20120285 Ver 1_Meeting Minutes_20090908

� NORTH CAROLINA
; j Turnpike Authority
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAC)
Meeting
MEETING MINUTES
(Draft)
Da[e: September 8, 2009
1:30 pm to 2:45 pm
NCTA Board Room
Project STIPU-3321GastonE-WConnector—STP-1213(6)
Gas[on E-W Connec[or Spo[liqh[:
A[[endees:
GeorgeHoops, FHWA
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Steve Lund, USACE
Scott McLendon, USACE
Marella Buncick, USFWS (via phone)
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Polly Lespinasse, NCDENR-DWQ
Hank Graham, GUAMPO
Bob Cook, MUMPO (via phone)
Dewayne Sykes, NCDOT-RDU
Bill Barrett, NCDOT-NEU
BenJetta Johnson, NCDOT-TESSB (via phone)
Dan Grissom, NCDOT-Division 12
Steve DeWitt, NCTA
Jennifer Harris, NCTA
Reid Simons, NCTA (via phone)
Jeff Dayton, HNTB
Jill Gurak, PBS&J
Cad Gibilaro, PBS&J
Jens Geratz, PBS&J
Scott Lane, Louis Berger Group (via phone)
Presen[a[ion Ma[erials IPos[ed on TEAC websi[el:
• Agenda
• August 12, 2009 Draft TEAC Meeting Minutes
• Gaston East-West Connector PreferredAlternative Report — September 8, 2009
Purpose:
Diswss responses to comments received on the Draft EIS relative to seledion of the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) and Preferred Alternative; discuss scope of
work for Quantitative Indired and Cumulative Effeds QCE) Study.
General Discussion:
The following information was discussed at the meeting:
Prior to the meeting, Kathy Matthews with USEPA confrmed via e-mail on September 4, 2009 that the
output of the GWLF model is appropriate for 303(d)-listed stream analysis in the water quality portion of
the Indired and Cumulative Effeds analysis.
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 09/08/09

Page 2 of 10
• Preferred Alternative Report — Jill Gurak of PBS&J provided a brief overview of the responses
to the generalized comments received on the Gaston East-West Connector Draft EIS. In
accordance with discussions at the August 12, 2009 TEAC meeting, the complete responses are
included in the Preferred Alternative Report provided as a handout for the September 8, 2009
TEAC meeting.
Purpose and Need
Comment (C): The Purpose and Need did not address traffic flow on surrounding
roads.
Response (R): Improving the surrounding roads is not a specific purpose of the
project. The Draft EIS adequately demonstrates that that improving I-85 or other
area roadways cannot effectively meet the project purpose.
C: Draft EI S fails to show that an additional bridge over the Catawba River would
respond to any existing mobility need south of the existing bridge.
R: The need to connect southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg
County is documented and supported by the local land use plans and long range
transportation plans and demonstrated by travel demand modeling.
C: The project purpose is too narrow and includes a specific design.
R: Several alternative concepts were considered. Criteria used in the
alternatives evaluation to determine whether a particular alternative concept
would meet the project purpose are listed in Section 2.2.1 of the Draft EIS:
• Reduce travel distance and/or travel times between representative
origin/destination points within southern Gaston County and between
southern Gaston County and Mecklenburg County.
• Provide a transportation facility that would operate at acceptable levels of
service (generally LOS D or better on the mainline) in the design year
2030 for travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg County.
• Reduce congested vehicle miles traveled and/or congested vehicle hours
traveled in Gaston County compared to the No-Build Alternative in 2030.
This project purpose does not include any statements that the purpose of the
project is to construct a toll facility, nor does it include any specifics related to the
project design.
Travel Times and Traffic Forecasts
C: Travel times show little to no time savings in Gaston County.
R: Two types of travel times are reported in the Draft EIS. One is the
origin/destination travel time estimate reported in the Draft EIS in Section C.2 of
Appendix C. The other type is an average change in travel time and this is
discussed in Section 7.5.1 of the Draft EIS. Both are different outputs from the
approved Metrolina Regional Travel Demand Model that were used to forecast
traffic for the proposed project. The travel time savings in 2030 realized by
constructing the proposed project compared to the No-Build Alternative would be
substantial for many specific origin/destination pairs, and the project also would
have an effect on overall average travel times for trips throughout the project
study area. These two types of travel time statistics are explained in more detail
in the Preferred Alternative Report.
C: Traffic Projections are higher than actual counts.
R: The approved model for the 13 county Metrolina Region were used to
develop traffic projections. The version of the model used to perform the project
forecasts was calibrated based on known traffic volumes for the base year 2000,
with the model providing forecasts for years 2010, 2020, and 2030. Volumes for
the projecYs base year of 2006 were obtained by interpolating between the
calibrated base year 2000 and the forecast year 2010. Since the travel demand
model was calibrated to 2000 traffic volumes, it can be expected that actual
counts for any given subsequent year could vary at some locations. A
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting — 09/08/09

Page 3 of 10
comparison of the model's 2006 results (Existing Conditions scenario) with actual
2006 traffic counts along I-85 show that there is reasonably good correlation
between the modeled and measured values for most of the study area. The
model assumptions were optimistic regarding growth and showed an increase of
approximately 7-11 % over the actual 2006 traffic counts. This does not
invalidate the traffic forecasts used to prepare the Gaston East-West Connector
Draft EIS.
Ranqe of Alternatives
C: Draft EIS did not address the Transportation Systems Management (TSM) and
Mass Transit Alternative.
R: TSM and Mass Transit were considered in Section 2.2 of the Draft EIS.
Environmental resource and regulatory agencies all signed and agreed upon
Concurrence Point 2 identifying the Detailed Study Alternatives to be considered
in the Draft EIS. Additional details are included in the Preferred Alternative
Report. Discussion of a proposed rail line being studied as part of House Bill
2431 will be included in the Final EIS. This line is currently only active in uptown
Charlotte and proposes to activate four miles of line in Gaston County. This line
would not address the issue of connectivity in southern Gaston County.
C: To study only toll alternatives in the EI S is not consistent with the CEQ
regulations.
R: CEQ states that the agencies shall rigorously explore and objectively
evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives which were eliminated
from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated.
Alternatives for this project were rigorously explored and evaluated, as
documented in Section 2 of the Draft EIS.
o Air Qualitv
C: Prior to issuance of the Final EIS and ROD, NCTA should demonstrate that the
new location project will be included in an approved SIP and will be in conformity.
R: It is acknowledged that if the Metrolina Region fails to demonstrate air quality
conformity and complete the LRTP update by May 3, 2010, and the region enters
a Conformity Lapse, then the FHWA cannot issue a Record of Decision. The
NCTA study team also acknowledges that there is a difference in opinion
amongst federal agencies in the level of analysis needed to address MSATs and
greenhouse gases. There is interim FHWA guidance for MSATs but no policy
exists regarding greenhouse gases. The Final EIS will address MSATs and
greenhouse gases in accordance with applicable FHWA policies and guidance
current at the time of publication.
Water Qualitv and Jurisdictional Resources
Water quality concerns for purposes of the required Section 401 Water Quality
Certification will be addressed as part of a Quantitative ICE study. A conceptual
mitigation plan will be prepared and described in the Final EIS. In addition to any
onsite wetland and stream mitigation opportunities, the intent is to use the NC
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) for wetland and stream mitigation required
for this project.
o Indirect and Cumulative Effects and Wildlife
The Indirect and Cumulative Effects study will include an analysis of potential habitat
fragmentation and will also consider changes in land use and to farmlands.
Cultural Resources, Communitv Characteristics, and Farmland
C: The Draft EIS missed the subject of historic Stowesville, Stowes Factory, Gaither
Mill, Stowesville Cemetery, and the old Methodist church.
R: These sites were not missed. Additional archaeological research is being
conducted by Coastal Carolina Research for these sites and related sites as part
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting — 09/08/09

Page 4 of 10
of the Phase II archaeological surveys for the Preferred Alternative. The results
will be reported in the Final EIS.
C: EJ populations would receive a higher percent of impact from the new facility in
terms of air quality and noise impacts, but would not necessarily receive a
proportionate benefit from the project due to potential toll costs.
R: EJ is discussed in detail in Section 3.2.5 of the Draft EIS. Disproportionate
high and adverse impacts to these populations are not projected.
• Scope of the Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICE) Analysis — Ms. Harris asked
if anyone had comments about the proposed scope of the ICE study, as discussed last month.
The study will consider land use, water quality, habitat fragmentation, and farmland (through
overall discussions of conversion of land types). For water quality modeling, the GWLF model is
proposed.
None of the attendees had comments, concerns or issues with the current proposed scope for the
quantitative ICE study. As mentioned earlier, prior to the meeting, Kathy Matthews with USEPA
confirmed via e-mail on September 4, 2009 that the output of the GWLF model is appropriate for
303(d)-listed stream analysis in the water quality portion of the Indirect and Cumulative Effects
analysis.
• Discussion Regarding Selecting LEDPA — NCTA asked the group if any additional information
is required prior to discussion and selection of a LEDPA and Preferred Alternative at the October
13, 2009 TEAC meeting.
Concerns related to the region's ability to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act were
discussed. NCTA acknowledged that if the Clean Air Act issues within the region are not
addressed, a Record of Decision cannot be issued for the project. The air quality issues in the
region are the same for all Detailed Study Alternatives. The USEPA stated they can participate in
discussion about the LEDPA, but their legal staff has directed that they cannot sign a
concurrence form until the region's Clean Air Act issues have been resolved. Mr. Militscher
stated that the Merger process is a water-based process, a merger of NEPA and Section 404(b)
of the Clean Water Act. The Merger guidelines do not address Clean Air Act requirements or
provide guidance on situations where a region is not in conformity.
The USACE does not believe at this time that selection of the LEDPA is considered a final action.
However, they need to proceed carefully. The NCDENR-DWQ and NCWRC also stated they
need to check back with their agencies regarding signing a Concurrence Point 3 form. They
noted they are part of the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, along with the
Division of Air Quality. The agencies were reminded that issues regarding the Clean Air Act are
not exclusive to any one alternative but rather apply to all alternatives. The USACE stated that
might make a difference in their decision. The concurrence forms could be signed with conditions
indicating the Clean Air Act outstanding issues.
The agencies were asked if any additional information is needed before identifying the LEDPA in
October, even if some agencies cannot sign a concurrence form. The USEPA stated they did not
necessarily disagree with DSA 9 as the LEDPA/Preferred Alternative, but they would like to have
the selection process further documented at the October meeting. FHWA pointed out that the
Draft EIS provides the reasons for selecting DSA 9. Mr. Militscher suggested alternatives
systematically be eliminated one by one, working towards a LEDPA. USEPA is comfortable with
eliminating some alternatives (76, 22, 58, and 4) now, but impacts beyond streams must be
considered. NCTA agreed to do a presentation at the October 13, 2009 TEAC meeting detailing
the reasons why DSA 9 should be identified as the LEDPA/Preferred Alternative.
Q&A:
1. Were travel times calculated point to point?
Yes. Those were the origin/destination times and are included in Appendix C of the Draft EIS.
Representative points were selected for this analysis.
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting — 09/08/09

Page 5 of 10
2. How much detail regarding Mass Transit will you provide? Gaston County is trying to bring
commuter rail into the county. It is not yet funded but would provide an alternative travel route. It
is in an out year but the STIP is being updated to include it.
New information regarding mass transit will be included in the Final EIS. The Final EIS can
provide updates regarding the GUAMPO's multimodal study and the status of the Piedmont and
Northern Rail Corridor.
3. Is the project likely to be constructed in segments?
Like other large highway projects, this project will likely be implemented in phases. The segment
from I-485 to US 321 is in the 2015 horizon year, and the segment from US 321 to I-85 is in the
2025 horizon year. Options are being investigated to find ways to build a facility from I-485 to I-
85 initially. At this time, NCTA has requested that GUAMPO use this phasing in the LRTP.
4. Can a Record of Decision (ROD) be issued if the region is not in conformity for air quality?
No. A ROD cannot be issued for the project if the region is not in conformity. Mr. Graham of
GUAMPO noted they are currently conducting their air quality conformity analyses. A revised
State Implementation Plan (SIP) will be submitted by NCDENR-DAQ to USEPA in November.
Based on existing budgets, the Metrolina Region is expected to pass conformity in all horizon
years. The ROD for the project is scheduled for October 2010. May 3, 2010 is the deadline for
the conformity determination and updated LRTP.
5. Do you have to analyze revenue of a partially completed project versus a full project?
Yes. That is the reason that the segment from I-485 to US 321 has been identified as the likely
initial phase. However, from a NEPA standpoint, the ultimate project must be addressed in the
EIS. Revenue considerations will be a factor in deciding project phasing.
6. Have you gotten into the exercise of "doing this will save this much money"? How will the results
of the recent design workshop impact alternatives?
NCTA is currently doing this work. Suggestions and ideas from the August 26, 2009 practical
design workshop are being evaluated. Design modifications resulting in changes to the ultimate
project will be included in the Final EIS.
7. What do the Environmental Mitigation costs include?
Costs associated with stream and wetland mitigation are based on fees used by the NC EEP in-
lieu fee program.
8. Is there a way to suggest a potential wetland mitigation bank? Is it an ongoing process?
The NCTA anticipates using the NC EEP for mitigation requirements. If someone has knowledge
of a good local mitigation site, it is important to notify NC EEP.
9. What will be the bridge typical section over the Catawba River?
Current estimates indicate it will consist of one bridge structure with a concrete median barrier.
10. What will the distance be between the median barrier and the travel lane on the bridges?
Lane and shoulder widths will be consistent with FHWA requirements.
11. How will drainage on the bridge be addressed?
A closed system will likely be used on the bridge, with drainage likely routed to a landside
drainage system.
Previous Action Items:
• Agencies to review information provided for future discussion on Least Environmentally
Damaging Practicable Alternative and Preferred Alternative at September 8, 2009 TEAC meeting.
New Action Items:
• Agencies to review information provided to conclude discussion on Least Environmentally
Damaging Practicable Alternative and Preferred Alternative at October 13, 2009 TEAC meeting.
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting — 09/08/09

Page 6 of 10
• NCTA to prepare a PowerPoint presentation comparing alternatives for consideration as the
LEDPA/Preferred Alternative, and documenting the reasons DSA 9 should be identified as the
LEDPA/Preferred Alternative.
Resolutions:
• Agreement was reached that the LEDPA/Preferred Alternative selection will take place at the
October 13, 2009 TEAC meeting.
• Agreement was reached on the ICE scope and GWLF model usage for the Quantitative ICE.
Next Steps:
• Continue discussions leading to selection of the LEDPA and Preferred Alternative.
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting — 09/08/09

Page 7 of 10
MEETING MINUTES
(Draft)
Date: September 8, 2009
3:00 pm to 430 pm
NC Turnpike Authority Board Room
Project: STIPR-3329/R-2559MonroeConnector/Bypass—STP-NHF-74(90)
Monroe Connector/BVUass Spotliqht:
Attendees:
George Hoops, FHWA
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Steve Lund, USACE
Scott McLendon, USACE
Polly Lespinasse, NCDENR-DWQ
Marella Buncick, USFWS (via phone)
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Amy Simes, NCDENR
Bob Cook, MUMPO (via phone)
Dana Stoogenke, Rocky River RPO (via phone)
Dewayne Sykes, NCDOT-RDU
John Conforti, NCDOT-PDEA
Ryan White, NCDOT-PDEA
BenJetta Johnson, NCDOT-Traffic (via phone)
Jennifer Harris, NCTA
Christy Shumate, HNTB
Jill Gurak, PBS&J
Carl Gibilaro, PBS&J
Elizabeth Scherrer, PBS&J
Tim Savage, Catena Group
Jennifer Cunningham, Catena Group
Presentation Materials (Posted on TEAC websitel:
• Meeting Agenda
• Corridor Overview Map from the Public Hearing (not posted on TEAC website)
Purpose:
Conclude discussion on Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative/Preferred Alternative.
General Discussion:
The following information was discussed at the meeting:
Ms. Harris opened the meeting with introductions and a review of the agenda. She reiterated that DSA D was
identified in the Draft EIS as the Recommended Alternative based on the anticipated impacts and public comments.
Overview of Corridor Design Public Hearing Map and Selection of DSA D as the Recommended
Alternative — At the request of the agencies, Ms. Shumate reviewed the Detailed Study Alternatives on the
Corridor Design Public Hearing Overview Map and explained reasons for NCTA's recommendation of DSA
D as the Recommended Alternative. At any one location there are up to two alternative alignments, and
DSA D utilizes the southern option for each segment. Also noted were areas where design changes are
proposed as a result of public and agency comments received on the Draft EIS. Attendees were referred
to Section S.7 of the Draft EIS, where the complete list of reasons for recommending DSA D as the
Recommended Alternative is presented.
I-485 to Indian-Trail Fairview Road Interchange — In this area, DSA D uses Segment 2.
Segment 2 was recommended over Segment 18A in this area because Segment 2 has fewer
impacts to natural resources, including a large forested wetland area, and it is farther from
residential subdivisions and Stallings Elementary School. Segment 2 would have more
business and residential relocations than Segment 18A, but it was believed that avoidance of
other impacts made Segment 2 the preferred option. In addition, this area received a
substantial amount of public comment, and the vast majority of those comments favored
Segment 2.
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting — 09/08/09

Page 8 of 10
The local jurisdictions in this area have both formally supported Segment 18A; however, they
seem willing to work with NCTA to minimize impacts of Segment 2 and make it a viable
alternative for their communities.
Indian Trail-Fairview Road Interchanae to Unionville-Indian Trail Road Interchanae —The
functional design in this section is common to all DSAs. Based on public comment, NCTA
plans to remove a proposed grade separation at Beverly Drive and sever Beverly Drive. NCTA
also plans to remove a grade separation at the Bonterra Village neighborhood entrance from
Secrest Shortcut Road. Bonterra residents requested this change to minimize noise and visual
impacts of the proposed design. Instead, a service road will be provided between Faith Church
Road and Poplin Road with access into Bonterra Village. The service road would also provide
access to other large parcels landlocked by the project. Impacts associated with these changes
will be documented in the Final EIS.
o Unionville-Indian Trail Road Interchanqe to Just East of Poplin Road Grade Separation —
There are two corridors in this area. The Recommended Alternative, DSA D, uses the
southern corridor (Segment 30). The northern corridor is Segment 22A. The southern corridor
was selected because Segment 30 would result in fewer wetland and stream impacts, and the
interchange at Rocky River Road along the southern corridor would have fewer floodplain
impacts. Segment 30 would also not require the realignment of Rocky River Road.
Based on comments received on the project, NCTA is proposing to modify the design of the
Unionville-Indian Trail Road interchange to a tight diamond configuration. This would reduce
the interchange footprint and eliminate the need to relocate a segment of Secrest Shortcut
Road, further reducing impacts. This change was requested by municipalities, the public, and
agencies.
Just East of Poplin Road to East of the US 601 Interchanae —The functional design in this
section is common to all DSAs. At US 601, NCTA proposed a different interchange
configuration than NCDOT had used in the original Monroe Bypass project. The proposed
design would eliminate the ramp in the southeast quadrant, replacing it with a loop in the
southwest quadrant. This was required because of traffic operation considerations but will also
avoid wetlands present in the southeast quadrant.
o US 601 Interchanqe to Ansonville Road Grade Separation —There are two corridors in this
area (Segment 34 to the north and Segment 36 to the south). The Recommended Alternative
DSA D uses Segment 36. It has one more stream crossing than the northern corridor, but this
crossing would be bridged.
In this area, NCTA has also proposed a different interchange configuration for the NC 200
(Morgan Mill Road) than NCDOT had originally proposed. NCTA's interchange configuration
was proposed to eliminate the ramp in the northwest quadrant and make it a loop. This was
proposed for traffic operations.
Based on public and local government comments on the importance of Mclntyre Road for local
travel patterns, a grade separation of Mclntyre Road will be added to the designs. The grade
separation will be achieved by extending the nearby mainline bridge already proposed over
Meadow Branch and adjacent wetlands (Wetlands W167 and W170).
o Ansonville Road Grade Separation to Eastern Terminus. There are two closely spaced
corridors in this area (Segment 40 to the south and Segment 41 to the north). The
Recommended Alternative DSA D uses Segment 40, which would have less residential
relocations and fewer stream impacts.
Potential Elimination of the US 601 Interchange or the Rocky River Road Interchange — At the
request of USFWS, NCTA agree to evaluate indirect and cumulative effects with and without the US 601
interchange in the quantitative ICE study. US 601 is the closest major interchange to the Goose Creek
watershed (federally-endangered Carolina heelsplitter habitat). However, NCTA noted that this
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting — 09/08/09

Page 9 of 10
interchange is an important element of the project. US 601 is the only other "US" route in Union County
other than US 74 and traffic forecasts warrant an interchange. This interchange is also supported by local
and regional plans. The scenario without the US 601 interchange is being evaluated for disclosure and
informational purposes for the Section 7 consultation process. NCTA does not expect the analysis to show
a substantial change in overall land use change, but if the results of the evaluation do show that there is
substantial change, the issue may need to be revisited with the agencies.
A related question was raised about the Rocky River Road interchange. The Rocky River Road
interchange also is important since Rocky River Road provides access to the Monroe Municipal Airport.
The airport is planning an expansion, and the City of Monroe desires to have this access point. This
interchange is also supported by local and regional plans.
• Indirect and Cumulative Effects (ICE) Study—The interviews with local planners are completed, as well
as mapping of existing conditions. The consultant (Michael Baker) is starting work on the future scenarios.
The water quality modeling will start when the land use analysis is completed, since the land use data is an
input to the water quality model.
Ms. Kathy Matthews of the USEPA sent an email (dated September 4, 2009) prior to the TEAC meeting
stating the outputs of the proposed water quality model (GWLF) would be sufficient for evaluating water
quality in the 303(d) listed streams.
USFWS requested that more information be provided about the input parameters of the GWLF model, how
they have been adapted for suburbanizing landscapes, and how the results of the land use analysis will be
incorporated into the model. USFWS asked how groundwater is treated in the model and if the model
considered stormwater storage/release. It was suggested that "sources of impairmenY' be included as a
parameter of the model. It was also suggested that Six Mile Creek watershed area may need to be
included in the modeling efforts.
NCTA agreed that a presentation on this topic could be made at a future TEAC meeting.
Discussion of LEDPA/Preferred Alternative — Ms. Harris asked if the agencies were satisfied with the
choice of DSA D as the potential Preferred Alternative/Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LEDPA). The USACE and USFWS stated they could agree that DSA D was the Preferred
Alternative, but will need data from the ICE study to determine that it is the LEDPA. USEPA stated they
liked DSA D better than the other DSAs studied in detail. NCWRC and NCDENR-DWQ did not raise any
objections. It was agreed that the project would move forward with DSA D as the Preferred Alternative.
When more information is available from the ICE study, the group will reconvene and discuss consideration
of DSA D as the LEDPA.
Q&A
1. Which neighborhood was the subject of comments complaining about trucks passing through the
neighborhood?
The neighborhood is Forest Park subdivision, located on the north side of existing US 74. Internet mapping
services often route trucks through the neighborhood to get to the adjacent business park. For this
neighborhood, a service road is proposed parallel to existing US 74 that would provide access to both
Forest Park and the business park. NCTA also proposes to construct an additional access road to Forest
Park along an easement originally reserved for this purpose by the subdivision developer but never
constructed. This easement is at the north end of the neighborhood and would provide a new connection
to Stallings Road.
2. On the western end, wetland impacts seem higher with DSA D. Where are the wetlands located? They
are existing swales along existing US 74 or wetlands that are already impacted by US 74. Utilizing
Segment 18A would result in three new stream crossings, as well as be closer to more neighborhoods and
schools.
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting — 09/08/09

Page 10 of 10
3. What is the difference in business impacts between Segments 18A and 2?
There are 14 business impacts for 18A and 48 for Segment 2. Most of the businesses associated with
Segment 2 are located in the business park near where Segment 2 branches off of the existing US 74
alignment.
4. Is NCTA considering reducing the posted speed limit to 55 mph?
No. This has been suggested for portions of the Garden Parkway, but the posted speed limit for the
Monroe Connector/Bypass will be 65 mph.
New Action Items:
• NCTA will make a presentation on water quality modeling and the GWLF model at an upcoming TEAC
meeting.
(This presentation will be made at the October 13, 2009 TEAC meeting.]
Resolutions:
• Agreement was reached that DSA D is the Preferred Alternative. A decision on the LEDPA will be made
pending review of the results of the quantitative ICE study.
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting — 09/08/09