20020672 Ver 3_04-01-11 Petitioners Prehearing Statement_20120904

STATE OP NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WAKE
Yadkin Riverkeeper and North
Wildlife Federation,
Petitioners,
vs.
N.C. Department of Gnvironment and )
Natural Reaouroes, the Division of Water )
Quality. )
Respondenk )
)
IN THE OPPICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
1 I EHR 2141 �
PETITIONERS'PR�H�ARING
STATEMENT
Pursuant ro 26 N.C. Admin. Code 3.0104, N.C. Gen. Stat.� § 150B-23(a2), and thc CourPs
March 3, 2011 order for Prehearing Statements, Petitioners Yadkin Riverkeeper and North
Carolina Wildlifa Federation ("NCWP"') respeotfully submit this Preheaziug Statement.
The Nature of the Yroceeding, Issues to be Resolved, and the Statutes, Rules and
Legul PrecedentInvolved. �
In this matter, Petitioners appeal the gcant of Water Quality CeRifioatio� No. 3845 �
("Certification") to the NoKh Carolina �rnpike AuChority ("NCTA"). It wns issued by fhe
North Carolina Division of Water QuatiTy ("DWQ") on December 22, 2010 Porthe Monroc
Co�nector Bypass. NCTA plans to construct and operate this new location, controlled-access
toll highway, ("Toll I-Iighway") in Union and Mecklenburg counties, North Carolina. The Toll
Highway will run from U.S. 74 near T-485 in Mecldenburg County to U.S. 74 between the towns
of Wingate a��d Mazshville in Union Counry, a distxnce of approximatety 20 miles, traversing a
suburban-to-rural landscape on the outer fringe of thc Charlotte meno area. It will impact
18,658 tinear Peet ofjurisdictional streams, Z66 acres ofjurisdicfional wetlands, and 3.12 acres
of ponds. A copy of the�Certification is attached [o this petition as Exhibit A. .

D WQ's authority to issue the 401 Certification arises under the Pederal V✓ater Pollution
Con�ol Ace ("Clean Water Act" or "CWA"), 33 U.S.C. § I251 eC eCp, and the Environmental
Management Commission's Water Quality Certification rules, 15A N.C. Admin. Code 02H.0500
et seq. The Clean Wafer Act section 40i(a)(1) provides:
My applicant for a Federal license or permit to conduct any activiTy ...�which
may result in any discharge into the navigable waters, shall provide the Iicensing
or permi[ting agency a certification from the State in which Ihe discharge
originates or will originate ... that any such discharge will comply with the
applicable provisions of [the Clean Water Act]. .
33 U.S.C. § I30.1(a)(1). Speoifically, the oertificaCion must assure compliance with state
water qualiTy standards. The North Carolina E�vironmental Management Commission has
adopted rules that control DWQ's issuance of 401 certifications. 15A N.C. Admin. Code
02i-i.0501 et seq. TUose rules demand speci5c inPormation from the applicant regarding
proposed-impacts and require DWQ to evaluate spccific factors before issuing a 401 certiticatio�
for wetland and stream impacts. D W Q musf find that the project:
I) has uo practicai altematives; .
2) will minimize adverse impaots to surface waters;
3) does not result in the degradation of groundwaters and surface waters;
4) doea not eesult in cumulative impacts that will cause a violation ofwater quality
standards; .
5) protects downstream water quality standards with on-site stormwa[cr control
measures; and -
6) provides for replaoement oPexieting uses Chrough wetland oc stream mitigation.
Id.,02H.OS06(b), 02A.0506(0).
The CeMitication purpurts to conform with the requirements of Clean Water Act § 401
and state regulations implementing that pxovision and state_water quality standarde, but fails to
meet the standazds established therein. Because of these dcficiencies, DWQ erred i� issuing [he
401 Certifictttion. The specific issues to be resolvcd include:

l. Before DWQ can issue a wafer quality certification, thc applicant must provide
specific, detailed information in its application. NCTA's application omits detailed
informatiou about the consUvction of the Toll Highway and impacCs to etreams and
. wetlands, relying instead on a Design-Build Team that it intends to hire to develop
Ihose plans in the future. Did DWQ err in issuing the 401 Certification without
detailed information cequired by the water quality ceititication rules, in violation of
33 U.StC. § 1341 ("Clean Wa[er Act §�401" or "CWA § 40P'), 15A N.C. Admin.
Code 02H.0502? � � -
2. Befoce issuing a water qualiry oertification, DWQ must find that on-site stormwater
oonhol measures will proteot downstream water quality. NCTA's applioation did not
include sformwater wntrols for sixteen miles of the Lwenty-mile Toll Highway. Did
llWQ err, in iesuing the 0.01 Certification without evaluatiug oo-site sWrmwater
con[rols for the majority of the Toll Hi�way, in violatiou of 33 U.S.C. § 1341
("Clcan Water Act § 401" or "C WA § 401 "), 15A N.C. Admin. Codc �
02N.0506(b)(5), (c)(5)7
3. D WQ must find that cumulative impacts from a proposed project will not cause a
violaCion of dowustream water qualiry standards befora issuing a water qualiry
ce�4ification, ln its review of cumulative impacts from the Monroe �
ConnectodBypass, DW,Q assumed that fhe highway would be built in the baseline
"No-Build" scenario. As a result, it signi6cantty understated the cumulative ePfects
of the 7'0ll Highway. Did DWQ err in iesuing the 401 CeRifioaGon, in violation of 33
O.S.Q § 1341 ("Clean Water Aet § 40t" or "CWA § 40("), I SA N.C. Admin. Code
02H.0506(6)(4), (c)(4)7 � .
3

4. DWQ can only issue a water quality certification if no practioal alternatives exist that
would reduce a projecYs impacts to strcams and wetlands. Upgrading the existing
�highway corridor and several new construction alternatives would have less impact
on streams and wetlands than the alternative appcoved by the 401 CertiFcatioa Did
� DWQ err in issuing the 401� Certification for NCTA's preferred alternative, in
violation of 33 U.S.C. § 134( ("Clean V✓ater Act § 401" or "CWA § 401"), I SA N.C.
Admin. Code 02FI.0506(b)(1), (c)Q)7 �
5. Before issuing a wate� quxlity certifioation, D WQ must find that the pcoject will .
minimize adverse impacts to streams a�d wetlands. NCTA has not minimized
adverse impacts to streams and wetlands. Instead, it applied for a worsUcase-scenario
certification and proposes to minimize impacts through future modifications. Did
D4VQ err in issuing the 401 Cer[ification for a worst-case-scenario proposal, in.
� violation oP 33 U.S,C. § 1341 ("Clean Water Act § 401" or "CWA § 40P'), 15A N.C.
Admin. Code 02H.0506(b)Q ), (c)(1)7 .
II. The Statement oF Facts and Arguments in Support of Petitioners' Claims.
A. Statement of Facts. . �
The following is a bricf and general synopsis of the facls and reasons supporting
PetiCioners' olaims in this Contested Case. Petitiouecs anticipate that they will obtain additional
infoimation during discovery and case development and [herefore reserve [hc right to present
additional facts and reaso�s in the briefin� aad hearing of this matter. �
1. PeHlionine Pa�2ies �
Petitioner Yadkin Riveckeeper is a not-fnr-profit corpocation founded in 2008 in WinsCon
Salem, Nor[h Carolina Yadkin Riverkeeper has over 250 members, suppoRers nnd affiliatc
4

constituents in North Carolina, It seeks to respect, protec[ and improve the Yadkin Pee Dee
River Basin through education, advocacy and acCion. The Riverkeeper is a licensed member of
the Watcrkeeper Alliance, which connecfs and suppor(s local Waterkeeper programs to provide a
united voice and to champion clean water issues around the world. Waterkecper Alliance seeks
to proteot fishxble, swimmable and dcinkable waterways worldwide.
The Monrce Conncctor/Bypass is located in the Yadkin Pee Dee river basin. The Toll
Highway will impact water qualiTy in that river basin. Thc Yadkin Riverkeeper has members
who livc in the vicinity of the proposed Monrce Connector/Bypass and members Rom across the
state, who recreate in the vicinity of Ute proposed Monroe ConnectorBypass. Yadkin
Riverkeeper also hus members who live in Mecklenburg and Union counties who are impacted
by Ihe effect of growth on water qualiTy. Petitioner Yadkin Rived<eeper participated actively in
the public process related to the issuance of the water qualiry Certifioation for this project and
submitted extensive oomments to D WQ regarding the application for the Certification. The
Yadkin Riverkeeper and its members are substantially affected by DWQ's issuance of the 401.
CeRification for the Monroe Connectod Bypass. lt is a"person aggrieved" pursuant to the North
Carolina Administrative Procedure Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ I SOB-2(6), I SOB-23.
PetitionerNorth Carolina WiIdliPe Federation ("NCWF") is a noFfor-profit corporation
Pounded in 1945. NC WF, which is an affitiate of the National V✓ildlife Federation, has over
1 Q000 members, supporters and affiliate constituents in Norfh Carolina. NCWF's missio� is to
educate, inspire and assist individuals and organizations of diverse cultures to conserve wildlife
aud other natural resources and to protect the environment in ocder to aohieve a peaceFul,
equitable and sustainable future. Its primaiy goal is to raise awureness and involve people of all
ages in conservation and protection of the e�vironment, including water qualiTy. NC WF

advocates for protection and conservation of wildlife httbitat,including protecting declining
habitats and species on private and public land. NCWP works to promote and protect arexs for
hunting, fishing and wildlife observacion for sportsmen and wildlife enthusiasta �
NC WF has members who live in the vicinity of the proposed Monroe Connector/[3ypass,
and members from across the siate, who visit, recreate, observe birds and oShcr wildlife,
photograph and otherwise use and enjoy the waterways, wetlands and other lands in the viciniTy
of the proposed Monroe Connector/Bypxss. NCWF participated active(y in the public process
related to the issuance of the water yuality Certification for this project and submitted extensive
commenta to DWQ regarding the application for the Cectification. NCWF and its membere are
substantially affected by UWQ's issuanoe of the 401 Cer[ificafion for thc Monroe
Connector/Bypass. It is a"person aggrieved" pursuant W the North Caroli�a Administrative
Procedure Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ I SOB-2(6), 150B-23.
2. Chronoloev of Events -
The NEPA Process �
The National �nvironmental Policy Act ("1VEPA") requires agencies conducting a major
fede�al action thaL will impact the environmene tn pecpaze an Euviconment�al Impact Statemeut
("EIS") for the action. Because NCTA used federal funds and wil I impact wetlands with this
project, it is required to prepxre an GIS. The EIS is required to inciude an anatysis of alternatives
to the proposcd project, and a complete examination of environmcntal impacts expected to result
fi'om the diffecent project alternatives. Many of the requirements of NEPA, inoluding the
wmparison of project al[ernatives and the analysis of environmental impacts, ovcrlap with
requirements Ihat D WQ must fulfill prior to the issuance oP a 401 Water QualiTy Cekification.
Bccause of this overlap, NCTA relied heavily on the Monroe ConnectorBypass E7S in its ".

application for a Certificatibn. A brief overview of the NEPA process foc the Toll Highway is
therefore appropriate. �
The Nortk� Carolina Department of Transportation ("NCDO"C") originally began to .
prepare Environmental Impact Statemenls for the Monroe Bypass and Connector as two separate
projects in the late 1990s, and issued a draft EIS ("DE1S") for the Monroe Conneotor in 2003. In
February 2004, Petitioner NCWF and other advocacy groups submitted comments on fhat
documcnt, raising conceros about the indirect and cumulative impacts from induced growth. The
comments highlighted the dcficient analysis in the DEIS of significant wafer qualiTy impacts on
the Goose Creek watershed, which would likelyjeopardize the continued existence of the
endaugered Carolina heelsp(itter mussel (Lasmigona decorata). Still, rather than attempt to
revise ifs prior DEIS and address comments, NCDOT rescinded the DEIS, explaining that it
would pursue a new toll highway with the Turnpike Authority that would combine the Monroe�
Bypass and Connector projects.
The two projects were refashioned by the transpoRation agencies as a singie to(1 highway,
with an estimated cost of approximately $800 million, a por[ion oPwhich would be defrayed by
the collection of toll revenues. A new DE1S for the Toll T-iighway was issued in March, 2009.
On June 15, 2009, Petitioners NCWF and Yadkin Riverkoeper submitted voluminous comments
on the Maroh 2009 DEiS. Numerous state and federal agencies including DWQ, North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Emironmental
Protection Agency also submitted commcnts on the DEIS voicing, among other issues, concerns
regarding tl�e inadequacy of the alternatives auatysis performed.for the Toll Highway, and its
analyais of cumulative and indiceet impacts. �

On May 25, 2010, NCTA and the Fedeeal Highway Adminishation ("FHWA")� issued a
final EiS ("FE1S") fa'the Monroe ConneotodBypas's. The FEIS failed to oure almost all of the
substantial omissions and misstatements of the DEIS. The FGIS included e new Quantitative
indirect and Cumulative Impacts Analysis which concluded that the Monroe ConnectodBypass
would onty make a 1% diPFerence to growth patterns in the area. This analysis was based, in
part, on underlying socio-economic forecasts which assumed the construction of the Monroc
Connector /Bypass for both the `Build" and "No-Build" scenarios. Nonethelessy the analysis
concluded that the road would lead to substantial inereases in Fecal Coliform, Total Nitrogen and
Total Phosphorous in several sU�eams listed on the 303(d) list. �
On August 22, 2010, FFIWA completed the NEPA process by issuing the Rewed of
Decision (`ROD") approving the FEIS. This was the Gnal step in the EIS process. The ROD did
not address Petitioners' concems. On November 2, 20l 0, Petitioners NC W F and Yadkin
Riverkeeper, along with C(ean Aic Carolina, filed a complaint in the U.S. Dis[rict Court for the
Eastetn District of North.Cazolina challenging the adequacy of the E1S. "Phe case is currently .
pending in federal couit. � � .
ii. � The 401 Process
The proposed Toll Highway would directly affect streams, wetlands, and ponds th�t ure
protected by the Clean Water Act and associated state laws. Therefore, bef'orc it can begin
construction, NCTA must obtain a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Iingineers
and a 401 water qualiry certi6cation from DWQ. �
NCTA did not pursue a 401 cerfification for the Monroe ConnectorBypass under
NCDOT's usual Merger Process. That process imolves sU'eamlined project development under
NP,PA and other permitting pcocesses by requiriog aIl agencies to sign off on Concurrence Points
� FHWA is thc feAeral agency responsibie for overseeing the CIS process.

at defining points in the 1VEPA process. By signing off on a Concurrence Point an agency agrees
to decisions made ae each de6ning point in the project development process and pledges [o abide
by that decision. Rather than use this process, however, NCTA coordinated with regulatory
agencies, including D WQ, through the Section 6002 process established by the Safe, . �
Accountable, Flexible, Efficiene Transportatiom EquiTy Act: A Legacy for Users ("SAFETEA-
LU"). This process involved regular meetings with regulatoiy a�ency personnel, so called
"'[Lrnpike Snvironmentai Agency Cooedination" meetings, but did not involve any binding
agreements from regulatory agencies regarding NCTA's a�alysis.
In early 2010 NCTA decided to pursue a phased "corridor" certification for the Monroe
Connector/Bypass. Under this approach NCTA sought a"concepNaP' certifioation foc the
corridor of the Monroe Connector/Bypass that would require DWQ to base its certification
decision on preliminary dcsigns, This.decision was based, at least in pan, on fhe necessity of
acquiring a certification for the Toll Highway in ocder to obtain approval for Toll Highway
funding. The Local Goverlunent Commission, the approval of which is necessary for NCTA to
parsue bond sales for the Totl Highway, will generalty not aufhorize thc sale of bonds for a�
project that does not have aII required environmental� certitications and permits.
DWQ was initially reluctant to pursue this approach for the Monrue ConnectorBypass,
finding it W be inappropriate to review a certification application for a large and complex toll .
higliway prior to being furnished with final desigas. Thus, on June 22, 2010 DWQ stated that it
would not accept NC"I'A's application for a 401 certification until final designs had been
provided for the Toll Highway. U(timately, however, NCTA persuaded D WQ to pursue fhe
corridor certification approach, on condition that NCTA would provide some level of detailed
design for one segment of the Toll Highway. That section is identi6ed as R-2559C in NCTA's

applicatioa for the Certification. This "detailed" design was put togcther by consultants for the
sole purpose of obtaining tNc certification. 1'he design was not the actual final design and was
not subjecC to standard internal NCTA review. The tinal true design will be developed by a
Design-Build Team that NCTA intends to hire in the fuWre. The Design-Build Team is not
bound by the original detttiled designs, and may redesig� the details for dte entire Toll
Highway.� � . �
NCTA submitted its applicatioa foc a 401 certification on Septembec 9, 2010. The -
application relied heavily on the analysis presented in the EIS outlined above, and incorporaled �
by eeference the EIS and ROD. DWQ issued a notice inviting the public to comment on the .
CeMification application on November 1 Q 2010. On November 29, 2010 Pctitioners NCWF � �
and Yadkin Riverkeeper submitted extensive comments questioning, among other things, the
failure of tha application to demonatrate that there was no practical alternative to the Toll
I-lighway, the analysis oF indirect and cumulative impacts, the phased cer[ification approach, and
the adequaoy oT fhe mitigation plan. Petitioners' counsel met with DV✓Q on Deoember 21,
2010 to discuss conccrns aboutthe application. The following day, December 22, 201Q DWQ
issued the Certification. �
� B. Areuments in Support of Petitiuners' Claims.
I. DWO violated the water qualiTy certification rules by issuin¢ NCTA
the 40l Certification based on an incomplete anolication.. .
Before DW Q can apply the water quality certification rules, the applicanl must provide
specific, detailed information in its app(ication. The required application information includes:
(7) We date of applica6on;
(2) thc name, address, and phone number of the property owner,
� Design-Build contracts may be awarded for highway conatructio� in North Carolina aIIer a determination by the
Depaitment ofTransporintion lhal delivery ofthe project must be expediteA and that i( is not in the public interest to
comply with normal design and consiruction wntracting pmccdures. N.QGen,5tn1. § 136-26.11(d).
10

(3) if the applicant is a wrporation, the� state iu which it is
domesticated, the name of its principal officers, the namc and
address oP the North Carolina process agency, and the name of Lhe
individua] who shall be primarily responsible for the conduct of the
activiry for which ceRificaCion is sought � .
(4) the nature of the activiTy to be conducted by applicant;
(5) whetherthe discharge has occurred oris proposed;
(6) the location of the discharge, stating the municipality, if
�. applicable; the county; the drainage basin; the name of the
ceceiving watere; and the location of the point of discharge with
� regazd to the receiving waters, �
(7) a description of the reoeiving watera, including type (creek, rivec,
. swamp, canal, lake, pond or estuary) if applicable; nature (Resh,
brackieh oe salt); and wetland classiFioation;
(8) description of the type of waste treatment faoilities if applicable.
ISA N.C. Admin.Code 02H.0502(a). The application must also include "map(s) or sketch(es) of
suffieient detail to accurately delineate the boundacies of tt�e lands owned or to be utilized by the
applicant in can•ying out ite activity; Che location, dimensions and rype of any strucWres arected
or to be erected on said lands for use in connection with the activiTy; and the location and extent
of the receiving waters including wetlands within the boundaries of said lands." Id. at
02H.0502(b). For the reasons described below, NCTA's application for the Monroe
ConnectodBypass failed fo mcet these requirements.
NCTA intends to use a Design-Build�Team to design and co�struct lhe Monroe
ConnectorBypass. The obligxtions of the Team are laid out in detail in the NCTA's Request Por
Proposals ("RPP") on the Toll I-Iighway.3 The Design-Build Team is essential to the permitting
process. It has the responsibility to assess impacts tojurisdictional waters, to prepare permit
drawings and to develop and submit the application required by 15A N.C. Admin. Code
02H,0502.
7'he RFP not only describes Ihe Design-Build Tcam's responsibility to develop and
prepare the application, it gces so far as to describe how the Design-Build Team mustsubmit the
' The final RFP can 6e found a� http://www.ncmmpike.org/procurement/Monroe_Connec�odFinal%20RFP.pdf.
11

permit applications. The Team is required to forward the applioation to the NCTA xnd NCDOT
who will then submit it to the permitting agencies. Tlie RFP estimates tliat it may take l l months
to oomptete the designs that are neoessary for the permit application, submi[ the �pplicatioo, and
receive permits. .
in sum, the Design-6ui(d Team will develop and prepare the inPormation that is required
to be included in the application for a 401 certification. Moreover, thc Design-Build Team is
"fully" responsible for the Toll Highway design and may reject the NCTA's preliminary
designs ° NCTA's designs "are preliminary and provided solely to assist the Design-Build
Team iu the devetopment of the Toll Highway design."s As a cesult of [his relianoe on the
Design-Build Team, without them, NCTA does not have designs [hat are sufficiently developed
to meet thc application ccquirements in 15A N.C. Admin. Code 02I-I.0502. ,
As of the daCe of the 40l Certification aC issue in this contested case, and as of the date of
this f ling, NCTA has not hiced the Design-Build Team. NCTA issued iCs. Final Request for
Proposa(s from potential design-build teams on September 24, 20t0. Thc date of the price
proposal opening was on Oceober 28, 2010. NCTA does not currently have a Design-Build
Tcam under contract. 'Chus, the design and development of the permit application that is the
responsibiliTy of the Dcsiy� i-Build Team has not occurred. As a result, NCTA has not submitted
the detailed application informa[ion required by 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0502 and DWQ �
erred in acring on its incomplete appfioation. �
In lieu of submitting a complete application prepared by lhe Design-Build Team, NCTA
submitted an application for what it has termed a"conceptual" 40t certification on August 31,
20I0. As it celates to etream and wetland impacts, the application represants a worsUcase- �
° RFP at 66.
' RFP at 86.
12

scenario proposul for the'1'oll Highway tt�at will Iater be amended through major modifications
to the Certiffoation. NCTA's "conceptual" application does not provide the informatiou reqoired
by 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0502.
The deficiency in NCTA's application is made clear by its contents. As described in its
application, the Monroe Connector/[3ypass would be "approximately 20 miles of four to six lane
controlled-access highway and scrvice roads, the majoriTy on new location in Mecklenburg and
Union Coun[ies." As discussed above, the Toll Highway was initialty proposed as two separate
totl highways, R3329 and R-2559. NCTA's applioation creates a third diviaion, isolating the
3.77-mile sectio� of the Toll Highway that they have developed morc detailed plans for, labeling
it R-2559C. The "concepNaP' applicatiou wntains signifioantty diffecent information for R-
2559C and the remainder of the Toll Highway, providing more dctailed — yet still not adequatety
detailed — information for that section. �
The Certification iCself refleots the defioieucy in NCTA's epplieation by prohibiting
impacts before NCTA submits the informatio� required under 15A N.C. Admin. Code 2H.0502
fo� DV✓Q to conduot the analyses required by tk�e 401 certification rules. The Certifioation
prohibita oo¢skucfion, providing that "[u]o construction activities that may impaot any wetlands,
streams, or surface waters ... shall begin until after the permittee applies foq and reccives a
writteu modification of this 401 Watec Qualiry Certification from the NCDWQ."6 NCTA is
requued eo submit "revised design plans for R-2559C and final dcsi�n plans for the remaining
sections of R-2559 and R3329" be(ore DWQ can approve constmction. Id. Those "[r]evised
and final designs shall reflect all appropriate avoidac�ce, minimization, revised jurisdictional�
impaot tables and mitigation for impacts W wetlands, sffeams, and othe� surface waters:' Id.
° Certification at Condition l.
13

NCTA has adopted a"conceptaal" approach to this 401 Ccrtificatio� because,�if legal, it
would allow the agency to obtain a certi£cation without providing detailed information regarding
its proposed.Toll Highway. By using the "conceptuaP' approach, NC7'A has intentionally, and
expressly, avoidcd submitting informafion required to be inctuded in its application by ISA N.C.
Admin. Code 02H.OS02. Because the application lacked information required by the water
qualiTy certification cules, DWQ crred in issuing the 401 Certification to NCTA for the Monroe
Connector Bypass. �
2. DWO erred in issuine a water aualiri certification for ac[ivities that will
not pmvide for protection of downslream water oualiri because there are
no on-site stormwater con[rol measures £or sixteen miles of the Iwenri
mile Toll Hiehwav. � �
Undee the cerGfication mles, DWQ musC ensure that NCTA "provides for protection of �
downstream water quality etaudards through the use of on-site stormwater control measures:'
15A N.C. Admin. Code 02H.OSQ6(b)(5), (c)(5): In its application, NCTA only provided
information regarding stormwater control measures for R-2559C and did not address stormwater
control for the remaining sixteen miles of the "I'oll Highway. At Attachment 10 of NCTA's
applicatioq "Stormwater Management and Diffuse Plow Plan," NCTA statee that "during
wnstcuctioq they will followNCDOT's Design Standazds in Sensitive Watereheds fo�
implementing sedimentation and erosion control BMPs along Ihe cntire project," but sets out
detailed plane for only section R-2559C. The details in fhe applioation foe R-2559C include
what type of stormwater control measures will be used for cach "station" und includes detailed
grass swale wmputations to determine if discharge can be considered h'eated. Por the remainder
of the Toll Highway, thc application did not include, a�d NCTA has not provided, methods of
wntrolling stonnwater to protect downstceam water quality. .
14

- NCTA has not demonstrated lhat the approved proposal "protects downstream water .
quality standards through the use of on-site stormwater control measures." Rather fhan including
detaiis for stormwater control beyond section R-2559C, NCTA leaves the details of stormwater
control developmenY Por the remaiuing 16 miles of Ihe Toll Highway fo the Design-Build Team.'
The Design-Build Team will also ultimatety be responsible for acquiring a stocmwatee permiLg
Until the Design-Build Team designs [he cntire Toll Highway and identifies stormwater control
measures, NCTA oannot have demonatrated that it can proteot dowostrenm waCer qualiry
standards through the use of on-site stormwater control measures. �
Because DWQ Pailed to �equire NCTA to desccibe its "use of on-site stormwater control
mcasures" before issuing the 401 Certif cation, DWQ acted erroneously, failed ro use proper
procedure, and Pailed to act as reyuired by rule. Further, becausc no information was provided
regarding the majority of stormwater control measures, DWQ's determination that NCTA met
the stormwater cortrol requirements was arbitrary and capricious.
3, DWO erred bv issuina the 401 Certificalion based on a fundamentatl�
flawed cumulative imoacts analvsis. � �
The 401 water qualiTy certifica[ion rules provide that D WQ may not issue a certification
for an activity which will result in "cumulative impacts, based upon past or reasonably .
anticipated future impacts, fha[ cause or will causc a violation oPdownstream wttter qualiTy
standards." 15A N.C. Admin. Code 02H.0506(b)(4), (c)(4). The certi5cation�issued by DWQ
for this Toll Highway asseita that"the application provides adequate assurance that the discharge
of fill materials into the waters of the Yadkin River Basin and associated weUands, in
conjunction with proposed development will not result in-a violation of applicable Water QualiTy .
standards." �
' RFP at 122 . �
a RFP al 170: . .
IS

In reaching this conclusion, DWQ adopted NCTA's cumulative impacts analysis as
described in the EIS for Che ToII Highway. In its application, NCTA supported its desoription of
cumulative impaots wifh thc 2010 Baker Quantitative Indireot and Cumulative Effects anatysis,
which is included as Appendix H and I oP the PEIS �
7'he Quantitative lndireot and Cumulative Sffects ("ICE") analysia qua�tifies fuLure
indirect and cum�lative impac6s to the enviroument in the given pcoject a�ea Indirect effects
are impacts that result from construction of a project and are later in time or fai4her removed in
distance than direct effecfs, but are nonetheless reasonably foreseeable. For example�, indirect
eff'ects include the effects a road may have on land development patterns, population densiTy and
growth. Cumulative impacts are impacis which result from the incremental impacts of a project
whe� added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions in the project urea. To �
ascertain the indirect and cumulative impaets for a given area, modelecs oonstrucC future �
scenarios using socio-economic data, which shows how neighborhoods, work centcrs and
undeveloped land will develop over time. Socio-economic data is creafed using a number of
variables including Uie availability of developable land, �ansportaeion networks, and the
availability of general services such as sewer lines. .
� � Thc Monroe Conneceod[3ypass ICE analysis evaluated potential cumulative impacts by
comparing growth patterns if the Monroe Conneclor/[3ypass was built (fhe "Build" scenario)to
growth patterns if the Toll Highway was not built (the "No-Build" scenario). The analysis
concWded that under both future scenarios there would be significant induced growth and
associated impacts to water quality. Bccause the anttlysis concluded that there was very Iittle
difference between the `Build" and "No-Build" scenarios, NCTA and DWQ concluded that the
induced growth and associated impacts on watcr qualiTy wu7d noL be attributable to the road. in
16

shoR, the analysis concluded [hat co�struction of a 20-mile new-Iocation highway into an ex-
urban setting would make almost no difference to tand devetopment patterns and would therefore
have no impact on the water quality. , � -
� Scrueiny of NCTA and DWQ's cumulative impacts anatysis reveals the fundamen[al flaw
that led to Lhis counterintuitive conclusion —NCTA assumed the Monroe ConnectorBypass .
would be built when constructing the `No-Build" scenario. The socio-economic data used to
construct the "No-Build" scenario was based on a road network that assumed constmetion of the
Monroe Connector /Qypass. Thus in generating the Puture land use palterns for the "No-Build"
sccnariq the model assumed that thc road would be constructed. This assumption would makc
areas served by the Toll Highway more attractive Yor land developme�t. Thus, by comparing a
"Build" scenario wiffi a"No-Build" scenario that assumed the road, NCTA dramatically
minimized the impaot the Toll Highway would have on land davelopment pattecns, and thus on
future impacts i�cluding water qualily. � � .
If NCTA and DWQ had conducted a comparison of induced growth from a true "No-
Build" scenario as compazed to the preferred alternative, that analysis would have demonstrated
that the highway approved by the 401 Certification will induce significant grow[h that will have
cumulativc impacts on sheams and other surface waters. Indeed, the ICE analysis relied on by -
the 401 Certification was in direct opposition to an 10E analysis conducted for the ToII Highway
in 2007, which, by contrast, concluded that the Monroe Connector/[�ypass would induce
signifioant growth and have significant impacts on water quality.
By relying on this flawed data and failing to conduct its own analysis of cumulative
impacts, DWQ failed to `Sneaningfully examine cumulative impacCs." McKeel v. NCDENR,
2001 N.C. ENV LEX1S 30 (N.C. ENV 2001). That oversight not onty violaees the water quality
17

oerHfication mles, it chreatens st�eams throughout the region that would be affeoted by the
proposed Toll Highway. The project area contaias seventeen streams listed on the 303(d) list.
Scveral of these sh�cams aze listed fa� impaired biological integrity and fecal colifotm. Induced
growth, which ie an expected result of large, new-IocaCion highway coostruction, correlates with
an inerease in impervious surfaces and associated inereases in stormwater ivnoff and po(lutant �
loadings. If NC1'A's analysis had been conducted coaectly, and documented the increased
growth asaociated with constructiou of the Toll I-lighway, it is expected that thece would be an
increase in run-off and pollutant loadings which would lead to violations of downstream water
quatity standards. Without an unbiased analysis of cumulative impaots, D WQ eunnot provide
reasonable assurance that there witl be no degradaeion of downstream water quality. I SA N.C.
Admin. Code 02H.0506(b)(4). � � � ,
.Evea though the ICE analysis is based on a flawed analysis that improperly diminishes �
the impaots from the Toll Highway, it nonethelese shows a number of instances in which the Toll
Flighway will significantty impacC water quality.' The analysis demonst�ates that �ollutant
loadings for the aix 303(d) lisfed streams in the project area will be significantly highcr if the �
Mom'oe ConnectorBypass is constructed. For example the analysis estimates that building the
road is expected to increase a number oPpollutant loadings in Richardsods Creek and StewarPs
Creek, both of which are listed on Lhe 303(c� list as being impaired for biologioal integrity. The
EIS pcediets that for Riehacdson's Creek, construction of the To(t Highway will inerease total
fecal coliPorm by 20.49%, total nitrogen by L52%, and total phosphorous by 4.5%. For the
Stewarts Creek watershed, the EIS predicts thut the percentage of impeivious surfaces, often
used as a surrogate for other stressors of biological integrily, will increase by 7%, while fotal
phosphorous will increase by 2.52%. NCTA has not argued, and DWQ has not determined, that
' FLIS, Appendix t at 35-4L The FEiS.is located at h(tp://www.nclurnpike.mg/projects/monme/Final%20deis.asp.
18

this furthee contamination will not cause further degradaGon to the biological integriry of the
streams in violution of water qualiTy standards.
Thus, even under the flawed annlysis that impropedy diminishes the impacl's to water
quality, the SIS demonshates Chatconstivction ofthe Toll Highway will Iead to signiticant
degradatioo of water quality. DWQ Uas failed to demonstrate that this degradation will not result
in the violation oPdownstream water quality standards, and thus violate 401 water qualiry
cer[ificafion rules. I SA N.C. Admia Code 02H.0506(b)(4). . �
Por these reasons, the Certification fails to demonsnate that oonstruction of the Moncoce
Connector/Bypass witl not result in "cumula[ive impacts, based upon past or reasonably
anticipated futuce impacts, thaf cause or wi(t oause a violation of downsheam water qualiry
sta�dards." ISA N.C. Admin. Code 02H.0506(6)(4), (c)(4). Thus, DWQ erred in issuing the
Certification in viola6on of the water quality certif cation mles. . .
4. DWO erred bv issuine a 401 ccitificatio� forthe oreferred alternative
- - when practical alternatives exist thxt would havc lcss adverse imnact
to streams and wetlands. � - �
Under the 401 water qualiry certification mles, DV✓Q may only issue water qualiry
ceRifications for Toll Highways which have no practical alfematives. 15A N.C. Admin. Code
02H.0506(b)(I). A Iack of practical altematives may be shown by demonstrati�g that �
"considering the potential for a reduction in size, configuration or densiTy of the proposed
activity and aIl alternative designs the basic project purpose ca�not be practically accomplished
in a manner which would avoid or result in lcss adverse impact to surface waters or wetlands."
Id. at 02H.0506(fl. � �
When evaluating alternatives for the Monroe Connector/Bypass, DWQ adopted the
analysis of altematives presented�by NCTA in its EIS. By ndopting thai analysis, DWQ likewise
19

adopted its flaws. First, DWQ relied on an impermissibly narrow project purpose to reshict
reasonable alternatives. Second, the selection of the chosen alternativc in,thc EIS was based on
an overstated need for the highway, eliminating otheiwise reasonabte alteenatives. Finally,
DWQ erred in issuing the 401 CeRification for NCTA's preferred alternative when at least four
of the altcrnatives which were found to meet even NCTA's stated purpose would have less
adverse impact to streams and wetlands than the authorized altemative.
DWO erred in relying on NCTA's impermissibly narrow project
up rpose.
To detcrmine whether there is a practical alternative to a proposed project DWQ must
oonsider the "basio projeot pu�pose." Id. at 02H.0506(�. The project purpose stated by the
NCTA in its permit applicaHon are idenCical eo those used in the E[S: ..
�O To construct a facility that allows for safc, rcliable, high-speed regional kavel
in the US 74 Con'idor bctwecn I-485 in Meck(enburg County and the Town of �
Marshvilte in Union Counry, ia a manuer cousistent with the North Carolina
Strategic Highway Corcidors Vision Plan for US� 74 and thc dcsignation of US
74 on the North Carolina Tntrastate System. �
2) Improve mobility in thc US 74 corridor within the Toll Highway study area,
while maintaining acoese to properties along existing US 74.
These sta[ed purposes restrict the consideration of practical atternatives and lead to a pre-
ordained conclusion. The statements do liltle more than restate teatures of thc preferred
alternative, rather than�idenCify fhe underlying project purpose, theceby limiting tha range o£
practical alternatives to new-looation WII roads.
. DWQ questio�ed the appropriateness of this statement of pucpose and need early during
[he NLPA process, highlighting Ihese problems. Among other concerns, DWQ called in[o
rzn

question the use oP lhe te�m "high speed" in thc project purpose and asked if the inc(usion of that
requiremenblimitcd the consideration of alternatives to only �ew-location highway solutions, and
precluded alternatives such as upgrading the e�sting highway system. Yetitioners rxised similar
concerns in their own comments.
DWQ did acknowtedge the need to improve mobility within the project s[udy area, and
Petitioners do not dispufe this need. But this basic project purpose—to provide increased
mobility between I-485 and Marshville — can be met through a number of alternatives that �would
have less adverse impact to streams and wetla�ds than a new-location toll road.
NCTA �esponded to both DW Q's and Peritiotters' concerns about the overly naxrow
project purpose, but did not alter the statement to address the concerns. DWQ raised no Purther
concerns. Having been thus improperly constrained by this overly narrow statement of project
purposc DWQ failed to consider any rcal atternaUves to the Toll Highway.
For example, DWQ failed to consider fully a number of functional alternatives to the Toll
Highway, including mass transit and transportation demand management options, and
oombinations of suoh options. Furtheq DWQ failed to consider fully options presenCed in a-
study commissioned by NCDOT in 2007, This study was focused on small scale upgrades to thc
cxisting US 74, and showed that for $133 million, US 74 could be restored to an acceptable
level of service by the year 201�5 along the who(e of the corridor in Union County, with the sole
. exoeption of one iuterchange. These alternatives, which would noC require the consMuction of a
new location highway, wouid either completety avoid, or Iessen, advcrse impact to surface
waters and weflands. i 5A N.C. Admin. Codc 02I-I.O506(fj.
2l

� DWQ therefore failed to consider a number of alternative opfions that would reduce the
size and density of the Toll Righway, and thus result in less adversc impact to surface walers and
wetlands, 15A N.C�, Admin. Code 02H.0506(fj. .
ii. DWO erred by relyine on NCTA's flawed erowth analvsis to reject
reasonable altematives. .
DWQ based its scicction of the chosen alternative and rejection of aIl other alternxtives
on a flawed analysis in the EIS. As ouUined above, thc ICE analysis relied upon by DWQ
assumed that the road would be built in both "Build" and `No-Build" scenarios. NCTA's failure
to conduct a proper analysis of indirect and cumulative impacts made� it impossible for DWQ to
determine whether or not there are practicai alternatives to the Toll Highway that would result in
less adverse impacts W water qualiry. Withoue a proper analysis of what impacts will be
occasioncd by theToll Flighway it was impossible for DWQ to detcrminc the full range of
impacts that would be determined by each alternative. � �
NCTA also used flawed traffic forecasts to compare [he different altematives. Like the
analysis of indirect and cumulative impacts, the beaFFc forecasts assumed the highway would be
constructed in both `Build" and "No-Build".�scenarios. The forecasCs thus vastly overstated the
traffic levels that would exist along US 74 if'the Toll Highway were not built, and thus fxiled to
account for the tra�c inducing impact of the road. This error distorted [he necd for the road and �
biased the analysis of praclical alternatives, falsely making upgrades to existing US 74�seem
impossible
iii. Four of the alternatives that were considered have fewec imoacts to
surface waters and wetlands [han the authorized altcrnative.
The DEIS and PEIS narrowcd the alternativcs analysis to 16 alternatives, including
NCTA's preferred alternative. Based on the impacts for NCTA's preferred al[emative as
22

described in the ROD four of the fifteen other altcrnatives impact Pewcr feet of intermittent and
total streams as well as fewer acres of weUands and fewer rotal wetland sites than NCTA's
preferred alternative, See ROD at 9; PEIS at l-3Z � � �
As described in lhe ROD, the preferred alternative, which D W Q approved in the
Certificatio�, would impact 12,729 feet of intermittent streams and 10,363 teet of perennial
streams, resulting in total stream impacls oF23,082. Seven of the remaining fifteen alternatives .�
evaluated in the PEIS would impacf fewec feet of streams. See FEIS at 1-3Z The prefereed
alternative would impaot 8.I acres of wetlands. Seven of the�remaining fifteen altemaLives
evaluated in the FEIS would impact fewer acres ofwetlands. See FEIS nt 1-37. Seven �
alternatives would likewise impact fewer wettand sites. Id. Overall, four altcmatives would
impact fewer feet of streams�, acres of wetlands, and wetland sites than the preferred alternative.
Tt�erefore, even under NCTA's analysis there a�e four practical alternatives that would
avoid or result in less adverse impac[ to surface waters and weUands. Thus, DWQ e�red in
issuing a watec quality oertification for NCTA's prefen�ed alternative. Id. at 02H .0506(�.
. Poe these reasons, the Certification fails to demonstrate that there are no practical
alternatives to the propoaed projeot thaC "would avoid or result in less adve�se impact to surface
waters or wetlands:' 15A N.C. Admin.�Code 02H.0506(b)(i); (f�. Thus, DWQ erred in issuing
the Cetti'fica6on in violaGon of Ute water quaGTy certification rules.
5. DWO en'ed in iasuine NCTA a 401 certification that doea not miuimize
. imnacts to streams and wetlanda � � . �
Before DV✓Q can issue a 401 certifioation, it musC find Ihat the pxoject "will minimize ,
adverse impacts to the surface watcrs based on consideratio� of existing topography, vegetation,
fish and wildlife resources, and hydrological conditions under the-criteria outlined in Yaragraph �
(g) of this Rule." 15A N.C. Admin. Code 02H.0506(b)(2). Approval of wetland impacts are
23

subject to a similar requieement. ISA N.C. Admin. Code 02H.0506(o)(2). MiounizaGon of
impacts may be shown by demonstrating "that the impacts are required due to (() the spatial and
dimensional requicements of Che project; a• (2) the location of any existing st�vcWral or natural
feaWres that may dictate the placement or configuration of the proposed projeot; or (3) the
purpose of the project and how Ihe purpose relates to placement, configuration or density." ISA
N.C. Admin. Code 02H.0506(g). �
NCTA has not demonstrated tk�at the approved proposal "will minimize adverse impacts
W surface waters." In its application for the ToII Highway, NCTA leaves much of the detail for
the part oP the project not included in R-2559C for development by the Design-Build Team. Por
the remaindcr of the Toll I�Iighway, the application did potinclude, and NCTA has not provided,
detailed information regarding impacts to wetlands, the reason for aad type of discharge
proposed, and methods of controlling stormwater and sedimentation to prevent damage to
streams and wetlands.
The RFP recognizes Chat lhe Design-Build Team will have significant autonomy to
design the higfiway, will not be reshicted by NCTA's "wnceptual" design, and will be �
respousible for ideutifying impaots to ju�isdictionat waters. Until the Design-Build Team
designs the Toll Highway and identifies the jurisdicLional impacts, NCTA cannot have
demonstcated that it has minimized adverse impacts to surfaoe waters.
The Certificution acknowledges that the required avoidanoe aud minimizatiou of wetland
and surface water impacts has not been performed. The revised and 5nal plans that the
Certification requires to be submitted via modifications "shall reflect all appropriate avoidance,
minimization, [and] revisedjurisdictional.impact tables." Because NCTA's "concepmaP'
npplication leaves the Design-Buitd Team to design the Toll Highway and implement avoidance
24

and minimization measures, the CeRification docs not, and cannoi, meet the standards for
minimization of impacts to streams and wetlands established in I SA N.C. Admin. Code � �
2H.0506(b) and (c). �
Moreover, among the alternatives considered in the EIS, NCTA's preferred alternative
does not avoid and minimize impacte W sd'eams and wetlands to Ute greatest degeee. The FEIS
incorporates and relies upon a 2008 report analyzing categories of stream and weUand impacts to �
evaluate tt�e various alternatives wnsidered in the project. FBIS at i-6, That repOrt, titled
Alternutives Development and Analysrs Report (2008), summarizes impacts to streams and
wetlands by evaluating inter alia, the number of stream crossings; lineaz feet of perennial,
intermittent, and total streams�impacted; acres of wetlands impacted; and number of 303(d) listed
streams impacted for each alternative. According to that analysis, nine oPthe alternatives had
less environmental impact than NCTA's preferred alternative in fivc of Ihc six categories
evaluated, with five of those nine having equal impacts i� the sixth category. Id. [n additioo,
tive alternatives had less environmental impact than NCTA's preferred altemative in four of the
six categorics cvaluatcd, with tv✓o of those five having equal impacts in one of the remai�ing
categories ld � � � .
The UEIS and FEIS narrowed the alternatives analysis ro 16 alternatives, including
NCTA's prefen•ed alterntttive. Based on the impacts for NCTA's preferred alternative as
described in the ROD, four oPthe fiReen other altematives impttct�fewer feet of intermittent and
total streams as well as fewer acres of wetlands and fewer total wedand sites than NCTA's
preferred alternative. See ROD at 9; FEIS at 1-37. Therefore, cven undcr NCTA's analysis, four
alternatives avoid and minimize impxots to wetlaods and streams to a gceater eactent than its
25

preferred alterna[ive. As a result, DWQ erred in issuing the 401 Certification for NCTA's
prefeaed alternative. � �
For these reasons, the CeRification fails to "minimize adverse impacts to the surface
waters based on consideeation of existing topography, vegetaCion, fish and wildlife resources,
and hydrological conditions under the criteria ouClined in Paragraph (g) oP this Rule." l5A N.C.
Admin. Code 02i-I.0506(b)(2). Thus, DWQ erred in issuing thc Ccrtification in violation of the
water qualiTy ceRification rules.
III, List of Proposed Witnessea . � �
� Petitioners may oall some of the fotlowing individuals as witnesses. Howeveq
Petitioners have not yet compiled a complete list of witnesses and reserve fhe right to oall
witnesses and present evidence ftom witnesses other than those listed below. During discovery
and case dcvelopment, Petitioners wil) detennine who, including other individuals yct to be
identified, will actually be ca(led at the hearing of the mattec �
Tim Geatv✓icki, NoeTh Carolina W ildlife Federation
Dean Naujoks, Yadkin Riverkeeper �
Colleen R Sullins, Director, DWQ
Brian Wrcnn, TranspoRation Permitting Supervisor, DWQ
Polly Lespinasse, Field Officer, DWQ
John He�nesey, D W Q .
Eugene Conti, Secretary, NCDOT .
David Joyner, Gxecutive Director, NCTA �
Stevcn DeWitt, Chief Engineer, NCTA
Jennifer Hurris, Director of Planning and Environmental Studies, NCTA
26

Christy Shumate, Senior Transportation Ptanner, NCTA
Shannon Swcitzcr, Director of Conshvction, NCTA
7ames Byrd, Hydraulics Manager, HNTB Corps.
Ron Ferrell, Senior ScientisY, PBS&J
Scudder Wagg Planner Associate, Baker �ngineering
Norm L. Marshall, Smart Mobility Inc.
Marella Buncick, USPWS �
Chris Millitscher, USEPA .
IV. Proposed Discovery. � �
Petitionecs ceserve the right to serve inLemogatories and reques4s Cor production of �
documents upon Respondents anct any futw�e Tntervenors, takc depositions, and serve requests for
admissions. Peti[ioners anticipate.nceding an additional three months to conduct discovery.
V. Venue. . -� �
In acwrda�ce with N.C. Gen, Stat. § I SOB-24, Petitioners request that [he location for the
hearing be in Raleigh, North Carolina. � -
VI. Estimated Length of the Hearing. � . .
Pctitioners anticipate that the hearing of this matter should take approximately five court
days.
VII. Name, Address, and Telephone Number oFAttorneys oFRecard.
Attorneys for Yadkin Riverkeeper and NoMh Carolina Wildlife Pederation. �
Chandra T. Taylor � �
Geoffrey R. Gisler �
. � Kimberley Hunter
Soutk�ein L�.nvironmental Law Center
601 WestRosuuary Street, Suite 220 .
. Chapel IIiII, North Carolina 27516-2356 �
27

Phone [phone]
Facsimile [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail] .
[e-mail] � �
VIII. Hearing Date
Petitioners anticipate that they will be ready to proceed to a hearing on this malter within
Uie three months after the 7uly 25��, 2011week anticipated in the March 3`�, 2011 Scheduling
Order.
Petitioners reseive the right to supplement, modify and otherwisc amend this Prehearing
statement as the case progresses.
Rcspectfully submitted this lst day of April, 201 L .
�V�'
- Chandra T. 1'aylor, N.C. State Bar No. 28116
Gcoffrey R. Gislcr, N.C. State Bar No. 35304
. �� Kimberley Hunter, N.Q State Bar No. 41333
Southern Environmental Law Ce�ter �
601 W. Rosemary Street, Suife 220
� Chapel Hill, N.Q 27516
Counsel for Petitioners .
28

The undersig�ed hereby certifies that the foregoing PETTTIONERS' PREIIEARING
STATEMENT (with attuchmcnts) has been delivered by electronic mail and by first-class mail to
thefoilowing: � � -
Administrative Law Judgc Auguatus B. Elkins II
The Office of Administrative Hearings
Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Cnrolina 27699-6714 �
[e-mail],gov �
John Payne
Attorney GeneraPs Office
NC Department of Justice
Environmental Division
9001 Mail Service.Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001
[e-mail]
Respondent
'fhis the 1 st day of April, 2017.
a �
Chandra T. '. ylor
N.C. Statc Bar. No. 28116 �
29