Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSR 1660 and SR 1662DAFT ~-MULKEY ENGINEERS & CC1N:.,Ut_TANTe"a MEMORANDUM TO: Meeting Participants FPOm: Liz Kovasckitz, Mulkey Engineers and Consultants Date: November 19, 2007 SUbJeCt: Merger Concurrence Point 3 Meeting: Transportation improvements in the vicinity of SR 1660 (Sher Road) and SR 1662 (Wiley Brown Road) south of US 64/23/441, Macon County, NCDOT TIP Project No. R-4748 A NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team meeting on Concurrence Point 3 was held for the subject project on November 15, 2007 in the board room of NCDOT's Highway Building. Meeting attendees are listed below. A summary of the meeting follows. David Baker U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (via Asheville video link) James Bridges NCDOT -PDEA Dionne Brown NCDOT -PDEA Marella Buncick U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (via Asheville video link) Conrad Burrell NCDOT -Board of Transportation (via Asheville video link) 1~larla Chambers N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (via Forsyth Tech video link) Carla Dagnino NCDOT -PDEA/NEU Mark Davis NCDOT -Division 14 Mike Fendrick Parsons Brinckerhoff Colista Freeman Mulkey Steve Gurganus NCDOT -PDEA/HEU Teresa Hart NCDOT -PDEA Erin Hendee NCDOT -Congestion Management John Hennessy N.C. Division of Water Quality Judy Joines NCDOT -Right of Way Tim Jordan Mulkey Liz Kovasckitz Mulkey Gary Covering NCDOT -Roadway Undrea Major NCDOT -PDEA Kathy Matthews U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ron McCollum NCDOT -Roadway Mark Mickley Mulkey Chris Militscher U.S. Environmental Protection Agency -Raleigh Don Moore NCDOT - Geotechnical Engineering Charles Nicholson Tennessee Valley Authority (via telephone) Joel Setzer NCDOT -Division 14 (via Asheville video link) Jerry Snead NCDOT -Hydraulics Katina Thompson NCDOT -TIP Jamie Wilson NCDOT -Division 14 (via Asheville video link) Brian Wrenn N. C. Division of Water Quality Ml1LKEY INC. 6750 TRYON ROAD GARY, NC 27511 PO BOX 33127 RALEIGI-I, NC 27636 PH: 919-H51-1912 FAx: 919-651-1910 WWW.MLJ LKEYINC.COM :DRAFT Undrea Major opened the meeting and invited introductions from attendees. In addition to those in attendance at the Raleigh location, several individuals joined the meeting by video from Asheville, North Carolina, and Forsyth County, North Carolina. Extra copies of the information packets mailed to the Merger Team prior to the meeting were available. Addendum packets of information were sent electronically to the Merger Team one day prior to the meeting and were provided at the meeting. Mr. Major turned the meeting over to Liz Kovasckitz. Ms. Kovasckitz gave a PowerPoint presentation that reviewed the project and alternatives development history, and summarized public comments received during and after the public hearing. She also noted that updates (included in the addendum packets) had been made to project information, as follows: • Suitable habitat information for federally-protected species was updated for the Appalachian elktoe and the little-wing pearlymussel. • Structure cost estimates were updated in the Major Stream Crossings table. • State-listed species, floodplain impacts, residential displacements, and farmland impacts were updated in the Comparison of Impacts for Build Alternatives table. • Construction cost estimates were updated. • Public comment summaries were updated. The proposed traffic signal removal and superstreet concept were eliminated from the project based on public input. The Mayor of Franklin and the Macon County Commissioners officially support Alternative A. NCDOT recommends Alternative C with the roundabout option. Ms. Kovasckitz also noted that the Town of Franklin has an updated zoning map, which was approved November 5, 2007. Zoning in the project area consists of residential areas, commercial areas, and a large area of mixed medical, institutional, cultural, and residential. The zoning map is available on Franklin's website (http://franklinnc.com/). Discussion that followed the presentation is summarized below by topic Chris Militscher asked to be shown the locations of the residential displacements along Alternatives C and D. Ms. Kovasckitz pointed them out on the mounted displays and alarge-scale aerial. She noted that the relocations are based on cut and fill lines. The final design will try to minimize relocations. Marla Chambers stated that it is not clear what the benefit of the project is, based on the traffic information. Mike Fendrick, who conducted the traffic analysis, stated that although little or no improvement is shown for intersections under the build condition, levels of service, traffic flow, and traffic delay do improve somewhat for US 64 and US 441, which are projected to lose approximately 10,000 vehicles per day to the proposed project. He also noted that both the build and no-build analyses assumed the worst-case scenario; development is built-out in the design year. Joel Setzer stated that access to the community college, library, and middle school is of great benefit to the area, even if design year traffic does not reflect significant improvement. '~ Mr. Militscher asked if bicycle and pedestrian accommodations had been included in the project, since local plans favor the facilities. Ms. Kovasckitz stated that the proposed typical section includes 2 DRAFT a four-foot paved shoulder and noted that local officials have not requested birycle or pedestrian facilities for this project. Undrea Major added that in order to include bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the project, local officials would have to officially request them and participate in cost-sharing. He added that it is not too late in the process for local officials to request the facilities. Mr. Militscher asked if the comments received from the mayor or county commissioners mentioned including bike or pedestrian facilities in the project. Ms. Kovasckitz responded that they did not. Marella Buncick expressed concern that only a qualitative ICE was completed for the project. She indicated that it would be difficult to make a decision based on the current analysis. She asked for more definitive information, including any land use plans that have been done. Ms. Kovasckitz stated that NCDOT is planning to conduct a quantitative ICE for the permitting phase. She noted that similar development assumptions would be made between the four build alternatives; therefore, impacts would likely be similar. Mr. Militscher stated that he, too, is concerned about unspecified ICES. Mr. Major responded that it is difficult to take into account development that has not yet been planned or approved. Brian Wrenn stated that he would like to have information about buffers and development regulations that the Town of Franklin and Macon County would impose on new development. He added that if this project and development is of great importance to the local governments, they should be willing to commit to providing some specific development regulations. Ms. Kovasckitz suggested that since any proposed development will need to go through local approval and potential rezoning requests, the focus should be on the known information. This information includes the community college and library, which desire additional access. Ms. Chambers suggested that abuild-out scenario could be done for the ICE, since it was done for the traffic analysis. ~i ~6C "hN IIx"". ~{ 7 Ms. Chambers stated that cost and environmental impacts are too great, and the project is not justified and should not proceed. Conrad Burrell explained that the project was initiated for the purpose of additional access to the new community college campus and library, which currently has only one access in and out. Ms. Chambers suggested that extension of and improvements to the existing Siler Road should have been included as an alternative to provide this access. Steve Gurganus stated that the community college now plans to include a high school on the campus. Mr. Wrenn asked about the quality of the stream crossed by Alternative D. Mark Mickley responded that water quality is lower upstream because of the cattle pasture. Quality improves downstream, as it nears the river. Mr. Wrenn wanted to verify that Alternatives A, B, and C did not include improvements to existing Siler Road. Ms. Kovasckitz responded that Siler Road would not be improved with those alternatives, but improvements to the Wiley Brown Road/Dowdle Mountain Road intersection east of the river are included in all of the alternatives. Other proposed improvements to the US 64/441 and SR 1701 intersection east of the river were strongly opposed by the public and were eliminated from the project. Ms. Chambers asked about other improvements suggested by the public. Mr. Major stated that one suggestion was to build a new interchange on US 64/441 between the bridges and existing DRAFT interchange. Because there is not enough room to build the interchange and ramps in that area, this suggestion was not taken into further consideration. Ms. Kovasckitz added that other suggestions included widening of existing Siler Road, improvements at Wells Grove Road, and improvements to US 441. Mr. Militscher expressed concern that approximately half of the commenting citizens oppose the project. David Baker stated that if NCDOT intends to pursue Alternative C with the roundabout option, then the project can likely be taken out of the NEPA/404 Merger Process because there are no stream or wetland impacts associated with that alternative. Kathy Matthews cautioned that it is difficult to say that there will be no impacts to streams or wetlands, even if the bridge completely spans the river. Mr. Wrenn and John Hennessy added that if there are and construction impacts to streams or wetlands (temporary or permanent), the project will have to return to alternatives analysis during the permitting process. Gary Covering suggested that the Merger Team assume that there are temporary impacts and keep the project in the Merger Process. Mr. Hennessy responded that based on the current information, it appears the project could be taken out of the Merger Process and that USACE and DWQ would only be commenting agencies on the NEPA document. Teresa Hart stated that she would prefer to keep the project in the Merger Process for now. Mr. Major asked the Merger Team members to provide their concurrence recommendations on Alternative C with the roundabout option. The result is as follows: USACE - No vote (no permit needed from USACE) USEPA -Non-concurrence USFWS -Non-concurrence TVA -Abstain DWQ - No vote (no permit needed from DWQ) SHPO -Not present WRC -Non-concurrence NCDOT -Concur Any Merger Team member who abstained or did not concur must submit a brief explanation to the Merger Team via email within five (5) business days of the meeting. Ms. Hart stated that due to the Thanksgiving holiday, Team members should submit their briefs by November 30, 2007. (Post-meeting note: Ms. Hart emailed the Merger Team later the same day to provide additionalguidance for these email briefs.) The meeting was adjourned. cc: 2004213.10 3.5 Documentation notebook LK/cf 4