20120285 Ver 1_Email_20101022

FW Minutes for Gaston WQ Analysis Meeting
FW Minutes for Gaston WQ Analysis Meeting
Lespinasse, Polly
Sent Tuesday May 08 2012 2 31 PM
To Carrillo Sonia
Attachments Gaston_WQ_Meeting_Minutes_ -1 pdf (419 KB)
From Allen, Thomas B [mailto TBAllen @pbsj com]
Sent Friday, October 22, 2010 10 02 AM
To Wrenn, Brian, Lespmasse, Polly, Mellor, Colin
Cc jsgurak„ Shumate, Christy, Harris, Jennifer, 0 Loughlin, David K
Subject Minutes for Gaston WQ Analysis Meeting
Polly Brian Colin
Page 1 of 1
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 Alien, 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 @pbsj com
www pbsi com
https //mail nc gov /owa/ ?ae= Item &t =IPM Note &id= RgAAAADMSzLcd9W2TJH14 %2bm 5/18/2012

Ve
PBS)60
an Atkins company
To Polly Lespinasse Brian Wrenn Colin Mellor
From Brad Allen
cc Christy Shumate Jennifer Harris Jill Gurack David O Loughlin
MEMORANDUM
Date October 22 2010
Re Minutes for Gaston ICE Water Quality Analyis Meeting with NCDWQ
Attendees
• Polly Lespinasse (NCDWQ)
• Brain Wrenn (NCDWQ)
• Colin Mellor (NCDOT
• Dave O Loughlin (PBS &J)
• Brad Allen (PBS &J)
On October 18 2010 the above personnel from the NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) NC
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and PBS &J met at the NCDWQ Winston Salem NC office
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss issues related to the Gaston East/West Connector (the
Project) indirect and cumulative effects (ICE) water quality analysis (Analysis)
The meeting started with PBS &J summarizing the status of the Analysis PBS &J explained work had
begun to develop the Analysis methodology but they had reached a point at which they would like to
receive NCDWQ s approval on several key elements of the proposed Analysis before moving forward
The focus of the meeting was then turned to the following six questions identified by PBS &J as
requiring resolution
1 Is it acceptable to use the quantitative ICE boundary for the Analysis?
The Gaston East West Connector Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis
(August 3 2010) was prepared by Louis Berger Group The report was posted on the
NCTA website and environmental resource and regulatory agencies were notified and
asked to review and comment To date no comments have been received
2 Are the 12 digit Hydrologic Units (HUs) acceptable reporting units for the Analysis results?
3 Is focusing the Analysis on non point source nitrogen phosphorus and sediment
adequate for addressing regulatory agency concerns over the Projects ICE?
• Page 1

4. Is it acceptable to only consider the effect of riparian buffer best management
practices (BMPs) in the Analysis?
5. Is the resolution of the forecast -zone scale for which No Build and Build land use
forecasts are reported adequate for the Analysis?
6. Is PBS &J's recommended approach for processing the forecast data of the future
land use scenarios acceptable?
The resolution and discussion corresponding to each question are summarized below.
1. Is it acceptable to use the quantitative ICE boundary for the Analysis?
Resolution: No resolution was reached during the meeting.
NCDWQ had questions regarding the quantitative ICE boundary and requested to withhold comments
on the matter until those questions are answered. Specifically, NCDWQ questioned why the 12 -digit
HUs highlighted in green and marked with asterisks in the below figure were not included in the
quantitative ICE analysis. The point was made that both HUs are in the vicinity of the proposed
roadway alignment, and both appear to have open space available for development. Neither Colin nor
PBSU could provide an answer, but agreed to find out why the HUs were not considered. PBSU will
inform NCDWQ of the findings. At which time, NCDWQ will then provide an opinion on the suitability of
the quantitative ICE boundary for the Analysis.
Lin Mon
r
Cherryville 321
r
2
Proposed Alignment
7a
Excluded HUs
Q
70 ngs M in Gastonia 12 -Dgit HU
zs
321 // 1
C
In answer to NCDWQ's questions concerning the quantitative ICE boundary, PBS &J has identified that
sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 of the Gaston East -West Connector Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative
Effects Analysis explain the exclusion of the HUs. The content of both sections is provided below.
PBS &J requests that NCDWQ reply to indicate if the explanations are sufficient.
• Page 2

2 1 1 Gaston County
In Gaston County a small portion of the northwest corner of the
qualitative ICE study area was removed including the northern half of
Bessemer City and part of Gastonia To the east of Gastonia a portion of
Belmont and an adjacent unincorporated area along the 185 corridor
was removed The transportation modeling conducted for the project with
the Metrolina Travel Demand Model shows that the TAZs in these areas
would notexpenence any substantial change in travel times as a result of
the Gaston East West Connector and thus are unlikely to experience
growth pressures attributable to the project The reason this area would
not experience substantial changes in accessibility is that it ►s already in
close proximity to 185 which is the existing primary east west roadway
and crossing of the Catawba River in Gaston County
The study area was expanded to the north to include the entirety of the
Duharts Creek South Fork Catawba River subwatershed
(030501020605) The expanded area Includes parts of Gastonia Lowell
McAdenvdle Ranlo and Spencer Mountain This expansion of the study
area was made only for the purpose of including the entire watershed in
the study area not because of accessibility changes in this area
2 12 Mecklenburg County
In Mecklenburg County the study area was expanded to include the
entire Paw Creek Lake Wylie subwatershed (030501011404) Although
there are not substantial accessibility changes for this watershed it does
contain part of two important No Build condition projects the Charlotte
Douglas International Airport third runway and intermodal freight facility
A portion of the study area to the east of 1485 was removed based on
the results of the projected travel time Improvements being the greatest
around and to the east of the Gaston East West Connectors Interchange
with 1485 The subwatersheds in this location (030501030103 Upper
Sugar Creek and 030501030108 Steele Creek) are within a heavily
developed portion of the City of Charlotte and would be unlikely to
experience further environmental impacts from land use change because
the majority of the land in these subwatersheds ►s already developed
While a portion of the Charlotte Douglas International Airport ►s within the
Upper Sugar Creek watershed the primary considerations in terms of
cumulative Impacts (the new runway and the proposed ►ntermodal
facility) are not and remain within the study area for the quantitative ICE
assessment
Additionally NCDWQ mentioned that a population of Carolina heelsplitter (Lasm►gona decorata) may
have been found in the Catawba River although they were not sure of the details The heelsplitter has
hereunto not been mentioned as an issue for this project PBS &J will investigate this matter and inform
NCDWQ of the findings
• Page 3

2 Are the 12 digit HUs acceptable reporting units for the Analysis results
Resolution NCDWQ confirmed that the 12 digit HUs are acceptable
This question generated little discussion as it is typical to report the results of such analyses at the 14
digit or 12 digit HU scale
3 Is focusing the Analysis on non point source nitrogen phosphorus and sediment
adequate for addressing regulatory agency concerns over the Project s ICEI
Resolution NCDWQ confirmed that modeling non point source nitrogen phosphorus and sediment is
adequate but the analysis may need to be expanded to include metal loadings
The topic of metal pollution came up while reviewing impaired parameters for 303(d) listed water s in
the project study area the Catawba River is impaired in part for copper standard violations Colin
mentioned metal pollution (such as copper and zinc) from highway runoff has become an issue of
increasing concern at NCDOT Yet no previous water quality analyses performed in support of
roadway ICE analyses in North Carolina have considered metal loadings In fact it is still unclear how
metals should be addressed in such analyses or if they should be considered at all Colin and PBSU
will continue to investigate the issue NCDWQ recommended contacting Cindy Moore or Carol
Hollenkamp in NCDWQ s Aquatic Toxicology unit for assistance Depending on the findings the metal
loadings may be incorporated into the analysis
4 Is it acceptable to only consider the effect of riparian buffer BMPs in the Analysis >
Resolution NCDWQ confirmed that considering only riparian buffer BMPs is acceptable
PBSU discussed the uncertainty involved in modeling structural stormwater BMPs — bioretention
basins stormwater ponds grass swales etc — for future land use conditions It was PBSU s
contention that such BMPs should not be considered in the water quality model Instead a qualitative
discussion of these BMPs will be provided in the Analysis report NCDWQ agreed
5 Is the resolution of the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) (or forecast zone) scale for which No
Build and Build land use forecasts are reported adequate for the Analysis2
Resolution NCDWQ confirmed that the forecast zones used to report the No Budd and Budd land use
forecasts were adequate Further NCDWQ requested that the Existing land use be aggregated to the
forecast zones too The purpose in normalizing all the land use datasets to the forecast zones is to
provide consistent reporting scale for all land use scenarios
PBSU discussed the format of the Existing No Budd and Budd land use datasets developed by the
Louis Berger Group It was noted that the Existing land use was formatted as a spatially explicit raster
dataset with a 30 meter resolution In contrast the No Budd and Build land use datasets are not
spatially explicit and are constructed at the much coarser resolution of the forecast zones Because of
the varying resolutions of the land use datasets separate techniques would need to be used to
generate model parameters and the reporting of results would differ too NCDWQ expressed concern
over this seeming disparity between the Existing dataset and future land use forecasts stating that it
creates doubt that a direct comparison of pollutant loadings can be made Essentially the Analysis
would not provide an apples to apples comparison if the land use datasets are not normalized to a
• Page 4

consistent scale PBS &J and Colin acknowledged as much Two solutions were then discussed 1)
spatially explicit future land use forecasts could be generated to match the format of the Existing
dataset or 2) the spatially explicit Existing dataset could be aggregated to the forecast zone scale to
match the format of the future land use forecasts Ultimately it was decided to pursue the second
option
6 Is PBS &J s recommended approach for processing the forecast data of the
future land use scenarios acceptable
Resolution NCDWQ suggested the approach detailed in question 5 above
NCDWQ as well as Colin and PBS &J felt that PBS &J s initial recommendation to process the lower
resolution future land use datasets in a different manner than the Existing dataset would introduce
unnecessary confusion into the Analysis and subsequent report All attendees concluded an
alternative approach in which the Existing dataset would be aggregated to the forecast zone scale to
match the lower resolution format of the future land use forecasts should be used By processing the
Existing dataset to match the format of the future land use forecasts the same techniques can be used
to calculate the water quality model parameters for all three land use scenarios This will eliminate the
need to explain and justify the use of separate modeling techniques for the Existing and future land use
scenarios
• Page 5