
o
rity, the same unknowns the FHWA points out quite nicely in their prepared Environmental Impact
If

k
n
o
w
n

h
u
m
a
n

h
e
a
l
t
h

h
a
z
a
r
d

p
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n

w
e
r
e

a

p
r
i
o
rity, the same unknowns the FHWA points out quite nicely in their prepared Environmental Impact
St
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
s

a
s

t
o

w
h
y

t
h
e
y

c
a
n
n
o
t

d
o

a

c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
quantitative MSATs analysis at the project level in order to quantify the cancer and non-cancer risks
sh
o
u
l
d

b
e

e
n
o
u
g
h

r
e
a
s
o
n

t
o

a
v
o
i
d

s
c
h
o
o
l
s

a
n
d

r
e
s
i
d
e
ntial areas altogether.
Th
e

E
P
A

s
h
o
u
l
d

s
e
t

a

m
i
n
i
m
u
m

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

f
o
r

a
t

l
e
a
s
t

the 6 priority MSATs, and they should be included in the transportation conformity process under Title
40

C
F
R

p
a
r
t

5
1

a
n
d

9
3
.

O
t
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

p
o
i
n
t
i
n
g

o
u
t

t
h
e
accomplishments and deficiencies of the EPA in dealing with this complex problem, what actions, if
an
y
,

a
r
e

t
h
e

F
H
W
A

a
n
d

t
h
e

N
C
T
A

g
o
i
n
g

t
o

t
a
k
e

t
o

r
e
d
uce the exposure to citizens who live within close proximity to the proposed freeways? Will the NCTA
pu
r
c
h
a
s
e

a

2
3
0
0

t
o

3
0
0
0

f
o
o
t

t
o
t
a
l

r
i
g
h
t

o
f

w
a
y
?

W
ill the FHWA, and by extension the NCTA, just continue to use 40 CFR 1502.22 a&b to opt out of doing a
pr
o
p
e
r

c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e

r
i
s
k

a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t

t
h
a
t

w
i
l
l

i
n
f
o
rm citizens of the risk and allow for sound and prudent decisions whether to move forward with a
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d

h
i
g
h
w
a
y

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

o
r

n
o
t
?
Co
m
p
a
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

i
m
p
a
c
t

o
f

M
S
A
T
s

a
g
a
i
n
s
t

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

o
p
t
ions within the study area is analogous to not seeing the forest for the trees, and this approach does
no
t

g
i
v
e

a
n

a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e

r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

t
o

t
h
e

i
m
p
a
c
t

o
n sensitive receptors at the project level. After you construct the new freeway, then you will have two
ma
j
o
r

r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s

w
i
t
h

c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

p
o
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
s
,

a
n
d

t
h
e

new highway will be close to where large numbers of people reside. The comparison needs to be with
th
e

b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d

a
m
b
i
e
n
t

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s

f
r
o
m

a
c
t
u
a
l

m
onitors along the entire length of the proposed freeway.
We
r
e

a
n
y

m
o
d
e
l
i
n
g

a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
s

f
o
r

N
A
A
Q
S

a
n
d

M
S
A
T
’
s

conducted to include the future lanes that will be added (and vehicles) in the proposed 70 foot
gr
a
s
s

m
e
d
i
a
n
?

A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

l
a
n
e
s

i
n

t
h
e

7
0
+

f
o
o
t

m
e
d
ian, at a latter date, would contribute to significantly higher MSAT exposure levels than would be stated
in

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
,

F
E
I
S

a
n
d

R
e
c
o
r
d

o
f

D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
?

W
h
a
t

i
s

the purpose of a 70 or 74 foot median? Can the NCTA explain why the proposed median width for a
fr
e
e
w
a
y

i
s

b
e
i
n
g

d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

f
o
r

a
n

i
n
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e? The impacts to businesses (and costs for right of way) could be reduced with a 25 or 35 foot grass
me
d
i
a
n
.

C
a
b
l
e
s

c
o
u
l
d

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

a

s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

s
a
f
e
t
y

b
a
rrier, in the future; these will be added at a later date when additional lanes are added. Access roads for
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
.

T
h
i
s

s
t
a
t
u
t
e

i
s

p
a
ra
m
o
u
n
t

t
o

a

m
a
n
d
a
t
e

o
f

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

a

r
o
a
d
w
a
y

i
n

a

n
e
w
location due to a larger right of way, resulting in self-
Ai
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
i0
0
2
8
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
E
a
s
o
n
E
d
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
.

T
h
i
s

s
t
a
t
u
t
e

i
s

p
a
ra
m
o
u
n
t

t
o

a

m
a
n
d
a
t
e

o
f

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

a

r
o
a
d
w
a
y

i
n

a

n
e
w
location due to a larger right of way, resulting in self-
im
p
o
s
e
d

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

i
m
p
a
c
t
s
.

T
h
e

N
C
T
A

&

F
H
W
A

n
e
e
d
s

t
o shift the alignment of the preferred alternative away from homes and other sensitive receptors to
mi
n
i
m
i
z
e

e
l
e
v
a
t
e
d

a
i
r

p
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n

l
e
v
e
l
s

r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
g

i
n
a
d
v
e
r
s
e

h
e
a
l
t
h

e
f
f
e
c
t
s
.
i0
0
2
9
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
E
a
s
o
n
E
d
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Th
e

E
P
A

M
o
t
o
r

V
e
h
i
c
l
e

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
o
r

(
M
O
V
E
S
)

m
o
del will be released in 2009, and it covers a broad range of pollutants. The (MOVES) model is also
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

a
t

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
i
n
g

p
o
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
s

a
t

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

le
v
e
l
.

T
h
e

o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l

M
O
V
E
S

m
o
d
e
l

i
s

r
e
p
l
a
c
i
n
g

t
h
e

E
P
A mobile 6.2 model at the end of 2009.
(h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
e
p
a
.
g
o
v
/
o
t
a
q
/
m
o
d
e
l
s
/
m
o
v
e
s
/
i
n
d
e
x
.
h
t
m
)
.
Th
e

M
O
V
E
S
,

M
o
b
i
l
e

6
.
2
,

H
A
P
E
M
,

a
n
d

A
E
R
O
M
O
D

m
o
d
e
l
s

i
n
conjunction with the land use regression models, are effective dispersion tools, to name a
fe
w
,

t
h
a
t

c
o
u
l
d

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

t
h
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
s

i
n

t
i
m
e
-
w
e
i
g
h
t
ed exposures associated with proximity to roadways for individual pollutants at the project level.
In
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

m
o
n
i
t
o
r
s
,

a
l
o
n
g

w
i
t
h

a
c
t
u
a
l

m
o
n
i
t
o
r
s

s
t
r
at
e
g
i
c
a
l
l
y

p
l
a
c
e
d

c
a
n

b
e

u
s
e
d

f
o
r

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
routes, duration and dose. Will the FHWA use these
mo
d
e
l
s
,

a
l
o
n
g

w
i
t
h

m
o
n
i
t
o
r
s

t
o

c
o
n
d
u
c
t

a

q
u
a
n
t
i
t
a
t
i
ve MSAT analysis/study?
i0
0
3
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
9
/
2
0
0
9
G
a
s
t
o
n

2
0
1
2
M
i
m
s
G
a
r
y
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

Ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

a
n
d

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Al
l

i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s

n
e
e
d

t
o

b
e

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

s
i
d
e
w
a
lk access from one side of the toll road to the other. Sidewalks must be sufficient in width to
ac
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e

b
o
t
h

w
h
e
e
l
c
h
a
i
r
s

a
n
d

f
o
o
t

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

i
n

b
o
th directions.
i0
0
3
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
9
/
2
0
0
9
G
a
s
t
o
n

2
0
1
2
M
i
m
s
G
a
r
y
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

Ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

a
n
d

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
At

p
o
i
n
t
s

w
h
e
r
e

t
h
e

t
o
l
l

r
o
a
d

c
r
o
s
s
e
s

a

r
o
a
d
,

t
h
e

s
pa
n

b
e
n
e
a
t
h

t
h
e

b
r
i
d
g
e

m
u
s
t

b
e

w
i
d
e

e
n
o
u
g
h

o
n

e
i
t
h
e
r side of the road to allow future greenway
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
i0
0
3
3
le
t
t
e
r
7/
9
/
2
0
0
9
Ga
s
t
o
n

2
0
1
2
Mi
m
s
Ga
r
y
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

Ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

a
n
d

La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Th
e
s
e

b
r
i
d
g
e
s

m
u
s
t

b
e

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

A
D
A

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
ate walkways across the rivers, accessible from both sides of the toll road. These walkways must be
se
p
a
r
a
t
e
d

s
a
f
e
l
y

f
r
o
m

m
o
t
o
r

v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
,

a
n
d

p
r
e
f
e
r
a
b
l
y, on a grade separate from that of motor traffic.
i0
0
3
3
le
t
t
e
r
7/
9
/
2
0
0
9
Ga
s
t
o
n

2
0
1
2
Mi
m
s
Ga
r
y
Ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

a
n
d

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
se
p
a
r
a
t
e
d

s
a
f
e
l
y

f
r
o
m

m
o
t
o
r

v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
,

a
n
d

p
r
e
f
e
r
a
b
l
y, on a grade separate from that of motor traffic.Appendix E Interest Groups Comments Gaston Connector DEIS 5
DEIS - Public Release Comments Interest Groups
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

o
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
Co
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
NA
M
E
Th
e
r
e

a
r
e

s
e
v
e
r
a
l

p
o
i
n
t
s

a
t

w
h
i
c
h

t
h
e

t
o
l
l

r
o
a
d

c
r
o
ss
e
s

p
l
a
c
e
s

w
h
e
r
e

g
r
e
e
n
w
a
y
s

h
a
v
e

a
l
r
e
a
d
y

b
e
e
n

p
l
a
n
n
ed in the county. At these points, bridges must be
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d

i
n

a

m
a
n
n
e
r

t
h
a
t

w
i
l
l

a
l
l
o
w

g
r
e
e
n
w
a
y

c
o
nstruction beneath them. These points include:
•
B
l
a
c
k
w
o
o
d

C
r
e
e
k
i0
0
3
4
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
9
/
2
0
0
9
G
a
s
t
o
n

2
0
1
2
M
i
m
s
G
a
r
y
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

Ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

a
n
d

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
•
B
l
a
c
k
w
o
o
d

C
r
e
e
k
•
B
r
a
n
d
o
n

C
r
e
e
k
•
C
a
t
a
w
b
a

C
r
e
e
k
•
A
n

u
n
n
a
m
e
d

p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l

b
r
a
n
c
h

j
u
s
t

s
o
u
t
h

o
f

t
h
e

2
9
-
74 interchange
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
,

t
h
e
r
e

i
s

a

g
r
e
e
n
w
a
y

p
l
a
n
n
e
d

t
o

f
o
l
l
o
w
a

s
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

C
r
o
w
d
e
r
s

C
r
e
e
k
,

w
h
i
c
h

f
o
l
l
o
w
s

c
l
o
s
e
l
y
along the west side of the proposed toll road route
so
u
t
h

o
f

L
i
n
w
o
o
d

R
o
a
d
.

W
e

r
e
q
u
e
s
t

t
h
a
t

r
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y
acquisitions, etc., take this greenway project into
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
i0
0
5
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

N
e
e
d

fo
r

A
c
t
i
o
n
Th
e

D
E
I
S

p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s

i
n
f
l
a
t
e
d

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s

o
f

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

v
o
l
um
e
s

a
l
o
n
g

a
r
e
a

r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s

f
o
r

r
ecent years that far exceed the traffic volumes
ac
t
u
a
l
l
y

o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d

b
y

N
C
D
O
T
,

w
h
i
c
h

s
k
e
w

t
h
e

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
of the Project's purpose and alternatives.
i0
0
5
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

N
e
e
d

fo
r

A
c
t
i
o
n
Th
e

D
E
I
S

c
l
a
i
m
s

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

w
o
u
l
d

s
e
r
v
e

t
h
e

p
u
rpose of relieving congestion on US 29/74, US 321 and 1-85, but the data presented in the DEIS shows
th
a
t

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

c
o
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n

w
o
u
l
d

e
i
t
h
e
r

g
r
o
w

w
o
r
s
e

o
r

re
m
a
i
n

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

a
l
o
n
g

t
h
e
s
e

r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
.
i0
0
5
3
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
Co
m
m
o
n

s
e
n
s
e

u
p
g
r
a
d
e
s

t
o

t
h
e

a
r
e
a
'
s

h
i
g
h
w
a
y
,

t
r
a
n
s
i
t, and freight rail facilities, which in various combinations could address congestion on 1-85, receive
on
l
y

c
u
r
s
o
r
y

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
.
i0
0
5
4
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Th
e

D
E
I
S

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

a
n
a
l
y
z
e

a
i
r

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

i
m
p
a
c
t
s
,

i
n
c
l
uding the project's significant contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, or explain how the project would
no
t

h
a
m
p
e
r

a
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e

o
f

a
i
r

q
u
a
l
i
ty standards under the Clean Air Act.
i0
0
5
5
le
t
t
e
r
7/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Fa
r
r
e
n
J.

D
a
v
i
d
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

W
a
t
e
r

Th
e

D
E
I
S

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
l
y

a
s
s
e
s
s

h
o
w

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
-and the development it would induce - will impact already impaired water quality in the area, nor
of
f
e
r

a
n
y

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l

w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s and stream mitigation that would need to occur within the Catawba River basin.
i0
0
5
5
le
t
t
e
r
7/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J.

D
a
v
i
d
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

E
f
f
e
c
t
s
Wa
t
e
r

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
of
f
e
r

a
n
y

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l

w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s and stream mitigation that would need to occur within the Catawba River basin.
i0
0
5
6
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

N
e
e
d

fo
r

A
c
t
i
o
n
Th
e

i
m
m
e
n
s
e

s
c
a
l
e

o
f

t
h
i
s

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,

2
1
.
9

m
i
l
e
s

o
f

n
e
w highway into a relatively undeveloped portion of Gaston County at a cost of $1,282 billion, calls for an
es
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y

t
h
o
r
o
u
g
h

r
e
v
i
e
w

u
n
d
e
r

N
E
P
A
.

T
h
e

D
E
I
S
,

h
o
wever, belies any notion that its authors undertook an objective evaluation, which might have favored
a
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t

a
t

o
d
d
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h

Carolina Turnpike Authority's narrow mandate under NCGS 136-176(b)(2): "construction of the Garden
Pa
r
k
w
a
y
.
"

T
h
e

n
u
m
e
r
o
u
s

a
n
d

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

s
h
o
r
t
c
o
m
i
n
g
s
of the DEIS prevent meaningful review of the Project, its many far-reaching impacts, and potential
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
.

W
e

u
r
g
e

t
h
e

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

t
o revise their analysis of alternatives and impacts according to the recommendations set forth herein
an
d

t
o

i
s
s
u
e

a

r
e
v
i
s
e
d

D
r
a
f
t

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

I
m
p
a
c
t

S
tatement for public review and comment.
i0
0
5
7
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

N
e
e
d

fo
r

A
c
t
i
o
n
Gi
v
e
n

i
t
s

s
c
a
l
e
,

c
o
s
t
,

a
n
d

r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
,

t
h
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
'

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
under NEPA must be equally rigorous. Instead, the
Ag
e
n
c
i
e
s

h
a
v
e

i
s
s
u
e
d

a

D
E
I
S

t
h
a
t

s
u
f
f
e
r
s

f
r
o
m

m
u
l
t
i
ple inaccuracies, omissions and other shortcomings. The DEIS mischaracterizes the conditions in the
ar
e
a

t
h
a
t

p
u
r
p
o
r
t
e
d
l
y

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h

a

n
e
e
d

f
o
r

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
ec
t
.

I
t

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s

o
n
l
y

a

c
u
r
s
o
r
y

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t

o
f

i
n
d
u
c
e
d population growth, and it fails to adequately assess the
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
'
s

i
m
p
a
c
t

o
n

w
a
t
e
r

q
u
a
l
i
t
y
,

a
i
r

q
u
a
l
i
t
y
,

a
n
d
t
h
e

o
v
e
r
a
l
l

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

o
f

l
i
f
e

i
n

t
h
e

C
h
a
r
l
o
t
t
e

a
r
e
a
.
These shortcomings prevent the meaningful and informed
ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

a
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

b
y

N
E
P
A
.

T
h
e

Agencies should issue a revised DEIS that fully addresses these impacts and includes careful
ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

a

v
i
a
b
l
e

u
p
g
r
a
d
e

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

t
h
a
t

r
e
s
po
n
d
s

t
o

d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
d

n
e
e
d
s
,

s
u
c
h

a
s

a

l
a
c
k

o
f

m
o
b
i
lity options for area residents, insufficient freight rail
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
,

a
n
d

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

b
o
t
t
l
e
n
e
c
k
s

a
t

p
o
i
n
t
s

s
u
c
h

a
s
t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e

o
f

I
-
8
5

a
n
d

U
S

3
2
1
,

a
n
d

t
h
e

U
S

2
9
-74 Catawba River crossing.Appendix E Interest Groups Comments Gaston Connector DEIS 6
DEIS - Public Release Comments Interest Groups
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

o
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
Co
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
NA
M
E
Th
e

"
P
u
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

N
e
e
d
s
"

s
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

i
s

a
m
b
i
guous, imprecise, and inaccurate. The DEIS fails to justify its focus on connecting "southern Gaston
Co
u
n
t
y

a
n
d

w
e
s
t
e
r
n

M
e
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g

C
o
u
n
t
y
,
"

p
r
e
s
e
n
t
i
n
g

a confusing array of data from variously defined geographic locations. The section presents traffic
fo
r
e
c
a
s
t

d
a
t
a

t
h
a
t

i
s

d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
b
l
y

f
a
l
s
e
.

I
n

g
e
n
e
r
a
l,

r
a
t
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
i
n
g

a
n

u
n
d
e
r
l
y
i
n
g

p
u
r
p
o
s
e

t
h
at the project might fulfill, the DEIS restates the specific
i0
0
5
8
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

N
e
e
d

fo
r

A
c
t
i
o
n
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
fo
r
e
c
a
s
t

d
a
t
a

t
h
a
t

i
s

d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
b
l
y

f
a
l
s
e
.

I
n

g
e
n
e
r
a
l,

r
a
t
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
i
n
g

a
n

u
n
d
e
r
l
y
i
n
g

p
u
r
p
o
s
e

t
h
at the project might fulfill, the DEIS restates the specific
pr
o
j
e
c
t

d
e
s
i
g
n

t
h
a
t

m
e
e
t
s

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

T
u
r
n
p
i
ke Authority's mandate to build the "Garden Parkway" toll road. The resulting project purpose is too
na
r
r
o
w

t
o

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e

r
ange of alternatives required by NEPA. Consequently, it is also insufficient to support the identification
an
d

p
e
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g

o
f

t
h
e

l
e
a
s
t

d
a
m
a
g
i
n
g

p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
b
l
e

a
l
te
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

t
h
a
t

m
e
e
t
s

t
h
e

u
n
d
e
r
l
y
i
n
g

p
u
r
p
o
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

project, as required under CWA § 404.
Th
e

c
o
n
t
r
i
v
e
d

a
n
d

m
i
s
l
e
a
d
i
n
g

n
a
t
u
r
e

o
f

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

"
P
u
rpose and Needs" section offers compelling evidence of the need to put the responsibility for
co
n
d
u
c
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

N
E
P
A

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

f
o
r

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

h
i
g
h
w
a
y

p
r
ojects in the hands of an agency other than the North Carolina Turnpike Authority. The state
le
g
i
s
l
a
t
u
r
e

h
a
s

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
d

$
3
5

m
i
l
l
i
o
n

a
n
n
u
a
l
l
y

t
o
t
h
e

T
u
r
n
p
i
k
e

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y

"
t
o

p
a
y

d
e
b
t

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

o
r

r
e
lated financing expenses on revenue bonds or notes
is
s
u
e
d

f
o
r

t
h
e

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

G
a
r
d
e
n

P
a
r
k
w
a
y
.
"
2 Without "construction of the Garden Parkway," the Turnpike Authority is not eligible to receive this
fu
n
d
i
n
g
.

N
o
t

s
u
r
p
r
i
s
i
n
g
l
y
,

t
h
e

T
u
r
n
p
i
k
e

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y

s
ta
f
f

a
n
d

c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s

t
h
a
t

s
e
r
v
e

a
s

t
h
e

p
r
i
m
a
r
y

a
u
t
h
ors of the DEIS have created a document that is biased
in

f
a
v
o
r

o
f

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

t
o
l
l

r
o
a
d

o
n

w
h
i
c
h

t
h
e
a
g
e
n
c
y
'
s

f
u
n
d
i
n
g

d
e
p
e
n
d
s
.
i0
0
5
9
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

N
e
e
d

fo
r

A
c
t
i
o
n
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Mu
c
h

o
f

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

e
m
p
h
a
s
i
z
e
s

t
he project's purpose of providing "direct access between the rapidly growing area of southeast Gaston
Co
u
n
t
y

a
n
d

w
e
s
t
e
r
n

M
e
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g

C
o
u
n
t
y
.
"

[
1
-
3
]

Y
e
t

t
he DEIS provides no evidence that connecting the areas actually to be served by the highway will
re
s
p
o
n
d

t
o

t
h
e

n
e
e
d
s

o
f

a
n
y
o
n
e

o
t
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

r
e
a
l

e
s
t
a
te developers. The DEIS reports that "[l]imited crossings of the Catawba River are constraining travel
be
t
w
e
e
n

G
a
s
t
o
n

a
n
d

M
e
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g

C
o
u
n
t
i
e
s
.
"

[
1
-
2
]

A

t
extbox in the DEIS emphasizes: "There are only four bridges over the Catawba River between Gaston
an
d

M
e
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g

C
o
u
n
t
i
e
s
.

N
o
n
e

a
r
e

i
n

s
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

G
a
s
t
on County." [1-9] The DEIS declines to mention that NC 49 crosses the Catawba river and provides
ac
c
e
s
s

t
o

C
h
a
r
l
o
t
t
e

e
l
e
v
e
n

m
i
l
e
s

s
o
u
t
h

o
f

t
h
e

U
S

2
9
-74 bridge, just over the Gaston County border. And the DEIS declines to explain why "only four
br
i
d
g
e
s
"

a
c
r
o
s
s

t
h
e

C
a
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r

i
n

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

represents a problem; other North Carolina rivers in other North Carolina counties are spanned by less
th
a
n

f
o
u
r

b
r
i
d
g
e
s
.

I
n

g
e
n
e
r
a
l
,

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

f
a
i
l
s

t
o

s
h
ow

t
h
a
t

a
n

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

b
r
i
d
g
e

o
v
e
r

t
h
e

C
a
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r
would respond to any existing mobility need south of
th
a
n

f
o
u
r

b
r
i
d
g
e
s
.

I
n

g
e
n
e
r
a
l
,

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

f
a
i
l
s

t
o

s
h
ow

t
h
a
t

a
n

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

b
r
i
d
g
e

o
v
e
r

t
h
e

C
a
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r
would respond to any existing mobility need south of
th
e

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

b
r
i
d
g
e
s
.
i0
0
5
1
0
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

N
e
e
d

fo
r

A
c
t
i
o
n
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Th
e

D
E
I
S

c
l
a
i
m
s

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

m
u
s
t

a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e

"
rapid growth" in the project area, because this growth will "increase demands for accessibility and
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
.
"

[
1
-
2
]

B
u
t

g
r
o
w
t
h

i
n

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

a
r
e
a
h
a
s

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
e
d

a
l
o
n
g

t
h
e

1
-
8
5

a
n
d

U
S

2
9
-
7
4

c
o
r
r
i
dors, in areas that would benefit little from a new toll
hi
g
h
w
a
y

5
-
1
0

m
i
l
e
s

s
o
u
t
h

o
f
I
-
8
5
.

I
n
d
e
e
d
,

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

t
raffic projections predict that the new toll highway would cause further traffic congestion on much of I-85
an
d

U
S

2
9
-
7
4
,

h
a
m
p
e
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

m
o
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s

i
n these existing communities.
Th
e

D
E
I
S

s
u
g
g
e
s
t
s

t
h
a
t

a

s
i
z
a
b
l
e

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

c
u
r
r
e
n
t
ly resides near the planned corridor for the toll highway and that this population is growing rapidly. But
th
e

D
E
I
S

m
i
s
l
e
a
d
s

t
h
e

r
e
a
d
e
r
,

r
e
f
e
r
r
i
n
g

t
o

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
g
e
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c

a
r
e
a
s

d
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g

o
n

w
h
e
t
h
e
r

t
h
e

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s relates to population and economic growth, or
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
.

F
o
r

e
x
a
m
p
l
e
,

t
h
e

D
E
I
S reports that between 2000 and 2008, "the number of residences in southern Gaston County and
we
s
t
e
r
n

M
e
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g

C
o
u
n
t
y

h
a
s

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
ely 24 percent." [1-2] But most of this growth occurred within Mecklenburg County. Gaston County
ac
t
u
a
l
l
y

g
r
e
w

a
t

a

s
l
o
w
e
r

r
a
t
e

t
h
a
n

t
h
e

s
t
a
t
e

a
s

a

wh
o
l
e

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
i
s

p
e
r
i
o
d

-

a
n

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

8
.
5
%

b
e
t
w
e
e
n 2000 and 2008 compared to 14.6% for the state as
a
w
h
o
l
e
.
3
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

N
e
e
d

La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Gi
v
e
n

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
'
s

e
m
p
h
a
s
i
s

o
n

c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g

"
s
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

G
aston County," the Transportation Agencies should give the reader a precise definition of that area's
bo
r
d
e
r
s
.

T
h
e
y

s
h
o
u
l
d

m
a
k
e

c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t

r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s

t
o

the area in question, 'particularly with respect to economic and population growth on the one hand, and
th
e

a
r
e
a
'
s

t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s

o
n

t
h
e

o
t
h
e
r
.

In

r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

t
h
a
t

"
n
o
n
e
"

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
u
n
t
y
'
s

f
o
u
r

b
r
i
d
g
es "are in southern Gaston County," [1-9] the DEIS implies
th
a
t

"
s
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y
"

l
i
e
s

b
e
l
o
w

t
h
e

U
S

2
9
-
74 corridor, but the DEIS presents no population or economic growth data for this area. A better
ap
p
r
o
a
c
h

w
o
u
l
d

b
e

t
o

a
d
o
p
t

t
h
e

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

p
l
a
n
n
e
rs' definition of "southern Gaston County" - a combination of the southeast and southwest Gaston
Co
u
n
t
y

"
S
m
a
l
l

A
r
e
a
s
"

-

i
n

o
r
d
e
r

t
o

a
s
s
e
s
s

w
h
a
t

k
i
n
d
s of transportation facilities may be needed to accommodate population and economic growth in that
i0
0
5
1
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

N
e
e
d

fo
r

A
c
t
i
o
n
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Co
u
n
t
y

"
S
m
a
l
l

A
r
e
a
s
"

-

i
n

o
r
d
e
r

t
o

a
s
s
e
s
s

w
h
a
t

k
i
n
d
s of transportation facilities may be needed to accommodate population and economic growth in that
sa
m
e

a
r
e
a
.

N
o
t
a
b
l
y
,

a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g

t
o

t
h
e

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

planners' definition, "southern Gaston County" includes much of US 29-74 and I-85, including where
th
e
y

c
r
o
s
s

t
h
e

C
a
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r
,

a
n
d

s
o

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

s
h
o
u
l
d consider reducing congestion on these routes as a means of connecting southern Gaston County
an
d

w
e
s
t
e
r
n

M
e
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g

C
o
u
n
t
y
.

A
s

i
t

i
s

c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y

presented in the DEIS, the purported need to address "Poor Connectivity Between Gaston County and
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g

C
o
u
n
t
y

a
n
d

W
i
t
h
i
n

S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y" is not coherently defined and the project's ability to meet this need better than other alternatives
is

u
n
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
d

b
y

a
n
y

q
u
a
n
t
i
f
i
a
b
l
e

d
a
t
a
.

T
h
i
s

m
u
d
d
l
ed analysis does not allow the public to meaningfully evaluate this project against a range of reasonable
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
,

a
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

b
y

N
E
P
A
.
Appendix E Interest Groups Comments Gaston Connector DEIS 7
DEIS - Public Release Comments Interest Groups
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

o
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
Co
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
NA
M
E
In

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n

t
o

c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
s

a
s
e
c
o
n
d

n
e
e
d

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
:

c
o
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n

o
n

t
h
e

p
r
oject area's major roadways.4 The DEIS presents traffic
fo
r
e
c
a
s
t
s

t
h
a
t

e
x
a
g
g
e
r
a
t
e

t
h
e

l
e
v
e
l

o
f

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

c
o
n
g
es
t
i
o
n

o
n

1
-
8
5
,

U
S

2
9
-
7
4
,

a
n
d

U
S

3
2
1
,

m
a
k
i
n
g

t
h
e

n
e
ed for improvements seem urgent. Ironically, as
di
s
c
u
s
s
e
d

i
n

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

I
I
I
,

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
'
s

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

A
na
l
y
s
i
s

d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
s

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

G
a
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
ector would actually increase traffic volumes and
i0
0
5
1
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

N
e
e
d

fo
r

A
c
t
i
o
n
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
di
s
c
u
s
s
e
d

i
n

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

I
I
I
,

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
'
s

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

A
na
l
y
s
i
s

d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
s

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

G
a
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
ector would actually increase traffic volumes and
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n

a
l
o
n
g

m
u
c
h

o
f

t
h
e
s
e

r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
.

B
u
t

t
h
e

D
E
IS interprets that data to support its claim that a new location toll highway "improves traffic flow and
so
m
e

l
e
v
e
l
s

o
f

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

o
n

I
-
8
5
,

U
S

2
9
-
7
4
,

a
n
d

U
S

3
2
1." This interpretation does not withstand scrutiny. The DEIS Purpose and Need Section presents four
ta
b
l
e
s

w
i
t
h

"
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

a
n
d

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d

T
r
a
f
f
i
c

V
o
l
u
m
e
s
and Levels of Service" for 1-85, US 29-74, US 321, and 1-485. The "existing" traffic volumes are for the
ye
a
r

2
0
0
6
,

y
e
t

t
h
e
i
r

s
o
u
r
c
e

i
s

n
o
t

t
h
e

N
C
D
O
T

T
r
a
f
f
i
c Survey Group, which observes the traffic on these roadways at least biannually with the aid of 40,000
Po
r
t
a
b
l
e

T
r
a
f
f
i
c

C
o
u
n
t

(
P
T
C
)

S
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
.

R
a
t
h
e
r

t
h
e

D
EIS cites a consultant's report, the Gaston East-West Connector (U-3321) Traffic Forecasts for Toll
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

(
M
a
r
t
i
n

/

A
l
e
x
i
o
u

/

B
r
y
s
o
n
,

A
u
g
u
s
t

2
0
0
8). Despite having authored these "forecasts" in 2008, the consultants who produced them apparently did
no
t

t
a
k
e

t
h
e

o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y

t
o

v
e
r
i
f
y

t
h
e

a
c
c
u
r
a
c
y

o
f

th
e
i
r

f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
s

a
g
a
i
n
s
t

t
h
e

o
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

N
C
D
O
T
'
s
Traffic Survey Group. Had they done so, they would
ha
v
e

f
o
u
n
d

t
h
a
t

t
h
e
y

h
a
v
e

i
n
f
l
a
t
e
d

v
i
r
t
u
a
l
l
y

e
v
e
r
y

es
t
i
m
a
t
e

o
f

"
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
"

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

l
e
v
e
l
s

i
n

2
0
0
6
,

i
n

s
ome cases more than doubling the actual traffic that was
co
n
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
n
e
o
u
s
l
y

o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d

o
n

t
h
e
s
e

r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
.
Th
e

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

s
h
o
u
l
d

i
s
s
u
e

a

n
e
w

D
E
I
S
that contains a clear and unbiased statement of the purpose and need for this project in order to
en
s
u
r
e

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

a

r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e

r
a
n
g
e

o
f

a
l
t
e
r
natives, and the eventual identification of the least damaging practicable alternative. The project purpose
sh
o
u
l
d

b
e

s
t
a
t
e
d

n
e
u
t
r
a
l
l
y

a
n
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

a
n

a
r
t
i
f
i
c
i
a
l
l
e
v
e
l

o
f

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
i
t
y
,

s
u
c
h

a
s

b
y

d
e
f
i
n
i
n
g

"
s
o
u
t
h
e
rn Gaston County" as the land immediately adjacent to the
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d

c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r

f
o
r

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
.

I
n

t
h
i
s

s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n,

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

h
a
v
i
n
g

t
o

c
o
m
p
l
y

w
i
t
h

both NEPA and Section 404 of the CWA, it is even more
im
p
o
r
t
a
n
t

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

b
a
s
i
c

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

p
u
r
p
o
s
e

b
e

p
r
o
p
e
r
l
y articulated so as not to artificially constrain the Corps from exercising independent judgment in
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
i
n
g

t
h
e

b
a
s
i
c

p
u
r
p
o
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

a
n
d

u
s
in
g

i
t

a
s

t
h
e

t
o
u
c
h
s
t
o
n
e

f
o
r

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

f
e
a
s
i
b
i
lity of the various potential alternatives. As discussed
pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
,

t
h
e

A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

h
a
v
e

i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d

t
h
e

n
e
e
d

"
to

i
m
p
r
o
v
e

m
o
b
i
l
i
t
y

.
.
.
w
i
t
h
i
n

s
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y and between southern Gaston County and western
Me
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g

C
o
u
n
t
y
"

a
n
d

t
h
e

n
e
e
d

"
t
o

i
m
p
r
o
v
e

t
r
a
f
f
i
c flow on the sections of I-85, US 29-74 and US 321 in the Project Study Area." [1-3] SELC suggests
th
a
t

a

s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
'
s

p
u
r
p
o
s
e

f
o
c
u
s

o
n

th
e

e
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

m
o
b
i
l
i
t
y

i
n

a

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

a
r
e
a

t
h
a
t

includes the I-85 and US 29-74 corridors, i.e. "southern
Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

N
e
e
d

Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

i0
0
5
13
le
t
t
e
r
7/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Fa
r
r
e
n
J.

D
a
v
i
d
th
a
t

a

s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
'
s

p
u
r
p
o
s
e

f
o
c
u
s

o
n

th
e

e
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

m
o
b
i
l
i
t
y

i
n

a

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

a
r
e
a

t
h
a
t

includes the I-85 and US 29-74 corridors, i.e. "southern
Ga
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y
"

a
s

d
e
f
i
n
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

p
l
a
n
ners. A further refined statement of project purpose might be drafted as follows:
"T
o

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

m
o
b
i
l
i
t
y

t
o

s
e
r
v
e

r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
,

bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
,

a
n
d

t
o
u
r
i
s
t
s

t
r
a
v
e
l
i
n
g

i
n

o
r

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

s
o
uthern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County
in

a

m
a
n
n
e
r

t
h
a
t

p
r
o
t
e
c
t
s

t
h
e

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
,

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
economic opportunity, and preserves the historic and social setting of the affected region."
Su
c
h

a

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

p
u
r
p
o
s
e

w
o
u
l
d

n
o
t

f
o
r
e
c
l
o
s
e

t
h
e

c
o
n
s
ideration in the EIS and the 404/401 permitting process of other solutions for addressing mobility in the
ar
e
a

t
h
a
t

d
o

n
o
t

i
n
v
o
l
v
e

t
h
e

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

a

t
o
l
l
h
i
g
h
w
a
y
.

I
n

i
t
s

c
u
r
r
e
n
t

f
o
r
m
,

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

"
P
u
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d Needs" section demonstrates that the North Carolina
Tu
r
n
p
i
k
e

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y

c
a
n
n
o
t

r
e
c
o
n
c
i
l
e

i
t
s

n
a
r
r
o
w

m
a
n
d
ate to build specific toll road projects with federal law. It also underscores North Carolina's need for an
ob
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
,

t
r
a
n
s
p
a
r
e
n
t

s
y
s
t
e
m

t
o

p
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
z
e

t
r
a
n
s
p
o
rt
a
t
i
o
n

s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
-
b
a
s
e
d

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a.
Th
e

D
E
I
S

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

a
n
a
l
y
z
e

r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

t
o the proposed action. Rather, it summarily rejects them because they do not comply with the project
"p
u
r
p
o
s
e
"

o
f

c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g

"
s
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y
,
"

h
owever that geographic area is defined, to Mecklenburg County. Designating "HOV lanes" on I-85
"w
o
u
l
d

n
o
t

i
m
p
r
o
v
e

m
o
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

a
c
c
e
s
s
,

o
r

c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y within southern Gaston County nor between southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg
Co
u
n
t
y
.
"

[
2
-
7
]

I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

r
a
m
p

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s

o
n I-85, US 29-74 and US 321 "would not noticeably improve mobility, access, or connectivity within
so
u
t
h
e
r
n

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y
,

n
o
r

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

s
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

G
a
s
t
o
n
. County and western Mecklenburg County."
Wi
d
e
n
i
n
g

t
h
e

m
a
j
o
r

r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s

i
n

t
h
e

a
r
e
a

"
w
o
u
l
d

n
o
t

improve east-west connectivity or mobility within southern Gaston County or between southern Gaston
Co
u
n
t
y

a
n
d

w
e
s
t
e
r
n

M
e
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g

C
o
u
n
t
y
.

[
2
-
1
6
]
As

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

e
x
p
l
a
i
n
s
,

"
[

s

]
o
u
t
h

o
f

U
S

2
9
-
7
4
,

t
h
e
r
e
a
r
e

n
o

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s

e
a
s
t
-
w
e
s
t

r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s

i
n

t
h
e

s
o
u
t
h
e
rn half of Gaston County," [2-18] and apparently,
su
c
h

a

r
o
a
d
w
a
y

i
s

c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

t
o

t
h
e

o
f
t
-
c
i
t
e
d

"
c
o
n
n
e
c
ti
v
i
t
y
"

n
e
e
d
e
d

i
n

"
s
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y
.
"

O
n
l
y

t
h
e "No Build" or "no action" alternative to the proposed
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

N
e
e
d

fo
r

A
c
t
i
o
n
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
i0
0
5
1
4
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
i0
0
5
1
3
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
su
c
h

a

r
o
a
d
w
a
y

i
s

c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l

t
o

t
h
e

o
f
t
-
c
i
t
e
d

"
c
o
n
n
e
c
ti
v
i
t
y
"

n
e
e
d
e
d

i
n

"
s
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y
.
"

O
n
l
y

t
h
e "No Build" or "no action" alternative to the proposed
to
l
l

r
o
a
d

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
s

a
n
y

d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

e
x
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

w
i
t
h
i
n

th
e

D
E
I
S
.

A
l
m
o
s
t

e
v
e
r
y

o
t
h
e
r

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

i
s

e
l
i
m
i
n
a
ted because it does not "connect" the ill-defined area of
"s
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y
.
"

T
h
e

e
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n

i
s

t
h
e

"
n
e
w
location mass transit" alternative, which would provide the needed connectivity but which is "not
fi
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
l
y

f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
"

i
n

p
a
r
t

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

i
t

"
w
o
u
l
d

b
e

il
l
-
s
u
i
t
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

d
i
s
p
e
r
s
e
d

l
o
w
-
d
e
n
s
i
t
y

l
a
n
d

u
s
e
s

i
n southern Gaston County," unlike a toll road. [2-10] In
ot
h
e
r

w
o
r
d
s
,

n
o
t

e
n
o
u
g
h

p
e
o
p
l
e

l
i
v
e

i
n

"
s
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

G
a
ston County" to justify transit, but a $1.3 billion toll road would somehow be cost-effective.
Th
e

D
E
I
S

t
h
u
s

r
e
j
e
c
t
s

a
l
l

r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

t
o the proposed toll road on the basis that they do not connect the immediate area surrounding the
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

t
o
l
l

r
o
a
d
,

e
v
e
n

t
h
o
u
g
h

r
e
l
at
i
v
e
l
y

f
e
w

p
e
o
p
l
e

l
i
v
e

t
h
e
r
e
.

T
h
e

b
u
l
k

o
f

t
h
e

a
l
t
e
rnatives analysis concerns where exactly in "southern
Ga
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y
"

t
o

p
u
t

t
h
e

t
o
l
l

r
o
a
d
.

T
h
e

D
E
I
S

m
u
s
t

do more than compare slightly varied routes of the same basic design concept.
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
i0
0
5
14
le
t
t
e
r
7/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J.

D
a
v
i
d
Appendix E Interest Groups Comments Gaston Connector DEIS 8
DEIS - Public Release Comments Interest Groups
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

o
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
Co
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
NA
M
E
i0
0
5
15
le
t
t
e
r
7/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Fa
r
r
e
n
J.

D
a
v
i
d
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Th
e

D
E
I
S

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

i
t
s

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
ve with hard data comparing it to any alternative. Although the DEIS declines to mention it, this lack of
an
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l

r
i
g
o
r

m
o
t
i
v
a
t
e
d

s
e
v
e
r
a
l

o
f

t
h
e

r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

ag
e
n
c
i
e
s

t
o

a
b
s
t
a
i
n

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

m
e
r
g
e
r

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.
7 The Transportation Agencies have since persuaded EPA,
FW
S

a
n
d

N
C
W
R
C

t
o

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e

i
n

t
h
e

c
o
n
t
e
x
t

o
f

T
u
r
n
pike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAC) meetings. But the resource agencies' objections to
i0
0
5
15
le
t
t
e
r
7/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J.

D
a
v
i
d
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
FW
S

a
n
d

N
C
W
R
C

t
o

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e

i
n

t
h
e

c
o
n
t
e
x
t

o
f

T
u
r
n
pike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAC) meetings. But the resource agencies' objections to
th
e

f
l
i
m
s
y

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

i
n

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

r
e
m
a
i
n

a
s

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e as ever.
i0
0
5
1
6
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
In

g
e
n
e
r
a
l
,

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

a
d
o
p
t
s

a

c
u
t

a
n
d

p
a
s
t
e

a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h to the alternatives analysis. Its discussions of the "transportation demand management" or "TDM
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
,
"

t
h
e

"
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

s
u
p
p
l
y

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
" or "TSM alternative", the "Mass Transit Alternative," and the "Multi-Modal Alternative," bear a
di
s
t
u
r
b
i
n
g

s
i
m
i
l
a
r
i
t
y

t
o

a

g
e
n
e
r
i
c

d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
es
e

s
a
m
e

"
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
"

f
o
r

o
t
h
e
r

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

T
u
rnpike Authority projects. 10 These discussions follow the
sa
m
e

b
a
s
i
c

p
a
t
t
e
r
n

o
f

"
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
.
"

W
i
t
h

t
h
e

e
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n of a new location metro line through "southern Gaston County," which "would not be financially
fe
a
s
i
b
l
e
,
"

[
2
-
8
]

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

d
e
f
i
n
e
s

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

"
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
iv
e
s
"

a
s

s
e
t
s

o
f

i
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

h
a
l
f
-
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

t
h
a
t

w
ill yield only "minimal" benefits in the face of the
ov
e
r
w
h
e
l
m
i
n
g

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

v
o
l
u
m
e
s

p
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

t
o

o
c
c
u
r
.

A
s
discussed previously in Section III, the DEIS traffic volume estimates lack credibility and strain
cr
e
d
u
l
i
t
y
.

A
n
d

i
n

l
i
g
h
t

o
f

t
h
e

G
a
s
t
o
n
i
a

R
a
p
i
d

T
r
a
n
s
it

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

s
t
u
d
y
,

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

s
h
o
u
l
d

e
x
p
l
a
i
n

h
o
w

the Transportation Agencies determined that the
be
n
e
f
i
t
s

o
f

t
h
e
s
e

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
,

a
l
o
n
e

o
r

i
n

c
o
m
b
i
n
a
ti
o
n
,

a
r
e

"
m
i
n
i
m
a
l
.
"
i0
0
5
1
7
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Ac
c
o
r
d
i
n
g

t
o

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
,

o
n
e

o
f

t
h
e

t
w
o

p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s

o
f

t
his project is "to improve traffic flow on the sections of I-85, US 29-74 and US 321 in the Project Study
Ar
e
a
.
"

[
1
-
3
]

A
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g

t
o

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
,

"
[
t
]
r
a
f
f
i
c

o
p
e
r
at
i
o
n
s

w
o
u
l
d

i
m
p
r
o
v
e

o
n

I
-
8
5

a
n
d

o
n

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

o
f

U
S

29-74 with the New Location [toll road] Alternative ...
co
m
p
a
r
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

N
o
-
B
u
i
l
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
,

s
i
n
c
e

t
h
e
r
e

w
ould be less traffic on I-85 and US 29-74 (Appendix C, Table C-2)." [2-21] But Appendix C shows that
tr
a
f
f
i
c

w
o
u
l
d

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

a
l
o
n
g

m
u
c
h

i
f

n
o
t

m
o
s
t

o
f

t
h
e
l
e
n
g
t
h

o
f

I
-
8
5
,

U
S

2
9
-
7
4
,

a
n
d

U
S

3
2
1

u
n
d
e
r

t
h
e

t
o
ll road alternative.
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Th
e

D
E
I
S

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
s

d
e
s
e
r
v
e

l
i
t
t
l
e

c
r
e
d
e
n
c
e
,
b
u
t

e
v
e
n

a
c
c
e
p
t
i
n
g

t
h
e
i
r

p
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
,

t
h
e

G
a
s
t
o
n

E
ast-West Connector would at best have no positive
im
p
a
c
t

o
n

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

c
o
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n

i
n

t
h
e

a
r
e
a
.

T
h
e

D
E
I
S

tr
a
f
f
i
c

f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
s

s
h
o
w

t
h
a
t

a

n
e
w

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
ive would worsen the level of service at which much of I-
85
,

U
S

2
9
-
7
4

a
n
d

U
S

3
2
1

o
p
e
r
a
t
e

i
n

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

a
r
e
a
. The forecasts show that "congested VMT" would decline by less than one percent. The DEIS cannot
i0
0
5
1
8
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
85
,

U
S

2
9
-
7
4

a
n
d

U
S

3
2
1

o
p
e
r
a
t
e

i
n

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

a
r
e
a
. The forecasts show that "congested VMT" would decline by less than one percent. The DEIS cannot
cl
a
i
m
,

o
n

t
h
e

b
a
s
i
s

o
f

t
h
i
s

d
a
t
a
,

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

wo
u
l
d

m
e
e
t

i
t
s

i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d

n
e
e
d

"
t
o

i
m
p
r
o
v
e

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

flow on the sections of I-85, US 29-74 and US 321 in the
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

S
t
u
d
y

A
r
e
a
.
"

[
1
-
3
]

T
h
e

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
g
e
n
c
ies should acknowledge this in a revised DEIS that evaluates a reasonable range of alternatives to
ad
d
r
e
s
s

i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d

t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

n
e
e
d
s
.
i0
0
5
1
9
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Ju
s
t

a
s

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

g
i
v
e
s

c
o
m
m
u
t
e
r
s

a
n
d

r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s

l
i
t
t
le insight into how much this project will improve mobility compared to reasonable alternatives, it gives
ta
x
p
a
y
e
r
s

o
n
l
y

t
h
e

d
i
m
m
e
s
t

n
o
t
i
o
n

o
f

h
o
w

t
h
i
s

p
r
o
j
e
ct's cost compares to that of potential reasonable alternatives. The DEIS presents no cost information
ab
o
u
t

u
p
g
r
a
d
e
s

t
o

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

h
i
g
h
w
a
y
,

r
a
i
l
,

a
n
d

t
r
a
n
s
it

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.

A
n
d

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

m
i
s
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
e
s

t
h
e

r
e
venue potential of tolling, glossing over the substantial
pu
b
l
i
c

f
u
n
d
i
n
g

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

w
o
u
l
d

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
.

A
s

a
r
e
s
u
l
t
,

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

l
e
a
v
e
s

t
h
e

r
e
a
d
e
r

i
l
l
-
e
q
u
i
p
p
e
d

t
o
judge whether the Gaston East-West Connector is a
so
u
n
d

i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t

o
f

p
u
b
l
i
c

f
u
n
d
s

o
r

a

b
o
o
n
d
o
g
g
l
e
.
Ev
e
n

u
n
d
e
r

t
h
e

T
u
r
n
p
i
k
e

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
'
s

m
o
s
t

o
p
t
i
m
i
s
t
i
c
forecast of toll revenues, the Project will require several hundred million dollars of public funding. The
DE
I
S

s
h
o
u
l
d

t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e

a
n
a
l
y
z
e

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s with this magnitude as a reference point, including those that carry similar actual price tags.Appendix E Interest Groups Comments Gaston Connector DEIS 9
DEIS - Public Release Comments Interest Groups
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

o
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
Co
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
NA
M
E
Ex
e
c
u
t
i
v
e

O
r
d
e
r

1
2
8
9
8

m
a
n
d
a
t
e
s

"
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
i
n
g

a
n
d

a
d
d
ressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects ...
on

m
i
n
o
r
i
t
y

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

l
o
w
-
i
n
c
o
m
e

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
"14 Tolling will clearly have a disproportionate impact on low-income residents in the project area, and
th
e

D
E
I
S

s
h
o
u
l
d

i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

a
n
d

a
d
d
r
e
s
s

t
h
e
s
e

e
f
f
e
c
t
s
.

th
e

D
E
I
S

s
h
o
u
l
d

i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

a
n
d

a
d
d
r
e
s
s

t
h
e
s
e

e
f
f
e
c
t
s
.

In
s
t
e
a
d
,

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

r
e
a
s
o
n
s

t
h
a
t

t
h
e
r
e

i
s

"
n
o

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
al for disproportionately high and adverse impact," [3-25] on minority and low-income communities
be
c
a
u
s
e

t
h
e
y

w
i
l
l

b
e

a
b
l
e

t
o

u
s
e

I
-
8
5
,

U
S

2
9
-
7
4

a
n
d
the other existing free alternative routes to the toll road. The DEIS discussion of Environmental Justice
in
t
i
m
a
t
e
s

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

t
o
l
l

r
o
a
d

w
i
l
l

b
e
n
e
f
i
t

e
v
e
n

t
h
o
s
e
w
h
o

c
a
n
n
o
t

a
f
f
o
r
d

t
o

t
r
a
v
e
l

o
n

i
t

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

"
t
h
e

D
S
As would be diverting traffic from the existing routes." [3-
26
]

T
h
e

D
E
I
S

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
s
,

h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,

s
h
o
w

t
h
a
t

much of the existing roadways would operate at LOS F with the toll road, and that the toll road would
ac
t
u
a
l
l
y

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

v
o
l
u
m
e
s

a
l
o
n
g

m
u
c
h

o
f

I
-
8
5 and US 29-74.
Si
m
i
l
a
r
l
y
,

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

c
l
a
i
m
s

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

h
a
s

"
n
o
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
"

t
o

n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
l
y

a
f
f
e
c
t

t
r
a
n
s
i
t

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

i
n
the project area, but this ignores the link between land use
an
d

t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
.

A
s

t
h
e

G
a
s
t
o
n
i
a

R
a
p
i
d

Transit Alternatives Study points out, a successful transit program hinges on "timely action to encourage
tr
a
n
s
i
t
-
o
r
i
e
n
t
e
d

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

a
l
o
n
g

a

s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d

a
l
i
g
n
ment."15 The Gaston East-West Connector would encourage low density, auto-dependent development
th
a
t

w
o
u
l
d

u
n
d
e
r
m
i
n
e

a
n
y

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
nt along a transit corridor to the north. As a result, the mobility of residents in the project area who
la
c
k

a
c
c
e
s
s

t
o

a

p
r
i
v
a
t
e
l
y

o
w
n
e
d

a
u
t
o
m
o
b
i
l
e

w
o
u
l
d

d
ecline as a result of this project being built.
Th
e

D
E
I
S

l
e
a
v
e
s

n
o

d
o
u
b
t

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

a
c
t
i
o
n

w
ill not improve the mobility of some residents in the project area. Clearly there is a need to minimize
th
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

p
e
o
p
l
e

f
o
r

w
h
o
m

t
h
i
s

i
s

t
r
u
e

i
n

o
r
d
e
r
t
o

r
e
a
l
i
z
e

t
h
e

f
u
l
l
e
s
t

o
v
e
r
a
l
l

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

i
n

m
o
b
i
lity. The DEIS recognizes no such need, however, nor
do
e
s

i
t

d
i
s
c
u
s
s

a
n
y

g
o
a
l
s

o
r

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

t
o

a
d
d
r
e
s
s

i
t
. A revised DEIS should address these issues in order to comply with Executive Order 12898 and NEPA.
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Th
e

D
E
I
S

r
e
p
o
r
t
s

t
h
a
t

E
P
A

e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y

d
i
s
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

t
he State Implementation Plan "SIP" submission for Charlotte, causing NCDAQ to preemptively withdraw
it
.

T
h
e

D
E
I
S

e
x
p
l
a
i
n
s

t
h
a
t

E
P
A
'
s

s
u
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t

"
f
i
n
d
i
n
g of failure to submit" a SIP could result in highway sanctions if NCDAQ does not submit an appropriate
pl
a
n

w
i
t
h
i
n

2
4

m
o
n
t
h
s
,

a
l
t
h
o
u
g
h

i
t

a
d
d
s

t
h
a
t

s
u
c
h

s
anctions are "unlikely," as the State may simply "bump up" to "serious" nonattainment status instead. At
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

Ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

a
n
d

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
i0
0
5
2
0
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
i0
0
5
2
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
pl
a
n

w
i
t
h
i
n

2
4

m
o
n
t
h
s
,

a
l
t
h
o
u
g
h

i
t

a
d
d
s

t
h
a
t

s
u
c
h

s
anctions are "unlikely," as the State may simply "bump up" to "serious" nonattainment status instead. At
no

p
o
i
n
t

d
o
e
s

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

a
d
d
r
e
s
s

t
h
e

c
o
s
t

o
r

h
e
a
l
t
h

i
mplications of the serious nonattainment designation. Nor does the DEIS address how this project would
af
f
e
c
t

t
h
e

r
e
g
i
o
n
'
s

e
f
f
o
r
t
s

t
o

m
e
e
t

t
h
e

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
h
a
t

w
o
u
l
d

b
e

t
r
i
g
g
e
r
e
d

b
y

t
h
a
t

d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
.

T
h
e

DEIS treats the Charlotte area's smog as if it were
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
l
y

d
i
v
o
r
c
e
d

f
r
o
m

m
a
j
o
r

t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

d
e
c
i
s
ions such as the one that this DEIS purports to analyze.
i0
0
5
2
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Th
e

C
h
a
r
l
o
t
t
e

a
r
e
a
'
s

s
m
o
g

p
r
o
b
l
e
m

i
s

n
o
t

g
o
i
n
g

t
o

g
o away anytime soon. As the DEIS Air Quality Technical Memorandum acknowledges, the 2007 eight-
ho
u
r

o
z
o
n
e

d
e
s
i
g
n

v
a
l
u
e
s

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

i
n

M
e
c
k
l
e
n
b
u
r
g

C
o
unty was .93 ppm, the highest since the 2004 designation year. State authorities have yet to hatch a
vi
a
b
l
e

p
l
a
n

f
o
r

b
r
i
n
g
i
n
g

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

i
n
t
o

c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e

with the old standard by the 2010 deadline, even without accounting for the Gaston East-West
Co
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
.

T
h
e

n
e
w
,

m
o
r
e

s
t
r
i
n
g
e
n
t

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

w
i
l
l

r
e
quire significant reductions in the emission of ozone precursors by 2016. Construction of a 22-mile,
tw
e
l
v
e

i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
,

4
-
l
a
n
e

t
o
l
l

h
i
g
h
w
a
y

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

u
rb
a
n

f
r
i
n
g
e

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

r
u
r
a
l

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

w
o
u
l
d

c
a
u
s
e
a significant increase in these emissions. The DEIS
fa
i
l
s

t
o

e
v
e
n

a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

t
h
i
s

i
m
p
a
c
t
,

m
u
c
h

l
e
s
s

c
o
mpare the benefit of adopting an alternative that would help to solve the region's ozone problem rather
th
a
n

e
x
a
c
e
r
b
a
t
e

i
t
.

i0
0
5
2
3
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Th
e

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

f
i
n
e

p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e

m
a
t
t
e
r
,

a
l
s
o

k
n
o
w
n
as PM2.5, is subject to a regulatory regime similar to the one governing ozone. Technically, the project
ar
e
a

i
s

i
n

a
t
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t

f
o
r

P
M
2
.
5
,

b
u
t

a
s

t
h
e

A
i
r

Q
u
a
li
t
y

T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m

t
o

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

d
i
s
c
l
o
s
e
s
:

"
I
n 2007, the annual value for the region was 14.9
f!
g
/
m
3,
j
u
s
t

u
n
d
e
r

t
h
e

a
n
n
u
a
l

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

o
f

1
5

f
!
g
/
m
3.
[
a
t

1
4
]

T
h
e

D
E
I
S

f
a
i
l
s

t
o

m
e
n
t
i
o
n
,

h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,

t
h
a
t

prior to the issuance of the DEIS, the D.C. Circuit
re
m
a
n
d
e
d

t
h
e

P
M
2
.
5
·
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

t
o

E
P
A
,

a
g
r
e
e
i
n
g

w
i
t
h

e
nvironmental and other public interest groups that the agency "failed adequately to explain why, in
vi
e
w

o
f

t
h
e

r
i
s
k
s

p
o
s
e
d

b
y

s
h
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m

e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
s

a
n
d
the evidence of morbidity resulting from long-term exposures, its annual standard is sufficient to protect
th
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

h
e
a
l
t
h

[
w
i
t
h
]

a
n

a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e

m
a
r
g
i
n

o
f

s
a
f
e
ty
.
"

American Farm Bureau v. EPA, No. 06-1410 (D.C. Cir. February 24,2009), at 14.Based on the
Ob
a
m
a

a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
'
s

p
l
e
d
g
e

t
o

r
e
l
y

o
n

"
s
o
u
n
d

s
c
i
ence" and public health experts' previous endorsements of a lower PM2.5 standard, the Charlotte metro
i0
0
5
23
le
t
t
e
r
7/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J.

D
a
v
i
d
Ai
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Ob
a
m
a

a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
'
s

p
l
e
d
g
e

t
o

r
e
l
y

o
n

"
s
o
u
n
d

s
c
i
ence" and public health experts' previous endorsements of a lower PM2.5 standard, the Charlotte metro
ar
e
a

a
p
p
e
a
r
s

l
i
k
e
l
y

t
o

s
l
i
p

i
n
t
o

n
o
n
a
t
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t
.

T
h
i
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t

w
i
l
l

m
a
k
e

i
t

m
o
r
e

d
i
f
f
i
c
u
l
t

f
o
r

C
h
a
r
l
o
t
t
e
to meet a new, more stringent standard. The DEIS should
de
t
a
i
l

t
h
e

l
i
k
e
l
y

c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
.

o
f

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
,

e
s
p
ec
i
a
l
l
y

t
r
u
c
k

t
r
a
f
f
i
c
,

t
o

r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l

P
M
2
.
5

p
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
,
based on transparent, objectively verifiable traffic forecasting.
It

s
h
o
u
l
d

a
l
s
o

e
x
p
l
a
i
n

h
o
w

d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

m
e
t
r
o

C
h
a
rlotte as a nonattainment area for PM2.5 may affect the viability of the Gaston East-West Connector,
an
d

e
x
p
l
o
r
e

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

t
h
a
t

s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
l
y

d
e
c
r
e
a
s
e,

r
a
t
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
,

P
M
2
.
5

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

i
n

t
h
e

r
e
g
ion.Appendix E Interest Groups Comments Gaston Connector DEIS 10
DEIS - Public Release Comments Interest Groups
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

o
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
Co
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
NA
M
E
Th
e

D
E
I
S

m
a
k
e
s

n
o

m
e
n
t
i
o
n

o
f

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
0
9
(
h
)

o
r

i
t
s

implementing regulations. Section 4.2.5.2 of the DEIS primarily disclaims responsibility for analyzing
MS
A
T
s
,

e
x
p
l
a
i
n
i
n
g

t
h
a
t

"
w
h
i
l
e

m
u
c
h

w
o
r
k

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

d
o
ne to assess the overall health risk of air toxics, many questions remain unanswered." It goes on to
me
n
t
i
o
n

t
h
a
t
,

i
n

a
n
y

e
v
e
n
t
,

"
U
S
E
P

A

h
a
s

n
o
t

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
shed regulatory concentration targets" for MSATs. Neither the brief treatment of air toxics within the
i0
0
5
2
4
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
me
n
t
i
o
n

t
h
a
t
,

i
n

a
n
y

e
v
e
n
t
,

"
U
S
E
P

A

h
a
s

n
o
t

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
shed regulatory concentration targets" for MSATs. Neither the brief treatment of air toxics within the
DE
I
S
,

n
o
r

t
h
e

a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d

"
q
u
a
l
i
t
a
t
i
v
e

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

o
f

M
S
A
Ts" at Appendix H, addresses mitigation measures to reduce the emission of air pollutants, contrary to
th
e

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s

o
f

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
0
9
(
h
)
.

T
h
e

A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Technical Memorandum advances the dubious rationale that while "it is expected there would be slightly
hi
g
h
e
r

M
S
A
T

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

i
n

t
h
e

i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e

a
r
e
a

o
f

t
h
e

project, relative to the No-Build Alternative ... current tools and science are not adequate to quantify
th
e
m
,
"
[

a
t

2
6
]

o
r

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
l
y

t
o

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

a
n
y

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
ti
o
n

o
t
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

a

h
o
p
e
f
u
l

a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t

t
h
a
t

"
E
P
A
'
s

v
e
hicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover,
wi
l
l

o
v
e
r

t
i
m
e

c
a
u
s
e

s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l

r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
"

i
n

M
S
A
Ts. This optimistic analysis fails to provide the basis for a meaningful assessment of this project's
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

i
m
p
a
c
t
s
,

a
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

b
y

N
E
P
A
.

T
h
e

D
E
I
S should catalogue the schools, hospitals, public parks and other locations in the project area where
se
n
s
i
t
i
v
e

p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

w
o
u
l
d

l
i
k
e
l
y

s
u
f
f
e
r

e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e

to

M
S
A
T

g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

t
o
l
l

r
o
a
d
.

T
h
e

D
E
I
S

s
h
o
u
l
d
estimate the likely emissions exposures at these
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

u
s
i
n
g

a
c
c
e
p
t
e
d

t
e
s
t
i
n
g

m
e
t
h
o
d
s
,

r
e
l
a
t
e

t
h
ese estimates to the findings in contemporary, peer-reviewed health studies of MSAT exposures, and
di
s
c
u
s
s

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

t
h
a
t

c
o
u
l
d

s
a
f
eguard the identified sensitive populations. Finally, the DEIS should compare these costs with those
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

a

p
l
a
u
s
i
b
l
e

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

t
h
a
t

d
o
e
s

n
ot

i
n
v
o
l
v
e

a

n
e
w
-
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

t
o
l
l

r
o
a
d
,

s
u
c
h

a
s

u
p
g
r
a
d
es to existing highway, transit, and freight rail facilities in
th
e

a
r
e
a
.
i0
0
5
2
5
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Th
e

r
a
n
g
e

o
f

a
i
r

p
o
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
s

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

is also inadequate. Section 109 requires the consideration of "possible" adverse environmental effects,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

a
i
r

p
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
.

2
3

U
.
S
.
C
.

§

1
0
9
.

T
h
i
s

a
n
a
l
ys
i
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s

"
t
h
e

g
a
t
h
e
r
i
n
g

a
n
d

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

e
v
i
d
ence on potential pollution hazards." D.C. Fed'n of Civic
As
s
'
n
s

v
.

V
o
l
p
e
,
4
5
9

F
.
2
d

1
2
3
1
,

1
2
4
2

(
D
.
C
.

C
i
r
.

1
9
7
1
)
.

T
h
e

D
E
I
S
'
s

limited analysis of air pollutants only addresses the NAAQS criteria air pollutants and
th
o
s
e

l
i
s
t
e
d

a
s

"
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
"

M
S
A
T
s
.

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

1
0
9

o
f

t
h
e
F
e
d
e
r
a
l

A
i
d

H
i
g
h
w
a
y

A
c
t
,

h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s

a
n
a
l
y
s
is of more than just these pollutants.
Gi
v
e
n

t
h
e

c
l
e
a
r

l
i
n
k

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

t
h
e

M
S
A
T
s

i
n

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

e
xhaust and health impacts, the question is not whether construction of the Gaston East-West Connector-
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

t
h
e

m
a
s
s
i
v
e

I
-
4
8
5

i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e

t
h
a
t

w
i
l
l

e
nc
r
o
a
c
h

u
p
o
n

B
e
r
e
w
i
c
k

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

P
a
r
k

-

w
i
l
l

h
a
v
e

n
e
g
ative health repercussions for those who live nearby.
i0
0
5
2
6
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

t
h
e

m
a
s
s
i
v
e

I
-
4
8
5

i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e

t
h
a
t

w
i
l
l

e
nc
r
o
a
c
h

u
p
o
n

B
e
r
e
w
i
c
k

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

P
a
r
k

-

w
i
l
l

h
a
v
e

n
e
g
ative health repercussions for those who live nearby.
Th
e

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n

i
s

h
o
w

a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
l
y

t
h
e
s
e

h
e
a
l
t
h

i
m
p
a
c
t
s
can be predicted. The Agencies may not have a computer model specifically designed for this task and
th
e
r
e

m
a
y

b
e

l
i
m
i
t
s

o
n

h
o
w

a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
l
y

t
h
e

h
e
a
l
t
h

i
m
pacts in this area can he predicted. But the purpose of NEPA is to force Agencies to consider and
di
s
c
l
o
s
e

t
h
e

r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y

f
o
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e

c
o
n
s
e
q
u
e
n
c
e
s

o
f
their actions; the DEIS focuses instead on justifying its failure to consider these consequences. The
Ag
e
n
c
i
e
s

m
u
s
t

m
o
d
e
l

t
h
e

h
e
a
l
t
h

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
c
r
e
ased MSAT exposure to the extent practicable as evidenced by "theoretical approaches or research
me
t
h
o
d
s

g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
y

a
c
c
e
p
t
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c

c
o
m
m
u
n
ity." Failure to do so violates Section 109(h) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act.
i0
0
5
2
7
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Th
e

D
E
I
S

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t

p
r
e
d
i
c
t
s

t
h
a
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f

t
h
e

G
a
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r

w
i
l
l

c
a
u
s
e

V
M
T

in Gaston County to increase by around eleven
pe
r
c
e
n
t

c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

N
o

B
u
i
l
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
.

A
c
c
e
p
ting this forecast, the Gaston East-West Connector would generate tens of thousands of tons of
gr
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e

g
a
s

(
G
H
G
)

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

e
a
c
h

y
e
a
r
.

T
h
e

D
E
I
S

ignores these emissions. This failure to even acknowledge GHG emissions is at odds with current
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s

a
c
r
o
s
s

t
h
e

n
a
t
i
o
n
.
For a project of this scale, the Agencies must consider GHG emissions impacts and mitigation
st
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
.

F
a
i
l
u
r
e

t
o

a
d
d
r
e
s
s

t
h
i
s

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

e
n
v
ir
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

i
m
p
a
c
t

i
s

a

v
i
o
l
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

N
E
P
A
.

E
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y for a toll road project that relies on increasing vehicle
tr
a
v
e
l

t
o

g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e

s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

r
e
v
e
n
u
e

t
o

f
i
n
a
n
c
e

t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,

i
t

i
s

e
s
s
e
n
t
i
a
l

t
h
a
t

i
s
s
u
e
s

r
e
l
a
t
e
d

t
o

G
HG emissions be disclosed and evaluated. Appendix E Interest Groups Comments Gaston Connector DEIS 11
DEIS - Public Release Comments Interest Groups
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

o
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
Co
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
NA
M
E
Ef
f
o
r
t
s

t
o

r
e
d
u
c
e

G
H
G

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

m
u
s
t

i
n
v
o
l
v
e

t
r
a
n
s
p
ortation. In its final report, the North Carolina Climate Action Plan Advisory Group estimates that the
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

s
e
c
t
o
r

a
c
c
o
u
n
t
s

f
o
r

2
9
%

o
f

t
h
e

S
t
a
t
e
's current GHG emissions. The Group's report "recommends that the State work with its constituents to
sh
i
f
t

p
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r

t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

m
o
d
e

c
h
o
i
c
e

t
o

l
o
w
e
r
emitting choices," such as transit or rail instead of driving privately owned vehicles. The report also
i0
0
5
2
8
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
sh
i
f
t

p
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r

t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

m
o
d
e

c
h
o
i
c
e

t
o

l
o
w
e
r
emitting choices," such as transit or rail instead of driving privately owned vehicles. The report also
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
s

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

S
t
a
t
e

t
a
k
e

s
t
e
p
s

t
o

b
e
t
t
e
r

i
n
t
e
grate land use planning and transportation, and that it invest more in transit. Construction of the Gaston
Ea
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r

w
o
u
l
d

u
n
d
e
r
m
i
n
e

a
l
l

o
f

t
h
e
s
e

r
e
commendations. The Project threatens to explode the western footprint of the Charlotte metro area,
op
e
n

u
p

v
a
s
t

r
u
r
a
l

a
r
e
a
s

t
o

s
p
r
a
w
l

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,

c
r
i
pple the development of transit in Gaston and western Mecklenburg counties, and gobble up public
fu
n
d
i
n
g

t
h
a
t

m
i
g
h
t

o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e

f
i
n
a
n
c
e

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

t
r
an
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s

f
o
r

d
e
c
a
d
e
s

t
o

c
o
m
e
.

A
s

t
he DEIS acknowledges, the Gaston East-West
Co
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
·

w
i
l
l

i
n
d
u
c
e

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s

o
f

m
i
l
e
s

o
f

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
na
l

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

t
r
a
v
e
l

e
a
c
h

y
e
a
r
,

c
r
e
a
t
i
n
g

t
e
n
s

o
f

t
h
o
u
sands of tons of GHG pollutants. Therefore, the Project
ri
s
e
s

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
e

"
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
"

t
h
r
e
s
h
o
l
d

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d under other existing regulatory regimes. And recent case law trends indicate that a 22-mile, four-lane,
ne
w

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

t
o
l
l

w
a
y

s
h
o
u
l
d

s
a
t
i
s
f
y

a
n
y

t
h
r
e
s
h
o
l
d

fo
r

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e

i
n

j
u
d
i
c
i
a
l

r
e
v
i
e
w

u
n
d
e
r

N
E
P
A
.

S
e
e
, e.g., Laidlaw Energy v. Town of Ellicottville, Case No.
16
5
9

C
A

0
8
-
0
1
1
8
3

(
N
.
Y
.

A
p
p
.

C
t
.

F
e
b
.

6
,
2
0
0
9
)

(
u
p
h
o
l
ding decision to deny a land use approval under the State Environmental Quality Review Act due to
co
n
c
e
r
n

o
v
e
r

c
a
r
b
o
n

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s

t
h
a
t

a

p
roposed biomass cogeneration facility would cause "serious increases in harmful emissions" that would
re
s
u
l
t

i
n

a
n

"
u
n
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e

a
d
v
e
r
s
e

i
m
p
a
c
t
"
)
;

C
o
a
l
i
t
io
n

f
o
r

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

I
n
t
e
g
r
i
t
y

i
n

Y
u
c
c
a

V
a
l
l
e
y

v
.

Wal-Mart, Case No. CIVBS 810232 (Cal. Sup. Ct. May
14
,
2
0
0
9
)

(
h
o
l
d
i
n
g

t
h
a
t

s
t
a
t
e

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
documents for Wal-Mart supercenter had to "consider the entire GHG emission output of the Project").
i0
0
5
2
9
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Th
e

f
u
r
t
h
e
r

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

o
f

c
l
i
m
a
t
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n will likely have direct effects on transportation in an effort to achieve nationwide benchmarks. One
ap
p
r
o
a
c
h

w
o
u
l
d

b
e

t
o

t
a
x

g
a
s
o
l
i
n
e

o
r

t
a
x

d
r
i
v
e
r
s

o
n
the basis of vehicle miles traveled. Whatever the mechanism, such regulation would render carbon
in
t
e
n
s
i
v
e

m
o
d
e
s

o
f

t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
,

s
u
c
h

a
s

f
r
e
e
w
a
y
s
, more costly for users. Because transportation accounts for approximately one third of GHG emissions
an
d

i
s

t
h
e

f
a
s
t
e
s
t

g
r
o
w
i
n
g

s
o
u
r
c
e

s
e
c
t
o
r
,

i
t

c
a
n

b
e
r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y

a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d

t
h
a
t

a
n
y

f
u
t
u
r
e

f
e
d
e
r
a
l

r
e
g
ulatory scheme will include a component that
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
s

l
e
s
s

p
e
r

c
a
p
i
t
a

m
o
t
o
r

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

t
r
a
v
e
l
.

T
h
is would affect the toll revenue of the planned Gaston East-West Connector, and possibly undermine the
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
'
s

v
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

e
n
t
i
r
e
l
y
.

Y
e
t

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

n
e
g
l
e
c
t
s
t
o

e
v
e
n

m
e
n
t
i
o
n

t
h
e
s
e

v
e
r
y

r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

i
s
s
u
e
s
.

Pr
o
j
e
c
t
'
s

v
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

e
n
t
i
r
e
l
y
.

Y
e
t

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

n
e
g
l
e
c
t
s
t
o

e
v
e
n

m
e
n
t
i
o
n

t
h
e
s
e

v
e
r
y

r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

i
s
s
u
e
s
.

i0
0
5
3
0
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
So
m
e

s
t
a
t
e
s

h
a
v
e

f
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s

t
o

q
u
a
n
t
i
f
y GHG emissions and consider mitigation strategies. In Massachusetts, projects subject to the state
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

p
o
l
i
c
y

a
c
t

(
M
E
P
A
)

2
3

t
h
a
t

i
n
v
o
l
v
e

s
i
g
nificant GHG emissions must identify and quantify those emissions and also "consider a project
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

i
n

t
h
e

[
E
I
S
]

t
h
a
t

i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
s

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
o

a
v
o
i
d
,

m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
,

o
r

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e

s
u
c
h

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
?
4

S
imilarly, since 2003, the New York State Department
of

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
N
Y
D
O
T
)

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

r
e
q
u
i
r
i
n
g

a
n
a
l
y
s
is of GHG emissions for major projects, and the New York Department of Environmental Conservation
ha
s

i
s
s
u
e
d

a

"
G
u
i
d
e

f
o
r

A
s
s
e
s
s
i
n
g

E
n
e
r
g
y

U
s
e

a
n
d

G
r
eenhouse Gas Emissions in Environmental Impact Statements," specifically targeted towards
"p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

t
h
a
t

g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e

m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s

o
f

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

m
i
l
e
s

t
ra
v
e
l
e
d
.
"

I
n

o
t
h
e
r

s
t
a
t
e
s
,

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

G
H
G

e
m
i
ssions has followed a more informal path. In California,
th
e

s
t
a
t
e

a
t
t
o
r
n
e
y

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

h
a
s

d
i
r
e
c
t
e
d

l
o
c
a
l

g
o
v
e
r
nments to consider GHG impacts on transportation and land use projects in order to comply with that
st
a
t
e
'
s

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

p
o
l
i
c
y

a
c
t

(
C
E
Q
A
)
,

l
e
a
d
i
n
g

p
r
ivate professionals to promulgate an informal handbook on "alternative approaches to analyzing [GHG]
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

g
l
o
b
a
l

c
l
i
m
a
t
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

i
n

C
E
Q

A

d
o
c
u
m
e
nts."26 In Washington, the executive of King County, which encompasses Seattle, has adopted a
co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e

o
r
d
e
r

"
r
e
q
u
i
r
i
n
g

t
h
a
t

a
d
v
e
r
s
e

c
l
i
m
a
t
e
impacts be described for all projects that must complete State Environmental Protection Act
do
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
,

w
h
e
n

t
h
e

c
o
u
n
t
y

i
s

t
h
e

l
e
a
d

o
r

i
s

p
e
r
m
i
t
ting a project in unincorporated King County." These regulatory regimes derive their authority from
va
r
i
o
u
s

s
o
u
r
c
e
s
,

w
h
i
c
h

a
r
e

o
f
t
e
n

p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r

t
o

t
h
e

st
a
t
e

o
r

r
e
g
i
o
n

w
h
e
r
e

t
h
e
y

a
p
p
l
y
.

T
h
e
y

d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
,
however, that an established methodology for
an
a
l
y
z
i
n
g

G
H
G

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

c
a
n

b
e

a
p
p
l
i
e
d

t
o

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e

the impacts of large-scale, GHG intensive projects such as the Gaston East-West Connector.
i0
0
5
31
le
t
t
e
r
7/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J.

D
a
v
i
d
Ai
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Th
e

D
E
I
S

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
,

o
r

e
v
e
n

m
e
n
t
i
o
n
,

G
H
G

e
m
issions. At a minimum, the Agencies must model the GHG emissions of a reasonable range of
pr
o
j
e
c
t

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

a
n
d

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r

w
h
e
t
h
e
r

t
h
e
y

c
o
u
l
d accomplish the purpose and goals of the Project while limiting the GHG emissions. The Agencies must
al
s
o

d
e
t
a
i
l

a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

f
o
r

l
i
m
i
t
in
g

t
h
e

G
H
G

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

t
h
a
t

w
i
l
l

r
e
s
u
l
t

f
r
o
m

t
h
i
s

P
r
oject, and estimate the potential cost of offsetting the
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
'
s

G
H
G

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

i
m
p
a
c
t
,

f
o
r

e
x
a
m
p
l
e
,

b
a
s
e
d

on projected permit prices per ton ofcarbon dioxide under a future cap and trade regime. Finally, the
i0
0
5
31
le
t
t
e
r
7/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J.

D
a
v
i
d
Ai
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
'
s

G
H
G

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

i
m
p
a
c
t
,

f
o
r

e
x
a
m
p
l
e
,

b
a
s
e
d

on projected permit prices per ton ofcarbon dioxide under a future cap and trade regime. Finally, the
DE
I
S

m
u
s
t

d
e
t
a
i
l

h
o
w

r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

G
H
G

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

m
a
y affect travel demand and by extension toll revenues, and how this might affect the project's
vi
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
.

T
h
e

w
h
o
l
e
s
a
l
e

f
a
i
l
u
r
e

t
o

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r

G
H
G

e
m
issions from the Project is unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious. The Agencies should reissue a DEIS
th
a
t

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
s

t
h
e

f
u
l
l

r
a
n
g
e

o
f

G
H
G

i
s
s
u
e
s

r
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o

t
h
i
s

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
Appendix E Interest Groups Comments Gaston Connector DEIS 12
DEIS - Public Release Comments Interest Groups
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

o
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
Co
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
NA
M
E
Th
e

D
E
I
S

f
a
i
l
s

t
o

a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
l
y

a
n
a
l
y
z
e

w
a
t
e
r

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

impacts from the proposed project. The DEIS points out that a Draft 2008 303(d) list includes a growing
nu
m
b
e
r

o
f

w
a
t
e
r

b
o
d
i
e
s

i
n

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

S
t
u
d
y

A
r
e
a
,

i
ncluding Abernethy Creek, Crowders Creek, McGill Branch, Catawba Creek, and the South Fork
Ca
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r
.

T
h
e

D
E
I
S

e
x
p
l
a
i
n
s

t
h
a
t

t
h
e
s
e

w
a
t
e
r

b
odies have "impaired use for aquatic life," and that urban stormwater runoff is most likely to blame for
i0
0
5
3
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Ca
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r
.

T
h
e

D
E
I
S

e
x
p
l
a
i
n
s

t
h
a
t

t
h
e
s
e

w
a
t
e
r

b
odies have "impaired use for aquatic life," and that urban stormwater runoff is most likely to blame for
th
e

i
m
p
a
i
r
m
e
n
t
.

[
6
-
6
]
3
3

B
u
t

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

g
i
v
e
s

l
i
t
t
l
e

i
nd
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

h
o
w

t
h
e

G
a
r
d
e
n

P
a
r
k
w
a
y

-

w
h
i
c
h

w
o
u
l
d

o
pen up some of the least urbanized areas of the
Ca
t
a
w
b
a

w
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d

t
o

s
p
r
a
w
l
i
n
g

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

w
i
t
h

a

g
reatly increased amount of impervious surfaces-would not significantly magnify these impacts. The
DE
I
S

t
h
r
o
w
s

o
u
t

a

l
a
u
n
d
r
y

l
i
s
t

o
f

"
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o

w
a
t
e
r

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

t
h
a
t

c
o
u
l
d

o
c
c
u
r

u
n
d
e
r

a
n
y

o
f

t
h
e DSAs." [6-9] Yet, the DEIS fails to provide any detailed
or

q
u
a
n
t
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
an
a
l
y
s
i
s

o
f

h
o
w

t
h
e
s
e

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

m
i
g
h
t

b
e

a
v
o
i
d
e
d
,

o
r

how they will affect the attainment of water quality standards. It offers only the vague assurance that
"i
m
p
a
c
t
s

f
r
o
m

e
r
o
s
i
o
n

a
n
d

s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

w
i
l
l

b
e

m
i
n
imized by implementing control measures in accordance with
NC
D
E
N
R

a
n
d

N
C
D
O
T

g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
,
"

a
n
d

t
h
a
t

"
a
n

e
r
o
s
i
o
n

a
n
d sedimentation plan will be developed for the Preferred Alternative in accordance with the
Er
o
s
i
o
n

a
n
d

S
e
d
i
m
e
n
t

C
o
n
t
r
o
l

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

a
n
d

D
e
s
i
g
n

(
N
CDENR Division of Land Resources, June 2006) and Best Management Practices for the Protection
of

S
u
r
f
a
c
e

W
a
t
e
r
s

(
N
C
D
O
T
,

M
a
r
c
h

1
9
9
7
)
.
"

[
6
-
1
0
]
i0
0
5
3
3
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

E
f
f
e
c
t
s
Wa
t
e
r

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Th
e

D
E
I
S

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

t
o

w
a
t
er quality is even less informative. It concedes that "water resources having the potential to be
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
y

a
f
f
e
c
t
e
d

b
y

n
o
n
-
p
o
i
n
t

s
o
u
r
c
e

p
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
i
n
c
l
u
d
e

t
h
e

C
a
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r
,

S
o
u
t
h

F
o
r
k

C
a
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r, Abernethy Creek, Catawba Creek, Crowders
Cr
e
e
k
,

a
n
d

B
l
a
c
k
w
o
o
d

C
r
e
e
k
.
"

[
7
-
1
7
]

T
h
e

D
E
I
S

d
o
e
s

n
ot describe, though, "what non-point source control measures will be needed and how they are to be
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
,
"

~
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

b
y

D
W
Q

p
o
l
i
c
y
.
3
4

I
t

d
o
e
s

not detail "the nature of the discharge, including cumulative impacts to isolated and non-isolated
we
t
l
a
n
d
s
,
"

a
s

d
i
r
e
c
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

a
d
m
i
n
i
strative code 15A NCAC 02H .1302. Instead, the DEIS simply states that "these effects"-whatever they
ma
y

b
e

-

"
c
a
n

b
e

m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
d

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
f local stormwater ordinances and Best Management Practices (BMP)."
Fa
i
l
u
r
e

t
o

e
x
a
m
i
n
e

w
a
t
e
r

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

f
r
o
m

a
l
l

r
ea
s
o
n
a
b
l
e

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

i
s

a

d
e
r
o
g
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

A
g
e
n
c
ies' duties under NEPA, and by extension, under §§
40
4

a
n
d

4
0
1

o
f

t
h
e

C
W
A
.

N
E
P
A

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

A
g
e
n
cies "[ d]evote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail, including the proposed
i0
0
5
3
4
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

Ef
f
e
c
t
s
40
4

a
n
d

4
0
1

o
f

t
h
e

C
W
A
.

N
E
P
A

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

A
g
e
n
cies "[ d]evote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail, including the proposed
ac
t
i
o
n
,

s
o

t
h
a
t

r
e
v
i
e
w
e
r
s

m
a
y

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e

t
h
e
i
r

c
o
m
p
a
r
ative merits." 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(b). The superficial disclosure of project impacts in the DEIS falls far
sh
o
r
t

o
f

t
h
i
s

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
.

T
h
e

D
E
I
S

f
o
c
u
s
e
s

o
n

r
e
l
a
t
i
v
ely inconsequential differences between the myriad "detailed study alternatives,"-route variations of an
ot
h
e
r
w
i
s
e

i
d
e
n
t
i
c
a
l

t
o
l
l

t
o
a
d

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
-
i
n
s
t
e
a
d

o
f
m
e
a
n
i
n
g
f
u
l
l
y

i
n
f
o
r
m
i
n
g

t
h
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
ct's impacts on the area's water resources, not to
me
n
t
i
o
n

t
h
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
g

b
u
r
d
e
n

o
f

w
a
s
t
e

w
a
t
e
r

t
r
e
a
t
m
e
nt, land use, and other regulations that would be needed to offset those impacts.
i0
0
5
3
5
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Th
e

D
E
I
S

f
a
i
l
s

t
o

a
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

a
n
y

l
o
s
t

f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s

o
r
features of the Catawba watershed that would be degraded by the project, much less identify the
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

t
h
a
t

c
o
u
l
d

r
e
p
l
a
c
e

t
h
e
m. The brief "Mitigation of Impacts" section in the DEIS reproduces a random list of "examples of Best
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s

f
o
r

e
r
o
s
i
o
n

a
n
d

s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

control." [6-10] Federal courts have held that "the 'mere listing' of mitigation measures and processes,
wi
t
h
o
u
t

a
n
y

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
,

c
a
n
n
o
t

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

a

c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

i
mpacts determination" under NEP A. Ohio Valley Envtl. Coalition v. Hurst, 604 F. Supp. 2d 860,887
(S
.
D
.

W
.

V
a
.

2
0
0
9
)

ci
t
i
n
g

N
a
t
'
l

P
a
r
k
s

&

C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

A
s
s
'
n

v
.

B
a
b
b
i
t
t
, 241 F.3d 722, 734 (9th Cir. 2001). The hodgepodge of mitigation "examples" offered
by

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

c
a
n
n
o
t

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

s
u
c
h

a

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

e
i
t
her.
i0
0
6
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
1
8
/
2
0
0
9
Ga
s
t
o
n

S
o
u
t
h
E
a
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r

Co
a
l
i
t
i
o
n
Co
m
m
e
n
t

N
o
t
e
d
We

w
o
u
l
d

l
i
k
e

t
o

c
o
m
m
e
n
d

t
h
e

N
C
T
A

o
n

t
h
e

c
o
n
t
e
n
t
s

a
nd recommendations contained in the EIS. It is very obvious to us that this reflects an exhaustive
ef
f
o
r
t

b
y

a

t
e
a
m

o
f

p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
s

w
h
o

m
a
d
e

a

g
e
n
u
i
n
e effort to do the job right. We are particularly impressed by what appears to be a lack of political
in
f
l
u
e
n
c
e

o
v
e
r

t
h
e

d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n

m
a
k
i
n
g

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.

F
r
o
m

t
h
e beginning we were told that would be the case. It is refreshing and reassuring to see that you
co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
e
d

o
n

g
a
t
h
e
r
i
n
g

a
n
d

p
r
e
s
e
n
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

f
a
c
t
s
,
then based your recommendation on the facts as presented.
i0
0
6
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
1
8
/
2
0
0
9
Ga
s
t
o
n

S
o
u
t
h
E
a
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r

Co
a
l
i
t
i
o
n
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
Af
t
e
r

r
e
v
i
e
w
i
n
g

t
h
e

E
I
S
,

w
e

a
g
r
e
e

w
i
t
h

y
o
u
r

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
ndation of Alternative #9. We can clearly see where you weighed each of the criteria in an unbiased,
fa
c
t
-
b
a
s
e
d

m
a
n
n
e
r

b
e
f
o
r
e

a
r
r
i
v
i
n
g

a
t

y
o
u
r

c
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n. While each of the 12 alternatives would result in an array of human and environmental consequences,
#9

h
a
s

t
h
e

l
e
a
s
t

o
v
e
r
a
l
l

i
m
p
a
c
t
,

a
n
d

f
o
r

t
h
a
t

r
e
a
s
o
n,

i
t

i
s

t
h
e

b
e
s
t

c
h
o
i
c
e

m
o
v
i
n
g

f
o
r
w
a
r
d
.
Co
a
l
i
t
i
o
n
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
#9

h
a
s

t
h
e

l
e
a
s
t

o
v
e
r
a
l
l

i
m
p
a
c
t
,

a
n
d

f
o
r

t
h
a
t

r
e
a
s
o
n,

i
t

i
s

t
h
e

b
e
s
t

c
h
o
i
c
e

m
o
v
i
n
g

f
o
r
w
a
r
d
.
i0
0
6
3
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
1
8
/
2
0
0
9
Ga
s
t
o
n

S
o
u
t
h
E
a
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r

Co
a
l
i
t
i
o
n
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Th
e
r
e

i
s

a

d
e
f
i
n
i
t
e

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

f
o
r

d
a
n
g
e
r
o
u
s

f
o
g

t
o

fo
r
m

n
e
a
r

t
h
e

S
o
u
t
h

F
o
r
k

R
i
v
e
r

c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g

a
l
o
n
g

t
h
e

s
outhern route. While state policy seems to favor
ad
d
r
e
s
s
i
n
g

f
o
g

i
s
s
u
e
s

a
f
t
e
r

a

r
o
a
d

i
s

b
u
i
l
t
,

w
e

d
o

no
t

b
e
l
i
e
v
e

t
h
i
s

i
s

a

w
i
s
e

a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h

t
o

a

k
n
o
w
n

p
r
o
b
lem.
i0
0
6
4
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
1
8
/
2
0
0
9
Ga
s
t
o
n

S
o
u
t
h
E
a
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r

Co
a
l
i
t
i
o
n
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s

M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
Bl
o
w
i
n
g

f
l
y

a
s
h

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d

a
n
d

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
e
d

i
n
the area near the Catawba River crossing along the southern route. Again, we believe known
ha
z
a
r
d
s

l
i
k
e

t
h
i
s

s
h
o
u
l
d

b
e

a
v
o
i
d
e
d

b
e
f
o
r
e

a

r
o
a
d

i
s built instead of afterward, when it is too late to do anything about it.
i0
0
7
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
l
ia
m
Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

N
e
e
d

fo
r

A
c
t
i
o
n
Th
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

f
a
i
l
s

t
o

m
e
e
t

t
h
e

s
t
a
t
e
d

p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s

o
f

r
e
ducing congestion and substantially improving east-west connectivity. Therefore, the Project has no merit
an
d

m
u
s
t

b
e

r
e
j
e
c
t
e
d
.
Appendix E Interest Groups Comments Gaston Connector DEIS 13
DEIS - Public Release Comments Interest Groups
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

o
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
Co
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
NA
M
E
i0
0
7
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
l
ia
m
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
Be
c
a
u
s
e

t
h
e

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

h
a
v
e

s
u
m
m
a
r
i
l
y

rejected without meaningful analysis practicable alternatives (such as establishing High Occupancy
To
l
l

(
H
O
T
)

l
a
n
e
s

o
n

1
-
8
5
,

i
m
p
r
o
v
i
n
g

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

t
r
a
n
s
p
ortation facilities, and transportation demand management, or mass transit), the DEIS is defective.
i0
0
7
2
le
t
t
e
r
7/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
St
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
To
o
l
e
Wi
l
l
i
a
m
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
i0
0
7
3
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
l
ia
m
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

E
f
f
e
c
t
s
Th
e

D
E
I
S

i
s

s
i
m
i
l
a
r
l
y

d
e
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

i
t

h
a
s

n
o
t

analyzed the indirect and cumulative effects deriving from US 321 as the likely western terminus.
Mo
r
e
o
v
e
r
,

t
h
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

a
d
v
e
r
s
e

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

o
f

u
n
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
led suburban sprawl through agricultural lands that lack municipal water and sewer outweigh the
ma
r
g
i
n
a
l

b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s

o
f

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
.

F
o
r

t
h
e
s
e

a
n
d

a
d
d
it
i
o
n
a
l

r
e
a
s
o
n
s

s
e
t

o
u
t

b
e
l
o
w
,

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

m
u
s
t

b
e

r
e
-
written and resubmitted to the public for review and
co
m
m
e
n
t
.
i0
0
7
4
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
l
ia
m
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

E
f
f
e
c
t
s
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

Ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

an
d

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
A
c
o
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

f
a
c
t
o
r
s
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

t
h
e

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

ec
o
n
o
m
i
c

c
h
a
n
g
e

a
w
a
y

f
r
o
m

m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g

a
n
d

i
n
d
u
s
t
r
ial activity, the price of land, and the failure to
co
n
n
e
c
t

t
o

I
-
8
5

m
e
a
n
s

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

w
i
l
l

n
o
t

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

th
e

e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

s
t
i
m
u
l
u
s

p
r
o
m
o
t
e
r
s

h
a
d

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
l
y

h
o
p
e
d. Project construction "is anticipated to attract more
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
"

t
o

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y
,
an
d

t
h
e

c
u
r
r
e
n
t

e
x
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n

i
s

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

w
i
l
l stimulate the development of very expensive housing
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
,

h
i
g
h

e
n
d

r
e
t
a
i
l
,

a
n
d

o
f
f
i
c
e

p
a
r
k
s
5 i
n

w
h
a
t

i
s

n
o
w

l
a
r
g
e
l
y

a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

a
n
d

p
a
s
t
u
r
e

l
a
nd. Local economic development officials have warned that the
Pr
o
j
e
c
t

p
o
s
e
s

t
h
e

r
e
a
l

r
i
s
k

o
f

s
i
p
h
o
n
i
n
g

r
e
t
a
i
l

a
c
t
iv
i
t
y

f
r
o
m

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

r
e
t
a
i
l

c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
s

a
l
o
n
g

I
-
8
5

and the municipal downtowns if local leaders are not
vi
g
i
l
a
n
t
.

A
s

a

p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l

m
a
t
t
e
r
,

"
G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

i
s

li
k
e
l
y

t
o

s
e
e

s
h
a
r
p

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s

i
n

g
r
o
w
t
h

w
i
t
h

o
r

w
i
t
hout the construction of the proposed [P]roject."
i0
0
7
5
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
l
ia
m
Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

N
e
e
d

fo
r

A
c
t
i
o
n
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
p
r
i
m
a
r
y

p
u
r
p
o
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

i
s

t
o

i
m
p
r
o
v
e

t
r
a
f
fi
c

f
l
o
w

a
n
d

s
a
f
e

t
r
a
v
e
l

o
n

I
-
8
5
,

U
S

2
9
/
7
4

a
n
d

U
S

3
21 in the Project Study Area. The Project fails to meet
th
e

s
t
a
t
e
d

p
u
r
p
o
s
e

o
f

d
e
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g

c
o
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
.

T
a
b
l
e

C-3 of the DEIS shows that traffic would operate at the same or worse level of service on US 29/74 if
th
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

i
s

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d

t
o

I
-
8
5
,

c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

N
o-Build scenario. With one exception, table C-2 shows no improvement to the level of service on I-85 if
th
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

i
s

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d

t
o

I
-
8
5
.

T
h
e

l
e
v
e
l
s

o
f

s
e
rv
i
c
e

o
n

U
S

3
2
1

a
r
e

r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d

t
o

b
e

s
i
m
i
l
a
r

f
o
r

a
l
l

scenarios. The DEIS does not demonstrate the
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

t
o

I
-
8
5
,

U
S

2
9
/
7
4
,

o
r

U
S

3
2
1 levels of service that is required to meet the stated Project purpose.
i0
0
7
6
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
l
ia
m
Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

N
e
e
d

fo
r

A
c
t
i
o
n
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
Th
e

D
E
I
S

c
o
n
t
a
i
n
s

n
o

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

a
t

a
l
l

o
f

t
h
e

e
f
f
e
c
t
o
f

t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

a
t

U
S

3
2
1
,

w
h
i
c
h

i
s

t
h
e likely western terminus. A June 2, 2009 study
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

T
u
r
n
p
i
k
e

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y

c
ompares various traffic scenarios at US 321, including that of terminating the Project there. The study
sh
o
w
s

t
h
e

f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g

d
a
i
l
y

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

c
o
u
n
t
s

i
n

t
h
e

y
e
a
r
2
0
3
0

a
n
d

d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
s

t
h
a
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
ct increases traffic on I-85 at US 321. All the scenarios
sh
o
w

I
-
8
5

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

o
v
e
r

c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
.

T
h
i
s

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

o
f
t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

c
l
e
a
r
l
y

s
h
o
w
s

c
o
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n

o
n

I
-
8
5

d
o
e
s

not improve as a result of constructing the Project.
i0
0
7
7
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
l
ia
m
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
No
t
w
i
t
h
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g

t
h
e

d
a
t
a

i
n

T
a
b
l
e
s

C
-
2

a
n
d

C
-
3
,

a
n
d
the June 2, 2009 analysis by the North Carolina Turnpike Authority, the DEIS states "[t]raffic
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s

w
o
u
l
d

i
m
p
r
o
v
e

o
n

I
-
8
5

a
n
d

o
n

s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s

o
f
US 29-74 with the New Location Alternative (Toll or Non-Toll Scenario) compared to the No-Build
Al
t
e
m
a
t
i
v
e
.
"

T
h
i
s

s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t

i
s

d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
b
l
y

w
r
o
n
g
,

yet it formed the basis for the decision to recommend a second screening of the Project at the expense
of

v
a
r
i
o
u
s

o
t
h
e
r

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

t
h
e

N
o
-
B
u
i
ld

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
.

i0
0
7
8
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
l
ia
m
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Si
m
i
l
a
r
l
y
,

t
h
e

J
u
n
e

2
,

2
0
0
9

s
t
u
d
y

s
h
o
w
s

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

o
n

US 321 increasing if the Project is constructed, compared to the No Build scenario. At some sections, the
in
c
r
e
a
s
e

o
v
e
r

t
h
e

N
o
-
B
u
i
l
d

s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o

i
s

a
s

m
u
c
h

a
s

8
7%, and the level of service demonstrably deteriorates in one section if the Project is constructed. This
Ju
n
e

2

s
t
u
d
y

d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
s

w
h
y

i
t

i
s

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

f
o
r

t
he Transportation Agencies to evaluate the effects of terminating the Project at US 321 and provide an
op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y

f
o
r

f
u
l
l

p
u
b
l
i
c

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
i
o
r

t
o

t
a
k
in
g

a
n
y

f
i
n
a
l

a
g
e
n
c
y

a
c
t
i
o
n
.
Si
n
c
e

t
h
e

c
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l

s
t
a
g
e

o
f

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
,

r
e
l
i
e
v
i
n
g
c
o
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n

o
n

I
-
8
5

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

a

p
r
i
m
a
r
y

p
u
r
p
o
s
e

o
f

the East-West connector. The 2030 Long Range
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

P
l
a
n

b
y

t
h
e

G
a
s
t
o
n

U
r
b
a
n

A
r
e
a

M
P
O
,

f
or example, states that the purpose of the toll road is to "serve as a bypass to Interstate 85, US 29/74
an
d

U
S

3
2
1
"

a
n
d

a

"
r
e
l
i
e
v
e
r

t
o

I
-
8
5

a
n
d

U
S

2
9
/
7
4
.
"

The DEIS declares that the purpose of the toll road is "to improve traffic flow on the sections of I-85, US
29
-
7
4

a
n
d

U
S

3
2
1
"

i
n

t
h
e

s
t
u
d
y

a
r
e
a
,

a
n
d

t
o

"
r
e
d
u
c
e
congested vehicle miles travelled" compared to traffic if the Project is not built. The Updated Final
i0
0
7
9
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
l
ia
m
Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

N
e
e
d

fo
r

A
c
t
i
o
n
29
-
7
4

a
n
d

U
S

3
2
1
"

i
n

t
h
e

s
t
u
d
y

a
r
e
a
,

a
n
d

t
o

"
r
e
d
u
c
e
congested vehicle miles travelled" compared to traffic if the Project is not built. The Updated Final
Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

N
e
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t

i
s

e
q
u
a
l
l
y

c
l
e
a
r

t
h
a
t

r
e
lieving traffic congestion on I-85, US 29/74 and US 321 is a fundamental purpose of the Project.
De
s
p
i
t
e

t
h
e

s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

p
u
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

n
e
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

D
E
IS, numerous supporting documents, and widespread community expectations regarding the Project
pu
r
p
o
s
e
,

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

T
u
r
n
p
i
k
e

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y

h
a
s

stated publicly on numerous occasions that the purpose of the Project "is not to alleviate congestion on I-
85
.
"

T
h
i
s

f
a
i
l
u
r
e

t
o

u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d

a

b
a
s
i
c

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

p
u
r
po
s
e

m
e
a
n
s

t
h
e

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

c
a
n
n
o
t

h
a
v
e

conducted a proper evaluation determining whether
th
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

m
e
e
t
s

t
h
e

s
t
a
t
e
d

p
u
r
p
o
s
e
.

T
h
e

t
o
l
l

r
o
a
d
does not meet the basic purpose of relieving traffic congestion on I-85, US 29/74, or US 321.
Co
n
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
l
y
,

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

h
a
s

n
o

m
e
r
i
t
.

Appendix E Interest Groups Comments Gaston Connector DEIS 14
DEIS - Public Release Comments Interest Groups
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

o
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
Co
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
NA
M
E
A
s
e
c
o
n
d

s
t
a
t
e
d

p
u
r
p
o
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

i
s

t
o

i
m
p
r
o
v
e connectivity within Gaston County, and between Gaston County and Mecklenburg County. The DEIS
de
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
s

t
h
a
t

s
u
c
h

c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

i
s

m
a
r
g
i
n
a
l

a
t

best. In many cased, the estimated time savings described in the DEIS appear to be highly inflated. The
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

t
h
a
t

t
r
a
v
e
l

b
e
t
w
e
e
n downtown Gastonia and the Belmont Peninsula (South Point Road/Armstrong Road intersection) on
i0
0
7
1
0
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
li
a
m
Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

N
e
e
d

fo
r

A
c
t
i
o
n
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e

t
h
a
t

t
r
a
v
e
l

b
e
t
w
e
e
n downtown Gastonia and the Belmont Peninsula (South Point Road/Armstrong Road intersection) on
th
i
s

$
1
.
2

b
i
l
l
i
o
n

t
o
l
l

r
o
a
d

w
i
l
l

d
e
c
r
e
a
s
e

2

m
i
n
u
t
e
s
i
n

2
0
3
0
.
This savings is minimal, is not sufficient to warrant the disruption the Project will cause or its cost,
an
d

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s

a
r
e

n
o
t

l
i
k
e
l
y

t
o

p
a
y

t
olls for such minimal time savings. If DEIS estimates are to be believed, in 2030 Belmont Peninsula
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s

w
i
l
l

s
a
v
e

2
3

m
i
n
u
t
e
s

t
r
a
v
e
l
l
i
n
g

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

So
u
t
h

P
o
i
n
t

R
o
a
d
/
A
r
m
s
t
r
o
n
g

R
o
a
d

i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

t
o

t
h
e
Charlotte-Douglas Airport by taking the toll bridge.
Th
i
s

t
i
m
e

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

o
c
c
u
r
s

i
n

p
a
r
t

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

t
h
e

N
o
-
B
u
i
ld alternative is estimated to take 57 minutes. Currently, Map Quest shows the trip taking 17 minutes.
Fo
r

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

t
r
a
v
e
l

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

t
o

b
e

c
o
n
n
e
c
t
,

t
r
a
f
fi
c

m
u
s
t

b
e
c
o
m
e

s
o

c
o
n
g
e
s
t
e
d

i
n

t
w
e
n
t
y

y
e
a
r
s

t
h
a
t

t
he trip increases by 40 minutes, an increase of over
tw
o

h
u
n
d
r
e
d

p
e
r
c
e
n
t
.

T
h
i
s

s
i
m
p
l
y

i
s

n
o
t

c
r
e
d
i
b
l
e
,

a
nd estimates of other times savings appear to be equally inflated. The Project provides no meaningful,
cr
e
d
i
b
l
e

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

i
n

e
a
s
t
-
w
e
s
t

c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,

a
n
d
certainly is not worth the impacts it will cause to the environment and the community. For example,
Go
o
g
l
e

M
a
p
s

s
h
o
w
s

t
h
a
t

a
t

t
h
e

U
S

3
2
1

t
e
r
m
i
n
u
s

t
h
e
r
e
is no development at the US 321/Robinson Road interchange. As such, it is not a travel destination
an
d

c
a
n
n
o
t

m
e
e
t

t
h
e

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t

t
h
a
t

a

N
C

D
O
T

S
t
r
a
t
egic Highway Corridor connect to a "travel destination." The sole effect of the Project is to induce
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

i
n

a

p
a
r
t

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
u
n
t
y

t
h
a
t

i
s

c
u
r
r
e
n
t
ly

r
u
r
a
l
,

n
o
t

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
destinations. Opening south Gaston County for
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

i
s

n
o
t

a

r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
d

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

p
u
r
p
o
s
e
.

T
h
e DEIS concludes that the Project will produce "substantial time savings" for inter-county travel. The
fa
c
t
s

s
h
o
w

o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
.

i0
0
7
1
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
li
a
m
E
d
i
t
o
r
i
a
l
Th
e

D
E
I
S

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

m
e
e
t

t
h
e

m
i
n
i
m
u
m

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
ed of the Transportation Authorities. It depends upon a model that observed data shows to be
in
a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
.

T
h
e

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
ti
v
e
s

i
s

c
u
r
s
o
r
y

a
n
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

e
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
.

T
h
e
DEIS conducts no analysis of the impacts deriving
fr
o
m

U
S

3
2
1

a
s

t
h
e

l
i
k
e
l
y

w
e
s
t
e
r
n

t
e
r
m
i
n
u
s

o
f

t
h
e

P
roject. Nor does the DEIS adequately evaluate the Project impact upon the region's serious non-
at
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t

s
t
a
t
u
s

f
o
r

o
z
o
n
e

a
n
d

t
h
e

f
a
c
t

t
h
a
t

t
h
e
r
e
i
s

n
o

c
o
n
f
o
r
m
i
t
y

p
l
a
n

i
n

p
l
a
c
e
.

F
o
r

e
a
c
h

o
f

t
h
e
s
e

and other reasons set out below, additional work must
be

c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d

a
n
d

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

r
e
-
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

p
u
b
l
i
c for review and comment.
Th
e

D
E
I
S

d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
s

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

v
o
l
u
m
e
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

b
a
s
e

y
e
a
r 2006 as "existing," yet comparison of these figures to traffic volumes observed in 2007 by the NCDOT
i0
0
7
1
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
li
a
m
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Th
e

D
E
I
S

d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
s

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

v
o
l
u
m
e
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

b
a
s
e

y
e
a
r 2006 as "existing," yet comparison of these figures to traffic volumes observed in 2007 by the NCDOT
Tr
a
f
f
i
c

S
u
r
v
e
y

G
r
o
u
p

s
h
o
w
s

t
h
e

2
0
0
6

f
i
g
u
r
e
s

t
o

b
e

i
nflated estimates. The DEIS appears to have consistently overestimated the "existing" traffic volume
al
o
n
g

e
a
c
h

o
f

t
h
e

m
a
j
o
r

r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s

i
n

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

a
r
e
a. This leads to inflated traffic congestion projections. The failure to accurately reconcile the 2006
es
t
i
m
a
t
e
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

2
0
0
7

o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d

d
a
t
a

f
u
r
t
h
e
r

c
o
r
r
o
des the credibility of the long-term model projections.
i0
0
7
1
3
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
li
a
m
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
Th
e

D
E
I
S

c
u
r
s
o
r
i
l
y

r
e
v
i
e
w
s
,

t
h
e
n

s
u
m
m
a
r
i
l
y

c
o
n
c
l
u
d
e
s, that a number of alternatives, including High Occupancy Toll (HOT)/High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)
la
n
e
s

o
n

I
-
8
5
,

e
x
p
a
n
d
e
d

m
a
s
s

t
r
a
n
s
i
t
,

u
p
g
r
a
d
i
n
g

t
h
e
existing road system, or some combination of these, fail to meet or exceed the defined purpose and
ne
e
d
.

O
f

c
o
u
r
s
e
,

t
h
e

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

t
h
e
n

f
ail to apply the same standard of success to the preferred alternative of Project construction.
i0
0
7
1
4
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
li
a
m
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

Ne
e
d

f
o
r

A
c
t
i
o
n
Fo
r

e
x
a
m
p
l
e
,

t
h
e

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

s
u
m
m
a
r
i
l
y

reject the Transportation Demand Alternative because "travel times would not be noticeably reduced"
an
d

i
t

w
o
u
l
d

n
o
t

"
n
o
t
i
c
e
a
b
l
y

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
"

c
o
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n

o
n
I-85, US 29/74 and US 321.29 It does not appear the Transportation Agencies reviewed any empirical
da
t
a
.

A
s

s
h
o
w
n

a
b
o
v
e
,

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

n
o
t
i
c
e
a
b
ly reduce travel times, and it actually increases congestion on target roads. The Transportation
Ag
e
n
c
i
e
s

s
e
e
m

t
o

h
a
v
e

a
p
p
l
i
e
d

a

m
o
r
e

s
t
r
i
n
g
e
n
t

s
t
a
n
dard to the Transportation Demand Alternative than to its review of the Project.
i0
0
7
1
5
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
li
a
m
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Th
e

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

c
o
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

t
h
a
t

M
a
s
s

T
r
a
nsit Improvements on Existing Locations (consisting of bus or rail service) would not attract enough
tr
i
p
s

t
o

n
o
t
i
c
e
a
b
l
y
r
e
d
u
c
e

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

m
i
l
e
s

t
r
a
v
e
l
l
e
d

o
r
c
o
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
.

T
h
e

D
E
I
S

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

c
o
n
t
a
i
n

a
n
y

s
t
u
d
y

t
o support this conclusion. The community experience
is

t
h
a
t

b
e
f
o
r
e

t
h
e

e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

d
o
w
n
t
u
r
n
,

d
e
m
a
n
d

f
o
r

t
h
e Gastonia Express bus to uptown Charlotte was so great in July 2008 that there was standing room
on
l
y

o
n

e
a
c
h

o
f

t
h
e

f
o
u
r

b
u
s
e
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

7
,
4
0
0

r
i
d
e
r
s
.
T
h
e

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

a
l
s
o

r
e
j
e
c
t

t
h
e

a
l
t
e
r
native because buses would travel on roadways
op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g

a
t

p
o
o
r

l
e
v
e
l
s

o
f

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

E

o
r

F
.
Th
e

D
E
I
S

f
a
i
l
s

t
o

a
p
p
l
y

t
h
e

s
a
m
e
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

a
n
d

r
e
j
e
c
t
the Project, even though the Project does not improve level of
se
r
v
i
c
e

o
v
e
r

t
h
e

N
o
-
B
u
i
l
d

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

a
n
d

a
c
t
u
a
l
l
y

ca
u
s
e
s

l
e
v
e
l

o
f

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

t
o

d
e
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
t
e

o
n

s
o
m
e

p
o
r
t
ions of the target roadways.
se
r
v
i
c
e

o
v
e
r

t
h
e

N
o
-
B
u
i
l
d

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

a
n
d

a
c
t
u
a
l
l
y

ca
u
s
e
s

l
e
v
e
l

o
f

s
e
r
v
i
c
e

t
o

d
e
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
t
e

o
n

s
o
m
e

p
o
r
t
ions of the target roadways.
i0
0
7
1
6
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
li
a
m
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Th
e

D
E
I
S

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

o
f

t
h
e

I
m
p
r
o
v
e

E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

R
o
a
d
w
a
y
s

Alternative is particularly disheartening. For example, the April 24 DEIS failed to review and consider
th
e

C
h
a
r
l
o
t
t
e

R
e
g
i
o
n

F
a
s
t

L
a
n
e
s

S
t
u
d
y

(
d
r
a
f
t

F
i
n
a
l

Report March 2009) which concluded thata High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane option was feasible, could
be

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d

i
n

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

I
-
8
5

r
i
g
h
t

o
f

w
a
y
,

w
o
u
l
d
s
a
v
e

c
o
m
m
u
t
e
r
s

1
9

m
i
n
u
t
e
s
,

a
n
d

u
n
l
i
k
e

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

would befully self-supporting (construction and O&M)
fr
o
m

t
o
l
l

r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
.

T
h
e

D
E
I
S

r
e
j
e
c
t
e
d

t
h
e

I
m
p
r
o
v
e

Existing Roadways Alternative without detailed study and for summary conclusions that are redundant
an
d

a
t

d
i
r
e
c
t

o
d
d
s

w
i
t
h

o
t
h
e
r

p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l

s
t
u
d
i
e
s

-
t
r
a
v
e
l

t
i
m
e
s

w
o
u
l
d

n
o
t

i
m
p
r
o
v
e

c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

N
o
-Build alternative, failure to provide east west
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,

a
n
d

f
a
i
l
u
r
e

t
o

i
m
p
r
o
v
e

l
e
v
e
l

o
f

s
e
r
v
i
ce
.

Appendix E Interest Groups Comments Gaston Connector DEIS 15
DEIS - Public Release Comments Interest Groups
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

o
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
Co
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
NA
M
E
i0
0
7
17
le
t
t
e
r
7/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
St
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
To
o
l
e
Wi
l
l
i
a
m
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
Th
e

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

h
a
v
e

n
o
t

e
n
g
a
g
e
d

i
n

a
n

objective evaluation of the reasonable alternatives using empirical data. Compared to their willingness
to

o
v
e
r
l
o
o
k

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
i
e
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
t
h
e

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

h
a
v
e

n
o
t

c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d

a

g
ood faith review of the alternatives. For this reason,
th
e

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

m
u
s
t

c
o
n
d
u
c
t

a

p
r
o
p
e
r

a
lternatives analysis, reissue the DEIS, and present that alternatives analysis to the public for review
i0
0
7
17
le
t
t
e
r
7/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
St
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
To
o
l
e
Wi
l
l
i
a
m
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
th
e

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

m
u
s
t

c
o
n
d
u
c
t

a

p
r
o
p
e
r

a
lternatives analysis, reissue the DEIS, and present that alternatives analysis to the public for review
an
d

c
o
m
m
e
n
t
.
i0
0
7
1
8
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
li
a
m
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

E
f
f
e
c
t
s
Cu
l
t
u
r
a
l

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

a
r
e

t
h
o
s
e

"
c
a
u
s
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

a
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d ... later in time or farther removed in distance, but ... still reasonably foreseeable." The Transportation
Ag
e
n
c
i
e
s

h
a
v
e

f
a
i
l
e
d

t
o

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e

t
h
e

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

o
f

t
h
e
r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y

f
o
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e

-

i
n
d
e
e
d

p
r
o
b
a
b
l
e

-

r
e
a
l
i
t
y
that the Project will dead-end into US 321 for decades,
an
d

p
e
r
h
a
p
s

f
o
r
e
v
e
r
.

T
h
i
s

r
e
a
l
i
t
y
,

f
o
r

e
x
a
m
p
l
e
,

h
a
s
t
h
e

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

t
o

i
m
p
a
c
t

t
w
o

h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c

n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
located along US 321 and registered with the National
Re
g
i
s
t
e
r

o
f

H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c

P
l
a
c
e
s
.
i0
0
7
1
9
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
li
a
m
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
As

t
h
e

J
u
n
e

2
,

2
0
0
9

s
t
u
d
y

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
,

t
h
e

d
e
a
d
-
e
n
d
i
n
g of the Project into US-321 is a significant change in Project implementation that has the potential to
ha
v
e

s
e
r
i
o
u
s
l
y

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

f
r
o
m

t
h
o
s
e

w
h
i
c
h

h
ave been presented by the Transportation Agencies in the DEIS. The DEIS states that an advantage of
th
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

i
s

t
h
a
t

i
t

w
o
u
l
d

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

a
n

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d

a
c
c
e
s
s

r
o
u
t
e

w
h
e
n

i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
s

o
c
c
u
r

o
n

I
-
85, yet there is no such advantage for so long as the
we
s
t
e
r
n

t
e
r
m
i
n
u
s

o
f

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

i
s

U
S

3
2
1
.

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

transportation regulations require the Transportation Agencies to re-evaluate a phased project "if major
st
e
p
s

t
o

a
d
v
a
n
c
e

t
h
e

a
c
t
i
o
n

.
.
.

h
a
v
e

n
o
t

o
c
c
u
r
r
e
d

w
ithin three years after the approval of the final EIS." Because it is evident that financing will not be
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

t
o

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t

t
h
e

s
e
c
o
n
d

p
h
a
s
e

f
o
r

d
e
c
a
d
e
s
, the Transportation Agencies have an obligation to evaluate the Project now as if the Project
te
r
m
i
n
a
t
e
s

a
t

U
S

3
2
1
,

a
s

w
e
l
l

a
s

b
a
s
e
d

u
p
o
n

t
h
e

a
s
s
umption that the Project may terminate at I-85. The public has a need to understand what the potential
im
p
a
c
t
s

o
f

t
h
i
s

p
r
o
b
a
b
l
e

t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

p
o
i
n
t

a
r
e
,

a
n
d
t
h
e

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

h
a
v
e

a
n

o
b
l
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

t
o

provide that information.
Th
e

D
E
I
S

f
a
i
l
s

t
o

a
c
c
o
u
n
t

f
o
r

t
h
e

f
a
c
t

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

w
i
t
hd
r
a
w
a
l

o
f

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

S
t
a
t
e

I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

Plan means the MUMPO and GUAMPO transportation
pl
a
n
s

h
a
v
e

n
o
w

l
a
p
s
e
d

i
n
t
o

a

o
n
e

y
e
a
r

c
o
n
f
o
r
m
i
t
y

g
r
ace period. At no point does the DEIS address the fact that by promoting suburban sprawl, the Project
wi
l
l

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

t
o
t
a
l

v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s

a
n
d

V
M
T

i
n

t
h
e

a
r
e
a
,

a
nd

s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
l
y

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

o
f

o
z
o
n
e precursors. This cannot help but have an additional
i0
0
7
2
0
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
li
a
m
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
wi
l
l

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

t
o
t
a
l

v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s

a
n
d

V
M
T

i
n

t
h
e

a
r
e
a
,

a
nd

s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
l
y

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

o
f

o
z
o
n
e precursors. This cannot help but have an additional
ne
g
a
t
i
v
e

i
m
p
a
c
t

o
n

t
h
e

r
e
g
i
o
n
'
s

o
z
o
n
e

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
,

c
u
r
r
ently designated "serious" and likely to be designated "severe" at the end of this ozone season. Given
th
e

f
a
c
t

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

r
e
g
i
o
n

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

u
n
a
b
l
e

t
o

r
e
d
u
c
e

it
s

b
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

o
z
o
n
e

l
e
v
e
l
s
,

i
t

i
s

l
i
k
e
l
y

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

e
n
forceable actions and transportation control measures will
ha
v
e

t
o

b
e

a
d
o
p
t
e
d

t
o

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
.

T
he DEIS fails to evaluate the impacts of the Project on an already serious regional ozone problem.
i0
0
7
2
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
li
a
m
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Th
e

D
E
I
S

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s

n
o

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g

t
h
e

c
o
n
t
r
ibutions that the Project will make towards greenhouse gas emissions. Federal law requires that the
gr
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e

g
a
s

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

m
u
s
t

b
e

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

c
ontext of the Project.
i0
0
7
2
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
li
a
m
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

Ef
f
e
c
t
s
Th
e

D
E
I
S

h
a
s

n
o
t

a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
l
y

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
d

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
r
e
c
t

effects and cumulative effects of the Project upon the impaired streams described on the draft 303(d)
li
s
t
.

T
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

i
s

a

t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y

d
e
s
i
gn
e
d

t
o

p
r
o
m
o
t
e

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
e
d

s
u
b
u
r
b
a
n

s
p
r
a
w
l

i
n

w
h
a
t
is principally agricultural land and pastures. The area to
be

s
e
r
v
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

h
a
v
e

m
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

w
a
ter and sewer, and none is planned for much of the area. Supporting documents to the DEIS state that
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

w
o
u
l
d

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

t
h
e

s
p
e
e
d

a
nd magnitude of water quality degradation in the area. The effect on water quality of increased
im
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s

s
u
r
f
a
c
e
s

a
n
d

a
t
m
o
s
p
h
e
r
i
c

d
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

f
r
o
m
increased vehicle emissions "is believed to be substantial." Yet, the DEIS does not empirically
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e

h
o
w

t
h
e

s
u
b
u
r
b
a
n

s
p
r
a
w
l

s
p
a
w
n
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

P
r
o
ject will impact the impaired streams or meaningfully address how those impacts can be mitigated.
i0
0
7
23
le
t
t
e
r
7/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
St
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
To
o
l
e
Wi
l
l
i
a
m
Wa
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Th
e

D
E
I
S

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s

t
h
a
t

D
e
s
i
g
n

S
t
u
d
y

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

9

will impact an estimated 7.5 acres of wetlands and 48,995 linear feet of streams. The DEIS fails to
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e

h
o
w

t
h
e

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s

c
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
o
r
y

m
i
t
igation will be implemented. In fact, the DEIS states that even a "conceptual mitigation plan" is one of
th
e

s
e
v
e
r
a
l

"
u
n
r
e
s
o
l
v
e
d

i
s
s
u
e
s

a
n
d

a
r
e
a
s

o
f

c
o
n
t
r
o
v
ersy." Securing suitable compensatory wetland mitigation sites within the lower Catawba River
42

i0
0
7
23
le
t
t
e
r
7/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
St
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
To
o
l
e
Wi
l
l
i
a
m
Wa
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
wa
t
e
r
s
h
e
d

i
s

a

w
e
l
l
-
r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
d

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
,
42

an
d

t
h
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

h
a
s

a

n
e
e
d

t
o

u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d

h
o
w

t
h
e

T
r
a
nsportation Agencies propose to address this controversial
Is
s
u
e
.

i0
0
7
2
4
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
li
a
m
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

E
f
f
e
c
t
s
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Th
e

D
E
I
S

h
a
s

n
o
t

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
d

t
h
e

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

t
h
a
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
cting the Project would have on the connector roads at each intersection. Most of these connector
ro
a
d
s

a
r
e

t
w
o

l
a
n
e

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.

S
i
m
i
l
a
r
l
y
,

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

do
e
s

n
o
t

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e

t
h
e

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

t
h
a
t

p
r
o
m
o
t
i
n
g

s
u
b
u
r
b
an development would have on the largely undeveloped
ar
e
a
s

t
h
a
t

a
r
e

n
o
t

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
d

b
y

m
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

w
a
t
e
r

o
r

s
ewer or the water quality in those areas.
i0
0
7
2
5
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
li
a
m
Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

N
e
e
d

fo
r

A
c
t
i
o
n
Th
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

f
a
i
l
s

t
o

h
a
v
e

l
o
c
a
l

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

t
h
e
D
E
I
S

a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

t
h
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

r
e
c
o
r
d

d
e
monstrates it fails to meet the stated purpose and
ne
e
d
.

A
s

a

i
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

l
a
c
k
s

l
o
c
a
l
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
,

o
v
e
r

7
,
0
0
0

c
i
t
i
z
e
n
s

h
a
v
e

s
i
g
n
e
d

a

p
e
t
i
t
i
on opposed to the Project as described in the DEIS.Appendix E Interest Groups Comments Gaston Connector DEIS 16
DEIS - Public Release Comments Interest Groups
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

o
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
Co
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
NA
M
E
i0
0
7
26
le
t
t
e
r
7/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
St
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
To
o
l
e
Wi
l
l
i
a
m
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Tw
i
c
e

i
n

l
e
s
s

t
h
a
n

a

y
e
a
r

t
h
e

B
e
l
m
o
n
t

C
i
t
y

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

has passed resolutions rejecting DSA 9 because of the decidedly negative impacts DSA 9 would have
up
o
n

t
h
e

T
o
w
n

o
f

B
e
l
m
o
n
t
.

E
a
c
h

t
i
m
e
,

a
n
d

c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
with its resolutions dating back to the late 1990' s, Belmont expressed a strong preference for a route
th
a
t

p
a
r
a
l
l
e
l
s

t
h
e

A
l
l
e
n

S
t
e
a
m

P
l
a
n
t

c
a
n
a
l
,

R
o
u
t
e

G
4/F9.44 Route G4/F9 most closely reflects the route that is on the Gaston Urban Area 2030 Thoroughfare
i0
0
7
26
le
t
t
e
r
7/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
St
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
To
o
l
e
Wi
l
l
i
a
m
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
th
a
t

p
a
r
a
l
l
e
l
s

t
h
e

A
l
l
e
n

S
t
e
a
m

P
l
a
n
t

c
a
n
a
l
,

R
o
u
t
e

G
4/F9.44 Route G4/F9 most closely reflects the route that is on the Gaston Urban Area 2030 Thoroughfare
Pl
a
n
.

T
h
e

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

e
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

a
l
l

D
S
As that depended upon Route G4/F9 "due to interference with critical operations at Allen Steam
St
a
t
i
o
n
.
"

D
E
I
S
,

p
.

9
-
1
4
.

i0
0
7
2
7
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
li
a
m
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
Du
k
e

E
n
e
r
g
y

d
i
d

n
o
t

c
o
n
c
l
u
d
e

t
h
a
t

R
o
u
t
e

G
4
/
F
9

w
o
u
l
d
interfere with its operations. Route G4/F9 is depicted as passing over the northeast corner of the
re
a
c
t
i
v
a
t
e
d

f
l
y

a
s
h

b
a
s
i
n
.
N
o
t
h
i
n
g

i
n

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s

w
h
e
t
h
e
r

a
c
t
i
o
n
s

w
e
r
e
considered to mitigate potential impacts to operation of the fly ash basin. Such
ac
t
i
o
n
s

c
o
u
l
d

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

a

f
l
y
o
v
e
r

t
h
e

b
a
s
i
n

(
p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
ar
l
y

r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

s
i
n
c
e

t
h
e

b
a
s
i
n

i
s

a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t

t
o

t
h
e

C
a
tawba River and any bridge spanning the Catawba River
mu
s
t

a
l
s
o

s
p
a
n

t
h
e

r
a
i
l

l
i
n
e

t
h
a
t

p
a
r
a
l
l
e
l
s

t
h
e

C
a
t
aw
b
a

R
i
v
e
r
)
,

s
a
c
r
i
f
i
c
i
n
g

a

s
m
a
l
l

p
o
r
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

f
l
y
ash basin to the Project just as homeowners are being
as
k
e
d

t
o

s
a
c
r
i
f
i
c
e

t
h
e
i
r

r
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
o
r

a
d
j
u
s
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

r
o
u
t
e

s
l
i
g
h
t
l
y

n
o
r
t
h

o
f

t
h
e

b
o
u
n
dary of the fly ash basin. Recommended alternative DSA 9
do
e
s

n
o
t

h
a
v
e

l
o
c
a
l

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
.
i0
0
9
1
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
6
/
1
6
/
2
0
0
9
G
a
s
t
o
n

R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l

C
h
a
m
b
e
r
J
a
c
k
so
n
F
r
e
d
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

N
o
t
e
d
WH
E
R
E
A
S
,

t
h
e

D
r
a
f
t

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

I
m
p
a
c
t

S
t
u
d
y

(
E
I
S
)
conducted by the North Carolina Turnpike Authority recommends construction of the Parkway in
Ph
a
s
e
s
;

w
e

e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e

t
h
e

N
C
T
A

t
o

s
e
c
u
r
e

t
h
e

e
n
t
i
r
e

right-of-way to I-85 for the project;
i0
0
9
2
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
6
/
1
6
/
2
0
0
9
G
a
s
t
o
n

R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l

C
h
a
m
b
e
r
J
a
c
k
so
n
F
r
e
d
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

N
o
t
e
d
NO
W

T
H
E
R
E
F
O
R
E

B
E

I
T

R
E
S
O
L
V
E
D
,

t
h
a
t

B
o
a
r
d

o
f

D
i
r
e
c
t
o
rs of the Gaston Chamber of Commerce endorses the Draft Environmental Impact Study
co
n
d
u
c
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

T
u
r
n
p
i
k
e

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
.
i0
0
9
3
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
6
/
1
6
/
2
0
0
9
G
a
s
t
o
n

R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l

C
h
a
m
b
e
r
J
a
c
k
so
n
F
r
e
d
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

N
o
t
e
d
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
WH
E
R
E
A
S
,

t
h
e

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
d
v
i
s
o
r
y

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

h
a
s

d
e
emed the Garden Parkway to be the top priority roadway project for the Gaston Urban Area
Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
g
i
o
n
;
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

WH
E
R
E
A
S
,

t
h
e

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
c
t
i
o
n

T
e
a
m

o
f

G
a
s
t
o
n

2
012, Gaston Transportation Advisory Committee and Gaston Urban Metropolitan Planning
i0
1
0
1
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
6
/
1
6
/
2
0
0
9
G
a
s
t
o
n

T
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
H
o
d
g
e
B
r
u
c
e
C
o
mm
e
n
t

N
o
t
e
d
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
WH
E
R
E
A
S
,

t
h
e

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
c
t
i
o
n

T
e
a
m

o
f

G
a
s
t
o
n

2
012, Gaston Transportation Advisory Committee and Gaston Urban Metropolitan Planning
Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

h
a
s

d
e
e
m
e
d

t
h
e

G
a
r
d
e
n

P
a
r
k
w
a
y

t
o

b
e

t
h
e top priority roadway project;
i0
1
0
2
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
6
/
1
6
/
2
0
0
9
G
a
s
t
o
n

T
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
H
o
d
g
e
B
r
u
c
e
C
o
mm
e
n
t

N
o
t
e
d
NO
W

T
H
E
R
E
F
O
R
E

B
E

I
T

R
E
S
O
L
V
E
D
,

t
h
a
t

G
a
s
t
o
n

T
o
g
e
t
h
e
r

endorses the Draft Environmental Impact Statement conducted by the North Carolina
Tu
r
n
p
i
k
e

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
.
i0
1
1
1
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
Ga
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

T
r
a
v
e
l

a
n
d

To
u
r
i
s
m

A
d
v
i
s
o
r
y

B
o
a
r
d
Co
m
m
e
n
t

N
o
t
e
d
WH
E
R
E
A
S
,

t
h
e

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
d
v
i
s
o
r
y

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

h
a
s

d
e
emed the Garden Parkway to be the top priority roadway project for the Gaston Urban Metropolitan
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g

O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
g
i
o
n
;
i0
1
1
2
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
Ga
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

T
r
a
v
e
l

a
n
d

To
u
r
i
s
m

A
d
v
i
s
o
r
y

B
o
a
r
d
Ai
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Co
m
m
e
n
t

No
t
e
d
WH
E
R
E
A
S
,

i
n

2
0
0
5
,

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

w
a
s

d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d

a
s

a
8-hour ozone non-attainment area where this project will improve air quality modeling and
em
i
s
s
i
o
n

c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

m
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

r
e
g
i
o
n
;
i0
1
1
3
Ga
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

T
r
a
v
e
l

a
n
d

To
u
r
i
s
m

A
d
v
i
s
o
r
y

B
o
a
r
d
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Ri
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y

Ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

Re
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
WH
E
R
E
A
S
,

t
h
e

D
r
a
f
t

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

I
m
p
a
c
t

S
t
u
d
y

(
E
I
S
)
conducted by the North Carolina Turnpike Authority recommends construction of the Parkway in
Ph
a
s
e
s
,

w
e

e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e

t
h
e

N
C
T
A

t
o

s
e
c
u
r
e

t
h
e

e
n
t
i
r
e

right-of-way to I-85 for the project;
i0
1
1
4
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
Ga
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

T
r
a
v
e
l

a
n
d

To
u
r
i
s
m

A
d
v
i
s
o
r
y

B
o
a
r
d
Co
m
m
e
n
t

N
o
t
e
d
NO
W

T
H
E
R
E
F
O
R
E

B
E

I
T

R
E
S
O
L
V
E
D
,

t
h
a
t

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

T
r
avel and Tourism Advisory Board endorses the Draft Environmental Impact Study conducted
by

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

T
u
r
n
p
i
k
e

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
.
i0
1
4
1
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
7
/
1
5
/
2
0
0
9
Mo
n
t
c
r
o
s
s

A
r
e
a

C
h
a
m
b
e
r

o
f

Co
m
m
e
r
c
e
Ha
l
l
T
e
d
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

N
o
t
e
d
WH
E
R
E
A
S
,

t
h
e

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
d
v
i
s
o
r
y

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

h
a
s

d
e
emed the Garden Parkway to be the top priority roadway project for the Gaston Urban Area
Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g

O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
g
i
o
n
;

WH
E
R
E
A
S
,

i
n

2
0
0
5
,

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

w
a
s

d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d

a
s

a
8-hour ozone non-attainment area, and this project will improve air quality modeling and emission
i0
1
4
2
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
7
/
1
5
/
2
0
0
9
Mo
n
t
c
r
o
s
s

A
r
e
a

C
h
a
m
b
e
r

o
f

Co
m
m
e
r
c
e
Ha
l
l
T
e
d
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Co
m
m
e
n
t

No
t
e
d
WH
E
R
E
A
S
,

i
n

2
0
0
5
,

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

w
a
s

d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d

a
s

a
8-hour ozone non-attainment area, and this project will improve air quality modeling and emission
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

m
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

r
e
g
i
o
n
;

i0
1
4
3
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
7
/
1
5
/
2
0
0
9
Mo
n
t
c
r
o
s
s

A
r
e
a

C
h
a
m
b
e
r

o
f

Co
m
m
e
r
c
e
Ha
l
l
T
e
d
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Ri
g
h
t
-
O
f
-
W
a
y

Ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

Re
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
WH
E
R
E
A
S
,

t
h
e

D
r
a
f
t

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

I
m
p
a
c
t

S
t
u
d
y

(
E
I
S
)
conducted by the North Carolina Turnpike Authority recommends construction of the Parkway in
Ph
a
s
e
s
,

a
n
d

w
e

e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e

t
h
e

N
C
T
A

t
o

s
e
c
u
r
e

t
h
e

e
n
t
ire right-of-way to I-85 for the project;
i0
1
4
4
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
7
/
1
5
/
2
0
0
9
Mo
n
t
c
r
o
s
s

A
r
e
a

C
h
a
m
b
e
r

o
f

Co
m
m
e
r
c
e
Ha
l
l
T
e
d
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

N
o
t
e
d
NO
W

T
H
E
R
E
F
O
R
E

B
E

I
T

R
E
S
O
L
V
E
D
,

t
h
a
t

B
o
a
r
d

o
f

D
i
r
e
c
t
o
rs of the Montcross Area Chamber of Commerce endorses the Draft Environmental Impact
St
u
d
y

c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

T
u
r
n
p
i
k
e

A
u
t
h
ority.Appendix E Interest Groups Comments Gaston Connector DEIS 17
DEIS - Public Release Comments Interest Groups
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

o
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

P
u
b
l
i
c

R
e
v
i
e
w

P
e
r
io
d

-

e
n
d
i
n
g

J
u
l
y

2
1
,

2
0
0
9
Co
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
NA
M
E
i0
1
5
1
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
G
a
s
t
o
n

2
0
1
2
H
a
r
r
i
s
o
n
D
o
n
C
o
m
m
e
nt

N
o
t
e
d
WH
E
R
E
A
S
,

t
h
e

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
c
t
i
o
n

T
e
a
m

o
f

G
a
s
t
o
n

2
012, Gaston Transportation Advisory Committee and Gaston Urban Metropolitan Planning
Or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

h
a
s

d
e
e
m
e
d

t
h
e

G
a
r
d
e
n

P
a
r
k
w
a
y

t
o

b
e

t
h
e top priority roadway project;
i0
1
5
2
r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
0
9
G
a
s
t
o
n

2
0
1
2
H
a
r
r
i
s
o
n
D
o
n
C
o
m
m
e
nt

N
o
t
e
d
NO
W

T
H
E
R
E
F
O
R
E

B
E

I
T

R
E
S
O
L
V
E
D
,

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

G
a
s
t
o
n

2
0
1
2

Strategic Council endorses the Draft Environmental Impact Statement conducted by the
No
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

T
u
r
n
p
i
k
e

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
.

i0
1
6
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
2
9
/
2
0
0
9
C
o
n
n
e
c
t

G
a
s
t
o
n
H
a
r
t
u
n
g
J
o
y
c
e
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

Ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

a
n
d

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Br
i
d
g
e
s

o
v
e
r

s
t
r
e
a
m
s

b
e

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d

i
n

a

m
a
n
n
e
r

t
h
a
t allows future walking and bike paths to pass beneath them
i0
1
6
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
2
9
/
2
0
0
9
C
o
n
n
e
c
t

G
a
s
t
o
n
H
a
r
t
u
n
g
J
o
y
c
e
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

Ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

a
n
d

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Al
l

b
r
i
d
g
e
s

o
v
e
r

r
o
a
d
s
,

a
n
d

i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s

w
i
t
h

r
o
a
d
s
, be constructed with sidewalks (north-south) that allow access from one side of the thoroughfare to the
ot
h
e
r
.

i0
1
6
3
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
2
9
/
2
0
0
9
C
o
n
n
e
c
t

G
a
s
t
o
n
H
a
r
t
u
n
g
J
o
y
c
e
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

Ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

a
n
d

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Al
l

s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s

b
e

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d

s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t

i
n

w
i
d
t
h

t
o
a
l
l
o
w

f
o
o
t
,

b
i
k
e
,

w
h
e
e
l
c
h
a
i
r
,

a
n
d

s
t
r
o
l
l
e
r

t
r
a
f
f
i
c
to move in both directions simultaneously.
i0
1
6
4
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
2
9
/
2
0
0
9
C
o
n
n
e
c
t

G
a
s
t
o
n
H
a
r
t
u
n
g
J
o
y
c
e
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

Ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s

a
n
d

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Br
i
d
g
e
s

o
v
e
r

t
h
e

S
o
u
t
h

F
o
r
k

a
n
d

C
a
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r
s

b
e

c
onstructed with provisions for pedestrians to cross the rivers. Appendix E Interest Groups Comments Gaston Connector DEIS 18

APPENDIX F

Comments Responding to USACE Public Notice

Comments Responding to USACE Public Notice
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

o
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
u0
1
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
6/
2
8
/
2
0
0
9
P
i
e
r
c
e
H
e
a
t
h
e
r
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d

S
p
e
c
i
e
s

an
d
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
My

f
a
m
i
l
y

e
n
j
o
y
s

t
h
e

c
o
u
p
l
e

o
f

a
c
r
e
s

w
e

h
a
v
e
,

e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y

w
a
t
c
h
i
n
g

t
h
e

h
a
w
k

f
a
m
i
l
y

i
n

t
h
e

w
o
o
d
s

b
e
h
i
n
d

o
u
r

h
o
m
e

a
n
d

s
e
e
i
n
g

a

d
e
e
r or fox run through the
ya
r
d
.

B
e
i
n
g

a
b
l
e

t
o

s
h
o
w

t
h
e
s
e

b
e
a
u
t
i
f
u
l

s
i
t
e
s

o
f

n
a
t
u
r
e

t
o

m
y

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n

i
s

r
a
r
e

i
n

t
h
i
s

d
a
y

a
n
d

t
i
m
e
.

T
h
i
s

m
u
l
t
i
-
m
i
l
l
i
o
n

d
o
l
l
ar road would do irreversible
da
m
a
g
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y
t
o
t
h
e
p
e
n
i
n
s
u
l
a
I
n
s
t
e
a
d
o
f
p
u
t
t
i
n
g
a
t
o
l
l
r
o
a
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
B
e
l
m
o
n
t
w
e
a
l
l
n
e
e
d
t
o
b
e
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
d
e
l
i
c
a
t
e
e
c
o
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r

Co
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
NA
M
E
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
u0
1
1
le
t
t
e
r
6/
2
8
/
2
0
0
9
Pi
e
r
c
e
He
a
t
h
e
r
an
d Wi
l
d
l
i
f
e
dam
a
g
e

e
n
v
iro
n
m
e
n
tall
y
to
th
e
p
e
n
ins
u
la.

Ins
tea
d of putting a toll road through Belmont, we all need to be concerned with protecting the delicate eco-
sy
s
t
e
m

o
f

t
h
e

p
e
n
i
n
s
u
l
a
.
u0
1
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
2
8
/
2
0
0
9
P
i
e
r
c
e
H
e
a
t
h
e
r
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Sp
r
a
w
l

i
s

n
o
t

g
o
o
d

f
o
r

B
e
l
m
o
n
t

o
r

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y
.

B
e
l
m
o
n
t

h
a
s

s
e
e
n

e
n
o
u
g
h

g
r
o
w
t
h
,

e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y

o
n

t
h
e

p
e
n
i
n
s
u
l
a
.

W
e

d
o
n
’
t

n
e
e
d

s
trip malls and the
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

g
r
o
w
t
h

t
h
a
t

w
o
u
l
d

c
o
m
e

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

r
o
a
d
,

n
o

m
a
t
t
e
r

w
h
a
t

p
a
r
t

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
u
n
t
y

w
e

a
r
e

t
a
l
k
i
n
g

a
b
o
u
t
.

T
h
e

s
m
a
l
l

t
o
w
n

o
f

B
e
l
mont does not need
an
o
t
h
e
r

b
r
i
d
g
e

c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g

t
h
e

C
a
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r

i
n
t
o

o
u
r

b
o
r
d
e
r
s
.
u0
1
3
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
2
8
/
2
0
0
9
P
i
e
r
c
e
H
e
a
t
h
e
r
W
a
t
e
r

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Pe
r
s
o
n
a
l
l
y
,

I

d
o

n
o
t

b
e
l
i
e
v
e

e
n
o
u
g
h

t
h
o
r
o
u
g
h
,

a
n
d

I

d
o

m
e
a
n

t
h
o
r
o
u
g
h
,

r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

d
o
n
e

b
y

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
e
r

a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
i
e
s

r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g environmental research
on

a
n
d

a
r
o
u
n
d

t
h
e

p
e
n
i
n
s
u
l
a

o
f

B
e
l
m
o
n
t
.

C
a
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r
k
e
e
p
e
r

D
a
v
i
d

M
e
r
r
y
m
a
n

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

t
h
e

G
a
r
d
e
n

P
a
r
k
w
a
y
,

n
o
r

d
o
e
s

t
h
e

L
ake Wylie
La
k
e
k
e
e
p
e
r
,

E
l
l
e
n

G
o
f
f
.
u0
1
4
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
2
8
/
2
0
0
9
P
i
e
r
c
e
H
e
a
t
h
e
r
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

E
f
f
e
c
t
s
Wa
t
e
r

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Th
i
s

t
o
l
l

r
o
a
d

w
i
l
l

m
a
k
e

a

h
u
g
e

i
m
p
a
c
t

o
n

G
a
s
t
o
n

C
o
u
n
t
y

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y
,

e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y

B
e
l
m
o
n
t

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

w
a
t
e
r
s

o
f

t
h
e

C
a
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r, Lake Wylie, and South
Fo
r
k

R
i
v
e
r

s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g

t
h
e

p
e
n
i
n
s
u
l
a
.

E
r
o
s
io
n

o
f

t
h
e

b
a
n
k
s

o
f

t
h
e

w
a
t
e
r
s
,

w
a
t
e
r

t
a
b
l
e

d
e
c
l
i
n
i
n
g
,

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
i
n
g

a
n
d

k
i
l
l
i
n
g

o
f

w
i
l
dlife and runoff from road’s
su
r
f
a
c
e
s

w
i
l
l

w
a
s
h

s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t

d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m
.
u0
1
5
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
2
8
/
2
0
0
9
P
i
e
r
c
e
H
e
a
t
h
e
r
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
T
h
i
s

r
e
g
i
o
n

i
s

a
l
r
e
a
d
y

i
n

j
e
o
p
a
r
d
y

o
f

n
o
t

m
e
e
t
i
n
g

c
l
e
a
n

a
i
r

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
u0
1
6
l
e
t
t
e
r
6
/
2
8
/
2
0
0
9
P
i
e
r
c
e
H
e
a
t
h
e
r
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
Cu
l
t
u
r
a
l

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
We

d
o
n
'
t

n
e
e
d

2

m
o
r
e

b
r
i
d
g
e
s

b
u
i
l
t

a
c
r
o
s
s

B
e
l
m
o
n
t

f
o
r

a

r
o
a
d

t
h
a
t

d
o
e
s
n
'
t

e
v
e
n

c
o
n
n
e
c
t

I
-
8
5

a
n
d

s
t
o
p
s

a
t

H
W
Y

3
2
1

r
i
g
h
t

a
t

t
h
e

H
istoric York Chester
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

i
n

G
a
s
t
o
n
i
a
u0
2
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
M
e
d
l
i
n
J
o
h
n
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

E
f
f
e
c
t
s
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
'
s

s
t
a
t
e
d

p
u
r
p
o
s
e

i
s

t
o

i
m
p
r
o
v
e

e
a
s
t
-
w
e
s
t

t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

m
o
b
i
l
i
t
y
.

S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y
,

t
h
e
y

s
t
a
t

t
h
a
t

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

o
n

I
-
8
5

i
s

a
t
critical levels. However, their own
pu
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e

t
h
a
t

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

c
o
u
n
t
s

w
i
l
l

b
e

w
o
r
s
e with the project than without. Because the project does not accomplish it's objective, the
im
p
a
c
t
s

t
o

t
h
e

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t

a
r
e

n
o
t

j
u
s
t
i
f
i
e
d

a
n
d

i
t

s
h
o
u
l
d

n
o
t

b
e

a
l
l
o
w
e
d
.
In

s
t
a
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

m
a
k
i
n
g

p
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

f
u
r
t
u
r
e

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e

r
e
g
i
o
n

(
"
.
.
m
u
c
h

o
f

t
h
e

r
u
r
a
l

a
r
e
a shifting toward a more
b
b
i
t
"
)
t
h
l
i
t
f
i
l
t
l
t
h
t
h
f
t
h
t
f
t
d
l
t
i
t
i
t
t
h
t
t
i
f
t
h
i
j
t
W
i
t
h
t
t
h
u0
2
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
M
e
d
l
i
n
J
o
h
n
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

E
f
f
e
c
t
s
su
b
u
r
b
a
n

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
.
"
)
,

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

f
a
i
l
s

t
o

r
e
v
e
a
l

t
h
a
t

m
u
c
h

o
f

t
h
a
t

f
u
t
u
r
e

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
t

o
n

t
h
e

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f this project. Without the
pr
o
j
e
c
t
,

t
h
e

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

w
i
l
l

b
e

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y

d
e
l
a
y
e
d
.

M
u
c
h

o
f
the existing local population is against the project because of the expected growth, and it's
af
f
e
c
t

o
n

a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y

v
a
l
u
e
s
.

T
h
e
s
e

v
a
l
u
e
s

w
i
l
l

b
e

i
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
d

by the impacts of the project in the form of increased storm water runoff, erosion, and
si
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
,

a
s

w
e
l
l

a
s

l
o
s
s

o
f

f
o
r
e
s
t

a
n
d

w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
,

n
o
i
s
e

p
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
,

a
n
d

r
e
d
u
c
e
d

a
e
s
t
h
e
t
i
c

v
a
l
u
e
.

u0
2
3
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
M
e
d
l
i
n
J
o
h
n
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
As

p
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
,

t
o
t
a
l

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

c
o
u
n
t

i
n
t
o

a
n
d

o
u
t

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
u
n
t
y

w
i
l
l

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.

T
h
e

a
d
d
i
t
i
onal traffic will affect already poor
ai
r

q
u
a
l
i
t
y

i
n

t
h
e

r
e
g
i
o
n
.
u0
3
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

N
e
e
d

fo
r

A
c
t
i
o
n
Th
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

f
a
i
l
s

t
o

m
e
e
t

t
h
e

s
t
a
t
e
d

p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s

o
f

r
e
d
u
c
i
n
g

c
o
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
l
y

i
m
p
r
o
v
i
n
g

e
a
s
t
-
w
e
s
t

c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
.

T
h
e
r
e
fore, the Project has no
me
r
i
t
.
u0
3
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
Be
c
a
u
s
e

t
h
e

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

h
a
v
e

s
u
m
m
a
r
i
l
y

r
e
j
e
c
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

m
e
a
n
i
n
g
f
u
l

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
b
l
e

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

(
s
u
c
h

a
s

e
s
t
a
b
lishing High Occupancy
To
l
l

(
H
O
T
)

l
a
n
e
s

o
n

I
-
8
5
,

i
m
p
r
o
v
i
n
g

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,

a
n
d

t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

d
e
m
a
n
d

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,

o
r

m
a
s
s

t
r
a
n
s
i
t
)

no 404 permit may be
is
s
u
e
d
.
u0
3
3
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

E
f
f
e
c
t
s
Th
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

a
d
v
e
r
s
e

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

o
f

u
n
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d

s
u
b
u
r
b
a
n

s
p
r
a
w
l

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

l
a
n
d
s

t
h
a
t

l
a
c
k

m
u
n
i
c
p
a
l

w
a
t
e
r

a
n
d

s
e
w
e
r

o
u
t
w
eigh the marginal benefits
of

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
.

F
o
r

t
h
e
s
e

r
e
a
s
o
n
s
,

t
h
e

C
o
r
p
s

m
u
s
t

c
o
n
c
l
u
d
e

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

c
a
n
n
o
t

b
e

a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d

f
o
r

a

p
e
r
m
i
t

u
n
d
e
r

s
e
c
t
i
o
n

4
0
4

of the Clean Water Act.
u0
3
4
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

E
f
f
e
c
t
s
Th
e

D
E
I
S

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s

n
o

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

t
y
p
e

o
f

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

t
h
a
t

w
o
u
l
d

b
e

s
t
i
m
u
l
a
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
,

o
r

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d
cumulative impacts of such
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

u
p
o
n

t
h
e

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
u0
3
5
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

N
e
e
d

fo
r

A
c
t
i
o
n
A
p
r
i
m
a
r
y

p
u
r
p
o
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

i
s

t
o

i
m
p
r
o
v
e

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

f
l
o
w

a
n
d

s
a
f
e

t
r
a
v
e
l

o
n

I
-
8
5
,

U
S

2
9
/
7
4

a
n
d

U
S

3
2
1

i
n

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

S
t
u
d
y

A
rea. The Project fails to meet
th
e

s
t
a
t
e
d

p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s

o
f

d
e
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g

c
o
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
.
pp
g
g
u0
3
6
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

N
e
e
d

fo
r

A
c
t
i
o
n
Th
e

D
E
I
S

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e

t
h
e

s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

t
o

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

f
l
o
w

o
n

I
-
8
5
,

U
S

2
9
/
7
4
,

o
r

U
S

3
2
1

t
h
a
t

i
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

t
o

m
e
e
t
the stated Project purpose.
u0
3
7
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

E
f
f
e
c
t
s
Th
e

D
E
I
S

c
o
n
t
a
i
n
s

n
o

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

a
t

a
l
l

o
f

t
h
e

e
f
f
e
c
t

o
f

t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

a
t

U
S

3
2
1
,

w
h
i
c
h

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

T
u
r
n
p
i
k
e

A
u
thority states is the likely
we
s
t
e
r
n

t
e
r
m
i
n
u
s
.

I
n

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

t
o

a

s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
,

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

T
u
r
n
p
i
k
e

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y

u
ltimately presented a June
2,

2
0
0
9

s
t
u
d
y

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
n
g

v
a
r
i
o
u
s

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s

a
t

U
S

3
2
1
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

t
h
a
t

o
f

t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

t
h
e
r
e
.

T
h
e

s
t
u
d
y

s
h
o
w
s

the following daily traffic
co
u
n
t
s

i
n

t
h
e

y
e
a
r

2
0
3
0

a
n
d

d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
s

t
h
a
t

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

o
n

I
-
8
5

a
t

U
S

3
2
1
.

A
l
l

s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
u0
3
8
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
Pu
r
p
o
s
e

a
n
d

N
e
e
d

fo
r

A
c
t
i
o
n
Th
e

d
r
a
f
t

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

I
m
p
a
c
t

S
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t

p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

t
h
e

T
u
r
n
p
i
k
e

A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y

d
e
c
l
a
r
e
s

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

p
u
r
p
o
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

t
o
l
l

r
o
a
d

i
s

"
to improve traffic flow on the
se
c
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

I
-
8
5
,

U
S

2
9
-
7
4

a
n
d

U
S

3
2
1
"

i
n

t
h
e

s
t
u
d
y

a
r
e
a
,

a
n
d

t
o

"
r
e
d
u
c
e

c
o
n
g
e
s
t
e
d

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

m
i
l
e
s

t
r
a
v
e
l
l
e
d
"

c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d

t
o

t
r
a
f
f
i
c
if the Project is not built.
Be
c
a
u
s
e

t
h
e

t
o
l
l

r
o
a
d

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

m
e
e
t

t
h
e

b
a
s
i
c

p
u
r
p
o
s
e

o
f

r
e
l
i
e
v
i
n
g

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

c
o
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
,

t
h
i
s

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

h
a
s

n
o

m
e
r
i
t
.
Appendix F Comments Responding to USACE Public Notice Gaston Connector DEIS 1
Comments Responding to USACE Public Notice
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

o
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

D
E
I
S
La
s
t
F
i
r
s
t
Ga
s
t
o
n

E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r

Co
m
m
e
n
t

T
o
p
i
c
C
o
m
m
e
n
t

No
.
DA
T
E
Ag
e
n
c
y
(a
s

n
e
e
d
e
d
)
NA
M
E
Co
m
m
e
n
t

Se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

To
p
i
c
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

Co
n
t
r
o
l

No
.
Co
m
m
e
n
t

su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

vi
a
u0
3
9
l
e
t
t
e
r
7/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
If

D
E
I
S

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s

a
r
e

t
o

b
e

b
e
l
i
e
v
e
d
,

i
n

2
0
3
0

r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s

o
n

t
h
e

B
e
l
m
o
n
t

P
e
n
i
n
s
u
l
a

w
i
l
l

s
a
v
e

2
3

m
i
n
u
t
e
s

t
r
a
v
e
l
l
i
n
g

t
o

t
h
e

C
h
a
r
l
o
t
te Douglas Airport by taking
th
e

t
o
l
l

b
r
i
d
g
e
.

T
h
i
s

t
i
m
e

s
a
v
i
n
g
s

o
c
c
u
r
s

i
n

p
a
r
t

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

t
h
e

N
o
-
B
u
i
l
d

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

i
s

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

t
o

t
a
k
e

5
7

m
i
n
u
t
e
s
.

C
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
, MapQuest shows the trip
ta
k
i
n
g
1
7
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
F
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
t
r
a
v
e
l
s
a
v
i
n
g
s
t
o
b
e
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
o
n
S
o
u
t
h
P
o
i
n
t
R
o
a
d
a
n
d
W
i
l
k
i
n
s
o
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
m
u
s
t
b
e
c
o
m
e
s
o
c
o
n
g
e
s
t
e
d
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
u0
3
9
le
t
t
e
r
7/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
St
o
p
th
e
To
l
l
Ro
a
d
.
c
o
m
To
o
l
e
Wi
l
l
i
a
m
Con
s
id
er
e
d
taki
ng

17
m
inu
tes
.

For

th
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d tra
v
e
l s
a
v
ing
s

to be correct, traffic on South Point Road and Wilkinson Boulevard must become so congested that the
tr
i
p

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s

b
y

4
0

m
i
n
u
t
e
s
,

a

t
w
o

h
u
n
d
r
e
d

p
e
r
c
e
n
t

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

i
n

2
0

y
e
a
r
s
.

T
h
i
s

s
i
m
p
l
y

i
s

n
o
t

c
r
e
d
i
b
l
e
.
u0
3
1
0
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
La
n
d

U
s
e

a
n
d

Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
It

i
s

p
r
o
b
a
b
l
e

t
h
a
t

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

U
S

3
2
1
/
R
o
b
i
n
s
o
n

R
o
a
d

i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e

t
o

t
h
e

a
i
r
p
o
r
t

w
o
u
l
d

s
e
e

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d

t
r
a
v
e
l

t
i
m
e
s

o
v
e
r

t
h
e

t
o
l
l

r
o
a
d
. The fact is, however, that
Go
o
g
l
e

M
a
p
s

s
h
o
w
s

t
h
e
r
e

i
s

n
o

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

a
t

t
h
e

U
S

3
2
1
/
R
o
b
i
n
s
o
n

R
o
a
d

i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e

a
n
d

i
t

i
s

n
o
t

a

t
r
a
v
e
l

d
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
.

T
h
e

P
r
o
j
ect provides no
me
a
n
i
n
g
f
u
l
,

c
r
e
d
i
b
l
e

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

i
n

e
a
s
t
-
w
e
s
t

c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,

a
n
d

c
e
rtainly is not worth the impacts it will cause to the environment and the community.
u0
3
1
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
Th
e

D
E
I
S

a
p
p
e
r
s

t
o

h
a
v
e

c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
l
y

o
v
e
r
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

t
h
e

"
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
"

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

v
o
l
u
m
e

a
l
o
n
g

e
a
c
h

o
f

t
h
e

m
a
j
o
r

r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s

i
n

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t area. This leads to
in
f
l
a
t
e
d

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

c
o
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.

T
h
e

f
a
i
l
u
r
e

t
o

a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
l
y

r
e
c
o
n
c
i
l
e

t
h
e

2
0
0
6

e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

2
0
0
7

o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d

d
a
t
a

f
u
rther corrodes the credibility of
th
e

l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m

m
o
d
e
l

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
u0
3
1
2
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
Th
e

D
E
I
S

c
u
r
s
o
r
i
l
y

r
e
v
i
e
w
s
,

t
h
e
n

s
u
m
m
a
r
i
l
y

c
o
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
,

t
h
a
t

a

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

H
i
g
h

O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y

T
o
l
l

(
H
O
T
)
/
H
i
g
h

O
ccupancy Vehicle (HOV)
on

I
-
8
5
,

e
x
p
a
n
d
e
d

m
a
s
s

t
r
a
n
s
i
t
,

u
p
g
r
a
d
i
n
g

t
h
e

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

r
o
a
d

s
y
s
t
e
m
,

o
r

s
o
m
e

c
o
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e
s
e
,

f
a
i
l

t
o

m
e
e
t

o
r

e
x
c
e
e
d

t
h
e

d
e
fined purpose and need.
Of

c
o
u
r
s
e
,

t
h
e

T
r
a
n
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

t
h
e
n

f
a
i
l

t
o

a
p
p
l
y

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d

o
f

s
u
c
c
e
s
s

t
o

t
h
e
i
r

p
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

o
f

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
construction.
u0
3
1
3
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
Th
e

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

c
o
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

t
h
a
t

M
a
s
s

T
r
a
n
s
i
t

I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s

o
n

E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

(
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
i
n
g

o
f

b
u
s

o
r

r
a
i
l

s
e
r
v
i
c
e
)

would not attract enough
tr
i
p
s

t
o

n
o
t
i
c
e
a
b
l
y

r
e
d
u
c
e

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

m
i
l
e
s

t
r
a
v
e
l
l
e
d

o
r

c
o
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
.

T
h
e

D
E
I
S

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

c
o
n
t
a
i
n

a
n
y

s
t
u
d
y

t
o

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

t
h
i
s

c
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
on. T
u0
3
1
4
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
Th
e

D
E
I
S

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s

o
f

t
h
e

I
m
p
r
o
v
e

E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

R
o
a
d
w
a
y
s

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

i
s

p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
l
y

d
i
s
h
e
a
r
t
e
n
i
n
g
.

F
o
r

e
x
a
m
p
l
e
,

t
h
e

A
p
r
i
l

2
4

D
E
I
S

f
ailed to review and consider
th
e

C
h
a
r
l
o
t
t
e

R
e
g
i
o
n

F
a
s
t

L
a
n
e
s

S
t
u
d
y

(
d
r
a
f
t

F
i
n
a
l

R
e
p
o
r
t

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
0
9
)

w
h
i
c
h

c
o
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

t
h
a
t

a

H
i
g
h

O
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y

T
o
l
l

(
H
O
T
)

l
a
n
e

o
p
t
ion was feasible, could
be

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d

i
n

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

I
-
8
5

r
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y
,

w
o
u
l
d

s
a
v
e

c
o
m
m
u
t
e
r
s

1
9

m
i
n
u
t
e
s
,

a
n
d

u
n
l
i
k
e

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

w
o
u
l
d

b
e

f
u
l
l
y

s
e
l
f
-
s
u
p
p
o
rting (construction and O&M)
fr
o
m

t
o
l
l

r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
.

T
h
e

D
E
I
S

r
e
j
e
c
t
e
d

t
h
e

I
m
p
r
o
v
e

E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

R
o
a
d
w
a
y
s

A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

t
h
e

d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

s
t
u
d
y

a
n
d

f
o
r

s
u
m
m
a
r
y

c
o
n
clusions that are now
re
d
u
n
d
a
n
t

(
a
n
d

a
t

d
i
r
e
c
t

o
d
d
s

w
i
t
h

o
t
h
e
r

p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l

s
t
u
d
i
e
s
)

–

t
r
a
v
e
l

t
i
m
e
s

w
o
u
l
d

n
o
t

i
m
p
r
o
v
e

c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

N
o
-
B
u
i
l
d

a
l
t
e
r
n
ative, failure to provide east-
we
s
t
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
a
n
d
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
we
s
t c
o
n
n
e
c
ti
vit
y,

a
n
d fail
ur
e

to
imp
r
o
v
e

lev
e
l o
f s
e
r
v
ice.
u0
3
1
5
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
Th
e

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

h
a
v
e

n
o
t

e
n
g
a
g
e
d

i
n

a
n

o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s

u
s
i
n
g

e
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l

d
a
t
a
.

C
o
m
p
a
r
e
d

t
o

their willingness to
ov
e
r
l
o
o
k

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
i
e
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
,

t
h
e

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

h
a
v
e

n
o
t

c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d

a

g
o
o
d

f
a
i
t
h

r
e
v
i
e
w

o
f

t
h
e

p
r
a
c
ticable alternatives. For this
re
a
s
o
n
,

t
h
e

C
o
r
p
s

m
u
s
t

c
o
n
c
l
u
d
e

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

i
s

n
o
t

e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e

f
o
r

a

4
0
4

p
e
r
m
i
t
.
u0
3
1
6
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

E
f
f
e
c
t
s
Cu
l
t
u
r
a
l

Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Th
e

T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s

h
a
v
e

f
a
i
l
e
d

t
o

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e

t
h
e

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

o
f

t
h
e

r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y

f
o
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e

-

i
n
d
e
e
d

p
r
o
b
a
b
l
e

-

r
e
a
l
t
i
y

t
h
a
t

the Project will daed-end into
US

3
2
1

f
o
r

d
e
c
a
d
e
s
,

a
n
d

p
e
r
h
a
p
e

f
o
r
e
v
e
r
.

T
h
i
s

r
e
a
l
i
t
y

h
a
s

t
h
e

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

t
o

h
a
v
e

d
i
r
e
c
t

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

u
p
o
n

t
w
o

h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c

n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
located along US 321.
u0
3
1
7
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
In
d
i
r
e
c
t

a
n
d

Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

E
f
f
e
c
t
s
Th
e

D
E
I
S

h
a
s

n
o
t

a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
l
y

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
d

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
r
e
c
t

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

a
n
d

c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

o
f

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
n
g

a

t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y

t
h
a
t is designed to promote
su
b
u
r
b
a
n

s
p
r
a
w
l

i
n

w
h
a
t

i
s

p
r
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
l
y

a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l

l
a
n
d

a
n
d

p
a
s
t
u
r
e
s
.

T
h
e

a
r
e
a

t
o

b
e

s
e
r
v
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

m
u
n
c
i
p
a
l

water and sewer, and none is
pl
a
n
n
e
d

f
o
r

m
u
c
h

o
f

t
h
e

a
r
e
a
.
u0
3
1
8
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Th
e

D
E
I
S

f
a
i
l
s

t
o

a
c
c
o
u
n
t

f
o
r

t
h
e

f
a
c
t

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

w
i
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l

o
f

t
h
e

N
o
r
t
h

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a

S
t
a
t
e

I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

P
l
a
n

m
e
a
n
s

t
h
e

M
U
M
P
O

a
n
d

GUAMPO transportation
pl
a
n
s

h
a
v
e

n
o
w

l
a
p
s
e
d

i
n
t
o

a

o
n
e

y
e
a
r

c
o
n
f
o
r
m
i
t
y

g
r
a
c
e

p
e
r
i
o
d
.

A
t

n
o

p
o
i
n
t

d
o
e
s

t
h
e

D
E
I
S

a
d
d
r
e
s
s

t
h
e

f
a
c
t

t
h
a
t

b
y

p
r
o
m
o
t
i
n
g

s
u
burban sprawl, the Project
wi
l
l

s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
l
y

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

o
f

o
z
o
n
e

p
r
e
c
u
r
s
o
rs and contribute to the region's ozone problem, currently designated "serious". Given the
fa
c
t

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

r
e
g
i
o
n

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

u
n
a
b
l
e

t
o

r
e
d
u
c
e

i
t
'
s

b
a
s
e
l
i
n
e

o
z
o
n
e

l
e
v
e
l
s
,

i
t

i
s

l
i
k
e
l
y

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

e
n
f
o
r
c
e
a
b
l
e

a
c
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

t
r
a
n
s
p
ortation control measures will
ha
v
e

t
o

b
e

a
d
o
p
t
e
d

t
o

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

v
e
h
i
c
l
e

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
.

Th
e

D
E
I
S

f
a
i
l
s

t
o

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e

t
h
e

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

o
f

t
h
e

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

o
n

a
n

a
l
r
e
a
d
y

s
e
r
i
o
u
s

r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l

o
z
o
n
e

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
.
u0
3
20
le
t
t
e
r
7/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
St
o
p
t
h
e
T
o
l
l
R
o
a
d
c
o
m
To
o
l
e
Wi
l
l
i
a
m
Wa
t
e
r
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Th
e

D
E
I
S

f
a
i
l
s

t
o

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e

h
o
w

t
h
e

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s

c
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
o
r
y mitigation will be implemented. In fact, the DEIS states that even a "conceptual
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

p
l
a
n
"

i
s

o
n
e

o
f

t
h
e

s
e
v
e
r
a
l

"
u
n
r
e
s
l
o
v
e
d

i
s
s
u
e
s

a
n
d

a
r
e
a
s

o
f

c
o
n
t
r
o
v
e
r
s
y
"
.

S
e
c
u
r
i
n
g

s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e

c
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
o
r
y

w
e
t
l
a
n
d

m
i
tigation sites within the
u0
3
1
9
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
S
t
o
p

t
h
e

T
o
l
l

R
o
a
d
.
c
o
m
T
o
o
l
e
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
A
i
r

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
u0
3
20
le
t
t
e
r
7/
1
7
/
2
0
0
9
St
o
p
th
e
To
l
l
Ro
a
d
.co
m
To
o
l
e
Wi
l
l
i
a
m
Wa
t
e
r
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
gp
y
g
p
y
g
lo
w
e
r

C
a
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r

w
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d

i
s

a

w
e
l
l
-
r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
d

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
,

a
n
d

b
o
t
h

t
h
e

C
o
r
p
s

a
n
d

t
h
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

h
a
v
e

a

n
e
e
d

t
o

u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d

h
w
o

t
h
e
Transportation
Ag
e
n
c
i
e
s

p
r
o
p
o
s
e

t
o

a
d
d
r
e
s
s

t
h
i
s

i
s
s
u
e
.
u0
4
1
l
e
t
t
e
r
7
/
2
1
/
2
0
0
9
So
u
t
h
e
r
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

L
a
w

Ce
n
t
e
r
Fa
r
r
e
n
J
.

D
a
v
i
d
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s

s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

t
o

U
S
A
C
E

a
r
e

i
d
e
n
t
i
c
a
l

t
o

c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

D
E
I
S

p
u
b
l
i
c

r
e
v
i
e
w

p
e
r
i
o
d

-

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

n
u
m
b
e
r

i005 Appendix F Comments Responding to USACE Public Notice Gaston Connector DEIS 2