20020672 Ver 3_Meeting Minutes_20120928

NO�RTH CAROLINA
Turnpike ,: oral
Monroe Bypass Agency Meeting
MEETING MINUTES
(Draft)
Date: September 12, 2012
12:30 PM to 2:30 PM
NCDOT Century Center — Structures Conference Room
Project: STIP R- 3329/R -2559 Monroe Connector /Bypass — STP ,IHF,4,,74(90)
Attendees:
George Hoops, FHWA
Scott Jones, FHWA (phone)
Chris Militscher, USEPA (phone)
Liz Hair, USACE
Marella Buncick, USFWS
David Wainwright, NCDWQ
Alan Johnson, NCDWQ
Amy Simes, NCDENR
Scott Slusser, NCDOJ
Phil Harris, NCDOT - NES
Tris Ford, NCDOT — HES PICA
Colin Mellor, NCDOT N� Q%' �!
Carla Dagnino, NCDOT /TEES
Elizabeth Lusk, NCD911%ly''EU
Barney Blackburn, NCDO
Tim McFadden, NCDOT — 134&
da
!rpoint present
,Jnion County
Purpose:
Provide an updat i` the Mon
activities.
F
rshall Clawson, NCDOT
i
'H,
�as ru l Alavi ,PDOT — TPB
Gr/f CPOT PDEA p i r p o
Jennrris, NCDOT -PDEA
,
Rick B NCDOT — Div 10
a /iii
Christy S OlwWe, NCTA -GEC
Carl Gibilaro s
den Gilland ��Baker Eng.
�� ,Parkins iii hael Baker Eng.
g, Michael Baker Eng. (phone)
Tommy P, ock, RKK
Tina Swi zy, RKK
Stephen Roberts. RKK
San Stutt, UIG (phone)
feg Miller UIG (phone)
ss project status, including current activities and future
The project status was p'� nted in a PowerPoint presentation given by Carl Gibilaro, Ken
Gilland and Lorna Parkins.
Summary of PowerPoint Presentation
Current Activities - Analysis activities completed to date where no changes were identified:
Geoenvironmental, Floodplains and Floodways, Historic Architecture, Archaeology, Air Quality and
Community Impact Assessment. The community impact assessment analysis revealed that there have
not been any notable changes in the area. Between 2000 and 2010 there was a 49% population increase
in the Demographic Study Area (DSA). This growth is consistent with the 49% growth which occurred
between 1990 and 2000. African American populations did drop slightly; there was a slight increase in
Hispanic populations; but the general locations of these populations remained the same. No new
Agency Coordination Meeting - 9/12/12

Page 2of4
subdivisions or commercial developments have been constructed within the project corridor since the
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was published.
Activities currently underway are as follows:
• Indirect and Cumulative Effects — working with MUMPO and those involved in the development of
the socio- economic projections to remove any influence the project may have had in the socio-
economic projections and to quantify the impact, if any, that the project may have had in the No-
Build representation. The result of this analysis will be used to analyze other components of the
EIS to determine the significance of the new information.
• Future Land Use Plans - meeting once again with local planners to discuss their plans and
determine if anything has changed since the last analyses.
• Traffic Modeling and Forecasting - determining if there will be any ches in regard to the traffic
forecasts. «,
Threatened and Endangered (Section 7) - new surveys are be
completing the plant surveys and the Catena Group will be up
significant changes are anticipated at this time. 48
Noise Impact Analyses - Noise impact analysis procedures`
analyses. The Traffic Noise Analysis will be updated,ffo
procedures.
Alternatives Review - Additional documentation eing prepa
completed as part of the improve existing USi4 natives
eduled. Atkins will be
he mussel surveys. No
ve beery
hrr� to the
red clarifying
nd TSM /TDM
since the original
icies and
Ongoing Outreach Activities — Interviews with local officials ark are being scheduled to identify any
changes in local municipalities' long range plans or visions for g� ,MMA,
IMP within their jurisdiction. Questions
to be asked include any proposed developrrt �, long term growt"i� ctations, land use plan updates,
and any changes since previous interviews questions to be of the local officials is
��
included in the handout attached to these min;�noted that thfion regarding the use of
NUVROP
the "Green Growth Toolbox" question is a direct sulf gestion m 'e at the July 18` agency
meeting. These interviews will be used to verify 9d ors�� used in the updated Indirect and
aiii,,,
Cumulative Effects (ICE) analy , 0 ,r
region was performed b� @,ker and
following this agency'mee�� Det�
presentation and the actual Tnic
historic growth f��nion Co't�f9
��,,,,,,
shown in re�stgal grove
appear take driving thef, rrowtl
es, f ,
n analysis of1e historic and future growth of the Charlotte
aft of this Technical Memorandum was distributed for review
the analysis aiitcluded in the attached PowerPoint
� ,randum T Technical Memorandum concludes that the
;crtf�d on the characteristics of Union County that are
cause s counties to grow faster than others. Factors that
de available land, household income, housing affordability, and
�o not appear to be a critical factor.
NCDOT is'M /ng closely with - peopi who prepared the original Union County "bottom up" land use
distribution mo10 remove anyi�luence of the Monroe Connector /Bypass to the Travel Time to
, K
Employment fa' hich was one of the 8 factors considered for future growth in Union County. This
information will theme feviewe to determine if there is any effect on current assumptions. Based on
any new information ';,F�icument will be revised and updated accordingly.
Purpose and Need Pu, "ose and Need has been discussed at length in the past and can be broken
down into four parts: 1) Improve mobility and capacity within the corridor, 2) Allow for high speed regional
travel, 3) Consistent with NC Intrastate System, Strategic Highway Corridor program, and 4) Allows
access to properties along US 74. The need for the project is an existing problem. The roadway is
currently overcapacity with low travel speeds during the peak hours and 1/3 of the existing interchanges
functioning at a level of service of E or F. These problems will continue to worsen in the future and must
be addressed for the facility to be consistent with local and state plans. NCDOT has not identified any
changes that would result in changing the project's purpose and need. Agencies were asked to provide
any new information that should be considered.
Next Steps — Future near term activities include updating the previous natural resources investigations,
completing the meetings with local planners / officials and reassess the alternative analyses and impacts.
Agency Coordination Meeting - 9/12/12

Page 3of4
Anticipated topics of discussion at the next agency meeting include: indirect and cumulative effects,
upgrade existing US 74 alternatives, traffic forecasts, alternatives development and analysis, natural and
jurisdictional resources, and noise. Agencies should provide information on any updated information or
new developments in the study area that they are aware of.
Q &A / COMMENTS:
1. NCDWQ questioned in determining the growth in Union County, how was the model influenced by the
growth boom that was occurring in 2004.
It is notable that of the forecasts available in 2009 (after the boom period ended), the MUMPO
forecasts from 2004 did a better job of predicting the 2010 population level in Union County than
other forecasts prepared by other sources (see powerpoint presentation tter diagram). The
'i0;
models take into account the cyclical economic effects of a region andyhat the region has to
offer to attract future growth. Also, Union County growth has Conti �d through the recession and
is still robust. A / /!:
2. USACE asked what the next steps would be once the new RO
An environmental document will be prepared to document J
any new information that is available since the Final Ela/'0was a
prepared is currently being reviewed and a final dete�fnation
until any required changes and /or updates are ideP/,A_J��l One
document being made available for agency and publi& *O'
being held. Following the comment period, comments wit b(
issuance of a new ROD. Once published, this new ROD wd'U
which it may be challenged. The 404 p %mit with USACE is 66
was withdrawn. At this time we anticipatn, permit appli(
acquisition to resume following approval ROD.
-ythftng that hdbeen reanalyzed and
iproved. The ty��f document to be
XFN
of the document tyjp r ill not be made
"' 9 his
scenario discussed i���"
I n and a pule hearing
POnsid'ered and addressed prior to
leave a 150 day litigation window in
I
fre tly suspended and the 401 permit
,dtn -of -way ,
3. USFWS inquired if a new Water Quality Analysis will bppleted
Until the updated data is received, we do not i owiere why significant changes to land use
in the area. Unless them A n,ificant chan dt "' y
g ti the existirf hand uses, a new Water Quality
Analysis will not be c�leted %� recognized fit if land use does change, the Biological
Assessment will ne be revist USFWS asst mes there will be some changes based on the
amount of time that "" asked s "' e the original at! yes were completed.
4. USFWS also asked �f a Su;�fiertl %/„ Wired to issue a ROD. They were not familiar with
the proc g an this polnf'ifi process.
This i� e is under and a decision is dependent on the significance of the changes
ide�jed as part of tne"�ryaluatirsr� rw analyses.
5. USED ressed conceril� hat sincd11he original project required an EIS, and new studies and
analyse�j� , elng underta ;', it may not be appropriate to prepare an EA.
FHWA re q � that furthdiscussion on this topic be tabled until additional information can be
received FH ` % %,ntinues� review and evaluate new information in order to help guide how to
proceed. It was r Pste the agencies have additional information to share on this matter to
please do so. US� ted that CEQ rules dictate the type of document that is required. If there is
an existing DEIS an CIS, then this process requires the last document be supplemented.
6. USFWS commented that there are still many unanswered questions regarding the project. There
were comments on the previous ICE which they felt were not addressed. Socioeconomic data and
water quality information will be very important to them as part of any decision - making process. It
was requested that any new documentation clearly explain how the 1 factor (travel time to
employment) fits in within the 8 total factors considered in the model. They have also heard statistics
of this project being just 20 miles of a 2400 mile road network amongst other items included as part of
court documents and many items appear to be mixed and matched and /or have different scales or
geographic coverage. They would request that all information presented, including what the project
baseline is as well as the impacts associated with the project, are made very clear and
Agency Coordination Meeting - 9/12/12

Page 4of4
understandable. Consistency when developing comparisons and drawing conclusions would make
the document easier for the agencies and the public to understand.
NCTA is very interested in understanding what unanswered questions remain. NCTA acknowledged
that they understood that the burden to make sure everything is clear is on them and the purpose of
these meetings is to try to explain this very technical and detailed information as clearly as possible.
7. USFWS was also concerned with the aggressive project schedule and requested frequent updates in
order that the agencies understand what is going on and can offer appropriate input.
8. USFWS questioned whether the Project Legacy in eastern Union County is included in the ICE
analyses
NCTA did have some information on the project. It was discussed in th
report. Additional information regarding this proposed project may be
in future land use scenarios, if it is determined that the project is rea 'a
of Marshville had previously requested that NCDOT- Transportatig
of the Legacy proposal but there was not a common vision am a Ioc H
Legacy. Because of the lack of a common vision, Project Legacy is not i
Union Metropolitan Planning Organization's socioeconom�, � �e ons o
Demand Model. %r°
Previous Action Items:
• None.
New Action Items:
• Agencies review Union County GroOdh Factors Memo and s
• Agencies to provide project team wit �t's�ew project speciftq
relevant to this process that an agency'le� Ievant
• Agencies to provide NCDOT with informtion cwtatial devel
growth estimates.
• USACE to provide anypermit information f I�
in Union County. „,,
• NCTA will email „loon Cory rowth Memot
• NCTA would c1'it the agees to specify
unanswered since O previo EIS. It is anti
questions will depend th_;,4 t �+f current
,,,,
clarifv oc: esoond to s6ii4W theso"c i t
to m.,J for r aaaress4r' : it is
e ualitative ICE analysis
* and it will be included
bly foreseeable. The Town
Bing Branch do an analysis
f ials regarding Project
mgg
in Mecklenburg
r N(jfea Regional Travel
comments to the project team.
-mation or regulatory guidance
that could impact future
Project Legacy and other projects
USEPA.
a questions or comments they feel have remained
ci� that the responses to any unanswered
E however, it is very possible that NCTA can
ith current existing information. As the schedule
address all unanswered questions as expeditiously
,possible
• �� �cncies were ask e proved �w information that should be considered with respect to
tf�-oject's purpose 9 need
Resolutions”
• None.
Next Steps:
• NCDOT will corif ue analyses to identify any changes that may have occurred since approval of
the FEIS.
• Present project coordination plan and discuss steps for moving ahead.
• Next Meeting — October 17 or 18, 2012
Agency Coordination Meeting - 9/12/12

9/28/2012
I
iii "

9/28/2012

9/28/2012

9/28/2012

9/28/2012

9/28/2012
i
h �M
Comparison of Population Projections to Actual Population Count
Union County
20.00®
I�
a 15,000
E
10,000
a
Po, 2005
E
5,000 I
W,2010
c
a
'a
p0 _._._._._ _._._._._ _. ..................................................... _ ..............................
_._._ __. ___. .__..
w ti
G G
Forecast

llp "pd NII LM/1111" O S,,llll lius d(1p" CNISA
GmrIII ic�s
i
,,..!.o ° M'
IIhI90 2000 2010 11990 to 2010 % Growth 19902010 %ofCMSA Population
Growth Growth 1990 -2010
llIIIIIIIIII IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIi IIIIIIIINIIIIIICIIIIIIIIIIII Illll 1111- llllllhlllllllll '1111 511,433 695,454 919,628 408,195 79.5% 453%
NC Whole 84 123.6yy 201,1,'32 117,081 139.0%
�f�1lp11mlil�tlyhnnitlll�lui y�W yll NC Whole 174769 190,365 2o6,o86 31,317 17.7% 3.5%
llll�"�illmpduiwmiotti�i�'imll�l llllllllllllllllllllllI NC Whole 98,935 131,o63 178,011 79,076 79.9% 8.8%
o IPIN N MMllllllllllllllllllll SC Whole 131,497 164,614 226,073 94,576 71.9% 10.5%
NC None 23,474 25,275 26,948 3,474 12.9% 0.4%
l
�mnu�m u1 li�IIIiIIIill�ilu�uYl�ilu�l�l�luM
M llllll llll 111 lllllllllllll 122,66o 159,437 66,232 71.6% 7.4%
III0I IIIIII III II�III� NC Whole 50,319 63,780 78,265 27,946 55.5% 3.1%
�mw�ry� NC Whole 11o,605 130,340 138,423 27,818 25.2% 3.1%
IIIIIy�=
y�M�pp fiM Illlllllllllllllllllll NC Whole 51,765 58,100 60,585 8,820 17.0% 1.0%
SC None 32,170 34o68 33,140 970 3.0% 0.1%
YIIIIIIIIII�!!�llllllllll � SC Partial 54,516 61,351 76,652 22,136 4o.6% 2.5% I
I IIIIIIIII NC Partial d M 84958 96,287 98,078 13,120 15.8% 1.5%
y IIIIIIIIIIIII�III 011,,8857 1,897,0p34 n 2,402,618 900,761 60.0%
1,5
� °m"m °�'� °hMNl��fl4mll��nnl'� 1 Pdufl�fl��m��ttm�i��
Y
9/28/2012
7

.ni,� fl ill fl lll�m✓,I ry,": 11 2 .31 1 111 �I. IJI✓,I d Il z(,IuWi I Grovii) III li. Ra III "Is -" "Ill 111 j', «'a.,III III SO,III „I,
l� �M
Figure 2: Average Annualized Growth Rates Comparison
rr
7 5@b ......... ......... ......... .........
�3 41
a
a 7 County Region
iuu union County
m
111 Mecklenburg County
s
a
1%
0%
1990-2000 2000-2005 2005-2010 2010-2030
Nate. The adapted iM11M70 forecasts for whole coon ies are only avarla0le for Gabari u5, G Lincotln, Mocklcn4lurg,
Rowan, Won and Yo,k Cow ies.
Sources: US Censsu5 .2000 and 2010, MUMPO 2030 Sooloecm —c Forecasts
Y
9/28/2012
M

Pcvd(-aion Densft.v (per Sq Nfi)
Figure 3: Population Density in the CMSA
7700 2000 and 2010 (Excluding Mecklenburg)
600
wa 500
400
-iuu
t2 200
100 III
Jac aatya 6 iaaSa 0 9,\ so
vp
Population per Square We w 2000 11111 2010
Mecklenburg County Densities: 1,327,6 (2000) and 1,755,6 (2010) per square mile.
Source: US Census 2000 and 2010
9/28/2012
E

ecfi.mm I]cnisehold Income
Figure 4: Median Household Income in the CMSA
2000 and 2010
70,0a0
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,00 .
Un�10�i c1 cs c1 0 c1 U yc �U
Uo °� Unarm a Unarm Ua�r ��1
Ua
��*an �nyar ���n5 �C,?S ar ``ehz�w 4n� a� �� y�aa� n � a`Cp`' �X (P-1 t 0a
¢ �a� }e 4 Sys �yw yn
Median Household Income la 2000 uui 2010
Source: American Community Survey 2008,2@10, 3 -Year Estimates, Table 52503 (Financial Characteristics)
(III cn� is I n g m. I m mm m. ,m fcn- t h e NI .
i
(III II
III VIII ��iui III ii1�I (III (III 111111 VIII �IIII (III �F: VIII �� uiii 1���
44 IppI1I11 III (III � (III III VIII °.
lllr11111111 I�IIIIflIIIIm 11111111 "fllllllll "11111 @Illllll�lll m 83 3 65 3 ]41 66.2 68.1 ]4.1 ]4.9 61.1 111 111 16.4 III ]2.1
VIII I I� IIIIImIImIII IImfl1111111"fll�ll ll" IIIIII1fl ll 1117 347 259 33 8 31.9 259 25.1 38.1 30.3 30.3 236
IpI IIgI,IIgI III 26.9 27.9
IIIIIIII � 203,200 8 ;]00 1]2,200 104800 124500 168,200 y56, -0 190,900 124000 )28,]00 85,800 129,400 164]m
811 68.2 76.6 67.5 ]5.0 73.0 67.9 60.3 749 67.5 68.5 ]5.0 6811
1i1 °1 ii�lildu 111fl11 Y Ifl11�1 fl 1fli0 olflllfi
" 6.4
5 1 5 5 3 5 3 5 5.6 5.6 5 5 54 5 5 5.6 5
ummBllPuuBlBllilll" i'11 (III uBliuil � I���
IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII Ii Iiiluiim" iilufll ilia fiw�mYuYuYu i I� IHIi uiuuBlBllfmii II us I IttI�IIU 1i' 1Pu utl1PI IifluBlBlii
Pl lfl 111 m 1�1111flIfl 11fl1fl 0.5 0.8 0.8 13 0.6 1.2 0.9 1.5 0.1 1.2 0g
IIrI II II"( li lillllmll lfl lfllflll 'I S.o 45 48 5 ] 3 ] 2.5 10.9 5.2 3.8 45 3.0 5�]
IIIIIIfl llllll ll llmll lfllfll ll 17 "4 3o.q 2q.q 31.8 30.9 244 2]5 251 2]5 31.] 32.6 275 245
iNlfl llllll ll llmll lfllfll ll 49'7 52.3 471 52.4 473 50.3 530 391 544 48.1 48.1 52.9 48.6
22.
�,rJI q,gpooIIllfl,^11I "Ifll ll 111 llpfl lflglflgllrtl 6 10.5 1].] 8.7 12.3 16.6 12.9 19.1 9.5 u.9 u.2 12.] 16.1
lllfl�fl IIIIIIII II flflll (III III (IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII 10.0 1.4 5.5 1.5 2.5 43 3.5 45 2.7 3.0 3.5 2.7 43
Y
9/28/2012
10

9/28/2012
11

9/28/2012
12

9/28/2012
13

9/28/2012
14

9/28/2012
15