Monroe connector/bypass from near I-485 at US 74 to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville, Mecklenburg and Union Counties, federal aid project number STP-NHF-74(90), WBS element 34533.1.TA1, STIP project number R-3329/R-2559 : administrative action, draft environmental impact statement |
Previous | 1 of 2 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
-
154232.pdf
[21.19 MB]
Link will provide options to open or save document.
File Format:
Adobe Reader
Monroe Connector/Bypass Administrative Action Draft Environmental Impact Statement March 2009 Submitted Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 23 CFR 771.119 and 42 USC 4332(2)(c) Lead Agencies: US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration North Carolina Turnpike Authority North Carolina Department of Transportation Cooperating Agency: US Army Corps of Engineers Volume 2 Appendices MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS i TABLE OF CONTENTS Note: This Draft EIS has been published in two volumes: VOLUME 1 – TEXT AND FIGURES VOLUME 2 – APPENDICES PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................... i LIST OF TABLES................................................................................. ix LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................... xi LIST OF EXHIBITS..............................................................................xii APPENDICES .....................................................................................xii P PREFACE................................................................................P-1 P.1 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT............................................. P-1 P.1.1 REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCE .....................................................................P-1 P.1.2 DOCUMENTATION ....................................................................................P-2 P.2 HOW THIS DRAFT EIS WILL BE USED .................................................. P-2 P.3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS DRAFT EIS ................................................... P-3 P.4 HISTORY OF PROJECT ....................................................................... P-3 P.4.1 PREVIOUS STUDIES OF MONROE BYPASS ........................................................P-4 P.4.2 PREVIOUS STUDIES OF MONROE CONNECTOR ...................................................P-4 P.4.3 MONROE BYPASS AND MONROE CONNECTOR COMBINED ......................................P-5 PC SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS....................................... PC-1 S SUMMARY..............................................................................S-1 S.1 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION................................................. S-1 S.2 LEAD AGENCIES ............................................................................... S-1 S.3 PROPOSED ACTION........................................................................... S-1 S.4 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT ..................................................... S-2 S.5 OTHER MAJOR ACTIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA .................................... S-3 S.6 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ............................................................. S-3 S.6.1 ALTERNATIVES SCREENING PROCESS .............................................................S-3 S.6.2 DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................S-4 S.7 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE............................................................ S-5 S.8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS............................................. S-8 S.8.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE ...........................................................................S-8 S.8.2 IMPACTS TO THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT..........................................................S-9 S.8.2.1 Land Use and Planning S-9 S.8.2.2 Relocations S-9 TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS ii S.8.2.3 Neighborhoods S-9 S.8.2.4 Environmental Justice S-10 S.8.2.5 Community Services and Facilities S-10 S.8.3 IMPACTS TO THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT .....................................................S-11 S.8.3.1 Traffic Noise S-11 S.8.3.2 Air Quality S-11 S.8.3.3 Farmland S-12 S.8.3.4 Utilities S-12 S.8.3.5 Visual Resources S-12 S.8.3.6 Hazardous Materials S-13 S.8.3.7 Floodplains/Floodways S-13 S.8.4 IMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................S-13 S.8.4.1 Historic Architectural Resources S-13 S.8.4.2 Archaeological Resources S-14 S.8.4.3 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources S-14 S.8.5 IMPACTS TO NATURAL RESOURCES..............................................................S-14 S.8.5.1 Soil and Geology S-14 S.8.5.2 Water Resources S-14 S.8.5.3 Natural Communities and Wildlife S-15 S.8.5.4 Water Resources in Federal Jurisdiction S-16 S.8.5.5 Protected Species S-16 S.8.5.6 Indirect and Cumulative Effects S-17 S.9 UNRESOLVED ISSUES AND AREAS OF CONTROVERSY.......................... S-18 S.10 OTHER GOVERNMENT ACTIONS REQUIRED ........................................ S-19 S.10.1 PERMITS REQUIRED ...............................................................................S-19 S.10.2 SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS ...........................................................................S-20 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ......................................... 1-1 1.1 PROPOSED ACTION........................................................................... 1-1 1.2 SUMMARY OF NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION ........................................ 1-2 1.3 PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................ 1-3 1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY................................................. 1-3 1.4.1 PROJECT SETTING ...................................................................................1-3 1.4.2 EXISTING ROAD NETWORK.........................................................................1-4 1.4.3 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE PURPOSE AND NEED........1-4 1.5 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS .............................................................. 1-5 1.5.1 NORTH CAROLINA STRATEGIC HIGHWAY CORRIDOR SYSTEM .................................1-5 1.5.1.1 NCDOT Strategic Highway Corridors Initiative 1-5 1.5.1.2 Strategic Highway Corridor Vision Plan for US 74 1-6 1.5.1.3 Implementation of the Strategic Highway Corridor Vision 1-7 1.5.2 NORTH CAROLINA INTRASTATE SYSTEM ..........................................................1-7 1.5.3 NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM AND STRAHNET.................................................1-8 1.5.3.1 National Highway System 1-8 1.5.3.2 STRAHNET 1-8 1.5.4 MODAL INTERRELATIONSHIPS......................................................................1-9 1.5.4.1 Public Transportation 1-9 1.5.4.2 Rail Service 1-9 1.5.4.3 Motor Freight Service 1-9 1.5.4.4 Air Service 1-10 TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS iii 1.6 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS............................................... 1-10 1.6.1 REGIONAL CONTEXT............................................................................... 1-10 1.6.2 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT.................................................................. 1-10 1.6.3 COMMUTING PATTERNS ........................................................................... 1-12 1.6.4 GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS........................................................ 1-13 1.7 TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE PLANS .......................................... 1-13 1.7.1 NCDOT STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ................................ 1-14 1.7.2 MECKLENBURG-UNION METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN........................................................................... 1-14 1.7.2.1 Background 1-14 1.7.2.2 Monroe Connector/Bypass in the MUMPO 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan 1-15 1.7.3 MECKLENBURG-UNION THOROUGHFARE PLAN ................................................. 1-15 1.7.4 LAND USE PLANS .................................................................................. 1-15 1.8 ROADWAY CONDITIONS AND OPERATIONS ........................................ 1-15 1.8.1 EXISTING US 74 CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................... 1-15 1.8.2 TRAVEL TIMES ALONG THE US 74 CORRIDOR................................................. 1-17 1.8.3 EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS................................................................. 1-18 1.8.3.1 Existing Traffic Volumes 1-18 1.8.3.2 Existing Level of Service on US 74 1-19 1.8.3.3 Existing Crash Data 1-20 1.8.4 PROJECTED TRAFFIC OPERATIONS IN 2030 ................................................... 1-20 1.8.4.1 Design Year 2030 Traffic Volumes 1-20 1.8.4.2 Design Year 2030 Level of Service on US 74 1-20 2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED................................................ 2-1 2.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................ 2-1 2.1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE ALTERNATIVES SCREENING PROCESS ......................................2-1 2.1.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION RELATED TO THE ALTERNATIVES SCREENING PROCESS ...............................................................................2-2 2.1.3 TRAFFIC FORECASTS AND ANALYSIS ...............................................................2-3 2.2 QUALITATIVE FIRST SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS................ 2-4 2.2.1 SCREENING CRITERIA ...............................................................................2-4 2.2.2 ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS ...........................................................................2-4 2.2.2.1 No-Build Alternative 2-5 2.2.2.2 Transportation Demand Management Alternative 2-5 2.2.2.3 Transportation System Management Alternative 2-6 2.2.2.4 Mass Transit/Multi-Modal Alternative 2-8 2.2.2.5 Improve Existing US 74 Alternative 2-9 2.2.2.6 New Location Alternative 2-11 2.2.2.7 New Location/Improve Existing Roadways Hybrid Alternative 2-11 2.2.3 SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF QUALITATIVE FIRST SCREENING ................................. 2-12 2.3 QUALITATIVE SECOND SCREENING OF PRELIMINARY CORRIDOR SEGMENTS ............................................................................... 2-13 2.3.1 PROJECT STUDY AREA ............................................................................ 2-13 2.3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF PRELIMINARY CORRIDOR SEGMENTS ...................................... 2-14 2.3.2.1 Route Continuity and Project Termini 2-14 2.3.2.2 Natural and Human Environment Features 2-16 2.3.2.3 Previously Studied Corridors 2-16 TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS iv 2.3.2.4 Public and Agency Input 2-17 2.3.2.5 Tolling 2-17 2.3.3 QUALITATIVE SECOND SCREENING METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS .......................... 2-18 2.3.3.1 Individual Segment Assessment 2-19 2.3.3.2 Relative Segment Comparison Assessment 2-20 2.3.3.3 Consolidation of Corridor Segments 2-21 2.3.4 QUALITATIVE SECOND SCREENING CONCLUSIONS............................................ 2-21 2.4 QUANTITATIVE THIRD SCREENING OF PRELIMINARY STUDY ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................... 2-21 2.4.1 PRELIMINARY STUDY ALTERNATIVES ............................................................ 2-22 2.4.2 DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................................................. 2-22 2.4.3 QUANTITATIVE THIRD SCREENING CRITERIA .................................................. 2-23 2.4.4 RESULTS OF QUANTITATIVE THIRD SCREENING ............................................... 2-25 2.4.4.1 Quantitative Third Screening Conclusions 2-25 2.4.4.2 Public and Agency Input 2-25 2.4.4.3 Further Consideration of Preliminary Study Alternative G (Upgrade Existing US 74 Alternative) 2-27 2.5 DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES...................................................... 2-34 2.5.1 FUNCTIONAL DESIGNS FOR THE DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES .......................... 2-35 2.5.1.1 Design Criteria for the Functional Engineering Designs 2-36 2.5.1.2 Developing the Functional Engineering Designs 2-36 2.5.1.3 Considering Tolling in the Functional Engineering Designs 2-37 2.6 TRAFFIC FORECASTS AND OPERATIONS ANALYSIS.............................. 2-38 2.6.1 TRAFFIC FORECASTS FOR THE NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE...................................... 2-39 2.6.2 TRAFFIC FORECASTS FOR BUILD ALTERNATIVES............................................... 2-39 2.6.3 2035 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSES FOR THE BUILD ALTERNATIVES ................... 2-40 2.6.3.1 Traffic Operations Along the Monroe Connector/Bypass .......................2-41 2.6.3.2 Traffic Operations Along Existing US 74 With the Build Alternatives ......2-42 2.7 COST ESTIMATES ........................................................................... 2-43 2.8 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE.......................................................... 2-44 3 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT ......................................................... 3-1 3.1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS ................................................ 3-1 3.1.1 DEMOGRAPHIC STUDY AREA .......................................................................3-1 3.1.2 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS ...................................................................3-2 3.1.3 ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS .....................................................................3-4 3.1.4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS .......................................................................3-6 3.2 COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS AND RESOURCES ................................ 3-7 3.2.1 COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS....................................................................3-7 3.2.2 NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS ..........................................................................3-7 3.2.3 COMMUNITY RESOURCES ...........................................................................3-9 3.2.4 IMPACTS TO COMMUNITY RESOURCES .......................................................... 3-10 3.2.5 SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY RESOURCE IMPACTS ............................................... 3-12 3.3 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING..................................... 3-13 3.3.1 LAND USE PLANS .................................................................................. 3-14 3.3.2 TRANSPORTATION PLANS ......................................................................... 3-16 3.3.3 LAND USE IMPACTS................................................................................ 3-17 3.3.4 PLAN CONSISTENCY ............................................................................... 3-17 TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS v 3.4 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION AND RELOCATIONS .............................. 3-18 3.4.1 RESIDENTIAL RELOCATIONS...................................................................... 3-19 3.4.2 BUSINESS RELOCATIONS ......................................................................... 3-20 3.4.3 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE........................................................................ 3-21 3.5 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ............................................................... 3-21 3.5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS ............................................................. 3-23 4 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ..................................................... 4-1 4.1 NOISE............................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF NOISE ......................................................................4-1 4.1.2 NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA ......................................................................4-1 4.1.3 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT...................................................................4-2 4.1.4 NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ........................................................4-4 4.1.5 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS ...........................................................................4-4 4.1.5.1 Noise Contours 4-4 4.1.5.2 Potential Noise Impacts to Churches, Schools, and Other Special Uses 4-6 4.1.5.3 Construction Noise 4-6 4.1.6 NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES ....................................................................4-7 4.2 AIR QUALITY.................................................................................... 4-9 4.2.1 NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND EXISTING CONDITIONS .............. 4-10 4.2.2 TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY ................................................................. 4-11 4.2.3 MOBILE SOURCE AIR TOXICS .................................................................... 4-13 4.2.4 LOCAL ORDINANCES............................................................................... 4-14 4.2.5 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS ............................................................................ 4-14 4.2.5.1 Criteria Pollutants and Transportation Conformity 4-14 4.2.5.2 Mobile Source Air Toxics Impact Analysis 4-18 4.2.5.3 Construction Air Quality 4-19 4.3 FARMLAND .................................................................................... 4-19 4.3.1 FARMLAND PROTECTION POLICY ACT ........................................................... 4-19 4.3.2 PRIME AND IMPORTANT FARMLAND SOILS...................................................... 4-20 4.3.3 EXISTING AGRICULTURE .......................................................................... 4-21 4.3.3.1 Census Information 4-21 4.3.3.2 Agricultural Uses in the Detailed Study Alternatives 4-21 4.3.4 FARMLAND IMPACTS............................................................................... 4-22 4.3.4.1 Prime and Important Farmland Soils 4-22 4.3.4.2 Farmland Conversion Impact Ratings 4-22 4.3.4.3 Farm Relocations 4-23 4.4 UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE..................................................... 4-23 4.4.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................................................... 4-24 4.4.1.1 Electric Power 4-24 4.4.1.2 Water and Sewer Facilities 4-24 4.4.1.3 Natural Gas 4-25 4.4.1.4 Telecommunications 4-26 4.4.1.5 Railroads 4-26 4.4.2 IMPACTS TO UTILITIES............................................................................ 4-26 4.5 VISUAL RESOURCES ....................................................................... 4-26 4.5.1 VISUAL ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................ 4-26 4.5.2 VISUAL IMPACTS................................................................................... 4-27 TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS vi 4.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................................. 4-28 4.6.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................................................... 4-28 4.6.2 IMPACTS FROM HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/WASTE SITES...................................... 4-30 4.6.3 MITIGATION FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/WASTE SITES ................................... 4-31 4.7 FLOODPLAINS AND FLOODWAYS....................................................... 4-31 4.7.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION..................................................................... 4-31 4.7.2 FLOODPLAINS AND FLOODWAYS IN THE PROJECT STUDY AREA.............................. 4-31 4.7.3 MAJOR DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AND FLOODWAY/FLOODPLAIN IMPACTS .................. 4-32 5 CULTURAL RESOURCES.......................................................... 5-1 5.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................ 5-1 5.1.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................5-1 5.1.2 SECTION 106 OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT .............................5-1 5.2 HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES.............................................. 5-3 5.2.1 HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES IN THE PROJECT AREA ...............................5-3 5.2.1.1 Historic Architectural Resources Survey Methodology 5-3 5.2.1.2 Historic Architectural Resources Survey Findings 5-3 5.2.2 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES .............................5-5 5.3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES.......................................................... 5-5 5.4 SECTION 4(f) AND SECTION 6(f) RESOURCES ...................................... 5-6 5.4.1 REGULATIONS ........................................................................................5-6 5.4.1.1 Section 4(f) Resources 5-6 5.4.1.2 Section 6(f) Resources 5-7 5.4.2 RESOURCES IN THE STUDY AREA ..................................................................5-7 5.4.2.1 Section 4(f) Resources 5-7 5.4.2.2 Section 6(f) Resources 5-8 5.4.3 SECTION 4(F) AND SECTION 6(F) RESOURCE IMPACTS .......................................5-8 5.4.3.1 Section 4(f) Impacts 5-8 5.4.3.2 Section 6(f) Impacts 5-8 5.5 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES................................ 5-9 6 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT......................................................... 6-1 6.1 SOILS, GEOLOGY, AND MINERAL RESOURCES ...................................... 6-1 6.1.1 SOILS AND GEOLOGY IN THE PROJECT STUDY AREA ............................................6-1 6.1.2 MINERAL RESOURCES ...............................................................................6-2 6.1.3 SOILS AND MINERAL RESOURCE IMPACTS........................................................6-3 6.2 WATER RESOURCES.......................................................................... 6-3 6.2.1 WATER RESOURCES DESCRIPTIONS...............................................................6-3 6.2.1.1 River Basins and Streams 6-3 6.2.1.2 Water Supply Resources 6-4 6.2.2 WATER QUALITY .....................................................................................6-5 6.2.2.1 Impaired Waters 6-5 6.2.2.2 Best Usage Classification 6-5 6.2.2.3 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Discharges 6-6 6.2.2.4 Water Quality Monitoring and Basin-Wide Assessments 6-6 6.2.3 WATER RESOURCES IMPACTS AND MITIGATION .................................................6-7 6.3 NATURAL COMMUNITIES AND WILDLIFE .............................................. 6-9 6.3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES .......................................................................6-9 TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS vii 6.3.2 TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE........................................................................... 6-10 6.3.3 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES AND WILDLIFE ........................................................ 6-11 6.3.4 INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES ........................................................................ 6-12 6.3.5 IMPACTS TO NATURAL COMMUNITIES AND WILDLIFE ......................................... 6-12 6.4 WATER RESOURCES IN FEDERAL JURISDICTION ................................. 6-14 6.4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES................................................................ 6-14 6.4.2 CATAWBA RIVER RIPARIAN BUFFER RULES..................................................... 6-15 6.4.3 EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCES........................................................ 6-15 6.4.3.1 Surveys for Jurisdictional Resources 6-15 6.4.3.2 Characteristics of Streams and Wetlands 6-16 6.4.4 IMPACTS ON JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCES..................................................... 6-17 6.4.5 PERMITTING AND MITIGATION ................................................................... 6-18 6.4.5.1 Section 404/401 Permit Issues 6-18 6.4.5.2 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts 6-19 6.4.5.3 Compensatory Mitigation 6-20 6.5 PROTECTED SPECIES ...................................................................... 6-20 6.5.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS........................................................................... 6-20 6.5.2 STATE REGULATIONS.............................................................................. 6-21 6.5.3 PROTECTED SPECIES IMPACTS................................................................... 6-22 6.5.3.1 Federally-Protected Species 6-22 6.5.3.2 Federal Species of Concern and Candidate Species 6-24 6.5.3.3 State Listed Species 6-25 6.5.4 SURVEY FINDINGS AND IMPACTS TO PROTECTED SPECIES .................................. 6-25 7 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS..................................... 7-1 7.1 DEFINITIONS AND ANALYSIS SCENARIOS............................................ 7-1 7.1.1 DEFINITIONS .........................................................................................7-1 7.1.2 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS ..............................................................................7-2 7.2 STUDY AREA FOR INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS (STEP 1)........... 7-2 7.2.1 FUTURE LAND USE STUDY AREA...................................................................7-3 7.2.2 TIMEFRAME FOR ANALYSIS .........................................................................7-4 7.3 STUDY AREA DIRECTIONS AND GOALS (STEP 2)................................... 7-4 7.3.1 DEMOGRAPHIC AND EMPLOYMENT TRENDS.......................................................7-5 7.3.2 LAND USE PATTERNS................................................................................7-5 7.3.3 LAND USE PLANS AND ORDINANCES ..............................................................7-6 7.3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS ...................................................................7-6 7.4 INVENTORY OF NOTABLE FEATURES (STEP 3)....................................... 7-7 7.4.1 WATER RESOURCES .................................................................................7-7 7.4.2 TERRESTRIAL HABITAT..............................................................................7-8 7.4.3 FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES ..................................................................7-8 7.4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................7-8 7.4.5 PRIME FARMLAND SOILS............................................................................7-9 7.5 IDENTIFICATION OF IMPORTANT IMPACT-CAUSING ACTIVITIES (STEP 4) 7-9 7.5.1 RECENT AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY AND TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS ......7-9 7.5.2 WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY AND ALLOCATION ......................................... 7-13 7.6 IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL INDIRECT IMPACTS (STEP 5) ...................................................................................... 7-13 7.6.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE ......................................................................... 7-13 TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS viii 7.6.2 DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES ................................................................ 7-14 7.6.3 ANALYSIS OF INDIRECT IMPACTS TO NOTABLE FEATURES.................................... 7-16 7.7 IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS (STEP 5) ...................................................................................... 7-17 7.7.1 WATER QUALITY AND AQUATIC HABITAT....................................................... 7-18 7.7.2 CAROLINA HEELSPLITER HABITAT (GOOSE CREEK AND DUCK CREEK WATERSHED) ..... 7-18 7.7.3 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES AND HABITAT .................................................... 7-19 7.8 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................. 7-20 7.8.1 POTENTIAL INDIRECT EFFECTS................................................................... 7-20 7.8.2 POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ............................................................... 7-21 8 OTHER IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS .......................................... 8-1 8.1 IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES......... 8-1 8.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM IMPACTS AND LONG-TERM BENEFITS ........................................................................................ 8-1 9 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION............. 9-1 9.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT....................................................................... 9-1 9.1.1 CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOPS .........................................................9-1 9.1.2 LOCAL OFFICIALS MEETINGS.......................................................................9-2 9.1.3 OPEN HOUSES .......................................................................................9-3 9.1.4 SMALL GROUP MEETINGS...........................................................................9-3 9.1.5 OTHER OUTREACH EFFORTS........................................................................9-4 9.1.5.1 Newsletters 9-4 9.1.5.2 Project Web site and E-mail 9-4 9.1.5.3 Project Toll-Free Telephone Number 9-4 9.2 AGENCY COORDINATION ................................................................... 9-5 9.2.1 SCOPING LETTER ....................................................................................9-5 9.2.2 NOTICE OF INTENT ..................................................................................9-6 9.2.3 AGENCY COORDINATION............................................................................9-6 9.2.3.1 Section 6002 Project Coordination Plan 9-6 9.2.3.2 Coordination with MUMPO 9-7 9.2.3.3 Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meetings 9-10 10 LIST OF PREPARERS .............................................................. 10-1 10.1 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION............................................... 10-1 10.2 NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY .......................................... 10-1 10.3 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION........................ 10-1 10.4 PRIVATE CONSULTING FIRMS........................................................... 10-2 11 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE STATEMENT ARE SENT .................... 11-1 11.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES........................................................................ 11-1 11.2 REGIONAL OFFICES OF FEDERAL AGENCIES....................................... 11-1 11.3 STATE AGENCIES ........................................................................... 11-1 11.4 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND AGENCIES.............................................. 11-2 TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS ix 11.5 PUBLIC REVIEW LOCATIONS ............................................................ 11-2 12 REFERENCES.......................................................................... 12-1 12.1 REFERENCES.................................................................................. 12-1 12.2 SUPPORTING PROJECT DOCUMENTATION .......................................... 12-9 LIST OF TABLES Special Project Commitments PC-1 Special Commitments and Coordination Required after the Draft EIS..................PC-1 Summary S-1 Detailed Study Alternatives.............................................................................S-4 S-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts ..............................................................S-22 Section 1 1-1 Population Growth from 2000 to 2008............................................................1-11 1-2 Existing and Projected Population and Employment in the Region ...................... 1-11 1-3 Journey to Work by Mode ............................................................................. 1-13 1-4 Speed Limits on US 74................................................................................. 1-17 1-5 Average Travel Times and Speeds Through the US 74 Corridor.......................... 1-18 1-6 Existing (2007) Signalized Intersection Level of Service.................................... 1-19 1-7 2030 No-Build Signalized Intersection Level of Service ..................................... 1-21 Section 2 2-1 Qualitative First Screening - Ability of Alternative Concepts to Meet Purpose and Need .................................................................................................. 2-13 2-2 Preliminary Study Alternatives Summary........................................................ 2-22 2-3 Quantitative GIS Analysis Screening Criteria ................................................... 2-24 2-4 Quantitative Screening of Preliminary Study Alternatives .................................. 2-26 2-5 Projected 2035 Traffic Volumes Along Existing US 74 ....................................... 2-33 2-6 Detailed Study Alternatives........................................................................... 2-34 2-7 Projected 2035 Traffic Volumes Along Mainline ................................................ 2-40 2-8 Preliminary Cost Estimates for Detailed Study Alternatives................................ 2-43 Section 3 3-1 Population Change - 1990 - 2000 ....................................................................3-2 3-2 Median Household and Family Income (1999) ...................................................3-5 3-3 Potential Neighborhood Impacts ......................................................................3-7 3-4 Summary of Impacts to Churches.................................................................. 3-11 3-5 Summary of Impacts to Community Resources................................................ 3-13 3-6 Residential and Business Relocations ............................................................. 3-18 3-7 Number of Relocated Households in Each Income Level.................................... 3-19 3-8 Value of Homes to be Relocated .................................................................... 3-20 3-9 General Environmental Justice Evaluation for Toll Facilities ............................... 3-22 TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS x Section 4 4-1 FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria ......................................................................4-2 4-2 NCDOT Definition of Substantial Increase in Noise Levels....................................4-2 4-3 Existing Noise Level Measurements..................................................................4-3 4-4 2035 Traffic Noise Contours............................................................................4-5 4-5 Impacted Receptors by Detailed Study Alternative Based on 2035 Traffic Noise Contours ......................................................................................................4-5 4-6 Preliminary Feasible and Reasonable Noise Barriers ...........................................4-8 4-7 Summary of Noise Barriers by Detailed Study Alternative ...................................4-9 4-8 National Ambient Air Quality Standards .......................................................... 4-10 4-9 Prime and Important Farmland Soils in the Detailed Study Alternatives .............. 4-20 4-10 Impacts to Prime and Important Farmland Soils .............................................. 4-22 4-11 Farmland Impact Rating ............................................................................... 4-23 4-12 Known and Potentially Contaminated Sites in the Project Study Area.................. 4-28 4-13 Impact of Potentially Contaminated Sites on the Detailed Study Alternatives....... 4-30 4-14 Summary of Major Drainage Structures and Floodway and Floodplain Crossings .. 4-33 Section 5 5-1 Historic Architectural Resources in the Area of Potential Effects ...........................5-4 5-2 Effects to Historic Architectural Resources ........................................................5-5 Section 6 6-1 Soils Within the Detailed Study Alternatives ......................................................6-1 6-2 Active NPDES Permits with Discharges to Streams in the Project Study Area .........6-6 6-3 Potential Impacts to Terrestrial Communities by Detailed Study Alternative ........ 6-13 6-4 Impacts to Waters of the US......................................................................... 6-17 6-5 Federally-Protected Species Listed for Union and Mecklenburg Counties.............. 6-22 6-6 Candidate and Federal Species of Concern...................................................... 6-24 6-7 State Listed Species in Union and Mecklenburg Counties with Known Occurrences in the Project Study Area.............................................................................. 6-25 Section 7 7-1 Summary of Potential Indirect Impacts by Zone .............................................. 7-15 7-2 Indirect Impacts to Notable Features ............................................................. 7-16 7-3 Land Cover in Union County.......................................................................... 7-19 Section 9 9-1 Workshop Comment Form Responses...............................................................9-2 9-2 Scoping Comments........................................................................................9-5 9-3 Agency Roles ................................................................................................9-7 9-4 MUMPO Meeting Summaries ...........................................................................9-8 9-5 MUMPO Technical Coordinating Committee Meeting Summaries...........................9-8 9-6 TEAC Meeting Summaries............................................................................. 9-10 TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS xi LIST OF FIGURES (Figures located at the end of each section) Preface P-1 Monroe Bypass Detailed Study Alternatives and Preferred Alternative P-2 Monroe Connector Preliminary Corridors and Detailed Study Alternatives Section 1 1-1 Project Location Within North Carolina 1-2 Project Location Within Union and Mecklenburg Counties 1-3 Project Study Area 1-4 Metrolina Area Strategic Highway Corridor Vision Plan Map 1-5 STIP Projects in the Study Area 1-6 MUMPO 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan 1-7 Mecklenburg-Union Thoroughfare Plan 1-8 Existing Roadway Characteristics Section 2 2-1 Preliminary Corridor Segments 2-2 (a-c) Land Suitability Mapping 2-3 Preliminary Corridor Segments Revised 2-4 (a-e) Preliminary Corridor Segments (Relative Segment Comparison Areas) 2-5 Preliminary Corridor Segments for Quantitative Third Screening 2-6 (a-d) Preliminary Study Alternatives 2-7 Preliminary Study Alternatives Typical Cross-Sections 2-8 (a-c) Detailed Study Alternatives 2-9 Revised Preliminary Study Alternative G Cross-Sections 2-10 (a-cc) Detailed Study Alternatives Functional Designs 2-11 New Location Alternative Typical Cross Sections Section 3 3-1 Population Change (1990/2000) 3-2 (a-c) Neighborhoods 3-3 (a-c) Community Resources 3-4 African-American Population in the Demographic Area 3-5 Hispanic Population in the Demographic Area 3-6 Percentage Below Poverty Level in the Demographic Area Section 4 4-1 (a-c) Noise Impact Assessment Information 4-2 Farmland Soils 4-3 Hazardous Material Sites 4-4 (a-c) Water Resources Section 5 5-1 Historic Architectural Resources 5-2 Proposed Matthews Sportsplex TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS xii Section 6 6-1 Natural Communities Section 7 7-1 Future Land Use Study Area (FLUSA) 7-2 Watershed Basins LIST OF EXHIBITS Chapter 2 2-1 Preliminary Study Alternative G..................................................................... 2-28 2-2 Revised Preliminary Study Alternative G ......................................................... 2-31 Chapter 4 4-1 VMT vs MSAT Emissions, 2000-2020..............................................................4-13 APPENDICES A. Federal Register Notices and Agency Correspondence B. Design Criteria for the Functional Engineering Designs C. Relocation Reports D. Noise Contour Maps E. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Analysis F. Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Forms G. Elevated Roadway Photo Simulation H. Recommended Preliminary Drainage Crossing Table I. Section 4(f) de minimis Impact Analysis for Matthews Sportsplex J. Jurisdictional Resources Attribute and Impact Tables K. Public Involvement Materials MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS APPENDICES A. Federal Register Notices and Agency Correspondence B. Design Criteria for the Functional Engineering Designs C. Relocation Reports D. Noise Contour Maps E. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Analysis F. Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Forms G. Elevated Roadway Photo Simulation H. Recommended Preliminary Drainage Crossing Table I. Section 4(f) de minimis Impact Analysis for Matthews Sportsplex J. Jurisdictional Resources Attribute and Impact Tables K. Public Involvement Materials APPENDIX A APPENDICES MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS APPENDIX A FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES AND AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE A-1. Federal Register Notices A-2. Local Government Resolutions A-3. Scoping Letter and Responses A-4. Correspondence with the State Historic Preservation Office A-5. Section 6002 Coordination Plan for Monroe Connector/Bypass Project A-6. Air Quality Conformity Correspondence A-7. ICE Assessment Agency Scoping Meetings A-8. Alternatives Analysis Report Comments A-9. Local Officials Correspondence Regarding DSA Segments 18A and 2 APPENDIX A APPENDICES MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS APPENDIX A-1 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES • Rescission of Monroe Connector Draft EIS 01/30/06 • Notice of Intent for Monroe Connector/Bypass Draft EIS 01/19/07 4958 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 19 / Monday, January 30, 2006 / Notices display of the exhibit objects at Saint Louis Art Museum, from on or about February 19, 2006, until on or about May 14, 2006, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the Federal Register. For Further Information Contact: For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/453–8048). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA–44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547–0001. Dated: January 23, 2006. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6–1119 Filed 1–27–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710–05–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 25.856–2, Installation of Thermal/Acoustic Insulation for Burnthrough Protection AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of issuance of advisory circular. SUMMARY: This notice announces the issuance of Advisory Circular 25.856–2, ‘‘Installation of Thermal/Acoustic Insulation for Burnthrough Protection.’’ The advisory circular provides information and guidance regarding an acceptable means, but not the only means, of compliance with the portions of the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes that deal with the installation of thermal/acoustic insulation. DATES: AC 25.856–2 was issued by the FAA Transport Airplane Directorate in Renton, Washington, on January 17, 2006. How To Obtain Copies: You can download a copy of advisory Circular 25.856–2 from the Internet at http:// www.airweb.faa.gov/rgl. A paper copy will be available in approximately 6–8 weeks from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Subsequent Distribution Office, M–30, Ardmore East Business Center, 3341 Q 75th Avenue, Landover, MD 20795. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenna Sinclair, FAA Standardization Branch, ANM–113, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–1556; e-mail kenna.sinclair@faa.gov. Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 17, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 06–809 Filed 1–27–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Environmental Impact Statement: Mecklenburg and Union Counties, NC AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Rescinding of Notice of Intent and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for proposed U.S. 74 corridor improvements in Mecklenburg and Union Counties, NC. SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that we are rescinding the notice of intent and the public notice to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for a proposed highway project in Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clarence W. Coleman, P.E., Operations Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, 310 New Bern Avenue, Ste 410, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27601– 1418, Telephone: (919) 856–4346. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA, in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), is rescinding the notice of intent to prepare an EIS for a proposed multi-lane, controlled access highway along the U.S. 74 corridor connecting I– 485 in Mecklenburg County to U.S. 601 in Union County, North Carolina. On April 13, 2000, FHWA issued a notice of intent to prepare an EIS for this proposed project. A Draft EIS was released in November 2003 after resource agencies and the public provided input and comments as part of the project development process. The Draft EIS evaluated several alternatives, including: (1) No Build (2) Transportation Systems Management (TSM), (3) Transportation Demand Management (TSM), (4) Mass Transit, and (5) New Location Alternatives. A public hearing has not been held following the completion of the Draft EIS. Based on the comments received from various Federal and state agencies and the public and a recent decision to change the eastern terminus of the project form U.S. 601 to the proposed Monroe Bypass, the FHWA and NCDOT have agreed not to prepare a Final EIS for the proposed U.S. 74 improvements from I–485 to U.S. 601. FHWA, NCDOT, and the North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA), plan to prepare a new Draft EIS for the proposed project. A notice of intent to prepare the EIS will be issued subsequent to this rescinding notice. The new Draft EIS will include a toll alternative among the full range of alternatives that will be analyzed as well as a change in the location of the eastern terminus. Comments or questions concerning the decision to not prepare Final EIS should be directed to NCDOT or FHWA at the address provided in the caption, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided above. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation of Federal programs and activities apply to this program.) Clarence W. Coleman, Operations Engineer, Raleigh, North Carolina. [FR Doc. 06–812 Filed 1–27–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–22–M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Environmental Impact Statement: Pueblo, Otero, Bent, and Prowers Counties, CO AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for proposed transportation improvements in Pueblo County, Otero County, Bent County and Prowers County in the State of Colorado. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Chris Horn, Senior Operations Engineer, FHWA, Colorado Division, 12300 West Dakota Ave., Suite 180, Lakewood, CO, 80228, Telephone: (720) 963–3017. Mr. Mike Perez, Project Manager, Colorado VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:07 Jan 27, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30JAN1.SGM 30JAN1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES 2582 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 12 / Friday, January 19, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Membership Availability in the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group Aviation Rulemaking Committee To Represent Commercial Air Tour Interests ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), as required by the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000, established the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group (NPOAG) in March 2001. The NPOAG was formed to provide continuing advice and counsel with respect to commercial air tour operations over and near national parks. This notice informs the public of one vacancy (due to completion of membership on May 19, 2007), on the NPOAG (now the NPOAG Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC)) for a member representing commercial air tour operators, and invites interested persons to apply to fill the vacancy. DATES: Persons interested in serving on the NPOAG ARC should contact Mr. Barry Brayer in writing and postmarked or e-mailed on or before March 1, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barry Brayer, Executive Resource Staff, Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region Headquarters, 15000 Aviation Blvd., Hawthorne, CA 90250, telephone: (310) 725–3800, e-mail: Barry.Brayer@faa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (the Act) was enacted on April 5, 2000, as Public Law 106–181. The Act required the establishment of the advisory group within 1 year after its enactment. The advisory group is comprised of a balanced group of representatives of general aviation, commercial air tour operations, environmental concerns, and Native American tribes. The Administrator of the FAA and the Director of NPS (or their designees) serve as ex officio members of the group. Representatives of the Administrator and Director serve alternating 1-year terms as chairman of the advisory group. The advisory group provides ‘‘advice, information, and recommendations to the Administrator and the Director— (1) On the implementation of this title [the Act] and the amendments made by this title; (2) On commonly accepted quiet aircraft technology for use in commercial air tour operations over a national park or tribal lands, which will receive preferential treatment in a given air tour management plan; (3) On other measures that might be taken to accommodate the interests of visitors to national parks; and (4) At the request of the Administrator and the Director, safety, environmental, and other issues related to commercial air tour operations over a national park or tribal lands.’’ Members of the advisory group may be allowed certain travel expenses as authorized by Section 5703 of Title 5, United States Code, for intermittent Government service. By FAA Order No. 1110–138, signed by the FAA Administrator on October 10, 2003, the NPOAG became an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC). FAA Order No. 1110–138, was amended and became effective as FAA Order No. 1110–138A, on January 20, 2006. The current NPOAG ARC is made up on one member representing general aviation, three members representing the air tour industry, four members representing environmental concerns, and two members representing Native American interests. Current members of the NPOAG ARC are: Heidi Williams, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association; Alan Stephen, fixed-winged air tour operator representative; Elling Halvorson, Papillon Airways, Inc.; Matthew Zuccaro, Helicopters Association International; Chip Dennerlein, Siskiyou Project; Greg Miller, American Hiking Society; Mark Peterson, National Audubon Society; Don Barger, National Parks Conservation Association; Rory Majenty, Hualapai Nation; and Richard Deertrack, Taos Pueblo. Public Participation in the NPOAG ARC In order to retain balance within the NPOAG ARC, the FAA and NPS invite persons interested in serving on the ARC to represent the commercial air tour industry, to contact Mr. Barry Brayer (contact information is written above in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) Requests to serve on the ARC must be made to Mr. Brayer in writing and postmarked or e-mailed on or before March 1, 2007. The request should indicate whether or not you are a member of an association representing commercial air tours or have another affiliation with issues relating to aircraft flights over national parks. The request should also state what expertise you would bring to the NPOAG ARC as related to environmental interests. The term of service NPOAG ARC members is 3 years. Issued in Hawthorne, CA on January 11, 2007. Barry Brayer, Manager, Executive Resource Staff, Western- Pacific Region. [FR Doc. 07–186 Filed 1–18–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Environmental Impact Statement: Mecklenburg and Union Counties, NC AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of Intent. SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared for a proposed project in Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. George Hoops, Major Projects Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601–1418, Telephone: (919) 856–4350 extension 104. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 771, Environmental Impact and Related Procedures, the FHWA, in cooperation with the North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) addressing proposed improvements in the US 74 corridor from I–485 in Mecklenburg County to the vicinity of the Town of Marshville, which is east of the City of Monroe (the County seat) in Union County. The proposed project study extends from I– 485 in the west to the vicinity of the Town of Marshville in the east and extends north and south of US 74. The proposed action is included in the long range transportation plan approved by the Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO). This study is a combination of two projects previously analyzed by NCDOT, the Monroe Bypass (NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program [TIP] Project R–2559) and the Monroe Connector (NCDOT TIP Project R–3329). The Monroe Bypass study addressed in the US 74 corridor from just west of the City of Monroe to just west of the Town of Marshville. An Environmental Assessment for this project was approved in March 1996, and a Finding VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:10 Jan 18, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM 19JAN1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 12 / Friday, January 19, 2007 /Notices 2583 1 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users H.R. REP. NO. 109–203, at 936–37 (2005), reprinted in 2005 U.S.C.C.A.N. 452. 2 Section 5309(c)(4)(A), which permits the Secretary to approve an application to the Pilot Program if ‘‘State and local laws permit public-private agreements for all phases of project development, construction and operation of the project’’ (emphasis added) indicates that the Pilot Program is intended to demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of PPPs for all aspects certain new fixed guideway capital projects, including their operation and maintenance. of No Significant Impact was issued in June 1997. The Monroe Connector study previously addressed improvements in the US 74 corridor from I–485 to US 601 in the City of Monroe, where it ended at the proposed Monroe Bypass. A Draft EIS for this project was approved in November 2003; however, a public hearing was never held. In February 2005, the NCTA adopted the Monroe Connector as a toll candidate facility, and in January 2006, the Notice of Intent for the Monroe Connector EIS was rescinded (Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 19, page 4958). Subsequently, NCTA adopted the Monroe Bypass project as a toll candidate facility in October 2006. The Monroe Connector and Monroe Bypass projects have been combined into a single project and will be evaluated in a single EIS. The EIS for the proposed action will consider alternatives for improvements in the US 74 corridor from I–485 to US 74 in the vicinity of the Town of Marshville. Alternatives, including a ‘‘No-Build’’ Alternative (continuation of the existing condition), improving the existing US 74 corridor, and constructing a new location facility, will be considered. Several alternative corridors for a new location facility will be studied. As part of the EIS, NCTA will study the feasibility and impacts of developing the proposed project, in whole or in part, as a toll road. Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will be sent to appropriate Federal, State and local agencies. Scoping will occur over a series of meetings with the agencies and citizens informational workshops with the public. Information on the dates, times, and locations of the citizens informational workshops will be advertised in the local news media and newsletters will be mailed to those on the project mailing list. If you wish to be placed on the mailing list, contact Jennifer Harris at the address listed below. The Draft EIS will be available for public and agency review and comment prior to the public hearing. To ensure the full range of issues related to the proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments and questions concerning the proposed action should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided above or directed to: Ms. Jennifer Harris, Staff Engineer, North Carolina Turnpike Authority, 5400 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 400, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27612. Telephone: (919) 571–3004. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Research, Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation of Federal programs and activities apply to this program.) George Hoops, Major Projects Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina. [FR Doc. 07–196 Filed 1–18–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–22–M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration [Docket No: FTA–2006–23697] Public-Private Partnership Pilot Program AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of establishment of Public-Private Partnership Pilot Program; solicitation of applications. SUMMARY: Section 3011(c) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (‘‘SAFETEA–LU’’) authorizes the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to establish and implement a pilot program to demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of public-private partnerships for certain new fixed guideway capital projects (the ‘‘Pilot Program’’). This notice establishes and sets forth the definitive terms of the Pilot Program. By separate notice to be published in the Federal Register not later than March 31, 2007, FTA will summarize and respond to comments solicited by FTA by notice published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2006, at 71 FR 14568. This notice is not a ‘‘binding obligation’’ as defined at 49 U.S.C. 5334(l)(2). This notice is organized into three sections: (1) ‘‘Background;’’ (2) ‘‘Overview of Pilot Program;’’ and (3) ‘‘Definitive Terms.’’ DATES: To be considered in FTA’s first quarterly review of applications to the Pilot Program, applications must be received by FTA on or before March 31, 2007. Applications received by FTA between March 31, 2007, and July 1, 2007, will be reviewed in FTA’s second quarterly review of applications to the Pilot Program. See ‘‘Applications’’ at section 3(f) of this notice. ADDRESSES: Applications should be submitted by U.S. Post or express mail to the Federal Transit Administration, c/o the Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, Room 9328, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Please note that due to security procedures in effect since October 2001 regarding mail deliveries, mail received through the U.S. Postal Service may be subject to delays. Parties making applications to the Pilot Program should consider using an express mail service to ensure the prompt filing of any applications not filed by express mail. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning the Pilot Program should be addressed to David B. Horner, Esq., Chief Counsel, Federal Transit Administration, by e-mail at David.Horner@dot.gov or by telephone at (202) 689–4464. To read materials on the DOT docket responsive to FTA’s notice published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2006, at 71 FR 14568, please go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to the Docket Management System. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. Background (a) Objective. The Public-Private Partnership Pilot Program (the ‘‘Pilot Program’’) is intended to demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of public-private partnerships (‘‘PPPs’’) for certain new fixed guideway capital projects funded by the Federal Transit Administration (‘‘FTA’’). In particular, the Pilot Program is intended to study whether, in comparison to conventional procurements, PPPs better reduce and allocate risks associated with new construction, accelerate project delivery, improve the reliability of projections of project costs and benefits, and enhance project performance. The Pilot Program will accordingly study projects that, among other things, utilize methods of procurement that integrate risk-sharing and streamline project development, engineering, construction,1 operation, and maintenance.2 The amount and terms of private investment to be made in such projects will be a significant consideration in selecting projects to participate in the Pilot Program. (b) PPPs in General. As the growth in traditional transportation revenue sources, such as gasoline taxes, continues to decline and transportation operation, maintenance, replacement, and expansion needs and costs increase, transportation agencies are experiencing significant pressure to find ways to VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:10 Jan 18, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM 19JAN1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES APPENDIX A APPENDICES MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS APPENDIX A-2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESOLUTIONS • MUMPO Resolution Combining R-3329 and R-2559 09/25/06 • MUMPO Tolling Resolution 09/19/07 APPENDIX A APPENDICES MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS APPENDIX A-3 SCOPING LETTER AND RESPONSES Scoping Letter sent by NCTA 01/05/07 Federal Agencies • US Army Corps of Engineers 02/13/07 • US Environmental Protection Agency 02/14/07 • US Fish and Wildlife Service 02/13/07 State Agencies • NC State Clearinghouse Department of Administration 02/12/07 • NCDENR Wildlife Resources Commission 02/05/07 • NCDENR Division of Water Quality 01/22/07 • NCDEM National Flood Insurance Program 02/08/07 • NCDENR Natural Heritage Program 01/23/07 Local Agencies • Town of Marshville 01/31/07 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY MICHAEL F. EASLEY 1578MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1578 DAVID W. JOYNER GOVERNOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY TELEPHONE: 919-571-3000 FAX: 919-571-3015 January 5, 2007 Ms. Chrys Baggett State Clearinghouse 1301 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1301 RE: Start of Study and Agency Scoping Meeting Notification Monroe Connector/Bypass – From I-485 to US 74 Mecklenburg and Union Counties TIP Project Numbers: R-3329 & R-2559 Dear Ms. Baggett, The North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) has initiated the project development, environmental, and engineering studies for the proposed Monroe Connector/Bypass project in Mecklenburg and Union Counties (Figure 1). As it is currently defined, the project would include improvements in the US 74 corridor between I-485 in Mecklenburg County and US 74 in the vicinity of the Town of Marshville in Union County. The project is included in the 2006-2012 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) in addition to the Draft 2007-2013 TIP as Projects R-3329 and R-2559. This study is a combination of two projects previously analyzed by NCDOT, the Monroe Bypass (NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program [TIP] Project R-2559) and the Monroe Connector (NCDOT TIP Project R-3329). The Monroe Bypass study addressed improvements in the US 74 corridor from just west of the City of Monroe to just west of the Town of Marshville. An Environmental Assessment for this project was approved in March 1996, and a Finding of No Significant Impact was issued in June 1997. The Monroe Connector study addressed improvements in the US 74 corridor from I-485 to US 601 in the City of Monroe, where it ended at the proposed Monroe Bypass. A Draft EIS for this project was approved in November 2003; however, a public hearing was never held. In February 2005, the NCTA adopted the Monroe Connector as a toll candidate facility, and in January 2006, the Notice of Intent for the Monroe Connector EIS was rescinded (Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 19, page 4958). Subsequently, NCTA adopted the Monroe Bypass project as a toll candidate facility in October 2006. The Monroe Connector and Monroe Bypass projects have been combined into a single project and will be evaluated in a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The proposed project is approximately 21 miles in length and is located southeast of Charlotte in the vicinity of the towns of Lake Park, Stallings, and Mint Hill and the cities of Monroe, Indian Trail, and Matthews. The project area’s proximity to Charlotte has resulted in much of it transforming from a traditionally agricultural area to one of a suburban nature. Based on previous studies and natural systems screening, the project corridor includes a number of streams, wetlands, and floodplains, as well as potential habitat for four federally listed species: Schweinitz’s sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), Michaux’s sumac (Rhus michauxii), smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), and Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata). The project is within the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill 8-hour ozone (O3) nonattainment area. NCTA anticipates preparing an EIS for the Monroe Connector/Bypass project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in establishing the project study area, identifying preliminary corridors, evaluating the potential environmental impacts of those corridors, and establishing a viable range of alternatives for consideration. Also, please identify any permits or approvals which may be required by your agency. An agency scoping meeting will be held at the Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting on January 25, 2007 in the NCTA Board Room (Address: 5400 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 400, Raleigh, NC 27612). This meeting will begin at 2:15 p.m. The purpose of the meeting will be to identify significant issues related to the proposed action that should be considered during the study process. We strongly encourage you or a representative of your agency to participate in this meeting; however, if your agency can not be represented, please provide written comments by February 9, 2007. Your response should be mailed to the following: Ms. Jennifer Harris, PE North Carolina Turnpike Authority 1578 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1578 If you have any questions concerning the proposed project, please call Ms. Harris at (919) 571-3004. Sincerely, Steven D. DeWitt, P.E. Chief Engineer cc: Mr. David Joyner, NCTA Ms. Jennifer Harris, P.E., NCTA Ms. Teresa Hart, P.E., NCDOT Mr. John Conforti, REM, NCDOT Ms. Anne Lenart-Redmond, E.I., HNTB Mr. Carl Gibilaro, P.E., PBS&J APPENDIX A APPENDICES MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS APPENDIX A-4 CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE • Letter from SHPO Regarding the Archaeological Survey Report 09/16/03 • Letter from SHPO Commenting on the Historic Architectural Resources Reconnaissance Report 12/21/07 • Concurrence Form – Assessment of Effects 11/14/08 • Letter to SHPO Regarding Revised APE 1/16/09 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY BEVERLY E. PERDUE 1578MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1578 DAVID W. JOYNER GOVERNOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY TELEPHONE: 919-571-3000 FAX: 919-571-3015 January 16, 2009 Mr. Peter Sandbeck Administrator, State Historic Preservation Office Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer 4617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-4677 RE: North Carolina Turnpike Authority: STIP R-3329/R-2559 Monroe Connector/Bypass Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Sandbeck: In October 2007, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) prepared a Historic Architecture Resources Reconnaissance Report for the Monroe Connector/Bypass Project (R-3329/R-2559) in Mecklenburg and Union Counties. At the time the report was prepared, numerous Preliminary Corridor Segments were under consideration for the project, including segments south of and along existing US 74, and an Area of Potential Effects (APE) was defined to encompass all of these segments. However, during alternatives screening, Preliminary Corridor Segments south of and along existing US 74 were eliminated from consideration, and the Detailed Study Alternatives were identified. With the refinement of the alternatives since the initial studies, some of the historic properties are now outside of the original project corridor and APE. The attached figure outlines the original APE, the proposed revised APE, and the historic sites in relation to the project area and APEs. At a meeting on September 22, 2008, representatives of the NCDOT and HPO agreed that the following properties are now outside of the original APE: • Monroe City Hall • Malcolm K. Lee House • John C. Sikes House • US Post Office • James Orr Stores • Monroe Downtown Historic District • Monroe Residential District • Union County Courthouse • Indian Trail Presbyterian Church The following properties remain within the revised APE: • William Bivens House (No Effect) • Secrest Farm (No Adverse Effect) • Hiram Secrest House (No Adverse Effect) • Perry McIntyre Farm (No Adverse Effect) If you have any questions, or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Jennifer Harris at (919) 571-3004. Sincerely, Steven D. DeWitt, P.E. Chief Engineer cc w/attachment: Renee Gledhill-Earley, HPO-Environmental Review Coordinator Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT-Historic Architecture Supervisor Jennifer Harris, P.E., NCTA-Staff Engineer George Hoops P.E., FHWA-Major Projects Engineer Attachment: Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Figure 5-1 (Historic Architectural Resources) STALLINGS RD MATTHEWS INDIAN INDIAN TRAIL FAIRVIEW RD UNIONVILLE-INDIAN TRAIL RD WESLEY CHAPEL STOUTS RD N ROCKY RIVER RD RD TRAIL INDIAN UNIONVILLE-POPLIN RD SECREST SHORT CUT RD WAXHAW - INDIAN TRAIL RD OLD CHARLOTTE HWY OLD CHARLOTTE HWY S ROCKY RIVER RD MEDLIN RD OLD MONROE MARSHVILLE RD RIDGE RD BAUCOM RD AUSTIN GROVE CHURCH RD ELLIS GRIFFIN RD WLAKUP AVE MONROE-ANSONVILLE RD AUSTIN CHANEY RD OLIVE BRANCH RD OLIVE BRANCH RD NEW SALEM RD LAWYERS RD MILLS HARRIS RD ANSONVILLE RD SUMMERLIN DAIRY RD OLD HIGHWAY RD FOREST HILLS SCHOOL RD CAMDEN RD MCINTYRE RD TRAIL RD CUT RD SECREST SHORT SECREST RD FOWLER- 485 74 74 601 74 200 75 200 207 205 84 218 51 Monroe Unionville Wingate Marshville Indian Trail Weddington Stallings Lake Park Hemby Bridge Wesley Chapel Mecklenburg County Union County Matthews Fairview Mineral Springs Lake Twitty Lake Lee Lake Monroe Monroe Municipal Airport 22a 30 31 21 18a 2 34 36 41 40 34 A/B 36 A/B James Orr Stores Indian Trail Presbyterian Church US Post Office Monroe City Hall Malcolm K Lee House John C Sikes House Monroe Historic District Hiram Secrest House Union County Courthouse Perry McIntyre House Secrest Farm William Bivens House Figure 5-1 STIP PROJECT NO. R-3329/R-2559 MONROE CONNECTOR/ BYPASS Mecklenburg County and Union County HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES AND OLD GOLD MINES 0 0.75 1.5 Miles Legend Area of Potential Effects Revised Area of Potential Effects Historic Structures Historic Sites Historic Districts Gold Mines Segment Breakline Preliminary Design Centerline Corridor Study Area County Boundary Lake River / Stream Interstate Highway US Highway NC State Highway State Road Railroad DEIS_Historic2.mxd 1-16-09 Mecklenburg and Union Counties North Carolina Counties Source: Mecklenburg County and Union Counties GIS. Map Printed On 1-16-09. APPENDIX A APPENDICES MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS APPENDIX A-5 SECTION 6002 COORDINATION PLAN FOR MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS PROJECT • Letter from NCTA submitting the Final Section 6002 Project Coordination Plan 10/11/07 • Section 6002 Project Coordination Plan 10/11/07 • Participating and Cooperating Agency Invitation Letters 02/14/07 August 8, 2007 1 Section 6002 Coordination Plan for Monroe Connector/Bypass Project TIP Projects R-3329 & R-2559 ______________________________________________________________________________ COORDINATION PLAN 1. Purpose of Plan. 1.1. Section 6002 Compliance. This plan is intended to satisfy the requirement for a Coordination Plan under Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU (23 U.S.C § 139) for the Monroe Connector/Bypass project (TIP No. R-3329 & R-2559). 1.2. Integration of NEPA and Section 404 Requirements. The process established in this plan is intended to ensure that the requirements of NEPA and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act can be satisfied as part of a single process. Specifically, this plan is intended ensure that, to the maximum extent practicable, • there is regular communication and collaborative discussion among all agencies that have information, experience, and/or expertise relevant to issues considered in Section 404 permitting; • NCDENR can issue Section 401, Riparian Buffer Authorizations, Isolated Wetland Permits, and State Stormwater Permits based on information developed as part of the NEPA process; and • the USACE can issue a Section 404 permit for the project promptly following the end of the NEPA process, without the need for supplemental NEPA studies, • so that any other required permits or approvals can be obtained without unexpected issues or delays. 1.3. Agency Communication. This plan establishes a framework for regular communication among all of the agencies involved in the environmental review process. This communication will include regular agency coordination meetings. These meetings will provide a forum for open discussion and dialogue among agencies. Meetings with one or more individual agencies also may occur as part of this process. When possible, all Participating Agencies will be informed of a smaller meeting to ensure all appropriate parties are included and will be updated after the meeting. 2. Project Initiation 2.1. Project Initiation Notice. The environmental review process for a project is initiated when the North Carolina Turnpike Authority submits a project initiation notice to the FHWA. This notice was provided in the form of a letter from NCTA to FHWA on January 5, 2007. A draft Notice of Intent was included with this notice. August 8, 2007 2 2.2. Notice of Intent. A Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this project was published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2007. The project initiation notice and the Notice of Intent are attached as Exhibit 1. 3. Project Schedule 3.1. Schedule. The NCTA will prepare a project schedule showing projected dates for completing all environmental studies and permitting. The schedule will conform to SAFETEA-LU time frames for comment periods and the FHWA “Vital Few Goal” of achieving a median time frame of three years for completing an EIS. A draft schedule for the Monroe Connector/Bypass project is shown in Table 1. Table 1: Draft Project Schedule Notice of Intent Winter 2007 Identify Detailed Study Alternatives July 2007 DEIS July 2008 Identify Preferred Alternative November 2008 FEIS May 2009 ROD July 2009 Permit Application(s) August 2009 Let Contract/Begin Construction December 2009 3.2. Agency Consultation. The schedule will be shared with the agencies and discussed at a TEAC meeting. Agency comments will be considered and the schedule may be revised as appropriate. 3.3. Updating Schedules. The project schedule may be revised from time to time by the lead agencies during the environmental review process. Schedule changes will be communicated to all participating agencies and the public. Under the statute, the schedule may be extended by the lead agencies for good cause, and may be shortened only with the consent of Cooperating Agencies. 4. Agency Roles 4.1. Lead Federal Agency. FHWA will be the lead Federal agency. As lead Federal agency in the Section 6002 process, FHWA is responsible for making certain decisions as specified in Section 6002. In addition, FHWA has an overall responsibility for facilitating the expeditious completion of the environmental review process. 4.2. Joint Lead Agencies. NCTA will be a joint lead agency, and thus will share with FHWA the responsibilities of the “lead agency” under the process defined in Section 6002. August 8, 2007 3 NCDOT also will have the status of a joint lead agency; however, NCDOT will primarily have a review/support role in the process, consistent with the Preconstruction Guidelines adopted by NCDOT and NCTA in July 2006. 4.3. Participating Agencies. NCTA will issue letters inviting Federal and non-Federal agencies to serve as Participating Agencies for each project developed under this plan. Participating Agencies include any Federal, State, or local agencies that may have an interest in the project. 4.3.1. Invitation List. Invitations will be sent to Federal and non-Federal agencies that, in the judgment of FHWA and NCTA, may have an interest in the project. A list of Participating Agencies is attached as Exhibit 1 to this plan. Additional Participating Agencies may be added later in the process based on new information, changes in the project, or changed circumstances. Table 2 lists agencies identified as having an interest in the Monroe Connector/Bypass project. Table 2: Agency Roles Cooperating Agency Participating Agency US Army Corps of Engineers US Environmental Protection Agency US Fish and Wildlife Service NC Department of Cultural Resources – Historic Preservation Office NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources Division of Water Quality Wildlife Resources Commission Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization 4.3.2. Deadline. Invitation letters will specify a 30-day deadline for agencies to respond to the invitation. 4.3.3. Federal Invitees. A Federal agency that is invited to be a Participating Agency will be presumed to have accepted the invitation, unless the agency informs NCTA in writing, by the deadline, that it: “(A) has no jurisdiction or authority with respect to the project; (B) has no expertise or information relevant to the project; and (C) does not intend to submit comments on the project.” 4.3.4. Non-Federal Invitees. Non-Federal agencies are not required to accept designation; they become Participating Agencies only if they affirmatively accept the invitation. If a non-Federal agency declines or does not respond to the invitation, the agency will not be considered a Participating Agency. August 8, 2007 4 4.3.5. No Implied Support. Designation as a Participating Agency shall not imply that the Participating Agency supports a proposed project; or has any jurisdiction over, or special expertise with respect to evaluation of, the project. 4.3.6. No Effect on Other Laws. Nothing in Section 6002, or in this Coordination Plan, preempts or interferes with any power, jurisdiction, responsibility, or authority that a Federal, State, or local government agency, metropolitan planning organization, Indian tribe, or project sponsor has with respect to carrying out a project or any other provisions of law applicable to projects, plans, or programs. 4.4. Cooperating Agencies. A Participating Agency also may be designated as a Cooperating Agency. The responsibilities of a “Cooperating Agency” are defined in the CEQ regulations and are unchanged by SAFETEA-LU. In general, designation as a Cooperating Agency signifies a somewhat higher level of involvement and responsibility in the environmental review process. Federal, State, or local government agencies can be designated as Cooperating Agencies. As shown in Table 2, the USACE was invited to become a Cooperating Agency. It is recognized that due to other program commitments, Cooperating Agencies will not be responsible for funding or writing portions of the NEPA document. 4.5. Local Government Coordination. The Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO) will serve as the official local representative for the project. MUMPO staff will be provided the same opportunities for input as other Participating Agencies. Local municipalities will be kept appraised of project developments through their involvement with MUMPO. The following municipalities are represented by MUMPO: City of Charlotte, Town of Cornelius, Town of Davidson, Town of Huntersville, Town of Indian Trail, Town of Matthews, Mecklenburg County, Town of Mint Hill, City of Monroe, Town of Pineville, Town of Stallings, Union County, Town of Waxhaw, Town of Weddington, Village of Wesley Chapel, and Town of Wingate. In addition, NCTA will provide regular updates to the Rocky River Rural Planning Organization, including the Town of Marshville. 4.5.1. MUMPO Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC). A NCTA staff member will represent NCTA at MUMPO Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) meetings. 4.5.2. Meeting Summaries. Summaries of monthly TEAC meetings will be provided to MUMPO members. 5. Turnpike-Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAC) Meetings 5.1. TEAC Meetings. The principal method for agency coordination on turnpike projects will be Turnpike-Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAC) meetings, which will be hosted by NCTA. These meetings will be used as a forum for discussing all turnpike projects, including those being studied under other procedures as well as those being studied under Section 6002. All TEAC meetings will be held at the NCTA office in Raleigh, unless otherwise specified in the meeting invitation. August 8, 2007 5 5.2. Meeting Dates. The schedule for the TEAC meetings will be determined by FHWA and NCTA after consultation with NCDOT and the Participating Agencies. This schedule will be established, to the extent possible, for 12-month periods. The schedule will be coordinated with NCDOT interagency meetings to avoid or minimize conflicts and minimize travel. Changes to the schedule will be provided to the Participating Agencies as far in advance as possible. The schedule for 2007 is attached as Exhibit 2. 5.3. Meeting Agenda and Objectives. The agenda for each TEAC meeting will be circulated via e-mail to all Participating Agencies. The agenda will identify (a) any specific issues that NCTA would like to resolve at the meeting and (b) any specific issues on which NCTA is seeking comments from the Participating Agencies at the meeting. 5.4. Meeting Materials. NCTA will post the agenda and materials for each TEAC meeting on a secure web site accessible to all TEAC members. Guidelines for circulating meeting materials are provided below. 5.4.1. Timing of Circulation. To the greatest extent possible, NCTA will post the agenda and materials at least two weeks in advance of the meeting. In some cases, materials will be provided less than two weeks in advance, or will be circulated in the TEAC meeting itself. NCTA will not seek to resolve issues or obtain Participating Agency comments on materials that the Participating Agencies received less than two weeks in advance of the meeting. 5.4.2. Availability of Paper Copies. In addition to posting documents on the TEAC web site, NCTA will make paper copies of TEAC meeting materials available to all attendees at each TEAC meeting. 5.4.3. Large Documents. Documents that would be difficult or time-consuming for agencies to reproduce (e.g., large maps, lengthy bound documents with color, fold-out pages, etc.) will be made available to Participating Agencies in hard-copy format at a TEAC meeting (or by mail two weeks or more in advance) for discussion at a subsequent TEAC meeting. NCTA will consult with the Participating Agencies to determine when this type of distribution is appropriate. 5.5. Meeting Summaries. After each TEAC meeting, the NCTA will prepare a meeting summary. The summary will list the attendees, topics discussed, unresolved issues, and action items. The Meeting Summary will be posted in draft form to the NCTA web site for review and comment two weeks in advance of the next meeting. Meetings will be recorded on audiotape; the recording will be used in preparing the meeting summaries. The meeting summaries will be included in the administrative record. 5.6. Attendees. Participating Agencies (including Cooperating Agencies) will designate primary contacts for each turnpike project. These primary contacts will regularly attend TEAC meetings. Attendance may vary from month to month depending on the issues being discussed. Primary contacts for the Monroe Connector/Bypass project listed in Table 3. August 8, 2007 6 Table 3: Primary Agency Contacts US Army Corps of Engineers Steve Lund US Environmental Protection Agency Chris Militscher US Fish and Wildlife Service Marella Buncick NC Department of Cultural Resources – Historic Preservation Office Peter Sandbeck NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources -- Division of Water Quality Polly Lespinasse Wildlife Resources Commission Marla Chambers Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization Bob Cook 6. Identification and Resolution of Project Issues 6.1. Constraint Mapping and Environmental Data. As early as practicable in project development, NCTA will provide FHWA and the Participating Agencies with mapping that shows key environmental resources, communities, topographic conditions, and other constraints in the project area. This mapping also will identify potential conceptual alternatives for the project, to the extent possible. (An “alternative” at this stage will generally be defined as a corridor.) The mapping may be accompanied by other supporting materials. This mapping may be presented to the Participating Agencies over a series of TEAC meetings and/or field meetings. 6.2. Field Visits and Agency Meetings. One or more field visits may be held with Participating Agencies to discuss constraints and obtain early input into development of alternatives. Attendees in field visits may be a sub-set of the Participating Agencies, depending on the issues to be discussed on the field visit; however, all Participating Agencies will be informed of upcoming meetings to determine interest in attending. The results of the field visit(s) will be discussed at a TEAC meeting, which will provide another opportunity for agency input. 6.3. General Project Issues. Throughout the process, Participating Agencies will be invited to identify issues that need to be considered by the Lead Agencies in preparing the environmental documentation and making project decisions, including issues that relate to the agencies’ ability to approve (or comment favorably on the approval of) any necessary permits for the project. These issues will be referred to as “general project issues.” 6.4. Issues of Concern. At any time in the process, a Participating Agency may identify an “issue of concern” as defined in SAFETEA-LU, which is an issue that in the agency’s judgment could result in denial of a permit or substantial delay in issuing a permit. 6.4.1. Format. Participating agencies will be strongly encouraged to submit any “issues of concern” in writing to FHWA and NCTA on agency letterhead. Issues of concern submitted in other formats (e.g., e-mail) will also be considered. August 8, 2007 7 6.4.2. Timing. Participating Agencies are required by statute to identify any issues of concern “as early as practicable” in the environmental review process, but this determination is based on information provided by the lead agencies. In some cases, it may not be practicable to identify an issue of concern until late in the process. The statute does not set a specific deadline for raising these issues. 6.4.3. Request for Comment. At any point in the process, the NCTA may ask the Participating Agencies to state in writing whether there are any issues of concern. If such a request is made, NCTA will consult with the Participating Agencies before setting a deadline for a response. If agreed by the Lead and Participating Agencies, a deadline longer than 30 days could be established. 6.5. Monitoring and Updating. NCTA will maintain a list of both “general project issues” and “issues of concern” (if any) identified by the Participating Agencies. Separate meetings may be scheduled to resolve general project issues and/or any issues of concern. Additional issues may be added to the list based on new information or changed circumstances at any point in project development. This list will be posted to the TEAC web site. 6.6. Resolving General Project Issues. General project issues that are not resolved among the regular participants in the TEAC meetings can be elevated for consideration by the more senior officials within the relevant agencies. Any agency – Lead or Participating – can invoke the elevation process. The process is intended to be flexible, with specific procedures determined on a case-by-case basis depending on the nature of the issue. In general, the elevation process will involve the following steps: • A TEAC member requests elevation on an issue within the jurisdiction of that agency. This request can be made in a TEAC meeting or in a letter or e-mail to the other TEAC members. • The request for elevation is placed on the agenda for discussion at a subsequent TEAC meeting. • If the issue is not resolved at that subsequent TEAC meeting, the issue is elevated to more senior officials within the TEAC agencies. • Each TEAC member is responsible for identifying the more senior official(s) within his or her agency who will be directly involved in the elevation. • The TEAC members will work together to plan the logistics and timing of the elevation process, including any briefing materials or other documents that need to be prepared prior to a resolution of the issue. 6.7. Resolving Issues of Concern. Under the statute, NCTA or the Governor may request a meeting at any time to resolve issues of concern. If such a meeting is requested, FHWA will convene a meeting in accordance with SAFETEA-LU to resolve the specified issues of concern. If an issue of concern is not resolved within 30 days after such a meeting, a report must be submitted to Congress and to the heads of certain agencies, as provided in SAFETEA-LU. If such a meeting is not requested, FHWA and NCTA will seek to address and resolve the agencies’ issues of concern as part of normal agency August 8, 2007 8 coordination during the environmental review process. NCTA anticipates that this process will be invoked rarely. 7. Development of Purpose and Need 7.1. Preliminary P&N with Supporting Information. Early in project development, NCTA will prepare a brief preliminary statement of purpose and need – generally no more than one page in length. The preliminary statement purpose and need will be distributed to the agencies. This preliminary statement will be accompanied by supporting information to the extent that it is available. This information will include: • GIS map of study area (with study area identified) • Summary of local concerns that resulted in project addition to LRTP and MTIP • Traffic data related to project needs • Justification for designation as turnpike project (based on funding needs, etc.) • Description of how the action will address the need. 7.2. Discussion at TEAC Meeting. The preliminary purpose and need will be discussed with the Participating Agencies at a TEAC meeting. This will provide an early opportunity for agency input into the Purpose and Need for the project. In accordance with Section 6002, the comment period will be 30 days (unless otherwise agreed). 7.3. Determination of Purpose and Need. The purpose and need will be refined, as appropriate, based on input from the Participating Agencies and the public. Refinement of the purpose and need may be a gradual, iterative process that occurs during the alternatives development and screening process. This process will include an opportunity for agencies and the public to comment on the purpose and need as part of their review of the alternatives screening report. (See Part 8.4 and 8.5 below.) The Purpose and Need will be determined by the time of selection of Detailed Study Alternatives. 8. Development and Screening of Alternatives 8.1. Conceptual Alternatives. An initial set of conceptual alternatives will be developed as early as practicable in the process. The conceptual alternatives may be developed concurrently with the preliminary purpose and need statement. These alternatives will be provided to the agencies along with the environmental constraint mapping that provides the basis for identifying issues of concern. (See Part 6.1 above.) 8.2. Alternatives Development. Through agency coordination and public involvement, NCTA will develop a range of preliminary alternatives for consideration. This range may extend beyond the initial set of conceptual alternatives. This effort is intended to be comprehensive and inclusive. NCTA will maintain a summary of all alternatives suggested by Participating Agencies and the public. August 8, 2007 9 8.3. Alternatives Screening Report. The NCTA will prepare an alternatives screening report that presents the justification for eliminating alternatives from further consideration, and identifies alternatives proposed for detailed study. The alternatives screening report will be provided to the Participating Agencies and discussed in a TEAC meeting. 8.4. Opportunity for Public Input. A summary of the alternatives screening report will be made available for public review and comment. A public meeting (or meetings) will be held in the project area during the public comment period on this report. This comment period will serve as the public’s opportunity for involvement in both developing the purpose and need and determining the range of alternatives to be considered in the EIS. A report summarizing public input will be provided to Participating Agencies. Agencies will be given notice of the public meeting and will be welcome to attend. 8.5. Opportunity for Agency Input. Participating Agencies will be given a 30-day period to provide additional comments on the alternatives screening report following distribution of the report summarizing public comments. Participating Agencies will not be asked to concur on the alternatives screening report. Participating Agencies will be asked to submit any significant objections to the alternatives screening report in writing to FHWA and NCTA on agency letterhead. 8.6. Lead Agency Decision. The Lead Agencies identify the detailed study alternatives based on the comments received from Participating Agencies and the public. In general, the NCTA and FHWA will seek to resolve any issues or concerns regarding the range of detailed study alternatives at this stage of the process. Any issues that are not resolved at this stage will need to be resolved prior to issuance of a Section 404 permit by the USACE. It is incumbent on all Participating Agencies to raise issues, concerns, or comments in a timely manner and to also provide suggestions for resolution. 9. Methodologies and Level of Detail for Alternatives Analysis 9.1. Proposed Methodologies. Early in project development, NCTA will prepare materials outlining proposed methodologies for analyzing alternatives. The materials will summarize the methodologies intended to be used for each substantive area within the EIS – noise, air, water resources, traffic issues, secondary and cumulative impacts, etc. Standard procedures will simply be referenced, where applicable. Any modifications to standard procedures will be identified and discussed in more depth. 9.2. Opportunity for Agency Input. The proposed methodologies will be developed in consultation with agencies having relevant information, experience, or expertise. For example, the USACE and NCDENR and other Participating Agencies as appropriate will be consulted in developing the methodology for analyzing impacts to aquatic resources; the SHPO will be consulted in developing methodologies for analyzing impacts to historic sites (including both architectural and archeological resources). 9.3. Ongoing Coordination. Methodologies for alternatives analysis will be refined throughout the environmental review process. The Lead Agencies will discuss adjustments, as appropriate, with Participating Agencies at TEAC meetings. August 8, 2007 10 9.4. Level of Detail. The Lead Agencies, in consultation with the Participating Agencies, will determine the appropriate level of design detail for preliminary alternatives, for the detailed study alternatives, and for the preferred alternative. 9.4.1. Preliminary Alternatives. The level of design for the detailed study alternatives will be determined in consultation with the Participating Agencies. There is no presumption that any specific level of design is needed; this issue will be determined based on the information needed to allow informed decision-making. 9.4.2. Detailed Study Alternatives. In general, functional design will be used as the basis for comparing the impacts of the alternatives in the DEIS (known as the Detailed Study Alternatives) and will be used for developing the cost estimates presented in the DEIS. A higher level of design detail may be developed for Detailed Study Alternatives in some cases; this issue will be discussed with Participating Agencies in accordance with Sections 9.1, 9.2, and 9.3. 9.4.3. Bridging Decisions. The Lead Agencies, in consultation with USACE and NCDENR (and, if appropriate, other Participating Agencies) will determine bridge locations and approximate lengths for each of the Detailed Study Alternatives. These issues also will be discussed in TEAC meetings with all Participating Agencies. 9.4.4. Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative may be developed to a higher level of detail in the FEIS, in accordance with procedures specified in FHWA/FTA guidance for the Section 6002 process. If phased construction is anticipated, the higher level of design detail may be developed for a portion of the Preferred Alternative. As allowed under Section 6002, the higher level of design detail may be prepared for the purpose of developing mitigation measures and/or for complying with permitting requirements (e.g., Section 404 permitting). 9.5. Lead Agency Decision. If there are disagreements about methodology, or about the appropriate level of design detail, FHWA and NCTA will seek to resolve those disagreements with the agencies having the concern and those with relevant expertise – for example, the SHPO on historic property issues. After consultation, the Lead Agencies will determine the methodology to be used in the NEPA document. The basis for that decision will be documented in the project file and provided to the Participating Agencies. 10. Selection of Preferred Alternative/LEDPA 10.1.Timing for Identifying Preferred Alternative. The following actions will be completed before NCTA submits a Preferred Alternative Report to the Participating Agencies: • the DEIS has been issued (including a Conceptual Mitigation Proposal) and submitted to the State Clearinghouse; • a Section 404 Public Notice Request has been submitted to USACE, and the Public Notice has been issued by the USACE; August 8, 2007 11 • a public hearing on the DEIS has been held, and the comment period on the DEIS has ended, 10.2. Process for Identifying Preferred Alternative. The process for identifying a preferred alternative will include: • the NCTA will prepare an information package containing an impacts comparison matrix, responses to substantive comments on the DEIS that relate to selection of the preferred alternative, and other pertinent information; • the NCTA will provide the information package to the Participating Agencies at least two weeks prior to the TEAC meeting at which the package will be discussed. • the Participating Agencies will be given a 30-day period following the TEAC meeting to provide comments on the information package, and there will be a discussion of the alternatives comparison package at a TEAC meeting; and • if requested by the Participating Agencies, the NCTA will arrange for a field review of the alternatives. 10.3.Preparation of Preferred Alternative Report. The NCTA will prepare a report identifying its preferred alternative and the justification for selecting that alternative. The report will address all applicable regulatory requirements, such as Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act and Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act. The report will be prepared in coordination with FHWA and with input from the Participating Agencies as described in Section 10.2. 10.4.Opportunity for Agency Input. The NCTA will provide FHWA, NCDOT, and all Participating Agencies with a copy of the preferred alternative report. The report will be discussed at a TEAC meeting. Agencies will be provided with a 30-day period to comment on the report after the meeting (in addition to the comment opportunities provided under Section 10.1 above). Agencies will not be asked to concur in this report. Agencies will be asked to submit any significant objections in writing to FHWA and NCTA on agency letterhead. 10.5.Lead Agency Decision. FHWA will formally identify its preferred alternative after considering all comments received from Participating Agencies, including both written comments and comments provided in TEAC meetings. 11. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation, and Enhancement 11.1. Integration into Project Development. Opportunities to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts, and to enhance the impacted resources, will be considered throughout the process, including during initial development of alternatives. As allowed under Section 6002, the preferred alternative may be developed to a higher level of detail for purposes of developing mitigation measures and meeting permitting requirements. August 8, 2007 12 11.2. Required Compensatory Mitigation. The Lead Agencies will consult with USACE and NCDENR (and other Participating Agencies as appropriate) to determine the type, size, and location of required compensatory mitigation for impacts to waters of the United States. 11.2.1. On-Site Mitigation. The potential for on-site mitigation for impacts to waters of the United States will be considered in the DEIS for each of the Detailed Study Alternatives. This discussion will typically include a discussion of conceptual on-site mitigation locations. The potential for on-site mitigation will be discussed in more detail for the Preferred Alternative in the FEIS. 11.2.2. Off-Site/Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). Where applicable, the NCTA will coordinate with the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) during project development and design regarding the use of credits from the EEP to meet mitigation requirements for impacts to waters of the United States. The EEP also may be used to carry out on-site mitigation on behalf of NCTA. 12. Section 404/401 Permitting and Other Permits/Approvals 12.1. Early Coordination. NCTA will conduct early coordination with the Participating Agencies to identify applicable permitting requirements and to determine the analysis and documentation required to satisfy those requirements. See Parts 6 and 9 above. Permits that may be applicable to this project include: • Section 404/401 Permits • Successful completion of Section 7 consultation • Successful completion of Section 106 process (and Section 4(f), if applicable) • Air quality conformity compliance 12.2. Comment Opportunities. The environmental review process includes multiple opportunities for comment by Participating Agencies, as described below: 12.2.1. Participating Agencies may submit comments at the monthly TEAC meetings and in other meetings or field visits held during the environmental review process. NCTA will prepare meeting summaries for all substantive meetings with Participating Agencies. The meeting summaries will document comments provided by Participating Agencies. 12.2.2. Participating Agencies also will be invited to provide written comments at various points in the process as noted above. Agencies are encouraged to provide their written comments on agency letterhead; in particular, agencies are strongly encouraged to use letterhead when identifying issues of concern. However, all written comments submitted by agencies, including comments submitted by email, will be accepted and considered in decision-making. August 8, 2007 13 12.2.3. If a Participating Agency raises an issue of concern, the Lead Agencies will confer with that agency, and with other agencies as appropriate, to address those issues. 12.2.4. Meeting summaries and written agency comments (regardless of format) be considered by the Lead Agencies in decision-making and will be included in the project files. 12.3. Jurisdictional Determinations. The NCTA will prepare the necessary documentation to obtain jurisdictional determinations by the USACE (and, as appropriate, NCDENR) for all wetlands and streams within a corridor along each of the detailed study alternatives (unless otherwise determined as part of the discussion of methodologies in accordance with Section 9 of this plan). These determinations will be used as the basis for comparing wetlands and stream impacts in the DEIS. The width of the corridor within which jurisdictional determinations are made will be determined on a project-by-project basis. 12.4. Pre-Application Consultation. The NCTA will engage in pre-application consultation, as appropriate, with each agency that is responsible for making a permit decision on the project. For projects requiring a Section 401 and Section 404 permits, the pre-application consultation will include a detailed hydraulic design review. 12.5. Request for Public Notice. The NCTA will submit the Section 404 permit application to the USACE at the time the DEIS is issued. This application will typically be submitted prior to identification of a preferred alternative; therefore, it typically will not identify the specific alternative for which the permit is being requested. This submittal will enable the USACE to issue a public notice and to use the FHWA/NCTA public hearing on the DEIS as the USACE’s public hearing on the Section 404 application. [Note: This could be modified on a case-by-case basis.] 12.6. Public Hearing. The public hearing on the DEIS will also serve as the public hearing for the Section 404 permit application. [Note: This could be modified on a case-by-case basis.] 12.7. Refining the Permit Application. After selection of a preferred alternative, the NCTA will coordinate on a regular basis with the USACE, NCDENR, and other Participating Agencies as appropriate regarding all applicable permit applications for the project. This coordination may occur as part of the TEAC meetings and/or in separate meetings convened to discuss permitting issues. These meetings will include discussions of: • avoidance and minimization measures • compensatory mitigation • review of hydraulic design [the process for this review will be defined more specifically in project-specific coordination plans] • review of stormwater management plans • review of final permit drawings August 8, 2007 14 12.8. Permit Application and Decision. After the permitting meetings described above, the NCTA will submit an updated Section 404 permit application to the USACE and a Section 401 certification request to NCDENR. Permit applications under other applicable laws will also be filed. All permit applications shall be filed in accordance with the respective agency permitting requirements in place at the time of application. All respective permitting agencies shall forward the permit applications to other agencies for review as required by the respective agency regulations and/or rules. 12.9. Permit Decisions. The permitting agencies will consider and act upon the permit applications in accordance with their procedures. 12.10.Permitting Delay. If a Section 404 permit (or any other permit or approval) is not issued within 180 days after the FHWA issues a ROD and a complete permit application is submitted, the USDOT will be required by Section 6002 to submit a report to the Congress – specifically, to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in the House of Representatives. Reports must be submitted every 60 days thereafter until the issue is resolved. The same requirement applies to other permitting decisions. 12.11.Coordination After Permit Issuance. After permit issuance, NCTA will coordinate directly with permitting agencies and others as required by the terms of project permits. Such coordination may include issues such as reviewing final project plans, tracking compliance with permit conditions, and modifying permits to address changes to the project’s design, construction methodology or construction timeframe. 12.12.Permitting for Phased Construction. [This is a placeholder. If a phased approach is contemplated for a project, a section will be added here to describe that approach. It will be modeled on phasing as used in the NCDOT Merger agreement.] Exhibit 1 _____________________________________________ PROJECT INITIATION LETTER & NOTICE OF INTENT STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY MICHAEL F. EASLEY 1578MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1578 DAVID W. JOYNER GOVERNOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY TELEPHONE: 919-571-3000 FAX: 919-571-3015 January 5, 2007 John F. Sullivan, III, P.E. Division Administrator FHWA North Carolina Division 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410 Raleigh, NC 27601-1418 RE: TIP R-3329/R-2559 Monroe Connector/Bypass Notification of Project Initiation Dear Mr. Sullivan, In accordance with Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU, the North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) is notifying the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that planning, environmental, and engineering studies for the proposed Monroe Connector/Bypass project are underway. The project is included in the 2006-2012 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) in addition to the Draft 2007-2013 TIP as Projects R-3329 and R-2559. The Monroe Connector project was adopted by NCTA as a toll-candidate project in February 2005, and the Monroe Bypass was added in October 2006. They are now being developed as a single project in a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). NCTA, in cooperation with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), will prepare an EIS on the proposed improvements in the US 74 corridor between I-485 in Mecklenburg County and the vicinity of the Town of Marshville in Union County. The proposed project is approximately 21 miles in length and is located southeast of Charlotte in the vicinity of the towns of Lake Park, Stallings, and Mint Hill and the cities of Monroe, Indian Trail, and Matthews. It is anticipated that a Clean Water Act 404 Individual Permit will be required from the US Army Corps of Engineers. NCTA will coordinate throughout project development with the Corps to assure that their concerns are addressed and incorporated into the EIS. Enclosed, please find a Draft Notice of Intent to begin work on the environmental document for the combined Monroe Connector and Monroe Bypass project. If you have any questions or would like to discuss the project in more detail, please contact Jennifer Harris at (919) 571-3004. Sincerely, Steven D. DeWitt, P.E. Chief Engineer cc: Ms. Jennifer Harris, P.E., NCTA Ms. Deborah Barbour, P.E., NCDOT Ms. Anne Lenart-Redmond, E.I., HNTB 2582 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 12 / Friday, January 19, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Membership Availability in the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group Aviation Rulemaking Committee To Represent Commercial Air Tour Interests ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), as required by the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000, established the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group (NPOAG) in March 2001. The NPOAG was formed to provide continuing advice and counsel with respect to commercial air tour operations over and near national parks. This notice informs the public of one vacancy (due to completion of membership on May 19, 2007), on the NPOAG (now the NPOAG Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC)) for a member representing commercial air tour operators, and invites interested persons to apply to fill the vacancy. DATES: Persons interested in serving on the NPOAG ARC should contact Mr. Barry Brayer in writing and postmarked or e-mailed on or before March 1, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barry Brayer, Executive Resource Staff, Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region Headquarters, 15000 Aviation Blvd., Hawthorne, CA 90250, telephone: (310) 725–3800, e-mail: Barry.Brayer@faa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (the Act) was enacted on April 5, 2000, as Public Law 106–181. The Act required the establishment of the advisory group within 1 year after its enactment. The advisory group is comprised of a balanced group of representatives of general aviation, commercial air tour operations, environmental concerns, and Native American tribes. The Administrator of the FAA and the Director of NPS (or their designees) serve as ex officio members of the group. Representatives of the Administrator and Director serve alternating 1-year terms as chairman of the advisory group. The advisory group provides ‘‘advice, information, and recommendations to the Administrator and the Director— (1) On the implementation of this title [the Act] and the amendments made by this title; (2) On commonly accepted quiet aircraft technology for use in commercial air tour operations over a national park or tribal lands, which will receive preferential treatment in a given air tour management plan; (3) On other measures that might be taken to accommodate the interests of visitors to national parks; and (4) At the request of the Administrator and the Director, safety, environmental, and other issues related to commercial air tour operations over a national park or tribal lands.’’ Members of the advisory group may be allowed certain travel expenses as authorized by Section 5703 of Title 5, United States Code, for intermittent Government service. By FAA Order No. 1110–138, signed by the FAA Administrator on October 10, 2003, the NPOAG became an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC). FAA Order No. 1110–138, was amended and became effective as FAA Order No. 1110–138A, on January 20, 2006. The current NPOAG ARC is made up on one member representing general aviation, three members representing the air tour industry, four members representing environmental concerns, and two members representing Native American interests. Current members of the NPOAG ARC are: Heidi Williams, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association; Alan Stephen, fixed-winged air tour operator representative; Elling Halvorson, Papillon Airways, Inc.; Matthew Zuccaro, Helicopters Association International; Chip Dennerlein, Siskiyou Project; Greg Miller, American Hiking Society; Mark Peterson, National Audubon Society; Don Barger, National Parks Conservation Association; Rory Majenty, Hualapai Nation; and Richard Deertrack, Taos Pueblo. Public Participation in the NPOAG ARC In order to retain balance within the NPOAG ARC, the FAA and NPS invite persons interested in serving on the ARC to represent the commercial air tour industry, to contact Mr. Barry Brayer (contact information is written above in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) Requests to serve on the ARC must be made to Mr. Brayer in writing and postmarked or e-mailed on or before March 1, 2007. The request should indicate whether or not you are a member of an association representing commercial air tours or have another affiliation with issues relating to aircraft flights over national parks. The request should also state what expertise you would bring to the NPOAG ARC as related to environmental interests. The term of service NPOAG ARC members is 3 years. Issued in Hawthorne, CA on January 11, 2007. Barry Brayer, Manager, Executive Resource Staff, Western- Pacific Region. [FR Doc. 07–186 Filed 1–18–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Environmental Impact Statement: Mecklenburg and Union Counties, NC AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of Intent. SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared for a proposed project in Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. George Hoops, Major Projects Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601–1418, Telephone: (919) 856–4350 extension 104. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 771, Environmental Impact and Related Procedures, the FHWA, in cooperation with the North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) addressing proposed improvements in the US 74 corridor from I–485 in Mecklenburg County to the vicinity of the Town of Marshville, which is east of the City of Monroe (the County seat) in Union County. The proposed project study extends from I– 485 in the west to the vicinity of the Town of Marshville in the east and extends north and south of US 74. The proposed action is included in the long range transportation plan approved by the Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO). This study is a combination of two projects previously analyzed by NCDOT, the Monroe Bypass (NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program [TIP] Project R–2559) and the Monroe Connector (NCDOT TIP Project R–3329). The Monroe Bypass study addressed in the US 74 corridor from just west of the City of Monroe to just west of the Town of Marshville. An Environmental Assessment for this project was approved in March 1996, and a Finding VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:10 Jan 18, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM 19JAN1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 12 / Friday, January 19, 2007 /Notices 2583 1 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users H.R. REP. NO. 109–203, at 936–37 (2005), reprinted in 2005 U.S.C.C.A.N. 452. 2 Section 5309(c)(4)(A), which permits the Secretary to approve an application to the Pilot Program if ‘‘State and local laws permit public-private agreements for all phases of project development, construction and operation of the project’’ (emphasis added) indicates that the Pilot Program is intended to demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of PPPs for all aspects certain new fixed guideway capital projects, including their operation and maintenance. of No Significant Impact was issued in June 1997. The Monroe Connector study previously addressed improvements in the US 74 corridor from I–485 to US 601 in the City of Monroe, where it ended at the proposed Monroe Bypass. A Draft EIS for this project was approved in November 2003; however, a public hearing was never held. In February 2005, the NCTA adopted the Monroe Connector as a toll candidate facility, and in January 2006, the Notice of Intent for the Monroe Connector EIS was rescinded (Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 19, page 4958). Subsequently, NCTA adopted the Monroe Bypass project as a toll candidate facility in October 2006. The Monroe Connector and Monroe Bypass projects have been combined into a single project and will be evaluated in a single EIS. The EIS for the proposed action will consider alternatives for improvements in the US 74 corridor from I–485 to US 74 in the vicinity of the Town of Marshville. Alternatives, including a ‘‘No-Build’’ Alternative (continuation of the existing condition), improving the existing US 74 corridor, and constructing a new location facility, will be considered. Several alternative corridors for a new location facility will be studied. As part of the EIS, NCTA will study the feasibility and impacts of developing the proposed project, in whole or in part, as a toll road. Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will be sent to appropriate Federal, State and local agencies. Scoping will occur over a series of meetings with the agencies and citizens informational workshops with the public. Information on the dates, times, and locations of the citizens informational workshops will be advertised in the local news media and newsletters will be mailed to those on the project mailing list. If you wish to be placed on the mailing list, contact Jennifer Harris at the address listed below. The Draft EIS will be available for public and agency review and comment prior to the public hearing. To ensure the full range of issues related to the proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments and questions concerning the proposed action should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided above or directed to: Ms. Jennifer Harris, Staff Engineer, North Carolina Turnpike Authority, 5400 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 400, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27612. Telephone: (919) 571–3004. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Research, Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation of Federal programs and activities apply to this program.) George Hoops, Major Projects Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina. [FR Doc. 07–196 Filed 1–18–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–22–M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration [Docket No: FTA–2006–23697] Public-Private Partnership Pilot Program AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of establishment of Public-Private Partnership Pilot Program; solicitation of applications. SUMMARY: Section 3011(c) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (‘‘SAFETEA–LU’’) authorizes the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to establish and implement a pilot program to demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of public-private partnerships for certain new fixed guideway capital projects (the ‘‘Pilot Program’’). This notice establishes and sets forth the definitive terms of the Pilot Program. By separate notice to be published in the Federal Register not later than March 31, 2007, FTA will summarize and respond to comments solicited by FTA by notice published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2006, at 71 FR 14568. This notice is not a ‘‘binding obligation’’ as defined at 49 U.S.C. 5334(l)(2). This notice is organized into three sections: (1) ‘‘Background;’’ (2) ‘‘Overview of Pilot Program;’’ and (3) ‘‘Definitive Terms.’’ DATES: To be considered in FTA’s first quarterly review of applications to the Pilot Program, applications must be received by FTA on or before March 31, 2007. Applications received by FTA between March 31, 2007, and July 1, 2007, will be reviewed in FTA’s second quarterly review of applications to the Pilot Program. See ‘‘Applications’’ at section 3(f) of this notice. ADDRESSES: Applications should be submitted by U.S. Post or express mail to the Federal Transit Administration, c/o the Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, Room 9328, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Please note that due to security procedures in effect since October 2001 regarding mail deliveries, mail received through the U.S. Postal Service may be subject to delays. Parties making applications to the Pilot Program should consider using an express mail service to ensure the prompt filing of any applications not filed by express mail. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning the Pilot Program should be addressed to David B. Horner, Esq., Chief Counsel, Federal Transit Administration, by e-mail at David.Horner@dot.gov or by telephone at (202) 689–4464. To read materials on the DOT docket responsive to FTA’s notice published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2006, at 71 FR 14568, please go to http://dms.
Object Description
Description
Title | Monroe connector/bypass from near I-485 at US 74 to US 74 between the towns of Wingate and Marshville, Mecklenburg and Union Counties, federal aid project number STP-NHF-74(90), WBS element 34533.1.TA1, STIP project number R-3329/R-2559 : administrative action, draft environmental impact statement |
Other Title | Administrative action, draft environmental impact statement |
Contributor |
North Carolina. Department of Transportation. United States. Federal Highway Administration. North Carolina Turnpike Authority. PBS&J, Inc. |
Date | 2009-03 |
Subjects |
Highway planning--North Carolina--Union County Highway planning--North Carolina--Mecklenburg County Environmental impact statements--North Carolina--Union County Environmental impact statements--North Carolina--Mecklenburg County Roads--Environmental aspects--North Carolina United States Highway 74--Environmental conditions Union County (N.C.)--Environmental conditions Mecklenburg County (N.C.)--Environmental conditions |
Place |
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, United States Union County, North Carolina, United States |
Description | Volume 2 - Appendices |
Publisher | North Carolina Department of Transportation |
Agency-Current |
North Carolina Dispute Resolution Commission, Judicial Department |
Physical Characteristics | 2 v. (various pagings) : ill., maps (some col. and folded), plans (some col. and folded) ; 28 cm. + citizens summary (12 p. : col. ill., map ; 28 cm) |
Collection |
North Carolina State Documents Collection. State Library of North Carolina |
Type | Text |
Language |
English |
Format |
Reports Environmental impact statements |
Digital Characteristics-A | 21.1 MB; 323 p. |
Digital Collection |
North Carolina Digital State Documents Collection |
Digital Format |
application/pdf |
Related Items | http://worldcat.org/oclc/715248084/viewonline |
Audience |
All |
Pres File Name-M | pubs_monroeconnectordraftenvironmentalv2200903.pdf |
Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_borndigital\images_master\ |
Full Text | Monroe Connector/Bypass Administrative Action Draft Environmental Impact Statement March 2009 Submitted Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 23 CFR 771.119 and 42 USC 4332(2)(c) Lead Agencies: US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration North Carolina Turnpike Authority North Carolina Department of Transportation Cooperating Agency: US Army Corps of Engineers Volume 2 Appendices MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS i TABLE OF CONTENTS Note: This Draft EIS has been published in two volumes: VOLUME 1 – TEXT AND FIGURES VOLUME 2 – APPENDICES PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................... i LIST OF TABLES................................................................................. ix LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................... xi LIST OF EXHIBITS..............................................................................xii APPENDICES .....................................................................................xii P PREFACE................................................................................P-1 P.1 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT............................................. P-1 P.1.1 REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCE .....................................................................P-1 P.1.2 DOCUMENTATION ....................................................................................P-2 P.2 HOW THIS DRAFT EIS WILL BE USED .................................................. P-2 P.3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS DRAFT EIS ................................................... P-3 P.4 HISTORY OF PROJECT ....................................................................... P-3 P.4.1 PREVIOUS STUDIES OF MONROE BYPASS ........................................................P-4 P.4.2 PREVIOUS STUDIES OF MONROE CONNECTOR ...................................................P-4 P.4.3 MONROE BYPASS AND MONROE CONNECTOR COMBINED ......................................P-5 PC SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS....................................... PC-1 S SUMMARY..............................................................................S-1 S.1 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION................................................. S-1 S.2 LEAD AGENCIES ............................................................................... S-1 S.3 PROPOSED ACTION........................................................................... S-1 S.4 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT ..................................................... S-2 S.5 OTHER MAJOR ACTIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA .................................... S-3 S.6 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ............................................................. S-3 S.6.1 ALTERNATIVES SCREENING PROCESS .............................................................S-3 S.6.2 DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................S-4 S.7 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE............................................................ S-5 S.8 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS............................................. S-8 S.8.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE ...........................................................................S-8 S.8.2 IMPACTS TO THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT..........................................................S-9 S.8.2.1 Land Use and Planning S-9 S.8.2.2 Relocations S-9 TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS ii S.8.2.3 Neighborhoods S-9 S.8.2.4 Environmental Justice S-10 S.8.2.5 Community Services and Facilities S-10 S.8.3 IMPACTS TO THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT .....................................................S-11 S.8.3.1 Traffic Noise S-11 S.8.3.2 Air Quality S-11 S.8.3.3 Farmland S-12 S.8.3.4 Utilities S-12 S.8.3.5 Visual Resources S-12 S.8.3.6 Hazardous Materials S-13 S.8.3.7 Floodplains/Floodways S-13 S.8.4 IMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................S-13 S.8.4.1 Historic Architectural Resources S-13 S.8.4.2 Archaeological Resources S-14 S.8.4.3 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources S-14 S.8.5 IMPACTS TO NATURAL RESOURCES..............................................................S-14 S.8.5.1 Soil and Geology S-14 S.8.5.2 Water Resources S-14 S.8.5.3 Natural Communities and Wildlife S-15 S.8.5.4 Water Resources in Federal Jurisdiction S-16 S.8.5.5 Protected Species S-16 S.8.5.6 Indirect and Cumulative Effects S-17 S.9 UNRESOLVED ISSUES AND AREAS OF CONTROVERSY.......................... S-18 S.10 OTHER GOVERNMENT ACTIONS REQUIRED ........................................ S-19 S.10.1 PERMITS REQUIRED ...............................................................................S-19 S.10.2 SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS ...........................................................................S-20 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ......................................... 1-1 1.1 PROPOSED ACTION........................................................................... 1-1 1.2 SUMMARY OF NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION ........................................ 1-2 1.3 PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................ 1-3 1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY................................................. 1-3 1.4.1 PROJECT SETTING ...................................................................................1-3 1.4.2 EXISTING ROAD NETWORK.........................................................................1-4 1.4.3 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE PURPOSE AND NEED........1-4 1.5 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS .............................................................. 1-5 1.5.1 NORTH CAROLINA STRATEGIC HIGHWAY CORRIDOR SYSTEM .................................1-5 1.5.1.1 NCDOT Strategic Highway Corridors Initiative 1-5 1.5.1.2 Strategic Highway Corridor Vision Plan for US 74 1-6 1.5.1.3 Implementation of the Strategic Highway Corridor Vision 1-7 1.5.2 NORTH CAROLINA INTRASTATE SYSTEM ..........................................................1-7 1.5.3 NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM AND STRAHNET.................................................1-8 1.5.3.1 National Highway System 1-8 1.5.3.2 STRAHNET 1-8 1.5.4 MODAL INTERRELATIONSHIPS......................................................................1-9 1.5.4.1 Public Transportation 1-9 1.5.4.2 Rail Service 1-9 1.5.4.3 Motor Freight Service 1-9 1.5.4.4 Air Service 1-10 TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS iii 1.6 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS............................................... 1-10 1.6.1 REGIONAL CONTEXT............................................................................... 1-10 1.6.2 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT.................................................................. 1-10 1.6.3 COMMUTING PATTERNS ........................................................................... 1-12 1.6.4 GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS........................................................ 1-13 1.7 TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE PLANS .......................................... 1-13 1.7.1 NCDOT STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ................................ 1-14 1.7.2 MECKLENBURG-UNION METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN........................................................................... 1-14 1.7.2.1 Background 1-14 1.7.2.2 Monroe Connector/Bypass in the MUMPO 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan 1-15 1.7.3 MECKLENBURG-UNION THOROUGHFARE PLAN ................................................. 1-15 1.7.4 LAND USE PLANS .................................................................................. 1-15 1.8 ROADWAY CONDITIONS AND OPERATIONS ........................................ 1-15 1.8.1 EXISTING US 74 CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................... 1-15 1.8.2 TRAVEL TIMES ALONG THE US 74 CORRIDOR................................................. 1-17 1.8.3 EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS................................................................. 1-18 1.8.3.1 Existing Traffic Volumes 1-18 1.8.3.2 Existing Level of Service on US 74 1-19 1.8.3.3 Existing Crash Data 1-20 1.8.4 PROJECTED TRAFFIC OPERATIONS IN 2030 ................................................... 1-20 1.8.4.1 Design Year 2030 Traffic Volumes 1-20 1.8.4.2 Design Year 2030 Level of Service on US 74 1-20 2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED................................................ 2-1 2.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................ 2-1 2.1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE ALTERNATIVES SCREENING PROCESS ......................................2-1 2.1.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION RELATED TO THE ALTERNATIVES SCREENING PROCESS ...............................................................................2-2 2.1.3 TRAFFIC FORECASTS AND ANALYSIS ...............................................................2-3 2.2 QUALITATIVE FIRST SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS................ 2-4 2.2.1 SCREENING CRITERIA ...............................................................................2-4 2.2.2 ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS ...........................................................................2-4 2.2.2.1 No-Build Alternative 2-5 2.2.2.2 Transportation Demand Management Alternative 2-5 2.2.2.3 Transportation System Management Alternative 2-6 2.2.2.4 Mass Transit/Multi-Modal Alternative 2-8 2.2.2.5 Improve Existing US 74 Alternative 2-9 2.2.2.6 New Location Alternative 2-11 2.2.2.7 New Location/Improve Existing Roadways Hybrid Alternative 2-11 2.2.3 SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF QUALITATIVE FIRST SCREENING ................................. 2-12 2.3 QUALITATIVE SECOND SCREENING OF PRELIMINARY CORRIDOR SEGMENTS ............................................................................... 2-13 2.3.1 PROJECT STUDY AREA ............................................................................ 2-13 2.3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF PRELIMINARY CORRIDOR SEGMENTS ...................................... 2-14 2.3.2.1 Route Continuity and Project Termini 2-14 2.3.2.2 Natural and Human Environment Features 2-16 2.3.2.3 Previously Studied Corridors 2-16 TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS iv 2.3.2.4 Public and Agency Input 2-17 2.3.2.5 Tolling 2-17 2.3.3 QUALITATIVE SECOND SCREENING METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS .......................... 2-18 2.3.3.1 Individual Segment Assessment 2-19 2.3.3.2 Relative Segment Comparison Assessment 2-20 2.3.3.3 Consolidation of Corridor Segments 2-21 2.3.4 QUALITATIVE SECOND SCREENING CONCLUSIONS............................................ 2-21 2.4 QUANTITATIVE THIRD SCREENING OF PRELIMINARY STUDY ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................... 2-21 2.4.1 PRELIMINARY STUDY ALTERNATIVES ............................................................ 2-22 2.4.2 DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................................................. 2-22 2.4.3 QUANTITATIVE THIRD SCREENING CRITERIA .................................................. 2-23 2.4.4 RESULTS OF QUANTITATIVE THIRD SCREENING ............................................... 2-25 2.4.4.1 Quantitative Third Screening Conclusions 2-25 2.4.4.2 Public and Agency Input 2-25 2.4.4.3 Further Consideration of Preliminary Study Alternative G (Upgrade Existing US 74 Alternative) 2-27 2.5 DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES...................................................... 2-34 2.5.1 FUNCTIONAL DESIGNS FOR THE DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES .......................... 2-35 2.5.1.1 Design Criteria for the Functional Engineering Designs 2-36 2.5.1.2 Developing the Functional Engineering Designs 2-36 2.5.1.3 Considering Tolling in the Functional Engineering Designs 2-37 2.6 TRAFFIC FORECASTS AND OPERATIONS ANALYSIS.............................. 2-38 2.6.1 TRAFFIC FORECASTS FOR THE NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE...................................... 2-39 2.6.2 TRAFFIC FORECASTS FOR BUILD ALTERNATIVES............................................... 2-39 2.6.3 2035 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSES FOR THE BUILD ALTERNATIVES ................... 2-40 2.6.3.1 Traffic Operations Along the Monroe Connector/Bypass .......................2-41 2.6.3.2 Traffic Operations Along Existing US 74 With the Build Alternatives ......2-42 2.7 COST ESTIMATES ........................................................................... 2-43 2.8 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE.......................................................... 2-44 3 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT ......................................................... 3-1 3.1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS ................................................ 3-1 3.1.1 DEMOGRAPHIC STUDY AREA .......................................................................3-1 3.1.2 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS ...................................................................3-2 3.1.3 ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS .....................................................................3-4 3.1.4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS .......................................................................3-6 3.2 COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS AND RESOURCES ................................ 3-7 3.2.1 COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS....................................................................3-7 3.2.2 NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS ..........................................................................3-7 3.2.3 COMMUNITY RESOURCES ...........................................................................3-9 3.2.4 IMPACTS TO COMMUNITY RESOURCES .......................................................... 3-10 3.2.5 SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY RESOURCE IMPACTS ............................................... 3-12 3.3 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING..................................... 3-13 3.3.1 LAND USE PLANS .................................................................................. 3-14 3.3.2 TRANSPORTATION PLANS ......................................................................... 3-16 3.3.3 LAND USE IMPACTS................................................................................ 3-17 3.3.4 PLAN CONSISTENCY ............................................................................... 3-17 TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS v 3.4 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION AND RELOCATIONS .............................. 3-18 3.4.1 RESIDENTIAL RELOCATIONS...................................................................... 3-19 3.4.2 BUSINESS RELOCATIONS ......................................................................... 3-20 3.4.3 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE........................................................................ 3-21 3.5 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ............................................................... 3-21 3.5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS ............................................................. 3-23 4 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ..................................................... 4-1 4.1 NOISE............................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF NOISE ......................................................................4-1 4.1.2 NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA ......................................................................4-1 4.1.3 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT...................................................................4-2 4.1.4 NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ........................................................4-4 4.1.5 TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS ...........................................................................4-4 4.1.5.1 Noise Contours 4-4 4.1.5.2 Potential Noise Impacts to Churches, Schools, and Other Special Uses 4-6 4.1.5.3 Construction Noise 4-6 4.1.6 NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES ....................................................................4-7 4.2 AIR QUALITY.................................................................................... 4-9 4.2.1 NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND EXISTING CONDITIONS .............. 4-10 4.2.2 TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY ................................................................. 4-11 4.2.3 MOBILE SOURCE AIR TOXICS .................................................................... 4-13 4.2.4 LOCAL ORDINANCES............................................................................... 4-14 4.2.5 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS ............................................................................ 4-14 4.2.5.1 Criteria Pollutants and Transportation Conformity 4-14 4.2.5.2 Mobile Source Air Toxics Impact Analysis 4-18 4.2.5.3 Construction Air Quality 4-19 4.3 FARMLAND .................................................................................... 4-19 4.3.1 FARMLAND PROTECTION POLICY ACT ........................................................... 4-19 4.3.2 PRIME AND IMPORTANT FARMLAND SOILS...................................................... 4-20 4.3.3 EXISTING AGRICULTURE .......................................................................... 4-21 4.3.3.1 Census Information 4-21 4.3.3.2 Agricultural Uses in the Detailed Study Alternatives 4-21 4.3.4 FARMLAND IMPACTS............................................................................... 4-22 4.3.4.1 Prime and Important Farmland Soils 4-22 4.3.4.2 Farmland Conversion Impact Ratings 4-22 4.3.4.3 Farm Relocations 4-23 4.4 UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE..................................................... 4-23 4.4.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................................................... 4-24 4.4.1.1 Electric Power 4-24 4.4.1.2 Water and Sewer Facilities 4-24 4.4.1.3 Natural Gas 4-25 4.4.1.4 Telecommunications 4-26 4.4.1.5 Railroads 4-26 4.4.2 IMPACTS TO UTILITIES............................................................................ 4-26 4.5 VISUAL RESOURCES ....................................................................... 4-26 4.5.1 VISUAL ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................ 4-26 4.5.2 VISUAL IMPACTS................................................................................... 4-27 TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS vi 4.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................................. 4-28 4.6.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................................................... 4-28 4.6.2 IMPACTS FROM HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/WASTE SITES...................................... 4-30 4.6.3 MITIGATION FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/WASTE SITES ................................... 4-31 4.7 FLOODPLAINS AND FLOODWAYS....................................................... 4-31 4.7.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION..................................................................... 4-31 4.7.2 FLOODPLAINS AND FLOODWAYS IN THE PROJECT STUDY AREA.............................. 4-31 4.7.3 MAJOR DRAINAGE STRUCTURES AND FLOODWAY/FLOODPLAIN IMPACTS .................. 4-32 5 CULTURAL RESOURCES.......................................................... 5-1 5.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................ 5-1 5.1.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................5-1 5.1.2 SECTION 106 OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT .............................5-1 5.2 HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES.............................................. 5-3 5.2.1 HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES IN THE PROJECT AREA ...............................5-3 5.2.1.1 Historic Architectural Resources Survey Methodology 5-3 5.2.1.2 Historic Architectural Resources Survey Findings 5-3 5.2.2 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES .............................5-5 5.3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES.......................................................... 5-5 5.4 SECTION 4(f) AND SECTION 6(f) RESOURCES ...................................... 5-6 5.4.1 REGULATIONS ........................................................................................5-6 5.4.1.1 Section 4(f) Resources 5-6 5.4.1.2 Section 6(f) Resources 5-7 5.4.2 RESOURCES IN THE STUDY AREA ..................................................................5-7 5.4.2.1 Section 4(f) Resources 5-7 5.4.2.2 Section 6(f) Resources 5-8 5.4.3 SECTION 4(F) AND SECTION 6(F) RESOURCE IMPACTS .......................................5-8 5.4.3.1 Section 4(f) Impacts 5-8 5.4.3.2 Section 6(f) Impacts 5-8 5.5 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES................................ 5-9 6 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT......................................................... 6-1 6.1 SOILS, GEOLOGY, AND MINERAL RESOURCES ...................................... 6-1 6.1.1 SOILS AND GEOLOGY IN THE PROJECT STUDY AREA ............................................6-1 6.1.2 MINERAL RESOURCES ...............................................................................6-2 6.1.3 SOILS AND MINERAL RESOURCE IMPACTS........................................................6-3 6.2 WATER RESOURCES.......................................................................... 6-3 6.2.1 WATER RESOURCES DESCRIPTIONS...............................................................6-3 6.2.1.1 River Basins and Streams 6-3 6.2.1.2 Water Supply Resources 6-4 6.2.2 WATER QUALITY .....................................................................................6-5 6.2.2.1 Impaired Waters 6-5 6.2.2.2 Best Usage Classification 6-5 6.2.2.3 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Discharges 6-6 6.2.2.4 Water Quality Monitoring and Basin-Wide Assessments 6-6 6.2.3 WATER RESOURCES IMPACTS AND MITIGATION .................................................6-7 6.3 NATURAL COMMUNITIES AND WILDLIFE .............................................. 6-9 6.3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES .......................................................................6-9 TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS vii 6.3.2 TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE........................................................................... 6-10 6.3.3 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES AND WILDLIFE ........................................................ 6-11 6.3.4 INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES ........................................................................ 6-12 6.3.5 IMPACTS TO NATURAL COMMUNITIES AND WILDLIFE ......................................... 6-12 6.4 WATER RESOURCES IN FEDERAL JURISDICTION ................................. 6-14 6.4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES................................................................ 6-14 6.4.2 CATAWBA RIVER RIPARIAN BUFFER RULES..................................................... 6-15 6.4.3 EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCES........................................................ 6-15 6.4.3.1 Surveys for Jurisdictional Resources 6-15 6.4.3.2 Characteristics of Streams and Wetlands 6-16 6.4.4 IMPACTS ON JURISDICTIONAL RESOURCES..................................................... 6-17 6.4.5 PERMITTING AND MITIGATION ................................................................... 6-18 6.4.5.1 Section 404/401 Permit Issues 6-18 6.4.5.2 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts 6-19 6.4.5.3 Compensatory Mitigation 6-20 6.5 PROTECTED SPECIES ...................................................................... 6-20 6.5.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS........................................................................... 6-20 6.5.2 STATE REGULATIONS.............................................................................. 6-21 6.5.3 PROTECTED SPECIES IMPACTS................................................................... 6-22 6.5.3.1 Federally-Protected Species 6-22 6.5.3.2 Federal Species of Concern and Candidate Species 6-24 6.5.3.3 State Listed Species 6-25 6.5.4 SURVEY FINDINGS AND IMPACTS TO PROTECTED SPECIES .................................. 6-25 7 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS..................................... 7-1 7.1 DEFINITIONS AND ANALYSIS SCENARIOS............................................ 7-1 7.1.1 DEFINITIONS .........................................................................................7-1 7.1.2 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS ..............................................................................7-2 7.2 STUDY AREA FOR INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS (STEP 1)........... 7-2 7.2.1 FUTURE LAND USE STUDY AREA...................................................................7-3 7.2.2 TIMEFRAME FOR ANALYSIS .........................................................................7-4 7.3 STUDY AREA DIRECTIONS AND GOALS (STEP 2)................................... 7-4 7.3.1 DEMOGRAPHIC AND EMPLOYMENT TRENDS.......................................................7-5 7.3.2 LAND USE PATTERNS................................................................................7-5 7.3.3 LAND USE PLANS AND ORDINANCES ..............................................................7-6 7.3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS ...................................................................7-6 7.4 INVENTORY OF NOTABLE FEATURES (STEP 3)....................................... 7-7 7.4.1 WATER RESOURCES .................................................................................7-7 7.4.2 TERRESTRIAL HABITAT..............................................................................7-8 7.4.3 FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES ..................................................................7-8 7.4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................7-8 7.4.5 PRIME FARMLAND SOILS............................................................................7-9 7.5 IDENTIFICATION OF IMPORTANT IMPACT-CAUSING ACTIVITIES (STEP 4) 7-9 7.5.1 RECENT AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY AND TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS ......7-9 7.5.2 WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY AND ALLOCATION ......................................... 7-13 7.6 IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL INDIRECT IMPACTS (STEP 5) ...................................................................................... 7-13 7.6.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE ......................................................................... 7-13 TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS viii 7.6.2 DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES ................................................................ 7-14 7.6.3 ANALYSIS OF INDIRECT IMPACTS TO NOTABLE FEATURES.................................... 7-16 7.7 IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS (STEP 5) ...................................................................................... 7-17 7.7.1 WATER QUALITY AND AQUATIC HABITAT....................................................... 7-18 7.7.2 CAROLINA HEELSPLITER HABITAT (GOOSE CREEK AND DUCK CREEK WATERSHED) ..... 7-18 7.7.3 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES AND HABITAT .................................................... 7-19 7.8 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................. 7-20 7.8.1 POTENTIAL INDIRECT EFFECTS................................................................... 7-20 7.8.2 POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ............................................................... 7-21 8 OTHER IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS .......................................... 8-1 8.1 IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES......... 8-1 8.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM IMPACTS AND LONG-TERM BENEFITS ........................................................................................ 8-1 9 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION............. 9-1 9.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT....................................................................... 9-1 9.1.1 CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOPS .........................................................9-1 9.1.2 LOCAL OFFICIALS MEETINGS.......................................................................9-2 9.1.3 OPEN HOUSES .......................................................................................9-3 9.1.4 SMALL GROUP MEETINGS...........................................................................9-3 9.1.5 OTHER OUTREACH EFFORTS........................................................................9-4 9.1.5.1 Newsletters 9-4 9.1.5.2 Project Web site and E-mail 9-4 9.1.5.3 Project Toll-Free Telephone Number 9-4 9.2 AGENCY COORDINATION ................................................................... 9-5 9.2.1 SCOPING LETTER ....................................................................................9-5 9.2.2 NOTICE OF INTENT ..................................................................................9-6 9.2.3 AGENCY COORDINATION............................................................................9-6 9.2.3.1 Section 6002 Project Coordination Plan 9-6 9.2.3.2 Coordination with MUMPO 9-7 9.2.3.3 Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meetings 9-10 10 LIST OF PREPARERS .............................................................. 10-1 10.1 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION............................................... 10-1 10.2 NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY .......................................... 10-1 10.3 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION........................ 10-1 10.4 PRIVATE CONSULTING FIRMS........................................................... 10-2 11 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE STATEMENT ARE SENT .................... 11-1 11.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES........................................................................ 11-1 11.2 REGIONAL OFFICES OF FEDERAL AGENCIES....................................... 11-1 11.3 STATE AGENCIES ........................................................................... 11-1 11.4 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND AGENCIES.............................................. 11-2 TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS ix 11.5 PUBLIC REVIEW LOCATIONS ............................................................ 11-2 12 REFERENCES.......................................................................... 12-1 12.1 REFERENCES.................................................................................. 12-1 12.2 SUPPORTING PROJECT DOCUMENTATION .......................................... 12-9 LIST OF TABLES Special Project Commitments PC-1 Special Commitments and Coordination Required after the Draft EIS..................PC-1 Summary S-1 Detailed Study Alternatives.............................................................................S-4 S-2 Summary of Environmental Impacts ..............................................................S-22 Section 1 1-1 Population Growth from 2000 to 2008............................................................1-11 1-2 Existing and Projected Population and Employment in the Region ...................... 1-11 1-3 Journey to Work by Mode ............................................................................. 1-13 1-4 Speed Limits on US 74................................................................................. 1-17 1-5 Average Travel Times and Speeds Through the US 74 Corridor.......................... 1-18 1-6 Existing (2007) Signalized Intersection Level of Service.................................... 1-19 1-7 2030 No-Build Signalized Intersection Level of Service ..................................... 1-21 Section 2 2-1 Qualitative First Screening - Ability of Alternative Concepts to Meet Purpose and Need .................................................................................................. 2-13 2-2 Preliminary Study Alternatives Summary........................................................ 2-22 2-3 Quantitative GIS Analysis Screening Criteria ................................................... 2-24 2-4 Quantitative Screening of Preliminary Study Alternatives .................................. 2-26 2-5 Projected 2035 Traffic Volumes Along Existing US 74 ....................................... 2-33 2-6 Detailed Study Alternatives........................................................................... 2-34 2-7 Projected 2035 Traffic Volumes Along Mainline ................................................ 2-40 2-8 Preliminary Cost Estimates for Detailed Study Alternatives................................ 2-43 Section 3 3-1 Population Change - 1990 - 2000 ....................................................................3-2 3-2 Median Household and Family Income (1999) ...................................................3-5 3-3 Potential Neighborhood Impacts ......................................................................3-7 3-4 Summary of Impacts to Churches.................................................................. 3-11 3-5 Summary of Impacts to Community Resources................................................ 3-13 3-6 Residential and Business Relocations ............................................................. 3-18 3-7 Number of Relocated Households in Each Income Level.................................... 3-19 3-8 Value of Homes to be Relocated .................................................................... 3-20 3-9 General Environmental Justice Evaluation for Toll Facilities ............................... 3-22 TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS x Section 4 4-1 FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria ......................................................................4-2 4-2 NCDOT Definition of Substantial Increase in Noise Levels....................................4-2 4-3 Existing Noise Level Measurements..................................................................4-3 4-4 2035 Traffic Noise Contours............................................................................4-5 4-5 Impacted Receptors by Detailed Study Alternative Based on 2035 Traffic Noise Contours ......................................................................................................4-5 4-6 Preliminary Feasible and Reasonable Noise Barriers ...........................................4-8 4-7 Summary of Noise Barriers by Detailed Study Alternative ...................................4-9 4-8 National Ambient Air Quality Standards .......................................................... 4-10 4-9 Prime and Important Farmland Soils in the Detailed Study Alternatives .............. 4-20 4-10 Impacts to Prime and Important Farmland Soils .............................................. 4-22 4-11 Farmland Impact Rating ............................................................................... 4-23 4-12 Known and Potentially Contaminated Sites in the Project Study Area.................. 4-28 4-13 Impact of Potentially Contaminated Sites on the Detailed Study Alternatives....... 4-30 4-14 Summary of Major Drainage Structures and Floodway and Floodplain Crossings .. 4-33 Section 5 5-1 Historic Architectural Resources in the Area of Potential Effects ...........................5-4 5-2 Effects to Historic Architectural Resources ........................................................5-5 Section 6 6-1 Soils Within the Detailed Study Alternatives ......................................................6-1 6-2 Active NPDES Permits with Discharges to Streams in the Project Study Area .........6-6 6-3 Potential Impacts to Terrestrial Communities by Detailed Study Alternative ........ 6-13 6-4 Impacts to Waters of the US......................................................................... 6-17 6-5 Federally-Protected Species Listed for Union and Mecklenburg Counties.............. 6-22 6-6 Candidate and Federal Species of Concern...................................................... 6-24 6-7 State Listed Species in Union and Mecklenburg Counties with Known Occurrences in the Project Study Area.............................................................................. 6-25 Section 7 7-1 Summary of Potential Indirect Impacts by Zone .............................................. 7-15 7-2 Indirect Impacts to Notable Features ............................................................. 7-16 7-3 Land Cover in Union County.......................................................................... 7-19 Section 9 9-1 Workshop Comment Form Responses...............................................................9-2 9-2 Scoping Comments........................................................................................9-5 9-3 Agency Roles ................................................................................................9-7 9-4 MUMPO Meeting Summaries ...........................................................................9-8 9-5 MUMPO Technical Coordinating Committee Meeting Summaries...........................9-8 9-6 TEAC Meeting Summaries............................................................................. 9-10 TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS xi LIST OF FIGURES (Figures located at the end of each section) Preface P-1 Monroe Bypass Detailed Study Alternatives and Preferred Alternative P-2 Monroe Connector Preliminary Corridors and Detailed Study Alternatives Section 1 1-1 Project Location Within North Carolina 1-2 Project Location Within Union and Mecklenburg Counties 1-3 Project Study Area 1-4 Metrolina Area Strategic Highway Corridor Vision Plan Map 1-5 STIP Projects in the Study Area 1-6 MUMPO 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan 1-7 Mecklenburg-Union Thoroughfare Plan 1-8 Existing Roadway Characteristics Section 2 2-1 Preliminary Corridor Segments 2-2 (a-c) Land Suitability Mapping 2-3 Preliminary Corridor Segments Revised 2-4 (a-e) Preliminary Corridor Segments (Relative Segment Comparison Areas) 2-5 Preliminary Corridor Segments for Quantitative Third Screening 2-6 (a-d) Preliminary Study Alternatives 2-7 Preliminary Study Alternatives Typical Cross-Sections 2-8 (a-c) Detailed Study Alternatives 2-9 Revised Preliminary Study Alternative G Cross-Sections 2-10 (a-cc) Detailed Study Alternatives Functional Designs 2-11 New Location Alternative Typical Cross Sections Section 3 3-1 Population Change (1990/2000) 3-2 (a-c) Neighborhoods 3-3 (a-c) Community Resources 3-4 African-American Population in the Demographic Area 3-5 Hispanic Population in the Demographic Area 3-6 Percentage Below Poverty Level in the Demographic Area Section 4 4-1 (a-c) Noise Impact Assessment Information 4-2 Farmland Soils 4-3 Hazardous Material Sites 4-4 (a-c) Water Resources Section 5 5-1 Historic Architectural Resources 5-2 Proposed Matthews Sportsplex TABLE OF CONTENTS MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS xii Section 6 6-1 Natural Communities Section 7 7-1 Future Land Use Study Area (FLUSA) 7-2 Watershed Basins LIST OF EXHIBITS Chapter 2 2-1 Preliminary Study Alternative G..................................................................... 2-28 2-2 Revised Preliminary Study Alternative G ......................................................... 2-31 Chapter 4 4-1 VMT vs MSAT Emissions, 2000-2020..............................................................4-13 APPENDICES A. Federal Register Notices and Agency Correspondence B. Design Criteria for the Functional Engineering Designs C. Relocation Reports D. Noise Contour Maps E. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Analysis F. Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Forms G. Elevated Roadway Photo Simulation H. Recommended Preliminary Drainage Crossing Table I. Section 4(f) de minimis Impact Analysis for Matthews Sportsplex J. Jurisdictional Resources Attribute and Impact Tables K. Public Involvement Materials MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS APPENDICES A. Federal Register Notices and Agency Correspondence B. Design Criteria for the Functional Engineering Designs C. Relocation Reports D. Noise Contour Maps E. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Analysis F. Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Forms G. Elevated Roadway Photo Simulation H. Recommended Preliminary Drainage Crossing Table I. Section 4(f) de minimis Impact Analysis for Matthews Sportsplex J. Jurisdictional Resources Attribute and Impact Tables K. Public Involvement Materials APPENDIX A APPENDICES MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS APPENDIX A FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES AND AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE A-1. Federal Register Notices A-2. Local Government Resolutions A-3. Scoping Letter and Responses A-4. Correspondence with the State Historic Preservation Office A-5. Section 6002 Coordination Plan for Monroe Connector/Bypass Project A-6. Air Quality Conformity Correspondence A-7. ICE Assessment Agency Scoping Meetings A-8. Alternatives Analysis Report Comments A-9. Local Officials Correspondence Regarding DSA Segments 18A and 2 APPENDIX A APPENDICES MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS APPENDIX A-1 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES • Rescission of Monroe Connector Draft EIS 01/30/06 • Notice of Intent for Monroe Connector/Bypass Draft EIS 01/19/07 4958 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 19 / Monday, January 30, 2006 / Notices display of the exhibit objects at Saint Louis Art Museum, from on or about February 19, 2006, until on or about May 14, 2006, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the Federal Register. For Further Information Contact: For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/453–8048). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA–44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547–0001. Dated: January 23, 2006. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6–1119 Filed 1–27–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710–05–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 25.856–2, Installation of Thermal/Acoustic Insulation for Burnthrough Protection AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT. ACTION: Notice of issuance of advisory circular. SUMMARY: This notice announces the issuance of Advisory Circular 25.856–2, ‘‘Installation of Thermal/Acoustic Insulation for Burnthrough Protection.’’ The advisory circular provides information and guidance regarding an acceptable means, but not the only means, of compliance with the portions of the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes that deal with the installation of thermal/acoustic insulation. DATES: AC 25.856–2 was issued by the FAA Transport Airplane Directorate in Renton, Washington, on January 17, 2006. How To Obtain Copies: You can download a copy of advisory Circular 25.856–2 from the Internet at http:// www.airweb.faa.gov/rgl. A paper copy will be available in approximately 6–8 weeks from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Subsequent Distribution Office, M–30, Ardmore East Business Center, 3341 Q 75th Avenue, Landover, MD 20795. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenna Sinclair, FAA Standardization Branch, ANM–113, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–1556; e-mail kenna.sinclair@faa.gov. Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 17, 2006. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 06–809 Filed 1–27–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Environmental Impact Statement: Mecklenburg and Union Counties, NC AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Rescinding of Notice of Intent and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for proposed U.S. 74 corridor improvements in Mecklenburg and Union Counties, NC. SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that we are rescinding the notice of intent and the public notice to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for a proposed highway project in Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clarence W. Coleman, P.E., Operations Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, 310 New Bern Avenue, Ste 410, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27601– 1418, Telephone: (919) 856–4346. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA, in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), is rescinding the notice of intent to prepare an EIS for a proposed multi-lane, controlled access highway along the U.S. 74 corridor connecting I– 485 in Mecklenburg County to U.S. 601 in Union County, North Carolina. On April 13, 2000, FHWA issued a notice of intent to prepare an EIS for this proposed project. A Draft EIS was released in November 2003 after resource agencies and the public provided input and comments as part of the project development process. The Draft EIS evaluated several alternatives, including: (1) No Build (2) Transportation Systems Management (TSM), (3) Transportation Demand Management (TSM), (4) Mass Transit, and (5) New Location Alternatives. A public hearing has not been held following the completion of the Draft EIS. Based on the comments received from various Federal and state agencies and the public and a recent decision to change the eastern terminus of the project form U.S. 601 to the proposed Monroe Bypass, the FHWA and NCDOT have agreed not to prepare a Final EIS for the proposed U.S. 74 improvements from I–485 to U.S. 601. FHWA, NCDOT, and the North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA), plan to prepare a new Draft EIS for the proposed project. A notice of intent to prepare the EIS will be issued subsequent to this rescinding notice. The new Draft EIS will include a toll alternative among the full range of alternatives that will be analyzed as well as a change in the location of the eastern terminus. Comments or questions concerning the decision to not prepare Final EIS should be directed to NCDOT or FHWA at the address provided in the caption, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided above. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation of Federal programs and activities apply to this program.) Clarence W. Coleman, Operations Engineer, Raleigh, North Carolina. [FR Doc. 06–812 Filed 1–27–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–22–M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Environmental Impact Statement: Pueblo, Otero, Bent, and Prowers Counties, CO AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for proposed transportation improvements in Pueblo County, Otero County, Bent County and Prowers County in the State of Colorado. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Chris Horn, Senior Operations Engineer, FHWA, Colorado Division, 12300 West Dakota Ave., Suite 180, Lakewood, CO, 80228, Telephone: (720) 963–3017. Mr. Mike Perez, Project Manager, Colorado VerDate Aug<31>2005 14:07 Jan 27, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30JAN1.SGM 30JAN1 cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES 2582 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 12 / Friday, January 19, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Membership Availability in the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group Aviation Rulemaking Committee To Represent Commercial Air Tour Interests ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), as required by the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000, established the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group (NPOAG) in March 2001. The NPOAG was formed to provide continuing advice and counsel with respect to commercial air tour operations over and near national parks. This notice informs the public of one vacancy (due to completion of membership on May 19, 2007), on the NPOAG (now the NPOAG Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC)) for a member representing commercial air tour operators, and invites interested persons to apply to fill the vacancy. DATES: Persons interested in serving on the NPOAG ARC should contact Mr. Barry Brayer in writing and postmarked or e-mailed on or before March 1, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barry Brayer, Executive Resource Staff, Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region Headquarters, 15000 Aviation Blvd., Hawthorne, CA 90250, telephone: (310) 725–3800, e-mail: Barry.Brayer@faa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (the Act) was enacted on April 5, 2000, as Public Law 106–181. The Act required the establishment of the advisory group within 1 year after its enactment. The advisory group is comprised of a balanced group of representatives of general aviation, commercial air tour operations, environmental concerns, and Native American tribes. The Administrator of the FAA and the Director of NPS (or their designees) serve as ex officio members of the group. Representatives of the Administrator and Director serve alternating 1-year terms as chairman of the advisory group. The advisory group provides ‘‘advice, information, and recommendations to the Administrator and the Director— (1) On the implementation of this title [the Act] and the amendments made by this title; (2) On commonly accepted quiet aircraft technology for use in commercial air tour operations over a national park or tribal lands, which will receive preferential treatment in a given air tour management plan; (3) On other measures that might be taken to accommodate the interests of visitors to national parks; and (4) At the request of the Administrator and the Director, safety, environmental, and other issues related to commercial air tour operations over a national park or tribal lands.’’ Members of the advisory group may be allowed certain travel expenses as authorized by Section 5703 of Title 5, United States Code, for intermittent Government service. By FAA Order No. 1110–138, signed by the FAA Administrator on October 10, 2003, the NPOAG became an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC). FAA Order No. 1110–138, was amended and became effective as FAA Order No. 1110–138A, on January 20, 2006. The current NPOAG ARC is made up on one member representing general aviation, three members representing the air tour industry, four members representing environmental concerns, and two members representing Native American interests. Current members of the NPOAG ARC are: Heidi Williams, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association; Alan Stephen, fixed-winged air tour operator representative; Elling Halvorson, Papillon Airways, Inc.; Matthew Zuccaro, Helicopters Association International; Chip Dennerlein, Siskiyou Project; Greg Miller, American Hiking Society; Mark Peterson, National Audubon Society; Don Barger, National Parks Conservation Association; Rory Majenty, Hualapai Nation; and Richard Deertrack, Taos Pueblo. Public Participation in the NPOAG ARC In order to retain balance within the NPOAG ARC, the FAA and NPS invite persons interested in serving on the ARC to represent the commercial air tour industry, to contact Mr. Barry Brayer (contact information is written above in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) Requests to serve on the ARC must be made to Mr. Brayer in writing and postmarked or e-mailed on or before March 1, 2007. The request should indicate whether or not you are a member of an association representing commercial air tours or have another affiliation with issues relating to aircraft flights over national parks. The request should also state what expertise you would bring to the NPOAG ARC as related to environmental interests. The term of service NPOAG ARC members is 3 years. Issued in Hawthorne, CA on January 11, 2007. Barry Brayer, Manager, Executive Resource Staff, Western- Pacific Region. [FR Doc. 07–186 Filed 1–18–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Environmental Impact Statement: Mecklenburg and Union Counties, NC AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of Intent. SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared for a proposed project in Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. George Hoops, Major Projects Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601–1418, Telephone: (919) 856–4350 extension 104. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 771, Environmental Impact and Related Procedures, the FHWA, in cooperation with the North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) addressing proposed improvements in the US 74 corridor from I–485 in Mecklenburg County to the vicinity of the Town of Marshville, which is east of the City of Monroe (the County seat) in Union County. The proposed project study extends from I– 485 in the west to the vicinity of the Town of Marshville in the east and extends north and south of US 74. The proposed action is included in the long range transportation plan approved by the Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO). This study is a combination of two projects previously analyzed by NCDOT, the Monroe Bypass (NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program [TIP] Project R–2559) and the Monroe Connector (NCDOT TIP Project R–3329). The Monroe Bypass study addressed in the US 74 corridor from just west of the City of Monroe to just west of the Town of Marshville. An Environmental Assessment for this project was approved in March 1996, and a Finding VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:10 Jan 18, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM 19JAN1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 12 / Friday, January 19, 2007 /Notices 2583 1 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users H.R. REP. NO. 109–203, at 936–37 (2005), reprinted in 2005 U.S.C.C.A.N. 452. 2 Section 5309(c)(4)(A), which permits the Secretary to approve an application to the Pilot Program if ‘‘State and local laws permit public-private agreements for all phases of project development, construction and operation of the project’’ (emphasis added) indicates that the Pilot Program is intended to demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of PPPs for all aspects certain new fixed guideway capital projects, including their operation and maintenance. of No Significant Impact was issued in June 1997. The Monroe Connector study previously addressed improvements in the US 74 corridor from I–485 to US 601 in the City of Monroe, where it ended at the proposed Monroe Bypass. A Draft EIS for this project was approved in November 2003; however, a public hearing was never held. In February 2005, the NCTA adopted the Monroe Connector as a toll candidate facility, and in January 2006, the Notice of Intent for the Monroe Connector EIS was rescinded (Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 19, page 4958). Subsequently, NCTA adopted the Monroe Bypass project as a toll candidate facility in October 2006. The Monroe Connector and Monroe Bypass projects have been combined into a single project and will be evaluated in a single EIS. The EIS for the proposed action will consider alternatives for improvements in the US 74 corridor from I–485 to US 74 in the vicinity of the Town of Marshville. Alternatives, including a ‘‘No-Build’’ Alternative (continuation of the existing condition), improving the existing US 74 corridor, and constructing a new location facility, will be considered. Several alternative corridors for a new location facility will be studied. As part of the EIS, NCTA will study the feasibility and impacts of developing the proposed project, in whole or in part, as a toll road. Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will be sent to appropriate Federal, State and local agencies. Scoping will occur over a series of meetings with the agencies and citizens informational workshops with the public. Information on the dates, times, and locations of the citizens informational workshops will be advertised in the local news media and newsletters will be mailed to those on the project mailing list. If you wish to be placed on the mailing list, contact Jennifer Harris at the address listed below. The Draft EIS will be available for public and agency review and comment prior to the public hearing. To ensure the full range of issues related to the proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments and questions concerning the proposed action should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided above or directed to: Ms. Jennifer Harris, Staff Engineer, North Carolina Turnpike Authority, 5400 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 400, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27612. Telephone: (919) 571–3004. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Research, Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation of Federal programs and activities apply to this program.) George Hoops, Major Projects Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina. [FR Doc. 07–196 Filed 1–18–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–22–M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration [Docket No: FTA–2006–23697] Public-Private Partnership Pilot Program AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of establishment of Public-Private Partnership Pilot Program; solicitation of applications. SUMMARY: Section 3011(c) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (‘‘SAFETEA–LU’’) authorizes the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to establish and implement a pilot program to demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of public-private partnerships for certain new fixed guideway capital projects (the ‘‘Pilot Program’’). This notice establishes and sets forth the definitive terms of the Pilot Program. By separate notice to be published in the Federal Register not later than March 31, 2007, FTA will summarize and respond to comments solicited by FTA by notice published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2006, at 71 FR 14568. This notice is not a ‘‘binding obligation’’ as defined at 49 U.S.C. 5334(l)(2). This notice is organized into three sections: (1) ‘‘Background;’’ (2) ‘‘Overview of Pilot Program;’’ and (3) ‘‘Definitive Terms.’’ DATES: To be considered in FTA’s first quarterly review of applications to the Pilot Program, applications must be received by FTA on or before March 31, 2007. Applications received by FTA between March 31, 2007, and July 1, 2007, will be reviewed in FTA’s second quarterly review of applications to the Pilot Program. See ‘‘Applications’’ at section 3(f) of this notice. ADDRESSES: Applications should be submitted by U.S. Post or express mail to the Federal Transit Administration, c/o the Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, Room 9328, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Please note that due to security procedures in effect since October 2001 regarding mail deliveries, mail received through the U.S. Postal Service may be subject to delays. Parties making applications to the Pilot Program should consider using an express mail service to ensure the prompt filing of any applications not filed by express mail. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning the Pilot Program should be addressed to David B. Horner, Esq., Chief Counsel, Federal Transit Administration, by e-mail at David.Horner@dot.gov or by telephone at (202) 689–4464. To read materials on the DOT docket responsive to FTA’s notice published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2006, at 71 FR 14568, please go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to the Docket Management System. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. Background (a) Objective. The Public-Private Partnership Pilot Program (the ‘‘Pilot Program’’) is intended to demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of public-private partnerships (‘‘PPPs’’) for certain new fixed guideway capital projects funded by the Federal Transit Administration (‘‘FTA’’). In particular, the Pilot Program is intended to study whether, in comparison to conventional procurements, PPPs better reduce and allocate risks associated with new construction, accelerate project delivery, improve the reliability of projections of project costs and benefits, and enhance project performance. The Pilot Program will accordingly study projects that, among other things, utilize methods of procurement that integrate risk-sharing and streamline project development, engineering, construction,1 operation, and maintenance.2 The amount and terms of private investment to be made in such projects will be a significant consideration in selecting projects to participate in the Pilot Program. (b) PPPs in General. As the growth in traditional transportation revenue sources, such as gasoline taxes, continues to decline and transportation operation, maintenance, replacement, and expansion needs and costs increase, transportation agencies are experiencing significant pressure to find ways to VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:10 Jan 18, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM 19JAN1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES APPENDIX A APPENDICES MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS APPENDIX A-2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESOLUTIONS • MUMPO Resolution Combining R-3329 and R-2559 09/25/06 • MUMPO Tolling Resolution 09/19/07 APPENDIX A APPENDICES MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS APPENDIX A-3 SCOPING LETTER AND RESPONSES Scoping Letter sent by NCTA 01/05/07 Federal Agencies • US Army Corps of Engineers 02/13/07 • US Environmental Protection Agency 02/14/07 • US Fish and Wildlife Service 02/13/07 State Agencies • NC State Clearinghouse Department of Administration 02/12/07 • NCDENR Wildlife Resources Commission 02/05/07 • NCDENR Division of Water Quality 01/22/07 • NCDEM National Flood Insurance Program 02/08/07 • NCDENR Natural Heritage Program 01/23/07 Local Agencies • Town of Marshville 01/31/07 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY MICHAEL F. EASLEY 1578MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1578 DAVID W. JOYNER GOVERNOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY TELEPHONE: 919-571-3000 FAX: 919-571-3015 January 5, 2007 Ms. Chrys Baggett State Clearinghouse 1301 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1301 RE: Start of Study and Agency Scoping Meeting Notification Monroe Connector/Bypass – From I-485 to US 74 Mecklenburg and Union Counties TIP Project Numbers: R-3329 & R-2559 Dear Ms. Baggett, The North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) has initiated the project development, environmental, and engineering studies for the proposed Monroe Connector/Bypass project in Mecklenburg and Union Counties (Figure 1). As it is currently defined, the project would include improvements in the US 74 corridor between I-485 in Mecklenburg County and US 74 in the vicinity of the Town of Marshville in Union County. The project is included in the 2006-2012 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) in addition to the Draft 2007-2013 TIP as Projects R-3329 and R-2559. This study is a combination of two projects previously analyzed by NCDOT, the Monroe Bypass (NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program [TIP] Project R-2559) and the Monroe Connector (NCDOT TIP Project R-3329). The Monroe Bypass study addressed improvements in the US 74 corridor from just west of the City of Monroe to just west of the Town of Marshville. An Environmental Assessment for this project was approved in March 1996, and a Finding of No Significant Impact was issued in June 1997. The Monroe Connector study addressed improvements in the US 74 corridor from I-485 to US 601 in the City of Monroe, where it ended at the proposed Monroe Bypass. A Draft EIS for this project was approved in November 2003; however, a public hearing was never held. In February 2005, the NCTA adopted the Monroe Connector as a toll candidate facility, and in January 2006, the Notice of Intent for the Monroe Connector EIS was rescinded (Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 19, page 4958). Subsequently, NCTA adopted the Monroe Bypass project as a toll candidate facility in October 2006. The Monroe Connector and Monroe Bypass projects have been combined into a single project and will be evaluated in a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The proposed project is approximately 21 miles in length and is located southeast of Charlotte in the vicinity of the towns of Lake Park, Stallings, and Mint Hill and the cities of Monroe, Indian Trail, and Matthews. The project area’s proximity to Charlotte has resulted in much of it transforming from a traditionally agricultural area to one of a suburban nature. Based on previous studies and natural systems screening, the project corridor includes a number of streams, wetlands, and floodplains, as well as potential habitat for four federally listed species: Schweinitz’s sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), Michaux’s sumac (Rhus michauxii), smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), and Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata). The project is within the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill 8-hour ozone (O3) nonattainment area. NCTA anticipates preparing an EIS for the Monroe Connector/Bypass project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in establishing the project study area, identifying preliminary corridors, evaluating the potential environmental impacts of those corridors, and establishing a viable range of alternatives for consideration. Also, please identify any permits or approvals which may be required by your agency. An agency scoping meeting will be held at the Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meeting on January 25, 2007 in the NCTA Board Room (Address: 5400 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 400, Raleigh, NC 27612). This meeting will begin at 2:15 p.m. The purpose of the meeting will be to identify significant issues related to the proposed action that should be considered during the study process. We strongly encourage you or a representative of your agency to participate in this meeting; however, if your agency can not be represented, please provide written comments by February 9, 2007. Your response should be mailed to the following: Ms. Jennifer Harris, PE North Carolina Turnpike Authority 1578 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1578 If you have any questions concerning the proposed project, please call Ms. Harris at (919) 571-3004. Sincerely, Steven D. DeWitt, P.E. Chief Engineer cc: Mr. David Joyner, NCTA Ms. Jennifer Harris, P.E., NCTA Ms. Teresa Hart, P.E., NCDOT Mr. John Conforti, REM, NCDOT Ms. Anne Lenart-Redmond, E.I., HNTB Mr. Carl Gibilaro, P.E., PBS&J APPENDIX A APPENDICES MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS APPENDIX A-4 CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE • Letter from SHPO Regarding the Archaeological Survey Report 09/16/03 • Letter from SHPO Commenting on the Historic Architectural Resources Reconnaissance Report 12/21/07 • Concurrence Form – Assessment of Effects 11/14/08 • Letter to SHPO Regarding Revised APE 1/16/09 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY BEVERLY E. PERDUE 1578MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1578 DAVID W. JOYNER GOVERNOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY TELEPHONE: 919-571-3000 FAX: 919-571-3015 January 16, 2009 Mr. Peter Sandbeck Administrator, State Historic Preservation Office Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer 4617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-4677 RE: North Carolina Turnpike Authority: STIP R-3329/R-2559 Monroe Connector/Bypass Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Sandbeck: In October 2007, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) prepared a Historic Architecture Resources Reconnaissance Report for the Monroe Connector/Bypass Project (R-3329/R-2559) in Mecklenburg and Union Counties. At the time the report was prepared, numerous Preliminary Corridor Segments were under consideration for the project, including segments south of and along existing US 74, and an Area of Potential Effects (APE) was defined to encompass all of these segments. However, during alternatives screening, Preliminary Corridor Segments south of and along existing US 74 were eliminated from consideration, and the Detailed Study Alternatives were identified. With the refinement of the alternatives since the initial studies, some of the historic properties are now outside of the original project corridor and APE. The attached figure outlines the original APE, the proposed revised APE, and the historic sites in relation to the project area and APEs. At a meeting on September 22, 2008, representatives of the NCDOT and HPO agreed that the following properties are now outside of the original APE: • Monroe City Hall • Malcolm K. Lee House • John C. Sikes House • US Post Office • James Orr Stores • Monroe Downtown Historic District • Monroe Residential District • Union County Courthouse • Indian Trail Presbyterian Church The following properties remain within the revised APE: • William Bivens House (No Effect) • Secrest Farm (No Adverse Effect) • Hiram Secrest House (No Adverse Effect) • Perry McIntyre Farm (No Adverse Effect) If you have any questions, or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Jennifer Harris at (919) 571-3004. Sincerely, Steven D. DeWitt, P.E. Chief Engineer cc w/attachment: Renee Gledhill-Earley, HPO-Environmental Review Coordinator Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT-Historic Architecture Supervisor Jennifer Harris, P.E., NCTA-Staff Engineer George Hoops P.E., FHWA-Major Projects Engineer Attachment: Draft Environmental Impact Statement – Figure 5-1 (Historic Architectural Resources) STALLINGS RD MATTHEWS INDIAN INDIAN TRAIL FAIRVIEW RD UNIONVILLE-INDIAN TRAIL RD WESLEY CHAPEL STOUTS RD N ROCKY RIVER RD RD TRAIL INDIAN UNIONVILLE-POPLIN RD SECREST SHORT CUT RD WAXHAW - INDIAN TRAIL RD OLD CHARLOTTE HWY OLD CHARLOTTE HWY S ROCKY RIVER RD MEDLIN RD OLD MONROE MARSHVILLE RD RIDGE RD BAUCOM RD AUSTIN GROVE CHURCH RD ELLIS GRIFFIN RD WLAKUP AVE MONROE-ANSONVILLE RD AUSTIN CHANEY RD OLIVE BRANCH RD OLIVE BRANCH RD NEW SALEM RD LAWYERS RD MILLS HARRIS RD ANSONVILLE RD SUMMERLIN DAIRY RD OLD HIGHWAY RD FOREST HILLS SCHOOL RD CAMDEN RD MCINTYRE RD TRAIL RD CUT RD SECREST SHORT SECREST RD FOWLER- 485 74 74 601 74 200 75 200 207 205 84 218 51 Monroe Unionville Wingate Marshville Indian Trail Weddington Stallings Lake Park Hemby Bridge Wesley Chapel Mecklenburg County Union County Matthews Fairview Mineral Springs Lake Twitty Lake Lee Lake Monroe Monroe Municipal Airport 22a 30 31 21 18a 2 34 36 41 40 34 A/B 36 A/B James Orr Stores Indian Trail Presbyterian Church US Post Office Monroe City Hall Malcolm K Lee House John C Sikes House Monroe Historic District Hiram Secrest House Union County Courthouse Perry McIntyre House Secrest Farm William Bivens House Figure 5-1 STIP PROJECT NO. R-3329/R-2559 MONROE CONNECTOR/ BYPASS Mecklenburg County and Union County HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES AND OLD GOLD MINES 0 0.75 1.5 Miles Legend Area of Potential Effects Revised Area of Potential Effects Historic Structures Historic Sites Historic Districts Gold Mines Segment Breakline Preliminary Design Centerline Corridor Study Area County Boundary Lake River / Stream Interstate Highway US Highway NC State Highway State Road Railroad DEIS_Historic2.mxd 1-16-09 Mecklenburg and Union Counties North Carolina Counties Source: Mecklenburg County and Union Counties GIS. Map Printed On 1-16-09. APPENDIX A APPENDICES MARCH 2009 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS DEIS APPENDIX A-5 SECTION 6002 COORDINATION PLAN FOR MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS PROJECT • Letter from NCTA submitting the Final Section 6002 Project Coordination Plan 10/11/07 • Section 6002 Project Coordination Plan 10/11/07 • Participating and Cooperating Agency Invitation Letters 02/14/07 August 8, 2007 1 Section 6002 Coordination Plan for Monroe Connector/Bypass Project TIP Projects R-3329 & R-2559 ______________________________________________________________________________ COORDINATION PLAN 1. Purpose of Plan. 1.1. Section 6002 Compliance. This plan is intended to satisfy the requirement for a Coordination Plan under Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU (23 U.S.C § 139) for the Monroe Connector/Bypass project (TIP No. R-3329 & R-2559). 1.2. Integration of NEPA and Section 404 Requirements. The process established in this plan is intended to ensure that the requirements of NEPA and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act can be satisfied as part of a single process. Specifically, this plan is intended ensure that, to the maximum extent practicable, • there is regular communication and collaborative discussion among all agencies that have information, experience, and/or expertise relevant to issues considered in Section 404 permitting; • NCDENR can issue Section 401, Riparian Buffer Authorizations, Isolated Wetland Permits, and State Stormwater Permits based on information developed as part of the NEPA process; and • the USACE can issue a Section 404 permit for the project promptly following the end of the NEPA process, without the need for supplemental NEPA studies, • so that any other required permits or approvals can be obtained without unexpected issues or delays. 1.3. Agency Communication. This plan establishes a framework for regular communication among all of the agencies involved in the environmental review process. This communication will include regular agency coordination meetings. These meetings will provide a forum for open discussion and dialogue among agencies. Meetings with one or more individual agencies also may occur as part of this process. When possible, all Participating Agencies will be informed of a smaller meeting to ensure all appropriate parties are included and will be updated after the meeting. 2. Project Initiation 2.1. Project Initiation Notice. The environmental review process for a project is initiated when the North Carolina Turnpike Authority submits a project initiation notice to the FHWA. This notice was provided in the form of a letter from NCTA to FHWA on January 5, 2007. A draft Notice of Intent was included with this notice. August 8, 2007 2 2.2. Notice of Intent. A Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this project was published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2007. The project initiation notice and the Notice of Intent are attached as Exhibit 1. 3. Project Schedule 3.1. Schedule. The NCTA will prepare a project schedule showing projected dates for completing all environmental studies and permitting. The schedule will conform to SAFETEA-LU time frames for comment periods and the FHWA “Vital Few Goal” of achieving a median time frame of three years for completing an EIS. A draft schedule for the Monroe Connector/Bypass project is shown in Table 1. Table 1: Draft Project Schedule Notice of Intent Winter 2007 Identify Detailed Study Alternatives July 2007 DEIS July 2008 Identify Preferred Alternative November 2008 FEIS May 2009 ROD July 2009 Permit Application(s) August 2009 Let Contract/Begin Construction December 2009 3.2. Agency Consultation. The schedule will be shared with the agencies and discussed at a TEAC meeting. Agency comments will be considered and the schedule may be revised as appropriate. 3.3. Updating Schedules. The project schedule may be revised from time to time by the lead agencies during the environmental review process. Schedule changes will be communicated to all participating agencies and the public. Under the statute, the schedule may be extended by the lead agencies for good cause, and may be shortened only with the consent of Cooperating Agencies. 4. Agency Roles 4.1. Lead Federal Agency. FHWA will be the lead Federal agency. As lead Federal agency in the Section 6002 process, FHWA is responsible for making certain decisions as specified in Section 6002. In addition, FHWA has an overall responsibility for facilitating the expeditious completion of the environmental review process. 4.2. Joint Lead Agencies. NCTA will be a joint lead agency, and thus will share with FHWA the responsibilities of the “lead agency” under the process defined in Section 6002. August 8, 2007 3 NCDOT also will have the status of a joint lead agency; however, NCDOT will primarily have a review/support role in the process, consistent with the Preconstruction Guidelines adopted by NCDOT and NCTA in July 2006. 4.3. Participating Agencies. NCTA will issue letters inviting Federal and non-Federal agencies to serve as Participating Agencies for each project developed under this plan. Participating Agencies include any Federal, State, or local agencies that may have an interest in the project. 4.3.1. Invitation List. Invitations will be sent to Federal and non-Federal agencies that, in the judgment of FHWA and NCTA, may have an interest in the project. A list of Participating Agencies is attached as Exhibit 1 to this plan. Additional Participating Agencies may be added later in the process based on new information, changes in the project, or changed circumstances. Table 2 lists agencies identified as having an interest in the Monroe Connector/Bypass project. Table 2: Agency Roles Cooperating Agency Participating Agency US Army Corps of Engineers US Environmental Protection Agency US Fish and Wildlife Service NC Department of Cultural Resources – Historic Preservation Office NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources Division of Water Quality Wildlife Resources Commission Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization 4.3.2. Deadline. Invitation letters will specify a 30-day deadline for agencies to respond to the invitation. 4.3.3. Federal Invitees. A Federal agency that is invited to be a Participating Agency will be presumed to have accepted the invitation, unless the agency informs NCTA in writing, by the deadline, that it: “(A) has no jurisdiction or authority with respect to the project; (B) has no expertise or information relevant to the project; and (C) does not intend to submit comments on the project.” 4.3.4. Non-Federal Invitees. Non-Federal agencies are not required to accept designation; they become Participating Agencies only if they affirmatively accept the invitation. If a non-Federal agency declines or does not respond to the invitation, the agency will not be considered a Participating Agency. August 8, 2007 4 4.3.5. No Implied Support. Designation as a Participating Agency shall not imply that the Participating Agency supports a proposed project; or has any jurisdiction over, or special expertise with respect to evaluation of, the project. 4.3.6. No Effect on Other Laws. Nothing in Section 6002, or in this Coordination Plan, preempts or interferes with any power, jurisdiction, responsibility, or authority that a Federal, State, or local government agency, metropolitan planning organization, Indian tribe, or project sponsor has with respect to carrying out a project or any other provisions of law applicable to projects, plans, or programs. 4.4. Cooperating Agencies. A Participating Agency also may be designated as a Cooperating Agency. The responsibilities of a “Cooperating Agency” are defined in the CEQ regulations and are unchanged by SAFETEA-LU. In general, designation as a Cooperating Agency signifies a somewhat higher level of involvement and responsibility in the environmental review process. Federal, State, or local government agencies can be designated as Cooperating Agencies. As shown in Table 2, the USACE was invited to become a Cooperating Agency. It is recognized that due to other program commitments, Cooperating Agencies will not be responsible for funding or writing portions of the NEPA document. 4.5. Local Government Coordination. The Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO) will serve as the official local representative for the project. MUMPO staff will be provided the same opportunities for input as other Participating Agencies. Local municipalities will be kept appraised of project developments through their involvement with MUMPO. The following municipalities are represented by MUMPO: City of Charlotte, Town of Cornelius, Town of Davidson, Town of Huntersville, Town of Indian Trail, Town of Matthews, Mecklenburg County, Town of Mint Hill, City of Monroe, Town of Pineville, Town of Stallings, Union County, Town of Waxhaw, Town of Weddington, Village of Wesley Chapel, and Town of Wingate. In addition, NCTA will provide regular updates to the Rocky River Rural Planning Organization, including the Town of Marshville. 4.5.1. MUMPO Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC). A NCTA staff member will represent NCTA at MUMPO Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) meetings. 4.5.2. Meeting Summaries. Summaries of monthly TEAC meetings will be provided to MUMPO members. 5. Turnpike-Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAC) Meetings 5.1. TEAC Meetings. The principal method for agency coordination on turnpike projects will be Turnpike-Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAC) meetings, which will be hosted by NCTA. These meetings will be used as a forum for discussing all turnpike projects, including those being studied under other procedures as well as those being studied under Section 6002. All TEAC meetings will be held at the NCTA office in Raleigh, unless otherwise specified in the meeting invitation. August 8, 2007 5 5.2. Meeting Dates. The schedule for the TEAC meetings will be determined by FHWA and NCTA after consultation with NCDOT and the Participating Agencies. This schedule will be established, to the extent possible, for 12-month periods. The schedule will be coordinated with NCDOT interagency meetings to avoid or minimize conflicts and minimize travel. Changes to the schedule will be provided to the Participating Agencies as far in advance as possible. The schedule for 2007 is attached as Exhibit 2. 5.3. Meeting Agenda and Objectives. The agenda for each TEAC meeting will be circulated via e-mail to all Participating Agencies. The agenda will identify (a) any specific issues that NCTA would like to resolve at the meeting and (b) any specific issues on which NCTA is seeking comments from the Participating Agencies at the meeting. 5.4. Meeting Materials. NCTA will post the agenda and materials for each TEAC meeting on a secure web site accessible to all TEAC members. Guidelines for circulating meeting materials are provided below. 5.4.1. Timing of Circulation. To the greatest extent possible, NCTA will post the agenda and materials at least two weeks in advance of the meeting. In some cases, materials will be provided less than two weeks in advance, or will be circulated in the TEAC meeting itself. NCTA will not seek to resolve issues or obtain Participating Agency comments on materials that the Participating Agencies received less than two weeks in advance of the meeting. 5.4.2. Availability of Paper Copies. In addition to posting documents on the TEAC web site, NCTA will make paper copies of TEAC meeting materials available to all attendees at each TEAC meeting. 5.4.3. Large Documents. Documents that would be difficult or time-consuming for agencies to reproduce (e.g., large maps, lengthy bound documents with color, fold-out pages, etc.) will be made available to Participating Agencies in hard-copy format at a TEAC meeting (or by mail two weeks or more in advance) for discussion at a subsequent TEAC meeting. NCTA will consult with the Participating Agencies to determine when this type of distribution is appropriate. 5.5. Meeting Summaries. After each TEAC meeting, the NCTA will prepare a meeting summary. The summary will list the attendees, topics discussed, unresolved issues, and action items. The Meeting Summary will be posted in draft form to the NCTA web site for review and comment two weeks in advance of the next meeting. Meetings will be recorded on audiotape; the recording will be used in preparing the meeting summaries. The meeting summaries will be included in the administrative record. 5.6. Attendees. Participating Agencies (including Cooperating Agencies) will designate primary contacts for each turnpike project. These primary contacts will regularly attend TEAC meetings. Attendance may vary from month to month depending on the issues being discussed. Primary contacts for the Monroe Connector/Bypass project listed in Table 3. August 8, 2007 6 Table 3: Primary Agency Contacts US Army Corps of Engineers Steve Lund US Environmental Protection Agency Chris Militscher US Fish and Wildlife Service Marella Buncick NC Department of Cultural Resources – Historic Preservation Office Peter Sandbeck NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources -- Division of Water Quality Polly Lespinasse Wildlife Resources Commission Marla Chambers Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization Bob Cook 6. Identification and Resolution of Project Issues 6.1. Constraint Mapping and Environmental Data. As early as practicable in project development, NCTA will provide FHWA and the Participating Agencies with mapping that shows key environmental resources, communities, topographic conditions, and other constraints in the project area. This mapping also will identify potential conceptual alternatives for the project, to the extent possible. (An “alternative” at this stage will generally be defined as a corridor.) The mapping may be accompanied by other supporting materials. This mapping may be presented to the Participating Agencies over a series of TEAC meetings and/or field meetings. 6.2. Field Visits and Agency Meetings. One or more field visits may be held with Participating Agencies to discuss constraints and obtain early input into development of alternatives. Attendees in field visits may be a sub-set of the Participating Agencies, depending on the issues to be discussed on the field visit; however, all Participating Agencies will be informed of upcoming meetings to determine interest in attending. The results of the field visit(s) will be discussed at a TEAC meeting, which will provide another opportunity for agency input. 6.3. General Project Issues. Throughout the process, Participating Agencies will be invited to identify issues that need to be considered by the Lead Agencies in preparing the environmental documentation and making project decisions, including issues that relate to the agencies’ ability to approve (or comment favorably on the approval of) any necessary permits for the project. These issues will be referred to as “general project issues.” 6.4. Issues of Concern. At any time in the process, a Participating Agency may identify an “issue of concern” as defined in SAFETEA-LU, which is an issue that in the agency’s judgment could result in denial of a permit or substantial delay in issuing a permit. 6.4.1. Format. Participating agencies will be strongly encouraged to submit any “issues of concern” in writing to FHWA and NCTA on agency letterhead. Issues of concern submitted in other formats (e.g., e-mail) will also be considered. August 8, 2007 7 6.4.2. Timing. Participating Agencies are required by statute to identify any issues of concern “as early as practicable” in the environmental review process, but this determination is based on information provided by the lead agencies. In some cases, it may not be practicable to identify an issue of concern until late in the process. The statute does not set a specific deadline for raising these issues. 6.4.3. Request for Comment. At any point in the process, the NCTA may ask the Participating Agencies to state in writing whether there are any issues of concern. If such a request is made, NCTA will consult with the Participating Agencies before setting a deadline for a response. If agreed by the Lead and Participating Agencies, a deadline longer than 30 days could be established. 6.5. Monitoring and Updating. NCTA will maintain a list of both “general project issues” and “issues of concern” (if any) identified by the Participating Agencies. Separate meetings may be scheduled to resolve general project issues and/or any issues of concern. Additional issues may be added to the list based on new information or changed circumstances at any point in project development. This list will be posted to the TEAC web site. 6.6. Resolving General Project Issues. General project issues that are not resolved among the regular participants in the TEAC meetings can be elevated for consideration by the more senior officials within the relevant agencies. Any agency – Lead or Participating – can invoke the elevation process. The process is intended to be flexible, with specific procedures determined on a case-by-case basis depending on the nature of the issue. In general, the elevation process will involve the following steps: • A TEAC member requests elevation on an issue within the jurisdiction of that agency. This request can be made in a TEAC meeting or in a letter or e-mail to the other TEAC members. • The request for elevation is placed on the agenda for discussion at a subsequent TEAC meeting. • If the issue is not resolved at that subsequent TEAC meeting, the issue is elevated to more senior officials within the TEAC agencies. • Each TEAC member is responsible for identifying the more senior official(s) within his or her agency who will be directly involved in the elevation. • The TEAC members will work together to plan the logistics and timing of the elevation process, including any briefing materials or other documents that need to be prepared prior to a resolution of the issue. 6.7. Resolving Issues of Concern. Under the statute, NCTA or the Governor may request a meeting at any time to resolve issues of concern. If such a meeting is requested, FHWA will convene a meeting in accordance with SAFETEA-LU to resolve the specified issues of concern. If an issue of concern is not resolved within 30 days after such a meeting, a report must be submitted to Congress and to the heads of certain agencies, as provided in SAFETEA-LU. If such a meeting is not requested, FHWA and NCTA will seek to address and resolve the agencies’ issues of concern as part of normal agency August 8, 2007 8 coordination during the environmental review process. NCTA anticipates that this process will be invoked rarely. 7. Development of Purpose and Need 7.1. Preliminary P&N with Supporting Information. Early in project development, NCTA will prepare a brief preliminary statement of purpose and need – generally no more than one page in length. The preliminary statement purpose and need will be distributed to the agencies. This preliminary statement will be accompanied by supporting information to the extent that it is available. This information will include: • GIS map of study area (with study area identified) • Summary of local concerns that resulted in project addition to LRTP and MTIP • Traffic data related to project needs • Justification for designation as turnpike project (based on funding needs, etc.) • Description of how the action will address the need. 7.2. Discussion at TEAC Meeting. The preliminary purpose and need will be discussed with the Participating Agencies at a TEAC meeting. This will provide an early opportunity for agency input into the Purpose and Need for the project. In accordance with Section 6002, the comment period will be 30 days (unless otherwise agreed). 7.3. Determination of Purpose and Need. The purpose and need will be refined, as appropriate, based on input from the Participating Agencies and the public. Refinement of the purpose and need may be a gradual, iterative process that occurs during the alternatives development and screening process. This process will include an opportunity for agencies and the public to comment on the purpose and need as part of their review of the alternatives screening report. (See Part 8.4 and 8.5 below.) The Purpose and Need will be determined by the time of selection of Detailed Study Alternatives. 8. Development and Screening of Alternatives 8.1. Conceptual Alternatives. An initial set of conceptual alternatives will be developed as early as practicable in the process. The conceptual alternatives may be developed concurrently with the preliminary purpose and need statement. These alternatives will be provided to the agencies along with the environmental constraint mapping that provides the basis for identifying issues of concern. (See Part 6.1 above.) 8.2. Alternatives Development. Through agency coordination and public involvement, NCTA will develop a range of preliminary alternatives for consideration. This range may extend beyond the initial set of conceptual alternatives. This effort is intended to be comprehensive and inclusive. NCTA will maintain a summary of all alternatives suggested by Participating Agencies and the public. August 8, 2007 9 8.3. Alternatives Screening Report. The NCTA will prepare an alternatives screening report that presents the justification for eliminating alternatives from further consideration, and identifies alternatives proposed for detailed study. The alternatives screening report will be provided to the Participating Agencies and discussed in a TEAC meeting. 8.4. Opportunity for Public Input. A summary of the alternatives screening report will be made available for public review and comment. A public meeting (or meetings) will be held in the project area during the public comment period on this report. This comment period will serve as the public’s opportunity for involvement in both developing the purpose and need and determining the range of alternatives to be considered in the EIS. A report summarizing public input will be provided to Participating Agencies. Agencies will be given notice of the public meeting and will be welcome to attend. 8.5. Opportunity for Agency Input. Participating Agencies will be given a 30-day period to provide additional comments on the alternatives screening report following distribution of the report summarizing public comments. Participating Agencies will not be asked to concur on the alternatives screening report. Participating Agencies will be asked to submit any significant objections to the alternatives screening report in writing to FHWA and NCTA on agency letterhead. 8.6. Lead Agency Decision. The Lead Agencies identify the detailed study alternatives based on the comments received from Participating Agencies and the public. In general, the NCTA and FHWA will seek to resolve any issues or concerns regarding the range of detailed study alternatives at this stage of the process. Any issues that are not resolved at this stage will need to be resolved prior to issuance of a Section 404 permit by the USACE. It is incumbent on all Participating Agencies to raise issues, concerns, or comments in a timely manner and to also provide suggestions for resolution. 9. Methodologies and Level of Detail for Alternatives Analysis 9.1. Proposed Methodologies. Early in project development, NCTA will prepare materials outlining proposed methodologies for analyzing alternatives. The materials will summarize the methodologies intended to be used for each substantive area within the EIS – noise, air, water resources, traffic issues, secondary and cumulative impacts, etc. Standard procedures will simply be referenced, where applicable. Any modifications to standard procedures will be identified and discussed in more depth. 9.2. Opportunity for Agency Input. The proposed methodologies will be developed in consultation with agencies having relevant information, experience, or expertise. For example, the USACE and NCDENR and other Participating Agencies as appropriate will be consulted in developing the methodology for analyzing impacts to aquatic resources; the SHPO will be consulted in developing methodologies for analyzing impacts to historic sites (including both architectural and archeological resources). 9.3. Ongoing Coordination. Methodologies for alternatives analysis will be refined throughout the environmental review process. The Lead Agencies will discuss adjustments, as appropriate, with Participating Agencies at TEAC meetings. August 8, 2007 10 9.4. Level of Detail. The Lead Agencies, in consultation with the Participating Agencies, will determine the appropriate level of design detail for preliminary alternatives, for the detailed study alternatives, and for the preferred alternative. 9.4.1. Preliminary Alternatives. The level of design for the detailed study alternatives will be determined in consultation with the Participating Agencies. There is no presumption that any specific level of design is needed; this issue will be determined based on the information needed to allow informed decision-making. 9.4.2. Detailed Study Alternatives. In general, functional design will be used as the basis for comparing the impacts of the alternatives in the DEIS (known as the Detailed Study Alternatives) and will be used for developing the cost estimates presented in the DEIS. A higher level of design detail may be developed for Detailed Study Alternatives in some cases; this issue will be discussed with Participating Agencies in accordance with Sections 9.1, 9.2, and 9.3. 9.4.3. Bridging Decisions. The Lead Agencies, in consultation with USACE and NCDENR (and, if appropriate, other Participating Agencies) will determine bridge locations and approximate lengths for each of the Detailed Study Alternatives. These issues also will be discussed in TEAC meetings with all Participating Agencies. 9.4.4. Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative may be developed to a higher level of detail in the FEIS, in accordance with procedures specified in FHWA/FTA guidance for the Section 6002 process. If phased construction is anticipated, the higher level of design detail may be developed for a portion of the Preferred Alternative. As allowed under Section 6002, the higher level of design detail may be prepared for the purpose of developing mitigation measures and/or for complying with permitting requirements (e.g., Section 404 permitting). 9.5. Lead Agency Decision. If there are disagreements about methodology, or about the appropriate level of design detail, FHWA and NCTA will seek to resolve those disagreements with the agencies having the concern and those with relevant expertise – for example, the SHPO on historic property issues. After consultation, the Lead Agencies will determine the methodology to be used in the NEPA document. The basis for that decision will be documented in the project file and provided to the Participating Agencies. 10. Selection of Preferred Alternative/LEDPA 10.1.Timing for Identifying Preferred Alternative. The following actions will be completed before NCTA submits a Preferred Alternative Report to the Participating Agencies: • the DEIS has been issued (including a Conceptual Mitigation Proposal) and submitted to the State Clearinghouse; • a Section 404 Public Notice Request has been submitted to USACE, and the Public Notice has been issued by the USACE; August 8, 2007 11 • a public hearing on the DEIS has been held, and the comment period on the DEIS has ended, 10.2. Process for Identifying Preferred Alternative. The process for identifying a preferred alternative will include: • the NCTA will prepare an information package containing an impacts comparison matrix, responses to substantive comments on the DEIS that relate to selection of the preferred alternative, and other pertinent information; • the NCTA will provide the information package to the Participating Agencies at least two weeks prior to the TEAC meeting at which the package will be discussed. • the Participating Agencies will be given a 30-day period following the TEAC meeting to provide comments on the information package, and there will be a discussion of the alternatives comparison package at a TEAC meeting; and • if requested by the Participating Agencies, the NCTA will arrange for a field review of the alternatives. 10.3.Preparation of Preferred Alternative Report. The NCTA will prepare a report identifying its preferred alternative and the justification for selecting that alternative. The report will address all applicable regulatory requirements, such as Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act and Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act. The report will be prepared in coordination with FHWA and with input from the Participating Agencies as described in Section 10.2. 10.4.Opportunity for Agency Input. The NCTA will provide FHWA, NCDOT, and all Participating Agencies with a copy of the preferred alternative report. The report will be discussed at a TEAC meeting. Agencies will be provided with a 30-day period to comment on the report after the meeting (in addition to the comment opportunities provided under Section 10.1 above). Agencies will not be asked to concur in this report. Agencies will be asked to submit any significant objections in writing to FHWA and NCTA on agency letterhead. 10.5.Lead Agency Decision. FHWA will formally identify its preferred alternative after considering all comments received from Participating Agencies, including both written comments and comments provided in TEAC meetings. 11. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation, and Enhancement 11.1. Integration into Project Development. Opportunities to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts, and to enhance the impacted resources, will be considered throughout the process, including during initial development of alternatives. As allowed under Section 6002, the preferred alternative may be developed to a higher level of detail for purposes of developing mitigation measures and meeting permitting requirements. August 8, 2007 12 11.2. Required Compensatory Mitigation. The Lead Agencies will consult with USACE and NCDENR (and other Participating Agencies as appropriate) to determine the type, size, and location of required compensatory mitigation for impacts to waters of the United States. 11.2.1. On-Site Mitigation. The potential for on-site mitigation for impacts to waters of the United States will be considered in the DEIS for each of the Detailed Study Alternatives. This discussion will typically include a discussion of conceptual on-site mitigation locations. The potential for on-site mitigation will be discussed in more detail for the Preferred Alternative in the FEIS. 11.2.2. Off-Site/Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). Where applicable, the NCTA will coordinate with the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) during project development and design regarding the use of credits from the EEP to meet mitigation requirements for impacts to waters of the United States. The EEP also may be used to carry out on-site mitigation on behalf of NCTA. 12. Section 404/401 Permitting and Other Permits/Approvals 12.1. Early Coordination. NCTA will conduct early coordination with the Participating Agencies to identify applicable permitting requirements and to determine the analysis and documentation required to satisfy those requirements. See Parts 6 and 9 above. Permits that may be applicable to this project include: • Section 404/401 Permits • Successful completion of Section 7 consultation • Successful completion of Section 106 process (and Section 4(f), if applicable) • Air quality conformity compliance 12.2. Comment Opportunities. The environmental review process includes multiple opportunities for comment by Participating Agencies, as described below: 12.2.1. Participating Agencies may submit comments at the monthly TEAC meetings and in other meetings or field visits held during the environmental review process. NCTA will prepare meeting summaries for all substantive meetings with Participating Agencies. The meeting summaries will document comments provided by Participating Agencies. 12.2.2. Participating Agencies also will be invited to provide written comments at various points in the process as noted above. Agencies are encouraged to provide their written comments on agency letterhead; in particular, agencies are strongly encouraged to use letterhead when identifying issues of concern. However, all written comments submitted by agencies, including comments submitted by email, will be accepted and considered in decision-making. August 8, 2007 13 12.2.3. If a Participating Agency raises an issue of concern, the Lead Agencies will confer with that agency, and with other agencies as appropriate, to address those issues. 12.2.4. Meeting summaries and written agency comments (regardless of format) be considered by the Lead Agencies in decision-making and will be included in the project files. 12.3. Jurisdictional Determinations. The NCTA will prepare the necessary documentation to obtain jurisdictional determinations by the USACE (and, as appropriate, NCDENR) for all wetlands and streams within a corridor along each of the detailed study alternatives (unless otherwise determined as part of the discussion of methodologies in accordance with Section 9 of this plan). These determinations will be used as the basis for comparing wetlands and stream impacts in the DEIS. The width of the corridor within which jurisdictional determinations are made will be determined on a project-by-project basis. 12.4. Pre-Application Consultation. The NCTA will engage in pre-application consultation, as appropriate, with each agency that is responsible for making a permit decision on the project. For projects requiring a Section 401 and Section 404 permits, the pre-application consultation will include a detailed hydraulic design review. 12.5. Request for Public Notice. The NCTA will submit the Section 404 permit application to the USACE at the time the DEIS is issued. This application will typically be submitted prior to identification of a preferred alternative; therefore, it typically will not identify the specific alternative for which the permit is being requested. This submittal will enable the USACE to issue a public notice and to use the FHWA/NCTA public hearing on the DEIS as the USACE’s public hearing on the Section 404 application. [Note: This could be modified on a case-by-case basis.] 12.6. Public Hearing. The public hearing on the DEIS will also serve as the public hearing for the Section 404 permit application. [Note: This could be modified on a case-by-case basis.] 12.7. Refining the Permit Application. After selection of a preferred alternative, the NCTA will coordinate on a regular basis with the USACE, NCDENR, and other Participating Agencies as appropriate regarding all applicable permit applications for the project. This coordination may occur as part of the TEAC meetings and/or in separate meetings convened to discuss permitting issues. These meetings will include discussions of: • avoidance and minimization measures • compensatory mitigation • review of hydraulic design [the process for this review will be defined more specifically in project-specific coordination plans] • review of stormwater management plans • review of final permit drawings August 8, 2007 14 12.8. Permit Application and Decision. After the permitting meetings described above, the NCTA will submit an updated Section 404 permit application to the USACE and a Section 401 certification request to NCDENR. Permit applications under other applicable laws will also be filed. All permit applications shall be filed in accordance with the respective agency permitting requirements in place at the time of application. All respective permitting agencies shall forward the permit applications to other agencies for review as required by the respective agency regulations and/or rules. 12.9. Permit Decisions. The permitting agencies will consider and act upon the permit applications in accordance with their procedures. 12.10.Permitting Delay. If a Section 404 permit (or any other permit or approval) is not issued within 180 days after the FHWA issues a ROD and a complete permit application is submitted, the USDOT will be required by Section 6002 to submit a report to the Congress – specifically, to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in the House of Representatives. Reports must be submitted every 60 days thereafter until the issue is resolved. The same requirement applies to other permitting decisions. 12.11.Coordination After Permit Issuance. After permit issuance, NCTA will coordinate directly with permitting agencies and others as required by the terms of project permits. Such coordination may include issues such as reviewing final project plans, tracking compliance with permit conditions, and modifying permits to address changes to the project’s design, construction methodology or construction timeframe. 12.12.Permitting for Phased Construction. [This is a placeholder. If a phased approach is contemplated for a project, a section will be added here to describe that approach. It will be modeled on phasing as used in the NCDOT Merger agreement.] Exhibit 1 _____________________________________________ PROJECT INITIATION LETTER & NOTICE OF INTENT STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY MICHAEL F. EASLEY 1578MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1578 DAVID W. JOYNER GOVERNOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY TELEPHONE: 919-571-3000 FAX: 919-571-3015 January 5, 2007 John F. Sullivan, III, P.E. Division Administrator FHWA North Carolina Division 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410 Raleigh, NC 27601-1418 RE: TIP R-3329/R-2559 Monroe Connector/Bypass Notification of Project Initiation Dear Mr. Sullivan, In accordance with Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU, the North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) is notifying the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that planning, environmental, and engineering studies for the proposed Monroe Connector/Bypass project are underway. The project is included in the 2006-2012 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) in addition to the Draft 2007-2013 TIP as Projects R-3329 and R-2559. The Monroe Connector project was adopted by NCTA as a toll-candidate project in February 2005, and the Monroe Bypass was added in October 2006. They are now being developed as a single project in a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). NCTA, in cooperation with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), will prepare an EIS on the proposed improvements in the US 74 corridor between I-485 in Mecklenburg County and the vicinity of the Town of Marshville in Union County. The proposed project is approximately 21 miles in length and is located southeast of Charlotte in the vicinity of the towns of Lake Park, Stallings, and Mint Hill and the cities of Monroe, Indian Trail, and Matthews. It is anticipated that a Clean Water Act 404 Individual Permit will be required from the US Army Corps of Engineers. NCTA will coordinate throughout project development with the Corps to assure that their concerns are addressed and incorporated into the EIS. Enclosed, please find a Draft Notice of Intent to begin work on the environmental document for the combined Monroe Connector and Monroe Bypass project. If you have any questions or would like to discuss the project in more detail, please contact Jennifer Harris at (919) 571-3004. Sincerely, Steven D. DeWitt, P.E. Chief Engineer cc: Ms. Jennifer Harris, P.E., NCTA Ms. Deborah Barbour, P.E., NCDOT Ms. Anne Lenart-Redmond, E.I., HNTB 2582 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 12 / Friday, January 19, 2007 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Membership Availability in the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group Aviation Rulemaking Committee To Represent Commercial Air Tour Interests ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), as required by the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000, established the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group (NPOAG) in March 2001. The NPOAG was formed to provide continuing advice and counsel with respect to commercial air tour operations over and near national parks. This notice informs the public of one vacancy (due to completion of membership on May 19, 2007), on the NPOAG (now the NPOAG Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC)) for a member representing commercial air tour operators, and invites interested persons to apply to fill the vacancy. DATES: Persons interested in serving on the NPOAG ARC should contact Mr. Barry Brayer in writing and postmarked or e-mailed on or before March 1, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barry Brayer, Executive Resource Staff, Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region Headquarters, 15000 Aviation Blvd., Hawthorne, CA 90250, telephone: (310) 725–3800, e-mail: Barry.Brayer@faa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (the Act) was enacted on April 5, 2000, as Public Law 106–181. The Act required the establishment of the advisory group within 1 year after its enactment. The advisory group is comprised of a balanced group of representatives of general aviation, commercial air tour operations, environmental concerns, and Native American tribes. The Administrator of the FAA and the Director of NPS (or their designees) serve as ex officio members of the group. Representatives of the Administrator and Director serve alternating 1-year terms as chairman of the advisory group. The advisory group provides ‘‘advice, information, and recommendations to the Administrator and the Director— (1) On the implementation of this title [the Act] and the amendments made by this title; (2) On commonly accepted quiet aircraft technology for use in commercial air tour operations over a national park or tribal lands, which will receive preferential treatment in a given air tour management plan; (3) On other measures that might be taken to accommodate the interests of visitors to national parks; and (4) At the request of the Administrator and the Director, safety, environmental, and other issues related to commercial air tour operations over a national park or tribal lands.’’ Members of the advisory group may be allowed certain travel expenses as authorized by Section 5703 of Title 5, United States Code, for intermittent Government service. By FAA Order No. 1110–138, signed by the FAA Administrator on October 10, 2003, the NPOAG became an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC). FAA Order No. 1110–138, was amended and became effective as FAA Order No. 1110–138A, on January 20, 2006. The current NPOAG ARC is made up on one member representing general aviation, three members representing the air tour industry, four members representing environmental concerns, and two members representing Native American interests. Current members of the NPOAG ARC are: Heidi Williams, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association; Alan Stephen, fixed-winged air tour operator representative; Elling Halvorson, Papillon Airways, Inc.; Matthew Zuccaro, Helicopters Association International; Chip Dennerlein, Siskiyou Project; Greg Miller, American Hiking Society; Mark Peterson, National Audubon Society; Don Barger, National Parks Conservation Association; Rory Majenty, Hualapai Nation; and Richard Deertrack, Taos Pueblo. Public Participation in the NPOAG ARC In order to retain balance within the NPOAG ARC, the FAA and NPS invite persons interested in serving on the ARC to represent the commercial air tour industry, to contact Mr. Barry Brayer (contact information is written above in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) Requests to serve on the ARC must be made to Mr. Brayer in writing and postmarked or e-mailed on or before March 1, 2007. The request should indicate whether or not you are a member of an association representing commercial air tours or have another affiliation with issues relating to aircraft flights over national parks. The request should also state what expertise you would bring to the NPOAG ARC as related to environmental interests. The term of service NPOAG ARC members is 3 years. Issued in Hawthorne, CA on January 11, 2007. Barry Brayer, Manager, Executive Resource Staff, Western- Pacific Region. [FR Doc. 07–186 Filed 1–18–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Environmental Impact Statement: Mecklenburg and Union Counties, NC AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of Intent. SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared for a proposed project in Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. George Hoops, Major Projects Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601–1418, Telephone: (919) 856–4350 extension 104. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 771, Environmental Impact and Related Procedures, the FHWA, in cooperation with the North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) addressing proposed improvements in the US 74 corridor from I–485 in Mecklenburg County to the vicinity of the Town of Marshville, which is east of the City of Monroe (the County seat) in Union County. The proposed project study extends from I– 485 in the west to the vicinity of the Town of Marshville in the east and extends north and south of US 74. The proposed action is included in the long range transportation plan approved by the Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO). This study is a combination of two projects previously analyzed by NCDOT, the Monroe Bypass (NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program [TIP] Project R–2559) and the Monroe Connector (NCDOT TIP Project R–3329). The Monroe Bypass study addressed in the US 74 corridor from just west of the City of Monroe to just west of the Town of Marshville. An Environmental Assessment for this project was approved in March 1996, and a Finding VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:10 Jan 18, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM 19JAN1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 12 / Friday, January 19, 2007 /Notices 2583 1 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users H.R. REP. NO. 109–203, at 936–37 (2005), reprinted in 2005 U.S.C.C.A.N. 452. 2 Section 5309(c)(4)(A), which permits the Secretary to approve an application to the Pilot Program if ‘‘State and local laws permit public-private agreements for all phases of project development, construction and operation of the project’’ (emphasis added) indicates that the Pilot Program is intended to demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of PPPs for all aspects certain new fixed guideway capital projects, including their operation and maintenance. of No Significant Impact was issued in June 1997. The Monroe Connector study previously addressed improvements in the US 74 corridor from I–485 to US 601 in the City of Monroe, where it ended at the proposed Monroe Bypass. A Draft EIS for this project was approved in November 2003; however, a public hearing was never held. In February 2005, the NCTA adopted the Monroe Connector as a toll candidate facility, and in January 2006, the Notice of Intent for the Monroe Connector EIS was rescinded (Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 19, page 4958). Subsequently, NCTA adopted the Monroe Bypass project as a toll candidate facility in October 2006. The Monroe Connector and Monroe Bypass projects have been combined into a single project and will be evaluated in a single EIS. The EIS for the proposed action will consider alternatives for improvements in the US 74 corridor from I–485 to US 74 in the vicinity of the Town of Marshville. Alternatives, including a ‘‘No-Build’’ Alternative (continuation of the existing condition), improving the existing US 74 corridor, and constructing a new location facility, will be considered. Several alternative corridors for a new location facility will be studied. As part of the EIS, NCTA will study the feasibility and impacts of developing the proposed project, in whole or in part, as a toll road. Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will be sent to appropriate Federal, State and local agencies. Scoping will occur over a series of meetings with the agencies and citizens informational workshops with the public. Information on the dates, times, and locations of the citizens informational workshops will be advertised in the local news media and newsletters will be mailed to those on the project mailing list. If you wish to be placed on the mailing list, contact Jennifer Harris at the address listed below. The Draft EIS will be available for public and agency review and comment prior to the public hearing. To ensure the full range of issues related to the proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments and questions concerning the proposed action should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided above or directed to: Ms. Jennifer Harris, Staff Engineer, North Carolina Turnpike Authority, 5400 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 400, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27612. Telephone: (919) 571–3004. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Research, Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation of Federal programs and activities apply to this program.) George Hoops, Major Projects Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina. [FR Doc. 07–196 Filed 1–18–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–22–M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration [Docket No: FTA–2006–23697] Public-Private Partnership Pilot Program AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of establishment of Public-Private Partnership Pilot Program; solicitation of applications. SUMMARY: Section 3011(c) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (‘‘SAFETEA–LU’’) authorizes the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to establish and implement a pilot program to demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of public-private partnerships for certain new fixed guideway capital projects (the ‘‘Pilot Program’’). This notice establishes and sets forth the definitive terms of the Pilot Program. By separate notice to be published in the Federal Register not later than March 31, 2007, FTA will summarize and respond to comments solicited by FTA by notice published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2006, at 71 FR 14568. This notice is not a ‘‘binding obligation’’ as defined at 49 U.S.C. 5334(l)(2). This notice is organized into three sections: (1) ‘‘Background;’’ (2) ‘‘Overview of Pilot Program;’’ and (3) ‘‘Definitive Terms.’’ DATES: To be considered in FTA’s first quarterly review of applications to the Pilot Program, applications must be received by FTA on or before March 31, 2007. Applications received by FTA between March 31, 2007, and July 1, 2007, will be reviewed in FTA’s second quarterly review of applications to the Pilot Program. See ‘‘Applications’’ at section 3(f) of this notice. ADDRESSES: Applications should be submitted by U.S. Post or express mail to the Federal Transit Administration, c/o the Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, Room 9328, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Please note that due to security procedures in effect since October 2001 regarding mail deliveries, mail received through the U.S. Postal Service may be subject to delays. Parties making applications to the Pilot Program should consider using an express mail service to ensure the prompt filing of any applications not filed by express mail. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning the Pilot Program should be addressed to David B. Horner, Esq., Chief Counsel, Federal Transit Administration, by e-mail at David.Horner@dot.gov or by telephone at (202) 689–4464. To read materials on the DOT docket responsive to FTA’s notice published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2006, at 71 FR 14568, please go to http://dms. |
OCLC number | 715248084 |