The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20131282_Meeting Minutes_20100121 Concurrence Point 4A NEPA/404 Merger Team Meeting TIP Project No. R-3620 WBS No. 34548 Federal Aid Project No. STP-OOOS(252) Proposed NC 32 Connector from US 64 to the Intersection of NC 32 and NC 94 Washington County January 21, 2010 Transportation Building Board Room Purpose of Meeting: The purpose of this meeting is to reach concurrence on the avoidance and minimization measures taken during the planning and design of this project. Agenda for Meeting: • Project Description and Status • Discussion of Avoidance & Minimization measures • Comments and Questions Project Planning Engineer: Kristine A. O'Connor, P.E. (919) 733-7844 extension 311 kaoconnor@ncdot.gov 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The NCDOT, in consultation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), proposes to construct a connector from the US 64/SR 1139 (Beasley Road) interchange to the intersection of NC 32 and NC 94 in Washington County (see Figure 1). Alternative 1, a partially new location, partially existing location alternative was chosen as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) at the Concurrence Point 3 Merger meeting on October 15, 2009. I. This project is included in the approved 2009-2015 ' State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The total cost in the STIP is $16,589,000, which includes $300,000 for right of way, $189,000 for mitigation and $16,100,000 for construction. The current estimated total cost for Alternative 1 is $19,367,000. Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2012 and construction in FFY 2014. The proposed typical section for both alternatives has two 12-foot lanes with 8-foot shoulders (4-foot paved). The existing location sections of this project will be built adjacent to the current roadway facility due to the differential in elevations, soil conditions and the need to safely maintain two-lane, two-way traffic during construction. CONCURRENCE POINT 1 PURPOSE AND NEED The Purpose and Need Statement, as approved by the NEPA/404 Merger Team on July 23, 2003, is to improve connectivity in the study area. CONCURRENCE POINT 2 DETAILED STUDY - ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD There were originally six (6) build alternatives considered for this project. Alternatives 1 through 6 included a combination of new location alternatives and improvements to existing roadways. Alternatives 3 and 4 were dropped from consideration at the Concurrence Point 2 meeting on March 16, 2006. CONCURRENCE POINT 2A ELIMINATION OF ALTERNATIVES & BRIDGING DECISIONS Concurrence Point 2A was signed on November 13, 2008. The Merger team agreed that no bridges were recommended for this project and concurred with NCDOT's recommendations for culverts and pipes (see Table 1). Alternatives 5 and 6 were dropped from consideration at the Concurrence Point 2A meeting on November 13, 2008. The remaining alternatives included Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. 2 I CONCURRENCE POINT 3 LEAST ENVIRONMENTALLY DAMAGING PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE Concurrence Point 3 was signed on October 15, 2009. The Merger team concurred on Alternative 1 as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA). Avoidance and Minimization Avoidance • Complete avoidance of the streams and wetlands is not possible due to the presence of these resources throughout the project study corridor. Each alternative had some wetland and stream impacts. • Alternative 1 will not displace any residences. • Alternative 1 avoids adverse impacts to properties on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (Rehoboth Methodist Church and the farm on NC 32). Minimization Efforts For the preferred Alternative 1, several members of the Merger team expressed concerns regarding the proposed grade of the new facility, which would be four (4) to six (6) feet higher than the existing ground. The additional fill associated with the grade change has led to an increase in wetland impacts for this project over an alignment with a lower grade. This proposed grade change of four (4) to six (6) feet above the existing ground elevation was deemed necessary by NCDOT's Geotechnical Unit due to the poor condition of the in situ soils that, in concert with the high groundwater table, could lead to subsidence issues and subgrade instability. As requested by the Merger team, NCDOT looked at a redesign of the recommended alignment using a combination of undercutting and fill in order to reduce wetland impacts. In the wetland areas, ditches would be required to drain the subgrade, thereby making undercutting an unacceptable option. Undercutting could be performed in non-wetland areas along the proposed facility, but due to the need for adequate cover over the crossline pipes, the grade had to be raised further, negating the value of undercutting. Geotechnical recommendations to this point have been based on preliminary borings and their prior experience with soils in the coastal plain. Currently, NCDOT does not have adequately detailed survey information to determine the dimensions of undercutting that would be required. Additional investigation into the use of undercut can be performed once additional surveys are completed. At this time, given 3 the current review of the design and known conditions, NCDOT has concluded that the original plan of raising the grade is the most feasible option to carry forward at this time. In an effort to minimize the impacts to wetlands associated with the construction of the LEDPA, NCDOT has implemented the following measures. All preliminary recommendations for minimization are based on the available surveys for this area: • Alternative 1 has been shifted so that the fewest number of wetlands and streams would be affected along this alignment. • Alternative 6 was developed to the west of Alternative 1 in the hopes of minimizing the number of wetlands impacted. However, Alternative 6 actually had a greater number of impacted wetlands, so it was removed from consideration at the Concurrence Point 2A meeting in October 2008. ,/ • NCDOT will employ 3:1 fill slopes in all wetland areas. • Eight (8) foot shoulders (the minimum allowed by AASHTO) will be designed for this facility. If guardrail becomes necessary, the shoulders will be widened to 11 feet. / • At this time, no ditches will be utilized in wetland areas throughout the project. • Once final geotechnical surveys are completed, the issue of undercutting can be readdressed prior to the CP 4B meeting. The project will have limited control of access on the new location portion and partial control of access on the existing location portion. Limited control of access will only allow connections to the facility at interchanges or at-grade intersections and no private driveway connections will be allowed. • NCDOT will examine the use of grass swales with non-erosive velocities at the wetlands, pre-formed scour holes, energy dissipators and pipe equalizers. Stormwater basins, though probably not necessary for this project, will be designed at a later date if required. ?nav P';,.-ter, q•n?l; ?,s NCDOT Recommendations Based on the detailed information provided above, NCDOT feels that all necessary avoidance and minimization of wetlands and streams for this project has been achieved and recommends proceeding further with the design of the preferred alternative for this project. C 4 r ?Y N 94 j -? - WDOE 94 r -, - - - i 32 - - - _ _ .••l•. , .. •r •. • - - - .i•' - ?JSlI1ifll?11611RNQ? '• - _ - ED. jc - 94 t JJ CAW - -c- Qn W10005T10N y _ - DOT UN 117 a.. JIM. \ <. j 64 - I i U } 64 64 r _- ?• Legend - :?•- _ - . _ :r ALT 1 ; •:?...-.- -?-. --- - - - 0 0.5 1 Bridges ^ti-- Creeks. Streams, Rivers • % _ ?' Miles VICINITY MAP County WASHINGTON NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NC 32 CONNECTOR FROM US 64 TO THE INTERSECTION Div Tipp R-3620 Figure DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS `Y PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND OF NC 32 AND NC 94 WBS 345481 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH BY. J.TORTORELLA WASHINGTON COUNTY TIP PROJECT R-3620 Date-NOVEMBER 2009 O ? s° ti O w N T - O . 71 V 4, ?'r > y A-CIS _ ?'?,' ?, '???,a •? ? ? `-sue ? , b•?i ,.. g i O 2a ?.a :? r:'yCl3 3?1 S. Y » i .L C) t; ?? $j - ' . rY c•? r ?.L? ? -? ?{?'-'??"-?d,a ; '„ y.`'t' `a ra '4-ti Yid 7JJ y',.