HomeMy WebLinkAbout20090372 Ver 1_Meeting Minutes_20080715
July 15, 2008
MEMORANDUM TO: Merger Management Team
FROM: Jay McInnis, PE
Project Engineer
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Response to Corps Elevation Brief for NC 210 (Murchison Road) in
Cumberland County, TIP Project U-4444
On June 25, 2008, Mr. Richard Spencer of the US Army Corps of Engineers
provided the merger team with an elevation brief for Concurrence Point 2 for TIP Project
U-4444.
At the April 22, 2008 merger meeting for the project, all of the merger team
members except for the Corps of Engineers signed the form for Concurrence Point 2. At
the meeting, Mr. Spencer stated he could not concur on an alternative at that time, but
that the project could move forward.
Following the meeting, FHWA pointed out that according to the merger process,
the Corps must either concur or state in writing their reasons for not concurring. Mr.
Spencer submitted his brief after several discussions between NCDOT; FHWA and the
Corps and after NCDOT had submitted written information regarding the project.
Response to Reasons for Non Concurrence
In his brief for the elevation process, Mr. Spencer states: "Qualitative information
for only two alternatives were provided at the concurrence meeting even though
conceptual designs and traffic capacity analyses were prepared for a number of other
interchange options, as stated in the concurrence meeting handout (Reference La above).
No qualitative information for these other interchange options was offered to the merger
team until questions concerning the potential alternatives were raised."
As Mr. Spencer stated, information regarding the interchange concepts was
presented to the merger team verbally at the meeting. Following this explanatiori, all of
the team members but Mr. Spencer agreed to sign the concurrence form.
Mr. Spencer further states in his brief. "This information was presented as new
information at the merger meeting and was not provided in advance of the meeting so
that there could have been time to review the information and provide a more thorough
discussion on the potential alternatives."
Again, this information was presented in response to questions at the meeting.
The information packet was submitted to the merger team two weeks prior to the
meeting. As outlined in the Merger 01 Roles and Responsibilities, project team members
are responsible for reviewing the packet prior to the meeting and forwarding any
substantial concerns either in writing or via e-mail to the NCDOT project team member
and the other members prior to the meeting. No merger team members contacted
NCDOT with any concerns regarding the information presented in the packet.
Mr. Spencer further states in his brief: "To date the Corps has not received
adequate qualitative information to definitively agree to drop some of the identified
alternatives from further consideration."
Mr. Spencer's elevation brief is the first written correspondence NCDOT has
received from him regarding his refusal to sign the concurrence form. Additional written
information was submitted to Mr. Spencer on May 29, 2008. Mr. Spencer has provided
no written comments on that information other than the above statement from the brief.
Since Mr. Spencer submitted his brief, more information was provided to him.
At the April 22nd merger meeting, it was not clear that Mr. Spencer would sign the
form if provided additional written information. His statements at the meeting seemed to
indicate he did not think he could sign the Concurrence Point 2 form until after he had
done his public interest review, which would follow the submission of the merger permit
application.
The brief also states: "Further, the Corps also suggested another intersection
alternative at Butner that we believe should be investigated further. Therefore, we
believe that the process is still in the alternative development stage and we do not have
enough qualitative information to clearly eliminate alternatives from further
consideration."
During the merger meeting, Mr. Spencer did suggest an alternative that would
involve eliminating the Randolph Street interchange. Randolph Street traffic would
access Murchison Road via Bragg Boulevard. It was explained to Mr. Spencer in the
meeting that this alternative would require an interchange at Butner Road which would
impact at least 23 businesses and that the interchange might not operate satisfactorily.
Later during the meeting, Mr. Spencer agreed that no new alternatives needed to be
examined.
Response to Potentially Violated Laws/Regulations
In his brief, Mr. Spencer lists Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act and the
National Environmental Policy Act as laws which might have potentially been violated.
NCDOT disagrees that either of these laws have been violated. A number of
interchange concepts have been investigated for the project. NCDOT has asked for
concurrence on two alternatives to be studied in detail.
Response to Alternative Course of Action
In his brief, Mr. Spencer presented as an alternative course of action: "NCDOT
should agree to continue the development of reasonable alternatives to be considered for
further study. This should include the possible elimination of the Randolph Street
interchange and utilization of a Randolph Street access via Honeycutt Road/Bragg Blvd.
or Butner Road/Bragg Blvd. route."
I believe this is an unreasonable request. Although Mr. Spencer did suggest
eliminating the Randolph Street interchange and utilizing Butner Road during the merger
team meeting, the problems with that alternative were explained to him at the meeting.
Later during the meeting, Mr. Spencer agreed that no additional alternatives needed to be
investigated. In addition, an alternative eliminating Randolph and utilizing Honeycutt
Road was never discussed in the merger meeting.
Mr. Spencer stated in the brief: "NCDOT should agree to provide the conceptual
design and traffic capacity analysis information that was visually presented to the merger
team for review and consideration in their decision making."
Mr. Spencer further stated: "NCDOT should agree to abide by the Merger 01
Roles and Responsibility Guidance and provide qualitative information on
operational/geometric/safety analysis for the alternatives identified so that the project
team can then decide on what alternatives can be eliminated or carried forward for further
study."
The "qualitative" information Mr. Spencer is asking for was provided to the
merger team at the April 22, 2008 merger team meeting. All of the merger team
members except for Mr. Spencer concurred with alternatives to be carried forward
(Concurrence Point 2) at the meeting following the presentation.
Since the merger meeting, Mr. Spencer has been provided with written
information regarding the interchange concepts and why they were dropped. He has also
been provided with capacity analysis information for the concepts.
In accordance with our standard practice, the April 22, 2008 merger meeting was
videotaped. The videotape is available for review upon request.