20131282_Meeting Minutes_20081201

µ STATF
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F EASLEY
GOVERNOR
December 1, 2008
MEMORANDUM TO File
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
FROM Kristine O Graham, P E
Project Planning Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT Minutes of Concurrence Point 2A Meeting, Proposed
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 Project No R-3620
A Concurrence Meeting was held on November 13, 2008 at 10 30 am in the
Transportation Building Board Room in Raleigh In attendance were
Ron Lucas
Bill Biddlecome
Chris Mihtscher
Gary Jordan
Ron Sechler
Cathy Brittmgham
David Wainwright
Travis Wilson
Bob Capehart
Dean Argenbnght
Galen Call
Charles Cox
Kristine Graham
Chris Manley
Chris Rivenbark
Rekha Patel
Katrina Washington
Thomas Stoddard
Morgan Jethro
David Peoples
Federal Highway Administration
U S Army Corps of Engineers
U S Environmental Protection Agency
U S Fish & Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
N C Division of Coastal Management
N C Division of Water Quality
N C Wildlife Resources Commission
NCDOT-Division 1
NCDOT-Geotechnical Engineering Unit
NCDOT-Hydraulics Unit
NCDOT-PDEA
NCDOT-PDEA
NCDOT-PDEA-Natural Environment Unit
NCDOT-PDEA-Natural Environment Unit
NCDOT-Roadway Design
NCDOT-Roadway Design
NCDOT-TIP Development Unit
Albemarle Rural Planning Organization
Washington County
MAILING ADDRESS
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699 1548
TELEPHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]
WEBSITE WWW NCDOT ORG
LOCATION
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
Sara Winslow with the N C Division of Marine Fisheries and Renec Gledhill-Earley with
the N C Historic Preservation Office (NCHPO) were also invited to the meeting, but
were unable to attend
Meeting Purpose:
This was the third meeting in the NEPA/404 Merges Process for R-3620 The purpose of
the meeting was to gam concurrence on Point 2A, Bridging Decisions and Alignment
Review
A field meeting was held for this project on October 1, 2008 so that NCDOT and the
agencies could take a look at the proposed hydraulic crossing sites and determine if there
was a need to consider bridging at any of those sites At this meeting, the agencies asked
NCDOT to consider bridging at two sites that would cross high quality wetlands
Introduction:
Bill Biddlecome opened the meeting with an introduction of attendees Kristine
Graham gave a brief overview of TIP Project R-3620 via PowerPoint
presentation Kristine briefly reviewed the purpose and need, the four
alternatives carried forward from the Concurrence Point 2 meeting held March
16, 2006, and impacts associated with each alternative These alternatives
include
Alternative l: Begins at the Tyson Farms interchange (US 64 at SR 1139
(Beasley Road)), then follows Beasley Road for approximately 4500 feet
north and continues northward on new location to the intersection of
NC 32 and NC 94
Alternative 2: Begins at the Tyson Farms interchange (US 64 at SR 1139
(Beasley Road)), then continues north onto SR 1136 (Holly Neck Road)
At the intersection of Holly Neck Road with NC 32, Alternative 2 follows
NC 32 east and continues to the intersection of NC 32 and NC 94
Alternative 5- Begins at the Scuppernong Interchange (US 64 at
SR 1304), then follows NC 94 northwestward to the intersection of NC 32
and NC 94
Alternative 6- Begins at the Tyson Farms interchange (US 64 at SR 1139
(Beasley Road)), then follows Beasley Road for approximately 4500 feet
north and continues northward on new location to the intersection of
NC 32 and NC 94 This alternative primarily parallels Alternative 1 to the
east
® Wetland and stream impacts for each alternative were provided in the Merger
packet, as well as in the PowerPoint presentation Kristine also discussed the
historic properties and travel times associated with each alternative As
requested by Cathy Brittmgham from the previous Merger meeting, an updated
11
2

traffic forecast was performed for Alternative 5 and an overview of the most
recent economic development near the project area was provided More details
can be found in the full PowerPoint presentation
® NCDOT provided information on bridging at the two sites requested by the
agencies during the field meeting on 10/1/08 A comparison was provided
between the costs and impacts of using culverts, a minimum length bridge, and a
bridge to span the entire wetland system (see Table 3 of the Merger packet)
Discussion:
® FHWA first proposed dropping Alternative 5 from further study since it did not
meet the purpose and need of providing improved connectivity NCDOT also
suggested removing Alternative 6 from further consideration due to the fact that
it was developed solely to reduce the wetland impacts from Alternative 1, which
was not the case The wetland impacts for Alternative 6 were actually higher
than for Alternative 1
® During the field meeting held on 10/1/08, several of the agencies had expressed
concern about the elevation of the proposed roadway and why it had been
increased so much During this Merger meeting, Dean Argenbright explained
why the Geotechnical Engineering Unit had required such a significant grade
change He stated that ideally, NCDOT would like to have six (6) feet between
the subgrade and the water table The minimum that was necessary was four (4)
feet Geotech stated that the high water table was not always evident on site
because of the drought and the slow recharging clay soils in the area
s Chris Militscher stated that before considering dropping any of the alternatives,
it would be best to discuss the bridging first In the case of both Site 4 and Site
6, calculations reflected that impacts to wetlands would decrease by using box
culverts versus "minimum" bridges Bridges will require a higher grade versus
a box culvert in order to provide superstructure clearance and future
maintenance/inspection access After considering the options presented, all
team members agreed with NCDOT that culverts should be used at Sites 4 and
6
® Ron Lucas suggested that Alternatives 5 and 6 be dropped from consideration
He feels that Alternative 5 does not meet purpose and need because it does not
provide increased connectivity given that it has longer travel times than the
other alternatives Bill Biddlecome was concerned about this suggestion
® At this point, David Peoples stated that Washington County has always favored
Alternative 1 and they oppose any alternative that will continue to add traffic on
NC 32 or NC 94 The county is concerned with beach traffic, especially on
weekends, and feels that adding additional traffic to the existing facilities would
exacerbate the situation In addition, theie are several driveways along the
existing facilities that could cause delays and accidents along the corridor if
more traffic were added School buses and truck traffic travel these roads
3
frequently, and the county 1s also concerned about safety given the bad curves
along the existing facilities
® Charles Cox suggested that the team consider removing Alternative 6 from
further consideration since it has no benefit over Alternative 1 Wetland
impacts were definitively higher for Alternative 6 than for Alternative 1 The
team agreed to drop Alternative 6
® David Peoples questioned if raising the grade along Alternative 2 would result
in potential drainage problems He noted that citizens are concerned about their
property being flooded if the load grade will be raised four (4) to six (6) feet
Galen Call responded that site drainage issues and potential improvements will
be addressed during project draining design Chris Milrtscher wanted to know if
NCDOT could add stormwater basins to this project Galen responded that the
need for stormwater basins would be assessed during the project drainage
design
e Chris Militscher was also concerned about direct impacts to churches along
Alternative 2 The table in the Merger packet only reflects the proximity of the
churches to the proposed aligmnent, not actual impacts The design was
developed to avoid impacts to any churches or historic sites Chris Milrtscher
stated that he would like the table updated to reflect this Charles promised that
the tables would be revised for the Environmental Assessment
® Cathy Britringham asked how the Merger team can begin to prepare for the
LEDPA meeting She wanted to know what additional information is needed
beyond what is currently known and what will change for the CP 3 meeting
Charles stated that the only additional information NCDOT would received
would be public comments
o Chris Militscher stated that he would like to see impacts to subdivisions that are
built only, not sites that dust have a permit
® After discussion, the Merger team agreed to drop Alternative 5 from further
consideration
11
4

Coordination After the Merger Meeting:
® Following the merger meeting, Renee Gledhill-Earley (NCHPO) contacted
NCDOT She was concerned with Table I of the Merger packet, which stated
"no effect" on the historic properties for all alternatives However, NCHPO had
not officially concurred on any effects prior to the Merger meeting - Table 1
should have only stated how many properties were eligible for or on the
National Register of Historic Places On November 14, 2008, Charles Cox and
Mary Pope Furr met with Renee Gledhill-Earley regarding effects to historic
properties NCHPO concurred that there would be no impacts to any of the
historic properties, with the exception of the Farm on Alternative 2 Due to the
proximity of the slope stakes, the drainage work in front of this farm will most
likely impact the trees near the front of this property and cause an adverse effect
• NCDOT communicated to the Merger team via e-mail regarding this oversight
by NCDOT, in case there were concerns over having eliminated Alternatives 5
and 6 No responses were received from the Merger team NCDOT is moving
ahead with the completion of the EA and public hearing maps for Alternatives 1
and 2
Conclusion:
Concurrence among attending team members was achieved Culverts instead of
bridges will be used on this project, due to the fact that impacts to wetlands are actually
reduced with the culverts The alternatives to be carried forward include Alternatives 1
and 2 Actions to be completed by NCDOT before the next concurrence meeting include
• Documenting impacts to built subdivisions
• Updating impact tables regarding direct impacts to churches
• Hold the public hearing and receive public input on the remaining
alternatives
If any recipient of the meeting notes would like to add comments or feels that a
comment is erroneous or needs to be expanded, please feel free to contact Kristine
Graham by phone at [phone] ext. 311 or by email at ko agr ham(aDncdot gov
5