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.