20091149 Ver 1_Meeting Minutes_20080826

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
8 ~ O
TO: RlF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
i NC-
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
~; ri~±,ne C~^olhaM ~A
ACTION
^ NOTE AND FlLE ^ PER OUR CONVERSATION
^ NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ^ PER YOUR REpUEST
^ RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ^
F
OR YOUR APPROVAL
^ NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ~
~
~
W/FOR YOUR INFORMATION
^ PLEASE ANSWER ^ FOR YOUR COMMENTS
^ PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ^ SIGNATURE
^ TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ^ INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
lZ-~-l~(b0 ~~t~"i~c} 'MinU~S
ll05o MSG

e.w STATF
~ _.
.~ a:,: ~.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPART'NIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
August 8, 2008
~:~
,~ .
.-

~
- fDi
r
/~ G r.
.,y, s~
,
y
~
lr
~, IA'~J4

~~
ti
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Kristine O. Graham, P.E. l9
Project Planning Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Comments Review Meeting
Minutes, Proposed Interchange at the Intersection of US
74/NC 130 (Andrew Jackson Highway) and NC 242 (Haynes
Lennon Highway), Columbus County, Federal-Aid Project
No. NHF-74(78), WBS No. 40224.1.1, TIP Project No. R-
4900
A project meeting was held on July 23, 2008 at the Transportation Building in Raleigh,
NC for TIP Project R-4900. The meeting attendees were as follows:
Benjetta Johnson
Tracey Pittman
Jim Rerko
Charles Cox
Taylor Cox
Kristine Graham
Rob Hanson
Tris Ford
Worth Calfee
Mike Little
James Upchurch
Jake Riggsbee
Rob Ridings
Richard Spencer
Chris Militscher
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
154$ MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
NCDOT-Congestion Management
NCDOT-Division 6
NCDOT-Division 6
NCDOT-PDEA
NCDOT-PDEA
NCDOT-PDEA
NCDOT-PDEA
NCDOT-PDEA-Human Environmental Unit
NCDOT-PDEA-Natural Environment Unit
NCDOT-Roadway Design Unit
NCDOT-Transportation Planning Branch
Federal Highway Admistration (FHWA)
NCDENR-Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

Meeting Purpose:
This meeting was held to discuss the corments on the Environmental Assessment
(EA) that had been made by the EPA and to address the EPA's request to consider putting
this project into the Merger process.
Safe
• Chris Militscher, in his original EA response letter, was concerned as to why there
wasn't a comparison provided for the number of accidents occurring at this
intersection versus the statewide average. Kristine Graham explained that
NCDOT's Traffic Safety Branch does not provide a statewide average of
accidents that occur at intersections. Chris Militscher stated that he wanted to see
an average of the accidents that have occurred along this stretch of US 74 as
compared to the statewide average. He noted that this intersection does seem like
it has a high number of accidents, but that it doesn't necessitate afull-blown
interchange upgrade. He wanted to know if the alignment of US 74 could
possibly be the problem and also, if a signal would be effective at this location.
Kristine Graham will provide him with the information detailing the causes of the
accidents that have occurred at the intersection in question..
• Charles Cox discussed the safety concerns that exist at this intersection and the
trend taking place on this stretch of roadway to improve similar intersections. The
intersection of US 74/76 and NC 211 will be converted to an interchange (R-61 C).
Tracey Pittman noted that the intersection of NC 410 and US 74 was also a
signalized, at-grade intersection originally, but was still experiencing a high
volume of collisions. It has since been upgraded to an interchange.
• Tracey Pittman noted that other options to improve the safety of this intersection
would be ineffective. The only solutions are cutting the road off on either side of
US 74 or creating an interchange. Signalization and traffic calming were
considered, but were dismissed as viable options because they would not
permanently solve the safety problems. In addition, they were not in line with the
long term vision for this facility. Given that US 74 is planned to be upgraded to
an interstate facility in the future, any alternative other than an interchange would
only be a temporary fix.
Ca aci
• As previously noted in his comments, Chris Militscher feels that NC 242 does not
carry enough traffic to warrant this upgrade. Since NC 242 has no regional
connectivity beyond Evergreen, he wanted to know where the regional through
traffic that travels this roadway would be going. He would rather NCDOT looked
at improvements at Strawberry Road and US 74.
2

t F
• Charles Cox stated that NC 242 does provide some regional connectivity via its
intersection with US 76 near Cerro Gordo. By intersecting with US 76, NC 242
allows regional through traffic easier access to points in South Carolina, including
Marion, Mullins, and Florence.
Planning/Mer~er:
• Chris Militscher stated that only upgrading particular segments of US 74 is not
good comprehensive planning. He also feels that NCDOT has not met the
avoidance and minimization criteria simply by changing from a standard diamond
interchange to a modified diamond interchange.
• Chris Militscher stated that the Purpose and Need needs to be kept simple by
using safety as the main factor. NCDOT should state that this project is not
inconsistent with the Strategic Highway Corridors Initiative, but that it is not part
of the Purpose and Need since the project is not being done because of the I-74
upgrade. However, it was noted that the Strategic Highway Corridors Initiative
does become a bigger issue when choosing alternatives. Because NCDOT is
looking at upgrading US 74 to an interstate, options were limited for choosing
alternatives.
• Chris Militscher recommended that a Concurrence Point 4A & 4B meeting be
held for this project so that NCDOT and the present agencies can get a signed
concurrence form. NCDOT should document the avoidance and minimization
measures that have been taken and discuss them with Richard Spencer prior to
this meeting.
Environmental Impacts:
• Chris Militscher wanted to know why NCDOT was changing the alignment of
NC 242 instead of detouring it. He feels that the alignment could possibly be
changed to avoid wetland impacts in Quadrant B and to help reduce wetland
fragmentation. Tracey Pittman responded that the realignment was the result of
maintaining traffic during construction and also of avoiding moving the culvert
under US 74 to reduce wetland impacts.
• Tracey Pittman noted that moving the alignment of the interchange closer in
would increase the amount of fill that would be needed because of impacts to the
culvert under US 74. By using a single span bridge in order to avoid putting a pier
into the culvert, the height of the bridge and the height of the fill would be
increased. A larger amount of fill would increase the horizontal footprint of the
roadway in the wetland areas. By shifting the alignment and using a double span
bridge, NCDOT was attempting to minimize impacts to the higher quality
wetlands.
• Mike Little stated that NCDOT is making efforts to ensure minimization of
wetland impacts by having a cost analysis performed on options of building the
3

service road versus buying the parcel of land that this road would serve. Also,
Roadway will determine if the property owner (Philip Dees) needs a 16 foot
roadway for farming purposes or if the service road could possibly be made
narrower.
• Although 2:1 slopes in a wetland area are NCDOT's standard, it is dependent
upon getting the proper compaction levels. Given that the soils on this site are
sandy and do not compact as well, NCDOT is using 3:1 slopes in all wetland areas
because this is the maximum steepness that can be used and still achieve the
necessary level of compaction.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at [phone], ext. 311 or
at [e-mail].
KOG/kog
4