20020672_Information Letter_20100217

j? NO.RTH CAROLINA
Turnpike Authority
0
???v nA
FF9 0l/
t
?o?q?p'?pj0
sT???R'ry
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAC)
Meeting
MEETING MINUTES
(Draft)
Date: October 13, 2009
1:30 pm to 3:00 pm
NCTA Board Room
Project: STIP R-3329/R-2559 Monroe Connector/Bypass - STP-NHF-74(90)
Monroe Connector/Bypass Spotlight:
Attendees:
George Hoops, FHWA
Kathy Matthews, USEPA
Steve Lund, USACE
Marella Buncick, USFWS (via phone)
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Brian Wrenn, NCDENR-DWQ
Steve Gurganus, NCDOT-HEU
Colin Mellor, NCDOT-HEU
BenJetta Johnson, NCDOT-TESSB
Jennifer Harris, NCTA
Jeff Dayton, HNTB
Christy Shumate, HNTB
Jill Gurak, PBS&J
Carl Gibilaro, PBS&J
Jens Geratz, PBS&J
Brad Allen, PBS&J
David O'Loughlin, PBS&J
Michael Wood, Catena Group
Tim Savidge, Catena Group
Jenn Callahan, Catena Group
Ken Gilland, Michael Baker Eng.
Lorna Parkins, Michael Baker Eng
Presentation Materials (Posted on TEAC website):
• Agenda
• September 8, 2009 Draft TEAC Meeting Minutes
• Quantitative ICE Analysis PowerPoint Presentation
Purpose:
Discuss proposed quantitative water quality modeling methodologies.
General Discussion:
The following information was discussed at the meeting:
(via phone)
• Quantitative ICE Water Quality Analysis - PBS&J/EcoScience gave a presentation on water
quality modeling and analysis (see presentation on the TEAC website).
The study area for water quality modeling uses 14-digit hydrologic units within the Future Land
Use Study Area (FLUSA), plus the entire Goose Creek watershed. Generally, agencies did not
have any comments on the proposed study area for water quality modeling. However, it was
noted that only a small portion of the headwaters of the Six Mile Creek watershed is included in
the FLUSA, and that because this watershed contains known populations of federally protected
mussels, it should be well documented why the watershed is not being evaluated in its entirety. If
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 10/13/09
Page 2 of 7
the results of the land use study show substantial changes in land use in this watershed as a
result of the project, NCTA will reevaluate whether to include more of the watershed and/or
perform additional analysis. The agencies were in agreement with this approach.
The purpose of the water quality modeling and analysis is to determine if induced land use
change resulting from the Monroe Connector/Bypass would affect water quality within the project
study area. Water quality stressors have been identified as fecal coliform, impaired biological
integrity, and turbidity for the project study area based on the 2006 303(d) list. The GWLF
(Generalized Water Loading Function) model has been selected for use on this project. This is a
mid-level model that simulates runoff, sediment, and nutrient loads. It can also allow for
consideration of septic and point source discharges, calculate stream erosion and fecal coliform
loads, and account for best management practices, such as vegetated buffers. Outputs of the
model include runoff, subsurface flow, point source flow, stream flow, erosion, sediment,
nutrients, and fecal coliform. Outputs are reported on a monthly and yearly basis.
Other models are available that offer different, including lesser or greater, functionality, however,
NCTA and NCDOT, as well as expert consulting staff, believe that the GWLF model is
appropriate for this project because it adequately addresses the water quality stressors
documented in the project study area, has proven accuracy in the eastern US, has reasonable
data requirements and development time, and,is being used for a comparative analysis (future
No-Build vs. future Build scenario).
Agencies were requested to identify and provide other stressors they may be aware of in the
project study area. It was noted that fecal coliform is not a stressor for the Carolina heelsplitter,
although levels in Goose Creek have been elevated. It was noted that ammonia has also been
cited as a concern in the Goose Creek watershed and could have negative impacts on the
heelsplitter. However, after discussion with NCDENR-DWQ, it was determined that the ammonia
was being discharged from a point source that is no longer discharging into the watershed.
Ammonia levels are now below all thresholds in this watershed. Agencies suggested that other
pollutants, such as urban runoff and copper, could have adverse impacts; however, these
pollutants may not have known thresholds for impairment or may not have data required for
modeling. USFWS suggested that NCTA review the Goose Creek watershed management plan
for other sources of impairment.
Baseflow and discharge information may also be helpful in evaluating impacts on stream habitat
with regards to the Carolina heelsplitter and designated habitat. If needed, this information can
be produced by using a more traditional hydrologic model, such as HEC-HMS, for some
watersheds.
USEPA also noted that the modeling for 303(d) listed streams should include the parameters for
which the stream is listed. USEPA feels that GWLF is adequate for this in the study area since
the streams are listed for fecal coliform and/or impaired biological integrity. Ms. Kathy Matthews
of the USEPA sent an email (dated September 4, 2009) stating the outputs of the proposed water
quality model (GWLF) would be sufficient for evaluating water quality in the 303(d) listed streams.
Quantitative ICE Land Use Study - Preliminary results of the land use study being completed
by Michael Baker Engineering do not show a significant difference between future No-Build and
future Build scenarios. The land use study is predicting substantial growth throughout the FLUSA
even without the project. There is a very small amount of additional growth attributed to the
project (approximately 1,700 houses over the entire FLUSA), primarily in the eastern portions of
the FLUSA near Wingate and Marshville; however, this is insignificant when compared to the
overall magnitude of growth expected to occur. The study predicts that much of the growth will
be a conversion of agricultural fields and pasture and forested areas to low density residential
development.
Preliminary results from the land use study indicate approximately 13 to 14 percent growth in the
Goose Creek watershed between current conditions and the future no-build scenario. The study
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 10/13/09
Page 3 of 7
shows no difference at all between the future no-build and build conditions in the Goose Creek
watershed, indicating that any growth there would occur with or without the project. This can be
attributed to the fact that the Goose Creek area is already within a 20-minute travel window of
1-485 and the Charlotte area, and the project will not substantially change travel time to this area.
Because there is no change between the future No-Build and future Build scenarios, there are no
indirect impacts anticipated from the project in the Goose Creek watershed. Any water quality
modeling and analysis of the Goose Creek watershed will essentially be evaluating the
cumulative effects of other anticipated development rather than the indirect impacts of the project.
There is also no change between future Build scenarios with or without the US 601 interchange.
Agencies said that these conclusions and the methodologies used in the study should be very
well documented.
The next thing needed to evaluate potential impacts of the project is percent change in
impervious surface. The land use information will be used to determine impervious surface for
the existing, future No-Build, and future Build scenarios.
Q8A:
1. Have there been any discussions with localities on how to mitigate water quality impacts if there
are found to be significant water quality impacts?
No; however, many of the localities have post construction ordinances and stormwater control
regulations in place.
2. Will additional optional inputs (such as point sources, water extraction points, septic systems, soil
phosphorus, and BMPs) be included in the modeling?
Yes, these inputs will be included if data is available.
3. How will growth in use of sewer service and septic systems be accounted for?
The Quantitative ICE Land Use Study will document anticipated sewer service expansion areas
provided by the municipalities. Beyond those areas, growth will be assumed to use septic
systems.
4. How will the water quality modeling outputs give an indication of impacts to stream habitat?
Impacts to stream habitat can be assessed from the changes in baseflow and peak discharge.
This information can be produced using a hydrologic model, such as HEC-HMS, for watersheds
of interest, including Goose and Duck Creek. Also the change in impervious surface is an
indicator of erosion and potential effects on sensitive aquatic species.
Previous Action Items:
• NCTA will make a presentation on water quality modeling and the GWLF model at an upcoming
TEAC meeting.
[Presentation made at October 13, 2009 TEAC meeting.]
New Action Items:
• NCTA will continue to provide updates to agencies on status of quantitative ICE.
• Agencies were requested to identify and provide other water quality stressors they may be aware
of in the project study area.
Resolutions:
• NCTA will proceed with the study area as identified for water quality modeling. If the land use
study indicates indirect impacts of the project in Six Mile Creek, NCTA will reevaluate whether to
include more of the watershed and/or perform additional analysis.
• NCTA will proceed with modeling using the GWLF model based on information known to date.
As the study progresses, NCTA will continue to evaluate this decision as additional information
becomes available.
Next Steps:
• Continue to discuss results of quantitative ICE land use study and water quality modeling.
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 10/13/09
Page 4 of 7
MEETING MINUTES
(Draft)
Date: October 13, 2009
3:00 pm to 4:30 pm
NCTA Board Room
Project: STIP U-3321 Gaston E-W Connector- STP-1213(6)
Gaston E-W Connector Spotlight:
Attendees:
George Hoops, FHWA
Kathy Matthews, USEPA
Steve Lund, USACE
Marella Buncick, USFWS (via phone)
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Brian Wrenn, NCDENR-DWQ
Hank Graham, GUAMPO
Dewayne Sykes, NCDOT-RDU
Kristina Solberg, NCDOT-PDEA
Bill Barrett, NCDOT-NEU
BenJetta Johnson, NCDOT
Jennifer Harris, NCTA
Jeff Dayton, NCTA-GEC
Jill Gurak, PBS&J
Carl Gibilaro, PBS&J
Jens Geratz, PBS&J
Presentation Materials (Posted on TEAC website):
• Agenda
• September 8, 2009 Draft TEAC Meeting Minutes
• LEDPA PowerPoint Presentation
Purpose:
Conclude discussion on Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) and Preferred
Alternative for the Gaston East-West Connector.
General Discussion:
The following information was discussed at the meeting:
Jennifer Harris opened the meeting. She noted that at the September 8, 2009 TEAC meeting, the
Preferred Alternative Report was provided and there was a request that NCTA prepare a presentation
documenting why Detailed Study Alternative (DSA) 9 has been suggested as the LEDPA. Ms. Harris
asked if there were any questions or comments on the Preferred Alternative Report provided last month.
There were none.
LEDPA Discussion - Jill Gurak reviewed the method for identifying the LEDPA, which was a slightly
different approach than that used for identifying the Recommended Alternative, although both methods
resulted in the recommendation of DSA 9. Assumptions included acknowledging that the region's air
quality conformity issues would apply to all the DSAs. If the Metrolina Region does not demonstrate air
quality conformity and does not complete the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) update, and the
region enters a Conformity Lapse, then FHWA cannot issue a Record of Decision and the USACE cannot
issue a permit.
The first step in the process was to identify the group of DSAs to consider for LEDPA. The DSAs
were sorted into three tiers based on impacts to jurisdictional resources: best, second-best, and
worst. The second-best and worst tier groups were reviewed to determine if any of the DSAs in
these groups would have substantially less impacts to non-jurisdictional resources compared to the
best tier (in this case, none did). The second step of the process evaluated the best-tier DSAs to
identify the LEDPA by comparing the quantitative impacts of the DSAs and other qualitative
considerations.
The best-tier DSAs included DSAs 9, 68, and 81. The worst-tier DSAs included DSAs 4, 5, 22, 23,
58, and 76. The second-best tier DSAs included 27, 64, and 77.
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 10/13/09
Page 5 of 7
Other impact considerations included the following:
• DSA 9 is most similar to the route developed by the Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization (GUAMPO) and shown in their LRTP and it would best meet community expectations.
• DSAs 68 and 81 would encroach on the Wolfe Family Dairy Farm historic site, although these
DSAs would have a No Adverse Effect on this site. However, if STIP Project R-2608 was
implemented in the future, a potential option for R-2608 would be to extend the Gaston East-West
Connector, which would require substantial additional right of way from the Wolfe Family Dairy
Farm.
• DSAs 68 and 81 would have a substantial adverse impact on the Karyae Park YMCA Outdoor
Family Center by right-of-way encroachment and direct impact on several buildings. DSA 9 would
avoid this facility. DSA 9 would pass close to the Linwood Springs Golf Course but only require
modification of the golf course entrance driveway.
• DSAs 68 and 81 are closer to Crowders Mountain State Park and the Camp Rotary Girl Scout
Camp. The park and Friends of Crowders Mountain have expressed opposition to DSAs passing
near the park.
• DSA 9 is closer to the existing urban/suburban areas of Gastonia. This results in somewhat more
impacts to the human environment than DSAs 68 and 81, but fewer overall impacts to the physical
and natural environments.
• DSAs 68 and 81 cross Crowders Creek. DSA 9 does not cross Crowders Creek, but does have a
longitudinal floodplain encroachment. This encroachment is along the fringe of the 100-year
floodplain south of Blackwood Creek. The crossing of Crowders Creek by DSAs 68 and 81 are in a
location where the floodplain is wide.
• DSA 9 accommodates the Hudson Boulevard extension to Linwood Road at the Linwood Road
interchange. This is another project on the LRTP.
• The methodology used to identify the LEDPA was different than that which was used to select the
Recommended Alternative, but the outcome was the same. Based on an evaluation of the
impacts, DSA 9 is the LEDPA. It is one of the three DSAs with the fewest impacts to jurisdictional
resources and the one which provides the best overall balance of impacts when considering both
jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional resources.
All the best-tier DSAs use a common corridor for the eastern end of the project, but vary on the
western side. Generally, DSAs 68 and 81 would have fewer impacts to neighborhoods and the
human environment, while DSA 9 would have fewer impacts to farmlands, forested habitat, and
wetlands.
The meeting attendees concurred that DSA 9 is the LEDPA. Attendees requested that language
regarding resolution of the Metrolina Region's air quality conformity issues be added to the
Concurrence Point 3 form. This language was added as requested. The following agencies signed
the form at the meeting: FHWA, NCTA, NCDOT, GUAMPO, USACE, NCDWQ, and NCWRC.
The FHWA, NCTA, NCDOT, and GUAMPO support DSA 9. The USACE and USFWS had no
objection to DSA 9. The NCDWQ stated they conditionally concur with DSA 9 as the LEDPA,
pending the resolution of the region's air quality issues.
The USEPA did not specifically object to DSA 9, but Kathy Matthews needed to confirm this with
Chris Militscher. USEPA previously submitted their concerns related to Clear Air Act and Clean
Water Act regarding the Detailed Study Alternatives, but these concerns applied to all DSAs, not
specific ones. The NCTA recognizes that the USEPA has stated in past meetings that they won't
officially concur on a LEDPA until the region's air quality issues are resolved.
Mitigation for Jurisdictional Resources - Kathy Matthews stated that the Policy Assessment
Consistency Group Technical Committee met last Thursday (October 8, 2009). The NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (NCEEP) brought to the committee a proposal for a 2,400-acre mitigation site in
McDowell County (known as Bobs Pocket) at the top of the Catawba 01 watershed. The NCEEP is
interested in potentially using this site as a preservation site for mitigation of stream impacts from the
Gaston East-West Connector. The USEPA is concerned about using this site for this purpose since it is
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 10/13/09
Page 6 of 7
over 100 miles away and in a different ecoregion than the Gaston East-West Connector. The USEPA
would prefer mitigation in an area closer to the project in order to benefit the local area.
The NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) stated they agreed with USEPA. The US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) also would prefer that any preservation component of mitigation occur in the general
area of the project.
Jennifer Harris stated the NCTA could advocate that NCEEP investigate more local mitigation options, but
ultimately it is NCEEP's decision. The NCTA is scheduled to meet with NCEEP on October 27, 2009.
The NCWRC also stated they would like to see local efforts being made to protect water quality through
passage of ordinances. If local jurisdictions pass ordinances to protect water quality, this will demonstrate
commitment and will assist in obtaining permits.
The USACE stated that the stream impact minimization phase of the project will be important. The NCTA
is investigating several ways to reduce impacts and is confident impacts will be reduced. Reducing
impacts through a reduction in project footprint also would help reduce costs, which is another primary
concern for NCTA.
Q&A
1. Where is Karyae Park?
Karyae Park is located by Crowders Mountain State Park on Linwood Road.
2. Are there differences in the top three DSAs are in the Crowders Creek area?
Yes. DSAs 9, 68, and 81 vary west of Bud Wilson Road. West of US 321, DSAs 68 and 81 are located
west of Crowders Creek and DSA 9 is located east of Crowders Creek. Also, DSA 68 would have an
additional interchange at Lewis Road.
3. Is the project going to be built in segments? Is there likely to be any differences in the interim termini
between alternatives?
The intent is to build the entire project, although like other large projects, it may be constructed in phases.
The NCTA is exploring ways to build the entire length initially, with options such as initially constructing only
two lanes west of US 321 or deferring some interchanges to subsequent phases. However, at this point,
no decisions have been made. A potential first phase has been discussed from 1-485 to US 321. In this
area, all the best-tier DSAs are the same east of Bud Wilson Road and similar from Bud Wilson Road to
US 321, so likely interim phases for these DSAs would not have substantially different impacts. The NEPA
document addresses the ultimate project from 1-485 to 1-85.
4. If the project is not initially constructed from 1-485 to 1-85, would there be different indirect and cumulative
effects based on phasing? Could right of way be purchased for the entire corridor?
The NCTA will be investigating opportunities to protect the entire corridors, but there would not be a
difference in approach between the DSAs. Regarding indirect and cumulative effects, DSAs 9, 68, and 81
are primarily the same from 1-485 to US 321, so if there is an interim phase for the project, design and
traffic projections would be similar for these three DSAs, and therefore any direct, indirect, or cumulative
effects also would be similar.
5. Is NCTA subject to the Corridor Protection Act that requires project action within 3 years of enactment of a
Corridor Protection Map?
Yes, the NCTA would be subject to this law if a Corridor Protection Map is filed. The NCTA will be
investigating opportunities to protect the entire corridor, but there would not be a difference in approach
between the DSAs.
6. Did NCTA evaluate if improvements to US 321 would be needed if an interim phase had a terminus at US
321?
NCTA assessed projected traffic volumes for a project phase extending from 1-485 to US 321. The
projections indicated that effects would primarily be local, in the immediate vicinity of the Gaston East-West
Connector. Traffic would disperse from there. No improvements to US 321 were considered necessary
beyond the immediate project vicinity, where they are already planned.
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 10/13/09
Page 7 of 7
7. DSAs 68 and 81 would impact two to three of the larger wetland systems on the western end of the project
that would be avoided with DSA 9.
These wetland systems include:
W12 (4.2 acres total, high quality) - near US 29/74 along DSAs 68 and 81
W19 (3.55 acres total, medium quality) - south of Jake Long Road along DSA 68
W103 (6.7 acres total, high quality) - Crowders Creek along DSA 81
8. Was Crowders Mountain State Park opposed to DSA 68?
They preferred an alternative farthest from the park.
9. How were the ICE ratings listed in the Draft EIS Summary table developed?
They are relative ratings, strictly for comparisons between DSAs. They are not based on threshold values
or indicate significance. A quantitative ICE study will be prepared for the LEDPA and reported in the Final
EIS. It will be similar to, but not the same as, the one being conducted for the Monroe Bypass/Connector
project. Scoping for the quantitative ICE study was discussed in previous TEAC meetings.
10. Are there ordinances in Gaston County that would prohibit building in the floodplain?
Hank Graham stated there are local ordinances, and that the GUAMPO is working with local jurisdictions
on updating them.
11. Is there an agency on the TEAC team that addresses protection of human resources?
The NC Department of Cultural Resources protects historic and archaeological resources. There is no
specific agency that would address protections for the general population. The study team considers these
impacts in accordance with NEPA (such as consideration of the numbers of relocations) and other laws
and regulations such as Executive Order 121898 which addresses environmental justice.
12. What type of mitigation is being considered for jurisdictional resources?
The NCTA is still planning on utilizing the NCEEP.
13. What is the status of the air quality conformity issue in the Metrolina Region?
Hank Graham stated the GUAMPO recently received approval from the NC Division of Air Quality
(NCDAQ) on new vehicle emissions budgets for criteria pollutants and the GUAMPO is confident that
conformity will be achieved by the May 2010 deadline.
Previous Action Items:
Discuss and concur on the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative and Preferred
Alternative.
New Action Items:
NCTA to coordinate with USFWS, MUMPO, and NCDCR to obtain their signatures on the Concurrence
Point 3 form stating DSA 9 is the LEDPA/Preferred Alternative.
Resolutions:
Agreement was reached that DSA 9 is the LEDPA.
Next Steps:
The NCTA will present information regarding possible design changes that would minimize impacts to
jurisdictional resources. Work on the quantitative indirect and cumulative effects analysis will begin, with
additional coordination with the environmental resource and regulatory agencies.
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 10/13/09