HomeMy WebLinkAbout20120285_Meeting Minutes_20070726 (2)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
Rob Ayers FHWA
George Hoops — FHWA
Polly Lespmasse — NC DWQ
Bob Deaton — NCDOT
Susan Fisher HNTB
Carl Gibilaro — PBS &J
Kim Berets — PBS &J
AT THE NCTA OFFICE
Jennifer Harris — NCTA
Anne Redmond HNTB
Jeff Dayton HNTB
Ross Andrews Ecoscience
Mike Gloden Ecoscience
Jill Gurak — 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 II)
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 scopmg comments and provide additional comments if
necessary
• PBS &J to provide Louis Berger information collected as part of the community characteristics
report
(17,00 Turnpike 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 com
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
11470 NORTH CAROL1NA
Turnpike Authority
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAL)
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 mad 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 fads 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 Budd 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 origin /destination pairs and the project also would
have an effect on overall average travel times for trips throughout the project
study area These two types of travel time statistics are explained in more detail
in the Preferred Alternative Report
C Traffic Projections are higher than actual counts
R The approved model for the 13 county Metrolina Region were used to
develop traffic projections The version of the model used to perform the project
forecasts was calibrated based on known traffic volumes for the base year 2000
with the model providing forecasts for years 2010 2020 and 2030 Volumes for
the projects 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
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
o Air Quality
C Prior to issuance of the Final EIS and ROD NCTA should demonstrate that the
new location project will be included m 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
Cultural Resources, Community Characteristics, and Farmland
C The Draft EIS missed the subject of histonc Stowesvdle Stowes Factory Gaither
Mill Stowesvdle 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 necessanly 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
Q&A
1 Were travel times calculated point to point2
Yes Those were the origin /destination times and are included in Appendix C of the Draft EIS
Representative points were selected for this analysis
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 09/08/09
Page 5 of 10
2 How much detail regarding Mass Transit will you provide? Gaston County is trying to bnng
commuter rail into the county It is not yet funded but would provide an alternative travel route It
►s 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 ? How will the results
of the recent design workshop impact alternat►ves9
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 process9
The NCTA anticipates using the NC EEP for mitigation requirements If someone has knowledge
of a good local mitigation site it is important to notify NC EEP
9 What will be the bridge typical section over the Catawba R►ver9
Current estimates indicate it will consist of one bridge structure with a concrete median barrier
10 What will the distance be between the median barner and the travel lane on the bndges9
Lane and shoulder widths will be consistent with FHWA requirements
11 How will drainage on the bridge be addressed*2
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 /Bvr)ass Snotliaht
Attendees
George Hoops FHWA
Chris Militscher USEPA
Steve Lund USACE
Scott McLendon USACE
Polly Lespinasse NCDENR DWQ
Marella Buncick USFWS (via phone)
Marla Chambers NCWRC
Amy Simes NCDENR
Bob Cook MUMPO (via phone)
Dana Stoogenke Rocky River RPO (via phone)
Dewayne Sykes NCDOT RDU
John Conforti NCDOT PDEA
Ryan White NCDOT PDEA
BenJetta Johnson NCDOT Traffic (via phone)
Jennifer Harris NCTA
Christy Shumate HNTB
Jill Gurak PBS &J
Carl Gibilaro PBS &J
Elizabeth Scherrer PBS &J
Tim Savage Catena Group
Jennifer Cunningham Catena Group
Presentation Materials (Posted on TEAC 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
o 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 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
Q&A
1 Which neighborhood was the subject of comments complaining about trucks passing through the
neighborhood?
The neighborhood is Forest Park subdivision located on the north side of existing US 74 Internet mapping
services often route trucks through the neighborhood to get to the adjacent business park For this
neighborhood a service road is proposed parallel to existing US 74 that would provide access to both
Forest Park and the business park NCTA also proposes to construct an additional access road to Forest
Park along an easement originally reserved for this purpose by the subdivision developer but never
constructed This easement is at the north end of the neighborhood and would provide a new connection
to Stallings Road
2 On the western end wetland impacts seem higher with DSA D Where are the wetlands located? They
are existing swales along existing US 74 or wetlands that are already impacted by US 74 Utilizing
Segment 18A would result in three new stream crossings as well as be closer to more neighborhoods and
schools
Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting - 09/08/09
Page 10 of 10
3 What is the difference in business Impacts between Segments 18A and 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 mph?
No This has been suggested for portions of the Garden Parkway but the posted speed limit for the
Monroe Connector /Bypass will be 65 mph
New Action Items
• NCTA will make a presentation on water quality modeling and the GWLF model at an upcoming TEAC
meeting
[This presentation will be made at the October 13 2009 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
Tu pik Authority
G i E twestto et
Gaston Water Quality Analysis — Pages 8 and 9 not included in the submitted analysis
• 265 square mile study area
• Models constructed for nine (9) 12 digit HUCs using GWLF
• Estimates annual runoff TN loading TP loading and TSS from three (3) land use scenarios
(baseline 2035 no build and 2035 build)
• Five of the nine HUCs contain 303d streams — Catawba Creek Duharts Creek Southfork
Catawba Lower Crowders Creek Mill Creek Lake Wylie Upper Crowders Creek
• The project alignment intersects all five HUCs with 303d listed streams and interchanges are
planned in all five HUCs
• Model results indicate increased runoff and TN and TP loads in the 2035 Build scenario (in 5 of
the RUCs) compared to the 2035 No Build scenario while a decrease in TSS is predicted for 4 of
the 5 HUCs (except for Upper Crowders Creek)
• Of the 5 HUCs Catawba Creek experiences the largest indirect effects which would potentially
result in the greatest increase in runoff and nutrient loading rate Based on the HIS direct
impacts to streams in the Catawba Creek watershed are 8 058 linear feet
• Over 80% of the land consumed by the direct and indirect effects of the project is forecasted to
come from existing forest and pasture lands
• Analysis only considered riparian buffers (only intact buffers within regulated buffer areas —
range from 30 ft to 100 ft +50% of floodplain fringe) No Phase II and /or post construction
stormwater BMPs were accounted for due to variability Based on this the document states
that pollutant loading is overestimated by the model
• Pollutant reduction by buffers was only considered for HUCs with an average buffer width of 50
or greater Upper Crowders Creek and Beaverdam Creek Catawba River HUCs do not meet the
criterion
• No Build per the document means Forecasted land use for the year 2035 without
Construction of the project
• 2010 303d Listed Streams in study area
• Catawba Creek eco /bio impairment
• Catawba River — low pH copper chlorophyll a turbidity high temperature
• Crowders Creek — eco /bio impairment
• McGill Creek — eco /bio impairment
• South Crowders Creek — low dissolved oxygen
• South Fork Catawba River— low pH turbidity
• GWLF does not include instream flow and transport of loads but does provide for groundwater
discharges to stream systems offering an opportunity for calibrating instream flow volume
• Baseline Condition
•
TSS (kg /yr /ac)
Highest — Duharts Creek South Fork Catawba = 426 326
•
TSS (kg /yr /ac)
Lowest— Catawba Creek= 300 437
•
TP (kg /yr /ac)
Highest — Duharts Creek South Fork Catawba = 0 524
•
TP (kg /yr /ac)
Lowest — Beaverdam Creek Catawba River = 0 266
•
TN (kg /yr /ac)
Highest — Duharts Creek South Fork Catawba = 6 881
•
TN (kg /yr /ac)
Lowest — Lake Wylie Catawba River = 2 208
•
Annual Runoff
(cm /yr /ac) Highest — Mill Creek Lake Wylie = 0 00165
•
Annual Runoff (cm /yr /ac) Lowest — Lower Crowders Creek = 0 00011
• 2035 No Build Condition
•
TSS (kg /ac /yr)
Highest— Upper Crowders Creek= 483 732
•
TSS (kg /ac /yr)
Lowest — Catawba Creek = 319 820
•
TP (kg /yr /ac)
Highest — Duharts Creek South Fork Catawba = 0 654
•
TP (kg /yr /ac)
Lowest — Beaverdam Creek Catawba River = 0 306
•
TN (kg /yr /ac)
Highest — Duharts Creek South Fork Catawba = 7 734
•
TN (kg /yr /ac)
Lowest — Beaverdam Creek Catawba River = 2 517
•
Annual Runoff (cm /yr /ac) Highest— Mill Creek Lake Wylie = 0 00181
•
Annual Runoff (cm /yr /ac) Lowest — Lower Crowders Creek = 0 00012
• 2035 Build Condition
•
TSS (kg /ac /yr)
Highest— Upper Crowders Creek= 485 675
•
TSS (kg /ac /yr)
Lowest — Catawba Creek = 327 526
•
TP (kg /yr /ac)
Highest — Duharts Creek South Fork Catawba = 0 661
•
TP (kg /yr /ac)
Lowest — Beaverdam Creek Catawba River = 0 323
•
TN (kg /yr /ac)
Highest — Duharts Creek South Fork Catawba = 7 781
•
TN (kg /yr /ac)
Lowest — Beaverdam Creek Catawba River = 2 618
•
Annual Runoff (cm /yr /ac) Highest — Lake Wylie Catawba River = 0 00275
• Comparisons between Build and No Build (2035)
TSS Notable decreases Mill Creek —Lake Wylie (1 %) Fites Creek — Catawba River
(0 2 %) Lake Wylie — Catawba River (2 2 %)
Notable increases Catawba Creek (2 4 %) Beaverdam Creek — Catawba River
(2 %) Lower Crowders Creek (2 3 %)
TP Notable decreases Fites Creek Catawba River (13%)
Notable increases Catawba Creek (7 %) Lower Crowders Creek (5 5 %) Lake,
Wylie Catawba River and Beaverdam Creek — Catawba River (5 3 %)
TN Notable decreases Fites Creek— Catawba River (0 5 %)
Notable increases Lake Wylie — Catawba River and Catawba Creek (5 3 %)
Beaverdam Creek Catawba River (4 %)
Annual Runoff Notable decreases Fites Creek— Catawba River (0 57 %)
Notable increases Beaverdam Creek — Catawba River (8 73 %) Catawba Creek
(7 97 %) Lower Crowders Creek (7 28 %)
• Catawba Creek will definitely be the recipient of the most indirect impact from this project
Additionally based on the HIS it will receive 22% of the direct stream impacts for the entire
project
• Beaverdam Creek will also be a recipient of indirect impacts Based on the HIS it will receive
8% of the direct stream impacts
• Lower Crowders Creek will receive indirect impacts associated with TSS and TP
• Pages i and 33 of the analysis state that four of the five HUCs with 303d listed streams show
decreases in TSS under the Build Scenario Based on Table 20 the only 303d listed HUC which
shows a decrease in TSS is the Mill Creek— Lake Wylie HUC Decreases are seen in two other
HUCs (Fetes Creek and Lake Wylie) but according to this document they are not 303d listed
• Based on the results in this analysis Beaverdam Creek may eventually become a 303d listed
stream (substantial increases in all four pollutants analyzed)
• Comment from DWQ FEIS Review
Chapter 2 Page 64 of the FEIS states that interviews were conducted with the MPOs and County
Planning Departments to determine whether the updated 2035 forecasts should serve as the No
Build Scenario or the Build Scenario for ICE Study Area Based on these interviews the
Gaston East West Connector was assumed to be completed in the allocation of future growth to
specific zones NCDWQ is unclear whether this means the road was considered to be
completed in the No Build Scenario Table 2 17 provides the Estimated Change in Impervious
Cover by Watershed using baseline data from 2007 and the 2035 No Build and 2035 Build
Scenarios Very little change in impervious cover is realized between the 2035 No Build and
Build Scenarios The total increase in impervious cover from No Build to Build is 0 5% with
some watersheds showing no increase in impervious cover and some showing a decrease in
impervious cover This information may support the fact that the Gaston East West Connector
was included in the No Build Scenario If the Gaston East West Connector was included in the
No Build Scenario NCDWQ is concerned that this does not provide an accurate evaluation of
the indirect and cumulative impacts associated with this project If the Gaston East West
Connector was included in the models used to generate data for the No Build Scenario the
NCTA will be required to provide modeling data that does not include the completion of the
Gaston East West Connector as part of the No Build Scenario