20071470_Meeting Minutes_20071017

Page 9of14
Date October 17, 2007
10 30 am to 11 00 am
NC Turnpike Authority Office Budding Ground Floor Conference Room (G-13)
Project STIP R-2635 Western Wake Freeway
Western Wake Freeway Spotlight:
Additional Attendees: ?I=illiltit?i!
Rob Ridings, NCDWQ i ,
John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Greg Price, NCDOT- Natural Environment Unit
Tracy Roberts, HNTB- NCTA/GEC
Ross Andrews, EcoScience Corporation
Len Hill, ARCADIS
Knstina Miller, ARCADIS t'l'it
Martha Register, ARCADIS
11011,111
'=iJi f?islEi
Presentation Materials: (posted on the TEAC website)
• Meeting Agendas
• October 17, 2007 TEAC Handout ,i 111;l;t
!
• PowerPoint Presentation
`;1',
;f `bill; ` =i
General Discussion:
il. ifitr?}Elirlr { !
Note: The meeting was held twice (on 10117 and '(QQ/18) to`better accomm9,61 to environmental resource and
regulatory agency schedules. The discussion sect%on is Jrla" igecl;byldate as noted
t t
Purpose: iil?li? ?41s!
The purpose of the me
project concept due to
environment, natural n
w as to revieiy;'the Reevaluationfeport including its purpose, the change in
updates/chdh§es to the huma`iienvironment, cultural resources, physical
s;1indirect ad cumulative impacts; `and conclusions
14 iT({ i3 4ib `?€Itfit !( {j( !St
I iE41+?k1 ?icli
awarding the Design-Bfiudd contract in July 2008 and opening the facility to
',,tones are g§ject to the availability of funding )
neflore the UjS1(Ahn?icorps of Engineers (USAGE) can issue the 404 permit
?Ir Et, lrr
-A ation (JD)'I;sust be finalized by completion of the Rapanos forms Local
npletedi?forms ill take 5 days, followed by Environmental Protection Agency
auart`ek=s, review which will take an additional 15 days If there is no response
the 4'i0,4 permit can be issued ARCADIS is under contract with NCDOT to
cor>a0leted by October 31, 2007
Schedule: Stllli;`illli r
The current sdhedu a incl de
traffic in Fall.Nl1 (Both'ml(e
• 1 Q1117hi-Ot was noted that
that th'e,iurisdictional det
USAC [eV, w of the co
(EPA) a41151 CE head
within the 15i a lRenod,
have the Rapenosiform.
• 10/17 - The next s(eps;?olcompleting the permitting process include forwarding the completed
Rapanos forms to NCDWWQ, and the state issuing the 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) Other
items needed prior to iissuing the 404 permit include the EEP acceptance letter and the Section 106
Memorandum of Agreement, both of which have been received by USACE
• 10/18 - it was noted that the WQC cannot be issued without a signed NEPA document. The Record
of Decision (ROD) was signed in 2004 and remains the final NEPA document The Reevaluation
Report is a decision-making document for FHWA in determining whether a Supplemental EIS is
needed The Reevaluation Report concludes that the FEIS is still valid and no additional NEPA
documentation is necessary
• 10/18 - The noted change in median width to 78 feet may require additional review and avoidance
measures before NCDWQ will issue the WQC NCTA reminded NCDWQ that the change in median
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 10/17/07
Page 10 of 14
width was addressed in the FEIS and ROD This additional width has been included and addressed
previously through the Merger Process and accepted by NCDWQ NCDWQ agreed no additional
review is required
• 10/18 - NCDWQ will need to review the Rapanos forms and receive confirmation that the USACE has
accepted them as complying with the new Rapanos guidelines prior to completing the WQC NCDWQ
may need to put the permit on hold (though review of the permit would continue) as incomplete until
they receive these forms Additionally, if USACE determines that any waters are not isolated and are
without a significant nexus, NCDWQ may have to hold the WQC There currently is no state
mechanism for permitting this category of wetlands, which are considered Waters of the State The
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) is scheduled to issue a temporary rule to permit
impacts to these Waters of the State in November ,iiill'tt€it,
• 10/18 - It was noted that the project will be implemented under a Design-B; lied contract. NCDWQ
cautioned NCTA that any changes to the hydraulic design during the Dt?;sigif }uild process would likely
tugger a permit modification There is no guarantee that a modificatid'will be` pFg'rmitted and that
NCTA is ultimately the party held responsible for the permit and q0t a esign-B44 lt1eam
t'ili€iti , IIlHt
• 10/18 - NCDWQ is waiting on information about the stream restoratiop north of Olivel,G+,?pe1 Road
Specifically, there are questions about the suitability of thelreference reach - it is in a dift?e?pt
watershed and it is a different type of stream from the strewn proposed for restoration NC;[7Atiill t
"' till
follow-up with NCDOT to obtain additional information an j lc#lanfication about th
e reference reach l
(UPDATE Representatives of USACE, NCDWQ, NCDOT, NCTA;s Geperal Engrneerrng Consultant
(HNTB and EcoScience) and Sungate Design Group met on-site, ;1, 0{29Y07 to'drscuss the reference
reach If NCDWQ is unable to locate a more suitable reference +rdec/l? within the Tnass?c Basin, it was
agreed that the proposed reference reach wotuld be acceptable andi?liaf is planting plan would be
developed The planting plan would likely be`€ cue a condition of the per,{ Additional coordination
between NCDWQ and NCDOT to occur] fla?llli € '1 r4 ,
+ _ ?I 1? €,tiii i,s
• 10/18 -NCDWQ suggested that NCTA hold mo iiihly on-site, neetings with t' regulatory agencies
once construction has started NCDWQ has fou'' these ,' ee?irjgs, to be eneficial in identifying
concerns quickly and in providing an opportunity tole proactiv?ti!Ia'fsdlelps the agency in handling
3`d party complaints, because€t'by are able to state at they are aware of the issues and they are
!-Olt 0 ,ti " " il i+
being addressed The meetings 1&d on-going coordination also minimize NOVs for protects NCTA
agreed that on-site meetings would!be}benefcial ;?
Q&A:
'1
• 10/97 -Did NCTA+make/cti1ai`ges to?h 1?}}
pro ect design b9sed on comments as part of the public
involvement tiwties? }?fli III }i ?'?lI lilt'
llllli€it:,
Nc comtr,,, receiVedltrom the+p?Nic resulted' in esign changes Section 7 of the Reevaluation
Repor iprovides a surn,maof the ?IJI?Iic comments received
• 90/ Is NCTA still planning to use the,, Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) for its mitigation
,nteeds1i1it
ii I .E,
Yes Thi d9ACE is clarifying, internally whether NCTA would be handled the same as NCDOT with
respect l %he ;use of EEP 11
s
• 10118-1 ho ltil??o?n the nghfioof way (ROVt9 for the project? NCTA or NCDOT? NCDWQ may have
to issue the Dermitlto!the 00-owner
NCDOT currently owns?soMe parcels and NCTA is buying the remainder Dunng construction there
will be dual ownership ,Aq some point NCTA will transfer their ROW to NCDOT and lease the entire
corridor back for the duration of toll operations NCDWQ stated that the permit could be issued to the
ROW owner or a public agency with condemnation authority NCDWQ needs to discuss the
ownership issue internally It is possible the WQC would be issued to both NCTA and NCDOT
10198 - Does NCTA have its own NPDES stormwater permit? This is a concern for the WQC
particularly regarding Operations and Maintenance (O&M) of the stonmwater Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for the facility
NCTA has coordinated with NCDENR (Mike Randall) and is in the process of obtaining its own
NPDES stormwater permit that is similar to NCDOT's NCTA expects to have it in the final review
stages/public comment period by the end of the year and anticipates the final permit will be issued
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 10/17/07
Page 11 of 14
pnor to awarding the Design-Budd contract NCDWQ will require either the completed NPDES
stormwater permit, an MOA for NCTA to work under NCDOT's existing NPDES stormwater permit, or
a project specific Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement for the stormwater BMPs prior to
issuing the WQC The WQC will be on hold pending the resolution of this issue
• 10/18 - What is the status of a Sedimentation and Erosion Control permit?
NCTA is covered under NCDOT's Sedimentation and Erosion Control permit and this has been
accepted by the NC Division of Land Resources
• 10/18 - Is the project located entirely within the Cape Fear River Basing Does it all drain to the B
Everett Jordan Reservoir? . t ,
The project is located entirely within the Cape Fear River Basin, but only the, n6 i &n,half of the
project area drains into the B Everett Jordan Reservoir NCDWQ and the, Emb are developing buffer
rules, similar to the Neuse River Rules, for streams draining into the B E',6W'e1
Jordan Reservoir This
is likely to become an issue if the Design-Build team requires any 4001 pefri?itimodiflcations in the
northern half of the project area If a modification is requested in a location that.dfains into B Everett
Jordan Reservoir, then the site with the modification would become stt fact to the`ni?ffer rules and
retrofitting may be required The proposed rules are likely to t te'e'ffect at the end of=ilvlay 2008
=!1111!, , 111111111
Previous Action Items: Ii li lei t,i11= 4 11111 ?f !fit,
• No action items were identified 1111;t;<it Ii.
I =I1 .if1' t !
1€;Iii
New Action Items
1llilii? ;i `ii
• The Rapanos forms, once completed and aocleptedlby USACE, will be1p1 v ad to NCDWQ The
WQC will be on hold pending completion of tai ? orrin?5i? ;1 i ?11iir
• NCTA will follow-up with NCDOT to obtain additional inform do and clarification about the reference
reach for the proposed stream restoration The WQC will ,be'on$81 pending resolution of concerns
about the reference reach ( i , t!Ili` 1{l;i }Iii
!II(fli}1111, ?il?+i'
• NCDWQ will require fromACTAi either the completed' NPDES storm, ter permit, an MOA for NCTA to
work under NCDOT's,existing NMESistormwater permit, or a project specific Operations and
Maintenance (O&M)iAgj?'etement for'the stormwater BMF prior to issuing the WQC The WQC will be
on hold pending the resolution of this' issue 1;j!
i
g t
Resolutions: i is11i!I ; <l 1? ?1l e?{?l?l?';11,'
• None ;1111,??i1?,I1fE?#fl{?s3ls,li! h
fall,
Next Sfe ss+
• No addit?h I TEAC meeting# ?1fir
1 anticipated NCTA will continue to work with USACE and NCDWQ
throughouiltfhe permitting pros C.
i
1???11i<< i ,?l
it
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 10/17/07
Page 12 of 14
Date October 17, 2007
130 pmto330pm
NC Turnpike Authority Office Building Ground Floor Conference Room (G-13)
Project STIP R-3329 Monroe Connector- NHF-74(21)
STIP R-2559 Monroe Bypass - NHF-74(8)
Monroe Connector / Bypass Spotlight:
Attendees ,,16(11{ii
Donnie Brew, FHWA Ryan White, NCDOfTi- PDEA
George Hoops, FHWA Jennifer Harns 1114
Chris Militscher, USEPA Christy Shurnita,`FiiNTB
Steve Lund, USACE (by Phone) Michael Gloden, EcoSciepce
Marla Chambers, NCWRC (by Phone) Carl Gibdaro,!t?BS&J
Polly Lespinasse, NCDENR-DWQ (met on Kersteri3GiugPBS&J `11116 ii
10/18/07) ri`e3j}il'I ` i i1 i
Presentation Materials (Posted on the TEAC website). iVnild iii ';;? € ??# 1?#1111
• Meeting Agenda ,i6t1,i 4 1#(i ?,
• Preliminary Corridor Segments for Quantitative Third Screening Fig re revised 10/11/07)1
• Preliminary Study Alternatives Figure ;1l( f
• Preliminary Recommended Detailed Study Altematives Figure; f'
• Quantitative GIS Analysis Screening Re' PltsTable
• Preliminary Field Assessment of Corridor S;egrpehtI, 8A !!f€ ?;Iti Dili!
General Discussion:
Note: The meeting was held twice (on 10/17 and 10/18) to Pe er cc`?on podate environmental resource and
regulatory agency schedules. (((fThje! discussions wergt(s0lar and are consolidated in the summary below.
1' f,
i
• Purpose: The purpose of the?lmeiing was to disc?wss comments on the second qualitative screening and
present findingsiofjth`e quantitative?third screening
1111,
• Second Qualitative ScreeingrL,, JewsgBond quanta ive screening results were presented at the
Septembq? 2T, P, 007 TF''? 4nie?ting ?oi(18,kIhg i at,meeting, written comments were received from
NCVV11jj1Rw, icl?ig¢r{erally note;d 7th at it seemed! emature to eliminate some corridors without quantitative
d ,Jt? J{particularly sprrie,of the u?grhde existing roadways options General discussion regarding the second
iii111i1 ?, There was dis' 0,41on with ??`i?A?decision to eliminate Corridor Segment 13 (upgrading Secrest
! Shortcut Road)'fro' urther analysis because there would be less impacts to natural resources with
1 ?> improve existingiloadway alignment than a new location roadway Shifting Corridor Segment 13
b, 61 rd to minirrlize impacts to residences on the south side of the road would result in an
al@ gent very similar to on Segment 30 NCWRC requested quantitative data for these segments
NcTIAK'e{ninded tf'olse present that in the NCDOT Merger 01 process, they would not be involved
to th is ext'ept inle rly alternatives screening Agencies are accustomed to being provided
quanbtadvI61 is on all alternatives still under consideration at Concurrence Point 2, however, by
that point, rli`iiany alternatives have been considered and eliminated without agency coordination
and input'iAlso, the screening process for this project was discussed at several TEAC meetings
and the second screening was always intended to be a qualitative comparison of potential impacts
o NCTA noted that a population of Schweinitz's sunflower had been located adjacent to Secrest
Shortcut Road (Corridor Segment 13) dust north of Poplin Road
o USEPA noted that SCDOT used a qualitative screening process for the 1-73/74 interstate project
that agencies generally liked and offered to provide a copy of this screening (CAT Tool) to FHWA
and NCTA Although this project has progressed beyond the point of being able to implement this
tool, it can be considered for other future NCTA projects
o Corridor Segments 5 and 6, which would include upgrading Old Monroe Road/Old Charlotte
Highway to a freeway with frontage roads, were also discussed NCWRC commented that these
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 10/17/07
Page 13 of 14
segments are similar to Corridor Segments 8 and 9, which are proposed for evaluation in the
quantitative third screening NCTA explained that the Corridor Segments 8 and 9 follow existing US
74, which is an existing 6-lane facility, while Corridor Segments 5 and 6 would upgrade an existing
2-lane roadway, resulting in substantial impacts to adjacent properties Additionally, Corridor
Segment 6 would pass through downtown Monroe USEPA and NCWRC agreed that Corridor
Segment 6 was probably not reasonable to implement and noted that documentation for eliminating
Corridor Segment 5 qualitatively should be thorough
o Agencies noted that the elimination of any corridor segments should be fully justified and
documented
o USEPA and FHWA expressed concern that the number of alternatives to be studied in depth
should be kept to a reasonable number ,tliii3li,?!
NCTA pointed out that agency comments related to Relative Segment. omparison Areas 3 and 4 have
been addressed After further evaluation of the comdor segments in(those areas, NCTA felt that there was
not sufficient data to screen out some segments Corridor Segments 34+94'Ad?41 will be retained for the
quantitative third screening Corridor Segment 41 can be shiftd to;6void direofii `pacts to two agricultural
industries on US 74, which had been a primary factor in the,16`141, recommendatioqj eliminate this
corridor ????IF,,
• Corridor Segments 18/18A and 22122A - As discussed gat the Sepi ember 27, 2007 T I ,EC?FmIeeting, based
on public comment Corridor Segments 18 and 22, nevlr' Corridor Segments 18A and 22A Were added to
minimize direct impacts to neighborhoods impacted by Corridor Segments 18 and 22 Based on agency
comment, NCTA requested the natural systems consultant ifor, this'project to conduct a cursory field
assessment of the natural resources in Corridor Segment 1W;Tihe Area included in Corridor Segment 22A
was studied during previous NCDOT studies of the project and, therefore, resources are known Field
reviews in the area of Corridor Segment %Aldid snot identify any lar`ge?o }ihigh,quality wetlands in the area
NCTA asked if any of the agencies represented'?hadlconcerns with elim;nabpg Corridor Segments 18 and
22 and retaining Corridor Segments 18A and}22A The?`ager cies represetrted (USACE, NCWRC, USEPA,
and NCDWQ) had no concerns with eliminating Corridpr',J9egrnen,is 18 and 22
e. `I'.i?1llilil"'
• Quantitative Third S
Study Alternatives (P3,
segments not elirn 'a,
developed The+imp'
the impacts, NCTA re
of existing US 74 and
.111,
?6fifl g?,-`A table shows ig?)
S) was'psetsented for revie?
by the sectond qualitative
were calcWated for the co
rime nde?tlJelimrnating nine
> di pta'c a and arge numbe
1tiu" •.?i
11els "altes?, "Ad" it;l1; constt
=
an ctl
recommend the remainin
III
devbloplm!11 ent and screenil
2007410,6, a newsletter v
Agencie'Wwiil Ibe asked to
for discuss?o9
16t the TEAT
I
TEAC meeting,NTpere wil
agencies time to Ire" -ewRi
preliminar ilithpacts associated with the Preliminary
The 25 PSAs are combinations of the corridor
,reernng Conceptual alignments for each PSA were
.eptual alignments using GIs and field data Based on
s,t,f
fthe PSAs These PSAs use all or a substantial length
)f'businesses along the route In addition, impacts to
i costs were substantially higher for each of these
16 PSAs for detailed study in the Draft Environmental
I -I, s Ir `v
ment an Analysis Report - A report documenting the alternatives
h,rocessfis being prepared and will be distributed to agencies on November 5,
tie distributed and the report will be available for public review and comment
view and provide written comments on the draft report by December 5, 2007
heating that day A summary of public comments will also be provided at the
of be a TEAC meeting in November for this project in order to allow the
report
Previous Action Items: 40
• Agencies to review presentation of second qualitative screening of preliminary study corridors and provide
comments by October 17, 2007
(Written comments were received via email from NCWRC on October 11, 2007]
• NCTA to prepare and distribute a summary of the qualitative screening results
[A wntten summary of the first and second qualitative screenings was distributed and posted to the TEAC
webs?te on October 2, 2007 ]
• NCTA will post relevant impact information from the Monroe Bypass EA/FONSI and the Monroe Connector
DEIS to the TEAC website
[These documents were posted to the TEAC webs?te J
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 10/17/07
Page 14 of 14
New Action Items:
• Agencies to review the Draft Altemadves Development and Analysis Report when it is made available
on November 5, 2007, provide written comments, and be prepared to discuss at the December 5, 2007
TEAC meeting
Resolutions:
• Co or Segment 18 and 22 will be eliminated from further consideration
Next Steps:
• There will not be a November TEAC meeting to facilitate the agencies' revi? oit?e Draft Alternatives
Development and Analysis Report The December TEAC meeting wi}1(be a spotlight update and the
findings and comments received on the Draft Alternatives Developm' t and Analysis Report will be
discussed #{E ?'E{i}i€
ti{i{€ }
(3314 _{° €€3? ?it
((fit
i
i!Jill
; }
<<' 11111,hil
Till. t
i ll111iiE
I?€14{x,, ??{t
E
„i
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 10/17/07