Loading...
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