20120285_Gaston East-West Corridor Email_20010508

FW Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting for Gaston East West Conne Page I of 1
FW Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting for Gaston East -
West Connector on March 4, 2008
Lespinasse, Polly
Sent Tuesday May 08 2012 2 57 PM
To Carrillo Sonia
Attachments TEAC—Agenda-030408 pdf (83 KB)
From Jennifer Harris [mailto Jennifer Harris @ncturnpike org]
Sent Monday, February 18, 2008 5 17 PM
To Chris Militscher, , Kathy Matthews, Marella Buncick , marla chambers, Marla Chambers, polly lespinasse ,
Renee Gledhill Earley, Hoops, George, <donnie brew @fhwa dot gov >, Dewayne L Sykes PE, Anne D
Gamber, PE, Jeff Dayton, Gurak, Jill S, Lund, Steven W SAW, Kristina L Solberg William A Barrett,
<steve dewitt@ncturnpike org >, <gloden @ecosciencenc com>
Subject Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting for Gaston East West Connector on March 4,
2008
Good afternoon
I wanted to touch base with you regarding the upcoming TEAC meeting for Gaston East West Connector on
Tuesday March 4 2oo8 This meeting is planned to begin at 1 oo pm The agenda is attached to this email
I have not received any comments since the February 5 2oo8 TEAC meeting where we discussed the proposed
approach to discussing bridging decisions for the Detailed Study Alternatives on this project Minutes (draft)
from this meeting are posted on the TEAC websrte http / /www ncturnpike org /teac/
Therefore we are proceeding with preparing the information for the upcoming meeting as previously discussed
There will be the opportunity to assess other sites for potential bridging that should be discussed but we are
proceeding with this approach at this time
The Natural Resources Technical Report with impact calculations will be posted to the TEAC site some time
tomorrow Some of you expressed that you wanted us to provide you a hard copy If so please email me and let
me know and we will provide that to you
A package of information will be distributed to you in advance of the meeting Some applicable materials are
already posted to the TEAC websrte
Thanks
Jennifer
Jennifer H Harris P E
NC Turnpike Authority
5400 Glenwood Avenue Suite 400
Raleigh NC 27612
919 571 3000 (office)
919 571 3004 (direct)
919 571 3015 (fax)
https //mail nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &id= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJHI4 %2bm 5/17/2012

111,07
4
Agenda
March 4, 2008
For remote participants - please loin meeting at
https / /www1 aotomeeting comhoin/532454278
Conference Call (605) 990 -0110, access code 532 - 454 -278
Meeting ID 532 - 454 -278
Please call (919) 571 -3000 if you have technical difficulties
"Spotlight" Projects
Gaston E -W Connector
100 -500pm
Purpose Discuss information in order to achieve agreement /concurrence on the bridging decisions
for streams and wetlands crossed by the detailed study alternatives (Concurrence Point 2a)
Previous Action Items Agree on screening approach methodology for evaluating mayor crossing
sites
New Action Items Obtain agreement /concurrence on the bridging decisions for streams and
wetlands crossed by the detailed study alternatives
Updated fact sheets for Cape Fear Skyway Mid Curatuck Bndge Monroe Connector /Bypass Triangle Parkway Northern Wake
Expressway Toll Plaza and Western Wake Freeway are on the TEA website These projects will not be discussed
uname N, 0 R T H C 1 * 0
Mg-
x" >. H o A

FW NCTA Agreement on LEDPA
FW NCTA - Agreement on LEDPA
Lespinasse, Polly
Sent Tuesday May 08 2012 2 55 PM
To Carrillo Sonia
Attachments TEAC_Minutes_090809 pdf (97 KB)
From Harris, Jennifer
Sent Wednesday, October 07, 2009 10 19 AM
To Lespinasse, Polly, Simes, Amy, Chambers, Marla J
Cc Dayton, Jeff, jsgurak„ George Hoops, Harris, Jennifer
Subject NCTA Agreement on LEDPA
Polly Marla Amy
Page 1 of 1
At the TEAC meeting last month for the Gaston East West Connector you mentioned that you were going to confirm that
NCDENR Divisions could concur on the LEDPA even in light of the outstanding air quality issues in the Metrolina region
Below is an excerpt from the draft meeting minutes which are also attached to this email
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
I wanted to touch base with you prior to our meeting on Tuesday (October 13) to ensure that you have had a chance to
discuss this issue internally and will hopefully be ready to conclude discussions on LEDPA selection at our meeting
Please let me know if you need any other information or would like to discuss further
Thanks in advance for your assistance
Jennifer
Jennifer H Harris P E
North Carolina Turnpike Authority
5400 Glenwood Avenue Suite 400
Raleigh North Carolina 27612
Tel [phone]
Dir (919) 5713004
Fax [phone]
https //ma11 nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &1d= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJH14 %2bm 5/17/2012

NORTH 17do i
,gyp.Authority
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAC)
Meeting
MEETING MINUTES
(Draft)
Date September 8 2009
1 30 pm to 2 45 pm
NCTA Board Room
Project STIP U 3321 Gaston E W Connector — STP 1213(6)
Gaston E W Connector Spotlight
Attendees
George Hoops 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
Carl Gibilaro PBS &J
Jens Geratz PBS &J
Scott Lane Louis Berger Group (via phone)
Presentation Materials (Posted on TEAC website)
• Agenda
• August 12 2009 Draft TEAC Meeting Minutes
• Gaston East West Connector Preferred Alternative Report — September 8 2009
Purpose
Discuss responses to 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 Effects (ICE) Study
General Discussion
The following information was discussed at the meeting
Prior to the meeting Kathy Matthews with USEPA confirmed via a 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
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 09/08/09

Page 2 of 10
• Preferred Alternative Report — Jill Gurak of PBSU 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
o 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 1 85 or other
area roadways cannot effectively meet the project purpose
C Draft EIS 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
ongin /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
o 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
ongin /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 ongin /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 project s 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 1 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
o Range 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 EIS 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
Air Quality
C Pnor 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 m 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
o Water Quality 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
o Cultural Resources, Community 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 a 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
&A
1 Were travel times calculated point to point
Yes Those were the ongin /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 bang
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 segments9
Like other large highway projects this project will likely be implemented in phases The segment
from 1-485 to US 321 is in the 2015 horizon year and the segment from US 321 to 1 85 is in the
2025 horizon year Options are being investigated to find ways to build a facility from 1 485 to 1
85 initially At this time NCTA has requested that GUAMPO use this phasing in the LRTP
Can a Record of Decision (ROD) be Issued if the region is not in conformity for air qual►ty2
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 1-485 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 9 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 bank9 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 bndge typical section over the Catawba River'2
Current estimates indicate it will consist of one bridge structure with a concrete median barrier
10 What will the distance be between the median bamer and the travel lane on the bridges'?
Lane and shoulder widths will be consistent with FHWA requirements
11 How will drainage on the bndge 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
300 pmto430pm
NC Turnpike Authority Board Room
Project STIP R 3329/R 2559 Monroe Connector /Bypass — STP NHF 74(90)
Monroe Connector /Bypass Spotlight
Attendees
George Hoops FHWA
Chris Mditscher USEPA
Steve Lund USACE
Scott McLendon USACE
Polly Lespmasse 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 Conforh 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 website)
• 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
1-485 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
o Indian Trail Fairview Road Interchange to Unionville Indian Trail Road Interchange — 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 Interchange 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
o Just East of Poplin Road to East of the US 601 Interchange — 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 Interchange 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 McIntyre Road for local
travel patterns a grade separation of McIntyre 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 mayor 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 impairment 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
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 located9 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 m business impacts between Segments 18A and 29
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 mph2
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 TEA 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

FW Gaston East -West Connector CP 4c
FW Gaston East -West Connector CP 4c
Lespinasse, Polly
Sent Tuesday May 08 2012 2 44 PM
To Carrillo Sonia
Attachments Gaston TEAC CP4c Final Min -1 pdf (47 KB)
Page 1 of 2
From Bass, Kiersten R
Sent Thursday, September 01, 2011 11 24 AM
To Phillip Rogers, JIII Gurak, Sarah a hair @usace army mil, george hoops @dot gov, militscher chris @epa gov,
marella_buncick @fws gov, Chambers, Marla J, Lespinasse, Polly, Gledhill earley, Renee,
Scott c mclendon @usace army mil, monte k matthews @usace army mil, Wrenn, Brian
Cc Harris, Jennifer, Sweitzer, Shannon, Dewitt, Steve, James Byrd, ronald ferrell @atkinsglobal com,
david bass @atkinsglobal com, Shumate, Christy, Gloden, Michael C (Michael Gloden @atkinsglobal com) ,
Scherrer, Elizabeth (Elizabeth Scherrer @atkinsglobal com)
Subject RE Gaston East West Connector CP 4c
All — we received no comments on the draft minutes for the Concurrence Point 4c meeting Attached are the
final minutes Please note that the second half of the CP4c meeting has been rescheduled as follows
September 12, 2011 (10 00 am to 12 00 pm)
NCDENR Mooresville Regional Office
610 East Center Avenue Suite 301
Mooresville NC 28115
3rd Floor Hearing Room
Thank you
Kiersten R Bass
Senior Transportation Planner
NCTA General Engineering Consultant
1 South Wilmington St Raleigh NC 27601
1578 MS Center Raleigh NC 27699 1578
919 707 2725
From Bass, Kiersten R
Sent Tuesday, August 23, 20112 06 PM
To Phillip Rogers, Jill Gurak, Sarah a hair @usace army mil , george hoops @dot gov,
militscher chris @epa gov, marella_buncick @fws gov, Chambers, Marla J, Lespinasse, Polly, Gledhill earley,
Renee scoff c mclendon @usace army mil, monte k matthews @usace army mil, Wrenn, Brian, Holder, Michael
L, Moose, Barry S, Chang, David S, Clawson, Marshall W, Rochelle, Rodger D Taylor, Bryan D, Houser, Anthony
A
Cc Harris, Jennifer, Sweitzer, Shannon, Dewitt, Steve, James Byrd , ronald ferrell @atkinsglobal com ,
david bass @atkinsglobal com, Shumate, Christy, Gloden, Michael C (Michael Gloden @atkinsglobal com)
Subject Gaston East West Connector CP 4c, ICE Water Quality Analysis
All (my apologies for the Incomplete email — accidentally hit send will blame It on the earthquakes)
Thank you for your time and effort in providing comments on the permit drawings for the Gaston East West
Connector project Attached is the draft minutes from the Concurrence Point 4c meeting held on August 11
2011 As noted we were unable to cover all the sites for the project during the 2 hour meeting and a second
https //mail nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &id= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJH14 %2bm 5/17/2012

FW Gaston East West Connector CP 4c
Page 2 of 2
meeting Is currently being scheduled to review the remaining sites As of this writing the best date for that
meeting appears to be September 8 2011 This meeting will be held at a location near the project in order to
continue the discussion of the Permit Drawings for Sites 58 68 After the meeting those who are Interested will
make a field visit to stream 5297 as well as any additional sites of Interest
Please review the attached draft minutes from the August 11 2011 meeting and provide me with your
comments by Monday August 29 2011
Also attached for your review Is the draft Indirect and Cumulative Effects — Water Quality Analysis dated August
2011 Please review this analysis and provide me with your comments by Thursday September 8 2011
Should we not receive any correspondence from you by the noted dates we will presume you have no
comments
Please feel free to contact me with questions or concerns regarding these documents
Thankyou
Kiersten R Bass
Senior Transportation Planner
NCTA General Engineering Consultant
1 South Wilmington St Raleigh NC 27601
1578 MS Center Raleigh NC 27699 1578
919 707 2725
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N C Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties
https //mail nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &id= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJHI4 %2bm 5/17/2012

NORTH CAROLINA
Turnpike Authority
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination
(TEAC) Meeting
MEETING MINUTES — CONCURRENCE POINT 4c
Final
Date August 11 2011
1000 am to 1200 pm
Structure Design Conference Room
NCDOT Century Center
Raleigh NC
Project STIP U 3321 Gaston E W Connector — STP 1213(6)
Attendees
David Bass Atkins
Kiersten Bass HNTB /NCTA
Jamie Byrd HNTB
Marla Chambers NCWRC
Ron Ferrell Atkins
Jill Gurak Atkins
Liz Hair USACE
Jennifer Harris NCTA
Meeting Materials
• Information Package emailed prior to meeting
Polly Lespinasse NCDWQ
Monte Matthews USACE
Chris Militscher EPA
Clint Morgan Atkins
Phillip Rogers HNTB
Elizabeth Scherrer Atkins
Shannon Sweitzer NCTA
Brian Wrenn NCDWQ
• Agenda
• Handout with project description project schedule and a listing of sites to be discussed
• Meeting minutes from June 9 2011 Concurrence Point 4b (CP 4b) meeting
• Meeting minutes from July 14 2011 CP 4b site visit
• Map of Preferred Alternative
• Figure 7 — Figure showing approximate slope stakes for the project and the sites to be
discussed (Sites 50 68)
• Table — Buffer Impact Summary
• Table — Wetland Impact Summary
o Set of permit drawings
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Concurrence Point 4c Meeting 8/11/11

Page 2 of 5
• Handout — Tables showing impacts to ponds wetlands and streams for the three design phases
(preliminary design in Draft EIS refined preliminary design in Final EIS and Final Design) for the
project segment from NC 279 (South New Hope Rd) to 1 485 Tables show overall reductions in
impacts to wetlands and streams for each subsequent design phase Pond impacts stayed the same
(0 26 acres)
• Set of roadway design plans
Purpose
Discuss hydraulic designs for the project s final design section from NC 279 to 1 485 as part of the
concurrence process for NEPA/404 Merger Concurrence Point 4c (CP 4c) — Permit Drawings
Discussion
Ms Harris opened the meeting with introductions and a review of the agenda and the project schedule It was
noted that Marella Buncick representing the USFWS sent an email to Ms Harris in which she stated Given
that we have discussed and visited in the field the major sites of concern / will defer to what the group decides
tomorrow My only comment is that the first site we visaed other than the golf course should be redesigned
to protect both the structure and the creek
Mr Matthews stated the USACE wanted to include in the meeting minutes that they are coordinating with the
NCTA regarding the proposed median width for the project Ms Harris noted that NCTA submitted a memo to
the USACE dated August 5 2011 related to this topic This information will also be submitted with the permit
application NCTA will coordinate with USACE and the FHWA to determine if any additional information needs
to be added to the Record of Decision (ROD)
Mr Byrd asked if anyone had any final comments to the meeting minutes from the CP 4b meeting held on
June 9 2011 No one offered any comments so the meeting minutes for that meeting as included in the
CP 4c information package are considered final
Mr Wrenn asked if a design build team has been selected A design build team has not been selected yet
but the plans being shown are final design plans that can be constructed NCDWQ and NCTA agreed that
further discussion regarding the timing of the Section 401 application will be pursued outside of this CP 4c
meeting
Mr Wrenn also noted that NCDWQ would like to review the water quality modeling report before the permit
application is submitted The draft report has been prepared and is being reviewed by NCDOT and FHWA It
will be provided to NCDWQ when finalized
The impact sites along the final design segment of the project are ordered from Site 50 to Site 68 Mr Byrd
reviewed the sites beginning at Site 50 and worked eastward The meeting ended with discussions of Site 57
due to time constraints See action item below regarding follow up meetings
FINAL DESIGN IMPACT SITES
SITE 50 — South Fork Catawba River
There is no direct discharge from the bridges into the surface water or buffer areas Drainage will be collected
in a closed drainage system and discharge on the western end of the bridges lust outside of the buffer near
the first bridge bent Stormwater will outlet into two preformed scour holes in order to diffuse flow before
flowing into the buffer
NCDWQ asked if the scour holes could be moved to the edge of the buffer NCTA and HNTB agreed this
could be done The velocity out of the scour hole is estimated to be 2 cubic feet per second (cfs) which is
equivalent to the 10 year storm flow from an 18 inch pipe
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Concurrence Point 4c Meeting 8/11/11

Page 3 of 5
USACE asked if utilities would be attached to the bridge If so this would require a Section 10 permit NCTA
is not planning on allowing utilities to be attached to the bridge If this changes NCTA will inform the USACE
NCWRC stated they had reviewed the comment letter to NCTA from Mark Cantrell of the US Fish and Wildlife
Service ( USFWS) responding to requests for comment on the FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission)
application and NCTA s response back to Mr Cantrell NCWRC believes that when USFWS mentioned a
concern about woody debris this is more related to woody debris along the shoreline functioning as fish
habitat rather than a concern about woody debris piling up at the bridge piers
On the eastern end of the bridge stormwater will be collected and discharged into a lateral ditch which will tie
to an existing 18 pipe under Gaither Road There were no comments on the proposed design on the western
end of the bridge
SITE 51 — Stream S296
This location was discussed at the CP 4b meeting on June 9 2011 and at the subsequent site visit held on
July 14 2011 As a result of the discussion at these meetings the proposed culvert was realigned to the east
to provide a better alignment with the existing stream In addition baffles have been included at all locations
where baffles were requested by NCWRC at the CP 4b meeting
Mr Byrd mentioned that in an email prior to this CP 4c meeting Marella Buncick of USFWS expressed
concerns about the lateral ditch However due to existing topography and natural drainage patterns HNTB
was unable to reduce or eliminate the ditches draining down to the culvert inlet
The slope of the flatter portion of the lateral ditch is 0 4% Class I rip rap is proposed on the slope opposite the
ditch and Class II rip rap is proposed for the face of the bench NCDWQ requested rip rap on the right bank
(looking downstream) to protect the stream NCTA and HNTB agreed
There was a discussion about potential channel reconstruction There is a meander dust upstream of the
culvert outlet Rip rap for bank protection could be extended through this downstream meander The culvert
slope is 0 65% The group agreed this measure was not needed
USEPA asked about the height of the fill slope in this location It is approximately 60 feet NCDWQ was
concerned about sediment sloughing off the fill slope with the only place for it to go being a drainage feature
that drains to S296 HNTB suggested skimmer basins may be required during construction The fill slopes will
be matted for stabilization
SITE 52 — Stream S297
The lateral ditch on the north side of the mainline has an 11 % slope until it makes a sharp turn into the stream
Class B rip rap is proposed as well as bank stabilization NCDWQ requested that for all areas where there is
bank stabilization proposed this impact should be accounted for separately in the permit
USEPA asked if the lateral ditch could be tied to the culvert instead of emptying at the stream meander or
piped directly to the culvert It is likely the area is too steep for either of these options to be feasible Another
option suggested was to remove the stream meander which would create more impacts but would result in a
more stable design that would be less prone to erode in the long term HNTB will investigate the design at this
area The resource agencies requested a site visit to inspect the stream meander approximately 130 feet
upstream of the proposed culvert NCTA will organize a site visit
SITE 53 — Stream S300 — Tucker Road Relocation
This site is the relocation of Tucker Road a two lane roadway The slope of the lateral ditch in this area is
5 6% It could be piped directly to the culvert (culvert slope is 1 1 %) The ditch would be lined with PSRM
The fill slope is approximately 15 feet in height and the lateral ditch is close to the base of the slope NCDWQ
requested that the bank face opposite where the lateral ditch empties and should have Class 1 rip rap not
matting as currently proposed
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Concurrence Point 4c Meeting 8/11/11

Page 4 of 5
SITE 54 — Stream S300 — West Side of NC 279 (Southpoint Road) Interchange
This stream which crosses Site 53 downstream runs through the interchange area 4 1 slopes in the
interchange area will provide some treatment of stormwater before it reaches the culvert The culvert slope is
2% There were no comments on this site
SITE 55 — Stream S304 — East Side of NC 279 (Southpoint Rd) Interchange
Where the lateral ditch near the mainline north of the eastbound on ramp ties into S304 USEPA and USACE
requested rip rap to prevent erosion NCTA and HNTB agreed
Per NCDWQ the entire length of 5304 in the interchange area should be counted as impacted since the flow
that contributes to the stream in this area may become entirely stormwater runoff unless there is a spring If
there is a spring this will need to be accounted for in the design
SITE 56 — Pond 52
Pond 52 approximately 0 2 acres is proposed to be filled There were no comments on this site
SITE 57 — Catawba River
There is no direct discharge from the bridges into the surface water or buffer areas Bridge stormwater will
drain to the east toward a proposed roadway sag The size of the energy dissipater at the southeast bridge
corner was increased per a CP 4b action item The 10 year storm flow out of the dissipater is approximately
31 cfs The stormwater flows off the bridges (untreated) discharges into a lateral base ditch to the east and
flows into a proposed energy dissipater in order to diffuse flow before entering the buffer The majority of the
water draining from east to west will be treated with grass swales before being discharged into the buffer The
group was concerned about the discharge velocity The topography on the north side of the bridge is much
steeper making a dissipater on that side not feasible
NCDWQ stated the design was appropriate but the velocities are of concern if they are erosive However
NCDWQ s investigations after the June 9 2011 meeting did not result in any additional suggestions Mr
Morgan suggested investigating installing two dissipaters one for the bridge stormwater and one for the swale
stormwater HNTB will investigate
SITES 58 65
Due to time constraints these sites were not discussed at this meeting The group agreed to continue
discussion at another CP 4c meeting
Action Items
• NCTA will account for bank stabilization impacts separately in the permit application
• NCTA will organize a site visit to the crossing of Stream S297
• On the same day as the site visit to S297 the group will continue the CP 4c discussion for Sites 58 68
which were not discussed at the August 11 2011 meeting due to time constraints
• NCTA will provide NCDWQ a copy of the water quality modeling report prior to the permit application
once it is finalized
• Site 50 — South Fork Catawba River — Per NCDWQ scour holes will be moved to the edge of the
buffer area
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Concurrence Point 4c Meeting 8/11/11

Page 5of5
• Site 51 Stream S296
o Per NCDWQ rip rap will be placed on the right bank (looking downstream) to protect the
stream
o Skimmer basins were discussed as an item of concern during for erosion control during
construction No further action required by NCTA at this time
• Site 53 Stream S300 — Per NCDWQ install rip rap instead of matting on the bank face opposite the
lateral ditch on the north side
• Site 55 — Stream S304 — Per USEPA and USACE install rip rap to prevent blow out where the lateral
ditch near the mainline north of the eastbound on ramp ties into S304
• Site 57 — Catawba River — southeast bridge corner investigate the feasibility of constructing two
energy dissipaters one for the bridge stormwater runoff and the other for the swale runoff
m�
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Concurrence Point 4c Meeting 8/11/11

FW Gaston E W Connector Meeting Summary (final for files)
FW Gaston E -W Connector Meeting Summary (final for files)
Lespinasse, Polly
Sent Tuesday May 08 2012 3 25 PM
To Carrillo Sonia
Attachments Gaston - 112211 - USACEFHWADWQ -1 doc (176 KB)
Page 1 of 6
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From Shumate Christy
Sent Tuesday December 20 2011 11 35 AM
To Matthews Monte K SAW Wrenn Brian McLendon Scott C SAW Lespinasse Polly
Hair Sarah E SAW George Hoops @dot gov
Cc Sweitzer Shannon Jill Gurak Michael Gloden @atkinsglobal com Dewitt Steve
Harris Jennifer
Subject Gaston E -W Connector Meeting Summary (final for files)
All --
Attached are final minutes for the meeting on November 22 to discuss permitting for
the Gaston E -W Connector project The minutes were modified from the draft to
incorporate Monte s comment about the potential for revisiting
decisions /concurrence points
Thanks'
Christy
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From Shumate Christy
Sent Wednesday November 30 2011 9 49 PM
To Matthews Monte K SAW
Cc Wrenn Brian McLendon Scott C SAW Lespinasse Polly Hair Sarah E SAW
George Hoops @dot gov Sweitzer Shannon Jill Gurak
Michael Gloden @atkinsglobal com Dewitt Steve Harris Jennifer
Sub]ect Re Gaston E -W Connector Meeting Summary Draft (UNCLASSIFIED)
Thanks Monte' I will make a note in the minutes about this
Christy
On Nov 30 2011 at 9 43 AM Matthews Monte K SAW
< Monte K Matthews @usace army mil> wrote
• Classification UNCLASSIFIED
• Caveats NONE
> Thanks for the summary Christy
• The only comment I have concerns the possible permit modifications
• As a worse -case scenario we had discussed the possibility of
• revisiting previous decisions/concurrence points if future permit
• modifications result in larger impacts This would be a situation we
• would hope to avoid but will evaluate any modification which shows
• new information on a case -by -case basis to see if a previous
• decision is now in question (We actually do this on any permit
• modification that we receive but since you may change contractors I wanted you
to be aware of this possibility)
https //mail nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &1d= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJHI4 %2bm 5/17/2012

FW Gaston E W Connector Meeting Summary (final for files)
To help avoid this I believe you were going to take agency comments
from the 4b and 4c meetings and use these to see if they are pertinent
on future crossings
Thanks again
Monte
Monte Matthews
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive Suite 105
Wake Forest NC 27587
919 - 554 -4884 x 30
The Wilmington District is commited to providing the highest level of
support to the public To help us ensure we continue to do so please
complete the Customer Satisifaction Survey located at our websi.te at
http / /per2 nwp usace army mil /survey html to complete the survey online
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From Shumate Christy [mailto croshumate @ncdot gov]
Sent Tuesday November 29 2011 3 48 PM
To Wrenn Brian Matthews Monte K SAW McLendon Scott
Lespinasse Polly Hair Sarah E SAW George Hoops @dot
Cc Sweitzer Shannon Jill Gurak Gloden Michael C
(Michael Gloden@atkinsglobal com) Dewitt Steve Harris
C SAW
gov
Jennifer
Page 2 of 6
> Subject Gaston E -W Connector Meeting Summary Draft
> Good afternoon
> I hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving holiday'
> Attached is a draft summary of the meeting last week (11/22) to
> discuss the Gaston E -W Connector project Please review and let me
> know if you have any questions or comments by next Friday December 9
> Also as requested at the meeting you will be receiving an email from
> Jill Gurak with a link to the revised water quality analysis report
> for your review If you have any trouble downloading the report or
> would like a hard copy please let me know Also we would appreciate
> a response indicating that your comments have been addressed or that you have
additional comments
> Thanks again
> Christy
https //mail nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &id= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJH14 %2bm 5/17/2012

FW Gaston E W Connector Meeting Summary (final for files)
Page 3 of 6
• From Shumate Christy
• Sent Tuesday November 22 2011 7 42 AM
• To Harris Jennifer Wrenn Brian Dewitt Steve Monte Matthews
• McLendon Scott C SAW
• Cc Lespi.nasse Polly Karoly Cyndi Sweitzer Shannon Jill Gurak
• (dill gurak@atkinsglobal com) Gloden Michael C
• (Michael Gloden @atkinsglobal com)
• Subject RE Gaston E -W Connector Meeting -- 11/22 @ 8am
> Good morning
> For those electing to call in please dial 919- 233 -7091
> Attached are materials to facilitate our discussion
> * Map showing area of permit -level design and design -build project
> limits
> * DWQ comments on water quality analysis and response letter
> * Email correspondence with USACE regarding median width and project
> typical section west of US 321
> Please let me know if you have trouble opening any of these files
> Thanks
> Christy
• From Shumate Christy
• Sent Monday November 21 2011 11 06 AM
• To Harris Jennifer Wrenn Brian Dewitt Steve Monte Matthews
• Cc Lespinasse Polly Karoly Cyndi Sweitzer Shannon
• Subject Gaston E -W Connector Meeting -- 11/22 @ 8am
> All
• Just a reminder about tomorrow morning s meeting to discuss permitting
• for Gaston E -W Connector - 11/22 @ 8am in the NCTA Conference R000m on
• the 6th floor
https //mail nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &id= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJHI4 %2bm 5/17/2012

FW Gaston E W Connector Meeting Summary (final for files)
Page 4 of 6
> Attached is an agenda of topics that we would like to cover at the meeting
> Thanks
> Christy
• From Harris Jennifer
• Sent Wednesday November 16 2011 11 20 AM
• To Wrenn Brian Dewitt Steve Monte Matthews
• Cc Lespinasse Polly Karoly Cyndi Sweitzer Shannon Shumate
• Christy
• Subject RE Gaston E -W connector application
• Thank you for the email Brian We look forward to seeing you next
• week on Tuesday 11/22 at 8 AM in the NCTA Conference Room on the 6th
• floor of the Highway Building
> Have a nice day
> Jennifer
• Jennifer Harris P E i
• Director of Planning and Environmental Studies NC Turnpike Authority
• an entity of the NC Department of Transportation
> Please note changes in address phone and email address
> 1 South Wilmington Street Raleigh NC 27601 919 - 707 -2700
> jhharrisl @ncdot gov
• From Wrenn Brian
• Sent Wednesday November 16 2011 9 27 AM
• To Harris Jennifer Dewitt Steve Monte Matthews
• Cc Lespinasse Polly Karoly Cyndi
• Subject Gaston E -W connector application
• Based on recent discussions within our agency NCDWQ will accept the
• Gaston E -W connector 401 application currently proposed by NCTA We
• would still like to meet on 11/22 to discuss modification coordination
• once the Design -Build team has been chosen This I think can be
• handled by project team staff from our respective agencies and does
https //mail nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &id= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJHI4 %2bm 5/17/2012

FW Gaston E W Connector Meeting Summary (final for files)
i
• not need to include management Of course they are welcome to
• participate but I sure other commitments will take priority If you
• have any questions regarding this matter please let me know Thanks
> Brian
> PLEASE NOTE THAT MY CONTACT INFORMATION HAS CHANGED
> Brian Wrenn
> Transportation Permitting Unit NCDWQ
> 1650 Mail Service Center
> Raleigh NC 27699 -1650
> 919 - 807 -6365 (phone)
> 919- 807 -6492 (fax)
> or
> 585 Waughtown St
> Winston -Salem NC 27107
> 336- 771 -4952 (phone)
> 336- 771 -4631 (fax)
> brian wrenn @ncdenr gov
• E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
• North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties
> Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N C
> Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties
• Classification UNCLASSIFIED
• Caveats NONE
Page 5 of 6
https //mail nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &id= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJHI4 %2bm 5/17/2012

FW Gaston E W Connector Meeting Summary (final for files) Page 6 of 6
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N C Public Records
Law and may be disclosed to third parties
0
https //mail nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &id= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJHI4 %2bm 5/17/2012

, I" ,!do NORTH
Turnpike Authority
Meeting — Gaston East -West Connector
MEETING MINUTES
Date November 22 2011
800 am -930 am
NC Turnpike Authority Conference Room
Transportation Building
100 South Wilmington Street
Raleigh NC
Project STIP U 3321 Gaston East West Connector /Garden Parkway — STP 1213(6)
Attendees
Present Via Telephone
Steve DeWitt — NCTA Polly Lespinasse — NC DWQ
Jill Gurak — Atkins Brian Wrenn — NC DWQ
Jennifer Harris NCTA
George Hoops — FHWA
Monte Matthews — USACE
Christy Shumate — HNTB
Meeting Materials
• Agenda
• Map showing area of permit level design and design build project limits
• NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) comments on the quantitative water quality analysis
and draft response letter
• Email correspondence with US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regarding median width
and project typical section west of US 321
Purpose
Discuss the following
• Section 404/401 permit application
• The design build process
• Project schedule
• Permitting process for future NCTA projects
• Conceptual Mitigation Plan on site mitigation and Linwood Springs site
• NCDWQ comments on the quantitative water quality analysis
• Recap of previous USACE questions on median width and the project typical section west of
US 321
Meeting with USACE, NCDWQ, FHWA 11/22/11

Page 2of5
Summary
Christy Shumate opened the meeting and reviewed the agenda (attached)
Section 404/401 Permit Application She reviewed the handout map that showed the permit level
design sections and the design build project limits The Garden Parkway has been divided into two
design build projects Procurement West and Procurement East Procurement West includes U 3321AA
and U 3321 B and extends from 1 85 to Wilson Farm Road The end point near Wilson Farm Road is in a
tangent and U 3321AA and U 3321 B comprise approximately half of the project Procurement East
includes U 3321C and extends from Wilson Farm Road to 1 485 Procurement East also includes U
3321 DA which are the ITS elements for the entire project The permit level design has been completed
for a portion of U 3321 C from South New Hope Road (NC 279) to 1 485
The project was divided into two sections (Procurement West and Procurement East) to provide more
contract opportunities for construction contractors particularly opportunities for small businesses /firms
Brian Wrenn asked why the Procurement East section does not match the section for which permit level
design has been completed
Ms Shumate noted that the decision on what to prepare permit level design for was made before the
procurement decision was made The permit level design section is representative of the jurisdictional
resources that are located along the project it has logical termini at 1 485 and NC 279 and it was a
reasonable section length to work on from a financial perspective
Monte Matthews noted it may be confusing that the permit level design section is only a portion of
U 3321 C The USACE needs to be able to identify exactly which segments permit conditions are being
applied to The attendees agreed that U 3321C should be subdivided into U 3321 CA (from Wilson Farm
Road to NC 279) and U 3321 CB (the permit level design section from NC 279 to 1 485) Note that these
segments are not included in the EIS /ROD because the EIS /ROD addresses the entire project as a
whole
Jennifer Harris wanted USACE and NCDWQ to be aware that with the permit level designs from NC 279
to 1 485 impacts to jurisdictional resources increased slightly over preliminary designs when typically
impacts decrease with permit level designs The increase was on the order of about 200 feet of stream
impact more than what was reported in the Final EIS This is due to changes made during the
Concurrence Point 4b /4c meetings at the request of the environmental resource and regulatory agencies
particularly the treatment of drainage at the crossings where 1 485 would be widened In these locations
rock armor was assumed when extending the existing culverts however NCTA determined that due to
construction unknowns this assumption was preliminary Another type of treatment is now proposed that
increased impacts in these locations Also there were a few stream crossings where impacts increased
due to requests to straighten stream skews to improve sustainability of the crossings NCDWQ and
USACE requested that the permit application include explanations for the areas where impacts increased
Ms Shumate noted that unlike the Monroe Connector /Bypass the permit level designs to be submitted
for the Garden Parkway have incorporated minimization measures agreed to through the Merger process
Also it is likely the design build team will not modify the horizontal alignment of U 3321 CB too much due
to constraints associated with the FERC license revision application with Duke Power and constraints
associated with other resources in the area such as the need to coordinate with the West Boulevard
project being done by Charlotte Douglas International Airport and the presence in the corridor of the Allen
Steam Station an Optimist Club recreational area and a minority church cemetery
Mr Matthews asked how much control NCTA has regarding the design plans submitted by the
contractors Ms Harris stated some controls are included in the RFP For example the RFP includes
language regarding the FERC license revision application process and the number of piles assumed
within the Lake Wylie boundary The RFP discourages increasing impacts
Regarding mayor modifications to the Section 404/401 permit the RFP includes language to allow one
mayor permit modification for each Procurement area (West and East) and states that hydraulic designs
shall not be prepared iteratively rather they need to be completed for the one allowed mayor permit
modification The design build teams must notify NCTA about scheduling a Concurrence Point 4b /4c
Meeting with USACE, NCDWQ, and FHWA 11/22/11

Page 3of5
meeting to address the major permit modifications USACE and NCDWQ agreed it was appropriate to
allow one major permit modification for each Procurement area with minor modifications expected during
construction based on field conditions
Mr Matthews explained that for any modification that is received USACE will evaluate new information
to determine if a previous decision or concurrence point needs to be revisited It is possible in a worst
case situation that concurrence points would need to be revisited if future permit modifications result in
larger impacts To help avoid this NCTA will review agency comments received at previous 4B and 4C
meetings for this project and incorporate them into designs for other parts of the project
Polly Lespinasse asked about whether the FERC license revision application needs to address Catawba
Creek Ms Shumate stated that Catawba Creek is within the FERC Project Boundary for Lake Wylie
There are final bridge designs for this crossing but no hydraulic designs However it is not expected that
the hydraulic designs would require areas outside the currently proposed right of way
Proiect Schedule George Hoops stated FHWA anticipates having the Record of Decision signed before
the end of the year
For the Monroe Connector /Bypass the Section 401 permit took approximately 4 months and the Section
404 permit took approximately 8 months
USACE asked about a target date for the Garden Parkway permits Ms Harris noted as soon as possible
since the permits will be on a critical path for financing NCTA will assist USACE and NCDWQ with
documentation or other needs to help facilitate the process
Permitting Issues on Future NCTA Proiects The NCTA wants to work with the NCDWQ and USACE
on exploring ways to address future permits that meet all agencies needs and requirements including
the Local Government Commission (LGC) Ideas include alternatives to actually issuing a permit such as
a permit assurance letter that says based on current information the agency believes a permit can be
issued for a project or some type of determination that a project is permittable The current process
requires that additional time and funds be expended for permit level design prior to selecting a design
build team which can be duplicative work This special situation occurs for toll projects because bonds
cannot be sold until there is a permit obtained for a project There are no funds to pay the design build
teams until the bonds are sold resulting in a catch 22 situation Steve DeWitt noted that permits are then
placed on a critical path in the schedule due to the bond sales The 1 95 widening project is another
project that may be under a similar situation in the future
Mr Wrenn stated that NCDWQ has many concerns regarding some type of corridor level permit but are
willing to work with the NCTA and NCDOT Many developers approach NCDWQ requesting permits for
conceptual level site designs and NCDWQ does not want to set a precedent that would require them to
address these types of requests
Ms Harris stated maybe an enhanced concurrence point would be something to consider Mr DeWitt
noted this would only apply to a handful of projects that require bond sales approved by the Local
Government Commission (which currently requires the permits be obtained prior to the sales)
NCDWQ asked that NCTA send a letter describing ideas and asking for collaboration The USACE also
agreed to collaborate
Conceptual Mitigation Plan — On Site Mitigation Ms Shumate noted that the conceptual mitigation
plan that will be included with the Section 404/401 permit application includes evaluation of potential on
site mitigation sites Atkins coordinated with property owners and performed an assessment of potential
sites on properties where the owner stated they may be interested in participating The sites are all
preservation sites which are the least desirable from a mitigation standpoint Ms Harris asked the
USACE and NCDWQ how interested they are in these types of on site mitigation opportunities She
noted that the Linwood Springs Golf Course site and the Beaverdam Creek mitigation site are also on site
mitigation areas that provide more and better mitigation opportunities
Mr Matthews stated USACE does not find as much value in preservation sites that are disjointed along a
project as they do with sites like Linwood Springs and Beaverdam Creek He stated he would discuss the
issue with his colleagues Liz Hairr and Scott McLendon after they have a chance to read the conceptual
mitigation plan
Meeting with USACE, NCDWQ, and FHWA 11/22/11

Page 4of5
Median Width and Project Typical Section West of US 321 Ms Shumate noted NCTA has been
working with FHWA and USACE to clarify a statement in the Final EIS regarding median widths and
future widening The statement is in the Final EIS on page 2 2 Although not part of the ultimate project
if a fifth and sixth lane are needed in the future beyond the horizon year they would be constructed to the
inside resulting in a 26 foot paved median (two 10 foot shoulders and six feet for a barrier bridge piers
signs etc ) instead of the original 46 foot median proposed in the Draft EIS
The statement was not meant to imply that a 50 foot median was selected in order to accommodate
adding future lanes in the median or that a hard 26 foot median was a reasonable option for the project
within the design year The grassed median is safer provides for better stormwater management and is
in context with the surrounding rural /suburban area The Record of Decision and the permit application
will include language to clarify the reasons the grassed median was selected The statement was
included in the Final EIS because at one time earlier in the planning process a 6 lane roadway was
proposed Currently a 4 lane roadway would fulfill the project purpose and need through the design year
and widening to 6 lanes is not being considered at this time
Another question NCTA has been working on with USACE is how to address the potential interim
construction of a 2 lane roadway from 1 85 to US 321 The NCTA acknowledges that USACE does not
want to permit more impacts than is necessary in the initial permit The potential for building only 2 lanes
of the ultimate 4 lane roadway initially is due to finances The 4 lane roadway is anticipated to be needed
to fulfill the projects purpose and need within the design horizon of 2035 Traffic projections show that 4
lanes are anticipated to be needed by 2031 However NCTA would prefer to construct all four lanes
during the initial construction Bids for the Monroe Connector /Bypass and the Western Wake
Expressway were less than expected so it may be possible that there will be available funds to construct
the Garden Parkway with four lanes from 1 85 to US 321
NCTA is intending to include the 4 lane preliminary design in the Section 401/404 permit application If
only 2 lanes can afford to be constructed the major permit modification for this section (U 3321AA) would
show only the 2 lanes NCTA understands that if only 2 lanes are constructed and open to traffic the
other two lanes cannot be graded and create impacts to jurisdictional resources until they could be paved
and opened to traffic under another permitting effort The USACE and NCDWQ agreed this was a
reasonable approach and will accept the 4 lane preliminary design in the permit application
Water Quality Analysis Ms Shumate stated responses have been prepared for NCDWQ s comments
on the draft quantitative water quality analysis prepared for the project Comments from NC Wildlife
Resources (NCWRC) and US Environmental Protection Agency also were received but much later
Hence the delay in responding to NCDWQ s comments NCTA wanted to address all comments at the
same time Also the NCWRC comments regarding the use of septic areas in the water quality model
resulted in the model being rerun and the results updated in the report Collin Mellor at NCDOT reviewed
and approved the revised results NCDWQ requested a copy of the revised report
Ms Harris wanted to discuss /clarify with NCDWQ one of their comments on the water quality analysis
In NCDWQ s comment letter dated September 19 2011 NCDWQ stated they would not consider this
analysis complete until we receive written confirmation from each Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) that construction of the road or any portion of the road (i a construction of the road was allocated
for within specific TAZ units only in the No Build analysis) was not included in the No Build analysis
Ms Shumate stated NCTA understands NCDWQ s concerns regarding the ICE and water quality
modeling based on the comments received on the studies for the Monroe Connector /Bypass However
the Garden Parkway studies used a different methodology than the Monroe Connectory/Bypass and
NCTA believes written notification from MPOs as requested by NCDWQ is not applicable for the Garden
Parkway project Ms Shumate noted that unlike the Monroe Connector /Bypass project the Garden
Parkway was explicitly included in the regional growth forecasts prepared by UNC Charlotte to aid the
MPOs in allocating population and employment to TAZs in their areas All three MPOs (Gaston County
Mecklenburg County and York County) with responsibility for developing forecasts for the project study
area confirmed that the Garden Parkway was assumed to be completed in the allocation of future growth
to specific TAZs This is a different situation and a different conclusion regarding the use of the Metrolina
model socioeconomic forecasts than was reached for the Monroe Connector /Bypass For the Monroe
Connector /Bypass the Metrolina model socioeconomic forecasts were demonstrated to best represent
the No Build condition for that project
Meeting with USACE, NCDWQ, and FHWA 11/22/11

Page 5 of 5
For the Garden Parkway the Metrolina model socioeconomic forecasts were used as the Build condition
A gravity model approach was used to determine the distribution of households and employment for the
No Build condition For the No Build condition then the gravity model removed the Garden Parkway links
and evaluated the changes in accessibility to the TAZs to reallocate growth for the No Build condition
representing a different pattern of household and business location decisions in the absence of a Garden
Parkway
Since the gravity model methodology involves comparing accessibility to individual TAZs for Metorolina
model runs with and without the Garden Parkway in order to allocate growth for the No Build condition a
No Build condition in this type of approach inherently involves removing the Garden Parkway from the
model to arrive at the change in accessibility
The NCDWQ was satisfied with this answer and agreed to review all the draft responses to their
comments and provide feedback NCTA will then send a final comment response letter and NCDWQ will '
then reply whether or not their comments have been satisfactorily addressed
Action Items
• NCTA will subdivide U 3321C into U 3321 CA (from Wilson Farm Road to NC 279) and U
3321 CB (the permit level design section from NC 279 to 1 485) These labels will be included
in the Section 404/401 permit application and in the design build RFP documents
• NCTA to include in the Section 404/401 application an explanation for each area where
impacts to jurisdictional resources increased beyond the impacts assumed for the preliminary
designs
• NCTA will send a letter to NCDWQ and USACE requesting collaboration on addressing the
permit process for NCDOT /NCTA projects requiring bond sales and toll related financing
• NCTA will send NCDWQ and USACE the revised water quality analysis
• NCDWQ will review draft responses to their comments on the water quality analysis NCTA
will make revisions as needed and send a final comment/response letter NCDWQ will reply
whether or not their comments have been satisfactorily addressed
Meeting with USACE NCDWQ, and FHWA 11/22/11

III FW Gaston Water Quality Analysis
FW Gaston Water Quality Analysis
Lespinasse, Polly
Sent Tuesday May 08 2012 4 08 PM
To Carrillo Sonia
From Lespinasse, Polly
Sent Thursday, December 15, 20112 51 PM
To Wrenn, Brian
Subject RE Gaston Water Quality Analysis
That may be best
From Wrenn, Brian
Sent Thursday, December 15, 2011 2 44 PM
To Lespinasse, Polly
Subject Re Gaston Water Quality Analysis
Do you want me to write the letter?
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 15 2011 at 2 42 PM Lespinasse Polly <polly lespinasse @ncdenr gov> wrote
Page 1 of 2
I dust feel like concurring on the contents of a document I don t feel exactly qualified to review is
appropriate lam not trying to be a pain but I think you know how I feel about this Will an email
suffice? Do you want to be copied?
From Wrenn, Brian
Sent Thursday, December 15, 2011 2 35 PM
To Lespinasse, Polly
Subject Re Gaston Water Quality Analysis
Do you have unresolved issues /questions? If not then we accept their analysis as being
reasonable and sound
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 15 2011 at 158 PM Lespinasse Polly < polly lespinasse@ncdenr gov> wrote
Do I actually have to tell them I concur or can I dust send them an email telling them
I don t have any further questions and no letter will be required?
From Wrenn, Brian
Sent Thursday, December 15, 2011 1 16 PM
To Lespinasse, Polly
Subject Re Gaston Water Quality Analysis
If you don t have further questions or issues dust tell them we concur with their
analysis and mention that we will not require the letters from the MPOs
https //mail nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &id= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJH14 %2bm 5/17/2012

FW Gaston Water Quality Analysis
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 15 2011 at 1127 AM Lespinasse Polly <polly lespinasse@ncdenr gov>
wrote
Brian
I have finished looking at this I don t know if you read their responses
but I don t have any further questions regarding them The big one was
we asked for was written confirmation from the MPOs regarding the
inclusion of the road in the No Build analysis They have provided a
lengthy explanation of why that is not necessary so unless you have any
issue with their response I am not pursuing it any further
Marla s comments were related to them not assuming that there would
be an increase in septic tanks even though there was a projected
increase in residential properties They have apparently agreed that
this was not a correct assumption and have run the models again The
most notable difference I see is in the Catawba Creek watershed where
you seen an increase in Total Nitrogen from 5 3 to 9 9 (which is the
largest increase in any pollutant in the modeling) Catawba Creek is on
the 303d list for impaired biological integrity
Any thoughts on how /what you want me to write?
Thanks
Polly Lespinasse Polly Lespinasse @ncdenr gov
Environmental Senior Specialist
North Carolina Dept of Environment & Natural Resources
Div of Water Quality
610 E Center Ave Suite 301
Mooresville NC 28115
Ph 704 235 2190 Fax [phone]
E mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties
unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation
Page 2 of 2
https //mail nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &id= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJH14 %2bm 5/17/2012

FW Maps w/ agency changes
FW Maps w/ agency changes
Lespinasse, Polly
Sent Tuesday May 08 2012 2 57 PM
To Carrillo Sonia
From Jennifer Freeman [mailto (freeman @Ihcarterinc com]
Sent Monday, May 07, 2007 4 51 PM
To Louis Raymond
Cc Ross Andrews Polly Lespinasse, Steven Lund, Marla Chambers
Subject Maps w/ agency changes
All
Page 1 of 1
I posted JCA s Segment 2 final maps with the recommended ACOE /DWQ changes on our FTP server The
following is a summary of changes to the maps
Figure 1 a
D1 035 to 047 D2 and D3 001 to 012 were changed to perennial This reflects a change of 880 ft from
intermittent to perennial
D5 040 to 087 was shortened 550 ft of intermittent stream were removed from the end (thrown out as
storm water catch)
Figure lb
A new wetland (W2 156) was added across from W2 026 The wetland will add 0 03 acres to the total
wetland acreage
Figure 1c
Stream D46 was changed from intermittent to perennial (730 ft)
Figure 1 d
The end of Stream D103 was changed from perennial to intermittent (310 ft) The change begins
upstream of the confluence of D103/104
Changes to linear footage and acreage totals will be reflected in the stream /wetland summary report
To access the updated maps go to http / /transfer lhcartetinc corn A pop up box will prompt you for username
and password The username is lcaguest2 Password is 1ca999 Once you re logged in click on other on the
left side of the screen You ll see a folder called Gaston Maps The figures are available for download from
there
Please contact me if you have any trouble accessing the maps or have any other questions regarding Segment 2
of the Gaston East West Connector
Respectfully
Jennifer M Freeman
Wildlife Biologist
Dr JH Carter III & Associates Inc
[phone]
[phone] mobile
[phone] fax
https //mall nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &id= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJH14 %2bm 5/16/2012

FW Gaston E W Connector TIP U 3321
FW Gaston E -W Connector, TIP U -3321
Lespinasse, Polly
Sent Tuesday May 08 2012 2 59 PM
To Carrillo Sonia
From Marella_Buncick [mallto Marella_Buncick @fws gov]
Sent Monday, December 19, 2005 4 22 PM
To dweaver militscher chris, chambersmj, Steven w lund, polly lespinasse, Sarah mcbrlde
Cc Brian_Cole, Gary_Jordan
Subject Gaston E W Connector, TIP U 3321
Page 1 of 1
On December 8 2005 the USFWS abstained from signing Concurrence Point 2 for the Gaston East West
Connector Project Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties NC for the following reasons
1 According to discussions at the last Merger meeting for this project U 3321 is being handed off to the NC
Turnpike Authority Since this project is now an NC Turnpike Authority study project we believe it is no longer in
the Merger Process Merger is a process for which decisions are made in a building block fashion each
subsequent step dependent on the previous step Therefore we believe it is inappropriate for our Agency to sign
off on alternatives when we will not be involved in selecting a LEDPA (CP 3) or in Avoidance and Minimization
considerations (CP4) We have provided input that a deciding official can use to help determine an appropriate
range of alternatives
2 Our understanding is that the study of potential turnpike projects will include an analysis of economic
considerations to determine a projects feasibility Thus far economic considerations beyond the cost to build a
project have rarely been discussed relative to the feasibility of a project If economic viability is to be considered a
criterion used to determine feasibility for this particular project we believe that the current Purpose and Need
should be re visited to include economic considerations
If in the future the NC Turnpike Authority adopts the Merger Process and current merger team members are
tasked by NCDOT to participate in another dual merger process we will revisit our abstention from this
concurrence point decision
Thank you
marella buncick
USFWS
160 Zillicoa St
Asheville NC 28801
828 258 3939 ext 237
https //mall nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &id= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJHI4 %2bm 5/16/2012

FW Gaston & MUMPO LRTP
FW Gaston & MUMPO LRTP
Lespinasse, Polly
Sent Tuesday May 08 2012 3 15 PM
To Carrillo Sonia
From Militscher Chris @epamail epa gov [mailto Militscher Chris @epamail epa gov]
Sent Friday, October 30, 2009 1 25 PM
To Steven w lund @usace army mil
Cc Lespinasse, Polly
Subject Fw Gaston & MUMPO LRTP
Page 1 of 1
Steve FYI I just don t get the need to expeditiously move this project forward thru Merger when
MUMPO doesn t even consider it be close to a top priority Kathy sent me the CP 3 form and I
noted that the LEDPA was conditioned on Clean Air Act conformity
I guess I m just old school , but NEPA and 404 decision making should be timed to the action
Even if all the environmental and permitting issues get resolved next month they don t have the
money or the bonding right now to build the project
Which leaves me to what is their true motive for getting agencies to sign LEDPA forms just
speculation on my part but all these permitting and resource agencies agreeing on DSA 9, I
suppose trumps 7,000+ petitioners & other organizations who oppose the project
Forwarded by Chris Militscher /R4 /USEPA /US on 10/30/2009 01 08PM
To mueller heinz @epa gov
From Chris Militscher /R4 /USEPA /US
Date 10/30/2009 01 06PM
cc matthews kathy @epa gov
Subject Gaston & MUMPO LRTP
Heinz FYI under MUMPO s latest financially constrained DRAFT 2035 LRTP as of October 20,
Gaston Parkway (for eastern terminus and the portion in Mecklenburg County) is priority ranked #
243 out or 341 projects Monroe Bypass /Connector went from June 2009 ranking of 175 to
#1 Gaston only moved up about 50 spots from June of 2009 Not even being in the top 100,
I cannot fathom the extreme push on this project except for certain connected persons
Even if all the water issues, air conformity issues & potential EJ issues get resolved,
there s definitely a severe funding issue With Triangle and Western Wake eating up alot of the
Garvee Bond capacity, and Monroe s price tag of —$810 million, the $1 4 billion needed for Gaston
is going to be a very hard sell in these tough economic times
https //ma11 nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &1d= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJHI4 %2bm 5/17/2012

FW Monroe C/B and Gaston E W Connector ICE meeting
FW Monroe C/B and Gaston E -W Connector ICE meeting
Lespinasse, Polly
Sent Tuesday May 08 2012 2 54 PM
To Carrillo Sonia
Attachments NCTA_ICE_MeetingMinutes_07 -1 pdf (92 KB)
From Christy Shumate [mailto christy shumate@ncturnpike org]
Sent Tuesday, August 28, 2007 4 08 PM
To Polly Lespinasse
Cc Jeff dayton @ncturnpike org
Subject Monroe C/B and Gaston E W Connector ICE meeting
Page 1 of 1
Polly
Thanks for meeting with us a few weeks ago about the upcoming ICE studies for Monroe and Gaston Attached
are minutes from the meetings If you have any changes please let me know
Thanks'
Christy
Christy Shumate, AICP
Senior Transportation Planner
NCTA General Engineering Consultant
5400 Glenwood Ave Suite 400
Raleigh NC 27612
1578 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699 1578
Tel [phone]
Dir [phone]
Fax [phone]
https //ma11 nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &1d= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJHI4 %2bm 5/8/2012

GASTON EAST WEST CONNECTOR — TIP Project U 3321
GASTON AND MECKLENBURG COUNTIES
MEETING MINUTES
DATE July 26 2007
LOCATION NCTA 5400 Glenwood Ave Suite 400 Raleigh 27612
TIME 2 00 pm 3 00 pm
ATTENDEES
VIA TELEPHONE
AT THE NCTA OFFICE
Rob Ayers FHWA
Jennifer Harris — NCTA
George Hoops — FHWA
Anne Redmond HNTB
Polly Lespinasse — NC DWQ
Jeff Dayton HNTB
Bob Deaton — NCDOT
Ross Andrews Ecoscience
Susan Fisher HNTB
Mike Gloden Ecoscience
Carl Gibilaro — PBS &J
Jill Gurak — PBS &J
Kim Bereis — PBS &J
Julie Flesch Pate — Louis Berger Group
Meeting Purpose
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the scope of the indirect and cumulative effects study for the
Gaston East West Connector with NC DWQ
Meeting Minutes
Tentative project schedule
Preliminary Design October 2007
Toll Scenario Traffic Forecast August 2007
Preliminary Draft EIS June 2008
Community Characteristics Report is underway
DWQ s issues of concern
High Quality Waters
Outstanding State Resources
303d Listed Streams
Higher quality wetlands and streams identified in the jurisdictional surveys
Water Supplies (Classifications WS I /WS 1I)
Crowders Creek
Floodplams

Gaston East West Connector
Meeting Minutes July 26 2007
Scope for ICE Study
Berger will research both NC and SC regulations laws and policies equally during its ICE assessment
but will emphasize coordination and interviewing efforts in NC
DWQ agreed with the multi county approach and ICE study area boundaries based on watersheds
General triggers identified by DWQ that may indicate the need for investigation beyond the proposed
qualitative approach are as follows
• Stormwater runoff effecting water uses or designations
• Threatened / Endangered Species and their critical habitat
• Violations of the Clean Water Act
• Notable changes in traffic patterns
• Land use changes and
• Impacts to impaired waterbodies
FHWA asked what would trigger analysis of ICE effects beyond the proposed qualitative approach when
applying for a Section 401 Water Quality Certification Permit DWQ was not able to provide a specific
trigger but would consider the project as a whole when determining effects
FHWA also asked what issues DWQ will consider in determining if a 401 Water Quality Certification
violation might occur DWQ responded that stormwater typically is the issue but also aquatic related
threatened and endangered species can be issues Indicators that could be used to determine stormwater
changes could include direct impacts from the project changes in land use changes in traffic patterns
and effects on impaired waters
Bob Deaton reiterated the need for a tailored qualitative approach that not only leads us to a LEDPA but
sets up areas to focus on should a quantitative assessment of impacts on resources become necessary for
the Section 401 Water Quality Certification
Belmont is in the process of finalizing their land use plan it includes land use scenarios with and without
the Gaston Connector It is expected to be adopted in August
GIS layers should be developed in a fashion that is conducive to quantitative modeling in case we need to
conduct such modeling in the future
FHWA questioned if the 16 Detailed Study Alternatives could be considered the only practical
alternatives left on the table DWQ agreed since they were identified through the Merger process as a
group effort She did not know if this would be the case for non Merger projects
FHWA asked about how DWQ defines a practical alternative DWQ was unable to define what it would
consider a practical alternative for this project
ACTION ITEMS
• DWQ to review previously submitted scoping comments and provide additional comments if
necessary
• PBS &J to provide Louis Berger information collected as part of the community characteristics
report

ioNORTH CAROLINA
Turnpike Authority
Monroe Connector /Bypass
Mecklenburg and Union Counties
TIP Nos R -3329 / R -2559
ICE SCOPING MEETING
MEETING MINUTES
Date July 26 2007
Time 3 00 pm
Place NCTA Office /Conference Call
Purpose Discuss scoping for Monroe Connector /Bypass indirect and cumulative impact
studies
Attendees
Name
Organization
Email Address
Rob Ayers
FHWA
rob ayers@fhwa dot gov
George Hoops
FHWA
george hoops @fhwa dot gov
Polly Lespinasse
NCDWQ
Polly lespinasse @ncmail net
Bob Deaton
NCDOT HEU
rdeaton @dot state nc us
Jennifer Harris
NCTA
Jennifer hams @ncturnpike org
Anne Redmond
NCTA GEC
anne redmond @ncturnpike org
Christy Shumate
NCTA GEC
christy shumate @ncturnpike org
Susan Fisher
HNTB
sfisher @hntb corn
Jill Gurak
PBS &J
jsgurak @pbsj com
Carl Gibilaro
PBS &J
cgibilaro @pbsj com
Kim Bereis
PBS &J
kdbereis @pbsj com
Ross Andrews
Ecoscience
andrews@ecosciencenc com
Michael Gloden
Ecoscience
gloden @ecosciencenc com
Mr Gibilaro briefly reviewed the history and current status of the project and Ms Redmond explained
that the purpose of the meeting was to begin discussion on the scope for the indirect and cumulative
effects studies for the Monroe Connector /Bypass project
As a starting point Ms Redmond asked if Ms Lespinasse had reviewed ICE studies completed as part
of the previous Monroe Connector and Monroe Bypass projects Ms Lespinasse was aware that
previous studies had been completed but was not familiar with the details of the studies Ms Redmond
noted that several other agencies did not like the format of the report which was broken into separate
reports for the land use component and water quality component
Monroe Connector/ Bypass ICI Scoping Meeting

Page 2 of 2
Ms Redmond explained the proposed process for proceeding with the ICE studies for the project
• NCTA in coordination with the agencies will identify detailed study alternatives
• ICE studies will begin with qualitative land use evaluations to determine potential induced growth
specifically in the Goose and Duck Creek watersheds
• Land use changes will be evaluated in coordination with local planners and MUMPO
• If following the qualitative study it is determined that a quantitative ICI is necessary it will be
completed for the preferred alternative
Ms Lespinasse noted that a quantitative study would likely be required Mr Gibilaro added that the
current project study area for direct impacts does not extend into the Goose Creek watershed
Ms Redmond added that there were some concerns with how the study area for previous ICE studies
was defined — the study area did not extend into Mecklenburg County She noted that the study area for
this study will be redefined and will likely include entire watersheds rather than cutting them at the county
line
FHWA asked if NCDWQ had any issues with water quality on this project beyond those related to the
endangered species in Goose Creek Ms Lespinasse responded that stormwater and 303(d) streams
are issues There are several 303(d) streams that cross the project study area
FHWA asked if Ms Lespinasse was aware of any waters in the project area that are not meeting their
designated uses or if there are areas where standards are close to being exceeded Ms Lespinasse
noted that the streams are listed by reach and reason for listing
FHWA asked about indicators for analyzing impacts to water quality Ms Lespinasse said that she would
check with NCDWQ s watershed group on preferred units of measurement Mr Ayers noted that it would
be helpful to coordinate indicators among the agencies to streamline the analysis process
NCTA is currently planning to do a qualitative analysis first to determine land use changes and then if
necessary do a quantitative study on the preferred alternative only FHWA agreed that land use changes
will likely be equal across the alternatives due to their relative proximity however asked if Ms
Lespinasse thought that NCDWQ would require NCTA to analyze a different alternative for comparison
Ms Lespinasse noted that she would check with John Hennessy
Action Items
1) Ms Lespinasse with contact NCDWQ s watershed group for input on appropriate indicators and
units of measurement for water quality impact analysis
2) Ms Lespinasse will discuss with John Hennessy whether NCDWQ has the discretion to require
analysis of an alternative that either was never considered or was eliminated at some point
previously for comparison of indirect and cumulative impacts
3) Ms Lespinasse will discuss NCTA s proposed approach of completing a qualitative analysis for
preliminary alternatives and a quantitative analysis if required for the preferred alternative only
with John Hennessy
4) ICI scoping will be included on the August 15 TEAC agenda
5) NCTA will begin drafting a scope of work for ICE studies
Monroe Connector/ Bypass ICI Scoping Meeting

FW Minutes for Gaston WQ Analysis Meeting
FW Minutes for Gaston WQ Analysis Meeting
Lespinasse, Polly
Sent Tuesday May 08 2012 4 10 PM
To Carrillo Sonia
From Lespinasse, Polly
Sent Thursday, October 28, 2010 7 41 AM
To Wrenn, Brian, Allen, Thomas B, Mellor, Colin
Cc jsgurak„ Shumate, Christy, Harris, Jennifer, 0 Loughlin, David K
Subject RE Minutes for Gaston WQ Analysis Meeting
Page 1 of 2
I agree with Brian s comment I am also finishing up the review of the quantitative ICE for this project and hope
to have that completed by the end of the week If I have any comments regarding that document or how it may
figure into our discussion on the water quality analysis I will let you know
Thanks
From Wrenn, Brian
Sent Friday, October 22, 2010 10 26 AM
To Allen, Thomas B, Lespinasse, Polly, Mellor, Colin
Cc jsgurak„ Shumate, Christy, Harris, Jennifer, 0 Loughlin, David K
Subject RE Minutes for Gaston WQ Analysis Meeting
I have one comment regarding the minutes For the explanation of excluding the watersheds in Gaston Co near
Bessemer City although I can understand the travel time savings will not be significantly increased for the
northern portion of the HUC surely there will be some induced growth south of 85 and 29 1 think this HUC
should be included in the analysis Several of the HUCs included in the analysis have portions that will not
experience significant travel time savings but they are still part of the study area No reason for this HUC to be
excluded That being said Polly holds the trump card in this so if she disagrees with me I will concede
0
Brian Wrenn
Transportation Permitting Unit Supervisor
NC Division of Water Quality
brian wrenn @ncdenr gov
585 Waughtown Street
Winston Salem NC 27107 2241
336 7714952 (Winston Salem no )
336 7714631 (Fax)
or
2321 Crabtree Blvd Ste 250
Raleigh NC 27103
919 733 5715 (Raleigh no )
919 733 6893 (Raleigh Fax)
From Allen, Thomas B [mailto TBAllen @pbsj com]
https //mail nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &id= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJH14 %2bm 5/8/2012

FW Minutes for Gaston WQ Analysis Meeting Page 2 of 2
Sent Friday, October 22, 2010 10 02 AM
To Wrenn, Brian, Lespinasse, Polly, Mellor, Colin
Cc jsgurak„ Shumate, Christy, Harris, Jennifer, 0 Loughlin, David K
Subject Minutes for Gaston WQ Analysis Meeting
Polly Brian Colin
Please find attached the minutes for the Gaston East /West Connector water quality analysis meeting held on
October 18 2010 Perhaps the largest outstanding question from the meeting was why were 12 digit HUs
030501011405 (Fates Creek Lake Wylie) and 030501030103 (Sugar Creek Headwaters) excluded from the study
area? An explanation to this question is provided in the minutes Brian and Polly would you please review the
explanation and let me know if it is sufficient Feel free to contact me if you have any further questions or
comments
Thanks
Brad Allen E I
Senior Scientist
PBSU Mid Atlantic Sciences
1616 E Millbrook Road Suite 310
Raleigh NC 27609
Office 919 876 6888 (Main)
Office 919 431 5222 (Direct)
Fax [phone]
tballen pbsi corn
www pbsJ Corn
https //mail nc gov /owa/9ae= Item &t =IPM Note &id= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJH14 %2bm 5/8/2012

FW Gaston East West Connector CP 4c (Part 2)
FW Gaston East -West Connector CP 4c (Part 2)
Lespinasse, Polly
Sent Tuesday May 08 2012 4 09 PM
To Carrillo Sonia
Attachments Gaston_TEAC CP4c Final Mind pdf (51 KB)
From Lespinasse, Polly
Sent Monday, October 31, 20114 39 PM
To Wrenn, Brian
Subject FW Gaston East West Connector CP 4c (Part 2)
Brian
There is a statement in these final minutes about the permit submittal
Page 1 of 2
From Bass, Kiersten R
Sent Monday, September 26, 20119 54 AM
To Phillip Rogers, sarah a hair @usace army mil, militscher chris @epa gov, marella_buncick @fws gov,
Chambers, Marla J, Lespinasse, Polly, Wrenn, Brian
Cc Harris, Jennifer, James Byrd Oabyrd @HNTB com), ronald ferrell @atkinsglobal com,
david bass @atkinsglobal com, Gloden, Michael C (Michael Gloden @atkinsglobal com) , George Hoops, Jill Gurak,
Matthews, Monte K SAW (Monte K Matthews @usace army mil), Shumate, Christy
Subject RE Gaston East West Connector CP 4c (Part 2)
All we received one comment noting a correction in the draft minutes for the Garden Parkway CP4c (Part 2)
meeting held on September 12 2011 The discussion for the field notes and action items for Sites 52 and 67
were reversed This has been corrected in the final minutes attached for your records
Sincerely
Kiersten R Bass
Senior Transportation Planner
NCTA General Engineering Consultant
1 South Wilmington St Raleigh NC 27601
1578 MS Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 1578
919 707 2725
From Bass, Kiersten R
Sent Friday September 16, 2011 1145 AM
To Phillip Rogers, Sarah a hair @usace army mil militscher chris @epa gov, marella_buncick @fws gov,
Chambers, Marla J, Lespinasse, Polly, Wrenn, Brian
Cc Harris, Jennifer, James Byrd Oabyrd @HNTB com), ronald ferrell @atkinsglobal com ,
david bass @atklnsglobal com, Gloden, Michael C (Michael Gloden @atkinsglobal com), George Hoops, Jill Gurak,
Matthews, Monte K SAW (Monte K Matthews @usace army mil)
Subject Gaston East West Connector CP 4c (Part 2)
All
The draft minutes for the Concurrence Point 4c meeting (Part 2 and field visit) held on September 12 2011 are
attached for your review Please review the draft meeting minutes and provide me with your comments by
https //mail nc gov /owa/9ae= Item &t =IPM Note &1d= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJH14 %2bm 5/8/2012

FW Gaston East West Connector CP 4c (Part 2)
Page 2 of 2
Friday September 23 2011 Should we not receive any correspondence from you by 9/23 we will presume you
have no comments
Please feel free to contact me with questions or concerns
Thank you
Kiersten R Bass
Senior Transportation Planner
NCTA General Engineering Consultant
1 South Wilmington St Raleigh NC 27601
1578 MS Center Raleigh NC 27699 1578
919 707 2725
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N C Public Records law and may be disclosed to third parties
https / /mail nc gov /owa/9ae= Item &t =IPM Note &id= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJH14 %2bm 5/8/2012

0 NORTH CAROLINA
Turnpike Authority
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination
(TEAL) Meeting
MEETING MINUTES — CONCURRENCE POINT 4c Part 2
(Final)
Date September 12 2011
1000 am to 1200 pm
3`d Floor Hearing Room
NCDENR Mooresville Regional Office
Mooresville NC
Project STIP U 3321 Gaston E W Connector — STP 1213(6)
Attendees
Jennifer Harris NCTA
Kiersten Bass HNTB /NCTA
David Bass Atkins
Michael Gloden Atkins
Phillip Rogers HNTB
Marla Chambers NCWRC
Meeting Materials
• Information Package provided at meeting
Liz Hair USACE
Polly Lespinasse NCDWQ
Chris Militscher USEPA
Brian Wrenn NCDWQ
Marella Buncick USFWS
• Agenda
• Handout with project description project schedule and a listing of sites to be discussed
• Meeting minutes from June 9 2011 Concurrence Point 4b (CP 4b) meeting
• Meeting minutes from July 14 2011 CP 4b site visit
• Meeting minutes from August 11 2011 CP 4c Part 1 meeting
• Map of Preferred Alternative
• Figure 7 — Figure showing approximate slope stakes for the project and the sites to be
discussed (Sites 50 68)
• Table — Buffer Impact Summary
• Table —Wetland Impact Summary
• Set of permit drawings
o Handout — Tables showing impacts to ponds wetlands and streams for the three design
phases (preliminary design in Draft EIS refined preliminary design in Final EIS and Final
Design) for the project segment from NC 279 (South New Hope Rd) to 1 485 Tables show
overall reductions in impacts to wetlands and streams for each subsequent design phase
Pond impacts stayed the same (0 26 acres)
o Set of roadway design plans
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Concurrence Point 4c Meeting 9/12/11

Page 2 of 5
Purpose
Continue discussions of the hydraulic designs for the project s final design section from NC 279 to
1-485 as part of the concurrence process for NEPA/404 Merger Concurrence Point 4c (CP 4c) — Permit
Drawings
Discussion
Ms Harris opened the meeting with introductions and a review of the agenda and the project schedule Ms
Harris informed Mr Wrenn that NCTA still intends to have further discussions outside this CP 4c meeting with
NCDWQ regarding the timing of the submittal of the Section 401 application
The impact sites along the final design segment of the project are ordered from Site 50 to Site 68 Mr Rogers
stated that Sites 50 to 57 were reviewed at the first CP 4c meeting held August 11 2011 and he will begin with
Site 58 and worked eastward The meeting concluded and reconvened in the field to visit Sites 52 and 67
Additional notes regarding the site visits are included below
FINAL DESIGN IMPACT SITES
SITE 58 — Wetland W317 Stream S318A, and Stream S312A
This site was an action item from the CP 4b meeting where a site visit was requested During the site visit it
was determined the service road should remain as currently designed because a shift of the alignment would
likely cause additional impacts to the stream Mr Rogers noted that the two barrel 10 x 5 culvert would
include baffles as shown in the detail on sheet 2F of the final roadway plans
NCDWQ asked if the proposed culvert in wetland W317 was placed on a slope Mr Rogers stated that the
culvert is designed on a 0 42% grade buried one foot below the existing stream bed with a two foot concrete
sill on the inlet end NCDWQ requested that the culvert be designed with a 0% gradient It was agreed that
the culvert would be redesigned with a 0% gradient
USEPA asked what the outlet velocities of the preformed scour hole would be at the ditch located on the west
of wetland W317 Mr Rogers stated that this information was not readily available but it will be added as an
action item to provide to USEPA for review following this meeting
Mr Bass reported that the slopes of the ditches on the inlet end of the culverts would be 6 9% and 4 1 %
respectfully The slope of the ditch on the outlet end would be 6 6% NCDWQ requested that rip rap be used
in lieu of PSRM liner It was agreed that this request would be accommodated in the redesign
NCWRC mentioned that the baffle detail should mimic the existing natural channel as much as possible and
that this detail may need to be site specific and a general detail may not apply to the entire project Mr
Rogers stated that would be investigated and appropriate action would be taken
SITE 59 — Stream S318 and Stream S318B
This location would provide a 48 RCP in place of stream S318 and a 42 RCP pipe for stream S318B
NCWCR expressed concern regarding the perpendicular location of the proposed ditch on the eastern inlet
side Mr Rogers stated that HNTB will investigate that further to determine if design improvements could be
made to the tie in
USEPA asked about the use of grass swales that are shown on the permit drawings Mr Rogers stated that
wherever grass swale- cntena were met either in the median ditch or the typical roadside ditch it was noted in
tables on the permit drawing sheet
SITE 60 — Wetland W321 and Stream S312A
This site was an action item from the CP 4b meeting whereas the proposed two barrel 8 x 7 culvert with
baffles on the inlet end (north side) was realigned to provide a better connection to the existing channel This
resulted in additional stream impacts Wetland W321 would be impacted in its entirety by roadway fill material
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Concurrence Point 4c Meeting 9/12/11

Page 3 of 5
The lateral ditches on the north side of the mainline would have 3 3% and 4 2% slopes and on the south side
7 6% and 2 0% slopes PSRM lining is proposed in all of the lateral ditches Bank stabilization with Class II
Rip Rap would be included at the inlet and outlet of the channel improvements NCDWQ requested rip rap be
used on the 7 6% slope It was agreed this request would be accommodated in the redesign
NCWRC inquired about the width of the natural stream Mr Rogers reported that the stream vanes from 10 to
14 thus the culvert was sized to fit the natural stream width
SITE 61 — Stream S323
Site 61 is located along existing 1 485 The existing 66 pipe is proposed to be extended on the outlet end
(west side) at a 0 8% slope No extension would be required on the inlet end of the pipe (east side) The
slopes of the lateral ditches on the inlet end would be 10 5% and 8 5% These ditches would be lined with
PSRM The slopes of the lateral ditches on the outlet end would be 5 0% and 5 6% The fill slope would be
approximately 15 feet in height and the lateral ditch would be close to the base of the slope
USFWS inquired if the proposed lateral ditch approaching on the south side of the inlet end of the culvert was
part of another system Mr Bass stated that the lateral ditch would extend up the ramp The entire length of
the lateral ditch would be approximately 900 USFWS and NCDWQ requested rip rap be added to the lateral
ditches on the inlet end and that multiple ditch liners be used on the lateral ditches on the outlet end It was
requested that rip rap be included on the steeper slopes and PSRM lining on the moderate slopes It was
agreed that these requests would be accommodated in the redesign
SITE 62 — Stream S326
Stream S326 runs through the 1 485 interchange area and would be impacted in four areas The first area is
at the inlet end (quadrant A) The existing pipe underneath the existing ramp would be removed and replaced
with a 42 pipe The meeting attendees had no comments on this area
The second area is between the existing ramp and 1 485 (east side of 1 485) At this location stream S326
daylights briefly but would be filled with fill material for construction of the flyover ramp Thus the 42 pipe
used in first area would be extended to connect to the existing pipe underneath 1 485 The stream in this area
would be a total take The meeting attendees had no comments on this area
The third area is between the 1 485 and the existing ramp (west side of 1 485) At this location stream S326
daylights briefly again but is proposed to be retained because the proposed ramp would not impact it Outlet
protection is proposed at the end of the existing pipe where a proposed lateral ditch would connect from the
north The lateral ditch would have a slope of 8 9% Also in this location there is a small wetland (W323) that
would not be impacted by the project USACE stated that all wetlands need to be labeled and shown on the
plans regardless if they are impacted or not Mr Rogers agreed and will accommodate this request on the
revised permit drawings The group discussed the potential for degradation of stream S326 from additional
stormwater due to the widening of 1 485 and whether or not the impact should be considered a total take Mr
Rogers indicated that the increased velocities associated with the increase in impervious surface s could be
reduced by grading the channel and including rip rap along the channel banks The group concurred that this
redesign should be implemented but that the stream should be shown as an impact in the permit application
It was agreed that these improvements would be designed such that impacts to W323 would not occur
The fourth area is located west of the proposed ramp (quadrant B) At this location the existing pipe would be
extended with a 54 pipe The meeting attendees had no comments on this area
SITE 63 — Stream S340A, Wetland W324, and Pond P57
The proposed flyover at 1 485 would impact pond P57 and wetland W324 in their entirety A 36 pipe would be
placed in the channel of stream 340A NCDWQ requested PSRM lining be included on the inlet and outlet of
the lateral ditches It was agreed this request would be accommodated in the redesign
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Concurrence Point 4c Meeting 9/12/11

Page 4 of 5
SITE 64 — Stream S339
Mr Bass explained that Charlotte Douglas International Airport has a project underway to construct Phase I of
the realignment of West Boulevard Project U 3321 completes Phase II of those improvements from 1-485 to
the intersection of Byrum Drive Only the impacts associated with Phase II will be shown on the permit
drawings because the impacts for Phase I have already been permitted under a separate project
At this location the existing 48 pipe would be extended with a function box and a proposed 48 pipe The
lateral ditch would include a PSRM liner with a slope of 7 3% NCDWQ and USEPA requested rip rap be
added to the ditch It was agreed this request would be accommodated in the redesign
SITE 65 — Stream S321 and Wetlands W332 and W333
At this location wetland W332 would be completely impacted by fill material necessary to construct West
Boulevard Wetland W333 would be partially impacted The existing 72 pipe underneath West Boulevard
would be extended with a 72 pipe Mr Rogers noted that a future railway line associated with the airports
intermodal facility would cross the proposed lateral ditch on the south side It is presumed the proposed lateral
ditch would be cross piped when the railway line is constructed NCDWQ and USEPA requested rip rap be
added to the lateral ditch It was agreed this request would be accommodated in the redesign
SITE 66 — Stream S321 and Wetlands W325
At this location wetland W325 would be partially impacted by fill material necessary for 1 485 lane widening
The existing one barrel 8 x 5 culvert would be extended on both ends and approximately 90 of channel
change would be constructed on the outlet end to provide a better tie to the existing stream Also a 66 pipe
(south of the culvert) would be extended and tail ditched to the new channel
USACE stated that wetland W325 would be impacted in its entirety due to the tail ditch construction for the 66
pipe extension The majority of the group was confused about the site Mr Rogers provided some
clarification for the site and noted that the 66 pipe and tail ditch construction would be revised for the permit
drawings to avoid further confusion
SITE 67 — Stream S332
At this location the existing one barrel 8 x 5 culvert was constructed on a curve to avoid rock excavation It is
proposed to extend this culvert on both ends due to the widening required on 1 485
NCDWQ requested an additional detail be added to the final plans indicating what is to be done for inlet and
outlet channel improvements on single barrel culverts It was agreed this request would be accommodated in
the redesign The group discussed in depth whether or not the proposed culvert extension on the outlet end
(west side of 1-485) should be turned to the south to eliminate the meander and possible erosion It was
decided to visit the site this afternoon to check the stream s stability See Field Visit section below
SITE 68 — Stream S330
At this location the existing 42 pipe would be extended with a function box and a 42 pipe Outlet protection
would be provided to the stream bank The lateral ditches would be lined with PSRM USFWS and NCDWQ
requested that rip rap be added to lateral ditches on the inlet and outlet ends NCWRC requested that natural
fibers be used for all of the PSRM liners along the project It was agreed these requests would be
accommodated in the redesign
Field Visit (2 30 pm)
• Site 52 — Attendees Polly Liz Michael Phillip
The team observed highly erosive conditions along the existing stream banks upstream of the
proposed RCBC at stream S297 NCDWQ and USACE requested that NCTA revise the design in
this area to possibly include changing the location of the proposed lateral ditch outfall and
removing the sharp stream meander approximately 150 upstream of the proposed RCBC outlet
This option would require additional stream impacts but would result in a more stable channel
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Concurrence Point 4c Meeting 9/12/11

Page 5 of 5
upstream of the proposed RCBC NCDWQ and USACE is open to considering and reviewing
other valid alternatives as well NCTA will recommend an improved design that takes these
concerns into account
• Site 67 — Attendees Polly Liz Marla Michael Phillip
The team observed that the existing banks downstream of the proposed culvert extension are
highly eroded without larger vegetation to support the banks It is expected that the stream banks
would further degrade as a result of the RCBC extension currently proposed NCDWQ and
USACE requested that the design be revised to include an extension with a sharper skew that ties
in downstream of the existing sharp stream meander Mr Rogers stated that NCTA will
investigate incorporating this option and revise accordingly
Action Items
• Provide Q,o velocities of all lateral ditches that would outfall into jurisdictional features
• Provide site specific baffle details that mimic the existing spacing of the stream meanders
• All PSRM liners shall consist of natural fibers
• Site 52 — Add rip rap to the lateral ditches NCTA will investigate design options to change the
location of the proposed lateral ditch outfall and remove the sharp stream meander approximately
150 upstream of the proposed RCBC outlet
• Site 58 — Set the culvert in wetland W317 on a flat grade Use rip rap in lateral ditches
• Site 59 — Investigate the possibility of turning out the lateral ditch more
• Site 60 — Add rip rap to the southwest lateral ditch
• Site 61 — Add rip rap to the lateral ditches on the inlet end Provide multiple liners on the lateral
ditches on the outlet end based on the ditch slopes PRSM is appropriate for moderate slopes
and rip rap for steeper slopes
• Site 62 — Show the area between 1-485 and the ramp (quadrant B) as a total stream impact
Improve the channel grade and stabilize with rip rap Shift the permit drawing to show the lateral
ditches along ramp 25ARPA
• Site 63 — Add PSRM liner to the lateral ditches
• Site 64 — Add rip rap to the lateral ditch
• Site 65 — Add rip rap to the lateral ditch
• Site 66 —Show wetland W325 as totally impacted due to the tail ditch construction Revise the
permit drawings as necessary for clarity
• Site 67 — Based on the site visit NCDWQ and USACE requested that the design be revised to
include an extension with a sharper skew that ties in downstream of the existing sharp stream
meander NCTA will investigate this option
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Concurrence Point 4c Meeting 9/12/11

FW Gaston FEIS Comments
FW Gaston FEIS Comments
Lespinasse, Polly
Sent Tuesday May 08 2012 3 53 PM
To Carrillo Sonia
Attachments FEIS_Comments_022111 doc (113 KB)
Page 1 of 1
From Lespinasse, Polly
Sent Wednesday, February 23, 20117 33 AM
To Hair, Sarah E SAW, Chambers, Marla J, Marella_Buncick @fws gov, , Militscher Chris @epamail epa gov
Subject Gaston FEIS Comments
Polly Lespinasse Polly Lespinasse @ncdenr gov
Environmental Specialist
North Carolina Dept of Environment & Natural Resources
Div of Water Quality
610 E Center Ave Suite 301
Mooresville NC 28115
Ph 704 663 1699 Fax [phone]
E mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and
may be disclosed to third parties
https //mail nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &1d= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJHI4 %2bm 5/8/2012

Page Three
NCDWQ recommends that the NCTA consider additional stormwater facilities in other areas of the project where the
Catawba River Basin buffer regulations are not applicable specifically in areas draining to those jurisdictional
resources which occur on the 303(d) impaired waters list Additionally based on the results of the water quality
modeling stormwater measures may be required to prevent further degradation of impaired streams
General Comments
8 The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping If mitigation is necessary as required by 15A NCAC
2H 0506(h) it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification
9 Environmental impact statement alternatives shall consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to streams and
wetlands from storm water runoff These alternatives shall include road designs that allow for treatment of the storm
water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of NCDWQ s Stormwater
Best Management Practices Manual July 2007 such as grassed swales buffer areas preformed scour holes
retention basins etc
10 After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification the
NCTA is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of impacts to
wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical In accordance with the Environmental Management
Commission s Rules {15A NCAC 2H 0506(h)) mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to
wetlands In the event that mitigation is required the mitigation plan shall be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as wetland mitigation
11 In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission s Rules {15A NCAC 2H 0506(h)) mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single stream In the event that mitigation is required the
mitigation plan shall be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values The NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program may be available for use as stream mitigation
12 Future documentation including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application shall continue to include an
itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding mapping
13 NCDWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project NCTA shall
address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the aquatic environments and any
mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts
10 An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this project is required The type and
detail of analysis shall conform to the NC Division of Water Quality Policy on the assessment of secondary and
cumulative impacts dated April 10 2004 NCTA is respectfully reminded that all impacts including but not limited to
bridging fill excavation and clearing and rip rap to jurisdictional wetlands streams and riparian buffers need to be
included in the final impact calculations These impacts in addition to any construction impacts temporary or
otherwise also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application
11 Where streams must be crossed NCDWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts However we realize that
economic considerations often require the use of culverts Please be advised that culverts should be countersunk
to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms Moreover in areas where high quality wetlands
or streams are impacted a bridge may prove preferable When applicable NCTA should not install the bridge bents
in the creek to the maximum extent practicable
12 Whenever possible NCDWQ prefers spanning structures Spanning structures usually do not require work within
the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require stream channel realignment The horizontal and
vertical clearances provided by bridges shall allow for human and wildlife passage beneath the structure Fish
passage and navigation by canoeists and boaters shall not be blocked Bridge supports (bents) should not be
placed in the stream when possible

Page Four
13 Bridge deck drains shall not discharge directly into the stream Stormwater shall be directed across the bridge and
pre treated through site appropriate means (grassed swales pre formed scour holes vegetated buffers etc ) before
entering the stream Please refer to the most current version of NCDWQ s Stormwater Best Management
Practices
14 Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands or streams
15 Borrow /waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical Impacts to wetlands in borrow /waste
areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification and could precipitate compensatory mitigation
16 The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed methods for
stormwater management More specifically stormwater shall not be permitted to discharge directly into streams or
surface waters
17 Based on the information presented in the document the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and streams may
require an Individual Permit (IP) application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding 401 Water Quality
Certification Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfactory protection of water
quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost Final permit
authorization will require the submittal of a formal application by the NCTA and written concurrence from NCDWQ
Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and
stream impacts to the maximum extent practical the development of an acceptable stormwater management plan
and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate
18 If concrete is used during construction a dry work area shall be maintained to prevent direct contact between curing
concrete and stream water Water that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete shall not be discharged to surface
waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and fish kills
19 If temporary access roads or detours are constructed the site shall be graded to its preconstruction contours and
elevations Disturbed areas shall be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and appropriate native woody species
shall be planted When using temporary structures the area shall be cleared but not grubbed Clearing the area
with chain saws mowers bush hogs or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact
allows the area to re vegetate naturally and minimizes soil disturbance
20 Placement of culverts and other structures in waters streams and wetlands shall be placed below the elevation of
the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches and 20 percent of the culvert
diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic life
Design and placement of culverts and other structures including temporary erosion control measures shall not be
conducted in a manner that may result in dis equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks adjacent to or
upstream and down stream of the above structures The applicant is required to provide evidence that the
equilibrium is being maintained if requested in writing by NCDWQ If this condition is unable to be met due to
bedrock or other limiting features encountered during construction please contact NCDWQ for guidance on how to
proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be required
21 If multiple pipes or barrels are required they shall be designed to mimic natural stream cross section as closely as
possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation floodplain benches and /or sills may be required where
appropriate Widening the stream channel should be avoided Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of
structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and
disrupts aquatic life passage
22 If foundation test borings are necessary it shall be noted in the document Geotechnical work is approved under
General 401 Certification Number 3687 /Nationwide Permit No 6 for Survey Activities
23 Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented and maintained
in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design
Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250

Page Five
24 All work in or adjacent to stream waters shall be conducted in a dry work area Approved BMP measures from the
most current version of NCDOT Construction and Maintenance Activities manual such as sandbags rock berms
cofferdams and other diversion structures shall be used to prevent excavation in flowing water
25 While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps NC Coastal Region Evaluation of Wetland Significance
(NC CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified
personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit approval
26 Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams This equipment shall be
inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels lubricants hydraulic
fluids or other toxic materials
27 Riprap shall not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner that precludes
aquatic life passage Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly designed sized and installed
28 Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible Riparian
vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of the growing season
following completion of construction
NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project Should you have any questions or require any
additional information please contact Polly Lespinasse at [phone]
Cc Liz Hair US Army Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office (electronic copy only)
Chris Militscher Environmental Protection Agency (electronic copy only)
Marla Chambers NC Wildlife Resources Commission (electronic copy only)
Marella Buncick US Fish and Wildlife Service (electronic copy only)
Brian Wrenn NCDWQ Central Office (electronic copy only)
Sonia Carrillo NCDWQ Central Office (electronic copy only)
File Copy

FW FW NCTA Gaston E W Connector (U 3321) (UNCLASSIFIED) Page 1 of 1
FW FW NCTA - Gaston E -W Connector (U -3321) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Lespinasse, Polly
Sent Tuesday May 08 2012 3 15 PM
To Carrillo Sonia
From Militscher Chris @epamail epa gov [mailto Militscher Chris @epamail epa gov]
Sent Thursday, August 11, 20113 13 PM
To Monte K Matthews @usace army mil
Cc Wrenn, Brian, Lespinasse, Polly, Sarah a hair @usace army mil
Subject Re FW NCTA Gaston E W Connector (U 3321) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Monte Thanks for the info I did not concur on CP 3 I did concur with CP 4A, as conditioned by
EPA s management s comments on the FEIS
I honestly don t recall signing a new purpose and need statement that says the team was okay
with them building a 4 lane toll facility for half the length that chokes down to a 2 lane toll road for
the other half This 4 lane to 2 lane on 4 lane of ROW is not phasing NCDOT tried something
similar on Burgaw Bypass years ago That one never did get past CP 3 Again, it gets into that
independent utility question Did they provide the Justification in the FEIS (other than when /if we
get more money someday we will build the other 2 lanes)? The interchange and traffic on US 321
will end up LOS F minus, minus, minus
For the DEIS (rated EO -2), EPA had environmental objections because of both the unresolved air
quality issues AND the impacts to 303(d) listed streams with no conceptual mitigation plan After
the air quality issues on the NCSIP were kicked down the road (an extension to the previously
violated 2004 ozone standard by our air program folks), EPA still had unresolved 404 & 401 issues
From checking my a mails this afternoon, I was not invited to the July 15th field meeting (not to
say that I would have been able to make a Friday field meeting in Gaston') I will try to make the
next one, if invited, and at a date /time that I can reasonably achieve)
From today s CP 4C meeting, I do not see how they are going to fully demonstrate non erosive
velocities at some of these outfalls (Q10 of 31 cfs after it leaves an energy dissipator ?) I am going
back in the DEIS & FEIS to also see if they identified estimated cut and fill quantities Mountains of
fill at 2 1 with Piedmont soils I don t envy Polly in the slightest
From a NEPA process standpoint, how are they going to issue a ROD almost concurrently with the
water quality ICI? Is not an ICE study part of the decision making and administrative record of the
EIS, subject to agency and public review?
A proper EJ analysis is still an unresolved issue Providing one in a ROD (sort of post decisional ?)
is not what we recommended in our FEIS letter Thanks
s
https //mall nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &1d= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJHI4 %2bm 5/17/2012

FW Gaston East West Connector CP 4c (Part 2)
FW Gaston East -West Connector CP 4c (Part 2)
Lespinasse, Polly
Sent Tuesday May 08 2012 4 09 PM
To Carrillo Sonia
Attachments Gaston_TEAC CP4c Final Mind pdf (51 KB)
From Lespinasse, Polly
Sent Monday, October 31, 20114 39 PM
To Wrenn, Brian
Subject FW Gaston East West Connector CP 4c (Part 2)
Brian
There is a statement in these final minutes about the permit submittal
Page 1 of 2
From Bass, Kiersten R
Sent Monday, September 26, 20119 54 AM
To Phillip Rogers Sarah a hair @usace army mil, militscher Chris @epa gov, marella_buncick @fws gov,
Chambers, Marla J, Lespinasse, Polly, Wrenn, Brian
Cc Harris Jennifer, James Byrd Oabyrd @HNTB com), ronald ferrell @atkinsglobal com,
david bass @atkinsglobal com Gloden, Michael C (Michael Gloden @atkinsglobal com) , George Hoops, Jill Gurak,
Matthews, Monte K SAW (Monte K Matthews @usace army mil), Shumate, Christy
Subject RE Gaston East West Connector CP 4c (Part 2)
All we received one comment noting a correction in the draft minutes for the Garden Parkway CP4c (Part 2)
meeting held on September 12 2011 The discussion for the field notes and action items for Sites 52 and 67
were reversed This has been corrected in the final minutes attached for your records
Sincerely
Kiersten R Bass
Senior Transportation Planner
NCTA General Engineering Consultant
1 South Wilmington St Raleigh NC 27601
1578 MS Center Raleigh NC 27699 1578
919 707 2725
From Bass, Kiersten R
Sent Friday, September 16, 2011 1145 AM
To Phillip Rogers, Sarah a hair @usace army mil, militscher chris @epa gov, marella_buncick @fws gov
Chambers Marla J, Lespinasse Polly, Wrenn, Brian
Cc Harris, Jennifer, James Byrd Oabyrd @HNTB com), ronald ferrell @atkinsglobal com,
davld bass @atkinsglobal com, Gloden, Michael C (Michael Gloden @atklnsglobal com), George Hoops, Jill Gurak,
Matthews, Monte K SAW (Monte K Matthews @usace army mil)
Subject Gaston East West Connector CP 4c (Part 2)
All
The draft minutes for the Concurrence Point 4c meeting (Part 2 and field visit) held on September 12 2011 are
attached for your review Please review the draft meeting minutes and provide me with your comments by
https //mail nc gov /owa/9ae= Item &t =IPM Note &1d= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJH14 %2bm 5/8/2012

FW Gaston East West Connector CP 4c (Part 2)
Page 2 of 2
Friday September 23 2011 Should we not receive any correspondence from you by 9/23 we will presume you
have no comments
Please feel free to contact me with questions or concerns
Thank you
Kiersten R Bass
Senior Transportation Planner
NCTA General Engineering Consultant
1 South Wilmington St Raleigh NC 27601
1578 MS Center Raleigh NC 27699 1578
919 707 2725
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N C Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties
https / /mail nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &ld= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJHI4 %2bm 5/8/2012

® NORTH CAROLINA
` Turnpike Authority
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination
(TEAQ Meeting
MEETING MINUTES — CONCURRENCE POINT 4c Part 2
(Final)
Date September 12 2011
1000 am to 1200 pm
3`d Floor Hearing Room
NCDENR Mooresville Regional Office
Mooresville NC
Project STIP U 3321 Gaston E W Connector — STP 1213(6)
Attendees
Jennifer Harris NCTA
Liz Hair USACE
Kiersten Bass HNTB /NCTA
Polly Lespinasse NCDWQ
David Bass Atkins
Chris Mllitscher USEPA
Michael Gloden Atkins
Brian Wrenn NCDWQ
Phillip Rogers HNTB
Marella Buncick USFWS
Marla Chambers NCWRC
Meetinq Materials
• Information Package provided at meeting
• Agenda
• Handout with project description project schedule and a listing of sites to be discussed
• Meeting minutes from June 9 2011 Concurrence Point 4b (CP 4b) meeting
• Meeting minutes from July 14 2011 CP 4b site visit
• Meeting minutes from August 11 2011 CP 4c Part 1 meeting
• Map of Preferred Alternative
• Figure 7 — Figure showing approximate slope stakes for the project and the sites to be
discussed (Sites 50 68)
• Table — Buffer Impact Summary
1
• Table — Wetland Impact Summary
• Set of permit drawings
• Handout — Tables showing impacts to ponds wetlands and streams for the three design
phases (preliminary design in Draft EIS refined preliminary design in Final EIS and Final
Design) for the project segment from NC 279 (South New Hope Rd) to 1 485 Tables show
overall reductions in impacts to wetlands and streams for each subsequent design phase
Pond impacts stayed the same (0 26 acres)
o Set of roadway design plans
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Concurrence Point 4c Meeting 9/12/11

Page 2 of 5
Purpose
Continue discussions of the hydraulic designs for the projects final design section from NC 279 to
1 485 as part of the concurrence process for NEPA/404 Merger Concurrence Point 4c (CP 4c) — Permit
Drawings
Discussion
Ms Harris opened the meeting with introductions and a review of the agenda and the project schedule Ms
Harris informed Mr Wrenn that NCTA still intends to have further discussions outside this CP 4c meeting with
NCDWQ regarding the timing of the submittal of the Section 401 application
The impact sites along the final design segment of the project are ordered from Site 50 to Site 68 Mr Rogers
stated that Sites 50 to 57 were reviewed at the first CP 4c meeting held August 11 2011 and he will begin with
Site 58 and worked eastward The meeting concluded and reconvened in the field to visit Sites 52 and 67
Additional notes regarding the site visits are included below
FINAL DESIGN IMPACT SITES
SITE 58 — Wetland W317 Stream S318A, and Stream S312A
This site was an action item from the CP 4b meeting where a site visit was requested During the site visit it
was determined the service road should remain as currently designed because a shift of the alignment would
likely cause additional impacts to the stream Mr Rogers noted that the two barrel 10 x 5 culvert would
include baffles as shown in the detail on sheet 2F of the final roadway plans
NCDWQ asked if the proposed culvert in wetland W317 was placed on a slope Mr Rogers stated that the
culvert is designed on a 0 42% grade buried one foot below the existing stream bed with a two foot concrete
sill on the inlet end NCDWQ requested that the culvert be designed with a 0% gradient It was agreed that
the culvert would be redesigned with a 0% gradient
USEPA asked what the outlet velocities of the preformed scour hole would be at the ditch located on the west
of wetland W317 Mr Rogers stated that this information was not readily available but it will be added as an
action item to provide to USEPA for review following this meeting
Mr Bass reported that the slopes of the ditches on the inlet end of the culverts would be 6 9% and 4 1 %
respectfully The slope of the ditch on the outlet end would be 6 6% NCDWQ requested that rip rap be used
in lieu of PSRM liner It was agreed that this request would be accommodated in the redesign
NCWRC mentioned that the baffle detail should mimic the existing natural channel as much as possible and
that this detail may need to be site specific and a general detail may not apply to the entire project Mr
Rogers stated that would be investigated and appropriate action would be taken
SITE 59 — Stream S318 and Stream S318B
This location would provide a 48 RCP in place of stream S318 and a 42 RCP pipe for stream S318B
NCWCR expressed concern regarding the perpendicular location of the proposed ditch on the eastern inlet
side Mr Rogers stated that HNTB will investigate that further to determine if design improvements could be
made to the tie in
USEPA asked about the use of grass swales that are shown on the permit drawings Mr Rogers stated that
wherever grass swale- critena were met either in the median ditch or the typical roadside ditch it was noted in
tables on the permit drawing sheet
SITE 60 — Wetland W321 and Stream S312A
This site was an action item from the CP 4b meeting whereas the proposed two barrel 8 x 7 culvert with
baffles on the inlet end (north side) was realigned to provide a better connection to the existing channel This
resulted in additional stream impacts Wetland W321 would be impacted in its entirety by roadway fill material
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Concurrence Point 4c Meeting 9/12/11

Page 3 of 5
The lateral ditches on the north side of the mainline would have 3 3% and 4 2% slopes and on the south side
7 6% and 2 0% slopes PSRM lining is proposed in all of the lateral ditches Bank stabilization with Class II
Rip Rap would be included at the inlet and outlet of the channel improvements NCDWQ requested rip rap be
used on the 7 6% slope It was agreed this request would be accommodated in the redesign
NCWRC inquired about the width of the natural stream Mr Rogers reported that the stream vanes from 10 to
14 thus the culvert was sized to fit the natural stream width
SITE 61 — Stream S323
Site 61 is located along existing 1 485 The existing 66 pipe is proposed to be extended on the outlet end
(west side) at a 0 8% slope No extension would be required on the inlet end of the pipe (east side) The
slopes of the lateral ditches on the inlet end would be 10 5% and 8 5% These ditches would be lined with
PSRM The slopes of the lateral ditches on the outlet end would be 5 0% and 5 6% The fill slope would be
approximately 15 feet in height and the lateral ditch would be close to the base of the slope
USFWS inquired if the proposed lateral ditch approaching on the south side of the inlet end of the culvert was
part of another system Mr Bass stated that the lateral ditch would extend up the ramp The entire length of
the lateral ditch would be approximately 900 USFWS and NCDWQ requested rip rap be added to the lateral
ditches on the inlet end and that multiple ditch liners be used on the lateral ditches on the outlet end It was
requested that rip rap be included on the steeper slopes and PSRM lining on the moderate slopes It was
agreed that these requests would be accommodated in the redesign
SITE 62 — Stream S326
Stream S326 runs through the 1 485 interchange area and would be impacted in four areas The first area is
at the inlet end (quadrant A) The existing pipe underneath the existing ramp would be removed and replaced
with a 42 pipe The meeting attendees had no comments on this area
The second area is between the existing ramp and 1 485 (east side of 1 485) At this location stream S326
daylights briefly but would be filled with fill material for construction of the flyover ramp Thus the 42 pipe
used in first area would be extended to connect to the existing pipe underneath 1 485 The stream in this area
would be a total take The meeting attendees had no comments on this area
The third area is between the 1 485 and the existing ramp (west side of 1 485) At this location stream S326
daylights briefly again but is proposed to be retained because the proposed ramp would not impact it Outlet
protection is proposed at the end of the existing pipe where a proposed lateral ditch would connect from the
north The lateral ditch would have a slope of 8 9% Also in this location there is a small wetland (W323) that
would not be impacted by the project USACE stated that all wetlands need to be labeled and shown on the
plans regardless if they are impacted or not Mr Rogers agreed and will accommodate this request on the
revised permit drawings The group discussed the potential for degradation of stream S326 from additional
stormwater due to the widening of 1 485 and whether or not the impact should be considered a total take Mr
Rogers indicated that the increased velocities associated with the increase in impervious surface s could be
reduced by grading the channel and including rip rap along the channel banks The group concurred that this
redesign should be implemented but that the stream should be shown as an impact in the permit application
It was agreed that these improvements would be designed such that impacts to W323 would not occur
The fourth area is located west of the proposed ramp (quadrant B) At this location the existing pipe would be
extended with a 54 pipe The meeting attendees had no comments on this area
SITE 63 — Stream S340A, Wetland W324, and Pond P57
The proposed flyover at 1 485 would impact pond P57 and wetland W324 in their entirety A 36 pipe would be
placed in the channel of stream 340A NCDWQ requested PSRM lining be included on the inlet and outlet of
the lateral ditches It was agreed this request would be accommodated in the redesign
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Concurrence Point 4c Meeting 9/12/11

Page 4 of 5
SITE 64 — Stream S339
Mr Bass explained that Charlotte Douglas International Airport has a project underway to construct Phase I of
the realignment of West Boulevard Project U 3321 completes Phase II of those improvements from 1 485 to
the intersection of Byrum Drive Only the impacts associated with Phase II will be shown on the permit
drawings because the impacts for Phase I have already been permitted under a separate project
At this location the existing 48 pipe would be extended with a function box and a proposed 48 pipe The
lateral ditch would include a PSRM liner with a slope of 7 3% NCDWQ and USEPA requested rip rap be
added to the ditch It was agreed this request would be accommodated in the redesign
SITE 65 — Stream S321 and Wetlands W332 and W333
At this location wetland W332 would be completely impacted by fill material necessary to construct West
Boulevard Wetland W333 would be partially impacted The existing 72 pipe underneath West Boulevard
would be extended with a 72 pipe Mr Rogers noted that a future railway line associated with the airports
intermodal facility would cross the proposed lateral ditch on the south side It is presumed the proposed lateral
ditch would be cross piped when the railway line is constructed NCDWQ and USEPA requested rip rap be
added to the lateral ditch It was agreed this request would be accommodated in the redesign
SITE 66 — Stream S321 and Wetlands W325
At this location wetland W325 would be partially impacted by fill material necessary for 1 485 lane widening
The existing one barrel 8 x 5 culvert would be extended on both ends and approximately 90 of channel
change would be constructed on the outlet end to provide a better tie to the existing stream Also a 66 pipe
(south of the culvert) would be extended and tail ditched to the new channel
USACE stated that wetland W325 would be impacted in its entirety due to the tad ditch construction for the 66
pipe extension The majority of the group was confused about the site Mr Rogers provided some
clanfication for the site and noted that the 66 pipe and tad ditch construction would be revised for the permit
drawings to avoid further confusion
SITE 67 — Stream S332
At this location the existing one barrel 8 x 5 culvert was constructed on a curve to avoid rock excavation It is
proposed to extend this culvert on both ends due to the widening required on 1 485
NCDWQ requested an additional detail be added to the final plans indicating what is to be done for inlet and
outlet channel improvements on single barrel culverts It was agreed this request would be accommodated in
the redesign The group discussed in depth whether or not the proposed culvert extension on the outlet end
(west side of 1 485) should be turned to the south to eliminate the meander and possible erosion It was
decided to visit the site this afternoon to check the stream s stability See Field Visit section below
SITE 68 — Stream S330
At this location the existing 42 pipe would be extended with a function box and a 42 pipe Outlet protection
would be provided to the stream bank The lateral ditches would be lined with PSRM USFWS and NCDWQ
requested that rip rap be added to lateral ditches on the inlet and outlet ends NCWRC requested that natural
fibers be used for all of the PSRM liners along the project It was agreed these requests would be
accommodated in the redesign
Field Visit (2 30 pm)
• Site 52 — Attendees Polly Liz Michael Phillip
The team observed highly erosive conditions along the existing stream banks upstream of the
proposed RCBC at stream S297 NCDWQ and USACE requested that NCTA revise the design in
this area to possibly include changing the location of the proposed lateral ditch outfall and
removing the sharp stream meander approximately 150 upstream of the proposed RCBC outlet
This option would require additional stream impacts but would result in a more stable channel
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Concurrence Point 4c Meeting 9/12/11

Page 5 of 5
upstream of the proposed RCBC NCDWQ and USACE is open to considering and reviewing
other valid alternatives as well NCTA will recommend an improved design that takes these
concerns into account
• Site 67 — Attendees Polly Liz Marla Michael Phillip
The team observed that the existing banks downstream of the proposed culvert extension are
highly eroded without larger vegetation to support the banks It is expected that the stream banks
would further degrade as a result of the RCBC extension currently proposed NCDWQ and
USACE requested that the design be revised to include an extension with a sharper skew that ties
in downstream of the existing sharp stream meander Mr Rogers stated that NCTA will
investigate incorporating this option and revise accordingly
Action Items
• Provide Q,o velocities of all lateral ditches that would outfall into jurisdictional features
• Provide site specific baffle details that mimic the existing spacing of the stream meanders
• All PSRM liners shall consist of natural fibers
• Site 52 — Add rip rap to the lateral ditches NCTA will investigate design options to change the
location of the proposed lateral ditch outfall and remove the sharp stream meander approximately
150 upstream of the proposed RCBC outlet
• Site 58 — Set the culvert in wetland W317 on a flat grade Use rip rap in lateral ditches
• Site 59 — Investigate the possibility of turning out the lateral ditch more
• Site 60 — Add rip rap to the southwest lateral ditch
• Site 61 — Add rip rap to the lateral ditches on the inlet end Provide multiple liners on the lateral
ditches on the outlet end based on the ditch slopes PRSM is appropriate for moderate slopes
and rip rap for steeper slopes
• Site 62 — Show the area between 1-485 and the ramp (quadrant B) as a total stream impact
Improve the channel grade and stabilize with rip rap Shift the permit drawing to show the lateral
ditches along ramp 25ARPA
• Site 63 — Add PSRM liner to the lateral ditches
• Site 64 — Add rip rap to the lateral ditch
• Site 65 — Add rip rap to the lateral ditch
• Site 66 — Show wetland W325 as totally impacted due to the tail ditch construction Revise the
permit drawings as necessary for clanty
• Site 67 — Based on the site visit NCDWQ and USACE requested that the design be revised to
include an extension with a sharper skew that ties in downstream of the existing sharp stream
meander NCTA will investigate this option
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Concurrence Point 4c Meeting 9/12/11
�I