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