HomeMy WebLinkAbout20120285 Ver 1_Meeting Minutes_20090812� [VDRTH tARfl��NA
:� � Turrtpike Authvrity
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination
(TEAC) Meeting
Date
Project:
MEETING MINUTES
(Draft)
August 12, 2009
1:30 pm to 3:30 pm
NC Turnpike Authority Board Room
STIP R-3329 Monroe Connector— NHF-74(21)
STIP R-2559 Monroe Bypass — NHF-74(8)
Monroe Connector/Bvpass Spotliqht:
Attendees:
George Hoops, FHWA
Rob Ayers, FHWA
Steve Lund, USACE
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Kathy Matthews, USEPA
Marella Buncick, USFWS (via phone)
Polly Lespinasse, NCDENR-DWQ
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Amy Simes, NCDENR
Bob Cook, MUMPO
Jennifer Harris, NCTA
Dewayne Sykes, NCDOT-RDU
Missy Pair, NCDOT-PDEA
Colin Mellor, NCDOT-PDEA-NEU
Christy Shumate, HNTB
Jill Gurak, PBS&J
Carl Gibilaro, PBS&J
Michael Gloden, PBS&J
Brad Allen, PBS&J
David O'Loughlin, PBS&J
Ken Gilland, Michael Baker Eng.
Lorna Parkins, Michael Baker Eng
Suzanne UngerYoung, Michael BakerEng.
Presentation Materials: (Posted on TEAC website)
• Agenda
• July 21, 2009 Draft TEAC Meeting Minutes
• Draft Preferred Alternative Report
• Quantitative ICE Analysis Start of Study/Scoping PowerPoint Presentation
Purpose:
Discuss responses to substantive comments received on the Draft EIS relative to selection of the
Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) and Preferred Alternative;
discuss scope of work for Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Study.
General Discussion:
The following information was discussed that the meeting:
• Draft Preferred Alternative Report — Carl Gibilaro of PBS&J gave a brief overview of the
handout and the responses to substantive comments received on the Draft EIS relative to
selection of the LEDPA. Draft responses to comments are in Section 6 of the Draft Preferred
Alternative Report. The comments were reviewed briefly with no discussion. It was discussed
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 8/12/09
Page 2 of 8
that the agencies would review the draft responses by for discussion at the September 8, 2009
TEAC meeting in order to select a LEDPA.
Section 7 Consultation Status — NCTA noted that formal consultation for the Carolina
heelsplitter, designated critical habitat for the heelsplitter, and Schweinitz's sunflower is
anticipated based on comments and discussion with USFWS. FHWA suggested that other
agencies, particularly USACE, who need to take action on the project also participate in this
consultation to address future permitting requirements. NCTA is reevaluating the project
schedule to ensure it includes sufficient time for the formal consultation. USFWS clarified that a
decision to enter formal consultation has not been made yet, and a final decision will be based on
the results of upcoming quantitative land use studies and analysis.
Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Study (Land Use) — Lorna Parkins of Michael
Baker Engineering's (Baker) Richmond office will be the lead on the land use analysis portion of
the Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Study (ICE). The Quantitative ICE report will
expand on the Qualitative ICE that was completed in January 2009. The Future Land Use Study
Area (FLUSA) will be expanded to include the entire Goose Creek drainage basin. The approach
for the study will consist of four parts: 1) Data Collection, 2) Land Use GIS Development, 3)
Indirect Impact Analysis and 4) Cumulative Impact Analysis. As part of the data collection phase,
interviews with local staff will be conducted. Questions to be asked include the history of buffer
enforcement for that jurisdiction.
USFWS noted that the recently implemented Site Specific Water Quality Management Plan for
the Goose Creek Watershed is ambiguous in some areas and suggested that localities should be
asked specifically about how the plan will be implemented. NCDENR-DWQ responded that their
agency would be handling initial implementation of the plan and that training will be provided to
the local governments.
Existing GIS data from NCGAP, NCOneMap, and local governments will be used to identify
current and future land uses. Interviews with local planners will help validate this data.
Four alternatives were proposed for analysis of indirect and cumulative impacts:
1) No-Build Alternative,
2) Build Alternative on new location with US 601 interchange,
3) Build Alternative on new location without US 601 interchange, and
4) Upgrade Existing US 74 (even though not a Detailed Study Alternative)
FHWA noted that all Federal actions will need to be identified- i.e. subdivisions, waste water
treatment, housing, water, parks, etc. — as these actions are excluded from the cumulative effects
analysis under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). NCDENR-DWQ suggested that a list of the
proposed "Stimulus" projects in the state would be a good resource. Federal actions will be
included in cumulative impacts evaluation for all resources for purposes of NEPA disclosure.
Other Federal actions are excluded from cumulative effects analysis under ESA these actions
would have their own consultation processes if needed. Regarding land use GIS development,
USFWS stressed that documentation of assumptions and rationale regarding future land use is
extremely important.
The outputs anticipated from the ICE report will include:
1. Acres of "induced" development for Build Alternatives
2. Acres by type of environmental impacts of induced development
3. Percent of change in impervious surface coverage attributable to induced development
It is assumed that the "build-out" in this area will occur after the design year of 2035. The
analysis will not look at any interim years or a specific year for "build-out" as development can
occur even in "build-out" areas with changes in density and redevelopment.
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 8/12/09
Page 3 of 8
• Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Study (Water Quality) — While the land use
analysis component of the Quantitative ICE will be completed prior to the Final EIS, it is
anticipated that the water quality portion will be completed for the permitting, specifically the
Section 401 water quality certification. USFWS suggested that the water quality data may be
useful for Section 7 consultation.
The study area for this task will be larger than the FLUSA and will include the entire watersheds
based on 14-digit hydrologic units. It was clarified that the entire Goose Creek Basin will be
included in the study area. All other water basins will be analyzed only up to the FLUSA
boundary. The Generalized Watershed Loading Functions (GWLF) model will be utilized forthis
project because it is a good compromise between empirical based and process-based models.
This model will allow the analysis of run-off, sediments, and nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus)
and will be completed at two scales: 1) the entire watershed, and 2) the sub-watershed for
streams known to have mussel populations or habitat. USEPA asked if the nutrient, phosphorous
and sediment analysis will address the 303(d) issues. NCDENR-DWQ felt that it would but
USFWS is going to confirm this with their staff toxicologist. USEPA suggested that any
assumptions or inputs into the model be well documented. The agencies will identify which
parameters, in addition to nutrients and sediments, which they will require in the final analysis.
Q&A:
1. USEPA asked why is the Upgrade Existing US 74 Alternative scenario being evaluated as part of
the Quantitative ICE land use study?
NCTA proposed to include this scenario based on agency comments continuing to request
additional information on this alternative and to serve as another baseline (in addition to the No-
Build Alternative) for comparison with the new location scenarios. After discussion, all agencies
agreed that this alternative (an end-to-end upgrade of existing US 74) is not practicable nor
reasonable and would never be implemented due to substantial impacts along the corridor;
therefore, the alternative scenario need not be included in any further studies, including the
Quantitative ICE study.
2. Why not study a hybrid alternative that includes upgrading a portion of existing US 74 and
constructing some new location roadway?
Hybrid alternatives were considered during the alternatives development and screening process.
However, they were eliminated from detailed study and were not detailed study alternatives in the
Draft EIS because the areas where the connection between existing US 74 and a new location
alignment would be are densely developed residential areas. These impacts to residences were
determined to be substantial enough to renderthese alternatives not reasonable and to eliminate
the alternatives from further study.
3. Can an evaluation of the acres of agricultural land converted to other uses be included in the
Quantitative ICE land use study?
Yes, this information can be provided. It will be based on land cover information rather than
prime/important farmland soils classifications. USEPA will forward a link to a good data source
for farmland information to Baker.
4. Why will the water quality modeling results not be included in the Final EIS?
NCDOT responded that it is standard practice to complete the land use analysis first, and then if
substantial change in impervious surface is determined to result from the project, a water quality
modeling exercise should be undertaken. It is unusual to scope both activities concurrently;
however, for this project, it is anticipated that the modeling will be requested for permitting, so
NCTA, NCDOT, and FHWA have decided to begin scoping the effort. Doing this work now will
also help to keep the project development process on the target schedule.
5. Would the results of the water quality modeling be needed to determine potential design changes
relative to minimizing impacts to the 303(d) listed streams in the project area?
NCTA does not anticipate making changes to the designs beyond the design changes discussed
at the July 21, 2009 TEAC meeting requested by the public prior to the Final EIS. Design
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 8/12/09
Page 4 of 8
changes can be implemented following NEPA if warranted by the results of the water quality
modeling.
Previous Action Items:
• Agencies review information provided for further discussion on Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative and Preferred Alternative at August 12, 2009 TEAC meeting.
• Agencies, particularly federal agencies, will review if there are restrictions within their agency
regarding selection of a LEDPA as it relates to the Conformity Lapse Grace Period.
�USEPA reported that they have been advised not to formally concur on any project decisions
during the Conformity Lapse Grace Period. USACE can not make "final decisions,"such as
permit approvals but will be able to agree on a LEDPA at this time. State agencies have no
restrictions. All agencies agreed they will continue to participate in discussions and determination
of the LEDPA to advance the project.]
• NCTA will provide USFWS with a listing of proposed structure types at locations where mussels
were found.
(This information was provided on July 23, 2009.]
• NCTA will post the Freshwater Mussel Survey Report and US 74 Corridor Study on the TEAC
website.
(These items were posted on July 22, 2009.]
New Action Items:
• Agencies to review information provided in the Draft Preferred Alternative Report, particularly
draft responses to substantive comments, to conclude discussion on and select the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative and Preferred Alternative at the September 8,
2009 TEAC meeting.
• Agencies will discuss internally the use of the GLWF model for water quality modeling and
provide input with regards to the proposed outputs of nutrients, sediment, and run-off.
• USEPA will forward a link to a good data source for farmland information to Baker.
�Information was provided via email on August 13, 2009.]
Resolutions:
• All agencies agreed that the Upgrade Existing US 74 Alternative scenario should not be included
in the quantitative ICE study.
• NCTA is moving forward with scoping the ICE studies (land use and water quality), design
revisions, and additional field studies assuming that the Recommended Preferred Alternative will
become the LEDPA. NCTA's reasons for recommending DSA D, including environmental
impacts, are listed in the Draft Preferred Alternatives Report.
Next Steps:
• The next TEAC meeting will be September 8, 2009. Responses to comments and the LEDPA
selection will be the main discussion items.
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 8/12/09
Page 5 of 8
Date
Project:
MEETING MINUTES
(Draft)
August 12, 2009
3:30 pm to 5:00 pm
NC Turnpike Authority Board Room
STIP U-3321 Gaston E-W Connector— STP-1213(6)
Gaston E-W Connector Spotliqht:
Attendees:
Jennifer Harris, NCTA
George Hoops, FHWA
Kathy Matthews, USEPA
Steve Lund, USACE
Marella Buncick, USFWS (via phone)
Polly Lespinasse, NCDENR-DWQ
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Amy Simes, NCDENR
Bob Cook, MUMPO
Hank Graham, GUAMPO
Presentation Materials: (Posted on TEAC website)
Dewayne Sykes, NCDOT-RDU
Dan Grissom, NCDOT-Division 12
Missy Pair, NCDOT-PDEA
Colin Mellor, NCDOT-PDEA-NEU
Jeff Dayton, HNTB
Jill Gurak, PBS&J
Carl Gibilaro, PBS&J
Michael Gloden, PBS&J
Scott Lane, Louis Berger
• Meeting Agenda
• Information Package for TEAC Meeting (dated August 12, 2009)
• Clarification of Transportation Conformity Requirements for FHWA/FTA Projects Requiring
Environmental Impact Statements Memo from FHWA and FTA
• Comment letters from Federal Agencies
• Comment letters from State Agencies
• Comment letters from Local Governments
• Comment letters from interested groups
Purpose:
Discuss comments received from the agencies and the public on the Draft EIS; introduce information
in order to achieve agreement on the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative
(LEDPA) and Preferred Alternative.
General Discussion:
The following information was discussed that the meeting:
Post Draft EIS Activities
o Archaeological Investigations — A comment was received on the Draft EIS that an
archeological site (Stowesville Mill) was overlooked as part of the analysis. This site was not
overlooked. The Phase II Archaeology Study is currently underway and will assess the Area
of Potential Effects for archaeological sites (including the Stowesville Mill), determine their
eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and determine effects of the
project on the sites that are on or eligible for the NRHP.
o Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICE) Scoping — Louis Berger is in the initial
stages of developing the ICE scope, and agency input was sought at the meeting to assist in
the development of the scope. The proposed Study Area Boundaries for the ICE Water
Quality assessment are defined and are similar to that proposed for the Monroe
Connector/Bypass in that basins and sub-basins within the Future Land Use Study Area
(FLUSA) will be assessed for nitrogen, phosphates and sediment. The water quality portion of
the ICE study will utilize the Generalized Watershed Loading Functions (GWLF) model and
results will be reported at a sub-basin level. The land use component of the ICE will primarily
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 8/12/09
Page 6 of 8
utilize GIS data. In addition, a sample of interviews with local planners will be conducted to
validate the results of the GIS data review. The study will identify comparable case studies of
other interchange development in the area to see what changes occurred there in order to
calibrate the model to identify impacts to undeveloped areas.
The agencies main concerns regarding the ICE are upland species habitat fragmentation and
303(d) listed streams. These items will be addressed in the ICE.
NCDENR-DWQ brought up the current litigation between North Carolina and South Carolina
over water quality in the Catawba and Yadkin Rivers. Available pertinent information on this
litigation will be included in the ICE document.
The initial project schedule includes the land use study portion of the quantitative ICE study
being completed in advance of the Final EIS and the quantitative water quality study portion to
be completed prior to permitting. The timing of the completion of the water quality study was
discussed. Completion of the water quality study after NEPA is consistent with NCDOT
practices.
NCDOT-NEU indicated a change in the order of magnitude of land use impacts between the
Build Alternative and No-Build Alternative will be determined, and this information will be
presented in the Final EIS.
o Practical Design Workshop — A"Practical Design Workshop" will be conducted on August
26, 2009. Many comments were received during the public comment period on the footprint
and design of the proposed project. The purpose of the workshop is to develop a more
context sensitive and cost effective design for the project. The Practical Design Workshop is
not open to the public; however, many local government representatives and the participating
and cooperating agencies for the project are invited to attend. Kathy Matthews also requested
a copy of the August 7 email announcing the workshop. Marla will attend the workshop.
Project Issues of Concern — It was confirmed with USEPA that based on their written comments,
their issues of concern regarding this project primarily involve the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water
Act. USEPA stated they will not be able to concur on a LEDPA until issues associated with the Clean
Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the 303(d) listed streams are satisfactorily addressed. Kathy
Matthews of USEPA said a condition to selecting the LEDPA is satisfactorily addressing direct impacts
to 303(d) listed streams as there is currently difficulty in meeting degradation requirements. Air quality
issues for the area must also be addressed prior to USEPA selecting a LEDPA.
It was discussed that the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will provide compensatory
mitigation for unavoidable impacts to streams and wetlands requiring mitigation. USEPA requested
any additional details that are available on mitigation to be provided in the Final EIS. Mitigation will be
provided through the EEP through the MOA with NCDOT. Preliminary mitigation requirement
estimates have been previously provided to EEP for budgeting purposes. These estimates, provided
primarily for programming purposes, included all anticipated impacts. If on-site mitigation
opportunities are identified, they will be discussed in further detail at a later date. NCWRC suggested
that large land owners in proximity to the project be steered toward EEP as possible mitigation sites.
Analysis of Mobile Source Air Toxics will be done in accordance with the current FHWA policy. The
FHWA does not believe it is informative to include the analysis of Green House Gas Emissions in an
EIS for an individual road project as the climate impacts of Green House Gasses are global in nature.
• Public Comments — Jill Gurak of PBS&J reviewed the summary of comments on page 6 of the
Information Package, which also lists the number of attendees to the four Pre-Hearing Open Houses
and two Public Hearings. There were 256 written comments received during the public comment
period.
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 8/12/09
Page 7 of 8
Opposition to the Gaston East-West Connector was very organized and included two organized
groups - StopTheTollRoad.com and the Gaston Southeast Connector Coalition. In response, the
Gaston County Chamber of Commerce started a group named BuildtheGardenParkway.com. There
also was a petition stating project concerns with 109 names put together by the Mt. Pleasant Baptist
Church regarding their cemetery.
Some comments received from the public were that the Garden Parkway would spur more
development and urban sprawl and that the roadway will be similar to the toll road in Greenville, SC
which is having financial difficulties. There were comments concerning the potential for an initial
phase of the project to end at US 321. The ultimate project will be from I-85 to I-485.
Letters from interest groups were received from the Southern Environmental Law Center,
StoptheTollRoad.com, Gaston 2012, and the Catawba Riverkeeper. Generalized comments were
received about the Draft EIS.
Public comments on the Purpose and Need were received stating their comments that the project
doesn't justify a new connection and does not improve I-85. Other comments indicated that because
NCTA is in the business of tolling roads, NCTA did not consider a reasonable range of alternatives. In
response, PBS&J pointed out that previous analyses showed that every time a lane was added to
I-85, that new capacity was filled up. I-85 would need 10 to 12 lanes in order to function at an
acceptable level of service. NCTA and FHWA restated the Purpose and Need is not too narrow to
preclude a reasonable range of alternatives and a range of reasonable alternatives. Non-toll
alternatives were also studied in addition to studies on improving existing I-85. These concepts were
eliminated based on not meeting the Purpose and Need or not being financially feasible (See Section
2.2 of the Draft EIS).
• Agency Comments — There were 19 letters from federal, state, and local agencies, in addition to
seven resolutions that all supported the Garden Parkway. Written comments were received on
analyzing more mass transit options. However, it was explained that this option will not address
through trips in Gaston County and does not meet the project's purpose and need.
Comments from USEPA centered on the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act. USEPA also
commented that Environmental Justice (EJ) communities would receive a higher percent of impact
that other communities. It was noted that the Draft EIS included an EJ assessment and this was not
the case. This comment will also be addressed in the Final EIS. MUMPO would like to have a copy of
their EJ comment since they are currently updating the Draft 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan
and therefore need to be in compliance of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
Substantive comments will be distilled from all the comments and responses to these will be prepared
in a fashion similar to the Monroe Connector/Bypass project, and these responses will be discussed
next month. Since this project is following a Merger-like process, NCTA will ask for signatures
obtaining concurrence on the LEDPA. USEPA will not concur at this time due to Clean Air Act issues.
Responses to Table 4 will be available prior to the next TEAC meeting which is to be held September
8, 2009 starting at 1:30pm. All comments will be responded to in the Final EIS.
New Action Items:
Agencies review information provided for further discussion on Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative and Preferred Alternative at the September 8, 2009 TEAC meeting.
NCTA to provide MUMPO with USEPA comment regarding EJ. �Information was provided via email on
August 20, 2009.]
NCTA to forward August 7, 2009 email announcing the Gaston Practical Design Workshop to Kathy
Matthews. �Information was provided via email on August 12, 2009.]
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 8/12/09
Page 8 of 8
Resolutions:
• Agreement was reached on the plan to achieve a decision on the LEDPA/Preferred Alternative and on
which comments are substantive to that determination.
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting 8/12/09