20020672 Ver 3_Monroe Agency Minutes DRAFT 080112_20120904

� I N��TH CARC)�.INA
, Turnpi ke Auth�ority
Monroe Bypass Agency Meeting
MEETING MINUTES
(Draft)
Date: July 18, 2012
10:00 AM to 12:15 PM �
NCDOT Century Center — Structures Conference Room -
Project: STIP R-3329/R-2559 Monroe Connector/Bypass — STP-NHF-74(90)
Attendees:
George Hoops, FHWA
Scott McLendon, USACE
Liz Hair, USACE (phone)
Marella Buncick, USFWS
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
David Wainwright, NCDWQ
Cindy Karoly, NCDWQ
Alan Johnson, NCDWQ (phone)
Amy Simes, NCDENR
Scott Slusser, NCDOJ
Ebony Pittman, NCDOJ
Ed Lewis, NCDOT — HES
Greg Thorpe, NCDOT — PDEA
Steve Gurganus, NCDOT — HES
Colin Mellor, NCDOT - NES
Carla Dagnino, NCDOT - NES
Elizabeth Lusk, NCDOT - NES
Jesse Gilstrap, NCDOT-WZTC
Lawrence Gettier, NCDOT — WZTC
Barney Blackburn, NCDOT — REU
Mark Staley, NCDOT - REU
_ :;�
Kevin Fischer, NCDOT — Structures Mgmt
Larry Thompson, NCDOT - Div 10
Jamal Alavi, NCDOT — TPB
Ron Wilkins, NCDOT - Utilities
Tim McFadden, NCDOT — DB
Malcolm Watson, NCDOT — DB
Jennifer Harris, NCTA
Zak Hamidi, NCTA
Rick Baucom, NCTA
Christy Shumate, NCTA-GEC
Carl Gibilaro, Atkins
Ken Gilland, Michael Baker Eng.
Lorna Parkins, Michael Baker Eng.
Scudder Wagg, Michael Baker Eng.
Tommy Peacock, RKK
Tina Swiezy, RKK
Jim Triplett, UIG (phone)
Sam Stutt, UIG (phone)
Lindy Hallman, UIG (phone)
Greg Miller (phone)
Presentation Materials:
Y Agenda
Y PowerPoint presentation: Land Use Forecast Background and Union County Growth Analysis
Purpose:
Provide an update on the Monroe Bypass project status, review issues raised in the recent legal
proceedings and discuss the next steps.
The following items were discussed at the meeting:
Summarv of Leqal Proceedinqs
On May 3, 2012, the US Court of Appeals (4t" Circuit) stated that the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) had failed to disclose critical assumptions underlying their decision to build the
Monroe Connector/Bypass: In sum, although we need not and do not decide whether the NEPA permits
the Agencies to use MUMPO's data in this case, we do hold that by doing so without disclosing the data's
underlying assumptions and falsely responding to public concerns, the Agencies failed to take the `hard
look" at environmental consequences. The Court further stated that the MUMPO data from which the
Agency Coordination Meeting - 7/18/12

Page 2 of 4
quantitative ICE Build and No-Build projections were developed contained the project in the travel time to
employment, one of the factors used to develop the socioeconomic data. They further stated that this
inclusion was not shared with the agencies and cast doubt on the findings of the analysis. NCDOT did
request a rehearing due to facts and law the Court overlooked or misunderstood but that request was
denied on June 29, 2012.
Update on Construction, Rictht of Wav Process and Permits
In light of the recent court decision, FHWA rescinded the Record of Decision (August 2010). In addition,
all design work for the design-build project has been suspended. Right of way acquisition activities have
also been suspended, although property owners may apply for consideration for hardship acquisition. At
NCTA's request, the Section 401 permit issued by NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has been
withdrawn and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 permit has been suspended.
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analvsis
Baker Engineering gave a presentation on the process used to complete the quantitative indirect and
cumulative effects study for the project. The presentation included details on the data and methodology
used, as well as how and why decisions and conclusions were reached. The intent of the presentation
was to provide agencies some background and explanation of the issues involved in the litigation. In
addition, the presentation provided an overview of growth trends in Union County and the Metrolina
region. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is attached to these minutes.
Next Steps
NCTA and NCDOT have reviewed the court's decision and identified topics where additional
documentation and explanation are warranted. These topics include:
Y Indirect and cumulative effects analysis data and methodologies
Y Growth trends in Union County
Y Evaluation of the US 74 Corridor Study prepared by Stantec in 2007 for NCDOT-Division 10
Y Alternatives analysis and build corridors considered
Y 2035 No-Build Traffic forecasts (see FEIS Appendix A)
NCTA will compile information on these topics and share that with agencies and the public. NCTA will
also review other components of the NEPA study to determine if additional analysis is necessary. NCTA
will also ask for agency input on other topics to be addressed and methodologies to be used. The type of
NEPA document that will ultimately be prepared has not yet been determined.
Update on Public Involvement Activities
On June 18 and 19, community meetings were held in Stallings and Monroe to provide updates similar to
what was presented at this agency meeting. Those meetings included additional focus on the right of
way acquisition process. The presentation to the public provided a broader level of technical detail
regarding the modeling than was presented today. A total of approximately 200 people attended the
meetings.
Q&A / COMMENTS:
1. USFWS noted that it is, or shou/d be, inherent that the MPO's model would include the project. An
explanation that was previously provided regarding the inclusion of the project in the model was that
the land use model included the transportation network and that homes and businesses around the
interchanges were then removed to create the No-Build scenario. So, did the NCTA delete projected
growth included in the MPO's model around the future interchanges to get to a No-Build scenario,
and if so, how was sprawl away from the interchanges accounted for?
The assumption that the MPO's model would inherently include the project and therefore represent a
future Build scenario is the basis of the confusion regarding the ICE analysis. In the modeling
process used to develop future socioeconomic data, two separate models were used:a land use
forecast model and a transportation network model. The analysis of the socioeconomic forecasts
Agency Coordination Meeting - 7/18/12

Page 3 of 4
provided by MUMPO indicated that project-related growth concentrated at future interchanges for the
Bypass were not incorporated in those forecasts because at the time the forecasts were created, the
planning experts did not contemplate the Project in their land use plans. Therefore, households and
employment in the socioeconomic forecasts were not removed at the interchange areas. Instead, in
development of the Build Land Use scenario, additional development or more intense development
was added around the interchange areas to reflect induced development from the project.
2. Were the items in the Hammer Report (top-down socioeconomic projections) weighted? (USFWS)
Yes. The Hammer Report looked at 227 representative counties to determine the influence of each
factor.
3. When you reevaluate the study, will you reuse the 2003/2004 socioeconomic data or consider
updated data? (USFWS)
The 2003/2004 data is still the most recent available and what is included in the currently approved
long range transportation plan and conformity determination for the study area. New socioeconomic
projections are being prepared for the Metrolina region by UNC Chapel Hill; however, these new
forecasts will not be available for at least another 9 months or more.
4. How do you determine what land is defined as `available land"? (USFWS)
Land available for development that would be considered for possible development in the No Build
and Build Land Use Scenarios was any parcel considered "undeveloped" in the existing land use.
This included farms, forests and other vacant lands. Land protected by stream buffer ordinances,
however, was not considered available for development.
5. Agencies asked for clarification on the roles of NCTA, FHWA, and agencies and the status of the
legal proceedings.
NCTA and FHWA's roles will be the same as they have been, with FHWA as the lead federal agency
and decision-maker. The type of NEPA documentation that will be prepared has not been
determined yet. The agencies will be asked to provide input on all documentation, data, and
methodologies used in responding to the court's concerns. The legal proceedings related to the
lawsuit filed in November 2010 are now closed.
6. What is the projected schedule moving forward? (USACE)
NCTA anticipates a new ROD in early 2013. After that, NCTA will resubmit a permit application for a
new 401 permit and request the 404 permit be taken off suspended status. NCTA is hopeful that the
design-build process can be reinitiated by April 2013.
7. NCWRC noted that studies show high levels of development occurring in Union County with and
without the project. What are NCDOT and the localities doing to protect resources and water quality?
A partnership between NCDOT, NCDWQ, and local governments could be considered, as well as
local land use restrictions.
As part of updating the cumulative effects analysis for the project, NCTA will look at any new land use
regulations or controls, as well as consider the NCWRC's green growth handbook.
8. USFWS asked if a merger type process to review the new data and provide comments had been
considered.
NCTA and FHWA will discuss this and determine some key points for agency involvement and input
in this process. Agencies will be asked to provide input and comments on all documents.
9. USFWS noted that depending on the outcome of NCTA's current studies, they may need to revisit
consultations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
At this time, no modifications appear to be needed. NCTA and FHWA will continue to coordinate with
USFWS to determine an appropriate course of action.
Agency Coordination Meeting - 7/18/12

Page 4 of 4
Previous Action Items:
1�� �f'%T�
New Action Items:
Y Identify the process that will be used for future meetings and the sharing of data. There was
agreement among the participants that the project does not need to return to the Purpose and
Need or Alternatives phases (concurrence points 1, 2 and 2a) nor does it need to enter into the
formal Merger process.
Resolutions:
Y None.
Next Steps:
Y NCDOT will continue to be committed to full disclosure and transparency. In future meetings
NCDOT will provide any materials requested by the agencies in a detailed yet understandable
manner to expedite the decision making process.
Y Next Meeting — August 22 or 23, 2012
Agency Coordination Meeting - 7/18/12