SC 487 Environmental Assessment, Marble Gap: Draft and Revised Draft merged as a redline

The revisions in the Revised Draft are carried word by word into the original Draft template as tracked changes. Accepting all of them gives the Revised Draft text; rejecting all gives the Draft. The comparison shows a noise figure that was not updated in the Summary and four changes not traced to any comment response.

NEPA Environmental Assessment, SCDOT with FHWADraft (72 pp.) and Revised Draft (74 pp.)Comment response matrix, 15 commentsPrepared Nov 5, 2026

Summary

Inconsistency · Summary

Noise impacts were updated in Sections 3.4 and 3.6 but not in the Summary

The Revised Draft raises impacted residences in the Marble Gap Mill Village from 12 to 31 (p. 3-25), adds Noise Barrier 1 (p. 3-26) and changes residential effects from minor to moderate (Section 3.6 and Table 3-10, pp. 3-43 to 3-44). The Summary on p. S-1 still reports 12 residences and no noise abatement.

Action: correct the Summary before the EA goes to FHWA for signature.

Comment response matrix

4 of 31 changes are not traced to any comment response

The in-stream work commitment for the trout spawning window was softened from “shall” to “should” (p. 4-1), and the spill containment basin between Sta. 61+00 and Sta. 65+25 was deleted (p. 3-35). The design-year AADT and the farmland acreage also changed with no response. Response SCDES-02 on cumulative effects has no matching change in the text.

Action: confirm the four changes with the project manager, then add responses or restore the Draft text.

Formatting

1,200 of 1,231 Word Compare revisions are formatting

The Revised Draft was edited in a clean copy with a different template. Styles, page breaks, non-breaking spaces, double spaces and quote marks were not carried over, so the original template is kept. That leaves 31 tracked content changes.

The check line in the tool shows that accepting all gives the Revised Draft and rejecting all gives the Draft.

Tracked changes in the original template

Changes between the Draft and the Revised Draft are shown as in Word. Accept or reject them one at a time or all at once; the check line compares the result with both versions. Click a change to see before and after, page numbers and the matching comment response.

View
Change type
Show
0Tracked changes
0Accepted
0Rejected
0Pending

By section and change type

Click a section to show only that section in the document.

Formatting differences not carried over

Word Compare of the Draft against the Revised Draft, by type. Only the content changes are carried into the redline as tracked changes.

Comment response matrix against the document

Each response checked against the tracked changes, followed by changes with no response.

    Sources and method

    Sources

    • SC487_Marble_Gap_EA_Draft.docxAgency review draft in the SCDOT EA template, circulated June 202672 pp.
    • SC487_Marble_Gap_EA_Revised_Draft_clean.docxRevised Draft after agency comments, edited without track changes in a copy with a different template74 pp.
    • EA_Comment_Response_Matrix.xlsxComments from FHWA, SCDOT, USACE, USFWS, SCDNR, SCDES and SHPO with responses15 comments
    • Agency_Comments_Draft_EA_2026-09-24.pdfConsolidated agency comments on the Draft EA11 pp.
    • SC487_Noise_Study_Report_Rev_B.pdfTraffic noise analysis, 2050 design year, FHWA TNM with updated terrain data46 pp.

    Method

    1. Both Word files were read paragraph by paragraph (368 paragraphs including table rows). Paragraphs were paired by heading, table and order.
    2. The text was compared word by word. Non-breaking spaces, double spaces, dashes versus hyphens and straight versus curly quotes were treated as formatting, as were styles and page breaks.
    3. Each content difference was written into the Draft as a tracked insertion or deletion. The Draft styles were left untouched. The result is SC487_Marble_Gap_EA_Draft_redline.docx.
    4. Check by paragraph: accepting all changes gives the Revised Draft text, rejecting all gives the Draft text.
    5. Each change was matched to the comment response matrix by section and content. Responses with no change and changes with no response were flagged.
    6. Changed numbers were searched for in the rest of the document to find places that were not updated.

    Assumptions and limitations

    • Formatting changes in the Revised Draft are not carried over. The redline keeps the original template and Draft pagination, so page numbers follow the Draft until the changes are accepted.
    • The page shows the 23 paragraphs that have changes or checks. The other 345 paragraphs are unchanged in substance.
    • Figures, maps and appendices are not part of the comparison.
    • Matching to the comment response matrix is based on section and content. Whether a change needs a response is for the project manager to decide.
    • The EA text does not give dates for SCDNR’s trout spawning window. The dates should be confirmed with SCDNR before the commitment on p. 4-1 is finalized.
    • The noise barrier wording follows SCDOT practice for barrier decisions at the EA stage and should be read by the project’s noise specialist.