20120285_Gaston East-West Corridor Email_20091103

FW TEAC Minutes from October 13 2009 Meeting
FW TEAC - Minutes from October 13, 2009 Meeting
Lespinasse, Polly
Sent Tuesday May 08 2012 3 02 PM
To Carrillo Sonia
Attachments TEAC—Minutes-101309 pdf (64 KB)
Page 1 of 2
From Matthews Kathy @epamall epa gov [mallto Matthews Kathy @epamall epa gov]
Sent Tuesday, November 03, 2009 11 40 AM
To Shumate, Christy
Cc amy simes @ncmail net Ellis Bruce 0, Johnson, Benjetta L, Moose, Barry S, brian wrenn @ncmail net,
cgibilaro„ Militscher Chris @epamail epa gov, Shumate, Christy, Grissom, Daniel C, donnie brew @fhwa dot gov,
dstoogenke @rockyriverrpo org Sykes, Dewayne L, edward dancausse @fhwa dot gov, Lusk, Elizabeth L,
george hoops @dot gov, Mumford, Glenn W, grmccrain @pbsj com, hankg @cityofgastonia com Dayton, Jeff
Harris, Jennifer, Conforti, John G, jgeratz @pbsj com, jsgurak„ Wadsworth, John C, Solberg, Kristina L, Brooks,
Lonnie I, marella_buncick @fws gov, Chambers, Marla J , mcgloden @pbsj com, Holder, Michael L, Pair, Missy,
Lespinasse, Polly, ppetitgout @esinc cc, Simons, Reid, Gledhill earley, Renee, rob ayers @fhwa dot gov, Roach,
Renee B, rwcook @ci charlotte nc us, Scott c mclendon @usace army mil, Gurganus, Stephen J (Steve) HEU,
slane @louisberger com, Steven w lund @saw02 usace army mil, Hart, Teresa A, Houser, Anthony A
Subject Re TEAC Minutes from October 13, 2009 Meeting
Christy
I believe that I heard Jennifer state that NCTA was planning to meet with EEP about the compensatory mitigation
for the Gaston E W connector That meeting is not mentioned in the minutes
I also note that the acceptability /approval of the compensatory mitigation is not ulltmately NCEEP s decision as
stated in the meeting minutes It is a permit decision made by the permitting agencies The statement that
ultimately it is NCEEP s decision should be struck from the minutes because I don t recall anyone stating that
and it is not a factual statement I reiterate my recommendations that EEP and NCTA look for appropriate
mitigation in the area of the project
Kathy Matthews
USEPA Region 4 Wetlands & Marine Reg Section
109 T W Alexander Dr
Durham NC 27711
MAIL CODE E143 04
phone [phone]
cell 919 619 7319
From Christy Shumate <system @constructware com>
To amy simes @ncmad net bmoose @ncdot gov bentettajohnson @ncdot gov brian wrenn @ncmail net belles @ncdot gov cgibilaro @pbst com
Chris Mddscher /R4 /USEPA/US @EPA chnsty shumate @ncturnpike org dgnssom @ncdot gov dstoogenke @rockynverrpo org
dsykes @ncdot gov donme brew @fhwa dot gov edward dancausse @fhwa dot gov ellusk @ncdot gov george hoops @dot gov
gmumford @ncdot gov hankg @cityofgastonia com feff dayton @ncturnpike org jenmfer harns @ncturnpike org igeratz @pbst com
grmccrain @pbsj com jsgurak @pbsj com jgconforti @ncdot gov iwadsworth @ncdot gov Kathy Matthews /RTP /USEPA/US @EPA
klsolberg @ncdot gov (brooks @ncdot gov mare Ila_buncick @fws gov marla chambers @ctc net mcgloden @pbsj com mholder @ncdot gov
mpair @ncdot gov ppetitgout @esinc cc Polly Lespinasse @ncdenr gov read simons @ncturnpike org renee gledhill earley @ncdcr gov
rroach @ncdot gov rob ayers @fhwa dot gov nvcook @ci charlotte nc us slane @lowsberger com Scott c mclendon @usace army mil
stgurganus @ncdot gov steven w lund @saw02 usace army mil thart@ncdot gov thouser @ncdot gov
https //mail nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &1d= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJHI4 %2bm 5/17/2012

FW TEAC Minutes from October 13 2009 Meeting
Date 10/30/2009 04 12 PM
Subject TEAC Minutes from October 13 2009 Meeting
Page 2 of 2
Good afternoon
Attached are minutes from the last TEAC meeting on October 13 for the Gaston E -W
Connector and Monroe Connector /Bypass projects Please let us know if you have any
comments
Thanks
Christy Shumate AICP
NCTA General Engineering Consultant
I
https //mail nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &id= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJHI4 %2bm 5/17/2012

FW TEAC Minutes from October 13 2009 Meeting
FW TEAC - Minutes from October 13, 2009 Meeting
Lespinasse, Polly
Sent Tuesday May 08 2012 3 01 PM
To Carrillo Sonia
Page 1 of 3
From Matthews Kathy @epamail epa gov [mailto Matthews Kathy @epamail epa gov]
Sent Tuesday, November 03, 2009 3 07 PM
To Harris, Jennifer
Cc cgibilaro„ Shumate, Christy, George Hoops @dot gov, Dayton, Jeff, jsgurak ,
Militscher Chris @epamail epa gov, Wrenn, Brian, Scott C McLendon @usace army mil,
todd tugwell @usace army mil, Marella_Buncick @fws gov, Steven W Lund @usace army mil, Chambers, Marla J ,
Lespinasse, Polly
Subject RE TEAC Minutes from October 13, 2009 Meeting
Yes but the site visit is for the NC Interagency Review Team (IRT) mainly to determine whether the site is
acceptable in general as a preservation site and to talk about mitigation ratios Based upon input from the IRT
EEP may or may not pursue it as a mitigation site (for anything)
As far as I know the Merger Team is not participating so there will be not be a discussion (at this field meeting)
of whether the site is suitable mitigation for Gaston I may be the only one familiar with Gaston on the field visit
As I have stated before I do not believe the site is suitable as compensatory mitigation for the Gaston project
Kathy Matthews
USEPA Region 4 Wetlands & Marine Reg Section
109 T W Alexander Dr
Durham NC 27711
MAIL CODE E143 04
phone [phone]
cell 919 619 7319
From Harris Jennifer <jennifer harns @ncturnpike org>
To Kathy Matthews /RTP /USEPA/US @EPA
Cc Shumate Christy <christy shumate @ncturnpike org> cgibilaro <cgibilaro @pbsj com> George Hoops @dot gov
<George Hoops @dot gov> Dayton Jeff <jeff dayton @ncturnpike org> tsgurak <isgurak @pbsj com>
Date 11/03/2009 02 57 PM
Subject RE TEAC Minutes from October 13 2009 Meeting
Kathy
We will make the appropriate modifications to the minutes
We did meet with EEP and they indicated the Bobs Pocket site was going to be reviewed in the field on November
https //mail nc gov /owa/9ae= Item &t =IPM Note &id= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJH14 %2bm 5/17/2012

FW TEAC Minutes from October 13 2009 Meeting
16 with the agencies
Regards
Jennifer
Jennifer H Harris P E
North Carolina Turnpike Authority
5400 Glenwood Avenue Suite 400
Raleigh North Carolina 27612
Tel [phone]
Dir [phone]
Fax [phone]
Page 2 of 3
From Matthews Kathy @epamail epa gov [mailto Matthews Kathy @epamail epa gov]
Sent Tuesday, November 03, 2009 1139 AM
To Shumate, Christy
Cc amy simes @ncmail net, Ellis, Bruce 0, Johnson, Benjetta L, Moose, Barry S, brian wrenn @ncmail net,
cgibilaro„ Militscher Chris @epamail epa gov, Shumate, Christy, Grissom, Daniel C, donnie brew @fhwa dot gov,
dstoogenke @rockyriverrpo org, Sykes, Dewayne L, edward dancausse @fhwa dot gov, Lusk, Elizabeth L,
george hoops @dot gov, Mumford, Glenn W, grmccrain @pbsj com, hankg @cityofgastonia com, Dayton, Jeff,
Harris, Jennifer, Conforti, John G, jgeratz @pbsj com, jsgurak„ Wadsworth, John C, Solberg, Kristina L Brooks,
Lonnie I, marella_buncick @fws gov, Chambers, Marla J , mcgloden @pbsj com, Holder, Michael L, Pair, Missy,
Lespinasse, Polly, ppetitgout @esinc cc, Simons, Reid, Gledhill earley, Renee, rob ayers @fhwa dot gov, Roach,
Renee B, rwcook @ci charlotte nc us, scoff c mclendon @usace army mil, Gurganus, Stephen J (Steve) HEU,
Slane @louisberger com, Steven w lund @saw02 usace army mil, Hart, Teresa A, Houser, Anthony A
Subject Re TEAC Minutes from October 13, 2009 Meeting
Christy
I believe that I heard Jennifer state that NCTA was planning to meet with EEP about the compensatory mitigation
for the Gaston E W connector That meeting is not mentioned in the minutes
I also note that the acceptability /approval of the compensatory mitigation is not ulttmately NCEEP s decision as
stated in the meeting minutes It is a permit decision made by the permitting agencies The statement that
ultimately it is NCEEP s decision should be struck from the minutes because I don t recall anyone stating that
and it is not a factual statement I reiterate my recommendations that EEP and NCTA look for appropriate
mitigation in the area of the project
Kathy Matthews
USEPA Region 4 Wetlands & Marine Reg Section
109 T W Alexander Dr
Durham NC 27711
MAIL CODE E143 04
phone [phone]
cell 919 619 7319
From Chnsty Shumate <system @constructware com>
https //mail nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &id= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJHI4 %2bm 5/17/2012

FW TEAC Minutes from October 13 2009 Meeting
Page 3 of 3
To amy simes @ncmail net bmoose @ncdot gov ben /ettajohnson @ncdot gov brian wrenn @ncmail net belles @ncdot gov cgibilaro @pbst com
Chris Mditscher /R4 /USEPA/US @EPA chnsty Shumate @ncturnpike org dgnssom @ncdot gov dstoogenke @rockyriverrpo org
dsykes @ncdot gov donnie brew @fhwa dot gov edward dancausse @fhwa dot gov ellusk @ncdot gov george hoops @dot gov
gmumford @ncdot gov hankg @cityofgastonia com Leff dayton @ncturnpike org Jennifer harns @ncturnpike org /geratz @pbst com
grmccram @pbst com tsgurak @pbst com jgconforti @ncdot gov twadsworth @ncdot gov Kathy Matthews /RTP /USEPA/US @EPA
klsolberg @ncdot gov (brooks @ncdot gov marella_buncick @fws gov marla chambers @ctc net mcgloden @pbsj com mholder @ncdot gov
mpair @ncdot gov ppetitgout @esinc cc Polly Lespinasse @ncdenr gov read Simons @nctumpike org renee gledhill earley @ncdcr gov
rroach @ncdot gov rob ayers @fhwa dot gov rwcook @ci charlotte nc us slane @louisberger com scott c mclendon @usace army mil
sjgurganus @ncdot gov Steven w lund @saw02 usace army mil thart@ncdot gov thouser @ncdot gov
Date 10/30/2009 04 12 PM
Subject TEAC Minutes from October 13 2009 Meeting
Good afternoon
Attached are minutes from the last TEAC meeting on October 13 for the Gaston E -W
Connector and Monroe Connector /Bypass projects Please let us know if you have any
comments
Thanks
Christy Shumate AICP
NCTA General Engineering Consultant
It
https //mail nc gov /owa/9ae= Item &t =IPM Note &id= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJH14 %2bm 5/17/2012

FW TEAC Minutes from October 13 2009 Meeting
FW TEAC - Minutes from October 13, 2009 Meeting
Lespinasse, Polly
Sent Tuesday May 08 2012 2 55 PM
To Carrillo Sonia
Page 1 of 3
From Harris, Jennifer
Sent Tuesday, November 03, 2009 3 15 PM
To Matthews Kathy @epamail epa gov
Cc cgibilaro„ Shumate, Christy, George Hoops @dot gov, Dayton, Jeff, Jsgurak„
Militscher Chris @epamail epa gov, Wrenn, Brian, Scott C McLendon @usace army mil,
todd tugwell @usace army mil Marella_Buncick @fws gov, Steven W Lund @usace army mil Chambers, Marla J ,
Lespinasse, Polly
Subject RE TEAC Minutes from October 13, 2009 Meeting
We clearly understand your opinions on the site and shared them with EEP
Thank you Kathy
Jennifer
Jennifer H Harris P E
North Carolina Turnpike Authority
5400 Glenwood Avenue Suite 400
Raleigh North Carolina 27612
Tel [phone]
Dir [phone]
Fax [phone]
From Matthews Kathy @epamail epa gov [mailto Matthews Kathy @epamail epa gov]
Sent Tuesday, November 03, 2009 3 07 PM
To Harris, Jennifer
Cc cgibilaro„ Shumate, Christy, George Hoops @dot gov, Dayton, Jeff, Jsgurak„
Militscher Chris @epamail epa gov, Wrenn, Brian, Scott C McLendon @usace army mil,
todd tugwell @usace army mil, Marella_Buncick @fws gov, Steven W Lund @usace army mil, Chambers, Marla J ,
Lespinasse, Polly
Subject RE TEAC Minutes from October 13, 2009 Meeting
Yes but the site visit is for the NC Interagency Review Team (IRT) mainly to determine whether the site is
acceptable in general as a preservation site and to talk about mitigation ratios Based upon input from the IRT
EEP may or may not pursue it as a mitigation site (for anything)
As far as I know the Merger Team is not participating so there will be not be a discussion (at this field meeting)
of whether the site is suitable mitigation for Gaston I may be the only one familiar with Gaston on the field visit
As I have stated before I do not believe the site is suitable as compensatory mitigation for the Gaston project
Kathy Matthews
USEPA Region 4 Wetlands & Marine Reg Section
109 T W Alexander Dr
Durham NC 27711
MAIL CODE E143 04
https //mail nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &id= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJHI4 %2bm 5/17/2012

FW TEAC Minutes from October 13 2009 Meeting
phone [phone]
cell 919 619 7319
From Harris Jennifer <jenmfer hams @ncturnpike org>
To Kathy Matthews /RTP /USEPA/US @EPA
Cc Shumate Christy <christy shumate@ncturnpike org> cgibdaro <cgibilaro @pbsj com> George Hoops @dot gov
< George Hoops @dot gov> Dayton Jeff <jeff dayton@ncturnpike org> jsgurak <jsgurak @pbsj com>
Date 11/03/2009 02 57 PM
Subject RE TEAC Minutes from October 13 2009 Meeting
Kathy
We will make the appropriate modifications to the minutes
Page 2 of 3
We did meet with EEP and they indicated the Bobs Pocket site was going to be reviewed in the field on November
16 with the agencies
Regards
Jennifer
Jennifer H Harris P E
North Carolina Turnpike Authority
5400 Glenwood Avenue Suite 400
Raleigh North Carolina 27612
Tel [phone]
Dir [phone]
Fax [phone]
From Matthews Kathy @epamail epa gov [mallto Matthews Kathy @epamail epa-gov]
Sent Tuesday, November 03, 2009 it 39 AM
To Shumate, Christy
Cc amy simes @ncmail net Ellis, Bruce 0, Johnson, Benjetta L, Moose, Barry S, brian wrenn @ncmail net,
cgibilaro„ Mllitscher Chris @epamail epa gov, Shumate, Christy, Grissom, Daniel C, donnie brew @fhwa dot gov,
dstoogenke @rockyriverrpo org, Sykes, Dewayne L, edward dancausse @fhwa dot gov, Lusk, Elizabeth L,
george hoops @dot gov, Mumford, Glenn W, grmccrain @pbsj com, hankg @cityofgastonia com, Dayton, Jeff,
Harris, Jennifer, Conforti, John G, Igeratz @pbsj com, jsgurak„ Wadsworth, John C, Solberg, Kristina L, Brooks,
Lonnie I, marella_buncick @fws gov, Chambers, Marla J , mcgloden @pbsj com, Holder, Michael L, Pair, Missy,
Lespinasse, Polly, ppetitgout @esinc cc, Simons, Reid, Gledhill earley, Renee, rob ayers @fhwa dot gov, Roach,
Renee B, rwcook @ci charlotte nc us, scoff c mclendon @usace army mil, Gurganus, Stephen J (Steve) HEU,
slane @louisberger com, Steven w lund @saw02 usace army mil, Hart Teresa A, Houser, Anthony A
Subject Re TEAC Minutes from October 13, 2009 Meeting
https //mail nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &id= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJHI4 %2bm 5/17/2012

FW TEAC Minutes from October 13 2009 Meeting Page 3 of 3
Christy
I believe that I heard Jennifer state that NCTA was planning to meet with EEP about the compensatory mitigation
for the Gaston E W connector That meeting is not mentioned in the minutes
I also note that the acceptability /approval of the compensatory mitigation is not ulitmately NCEEP s decision as
stated in the meeting minutes It is a permit decision made by the permitting agencies The statement that
ultimately it is NCEEP s decision should be struck from the minutes because I don t recall anyone stating that
and it is not a factual statement I reiterate my recommendations that EEP and NCTA look for appropriate
mitigation In the area of the project
Kathy Matthews
USEPA Region 4 Wetlands & Marine Reg Section
109 T W Alexander Dr
Durham NC 27711
MAIL CODE E143 04
phone [phone]
cell 919 619 7319
From Christy Shumate <system @constructware com>
To amy simes @ncmail net bmoose @ncdot gov bentettatohnson @ncdot gov brian wrenn @ncmail net belles @ncdot gov cgibdaro @pbsj com
Chris Mtlitscher /R4 /USEPA/US @EPA chnsty shumate@ncturnpike org dgnssom @ncdot gov dstoogenke @rockyriverrpo org
dsykes @ncdot gov donnie brew @fhwa dot gov edward dancausse @fhwa dot gov ellusk @ncdot gov george hoops @dot gov
gmumford @ncdot gov hankg @cityofgastonia com Leff dayton @ncturnpike org jenmfer harris @ncturnpike org tgeratz @pbst com
grmccrain @pbs/ com tsgurak @pbsl com 19conforti @ncdot gov twadsworth @ncdot gov Kathy Matthews /RTP /USEPA/US @EPA
kisoiberg @ncdot gov (brooks @ncdot gov marella buncick @fws gov marla chambers @ctc net mcgloden @pbs / com mholder @ncdot gov
mpair @ncdot gov ppetitgout @esinc cc Polly Lespinasse @ncdenr gov read simons @ncturnpike org renee gledhill earley @ncdcr gov
rroach @ncdot gov rob ayers @fhwa dot gov rwcook @ci charlotte nc us slane @louisberger com scott c mclendon @usace army mil
s /gurganus @ncdot gov Steven w lund @saw02 usace army and thart@ncdot gov thouser @ncdot gov
Date 10/30/2009 04 12 PM
Subject TEAC Minutes from October 13 2009 Meeting
Good afternoon
Attached are minutes
Connector and Monroe
comments
Thanks
from the last TEAC meeting on October 13 for the Gaston E -W
Connector /Bypass projects Please let us know if you have any
Christy Shumate AICP
NCTA General Engineering Consultant
https //mail nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &id= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJH14 %2bm 5/17/2012

t 0 NORTH CAROLINA
Turnpike Authority
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAC)
Meeting
MEETING MINUTES
(Draft)
Date October 13 2009
130 pm to 300 pm
NCTA Board Room
Project STIP R 3329/R 2559 Monroe Connector /Bypass — STP NHF 74(90)
Monroe Connector /Bypass Spotlight
Attendees
George Hoops FHWA
Kathy Matthews USEPA
Steve Lund USACE
Marella Buncick USFWS (via phone)
Marla Chambers NCWRC
Brian Wrenn NCDENR DWQ
Steve Gurganus NCDOT HEU
Colin Mellor NCDOT HEU
BenJetta Johnson NCDOT TESSB
Jennifer Harris NCTA
Jeff Dayton HNTB
Christy Shumate HNTB
Jill Gurak PBS &J
Carl Gibilaro PBS &J
Jens Geratz PBS &J
Brad Allen PBS &J
David O Loughlin PBS &J
Michael Wood Catena Group
Tim Savidge Catena Group
Jenn Callahan Catena Group
Ken Gilland Michael Baker Eng
Lorna Parkins Michael Baker Eng
Presentation Materials (Posted on TEAC website)
• Agenda
• September 8 2009 Draft TEAC Meeting Minutes
• Quantitative ICE Analysis PowerPoint Presentation
Purpose
Discuss proposed quantitative water quality modeling methodologies
General Discussion
The following information was discussed at the meeting
(via phone)
• Quantitative ICE Water Quality Analysis — PBS &J /EcoScience gave a presentation on water
quality modeling and analysis (see presentation on the TEAC website)
The study area for water quality modeling uses 14 digit hydrologic units within the Future Land
Use Study Area ( FLUSA) plus the entire Goose Creek watershed Generally agencies did not
have any comments on the proposed study area for water quality modeling However it was
noted that only a small portion of the headwaters of the Six Mile Creek watershed is included in
the FLUSA and that because this watershed contains known populations of federally protected
mussels it should be well documented why the watershed is not being evaluated in its entirety If
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 10/13/09

Page 2 of 7
the results of the land use study show substantial changes in land use in this watershed as a
result of the project NCTA will reevaluate whether to include more of the watershed and /or
perform additional analysis The agencies were in agreement with this approach
The purpose of the water quality modeling and analysis is to determine if induced land use
change resulting from the Monroe Connector /Bypass would affect water quality within the project
study area Water quality stressors have been identified as fecal coliform impaired biological
integrity and turbidity for the project study area based on the 2006 303(d) list The GWLF
(Generalized Water Loading Function) model has been selected for use on this project This is a
mid level model that simulates runoff sediment and nutrient loads It can also allow for
consideration of septic and point source discharges calculate stream erosion and fecal coliform
loads and account for best management practices such as vegetated buffers Outputs of the
model include runoff subsurface flow point source flow stream flow erosion sediment
nutrients and fecal coliform Outputs are reported on a monthly and yearly basis
Other models are available that offer different including lesser or greater functionality however
NCTA and NCDOT as well as expert consulting staff believe that the GWLF model is
appropriate for this project because it adequately addresses the water quality stressors
documented in the project study area has proven accuracy in the eastern US has reasonable
data requirements and development time and is being used for a comparative analysis (future
No Build vs future Build scenario)
Agencies were requested to identify and provide other stressors they may be aware of in the
project study area It was noted that fecal coliform is not a stressor for the Carolina heelsplitter
although levels in Goose Creek have been elevated It was noted that ammonia has also been
cited as a concern in the Goose Creek watershed and could have negative impacts on the
heelsplitter However after discussion with NCDENR DWQ it was determined that the ammonia
was being discharged from a point source that is no longer discharging into the watershed
Ammonia levels are now below all thresholds in this watershed Agencies suggested that other
pollutants such as urban runoff and copper could have adverse impacts however these
pollutants may not have known thresholds for impairment or may not have data required for
modeling USFWS suggested that NCTA review the Goose Creek watershed management plan
for other sources of impairment
Baseflow and discharge information may also be helpful in evaluating impacts on stream habitat
with regards to the Carolina heelsplitter and designated habitat If needed this information can
be produced by using a more traditional hydrologic model such as HEC HMS for some
watersheds
USEPA also noted that the modeling for 303(d) listed streams should include the parameters for
which the stream is listed USEPA feels that GWLF is adequate for this in the study area since
the streams are listed for fecal coliform and /or impaired biological integrity Ms Kathy Matthews
of the USEPA sent an email (dated September 4 2009) stating the outputs of the proposed water
quality model (GWLF) would be sufficient for evaluating water quality in the 303(d) listed streams
Quantitative ICE Land Use Study — Preliminary results of the land use study being completed
by Michael Baker Engineering do not show a significant difference between future No Build and
future Build scenarios The land use study is predicting substantial growth throughout the FLUSA
even without the project There is a very small amount of additional growth attributed to the
project (approximately 1 700 houses over the entire FLUSA) primarily in the eastern portions of
the FLUSA near Wingate and Marshvdle however this is insignificant when compared to the
overall magnitude of growth expected to occur The study predicts that much of the growth will
be a conversion of agricultural fields and pasture and forested areas to low density residential
development
Preliminary results from the land use study indicate approximately 13 to 14 percent growth in the
Goose Creek watershed between current conditions and the future no build scenario The study
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 10/13/09

Page 3 of 7
shows no difference at all between the future no build and build conditions in the Goose Creek
watershed indicating that any growth there would occur with or without the project This can be
attributed to the fact that the Goose Creek area is already within a 20 minute travel window of
1 485 and the Charlotte area and the project will not substantially change travel time to this area
Because there is no change between the future No Build and future Build scenarios there are no
indirect impacts anticipated from the project in the Goose Creek watershed Any water quality
modeling and analysis of the Goose Creek watershed will essentially be evaluating the
cumulative effects of other anticipated development rather than the indirect impacts of the project
There is also no change between future Build scenarios with or without the US 601 interchange
Agencies said that these conclusions and the methodologies used in the study should be very
well documented
The next thing needed to evaluate potential impacts of the project is percent change in
impervious surface The land use information will be used to determine impervious surface for
the existing future No Build and future Build scenarios
Q&A
1 Have there been any discussions with localities on how to mitigate water quality Impacts If there
are found to be significant water quality Impacts?
No however many of the localities have post construction ordinances and stormwater control
regulations in place
Will additional optional Inputs (such as point sources water extraction points septic systems soil
phosphorus and BMPs) be included ►n the modeling?
Yes these inputs will be included if data is available
3 How will growth In use of sewer service and septic systems be accounted f6r9
The Quantitative ICE Land Use Study will document anticipated sewer service expansion areas
provided by the municipalities Beyond those areas growth will be assumed to use septic
systems
4 How will the water quality modeling outputs give an indication of impacts to stream hab►tat9
Impacts to stream habitat can be assessed from the changes in baseflow and peak discharge
This information can be produced using a hydrologic model such as HEC HMS for watersheds
of interest including Goose and Duck Creek Also the change in impervious surface is an
indicator of erosion and potential effects on sensitive aquatic species
Previous Action Items
• NCTA will make a presentation on water quality modeling and the GWLF model at an upcoming
TEAC meeting
(Presentation made at October 13 2009 TEAC meeting ]
New Action Items
• NCTA will continue to provide updates to agencies on status of quantitative ICE
• Agencies were requested to identify and provide other water quality stressors they may be aware
of in the project study area
Resolutions
• NCTA will proceed with the study area as identified for water quality modeling If the land use
study indicates indirect impacts of the project in Six Mile Creek NCTA will reevaluate whether to
include more of the watershed and /or perform additional analysis
• NCTA will proceed with modeling using the GWLF model based on information known to date
As the study progresses NCTA will continue to evaluate this decision as additional information
becomes available
Next Steps
• Continue to discuss results of quantitative ICE land use study and water quality modeling
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 10/13/09

Page 4 of 7
MEETING MINUTES
(Draft)
Date October 13 2009
300 pmto430pm
NCTA Board Room
Project STIP U 3321 Gaston E W Connector— STP 1213(6)
Gaston E W Connector Spotlight
Attendees
George Hoops FHWA
Kathy Matthews USEPA
Steve Lund USACE
Marella Buncick USFWS (via phone)
Marla Chambers NCWRC
Brian Wrenn NCDENR DWQ
Hank Graham GUAMPO
Dewayne Sykes NCDOT RDU
Presentation Materials (Posted on TEAC website)
• Agenda
• September 8 2009 Draft TEAC Meeting Minutes
• LEDPA PowerPoint Presentation
Kristina Solberg NCDOT PDEA
Bill Barrett NCDOT NEU
BenJetta Johnson NCDOT
Jennifer Harris NCTA
Jeff Dayton NCTA GEC
Jill Gurak PBS &J
Carl Gibilaro PBS &J
Jens Geratz PBS &J
Purpose
Conclude discussion on Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) and Preferred
Alternative for the Gaston East West Connector
General Discussion
The following information was discussed at the meeting
Jennifer Harris opened the meeting She noted that at the September 8 2009 TEAC meeting the
Preferred Alternative Report was provided and there was a request that NCTA prepare a presentation
documenting why Detailed Study Alternative (DSA) 9 has been suggested as the LEDPA Ms Harris
asked if there were any questions or comments on the Preferred Alternative Report provided last month
There were none
LEDPA Discussion — Jill Gurak reviewed the method for identifying the LEDPA which was a slightly
different approach than that used for identifying the Recommended Alternative although both methods
resulted in the recommendation of DSA 9 Assumptions included acknowledging that the region s air
quality conformity issues would apply to all the DSAs If the Metrolina Region does not demonstrate air
quality conformity and does not complete the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) update and the
region enters a Conformity Lapse then FHWA cannot issue a Record of Decision and the USACE cannot
issue a permit
The first step in the process was to identify the group of DSAs to consider for LEDPA The DSAs
were sorted into three tiers based on impacts to jurisdictional resources best second best and
worst The second best and worst tier groups were reviewed to determine if any of the DSAs in
these groups would have substantially less impacts to non jurisdictional resources compared to the
best tier (in this case none did) The second step of the process evaluated the best tier DSAs to
identify the LEDPA by comparing the quantitative impacts of the DSAs and other qualitative
considerations
The best tier DSAs included DSAs 9 68 and 81 The worst tier DSAs included DSAs 4 5 22 23
58 and 76 The second best tier DSAs included 27 64 and 77
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 10/13/09

Page 5 of 7
Other impact considerations included the following
• DSA 9 is most similar to the route developed by the Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization ( GUAMPO) and shown in their LRTP and it would best meet community expectations
• DSAs 68 and 81 would encroach on the Wolfe Family Dairy Farm historic site although these
DSAs would have a No Adverse Effect on this site However if STIP Project R 2608 was
implemented in the future a potential option for R 2608 would be to extend the Gaston East West
Connector which would require substantial additional right of way from the Wolfe Family Dairy
Farm
• DSAs 68 and 81 would have a substantial adverse impact on the Karyae Park YMCA Outdoor
Family Center by right of way encroachment and direct impact on several buildings DSA 9 would
avoid this facility DSA 9 would pass close to the Linwood Springs Golf Course but only require
modification of the golf course entrance driveway
• DSAs 68 and 81 are closer to Crowders Mountain State Park and the Camp Rotary Girl Scout
Camp The park and Friends of Crowders Mountain have expressed opposition to DSAs passing
near the park
• DSA 9 is closer to the existing urban /suburban areas of Gastonia This results in somewhat more
impacts to the human environment than DSAs 68 and 81 but fewer overall impacts to the physical
and natural environments
• DSAs 68 and 81 cross Crowders Creek DSA 9 does not cross Crowders Creek but does have a
longitudinal floodplain encroachment This encroachment is along the fringe of the 100 year
floodplain south of Blackwood Creek The crossing of Crowders Creek by DSAs 68 and 81 are in a
location where the floodplain is wide
• DSA 9 accommodates the Hudson Boulevard extension to Linwood Road at the Linwood Road
interchange This is another project on the LRTP
• The methodology used to identify the LEDPA was different than that which was used to select the
Recommended Alternative but the outcome was the same Based on an evaluation of the
impacts DSA 9 is the LEDPA It is one of the three DSAs with the fewest impacts to jurisdictional
resources and the one which provides the best overall balance of impacts when considering both
jurisdictional and non jurisdictional resources
All the best tier DSAs use a common corridor for the eastern end of the project but vary on the
western side Generally DSAs 68 and 81 would have fewer impacts to neighborhoods and the
human environment while DSA 9 would have fewer impacts to farmlands forested habitat and
wetlands
The meeting attendees concurred that DSA 9 is the LEDPA Attendees requested that language
regarding resolution of the Metrolina Region s air quality conformity issues be added to the
Concurrence Point 3 form This language was added as requested The following agencies signed
the form at the meeting FHWA NCTA NCDOT GUAMPO USACE NCDWQ and NCWRC
The FHWA NCTA NCDOT and GUAMPO support DSA 9 The USACE and USFWS had no
objection to DSA 9 The NCDWQ stated they conditionally concur with DSA 9 as the LEDPA
pending the resolution of the region s air quality issues
The USEPA did not specifically object to DSA 9 but Kathy Matthews needed to confirm this with
Chns Militscher USEPA previously submitted their concerns related to Clear Air Act and Clean
Water Act regarding the Detailed Study Alternatives but these concerns applied to all DSAs not
specific ones The NCTA recognizes that the USEPA has stated in past meetings that they won t
officially concur on a LEDPA until the region s air quality issues are resolved
• Mitigation for Jurisdictional Resources — Kathy Matthews stated that the Policy Assessment
Consistency Group Technical Committee met last Thursday (October 8 2009) The NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program ( NCEEP) brought to the committee a proposal for a 2 400 acre mitigation site in
McDowell County (known as Bobs Pocket) at the top of the Catawba 01 watershed The NCEEP is
interested in potentially using this site as a preservation site for mitigation of stream impacts from the
Gaston East West Connector The USEPA is concerned about using this site for this purpose since it is
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 10/13/09

Page 6 of 7
over 100 miles away and in a different ecoregion than the Gaston East West Connector The USEPA
would prefer mitigation in an area closer to the project in order to benefit the local area
The NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) stated they agreed with USEPA The US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) also would prefer that any preservation component of mitigation occur in the general
area of the project
Jennifer Harris stated the NCTA could advocate that NCEEP investigate more local mitigation options but
ultimately it is NCEEP s decision The NCTA is scheduled to meet with NCEEP on October 27 2009
The NCWRC also stated they would like to see local efforts being made to protect water quality through
passage of ordinances If local jurisdictions pass ordinances to protect water quality this will demonstrate
commitment and will assist in obtaining permits
The USACE stated that the stream impact minimization phase of the project will be important The NCTA
is investigating several ways to reduce impacts and is confident impacts will be reduced Reducing
impacts through a reduction in project footprint also would help reduce costs which is another primary
concern for NCTA
Q&A
I Where is Karyae Park9
Karyae Park is located by Crowders Mountain State Park on Linwood Road
2 Are there differences in the top three DSAs are in the Crowders Creek area9
Yes DSAs 9 68 and 81 vary west of Bud Wilson Road West of US 321 DSAs 68 and 81 are located
west of Crowders Creek and DSA 9 is located east of Crowders Creek Also DSA 68 would have an
additional interchange at Lewis Road
Is the project going to be built in segments9 Is there likely to be any differences In the interim termini
between alternatives2
The intent is to build the entire project although like other large projects it may be constructed in phases
The NCTA is exploring ways to build the entire length initially with options such as initially constructing only
two lanes west of US 321 or deferring some interchanges to subsequent phases However at this point
no decisions have been made A potential first phase has been discussed from 1-485 to US 321 In this
area all the best tier DSAs are the same east of Bud Wilson Road and similar from Bud Wilson Road to
US 321 so likely interim phases for these DSAs would not have substantially different impacts The NEPA
document addresses the ultimate project from 1-485 to 1 85
4 If the project Is not Initially constructed from 1485 to 185 would there be different Indirect and cumulative
effects based on phasing? Could right of way be purchased for the entire corridor9
The NCTA will be investigating opportunities to protect the entire corridors but there would not be a
difference in approach between the DSAs Regarding indirect and cumulative effects DSAs 9 68 and 81
are primarily the same from 1 485 to US 321 so if there is an interim phase for the project design and
traffic projections would be similar for these three DSAs and therefore any direct indirect or cumulative
effects also would be similar
5 Is NCTA subject to the Corridor Protection Act that requires project action within 3 years of enactment of a
Corridor Protection Map 9
Yes the NCTA would be subject to this law if a Corridor Protection Map is filed The NCTA will be
investigating opportunities to protect the entire corridor but there would not be a difference in approach
between the DSAs
6 Did NCTA evaluate if improvements to US 321 would be needed If an interim phase had a terminus at US
3219
NCTA assessed projected traffic volumes for a project phase extending from 1-485 to US 321 The
projections indicated that effects would primarily be local in the immediate vicinity of the Gaston East West
Connector Traffic would disperse from there No improvements to US 321 were considered necessary
beyond the immediate project vicinity where they are already planned
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 10/13/09

Page 7 of 7
7 DSAs 68 and 81 would Impact two to three of the larger wetland systems on the western end of the project
that would be avoided with DSA 9
These wetland systems include
W12 (4 2 acres total high quality) near US 29/74 along DSAs 68 and 81
W19 (3 55 acres total medium quality) — south of Jake Long Road along DSA 68
W103 (6 7 acres total high quality) — Crowders Creek along DSA 81
8 Was Crowders Mountain State Park opposed to DSA 68*2
They preferred an alternative farthest from the park
9 How were the ICE ratings listed in the Draft EIS Summary table deve/oped9
They are relative ratings strictly for comparisons between DSAs They are not based on threshold values
or indicate significance A quantitative ICE study will be prepared for the LEDPA and reported in the Final
EIS It will be similar to but not the same as the one being conducted for the Monroe Bypass /Connector
project Scoping for the quantitative ICE study was discussed in previous TEAC meetings
10 Are there ordinances in Gaston County that would prohibit building In the f/oodpla/n9
Hank Graham stated there are local ordinances and that the GUAMPO is working with local jurisdictions
on updating them
11 Is there an agency on the TEAC team that addresses protection of human resources9
The NC Department of Cultural Resources protects historic and archaeological resources There is no
specific agency that would address protections for the general population The study team considers these
impacts in accordance with NEPA (such as consideration of the numbers of relocations) and other laws
and regulations such as Executive Order 121898 which addresses environmental justice
12 What type of mitigation is being considered forjunsdictional resources'2
The NCTA is still planning on utilizing the NCEEP
13 What is the status of the air quality conformity Issue in the Metrohna Region
Hank Graham stated the GUAMPO recently received approval from the NC Division of Air Quality
(NCDAQ) on new vehicle emissions budgets for criteria pollutants and the GUAMPO is confident that
conformity will be achieved by the May 2010 deadline
Previous Action Items
Discuss and concur on the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative and Preferred
Alternative
New Action Items
• NCTA to coordinate with USFWS MUMPO and NCDCR to obtain their signatures on the Concurrence
Point 3 form stating DSA 9 is the LEDPA/Preferred Alternative
Resolutions
Agreement was reached that DSA 9 is the LEDPA
Next Steps
The NCTA will present information regarding possible design changes that would minimize impacts to
jurisdictional resources Work on the quantitative indirect and cumulative effects analysis will begin with
additional coordination with the environmental resource and regulatory agencies
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 10/13/09