20131282_Meeting Minutes_20111103

� — --�-----�-- r �—_,— --.—,——
�
�
�
� a STATE
� � �a� �, �
' � �
� @�� 1 F d
� ' STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA� �
' DEPART7VIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
� BEVERLYtEAVES PERDUE i , EUGENE A CONTI 7R
� GOVERNOR SECRETARY
November 3 2011 �
MEMORANDUM TO File �
FROM Knshne�A O Connor P E �� ` � �
4 � c .,,
Pro�ect Plamm�g Engmeer
„ Pro�ect Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1 >t � , '
SUBJECT Minutes, of Concurrence Pomt 4B Meeting, Proposed
, 7 � NC 32 Connector from US 64 to the Intersection of NC 32
and NC 94, Washington County, WBS No 34548 1 1
, Federal Aid No STP OOOS(252),TIP Pro�ect No R 3620
< <
A Concurrence Meeting was held on October 20, 2011 at 10 45 a m in the
Structure Design Conference{ Room located at Ythe Century Center Building A m
Raleigh In attendance were
Ron Lucas � Federal Highway Admimstration
,Bill,Biddlecome U S Army Corps of Engmeers
Gary Jordan ,U S Fish&Wildhfe Service
Cathy Bnthngham N C Division of Coastal Management
David Wainwnght N C Division of Water Qualrty
Travis Wilson N C� Wildl�fe Resources Commission �
Chandrakant Sura NCDOT Congestion Management
� Bob Capehart NCDO�T Division 1 �
�Kristinef O'Connor ,NCDOT PDEA � ,
Plul Hams T NCD�OT PDEA Natural Environment Unrt
Chns Manley NCD,OT PDEA Natural Environment Unrt
Mark Laugisch NCDOT Roadside Environmental Umt
Mark Staley NCDOT Roadside Environmental Umt
_ � � t ,
Gary Lovenng NCDOT Roadway Design
Steve Cummmgs NCDOT Utilities
�
�
MAILING ADDRESS TELEPHONE [phone] LOCATION
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX [phone] CENTURY CENTER BUILOING A
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1000 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE WWW NCDOT ORG/DOH/PRECONSTRUCT/PE/ RALEIGH NC Z7B10
Rn�eiGH NC 27699 1548

r
Meehne Purpose
This was the seventh meetmg in the NEPA/404 Merger Process for R 3620 The
� purposc of the meetmg was to review the 30°/a hydraulic plans as part of Concurrence
J Point 4B The initial CP 4B meetmg was held on July 20 2011, but since the agencies
had concerns regardmg the proposed use of 4 1 sidc slopes in wetlands a second CP 4B
meetmg was held
Discussion
• Bill Biddlecome opened the meeting with an introduct�on of attcndees
Knstine O Connor bnefly reviewed the pro�ect history since the last CP 4B
meeting includmg the proposal by NCDOT to use 4 1 side slopes m some
wetland areas, as opposed to the 3 1 side slopes that had ongmally been
proposed and concurred upon as an avoidance and mimmization measurc as part
of CP 4A At the time that the CP 4A concurrenc.e form was s�gned, however
the final fill height of the new facility had not yet been determined and NCDOT
did not know what the updated wetland and stream tmpacts would be at that
point At the previous CP 4B meetmg on 7/20/11 NCDOT s Roadway Design
& Hydraulics Units had proposed the use of 4 1 side slopes between Stations
12+00 and 44+80 L and Stations 90+00 and 119+00 in order to avoid the use
of guardrail
• Knstine noted that the last quantified wetland impacts were calculated at the CP
� 3 — LEDPA meetmg At that time Alternahve 1 was determined to have 19 3
acres of wetland impacts which mcludes a 25 foot offset of the slopes stakes
Currently, the wetland impacts for Alternative 1 with 3 1 side slopes and
guardrail are shown as 11 3 acres while the use of 4 1 side slopes without
guardrail would result tn wetland impacts of 11 9 acres Both of these updated
numbers were calculated using a l0 foot slope stake offset
• Gary Lovenng went through the matenals from AASHTO s 2004 A Policy on
the Geometnc Design of Highways (the Green Book) and the 2002 AASHTO
Roadside Dcsign Guide that he had provided to thc Merger team pnor to the
meeting regarding the safety issues related to the use of guardrail, particularly
on two lane facilities He also noted that though NCDOT would not be using
3 1 side slopes in all wetland areas mimmization was still done on this pro�ect
by ad�ustmg the profile of the roadway to minimize the fill he�ghts with respect
to the groundwater Fill heights were held to 4 feet above the ex�stmg grade
• Steve Cummings expressed concern about the relocation of utility poles that
were designed to be placed directly behmd the guardra�l Gary confirmed that
these poles would have to be placed�ust outside the edge of the 30 foot Clear
Recovery Zone Gary noted that he didn t think there were any existing power
poles that would be ad�acent to the proposed road but that there may be an
existmg crossing which should not be affected by the proposed change to 4 1
s�de slopes
J

■
� �
• Both Travis Wilson and Bill Biddlecome stated that they found the use of 4 1
side slopes acceptable and suggested that NCDOT should revise the CP 4A
concurrence form after removing the commrtment to use 3 1 side slopes m all
wetland areas Bill cautioned NCDOT to avoid a blanket commitment to use
3 1 side slopes m all wetland areas m the future this will hopefully prevent
revisions to the onginal CP 4A commitments agreed upon by the Merger team
Concurrence
• The team agreed to remove the commitment regarding the use of 3 1 side slopes
m all wetland areas from avoidance/minimization measures on the CP 4A form
and resigned rt
Conclusion
�
• Concurrence among attending team members was achieved Achons to be
completed by NCDOT before the CP 4C meetmg include
➢ Obtain concurrence on the revised CP 4A form from all Merger team
members who did not attend
• If any recipient of the meeting minutes would like to add comments or feels that
a comment is erroneous or needs to be expanded please feel free to contact
Knshne O Connor by phone at (919) 707 6034 or by email at
kaoconnor c�i,ncdot gov
�
r
1
�
I
r
�
�
i
�

Wainwright, David
From: O'Connor Kristine A
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 12:00 PM
To: [e-mail]; Wainwright, David; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Brittingham, Cathy; Wilson, Travis W.; [e-mail]; Gledhill-
earley, Renee; Lane, Stephen
Cc: Cail, William G; Lovering, Gary R; Cox, Charles R; Rivenbark, Chris; Lusk, Elizabeth L;
Manley, Chris; Capehart, Bob; DeCola, Rick; Staley, Mark K; Clawson, Larry D; Kite, Steve;
Aboulhosn, Nadia; Stoddard, Thomas S
Subject: R-3620 CP 46 Meeting Prep
Attachments: R-3620 Guardrail Discussion 2.pdf; R-3620 Guardrail Discussion 1.pdf
Good morning everyone, '
I hope you've all received the notification regarding the second R-3620 48 meeting to be held
on October 20, 2011 at 10:45 AM. In preparation for this meeting, I've coordinated with
Hydro and Roadway to provide you some additional informatioh regarding wetland impacts and
the use of guardraiL
After recalculating the wetland impacts based on both a 3:1 side slope scenario (with
guardrail) and a 4:1 side slope scenario (without guardrail), our new impacts are as follows:
3:1 (with guardrail) - 11.3 acres
4:1 (without guardrail) - 11.8 acres
Keep in mind that these impacts include all the fill, excavation and mechanized clearing that
will take place in the wetlands. An offset of 10-feet from the slope stakes was used for
these calculations. Please note that 'these numbers are a good bit lower than our previous
estimate of 19.3 acres of wetland impacts as included in the FONSI.
Also attached to this email are two files from AASHTO design manuals (the Green Book and the
Roadside Design Guide) that provide some information regarding the use of guardrail. If
possible, please review these materials prior to the 10/20 meeting and let me, Gary, or Galen
know if you have any additional questions or requests.
Thank you,
Kristine
Kristine A. 0'Connor, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Branch Mailing Address: 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 Physical Address:
Century Center - Building A 1000 Birch Ridge Drive Raleigh, NC 27610 �
(919) 707-6034
, (919) 250-4224 (F)
"Snowflakes are one of nature's most fragile things, but just look what they can do when they
stick togetherf"
i '
' 1
I ,
I
�

Cross Sec�imr Elemexas
channel or fill slope.On this rounded shoufder,any vehicla would stand nearly level as needed ro .
facilitate fire changes and othcr repairs. The vertical curve should not be less t6an 12 m [4 ft]
long,and at least the inner 0.6 m[2 ftJ of Me shoulder should be held al lhe superolevated slope. .�'.,��?
I�� The shoulder slope on the alcemate sec[ion of Exhibit 4-2C is a planar section with mWeiple ����iA';'
breaks. j i;ry,.��`
I1f�
Superelevation is advantageous for ua�c operations on less developcd arterials, es well as �'l�<
, for rural highways aud urban freeweys; however, in buik-up azeas, the combination of widt ��"
��.:
pavements, proximiry of adjacenl development, control of cross slope and profile for dreinege, � *'!
frequency of cross streets,and other urban featurcs wmbine to make superelevation imp�aclical .�i;�
or undesiraDle.Usually,superelevetion is not provided on local streets in residentiaV,commerci¢I, ' ����
or industrial ereas.For further infortnation on superelevation,refer ro Chapter 3. �ily�
i
��.
i i
TRAFFIC BARRIERS "
;�7
General Considerations
Traffic barriers ere used to prevent vehicles Ihat leave the traveled way from hitting an : i�.
, object that has greacer crash severiry potential than the barsier icself.Because bartiers are a source '� �;;
of crash poteneal themselves, their use shauld be camfully wnsidered. For more detailed �i �
ffic bamers refer ro the AASHTO Roadside Desi Gutde 10). � .' ii�
. information ro fltdiu Ire 8^ � �
'� ` - - - - -- g - g.. -- � - - '- - --- -- . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . ���
, :� �f
Reseaah continues to devclop improved and more cost<ffecrive bartiers. The criceria i i �€,
discussed harein will undoubtedly be refined md amended in the future.Tharefore,the designa . �
ehould remain curtent on new bartier concepts e¢d criteri� .
� ;
Traftic 6amers include both longitudinal bertiers and c`ash cushions.The primary fimction ':�y
of longitudinel barriers is to redirect ertant vehicles.The primary Tunction of cresh cushions is to
decelerete errent vehicles to a stop. •�����
�j
Longitudinal haRiers ara located along the roedside and in medians. Bridge perepets or raiLs
are eovered in MSHTO design criteria and specificarions for highway bridges. LongiNdinal i �� �
bartiers are generally denoted as one of three types: flui6le, semirigiQ or ri8d. The major �}�,
differe�ce benveen these types is the amowt of barrier deflecbon thaC tekes place when lhe i_ I'�
barrier is struck. it I'
; I
Flexible baerier rystems undergo considereble dynamic dcilection upon impact and gene`ally �; � !
impose lower'uupact forces on the veAicle than semirigid and rigid sys[ems.7'he resistance of this
system is derived from tensile force in the longitudinal member. WitLin tha impact zone, the "-�� �'
cable or beams tear away from the support post upon impact; Ihus, the post offers negligible �� ` �
resistance. Howeveq the posts outside the impact zonc provide sufficient resistance to keep the �' 'y�
deflection of the longitudinal member within an acceptable limit. This system is designed � �I
primarily to wntain rathtt than redimet t6o vehicle and nceds more lateral cleerance from fixed �
objects due to the detlection during impact. �
I `
�
I ,
331 ; �
� Is1
_ ' al

.. �
/1ll�IIII(/[�l/fflnlfll�HiY/(�.1'f(�fffl�f\'
TABLE 7.1 Flrst hermtul event tixetl-obJect fetallties by oEjeet rype
FDCED YEAR
OBJECT L993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1�8 IY99
. BoWder � 82 96 90 93 87 90 91
Bridgd
Ovcrpass 448 434 459 435 431 402 ap9
euilding 1pp 77 77 62 96 78 81
Concrete
Barrier 229 183 229 221 ?39 259 280
CulverVDimh 1359 1,360 1,476 1,437 139fi 1,491 1,461
Cutb/Wall BIO 830 921 947 915 823 753
Hm6nnkmcnt 1,060 1,143 1,269 1,239 1,186 1,2W I,?68
Fencc 397 J41 432 478 429 473 512
� Guardrnil 1,126 1,125 1,191 1,137 1,159 1,248 I,I85
Impac[
Aimnuaror 23 28 35 26 19 19 24
$ign orlrght �
--- Support 471 453 SBO 6i4 SlY 504 546
TredShrub 3,035 3,014 3,198 3,128 3,220 3,2?6 3,368
UrilityPOle 1,274 1,096 1,135 1.096 1,111 1,092 1,070
Olhcr FixW
Objcccs 575 587 564 569 534 508 508
O[hcr Pole1
Support 30l 350 359 4U4 359 312 352
� roml
i Fxtalities 11,292 11,237 12,015 11,906 11,G95 IIJ3l ll,908
1
I �e�d projec[s.Knowlcdgcablc dcsign,prscticully applied 2 Michic, J. D. Natiowf Caoperatioe Higlnuay
,al thc locxl Icvel.offers the greatest potential far u cun- Research Progmm Re�wn 230:Recan�mertded
_Hnuallyimprovedtransporw[ionyystem. _ _ . ProceduresforlheSaferyPuformanceEvalua-
tiun of Hrghway Appwrenance.Transportntion '
Research Board.Washingron,DC,1981.
REFERFNCES
I. Ross,H.E.,Jr.,D.L.Siclting,nnd R.A.Zimmcr.
Nolional Cnnpern�ive Highway Research
Repmt 350:RecammenJrd Prucedures for the
Safery Performruc¢Evnluafion af Highway Fea-
�' mrea.Transputt�tion Research Board,Waslling-
� ton.DC.L993.
, 75
i
I
�

i-z
RonrMiAC/)esign Guidc .
NCHRPReportJ50presenLSSpecificimpact�ronditions rconditiori3.T6is in(ormaLiun ww obtmned lh7ough lh0
forconducungvehiclecrashtests.Thecondivansincludc 'National Highway Traffic Safe[y Administra[ion's .
vehicle mess[weigh[],spced,eppronch angle,and poin[ �(NH7'SA)Fataiity Analysis ReportingSystem(FARS)�nd � .
an the snfety kamre ro be hit.Standard mst vehicle types lident�es the first hurmful event in a series of events re- �
¢rcdefined forsmall pussengercurs,stwdurd�-[on pickup �.5ulting in a fatnl crosh.ln some CaSes,the first hvmful
Vucks, single-unit van Vucks, vac[or/van-type trniler levent is also iden[ified as the mosl humful evenl Poi
units,and ttactodtanker trttiler uni[s.The impuct speeds �,example,ifa moloriststrikec a Irce,the impxtwith the 1ree
range from 35 iD 100 kmPo�approximntely 20 ro 60 mph� �is likely m bc classified us bo[h the first nnd most harmful .
:mdappruachanglcsvary(mmOto25dcg¢cs.Thcspc- �cvem.Ontheaherhnnd,ifthefirstham�fuleventissuik-
cific NCHRP Report 350 tese conditions and evaluation 'ing an embankment,the mos[harmful evm[is ot[en u �
crirerieforeachtypeoTroadvidedeviceeresummariudin �rollovec FARS data for each Smte can be accessed di-
the chapters Iha[oddress that rype of devica'[Te report rectly a[h[lp9/www-Ihrs.nhLwa.Jo[.gor.
ilselfisout-obprin[bulexn6eviewednnddownlosded 7heamoun[ofmonetaryresourcesnvailablefanllrontl-
Irom tht following web site: http:// sidesnfetyenha�emenLVislimired.Theobjectiveofde-
www4.nocionalacademies.org/trb/crp.n+(1 signers has ro be tu mazimize roadside snfery on n
NCHRP+prqects.From lhis si�e,NCHRP Report 350 can syslem-wide baeis witti Ihe given funds.Accomplishing
befoundbytlickingonArcaY2.thenonRojat22-7.The thisobjec[ivemeansuddresxing[hosespecificroadsidc �
file is vcry Iwge und is primanly intended for research fenmres tAa[can contribu[e[he mos[ to [he snhry en-
personnelwhoconductlhcacmalcrazh�e5ting, hancemen[of[MtindividunlhighwuyprojecLIItheinclu-
sion of the hiphwl Ic��el o(roadFiAe daiign criteria is rou-
tinely required in each highway drsign pmjec[,�egurdless
1.5TNEAPPLICATIONOFTMtSGUIDE ofcostorsafayeffativeness,itislikelythatsysrem-wide
sufety may stuy 5tulic or may be degraded.This potenliel .
ThispublicationisinlendedtopresentinCorma[iunonthe willccnainlyexistifotlicrroadsideneedsNenolimproved
latest s�ate-of-the-prectice in roedside safery. The con- because funds were notjuAiciously applied to the most
cepts,desigos,and philosophies presertted in the follow- viaAle sakry enhnncement nced.
ing chapeers can not,and should no1,be included in Iheir Given tk�e fact that objects nnd slope changes must 6e
rotaliry on every singie projece Hach project is unique introduced at varying points oH�he pavemen[edgo,thc
and oHers an individuN oppottuniry to enha�e that pao- enhancremen[of roadside saftly involves selecting lhe
ticular roadside euvironment from a sufety perspective. "bc<P'choice among several acceptabfe design altemn-
The guidcliMS p¢srnted in this publicatlon are most tives.The ezperience gained from decades of seiuling
applicnble[o new construction or major reconstnmtion design uliernatives,the rexareh done on vehiele dynam-
projects.'Rieseprojectx,whichoftenincludesignifcane ics,end�hetechnologiceladvnnttsimm�terialsoffusthe
changesinhorizontalorverticnlnlignment,oHerthegreat- porentinlformainWiningandrnhancingoneoFlhesafesl
est opportunity for implementing many of[he rondside nationul trunsportutian systems in existence. .
safety enhancements presented in lhis documcnl For ro- This documenl is iNendod lo represen[Me 5pecnvm
surfecing,reha6ilitation,or resroration(3R)projects,Ne oT commonly a�aila6k rondside design altema�ives.In
primary emphasis is generalty placed on the ruudway it- mos�ca.sc.r, ihese altcmativw have shown signifi<enc
selftomaintain[heswe[u21in[egrityoflhepavementl[ benefi[s under approyrialely selected �eld conditians.
willgenerdllybeoecessaryrosekcfivelyirccrcponuerwd- Manyof�hueroadsideenhencemen6have,over[ime,
xide sa(ety guidelines on 3R projec[s only at localions dunonsvatedtheirabiliryinehefieldtoimptoveroudside
wherethegreatestsafetybeneficanberoalized.Becausc sufe�ywnditions.lnmanyerees,thispublica[ions[rives �
ofthescoyeof3RprojectsandthelimitednuWreofmost lo give the advaNages nnd disadventnges of roaAside
rchabilita[ion progrems,the idertiification of areas Ihn[ [ahnobgy.Wnh this informatian,�designers can make
offerthegrea[utsufUyenMncementpo[entialisciiticul. moreknowledgenAledecisionsnbout�he6estapplications �
Acciden[reports,si[einves[igations, andmain[cnance forindividualprojetts.ItShoaldbeno[edtha[nonttempl
records offer stening poinLS far iden[ifying[hese la.n- ismude,arimplied,�ooffereverysingleroadsdeeniunce- .
vons. ment duign iechnique or technology.
� Thc importance ofdesigning�he rondside eo be s.a clesr' Fmlly,this publication is not intended w be used as a
'as prnctical can be uen by noting which obje[[s and 51ope, s[endazd or a policy statemenl.This document ig mude
i conditions aro most frequmtly associated with fatal run-� aveilable to be a resoume for curtem infortna[ion in 1he .
.off-the-road cr�shes.Tuble�.� shows the numbers of fa-� area of madside design.Agencies may choose to use this
italilitsinfhelJnikdSmtesfroml993[o1999resul[ingl informationasoneroferenceuponwhich[obuildthemad-
,Gom collisions wrth specific roadside objects or slope� sidedesigncriteriabastsuitedrotheirpanicularlocntion
1i

11791 -
99 98
� �� �1591 (I581
[160] �
� � 71 70 �
�iial �ii31 '['�, �
$
� 60- a� p
� I pb� 79 =
� [63j 7] 34 ,i0 " L801 ci
� � � �331 [55]
[4til 21 2i :
e20 �3Y1 [751 �� 13 II �411� �
F � ' I �261 �]11 �17� �
� p p � Ip I (0]
P P O� q G1 T O� P O� O� O� O� T O� P
.� �. .� .�
Year
FIGURE 1.1 7raflic Tatality rata per billlon vehicle kilometera[milea]by year
1.2 TME FORGIVING ROADSIDE CONCEPT � � Through decudes of cxperience end reseanch,fhe ep- �
plication of the forgiving roadside concept has been rc- �
Therearcmanyreuonswhynvehiclewillleavethepavo- ;Fnedrothepointwhemroadsidedesignis:mintegmlpan �
ment end eneroach on lhe maJaide,including: of fr�nsponatiun design criterie. Design options for rc-
- ducing madsidc obs�eclra,in ordc[of prcfcrcncc,arc ns '�
• driverfutigueorinaucntion � follows: ,
• ezcessive speed 1. RemovetheoM�ade. .
� 12 Redesign thc obstaclt So i[can 6e sefdy Uu- �
• driving under[he inFlucnce of drugs or alcohoi versed.
i
• cr�sh avoidance 3. Relncefc�hc obsWCle to a point where il is less
. likely ro be snvck.
• wadway conditions such aa ice,snow,or Iain 4. Reduce impact severily by uving an apPmP���
brcaknwxy Aevicc.
• vchidccompoircntfailure i.'Sludd(heobsiaclewithalongitudinalhaffic�
. nor,desiKned fora�edirecticm oquse a crash.wsh=
• poorvisibility ion. �
G Delineate the obstade if the above alremarives
• � � - � � -- - � - � are no[approprin[e.
Regardless of the rcason foru vehicle IesvinS lhe road-
way,a roadside cnvironmrnt Bee of fixul objccts with One on-roadway snfrty fmNre Ihat is becoming more
- stabl0.flattened slopes rnhnnces�he oppottuniry for re- prevalenl natianwide on(ucilities espericncing a signiFi-
ducingcroshseverily.7heFargivingrnadsideconcepial- ennlnumberofrun•offdEe•rofldcreshesis[heuxoftrans-
lows Cor crrant vehicics Icaving thc rondway and sup• �������d shaulder rumble strips ro supplement pave-
pons n roadside design where the serious consequences mentrdge lines.Thrse indenlations in the roaAway sfaul-
,of such un inciden[ure reduced. _ _ . ders alert motorisls lhrat¢h noise and vibration[hal Iheir
t