20220880 Ver 1_CP 2A-3-4A Draft Merger Mtg_Summary.pdf_20181206_20181206

_�_ CALYX�M
� ENGINEERS+CONSULTANTS
MEETING NOTES
To: Meeting Participants
From:
Date:
Re:
Eric MidkifF, PE, CALYX Engineers and Consultants
December 6, 2018
6750 Tryon Road
Cary, NC 27518
P: 919.836.4800
F: 919.851.1918
CALYXengineers.com
NEPA/Section 404 Merger Concurrence Point 2A,3, and 4A Meeting Summary
NCDOT STIP Project I-3306A, I-40 Widening in Orange County
A NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team Meeting was held for the subject project on Wednesday,
October 17, 2018 at 3:00 PM in the Structure Design Large Conference Room of the Century
Center in Raleigh. The purpose of the meeting was to reach concurrence on Bridging Decisions
and Alignment Review (CP2A), Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (CP3), and
Avoidance and Minimization (CP4A). The meeting agenda and materials were distributed, via
email, to the participants prior to the meeting date. The following persons were in attendance:
MEETING ATTENDEES
David E. Bailey
Felix Davila
Gary Jordan
Travis Wilson
April Norton
Robert Patterson
Amanetta Sommerville
Mark Staley
Mike Stanley
Laura Sutton
Eugene Tarascio
Bryan Key
Michael Turchy
Tatia L. White
Herman Huang
David Bocker
Steve Browde
Eric Midkiff
Nick Mountcastle
USACE
FHWA
USFWS
NCWRC (by phone)
NCDWR
NCDWR (by phone)
USEPA (by phone)
NCDOT Roadside Environmental Unit (by phone)
NCDOT STIP
NCDOTPMU
NCDOTPMU
NCDOTPMU
NCDOT EAU
NCDOT Roadway
NCDOT Community Studies
CALYX Hydraulics
CALYX Roadway
CALYX Planning
CALYX Planning

MEETING SUMMARY
Introductions and Project Overview
The purpose of the meeting was to present the Merger Team information to achieve concurrence
on Bridging Decisions and Alignment Review (CP2A), Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (CP3), and Avoidance and Minimization (CP4A). Eugene Tarascio opened the meeting
with introductions and Eric Midkiff reviewed the meeting agenda. Mr. Midkiff also provided an
overview of the project history, background information, purpose and need, and current project
status. This included a brief review of the previously agreed upon concurrence points (CP1 and
CP2) and review of funding in relation to the three project segments.
Following introductions Mr. Midkiff stated the original purpose of today's meeting was to reach
concurrence on Concurrence Points (CP) 2A, 3, and 4A. However, after discussions with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) the
project team decided to focus on reaching agreement on CP 2A and providing background
information for CP3 and CP4A.
Discussion
Mr. Midkiff began the concurrence discussion with a review of the merger packet and anticipated
project impacts. During this review, Gary Jordan indicated the Atlantic pigtoe mussel was recently
proposed for listing as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. It was noted the
project area is within the range of this species, however it will be a minimum of 12 months before
this proposed listing may be finalized. Mr. Jordan stated that while he does not anticipate the
project would result in an adverse effect to the mussel, it is still possible. Mr. Midkiff noted the
dwarf wedgemussel will also need to be reevaluated prior to construction. Michael Turchy
responded by stating this will be included in future project studies along with the evaluation for
the Atlantic pigtoe mussel.
Mr. Midkiff stated the primary concern raised during the first public meeting for the project (June
2014) was in relation to noise impacts. He stated a draft Traffic Noise Report was recently
completed and is currently under review by the NCDOT Traffic Noise group. At this time, there
are three locations along the project corridor where noise mitigation is recommended with noise
Walls. Mr. MidkifF also noted a request received from environmental groups which requested the
proposed structure at the New Hope Creek stream crossing be wide enough to accommodate a
wildlife crossing at this location. This comment was received in response to the Draft TIP
document and forwarded to Mr. Tarascio.
Post meeting update: Two locations for noise walls now meet the criteria for noise abatement
instead of three.
CP 2A
Following this review of the project history and potential impacts, Mr. Midkiff began discussion of
major hydraulic structure recommendations covered under CP2A. He noted that all six major
hydraulic structures would be retained and the structures at Sites 2 and 5 are recommended for
extension.

Discussion
David Bailey stated the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) would concur with the
recommendation to retain/extend the existing four-barrel culvert at New Hope Creek (Site 4)
unless there were any significant wildlife passage concerns at this location. Travis Wilson
responded, with April Norton's agreeance, by stating the New Hope Creek corridor would be
significantly improved with a bridge in place of the existing culvert along I-40, however NCWRC
understands NCDOT's position on retaining the existing structure if it functions hydraulically. Mr.
Wilson stated that because there are no protected areas adjacent to the structure, NCWRC will
not push for it to be replaced with a bridge.
Laura Sutton noted the existing four-barrel culvert at New Hope Creek is rated at a 5 or higher, so
it would not warrant replacement from a structural perspective. Mr. Jordan stated if this was a new
location project, a bridge would be in order, but putting in a wildlife crossing would require many
grade adjustments. Therefore, he would not advocate for a wildlife crossing here given the
existing circumstances.
There being no objections to the recommended major hydraulic structures, the present Merger
Team members provided concurrence on the CP 2A form.
Concurrence Point 3(LEDPA/Preferred Alternative Selection�
Mr. Bailey discussed the USACE's participation in Concurrence Points 3 and 4A. He reiterated
USACE requires the merger process for a regional general permit 31 to be issued. To go through
the full merger process, the USACE issued a public notice for the LEDPA, which was done on
October 4th, 2018. Thirty days is given for a comment period and that ends on November 2,
2018. Therefore, the USACE is willing to go through the CP3 and 4A discussions, but they cannot
concur on CP3 and CP4A until the comment period is over. At that time, signatures will be
requested via DocuSign, given there are no concerns raised during the comment period.
However, if there are public comments that require further review, then it is possible that another
merger meeting will be required. Mr. Bailey concluded stating if everyone is in agreement of
those terms, the discussion may move forward.
Mr. Midkiff continued the presentation with information related to CP3. There are two alternatives
being evaluated, No Build and Best Fit Build alternatives. The proposed improvements and
potential impacts related to the best-fit alignment alternative were reviewed with the team.
The proposed typical section consists of three 12-foot lanes in each direction, a 22-foot median,
and 12-foot outside paved shoulders. To accomplish this, one lane will be added in each
direction mostly within the existing median. Most of the bridges along the project can be
maintained; however, two bridges (Old NC 86 and Millhouse Road) will need to be replaced
which will require some additional right of way in those areas.
Interchange work will be minimal except at the NC 86 interchange. At this interchange two road
realignments are proposed due the close proximity of their intersections with NC 86 to the
interchange area. Whitfield Road would be realigned to intersect NC 86 approximately 1300 feet
to the north. This realignment will impact Duke Forest. Eubanks Road would be realigned to
intersect NC 86 approximately 1100 feet to the south, potentially requiring the relocation of 3
homes.

Although impacts to wetlands and streams are likely, those impacts are anticipated to be reduced
during final design, as the current impacts are based on slope stakes plus 25 feet.
Mr. Midkiff concluded his presentation by stating NCDOT's recommendation is the "Best-Fit"
Widening Build Alternative.
Discussion
Mr. Bailey stated that any potentially impacted area located outside of the original project study
area that was used for the Jurisdictional Determination will need to be documented and reviewed
prior to permit submission. Mr. Midkiff agreed to provide EAU with the potential impact areas that
are located outside of the original study area used for the jurisdictional determination.
Mr. Bailey expressed that regarding CP3 specifically, USACE does not have any comments at this
point. Ms. Norton stated the same for NCDWR. Mr. Bailey further stated that no comments were
received so far from the public interest review that would impact concurrence. Mr. Midkiff asked
the merger team members if there are any known reasons, at this time, to object to the proposed
selection. There were no objections; however, the team members will review the results of the
public interest review before addressing formal concurrence.
Mr. Davila noted that there were some issues he wanted to review that did not specifically relate
to concurrence. He stated that he wanted to review the results of the noise evaluation. He also
wanted to confirm FHWA's participation in the document approval given the limited funding for
just a portion of the project. He also wanted to confirm if the proposed work at the NC 86
interchange is allowable, given the scope of the project is an interstate widening project. (Post
Project Note: Mr. Davila confirmed that FHWA will be able to participate in the approval of the
document given the existing funding strategy and that the proposed improvements are allowable
within the scope of the project.)
Upon conclusion of the Public Interest comment period, the team will further evaluate CP 3
concurrence via email or pocuSign.
Post Meeting Update: The public interest comment period has concluded. Per David Bailey no
comments were received that would impact the CP 3 decision. Also, Eric Midkiff coordinated with
Felix Nwoko ofthe Durham/Chapel Hill/Carrboro MPO via email and phone. Dr. Nwoko had no
objections to the concurrence proposals, with the understanding that NCDOT will continue to
work with the Town of Chapel Hill concerning any concerns they may have with the project
design.
Concurrence Point 4A (Avoidance and Minimization)
Mr. Midkiff presented information related to CP4A with outlined efforts such as:
• Utilizing the existing median to accommodate the majority of the widening
• Retaining and extending all existing major hydraulic structures, minimizing stream and
wetland impacts.
� Utilizing 2:1 slopes where possible
Discussion
Mr. Bailey recommended documenting all opportunities for avoidance and minimization, no
matter how small. With many culverts on this project, there may be opportunities to correct
perched culvert areas, and if possible, should be documented on the 4A form. He further noted
4

that if some of the streams that run parallel could be relocated into a suitable geomorphic
position and be put back in a similar or better quality than before, it would still count as an
impact, but USACE would not require mitigation for those. The following stream locations were
pointed out as possibilities: SZZ, SN, SEE. If a natural stream design could be created, that should
be noted as a minimization effort on the CP4A form as well. Mr. Bailey also stated that isolation
of small segments of streams should be avoided if possible during final design.
Mr. Wilson stated that the NCWAM classification was noted, but there were no ratings included in
the meeting handout. Mr. Baily stated that it appeared this project was scoped using the older
forms, prior to the requirement to include the NCWAM and NCSAM ratings. The Team agreed
that there would be no benefit in updating the NCWAM and NCSAM ratings at this time for the
entire project, but Mr. Turchy stated NCWAM and NCSAM could be reviewed for site-specific
areas as the project progresses as needed.
Mr. Bailey noted that a list of standard avoidance and minimization measures were being
developed and a draft version is available. Mr. Turchy will provide a copy of that draft to aid in
the development of the CP 4A form.
Upon conclusion of the Public Interest comment period, the team will further evaluate CP 4A
concurrence via email or pocuSign.
The meeting was adjourned.
CORRECTIONS & OMISSIONS: This summary is the writer's interpretation of the events,
discussions, and transactions that took place during the meeting. If there are any additions and/or
corrections, please inform Eugene Tarascio at etarascio@ncdot.�ov or the author in writing within
seven (7) days.
cc: Meeting Attendees
File 2017033.05