Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20090372 Ver 1_Meeting Minutes_20080821a.a SwF u? =y STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MICHAEL F. EASLEY GOVERNOR MEMORANDUM TO: FILE LYNDO TIPPETT .SECRETARY August 21, 2008 FROM: Jay McInnis, PE( Project Engineer Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch SUBJECT: NEPA/404 Merger Meeting Minutes for NC 210 (Murchison Road), From the Proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop to NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) in Spring Lake, Cumberland County, TIP Project U-4444 A merger team meeting was held on April 22, 2008. The following persons were in attendance: Richard Spencer Glen Prillaman Chris Militscher Gary Jordan Donnie Brew Loretta W. Barren Rob Ridings Travis Wilson Renee Gledhill-Earley Rick Heicksen Steve Browde Brian Eason Brian Byfield Tracey Pittman Jim Rerko W. M. Petit John Nigro Jesse W. Gilstrap Darius Sturdivant Dewayne Sykes Scott Blevins Doug Taylor Tony Houser MAILING ADDRESS: NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 US Army Corps of Engineers Fort Bragg US Environmental Protection Agency US Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Highway Administration Federal Highway Administration NC Division of Water Quality NC Wildlife Resources Commission NC State Historic Preservation Office Fayetteville MPO H. W. Lochner H. W. Lochner H. W. Lochner NCDOT Division 6 NCDOT Division 6 NCDOT Program Development Branch NCDOT Project Services NCDOT Work Zone Traffic Control Unit NCDOT Transportation Planning Unit NCDOT Roadway Design Unit NCDOT Roadway Design Unit NCDOT Roadway Design Unit NCDOT Roadway Design Unit TELEPF FA WEBSITE: M U-4444 April 22, 2008 Merger Team Meeting Page 2 of 9 Davidian Byrd NCDOT Roadway Design Unit Andrew Young NCDOT Roadway Design Unit Marshall Clawson NCDOT Hydraulics Unit Tim Gardiner NCDOT Community Studies Jamille Robbins NCDOT Human Environment Unit Chris Rivenbark NCDOT Natural Environmental Unit Chris Underwood NCDOT Natural Environmental Unit Erica McLamb NCDOT Natural Environmental Unit. Rob Hanson NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch Jay McInnis NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the purpose of and need for the proposed project and alternatives to be studied in detail. Jay McInnis provided background on the project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project involves widening existing NC 210 (Murchison Road) between the proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop (TIP Project X-2) and NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) in Spring Lake to six lanes and upgrading the roadway to a freeway. In addition to the widening, the existing Honeycutt Road intersection will be converted to an interchange and Randolph Street extended to NC 210 and an interchange constructed. Work will also be required along existing NC 24-87-210 (Bragg Boulevard) in Spring Lake between the NC 210 (Murchison Road) intersection and the NC 210 (Lillington Highway) intersection in order to transition from the proposed freeway. PROJECT BACKGROUND Following September 11, 2001, access onto Fort Bragg was permanently restricted. In November 2002, the Army requested that Bragg Boulevard from north of the proposed outer loop to Butner Road be closed to public traffic. Traffic now using Bragg Boulevard on Fort Bragg will be rerouted to the proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop and Murchison Road. The initial scope of this project was to widen existing Murchison Road to six lanes with a 46-foot median and extend Randolph Street to Murchison Road at a signalized intersection. The Honeycutt Road intersection would remain signalized and a partial interchange would be constructed at Butner Road. Initial traffic projections indicated these improvements would operate satisfactorily. It was not believed the impacts of the originally proposed improvements would require an individual permit, so the project would not have to go through the merger process. U-4444 April 22, 2008 Merger Team Meeting Page 3 of 9 In 2006, updated traffic projections were obtained. Since the first traffic projections had been prepared, the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) had issued their recommendations, which included an additional 20,000 personnel at Fort Bragg. The 2006 traffic projections took the BRAC recommendations in to account. Based on the new traffic projections, by the year 2030, signalized intersections would not accommodate projected traffic volumes. The intersections would all operate at level of service F. Therefore, Murchison Road would have to be upgraded to a freeway. The intent even after the decision to upgrade Murchison Road to a freeway was to limit impacts and avoid having to go into the merger process. However, design concepts were needed to determine impacts. The Corps of Engineers and the Division of Water Quality both asked to see impacts before deciding on whether or not to put the project in the merger process. After obtaining impacts, it was apparent the project needed to go into the merger process. Mr. McInnis explained that the Department of Defense is funding a portion of this project. The Department of Defense funds are available in fiscal year 2009. NCDOT is working to let the project in fiscal year 2009, in order to use these funds. . PURPOSE AND NEED DISCUSSION Mr. McInnis explained the initial assumption with the.project has been that Bragg Boulevard 'on Fort Bragg would be closed to civilian traffic. If Bragg Boulevard had been closed to civilian traffic in 2005, between 37,200 to 41,000 vehicles per day would have used Murchison Road between Gruber Road and Bragg Boulevard in Spring Lake. If Bragg Boulevard had been closed in 2005, Murchison Road between Honeycutt Road and Butner Road would have operated at level of service C. In the year 2030, with Bragg Boulevard closed, approximately 63,400 to 68,800 vehicles per day are expected to use Murchison Road between the proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop and Bragg Boulevard in Spring Lake. Without improvements, NC 210 (Murchison Road) between the proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop and NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) will operate at level of service F in the year 2030 with the closure of Bragg Boulevard on Fort Bragg. Mr. McInnis stated the draft purpose of the project is, "The purpose of the proposed project is to increase the traffic carrying capacity of NC 210 (Murchison Road) between the proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop (TIP Project X-2) and NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) so that this roadway can also accommodate traffic now using NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) through Fort Bragg, which is to be closed on Fort Bragg for security reasons." U-4444 April 22, 2008 Merger Team Meeting Page 4 of 9 Chris Militscher with EPA asked if a NEPA document had been prepared for the closure of Fort Bragg. Glen Prillaman with Fort Bragg explained that NEPA documentation was prepared for individual access control points as they were built, but the closure of the base occurred immediately following September I Ith Mr. Militscher asked if NC 210 also goes through Fort Bragg. Glen Prillaman explained that Murchison Road is on Fort Bragg, but that it bypasses the base's urban area. A security study was done in January 2002. This study determined that Bragg Boulevard made Fort Bragg vulnerable because it is too close to housing and other sensitive areas. Murchison Road, on the other hand, is not close to any sensitive areas. Mr. Militscher asked the information regarding the need to close Bragg Boulevard and the explanation as to why Murchison Road is acceptable from a security standpoint be included in the environmental assessment. The merger team discussed the project funding and whether or not the Department of Defense should be a cooperating agency for the environmental document. Mr. Prillaman explained that under the Defense Access Roads Program, each individual state is responsible for preparing environmental documentation for projects funded by-the program. Mr. Prillaman further explained that Fort Bragg will prepare a record of environmental consideration based on NCDOT's environmental assessment. The merger team concurred with the purpose statement as written in the. handout. A copy of the concurrence form is attached to this memorandum. PREMLIMINARY PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Mr. McInnis explained that Travel Demand Management, Transportation Systems Management and/or alternative modes of transportation were not alternatives that were looked at in detail. Due to cost and environmental considerations, an entirely new location alternative was not considered, either. The No-Build alternative would not serve the purpose and need of the project. . Mr. McInnis reiterated that widening Murchison Road with signalized intersections would not accommodate projected traffic with Bragg Boulevard closed. Road. Mr. McInnis listed the different interchange concepts examined for Murchison Interchange with Honeycutt Road Honeycutt Road over Murchison Road Murchison Road over Honeycutt Road Interchange with Randolph Street Murchison Road over Randolph Street with at-grade railroad crossings Randolph Street over Murchison Road and over Fort Bragg Railroad Murchison Road over Randolph Street with collector distributor Randolph Street over Murchison Road with collector distributor U-4444 April 22, 2008 Merger Team Meeting Page 5 of 9 Randolph Street over Murchison Road with collector distributor shifted to avoid railroad - Randolph Street over Murchison Road and at-grade crossing with railroad Interchange with Butner Road Single-point urban interchange Tight diamond interchange Flyover from Butner to northbound Bragg Boulevard At-grade mainline for northbound, flyover for mainline southbound. No-Left Turn from Butner Road No Butner Road access from Murchison Road (tie Butner Road into existing Bragg Boulevard south of Murchison Road) Conceptual designs and traffic capacity analyses were prepared for all of these options. Meetings were held with Fort Bragg and the MPO to discuss the different concepts. DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES Two alternative preliminary designs were prepared for.the project. Aerial photographs showing these two alternatives were displayed at the meeting. Both alternatives involve widening Murchison Road to six lanes with 'a 22-foot median. Alternative 1 would provide interchanges at Honeycutt Road, Randolph Street and Butner Road. Alternative 2 would provide interchanges at.Hoheycutt Road and Randolph Street. This alternative would remove all access to. Butner Road from Murchison Road. Alternative 1 would relocate nine homes and 26 businesses and would impact 6.8 acres of wetlands. Alternative 2 would relocate four homes and three businesses and would impact 9.17 acres of wetlands. DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES DISCUSSION Mr. Militscher noted that Randolph Street runs right into a wetland, as currently designed for Alternative 2. He asked if the alignment of Randolph Street could be adjusted. Mr. McInnis and Brian Eason of Lochner explained there are a number of constraints in the area which have affected the alignment of Randolph Street. There are two cemeteries, a railroad, red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat and wetlands in this area.. The cemeteries and the railroad have constrained the design. Following this discussion, Richard Spencer of the Corps of Engineers suggested not providing an interchange at Randolph Street, but allowing Randolph Street traffic to use Butner Road and the portion of Bragg Boulevard between Butner Road and Randolph Street to access the Randolph Street access control point. Mr. McInnis explained that an interchange would be required at Butner Road to accommodate the traffic. This interchange would relocate approximately 26 businesses in Spring Lake. He further explained that the left turn for Randolph Street bound traffic onto Bragg Boulevard may result in operational problems. U-4444 April 22, 2008 Merger Team Meeting Page 6 of 9 Mr. McInnis explained that Alternative 2 would utilize existing Bragg Boulevard between Butner Road and Randolph Street, as Mr. Spencer suggested, but would have an interchange at Randolph Street and no access to Murchison Road from Butner Road. Mr. Prillaman informed the group that Alternative 2 is the one Fort Bragg prefers, because it would allow Fort Bragg to move the access control point on Butner Road and provides adequate queuing for vehicles going through the control point. Mr. Prillaman stated that at peak hours there are already queuing problems at the Butner Road control point. Mr. Prillaman also pointed out that Randolph Street is important because the new FORCECOM headquarters is going to be nearby. Mr. Prillaman also discussed that Fort Bragg is concerned about the impacts a Butner Road interchange would have on the businesses in Spring Lake. Mr. Militscher expressed concerns over the affect of the proposed Randolph Street interchange on the wetland located in the northeast quadrant. Mr. Militscher asked if the curve radius for the ramps in that quadrant could be made smaller, or if a single-point interchange could be used. Mr. McInnis stated the loop ramp in the quadrant is as small as it can be. He pointed out the loop has two-lanes. Mr. Eason stated a single-point diamond interchange would not work due to the amount of traffic. Renee Gledhill-Earley of the State Historic Preservation Office asked which way the traffic is coming from. Mr. Eason explained the heaviest volumes are coming out of Butner Road and heading north into Spring Lake. Mr. Spencer asked why Fort Bragg prefers Alternative 2. Mr. Prillaman explained one reason is that leaving Bragg Boulevard open provides a great deal of room to queue traffic at the Butner Road access control point. Mr. Prillaman also discussed that Fort Bragg has committed to minimizing impacts to Spring Lake. Rick Heicksen of the Fayetteville MPO discussed the importance of the businesses along Bragg Boulevard to the Spring Lake tax base. He also described how access would be provided to the businesses with Alternative 2. Mr. Militscher reiterated his concerns regarding the wetland impacts of Alternative 2. He stated he understands why Alternative 2 is more preferable from a human resources standpoint, but he's concerned the ramps are in the wetlands. Gary Jordan of the US Fish and Wildlife Service pointed out that Alternative 2 does avoid impacts to a red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) foraging partition. He discussed that the RCWs on Fort Bragg are a part of the Sandhills recovery unit. Mr. McInnis discussed that the high volumes of traffic are dictating the configuration of the interchange at Randolph. A diamond could be used at Randolph Street with an interchange at Butner Road, but if an interchange is not provided at Butner Road, the Randolph Street interchange has to be free flowing. RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER FORAGING IMPACTS U-4444 April 22, 2008 Merger Team Meeting Page 7 of 9 Mr. Jordan mentioned the current draft biological assessment is showing RCW habitat removal that may result in a take for one foraging partition. He asked if a retaining wall could be used at that location. This location is at Gruber Road, which is closed. The project is following the current alignment of Murchison Road at this location and the new lanes are being added to the median. The impact 'is due to the grade point for the roadway changing because of the widening. Mr. Jordan discussed that the partition is already below the standard for managed stability, which means even if one tree was taken it would be an adverse effect and would require formal consultation. He said he would also like to minimize impacts to other partitions. Mr. Jordan explained that a separation of more than 200 feet from habitat to habitat would mean the separated habitat can't be included in the foraging partition. He also mentioned he is concerned about the proximity of the project to cavity trees. Fort Bragg is also concerned about affecting that partition, as well, because it is a narrow point of their greenbelt. Lochner will examine the design..for the project in order to reduce impacts to the foraging partitions. PRELIMINARY INTERCHANGE CONCEPTS Mr. Militscher asked how NCDOT would demonstrate avoidance and minimization at Randolph Street. After some discussion of possible changes to the Randolph Street interchange design to reduce wetland impacts, NCDOT staff agreed to look at the Randolph Street interchange in order to reduce impacts. Mr., Spencer stated he realized NCDOT had looked at a lot of alternatives for the project, but he stated he needs to see what had been looked at and to hear the rationale for eliminating the alternatives. Mr. Eason described the concepts which were looked at earlier in the process. After this presentation, Mr. Militscher asked that information regarding the concepts and why they were eliminated be presented in the environmental assessment. Mr. Spencer stated he would need that information in order to issue a permit. Mr. McInnis explained to the group that Alternatives 1 and 2 are the two best from a traffic standpoint. U-4444 April 22, 2008 Merger Team Meeting Page 8 of 9 CONCURRENCE POINT 2 DISCUSSION Rob Hanson of Project Development asked if the group had discussed bringing the project into the merger process at concurrence point 4A, instead of going through the entire process. Mr. Spencer stated he did not believe the merger team was through discussing alternatives at the interchanges. Mr. Jordan stated that, prior to the meeting, he did not believe all alternatives had been exhausted. Now, he is comfortable there aren't any other options that can't be dealt with at concurrence point 4A, from the standpoint of RCW impacts. After some further discussion, all the merger team members but the Corps of Engineers concurred with carrying Alternatives 1 and 2 forward for detailed study. Mr. Spencer stated NCDOT could move forward, but he stated he could not concur on any alternative at this point. NCDOT agreed to include information regarding the interchange concepts eliminated from further study in the environmental assessment. MERGER MANAGEMENT TEAM'MEETING Following the meeting, additional information regarding the interchange concepts was provided to Mr. Spencer. In a letter dated June 25, •2008, Mr. Spencer asked that NCDOT examine two alternatives which would eliminate the Randolph Street interchange. One of these alternatives would involve providing access at Butner Road but not Randolph Street. The second alternative would involve providing access at Honeycutt Road but not Randolph Street or Butner Road. At a Merger Management Team meeting held on July 30, 2008, the two alternatives were discussed. Mr. McInnis explained that providing access at Butner Road, but not providing access at Randolph Street would reduce wetland impacts of the project, but would increase. impacts to businesses in Spring Lake and the Sandhills State Veterans Cemetery. Not providing access at Randolph Street will increase traffic at Butner Road, likely requiring a free flow interchange, which would have a larger footprint and higher impacts to businesses and the cemetery. Due to these increased impacts and traffic operation concerns, NCDOT does not believe this alternative should be carried forward. Providing access at Honeycutt Road, but not Randolph Street or Butner Road would involve major changes to the design of the Honeycutt Road interchange. The loop in the southeastern quadrant of the interchange may not be able to accommodate the increased traffic, requiring a ramp in the northeastern quadrant, increasing wetland impacts. In addition, the interchange would probably have to be constructed as a free flow interchange, which would increase its footprint and impacts to wetlands and red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat. With this concept, traffic would access Randolph Street or Butner Road via the portion of Bragg Boulevard between Honeycutt Road and Butner Road. In order to U-4444 April 22, 2008 Merger Team Meeting Page 9 of 9 maintain security, all traffic on Honeycutt Road would have to go through an access control point. The existing access control point on Honeycutt Road would not be able to handle the increased traffic, queues from the control point would likely negatively affect the Honeycutt Road interchange and possibly Murchison Road itself. Relocating the access control point further away from Murchison Road would be difficult and eliminating the Honeycutt Road access control point and checking vehicles at Randolph Street and Butner Road would leave most of Bragg Boulevard open to the public. As stated previously, the Army intends to close Bragg Boulevard to civilian traffic for security reasons. The portion of Bragg Boulevard between Honeycutt Road and Randolph Street passes by sensitive areas of the base. Fort Bragg officials do not support this concept. For these reasons, NCDOT recommended this concept be dropped from further consideration. Mr: Scott McLendon of the Corps of Engineers agreed with dropping these concepts from further consideration following this discussion. He concurred with carrying Alternatives 1 and 2 forward for detailed study. His concurrence was contingent on NCDOT providing information in the environmental assessment regarding the two concepts suggested by Mr. Spencer. A copy of the concurrence form is attached to this memorandum. The requested information has been,included in the environmental assessment. JAM Attachments cc: Merger Team Members Section 404/NEPA Interagency Agreement Concurrence Point 1- Purpose and Need/Study Area Project Title: NC 210 (Murchison Road), from the Proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop to NC 24- 87 (Bragg Boulevard) in Spring Lake, Cumberland County, TIP Project U-4444, Federal-Aid Project STP-210(11), WBS Element 36492.1.2 Project Description: The proposed project involves upgrading existing NC 210 (Murchison Road) between the proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop and NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) in Spring Lake. Purpose of Project: The purpose of the proposed project is to increase the traffic carrying capacity of NC 210 (Murchison Road) between the proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop (TIP Project X-2) and NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) so that this roadway can also accommodate traffic now using NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) through Fort Bragg, which is to be closed on Fort Bragg for security reasons. Study Area: The study area for the project is as shown on the attached map.. The project team has unconditionally concurred on.this date of April 22, 2008 with the purpose and need and study area for the project. u e ?aF AGENCY l :2460 E)?Z?j9 Ncc?r? UsFws D (N Q N'GUT Section 404/NEPA Interagency Agreement Concurrence Point 2 - Alternatives for Detailed Study Project Title: NC 210 (Murchison Road), from the Proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop to NC 24- 87 (Bragg Boulevard) in Spring Lake, Cumberland County, TIP Project U-4444, Federal-Aid Project STP-210(11), WBS Element 36492.1.2 Project Description: The proposed project involves upgrading existing NC 210 (Murchison Road) between the proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop and NC 24-87 (Bragg Boulevard) in Spring Lake. Alternatives to be carried forward: The environmental document will evaluate the proposed alternatives listed below. Alternative 1- Freeway.with interchanges at Honeycutt, Randolph and Butner Alternative 2 - Freeway with interchanges at Honeycutt and Randolph, no direct access to Murchison Road from Butner Road. The project team has unconditionally concurred,on this date of April 22, 2008 with the alternatives to be studied in detail for the project. p?N,,AM?E a?X?? 7?ltOl `?d/f. p'1.G1?? I AGENCY s fws ??c?aY UA r g U 40nW41- J RK&65 HIV , ?' ?9 r